Housing & Homelessness

Housing and homelessness are two significant issues in the UK, but particularly in London. In London, the average property price is currently just over £1,000,000, and consequently out of reach of average Londoners- let alone Brits in general. House prices are high due to the relative lack of supply compared with huge demand, caused by both a boom in the population size as well as the desire for wealthy foreigners to secure a good investment. Meanwhile, as London properties are snapped up by overseas investors, there are thousands of homeless on London's streets. The two problems have interconnected causes and solutions.

In terms of excessive house prices, the Government has already taken steps by promising to make housebuilding easier to increase supply, and in the meantime sponsors "Help to Buy" initiatives to help buyers in the short-term to pay for the currently high prices. What I think would help is if the Government took steps to limit how many international investors could buy residential properties, so that more would be accessible for Brits trying to get on to the property ladder. At the moment, London is becoming more and more of a city of extremes: out of the reach of the working and middle classes, much of London is only accessible to millionaires or those living in council housing- this situation should be addressed to make London properties more accessible for average Londoners/ Brits, rather than the extremes. Therefore, I would advocate the Government capping the number of non-British passport holders who are able to buy residential properties per year, a cap which could be revised on an annual basis depending on supply and demand. At present, aside from allocated "affordable housing", new housing is apparently being promoted just as much overseas for an investment as it is here as a home, meaning that new housing is currently having a limited impact on the housing problem in this country. Moreover, those purchasing London properties as an investment often leave them empty meaning that, as I said above, Londoners are living on the street while luxurious homes are left empty. 

With regards to London's homelessness, a few years ago I was convinced that it was a relatively simple issue: when it comes to allocating council homes, the homeless should be prioritised over anyone migrating to the UK, following the logic that once everyone who needs the most urgent help here receives it before support is offered to those from elsewhere. However, I am now mindful of the complication to the homeless debate that freedom of movement within the EU brings. When membership only included Western European states, the similar levels of living standards meant that there were no expected floods of migration from one set of states to another. However, once Eastern European countries were admitted, the disparity in wealth between these member states and existing members was stark. Thus, rather than the light, inconspicuous flow of Western Europeans previously experienced, the differences between East and West meant that there was an inevitable flow of Eastern Europeans from East to West, where the greater wealth-creating opportunities were available. This not only stretched resources in Western Europe (a problem appreciated all the more when the economy is vulnerable), and reduced the number of available jobs at a time when unemployment remains a problem in many Western European countries, but also threatened developing Eastern European states with a "brain drain", as their gifted talented seek the opportunities in the West, denying their home states of their talents. 

To hinder this imbalance and (returning to my original point) reduce the numbers of Eastern Europeans without the prospect of jobs and potentially living on the streets arriving in the UK, as in elsewhere in Western Europe, it would help if an agreement across the EU (and maybe the Schengen Area in its entirety as well) stated that Europeans are not permitted to migrate freely to another state unless they have a minimum amount of money in their bank account as proof that they can only make a positive contribution, and in no way hinder, the new state they are arriving in. Measures such as this would help alleviate growing Euroscepticism in the UK and elsewhere in Western Europe- not to mention allow UK lawmakers to do more to reduce the blight of homeless, without having the logistical nightmare of being compelled to house potentially millions of citizens from elsewhere in the EU.

HS2, and how it could put Britain on track to bridge the North-South divide

For years, the British Government has been debating whether to construct a High Speed (HS) train service, linking London in the South; Birmingham in the Midlands; and Manchester and Leeds in the North of England. It is a controversial issue, with critics highlighting the cost of tens of billions of pounds, as well as the fact that many miles of countryside will be spoilt by railway lines crossing through them. However, I personally feel that the benefits would ultimately outweigh the costs over the long term, whilst the "Not In My Back Yard" attitude to so many potential infrastructure investments in Britain such as this is very impractical. We have an ever-expanding population, yet a reluctance to construct new railways and reservoirs to alleviate pressure on the overstretched, existing infrastructure.

With a multitude of drawbacks to being a motorist (from the variety of expenses involved, to the traffic jams and lack of parking spaces), it makes sense to support the railways- a practical way to transport masses of people, avoiding most of the numerous costs and inconveniences of driving, not to mention better for the environment. Meanwhile, the greatest attractions for me are the prospects for economic progress for the regions outside of the South-East of England. A high-speed service from the North and Midlands to the South will give access to the greater potential earnings on offer in London and the Home Counties via an expanded commuter belt, and consequently enhance demand in those areas for housing and boost local economies generally; on the other hand, it would make towns and cities elsewhere in England more attractive for investment, as they would be linked more effectively with the country's other economic centres. This could be a major step towards bridging the gap in wealth and opportunities between the North and South of England and, if successful, could also be used as a model for encouraging greater economic activity elsewhere in the UK, e.g. if HS2 were then be additionally linked to the North-East and South-West of England, Scotland and Wales. My main concern for this project is that ticket prices for the train could be too high to be accessible for ordinary Brits; in which case, the costs and sacrifices would have been in vain and great potential would be wasted.

Miliband: There's hope for him yet!

Ed Miliband, the current Leader of the Opposition in UK politics as leader of the Labour Party, has been a singularly uninspiring party leader. For much of this month has generally continued to be a particularly bland politician, who just about fulfils his role as Leader of the Opposition, and can only usually be relied on to state the obvious when it comes to national issues (the sort of man who, when asked about job cuts, is likely to say "this is going to result in more people out of work") without stating practical solutions. Moreover, he inspired greater ridicule than usual this month when an egg was thrown at him; while his bizarre, occasional inclusion of traditional Conservative attributes in his speeches (from adopting the slogan "One Nation", a phrase associated with the Conservatives since the premiership of Benjamin Disraeli in the 19th century, to drawing parallels between himself and another 19th century Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Derby) suggests his a Conservative-wannabe. With all this in mind, it is probably unsurprising that, despite being midway through the controversial term of office of the Coalition Government, the Labour lead is relatively small in opinion polls, while polls on Miliband personally tend to show far less trust and respect for him than Prime Minister David Cameron.

However, during the Labour Party conference last week, Miliband at last seemed to offer a thought-provoking alternative to the current government's agenda; rather than his usual meandering around Westminster-seemingly without any trace of a developed political vision. Although there is far greater optimism about the economy in the UK now (making it more difficult for Labour to criticise the Government on this fundamental policy area), Miliband has not only centred on the ongoing issue of living standards, with many enduring lower salaries yet higher living costs; but has also offered a means to confronting these issues. He has highlighted the frustrating issue of key industries in the UK experiencing high (and sometimes record-breaking) profits, while still raising their prices and consequently making life more difficult for struggling families. Rather than complaining without meaningful action to back it up, or shrugging his shoulders and effectively saying "that's life" and moving on; Miliband has advocated a more active role for the Government: demanding that companies, from the railways to energy companies, charge lower prices or face strict penalties. This is an attractive alternative to the status quo, and suggests a prospective government that is sympathetic with its ordinary citizens- willing to exercise its power for the public interest.

Having said this (with business leaders probably concerned for their company's profits), these ideas were promptly criticised as unfeasible- but I suppose the proof of the pudding would be in the eating. Meanwhile, though increased state intervention in the private sector may well have the effect of compelling companies to act in the public's interest if they are threatened with a big stick; it may also discourage them from operating in Britain at all, removing investment and jobs at a time when the economy is only just recovering. Miliband's focus is a thought-provoking and appealing one, providing the beginnings of an alternative vision for British voters- but if it is likely to jeopardise economic recovery, that would be too high a cost as everyone, either directly or indirectly, feels the impact of economic strength or weakness (albeit to different degrees). Moreover, Labour's economic record is generally viewed as very poor already: blamed for exacerbating the global recession's impact on Britain through reckless spending, funded through borrowing. So Miliband and Labour still have a lot of work to do to boost their credibility, but they've made a start... though it'll take a lot more from them to get my vote any time soon!

Peace Talks with Syria: For Better or For Worse?

Syria has proven to be further evidence of how the world of politics can change dramatically in a small amount of time. At present, foreign direct military involvement in Syria now seems increasingly unlikely. The rejection of involvement by the British parliament severely dented the momentum of those wishing to intervene amongst the international community. American politicians supporting military engagement, led by President Barack Obama, have seemed more defensive of their stance lately and are fighting to plead their case. This comes as the American public, like the British, similarly seems to be afflicted by wariness of further American military engagement in international affairs. However, the process took an unexpected turn after American Secretary of State, John Kerry, suggested that the United States was willing to negotiate instead of attack if it could achieve its goals peacefully. This prompted the Russian response of encouraging Syria to destroy its own chemical weapons- a process which could be verified by UN weapons inspectors, which would thus achieve the goal of removing the contentious weapons, that was stated as the primary motivation behind military involvement. This is the route currently being pursued by international leaders involved in the Syrian conflict.

The removal of these weapons, which breach internationally-agreed laws of weapons use, would doubtless be an outcome that would satisfy leaders who were disturbed by the threat these weapons posed. Moreover, on the other hand those that were more wary of the willingness of some countries to infringe the sovereignty of other states regardless of UN support, will also feel some relief that an alternative to military involvement is being pursued. However, whilst the use of chemical weapons would have been a clearer target for those wishing to intervene in Syria; the main motivation should always have been the moral imperative to prevent the Syrian government from launching attacks on its citizens on a vast scale- regardless of what weapons it was using. If military involvement is ruled out due to the removal of chemical weapons, then this effectively allows the Syrian government to resume attacking its own people through other means; with the international community returning to their position of criticising the Assad regime and vainly hoping for a diplomatic solution. This approach has been in place for the past two years with little to show for it. One wonders how this emerging stalemate in Syria will ultimately be resolved- particularly without external intervention.

Humanity should be the Top Consideration with the International Response to Syria

At the forefront of international news this week has been whether the Western world should intervene in the Syrian conflict. Since the Arab Spring in 2011, when many dictators were challenged and toppled in the Arab World (though in the case of Libya, with outside assistance), Syria's Bashar al-Assad not only managed to remain in power- but also used the country's military force against the regime's opponents. In Syria, this has been relentless ever since, resulting in over 100,000 deaths. While some of those killed had actively confronted the Syrian government, demonstrating in the streets and knowingly putting themselves in danger; many others, including women and children, have been murdered by indiscriminate bombardments from the military.

Over the past week, the apparent use of chemical weapons by the Syrian armed forces against their own citizens was described as the crossing of a "red line" by US President, Barack Obama, which would consequently provoke an international effort to intervene against further such actions by Assad's regime. When setting these terms, one of Obama's most vocal supporters has been the British prime minister, David Cameron. However, the momentum behind an international effort to intervene in Syria encountered an unexpected obstacle when the British House of Commons voted against Cameron's formal suggestion that British forces should consider to getting involved in the conflict. Those opposing included all Labour MPs, who form the official Opposition to the Government, as well as some Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, whose parties form the Government. Thus, Cameron was more-or-less obliged to accept their verdict, and would consequently not be able to provide military force to support his rhetoric.

This is a very divisive issue in Britain, with the most powerful politicians advocating intervention and lamenting the House of Commons' decisions; while opinion polls suggest most members of the public oppose any role for Britain in Syria. I have strong opinions to add to this contentious debate. I think that there are ultimately two scenarios when it is justifiable to use military force: firstly, in self-defence, i.e. when a country has clearly been attacked by an external force, with innocent civilians as their victims; secondly, for humanitarian reasons, to defend civilians against overwhelming opposition forces that they have no chance of practically overcoming otherwise, chiefly in cases where a government is systematically attacking its own people. I consider the situation in Syria a clear example of the latter, with the Government, armed with the latest weapons, tanks and a trained army, taking on largely untrained civilians who have only cobbled together what few weapons they can. If this was an evenly-matched, ideologically-divided civil war, then I would agree that it is not for the international community to pick sides; but when it is a national army primarily against unarmed members of the public, to not intervene is practically giving consent to the Syrian government to treat its people however it wishes- even if it means cruelly executing their own citizens by any means they wish until they are satisfied. As we have seen so far, this not an even battle: it is virtually a one-sided bloodbath. Opposition and members of the public will not be able to practically defend themselves against tanks and aerial bombardments. To be left as an internal issue for Syrians to handle alone is to condemn an unlimited amount of people to death, as has been the case for the past two years. Moreover, those who say that diplomacy is the solution, rather than military action, need only look at the relentless bloodshed of the past two years to see that a new alternative is needed. And those who say it is "none of our business" should wonder how they would feel if they were under attack from their own government, with no hope of defending themselves without external support.

Parallels have been repeatedly drawn with Iraq, questioning whether military intervention is justified, when I feel the greater comparison is with Libya. In the case of both the latter and Syria, their authoritarian governments were using relentless force against their own people. In Libya, swift action that avoided "boots on the ground" achieved the goal of stopping that regime's relentless onslaught on its people- I had expected the same response to Syria, so I was shocked by the House of Commons vote. What arouses particularly cynicism is that the Labour MPs opposing the motion, judging from their public appearances since and distasteful cheers after the vote, give the impression that they were voting more for the sake of undermining the Government and playing politics, in an attempt to overcome the negative attention the Party received for supporting the Iraq War- all at the expense of thousands of lives. The motion clearly did not state imminent military action and regardless of future developments, but merely attempted to gain potential consent to unspecified involvement in certain circumstances, which would require another vote anyway. So those voting against the motion effectively ruled out any military role in any circumstances. Some say that consent from the United Nations should come first but, given that strategy seems to play a greater role in the United Nations Security Council's decision-making than morality, leaders should ultimately do what they think is the right thing and for the greater good. Those advocating a delay until the United Nations' has made a collective decision say that this would give any intervention legitimacy. But for me, neither legitimacy nor party-political strategy should be the top priority- this should be a humanitarian effort. The only consolation is that other countries will at least be taking action to stop the ongoing bloodshed, even if British forces are not there to support them.

History Shouldn't be Boring or Irrelevant

This is a short, personal annoyance I have regarding the teaching of, and perception of, history. Many disregard it as boring and/or irrelevant, and therefore not worth spending time on. However, it's my view that the method of teaching history (experienced by me, and doubtless many others too) is the problem. At school, I was taught random periods of history, with little attempt to link them together or explain the long-term importance of historical events. My memories of the teaching of history at secondary school include: the Romans, including looking at Roman uniforms; how feudalism worked in Medieval times; the 6 wives of Henry VIII; and life in Nazi Germany. Similarly, sightseeing tours and museums tend to refer to random periods and events without linking them together. The Imperial War Museum in London seemed to me to do very little to explain what wars have occurred, the reasons for their occurrence and their consequences; similarly, when I visited Milan a few years ago, I did a sightseeing tour of the city which referred to the landmarks of the city without explaining their significance and symbolism in the history of the city, and Italy generally. Consequently, history always seems to be presented like a trailer for a film: a series of unusual and attention-grabbing events; highlights thrown together in a random order that appear to be interesting momentarily but, due to their lack of a continual narrative, ultimately seem meaningless.

What needs to be done with the presentation of history, whether for the benefit of tourists or school pupils, is to do it in a logical and chronological order that helps to explain the development of a country, working from a logical starting point, and linking events to the world today. When historical events are explained, these explanations should include reference to what caused them; what happened; why they were significant at the time; and what long-term impact they had. Then, for example, the importance of King Henry VIII in English history should revolve around the fact that he established the Church of England- rather than the fate and number of his wives.

History is important in terms of national identity, for understanding other nationalities, and why the human world functions as it does. As with individual lives, past experiences can be used to inform decisions in the present that affect the future.

Egypt: Give Democracy a Chance

This is a very controversial topic and, having not visited Egypt myself and given that I don't personally know any Egyptians, you would be entitled to question my opinion on this matter in particular. What I say is based purely on my perception of events there from the news.

The status quo in Egypt seems to be changing on a regular basis, but at present there is great conflict between supporters of the army on the one side, and the deposed president on the other. In brief, this is how events have progressed so far: for 30 years, Egypt lived under the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, who inherited an authoritarian, military regime from Anwar Sadat and Gamal Nasser, who toppled the monarchy preceding them approximately 60 years ago. However, Mubarak's long-established rule was overthrown in 2011 during the Arab Spring, when similarly authoritarian leaders were toppled (or at least challenged) in the Middle East and North Africa. Following Mubarak's deposition, the army took over, forming what they promised to be a provisional government until democratic elections could be held. A year later, Egypt's first democratic elections were held and won by the Muslim Brotherhood party, with Mohamed Morsi elected as president. President Morsi's term of office was not without controversy, with the Egyptian economy struggling, while many were wary of indications of authoritarian tendencies from the new president, who occasionally resorted to ruling by decree. Due to a culmination of factors, there was public unrest in the summer of 2013, a year after Morsi's election, motivating the army to threaten to depose Morsi unless he gave in to protesters' demands. Shortly afterwards, it was announced that Morsi had indeed been deposed by the military, and that the army would once again form a government for an indefinite period. This is how it remains today, with matters escalating due to conflict between supporters of the deposed President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood party on one side; and those supporting the military's intervention on the other. There have been deaths on both sides.

As an outsider with a vague understanding of the situation, it is my view that President Morsi should have been allowed to remain in office, at least for the time-being. Egypt was incredibly new to democracy, so the new president and government would have had a vast amount of work to do to consolidate democracy, whilst also overcoming Egypt's problems. These would not be easy to resolve, and would not be overcome quickly. Moreover, a government with such a vast task to take on was also bound to make occasional errors in its judgement, and was unlikely to be perfect. I therefore wonder whether it would have been better, and at least legitimate, for Morsi to remain in office and do the best he could at his job. By the time of the next election, Morsi would have had time to put many plans in place as well as the opportunity to make progress in some areas. At the election, the public would have been able to judge Morsi on his record, and decide whether to continue supporting him or choose an alternative government.

Developed countries around the world today have not always had political stability, high living standards and a strong economy (something quite clear in these relatively difficult times in the developed, as well as developing, world). A combination of wise reforms and stability are needed to succeed in government. To expect Morsi to make a perfect nation within the space of a year seemed unrealistic; so in my opinion, political unrest and military intervention came too quickly to give him a reasonable chance of success. In the authoritarian Arab monarchies, such as Jordan, they have had the stability offered by their monarch; but there have also been gradual concessions to democracy which have managed to achieve both stability and progress.

In Egypt's case, I hope that an opportunity to make progress and cultivate democracy has not been lost.

Taking Illegal Immigration Seriously

Immigration is a significant issue in British politics, due to a combination of the influx of workers from Eastern Europe as a result of EU membership, as well as the arrival of millions from outside of the EU over the past decade or so. My practical concerns with immigration have been outlined in earlier posts, but what I would like to draw attention to in this post are the Government's methods of tackling the issue: they have rightly recognised immigration, both legal and illegal, as a major issue in Britain; but their approach to reducing its impact in the foreseeable future has seemed very clumsy, seeming both embarrassing and antagonistic. I know it's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise, saying "this is wrong" and "that was a bad idea" without offering practical solutions or taking steps to personally address issues- but a new approach seems to be seriously needed.

It strikes me that those who are concerned about immigration feel this way due to the resulting impact of vast numbers of competitors from overseas for resources (jobs, houses, etc), or resentment towards those who have settled here illegally when others, whether through birth or legitimate migration, have had to contribute great amounts of money and effort to be British citizens. So, concern centres on those who intend to remain in the UK for the long-term, whether legally and illegally. It therefore seems to be misguided to make life more difficult for overseas students, who only intend to stay in the UK for a few years and then return home, and during their stay will make a welcome contribution to the economy and also (one would hope) take home with them positive memories of their stay in the country. But steps taken by the current government seem to challenge this, never more blatantly than when the licence to London Metropolitan University last year was revoked due to questions raised regarding the legitimacy of its international students- creating an unstable and hostile environment for those planning to study legally.

Then this year, there have been vans driving around the streets of London informing any illegal immigrants they happen to pass that they should go home or face being arrested- not to mention members of the Border Agency approaching members of the public, asking them whether they are residing in this country legally or not and if they can prove it. Although tracking down illegal immigrants and reducing immigration of all kinds is currently welcome; sending the police and Border Agency around the streets, intimidating anyone who seems foreign, surely can't be the best approach. This manages to divide the majority of people between those who can relax, who are obviously British, born and bred; and those who should apparently be viewed with suspicion. Divisiveness and suspicion aren't good for society, and strike me as means to enticing British citizens towards terrorism. Also, we like to consider Britain to be a free country, where law-abiding citizens can go through day-to-day life without state interference; but the measures like those mentioned above suggest otherwise.

Instead, rather than having a confused muddle as people enter and leave the country (as seems to be the case, if reports of the inaccuracy of the Border Agency's figures for net migration are true), surely it would be best to track who is coming and going correctly (as we tend to assume that they do) in the first place- rather than intimidating mostly innocent members of the public as an afterthought. Meanwhile, of course illegal immigrants should be tracked down and deported; but couldn't it be handled in a more structured and discreet manner than through haphazard intimidation on British streets, as we have recently witnessed? Let's hope that the Government can find a way of accurately monitoring who leaves and enters to country; cuts down drastically on the hundreds of thousands who are apparently settling in Britain every year for the long-term; supports short-term visitors, such as students and tourists; and ensures that people are only allowed to enter the country if they are legally permitted to do so.

Some Good Signs for the British Economy

The British economy seems to have been going along a bumpy road for the past 3 years: there has been just as much good news as bad on the whole, with no real extremes either way- for better or worse. Although this process continues, there are several reasons for cautious optimism:

Despite the hindrance resulting from the Euro-crisis and belt-tightening across Europe generally (a traditional key source of British income from exports); exports outside of Europe, to the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries, as well as members of the G20 are much more promising. And there are great expectations for the US-EU free trade agreement on the way.

Although British-owned car brands only include a handful of niche vehicles; actual manufacturing of cars has not been so high in the UK over the past 60 years as it is now, with Britain now exporting more cars than it imports.

A particularly praiseworthy statistic is that the number of new private sector jobs since 2010 greatly outweighs the public sector jobs lost so far to spending cuts. Also, more people are in employment now than ever in British history (though the fact that unemployment nevertheless remains an issue demonstrates how much larger the British population has become).

Problems remain, with government debt a relentlessly stubborn issue undermining progress- but things are generally heading in the right direction.

Monarchies of Europe, arise?

As a monarchist, with a keen interest in British and European monarchy, I have noticed that the interest and relative success of European monarchy since the end of the Cold War- and over the last few years in particular. In this time of disillusionment with ruling political elites, there seems to have been a noticeable gravitation towards royal families and the fairy tale, reassuring family and apolitical image and role that they have.

Last year the jubilees of Queen Elizabeth II of Britain and Queen Margrethe II of Denmark were celebrated; whilst this year there was the inauguration of King Wilem-Alexander of the Netherlands, who succeeded his mother Queen Beatrix after her abdication. This is not to mention several royal weddings and births across Europe recently, which have offered escapism for many members of the public. However, despite these events in Western Europe, the region of Europe to observe in terms of support for the monarchy is Eastern Europe- particularly Montenegro, Romania, Serbia and Albania. Although these countries have been (or at least part of) republics since the Second World War, as communists forced royals from the thrones of Eastern Europe, deposed royals and their descendants have attempted to subtly reassert their claims to their former thrones- with some success.

Prince Nikola of Montenegro, great-grandson of the last reigning Montenegrin monarch, King Nikola I, received a warm welcome back to Montenegro in 2011. The Montenegrin government formally apologised for the poor treatment of the Montenegrin royals since they were forced from the throne at the end of the First World War- particularly during the communist era. As well as this, the Government also returned the former Montenegrin royal palaces to Prince Nikola; gave him an apartment in the Montenegrin capital, Podgorica; and a salary for Prince Nikola to act as an international representative of Montenegro, in addition to his charitable and supporting roles within Montenegro itself. Consequently, Prince Nikola has been considered by some to be Montenegro's de facto monarch- living in a country where the flag already contains the symbol of the Montenegrin royal family.

The former King Michael of Romania was forced from the throne as a teenage monarch at the end of the Second World War, allegedly at gunpoint, by the new Soviet Union-backed communist Romanian government. He is still alive today, but now an elderly gentleman, who nevertheless attracts crowds of millions supporters in his country, where he returned following the fall of communism there in the 1990s. In the past few years, King Michael has been invited to speak in the Romanian parliament on his birthday; has had a public square in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, named after him; and was recently voted the most trusted public figure in Romania. Meanwhile, the current Romanian president, Traian Basescu, has been shrouded in scandals, and has had a tenuous grip on power for much of the past 5 years.

Like Montenegro, Serbia's national flag contains the symbol of its former monarchy. Crown Prince Alexander (the son of the last Serbian monarch, King Peter II) returned to Serbia in the wake of the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. Serbia, once the hub of Yugoslavia, was left alone with her national identity battered and bruised. Prince Alexander is an active campaigner for the restoration of the monarchy as a new focus of national identity. He is a very visible presence in Serbia, promoting the role of his ancestors in Serbia's national history, as well as promoting Serbia abroad and highlighting his ties with Europe's other royal families. Prince Alexander and the rest of the Serbian royal family reside in a palace in the Serbian capital, Belgrade.

Finally, Prince Leka, grandson of the last Albanian monarch, King Zog, has been appointed as a government adviser. This comes 10 years after his late father, also called Prince Leka, unsuccessfully campaigned for a restoration of the Albanian monarchy in a referendum in the 1990s, soon after communism fell there.

Whether these four potential monarchs, or any of their numerous counterparts elsewhere in Europe, will make any further progress is unclear, as monarchies have become a rare breed since the World Wars- with only a handful of restorations ever since. Nevertheless, with elected politicians currently attracting unusually high hostility and disillusionment among their citizens, whilst mindful of the national euphoria and celebrations experienced in Europe's remaining monarchies; people may be tempted to give Kings and Queens another try. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking, even a fairy tale, for monarchists to wait for in vain.

Architecture & Shopping in London

Although I like to hear about redevelopment in London, spreading wealth and opportunities across London (and I would like to see this approach on a nationwide scale), I think that, surely, more time and originality could go into new London buildings. Recently in the City of London, we have had (or are in the process of developing) several skyscrapers, including the Shard, Walky-Talky, Cheesegrater, Pinnacle... All given nicknames to try and make them sound interesting, when really they are quite unimaginative towers of glass- interfering with the London skyline. Then, around the Battersea area, all new developments involve glass buildings, such as the new American embassy. The Victoria area is being redeveloped, complete with the Victoria Wedge which, once again, involves whole swathes of glass once again. In East London, the Silvertown area will also be covered in glass buildings. Spotting a pattern? Instead of thoughtful architecture, with many minute details and historical significance (think St Paul's cathedral and the Houses of Parliament); glass buildings are popping up all over London like weeds. But at least they're not as ugly as the old concrete buildings. And they are all being built for the same bland purpose: a combination of apartments (usually sold overseas as investments, doing little to alleviate the city's housing crisis), offices, shops and restaurants.

Having said this, I greatly approve of one of the plans for Silvertown. This involves buildings which will exhibit goods to be purchased online. Seems a common-sense response to online shopping: acknowledging that many purchase their goods online, but equally that many want to "try before they buy" with electric goods, just as they want to with clothes as well. Waterstones would do well to bear this in mind, as many (myself included) want to see what books are like before they buy them. Although I fear that there is little scope for this with CDs and DVDs, so HMV will need to come up with a new technique if they want to succeed, rather than continue to struggle on. Maybe they should allow customers to listen to samples from tracks on a CD or see trailers of DVDs in-store before they purchase them, although YouTube would already provide this function when shopping online...

Either way, on the highstreet, it seems to be survival of the fittest if they are to compete with large Walmart-esque supermarkets that sell everything relatively cheaply, as well as Amazon.

Economic Integration... of the UK

If ever the words "economic" and "integration" dominate a news article in the UK, the odds are that they will be talking about the EU- aside from a usually pro-UKIP minority who tend to focus on closer ties with the Commonwealth instead. But an issue I would like to raise considers whether greater integration WITHIN the UK should be a higher priority than integration within another, larger, multinational organisation.

Over recent months, two high profile British politicians, Alex Salmond and Boris Johnson, have publicly and repeatedly made statements which advocate a greater focus on smaller units within the UK and at least some degree of separation. Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, is an unsurprising separatist, given that he leads the Scottish Nationalist Party. In the midst of the campaign for Scottish independence, Salmond is making the case for how strong Scotland's economy is: besides observing the clear assets the oil and gas supplies from the North Sea could provide an independent Scotland with, Salmond has also drawn attention to the success of other sectors in the Scottish economy, from tourism and exported goods, to powerful banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson always talks up London's economic success and strength, ranging from the arts (West End theatres, arts projects on London's South Bank...) and sport (the Olympic legacy) to world-leading companies in the finance sector, such as Lloyds and HSBC. Moreover, Johnson has argued that, given London's great economic contribution to the UK, London should be able to keep more of her own profits for her own improvement, e.g. for infrastructure, housing, etc.

Both politicians make valid points: the areas of the UK that they represent do indeed have many economic strengths, to the extent that London and Scotland undoubtedly would even have the ability to "survive" as independent countries, drawing inspiration from the likes of Singapore and Norway respectively. But across ALL of the UK there are many and various success stories which can be impressive individually, but are surely even more so when considered collectively. Rather than forming narrower viewpoints, trying to pull away their key sectors from the rest of the UK, surely it would make more sense to use the many economic assets found across the UK to consolidate their strength to compete in the global economy. Individually, HSBC and RBS are powerful banks and evidence of London's and Scotland's economic prowess- but surely by cooperating as British institutions, the collective force of the UK would be more impressive. And this could be done across all sectors in the UK, as Britain has leading or potentially-leading examples in every field, which would be stronger by pooling their resources and sharing good practice in the UK so that they are better equipped in the face of international competition. I would have thought this would prove to be more effective than attempting to break the UK into smaller and probably more vulnerable economic units, as the Republic of Ireland and Cyprus have demonstrated during this economic crisis. Despite strong international competition, the UK is still home to leading companies and respected institutions: from BP and HSBC, two of the largest companies in the WORLD, to institutions such as the BBC, NHS and Oxford University. Breaking up into smaller units would undoubtedly allow governments to tailor their structures towards their economic specialities- but surely specialising and prioritising certain industries and sectors means effectively putting too many of one's eggs in one basket, so if there is a slump in that key sector, the whole economy suffers. But by exploiting collective expertise in a variety of sectors allows for a broader economy and one that is less exposed to fluctuations in different sections of the economy.

Give Germany A Break!

Over the past few years, as the combination of recession and government debt has crippled many European economies, much scorn in those hardest-hit countries has been directed at Germany. Widely credited as the motor keeping the Eurozone moving, as a consequence of its fundamental economic contribution to the Eurozone, parallels have been drawn between the economic power Germany wields in Europe today; and its military power in the continent 70 years ago during the Second World War. These comparisons, in my opinion, are deeply unfair.

Firstly, although we know that the choice of member states for the Eurozone, and how it functions, were reckless and irresponsible (particularly with hindsight): tying too-diverse economies together, which, depending on how you look at it, seem either too closely integrated or not close enough for their own good. However, as far as I understand, all those countries that joined the Eurozone did so through their own choice, so the governments of these countries were as reckless and irresponsible as those who established the Eurozone, by not anticipating the potential problems they could face. Moreover, in the cases where governments accumulated debts far exceeding the recommended European Union levels, they left a very dangerous legacy that their people would inevitably have to endure in the foreseeable future. Although the UK faces great problems in terms of debt, the hardest-hit countries in the Eurozone have had a far worse experience due to their membership of this project. The price for some economic protection from other Eurozone members has been very high, as measures to resolve economic problems have been dictated to them. But this is not done out of malice, and to punish the public. Stronger Eurozone countries, like Germany, understandably do not want to be used as a cash-machine, and a means to instant economic support and recovery whenever governments recklessly overspend. Because the economies of the EU are tied together, they all have a stake in each others' successes and failures; hence why the stronger economies are obliged to support the weaker ones in times of crisis. But for this to be a fair process, it makes sense for "terms and conditions" to be imposed in exchange for substantial support, as well as reassuring measures to try and reduce the risk of this happening again. So, really and truly, there should be gratitude for economic support to prevent economic collapse: otherwise, they should seek to withdraw from the Eurozone until they are fiscally-prepared for the realities of a common currency (as outlined in another blog entry). Already, the British public are resentful towards the transfer of billions of pounds to elsewhere in Europe, where there is the chance of these billions being spent unwisely, and with the British having relatively little say over how their money, which could otherwise be used to alleviate current problems in the UK, is being distributed and spent across Europe. Therefore, imagine if Britain was also part of the Eurozone, and sending even more money across the continent to prop up irresponsible governments: with those who are irresponsible receiving money; and those who have spent wisely are transferring it elsewhere, for an indirect benefit, as is the case with Germany. The British would be furious, and potentially demanding their in-out referendum from the EU to be even sooner!

Secondly, Germany is not only the primary contributor to propping up the Eurozone- but it is demonised for doing so! Germany is associated with imposing austerity, but it is doing so for perfectly fair and rational reasons, as explained above. But what is particularly unfair is how so many are comparing today's democratic and peaceful Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel, to the undemocratic and belligerent Germanys of Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm and particularly Hitler. Germany is indeed highly influential in Europe today, with its longest, most sustainable, dominating influence in the continent in history. But, unlike the aforementioned historic leaders of Germany, this increased power and influence has been achieved through hard work, sensible leadership, responsible economic development combined with the willing, ongoing voluntary concessions of sovereignty of other European countries to a federal Europe; as opposed to the military coercion, adopted by these historic leaders, in an attempt to achieve their goals. Germany is a great success, and deserves to be, for doing the right things and making the right decisions. Whether out of jealousy, desperation, an eagerness to find a scapegoat, or a combination of all these factors; unfair criticisms are being directed at Germany today, undermining her with her somewhat controversial history- when really the Germanophobes of today across Europe should consider the logic behind Germany's actions; attempt to empathise with the German government and the German people; and take a closer look at the actions of their own governments before demonising others.

Tribute to Margaret Thatcher

At this time, it would be fitting to pay a tribute to a woman I feel was one of the greatest Prime Ministers in British history: Margaret Thatcher. Undoubtedly a controversial leader, following the former Prime Minister's recent death I thought that it would be worth adding my opinion to the many other opinions shared about the Iron Lady- or Marmite Lady as I also consider her, as she seems to be the sort of leader that you either "love or hate" like Marmite- and you are rarely indifferent too.

I don't agree with everything she did: the poll tax was an unfair tax for demanding equal amounts from the richest and poorest in the country; meanwhile, particularly with the aid of hindsight, I wonder if more could have been done to bolster manufacturing during her premiership, rather than shifting focus so dramatically from manufacturing to the services sector. In most ways, I agree with the policies of current Prime Minister David Cameron more than those of Margaret Thatcher. However, I lament the fact that Cameron seems to lack the same level of vision, passion and determination that Mrs Thatcher displayed during her terms of office. Now, I was  not even 10 months old when Mrs Thatcher was forced to resign as Prime Minister, so I cannot speak of personal experience during her premiership, although I did undoubtedly grow up at a time when MT's shadow loomed large over British politics...

To understand Mrs Thatcher's impact, it seems best to compare the 1980s (the decade which saw MT as Prime Minister for every single day) with the 1970s. On the one hand, the 1970s are sometimes looked back on nostalgically for the music (ranging from Led Zeppelin to the Rubettes) as well as the TV, which included the family-friendly comedy of Morecambe & Wise; the cheeky sitcom Are You Being Served?; and the witty Fawlty Towers. Meanwhile, there was a spread of jobs in the public and private sector- with those in the public sector seeming to be quite safe, so long as the unions loomed large and deterred governments, whether Conservative or Labour, from even dreaming of ditching their jobs. This was the last decade of what was the Post-War, "Consensus" Britain, where the political mainstream was left-of-centre, and neither of the main parties seemed willing to rock the boat by overtly challenging the welfare state, NHS and nationalisation established by Labour under Clement Attlee in the wake of the Second World War. Whether vehemently opposed or supportive of Mrs Thatcher, few deny that she drastically challenged this vision of Britain; ended much of Consensus Britain; and established the model of Britain which largely remains ever since her premiership.

Despite the positive aspects of the compromising, easy-going Consensus Britain, steering Britain down a road of "managed decline", as the memory of the Empire faded and Britain evolved into a new status as a run-of-the-mill state within the European Community- in some ways it was arguably an unsustainable path, and it's difficult to predict what have happened to Britain were it not for Mrs Thatcher. But Consensus Britain was expensive for the government to maintain, with a large state sector, which would support industries, from British Steel and British Leyland automobiles to the famous coal mines, that was willing to subsidize all industries- regardless of whether they could survive alone on their profits, for the sake of preserving jobs. Whilst a seemingly kind and considerate approach, in practice it empowered potentially militant unions, such as the National Union of Mineworkers under Arthur Scargill, to threaten strikes to bring the country to a standstill if the government even considered curbing their income or numbers. Moreover, funding this was proving increasingly difficult- even raising income tax to unprecedented highs, provoking a flight of many wealthy individuals to less punitive tax regimes (celebrities were the most high profile cases, though there were many others, who took their wealth (and revenue/spending-power) with them from the British economy to another). And yet, Consensus Britain ended with that hallmark of economic failure: a loan from the IMF. To meet the terms of this loan, cuts would have been necessary anyway, as we see across Europe today to meet their bailout conditions.

But with Mrs Thatcher's government, regardless of the IMF loan, there was a determination to sort the nation's finances. The Consensus Britain of the past was economically unsustainable because it was unaffordable, hence why the size of the public sector was cut dramatically; subsidies to unprofitable industries were halted, left to sink or swim naturally; and ultimately, unprofitable mines were closed. This would bring state finances into order, and hopefully bring greater economic stability and sustainability. MT believed in a reduced public sector anyway, taking the view that the state should only provide the essentials and that to create jobs for jobs' sake was impractical. She also considered the state a necessary evil, and disapproved of a state that reached into all spheres of life. She once also said that the state should be the public's servant, not its master- hence why she was motivated to reduce its interference in people's lives. She was a believer in meritocracy: everyone should succeed through their own efforts and abilities, with the government only providing the foundations and a safety net if required.

Moreover, closing unprofitable mines also brought her government directly into confrontation with Mr Scargill's NUM. Though thousands relied on the mines for their livelihood, I can sympathies with a desire to replace them with a more economically-sustainable means than an unprofitable, subsidised industry. Also be mindful that, during the 1970s (and to a lesser extent in the 1960s and 1980s), Mr Scargill led a militant, blackmailing campaign against the governments of the day: keep our jobs and boost our wages, or we'll strike; limit energy supplies; and consequently prevent heat and light entering the homes, workplaces, hospitals and schools across the country. So what was essentially a conflict between the government and a trade union, actually victimised and punished the public more than anyone else. They were the ones who had to endure a "three day week" in the early 70s, due to restrictions of energy supplies. So, understandably, this was not a practice that could be allowed to continue. However, whilst the end of unprofitable mines made sense, more probably should have been provided to fill the inevitable gaps in employment.

As I have said in earlier posts, British involvement in the Falklands War WAS justified: defending the rights of the Falkland Islanders to remain in their homes, under their own government. I also agree with MT's support for European cooperation and common market, yet critical stance on federal European interference in member states' politics.

Her vision was to create a sustainable meritocracy in place of an unsustainable, declining class-bond state; she passionately defended the logic and benefits of her economic model and the rights of Britons' internationally; and she determinedly achieved these goals, though with many victims (including herself) left as a result. Like it or not, Mrs Thatcher transformed Britain from the declining, post-imperial, more modest European state of the Consensus years; to an assertive Britain, doggedly defending seats at the top tables of international diplomacy, challenging European intervention in British governance, and (most controversially of all) willingly sending British troops around the world for international causes: starting with the Falklands War, military activism was continued with the Gulf War, Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as involvement in Libya and elsewhere.

Mrs Thatcher brought many opportunities to Britons from a range of backgrounds; my hope is that the success she brought to the South-East of England will be replicated by her successors elsewhere in the UK as well over coming the years.

Eur-opeless

Ever since Britain began engaging in the process of European integration in the 1970s, there has been an often awkward relationship between the British and their continental counterparts. This has been a running theme that continues to this day- an issue that currently looms larger in British politics than it has for decades due to the Conservatives' promise of an in-out referendum on European Union membership in the next parliament (should they be re-elected)- which consequently puts pressure on the Labour party to match that pledge. So there is a significant chance of a referendum on British membership before 2020.
Though Eurosceptic, I am not a Europhobe: I believe that membership of the European Union is ultimately in Britain's best interests, although I am wary of federal European interference in member states' affairs. The greater ease in terms of trade that membership offers, through a common market which provides easier access to other continental markets, as well as making Britain more attractive as an accessible gateway into Europe, is arguably the organisation's greatest asset from Britain's perspective. It also bolsters Britain's bargaining power when negotiating trade deals with large nations: an influential representative of an organisation of hundreds of millions of people has more leverage than a representative of tens of millions of people alone. Moreover, having a large say in the running of the EU (and paying for access to the common market and its institutions) is fairer than paying out and having to abide by legislation over which you have little to no influence, as is the situation for Norway and Switzerland.
Having said this, the EU and its supporters have been unbelievably poor at conveying to the British public these benefits; instead the EU is associated with unfair intervention in states' affairs, economic incompetence and detachment from reality. Following developments within EU member states, primarily Britain, in the British media (even the BBC, associated with a more centrist, unbiased approach to many issues), the British public are almost relentlessly bombarded with these negative associations with Europe. At present, prominent stories include how Cyprus is struggling with its finances, and is having to raid and undermine its own banks, due to pressure from the EU; there are fears in Britain of Romanians and Bulgarians arriving en masse next year due to the expiration of restrictions on their arrival in this and other EU member states- people from some of the EU's poorest states, who are expected to put greater pressure on already overstretched housing, jobs market, and the public sector generally (see my previous post for more on this), with Romanians currently associated in the British press with squatting in private properties; exploiting Britain's "Big Issue" magazine for the homeless for their own acute material gain; and criminal gangs. Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights (not an EU institution, but strongly associated with the body nevertheless) is preventing the British government from deporting the infamous Abu Qatada back to Jordan. Practically every week in the UK, there is a news story showcasing the cracks in the EU as an organisation, and highlighting the plight of its members: from economic crises in Greece, to prolonged attempts to form governments in Italy this year and Belgium last year.
Given this relentless negative association with Europe, combined with other concerns in Britain today, it is unsurprising that the UK Independence Party seems an attractive alternative for an increasing number of voters. Despite our differences, the partnership between Britain and other EU member states is very valuable and practical; for the reasons I described above from Britain's perspective, whilst others value Britain's positive influence in terms of defending democracy and the free market within the EU (not to mention its sizable contribution to EU funds!). Consequently, if those who consider British EU membership as beneficial, both within and outside of the UK, and want to keep it intact, they need to seriously get their act together if they want to guarantee that UKIP will remain outside of the British parliament for the foreseeable future, and secure a "Yes" vote for Britain remaining in the EU in a potential referendum.

Excessive Problems for the UK

On the whole, if one has been following the news in the UK, there is generally very little positive news or cause for optimism to be seen on a national scale. The most obvious issue is the economy; hindering the job prospects for the unemployed, and jeopardising the long-term income of those currently in work. But there are also serious lingering social issues in the UK as well: the strain on public services, most notably the National Health Service, and supplies generally; from energy resources to housing. As I see it, there are three main issues stifling the UK's progress and undermining our stability; two of which are within our control, and the current government is currently taking much-needed steps to tackle them (let us hope that they do enough, soon enough, to have an impact before our problems get worse). These broad issues are: 1) Excessive Population 2) Excessive Government Debts 3) The Global Recession. Obviously, 3) is largely out of the UK's hands, but nevertheless undermines a more solid economic recovery through exports (invisible or otherwise). The UK is by no means suffering as much as most places round the world: swathes of Africa, Asia and elsewhere are still blighted by poverty; revolutions, coups and political instability undermine (or at least linger in the shadows) in a surprisingly high number of countries worldwide. Even in Europe, part of the developed world, European politics and finances are now very messy: from the struggle to form a government in Italy, one of the most politically and economically significant states in Europe, to the current concerns for providing funding for a bailout of Cyprus. Plus, with the ongoing threat of the Cypriot government considering an unprecedented raid on savers' bank accounts, as well as the ridiculous suggestion of capping salary bonuses EU-wide, Europe seems to be providing more and more incentives for international business to relocate elsewhere- and take their invaluable investment and tax revenue with them! Nevertheless, as far as the UK is concerned, in a number of ways Britain is experiencing some of its greatest hardships experienced in the past 50 years. And I lie much of the blame for two of the causes of this (government debt and overpopulation) with the previous Labour government. During their period of office, from 1997-2010, we experienced higher levels of immigration than during any other 13-year period EVER in our history, and marks the greatest proportional shift in population since the Norman Conquest of England almost 1000 years ago! This has meant that, come the recession, there are too few jobs, houses, energy supplies, water supplies, school places, hospital appointments, etc, to accommodate an over-inflated population. When this is taken into account, it becomes less surprising that we had both water shortages and floods in the same year; and that, despite the total number of people in employment higher than ever in this country's history, unemployment still remains a significant issue. To provide some explanation for this, if England were considered alone, it would be in the top ten most densely populated countries IN THE WORLD- with the south east most populous. And England represents a vast majority of the UK's territory and population. This links in with the problem of government debt, as the government is compelled to tackle these problems with higher spending at a time when it is trying to reduce already substantial government debt; accumulated when the economy was already doing well, with borrowed money partially used to fund jobs- a totally unsustainable approach to employment. As a result of an excessive population, the government is obligated to spend more to increase housing, as well as more on job seeker's allowance. I don't envy the government at all: it needs more jobs than ever in our history, but the government debt is too high to resort to filling the gaps with surplus public-sector jobs. All it can do, as it is already doing, is try and get the right balance of so many elements: providing the fundamental public services expected by the public with constrained finances; encourage the private sector to take on as many of the UK's remaining unemployed as possible (not easy when valuable supplies of overseas income are more scarce elsewhere in the world due to recessions or relentless poverty); take enough tax to reduce national debts and fund the public sector, but not so much that the poorest are even more stretched and the rich are frightened off to less-punitive tax regimes elsewhere; cut spending, again to get the national finances in order, yet not to the extent that basic public sector provisions are failing, whilst also trying to scrape together some funds for infrastructure projects to aid the economy in the short and long term. I would like to end this post by pointing out that to be opposed to excessive immigration does not necessarily make you racist. The belief that "to criticise immigration was racist" was the consensus in mainstream politics and the media up until a few years ago, which exacerbated the aforementioned problems. But many are realising that, firstly, race is no longer a clearly defining characteristic of immigration: many British citizens today are NOT white, and many immigrants ARE white. Moreover, it is nonsensical to blame migrants themselves for excessive immigration (legal immigrants anyway). Migrants have applied to enter this country, their applications have been accepted by the British establishment, so they have moved here: what is so scandalous and amoral about immigrants doing this?! Those at fault are those who were in government and could see the big picture: that millions of people were arriving in this country year after year, and did little to hinder it or publicly acknowledge its long-term impact. Excessive debt and excessive immigration: these are two of the largest thorns in Britain's side, put there by the government that was supposed to safeguard this country's interests, but instead jeopardised this country's prospects for the foreseeable future.

All the World's a Stage...and it Looks a Mess!

It seems particularly ironic to me at the moment, given that I'm unemployed, when, whilst applying for various positions, I am obliged to take many tests- seemingly to ensure that the company isn't left with someone working for them who is unreliable and could make a mess of their company. But it seems that those who have surely passed the greatest tests, and become our leaders, seem to be failing quite spectacularly in a lot of ways to keep the world functioning at the moment. Believe it or not, I'm not one of these who usually seizes every opportunity to criticise politicians: I appreciate that they have a difficult job, dealing with many complex issues and trying to keep many people happy. But when I stop and look at the world today, I think that surely they can, collectively, do better: - Worldwide, there has been a recession, affecting different parts of the world to varying extents, for the past 5 years. - In Europe, though steps have been taken to reassure the world that the European Union will do its utmost to uphold the Eurozone, on the whole Europe remains plagued by a toxic combination of recession in the private sector and overwhelming debts in both the private and public sectors. - The USA, the world's foremost power, seems stifled by debate between Republicans and Democrats, President and Congress, to agree an overall strategy when it comes to public spending and taxes. For months, responsibility has been ineffectually passed back and forth between those running the US, undermining confidence in the government and consequently the country as well. - In the Far East, while Japan struggles to overcome decades of debt build-up and economic stagnation, it has also devoted a lot of wasteful time and energy, along with China, the so-called superpower of the future, to sabre-rattling over a small group of islands- jeopardising the stability and progress of the region as a result. Meanwhile, the juvenile routine of neighbouring North Korea launching massively-expensive rockets to a chorus of international condemnation has been continued by Kim Jong Un from the days of his father, Kim Jong-Il. - Instability and civil war still hinder optimism and progress in many parts of the Islamic world and Africa, with governments attacking their own people, or nations fighting each other within a single state. - The town where Osama bin Laden was assassinated in Pakistan has apparently tired of its negative association with this incident, and is consequently planning to develop a theme park to change the area's reputation! Most countries have had at least a few generations of leaders to overcome their countries' problems- and still economic crises, military antagonism and ethnic conflict continue the undermine global stability and progress, to the benefit of very few. Let's hope they all get their act together soon!

Stitch-Up for Students

Sorry to start the New Year off complaining- hopefully the year will start from a low point and end on a high! However, having graduated six months ago and still out of work, it is surely understandable why I may not be the most optimistic of people at the moment! At school, I was submerged in praise for hard work and given the impression that all those who work hard and go to university will achieve whatever they want. Six months after graduation and the illusion has disappeared. For those who have spent almost all of the first 21 years of their life in education will find many employers uninterested: if you apply for low-paid jobs, you will be ignored because companies do not want to waste their time employing someone who will quit at the first sniff of a more aspirational career. But higher-paid jobs won't be interested either, due to a lack of experience in the workplace. Thus the position many graduates will find themselves in is either persevering and hoping they get lucky, or spending months in unpaid/expenses-only work to gain experience- but without a proper income or a guaranteed job at the end. So many interns will find themselves working just as hard (if not harder) than their colleagues- the only difference being whether a token, menial sum is transferred to their bank account or thousands of pounds. Adding to the mix are at least two other factors: positive discrimination and silver spoons. Positive discrimination is the practice whereby employers (primarily in the state sector) prioritise the employment of those from backgrounds that traditionally are underrepresented in the workplace, such as women and ethnic minorities. However moral the intentions of this policy are, discrimination is never positive- no matter what spin is put on it, and there will still be the same victimisation and resentment that accompanies all discrimination. Awareness of the practice will particularly annoy white, male jobseekers- and unfortunately fuels resentment against those who benefit from positive discrimination, when really it is the employers and the government who should be blamed for enforcing the policy. Don't discriminate against some jobseekers and patronise others (as well as patronise employers)- just discriminate on the basis of ability and potential! Then there is the old case of the silver spoon: the trend of employment being found because of who people know over what they know. It is understandable that friends and family would like to guarantee a good career for those closest to them, but not everyone has such useful connections to exploit, making it unfair to the latter. While it is common sense to trust someone you already know to take on a job, it never gives a chance to outsiders. It also means that there will inevitably be cases of the gifted and unconnected being ignored in favour of those potentially with the opposite traits. So when seeking employment, not only do graduates need to worry about experience, but also be mindful of positive discrimination and the silver spoon potentially having an impact behind the scenes. Moreover, universities themselves are guilty of manipulating statistics to make them (and universities generally) seem a good path to pursue when leaving school. Statistics tend to show that a majority of students are employed full-time soon after graduating. But having read and filled the survey for graduates myself, I was shocked to see how skewed the first question is. You are asked to tick the box that is relevant to your circumstances 6 months after graduation, with the first box titled "Working Full-Time"-which surprisingly includes "internships, "voluntary" and "unpaid work". "Work" of this nature is later referred to as "employment" in the survey. So if you are helping unpaid in a charity shop; on unpaid work experience at a local business; or commuting at your own expense and unpaid for an internship- you are considered by this survey to be in full-time employment. No wonder people are cynical!