What do YOU think?

Referendums are seen as a device of getting to know the public opinion on a single issue. Right, but who is the PUBLIC? Whose opinions are the governments looking for? Who actually decides how to vote (i.e. what is the best for everybody?).  The view that referendums give an accurate opinion is, unfortunately, far from truth. Let’s see why…

Official figures published yesterday by the Electoral Commission show that the supporters of the electoral change (referendum on AV) spent 1.25m pounds less than the people for a NO vote. This disproportion is not big enough to have a deciding impact on the results (67.9% voted against) but the percentage could be totally different and could possibly allow further debate on this issue.

Let’s get a bit deeper in the finances of both campaigns. The ‘NO’ campaign could afford to fund TWO NATIONAL MAILSHOTS(!), while people ‘for’ could have sent letters to selected addresses only. As written in the Independent today: “The No team could also afford national poster campaigns, including controversial images claiming that the money used to move to AV would be better used to save babies' or soldiers' lives.”

The evidence above show, that there are people who have power and others, who are even more powerful. Would the outcome be different with the same funds for both sides of the argument. Possibly, but there are, of course, many other factors affecting the final results.  Let’s keep that in mind and don’t allow others to think FOR us J.

That’s what I think,

MANU

A new European country?

What country popped into your head when you have read the title of this post? Did you immediately imagine a small, southern (poor) region with people who want to fight for their independence because of many, non-understandable reasons (AGAIN?!...)? Guess what. It can happen a closer than you think. Very close in fact. Maybe you’ve heard this name before: Scotland. Does it ring a bell?

Alex Salmond, announced at the SNP conference, that the Scottish would vote in favour of independence in a referendum (even though the opinion polls show that majority of people is against – with a movement to ‘for’ though). He suggested that Scotland would keep pound sterling as a currency ("until it was in Scotland's economic advantage to join the euro – and that would be a decision of the Scottish people") but would have its own army, navy and air force. 

"In my heart, in my head, I think Scotland will become an independent country within the European community, with a friendly, co-operative relationship with our partners in these islands," Salmond told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1.

The shadow Defence Secretary, Jim Murphy, said that “The Nationalists had to answer some "big questions" about independence regarding issues including "currency, membership of the EU, and social security, pensions and so much else aside".

That’s what I think,

MANU

"There is no such thing as society" Margaret Thatcher

“You can call it liberalism. You can call it empowerment. You can call it freedom. You can call it responsibility. I call it the Big Society.”

David Cameron

A society is ‘the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations’. In every democracy people are given the right to make decisions influencing policies. Winston Churchill once said: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” and it is argued that, even though, democracy means ‘rule by the people’, the public lacks the power to have an direct impact on the policy-makers.

The central theme in the 2010 Conservative manifesto was the so-called ‘Big Society’. After the 2010 General Elections it has become the ideological flagship of the new coalition government. The prime minister and his Lib Dem deputy said people should have more say over planning decisions and voluntary groups be able to run public services. David Cameron said that in the past, the talents and initiative of people had been wasted, claiming that over-centralised government had turned public sector workers into the "weary, disillusioned puppets of government targets".  Therefore, the government wants make society stronger by getting more people working together to run their own affairs locally. The idea of the ‘big society’ suggests that people at local level should take more responsibility and do more to help themselves and their communities, rather than relying on action taken by state institutions and public services. “This includes giving communities power to stop post office or pub closures, training community organisers, encouraging volunteering, creating a Big Society Bank to fund social enterprises, giving people greater access to government data and reviewing of local government finance.” The government has committed to setting up a Big Society Bank to give social enterprises, charities and voluntary organisations access to greater resources. It would be set up using money from dormant bank accounts  and would encourage investment in social change.

It all sounds very impressive but unfortunately it did not work as well as the Prime Minister has dreamt it would. Nobody (most possibly including David Cameron) really knows what the ‘Big Society’ is really about. The public was confused by or uninterested in the new proposals. 

David Cameron was accused of using this populist slogan to encourage many people to work for free and, therefore, cut government spending. Even though, David Cameron rejected suggestions that the plans were a “cover" for substantial cuts in public services due next year, many people said, that it was his synonym of ‘savings’.       

        

During the last Conservative conference in October 2011, David Cameron did not mention the ‘Big Society’ directly. Does it mean it is the end of his dream? I guess not. Maybe he will find another ‘catchy’ term… ‘Help the economy – work for free!’ perhaps?

While doing my research about the ‘Big Society’ I found an interesting conclusion…

That’s what I think,

MANU

a close (un)official advisor

As the time goes by we get more and more information about the Defense Secretary, Liam Fox, and his suspicious relationship with his unofficial advisor, Adam Werritty. but do we actually know more? Hopefully, the official inquiry being conducted by the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell will help us to understand this situation… One thing is obvious, Dr Fox has breached the ministerial code of conduct, which states that it is up to individual ministers to "avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict" and that they must "scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or perceived conflict of interest". Fox's statement on Monday said : "My frequent contacts with him, may have given an impression of wrongdoing, and may also have given third parties the misleading impression that Mr Werritty was an official adviser rather than simply a friend."

Should the Prime Minister act quickly and fire Liam Fox? As the shadow minister of defence, Mr Jones, said: "[David Cameron's] either got to support Dr Fox, and admit he supports this very shady set-up, or he's got to go." On the other hand, the Prime Minister told the Commons on the Wednesay’s question time: "I ask people to have a little patience and wait for the facts to be established." I agree with that, even though, in my opinion, the Defense Minister made mistakes and should meet the consequences of his actions. The important decisions of David Cameron, such as firing the defense minister, have to be made after getting to know all the details of these cases. We have to wait for facts, not speculations of the media. 

That’s what I think,

MANU

Immigration

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, during his last speech, announced the Conservatives’ ideas to reduce immigration and limit the number of British citizenships given to foreign nationals by toughening up the requirements. He has set his government the target of reducing net migration to Britain from "hundreds of thousands" to "tens of thousands" by the next general election. David Cameron appealed also to the public to "shop" illegal immigrants and announced a drive against bogus marriages as he promised to "reclaim our borders". 

Under moves set out by David Cameron, individuals applying to come to Britain for family reasons will have to demonstrate that they can speak English, have the means to support themselves as well as genuine family links in Britain. He said that new ‘candidates’ would have to learn British history to prove their connection with Great Britain. "There's a whole chapter in the citizenship handbook on British history. But, incredibly, there are no questions on British history in the test," he said.

According to the Conservative policy:

“The Government believes that immigration has enriched our culture and strengthened our economy. But the unlimited migration we saw under Labour placed unacceptable pressure on public services. We are taking action to tackle immigration, and it is our aim to reduce the level of net migration to sustainable levels down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands within the lifetime of this parliament.”


One interesting comment on the article:

“Maybe "they" should be required to pay off "our" credit card and store card debts too.. Dave could kill off two birds with one pole.” (scamalarm)

That’s what I think,

MANU

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/immigrants-will-be-tested-on-british-history-says-david-cameron-2368616.html

The Party Leader and the Campaign

Explain the term ‘partisan alignment’ used in the extract.

The term ‘partisan alignment’, used in the extract, means the attachment to and identification with the political party. People, who are aligned with a party, support it and vote for it in the elections. Recently, the process of dealignment can be seen among the public. People have become less connected with their parties and they have often become ‘floating’ voters, which means that they tend to change their opinion from election to election. For example, in 1964, 43% of the British citizens were ‘very strong’ supporters of one of the main parties and this number has decreased to only 13% in 2005.

Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain how party leaders have become more central to the election campaign.
The election campaign is a period of time when political parties present their policies in order to gain voters before the elections. Leaders of the parties, who are the main representatives of a party and the possible prime ministers, have become more important in their parties campaigns. Firstly, due to a process of personalization of politics, people started to identify themselves with political parties’ leaders and that caused the increase of leaders’ importance in the election times. People want to hear about party’s ideas and policies from the leaders, who became the public faces of their parties and their role is to communicate public policy to the voters. A leaders’ television debates between Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron in 2010 had a significant impact on the results of general election. People wanted to see a confrontation between the most important people in each party, because it provides a possibility for the public to compare and contrast different views of politicians and see the difference in proposed policies. On the other hand, as mentioned in the extract, public dissatisfaction with a leader could affect the results as well, e.g. in the 2005 General Election, Tony Blair’s unpopularity resulted in up to 12 percentage points decrease in Labour Party results. Additionally, due to the process of ‘Americanisation’ of election campaigns, e.g. televised debates, it is the party leader who gets attention of media. People got more interested in leaders’ personal life, as he or she could become their future representative.

Consider the extent to which short-term factors are now far more important than long-term factors in shaping voting behaviour.

Voting behaviour is the way in people choose their representatives in a democratic system. Factors influencing these decisions can be divided into two categories: long and short term. The first group could be described as stable and habitual patterns of voting. On the other hand, short-term factors are causes of more volatile changes in the public’s voting behaviour and they have recently become more important in shaping election’s results.

The main long-term factors are age, gender, ethnicity and religion. Traditionally, they influenced the whole society. People voted according to their believes and ideologies. In recent years the main political parties in the UK have become more centre-ground and that caused these factors to lose their importance. Differences between Labour’s and Coservatives’ policies are smaller and that affected the voters to follow the short-term factors. For example, both parties wanted to gain as many voters from the youth as possible, proposing them similar reforms and ideas on education before the 2010 elections.

Parties’ policies are very important short-term factors of shaping election’s results. In an ‘age of dealignment’ people tend to vote for a policy, which is best for them, regardless of the political party ideology as a whole. Recently, issue-voting and rational choice model gained much influence because people want to choose the best possible policy, which would benefit them directly. For example, people voted for Conservatives in 2010 General Elections, because they did not want higher taxes. Having ‘wrong’ policies, on the other hand, can have just the opposite result. In 1983 the Labour Party presented their manifesto, calles the ‘longest suicide note in history’, proposing extend nationalization, increase in taxation and boosting public spending, which lead to the party’s defeat.

Another short-term factor is the performance of the current government and the economic situation of the country. If people are generally happy with the govermnent’s work and their governing competence they are most likely to vote for the same party, e.g. Margaret Thatcher re-elections. However, if the government did not achieve its goals and did not fulfill its promises it is likely to lose next elections. For example, after the economic crises of 2008/2009 the Labour Party has lost its reputation and credibility and was defeated by the Conservatives. The popular voting behaviour in these kind of situations is tactical voting, which implies voting for the chosen party in order to keep person’s least preferred out of power.

Moreover, the party image has become very important in shaping voting behaviour of the society. That is often influenced by campaigning and powerful parties’ leaders who want to represent their policies and encourage the public to vote for their parties. Nowadays, political parties want to become more connected with the society and create a positive and popular image. Voters want they party to be reliable and accountable. Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ or the David Cameron ‘Big Society’ were both planned to improve the party image.

From the evidence above, it can be seen that nowadays short-term factors are far more important than long-term ones in shaping voting behaviour. They influence everyday politics and people decisions. Parties’ policies, current performances and general image became more significant for the public to base their choices on.

‘Pressure group activity in the UK presents a major threat to democracy.’ Evaluate the arguments in favour of this view.

A pressure group is an organised group of people with similar views on a certain issue, who want to gain influence and put pressure on policy-makers. In recent years, due to more access points, development of mass media and globalization, the number of members of pressure groups in the UK has risen and the importance of these organisation has significantly increased. The RSPB, with over 1 million members is bigger than three main UK parties together. Unfortunately, the pressure group activity can threaten the democracy in Great Britain.

The main role of every pressure group is representing views of a part of the society. Their activity is often self-interested, focused only on a single issue. They want to gain influence in their area of interest only without taking other views into consideration. Pressure groups, such as FOREST, represent minorities and their actions could lead to a ‘tyranny of minority’.

Moreover, the structure of many pressure groups is undemocratic itself. Unelected leaders can be very influential but regular members have a little impact on pressure group’s actions. This passive membership makes pressure groups less representative and, consequently, less democratic. Additionally, pressure groups are unaccountable for the public and they exercise power without any responsibility. They also tend to empower those who are already powerful and have access to financial and organizational resources, e.g. Trade Unions Congress.

Pressure groups’ actions can be either direct or indirect. Meeting politicians, writing letters to MPs or peers, funding political parties and lobbing are examples of indirect actions, which can be described as influencing policy-makers in order to get their support and achieve pressure group’s goals. These negotiations and deals are often being made ‘behind the scenes’, especially by insider groups, such as National Farmers’ Union.

Direct actions taken by the pressure groups are often single-issue and short-term. This could cause problems for the government in implementing their ‘bigger picture’ policies. Moreover, direct actions, such as strikes and protests can affect many other citizens, who would not, normally, take part in them. For example, the Tube workers’ strike or road protest of lorries’ drivers had an impact on many ‘not involved’ people and, therefore, caused harm to regular citizens, which undermines the system of representative democracy.

Additionally, during direct actions, illegal methods are being used and the law is being broken . This undemocratic activities, such as the use of violence or property destruction are said to be more influential than non-violent actions because they often cause immediate reactions of politicians.

In my opinion, the pressure group activity in the UK threatens the British democracy. The role, structure and methods of acting of different kinds of pressure groups are dangerous for equality of people and human rights. Public interest should be represented in a more democratic way to ensure fairness and accountability of pressure groups’ actions.

"We are working flat-out, using every tool available to us. We are not standing on the sidelines."

It was a sunny, funny day… 276th day of the year and the 2nd of the Conservative Party Conference. The most important part of it was the George Osborne’s speech. He admitted that difficult days will for the economy will come and presented a plan to avoid the second credit crunch.

“Under the novel "credit easing" plan, the Treasury will buy company bonds in an attempt to cut the cost of credit for struggling firms and boost the supply of credit.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/03/osborne-treasury-credit-firms

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/03/george-osborne-stunning-lack-of-charisma :

“George Osborne spoke in the morning, and received a standing ovation so perfunctory as to be offensive. The audience, which had heard him with listless courtesy, managed to combine standing with the more urgent process of heading for lunch.”

“Then there's the voice. It's too high and squeaky. Close your eyes and he sounds like Ann Widdecombe. There's the samizdat BBC tape of Margaret Thatcher being taught to lower her voice, and if she can do it, so can George. But it's not just him. Even Eric Pickles, normally a conference star, not least because people mistakenly assume that anyone fat must also be jolly, flopped like blancmange on a barbecue.”

That’s what I think,

MANU

MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Make Poverty History is the name of a campaign that exists in a number of countries, including Australia, Canada, Denmark , Finland, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Romania, the United Arab Emirates, Great Britain and Ireland.

The Make Poverty History campaign is a Great Britain and Ireland coalition of charities, religion groups, trade unions, campaigning groups and celebrities who mobilise around the Britain's prominence in world politics, as of 2005, to increase awareness and pressure governments into taking actions towards relieving absolute poverty. The symbol of the campaign is a white "awareness bracelet" made of cotton or silicone.

The biggest ever anti-poverty movement came together under the banner of MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY in 2005 calling for urgent action for more and better aid, debt cancellation and trade justice.

Millions of people wore white bands, 444,000 people emailed the Prime Minister about poverty and 225,000 took to the streets of Edinburgh for the Make Poverty History march and rally.

The campaign ensured that global poverty was placed higher on the national and global agenda than ever before.

Television advertisements ran for many months, urging people to speak to their representatives about stopping poverty. However, the Office of Communications (Ofcom) banned the ads, deciding that the ads were "wholly or mainly political" in nature, since they aimed to "achieve important changes".

Make Poverty History won great steps forward, however there remains work to do and to hold governments to account for their promises.

On January 31, 2006, the majority of the members of the campaign passed a resolution to disband the organisation, arguing that the British coalition had only agreed to come together formally for a limited lifespan, to correspond with Britain holding the presidency of the EU and G8. Approximately forty groups argued against the dissolution.

Although Make Poverty History came to an end in 2006, the events of 2005 helped inspire various members to work together on further campaigns. These took place as the UK platform of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty.

The 2010 election campaign saw tens of thousands of people across the country contacting their candidates about global poverty.

That’s what I think,

MANU

Judicial review

Judicial review is the power of senior judges to review the actions of government and public authorities, declaring them unlawful if they have exceeded their authority. Judicial review is a process that enables judges to step into politics and override the decisions and laws of governments.

The courts have a right to monitor and change implemented laws. Judicial review may also involve reviewing on appeal cases heard previously at lower courts. In the UK, the relevance of judicial review has recently increased , while in the US it has given much control to judges, who have become powerful and influential.

In the UK, a person who feels that an exercise of power by a government authority, such as a minister, the local council or a statutory tribunal, is unlawful, perhaps because it has violated his or her rights, may apply to the Administrative Court (a division of the High Court) for judicial review of the decision and have it set aside and possibly obtain damages.

In the USA, judges have far-reaching powers of judicial review because of the existence of a codified constitution. Judges can declare government’s actions to be ‘unconstitutional’ if they conflict with the provision of the constitution.

The use of judicial review is controversial. It has proved to be an important way in which judges can protect civil liberties and ensure that ministers do not act in ways that are illegal, improper, irrational or simply disproportional. On the other hand, the growth of judicial activism has been criticized because it allows judges to make policy and to challenge the authority of elected governments.

That's what I think,

MANU

The Tory conference - DAY 1

Around 30,000 people join march against government cuts, as Tory minister Lady Warsi defends deficit reduction strategy
The Tory conference began in Manchester with a 30,000-strong protest march against the government's cuts and a speech from Lady Warsi defending the coalition's economic strategy. The Conservatives gathered at the Manchester Central conference centre on Sunday afternoon as TUC demonstrators marched down nearby Princess Street holding banners saying: "Fight the cuts" and "Strike back", as well as one with a picture of David Cameron that said: "He's got to go." 

George Osborne, the chancellor, said marching would not help the economy. "It's your democratic right to march," he said from the conference centre. "But in the end marching is not going to move on this economy. Every job that is lost is a matter of regret, but I'm working flat out to create jobs. There were half a million jobs created last year." 

What’s more?

It was revealed that MPs are set to vote on a referendum within the next few months, after a petition with more than 100,000 signatures was submitted calling for the public to be given the chance to decide whether Britain should stay in the EU. 

“The prime minister pledged to "fire up the engine of the economy" on the first day of his party conference in Manchester, pushing a new homes policy but thwarting the desires of his backbenchers for a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU.”

http://www.euronews.net/2011/10/02/uk-conservatives-open-party-conference/

Guardian

That’s what I (and the Guardian) think,

MANU

Dr Tudor Jones

Dr Tudor Jones has gained popularity among students (not only in Oxford) due to his unique approach and fascinating personality (he even has his own facebook fan page!) He has taught British politics and political theory at Mansfield, Somerville, and St. Catherine’s Colleges, Oxford. He has published several articles on British politics and in 1992 was the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Buckingham.

In his book, Modern Political Thinkers and Ideas, he provides students with a clearly presented, accessible introduction to some of the key areas of modern political thought. Combining historical and philosophical approaches to the subject, it describes the writings and ideas of the most influential thinkers of the modern era. Modern Political Thinkers and Ideas features the main concepts in modern political theory and the ideas of key thinkers such as: Machiavelli, Locke; Rousseau, Marx and Hayek.

CRA 2005

“An Act to make provision for modifying the office of Lord Chancellor, and to make provision relating to the functions of that office; to establish a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords; to make provision about the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the judicial functions of the President of the Council; to make other provision about the judiciary, their appointment and discipline; and for connected purposes.”

The Constitutional Reform Bill was introduced to the House of Lords on 24 February 2004, approved by both Houses on 21 March 2005, and received Royal Assent on 24 March. The CRA 2005 provides for the separation of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive.

Firstly, the Act gives the government ministers a duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary. They will be specifically limited from trying to influence judicial decisions through any special access to judges.

Secondly, the Act reforms the post of Lord Chancellor, transferring his judicial functions to President of the Courts of England and Wales. He will be responsible for the training, guidance and deployment of judges. He will also represent the views of the judiciary of England and Wales to Parliament and ministers.

Additionally, the Act establishes a new, independent Supreme Court, separate from the House of Lords with its own independent appointments system, its own staff and budget and, ultimately, its own building. 

Moreover, the Act establishes an independent Commission, responsible for selecting candidates to recommend for judicial appointment and it examines the way in which judicial appointments are made. The appointments system will be placed on a fully modern, open and transparent basis.

That's what I think,

MANU

Oxford West and Abington Constituency

It is such a privilege to have been elected to Parliament for Oxford West and Abingdon where I live and grew up. I believe politicians should be honest and open and fight to protect and improve their communities. As your MP that is exactly what I will continue to do.

Nicola Blackwood MP, Conservative
Member of Parliament
for Oxford West and Abingdon




Nicola Blackwood is the MP for Oxford West & Abingdon after winning the seat in the 2010 General Election on a 6.9 per cent swing from the Liberal Democrats.

Nicola was born in 1979 in Johannesburg but her family returned to Oxford just two months later after her father had angered the Apartheid government by speaking up for the rights of the black community. Nicola now lives in Summertown and is a Governor at her local special school and recently been trained as a Domestic Violence Champion.


Political interests:

Civil liberties and human rights, home affairs, international development, universities, science and environment.

There is a declining interest in traditional politics. Is this healthy?

Nowadays, in many countries, there is a debate on causes and effects of a decrease in active citizenship. It has become a buzzword and politicians often use it to encourage voters to take part in political life. There are many social campaigns trying to change people’s attitude towards voting in the general election. Even though, Polish turnout at elections in 2007 was 13.13% higher than two years earlier, 53.88% does not seem to be a high number. Additionally, there is a decrease in party memberships, which could cause this process to go deeper. Is it healthy that people care less about their own governments or this political disengagement has an opposite and positive effect on the quality of politics?

First of all, people tend to live more actively in recent years. Working longer, traveling more and improving their knowledge they no longer have time to take part in political meetings and debates. In their spare time they prefer being with their families to going to a conference that, in the past, were treated as a leisure activity. Nowadays, people are more keen on widening their interests than devoting their time to people they do not often know personally. A person, who decides to become a politician is often better educated in this area (journalists, consultants, researchers) than his or her predecessor, what makes the government to be more professional and, consequently, more efficient.

Second of all, in a stable political situation people are less dependent on politicians. They are not afraid of wars or other life-threatening situations so they are less likely to worry about politics. Due to recent development in every European country, citizens need less from the government, because their level and quality of life is already higher than ever before. They do not want this to change. What is more, people are often aware, that the basic needs and wants of the society will be met by every political party in power. That is because of centralisation of ideology, both in the right and the left wing.

Moreover, people have become more likely to have a direct influence on their countries or societies, what causes an increase in volunteer and charity activity. They want to have a real impact on each other’s lives, because they have realised that voting in general election in less likely to change something. They have learnt that politicians say many, beautiful things before election, but, very often, are not able to keep their promises after gaining power.

Declining engagement in political life is an undeniable fact. It is a natural process and cannot be stopped. In my opinion, there is no need to worry about it, because people are still active in their social lives. A decreasing interest in traditional politics is caused by a decline in dependence on politicians and a more stable political situation. People want to have a direct influence on their lives and they just tend to leave politics to politicians.

That’s what I think.

MANU

A Polish actor and celebrity, Borys Szyc, encouraging young people to vote in the general election.

"Your vote does matter!"