The Burdens of Ambition

British society is inarguably the most affluent it has ever been. British people have never lived so long, in a greater degree of comfort or with greater opportunities than right here, right now. British society has virtually overcome poverty, even if the very bottom line of social security for citizens is charity.

So how is it that our society can still throw up riots, theft and looting such as was seen around England in August?

'Towards the end of the century, ...a change began to manifest itself. The working classes, whom popular education had made, for the first time, articulate, became increasingly discontented with their lot. The glamour faded from the material progress which had seemed such an inestimable blessing to their fathers. They came to take this progress for granted, and to turn questioning eyes on the gross inequalities which progress had done nothing to diminish. The more prosperous society as a whole became, the more indefensible did it seem that the great mass of the people should be condemned to live lives which, even though they represented a real improvement on preceding generations in elementary physical standards, where none the less narrow stunted lives, unillumined by hopes, and haunted by the constant terror of a plunge into extreme destitution in the event of accident, sickness or unemployment'
-Liberal Industrial Inquiry, 1928

One argument that can be made follows the suggestion that greater affluence breeds greater consciousness - which in turn generates discontent, as the remaining injustices shine out exposed, made clear by the contrast.

Amongst these injustices are the burdens placed upon the less fortunate, the burden of making ends meet, of finding & keeping work, of staying healthy enough to earn your basic life's needs. But there are burdens of another kind too. As more wealth is created, so increases the burden to achieve the ambitions that affluence gives light to.

And that burden can be crushing.

Yet the opportunties that help relieve that burden are no greater: income inequality has increased and the poorest children in Britain during the last decade have not taken as much of a part in post-16 education as the richest. When things go wrong, even the bottom line of support in Britain, charity, suffers as it attempts to help. Charity has found itself become a degrading option, due to the stigma against handouts, which prevents those who need help most from seeking it out (National Assembly for Wales, 2011).

People are caught between these twin burdens of need and want. They struggle to make ends meet while being fed lifestyle marketing, that drives ambition to attain things and their associated status. But the inaccessibility of wealth makes those ambitions a source of frustration, one permeates our society and cannot be shaken off. Those burdens continue to be added to in pursuit of our ambitions - mortgages, student debt, cheap credit. It has become the foundation of our economy, to use credit to overcome unequally distributed wealth (Harvey/RSA, 2010).

These factors coincide with a politics that is trapped in an unhelpful 'us vs them' rhetoric. In 2010 we saw the Liberal Democrats subjected to a vote 'squeeze', caught at the middle of the the left-right dynamic. This sort of thinking has been used by politicians, lobbyists and others to rally support; typified here by Brendan Barber, General-Secretary of the TUC (2011), on the Tory-Liberal coalition:

'Liberal Democrats risk ending up on the wrong side of the fundamental divide in British politics'

These are cheap, negative tactics. They build upon basic 'ingroup-outgroup' mentalities to manage, corral and organise followers, promoting a divisiveness that has turned into a social reality.

When all these economic and political factors are combined with...

- a parliamentary system that is inspiring disinterest, elite societal figures persistently exposed as connected to corruption but remaining un- or insufficiently punished;

- a capitalist system that encourages ambitious, single-minded & intensely focused self-interest; while isolation from positively reinforcing communities increases;

- with, not just unrequited, but unrequitable ambition, the achievements of which we are driven to believe to be the key to 'happiness' or 'success' or 'self-worth';

...you breed a toxic brew that is festering within our communities.

Right now, our problem is no longer one of creating more wealth, but of finding a way to allow that wealth to be more widely, not just spread, shared and enjoyed, or redistributed, but accessed through greater opportunities for that wealth to be earned.

The coalition, in its attempts to create smaller government, seems to have heard of burdens:

'identify areas where central government can get out of the way, reducing burdens and bureaucracy'
-'Open Public Services' White Paper, 2011.

They need to reapply those ideas to welfare policies - to reduce the burdens upon people, not services, and in doing so set them free. Free to live lives with real chances to earn reward by merit; and free from the 'constant terror of a plunge into extreme destitution' (Liberal Industrial Inquiry, 1928).

'the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies not in what man has, but in what man is. Private property has crushed true Individualism, and set up an Individualism that is false. It has debarred one part of the community from being individual by starving them. It has debarred the other part of the community from being individual by putting them on the wrong road and encumbering them... One's regret is that society should be constructed on such a basis that man has been forced into a groove in which he cannot freely develop what is wonderful, and fascinating, and delightful in him in which, in fact, he misses the true pleasure and joy of living'
-Oscar Wilde, 1891

'the end of political and economic action is not the perfecting or the perpetuation of this or that piece of mechanism or organisation, but that individual men and women may have life, and that they may have it more abudantly'
-Liberal Industrial Inquiry, 1928

==========
References:
==========
+ 'Britain's Industrial Future: being the report of the Liberal Industrial Inquiry'; also known as the 'Yellow Book'; chp 1, pg 5-8; Ernest Benn, 1928.

+ National Assembly for Wales' 'Follow up inquiry into child poverty: eradication through education?'; Chair's Foreword, pg 5; Children and Young People Committee; February 2011.

+ RSA presents David Harvey's 'Crises of Capitalism'; on Youtube; 28 June 2010.

+ TUC's 'Lib Dems are "abandoning centre-ground"'; 11 March 2011.

+ The Coalition Government's 'Deregulating the Public Sector', pg41, ch6 - Ensuring Diversity of Provision; in 'Open Public Services' White Paper; July 2011.

+ Oscar Wilde's 'The Soul of Man under Socialism'; London, 1891.

Capital Punishment

It is sad that in the face of doubt a man, Troy Davis was executed - despite public demand, including a high profile Amnesty International campaign, that the execution not take place.

Le Rouge Journal has previously discussed the United States' complex relationship with human rights and their enforcement, with 'Bystander's Affect':

'Ms Power showed a consistent invocation of isolationist stances by the US, even where lives were very likely to be lost. There is even a suggestion that the resolve of the aggressors was strengthened by American inactivity (Power, 2003);'

and its struggle for legitmacy in holding other nations to account in 'Shifting the Focus', due to the double standard that capital punishment creates:

'[an] example is the Iranian Government's anger at being singled out for its sentence of death for a convicted woman. They deflected accusations by pointing to an American 'Double Standard' (Dehghan, 2010), as the United States at the time held a woman awaiting death for an arranged murder, who allegedly suffered mental health problems.'

We now have a new inconsistency to add to this list: going ahead with an execution in the face of mass public objection flies in the face of the idea of policing & government by consent of the policed & governed.

==========
References:
==========
+ Samantha Power's '"A problem from hell": America and the Age of Genocide'; Harper Perennial; 2003. See an extract by clicking here.

+ Saeed Kamali Dehghan's 'Iran accuses US of double standards over woman's execution'

Still Paying for Education

News in recent weeks reports that an 'unexpected' number of universities have taken up the option to charge the highest level of fees for tuition (Vasagar, 2011).

This education finance system was considered to be a tempered approach to raising university funding at a time when the state is trying to otherwise cut back on its spending. In particular the IFS (2010) issued a report that stressed that the system provided no real terms winners and losers. All except, of course, the treasury, which was able to convert a large government debt that provided the funding for universities into lots of smaller, yet still quite large, private debts.

Now there were mechanisms to prevent universities from simply charging the highest price bracket immediately. In return for charging as much as £9000 per year for tuition, each establishment is supposed to provide proof that they are providing scholarships and working to assist students from poorer backgrounds to get the higher education they deserve.

But there is also a fundamental element of market economics that English Universities must apply before taking the decision to charge such a high price.

As the costs of education rise, so must then the demonstrable quality of the education and qualification provided. This is fundamental to a market as described by Adam Smith. However there are worries that the degree is already becoming a devalued commodity (Daily Mail, 2011).

Since the introduction of fees, there has also been some discussion of much cheaper fees to be found in Europe, for instance £435 per year for a course at a Swiss University (Bawden, 2011). Such a price disparity, £1,305 for three years on the continent and £27,000 in Britain, could lead first to a large number of students abandoning Britain for a spell in Europe, and potentially a future 'brain drain' if those students adapt to the lifestyle and decide to stay.

This is something that aught very much to trouble the sleep of British economists.

In 2000, Britain took part in the European Council special meeting in Lisbon that concluded that European nations need to cooperate:

'to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth'

Due to the international economic situation, where super-states such as China and India are able to provide masses of cheap labour, the average EU worker now has to have a much greater degree of training & skills in order to compete. If senior British political figures still adhere to such a position, they should not be so quick to create conditions that drive people away from the higher end of collegiate and university training in Britain.

And this is the purpose behind the ideological and reasoned support of free at-the-point-of-use, paid for by taxation, higher education. Education is so utterly essential to society as a whole that we cannot afford to price ourselves out of its pursuit. We all benefit from the skills of any individual, whether those skills are used in the field of science or art or household gadgetry. Everything we can do to encourage the pursuit of higher training & skills is a step in the right direction. If it is paid for out of general taxation, then the issue of who should contribute what is already dealt with; in our system of progressive taxation the rich contribute a larger share than the poor - we already have a system in which we give in relation to our means.

The government has set its position towards higher education funding. One half, the Tories, seek to offload the burden of debts for the costs of our nation's university education to the students, and individuals more generally; while Liberal Democrats chose this path as the best of a bad bunch. But at the moment this is still only a stop-gap measure.

And there is still room to shift in other directions.

If the Tories can gather the voter base to consolidate their position and govern alone, they will almost certainly complete the move to a full market competitive system of funding.

So where to turn to save education? The first place most will turn is the long-time enemy of, opponent to and bastion against the Tories: the Labour party. They did after all come to power in 1997 on the slogan 'Education, Education, Education'.

However, despite manifesto promises not to, Mr Blair's Labour government, in the words of Ms Naomi Long MP (2011):

'established the principle of tuition fees, the principle of market forces in education and are now upset because those same market forces are negotiating the terms'

Inspite the lack of clarity in the positions of Britain's parties of the left, they have all shown some willingness to cooperate; a particular example, albeit of a failed attempt, was Mr E Miliband sharing a stage with Lib Dems and Greens to campaign for a Yes vote in the AV referendum (Wintour, 2011).

Mr Clegg has developed a catch-phrase of late, that we should not 'let the best be the enemy of the good', and it is a catchphrase that all those opposed to tuition fees should keep close to heart when trying to find alternative solutions that can get cross-party backing.

==========
References:
==========

+ Jeevan Vasagar's 'Tuition fees rise will mean fewer university entrants, warns LSE study'; in The Guardian; 7 September 2011;

+ IFS Press Release 'Graduates and universities share burden of Browne recommendations'; 12 October 2010;

+ Daily Mail's 'Is it worth it? Value of degree questioned as research shows two-in-three graduates fail to find suitable work'; 17 May 2011;

+ Anna Bawden's 'A few years in Lausanne?'; in The Guardian; 6 September 2011;

+ Lisbon European Council's 'Presidency Conclusions'; 23-24 March 2000;

+ Naomi Long MP, 'Higher Education Fees' debate; 9 December 2010;

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Ed Miliband shares cross-party platform to promote AV'; in The Guardian; 29 March 2011;

+ Smith, Adam, 'Wealth of Nations'; 2008.

The Trouble with Taxes

The way we finance a nation-state is back in the news, due to fears over the slow recovery from recession (BBC, 2011). At the centre of these matters is taxation.

Taxation is a disputed necessity. In the United States it is the focus of struggle for the libertarian Tea Party. Everywhere it is the foundation of many taken for granted utilities & public services. And it has been the provocation of outrage.

The threads of many famous revolutions have been brought together; from the English to the American to the French; and civil unrest ignited by taxation of society's poorest to pay for the excesses of the rich and the imprudence of the state. In France it was the Estates' attempt to pay off war debts (Harvey, 2006), in England it was the struggle to reign in a monarch through control of taxation (Purkiss, 2006), and in American it was opposition to 'Taxation without Representation'.

In all of them, it has been an ongoing struggle to ensure that people maintain the right to regulate how their money is used.

A student of history, such as Chancellor Osborne, might be expected to be wary of the dangers of levying heavy taxes while cutting funding to services (PA, 2011; Vallely, 2011); particularly when those tax funds are redirected to paying off public debt to banks and insurance companies (Reuben, 2010).

What are the alternatives?

People do not object to taxation. Rather they object to tax funds being used in ways that are not properly justified, such as paying off financial institutions - some of which depended upon public funded bailouts for their survival.

So if austerity measures are as unpopular as they appear, both in the UK and elsewhere in Europe; what alternative methods might a student of history take into consideration?

Well the traditional rival to this classical libertarian approach of government austerity and low interference with businesses and their profits, is Keynesianism. Keynesian solutions are based around 'stimulus'. The idea is for governments to fund increases in spending to pick up private sector slack (Atkinson, 2011); for instance, increasing public sector employment to offset job losses from private company cutbacks.

Mr Brown's Labour Government used this kind of intervention through 'stimulus packages' during the financial crisis (Swaine, 2008), a policy copied around the world. This meant investing huge sums of public money into private institutions. The hope was that this would capitalise these businesses sufficiently to allow them to (1) avoid lay-offs - ensuring people have a means of earning an income and (2) keep prices down - ensuring people still spend the money they earn. In theory, this combination would keep confidence high and create the stable conditions that encourage people to invest their money in new businesses - something that creates new jobs.

Commentators such as Johann Hari have pushed the case for public financed intervention (Hari, 2011). They point to previous successful application of these Keynesian approaches, such as FDR's New Deal in the US of the 1920's and 30's and post-war Labour governments, in public projects such as the NHS.

Keynesian measures have however been criticised as insufficient to manage some of the realities of modern economics  (Atkinson, 2011), much as the classical libertarian approach was denounced in the late victorian era - and again now  - to be insufficient to address the unfair and imbalanced nature of the the market (Liberal Industrial Inquiry, 1928).

The current Labour leadership has tried to drive a moderated course so far in opposition, one between the cuts and the need to 'stimulate' the economy. The Labour leader Mr E Miliband has pressed this view, as has his Shadow Chancellor Mr Ed Balls (Owen, 2011). The former Labour Chancellor Mr Alistair Darling believes that the measured approach put forward by the party is a credible alternative, but one that faces an uphill battle for acceptance (Aitkenhead, 2011).

Other political parties have also shared Labour's slow down and 'stimulate' plans.

Liberal Democrats campaigned on a 'green stimulus plan [to] ...create 100,000 jobs', that involved:

'Investing up to £400 million in refurbishing shipyards in the North of England and Scotland so that they can manufacture offshore wind turbines and other marine renewable energy equipment'

These plans carried much in common, not just with Labour, but with earlier Liberals who worked on the 'Liberal Industrial Inquiry' of the late 1920s. These proposals where later reigned in by the coalition with the Tories.

Conflicts of Interest

Whichever way public money is to be spent, the system must always be clear & fair. Taxation allows the government to intervene and curb the excesses of businesses in the pursuit of profits, but its processes must be transparent. Transparency helps to avoid embarressing incidents such as setting up a new system of administering schools, and then fast-tracking a lump sum of money to a close friend's business in that sector, which could appear to be a less than scrupulous use of public funds (Vasagar, 2011).

And the amount of collection and spending must also be tempered, in order to avoid the dangers pointed out by the last President of the Soviet Union, Mr Mikhail Gorbachev in the later days of the communist superpower (1987):

'It is natural for the producer to "please" the consumer, if I may put it that way. With us, however, the consumer found himself totally at the mercy of the producer and had to make do with what the latter chose to give him'

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'New recession fears as weak US jobs data causes markets to fall'; 2 September 2011;

+ Robert Harvey's 'The war of wars: The epic struggle between Britain and France: 1789-1815';
chp 1, pg 9-15; Constable, 2006.

+ Diane Purkiss' 'The English Civil War: A people's history';
chp 4, pg 93; Harper Perennial, 2006.

+ Press Association's 'Public sector workers will have to pay up to £3,000 a year to keep pensions'; in The Guardian; 28 July 2011;

-See also:
The Telegraph's 'Public sector pensions: high earners face bigger rise in contributions';
The Telegraphs's 'Danny Alexander: public sector pensions must be rebalanced';
The Telegraph's 'Andrew Lansley attacks government's public sector pension reforms';

+ Paul Vallely's 'Are the Government's welfare policies creating more homeless people?'; in The Independent; 9 June 2011;

-See also:
The Guardian's 'Tory peer attacks government's welfare to work programme';
The BBC's 'David Cameron sets out Welfare Reform Bill plans';
Department of Work & Pensions' 'Welfare Reform';

+ Anthony Reuben's 'Who owns the UK's debt?'; 26 February 2010;

+ Rob Atkinson's 'The Trouble With Progressive Economics'; Summer 2011;

+ Jon Swaine's 'Gordon Brown hails £500 billion bank rescue plan'; in The Telegraph; 8 October 2008;

+ 'Britain's Industrial Future: being the report of the Liberal Industrial Inquiry'; also known as the 'Yellow Book'; chp 1, pg 5-8; Ernest Benn, 1928.

+ Johann Hari's 'The biggest lie in British politics'; 29 March 2011;

+ Paul Owen's 'Ed Balls sets out alternative to coalition spending cuts as he warns of double-dip recession'; in The Guardian; 27 August 2011;

+ Decca Aitkenhead's 'Alistair Darling: "You can't just tell half the story and still be credible"'; in The Guardian; 8 September 2011;

+ Jeevan Vasagar's 'Whitehall emails reveal the hidden costs of promoting free schools'; in The Guardian; 30 August 2011;

+ Mikhail Gorbachev's 'Perestroika: New Thinking for our country and the world';
Collins, 1987.

Immaturity, Innocence & Experience

It is very easy to get even with someone. Paramore's 'Misery Business' is moulded around the hopes of oppressed young people that justice will be served to their tormenters - that they will get even.

And getting even feels good. That's where the problem lies.

Getting even, getting square and getting vengeance are fleeting outcomes. Those moments will fade leaving behind rushes of adrenaline and roots untempered.

Simon Pegg's Tim Bisley in 'Spaced' put it best:

'Life just isn't like the movies, is it? We're constantly led to believe in resolution, in the re-establishment of the ideal status quo and it's just not true'

And life isn't like the movies because, as Dr Manhattan explains in his parting shot to Ozymandias in Alan Moore's 'Watchmen':

'Nothing ever ends'

'Misery Business' perfectly captures the temporary high of an eye for an eye. But there is sadness to be found in such cathartic acts. It would be easy to suggest that the tragedy of catharsis was simply lost on Paramore because of their youth. But the Tories are only too happy to prove that theory wrong.

Following the England riots, Tories have been quick to play down 'phoney human rights' considerations (Watt et al, 2011); they have been quick to use it to push their anti-gang rhetoric (Telegraph, 2011) and they have been quick to call for force to be met with 'greater force' (Davies, 2011).

It is mature but naïve innocence to acknowledge how empowering catharsis can feel; but the wisdom of hard earned experience lies in the acknowledgement of its temporary nature. The catharsis of lashing out is ultimately unsatisfying.

We must reject reactionary conservative doctrine of meeting force with greater force; before we are trapped by an inevitable escalation, taking an eye for an eye until no one can see.

==========
References:
==========
+ Nicholas Watt, Sandra Laville & Vikram Dodd's 'Tories on riot policing: too few, too slow, too timid'; in The Guardian, 11 August 2011;

+ The Telegraph's 'England riots: David Cameron declares war on gangs'; 15 August 2011;

+ David Davies, MP for Monmouth, in the 'Public Disorder debate' in the House of Commons; 11 August 2011;