Believing Britain

I saw this a couple of days ago on the YouGov website. It seems that, as of 2025, there are more theists than atheists in the UK!

Is Race relevant?

I saw the following exchange on a feature about black students at Cambridge University on the BBC news this morning:

Student: Do you think this is a place that is institutionally racist?

Vice Chancellor of Cambridge Uni: I think it’s a place where race has not been acknowledged as relevant particularly to the whole intellectual experience of being at Cambridge, so in that sense I would say it is racist because it doesn’t acknowledge race in people’s lives.

This is a massive change that has taken place in the last few years. Previously (say, ten years ago), to view race as a relevant factor in the provision of education, or any other aspect of public life, would, to many people, I think, have been considered racist. Now, though, an institution - and therefore, presumably, an individual person - can be deemed racist by virtue of not taking race into account in its interactions. This complete change of direction is, I suspect, a source of much confusion and misunderstanding in the current conversation around race.
Of course, it can only be a good thing for white people to become more aware of the discrimination and racism suffered by people of colour. But I can't help wondering whether the increased focus on race as a category that defines who a person is - even by those who have never thought of themselves as racist and who previously, at least on a conscious level, considered race to be irrelevant in their dealings with others - might, possibly, prove ultimately to be a cause of increased division rather than a means of healing.

Everyday sexism and royal protocols

I have always tried to avoid sexist stereotypes or sexist language with my children. For example, I always use the expression 'human-made' rather than the term I was brought up with, 'man-made'. If someone in the house says, 'a man will be coming round to fix the boiler', I will always point out that we don't know whether it will be a man or a woman. My wife is now the main breadwinner in our family. Yet somehow sexist stereotyping still gets through, even with very young children. Recently I was having a conversation with my youngest children, who were then 9 and 10, about the royal family. I mentioned the fact that while the wife of a King is referred to as a Queen, the husband of a Queen who is the head of State (such as our own Queen, Elizabeth II) is not referred to as a King. I said I didn't know why this was the case and, without missing a heartbeat, my 10 year old daughter said, "It's because if they called the Queen's husband a King, it would make him seem more important than her." I was quite taken aback, as I realised she had somehow, at the age of 10, while attending a school where the vast majority of teachers were female, managed to imbibe the idea that a male is considered more important by our society than a female who does the exact same job.

Paul Weller knew a thing or two about old Etonians

"What a catalyst you turned out to be. Loaded the guns then you ran off home for your tea." (Eton Rifles, The Jam)

The new divide in UK politics

I've long been uncomfortable with the distinction in politics between the traditional categories of 'left' and 'right'. In the aftermath of the referendum it seems to me that a new political divide is becoming apparent, one that is perhaps more visceral or emotional in character yet in many ways more relevant to the current political scene. I would characterise the two camps on either side of this divide as follows.
On the one hand there are those who believe representative democracy is superior to direct democracy (which is really just a vehicle for populism); who tend to - as Michael Gove might put it - trust 'experts' to make the right decisions and who believe strongly in the importance of international and intergovernmental cooperation.
On the other, there are those who believe that the public as a whole is more qualified to make political decisions and judgements than any individual or select group, however apparently well qualified; who are more likely to question the opinions of experts however well educated or well established in their fields they may be and who are mistrustful of people or institutions weilding large amounts of power.
Although I think that most of the people who voted the same way as me in the referendum probably fall into the first category, I have to admit that I am not sure which of the two groups I would most readily place myself in.

Terrorism and cars

On Saturday morning I was listening to Ken Livingstone and David Mellor on LBC radio discussing the recent shootings, apparently by Muslim extremists, at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. They were discussing the question of whether or not the security services should be given more powers and resources to counter the perceived threat of similar attacks taking place on UK soil.
One of the themes that emerged during the phone in was the idea that while there might (according to some callers) be a case for strengthening the powers of those involved in countering the threat of terrorism, another possible response to the perceived dangers would be for the police to spend less time concerning themselves with traffic related issues and more time on trying to track down would be jihadists and militant extremists. Even Ken Livingstone concurred with this view.
I beg to differ and here is why:
In the last fifteen years, 53 people have died as a result of terrorist attacks on the British mainland. They were the 52 victims of 7/7, plus Fusilier Lee Rigby (figures from Wikipedia). These were of course horrific and senseless murders and I do not wish to in any way diminish the abhorrent nature of what took place in these attacks.
However:
According to the Department of Transport's own figures, in 2013 (the lastest year for which figures are available) 1,713 people were killed in reported road traffic accidents in Great Britain (this is actually the lowest number of fatalities since national records began in 1926!)
Therefore:
Over 32 times as many people died on the roads in 2013 than died in terrorist attacks in Britain in the last 15 years. In light of this fact, surely it makes very good sense for the authorities to spend far more money and other resources on monitoring drivers and road traffic generally, than they do on defense against terrorism.

Today's Daily Mail headline

It's a scandal! All these foreigners coming over here, looking after us, making us better. Outrageous!

The venerable old British tradition of Black Friday

Apparently we have a tradition in this country called Black Friday. Somehow I've managed to live the first 47 years of my life without noticing it, until a couple of days ago when I started getting bombarded with texts and emails about special Black Friday offers. Then today at work nearly everyone I came across mentioned it at some point. I heard a nurse (I work in a Community Hospital) mention it to a little old lady she was pushing along in a wheelchair, who just looked confused and asked 'What's Black Friday?' That little old lady and I seemed to be the only ones who were out of the loop.
I still don't really know what it is (I thought maybe it's like Black History Month, only shorter. And with less history, obviously) but according to my wife it's something to do with Thanksgiving in America. I should have guessed.
I remember a few years ago, the sports presenters on Radio 5 started talking about the Superbowl as if it was something that had always been a big part of our sporting calendar this side of the pond. Then of course there was the subtle introduction of 'trick or treating' into our culture - something that, as a child, I'd only ever heard of via American TV shows. And when exactly was it that everyone started calling films 'movies'?
I'm going to shut up now, before I start complaining about the G.I.s

PREVENT

Last Friday I attended a training session entitled PREVENT which I believe is compulsory for all 'public facing' public sector workers, ie. those who come into contact with members of the public. The object of the course is to provide public sector workers with the necessary tools to identify those members of the public, with whom they come into contact during the course of their work, who are most susceptible to possible 'radicalisation' by extremist or terrorist organisations.
I was interested to see what the training would involve and I must admit I was (and still am) sceptical and suspicious of the whole idea of getting one section of the public (workers in public sector industries) to effectively spy on other members of the public (their clients).
The training session basically involved watching a series of films about what 'radicalisation' means, how it supposedly takes place, what type of personality profile might be susceptible to the process of radicalisation and what signs to look out for that might indicate that someone is in the process of being radicalised.
After each short film the trainer engaged us in a brief discussion of its contents. The questions thrown out to us for discussion were not of her design. She was reading from course materials prepared in advance by the training designers, presumably some Civil Service department or a private company contracted by the government.
It was made very clear that the threat posed by terrorism was not specifically linked to any one ethnicity or religious group. Examples were given of past atrocities that had been committed by groups other than Islamic fundamentalists - most of them were references to Irish republican terrorism.
A clip was shown from the film 'This is England', in which a young boy whose father had been killed in the Falklands conflict is persuaded to join a far right skinhead gang by the manipulative rhetorical techniques of the gang leader. After watching this clip, we attendees were invited to discuss the factors which had led to the boy being successfully recruited by the gang, eg. his vulnerability due to his recent bereavement, his impressionable age, peer pressure from his friends who were also in the gang, the oratory skills of the gang leader etc.
'What do you notice about the surroundings', the trainer asked us and was evidently pleased when eventually someone mentioned the apparent poverty on display (the scene was set in a room where there was not much furniture, with the occupants sitting around the wall). Apparently poverty is one of the factors that make people vulnerable to radicalisation.
The whole session was predicated on the notion that those who resort to violence in order to achieve their political aims must be psychologically flawed individuals who can potentially be identified in advance, thus enabling us to ensure that they get the help they need in order to be saved from making the wrong decisions that they would otherwise have made. This may be true, but if so, some might argue that we in the 'West' are not in general particularly good at spotting such personality flaws considering some of the leaders we have elected over the last couple of decades.
After the 'This is England' clip, the main part of the session involved a film which was a case study of a young man named Andrew Ibrahim who is now in prison for terrorism related offences (I think for possessing documents likely to be of use to terrorists and for preparing to commit terrorist acts). At one point during the film, the presenter interviewed the mother of Mr Ibrahim and asked her whether there were any signs that might, had they been picked up by the authorities, have enabled her son to have been identified as a potential victim of radicalisation and thus prevented from going down the path of committing terrorist offences. The mother stated that there were signs and that the first of these was the fact that her son had been handing out leaflets at University in protest against the occupation of Iraq by troops from the US led coalition! The presenter pointed out that some people might say there is nothing wrong with this, after all we do have free speech in this country, and the mother replied that that was true but that apparently he had been visibly angry about the issue, and shouting. The presenter agreed that this incident did indeed constitute a sign that might have been picked up as evidence of Mr Ibrahim's future radicalisation.
Apparently then, passionate opposition to UK military intervention abroad is a sign of potential susceptibility to terrorist radicalisation.
All public sector staff are being encouraged to report such signs of potential radicalisation to their appointed anti-radicalisation lead (there is one for every NHS organisation, and presumably for every education department, police service, etc.)

Update: Apparently, Home Secretary Teresa May said in her speech yesterday about proposed increased anti-terrorism measures that the PREVENT programme should be bolstered. A report out today, however, into the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, said the PREVENT programme wasn't working.

Oh! What a Lovely Ad... not

Yesterday at work my colleagues began talking about a new Christmas advert which had apparently just been released by Sainsbury's. Those who had seen it spoke in glowing terms about how very moving they had found it. Apparently it depicts the Christmas truce of 1914 when German and British soldiers came warily out of the trenches and met in no-man's-land to exchange greetings and play football together before being forced back into the trenches by the Generals. One of my colleagus asked me if I wanted to watch the advert on her i-tablet thingy. 'No thanks', I said, 'I don't watch adverts'.
'Neither do I, normally', she replied. 'But this one is different. It's just really... nice.'
I started to explain that in my opinion there is nothing 'nice' about a giant supermarket chain taking advantage of the current surge of emotion around the First World War centenary and remembrance events in order to boost their own profits. But before I had finished my first sentence my colleague cut in and told me, very sharply and in no uncertain terms, that she was not interested in my opinion. Apparently I had not shown the appropriate level of sentiment towards the advert in question and so my colleague felt justified in speaking to me as if I'd just disrespected her mother.
The more I thought about the idea of this commercial, the more offensive I found it. In the past week we have, as a nation, along with many other nations, been paying our respects to those who gave their lives in the wars of this, and the last, century. In particular we have remembered those who fell in World War 1, this being the centenary of the outbreak of that conflagration. And some clever advertising executive, seeing the mood of affection, sorrow and heartfelt gratitude that has swept the country and reached its peak in the past week with the remembrance ceremonies, must have thought to him/herself how great it would be to harness some of that raw emotion and channel it into brand recognition (or rather, positive brand-association) - and, hence, bigger profits - for his/her client and it's shareholders.
Because let's be clear; the purpose of this film is to encourage people to buy more groceries and to buy them at Sainsbury's. If the advert is as slick and we'll made as everyone is saying, it will have cost a fortune to make and Sainsbury's would not be throwing that kind of money away unless they were pretty sure of reaping rewards for their shareholders.
This morning, as on most weekday mornings, I lisened to the James O'Brien show on LBC radio. The presenter had apparently watched the ad last night and been deeply moved. Then this morning he had read an article in the Guardian (probably this one whose author had apparently experienced a similar uneasiness on watching the advert to that which I had on hearing about it. Mr O'Brien disagreed with the artcle and defended Sainsbury's by saying that the advert was promoting a chocolate bar, the proceeds from the sales of which would be donated to the Royal British Legion and not retained by Sainsbury's. Considering he used to work in retail, one would have thought he would understand the concept of a 'loss leader'. Sainsbury's as a brand will benefit enormously by piggy-backing on the depth of public feeling around the tragic events of 1914-18. Nevertheless, caller after caller to the show enthused about the advert and how beautiful and poignant they had found it. One caller even said that, as an employee of Sainsbury's, she was really proud of the advert and of her employer's commitment to 'humanitarianism and human equality'. The presenter repeatedly stated that the advert provided a timely reminder of the futility of war and of the similarity of the combatants on either side. Yet when the Christmas truce incident actually occured, the Generals on both sides forced the soldiers to return to their trenches and continue the fight. The Generals were, of course, only doing the bidding of their bosses, the politicians. And many would argue that the politicians, then as now, were only acting in the interests of their paymasters, the captains of industry and leading capitalists of their day - the early 20th Century equivalents of Sainsbury's and its shareholders.
Most of us, whether we know it or not, have some ancestor or relative who went through the hell of World War One and lost friends, loved ones or even their own lives. To have the memory of their sacrifice cynically exploited to boost the coffers of one of the biggest corporations in the country is frankly, to my mind, an insult.

Papers please

On Radio 4's Any Questions today, the matter of Government owned vans driving through areas with high levels of recent immigration, displaying messages designed to encourage illegal immigrants to return voluntarily to their countries of origin, was discussed. The vans are bearing posters with the following message on: "In this country illegally? Go home or face arrest." The questioner in the radio show audience compared this message to 1970s style racist graffiti. Some of the panel, such as Independent journalist Owen Jones, agreed, although former Tory Home Office minister Michael Howard expressed the view that to be against illegal immigration did not necessarily make one a racist.
The use of these vans is clearly a stunt on the part of the Conservative Party, aimed at impressing the Daily Mail reading, potential UKIP voting demographic.
However, another aspect of this populist PR campaign which was not even mentioned on Any Questions was the action taken by police at various railway and tube stations throughout London over the last few days, to stop passers by and ask them to produce identification to show they were legally entitled to be in the country. Even where this has been covered on TV and radio news programmes, the main disapproval expressed by commentators has been of the fact that the police have been focussing their attention on non-white members of the public. But while this racial profiling is obviously a very great cause for concern in itself, another worrying aspect is the fact that the police apparently now feel comfortable to stop ordinary law abiding citizens going about their daily business and ask them to produce identification papers. This is something that has always been anathema to the British way of thinking about the role of police; indeed, when the last Labour government attempted to bring in ID cards, they could not even get enough support within their own parliamentary party to get the bill through parliament.
I'm not sure how many of those that the police pulled aside to ask for ID actually obliged them by producing their passports, driving licences, immigration papers or whatever else was being asked for. They were all fully entitled to simply refuse and walk away, and unless the police had sufficient reason to suspect them of an offense, there would have been nothing the police could do to stop them. If people now believe that they are obliged to provide evidence of their right to be on the streets any time some over zealous copper decides they don't look British enough, that is perhaps the most worrying aspect of this whole sorry affair.

Michael Gove

I heard on the radio tonight that education secretary Michael Gove is proposing that children spend more time in school, with shorter holidays and longer school days. He claims this will particularly help 'poor' children, as it will enable them to increase their level of education. It is, in my view, designed to increase the role of schools as a form of childcare enabling parents to spend more time at work. In the case of 2-parent families it will increase the logic of both parents going out to work full time and in the case of single parent families it will mean there is no excuse for the parent not to be at work once the child/children are old enough to be in school.
Yet again, the government is bringing in measures to encourage stay-at-home Mums or Dads to enter the workplace (following recent tax breaks for working parents to help with child-care costs, not matched with any help for couples who choose to have one parent stay at home and look after the children). And since when have conservatives believed in increasing the amount of time that children spend in the care of the State? In fact, conservatives used to believe that the family was the bedrock of society but this bunch seem to have decided that the market should be awarded that role instead. Parents, it seems, should be enabled to spend as much of their time as possible creating wealth, while the children are prepared as thoroughly as possible for their own future roles as producers and consumers. Why not just cut out the middle man and send children back into the workplace, Dickensian style.
Having said all that, since we do live in a world where many parents do struggle to balance work with home life, there is an argument for making childcare less expensive and extending school hours does seem like an obvious way of tackling this issue. However, I do not think it should be compulsory, but it should be available for those children whose parents wish to take advantage of it. Indeed, many schools already run optional breakfast clubs and after school clubs.
As for Gove's proposal to shorten summer holidays, how typical of the current regime of millionaires to not appear to have any concerns about the fact that the cost of family holidays during the period when schools are closed would go up even higher than their current highly inflated levels.

Strike update

In my previous post I explained that I was not convinced that the public sector workers' strike over pensions was a good idea. In the end, however, I decided to take part in the strike, for two reasons:
(1) While I do not disagree with the need to reduce the deficit between what the government spends and the amount of money it raises through taxation, I think that targeting public sector pensions is unfair. Before attacking the conditions of employment of ordinary public sector workers, how about trying to recoup some revenue by taxing bankers' bonuses and increasing taxation on the financial sector generally (after all, they were the ones who benefited most directly from the recent bailouts) or by pulling the army out of afghanistan (perhaps we could have a referendum to decide whether or not the majority of voters support this expensive - and, many would say, pointless and unwinnable - war).
I also think that the NHS has far too many tiers of relatively highly paid managers (relative to my pay, anyway!) and I imagine a similar situation exists in other branches of the public sector. I would not be opposed to the government making some savings by cutting back on that area of spending.
Once some of these more appropriate (in my opinion) methods of reducing public spending have been looked at, then maybe we can talk about whether or not there is a need to reform public sector pensions (again! They have already been reformed in 2006).
(2) In spite of the above views, I was still not convinced that strike action was the way forward. In the end, my decision to strike was not really anything to do with the political issues involved. On the morning of the strike, I couldn't bring myself to go into work and help the management to defeat the efforts of those people (or, in the case of my workplace, person - only one of my colleagues took part in the strike) who were prepared to sacrifice a day's pay in order to stand up to our employer (which just happens to be the government) who was threatening to change our terms and conditions of employment for the worse. At 7.30am on the morning of 30th November I had to decide which side I was on and in the end it was not a hard decision to make.

To strike or not to strike?

There is much talk at the moment about the possibility of industrial action against cuts to public sector pensions. Public sector trade unions are balloting their members over whether or not to take strike action.
I believe that all workers have the right to withdraw their labour at any time they choose, and I oppose the oppressive anti-union legislation currently in force in this country which places restrictions on this right. However, I believe that strike action is rarely in the best interests of workers. Whether in the private or the public sector, it is almost always the case that the employer is in a far stronger position than the workers when it comes to the war of attrition that a strike entails. In other words, the employer can usually survive for longer without new profit being generated than the workers can survive without pay. Even in the case of a general strike, in a sense the workers are cutting off their nose to spite their collective face. Why should workers allow themselves to be forced into a position where they cease to produce the very goods and services that they depend on for their own wellbeing, either directly or through their pay?
In my own area of employment, the NHS, the public sector workers' union, UNISON, is balloting its members over whether to take part in a one day strike next month. Unfortunately, being very familiar with the culture of the NHS, I am fairly sure that most of the strikers will, when they return to work the next day, work twice as hard as usual in order to catch up on the work they weren't able to do the previous day. In the end, productivity will not have suffered and the Department of Health will have saved itself a day's pay for several hundred thousand health workers.
If industrial action is to be taken then, before the drastic step of strike action, a work-to-rule or go-slow might prove effective in some cases; it would damage productivity while allowing workers to continue drawing pay, which would not only be less harmful to the workers but would also allow for a more protracted campaign.

Jonathan Porritt is a miserable, Malthusian misanthrope... (allegedly)

...pass it on.

This post was accidentally deleted. It was about an article in the Times by environmental campaigner Jonathan Porritt, to which I can no longer link as you have to pay.
While I am an admirer of the party that Porritt used to lead, I did not like his article, which claimed that there are far too many people in the world and advocated encouraging more women in the developing regions of the world to have abortions.