I’ve lived in London for just over 7 months now, and as outlined in my last post, I have relished in the opportunities my internship has provided so far. However, to satisfy my passion for politics, I’ve had to look further afield…
Roundabout this time last year, I was lucky enough to be invited to shadow Jason McCartney MP in Parliament, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience.
I learned a great deal from Mr McCartney, and thought it to be only fitting that I contacted my local MP for Hammersmith, the Rt Hon Andrew Slaughter MP.
Mr Slaughter is also the Shadow Justice Minister (I know, slightly ironic name given his position), and he kindly agreed to be interviewed.
Israel & Palestine
Do you think that a peaceful two state solution in Gaza can ever be achieved?
Well, that is the policy that everybody, including Israel, is signed up too. The issue for the last 5-10 years has not been ‘is that the solution?’ The issue is that the facts on the ground have changed to such an extent that it is practically impossible right now.
If there is continued colonisation of those parts of Palestine that would constitute the Palestinian state, then it becomes practically impossible unless those settlers move back to Israel.
Given the catastrophic mishandling of British involvement in that region in recent history, is foreign interventionism really helping the Palestinians’ struggle?
It is a political problem, and it is not one that can be resolved exclusively by Britain because there is such a disparity in power between the two factions.
Israel has n
uclear arms, which render it the regional superpower and the Palestinians do not have sufficient resources of their own. Unless Israel is willing to compromise, then yes – foreign intervention is absolutely essential.
The problem is that it is not being delivered in the right now. Although the UN and EU certainly have an influence, it’s ultimately America that holds all of the cards in terms of if and when the negotiations take place.
If I were to say to you that ultimately, the fundamental barrier to a two state solution is religion, would you agree?
No I wouldn’t. Religion does play a part depending on what’s happening on the ground. However the Palestinian authority and the party of president Mahmoud Abbas for example is a secular party.
There was a surprise in the Israeli election insofar as some of the secular parties did much better at the polls than some of the more religious parties. A lot of the extremism, certainly on the Israeli side, stems from secularism.
Religious fundamentalism is undoubtedly one of the factors in the mix, but I wouldn’t say it was necessarily the main factor.
It can legitimise illegitimate aims, such as the idea of an Israel that consumes the whole of Palestine. But the geo-politics of the region plays a larger role in terms of barriers to a two state solution.
Religion in Secular Politics
On the broader issue of religion in secular politics, I wanted to ask you whether you think it’s just that religious institutions are exempt from tax in the UK?
There’s been quite a lot of interesting debate on the issue of charitable status –some commentators criticise the charitable status of public schools for example.
There are some Zionist organisations that have charitable status here in the UK, and some have suggested that that may tacitly imply that the UK supports illegal settlements on the West Bank.
You’re very right to question this issue, and we, as MPs, must keep this constantly under review.
Although charity law has been modernised to a degree, it dates back to several centuries ago and is predicated on a lot of issues that are not very contemporary, such as the relief of poverty.
Charity law is strongly biased to religion, because religion played a much larger role in people’s lives when these laws were originally drawn up.
However religious communities would argue that they do a great deal of good and deserve such a status, if you look just over the road you can see the wonderful community centre that Hammersmith Parish Church have recently opened, which is open to everyone.
It’s difficult to disassociate the history of an organization from the work that they actually do.
There was a great deal of pressure on the last Labour government to revoke the charitable statuses of public schools, however what we did instead was to make those schools prove they did actually have a charitable purpose. We don’t look at the origins of the organization – we look at the work they do.
Staying on religion and justice, religious freedom is seen as an integral part of any modern democracy, particularly here in the UK, I know that’s something you’re a strong advocate for, however I wanted to ask you a rather paradoxical question: to what extent should we tolerate the acts of intolerance by the religious such as honour killings, segregation and humiliation of women, arranged marriages and so forth?
We live in a liberal democracy, however all of the things you just mentioned would affront any modern society.
Brutal acts that are more to do with power, racism, sexism etc. often hijack the ‘cloak of religion.’ You can find examples of liberal, generous practice in all of the major religions.
I think it’s often people cloaking what are personal or political aims with a guise of some false religious mandate.
All of things you just mentioned should not be tolerated by any society, and all parties should, and do seek to stamp them out.
What do you make of preachers of hate, such as Abu Qatada, who some would argue exploit our liberal way of life whilst also simultaneously trying to destroy it?
Well, that’s one of the great dilemmas of liberalism isn’t it? Governments have to balance the protec
tion of freedom of speech and other essential liberties against protecting its citizens’ safety and security.
Labour brought in quite a lot of legislation against racial hatred and incitement pre-2010. I do not think that’s incompatible with having a free and tolerant society. This is not a new issue, John Stuart Mill wrote quite a lot about this very issue in the 19th century. There’s a long tradition of analyzing what is acceptable and what’s not acceptable in a liberal society.
Immigration
I noted on your website, you’re a member of a pressure group called ‘Labour Friends of Poland,’ which I found quite interesting. As I’m sure you’re aware, Polish is now the second most spoken language in the UK. I wanted to know what you think the long term implications of unbridled immigration from EU countries such as Poland are for the UK?
It’s an issue that is taxing the government at the moment, with the restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants being lifted at the end of 2013.
We have an established Polish community here in Hammersmith, with Polish community centres and so forth, which I believe are great assets. This demographic dates back to at least before the Second World War.
We had an influx of Polish immigrants following Poland’s acceptance in the EU and many came to Hammersmith and other areas, because of that established community.
It’s difficult labeling it as immigration, as it’s more like the movement of people. You can’t generalise – you’ve got some Polish who come with their families and settle here, and you’ve got people who come here to work and then go back to Poland.
The overall effect, I think, has been very beneficial. The Polish community integrates very well, they almost all speak English, they are notorious for working hard.
The only criticism I’ve had over the years regarding the Polish community is employers undercutting wages. There have been many instances of employers paying Polish workers below minimum for relatively skilled jobs. Clearly, that has a negative effect on the economy.
Disgruntled workers blame the wrong people, you can’t blame immigrants for seeking a better quality of life. Those at fault are the gangs and traffickers who bring them here illegally.
The Labour government and some trade unions have done a great deal of campaigning to sign up Polish workers, so that they know their rights and know that they shouldn’t be working for exploitative wages. Overall, I think it’s a positive development.
Taxation
Ed Miliband has been accused of copying the Lib Dem’s ‘mansion tax’ policy. Now devil’s advocate might say that generally people that reside in these alleged ‘mansions’ have very limited liquid wealth, with most of it tied up in their property, is this a fair policy?
I 
think you’re going to have to examine the details, as this is a policy that is in principle supported by the Lib Dem party and now Labour.
There is a very good piece by Tim Montgomerie in The Times (and I don’t often say that!) which looks at exactly why a mansion tax is a good thing to do, as you’re still targeting people with very high levels of revenue.
Even in Hammersmith, £2 million+ is a lot of money. But even modest homes in some parts of London would have an extremely high value. What would be a definition of luxury is not the same across different parts of the country. I think the key is to set the threshold at £2 million, so you are targeting people with very high levels of assets, and therefore they probably do have that liquidity as well.
Equality
Where do you stand on gay marriage?
I voted for gay marriage, as did 421 to 175 of the vote. I think within Parliament, those figures speak for themselves.
For me, it was simply an issue of achieving equality, while at the same time not disadvantaging religions, which didn’t want to sign up to it. I think we’ve hit the right balance.
Some MPs have said this is an issue that has filled up their post bags, however I’ve had very little commentary from my constituents. However Hammersmith is a very liberal area.
Education
Michael Gove’s U-turn on GCSEs has been a heated topic in the news recently, what’s your take on the education system and Gove’s failed reforms?
I think Gove is a very controversial character. I think he’s a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Along with a group of very right wing advisors, he thinks he knows better than teaching staff
that interact with children all day, every day.
I suspect we’ve seen the first on a number of U-turns because he’s pressing on at break-neck speed without taking appropriate advice. I think some of his objectives are rather obnoxious.
He was talking last month about the possibility of free schools making a profit, which he initially said he wouldn’t allow them to do. And the bringing in of private companies and organisations, some of which have very close links with the Conservative Party to effectively marketise education, just like their notion of privatising healthcare. I think that’s something that shouldn’t, and won’t get any support.
Although everyone in government would sometimes like to see things move more quickly, on issues as important as education, you have to take advice and you have to tread carefully, and as we’ve seen he’s got his fingers burnt.
I think the damage has already been done by what he’s already said about GCSEs, and many students feel their qualifications have been publically devalued.
I think that’s absolutely right. And it’s disgraceful in a way. I speak to young people all the time in my constituency and I don’t find cynicism and laziness, I find people who want to succeed.
It’s very irresponsible of politicians to behave in that way. The only silver lining to what’s happened is he’s become effectively a cynical figure, and not many people will take what he says in future overly seriously.
Media Ethics
Lastly, I wanted to ask you about the Leveson Inquiry: ‘independent self-regulation’ to me sounds like a bit of contradiction in terms. What’s your take on Leveson and the recommendations?
Where the press has a vested interest, you’ve always got to be terribly suspicious. You’ve got to take what the press say about Leveson with a pinch of salt.
The press is very much in favour of the Defamation Bill because it weakens people’s ability to engage in court proceedings against newspapers that publish unsavory stories about them.
As you would expect, they are against Leveson’s recommendations because it gives powers to those abused by the press.
David Cameron and The Conservatives, just like all of the parties, have given into those vested interests in the past, because in a liberal democracy, the media play an extremely large role in the voting process.
I think all of the evidence from Leveson has outlined quite clearly you cannot trust the press to regulate itself, and you must have a formal system which the media cannot avoid. It doesn’t mean state censorship, it means an ability to enforce law on illegal activity.
A Day to Remember
February 1, 2012
Recently I have become infatuated with the British political process and the notion of distributive justice. Often finding myself glued to BBC Parliament, I felt it was time to visit the Mother of Parliaments and set about co
ntacting prominent MP and former Leeds Met PR & Journalism lecturer Jason McCartney. Jason had honoured the Faculty of Business & Law last year with a guest lecture on his colourful past and his inspiring work in his time spent thus far as MP for Colne Valley. After contacting Jason, he kindly invited me to Westminster, where I would attend several committee meetings, parliamentary receptions and cabinet question sessions in the House of Commons.
Upon arrival at the historic building, I was overwhelmed by the awe-inspiring architecture, enchanting artwork and intoxicating atmosphere. After several minutes of dumb-founded wonderment at the magnificence of Central Lobby, I was greeted by a very charming and knowledgeable Martine Martin, parliamentary assistant to Jason whom graciously offered to give me a tour of Parliament. A keen political commentator herself, Martine and I discussed many topics from the relevance of clergy in the House of Lords to MPs tweeting in the Commons.
After a tantalizing tour, I met with Jason one-on-one where we discussed his recent appointment to the UK Delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly, his involvement in a campaign to bring in compulsory carbon monoxide detectors in UK homes and his time spent as a news and sport presenter at ITV Yorkshire.
I then attended Treasury Questions in the public gallery, which was followed by a statement by Foreign Secretary William Hague on the immediate ban on all new contracts to import, purchase or transport Iranian crude oil and petroleum products, a move which will undoubtedly step up pressure on Tehran to adhere the UN’s resolutions. I then had the privilege of joining Jason in meeting with Business Desk Yorkshire’s Deputy Editor James Reed in the MP’s lounge.
In the evening, I accompanied Jason and Martine to the Trade Union Reform Campaign launch reception, where keynote speaker and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles spoke about how Public bodies, funded by the taxpayer, should not pay for time spent by employees on trade union activity. Among the attendees was former Defence Secretary, Liam Fox and political blogger Guido Fawkes.
I was then invited to a Digital Switchover reception, situated in a marquee on the House of Parliament balcony, which consisted of various speakers discussing the progress of the switch from analogue to digital. The national digital switchover is set to be complete this October. After the speeches, I had the pleasure of meeting one of Jason’s good friends and former colleagues Margaret Emsley, a producer at ITV Calendar.
The next day, Jason was kind enough to give me a highly sought after ticket to Prime Minister’s Questions. Lively and contentious as always, it was a novelty to see Cameron and Miliband’s exchanges in person rather than a television screen (it should be noted that the House of Commons looks significantly bigger on TV!).
It was an incredible opportunity and inspirational experience. I learnt a great deal about Parliament and what it takes to be a successive member of parliament. Jason is a model MP, prioritizing people over ideology and tirelessly working for the betterment of his constituents. He’s a credit to the Commons and a testament to transparent, accountable and reliable politics.
The breathtaking view from Parliament balcony
David Miliband Visits Leeds Met
October 21, 2011
Rt Hon MP David Miliband was welcomed by a full house at the Rose Bowl today in what was a very lively and interesting Q&A event. The former Foreign Secretary’s first question was focused on the transition of economic power from West to East. Miliband referenced the prediction that China’s economy is expected to overtake the US by 2020 and the need for us to adapt to the changing world order.
Miliband was keen to emphasize the shift in power from bourgeoisie to the people, using the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street as an example. He attributed this shift to new technology, citing the Zimbabwean electorate using their phones to take pictures of their vote to prevent foul play by despot Mugabe.
On the subject of democratic process, Miliband pointed out that many express concerns over the future of Libyan politics, fearing a fundamentalist Islamist majority. Mr Miliband rejected these concerns, calling for us to promote democracy, regardless of its consequences. Furthermore, he reiterated the fact that the tide of revolution that has swept the North Africa is home grown, devoid of western intervention, therefore we must support those seeking democratic change.
Questions then moved onto Syria and the Assad regime. “Despite the deaths of 2900 protestors, the situation in Syria differs significantly different to that in Libya,” Miliband said. He then highlighted China & Russia’s veto on any form of action against President Assad and the divide of philosophy among the international community on foreign interventionism.
When asked if we should ignore the veto, Miliband replied “yes, if there is a humanitarian need, a viable military solution and the geo-political positives outweigh the negatives,” citing the Sunni-Shea Muslim divide and the connections with Iran as political antagonists for military action.
On the subject the 2010 election, Miliband conceded that his party lost because “we didn’t give people enough reasons to vote for us.” He was very keen to reject a claim from a member of the audience that Labour because of the Iraq War, arguing that those that defected because of Iraq defected in 2005, yet Labour still won. However another member added that Labour’s return to opposition was overdue, citing 5 million voters lost in 2005.
When pushed for a position on university staff strikes by Professor Paul Blackledge, Miliband claimed “strikes should be used as a last resort tactic, there needs to be a greater, coherent strategy,” referencing the historic Jarrow March of 1936 and the movement’s failure to achieve anything because of a lack of strategy and leadership.
One member of audience protested “if you support the will of the people in the Arab world, you are heavily contradicting yourself by not supporting our strike against pension cuts.” A slightly rumbled looking Miliband replied saying that he is not against strike action; however he fears the political resolve of the uni staff maybe lost if there is no clear strategy that will achieve the desired results.
Miliband advocated multi-lateral disarmament when quizzed on the relevance of Trident in the 21st century and confirmed his support for the plight of the Kurdish population against Turkish aggression. Moreover, Mr Miliband supported the call for a compulsory register of Lobbyists “anything to control lobbyists” he remarked, much to the dismay of aspiring public affairs professionals in the audience.
In conclusion, a very insightful and worldly talk by the MP for South Shields was commended with thundering applause from an over-capacity lecture theatre.
Social Media: A Force for Democracy?
February 28, 2011
No-one could have anticipated the avalanche of protestation we have seen in the Middle East and North Africa since the new year, which has been aptly dubbed The Arab Spring
Ben Ali and Mubarak have been ousted from their positions of power in response to prevalent protests which were organized, co-ordinated and shared via the use of social media platforms, predominately Facebook & Twitter.
The most effective weapon in the protesters’ arsenal was the smart phone, which allowed demonstrators to capture and record the transpiring events and publish them on their various networks for the entire world to see.
The popularity of social media has effectively destroyed any notion of censorship (a fact that Gaddafi struggles to come to terms with). In this sense, social media can be regarded as a force for democracy as it has empowered the people of North Africa to receive, consume and broadcast their discrepancies directly, as well as organise and mobilize demonstrations and protests without state intervention and propaganda.
I for one find it exhilarating; yet alarming that social media has the potential to topple governments. Wikileaks savvy decision to publish cables involving Egypt & Tunisia during the protests has had influence over the outcomes as well, although the world has seen firsthand how social media can sway the future of a nation.
Revolution does not require a smart phone – the European Revolutions of 1848 needed no such technology to overthrow their regimes. However there is undeniably an inherent pro-democracy nature of social media, and dictators and despots across the globe fear its power.
The Double-Edged Sword of Coalition Government
December 14, 2010
None of the political parties won enough seats to rule in a majority government, the options were ConDem coalition or rainbow government. The latter was implausible, therefore those power are essentially there by default because the only realistic option for future governance of the UK was the former.
The problem that faces the Coalition politicians and their constituents is that no-one voted for a Coalition, they voted for the party they agreed with. Thus when certain policies and promises and not delivered, people get very upset.
However as no-one won, it seems self-evident that neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems would be able to implement all of their policies they swore too before the election, compromise must be reached otherwise there can be no progress.
The student protests and demonstrations last week are an example of an inability to understand this. Yes it was wrong and irresponsible for Clegg and his colleagues to sign a pledge to the NUS, knowing the chances of a Lib Dem victory on Election Day were dismal. In this sense, they could promise and pledge whatever they liked … it was meaningless! I think the Lib Dems were more surprised than anyone else at their result!
Being a student from a working-class background in the north east, I completely empathise with the outrage and dismay felt by protesters and students of all ilk, however we have to face the fact that the Coalition have to pick up the pieces of a broken economy and get us back on the road to recovery. In doing so, they will be forced to make a lot of difficult and agonising decisions, but cuts have to be made! The national debt of the UK is expected to soar to £1.1 trillion by April 2011 and the budget deficit must be addressed promptly and efficiently.
In reality, when you study the new system of university funding, arguments that it inhibits social mobility are unfounded and false. There is a significant increase in scholarship funding and the amount of grants under privileged students will receive. They also plan to introduce positive discrimination at Oxbridge and other red bricks to ensure diversity and more opportunities for working-class background students.
Perhaps cutting so much government subsidisation to the point where fees treble was not the best option, the shock factor was probably the catalyst for public outcry … still this does not justify violence, vandalism and dishonouring WWII monuments to the millions that died so we could be free citizens. When you think about those brave men and women, it puts the student mob to shame and belittles everything the peaceful protestors are fighting for.
Let’s not forget cuts are being made left, right and centre, not because Clegg & Cameron get some kind of kick out of it, they are doing so because that’s what has to be done if we want to carry on being a major player on the world stage. I find a lot of people do not seem to realize the dire situation Britain, and the world is actually in.
The Coalition seems to be under fire from all sides, losing support rapidly, even from their own MPs such as Colin Firth, who announced today that he no longer supports the Lib Dems because of the issue of tuition fees.
The double-edged sword is taking its toll and in the midst of all this anger, controversy and economic hurting, perhaps Cameron can be heavily criticised for spending taxpayer money on finding out how happy we are.
Protests, Walks-Outs & Sit-Ins – Played and Betrayed by the Coalition
November 28, 2010
The nationwide protests and demonstrations against the cuts to university funding speak for themselves. The vast majority of students feel used, played and betrayed by the promises of the pre-election pledge that Mr Clegg and his party swore adherence. Although were students at blame too?
Of course we could rant on all day about this topic, perhaps rightly so, although we (the student voters) should have made a more informed and realistic decision at booths early this year.
Despite being the flagship of policy of the Lib Dems, we should have anticipated that the practicalities of scrapping fees were simply implausible. Mr Clegg’s party has not been in power since 1945 and were somewhat desperate to enter the political limelight again (which is the objective of all parties). The Lib Dems coaxed the conception that they were the student-friendly party, the party for change and for the future, echoing the ‘Yes We Can’ attitude of their counter-parts across the Atlantic.
Nick Clegg seemed to have a way of convincing us that the ideal could be a reality (if you put a cross next to their name on the big day). However in hindsight, in the middle of a global recession, could scrapping the fees have been applicable?
Perhaps if the Lib Dems secured a majority in the ballots, yes they could have implemented their pledge and abolished student tuition fees. However in an era where neon 50% of post-16 year olds are entering higher education, the ramifications of free university education would mean a significant increase in entry requirements, thus countering the number of young people in HE. In this respect, perhaps it was a good thing that Mr Clegg is only the deputy.
Political parties have a long history of promising the Earth and delivering Earthworms, perhaps sceptical analysis should have been exercised more rigorously on a personal and communal level when contemplating ‘which party is in my best interests’. Without critiquing UK politics too much, our democracy ensures he who shouts the loudest is heard, not he who has the best ideas for the future of the nation. Although none of the candidates seemed to have a coherent and feasible idea for the latter, only time will prove me wrong.
The fact of the matter is, as Douglas Murray, Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion pointed out on ‘Young Voters’ Question Time’ on BBC1 Wednesday 24th that funding for university education has to come from somewhere! When HE education was free for students it was funded completely by the taxpayer, a system which seems absurd nowadays as 50%, not 4% of the population now attend university. The Lib Dems were frankly capitalising on populist hope rather than acknowledging the realities of current affairs.
Yes, it was wrong of the Lib Dems to abandon their flagship policy, even if it was impractical; it was still the policy that clinched many of their votes. Nick Clegg now admits ‘I should have been more careful’ before the election about signing the NUS pledge … although this will serve as little comfort to the students who voted for him. It is somewhat baffling that Clegg has shot himself in the foot by essentially betraying his primary voter-base, nonetheless I would bet my tuition fee that Clegg will not be re-elected at the next General Election! In fact we may well see a new leader of Lib Dems before then.
