Fear poisons the democratic well and leaves us ripe for exploitation

Over the past few weeks and months there have been attempted armed assaults on elected officials in two Western countries (The Guardian, 2014; Roberts, 2014); there has been war, kidnap and murder in the Middle East (Swinford, 2014); a deadly disease has posed a threat to three continents (BBC, 2014); and crude and aggressive attempts are being made to stop women from speaking up for their rights (Hern, 2014). All of these events have one thing in common: Fear.

In the UK, from welfare to migration (Wintour, 2014; The Guardian, 2013), fear has started to play too large a part in the political arena, much too often. A rash of issues have been blown up into alarmist struggles, with the disproportionate and scary language used feeding the negative emotions that complicate and confuse matters (Jenkins, 2014).

The US has faired little better. The arrival of the Ebola virus has sparked all sorts of animated and colourful reactions from conservative commentators (Younge, 2014). The fear these events spark upset the order of people's lives, destabilise the things that they depend upon, and that makes them feel vulnerable and afraid, and that fear can lead to escalation (The Guardian, 2013).

Fear, either as a result of fear-mongering or ignorance, is potentially extremely powerful. It can be a potent mover of public opinion, but it does so only by poisoning the popular democratic environment. It poisons debate, it drowns out reason in a howl of noise, and it corrupts our ideals. When that happens, our liberty is at stake. It is a dark road down which we travel when we let fear, and our frightened reactions, override our reason.

Niccolo Machiavelli, the much maligned Florentine political philosopher, gave us an insight into the power that fear, when we let it control us, gives to those who might exploit it:

'And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed, that they are thankless, fickle, false studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant... For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp.'

That cynical view on how the fears of the people may be exploited serve us now as a warning. During the good times, when people have freedom, and their lives have some measure of stability and security, it is easier for them to think clearly and make good decisions. But when their world is upset, they feel vulnerable and so close ranks.

Fear, whether it is of change, violence, chaos or punishment, can be used to control us, or to steer us towards extreme solutions. As we retreat to familiar ground, shut out others and become less tolerant, we give life to extreme solutions. Our fears present a potentially profitable exploit to others willing to react to the situation and give us a sense of security.

However, as reactionaries offer us the extreme solutions that we, in our fear, desire, they only affirm those fears and exacerbate them (The Guardian, 2013). Fear and reaction can this way become a vicious cycle, each causing the other in turn to escalate.

We need to find a way to be calm, to be considered and thoughtful, as we take important decisions. When the world is at its worst is the time when cherished values like kindness, hope and generosity are needed the most. The answer to violence and danger, to exploitation and fear, is not to retreat into narrow tribal groups. Instead we need to find more friendship, and more support for our most cherished values, amongst more people and across many and more diverse cultures.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'The Guardian view on the terror attacks in Ottawa: hold fast to tolerance and diversity'; 23 October 2014.

+ Dan Roberts' 'Armed intruder had penetrated farther into White House than admitted'; in The Guardian; 29 September 2014.

+ Steven Swinford's 'David Cameron breaks off holiday after 'British' jihadist beheads kidnapped journalist'; in The Telegraph; 20 August 2014.

+ BBC's 'Ebola: Mapping the outbreak'; 22 October 2014.

+ Alex Hern's 'Felicia Day's public details put online after she described Gamergate fears'; in The Guardian; 23 October 2014.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Welfare state presides over 'culture of fear', charities say'; in The Guardian; 18 February 2014.

+ The Guardian's 'Migration: politics of fear'; 30 December 2013.

+ Simon Jenkins' 'Downing Street’s Ebola panic is a classic case of the politics of fear'; in The Guardian; 17 October 2014.

+ Gary Younge's 'Ebola has exposed America's fear, and Barack Obama's vulnerability'; in The Guardian; 19 October 2014.

+ Niccolo Machiavelli's 'The Prince'; from Chapter XVII; 1513. [Buy Now]

Strikers and protesters are demanding a better future - how long will it take Westminster to catch up with reality?

In the last week, thousands of people have taken to the streets in protest. From strike action taken by NHS staff on Monday, protesting the refusal of a 1% pay rise (The Guardian, 2014), to the Trade Union Congress (TUC) 'Britain Needs a Pay Rise' protest on Saturday (Johnston, 2014), people are taking to the streets in opposition to public sector cuts and austerity - with more strikes planned for the coming weeks.

The NHS strike received wide support, being particularly broad on twitter, that once more demonstrated strong positive public feeling towards public services, and in particular the UK's health service. The TUC protest for better pay only confirmed the increase in opposition to the public sector cuts.

At the coalition's inception a narrative was laid out that stressed the apparent necessity of cuts to public spending. That narrative came with a promise: 'We're all in this together'.

That idea was challenged from the beginning (Butler & Malik, 2010), and the statistics gathered by the government's social mobility commission, chaired by former Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn (Boffey, 2014) confirm that young people are being disproportionally burdened with falling pay, fewer opportunities, and in many cases left without either the ability to find work or to find homes.

This crisis extends beyond young people, however. Prices are rising as wages and social security continue to fall across the board (Roberts, 2014). That situation is deeply affecting people's confidence, and leaving them with little hope of a better future (Mason, 2014).

Combined with incongruous contradictions like refusing a 1% pay rise for all NHS staff but approving an 11% rise for MPs (Campbell & Johnson, 2014), or the super rich getting richer as the rest of us are getting poorer (Dorling, 2014), it seems that the cuts, if the necessity of them was ever conceded, have now been pushed far enough to become a bitter pill people are no longer willing to swallow.

There is a growing feeling that the cuts are an ideological project, rather than a commitment to a pragmatic public policy. Part of an ideology opposed to the government collecting and spending money on the behalf of the people. An ideology opposed to the wealthiest contributing a proportional share to the commons. 'We're all in this together' is looking like a hastily slipping façade.

Society is becoming absurdly unbalanced, and the economic crisis continues. At a time when conditions are getting more and more difficult for those hit hardest by the continuing economic crisis, taking away public services, reducing public sector employment and drastically cutting back public welfare & support is making that situation desperate.

As Thomas Paine reminds us (1795), there has to be something in it for the worst off within civilisation.

'In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period. But the fact is that the condition of millions, in every country in Europe, is far worse than if they had been born before civilization began.'

Otherwise, why should they care or participate? Today, Paine's words remind us of society's duty to ensure continued hope and enfranchisement of each new generation. But those obligations are being shattered by attacks on social security.

In response people are out in increasing numbers to strike, and to protest. They are resisting. Yet they are also finding it hard to make themselves heard where it matters. It is not a coincidence that these difficult conditions have been accompanied by the rise of far-right populism across Europe. As Charles Kennedy (2006) warned us:

'The danger in all of this is that if sufficient people conclude that there is nothing in the conventional political process for them then they may opt for more simplistic and extreme options on offer. I remain an optimist. But across the mainstream political spectrum there is a candid recognition of the danger.'

It was in these kinds of conditions that movements like the protests of May '68 in France emerged, when an entire fifth of the country's population went on strike. From Occupy, to the student protests in Chile, to the democratic movement across the Middle East and North Africa, and protests against austerity across Europe, people are taking to the streets to demand a better future.

In the UK, these strikes and protests are becoming a common sight. Public sector workers, trade unions and government commissioners are warning that society is slipping into dangerous levels of inequality and unfairness. How long will it take Westminster to catch up with reality?

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'Unite workers vote to strike in NHS staff pay dispute'; 26 September 2014.

+ Chris Johnston's 'Tens of thousands take to UK streets in pay protest'; in The Guardian; 18 October 2014.

+ Patrick Butler's & Shiv Malik's 'All in it together? Young people and the cuts'; in The Guardian; 8 December 2010.

+ Daniel Boffey's 'Alan Milburn says Britain is on verge of being permanently divided between haves and have-nots as young miss out on recovery'; in The Guardian; 19 October 2014.

+ Yvonne Robert's 'Low-paid Britain: 'People have had enough. It's soul destroying''; in The Guardian; 30 August 2014.

+ Paul Mason's 'The unending economic crisis makes us feel powerless – and paranoid'; in The Guardian; 19 October 2014.

+ Denis Campbell & Sarah Johnson's 'NHS strike: clinics close and operations cancelled in dispute over pay'; in The Guardian; 13 October 2014.

+ Danny Dorling's 'How the super rich got richer: 10 shocking facts about inequality'; in The Guardian; 15 September 2014.

+ Thomas Paine's 'Agrarian Justice'; 1795. [Buy Now]

+ Charles Kennedy's 'How we lost people's trust'; in The Guardian; 4 August 2006.

The party conferences reveal different visions for our economic future

With the next UK general election now only months away, this round of political party conferences is all about building towards polling day. That means each party is beginning to mark out its territory, and to lay out the policies that voters will be asked to choose between.

With the economic crisis refusing to abate, and a series of deep cuts to public sector funding likely to be followed by more in the next parliament - certainly if the current government survives the election - the economy is going to be a major factor for consideration.

On the matter of economics, political parties seem to adhere to a set of rules that ensure that things don't change too much. But the main parties all have their own visions, even if there are some common themes. Each of those visions reveals to us a little bit about the differences between the parties.

Amongst the most telling are the policies of the right-wing conservatives, who will have the novelty of being represented by two parties at the next general election. The Conservative Party and UKIP represent the same fundamental political positions, though in UKIP's case it has been taken to some extremes.

Savage cuts to public services appear to be on the Conservative Party agenda for the next parliament, with the wealthiest looking likely to be the main benefactors (Ball, 2014). UKIP's offer looks astoundingly similar, if anything even more weighted towards the upper middle class and upwards - to be paid for, they say, by leaving Europe, and so ending Britain's contributions to things like the Regional Development Fund and support for Agriculture and Fisheries, and by cutting foreign aid (BBC, 26/9/2014).

Both conservative parties are also offering to copy the Liberal Democrats and their stated commitment to take the poorest out of income tax. Along with that, go commitments to give tax cuts to those earning up to £50-£55,000 a year, along with making fairly tenuous promises to 'protect the NHS' (Wright, 2014).

The question is, with all of the tax cuts, how exactly is the NHS going to be protected? Unless by more cuts to other public services or more privatisation? It has been suggested that the cuts will only really benefit the wealthier. Those concerns will become a reality if keeping public healthcare afloat means even more cuts to basic services that the poorest depend on.

With those kinds of attitudes towards the role of government, and to the running of public services, along with the belief of both conservative groups in dismantling Europe's Human Rights framework, the way ahead does not look rosy for the poorest should one of the conservative parties get their way.

Labour Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has focussed his economic pitch on standing out from the other main parties. Rather than raising many of the lowest paid out of tax, Labour want to increase the minimum wage. They want to combine that with a freeze on energy prices (BBC, 22/9/2014).

The issue comes with Labour's unwillingness to commit to whether or not they will continue with the Conservative Party's cuts to public spending (Peston, 2014). This has happened before. Throughout the last four years Labour haven't ruled out continuing the cuts, and Ed Balls' conference speech has done nothing to offer reassurance on the matter.

The Labour Party's determination to set itself apart from the opposition is so far obvious only in words. On the surface, the difference between conservative and Labour positions appears as if it will be a contest over who can better administer the status quo, and subtle shifts in tax taken either from the wealthy, or from the poor.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have also set their stall out in an effort to distance themselves from the others. They want to give a tax cut to 29 million, increasing the pre-tax allowance to £11,000, a policy that has been copied across the board. However the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has stressed that this will be paid for by focussing tax increases on the richest, as part of an effort to 'rebalance' tax increases and cuts (Lansdale, 2014) - highlighting the need to find new ways to rebalance state finances without more cuts.

Their pitch is that the Lib Dems would borrow less than Labour and cut less than the right-wing parties. They are trying to set out their own position, and get back to the basics of liberal policy. But that comes with an attachment to the free market that ultimately chains them, and has led them to sacrifice other policies, like the abolition of tuition fees, that were more important to voters (Wheeler, 2014). It also prevents them from being a complete alternative to the Conservatives, UKIP and Labour.

A group that has not been afraid to criticise the market orthodoxies are the Green Party. The Greens present voters with a progressive alternative that sets them very much apart from the other parties.

They want levies on wealth and large rises in the minimum wage, along with the introduction of a basic income - also known as a citizen's income - and to renationalise the railways (Mason, 2014). Further, they aim to do this within a new framework, a new political settlement, to be drawn up with the participation of the whole country.

The Greens represent a quietly growing progressive movement, with organised political parties across Europe, who are beginning to find support for a renewal of trust and engagement in politics, one coupled to a new approach to economics.

Yet that quiet movement is struggling to make the catchy headlines needed to get public attention away from stunts and controversy, like the Conservative Party tearing itself in two over the European Union, and splitting apart into new factions like UKIP.

Those controversies will ultimately prove the making or breaking of this next UK general election. With so much populist and hyped-up focus on extreme factions, and the main parties squabbling over who to trust on certain issues, it will be hard to see the real information through the cloud of noise.

And that is a problem, because to make the right decisions, when election time comes around, all of the best information is needed. The noise and popularity contests will mean people having to remain vigilant to find it, and see through the propaganda to what each party is really trying to achieve.

==========
References:
==========
+ James Ball's 'Cameron’s tax cuts benefit middle and higher earners, not the poorest'; in The Guardian; 2 October 2014.

+ BBC's 'UKIP conference: Income tax cuts plan unveiled'; 26 September 2014.

+ Ben Wright's 'Cameron frames election choice with tax cuts pledge'; on the BBC; 1 October 2014.

+ BBC's 'David Cameron pledges tax cuts 'for 30m people''; 1 October 2014.

+ Nick Robinson's 'Cameron: Talk of 'better times' rather than austerity'; on the BBC; 1 October 2014.

+ BBC's 'Ed Balls sets out priorities for 'first Labour Budget''; 22 September 2014.

+ Robert Peston's 'Can Balls be just austere enough?'; on the BBC; 22 September 2014.

+ James Lansdale's 'Lib Dems seek centre 'gap' as Tories and Labour shift'; on the BBC; 5 October 2014.

+ Brian Wheeler's 'Lib Dems should have died in a ditch over tuition fees - Farron'; on the BBC; 6 October 2014.

+ BBC's 'Nick Clegg pledges 'tax cut for 29 million people' in 2016'; 7 October 2014.

+ Chris Mason's 'Can the Greens' economic ideas grab the attention of voters?'; on the BBC; 5 September 2014.

+ BBC's 'Green Party calls for £10 hourly minimum wage by 2020'; 5 September 2014.

+ BBC's 'Green Party says membership up to 26,000 across Britain'; 6 October 2014.

+ BBC's 'Green Party seeks 'radical' new political settlement'; 19 September 2014.

Doctor Who and the patronising, paternalistic, patriarchy

The past two episodes of Doctor Who, The Caretaker and Kill the Moon, have seen the dynamic between the Doctor and his companion Clara shift towards something a lot more paternal, and uncomfortably more patronising.

Clara began the season as the responsible adult and carer to the Doctor's increasingly alien psychopathic detachment. But the most recent episodes have seen her caught between two very paternalistic, patriarchal male figures, against whom it felt like Clara deserved to put up a greater resistance. She was, after all, once the commander of some Space Romans and said no to their Emperor, and even resisted conversion into a Dalek.

From being a strong counterpoint to the Doctor, she was flipped into uncertainty, and was somewhat patronised, as she found herself caught between the Doctor and her new boyfriend, former soldier now maths teacher, Danny Pink.

It would not be the first time that the show has been paternal and patriarchal towards female characters. That has, historically, been the result of women being written by men for men, in a less culturally aware past. There have been amongst those many strong female characters, even though they usually existed within a (very) male framework (and gaze).

But right now there is a need for more strong female characters, written for women, as visible role models. Women who can show the full and complex range of human emotions, and be strong for it, while being resolute and kind, heroic and compassionate in the face of danger.

In this latest episode, Clara's angry response to the Doctor's patronising attitude was a positive move - even if it was not necessarily helpful to follow that with this strong female character being encouraged, rather patronisingly, to calm down and act when less emotional, by her former soldier boyfriend. It did take a little of the sting out of the moment.

These latest changes in the character dynamic could all, of course, easily be part of an arc - either for Clara, or for the Doctor, particularly regarding his manipulative, sometimes quite patronising, heroism. It is too early in the series to draw any conclusions.

It would be great to think that we are in the middle of a really meaningful arc for the show, in which a lot of the old sexisms can be drawn out, critiqued and then hopefully discarded. We will have to wait and see.

==========
References:
==========
+ Stephen Moffatt's Doctor Who: 'The Caretaker'; Series 8; on the BBC; 27 September 2014.

+ Stephen Moffatt's Doctor Who: 'Kill the Moon'; Series 8; on the BBC; 4 October 2014.

+ Stephen Moffat's Doctor Who: 'Asylum of the Daleks'; Series 7 Part 1; on the BBC; 1 September 2012.
[Buy Now]

+ Stephen Moffat's Doctor Who: 'Nightmare in Silver'; Series 7 Part 2; on the BBC; 11 May 2013. [Buy Now]