Why I'm Marching for the Alternative today

Today’s protests against coalition cuts are likely to see up to 300,000 people on the streets of London. People are angry, and justifiably so. Labour supporters are angry that they are seeing the progress of the past 12 years undone. Lib Dem’s are angry that they were conned into voting for a progressive party, not a Tory one. Even 19% of Tories back today’s protests

During the 2010 election both Labour and the Lib Dems campaigned against the Tory plans for deep and immediate cuts. 55% of people voted for these parties. Added together with the Greens and the SNP nearly 60% o the electorate voted against these cuts. Nobody at all voted for the completely unnecessary NHS reforms, which come at a time when the NHS has received all time high satisfaction reports from the public. It is also one of the most efficient in the Western world, and the list of people who oppose these reforms is incredible; doctors, nurses, unions, midwives, patients, and the public in general. Any reforms by the coalition are purely ideological and to let the private sector in, not stealthily through the back door but brazenly gatecrashing through the front door. The private sector has a role in the NHS, but a free market economy does not fit in with the values and principles of our health system.

The coalition has buttered up the electorate with scare stories so that they are more likely to fall into line and accept these cuts. The fact is we’re not, and we never were, in danger of doing a ‘Greece or an Ireland’. The UK’s credit rating is AAA, meaning our interest rate for buying bonds is 3.5%, one of the lowest in the world, whereas Greece and Ireland are at 12.5% and % respectively. It is this ability, or in the case of Greece and Ireland inability, to afford the repayments on bonds with such high interest rates that forced these countries to take EU bailouts.

The economics of the coalition cuts doesn’t add up. Half a million public sector workers have or are about to be made redundant. Not only do these workers provide vital services and support for the country, particularly the most needy and vulnerable, but once they’ve lost their jobs they will join the 2.5 million people already out of work as there simply aren’t the jobs in the private sector to mop them up (in fact most private sector workers have already said they won’t employ ex-public sector workers, proof that the Tory demonisation of public servants has worked). With no jobs to turn to, they will be forced into benefits which will prove to be hugely costly for the government. These workers will also be paying no tax revenue, and will not be spending any money on the high street. This is exactly what bought the economy to its knees in the 80’s, the last time any government attempted severe cuts.

There are many in the private sector who rely on the public sector as well. For instance, the cancellation of the schools building programme has had a huge knock on effect on the construction industry. There is also statistical evidence that the coalitions economic policy is failing. The coalition have taken an economy that was in growth and recovering back onto the verge of recession, and three times since taking power George Osborne has had to revise his growth figures downwards, whilst in the US, where they are implementing a more growth based cuts programme similar to that that Labour and the Lib Dems advocated in 2010, growth forecasts have risen dramatically

Tax avoidance by corporations and the super rich is estimated to cost the country around £15-20 billion per year. UK Uncut has led a high profile campaign against businesses such as Vodafone, Top Shop and Barclays, who are all likely to see further protests today. This has been an issue under Labour and Tory governments, so this is not party political, but in the face of such severe cuts these tax loopholes need to be cut off now more than ever. I understand the argument that tax concessions are necessary to keep successful businesses in the UK economy but when it goes as far as Barclays paying less than 1% in corporation tax ( a figure that is supposed to be closer to 20%) in 2009, the balance has swing dramatically in the wrong direction. The likelihood is that even if tax liability is fully paid up the majority of companies would not leave the country. Britain is a highly attractive place for businesses and their employees, and that isn’t likely to change anytime soon

Osborne has recently announced further cuts in corporation tax and has also cut taxes to be paid on profits made by British companies abroad, meaning much less for the British treasury. The banks that caused this global economic crisis, and whose bailout cost the Treasury over £1 trillion, have been given a tax cut by Osborne, and the bank bonuses culture has not been curtailed; in fact quite the opposite. It seems Osborne and the coalition are in favour of making the UK as attractive a place as possible for their friends in business, no matter what the cost for the ordinary person on the street

All this has to be seen in the context of the savage cuts to our public sector services. For example in Hackney, one of the poorest boroughs in the country, many child services are being cut by up to 75%. This means more vulnerable children will be forced onto the streets, where they will be more likely to fall into crime. The scrapping of the EMA will bring about the same results. Cuts to the police will make it more difficult for them to fight crime, which is likely to rise in the face of a recession. Sure Start is facing severe cuts, and the coalitions promise that frontline services won’t be cut has turned out to be nonsensical, and even if it weren’t so frontline staff need the backroom staff that are facing the heaviest cuts in order for them to d their jobs. There are always efficiency savings that could be made, and they should be made, and I’m certainly not advocating no cuts whatsoever, but any cuts need to be fair, pro-growth, and not damage the vital services any people in the country rely on

The Robin Hood tax proposal that many protestors will be advocating today looks like a fair, reasonable. It is estimated that a 0.05% tax on all financial transactions will bring in £200 billion globally, and £20 billion in the UK alone. Those who dismiss it as pie in the sky are, quite frankly, talking out of their arse. The French and the German governments are already budgeting for it, and it would be extremely simple to implement as it could all be done electronically. At least it would target the people who caused the financial crisis rather than the poor and vulnerable in society

So here’s to a peaceful, successful march, and regardless of whether they change their course, they will hear our voice.

Why we should support the revolutionaries – and pray Iran is next

Few people outside of the academic and diplomatic communities knew much of North African and Middle Eastern politics at the turn of the year. What people did know – frequent outbursts of violence in Palestine, xenophobic clerics and presidents, terrorism and insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan – was enough to lead the casual observer to believe that the people of the region were all bloodthirsty, anti-Western zealots, governed by fat, corrupt multi-billionaires with a penchant for sponsoring terrorist groups and buying Premier League football clubs.

Then, two months ago, a revolutionary spark was ignited that has raced across the region like wildfire, consuming dictators and regimes that have been in power for 40 years. These citizen led uprisings have been broadcast into our living rooms around the clock via 24 hour news channels, and what we have seen has challenged our perceptions and broken down boundaries. People have taken an interest in events; many realising for the first time that people in the region who harbour desires and ambitions not dissimilar to our own

The danger is that as these uprisings continue them media, which has so far shone a spotlight onto events, will lose interest as other stories take precedent. This is the nature of 24 hour news coverage, and as the media shifts their focus viewers will inevitably lose attention. While these uprisings can continue without the attention of the worked on them, they are more likely to end in failure if this happens. But many of the apathetic majority are busy wondering what the hell it has to do with us. Why should they and their governments care?

First and foremost there are clear moral issues. People in the region have lived in fear and oppression while their leaders have skimmed tens of billions of dollars from the nations treasuries in order to fund their lavish and lifestyles and those of their families. Many thousands have been imprisoned, tortured, killed or have simply disappeared. They just want their freedom, and the right to determine their own futures. Although it is not yet clear what will happen in the aftermath of these uprisings, there are very practical reasons for encouraging democracy. Democracies tend to be more peaceful (rarely do democracies go to war with one another) and they are easier to deal with. They are more responsible on the world stage and due to the fact that they have free markets trade becomes easier and is less fraught with complications. Democracies are far more likely to work in the interests of their citizens as politicians in democracies are always looking forward to the next election and to the votes they need to retain power

The international pressure put on leaders of regimes facing protests have helped keep the momentum of the protests going. The Egyptian armies decision to remain neutral is thought to have been heavily influenced by contact with the US army, and sanctions have been place upon Colonel Gadaffi and his regime, although these have been unsatisfactory and have failed thus far to have any discernible impact. The reaction of these dictators to losing international support has been to blame outside interference or Islamic extremists, but this has only served to anger protestors who have shunned outside help in favour of ensuring their uprisings retain legitimacy at home, and the fact that the uprisings have come from the people and not from any extremist religious organisations lend legitimacy on the international stage

Other regimes in the region are understandably nervous. Bahrain, Oman and Yemen are all facing significant protests. Jordan and Algeria have tried to pre-empt unrest by announcing significant reforms, whilst Saudi Arabia has used its considerable oil wealth in an attempt ot buy off its citizens. Even sleepy Kuwait has seen dissent. The regime sweating the most though is Iran. Itself a revolutionary government (albeit one who seized power on the back of a people’s uprising), the Islamist clerics were nearly toppled in 2009 when the opposition rose up against them. They were brutally crushed but the opposition have found new heart in the successes in Tunisia and Egypt

Iran is a huge geopolitical power. Egypt was also, but whereas Egypt tended to be a stabilising influence in the Middle East, Iran is behind much of the regions troubles. The regime sponsors Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon, who in turn act as proxies in Iran’s conflict with Israel. Iran has trained and armed the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan (British troops this week intercepted a shipment of Iranian arms destined for Taliban fighters) that have extended the conflicts and bogged down NATO forces. The consequences for the region in the event of the fall of the current Iranian regime could be immense. The insurgencies in Iraq, and in particular Afghanistan would be weakened which would ease the pressure on our troops and allow the opportunity for the spread of greater stability. Without Iranian support Hamas and Hezbollah would likewise be severely weakened, allowing more moderate parties the opportunity to rise to the fore who would be more open to negotiating a lasting peace with Israel. There is also the likelihood that without hardline opposition to confront the Israeli’s would be more inclined to elect a more moderate leadership.

There is also the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. Combating this is currently one of the top priorities of the UN and the West, although Iran denies that such a programme even exists. The existence of this programme is making other powers in the region extremely nervous, particularly, but not exclusively Israel and Saudi Arabia. This nervousness has led to the prospect of an arms race in the region as rival countries seek to keep pace with the Iranians, and although there is no guarantee that anyone who may replace Ahmadinejad’s government would end the programme, a civilian led regime would certainly make those around them a little less nervous.

There are also financial benefits for the West. Stable regimes would have a stabilising influence on the price of oil. We also currently spend billions propping up dictators in the region (this was partly because there has previously been little alternative, but in light of recent events such a policy needs to be closely examined), and while in the short term money would be needed to help new regimes develop, in the long term, depending on what type of regimes replace existing ones, these countries would grow their economies and hopefully this would include opportunities for investment by Western companies. It would be likely that immigration into the UK and Europe from North Africa and the Middle East would fall as the oppressive regimes were replaced and their economies grow. We would be able to return existing political and economic refugees, as well as criminals, as the risk of torture in their home countries would be greatly reduced

These are all reasons why we should care about these uprisings, for they affect us in many ways. A world in which the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine were resolved would be a safer, more co-operative world as these issues are the cause of most of the schisms in the UN. No longer would the US feel obligated to defend Israel in the Security Council, and no longer would terrorist organisations be able to use these conflicts as recruiting tools. With a democratic, responsible, Iranian government representative of the (very liberal) Iranian people, the international community could concentrate on issues such as North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe. It could also represent a victory for Barack Obama, as many believe his rhetoric, and his policies in the region gave renewed hope for many Arabs and Muslims, and helped bring about the uprisings in the first place. The uprisings can also claim to bring together the right (reduced immigration and stable oil prices) and the left (universal freedom and human rights), which is no mean feat in today’s polarised society. These may be best case scenarios but any moves towards such a situation can only be a good thing

2010 Academy Awards

Aaah, time again for Hollywood’s annual back slapping contest. On the back of declining ratings hosts James Franco and Anne Hathaway were drafted in to help attract a ‘younger, trendier audience', and two better looking people you couldn’t wish to meet. Fortunately both are also very funny, and extremely talented. Franco’s dry, sardonic humour was balanced nicely by Hathaway’s bubbly charm, and together they brought some comic gold to the stage – Franco’s announcing the technical awards winners with the line ‘congratulations nerds’ being a highlight. However the constant advertisement breaks (four within half an hour at one point) meant they weren’t quite able to get a good rhythm going

The presenters also provided more than a few laughs; Justin Timberlake proclaiming to be Banksy, Jude Law mocking Robert Downey Jnr’s 2001 arrest and Cate Blanchett’s reacting to the Wolfman creature transformation, calling it ‘gross’ (or maybe she was talking about the fact that the Wolfman won an Oscar, whereas Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club and Blade Runner between them have none). The award for best presenter of the night has to go to ninety year old Kirk Douglas though. You could only make out every third word he was saying but it was enough to understand he was hitting on anything in a skirt, berating Hugh Jackman and basically hogging the stage, even during Melissa Leo’s acceptance speech

Speaking of Melissa Leo, probably the most talked about moment of the night came from the The Fighter’s matriarch when she deservedly picked up Best Supporting Actress. Shocked, or doing a very good job of pretending to be shocked (she campaigned hard in the run up to the awards), she blurted out the F word live on television in front of a billion people. Twas fucking genius, her profile has been raised a thousandfold. Really something you’d expect from Christian Bale, who got through his equally deserved acceptance speech rather gracefully. He surprisingly became a little teary, and then appeared to forget his wife’s name whilst thanking her

Bizarrely, Marouane Fellaini appeared to win an Oscar for Best Short Film. Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor won for his brilliant score for The Social Network, and Randy Newman won his second Oscar on his twentieth nomination for his song ‘We Belong Together’ from Toy Story 3 (which also bagged Best Animated Movie), despite a strong challenge and a haunting performance from AR Rahman and Florence Welch on 127 Hours ‘If I Rise’. Gwyneth Paltrow wasn’t as bad as expected in her singing performance, not that you’d know it by looking at her but the girl has lungs.

The Most Talented Man In The World Aaron Sorkin won Best Adapted Screenplay for his sublime Social Network script. Outrageously, this was his first nomination. If I’d known that before I’d have gone on hunger strike and watched Bid UpTV instead. The first shock of the night (and a huge blow toy sweepstake) came when Tom Hooper edged out David Fincher as Best Director for The Kings Speech. Now I loved the Kings Speech, but Fincher’s work directorially on the Social Network was technically superior. Fincher remains one of the best directors in Hollywood never to have won an Academy Award.

It was a great night overall for the Brits. As well as Bale and Hooper’s victories, there were several winners in the technical and design sections for British talent, mainly for Inception and Alice In Wonderland. Scribe David Seidler took home Best Original Screenplay for The Kings Speech, which also, somewhat surprisingly, edged out The Social Network for the coveted Best Picture prize. Colin Firth became the most predictable (at the shortest odds in Oscar history) winner as he picked up Best Actor for his magnificent turn in The Kings Speech, and subsequently provided one of the best speeches of the night of his own. Speeches on Oscar night are always a potential banana skin for the best of them (Hanks, Berry, Paltrow spring to mind), but Firth and a heavily pregnant Natalie Portman, who won Best Actress for her disturbed swan queen in Black Swan, managed to retain their dignity whilst at the same time charming the pants off everyone in the audience. Portman somehow managed to keep her composure despite the undoubted mixture of hormones and victory, and we’ll no doubt see her back up on this stage collecting another Oscar sometime in the future

While the Oscars are a nice event and provide a chance for movie geeks such as myself to spend a night sat up ‘til 6am, eating junk food and watching the silver screens top talent schmoozing around, the awards are of course complete nonsense. Any ‘best of’ 2010 awards show that fails to recognise the work of Chris Nolan, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis and Andrew Garfield deserves a slap in the face, not on the back