National Citizen Service – Benefiting an Entire Generation

The Government and David Cameron are facing a lot of criticism recently, U-turns, the economy, and numerous others which every Government of the day faces.  But if there is one policy for which the Government and David Cameron should be applauded for, it is its National Citizen Service.

The problem with the British education system is it is so focused on exams and gaining high grades, often so much so that many pupils are taught how to pass exams in subjects, rather then taught about the actual subjects.  National Citizen Service does not directly deal with this problem, but what it does do is deal with the side effects of this exam driven process.

One side effect of this grades driven curriculum is that pupils do not learn skills which are so very important in adult life.  The other side effect is that those who are not academically able are deemed, crudely through a set of grades on academic subjects, failures.  This can often then lead to joblessness, and in some circumstances a life of crime or worse.  The damming fact of our education system is that these pupils which are deemed academic failures, often have skills in more vocational areas, and would benefit from skills training or apprenticeships focused on getting a skilled job.  Unfortunately, the education system does little for these pupils and literally fails them, which is quite frankly unacceptable in 21st Britain.

While the National Citizen Service is aimed at every 16 year old, not just the latter I described above, it does have an exponential advantage to those in that group.  It also really tries to deal with the two side effects of our exam driven culture I mentioned above.  Tim Loughton MP, Minister for Children and Families, describes National Citizen Service on Conservative Home:

“This is a long term plan for engaging more young people positively in society, challenging negative perceptions of our young people and helping kids to grow up.”

He goes on and describes the benefits to individual young people:

“NCS is not just about volunteering but it is about personal development, social mixing, community engagement, transition to adulthood and rites of passage…. If done properly, NCS is not some cheap summer camp or walk in the park, it is a test of resolve and commitment. Some will fail or quit, but most won’t.”

With the constant criticism that this government is going to fail an entire generation, this policy, if pursued correctly could really help open up countless opportunities for Britain’s young people.  As Tim Loughton puts it:

“This is one of the most exciting projects being delivered by this Government and if we get it right it has the power to be really transformational for a whole generation in a way that is sustainable.”

From reading Tim Loughton’s experience of being with recruits in Dorking, let’s hope that the Health & Safety killjoys do not come and condemn the, “climbing up sheer walls and being hauled up log ladders by team mates.”  For that really would be failing an entire generation.

Tim Loughton MP, Minister for Children and Families article can be read here:  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/08/tim-loughton-mp-national-citizen-service-the-power-to-transform-our-nations-young-people.html

Less Equals More

Last month I wrote about how it would do the public sector no favours heavily taxing the banks.  Today Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph has written an article on a similar theme, arguing that we should not be taxing the wealthy too much as this actually raises less tax revenue.

Hannan rightly says that the wealthy will simply take steps to avoid paying this high tax.  Either by devoting time to clever tax avoidance, which means less time for wealth creation which creates jobs, or even worse by moving abroad and taking their wealth creation with them, or by not bringing their wealth here in the first place.  Either way Hannan says, according to the Adam Smith Institute, “the Treasury will be worse off by between £350 billion and £640 billion over the next decade. To get a sense of what that figure means, bear in mind that the “cuts” so far amount to around £12 billion – a sum which has been more than offset by increases elsewhere.”

What the financial crisis has shown is that the ‘trickle down effect’ does exist.  However, unlike previous examples of the trickle down effect, this has been proved in reverse.  In other words, the financial crisis hit the banks and firms hard, this in turn has trickled down and affected everyone, in very much the same way wealth trickles down when they are doing well.

Taxing the wealthy heavily means there is less money to trickle down and less tax revenue, a double loss situation.  As Hannan says, “the rich won’t sit around waiting to be taxed. They take steps to minimize their exposure.”  As well reducing tax revenue by forcing the wealthy abroad or to avoid tax, it will seriously decrease the money they have to invest in creating wealth.  Their wealth creation creates jobs, and ultimately increases the amount of taxable people and therefore tax revenue.  On top of this, the less money the wealthy are taxed, means the more money they have to spend, which again creates jobs and thus more taxable people.

With UK growth in the second quarter of 2011 at 0.2%, it is becoming increasingly clear that the UK cannot simply cut its way out of this recession.  George Osbourne must create a solid framework for wealth creation to flourish, along with measures such as cutting red tape and improving training, the 50p top rate of tax must be abolished as it is inhibiting the trickle down effect which we so badly need.

Daniel Hannan’s Telegraph article can be found here:  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100099370/top-rate-tax/

My previous blog on why we should not heavily tax the bankers can be found here:  https://rightblueview.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/unions-and-strikes-should-not-bite-the-hand-that-feeds/

Even Criminals are Disgusted!

Some stories do not need much comment due to their nature meaning there is a broad consensus of feeling.  The story today that Levi Bellfield is suing the prison service for £30,000 is one of those stories.

Bellfield a serial murderer was lightly attacked outside the bathroom in Wakefield prison and is now claiming he should not have been placed within the prisons main population.  The reason he gave for this… because of the nature of the crimes he has committed.  This is coming from a former bouncer who spent his working life getting into fights and acting ‘hard’.

I do not need to go into detail about how wrong and sick this is.  He is in this position because of what he did and even criminals are disgusted by him.

This has only added weight to Guido Fawkes’ campaign to bring back the death penalty.

You can read my last post and RightBlueView’s backing of Guido Fawkes’ campaign to bring back the death penalty here: https://rightblueview.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/the-death-penalty/

The Death Penalty

My last post pointed out how out of touch Members of our Parliament are by spending vast amounts over the retail price for items.  At the end of this week, in an attempt to connect with the public, the government launches it’s e-petition website, where petitions with 100,000 voters signing up will be discussed in the Commons.

Political blogger Guido Fawkes has used this opportunity to petition the Government on restoring the Death Penalty, “the Ministry of Justice should map out the necessary legislative steps which will be required to restore the death penalty for the murder of children and police officers when killed in the line of duty.”

The death penalty in the UK was abolished in 1969, with the last execution by hanging taking place a few years earlier in 1964.  However, since then polls have consistently shown that there is majority public support for reinstating it, while in Parliament the issue has always been heavily defeated when it has been voted on.  The most recent polls done in September and November 2010 by YouGov show strong that there is still strong support for its reintroduction.  The September poll found 51% supported the death penalty for murder, while the November poll found 74% supported it for murder in ‘certain circumstances’.

Since launching his campaign Guido has received widespread support amongst his readers and also from MPs.  Currently MPs Philip Davis, Priti Patel, Andrew Turner, David Nuttall, Chris Kelly, Roger Gale and Julian Brazier have all shown their support for Guido and his campaign.  David Cameron however, in a past statement in Cameron on Cameron by Dylan Jones says:

“If someone murdered one of my children then emotionally, obviously I would want to kill them. How could you not? But there have been too many cases of things going wrong, of the wrong people being executed, of evidence coming to light after the execution, and sometimes there is just too much of an element of doubt. And I just don’t honestly think that in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more.”

One of the strongest supporters of capital punishment was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  According to Richard Vinen in his book, Thatcher’s Britain, Mrs Thatcher favoured the restoration of the death penalty and regretted corporal punishment for young offenders was no longer realistic.  Mrs Thatcher was so strong on her support for its reinstatement, he goes on to say, “her Liberal opponent in Finchley believed it was her only strong conviction.”  Most recently, David Davis in 2003, while Shadow Home Secretary said he would bring back capital punishment for serial killers, due to the premeditated nature of these crimes.  However, despite strong public support and backing from a small number of influential politicians, the death penalty remains off the statute books, the last attempt at repealing this decision was in 1994 where it was solidly defeated in Parliament.

Reintroducing the death penalty in the UK is a very serious road to take, and one which should not be taken lightly, you are after all handing the state the right to kill someone, all be it in exceptional circumstances.  But this should not put us off, we are not living in an abusive dictatorial state like those experiencing uprisings at the moment, we are as pointed out by David Cameron, a mature and civilised society.  The benefit of being such a society is that we can administer such strong policies properly, being able to handle something as potent as the death penalty shows we have moved on greatly.

David Cameron is also right when he says there have been too many cases where things have gone wrong.  Again, that maybe the case in less advanced countries, but I reiterate, the United Kingdom is an advanced country.  The science behind evidence has improved greatly due to technologies such as DNA, meaning evidence is becoming more and more reliable and unquestionable.  As the quality of evidence improves, so does the justification for the death penalty.

The idea of prison is to punish and reform.  However, crimes such as child murder and serial murder are so abhorrent, these people cannot be reformed and keeping them locked away is simply not a heavy enough punishment.  Very often in these criminals are locked away to protect them from the victims and the public, as well as the public from them, who would carry out vigilante justice because of the nature of the crimes they have committed.  No sentence for such crimes should offer any benefit to the convicted.

There is of course an emotional element in such sentencing, but there is nothing wrong with this, such punishment would at least offer some closure to victims of these crimes, these after all are extremely serious crimes and a different approach needs to be taken.  It would also send out a clear message that such crimes are not tolerated, and that the state will severely punish those who commit such atrocities.  Reintroducing the death penalty would of course need a complete overhaul of the justice system to deal with such a powerful sentence, as the current system is, as those who oppose it point out, not up to the job.

RightBlueView backs and supports Guido Fawkes’ campaign to restore the death penalty.  This does need a serious approach and there are a lot of unanswered questions and issues, and a lot would need to be changed, but this should not be used as an argument to oppose it.

You can sign the petition here:  http://order-order.com/restore-justice/

Lords of the Commons

The shocking news today that Whitehall has paid 14 times more than High Street prices for some items is ridiculous. £3,500 for a £250 computer, or £73 for a box of copier paper which costs around £8 on the High Street are just a few examples of this waste.

This goes further than just inefficiency, what it shows is just how out of touch the Government is with reality.

Since its beginnings the purpose of the House of Commons and the Members of Parliament within it, was to represent the ordinary people of the country. The House of Lords in comparison was meant to represent nobility and the view of the Crown.

Looking back through history however, this original idea seems to have been somewhat lost. Winston Churchill for example, one of the greatest Prime Ministers the country has ever seen was of aristocratic decent, coming from the Dukes of Marlborough.

While this theme was less pronounced in post war Britain, it was Margaret Thatcher, ‘the grocers daughter from Grantham’ in the 1980s who really broke the mould. As well as being a women in a mans world, her upbringing had little in common with the old boys network of many Members of Parliament; surprising at the time for a Conservative. This theme was continued by John Major in the 1990s, who unlike his predecessors, left school at 16 and was not university educated.

However, since the landslide victory by Tony Blair in 1997, and even more so with David Cameron and George Osbourne at the helm, this is no longer true. Andrew Neil argued this very case in his BBC documentary ‘Posh & Posher – Why Public School Boys Run Britain‘.

The House of Lords however, once the chamber of nobility, arguably has more representation of ordinary people. Lord Alan Sugar of Clapton, grew up on a council estate, David Cameron on the other hand, all be it distant, is related to royalty.

It is therefore no wonder many of our representatives do not bat an eyelid at paying an average persons monthly wage over the real price.

Whose Human Rights?

My last post spoke about the problem of Human Rights and how it is not being used properly, which you can read here: https://rightblueview.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/are-you-taking-the-human-rights/.  Now in this short post I would like to draw your attention to the compete hypocrisy of the Human Rights Act.

With the exception of the couple mentioned in the previous post*, there has been an increasing use of the Human Rights Act to stop the deportation of convicted criminals, many of whom have carried out horrendous crimes and devastated lives here in the UK.

Compare this to the story of the British nun Jacqueline Jean McEwan, dubbed the ‘Geordie Mother Teresa’ by the Daily Mail.  Sister Jean, now 63 years old, has worked in the city of Bangalore in India since 1982, tirelessly helping leprosy patients in the Sumanahalli Society.  However this week, due to not having a visa, as these were not needed when she arrived in 1982, she was due to be deported.  Had it not been to a last minute decision by Indian Government to grant her a temporary visa while she sorts a more permanent one out, she would have left India where she was living so as to help people.

While the countries are different, it is an interesting comparison on the subject of deportation.  A kind hearted women, who says, “I will strive for their welfare”, faced the prospect of being deported from India.  While in the UK, criminals who have destroyed others welfare cannot deported as they claim it breeches their Human Rights.  If anyone’s Human Rights are being breeched, it is surely the patients of the Sumanahalli Society had Sister Jean been deported!

Also on a final note, compare Sister Jeans selfless work, to some of the cases some Human Rights Lawyers work on, and claim they are protecting the Human Rights of their clients.

Some food for thought I believe…..

The inspiring story of Sister Jean can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019366/Geordie-Mother-Teresa-granted-minute-reprieve-outcry-deportation.html

*Mr & Mrs Chapti mentioned in the previous post are not convicted criminals, and have no connection whatsoever with the criminals I mention.

Are You Taking the Human Rights?

From being set up with good intentions, the Human Rights Act is now constantly in the news about how it is being used as a loophole for criminals.  This is a shame, as such a bill of rights in theory is beneficial for everyone.  The problem is, in reality, (and I agree there is a large overemphasis by the press), that many do not actually care about the Human Rights they are claiming, it is just a way of getting around the law – they would claim whatever article of the Human Right Act which gives them the desired result.

This causes two outcomes:  Firstly, it completely undermines the rule of law.  Secondly, it stigmatises those genuine cases where the Human Rights Act is used by those it was meant to protect.

This week Vali Chapti an Indian national, and his wife Rashia Chapti a British national, are using Article 8, (the right to family life), Article 12, (the right to marry) and Article 14, (to be free from discrimination) of the Human Rights Act, in an attempt to revoke the decision that Mr Chapti cannot stay in the UK.

Under new immigration rules announced by the Home Secretary Theresa May in June 2010, English is now a basic requirement for all immigrants coming into the United Kingdom, and unfortunately for Mr Chapti he can neither speak, write, or read English, and thus cannot move permanently to the country.

While it may seem to contradict David Cameron’s view of marriage as an important institute, and his push to recognise it in places such as the tax system, this ultimately is a fair and coherent decision.  This is once again another example of abuse of the Human Rights Act.  Most likely not personally by Mr and Mrs Chapti, it is in fact quite understandable that they have challenged the decision, but by the Human Rights lawyers.  These lawyers do not protect Human Rights like some institutions and charities, rather they specialise in how to use the Human Rights Act to win cases and line their pockets.

It is not unfair for an English speaking country, where everything from shopping, to going to the doctors is done in the English language, to insist that those who wish to come and live and be part of the society speak the language.  The most basic requirement for good integration is the ability for everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Recently, the London Evening Standard has been highlighting how many children in London cannot read and write, and how detrimental it is for them in life.  Take this further, and imagine being unable to read, write and even speak, and the serious limitations this puts on your ability to do achieve your best.

This decision is also completely coherent with other countries such as Australia, where unless a passport from an English speaking country is held, an English test must be taken to prove a certain level of English language competence.  Many non English speaking European countries have the same requirement, the Netherlands for example requires a basic level of the Dutch language, and France has had a basic level language requirement since 2007.  Many countries such as Australia and Canada take this further, and will not allow immigration into the country unless certain skills are held and immigrants are below a certain age, even if the basic English requirement is met.

It is sad fact that many racialise such arguments as these when they have absolutely no interest in the colour of ones skin.  The point of immigration policies such as these, whatever the language, is to allow both parties involved (immigrant and country) to achieve the best from the situation.  The simple fact is, language is the basis of good integration, and good integration benefits everyone.

David Cameron in his many election promises said he would bring immigration levels down into “the tens of thousands”, and reassess the Human Rights Act, with the view of implementing a British Bill of Rights.  It is becoming increasingly clear that to achieve his promise on immigration, Cameron must carry out his promise of a reassessment of the Human Rights Act, for the former relies heavily on the latter.

The Empire Steps Back

Under the rule of Queen Victoria Britain ruled an Empire where ‘the sun never set’, was the worlds Policeman, led the world in technology, industry and sheer power, in what was named Britain’s Imperial Century.

Now in 2011 Britain is sovereign over 14 measly territories, many of which are not even inhabited, has flat growth, is governed by Brussels, is having to drastically reduce its defence ability, and is branded as a “crude colonial power in decline”, by the Argentine President.  Is it therefore any wonder why David Cameron says there is a general feeling the country thinks the best days are behind it and lacks confidence?

Since the end of World War One, Britain has spent its time apologising for its Empire, and rather then standing up as a world power, it has been the job of the government, with the exception of the Thatcher administration, to manage the decline of Britain.

Of course their were dark elements of the British Empire, the appalling atrocities towards the end of the Empire during the Mau Mau uprising being an example of just one.  This aside, for Britain these were our best days.  Look at Victorian architecture for example, it’s bold, extravagant and proud.  Compare this to the modest buildings of the 1950s, and the high rise monolithic slabs of concrete which disease our city skylines now, and you will get a sense of what I mean.

There are many reasons why 70 years after Queen Victoria’s reign Britain was coined, “the sick man of Europe”.  For one, Britain had fought two costly wars, which had wrecked it economically and physically, meaning it could no longer sustain its vast Empire.  On top of this, as the world entered the Nuclear era, Britain was pushed aside as the United States and Russia emerged as the worlds undisputed superpowers.

However, what really changed was Britain’s attitude.  In an attempt to distance itself from Nazi Germany’s quest for Lebensraum (living space and raw materials) and belief in German superiority, Britain shunned its pursuit of a global Empire.

Now in the 21st Century this humble approach has gone too far, countries such as China and India are not embarrassed of their goals to become great powerful nations, and why should they?

We have become so scared by our experiences of what Eric Hobsbawn, describes as an ‘age of extremes’, that Britain is afraid of pursuing self interests.

The irony is, if we are to create a better, more stable world, we must not be afraid of pursuing goals which will benefit us.  In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.”

‘Happynomics’

Every Government has a focus of what it would like to achieve, the Thatcher Government’s focus for example, was to rebuild Britain’s economy, Blair’s was…. “education, education, education” to name a few.

On a more general scale a Government’s purpose should be to provide the best economic conditions for growth, and allow everyone to have the best life they possibly can.  These obviously overlap, and often one will drive the other, but there is a distinction.

The problem which occurs in dire economic times like these is Governments can get carried away with trying to drive the economy forwards.  Often this is at the expense of other areas, for example the environment.

Unfortunately, The National Planning Policy Framework which is due out this month is an example of the above.  Relaxing planning restrictions such as the laws governing building on Green Belts may drive economic growth, and provide much needed housing, but brings with it a plethora of negative externalities.

The ability of developers to build almost as they please in Green Belt towns and villages across the UK is a worrying prospect.  Cottages being overlooked by densely populated glass high rise, or natural beauty spots being turned into housing estates could become a reality.

Whilst trying not to sound like a watery, ‘flower power’ Liberal, this would undoubtedly destroy the character of these areas and destroy a way of life for some.  Some of these areas thrive economically because of their natural beauty or peaceful remoteness, so there is also an economic argument to be made.

Economics is important, but we should not let it over-ride everything else.  It is also strange why David Cameron has said he wants a ‘Happiness Index’ because he believes it to be important, yet his Government is going forwards with a policy which could be detrimental to happiness.

 

Can Phone Hacking Ever be Justified?

The phone hacking saga is not new, since around 2006, possibly before, we have known that phone hacking has been practised.

Phone hacking is wrong.  But so would a knee jerk reaction which clamps down on the press so much, it effectively protects the business of those in authority from being reported at all.

The issue with phone hacking is that, while it is wrong, there can be justification for it.  It very much depends on why the journalist or private investigator is hacking the phone in the first place.

The hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and 9/11 victims was quite plainly wrong.  The reason they were hacked was to find a story, listening and even deleting messages in the hope to find something.

However, imagine someone in high office was syphoning off taxpayers money to fund drugs or human trafficking and a journalist got wind of this.  If they believed beyond doubt that this was happening, and in researching hacked that persons phone and found crucial evidence, this could be justified.

My point therefore is, hacking a phone on the off chance of finding a story is unacceptable.  Hacking a phone to find crucial information of a serious public interest story that would add to evidence already found is in some circumstances justifiable.