Easier charitable giving

I’m still objecting to the term ‘big society’, but some of the ideas coming out under its rubric are good. The Independent is reporting on the government’s ideas to encourage more people to give to charity. Some of these ideas seem good (eg being able to round up transactions on debit cards and give the change to charity; allowing charities to use government buildings), even though some seem a little pointless (eg setting up a new charity shopping search engine- you can search the web and give to charity already), but the principle of trying to make it more convenient to give to charity is a good idea.

In the summer Nick Hurd, minister for civil society, said that he gives 1% of his income to charity, and wants to encourage others to do the same. In the spirit of ‘charity’ I won’t argue with the exact percentage he’s giving, but it’s nice to hear some positive ideas.

I realise not everyone will be sympathetic to this cause. Some will argue this is an agenda to get charities to do the work the state should be doing. Let me make it clear, I believe that the state has serious obligations when it comes to protecting the vulnerable and I do not think that somehow transferring this responsibility to charities and relying on voluntary donations is a viable option. But charities also play an incredibly important role, filling gaps that the state cannot fill, or adding to services the state already provides.

Giving is important, and something that we should all value more highly. Whilst I don’t want a government that interferes in when and how I give to charity, the aim of making it easier is a positive one. At Christmas-time we all know that it’s a pleasure to give presents as well as receive them. This can apply to giving to charity too- it’s a fulfilling experience to give money or time to a good cause (time is equally valuable and all too easy to forget about), and helps us to put life in perspective.

Some thoughts on student protests

I’ve been listening with interest this week to lots of people commenting about the student protests. Several people have been comparing them to protests in ‘their day’. Most people seem pleased that there is increased student activism, and have a sense that, in general, students are less politically engaged than they used to be.

People have been discussing previous student sit-ins, protests, occupying buildings and so on. I understand that in Hull University a common tactic was to occupy the boiler house so that the university had to close down. Some people are really positive about these tactics, others were more annoyed that other people’s actions meant that their education was disrupted.

I welcome student activism, and think that comments that students are less political now are probably over-exaggerated. Students and the campaign against higher fees need to think carefully about what they are doing and what their strategy is. There are rumours of plans for direct action. This may work well for the campaign, but it needs to be carefully thought through.

Consideration needs to be given to tactics. A campaign needs to leave room for the other side to change its position and actually do what the campaigners want. Some forms of protest can be so confrontational that they do not leave room for change and only solidify existing positions.

Violence is also a key factor of course. One of the problems with any protest is that it will attract violence by some. Keeping your own campaigners completely non-violent needs incredible discipline, and keeping others out who want to use violence is likely to be impossible. The challenge for any campaign is to keep violence to a minimum, and then have a strategy to allow the message to come through despite the inevitable media attention on the violence at the edges. Ultimately, the protestors need people watching to blame the other side for the problems being highlighted, not to blame the protestors for the trouble being caused. This is not an easy balance to achieve, and needs a well thought-out strategy.

Government transparency? Clear as mud

I’ve been at a meeting today where we were discussing the new government’s agenda and its implications for local government. One of the themes that came out was the government’s agenda for increased transparency in local government (for the record, a principle I agree with). One example is the duty for councils to publish all expenditure over £500. I find it interesting that central government departments will be required to publish only expenditure over £25,000.

One of the other interesting themes that came out of the session was the new language being used in central government. Regionalism and sub-region are not approved words any more apparently- some people are using pan-local instead, or just trying not to talk about regionalism. There are no longer targets, but milestones. Prototypes trial new projects, not pilots. And that’s before we even start trying to define the ‘big society’.

Clear as mud.

Topical cases for teaching

One of the things that I find makes teaching easier is having relevant, topical case studies to use. So far this year there has been plenty of material to draw on.

A few weeks ago, we were discussing the subject of when, if ever, it is legitimate to disobey the state at the same time as the issue of student fees first became prominent. Unsurprisingly, we quickly got onto a discussion of whether civil disobedience is acceptable when protesting against student fees (I’m hoping I didn’t put too many ideas into students’ heads!).

The following week, we were discussing non-violent direct action the same week as there had been a protest at the full council meeting I had been in. There was lots to discuss about what works well and what doesn’t.

Now, our new topic is about what methods are used by terrorists, and what they are aiming to achieve from their terrorism. I anticipate plenty of scope to discuss the recent explosives on cargo planes from Yemen. There are lots of interesting topics, like whether the terrorists have achieved many of their aims without a bomb needing to go off, due to the media coverage, extra security measures and so on. Interestingly, I notice that few media reports are saying anything about the aims of the terrorists. I wonder whether that is because the terrorists have not made this clear, or because governments have put pressure on the media not to discuss motives in order to support counter-terrorism objectives.

Of course, it would better when teaching a module on terrorism to only have historical cases to draw on.

Was the spending review sexist?

This week I read the Fawcett society’s comments about the spending review with interest. I think it’s important to look at issues such as this from all sorts of perspectives, including a feminist one. But ultimately I found their arguments against the spending review and its impact on equality unconvincing. Their response states that

“The cuts are so deep and will hit women so hard that they risk more than women’s financial security – they threaten hard fought progress we’ve made on women’s equality. The Chancellor’s plans undermine the status of women as equal partners with men in the world of work, home and society as a whole”.

Their justification for this statement is, in part, that 65% of public sector workers are women, and more women than men work in the lower grade jobs which they assert are more likely to be hit. Whilst I am not sure where they have got their evidence for this assertion, there is a more fundamental problem I have with this statement.

The argument seems to go along these lines- more women than men work in the public sector, especially in low paid jobs- we want women to have equal job opportunities- therefore these jobs should not be cut. It seems to me that this is rather flawed analysis. What we should be asking is why do more women work in the public sector, and why are there more women in lower paid jobs? Then we need to take action to find ways for women to have equal ability to get jobs in all sectors, and at all levels.

In other words, a feminist campaign should, in my view, be about ensuring that women have equal opportunities alongside men in all aspects of life- and this means building resilience to the bad times as well as taking opportunities in the good. The Fawcett society’s statistics about the over-representation of women in public sector jobs highlights how far from equality we really are- it’s not spending cuts that cause inequality, but inequality that means that women and men may feel the impact of cuts differently. As a feminist, I do not want to be in a position where I argue for the maintenance of low paid jobs for women- I want to be in a position to argue that women should be equally represented in all employment types and levels.

The problem they are describing is not a reason to maintain high levels of public spending if this is not the right thing for the economy. A poor economy is going to hit everyone badly. The important factor here is not that public sector spending cuts cause inequality, but that inequality means that men and women are not in an equal position to respond to those cuts, and more needs to be done to improve equality.

As an aside- I am really pleased that currently all the top jobs at Hull City Council are held by women. Proof that women can get to the top given half a chance.

Inequality and Policing Reforms

The New Statesman and The Guardian this week have been reporting on a new report about inequality in Britain, which shows that black people make up less than 3% of the population but 15% of the people stopped by police. People of Afro-Caribbean and African descent are also imprisoned nearly 7 times more than their share of the population, compared with 4 times more in the US.

This indicates that there’s still a long way to go to improve problems of racism in the UK’s criminal justice system. This is an issue that I hope will be taken seriously in the government’s reform of policing. In the current consultation paper ‘Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting police and the people’, a prominent theme is to cut back on bureaucracy. The paper specifically refers to ending form-filling, including ‘stop’ forms.

I agree that in general we want the police to spend more time on the streets and less time on filling out paperwork. The principle that there should be more local accountability and less central bureaucratic control is certainly right. But the way that this is implemented needs to be VERY carefully thought through in order to ensure that controls remain to prevent racism and any potential inhibition of civil liberties.

The consultation paper highlights the need to allow the police to use their professionalism to do their job well. I agree with this, but we also need to recognise that the police have a great deal of power and this needs to be used wisely. We still need to have measures in place to ensure that policing powers are used in inappropriate ways, racism is tackled, and civil liberties are protected.
(If you’re interested, the Equality and Human Rights commission report ‘How Fair is Britain’ is available here, and the policing consultation document here).

Some thoughts about the meaning of terrorism

Currently, my university teaching centres on terrorism, and seeing as it is a very topical issue at the moment, I thought it might be worth a few comments here. So far this semester, we’ve been thinking about what we mean by ‘terrorism’. There are several questions that are really interesting to discuss when we talk about what we mean when we say terrorism. For example:

Do we only use the word to refer to actions or actors we approve of?

Once an actor has achieved their objectives, are we then less likely to refer to them as terrorists (after all, it would probably feel wrong to refer to someone now leading a state as a terrorist)?

More controversially- does terrorism actually exist outside our labelling it as such (if terrorism is about the spread of fear through violent acts, calling it terrorism is spreading the fear and creating the ‘terror’)?

And if the word terrorism did not exist, would we need to invent it (we could refer to acts by referring to the specific crimes such as hijacking, suicide bombs etc instead)?

With my academic head on, I like these questions. I like to challenge our preconceptions of what terrorism is. It seems to me that even though terrorism is a highly controversial and important subject, we need to challenge the way we think about it.

But I am also aware that questions like this can all too easily move to a position where the impact of terrorism is diminished. Recent terrorist acts have had incredibly damaging, horrific impacts on real people, real families. We need to recognise this.

However, I do think that the questions above can point to the importance of using the word terrorism carefully. I would not want to be responsible for helping the terrorist aim of spreading fear, and over-using the word terrorism may do that. I would also not want to see the fear of terrorism being over-stated by labelling acts of civil war, or ‘ordinary’ criminal acts as terrorism, or the fear of terrorism being manipulated to justify counter-terrorism measures that damage our civil liberties.

What Tim Farron needs to be the perfect candidate

Like many libdems at the moment, I have been thinking about who to vote for as our next party president. I think Ros Scott did a great job, and she will be missed a lot, so there’s a lot for the next president to live up to.

I think Tim Farron, one of the main contenders, is great. Ever since I’ve been a regular conference-goer, and seen him at rallies, on the conference stage, at fringe events and so on, I’ve been very impressed by him. He has all the qualities I am looking for in a candidate for president- he is great at motivating the party, he seems to have his feet firmly placed on the ground and looks after his constituency well. He is not a London-centric career politician, and he appears to understand the grass-roots of the party outside Westminster. Being an MP and a good media performer will allow him to speak out for the party which is important now we need to maintain our separate identity from the coalition, and yet, from what I know, he also works hard in his constituency, keeping in touch with ‘real’ people through regular campaigning etc.

However, he has one major disadvantage as far as I’m concerned—he’s not a woman. In a situation where we have cabinet ministers but no woman, a male leader and deputy leader, as a party we desperately need a woman in a position of leadership in the party. For me, this is a big and important issue.

However, Tim can hardly help the fact that he’s not a woman. And I genuinely believe he has the best qualities for being party president. So, I cannot bring myself to vote for someone just because they are a woman- we might need women in top posts, but it needs to be the right women, based on them being the best candidate for the job.

So, I’m going to vote for Tim, but with a heavy heart, and with a call for us to do more- much more- as a party to increase our diversity. This means we need to support and encourage women with the right skills to do more within the party, to gain experience, to go for positions they are able to do. And it means doing more to enable women to overcome (and remove) the structural barriers to gaining the experience and skills they need, and getting selected for positions. We also need to ensure that women candidates are not judged in strict comparison to men, but to recognise their individual skills and values for what they are.

Initial thoughts on the defence review

One of the most important pieces of work the government will be carrying out in the next few months will be the strategic defence and security review. It is an area where it can be difficult for governments to apply creative or radical thinking- after all, the country’s security is at stake, not an area anyone is willing to take risks on. But in fact it could be argued that the least risky option is to carry out a fundamental re-assessment of some of the assumptions that underpin defence thinking (Paul Rogers has a good assessment here).

This defence review needs to ask what security issues and risks our security policies need to counter. This is a difficult thing to do- procurement processes take years, and it is impossible to guess what threats we might be facing in 10 years time. However there is also no point in continuing to prepare for yesterday’s battles. The review needs to ask questions about whether we really will want or need to fight wars like Iraq and Afghanistan in the future. Maybe the important threats to national security will come from transnational crime like piracy? Maybe we should be more interested in the potential threats from climate change? Or the potential conflict generated by perceived inequality?

It seems clear to me that the defence review needs to be willing to question and challenge every aspect of our current defence and security policies. This also means looking at spending a part of the budget on peace initiatives, and research into conflict resolution and prevention, not just on weapons systems to enable us to intervene militarily when a conflict breaks out.

One of the big questions for the defence review is trident. It is clear that this has to be part of the review- not only because any review needs to look at the subject as a whole, but also because the cost of renewing trident would impact significantly on the options available for anything else. In the international context, President Obama has been talking about a nuclear-free future. The UK really needs to take this seriously, and move to support it, not carry on oblivious by renewing trident without even incorporating it in the defence review. One of the ironies about the debate on nuclear weapon proliferation is that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT), not only do non-nuclear states agree not to acquire nuclear weapons, but nuclear states agree to engage in a process of disarmament. We can’t expect other states to cooperate with the NPT if we are not willing to act on our commitments also.

Whatever happens, the review needs to build in flexibility to cope with challenges in the future that we’ve yet to think of, as well as the ability to cope with the risks we can be sure of. In my view this means not only looking at military capability but also looking at how we can play our part in an international community that cooperates to prevent conflict from escalating to physical violence in the first place.

Obama, community politics and hope

OK, so I know it’s not the fashionable thing at the moment to be talking too highly of Barack Obama- I’m supposed to be criticising him in some way about his implementation of policy, or gaffes in the media, or something- but I’ve just finished reading his autobiography, Dreams from my Father, and I have to say that it’s left me feeling inspired.

What’s inspired me is not the fact that he’s the first black US president, although I did find his honest reflections on coming to terms with his identity refreshing. What I liked most is that his background is not in big, party politics, but in grassroots community activism. The prominent theme in the book for me was the importance of politics catering for the needs of real people, and the ongoing determination to maintain hope and work to make things better.

One of the problems, in my view, with making policy is that in the abstract something can seem like the right thing to do- but it’s the (really important) role of a politician to ask questions about how exactly a policy will impact on individuals and communities- a house is actually a home for a real person, a hospital is important when it’s the one you need right now, job creation is important for people struggling to pay their electricity bills. That’s not to say that politicians have an excuse to avoid difficult decisions, but they do have a very different role to civil servants in recognising the impact of policies on the people they represent.

So I am pleased that we have a US president who has experience of local, community campaigning. Someone who previously worked on small campaigns to improve specific issues important to a group of people, and who knows what it’s like to try to mobilise people around a local campaign.

Of course, having this experience does not automatically transfer into good, nation-wide policy-making, and Obama has a big challenge to instigate change. But I find it reassuring at least that he knows something about what life is like in the ‘real world’- something that has to help in making realistic policy. And that he has a mindset of hope for the future- that things can change to improve everyone’s lives.

A levels

I have lots of sympathy for all the A level students currently looking for university places. I remember all too well when I got my results. I was nowhere near where I needed to be, and spent a long time looking at other options, including some crazy things I would never have enjoyed. I was one of the fortunate ones, and eventually got onto the course I wanted to do- I realise how lucky I was as I definitely wouldn’t have managed it this year.

Some comments I’ve heard this year seem rather insensitive. The Guardian is reporting David Willetts as suggesting people should do volunteering for a year and then try again next year. Well yes, if you have parents willing and able to pay for you this may be an option. But if not, how are you going to afford a year with no income, and then what guarantees are there that you will get a place next year in any case. These are difficult times for anyone trying out for university. I just hope that those who have got places appreciate how fortunate they are and work hard to do well on their chosen courses.

Progress on counter-terrorism

The announcement that the new government is going to review counter-terrorism policy is a welcome one. I am particularly pleased that the review is likely to mean an end for the prevent strand. Whilst in many ways the aims behind prevent are good- getting to the root causes of terrorism, and stopping people from getting engaged in terrorism before they even start- what it has meant in practice in terms of damaging civil liberties and targeting particular communities is problematical.

Alongside this review of counter-terrorism we’ve got the announcement that there will be a 40% increase in aid to Afghanistan. I welcome this, as it seems to me that development is a better way of tackling the root causes of terrorism than either a prevent strategy that damages civil liberties, or an offensive strategy in Afghanistan where more bad feeling is created by what is perceived as occupation by western troops. That does not mean I am entirely comfortably with using aid budgets to tie in with military objectives, or that I would not prefer the money to be diverted from the military’s budget instead of other aid budgets, but it is a positive step at least.

An important problem in this whole debate is whether we can ascertain what the root causes of terrorism are in order to stop them. This is incredibly difficult, and I am sceptical of anyone who tells me they know for definite what the root causes are. I am tempted to argue that poverty and inequality breed terrorism, but there is insufficient empirical evidence to prove this. Some academic studies have found that civil liberties issues, not poverty, are more likely to lead to terrorism (see for example Malečková’s chapter in Root Causes of Terrorism: myths, reality and ways forward Ed. T Bjorgo, Routledge, 2005).

So while there are many unknowns in this debate, my opinion is that increasing aid to Afghanistan has to be a good thing as development is an essential requirement for that country, regardless of whether there is a link to terrorism. And the end of prevent is likely to improve civil liberties in our country, and so has to be a positive step. After all, as Paul Wilkinson has commented, any tyrant can stop terrorists if they are willing to ignore people’s rights (in Terrorism and the Liberal State 1977, p.121), the problem is how to stop terrorism without losing our values.

A progressive way of teaching history?

Michael Gove has apparently asked Niall Ferguson to re-write the history curriculum for schools. I’m not convinced this is a good idea. Apparently Ferguson plans to introduce more use of TV, and the use of war games to encourage learning (reported in The Guardian).

There has to be more to teaching history than war. Whilst wars have often been the turning points for change, history is also about our economic development, the story of how ordinary lives have changed, political development in other parts of the world, and so much more. I’m sure that there are more progressive ways to create stimulating learning activities, including using simulations, without the need to focus on war.

Most worrying, perhaps, is the fact that Ferguson is so positive about empire. He has always been a controversial figure, and claims that empire has had a positive impact on world history. This leads him to argue for more empire, for example for the US to impose democracy and capitalism forcefully on Iraq with long-term imperial rule (for example here).

He appears to believe that it is a good thing for the west to impose what it perceives to be the best forms of government on others, by military force if necessary. I’ve never really understood this sort of argument- how can you impose democracy on people if they don’t want it?

I hope that any new curriculum is balanced, and encourages students to be critical about what they see and hear. Ferguson’s willingness to argue against the tide of public and academic opinion would imply this may well be a possibility, so I hope it is this aspect of his work that is prominent in any review of the curriculum. And I like his view that teaching history should be about narrative- after all, history is ultimately a long story of how we got to where we are now.

Interestingly, Ferguson admits that whilst his sons like the war-games he has been developing for teaching history, his daughter is not so interested. Perhaps this is a sign that more work is needed to reach the stated aim of designing a curriculum that makes students want to learn.

Tackling re-offending

Ken Clarke’s recent announcement that the new government will be tackling re-offending should be welcomed. When almost 60% of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months re-offend within a year, it raises questions about existing policy and practice.

I’m glad that the government is not engaging in the usual competition to sound the toughest on crime- it’s not whether you sound tough on crime that is important, but whether crime is falling, and people are less frightened of crime.

One of the things Ken Clarke has proposed is a scheme to use private companies to tackle re-offending. Whilst I am not keen on using private companies for this, the general principle is right. When someone leaves prison they need help and support to get their lives back on the right track- whether that be finding a house, job-hunting, training, tackling drug or alcohol addiction and so on.

In Hull there is currently a project involving the police, probation, the local prison and the council which is tackling some of these issues. It’s probably too early to see what the impact is, but I have high hopes for the project.

It costs around £40,000 per prisoner per year in prison. The costs of improved rehabilitation are likely to be a lot lower than this as well as bringing wider benefits. However, it is not a quick and easy solution, and it will need resources to make it work.

Labour recently made some large budget cuts to the probation service, but in my view probation is one of the most important aspects of the criminal justice system, and one that is too often neglected. If the government is serious about this agenda it will need to ensure probation has the resources to tackle re-offending effectively. In the long-term this has to bring overall savings and safer communities.

Counter-terrorism changes- progress at last?

The news today that the government is going to have an enquiry into the torture and rendition of terror suspects is to be welcomed. We have yet to see whether the government will be able to follow through on some of these civil liberties issues that I for one have high hopes about, but this has to be a good start at least (even if I would prefer it to be held in public).

The recent complaints that people leaving prison after serving sentences for terrorism offences (not all of which are related to actually carrying out or planning terrorism) are facing probation conditions that are tantamount to house arrest or control orders is more concerning (reported by the Guardian ). The worry is that situations such as this not only damage the principle of civil liberties, but also prove to be counter-productive.

My view is that it is important to treat terrorism consistently. We either treat it as a political problem- and therefore recognise that there is at least a degree of legitimacy to the political claims of the terrorist organisation, fight the terrorists politically by undermining their claims, and perhaps can therefore argue for different treatment of those accused (political prisoners, in a similar way to prisoners of war). Or, we treat terrorists as ordinary criminals, reject their political claims and any legitimacy of their means, and prosecute their illegal acts in the same way as any other criminal.

Whichever option we choose, I am not convinced that treating people so harshly after release from prison is productive. Civil liberties need to be upheld in any case. But if we’re treating terrorism as a political problem then harsh responses risk increasing the motivation of others, and reinforcing political resolve. The terrorist that has been caught and punished is part of a wider community after all (often political prisoners are treated more leniently, as challengers to the power of the state rather than the community within the state).

If we’re treating terrorists as criminals, then anything that treats them differently to ordinary criminals makes a mockery of that policy, reignites any political motivation, and has the potential to damage the state’s claim to be reinforcing law and order in a fair and equal way.

Ultimately a large part of the problem is that the word terrorism often really means ‘anything we don’t like’. Trying to treat terrorists differently because it is a special sort of crime ends up becoming problematical because terrorism is not objectively defined, increasing tensions between different groups of people with different political ideas.

The budget- it's all bad, right?

OK, so the budget is horrible. Cuts in public spending are never going to be nice. But over the last couple of days I keep feeling the urge to say ‘money doesn’t grow on trees’. The idea that we’re spending more on the interest payments of our debt than we are on education is just wrong. Something had to change.

From my point of view, there are bits of the budget that I like, and other parts I’m not so keen on. I like the fact that the libdem commitment to increase the tax-free allowance (which takes 800,000 people out of paying tax at all) has now become reality. I’m also really pleased the earnings link for pensions has been re-instated. For Hull, the backdated port tax being scrapped is fantastic news. But the impact of some of the benefits changes will need to be monitored really carefully, as will the necessity of the full extent of the proposed cuts.

What concerns me is that Cameron and Osborne are ideologically committed to cuts and a much smaller state. I am not so ideologically committed, and I think the libdem influence in the coalition has to tame the ideological commitment.

What I am clear about, however, is that the challenges posed by the budget are here to stay, and it is up to all of us to make the most of the opportunities it presents. It means that many aspects of government are going to need radical rethinking, not just tinkering at the edges.

For example, the defence review needs to look at options for radically reforming our armed forces to create a force that is tailored to today’s world and its threats, not the threats of 20 years ago. This should include looking at whether we still need the army, navy and RAF as separate services.

There are also opportunities to deliver more localism. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats may come at this from different angles, but there are potential savings from delivering services in a more joined up way locally, at the same time as tailoring them to local people’s needs and making them more accountable to the people they serve.

I like the fact that Clegg and Cameron have written to public sector workers asking them to put suggest ideas for saving money- the government may be in control of the big decisions, but often the people doing the job are the ones that know where the opportunities for change are, and we should all help out where we can.

Rwanda, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan

I watched the film Hotel Rwanda last night. A film I’ve been intending to watch ever since it came out, but have only just got around to it.

It got me thinking again about one of the big questions in international politics- whether military intervention in another country is the right thing to do. The portrayal of the genocide in Rwanda makes a powerful case for intervention, especially as the film portrays the personal stories of people hoping for the international community coming to help.

In Rwanda, the international community seemed to have gone with the worst of all options- intervening late, with a force that was limited to the peacekeeping role in a situation where there was no peace to keep. This limited the UN troops to only using violence in self defence but not to defend civilians, and limited the amount they could achieve.

However, I struggle to conclude that more intervention with a wider remit to use violence is the way forward. The escalation of increasing levels of violence seems to be too convenient an answer. But that doesn’t mean I have the answers. Possibly getting involved at an early stage is the important factor. It’s too easy to leave it too late so that violence is the only answer left.

If this is the case, then the international community should now be thinking very carefully about Kyrgyzstan. Perhaps some early action can prevent the need for later intervention with military force. There is already talk of military intervention from Russia, but this surely risks making the situation even more complicated and fragile.

I still think that the international community, and the media, are too quick to call for the military option- it’s the lazy option that says we don’t know what else to do, so we’ll have to send in the army. What we need to do is invest more in finding non-violent solutions that work. If we spent as much money on research into peace as we do into war, perhaps non-violent options would become the easier option instead.

The news today about the 300th UK soldier to die in Afghanistan, in the now almost decade-long intervention is depressing news. UK troops have sacrificed a lot, and perhaps it’s now time for us to reassess whether using violence is really the best course of action, or whether we’re only using it because we don’t know what else to do.

Tuesday's budget- do our reactions matter?

It seems pretty clear that Osborne’s budget on Tuesday is not going to be full of good news. The prospects for what is going to happen are pretty depressing, regardless of whether you think it is the correct course of action. The big debate is about whether public spending cuts are good for the economy or not- will they lead to a double dip recession?

Now I’m no economist, so personally I’m not going to try and predict what will happen. And in truth, no economist can actually predict what will happen, however good they are. But perhaps the key question is not whether cutting public spending is the right course of action now, but rather what our reaction to those cuts will be.

The economy is not an external force that acts on its own. It is an accumulation of many small actions by many different people- a trader who sells her shares, a shopper who stops buying luxury products, a banker who decides to loan money, an entrepreneur who decides to set up a business. How the economy reacts to any budget announcement depends to a large extent on how many people think the policy is right. If lots of people think it’s going to be bad for the economy and react accordingly, then it probably will be bad. If people are hopeful for the future, then their actions are more likely to help the economy grow.

So perhaps we all have some responsibility on Tuesday- our reactions to the budget will be important. Whilst spending cuts and tax increases to tackle the country’s debt will be damaging for many people’s personal circumstances, this is also going to be a time to look for opportunities, not for burying our heads in the sand. And perhaps we can all be a part of the solution.