Miliband's War.

Labour once again proclaims itself new as the annual party conference gets underway in Liverpool.

In the largest speech of his leadership so far, Ed Miliband announced that there should be action taken against those companies who could be described as “predatory” and “asset stripping”. Mr Miliband outlined his latest vision for a greater Britain, by rewarding smaller companies and “grafters”, whilst also tackling a great number of issues either side-stepped or taken in the wrong direction by the current coalition.

Being elected leader of the party just over a year ago, Miliband is having to make a name for himself and trying to re-establish trust for his party. Although there are no explicitly new policies or announcements, his interview prior to the conference with Andrew Marr suggested that there need be a new stance.

Of course, this is to appear as contrary to the Tory opposition as possible: support for the coalition recently having plummeted according to some polls, particularly for Nick Clegg’s party.

Naturally, as Nick Robinson pointed out, opposition leaders - whether Labour or Tory - declare that they are on the side of hard working people who do the right thing.

In this way, Ed Miliband is pushing ahead with a revival of responsibility.

Almost as if the heralding of a new period of enfranchisement, the Labour leader introduced the initiative fully at today’s conference.

From companies to average citizens, the need to act for one’s community has never been clearer or on such an impressive scale of undertaking. Miliband has argued that companies who offer long term reinvestment and training should have tax rewards: and pointed to Rolls Royce as an example of such an enterprise that should be encouraged.

In addition, the speaker added that “Our first duty should be to help the person who shows responsibility.” He followed up on this by suggesting that those who helped out in their community should reap the rewards through such things as jumping up priority in the housing chain. There need be an introduction of the something for something ideal.

However, many are dissatisfied with this brash approach, insinuating that it was the Labour party themselves that adopted a doctrine of a “something for nothing” ideology and that mantel has continued to spread and debilitate Britons past their spell in Westminster power.

Whilst the speech appears well placed following the backdrop of riots and banking crises, there is belief that the Tory party only served as powderkeg to problems that had been bubbling under Labour administration.

A ComRes poll in the Independent on Tuesday showed 37% of the 1,000 voters questioned said they backed the Conservatives, against 36% for Labour and 12% for the Liberal Democrats. Just 24% agreed that Mr Miliband was a credible prime minister-in-waiting, against 57% who said he was not.

Although Miliband’s speech pledges Labour party to remain the politics of the people and to never again to advantage of the system, Baroness Warsi claims Mr Miliband is not able to promise such.

The Conservative co-chair brought forward the idea that Labour had latterly strangled the small business owners in 2008 through 2010 in particular. Furthermore, the Baroness proved poignant in the statement that "Ed Miliband can't deliver on these promises because his party left the country on the brink of bankruptcy. This is opportunistic rhetoric from a weak leader."

Meanwhile, Ed Balls has unveiled a five point plan for dealing with debt.

The scheme, which he would see introduced following the next elections, would include a VAT cut to encourage growth (similar to schemes trailed by Darling), tax breaks for small firms (not exactly reflected on having economic responsibility) and reinvesting bank bonus taxes in the community.

Whilst Mr Balls acceded to Labour’s previous mistakes, he described the current state of the economy, “the worst in his lifetime” and pointed to current Chancellor, George Osborne, as having the wrong “prescription”. He argued that having a growth plan, rather than a plan of spending cuts, could quickly put a stopper in the vicious circle of deficit and “secure an economic future”.

However, the Labour party has once again affirmed that great swathes of the Tory changes would continue even if they are revoted to power. In this sense, Labour is hiding behind the curtains on a great many of its policies: letting other people carry out the changes and then afterwards showing sympathy without action.

Should the party truly wish to get into power once more, they need stick firm to their principles and act on changes that would not have been introduced. Otherwise, confidence, as well as the economy, will not grow in any forecast. A war of principles vs popularity is underway.

I (Do Not) Agree With Nick: The Latest Economy Stance.

Amidst continuing financial woes, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg stated earlier today that the government will not change course on spending cuts.

Of course, the long mocked slogan ‘I agree with Nick’ from the previous electoral campaign rings ever more true, as the Lib Dem defence of the cuts outlines how far they have backed from original party politics in order to hang on to the coattails of power.

Despite declaring that his party would stand up for themselves more openly in May, Clegg has reiterated that the cuts will continue as projected, amongst growing concerns of a double dip recession.

Following moves from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) earlier this week, there are rumours that £5bn could be released to deal with boosting economy infrastructure. Within the past few days, the IMF cut its growth forecast for the British economy not only for 2011 but subsequently for 2012 too, despite the prospect of being the Olympic host. In addition, the organisation said the government should delay its deficit reduction programme if growth slowed further, or risk loss of consumer confidence and a deeper recession.

Ministers pushing for such a move believe it would not be seen as a U-turn as the money would be capital spending, on infrastructure projects like roads, rail and broadband, rather than current spending.

However, Nick Clegg insists that the ruling coalition is not about to alter the course of its plans over any of the concerns. It is thought that such a move would again raise eyebrows and threaten already stalling growth figures.

Of course, this is not likely to help Clegg’s tumbling popularity figures, which in turn could lead to a situation by which the nation would want to ratify a different route of recovery.

In the wake of the widespread riots that overran various UK cities last month, there was a perceived understanding that the government would alter several of its policies in response to such an unpredicted outcry of sentiment. Whilst various reasons have been attributed to the sudden unleashing of fervour, one of the most resounding put forward is that many people believe that they have little money and little leisure time and space, whilst a capitalist economy boasts the many luxuries that are outside swaths of Britons’ pockets.

Remembering a time when election politics foretold a riot if Tory cuts were implemented, it seems as if Clegg has not fully appreciated the wisdom of his own words.

Yet in spite of such scenes, Clegg presents the recovery as it stands as “the right thing, not the easy thing”.

It appears that it is a game of nerve and cheek. Reflecting on the economy as ‘a game’ firstly is not going to install any confidence. But it would seem that here lies the government’s wish that the city hold firm in the face of probing questions and concerns over the state of finances in Italy and Greece.

The aim is to continue with the outlined plans so as to “build a new economy. An economy for the whole nation.”

However, Clegg’s bravado does not muster the same feeling of unity that it did in May 2010. Such idealistic views are no longer heeded with the same anticipation and there remains a great unease that this latest government has made little headway into resolving the deficit crisis over its 16 months in Westminster.

Cries of ‘I agree with Nick’ are now few and far between.

I Need A Dollar.

Recession has hit many in the country hard and the gap between rich and poor continues to grow into a chasm that will only be closed after several decades of continued effort.

Whilst just 5 years ago, Britons were amongst the better off peoples in the developed world, having more wealth per capita than Americans, the turmoil in economic banking has hit hard. In order to grind the recession to a halt, there need be revolution of the way the monetary systems correspond with each other: how far countries should integrate, banks make deals, loans be offered etc.

The Independent Commission on Banking is due to deliver a full report and recommendations on how to proceed in these turbulent times come September. However, in its Interim release, there was call for a ‘ring-fencing’ of bank operations.

John Vickers, who is leading the commission and is also the former chief economist to the Bank of England, outlined the suggestion in April. It would involve separating the retail operations of banks from the investment quarters. In so doing, it would be hoped that the taxpayer is firstly never again responsible for the blunderings of the multinational corporates, and also ensure a more stable safe haven for money deposits, by interest rates and bank credibility not affecting all customers to the same extent.

However the Government is under no obligation to implement any recommendations from Vickers.

Although the Commission was set up by the current parliament last year, it seems that there is already a shrugging of its findings, with ministers being shy to accept the report. There is no rush to go ahead with splitting up the sectors.

Of course, economic stability is not quite as simple as it was at the beginning of last century. Whilst countries only had interdependence on a few others, the globalisation of markets has led to a wide and often unstable allegiance of various countries. Whether these are markets for imports or exports, goods or employment, there is now a consensus that any changes need be implemented on a global scale never before witnessed.

With the Eurozone failing and a ban on cold selling, there is a certain unease. Across the pond, America’s credit rating has been downgraded. The giants of world revenue are tumbling.

The head of the British Bankers' Association, Angela Knight, has said that there needs to be a focus on the recovery first and the taxpayer second. She said that regulatory change could undermine the recovery, whilst John Cridland, director general of the CBI, added that "Taking action at this moment - this moment of growth peril, which weakens the ability of banks in Britain to provide the finance that businesses need to grow - is just to me barking mad,"

 

The question then is how to tackle the crisis.

Naturally, this has been the forerunner of all major economists over the past three years, but this is all the more relevant because just months ago, forecasters were once more predicting growth that was never yielded. There is no stability or predictability in the market. This in turn makes it even weaker. The circle continues so that faith in markets plummet, stocks fall, value is wiped from companies.

In this way, it is logically to assume the real resolve would be to add back confidence. This involves the banks interlending. This would have to be monitored, but if there was a free flow of money, there would be less economic danger of funds being tied down.

This would open new markets and revenues and allow customers to shop more freely, invest more freely, and trust more freely.

However, regulation is difficult due to the uncharacteristic nature of the markets. Any action could send it toppling or cause a bounce back and these extremities are believed too risky. Slow progression is favoured.

Whilst this may be advisable for now, regulation revolution is required if there is to be consumer confidence in money matters once more. The extent of lost revenue and wealth is overwhelming: there need be change to the structures of money lending. Banks can no longer be the only regulators.

Watch this video for an explanation regarding how the economic crisis could spread. Applicable to many countries in the Eurozone too:

The True Value of the Student.

One may assume that the economy and education have little in common: on the surface, the first is a matter of national wealth affecting all areas of population life, while the latter is the trivial concern of youngsters.  Whilst the economy is a consistent worry of the majority, education is a problematic feature that many ignore.

However, whilst the economy shrunk, university intake continued its seemingly exponential increase in applicants. The popularity of the universities, still surrounded by a plethora of promises for better employment prospects and lessons in life, led to an increasingly diverse pool of peoples who could systematically be exploited to support the failing economy. The two spheres thus became irrevocably intertwined last year amidst a contentious bill to increase the student fees to 9k. 

Due to the level of controversy over the cuts, it was somewhat impossible to be ignorant of the demonstrations and protests that were organised nationwide and specifically in London. As images of defaced monuments and attacked royal cars emerged, there was a great social disapproval of what appeared an unruly group. Contrary to depicting the injustice of government proposals, the unfolding occurrences marred support. 

As the measures come into force then, many questions are unresolved. How will the student be able to adjust to such a staggering increase in cost? How will this ensure education is available to all those who wish to pursue it? Will this not impinge upon University expansion and research?

Nine thousand pounds per annum makes Britain’s university systems one of the most expensive around the globe. In fact, the changes come as Britain has begun a decline down the tables of World University ratings. As such, there could be argument that the increases ensure that one is paying more for an inferior service. There is no other industry where such a correlation between price and provision would be openly tolerated.

Part of the problem is that students have been afforded an image that only breeds discontent and impassivity from important members of the social circle by consequence of the actions of a minority. However, in the economic recovery, we are expected to reimburse the state with an enormous sum after graduation. This is in addition to the fact that our active participation in University generates sufficient amounts of income for the state via research output and the involvement in the local community. These are not exhaustive examples by any means. Furthermore, students support the teaching profession itself and by consequence of further education output, there are more qualified peoples to ensure expansion of diverse enterprises. Thus the student already provides a key crux in economic stability without having to carry token burdens. 

“Governments want to use universities to upgrade their workforce and develop hi-tech industries” says Philip Altbach, director of the Centre for International Higher Education Universities, proving that the government has just as much invested in the success of the University scheme as the students themselves. He reaffirms that “in the rich countries, Universities are making big bucks”. This is something that is readdressed by the UK's universities minister, David Willetts, who continued to advocate that "developed economies are already highly dependent on universities and if anything that reliance will increase.” We should focus on the word ‘dependent’ here. How should this dependency rise?

Recently, a BBC article suggested that the way in which we judged a country’s power and influence was under a flux of change. Whilst one hundred years ago, it may have been Empire, two hundred past it would have been developing industrialisation, it is now fast becoming the student themselves. Hardly surprising, the student is the centre of research activity, of professional output, of cultural change. In undertaking degrees in what has become a globalised scheme, the adults are able to gain knowledge, experience new influences and take note of other world systems that all mix together in a melting pot to fuel social revolution. Consequently, the student is at the forefront of discovery, of modern social mobility and continued economic growth.

‘Dependant’ as a term to describe the economy in relation to the student is quite a powerful chip to possess. To say that the county and the world as a whole is largely dependent on the student domain is to infer that the untapped potential of the teenage sphere could create a great tumult if it were to approach the fee changes in a much more cerebral manner.

Considering the level of support the student already provides, imagine the extent of potential damage should the demand for education dry up in response to the unnecessary exploitation of this social group. Hypothetically, if students for 2012 entry were to withdraw applications so that the university system collapsed, a viable market would be closed. For these students who would sacrifice their education, no doubt will there be great unease. However, with fewer graduates, employers would face no other alternative than to encourage these youngsters into the workplace to compensate for demand. If they refused, economic decline would only further ensue.

The result of such defiance? With a reduced market, the government not only has lost valuable income, but the reputation of English research would be put in jeopardy. Through this, the student will have proven their integral part of the economic recovery without having coloured people against their plight. Government officials would be obliged to reconsider their unjustified increase in fees in order to sustain economic recovery.

Currently, it is estimated that LSE spends about £0.5billion each year. Oxbridge is said to be slightly more, top Russell group establishments slightly less. This is only the disposable income of each institution: they actually sit upon funds much more numerous than that. Just more than 480,000 students are expected to start as freshers in the academic calendar 2011/2012. If we take this figure for the following year, the first year students alone would provide £4,320,000,000 in tuition fees alone. Imagine that figure trebled in three years. By no means can this be justified. Withdrawing our applications would see hundreds of billions of pounds stop circulating – from the education department, to local businesses, to research output. Stagnating such a gross figure would cut deep into the spending plans of government and reveal the true potential of the student class.

Combined pressures from exams, loans and often job burdens have seen students addressed as one of the most vulnerable groups in society. It is concerning that the government should therefore only add to the inevitable woe of the scholars in order to achieve a quicker, more haphazard, recovery. Students should be encouraged of a much more drastic approach in order to have their opinion counted: if the country is to withhold status on an international scale, the value of its (under)graduates should not be undermined or doubted to any extent. 

More general information on the globalisation of universities and generated wealth can be read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12597811