Ideological Conflations

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan as U.S. President and Margaret Thatcher as British Prime Minister were able to work together to introduce a far-right capitalist ideology of widespread proportions. Wealth creation became paramount to the extent where being rich was more important than being decent. That legacy still stands today when customers are allowed to treat workers like dirt, and the worker simply has to grin while eating shit so that the business doesn’t lose any profit!
Most political analysts have said that in yesterday’s Presidential debate, Mitt Romney was more successful in putting his viewpoints across than Barack Obama. This is making an unnerving prospect a little more likely: that Romney could become President while David Cameron is Prime Minister. They’re both right-wingers and could do untold damages to global economics. Cameron has already tripled tuition fees (regardless of what his Lib Dem coalition partners wanted), and if Romney were President then perhaps we’d have more situations like a recent one in California:
Community colleges in California provide access to higher education for low-income students. But as budget cuts have recently reduced the number of classes on offer, some students were not getting placements. So one college came up with the bizarre plan of charging up to 400% more for a guaranteed seat in class! The idea was that the extra revenue earned by the extortionate charges would then be used to subsidise poorer students, but in fact the less well-off were only gaining access to the cheapest classes; the more expensive lessons were mainly going to the richer kids. I think that Republicans would love that idea! Thankfully the programme has now been put on hold after a protest against it resulted in students being pepper-sprayed! But there is little doubt in my mind that policies like these could easily become more widespread (and not just in America) if a right-wing capitalist ideology were once again to hold all the power.
So please support Barack Obama. Don’t let money rule the world.

Privatisation And Tax

In 2013 the government is making it compulsory for companies to provide private pensions to everyone; individuals will be automatically subscribed (thereby receiving monthly deductions from their wages) unless they opt out. This has the long-term intention of phasing out state pensions, allowing the government to save money. But will people who take up the offer of a private company pension - or rather, don’t make the effort to opt out - therefore pay less tax as it will no longer be required to pay for the state pension scheme? … Doubtful. The Tories tend to only cut taxes for rich people and businesses. The extra money saved will probably be re-invested into ‘infrastructure’ projects that affect national and international trade rather than local communities. Rather than saving hard-working people a bit more cash, we will instead see further developments of a third runway at Heathrow and high-speed rail that will demolish a great deal of countryside. Don’t be deceived by David Cameron saying that he will stick to his manifesto pledge of no third runway; the two year consultation period would allow him to reconsider his position by the time the next election (and new manifesto) comes around. There is a chance that I’m being overly cynical, I do have bouts of that! But I don’t like the way that pensions are being forcibly privatised, it smacks too much of Thatcherism.

 

Inaccurate Reporting

A recent ‘independent’ report into last year’s riots has determined that the blame lied with education and opportunity. It says that a lack of support and opportunity for young people contributed to the outbreak of the riots, and that low educational achievement of some teenagers necessitates financial penalties for schools that fail to teach basic levels of literacy.
However, the panel was appointed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg. So let’s explore these motives further.
Suggestion No. 1: One of the reasons that theft is so prominent is because materialistic values and economic consumption are promoted as the be all and end all of society. And lack of education may cause disgruntlement, but a redistribution of wealth so that nobody feels financially excluded may provide a better solution.
Suggestion No. 2: Neither citizens nor society is completely to blame for anything. There are roots in the social environment that set about a start of such things and individuals who are too weak to resist the opportunity to do something bad. Live with that reality.
And suggestion No. 3: Appoint a panel that isn’t appointed by the government (thereby, independent!). Just a thought.

Will The Masses Back Him?

In his New Year’s speech, Prime Minister David Cameron has said that the country can unite this year around the “global drama” of the Olympics and the “glory” of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. Personally, I think the Olympics could turn out to be a colossal waste of money in these austere times, and I’d rather take a dump than watch any more vacuous and mundane footage of the royal family! But unfortunately, David Cameron is probably right. People generally do celebrate these specious national events, as was demonstrated during last year’s nauseous outpouring of jingoistic sentimentality during the royal wedding. So, the nation will unite, money will pour into Great Britain, the economy will recover, people will be able to find work again, we will all be shaking hands with each other as we pass in the street, and everyone will shout “hurrah” from their rooftops as they realise we have all been saved from the doom that has befallen other countries. And the result of all this will be … the coalition government will last forever! So be very careful what you wish for.

Categories Of Rape?

The understandably emotive issue of rape is in the news today because Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has stated his viewpoint that it is morally correct for some rapists to get different sentences from others. It was during a radio interview where the host suggested that quite simply, “rape is rape”. Clarke said it wasn’t because a predatory rapist who abducts a woman and subjects her to sexual violence is much worse than someone who has consensual sex with a person under the age of sexual consent. Personally, I think Ken Clarke is spot on; the context of rape should always be taken into account, and this does not have to mean that the seriousness of the crime would be in any way diminished. Yet since his comments, Ed Miliband has called for Clarke’s resignation, and Clarke has been made to clarify / toughen his comments in various interviews.
I have two main problems with the rather hysterical response that has been generated by Clarke’s original comments. First, I honestly think that we should stop using the term ‘rapist’ to describe someone having consensual sex with a person under sixteen years of age. The age of sexual consent is an arbitrary decision which changes from one country to another - it is thirteen in Japan, and twenty-one in some American states. As much as I appreciate that the law needs to be enforced and underage sex has to be punished in some way, it is not an act of rape, which the Oxford English Dictionary says has to entail “forcing another person…against their will”. And second, this furore has all come about because the Conservative Party want to reduce all criminal sentences by 50% if the offender pleads guilty; a ridiculous proposal considering they already get a reduction of a third which is quite enough incentive for someone to plead guilty. Quite who David Cameron thinks this policy is going to appeal to is beyond me. So let’s focus our bile on him and his policies rather than the more knowledgeable Justice Secretary.