10th March

With one day to go until the end of voting in the 2010 Union elections, cakes and flyers are being dished out in equal proportion across campus with campaigners trying to secure every possible vote for their candidate. The elections got underway on Monday with speeches at the Union, the building itself a critical part of the election with candidates for every post having to explain how they will help run a union without a home. After the speeches at hustings, I spoke about the elections with the two current holders of perhaps the most visible sabbatical roles: Courier Editor and Student President.

First Dave Coverdale, currently at the helm of the Courier, said why he thought it was important every student vote in the elections.

-------------------CLIP1: coverdale-whyvote-------------------------------

With his tenure coming to a close in the summer term, I also asked, the Courier being different every year, whether this year’s policy of actively printing provocative and controversial articles has been worthwhile, I myself taking objection to what I viewed an explicitly racists and sexist comment made by a section editor in the previous issue. Though he agreed that article was over the line, Mr Coverdale maintained that an opinionated comment section was important to the paper.

-------------------CLIP2: coverdale-controversy---------------------------

The sabbatical position of Courier Editor is one of the most hotly contested in these year’s elections, with four section editors and the current deputy editor in contention. But given the paper’s commitment to independence, I asked whether, given its close ties with the union, it should in fact be a union position?

-----------------CLIP3: coverdale-independent----------------------------

The question of the paper’s neutrality was highlighted a few issues back, with another student union officer being given the leading comment article to respond to comments critical of the union, made in an article in the previous issue. I asked Mr Coverdale whether this was a balanced response.

----------------CLIP4: coverdale-articlenotprinted-----------------------

I later spoke to Andriana Georgiou, Student president, and started by asking her what she would say to those who think the elections are just popularity contests.

---------------CLIP5: Georgiou-popularity---------------------------------

With such varied responsibilities including with both student and staff committees and the union’s trustees board, as well as running these very elections, I asked Miss Georgiou what she was most proud of so far in her year in office.

--------------CLIP6: Georgiou-proud----------------------------------------

Sealing the union’s redevelopment was very significant this year but I asked the president how students would cope without a student hub, the union being closed from November until the end of the next academic year.

--------------Clip7: Georgiou-nounion--------------------------------

I finally asked whether she thought that union had gotten its message across this year. Both the president and the student support officer supported taking a No Platform Policy to potential campaigning on campus by racist groups such as the BNP and Combat-18 but it was eventually rejected at the union council.

----------------CLIP8: Georgiou-message-----------------------------------------

To vote go to vote.ncl.ac.uk. Voting closes at 2pm tomorrow.

by Alex Bishop

There has been a recent “explosion” of right-wing extremists and militias in the United States due to anger over the economy and increasing hostility towards Barack Obama. The increase is also due to their ideas being more widely spread because of their acceptance by prominent politicians and some within the mass media, for example the Fox News presenter, Glenn Beck.

The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which is a prominent civil rights group, said that the number of extremist groups has almost tripled from 149 in 2008 to 512 last year. The report states that extremist groups “came roaring back to life last year” and it is “a cause for grave concern.” The report includes incidents of rightwing extremists murdering six law enforcement officers and others who have been arrested over alleged plots to assassinate Obama. One man is being charged with the murder of two black people and the plan to kill as many Jews as possible on the day after Obama’s inauguration. More recently, many people have been arrested in a series of bomb cases.

A Republican national committee document which was obtained by Politico last week states plans to have "an aggressive campaign capitalising on 'fear' of President Barack Obama" to raise election funds.

Right-wing extremists and militias are planning a march next month, allegedly supporting the right to carry guns.

by Rosie Libell

Controversy has surrounded the Conservative Party’s deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft this past week after he was accused of ‘systematic tax avoidance’, following concerns over his ‘non-dom’ status as well as avoiding VAT payments on polls that he bankrolled for the Conservatives.

Ashcroft first caused a stir in Parliament when it emerged that his ‘non-dom’ status meant that he has avoided as much as £127 million worth of tax payments. Many MPs have submitted questions to the Treasury, due to be answered this week, regarding how exactly Lord Ashcroft is able to claim ‘non-dom’ status as a long-term resident of the UK whose parents were both UK citizens.

Questions have also been raised over his nomination for a peerage in 2000, after it was revealed that the Tories’ then-leader, William Hague, received personal assurances from Ashcroft that he would become a permanent UK resident within 12 months of receiving the peerage. Ashcroft revealed last Monday that he had renegotiated the terms of his peerage with the honours scrutiny committee, exchanging the term ‘permanent’ for ‘long-term’ to allow him to retain his ‘non-dom’ status, and thus avoid full British tax payments.

Lord Ashcroft has been able to claim ‘non-dom’ status due to holding a Belize passport, having lived there for three years as a child. It is now the location of many of the billionaire businessman’s interests. Ashcroft himself stated in his 2005 biography that these interests have been "exempt from certain taxes for 30 years."
The revelations have not only brought Ashcroft’s suitability for public office under scrutiny, but also payments that he has made to, and indeed for, the Conservative Party. Leading up to the 2005 general elections, Ashcroft commissioned opinion polls through YouGov and Populus on behalf of the Conservatives. The total cost of these polls is estimated to have been around £250,000. Ashcroft instructed the polling companies to mark the invoices as ‘export’ orders from outside the EU – meaning that up to £40,000 in VAT payments was avoided. This is despite Ashcroft being a resident in Britain at the time and claiming to have personally paid for the polls.

Lord Ashcroft has also donated in excess of £5.1 million to the Tories since 2003 through his company, Bearwood Corporate Services, though the findings of an investigation by the Electoral Commission last week declared these donations legal.

A Conservative spokesman has announced that Ashcroft has said he will stand down as deputy chairman after the elections, and as such would not hold a ministerial post.

The Conservatives have said that party leader David Cameron only became aware of Lord Ashcroft’s ‘non-dom’ status last month, and he has reacted strongly to the allegations, claiming that since he has been leader of the party, debts, including those owed to Ashcroft, have been massively reduced. He also suggested that some of Labour’s funders might be guilty of employing similar tax avoidance strategies.

In addition to the parliamentary questions put to the Treasury, the Public Administration Committee is set to hold a one-off inquiry into Lord Ashcroft’s tax affairs and peerage on 18 March, the findings of which could potentially harm the Conservatives’ preparations for the looming general election.

by James Willows-Chamberlin

The Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq War continued last week as the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown appeared before it. Brown came prepared to face allegations that the war could have been avoided and that there was a lack of funding for troops. He did however denie this and said he wanted to counter any impression that he did not see the military as priority.

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson told BBC News: "Gordon Brown's aim appeared to be to look and sound different from Tony Blair, whilst simultaneously opening up no gap of substance with him and the decisions he took.", ultimately aiming for the 'Diplomatic route'.

Georgina Pattinson, assistant editor for 'BBC democracy live' was at the enquiry and claims there was a real feeling of tension as Brown defended decisions made.

Ex-military leaders accused Brown of keeping defence spending tight during his 10 years at the treasury with some suggesting this had a knock-on-effect on force's equipment. In response to this, Brown said he had largely restricted his involvement in the run up to war to financial matters, and he had assured Tony Blair at an early stage that he would not try to block military options "on the grounds of cost". He further insisted that UK forces had been given all the equipment they had asked for . He told the panel that "At any point, commanders were able to ask for equipment that they needed and I know of no occasion when they were turned down,"
In response to claims that it was wrong to go to war with Iraq, Brown told the enquiry it was "right". He claimed during 2002 and early 2003 he met the intelligence service 5 times and was given information "which lead [him] to believe that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with by the actions of the international community". Such intelligence briefings persuaded him that Iraq was a threat and in breach of UN resolutions. That it had to be dealt with as such "rogue states" could not be allowed to flout international law. Brown has also insisted that he was never kept in the dark by Tony Blair despite not being aware of some developments.

Brown has acknowledged that there are important lessons to be learnt from the way Iraq descended into chaos following the invasion which is why this enquiry is so important. He added that "It was one of my regrets that I wasn't able to be more successful in pushing the Americans on this issue - that the planning for reconstruction was essential, just the same as planning for the war."

Brown further claimed that "There will be other states, rogue states, that need to change and we need to ensure civilian support as well as military support to do what's necessary when a broken state has to be rebuilt."

by Katie Sibson

After being refused entry into the UK in February 2009, Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, managed to enter the UK last Friday in order to screen his controversial anti-Islam short film, ‘Fitna’ in the House of Lords. Wilders obtained entry into the UK on grounds of freedom of speech but it is debatable whether he should be able to express views which are racist and, in the words of the Dutch Prime Minister, have “no purpose other than to offend”.

Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, who first prevented Wilders’ entry into the UK, said that his film had the potential to “threaten community harmony and therefore public safety.” This is surely true; Wilders’ views offend many people and therefore major outrage and protest was likely to cause danger and spark conflict. To go back on this decision and to allow racist opinions to be expressed seems absurd.


The opening shots of the film show a copy of the Qu’ran and footage of the 9/11 attacks in New York as well as the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005. When posted online in 2008, ‘Fitna’ caused outrage amongst Muslims. Wilders has expressed opinions which are highly controversial and denounce Islam explicitly, telling The Independent “I believe Islam is a violent and dangerous religion and even a retarded culture.” Wilders is no stranger to controversy; he has needed twenty four hour protection due to his shocking views for the past five years.

Wilders was invited to the UK by Baroness Cox and UK Independence Party leader, Lord Pearson. Although these politicians have not said that they support Wilders beliefs, their association with the Dutch politician makes their own political motives appear suspicious. Lord Pearson has called Islam a “world domination movement” and when challenged about the radical beliefs of the UK Independence Party, he replied with “is it radical to wish to protect British society and our Judeo-Christian culture from the growing influence of radical Islam?” In relation to Pearson’s comment, it seems that Wilder himself is trying for “world domination” by travelling around the world to screen his film. By showing his film in multiple countries, Wilders is trying to fuel racism globally.

Lord Pearson’s remarks reveal that the same racism expressed in the Netherlands by Wilders is unfortunately present in the UK. Pearson claims that he was not targeting moderate Muslims but to target Islam alone is unfair and racist. There is a danger with any radical religious group and to make Muslims publicly into scapegoats is prejudiced and unjust. Wilders uses selective information in order to persecute Muslims.

Wilders’ film goes against all morals; I cannot accept Wilders claims that he is trapped by political correctness. Racism should not be tolerated and by letting Wilders enter the UK in order to screen the film, the UK appears to be giving racism and Islamaphobia a platform. Hate between religions and races should not be promoted and for this reason, the ban on Wilders’ film, in my opinion, should not have been lifted. Also, by screening the film in the House of Lords, politicians, who are supposed to be influential people in society, appear to be condoning Wilders opinions.

There is enough hate already in the multicultural cities in this country and it seems that the film only arouses more. Wilders’ film does not expose the truth; it is based on illegal racist opinion and conjures the idea that Islam is related to terrorism. The film does not reveal anything factual or proven, only Wilders’ controversial beliefs. To feed racism is unacceptable and this is precisely what Wilders seems to be aiming to do.

The earlier ban on Wilders entry into the UK seems valid due to his comments on Islam last February; “I have a problem with Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies, the less freedom that we get.” Wilders leads the ‘Freedom Party’ in the Netherlands but doesn’t promote equality in freedom by targeting Muslims solely. Muslims are living by their own faith which does not prevent anyone else from having a freedom.

Wilders has been made an example of outright racism by the British government and Members of Unite Against Fascism waited for two hours to protest. The fact that many people have been shocked by Wilders comments provides awareness that racism is wrong. However, members of English Defence League also greeted Wilders, revealing a worrying support for his opinions.

Everyone has the right to a freedom of speech but I would argue that there is never any room for the expression of racist opinions. There is a difference between freedom of speech and racism, where hurt is intended. Wilders is awaiting trial in his own country for discrimination and fermenting hatred. Although innocent until proven guilty, it is clear that Wilders is not afraid to articulate his controversial racist opinions. It is also frightening that Wilders’ Dutch political party has recently made major gains in local elections in the Netherlands. It is now the biggest party in the city of Almere and the second largest in The Hague, which is the country’s political capital.

by Bethany Sissons

A controversial issue this week has been the decision for MPs to receive a 1.5% pay rise in three weeks time. The proposal has provoked a public outrage, bitter debate, and even a declaration on one BBC comment forum of the need for ‘a new Guy Fawkes.’ The latter extreme reaction aside, the objections of the good citizens of the UK seem quite justified. MPs have more than enough to live on already. They have expense accounts (which you may have heard a bit about recently). They have staff to help them. And if they chose a career in public service, surely it’s not the generous pay cheque that matters to them the most?

All these things aside, one question remains. What MP in their right mind is actually going to accept the extra cash? Number 10 announced on Friday that Labour ministers would be turning down the pay rise, and the opposition has been quick to do the same. With public opinion of MPs now plunging to the depths usually reserved for child molesters or traffic wardens, you’d be surprised to see any of them stand up in front of 2.6 million unemployed voters in three weeks’ time and say ‘yes please’ to an extra thousand pounds a year. Any who do should probably be sectioned.

The three main parties have all made commitments to impose pay freezes as a means of reducing the budget deficit, but seem to have conveniently left themselves out of this. Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, has given one of the most simple and sensible responses to the issue, saying ‘it does not seem right that MPs can get a 1.5% pay increase worth £1000 a year[… ] when low paid workers […]will get nothing, because their pay is being frozen.’ This, in my view, is bettered only by the summary given by one MP, who described the pay increase as an ‘absolute cock up.’

One of the problems in arguments about MP salaries is that people use the phrase ‘if they worked for a company’ or ‘in any other job....’ But that’s exactly it - being an MP isn’t like any other job. Politicians are there to represent us; to do what’s best for us. And sometimes that means making sacrifices in difficult times. To accept more money right now sends out the simple message that it’s wages first, people second. The gap between the public and the so called ‘political classes’ is widening, and this isn’t helped when it’s the lower paid workers who suffer the consequences of politicians’ own incompetence. Yes, we know it’s all PR when leaders try to seem as though they understand, and share our plight. But it will be a dark day when MPs simply stop caring whether we trust them or not. Yes, the detailed run down in the tabloids of who claimed what was tedious, but we cannot stop holding our politicians accountable simply because we’re bored. Just because we’re no longer shocked by greed or inappropriate behavior doesn’t mean that it should be allowed to go on. We are creating an environment in which actual enmity exists between the elected and the electorate, which makes no sense in any form of democracy.

I, for one, would appreciate the gesture of turning down a pay rise, even if it only a gesture. Pretence, in this case, is, in itself, a courtesy. One thousand pounds per MP per year isn’t going to make a huge difference either way – I don’t think it would be sorely missed by either the taxpayer or the employee in question.

Following a period of almost no trust in our representatives, taking the money would send the message that they are not sorry. Following a pay rise with an election campaign would insult our intelligence, and erode the sense of genuine choice and trust that we need to have if we want people to get out and vote.

If people are going to judge parties by their policies in the coming months, they need to see them as separate, and focus on something other than the monetary misdemeanors that they have in common. This simple gesture of solidarity with everyone who is struggling right now, or facing a pay freeze in the future could help us move on. It would go some way to forming an apology for the last year or so. Most importantly, it would mean that real political issues and values, not lists of figures, are what the coming election is decided on.

by Sarah Firby