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. 

Cameron ponders how to spend his hard earned money...

An image i made relating to the news that Cameron's main focus is cutting the food and drink bill of MP's. Some funny and relevant quotes around this are below:

"dodging the tough questions... the Liberal Democrats have proposed not renewing Trident. David Cameron wants to increase the price of salads" - Danny Alexander

“Putting up the price of beer in the House of Commons doesn't add up to an economic policy, nor to a sensible fiscal policy” - Alistair Darling

Corrigan says: Women, forget the City, go into engineering instead!

Given the findings by the EHRC yesterday, which I blogged, I find it deeply unhelpful and pessmistic for Tracy Corrigan to be writing that women "should give the City a miss". She paints the depressing picture of the City businesses, of how women are endangered species, but then says, you know what, because of that, women - just don't bother. How defeatist is that? What we need to do when we find further evidence of inequality as the report did, is promote collective action of women backed by Feminist values of equality to achieve better conditions and pay for women like men have. This is what she should be saying. By conceding to defeat, she is accepting the inequalities as though they are given, like they are natural, where as instead she should be challenging the social and historical context and basis for their presence.

What she should be saying is that we need to promote national policies that tackle childcare and paternity/maternity issues, instead of saying women should accept their 'fate'. It does little to improve confidence to mobilise the wider Feminist goal of collective action when you get women themselves speaking about the dire prospects for women in the City as a reason they shouldn't even bother to try and obtain a career in the City. The City contains some of the most cleverest people around (and some of the most stupidest), they are needed to take the fight for equality.

She, as did Ian Duncan Smith, has a traditional attitude to the family childcare, as she explains the stress and pressure one male banker suffered from, and then says:

"Young women contemplating a similar career path should know what they are in for. Their chances of pulling in the big bucks are statistically slim. If they take maternity leave, their colleagues are more likely to poach their clients than offer support. Male peers are better at pitching for big bonuses; as one respondent told the commission: [Women] "don't tend to be the ones saying, 'If you don't pay me I am going to leave', so you end up greasing the squeakiest wheel." And when women come back from maternity leave, their careers may be permanently on ice."

Well this is precisely why I am arguing for paternity and maternity laws to be equalised. Then, it would not only be women who have the option for proper time off work when having children. Furthermore, there needs to be attempts to change the attitudes of society towards women working and having children. This will not be done by simply going, forget the big time, it's a man's world!

Finally, in an attempt to push women away from the City, she recommends we take up engineering. How thoughtful.

Kennedy and Campbell most missed by public...

Good news for the Lib Dem's with a PoliticsHome poll showing that Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell are the two political heavyweights most missed by the public.

This does lead to the question of why don't more of the public vote for us when our politcal figures have a great deal of respect. But then it also leads back to the route cause of the problem - the unequal voting system. This is encouraging news for us, and shows that if only we had a more equal electoral system, we would do a lot better.

Anyway, short but sweet blog post. But this is a boost of confidence like our poll risings of late. So something to smile about.

Is Young a bid to replace Bercow?

It has to be taken into account the question of whether Sir George Young's appointment to take over Alan Duncan, where he will have an immediate effect on the expenses rules and the like, is a bid to unseat Bercow in the long run. We all know the stories around the Tories dislike of Bercow and how more than half of their core supporters would rather support UKIP's Nigel Farage than vote for Bercow.

Sir George Young was the Tories preferred candidate to replace the previous Speaker, Michael Martin. Maybe the Tories want to off seat some of Bercow's role and have their preferred candidate more kindly placed to influence discussion around expenses. Or maybe they want him to get more used to this type of political discussion ready for when they try and replace Bercow?

Stating why he didn't do it sooner, Cameron said that he had to give himself time to think about it, which again is interesting, as makes a stronger case for Young being a strategic decision.

This is purely speculation, but it is interesting to consider how much this had an effect on the decision.

Will the Lib Dems lead the way?...

I have argued the case for dropping Trident all together for quite some time now. I don't know why the Lib Dem's want to have a cheaper alternative when it goes against our vision of a fairer and safer society. Anyway, I hope that the ComRes poll today, which showed how 58% of the public want to scrap the Trident scheme will provide them with a bit more confidence so they can be the first to say, you know what, we don't need an alternative, it is economically and morally corrupt - just forget it all together and start thinking about nuclear disarmament..

It would be nice to think that this would happen. I mean, we are talking about efficiency and what should be cut to 'aspirations'. We should also look at polices that should be forgotten all together, and Trident and it's alternatives is one of them. It is a waste of money, and does little to help us achieve the goal of a more sustainable and fairer society. It's all about power, but someone needs to take a bold step and lead nuclear disarmament.

This is the Lib Dem's chance to shine and show the public that we are first in leading the debate around Trident. However, we need to highlight as well as the economic issues, the important moral issues wrapped up in it too, as these are easily forgotten, even by our party.

Funny NHS Hannan picture...

I have to post this picture that I found on the Tory Fail blog. I found it really funny, so here goes:

In support of Darrell Goodliffe for Middleton...

I just wanted to write a quick blog about Darrell Goodliffe being selected to represent the Liberal Democrats in Middleton in Leeds. It wont be easy, as there will be a big fight against the BNP, but as I have said, the only way we can beat the BNP is through hard thought out politics, and Darrell is more than capable of doing that.

Anyways, hope you can have a look at his new blog about the campaign.

Good luck:)

My view on the BNP/Question Time situation...

I know it might be a bit late, but I want to state my view about the news that BNP will be asked to take part with other parties on Question Time. I think that it is right that this step has been made, as if the political system recognises them as a political party, despite their obvious immoral and racist policies, then we have to treat them in the same way we treat other political parties. Therefore, they should be allowed onto programmes such as Question Time as other minority parties are, such as the Greens and UKIP. It is also worth nothing that UKIP's policies themselves are questionably racist too.

After all, the only way that we are going to beat the BNP is through politics. A testament to this is how they were able to win the seats in the European Elections. They are too able to play the anti establishment card, and thus go underground acting as an alternative protest vote to the traditional political systems. If we, and by we, I mean the respectable parties, could show them up for who they really are on a programme such as Question Time, it would help the public become more aware of their racist attitudes. The BNP play the "we are not racist" too often, and one only has to look at their membership criteria that only allows white Caucasians to join, to see how endemically racist they are.

Whilst I understand the controversy this will cause, as the BNP is a party fuelled with hatred and division, I have to agree with Question Time and I am pleased the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and now Labour will share a platform with them. It is worrying that MP's such as Alan Johnson wont stand against BNP, as this still gives them something to play with and work in the whole we are the protest against this undemocratic system rubbish. The political parties need to show a united front against the BNP and show them up for what they really are, a fascist and racist party.

The EHRC paint a depressing picture of the true nature of gender inequality in the City...

Well I think you might have guessed that I would comment on the Equality and Human Rights Commission's report into the 'shocking' state of the gender pay gap in the City. The findings highlight the inequality that women face even when they are doing the same jobs as men, with the same level of pressure - in fact, most likely more pressure seen, as they are the ones who are most likely to be stigmatised if they leave their children in childcare, for example. 


Findings include:

• 39% difference between men and women's average salaries (47% including bonuses, overtime and performance related pay)
• Women receive a fifth of male's bonuses (average - women £2,875 compared to male's £14,554)
• 95% of employers have at least one category or grade of job with a significant gender pay gap
• Only 1 in 4 firms who were included in the survey have commissioned an audit to find if they have a gender pay gap or not
• There were some companies who had good gender equality promoting practices, which need to be made exemplars of good practice

The EHRC are right to highlight the discriminating attitudes towards women from the start of the recruitment process, that leads to fewer women entering the top professions. There is also the impact of childcare, hence, why I repeatedly argue for a national childcare programme and equal paternity/maternity leave. It will be interesting to properly study the future Equality Bill to see what the full-scale proposals are to tackle the immoral gender pay gap. 

Despite the revelations around Trevor Phillips of late, i have to say that i personally like him. His column in the Telegraph today around the findings shows how he is deeply connected to the issues of equality. However, as I have argued in the past, the EHRC would function better if it were split up into separate organisations to focus specifically on the wide range of discrimination there is. This is something that Phillips and Harman themselves recognise needs changing. Phillips highlights what I attempted to do around the controversy of what Harman said in her time as stand-in PM. Whilst she expressed her concerns of the under representation and inequality women faced in a harsh way, the points she made were proper and need serious acknowledgment. But often, as i stated, the comments were made into crude sexist jokes around how women looked. 

However, despite these findings, Emma Clark seems adamant that there is no glass-ceiling really, it is the women's fault for not giving up their childcare responsibilities and pursuing a career in the big time. She claims that actually the City overall offers good polices for childcare, that allow women to work their way to the top. Has she just completely ignored what the findings show? The report showed how women from older ages are under-represented, arguably because of childcare commitments meaning their career progress has been stunted. To be honest, there are a few companies who do offer good childcare polices, but there are still the national polices of childcare and paternity/maternity leave that need to be sorted out. Furthermore, she forgets about the stigmatisation that is placed on women who give up childcare for a career, and that can be too much pressure and cultural disatification for someone to take. I agree women need to be more committed to careers in the City and the like, but this can only be achieved by proper national policies and changes.  

But despite all this, the chairman of the British Bankers' Association, Angela Knight said:

“I don’t think we should leap to assumptions that everything is wrong and there is sex discrimination. There may well be issues that need to be addressed. Let’s look through these when we’ve seen the reasons we have got some of the discrepancies.”

Is this just another report pointing to the same old engrained discrimination, or will this help lead to the fundamental changes that need to take place in order to achieve greater sex and gender equality? 

Smith helps show what the Tories really are...

The whole tone of Iain Duncan Smith's article around the supposed 'dysfunctional' underclass is wrong and shows him up for what he is: a classical hard nosed Tory. As I have said before, the underclass as a concept is flawed and unsupported. Once again the Tories take an extreme example of horrific, immoral criminal behaviour, by two Doncaster brothers, aged 10 and 11, and say that this is a typical practice that occurs around the country, in our 'broken society'. This is simply not true, and to make out that there are millions of children out there doing the things those boys did, and things that people such as Karen Matthews did, is wrong, and misleading. But hey, that is what the Tories do. They exaggerate things like this to try and make a claim for popularism support, blaming the individuals for their problems instead of looking at the structural problems in society. I am not taking a complete structural focus, but you have to take this into account.

'Dysfunctional', 'breed' and 'maladjusted' are just some of the patronising and downgrading words that Smith uses when addressing his concerns around the so called 'underclass'. His article also displays his traditional family values that are common amongst traditional Tories (well most Tories, but at least the traditional ones admit it!). He consistently talks about the mother being the one who should look after the children. He makes out that it is the mother who is responsible for the dysfunction. Well what about the father then? This links to structural changes, we need to have better childcare policies, better paternity leave, to help families with bringing up kids. Simply stigmatising them as evil beings who just breed and breed is so wrong and illogical.

His concentration on the brain and how that influences people's behaviour is again telling of the Tories links to eugenics and arguments such as Survival of the Fittest. A clear quote that demonstrates this, and his sexist traditional attitudes is:

"At the top of the list is the need for the child to receive unconditional love, empathy and nurture from a parent. It is essential that a mother plays with and talks to the baby, as its brain slowly begins to imitate all that it sees and hears. Reading to the baby also stimulates its capacity to communicate."

What about the father then? It isn't just about love either. Structural factors play a part. Structural changes need to take place to help with the baby's development. It is quite worrying what Smith is saying, given that he is the chairman of the Centre for Social Justice, which informs Tory policies. He complains that people are not doing anything to stop this happening but what polices are the Tories really proposing, except stigmatising. The few policies they do offer attack civil rights showing how clearly their rhetoric of freedom conflicts with their immoral and controlling attitude towards families and relationships. Their policies do not tackle the structural inequalities in society. Smith is prime example of the Tories backwards attitudes that will become clearer when they get into power.

Money, money, money, it's a bankers' world...

Sociology Lens has an interesting post today regarding Georg Simmel and his view of how money shapes interactions and social relations such as subordination and domination, in a rational and objective way. He states the importance of money, in how it forms the central aspect of the nexus of social life. He is known for influencing George Ritzer who replaced Simmel's money analysis with credit cards and stated how their introduction in the 50s has lead to an increasingly depersonalised and rational society, drawing on Weber's view of rationalisation. Simmel's views around the way and how money is exchanged in society provides us with useful insights into the values of society and social relations, relates clearly to the G20 discussions that have taken place today, as do Ritzer's - who helps show how important credit has become in the consumer society we live in today.

There have been protesters at the G20 summits holding up placards calling on governments to "stop letting money rule the world". Simmel's analysis of the importance of money resonates with these protesters claims. The way society views money and the way that money objectively shapes relations of power etc. is increasingnly being shown by the discussions being held in meetings such as G20, to be one of greed and inequality. Even though France and Germany have rightly backed down on their wish to cut back on fiscal stimuli, the G20 have managed to persuade these two closely tied countries to back down on their proposals to cap bonuses. Britain has therefore won on both accounts, however, it does help show how the value of money in society is one of great significance, and that there is a decreasing lack of morality around the way money is divided up. With the onset of surplus credit, we are seeing greater levels of debt. As I wrote the other day, it is interesting to take note of the depressing reactions to the decrease of personal debt, as high levels of debt are seen as the cornerstone of capitalism success.

I have stated before my view that there needs to be a cap on bonuses. There is a minimum wage so why can't there be a maximum wage? As I stated yesterday, there have been ongoing discussions for over a year now on how to make sure the scale of the economic crisis we have just witnessed does not return again. Well, I am afraid the situation has actually got worse. We are not getting tough enough with the bankers. For example, how is it right for the government to claim that signing on bonuses, such as Brian Hartzer the new head of RBS retail branch (70% state owned) received £1,000,000 worth of shares for agreeing to work there, are OK. And if that is not enough, he can continue to get more shares if he works for them for the next 2 years. This contradicts the message that the government wishes to promote with the G20 of tackling the non performance related bonuses. As 70% share holders, it is nonsense for Darling to claim that the government cannot do anything.

What the G20 shows us is that money is an ever increasing objective determiner of who has the power in society. The conflicts amongst the countries continue to also display the disarray in actually helping tackle the problems with bonuses and regulation, as things continue to look the same as they always have: corrupt.

Bonuses, banking, regulation blah blah blah...

How many times over the last year have you heard Aliastar Darling say a variation of this?:

"Fundamentally I want a much more rigorous regulatory regime"

Well he said this on the 23rd of September 2008:

"It is clearer than ever that markets can't do this on their own. Nor can individual governments. In the past it was sufficient to ensure effective domestic regulation. That's not enough today. It's not a question of light-touch regulation against heavy-handed regulation. It's about effective regulation."

How about this on the 8th of July 2008:

"a regulatory solution at European level is now necessary"

What is telling is his gradual declining attack on bonuses and his pressing to concentrate on the importance of the totality of the regulatry system. As today he said when justifying his difference to France's and Germany's desire for a cap on bonuses, and the need to modify the bonus culture:

  "it’s not just bonuses, bonuses are just a part of it"

This seems different to his attitude towards bonuses a year ago. He still recognises the need for reform, but with public anger seemingly displacing, he has assumed a different position to our neighbours, whilst also calling for us to be united to tackle the regulatory system in the increasing globalised world. It is telling to consider a comment on the 16th of February 2008 which highlights how his position has changed regarding banks from one that looked as though it would lead to reform, to one where the issue of bonuses is being increasingly swept under the carpet, probably in a last minute attempt to attract middle England:

"People get fed up if they see others getting great big bonuses and they can’t actually see what they did. It can be extremely frustrating." 

What this shows is again that Labour play up to popularism concerns. They weren't ever going to tackle the bonus culture. They are going to leave it as it is. But what is the problem of curving bonuses? I mean, there is a minimum wage, how about a maximum wage? And I wouldn't stop short of just bankers - footballers, film stars and the likes get well too much for what they do in comparison to people who risk their life to help people, such as fire fighters and police. It only seems a minute ago, there were talks around Darling actually wanting to bring in legislative powers to tackle the bonus culture. But now, according to him, legalisation in terms of bonuses is unworkable and bonuses are not really the issue, other things involved in regulation are now more important. Well if we go back to his sound bites a year ago, you wouldn't think that would be his new position. Or actually, you probably would, given that Labour are as principled as the Tories. 

All this is just talk, talk and more talk. It's infuriating. We are back at square one. Actually, we have regressed. I don't know what else can happen for the government and politics to open their eyes to the need for regulatory reform. The chance has ebbed. And there will most likely be another crash, and it will be telling to see if the same out jargon about regulatory reform will return. The Tories wont reform the regulatory system that much, just move people around to new quangos and confuse the system even more. The system is a mess, and the endless blah blah blahing that happens by people such as Darling is a testament to this. 

Equality and the Liberal Democrats...

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."

The quote that forms the focus of our Liberal Democrat cards resonated when I heard someone ask what the differences are between Lib Dem and Labour values. I would have answered equality. Equality is central to our party's principles, whilst Labour claim to promote equality, we all know that many of the social divisions in society have become extensively worse. 'Libby' the bird of freedom that laments our cards is also a symbol of the equality that is central to our vision of a progressive society. However, a central theme to this blog that I wish to take is that, whilst equality is important to our party, there is a dis-juncture between our principle of equality and the practice of equality. To illustrate this point, I will take the policies we are advocating for women, education and the environment.

Women

We all know about the recent 'Real Women' campaign that lays down clearly policies that will help achieve greater equality between men and women. There are important policies that will attempt to tackle the gender pay gap, which is an engrained inequality in society and shows how little progress has been made since the 1970 Equal Pay Act. Ideas for promoting equality in terms of image ideals, where men are never really pressured to the extent women are around what they should look like, what they should wear form a key part of the policy document. There are no real expectations for men formed by the media and industries (e.g pornography), as there are for women. Furthermore, the childcare polices such as providing paternity/maternity leave equality, also helps tackle the unequal divisions there are for men and women. This shows how even an inequality for men, aka paternity leave, is an inequality for women, as women are the most likely to sacrifice a career to look after the kids due to societal pressures and the like.

This shows how the Liberal Democrat's ideas for tackling the divisions amongst women and men are about promoting equality. However, we have to consider the practical implications. Something that has turned into a bit of a controversy of late, is my dislike in Lembit Opik and the way he talks about women. This is a key example of how even though in principle we stand for better rights and more equality for women, in practice, what people such as Opik do is undermine this claim, and make us out to be like everyone else. How can we be seen as promoting equality for women with Opik writing degrading comments about women in a degrading newspaper towards women?

Education

This is something we have promoted as a cornerstone of our equality vision, but again a key example of the dis-juncture within our party's goals and actions. A key policy example within this umbrella framework would be that of tuition fees. This is something that as a party we have rightly used to show how we promote equality in education for the mass not the few. However, our recent apparent downgrading of tuition fees to being mere 'ambitions' by the leadership seems to have shown how we are not always true to this goal in practice. There is little point in having pupil premiums helping disadvantaged kids at school, if they are just going to end up with a massive lump of debt when they are older anyway. How is that promoting equality? We need to make sure that central policies such as that are maintained to make sure that our equality vision is not lost from the public's consciousness.

Environment

I have addressed our failure of maintaining principles of equality in terms of the environment before, with Trident. I find it slightly odd that as the environment is seen as a central plank in our vision of a better and more equal future, that we have failed to capitalise on the economic crisis in the sense of promoting our green vision with a great deal of momentum. We have failed to advocate our underlying view that Trident is wrong morally, for example. It is wrong to think that Trident would help us achieve our goal of an equal society. Simply focusing on the economic reasons for and against the scheme as we have done has failed to allow us get across our message of equality. Instead, we have fallen back on the green debate. This shows that our goal and one that many hope to achieve in politics that of equality between economic and environmental growth is not being met in practice. I wrote a blog post recently addressing how the whole political spectrum have failed to really get to grips on this vision of economic and environmental growth, and that commission after commission is failing to mobilise our political elite into doing anything to tackle the true scale of environmental problems.

Whilst I do believe we are the party with the strongest claim to equality, we are not without faults. There needs to be more concentration on the implementation of our equality vision, to narrow the gap between principles and practice.

The City is the talk of the town...

With talks yesterday by EU finance ministers leading to a France-German consensus to end the bonus culture, there has been a great deal of discussion in the news today about Britain's (Darling's) different take on bonuses, and the relative importance of the City's size. There is also the G20 this weekend, where Brown will hope to persuade France and Germany to keep on supporting the high level of fiscal stimulus we have at the moment. However, with their economies doing well, there is a great deal of worry for Britain with the OECD predicting we will face the worst recovery amongst other leading economies . Osborne has also sided with Germany and France, calling for the fiscal stimulus to be cut. There is however, a worry in this. We have to make sure that we do not reduce the help we give to the economy too soon, as we may well end up with a W shape recession.

The 'back to business' returning attitude in the City is another strong factor that could lead us to having a W shape recession. Anatole Kaletsky wrote an interesting article around the size of the City, which I however,  disagree with. He lists a host of jobs such as cleaners and taxi drivers that relate to the financial sector, and moans about everyone complaining about it being too big. However, I can spot an immediate flaw to his argument. He is defining the financial sector in what many people call too big in too wider terms. Many of the jobs he listed are included within the service sector. The part of the sector most people are annoyed with are the banking and big companies aspects.

I find it a slightly odd argument that to be successful the City has to be big. What about efficiency? What about splitting up the investment and retail banks so that they are not 'too big to fail'? This shows that the City would be successful, and most likely more successful due to efficiency if it was scaled down. In respect to his remarks around Germany, I have to add that their economy is the largest in Europe, and so to make out that a financial tax would not matter as much to them as it would to us is a tad illogical.

Once again the argument of freely available debt is seen in a positive light as he claims that this has meant:

"The growth of Britain’s financial sector may have widened income inequalities but that does not mean it has made British society more unequal."

What a load of rubbish. People do not actually own this money, how can that help lower the inequalities in society? It may in face value, but when you look deeper, inequalities are widening by the day. The economic crisis highlighted strongly how there is a group of elites at the top who control the production, but even if they mess up they will still get that big fat bonus, anyway. The quote above is totally illogical, as is the article.

I agree with Adrian Hamilton's concerns that there is too much focus on curbing bonuses, and that this will not solve everything - as it wont. However, I disagree with how he argues this, as he makes out that bonuses are not involved in the structural changes that would need to take place to allow for change. The most likely reason that many of the more technical problems within the banking sector has not been openly discussed, is precisely because they are technical. It is popularism to only talk of the bonus reform, however, just because it is popularism does not mean it does not need to be implemented. Of cause it does. But so much needs to be changed in the banking and City, but I am increasingly feeling that as with issues such as the environment, there are endless commissions and G20 meetings talking about what needs to be done and who wants what, but in the end of it, nothing will be done anyway. After all, the Labour and Tory leaderships are not principled enough to stick their neck on the line to help tackle the banking problems. Well in the Tories case, it is nothing to do with principles, purely ideological.

More discussions around the financial sector and banking shows how really there has not been much progress in terms of the much needed reform. We have the big bonuses returning, and there has not been the much needed separation of casino and retail banks. Sadly, it all looks like a farse. Little learnt and little done.

School selection rhetoric...

In a very well thought out article, Melissa Benn talks about a key issue I have discussed several times before, that being divisive education institutions that foster selectivity. There are still certain grammar schools in certain counties that still use the 11 plus, such as Lincolnshire. Furthermore, independent schools model their entry requirement exams on the 11 plus. Therefore, the 11 plus still fosters the selective attitudes that the public schooling sector has, which breaded like a rabbit when the tripartite system was introduced. What Benn rightly argues for is for the parties to stop just talking about how selective schooling is, and how it needs to be tackled, and actually do something about it.

She rightly mostly questions the Tories ability to keep to their rhetoric on the problems of selective schools and the virtues of diverse and representative schooling. Michael Gove is a key example of his anti grammar schools rhetoric but pro grammar school practice. The Tories have a long history with grammar schools that will be hard to abandon if they attempt to tackle the divides that grammar schools cause.

I agree with her calls to end grammar schools and switch to a wholly comprehnsive schooling system for the public sector. I also don't agree with the elitism that private schooling fosters, but this post is wholly addressing the public sector. She highlights a campaign called Comprehensive Future, which is trying to abolish the selective aspects to our public schooling by changing grammar schools to comprehensive schools. This would be the only way that we could get politicians properly thinking about comprehensive schools, and ways that the system could be improved so that we help those who are less privileged and are either put off or live to far away to apply for grammar schools.

Stigmatising children at 11 if they fail their 11 plus is disgraceful. There needs to be an end to this selective rubbish that is illogical in a seemingly diverse and representative society. However, the Tories, we know, are too concerned with their Swedish based schooling systems to really give thought to how they would overcome the problems around selection. So there is little chance that the concerns of many about the schooling system will be addressed in the near future.

A fall in personal debt is not a bad thing!

I really don't understand why a fall in consumer debt has been attributed as a bad thing. Well I do. It is because we live in a consumer driven society that believes success is managed by how much people spend. But we need to step back and really think what has happened. People are starting to get more control over their debt. At least ordinary people, if banks aren't going to, have realised that they need to be more careful with their budgets, and that the time of constant spending is well and truly over.

McFall in response to the news that personal debt has fallen for the first time since records began in 1993, down to £1.457 trillion, said:

“People naturally feel under pressure, they want to feel a little bit safe, there is a natural tendency there.”

Why is he making this out to be a bad thing? I really don't get it. What's good for individuals to have excessive access to credit that isn't actually theirs? This is precisely the reason that we got into the economic mess. The attitudes of spend spend spend has become so engrained in people and our society that the way we now measure the success of the markets is by how much debt people are in. Absolutely insane. We wouldn't say a business was doing well if it was in a lot of debt, quite the opposite in fact. So why is it any different for individuals?

This type of response to a reduction of consumer debt actually shows that we are far from moving on from the type of consumer driven attitudes and culture that lead to the economic crisis. I personally, would want people to see the reduction as a good thing for the economy, and good news for the hope that we may move away from the "what I buy is what I am" attitude.