Opinion: It's not about IQ, Boris

by Sophia James

This week Boris Johnson decided to show his true Conservative colours in a speech at the Centre for Policy Studies. Apparently greed is good and low IQs are bad.

Having viewed his speech, which you can see here. Boris makes it clear that those lacking in ‘raw ability’ may actually also be less valuable in terms of ‘spiritual worth’. He argues that we should do more in society to support those with high IQs and disregards other factors which hinder progress up the capitalist ladder. We live in a society where women earn on average 15% less than men due to the gender pay gap, a figure that increases to over 19% in the private sector and 21% for women of colour, where disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty and individuals with foreign sounding names are less likely to find employment. We also live in a country where 50% of young Black men are out of work and ‘gay’ is the number one playground insult.

If this wasn't bad enough, Boris goes onto to note that "16% of our ‘species’ have an IQ below 85, 2% have an IQ above 130". Before I could even contemplate his ignorance of disability, the subjectivity of IQ tests and disturbing dehumanisation of many hard working people in low paid work, I simply had to question Boris’ own intellectual prowess as he progressed this obscure argument into a metaphor about cornflakes.

Perhaps Labour MP Nia Griffith said it best when she exclaimed that ‘”the buffoon’s mask comes off”. Whilst the Mayor of London praises those scampering away with money at the top, families will be rehoused over Christmas, elderly members of the population will be unable to afford sky high heating bills and food banks will be stretched to the limit. It’s a strange thing to suggest greed is preferable in a country where 3.5 million children (that’s over a quarter of children in the UK) are living below the poverty line. One has to question what the spiritual worth is of a man who would support that.

If this is the potential future leadership of the Conservative Party, then it is even more imperative that we step up to the plate and return a Labour government in 2015.

Read More

Opinion: It's Time for Votes at 16

by Mata Durkin

 

The history of the suffrage of the electorate is long and eventful. Of course, the ones we remember the most are the Suffragettes - the women who fought and even, in some cases, gave their lives, in order for women to gain the vote in 1918 (but even then, there were a few restrictions). But that is not all - in 1867, the right to vote was extended to many manual workers, and in 1884, virtually all men - householders and tenants - could vote. That was changed in 1918, when not only did middle-class women over the age of 30 get the vote, but so did all men over the age of 21. It was changed to an equal voting age for men and women, at 21, in 1928, and finally in 1969 the age lowered from 21 to 18, which left us with what it is now. The criteria that allows people to have the right to vote has changed over the years, so maybe the next step is to lower it to allow 16 year old a chance to let their voices be heard.

One of the main arguments for lowering the voting age to 16 is that 16 is the minimum ‘legal age’ for many things. 16 year olds can have sex with their MP, live with their MP, marry their MP (with their parents’ permission), but cannot choose that MP. At 16, teenagers can choose to leave or continue their education or even decide to join the army. However, despite all this, 16 year olds still do not have the right to vote. It isn’t a question of their being irresponsible, otherwise they would not have so many responses at the moment, so the extension of suffrage is the only logical conclusion.

British politics is currently facing a participation crisis. Less than two-thirds of the country voted in the last general election and the brand new Police and Crime Commissioner Elections had an incredibly low turnout with no ballots at all being cast at one polling station. This affects democracy as it undermines the government’s legitimacy. Legitimacy refers to the strength of the mandate given to the government by the people and corresponds to the size of the majority (or minority) as well as the turnout. Without a high turnout, the governing party is in office against the will of the majority of the population. The lower a government’s legitimacy, the more they and the policies they introduce can be questioned as to whether it is truly democratic. By allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote, the number of those who can vote will increase, as will the turnout.

The argument that 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, or lack the intelligence to make rational political decisions is outrageous. What makes an 18 year old any different from a 17 year old? If 16 and 17 year olds are ‘immature’, an 18 year old can’t be that much more mature. If education is a problem, then it should be something to fix, and not to be used as an argument against. Instead of not allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote on the grounds of ignorance and immaturity, politicians should be concentrating on creating an education system that educates young people politically. This will help them directly, as they will need to have this knowledge for later on in life.

In fact, lowering the age could also help create a better educated electorate. If the public are learning about politics at a younger age and getting directly involved younger, overall that will create a more politically educated electorate, which can only be a good thing. Currently, many would say that the electorate and the majority of the public know nothing or very little of politics, but getting involved younger may change that. This would also have the effect of removing or at least lessening the disillusion that is generally associated with politics, which would benefit society on a whole. If there is less disillusionment with politics, then overall, that can only be a good thing for democracy.

Many feel that youth interests are currently ignored and disregarded, so having 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote would allow politicians to take their view into account more. This way, the interests of young people will no longer be that topic that politicians have as a worry at the back of their mind, as they will have to include the views of young people in their policy making decisions.

16 year olds aren’t the trouble-making hooligans that match the stereotype, and they should not be denied the vote on the grounds of mere prejudice. Instead of making hypothetical accusations about what they would do with the vote, people should just accept that we are in fact more mature than they think, and are actually ready for this responsibility. Some changes to the education system to include more political education would help, but even so, I feel that the UK is ready for this change. It is natural for things to change, and this would be a change for the better.

Read More

Opinion: Why Labour needs a hero...

by Sophia James

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s Ed Miliband and the One Nation Avengers. 

Yesterday Ed Miliband was dubbed an action hero after he dived into a busy London road and rescued a 29 year old woman from a bike accident. The woman in question, Ella Phillips, hailed the Labour leader a “suave”, “attractive” and stylishly dressed man, “a bit like an action hero”. Perhaps she was still concussed... however, the gallant, superhuman image of Red Ed swooping into British politics with his tights and cape are needed now more than ever.

Let’s be completely honest, the national scene for our party has been quieter than many would hope, with members being forced to sustain themselves with piecemeal policies. Even despite Labour’s improved turnout in traditionally Conservative areas last week and the prising of several authorities from cold, blue hands, the news - like a broken record, has continually recalled the UK Independence Party’s successes at the ballot box. It would seem somewhat ironic that a party once branded “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” by David Cameron, are now tightening their choke hold on his party and causing unrest amongst the greying Tory ranks. Is this the beginning of twenty first century British politics lurching to the right?

It was easy enough for UKIP to swoop in and steal the flag. The Liberal Democrats dug their own metaphoric grave by reneging on every single promise ever made, whilst the fluffy Tory party softened up on Europe and a range of social issues. Even the BNP suffered, with their vote collapsing in places like Spalding East and Moulton where they polled 20.5% in 2009. Four years later UKIP’s new found popularity relegated them to a low of 3.9%, which just in case you were wondering, we are extremely happy about. That said, the so called rise of UKIP is not just an issue for the aforementioned parties, Labour need to be vigilant to prevent further encroachment on their patch.  

Youth unemployment figures have remained high ever since the initial crisis five years ago. The Guardian reported recently that young people are three times less likely to be employed than adults and last year, the headlines stating that 50% of Black young males were out of work have left a bitter taste in our communities. Simply put, unemployment will play a key part in the next election and provides an opportunity for the Right to play on the plight of immigrants. 

A further issue which has exposed itself recently is the contrast between the money spent on the European Union and the strain on public services. The argument is unsophisticated yet media savvy. Withdraw from the EU, save money and decrease immigration to open up the job market. The difficulty is that the more nuanced arguments of international trade, free movement and collective strength are being sidelined. 

Another problem is the extortionate cost of the housing. The earliest a young person can expect to buy a house is the not so early age of 38. Shelter’s most recent campaign argues that if the price of food had increased at the same rate as housing, a chicken would cost over fifty pounds. Labour need to be pushing hard for capital projects of affordable housing, encouraging industries to set up paid apprenticeships or training opportunities and recognising the positive impact that immigration has on British society. 

The next election should be about the future and young people are the future. The Labour Party must reach out to disgruntled, dispirited voters and present an inspirational alternative to the ConDem attack on the young, the disadvantaged and the impoverished. Over the next few weeks we will be out in Reading surveying the youth population about concerns they have. We know this election cannot be won on rhetoric and here at Reading Young Labour, we will put the issues affecting our community at the heart of our campaigns. We only hope our caped crusaders in Labour Party HQ will be doing the same.

Read More

Analysis: The Rise and Rise of the House of Farage

by Alex Chalmers
Everyone expected the UK Independence Party to perform well in Thursday’s elections, but few accurately predicted the scale of their apparent surge in support. Almost a quarter of those who voted, seemingly disillusioned with all three main parties, turned out to vote for a party that had previously been dismissed as a collection of “fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists”, as well as “clowns”. However, in many ways, the government have only themselves to blame for this high protest vote. Whilst it is important not to dismiss UKIP, it is equally foolish to interpret these results as a fundamental realignment of British politics or an end to the three-party system. Such shock results are not without historic precedent and as parties such as UKIP become more successful, greater scrutiny can bring internal problems and divisions to the fore.

Read More

Labour's EU hopefuls in the South East region

Peter Skinner is standing down after nearly 20 years of service as Labour's MEP for the South East but there are ten fantastic Labour candidates who all want to follow in Peter's footsteps.

Read More

Opinion: The Conservatism of the Left

by Alex Chalmers
When the Labour Party loses an election, as it did in 2010, it usually retreats into its shell. Instead of trying to re-engage with the public, refresh its image, and present a credible alternative to the new government, it embraces a toxic mixture of complacency and factionalism. Many in the party adopt the attitude that the electorate 'got it wrong' and will not repeat the mistake, whilst others descend into divisive battles about whether it is time to tack to the right or lurch to the left. Either way, this results in Labour being perceived as the party of 'no change', pursuing the same course as when the electorate rejected them, unrealistically hoping that they can pick up where they left off five years ago. 

Read More

Press Release: Reading Labour Supports Equal Marriage And Calls On Reading's Two MPs To Do The Same

Press Release - 3rd February, 2013

Reading Labour are calling on Conservative MP's Alok Sharma and Rob Wilson to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill coming before Parliament this Tuesday (5th February), which allows same sex couples the right to get married.

"This Bill is about letting couples who want to make a long term commitment to each other get married regardless of sexuality or gender" comment Richard Wood, Reading Labour LGBT Officer. "This is something that the LGBT community has long campaigned for, and it's something that Reading Labour has been proud to support, in the press and with petitions on our stall at Reading Pride."

The Bill expands on the Civil Partnerships legislation introduced by the last Labour government in 2004 by providing for same sex couples to get married, while protecting religions and faith groups who may not wish to conduct a same sex marriage. Thanks to Labour lobbying, the Bill also allows churchs and groups that do wish to conduct same sex marriages (such as Quakers, Unitarians and Regorm Judaism) to do so.

Ben Zielinski, Chair of Reading and District Labour Party, adds "Labour has always had a proud history of supporting LGBT rights, whether its Civil Partnerships, ending the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces, giving LGBT couples the right to adopt children, or scrapping the homophobic Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act - we believe firmly that if a same sex couple wishes to get married they should have the right to do so".

Victoria Groulef, Labour candidate for Reading West comments "My support for marriage equality is clear. The right to marry is an issue of equal rights and that's why if I was MP for Reading West, I would be voting yes".

Matt Rodda, Labour candidate for Reading East comments "I would vote in favour of the Bill, I think it is very important people are treated equally and I hope there will be all party support for the legislation".

ENDS.

Read More