Judgement vs Experience

Since the start of the Presidential campaign surrogates and pundits alike have positively gushed over the former Secretary of States experience claiming that her tenure in this office makes her the most qualified candidate in the race. I'm not so sure and I have a few handy examples that will hopefully prove my case.

In Libya her ardent support for a no-fly zone and an air campaign in support of anti-government forces eventually won over a reluctant President Obama however as many predicted (including myself) the lack of a permanent cohesive factor between the various anti-government forces and deepening divisions across the country led to the situation devolving into a virtual civil war. As it stands large portions of the country are now under the effective control of IS and the nation poses a monumental threat to the security of Europe and North America.

After Libya Hillary Clinton also advocated for the establishment for a similar no-fly zone/bombing arrangement in Syria but this time found significant opposition for several reasons. Firstly it would have put the US in direct confrontation with the Russian government that backs the regime of President Assad, secondly it lacked comprehensive international support as several NATO allies had ruled out their involvement on such a mission and lastly the country was already a virtual quagmire. As in Syria various so-called moderate rebel groups had been caught sharing resources with radical terrorist groups and the fractal nature of the fighting made a repeat of the Libyan air campaign virtually impossible.

On Iran Hillary Clinton was quick to praise the work of Secretary Kerry in signing the nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic but her relationship with Tehran during her tenure as Secretary of State was less than fruitful. In fact Shane Bauer, an American journalist once imprisoned in Iran said whenever he heard Hillary Clinton speak on the subject of Iran his "heart would sink" because her words often angered the government in Tehran. Since giving her approval to the nuclear agreement Hillary Clinton has also been heard saying that she would be "tougher and more aggressive" than Reagan was with the Soviet Union something that does not bode well for peace in the region given the potential for deadly proxy wars between Iran and the United States.

I originally planned for this article to include several other reasons why I can't support Hillary Clinton in the democratic primary but since Clinton has embraced praise and friendship from a war criminal I felt that I had to devote an article explaining how I believe the experience of Clinton counts for nothing when compared to her awful hawkish track record.

A few thoughts on the housing crisis

I've decided to begin updating my blog again and today I return with a few (5) rambling thoughts on the current housing crisis. Enjoy!

1. Empty properties

The United Kingdom currently has just over 600k empty properties, of these just over 200k have been unoccupied for a period of six or more months. If the government started taxing properties in relation to the amount of time they've remained unoccupied it could spur developers and homeowners to sell or rent their properties to avoid a hefty tax bill. Of course that won't stop the problem all together so the government should also be prepared to seize properties that have gone unoccupied for an extended period of time (say 1+ years) and transform them into the social and affordable housing this country needs.

2. Brownfield sites

In addition to these empty properties the UK also has thousands of unused brownfield sites scattered across the country. If the government transformed these sites (using a mixture of public and private sector cash) into affordable housing for purchase/rent it would put a significant dent into the housing situation and add to the dreadfully low-number of new homes that are being constructed each year.

3. The rental market

Another problem with the housing situation is the outrageous state of the rental market but solutions to these problems have been thought of. For example Sian Berry of the Green Party put forward the idea of establishing a renters union so that the people of London could effectively organise and collectively fight for lower rents. In addition to this policy the UK should adopt more of a German approach to the market by giving tenants secure long-term rents and looking into the possibility of establishing a variable rent control across the UK. Both of these policies would greatly empower the people and lead to lower rents for everyone across the UK.

4. The low-wage economy

Yet another problem squeezing the property market is actually the current low wage economy and while the so-called living wage might help some people it is not a comprehensive solution to the problem. In order to seriously address this and some of the wider parts of the costing of living crisis across the country the government should gradually increase the minimum wage (over a 4 year period) to £10 an hour. This would help buyers obtain mortgages and mean that renters have money left over after the cost of rent + food is removed from the budget.

5. Social Housing.

Compounding all of these issues is the reality that the current government is simply not constructing enough social housing to suit the needs of the population, and has instead decided to embrace short-term thinking by implementing another disastrous help to buy scheme that will lead to the gutting of current housing stock. The solution here is quite clear, stop the horrific help to buy scheme and instead start the construction of large numbers of efficient social homes in the brownfield sites mentioned earlier. Of course the country has varying amounts of brownfield sites suitable to residential development so it might be necessary to construct some of the properties on green belt land. In order to lessen the impact the government should also empower local authorities to reject planning proposals and work together with communities to lessen the impact construction has on nearby infrastructure and the local environment.

Of course all of these proposed policies won't be implemented unless the government changes its attitude towards housing and accepts the value of long-term investment over short-term profits (an unlikely reform given the recent sell-off of public assets.) So in conclusion it is within the power of the government to solve or at least tackle the ongoing housing crisis but only if it abandons toxic short-term thinking and embraces the benefits of long-term planning and that can only be achieved by pressuring politicians to change policy or removing them via the ballot box.

A few thoughts on the EU debate

Over the past few weeks I have watched the ongoing fight over the EU referendum rather closely, and as you can probably tell from my twitter posts and older articles I get incredibly frustrated whenever I see someone spreading a myth about the European Union.

Luckily I suddenly remembered that blogs need regular updating and I have decided to share a few thoughts on tonights Daily Mirror debate;

1. Has EU migration lowered wages for UK-born workers?

During the debate Andrea Leadsom claimed that EU migration lowered the wages of UK-born workers but a recent report from the London School of Economics actually discovered that workers from the European Union have had no negative impact on the wages and job prospects of British Citizens. In addition the report also pointed out that consumer spending from EU migrants has actually generated employment for UK-citizens.

2. Is EU migration a burden on the state?

In the same argument Andrea Leadsom also claimed that our public services have been "overwhelmed" by EU migration. Of course while John McDonnell was quick to highlight the role migrants play in staffing these services and the real reason for the strain on public services (austerity) he failed to highlight a key report published by Christian Dustmann and Tommaso Frattini of the UCL. "The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK" concludes that EU migrants made a net contribution of £20bn to UK public finances between 2000 and 2011 providing valuable revenue to finance and bolster public institutions across the UK.

3. Would leaving the European Union save us from the TTIP?

In short? No. If the UK moved to adopt the "Norwegian model" after a successful Brexit to retain access to the single market it would still have to adopt the regulatory changes enforced by the passage to the TTIP. We would just lack the power to change it in a significant manner (how democratic!). And don't be tricked by any recent comments made by Boris Johnson on the issue, as the prospective Prime Minister supported the trade agreement wholeheartedly in 2014 calling it "Churchillian" even saying that the UK should negotiate an individual agreement with the US if the EU fails to pass the TTIP agreement.

Meanwhile in Europe politicians in Greece have raised serious concerns about the wording of the current TTIP agreement and senior Syriza members have said that the Greek parliament would use its veto power to kill TTIP unless serious reforms have been made, and in France Francois Hollande has said that the current deal needs to go further to protect the high regulatory standards currently enforced by the French government and has threatened to block the deal if these measures are not met.

Trade unions and politicians from across the political spectrum are working together to stop the TTIP in its tracks, so the best strategy is not to leave but to unite in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the European Union and demand a trade deal that benefits all of us and not just a select economic elite.

Freedom of Speech vs Hate Speech

Supporters of political organisations like the freedom association and Ukip often claim that the UK's current hate speech and anti-defamation laws are simple attacks on free speech designed to curtail political expression and with a more Americanised approach the the situation the country would be far better off. The United States enjoys apparent freedom of speech under the US constitution yet despite these constitutional guarantees it has fallen sharply in the press freedom rankings tumbling from 20th to 46th position in just four years due to government pressure currently being placed on journalists and news agencies that are reporting on activities like NSA spying that put the government in a bad light. All this is happening as extremist groups like the Westbro Baptist church are allowed to spread their message of hate and and exclusion without legal consequence due to free speech protections.

It is this apparent freedom that the TFA and other organisations want to bring here in an argument that is often backed by the phrase "political correctness gone mad" but what does that actually mean? In the right-wing press political correctness if often attacked as an idiotic method of appeasing minority groups. I find that political correctness is simply an evolution of the English language, for example you would no call a co-worker, friend or stranger the n-word so why should you be able to use homophobic and sexist slurs in the workplace and in public? What these right-wingers fail to understand is that the right to free-speech does not extend to the right to belittle, offend or harass someone based on superficial points.

In this country we have real issues regarding freedom of speech. The United Kingdom itself has fallen sharply from 19th to 33rd in just four years as the governments attack on the Guardian, the security services harassment of David Miranda and the extent of how anti-terror legislation can be used against journalists and activists was revealed. These acts of state-repression should be fought against by free speech campaigns but starting a FoS campaign when all you want is the right to attack minorities is not only offensive and disingenuous but it also demeans the work of honest FoS campaigns that seek to protect journalists, activists and average citizens from legislation that in its current form can be used as a method of repression.

Euroscepticism and foreign policy.

If you've ever listened to a Ukip supporter argue for long enough you'll notice that they constantly talk about the apparent freedoms we're missing out of as part of the European Union and one of these rights seemingly lost to Brussels is an independent foreign policy, with sceptics claiming that if we left the European Union we could strike our own deals with trading partners and forge closer links with the Commonwealth.

I've always found this particular idea to be completely moronic as it is often based on a romanticised and simplified version of the past. In the days of the British Empire the world was a wildly different place with London able to maintain a strong position in world affairs simply because it was head of the largest empire in the world and could martial together the resources of millions of citizens, today that Empire has long disappeared and the axis of power has shifted. As part of the European Union the United Kingdom can maintain a strong position in trade deals and quickly organise sanctions and humanitarian missions in response to changing events. As an individual nation the UK would have a far weaker position in potential trade deals and sanctions/humanitarian missions would be harder to coordinate.

 In response to this i've heard sceptics claim that instead of working with the EU the country should forge closer relations with the Commonwealth but developing a trading union with a Commonwealth nation like Australia (population 22.9m, GDP 18th in the world, 10,000 miles away) would not be preferable to maintaining our trading union with the EU (population 503.5m, GDP 1st in the world, 21 miles away) and would surely require a standardised regulatory structure similar to the current European Union.

As a nation we must stop living in the past and accept the fact that the world is becoming less isolationist and power becoming less concentrated in nature.

Spirit of '45.

I shall hopefully be returning to full activity once again with a slight change in schedule. If everything is normal I should be posting articles every Monday and Friday. Here is an extremely short post I wrote after watching the Spirit of '45 on netflix

In the Second World War the vast industrial capacity of the United Kingdom was focused towards a singular goal, the destruction of Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers. Politics flew out of the window as all parties worked together in order to ensure production converting consumer goods factory to produce goods for the front lines and nationalising mines in order to ensure a constant rate of production. After achieving this victory the country was faced with a multitude of challenges damage from the blitz and the remnants of slum housing from the 30's combined with the near bankrupt nature of the country. Today we face the aftermath of one of the largest financial disasters since the great depression and a housing crisis that has been compounded by decades worth of government inaction. As a result people on the left and right have started blaming migrant communities for the shortage in housing, schools, hospitals and other local public services claiming that the influx of people as overwhelmed the system and led to the current situation but even if this was the case (its not) the current crisis remains and for a solution we must look at the actions of past governments

During the 45 election campaign Clement Atlee and the Labour Party pledged to remove the slums of the past and replace them with quality homes that will provide a stable foundation for the creation of the modern welfare state. After achieving a landslide victory Nye Bevan, then Minister of Health stepped into the role working with town planners and architects to construct attractive low-income housing (that was obviously a massive increase in quality from the slums of the past), nationalising former privately owned hospitals and constructing new clinics to suit the needs of the population. We need to re-kindle the spirit of 45 and empower national and local government not only to construct new homes, schools and hospitals but repair current empty lots and re-open public services forced to close due to government cuts. An end to the damaging policy of austerity and a solution to the public services crisis that does not involve scapegoating immigrants.

A case for re-nationalisation.

When our rail, energy and water networks were privatised the British people were promised a revolution with new capitalist competition paving the way for cheaper and more effective services. Instead of this the private companies have seen fit to record sky-high profits whilst ignoring complaints about poor service, confusing tariffs and constant above inflation price rises that in the case of the energy industry never seem to come down when energy is cheaper in the summer. I've talked about the inefficient rail network in the past and how private companies are glad to pocket the money while leaving the state to pick up the short stick and the same principle applies to the energy and water sectors. Nationalising these portions of the economy with greatly help those in fuel poverty across the country by giving them a permanent break from the extortionate prices rises of private industry.

Critics will highlight the fact that nationalised industry in the UK was inefficient but it does not have to be that way. In the past our nationalised industries performed admirably and we have efficient state-owned companies in the rest of Europe to look on upon for guidance. Instead of pessimistically looking at the works of times we should focus on the benefits that nationalisation will bring to the country and think of ways to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.