Saturday, 2 October 2010

New benefit system

Sorry for no post yesterday everyone, had work until 9pm and just fell asleep, so, sorry.

Anyway, news for today is the Chancellor George Osborne has confirmed there will be a major overhaul of the benefits system.

Although it's been confirmed, no facts about the overhaul has been posted, most likely to be described during the Conservative annual conference.

Osborne had already planned to make major cuts to the benefit area of the budget, as well as this new overhaul being to tackle 'long term users' of unemployment benefits, who could go to work but are to lazy, I can only assume he's going to add stringent requirements for unemployment benefits.

Anyway, I wont keep you to long, so that'll be it for today

TL;DR Osborne's making more cuts so lazy people can't leech from the system.


Thursday, 30 September 2010

Labour "United"

Sorry for all the information about Labour, but it is there conference this week, so, a lot of news, what ya gonna do:

Anyway, as I mentioned in the last post, David Miliband was having a little spat with Harriet Harmen, who today stood up in front of the Labour party, describing how Labour will be "united" and "fortified" by new leader Ed Miliband, following a week of "roller coaster" emotion.

She stressed how she is in full support of the new leader, and she mentioned it A LOT.

Seems she's trying to convince everyone who didnt vote for him (basically all normal members who arn't in trade unions)

Anyway, end of the Labour conference, back to non-Labour news soon :)

ALSO I have a new blog now for all you Android fans, here, go check it out!

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

David Miliband resigns

So, basically, as everyone predicted David resigned, he said he needs to "recharge his batteries" so will not be part of the shadow cabinet, David is playing this off as he needs to get away from front line politics (whilst staying as MP for his constituency) and Ed understand this although sad to see him go.

But this is politics, and as we know, politicians make money out of bullshit, (ironic I guess us bloggers make money out of their bullshit), anyway, Conservatives say the development "spoke volumes" about the direction Ed Miliband was taking Labour.

And, I find it easy to side with the Conservatives (for once) there are some instances it seems when David was unhappy with Ed's views on Labour.

One example was during the conference, Ed had just made a speech about how the Iraq war was bad and blamed the Blair administration, many of those cabinet members did not clap - apart from Harriet Harmen, to which David saw this, and pursued Harriet, asking why she was clapping?

She supposedly voted for him, etc etc.

Long story short, Ed trash talks people in the past, David was one of those people in the past.

= Butt hurt David.

And I have a feeling Ed will make Labour even more socialist, which, personally, I will detest.

We'll see, from personal view i find it difficult to see how Ed got into power with a strong enough mandate to claim rule, i.e.

- He won by 1%. Surely a re-vote or re-count would be needed.
- He got in by mass vote from the trade unions, so through powerful operations, they some what rigged who they wanted.

Well, as i said, we'll see how Lab get on
TL;DR David gets butt hurt Ed got power, Ed is making Labour more socialist

Tuesday, 28 September 2010

Ed Miliband describes a new future for Labour

Ed Miliband, who recently won the Labour leadership race by 1%, made a speech at the Labour conference outlining where he wants his party to go, basically saying how he believes New Labour  was good but they need to move past that.
I must say my prejudges’ about this guy have somewhat dissipated recently, he criticises the people who believed boom with no bust, but he sympathises with those left angry in the public,
He told reporters on Monday: "New Labour was right for its time and there are many aspects of New Labour that we will retain, like the idea that we appeal to all sections of society, that we are for wealth creation as well the distribution of wealth.
"But it came to be associated with a particular style and nature of politics and actually it got stuck in its old certainties itself and I will be saying that in a speech on Tuesday and I will be saying more about my vision of where we go as a party then."
So I guess we’ll be waiting to hear about these new visions. Although his spokeswoman said he would not make any more decisions about the party’s future until Wednesday, I’ll keep you updated J
David is taking a strong stand behind his brother, supporting him the whole way… although there are rumors he may resign..

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Why do liberals believe this and what are its implications?

Liberalism’s core ideals are focused on individualism, rationalism, freedom, justice and toleration. Liberals argue that humans are naturally logical, rational creatures that have are generally morally good. As such they appreciate freedom for the individual to allow individuals to fulfil their potential and to create a workable society. This is because they see each individual born with equal moral worth, but with differing levels of intellectual capacity.
As liberals believe in rational, logical human beings, one may argue that liberals should in some respect not believe in a government, leading the quote to be largely obsolete, which many Anarchists believe, however Liberals believe in Government as they understand that freedom need limits to prevent the occurrence of abuse. Abuse of freedom to the extent an individual is given so much freedom that it means their choices can affect the liberties of another individual. As such Liberals believe that people could use their power of freedom to hurt others welfare.
So, when I talk about hoe Liberals believes such and such because of their belief in the quote, it’s not directly cause by the quote being said my Lord Aston, but the moral thinking of human worth which the quote represents which Liberals strongly believe in.
When looking at this quote we must understand that it the necessary belief in government all liberals have which truly gives meaning to this quote, by understanding there must be a government, therefore you are agreeing to the existence of other groups with large amounts of power, so as a Liberal must now consider, how can an individual’s liberty be enshrined?
With respect to governments, restrictions must be put in place for multiple reasons, firstly it’s to stop anyone being able to gain too much power, as the quote points out, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, in theory the less power man gets the less chance he will become corrupted. Secondly they must prevent the current power state to be able to take too much control, such as how Hitler did during the 1930s with the enabling act. They would be able to prevent this from happening with an entrenched constitution, meaning that for part of the document which defines how our country is run to be changed even in the slightest; a majority of a certain percentage is needed to do so. So, if the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government brought in an entrenched codified constitution which needed 66% consensus, whenever any changes are to be made to that document, 66% of the HoC must agree with the vote.
Linking in with the idea of constitutionalism is a little theory written up by John Locke, a liberal thinker in the 1700s, which is called Social Contract. Linked in with what I’ve recently been talking about, if the government become corrupted, and begin to run the country in such a way the mandate of the country is lost, the government must dissolve at once, and another election must take place. This is a precaution which Liberals would take due to their belief in the quote above.
The whole meaning of these precautions is for mainly one reason, which is to protects the liberties of an individual, and keep all of man equal, if we allow one power to gain too much power, we may in fact allow ourselves to become vulnerable to media-based brainwashing of the public, which could result in the fall of pluralism.
When looking at the cross between Classic and Modern liberals although they both believe in constrictions on government, however Modern liberals are more prone to agree with political thinkers such as Bevridge, or Keynes. Both these political thinkers expressed the need for governmental action which affects our lives, Bevridge with the welfare state, and Keynes with his theory on economic structure.
Bevridge’s view on the welfare state could be undermined by the fact a corrupted government could take advantage of this system and invest more money into certain areas, to allow some areas and groups of people to prosper as others start to become poorer and poorer. Meaning in theory the government could choose what areas in the UK become poorer and poorer, which may allow them to corrupt the system somehow, or outside investors could possibly add to this, for example.
If a billionaire decided to invest in the Conservative party, and may let it slip to Mr Cameron he would like to demolish a large area of houses to make room for a new Shopping outlet, the whole scenario may run smoother in area which lack investment and prosperity of the people.
However, the above is a complete extreme of corruption which could happen in our government, very unlikely and unrealistic, and if Liberal constraints are efficient enough, there should be no problems regarding funding not being invested properly, as there would be an independent watchdog of sorts which would monitor the actions of the government.
In the same respect for Keynes, his views on investing into the economy to promote growth could be subject to corruption, as with the above, if the government decided to invest in one company over another, to help out a rich billionaire who would like a certain company not to get bailed out so there is less competition, in theory it could happen.
This quote does not apply to only the government though, large media company’s would need constraints to prevent wide spread ownership of to many media outlets. If this was to happen in theory an individual could use his/her power to trick the public into thinking certain things depending on what is reported, whether that is dissolve the government or by more muffins from Tesco.
In conclusion, Liberals agree with the quote because it fits in with their view of human nature, being rational, but not pure as far as they are not prone to corruption. They would combat this problem by having constraints on any government, and then constraints on large businesses that may have influence on the public to much, to prevent there being any possibility for corruption.

  • There needs to be constrains on government, to stop corruption becoming a problem
  • Not only governments need constraints, but so do Large media companys
  • Locke's idea of social conrtract, as well as constitutionalism can prevent problems of corruption
  • Keyne's ideas on the econemy, and Bevridge's view on the welfare state, could potentialy be prone to corruption, although i can only see it realisticly happening with Keyne's theorys.

Sunday, 26 September 2010

Labour elects Ed Miliband

So, Labour have a new leader. Mr Ed Miliband.

I don't know if Labour are trying to stay witht he Gordon Brown, Boring 'Can't do' attitude, but hell, with this new guy i can't see anything good to come, i would have expected to see someone with some real flare to come into the party, give it a new image, a new direction, some credibility,

I do not see Labour getting this any time soon...