bhamlibdems

And so this week saw the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. A most unique day which not only reignited a sense of fear perhaps not experienced so universally since the Second World War but which also centred on individuals and their stories. I’d be flabbergasted if any reader would not be able to remember, in minute detail, what they were doing on the day, for me I was coming home from school when a distraught mother made me listen to radio reports all the way home. Personally it came as a significant blow for just twelve months, to the week, before the attacks I had ascended to the top of the majestic North Tower.

So where are we now? Al-Qaeda remains a global threat, although its message is perhaps one which has been blunted by a succession of military engagements, widespread rationalism in the wake of atrocities and a Western world which is becoming seemingly more engaged with the comprehension of such divergent cultures. Perhaps this is sheer optimism speaking. Statistically we are no less susceptible to a terror-attack than we were ten-years ago, and there has been a rather unanimous dissatisfaction with the means in which governmental responses to terror have been issued. Many see the War on Terror as a fallacy; terror as a transcendental, dynamic and emotional force cannot be stemmed or quelled with bullets and military expenditure. Indeed, a rather poignant cover of the Economist dated the week of Osama bin Laden’s death called out for the powers that be to ‘Kill his dream’. Unfortunately, Al-Qaeda’s vision is a message which is so ubiquitous and manifestly indoctrinated into the minds of extremists in certain parts of the world it seems that the West will never be able to shed the nightmare which has plagued it since 9/11.

A recent article published by Dr. Chris Allen at the University of Birmingham suggests that 9/11 transformed the world into one governed by the dichotomies ‘us and them’. Indeed, this was perhaps fuelled by the initial American outrage channelled through President George. W. Bush, who proclaimed ‘either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists’. Allen’s article is poignant as it alerts the reader to the fact that the area between the ostensible liberty and freedoms that the West champion and the pure, unrefined, terror and chaos promulgated by all those who oppose Western ideology was apparently non-existent in the immediate aftermath to 9/11. In addition to this fixed ignorance a more cynical and nuanced wave of anti-Muslim sentiment seemed to permeate through the fabric of Western society. Muslims, generally, became vilified and ostracised by those who deemed them to be perpetrators of the crimes of 9/11, despite the fact that the majority of Muslims were equally sickened and appalled by the attacks; indeed, many were direct victims of 9/11. It is in these dark days of the last decade that we should reminisce on with a new enlightened humility and just a tinge of embarrassment.

However, in recent times, especially in the aftermath of the ubiquitous public chaos witnessed during the August riots, the general perspective seems to have shifted back to one of optimism. Allen regales Tariq Jahan, of Birmingham, as a ‘quiet and dignified’ spokesperson for a new generation of acceptance and peaceful co-existence between divergent cultures. Indeed, Jahan was a picture of calm, collection, courage and rationality when he appeared across our television screens in the wake of the murder of his son. Jahan called not for revenge against those who ignominiously killed his son, a man who was not only attempting to safeguard his livelihood but the livelihoods of those around him, but for reconciliation. Jahan proclaimed that ‘We live together and we can stay together’. It is this change which inspires me to look forward to a decade of optimism and co-existence, and it is in this change that I hope that liberty will take root where terror once was dormant.

Matthew Key - University of Birmingham Liberal Democrat Secretary

The year was 1968. General William Childs Westmoreland, commander of US military operations, had just dropped off a communications uplink to Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ was famous for his stonewalling, the Johnson treatment they called it, and Westy was his repeat target. The Vietcong had just launched the most ambitious belligerent military campaign of the conflict, the TET Offensive, which sought to deliver an inexorable blow to Saigon, cripple the Western effort and erode the resolve of the Americans from their living rooms. Frenzied Vietcong would be injected into over one hundred strategically important areas in Southern Vietnam, important with regards to their geographical, psychological, commercial and demographic properties. Small scale ‘terror’ attacks would disorientate their foe whose technological and militaristic capability was unparalleled.

War had never been such an intimate experience. The telecommunications explosion of the post-WW2 era had resulted in a proliferation in visual media and thus an accessible medium for the people to interact with the front line, without the fear of stray flak stinging their sides. The long screwdriver of command had suddenly evolved into a gargantuan hypodermic syringe which delivered a stimulating dose of free-press liberalism into the proceedings.

Westy was famous for never losing a battle under the stars and stripes. Under his command American forces had repelled everything the Vietcong and the NVA had to offer. A quick analysis of the death toll suggests that for every one American killed in battle ten Vietnamese also fell. In spite of this he is remembered as one of the perpetrators, and champions, of America’s most ignominious politico-militaristic period. Võ Nguyên Giáp, second in command to the infamous Ho Chi Minh, stated, iconically, that Westy’s apparent tactical mastery was insignificant; his ability to win decisive tactical victories was not important. He had betrayed the core tenet of Clausewitz, the sagacious Prussian military commander of the 19th Century; he had failed to comprehend the nature of the war he was fighting. While American forces became increasingly beleaguered, dissatisfied with seemingly perpetual conflict, and ever shrouded by futility and death, the public’s desire to wage war was eroded by an increasingly puissant media influence that was accentuated by the ingenious propaganda strategy of the Vietnamese. Breaking into the most secure location in Vietnam, the American embassy in Saigon, had been the trigger release. LBJ not only signed his own political death warrant but validated the witness: once he’d lost Walter Cronkite, he’d lost Middle-America.

America’s failure in Vietnam taught us that the hearts and minds of an indigenous populous must surely be won, under appropriate circumstances and through pacification, in order for military success to be assured. However, such an approach is impossible if the hearts and minds of the home nation are dissenting. Yet it was not widespread national pacification that was the issue for the Americans in Vietnam. Revisionist history has gone some way to suggest that the majority of America, the Caucasian blue-collar contingent, weren’t as dissatisfied as the vociferous classes. Indeed, war provided the majority with employment; war provided an opportunity for social ascendancy. For the American lower-classes enlisting was, and arguably remains, a means to an end; with soldiering comes the opportunity for college scholarship and social betterment. The conditions in Afghanistan are not wholly concurring. Technological mediums have become so pervasive that even the lowest classes have far wider access to digital information than their forebears. Whilst they are perhaps less vociferous than the chattering middle-classes, who stand complete with their social acceptability validated in a university transcript, a semi-detached villa in the suburbs of a garden-city and 42inch 1080p HD Television, they are profoundly more connected to social discourse than their antecedents. Perhaps social networking has facilitated this, macrocosmically speaking, perhaps it was the ubiquity and, therefore, relative cheapness of devices capable of transferring information. Whatever the case the average soldier in Afghanistan is more connected to his outside world, and indeed, the average journalist is more connected to the front-line than those who served in Vietnam, or at least in a superficial sense.

Afghanistan, obviously, shares some tentative links with Vietnam. They both host a populous which is generally at odds with Western ideals of consumerist liberty and morality. They are both controlled, if one can excuse such arrant Daily Mailism, by puissant ideologies: dogmatic communism for Vietnam and, certainly for some of the population, an adherence to zealous Islamist fundamentalism in Afghanistan. Yet the informed reader will know just how much of a startling generalisation this is and how divergent, and devoid of hybridism, said ideologies are. Fundamentally the countries are like chalk and cheese. Vietnam has a population of ninety million souls, Afghanistan a significantly smaller twenty-eight. Afghanistan is land-locked; Vietnam has immediate and direct access to the South China Sea. People love to make comparisons; yet psychologically, in terms of identity and cultural divergence, such comparisons are instantly fallacious. The average middle-aged Afghani is significantly worse off than his Vietnamese counterpart, Afghanistan scores a meagre 0.352 on the Human Development Index; Vietnam scores a positively developing 0.572. Afghanistan is a country of incredible poverty, where employment is most readily found in dubious poppy cultivation against one of middling, yet developing, affluence in Vietnam. So how can we make speculations which inevitably draw the two together? I’m not the first and I will certainly not be the last.

Vietnam has become etymologically ambiguous; it now seems to signify a euphemism for ‘American military cock-up’ rather than a country in South East Asia. Yet this cock-up was multifaceted. Vietnam is a classic example of a conflict which was not fought appropriately. The Americans fought the Vietnam War as a generic European war of attrition, with large conventional set-piece armies and an obsession, bordering on a fetish, for the zenith of technological capability. Old military assumptions which had served Ulysses S Grant from Cold Harbour to General Patton in the Ardennes merely stagnated within the minds of imaginatively inept American strategists and logisticians. These assumptions transmuted into a cold and stoic realisation of American confidence, fired by the fuels of will and the assumption of superiority. Wars had been successfully fought in the old way, and by God, they’d continue to be fought successfully. The mass deployment of airborne cavalry, think Huey and his meaner brother Huey-Cobra, and the succession of ‘Ouch’ tactic strategic bombing, whose roots lay in the thought-processes of a futuristic RAND company obsessed with the prospect of fighting a graduated nuclear war, did obviously not bode well in a country defined by a guerrilla militia with a tendency to hide in inordinately small holes to avoid capture and corrupt small villages with anti-American ideology and small arms. America realised too late, with the onset of Tricky Dicky’s presidency that the burgeoning domestic dissatisfaction with the war which led to Vietnamisation and the appointment of a more placid commander of operations in Creighton Adams would translate to American disaster. Before the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese could be won the American public broke the bones of the US Army. Stabbed in the back by burgeoning taxes to support an increasingly large war effort in a time of relative domestic need, the US vociferous classes had had enough. They screamed at their sets with the anger of a generation whenever LBJ and later Nixon appeared on screen.

So would anything have worked? More comprehensive interdiction along the Ho Chi Minh trail sounded agreeable, but it would probably have dragged Laos and Cambodia further into the conflict and maybe then even the Soviet Union and the PRC. Village pacification was perhaps the only coherent policy; yet even then would the average peasant farmer of South Vienam’s paddy fields have bowed to their capitalist conquerors and smiled, contently, as they installed flagrant rates, or obsequiously nodded as their inherited land was desecrated and a fledgling tax system was installed by these exogenous peoples. Perhaps Vietnam, like Afghanistan, was unwinnable. Perhaps the families of 58,000 servicemen have the right to wake up in the morning and sniff at the unquenchably conflagrant, napalm-esque, vehemence of American paranoia at the height of the Cold War. Perhaps they have the right to think that their offspring’s, their friend’s, blood was spilt over a nightmare scenario proposed over a Bilderberg luncheon that envisaged the denizens of North Vietnam scrambling over the beaches of Palo Alto and lobbing hand-grenades at Silicon Valley and marching ever forward towards Washington, through the corn fields of Iowa, with Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev in tow.

Is Afghanistan different? The numbers pale in comparison. 60,000 American soldiers serve in Afghanistan compared to the half a million that trampled over Vietnam. Britain has committed approximately 10,000 to the cause since their affiliation in 2001. Despite relatively low losses the allied countries have both faced mass dissatisfaction, both in public and militaristic spheres, with the ignominy of Iraq tarnishing the relatively credible military involvement in Afghanistan. However, both countries are committed to continuing the operation. The situation in Afghanistan has become worse with a proliferation of IED instances, suicide bombing and Taliban insurgency, and, accordingly, there will be no reduction in personnel. In comparison the Vietnam War peaked around 1968-72 and was followed by a mass withdrawal process; the media having tarnished any credibility with regards to a militaristic presence in the area like as in Iraq. However, one question springs to mind. In light of a seemingly irresolvable scenario what are the additional troops for? Seemingly they are a mere tourniquet to staunch the bleeding of a nation which has been at odds with itself since time immemorial. Fodder for a new generation of canon, canon screaming Jihad, equipped with mash-up pipe bombs and RPGs and a religious justification to kill. If strategic and political reconciliation is needed then why the need for extra armaments, and can the blood-soaked dunes of Helmand ever realistically become a forum for diplomacy and concession?

The Taliban, arguably, poses a larger risk to global security than the NVA did. Their utilisation of terror-tactics, suicide bombing and their affiliation to Al-Qaeda makes them unpredictable, sporadic and impossible to constrain. The armed Vietnamese warrior storming the beaches of California today seems a ridiculous spectacle and one which perhaps wasn’t taken as seriously as the very real prospect of a terror attack on a densely populated area. It is a truism to suggest that 911 and the London bombings changed everyone’s perceptions pertaining to what kind of damage relatively small-scale, with regards to the manpower and planning required, terror attacks could manifest. Although both wars were ideological, Vietnam was not seen as a metaphysical crusade. The West’s involvement in Afghanistan raises an ideological and a religious question which masquerades in plain morality; we are ingloriously given sides: the ‘evil’ terrorist threat, the Mujahideen human-bomb VS the humanistic altruism of the West and we all choose the obvious. Yet the moral question surrounding the ubiquity of collateral damage inevitably caused by increasing involvement, played down as a mere by-product of conflict, the murder of civilians, the destruction of their homes and livelihoods in pursuit of a greater good; a greater good fuelled by £70,000 a piece Javelin explosions, seems to have been worryingly avoided by politicians. Michael Moor’s Fahrenheit 911 seems to raise this question poignantly in his accosting of senators on the steps of the Capital and his petitioning for them to enlist their offspring. None did. But this isn’t Iraq. There is a grounding to Afghanistan, a validating reason why we are there, which didn’t exist in the Gulf and the complementary presuppositions surrounding WMDs. T.W.A.T is the reason for why we are in Afghanistan. My only fear is that in attempting to combat Terror we are promulgating its ideology further. 21st Century ‘Terror’ is a myth which has penetrated the imagination of human beings across the Northern Hemisphere. The myth has evolved from an idea and both are impervious to machine-gun fire or Javelin strike. While Bin Laden may be dead his legacy is not. Afghanistan is deteriorating into an impossible war, a black-hole which is sucking the life out of civilians and the military alike. As more troops are committed the fighting will intensify, the Taliban’s resolve will become accentuated. The shrill cries of Taliban vengeance are already being heard, resounding around the desert plains of Helmand. Afghanistan cannot fully become Vietnam; we cannot draw our troops out and pray for the best. As a home-owner returning from a holiday to find that his condo has been trashed by a poltergeist we have merely complicated the situation by involving the police, knowing the perpetrator will never be caught. We have taken a Javelin to a distorted Qu’ran.

Political diplomacy and rational discourse with the Taliban seems to be a morally correct suggestion, a fix-all and enlightened solution to an ever-widening problem. Yet, I cannot help but feel that it is a suggestion uttered by the limp optimist in the corner, himself fishing, unsuccessfully, for ideas. In simple terms, it would be easy and expedient to see diplomacy work but how can rational cease-fire be conducted or orchestrated with an enemy who is blind, deaf, dumb, disorganised and incapable of comprehending Western cultural and moralistic machinations? Like a tiger with its hind-legs maimed, the Taliban will lash out violently and sporadically. The recent terror attack which claimed the life of President Karzai’s brother reminds us, poignantly, that this enemy will stop at nothing to promulgate its message of fear. The world is united in the sense that the Taliban will unreservedly and universally spill the blood of any opposing force, be it Muslim, Christian, Capitalist or Agnostic. ‘Hearts and Minds’ perhaps stands as the only means to defeat an enemy which is nourished from within. The enemy is one that is sustained by an environment defined by corruption. The Taliban continues to derive inordinate wealth and support from Afghanistan’s unparalleled narcotics manufacturing ring. For interfering governments to really change the country they will have to win over the local populous, improve the livelihoods that they, themselves, have inadvertently pulverised and mobilise them into a force willing and capable of promoting an indefatigable and virtuous anti-terror message. The British Army, supported by the Coalition government, it seems, is hearing this message, tackling the hearts and minds of the populous by utilising a more coherent policy of interdiction and pacification than ever attempted before. However, this is not a partisan question. The future of Afghanistan cannot be party-centric. The question surrounding the rapidity of our withdrawal is muti-faceted and should incorporate the best interests of Afghan civilians, be rationalised towards the capability of ANA (Afghan National Army) and should be formulated in correspondence with those Army officials who have adequate experience and knowledge. Although Clausewitz stated that war is a continuation of politics via other means, I strongly disagree that this is a question that can be answered solely from the shelter and comfort of Westminster’s aged green-padded seats.

Matthew Key - UBLD Secretary

It’s certainly been interesting to watch the state visit of President Obama to the UK this week. He’s been lavished with pomp and ceremony in a way that the British really do best. 21-gun salutes, military bands and a night at the “Buck House Hilton” courtesy of the Queen. The fun begins however, after he’s left as the media begin to analyse the successes and failures of the trip and what the future holds for our two nations and our ‘special relationship’.

It seems to me, that Britain appears to be the paranoid partner, needing constant reassurance and putting a brave face on the outside, whilst privately feeling worried and green-eyed at the thought of such as Sarkozy wishing to encroach on this traditional position.

Gordon Brown, frankly was dire at this show of extreme A*selicking. He was well known to be needily on the phone, attempting to arrange conferences, photo ops and most embarassingly, being ignored in the corridor at summits. It seems that ‘call me Dave’ Cameron has a little more skill in dealing with this particular issue. Whilst he clearly wasn’t the one to instigate the table-tennis match at the secondary school and waving from him always seems a tad robotic, there seems to be genuine purpose and honesty about the job at hand and indeed some independence on foreign policy not seen arguably since the Suez Crisis.

I think the word ‘special’ has been uttered once too many times in the last few days, I can imagine Obama sitting there, smiling at all the pomp and circumstance, feeling as if he is going through the motions somewhat. Though, he does seem to have a genuine affection for the Royal Family and if appearances are correct, is looked upon fondly in return. Indeed, Michelle managed to get a hug from the Queen – shock.

Wherever the world goes in the next few worlds, we shall be two very similar countries. But we must accept that through globalization and the rise of other industrial nations, no longer can our bi-polar friendship be a unique vanguard of values and ideology. The worlds most powerful man needs friends across the globe and as others become more important, we must accept the inevitability that we may become less so…

The Vice-Chair

As we get into the last phase of campaigning for the AV referendum, the Royal Wedding is bound to swamp the news and so, time really is running short for the various parties and movements looking to make a difference on May 5th.

With desperation comes the inevitable mud slinging; a real shame given the importance of the issue at hand and the opportunity for some good, healthy competition. It seems that the referendum is becoming less and less about the issues and technical details at hand and more about getting votes based on the assumption of a poor and apathetic electorate. Here are some of the main myths and unsubstantiated points presented by NotoAV that I feel need some sort of response (Source: NotoAV website; http://www.no2av.org/why-vote-no/):

1."AV is costly
The change to AV will cost up to an additional £250 million."

- There's nothing anywhere that says that an AV system requires expensive electronic voting machines to operate; and even if it did, that's money that isn't being spent on employing vote counters. As for the cost of the referendum, well that's being spent regardless of the result!

2."AV is complex and unfair
Voters should decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system. We can't afford to let the politicians off the hook by introducing a loser's charter."

- NotoAV seem to be patronizing the electorate by suggesting that AV is too complicated for them to understand. (See Have I Got News For You, 22nd April) Not only that, but the campaign showing the 3rd placed runner in a race receiving the winners trophy is totally irrelevant. It's not about wins the first round, it's about the candidate that's most acceptable to the majority of the constituency.

3."AV is a politician's fix
AV leads to more hung parliaments, backroom deals and broken promises. Under AV, the only vote that really counts is Nick Clegg's. We can't afford to let the politicians decide who runs our country."

- FPTP gave us a hung parliament, because it's what the country wanted. FPTP gives us backroom deals and broken promises, because that's how the elite works.

4.AV gives legitimacy to the BNP

- Beggars belief, never would a BNP candidate be the most acceptable to the widest number of people. If a BNP candidate were to win under FPTP, there's every chance that the majority of the electorate WOULDNT have voted for them, yet are represented by them.

I'm not saying that the Yes2AV campaign is squeaky clean. But the way in which YestoAV seems to ridicule the intelligence of the average voter in their campaign by using facts that aren't substantiated and really have nothing to do with the issue at hand is simply unbelievable.

The Vice-Chair

With the UK going to the polls once again in less than three weeks time, the campaign trail seems to be hotting up. Of course, not only have we got the local elections across the country, but the big national referendum on changing the voting system to AV, and taking the first step towards the fairer PR systems, which we Liberals have long advocated.

The question is of course, how is this going to play out? Politics, is a funny world. We're seeing "Call me Dave" Cameron sharing a stage with Lord Reid, one of his parties most ardent critics. We'll see Ed Milliband sharing a pulpit with Vince Cable. A funny world indeed... However, can the electorate be trusted to make this a vote on the issues, or will it simply be a vote on the government.

My concern is that surely a vote on the government itself should hit the Conservatives the hardest, they are sort of the largest party in westminster at the moment. But as always, it seems that we're going to get screwed over once again, no thanks to our orange book leadership there. So much so, that Milliband has refused to appear on stage with Nick Clegg, afraid of tarnishing the campaign.

On paper, AV should pass. The majority of political parties back it, people naturally like change and primarily, it IS a better system! However, in the wonderful world of political campaigning and points scoring, it seems that the mud is already starting to be slung. Not least the terrible advert campaigns, (most frustratingly, the one about the cost of the referendum and how the money should be used for soldiers or the NHS - this says nothing about the fact this money is going to be spent, however the result turns out!)

However, such is life. Indeed, politics is never easy. What maybe interests me more than the result itself (though I hope for everything that's holy that the nation shouts a resounding YES), is what will happen afterwards. If we do get AV, are the tories going to bury their tails and accept it? If we don't, are we going to see a grassroots rebellion in the Lib Dem party, because let's face it, this referendum was one of the best concessions we had in the coalition agreement!

Oh, and I haven't even touched on local elections yet, perhaps thats best for the time being.

The Vice-Chair

Remember today. Remember the first time a senior cabinet minister from either party has come out and directly criticised the Prime Minister. It could be a watershed.

We are of course talking about David Cameron and his immigration 'policy'. He wants 10s of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands, quality immigration rather than mass immigration. A return to the levels of net migration seen in the 80s and 90s. Lovely. The Daily Mail will love it, as will his right wing MPs and the core Tory voters. There is nothing new in this policy, it is typical short sighted Tory populism. Its issues like this where you can see clear water between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, and I'm very thankful for it.

The notion that immigration can somehow be 'capped' is absurd. Cameron knows full well there is nothing he can do about economic migration from inside the EU. He has also agreed to bend the rules for big businesses and universities. So quite what he intends to do is beyond me. This, combined with his speech a few months ago attacking multiculturalism shows the Tories for what they really are underneath. His attack on those that can't speak English looks to me like a veiled attack on those that are already here and are struggling to integrate for a plethora of reasons. Perhaps because his government has decided to make swinging cuts to the provision of English lessons. Yet another example of Tory hypocrisy.

So I was heartened to hear Vince coming out and criticising Cameron. His language on issues of race and immigration is very dangerous. Britain is a diverse, welcoming and multicultural society and it should stay that way. What annoyed me most however was Cameron's assertion that he was not only spouting coalition policy but Liberal Democrat policy as well. I can assure you that there is nobody that I have met in our party that agrees with 'Dave' on this. The minute someone does, I will be the first one out of the door.

So well done Vince for standing up for Liberal Democrat policy. Let's see a bit more of it in the future please. We are two distinct parties working together in a Westminster coalition, today's events are a clear demonstration of this fact.

Well hello there Nick, suddenly fresh faced and rejuvenated after a torrid winter. Which wooly policy agenda is that you have in your hand? Social mobility? Excellent, that's bound to bring round a few of your rebellious colleagues.

Internships! Ah. The scourge of social mobility. Rich mummies and daddies supporting Porsche and Rupert as they slave away unpaid in the sweatshops of Saatchi and Saatchi, a quick whisper in the ear of Daddy's old chum from Eton and they are away, climbing the greasy pole. This is why we have the largest gap between the rich and poor in generations. This is why despite making up only 7% of the population, 43% of MPs went to private school. Nick. You are a genius. End this culture of nepotism and we will have hoardes of hoodies lining the green benches in no time. Yeah, right.

Whilst of course internship culture does contribute to our profound lack of social mobility in this country, it is a symptom not a cause. To attribute this national scandal to a few internships is to merely scratch the surface, and is quite frankly insulting to those of us that went to comprehensive schools and are trying to make our way in the world. Both my parents are teachers and have no interest in politics, let alone any contacts, whatsoever. I am lucky. By sheer hard work and campaigning I have built up a network of contacts inside the party which gives me access to the internships Clegg is trying to abolish. However, in other industries I appreciate the task is much harder. You can't just approach a top city lawyer and ask to carry their briefcase for a day.

What is needed is a mechanism for those that do not live in London and do not go to private schools to get internships. A website listing all the different ones available would certainly help, a legal requirement made that each and every intern employed has to be advertised like any other job. A regional approach would open up internships to those all over the country, whether that be a solicitor in Penzance or a PR agency in Newcastle. London's hegemony needs to be broken, so that the well off twenty-somethings living with their parents in the home counties and in the city itself can also be broken. There are as many internships to be had in Birmingham and Manchester as there are in London. A minimum wage would also be welcome, as would help from the government in paying for accommodation/travel. However, the elite is made up in such a way that nepotism will remain. It will just be pushed further underground.

All these reforms would be welcome. But they cannot solve the problem.

Our lack of social mobility is set much deeper than that. Without wanting to rehash a recent essay I wrote on elitism in Britain, we are dominated by an elite that is perpetuated by a) the private schools and b) the poor quality of the state system. We need wholesale investment in our state schools so that they can produce careers advice, bring in companies to assemblies and bring in keynote speakers who engage in the major professions. This happens in the private system, why should the state schools be excluded? The top universities need to actively engage with students from poorer backgrounds with generous bursaries and admissions education. 7% of students go to private school, yet Oxbridge is nearly 50/50. Labour's economic legacy has made this investment impossible. All Labour achieved in 13 years was an expansion in the gap between the rich and the poor, just as successive Tory administrations have done.

However, the sheer hypocrisy of Nick Clegg lecturing us on social mobility is frankly sickening. He, and the majority of his cabinet, as as privileged as they come. We need to be looking to figures such as Tim Farron, a man who went to a comprehensive school who has worked his way to party President through sheer hard work and talent. The Lib Dems have a fantastic opportunity to tackle this problem head on now we are in government. All we seem to be doing is making the situation worse by increasing VAT and tripling tuition fees.

To attribute the whole issue to nepotism is lazy and ineffectual. We as a party need to take a much deeper look at ourselves before taking a deeper look at the country.

It’s that time of year again folks! The daffodils are sprouting, the sun is in the sky; students are lounging over verdant lawns and Gladstone’s bag has made an appearance.

The trigger word this time round is the ‘budget for growth’. In light of the surge of unpopularity concerning the, proposed, rise of fuel costs by 4p, Osbourne – everyone’s favourite person and general bastion of benevolence – has proclaimed that fuel prices at the pump will drop by 1p. Callooh, callay! Frabjuous Day! This will be achieved by a rather crippling £2bn tax on oil companies; it seems to me that this is the half-gnawed at carrot that’s been offered as recompense after a good whipping with the treasurer’s cane.

Something which students and alcoholics generally, will feel most anxious about is the rise in alcohol and tobacco tax – 4p on a bottle of finest Frosty Jacks and 15p on a bottle of Aldi’s finest Rose to you and I.

However, despite all the expected doom and gloom, Ed Miliband managed to get some banter in - "Every time he comes to this House growth is downgraded," – claws out mate, everyone would have thought you were posing some form of intimidating threat as leader of the opposition! To his credit the man spoke some sense, in a rather polemic verse Miliband cried: "It's the same old Tories - it's hurting but it isn't working."

Finally, true to awful rhetorical form, Osbourne proclaimed that his budget would “put fuel into the tank of the British economy" – cringe.

On a serious note, the parsimonious nature of the budget was to be expected – the growth forecast, propagated by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, has slumped from 2.1% to 1.7% for the 2011 fiscal year. As always people have to pay for this. I can honestly forecast that it’s never been a worse time to be a car owner, cigarette-smoker or binge drinker – my life is essentially ruined.

To subvert the Specials somewhat, I believe that this is a case of ‘doing too much, much too soon’. Added to all this a malignant threat still hangs in the air – what’s to stop the oil companies from passing on the cost of their tax to the customers at the pump?

‘Flip-flopping’ over alarm clock Britain: Why the Hutton Report is illiberal and why I support the UCU Strike.

The UCU strike is in full swing: lecturers are being more pro-active and vociferous than they usually are (well at least than they are in my lectures on Mediaeval Court-Structures and Early Stuart Kingship!) and students, generally, remain flummoxed as to which side to come down on. On the one hand, many feel solidarity with their tutors; these are the people who champion our education and provide enthralling lectures and seminars on subjects which we are truly passionate about. Perhaps more importantly, they are also the people that provide you with a warm lecture theatre, away from the freezing depths of the typical Selly Oak house, and a Wi-Fi connection from which to conduct obligatory Facebook updates and important BBMing. However, students are also feeling consternation towards members of staff who haven’t rearranged contact hours which will be lost due to the strike. As an Arts Student I feel their anguish, what with a dearth of contact hours as it stands; the strikes, had they fell on Monday or Wednesday, would have evaporated my entire week’s contact time.

Despite these somewhat fatuous anxieties, moaning about contact hours seems somewhat pointless given the gravity of the situation, I feel strongly for the motives of the strike. Coming from a family of teachers I’ve often been subjected to the wrath of those who feel undervalued as professionals: most academics do feel ostracised when compared to their, arguably more respected, legal and medical brethren. In this sense they are the social group which embodies Nick Clegg’s ‘Alarm Clock Britain’; which, with rather dubious phraseology aside, is a defining problem of our current social hierarchical structure.

The average academic’s salary weighs in at about £35,000 pa, about in line with a top-flight secondary school teacher (and by this I mean one who has accrued ‘responsibility points’). When most lawyers start on £30,000 and GPs earn anything in the region of £60,000, it’s not hard to imagine why calls for higher wages seem to be ubiquitous. This is especially resonant when one remembers that the path to academia is littered with expense, toil and arduous study. An academic at a university must, usually, be in possession of a doctoral degree (Phd); these are degrees which take three years to attain and are usually not funded. Of course, entrance to a doctoral degree has a pre-requisite: one must be in possession of a ‘Good Undergraduate (BA/BSc etc) Degree’ (by this they mean a 2:1 or a First) and a Masters Degree (MA, MSc/MPhil). If we assume that each degree stage takes an average length of time to attain: three years for a Batchelors, one for a Masters and three for a Phd; combined with, what is becoming another pre-requisite: a teaching qualification (which usually takes six-months to a year) – the average academic would have studied for eight years; at an average cost of £3500 per year of study. On tuition alone the academic would have spent £28,000, and remember this may be significantly higher dependent on the institution attended, in order to be educated to a level which is a pre-requisite. It aint cheap and it’s certainly not a route which should command such an exceedingly average earning power. Added to this we must remember that the academic or ‘reader’ usually starts on a salary of £17-19K pa.

These are the most educated people in our society; and, somewhat ironically, they are the people who will be educating our future politicians, investment bankers, lawyers and doctors who will command a much higher income then their own! A few years back an academic at Birmingham, who held a doctorate in oncology (The Study of Cancers and Tumours), and was noted as one of the top in his field, retrained as a plumber, simply because he could, potentially, earn a lot more money and thus support his fledgling family. Personally I think it’s disgraceful that someone, who had invested so much effort and money into education, should have to change their career based on such fiscal issues. We stand stripped of an academic whose research could have potentially pushed the field of oncology and perhaps contributed to the health of the entire nation.

Aside from the monetary aspect, educators are certainly not, in terms of general consensus, the most prestigious members of our society. Ask yourself, when was the last time you felt genuinely respectful of your average teacher? If you have felt respectful was this on the same level as the respect you’ve felt for a high-earning businessman or lawyer? Have you ever aspired to the dizzying heights of academia? Or, like most people, do you think that such a social position is deluged in mediocrity?

I believe that the contribution that educators make to society, and to posterity, is humungous and we certainly wouldn’t be in the situation we are in now, studying the things we are, if it weren’t for an inspirational light at some stage in our academic career. I chose History as my degree subject on the basis that I had a teacher who was inspirational, charismatic – and, to use a cliché, brought History to life. We shouldn’t oppress these people, nor should we impose a higher retirement age on them. Doing such things will only crush spirits, supplant the ambitions of those who want to make teaching their career and strip our nation of its prize thinkers.

-- Cameron stated as an election aim that he wanted to ‘professionalise’ teaching once again. He wanted to redeem the inherent prestige that pedagogues once had and have now surrendered to emerging investment bankers and lawyers. It seems somewhat hypocritical, therefore, for him to back the findings of the Hutton report which seeks to so debase academics monetarily and, inevitably, socially. Perhaps Cameron’s calls were merely ostensible; retrospectively they seem to smack of window-dressing. Perhaps they were just a thinly-veiled appeal to Guardian readers who needed a reason not to vote for Labour and weren’t inclined to vote Liberal.

We may be living in ‘Alarm-Clock Britain’ but the Hutton report’s current proposals will only muffle the wake-up call. The report has the potential to leave a generation of prospective academics and ‘original thinkers’ dozing. We must incentivise and reward ingenuity and personal resource, irrespective of social position; the ‘meritocratic’ age in which we live should not be circumscribed by monetarily constraining oppression.

Matthew Key
Liberal Democrat Society Secretary


For more information on the Hutton Report (concerning public sector pensions and their affect on academics) and the UCU strike follow the link: http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5356

Well, once again our TV's are turned on to reveal news images of warships, cruise missiles and explosions. For those of us who remember the launch of the "War on Terror", it's frightfully harrowing and does little to give you confidence in the kind of international policing and interventionism that we're supposed to be straying away from.

But Libya is different.

Libya is Liberal intervention in its purest form. We've worked through the UN to get a resolution that enjoyed support from the Arab League as well as European nations and the US. We have a clear mandate to protect a besieged population and we intend to keep to it.

OK, "call me Dave" Cameron is strutting around as though he's the reincarnation of Churchill, negotiating coalitions (aah, we're used to that one) and promoting Britain as the bringer of peace. But once you go beyond this particular bit of populist discourse, all looks well and progressive, spreading democracy. We Liberals approve.

The only thing that bothers me is the lack of exit strategy (again) and the general lack of consensus on what to do with Gaddafi. It seems they can't kill him explicitly to topple his regime, but if he happens to die and his regime falls as a result, that's fine by international law. (Source: BBC) It truly baffles...

The Vice-President