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!

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.