Friday, 23 May 2014

Issue 5: Election Edition

The European & Local Elections: Evaluated


At the Women & Europe Conference on 12th May 2014

I recently attended a conference on 'Women & Europe,' run by members of the Fabian Society, in which it was expressed that people needed to be educated on voting. This was also a sentiment I myself had continuously promoted: that we need to do more to educate our people about Politics and Voting, due to a rapidly decreasing number of people actually turning up to vote every election year. 

So, it took me as a bit of a surprise that nothing was actually being done to ensure elections made front-page news, or dominated the headlines on news channels, ahead of the local & European elections on Thursday. Nor did I see many party election broadcasts being made by our political parties. There was the odd one occasionally, but that is evidently not enough. There needs to be a change in our national political culture, rather a creation of one. People need to be told that the reason politics is so crucially important is that it directly affects them. 

A few of my colleagues had returned to the office from a conference in Sweden where they were constantly being asked their views and opinions of electoral candidates and parties by French, German, Swedish, and various other nationalities attending the conference. They knew of all our candidates, what their political agenda was, the policies they were promising, and, furthermore, they were excited about the elections. My colleagues were stunned to see the passion for British politics in non-British nationals, which is rarely seen in our own citizens. Why is it that our general public consensus regarding politics is that it is 'boring' and that all 'politicians are liars who can't be trusted, so why vote anyway.' Had our ancestors had that sentiment, democracy would never have seen the light of day. We are lucky to have democratic rights, the right to have our say, and not be dictated by policy makers or the government.  Our vote is our power; we are in control of our nation's future, not the government. It is our duty to do our homework and learn about our prospective governing candidates to ensure our government represents our interests and is listening to us. 

We must educate people on Politics and the importance of voting, and we must instil a profound British political culture in our citizens from an early age. 

Monday, 19 May 2014

Issue 4: Election Edition



The European Elections

This Thursday 22nd May




The European Elections are a mere 3 days away and, if you haven't decided who to back, or, better yet, whether you're even going to vote, then don't worry! Help is at hand, courtesy of HO. 

The last elections in 2009 saw a meagre 34.5% of Britons use their vote. It's time the British public were urged to get educated about international politics - especially when so many of us seem to make sweeping statements without backing them up with sufficient knowledge and a vote. Below are 4 tips to bear in mind ahead of the elections this Thursday (yep, this Thursday - only 16% of you knew that!)


Tips for voting:

  1. Do your research: There are plenty of candidates running to represent us on the European stage, along with some promising to get us clear out of the EU altogether. There is a wealth of information out there for you to do your homework and decide who best represents your interests. You're not just restricted to the three main parties here (but I wouldn't trust Ukip either - there goes my impartiality...). Seize the opportunity! Use your voting power!
  2. Make full use of the MyVote2014 website: can't be bothered to sift through tonnes of information that might mean nothing to you? Don't worry! There is an entire interactive website dedicated to helping you cast your vote effectively, just take a gander over here: http://www.myvote2014.eu/en/home/index
  3. The European Parliament doesn't shape EU laws, the representatives (MEPs) in European Parliament do which is exactly why your vote is so important. Laws are proposed by the European Commission and then approved, amended, or rejected by MEPs. Want to protect British national sovereignty? Control immigration? You better vote for the right MEP (just not Ukip...). 
  4. And finally...Don't vote? Don't Complain. If you're not going to take the time and effort to use your democratic rights properly (that is, after all, how Democracy functions) then, I'm sorry, but you have no right to complain. You had your chance to have your say and make a change. If you don't take it, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Still confused? Head over to http://www.thejournal.ie/how-the-european-parliament-works-1466371-May2014/ for more on how European Parliament works. There's still time!

Thursday, 24 April 2014

Issue 3: Spotlight: Ukraine the Underdog

Once again it’s the West V. Russia as tensions loom high in Ukraine





Ukraine has, since November, been constantly at the centre of global news coverage, but how did the crisis, that started as an internal conflict, escalate to what was frequently described as a second Cold War? I’ll also address the burning question for many: what exactly is going on with Ukraine?

First of all, let me take you back to where it all began, by stating the facts about this still-young-nation: Ukraine only became an independent nation in 1991, which means it was - and still is - very much prone to internal struggle. It hasn’t developed yet.

It’s also important to note that this is a nation that has endured years of Imperial Russian and Soviet oppression. Has there ever been a newly independent country to slide seamlessly into peaceful independent governance? I doubt it. Therefore it is safe to assume that this crisis has been a long time coming. Ukraine’s independence was already heavily burdened by years of Lithuanian, Polish, and Soviet oppression, along with an ongoing plight for freedom since the 17th Century. Looking back on its history, Ukraine’s main hindrance seems to be a politically powerful Russia. It was absorbed into the Russian Empire in the 18th Century, and then conquered under Soviet rule, following the demise of imperial Russia. It never had a chance to emerge as an independent country.

For Ukraine to move away from Russian rule and change to a democratic government would mean a complete stripping away of its previous style of government and economy. This would inevitably leave the nation struggling to put new systems in place and learning to cope with them, even more so during the economically devastating 1990s.  So, by 1991, you’ve got a nation full of people who have been dealing with years of oppression and are suddenly given a beacon of hope for a brighter future, and are expecting it. They’re probably thinking “yes, finally! Freedom and Independence at last!” So what happens when they don’t get what they’ve been hoping for, for centuries? Civil unrest most likely. I’d be pretty annoyed if I was promised independence and didn’t actually get it. So in Ukraine’s case, this tension had been brewing for years. This is why Ukrainian protesters were angered, and a bad history with Russia allowed for bitter resentment to linger.

Author of “The Soldier in Russian Politics,” Robert V Barylski, stresses the recurrence of the all too familiar predicament that this European nation has faced: Ukrainian nationalists provoking Russian nationalists (and vice versa in my honest opinion). Here lies Ukraine’s main problem; centuries of Russian oppression have left the Ukrainian population divided. On the one hand, you have a group of people who class themselves as Russian; they affiliate with Russian culture, ideals, traditions, and the Russian language. On the other, you have a population that has found solace in the collapse of the Soviet Union and, for some of these people, enough security to return to Ukraine as Ukrainians. This presents a problem for political leaders. Who do they try to appeal to and what will guarantee them political success? This is one ongoing issue that has caused Ukrainian political tensions to escalate. I think the problem is that it is extremely difficult to keep both sides happy.  It’s similar to the US and here in the UK – you can appeal to the masses but how do you appeal to all the minority or class groups, especially when they might want different things?

The Ukrainian people, in my opinion, were given hope for a prosperous future each time a new leader came to power. Now, in our more politically stable and developed nations, a new leader comes to power following an election that is usually anticipated by a set election cycle. For Ukraine, in recent years, this has not necessarily been the case. One sentence stood out for me when researching the Ukraine crisis and that is:
“The state needs an effective political system to make and enforce the general operating rules or authoritative decisions which nurture overall societal cohesion and sustain high levels of complex economic activity”

Well said Barylski. Until and unless Ukraine has a stable political system in place, it won’t be able to make and enforce its own laws and practices. It won’t be able to achieve high economic standards, which I believe Ukraine can, given the chance.


Photo credit: 
http://www.marxist.com/russia-ukraine-and-the-west-will-there-be-war.htm
Hope for Ukraine came in the form of an EU pact in November 2013 – At last! A step forward and away from Russian parents interfering too much. However, when President Viktor Yanukovych said he would not sign the EU pact at a summit as planned, he sparked a fire which he probably didn’t know existed (ignorance – it really isn’t bliss, is it?). Ukraine’s cry was heard all over the world. A cry for Democracy is a cry for the West. European nations jumped to Ukraine’s aid, leading the world’s ‘superhero,’ America, to help fight the country’s battle for it. The US squared up to its’ old arch-nemesis in a bid to assert its’ power and fight for the sovereignty of an independent nation. The last time the US and Russia faced each other, things didn’t go so well. Tensions rapidly increased between the two countries once again and the EU and US began threatening Russia with sanctions. The UN has been holding meetings and one hundred countries voted to uphold Ukraine’s territorial integrity following the annexation of Crimea. All this, however, seems to be having no effect on Russia since Putin seems to have no intentions of backing down. His lies are never-ending and his blasé attitude to the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops needs to be addressed. He simply shrugs off any threats or accusations. This doesn’t seem to be a man who can be reasoned with.

“Only by trying to be more European can we end our troubles” said 33 year old Alexander Yabchenko, from western Ukraine. See, a move to the EU would mean modernisation in the eyes of many Ukrainians. Russian threats and menacing whispers are holding this bird back from fleeing the nest. Too long has this country been enslaved and unable to grow because of Russian greed and an inability to forget its past Empire.
Ukraine needs help if it’s going to sever ties with Russia. The West has got to put up a meaner fight if the idea of protecting sovereign nations is what we are advocating. John Kerry is threatening to impose harsher sanctions on Russia, and so is the EU – oh look Putin’s shrugging again... I think Russia needs to be made to back off – a higher governing body must intervene and evoke some form of fear into Putin to get him and his troops to back off (I’m talking to you, UN). I’m not suggesting Western Powers need to send forces to Ukraine – that won’t help. It will only escalate matters and I think that’s why this hasn’t already been done. The West has already been accused of interfering too much (sure Putin, point the finger at us why don’t you). It was actually Russian interference which deterred Yanukovych from signing the EU pact as originally planned – this is what sparked the riots in the first place.

To summarise, then: Ukraine provides hope for Western Capitalist Democracy to prevail in previously Slavic states, and increasing strength and power for the EU, which is why it gets pounced upon by the United States and major European nations, whilst still being clutched at by Russian claws so as to avoid a stronger EU and prevalence of Democracy; creating a more powerful Russia.
The crisis escalated because the Yanukovych administration repeatedly attempted to quash protestors’ actions whilst ignoring the people’s demands. You can’t govern a nation when you won’t listen to its citizens. Russian pressure and consistent interference didn’t help either – the ex USSR only had its own interests at heart (see image above – courtesy of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/opinion/7803112/Behind-the-Russia-Ukraine-deal-on-gas.html). Also, I have an additional theory as to the reason behind Russia’s continued interference even after Ukraine gained independence: Russia is trying to prevent a future threat by stopping Ukraine from growing into a successful independent nation after realising its full potential. I have on response to that, back off Russia. Stop bullying Ukraine and let them have their chance. Stop sending in your troops and prompting bloodshed. It’s a free country, let it do its own thing. The Underdog might even make you proud.

For more information and Sources used in this text, see below:

Sunday, 6 October 2013

Issue 2: The US Government shuts down: Domestic issues side-lined by focus on Foreign Issues


STALEMATE: The US Congress

"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional."  -Thomas E. Mann & Norman J. Ornstein

By Kirith Ahluwalia


      Now we've had this before; a Congress divided by political party interests, because two sides simply cannot grasp the concept of having to work together, even though they are both in government. So why is it that this is the first time in 17 years such a situation has brought the seemingly powerful United States of America to a government shut-down? Well, I'm not surprised, for one, and I have my theories...
             
As many of us here in the UK can agree, looking at US politics as an outsider makes the whole system seem crazy (albeit very cool at the same time), and it is this perspective specifically that also makes the Republicans seem crazy. Why? Well, what's wrong with national healthcare for everyone for starters? And reducing the deficit does in fact require tax payers money - I'm sorry but you are not going to clear your debts simply by reducing your monthly outgoings (an issue quite close to home). You've got to get a sufficient supply of money from somewhere TEA Partyers (that's a whole other blog post). Republican ideals and principles stem from an age old American belief of being autonomous: completely self-sufficient, which certainly puts things into perspective, but doesn't explain why the Democrats seem to be more level-headed when it boils down to governance. It doesn't mean that the Democrats are un-American or unconstitutional, as they are so often accused of being by their opponents, it simply means that they seem to be genuinely concerned about the well-being of the citizens of the United States. Help from the Federal government with welfare is needed as not everyone is given the goods required to achieve the American Dream of wealth and self-sufficiency. Poorer and working classes need a helping hand. These groups make up the a large proportion of the population and, if they are not helped, then the economy doesn't get much help either. Just look at Detroit, for example, the 'Motor City' declared bankruptcy earlier this year because of "poorly considered and expensive government employee union contracts" and "a shrinking population." Add to that a corrupt government, low tax revenue, and an ever-declining population, and you've definitely got a recipe for disaster. Detroit should be seen as an example of the possible future of America if more incompetence from Congress is to continue. Resistance to cooperation is a result of ignorance and a need to appear powerful and victorious on the Republicans' part, which have seemingly flawed their ability to focus on what's best for the citizens of the great United States. Here lies my first theory then: that a bitter, right-wing group, who have lost out to that sensible black Democratic man, time and time again, want to throw their toys at the pram in order to demonstrate their power and lack of respect for America's acting President. And I'm not the only one with this opinion of the Republicans, just have a read of Thomas E Mann and Norman J. Ornnstein's article on the Washington Post website: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-27/opinions/35453898_1_republican-party-party-moves-democratic-party and this article on the PolicyMic website: http://www.policymic.com/articles/6709/president-obama-is-disrespected-by-the-gop-only-because-he-is-black

And, yes, the Republicans do in fact have power. They still hold 50% of government. So why don't they see it as a win-win, 'let's work together to make America seriously powerful and exemplary to all other nations like we set out to do,' kind of situation? Because in all honesty, how much power does the President really hold? The answer is not much really! Not unless it's his party sitting in both houses of Congress, or a grave crisis arises causing him to invoke his role as Commander in chief (FDR during the Great Depression). 

On to theory number 2; that a shift in focus from bettering life at home to helping other nations achieve a better life for their citizens on the Obama Administration's part has lead to Foreign Policy becoming priority 1 when Domestic policy right now, given the current state of America (I mean really, how many times has the US been in the headlines internationally over this past year?), should be taking that spot. Take the issue with the debt ceiling, for example, it just keeps being pushed back. Why? Because the two houses of Congress can't agree on a solution (and because the Republicans want so desperately to be rid of Obamacare... and Obama). A default on America's debt would send an economic shock-wave throughout the rest of the world (though, according to the 14th Amendment, the US is not allowed to default on its debt), but, as Treasury Secretary Jack Lew suggests, a raise of the current debt ceiling would be more beneficial for the American economy. Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling; they seem to be convinced of the idea that the US can simply make more cuts in spending (really, more?? what is it with right-wing politicians and spending cuts!), whereas President Obama has made it clear that he will not be negotiating on this. So we're back to watching two annoying children sulk and fight, but that's just one issue. America's unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan harmed its reputation "for judgement and competance," and failed to produce any results which would compensate for the "human, military, and economic costs" (Richard Haass - Foreign Policy begins at Home). The US has been ignoring issues at home in order to be the first to take place centre-stage when a global crisis surfaces: just look at Syria for example, which took priority only to lead the US to a government shut-down. Now I'm not saying the two are closely linked, what I am saying is that foreign policy directly affects domestic prosperity, something American Diplomat Richard Haass emphasises in his book 'Foreign Policy begins at Home.' A focus on external challenges have already started crippling America in more ways than one; "including a burgeoning deficit and debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-class schools, an outdated immigration system, and the prospect for a prolonged period of low economic growth" (Richard Haass - Foreign Policy begins at Home). What America doesn't seem to realise is  that this focus on global involvement puts the country's prosperity in a vicious cycle by deteriorating conditions at home, which in turn damage America's ability to be more involved on the global stage. Is that what you want America?

So here's my advice Congress, put those differences aside, stop delaying the issue of national debt and growing economic problems, and sort it out America. The city on the hill isn't quite shining like it used to and, until you start to fix your domestic issues, there's no point trying to fix everyone else's problems. Maybe take a leaf out of Eisenhower's book and take the back seat for a while? Although I can't quite see an Isolationist America functioning well when the world always wants to know what the US is going to do about a foreign crisis.


For more on these issues, see the links included in the article.

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Issue 1: Youth 'Shut Out' from Employment


A Nasty Predicament, or Easily Solvable Equation?

By Kirith Ahluwalia

Many top news stories today focus on rising unemployment rates – specifically among the young 16-25 year old age range. But is this an issue that is a cause of youngsters with a definitive lack of experience, or is it simply that employers are asking for too much experience nowadays?

Employers constantly complain that young people do not have the skills or sufficient experience required to do the job properly, making them too expensive to hire as they then have to be properly trained by the company. While this is a viable argument, in other cases, employers might just be asking for too much.

Let’s think about this rationally, shall we? For 16 year olds who have just finished school, decide not to go to university but rather decide that they’d like to go into the retail industry and work their way up, sufficient experience in work is substantially a myth. Apart from the one-two weeks’ work experience some children undertake as part of the school education, these 16 year olds will not have gained any other experience from anywhere else. It’s impossible. Especially when you factor into the equation the fact that the national legal working age is indeed 16. Since Employers are really the only ones who can offer actual experience of a true working environment, surely they should understand that 16 year olds would have just gotten their National Insurance numbers, therefore meaning that they have only just gotten the opportunity to gain work experience. However, rather than encouraging young people to apply and try and gain experience, they offer roles demanding a minimum of one to two years’ experience in the field. Where would these 16 year olds have gotten that from?

Due to being unable to gain work and build up that one to two years’ worth of experience, the 20-25 year olds are also suffering from the unemployment epidemic. When employers are not offering forms of work experience, these 20-25 year olds and graduates will obviously be out of work. Instead of offering sufficient forms of training and experience, employers and The Work Foundation itself are pointing fingers at schools and the education system who should be focusing on trying to train these children for work. Surely our schools are doing enough? If not schools then at least universities are? Courses with sandwich placements and internship opportunities are available at most universities. At least schools have a work experience programme in place, the only other solution I can think of is that perhaps schools could extend those work experience placements. But would that be enough, and how much can schools extend this by? Certainly not by a year or two, what would happen to the future of education? We’d have a country of youngsters trained in the art of work but lacking the common sense and basic knowledge required for efficient work. Would it be a better work force without the education to support it?

Rhian Jones from the Private Equity Foundation effectively summed up the long term issue for young people in his report: “They will be less employable. They won’t have the skills that business needs...” and therefore they won’t gain employment. Once rejected from Employees, many of us don’t get second chances: “If at first you don’t succeed, you don’t succeed.”

For more on this issue, read Rhian Jones' full report: http://www.theworkfoundation.com/blog/755/If-at-first-you-dont-succeed-you-dont-succeed