Margret Thatcher: An obituary

in

An octogenarian head of state has passed away, a former leader of a major economy who has divided opinion the world over, loved and hated, who instigated sweeping reforms and polarised a nation. Judging from recent headlines most people would expect the above to have been written about Nelson Mandela but in fact it was announced today that Margaret Thatcher has died of a stroke aged 87.

Divisive is the polite word the left leaning press and bloggers will use to describe Thatcher in an attempt to not speak ill of the dead. She was a leader who divided public opinion every step of the way. In recent years her request to have a state funeral became another contentious issue as the nation was once again divided over their opinion of Margaret Thatcher*. Throughout her life she sought conflict over consensus and drove deep permanent divides into the national psyche.

Right that’s the polite divisive bit out of the way…

Margaret Thatcher eviscerated this country’s manufacturing industry out of ideological zeal and a religious devotion to the free market. The resulting economy fallout devastated small towns that depended on manufacturing industry or coal mining. Some of these areas took years to recover (Liverpool’s dock yards is a good example) and some will never recover from their slide into urban decay after being forgotten about by successive generations of political leaders.

She passed laws deliberately designed to curtail the political power of her opponents, namely the trade union movement. Today’s trade unions are a shadow of their former selves and lack the influence not only to improve conditions but even to protect the rights workers already have which are bring eroded. In the 1980s she was content with making three million people who were unlikely to vote for her unemployed, something which would have been considered an economic disaster by previous Tory or Labour governments.

Thatcher expounded the idea that we would be better off if we all looked ourselves and the degree to which this idea has been taken on by the population is one of the reason we remain such a deeply divided and unequal society. Her government behaved appallingly to Ireland, attempted to levy taxes which fell disproportionately on the poor and passed laws forbidden teachers from telling students that homosexuality is natural. The swing away from manufacturing and towards financial industries lead and the aggressively corporate culture her policies encouraged lead to the financial crash and the banking crisis.

Thatcher’s greatest accomplishment (apart from becoming a one word political exclamation, an hour she shares with Tony Blair) is how she fundamentally changed British politics. Her emphasis of the free market over the state is now a universally accepted political truth. Thatcher successfully dragged the entire political spectrum to right, at least on economic issues, and her influence has been felt as profoundly on the Labour party as the Tories.

Labour leaders from the 1980s to today have accepted Thatcherite principals to a degree. In his statement following her death, Tony Blair commented that “some of the changes she made in Britain were, in certain respects at least, retained by the 1997 Labour Government” (full statement can be found here). The current Labour leader Ed Miliband summed her legacy up most effectively by writing “she will be remembered as a unique figure. She reshaped the politics of a whole generation” (same source as above). I find it hard to imagine Tory party leaders speaking so highly of recently departed icons of the left. In fact when I think of the death of Labour party leaders from the 1980s and how the right responded I think of this disgusting Daily Mail piece.

Thatcher won three electoral victories and led the country for 12 years. In that time she permanently redefined the political and economic landscape the Great Britain. By the time she was ousted by her own party in November 1990, the trade unions had been diminished, manufacturing industry was one the way out, financial services and tertiary industries were on the rise, nationalised industries were privatised and Nash’s enlightened self-interest was the prevailing view in both the private and public sector. In short the Britain of the early 1990s was entirely changed from that of 1979 and no one person has had such a singular impact on the country as Margaret Thatcher has.

Describing Thatcher as divisive is more than just a polite way to say that she is very unpopular in certain circles (or parts of the country) and that a lot people strongly disagree with her values and policies. Someone’s opinion on Thatcher cuts to the heart of where you stand in British politics. We have seen leftist leaders saying that they disagreed with her but respect who she was, which some would argue reflects how centrist the leftwing establishment has become in the post-Thatcher years. Her biggest champions are the leaders of the economic right; her biggest critics are the darlings of the old left (Ken Livingston described her as clinically insane in an interview with the New Statesmen magazine before 2012 London Mayoral elections).

Personally I feel her views on the merits of self-interest, especially the infamous ‘no such thing as society’ comment, are the most despicable of political opinions. I cannot disagree enough with this view and feel that society has been made a colder, darker and less compassionate place by the ruthless pursuit of money which her polices endorsed. It is because of the values she inspired that it is always acceptable to disregard human well-being when doing business. The worst excesses of private business from the banking crisis to third world sweat shops are legitimised by governments who refuse to involve themselves in market and by individuals who argue for enlightened self-interest. All of which Thatcher was an icon for.

I began by saying Thatcher was divisive, as is anything written about her. Most people’s response to this article will have already been determined before they started reading as their opinion on Thatcher is fixed deep within their political ideology. At the time of her death, we remain a deeply divided nation. Divided by class, region, wealth and how we response to the death of someone who will continue to cast a very long shadow over British politics.

*Contrary to her request she is receiving a ceremonial funeral with military honours, the level below a state funeral)

Hugo Chavez: An obituary

in

In 2008, I was standing between a garage and a storage bin in the DUBO area of New York, talking to a Venezuelan woman about her animation business. As I was on another continent and unlikely to ever see this woman again, I decided to ask her what could have been an awkward question: What did she think of Hugo Chavez as president? The woman, whose company was based in New York and Caracas, thought about this for a while before commenting that given the choice most Venezuelans would opt for Western liberal democracy, but given South American's history with dictators, they knew they were better off than a lot of other people.

This response is typical of the way the left view Chavez. To some, he was a hero of the people, nationalising oil reserves, standing up to America and reforming society for the benefit of the poorest and most disenfranchised. To others, he was the embodiment of overbearing authority, intolerant of criticism, restricting civil liberties and harbouring foreign criminals. Regardless of where you stand on the history of Venezuela under Chavez, most people have to admit (at least grudgingly) that Venezuelan was probably better off with him than without him.

Hugo Chavez was President of Venezuela for nearly 14 years and, in that time, survived international pressure to remove him, attempted coups and won four successive elections. He also changed the constitution to allow himself to keep running for successive terms of office. Chavez nationalised Venezuela’s oil industry and played a difficult game, balancing American and Chinese oil interests against each other so that he never become too indebted to either side. He invested money in education and improving the lives of the poorest members of society, amongst whom he was hugely popular. He founded workers co-operatives and implemented a program of land reform. He also once sent a judge to prison for being lenient in sentencing a political dissident.

Chavez was born in Sabaneta in 1954, and grew up to join the army. In 1992, he attempted to lead a military coup, which was unsuccessful and landed him in prison. Two years later, he founded the social democratic political party and was first elected president in 1998. During his time in office, he had to contend with numerous democratic and undemocratic attempts to remove him from power. Chavez also cultivated friendships with Fidel Castro and Ken Livingstone, with the latter he arranged a competitive petroleum export contract which allowed the then Mayor of London to prevent transport costs from rising.

Amongst those on the left, where Chavez really divides opinions is whether he is among the last of an old breed of authoritarian socialist dictators, who have faded away in the first part of the 21st Century, or the blueprint for a new type of popular socialism, rooted in alleviating poverty and traditional leftist polices. It is a testament to Chavez’s massive popularity that he was able to be as authoritarian as he was - in most other countries in the world he would have required a stronger grasp to hold onto power, or would have been voted out of office. But Chavez’s appeal was always to the poorest members of Venezuelan society, who saw real improvements in living conditions.

Chavez’s thinking was sound: nationalisation, workers’ co-operatives, wealth redistribution, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, public education, and all the other things we on the left want to see in our governments. Where he fell down was in his implementation. Venezuelan’s infrastructure suffers from chronic lack of investment, industry is underdeveloped and the country still heavily relies on its finite oil reserves. Chavez implemented a lot of important reforms but failed to build a modern prosperous socialist society. The real testament to his legacy will be whether the next election brings in someone of similar values or the complete opposite.

The eyes of the world will be watching very closely to see what happens next. Unlike North Korea where succession was guaranteed, the possible outcomes in Venezuela are much more varied. Doubtless opinions of Chavez’s legacy will be divided - what will be important is whether future generations of Venezuelans look back on the Chavez years and decide that they probably were better off with him than without him.

 

Reaching to the Converted: Creating safe spaces and activism

in , ,

Everyone knows I am a lefty and a bit of an old-Labour type, and as such I enjoy a bit of Billy Bragg every now and then. A lot of my student days were passed to the sounds of the Bard of Barking, especially Brewing Up With Billy Bragg. It was the time in my life where I discovered the most about my musical and political opinions and Billy Bragg spanned them both. Other artists were important, from Phill Ochs to Anti-Flagg, but among my friends Billy Bragg way always the favourite. Not just the political songs, although To Have And To Have Not is a stirring tune, my favourite songs were Levi Stubb’s Tears and From A Vauxhall Velox.

Like any good fan, I saw him in concert. The first time was on the night when Boris Johnson was originally elected mayor of London and the tide started to turn in favour of the Conservatives. Throughout the evening Billy Bragg had kind words of encouragement and hope. He reassured us that all was not lost and that a better world could be won through action locally and nationally. It was exactly what we needed to hear. At times he was emotional and at times logical about the state of the left today. As well as a concert and a political talk, the man gave us hope and solidarity. I would urge any lefty to go and see Billy Bragg in concert as what he has to say today is as relevant as it was in 1984 when Brewing Up was first released.

But therein lies a problem. I said I would urge any lefty to go and see Billy Bragg in concert. I doubt there was anyone in the audience who was not already sympathetic to the values Billy Bragg stands for. There might have been a few music journalists or fans of the singer-songwriter genre there who were not lefties, but by and large I think everyone there broadly identified as left wing either then or at that time or at some point in their lives. No one’s opinion was changed that night. No one started to support left wing principles who did not believe in those principles already. Some people who were armchair lefties might have been galvanised into action, but no sweeping changes in views were made.

This is a problem with the left in general. A lot of events organised with the best intentions end up preaching to the choir. Arguments beautifully laid out and thoughtfully composed fall on the ears of those who already agree with what is being passionately argued for. The support base is not expanding through readings at a Marxist book group. The masses are not being converted through a night of protest music attended only by fans of protest music.

Billy Bragg’s message did reach a wider audience when he was more popular in the 1980s. It is slightly unfair to focus solely on Billy Bragg as it is difficult to stay consistently popular for such a long time as well as staying relevant and keeping to the ideals one originally set out with. Billy Bragg has balanced all this very well but the underlying point remains that there is a strong tendency on the left to preach to the converted.

Events such as the aforementioned night of protest music do not convert the undecided to the cause. They create a safe space for likeminded individuals to express themselves in the knowledge that they are among their peers. Bold expressions of left wing values can be met with ridicule in the public sphere and it is important to create spaces where people can be themselves. The same is true of gay or trans-gender events which also create a safe refuge for those in a minority against the harshness of the outside world. This work is very important but it should not be confused with activism.

Activism is something different. It involves talking to people who may not necessary agree with everything you have to say. It involves going out and finding these people to engage with. Not in an aggressive way but it does involve stepping outside of your comfort zone. Activism is a painful and at times boring process which takes up a lot of time, produces little visible results and receives little praise. At times it is even met with brutal repression and the costs can be dear. All this is less than appealing to a lot people and so there is a tendency not to want to leave the safe space or worse, to rebrand the safe space as activism. Gathering a lot of likeminded people together in one location who all generally agree with each other can look a lot like activism but that can be misleading. Unless there is an engagement with the opposite opinion or the establishment then an event or piece of art is not activism.

Organising safe spaces for likeminded people to express themselves is important. It is the necessary flip side to activism. Where activism breaks down resolve due to the slow pace of progress, the safe space steps in to remind people what we are fighting for and why our work is important - however creating a safe space must not be confused with activism.

Different causes require different mixes of safe spaces to activism. LFBT causes require more safe spaces to be established because the harsher responses society has to identifying as gay compared to identifying as broadly left wing. Similarly traditional left wing causes would benefit from more activism and less of an emphasis on safe spaces because of the privilege most white, middle class, straight lefties have. From a traditional left wing point of view more direction action would be better for two reasons, firstly to counter the general culture of self-congratulation around organising events which only create safe spaces. Secondly to break down the bubble that some lefties live in where they believe everyone agrees with their values.

I left the Billy Bragg concert with a renewed sense of purpose which the best safe spaces bring to activists. It encouraged me to keep fighting the good fight and not to lose faith through lack of success or the election of Boris Johnson. This is something I clung to even when Boris was elected a second time.

Reaching to the Converted is an album Billy Bragg released in 1999 and it is my preferred expression to describe the left wing tendency to create safe spaces which at its worse can be preaching to the choir masquerading as genuine activism. Safe spaces have an important part to play in being a modern lefty but let us not forget the need for direct action to defend left wing values and to grow the movement.

The left and the EU

in

“Vote for us and we’ll give you an in/out EU referendum.” This was the message David Cameron was sending to the euro-skeptic wing of the Tory party during his recent speech on Britain’s role in the EU. Many have characterised this move as a desperate attempt to win back support from the right wing of his party, currently being seduced by UKIP. The fact of the matter is that the wheels have started turning in a process which may eventually bring Britain out of the EU, something the euro-skeptics have wanted for years.

How should those of us on the left respond to this - beyond a knee-jerk dismissal of any idea put forward by a Tory government? The country as a whole remains deeply divided on the issue of Europe. Many people want out. Still more want a change in the relationship between Westminster and Brussels. The right seem to have made up their minds on Europe but the left remain deeply divided on this crucial issue.

Of course there are plenty of pro-EU lefties. A lot of us see the European Parliament as to the left of our own and see EU laws as important protections against aggressive neo-liberalism. Restrictions on working hours prevent British firms from forcing employees to work twelve-hour days at minimum wage, which they would certainly do if possible. All of this was recently underlined by TUC leader Frances O'Grady when she claimed that the Tories’ EU policy would erode workers’ rights. There are also a lot us on the left who value our relationship with our European neighbours and believe that British culture has become enriched by the flow of migration across Europe that the EU allows.

However some lefties are certainly very much against the EU. Some are suspicious of its origins as a free trade agreement. It has been labeled as a “capitalist club”, an organisation that seeks to make life easier for multinational corporations. The EU has also been blamed for the decline in the British manufacturing industry as more firms relocate to Eastern Europe where wage costs are much lower.

Economics aside, there is also a tendency amongst some members of the left (usually from the working class left, but by no means always) to want to protect British culture. These are the lefties who want restrictions on immigration, a viewpoint that is extremely divisive on the left, as illustrated by the reaction to Maurice Glasman and Blue Labour. It also worth noting that the right-leaning Blue Labour also want to withdraw from the EU.

Strangely enough the debate on the EU was not always framed the way it is now. In the 1980s, it was the left who opposed membership to the European Economic Community as it was then and the right who supported it. Granted, back then it was much more a business agreement aimed at growing the economies of Europe and less of social venture. A key strand of the Labour party’s 1983 election manifesto was Britain’s withdrawal from the EEC. This manifesto, dubbed “the longest suicide note in history”, has long since stood as an example of Labour at its most left wing. Many euro-skeptic Labour supporters see the policy of leaving the EU as a descendent from the old Labour policy of leaving the EEC.

The Labour party’s relationship with Europe has come to be seen by many as emblematic of how the party has changed for the worst since the early 1980s, especially under Blair. There are lefties who believe that the Labour Party has turned its back on its roots of protecting the indigenous working class from exploitation and fighting for socialism, in favour of supporting immigration, European integration and liberalism. These supporters seek a return to working class old-Labour values - although they are by no means all working class themselves.

Clearly the Labour party has turned its back on socialism in favour of liberalism but the rest of the point I do not concede. However, significant working class social conservative support has moved from Labour to the Tories (and in some cases the BNP) since the early 1980s, partly due to the left’s response to the issues of immigration and the EU. There are many who argue that a return to working class old-Labour values can bring back some of the support Labour lost under Blair and Brown.

This leaves the Labour party in a quandary. The country is divided on the EU, as is the party. There is no clear route to popularity and electoral success and neither is there a clear ideological line to follow. This partly explains why Labour’s response to Cameron’s pledge has been decidedly lackluster. The Labour Party does not want to be caught on the wrong side of the debate and choosing either side would alienate a large pool of potential votes.

There is no escaping the fact that the country and the left remain deeply divided on this key issue which is coming to define modern politics. There are good arguments either way from a left wing point of view but I must reject the argument that the EU is against the best interests of the working class and that the left has turned their back on the poor. EU labour laws mentioned above are a clear example of how the EU protects against the exploitation of the poor and the working class. This is especially true now that the power of the trade unions has been diminished so much. In the 21st Century, the definition of the poor and the working class needs to be expanded to include immigrants (from the EU and otherwise) who are typically the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. It is for the benefit of all poor people that the left should fight, and I feel that the EU is a key part of this fight as it allows us to rise above the opposition of our domestic Conservative government.

It is clear that the EU is changing in the wake of the sovereign debt crisis. Becoming more integrated socially and fiscally seems to be the desired course of action. Britain needs to know whether we support this process and how to shape and develop its implementation, or whether we want nothing to do with it. During the course of the debate to come on EU membership the left needs to find a clear point of view to support ideologically and politically. We need to do better than giving people simply what they want, as this might not be the best course of action. As lefties we need to stop being divided on the issue of the EU and clearly stand for something.

Leveson and the left: confusion and anger


What next for journalists after the Leveson report? This was the question being debated last Thursday evening by SohoSkeptics when they hosted a discussion on the Leveson report into media ethics. The panel featured distinguished left wing writers and journalists. It was hosted by Helen Lewis, deputy editor of the New Statesman magazine, and also included the Observer’s Nick Cohen and the Guardian’s Suzanne Moore on the anti-Leveson side. The pro-Leveson side was made up of Dr Natalie Fenton, Professor of Media and Communications at Goldsmith’s University and Dr Evan Harris, former Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford and prominent member of the Hacked Off campaign.

My own view on the Leveson report, one which is popular among the left leaning people I know, is that Leveson should be used as a stick to beat the right wing newspapers with - especially those owned by Murdoch. At the same time we must protect Private Eye’s freedom to expose the dirty secrets of prominent members of the government. What I found most interesting about Thursday night’s debate was the reaction of the audience to the arguments being made and what that told me about the left’s reaction to Leveson in general.

A left wing panel usually means a left wing audience, especially at a meeting of a skeptics group. At one point a member of the panel asked if there were any Conservatives in the audience and one solitary man raised his voice from the gallery.

As I listened to the debate and the audience’s reaction it became apparent that this group of lefties had different ideas to mine. The first indication of this came from the big cheer that Moore received despite making thoughtless comments about transgender people in a recent Guardian article. Complaints were made about this on Twitter and she refused to apologise. The situation exploded when Julie Burchill at the Observer wrote a defence of Moore which contained language widely dubbed as hate speech. With this controversy on my mind and this being a left wing audience I had expected booing and heckling when Moore appeared, so cheers and applause came as something of a surprise.

Clearly this audience’s supported what Moore later described as ‘complete freedom of expression’, which she painted as the enemy of Leveson. Personally I want to emphasise the responsibilities associated with the right to freedom of speech. Namely not writing hate speech.

Some have sought to frame the debate around the Leveson inquiry into one of free speech against totalitarian press restriction and that was definitely on the audience’s mind. At one point I overheard one member of a group sitting behind me say 'it is a debate between freedom and not freedom', and although ineloquent this summed up the concerns of many present.

During the intermission I listened to what people around me were saying and aside from the general support for press freedom I also detected a distinct anti-regulation, support for small business sentiment. There was a distinct feeling that Leveson would make life more difficult for smaller news organisations and start-ups, perhaps playing into the hands of the established news providers and Murdoch.

I had started very much in favour of press regulation, mainly as a means to diminish the power of the right-wing press. By the end I felt very differently after hearing the passionate arguments from the panel, especially from Cohen.

I did not find myself completely agreeing with the anti-Leveson side. I felt that Cohen was naive in suggesting that print media would vanish completely. It is likely that the large newspapers will become major brands in the online news market. Any flaws in the ethics or practices of print journalists will be carried over as the newspapers move increasingly online and online news start-ups will look to the large players to see what standard of ethics is acceptable.

I also felt that Moore was wrong to defend unrestricted freedom of expression, especially when she comes from a position of cisgendered privilege. I agree that press freedom is important but she has a responsibility as a figure with a national platform. She made good points about the lack of working class journalists but it is wrong to use her social class as an excuse to defend attacks on other disadvantaged groups. It was also wrong of her to imply that she was the victim of those opposed to free speech. This is the same defence used by Peter Hitchens and Frankie Boyle when they say something hateful. They use freedom of speech to attack the idea of political correctness but political correctness is part of the mechanism which protects the weak from the strong in society. Moore has responsibilities which comes from having a position of privilege and having a position of importance at a national newspaper. It is wrong for straight, white, able-bodied men to use free speech as an excuse for unexamined privilege and it is wrong for Moore to use it as well.

I left the Soho Skeptics meeting feeling that my knowledge had expanded but that I had more questions than answers. This reflected what I heard from the audience and what the left feels in general. There was outrage at what the right leaning tabloids had done, about the lives they had ruined, the laws they had broken and the shame they had brought on journalists. There was no consensus on how to progress. State regulation and statuary underpinning appeared to be an unpopular course of action but it was naïve to assume that if nothing was done the problems would resolve themselves. Clearly the culture of tabloid papers needs to be addressed, as self-regulation by newspapers has not worked. However, no method was clear to achieve this without threatening the essential freedoms on which good journalism relies.

I left unable to reach any important conclusions, I only had more questions. Where do we go from here? How do we change the tide in our favour? For now the main comforting fact about the Leveson debate and the audience’s reaction was that at least we are all asking the right questions.



They are winning

in

This is a new year and we all need to work harder. The economy is faltering and, although employment is expected to grow this year, millions will still be left jobless. Inflation may have fallen back, but there has been little growth in wages and many are still trapped in poverty. Essential government services and health care are still being chipped away at by the Tory party and their coalition partners. Now is not the time to be complacent. Now is the time for action.

All of the above is true but another more painful truth dawned on me recently. This is that the right is winning. They sit in government, they dominate our press and business community, their views form the basis of our political dialogue. In short, they are winning.

Many people believe that benefits are too high and that the unemployed are undeserving of help. Many feel that the NHS is wasteful and needs the incentives of private business to become efficient. It is often said that the government is too large and needs to be reined in, and that public sector spending is bad for the economy and should be cut. The subtle language of this is that the debt should be brought down regardless of whose backs the government’s cheque books are balanced on.

A lot of people who do not consider themselves to be political, or who consider themselves to have centrist opinions, actually use right wing rhetoric. This can be seen plainly in the debate of Britain’s continual membership of the EU. The right has walked into the dominant position in this debate because the left have let them.

The prevalence of right wing opinions does not simply extend to the economy. Many people believe that immigration is bad and is destroying our way of life, that political correctness is oppressive to our culture, that women deserve to be raped because of how they dress or behave, that the disabled are nothing but scroungers, and that the legalization of gay marriage would somehow undermine the millions of straight marriages across the country.

A lot of the dominance of right wing opinions comes from spinelessness of our left wing leadership. In the words of journalist Laurie Penny, “the Labour party still cannot find its ideology with both hands”. The TUC seems unable to find a means by which to oppose the government’s austerity program beyond politely marching from A to B, which will be completely ignored. Other left wing leaders stay silent in the face of right wing rhetoric from fear of being labelled as either Socialists or unrealistic dreamers.

I am not afraid of either of these labels. In fact, I wear them with pride. I do not think it is unreasonable to dream that we can be better off and live in a more equal society – and if the word for this is Socialist, then pass me the red flag. Now is not the time to be silently left leaning. Now is the time to be loud, angry and visible. Now is the time to tell the right that they cannot write off whole sections of society and that they cannot spread brutish ignorance and prejudice because it suits their political agenda.

There is hope. People are still willing to march and take demonstrations to knew heights. UK Uncut have performed high profile demonstrations that have hit tax-dodging businesses where it really hurts, in their wallets. Ordinary people have turned out huge numbers to oppose EDL marches across the country and successfully drowned out the racist street movement. People still scream in the streets and on the internet about how unjust a society we are becoming – have a read of this passionate argument for protecting the dignity of the disabled. The Everyday Sexism project publicly catalogues the abuse women face on a daily basis so that it cannot be ignored.

The right have always been good at dividing us, but together, with our heads held high and hope in our hearts, we are stronger than they are. The belief that we are all deserving, that we should all be equal and entitled to a decent standard of living, will win out over the idea of coldly tipping of the scales of society in the favour of the rich and privileged.

This is why I am redoubling my efforts this year and retasking my blog to focus more specifically on the left as a movement and what we can do to become stronger, better organised and more visible. I shall celebrate our successes and lament in our failures, but always remain watchful of the needs of a movement as diverse as ours.

We have to be better. We have to start winning. I am become very frightened of what we are becoming as a society – less sympathetic, less tolerant, less equal. The right might intend to drag us into a dark world where your birth determines your lot in life. Where being a rich, white, straight man is glorious and those people look down on others who are unlucky enough to be anything else. A world where money is the only thing that matters and society is bent to serve those who have wealth.

They are winning and we are slowly falling into darkness. But together we can change all of this, and it starts today.

The plight of the people of Western Sahara

in

Head over to a map of the world. Look for Egypt, that’s easy to find. Then look to your left. Assuming your map fits the usual specification, you will reach the western edge of North Africa. On the other side of the Mediterranean from Spain you will find Morocco. South of Morocco and north of Mauritania, there is an independent country of Western Sahara. This country is hardly known in global affairs, but it is not an independent country.

Western Sahara is the world's most sparsely populated country, being mostly dessert. It has a population of five hundred thousand people. Originally a colony of Spain, who withdrew from the country in 1975, the state of Western Sahara has been in dispute ever since. After Spain left, a war was fought between Western Sahara’s two neighbours, Mauritania and Morocco, which ended in 1979 when Morocco annexed most of Western Sahara. An independence movement, the Polisario Front, started a guerrilla war, seeking to establish an independent country known as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or SADR. This ended with a UN monitored cease-fire in 1991. Since then Western Sahara has been divided between the Polisario Front controlled SADR, which occupies around a quarter of the territory, and Morocco.

Morocco controls the majority of the country, including the population centres and natural resources. Both Morocco and the SADR are seeking international recognition for their claim to Western Sahara. Both have lined up support from across the world, but the territory remains disputed. Western Sahara is the largest and most populated territory on the United Nation’s list of Non-Self-GoverningTerritories and it exists in a legal grey area between being a disputed territory and a non-decolonized country or an occupied nation.

The location of Western Sahara in North Africa. Map from Wikipedia

Attempts to organise a referendum to decide Western Sahara’s future have been indefinitely stalled. The legal (and military) disputes that surround Western Sahara are varied and complex, with a host of countries and meta-national organisations (the Arab League, the African Union, etc) endorsing the different claims to the country. I suggest anyone with an interest in disputed territories and military occupations should look into the case of Western Sahara, as it is frequently overshadowed by events in Palestine.

So why is there less public outcry against what has happened in Western Sahara? Why do Palestine and Tibet get all the attention? It is difficult to say. All of the above and other situations around the world are clearly important places were citizens live without an ability to determine their own future. A lot of attention is drawn to the Middle East and China, partly because we in the west are complicit in the violations which take place in these countries through the trade agreements we have with their oppressors. This is especially true with Israel, as the UK and the US selling arms to the Israeli Defence Forces which are used against the Palestinians.

Also these other conflict areas are relatively well-populated. There is an estimated nine million Palestinians in the world, where as there are less than half a million Western Saharans. In the case of Palestine, many millions of people were displaced by Israeli occupation and have become refugees. Some of these have moved to the west where they have set up pressure groups highlighting the problems of those left behind in the occupied territory. In the case of Tibet, there is the Dalai Lama, an internationally-recognised figure, campaigning for freedom from occupation. However, more recently even the Dalai Lama has campaigned more for recognition of Tibet within China rather than independence. There are relatively fewer Western Saharans and less of them in western countries drawing attention to events in North Africa. When Africa is in the news more recently it has been in relation to uprisings connected to the Arab Spring, which did not spill over into an uprising in Western Sahara against Morocco.

Other disputed territories around the world attract more attention than Western Sahara, but it is important to remember that we in the west are just as complicit in the repression there. Morocco is enjoying a tourist boom currently, and the money we spend there funds the military which keeps Western Sahara under Moroccan control. Western Sahara may not be the world’s most high profile trouble spot, but is the largest disputed territory in the world and has the largest disputed population. Next time you are looking at a map do not take it for granted that a border is a sign of an independent country.

Do you know who Xi Jinping is?

in ,

I have been asking people this question and a lot of people do not know the answer. We will return to that shortly.

The world watched with rapped attention a fortnight ago as Barrack Obama won a historical second term in the White House. The global news schedules were drowning in coverage of the campaign and the Election Day itself. I personally stayed up until 5:30 in the morning to see the results. It was an event of global significance, a race the outcome of which would affect the lives of billions if not everyone on the planet. However while this was going on, the leadership of another country was also being decided, an event that could perhaps be equally as important.

The Chinese Communist party (the world’s largest political organisation, with more members than there are people in the United Kingdom) recently changed the membership of its politburo standing committee, the countries highest decision making body. Once every 10 years at the Chinese Communist party conference, China’s leadership steps down and new leaders are appointed. These leaders come from the 25 member politburo and its higher body, the seven person standing committee. The General Secretary of the Communist Party of China as well as other leadership figures are chosen from the standing committee. All of this is conducted in secret, with the conference ending with the new leadership being shown to the party.

The makeup of the standing committee and China’s new leadership are decisions with the same global signification as the race for the White House. China is the world’s second largest economy and it is predicted that during the new leadership’s term of office China will become the world’s largest economy. China also holds the majority of the world's debt as well as being a key export market for the growth starved west and a major financial centre. They have the world’s largest army, an expanding space program and now aircraft carriers and stealth fighters. In less than a decade the members of standing committee may become the most powerful people in the world. My question concerning all this is, why has there been a lot less media coverage of the events leading up the anointment of the new Chinese leadership?

There has been coverage, with articles on BBC website and in other new sources but I have not seen one piece on the Chinese Communist party conference grace the front page of a British national newspaper or appear as the top story on a news broadcast, as the American election did. The change of power in China is just as important as the change of power in America, perhaps more important as the new leader has a much greater ability to effect change in his country than Barrack Obama does in America. This is where I answer the above question, Xi Jinping is the new General Sectary of the Chinese Communist Party and is very likely to be the next president of China. So why is there less coverage of the method by which he came to power? Why are we not globally weighing up the pros and cones of perspective Chinese leaders, examining Xi Jinping's qualities as a leader and considering what his vision of China might look like?

The main reason is that people in the west simply are not interested, which is not only a shame but a dangerous way of thinking. We prefer to focus on our own politics, believing them to be most important events in the world, whilst dismissing events elsewhere as less than important. It is foolish to ignore the changes that are happening in China. By all accounts Xi Jinping’s forthcoming appointment to the presidency is a victory for China’s more conservative factions. He has close ties to the military and is the son of a past powerful figure and party elder. He is certainly not a reformer, but he does have a more global prospective than previous leaders. We should be concerned about our future and the power that China will hold over it, and we should be more concerned about the people directing this power and the means by which they are appointed.

Another reason why western media is not as interested in the change in Chinese leadership is that the key events happen in secret. The standing committee and a shadowy group of party elders decide in secret on the next generation of leaders and who will be appointed to the most senior positions. This process does not lend itself to the extensive coverage, which news sources use to attract large amounts of views and readers. The results are also a forgone conclusion. It had been known for a while that Xi Jinping would be the next General Secretary and that Li Keqiang would be his deputy. It is almost certain they will be given the most senior positions in the Chinese government, the presidency and premiership. Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang and others had been elevated to positions of power by outgoing president Hu Jintao, a man who favored loyalty above all else.

Chinese leadership elections are not as exciting as their American counter part, they lack scandal, uncertain results and a dramatic conclusions. News vendors may not be that interested but that does not mean the events are not globally significant. We may not be that cornered about the changes in Chinese leadership but as a nation we should be.

Xi Jinping will lead China for ten years during which China and the whole world will face serious challenges in terms of the economy and the environment China also faces many internal challenges, in rooting out corruption  finding its place among the other global powers, maintaining its growth rate and balancing political freedoms with the Communist state. Xi Jinping is not a man much is known about in the west but his character may come to define the next decade of global events.

In the west we need to stop thinking of ourselves as the main stage or the only stage as we increasingly become a side show. We need to pay more attention to events in China and Chinese politics as our economic recovery will depend upon it. Xi Jinping and the other new members of standing committee step into the spot light as Obama secures himself a second term in power but Xi Jinping will be leading China long after Obama has left the White House. Us in the west should pay as much attention to events in China as we do to America as they profoundly effect our world. Xi Jinping should be a name that is on everyone's in the west's minds.

The American Election: A Victory for Perspective

in

Having perspective about how people live in other countries is not something Americans are typically given credit for. In fact, they are known throughout the world for looking inwards, caring much more about domestic issues than international ones. This is true for most countries in the world, but American politics affects the entire world. The American economy drives the western world, their foreign policy defines who are our allies and who are our adversaries. It seems unfair that a decision of global importance, such who should lead America, can be decided by trivialities of domestic politics. In 2000 a few voters in Florida decided the trajectory of global politics. Had they voted a differently, the war in Iraq could have been averted.

If every person who was affected by the outcome of the American Presidential election was able to vote in it, the outcome could be very different. This is true of a number of countries. In China, even the country’s own citizens cannot decide their leadership and the decision is made in secret by a few people. Both leaderships have an enormous effect on the entire human race; the American decision is much more democratic, but both are made without considering the effect the outcome has on those outside the country.

As with most general elections, the recent US Presidential contest has been mainly fought over the incumbent’s economic record. Other issues were prevalent – foreign policy, social issues – but, as with most general elections, it comes down to the matter of which side the voters trust to handle the economy. After the credit crunch and the global recession, which began under George W. Bush, the American economy has stalled. Recovery has been slow and growth is lacklustre. Even after Obama was elected President in 2008, prosperity has not returned to America.

In the years since the credit crunch, America has not fared the best or the worst among OECD countries. When Obama took office in 2009, GDP was shrinking at 3.5% per annum. By the time of the election, growth had risen to 1.7% (all statistics are from Google’s public data). During the same period, unemployment has remained roughly constant at 7.8% (despite peaking at 10% in October 2009). Compare this to the UK, where growth is currently at 0.65% and unemployment at 7.9%. The same story of barely positive growth is true across most western economies. America is actually faring better than most but the prosperity of the late 1990s and early 2000s has not returned.

The question posed to American voters was whether they would be better off with Mitt Romney and the Republicans in charge. A growth rate of 1.7% leaves room for improvement, but it is certainly better than we are experiencing in the UK and better than a recession.

On Tuesday, American voters opted to stay with Obama and voted in favour of current economic policy. It was felt that the stimulus introduced by Obama in February 2009 had been effective, and that the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors had prevented mass unemployment, which could have driven the country back into a recession. This vote in favour of the current administration’s economic policy is a reflection that Americans are aware that they are financially better off with Obama and better off than comparable countries.

Left learning social-democratic parties are generally out of power across Europe. Centre-right governments dominate and the fiscal agenda is austerity. In the UK, severe cuts to government spending have been enforced since the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition came to power in 2010. These cuts have killed off the green shoots of recovery and briefly pushed the UK economy back into recession. Looking at the British economy’s recent performance it is hardly a ringing endorsement of austerity and privatization. Americans recognise they are better off with Obama’s stimulus and steps to prevent mass unemployment than they would be with European-style austerity.

Usually Americans do not have a good deal of perspective, especially about how fortunate they are compared to other countries. However, in the case of the recent elections, it is clear that although Obama’s record on the economy is not stunning, Americans consider that they are better off with him than with the alternative. If anything, this week’s election result is a victory for perspective.

Page 3 reveals the ingrained sexism in our society

in

"It's a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell," or so said Wilbur F. Storey of the goals of the Chicago Times in 1861. Most British newspapers do not fit this romantic fantasy of plucky reporters digging up facts, uncovering corruption and exposing the wrong doings of those in power. Newspapers are a product as much as anything else and one that exists in a very competitive market place. Beyond this they are part of our public psyche and form a key part of how we view the world. Most of us still get our news from newspapers, it may be in the form of articles published online, or downloaded onto smart phones but still newspapers are powerful players in the news market. They decide what is news or not news but deeper than that they decide what is normal or not normal.

When headlines denouncing 'Booze Britain' and the dangers of binge drinking were splashed across front pages, they reinforced the idea that most people drink excessively on a regular basis. Through the foggy lens of journalism we look at ourselves as a nation and we find out how we behave and what our hopes and fears are - mainly our fears. When newspapers are outraged at politician’s expenses or light penalties for sex offenders, so are we as a nation. As such it follows that when newspapers are casually sexist, we become a bit more casually sexist as a nation.

Sexism is rife in newspapers - especially tabloids. Women are constantly assaulted for being ugly, fat, having too much power, crying wolf in rape accusations, not breast feeding their children enough, having bad taste in clothes, for speaking out of line, for breast feeding their children too much, causing cancer and making house prices fall.

However, one aspect of all the misogynistic rubbish printed in tabloid papers stands out above the rest: The Sun's Page 3. Since 1969 The Sun (Britain's most popular and least trusted newspapers) has printed a picture of a glamour model on its third page. Initially clothed and later topless, these photographs show a misogynistic image of women as young, good looking, sexually available and silent.

Recently an online petition on the website change.org, No More Page 3, has sought the removal of Page 3 from the Sun. At the time of posting this campaign has picked up 46 thousand signatures, as well as press coverage in The Guardian, The New Statesman and on News Night. Social media is buzzing with the very real possibility that this No More Page 3 could be a success. The campaign is well managed, has picked up support from several public figures, including MPs and is targeting The Sun's advertisers such as Lego, Tesco and Sainsbury’s in an attempt to put added pressure on the tabloid. This campaign has attracted criticism from those who go out of their way to defend casual sexism. Unsurprising as this is, I wanted to take a moment to address a few of the misconceptions shaping the arguments in favour of Page 3.

The first strand of criticism mainly comes from a position of middle-class broadsheet superiority. Some argue that Page 3 does not really matter, as the Sun is not a newspaper but a news comic. It is difficult to argue that the Sun is not taken seriously as a newspaper. Certainly it's the main source of news for the 13.6 million people who pay to read it every week. Its power to affect the opinions and actions of the general public was evidenced in the infamous 1992 election day front page, which allowed John Major to narrowly secure a majority. The Sun is clearly a newspaper and what it prints – both news and otherwise – clearly has an effect on its readership.

The problems caused by Page 3 go beyond those who read the Sun, as any newspaper so widely read sets a standard. Page 3 is often the largest picture of a woman in the newspaper. Those other images of women in The Sun are used to shame women for their failings in either being ugly, overweight or having an opinion differ from The Sun's right wing agenda. Page 3 sets a standard of how women are treated, i.e. either ogled or mocked.

The campaign simply seeks the abolition of Page 3 and invites people to support for it for their own personal reasons. People of many different ideological backgrounds have signed the petition. My own objection to Page 3 does not come from any perceived negative psychological damage caused by looking at naked women. Nor does it stem from a puritan desire to cover up women’s flesh. It comes from a desire to liberate women from the casual sexism in our society that Page 3 epitomises. I feel my goals are very much in line with petition’s creator who has demonstrated a desire to bring society to a place where casual sexism of the Page 3 variety is no longer acceptable.

Reading a daily paper is a very normal, very British thing to do and putting casual sexism in a daily paper clocks the misogyny in normality. It reinforces the idea that a sexist attitude to women is the normal way of behaving. It also fixes in the general psyche the view that women exist only to appear sexually desirable to men and when they do not fit into this neat bracket they are worthless. This the normality of of female objectification and the views it support hold back women across the world from gender equality. The campaign wishes to end the normality of female objectification in part through abolishing Page 3 and the way it normalises sexist attitudes.

Another argument used in favour of Page 3 is that it is a harmless hangover from a bygone area, much like Benny Hill or Naughty Nuns postcards. In some ways this is true. Page 3 is from the past, it would not be started today; it would be considered crass and sexist - which it is. The fact that Page 3 would not be started today indicates that it does not reflect the values of our modern society. It is worthy of note that the Daily Mirror used to have Page 3 photographs but stopped the practice in the 1980s because it was seen as demeaning to women.

Some wish to protect Page 3 because they naively yearn for a mostly fictional past age that was free from political correctness. An age where sexism was rife, traditional gender roles were strongly enforced, and any deviation was met with social exclusion. Although most people who look back to the past with fondness will acknowledge that it was sexist, they argue that sexism has been abolished from our modern society. To them, Page 3 is a harmless relic of the past to be preserved so that we do not lose all contact with tradition.

This argument holds little weight as sexism has clearly not been abolished from our society. In place of Benny Hill, Family Guy is making weekly rape jokes. Women have made social and economic progress since the 1970s but the playing field is still not level. Women are poorly represented among heads of state or chief executives of large companies. Where women have risen they have had to endure the ridicule and low esteem in which they are held. This is mainly a result of the institutionalised sexism that Page 3 normalises.

Page 3 reveals how deeply ingrained sexism is in our society. The fact that some wish to defend it is sexist in itself. It shows there is still work to be done in rooting it out misogyny. So long as Page 3 continues the objectification of women will be normal and natural. This in turn maintains the uneven playing field on which women compete for jobs and political power. In the past individual's racist behaviour went unchallenged because broader racist attitudes in society appeared normal. As the idea of racism being the normal state was challenged it allowed individual's be challenged for their racist behaviour. The same is true for sexist. The standard bearers for sexism need to be brought down before sexism can be challenged on an individual level. In the battle for gender equality Page 3 is Tank, ploughing its way across the field, shielding sexism from oncoming fire with the armour of normality.

Page 3 is complexly unacceptable in today's modern news market place and I cannot imagine the writing of Woodward and Bernstein next to the image of a topless woman. Tabloid newspapers use their power to create a culture that publicly shames women. The above example of the public outcry against binge drinking is a perfect example of this as the criticism falls more heavily on women who drink excessively than men. This sexist tabloid culture cannot be stopped until Page 3 and other examples of ingrained sexism are abolished. When the Chicago Times were doing their duty in printing the news and raising hell, I doubt they thought the quality of their work would be increased by daily images of topless women.

Could Boris Johnson be Prime Minister?

in , ,

“LOL Boris for PM!!!1!” tweeted one articulate person during the London Mayor's speech after the Olympic Games. The famously mop-headed Tory politician had declared a parade in honor of Team GB's medalists, and closed this event with a speech which many believe was setting him up for a bid for the Conservative Party leadership and ultimately Number 10. Pundits claim that he took credit for the games and that the success of the London 2012 Olympics reflects well on Boris Johnson. His visibility during the games and his savvy courting of the international media has propelled him to a new level of recognition which can only work in his favor should he decided to make a play for power. The idea of Boris as Prime Minister might not be a joke for too much longer - not the least because he out-danced Cameron's awkward shuffle during the game's closing ceremony.

Boris Johnson, or B-Jo to some, has always managed to use his status as Britain's most high profile joke to forward his career. His popularity lies in his appeal to people who are either not interested in politics or who believe all politicians to be grey suits, only marginally more interesting than accountants. He clearly believes himself to be the second most powerful person in the country, with eyes to take his unique brand of self-publicity to greater heights. The above quoted tweet is indicative of the fact that he appeals to people outside the main political debate.

I am yet to meet anyone who admits to voting for Boris for any position of power simply because he is funny, but the nagging suspicion that such a person is out there somewhere will not go away. Boris is the classic Cameron model of Tory, clearly a Conservative of the left of the party, a self-styled progressive and not a darling of the right-wing. His appeal to those who could make him leader is his ability to attract support from those who are unlikely to vote for traditional Tory candidates, primarily young people who the Conservatives have had little success in wooing. Rising youth unemployment under the Cameron government makes it unlikely that they will have much success among the under 25s in the 2015 election, but Boris Johnson as leader might make that more likely.

Let me lay out the case for Boris as party leader: the current economic stagnation is doing the Conservatives no favours electorally, and Cameron has a growing problem with the right of his party. He is seen as appeasing the Lib Dems too much and flip-flopping on key issues of immigration, welfare reform and – crucially – EU membership. All this could be brushed off, but Cameron cannot escape the growing feeling amongst Conservatives that the government is not right-wing enough and that this could cause the traditional Troy vote to stay home in 2015 or switch to a new party, such as UKIP. Tory strategists are concerned about the current leadership's effectiveness to mount a successful campaign for the next election, and Boris could make all the difference. He is internationally-known, watchable on TV and an effective user of modern political tools such as social-media. He appeals to the young, the politically central and the so-called “chattering classes”, what I will call the LOL B-Jo crowd. His connection with the Olympics brings positive thoughts to people's mind when musing on Boris Johnson. By contrast, David Cameron reminds everyone of government cut-backs and our own squeezed wallets. Boris also has experience of high office, and being Mayor of a city as diverse as London requires a special type of politician who appeals to different sections of society and fosters consensus. He is also of good Tory stock, Eton and Oxbridge educated, clearly a friend to wealthy and privileged, whose support the Tory party depends upon. Even his frequent gaffes come across as lovable buffoonery: Boris has turned his biggest weakness into his greatest strength.

However, there are reasons against making Boris party leader. He is clearly no more right-wing than Cameron, and thus unlikely to attract back the euro-sceptic support lost since Cameron became party leader. British politics are also very different from American politics and, although Boris considers himself to be Governor of the London (in more ways than one), being Mayor is an unlikely stepping stone to party leadership. Cameron's successor is more likely to come from a cabinet colleague, probably Osborne who occupies the traditional king-in-waiting role of Chancellor and is firmly to Cameron's right. However, the main reason against Boris becoming party leader is actually his clownish appearance. Britain longs to be taken seriously as a world power and everything about the London 2012 Games is a testament to this, but choosing a tousle-haired dandy as our leader does not project seriousness. The thought of a leader who might drop his trousers at a meeting of NATO has little appeal outside the LOL B-Jo crowd. Memories of how all of Italy was mocked for Silvio Berlusconi's gaffes are still fresh in people's mind.

The LOL B-Jo crowd may have their day: remember that in the early 1970s, the idea of Margret Thatcher as Prime Minister was laughable (remember Life on Mars?). However, Boris Johnson is clearly setting the agenda right now, with his appearance on David Letterman's The Late Show in America prompting Cameron to be a guest on the same late-night talk show. Recently, Douglas Alexander has written in the New Statesman that Labourshould take the idea of Boris as party leader seriously. B-Jo maybe the nation's favourite joke for now, but he is no fool. Boris Johnson's political foes (both inside and outside his party) would do well to take seriously the way he uses his public image to promote himself, and his appeal to people alienated by politics. No other politician better sums up the way Twitter has changed politics. It would not come as a shock to me if I were to read a tweet saying “LOL just voted for B-Jo for PM” in 2015.

Chinese democracy: is it an oxymoron?

in

More than a year after the Arab Spring began in Tunisia, its reverberations can still be felt around the world.  Civil war rages in Syria, Libya is attempting to rebuild itself, and Egypt is trying to shake off the shackles of a military dictatorship. However, one big question that remains unanswered is – will the Arab Spring turn into a Chinese summer?

The Chinese Communist regime is among the most unusual and interesting in the world. It maintains an ideological connection to Marxism and Maoism, but also presides over a labour market more deregulated than in most western countries, as well as owning some of the world’s largest private firms. It is somewhere between a socialist’s and objectivist’s dreams or their worst nightmares. Despite the government’s at times overbearing nature, it remains consistently popular with the one point three billion people it rules over, mainly due to the government’s ability to lift people out of poverty.

Chinese industrialization has been swift and effective, building high-tech industries where once there was subsistence farming. A country which once closed its doors to western technologies and goods now has a maglev network and is building 26 new airports. There are people in China today who run software firms whose parents farmed rice fields; one generation has gone from Milton’s green and pleasant fields to Silicon Valley. Many Chinese people do not want to change their government, because in their opinion they have the best government in the world: no other government has ever done so much to so drastically improve the wealth and living conditions of so many people. Poverty still remains a problem in China, especially for the millions of migrant labourers with no legal status or protection, but the wealth of the world is flowing into a country which throughout history has thought of itself as purely self-sufficient. Imagine if our parents and grandparents had been serfs on lands owned by feudal Barons, how much would we look up to the political party that brought us consumer goods.

The Chinese government has also recently relaxed its laws against political dissidence, and it is now acceptable to criticise openly state bureaucrats and regional officials if it is felt they are corrupt or ineffectual. What is firmly off the agenda is any suggestion that Communism should end or that the Chinese government should be elected democratically. For now this delicate balance works well, the government provides vast (but unevenly distributed) wealth for its people and they enjoy more social freedoms than their parents; in turn the party, politbureau and old guard remain firmly in charge and enjoy the universal support of their subjects.

Much like Enron, the entire system is kept afloat by rising stock prices and a healthy dose of aspiration, or the case of China rising absolute living standards and the slim chance of becoming a Communist billionaire. Should a recession strike China and living standards fall, then questions will be asked. The overbearing Communist regime will not be so popular when the trickle of wealth seeping down from the top dries up and suddenly over a billion people will want a say in their government. This will be especially true of the above-mentioned migrant works who currently have the least to gain under Communism.

No regime that has been in power as long as the Chinese Communist Party will quietly step aside, and it will be difficult for western powers to criticise any Chinese crack-down on pro-democracy movements whilst our business interests are so closely linked to the Communist Party. Pro-democracy rumblings in China, such as we have seen in the Middle East, will have disastrous effects on the global community. China owns most of the west’s sovereign debt (especially America’s) and a civil war in China (like the one we see in Syria) could involve more people than World War II. With what will soon be the world’s largest economy up for grabs, the stakes would be very high in a free and open Chinese election.  Multiply this by the problems Russia has had in transferring from Communism to democracy, and you have the potential for a very unstable situation with the very real possibility of grave consequences.

China is opposed to intervention in Syria, as they can hardly call for change in non-democratic regimes, especially as eventually the pro-democracy uprising will find its way to China. When living standards fall, when the impoverished people industrialization is built on the back of organise, when the distribution of colossal amounts of wealth becomes too uneven, calls for regime change will be inescapable.

Democracy will inevitably come to China, but just like the tide of pro-democratic uprisings across the Middle East, this will not necessarily result in the best outcome for the west. Democracy and the Chinese government might seem like strange bed fellows, much like the free market capitalism and state socialism of the current government’s economic policy. The Arab Spring is sill changing the political landscape of the Middle East, but it will be a mixed blessing if becomes a Chinese summer.

The benefit of space exploration

in

Last year on July the 21st NASA’s Space Shuttle programme officially came to end when Atlantis returned to Earth after completing its final voyage. Since then the US government has withdrawn from manned space flights, relying on the Russians and Chinese to ferry American astronauts to and from the international space station. Western governments are slowly abandoning space exploration and turning their attention towards more Earth-bound problems. In the age of austerity and economic stagnation, space exploration seems like a past excess we can no longer afford (along with public sector pensions and healthcare it appears). The space shuttles stand as a towering monument to the optimism of a by-gone age, when we thought the white heat of technology and Keynesian demand management could have saved us from ourselves. Many hold the same opinions of space exploration as they do of the welfare state, that it was a costly mistake fuelled by optimism and good intentions but ultimately lacking a grounding in the reality. With the space shuttles sent to museums and with no government plan in place to replace them, private companies such as Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic are vying to be the dominant powers in our upper atmosphere. Some see this as an indication of the way the western world is heading with more and more of what we thought could only be handled by the government being taken over by private companies.

While America is already being nostalgic about the days of space exploration, on the other side of the world government space programs are very much alive and well. China and India are currently engaged in a space race of their own with the former launching their Tiangong-1 space laboratory in September last year and the later aiming to be the first nation to return the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972. In these countries their space programs are a source of enormous national pride, especially as they take over the arena previously dominated by the globe’s fading powers. As the age of US, Britain and Russia ends and their space programs are discontinued and new generation of super powers are aiming not only to conquer the world but also the space above it. Even North Korea maintains its sights on the stars with an attempt earlier this year to put a satellite into lower Earth orbit. This attempt was unsuccessful but it was unprecedented in the level of access foreign media was given to the launch, indicating how confident the famously isolationist state is in their rocket scientists. In these countries space exploration is not considered to be an extravagance of an overly confident super-power but part of the global coming of age process and vital arm of both industry and government.

However, space exploration is not just for rival super powers or a way for newly emerging economies to show off. In Nigeria firms are partnering with western experts to develop a national space industry with satellites already successful launched. These industries (supported by the government) are seen as a way of training workers in important 21st century skills of computer programming, engineering and micro-electronics. The space industry also has a positive economic effect in fostering a high tech support industry that offers well-paying jobs and boosts national income. Creating a space industry is seen as a wage to develop the national infrastructure with the aim of growing the economy and lifting people out of poverty.

Western economies showing sluggish growth could learn from these countries who are investing in an advanced technological industries and enjoying strong growth. Investing in space technology for Nigeria and China is having a positive effect on people on the ground by developing industries and training workers. It would be reprehensible to let the west’s flaunted competitive advantage in high tech industries slide to other countries because we were unwilling to spend the money needed to support it. Space exploration creates growth in in all manner of industries from software design to metal casting. Through government investment in large scale projects like space travel, money will pass to the industries needed to support space exploration and from them to the industries which provide the basic components and raw materials for these high tech firms causing the economy as whole grow. Something western governments are crying out for.

In order for the industry to progress, technical innovation is necessary. The old vertical take-off model used by the space shuttle and Apollo program might have to be replaced by the more efficient horizontal take off model favoured by Virgin Galactic and other private space ventures. Also for the industry to reach its full potential corporation is needed to spread the costs and ensure that the economic benefits reach all the denizens of Earth.

The strongest argument for global co-operation in space exploration is that the space industry is unlike any other industry in the world in its unique ability to inspire people and capture their imagination. The draw of the stars is irresistible to many and space exploration has given us the world’s most frequently used image (the Earth from orbit) as well as the iconic moon landing footage. There is no greater symbol in thawing of the cold war than a Russian Cosmonaut and an American Astronaut shaking hands in orbit in 1975. Great deeds inspire people on the ground to reach further and accomplish more, it is a symbol of how far we have come as a civilisation since we first discovered fire and a reminder of how far we still have to go to reach the heavens.

If Nigeria and China can find the economic argument for space exploration than surely it remains relevant in the west as well. In an age of tempered ambitions and cut backs we need the symbol of stirring accomplishment to inspire us. Not to mention the economic and scientific benefits that space exploration can bring. The space shuttle was an ambitious programme, much like the New Deal’s program of public works which lifted America out of the great depression. It seems our leaders are keen to remind us that we live in a time where we can no longer afford ambition and we should fix our sights lower on what we can accomplish. No wonder disillusionment has replaced the white heat of optimism. I believe there is still an argument for space exploration just as there is still an argument for ambitious government projects whether they come in the form of the space shuttle or the welfare state.

Feminism and class consciousness

in

The world needs feminism. In the western world one in four women will be affected by sexual violence in their lifetime and in developing economies women are more likely than men to have a lower standard of living. Any efforts to improve the living conditions of the world's poorest people will only benefit 50% of these societies if greater work is not undertaken to improve gender equality. The work of feminists is essential to our continuing social progress, not just bringing genders in line with each other but also working to combat racism, homophobia and transphobia.

There is broad support for the goals of feminism but there is also a good deal of debate as to the methods through which these goals should be accomplished. Due to the low social status of women around the world there are many factors which prevent them from uniting into a powerful political movement, as generally the politically less powerful do not engage with the political establishment as they feel the have less to gain from dong so. What I have set out below is my thesis on one way in which we can move towards accomplishing the goals of the women’s movement.

People who broadly identify as feminist come from a wide variety of backgrounds and bring their own experience to the debate, not just as women but also members of other minority groups. Feminism is in itself a Universalist ideology about readdressing the balance of power between minority and majority groups. As an inclusive movement it has many crossovers with similar struggles and causes, however here in lies a challenge that faces feminists, namely in building female class consciousness. Women (and indeed feminists) typically primarily identify as belonging to a more specific socioeconomic group, rather than simply identifying as being 'a woman'. More prevalent class signifiers incorporate a combination of class, race, sexuality and sub-culture as these have a large impact on someone's identity as well as gender.

Traditionally class consciousness is viewed as the Marxist idea of the proletariat becoming aware of how they are exploited by the bourgeoisie and banding together against their oppressors. In the 21st century where the struggle against oppression has taken on many different forms I feel the concept is still valid but needs to be expanded. We need to stop thinking of class in a rigid way of factory owners and labourers and apply this model to the various different power relationships in society that can be exploitative. In this case the privilege men have over women. This is not to say a means of pitting women against men but a way to spread understanding of how women are opposed by the patriarchy.

Earlier this year, noted feminist blogger Helen Lewis wrote about the challenges facing feminism as a movement in 2012. The piece, which focused on the need to keep the feminist debate current, can be found here. Central to the article is where she asks "What is the biggest, most important single issue for feminists in 2012? What should we get angry about?" I agree with the conclusions Helen Lewis reaches and want to now add my own answer to the question which that it is important to create the idea of women as an oppressed class and to show that the same patriarchal systems which oppress poor black women in developing countries also affect rich white women in the OECD. However there can be problems in creating united class identity as there are a lot of differences between poor black women and rich white women, for example access to affordable childcare. Instances of rape and domestic violence are an example of an issue which affects women as an entire class and poor support for victims is an example of how women as an entire class are oppressed by the patriarchy.

In America, African Americans have been very successful in building a class consciousness that transcends economic background. This is partly through the emergence of an African American culture uniting the class, a culture which places emphasis on exploring how the current system oppresses African Americans and on overturning the barriers society places against members of ethnic minorities. For more details on this see, the documentary The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975.

If this example of how African American culture transcends the gender and economic divides within African Americans then it can be used by feminists to develop a women's class identity. There is already a women's culture which is as diverse as women themselves but feminists need to use this culture to openly explore how women are oppressed and what unites them together in their oppression, much in the same way African Americans have used their culture to advance their liberation. Many feminists are already doing this, so in answer to the question posed by Helen Lewis above, I would say an important challenge and opportunity is supporting the work of these feminists in creating a women's culture to unite diverse women together in a single political movement. In other words developing a united female class consciousness.

Class consciousness makes a diverse movement a more effective political force. The high level of African American class consciousness creates social pressure to tackle issues which affect African Americans such as poor funding for intercity schools and gang outreach programs. The status of Africans Americans within American society is still low but the government programs to tackle racial issues receive more funding than those designed to reduce gender equality. Programs supported by feminists such as women’s shelters or outreach programs to victims of domestic violence less finical support. Most of the hard work in these areas is performed by charities with little support from the government.

Developing the idea of 'woman' as class consciousness will help  bring political pressure on governments to address social and economic issues which affect women. However there is a problem with class  consciousness which is the homogenising effect it has on the class. In other words it creates pressure for the entire class to conform to the opinions and values of the prevalent subgroups within the class. A good example of this is seen again in African American culture where there is a lot of pressure within the class to identify as heterosexual. Class consciousness has created a hegemony of people identifying as heterosexual African Americans which makes it difficult for the oppressed class to connect with other oppressed classes in America to effect social change. For example homosexual Americans. An indication of this effect was the passing of Proposition 8 in California during the 2008 election, California being a state which also voted for Obama. Millions of African Americans went to the polls to support someone from their class but also support a law against another oppressed class because people identifying as African American also prominently identify as heterosexual.

One of the great strengths of feminism is it is a movement that can incorporate people from a variety of different oppressed classes. There are many crossovers in ideology between feminism and movements to liberate ethnic minorities, LGBT people, the poor and the disabled from the constraints that society places on them. This broad background is a great strength to the movement but also a handicap as it inhibits the emergence of a single united female movement as a class consciousness.

The development of woman as a class consciousness will create political pressure to improve the status of women the world over. This is no easy task but a good way of developing class consciousness is through the development of a feminist culture which would use the strength of the movement (its inclusiveness) to explore the problems being faced by women of different backgrounds and create a desire for political change. Hard work is already being done in this area and it is important that this work is encouraged and supported to protect the future of the movement. The world needs feminism, without it we cannot progress socially as half of society will be born into a world which restricts their freedoms.

Austerity or growth: a politician's dilemma

in

With Karolos Papoulias emerging as the new Prime Minister of Greece, the nations of the Eurozone hold their collective breaths to see what approach to the crisis the new government will take. In some ways, Merkel and friends must be breathing a deep sigh of relief at having dodged the bullet of a coalition involving the ΚΚΕ (the Communist Party of Greece) who wish to renounce austerity and and leave the Euro. After the election dust has settled, a coalition has emerged between the parliament's largest party, New Democracy, Pasok (the Socialist party) and the Democratic Left. All three parties are broadly in favour of remaining in the Euro and desiring a less radical renegotiation of the bailout. However, the new government does seek some changes to the demands placed on Greece, and this must worry Merkel and co.

Across Europe, austerity is looking less attractive to politicians, as voters turn towards parties which favor growth. In France, François Hollande defeated Nicolas Sarkozy on a platform of taxing and spending. This is a sign of how much things have changed in the two years since the last UK general election, where austerity was taken as common sense. Since then, European economies have seen little growth, and the prosperity that has been created has not helped where it is needed most. As government budget cuts force roll-backs across the services which are available, most people feel worse off under austerity. Now the Tory-led government talks about efficiency and promoting growth, realising that if the situation does not improve then re-election looks unlikely. As well as watching Greece, keen eyes are also focused on France to see if Hollande's policies of tax-spend will boost the economy faster than Merkel's austerity.

In the UK, boosting growth has support on both side of the political divide not the least because GDP must rise if tax revenue is to increase enough to meet the government's deficit reduction targets. Further stagnation in the economy will hinder growth in the long term and cause lasting structural damage. Aside from the much talked about 'lost generation' of young people locked out of jobs and the housing market through increased scarcity, social problems are becoming exacerbated through a lack of prosperity – see last summer's London riots for evidence of this. Faced with the prospect of the economy tanking, the government's austerity programme now looks a lot less like common sense and a lot more like an ideological commitment to privatization and rolling back the state. I have blogged before about the roots of the government's philosophical commitment to austerity.

If austerity is ever going to work, it will have to deliver some growth soon. In the meantime, the people of Greece are facing a fifth consecutive year of recession and world greatly appreciate some growth. The austerity conditions imposed on Greece are very harsh and surely smothering the green shoots of recovery. However, the new government has little room to maneuver, as they are reliant on the support of the rest of the Eurozone to manage the country’s enormous debt. Papoulias needs growth and austerity, but it is becoming evident that the two are mutually exclusive. Greece will be watching both France and Germany to see which economy grows the fastest. The divisions across Europe are summed up last Friday's Euro 2012 match between Germany and Greece, a contest of the prosperous against the impoverished. Germany's victory does not silence the doubts about the merits of austerity.

The leaders of Europe are in need of some answers to the question of austerity verses a bold dash for growth, and are keen to see what happens in the countries which have most openly embraced either stance. The new Greek government will have to make some difficult economic choices and the continuing existence of the Euro maybe rest on these decisions. One thing that is certain – politicians will need to embrace either harsh austerity or a strong push for growth soon, as the current stagnation is unsustainable.

The end of the high street: not with a bang but a whimper

in ,

It's easy to live in a left-wing bubble: between organic toiletries, pubs with locally-sourced food and shopping on the internet, sometimes it is easy to forget there are High Streets where a large number of people do the majority of their consuming. A few days ago, my delicate shield of ethical consumption was smashed when I spent a few hours inside the Westfield Shopping Centre near Shepherd's Bush, west London.

The phrase 'fish out of water' does not cover the experience that I went through. I assumed that Westfield employed people specifically to keep dirty lefties like me out of their palace of consumption. Much to my surprise, I was welcomed in and dazzled with the bright lights and the range of shiny baubles available for me to purchase. I had some time to waste, and decided to find a music shop to pass the time in. I briefly considered unraveling a thread from my shirt and attaching it to the door so that I could find my way back later, but then I noticed the handy maps available from an information stand. Armed with a plan of the place, and mentally comparing myself to Livingstone, I set out to explore this strange and unfamiliar land of retail.

As I walked past the juice stands and Sky TV sign up booths, two things become almost immediately apparent to me: firstly, that there were no music, DVD, books or games shops anywhere to be seen, and secondly that the shops which did make up the Westfield were almost exclusively either clothing or jewellery shops. This confused me, for surely the main point behind a large-scale retail development is to get as much diversity of shops into as small a place as possible, thus allowing consumers to satisfy all their needs at once. Apparently not, as the Westfield caters to a very small section of consumption, mainly high-end up-market deeply personal. For those who shop in the Westfield, the particular boutique they frequent is a statement about their individuality made through mass consumption, the triumph of late-stage capitalism. In short, I discovered that the Westfield is the last bastion of the high-end High Street retailers against the advancing tide of internet shopping.

Later in a gastro-pub serving organic, locally-sourced pies, I was firmly back in my element and discussing my afternoon with a friend. I said that clothes and jewellery were one of the few areas where internet shopping and has had little impact. My friend informed me that he purchases T-shirts and shoes online, to which I agreed. The internet's particular brand of culture is very suited to the T-shirt business and allows the consumer to seek out designs which speak to them. Here the internet has had success in breaking the High Street's stranglehold on fashion. I asked my friend, however, if he would consider buying trousers online and we both agreed the idea seemed somewhat perverse.

The internet has taken over from the High Street in areas where it does best: bulk selling of goods, mainly entrainment goods, where the major factors are price and range. The last time I went into HMV to purchase a DVD, a friend told me not to bother and that it would be 'cheaper online'. He did not specify a website or have any data to justify his claim, which was built on a cultural understanding that this variety of shopping is simply better on the internet.

So where does this leave the High Street, other than with pound shops and clothing outlets? Some things have to be brought in the flesh, and the time delay involved in internet shopping means some goods will always be purchased in meat-space. However, with the rise in smart phones, tablets and app stores, immediate entertainment purchases online are a reality. All that is needed is a shift in social conventions, to make the giving of online content an acceptable present, and there will be no need at all for High Street entertainment retailers.

The High Street is certainly in a bad state, and a simple Google search for 'the end of the high street' returns thousands of blog posts and broadsheet articles bemoaning the end of face-to-face retail and making lazy observations comparing the closure of Game to the rise of Angry Birds. The truth is that this is hardly a recent phenomenon. It was nearly two decades ago that Amazon's diversification into VHS selling meant that Saturday afternoons were no longer spent wandering into the city centre to buy the latest Simpsons collection. One article I read claimed that 2012 was the year the High Street would end, as if most people had only just discovered the internet. In fact, most High Street retailers discovered the internet a long time ago and have also moved into online shopping.

Most likely the current process will simply continue. Places like the Westfield will hold their own in certain sectors for a while, but eventually changes in technology and social conventions will move our lives and consumption almost entirely online. If the High Street does end, it will be slowly over many decades, and not because everyone turned exclusively to online shopping over one Christmas period. If the High Street does end, it will not be with a bang but with a whimper, and one which is already well underway.

The Hunger Games and Game Theory

in ,

I do not usually write posts about popular culture topics, so this blog will open with a first which is a SPOILERS WARNING. This article may ruin the ending of The Hunger Games if you have not seen the film or read the book yet.

With that out of the way, I can move onto the main area of discussion. One might think that The Hunger Games, which opened at cinemas nationwide on the 23rd of March, might not have much to teach the viewer about economics, but that would be a mistake. The film has some important insights into the nature of competition and game theory.

The film follows the story of Katniss Everdeen, a teenage girl who volunteers to combat 23 other juveniles in a battle to the death in order to avoid the same fate befalling her sister. She strikes up a friendship come romance come rivalry with one of her opponents who hails from the same district of the film's dystopian future as she does. Katniss has to rely on her own survival skills to make it back to her family but is also faced with difficult decisions along the way in regard to who she can trust. There can be only one winner of The Hunger Games and only one can return to their home, co-operation in this environment can only go so far.

This is very similar to game theory and I am sure that had John Forbes Nash been alive today he would have found the questions raised by this literary sensation fascinating. Nash's game theory is a study in human selfishness which attempts to find mathematical and logical optimal solutions to real world problems. His results are bleak and frequently point to the power of human greed as a means to achieve the optimal result from any situation. Nash won the Nobel Prize for economics for his efforts and his theories underpin a lot of the prevailing market ideology and government policy. I have blogged on Nash and his theories before.

In a typical game theory situation there is a trade off between cooperating with the other player(s) and behaving selfishly for personal gain. Frequently you do not know what the other player's moves are or how they affect yours until after you have made a key decision. Nash found that there is always an incentive to betray trust for personal gain as in any one moment the other player(s) is likely to be betray you if they are behaving logically according to game theory.

In The Hunger Games itself there is an incentive to cooperate with one or more opponents against further opponents. Katniss teams up with Rue during the game to great effect whereas Peeta Mellark (her rival/love interest) allies himself with the stronger and better trained players. However there is an incentive to betray trust at any point as there can only be one winner. During the course of the game Peeta switches sides to help Katniss defeat his former allies. Signs of personal weakness are rewarded with timely betrayal and several characters come to an abrupt end at the hands of their recent allies. At any moment there is an incentive to betray trust just as whoever you are allied with is likely to also be planning the moment they turn on you.

This all sounds very bleak and has led many to doubt the human virtues of cooperation and altruism but there is a positive side to game theory. More recent experiments have been based upon the idea of iterated game theory where games are not played in isolation but repeated over and over with the long term outcomes monitored. These studies have shown that there is a mathematical advantage to altruism in iterated game theory. If you cooperate in the long term, through repeated games then all parties can each gain greater results than they could have achieved through seeking personal glory.

The Hunger Games also has an argument for cooperation and altruism if you view not as a single game but a series of games Katniss repeatedly plays against a changing series of opponents. There is a clear incentive for her to cooperating with weaker plays against the players with advantages. Ultimately Katniss's victory in The Hunger Games is achieved because she works together with others and uses their competitive advantage against her opponents. She also exploits the selfish players willingness to turn on each other to thin the field. At the end of the film Katniss is able to save herself and Peeta not because of their ability to work together to achieve a common goal but because they are able to trust each other.

The Hunger Games shows that there is not only an incentive for cooperation but also for trusting others even in an single victor environment. It is a strong argument against Nash's dark view of human nature as motivated by selfishness and personal gain. In our personal lives as well in society as a whole we need to learn from Katniss example of helping the weak, harnessing the power of cooperation over selfishness and above all that we need to trust each other.

A budget to reward work?

in ,

Politicians are always looking to incentivise employment. The general means of accomplishing this is by either cutting taxes on high earners and corporations to encourage entrepreneurship or cutting benefits to get the unemployed off the dole and contributing to GDP and tax revenue. In the run up to today’s third budget of the coalition government Chancellor George Osborne claimed he was planning a “budget to reward work”, i.e. one which will benefit those already in employment and encourage the unemployed to get a job.

Now with the details of the next 12 months of government spending announced we can ask ourselves: to what do degree has he succeeded? There was some welcome news, such as raising the level at which someone in employment begins to pay income tax to £9,205 a year with the aim of raising it to £10,000 next year. Not only will this reduce the tax burden on those with the lowest incomes but all those in employment will pay less tax; the average basic rate tax payer will now be £305 a year better off. This may not sound like a lot but it will boost consumption and aid the economy. Another good idea was tax breaks for firms working in the fields of computer games, animation and high end television manufacture. These are important sectors to the UK economy where we have a competitive advantage and are vital to our growth.

However, over the last year those in employment have had their prosperity dogged by the spectre of inflation above the Bank of England’s target. Although inflation has fallen back in the last few months (currently the CPI is at 3.4%) higher inflation erodes the value of income made from working and reduces the incentive to enter work. Firms have tended to give lower than inflation pay rises recently so as inflation remains high and those in work are finding themselves worse off. Inflationary pressure is largely the result of rising fuel costs caused by the soaring price of oil and gas on the global market. A domestic fuel subsidy or measures to reduce transport costs could have reduced inflationary pressure and made the income from work more valuable. This, however, was never on the agenda.

Another consideration is where will the funds come from to pay for this tax reduction? Borrowing is projected to be £1bn lower than anticipated which has given the Chancellor room to manoeuvre. A certain amount of the slack will be taken up by the rise in stamp duty for properties over £2m and the proposed clamp down on tax avoidance. The majority of the additional revenue will be raised by an extra 37p per unit tax on cigarettes. It is worth remembering that taxes on commodities disproportionately affect low earners as they spend a higher proportion of their income on the taxed commodity. A tax break for lower earners could be a double edged sword for those who also smoke – which there is also a higher instance of among the poor.

The other main highlight of the budget was the reduction in the top income tax bracket - from 50p in the pound to 45p – aimed at encouraging entrepreneurship and investment from overseas. I have blogged about this before but investment will remain low and the rate of business start ups will be sluggish while GDP growth is lack luster. With growth in 2012 projected at a mere 0.7%, Osborne should consider a growth strategy if he wishes to stimulate investment and create a fertile environment for new businesses.

Job creation and a plan for boosting growth were not overtly stated in today’s budget. There was protection for some vital areas but others important growth sectors (such as renewable energy) were all but activity discouraged – mainly through the government’s continual commitment to non-renewable energy. Unemployment is projected to hit a peak this year at 8.7% and a clear plan for job creation is needed to protect the recovery. Unemployment and the low growth rate are the biggest problems the UK economy faces right now and the government should commit to a clear strategy for tackling these before it leads to endemic social problems. Such a plan would also send a clear signal to overseas investors and aspiring entrepreneurs that the UK is committed to economic prosperity above political goals.

Overall this is a budget lacking in ambition or a clear plan to boost the economy out of its current dire situation. There were no sweeping cuts, surprise new schemes or massive tax boondocks. Just a few tweaks to the system with the vague goal of stimulating growth and getting more people off benefits and into employment. If Osborne really wanted to create a budget that would reward work he would take measures to reduce inflation or help get more people into work. More employment and a better growth rate would benefit both those in and out of work as it would grow the economy overall. The Coalition maybe attempting to incentivise work but while the economy remains weak, their efforts will be unsuccessful.