Seven Media Myths about Occupy LSX

That it is anti-capitalist.

The fact is that there are a variety of views within the camp on capitalism. Many dislike the system and wish to see an alternative; many more wish to see the current model reformed. The initial statement released by the camp, which was agreed upon by consensus, makes no mention of overthrowing capitalism, yet many media outlets have taken to describing the camp as anti-capitalist. This is either lazy journalism, or it is by design. Much of the press has an agenda to discredit or marginalise us, and (incorrectly) believe that assigning such labels to us will achieve this

That it chose St Pauls to occupy.

It was never our intention to target St Pauls. The initial target of the protest was the London Stock Exchange in Paternoster Square. The police got wind of this and blocked all entrances, and kettled the protesters into the courtyard at St Pauls cathedral. The Canon of the cathedral, Giles Fraser, then gave us permission to stay and for the first week we were guests of the church. The level of welcome from the cathedral may have changed since, but at no point did we choose to occupy the grounds of the cathedral. The fact is though that there are practical reasons for our being there. It is a high profile, visible space, and is just a stone’s throw from the Stock Exchange (not that we’ve tried; we are, of course, entirely peaceful!

That it forced St Pauls to shut

The decision taken by St Pauls to shut its doors for the first time since the Luftwaffe flew over London was a baffling one, and has ultimately led to the resignation of the Dean, Graeme Knowles. The claim that health & safety and fire regulations were to blame proved unfounded, as neither the London Health & Safety Executive nor the London Fire Brigade had any pressing concerns after the camp was re-organised. The entrances to the cathedral were unimpeded, and the camp had accommodated the cathedral’s request to clear space from the fire exits. The other factor in the decision to close; that takings in the cathedrals shop and cafe were affected, run contrary to church teachings regarding serving both mammon and God, particularly when you take into account that the Church of England has a £5bn stock portfolio. A more likely explanation lies in the influence exerted over the cathedral by the police, the Mayor, the City of London Corporation and the extensive list of corporate and financial donors. Either way, it was the cathedrals decision to close, and it has been much derided since.

That most tents are unoccupied

There has been much debate over the science of the thermal imaging of the occupier’s tents, which appeared to show many empty. Occupiers hit back with claims that the thermal imaging camera doesn’t detect heat inside all tents, which led to the counter claim that occupiers had not allowed enough time for heat to build up, followed by tent makers claiming that many tents are designed to retain heat therefore rendering thermal imaging useless. Regardless, there are a few points to be made here. First, did the reporters who took the initial photographs allow enough time for heat to build up in the tents? Secondly, why did they take pictures around midnight? The majority of the occupiers would have still been up and about at that time of night. If I was to film a random selection of bedrooms at not long after midnight I would imagine a large percentage of them would be empty. Why not film at 5 or 6am? Thirdly, does it even matter? Are the aims of the protestors rendered less important just because they go home at night? It takes a high level of dedication to visit the camp day after day, let alone to sleep on the cold, hard concrete courtyard of St Pauls in the middle of October.

That the protesters are middle class left wing students, or that they are lazy benefit scroungers

The media can’t seem to make their minds up which of the two we all are down here at the camp! The fact is that we are a diverse grouping of classes, races, nationalities, employment status and political persuasions. This movement is not party political, nor is it class focused. It is against corporate greed and against the recklessness of the financial sector, and it recognises that the current political and economic model is only working for those at the top.  These are issues that transcend political loyalties and class. We have many protestors here that have jobs, some that don’t, and some that have recently lost jobs. We have teachers, soldiers, civil servants, youth workers, former bankers, musicians. According to the BBC around a third are on some type of benefit, and a third are students. The labelling of us may serve the agenda of certain sections of the media, but as someone who has spent a lot of time at the camp, it doesn’t make it true.

That they don’t know what they want

The camp is not necessarily here to provide concrete alternatives to the current failing system. It is here to facilitate debate and as a forum to create ideas. We are well aware that as a diverse group our message may appear muddled, and that our decision making process may from the outside appear cumbersome. But it is inclusive and entirely democratic, and we are intentionally operating outside the established culture of media cycles and soundbites. This may be frustrating for the media but it is vital that our message does not become diluted or bastardised in the media scrum. The mere existence of the camp is enough to create a space, both physically and virtually, for debate, and it is for the country to decide what changes they would demand to this unsustainable system.

That it doesn’t have public support

Opinion polls suggest that the public largely support our occupation and its goals. Polls by ICM and Yougov show clear and unquestionable support for the camp (51-38% and 39-26% respectively), whilst a poll in the Guardian showed 82% support for our movement. Even 42% of Daily Telegraph readers also backed us, no mean feat considering some of the coverage they’ve given us! We’ve had emphatic support from the Guardian, the Independent, the Daily Mirror, the Observer, the Financial Times, the economic editor of BBC’s Newsnight, and from a large number of influential political commentators and economists. We’ve even had sympathetic articles in the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the Economist. What defenders of the status quo fail to realise, or completely ignore, is that there is a palpable sense of public anger over the situation we find ourselves in, and it is this anger that is propelling us toward a tipping point towards achieving change

How the Occupy movement has shifted the media debate

The sight of Adam Boulton comparing Occupy LSX protesters to Nazi occupiers in France during WW2 on Sky News this week was not just indicative of Boulton, but also demonstrates how progressively desperate and defensive those who wish to defend the status quo have become since the Occupy movement began (see also spying on protesters with thermal imaging equipment, the now debunked reporting of the number of overnight campers). Why are they so worried? Because we’re changing the terms of the debate right under their noses. 

Since the financial crisis of 2008 the national, and indeed global, discussion has been dominated by phrases such as ‘austerity’, ‘debt’, and ‘bond markets’. This suited those in the financial sector who wished for business as usual, and they were helped by friends in parliament, who spent all of their efforts deflecting blame from the banks onto government spending; and in the media, who stifled debate on the issue. The debate had thus been framed in these terms, and despite the fact that austerity during difficult financial periods has failed throughout history, politicians from all sides campaigned during the general election on how quickly they would get the debt down, how many jobs they would cut, how many services they would slash. Issues such as jobs, essential services and economic growth were sidelined, and with them went any opportunity to tackle the underlying causes of the financial crisis, which was not public spending but an unregulated, immoral, out of control financial sector which was symptomatic of a deeper, more systemic culture of corporate greed.

That changed on the 15^th October, when the Occupy LSX movement began. Since then the movement and its grievances have been the focus of discussion right across the media, and the debate that should have been had 3 years ago (and probably before) about the state of our economic and democratic system is being played out. The camp has found support in some unexpected quarters; The Daily Telegraph led with the headline ‘it doesn’t take a Marxist to see that the St Paul's protesters have a point’ and asked that ‘if bankers don’t pay a price for their folly, why should the poor?’, while Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail, normally slightly to the right of Hitler, said ‘most of us would probably agree that the anti-capitalist demonstrators in the City of London have a point. You don’t have to be Wolfie Smith to work out we’ve all been screwed by the banks'. Paul Mason, economics editor of BBC’s Newsnight points out that most of those at the camp are ‘ordinary people’ and ‘for every protester camped in the freezing dawn there may be many more quietly fuming in their living rooms who feel the same way’. A remarkable editorial in the Financial Times, the newspaper of choice for the discerning financier, came out in complete support of the movement, while the Guardian have been wonderfully supportive. The Independent, perhaps surprisingly, have been absolutely nowhere on the issue.  The very fact that they are talking about us and our issues justifies our existence.

The effects of the shift in the debate can be seen in the analysis published by Think Progress regarding the impact of the Occupy Wall Street movement on the media debate within the United States. They examined the use of keywords over three major US television networks in the weeks before, and the weeks after the establishment of the camp.  In the weeks before the camp the word ‘debt’ was used over 7500 times. In the weeks after the camp, the word debt was used just 398 times, and was replaced with phrases ‘jobs’, ‘occupy’ and ‘Wall Street’ at the top of the list. Piers Morgan Tonight recently held a one hour special with Oscar winning documentary maker and Occupy champion Michael Moore on the Occupy movement in front of a live studio audience made up of those hit hardest by the crisis. This reframing of the debate within the media has helped to sway public opinion towards the side of the protesters (54% of the US public back the camp), which has led to Democratic politicians (belatedly) championing the cause of the Occupy movement. 

Of course, in this country, not all the media have been supportive. Many are attempting to smear or belittle the camp and its aims, hence constant references to the ‘anti-capitalist movement’ designed to isolate us (the camp isn’t anti-capitalist, there are a broad range of views on capitalism within the movement), or news coverage that concentrates on the closure of the St Pauls, or on the lack of concrete demands, rather than focusing on the behaviour of the banks, or corporate greed. The same people in the media criticising us now are the same vested interests who helped cement the Thatcherite neo-liberal economic concensus that led to the crash by brow beating an increasingly feeble left. It is little wonder they are feeling threatened now, because they can feel the foundations of their world shaking

Others are confused by the message coming from the camp. This is a more understandable criticism. The system of decision making the camp uses - concensus decision making - can be cumbersome and certainly doesn’t lend itself to the demands of a media obsessed with news cycles and soundbites. But this system is designed to be this way. People at the camp feel the current model has let them and others down, and refuse to run the camp on the terms of others. The camp is a place for discussion, ideas and will eventually, as with the announcement of demands to reform the City of London Corporation, lead to some concrete demands. 

To me, the criticism is irrelevant anyway as the role of the camp isn’t necessarily to come up with specific demands that we wish to be enacted. The mere fact that the camp exists is enough to keep the debate going. In the US public support is behind the Occupy movement, and politicians are engaging with it. In the UK, a Guardian poll showed 82% support, whilst a poll taken after a BBC Radio 4 debate in Devon showed support for the camp. Even a poll in the Daily Telegraph shows 42% support for us. You don’t have to agree with every decision the camp takes in order to support it, you just need to have the desire to see the debate take place. The existence of the camp has created space for this debate to take place, and the continued publicity will help to fuel it

No need to panic, not yet!

The recent leaking of the transcript of a meeting between Bill Kenwright and representatives of the Blue Union has caused a storm around Goodison Park. The mood was already bleak with many fans angry at Kenwright for the lack of transfer funds afforded to David Moyes this summer, but the lid was blown off the pot with the release of the minutes. Everton are angry, insisting that all sides agreed to keep the meeting confidential, and many fans have turned against the movement. But many think leaking the transcript was the right thing to do, and that Kenwright is dragging the club down. Whatever your opinion, the fact is that the meeting lifted the lid on some very interesting truths about the state of Everton FC.

When Kenwright took the club over from Peter Johnson 12 years ago we were in a precarious situation, both on and off the pitch. Years of mismanagement had left the club on the brink of relegation and on the verge of administration. Fast forward to today, and while the situation on the pitch is much different, financially it does seem like the club is being held together by sticky back plastic and the good intentions of a few. The debt Kenwright took over from Johnson has been renegotiated to a much more manageable yearly sum, but income is still outstripped by expenditure to the tune of £5million per year. Everton’s bankers, Barclays, have by all intents and purposes been accommodating but have decreased the clubs overdraft to £25million and has seemingly been putting pressure on Kenwright to sell one of our star players to service the debt. Kenwright himself claims to have remortgaged his house and taken out a £10million loan for the club, which, if true, is a measure of the man.

The Blue Union accuse Kenwright of standing in the way of progress. They claim he has failed, on two occasions, to build the club a new stadium, and that he has failed in his bid to find a new owner for the club. They also suggest that some fans believe that he is diverting money from the balance sheet. It has also been suggested to me that he had full knowledge that the transcript was to be released, and that there was no such confidentiality agreement in place, and that the club is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Evertonians by claiming otherwise.

I certainly don't doubt the intentions of the Blue Union, and their determination to take action to further the Everton cause is admirable. And there are certainly questions to be answered. Kenwright hasn’t done himself any favours with his silence on some of the fans concerns. He has lauded Keith Harris, the man appointed with finding the club a new buyer, yet this is the man who nearly sold the club to a trickster from a single bed flat in Manchester, and whom David Gill, the Manchester United CEO, said would go anywhere for publicity. There is also the matter of the £25million operational costs of the club, which Kenwright seemed unable to explain at the meeting, although the club claim this is largely due to the new Finch Farm training complex. The question of whether there was an agreement in place to keep the details of the meeting confidential can easily be answered by the Blue Union releasing the unedited version of the minutes from the tape (there is definitely a tape as this level of conversational detail didn’t come from memory). The fact that they haven’t, to me, speaks volumes.

Personally, I firmly believe Kenwright saved the club. He took over at our lowest ebb, and along with others prevented the club from slipping into administration. He appointed Moyes, and then stuck by him when many fans were demanding his head, and they continue to have one of the best working relationships in the league. He has overseen the building of the state of the art training facility at Finch Farm and has developed a productive, close knit relationship with sponsors Chang. His dedication to the club, as the Blue Union admit, is not open to question. He has been unbelievably unlucky with the Kings Dock and Destination Kirkby projects, both of which he invested considerable time, money and effort into. I also believe that he has taken the club as far as he can, and he himself has said publicly for years now he wishes to sell to the right buyer. But as Kenwright says, we are in the middle of a severe global financial crisis. Buyers for football clubs are few and far between. Those clubs that have been bought either have brand new stadiums (in some cases that they didn’t even pay for), or have been taken over by those so rich that the financial crisis barely bothers them. The former includes clubs such as Blackburn and Sunderland, while the latter include Liverpool, Chelsea and Man United. Man City fall into both categories. The fact is that very few people are interested in buying a club with an ageing stadium and substantial debts, so quite whom Everton fans see taking over from Kenwright is unclear.

There are other members of the board who should perhaps be attracting more criticism than Kenwright. Robert Earl underwrote loans for the club and brings, according to Kenwright, considerable marketing experience, has yet to actually invest any money. Likewise Jon Woods has not, as far as anyone is aware, invested any money since the takeover from Johnson. There are also some extremely wealthy individuals (Lord Granchester and Phillip Green, billionaires both) around the club who, for one reason or another, don’t wish to invest. Perhaps Kenwright should be more persuasive in his endeavours to get one of them to part with some cash, but Kenwright seems to be the only one who has invested any substantial money into the club.

The lack of a new ground is a severe hinderance to the club finding a new owner. Goodison is a grand old stadium with a great atmosphere and a distinguished history, but there is no scope for expansion, and matchday revenue is unsustainably low. There has been plenty of finger pointing about why the previous stadium projects have fallen through, but one thing is clear - there needs to be a new push for a new stadium, preferably in co-operation with Liverpool city council. The Football Quarter scheme looks an interesting proposition that would re-develop the local area around the current ground. For the club to be able to afford this though, investment would be needed.

Everton fans are frustrated because they see sides around them spending, whilst we are currently the only club without a summer signing. This is, of course, understandable. Clubs such as Sunderland have signed several big names this summer, while rivals Liverpool, Chelsea and both Manchester clubs have spent huge. It is worth mentioning though that £250 million of the £350 million spent in the Premier League this summer has been from these five clubs; Tottenham and Stoke have so far spent nothing, whilst a further eight clubs have spent under £10million each. Sides like Aston Villa, Newcastle and Arsenal, as well as Spurs if they lose Modric, will be significantly weaker this season that last season, whereas Everton still have the same squad that finished last season so strongly (with the addition of Ross Barkley). It is true, of course, that this all could change during the remainder of the transfer window.

Aside from the clubs financial situation, there is much to be optimistic about at the club. We have one of the best managers in the league, who has built a top squad with a fantastic work ethic and a great team spirit who have been together for several seasons, and an excellent backroom staff. We have many in demand players, the vast majority of whom are under long term deals, and at least four of whom – Jagielka, Rodwell, Fellaini and Baines, are valued at at least £15million. Our midfield scored more goals than any other Premier League side, other than Man Utd, last season, and we have two current England internationals in our defence. It is certainly the case that we are light up front but Beckford finished last season strongly, and Saha has had a full pre-season for once. I actually fancy Big Vic to have a good season, and with the attacking prowess we have from midfield, particularly from Tim Cahill, goals may not be so much of an issue. Much depends on how Mikel Arteta plays this season, as his guile and craft could be crucial if we are to do well.

The major plus for Everton is, yet again, the youth system. For year we’ve had one of the most productive youth programmes in the Premier League, and last years emergence of Seamus Coleman and Jack Rodwell was a highlight. This year it seems that Ross Barkley is the latest to roll off the production line. He may have come through sooner but for a double leg break on England duty last season, and his performances at the start of this season have been hugely promising, leading to an under-21 call up for the 17 year old midfielder. Also looking to break into the first team will be Magueye Gueye, who had a fantastic pre-season prior to his injury, and reserve team captain Jose Baxter has bags of promise and will also be hoping to step up. There are several players from last season’s triumphant Academy side who certainly have the potential to make the grade, namely Conor McAleny, Jake Bidwell and Eric Dier. Dier in particular looks like a special player, and we have an option to sign him at the end of the season, which we should take up at all costs. Two players who missed the Academy final as they were on England duty, John Lundstram and Hallam Hope, have been touted in the national media as future stars.

The future for Everton will be the youth of the club. When you have a quality youth system as we do, this is a good thing, but we do need some investment in the team to complement it. We don’t need to spend a fortune, and to be honest I don’t want a billionaire sugar daddy to bankroll the club. I see what is happening at Man City, and what has happened at Chelsea, and it makes me feel empty. Buying success, for me at least, is not a satisfactory way to run a club, and besides, new UEFA rules concerning the way clubs are run and the amount of debt they can hold means this type of business model won’t be viable in the future anyway.

What we need is someone who will invest enough to help the club into a new stadium and to clear the majority of our debts; these acts alone would free up enough money to give Moyes a decent transfer budget each season. However this level of investment, while not excessive, is going to be difficult to come across in today’s financial environment, and fans need to understand and accept this. However the gloom around the club, even factoring in the opening day defeat to QPR, is unwarranted, unjustified, and the fans really need to pull together for the sake of the team.

Why did the rioting happen?

The riots that have spread across London and other cities in England over the past week have angered and shocked the whole country. Unprecedented looting and arson attacks have left high streets boarded up, buildings destroyed and the police stretched. The public are angry, and the country is united in condemning those responsible.

The debate into what may have caused this is already underway, and there are of course many differing opinions, but many in government and on the social networking sites refuse to accept that there may be underlying issues behind the trouble, believing instead that anyone who talks of this is ‘making excuses’ for the looters. London Mayor Boris Johnson has said he has 'heard enough about the background to this', seemingly uninterested in why people in his city are rioting.

This is an extremely dangerous attitude. Firstly there is a vast difference between understanding the issues behind the build up of anger that led to the riots, and defending the thugs who rioted. Very few are interested in defending the actions of those mindless idiots who looted stores, burned down buildings and attacked police, many of whom were opportunist criminals who have no idea about what they were rioting for. Secondly, understanding the underlying causes for the anger that led to it is crucial if we want to prevent it from happening again; if these underlying issues are ignored then the danger is that we’ll simply see a repeat. To coin a phrase; tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.

It is difficult to see the events of the this week without looking at the current economic situation, despite some politicians trying to deny any links. Any recession disproportionately affects impoverished areas, and the riots started in some of the poorest areas of our cities. Jobs are scarce and unemployment is high (Haringey has 29 jobseekers for each vacancy, while Hackney and Lewisham has 26), and young people in particular have been hit particularly hard, with a million under 25’s across the country out of work, including nearly 250,000 16-18 year olds. With a failing economy their prospects look bleak to say the least.

It has been said by many that those looking for work should move to where the work is but, aside from the fact that there are few jobs anywhere at the moment, many of these youngsters leave school with few skills, meaning they can only really look at low paid jobs which in turn makes it more difficult to travel for work when you factor travel costs in. The scrapping of the EMA by the government means the financial incentive for youngsters to stay in education has gone, and youth services and centres have been cut, forcing youngsters out on the streets where they have nothing to do. Our inner city youth is becoming trapped in a cycle of poverty and unemployment. In media interviews with community leaders, youth workers and young people in the aftermath of the violence, most of them not involved in the violence, this issue has been consistently raised.

Many of these issues have been a problem since before the recent financial crisis. There have been issues of racial tensions, police community relations, unemployment, education, etc for decades, and successive governments have not sufficiently tackled the problems. Inner city schools in particular have failed generations of children from impoverished backgrounds, and considering education is the key in aiding social mobility in our inner city areas this is unacceptable.

When you create an atmosphere of anger and hopelessness the more extreme elements – in this case the rioters, will often turn to violence. In this sense it is no different from the problems with the far right groups. Those who cause violence on the right are the extreme elements of a much larger group of people who feel alienated and marginalised within society, and it’s true that those who rioted this weekend are the tip of the iceberg of a much larger group of disenfranchised youths who, while they chose not to riot, are just as angry.

These conditions create are ripe for gang recruitment, and many of the groups of seemingly organised violence appeared to be gang members. Gangs have been a problem for many years now in our inner cities. There are areas in which the police refuse to enter unless absolutely necessary, which leaves the gangs in control.  In these cases what is needed is for the communities, including the families of gang members, to stand up and take action against these gangs, as the people within these communities are the ones most damaged by the existence of gangs. In too many areas many within the community refuse to do this, often adopting a ‘wall of silence’ when it comes to investigations involving crimes by gang members. Some of this is down to fear of the gangs, but mostly there is no excuse.

Much has been made of the role of the family life of the rioters. Many were asking where the parents were, and why these people were allowed to be out in the middle of riot zones, often until the early hours of the morning. These are perfectly reasonable questions, particularly with the younger looters. But many right wing commentators and politicians appear to be suggesting this is the only issue, and in particular there has been a lot of criticism directed at single parent families. This is a familiar gripe of the right, and while many of the rioters will have undoubtedly grown up without a male influence, blaming this is not a solution. Living in an unhappy two parent family is as bad, if not worse, as growing up in a single parent family. The more accurate criticism is the absence of responsible parenting, not the number of parents

The fact that our country, and in particular London, was left without a leader until Tuesday morning was nothing short of a disgrace. The PM, the Deputy PM, the Chancellor, the Home Secretary, and the Mayor of London, all on holiday at the same time, took 4 days to heed the cries of the nation they are supposed to be leading. The anger that people feel towards these leaders was seen in angry scenes when Boris Johnson and Theresa May visited Clapham, and Nick Clegg when he visited Birmingham. David Cameron avoided this by keeping away from the public during his visit to Croydon. Labour leader Ed Miliband should not escape criticism, cutting his holiday short only after Cameron had. He missed a trick by not providing the leadership the country so sorely missed in Cameron’s absence, although it should be said that, unlike others, he is not actually part of the government.

Fortunately local leaders have stepped into the gap in the absence of national leadership. MP’s such as Diane Abbott in Hackney, Stella Creasy in Walthamstow, David Lammy in Tottenham and Angie Bray in Ealing have been important presences in their respective areas, providing the leadership that was lacking elsewhere.

Another organisation suffering from the lack of a leader, the Metropolitan Police’s initial response to the aftermath of the shooting of Mark Duggan was inadequate, and their refusal to answer the questions of angry residents was a mistake which only increased tension in the area. Eventually this tension exploded into violence. The reluctance to take serious action against rioters on the first night was also a mistake, although whether this would have helped contain the violence is difficult to say. However this was more of a failure of the force rather than by individual officers. It is difficult to criticise police response in subsequent nights. The sheer scale of the violence took everyone by surprise, and the police were faced with an impossible task, and in most cases they performed admirably. The police have also suffered from cuts, and this has led to a shortage of officers, in particular officers that work in the community. This has been a major factor in the deterioration in the relationship between inner city communities and the police. There has clearly been an issue of the lack of respect for the police over many years, but it’s important that this isn’t seen as a separate issue, rather an extension of the above issues.

Many argue that there shouldn’t be any political arguments made during this crisis and that everyone should sing from the same hymn sheet, but there are political issues at work here, and it’s absolutely right that our politicians should be debating this. Whilst all sides strongly condemn the rioters, the divides between the parties are becoming apparent. The Tories are attempting to paint anyone who talks about deeper economic issues as ‘riot apologisers’, and are linking the rioting to a breakdown in society. David Cameron has also come out and argued for greater responsibility from parents and communities, however he needs to understand that as well as this we need greater responsibility by our government and politicians. Meanwhile Labour leader Ed Miliband has said that ‘we must resist simple explanations, these are complex issues’. Labour MP’s represent the majority of the inner city areas that saw violence, and they are linking the riots to deeper socio-economic issues, including some of the coalition cuts, particularly cuts in youth services and in the police (as, coincidentally do many Tories, including Boris Johnson). The Lib Dem’s are, unfortunately, nowhere, bound in to the government line by their Tory partners.

It is the case though that every decision taken in the spending review was a conscious choice by the government, and there were plenty of alternatives for each choice made. Anyone who says different is flat out lying; they may have believed their approach to tackling the deficit was the best way forward but don’t let them tell you there was no choice. The decision was made by Chancellor George Osborne to cut quickly, deeply and drastically, and consequently the economic recovery has flatlined. Other options to tackle the deficit other than cuts that disproportionately affected the poor were to cut slower and less deep, and pay the deficit back over a longer time; raising taxes, particularly against the financial sector that caused the global economic crisis; or to grow our way out of recession.

This leads us to a much deeper structural problem that has contributed to all of the above issues. Our global financial system is broken. We have the balance of our society is all wrong, we need to rebuild an economy that serves the people, rather than people serving the economy. For too many years now there has been growing socio-economic divides and too much emphasis on greed within business contributing to the anger felt in inner cities. The recent global financial crisis has severely exacerbated these problems, and has affected us all. There may have been little choice but to bail the banks out, but this should have been on the provision of massive reform. And where did all the money from the banking bail out go? It disappeared into the financial merry-go-round, kept it running for a little while longer, but we certainly didn’t see any of it.

Unfortunately the banks don’t want to change. They don’t want to pay more in taxes. They don’t want more regulation. They don’t want to lend more. They don’t want to stop paying bonuses. Despite crashing the global economy, they don’t want to change one iota, and when threatened with any of the above they threaten to leave the country and move their operations to Asia. This is blackmail against the nation. Unfortunately the Tories aren’t interested in reforming the financial system; bankers, hedge fund managers and private equity bosses account for more than 50% of the funding for the Conservative party.

Our economy is completely at the mercy of the stock market and hedge funds, who make their living gambling with other people’s money. When they get it right they are the ones who reap most of the rewards, when they get it wrong we are the ones who pay most of the cost. George Osborne’s entire economic policy is geared towards placating the bond markets, at whatever cost to jobs and society. Financial problems in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland were greatly exacerbated by global credit ratings agencies lowering the credit ratings of struggling economies, pulling the rug from under them right at the point in which they were at their most vulnerable and leaving millions of citizens facing uncertain futures.

We’ve managed to create for ourselves an economy in which rising oil prices are blamed for the increase in the cost of food, yet BP and Shell can announce profits of £8 billion in just one quarter. One in which the market has valued Barclay’s boss Bob Diamond’s salary as worth that of 218 teachers. One where, as I’ve found out recently from a social worker friend, a local authority deems £600 to counsel a 14 year old victim of gang rape as excessive because of cutbacks. All in all, we’ve managed to create an economy in which we reward greed while at the same time ignoring those most in need.

The banks caused the global financial crisis. Of course it is true that governments were complicit in running up debt, but this debt was perfectly manageable until the banks crashed the economies. Governments other failures were in allowing the banking industry to dominate our economy, and in not regulating them properly. But the banks and the financial industry caused it. However, we all have to shoulder some of the responsibility for this as we’ve allowed the financial institutions to position themselves in such an influential position over our lives. Successive governments have allowed this to happen, aided by the media who have caricatured those who wish to see reform as ‘commies’, and any alternative ideas, such as the Robin Hood financial transaction tax, are dismissed as pie in the sky.

The question is whether people will decide to act. People often feel helpless in the face of such a behemoth as the global financial system, but as we’ve seen in recent weeks and months, we live in revolutionary times. We’ve seen people in the Middle East rising up against dictators, fighting for democracy; in this country we’ve seen dozens of MP’s forced out of office over the expenses scandal, and we’ve forced the closure of the News of the World due to the hacking scandal. We are still in the process of unveiling the extent of uncovering the collusion between our elites in government, the media and the police. There is no reason we cannot reform our economy if that is what we want; indeed we are the only ones that can.

I haven’t always thought like this. I’m not a revolutionary, or a socialist; I consider myself to be on the centre left of the political spectrum. I’ve always known that something was amiss but I didn’t put this down to the economic system or the society we’ve built. It has taken the events of the past few years to reshape my views. I also believe that more and more people from the centre of politics such as myself are drawing the same conclusions. There are also many who will dismiss everything in this piece, those who do not believe criminality has causes, but these wider structural issues have all been crucial in creating the conditions that led to what we saw on the streets of London and the rest of Britain. No one is born a criminal; their circumstances turn them this way, and unless we understand and tackle these problems, this will not be the last time the streets of Britain will burn.

What next for Everton?

After another season which started so poorly and ended with such promise Evertonians yet again find themselves wondering how the club are going to take the necessary steps to help the club progress to the next level. David Moyes has consolidated us in and around the Europa League spots, which is infinitely preferable to spending every other season fighting relegation, but with other clubs around spending heavily this is becoming more and more difficult to maintain.

Players out

The club again appears to have little money to spend so Moyes is likely to have to raise transfer funds by selling, and will need to spend shrewdly. James Vaughan has already left for Norwich for £2.5 million, while Iain Turner, Kieran Agard, Hope Akpan and Thomas Donegan have all left on free transfers. Jan Mucha is fed up of bench warming , and is unlikely to remain at the club. Yakubu is on his way out, and his sale should raise £3 million. Fenerbache are rumoured to want to sign Joseph Yobo permanently, although they are balking at the £6 million price tag. More likely if he goes we’ll get £3-4 million.

As usual, there are no shortage of rumours in the papers linking Everton’s top players with the bigger teams. Jack Rodwell has long been linked with a move away, with Man Utd or Man City potential destinations for an estimated £20 million. Big spending City have also been linked with player of the season Leighton Baines for £25 million (or £20 million plus Wayne Bridge). Looking less likely to leave, despite interest from Real Madrid and Chelsea, is Marouane Fellaini. Of all the players linked with a move away Fellaini is the most important to the team, and the most difficult to replace. He’s one of the only midfielders in the Premier League truly capable of dominating a midfield, particularly now he’s sorted his disciplinary problems. However he’d command a £20-25 million fee if he was to leave.

One player who perhaps surprisingly hasn’t yet been linked with a move away is Diniyar Bilyaletdinov. The mercurial Russian has failed to settle in the Everton first team, despite occasional flashes of brilliance. The fans are also divided on him, but whatever you think of him the fact that Moyes has never given him a sustained run in the side means we’ll never see the best of him, so there’s little point in him staying. If we can offload him back to Russia for £8-10 million, slightly less than we paid for him, it’d be considered good business.

Players In

The over riding priority for the summer is to improve the strike force. Last season Everton’s strikers scored a paltry 16 goals Premier League goals between them, 15 of which came from Saha and Beckford. With the departure of Vaughan and the likely departure of Yakubu, as well as Louis Saha’s injury record means at least two strikers will probably have to be brought in. Of all those linked the most exciting prospect is German international Miroslav Klose, but it seems his wage demandsof around £120,000 a week put him out of Everton’s reach.

West Ham striker Demba Ba is also available on a free, and has a very good goalscoring record, both in the Premier League (7 goals in 12 games), and throughout his career (a record of a goal every other game). His wage demands are also a little high, but more affordable than Klose. He has, however, suffered with injuries in the past so his fitness isn’t guaranteed. Another possible free transfer is Cardiff striker Jay Bothroyd. A journeyman throughout his career, he has finally hit his stride at Cardiff, scoring 20 goals last season and earning himself an England cap. He is a tall, strong forward, which may complement Beckford, but it is a gamble as to whether he could do it in the Premier League.

Likewise with two other targets, Craig Mackail-Smith and Shane Long. Mackail-Smith has scored at a prodigious rate for Peterborough over recent seasons, netting 34 goals in total last season, and is available for £3.5 million. Long impressed for Reading last year, scoring 25 goals in the Championship, and has attracted attention of the likes of Bayern Munich and Liverpool. Of the two, Long is the more attractive proposition, in terms of his attitude, age, and his attributes, but would cost slightly more, at £5 million. Another possibility, on loan, is Man Utd striker Danny Welbeck who scored 6 goals in 22 games on loan at Sunderland last year

Another area that needs strengthening is the left wing position, particularly if we lose Bilyaletdinov. Since Pienaar left for Spurs in January we have looked less threatening down that flank, and we need somebody who can form a strong partnership with Leighton Baines (if he stays). If you asked the fans who they’d like to sign a large percentage would love to see Landon Donovan back at the club. A huge success in his loan period back in 2010, he can operate on either flank or down the middle, and has expressed his desire to return to the club at some point. He is pacy, aggressive, and hard working; he knows and loves the club, and fits in well with the style of play. It just remains to be seen if we could do a deal with LA Galaxy for his services. Recently we have also been linked with Aston Villa winger Marc Albrighton, which would be an excellent signing. He is young, exciting and English, and can play on either flank. However he has recently signed a new 3 and a half year contract, and there is little indication Villa would be willing to part with him. West Brom’s Chris Brunt and Wolves’ Matt Jarvis have both also been linked but neither would be allowed to leave for less than £7-8 million

Coventry keeper Keiran Westwood is a possible replacement for Jan Mucha, although there is stiff competition for his signature from several Premier League clubs. Deputy to Tim Howard has been a bit of a graveyard for keepers over recent years so whether Westwood will see Goodison as his best bet remains to be seen.

Other players that have been linked with the club include Nottingham Forest midfielder Guy Moussi, Newcastle midfielder Joey Barton, Man Utd defender Wes Brown, former England midfielder Owen Hargreaves, and Blackpool midfielder David Vaughan. Moussi is an unknown quantity, while Barton brings a lot of baggage with him, and maybe more trouble than he’s worth, which is a shame as he’s a top player. Wes Brown could be an interesting signing, like Phil Neville years ago he has an undeserved reputation as a player due to the fact he’s spent his time at United and England playing alongside superior, world class defenders, but the truth is he is a very good player. Everton are pretty well covered in defence though.

If Fellaini or Rodwell leave Vaughan and Hargreaves may be options. David Vaughan had a fantastic season at Blackpool, beating Charlie Adam out to the club’s player of the season award. His reputation may not be huge but then neither would his price tag, and he’s the sort of player Moyes likes. He is also available on a free transfer so may be worth signing regardless. I’d love to see Hargreaves at the club on a pay as you play deal; he is a world class player and despite his injuries I believe he’d still have something to offer. Not all Evertonian’s agree with me on this one though.  

If Baines were to leave there are some good options at left back. Wayne Bridge may be thrown in as part of any deal with Man City, and there are few better defensive left backs around. But to truly replace Baines we’d want someone with a bit more attacking ability. Jose Enrique at Newcastle had a very good season and is strong going forward. Celtic’s Emilio Izaguirre is another in demand. He won every end of season award going in Scotland last season, and is very much in the Baines mould. Surely the best replacement though would be Arsenal’s Gael Clichy. He is available as he is out of contract at the end of next season, and he is a great all round full back. Enrique, Izaguirre and Clichy would all be available for around the £8-10 million mark.

Youth

One signing I think we should make at any cost is academy youngster Eric Dier. The England U-17 international is currently on loan from Sporting Lisbon, and he has the look of a young Rio Ferdinand about him. He is tall, composed and comfortable on the ball, and appears to read the game exceptionally well, and was part of the side that became national Academy champions. He is also very good going forward, and managed to score twice against Liverpool since his arrival in January – once for the Academy and once for the reserves. He has a big, big future ahead of him and Everton need to do all they can to get him on a permanent basis

Speaking of young players, over recent years Everton have produced a conveyer belt of them through the youth system that have either established themselves in the first team (Osman, Hibbert, Anichebe, Rodwell), or have been sold for a handsome profit (Rooney, Ball, Jeffers). This season is shaping up to be an even stronger batch than usual. This is an important season for Jose Baxter; he won Reserve Player of the Season last season and if not for his legal transgressions at the beginning of last season he might have broken through into the first team squad sooner. Another youngster who was unlucky, for different reasons, not to make the jump up last season was the highly rated Ross Barkley, who broke his leg on England duty. Expect to see more of him next year.

Recent signings Apostolos Vellios and Magaye Gueye impressed at the back end of last season, in particular Gueye, and he could provide a long term solution to left wing position. James Wallace and Shane Duffy are likely in last chance saloon to prove themselves, but there is a very talented batch of youngsters coming through from the side that won the national Academy title last year. Jake Bidwell, who can play at left back or centre back, looks a great prospect and won Academy player of the season, while Hallam Hope and John Lundstram both impressed with England U-17’s at the European Championships, although it is probably a bit early to expect too much from them this year. The main benefit for next season of such a strong youth presence is that it gives the club strength in depth, and that we can focus our money on improving the first team rather than having to bolster the squad

Ideal departures

James Vaughan – £2.5 million

Yakubu - £3 million

Joseph Yobo - £3 million

Diniyar Bilyaletdinov - £8 million

Jan Mucha – free

Total: £16.5 million

Ideal signings

Shane Long - £5 million

Demba Ba – free

Landon Donovan - £7 million

Eric Dier – unknown

Kieran Westwood – free

David Vaughan – free

Gael Clichy (if Baines leaves) - £10 million

Total - £12-22 million

X-Men: First Class & The Hangover 2

X-Men: First Class & The Hangover 2

To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect from the latest X-Men offering. The first two are classics of the superhero genre, but the third never recovered from Vinny Jones uttering the immortal line ‘I’m the Juggernaut, bitch’. This was mainly due to the departure of Bryan Singer, and the unfortunate hiring of Brett Ratner. Luckily Ratner has also gone, and Kick Ass director Matthew Vaughn has taken the reigns, and it shows

While the storyline revolves around the Cuban missile crisis and Kevin Bacon’s manipulative bad guy, the real centre of the movie is the relationship between Professor X (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender). It is genuinely touching, knowing what we know about their futures, and the performances are excellent, particularly from Fassbender. Equally touching are the struggles of the younger mutants, particularly Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and the Beast (Nicholas Hoult), to come to terms with their mutations. Keep an eye out for a very funny cameo from a familiar figure as well

The set pieces are tense and exciting, and there is a welcome return of intelligence missing from Ratner’s attempt. There are mis-steps; the pre credits sequenced is clumsy and the introduction of the CIA is not very well thought through (although it does give us Rose Byrne in stockings and suspenders, a scene I was supposed to be working on but missed L), and some of the many characters are under written. Overall, however, this is a vast improvement on the third film, and a welcome return to form for one of the best superhero franchises out there

The Hangover 2, on the other hand, is a very poor offering considering the quality of the first movie. It’s pretty much the case that if you’ve seen the first one then you’ve no need to see the second, as the only thing that has changed is the setting. Nearly every single set piece, as well as the whole structure of the film has been transferred over lock stock from the original. There is also a poorly judged joke about a smoking monkey that manages to be more disturbing than funny. There is the odd inspired moment, and the post credits photograph sequence is, as in the first film, brilliant, but this is very disappointing, and generally not very funny

The curse of diving in football

The reputation of European football this has week taken a battering this week after the debacle of the Champions League semi final between Real Madrid and Barcelona. The first leg at the Bernabeau in particular saw some particularly blatant rule breaking, yet despite the unashamed openness of the diving, and the impact it had on the game, none of the charges on UEFA’s laundry list related to the issue. It would seem that yet again UEFA have failed in their obligation to uphold the laws of the game

Real Madrid’s containing tactics were working well, shutting out one of the best attacking sides of all time for nearly 4 hours all told, including the recent league and cup games. It may not have been pretty but it was effective, and Barca were having no luck breaking down the Madrid defence. When Dani Alves dived to get Pepe red carded Barca, not for the first time, cheated to achieve the result that they weren’t able to by fair means, and not long after the red card Barca scored twice, effectively ending the tie. It is of course possible that Barca may have scored anyway, and it is not like Real Madrid are a side that always play by the rules but what happened cheated the Madrid players, not to mention millions of viewers, out of a fair game

Diving is nothing new to the Spanish game. Any regular viewer of La Liga will know that it is an all too regular occurrence. Players such as Alves, Iniesta,  Ronaldo and Puyol spend as much time rolling round on the floor as they do showing off their not inconsiderable talents. The Spanish national team are also no strangers to the dark arts, and it is debatable whether they, despite being the best footballing team at the tournament, would have won the World Cup if it wasn’t for their diving. Three times Spanish players had opponents red carded due to their diving. The first time, when Fernando Torres dived to get Estrada sent off, they were already 2-0 up but struggling to contain a lively Chile side. The score finished 2-1. The second card occurred against Portugal when Capdevillia’s theatrics got Ricardo Costa sent off despite their being no contact, they were just one goal to the good. The third, and most important, was in the final against Holland, when Andres Iniesta went to the ground following the lightest of brushes on his shoulder by Johnny Heitinga, occurred when the score was 0-0. Spain scored soon after to win the match 1-0.

Diving is by no means a purely Spanish problem, it’s just that they’ve been the worst offenders over recent years. Players like Maradonna and Klinnsman were well known for their skills in falling over theatrically, as have many players from South America, Africa and Southern Europe. There certainly seems to be something in the Latin mentality and sporting culture that make it acceptable to win at all costs. In this country we have traditionally had a more sporting reputation, a fair play mentality. However in recent years diving has crept into the Premier League. Cristiano Ronaldo will forever be the player most closely associated with the practice, but imports such as Drogba, Nani, Pedersen and Eduardo are all well known divers, as are England internationals Ashley Young, Theo Walcott and Steven Gerrard.

The laws on diving are clear; the rules state that a player must be cautioned if a player ‘attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled’. While it is admittedly difficult to police as players have become so adept at conning officials there are plenty of tools available to the authorities to combat the problem. In European football there are five officials instead of the usual three, supposedly making dives easier to spot. Video evidence can be used as television cameras can almost always differentiate between a genuine foul and a player making a meal out of a challenge. In fact, video evidence has been used to ban Lithuanian striker Saulius Mikoliunas after the forward dived in order to obtain a penalty in a match against Scotland in 2007. So UEFA have the law on their side, all the tools at their disposal, and the precedent to use them. So why don’t they?

UEFA have always been reluctant to introduce any measures that remove decision making powers away from the officials. We see this with their reluctance to introduce goal line technology. Retrospective punishment is only used in cases that the official has not seen, so even if a referee has seen a decision but has made the wrong call UEFA refuse to review it. The English FA have repeatedly called for retrospective punishment, and the both the Scottish and the Italian FA have actually introduced it, (Juventus midfielder Milos Krasic was recently banned for 2 games for diving) but UEFA are not interested. This is despite both Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini admitting that diving is an issue and needs to be addressed

The reality is that diving has seemingly become an accepted part of the sport. We’ve become desensitised to the seriousness of the issue by the regularity at which we see it in our game, and the lack of any serious clampdown by the authorities gives the air that the problem is not a serious one. Both Theo Walcott and Didier Drogba have admitted to diving, whilst Sam Allardyce claims that diving is ‘professional’. I know people who agree, whilst others blame the referee’s for failing to spot the infringement. It has been suggested to me, correctly, that diving is not the only form of cheating around in the game, but it is the most deceitful and damaging form of cheating, and also the one that goes unpunished far more often than any other

The result is that referees are constantly vilified and innocent players are regularly punished despite there being no wrongdoing, and the reputation of the sport is taking a serious beating. It also makes playing certain players impossible. If you tackle Ronaldo or Iniesta, there is a good chance they will fall to the floor, stand off them and they’ll punish you. More importantly than it being embarrassing to watch grown men role round on the floor for no reason, the effects go beyond football; teams such as Barcelona have an enormous following around the world, particularly amongst children and young people, and their best players are idolised. I don’t always believe that player’s behaviour off the pitch should be scrutinised to the extent that it is, but conduct on the pitch is a different matter, and millions of children will see the actions of players such as Mascherano, Pedro and Alves during the Champions League semi-final and will believe that it is ok to deceive and cheat their way through life. This is a dangerous message to send out to children, and it makes Barcelona unfit to wear the UNICEF logo on their shirts. Excuses such as ‘well, they play such nice football’ don’t wash anymore

There are suggestions by those in the game as to what can be done to tackle the issue. The most favourable, if UEFA will allow it, would be that of a panel of former referees and players that sits and dishes out bans to those who have been caught diving. This would be the most effective option as it would be officially sanctioned, decided by professionals who know the game, and because TV cameras, unlike referees, have the benefit of replays and a variety of angles. Once a couple of two match bans have been dished out diving would soon stop. Ian Dowie has also suggested that managers should be taking the initiative and banning their players if they are caught in the act. I think everyone would like to see players take responsibility for their own actions but in today’s high risk game some players will always seek to gain any extra edge. As Graham Poll said of diving; for the players ‘the rewards outweigh the risks’. It is going to be down to the authorities, especially UEFA and FIFA, to take the lead in clamping down. There also needs to be greater focus on the issue in the mainstream press and on football programmes, with offending players highlighted and shamed. Diving is ruining the game, and the time for empty words is over; the time for action has come

Why I'm Voting No to AV

The debate over the change to the electoral system took a while to get going, but, in Westminster at least, it is now in full swing. The debate itself has been somewhat overshadowed by the back biting and recriminations between the Yes and No camps, and by the strange sight of sworn political enemies sharing stages on the campaign trail. But is a system that Nick Clegg described as ‘a miserable little compromise’ the right system for this country to elect its leaders?

The Lib Dems have long sought reform to the voting system. They, understandably, believe that a system that only gives them 9% of the seats when they’ve won 23% of the popular vote is unfair, and one of their most cherished policies has been to introduce proportional representation (PR), which would give the party greater representation in terms of parliamentary seats. As the Conservatives are not in favour of such a change the coalition agreement instead set out a referendum to introduce the alternative vote (AV), with the Lib Dems supporting the change and the Tories opposing it. AV involves the voter ranking their votes in order of preference rather than simply picking one candidate.

Of  all the issues I have with AV, one stands out above all. The principle of one person one vote in this country is central to our democracy. The fact that every adult in the country (prisoners aside, for the moment at least) gets an equal say in who runs the country makes our democracy viable. With AV this would no longer be the case; someone who chooses a fringe candidate, such as the BNP, UKIP, the Green Party or the Monster Raving Loony Party, will get a second, and perhaps third and fourth vote while those who vote for the most popular party in the area will get just one vote. So far, nobody on the Yes campaign has been able to justify this unacceptable affront to fairness and equality.

Currently, many Lib Dems would argue that their vote counts for nothing as they have no chance of winning the seat in which they reside, and they may be right, but this works the same for other parties as well. A Tory voter in the North East has little chance of influencing the result, neither does a Labour voter in Henley. There has to be a winner in each constituency, and just because you live in an area that elects a different candidate doesn’t mean the voting system is broken, it means your policies don’t appeal to the people in the area.

The Yes campaign’s argument that AV will cut off extremist parties is also nonsense. Parties such as the BNP thrive on the publicity they receive, not in winning seats, which they are unlikely to ever do. Extremist parties could, and in certain parts of the country almost certainly will, get many second and third preference votes, probably not enough for them to win the seat but enough to give them extra influence, and the publicity they desperately seek. And giving supporters of fringe parties extra votes doesn’t seem like a particularly sensible way to ‘shut down extremists’

The assertion that winners of a constituency would have the backing of a higher number of their constituents under AV may be stretching the definition of the word support. Any extra ‘support’ would come from those who had placed a winning candidate in second, third or even fourth place on their list of preferences. Hardly a ringing endorsement. It could even see a situation whereby a candidate that received the second or third amount of votes in the first round of counting could win the constituency, which is a sure fire way to allow mediocre candidates the opportunity to triumph. AV doesn’t give you a more emphatic winner with a greater level of support for the candidate; just ask Ed Miliband

There is also the fact that some parts if the country will see much higher turnouts on the referendum than others due to Nick Clegg’s decision to schedule the referendum on the same day as the local elections. One of the reasons for this is to boost turnout, and back when Clegg’s stock was high that was probably a politically astute decision. The problem with this is that only some parts of the country are voting in the local elections, such as pro AV Scotland while other parts, such as the more sceptical London aren’t. This could lead to skewing of the results, something that Nick Clegg undoubtedly considered when setting the date for the referendum. Of course the other argument could be that voters should get off their arses and vote but people have many greater priorities at the moment than the voting system.

Much has been made by the Yes campaign about AV reforming politics. I would disagree that politics needs major reform in the first place (the whole expenses scandal was a witch hunt that took the actions of a few and tarred all politicians with the same brush), but even if you did think this then is AV going to change the whole political culture? It is by no means certain. Perhaps it would make safe seats marginally less safe but I’m not convinced it will lead to a more civilised politics, particularly not if the campaign, in which Clegg and Chris Hulme have become progressively more desperate and aggressive in their attacks on those who disagree with them, is anything to go by. Neither will AV end tactical voting as candidates will just encourage voters to specific candidates as their second choice rather than as an alternative first choice. Backroom deals won’t stop because of AV, the focus of them will just shift instead

If AV leads to more coalition governments, and there is some evidence to suggest it would, then all the more reason to vote No, at least if this coalition is anything to go by. This coalition has been a slap in the face for democracy; the single biggest issue by a country mile at the 2010 general election was economic policy in the face of the global banking crisis, and despite the fact that around 55% of the electorate voted for parties, such as the Lib Dems, who were opposed to the Tory austerity plans this is exactly what we have ended up with. Lib Dem support has bottomed out because of the union, and both Lib Dem and Tory grassroots are showing increasing signs of displeasure. It is probably unfair to judge all coalitions by this one, and it is probably fair to say that naturally most Lib Dems are closer politically to Labour than the Conservatives so future coalitions between the two would be the more likely scenario, but I tend to believe that one party rule is the better system that is much more likely to deliver what it promised to in the election campaign. Of course, as in 2010, first past the post also can deliver coalition governments!

None of this is to say I completely agree with everything the No campaign has put forward. I don’t believe that AV is too complicated for us mere mortals to comprehend, nor do I believe that the cost is a factor. For the right electoral system £250 million is not overly expensive, even in these tight times. I also disagree with any strategy, from either side, that attempts to attract votes by emphasising the damage that could be caused to a particular opposition politician or party. Nor is it to say I don’t sympathise with those who advocate change to the electoral system, particularly the Lib Dems. But no system is perfect; each has its flaws, and there are too many downsides to AV for me to be convinced it will be a better system than the current one; there is a reason that only 3 other countries in the world use AV, of which Fiji is a military dictatorship, and almost 60% of Australians want to ditch the system. And under no circumstances could I ever vote for a system that gives some people more votes than others

Cameron is right on university access - yet so, so wrong

The fact that David Cameron got his figures wrong when he called Cambridge University a ‘disgrace’ for its intake of black students is really missing the point. His broader point was absolutely spot on; that elite universities are ignoring their obligations to take on a broader spectrum of students rather than, as at the moment, overwhelmingly white middle and upper class students.

The intake of ethnic minority students into Oxbridge is less than half of that into the general university population, and one college at Oxford has not admitted a black student for 5 years. The boom in A level students from minorities attending university has not translated to a similar rise at the Oxbridge universities, nor the Russell Group of elite universities, despite a rise in applications. Oxford university put this down to the fact that ethnic minority students disproportionately apply for the three most oversubscribed courses, but even then they are less likely to get on to these courses. There is also little evidence that Oxbridge are attempting to persuade ethnic students to apply for other less subscribed courses.

As well as ethnicity, Oxbridge also appear to discriminate by socio-economic status. Oxbridge universities overwhelmingly recruit students from the top three socio-economic groups, to the tune of almost 90%. It is still an unfortunate truth that more than half of students in the whole of the UK are also from these same three groups but none draw more from the upper and middle classes than the elite universities. Is this because richer A level students are brighter, or is it because they are more privileged, and their parents money can buy greater opportunities?

It is great to see that David Cameron has recognised there is a problem, but his moral outrage is tempered by the policies that his coalition government has so far introduced. The scrapping of the EMA will impact on the ability of poorer students, disproportionately ethnic minorities, to stay on in further education, as will policies that have slowed down economic recovery. The tripling (in most cases, especially amongst the elite universities) of university tuition fees will, without doubt, deter poorer students from attending university, while in the long term cuts to Sure Start will ensure that many disadvantaged children will be denied the best possible start in their education, something that has been emphatically proven to increase educational chances later on in life. Nick Clegg campaigned against all of these policies during the election, drawing much of his parties support because of his stance, only to pull off a complete U-turn once in government. While in office Labour made strides in access to higher education, but made only small roads in access to Oxbridge universities, mainly on state school access (although this is mainly from state schools in well heeled areas). Partly this is because many policies were long term, such as Sure Start, and results wouldn’t be seen for many years, and partly it is because they could have tried harder

Cameron also needs to look in his own back yard when it comes to representation. The Conservative party in Parliament is overwhelmingly made up of, that’s right, white male public schoolboys, nearly 40% of whom went to Oxbridge. Just 16% of the parties MP’s are female, and just 4% come from ethnic minorities. The Lib Dems, on the other hand, have NO ethnic minority MP’s, and the lowest proportion of female MP’s in Parliament. Labour has 31% female MP’s, by far the highest of the main political parties although still under representative of the general population, likewise ethnic minority MP’s, with 6%

Representation in Parliament is partly a by product of inequalities at university. Elite universities need to work closer with schools in poorer areas to guide and encourage the brightest students to ensure they have the best chance to enter these establishments, especially if they're goimg to be allowed to charge £9000 a year. And Cameron needs to rethink his policies if he is to be taken seriously on access to top universities