What's a guy got to do to get an interview?

I write this on behalf of my boyfriend.

My boyfriend is currently working 6 days a week and is being paid for only 2, or 14 hours. He is currently undertaking two internships with 2 different MPs and he is an advocate for a charity, writing for a website and performing stand up comedy. On top of this he is working part time in a department store. He has no social life. I should add he also has a bachelors and has been doing this since September. This is all supposed to help him get to where he eventually wants to be.

He desperately wants to work in politics and is desperate for somebody to give him the chance. He is applying for MPs weekly, and is constantly looking on W4MP job website, he is even sending speculative applications to MPs who aren't even advertising in the hope that someone may want him. He is applying for charities left, right and centre. Some of the jobs he is applying for don't pay much more than he's currently on.

He is yet to receive even an interview.

I am confident that if he got an interview he would get the job. He has such an infectious and lovable personality and character. Everyone who meets him warms to him. He exudes such confidence and is funny. He is sincere and deeply cares about others. He is friendly and likable. He is a passionate Labour supporter and is dedicated to all his endeavors. He can not be working harder. He tailors each and every one of his CVs and covering letters to the MPs, ensuring he researches them thoroughly.

I just don't understand what more he can do to achieve something? No one deserves it more than him. I find it so infuriating that no one is even willing to invite him to an interview.

Many Labour MPs talk about the amount of unemployment in young people with anger and passion. But what exactly are they doing to help? They won't even give my boyfriend the opportunity of an interview. I think it's time to stop this age discrimination, because let's face it that's what it is and see what a young person can do for a change.

I am fed up of politicians talking the talk but not walking the walk.

"In the future, everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes."

So the live shows of the world's most ridiculous singing competition are approaching their third week. I refer of course to The X factor. In a typically pathetic attempt to appeal to the country's desire for sensation, the producers included a dramatic twist in the first week. This twist saw the judges (Gary Barlow, the second best one from Destiny's Child, the girl who looks a bit like Cheryl Cole and the usual Irish secretly homosexual idiot) each have to dismiss one of their mentees! A particularly distressing event considering the three weeks they had known them. If this wasn't enough for us, they had chosen this week, to abandon the public vote! Presumably because ITV and Syco were still working out the glitches in the new technology they will employ this year to rig the competition.

I fully acknowledge that the opening paragraph gives the impression that I have nothing but disdain for the producers and judges of the show, and that is because I do. However, it is we, the public who are really to blame for all that is truly awful about this entire affair.

Could it be possible that we aren't all owed fame? Of course!

The vast majority of us are just not good enough for fame. It is a as simple as that. I understand that you may think that you have the voice of an angel, and moves that would captivate millions. I mean who hasn't belted out a ballad in the bathroom whilst dancing round naked in one sock, for an imaginary packed house at Wembley? But the sad fact is, in the real world this simply doesn't cut the mustard. If you take the talent route to fame, you need to be exceptional, which is extremely rare.

For those who lack exceptional abilities, another worrying avenue has opened up. If you are willing to make your entire existence on this planet available for sale you too can make it. The only condition being that you are an individual who is willing to constantly search for new ways in which to make your life more of a freak show. You need nothing more than to lead a life that is so weird and wonderful, so explosive, so unpredictable that it becomes marketable to the masses.  Gone are the days when those who achieved celebrity were mysterious, artistic geniuses whose work enriched and amazed and whose way of life inspired us. Now, a red setter with musical farts, a mother addicted to prescription flea treatment and a glass eye could be a star if it was enough of a slut.

Furthermore, people are now too shallow. If you are to be a celebrity then you have to have physical appeal, and sadly the  people of Britain are quite ugly. The amusing thing is that we are only ugly by our own standards. If we only decided that we would accept a few missing teeth as part of a winning smile, or that a moustache actually made a women look very distinguished we all might have more of a chance, and so might  X Factor entrants. Although,on reflection, superficiality may be a good thing if it serves to minimise the number of hopeless hopefuls who are inevitably exploited.

Finally it must be born in mind that we the public, comprise both the entrants,and the most powerful fifth member of the judging panel. It is we who ultimately decide which of this years pip-squeaks will be driven to depression, possible addiction and a life time of reality TV after winning this competition. I know that unemployment is at a seventeen year high, and prospects of improvement in the next few years are not great, but I ask you, next year and from now on can we not consider our thirst for talentless idiots quenched by the judging panel?

Lets just give it a rest, and give expanding our minds and our understanding of the world a try? Either that or lets have a nice cup of tea and a ginger nut.

"It's not what you know, it's who you know."

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.

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.

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 21^st 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.

The Devaluation of a University Education.

When Labour came into power in 1997, Tony Blair proclaimed his three main priorities were ‘Education, Education, Education.’ The importance of education as stressed by Tony Blair is certainly something with which I am inclined to agree. I have always believed, as I’m sure many others would, that a good standard of education can lead people in positive directions.

Since 1997, there has been sustained improvement in education, which was certainly helped with a major financial imput, which resulted in better Ofsted reports, improved GCSE and A-level results and more people than ever going to University. It seemed, no matter what a child’s background, the opportunity was there for everyone. It is thanks to this improvement in education, that I, myself, was able to study at University. Without the Labour government’s reforms I and many of my friends would not have been able to afford to go to University.

Obviously, this is not without criticism. With more people than ever going to University, there is now apparently 70 graduates per graduate job. I myself, have been unable to achieve my graduate dream of working along side an MP as a caseworker as I lack experience, when there are many others who have such experience. The situation has also not been helped by the current economic climate. One would believe that three years of hard work, presentations, seminars, countless essays and a 10,000 word dissertation which involved hours of time and energy, would provide me with a  degree which would hold much more value than the £20,000 spent in achieving it. Unfortunately it does not. The highly competitive job market I find myself in, means that there are thousands of graduates out there offering employers exactly what I have to offer.

We now live in an age where in some cases a University education is almost something to be ashamed of.  I graduated twelve months ago with a degree in history from the University of Liverpool and I am still searching for a career. For now I have no other option than to work part time in a betting shop to support myself.

Upon meeting me and learning I have a degree, a lot of people ask what I studied at University and when they hear that I studied history they invariably respond in one of two ways. The first is “Oh do you want to be a teacher then?”, the second is “What can you do with that?”

So why did I study History? Those who ask this question, sadly, fail to see not only the cultural but intrinsic value of academics, but specifically arts and humanities. Could this be because there is not necessarily a career path for such subjects? Or could it be that we now have a generation of people, as Oxford graduate and stand up comedian Stewart Lee argued, who believe “the only purpose of education is to earn money.” Clearly people believe, without even realising, that if it is not financially viable to the state, then art subjects like history, shouldn’t be studied.

In fact I was asked throughout my undergraduate studies, what I was going to do with my degree, often implying that I would get nowhere in life studying a subject like history. They may well have a point. There may not be a direct career, but that does not mean it is wrong to study it.

History is an important subject, it tells us who we are, how we got here and helps us understand why.  The study of history helps to ensure that the struggles, pain and suffering endured in the past were not in vain. To me the past is important, and it should be appreciated for what it is. Besides this, educating oneself is always a positive thing, regardless of whether it leads directly into a particular career. Brian May, guitarist from the rock band Queen has a degree in astrophysics as well as a doctorate.  Such a level of education in this particular field can hardly been seen as a stepping stone to global stardom as part of one of the most successful bands  of all time! But, he clearly believes in education, and the need and satisfaction gained from learning.

There are far too many people who believe that a large wage packet is the answer to happiness, something the Conservatives have been brainwashing us with since the 1980s, with their tool of aspiration; ‘Anyone can be middle class’.

At the end of the day, I am proud of my 2.1 History  degree. I worked hard for it and learnt so much. In addition to learning about the past my studies have given me other skills, such as an understanding of and experience in research methodology; statistical compilation and analysis; critical thinking and analytical skills; and an independent viewpoint.

University in itself has given me important skills for life, unforgettable memories and an absolute brilliant experience. They can say what they want but they won’t take my degree away from me.


Rachael.

Manifesto

It is somehow normal for one to assume that events in their lifetime are some of the most significant in human history. It is entirely usual for human beings to attempt to consider their personal experiences and the experience of our collective kind as some of the most important in the development of some overarching narrative. This obviously cannot be true in all cases, but we believe it is the case now, in 2011.

Unlike Marx and Engels, we do not observe Capitalism in crisis and issue some prophetic warning of impending doom and revolution and a move towards global communism, for primarily we are far too lazy! In addition, education in crisis has resulted in attainment rising every year whilst at the same time we hold lower and lower stock in the intrinsic value of education. Allowing finance to affect education is a tragedy. Where learning is concerned, financial viability should not be an issue. The only things which should prevent academic progression are the considered choice of the individual, and their academic ability.

David Cameron's Government (like many Conservative Governments before it) is only concerned with numbers on pieces of paper. But we are not numbers, we are people with lives, rights and aspirations. Three million impoverished children in Britain, do not care about or understand the need for economic austerity measures and fiscal responsibility. However, they do know all about and understand unfairness and inequality. People may argue that the steps which Cameron and Osborne are taking to 'tackle the deficit' are entirely necessary. Because, a stronger economy will mean that problems such as child poverty or a struggling National Health Service can be solved, which is true. It would mean, that they can be solved, but they won't be. It is not in the interest of a Conservative Government to have healthy working and middle classes who have a decent standing of living, because then who would they stigmatize, victimize and demonize? Who would they rule? Who would have less power and influence? One could go on. In response to those who would say that this is nothing but a cheap attempt at sensationalism, and that Cameron's Con-Dems and Thatcher's Conservatives did and are doing good things for Britain I would say 'watch this space'.

Each week we will explore in detail, the policies and conduct of Cameron's Coalition, as well as social issues and general developments in the news, to provide a frank and thorough critique of what is happening in Britain today.

Regards.