Britain has neglected its responsibilities for far too long, its time to let in these desperate migrants.

Around the topic of the migrants crisis there have been many falsehoods, but the chief one I believe from the British point of view is that we already take in too many asylum seekers, when in reality a mere 3,000 have entered compared to 10,000 taken in by Sweden and an estimated 20,000 by Germany. Compassion rather selfishness should be guiding this debate, yet unfortunately much of the discourse around this has centred on the latter.

Of course, there is no simple fix for this, but we have two un-ideal choices in this debate. We either do the inhumane thing and leave the migrants either in poor conditions as Australia have done, or we allow them the chance to assimilate and live a life so drastically superior to the one they previously had, whether in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or Eritrea.  Anyone born in the U.K. or most Western countries are, relatively speaking, lucky to have been so. Where we are born is of course, a genetic lottery and our odds of being born in such a place were slim. We could have been born in a country at war, a country in a more primitive age such as much of Europe was in the Middle Ages, or born in one lacking the infrastructure we so heavily rely on. Those who were not so lucky have just as much of a right to be here as anyone really, although practical considerations of course deny this from being possible. Yet someone who leaves a place such as Eritrea and travels a both arduous and likely dangerous journey is somehow denied by people who feel they are entitled to leave in a country with similarly lucky people. That is not fair in my view. We really ought to realise this is no one person’s country, but a place as many people as practically possible should be welcomed to so they too can excel here. In any of these immigrants or their children may be the cure for cancer or diplomatic capabilities few else have, yet only by letting them in and allowing them to benefit from a highly developed country can these chances be maximized.

That is not to say I do not sympathise with those who have legitimate concerns about pressure on resources which may come as a result of the vast increase in the number of asylum seekers I am proposing, however we must be wary this does not become a racist fear of what people deem “other” or different to them. Many of those who do suggest we essentially ignore these desperate migrants, whether asylum seekers or economic migrants, appear to lack any sense of common compassion with those suffering, which Akala, in my view, rightly attributes to racism in part, saying the 700 who drowned in the Mediterranean “were they white human beings, they certainly wouldn’t have been called cockroaches”. Again, I’m not accusing all those concerned about immigration of racism, but there appears to be a fear of the non-English speaking people, whether they be Polish, Syrian, Iraqi or otherwise which persists less so in the discussion of Australian, American or Canadian immigrants.

A mere 7% of British land is built upon, so the ridiculous argument of “we are full” really should stop being made. If Germany’s and France’s small towns can welcome and cope with immigrants then so can Britain’s, with many desolate buildings and factories available for re-conversion for the short-term. If Britain let in, for example, 10,000 migrants in a few months, would the country fall apart? No. The case has been made that many of these migrants are children so would create difficulty in terms of school spaces, but that can be sorted out given time, while in the meantime they could be taught in individual facilities as they get to grips with their new country. These problems are not the huge, insurmountable challenges some have claimed they are, essentially those who are advancing it are claiming we should let others suffer rather than British-born children have slightly larger classes. That is the sort of selfishness I see from many who agree with my right-of-centre views on many others. Central to this issue is humanity; those migrants need the sort of help Britain has for far too long been reluctant to give.  

Primarily, compassion for these immigrants should guide our discourse and views on this subject, not merciless selfishness. Of course those coming from overseas should not be allowed into the UK or Europe as a whole before some checks, but those who pose no threat deserve open armed welcomes. It is of course our moral duty to share the wealthy first world countries (I would add the likes of Japan, USA and Canada should take in more asylum seekers and economic migrants too) and not ignore it as we did following the initial rush of Syrian immigrants in 2012. We should remember how lucky we are to live in one of humanity’s most widely developed civilisations in history where most live the lives our ancestors and many people elsewhere could only dream of. We have the opportunity to rectify our initially poor response to the migrants crisis by both letting in our fair share of migrants and then welcoming those who have endured hardship most of us could scarcely imagine. 

Turkish riots: A precedent?

Mass rebellion in Turkey. The shocking scenes of constant running battles in Ankara and across Turkey between rioters have captured the world's attention. However, this is not mindless thuggery carried out by disenfranchised youths; rather it is a very meaningful political and even spiritual statement.

It is rather ironic that these riots have occurred in Turkey, a nation that has been known for being somewhat of a bridge between the east and the west. The Middle East has traditionally become synonymous with religious conflict, while the Far East and Russia have tended to lose its religious edge over the past century with communism and religious persecution being at the centre of many disputes in this tumultuous region. The west, especially Western Europe, on the other hand is slowly beginning to distance itself from religion too. Although Americans still quote lines such as "one nation under God", many youths in America are leaning towards atheism, a belief, or lack thereof, which has barely entered the Middle East. Yet the incidents in Turkey over the past couple of weeks have shown a rejection of traditionalist Islamic beliefs among large numbers of youths in the country, hinting at signs of an upcoming revolt against beliefs which have remained such a key and undisputed factor in Middle Eastern society for oh so many years.

However, quite the opposite is happening in Syria, where the protesters, or “rebels” as they are being referred to, are desperate to see Syria become a more Islamic state, with President Assad himself rejecting this. Of course all this upheaval is causing a moral dilemma for the likes of America, Germany, the UK and France, who all want to end Assad’s destructive reign, but Russian President Vladimir Putin, is fearful that this will give way for more radicalisation in the region, views that he reiterated at this week’s G20 summit in Northern Ireland.

Of course, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is by no means a dictator, but some say he is an authoritarian that is beginning to put his own desires above the wants of his people. Turkey is a country that many visit due to its unique culture and desirable climate, but images of tear gas and rubber bullets being fired in city centres will do no good to the country’s reputation.

Another factor which may worry Prime Minister Erdoğan is the clear support of the protesters by the everyday folks. Recent images show locals aggressively pounding pots and pans while looking at the violent scenes outside their windows. Meanwhile, Erdoğan’s speech at a party rally attended by many of his supporters suggests he shall go ahead with his changes for a more conservative state despite the fierce opposition by some. The crowd seemed a little apprehensive however, possibly hinting that although they want these changes, they too have been taken aback by the protests, and are not sure if Erdoğan is dealing with the situation well enough.

When the topic of globalisation comes up, many naturally think of the consequences for the West. Better understanding and more opposition to various things are the two main factors given. In Turkey, young people use the internet freely and can therefore look at examples of other countries and desire a certain lifestyle, so with these new concepts being shared, it is understandable why there may be rebellion to the proposition of a more conservative state.

With many of the protesters being or appearing to be relatively young, what may worry the conservatives in Turkish society is what the future will hold. Will this anti-authoritarian rhetoric force remain for the foreseeable future and eventually drive Erdoğan out of office or is it just a phase in an attempt to try something different. Some would say all people are able to rebel for a while and this is just part of that. However, the determination being displayed by so many of these protesters and the attention to the issue they have brought to the international community suggests that this is an issue that is here to stay.

Both the Eastern and Western worlds are changing rapidly, multiculturalism and empowerment of newly liberated peoples (such as in Egypt and potentially Syria) bring about positive changes, yet new, challenging and emotional issues. What is similar between Turkey and Syria is the level of dedication and determination shown by the largely relatively young, in order to bring about change in their respective lands.

Dear Mr Cameron: Please do not cut sport funding

Dear Mr Cameron,

At time of writing, we are approaching the end of the London 2012 Olympics. An event that some felt unsure about whether they would enjoy or not. However, the games have unquestionably been a success with what I'm estimating the majority of Britain's residents watching the somewhat quirky opening ceremony. Many of these people also watched the amazing events at the Olympic stadium on Saturday 4th of August with Mo Farah, Greg Rutherford and Jessica Ennis all winning gold in their respective sports in what some are now referring to as "super Saturday". With Great Britain now in the midst of their most successful Olympics ever, the country's love for sport has been more abundantly clear than ever throughout the course of these Olympics. 

So I was surprised and even disappointed to hear that David Cameron, the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt and the rest of the government are planning to cut sport funding.

As someone who is in my mid-teens, I have seen the changes in sport in schools over the past few years, and I can tell you the facilities have improved. Possibly non- coincidentally, as the facilities have improved so have Great Britain's record at the Olympic Games. The heroes of team GB largely came from state schools, so if the proposed cuts on sport funding are to take place, one wonders how well Britain will do at the future Olympic Games. But it's not just about Olympic gold medals. No, the fact is the vast majority of children will not become Olympians or professional sports players. However, if state school sport funding is cut, then the amount of children who will become obese will increase as a lack of facilities and coaches will discourage many children. Seeing as the government have spent such a great deal of money on healthy eating to counteract increasing numbers of childhood obesity, cutting sport funding just doesn't add up.

I am mightily pleased to say I am not the only one that disagrees with the proposed cuts. Sir Chris Hoy, the British cyclist who recently became Britain’s most successful Olympian ever by winning his sixth Olympic gold medal, and fellow London 2012 gold medal winning cyclist Laura Trott have both spoken out against the controversial plans. Chris Hoy said how funding was a ‘’catalyst’’ for Great Britain’s Olympic cycling success. Because of this success, interest in cycling as a sport as well as participation in it, have increased. Now who is to say that if you decide to fund another sport whether that sport be in Olympics or otherwise, that that sport will not become a major success and encourage participation in that sport. A strong sporting scene also benefits the British economy with the athletes signing sponsorship deals and encouraging people to spend money on sports related items. If you cut sport funding interest in sport may decrease especially in poorer areas where they may not be able to afford to go to an independent sports club.

So please Mr Cameron, do not cut sport funding as it could lead to many young people all over Britain feeling out of touch and discouraged with taking part in something as simple and pure as sport. The country in which you govern has a rich sporting history and it would be a fatal blow to Britain if you were to damage it, which is what cutting sport funding would do.

Lords reforms bill scrapping highlights coalition tensions

As of now, the coalition government of Great Britain appeared more divided than ever as it was confirmed that the Lords reforms bill pushed so heavily by the liberal democrats was dropped by the government.

If the bill was to have gone through, then the house of Lords, which housed the most powerful people in the entire British government until the seventeenth century, would have had elected peers as opposed to hereditary peers, a system which the liberal democrats and also numerous Labour MP's claimed was unfair, elitist and discriminatory. The scrapping of the bill due to opposition from the conservative proportion of government was met with the following quote by Nick Clegg who was clearly frustrated with the developments calling those who opposed the bill ''resistant to change''.

So what does the bill's scrapping mean long term for the coalition? Until now, the coalition had only encountered a few disagreements unlike many predicted. Despite fierce opposition from many experienced and well respected liberal democrat MP's such as Simon Hughes as well as many members of the party's voters from the 2010 general election, Nick Clegg convinced many of his party members to support the conservatives when they decided to increase tuition fees. Perhaps he felt this would be rewarded by the lords reform bill being passed through government but obviously not.

The lords reform bill isn't the only liberal democrat supported reform bill that has floundered since the coalition began. In May 2011 a referendum took place on electoral reform which was one of the liberal democrats' key policies. However many members of the electorate were confused by the complex voting system and didn't feel change was necessary. Following this, many were left scratching their heads as to why this was a policy with so much importance to the liberal democrats.

The lords reform was a chance for the liberal democrats to reignite their support among many working class people who voted for them in the 2010 election after feeling frustrated with the Labour party. However, this failure will only further add to those who claim the party and its MP's are too close to the conservatives and have lost sight of what they believe in. Also, Nick Clegg's clear frustration when delivering the news will not please a lot of conservative MP's. If this year's mayoral elections are anything to go by and the Liberal democrats continue to be seen as incompetent, the 2015 general election may be a torrid one for Mr. Clegg and his party.