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!

PCC- A Criminal Waste of Time and Money

The British government recently held its first elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Those elected to the post have influence over regional police, their staff and priorities. Election turnout for these elections tended to range from 10-20%. It seems unsurprising to me that turnout was so low. But curiously, whilst many in the media similarly predicted this, they largely felt it was due to disillusionment with the political elite and main parties. This may explain part of it, but I feel it was for even more basic reasons than that: 1) lack of awareness and 2) lack of interest. 1) Lack of Awareness: I am widely considered a politically-aware individual amongst my peers, yet I was unaware of when they were being held. So others were also likely to have been unaware of the election date, and probably that the elections were being held at all. 2) Lack of Interest: This is the biggest issue in my book. Vague descriptions were given to the role, and surely there is no need for even more bureaucracy and politicians than there already are. There are already local borough or county councils, parliamentary representatives, assembly members and European parliamentary representatives- surely these elected representatives could spend some time reviewing police work, without electing more politicians. And if this role is felt to be necessary, then why should we stop at elected commissioners for police? Doesn't that then justify commissioners for education, health, transport, the environment... where does it end? All the PCC elections have done is expand an already excessive political elite, feathering the nests of more politicians at a time of cutbacks, to do a job other institutions should already be doing. Moreover, whilst on the surface, more democracy may appear to be better, but in fact too many elections induce voter fatigue- public irritation with too many elections, reducing turnout. It is also expensive, and often represents the interests of a minority of interested voters, with most other voters either disinterested or disillusioned. Also, just because a candidate is most popular with voters doesn't mean they are necessarily most capable of the job. That is not to criticise democracy generally: it is crucial for legitimate, representative government- but to try and elect too many positions usually results in a waste of time and money.

English is the Lingua Franca- good or bad for Britain?

On the surface of it, it is very convenient for the British (and other English-speaking nations), as they can travel much of the world and be understood, as English is the lingua franca. But this also poses problems for the British, an issue highlighted as a consequence of recent government efforts to promote the study of languages in British schools. It is all well and good that the government is encouraging primary and secondary schools to teach French, Spanish and Mandarin. But unless these were the exclusive subjects taught at school, or multiple subjects were taught in these languages, pupils are not going to become fluent. So by the time pupils finish school they will know only a few token phrases- nowhere near enough to get by when travelling. The advantage to countries that include non-native English speakers is that outside of lessons, people are likely to listen to English-speaking music and watch English-speaking films. Moreover, when they travel overseas, due to English being the lingua franca, two people from different nationalities are likely to communicate in English- despite it not being their native language. Meanwhile, a vast majority of Britons are not regularly exposed to foreign languages to this extent, and therefore do not have the shared incentive to learn these languages. As mentioned at the beginning, most Britons are nevertheless still in an advantageous position by being native English speakers. But then again, opportunities are hindered by speaking only one language fluently. For example, consider the allowances that are made in the EU to better ensure a higher proportion of British employees within the EU, an allowance not taken advantage of by many Britons due to their inability to speak a language besides English fluently. There is another drawback to speaking the lingua franca. It means that, whilst a smaller proportion of Britons can take advantage of opportunities elsewhere in the non-English speaking world in terms of work, particularly in other EU countries; meanwhile the far greater proportion of those who are not native English-speakers, but nevertheless have it as a second language, are able to work easily in Anglosphere countries- like Britain. With Britain weathering the economic relatively well, particularly when compared with elsewhere in Europe, many workers from the EU already have a great incentive to use their right as an EU/EEA citizen to work in the UK. Meanwhile the balance of workers entering Britain to work would already be relatively high, precisely because its language is indeed the lingua franca. Thus, as the proportion of EU/EEA workers migrating to Britain is likely to be high already as a relatively economically stable country, the speaking of English in the UK is bound to tip this balance even more, adding further challenges to a country already dealing with an increasing and dense population. Such problems include the availability of housing (when it is not plentiful enough to house a larger population, it drives prices higher, as is currently the case despite the recession), utilities (water, electric and gas resources are spread more thinly amongst a larger population) and public services, such as benefits, healthcare and education (when the government is already dealing with a deficit regarding public spending).

Cruel To Be Kind?: A Smaller Eurozone

Months of austerity cuts and protests have dragged on into years, and despite regular meetings among the European elite on the issue it still appears no closer to being resolved. Whilst half of the Eurozone is enduring radical spending cuts, so drastic that they have encouraged frequent riots, the other half is relatively stable, though increasingly bitter that their responsibly-saved Euros are being spent on countries that are less fiscally-responsible. Moreover, the crisis has had more far-reaching impact, as other developed and developing economies worldwide rely on European custom and investments to prosper, which prolongs global economic turmoil. There is infrequently speculation on the breakup of the Eurozone- and even less frequently on the end of the Eurozone altogether. Whilst I don’t believe the Euro will be eradicated altogether, at present a dramatic change in membership seems to be the best solution to bringing this crisis towards a conclusion. All sides in the Eurozone are currently hampered by shared exchange rates and substantial economic integration and interdependence; a problem which, with hindsight, clearly should have been avoided by greater enforcement of budgetary spending and borrowing in Eurozone member states from the offset. By exceeding the borrowing limits agreed for the Eurozone, member states jeopardise the economic stability of other member states as well as their own. Consequently, it would seem fair if, once a state exceeds those limits for a certain period of time, all Eurozone member states were entitled to a vote on whether that state should be expelled from the Eurozone as a result, with a super-majority passing the decision. Expulsion of fiscally-irresponsible states means that, whilst those states will suffer dramatically in the short-term, in the longer-term, by restoring their own currencies, supply and demand will rebalance their economy quicker than if they try to do so with a shared currency. Currently, Greece is trying to encourage investors' confidence in their weak economy, which uses the strong and expensive currency, the Euro. If Greece had a restored Drachma, it would be cheaper than a Euro, and investors may wish to seize goods in this cheaper currency, and ultimately rebalance the economy. Exclusion of irresponsible states also reduces the burden on those that abide by the rules. A smaller, more efficient Eurozone would benefit those within it by restoring its collective reputation as a reliable investment hub, whilst those economically-weaker states will be able to recover at their own pace, and the prospect of stability and growth should give the world economy a boost. It would also provide Eurozone states with an incentive to abide by the borrowing guidelines, and deter states from joining if they feel they are unable to meet these requirements.

Who decides the "Future of Europe"?

Last week, a group of foreign ministers from 11 different European Union (EU) member states, called the "Future of Europe group", issued a report calling for closer integration between member states, with key points being reference to a European Army and the greater use of "super-majorities" in decision-making (decisions made only with the backing of representatives of a majority of member states and a majority of the EU's population). Whilst there are merits to some of the points agreed in the report, with super-majorities being much fairer and more representative, and the need for greater European clout in economic matters, given how the weak oversight of national budgets has completely undermined the Eurozone's unity and effectiveness, is also crucial if the Euro is to have a future. What is troubling is that a seemingly self-imposed elite group of member states have decided they will direct the EU's "future", rather than including ALL foreign ministers or at least just Eurozone members. There seems to be no logic to the choice of this 11, except perhaps that they mostly represent countries usually favouring further integration. Britain and Ireland are amongst the oldest EU member states (or EEC as it was then) yet have been excluded from contributing to this report. Greece has similarly been in the EU for a long time, and both Greece and Ireland are in the Eurozone, yet have been excluded. Countries such as Britain, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Finland have far larger populations and contribute more economically to the EU than Luxembourg, yet the latter is the only one of this list of member states to have an input on Europe's future. If the EU is to get greater respect and legitimacy from all European states, it should extend the fairness that it preaches to what it does in practice.

From GCSEs to English Baccalaureate

British Education Minister, Michael Gove, has decided that the British General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is no longer an adequate qualification, and is due to replace it with the English Baccalaureate. In practice, rather than representing the culmination of work on coursework (usually essay projects) and modular exams over a two-year period, the focus will be on the final set of exams instead. For me, this is damaging in two key respects: firstly, by saying that the GCSE is inferior and the new qualification is superior undermines the generations of job-seekers today who are armed with GCSEs through no choice of their own. What would have been better was to improve GCSEs and keep their name. Secondly, I do not personally consider an exam-focused replacement as an improvement, given that not everyone deals with exams well (which doesn't make them less intelligent) and a focus on exams means that new generation's qualifications will be based more on memory (through exam revision) and having a good day and good luck with their exam papers, rather than getting the overall evidence of genuine understanding that more staggered and varied examination methods provide. What should be the focus of the government is not examination methods, but the nature of school education in general. The national curriculum needs to focus more on equipping pupils for the real world, including more actual experience in the workplace and skills they can use there, rather than basing education on knowledge, probably over 80% of which is not useful and forgotten by pupils a couple of years after leaving school. Wouldn't a greater understanding of loans, interest rates and mental arithmetic be more useful in maths lessons than algebra and Pythagoras' theorem? Equally, wouldn't perfecting the art of letter-writing be more useful than squeezing in numerous Shakespeare plays? Knowledge is important, but in this more competitive world British pupils need to be better prepared for the world of work than they currently are, a world which generally favours experience over knowledge.