Far right in the UK article
The far right in the UK has been under a lot of strain recently following the leaking of a list of BNP members on the internet. This has lead to a backlash in this ideology with teachers, radio DJ’s and vicars being publicly shamed. This ideology has taken a severe public humiliation, where did this train of thought arise in the United Kingdom and have we been guilty of following the lead of our European counter parts?.
The political ideology of the United Kingdom has always been one of stability with the public traditionally sticking to liberal democracy. However, the far right has enjoyed some flirtations of success within UK politics in many different forms. Sir Oswald Mosley was the first far right leader in the UK in modern times with the BUF (British Union of Fascists) which was heavily based on other far right movements in Germany and Italy and had a military style political ethos. In modern politics the far right has seen many movements attracted to this political ideology. The more central appealing movements such as Veritas and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) are strongly opposed to Britain’s inclusion in the European Union. These parties had tended to promote anti-racism within their ranks unlike their more extreme counterparts, tending to focus a lot of their effort on the European Union. A prime example can be seen in an article online by George Battern (UKIP MEP) in which he states in light of the recent economic crisis ‘membership of the European Union is simply something the British Public cannot afford.’ Battern goes onto say ‘if Britain is to get through a recession it must get rid of the EU.’ These suggestions from this UKIP member are prominent in their campaign to harvest different reasons for the EU’s worthlessness. These views however, have led to the election of UKIP’s first member of Parliament in April 2008.
British politics unfortunately contains more sinister movements than VERITAS and UKIP, the UK plays host to numerous far right movements who swing towards more extremist views including racial policy.
The National Front and the BNP (British National Party) have been huge in their opposition to immigration and asylum seekers. There views are radical and stem towards intense nationalism. The National Front enjoyed relative popularity in the 1970’s receiving between 1.8 % and 5.6% of all votes in the general election of 1970. In recent times the NF has enjoyed some relative success fielding 11 candidates in local elections in May 2003. On their website they demote modernism and democracy with remarks on immigration and homosexuality, in an article entitled ‘Why I support the NF ‘ a member indulges in his reasons for supporting this party including comments such as ‘ wicked practices like homosexuality destroys spirituality for those who get involved’ and other controversial views ‘we are constantly been swamped with pornography via the BBC and other medias.’ These views including strict immigration policies seem alarming in the 21st century.
The British National party (BNP) is the more modern form of the far right in the UK. Born in 1982 it has been perceived as a more media friendly branch of the far right. Now under the leadership of Nick Griffin the party has enjoyed some success in elections over the past few years including 5.23 % of the vote in the 2008 London mayoral elections, coming fifth overall and electing mayoral candidate Richard Barnbrook to the Greater London assembly. The BNP has indeed shown a steady rise in this branch of politics in the UK over the last few years but has been branded racist due to it’s extremist views and racial policy within the ranks where only white members can join. The BNP manifesto is extremely right wing, promoting a white Britain instead of a multi- cultural society, this is why the leaks in their membership list have hit the BNP hard. People who hold socially extremist views have been publicly shamed. The BNP has always caught the eye of the media but now it has opened it’s door and proven that doctor’s, lawyers and other professionals in the UK hold far right views.
The far right in the UK is real and these movements have different and highly controversial views which seem to have gained popularity, these movements are not isolated to the UK alone. The EU has had to face these political movements as well. A prominent example of far right activity in Europe can be seen in the general election in Austria in 1999.The ‘Freedom Party of Austria’ received a staggering 27% of the electoral vote and formed a coalition government with the ‘People’s party’. The 14 other EU members were horrified by a coalition with right wing extremists and ceased cooperation with the Austrian government claiming the Cordon Sanitarie which opposed coalition with the far right had been breached. The French have also seen far right movements rise to prominence in the 2002 French Presidential election. Jean- Marie- Le Pen leader of the French National front came second in the presidential elections. It was seen as a blow to democracy and multi-culturalism in France. Although Jaques Chirac won in a landslide it was a reminder that the far right was still very much active In France and Europe generally. Frenchman Matthieu Bultelle was famously quoted about the election. ‘shame shame shame… if Le Pen gets a good score there is something very rotten about French society.’
There is little doubt that the far right has enjoyed some distinctive success over the years but
it is a testament to Britain and Europe that far right movements have not achieved more electoral success. The far right is a scary and daunting political ideology and I do not see Britain ever giving into these narrow minded ideas. As Jeremy Paxman says in his popular history The English Britain always goes the ‘common sense middle way’ and the English have ’ very sensible scepticism about what the state can achieve and in doing so stay immune to fascism.’ I agree wholeheartedly with Paxman. Britain may have flirtations with the far right but it seems unable to turn its back on good old Democracy.
Friday, 19 December 2008
Philosophy of the Labour Party Article
Labour has been one of the top political parties in the United Kingdom since the 1920’s. Traditionally Labour has been biased towards the left of the political spectrum tending to sway towards social democracy ,but in more recent years notably under the banner of New Labour for who former Prime minister Tony Blair won a landslide election, Labour has focused towards the centre of the spectrum. u Blair himself described this new ideology as the ‘ Third way’.
Labour was born out of working class struggle in the early twentieth century, its political ideology ‘labourism’ refers to the labour of the working class. The party sees February 1900 as its political start when the first conference under the banner of the Labour representation Committee was held. When the Labour Movement started it was a desirable mix of the trade union movements and socialist parties such as the Independent Labour Party and the liberal majority middle class Fabian society. Although a mix of different movements it was designed to be the voice of the working class and was successful in establishing itself as a class party. The working classes at the time had demands, they were sick and tired of the gap between rich and poor which was blatant in the early part of the twentieth century. Labour stood up for these demands promising to protect their trade union bargaining rights, raise standards of living, free health care and cheaper housing for the masses. Labour as the working class party was seen as the bridge to do this. The early philosophy of the Labour party was a socialist outlook on things, it did have a hint of Marxism in opinions such as public ownership but was committed to non-revolutionary socialism. This Labour movement was designed for the working class, the everyday man and the bread winner made to combat the hierarchy of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats so why over in the last century has Labour changed?. Why has it moved away from it’s roots and adopted a new philosophy?
New Labour emerged initially as a slogan at their conference in 1994 but changes in policy had been seen since Neil Kinnock was made leader in 1983. However, New Labour was confirmed in 1996 in their manifesto named New Labour, New life New Britain. The change was evident in the underlying objectives of New Labour, no longer did they want to be appeal to the working classes but to the majority of voters in the middle classes. The traditional core of their philosophy under went the most radical change ever seen in the party’s history. The manifesto showed that ‘a new distinctive approach has been mapped out, one that differs from the old left and the conservative right. This is why new labour is new.’ Labour wanting to attract Middle England took a risk in re-writing their philosophy and in doing that creating a New Labour revolution .
The New Labour campaign was a success and it should be underlined that under Blair the prospect of change was exciting as the recent Presidential Campaign in which the youthful and different Barack Obama won. Blair similarly played on the same principles and won in a landslide election with a majority of 179 parliamentary seats. In power again, Blair promised his new philosophy ‘ the third way’ but what did this really mean ?some people describe it as the middle way something Blair definitely confirmed in his speeches. ‘we need a radical centre in modern politics.’ this quote from the build up to the 1997 election was a clear incentive of change for Labour but also a change for British politics. The third way is hard to describe and many different figures argue over what it actually is, some argue it is similar to Thatcherism without the political brutality others say it is a more defined modern version of social democracy and certainly some of the policies that have been carried out since have echoed this, for example the minimum wage. The third way to me seems like a mix of political motives, liberalism, conservatism and socialism .What New Labour did create was a new philosophy one which goes on the basis whatever works, almost like a mongrel of ideologies. This has meant that Labour has turned it’s back on the roots of the far left it has now defined itself at the centre of the political spectrum.
New Labour was indeed a success but some may argue it lost it’s soul in 1997, abandoning the working class and allied itself with the middle classes. This opinion certainly has been voiced by some politicians. One chief critic at the time was Arthur Scargill who formed the Socialist Labour Party in 1996 as a retaliation to New Labour. Scargill said’ New Labour is now a party that supports capitalism and the free market’. This does highlight a valid point that New Labour, through it’s more centralised policies has embraced capitalism and lost the support of the far left. It can also be considered that Labour has let the gap between rich and poor remain through capitalism, something traditionalist Labourites may dislike. Former Labour Minister under former James Callaghan Shirley Williams believes New Labour has lost it’s way on some policies ’New Labour’s dedication to the concept of the redistribution of income and wealth is less clear than it used to be’.
New Labour may have lost support from the far left but in abandoning the philosophy of the far left it adopted a new philosophy of modernisation and a more centralised movement. It is hard to see how they would have gained power in 1997 without this change in philosophy.
Labour has certainly benefited from the approach of Blair and his Third Way. New Labour has won 3 general elections in a row but the recent Conservative resurgence has left Labour lagging in the polls.What does the future hold for Labour, will they try again to change certain philosophies and methods to appeal to the masses? David Miliband Secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs wrote in an article in the Guardian which was seen as a direct challenge to Gordon Browns leadership but his words seemed to voice change.’ New Labour won three elections by offering real change not just in policy but in the way we do politics. That remains the right basis for the future’. Miliband is a favourite to take the leadership after Gordon Brown so maybe the ideological change of the Labour party is not set in stone and that under another leader the party may take another ideological direction.
Labour has been one of the top political parties in the United Kingdom since the 1920’s. Traditionally Labour has been biased towards the left of the political spectrum tending to sway towards social democracy ,but in more recent years notably under the banner of New Labour for who former Prime minister Tony Blair won a landslide election, Labour has focused towards the centre of the spectrum. u Blair himself described this new ideology as the ‘ Third way’.
Labour was born out of working class struggle in the early twentieth century, its political ideology ‘labourism’ refers to the labour of the working class. The party sees February 1900 as its political start when the first conference under the banner of the Labour representation Committee was held. When the Labour Movement started it was a desirable mix of the trade union movements and socialist parties such as the Independent Labour Party and the liberal majority middle class Fabian society. Although a mix of different movements it was designed to be the voice of the working class and was successful in establishing itself as a class party. The working classes at the time had demands, they were sick and tired of the gap between rich and poor which was blatant in the early part of the twentieth century. Labour stood up for these demands promising to protect their trade union bargaining rights, raise standards of living, free health care and cheaper housing for the masses. Labour as the working class party was seen as the bridge to do this. The early philosophy of the Labour party was a socialist outlook on things, it did have a hint of Marxism in opinions such as public ownership but was committed to non-revolutionary socialism. This Labour movement was designed for the working class, the everyday man and the bread winner made to combat the hierarchy of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats so why over in the last century has Labour changed?. Why has it moved away from it’s roots and adopted a new philosophy?
New Labour emerged initially as a slogan at their conference in 1994 but changes in policy had been seen since Neil Kinnock was made leader in 1983. However, New Labour was confirmed in 1996 in their manifesto named New Labour, New life New Britain. The change was evident in the underlying objectives of New Labour, no longer did they want to be appeal to the working classes but to the majority of voters in the middle classes. The traditional core of their philosophy under went the most radical change ever seen in the party’s history. The manifesto showed that ‘a new distinctive approach has been mapped out, one that differs from the old left and the conservative right. This is why new labour is new.’ Labour wanting to attract Middle England took a risk in re-writing their philosophy and in doing that creating a New Labour revolution .
The New Labour campaign was a success and it should be underlined that under Blair the prospect of change was exciting as the recent Presidential Campaign in which the youthful and different Barack Obama won. Blair similarly played on the same principles and won in a landslide election with a majority of 179 parliamentary seats. In power again, Blair promised his new philosophy ‘ the third way’ but what did this really mean ?some people describe it as the middle way something Blair definitely confirmed in his speeches. ‘we need a radical centre in modern politics.’ this quote from the build up to the 1997 election was a clear incentive of change for Labour but also a change for British politics. The third way is hard to describe and many different figures argue over what it actually is, some argue it is similar to Thatcherism without the political brutality others say it is a more defined modern version of social democracy and certainly some of the policies that have been carried out since have echoed this, for example the minimum wage. The third way to me seems like a mix of political motives, liberalism, conservatism and socialism .What New Labour did create was a new philosophy one which goes on the basis whatever works, almost like a mongrel of ideologies. This has meant that Labour has turned it’s back on the roots of the far left it has now defined itself at the centre of the political spectrum.
New Labour was indeed a success but some may argue it lost it’s soul in 1997, abandoning the working class and allied itself with the middle classes. This opinion certainly has been voiced by some politicians. One chief critic at the time was Arthur Scargill who formed the Socialist Labour Party in 1996 as a retaliation to New Labour. Scargill said’ New Labour is now a party that supports capitalism and the free market’. This does highlight a valid point that New Labour, through it’s more centralised policies has embraced capitalism and lost the support of the far left. It can also be considered that Labour has let the gap between rich and poor remain through capitalism, something traditionalist Labourites may dislike. Former Labour Minister under former James Callaghan Shirley Williams believes New Labour has lost it’s way on some policies ’New Labour’s dedication to the concept of the redistribution of income and wealth is less clear than it used to be’.
New Labour may have lost support from the far left but in abandoning the philosophy of the far left it adopted a new philosophy of modernisation and a more centralised movement. It is hard to see how they would have gained power in 1997 without this change in philosophy.
Labour has certainly benefited from the approach of Blair and his Third Way. New Labour has won 3 general elections in a row but the recent Conservative resurgence has left Labour lagging in the polls.What does the future hold for Labour, will they try again to change certain philosophies and methods to appeal to the masses? David Miliband Secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs wrote in an article in the Guardian which was seen as a direct challenge to Gordon Browns leadership but his words seemed to voice change.’ New Labour won three elections by offering real change not just in policy but in the way we do politics. That remains the right basis for the future’. Miliband is a favourite to take the leadership after Gordon Brown so maybe the ideological change of the Labour party is not set in stone and that under another leader the party may take another ideological direction.
Euthanasia aritcle i wrote.
Euthanasia- should they be allowed to die?
A discussion across all sides of the debate on Euthanasia is urgently needed in light of recent media events in Bournemouth where a Dr Philip Nitschke from Australia was banned from holding a workshop on how people can end their lives. Dr Nitschke choose Bournemouth because of it’s high population of old age pensioners. This has a direct link to Scarborough a town where a lot of older people see out their remaining days. It also made me question Euthanasia in general- is it a valid procedure? The media in recent weeks has had it’s eyes firmly planted on the case of Daniel James, a 23 year old rugby player who was paralysed in accident on the field. This tragic case made me think how would Scarborough react to such a case? In Scarborough do we provide enough care to stop this chain of thought?
The fundamental question behind Euthanasia locally and in the UK is should people decide when they want to die? I spoke to Jen Hardy from campaign group Dignity in Dying a group in favour of Euthanasia, she feels ‘the UK is making steps in treatments and choice for the terminally ill and elderly. In July 2008 the government launched the End of Life care strategy. The strategy marks an important step forward in the way that people approaching the end of life are treated.’ People may have more choice but Hardy goes onto explain that government strategy is merely not enough. At Dignity in Dying we campaign for even greater patient choice at the end of life, we are campaigning for a change in law to give terminally ill mentally competent adults who are in unbearable suffering, the possibility of an assisted death.’ When asked about the case of Dan James it was clear Jen felt he had reasons for his death and questions why he had to travel abroad. ‘Assisted death in the UK is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. To this date over a 100 known british citizens have travelled abroad to die, I feel this is something that needs to be curbed mentally competent terminally ill should have the possibility of dying in their homes.’
Certainly Dignity in Dying believes Euthanasia should have some sort of legal classification but what do the medial professions of Scarborough think? I spoke to a source in the medical profession in the Scarborough area who felt that not enough was being done in the region to combat this chain of thought.‘ Probably not enough measures are in place due to resources and financial constraints , as with the whole NHS.’ When asked about palliative care and whether enough is been done in the district to ensure a standard my source had mixed views. ‘Macmillan nurses provide an excellent link between the community nursing and social services and are finding available health funds to use to fund care for palliative care patients. There is a lack of hospice beds and most hospice facilities have a long waiting list.’ This suggests the terminally ill and elderly may not be getting the care they need but the medical source also suggested that ‘the care is of a brilliant standard. I believe that hospice care such as provided at St Catherine’s hospice in Scarborough is the gold standard of palliative care for patients and their significant others.’ So if hospice care is so good why do people feel the need to end their life prematurely? Surely if they are getting the best care then they will end their life in peace in a place which has treated them with the utmost respect and given them fantastic care.
I feel people who want to cut their life short such as the terminally ill, paralysed or elderly should be given that choice and that it should be down to individual choice if a person is mentally stable to make that decision. The statistics do add up, 86% of people in Britain feel the competent terminally ill should be able to exercise their right to die, a further 79% feel the terminally ill should be able to exercise their right to die if they are not mentally ill. But what do you think in Scarborough ? I spoke to Claudia Seaman of Lady Edith’s Avenue, Newby who is a district nurse based at a local GP surgery she feels the choice to die should be exercised in hospices such as Scarborough’s.’because of modern effective palliative care most people are able to die peacefully, I feel that a Euthanasia option should be available for those in physical or mental torment, why is that ethically wrong? It seems that publicly Euthanasia is gaining momentum but what about the people rallying against Euthanasia what are their beliefs?
As I researched this topic I came across Care not Killing a UK based campaign group against Euthanasia, speaking to a CNK official they feel that pro-Euthanasia groups are gaining too much momentum. ‘Care not Killing is working hard to oppose Euthanasia groups in Westminster and Scotland but we are countering sustained , well funded opposition from pro- euthanasia organization, lack of funds is a disabling factor.’ The official goes onto say that the governments ‘ End of life strategy ‘ is a good start to countering pro Euthanasia groups suggesting the real issue is getting hospice and palliative care more government funding as it is largely charity funded.
This is a good suggestion maybe instead of looking to Euthanasia as a solution we should be putting more time and effort into palliative care maybe that way people in Scarborough will enjoy a happy and dignified end to their life without resorting to Euthanasia.
The future of Euthanasia in the UK is one many people will question, will we see in the future hospices like our own in Scarborough performing life ending procedures legally and purposefully? Although it seems we may swing to something more along those lines in the future, there is still a smell of scepticism over the issue especially in the medical profession. While researching this article I asked a few GP’s to express their views on Euthanasia and because it’s illegal they were extremely reluctant to do this often giving one word answers or declining to comment. Euthanasia has gained in popularity but it seems locally and nationally we are some way off seeing Euthanasia being legal and mainstream.
A discussion across all sides of the debate on Euthanasia is urgently needed in light of recent media events in Bournemouth where a Dr Philip Nitschke from Australia was banned from holding a workshop on how people can end their lives. Dr Nitschke choose Bournemouth because of it’s high population of old age pensioners. This has a direct link to Scarborough a town where a lot of older people see out their remaining days. It also made me question Euthanasia in general- is it a valid procedure? The media in recent weeks has had it’s eyes firmly planted on the case of Daniel James, a 23 year old rugby player who was paralysed in accident on the field. This tragic case made me think how would Scarborough react to such a case? In Scarborough do we provide enough care to stop this chain of thought?
The fundamental question behind Euthanasia locally and in the UK is should people decide when they want to die? I spoke to Jen Hardy from campaign group Dignity in Dying a group in favour of Euthanasia, she feels ‘the UK is making steps in treatments and choice for the terminally ill and elderly. In July 2008 the government launched the End of Life care strategy. The strategy marks an important step forward in the way that people approaching the end of life are treated.’ People may have more choice but Hardy goes onto explain that government strategy is merely not enough. At Dignity in Dying we campaign for even greater patient choice at the end of life, we are campaigning for a change in law to give terminally ill mentally competent adults who are in unbearable suffering, the possibility of an assisted death.’ When asked about the case of Dan James it was clear Jen felt he had reasons for his death and questions why he had to travel abroad. ‘Assisted death in the UK is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. To this date over a 100 known british citizens have travelled abroad to die, I feel this is something that needs to be curbed mentally competent terminally ill should have the possibility of dying in their homes.’
Certainly Dignity in Dying believes Euthanasia should have some sort of legal classification but what do the medial professions of Scarborough think? I spoke to a source in the medical profession in the Scarborough area who felt that not enough was being done in the region to combat this chain of thought.‘ Probably not enough measures are in place due to resources and financial constraints , as with the whole NHS.’ When asked about palliative care and whether enough is been done in the district to ensure a standard my source had mixed views. ‘Macmillan nurses provide an excellent link between the community nursing and social services and are finding available health funds to use to fund care for palliative care patients. There is a lack of hospice beds and most hospice facilities have a long waiting list.’ This suggests the terminally ill and elderly may not be getting the care they need but the medical source also suggested that ‘the care is of a brilliant standard. I believe that hospice care such as provided at St Catherine’s hospice in Scarborough is the gold standard of palliative care for patients and their significant others.’ So if hospice care is so good why do people feel the need to end their life prematurely? Surely if they are getting the best care then they will end their life in peace in a place which has treated them with the utmost respect and given them fantastic care.
I feel people who want to cut their life short such as the terminally ill, paralysed or elderly should be given that choice and that it should be down to individual choice if a person is mentally stable to make that decision. The statistics do add up, 86% of people in Britain feel the competent terminally ill should be able to exercise their right to die, a further 79% feel the terminally ill should be able to exercise their right to die if they are not mentally ill. But what do you think in Scarborough ? I spoke to Claudia Seaman of Lady Edith’s Avenue, Newby who is a district nurse based at a local GP surgery she feels the choice to die should be exercised in hospices such as Scarborough’s.’because of modern effective palliative care most people are able to die peacefully, I feel that a Euthanasia option should be available for those in physical or mental torment, why is that ethically wrong? It seems that publicly Euthanasia is gaining momentum but what about the people rallying against Euthanasia what are their beliefs?
As I researched this topic I came across Care not Killing a UK based campaign group against Euthanasia, speaking to a CNK official they feel that pro-Euthanasia groups are gaining too much momentum. ‘Care not Killing is working hard to oppose Euthanasia groups in Westminster and Scotland but we are countering sustained , well funded opposition from pro- euthanasia organization, lack of funds is a disabling factor.’ The official goes onto say that the governments ‘ End of life strategy ‘ is a good start to countering pro Euthanasia groups suggesting the real issue is getting hospice and palliative care more government funding as it is largely charity funded.
This is a good suggestion maybe instead of looking to Euthanasia as a solution we should be putting more time and effort into palliative care maybe that way people in Scarborough will enjoy a happy and dignified end to their life without resorting to Euthanasia.
The future of Euthanasia in the UK is one many people will question, will we see in the future hospices like our own in Scarborough performing life ending procedures legally and purposefully? Although it seems we may swing to something more along those lines in the future, there is still a smell of scepticism over the issue especially in the medical profession. While researching this article I asked a few GP’s to express their views on Euthanasia and because it’s illegal they were extremely reluctant to do this often giving one word answers or declining to comment. Euthanasia has gained in popularity but it seems locally and nationally we are some way off seeing Euthanasia being legal and mainstream.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)