Category Archives: Society

Arts, Culture, History, Society

Nobel Peace, at what price?

PERPLEXED

Despite being shortlisted five times, Dame Beryl Bainbridge never won the Booker Prize, a literary prize awarded each year for the best original full-length novel, written in the English language, by a citizen of the Commonwealth of Nations, the Republic of Ireland, or Zimbabwe. Mahatma Gandhi, neither, despite his pre-eminence, won the Nobel Peace Prize, though he had been nominated on five separate occasions between 1937 and 1948. In 1948 Gandhi was assassinated and no prize was awarded, a decree given that there was ‘no suitable living candidate’. It is, of course, up to the Norwegian Nobel Committee to ultimately choose whoever it sees fit to hold the prestigious award. The Norwegian parliament appoints the committee because, when Alfred Nobel died, Norway had been ruled by the same king as its Scandinavian neighbour, Sweden, since the war between the two nations in 1814. It is becoming increasingly difficult, though, to ignore the committee’s aberrant selections.

Two weeks into his first term as President, Barack Obama was nominated for the prize, simply on the basis that the committee had heard his speech in Cairo in which he delivered, at times, perplexing and enigmatic statements. Conjecture such as… ‘Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance’ [as seen] in ‘Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition’ was a presumptuous viewpoint based on little evidence.

The first U.S. presidential laureate had been Theodore Roosevelt, an award that surprised many because Roosevelt had led his own irregular cavalry in an invasion of Cuba. Other implausible laureates followed: Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Al Gore among them.

And what of this year’s award? Those in favour of chemical weapons are likely to be displeased with the choice of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Yet, of more concern, is the smoke-screen that has thickened in search of those chemical weapons that has created unabated slaughter in Syria’s ruthless and bloody civil war.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

How is it ‘socialism’ to say that market failure beckons on a grand scale?

CONSERVATIVE PARTY ETHOS?

Thatcher’s revolution of the 1980s led to politicians of all persuasions putting their faith in a new economic paradigm – a guarantee of prosperity for the majority, which has lasted decades. Today, however, following the ‘Great Contraction’ of 2008-2009, political parties can no longer offer that guarantee with the same level of confidence. Whilst economic growth in Britain has returned following three years of stagnation it is forecast that real wages will not increase until 2015 and will not return to their pre-crash levels until 2023. A fractious and defective energy market, in which just six companies control 98 per cent of supply, has left more than 4.5 million in ‘fuel poverty’. Extortionate rents within the inner cities have forced millions to rely on housing benefit. By any measure, this must amount to market failure on a grand scale.

The crisis in living standards is a challenge for all political parties but no more so than for the Conservatives, the natural defenders of capitalism. After Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, pledged to freeze energy prices until 2017 – and to build 200,000 homes a year by 2020 – the Conservative Party had a chance to offer its own solutions. Alas, as we witnessed from the conference in Manchester, it retreated to its comfort zone. Aided by an ever more right-wing press, speaker after speaker derided Mr Miliband as a ‘socialist’ and ‘Marxist’, as if concern at deteriorating wages were comparable to a belief in world revolution.

The Conservative Party conference failed to recognise that when Margaret Thatcher assailed her left-wing opponents in the 1980s, she did so in the confidence that her free-market policies retained popular support. David Cameron does not enjoy that luxury: polls show that some two-thirds of voters support a 50p top rate of income tax, a mansion tax, stronger workers’ rights, a living wage that is more consummate with actual day living, and the renationalisation of the railways and the privatised utilities. If Mr Miliband is a socialist, so must the public be if these polls are anything to go by.

George Osborne rebuked the Labour leader for suggesting that ‘the cost of living was somehow detached from the performance of the economy’. But this was a remark that betrayed Mr Osborne’s failure to appreciate that the crisis is not merely cyclical (a problem most certainly exasperated through his austerity programme), but structural. It was in 2003, way before the crash, that wages for 11 million earners started to stagnate.

Other than a pledge to freeze fuel duty until 2015, what else did the Tories have to say on the question of living standards? The most important announcements were the earlier than intended introduction of the Help to Buy scheme and Mr Osborne’s commitment to achieve a Budget Surplus by the end of the next parliament, both of which risk further depressing incomes. By inflating demand without addressing the fundamental problem of supply, Help to Buy will make housing less affordable, while the Chancellor’s promise of a balanced Budget is likely to be met by imposing even greater cuts to benefits and services for the poorest in our society. Osborne’s ideological fixation with the public finances, particularly in relation to interest payments on the government’s debt, ignores the greater crisis in people’s finances.

On the fringes of the party, though, there was some positive thinking. The Conservative campaign group Renewal, which aims to broaden the party’s appeal among northern, working-class and ethnic minority voters, published a strategy for the building of a million new homes over the course of the next parliament, a significant increase in the minimum wage, a ‘cost of living test’ for all Acts of Parliament, and for action to be taken against ‘rip-off companies’. Yet, there is little sign that the Conservative leadership is prepared to embrace the kind of reformist, centrist agenda that secured the re-election of Angela Merkel in Germany.

Standard
Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Frontline policing in Scotland…

POLICE SCOTLAND

To the man or woman in the street, ‘frontline policing’ would probably be best summed up as the visible-presence of police officers in our communities, and one which affords a tangible sense of reassurance that our safety and security is being looked after.

On 1 April of this year, the unitary Scottish police force, Police Scotland, was created. Prior to the amalgamation of all police forces in Scotland the assurances given by government ministers and senior police officers was that there would be no diminution of frontline policing.

Of course, a rationalisation programme of this kind was always going to lead to backroom functions being merged and one which would produce savings for the public purse. But the clear message emanated was that wholesale changes to the way we are policed would be largely positive, in the form of more highly specialised centralised units dealing with specific types of crime. This, it was argued, would be more effective in dealing with various forms of crime-fighting.

Given that backdrop, what are we to make, then, of the announcement that a vast swathe of police stations around Scotland are to close, and many others seeing a reduction in their hours?

The police say they have carried out extensive research of how the front- counter service in police stations is used, and state that the new set-up is based on results of when and where the service is used and will provide greater value for money.

When the single force came into being, the government made it absolutely clear that it expected there to be savings from the police budget. Police Scotland’s Chief Constable, Sir Stephen House, is looking to remove £60 million from his budget. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that these service changes are primarily driven by that need to cut costs.

At the heart of this is a fundamental question, which is: Are these cuts a reduction in frontline policing, or does the freeing up of officers give them more time to spend (actually) tackling crime on the streets? To answer that will depend on where you think the front line is.

As we have seen in Scotland over recent days and weeks there is good news to be celebrated on the policing front. Recently published figures have revealed that homicides are at a historic low and that the general trend of crime has been dropping in recent years.

Safety is important to the public and it will be reassuring for many to know that when experts within the police service believe safety might be compromised, then they make their views known, as they have done, to Scottish ministers. MSPs must be ready to consider those views carefully.

Yet one of the question marks about the single national force was how (and to whom) it would be accountable. Accountability is still difficult to discern, despite the force having been operational for several months. Time will eventually tell.

However, ultimately the police force is not accountable to politicians but the public. It is the public the police serve, who often do a difficult and dangerous job. A criticism in the past has been the withdrawal of police officers because of their low visibility in the community. That one of the first contractions the new force makes is an important interface with the public is bound to raise concern.

As the police know, perception is vital.

Related:

Standard