Will We Remember Them?

Two minutes of lost time seemed more than some customers could handle.

Observing a two minutes silence for the war fallen each year seems a logical and traditional manner to commemorate and remember the sacrifice of our countrymen. Two minutes in which to take solace, stock and thank those who gave up their lives so young is, in fact, not very much by way of a remembrance.

Yet, whilst at work on Sunday, I couldn’t help but notice customers agitated by the two minute delay to their day. It seemed unthinkable that men who had died in a country not so far away, in a part of the world we are quite accustomed with, could roughly rob them of 120 seconds. Many shuffled around, sighed, and launched forward at the till points once an announcement declared the time 11:02.

Watching people behave with such disregard shocked me. How have the British become so desensitised to the Remembrance Sunday tradition, and unobservant of this most remarkable occasion to honour the dedication and service of veterans, old and new?

Could it be that the idea of war has become synonymous with twenty-first century lifestyle? Internet access and dedicated news channels have ensured that conflicts over the past decades are under constant scrutiny from a plethora of different outlets and sources. The conflict in Syria is believed to be the most reported news item this year. Whether on social media, the radio, television or in newspapers, scenes of warfare have come to dominate from all around the globe: be that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or countless other territories torn by fighting.

The inundation of information is as confusing as it is unending. In his work, ‘A Tragic Legacy’, Glen Greenwald reasonably argues that “The fact that war is the word we use for almost everything—on terrorism, drugs, even poverty—has certainly helped to desensitize us to its invocation; if we wage wars on everything, how bad can they be?” 

Greenwald’s extension as to how negative war actually is may be a push too far, but it does reflect on an interesting phenomenon. There is increasingly less support for war, and consequently we often try to completely distance ourselves from the events. 

Following the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that have dominated the first decade of the 21^st century, support for intervention in the Syrian conflict has dwindled. While a May Gallup Poll of the US found that 59% and 82% of the population supported those respective wars, only 36% are in favour in the case of Syria, versus 51% against. The sentiment is echoed by Britons, with 56% believing that military intervention in the area is not the answer.

It is difficult to imagine then that the World Wars drummed up so much support – of course, largely through propaganda. The threat to the public in the UK was a very real and very palpable one, with attacks on the country a constant reminder of the ongoing fight for freedom. With such little first-hand interaction into modern warfare in the last 50 years, it would appear that Britons have forgotten how crucial an army is to maintaining freedoms.

David Cameron is calling for some change to that, announcing plans for a larger remembrance on the centenary of World War One. However, Jeremy Paxman branded the PM a “complete idiot” as a result of this suggestion, arguing that “people [will] get the idea that somehow this is going to be celebrated. Well, only a complete idiot would celebrate such a calamity.”

Downing Street have demanded an apology for the comments, and rightly so. Indeed, celebrating war itself would be a calamity, but celebrating the lives of young men and boys who died for their country is nothing short of justified. There is much to be said for the courage and valour of men who, with little knowledge of the war and not wholly in support of the fighting, still went to meet certain death.

Only last week, we have seen the remarkable act of remembrance for unifying a nation under a single emotional banner as hundreds of strangers turned up to mark the funeral of soldier Harold Percival. It demonstrates our resolve to stand up for what is right and to intervene to protect social and cultural liberties. It is our respect for these men that unites us every 11 November as a testament to British resilience under adverse pressure; something that resonates with many nations following a century pocketed with war.

After all, while only a complete idiot would celebrate the calamity, it would be a far greater fool who did not remember history and commemorate its lessons.

David Rathband, with respects.

On Wednesday night, police officers found PC David Rathband dead at his home in Northumberland.

Rathband, aged 44, suffered the loss of his sight following an attack by Raoul Moat in July 2010.

The gunman, who was on the run for shooting his ex-girlfriend and her partner, crept up on the policeman’s parked vehicle before opening fire at close range in an unprovoked attack, whilst the PC was unarmed.

Moat became the centre of a manhunt for an entire week in the summer of 2010, with claims that he could long last the search parties that eventually caught up with him due to army training.

Rathband, who was in the right place at the right time, doing his duty, had the course of his life irrevocably altered by the attack.

Speaking on Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron described him as an "extraordinarily brave man" who did "an enormous amount for charity", before adding that he felt “desperately sorry for his family”.

Of course, Cameron may feel sorry for Rathband’s family as the officer announced he was separating from his wife last November.

Here, it is the collective failing of support groups to recognise the problems that Rathband was suffering. Despite being fitted with prosthetic eyes and doing a great amount of charitable work in the two years since the attack, Rathband remained, understandably, an angry and upset individual.

Recent remarks on his twitter account had provoked several figures to send their own virtual concerns, advocating that someone get help for the police officer.

However, their action went little further than a few characters on a social media network. Largely isolated then, Rathband is suspected to have taken his own life, with no other people being looked for in the police investigation on Thursday.

Is this surprising if the officer had been left alone by family members and few outside people, despite his large following online earned by his bravery, acted positively toward Rathband.

Former Labour Home secretary David Blunkett, himself blind since birth, said: "I am deeply saddened and I am worried about his wife Kath and his family. There was a man who was struggling inside as well as with the practicalities of coping with blindness. He was actually coping extremely well, but he didn't believe so.”

Who should be held responsible for the fragility of this officer? Moat, long since dead himself, is obviously a key figure in the apportioning of this blame, but he must be described more as a powder-keg in Rathbone’s actions. Instead, a society that held Rathband in such esteem from afar is damnable for not understanding, but instead merely framing and faming, a man undergoing huge changes to his daily life and beliefs.

His wife, undoubtedly in a position of shock, is sure to be feeling somewhat guilty, but this is no more her fault: having to deal with the repercussions of Moat’s attack herself.

Following the sentencing of Karl Ness and Qhuram Awan for assisting Moat last year, Rathband spoke out to describe how “These two individuals, along with the other coward who wasn't man enough to stay here, have taken my job from me.” Perhaps, these three, along with the ignorance of onlookers, have now taken his life too.

Perhaps this is an all the more important time to act, considering other victims of Moat, as his ex-girlfriend admitted she has considered suicide following July 2010's rampage.  

Strike One.

Yesterday’s mass strike, the largest in Britain since the nicknamed ‘Winter of Discontent’ in the 70s, was branded “a damp squib” by the Prime Minister David Cameron.

However, walking around my locale in York, I couldn’t help feeling a certain incredulity at the statement. Living in a town known for its middle class, Conservative electorate, even here the picket lines were drawn in force. Reduced bus services, fewer libraries, doubtless there were significant reductions in emergency services. And of course, the swathes of 9 year olds wondering the streets at one in the afternoon were sign of the backing of the educational sector.

The strike over pensions is both justified and seemingly fool-hardy. For those who have been contributing to their retirement schemes for some decades, the idea of moving the goalposts is simply undermining to a true sense of fair game: life decisions may have been different, money spent either more shrewdly or liberally. In harsh economic times, the dependence on a pension, its access and ability to enjoy one’s later life is rather an oasis amidst political turmoil.

Of course, the only way by which to ensure there is sufficient circulation of various economic funds is to push back the pension age, due to the growing number of older people. I do not mean to make this sound a point of begrudgment: rather, those who have created growth for UK markets and contributed to society should indeed be at liberty to enjoy their lives as they wish: not constrained to a job all the longer.

In fact, the government’s propositions would ensure that the average UK man had barely a decade to live once he had retired. But, statistics tell us those in cities could expect even less time: a Glaswegian male averaging a mere 69 years.

Yet, with an expanding retirement bracket, the current system is undoubtedly under strain, as slowing birth rates and economic decline generate less available money.

As such, over two million people from various public sectors took to the streets, with various marches and demonstrations affecting the capital. Whilst the government says there is no room for negotiation, and their offer is fair, should the stand offs continue to cause such disruption, outlines other than the changes proposed for 2015 will undoubtedly be announced.

The strike is estimated to have cost a minimum of £500 million. Such money is a vital asset not only to the economy, but to the ailing pension schemes that need be funded. As such, the government only hurts themselves in continuing with this action.

However, parliament officials are divided themselves. Labour, usually the political party most associated with the social class movements, have not supported the movement publically and quite a large number of their members crossed the picket lines yesterday and entered Westminster regardless. Although Ed Miliband continues to have furious debates with the PM (see yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions) he only suggests the calls of strikers need be understood. Not supported. And the ambivalent feel is obvious across a number of high profile people due to the inevitability for change

Never one to miss an opportunity to make some left field remark, none other than Jeremy Clarkson took to the spotlight to argue that all strikers ought to be executed in front of their families. Yeah, nice one Jeremy. Work when the boot fits, but not if you have to relocate Top Gear despite an unnecessarily huge wage.

Today marked the first talks between top level union officials and government members since the 2^nd November: yet this does not necessarily represent any progress. Rather, hearing how far the strikes were successful will determine further strategies for the likes of Unison, Unite and TUC. The general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, said if agreement could not be reached, further action could follow.

Yet the risks are huge. Economic impacts, social welfare problems, the ability to keep a public on the side of Union agenda. Even when the dispute ends physically, there will remain huge dissatisfaction. Since Britain finds itself in a position of job cuts, spending cuts and social divisions that will last well into the 2020s, even a recompense of a ‘fairer’ pension cannot abate the need for action. August’s riots are proof enough of the need to be weary of all social fragments.

David Cameron told ITV1's This Morning: "Striking isn't going to achieve anything, particularly while there are negotiations ongoing." However, there weren’t negotiations ongoing. Cameron’s own ignorance may in fact paint his own government the damp squib in this battle of wills. He continued "The job of the government is to try to explain to people calmly and reasonably how we are going to come through this", and whilst his philosophical airs are all true, his lack of guidance to a resolution equally demonstrate the flaws of his parliament.

The only fair way to push back pensions is to do so for those not yet 16. But why should those without a parliamentary vote be punished? Are pensions a case of human rights then and if so who has the power to determine a justified balance between returned wage and the biological clock?

An Obvious Economic Announcement...

Never one to point out the obvious at rather a late stage in proceedings, Prime Minister David Cameron took to the podium at the CBI conference to announce that the current economic climate and crisis in the Eurozone were having a “chilling effect” on the UK economy.

Now, this fact was probably widely re-acknowledged around about six months ago; the world having watched continued Greek financial woes and the growth of Italian instability. Add to the melting pot the downgrading of American credit and the shrinking of forecasts for growth and most people were under no illusions to the state of the economy.

However, we must certainly thank the Prime Minister for pointing out these obvious facts that are supposed to be being addressed firmly by his government: alas, apparently to no avail.

He blamed the current lack of growth on the continuous string of bad news about economy matters, but did not announce any ground breaking scheme himself. Rather, this task is dutifully left to burden George Osborne’s shoulders next week.

Whilst the PM is under a great deal of pressure to reverse the position of Britain amidst these financial troubles, surely highlighting the problems and not proffering any solution himself is but counter-productive. 

Although some may say truth is the best tactic, these facts were already wide-held public views: their reaffirmation by Cameron only serves to further down-hearten British workers, contractors and entrepreneurs and shake the foundations of faith in both commerce and the government.

Mr Cameron also told the conference: "Everyone agrees now that in the past Britain's economy had become lopsided: too dependent on debt, on consumption, on financial services.” Unfortunately, the continued upholding of a policy of cuts is doing nothing to reverse the trend, but rather stagnate the economy.

This concept that it takes money to make money and debt must preceed profit only just now appears to be clicking as the PM is set to detail housing schemes, but the projects are somewhat received only to mild appreciation: the economy cannot take much benefit from such a slow burning enterprise.

Perhaps, rather than continuing to be a staunch coat and continuing to plug policies that are not working, Cameron and his faithful Clegg should consider redressing their approach and apologising. It could be the making of a great economic boom in the long run. New tactics worked for Roosevelt. Was no one making notes? Did no one pay attention in history class?! Would his approach hurt the support of the Tory party too much and appear like socialism? Probably, and that why politics no longer involves the public right; it’s just a game of opposition policies…

Europe Rising.

Standing in the Commons on Monday, Prime Minster David Cameron was heckled and faced his largest opposition to date: however, these criticisms came largely not from the opposite bench, but from those sat behind him.

Debates regarding the British membership in the EU remain fierce and frantic. Online polls from various websites largely concur that the British public feel it necessary to call a referendum on the issue of European Union membership and there is evidence that large swaths of the voting public are interested in a renegotiation of the terms of membership at the very least.

The backbench motion was defeated by 483 votes to 111.

Cameron and the vast majority of Parliament officials voted against the reformation, after all Tory, Lib Dem and Labour MPs had been instructed to oppose it.

However, that is far from helping define the gravity of the issue.

Proposed by a Conservative MP, David Nutall, the motion was brought forward under the insistence that the vast majority of those eligible to vote had not had their say on the EU. And he said the UK Parliament was becoming "ever more impotent" as the "tentacles" of the European Union "intruded into more and more areas of national life".

Of course, no government can ever assume to be possessed of the right of power over an issue to the end of time. In an almost repetitious manner, the government here are setting up a power by assumption; they appear to cling to laws that are inherited as definitive of the current time.

As the circumstances of the world are constantly changing and we live through a rather volatile and unstable set of political movements, an act of non-repeal is taken for consent on certain issues, presumably to ensure some social stability. Voicing the need for change is the first step.

Yet in the face of this adversity, the Conservative party imposed a three-line whip on backbench motion on their representatives. In short, any that voted in favour of the bill and against the Tory grain were to be forced to leave their posts.

Such almost childish quibbles should not be the resort of a government not only criticised as fragile, but who are managing a country through one of the most difficult financial negotiations of human history. In fact, it ensures Mr Cameron and co have more a look of a totalitarian state: ignoring public feel and punishing those MPs, whose job it is to serve their community – ergo, punishing public opinion.

Whilst I do not consider an exit from Europe a viable move for the UK considering the globalisation of markets and trade, the methods executed to prevent such an event are hindering progression in the main.

Asked whether he regretted the order, Mr Cameron argued, "No I don't: in politics you have to try to confront the big issues, rather than try to sweep them under the carpet and that's what we did yesterday.”

All the same, this appears a rather dubious comment. Considering that his party has a history of infamous relationships and opinions on Europe (looking back to the Thatcher era), this defence could be seen as unique. It is arguable that Cameron is sweeping an issue under the rug in his hard line of action. Instead of allowing an open debate on the issue and gaining an accurate image of the concerns, there has been elected to power a leader whose prerogative on this issue seems against free speech.

Although the current timing may not suit, the motion would certainly give an idea of policies that should be considered for future governments.

Eurosceptics and members of the Conservative party alike remain somewhat bemused by the events of the past week however. Cameron’s public stance since coming to power has been one of a firm hand with Europe: proclaiming efforts to take back powers from Brussels, this was not the dedication many had hoped for last May.

Perhaps these restrictions are more indicative of a wartime government, for we should be under no illusions that the current stand point is that we are in a war on debt. On a global scale.

“Every step closer to the exit sign shakes confidence in the British economy and can hit British jobs.” argued Nick Clegg after the votes had been announced and there is no doubt a truth in his proclamation. With downgrading already occurring and forecasts being realigned, not even the onset of the 2012 Olympic games seems to be aiding a boost to our economy.

Reforms that are still primary concerns are said to be on the agenda still, but approached in much more a softly, softly manner, as Clegg added that “You reform Europe by leading it.”

Nonetheless, with a plethora of problems melting in the mixing point, the next decade will be one that continues to produce turbulence across Europe. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, earlier this week predicted the threatening results of a collapse of the Euro: “let us be under no illusion, another decade of peace in Europe cannot be an absolute certainty.” she proclaimed to large scoffs.

Extreme or rational? The idea plays on a great many fundamental truths; if European nations do not pull together over the current climate of Euro debt, then markets and trade suffer, amidst increasing demands for consumer items and supplies in an ever growing world. Add to this countries pulling every which way to suit their own political aim and not that of the majority, then there quickly establishes a tentative web of allegiances and political oppositions that mirrors the outbreak of World War One just a century later. 

Merkel’s comments certainly make for interesting outlooks and should not be skated around.

Cameron need reacquaint himself with public interest: his rash action is certainly done in the best interest to economic growth, but forcing a wedge between parliament and the public is one certain way to have an overspill of riots: and considering continued activism at St Pauls, planned strikes at the end of November and continued student demos from the end of last year, the Conservative party is not one with many activist friends. Now, it alienates its own members in the largest uprising in modern Tory history.

To Punish or Not to Punish.

Certain incredulity is surely abound amongst the British population tonight as MPs argue back and forth over the level of punishment suitable for the rioters that ruled several important cities across the country last week.

Coming to terms with the extent of last week’s devastating loots, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, last week publically pledged that all those found to have been involved in the illicit actions would be met with the full force of the law: a sentiment that was supported by the vast majority of the nation. Mr Cameron added “If these people are old enough to commit the crime, they are old enough to face the punishment.”

However, as it emerged that some of the participants were as young as eight years old, there begs the question of the age of criminal responsibility. Moreover, this issue is one clearly within the public spotlight and mind frame. Unlike the daily sessions in court, specific interest has caused a commotion and tense atmosphere under which jurors are expected to pass harsher sentences than normal.

Of course, these are no normal conditions. Law should be considered as a measurable tool for each individual and not haphazardly applied in blanket fashion across all those who are not law abiding citizens.

Yet it is somewhat disparaging and deeply concerning when people are faced with this comparison: 18 year old, David Atto, pleaded guilty to the theft of two Burberry T-shirts. With no previous convictions against his name and an honest plea, he was sentenced to a day in custody. Meanwhile, Nicolas Robinson, 23, of Borough, south-east London, was jailed for six months for burglary. Of course, whilst the nature of the offense is similar to that above, Robinson took a £3.50 bottle of water from a Lidl Supermarket. The difference is astounding to say the least.

Some judges cite the difference of the level of crime as meriting the change in sentence strength. The natural response is an onslaught of appeals to what many feel constitute a miscarriage of justice. 

However, if the perpetrators were so moved to action in a frenzy trusting that they would only receive trivial punishment, then the system need not cave on the level of severity introduced thus far.

Now that more than 1,000 people have been sentenced in association with the disturbances, the murmurs of discontent on both sides are spreading. As changeable and extreme as the punishments first appear, ex-Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has urged MPs not to pass comment. Any attempt by MPs to influence judges' decisions was "not consistent with the rule of law", he told the BBC. In a radio interview, he elaborated by explaining, “What I don't think is right is that politicians should have a league table in which they approve of some sentences and disapprove of others. It's none of our business.”

Unprecedented opinions however are sure to spill over and whilst Sir Campbell’s comments make sense so as not undermine any law system, these, the most powerful men and women in the country, are looked toward first and foremost from a populous so dumbfounded.

Technological twists only further tangle the trials and thought on relevant sentence. With many now being brought to court for Facebook and Twitter comments as inciting violence, there is a difficulty with how to justify any extended action if the person was not directly involved or foolishly made a passing jibe. In almost a sci-fi fashion, we could be advocating courts to follow through on pre-crime solutions. 

Level of justice and level of crime. Scales that constantly need be measured to ensure a smoothly running country have here seemed to see-saw back and forth. But as a public we must remember, we are no more qualified to say what is suitable punishment than the MPs. Politicians make law; police and courts enforce and implement law.

Checkmate becomes Stalemate

Previously, government politics has been assumed the same level as a game: not one of particular strategy, but a game of chance and foul-play against other party leaders. It would appear that following last Thursday’s election results, such an analogy holds firm and true. In a somewhat unprecedented move, Nick Clegg has spoken out against the Health Reform to the NHS that has been proposed by officials and had had backing of the Deputy Prime Minister until this week. The timing is rather too convenient to be attributed to coincidence. A stung Clegg is taking a stand in a bid to remind the Conservative coalition that its power is dependent, no matter how slight, on his backing. To play on the game analogy, stalemate.

When interviewed over the weekend, all questions towards the Lib Dem party pivoted on the huge losses signified by the local elections. Many people are now aware that the political group had its support essentially wiped out in Scotland and there were heavy losses across the majority of the country. Of course, the main hit was the rejection of the AV referendum: a change that Clegg had been championing for some time now.

Consequently, whilst gains were made by Labour in the North and the Conservatives held the swing of the previous national election, the Lib Dems have been considerably damaged. It should come as no surprise: in order to hang on to the coattails of power, they have formed a coalition that little reflects the promises of 2010 and so just as the party started to regain its previous prominence, faith in change has been wiped.

“Overall they got their lowest share of votes in three decades” claimed ‘The Guardian’ statistics. It has been almost a century since the predecessor of the current party held sway: the rise of Labour saw a much more approachable and thorough mode of socialism, that was not so centre ground. Being ‘stuck in the middle’ of the emergent political climate of the Conservatives and Labour made playing games quite a necessary move. For all the two large parties of the twentieth century would attack each other, the Liberals and subsequent Lib Dems would present themselves as the alternative, the balance, the measured view and pointed to any form of extremity to gain favourable opinion. Indeed it is probable that if AV had been in force for the last election, Liberal Democrats would now be in power.

However, in order to hold a prominent position, the Lib-Dems have taken U-Turns on a number of their pledges just twelve months ago. This is only to be expected: playing game earns reputation and power. Therefore, Clegg calculated stronger gains as a consequence. Unfortunately, the number of accessions granted to the Conservatives has seen negative growth of support.

Clegg’s claim to prevent the passing of the NHS Bill then may in part be founded on principle and there can be no doubt that there were some issues he had wanted to be addressed. What goes against such an argument in solid fact is that the Deputy PM has already signed the White Paper agreeing to the reform and the majority of his party had backed him. The BBC’s Deputy Political Editor, James Landale, suggests that “underlying it all is an identity crisis that these elections have forced on the Lib Dems”. That is to say that now the party has figures noting their overwhelming loss, they have to address the stem of the issue and return to Liberal politics. 

Calculated or adolescent the move may be, but Clegg pledges to now stay true to his claim. It certainly appears a rash and rather selfish move: since you’re making gains in one area, I am going to demonstrate how much power I have. Stalemate.

In this regard, whilst the Lib-Dem leader says that “where we achieve Liberal Democrat policies in government, we've got to tell people about it,” this quote should in itself not be taken as a sign of a stand, but more an awareness that the Liberal-Democrats have lost touch with their electorate and are now going to take advantage of all mediums possible in order to solidify and restart. The idea is that the people are key and so we shall highlight success and minimise failure. Once more, the constituency are treated without respect of knowledge that they deserve.

Whilst a Labour motion to prevent the bill continuing was today revoked (09/05/11), the movement highlighted the growing divide in the coalition government. If a general election was to be held and another coalition formed, the Lib Dems would again have scope to seek out a new route of choice. But rising unpopularity ensures that this government need remain in power until there has been a stopper put to the flailing support of party members and supporters alike. Declaration of vote timing is much more crucial and a matter of winning the public than previously, for it can enable a frame picture against other parties that solidifies position. Reforms that go wrong could ruin reputations.

“We've got to show people where we are a moderating voice on the Conservatives. We need to stand up for our values and say that loud and clear.”  A very noble sentiment indeed, but since it has taken twelve months for this idea to take a hold of the coalition minority party, political sway has again become a case of playing on the power and reputation that one can sacrifice in order to hopefully see gain in support. It may be said that the value of any political party is determined by how far it is able to undermine the others. Only when this is achieved in majority can there be an end to stalemate. Checkmate.