Politics

Is It Fair to Draw Parallels between Brexit and Donald Trump’s Election?

Posted on by Cameron

2016 has been a nightmare for centrist and left-leaning voters. First, the unpredicted vote to leave the European Union, by 51.9% to 48.1% and secondly, the unexpected rise of Donald Trump from media mogul to President-elect of the United States. However, many commentators are listing these two occurrences alongside each other as if they were demonstrative of the same if not a similar voting pattern – a rise in right-wing anti-immigration populism, but is this strong parallel justified?

The vote to leave the European Union centred on three main issues; firstly, immigration control secondly, sovereignty and finally, membership fees. Yes, within the European Union the UK is unable to have full control over its immigration policy from within the EU and has to abide by common regulations. Although leaving the European Union would most likely mean leaving the single market, hence the volume of support in Westminster and London for Remain.

I strongly argued the case for the UK to remain and whilst I maintain this point of view, I completely accept the democratic result. People prioritised immigration control over a strong economy and a co-operative country that compromised and pooled its sovereignty.

The election of Donald Trump is a different matter. The USA is part of NAFTA, which does not require free movement of people, and has complete control of its immigration policy. It even gets away with not abiding with international law, although in recent years Obama has made steps in the right direction. So when Trump made the case for making America “Great Again” he was referring to an America that does not take ‘no’ for an answer, an America that is ruthless not respected, an America of hatred and intolerance towards minorities, not an America that values the input of foreign-born Americans. Trump is somewhat protectionist and has alienated much of the GOP (the Republican establishment) with his anti-free trade stance. By tearing up TPP and NAFTA and slapping huge tariffs on Chinese goods, Trump marks a step into the post-truth society of populism.

Compare this to Brexit, and whilst an exit from the European single market is certainly neither favourable nor preferable in the eyes of economists on the left and right, Brexit proponents have certainly used the exit as an opportunity to make Britain the greatest trading nation again. It is almost as if Brexit is being used optimistically to wrestle free from chains and flourish, whereas Trump’s election victory is about re-chaining America – a pessimistic view that America can only be great again by the work of a demagogue who has thrown away the political rulebook. Trump has repeatedly treated women with disrespect using obscene language not appropriate for this article to repeat. Just as shocking is his Vice-President Mike Pence, who openly advocates electrocution as a cure for homosexuals. The politically correct culture which had come to be common-place in the Western world was really a culture with linguistic racism, sexism and homophobia weeded out. It helped those who did not fit the cis-gendered heterosexual mould feel valid and identified in a world where narrow-minded consciousness has made them feel invalid and invisible for so long. By electing a man who represents turning the back the clock on this, many American voters directly gave a mandate for such a backwards political figure to pursue the demise of social etiquette. Brexit is not so simple – even Theresa May’s Cabinet are still debating what options there are. This summarises the difference: Trump’s election was the normalisation of intolerance, racism and division, whereas Brexit was the vote for controlled immigration and a thriving global Britain, and there were so many options open regardless.

The difference could not be clearer. Yes, a significant proportion of the working class voted for both, hence the analogy. But one is entirely rational – to have control of borders and to shape one’s own destiny, whilst the other was heavily carried by irrational emotion and anger.

Therefore, when discussing the year of political upsets, yes mention Brexit and Trump’s victory, but by no means suggest they are equivalents either side of the Atlantic. By ‘taking back control’, the United Kingdom has a chance to take on a new leading role in the world and to shape its own future. With Trump, America is going to turn back the clock, reverse decades of progress on social issues and have an unmeasured, temperamental battering ram as their leader.

I’m back! (So is Jezza though)

Posted on by Cameron

Hello!

What a fantastically unenthusiastic three months it has been. What do we have? A new Prime Minister, the same old ineffective opposition and May’s meaningless mantra “Brexit means Brexit”

Whilst I have been following these events, I have spent the past few months in Burma, Scotland and in year 13 at school. (I use the term ‘Burma’ despite its colonial connotations because ‘Myanmar’ is the military-imposed name and is viewed more negatively by most of the Burmese people I met – also Suu Kyi prefers it).

Grammar schools – the social mobility ladder for working class children or the hold of the middle class? Attending a grammar school myself, I often feel hypocritical for my viewpoint on this – decided upon after much deliberation and hearing concerns from both sides. Rather than “pulling up the ladder” behind me, I recognise the arbitrary nature of the 11+ exam. It is hardly a measure of academic capability. I know the other 5 children who applied from my primary school all had private tutoring for longer than me (I had one hour a week from the May before the October examinations). And in my school, the whole system feeds into an academically elitist social hierarchy – all based on how people fared on an exam at the age of 11.

My initial hesitation came in the form of catering teaching for the most academically able (who show it repeatedly in school tests and exams). Why not maintain grammar schools because they get student better grades? And those who are more focused on their studies deserve teaching that caters for the high A*/9 grades as opposed to teaching which ensures everyone gets the basics (Cs). Unfortunately, this is an overly simplistic view-point and is one that is uncontested. Theresa May claims to be the champion of working people and wants to make Britain a meritocracy, but it shadows the progress made holistically in the education system. David Cameron and for all their unpopularity, Gove and Morgan, all made a positive impact on children’s education. The focus should be on providing outstanding education to EVERYONE and not just group “outstanding” teachers in select institutions that people get into based off the results of one exam.

It is not logically incoherent to believe in catering teaching to differing abilities whilst not believing in segregating children and labelling those who do not pass as “failures”. The set system exists in comprehensives and is a fine example of how these two beliefs can be brought together. Completely different institutions that socially segregate children are not necessary just for putting those of “similar abilities” together. Not all children peak at the age of 11 and sets, in an inclusive education system, offer flexibility and the opportunity to move sets if a student peaks academically at the age of 14, for example.

Otherwise, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton dominate the news. I continue to be horrified by the lack of basic human decency from Trump and I make my views clear on my Twitter account @euphoricmediums so follow that for more views on the Presidential race.

Recently, I read the Prince and whilst it was somewhat unspectacular like much political philosophy, some key ideas were quite thought-provoking (I often pondered the underlying messages rather than reading some of the useless waffle that Machiavelli wrote). I have broadened my political horizons though, for I held my own view of made a perfect leader (compassionate, respectful and conscientious) but I do understand the argument for a ruthless leader in terms of efficiency.

“It’s better to be feared than loved”

This really does make philosophical sense. To have power on a basis of fear leaves the door open for increasing popularity to be loved if socio-economic conditions better, but if they happen to worsen, power is still guaranteed. However, a leadership with foundations of love are easily broken as people are fickle. If socio-economic conditions for the people worsen, or unpopular policies are brought forward, the relationship of love collapses and so the mutual consent for leadership from love equally collapses and power is vanquished.

Always food for thought though!

 

Cameron.

The ‘Sugar Tax’: An AS Economics Approach

Posted on by Cameron

The chancellor’s budget on the 16th March shocked many – from the row over the PIPs to the sugar tax. As an Economics student, perhaps I should adapt this to the theories I have learned in school as a component of my revision?

According to the National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2008-12, 40% of added sugar consumed in teenagers (11-18) came from sugary drinks, 30% of added sugar for 4-10 year olds and 27% of added sugar for those 0-4 years old, all respectively the highest amounts for added sugar consumption. When experts discuss the growing problem of obesity, reducing sugar consumption is one option to solve it, however much more must be done (people need to exercise more etc because we are too sedentary nowadays).The move should add 7p to every 330mm can assuming producers do not swallow the whole cost.

Although milk-based drinks and fruit juices are exempt, the tax is estimated by Osborne to rake in £520 million for the Government but what are the impacts likely to be? I will revise my Theme 1 Economics AS course by applying theory here, so excuse the basic level of answers I provide.

Firstly, an indirect tax is a tax placed on the suppliers of a certain good. Sugary drinks are assumed to be elastic demand, so by taxing the suppliers, the market equilibrium moves up from (Pwithouttax, Qwithouttax) to (Pwithtax, Qwithtax). Apologies for the standard tax diagram as opposed to the externalilities diagram (which better represents the negative externalities involved in sugary drinks): I could not find a diagram online without copyright issues attached (if it makes you feel better imagine D here as ‘MPB=MSB’ and Swithouttax as ‘MPC’ and Swithtax as ‘MSC’) but thank you Wikimedia. The Government’s intention of reducing consumption of sugar which is considered to have negative externalities (such as obesity and diabetes which are not taken into account by the market mechanism), is achieved as quantity consumed falls from Qwt to Qt, so sugary drink (demerit good) consumption falls.

2000px-Tax_incidence_(producer).svg

However, this relies on the assumption that demand is elastic, that is customers or consumers are very responsive to change. Potentially they will be inelastic, in that an increase in price will do little to decrease demand. This can be shown on a diagram.

Screen-shot-2013-01-03-at-9.34.59-PM-2fypevl

Although the quantity of sugary drinks consumed will theoretically fall (from q1 to q2), the tax burden on the supplier is almost all passed over to the consumer, because the inelastic demand allows suppliers to do this without worrying about quantity demanded decreasing significantly. This sugar tax has been labelled as regressive and hitting the poorest in society the hardest by the UK’s Institute of Economic Affairs, because the increase in price from p1 to p2 on this diagram will make up a higher proportion of their disposable income than it would for somebody earning £60,000 a year let’s say. As inelastic demand, people will be willing to pay this new higher price but thus will have less spending money elsewhere, so there is the idea of opportunity cost for those on the lowest incomes or on welfare, they could be spending this on their food shopping or purchasing local goods and services. Considering a tax on sugary drinks may have little magnitude of impact, it may be considered unfair to further diminish the disposable incomes of those in poverty, who although aware of the debate about sugar, want to persist with their daily lives and have the economic freedom to buy what they want. The Adam Smith Institute, created in recognition of the work of the well-renowned economist, echoes this principle.

Some economists look at the idea of indirect taxes more favourably and in both diagrams recognise the rectangle block (composed of consumer burden and producer burden) as reflecting that of Government revenue generated from taxes, so the potential to raise Government revenue through a sugar tax is beneficial as the Government can increase either expenditure or ‘sorting its finances out’ i.e. reducing deficits or debt. In the UK, the amount the Government spends annually is greater than that which it receives in tax, causing a budget deficit, therefore it would seem wise to implement a sugar tax, especially considering the external costs which cost society, in order to balance the budget. The Government could also use this revenue to subsidise ‘merit good’ suppliers – so the National Health Service or state education could receive the funding raised from the sugar taxation to bring about positive externalities on society. If not this, then maybe it could attempt to use the revenue to pay down the deficit and work towards a surplus and eventually reducing the national debt.

However, as shown with the first diagram, perhaps the sugary drink is elastic and so any increase in price may significantly decrease quantity demanded. Businesses may choose to internalise the tax burden or pay for their burden by cutting jobs and making efficiency savings similar to how Coca-Cola has declared it will pay for its producer burden. Either way, the price equilibrium should remain constant if businesses swallow up the tax and the consumption of the demerit sugary drinks will stay the same. Cutting jobs will decrease the employment rate, thus less people will have a stable income and less income tax revenue for the Government. It may discourage business from expanding in the UK in a move deemed as a ‘tax on business’.

Overall, it seems quite unexpected for a Conservative Government to introduce a tax but with the current deficit of ~£56.9 billion, reducing the chance of people developing obesity or diabetes as well as raising revenue to pay off this deficit seems to be a more powerful argument than those arguing against it as it may hurt either the poorest or business. Instead, it encourages people to switch to healthier drinks although the magnitude of price elasticity is unknown and difficult to measure. Jamie Oliver may not be an economist but this move was probably brought in to raise Government funds as introducing taxes is certainly new ground for a Conservative chancellor, but directed towards reducing future budget deficits, it could have legitimacy amongst economists, and Osborne has the support of Labour for this motion.

 

Thanks for following.

Cameron.

 

 

‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ (Orwell, 1949): A Reflection

Posted on by Cameron

Having evaluated my blog recently, I realised that I had not established my influences earlier on. ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ by George Orwell immediately springs to mind. This classic novel has of course inspired my political thought, not necessarily my beliefs but has been influential in the development of my political awareness. I therefore have written a piece on my interpretation of the classical novel.

In all honesty, the primary motivation for me borrowing this book from the school library was only ever to fulfill my deep desire for indulgence in [understandable] political philosophy. I had little prior knowledge about the content of the book or intent of filling up a ‘Reading List’ but I must admit in hindsight, what a brilliant thing to do it was. Immediately I was brought into the fictional setting and found myself prioritising each next page over homework  (of course I did complete my homework but here Orwell’s novel very much appealed to me).

Potentially whether the early indications that the book was to portray communism in an appalling light, or Russian communism particularly, attracted my attention (as a capitalist-supporting centrist – a conservative liberal one might label me as (please leave any prejudices you may have aside for this article)) or not is unclear, as I read the book back in December. Nonetheless, following Winston’s narrative triggered my train of thought to contemplate the ‘free’ society that I live in and whether I should consider myself lucky not to be as deprived of civil liberties as those in this novel are. Am I extremely lucky to have the legal right to ‘freedom of speech’ here in twentieth century UK? Of course I am. However, as Theresa May pushes for the unpopular and extremely controversial ‘Snooper’s Charter’, as it is referred to as by critics, is Government surveillance of society an evil or deprivation of freedom to the extent that Orwell portrays it, or is it a necessary tool for maintaining society’s structure and defending from terrorism?

I found Orwell’s minute exploration of the relationship between ‘Eastasia’, ‘Eurasia’ and ‘Oceania’ in Nineteen Eighty-Four rather fascinating as I have a vested interest in the study of International Relations and am currently undertaking a Level 3 Extended Project titled ‘Are Russian, Chinese and American Approaches to Foreign Policy Hindering the Progression of International Relations?’, thus this area is of great interest to me and I even quoted Orwell in my conclusion with regard to the identical natures of the three states.

Understand I am not a Literature student, although I hold those who are so in high regard, so excuse my post for focusing on my personal modern reflection rather than the outstanding techniques Orwell uses to craft his narrative of life under ‘Oceania’, or the Soviet Union/Russia.

I suppose this book is a starting point for philosophers interested in the field of politics, for it deals with the concept of freedom and equality and historical happenings of political communism in Russia, albeit totalitarian communism that does not reflect the ‘kind face of the left’ that itself and the media portrays as idealism. The significance of its publication is undoubted: Orwell, a self-declared socialist, provided the political right-wing with a literary weapon to attack the left and also intellectuals growing dangerously attracted to totalitarianism. It raised fears for the general public about the involvement of Government in everyday life.

What inspires me about it though? I formulated many of my early political ideas before reading this, so how does it fit in with influencing me if I already had political beliefs?

Orwell offers the uncommon message that left-wing does not equal that of betterment of society (although ‘betterment’ here could be defined in differing manners which may render this sentence untrue, if society is believed to be bettered through total government take-over). Those of similar ages to me, a technology-heavy generation, are fed propaganda from those on the left many times, warning of the racism and xenophobia of the right, which often leads politically uneducated (through no fault of their own) youths to align with left-wing organisations. Although I am not a right-winger either and I see similar happenings with adults and right-wing newspapers, it is worrying that whilst young people are so quick to label the media as right-wing, they often do not recognise the left-wing bias on social media.

I am not saying that we experience brainwashing to the scale of Room 101 in this novel but I worry very much that my generation is fed a narrative that left-wing equated to friendliness,  and ‘goodness’ whereas right-wing is symbolic of rich people, poverty , racists and malevolence. The agents on Twitter and Facebook (with no disrepute to these companies for these are merely the platforms used to broadcast left-wing agendas) appeal to emotions of the public and associate right-wing parties with hatred for others and no compassion and many take the criticisms at face value with no further investigation (as they have lives!).

Naturally most people would distant themselves from racist organisations or those wishing to divide society so with little or no political understanding, many youngsters of today align themselves with the Green Party for example, unaware of the extreme nature and actual extent of their policies. What Orwell’s classic novel from 1949 does is challenges this modern cosying to Government control and reminds us that left-wing pursuits do not necessarily make people happier, it does not make you a good, kind-hearted person if you choose to make yourself left-wing. Totalitarianism communism is shown in this novel to be flawed and an average human, Winston, who can think rationally, begins to challenge his absolute lack of any autonomy at all and stop conforming. Are a lack of freedom, an inability to express anything that does not glamour the Government and a low quality of life acceptable sacrifices in the name of “equality”?

I realise I sound like an angry right-winger manipulating Orwell’s book for my own purposes however I am not attacking the left , but instead attempting the address the political framework which still associates right wing with unkindness and the left with optimism and happiness. There are brilliant achievements on the political left to be celebrated (the democratic push for equal rights and the formation of the NHS to cite just a couple of examples) but this does not make them entirely perfect and kind nor improvements on those organisations who support maintaining capitalism.

It is ironic that as a socialist, Orwell’s work provides ammunition against those similar to his political ideology, but it is worth noting that whilst totalitarianism was something warned about in his novels, his experiences in life not only gave him distaste for those on the far left, but also those right-wing.

Although he appeals to some form of socialism, in ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Orwell is acknowledging that Government control of a society leads to disastrous consequences and essentially this is the major point of influence for me. Although the story was interesting to read, the philosophical and political undertones were key in reminding me of the dangers of totalitarianism which are often left out of political debates.

I conclude this post with an admiration for this book I had not anticipated beforehand. After handing it back into the library, I even went out and bought my own personal copy. I finished the book feeling grateful for the freedom of the society in which I live. Others are not so fortunate, and that is a shame, but freedom is that most valued only when lost, thus this novel is a brilliant measure of appreciating it, whilst sympathising with those under the Russian communism.

The final word goes out as a message of love, peace and prayer to those injured, killed and traumatised by the recent attacks in Brussels, Ankara and Lahore. Terrorism has no borders and no place in any society, is barbaric and those innocents who had their lives stolen from them will be remembered and their lives celebrated, for humanity is beautiful and those who detract from that in this terror-striking way are undeniably evil.

“He [God] will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.” (Revelation 21:4). 

Or so we pray.

Thank you for reading and I hope the lives of those killed in the recent attacks are in your prayers,

Cameron.

 

 

The Right Honourable John Bercow

Posted on by Cameron

Often after a busy day of school and work, I flick to BBC Parliament, or on Wednesdays, the iPlayer for a catch-up of the weekly Prime Minister’s Question Time, for much needed relaxation. Much to my regular dismay, the grunting and animalistic behaviour of members of the House of Commons distracts me from the content of the debate. “ORDER” is a common command requested by the gentle but seemingly frustrated man with silver locks, respected by all (bar some in the Conservative party) and known as ‘Mr Speaker’ or outside of the Commons, the Right Honourable [Gentleman] John Bercow. The behaviour seems so unrealistic that Westminster politics appears removed from mainstream British society, or acts somewhat like a television drama.

Of the stars of the show, the most frequent appearance is arguably boasted by this man John Bercow. High in his chair, politically impartial, he maintains order and encourages debate in the Commons. Rather majestically, his command silences the “yeahyeahyeahyeahs” from both sides of the house and recently on the Syria vote, braved 11 hours without escaping to the lavatories, for the entire debate he remained present, a feat impressive even for the elected Speaker.

Naturally then, I was interested when hearing during a volunteering lesson that Mr Bercow would be attending and giving a speech at the school ‘Rugby High School For Girls’ on Friday 4th March 2016, RHS being the sister school to my own, ‘Lawrence Sheriff School’. I understood that the Politics students at my school had been invited and although I do not study AS Government and Politics, my curiosity for Political Science, theory and ambition to study PPE at university encouraged me to contact the relevant persons, who accepted my request to attend.

I must admit, Bercow’s delivery was extremely impressive, his language varied and his grasp of the wider English language apparent. The content was rather fascinating similarly to his delivery, offering amusing anecdotes and relevant explanations of his duties which include devising a list of questions to be raised by MPs which he feels will provide the widest range of debate. After half an hour or so of expressing his role in the Commons, he opened the floor for questions, suggesting students raise themselves as MPs do so in order to ‘catch the Speaker’s eye’. It was rather nerve-racking for most of the audience had been familiarised with raising their hand to attract attention. There were questions raised of difficulty of impartiality, cat-like behaviour towards the current Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, the fragile portrayal of the Conservative party and whether the EU referendum would tear them apart and others. I offered one, challenging the Speaker to see whether he really had put his former Conservative alignment to the side since 2009. “Could you illustrate the strongest, most supported argument that you have heard during your time as Speaker in favour of the renewal of Trident?”. A tricky question, intended to test the Speaker’s assumed neutrality but impressively enough, he mentioned the global instability argument which is much supported by the Conservatives and the centrist Labour ‘moderates’  but compared it to the very strong logical argument of the funding and if it is ethical to spend so much on those when other services are seeing funding reduced. I was impressed with his answer and so at the end, I was one of a few people to approach him and ask further questions.

Myself and a friend who had sat next to me in the audience engaged in a small discussion with Bercow about the potential for a Parliamentary discussion on a change in the voting system, referencing the public/parliament divide over the issue and the ethics of the current First Past the Post system which left almost 5 million voters with only 2 representatives (Greens and UKIP combined). After thanking him for his approach to answering my question, he relaxed somewhat to the less partisan issue which he could offer his expertise to most – his predictions for parliamentary discussion. Bercow referenced the AV referendum in 2011 which was heavily rejected by 67.9% to 32.1%, sending a public message of support for FPTP (there are arguments it was more anti-AV than pro-FPTP but that is not as powerful as the result of the referendum itself). Politics in the UK cannot change along with populist ideals therefore Bercow seemed convinced the topic would not be a major one in the next 4 years.

My friend Billy also engaged in conversation with Mr Bercow, requesting a selfie with the famous Speaker. By this time, my other friend had left and I was stood rather awkwardly pondering whether I should join the photo or not, grasping the opportunity considering my phone was broken at that time. Fortunately, neither expressed disapproval but instead amusement!

Meeting the Speaker has deepened my interest and understanding of Politics and whilst I am not repeating the content of Bercow’s speech, I am reflecting on it and undoubtedly it relates to me and my ambitions to enter the world of [extended] international politics.

Thanks for reading!

Cameron.

Here is a photo to keep as a memory of the experience! (Left to right: Rt Hon John Bercow, Cameron Butt (myself) and Billy Thompson)

12801093_559808970843262_7410590573793543944_n

 

Should The Conservatives Make Savings In Welfare To Reduce The Deficit?

Posted on by Cameron

It’s the topic that’s always hitting the news. The “Nasty Party”, as Theresa May once labelled them, really have no heart and want to push poorer people into poverty by taking away their welfare, their tax credits because the UK Government claims it cannot afford them. Whilst doing this though, the richer members of society are not asked to pay a single penny more! What’s more – they cannot afford to maintain current tax credits but they can afford to spend an estimated £12 billion on 138 stealth fighter jets to combat Daesh! This cannot be just or fair… or can it?

Too often people of my generation are fed this narrative that the Westminster elite and currently the Tory Government do not care about its citizens (the ones that are not so well off, I should add). The chancellor, George Osborne, has been a pantomime villain figure for many across the country because of his unpopular implementation of reductions in public spending. But why? George Osborne does not exist for the end purpose of reducing payments to the public, he was not born for the sole intention of reducing public spending, so the question remains why is he doing so?

One can deduct a few conclusions from the very nature of the UK Government and depending which conclusion one focuses on, summarises the differing political narrative that is forever frequent.

Firstly, there is the traditional Conservative notion of ‘rolling back the state’, essentially reducing Government involvement in daily life and leaving individual units (households, businesses etc) to be more independent of the state and be able to make their own decisions, to let Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ shape the economy and benefit society.

Secondly, perhaps the Conservatives favour the rich so much that they will take money from those most in need in order to pay for public services rather than tax the rich more. The Tories clearly have no heart or understanding of the reality of what it is to be poor and wants to punish them because they see people on low wages and benefits as ‘lazy’.

Thirdly, the well-respected newspapers and financial magazines such as the Economist (my absolute favourite, although I cannot afford the print copy!) acknowledge that the UK has a national debt. Debt is money owed that must be paid back. So surely the UK should pay this money back to the multiple debtors? Well the UK is certainly not alone in having a national debt, in fact only Macao (a special region of China so not completely independent) is free of debt, but the UK’s current national debt is measured as of 2015 as 88.6% of GDP, a continued increase from 2010, despite the Conservatives’ pledge for a ‘long term economic plan’. Anyway this third point assists with the message that the Conservatives persistently played through the 2015 election, to reduce the deficit and try and turn it into a surplus.

The first conclusion would be favoured by those who have earned their way in life, perhaps are coming to the end of their careers or even business leaders. Free market economies are brilliant for business, because corporation tax and VAT damage business through higher prices and lower demand assuming not very inelastic demand (but are often imposed to internalise external costs such as pollution) and so this conclusion is appealing, however it lacks much substance to it. Osborne may be reducing welfare handouts, but he has also introduced the £7.20 minimum wage for those over 25. As for the rich who pay top rate of tax on their £150,000+ earnings, during the years of a Tory-led coalition, they saw a decrease of 5% to 45%. Middle earners still pay 40% tax also, and Osborne may be increasing the lowest salary at which one starts paying tax, but the top rates do not seem headed for a downward shift, in contrast to the will of capitalist free-market economics. Also, VAT actually has risen under Osborne, unusual for an incoming Conservative Government who tend ideologically to avoid UK Government intervention. Hence, this notion of embracing traditional Tory roots seems wholly unconvincing.

Onto the second point – this is the common perspective that I hear. On [Marxist] Twitter, at school, in some national newspapers and on other social media websites to a lesser extent, the Tories are demonised as this monstrous party led by greed and dislike of those not in the bourgeois, those not born into privilege, those who aren’t so upper-class. Often the only credibility supporting this argument is tenuous at most, and rather complex. “Slashing” (note the emotive language used by the left) public spending whilst not increasing taxes on “those with the broadest shoulders”. The connection between these two points as representative of the Conservative party’s reinforcement of class divisions and making the rich richer and the poor poorer is a complete failure and shows a thorough lack of understanding of the tax system, as many professional left-wing journalists fail to do so in their worrying inability to grasp basic economics. Owen Jones completely baffles me sometimes but even worse is his writing and speech which attempts to convince others he is the most caring, the most wise, the most educated, the most knowledgeable and anybody who disagrees with him is narrow-minded, of course. I indeed wish no hypocrisy and I do not claim to be a political editor, nor an expert, simply a student expressing ‘socio-economic political thought’. It does not take a professional to work out that if there are two monetary values, take £1000 and £2000 for simplicity’s sake. Say both were obliged to pay 10% of these earnings, the first would pay £100 but the second would pay £200 (please note that this is pure maths and not representative of general incomes, for at these annual incomes they would pay no income tax at all). Easily it can be seen that at the same tax rate, those earning more DO pay more in tax and will continue to do so under the Conservatives. Nonetheless, the idea of a flat tax is not adopted by many political or economic figures nowadays and is a debate for another time as it is not directly relevant to the conclusion regarding public savings and the national debt.

This is a friendly reminder that there are different tax brackets in the UK. Those who earn more than £150,000 a year pay 5% more of their income to tax than the standard 40% rate for those between £31,768 and £149,999.99. So when people say the rich (loosely used term but I will use it in this flexible manner) need to pay more tax, they already do! They pay more tax than people on lower incomes! And rising the top rate too high to increase governmental revenue incentivises them to leave (as seen with the example France who abandoned their 75% rate in 2014 (there are lots of articles on that if you have any spare time).

How does this link to the point? The Conservatives do not think poor people are lazy at all. Instead, they believe that the Government should not be subsidising low-paid jobs and believe the businesses have a duty to pay fair wages to their employees, hence the introduction of the minimum wage. Arguments suggesting the Tories do not care about those on the lowest wages or unemployed now become somewhat redundant (see what I did there?). Also, there lingers the fundamental Conservative value of working for what one receives in life, and many of the party’s voters on lower wages are concerned that whilst they are working hard, others on benefits or tax credits, have a more comfortable life with more disposable income. Conservatives believe in the benefits of work and that those who work harder deserve to reap greater rewards, so the reduction in welfare give-outs is completely natural. Dependency on tax credits is more criticised and acknowledged in printed newspapers nowadays because those who are able and willing to work and are receiving tax credits but do not pay income tax are more of a state liability and in the current economic climate, the Government is in search of reducing the great difference between what it spends on and what it receives in tax. I wonder if the public remembers that Question Time last year when Yanis Varoufakis appeared and informed the British audience that they have not really experienced cuts at all. In fact, the measures put in place by Osborne accepted by Mr Cameron have hardly been austerity, especially in relation the the real cuts Greece has actually faced. Perhaps the left should be more wary before scaremongering Internet users about the ‘radical extent of Tory cuts’.

*and breathe!*

Finally, the third conclusion is interesting because there is high validity in it and often the depth of the matter is overlooked because of the ‘severe nature of the inhumane Tory cuts’ as I so often read on online articles. In 2015 alone £47.6 billion was spent on…. hmmmm let’s guess… DEBT INTEREST! Yes, not even towards the debt, just interest that was required to pay for having unpaid debt. To put things in perspective, because this figure might be minuscule in comparison the other budgets of course, it is greater than the £45 billion budget for national defence, £43.8 billion for education, more than the combined budget for transport and protection and finally even greater than the funding allocated to Scotland via the Barnett formula, according the Scottish Conservatives’ leader Ruth Davidson on Daily Politics (9/2/16). It does not rival that of the £153.3 billion pensions fund or the £134.7 billion health spending either, but it still is a significant proportion of governmental spending, considering it has no social benefits and has no positives for any private individuals. Other sources have presented similar figures, slightly different but generally following the same trend and it can be noted then that the opportunity cost is of course extremely high. Debt interest payments could so easily be spent on investment in UK business and encouraging businesses to create apprenticeships for young unemployed people potentially struggling to make their way in the early stages of life and their working career.

The national debt is the accumulative amount of money owed by the UK that must be paid back, but the deficit is the difference between what the UK Government spends and what it receives in taxes each fiscal year, so if spending is greater than income one year, that Government will run a deficit and the difference will be added to the adjusted-for-inflation debt. This is why the Conservatives are so keen on reducing public spending, because they want to get the country into a surplus, so every year the surplus can chip away at the national debt and over time reducing the amount of debt interest requiring payment (allowing this funding to be spent elsewhere). They also have in mind the aim of avoiding raising taxes, because unlike more socialist ‘progressive’ governments, Cameron’s Conservatives still want people to keep a majority of the money that they earn, thus finding savings in public spending is the only way to reach their target. And as for the Daesh air strikes, it is a controversial subject and there are no simple ‘this is correct’ or ‘that is false’ statements because of the subjective nature of ethics in modern days but it is a matter of national defence and though Osborne reportedly wants to make savings to the defence department, NATO will pressure against that and as the UK’s closest continental partner’s capital, Paris suffered a huge terrorist attack, it seems somewhat necessary to combat this inhumane barbaric terrorist organisation through the carefully planned missile attacks that will NOT be random and kill civilians, but will be carefully targeted with sufficient evidence of Daesh congregations. Of course, there remains the ethics of whether bombing and the potential for innocent civilians to be killed is fair or not, the emotional impacts can pull the heartstrings when watching footage of the devastation caused by Putin’s airstrikes. One simply has to balance this lesser evil against the growing force of Daesh (also known as ISIL).

What does this article aim to suggest? That the Conservatives are right to want to reduce public spending in their aim to reduce the deficit, and should do so. I am aware that I now speak in a normative tone, attempting to subliminally persuade in a manner potentially as farcical as Owen Jones, the Daily Mail and the Guardian, but I hope this article has demonstrated the necessity for such savings and how simple criticisms of the Tory Government’s actions accompanied with passive negative remarks about capitalism do not begin to even cover the broad thought required for evaluating domestic policy and the economy.

Many thanks for reading my first article,

 

Cameron.

 

Welcome.

Posted on by Cameron

Bienvenue! Welcome! Willkommen! 歡迎! أهلا وسهلا! Добро пожаловать!

My name is Cameron, and I am a 16 year old student aspiring to study BA Philosophy, Politics and Economics at University. I intend to publish my take on issues, topical and past, on this site, hopefully incorporating some of the knowledge I have learned from my weekly rituals of Prime Minister’s Questions, Question Time and my reading of the Daily Telegraph every morning at my school. Perhaps I may include some of the Further Reading I am increasingly immersing myself into, if it is relevant, but as I wish for people to read, understand and make decisions for themselves, I do not intend to establish a monotonous one-tone, ‘talking-to-myself’ sort of blog. Rather I aim to arouse political interest in the young people of today and as Immanuel Kant was so insistent upon, to use the human capability of pure practical reason when considering politics in contrast to emotive, biased arguments.

I hope you will enjoy my publications, and whether you agree my with conclusions or not, I am sure solace will be found in the balanced considerations in the lead up to the conclusion.

If there are any current issues that you would like me to discuss, please don’t hesitate to contact me (either through the comments or personally).

 

Thank you,

Cameron,

Socio-economic political thought.