This is especially true with Politics. For someone like me, (make what you will of that statement) it's like getting into Fort Knox. I come from a working class family, my dad is an unskilled engineer, and my mum left school without any qualifications. I am the first person in my family to attend University. I have no connections, no money and I live 200 miles away from Westminster.
Unpaid internships are usually prerequisites to entering the world of politics, and unfortunately something which I can not do. They are already quite competitive, and only people who can afford to work for 3 months unpaid and live in one of the most expensive cities in the world need apply.
If we take a look at the figures, 9 out of 10 MPs went to University, 3 out of 10 went to Oxbridge, and there are 20 ex Etonians in Government. 19 of those are Tory, one is a Liberal Democrat. Shockingly only 1 in 20 MPs are from a Blue Collar background.
Despite the fact that only 7% of people in this country went to a Private School, 53% of the Conservative- Liberal Democrat Coalition went to Private School.
Most MPs were born with a silver spoon in there mouth. Even Ed and David Miliband who proudly talk about their attendance at comprehensive schools had a head start, their father was Ralph Miliband for Christ's sake! They grew up having Labour veteran and champion of the NHS Tony Benn round for tea. Hardly a 'normal' upbringing. For some people a dinner with Tony Benn would be a dream come true, well mine at least. That is to say nothing of the practical benefits which such esteemed contacts would surely provide.
What I find most laughable is Thatcher's (I refuse to call her 'Mrs Thatcher' or indeed 'Lady Thatcher') rhetoric that "Class is dead" and anyone can rise to the top through hard work and effort. Obviously there are exceptions, for example former Home Secretary Alan Johnson who started as a Post Man, but they are just that, exceptions. They certainly aren't the rule. I have worked hard throughout my whole educational career, I may not be the best or have the most experience, but does that necessarily mean I don't deserve it? That I shouldn't be given a chance? Because I know that I could and I would do an excellent job. Working alongside an MP is my dream job after all.
With a freeze on recruitment in the public sector, it seems the only chance a graduate like me has of getting a seat in Whitehall is through the extremely competitive and difficult civil service fast stream. Prospective employers will spend a great deal of money on books and reaources to swat up on their maths and verbal reasoning in the hope they may just make it past the online tests. Then if they manage to make it through these they then face grueling assessment centres and interviews. Not to say that it's not all worth it because of course it is. £24,000 starting annual salary, benefits including pensions, flexible hours and options of career breaks later in working life. Not to mention advising ministers and making policy to help shape Britain. It's just an extremely difficult process, in an already difficult graduate jobs market. Do not take this to mean that I am critical of the necessary rigors of the recruitment process for such posts, my grievance is with the fact that in practical terms it may serve to further enforce the divide between rich and poor. There is no equality of opportunity here in supposedly 'Great Britain'.
This means that while this inequality continues Parliament can only be seen as unrepresentative of the people. This in turn has extreme effects on Britain. It furthers the gap between rich and poor which has already been mentioned. The majority of MP's cannot relate to an everyday Briton's life. They've never had to struggle or choose between warmth and food as so many of us will be doing this winter. How can such an unrepresentative Parliament be allowed. How is this fair? How is it fair for the people they are representing and the people who want to be involved but have limited resources?
It could be argued that the fact that so many Members of Parliament attended the top universities in the country is a good thing. It is difficult to argue against that point. However, what must be argued and fought against in the most relentless of fashions is the socioeconomic factors, and inequalities in the education system which forces many young people to choose against studying a degree level even if they managed to have made it to the stage where they have the relevant qualifications to meet the entry requirements. With the withdrawal rather than reform of the EMA and the increase in tuition fees the number of young people choosing against higher study is destined to increase dramatically. While these trends continue we will continue to be out true representation and democracy in Britain in 2011.
Monday 26 September 2011
Saturday 10 September 2011
The Impact of 9/11 on Race Relations.
As the the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is approaching, I thought it would be appropriate to write a blog related to it. Something I have always considered, but never really researched in depth, is the negative impact that awful day and its aftermath had on race relations.
Since the atrocious attacks on the Twin Towers a decade ago, race relations, particularly those between Muslims and the so called West, have apparently deteriorated. At the very least they have intensified. It seems as if the British National Party and the English Defence League are almost a direct response to the attacks on 9/11. Could it be that the September 11th attacks and reactions to it gave rise to the efforts of British far right groups to identify Muslims as symbolic of unwanted difference and almost excused anti Islamic violence? In Nazi Germany, the far right were able to use the Jewish community as a scapegoat, in the twenty first century the far right are focused on Islam.
There has long been a Muslim presence in Britain, since the beginning of the 19th century in Britain in fact. Islam first came to Britain with the immigration of Muslim seamen who settled around major British ports. Again, after World War Two there was an increase in the number of Muslims in Britain as a result of large numbers of Banglasdeshis, Pakistanis and Indians being brought in to address labour demands.
In all fairness to the BNP, EDL and other similar organisations, the portrayal of Muslims in Europe has been negative since the formation of Islam. The negativity towards them is not a new phenomenon. Anti-Muslim feeling grew out of the desire to prevent Christians from converting to Islam and to encourage resistance to Muslim forces on borders. They were portrayed then, and sadly in many instances still are unfairly portrayed as barbaric, ignorant, closed minded terrorists. This, needless to say was and is absolutely disgraceful.
In the decade that has followed 9/11, Muslisms have been the target for more subtle forms of prejudice and hatred by right wing groups. The media worked collectively to reinforce negative beliefs and perceptions by highlighting honour killings, terrorist organisations like Al-Quaeda, and extremist muslim groups like Islam4UK led by Anjam Choudary.
Often the language used to describe Muslims is violent, which infers that Muslims are violent. Lest we forget the old adage 'violence only begets more violence.' Arabic words have been put into universal vocabulary with new meaning such as Jihad. This now signifies a military war waged by Islamists against the the West. However the Qur'anic meaning is far braoder and refers to the idea of struggle.
It's not just the media who are guilty of using anti- Muslim rhetoric for their own gains. Politicians are at it too. When politicians used the phrase "War on Terror", they are using the Anti Muslim frame already put in place, but being subtle about it. David Miliband rightly said in this weeks BBC Question Time that those words "should never have been uttered." Why? Because the only purpose that sentence serves, is to almost justify radical right wing groups, and their hatred towards Islam and Muslims, because they are seen as the enemy.
Something that I found utterly shocking, was something I read on the website of the broadsheet newspaper The Guardian. A colouring book has just been released entitled "We shall never forget 9/11: The Kids Book of Freedom." This colouring book contains pictures of the Twin Towers burning and the execution of Osama bin Laden. Highly appropriate for children isn't it? It even contains this text: "Children, the truth is, these terrorist acts were done by freedom-hating radical Islamic Muslim extremists. These crazy people hate the American way of life because we are FREE and our society is FREE." This book serves to demonize Islam, not to speak the truth as it says. It essentially characterizes all Muslims as terrorists and radicals which could lead children to believe they were all responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Instead of teaching equality, it seeks to divide children and fear other religions.
Something which I take particular exception to, where anti- Muslim rhetoric is concerned is the way in which people describe the relationship as 'them' and 'us'. As far as I'm concerned religion is irrelevant. If the people which got on the plane that day were Muslim, it does not mean that millions of other Muslims behave that way as well. Not too long ago there was a terrorist attack committed in Norway by a Christian.
I think ultimately, Muslims are the new blacks, the new Jews, the new Irish. They are at this moment in time the scapegoat people use. In time it will pass, when they find something else. I don't think that September 11th 2001 necessarily increased prejudice towards Muslims, although unfortunately it did give people with such disgusting outlooks something with which to justify their twisted logic and unacceptable views.
Since the atrocious attacks on the Twin Towers a decade ago, race relations, particularly those between Muslims and the so called West, have apparently deteriorated. At the very least they have intensified. It seems as if the British National Party and the English Defence League are almost a direct response to the attacks on 9/11. Could it be that the September 11th attacks and reactions to it gave rise to the efforts of British far right groups to identify Muslims as symbolic of unwanted difference and almost excused anti Islamic violence? In Nazi Germany, the far right were able to use the Jewish community as a scapegoat, in the twenty first century the far right are focused on Islam.
There has long been a Muslim presence in Britain, since the beginning of the 19th century in Britain in fact. Islam first came to Britain with the immigration of Muslim seamen who settled around major British ports. Again, after World War Two there was an increase in the number of Muslims in Britain as a result of large numbers of Banglasdeshis, Pakistanis and Indians being brought in to address labour demands.
In all fairness to the BNP, EDL and other similar organisations, the portrayal of Muslims in Europe has been negative since the formation of Islam. The negativity towards them is not a new phenomenon. Anti-Muslim feeling grew out of the desire to prevent Christians from converting to Islam and to encourage resistance to Muslim forces on borders. They were portrayed then, and sadly in many instances still are unfairly portrayed as barbaric, ignorant, closed minded terrorists. This, needless to say was and is absolutely disgraceful.
In the decade that has followed 9/11, Muslisms have been the target for more subtle forms of prejudice and hatred by right wing groups. The media worked collectively to reinforce negative beliefs and perceptions by highlighting honour killings, terrorist organisations like Al-Quaeda, and extremist muslim groups like Islam4UK led by Anjam Choudary.
Often the language used to describe Muslims is violent, which infers that Muslims are violent. Lest we forget the old adage 'violence only begets more violence.' Arabic words have been put into universal vocabulary with new meaning such as Jihad. This now signifies a military war waged by Islamists against the the West. However the Qur'anic meaning is far braoder and refers to the idea of struggle.
It's not just the media who are guilty of using anti- Muslim rhetoric for their own gains. Politicians are at it too. When politicians used the phrase "War on Terror", they are using the Anti Muslim frame already put in place, but being subtle about it. David Miliband rightly said in this weeks BBC Question Time that those words "should never have been uttered." Why? Because the only purpose that sentence serves, is to almost justify radical right wing groups, and their hatred towards Islam and Muslims, because they are seen as the enemy.
Something that I found utterly shocking, was something I read on the website of the broadsheet newspaper The Guardian. A colouring book has just been released entitled "We shall never forget 9/11: The Kids Book of Freedom." This colouring book contains pictures of the Twin Towers burning and the execution of Osama bin Laden. Highly appropriate for children isn't it? It even contains this text: "Children, the truth is, these terrorist acts were done by freedom-hating radical Islamic Muslim extremists. These crazy people hate the American way of life because we are FREE and our society is FREE." This book serves to demonize Islam, not to speak the truth as it says. It essentially characterizes all Muslims as terrorists and radicals which could lead children to believe they were all responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Instead of teaching equality, it seeks to divide children and fear other religions.
Something which I take particular exception to, where anti- Muslim rhetoric is concerned is the way in which people describe the relationship as 'them' and 'us'. As far as I'm concerned religion is irrelevant. If the people which got on the plane that day were Muslim, it does not mean that millions of other Muslims behave that way as well. Not too long ago there was a terrorist attack committed in Norway by a Christian.
I think ultimately, Muslims are the new blacks, the new Jews, the new Irish. They are at this moment in time the scapegoat people use. In time it will pass, when they find something else. I don't think that September 11th 2001 necessarily increased prejudice towards Muslims, although unfortunately it did give people with such disgusting outlooks something with which to justify their twisted logic and unacceptable views.
Saturday 3 September 2011
In Pursuit Of Happiness
Happiness, happiness, happiness, surely that is the ultimate goal of human existence. But is it unattainable, is true happiness the unrealisable dream?
It seems that the greatest obstacles to achieving contentment, are what we consider to be the best routes to it. Society, Government and the media in the 21st Century pedal an apparently undeniable truth that certain passages to happiness are money, social status and a ‘good’ career (whatever that is). I am sure you don’t need me to tell you that this couldn’t be further from the truth.
The well known sayings ‘money isn’t everything’ and ‘money can’t buy you happiness’ are losing more of their truth every day. Today for example, it is close to impossible for the ordinary Briton to do anything without considering the financial implications. Is it a surprise therefore that whilst money is so scarce, boredom is rife? You need only take into consideration the fact that nowadays, large numbers of young people take to the streets to simply hang around. This is a phenomenon especially well known in impoverished areas. The most common explanation for this new leisure time activity is simply that ’there is nothing else to do’. Why is there nothing to do? There is nothing to do because they have little to no disposable income with which to get involved in leisure activities.
It is simply a disgrace that the only justification which is ever given for providing government funded youth leisure facilities in such areas is that it may have some positive effect in terms of reducing crime levels. As if the reason that James and Phil deal drugs and steal cars, is that they haven’t got free access to a tennis court or a recording studio. There are many reasons why young people, and people in general commit criminal offences, it is impossible to come up with concrete explanations for every single crime, although it seems clear that in many cases four factors are common: money, the pursuit of status, unhappiness and boredom. Of course that is not say that there are not others, but, it would seem evident that if one’s life was not spent at the mercy of economic factors or the consumerist machine which inevitably drives us to want more than our current lot, perhaps happiness would be easier to come by? Forcing many young people to work in low wage jobs sets them up for a life time of low expectations, the devaluation of further education through the saturation of the Graduate Jobs Market has helped to strike another near fatal blow to a whole generation’s pursuit of happiness.
Is it possible to argue against the fact that sufficient food and a safe place to live are basic human rights? I would argue not. It is therefore outrageous and immoral that some people in Britain work long hours, for low wages, under unbelievable stress and fear, simply to feed and house themselves and their families. For many the only alternative is poverty and/or homelessness. Additionally, in recent years, there has been a worrying development of a suspicion of anyone who dares take benefits. This is an unhealthy and unhelpful stigma, especially where happiness is concerned. This suspicion of other working and middle class people, the majority of whom take only what they deserve, serves as a wedge which divides us all. These ‘scroungers’, like the terrorists, immigrants, murderers, paedophiles and rapists are the largely invisible villains who we are told are round every corner. The spreading of this fear, at its worst, divides people and strengthens, to use a cliché, ‘the establishment, and, at the very least it sells newspapers and keeps people distracted and apathetic.
Those who do not work are deemed worse than those who make us. Even if our millionaire and billionaire employers pay less tax than a basic employee. Retail for example is a field in which all employees are disposable. They are disposable regardless of their experience or dedication to the company. How can a person be happy in their lives if at work they fear constantly the looming threat of dismissal? Do not forget that this piece is concerned with happiness not what is right or wrong. As such I do admit that this piece deals in generalities and theory rather than practicalities.
Many in Britain (mostly wise tabloid readers) will fly off the handle and shout me down with the fact that people are cheating the system whilst they work hard to pay for it. Whilst I understand their outrage and the unfairness to be found in certain isolated situations, could the unfairness not just as easily be the fact that system is failing? If someone claims benefits and is deemed worthy of them when in fact they are not, is the fault not with the system? Therefore rather than attaching stigma and suspicion to beneficiaries of benefits, a protest via the ballot box would be more appropriate.
With roughly half of the population not voting at the last general election it is safe to assume that not everyone took their chance to do so. In addition, I would respond to anyone who uses the ‘I pay my taxes’ cliché, with this simple statement: ‘If you don’t like paying your taxes, and the only evidence for your objections to how your tax money is spent is based on evidence from the tabloid press, then shut up or relinquish your citizenship and leave the country.’ It is time that we realised that the enemies of our happiness are not in our neighbourhoods,.
It seems that the greatest obstacles to achieving contentment, are what we consider to be the best routes to it. Society, Government and the media in the 21st Century pedal an apparently undeniable truth that certain passages to happiness are money, social status and a ‘good’ career (whatever that is). I am sure you don’t need me to tell you that this couldn’t be further from the truth.
The well known sayings ‘money isn’t everything’ and ‘money can’t buy you happiness’ are losing more of their truth every day. Today for example, it is close to impossible for the ordinary Briton to do anything without considering the financial implications. Is it a surprise therefore that whilst money is so scarce, boredom is rife? You need only take into consideration the fact that nowadays, large numbers of young people take to the streets to simply hang around. This is a phenomenon especially well known in impoverished areas. The most common explanation for this new leisure time activity is simply that ’there is nothing else to do’. Why is there nothing to do? There is nothing to do because they have little to no disposable income with which to get involved in leisure activities.
It is simply a disgrace that the only justification which is ever given for providing government funded youth leisure facilities in such areas is that it may have some positive effect in terms of reducing crime levels. As if the reason that James and Phil deal drugs and steal cars, is that they haven’t got free access to a tennis court or a recording studio. There are many reasons why young people, and people in general commit criminal offences, it is impossible to come up with concrete explanations for every single crime, although it seems clear that in many cases four factors are common: money, the pursuit of status, unhappiness and boredom. Of course that is not say that there are not others, but, it would seem evident that if one’s life was not spent at the mercy of economic factors or the consumerist machine which inevitably drives us to want more than our current lot, perhaps happiness would be easier to come by? Forcing many young people to work in low wage jobs sets them up for a life time of low expectations, the devaluation of further education through the saturation of the Graduate Jobs Market has helped to strike another near fatal blow to a whole generation’s pursuit of happiness.
Is it possible to argue against the fact that sufficient food and a safe place to live are basic human rights? I would argue not. It is therefore outrageous and immoral that some people in Britain work long hours, for low wages, under unbelievable stress and fear, simply to feed and house themselves and their families. For many the only alternative is poverty and/or homelessness. Additionally, in recent years, there has been a worrying development of a suspicion of anyone who dares take benefits. This is an unhealthy and unhelpful stigma, especially where happiness is concerned. This suspicion of other working and middle class people, the majority of whom take only what they deserve, serves as a wedge which divides us all. These ‘scroungers’, like the terrorists, immigrants, murderers, paedophiles and rapists are the largely invisible villains who we are told are round every corner. The spreading of this fear, at its worst, divides people and strengthens, to use a cliché, ‘the establishment, and, at the very least it sells newspapers and keeps people distracted and apathetic.
Those who do not work are deemed worse than those who make us. Even if our millionaire and billionaire employers pay less tax than a basic employee. Retail for example is a field in which all employees are disposable. They are disposable regardless of their experience or dedication to the company. How can a person be happy in their lives if at work they fear constantly the looming threat of dismissal? Do not forget that this piece is concerned with happiness not what is right or wrong. As such I do admit that this piece deals in generalities and theory rather than practicalities.
Many in Britain (mostly wise tabloid readers) will fly off the handle and shout me down with the fact that people are cheating the system whilst they work hard to pay for it. Whilst I understand their outrage and the unfairness to be found in certain isolated situations, could the unfairness not just as easily be the fact that system is failing? If someone claims benefits and is deemed worthy of them when in fact they are not, is the fault not with the system? Therefore rather than attaching stigma and suspicion to beneficiaries of benefits, a protest via the ballot box would be more appropriate.
With roughly half of the population not voting at the last general election it is safe to assume that not everyone took their chance to do so. In addition, I would respond to anyone who uses the ‘I pay my taxes’ cliché, with this simple statement: ‘If you don’t like paying your taxes, and the only evidence for your objections to how your tax money is spent is based on evidence from the tabloid press, then shut up or relinquish your citizenship and leave the country.’ It is time that we realised that the enemies of our happiness are not in our neighbourhoods,.
Consumerism, the mass media and developments in new social media have had negative effects on our happiness. They drive a constant desire to have more, to look better and to do better than others in our workplaces, schools and communities. Facebook and Twitter allow everyone to follow, if you’ll pardon the expression, everyone’s lives. In this way we can never be free from comparison, whether it is we, or another party who find themselves conducting the comparison. Perhaps the great liberators, are perhaps not so liberating at all. After all, how can we ever be free, if we feel that we can not live without something? How can we be happy if we cannot be free?
I suppose that in a rambling way I have touched upon a number of the causes of unhappiness, as well as barriers to happiness. There is no grand conclusion to be drawn at this juncture, other than as long as we are obsessed with having and not having, how our lives and lots compare to that of our neighbours, we will never achieve happiness. There is nothing of consequence which can be done in terms of moving towards equality whilst the people of this country are scared of near invisible demons and bogeymen, because ultimately it is those things that prevent us from truly dealing with the real issues that need to be tackled in order for humanity to live in happiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)