Racism in the neoliberal age

by Martin Relph

    I have been concerned for some time now about how difficult it has become to understand the nature of racism in this age of neoliberalism. We are hardly living in a post-racial society but neoliberals would have us believe that we are now living in a far more racially tolerant society, despite the reality of growing inequalities and greater divisions. Politically, I think it is vital that we dispel the myth that neoliberalism has created a less racist society and return to an understanding of racism as inextricably linked to colonialism, capitalism and imperialism.

    On a personal level, three separate instances have prompted me to challenge the prevailing neoliberal notion of racism and to write this article. I am a white male who has been in a relationship with a black female since the end of the 1970s. Not so long ago, someone suggested to me that it must have been awful for us when we first started going out together compared to how things are today. The second thing that got me thinking was an interview last year of the so-called comedian Jim Davidson on BBC’s Newsnight programme by Jeremy Paxman. Unchallenged by Paxman, Jim Davidson stated that Britain is nowhere near as racist as it was in the 1970s and that it is now a much better place to live in. Finally, in my previous job at a college of further education I was co-opted to work on “equality and diversity impact measures” and was quite surprised to discover that ethnic monitoring did little other than reinforce the racial stereotypes held by managers and members of staff within the institution.

    Whilst I accept that black and brown people are more established in Britain than they were in the 1970s, inequalities are certainly much greater and I would argue that the attacks on working class communities that we have witnessed over the past forty years have impacted especially adversely on black communities. What the neoliberals have done is to individualise racism so that racism is treated as a facet of human behaviour. Moreover, neoliberals have chosen to ignore the historical context of race so that it has become much more difficult to challenge the racist bias that prevails within many of our institutions here in Britain. Within institutions, “equality and diversity” has become the neoliberal tool to promote the view that racism is down to the prejudice of individuals and that institutional racism does not exist. The result has been that in many institutions workers are actually afraid of being accused of being racist while at the same time, for historical reasons, there is a deep racial bias within those same institutions. At the aforementioned F.E. college where I worked on equality and diversity, one manager suggested to me that the organisation had now gone beyond the stage where anyone could “play the race card”. Yet within the same institution, when presented with data that showed that black, mixed-race, Pakistani-origin and white students from deprived post codes performed below average educationally, the majority of managers only seemed to be interested in confirming their own stereotypes. This, of course, fits perfectly with the neoliberal agenda of blaming poor people for their own misfortunes because of their family backgrounds.

    I would also challenge the view that Britain is a less racist society than it was in the 1970s. At secondary school, I found Enoch Powell’s rants upsetting but at the same time I was inspired by the Civil Rights Movement in the United States led by Dr Martin Luther King. In 1970’s Britain, in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement and the move towards liberation on the African continent, there was a definitely a drive towards creating a more racially just society here at home. At the time, I was into funk music and I remember how racially integrated the fans of that particular music were. There were also several British multiracial popular music bands including the Foundations and Hot Chocolate. By the end of the 1970s, the 2 Tone sound dominated the music charts with bands like The Specials, The Selecter and The Beat that appealed to black people and white people alike. When Channel 4 started to broadcast in 1982, it was a wonderful, multicultural TV channel. I still have my collection of videos of Latin American and African films that were shown on Channel 4 in its early days. I wonder if Channel 4 had broadcast Benefits Street at that time whether they would have, instead of depicting poor people in a bad light, focussed on the benefits of living in a multiracial community.

    Trevor Phillips famously quoted that Britain was “sleepwalking to segregation”. I do feel that this is what has been happening as traditional working class communities have been destroyed. However, unlike Trevor Phillips, I consider this to be down to neoliberalism rather than multiculturalism. Britain was not a slave society nor have we witnessed the genocide of our indigenous peoples on our own soil. The peculiar brand of racism that we have here was therefore developed in line with British imperialism. As racism is an anachronism to neoliberals, problems that arise within our society that are related to our imperial past are explained as problems of human behaviour. Islamophobia is a case in point, where attacks on Muslims are seen as individual acts of religious intolerance instead of being connected to Britain’s long and continuing involvement as an imperial power in the Muslim world. The real problem here is, in fact, not religious intolerance but the racist bias of the political establishment and the mainstream media that considers white blood to be superior to the blood of non-white people, including Arabs and Afghans.

    I started off by saying that it is important that we dispel the myth that neoliberalism has created a more racially tolerant and just society. By its very nature, neoliberalism is far from being egalitarian. Neoliberals believe in privatisation and in relation to racism they have privatised racist attitudes while they have ignored structural racism and the racist practices of institutions. At the same time, the poor and marginalised within our society have been pressurised to find solutions to their problems and then blamed if they do not succeed.

Martin Relph

Respect Party member

November 2014

The Case for Solidarity

by Stella Baker

“Solidarity is necessary to prevent social fragmentation and to ensure that nobody in society goes hungry, becomes needy, is without a home, without medical care or without hope of a better future...”

Pope John Paul II 'Solicitudo Rei Solidaris'

I'm of the sincere belief that many of the things you learn in life and remember come from your disappointments, failures, mistakes and your adversaries. For years the political right, particularly in the West have been more than willing to present us with Lech Walesa the hero, the man who helped bring down communism, and he himself believes he was the central figure. Closer to the truth was that he was a leader in the right place at the right time and part of a collective of people who worked together to inspire millions to struggle for and achieve political change.

But there were two figures with ideas which formed the basis of Polish Solidarity and gave it the foundation necessary for it to succeed. The first was the Solicitudo Rei Solidaris Catholic social teachings of Pope John Paul II, who in the final years of his life also strongly opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The second was a suggestion made by Polish philosopher and historian of ideas Leszek Kolakowski. The suggestion was made in an essay he wrote in the 1970's 'Theses on Hope and Hopelessness' (banned by the former communist regime) in which he wrote 'the totalitarian regime can be overthrown by many different self-organized groups working collectively towards a common objective.'

The major political parties in this country have made much of the belief that it is good to be 'aspiring' and 'hard working' and in the words of David Cameron 'to do the right thing'. But there are many people in this country who know from their own personal experience that quite often aspiration, hard work, and doing the right thing can amount to very little and can often be seen as lesser than more important social factors which determines people's social position and quality of life. Here I am referring specifically to the immutable social markers such as ethnicity, skin colour, background, social class, disability, gender, gender identity, and for those who have come to live in this country even your birthplace, citizenship and the passport you hold.

This is partly because we're living in a two tier society which has evolved out of our class system and the upper tier are people who enjoy a lifestyle of relative freedom and social privilege, who can aspire and work hard to get on if they choose to do so. Many don't, not necessarily because they are lazy, but because as a society with rapidly developing technology and a market based on free market principles they are constantly being sold comfort, pleasure, convenience, instant gratification, either to promote consumer spending for profit or to promote debt and living beyond one's means, which is the only way those at the top have of controlling society – through money and debt.

Unlike those held back by a lack of social privilege or through marginalization, social stigma or 'othering' these people can only be controlled if they are seduced into a cycle of personal debt and wage enslavement. They are usually unaware of the sheer level of inequality in our society, they are quite often blind to matters such as discrimination. Inequality is maintained through a constant campaign of social stigmatization carried out by the media aimed at subduing the minorities and keeping them in their place.

We are living in times of uncertainty and what seems to be inevitable change. Just like in the former Eastern Europe we are living under a totalitarian system, not political totalitarianism (though this can be debated), but an economic totalitarian system which maintains control through shortages, fractional reserve banking, quantative easing, monetarism, and social inequality. Furthermore the political right is organizing through UKIP adopting a distinctly divisive approach.

It seems that the major parties are happy to gamble the future of our society and economy in the banking and corporate casinos of Europe and America.

If there is anything we need less of, it is division, whether it be social division, community division, economic division, or for that matter a division between our politicians and the people. We are a country rich in culture and full of ideas, a country which if given the opportunity everybody can have a place, have a future, and be a part of society.

But can something like the success of Polish Solidarity happen again in this country? I believe it can. We have a bigger population than Poland, a greater ethnic diversity, a stronger feel for equality and fairness. We simply need the courage to stand up, the commitment to our communities and our society, a solid belief in a peaceful, non-violent, inclusive approach, and to work independently within our own communities and social groups but towards one common objective – political change. The Respect Party which stands for peace, justice and equality is the ideal platform.

It will not be easy. It will be hard work. We need to meet the challenge of addressing people who are expecting change through the existing sham of a democracy and unwilling to do anything more than vote for what is available. We need to meet the challenge of addressing people who support one party and believe that party is right and the other parties are wrong.

But to meet these challenges we need to address our biggest challenge of all – we need to become the party of solution, not the party of struggle, not the party of conflict, but the party with the solution.

We also need to become the party of solidarity, a party which stands shoulder to shoulder with the disabled, the marginalized, the poor, the exploited, the destitute, the homeless. We need to stand up and become the first class party for the second class citizens in this country. If we are prepared to stand in solidarity and shoulder to shoulder with such people, surely they will with us, and surely others will join us in that solidarity.

But if we don't try we will never find out, we will never learn, and we will never succeed. 

Education; class warfare at its most potent!

By Brent Johnston

It was recently announced that Germany has abolished tuition fees which was met with great applause from the German youth, but in Britain this has caused a lot of speculation over why we are the standout country for all the wrong reasons when it comes to education!

Countless times we have heard politicians say that education is the key to the development of our lives that when we come out the other end we are equipped for life and have something to give society, fantastic but why then are the government punishing prospective students from going to university? 

The United Kingdom broke records when we increased tuition fees to a nauseating £9,000 a year! Demonstrations erupted all over the country and hundreds of thousands of students from all parts of Britain walked out of class and onto the streets to fight for their future. Many of this current government who went to university paid not one single penny towards their education yet here we are in the 21^st century and they are denying that opportunity for this generation of prospective students.

This government just like every government before it was given a budget and with the deficit now on their hands they had a drastically reduced budget and had to make certain cuts, but why the students, why the youth, why the workers of tomorrow? I believe that this is class warfare at its strongest!

I’ll break down the finances from someone who had to juggle £10 a week for food and transport for my first year; the lower working class students are given grants which entitle them to more money than the average maintenance loan of roughly £4,000 - £5,000, the grant is not repayable but is crucial. Upper middle class families are the only ones who can afford it out right without a second thought, many of these students have attended private school (paid for!). Which then leaves the upper working class and lower middle class who don’t qualify for help (including myself) we take the loans and the debt that comes with it, which for many of my friends and students around the UK was just too big a reason not to go, a great shame! Once again therefore the Conservatives revert back to type and punish the working class for the mistakes of previous politicians.

With the Germans announcing their decision, the Scottish who already have free education across the board and the Welsh who have massively subsidised fees it is about time that the government started giving us a chance to show what we have to offer. Apprenticeships are great if you want a vocational/manual job but what about those who want to become teachers, are they going to loosen the restrictions so university isn’t the preferred route? There will always be a niche section of teenagers and adults (mature students) who want to go to university but many will always be deterred by the frustratingly high fees!

Studying in the UK is no longer about what university offers the best course but which university offers the best deal, money, money, money! I guess the Conservatives got the money conscious youth they wanted! Writing this I had the song ‘Another brick in the wall’ by Pink Floyd in my head that song sums up the attitude of this country’s view on education perfectly!

Unless something changes radically in the next few years, less and less working class students are going to attend university and with the experiences they have as well as countless talent, it will be the United Kingdom who suffers!

That is one of the reasons why I have joined the Respect Party who will destroy tuition fees forever, they have the foresight to punish those who did wrong and pave the way for all of our generation to achieve to the highest standard.  Maybe you’ll join too?

‘The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth’ – John F. Kennedy

Twitter: @Che_Brent 

Equality starts with a capital 'C'

by Stella Baker

  Starting the word equality with a letter it doesn't contain might seem strange. But the letter 'C' I have in mind is no ordinary letter C. This letter C is one which determines the nature and quality of our life. It shapes our identity, our thinking, our behaviour, influences the way we communicate and interact with others, and colours our aspirations, hopes and dreams. It also gives us a sense of the world around us, makes it clear what is permissible and acceptable, and what isn't, and exists on many different levels in society.

  The C in question is culture. Culture is something which exists on many different levels in society. We often talk about national culture, international culture, but culture is the shared awareness, understanding and knowledge common to all members of any social group. Entire continents and countries have their own culture, so too do cities and towns, and so too do individual families, workplaces and friendships. Sometimes different cultures are similar – for example rural culture doesn't vary much throughout the world, but sometimes they are different.

  The development of culture in a community or society is no less important than the striving for equality. Like equality and technology, investment and development in culture brings numerous tangible benefits to people and their lives. If you care to stop and think about the things which benefit you in your life, chances are that it will come from some development of either culture or technology – your computer, your smartphone, your DVD player, your mp3 playlist, your books.

  Culture is also the necessary interface for equality. The Equality Act 2010 would make Britain a world leader when it comes to diversity and equality, but passing legislation alone is not enough to promote equality in society. It also has to become part of culture and through this part of everybody's mindset, influencing their thinking when it comes to others. Through culture people can become more aware, less ignorant, and develop a greater understanding of what makes people different and why.

  Development of culture is also very important to maintain cohesion in the community and society. Britain is a part of English language culture, a culture which is dominant throughout the world which the whole world wants to share and be a part of. Much of what becomes English language culture comes out of poverty and struggle. Much of what forms the basis of modern music came out of the struggles of slavery and racial segregation in the Deep South in the US, Hollywood was born out of the Great Depression, and when culture is sufficiently developed it can promote not just social cohesion but also inspire opportunities which create jobs, livelihoods and economic prosperity.

  However culture can also go into decline, particularly when it is neglected or left to private enterprise to develop. Periods of cultural decline bring about moral decline and social fragmentation, promoting social division, inequality, crime, and many of the social issues we know of today, such as unemployment, poverty, homelessness, political extremism and bigotry. This can be seen particularly on both sides of the Atlantic when cultural development was abandoned in favour of a war on terrorism and military intervention in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

  Investment in culture and the promotion of cultural development is something which is not only very important and necessary for society, but is also completely sustainable. Every single human being alive on this planet today is capable of some form of creative activity, each and every one of us has a need to interact with others, we have our own ideas, interests and abilities, and we all need the acknowledgment, recognition and to be valued by others.

  I personally feel that investment in culture and cultural development should be one of the responsibilities of the government and public sector. Culture can play an essential role in education, local communities and even welfare and social security to create the basis for a fairer and much more equal society, one which can promote social cohesion and provide opportunities, and benefits to everyone in society.

  I also feel that by exporting culture to other countries and helping them to promote and develop their own culture is a key step towards resolving Third World poverty and would make for a safer, more peaceful world. 

The Assault of George Galloway and the Silence of Westminster

Thomas Kiernan, Respect Party Member (North West)

If you wish, follow me on Twitter @TRKiernan

   When I read that George Galloway had been assaulted in broad daylight, by an opponent of his staunch defence of the Palestinian people, I wondered whether this was a sign of democracy unravelling when certain people are faced with controversial views. First, we saw Jim Murphy pelted with eggs when defending his views on Scottish Independence against loud opposition from ‘Yes’ supporters. This was followed shortly by a vicious, pre-meditated attack on a 60-year old politician who now, due to injuries which include cracked ribs, cannot currently hold his newborn child. What exactly did either of these acts prove? Since when has physical violence demonstrated anything other than an inability to debate and employ reason?

   Regardless of your opinion on George’s politics, everybody should condemn this form of crime. Louise Mensch, the former MP for Corby and a strong supporter of Israel, was one of the few people who condemned the attack, albeit attacking Galloway’s character in the process. Other pro-Israel supporters, instead of physically assaulting their opponents, should engage in debate and prove to other people why Israel should be supported. I am inclined to believe; however, that violence often only occurs when people are unable to support their views through rational thought. Violence occurs when people simply do not wish for alternative views to be made public because, as David Bradley stated in an episode of Ashes to Ashes, it is “fear which closes down [opposition], not arguments.”

   It is apparent that some opponents of George applaud, and will continue to applaud, what this man has done. It was brought to my attention that some of these had, among other things, “hoped he’d finished the job”. Little more needs to be said. What is more apparent, and more concerning, is the complete lack of public condemnation from any other Member of Parliament. Unsurprisingly, John Wight hit the nail on the head when he stated the following in an article published for the Huffington Post:

"If such an attack took place against a pro-Israel MP by a Muslim supporter of Hamas you can bet the condemnation would have been near total and carried on the first page of every mainstream newspaper, not to mention the lead item on every TV and radio news bulletin."

   It is a basic tenet of British politics, and our culture, that any politician should be capable of making political speech without looking over their shoulders out of fear for their physical and mental well-being. Desmond Tutu once said that if you are neutral in times of injustice you are in support of the oppressor. This is undoubtedly more poignant when the speech involves controversial and divisive issues, and the Palestinian crisis is clearly one of those issues. You may disagree with an opposing politician and you may even condemn the words they speak, but you certainly do not support their assailants by remaining silent on the issue. Whether through egg-throwing, making death threats or actually harassing them in the street, an assault on an elected official is an affront to democracy and should be widely condemned whenever it occurs. This basic tenant has been failed in relation to George’s attack.

   When Galloway was sworn in to Parliament in 2012, the Prime Minister half-complimented him in commending that he always spoke with great force. Unfortunately, that did not extend to publicly condemning the suppression of that voice when the six-time elected official was beaten in the street. In a sad case of irony, as well as an apt pun, it is Westminster and the political class which has truly proven to lack respect for democracy.

‘Austerity, Abandonment and Silence on Israel/Palestine: The Day I left Labour ’

by Thomas Kiernan - Respect Party Member (North West)

    Before I begin this, let me set the background. I come from a traditional, working-class background in the North of England. My mother is English, but the child of Irish immigrants to Britain in the 50’s. My family has, more or less, voted Labour their entire lives and would not dream of voting for anybody else. Whilst I have followed George Galloway and the Respect Party for years, I did not commit to being a member until several months ago.

   I was in Gdansk a few weeks ago, having treated my grandmother to a holiday for all her support during the three years I have been at University, when I stumbled across the news that veteran Labour MP, Dennis Skinner, had been voted off the Labour National Executive Committee. I was immediately infuriated; Skinner is one of the few true Labour politicians left in the Party. Much like George, he stands for many of the things which the Respect Party is championing alone: an end to austerity, the support of trade-unions and, above all, equality and peace. However, his Party have abandoned all of those concepts and adopted the Conservative policy of refusing to end austerity measures and promising to be ‘tougher than the Tories on welfare’. With Skinners removal, it is clear that the Party is going for a younger, more centred approach to try and emulate Tony Blair’s success in 1997. They may have some nice sound-bites (regulate energy companies, free childcare and decentralisation), but nothing of substance and certainly nothing which has enticed me to support them come 2015.

   Already apathetic and disillusioned with Labour and any major party, I had considered cancelling my membership with the Party there and then. Then the real kicker: Miliband has been silent over the recent events in Gaza which have seen roughly 600 Palestinians die and several thousand injured in the indiscriminate (or ‘precision’) bombing of innocent lives. Miliband, on his trip in April to Israel, had publicly denounced the increasing illegal settlements but has never gone as far as to publicly condemn Israel for its horrendously poor treatment of the Palestinian people whom they subject to a life of internment and poverty on a daily basis. What has happened to the man who looked likely to bring Labour back to the left, to return to its stance as the Party of peace and opportunity? His silence is, to me, as bad as Michael Gove’s admittance that he is a ‘committed Zionist’ and the USA’s constant defence of the Israeli government. It seems tragic that the UK, who was complicit in the USA’s killing of over one million civilians in Iraq, is still comprised of leaders not willing to learn from its mistakes and immediately order sanctions on Israel until it ceases raining death over Gaza, sit down at the table with Abbas and finally broker a deal which will see the Palestinians receive fair and just compensation for the misery to which they have been subjected.

   That, for me, was the final straw on a very strong back, and so my membership is now in the post. I refuse to support a Party which has adopted a name for which its policies do not represent, and I refuse to vote for any Party which does not have a firm commitment to equality both nationally and overseas. The Labour Party is dead; what remains is a walking frame of opportunity which regularly gets overlooked and increasingly sucked in to the political centre. What remains is something which will soon be considered like it will help no-one, speak for no-one and can be trusted by few. If first-past-the-post was abandoned, the Labour Party would be forced to kick itself into gear, to become a party which people would want to be a part of. As it stands, it remains little more than a bleak alternative to the Tories. I am convinced that, if Labour does indeed succeed come May, it won’t be because they’re a party of change. It’ll be because they’re the better of two very, very poor choices. 

Why the world needs to get tough on Israel’s ‘never-never land’ mentality.

Unmasking Israeli myths is the first step on the long road to peace.

Respect Op-Ed

   Gaza is under attack again; the third sustained aerial bombardment since 2008. In the world’s largest prison camp (the words of well-known Hamas operative David Cameron), the number of dead has now risen to over 160, with women and children making up a depressingly high percentage. The Israeli armed forces rain down indiscriminate death and destruction, giving nothing more than an occasional perfunctory warning, onto the defenceless people below.

   This routine has become something of a political blood-sport in Israel. This recent wave of the crisis began with the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers near Hebron in the occupied West Bank. I was in Israel when the kidnapping happened and visited the site where the teenagers had been taken. As soon as the story broke the Israeli government were blaming Hamas, without any real clarification as to whether it had even been sanctioned by its central command as opposed to being committed by underground militants. The speed at which this narrative became accepted reality says much about the loyalties of mainstream media.

   The emotional outcry in Israel was remarkable, given that such events have become so commonplace in the Israeli conscience. Within days, everyone was on first-name terms with the teenagers. You couldn’t drive along any road without coming across a reference to the #BringBackOurBoys campaign. Once their bodies had been discovered, the atmosphere turned from grief, to anger, to vengeance. Within hours, #BringBackOurBoys had been replaced with #AvengeOurBoys. The inevitable result was the copy-cat kidnapping and murder of a 16-year old in East Jerusalem, one of at least six deaths in the days that followed. And that was before the bombing began…

   The grossly disproportionate response and collective punishment demonstrated by Israel in the wake of such periods of turmoil has become normalised. Not many people in Israel – or in the Western mainstream media, it appears – regard the life or blood of Palestinians as being as valuable as their own.

   This is the institutionalisation of an occupation at work. In the beachfront cafés and smart shopping centres of Tel Aviv to the sleek suburbs of West Jerusalem, nobody much cares for the occupation on the West Bank or for the disastrous humanitarian effect of the siege on Gaza. That is until their peace is shattered by the wail of the air-raid siren and they have to retreat temporarily into a reinforced bomb shelter (a luxury not afforded to many Palestinians, who just have to take their chances).

   This is why I don’t buy the “you don’t know what it’s like” argument that I hear from many Israelis. Rocket fire from the Gaza Strip has as yet mercifully failed to take a single Israeli life. Israeli bombing raids in Gaza, one of the most densely-populated areas on earth, are causing casualties which now run into the hundreds. The mismatch is glaring – not that you’d know it if you were watching the BBC. On Wednesday they led with the laughable headline ‘Israel under renewed Hamas attack’. The seething anger felt by Palestinians and Muslims generally is fed by this blatant double-standard which tells them that their lives are somehow not worth as much.

   This exceptionalism is now engendered in an Israeli society which is becoming forever more rabidly right-wing and forever less interested in a peace process, choosing instead to ‘manage’ the conflict. The settlement drive continues unabated, to the point where its continuation is on the verge of killing off the two-state solution forever. This is the ‘never-never’ land that supporters of Israel are living in: they think they can carry on with the reality of occupation because of their ‘exceptional’ circumstances; their opponents around the world just don’t ‘get’ the realities of their situation. But millions around the world are now calling their bluff.

    The onus is on Israel, and Israeli society, to change this. Israel holds the keys to occupation and they are to only ones who can unlock Palestinian statehood and freedom for its people. Failing this very unlikely prospect (the radical right is historically strong enough to resist it), it will be up to the international community to force a solution. There are signs that some countries are beginning to tire of Israel’s behaviour of exceptionalism.

   This conflict did not begin with the kidnapping of three Israelis, and will not end with any fragile ceasefire. It is tied up in the continuing Israeli occupation and supremacy, institutionalised through a complex societal framework over decades. A comprehensive process involving all parties from both sides is the only way to achieve a lasting settlement and help stability for the whole region. The only way that is going to happen is if Israel commits to it, or is given no other choice. That prospect looks as distant as ever.

Preconceptions are the womb of prejudice. Its sad, but it's true.

By Steven Mackie


There's a story doing the rounds from Fife Police about someone who was

electrocuted trying to pinch some copper cable, and it seems the consensus
is that he had what was coming to him. Quite often from people who, if
pressed, would be against child poverty, the bedroom tax, shocked at food
banks and aghast at the thought of a bairn sitting down to watch his or her
mother cry because they only had Pot Noodle for Christmas dinner.
Preconceptions are the womb of prejudice, so I'll tell you a wee Christmas
story that is as true as anything I can ever say.

Many many years ago, when I was but a wee toddler, around three I think, I
lived in a fairly poverty stricken farm cottage with four elder siblings.
My Mother was a farm labourer (a job that helped kill her in the end), but
at least she coulnt be accused of being a sponger. On the weather beaten
fields all around Glasmount Hill and the Binn and Banchory she toiled,
picking tatties, going to the dressing, thinning neeps - manual labour. So,
when I was the wee-est one, she had no choice but to be taken into the
fields with her. Swaddled in as much warm clothing as I could carry on my
tiny bones, there I tottered in the tattie fields as the squads bent to
their work.

Now, about this time a black man arrived, blown in on the trade winds from
the West Indies; a man called Larry. And Larry became the man in charge of
the squads at Tyrie farm (just outside Kirkcaldy on the Kinghorn road). I
cannot for the life of me remember his face, as much as Ive tried these
past 47 years since. But I DO remember the feel of peculiar feel (to a
Scottish child) his afro hair, the thrill of being lofted on his giant
shoulders, the welcoming warmth of his greatcoat. I can half 'see' him in a
field at the side of the Jawbane road. I sadly cant recall him fully but I
DO know that we were inseparable. How do I know this?

Well, it came to pass that the work ended as crops do and the land slumbers
beneath our feet through winter. The money dried up and, as there were no
benefit entitlements -especially for Black immigrant workers - like there
are now, Larry must have found himself in a very unenviable position:
Thousands of miles from what the slave traders had told his grandparents to
call home, in a strange country. A country growing colder as the season
progressed, with no-where to turn to - and no-one to care even if he
arrived there. So, he took himself over to Seafield Colliery, maybe to get
some sea coal to sell (a common enough practice, believe me) and saw some
cables laying on the ground. There are no coal mines in the Caribbean,
which might have led him to think of it as defunct ... I cannot say. But he
decided to cut it up and heft it to the scrap yard. And thats where they
found him the next day, dead, on the cold wintery shores of the River
Forth.

Now, few people will know the 1960s farming life, but as it was, a lot of
our purchases came via by Butcher and Bakers van. There was a fair stream
of men in suits selling brushes and polishes, Insurance, Rent men, Ticky
men etc. In effect, a whole network of people who could bring and carry
news from far and wide. Of course, as a toddler, I cant remember the actual
events themself, nor was I there. But I DO remember a man in a suit coming
to see us - Mum - at what must have been just after the funeral. I remember
the gist of the conversation too, in which he said to Mum, in front of me
that as Larry was a pauper (legally) and the only thing he had of value
when they found his body was a pocket watch. The Farmer at Tyrie had known
how fond of each other we were, and arranged 'through the grapevine' to
have it brought to our cottage and he gave it to Mum saying "He'd want
Steven to have it".

Ive always been secretly pleased that, despite my many, many mistakes in
life, I possess a redeeming kernel of truth in the fact that the first
black person I even met loved me, and I loved him ... And I still have the
watch to prove that every adult for miles in every direction knew it.

Preconception is the womb of prejudice - so before you condemn this
unfortunate to an eternity of Hell for cutting through some bits of wire,
take a moment to consider that it might have been sheer, heart rending
desperation that drove him to do so, and not the callous greed that suits a
negative preconception.

UKIP, Immigration and the response of LibCabCon: A Politics of Fear

by Thomas Kiernan

    The United Kingdom Independence Party, in particular Nigel Farage, has spoken of a political earthquake hitting Westminster. With a gain of 161 councillors and 11 MEP’s, Farage has hailed a 5% drop in support from 2013 and victory in an EU election with a turnout of 34% as ‘meteoric’. Whether this alleged earthquake dies down come 2015 is a story for another time, for it is the immediate effect of these results which is far more disturbing.

    The Conservatives have brought forward their promise of a referendum to 2017, and calls for one in 2016 seem tempting in the face of a 3^rd place EU election result. This is unsurprising; with the General Election 12 months away it is clear that Cameron intends to marginalise UKIP by moving his party to the right. The Liberal Democrats, the only loudly pro-EU party contesting the election, were demolished. This was not because the EU argument is lost, but because Nick Clegg could offer a lifetime supply of chocolate for everyone in the country and still find himself on the losing end of any significant vote. Clegg has maintained his stance, in an act of defiance which could be commended if it wasn’t him maintaining it. His party, and any argument they put forward, will be dead in the water as long as he is towing the boat.  

    As for Labour, Ed Miliband has already confirmed, via twitter, that the ‘party has changed its stance on immigration’. This is nothing new, with catchphrases as ‘British jobs for British workers’, a slogan of the BNP, becoming a common feature of all three major parties. What is disappointing is that it has taken the Labour Party less than 48 hours to respond, and have chosen to done so in a way which indicates that Miliband has no intention of taking his party to the left of politics. Instead, Miliband has seemingly agreed to play the politics of fear, pushed by UKIP, that millions of immigrants are due to rush our borders, steal our jobs and nest behind our fridges (let’s hope Godfrey doesn’t check). The party which was once known as inclusive may soon become exclusive to those who bark that immigration is the sole cause of the UK’s problems. It has indirectly resigned itself to support a man who openly admitted that living next to a family of Romanians would make him uncomfortable, and that ‘it was quite clear’ why living next to a family of Romanians was such a tragedy

    The Labour Party had a chance to stand up, admit that they recognised the fears of immigration and then challenge the lies propagated by Farage, James and other significant UKIP figures. We have seen no such backbone protrude out of Labour or any of the major parties, including the floundering Liberal Democrats. It is therefore up to smaller parties, like Respect and The Greens, to act and challenge the status quo. If we do not, I fear this pedalling may lead to a subtle repeat of the 1960’s, in which signs in windows made clear that Irish immigrants were not welcome in the country.

    As a descendant of Irish immigrants from the 50’s, the issue of immigration will always be a close one to my outlook on life. It has become clear that racism and xenophobia is being openly whipped up in the UK. The only difference is that now it is simply rebranded as common sense opposition to immigration. 

‘Police Corruption in the UK- ‘can it be countered?'

By Ian Ross

A critical evaluation of the counter fraud and corruption strategy of a public sector organisation and a discussion to advocate reforms to it that would enhance its effectiveness.

This article will provide an evaluation of a public sector counter fraud and corruption strategy and highlight its strengths and weaknesses, dealing in priority with its weaknesses and with focus on the need to reform it. As a base of understanding we will first summarise the meaning of what constitutes the

‘public sector’ and then detail the defining constituents of its counter corruption strategy, which will be followed by an account of my understanding of the reforms necessary of the counter strategy of my chosen organisation.

In contrast to the private sector, the public sector essentially is funded by the taxpayer. The public sector is made up as an institution of organisations offering public services in differing areas of public amenity support and outputs. A wide range of services make up the public sector; from the National Health Service (NHS), social security and benefits, education and transport, to the police, local government and defence, et al. Public services have emerged from what were previously voluntary tasks by charities and religious organisations. With the growth and expansion and immense legal consolidation, the public sector came to be recognised as the pillars of the state. The key aims are to provide social and welfare support to citizens and consequently large amounts of statutory regulatory and procedurally driven legislation has been passed to both administrate and enforce certain elements of it. An enormous differing and cyclic phenomenon, the public sector attempts to address these issues in terms of how the different services are funded, managed and to whom they are accountable. A definition of the public sector was provided by Jones (2004 p.23) as ‘continually provided goods and services paid for by taxation or other revenues raised by law’.

My chosen public sector organisation is the police force (United Kingdom). One would at least hope that as with all counter fraud and corruption strategies in the public sector, the strategy to counter police corruption would be robust and capable of complete enforcement, as opposed to being a mere theoretical or ‘paper’ policy product. Underlying causes of dissatisfaction as identified by Harrison and Cuneen (2000) is also supported by many academics and writers on this issue, asserted by the quote by Lambert about the inadequacies of the civilian supervisory model:

‘No system, however elaborate, which concentrates on supervision and ex post facto review of police investigations will satisfy the demand that justice will only be seen to be done when the investigation of complaints against the police is taken out of the hands of the police themselves.

Harrison and Cuneen (2000, Liberty p.6.-1.7)

Shaping the discussion to deal with the evaluation of the police corruption strategy, it would first be useful to summarise an account of the meaning of corruption. Defining corruption is relatively simple because a definition for corruption was created in 1889 by reference to the common law offence of bribery and the statutory office committed contrary to Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, passed to deal with corruption in office which later enabled the Prevention of Corruption Act[s] of 1906 and 1916 which created two new ‘alternate’ offences to deal with bribery committed by Agents or bribes given to Agents. The police force is seen the principle law enforcement organisation with a duty of care and as such ought to be the doyen of trust and integrity.

But the problem of police corruption cannot be explained within just a constricted legal framework and such narrow terms of reference. This is because there are numerous academic definitions of police corruption and equally diverse explanations of what actually constitutes corruption. Some authors centre their explanations of corruption as purely criminal conduct (as defined within the criminal law) whilst others open the debate to much wider topics and methods of corruption, including favouritism and nepotism, abuse of power, racism, bribery, case manipulation (abuse of legal process) malpractice and the use of police informants. Newburn (1999) probed more deeply into the matter of defining police corruption in that police corruption is conduct that is mutually exclusive of actual criminal conduct. For example, stealing would not be corruption but wrongful ethical behaviour, the professional ‘grey areas’ would be. Interestingly therefore Newburn and like-minded authors effectively set a challenge to policy makers in setting out a counter corruption strategy by virtue of the fact that they seek to capture all wrongful behaviour. Conduct or behaviour which could not be easily which was passed off as ‘sharp practice’ or which gives ‘cause for concern’ is swept into the meaning of police corruption – and rightly so. Legislation is not enough and the range of attitudes; even the connivance or tacit tolerance of police corruption from within their own ranks and senior officers, is a facet of the police corruption itself and rankles the public and the public good.

Counter corruption strategy governing and supporting the police force is difficult to identify with any immediacy. This is because the huge range and array of corrupt practices now espoused and referenced by Newburn (those not ‘legislated’ for) along with wider definitions and explanations provided by

Roebuck and Barker (1974) with an open definition and Quinton and Miller (2003) who structured their definition and which made wider connections; to leaking information, obtaining money or sexual favours from the public and then returning to the remit of the criminal law, direct conspiracy with criminals to commit crimes.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is now the principal authority which deals with police corruption. The IPCC has succeeded several establishments, some defined by statute. Predecessors of the IPCC were deemed to be a failure became of low success rates in detecting corruption, added to the manifest problem of police culture which stems a deep distrust and lack of faith in the police investigating themselves. This in turn led to a conclusion of the investigations themselves being questionable and not trusted but becoming also being a defining characteristic of police corruption.

The IPCC was created by the Home Office to investigate and monitor complaints against police. This gives an immediate message of the counter corruption strategy being reactive instead of proactive. Also, notwithstanding its central placing concerning police wrongdoing it is still difficult to see beyond the overall role of the IPCC being a mere facilitator when it comes to forming counter corruption strategy. It is acknowledged that the IPCC have successfully investigated notable cases of corruption and secured eventual criminal prosecutions involving police officers and support staff but one must search extensively and deeply to find a strategy which sets out to marginalise corruption in the police force.

One notable success however for the IPCC was to engage with the Children’s Legal Centre. This led to an updated and hugely improved procedure to deal with complaints from children which even contained a section in the report to identify areas for future improvement (Hamilton and Sherwood: 2006).

 However since the inception of the IPCC as an independent organisation, there is no tangible evidence provided by them that any part of their policy sets the belief that continued and systematic engagement and working strategies will ‘naturally’ help them to create good governance frameworks that imbue both an anti-corruption culture, and help to review and implement policies which will marginalise fraudulent and corrupt behaviour and networked activities. The current strategy of the IPCC provides an impactive image to the public of ‘professional standards’ which are et al, police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position, treat information with respect and access or disclose it only in the proper course of police duties, report and challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the standards of professional behaviour expected. The last example is probably the most challenging. This is the grey area and in part alludes to ‘whistle blowing’.

The notoriety in the public sector of whistleblowers being hounded, interlinked with the collaboration culture in the public services adds credence to the evidence that the police are more concerned about getting power for themselves than supporting victims of crime. Moreover, the Home Office report on police overtime published in February 2010 shows ‘concern’ about the dubious ways police overtime is effectively contrived and millions of pounds extracted from the public purse in many forces. One particular force where such malpractice was endemic was helpfully anonimised by the Home Office. Thus the IPCC and their counterparts in the National Policing Improvements Agency (NPIA) are badly in need of strengthening because they have done little to dispel the reputation of the senior command and officers of forces having a ‘couldn’t care less attitude’ towards police corruption per se and more importantly, to the victims of it – the taxpayer. Limited understanding of what police corruption can fully consist of, or selective acknowledgement of, or inconsistent dealing with corruption is a culture still indulged by many Chief Constables. This is ably abetted by the cluster of ACPO policy which has closed many doors to justice for victims.

The inevitable effect on a strategy intended to deter corruption is clear to see. If such notions and patterns of behaviour exist yet the force itself remains aloof from the problems. The police commonly state that they are practitioners and ‘leave the law to the lawyers’ holds equal meaning to the entity that the IPCC are viewed as not just having pole responsibility for dealing with police corruption, but also abandoned to its politics, its methods and peculiar influences in why it occurs and the idiom which varies so much that many officers and staff have difficulty understanding that what they are doing is corrupt.

As one finite example the issue of dubious police overtime, the paying of police informants to ‘turn’ criminals into witnesses or even write them out of a case altogether, on these examples only, we must understand that just as a fraudster, when this is happening, the mind which schemes in corruption is in a nigh-on permanent state of denial.

To another example, but in stark contrast to illustrate this point, is the case of the Metropolitan Police commander Ali Dizaei, a corrupt police officer with a long history of corruption of varied serious criminal conduct in the force, including drug dealing and leaking police information to criminals for payment. Sent to prison eventually, yet astonishingly he has not (at the time of writing) been dismissed by the force which time and again, overlooked serious evidence against him because it feared that Dizaei would instinctively and immediately accuse the force of being racist. Dizaei knew he could push the boundaries and how to use the forces’ fear of appearing racist to make it difficult to investigate him. Dizaei rose through the ranks despite severe reservations about his character and conduct, was constantly making loud proclamations about the ‘cancer of racism’ within the force, and with that activity, always poised to sue for discrimination. Investigations into his criminality were halted on the orders of the highest authorities within the force. Dizaei was at one point untouchable, and de-facto could do no wrong.

The Dizaei case is the epitome, the quintessence of institutional police corruption, but a perverse and twisted example because of a feeble police counter corruption attitudes and made worse by a total abandonment of responsibility by the Metropolitan police force as a public sector organisation, and murky political influences. Dizaei believed that he could get away with anything because he was not white, and this case is also, for the purposes of this evaluation, a clear indicator of the near total failure and even refusal by the police and related authorities to pursue any form of counter corruption strategy. Too scared politically event to follow their own processes.

Police corruption in the UK is now so entrenched and widespread within the service that it is now equal in incidence with most third-world countries (Seed and Palmar, 1998) and the strategies to counter it. Key points of the weaknesses of the current IPCC strategy is that the IPCC whilst it investigates well after the fact, is a lustrous purveyor of mission statements, guidance to the public and assurances. In fact the IPCC in its statutory guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints presents a dominant point of zero tolerance of discrimination, ‘ensuring a diverse approach’ and clear processes for the public to make complaints. This in fact shows a typically political dominance of police policy, highlighted especially by the Dizaei case. But what is evident also, is that the authorities who lead the counter corruption strategy are fragmented in this regard. There is no overall strategy to include all identifiable corrupt activity and further intricacies and problems can be inferred from the IPCC operational advice note (2009): ‘the police have an obligation to preserve evidence so that it is available for the IPCC to enable it to conduct an effective investigation. At the same time a force should not act in a manner that might compromise the independence of the investigation. ‘ Likewise, the regulations governing the conduct of IPCC investigations, one of which being; ‘Before the arrival of IPCC investigators on the scene [of a crime] police officers shall ensure that the scene is secured in a manner that is consistent with the need to preserve all evidence relevant to the investigation of the complaint.’

(Harrison and Cuneen: 2000).

With that are proven cases of the police officer in London in 2009 who was allegedly responsible for the death of Ian Cousins during the summer disturbances in connection with the UK and global recession.

The police tactics of ‘kettling’ was the central controversy of that incident, but after the incident the

Metropolitan Police claimed that there was no CCTV footage available of the incident when Mr Cousins collapsed and died in the street when assaulted by police officers. One police officer at the centre of that case, PC Simon Harwood was cleared of manslaughter on a majority verdict. This officer had been previously investigated a number of times for alleged violence and misconduct. In a string of incidents Harwood was accused of having punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform. One complaint was upheld, yet Harwood was allowed back into the Metropolitan Police - against the advice of the IPCC.

The outrage and inevitable accusation of destroying or suppressing evidence followed (the covering up and closing ranks was the corruption and the IPCC relied on the police who seemingly sabotaged the investigation from the outset). The shooting of Jean Charles De Mendez, not so much the shooting but the police tampering with photographic evidence of the suspect to make him look more like Mendez in a deliberate attempt to mislead a coroners’ court. These incidents along with the preceding points of evaluation, stresses a collective point that the current strategy is deeply flawed and the actual process puts too much trust in the police, ironically instigating an investigation against their own. There is little doubt that the police force needs additional people to address corruption and this reminds us how heuristics in the police force, if not set in firm ethical and foundations will inevitably stray back to police cultural norms of collusion and self-protection.

Successive government have tried and failed, to impose standards of management and accountability such as are taken for granted in the private sector and large parts of the public sector. The last attempt at wholesale change which could have improved the image of the force in corruption cases was prompted by Sir Patrick Sheehy's report in 1994. This was welcomed by many outsiders, but met with complete hostility from the Police Federation and nearly all senior officers. Likewise police authorities are ineffectual monitors of their local forces, so there is little chance of ferreting out corruption as the constant inner cyclic political forces at play are never still long enough to settle the problems of police corruption and ‘strategy’ successes are sporadic hits on corrupt officers whilst day-to-day corruption is widespread and constant.

In my evaluation also, there is a chronic weakness in middle management. It can be dismaying that the response of police officers to almost any problem is to invent a new form for solving it. They work in a fantastically bureaucratised system, in some ways forced upon them by centrally imposed targets, so one could even argue that certain elements of police corruption are a natural product of the organisation and the pressures it creates.

Societal shifts will also form the crux of recommendations of reforms of the counter corruption strategy, meaning advances in technology, creating new opportunities of corruption and sophisticated criminal activity meets firmly with the police force day-to-day; that is in the world that is characterised by employment insecurity and the primacy of economic goals, drivers of corruption are as diverse as the acts themselves.

A standard and consistent (compulsory) external training programme should be provided to all involved in the police complaints processes. The training should raise the standard of understanding the civil against criminal outcome dilemma in dealing with corruption cases, namely if the conduct warrants a criminal case or the case is disposed of by other resolutions and case outcomes. This area is the one most often confused at present and misunderstood to do nothing at all. An overriding ‘police corruption Act’ would be necessary with a dominant regularly function (as per the current Bribery Bill 2010) to impose conformance of strategy in reporting corruption and an offence of negligently allowing or permitting corruption to take place. But more importantly, behind that, to remove the excuses and loop holes exploited by senior police officers as do politicians, about the rules not being clear and that it is someone else’s problem (such as the IPCC who do not get the precise co-operation they ought to have). But of key importance, a statutory requirement to overcome the nonsense identified by the IPCC themselves concerning the obligation to preserve evidence for the IPCC. Such police conduct suppressing evidence and incapacitating IPCC or other investigations as in the De Mendes and Cousins cases, should constitute criminal offences in their own right. This is because at present the police cannot be trusted to support the IPCC and merely use the IPCC as a fake flag of independence in having complaints handled – especially complaints about corruption.

Finally, overblown political dominance should be a specific target of deliberation. Political agendas should not be allowed to rule over justice.

REFERENCES

Association of Chief Police Officers (2007). Practice advice: introduction to intelligence-led policing. www.acpo.police.uk/asp/plicies/Data/Intelligence_led_policing

Crown Prosecution Service (2007).

Jones, P. (2004). Fraud and Corruption in public services: a guide to risk and prevention. London, Gower.

IPCC (2010). Statutory guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.

IPCC operational advice note (July 2009) extract from the new IPCC Manual of Guidance issued on the 13th July 2009

Hamilton, C., and Sherwood, S., (2006). Complaints from children: the new police complaints procedure.

Report. The Children’s Legal Centre (CLS).

Harrison, J and Cuneen, M.,(2000). An Independent Police Complaints Commission. The National Council for Civil Liberties.

Human Rights Act 1998

JUSTICE IN POLICING, (2007) A joint and thematic review of the handling of cases involving an allegation of a criminal offence by a person serving with the police. HM Crown Prosecution Service. Prosecution Service Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.

Newburn, T. (1999). Understanding and preventing police corruption: lessons from literature. Police Research Series. Paper 110. London: Home Office.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Police Reform Act 2002

Prevention of Corruption Act 1906

Prevention of Corruption Act 1916

Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889

Roebuck, J.B., & Barker, T. (1974). A typology of police corruption. Social Problems.

Quinton, P., & Barker, J. (2003). Promoting ethical policing: findings of research on new misconduct procedures and police corruption. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdslr1203.pdf

(Seed, G., and Palmar, A., (1998). ‘Police corruption in the UK at ‘third world levels’. Reported from: www.telgraph.co.uk/archive/1998/09/27

The Sheey Report, Value for money in policing’. Sir Patrick Sheehy's report in 1994, reported from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/police-in-peril-from-sheehy-report-1463380.html

Wells, J. T. (2007) Corporate fraud handbook: prevention and detection. 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. I

‘We’re All In This Together: A Fairytale Story by Cameron, Osborne and the Conservative Party at Large’

by Thomas Kiernan, Respect Party Member

    At 21 years of age, I occasionally come under the generalised criticism of knowing nothing about ‘real politics’. This is far more common when people learn I am an ardent supporter of politicians such as the Respect MP for Bradford West, George Galloway, as well as veteran Labour MP for Bolsover, Dennis Skinner.  What these critics mean by real politics, I have often found, is little more than their own opinions about economic philosophy, political ideology and why the Conservative Party has the best of both. So, in order to put that criticism to bed, this article will be mainly dedicated to the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition which has run roughshod during my time as both a college student and law student at Lancaster University.

David Cameron famously stated at the 2010 Conservative Party conference that “we’re all in this together”. He was, of course, referring to his party’s economic austerity programme which was about to sweep across the entire United Kingdom. He assured us that everybody would feel the pinch and that we would all face the outcome of ‘difficult decisions’ made by Cameron, Osborne and his seemingly out-of-touch ministers. It only took a month for the universities minister to announce that students would be the first to be pinched, with tuition fees tripled from £3000 to £9000 and an economic warning shot fired across the bow of the less-well off students amongst us. Nick Clegg and the majority of his party’s MPs sold their largest political fan base (the student population) and will hopefully suffer substantial losses at the 2015 general election. They certainly deserve it.

    In 2012, George Osborne released a budget which saw a primary attempt to shield their true allegiances. Whilst they increased the tax threshold for millions of poorly paid workers, which is to be welcomed, they decreased the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p and there are suspicions that this will be reduced to 40p before the end of this Parliament. Labour were guilty of not raising the top rate of tax for over a decade, but the Conservatives have insisted that we’re all in this together. Whilst the rate of people’s disposable income continues to spiral in real terms, those earning over £150,000 will see their rates of disposable income increase when it is simply not necessary. Basic economics tells you that the less-well off spend a greater percentage of their income, whilst those tax breaks at the top are more likely to be saved and thus taken out of the economy altogether. Imagine the savings made by millionaires in Britain. Just imagine. Rich people were definitely not going to be pinched.

    And then there is Iain Duncan Smith’s wonderful bedroom tax which came into force from April 2013, or the removal of the spare room subsidy for the more pedantic critics. I would prefer to call a spade a spade, and argue it to be the most demonising policy against the truly struggling in recent history. The government assured us that this would save money, ensure that more houses were available and would not significantly impact those set to lose money as a result. He failed magnificently on all three accounts. Almost immediately, we heard of people who could not find a place to live and instead had to suffer a draconian cut to their welfare payments. Approximately 6% of people have moved and the measure has been argued to have cost more than it saved. It is a truly damning reality of how the Conservative Party has attacked the welfare state.  To round it all off, our own chancellor had the nerve to consider the story of Mick Philpott as a valid platform in which to support IDS’ reform of the welfare system. The poorer amongst us have almost certainly been pinched.
  

    Then we have the recent case of Maria Miller’s expenses scandal. The Tory minister gave both Parliament and the public a half-hearted apology and made it clear to the voters that she did not feel as though she had wronged us. The Prime Minister and the Tory chairman Grant Shapps have vehemently defended Millers conduct after her expenses were exposed, truly highlighting that they do not recognise the reality which would befall any member of the public caught acting in such a way. They would be grilled, sacked and ridiculed as a thief, or at best cascaded as an unapologetic and ungrateful employee. Mrs Miller proved herself to be worse: an ungrateful public servant. To put the cherry on the cake, Cameron has replaced the position of Minister for Women, a post held by Miller, with Nicky Morgan. A woman who has a voting record which shows she is a two-time opponent of same-sex marriage (the Minister for Straight Women?) and a supporter of policies which would reduce the reproductive choices of women (the Minister against Women?). 

    I could write about so many more policies, but I just wished to highlight the main reasons why I am a fervent supporter of the left in British politics. I will support any party which wishes to better the lives of working class and middle class people in Britain. The rich do not need assistance as long as they exist in a capitalist system which already supports them before a Conservative government decides to further their interests. I refuse to support a party which demonises the poor and encourages different members of society to blame other members for their own hardship. Austerity has only resulted in a squeeze for those who need the State’s hand in a recession: the poor, the disabled and the young who are simply in search of a better future for themselves. Instead, we have a society which supports the vilification of those in need and those who have strived to help them, for example the late and great RMT leader Bob Crow. Until this significantly changes, I see no reason to change my support for parties such as Respect and I encourage anybody reading this article to do the same. As it stands, not even the Labour Party does enough to support those worse-off and a serious question needs to be asked of so many Labour MP’s today.

What reason exactly was it that caused the Labour party to form in 1900?

Thank you for reading,

Thomas Kiernan