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.
Monday, 23 August 2010
Friday, 20 August 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
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 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.
Thursday, 24 June 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)