NEW BLOG SITE!

I have changed my blog site from blogger to wordpress, so here is the new site:)


http://myliberaldemocratpoliticalramblings.wordpress.com/


It offers more options so yeah, I decided a change was needed.


Thanks

My response to the Real Women amendments (as I am sadly not going to the Conference)

I have heard of various amendments that are being tabled against the Real Women campaign, and it was today that I received an email from the Gender Balance campaign within the Liberal Democrats, expressing concerns around these proposed amendments. They are amendments Lembit Opik would be probably be proud to write about in his Daily Sport column. In seriousness, the amendments want to remove the proposals to tackle the unreal body image expectations in the media, and the 'name blanking' proposals intended to tackle discrimination at work.

Removing the promise to tackle the unrealistic expectations that are often projected in the media around women's body image, would abolish a central feature of the Real Women campaign. The Real Women campaign does exactly what it says on the tin. It is about promoting Real Women. Thus, Real Women do not constitute blown up airbrushed fake women plastered all over any medium you can find. Real Women, are women who wear and tear as everyone does, well everyone who does not seek out plastic surgery to hide the evidence. Amending this removes a central aim of the policy, which is to alleviate the pressures for women in society. Men do not have to face half as much pressure and exploitation in relation to their bodies. As I have said time and time before, men do not have to walk into newsagents to be greeted with fake half naked and naked men blown up on several magazines and newspapers. The Liberal Democrat males do not have one of their own MPs writing in a sex obsessed degrading male newspaper. Amending this proposal is removing the core feature to the campaign. It removes what I think is one if not the main reason/s for why these proposals have caught on with many women. What it does, is hit a strong chord with women who feel exposed and pressured into being something they are not, even if that something they are not, is fake.

In regard to name blanking, this is again a central feature of the campaign. It helps tackle the gender and ethnic discrimination that occurs in the workplace. It comes with the news that Labour are dropping their pledge to increase maternity leave from 9 months to a year due to cost. However, maybe, maternity leave extension being dropped is a good thing. It helps us focus more on the unequal divide between maternity and paternity leave, which the Real Women campaign seeks to challenge. I would argue that instead of increasing maternity leave from 9 months to a year, there instead needs to be a change and extension of paternity leave to equal out the books. How is it fair that we leave the paternity leave at the pathetic way it is, but then talk about extending the maternity leave? Name blanking relates to maternity and paternity discussions, as from the name you can tell if the person is a woman or a man. Obviously, if it is a woman, thoughts around childcare comes into play for the employer. Thus, if covered, then there would be a true assessment on skills and talents not childrearing. Therefore, tackling the maternity/paternity leave divide would arguably make the name blanking policy easier to carry out.

Both these proposed amendments need to be dropped, as they allow for a partial destruction of the key message of the campaign. I only wish I was going to the conference to help argue against the amendments, but instead, I will argue from my computer:) I can't wait until we move the conference away from the sea side for once, and actually target our core voters in the City's we consistently go on about controlling. Anyway, that is another blog post in its own right.

Anyway, there is a lot more I could say on these issues, and I have commented on them a great deal in previous blog posts too. These amendments are damaging for our party and the effectiveness of the campaign, and I hope they are defeated.

ISA proposals a sign that Britain isn't that Illiberal after all?

The Independent Safeguarding Authority's (ISA) proposals have come under heavy criticism today. However, I have to agree with the head of the scheme, Sir Roger Singleton, who rightly claims that with balance and rationality, the proposals will allow for a safer society for our children.

On a side note, I think it is also interesting to reflect on Martin Kettle's article and argument that Britain is illiberal and that is one of the three reasons that the Liberal Democrats will find it hard to ever gain power. To counter this, I think it is important to consider how the core route of the criticisms of the ISA scheme is coming from a civil right position. The arguments are focused on the rejections that people have for a Big Brother state. I think an interesting way to look at this, is to take the line I have in regard for Feminism. If you consider the basic Feminist arguments, which is for greater equality for women, in terms of pay, rights and so forth, then near everyone would be seen as a Feminist. The same goes for being a supporter of civil rights. People do not want to be spied on; they want to feel as though their voice matters. I think that the civil liberty line is one that our party should happily and confidently continue, as I think there is clear support for civil rights amongst many in Britain. The message just needs to be clearer. Less of the political jargon, and more of a simplistic message. Many people who are not involved in politics have civil liberty attitudes. I mean, look at how well the Pirate Party are doing. Taking the line that we are some kind of dark illiberal Britain, is like sharing Thomas Hobbes' pessimism of human nature.

However, in regard to this 'vetting system', I think the argument for civil liberties is one that needs to be made carefully. There has to be a clear attempt not to take it out of context. There is a difference between freedom and irresponsibility. If these proposals are carried out with safeguards in place, and responsibly and logically within proportional guidelines, as Singleton said...:

"It is not about interfering with the sensible arrangements which parents make with each other to take their children to schools and clubs.

It is not about subjecting a quarter of the population to intensive scrutiny of their personal lives and it is not about creating mistrust between adults and children or discouraging volunteering. 

It is about ensuring that those people who have already been dismissed by their employers for inappropriate behaviour with children do not simply up sticks and move elsewhere in the country to continue their abuse. 

And it is about bringing an end to the need for repeated CRB checks which so many people have found irritating. ISA registration is a one-off process for a single fee." 

...then I see absolutely nothing wrong with the proposals. Ed Balls is right to just make sure that there are no aspects of the proposals that abuse civil liberties, but I think that these proposals will help in the long term. They will not deter volunteers, as they do not have to pay for the checks. The only way it will deter them and others is if they have something to hide. I think there needs to be a sense of proportion with the responses to these proposals.

Whilst it helps show the concerns many people have for basic civil liberties, and highlights how we are not a total illiberal state, I think some concern has to be taken when using the civil liberty line so that it does not get misrepresented and damage the fight to promote the basic rights that everyone should have in society.

Caution is needed with the switch from universal to means tested benifits...

So are means tested benefits the way forward for Labour? In their attempt to enscapusulate their core voters, they are talking about changing some of their universal benefits to means tested benefits, such as child benefit. However, I think this needs to be done with utter caution. Yes, some of the universal benefits are not needed for those who are more wealthy in society, especially at a time of extreme public debt. Nevertheless, there are various problems that come with means tested benefits that have to be taken into account, so the situation does get better, not worse.

Firstly, means tested benefits can put people off from applying for them because of the stigmatisation. Those who are too proud to admit they need benefits may be put off, whilst those in poverty may be fed up of the labels already applied to them by society. Furthermore, people may be put off from applying because of the great deal of bureaucracy that they involve, so this is another issue that needs to be tackled. In reducing the red tape, there will be another saving that can be made too. So whilst targeting is good, they have to make sure that this targeting actually works.

Secondly, means tested benefits have to be careful to take into account all factors, before closing people who need the benefits but just fall outside of the benefit requirements. EMA is a clear example. Whilst families may be above the threshold that allows their children to qualify for educational help, it does not mean that they give their children any money to help with their studies. This is the same that can be said for University financial help. Also, what about the number of children they have? That will limit families ability to provide financial help for their children.

Thirdly, there is also the issue of the efficiency and quality of services. There are studies that show that if the benefit is only targeted at the poorer members of society, the service is more likely to be a 'poor service'.

Therefore, what this shows is that whilst the intention may be to be distributional, it is debatable whether it will help tackle the middle/working class divide whilst shoring up the public finances. Whilst I do agree some of the universal benefits need looking at and changing, we have to bare these and other factors into consideration, and make sure that the benefit system is fair.

Cameron wants to live like common people

I absolutely love this video. It is a spin off of David Cameron referring to his upper class past, and his desperate attempt to appear as though he connects with the ordinary person on the street.

The video also relates to the stories today around Cameron again saying that the election is not in the bag for the Conservatives. People have pointed to how this strongly relates to Cameron's concerns that the public don't really trust him as a person, because of his background and opportunisitc attitudes. Well how can you blame them, after all, they are right!

Anyway, enjoy the video.

Oh dear, Nick Clegg copies the Tory's rhetoric on welfare...

So it must be true. Nick Clegg appears to be a 'Cameron lite'. The Liberal Democrat members will have all received an email from Clegg today regarding our new unemployement proposals. My concerns are not about the proposals themselves (whilst I do have some resevervations), they are more about his choice of words. I have included the letter again below, highlighting the phrase that made me think, are you serious?

Dear Jane,


We cannot afford to let millions of young people get trapped on the dole. That's why today I've launched a new plan to tackle youth unemployment.


Did you know that nearly a fifth of 18 to 24-year-olds are currently unemployed? Without action now, more than 1.2 million young people could be unemployed by the end of 2011.


The Conservatives failed a whole generation in the wake of the last recession. A whole generation became trapped in a culture of dependency. Labour look set to repeat the same mistakes now. We can't let that happen.


Today I'm launching new policy that would take almost 900,000 unemployed young people off the streets.


Under our plans more than 800,000 young people will be given a leg-up into industry via paid internships. An extra 60,000 places will be funding in universities and colleges, opening up further and higher education.


We will slash the time Labour forces young people to wait for support, fully fund apprenticeships to put British industry back on track and give more youngsters places on essential back-to-work schemes.


Our proposals would cost £1.1 billion and would be paid for by scrapping the VAT cut immediately.


For more details see my website: NickClegg.com/LostGeneration


Only the Liberal Democrats will nurture the talent of young people and ensure no one is left behind.


Best regards,



As you can see from the highlighting, the phrase that really caught my attention was 'culture of dependency'. For how long has it been the party line to support this flawed and illogical right wing concept? That is a Tory concept, which I have consistently argued against in previous blog posts. What it does is make out it is only the individuals fault for their problems. It takes the attention away from the structural reasons people rely on benefits, stigmatising them for their supposed depraved values. I never thought I would hear this type of rubbish from a Lib Dem, especially our own Leader!

It is even more depressing to read this when we look at our policy framework, that has a good balance between taking into account the structure and the individual causes of social problems, such as poverty. What this does, is distort reality. I only hope that this does not become an usual sound bite and part of the party's rhetoric, as an attempt to encapsulate some of the Tory voters.

I wholly disagree with the phrase 'culture of dependency'. It is unfair, stigmatising, shown to be empirically incorrect and actually makes the social problems worse as it leads people to miss the route causes. I hope Clegg realises that this was a mistake, and that our party should not be drawn into using flawed concepts the Tory's pride themselves on.

Playgirl (and beyond): A Feminist respones to male orientated porn...

I have to firstly apologise about past posts if I did not make clear my stance on porn magazines. When I said there are no male ones, I knew some existed (did not know their names), but I meant that there are not any mainstream male porn magazines you could find in places such as your local newsagents. However, Paul Walter's comments regarding my Sexualisation of our world blog, lead to me discovering a quite interesting male porn magazine, Playgirl, which started in 1973, and was quite a popular magazine.

Before people start saying, see there are porn magazines for women in the mainstream, Playgirl stopped publishing this January/February. Furthermore, it has a rather interesting context regarding its emergence. Playgirl is a porn magazine that was set up by Feminists, as a counter response to the images and treatment of women in society, such as in Playboy (hence, Playgirl), and the over sexualised female images in porn magazines. Explaining why the Playgirl magazine existed, the then Editor in chief, Michele Zipp said:

"It's 'Entertainment for Women' because there's no other magazine out there that caters to women in the way we do, but we love our gay readers, as well."

Organised Feminist protest in the form of producing our own male porn magazine is something I have argued for in previous blogs, and little did I know that it had actually been done. Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that this was a United States published magazine.

Paul provided me with a Wikipedia link to a list of pornographic magazines for men and women. It is quite telling that there is a categorisation scheme only for the porn magazines marketed for men, as there are so many! The list shows that there are only NINE (To clarify after comments below, this does include homosexual and lesbian porn magazines*) porn magazines for women around the world in total, and only ONE porn magazine in the UK (called Filament), which has only just been launched. However, it is interesting to note that it appears to have a Feminist background too, with a column called 'Ask a Feminist', whilst also stating clearly that it does not discuss traditional women topics such as diets and cosmetics. Maybe, this will be the UK's response to the success of Playgirl. It is a shame that Playgirl had to finish really, and it sadly shows it did not fit the taste of our male dominated culture. To see the difference in numbers between the male and female porn magazines, just simply click on the link above and have a look for yourself, it says it all!

*It is important to note that there are only 2 lesbian porn magazines listed on the link, showing how lesbians themselves have less access to lesbian porn than heterosexual males, again showing strong power divides. Gay men have a wide range of access to homosexual porn too, again highlighting the male dominance in the industry. There has been the suggestion women will just buy this male orientated porn instead, but this does not address the issue that it is not catered towards women's interests. Homosexuality to me, does not subtract from the key issue of exploitation that this industry fosters, mainly towards women. Yes, men are exploited too, but not to the same extent and level women are. 

I just thought this was quite interesting to consider. Playgirl was a move I have to support, and it appears with Filament, there may be another attempt to create a Feminist response to the dominance of male orientated porn magazines in the UK.

NB: I do not support or like porn, I just think that a way we can tackle the sexualisation of our world, where women are treat like sex objects, is to beat the industry at it's own game. Thus, by producing male porn magazines and more lesbian orientated magazines, it can highlight the pressures and exposure women have to face daily.