Check your perm AND your heart

To slightly paraphrase unlikely hip-hop star Iggy Azalea, first things first – I’m a realist. America’s health policies, while greatly improved since the passage and implementation of the Affordable Care Act, must continue to look for ways to address those elements of the population that are highly susceptible to preventable diseases and death. Certainly, idealism, political ideology and First Lady Michele Obama’s health initiatives may be helpful components in crafting health policy. But that can only take you so far. Often, health policies fail when facing the harsh light of reality and blah blah blah! So, let’s be real: health policy is failing African-American men.

That’s why a new project from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, one of the country’s best hospitals, is offering a promising practical solution to a long-standing health concern among African-American men. The initiative, funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, will introduce blood pressure testing machines and training into barbershops in African-American neighbourhoods in LA. In other words, you want a heart check-up with your fade? Sign me up!

According to the Centers for Disease Control  (CDC) One in every three American adults have high blood pressure. This is a staggeringly high number that hits frighteningly close to home –  with this statistic it would be either your father, your brother or you! However, the odds are even worse for some people. Among African-Americans, 43 percent of men and 45.7 percent of women have hypertension, compared to 33.9 percent of white men and 31.3 percent of white women.

To take this a little further, and put things in cold economic terms: high blood pressure can be expensive! It costs the nation approximately $47.5 billion USD every year, including the cost of healthcare, medication and missed working days. Needless to say, these numbers do not bode well for the health of the African-American population.

African-Americans, and particularly African-American men, have statistically shown reluctance to check in with doctors for a variety of reasons including lack of health insurance, proximity to health centers and hospitals and a lack of priority for health concerns. As such, this segment of the population is difficult to reach and help. Enter: the barbershop.

Barbershops, among the urban black community, have historically been important places of business and social life. Since the early 18th century, barbershops were one of the few businesses that free men of colour could own and run. As such, they became centers for neighbourhood gossip, news, and camaraderie. And, despite the mild humour that was encapsulated in Ice Cube’s Barbershop and Barbershop 2 movies, there is nevertheless an indelibly strong personal connection to the local neighbourhood barbershop that passes through generations and maintains familial links between old and new, blight and gentrification. It is here that Dr. Ronald Victor, director of Cedars-Sinai Center for Hypertension, hopes to reach an elusive and vulnerable group of men that need routine heart and blood pressure checks. And it is here that an incredibly practical, innovative solution to a health policy problem is being met.

The simplicity of the proposal is such that one wonders why it wasn’t thought of sooner: if they can’t or won’t come to us, then we’ll come to them! The logic goes as such: regular stops at the barbershop will include regular blood pressure tests and thusly encourage patients/customers/friends to follow up with their local doctor if something seems unhealthy. A friendly nudge about your health from your friend and neighbourhood confidante may fall on more receptive ears than nagging and emotionally-remote medical practitioners.

How will this all work? The initiative will train barbers on the proper procedures for taking and recording blood pressure. Dr Victor, along with Inglewood cardiologist Dr. Anthony Reid, will track patients once they have been checked by their barber. Those that are most high-risk will be referred to nearly two dozen local and low-cost health clinics. Dr. Reid, in an extra effort to prove this model as a successful programme, will also see patients and accept those who are low-income or without insurance.

Will this work? Previous pilots have proven that they do! Dr. Victor has run successful trials of this proposal in St. Louis and Dallas, cities with large African-American populations and similar urban infrastructures thus implying that scaling up this pilot to a larger metropolis should yield similar successful results. Optimistically, this may work nationwide! As per The Root, Dr. Victor’s 2011 study concluded that if hypertension intervention programs were put in place in the estimated 18,000 African-American barbershops in America, it would result in the first year in about 800 fewer heart attacks, 550 fewer strokes and 900 fewer deaths. Placing importance on accessibility and comfortability for routine medical check-ups that need minimal training could open the door for basic tests that will reach vulnerable, difficult-to-reach, or reluctant members of the population.

But back to basics: What this policy really uncovers is that pilots, and evidence-based policy, are what can really work. Political ideology or economic theories on how to treat health problems may make for newsworthy headlines in election years – but the best policies may very be those that take bigger, more holistic approaches to problems. It’s hardly sexy, but it’s what works. We just need to look around to find it.

by: Andrew R Mistry

Can Britain still cut it on the world stage?

That’s the question the UN Forum 2014 will seek to answer. Held at the stately Central Hall Westminster, home of the first meeting of the UN General Assembly, this Saturday (28 June), esteemed United Kingdom and United Nations speakers will explore whether Britain is still a global power. It will be discussed to what extent Britain will be able to tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our world. And now you are thinking how this differs from any regular speakers series? The UN Forum 2014 is so far the biggest UK live debate on the UN and is encouraging participants and guests to submit questions and actively engage with decision-makers, policy experts, and politicians through lively debate. Some of us from Current Affairs+ will be attending and hope to explore what solutions may be uncovered! Join us, as tickets are still available until midday Friday!

by: Andrew R. Mistry & Maria Bjerre Degn

In-Depth analysis: The recurring crises of Iraq

Iraq is once again in the news, and, a new but familiar crisis is brewing. Tony Blair is advocating military intervention, voices on the Left, like Owen Jones, are condemning western involvement as the root cause of the current crisis there, and, the majority of the British public are opposed to sending armed forces to the Middle Eastern country. We’ve been here before, haven’t we? And it would be tempting to conclude that, if we allow it, history will repeat itself: a botched Western intervention, complete with myopic planning and suspicious, ulterior motives, will destabilise a country and a region. As the Commons vote on intervention in Syria has demonstrated, the public have grown wary of foreign adventures, and those who most passionately advocate it, such as Tony Blair, have seen their credibility reduced to unconditional admiration by a few cult-like followers – the Blairites. For, no matter the overwhelmingly positive domestic legacy left by New Labour, Blair will always be remembered as the leader who took us into the Iraq War, rather than the Prime Minister who introduced the minimum wage – less a path-breaking Third Way social democrat, more a poodle of George W. Bush.

The Iraq War was a visceral episode in world history. 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 4,500 Americans were killed and countless lives have been torn apart. The financial cost of both Iraq and Afghanistan in the US has been estimated to be at $5 trillion. Combine this with Bush’s tax cuts and a financial crisis, and the United States, the country that will undeniably take the lead in any military incursion, has haemorrhaged blood and treasure. Regardless, the interventionists in America are calling for war.

But the Iraq War was traumatic in many other ways, too. As Nick Cohen demonstrates, the opposition to the Iraq War was an almighty symbol, and perhaps culmination, of the erosion of the principles of the liberal-Left. While left-wing dissidents and trade unionists in Iraq called for help in the overthrow of a tyrant, the international Left in Britain and Europe disregarded solidarity in favour of criticism of the West. Condemning America and globalization became more important than rallying to the cause of those who needed it. Many on the liberal-left found it impossible, once the war had begun, to support those on the ground praising the war effort and the liberation of Iraq from a genocidal, petit-Stalin, for this would mean allying themselves with Bush and Blair.

Christopher Hitchens revealed the paradox of the anti-war liberal-left: by stubbornly refusing to support or even accept the military intervention in Iraq, and telling us that it should never have happened, are indirectly condemning the Iraqi people to life under Saddam Hussein. A savage and brutal dictator, yes, but there were no terrorists operating in Iraq under Herr Hussein! He killed hundreds of thousands in an expansionist war with Iran, but he was supported by the West, so how dare we condemn him and support his removal by those who supposedly armed him! He might have tried to exterminate the Kurds, but at least he kept order! This is the modus operandi of totalitarianism: the subjugation of entire peoples by a small, vanguard elite through violence and terror is necessary, and desirable, to keep order. Yes, there were no terrorists operating in Iraq before 2003 in the vein of al-Qaeda or ISIS; but there was something much worse: a tyrant willing and able to use the legitimate monopoly of violence enjoyed by his centralized police state to ensure his will was imposed upon others at the pain of death.

The West was complicit in so many of the atrocities committed by Hussein, such were the dynamics of the Cold War and American-Iranian relations. The history of modern-day Iraq has colonial fingerprints all over it, as does so much of the third world. Created in 1920, the borders of Iraq were forged out of the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire. Molly Greene, an expert on the Ottoman Empire, argues that it was the late Ottoman experience of centralization under the Tanzimat reforms that made the subsequent successor states ill-prepared to repel western colonialism. If the dynamics of European imperialism shaped the origins of Iraq, the turbulence of the Cold War tempered the history of this young country. The resistance to imperialism and the non-aligned movement were embodied in the Arab strongmen that took over in Egypt, Syria and Iraq: Saddam Hussein was one of them after a palace coup launched him to power, so beginning a bloody period of history, not just by the standards of Iraq or the Middle East, but by world historical precedents. The Kurdish minority of Iraq, the people of Kuwait and Iran, as well as the millions of people terrorised by the Baath Regime in Iraq, are all testaments to the brutality of Hussein and his cabal.

But why was the removal of this monstrous individual, whose legacy should rival those of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, really so controversial? Nick Cohen argues that the anti-war movement had become infected by totalitarian sympathises, borne of support for anti-western tyrants and anti-western Islamic fighters and states and a visceral hatred for Israel, their senses dulled to the crimes of Hussein. However, I would argue that the Iraq War was, above all, a supreme failure of planning. If the Bush and Blair administration spent as much time organizing for regime change based on humanitarian grounds, I doubt that the opposition to the war would have become so pervasive. Many forget that interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo were celebrated – see the adoring welcome Blair received while visiting Albanian refugees in Kosovo and the rise in the number of children named ‘Tony’ in the country. Furthermore, the genocide in Rwanda is often portrayed as one of the biggest catastrophes of western foreign policy. The fact that the myth of WMD was exposed as exactly that, the intervention was immediately built on lies. It didn’t help, either, that Colin Powell, a political giant, had his integrity dramatically diminished by others in the Bush Administration. The unsavoury and untimed publicity stunts, like Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ fiasco, further deepened the resentment, as it appeared that western leaders were celebrating their own accomplishments while bloodshed and chaos soon gripped the streets of parts of Iraq, certifying the belief of so many that the agendas of western administrations were not, in fact, married to the desires for peace and stability of the Iraqi people, but were motivated by geo-political strategy.

There were genuine grounds for humanitarian intervention in Iraq: estimates vary, but the casualties of the Hussein Regime are in the hundreds of thousands. Before his execution, Hussein was convicted of crimes against humanity. When African leaders are charged of such crimes, they often appear before the ICJ. Yes, the relationship between the US and the ICJ is complex and sometimes hostile; the point, however, is that legal precedents had been set, whereby the sovereign integrity of any nation is increasingly conditional upon governments and leaders observing certain international norms and guaranteeing international stability. These were the precedents upon which the intervention in Afghanistan was justified, and, as a result, the conflict has been deemed legitimate, even if still wildly unpopular in the United States. The progress in Afghanistan has been undeniable. Could the war in Iraq have been as legitimate if implemented with a similarly broad coalition, if the planning of the operation had been as adequate, or if the aims had been as sympathetic, justifiable, and realistic?

To those who would accuse me of engaging in counter-factual history, my reply is thus: of course I am! But so is every other commentator, observer, analyst, columnist, politician, personality, who are currently arguing that the unfolding crisis in Iraq is the direct result of the invasion in 2003, and, without the war-mongering of Bush and Blair, this would never have happened. This is exactly what Blair has said today.

So, if we are going to allow opponents of the war to engage in a counter-factual reading of history, let us also indulge its supporters. Follow Blair’s reasoning here: if Saddam Hussein was still in power during the Arab Spring, Iraq could have very easily descended into civil war. Is this so hard to imagine? Bashar al-Assad of Syria, like Saddam and his father before him, belongs to the Baath Party. Assad is a power hungry dictator who, like Saddam, was seduced by the Leninist principle of the vanguard party elite leading and controlling the revolution. Assad justifies his repression as necessary to unite such a pluralistic society and prevent sectarian violence; would Saddam not have made the same arguments? Also, ISIS, the organization currently descending upon Baghdad, operates in both Syria and Iraq. Could this detestable group have grown so powerful without the instability created as a result of the Arab Spring in Syria? What if the war had been made on strictly humanitarian grounds and focused solely on the substation of democratic governance for the tyranny of Saddam, would the incorrectly predicted jubilance at the sight of American liberation actually have transpired? What if the former soldiers of the Baath Regime had actually been paid and organized after the invasion? What if the British forces had been more effective? What if the current government in Iraq was less sectarian and more inclusive? All of these are equally as valid as any counterfactual assumptions made by those who opposed the Iraq War.

The time has come to be less petulant: let’s engage with the factual, rather than the counterfactual. ISIS, a group no longer affiliated to al-Qaeda due to their uncontrollable aggression, are seeking to seize Baghdad after gaining control of other regions. The security forces in Iraq seem incapable of resisting. The US and UK governments have pledged to offer assistance and Obama is still considering his options (in political jargon, leaving ‘all options on the table’ leaves the door open to military intervention). Attitudes towards foreign adventures in both the US and UK are increasingly hostile, so the likelihood of an intervention with ground troops seems unlikely. However, I believe the United States and the United Kingdom have the responsibility to maintain democracy, the rule of law, and security in Iraq.

Consider the opposite: the Islamic militants seize Baghdad, a fundamentalist Islamic state in Iraq and Syria becomes even more likely, and the hope of a pluralistic, inclusive, and democratic Iraq is shattered. This should have been the only ambition of the initial invasion; not oil, geo-politics, the financial gains of the military-industrial complex, or anything superfluous to a democratic, peaceful and stable Iraq. Such indulgences, and the numerous mistakes made, have discredited the cause of liberal/humanitarian intervention, something that Blair spent so much energy, blood and treasure trying to promote. The principle was not inherently flawed: it died with the tragedy of the Iraq War. Equally, the Iraq War was not unconditionally wrong: if planned with the same skillfulness and sensitivity on display in post-war West Germany and Japan, and justified with appeals to the humanitarian principles of international law, the intervention could have succeed. If a peaceful transition to a non-sectarian, constitutional government had been made; the support of local armed forces had been won; inclusive democratic institutions had been created, Iraq would have been in a far more envious position to combat the spillover effects of the Arab Spring and the crisis in Syria. And here is the ultimate tragedy: it is the people of Iraq who will suffer the most. If ISIS triumph and Iraq is pushed into the abyss of terror and oppression, the silent majority that want neither Saddam nor Islamic terrorism will be sacrificed. Is our hatred of Blair and Bush really more powerful than solidarity with millions of Iraqis who have endured enough suffering?

Here’s one final counterfactual – if ISIS take Baghdad, Iraq is overcome by civil war, the nation is ravaged and torn apart in the latest episode of Balkanisation, and an Islamic state akin to that of Afghanistan under the Taliban is implemented, what will happen to Iraq? It will, like Afghanistan, become a training ground and rallying point for global jihad. Militants will be trained, mobilized, and dispersed across the world to kill and terrorise to achieve their aim of an Islamic caliphate. If a Western target is hit and thousands killed as a result of the new Iraqi regime encouraging terrorist activity, Iraq will be in direct violation of the same international laws that justified the War in Afghanistan in 2001. Better to intervene now, to prevent the entrenchment of violent Islamism, than wait for it to become entrenched, and sentence ourselves to another quagmire, hunting terrorist organizations in a foreign, unforgiving land. To those who say another round of military intervention will solve nothing, I say this: globalization has made interdependence the norm, and nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East. Struggles, conflicts, and civil wars can no longer be locally contained, if they ever have been. The eyes of the world are constantly focused on regions plagued by instability and conflict. Local struggles will always disrupt the ebb and flow of global developments, and outsiders will naturally gravitate towards these eruptions of violence. Like it or not, we are dependent on oil, and much of it comes from the Middle East, so this region, as long as drills are pumping, will be vital to western, particularly American interests. If so, oil-rich gulf states like Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will continue to fund terrorism without genuine resistance from their ally, the United States.Moreover, the ideas and tactics of these militant groups are available for all to see online, and radicalized individuals from right here in Britain will be tempted and trained to fight in these conflicts.

We are embroiled in the future of Iraq. The struggle for democracy, peace and the rule of law has never been swift or without bloodshed. For some, the French Revolution only ended with the beginning of the Fifth Republic (some will even attest that it is still ongoing); the American Civil War occurred in the century after the Revolution, and equality has still not been won by all, particularly African-Americans, the blood of whom stains the history of the United States; victory of the English (then British) parliament over the crown was centuries in the making. The dream of a democratic, peaceful Iraq will take generations to realize; we are 11 years closer to realizing that dream, we should not let the gains of those years to be undone, and the sacrifice of so many to be in vain.

by: Jack Kelly

photo credit: “Photo Op” by kennardphillipps first shown at Catalyst: Contemporary Art and War exhibition at Imperial War Museum

Fuck the Poor. . .

The title of this article is appropriate for a number of reasons, but two in particular;

1. It got your attention – maybe even angered you, and;

2. It is obvious – we can see it – we can therefore, oppose it.

Now, if you think this tactic is slightly over-the-top, provocative, and consequently unnecessary, you are wrong.

The Pilion Trust, a charity organisation which helps the poor and most vulnerable here in London, was forced to use this exact method. For the reality is this: If a person asks you to do something positive, maybe make a donation, they will be ignored – as will the people he is trying to help. If however, that man asks you to ‘fuck the poor’, your silence suddenly becomes acceptance, even consent, to this message. We are forced therefore to object, but not before a bitter exposure to a harsh reality. Whether we like to admit it or not, this is our attitude every day. Perhaps, if we’re honest with ourselves, this is one of the reasons we get so enraged in the first place – the (obvious) truth, hurts.

What does not hurt, however, is a not obvious truth – and a hidden truth represents what I think is far worse than openly declaring our disregard for the poor – it is a little known phenomena called ‘defensive architecture’.

‘Moats in this day and age?’ you are undoubtedly thinking. But, alas, no. Gone are the days when stone walls or wide moats defended us from our enemy – indeed, gone are the days when our enemy was easily identifiable. In modern Britain we now use much more ingenious, much more inconspicuous defensive structures against them – the evil foe who threatens our lands, the scourge, the opponent. . . the Homeless. . .

Yes, you read correctly. Though the connection may not appear obvious, please refer to point 2. above. The use of ‘defensive architecture’ is worse than stating ‘fuck the poor’ because no one knew about it. No one knew of this dehumanising ‘damaging dissociation of the destitute’

I never thought anything of bus shelter benches becoming slanty – I thought it was for aesthetics or to make perching easier. I didn’t think it removed a reasonably dry bed. I didn’t notice park benches suddenly having armrests in the middle of them – sure I can’t lie across it. . . but then I never did.

The problem is, however, that I now have noticed – and not because I have an eye for detail, but because it has become obvious – they became ‘anti-homeless’ spikes outside a luxury apartment block. Yes, this is private property, but that does not excuse behaviour which is deemed abhorrent by the public – particularly when it wreaks of social purification and discrimination. Let’s face it, if that apartment block had been raised and built on steps to keep the wheelchair bound at bay, we would not be having this discussion. So are the homeless different? Are they such an affliction that we can now openly prosecute them for their crime – the most heinous act of being poor, destitute and misfortunate?

Luckily, we cannot. Because, as with all things that become obvious – we discuss it, and, more importantly, can make a decision to oppose them. This, thankfully, is what has happened.

So whats the point of this article?

Over the last three years rough sleeping in the capital has risen – and not by a bit – but by 62%. Last year alone, over 110,000 people approached councils across the UK as openly homeless, desperately seeking one of the 40,000 bed spaces available to them – a number that has decreased by 4,000. Government predictions estimate that at any one night, around 2,414 people sleep rough across England alone.

These are the facts – and now that you know them, you have a choice. You can either help the poor – even just by the simple act of giving that bit of ‘spare change’ – or you can fuck them. Granted these opportunities to show human compassion are often thrust upon us at unfortunate times – like whilst running for the tube or dashing into Tesco to get some lunch – but they are small, they take seconds. These little instances of human interaction can either make life a little easier, or confirm the hostility of a world that is rapidly moving on without you.

Society, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link – I hope, at the very least, this article will help those we are used to making invisible feel a little bit more obvious.

by: Michael Southern-Augustine

Lady Liberty would be proud

Just this week, the Governor of that sun-drenched infamous state of Florida, signed into law a bill that speaks to the ambitions and aspirations of thousands of illegal immigrants. That this should happen, in a state that has had its own profound place in recent American electoral history, is perhaps more intriguing. Indeed, fewer states so starkly highlight the growing chasm between wealthy and poor, citizenry and the undocumented and the rifts these polarizing characteristics have on political outcomes. Signing this legislation will allow undocumented immigrants to attend college at in-state tuition rates, of course with certain rules attached. It is a simple yet practical policy change that elevates the status of illegal immigrants while encouraging the notion that formal education may lead to economic freedom and better opportunities with a potential path to full citizenship.

Could this legislation hint at future changes for the status of America’s roughly 10-12 million undocumented immigrants? Cautious optimism may be the rational answer to this question. The southern border states abound in new laws and tactics that degrade undocumented immigrants and promote the perception of “otherness” and “second-class citizenry” to those whose main priority is work, safety, and security. Yet, this employment of the heavy hand of the law has done nothing to fix immigration concerns or address the issue of those already living in the country.

Certainly, marginalization and state-sponsored ignorance is no way to go about solving the problems of illegal immigration. If states are committed to providing for and improving the lives of its taxpayers (and let us not forget that undocumented immigrants still pay taxes), then it must approach illegal immigrants with a helpful and understanding hand. This is especially true for those that were brought, albeit illegally, to America as young children by their parents or guardians. These individuals have committed no crime of their own. They only wish to go to school, earn a living, and prosper in what remains of the American Dream. We thus look to the State of Florida for a method to confront this issue head-on in a progressive manner.

Certainly, Governor Rick Scott would be an unlikely champion of the traditionally-liberal support for increased illegal immigrant rights. One need only be reminded that Governor Scott led Florida as one of the few dozen states suing the government over Obamacare. Indeed, this bill may be opportune political posturing for an electorate that is increasingly Latino and Democratic. However, this law, regardless of its realpolitik motives or otherwise, is an important step in the right direction toward recognizing undocumented immigrants in light of past reform failures.

Action, or lack thereof, in Congress on immigration reform has seemingly forced states to take a more piecemeal approach to the nation’s burgeoning “second-class” citizens. These vibrant and dynamic groups are composed of individuals working to improve their children’s and their own livelihood. The most effective way to do this is by encouraging enrollment and graduation from places of higher learning. Substantially decreasing the financial cost to education, a significant burden to most, helps those individuals that need education the most. Currently, in-state tuition rates are 25% of out-of-state tuition rates, which is the rate paid by undocumented immigrants.

President Obama, seeing the actions of Florida’s legislature and Governor and stymied by a stubborn conservative faction in Congress, would be wise to encourage other states to tackle immigration reform through decreasing barriers to education. Immigration reform is possible and hope for the undocumented is attainable by looking at alternative and perhaps more local, legislative routes.

This may take longer than necessary. And encounter vociferous opposition. It may not appeal to all immigration reform groups. But considering the unfortunate status quo, it may very well help those who simply want to develop, grow and contribute to their family, their neighborhood, and their nation. Indeed, a more educated population that can fully participate in society will strengthen and contribute to the country, not burden it.

It may seem an unlikely proposition, but other governors and legislators ought to look to Rick Scott and the Sunshine State for policy tips of progressive immigration reform. From this, the first steps towards evaluating and reforming America’s draconian and antiquated immigration laws may be achieved.

by: Andrew R Mistry

Engendering respect for women at an early age

Sexism is a pervasive problem in all levels of society, ranging from small undermining comments to full blown physical attack.  Just in conversation with the women on my course, almost everyone has a few stories of random sexual assault.  One story involves a guy rubbing his erection on my bare leg in a crowded carriage, another had her breasts groped as a man alighted the train.  This is in just one group of friends.  When this qualitative view is put into context with some data, it draws a pretty terrifying picture. A woman in the UK has a one in five chance of being a victim of sexual assault.  Women in urban areas are twice as likely to experience violence as men worldwide.  This is not an issue that is going away anytime soon.

At the Hay Festival 2014, Laura Bates spoke at length about The Everyday Sexism Project.  Drawing together the experiences of women all over the world shows that this is not an unusual phenomenon.  Listening to this articulate, softly spoken woman reel off the stories of others in the most graphic and violent language is an eye-opener.  She talked about projecting the definition of sexual assault on to a wall in a school, to have the students not believe it, because to them, it was their everyday experience.  It is staggering that these young women have come to accept abuse as a natural occurrence.

Sexism exists in many facets of our society, from the disproportionate number of men in business and the vast underrepresentation of women in our supposedly representational democracy, it continues through to the objectification of women in music videos, clothing adverts and films, and the casual misogyny in pop music.  The average age a child is first exposed to hardcore pornography is 11 years old.  This gives a twisted view of what should be expected in a sexual relationship, leading to young people absorbing this lack of respect into their own understanding of their place in society, and normalizing sexually aggressive behaviour.  If sexual inequality permeates attitudes at a young age, we must ask what we can do to stop it.

The national curriculum is frustratingly vague on what must be taught in the context of sex and relationship education.  The basic mechanics are covered in maintained schools, but free schools and academies are not required to teach on the subject.  Sexual attitudes, consent, and respectful relationships are not prescribed at all.  It could be argued that relationship education is the purview of parents and I do not disagree with this. I think that it is important that children learn a lot about respect from their parents.  However, how likely is it that parents have addressed the issues raised by exposure to hardcore pornography with their 11-year-old, let alone had a discussion about respect in relationships? There are many children in the UK where this example is not reflected in their family life.  In 2011, around 950,000 children were affected by domestic violence.  It seems to me that we have a responsibility to make sure that all children are being taught about what a healthy relationship looks like, with state education underlining the things that many parents are showing their children.  We want our children to be able to challenge attitudes that treat women with a lack of respect, and it is our duty to give them the tools to do it by making relationship education part of the national curriculum.

by: Anique Liiv

Conquering the world market or isolating from it?

The tendency characterising most European Parliament elections is a victory for EU-sceptic and far-right parties. To exemplify, the “National Front” performed very well in France. In Germany, a country normally expected to have the most pro-EU citizens, 7 % of the votes was given to the Eurosceptic party AfD. In Denmark, Morten Messerschmidt, from the very far-right and anti-immigration Danish People’s Party, received the most personal votes ever for an EP-election.

The strongest example is however the UK. The ‘winning’ party in the UK election was, for the first time in a century, not from Labour nor Conservatives, with the very poor results for the Liberal Democrats leading some demanding Nick Clegg’s resignation. Everything seems to be upside-down – confirming the UKIP “earthquake” – a triumph for the eurosceptics.

This is a shocking (although not surprising) result, especially taking into consideration what this could potentially mean for the turnouts at the general election in 2015 where Nigel Farage predicts his party will become a significant player. If he could beat Cameron and Miliband at the EP-election why shouldn’t he be able to beat them at the general election?

The EU-scepticism in the UK will in the worst case scenario cause an UK exit from the European Union after the next general election. From UKIP’s point of view an EU-exit would be beneficial for two reasons.

First, UKIP believes that, after an EU-exit, the UK could conduct a similar or even expanded level of trade with the EU – just without being dictated to by EU’s institutions and regulation. More importantly, it would be a step towards conquering more of the global market independently! While this sounds an inspirational, even desirable, policy option, UKIP fail to mention the flip side of leaving the EU…

Creating new markets and expanding old ones is not a matter of as much deregulation as possible. In fact, operation of the world market arguably requires more regulation in order to harmonise business and trade procedures. Through this harmonisation (and thus through regulation) all trade partners would be assured more equal distribution of the benefits. To support this with an example, German beer purity laws made it difficult for other beer producers in EU to access it’s great beer markets. However, the German law was incompatible with the laws of the European Union allowing the ECJ to overrule it – creating fairer competition for the member states.

Indeed, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) points out that it will be a mistake to leave the EU arguing that an exit will be bad for both employment and growth in UK. This can be supported by estimates from the UK Governments Department of Business, Innovation & Skills showing that 3.5 million jobs in the UK are related to trade with EU . CBI states that eight out of ten of their business members want to stay in the EU. Alone the fact that the membership of EU brings in 4-5% of UK’s GDP on annual basis should be reason enough to stay. Furthermore, the EU membership has increased investment flows into the UK, particularly to those areas traditionally underdeveloped.

Finally, free movement of labour gives UK’s businesses access to skilled workers from other EU countries. Even though the EU is not perfect, openness is, for the above mentioned reasons, the best economic and political option for UK from a broader business perspective.

Furthermore, the cost of isolation would be limited access to the UK’s current biggest trade market. Half of the UK’s export is to the EU – this would be restricted by an EU exit. Moreover, the EU is of huge importance in relation to the UK’s international trade. Leaving the EU would imply a need for new bilateral trade agreements,  which will not be as favorable as those that current EU-members benefits from. Furthermore, the size and security that the European Union offer its members should not be undermined as an important factor for UK growth and businesses as it creates certainty.

Secondly, Mr. Farage claims that it is not possible to have an adequate immigration policy as long as the UK is a member of the EU. This is backed up by horror stories of Bulgarian and Romanian boogie monsters coming ‘over here’to exploit government benefits and to commit horrible crimes. An easy trick to convince the politically unaware voter; fear has always had a certain political effect. UKIP’s horror portrait of immigration is however both grotesque and unfair…

It is true that many Bulgarian and Romanian people immigrate to the UK, but not as many as UKIP in the first instance attempted to claim. Furthermore, it is a huge generalisation to put all Bulgarians and Romanians in the same box. Immigrants come from many different countries and for many purposes – often to work or study.

This includes myself. I am one of those exploiting the great opportunity created by EU’s agreement on free movement of workers – and I’m not here to commit crimes or exploit government benefits. I moved from Copenhagen to London to study for an M.Sc. and with the intent to stay, find a job, and contribute significantly. My fellow students coming from outside EU faces huge amounts of bureaucracy to pass if they want to work in the UK.

The opportunity created by EU’s free (and easy) movement of labour – a great problem according to UKIP – provides businesses with the the access to qualified and skilled labour from the entire EU. Leaving the EU would create a huge uncertainty for UK businesses that would have trouble filling out the gap for skilled labour.

So the real problem, a problem that is reflected in most EU-countries, is the scepticism arising from a lack of knowledge. If it can really be proven that an EU-exit will benefit the UK in the longer term it is of course worth considering. However, the truth is that it is really hard to say – and in the short term there will for sure be many costs associated with an exit.

The UK will lose complete access to the EU market and would have to renegotiate trade agreements and find new trade partners. 4-5% of UK’s GDP will be lost and have to be found elsewhere. UK businesses will no longer have easy access to skilled labour from other EU countries but will instead have to spend a lot of resources on bureaucracy in the attempt to fill out the qualified workers gaps. Finally, the UK will lose a large amount of investment, as their membership of EU is exactly what many investors are attracted by.

So should UK consider an EU-exit? Looking at the huge short-term costs of an exit it does not seem as the right thing to do. UKIP and other EU-sceptics should be careful jumping to conclusions especially because we don’t have a lot information about longer term effects of an EU-exit. They should instead realise that being a part of the EU is being part of a central powerful player on the international scene. This is however only the start of the journey; to deal with the increasing EU-scepticism we have to acknowledge that the EU is outdated –  making it necessary to consider how to redesign and achieve a better fit with the realities of the 21st century. Only then can we create and benefit from a more united union.

by: Maria Bjerre Degn

Protecting “Generation rent”

We all know that we are the “Generation Rent”. People in the 25-36 years age bracket who have no help from their parents in saving up a deposit can expect to buy their first house at the age of 42. Many young people still aspire to own property, but have accepted that it will be a long time coming if they have not got the advantages of a windfall from somewhere else.

The people living in rented accommodation, counting nearly 9 million people in the UK, represent a huge group of voters.They are at the mercy of the currently uneven protections and instability that comes from the current laws around tenants and landlords. This is what the Labour party are promising to change.

Ed Miliband launched Labour’s election campaign by laying out plans to increase protections for tenants using various measures. The standard tenancy period is to be increased from six months to three years.A contract cannot be terminated in order to hike up rent; only if there is anti-social behaviour, the landlord no longer wants to rent the property, or the current tenant has run up rent arrears. There will also be a ban on excessive letting agents’ fees, limiting them to a maximum of £500.

So is this policy a good idea?  Regulation of this kind will affect a large amount of the population, and polling certainly seems to show that it is popular. A recent YouGov poll for the Sunday Times shows that 56% support rent controls.  However, the poll does not dig deeper into what kind of controls are supported, and there is definitely more than one way to do it.

The policy is part of the party’s commitment to solving the cost-of-living crisis. Labour will gain approval from a sizable chunk of younger voters who are thinking of trying to start a family, or starting to save for a deposit to eventually purchase a house. I think this is a good move for Labour  in terms of electoral strategy and campaigning.

The other side of the argument comes from the laissez-faire objections to interference from the state – No surprises there! Previous experiences with rent controls in the 1970s led to unintentional consequences with tenants living in prime addresses for amounts far below their actual market value. The Guardian reports of one-bed rent control flats in Hampstead Heath being rented at £348/month, while close by private accommodation goes for £1256/month. Whilst this is obviously not fair, those who bang this drum miss an important point – this isn’t what Labour is proposing. As the new contracts are reviewed after three years, the market still has a hand in setting rents. This is Miliband’s political philosophy in action: a belief that the state has a role to play in regulating markets and protecting consumers from market failure, but through legislation, mirroring the German model, rather than through French dirigisme.

Politics and side effects from market intervention aside, this policy has to be seen as a good idea. There will always be arguments about the way to regulate a housing market, or even if it should be done at all.  Help to Buy, and previous experiences with more strict rent controls in this country have shown this. Since the 1980s, the way in which renters are looked after in the housing market has been asymmetrical in favor of landlords.

At a time when renting for longer periods of time is the norm, especially in the Capital and South East region, there is an imperative for the unregulated market to be guided to a place where those in the most vulnerable position are protected. They make up an increasingly large part of the electorate, and they deserve to be looked after.

by: Anique Liiv

Conservative, Labour, and their combined support for Workfare: Why and How?

As the great philosopher reminds us, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Surely one of the known knowns is that, even during the best of times, citizens are ambivalent towards sacrificing their hard earned income in the form of redistributive taxation to deliver welfare. Especially during the worst of times, people are furious at the idea of their money subsidising the lives of the unemployed. For this is the most salient and controversial element of the welfare state: unemployment benefits.

Another known known is that welfare payments, more often than not, are in the form of state pensions, housing and in-work benefits. Perhaps, however, what is most frustrating is the fact that welfare has been distributed for decades, and regardless, poverty and unemployment persist. We know that the traditional Keynesian welfare state is obsolete, yet welfare capitalism still exists, despite the persistence of neo-liberal thinking.

The known unknown scenario, in this case, is that we, as a society, possess no definitive solution for the social ills that facilitated the emergence of the welfare state. We know that we cannot allow the poorest and most vulnerable to sink below minimum social requirements. Yet we have no complete solution as to how to reduce spending whilst helping the sick, the poor and the unemployed, whilst ensuring that Britain is globally competitive.

Thus, there is a simultaneous need to maintain the welfare state but to also adapt it to the needs of contemporary society, with all its debts and deficits.

The unknown unknown might just be New Labour’s welfare reforms. Despite the fury with which the Conservatives attack Labour’s record, Blair and co. took up Clinton’s call to end welfare as we know it through the transition to Workfare. Such is the triumph of propagandising in British politics, that the Tories are implementing workfare reforms all the while chastising Labour for spending too much… on Workfare.

Any academic evaluation of the period will tell you that the leadership of New Labour were workfare enthusiasts, such was their conversion to the Third Way thinking of Clinton’s New Democrats. Despite the rhetoric, the new Help to Work scheme is in keeping with a cross-party acknowledgement of the need to reform and modernise the welfare state.

Initially, I was opposed to such a settlement, on a normative and empirical level. How can one justify forcing someone who is unemployed to perform a job in exchange for benefits that is performed by others in exchange for a wage worth substantially more? At its worst, this can take the form of subsidising free labour for the private sector.

Or, what if someone were to lose their job, enter a workfare scheme, and perform a similar job they previously held, but for benefits that they would otherwise have been entitled to (and still be if they were employed and claimed in-work benefits).

And what of the complete ignorance towards travel costs when demanding claimants attend daily signing-on sessions? Or of the fact that when performing community work placements, claimants will be completely visible to the public, thus leaving space for an increased stigma of those claiming welfare as being capable of only doing basic jobs at the behest of the state?

Nevertheless, with problems of generational joblessness and other forms of social exclusion, welfare cannot simply be a cash-transfer to subsidise deliberate idleness: after all, idleness was one of the social ills identified by the Beveridge Report to be eradicated. Workfare, as in the form of New Labour’s New Deal programme for the long-term unemployed, should not become a revolving door between unemployment and temporary low-paid, low-skilled, and often demeaning, employment.

The Marxian critique of the welfare state is that it was simply a tool for the ruling classes to appease the working class by offsetting the failures of capitalism. While this may not be entirely true, welfare reform, as initiated by New Labour and the Coalition Government rarely, if ever, addresses issues of market failure. Osborne has recently pledged to achieve full employment in Britain, completely neglecting the fact that the godfathers of the neo-liberalism he practices, such as Milton Freedman, spoke of a natural rate of unemployment. With an active labour market, this might not be such a problem, for people would constantly be moving in-and-out of work as firms, free of government regulation, could hire-and-fire at will.

If the employment rate is to be set, in this case, by purely market forces, a healthy, self-correcting market would see no problem of persistent unemployment.This has clearly not happened. Without Keynesian demand management there is little reason to believe that supply-side measures, in the absence of solutions to current market failures, will lead to full employment. As Simon Jenkins demonstrates, all Prime Ministers since Thatcher have adopted and adapted her policies, and still a ‘natural rate of unemployment’ persists. This indicates that Thatcherite neo-liberalism has yet to prove the welfare state obsolete.

This is why the welfare reforms proposed by social democratic writers, such as Colin Crouch, are so appealing. Crouch proposes a ‘social investment welfare state’, long practiced in Sweden, in which the role of welfare is to train claimants for the modern market place, and also incentivise increased risk-taking. With healthy unemployment benefits, and an active labour market, workers will be increasingly willing to move between jobs, and accept decisions made by their employer to dismiss them to respond to changed market conditions.

If we accept that there will always be unemployed in our society, we must also accept that welfare will always be necessary. But it cannot incentivise generational and deliberate joblessness: it must encourage work. However, work must genuinely pay. A welfare system that subsidises free labour for the private sector, or subsidises low-pay and demeaning work, is ultimately redundant, for it will prolong the revolving door between welfare and unsustainable, low-paid work.

The response of social democratic parties to the need of welfare reform must be to recapture the dignity of labour that defined their origins. There is currently a cross-party consensus on the need for welfare reform and to do so in such a way where more emphasis is placed on training and skills to prepare the unemployed for work. Whilst this is welcome, there needs to be a greater awareness of market failures, and how, ultimately, welfare is a response to these failures; it is a recognition that the market economy cannot and will not adequately provide for all people, regardless of how ‘hard-working’ they are.

Combined with the increased global focus on inequality, championed not only by Piketty but also the IMF (of all institutions), this places the political left in a privileged position. By campaigning for a living wage, and according the state a role in increasing investment, skills and productivity, the left can offer a more compassionate, and effective alternative to workfare. Essentially borrowing its sentiment, but disregarding its often draconian and inadequate practice.

by: Jack Kelly

Tarred by the most insidious of brushes

Investigations into historic sexual abuse cases have now reached something of a milestone in the British legal system, with Operation Yewtree, instigated after the infamous Jimmy Savile scandal, inducing a long awaited balancing in the scales of justice.

Max Clifford, former, and now disgraced, PR guru, has been jailed for a collective sentence of eight years for assaults carried out between 1977 and 1984, with the success of his prosecution encouraging more victims to step forward.

An apparent change in policing, Crown Prosecution Service and social attitudes has also fostered an environment where the number of reported sexual abuse allegations is on the rise, for both contemporary and historic crimes.

This change of environment has thankfully bulwarked victims’ chances of being heard, particularly when the power dynamic between them – usually her –  and the defendant – usually him – tends to be inherently skewed, unfortunately reflecting the patriarchal biases that stubbornly remains within the UK. Clifford, for example, having access to the media machine, others to their infallible celebrity status.

Confirming that Operation Yewtree is not a‘celebrity witch-hunt’, this sentencing allows the abused some form of closure; not simply in the form of the conviction, but also in the conformation that their psycho-emotional injury is real and not the result of their own foolishness – they do have a right to feel violated.

Whilst this change should undoubtedly be celebrated, and the abusers rightly condemned, we should also pause to take stock of the newly developing playing field, particularly its ability to tar the innocent with the most insidious of brushes – that of a sex offender.

Nigel Evans is a case in point. Prosecuted for rape and sexual assault, this former Commons deputy speaker, note the former, was acquitted of all counts against him but only after enduring his own ’11 months of hell’, with Dave Lee Travis, Michael Le Vell and Bill Roache all also experiencing an unjustified and harrowing fall from grace, destroying their careers and often their social environments.

The problem is, however, that whilst they have been vindicated in the courts, they have not been vindicated in the population’s eyes. . . There is, after all, no smoke without fire. This ability for guilt by association to infect and stick to a persons character, for an innocent person to bear serious injustice, is something which must be addressed.

Changing our national zeitgeist to a more forgiving one is not something I can foresee happening, at least in the short term, anonymity for perpetrators during the course of the trial? A realistic possibility, though not one without its thorns. Considering most criminal cases are given scant media attention until conviction is made – do we want to give the  extra protection of anonymity to celebrities, creating a superiority within the legal system, and potentially strengthening their already considerable power?

The law on sexual assault must always be sensible and balanced – victims must be allowed access to justice, abusers must not be sheltered from the full force of the law – but innocents should not be exposed to the cross fire between these two principles. Though anonymity for the perpetrators won’t help the victims – until the latter is deemed as such by a court of law they should not be able to inflict injustice on the now-ruined true victim. Maura McGowan, head of the Bar Council, is certainly right to have raised anonymity as a possibility – silence will get us nowhere – debate may save an accused life.

by: Michael Southern-Augustine