B is for Blears' Britain

See here. And here. And find a transcript here.

Or dont bother if you prefer to apply heavy pinches of salt onto your political debate. Instead you could read this blog which has been commenting on vaguely similar things for the past couple of months...

Hazel Blears' talk has been branded as "outspoken" and "radical" by various media types. The basic issues are: Cutting down on political correctness; Promoting democratic based "equality"; Majority rule = majority control; Extremism being removed from the definition of "minority"; Creating a definitive "dividing line" between good and bad minorities; Clarity; And redefining extremism.

It's very hard to distinuish the Opposition-style manifesto rhetoric from the equality realities from the do-able measures. For instance: political correctness is causing the lines of justice to be blurred. True enough; but we all knew that anyway. And opinion of such things is subjective.

She is right though: The save the underdog approach of much liberal left thinking should indeed have its limits - but then in most educated lib-left circles it already does. We should be even more aware of the sensationalists: The people who prefer to point the finger rather than suggest an alternative. People who blindly criticise the exception provisions in HR legislation without thinking through the realities.

Overall I think what she says if good, although much of it is clearly rhetoric. She refers to Lenin's "useful idiots" (bear in mind that this works both ways). Avoidance of polar debate. Realisation of a spectrum. Avoiding an 'all for one or all for the other' attitude. A "plea for enhanced literacy" on discourse over political Islam. "Moral clarity". etc etc...

Political rhetoric it certainly is but it does carry a much needed message for the assumers and labelers who are bringing multiculture to its knees. We all knew it, now we just need our leaders in-the-know to start daring to say so.

From a political perspecive the talk was released at the same time as this. Highlighting much of the irrelevance of labours action for equality from an economic perspective. So as for Blears' Britain I'm not so sure, equality will develop according to the majority and the majority is more likely to be affected by a crunched credit system than a politician - however reasonable.

A is for ADR

As mentioned previously it has fast become clear that I'm unable to keep up with the current affairs commentary style of blawg so I have decided to steal a nice idea from Barmaid – BVC and all that. Which, in fairness is a pretty standard blogging thing anyway so I wont feel the guilt but will thank her all the same.

My A is for and Apathetic Apologist-Advocates: Ace in the Art of Ardent Augmentation.

And with that stream of Arbitrary Alliteration out of the way I’ll venture to explain. I overheard two males on the tube the other day debating the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although I’m now quite tired of the debate in general this was a fascinating example of powerful Argumentation. The point being that neither side in such a debate is absolutely correct and neither is absolutely wrong so the debate hinges around small victories and clever use of debating skills. Neither male knew that much. The Argument fast became about winning and losing; and no longer sought to calify, justify or expose viewpoints. Fact became irrelevant and were challenged with no saving evidence. Now lost in an academic debate, which the two were not prepared for, the point of the argument became hazy. The parameters had not been defined and soon the only thing each party knew they were fighting for was a specific side. The original purpose was lost. Now one party had to defend the Zionists, while the other pleaded for the Palestinians. And so a pride war emerged, a dangerous pride war over an issue that a history of diplomats have not even been able to resolve. Never had such an incendiary matter been placed between these two young gents. Voices were raised, emotions stretched: neither seemed bothered about the political issues any more. There own social politics were taking hold of their reasonable arguments turning them into sensational assertions of right and wrong. Pride was at stake. Intellectual pride: not only of their convictions but of a whole divided humanity leaving humility totally forgotten.

Soon things became clear. They had set out seeking a resolution. Now they found that to compromise would be to admit weakness; and inevitably lose. Therefore no resolution could be reached. This was an Argument, not a debate, but could it ever have been Amicable? If both parties Altruistically followed a few simple rules they would have solved their personal Arab-Israeli crisis.

I’m fortunate enough to be well informed on ADR, but I have no experience in it and would be fearful of trying to resolve a dispute which is brought down to this level. Am I equipped for angry, proud, vehement, semantic arguing, truth twisting, fact challenging, perspective ignoring debaters? Maybe. A true Altruist-Advocate realizes that dispute resolution has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong, pride is irrelevant. You’re victory is in resolution, you’re pride is in saving everyone’s face not just your own. To turn a horrific battle on its head with reasoned logic or even Aggressive Argumentation may seem like a success – but to win over the stubborn opposor with fair compromise is where the real victory lies. But this all falls down to a painful cliché: that it is easier said than done.

zeitgeist

I cant possibly keep up with the glut of “current affairs commentary” blawgs but there have been so many stories swilling around the media today relevant to divided by law that it would be a shame not to make some representations...



First all-black cast of Eastenders? Branded as a momentous step in mainstream television. Make of it what you will: The issues that will apparently be discussed may be very interesting for some kind of contextualisation but in the reasons behind such stunts is probably not as attractive. Perhaps the first cast which is truly reflective of Poplar/ All Saints Estate multiculture might be a little less celebrated.

The implosion of Royal Mail? More on the employment side here. The postal service is losing out because its no longer the best form of communication. Think of the jobs that will be lost when people realise its becoming obsolete!... privatisation may actually be the best way for the economy to realise the relevance of a dying form of communication however harsh it might seem in the mid-short term. Everyone’s looking at what we can do to save it – rather than why it needs to be saved (or rather why it needs to be allowed to slip away over the next 20 years or so).

Does University Challenge really test intelligence? Well done the Sun. You’ve established that an academically acclaimed individual is not a swot on pop-culture. Ironically anyone who doesn’t read the Sun with a pinch of salt is probably not in a good position to judge intelligence. But still what an arbitrary question to be posed by the BBC. They forget that there is a massive difference between intelligence and knowledge. I detect a bit of jealousy, or this new uneducated class snobbery (university of life etc). Everyone knows redbrick’s have no place on UC, not everyone cares.

Culture of aparteid? Another damning indictment. The list in this article is pretty revealing. The police seems to be a bit of an anomaly for racism. Probably because it’s hierarchy and slang culture are rather similar to the army. It says something about the racist minority who seek to become police officers too. It’s a pity that Scotland Yard are so ardently defensive. The cost of their pride in an exposure is easily outweighed by the benefits of proper and thorough inquiry: How old is this story going to get?

Summer of rage? I cant get “28 days later” out of my head now. I’ll start hoarding tinned food and keeping a hatchet by my bed then... or invest in a remote Scottish house…

equal but unequal

I thought I'd create a little example to help explain the perspectives of this blog: To explain why it is not at all adverse to discrimination legislation but constructively critical of it; for the benefit of the greater motives of equality and genuine diversity:

Discrimination law helps define how we are all different but asserts that we should be treated equally (or given equal opportunities).

On a semantic level there are pedantic issues: i.e. the dichotomy is clear:
Equal = alike.
Different = unequal.

In general the law uses the words: less favourable treatment on grounds of the persons [difference].

Sometimes there is a confusion between what the law is for:

On the one hand: If people are less favourably treated they might look for a difference to then structure their claim around - they then seek out a white/ male/ able bodied/ british etc comparator.

Or, on the other hand: A person may spot a difference (due to the overt attempts to define said differences) and then constantly keep their eyes open for the potential of less favourable treatment. i.e. "because I am black/ female/ homosexual maybe people will treat me less favourably so I should probably be on the eye out for discrimination".

Which came first: the treatment or the difference?

Not that either of these perspectives is wrong: It is just evidence of the fact that equality is framed by the legislation: which is forced to provide certainty through rules. This solution is the best we have but, evidently, is by no means perfect: For instance an English speaking Welshman cannot claim against an employer who insists on a Welsh speaking candidate - whilst an English person can (on grounds of nationality).

On the surface this seems bad: but only with regard to the fact that we look at such claims through the eyes of the victim. An alternative might be to see equality from an employers level: the sort of thing that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is there to deal with. This takes the focus away from a "compensation culture" of constructed individual inequalites towards a broader approach of society-wide inequality. However the EHRC is only really active in areas where the individual doesn't have standing to claim in the first place (e.g. adverts for employment etc).

The relationship between the individual and the population as a whole could be crucial to the future of equality and diversity (outside of the law at least). The whole system is more complicated than right or wrong, equal or unequal: it is based on the common mindset which seeks to get 'one over' on others whilst being fearful of someone getting 'one over' them: i.e. behaving contrary to an integrational society which the law may or may not be trying to achieve.

Altermodern: drawing together the divisions?

The [highly ambiguous] cultural movements of the past century have all made attempts to define the culture of the Now. The ambiguity comes in the sense that the definition is based on broad similarities occurring in the many cultural, literary, artistic and fashionable trends of the time. Modernism literally became the definition of the time – where connoisseurs of various practices tried to shake of traditionalism to assert the Now – an enlightened, modern approach emerged from socio-technological advance. Then followed postmodernism, a more specific movement, once again trying to define the state of the Now by shaking of modernist traditions: it attempted to guide the emergence of culture away from what was modernism – the new modernism. This came of course in a time of political unrest: a cold war influenced emergence of commercial values which were summed up in references to the state of society and the personal conflictions that prevailed. But it was also a revolution of current trend over defined structure of modernity.

Divided by Law suggests that postmodernism was the assertion of individuality: When difference was defined and “worlds apart” were created. I am suggesting that its power took over society and was celebrated in art, culture and politics. At the same time that literature and art took an introspective look at the individual so too did the law. And a deluge of anti-discrimination legislation (whilst necessary) was created on a bedrock of celebrated difference and freedom. This introverted existentialism provided a new look at morals and idealism and provided a new structure for the definition of Now.

I have no intention of suggesting what altermodernism is aside from pointing out that it must be a new suggestion of what is Now: a new attempt to define things as they have become [bear in mind that in most contexts attempts at such definitions are little more than hollow constructions]. The term, coined by Nicolas Bourriaud, is the theme of a current exhibition at the Tate Britain. The exhibition, whilst clearly a commercial stunt, in fact portrays some very positive themes for society as it is now seen through the ideas of a handful of artists. At points there is reference to how the once clear racial partitions in society have become so blurred that definitions are even harder to impose: thus these divisions are slipping into irrelevance and people are starting to think their traditions, whilst important, should do not hold back their future and they are free to allow clashes in culture, nationality or race to shape their present existence as if they were a natural part of it.

I must comment that this was purely my opinion and the movement is too fresh and, in fairness, abiguous to really suggest that these elements are solid aspects of it. One problem for me is that by defining a “movement” so early we will be led to falsely create things as part of that movement rather than letting them form part of it naturally (as they have been doing up to this point). And ironically the label of a particular concept threatens to be the cause of its downfall – but for the time being we can be pleased that there is an inkling of new enlightenments emerging in the artworld defining what Now is and pushing us in the direction of a less divided world.

the devolving minorities

"I want to be the minority, I don't need your authority, down with the moral majority, because I want to be the minority". Another joined-up hypocrisy of pop-culture where everyone, in a bid to become unique, ends up being exactly the same.

But on this occasion I’m talking about the crescendo of Welsh voice against being part of Great Britain: although actually this isn’t the case at all. I’ve been reading a number of articles about how Welsh individuals are feeling repressed by the concept of Britain; how their language, cultures and traditions are not allowed to flourish due to being part of “British rule”. They want to devolve – but they’ve got their concepts mixed up: the truth is that they want to devolve from England not Britain.

And that is my little point for the day: that Wales is Britain, so is Scotland: they just want an identity free from England, that’s all. The unfortunate thing is that the question of England's devolvement, from the British Parliament, never comes up. So when all parts of Great Britain/ the UK fight for their individual autonomy their discourse is directed at England, not Britain. Britain only exists for the English and are now almost synonomous. I read a study that suggested that equal opportunities forms are frequently used to express that one is not British but Welsh, or Scottish, or Northern Irish. As if Britain is more tainted than anything else.

But why such contempt? What I gather from a article written (in perfect English) by a Welsh inhibitant (sic) is that this person was “forced” to learn in English and was therefore denied her “mother tongue”. Far be it for me to suggest that it would be insensitive and illogical for Welsh schools to apply a blanket language which is familiar to only 20% of Welsh people. Of this 20% only about 50% consider themselves fluent. The language may be important for the history of a country but should not act to restrict it’s future: learning about the history and culture is one thing but learning everything else in a unfamiliar language is absurd.

So my message to this writer is: although you are desperate to define your differences you should not ignore the startling similarities which essentially make you British. You’ve been empowered with the ability to move freely in a country, be educated and live anywhere within and you would have fundamentally have limited your future opportunities if you had been educated in Welsh.

Like me you might be half-welsh/ a quarter English/ Indian or whatever: the one thing you know for sure is that you are British. So when you talk of devolution make it clear that the Welsh Assembly deserves more autonomy for more local issues – like culture, tourism, transport – not a break from a strong and fundamental economic, social and ultimately democratic union which Wales is already constitutionally part of: This would be arbitrary and pedantic nationalism which would inevitably lead to the ostracisation of the majority of mixed nationality inhabitants of Britain as a whole.

progressive liberalism and the death of the west

(This is not my idea, but I’m elaborating on my understanding.) I read a book by a gent called Patrick West. The first problem being that reading something that attacks liberalism, elements of democracy or the reality (rather than the ideal) of free speech suggests that you fit into the negative connotations of fascism, being “right wing” (whatever that is), a “neo-con” (even more ambiguous) or generally showing favour to absolutist or authoritarian government. This is absurd. “Labels” should be put to one side for the time being and cynicists should bear in mind that religious people should allow their faith to be tested (rather than following blindly) in the same way that people of certain political persuasions should know the contrary arguments thoroughly.

This book had amassed negative connotations because of political prudes being unable to ignore these “labels” – it was in fact a pragmatic and intellectual reality check of things as they stand with a disregard to the controversy that truth creates. I appreciated the tone – whilst disagreeing with many of his points.

The fundamental point is one which, for me at least, sums up a lot of the frustrations that arise when sociology meets reality. In order to “assert that no culture is better than another [the basic idea behind a multiculture], they [the government] happily elaborate that Western culture is actually inferior, and shy away from celebrating it for fear of causing offence”. One example being the traditional nativity play being removed from use in primary schools (I am an atheist but at my school we learned about the story of Hanukah as well suggesting there is a secular element to putting on a play in general). This is the difference between cultural toleration and cultural promotion. The book could easily be misinterpreted as a reassertion of our country’s nationalism: but it is in fact quite to the contrary. It suggests that culture overall is loosing out – not any specific culture but the fact that multiculturalism in reality overshadows individual cultures in favour of tolerance.

If interested the book is called "The Poverty of Multiculturalism" by Patrick West. Perhaps prepare for funny looks on the tube (although reading "And then there were none" by Agatha Christie was maybe a little more awkward - because my copy had the original title).

The irony is that the Western world’s predominant cultures are the ideas of social liberalism, freedom of speech and democracy: arguably the very things that are allowing the Western world to eventually lose its own identity. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another story.

unpaid caseworkers

They may save law firms from individual crisis of credit but the idea of hiring unpaid caseworkers or paralegals is fundamentally adverse to social mobility.

There are a significant number of firms in the UK reaching out to the mass of inexperienced law graduands who are desperately seeking something to put them into training contract contention.

Law graduates have to pay up to £10,000 for their LPCs so those on low incomes have to take years out to this earn money. After that they still find themselves in a huge amount of debt and necessity means they need to enter the job market as soon as possible whilst desperately trying to swing their career paths onto the legal ladder. Experience, experience, experience, is all grads have to tip favour their way - but how to get it? Vacation schemes? unpaid. Shadowing? unpaid. CAB? unpaid. volunteer? erm... unpaid. Now becoming a caseworker will often mean you are unpaid. Other caseworker positions demand experience as a prerequisite. Paralegal positions require 3 years pqe or experience giving advice - say at the CAB where you are unpaid.

Of course the system is fair. It judges on merit: If an applicant is an excellent advocate (due to all their voluntary experience) they get the job on merit: they are genuinely better, they deserve it.

So when the government advocates social mobility, and getting kids to university, bear in mind that university educates you, but education doesnt necessarily give you a boost up the career ladder - you still start at the bottom - education merely resets the plateau.

There is an answer though! Low income graduands shouldn't fret they will make it if they want it - there will always be hurdles for everyone. Sometimes you might get a break as an administrator in a nearly legal capacity. Which you then might be able to blag as caseworker-esque experience. The phone queries you answer become "advice giving": The public that wander into the office you "interview". But this needn't be the only way of only firms decided to remunerate you for your experience searching troubles: you are doing them a favour after all.

the free movement of workers

Hostility to foreign workers is nothing new and, in the recent context of EU workers in England, it's an even more tricky issue. Rather than pass personal judgement I will point out UNITE's approach of implying that British workers have been discriminated against rather than going into more dangerous territory by attacking the somewhat infallible EU regulations. They claim that British workers are being treated less favourably than the workers coming in from the EC who are prepared to work for less and therefore pushing their Brit counterparts out of the job market with cunningly simple supply demand economics.

The problem of course for British workers is that work opportunities in England seem attractive to individual citizens of the EC for a wide variety of reasons. Despite this the European Community, economicly rightly so, suggests that free movement of workers is good.

My point for this post is that the economic crisis has caused nations to become introverted. National governments buy out national banks paid for by the national taxpayers. Even America is looking within itself - seeking to take steps to being energy self-sufficient and, more controversially, by only allowing use of American steel. Restricting imports is essentially creating tariffs. If the US starts doing this the rest of the world might follow and simple economics suggets that the crisis will get worse. When considering how to deal with this situation parties should think of the bigger picture. The reason why there is free movement of workers is so that Europe prospers as a single economic entity. Therefore we should look to saving the European economy not just our national one.

A cheaper workforce means that many workers will be forced out of the job market - but it means that industry will be more likely to cope through the crisis. If people can sue firms for this suggested discrimination businesses are even more likely to go under. On a national level loosing our production industries is devastating. On a European scale you have to bear in mind that importation of skilled foreign workers is good for the economy. Both suggest that these measures are a good thing.

To save Britain from economic collapse we need to save Europe, and to save Europe we need to save the world. Gordon Brown was actually right when he said he wanted to save the world: using strong economic policy from an altruistic international perspective is more likely to save the world than the ridiculously selfish introspective nationalism: which will save us in the short term but bring the Western world to its knees before we see a single quarter of economic growth.

the snow day excuse

Walking past the Old Curiosity Shop on Monday at 8am one would be forgiven for thinking that you were actually strolling through Dickensian London. Cliched I know. The snow in the capital was truly spectacular, something I have never seen in my experience, but it was the quiet that was having the strangest of effects. London had a day off.

Now as exciting as a snow day on this magnitude is, it throws up some pretty contentious employment problems. I checked the forcasts the night before and got up an hour and a half earlier to ensure I wasnt unduly delayed by the inevitable transport problems that would occur. This was common sense. I made it into work on time by just compromising a little and planning ahead.

On the other side of the coin you have people who live in places where you absolutely rely on a specific transport link which lets you down. This would have been very common on Monday - south east trains, all open air tube lines, all bus routes. These people are unable to get to work. If they were heart surgeons or firemen or the train drivers themselves they just couldn't make it.

Then you have this middle ground. People who dont make any prior arrangements, who look out of the window in the morning and think "no way". Maybe they phone up a colleague, the colleague says "I'm not sure, the lines are probably badly delayed/ blocked up/ not running, i'll phone someone else and get back to you". This chain of indecision runs until one person, who may or may not be able to attempt to get in, simply says they are not. Safety in numbers, everyone goes back to bed - snow day!

Finally there is another group who look out the window and see the weather and think - "the tube lines will be messed up - i can have another hour in bed and easily blame my lateness on the transport".

So the problem comes when the employers are considering what to do: Those who made it in worked hard to compensate for the lack of attendance while those who couldnt make it in stay at home. Those who couldn't be bothered to try also get a day off. Legally the day is an absence. It wouldnt be seem fair however to dock pay on such a big level. The compromise appears to be in the realm of making the day off count as annual leave - objectively this is fair on those who battled the elements to make it in. For the people who couldnt possibly get in this is harsh.

There is no way to distinguish between those who made genuine attempts to get in and those who just stayed in bed. The uproar from many of my colleagues, and other stories I have heard, concerning taking a day of annual leave for the day off is somewhat offensive - if they were to be just let off then surely those who made it into work should have been sent home immediately. But in there defense another problem is posed: what if some cunning employees preempt the problem and take the day off as sick leave?