My Politician of the Decade

2009 was a gripping end to the first decade in this country's history when we've only had a Labour Government - look how worse off we are as a consequence. But events within the last week highlight for me, the political event and theme of the decade - the war on terror. The war on terror has defined politics, at home and abroad, in the noughties. It has divided political opinion and often divided the nations of the world. However it is because the War on Terror has played such an important part in the politics of the last ten years that I'm naming George W Bush as my Politician of the Decade.

It has become almost a hobby of some to mock George Bush and for many he is a figure of hate. The shoe-throwing incident in Iraq last year probably summed up the world's opposition to George Bush. But like him or loathe him, nobody can deny that no other single person has played a bigger role on the world stage this last decade than George Bush did in his eight years as President.

I still remember the moment when I first saw the pictures of the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001. George Bush's response to that incident was stern and decisive. He launched the War on Terror and so began an armed campaign against Al-Qaeda that is still ongoing today. Many people have died in those conflicts, soldiers and civilians. We even saw the full force of Islamic Terrorism on the streets of London and we were reminded only last week that the threat had not diminished. Barely a week seemed to go by in the noughties without some mention of Iraq, Afghanistan or another front in the War on Terror. Guantanamo Bay and accusations of torture on the part of US authorities have again dominated the headlines these past decade - both features of the War on Terror and the policies of George Bush.

Here in the UK, we have seen our own government follow where Bush led with the PATRIOT Act, with the disgusting attempts to lock up British citizens for 90 days without trial, the introduction of pointless Identity Cards and the increasing powers of state surveillance. This was not the first decade we'd faced the threat of terrorism in the UK but it seems Labour did not learn from previous government's mistakes in relation to Ulster.

Despite the prevailing attitude that one must despise President Bush and everything he stands for, I remain a supporter of his foreign policy endeavours. The spreading of freedom and democracy to the oppressed peoples of the world is a noble and admirable goal - George Bush succeeded in doing that. He was a steadfast supporter of Israel, a lone democracy in an otherwise oppressive region, something for which he should be praised. And one other important foreign policy action of George Bush his opponents conveniently ignore is his hard work in the fight against Malaria and HIV/AIDs in Africa. In George Bush's own words, he should be remembered for liberating 50 million people.

Was he perfect? Of course not. Did he make mistakes? Yes, but to quote John Major: a politician who has never made a mistake has never made a decision. George Bush will never rank amongst Washington, Lincoln, FDR and JFK as the most popular US Presidents. He will probably remain a world hate-figure for some years to come. But then again, being a great politician is not always the same as being popular. You don't have to be popular to change the world and in the noughties, George Bush certainly did do that.

The UK should suspend aid to Uganda

As reported in the press recently, a Bill is currently making its way through the Ugandan Parliament which would impose the death penalty for those involved in certain homosexual acts in Uganda. As well as increasing the standard penalty for homosexuality in Uganda to life imprisonment, those involved in 'aggravated homosexuality' would be put to death; this includes any 'offender' who is HIV-positive. This is completely unjust - nobody should be put to death because of their sexuality.

Gordon Brown and other Western leaders have criticised the Bill and it was raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting recently but this does not go far enough. Although this Bill has been proposed by a back-bench MP, the Uganda government is doing nothing to stop it and the Ugandan Ethics Minister is encouraging its passage. The UK currently gives £72 million worth of aid to Uganda every year. If this Bill becomes law then the UK should follow Sweden's lead and suspend its aid contributions to Uganda until such a time as the law is reversed.

I appreciate that some people are 'against' homosexuals, however silly I think that is that is, they have every right to hold that view. Equally, we must accept that some societies have not yet begun to appreciate basic human rights in the same way that the UK does. However executing people for being gay is a step too far. If holding the Ugandan government to ransom over this Bill is the only way to stop it then that is what must be done.

We must share the burden of post-recession sacrifices

It was reported today that the majority of public sector workers are still expecting to see a rise in their pay packets next year despite a 1% cap on pay rises imposed by Alistair Darling in the pre-budget report.

However with the public deficit so high, public sector workers must accept that they are going to have to make sacrifices as we try to get our budget under control. And they're not the only ones. Everyone is going to have to shoulder some of the pain of the post-recession spending cuts which all three parties are now committed to.

Employees in the public sector have been largely cushioned from the effects of the recession. The government's foolish insistence on spending their way out of the recession has meant the public sector has enjoyed more cash, not less, during the recession. Contrast this to the private sector where many firms have imposed pay-freezes, we've had redundancies galore and some workers have even agreed to work for free in order to keep their jobs in the long-term. This contrast cannot continue in years to come.

The 1% cap on public sector wages will cause a real terms cut in pay but this does not go far enough. Beginning in 2010, public sector wages should be frozen in order to help ease the deficit.

But public sector earners are not the only ones who must shoulder some of the pain. I also believe benefit payments should be frozen (it might even get some people back in to work) and pensioners should accept that they cannot go on enjoying above-inflation rises in their pensions whilst families suffer from a falling in come; pensions must therefore be subject to similar restraints in the next few years. Of course this will never happen - politicians would not even dream about upsetting the grey vote for the sake of relieving the younger generation of our lovely big debt.

The coming years will be very painful in terms of budget policy but we must all share the burden of this pain no matter which sector we work in or if we work at all for that matter.

Votes at 16

Probably one of the must unconservative things I have ever written. Taken from the November issue of The Bus magazine (www.heatonmanorbus.co.uk).

British politics has had a bad year. The MPs’ expenses scandal has put lots of people off politics, especially young people. But as we begin to repair our country’s damaged political system, it seems the right time to explore the question of whether we should be lowering the voting age to 16.

When you turn 16, you gain many, but not all, of the rights of adulthood. At 16 we can legally have sex; play the national lottery; leave home; marry; choose whether or not we stay on at school; join the armed forces; and pay taxes. Yet we cannot vote.

The issue that I have the biggest problem with is that we can be taxed and yet we cannot vote. “No taxation without representation” was the slogan used by the revolutionaries in the American War of Independence. Annoyed by the fact that they paid taxes to the British Government but couldn’t elect them, the Americans (in true American style) started a war and eventually declared independence. Over the last decade, 16 and 17 year-olds have paid £550 million of tax to the government. America started a war over this. Why aren’t we so angry?

There is of course the argument that young people are not mature enough at 16 and 17 to make an informed decision at the ballot box. However, I know many 18 and 19 year-olds who I would consider equally as ‘immature’ as some 16 and 17 year-olds. Related is the claim that young people don’t know enough about politics. I bet most adults know as little about politics as young people. At least we have had the benefit of five years of citizenship education in schools
where we have learned about these things.

Maturity, intelligence and political knowledge have never been tests in modern democracies to determine who has the vote. The vote has been given on the principle that it is simply a right that people ought to have. Yes, young people might ‘waste’ their vote by voting for the Monster
Raving Loony Party but one million adults were conned into voting for the fascist BNP at the last election. Who people are going to vote for should not determine whether they are entitled to do so.

The final compelling reason why 16 and 17 year-olds should have the vote is that it will finally mean their needs are taken seriously by politicians. There are a number of issues that specifically affect under-18s: the state of sixth form and college education; EMA; the fact that we have to pay adult fares on buses despite remaining in full-time education. When older people demanded free public transport, politicians jumped and delivered. Why? Because they had the vote. If 16 and 17 year-olds had the vote, politicians would have to listen to us and would have to start responding to our demands as a significant proportion of their electorate.

The reasons for keeping the voting age at 18 do not stand up under scrutiny. The basic principle that the vote must join the rights we already have will prevail, and following the next general election, 16 and 17 year-olds will be given the vote.