Why are we still supporting the Monarchy?

by Jennifer O'Mahony    
June 22, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Let us consider for a moment the first two lines of Canadian band Of Montreal’s ‘My British Tour Diary’.

On my trip to England I noticed something obscene
People there still actually give a shit about the Queen

This is the reaction of a band whose singles also include ‘Vegan in Furs’, ‘Cato as a Pun’, and ‘Fun Loving Nun’, and whose lead singer has been known to arrive onstage naked astride a white horse.

Basically, outside Europe even very weird people think we’re weird.
continue reading… »

New report: Afghanistan needs two-tier justice

by Conor Foley    
June 22, 2010 at 3:19 pm

This is from a recent report produced by the US Institute for Peace on Afghanistan’s formal and customary justice systems.

It argues – controversially – for an explicit recognition of the need to accomodate the two systems in a state-building project.

—
In post-Taliban Afghanistan, the formal justice system has limited reach and legitimacy, and struggles to function in an environment with depleted human resources and infrastructure, a legal system in tatters, and where local power largely continues to supercede central authority.

The justice system is relatively weak in the urban centers where the central government is strongest, and in the rural areas that house approximately 75% of the population, functioning courts, police, and prisons are an exception. For the majority of Afghans, disputes are settled, if at all, at the local level by village elders, district governors, clerics, and police chiefs. These settlements – involving both criminal and civil matters – may follow tribal tradition, religious interpretation, or prerogatives of power. As efforts to establish the rule of law expand and the power of the central government grows, the relationship between the formal and informal justice systems will be a critical element of efforts to maintain community harmony, protect rights, provide access to justice, and serve the interests of justice.

Afghanistan has had a rich and layered legal history. Over centuries, closely-knit, autonomous social cultures produced a variegated system of customary law administered by village elders and tribal councils. In the late 19th century a formal legal system emerged to expand state authority, delivering justice in the name of the Amir, and to resolve disputes concerning commerce and government in urban areas. Both of these systems were heavily influenced by Islam, and were to some extent dependent upon religious clerics. . . . . .

In the aggregate, however, the official reform process has yielded little. In the countryside most Afghans do not have easy access to state justice institutions. Those who can use the courts rarely choose to do so. The courts are widely seen as corrupt and lacking in authority. Executive officials in the provinces, provincial, district governors, police, and prosecutors tend to bypass the courts to settle difficult or important disputes, and many local court judges also refer disputes to community-based mechanisms for settlement. Research suggests that 80-90% of disputes – criminal and civil – are resolved
outside of the formal system.

In many areas, however, the infirmity of the formal system is matched by the vagary of the informal system. Some traditional practices violate Afghan and international law, including honor-killings, forced and underage marriage, and payment of blood money in lieu of punishment. Women rarely, if ever, participate directly in informal mechanisms, and their basic rights under Afghan law are often ignored. With international support for Afghanistan heavily influenced by international human rights and women’s rights standards, these traditional practices have made the human rights community very wary
of informal justice systems. There is considerable internal frustration as well, as imbalanced power relations between landowners, landless farmers, and gun-holders tend to subvert the principles of equity upon which the system relies for its popular legitimacy.

Large-scale problems often defy resolution by the existing means, as community-based justice mechanisms are often unable to deal with inter-community problems – especially between communities from different ethnic or sectarian groups.

In order to move forward, there is a need for evolution of both systems, and formalization of the relationship between them. At present, the formal and informal systems co-exist, but without official sanction or mutual recognition. The government wishes to establish a competent, coherent, and effective legal and justice system as a central component of a legitimate Afghan state. But it need not do so at the expense of all traditional or informal dispute resolution mechanisms. The capacity of the formal justice system will remain limited for years to come, and informal mechanisms will continue to have an important role to play in resolving disputes, particularly in civil (non-criminal) matters.

Recognizing the positive role that the informal system can and does play will enable the government to harness the good of that system, while also working to curtail its most problematic aspects.
—–

Poor people: too declasse to save?

by Kate Belgrave    
June 22, 2010 at 3:00 pm

During the recent election campaign, I attended a packed parliamentary candidates’ hustings meeting in Lewisham-Deptford, my home manor.

I bring it to you now as evidence that anyone relying on the better-appointed to fight for public services should head out now to lie down on the M4 (I have been taken to task this week for criticising the middle class, but there’s often justification. We have a poll now that suggests people are prepared to make the poor pay for the banking industry’s excesses. I’ll be delighted if I’m proved wrong and parliament is stormed).

The meeting was just so appallingly civilised.

Five prospective MPs sat before the voting public in the middle of a recession, an expenses scandal, a public services funding crisis and – lest we forget – a war, and people just sat there and politely heard them all out.
continue reading… »

Think-tanks dismiss Tory “progressive” budget

by Newswire    
June 22, 2010 at 2:40 pm

Raising VAT to 20 per cent is not an unavoidable measure to address the deficit, says the think tank Demos, responding to the June Budget.

Analysis from Demos shows that a progressive approach to balancing national finances could and should come from focusing on tax rises.

Kitty Ussher, chief economist at Demos said:

Putting up VAT was entirely avoidable. Demos analysis shows how tax on unearned wealth and carbon could have been raised instead. This VAT rise, combined with benefit cuts, will hit the poorest hardest and could cause a double dip recession.
…
Raising VAT to 20 per cent is a regressive taxation, hitting the poorest hardest. The hike also harms growth, taxing consumption when the economy demands that household spending increases.

The Government should have gone further with Capital Gains Tax rises; it would have been preferable to tax gains on the unearned wealth primary residences should be the key mechanism for taxing unearned wealth.

Green taxes
Demos welcomes taxing air travel on a per-plane, rather than per-passenger basis as a step towards the greener economy the UK will require for future growth. But the Chancellor should have gone further and put a price on carbon to encourage behaviour change.

Public Sector Pay
Demos welcomes the commitment to ensure that the public sector pay ratio between top and bottom earners is limited to 20:1. Research from the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos called for public sector pay ratios and argues the differential should be closed further.

Sonia Sodha, head of the Public Finance Programme at Demos said:

Raising tax free personal allowance shows a progressive philosophy that has failed to spill into other areas of economic policy. We were warned to be prepared for the worst, but the worst is yet to come. The Autumn Spending Review’s 25 per cent cuts across most departments will – like today – hit the poorest hardest by squeezing even the most vital services.

—-

ippr also questioned the budget’s “progressive” credentials.

ippr questions Osbourne’s claims that this was a progressive budget

Carey Oppenheim, Co-Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research said:

The Chancellor made welcome noises about how “progressive” this budget was – but whether it is progressive or not will only become clear after an assessment of the spending plans which will be published in October. In our view it needed to be much more progressive than it was to offset the impact of deep cuts in public services that are round the corner.

Ippr set a threshold of fairness to judge this budget. There were some welcome announcements, such as the bankers levy, the increases in Capital Gains Tax (though he should have gone further), the incentives for businesses to grow in hard-hit areas and the rises in child tax credit to protect the poorest. But in other measures the Chancellor risks doing too much, too soon to reduce borrowing – increasing the chances of the tentative economic recovery being snuffed out.

ippr also has concerns about some of the specific measures announced in the budget:

* The Office of Budget Responsibility set up by George Osborne showed that the existing plans for deficit reduction were credible and would satisfy the markets. In his statement the Chancellor provided no evidence of why deficit reduction needed to be accelerated.

* This was a budget too narrowly focussed on deficit reduction with an assumption that such a reduction will set the private sector free to generate economic growth.

* We are concerned that the 77 per cent/23 per cent ratio of spending cuts to tax increases will disproporationately hit lower income families who rely most on public services.

* As ippr has consistently argued, a staged 3p increase in the basic and top rates of income tax (which would raised £15 billion) is a much more progressive way of raising much needed tax revenue than the hike in VAT to 20% – which will hit poorer households disproportionately.

* We welcome a number of the other tax changes – such as the rise in the tax threshold for poorer households, the bankers levy and the incentives for business to grow jobs in hard hit areas. The increase in capital gains tax is welcome, but in the interests of transparency and fairness it would have made more sense to align it with higher rates of income tax and put it up to 40% and 50% for better off people. The Chancellor made much of making his changes simple and consistent, but the 28% rate for CGT is a political fudge, designed to balance competing views within the Coalition parties.

* While the Chancellor tried to balance his benefit cuts with measures to protect the very poorest, there is a real danger that cuts on the scale announced will hurt the vulnerable badly if the projected economic recovery does not deliver jobs for those now so reliant on benefits.

* We welcome the Green Investment Bank, but otherwise there was an almost complete absence of tax measures or new investment to build a low carbon economy.

From a press release

All in this together? Tories take big pay-rises

by Sunny Hundal    
June 22, 2010 at 1:43 pm

While George Osborne and Boris Johnson keep saying “we are all in this together”, that call doesn’t seem to have been adopted by their juniors.

Adam Bienkov reports that Boris Johnson’s fire chief, Brian Coleman, has awarded himself a 9% rise in pay.

The basic allowance given to other members of the authority would also increase by 38%.

The rises come as George Osborne is expected to announce pay freezes across the public sector.

Before Brian Coleman was chairman of the Fire Authority, that post did not even have allowances attached to it. They have been introduced by the new Tory administration.

9% rise!

Last year Boris attacked unions for not conducting “any meaningful talks on pay, instead submitting a wildly unrealistic claim”.

Why doesn’t he apply the same rules to people working under him?

Budget speech: open thread and live-discussion

by Sunny Hundal    
June 22, 2010 at 12:28 pm

LC is hosting a live chat with the New Statesman, LabourList, Left Foot Forward and the TUC blog on the Budget speech.

Update: These are the budget headlines.
continue reading… »

Americans slam Tories on ‘anti-British’ claims

by Sunny Hundal    
June 22, 2010 at 10:24 am

First there was the American backlash against BP. That was followed by the Tory-right backlash against Obama.

Now, the Americans are hitting back, especially at London Mayor Boris Johnson.

Timothy Egan, writing in the New York Times said last week:

American anger has little to do with the island nation and everything to do with a multinational corporation that has appeared tone deaf and negligent. Obama tried to get that general idea across when he called Prime Minister David Cameron over the weekend.
…
The anger is real. It’s directed at a company run by a man, Tony Hayward, who is a gaffe-o-matic. One day he says the oil is but a drop in a big ocean. Then he says he wants his life back.

He advises: “[Tories] should stick to arguing over the meaning of their unwritten constitution.”

The Mayor of New Orleans hit back directly at Boris Johnson:

Quite frankly, I would suggest that London Mayor Boris Johnson park his anger at the waters’ edge and redirect it towards BP.

This is not America vs. Great Britain. It’s people, families and their livelihoods versus a negligent corporation that is responsible for the loss of 11 lives and an oil spill that threatens our coast, our environment, and our economy. In fact, our entire way of life is at risk. So we are going to hold BP accountable for the damage done.

While Mayor Johnson is concerned about their pension funds, we’re concerned about the lives and livelihoods of our people.

Chuck Todd, senior political analyist on MSNBC, asked: “What part of the British isles has ever experienced an oil spill? That is where there seems to be a lack of understanding.”

Even the Telegraph’s Washington editor is not convinced by Tory cries of Obama’s “betrayal”:

Just envisage the uproar. Cornish fishermen, climate change crusties and outraged second-home owners unite in a rainbow alliance against the evil Yankee conglomerate.

The press leads a boycott campaign against the firm’s petrol stations; tar balls are lobbed at the said American boss as he arrives for an ill-advised PR visit to Newquay’s endangered beaches. David Cameron, his coalition struggling as an election nears, scores a few cheap political points at the expense of the special relationship with the US. It just couldn’t happen, could it? It is worth remembering that reaction to this crisis has depended very much on which side of the ocean you are sitting.

Indeed.

The Tories have done more to wreck the “special relationship” in this episode than Obama has by not considering at all with the havoc BP has wrecked on.

It’s not progressive to cut income tax while raising VAT

by Sunder Katwala    
June 22, 2010 at 9:10 am

VAT is a tax which hits the poorest hardest. As the Fabian Society’s Tim Horton has noted:

The richest 10% pay one in every 25 pounds of their income in VAT; the poorest 10% pay one in every seven pounds as VAT (Source: Office of National Statistics, References here).

Yet raising the income tax threshold does nothing for the poorest households.
continue reading… »

More money cut from schools & playgrounds

by Nicola Smith    
June 22, 2010 at 8:55 am

Michael Gove has written to local authorities providing further details on cuts. It transpires that £13.2 million has been cut from the ‘14-19 local delivery support grant’.

This grant supports the 14-19 strategy, which has aims including raising the minimum age at which young people leave education or training to to 17 by 2013 and to 18 by 2015 and expanding Apprenticeship opportunities.

In addition, Children and Young People Now report that:

• the £25,000 specialist schools capital grant — to help schools improve facilities to specialise in a specific curriculum area — has been scrapped;
• £25 million has been scrapped from the extended schools capital grant;
• funds for re-development of 22 play areas have been completely cut.

The TUC is running a Cuts Watch section on their blog.

Indy front-page attack on public sector cuts

by Sunny Hundal    
June 21, 2010 at 11:30 pm

The Independent newspaper is running this on its front page tomorrow. It is definitely a good front-page, but will it change the debate?

via @abelardinelli

But there is also bad news.

Reuters reported today:

Britons expect the economy to deteriorate over the next year but are optimistic that the coalition government’s policies will pay off eventually, a poll showed on Monday.

The Reuters/Ipsos MORI poll, released on the eve of what is expected to be the toughest budget in a generation, also showed Prime Minister David Cameron enjoyed an approval rating of 57 percent after just over a month in the job.

There is a clear danger that despite major public service cuts – people blame the Labour government for this ideologically driven agenda than lay the blame for their hurt at the Tories.

RECENT OPINION ARTICLES

How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? 62 Comments Watch: Obama sings the blues at White House 15 Comments Why is YouGov’s Kellner endorsing the NHS bill? 23 Comments ‘Move Your Money’ planned against RBS 8 Comments Rupert Murdoch cheers Rick Santorum to win 24 Comments Labour: public pay won’t be frozen entirely 16 Comments Revealed: That ‘dossier’ on Progress 16 Comments Is Guardian as bad as Tesco on experience? 83 Comments Bigots launch coalition against gay marriage 203 Comments Revealed: other companies benefit from ‘work experience’ 85 Comments

LATEST COMMENTS » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Chaise Guevara posted on How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Chaise Guevara posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » anna-rose phipps posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Jamie Scott posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Judy Hamilton posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Cherub posted on Watch: Obama sings the blues at White House » Common Sense posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Jonny Mundey posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » mushroom77 posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » James KM Blake posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Steve Rooney posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Andy Hicks posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show?