Misspent Youth

Arguably being under 25 has never been harder. GCSE and A Level exam results have become distorted, graduate competition for jobs is harder than ever and yet house prices continue to rise making life less affordable. However, many young people also rely on the government to fund their lifestyle, often in sharp contrast to many others who study, work weekend jobs and help out at home, all without any form of government help.

Personally I supported the elimination of EMA. It was used by too many people I knew as a contribution to their Topshop fund. An even greater problem was that those who only turned up to class to get their EMA were hardly stimulating to the learning environment. The replacement system makes it a lot harder to get the money, making those truly motivated by their education the deserving recipients.

However, in education the much larger problem has been access to university level, or equivalent, education. The threshold for grants is unacceptably high and is abused by many two household families. Rent at most universities is at the level of the minimum loan. As such, I have known too many people fall into the void of being unable to afford university, or having to allow their studies to suffer so that they can work during their degree as much as possible to pay for it. 

The announcement by David Cameron that he intends to significantly reduce under 25 housing benefit is therefore, for me, a very welcome one. Some people do need and qualify for this benefit; a good friend of mine is legally emancipated from her parents and therefore had no other option during her sixth form studies than to claim housing benefit. However, those who have lived with their parents for 18 years and then suddenly claim that they cannot be accommodated - they represent questionable motivations.

Ultimately, the definitive problem of government is a limited supply of money. The distribution of this should be under constant scrutiny. When it comes to spending money on the under 25 sector, it seems that educating and motivating people by financing studies and apprenticeships is more beneficial to both our economy and society than financing a false sense of independence. The fact that too many younger people cannot access higher education could make Cameron's proposal entirely justified. 

The Myth of Ministerial Ethics

The second phase of Leveson entered it's most dramatic week this week. Although many expected Tony Blair's reappearance on the British political scene to bring the most drama - with the now infamous 'war criminal' heckle certainly making a case for that - the evidence that has received at least as much coverage has been that of the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt.

When considering inappropriate governmental relationships with the media, Jeremy Hunt's near personal relationships and bias during the BSkyB bid seem to be the definition of the problem. Whilst it's admirable that he has given open and honest evidence to the court - although he really had little choice in the matter - many have suggested his actions have damaged his ministerial career. It seems otherwise. Cameron has given clear indications that he will leave it to the inquiry to decide if Hunt acted incorrectly. Similarly, Hunt himself has failed to apologise for his actions and seems indignant in the face of calls to resign.

This all seems very different to the ethics of ministerial life just a decade ago. David Blunkett has been the most obvious example in recent years of a cabinet minister with distinctly questionable actions that clearly blurred the professional and personal boundary. Yet on both occasions Blunkett rightfully resigned - and yes second chances should even apply to politics. Similarly, Liam Fox resigned just last year over the issue of bringing personal and political life too closely together.

The issue here is not that these cases represent the rightful vilification of our politicians. They instead represent the action that anyone in any profession could reasonably be expected to take if they acted in such a grossly unprofessional way. In Hunt's case it is not specifically what he did that means a resignation seems the only moral decision to make but rather that he acted unprofessionally, failing to take his position, and the positions he could potentially hold, seriously.

Surely, of all the individuals we should be able to expect professionalism from, our elected representatives are at the top of the list? As such shouldn't Cameron at least have stayed relatively silent on the issue and, by now, should we not have had some apology from Hunt? The fact that neither has happened doesn't represent a gross case of injustice. It's just a gross case of immaturity, not a promising indication of ability to govern.

Ignore Ignorance?

Educational outrage is nothing new, with the debate about which aspects of the world we should expose the young to at what age always bringing about heated debate. However, by 16, the time of sitting GCSE exams, most of the more controversial topics will have been covered at some stage in a child's education. The most recent controversy involving the UK educational system has been a Religious Studies AQA exam taken just this week. The offensive issue? A singular question:

'Explain briefly why some people are prejudiced against Jews?'

The question has been deemed offensive because it apparently suggests cases of anti-semitic prejudice are justified. Anti-semitism is a historic issue; the Crusades and Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice are just two historical and cultural examples of this being documented. For a student at GCSE it is particularly potent in the context of the other things studied for the examinations, most notably National Socialist Germany. The question does not imply that the majority of individuals hold this prejudice and, even more notably, the word prejudice has clearly negative connotations. As such, the claim that it is suggestive of a justification of anti-semitism seems somewhat unfounded.

Instead it seems that the boldness of the question is what may be truly stoking the controversy. It is rare that issues of unacceptable social division are addressed in such a straightforward and factual manner. It is a lot easier to render these views inexplicable, rather than acknowledging historical intolerance and conflict and the influence of this. However, it is only by making young people aware of these issues and more importantly aware that these views are wrong, in fact prejudiced, that long term future tolerance can be properly formed.

It's really a discredit to the 16 year-olds, charging towards adulthood and with the option of leaving education, that there is any assumption they could misconstrue the question to be indicative of anything other than a negative context. Instead we should surely be arming them with the knowledge to be able to fight prejudice, and the only way to do that is to confront it in mainstream life, particularly in education. 

The (New) Bush Doctrine

I've been thinking about rebooting this blog for quite some time and being a typical university student, the exam revision period appears to be the perfect opportunity. However, instead of launching straight back into current affairs again I'd like to venture briefly into the world of political biography. Or in this case, I'd like to argue, semi-fiction.

I was gifted W's memoir of his time in office, Decision Points, over the Christmas period. Although the book is coming up to 18 months old, in the run up to a fresh presidential stand off a review of the previous Republican administration's legacy seems topical. Bush's press team put a heavy emphasis at the time of release on its structure, with chapters covering a particular issue faced by Bush jnr during his presidency and how he responded to these. However, far beyond simply explaining his decision making process, Bush uses the chapter's to attempt a justification of the oft criticised judgements he came to. Although this succeeds in some cases, most notably for the war in Afghanistan, it fails miserably in others, particularly the 'enhanced interrogation' of suspected terrorists.

(copyright: Virgin Books)

A memoir is held to be a personal reflection on a series of events. Bush consistently refers to history, and particularly hindsight, but only two years after he left office had the view of history on his most important decisions had clearly not been established yet. As such the text depicts a Bush desperately trying to set the agenda of his legacy, most probably as a reaction to the controversy the majority of his decisions induced. It's notable that his closest contemporary, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, has barely commented on politics since he left office, never mind publishing literature on the topic of his own time in power.


Decision Points could have been a successful account of a President's use of judgement during some of the most difficult times in recent history. Instead, it is a premature, and unsuccessful, attempt at leveraging the debate over Bush's legacy, creating more criticism than it answers.

Panic stations

Today the upper house of the Spanish parliament will pass legislation ensuring that their budget deficit cannot go lower than a certain point. They are one of the first governments to have done this in the face of the eurozone crisis and many are hailing them for it. However, the reason budget deficits get so low in the first place is that to function as a government, nation and economy governments have to invest. As such it will be interesting to see if the spaniards can make this strategy work economically and politically.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Hindsight

In politics hindsight can be a beautiful thing. You can backtrack on elections promises, 'interpret' poll results and even change your response to a crisis when it is, no longer, a crisis. Remember the banking collapse of 2008? At the time the politicos, all with the hope of appearing knight, desperately tried to come up with a solution to a crisis that seemed, in hindsight ironically, inevitable.

After much debate, some worthwhile some not so much, a number of key policies were landed upon by the majority of politicians. These included:

1) To separate retail banking from private housing banking. This would mean the housing market would no longer rely on the fluctuations of the markets to determine stability.

2) Encouraging investment in and creation of smaller businesses by using a mixture of tax breaks and incentives.

3) Regulating the lending of banks by creating stricter rules for both investment and private lending.

However, since the storm passed in mid-2009 the strategies adopted by politicians have become increasingly less bold and the confrontational attitude they had toward the banking sector has all but disappeared.

In recent weeks the coalition cabinet has become divided over the issue of separating retail and private banking.

Instead of taking the hardline, the one they took in election season, the Conservatives have now backed off as a result of the intense scrutiny of the banking sector. Unfortunately a large part of their voters have interests in this area. As it is, party politics seems to be winning over careful economic strategy.

It's a tough equation. The separation of banking will almost inevitably affect the growth rate of the economy. However, when it comes down to the individual members of this society it becomes apparent that protecting everyones minor interest, their own money and investments, should be the priority of any elected government.

We have yet to see whether this will be the issue that splits the fragile coalition but it is clear that the current debate is only the beginning of the storm.

Indebted

The economy, or rather debt for most of the western world, is an essential feature of political life. Deciding both how a government accumulates money and then spends it often defines the term of a government more than foreign and domestic policy put together. Couple these decisions with an economic incident, such as the credit slump of 2008/9, and the scrutiny put on a government's fiscal decisions intensifies even further.

Obama, as the President elected immediately following the slump, has seen his economic policy come under intense scrutiny. Early on the democratic congress passed multiple emergency budget bills and new landmark healthcare legislation was passed that should cut the government's expenditure dramatically. However, as the story slipped from the headlines, the short-term nature of these strategies has become increasingly apparent. As such the necessity for a longer term political strategy is now urgent.

Cut to May 2011. The government of the United States was on the brink of coming to a complete halt. True, it is unlikely this would have ever actually happened. However, although deals were brokered that prevented the government's collapsed a truly workable strategy has yet to be found.

With politics becoming increasingly partisan it is becoming harder for the democratically split US government to effectively govern, especially in rapid response to world events. The economic crisis has increasingly revealed the lack of workability within US politics today. With elections coming up in only 14 months the hope is that with a refreshed congress and presidency so will come refreshed governing. However, as the tea party becomes only more prolific the hopes of this seem dim.