Nick Clegg had blue paint thrown at him, also on August 25, condemned seemingly universally by politicians and commentators of all parties and none as a foolish stunt. It would be very interesting to see the reaction if Nick Griffin had been attacked in a similar way. But why should the two be different? What real danger does Griffin pose? Will one man spouting nonsense start a race war? The BNP is bankrupt, its leadership have more hatred for each other than any immigrant, and yet they are still spoken of in hushed, he-who-must-not-be-named terms by the mainstream, giving them a form of respect that they do not deserve. That respect is the all-important lifeblood in their dying days. Now, although the EDL are not (yet?) a political party, they are a fully legal organisation, and giving them the same misplaced respect by treating them to illiberal bans is falling into the same trap. Any group that wishes to march peacefully has the right to do so, whatever their beliefs – those in disagreement with them are welcome to counter-protest, a system that has worked pretty well until now. More often than not, you’re left with two groups of idiots screaming at each other, and indeed, the usual left-wing suspects are probably already hankering for a street battle…

Unfortunately, we are not yet at the stage where some enterprising businessman hires coaches to take the most violent from each side to the nearest field where they can batter seven shades out of each other in front of a paying audience! The stock libertarian response would revert to criticism of the state and call for private ownership of roads, the owner then deciding if to allow marches on his property, not constrained by the conflicting interests of different tax-paying groups. So how about this, as a middle-of-the-road, liberal response that all can agree with – let them march, and if said marchers turn violent arrest them and charge them. If they damage anything, make them pay for it. The truth is that it’s too easy to outsmart those trying to use the apparatus of the state to silence a particular group, as the late Brian Haw would point out. Quite apart from anything, if banned the EDL will turn up anyway, as they have in the past. If prevented from a protest march, they will stand still and protest, as this blog advises. And being blunt, they have a point. The right to protest is the right to have your protest heard, and government ‘solutions’ such as banning all marches in the area for a month will just as likely create a leaky net through which the mischievous can escape whilst the more liberally-palatable groups will be stopped from protesting themselves. No-one wins except the bad guys.

To be honest, I’m not sure that I even agree that the EDL are out to cause trouble or incite Islamic rage as primary motives, because as those who have read modern fascist literature will know, these people can be sneakier than that. They seek controversy and demonization by the mainstream whilst depicting themselves as the real voice of the mainstream, downtrodden by the liberal elite in this disturbing world where immigrants are given rights denied to others, where brown extremists may apparently live their lives freely but reasonable white natives may not. “It’s not us that are the extremists”, they wail. “We’re just pointing out the extremism of others, and being punished for it!” Sad to say, these views are only being encouraged by banning the EDL’s march, not stamped out. So, sorry Andrew, but I don’t agree this time – let the EDL march.

By Zadok Day
This article is syndicated from “A Song of Liberty”

Amidst the naming, shaming and blaming in the aftermath of England’s rioting, debates about coalition cuts and reforms have once again been lost in the robotic chanting of ideology. Earlier this year the general public mobilised in a reassuringly democratic fashion to force a pause or “listening exercise” in NHS reform. There are whispers in some parts that David Cameron and Andrew Lansley intend to ignore the concerns of the people, under the radar. But Nick Clegg, following his electoral and referendum humiliation in May, ensured us he’d keep an eye on them. Trouble is no one trusts him anymore.

What I’m about to write is more personal than political. I’ve said before that all my political writing has an element of my personality, in that I do my best to express strong opinions, beliefs or half formed ideas I’ve concocted from things I’ve read or consumed. Even professional political commentators are aware that their own preferences influence their coverage. But I’m the first to admit that, as a young man, I am often dealing naively in the abstract. My opinion on defence cuts or the symbolic importance of the Euro is rather ignorant and useless in reality. The NHS, however, is for all of us and can affect the quality of our everyday lives dramatically. We should all feel able to speak out about its future.  In late September I will begin university life after a gap year I probably wouldn’t have chosen to have. A couple of years ago I was very ill. I lost a lot of weight and barely ate anything. I was frequently in severe pain and unable to socialise with friends in the summer holidays. I could muster enough energy to complete school work and little else. Eventually I was
diagnosed with the digestive condition, Crohn’s Disease.

After passing through various rungs of the National Health Service I found myself with a steady and capable team of staff at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease clinic of my local hospital. A variety of treatments got me through Sixth Form and I was relieved to do well in exams, unaffected by the Crohn’s. In order to continue my recovery I chose to have a gap year,
although it didn’t feel like I had much choice. I simply had to get healthier. I started a new treatment of fortnightly injections. This was intended as a longer term solution because I had been taking powerful drugs that could have harmful side effects in the future. Thankfully the injections worked and continued to do so. I could return to a “normal life” with the limitations of my condition minimised. I felt grateful to be as healthy as I could be. My worries were mostly those of ordinary people my age and I was able to grow as a freelance writer and enjoy the year.

Now though health related stress is making a comeback. With university imminent I am organising the altered delivery and storage of my treatment. And at the last meeting with my doctor a few months ago I was told that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence or NICE, who are basically in charge of what doctors can spend on expensive drugs, would want to reassess my case at some stage. The guidelines say that if you’ve been well for a year you should be taken off the costly treatment. I was assured this wouldn’t happen during my transition to university, but I am not naive. At some point the decision will be taken away from my doctors.

So then we come back to NHS reform. I had always been instinctively against the predominantly Conservative proposals. But my doctor said something along the lines of; if it were his choice he obviously wouldn’t even consider withdrawal of the treatment for a long while. David Cameron has constantly talked of empowering GPs and specialists to make decisions like this which could benefit patients like me. Was I against these reforms or not?

The main problem is a lack of understanding. Do you fully understand what is being proposed? I don’t. I’m betting no one, bar those involved with the actual legislation, really does. The pause has actually complicated things further. In fact even those with all the facts of the legislation can’t comprehend every little consequence in real life for real people. Letting
doctors decide sounds good. But shouldn’t the bulk of their time be spent treating patients? Shouldn’t someone independent make such decisions? My attitude towards NHS reform has taught me that whilst I lean to the liberal left or centre with my political thinking, my actual opinions can be rather conservative. Change has always stressed me out in
everyday life. If something as vital as the NHS ain’t broke, don’t meddle with it, especially when the country is trying to save money. I got better eventually, that’s all that matters.

I’ve long thought that the real way to help improve standards and ensure sustainability for the future is to cut down the sprawling responsibilities of the NHS, whilst reinforcing vital areas. It seems logical and fair that treatments that aren’t essential should not be given priority. Equally those that bring about their own illnesses should come second to the
more deserving and hard done by. We need tougher health based taxes to directly fund the NHS and ease its burden, doing whatever we can to discourage the abundance of drinking and smoking cases that weigh it down. Granted this view comes from the fact that I was born with asthma and have other conditions, like Crohn’s and eczema, I could do nothing to prevent. I hold a selfish view. But then everyone gets their opinions from somewhere and all I believe in is a fair, efficient health service.

Again though what I thought I believed has been turned upside down by what’s happening to me in real life. NICE are the body responsible for ensuring that the NHS spends its money wisely and on those who need it. They are also the body that could at any point in the future remove my funding and leave me without treatment. I might stay healthy or I could plunge back into an illness it will take a long time to escape from. It could be even harder to recover second time round and the injections might not work twice.

The NHS is something Britain is envied for around the world and it is a genuine reason to be proud of our country. Cameron is saying Britain is broken again and pictures of the riots have been beamed out internationally. But we can be proud of the NHS. Overall I am happy with what it has done for me but the uncertainty hanging over my future proves it’s not perfect. It can’t be. It aims to be perfect, trying to make everyone better all of the time. Because it reaches so high it can’t get it right for each individual; whatever politicians decide to do will not change this fact. And it can never hold your hand.

But every decision they do make about the NHS will have life changing consequences for someone, somewhere in the system. For people like me and people far worse off than me. So they should continue to think carefully and trial new ideas before making sweeping changes. I’ve written before about the government’s NHS plans but this article is an admission. I do not know whether it’s best to stick or twist. All I can yelp ineffectually into the blogosphere is that I hope the decision makers understand the gravity of what they are doing.

By Liam Trim

At the moment people are furious. They have had their businesses ruined, cars stolen, houses burnt, property destroyed, and their local neighbourhoods engulfed by violence and mayhem. They are asking where the police were and what their Mayor is going to do about it. This does not translate into a sudden collapse in confidence. However, it could if the right steps are not taken.

Boris Johnson, so far, has had a splendid record on crime with his pledge to have 1 million more police patrols on the streets in 2012 than in 2008 despite the cuts, an almost 9% fall in crime, and the lowest murder rate since 1978. However, these facts have been rendered meaningless for those who have just experience the chaos of the past few days. Boris Johnson’s record needs to be reaffirmed. He has already picked up a broom to help the clean-up in Clapham, and should be doing more of these clean-up visits in the coming weeks to help boost morale and to be seen to be in touch with Londoners.

Boris Johnson’s record on law and order now needs a new boost. I would suggest that Boris Johnson continues to be vocal about his opposition to the Coalition’s cuts to the police budget. Furthermore, he should argue that a protected police budget ought to be funded by scrapping the unpopular £30 billion High Speed Rail project. This cut is already supported by 37% of Londoners according to a TPA polling report. He would essentially be killing two birds with one stone. However, this should be tempered by strong support for the Coalition’s policing reforms and greater efficiency savings in the Metropolitan Police.

Boris Johnson should also change his position on who should be appointed as the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Bill Bratton is a world class candidate. He managed to halve the murder rate in New York and halve the violence rate in L.A. with his zero-tolerance policy. Boris Johnson is not currently in favour of the appointment as he would prefer someone better acquainted with British policing. However, the placement for the Assistant Commissioner is also open. Bill Bratton as the new Commissioner accompanied by a ‘British’ Assistant Commissioner who is an old hand in British policing, would balance out very well. There is also the difficulty of EU employment law. However, with Boris Johnson’s support, David Cameron could certainly back such an arrangement against Theresa May and the European Commission.

Another step must be for Boris Johnson to take on Ken Livingstone’s argument that the cuts and the power of the so-called rich are to blame for the rioting in London. Ken Livingstone’s tactics must be exposed for what they are: partisan and divisive attacks of the lowest sort. Boris Johnson must ensure that responsibility for the riots clearly lie with the rioters themselves, and not shifted onto any external force. A life in poverty is indeed a strenuous and difficult life to lead. However, people still have choices. These people chose to inflict pain, suffering, and violence on their own neighbours in a miserable fit of Schadenfreude. By blaming ‘the cuts’ and the so-called ‘rich’ Ken Livingstone is only lowering himself to the same level of those criminals who have unleashed a vista of violence across the country. Instead, Boris Johnson must try to inspire confidence and unity by laying out what great opportunities lie ahead for London.

Boris Johnson has suffered a slight bruise from recent events but he can easily recover from it. He has a morale inspiring and charismatic personality. All he must do is continue mucking in with the clean-up in the next few weeks, reinforce his strong record on fighting crime, and focus the narrative of the debate on what is best for London beyond 2012.

By David Cowan

You can follow David on Twitter at: @david_cowan
Or you can follow DemoCritic at: @democritic2

The reasons behind the riots may lie in successive generations of multiple deprivation and cyclic poverty. The justifications do not.

Events such as the ongoing riots across London, Manchester and the West Midlands, always make us consider the fragility of society; how seemingly unshakable bastions of civilisation can be quickly bludgeoned into writhing cess-pits of thuggery and barbarism. We saw it in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, in Haiti after the tragic earthquake and even, to a very limited extent, in Japan after the Tsunami. Much of the looting and burglary can be explained away as mindless opportunism. There is certainly a danger of over-analysing the actions of thugs, but to throw any intellectual curiosity on the bonfire would be deeply unsatisfying, and quite possibly dangerous. There is, justifiably, huge public anger; but let’s not become blinded by fury that leads us to making critical mistakes.

We must prioritise our responses. Plenty of academics, community workers and social activists have appeared in the media to decry the appalling neglect and marginalisation that is endemic throughout deprived communities in places such as Hackney, Tottenham and Clapham, and in parts of all major settlements. This is of course true, but our probing into the underlying causes mustn’t come before we send out a clear message to anyone who is rioting, looting or vandalising: you will be brought to justice. People intent on causing harm or damage will be denied the freedom to move. They will be arrested swiftly and robustly; gatherings of malevolent youths will be forcibly dispersed and harassed until they tire. Whether they walk away now or not, youths who have contributed to the grotesque escalation of violence throughout the past few days will have nowhere to hide, will never be able to stop looking over their shoulder for the police snatch raid, won’t find a moment of rest as they are subjected to suspicion and denied freedom of movement. Life will get tough for them.

To make this happen, we need to learn from our European cousins. In France, police tactics included covert snatch and grab operations in the midst of crowds – the ringleaders were identified, surrounded covertly by teams of up to ten plainclothes officers, then suddenly and brutally set upon and dragged (with significant use of truncheon, police dog and pepper spray) back behind police lines, and very publically bundled roughly into a police van, which shot away. Such scenes are sobering to would-be-rioters, and would give a better demonstration of the Metropolitan Police’s avowed intention to ‘fight fire with fire’. The use of plastic projectiles (‘baton’ rounds) and water canon would be hugely useful (although, given the sporadic and highly mobile nature of the disorder, the latter less so); much of the difficulty which arises when rioters get too close to police lines and are left dominating sections of the streets could be avoided, and thus the looting and vandalism reduced.

The Metropolitan Police have been paralysed by their fear of the legal repercussions of ‘robust policing’. Since the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests, controversial tactics such as kettling have been met with legal challenges and courtroom battles. Whilst it is right that police should be accountable and under clear obligation to deliver measured responses to incidents, there should be latitude for police to act robustly and decisively in situations that amount to urban conflict. The great irony of our health and safety and rights obsesses culture was very much proven the on Monday night, when police restraint in deference to the aforementioned sentiment was almost certainly responsible for the far greater damage and fear in communities.

Calling the Army in now would reflect badly on the Metropolitan Police and police across the country. Two battalions of infantry, highly trained and on standby to deal with civil unrest (usually in Northern Ireland) could be deployed, and would be a shock to the rioters’ systems. However, it would give a regrettable sense of police failure to hand over the burden now. The police have publically taken these riots on; now they must deal with them, and work to restore a reputation that has been badly damaged by a gruelling year of events, from shooting rampages to allegations of corruption, and finally by the perceived failure to protect homes, livelihoods and communities from the marauding looters. All of this aside, using our own armed forces on the streets of the UK mainland to clamp down on our own citizens would be a tragic loss to the relationship between the citizenry and military of our country.

Once order is restored, then we discuss the underlying reasons. There can be no other way, else the message is sent out that, providing you have a complex enough reason, you’ll be allowed to run amok in the UK’s streets for as long as you like. The preliminary investigations can quickly cut through the ‘pure criminality’ of opportunism and barbarism. People will face the consequences of their mindless, pointless destruction. Condemnation must flood the airwaves and all the media. Anyone who breaks the social contract in a democracy can expect to have their side of the bargain whipped away and torn up in front of them.

Then, and only then, will we be ready to tackle the painful questions of why such disorder can flare – and by that I mean the genuine anger and feeling of righteous liberation some rioters had – which will take the investigation back generations. In all riots, there is a catalyst – here it was Mark Duggan – yet to focus the investigation on that would be folly. The reasons behind any such outpouring of anger lie in successive generations of multiple deprivation and cyclic poverty; but let’s be clear: the justifications do not.

It cannot be the case that a lack of police causes violence; if that were so, then Windsor and Henley would be some of the most violent places in the country, and rural villages across the South East’s countryside would be full of the acrid smell of burning tarmac and broken water systems as the sound of the mob rung around the South Downs. But what is it, then, that stops the rest of us behaving in the manner we’ve seen on television over the last few days?

That’s what we need to find out. After the streets are made quiet again.

By Taylor Carey

A riot officer watching a building burn in London's worst riots for years.

The country has been reeling after three days of violent and sustained riots in many parts of London, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, Nottingham and Bristol.  Originally a peaceful protest seeking the truth behind the shooting of 29 year old Mark Duggan by CO19 on August 4, it soon spiralled out of control.  Shortly after the march had begun, on August 6, it degenerated into a massive riot by local criminals.  Looting, arson and general violence soon spread from Tottenham in the Borough of Haringey to other parts of Greater London in the early hours of August 7.  The rioting then spread yet again, but this time to the aforementioned towns and cities on August 8 and 9.  Throughout this crisis the police has struggled to deal with the sheer numbers of rioters, which has forced the Metropolitan Police to cancel all leave during the worst violence the country has seen in years.

Several questions pop to one’s mind about this whole debacle including: how this has been able to escalate as far as it has; what the police are going to do tonight to prevent further violence; and what methods could be employed to ensure a swift end to the riots? All of which I shall aim to answer below.

The situation has degenerated in the way it has for several reasons.  Firstly the police have been overwhelmed by the numbers of rioters on the streets.  For example it was reported by an anonymous riot officer in today’s Times that there were “about 30 or 40 of us and a crowd of 300 to 400 rioters” and that when the police numbers finally increased after continued pelting from rioters “[they moved] to other areas where there were no police to begin looting there”.  The places being looted and vandalised are many and far apart; there is no central location for the rioting in each city or any mass coordination.  Saying that the police have been spread thin is an understatement.  In fact they were so overwhelmed that the Met had to get backup sent in from “Thames Valley, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Essex” police forces in the early hours of this morning.  To what extent this overstretch is the fault of those in the operations rooms around the country is up to debate.  Personally this commentator believes that the police response primarily in Birmingham and London – where violence is at its worst – tonight will make it abundantly clear as to who is primarily responsible for the

Looter showing off his haul.

pathetic police response. Regardless, the police response has contributed to the escalation of events and its spread across London and the country.

Another reason for the escalation – linked to the first point – is that people have been seen to be getting away with the mass-looting occurring.  In other words opportunism is a cause of the escalation.  An example of the brash arrogance and opportunism of some involved is most famously depicted with the photo to the left of one man’s booty taken from various shops.  These riots, are as two girls told the BBC News channel, showing the police that they “can do what they want”, not about crying out about the wrongs of the government or anything else for that matter.  One of the girls in the video clip was unable to even tell the reporter which parties were in power at the moment.  However, others, such as Ken Livingstone, have blamed the rioting on various things including: the Coalition’s economic policy and how the cuts have made rioting more likely; tuition fees; getting back at the government for ignoring them; and to show the wealth gap in the UK is dividing communities.  Locals in Tottenham, however, have come out against such sentiments with one woman stating that “We are going to get people blaming the economy and what happened last week but that’s not the real reason this happened… It’s just an excuse for the young ones to come and rob shops”.  Yet more evidence that locals were not in favour of the Livingstone argument comes from YouTube where an elderly woman has been filmed denouncing the actions of some looters.  Such evidence is a sign to this commentator that this was nothing more than opportunism for opportunism’s sake.

In the last few hours it has been announced that there will be up to 16,000 police officers patrolling London’s streets tonight to prevent a fourth night of street violence from further engulfing the capital.  Moreover over 500 arrests have been made in Greater London since the violence erupted with 105 having been charged.  Such is the situation in London that those arrested have had to be transferred from London to police stations in surrounding counties as all police cells have been filled in London.  Today has also seen the Prime Minister (scroll to 1114 on the live feed) and the Mayor of London promise that those involved will “feel the full force of the law”.  Police have also confirmed that they have contacted Research in Motion – the makers of the BlackBerry smartphone – over the alleged use of the BBM (BlackBerry Messenger) service in the organisation of looting and are currently monitoring Facebook and Twitter activity for any information on rioting or looting plans.  Once again, how effective these plans will be are very much down to the police’s performance tonight.

Woman jumping for her life after rioters set her house on fire...

If the current tactics prove ineffective tonight then the Met and the other forces involved in the other riots have several options almost none of which have ever been used in mainland Britain before.  They are as follows: water cannon; baton rounds; use of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004; a curfew; and the British Army.  Water cannon has been used before in Northern Ireland to disrupt riots, but has never been used on the mainland.  It shoots high pressure water at rioters and has been seen to be quite effective.  The main problem is that there are only six in the country and they are all on standby in the North in case riots break out during the very volatile Marching Season.  Baton rounds have also only been used in the North.  They are rubber bullets that when fired tend to knock down rioters.  The main problem with them is the risk of killing rioters through using them.  The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 gives the government the power to override Habeas Corpus as well as a few other Acts of Parliament for a period of 21 days in order to deal with massive disorder.  This Act of Parliament has never been used in this context before and is seen as only being needed in very extreme scenarios.  A curfew, as suggested by Diane Abbot MP, would require all citizens in the designated areas to be indoors from a set time.  This idea has been criticised because many see it as stretching already overstretched police forces to the brink and as being an ineffective deterrent.  Finally the British Army.  The army has not ever been used to police any part of modern day Britain.  Using the army would, like all of the above ideas, suggest that the government had lost control and that the situation was a lot worse than it currently is.  None of the above techniques could be seen to work unless events escalated further.

Events across the country have reached worrying levels with opportunism for opportunism’s sake being the mantra for the rioting, arson and looting.  Without a concerted and much better organised police operation this commentator believes that things will get worse.  The action mentioned above, which has been taken thus far seems to be counteracting some of the mayhem of the last few days. However, much of the recommended action the police could take and the effectiveness of action the police are currently taking is very much dependent on how tonight goes.  If it goes well then the cleanup operation can begin and those responsible can be held to account.  If things do not go well tonight then police escalation might be the only remedy.  I hope that it is the former, not the latter that is the case tomorrow morning.

By Harry J. Angers

The recent downgrade of the USA’s credit rating has done more than hacked away at the tired Obama administration; it has revealed some nasty skeletons lurking in recent financial history…

Standard & Poor’s recent downgrade of the US credit rating from its coveted AAA to AA+ has drawn criticism and scorn from across the political divide. Whilst Obama insists that the USA remains a ‘triple A nation’, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner maintains that the downgrade is the latest consequence of Washington’s ‘spending binge’. The Tea Party is, as usual, foaming at the mouth, as the nation’s will for fiscal stimulation evaporates and pressure grows on the Federal Reserve to do the heavy lifting.

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner has been particularly vociferous in his denunciation of S&P’s decision – perhaps quite rightly – maintaining that S&P based their downgrade on a $2 trillion mistake. S&P based their downgrade in part, claim the Treasury , on the $2 trillion shortfall of the Budget Control Act, which will reduce the US Budget deficit by $2 trillion over the next decade (i.e. S&P expected it to wipe off $4 trillion). Clearly here, the $2 trillion gap was considered significant, but, claims the Treasury, S&P then understated the deficit reduction by the Budget Control Act by $2 trillion (anyone else a bit dizzy with all those $2 trillions?). When alerted to this, S&P maintained that this figure was insignificant, though it clearly painted an altogether different picture of US debt sustainability. The Treasury claims that S&P moved away from economic justification, to founding their decision on a political argument.

If this is true, it is bad news all round in Washington. As the Guardian’s editorial rightly acknowledged in yesterday’s leader comment, this is disastrous for Obama. No President in history has ever won an election on such high unemployment, and coupled with his grim new status as the first President to preside over a US credit rating downgrade amidst a stalled recovery, the name ‘Jimmy Carter’ leaps out from the data sheets to scream the place down. Peanuts.

But the downgrade reflects poorly on the wider political establishment; if S&P’s decision was politically based, then it must surely centre on the dogged slogging matches fought in Congress over the past days and weeks. The Tea Party must accept its fare share (or perhaps more) of the blame; at times, its members have been startling in their immaturity. Eric Cantor stormed out of meetings, whilst the resounding Republican voice during the negotiations was not of Boehner-ite reason (oh no, he’s not Mr Popular any more), but of the rabid denunciations of Bachmann et al. who seemed almost in favour of a default to show the “Socialist kiddies” in the White House what happens when you eat too much maple syrup: you throw up. Any sensible parent would have taken the syrup away long before it got to that.

But simply blaming the Congress isn’t particularly satisfying either. In all of these debates, we would do well to remember some history – recent history. Take Timothy Geithner, for example. The man now so fumingly critical of S&P’s decision was a man who, for many years, as a Wall Street Executive, colluded with ratings agencies of its kind to dishonestly and insanely rate sub-prime loans as AAA and banks as completely safe (including Lehman Brothers in 2008, which received a top rating days before its collapse) all the while contributing to the securitization chain time bomb.

S&P, Moody’s and other ratings agencies deserve some scorn, without doubt. For years, during the bubble leading up to 2008, these agencies were paid by banks to rate Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDOs) made from the riskiest (sub-prime) loans as AAA or thereabouts. In truth, these loans, dished out to American and global lenders (to the average tune of >90% of the value of their house), were in fact worthless. The irresponsible Credit Default Swap system enabled banks to be ‘underwritten’ by conglomerates such as AIG, which, in truth, held no reserves of capital and was entirely unprepared for an actual claim from a bank, when (as they inevitably did), CDOs turned bad. In fact, banks such as Goldman Sachs were actively betting against their own loans using the Credit Default Swap system; loans which they sold to customers with AAA or AA ratings.

At the centre of this all were the credit ratings agencies and regulators themselves, and Standard & Poor is no exception. They had the ability to stop the mushrooming of sun-prime, predatory lending, which caused the housing bubble and led to financial collapse and economic crisis in 2008. In almost any other situation – scientists testing a new drug, for example – payment of ‘impartial’ analysts by the producer or involved party would be entirely unacceptable, yet the ‘opinions’ of credit rating agencies, we were told, were reliable and unaffected by the huge bonuses and incentives paid to them by the major banks. All of this was a consequence of a securitization chain that meant nobody cared if lenders couldn’t pay: it was profits all the way.

Thus the USA credit rating downgrade has a delightful twang of irony in it: perhaps the one time when a downgrade was not needed – the US economy does not have a sovereign default issue, and it is stable, if sluggish, in growth – a reading of something different than AAA has been produced. Perhaps, given Robert Gnaizda’s comment that Obama’s administration was a ‘Wall Street government’, the downgrade is a ghost come to haunt all those former bankers and financiers who thought they’d never see one.

By Taylor Carey

What do you think of the person who mentions that they plan to self-build their own house; rich, ambitious and rich? That would most likely be the opinion. Those people on Grand Designs building replica ‘Villa Savoyes’ in the Mendip Hills, wearing rather nice dress shirts and designer watches in the attempt to draw attention to and from his millions made in some boring industry like cardboard-box making. It’s time for a change in overall opinion of self-building by bringing it to the masses.

Of course, you’ll get those today who’ll moan about the extraordinary cost of land. I think it’s time for Government to step up to the plate, by buying huge swathes of unprotected countryside, whether they surround towns or not,  and subsidise it by selling plots, of equal size and measure, slightly below market value to the potential family, couple or even a single occupant. A shortlist of designs of varying size and layout, approved by the councils, to fit into the local landscape and character of the area, could be chosen by the potential household. Whether they choose to hire contractors or actually do it themselves would be up to the household as well, giving real freedom of timeframe or management.

How would this be financed? I see no reason why a state-owned bank should be unable to give mortgages at reasonable interest rates out to a household. Of course, the Government may be required to seek exclusive deals with banks to ensure that people who perhaps are unable to buy it outright (i.e. 90% of us) would be able to register to this scheme.

However, I believe the golden question would be: what about those who may exploit this as a get-rich-quick scheme? Perhaps a contract between householder and government to ensure that they occupied the house for a certain amount of time, such as ten years. This may sound dictatorial in nature but we can have the chance to literally build communities. This is indeed the vision on both sides of the political spectrum, both under the Big Society of the Conservatives and Blue Labour, slowly gaining influence in the party, by getting associations and organisations to help each other.

I admit, it’s unbelievably radical, it will take time, there will always be people opposed to schemes like this and many other infrastructure projects (e.g. High Speed 2), but we are facing a shortage of affordable houses. It’s no good closing the doors to the many needed workers from abroad, to look after and service us mainly and sitting there with our arms folding. Let’s be pro-active and let’s achieve the Thatcherite dream of a classless society of prosperous people, by helping people help ourselves and, in the end, each other.

Before the argument on grounds of cost arises, it should be noted that public spending increased under Thatcher. But then again, personas are more powerful than the proof.

By Alexander Olive

Firstly, external affairs (e.g. the European debt implosion) are affecting the confidence of consumers and investors all the world over. For an economy such as Britain’s which is particularly internationally driven through its banking system, this is sure to spell trouble, at least until confidence picks up. This is the reason that the maintenance of international confidence in Britain’s economy is particularly important – and with the aforementioned European debt crisis threatening ever bigger economies (now including Spain and Italy), in conjunction with a potentially imminent U.S. default, the fact that the U.K. has a carefully spelt-out plan to deal with its debt in a systematic manner will count for more and more in terms of international confidence. But, by the same token, if Britain too is seen to be wavering, investors will look elsewhere, with crippling consequences for our economy.

Secondly, the notion of ‘cyclical growth’. This implies that an economy has a relatively fixed pattern of growth and contraction, which is the basis for the Keynesian theory that during the growth years, governments should build up a ‘fiscal surplus’ of income to spend during periods of recession, in order to alleviate the worst effects of the downturn and perhaps to decrease the amount of time spent in the economic doldrums. However, since the last government failed to build up such a surplus during their long period of growth, the national debt after the bank rescue and the additional spending associated with any economic recession has soared. We are now re-entering a period of (admittedly weak) growth, which means that we must use this time to attempt to regain some control over our budget deficit, and to use the money saved to begin to pay off our debts, before the economic cycle can come full circle again and we return to recession, and have to increase public sector borrowing to pay for additional contraction-associated spending.

Finally, let us not lose sight of the fact that, in spite of all the measures the Chancellor has taken, public sector debt is still increasing, with borrowing this year set to hit £122 bn. Whilst this represents a decrease of £20 bn. from the year before, this is by no means a trifling amount – and we are currently seeing all around Europe and in the U.S. the effects of high levels of national debt. It is probably only the fact that the UK had one of the lowest debt : GDP ratios among major developed economies (one of the few real economic achievements of the last government) which has saved us from this fate so far – yet we do not want to allow our debt to rise too much further, particularly as debt interest payments are already costing the economy an estimated £43 bn. per year, or 3% of GDP – money which could be spent much more effectively elsewhere.

This is all very well, say the Opposition, but they claim that a 2.5% cut in VAT would prove more beneficial to the economy than keeping the rate at 20%, as consumer confidence would be improved, and with it consumer expenditure, helping to increase the rate of economic recovery. However, I cannot help but feel this is somewhat a convenient halfway house for the Opposition; such a cut would see a reduction of only around 2% in prices for consumers, a reduction which would dissipate within months from the effects of inflation. And of course, the Labour party have ‘previous’ in this area – witness Gordon Brown’s cut in the same tax by the same amount towards the end of 2008. The move cost £12.5 bn. and was widely seen as achieving very little. However, by making such a suggestion, Balls and the Labour party can claim to be taking on the government’s cuts programme, without having to outline a genuine alternative.

Under EU regulations, VAT cannot be cut to lower than 15%, so the greatest cut that could be effected at the present rate would be 5% – a price drop of around 4% for consumers. This might be more useful, but would also be hugely expensive in the short-run. Perhaps a better idea would be the one Cable himself suggested to be under consideration in the interview – bringing forward cuts in taxes, including corporation tax, which are already scheduled for later in the Parliament, and then raising them again later. This would have an overall cost of zero to the government’s plan, as it has already been included in the scheme, and yet would have the advantage of allowing business to grow at this point in time to secure the recovery, which has not bounced back as the government expected.

Whilst this would incur a short-term cost, it could have long-term benefits, as expanding businesses take on more workers – thus increasing consumer expenditure without the need for a VAT cut. Furthermore, if it were made clear that the rate of tax would later increase again to compensate for the immediate cut, it would not be a true deviation from the government’s original plan, thus keeping the confidence of international investors – and avoiding suggestions of economic black magic.

By Duncan Sim

It’s hard to believe that just last September Miliband’s acceptance speech as leader of the Labour party was greeted by a chorus of relief. The wooden and cold Gordon Brown had been replaced by a youthful, honest, reasonable and approachable man, not afraid to at least attempt a joke and flash a bumbling but genuine smile. Now though Miliband’s PR machine is working so hard to preserve this flattering initial image of reason and humanity, that they have forgotten to let him be natural at any moment, even between highly choreographed press conferences or interviews.

I am always keen to write about the policy as opposed to the personalities of politics. The culture of spin and press manipulation too often overshadows the important debates about what Britain needs or what would be a better way of doing things. There are so many pressing challenges to thrash out swift but credible and long term solutions to, that it is plain irresponsible and arrogant to get bogged down in ideological or personal differences. Miliband’s shadow cabinet have been far too slow to produce viable and inspiring policy ideas.

However, as the shocking revelations of the past week have shown, dishonesty and deceit are facts of life on a national scale. Rightly or wrongly the public digests the truths, half truths, lies and simplifications of the press every day. And for the average voter that mysterious quality of “likeability” will always prove crucial to which party they back at the polls.

Ed Miliband’s team are clearly aware of this, as anyone working in politics must be. But rather than supporting the key work on policy behind the scenes, the Labour leader’s media experts have meddled to such an obvious and unsubtle extent, that the overwhelming impression of Miliband amongst the public of late has been one of fakery and artificiality. The most embarrassing incident for Miliband has been the exposure of this interview about the planned strike of teachers across the country.

It makes for excruciating viewing. The journalist conducting the interview has written and spoken about his frustration. And it really is the sort of snippet behind the curtain of political life at the grim reality of it all that makes you doubt the truth of anything any MP ever says. Miliband delivers the same answer, reordered a little each time, to ensure a carefully crafted soundbite makes the news. His delivery, seen in context, is terrifyingly robotic. At no point is there even a glimmer of the man himself or a hint of his own opinion.

Ironically Miliband is now speaking out boldly against such negative elements of the press because of the ever growing scandal engulfing News International, forcing the closure of the News of the World. Cynical onlookers will criticise Miliband for yet another case of opportunism. But whatever his political motives, it’s clear that Miliband is putting himself in the firing line of an extremely powerful Murdoch empire in a way that no politician has previously done, to first and foremost, do the right thing. He has defended press freedom throughout and simply called for the proper investigations to go ahead.

In the midst of the phone hacking turmoil, an interview with former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been buried, in which he openly criticised Gordon Brown’s betrayal of New Labour. He stressed the importance of occupying the centre ground to win elections. Miliband responded in an interview with Andrew Marr by saying that he believed the centre ground had moved, presumably to the left.

Another factor Miliband must consider as he takes the initiative on phone hacking, is avoiding categorization as a popular leader of the “politics of protest” Blair warns against, which might count against his credibility as a potential Prime Minister. In other words, the fallout from the News of the World crisis might win Miliband supporters as a leader of the opposition, but ultimately not convince them that he has what it takes to lead the country.

This may be the crisis that establishes Miliband’s credentials as an opposition leader with influence. Then again Miliband may have sowed the seeds of his downfall by angering Murdoch and perhaps even more dangerously, leaving himself open to charges of hypocrisy. His PR team need to dramatically alter their strategy and have more confidence in Miliband’s ability to be himself and to speak through policy. Otherwise the correct case he is making about the BSkyB takeover and the immorality of hacking the phones of Milly Dowler and others, will be undermined and defeated.

By Liam Trim

Ed Miliband on the other hand, has been constantly under fire from both the media and Britain as a whole, and his own party. His leadership is generally, and not unjustifiably, characterised as ineffectual and inactive. He has more often than not chosen to stand by and do nothing but protest vocally at government plans. He has claimed to be the voice of Britain’s ordinary people and its “progressive majority”. His critics say that this majority doesn’t exist and even those that think it might, recognise that it has to be earned and forged from blood, sweat, tears and most crucially of all, policy.

Labour under Ed Miliband has produced almost no policy. His supporters and aides will argue that he’s been focusing on healing Labour’s image, bruised and battered by thirteen years of controversial government. But there has been no clear rebranding or change of direction either. The publication of elder brother David’s would-be acceptance speech last week highlighted just how much more Ed could have done from the start. I was critical of David’s lazy leadership campaign and even praised Ed’s more concrete vision. Looking at David Miliband’s speech though, it’s hard to argue with those who say he would be doing better as leader right now.

The speech sets out the deficit as Britain’s key political argument. It simultaneously does more to defend Labour’s record in government and admit its mistakes than Ed has done. It systematically addresses key areas with attractive focus; Ed’s speech tended to waffle more generally, focusing on alerting the world to the fact that he was an alright sort of guy. Well now we all want to know what he’s going to do to prove it.

To make things worse for the victorious Miliband, his shadow cabinet has hardly had time to settle. Alan Johnson didn’t last long as Shadow Chancellor. There has already been more than one reshuffle. Ed Balls, finally in the role he has craved for so long, is Labour’s only ray of activity. Last week he announced the one concrete policy they have in opposition; increase the bonus tax on bankers. Balls intends to gather support from rebellious Lib Dem and even Conservative MPs to push a Bill through Parliament that would take more money from the banks to fund employment schemes for the young and house building projects; to stop the rot on growth.

Now it’s obvious that one of Miliband’s weak points has been his inability to do much else besides bash the banks. Credible Prime Ministers cannot afford to make such powerful enemies or be defined by the one headline grabbing policy. But the plans of his money man Ed Balls are exactly the type of thing Labour should be doing more of. The government’s refusal to invest in the economy or change course on its programme of cuts is doing lasting damage. Labour cannot afford to just talk about this. They should hit the coalition where it hurts; by acting to safeguard the national interest it claims to be working for.

Miliband could go further. He could say that a Labour government would not just build homes for struggling first time buyers but insist that they are all green. Labour needs a new stamp that marks out policy as theirs, which goes further than simply investment v. cuts. As David Miliband set out, Labour has to acknowledge that it will tackle the deficit; the question is how will it do it differently?

Ed should make it abundantly clear that he is proposing policies for consideration now, intending to pass them now because to act too late would let the state of the economy and the government’s initiatives do irreparable harm. More house building would kick start the construction industry; more homes would get the property markets moving and add stability to a fragile, slow recovery.

Miliband has continually fallen back on the fact that the party in opposition traditionally keeps its cards close to its chest until an election. People should not be expecting him to be outlining detailed policy now, he says. I defended criticisms of him early on by using the argument that he shouldn’t rush through thinking about such important issues. But he has had time now. He must have some ideas. And he needs to start sharing them.

This is not an ordinary government. The coalition can be stalled, halted and persuaded on almost any issue. Parliament is not a sea of blue and carefully selected opposition proposals could become law. The NHS “listening exercise” and the rethink of Ken Clarke’s justice reform are examples from the past week alone where Cameron has been swayed enough to track back. Ed Miliband needs to do something bold to win the respect of voters. Disclosing genuine alternatives in full and frank detail will show that Labour care enough to act in the country’s interest, not their own.

I write just hours after both leaders in the contest for the nation’s political affections made important speeches on policy. As is the trend of late, it was David Cameron’s that made the greater impact. Speaking to a meeting in London of a foundation called GAVI, backed by Bill Gates, which provides vaccines for the world’s poor, the Prime Minister would have won over voters usually hostile to all things Tory.

His detoxification of his party has been enormously successful and pledging £814 million (the biggest donation of any nation) to an effective charity, goes a long way to satisfying his own voters, thanks to a clear strategy, and others in the electorate. With one speech Cameron scored moral points as well as talking convincingly about finding a clear foreign policy role for Britain based on duty, encouraging private sector growth and stable, democratic government.

Miliband’s speech was also important. It aimed to win back the agenda of community from Cameron, who has dominated the thinking of voters even with his unsuccessful Big Society idea. Miliband talked of responsibility and made surprisingly tough statements about those who didn’t give back not receiving welfare support. There were strong strains of the Blue Labour ideology Miliband recently endorsed, which focuses on democracy and accountability at the grass roots. It was about the overall narrative direction of Miliband’s leadership and designed to answer critics.

However, whilst it’s important Miliband finds a stronger and more defined guiding vision for his party, action is what the public wants from him now. For an opposition leader options are limited, so action essentially means policy announcements. The Labour leader needs to be braver and take some gambles with his leadership, to both win over the country and protect it. No one will reward him for waiting until the election.

By Liam Trim