Churchill's Boot has now moved!

See Churchill's Boot new webiste here: http://www.churchillsboot.com/

Has the time come to take back control of the streets of London?

I will try to resist the urge to go on a rant about my feelings towards the latest riots (besides many others have eloquently expressed their anger towards such scenes, not least Cranmer's reaction. I also appreciate that this blog has devoted a significant amount of space to the current fall-out about tuition fees, so I will simply concern this post with what to do about the riots going forward.

The editorial in the Sunday Telegraph mused today about how to police these protests going forward, but didn’t come to a certain conclusion. I would suggest that the government refuses to grant permissions for any further protests for an interim period. This would allow there to be a period of consultation between police and protest organisers in which protest organisers should be required to give certain assurances about the conduct of the protests, something that is clearly not occurring at the moment. It would also allow the police and CPS to further pending prosecutions in respect of the criminal violence and damage that has been carried out. These measures are vital, in that potential troublemakers would see the consequences of their actions should they consider taking part in criminal violence at future protests. At the moment, despite various arrests, there is a feeling that you can merely put a hood up and get away with murder. I use that phrase quite intentionally as it is something of a small miracle that on two occasions of complete havoc no one has been killed. There have of course been many injuries, some serious.

I accept that this suggestion is rather controversial. What’s more it could also be a tactical threat, as such a move could risk a further backlash from rioters reacting to a perceived heavy- handed response by the government. I think, however, that it is worth such a risk. The right to protest peacefully is of course of fundamental importance to our liberal democracy, but that right, granted by society, can be taken away if it is abused or misused.

This is entirely the situation here.

These ‘peaceful’ protests are nothing of the sort; they are being hijacked and turned into a gratuitous rampage and terrorisation of the public. On Thursday, the public were indeed caught-up; people going about their daily business (probably to work. Notice the irony of this - creating the wealth that currently subsides students so that they are free to protest on a Thursday afternoon) prevented from accessing Oxford Street, as well as many busy tube stations. Then there was the incident with Charles and Camilla – the climax of the entire debacle. The protestors must have felt that they had momentarily achieved their aim to create total anarchy.

Based on these public disruptions, we must surely use the tools we have available to us to restore order. If that means using them a little more forcefully than we would otherwise like to, then so be it.

The reason why I also believe this will not misfire as a tactic is because of where the public sit on this issue. These riots are not the poll tax riots of the 1990’s which reflected a society that was more generally growing tired of Margret Thatcher’s Britain. While some of the public may have sympathy with the argument against the tuition fee rises, they are most certainly not sympathetic towards the appalling public disorder we have witnessed. In fact, a straw poll of people I have talked to are particularly angry about the rioters. Further, as many commentators have pointed out, this could be the beginning of a long period of social unrest. After all, the savage cuts of which we hear so much about haven’t even really begun in earnest yet. As the saying goes, the worst is yet to come.

When the government has to make policing decisions about protests from those who have lost their jobs because of the cuts, then will be the time to make much more sensitive decisions. In reality, these protests have not been about social unrest, they have simply been an excuse for a young and violent minority to gratuitously rampage and destroy.

I believe the time has come to step in and nip this in the bud. There will be greater battles to come if the government and the police rest on their laurels at this crucial time. They must ensure order now to avoid greater, more bloody demonstrations in the future.

Students need to consider tuition fees issue with a little more sophistication than ‘It’s not fair’

A few weeks ago, I was happy to blog about why tuition fees needed to be raised, however, thanks to the gratuitous rampage that the students went on, we have been a little side tracked about the real issue. So on the eve of the vote today, I will finally address the issue at hand.

The question about whether student fees should rise is not about fairness, per se. Rather, the starting point should be the question that has its basis in reality rather than fantasy. That question is: what can we afford?

Over 45% of the population now goes on to higher education. Can we as a society afford to subsidise that? The answer to this is not in debate. The resounding answer is no. I wish we could afford it. I think the experience of university obtained by graduates is extremely valuable to society and I refer not only to that which can be measured in GDP.

In actual fact, if we were starting again from scratch I would recommend that only 20-25% of the population should go to university; those who have achieved a certain accredited standard. If this were the case, (as was the case not so long ago) we could seriously consider funding this cost. However, the great rush over the last twenty years or so to keep as many people in education for as long as possible at any cost, has meant that that is not the reality we have to deal with.

If you want world-class universities, like Oxford and Cambridge have been since their founding, (although struggling to keep up because of recent under funding), then you have to fund them properly. First-rate education cannot be provided cheaply. If we compare the average yearly fees to go to Havard or Yale, (over $30,000) two of Oxford and Cambridge’s competitors, £3,000 a year to go to university here looks scarcely believable. The reality is that universities have been grossly underfunded for years and that was the situation even before the advent of this new age of public expenditure austerity.

Please don’t interpret this post as a brutal, heartless assessment of this issue. This is not an easy issue. I myself could not afford to go to university without a full loan from the government, and still have a serious amount of debt to my name to this day. No, I am certainly not insensitive to the realities of a potential student considering university, but is put off because he or she happens to come from a poor background. Such an outcome would be highly regrettable and certainly not the type of society we should be seeking to create.

Which is why the Coalition government should be commended for coming up with various ways in which the likelihood of a poor student being dissuaded from applying to university is kept to a minimum. Indeed, a poor student under the current proposals would actually have more grants and bursaries available to them than under the old position, as well as not having to pay back any government loan till later in their working life. This issue is not as simplistic as some of the slogans and chants on the protest would have you believe. It is not about simply putting up fees and the government being nasty. This is a very complex challenge, to balance on the one hand the harsh realities of funding the cost of higher education and on the other ensuring that going to university remains a meritocracy and not simply a reflection on the wealth of your family.

Well done to the government for broadly achieving that delicate balance. It has not been easy. If only the students could stop aimlessly shouting their childlike response ‘It’s not fair’ and give some further thought to this, they might also see that the government have come up with a very reasonable response to a very difficult issue.

Remembrance Sunday should remind the rioters why liberty was fought for

I had hoped to blog this week about why I regretfully accept that tuition fees have to rise. Unfortunatly- at least certainly for those who are strongly opposed to any such rise- events of this week have rather taken over the debate about tuition fees.

This is because some highly misguided, self-obsessed, delusional idiots decided to turn the otherwise peaceful protest on Wednesday into a full-on rampage of destruction. Let's get a myth out of the way right now: this disgraceful action was not about the 'strength of feeling' towards the rise in tuition fees. This was not the sort of revolutionary cause that has driven people to violently protest before- this was not about enslavery, not about persecution of a people, not about women’s rights or any such like. This, in reality, was about tanked-up students and otherwise general layabouts with nothing better to do on a Wednesday afternoon, taking part in an utterly gratuitous rampage of demolition and violence. Indeed, as demonstrated by the fire extinguisher incident, it was a miracle that no-one died. These people were absolutely out of control, not fighting for a just cause, just frivolous violence and destruction.

Some have said (the academics at Goldsmiths, University of London) that the riots were positive because they raised the profile of the cause against tuition fees. The difficulty with this position is that by implication, what they are saying, is that it’s OK to break the law as long as you further your cause. Where do you draw the line with this principal? Would it have still been acceptable if the fire extinguisher hadn't landed a couple of yards from the police woman and she had died? If so, is this not the guiding principal of terrorism?

Ironically, far from furthering their cause, the riots have meant that very little attention has been devoted to actually debating the issue of the rise in tuition fees. Instead, all press coverage has focused on the unforgiveable rampage itself, and in that, the students have lost the sympathies (if they were there to begin with) of the general public.

If you feel passionately about an issue and you are determined to get it changed, I salute you. I myself am passionate about many issues which I feel aggrieved about every day. Many people argue that you can’t get things changed; that your vote doesn’t translate in real-terms to affect you. I can understand and sympathise with your frustration. But you must continue to fight your cause through rational debate and peaceful protest within the bounds of the law, even if success is a distant possibility.

That is the way it is done in this country; a country which has a hard-earned liberal democracy. Today of all days, we remember just how hard-earned this freedom was. Millions of young men of a not-so-distant generation lost their lives fighting for the liberty we now have, but it wasn’t so that today’s ignorant youths could go on a rampage every time they disagree with a decision made by their government. Perhaps when some of the perpatrators of Wednesday’s despicable acts are sentenced (as I sincerly hope they are, with the full force of the law) they may do well to have some quiet reflection about that point.

Congratulations to the Tea Party! Roll on its influence in Britain!

How very encouraging to see the Tea Party movement having such a successful night at the mid-term elections in America. It really is a remarkable achievement: from something that only sprang up a few years ago, to become such a highly influential force in American politics. It will be fascinating to see whether the successful Tea Party candidates can keep their promises now they are in Washington.

Watching their success made me hope that we might have a similar movement over here. I’m not referring to the wacko right-wing of American politics, which has tried to associate with the Tea Party, but rather the Tea Party in its purest form- that of a movement for truly small government and a significant reinterpretation of the relationship between the state and the individual. This clarification is explained well by James Delingpole here.

From a British point of view, there is something you have to admire about the Tea Party movement’s brashness. In Britain, despite our tax and spend binge of our previous government, to come up with a name that is short for Taxed Enough Already, would be seen as highly politically incorrect. Here, to announce in public that you are taxed too much is to invite derision. The lefty media have influenced the public psyche so that to complain about tax is somehow equated with immorality. It means you do not want to help the poor and must be extremely selfish. It means you must be anti-nurses and teachers. It means you don’t care about schools or hospitals. It probably means you also eat babies for breakfast…

The debate about small government and less tax is only now beginning to tentatively shift in Britain. But we need to get past the overly simplistic view that to ask for less tax is selfish. Given the public deficit, this is a wonderful opportunity to start persuading people of the benefits of small government, but like I have previously argued here, even now the Conservative party are desperate to avoid arguing ideologically about the reduction of the state. God forbid, we might try to argue that asking for less tax and small government, far from being selfish, would actually improve our society as a whole; would give us greater freedom, happiness and prosperity.

The other day, I became particularly agitated as I tried to read my paper in a coffee shop. At the table beside me there was, perhaps, the quintessential caricature of an American; one who talks so loudly that the whole street can hear them! While we polite British might wince when we hear an American with a volume control problem, we should also admire their candidness. The Tea Party’s openness about small government would be a welcome addition to the political debate e over here.

Cameron’ s best attempts merely underline how much Brussels really is in charge

Poor old Cameron. He has been off this week in Europe for his first real challenge as Prime Minister, standing up for Britain in Europe. He talked a very tough game before he went, claiming that he would seek a budget freeze rather than the absurdly high 6% increase that had been mooted. He thinks he has agreement on a 2.9% rise (although mutterings this weekend suggest it might be a bit premature to say it is agreed) and Downing Street proudly announced this as an important victory, amongst other agreements which Cameron claims he has made. Cameron is right that 2.9% is not a bad result, given the 6% where negotiations started. I am sure it was a hard earned victory to get the tentative agreement on that. But this only goes to underline how inferior we have become next to Europe.

As we know, our own country will face unprecedented cuts in public expenditure over the next few years, and while we face the often unwelcome decisions this will result in, we are told that the European Union is raising its budget by 2.9% and we have to pay for it.

How, then, in this context can 2.9% be announced as a victory?

The fact that it has been touted as such merely emphasises the real relationship we have with Europe. In many respects, we are a mere state in a federal union. The federal government has just told us that their budget needs to increase. We have tried to explain that we are trying to deal with the biggest public deficit since the Second World War, but their decision is final. We simply do not have a say.

Of course, not having a say is something the British public have become used to, particularly on the subject of Europe. Indeed, since the last and only referendum on Europe took place in 1975, you would have to be 53 or older to be a person who actually has had a say on Europe. The European project has changed irrevocably since then, with a great deal of British sovereignty signed away to Brussels.

It remains an unjustifiable disgrace that the country has never been consulted.

Tomorrow, let us see the opportunity and not the difficulty

Cuts, cuts, cuts. Deep, savage - whatever their description, the cuts are coming and they’re going to be damn right nasty. That is all I seem to hear at the moment.

Well, tomorrow the long wait is finally over, and we shall at last see where the government’s nasty cuts will fall. It has undoubtedly been one hell of a job, not least because of the absurd ring fencing of health expenditure and overseas aid. The Tories might well consider that not to ring-fence these two areas would be to break a core manifesto promise. Given that many of their manifesto commitments have been put to one side in the ‘national interest’ of forming the coalition (as is quite understandable) it is a wonder why they cannot also ditch this under the same reasoning. Why on earth should these areas be considered untouchable in the current climate? We will continue to provide aid to foreign countries while policeman and serviceman lose their jobs here. That is a crazy net result of this policy. But of course, the Tories chose these areas specifically as crucial to the strategy of detoxifying the brand- attempting to make people believe that the Tories are the caring and compassionate sort.

Rather than be downcast and cynical on the eve of what will surely be a day of relatively bad news, let us try and see the positives of what will come from tomorrow’s spending review. What grates when the government talks of the cuts is their insistence that these cuts are not ideological. They argue that these cuts are simply necessary because of the current appalling state of the public finances. They say this because it much more palatable for the coalition, while also appealing to the ‘modern conservative’ strategy of dissociating itself with the Tory party of the eighties. In fairness, it is also because it is an easier message to deliver. It conveys the message that ‘I am only doing this because I have to, not because I want to’. The trouble is that this misses a key opportunity to present the cuts in a more positive light. The refusal to accept anything ideological about the cuts is a tacit admission that if they did not have to cut, they would carry on with the spending binge of Labour over the last 13 years. How can that be right? Surely the reality is that these cuts are ideologically the right thing as well as a necessity?

The state is too big, we are taxed too much, the public sector is highly inefficient, bloated and consists of countless layers of utter waste. The argument should be put forward that the cuts, while painful, are the right thing to do. They will reduce the size of the state and the inflated public sector, which in the long run will reduce our tax burden, make our public services more efficient, responsive and local, and ultimately improve our society. This argument needs to be made and reinforced at every opportunity. It needs to achieve the substantial task of drowning out the relentless, one-dimensional media coverage of the cuts - that being, that cuts are bad, simple as that.

To paraphrase the words of Winston Churchill: tomorrow , let’s need not be the pessimist that sees difficulty in every opportunity, but rather the optimist that sees the opportunity in every difficulty.