Well, a few weeks in and our honest, transparent, accountable new government has a whiff of its first sleaze scandal. It was only a matter of time- but three weeks?!
Pilfering government money to pay for his "partner's" mortgage is frankly disgusting, especially as one of the richest members of parliament.
I am shocked by his repeated lying.. and how he has made a fool out of the Liberal Democrats, ruining their relativelty stainless record on expenses scandals- though millionairre Nick Clegg claiming for a cake tin did take the piss.
What I hate most about Laws is how he is trying to blame this deceipt on his
sexuality. He is essentially reflecting blame back onto society, and not taking responsibility for his actions. The telegraph were not going to reveal his sexuality, finding this irrelevant! Alas, no, Laws decided now was a good time to come out, pushing his so protected private self into the public sphere. Smells of shifting the blame to me.
If he has indeed been lying to cover up his sexuality, then he is a bloody moron, and deserves to be stood next to George Tossbourne shitting all over his liberal principles with his unprincipled cuts.
Clegg harped on about how the public have a right to sack MPs who pocket taxpayers money- well can we please do that Cleggy?
There are lots of people who perceive they have things to hide- murky pasts, sexualities, etc- but not many people who use taxpayers money to keep the skeletons under lock and key. He says it wasn't about the money, it was about privacy- well, I'm really sorry David, but spending £40,000 on your privacy is not in the 'National Interest'. It is an abuse of priveleges I wholeheartedly condemn.
It goes to show how truly detached these super rich politicians are from society... ah well, never mind, he can just write his £40,000 cheque and its all forgotten about.
Saturday 29 May 2010
Thursday 27 May 2010
Iain Duncan Smith proves total moron
I wasn’t going to post today, I have an essay to write, but I have been incensed by Iain Duncan Smith’s Welfare Reform interview in the Guardian. I cannot return to the essay of doom until I have released this poisonous rage trickling through my body.
All the politicians love to jump on the beating on the poor bandwagon. It seems to me they have absurd stereotypes of the working classes. It is as if they studied a textbook definition at Oxbridge, perhaps taken from Charles Murray’s (completely crap) Underclass thesis, where he stipulated that the poor were ‘thieving, idle, bastards’. Let’s face it, with the top ten richest members of cabinet’s combined wealth totalling 440 million, they aren’t going to have any firsthand experience of engaging with this group in the population.
Duncan Smith said this:
In families where unemployment was widespread, those who did try get a job were often seen as "total morons" he added. "Socially, everyone says: 'You are a bloody moron – why are you doing this? You don't have to do this.' So taking responsibility is a real risk for you."
I have to say, in my experience (and yes I do have some thanks) this is not the attitude people have towards those trying to find work. Work is often seen as the Holy Grail; the route out of poverty, getting the hell away from their shit lives, a way to respect.
The fundamental mistake politicians make when dealing with employment and benefits policy is presuming the problem of unemployment originates with ‘idleness’. I think you will find, with even a slight bit of amateur research, that the problem is in fact LACK OF JOBS coupled with SHIT WAGES.
Is it just me who finds it humorous that this politician is talking about “encouraging a willingness to work” in juxtaposition with a “the biggest” recession “our country has ever seen”? Let’s face it, industrial jobs are gone, service sector jobs are going, even public service jobs are insecure. Nowhere does he mention how instable and challenging the job market is!
Furthermore, Duncan Smith problematises incapacity benefit:
"People basically get parked on [incapacity] benefit and forgotten about. If you have been on this benefit for more than two years, you are likely to die on it."
Back to reality, incapacity benefit is constantly reviewed by the government, claimants are certainly not ‘forgotten about’. Instead they are continually assessed via a link between GPs and DWP and every now and again are dragged into terrifying and humiliating interview centres to confirm they are still indeed incapacitated.
I have been to one of these centres. It was one of the most depressing places I have visited. Picture the scene: people unfortunate to have to rely on the notoriously difficult to claim incapacity benefit, having to plead for the continuation of financial support for their miserable life. You could almost smell the misery and the fear...and the urine (no joke).
Indeed Duncan Smith, people do often claim for years and die on the benefit! That is because they have a very difficult physical or mental disability which is likely to lead to premature death.
Seriously, removing this benefit is likely to send some claimants over the edge. Even if they do manage to work, what is their chance of getting a job in this job market with a disability or long term mental health problem? I don’t think reforming this benefit is a ‘National Priority’ right now.
A final problem with Duncan Smith’s reforms is removing child tax credits for households with £30,000. Duncan Smith has some good ideas about removing disincentives to work for people on benefits, such as not stopping assistance for people who work part time, and continuting benefits for a short period when first start work. However, when asked how he will fund this, he replies that he will remove child tax credits for middle incomes, households earning over £30,000.
The thing is… do the maths here, a household of £30,000… that’s two people earning £15,000 each right? I almost wish my maths was wrong. It doesn’t make sense to take tax credits away from people earning in the lower bracket. If they had children, these people would probably earn about the same on benefits! Redistributing from the barely comfortable to the slightly uncomfortable. This has the hallmark of the conservative brand of ‘Social Justice’ all over it.
My final thoughts for the day. What about the super rich Iain Duncan Smith? What about tax evasion? What about exploitation?
Duncan Smith clearly doesn’t give a damn. He is even changing the poverty measure so that it does not include inequality.
"You get this constant juddering adjustment with poverty figures going up when, for instance, upper incomes rise."
Indeed, poverty measures in Britain capture ‘relative poverty’ not 'absolute poverty'. This is because most analysts of poverty define it as ‘not being able to take part in the normal activities of society’. If you encounter polarisation of wealth, the groups left behind are going to feel poor relative to the average standard of living. No one is claiming we have absolute poverty, but Britain has one of the highest % of relative child poverty in Europe. Our income distrubution is grossly unfair and inequality derives from exploitation, not idleness.
Duncan Smith is not going to address this growth in the super rich. He is going to remove the tax credits for the average earner and continue to stereotype the ‘idle’ who can’t get a job in today’s shitty market. Long live inequality.
Brilliant.
All the politicians love to jump on the beating on the poor bandwagon. It seems to me they have absurd stereotypes of the working classes. It is as if they studied a textbook definition at Oxbridge, perhaps taken from Charles Murray’s (completely crap) Underclass thesis, where he stipulated that the poor were ‘thieving, idle, bastards’. Let’s face it, with the top ten richest members of cabinet’s combined wealth totalling 440 million, they aren’t going to have any firsthand experience of engaging with this group in the population.
Duncan Smith said this:
In families where unemployment was widespread, those who did try get a job were often seen as "total morons" he added. "Socially, everyone says: 'You are a bloody moron – why are you doing this? You don't have to do this.' So taking responsibility is a real risk for you."
I have to say, in my experience (and yes I do have some thanks) this is not the attitude people have towards those trying to find work. Work is often seen as the Holy Grail; the route out of poverty, getting the hell away from their shit lives, a way to respect.
The fundamental mistake politicians make when dealing with employment and benefits policy is presuming the problem of unemployment originates with ‘idleness’. I think you will find, with even a slight bit of amateur research, that the problem is in fact LACK OF JOBS coupled with SHIT WAGES.
Is it just me who finds it humorous that this politician is talking about “encouraging a willingness to work” in juxtaposition with a “the biggest” recession “our country has ever seen”? Let’s face it, industrial jobs are gone, service sector jobs are going, even public service jobs are insecure. Nowhere does he mention how instable and challenging the job market is!
Furthermore, Duncan Smith problematises incapacity benefit:
"People basically get parked on [incapacity] benefit and forgotten about. If you have been on this benefit for more than two years, you are likely to die on it."
Back to reality, incapacity benefit is constantly reviewed by the government, claimants are certainly not ‘forgotten about’. Instead they are continually assessed via a link between GPs and DWP and every now and again are dragged into terrifying and humiliating interview centres to confirm they are still indeed incapacitated.
I have been to one of these centres. It was one of the most depressing places I have visited. Picture the scene: people unfortunate to have to rely on the notoriously difficult to claim incapacity benefit, having to plead for the continuation of financial support for their miserable life. You could almost smell the misery and the fear...and the urine (no joke).
Indeed Duncan Smith, people do often claim for years and die on the benefit! That is because they have a very difficult physical or mental disability which is likely to lead to premature death.
Seriously, removing this benefit is likely to send some claimants over the edge. Even if they do manage to work, what is their chance of getting a job in this job market with a disability or long term mental health problem? I don’t think reforming this benefit is a ‘National Priority’ right now.
A final problem with Duncan Smith’s reforms is removing child tax credits for households with £30,000. Duncan Smith has some good ideas about removing disincentives to work for people on benefits, such as not stopping assistance for people who work part time, and continuting benefits for a short period when first start work. However, when asked how he will fund this, he replies that he will remove child tax credits for middle incomes, households earning over £30,000.
The thing is… do the maths here, a household of £30,000… that’s two people earning £15,000 each right? I almost wish my maths was wrong. It doesn’t make sense to take tax credits away from people earning in the lower bracket. If they had children, these people would probably earn about the same on benefits! Redistributing from the barely comfortable to the slightly uncomfortable. This has the hallmark of the conservative brand of ‘Social Justice’ all over it.
My final thoughts for the day. What about the super rich Iain Duncan Smith? What about tax evasion? What about exploitation?
Duncan Smith clearly doesn’t give a damn. He is even changing the poverty measure so that it does not include inequality.
"You get this constant juddering adjustment with poverty figures going up when, for instance, upper incomes rise."
Indeed, poverty measures in Britain capture ‘relative poverty’ not 'absolute poverty'. This is because most analysts of poverty define it as ‘not being able to take part in the normal activities of society’. If you encounter polarisation of wealth, the groups left behind are going to feel poor relative to the average standard of living. No one is claiming we have absolute poverty, but Britain has one of the highest % of relative child poverty in Europe. Our income distrubution is grossly unfair and inequality derives from exploitation, not idleness.
Duncan Smith is not going to address this growth in the super rich. He is going to remove the tax credits for the average earner and continue to stereotype the ‘idle’ who can’t get a job in today’s shitty market. Long live inequality.
Brilliant.
Wednesday 26 May 2010
Social exclusion... and the conservative government again...
I posted a few days ago about how I had resolved an inner conflict about philosophy. This post will outline a similar resolution about social exclusion.
Whilst studying social policy, you never hear the end of relative poverty and social exclusion. The textbook policy response to social exclusion is to reduce inequalities in wealth, to raise benefit levels, to create jobs and increase wages.
As a dedicated student of social policy, I support the arguments in the textbooks and journals. However, I find it really hard to support raising benefit levels for the poor marginalised people when I see some examples of the absolute dickheads that exist in our country.
Whilst the press grossy exaggerate their existance and portray them as some organic monolithic bloc, despite my best attempts to deny it in the past, there really are some abysmal people in our country who expect the government to support them. They see it as their right, despite never having paid into the public pot. They contribute nothing but another statistic in the long term unemployed figures.
These people weigh on my mind and there is nothing in the policy journals or textbooks about how to reconcile the revulsion at the individual with the explanations about the social.
This is a problem I have recently solved!
I know it is hard to look at 'benefit scroungers', criminals, addicts, neglectful parents ... and then sign up to policies supporting them with the hard earned tax money you pay... however, we have to look at these people not on an individual level, but on a social level.
Individually, there are many cases where you would feel exasperated. However, when you look at where these cases fall, who these people are, there is a pattern. Social exclusion spatialises where local economies break down, where wealth has made a rapid exit. Social exclusion manifests itself where there are no jobs, rubbish schools, poor quality public services, few positive role models. Nothing to live for. Nothing but poverty and violence.
We do this to people in our country. We create the conditions for social exclusion to happen with our markets and rolled back public services, with our lack of concern of low wages and exploitation, with our marriage to capitalism and our recent divorce with social democracy.
So, I finally have a response to people who critice my 'naive' world view that we should help these socially excluded people. I finally have a come back to people who mention the 'individuals' who are so repulsive and who exist- we did it to them! As a country, we did it. You cannot examine a social phenomena at the level of the individual, you have to look at trends, patterns... and when you do that, you analyse the distribution of it, you see it is not a life people take by choice, but a life that is chosen for them by their situation at birth.
The recent studies demonstrating social mobility is actually on the decline go to show that this has never been more true.
This problem of social exclusion is a problem for everyone too. Two world respected researchers Wilkinson and Pickett have shown how the more unequal a country, the less healthy and happy EVERYONE is. The poor are obviously less happy and healthy, but the richer people in society also have worse health and happiness outcomes. The exact explanation for this is debated, but the psychology of inequality has adverse affects for all.
Maybe the rich actually feel guilty for hoarding their millions, or maybe they are stressed from feeling they have to earn it all, or maybe they are scared of crime from the poorer people trying to do a bit of redistribution of their own?
Anyway... I am arguing we should do something about this inequality. I acknowldge this is essentially a personal opionion. I care about the inequality and the social exclusion, I find it morally repulsive, I think its wrong. I am a leftie. I have loads of evidence to support my point of view, but fundamentally, the reason why I believe this is because I FEEL it.
The conservative government
So. I read their new policies. ACADEMY SCHOOLS? Privatising schools? Oh that is one hell of an idea. Give successful schools the chance to become independent... successful schools that are in the rich areas already. Great. Massively contributing and perpetuating the existing inequalities in education.
And privatising public services really is a rubbish idea. The private prisons have the highest reoffending rates, the most cases of abuse and the highest suicide rates. The PFI hospitals are where most of the outbreaks of infection occur, and where patients have broom cupboards for rooms. Privatising public services brings down quality as companies squeeze every last penny of profit from their contractor- the government- or US.
There is a recognition that there are some things markets cannot provide- Adam Smith thought this, even Hayek thought this. Markets cannot provide public services as there is a irresolvable tension between market competition and public service equality. Public services are collective and universal. Markets are individualised and rely on inequality. They are two different animals!
People making profit from our education system. Thats going to go really well!
I am so frustrated.
Whilst studying social policy, you never hear the end of relative poverty and social exclusion. The textbook policy response to social exclusion is to reduce inequalities in wealth, to raise benefit levels, to create jobs and increase wages.
As a dedicated student of social policy, I support the arguments in the textbooks and journals. However, I find it really hard to support raising benefit levels for the poor marginalised people when I see some examples of the absolute dickheads that exist in our country.
Whilst the press grossy exaggerate their existance and portray them as some organic monolithic bloc, despite my best attempts to deny it in the past, there really are some abysmal people in our country who expect the government to support them. They see it as their right, despite never having paid into the public pot. They contribute nothing but another statistic in the long term unemployed figures.
These people weigh on my mind and there is nothing in the policy journals or textbooks about how to reconcile the revulsion at the individual with the explanations about the social.
This is a problem I have recently solved!
I know it is hard to look at 'benefit scroungers', criminals, addicts, neglectful parents ... and then sign up to policies supporting them with the hard earned tax money you pay... however, we have to look at these people not on an individual level, but on a social level.
Individually, there are many cases where you would feel exasperated. However, when you look at where these cases fall, who these people are, there is a pattern. Social exclusion spatialises where local economies break down, where wealth has made a rapid exit. Social exclusion manifests itself where there are no jobs, rubbish schools, poor quality public services, few positive role models. Nothing to live for. Nothing but poverty and violence.
We do this to people in our country. We create the conditions for social exclusion to happen with our markets and rolled back public services, with our lack of concern of low wages and exploitation, with our marriage to capitalism and our recent divorce with social democracy.
So, I finally have a response to people who critice my 'naive' world view that we should help these socially excluded people. I finally have a come back to people who mention the 'individuals' who are so repulsive and who exist- we did it to them! As a country, we did it. You cannot examine a social phenomena at the level of the individual, you have to look at trends, patterns... and when you do that, you analyse the distribution of it, you see it is not a life people take by choice, but a life that is chosen for them by their situation at birth.
The recent studies demonstrating social mobility is actually on the decline go to show that this has never been more true.
This problem of social exclusion is a problem for everyone too. Two world respected researchers Wilkinson and Pickett have shown how the more unequal a country, the less healthy and happy EVERYONE is. The poor are obviously less happy and healthy, but the richer people in society also have worse health and happiness outcomes. The exact explanation for this is debated, but the psychology of inequality has adverse affects for all.
Maybe the rich actually feel guilty for hoarding their millions, or maybe they are stressed from feeling they have to earn it all, or maybe they are scared of crime from the poorer people trying to do a bit of redistribution of their own?
Anyway... I am arguing we should do something about this inequality. I acknowldge this is essentially a personal opionion. I care about the inequality and the social exclusion, I find it morally repulsive, I think its wrong. I am a leftie. I have loads of evidence to support my point of view, but fundamentally, the reason why I believe this is because I FEEL it.
The conservative government
So. I read their new policies. ACADEMY SCHOOLS? Privatising schools? Oh that is one hell of an idea. Give successful schools the chance to become independent... successful schools that are in the rich areas already. Great. Massively contributing and perpetuating the existing inequalities in education.
And privatising public services really is a rubbish idea. The private prisons have the highest reoffending rates, the most cases of abuse and the highest suicide rates. The PFI hospitals are where most of the outbreaks of infection occur, and where patients have broom cupboards for rooms. Privatising public services brings down quality as companies squeeze every last penny of profit from their contractor- the government- or US.
There is a recognition that there are some things markets cannot provide- Adam Smith thought this, even Hayek thought this. Markets cannot provide public services as there is a irresolvable tension between market competition and public service equality. Public services are collective and universal. Markets are individualised and rely on inequality. They are two different animals!
People making profit from our education system. Thats going to go really well!
I am so frustrated.
Sunday 23 May 2010
reconciling internal conflicts with philosophy
A grand title for the weekend's blog entry.
I spend my life studying, reading, writing, thinking, and trying to work out what I actually think about the world. That sounds very pretentious, but its true. Well, true when I am not watching Eastenders or running, climbing, or worrying about other less important/non-existential questions, such as, whats for dinner?, how can I make £20.00 last a week?...
Anyway, there are two problems I have resolved recently that I would like to share. The first will be about philosophy.
1.) I used to study philosophy at university, and whilst I really enjoyed some aspects of it, I often found myself questioning the utility and validity of some of the central debates. Sometimes I found it impossibly hard to take the lectures seriously. This led to a crisis in intelligence- perhaps I was just too dumb to grasp these abstract concepts. Well, now I have an answer.
I found some parts of philosophy to be useful thought exercises to enhance my understanding of the mechanisms of thought and knowledge. For example, Hume's discussion of 'How do we know the sun will rise tomorrow'. He argues it based on past probability, but argues that it is not certain the sun will rise tomorrow. Probability is based on our experience to date- but what if tomorrow the sun didn't rise... or the next day, or the next day, or the next day... what if in fact the past billion or so years have been a blip in the natural order of this planet's trillion gazillion year history. Probability would then dictate that the sun will not rise tomorrow.
This example is just an analogy to open our minds to the uncertainty of knowledge. I found it helpful back then.
This example, however, is cast over by the many bad experiences I have of philosophy. Philosophy of mind... are our bodies separate from our minds? Are they distinct- PHILOSOPHICALLY speaking. Idealism vs materialism: what is more important, our abstract rational minds or our interactions with the world. Metaphysics... how do we exist through time and space? Does the king of france exist, semantically speaking?
I found myself alienated by debates that just seemed like a chronic waste of time. How do people get funding to argue about whether the colour red exists? Surely it should not take me three hours to comprehend two hours of a book? Do these people have lives?
...How can anyone seriously suggest in this day and age that our mind is separate from our bodies? Prove using mathematical logic that god exists? Seriously, what the hell?
This alienation with certain philosophical debates carried over into my studies of social science. Philosophy of Social Sciences is also plagued with disputes about the nature of reality that I found so frustrating. Is the world fixed and concrete or is it fluid and relative? Should we use, philosophically speaking, quants or qualitative methods? Seemingly irreconcilable debates... reams of literature. Pointless arguments persisting through the time and space so hotly debated.
Then I discovered the philosophy of Pragmatism, and I felt a warm fuzz of intellectual harmony.
Pragmatists believe that the centuries of philosophical debates have been disconnected with the world and action. They believe that we should only debate things in philosophy that have a practical application in the world... knowledge is action, not sitting around debating the true nature of colour.
They believe knowledge should be useful, and is constructed of consensus debates. They distinguish between normal and abnormal discourse: normal discourse is when people can debate constructively to resolve issues and progress. Abnormal is when people argue for years and are locked in futile debate that has no relevance to how the world functions... read: debates about idealism/materialism, quantitative/qualitative, god... etc.
Finally! Someone came up with a sensible name for this stuff: ABNORMAL. Couldn't have thought of a better word myself.
Anyway, I love pragmatists for this. They confirm what I have always thought deep inside but was too afraid to say it. I thought I was the stupid one who couldn't understand something about philosophy. But no... now I feel confident enough to assert I was right all along.
Alienating philosophy carried out by professors on their high brow pedastals producing inaccessible and irrelevant texts has given philosophy a bad name. It is time to move on to modern philosophy, one which is about progression, 'normal' discourse on what is relevant in society today.
I spend my life studying, reading, writing, thinking, and trying to work out what I actually think about the world. That sounds very pretentious, but its true. Well, true when I am not watching Eastenders or running, climbing, or worrying about other less important/non-existential questions, such as, whats for dinner?, how can I make £20.00 last a week?...
Anyway, there are two problems I have resolved recently that I would like to share. The first will be about philosophy.
1.) I used to study philosophy at university, and whilst I really enjoyed some aspects of it, I often found myself questioning the utility and validity of some of the central debates. Sometimes I found it impossibly hard to take the lectures seriously. This led to a crisis in intelligence- perhaps I was just too dumb to grasp these abstract concepts. Well, now I have an answer.
I found some parts of philosophy to be useful thought exercises to enhance my understanding of the mechanisms of thought and knowledge. For example, Hume's discussion of 'How do we know the sun will rise tomorrow'. He argues it based on past probability, but argues that it is not certain the sun will rise tomorrow. Probability is based on our experience to date- but what if tomorrow the sun didn't rise... or the next day, or the next day, or the next day... what if in fact the past billion or so years have been a blip in the natural order of this planet's trillion gazillion year history. Probability would then dictate that the sun will not rise tomorrow.
This example is just an analogy to open our minds to the uncertainty of knowledge. I found it helpful back then.
This example, however, is cast over by the many bad experiences I have of philosophy. Philosophy of mind... are our bodies separate from our minds? Are they distinct- PHILOSOPHICALLY speaking. Idealism vs materialism: what is more important, our abstract rational minds or our interactions with the world. Metaphysics... how do we exist through time and space? Does the king of france exist, semantically speaking?
I found myself alienated by debates that just seemed like a chronic waste of time. How do people get funding to argue about whether the colour red exists? Surely it should not take me three hours to comprehend two hours of a book? Do these people have lives?
...How can anyone seriously suggest in this day and age that our mind is separate from our bodies? Prove using mathematical logic that god exists? Seriously, what the hell?
This alienation with certain philosophical debates carried over into my studies of social science. Philosophy of Social Sciences is also plagued with disputes about the nature of reality that I found so frustrating. Is the world fixed and concrete or is it fluid and relative? Should we use, philosophically speaking, quants or qualitative methods? Seemingly irreconcilable debates... reams of literature. Pointless arguments persisting through the time and space so hotly debated.
Then I discovered the philosophy of Pragmatism, and I felt a warm fuzz of intellectual harmony.
Pragmatists believe that the centuries of philosophical debates have been disconnected with the world and action. They believe that we should only debate things in philosophy that have a practical application in the world... knowledge is action, not sitting around debating the true nature of colour.
They believe knowledge should be useful, and is constructed of consensus debates. They distinguish between normal and abnormal discourse: normal discourse is when people can debate constructively to resolve issues and progress. Abnormal is when people argue for years and are locked in futile debate that has no relevance to how the world functions... read: debates about idealism/materialism, quantitative/qualitative, god... etc.
Finally! Someone came up with a sensible name for this stuff: ABNORMAL. Couldn't have thought of a better word myself.
Anyway, I love pragmatists for this. They confirm what I have always thought deep inside but was too afraid to say it. I thought I was the stupid one who couldn't understand something about philosophy. But no... now I feel confident enough to assert I was right all along.
Alienating philosophy carried out by professors on their high brow pedastals producing inaccessible and irrelevant texts has given philosophy a bad name. It is time to move on to modern philosophy, one which is about progression, 'normal' discourse on what is relevant in society today.
Thursday 20 May 2010
trapped in discourses
To escape the isolation, monotony and unceasing desire to procrastinate, I decided to attend a three day course at the university this week. It is a 'Philosophy of Social Science' course, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Not only the course content, but the contact time with fellow students (albiet only 6 of us on the course!) has reminded me why I am the luckiest girl alive to be paid to study something I love.
I will explain some interesting things that I have learnt/experienced so far.
Yesterday we were discussing rational choice theory, utilitarianism, game theory and 'tipping points'. Rational choice theorists argue that human beings make rational choices based on preferences to maxise their utility (whatever that may be to them). One of the questions of government is how to encourage the population to make rational choices about certain issues where we frequently act irrationally- against our best interests.
The thing is, whilst people (rationally) should choose to not smoke, booze, shag around, get fat, pollute the environment... They instead make a rational choice based on instant gratification... or other value systems.
Apparently, the conservative government are very interested in 'tipping points' whereby social norms change, and behaviour changes. For a recent example, see smoking. One minute, it was socially acceptable, the next minute, wholly unacceptable. One idea to encourage tipping pointss is to incentivise desirable choices to increase the instant gratification outcome and therefore encourage a rational choice to lose weight, stop smoking etc...
We were discussing all this, and then this morning I checked the BBC news and lo and behold! The NHS are reviewing using incentives to encourage people to quit health damaging behaviours, and pay cash rewards to people who acheive health goals: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8692241.stm . So, philosophy into action or what? I got excited anyway.
I absolutely detest that idea by the way. I lost 3 stone and stopped smoking and know how hard it was- but cash rewards? Totally ridiculous. Massively open to abuse, and surely we cant incentivise life changing behaviour. I need to think more about this one. Anyone got any thoughts on the NHS paying people to behave in a certain way?
Moving on- we then had a lecture on Marxism. It is a philosophy I sympathise with and support many of the ideas. After the lecture, whilst walking to the train station with an enormous anti-capitalst tirade swirling round my head, also blended in with rage over the objectification and normalisation of women, I went past a clothes shop and thought 'oooh that dress is so pretty, I really want it'.
...I horrified myself. Whilst conscious of the discourses (capitalist etc)I am part of in society, I cannot free myself from them. I am trapped by these discourses! I had a bit of a giggle at that, but seriously...
I am sure all the women (and men to a lesser extent?) can identify with the feelings of horror when confronted with the magazine racks in supermarkets. Four shelves of magazines that feature highly gleaned, sterilised and photoshopped women portraying society's perception of feminine beauty and success. All the mags are guilty- they are all about looking at and critiqueing (in an academic sense) the female body. Men's mags pour over big tits, women's mags highlight and zoom in on spots, cellulite, wrinkles, bulging tummies... even professional photography magazines about PHOTOGRAPHY heroically manage to feature a woman, usually sprawled half-naked artistically across a shadowed rock or suchlike. I buy runner's world as a runner- and though I always thought the journalism was to a mixed demographic- I realise looking back over the issues- the last 4 issues have featured a woman on the cover.
So, when I go to buy my bread or milk, or cheeky bag of haribos, I have to look at this. And god help it when you actually read one of the offending magazines.
When I go to the hairdressers I get the chance to peruse these magazines and indulge in personal outrage and curiousity. Last time I was there, I scanned them and practised a bit of critical discourse analysis... so, this is what women are interested in:
Dieting
Other women's bodies
Celebrities
Fashion
Make up
Other people's lives.
I frequently fantasise about deconstructing these magazines, and asking where are all the fat women? Where are all the curvy women? They are missing from our magazines, missing from our shop window displays, missing from our cat walks. They are hidden and scrutinised and criticsed (and now incentivised!).
It makes me feel powerless. I cannot do anything about it! I am trapped!
I will explain some interesting things that I have learnt/experienced so far.
Yesterday we were discussing rational choice theory, utilitarianism, game theory and 'tipping points'. Rational choice theorists argue that human beings make rational choices based on preferences to maxise their utility (whatever that may be to them). One of the questions of government is how to encourage the population to make rational choices about certain issues where we frequently act irrationally- against our best interests.
The thing is, whilst people (rationally) should choose to not smoke, booze, shag around, get fat, pollute the environment... They instead make a rational choice based on instant gratification... or other value systems.
Apparently, the conservative government are very interested in 'tipping points' whereby social norms change, and behaviour changes. For a recent example, see smoking. One minute, it was socially acceptable, the next minute, wholly unacceptable. One idea to encourage tipping pointss is to incentivise desirable choices to increase the instant gratification outcome and therefore encourage a rational choice to lose weight, stop smoking etc...
We were discussing all this, and then this morning I checked the BBC news and lo and behold! The NHS are reviewing using incentives to encourage people to quit health damaging behaviours, and pay cash rewards to people who acheive health goals: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8692241.stm . So, philosophy into action or what? I got excited anyway.
I absolutely detest that idea by the way. I lost 3 stone and stopped smoking and know how hard it was- but cash rewards? Totally ridiculous. Massively open to abuse, and surely we cant incentivise life changing behaviour. I need to think more about this one. Anyone got any thoughts on the NHS paying people to behave in a certain way?
Moving on- we then had a lecture on Marxism. It is a philosophy I sympathise with and support many of the ideas. After the lecture, whilst walking to the train station with an enormous anti-capitalst tirade swirling round my head, also blended in with rage over the objectification and normalisation of women, I went past a clothes shop and thought 'oooh that dress is so pretty, I really want it'.
...I horrified myself. Whilst conscious of the discourses (capitalist etc)I am part of in society, I cannot free myself from them. I am trapped by these discourses! I had a bit of a giggle at that, but seriously...
I am sure all the women (and men to a lesser extent?) can identify with the feelings of horror when confronted with the magazine racks in supermarkets. Four shelves of magazines that feature highly gleaned, sterilised and photoshopped women portraying society's perception of feminine beauty and success. All the mags are guilty- they are all about looking at and critiqueing (in an academic sense) the female body. Men's mags pour over big tits, women's mags highlight and zoom in on spots, cellulite, wrinkles, bulging tummies... even professional photography magazines about PHOTOGRAPHY heroically manage to feature a woman, usually sprawled half-naked artistically across a shadowed rock or suchlike. I buy runner's world as a runner- and though I always thought the journalism was to a mixed demographic- I realise looking back over the issues- the last 4 issues have featured a woman on the cover.
So, when I go to buy my bread or milk, or cheeky bag of haribos, I have to look at this. And god help it when you actually read one of the offending magazines.
When I go to the hairdressers I get the chance to peruse these magazines and indulge in personal outrage and curiousity. Last time I was there, I scanned them and practised a bit of critical discourse analysis... so, this is what women are interested in:
Dieting
Other women's bodies
Celebrities
Fashion
Make up
Other people's lives.
I frequently fantasise about deconstructing these magazines, and asking where are all the fat women? Where are all the curvy women? They are missing from our magazines, missing from our shop window displays, missing from our cat walks. They are hidden and scrutinised and criticsed (and now incentivised!).
It makes me feel powerless. I cannot do anything about it! I am trapped!
Wednesday 19 May 2010
Why I still hate the conservatives more
I have learnt about a downside (upside?) of blogging. You have to carefully construct your posts to be clear. And I thought this would be a break from essay writing...
I decided to write this blog because of following the election very closely and getting very involved in politics/policy. My own emotional-value-laden distate for the conservative party riles me up and makes me so angry that it catalyses an eruption which I thought best channelled into something productive.
However, I acknowledge the Labour party were not any better. I am not a party follower, I am a policy advocate. If I support any party it would be an amalgamation of the Greens/Lib Dems/Labour manifesto. The 'New' Labour party represented a continuation of the Thatcherite Neoliberal agenda, often rolling out policies that would have been considered bold even for the lady herself.
The Greens are the only party commiting to any serious reform in this country. Their contraversial citizen's wage which would pay a wage to recognise voluntary work and caring responsibilities is a particular favourite of mine. It is contraversial in terms of our current politics, and yet frequently discussed in the policy literature as a solution to social exclusion, unpaid carers, gender inequality and lack of community cohesion.
I suppose none of the political parties truly support these societal aims. The desperate blundering of public services would have happened under any of our main three parties. However, I can't see Labour cutting child benefit. Labour at least in theory oppose these kind of cuts.
The fundamental difference between Labour and The Conservatives is philosophical. The Conservatives follow the free markets with an almost religious commitment: state intervention into markets is wrong, taxation is slavery, intervention into the lives of the individual (other than to impose law and order) is wrong. The market delivers all! Progess is wealth, inequality stimulates productivity, inequality encourage innovation. Wealth and inequality in wealth are the staple tools in our society.
From this viewpoint, inequality is a necessary part of the market. It is not something to reduce, and any interference in the market or the lives of the individuals to improve the situation of those worse off is unwelcome.
The Labour party (in theory) follow a more collective philosophical agenda. As opposed to the staunch individualism of the conservatives, they believe (in theory) that society should act collectively to remove inequality. Markets are seen as imperfect mechanisms that create inequality, and governments are meant to protect the worst off from these effects. Markets are flawed, and cannot deliver public services such as health care and education.
Therefore, (in theory) inequality is something to be stamped out. People disadvantaged by the market should be protected against the worst effects... poverty and all that goes with it.
It is forgotten that this is the root of the differences between the parties. I know I have presented the differences in black and white form, when in actuality there are few fundamentalists. However, essentially, my comments remain true.
Maybe my hatred for the conservative party is that it stands for this in principle. That is why I am so angry about them getting elected... at least with a Labour government we could pretend that we cared. I also find the incredible wealth of the tories rather distateful. And their inheritance tax policy represents everything I find disgusting about society. Are they so out of touch with the average UK citizen that they actually feel sorry for 'the normal hard working people' who get taxed on £1,000,000?
Additionally I am fearful of the zombies creeping out the woodwork into Cameron's cabinet for 'Change', missing (hidden) from the election campaign. Hague, Duncan Smith, Letwin, May. The people of nightmares! Shudder.
But do not confuse this personal distaste with a belief that the Labour party, away from the theory, in practise were/are much better.
I decided to write this blog because of following the election very closely and getting very involved in politics/policy. My own emotional-value-laden distate for the conservative party riles me up and makes me so angry that it catalyses an eruption which I thought best channelled into something productive.
However, I acknowledge the Labour party were not any better. I am not a party follower, I am a policy advocate. If I support any party it would be an amalgamation of the Greens/Lib Dems/Labour manifesto. The 'New' Labour party represented a continuation of the Thatcherite Neoliberal agenda, often rolling out policies that would have been considered bold even for the lady herself.
The Greens are the only party commiting to any serious reform in this country. Their contraversial citizen's wage which would pay a wage to recognise voluntary work and caring responsibilities is a particular favourite of mine. It is contraversial in terms of our current politics, and yet frequently discussed in the policy literature as a solution to social exclusion, unpaid carers, gender inequality and lack of community cohesion.
I suppose none of the political parties truly support these societal aims. The desperate blundering of public services would have happened under any of our main three parties. However, I can't see Labour cutting child benefit. Labour at least in theory oppose these kind of cuts.
The fundamental difference between Labour and The Conservatives is philosophical. The Conservatives follow the free markets with an almost religious commitment: state intervention into markets is wrong, taxation is slavery, intervention into the lives of the individual (other than to impose law and order) is wrong. The market delivers all! Progess is wealth, inequality stimulates productivity, inequality encourage innovation. Wealth and inequality in wealth are the staple tools in our society.
From this viewpoint, inequality is a necessary part of the market. It is not something to reduce, and any interference in the market or the lives of the individuals to improve the situation of those worse off is unwelcome.
The Labour party (in theory) follow a more collective philosophical agenda. As opposed to the staunch individualism of the conservatives, they believe (in theory) that society should act collectively to remove inequality. Markets are seen as imperfect mechanisms that create inequality, and governments are meant to protect the worst off from these effects. Markets are flawed, and cannot deliver public services such as health care and education.
Therefore, (in theory) inequality is something to be stamped out. People disadvantaged by the market should be protected against the worst effects... poverty and all that goes with it.
It is forgotten that this is the root of the differences between the parties. I know I have presented the differences in black and white form, when in actuality there are few fundamentalists. However, essentially, my comments remain true.
Maybe my hatred for the conservative party is that it stands for this in principle. That is why I am so angry about them getting elected... at least with a Labour government we could pretend that we cared. I also find the incredible wealth of the tories rather distateful. And their inheritance tax policy represents everything I find disgusting about society. Are they so out of touch with the average UK citizen that they actually feel sorry for 'the normal hard working people' who get taxed on £1,000,000?
Additionally I am fearful of the zombies creeping out the woodwork into Cameron's cabinet for 'Change', missing (hidden) from the election campaign. Hague, Duncan Smith, Letwin, May. The people of nightmares! Shudder.
But do not confuse this personal distaste with a belief that the Labour party, away from the theory, in practise were/are much better.
Tuesday 18 May 2010
The conservative government
So, we have a new government and this government has inspired me to start blogging. That is one positive thing right?
Today I read how Cameron has dished up the UK government's portfolio of country houses among his new ministers. And it made me feel sick. Our leaders really have no clue about what life is really like. These 'cuts' will not affect them. Yeah, a 5% pay cut for ministers... most of whom are squatting on their inherited fortunes amassed by exploitation by their prestigious families. They don't use the public services. Their jobs will not be cut. Cameron promises to cut the number of MPs in Parliament... will he really?
They have put aside £6bn to use for redundancy in the NHS. No cuts to the NHS then Cameron?
It makes me sick to think of some people losing their jobs whilst the cabinet ponce around their state funded stately homes at the weekends. Oh, I know its nice to do such things, but how many of us can actually afford to do such things? Sell off the stately homes and keep people in their jobs.
Another thing that erks me somewhat, is this cutting child benefit for 'middle classes'. Child benefit is a universal benefit paid directly to the mother in each family. This universal payment means that the payment is not stigmatised, and it also contributes in a small way to redress the gender inequality in our welfare system ( / society). I reluctantly agree to a trial in removing the benefit for households over a certain income. However, I think it needs to be done very carefully. How about households earning over 30,000 per child in household? Not some arbitary cut off point- and if an arbitary cut off point then at least make it quite high.
Has anyone checked to see the costs of bringing up a child in our ragingly capitalist consumerist society? Healthy food, exercise...? Extra tuition costs? Posh baby clothes all that is available? Nursery fees (which the government will raise and proliferate) And that is just for those who can afford to be picky in how they bring up their children.
Not to mention the administrative costs of enforcing a threshold. More forms to be filled out to 'claim' for child benefit? Accidental overpayments (mistakes of government) to be paid back (at expense of child and family). Staff, forms, helplines, computer systems... £££. And less money actually spent on child welfare.
So, I wait with bated breath about this threshold.
Now, I don't even want to get started on the gender/ethnic inequalities in cabinet.
I will move swiftly along to a final thought about the budget deficit. Countries have them you know. Shit happens. So what is the big deal? Well, I believe that the government are pushing through this cutting the deficit as a mask for their own neoliberal agenda. They keep scaremongering about the deficit and how we need to pay it all off now. It makes no sense. And it isn't the only option! We certainly don't need to pay it all back in 5 years.
Conservative governments like CUTS and they ideologically oppose government spending on public services. They would have wanted to cut these anyway. However, they now have an excuse- a huge deficit! Why can't they just be honest admit that they are doing this for ideological reasons. Economics is not a straight forward science, it is value-laden, and I wish politicians and the media would be transparent about this.
They are pushing through cuts on the back of ideology and using the deficit as an excuse.
Well, I feel better now.
Today I read how Cameron has dished up the UK government's portfolio of country houses among his new ministers. And it made me feel sick. Our leaders really have no clue about what life is really like. These 'cuts' will not affect them. Yeah, a 5% pay cut for ministers... most of whom are squatting on their inherited fortunes amassed by exploitation by their prestigious families. They don't use the public services. Their jobs will not be cut. Cameron promises to cut the number of MPs in Parliament... will he really?
They have put aside £6bn to use for redundancy in the NHS. No cuts to the NHS then Cameron?
It makes me sick to think of some people losing their jobs whilst the cabinet ponce around their state funded stately homes at the weekends. Oh, I know its nice to do such things, but how many of us can actually afford to do such things? Sell off the stately homes and keep people in their jobs.
Another thing that erks me somewhat, is this cutting child benefit for 'middle classes'. Child benefit is a universal benefit paid directly to the mother in each family. This universal payment means that the payment is not stigmatised, and it also contributes in a small way to redress the gender inequality in our welfare system ( / society). I reluctantly agree to a trial in removing the benefit for households over a certain income. However, I think it needs to be done very carefully. How about households earning over 30,000 per child in household? Not some arbitary cut off point- and if an arbitary cut off point then at least make it quite high.
Has anyone checked to see the costs of bringing up a child in our ragingly capitalist consumerist society? Healthy food, exercise...? Extra tuition costs? Posh baby clothes all that is available? Nursery fees (which the government will raise and proliferate) And that is just for those who can afford to be picky in how they bring up their children.
Not to mention the administrative costs of enforcing a threshold. More forms to be filled out to 'claim' for child benefit? Accidental overpayments (mistakes of government) to be paid back (at expense of child and family). Staff, forms, helplines, computer systems... £££. And less money actually spent on child welfare.
So, I wait with bated breath about this threshold.
Now, I don't even want to get started on the gender/ethnic inequalities in cabinet.
I will move swiftly along to a final thought about the budget deficit. Countries have them you know. Shit happens. So what is the big deal? Well, I believe that the government are pushing through this cutting the deficit as a mask for their own neoliberal agenda. They keep scaremongering about the deficit and how we need to pay it all off now. It makes no sense. And it isn't the only option! We certainly don't need to pay it all back in 5 years.
Conservative governments like CUTS and they ideologically oppose government spending on public services. They would have wanted to cut these anyway. However, they now have an excuse- a huge deficit! Why can't they just be honest admit that they are doing this for ideological reasons. Economics is not a straight forward science, it is value-laden, and I wish politicians and the media would be transparent about this.
They are pushing through cuts on the back of ideology and using the deficit as an excuse.
Well, I feel better now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
