Young Carers: We're Aiming too Low

There's been a lot on the news this week about young carers, with BBC figures suggesting that the number of children with caring responsibilities may be up to four times the number previously estimated (that's 1 in 12 children surveyed). This figure is actually a little deceptive in itself, because it only includes children who have responsibilities for "personal care" (dressing, washing, bathing). The survey also found that 29% of young people taking part were providing "emotional care" to a member of their household (e.g. reading or sitting with someone or going for walks with them).

As part of the coverage of this story, BBC Breakfast this morning included a feature on a 17 year old boy who cares for both his mother and his autistic brother, and has cared for his brother since he was 9 years old. The mother described how her son had wanted to take his A-Levels so he could go to university, but his caring responsibilities made this impossible. The feature was followed by an interview with a government minister who stressed the importance of providing "respite" to young carers, such as holidays and breaks.

Now don't get me wrong. I know that holidays and breaks are important for young carers, in fact the charity I work for provides a mentoring scheme specifically for just that purpose. But promising these young people an occasional outing or weekend break is not good enough. The job of charities to alleviate suffering. The job of government is to tackle problems so that there is less suffering for charities to alleviate. Aiming to provide respite is aiming too low. The government should be working to get these young people out of this situation, not to provide temporary relief.

This is one of the things which pisses me off most about this government. They don't even aim to transform people's lives. The Labour governments we've had for the past 13 years certainly let a lot of people down, but at least they set goals to try and tackle these problems. The coalition simply chooses to respond to social problems with "we don't have enough money for that" before reverting to the usual waffle about "tough choices."

It's probably inevitable that some young people will end up having caring responsibilities. Some of them have disabled or sick relatives, others may have parents with alcohol or substance addiction. In the past, we probably would have yanked them out of that situation and put the children in care, which did a lot of damage for both sides. Taking young carers out of the home is not always the best solution, but that doesn't mean we can simply accept a situation where 1 in 12 children effectively lose their childhood and put their future in jeopardy because their families aren't being given the support they need by the state. We are using child labour to do work that should be done by paid qualified adults and no amount of praise for those "brave" children or weekend breaks in the Lake District will make that acceptable.

The coalition needs to stop referring to "tough choices" as an excuse to neglect the most vulnerable people in society. The really tough thing to do is to commit to making people's lives better and if that means that taxes go up and the deficit doesn't go down, then tough shit. By exploiting the vulnerable to rescue the economy, they're taking the easy way out. We need to stop letting them get away with it.

The Emergency Budget: The Good, The Bad and the Downright Stupid

THE GOOD:

- Will Hutton to draw up plans for fairer public sector pay: those at the top will not be paid more than 20 times those at the bottom. Obviously, reducing the disparity is a good thing, but 20 times more is still far too much.

- Capital gains tax to rise from 18% to 28% for higher earners. This is still less than people were expecting and there are myriad loopholes.

- From April 2011, state pension to be relinked with earnings.

- The 10% Capital gains tax rate for entrepreneurs, which currently applies to the first £2m of qualifying gains made over a lifetime, will be extended to the first £5m of lifetime gains. This has obviously come from the Lib Dems.

THE BAD:

- Two year public sector pay freeze for those earning more than £21,000. The last thing we need right now is employees abandoning the public sector.

- Rise in state pension age to 66 to be accelerated. If you come home from work knackered now, imagine how bad it's going to be at 65.

- Child benefit to be frozen for the next 3 years. Given that the price of food and clothes is going to go up, this is unacceptable.

- Introduction of caps on housing benefit. Incidentally, only one in eight housing benefit recipients is unemployed.

- VAT to increase to 20% on 4th January next year. This is the worst part of the budget, the part which will affect the poorest people most adversely. Prices of food, clothing, transport and everything else will go up, whilst benefits are conversely being slashed.

- Corporation tax to fall over 4 years from 28% to 24%. This will benefit the average household, but it also represents a boost to private wealth at the expense of public services.

- Reversal of previous decision to increase duties on cider by 10% above inflation. Even as a cider lover myself, this won't have a significant impact on my finances, but it will lose a lot of money which the government should be spending on the government sector.

THINGS I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF:

- Scrapping the 50p monthly tax on phone lines to pay for the roll-out of superfast broadband. I've never been fully convinced that superfast broadband is necessary (even on one of the cheapest packages available, my broadband is still fast enough for most purposes), but is 50p a month really so much to ask?

THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION

There have been several missed opportunities here. Why not raise income tax for higher earners? Where is this much trumpeted levy on bank profits? Why not help people to get off benefits with enterprise and training schemes?

But my real anger about this comes from the VAT rise. This will affect everyone, regardless of status and income, whilst the rich have been let off the hook. Is it necessary? I don't see how the desire to bring down the national debt (especially at a time when everyone has national debt) can justify pushing people into crime and associating with loan sharks.

Obviously, the budget focuses on the economy. But politicians seem to have forgotten that the economy itself is an abstract concept. Ultimately, this is about human beings and any move that prioritises potential economic growth above the welfare of the most vulnerable members of society is preposterous and unjustifiable.

Harriet Harman has called the good bits in this Budget a "fig leaf." Diane Abbot has reported that the Lib Dems in parliament were mostly sombre and ashen when the Budget was read out. It has already been condemned by union leaders, Save the Children, Shelter, the Labour Party, the New Economics Foundation and the vice chair of the Lib Dem federal policy committee.

Chancellor George Osbourne had the gall to call this a "progressive" budget... and to be fair, it probably was back when the world was believed to be flat.

And so it begins

Yes. I'm a little bit annoyed.

For those who haven't heard, Gordon Brown handed his resignation in to the Queen today and David Cameron is officially now our Prime Minister, thanks to a deal with the Liberal Democrats that has enabled the Conservatives to form a parliamentary majority.

We now have a Conservative government for the first time in 13 years, albeit with a slightly yellow tinge. Those of us who remember the 1980s and 1990s will know that we spent what seemed like forever trying to get rid of the last one.

I was once a member of the Liberal Democrats. As a fan of Old Labour policies, they seemed for a long time like the only party of the main three who even remotely represented my beliefs. As it happened, my naivety about Lib Dem policies was shattered when they got rid of Charles Kennedy as leader because of his alcoholism. I had believed until then that, somehow, the Liberal Democrats represented a better way of doing politics, as signified by their belief in voting reform and open and accountable politics.

I suspect a lot of people have had their naivety about the Liberal Democrats shattered today. The fact that they have never been in government before gave them a slither of credibility when they said "we're different." Today they've proved that they're not. Nick Clegg has made the proverbial deal with the devil in order to get his party into power. If he believed even half of the Liberal Democrats' policies when he joined the party, then his beliefs should be so fundamentally different from the Conservatives that he could not even contemplate helping them get into power.

Let's not forget the origins of the Liberal Democrats. They were formed by a combination of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. The Liberal Party survived tough times in the 1970s thanks to their pact with Jim Callaghan's Labour Party and the SDP was formed in the 1980s when a breakaway group of Labour MPs thought that the party had gone too far to the left (ironically, it was Labour's opposition to nuclear weapons which was seen as a sign they had gone loony left at the time). So deep down, the Liberal Democrats is a party of people who have far more in common than Labour than with Conservatives.

When New Labour appeared in the mid 1990s, the Liberal Democrats seemed left-wing by comparison. Under Clegg, the party has drifted more to the right, whilst Labour are now the strongest party standing for social justice. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of New Labour. They made a great many mistakes: tuition fees, Iraq, Afghanistan, stealth privatisation, failure to reform politics, etc. But they also did a great number of positive things, whilst the last Tory government left nothing but a huge shadow over Britain. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats should be entirely unreconcilable. But power corrupts.

Some people have said they've felt sorry for Clegg in the position he's been in since Friday. I don't. He's clearly fucking loved it. Despite coming third in the polls, he was for a few days the most powerful man in Britain, and he milked it for every last drop. I'm not saying it was an easy decision to make - indeed, there was no "fair outcome" here except possibly another general election. But this is exactly the worst decision he could have made. I will never vote Liberal Democrat again, unless the party rebels against this coalition and pushes Clegg out over it.

So what do we have to look forward to now? The Conservatives have apparently agreed to a referendum over the Alternative Vote system, but that is not the same as promising to implent it. There's nothing to stop them campaigning against it in the run up to the referendum. Details will probably come out in the next few days about what the Lib Dems have obtained in return for their support - but it's unlikely to be anything that fundamentally goes against the Conservative ethos of laissez faire government, help for big business and complete disregard for social justice.

The next time you lose your job you may be forced to take one in McDonalds. The next time you need an operation you may have to wait months rather than weeks because of NHS cutbacks. The next time you look for a new job you may find there are twice as many people applying than there were a year ago. The next time you go into town you may find three more shops have closed.

This is a shitty day for Britain and an even worse day for democracy.

Election Fever: Final Scores

Except, well... it's not the final scores really, is it? There's still so much to play for, although we've reached the point where the electorate no longer have any say in it. There's also doubt over whether these results are the final results, given that some people were turned away from polling stations even though they'd arrived before 10pm. It's pretty disgraceful when people are denied their right to vote just because there aren't enough administrators to process the queues. Why didn't the polling stations simply stay open until everyone had voted? This isn't America, y'know, we don't expect that kind of scandal over here.

Anyway... the final results, in terms of seats, vote share and geography. The graph below is shamelessly nicked from the Guardian's website.

Look at that results map. As you can see, the North of England is broadly Labour territory. We really should have our own parliament - in fact there were plans for a regional parliament in the North West years ago, championed by John Prescott, but it was unpopular with the public because it was deemed too expensive and not powerful enough. But at least it would have paved the way for more regional autonomy, and given the results above, that's certainly something we need.

As you can see from the pie chart, the Conservatives only secured about a third of all votes. Labour's vote share is probably higher than most people expected. The Liberal Democrats actually did very poorly in terms of vote share and ended up losing seats. They would probably make the point that almost 25% of people voted for them, yet they get less than 10% of the seats in parliament because of our screwed up voting system. This is a valid point to make - at times, the current system has screwed us all, regardless of our political preferences. Reform is long overdue. But you still can't escape the fact that the Liberal Democrats have really underperformed here. What happened to Cleggmania? How have they not managed to significantly increase their vote share after the breakthrough made in the election debates?

There's always been an assumption on the part of the Lib Dems that, if they could make such a breakthrough and if the voting system was reformed, that they would be catapulted into the big leagues. But even if we had proportional representation, they would still only have come third. Yet at this moment Nick Clegg is potentially the most powerful man in Britain. It is up to Clegg and his party now to decide whether our next government will be predominatly Conservative or predominantly Labour. Doesn't that strike you as just a little bit unfair?

When I started this series of blogs, I stated that I wanted to vote Liberal Democrat but thought it would be more practical to vote Labour. My position has shifted significantly during the election campaign and I doubt now that I'll ever vote again for any party other than Labour. To be fair, I've been drifting away from the Liberal Democrats ever since they dropped their best policy - the one penny in the pound tax for education. They've been moving further to the right since Clegg became leader and during this campaign I've seen a lot of things I don't like. His reaction to Bigotgate was one of them. Clegg has always claimed that his party would usher in a new way of conducting politics, yet he was as quick as anyone else to jump on the bandwagon and castigate Brown. Clegg's incredulous claim that he has never said anything about anyone behind their back is ridiculous. Everybody moans about their customers, colleagues and bosses. It's human nature. In the debates, Clegg came off as pious and smug, whilst Brown has seemed more and more human throughout the campaign.

Now Clegg is showing his true colours by announcing that he will listen to the Tories offer for a coalition before talking to Labour. He says the party with the biggest vote share has the right to make an offer first. In a sense, I can see where he's coming from - if Labour and the Lib Dems formed a coalition government and left the Tories out in the cold after obtaining the biggest vote share, many people would be outraged. But in terms of policies, beliefs and practices, the Lib Dems have almost nothing in common with the Tories. To make a pact with them would be to betray the people who voted Lib Dem. What you have to remember here is that most Lib Dem voters, if given a choice between Labour and Tory, would choose Labour. Most of them would be appalled to see Clegg helping the Tories into power.

Cameron says that Brown has lost his mandate to govern. But none of the main parties have a mandate to govern now. Despite the fact that they were up against a party that has been in power for 13 years with a hugely unpopular prime minister, the Conservatives still couldn't manage an overall majority. In fact, 64% of voters chose not to vote for them. That's hardly an endorsement from the masses.

The best way to sort this out would be to have another general election, this time with an alternative vote system. This is a system whereby each voter can assign a number to each candidate on the voting ballot in order of preference. So on my ballot, Labour would be first preference, Lib Dem would be second, etc. Of course, this is impractical given how long it would take to introduce such a system and work out the bugs. The Tories would never go for it anyway - they are wholly against proportional representation because it threatens their concentrated power bases. So with 62% of voters choosing parties that advocate proportional representation, the single largest party is one that will not even contemplate it.

What will happen now? Who knows? The Liberal Democrats, despite coming third, are now in position to decide who governs Britain. They will either choose a party which has only secured 34% of votes or a party that has only secured 29% of votes. Alternatively, they may refuse to form a coalition with anyone, which will mean a minority government that can't get any legislation passed through parliament.

In any case, it's a shitty shitty day for democracy.

Election Fever #7

With less than 10 hours before the polling booths open, the latest Guardian/ICM poll is showing the Conservatives ahead on 33% with 28% of voters intending to vote Labour and the same amount intending to vote Liberal Democrat. Of course, our skewed voting system means that the final make-up of parliament could look completely different - even with a smaller vote share, Labour could still end up with more seats than the Tories. All in all, it's too close to call.

I'm predicting one of two outcomes tomorrow:
1) A win for the Tories, although I don't expect it to be a landslide.
2) A result where no party wins outright, leading to an awkward coalition between the Tories/Lib Dems or Labour/Lib Dems.

I'm hoping against hope that I'm wrong. After all, there have been bigger electoral surprises in the past. In 1992, Labour were very confident that Neil Kinnock would be in Downing Street before Friday dinnertime. In the end, it turned out that the Tories efforts to paint them as the party of "tax and spend" had been more successful than anyone thought. Then again, there is the alternative theory: that people just didn't want a ginger Welshman as Prime Minister.

Politics, sadly, has become more personality-driven than policy-driven over the past quarter century. Many people blame this on Tony Blair, but whilst Pinning The Blame On Blair is one of my favourite past-times, it goes back way before that. The cult of personality started with Thatcher, who was herself influenced by politics in America. So now we have a society which is not asking itself "what will a Tory win mean for me?" but instead "I don't fancy that Gordon Brown." Which is, of course, ridiculous.

For someone who has studied politics, it's enormously frustrating. I've chosen to tactically vote Labour after many hours of consideration. Some people will turn up at the voting booths and plump for the Tories or the Lib Dems because they were impressed with what they saw of Cameronbot and Cleggbot during the TV debates. They will be completely unaware of the history of those parties, the philosophical reasoning behind their policies or the implications of their vote. But their vote carries just as much weight as mine. That's democracy for you.

It's a truism that politics often involves making difficult decisions, but come tomorrow the whole nation will be faced with a difficult choice. Politics in the 21st century is often about choosing the least of all evils. We can fool ourselves that this isn't the case, telling ourselves that Clegg is the British Obama or that any change right now would be a positive one. But what it ultimately comes down to is this: do we want the shitty government we already have? Or one which will make Gordon Brown look like Mother Theresa?

Election Fever #6

The opinion polls are saying that David Cameron won the final leadership debate. Who the hell have they been polling? My thoughts below:

DIMBLEBY: At last, a proper host for these debates. The difference in production quality between this debate and the previous debates was immense. Good old BBC, let's hope the Tories don't damage you too much. However, Dimbleby's opening question ("who do you want to be prime minister?") is a misnomer. Most of us don't get to choose the prime minister, we only get to choose our local MP. These debates show just how far we've drifted towards a presidential style of government.

CAMERON: My god, what a fuckwit. He starts out by saying he would NEVER consider joining the Euro, which is somewhat short-sighted, since we don't know what will happen to the British and EU economies in ten years time. Once again, he dwelled on the National Insurance rise whilst simultaneously admitting he would be making cuts left, right and centre (and not just "waste"). When Brown said that nobody paid under £20,000 a year would be affected, Cameron responded that people who earn over £20,000 a year shouldn't be considered "rich." They are in my book. Cameron completely failed to justify his plans to cut inheritance tax (which only applies to those getting over £260,000) and continually evaded Brown's questions. His attempts to attack the prospective Liberal Democrat amnesty for illegal immigrants were pathetic and cynical and his attempts to demonise the unemployed, teenagers and all civil servants were ridiculous.

CLEGG: Continued to be strong in the final debate. He was a bit uncomfortable when Cameron brought up the manifesto proposal for the amnesty for illegal immigrants, but eventually owned up to it and acquitted himself well in justifying it. His attempts to endear himself by putting Cameron and Brown in the same boat were embarassing, but that sort of thing tends to impress voters unfortunately. I have to admit, I would probably benefit greatly from the proposed rise in the tax allowance, but where is it coming from? Strong on housing, education and banker bonuses. Not so strong on unemployment - it's not just about giving people incentives to work, you also have to give them jobs that are worth doing. My main issue with Clegg is still the fact that he can't win and he's trying to deceive people into believing otherwise.

BROWN: Still has more substance than the other two, but these debates didn't do him any favours. He was forced onto the defensive, having to continually attack Cameron and Clegg's proposals rather than big up his own ideas. He did point out his own successes, but his biggest disadvantage is the fact that he's had 13 years in government (although it seems reasonable to point out that he has only been PM for the last couple). Problems - won't put global levy on banks until there is international agreements, didn't seem as hard on banker bonuses as Clegg and Cameron, failure to take a stand on immigration. Still made some great points about the Conservative policies though.

All in all, Clegg is the biggest winner from these debates. It may be that he can ride this momentum to force us into a hung parliament, but there is still no chance of him winning the election. People underestimate the difficulty of the Lib Dems winning even a few more seats under the current voting system, which is part of why we need electoral reform. The first past the post system rewards parties that have solid geographic centres of support, rather than a high level of support spread around the country.

The downside of these debates is that we are now more likely to find ourselves voting on issues such as personality and who is best at playing the game. Whereas the man who has the best chance of sorting out this mess comes across as defensive, elitist and tired.

Election Fever #5

So the third and final leader debate is taking place tonight at 8.30pm and being shown on BBC1. I'm not intending to liveblog the whole thing, but I will be watching and will doubtless have something to say afterwards. Meanwhile, here are some things which have been amusing me to tide you over:

Who has David Cameron been talking to?
This link will take you to a nifty little device which generates Cameron-like implausible claims of what the electorate has been telling him. My favourite so far? "Last week, I met a Jewish foreign sort, who told me that Facebook had been shouting at buses on the high street."

And there are plenty of mock-Conservative posters out there, but this one, inspired by yesterday's events, is my new favourite:

It's a shame I'm not watching an election unfold like this is another country - it would all be so much more entertaining if the future of my country didn't depend on it.

Election Fever #4: Bigotgate Special

Scenario: Gordon Brown is doing a walkabout in Rochdale. Talks to stupid old woman who is angry over government debt and "all these eastern Europeans what are coming in." Gets back in car, not realising he is still wearing TV microphone. Describes stupid woman as "bigoted."

In what kind of twisted society is this labelled a "gaffe"?

Politicians, in their idiotic attempts to win over the "common man" frequently tell us that it's not racist to express concern over immigration. But there is no valid concern over immigration. The UK has reaped the benefits of immigration throughout its history. There are as many people leaving the UK as there are coming in. Immigrants do not have unfair advantages over anyone else. Immigrants are not to blame for the recession. Immigrants are NOT taking our jobs and immigrants have as much right to be here as anyone else.

So yes: expressing concern over immigration does make you a racist, because there are no valid concerns to be expressed.

The PM made what he believed to be a private comment. The media swooped, barely containing their glee when they informed the stupid old hag what he had said about her. The whole event was immediately blown out of proportion - taking up much of the evening news broadcasts as well as the North West regional news programmes. Twitter is on fire (although it has to be said that reaction seems mostly pro-Gordon). Many people say they have increased respect for Gordo, and I admit that I count myself amongst that number. Of course, he has to apologise because unfortunately there are plenty of racist cunts whose vote he needs to win the election. But make no mistake, he revealed today that, although he knows he has to appeal to those who are concerned over immigrants (i.e. racists), he knows deep down that immigration is not Britain's problem.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the three main political parties persist in perpetuating the delusion that immigration is a significant issue. All the main problems caused in UK politics have been caused by white British men. Most problems in this country eminate from the fact that we have too many people who are overpaid, undertaxed and too selfish to contribute fairly to society. This in turn means that there are too many people who are underpaid, angry, out of work, living in poverty, poorly educated, receiving poor health services, not getting paid enough pension or benefits money, disillusioned, apathetic, victims of crime, at risk of engaging in crime, alienated, turning to substance abuse and subject to a plethora of other social problems. Helping these people should be the priority of all British politicians, whilst the Tories in particular only care about securing the votes of those who don't really need state support.

It's about time the three main parties acknowledged this fact and confronted the immigration issue. They can't hope to win on this by tough-talking on the issue - after all, none of them are as hardline on the issue as the BNP or even UKIP. So why not get together and push the message that immigration is NOT a problem in Britain and that blaming immigrants for our problems IS racist and unacceptable? Why not publish the figures that back up the truth: that immigrants don't get priority for housing, that they don't get preferential treatment in applying for jobs, that there aren't that many of them, that they don't commit disproportionate amounts of crime and that they are fundamental to the UK economy? Why are they letting the racists gain ground on this issue? If they got together, they could demolish the BNP without breaking a sweat.

It's a shame that isn't likely to happen, but nonetheless today's events have reassured me that Gordon Brown is the best man to run the country of the three main party leaders. Any lingering prospect of me voting Lib Dem disappeared when Nick Clegg declared that he would NEVER say something about someone behind their back. Bull-fucking-shit. We all say things we don't mean in public in order to be diplomatic. This isn't being two-faced, it's being polite. It's a sign that you're not a fucking moron.

As for Gillian Duffy, the ignorant cunt bitch who started all of this, rumours are she will sell her "story" to a tabloid paper for upwards of £50K. And she's probably also handed the election to the Tories. Not bad for a "lifelong Labour voter."

Meanwhile, here is a blog post from an Eastern European woman living in the UK. Puts it all in perspective:

http://elmyra.livejournal.com/498792.html

Live Blogging the first Election Debate

10.05 - The end. Instant reaction follows, but who cares what the public think?

10.00 - And that's the end. They all get 90 seconds for closing statements.
Clegg - "Thanks for watching, we're not liars, please waste your vote on us."
Brown - "Slow and steady wins the economic race."
Cameron - "Values, values, values, all in it together. Except Labour."
That must have been the slowest 4.5 minutes of my life.

9.59 - All three just repeating themselves now. Carers are great, urgent needs measures, people shouldn't give up homes, there should be consensus. Clegg loves the fuck out of the consensus.

9.56 - It's the "carers are bloody great" club. We know. Stop fudging. They all agree that all carers should get a week off. So why hasn't it been done? Brown has introduced more respite care. Urgent needs measure will help people stay in their own home. Cameron agrees there should be consensus on this. Why this issue particularly? They're happy to rip the shit out of each other normally, what's so different about the issue of elderly care?

9.54 - Brown says the elderly should be able to keep their homes. Committed to meeting urgent needs now. Cameron wants to give carers more rights. Where's the money coming from, Dave? Maybe we should raise National Insurance or somethingr?

9.52 - Alistair Stewart tells them to shut the fuck up. Final question. About care of the elderly. Cameron thinks it is wrong that rich people have to pay for their care, but poor people don't. Clegg wants politicians to set aside differences and have a big pow-wow. Yeah. That won't work.

9.51 - This debate could continue forever.

Cameron: The national insurance rise is bad.
Brown: The Tories will spend less money on good stuff.
Clegg: You're both liars! Let's be honest.

Repeat over and over, ad infinitum.

9.47 - Clegg says it is a phoney debate. Brown goes back to the bit about Cameron making too many cuts. Cameron goes back to the bit about the NI rise. This is getting very repetitive now. When will it be over.

9.45 - Health question. And Cameron has just brought up his dead son. Cameron loves the NHS, apparently. Talks about more "choice" for the patient (i.e. instead of making bad hospitals better, you get the right to fuck off to a better hospital 50 miles away. Woo). Clegg says money has been wasted on computer systems and managers whilst A&E wards are shutting down. Brown points out there are many more nurses and doctors, points out that waiting lists are all but gone. People forget now, but waiting lists were a massive issue in the early 90s. Brown says he will guarantee GP surgery at evenings/weekends and Cameron will not. Cameron drags up the NI rise again.

And... I'm bored and need to eat my dinner before it goes any colder. Back in a bit.

9.30 - Question about armed forces. Clegg wants to save money on trident, tax credits, etc and give that money to the armed forces. Brown goes on about how bloody great the army are. Spending on equipment has increased apparently. Brown wouldn't send troops into battle unless equipped. Cameron pays tribute to forces. Blah. You all love the fucking army, we get it. Cameron doesn't think we "do do enough for them." Ha. Doo doo. Cameron says we should invest in territorial army.

9.29 - Clegg says tax on banks is unavoidable and we can't afford trident. Cameron says it's "extraordinary" that Brown wants to keep "wasting" money. Fuck off, Cameron, you're going on and on about waste and IT'S NOT THE FUCKING ISSUE.

9.27 - Clegg bemoans the fact that some city bankers pay less tax than cleaners. Clegg says Brown wants to spend money now so he can put up taxes later. Brown says big savings will be made, but National Insurance rise will help pay for education, health and police. Cameron says that businesses are more scared by NI rise than by tax. Frankly, if we listened to big business, we'd still getting deeper and deeper into recession.

9.25 - Brown says he has America and Europe on his side, only Cameron thinks more money shouldn't be put in. Brown says let's take no risks. Clegg says cuts will be made, but who is being honest about the scale of them? Only him, so he says. Clegg suggests that regardless of election, that chancellor, shadow chancellors and Bank of England all come together to be honest about the situation.

9.23 - Cameron highlights press stories about waste in the public sector. Says giving up waste would be good for economy. But it won't just be waste, will it? Clegg points this out. Would impose 10% profit tax on banks. Good idea. Attacks Cameron for focusing on mythical waste issues. Brown points out that the Tories can't possibly save so much just by cutting waste.

9.22 - Brown gives us a history lesson about what has already happened. Brown says you can't afford to take money from the economy now. Will lead to lost jobs, businesses and growth. Warns against double dip recession. Again. This is probably a sound argument, but it's very vague.

9.19 - Next question is about how they will ensure economic growth and get the deficit down. Why is the deficit important again? Cameron starts on about the National Insurance raise again. Clegg says his manifesto gives the figures to save £15billion. Will end child trust fund, cap public sector pay increases and reduce family tax credits. All bad ideas. His good idea? Scrap trident nuclear missiles. Yay.

9.18 - Alistair Stewart stops them because he knows what questions are and they don't? Really? They're well rehearsed then.

9.17 - Cameron says Brown is making up the numbers. Clegg says the more they attack each other, the more they sound the same. Clegg wants more freedom for teachers and smaller class sizes. Brown says the aim of academies is to do this. Clegg says that maintaining spending is important but also bemoans waste. Comfortable on that fence, Nick?

9.13 - Cameron wants good discipline. Bring back the wooden rulers! Wants to make it easier for teachers to make exclusions. Good teachers don't want to make exclusions. Clegg values creativity and says smaller class sizes are the way. Wants to bring it down to 20 in primary schools and 16 in secondaries. Cameron bemoans waste. Brown says teachers cost money. Cameron starts on about the National Insurance rise and says this will take money from schools and colleges. Brown says they will take £6billion out, where is it coming from?

9.11 - Clegg says pupils have to jump through hoops. National Curriculum is 600 pages and Sweden's is 16. Clegg repeats a statistic that Cameron has just given as if nobody's ever heard it before. Facepalm. Gordo says every school should be a good school. Praises record of academies taking over failing schools. Privatisation by another name.

9.08 - Education. A seventeen year old who is "overexamined and undertaught" wants to know about their policies. Brown wants full time education to age of 18. Defends examinations as key to competing with Asia and Europe. Cameron says education is important. Duh. Moans on about bureaucracy again. So if your child was smacked by a teacher, you wouldn't want a written record of it?

9.07 - Clegg disputes that Labour will do anything of value to the House of Lords. Cameron glories in the fact that Nick refuses to agree with Gordo. Brown wants an MP to be elected with more than 50% of the vote. Good idea, but why not do it ten years ago? Clegg is irate - he put forward half these things ages ago.

9.05 - Cameron pretends he's acknowledging fault on all sides, whilst attacking both Clegg and Brown for their funding and expenses history. Clegg says he's repeating disproved accusations from years ago. Cameron comes across like a whiny little bitch.

9.03 - Cameron points out New Labour has had 13 years to sort the House of Lords. Cameron says that everyone else has to cut down in times of recession, why shouldn't politicians do the same thing? Because the state has to make up for the fact that people can't spend more themselves. The state is there to protect us, not to imitate us.

9.02 - Clegg asks why these measures were blogged when Lib Dems put them forward. Because you're in a different party, nitwit. It's all political and shit. Brown points out the obvious flaw in cutting 10% of MPs - who represents their constituents?

8.58 - Next question is about MP expenses. How will they re-establish credibility? Clegg says there are people who still haven't taken responsibility, e.g. home flippers. Brown says he was shocked and sickened by it. Wants to give right of recall to constituents for naughty MPs, give people right to petition parliament and reform the House of Commons and House of Lords. Damn right. Cameron comments on how horrendous it all is but how he did better at cleaning it up than anyone else. Wants to cut ministers pay, cut size of Whitehall, scrap quangos and cut 10% of MPs. And who will do those jobs?

8.56 - Clegg accuses others of not being upfront on money matters - no figures in manifestos. Cameron attacks Clegg for being against short prison sentences. Brown says he will match police funding and tells Cameron to be honest.
Brown - "You can't airbrush your policies, although you can airbrush your posters."

8.55 - Brown jokes that the Tories poster campaign has done him a great service by showing pictures of him smiling, unlike the press. Cameron accuses Brown of wanting to throw money at the problem.

8.54 - Clegg met a man in London who was burgled 5 times. Move out of London then.

8.53 - Brown pledges police funding will rise and says Cameron doesn't. Clegg - "it's all very well to say these things." Yes it is. What is the point of a debate then?

8.52 - Clegg waffles on about community payback, apologies to victims, etc as if these things are new ideas. Brown praises volunteers working in the community, but it shouldn't be left to volunteers, should it?

8.51 - Cameron blames it all on the drugs. Talked to a young man who committed a certain amount of crimes knowing it would get him before a judge who could send him to rehab. This guy must be the most lucid drug addict of all time.

8.47 - Woman from Burnley, town with highest burglary rate in country. How will they make it work. Cameron - not enough police on the streets. People have been giving this same mantra for 20 years. Cameron wants harsher sentences. Wants to get rid of paperwork and "bureaucracy" (also known as accountability). Clegg also wants more police on street. Attacks Labour policy on ID cards as waste of money. Wants to put 3000 more police on streets instead. Also, too many young offenders not being stopped before they become hardened criminals. Brown points out quite rightly that the crime rate is falling and that police levels are at an all-time high. Brown will give people the right to take injunctions against the police.

8.46 - Cameron says too many people don't work who could and that makes Britain a soft target. Oh fuck off.

8.44 - Everyone gives their token little "I'm-not-racist-I-love-foreigners" bit. Too little, too fucking late. You can't compete with the likes of UKIP and BNP on this issue, and those are still minor parties. Why not come out and say "actually, this immigration debate is a complete smokescreen. Immigration is not the problem, inequality is the problem."

8.42 - Clegg says there is good immigration and bad immigration, e.g. not enough doctors being brought in with right skills.

8.41 - Cameron has been to Plymouth, spoken to an old black man who is "ashamed" that there is an out of control immigration system. Apparently old black men can be racist too. Wants border police force.

8.40 - Brown points out net inward migration falling. Border controls being brought in and exit controls too. ID cards for foreign nationals. Wouldn't put an arbitrary cap on it. Brown doing surprisingly well so far, kind of expected him to go to pieces under the pressure.

8.37 - First question - about immigration. I fucking knew it. Brown says he's heard the concerns of racists, sorry the people, and brings up the points system he's implemented. "In future.... no care assistants come in from outside the European Union." Cameron says immigration is too high, wants to put in limit on migration. Just pick a number out of the sky then. Clegg attacks other parties for tough talking but not acting accordingly. Wants to restore exit controls and only allow immigrants to go where they are "needed."

8.36 - Cameron hopes debates will restore trust/faith in politics. Good luck with that. Blah blah blah about being in this together. Change change change, etc etc.

8.35 - No ordinary election says Brown. Emphasises importance of economy to all the promises that will be made. Warns against double dip recession. Says he will protect police, NHS and schools.

8.34 - Clegg tries to persuade us that Liberal Democrats are a credible alternative, ignoring the past 20 years of polling history. The changes he "believes in" are all the same changes that Labour and the Tories are talking about.

8.33 - First debate is on domestic affairs. Questions soon. Opening statements first. Clegg gets first go.

Or at least, I'm liveblogging it until I get bored. Starting now.

Election Fever #3: Manifestos

"What do you think about my manifesto?
I like your manifesto, put it to the testo."
Sultans of Ping FC, "Where's Me Jumper?"

Of course, I haven't read the manifestos in full. I'm not mental or anything. But I have had a good look through the Labour and Conservative manifestos - not the Liberal Democrat manifesto because a) it's not out yet and b) it's irrelevant. I am therefore able to provide the highlights to you below.

Labour Manifesto: A future fair for all

Overall impressions: The introduction says this is not a "business as usual" manifesto, but in fact the sense here is that Labour is going to keep doing what it's doing, only more so. The main buzzwords here are "continue," "expand" and "press on." There's no big eye-catching ideas, no catchy slogans, no gimmicks.

The stuff I like: New taxes on bonuses and salaries over £150,000, an increase in minimum wage, the establishment of a People's Bank at the Post Office, more spending for Surestart, free childcare, schools and 16-19 education, expansion of free nursery places, more access to psychological therapies, re-establish link between pensions and earnings, introduction of a Supermarket Ombudsman, make it easier for pubs to have entertainment without a licence, referendums on proportional voting systems and a new elected second chamber and upholding the independence of the BBC.

The shitty parts: If you are offered a job and refuse, your benefits are cut off at 10 months, talk of police intervention earlier with "dysfunctional families" (i.e. police harrassment), the right to "request" flexible working for older workers (what's to stop people requesting now? People should be able to demand it wherever possible), continuing to bring immigration down using new rules.

That'll never work: Proposes savings of over £59 billion without seemingly cutting anything of any significance. So why haven't they cut this stuff already then?

What the fuck moment: From the introduction: "Labour believes we must not put the recovery at risk by reckless cuts to public spending this year." The £59bn of public spending cuts are outlined on the next page.

Conservative Manifesto: Invitation to Join the Government of Britain

Overall impressions: This manifesto has something the Labour manifesto doesn't: a big idea at its core. It may be a stupid idea, but it's an attention-grabbing idea nonetheless.

The less awful parts: Scrapping ID cards, re-establishing link between pensions and earnings, expansion of SureStart and "right to move" scheme for those in social housing.

The truly awful parts: More de-regulation for business and finance, cutting benefits, getting private and voluntary organisations to do the government's job, reduce MPs by 10%, keeping school league tables and SATs, mandatory prison sentences for certain crimes, scrapping Contactpoint (which is desperately needed in social services), reverse closure of special schools, ridiculous overemphasis on "broken Britain" and nasty implication that it is all the fault of single parents, £60bn of public sector cuts.

That'll never work: The gimmick at the heart of this is the "invitation to join" the government, e.g. if your local school is shit, you and some other parents can take it over. Just like that. The argument ignores the fact that volunteering is often only an option for the well-off - the rest of us just don't have enough time to start running local schools and hospitals - as well as the potential for disaster. For all their faults, at least politicians have time to become well-informed in the areas they work on.

What the fuck moment #1: "So, with a Conservative government,any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament." The petition calling for Jeremy Clarkson to be made prime minister currently has 500,000 signatures.

What the fuck moment #2: "We can’t go on with an NHS that puts targets before patients." In the very next paragraph: "We will make the performance of the NHS totally transparent by publishing information about the kind of results that healthcare providers are achieving, so there is no hiding place for failure." Thereby increasing the incentives for NHS managers to focus on targets and statistics.

The Winner:

Style: The Conservatives. They have a big idea which is worthy of public discussion although it is, ultimately, stupid.

Substance: Labour. No flair whatsover, but pledges to carry on the good bits and glosses over the bad bits.

Election Fever #2

Horrible news! No sooner had the General Election been officially announced than Tory leader David "call me Dave" Cameron made a visit to my home town, where he lectured some bemused bakery workers on the evils of raising National Insurance and made some bad bread-related jokes.

All this has drawn my attention to the fact that my constituency is apparently a "key marginal seat." Meaning that the Tories believe they have a real chance of snatching it back from Labour for the first time since 1997. This has shocked me to the core. In spite of the fact that I have a Politics degree and have lived in this town for most of my life, I was completely unaware that my current constituency used to be a Tory stronghold. You would have thought a shitty run-down former mill town like this would be natural Labour territory.

This revelation has caused me to lean heavily in the direction of tactical voting, i.e. voting Labour in recognition of the fact that the Liberal Democrats and the Greens can't possibly win the seat and therefore voting Labour is the best way to stop the Tories getting their hands on it. This will mean overcoming all sorts of objections I've had to the New Labour governments of the last 13 years, including but not limited to: the Iraq war, student tuition fees, the creeping privatisation of public services, reliance on free market economics, failure to reduce the gap between rich and poor, failure to do anything for all those made unemployed by the recession, MPs embroiled in expenses scandals, etc.

So in order to remind myself why I'm choosing to vote for the lesser of two evils, here is a list of some of their (all too limited) achievements since 1997.

1. The introduction of the National Minimum Wage. Okay so the existing rate (just £4.81 an hour for workers under the age of 21) is still too low, but this move still made a significant increase in many worker's paypackets. God knows I've worked enough shitty, low-paid jobs where you're exploited for hours on end only to go home with barely enough money to pay the bills. That is simply unacceptable in this day and age - nobody who works full time should struggle to make essential payments. The Tories opposed this policy on its introduction before eventually backing down when it proved not to be an economy-wrecking move as predicted.

2. The devolution of power in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Representative democracy is best served when you have a higher number of representatives in proportion to voters. London is not representative of the whole country and yet policy is all to often determined by people who rarely set foot outside the capital. By giving the non-English nations their own policy-making powers, Labour gave greater power to the average voter in those areas. It's just a shame that plans to do the same for the North West and North East were shelved.

3. Increased public spending on health and education. Any government which doesn't prioritise these two above such ridiculous issues as tax cuts or "reducing the national debt" is a government not fit to rule. Still, it's a shame that the extra money came with so many strings attached.

4. Peace in Northern Ireland. John Major may have played a part in this, but it was Blair's government which secured the Good Friday Agreement (largely thanks to Mo Mowlam). It hasn't all been plain-sailing since then, but if you think back to how things were in Northern Ireland fifteen years ago, the decrease in sectarian violence and hostility is enormous.

5. Gay rights. The age of consent for consenting homosexuals was lowered to sixteen, civil partnerships were introduced (although why they couldn't just call it gay marriage is still beyond me), Section 28 was abolished and gay adoption was legalised. Legislation was also introduced against discrimination towards gay people. This is one area of British politics where it's heartening to see how common sense and equality have triumphed over religion and bigotry.

6. Fox hunting was banned. Finally.

7. Free museum admissions, Sure Start centres and free nursery places - all positive moves on education.

So if you just ignore the war-mongering, the profiteering, the obsession with pleasing big business, the neglect of the most vulnerable in society and a few other glaring catastrophes, then New Labour hasn't been so bad after all. It's a long way from being my ideal party, but you have to ask yourself: how many of the above developments would we have seen under a Tory government?

Given how many Tories opposed the above measures when they were introduced, I'm guessing not many.

Election Fever #1

The next UK election will most likely be held on 6 May 2010. So this is the beginning in a series of blog posts that will allow me to examine who the hell I'm going to vote for.

Why is it so important who I vote for? It's not like my vote alone is going to change the outcome of the election. Well, it's not likely anyhow. But I'm a politics graduate who wrote my dissertation on youth disengagement with the political system. I can't NOT vote and I can't vote for someone unless I'm CERTAIN it's the right thing to do.

So which of the three following candidates should I put my faith in?

1. Gordon Brown, Labour Party, who was first Chancellor and then Prime Minister in a government that invaded Iraq, introduced tuition fees for university, presided over the expenses scandal, did nothing to prevent the credit crunch (although I think it's unfair to blame him for it) and failed to do anything whatsoever to reduce the gap between rich and poor. On the other hand, New Labour also gave us gay rights, peace in Northern Ireland and the national minimum wage.

2. David Cameron, Conservative Party. Etonian oldboy who supports tax cuts for the rich, talks in patronising tones about "Broken Britain" every time someone gets killed and describes himself as a "fan" of Margaret Thatcher, the most evil British woman in history. An evil, soulless monster who despises poor people. I can state here and now that I will not be voting for any Conservative party candidate in this or any other election, even if a gun is held to my head.

3. Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat party. Leader of the most left-wing (and therefore best) of the three main political parties. Unfortunately, the party has moved slightly to the right-wing under Clegg, who calls for tax cuts and "more choice" for NHS patients (i.e. giving NHS money to private hospitals rather than concentrating on giving the NHS what it needs). They are still the least of the three evils, although they remain 100% unlikely to win.

So those are my options: reluctantly vote Labour in the hope that it will stop the Conservatives getting in, or vote Liberal Democrat because they have the least objectionable policies and hope I'm not helping the Conservatives in doing so. The aim of the blogs that follow will be to determine which is the best option, but there's one thing I already know for sure: the morning of 7th May is going to be grim.