MPs and their pay

A Dangerous Game

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) announced on 11 July that MPs pay should be raised from £66,000 up to £74,000. In short, the UK public didn't like it and at the same time, major MPs weren't so supportive either. 

The Enemy of my Enemy of my Independent

Popular opinion on the day of the announcement is that MPs don't need such a large pay raise, or some even contending no pay raise at all. Also that MPs were extremely greedy and had a hand in deciding the final numbers in this case.

The theory has some gaping holes, for example that IPSA was created as an independent watchdog to set the pay levels for Government officials after the expenses scandals in 2009. If a politician wanted to cheat to have more money, it wouldn't be through the agency that was created after the politicians cheated to have more money. They can do it the old fashioned way - selling themselves to business men/donors in exchange for favours in Westminster. 

No! You take the money!

Even worse for the 'greedy politican' theory is when the highest ranking members of two parties (Ed Miliband Labour and Nick Clegg Liberal-Democrat) refused to take the money given to them in the raise. This opens a whole new can of worms debating whether they are supported by their own means, or family - but that relationship is for another blog post.

Can't afford the problems

In reality the MPs aren't exactly out of the woods even if they agree to a lesser or no pay raise. Ipsos-Mori polls tells us that MPs have lower approval ratings than their unelected associates in the House of Lords. Staying with the pay freeze isn't going to make the approval barometers start a reversal, but taking some suggestions and not all wouldn't hurt confidence too much.

MP isn't my first title

The Guardian revealed at least 295 MPs claim some minimum pay from work outside of parliament or constituency. It's another part of the ongoing debate that should MPs only have their one position, and would raising pay make one job MPs more likely?

In the meantime, IPSA made recommendations but the government hasn't decided on how to act. Some MPs are voicing an opinion to stay away in order to keep up their reputation. 

Until a plan is in place, MPs and their pay are Cold Fish

UK and Same Sex Marriage

Is this real life or is this just fantasy?

It became a defining moment in the House of Commons on July 17th as it was announced that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill had officially received the royal assent. Meaning, that by next spring, same sex Couples will be able to enter into marriage. A landmark change as it was acknowledged not only by those who voted in favour and supported the bill, but also by those who had their skepticism.

Caught in a landslide

For an American, such as myself, it's a little envious to see how quickly the MPs were able to capture when public opinion had become right to introduce the legislation, and the relative fast speed the bill made it to the Queen. So fast, in fact, that the process prompted one MP to comment "astonishing that a bill for which there is absolutely no mandate has been bulldozed through both houses."

For reference, the bill had it's first reading on 24 January 2013 and now being 17 July 2013, that would count out to  174 days from start to finish.

Anywhere the wind blows doesn't really matter to me

The debate over Same Sex marriage is far from over, not only in the United Kingdom, but in much of the Western world. Many groups, or traditional organizations against same-sex marriage voiced their opinions and disappointments over the passing of the bill. However, it's a strength within the bill that the continued discussion of opposing views is still allowed. The bill didn't try to take a moral stance on the issue, and was argued for on a legal basis as well as the projection of the United Kingdom as a society that recognizes a lapse in equality. Having a different opinion is still completely acceptable. That's the development that I admire most.

Escape from reality

It's the sentiment the law doesn't impose a belief or an opinion on the governed that seems to be lost in the United States debate not just on the topic of Same Sex couples. For example, any attempts to cut or restructure the social security system instantly are criticized as "leaving Grandma to die." There are legitimate complaints that extending marriage rights will lead to more homosexual children. Health care reform will only lead to a socialist society. It's not healthy for a democracy to use emotion arguments in place of facts, such as the funds being paid out far outpace what was/is being paid into the system, or the unaltered rising rates of health care in a time of recession, and worse that sociology shows no link between law makers and sexual preferences. Some of this just perpetuates the idea that lawmakers are out of touch with reality.

With the U.S. and U.K. relationship seemingly so close at times I hope we can take away two things from this current event; #1 a more mature and rational argument based system for law and #2 that a nation can't cherry pick equalities forever

That said the political love test between UK and Same Sex Marriage: Passionate

And if you didn't get my section titles : a song

Ed Miliband and Unions

Unions’ Lolita?

The 2010 Labour leadership election became a fight between two brothers, the older David Miliband and the younger Ed Miliband. Both had credentials, endorsements and support from former Labour leaders, MEPs, and Constituency Labour parties, but a certain type of group had just enough put Ed Miliband over the top. That was the Labour Unions. Being only 40 years old, Ed Miliband became the youngest Labour leader ever, and seemingly the darling of the Trade Unions that support Labour.

The secrets

The problem started with finding a replacement for MP Eric Joyce, and an internal report by the National Executive Committee (NEC) found irregularities with the choosing of the candidates for the Falkirk Constituency. Specifically, people were being signed up for Labour without their knowledge in an attempt to stack the election for Labour. The NEC then suspended candidates Karie Murphy and Falkirk party chairman Stephen Deans, which was met with outcry from the Labor's largest financial backer; the trade union, Unite. Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey then criticized the Labour party in response, saying "Unite is being subjected to a behind the scenes smear campaign. We will be challenging this procedure and this campaign through all the proper channels within the party, publicly and legal action if necessary." Stephen Deans admitted that Unite is connected to up to 41 constituencies. Then Tom Watson MP resigned as Labour's 2015 general election campaign chief.

 A Comfortable Distance

Ed Miliband needed to react fast, as his leaderhsip abilities already called into question since the beginning he couldn't afford to look like Unite was really pulling the strings behind Labour. Ed Miliband announced that the NEC had the authority in the internal investigation, and the Labour party should refer to their findings. Then came the press conference...

Growing a spine or biting the hand that feeds you?

On July 9th, in a live television conference, Ed Miliband proposed sweeping changes to how union members become affiliated to the Labour, as well as a primary vote for the mayor of London elections. Ed Miliband pronounced himself and his party to be heading towards a new direction, that every person who joins a union must make a conscious choice to join Labour also and they're membership into the party is a separate monetary contribution. Ed Miliband poised himself to stand against 'machine politics.' The question becomes how this effects Labour's ability to generate campaign finance from the Unions that continue to support them, and more importantly will the unions continue to support Miliband going forward. There have been grumblings (mainly from Unite), but the majority seem loyal in the short term. That said 2015 is still 2 years away, and this could be the moment that Ed Miliband shakes his 'weak leader' image or the moment that ruined Labour's chances by fundamentally hurting the traditional relationship between Labour and Unions.

The test says the two are Naughty, but Nice.

UK and Uranium

The Relationship between the UK and uranium can be split into the two principle ways the UK uses atoms: defence and energy.

#1 Nuclear Energy – Currently in the UK there are 9 active nuclear power plants and 16 nuclear reactors that generated 18.9% of the UK power supply in 2006, according to the department and the opposition are both looking to have increased nuclear power as a part of cutting carbon emissions for the UK and going towards sustainable energy. The road blocks come in the form of Nick Clegg and the EDF.

Turning it on

Nick Clegg, as part of the Lib Dems manifesto, promised to fight against Nuclear power. In the end, he had to give in to David Cameron and the Conservative part of the coalition and allow Nuclear power to continue, as well as plants be renewed, as long as there were no public funds being used. This leads the UK to their current trouble with EDF. EDF Energy is currently in contract discussions to be the private company that builds the newest nuclear power plant in a generation, but this is held up by two key issues: strike price and capital cost. Strike price is the guaranteed long term price for energy produced, the government wants £100 but EDF wants £80 per megawatt hour. The capital cost is how much the government will underwrite the cost, but the Department of Energy is keeping mum on the current negotiations other than; “they're ongoing.” The good news is that the people want Nuclear power – according to the YouGov Poll Sunday 10 February 2013: “Thinking about providing for Britain's future energy generation needs, which of the following do you support the MOST?” Nuclear came out on top with 26% of the vote, the next closest was Wind tied with Tidal/Wave at 18%.

Getting Explosive?

#2 Nuclear weapons – Just this week the future of Nuclear weapons is on the line and the UK is trying to make a decision soon on whether to extend Trident's lifespan or replace it with an alternative system. The current Trident system is set to last until 2024, and the government is split on where to proceed. The Liberal Democrats' Danny Alexander proposed to cut the program from 4 Trident submarines down to 2, with one submarine off shore but without nuclear warheads and the other going through maintenance of training exercises. The Conservatives have fired back calling the proposal 'naïve and reckless, and liable to leave Britain open to attack.' The Liberal Democrats contend that the Trident nuclear deterrent is a relic of the Cold War and not needed in today's society. The British public isn't very consistent either; The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee found nearly 60% want to renew 55% in favour of getting rid of Trident. Overall the PA Select Committee also found between 45-50% of people agree that the UK doesn't need nuclear weapons in the future.

The Political Geiger Counter

As long as the nuclear option is meant for peaceful purposes, more people are willing to allow it. When it comes to weapons, people want safety but on the cheap. There are no serious signs (grumbles from half the Government aside) there will be a change in future policy, meaning this relationship is going to stay: Hot Stuff

David Cameron and Syria

I knew it was love when he said, "We believe that the use of chemical weapons is sanctioned and ordered by the Assad regime."

David Cameron and his foreign secretary, William Hague, have had a different relationship with Syria and the opposition for several months now. It was David Cameron who lobbied with the help of France for a compromise deal in the EU to lift the arms embargo to Syria at the end of May. This was in hope that the moderate sections of the Syrian Opposition can see weapons in the near future, and that point became one of the main issues of contention at the G8 summit just one month later.

In the meantime the atmosphere of Syria had changed. The Syrian Opposition, who've previously had mild success, had been turned on its heels and became desperate. The Syrian Government recommitted to air strikes, relied on its advantage in heavy weaponry, and used Hezbollah fighters to cut rebel supply lines. To have a fighting chance, some parts of the Syrian Opposition made use of suicide bombers. This caused tensions within Syria itself, as those who made use of suicide bombers were more prone to Islamist extremism or to be jihadist. On June 13^th, it was French analyst that had reported the Syrian Government had used Sarin gas in attacks on rebel forces.

Holding Hands? Or Arms…?

It became increasingly obvious that friends of the Assad government (mainly Russia, Iran and China) were giving advanced arms to government forces, and with the new found success Bashar al-Assad walked away from peace negotiations. On the other side, there is no such consistent support from large governments, and most arms the opposition can obtain are smuggled from surrounding the states of Iraq, Turkey, and Jordan. At the G8 summit David Cameron made his opinion clear that there should be advanced arms sent to the pro-democratic forces, however he was rebuked by Vladmir Putin and neither country came to an agreement other than to commit to an end to the violence in Syria.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned

Now David Cameron is fighting two sides. With 100,000 Syrians killed in the fighting already and over 1 million refugees, Syria rebels are starting to lose hope and their positions. The head of the Free Syrian Army General Salim Idris stated on July 15^th "I have not had the opportunity to ask David Cameron personally if he will leave us alone to be killed. On behalf of all the Syrians, thank you very much." Then, in Parliament and the UK public there is no appetite for war or direct in Syria, and forcing the issue could create massive backlash of of an election where the conservative party aims to win a clear majority in order to quickly forget about the coalition years. Even with advanced arms there is no clear indication that the rebels could win or finish negotiations within the 2 years before the next election, and Cameron has already been told by MPs they demand a House of Commons vote before arms are sent. Anything Cameron does or does not do ends up with him being dumped in criticism.

A Valentine’s Day gift

As of July 16^th the UK announced equipping the Syrian opposition with £650,000 worth of special protective equipment against chemical and biological attacks. Although officially called a “gift due to special urgency,” this is the first step beyond universally supported humanitarian aid. This could either be a situation of “I can’t afford a diamond ring,” or could be the test for beginning discussions of advanced support.

Either way, the political love test says: Heating Up

UK and EU

The Relationship?

The UK and EU (then known as the EEC) married in January of 1973 under the Conservative government with Ted Heath. However it was a strange situation from the start, the UK and EU kept their personal bank accounts separate (the UK is still not a member of the Eurozone) but made their vows to share the Common Agricultural Policy and access to common markets. The first hiccup came with the United Kingdom referendum of 1975 called by the Labour party, asking “Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?” But the UK answered in approval of 67% Yes to 33% No. From then on the UK and EU have predominately looked like a life long partnership, but it hasn't always been easy.

The current tiff: a Brexit?!?

In January of 2013 David Cameron called for a 2017 Referendum on whether or not the United Kingdom will remain in the EU, if the conservative party is elected. This isn't the first time, as there have been threats of a referendum in 1997 by the Referendum party headed Sir James Goldsmith. However he was unable to find enough support because the party was seen as a single issue party in the election and did not win a seat in the House of Commons. Nigel Farage is the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), founded in 1993 and is also on the mission to separate the United Kingdom from EU. UKIP slowly been gaining support throughout the UK by winning more seats in the European parliament and Farage has also been trying to avoid Goldsmith's pitfalls by having stances on other issues such as same-sex marriage, renewable energy, and immigration.

Signing the divorce papers?

Nigel Farage will most likely do better in the European parliament elections, and continue to put pressure by publicizing Euroscepticism. However, Cameron has learned from history too and a focus on EU issues has been cited as a cause why the Conservative party lost in 2001. Cameron pushed the issue two years past the election, which allows him to work on winning the majority in the election and at the same time hurts Farage's chances of keeping the issue relevant if he fails to win a seat in the House of Commons. This scenario is likely due to dropping UKIP interest with the Guardian poll from 7/15/2013 showing the party only winning 10% of the vote. The trouble is that the UK people consistently are polling more to leave than to stay, the last 5 yougov polls have 43%-50% of the vote saying to leave. The rest of the EU, save for France, is polling the opposite. A French daily newspaper named Le Parisien found 52% in favor of UK leaving the EU but polls in Germany, Denmark and Ireland wanted the UK to stay. Leaders on both sides have showed more interest in the UK staying, with David Cameron himself proposing to attempt negotiations on a 'new deal' between the EU and UK.

How do we split the stuff?

The common market is estimated by the UK government to bring $45 billion into the UK economy, and it's not promised that deals can be made to keep UK access the same. Not to mention immigration agreements, the oceans, etc. More scenarios are also possible; What if Labour wins? What if the EU doesn't allow the UK to leave? Nothing is for certain.

Political Love Tester: At closest this referendum is 4 years away, and in the meantime the EU and UK are still together and will enjoy their benefits. So, for now, It's all talk.