Homelessness on the rise as recession and cuts bite

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/10/homelessness-rise-recession-cuts

Homelessness is rising as the effects of the recession get more serious, government figures find. Over the first three months of this year 26,400 people have approached a local housing councils, less than half of which could be helped.

Relationship breakdowns and rejection by family and friends remain key causes of homelessness. Rent arrears and mortgage defaults are responsible for the increase in amount of people without home.

The biggest increases are in London, where homelessness rose by up to over 90% in areas like Bromley, Hammersmith and Fulham.

Homelessness figures are expected to rise even further in the following months as a result of government made changes in housing benefit policies.

It seems to me that whenever the economy is doing less well it’s usually the bottom end of society that gets to live with less means of existence than they already have, whereas the top end of society keeps receiving their bonuses, which to me seem somewhat out of proportion.

I’ll happily acknowledge though that I’m probably too dumb to understand how things really work and that it probably wouldn’t be possible to have wealth distributed slightly less unequally, or the consequences would be worse than the original problem, or would they?

Injured at protest, the student now in court for violent disorder

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/injured-at-protest-the-student-now-in-court-for-violent-disorder-2294934.html

Today 21 year old philosophy student Alfie Meadows is going to appear in court on charges of violent disorder during a protest against government plans concerning tuition fees last December. Meadows could face up to five years in prison for the offence. There is no mention in the article of what precisely he did.

At the same protest Meadows was hit on the head by a policeman’s baton. He had to go through brain surgery as a result of the injuries he sustained by the hit. In the article there is no mention of charges against the policeman who delivered the hit.

Apart from Meadows, 43 other students will appear in Westminster City magistrates' court over the next two days, all facing similar charges. Outside the court building, hundreds are expected to protest for the right to protest.

I too am for the right to protest and I find some gaps of information in the text to be somewhat suspicious. Why is there no mention of what precisely Meadows did? And why is there no mention of charges against the policeman who hit him? Or aren’t there any?

Of course protesting is no justification for violence, or any form of crime whatsoever, but it most definitely isn’t a justification for a policeman to hit a protester in the head. Even if Meadows violated laws while protesting, hitting him on the head so hard it causes the kind of injuries he sustained seems a little overdone. Or did Meadows’ behaviour perhaps form a danger to the health of others around him? Is that something a 21 year old student who’s protesting against fee policies would do? Seems unlikely, doesn’t it. And again, why is there no mention of circumstances at the moment the policeman decided to hit Meadows? Or even a mention of why such information is not available?

If you ask me, there’s a suspicious odour to this case.

Pay gap is too wide, say two-thirds of Britons

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/05/pay-gap-is-too-wide-say-two-thirds-of-britons

According to a report by some think-tank, over two-thirds of Britons think the government should take stronger action in reducing the gap between high and low earners in both the public and private sectors.

The difference between what the majority of people think people in higher ranks of society should earn and what they actually earn is more than significant. This shows from one question this think-tank asked people, namely what the salary of a chief executive of a large national company should be. The average of answers was £350,579, whereas the average earnings in reality is £1m, which is nearly three times as many.

One might wonder how democratic a country is if the difference between what the majority of people think the distribution of wealth should be like, and what it actually is like, is so big.

I must say I’m not one bit surprised by these results, I consider this kind of picture to be self-evident in any country where the free market plays a significant role in the economical system.

There is always an often vast majority of people who seem either idealistic or begrudges towards people that are “more successful” in getting themselves paid, often somewhat naïve as well (I’m the first to admit I’m in this category). On the other hand there is an elite few who are both intelligent and opportunistic, one might say a bit self-centred as well, who are able and willing to use the system for their own personal gains.

Student numbers could be cut to cover spiralling cost of loans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/07/student-loan-demand-may-force-cuts

Quotas on student numbers may have to be introduced as a result of the government’s plans to raise the maximum tuition fees English universities can charge to £9,000. The amount of universities that are now going to charge the maximum fees turned out higher than was expected by the ministers responsible for these plans, directly resulting in the bill to fund the interest-free student loans turning out much higher than was expected as well. The funding gap caused by these miss-estimations will either require further cuts in higher education or further resources from the Treasury, said Margaret Hodge, who’s chair of the committee that reported this problem.

Some universities have announced their disapproval with the potential consequences of the government’s plans, Oxford university has even gone as far as to take a vote of no confidence in the higher education minister, David Willetts.

I consider education, together with (at least a fair degree of) aid for the less privileged in both home and foreign countries, to be the top priorities for any country that has the means. Consequently I am in favour of having the funding gap filled by extra resources from the treasury. I don’t quite know what the most logical options would be for what to cut spending on to provide for these extra resources. To mention one thing that might be part of the solution I would always be in favour of having the strongest shoulders bear the heaviest burden (within certain limits).

British Apache helicopters strike Gaddafi's forces for first time

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/british-apache-helicopters-attack-libyan-targets-2292971.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/04/apache-helicopters-strike-libya-targets

Britain enrolled in the Nato campaign in Libyan for the first time. Two British combat helicopters attacked and destroyed a radar installation as well as a military checkpoint. One of the two choppers was attacked by forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi, but both safely made it back to Royal Navy helicopter carrier.

The operation was planned simultaneously with other operations by Nato allies, one of which was a an operation by French attack helicopters who struck 15 military vehicles and 5 military command buildings.

Both foreign affair secretary William Hague, who flew into Benghazi to further pledge Britain's backing for the anti-Gaddafi National Transitional Council, as well as defence secretary Liam Fox, who is in Singapore attending a security conference, have already responded to the operation. Both made clear that Britain will stay actively involved in Nato’s Libya campaign as long as Gaddafi keeps attacking and killing his own people.

The operations are much hailed by the rebels, according to the the head of the rebel council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil the rebels "welcome any measures that would expedite the departure of Gaddafi and his regime."

For all I personally know of the situation in Libya the way Gaddafi runs his country should be strongly frowned upon by any democratic nation. If that on itself would be reason to declare war on a country or government that might well cause a lot more bad than it does good. Yet when a people comes into protest against its leader and the leader strikes back as hard as he can, killing many, I think it’s the duty of the western world to defend the people. And so I think it is good that the Nato clearly chooses a team now.

The situation in Libya has been going on for quite some while now, it did take Nato quite some while to get a campaign started. I don’t know what reasons there were not to take action earlier, it seems to me acting earlier might have prevented many innocent civilian casualties. But then again, I don’t think I have the knowledge to judge. At least action is being taken against the horrible dictator Gaddafi is.

Ed Miliband: “Justice secretary should not be in his post at the end of today”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9488000/9488907.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13444770

During last Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s questions, leader of the opposition Ed Miliband took his first opportunity to speak to refer to a radio interview justice secretary Ken Clarke had earlier that day in which the government’s policy on rape convictions was discussed. In the interview, Clarke defended the government’s consultation on an expansion of sentence reduction for pleading guilty from one third to a half. At one point in the interview the secretary had to be told the average sentence for rape is five years, he was surprised it wasn’t more than that. Clarke then went on  to talk about different categories of rape, mentioning in particular “serious rape” and “date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds”.

According to Miliband the justice secretary “cannot speak for the women of this country when he makes comments like that” and “should not be in his post at the end of today”. Cameron simply said he hadn’t heard the interview and refused to respond to what Miliband told him the secretary had said. Instead he switched the discussion to what he said to be the major issue, namely that only 6% of all rapes are reported to the police and end in conviction. He didn’t specify how he wants  to tackle this other than stating an increase in sentence reduction for pleading guilty is a considerable option. He did not respond to Miliband’s point that the government cut the number of police officers by 1200, leaving the question how the government is going to increase the prosecution rate of rape offenders with less police force.

Apocalypse not right now: 'Rapture' end of world fails to materialise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8527582/Apocalypse-not-right-now-Rapture-end-of-world-fails-to-materialise.html

Today will be The day, judgement day, apocalypse, Armageddon, the end of the world. A calculation has been made based on biblical data that god will pass judgement on all human beings and end the world on the 21^st of may 2011 at 6pm local time all over the globe. Eighty-nine-year-old tele-evangelist Harold Camping has taken the duty upon him to warn those willing to listen to his prophesy and followers from all over the planet have spread the word.

As I’m writing this word has arrived from New Zealand, which would be the first country to be swallowed by the ocean, that god has at least slightly delayed his judgment on the kiwis. 6pm precisely apparently was slightly inconvenient for him, or maybe the prediction was slightly off and he will select one moment to deal with the whole planet at once.

One might wonder why on earth I’m writing this blog when at most a few people might read it during the last day of their lives. Well, just between you and me, I must admit I’m a little skeptical. Predictions like this one have been made before and Mr. Camping himself has already stated that today might just be the beginning of a state of pre-damnation for all none believers and the world will end no earlier than October 21 this year. It could be seen as slightly peculiar that Camper does these predictions at an age at which one is generally unlikely to live for all the much longer.

Infinite mocking jokes could be made about such predictions, but instead I’d like to leave you with a question to think about: What is this difference between people predicting judgment day and those stating that, just to mention an example, homosexuality is a sin because god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?

Those still wondering where I’m going I’ll leave with a quote that is so universal it’s impossible to trace who first uttered it: “Live and let live”.

Drug laws and bans on legal highs 'do more harm than good'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/14/drug-laws-bans-legal-highs

The UK drug policy commission warns that the current 40 year old Misuse of Drugs Act is outdated and made increasingly redundant by the rise of “legal highs” and increasing availability of drugs on the internet. In its report, Taking Drugs Seriously (the name is either pun intended or unfortunately chosen, or both), the commission points to research sources that indicate that legislating legal highs (soft drug) automatically leads to a decrease in the use of more dangerous substances. The report therefore suggests the government shifts from a drug control legislation to a consumer protection legislation. This new policy would mean that drug vendors will be compelled to prove that their substances meet certain standards and to provide information on dosage and side effects with the drugs.

The government, having always favoured prohibition, is reluctant to contemplate the suggestions uttered by the report.

I don’t have an opinion as to whether drugs should be legal under certain conditions or not. I think the focus should  be on the problems caused by drugs and how to minimize them, and minimizing problems with anything I think is not by definition done best by attempting to shield people from any potential harm. Key to solving any political or sociological problem I think is to start with being open to all sides of the argument. Ironically, I think the government should be more open minded when it comes to drugs.

Coalition commits Britain to legally binding emission cuts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/14/historic-climate-change-deal-agreed-chris-huhne

An agreement has been reached among cabinet ministers to accept a legally binding “green deal” that will commit Britain to strongly reduce its carbon emissions over the next two decades. The green deal was recommended by the independent Committee on Climate Change, which was led by David Kennedy. The deal will, if carried out successfully, fulfill Cameron’s promise of leading the greenest government in history.

The target is to have reduced carbon emissions by 60% in 2030 compared to 1990, which will also set Britain on a course to have emissions reduced by 80% in 2050. In order to meet this target, multiple policies will be enforced. 40% of UK’s power should come from natural sources and 31% of new cars should be electric, part of carbon emission still made will be stored underground.

Before reading this article I had the image of the fight against climate change that it was a process going extremely slowly as a result of the huge interest worldwide in energy production that does produce carbon emission. The changes that according to the article will be the result of this green deal seem very significant to me and do inspire hope.

As with Cameron’s commitment to set a statutory minimum of 0.7% of national income to be spend on official development assistance, I think this a wonderful plan and I’m surprised to see these changes being made by a conservative led government. I would be interested to see Labour's, or specifically Ed Miliband's  response to this.

Liam Fox challenges David Cameron foreign aid policy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-challenges-cameron-foreign-aid-policy-2285114.html

David Cameron's plan to set a statutory minimum of 0.7% of the national income to be spend on official development assistance (ODA) has encountered resistance within both his party and his government. Defense secretary for the conservatives Liam Fox has written Cameron a letter expressing his disapproval with this proposed amendment, he thinks the plan is likely to cause the government legal challenges in the future. Fox prefers an alternative in which a target is recognized in legislation and reflected upon in an annual report

According to a source close to Fox, he is in favor of a 0.7% target, but disapproves with Cameron on how to legislate this. Currently this target is not met, in 2009 the percentage of national income spent on ODA was 0,52%.

Some conservative MPs go further in criticizing Their prime minister and party leader by saying it is not wise to increase spending on ODA in times where domestic priorities, like defense, are at stake.

I consider it nothing less than a duty for any wealthy country, like the UK is, to have aid for less privileged countries amongst the top priorities at all times, providing the way it's spend is closely looked after and controlled. In this perspective, 0.7 per cent seems quite small to me, but considering it was only 0.52% not too long ago, legally insuring a 0.7% minimum seems a good start to me.

It surprises me that this proposal is made by a conservative prime minister and my estimation of David Cameron has altered positively by this, especially considering the resistance he encounters.

Clegg lashes out against Tory 'lies' over AV campaign.

Discord in the Tory - Lib Dem coalition has reached a new level of seriousness as Nick Clegg launches a personal attack on David Cameron in an exclusive interview with the Independent of Sunday, 24 April. In the interview, Clegg accuses Cameron of “defending the indefensible” and telling “lies, misinformation and deceit”. The lash is a response to comments made by Cameron in his NO to AV campaign, in particular the claim that AV would favour small extremist parties aroused Clegg’s anger.

Clegg’s outburst comes after weeks in which he’s been relatively silent whilst being personally attacked many a time by Cameron and other opponents of AV, mainly Tories.

The difference in opinion between the two parties on this issue has been apparent since well before this cabinet was formed and the agreement to have the referendum held has been key for Clegg to enter into the coalition. Something Clegg clearly has not foreseen is the influence the AV debate would turn out to have on the relation between the two.

With the result of the referendum destined to feel like a defeat for either of the coalition partners it doesn’t seem to be a given the two will be able to sooth their relation.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ikQR4aH39TcmmrgcyrvTGE9W9Rgw?docId=CNG.4d5cec13881e837510d458bf4cf94e70.5d1

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/clegg-lashes-out-against-tory-lies-over-av-campaign-2274228.html

John Snow shuts again as gay kiss storm lingers on

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/21/john-snow-shuts-again-gay-kiss

For the second time in a week a gay kiss-in has been held in front of the John Snow, a pub in Soho, London. Both the gatherings have been organized on twitter and facebook in response to a tweet by 26 year old Jonathon Williams, he and his friend were asked to leave after the two men had kissed inside the pub on Wednesday April 13^th. Friday 15^th numerous gay couples showed up in front of the pub to kiss in protest against homophobia, along with other people joining in the protest the gathering was attended by around 300. Thursday afternoon and early evening this number was over a thousand.

Both of the times the John Snow had closed before the gathering was to start and they have turned down all the plenty opportunities they’ve been offered to talk to the media.

The question that rose in my mind reading the article is whether Pubs should be obligated to allow gay people to kiss inside their pub, as of yet I’m leaning towards no. It’s discrimination only if straight people are allowed to kiss, a potential law concerning this issue will be difficult to enforce and maybe this can simply be seen as an issue of choice, if people don’t agree with the pub’s policy there’s plenty of other pubs to go to.

For me personally this would be more than enough reason not to go to the John Snow and I think it’s wonderful to see gay rights are being taken so seriously and are defended in such a peaceful way. Judging from the video I  think I would have very much liked to be there, for the atmosphere and for supporting the statement.

Cameron and Miliband to lock horns over AV as debate divides coalition

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/18/av-david-cameron-ed-miliband

On the fifth of May a referendum will be held in Britain over whether or not the country is going  to adopt a new alternative voting system, known as AV. The system gives voters the option to select multiple candidates in order of preference (they can still vote for just one candidate).

It is proving to be a very significant referendum not only for the influence it will have on British democracy, but also for electoral reasons as both coalition and opposition are divided.

Conservatives are opposed whereas their coalition partners the Liberal Democrats are in favour. Labour, being nearly the entire opposition, is on itself divided.

Across the political spectrum politicians are campaigning for a yes or a no to the AV system. Somewhat surprising to see is that Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, whom, of the three major parties, are strongest in favor of AV, is hardly campaigning it all, the most probable reason being that he doesn’t want to upset his coalition partners, the Conservatives. Ed Miliband, representing a divided Labour party, is in favor of the AV system and has become to represent the YES campaign. He’s being supported in his campaign by LibDem Business Secretary Vince Cable and sees his fellow party member and former Home secretary John Reid join Prime Minister David Cameron on his NO campaign.

I find it interesting to see how this issue shows to go beyond party politics. As interesting I think it is to look at what (electoral) motives politicians might have. You can be assured the politicians have thought about which voting system is most likely to favour them most in the future and it just might influence their position on the issue. Needless to say that this would be the last thing they would admit.

The main argument for AV is to avoid counties being won by a party that has a minority of votes. For example if in a county the party with the most votes only has 30% (or less), with the current system the county goes to that particular party, with the new system the 2^nd , 3^rd etc. votes will be counted until one party has 50% of the votes (or has most votes after all votes got counted).

David Cameron has said about AV that it will favor small “extremist” parties like the BNP or UKIP on the right wing. It doesn’t take a mastermind though to figure out that this is highly unlikely, the parties mentioned are so far from the political centre that they’re highly unlikely to gain sympathy from people voting for parties in that political centre.

Private schools line up to become free.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/12/private-schools-conversion

The UK government is planning a free school policy which will allow communities to set up their own schools, people attending those schools will be gifted the required fees. Private schools are already lining up to convert to free school status. One of them is the Maharishi school in Lancashire. The school has a curriculum inspired by the teachings of former Beatles guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and every day starts off with  a meditation session. Head teacher of  the school Derek Cassels would like as many people as possible and from all backgrounds to be able to benefit from their system of education.

Opposition to the plan comes from advocates of state schools and parents of children attending them. They fear their schools will be devastated by the new plan as a result of people transferring to newly created free schools.

State schools that do well and are valued by pupils and their parents should in my opinion receive support when they need it. Yet if their problem is that people are planning to transfer to free schools the best advice might be (in the words of Bob Dylan) “You better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone, for the times, they are a-changing”.

So instead of looking at the government hoping for (more) support it might be an idea for state schools to look for ways to adapt to the changes in policy by improving their system and making it more up to date. If people are going to transfer from state schools to free schools, state schools might have to merge in order to still make use of all the school building capacity. Teachers made redundant on state schools might have to search for jobs on free schools that are looking for the capacity to take in all the people wishing to transfer.

Personally I would be very much in favour if the school I attend were to decide to experimenting with new methods and alternative curriculums. One reason being that I have always had grave difficulty with concentration and I can imagine meditation sessions just might help.