Things are going to get worse....

I'm not about to defend Brown's Labour government, I posted about it before in October of last year - see  It's Broken Britain and we've got no money, but hold on..

But then again the record of the current Conservative led coalition government is no better, in that there 'Plan A' has gone all pear shape.

Let's remind ourselves of the crash of 2008, brought about by light touch regulation of the financial system, when they leveraged the risk high, to a point that everybody went shit, and panicked like mad.

We know that following any crash in the world economy, there will be a period of consolidation, when companies and private individuals in a period of low confidence will either pay off their debts or save for the future (or it seems in the US default a lot).

So the argument goes, it's wrong in the short term, to cut public expenditure to quickly and too fast, especially if your are reliant on private monies to step into the breach and help the economy grow.

And as we know the Conservative led coalition government Plan A ain't working, because it cut to quickly and too fast, and why growth is negative or near to zero. This means that in order to meet their deficit reduction target, by 2015, they will have to cut harder over the next few years.  This austerity could last over 8 years according to some experts.

But who pays for all this? - I say it should be a fair mix of cuts and tax increases, a fair distribution of tax burden. That those who made the most during them good days, when light touch regulations; which they lobbied for, made them very very rich; should in leaner times fully contribute to the upkeep of the country, and not rely on fancy tax avoidance schemes.

After all, why did the world economic system nearly collapse in 2008? - well it wasn't down to pensioner nor the disabled nor single mothers nor the unemployed.

So why, when it comes to a choice between asking the rich to pay a bit more, or the poor to loose out the most; has the Conservatives led coalition government decided to choose the latter.

Blame the poor, the disadvantaged, the elderly for living too long, blame it on over regulation, blame it on the EU, blame it on work-shy lazy layabout good for nothing British workers....but above all never accept that you, the ruling elite and your rich friends should also share the blame.

An elite, out of touch with the reality of day to day life, where ordinary people struggle to match their incomes with outgoings...when in desperation they have to turn to pay day rip off merchants to survive, or food banks in ever increasing numbers..

With the economy in ruins....their electricity policy in tatters....building aircraft carriers we cant afford, with no planes to fly off them.......in a party at war over Europe, with smaller police numbers..... they about to ask us to vote for something the majority of us never wanted - police commissioners, and the millions wasted....by a Minister of State who doesn't know how to use a calendar...supported by the Liberal Democrats who thinks it's OK to make an election pledge, fully knowing its was a 'bit doggy' and then act surprised when we the people feel aggrieved when they renegade on it...........it's not really a record anybody can be proud of is it?....and just goes to show how poor the 'elite' really are when push comes to shove, and they've laid off Jeeves.

As we leave an age when the establishment covered up the truth, journalists illegally paid investigators to hack for gossip, or paid the police the same, when people who 'of course' new about rumours of child abuse against Jimmy Saville chose not to do anything, and the banks nearly collapsed 'cause of a lack of proper regulation....and all this and more happened during the watch of supposedly educated and clever people.....it's no wonder how fucked up the UK has become.

And the answer of  those right wing idiots to all of this, you've guessed it a smaller state and less regulation  - 'I'm all right jack, know bugger off and die, you pleb'

As Lord Kinnock said in his famous 1983  I warn you speech:

- I warn you not to be ordinary

- I warn you not to be young

- I warn you not to fall ill

- I warn you not to get old.

Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?

Norwegian oil field

There is a growing call for a referendum on whether the UK remains an integral part of the European Union, or leave but remain part of the European Economic Area (the YES/NO question). In a recent article in The Telegraph Harriet Alexander reported that Last week, writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron raised the possibility of a referendum on Britain's membership. And Norway is often cited as a perfect example of how to leave the EU, yet still thrive.

Also "People worry that if Britain left we would lose access to the Single Market and not be able to travel freely," said Robert Oulds, director of the Bruges Group think tank. “But that is not the case. Britain can cancel its membership of the EU and retain the trade benefits, following Norway’s example. The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense."

But is Norway a perfect example for the UK to follow? - for a start take it's population of around 4.7 million which is more akin to the population of  Scotland.

The following is from the CIA World Factbook (my emphasis):

The Norwegian economy is a prosperous mixed economy, with a vibrant private sector, a large state sector and an extensive social safety net. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises. The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on the petroleum sector, which accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 20% of government revenue. Norway is the world's second-largest gas exporter; and seventh largest oil exporter, making one of its largest offshore oil finds in 2011. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, as a member of the European Economic Area, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. In anticipation of eventual declines in oil and gas production, Norway saves state revenue from the petroleum sector in the world's second largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $500 billion in 2011 and uses the fund's return to help finance public expenses. After solid GDP growth in 2004-07, the economy slowed in 2008, and contracted in 2009, before returning to positive growth in 2010-11, however, the government budget is set to remain in surplus.

It has around 5.7 billion gallons of oil in proven reserves compared to UK of around 2.9 billion. And it has has around 2 trillion cubic meters of gas in proven reserves, compared to 256 billion in the UK.

Norway has prospered well, by careful management of its natural resources. Robert Oulds said above "The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense." but Norway still contributes sizably to the EU budget and the government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises.

Possibly not what the neoliberals and free-marketers of the right had in mind exactly.

No I don't think the UK could use Norway as an example to follow, although it could be a model for Scotland? - after all Scotland with a population of around 5 million and some oil left, with it's close links to Norway through the oil industry, are already practically neighbours.

A bit more Abu Qatada & human rights

It concerns me, that there appears to be a growing call for the UK to 'withdraw' from the European Convention on Human Rights, and also the European Court of Human Rights.

It is claimed by some that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is 'interfering' with UK law; or that the Human Rights Act (1989) has made English law poorer. Back in August 2005 David Cameron said [...]that if Britain wanted to be able to deport terror suspects, the government should amend the human rights laws "or, if necessary, leave - perhaps temporarily - the ECHR". - BBC News.

This matter has been brought to sharp focus by the case of the 'radical' cleric Abu Qatada.

Sadly, this issue is also confused by those saying we should leave the European Union, as if they were one and the same. There follows therefore a short and brief lesson in history.

In December 1948 the UN General Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

In May 1949 the Council Of Europe was founded by 10 countries. Sir Winston Churchill was one of the founding fathers. You can read a transcipt of the speech he made about the Council of Europe at the Winston Churchill Centre Website.

In November 1950 the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms came into being. The UK was one of the original countries to sign, with the convention coming into force in the UK in September 1953.

Under Article 19 of the above convention the ECHR was founded:

To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, there shall be set up a European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as “the Court”. It shall function on a permanent basis.

Also in June 1987 the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) came into force.

But let me return to the case of Abu Qatada. He arrived in the United Kingdom in September 1993, having previously fled Jordan and gone to Pakistan.

You can read a detailed account of his history in the UK in the judgement of the ECHR at Strasbourg dated 17 January 2012. (see ECHR Application no. 8139/09)

This is the judgement that has led to the recent 'confusion' about when the three month deadline came to an end.

In respect of the judgement it needs to be recognised that in the majority of the arguments put forward, the ECHR found in favour of the UK Government.

For reasons contained within the judgement the Court unanimously:

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that the applicant’s deportation to Jordan would not be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention;
4. Holds that the applicant’s deportation to Jordan would not be in violation of Article 5 of the Convention;
5. Holds that the applicant’s deportation to Jordan would be in violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the real risk of the admission of evidence at the applicant’s retrial of obtained by torture of third persons.

In terms of it's final ruling of the real risk of the admission of evidence obtained by torture ECHR says in paragraph 285:

In the present case, the situation is different. Extensive evidence was presented by the parties in respect of the applicant’s re-trial in Jordan and thoroughly examined by the domestic courts. Moreover, in the course of the proceedings before this Court, the applicant has presented further concrete and compelling evidence that his co-defendants were tortured into providing the case against him. He has also shown that the Jordanian State Security Court has proved itself to be incapable of properly investigating allegations of torture and excluding torture evidence, as Article 15 of UNCAT requires it to do. His is not the general and unspecific complaint that was made in Mamatkulov and Askarov; instead, it is a sustained and well-founded attack on a State Security Court system that will try him in breach of one of the most fundamental norms of international criminal justice, the prohibition on the use of evidence obtained by torture. In those circumstances, and contrary to the applicants in Mamatkulov and Askarov, the present applicant has met the burden of proof required to demonstrate a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice if he were deported to Jordan.

Article 15 of UNCAT says:

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Paragraph 266 of the ECHR judgement says: ....It imposes a clear obligation on States. As the United Nations Committee Against Torture has made clear, Article 15 is broad in scope. It has been interpreted as applying to any proceedings, including, for instance, extradition proceedings...

Therefore in this respect of the burden of proof; that Abu Qatadar would not stand trial in Jordan on the basis of evidence obtained by torture, it was now up to the UK Government to demonstrate that they had received such assurances from the Government of Jordan.

The Home Secretary Theresa May is satisfied that she has received such assurances from the Government of Jordan. This was confirmed by the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) on April 17, 2012.

SIAC said in judgement that ...in the light of existing and new factors produced by negotiations at the highest level with the Government of Jordan over the last two months, the risk that caused the Strasbourg Court to block, in so far as it could, the deportation of the appellant to Jordan has now been satisfactorily removed. Consequently, the Secretary of State has announced her intention to deport the appellant "on or about 30 th April 2012".

Meanwhile or subsequently, Abu Qatada's lawyers where preparing an appeal against the part of the ECHR's ruling that stated it was satisfied that he would not face torture if he was deported.

This is in relation to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights:

Prohibition of torture - No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In their judgement of 17 January ECHR said on this matter in Paragraph 205. For the foregoing reasons the Court concludes that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the applicant’s return to Jordan would not expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment.

It is now up to the Panel of the Grand Chamber to decide as to whether the appeal was made within the 3 months time-limit, and whether to accept the request for final determination by the Grand Chamber.

Article 43 of the Convention says:

1. Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
2. A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber shall accept the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or a serious issue of general importance.
3. If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber shall decide the case by means of a judgment.

This is due process as governed by national and international laws and conventions. Such laws and conventions are there to protect our fundamental human rights.

But not only our rights, but everybody's human rights. Irrespective of what we know, or what we feel about a person, they shouldn't  be treated worse than what we would expect and demand for ourselves.

And what would we expect and demand?

We would expect and demand to be treated in accordance with national and international laws, that our basic and fundamental human rights are respected and protected.

We would expect due process to be followed, which if inconvenient to the agenda of some politicians could not be changed at their whim.

Over 60 years ago great leaders including Sir Winston Churchill founded the Council of Europe, and set in law the European Convention on Human Rights.

I can see no reason that could be reasonably argued that we should now; in haste and desire for political advantage, disengage ourself from these well established international safeguards of all our human rights.

GVA by Industries - Growth areas in the UK

The following is a simple exercise of comparing GVA levels of 2008 and 1995.

In England of the 93 regions as defined by the ONS the industries that grew the most are:

56 Business services and finance
28 Public administration, education, health and other services
09 Distribution, transport and communication

During the same period there was a decline in production in 30 of the regions.

In Wales of the 12 regions the industries that grew the most are:

7 Public administration, education, health and other services
3 Business services and finance
2 Distribution, transport and communication

During the same period there was a decline in production in 6 of the regions

In Scotland of the 23 regions the industries that grew the most are:

11 Public administration, education, health and other services.
07 Business services and finance
03 Construction
02 Distribution, transport and communication

During the same period there was a decline in production in 8 of the regions

In Northern Ireland of the 5 regions the industries that grew the most are:

2 Public administration, education, health and other services.
2 Distribution, transport and communication.
1 Business services and finance

Data from ONS - 3:8 GVA1,2 by 6 industries (constrained to headline NUTS2) at current basic prices. And as always my usual disclaimer about comparing regions using GVA.

GVA per head - the bottom five UK

The following charts looks at the bottom five as of 2009 (Data from ONS - NUTS3.2 Headline GVA per head at current basic prices), looking at the years 2000 to 2008. The first chart shows the change in the GVA per head over the years, and the second chart shows GVA per head for 2008 minus GVA per head for 2000, showing which region in the bottom five the GVA has grown the most. I would add my usual disclaimer about comparing regions, but it does reveal some interesting results.

Ynys Mon is welsh for Anglesey

PISA 2009 Results

With thanks to Prometheuswrites, who commented on the following BBC News report. The PISA 2009 results are now available on their website. For the UK, key highlights of the report include:

• Mean performance of United Kingdom 15-year-olds in the middle of the rankings



• Only seven OECD countries spend more per student than the United Kingdom



• Parents in the United Kingdom are better educated than in many other countries



• The share of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in the United Kingdom is well below average.



• Among OECD countries the United Kingdom has a relatively large proportion of students with an immigrant background
  

You can also download the PISA 2009: Achievement of 15-year-olds in Wales
by nfer.