Much ado about nothing?

Conference season has been and gone. Labour have had a very good week. the conservatives a good week and the less said about the lib dems the better.....(http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/05/miliband-cameron-approval-ratings-poll).It was at least memorable with more clear blue water- no pun intended than in recent memory (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10356346/Conference-season-What-a-party-that-was.html).


The conservatives have made some good noises about the growth of the british economy, they have also taken themselves into UKIP territory with some arguing such as the Spectator they risk alienating the centre ground as the party moves further to the right(http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/tories-shift-their-plans-on-benefits-for-under-25s/). Yet the tories is seems have enjoyed a boost from the Manchester conference with George Osbourne making much of Ed Millibands plans to control energy prices until 2017(http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/433816/It-s-nonsensical-Cameron-hits-out-at-Labour-s-economic-plan-in-conference-party-speech); as well as making political hay of generating some small economic and employment growth in the general European gloom(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24045546).

It would however be remiss if I wasnt to mention the proposed under 25 welfare reforms whereby benefits could be cut to those not in work or education under the age of 25 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24369514). This however could be seen to be business as usual and for those on the left perhaps a party bereft of new ideas, with the TUC arguing that much of this idea had the ramification of penalising the young rather than getting them into gainful employment. Not to mention there is still controversy around the Work Programme and its apparent inability to deliver (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions/series/work-programme-statistics--2).

However Ed Milliband has overcome it appears allegations of being a personality vacuum with his ideas around appropriating undeveloped land and his plans to freeze energy prices(http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2013/sep/30/ed-miliband-energy-cap-policy-blunder). He struck a chord it appears with his ideas around a cost of living crisis which despite successes of the conservatives in reducing unemployment ( however dubious those numbers may be). This might be an excellent strategy with many conservatives shifting onto this ground ,however it has also exposed him to criticisms to being unrealistic and Labour reverting to a socialist utopian party. Yet despite the allegations there was excuse the pun very little red meat. Now there was talk of reforming zero hours contracts , of increasing apprenticeships for young people and some general talk of raising the minimum wage. Yet I found little in essence to get excited about.

As for the Liberal democrats there was a lot of it defending itself from criticism over lack of opposition to the Conservatives cuts with it arguing they would be a whole lot worse without the moderation of the Lib dems, his party claiming partial credit for the economic recovery (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424728/Lib-Dem-leader-Nick-Clegg-delivers-electoral-suicide-note-party-conference.html). However any hope of it moving to the left seems to be short lived with many in the party wishing to be seen as socially responsible yet fiscally prudent unlike the 1990s where it could be viewed as to the left of Labour until the election of Nick Clegg as party leader.

Whether it ammounted to very much I do not know. It appears given the small boost of the labour and conservative party in the opinion polls . It appears a lot of heat has been generated around the labour and conservative camps. However very little is still being said despite Ed breaking his vow of silence over policy (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/an-in-depth-look-at-labour-conference-week-ed-milibands-speech--did-you-hear-what-i-heard-8846580.html).

What this does signal is the beginning of an attempt by the three parties to define themselves in time for the general election in 2015. With Labour promising better living standards, the Conservatives better economic prospects in exchange for continuing with the economic austerity measures (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-conference-david-cameron-defends-tory-plan-for-more-seven-years-of-austerity-8851117.html)  and continuing with its theme of controlling immigration and welfare. The liberal democrats it appears taking the middle of the centre ground wishing to be the party of moderation.

It appears with two main parties attacking each other , one as socialist , the other as callous and out of touch, whether or not this translates beyond  London ,the South East and the media depends on whether they have any actual ideas and whether their policies make a difference in real peoples lives. Otherwise this was an autumn of all sound and no fury.

the housing reforms of the uk

Ok you may not be aware of this given not all of you reside in the uk but there is an austerity drive being presented as reforms by our incumbent coalition government.

In addition to the unjust reforms of tax credits which hurts those in work tremendously as well as cuts to housing benefits and council tax benefits ; as if to add insult to injury the government has decided to proceed with reforms making life harder for britains poorest and most vulnerable (http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_allowance/changes_to_local_housing_allowance/housing_benefit_changes_2013).

Benefits will be adjusted at 1 percent , which is well below the rate of inflation meaning those on the lowest incomes will struggle.

A number of people , a proportion of whom have severe disabilities and medical condition are being deprived of disability living allowance and other disability benefits nessecary to living a full and productive life (http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/forthcomingchanges.htm#april2013).

Indeed many of the coalitions so called reforms are like to be counterproductive making work less profitable, relying on tighter means testing and impoverishing the most vulnerable.

As if to rub salt in the wounds they are now proposing a so called bedroom tax meaning those on housing benefit including foster carers, the disabled, parents of disabled children and those on low income face either moving to smaller premises which may not be suitable to their needs or rise in their rent bills which many cannot afford.

Now I realise that this may be part of the every little helps mentality of the governments debt reduction programme, however the deficet remains high, despite supposedly the lowest level of unemployment in years many need income supplementation as many have resorted to part time work or casual work that cannot sustain a family or have taken lower wages or reduced hours to preserve their livelihoods(http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/23/unemployment-rate-fell).

Indeed many of the unemployed are masked by the Work Programme which has been an abject failure (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/work-programme/). Furthermore many have been subject to increased sanctioning due to the DWPs drive to decrease the claimant count.

So what we have is a government making itself poorer ;by the prospect of expensive appeals, to make others poorer, for it to decrease spending only for either councils or charities to pick up the slack, for it to declare unemployment is going down at a time when we have had a double dip and risk a third or triple dip recession with the prospect of booming unemployment on the horizon(http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/01/uk-britain-economy-idUKBRE9200DY20130301).

We what have is Britain that is getting hit by inflation and austerity, a Britain that is getting tougher and poorer, a Britain that is at risk of sustained low growth and potential mass unemployment if the economy goes south and a class of people being hit at both ends, to quote a Margaret Thatcher election campaign

"Britain isnt working".

the psychology of shoplifting

The recent travails of a famous tv chef's alleged shoplifting has given me insight into a relatively new media phenomenon of middle class shoplifting.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2012/01/15/antony-worrall-thompson-blames-his-shop-lifting-spree-on-abuse-as-a-child-115875-23699443/

Putting aside my sociology degree and the fact of relative deprivation whereby people committ crime because they feel deprived in comparison to their contemporaries and the more common fact of shoplifting caused frequently by drug addiction and poverty and what we have is the fact that previously so - called respectable "middle class types" stealing in order to fund their now income diminished lifestyles(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847407/Middle-class-shoplifters-steal-cheese-and-meat.html;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226520/The-rise-middle-class-shoplifter.html).


So why do it as clearly the risks of a criminal record ,job loss and potential social stigma and the risks clearly do not justify the rewards of lifting an organic waitross goose or a free range spatchcock chicken(http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/nyregion/helping-shoplifters-to-reform.html?pagewanted=all;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1361614/Confessions-middle-class-shoplifter-Stealing-kicks-womans-obsession-ended-police-cell.html).


This reminds me of the furore of the riots and the threats to law and order conjured of mostly working class and student types ; it is true a significant number were from the working class and a number from the african carribean community ,however not in as large a proportion as some of the tabloids would imply nor were they the majority(http://humstats.blogspot.com/2011/08/uk-riots-ethnicity-statistics.html).

This raises a question of justice and on the one hand with middle class getting to play the psychological problems or nervous breakdown card as a kind of opt out on the one hand , also one of the use of violence and force on the other hand with the riots being a particularly destructive series of acts of random destruction and looting far from the wealth redistribution envisioned by its less than well heeled protagonists.

So why do something so risky apart from for kicks when the rewards is so insignificant and social stigma so high? A simple suggestion is to argue both the rioters and the middle class are acting out of materialism, another more valid explanation is one of economic desparation, I however do not think it is simply greed nor self absorbtion posing as relative deprivation.

I do think increasing social anxiety and property crime is linked to both increased material deprivation ie poverty and unemployment throughout the lower and middle income groups combined with increased status anxiety and the threat to law and order posed by an increasing materialistic and individualised society (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level).

Whilst it is true recessions galvanise social action initially as in 2009 when crime figures remain relatively stable it is now in the midst of a growing economic crisis in europe ; the effect of the spending with stagnating uk growth, rising unemployment and rising inflation along with the increasing risk of double dip recession due to events on the continent leads to it appears an increased impetus of all against all with the current climate resembling all the symptoms of a common recession with reduced consumer confidence ,low borrowing and spending and the problem of increased social strain. With the haphazard response of the police to the law and order problems that broke out in Tottenham last summer , with the possibility that last summer may not be an anomaly.

One fears that 2012 is going to be cursed to live in interesting times; with everyone it appears helping themselves to what they can.

the elephant in the room

As you may no doubt have gathered things did not go smoothly at last week’s summit for Britain, the treaty of which the main European countries were to ratify in order to ensure the stability of the Eurozone. The whole point was to provide fiscal stability to countries like beleaguered Greece, Italy and Portugal as well as assuage fears of debt by France and the potential collapse of the Eurozone caused by massive flow of sovereign debts, feared by Germany with the resulting flow of aid that would be needed from German creditors. The treaty was to create the institutional means of constructing European Stabilisation fund or ESF.

Instead we have Cameron refusing to sign the treaty, talk of Britain and its suspected alienation from Europe.  This was not meant to initially happen with several others countries prior to the meeting  suggesting a number of countries abstaining to the treaty.

It has been lauded by the right wing papers such as the Mail on Sunday considering it a blow for British sovereignty; whilst decried by left leaning papers such as the Guardian, arguing the treaty was taken of context and its effects on the city of London would be marginal and for the rest of the country being negligible; whilst further separating us from Europe and keeping us away from the negotiation table (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/david-cameron-city-europe-law). More centrist papers like the Independent appear to be saying he did was best for his party and what he thought to be legitimate for national sovereignty, there is concern though that what Merkel and Sarkozy was doing was merely baiting a government that may be seen as somewhat cold to the idea of a federalised European state and opposed to any further loss of powers. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eurosceptics-welcome-uk-veto-6274577.html). 

Whilst this treaty may have been disadvantageous to Britain the ramification of this split could be  disastrous for  both the European and British economy.  So whilst gaining political capital his overall gambit plays risks with the economy.it can also be said Cameron’s hand was forced as much  by his own party as much as the likes of frau Merkel and Monsieur Sarkozy and to come back with a signature on something no one had agreed to as an  affront by members of his own party and he may have been thrown to the wolves if he hadn’t come back with anything but a resounding no (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/after-brussels-cameron-takes-refuge-in-his-country-retreat-6275522.html). 

There is however further questions whether Merkel and Sarkozy were playing politics as a time of economic and financial crisis and whether creating new institutions without electoral mandate or consensus amongst all the member countries sounds like political grandstanding, especially when you consider Sarkozy’s own weaker position in light of his countries own domestic problems i.e. persistently high youth unemployment and alienation from traditional social insurance. There is also doubt about such measure will work within a heterogeneous trading bloc with many economies that have yet to fulfil the issues of economic convergence needed for market harmonisation.

Furthermore he has sown doubt in countries like Sweden and Ireland questioning the idea of the European structural fund.  The political posturing of France and Germany doing nothing to improve the solvency of the likes of Italy and Greece. Meanwhile it appears at least in the eyes of certain newspapers Cameron has played his role well ,apparently sticking up for British interests (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2074298/Has-time-politicians-stupid-dishonest.html).

None withstanding the future of trade with the EU  or our international relations with major partners such as America , China or India who rely on our european connection , it has been taken so far as a resounding success.

There is however talk of the collapse of the Eurozone and with potentially the whole European project  being in jeopardy if the measures were to fail. it may be that Cameron  will be proven to be riding the tide of history i.e. Euro-scepticism and nation state retrenchment in European politics. If the  single currency falls through whilst disastrous for britain and Europe , it would  be remarkably prescient for a british prime minister to abstain prior to the latest failure of the Eurozone. However it may be that the eurozoen will collapse regardless of whether the treaty is ratified, the effects being with it the potential collapse of the euro and i think the questioning rather than collapse of the eu

The solution I feel is not simply to issue Eurobonds to failing debtors as all this does is package or create a derivative of bad debt,which  then needs to be subsidised by large creditor nations. The issue of debt is an elephant in the room too big to be simply moved from one to another.

Instead the problems that need to be solved are multiple and various those of ageing demographics and slowing birth rates  on social security and on healthcare issues of contributions necessary to maintain an increasingly costly welfare state ,high unemployment and with lack of income and taxation necessary to keep the system going as well as low growth and stagnating living standards. The biggest of which at the moment is one of growth with immediate concern being that of unemployment and contributions or taxation need to remain fiscally sound.

One such idea may  be to issue bonds to citizens; which alongside Eurobonds to pay off fiscal deficets would be used to pay off growth programmes and infrastructure capital spending, which increases the assets a state holds instead of increasing revenue spending which needs to be cut as it increases liabilities but unlike capital spending does not increase asset value. This would also which also in effect act as form of direct democracy ie shareholder democracy but thru a mutualised investment fund for capital spending and growth projects, providing direct stakeholder investment between european state and citizen much like mutualism (ie the ideas of joseph Proudhon) or co-operatism in anarchist or libertarian political economy. However it is both libertarian and socialist providing a need for growth and enhancing both equality and opportunity whilst also providing a medium through European institutions and local ones without being fully governed by the nation-state.

Whether europe surivives isnt the question but whether it can continue business as usual without the uk?