RIP NHS

Well, I suppose it should come as no great suprise that our country is in bed with the private sector. Labour was at least a little ashamed of itself, but the Tories are flaunting their love affair with the wicked witch of the West: capitalism.

The NHS reforms are truly an outrage to society, socialism and democracy. The reforms say GPs will act as commissioners- but its fairly obvious that the majority of GPs do not have either the skills or inclination for this difficult task. Therefore, the GPs' hands will be forced to look for help. And, in a predictable chain of events, the help will emerge in the shape of the private sector, who have been lurking in the shadows for many years waiting for this opportunity to further squeeze the NHS, to fund their mansions and growing savings accounts in Zurich.

It is also an incredible risk for our NHS to make these changes. However, its a win win for the Conservatives: if the scheme is a success, the NHS will be privatised, and if it fails, then the NHS will well and truly be privatised as it crumbles and the only option left is privatisation!

I know I go on about it all the time, but privatisation will breed inequalities. Inequalities in health is a serious issue, and I don't think private companies motivated by profit and with inequality written into their DNA, are best placed to tackle this problem. I give up. I really do. I don't know why I bother to breathe the word inequality anymore.

Other policies that are depressing me are these ridiculous FREE SCHOOLS projects. In one breath, the government invests loads of money to make new schools that will only benefit the middle class parents concerned for Tarquin and Jerrezzabelle's welfare. In another breath they cancel re-building or improving run down schools largely in areas of deprivation.

Furthermore, the 'BIG SOCIETY'. Where will we have the time to volunteer in our communities considering the only thing the government really value is WORK WORK WORK. It is such a ridiculous policy- encouraging people to take responsibility and putting the blame for society's ills on the doorstep of the individual. It is not the individual that created Capitalism. It is not the individual which made our society unequal. Sorry David, 'Big Society' is such a big pile of bullshit that ignores the structural inequalities in society to blame the individual for social ills. I just think you are wrong.

In my degree, I studied Thatcherism with a shocked and horrified but safe and comfortable interest. Surely those things couldn't happen now... Sadly, these days I am living in a policy nightmare, where each day serves up daily disappointment and despair.

Big business eats England

I haven't posted in ages- I have been mega busy. And also, everything is just too depressing.

Europe voting against traffic lighting, cutting the FSA, going to bed with big business- evil fuckers Nestle, Danone... Kraft (who also ate cadbury's). It just makes me sad. Cutting the budget for obesity campaign "with the hope the hope the private sector will step in"... yeah because that's worked.

Well, Cameron wanted a 'Big' Society?

Big business and big people.

Deficit £180 bn... Bank Bail out £850 bn

The worst thing about it is- it was so predictable! And yet, the British public voted them in. Cameron showed his true blue colours yesterday announcing a spectacular cutting program aiming to half the deficit in five years. This truly is a terrifying aim. Oh, and the deficit is being blamed on 'excessive public spending', and not irresponsible bankers.

The tories have already caused damage in their first few weeks- whilst scaremongering the deficit to soften the blow for their cuts, they have also scared the markets into thinking Britain is screwed. The reality is: WE ARE NOT SCREWED(yet). As I have previously stated, the commitment to cut the deficit in this way is an ideological commitment to reducing public spending. It is in no way the only way, and certainly not the best way, to keep the country running. The deficit needs to be reduced- but it can be reduced at a much slower rate. Think about a huge loan you take out- you don't pay it back in five years and cripple yourself, make yourself ill with stress, lose your happiness. No, you pay it back in twenty five years and accept the higher interest payments as a necessary evil for it not ruining your life.

The economics editor of the Guardian scoffed at Cameron's economic plan yesterday. Cameron is using the Canadian model of budget deficit reduction from the 1990s. It was a successful model, and they reduced their deficit from 9% to 5.5% in five years. However, the 1990s was a period of unprecedented economic growth and the Canadian economy grew 3% each year. We are now in a great recession, and the tories themselves repeatedly imply Labour's modest growth forecast is wrong.

Back to basic Social Policy textbooks Cameron. Find the chapter on Policy Transfer. Find the section on 'it only works when you transfer policies from similar countries in similar economic positions'. I think you will find that this policy will not work, and as all the sensible economists with proper economics degrees and job experience will explain- your idea is shit.

With the rest of Europe adopting Brown's package for recovery, Cameron is doing it his own tory way: the way that screws over the less well off and makes the well off even richer. His claim about excessive public spending being the cause of the recession is total shit. Deficit approx £180bn, bank bail out £850 bn. So. The public have to pay for the mistakes of the greedy and irresponsible bankers. Is it so hard to see why we have a recession?

I love Cameron's speech about 'we're all in this together'. WE are not all in this together Mr Cameron. Whilst he swans around with his millions, the rest of us will feel the pain of the cuts. I also love how he was shocked that public spending went up during the recession- THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS DAVID. Read your GCSE economics textbooks.

Why is the government so thick??? Is it just me who can clearly see that the problem with our society is not public spending but the private sector?!

All the talk about 'big society', all the talk about 'new goverment'- it was obvious that the conservatives haven't changed one bit since Thatcher.

I love their new idea about getting citizens involved on making choices about where the cuts are coming in. Its such a clever idea to legitimise their cuts, and pass the buck of accountability onto the general public. Imagine it- 'well you chose to cut that, so don't blame us'. We shouldn't be having a say in WHERE the cuts are coming from, but IF cuts happen at all.... Oh no wait... we did have a say in that! When we voted Conservative in the last general election.

Thanks a bunch guys.

David Laws proves sleazeball moron

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.

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.

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.

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.