The Danger Lurking Underground

It seems a while ago that we first heard about the controversial technique of Hydraulic Fracturing, or  'Fracking,' as a way of extracting Shale gas from the ground, yet the issue has not gone away, and with the Green Party still left with just one MP after Thursday's election, the danger is only likely to increase.

So is fracking really all bad? Supposedly fracking could be worth over £1.1 billion across the UK over the course of around a decade, and given that the gas and oil companies have a scheme involving huge economic benefits for the local communities, it is unsurprising that David Cameron has said fracking is "good for the UK."

However, if for a moment we consider this issue from an unselfish point of view, we might be able to see past the potential money in the fracking industry and remember that we are currently facing many serious issues regarding our environment and climate change.

The process of fracking involves pumping numerous harmful chemicals (up to 330 tons per well) into the ground in order to force the gas out of the ground. This might not be so bad if it was not for the fact that so many of these chemical leak into the ground. It has been found that 5-7% of all new fracking sites leak, and that in the long term every well will leak. This has disastrous effects on the local community, because these chemicals contaminate the ground and the water supply, and have consequently been linked to higher incidences of cancer along with other illnesses across the country. Not only does the process of fracking pollute our water supply, it also uses millions of gallons of water during the process itself, thereby wasting our precious water supply.

Furthermore, perhaps the strangest thing of all is the fact that once we have extracted this gas and oil through fracking, we then proceed to burn it as we normally do with fossil fuels. This only adds to the growing amount of pollution in the world, and as we all know, unleashing this carbon dioxide has a detrimental effect on out environment. Moreover this is not even a long term solution to our energy crisis, it has been shown in the US that the supply of this type of gas and oil has already peaked after just a decade of exploitation, meaning this process is far less efficient than our North Sea oil for example, and also requires more and more wells to be drilled to keep up with demand.

I personally believe that the cons far outweigh the pros of fracking, and I cannot believe that any economic gain is worth destroying our planet in this way; after all, without sounding too extreme, if we carry on like this, our planet may no longer be inhabitable, and I can't see the economy being important under those circumstances....

Written by Lili



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11224097/Fracking-wont-cut-bills-and-ministers-oversold-shale-gas-benefits-experts-say.html
http://frack-off.org.uk/fracking-hell/

My Take on the Anti-Austerity Marches

This is my "I'm-angry-at-the-lack-of- respect-for-anti-Tory-protesters-but-I'm-going-to-try-to-remain-civil-to-those-that-may-disagree-rant". I can't see this possibly going wrong.

First, a Latin lesson.

When you consider the word democracy, it actually comes from the Latin "demos" meaning people. People. People make a democracy. It is a living, breathing, organic manifestation that we call the centre of our society. It is not a thought experiment with variables and hypotheticals. We have it in place in order to create some sort of order, but in our non-representational democracy where 1 million votes can equal 1 MP, 1.5 million can equal 56 and 39% somehow equals a majority, there is bound to be dissent.

So, when it emerged that the Conservatives had won the General Election outright and I was in utter disbelief, of course I was very excited when I knew I was not the only one who felt so strongly opposed, clearly, given the protest. Up until then I felt I was going mad; like I and a few others had missed something. This feeling of solidarity quickly dissipated though when tweets AGAINST the protest kept popping up on my Twitter feed. I was so confused that rational people were trying to silence people's democratic right to protest. Until suddenly, all became clear:

                                                           

                                                         

Now I understood. The riots had a violent element to them and a WW2 war memorial had been defaced. Obviously this behaviour is unacceptable but we must remember that the majority of the protest was peaceful.

To those who read these tweets and condemn the riots, please, this is my olive branch to you. This is how we feel.

For months and months, those who read the constant doom and gloom of the newspapers (Bedroom tax, food banks, austerity literally killing the poor) have been thrilled at the idea of more liberal parties gaining power. Bored of the same boys club politics, constant promises from newspapers that a new dawn is coming, many of us truly believed it would be over. Of course, it never occurred to many of us that one would read all the horrors we hear of millions of children going to school under clothed and under fed and not want change. It truly was such a shock for many.

To then be told that the "majority" of people voted for this and there was not even a hung parliament despite speculation for months that there undoubtedly would be one, there would be change, there would be improvements, really was stunning.

With all of this in mind we need to understand the gravity of the election result. This will have serious, life changing effects for people. This goes beyond a fun little debate topic that you can drop after a week when you get bored. This election, this austerity will seriously change people's lives for the worse. £50 million pounds is being cut from mental health services for children alone. People who desperately need benefits, who are disabled, who are terminally ill are being deemed fit for work and die as a result.

Whilst I accept that a voter has the right to vote for a party whose policies may be detrimental to others, that voter must in turn accept that those negatively affected by the election result have the democratic right to protest.

Written by Ella

The Tories Stand out in More Ways than Won

I intend to write this post without bias, so apologies if my opinions seep through.

I thought it was worth acknowledging that since the recent resignations of Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage and Ed Miliband, all the major political parties bar the conservatives are currently being led by women.

Admittedly Harriet Harman (Labour), Sal Brinton (Lib Dem) and Suzanne Evans (UKIP) are only acting leaders for the moment (although Suzanne Evans is likely to take over as leader if Farage decides not to run again) this is still fairly impressive given that as recently as 2001 only 118 MP's were women, let alone being in charge of the parties.

I suppose you might wonder why this important, and maybe it isn't. But I do think there is some significance in this sudden surge in women leaders. For me it is an exciting prospect to be able to finally vote for a women prime minister (no disrespect to Natalie Bennet (Green Party) but she was highly unlikely to win the election), and perhaps this marks a shift in our politics at last.

For too long British politics has been dominated by Oxbridge educated middle class men, and I believe that for a true democracy it is essential that the people feel represented. It is no wonder so many people are disillusioned with politics (only 66.1% of us voted on Thursday) when politicians seem so out of touch with real people.

Undoubtedly one of the secrets to UKIP's success is Nigel Farage's ability to connect with the electorate and his image as 'one of us,' perhaps the other parties will learn from this.

Back to the issue of women in politics, I would like to draw attention to a newly elected MP for the Scottish National Party, Mhairi Black. She is a 20-year-old university student, and has made history as the youngest British MP since 1667. Regardless of whether or not you support the party to which she belongs, it cannot be argues that she has made an incredible achievement. Not only did she win her seat, she also beat Douglas Alexander, and Labour MP who's name I am sure you all recognise. Winning against such a tough opposition only reinforces her success, and I hope that she inspires young people, particularly young women, to get involved in politics.

We are more equally represented now than ever before, and I really hope this encourages more people to take an interest in politics more frequently than every 5 years. Whatever you think about our politicians, they have the power to shape our society and consequently have a huge impact on all of our lives.

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen

http://www.ukpolitical.info/FemaleMPs.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/every-major-british-political-party--except-the-conservatives--currently-led-by-a-woman-10238390.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/uk-elections-scotland-mhairi-black-labour/

How Much is my Vote Worth?

This is a question that many of us will have asked ourselves last Thursday on our way (or not) to the polling station.

This recent election, marking a shift from two party politics to multi-party politics has provoked much debate about the fairness of our voting system.

We all know that the Conservatives won the election, by a slim margin of 12 seats, however what you may not realise is that only 39.6% of votes were for the Conservatives. That is to say that over 60% of the electorate did not vote for the party currently leading our country. Fair?

Some say yes, others say no.

If we had had proportional representation instead of first past the post, the seats in parliament would have been as follows: (please know that it was very difficult to find these figures as there are lots of conflicting numbers out there, so perhaps it is best to take this as a rough estimate)

Conservatives: 240 seats
Labour: 213
UKIP: 83
Lib Dems: 53
SNP: 37
Green Party: 24

Regardless of the accuracy of these figures, it is strikingly obvious that many more of the minor parties are represented in far greater numbers using proportional representation. Just in case you weren't aware, there are several different types of proportional representation (for example the AV ('alternative vote') option that we voted on in a referendum in 2011), however without going into too much detail, the general idea is that if a party gains 20% of votes, for example, then said party will gain 20% of the seats in parliament.

This system would dramatically change the make up of the House of Commons (as shown above), and would be beneficial for smaller parties such as UKIP, the Lib Dems and the Green Party. Many people argue that such a system would reduce the power of our government, as it would almost certainly be impossible to govern without forming a coalition, thereby reducing the government's efficiency in passing laws. Furthermore, in scrapping the first past the post system which we have now, it would be a lot harder for constituencies/areas to have an MP who represented them. That is to say that one's MP would almost certainly come from another part of the country and quite possibly not belong to the party for which the majority of constituents voted. It is clear that Brits seem to favour a strong, single party government; demonstrated by the recent Tory majority, but to what extent should we suppress smaller parties in order to have a more 'efficient' government?

Many of the smaller parties, for example the Green Party, argue that proportional representation is a for more democratic system as it more accurately represents the opinions of the electorate, and does not favour the larger parties.

To demonstrate this, we should take into account the fact that to gain just one seat, UKIP needed nearly 4 million votes, this is 100 times more votes per seat than the Conservatives needed, and UKIP received an astonishing 2.3 million more votes than the SNP despite the fact that the SNP have 56 seats in parliament. This is clearly unfair, and it means that many people are not represented by an MP from their preferred party simply because of where they live.

This means that a Labour voter in a Conservative stronghold is likely to feel like their vote is worthless, and to be quite honest, that is basically the case. Of course if we all thought like that nothing would ever change, but why should those with minority views be stuck voting in a constituency that is extremely unlikely to ever change party? In my constituency of East Hampshire, 22180 votes went to defeated parties, that is to say that all these votes meant nothing. All those people went unheard and their votes were wasted. The current system also means that two thirds of the MP's elected in 2010 did not have the support of the majority of their constituents. Think how many disappointed voters that figure equates to. Unfortunately there is no clear or easy way to solve this injustice, and it remains unlikely that we will see change whilst the large parties continue to benefit from the current system and thereby are unlikely to pass a law that would not act in their favour.

However, undoubtedly there are flaws with the system of proportional representation, and perhaps not everybody would want 83 members of the UKIP party in government, but the fact remains that this system would certainly allow for a fairer representation of parties in the House of Commons. As our political system becomes less about Tory vs Labour and more about the smaller parties too, it is inevitable that the appetite for a reformed voting system will continue to grow.

Written by Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen

P.S. As a little aside, the process by which we elected our MEP's is proportional representation, and this has allowed for the rise of extreme right wing parties throughout Europe....(to the extent that an estimated third of MEP's will be anti-Europe in the coming years) think what you will about that...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/575888/Ukip-would-have-83-seats-under-proportional-representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

Where's the Money Coming From?

Since the new boss for NHS England announced that the NHS needs a further £8bn of spending per year, the political parties have been desperately scrabbling around for extra pennies in order to convince us that they will fulfill this spending increase. But should we believe what they are promising us?

Just a quick breakdown for those of you who have not yet received flyers through your letterboxes:

- The Tories recently promised a "guarantee of an £8bn increase in spending per year above inflation by 2020"
- The Lib Dems are promising that "funding will increase by at least £8 billion a year"
- Labour "has pledged to spend an extra £2.5 billion a year on the NHS."
- Ukip are offering an extra £3 billion for NHS frontline services
- And the Green Party Back  a rise in NHS spending across UK of £24bn by 2020-21

This is all very good, and clearly it is very important that we provide our NHS with the necessary funding, else we could risk more privatisation and an even longer waiting time in A&E.

However, not to put too much of a downer on this, but where exactly are these parties getting all these billions of pounds from? UKIP assure us that their policies are all fully costed, yet to what extent can we trust these politicians?

The issue boils down to whether or not we can believe everything we read and watch about politics, that is to say that, in the run up to an election, is it possible that every single politician interviewed s being completely honest with us? To what extent is what they are saying true, and how much of it is only designed to coax a vote out of us...

A study by the independent found that only 18% of the British population trust politicians, even less than those who trust journalists (21%). This is an alarming statistic, especially seeing as we are allowing these people to run our country, despite these figures. However can we really blame them? Surely in their position, many of us would de the same? After all it is only natural to want to win as many votes as possible. Given that the average British adult only thinks about politics for 5 seconds per week (hopefully more during the run up to an election but still...) it is unsurprising that politicians constantly repeat key catch phrases, thus luring us into voting for them without having actually examined their manifesto in it's entirety.

So to sum up, although it is understandable, I do think that quite often the figures presented to us by political parties are often too good to be true. Therefore it is down to us as voters, to be more sceptical and to question the viability of certain political policies, only then can we make a truly educated and informed decision.


By Lili

Picture Credit: Ellen


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29741776 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30796343
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/10/george-osborne-conservative-party-election-pledge-extra-8bn-nhs
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-dont-we-trust-our-politicians-8531134.html

FGM

Female gential mutilation (FGM) is the practice of removing parts, or even all, of a woman’s external genitalia and shockingly, it still affects roughly 133 million women throughout Africa and Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org). It is not only a non-Western issue; despite being illegal in the UK, it’s estimated that 20,000+ girls below 15 years of age are at risk of undergoing FGM each year, whilst nearly 70,000 women in the UK are suffering from the consequences of FGM (http://www.nhs.uk). The harmful ritual tends to be carried out before girls reach puberty, meaning that generally girls are “cut” between infancy and 15 years. The exact procedure varies cross-culturally, however non-sterile equipment such as scissors, glass, sharpened rocks and horrifyingly, fingernails, are frequently used. The procedure is normally carried out by an older woman with no medical training, and anaesthetic is far from guaranteed; in 1995, women in Egypt reported that local anaesthetic was used on their daughters 60% of the time, general anaesthetic was used 13% of the time and 25% of the time neither were used, meaning that ¼ of FGMs in Egypt are performed without painkillers (http://en.wikipedia.org). It has no known health benefits and unsurprisingly causes both short term and long term complications, such as heavy (even fatal) bleeding, infections, cysts, infertility and serious issues regarding urination and intercourse.

The reasons for female genital mutilation include cultural, social and religious reasons, however it should be noted that no religious scriptures actually condone the practise. It is often considered a cultural tradition, and social pressure to conform is responsible for many “circumcisions”. However, ultimately female genital mutilation stems from misogyny. In many communities it is believed that FGM reduces female libido and therefore it is practised in order to prevent women from having sexual relationships before marriage. Cultural ideals of femininity are also responsible for FGM, as in some communities genitalia is considered unclean or male, therefore the removal of this external genitalia is believed to promote hygiene and femininity.

Since 1996 attempts have been made to prevent FGM through research, work within communities and changes of policies. There has been significant progress in the past few years, such as increased international involvement, growing political support (for example, a law against FGM was passed in 24 countries), an increasing number of people in FGM practising communities supporting the end of FGM and decreased prevalence of FGM. Organisations such as Amnesty International recognise the cultural reasons for FGM and therefore advocate symbolic ceremonies as a rite of passage instead, which I believe is important as it respects culture whilst preventing physical harm to women. There are growing campaigns against FGM within practising communities due to women such as Agnes Pareyio, whose monumental efforts have prevented over 2000 girls from being subjected to FGM. More information about her work can be found here: http://www.onebillionrising.org/4964/rise4justice-blog-series-tasaru-safe-house-girls-update-fight-female-genital-mutilation-early-forced-childhood-marriage-agnes-pareyio/

Despite the progress, the harsh reality is that millions and millions of girls and women are suffering the consequences of FGM, and many are still in danger of undergoing it. An increased awareness of female genital mutilation means an increased ability to help; the NHS provides helplines for people who may be subjected to FGM or for people who have had FGM at http://www.nhs.uk/NHSENGLAND/ABOUTNHSSERVICES/SEXUAL-HEALTH-SERVICES/Pages/fgm-resources.aspx and details about health clinics at http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/sexual-health-services/Pages/fgm-health-services-for-women.aspx

Written by Olivia

Picture Credit: Ellen

http://www.feminist.org/global/fgm.html

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Changes_in_prevalence

(http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/female-genital-mutilation/Pages/Introduction.aspx)