My reflections on international Development issues

Hey all, so I did a university module this year in International Development and decided that I would write a blogpost detailing some of the stuff I learnt. It is in a simple to read format and is also informed by academic literature (you can see the reference list at the end). I hope you enjoy learning about slavery, colonisation, and other global issues that you may have never thought about before- enjoy!

Introduction

I chose this module in International Development as it reflects an interesting period of my life. In second year, I completed a study trip in China. Last year, I did my year abroad in Copenhagen and afterwards attended a study trip to India which ended just weeks before the module began. These international experiences have planted a strong desire in me to learn more about the global world we are in.

NOTE: I must also admit that I have a vested interest for choosing the first two topics. I personally regard myself as an African British Indian. Whilst I was born in England, my mum was born in India whilst my father was born in Tanzania. This coupled with the fact that I was also raised in Kenya until the age of 10 meant that I was particularly drawn to colonialism and independence due to the notable impacts on India and Kenya.

The topics I will be covering are:

1: The transatlantic slave trade 

2: Legacy of colonisation and independence   

3: Importance of geography on development

4: Can we truly measure development?

5: The future of development  

With this said, I would like to take you on a journey of wonder and awe with my new thinking about the world. These are mammoth topics and thus I can only give you a snapshot. Hopefully however, it will pique your interest enough so that you can go and explore more for yourself!

Judah

1: The transatlantic slave trade  

Until this lecture, I’d just seen African governments as corrupt, inefficient and unwilling to change. However, if anything I’ve begun to gain a glimpse into how much slavery has adversely affected African development today.

The context for the trans-Atlantic slave trade and colonialism itself stems from the fact that Europeans came to be innovative in different areas such as weapons and naval capacity (Potter 2000; Bernstein et al 2000).   Inventions such as rail and steam led to a much greater demand for materials as well as the means to transport them globally. This led to a creation of new markets with an exponential increase in the demand and supply of materials. Within the 15^th-18^th centuries, the pre-dominant ideology of the time that drove this notion was coined, “Mercantilism”. Chang (2003) helpfully explains that this is when countries used protectionist measures such as limiting imports alongside exporting commodities in order to generate more wealth.

With this came the advent of slavery. It came as a surprise to me that it was actually the Portuguese who were the first Europeans to export slaves (although it had actually taken place for centuries by Arabs!). The Portuguese began conducting trade in West Africa in the 1400’s and from this they later began moving slaves abroad to work in Portuguese cities such as Lisbon. Various sources point out that by the early 1500’s around 10% of Lisbon was of African descent (Adi 2012; Rose 2012). Within the same time period, other European countries developed appetites and industries for luxuries such as sugar, cotton, coffee and cocoa.  Countries such as Britain became involved and from this the transatlantic slave trade was born. In total, it is estimated that around 12 million slaves (equivalent to the size of Senegal today) were shipped abroad!  Have a look below to see an example of what this looked would have looked like visually:

 

What really shocks me is that this unequal exchange that took place was carefully and logically planned.  America utilises slave labour to produce in-demand materials which are then sent to Europe. Europe then develops these materials to produce manufactured goods which it then sold to Africa for even more slaves. This cycle continues for hundreds of years until as late as 1888 when Brazil becomes the final country to abolish it. However, apart from the direct fact that the main materials sent to Africa included guns, beer, and rum- were there other repercussions from slavery on African Development?

Nunn et al (2008) and Acemoglu and Robinson (2013: pp.60) advocate that the culture of mistrust in Africa is a direct legacy of the slave trade.  Contrary to what I believed, it was primarily Africans who sold slaves to traders.  Many were prisoners of war and obtained through raids by neighbouring villages (Maddison 2000). This led to open hostilities and over a few hundred years led to difficult relations with those from different ethnic groups (ibid).   Nunn et al (2008) conclude that these actions were mainly a result of genuine insecurity which often led to the need of weapons to defend themselves.

As a result, it is undoubtedly clear that slavery took its toll on Africa, but what were the effects of colonisation on the continent? In the next section I will go briefly into the routes on colonisation in the “scramble for Africa” before looking at post-colonial and independent Africa.

2: Legacy of colonisation and independence   

This was another thought provoking topic as we looked at the residual effect of colonialism in countries today. In class we were split into groups to look at the history of colonialism in a certain country to then do a presentation on it. I chose Kenya and was intrigued to learn so much about its struggle for independence (e.g. the Mau Mau uprising and Jomo Kenyatta’s pivotal role). I also remember vividly writing down facts from other group presentations and excitedly telling my family all about Kenyan and Indian colonial history when I arrived home that day.  We were also tasked with doing independent research and with this I found a large amount of information relating to decolonisation in Africa.

Firstly, I want to take you back to the context for African colonisation which arises from the “scramble for Africa”.  Dating back to 1870, European powers decided that they wanted have a stake in Africa and carved up the continent between themselves (Rose 2012). Bernstein et al (2000) note that in 1876, 10% of Africa was autonomous. However, by 1900 around 90% of Africa was claimed by European powers! Have a look at the image below to get an idea of this (The grey colour indicates unclaimed regions):

These European powers largely retained their power in Africa until after world war two where a rapid area of decolonisation then took place. There were various reasons for this. One is the ideological notion that returning soldiers from the war desired the same freedom that the allies sought (Chandra 2012). Another reason is an economic one.  There is the belief that the colonies’ desire for independence may have met stronger resistance from their erstwhile imperialist masters, had not the domestic reconstruction effort following WWII been a more pressing priority (ibid).

This decolonisation process that took place was highly significant as it has affected African development until this very day.  The outcome has been the emergence of “Less Economically Developed Countries’ (LEDC’s), ‘weak’, and ‘fragile states’. By the 1970’s, although the majority of European nations such as France, Britain, and Portugal had lost their dominance in Africa, the departure of these empires still had aftershocks in Africa.

Firstly, one impact on African development was the weakened state of the newly independent African governments. Due to the withdrawal of experienced colonial leaders, poor management led to an increased chance of poverty (Meredith 2005: 368).  Moore (2001) reinforces that the history of external control, both direct and indirect often led to a dependence on the colonial power. Here he likened the problem to “puppet states”; where local elites were supported economically almost entirely by their colonial powers and this often led to a flagrant disregard for native inhabitants.

Worryingly also, is the ‘curse’ of international aid in Africa (Easterly 2006; Moore 2001; Acemoglu and Robinson 2013; Alemazung 2010). I was distraught to find that despite aid from Western countries being sent to increase economic development, lack of stringent regulation allowed regimes to use these additional capital inflows to prevent democracy from forming, and thus these leaders could retain their prestige in the long-term. Spiegal (2005) notes the poignant words of Bokassa, a former Central African Republic leader, “We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it.”  Furthermore, I find that an ex-president of Congo, President Mobutu who reigned for over 30 years, aptly sums this feeling up: “Democracy is not for Africa. There was only one African chief and he ruled for life.” (Shillington 1995: 3).

Thus, it is clear that African governments were affected and many continue to be affected today by the impact of colonisation dating back to 1870.  But for the next section, I hope to draw on a new topic: does geography significantly affect a country’s development?

3: Importance of geography on development

Unlike others who may have learnt this in their geography GCSE, I was completely amazed with something I had never thought about before- that a country’s geographical factors (such as latitude, climate, proximity to sea) arguably has an impact on development.

To get a clear picture of this, let’s take the two countries that Easterly and Levine (2002) use: Burundi VS Canada.

Easterly and Levine (ibid) state that Burundi currently has a GDP per capita of $200 and is poor despite a fertile agricultural environment. The authors state that this development can be summarised aptly:     It is in a tropical climate, landlocked, no rich trading partners and a high risk environment of diseases. As a result, life expectancy is a meagre 47 years.  Then compare this to Canada which has a per capita income over 100 times that of Burundi’s.  Easterly and Levine (ibid) argue that this is because it is in a more temperate area, borders a rich trading partner, has a close proximity to the sea, and low risk of disease. They assert that this has led to a much higher life expectancy of 79 years.

I have found that this notion that geography can hinder development is not new. Historically, authors such as Montesquieu (1778) noted:

“…in the climates of the north, peoples with few vices, many virtues, sincerity and truthfulness. Approach the south, you will think you are leaving morality itself.”

However, authors note that looking beyond these frankly racist views, there is still reason not to disregard this ‘tropics hypothesis.’ (Easterly and Levine 2002; Acemoglu and Robinson 2013).   For example tropical diseases such as malaria are likely to have a significant impact on a nation’s health and thus affect development in the long-run (Mellinger et al 1999).  Gallup and Sachs (1999) further found that there was also a large disparity when taking factors such as fertilisers and labour into account- temperate areas largely outperformed in agricultural productivity compared to more tropical zones.

Alongside this issue of the climate, another fascinating conundrum also appeared in my research- what I will coin as ‘Landlockedness’. Mellinger et al (1999) write that temperate areas (such as Western Europe) within 100km of navigable sea only constitute 8% of the world’s total land and yet these areas account for over half of the world’s economic production! See if you can spot the difference in coastal proximity below (ibid):

Africa

 

Authors note that better proximity to the sea has implications of better transportation, trading, and thus eventually economic development. As you can see above, the issue is that around 30% of Africa’s residents live in landlocked countries in comparison to places such as Europe with a significant amount of navigable waterways.  I first noted in my first topic that naval advances helped lead to slavery and colonisation. Imagine if Europe were more landlocked? Would this have prevented slavery from occurring?

To conclude, geography arguably does play a role in development although the extent to how much it matters is a particularly contested debate amongst authors. What I did glean from this however, is that there is no easy way to appropriately measure development through geography. This leads on to my next section: can we truly measure development?

 

4: Can we truly measure development? 

Within my own degree, I have commonly come across indices such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and projects such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s). Yet until now I have never evaluated how useful these measures were. This topic gave me the first chance in actually evaluating measures for myself.

Firstly, the MDG’s were introduced in 2000. They were the first ‘global promise’ of a better future and all 189 members of the UN came together to produce 8 goals to achieve by 2015.  Now that the term has ended, we can evaluate how well these goals were met. For example, on Goal 1 to eradicate poverty, the number of people in the developing world living on less than $1.25 has more than halved from 47% in 1990 to 14% in 2015. For goal 3 in promotion of gender equality, big strides were also made that hugely impressed me. In south Asia, just 74 girls for every 100 boys were enrolled in primary school in 1990. It is now 103 girls for every 100 girls (UN 2015).

However, hidden behind there these achievements are significant issues that the UN identified in measuring the MDG’s.   For example, the UN quoted a recent World Bank study highlighting that the poorest people were often unaccounted for. In Sub-Saharan Africa with known endemic levels of poverty- over 60% of countries had no proficient data to monitor poverty trends. Furthermore, the UN (ibid) stated that there is a usual time-lag of 2 to 3 years for development data and thus it can be difficult to deliver immediate decisions. They note that although this is now beginning to change with new technology, it is still a major inhibiting factor.

This leads succinctly on to a well-known indicator that is used worldwide to measure economic development: GDP. It is likely that you will have heard politicians, reports, and the media frequently using it to show how un/successful a country has been.  Developed by Simon Kuznets in 1934, it is basically the total output of goods and services produced in the economy. In principal, the simple nature of GDP allows it to be used for both national and international comparisons.   It is also well established and has been the main indicator to measure a country’s economic progress since 1944.

However, there are also issues with it. A whopping 292 page report was commissioned by the ex-French President Nicolas Sarkozy in order to evaluate the limitations of GDP (Stiglitz et al 2009).   A key issue they found was that GDP cannot fully measure modern output. Whilst in the past, objects like computers, cars, and washing machines could be measured, more recent services such as medical or communications are harder to measure.  Therefore GDP must evolve to take into account structural changes in modern society.  Secondly, there is a real need to measure the actual wellbeing of citizens. GDP however does not take non-economic factors into account.

It was interesting that in our class-based exercise where we were asked to evaluate measures such as GDP; no measure was without its flaws and issues. Moreover, the problems with the MDG’s further highlight the complexities involved in measuring development on a global scale.   It has begun to make me realise that measurements are just one aspect of reality, and care must be taken in how we use and interpret them. Thus, measuring development is inherently a complex process and with this in mind I would like to move you on to my final section: the future of development.

5: The future of development  

I decided to introduce this section last as I believe it neatly ends my learning in the module. From looking at the past and issues such as slavery, we can now finish with an engaging debate on some development issues today and future implications for development.

Firstly, it’s important to note the changing nature of our global economy. In the past, the G7 nations (US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, UK, Canada) dominated in terms of power and economy. However, in recent years there has been a gradual shift in the output of ‘emerging’ or more commonly coined, “BRIC” countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).   Simply put, traditional western powers now need to adapt into new ways of thinking with these new countries and their unprecedented growth. Have a look at the graph below by Rodrick (2011) which shows you a glimpse of our exciting and changing economic landscape:

 

It’s important to note however, that these emerging economies are not just changing the economic landscape but also the very nature of development. In my readings, I noticed that there is a pervading fear amongst academics and traditional donors such as the OECD DAC (Development Assistance Committee) that ‘emerging’ non-DAC donors are a threat to development. Naim (2007) coins this issue as ‘rogue aid’- where countries provide aid in a non-transparent and undemocratic way that ultimately inhibits economic development. For example, Marysse and Greenan (2009) advocate that this is the case in a $6.5 billion Sino-Congolese deal in 2007. Under the agreement, the Chinese government gained vast access to mineral resources whilst Congo benefited with financial endowments and constructions. However, both authors fear that there is a more insidious drive behind this ‘new imperialism’ (Marysse and Greenan 2009; Naim 2007). They note that with China’s booming economy there is a strong need for natural resources and new markets to sell cheap goods. They worry that African mineral reserves will be depleted, with terms of reimbursement not being concessional in any way. Quite simply, in the short-run, African countries such as Congo may gain quick finances, but overall it is a largely unequal exchange balanced in favour of China (Marysse and Greenan 2009). Naim (2007) leaves us with an apocalyptic ultimatum; continued ‘rogue aid’ will lead to an alternative development model with corruption, chaos and unsustainable development in its wake.

More importantly, our changing and complex climate means that there is a need to address the way we approach development. Two authors attempt to promote this in intriguing and unusual ways. Firstly, Green (2013) stresses ‘doing development’ right can be likened to bringing up a child.  Simply setting out a large-scale project with outcomes and objectives is not enough. To raise a child you have to be adaptive, reflexive, and aware of their needs and concerns. In the aid sphere, it is important to be aware of the fact that there is no ‘quick fix’ and rather like a child there can be unpredictable elements.  Secondly, Ranjani (2012) likens innovative approaches in development to soccer which he notes as ‘open and responsive’. Whilst managers have a set strategy, there is no fixed script for their team due to the dynamic nature of the game. In soccer, players observe their environment in order to intelligently adapt, experiment, and then eventually score a goal.  Ranjani (ibid) contends that development with its fixed pathways discourages the need to experiment and adapt. This definitive belief in experimentation and failure in development is apparent in his musings: “Perhaps when it comes to solving complex challenges… play may be just the verb we need” (ibid. pp. 9).

 

Closing remarks

 The main thing that I want you to take away is that more often than not, the issues facing international development are complex and multifaceted.  But with this comes hope- that we can evolve with new ideas for how we can fix these problems!

Thanks for joining me on this adventure of learning and discovery about international development.   The story is still unfinished and it is now up to you to take up the mantle and explore more for yourself- go for it.

Reference list

Section 1

Acemoglu, D. and J. A. Robinson (2013). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, Crown Publishing Group

Adi, H (2012) Africa and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. [Online] BBC. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/africa_article_01.shtml [Accessed 1 December 2015

Chang, H.-J. (2003). Kicking Away the Ladder: Historical Strategy in Historical Perspective. London, Anthem Press.

Maddison, A. (2001). The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. Paris, Development Center of the OECD.

Nunn, N., Leonard, W. (2008). “The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the Evolution of Mistrust in Africa: An Empirical Investigation.” Unpublished working paper, Harvard University and NYU.

Potter, D. (2000) “Colonial Rule” In   Allen, T., Thomas, A (Eds.) Poverty and Development in the 21^st century. Oxford : the Open University in association with Oxford University Press

Rose, C (2012) Episode 6: Effects of the Atlantic Slave Trade on the Americas [Online] UT Austin. Available from: http://15minutehistory.org/2012/12/03/episode-6-effects-of-the-atlantic-slave-trade-on-the-americas/ [Accessed 1 December 2015]

 

Section 2:

Acemoglu, D. and J. A. Robinson (2013). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, Crown Publishing Group.

Alemazung, J. (2010) Post-Colonial Colonialism: An Analysis of International Factors and Actors Marring African Socio-Economic and Political Development . [Online]  Available from: http://www.jpanafrican.com/docs/vol3no10/3.10Post-Colonial.pdf [Last accessed 21 December 2015]

Bernstein, H. Hewitt T., Thomas A. (2000) “Capitalism and the Expansion of Europe” In   Allen, T., Thomas, A (Eds.) Poverty and Development in the 21^st century. Oxford : the Open University in association with Oxford University Press

Chandra, J (2012) Discuss the impact of European decolonisation in Africa in the post-war period. University of Birmingham.

Easterly, W. (2006) The Whiteman’s Burden: why the West efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. New York: The Penguin Press.

 Meredith, M. The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence, (London/New York: Free Press, 2005)

Moore, M. (2001). “Political Underdevelopment: What Causes “Bad Governance”.” Public Management Review 3(3): 385-418.

Rose, C (2012) Episode 3: The scramble for Africa.  [Online] UT Austin. Available from: http://15minutehistory.org/2012/10/24/episode-3-the-scramble-for-africa/ [Accessed 1 December 2015]

Shillington, K. (1995), History of Africa (excerpt). Paper Presented at Embassy of Nigeria.Washington, D.C. 19^th October.

 Spiegal (2005) SPIEGEL Interview with African Economics Expert. Available from: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-african-economics-expert-for-god-s-sake-please-stop-the-aid-a-363663.html (07/04/2005).               [Last accessed 21 December 2015]

 

Section 3:

 Acemoglu, D. and J. A. Robinson (2013). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, Crown Publishing Group. Chapter 3: Theories that don’t work

Bloom, D and Sachs, J (1998). “Geography, Demography, and Economic Growth in Africa.” Center for International Development, Cambridge, Mass. Mimeo.

Easterly, B and Levine, R (2002) “Tropics, Germs and Crops: How Endowments Influence Economic Development”. NBER Working Paper 9106

 Gallup, John L. and Jeffrey D. Sachs. 1999. “Agricultural Productivity and Geography.” Center for International Development, Cambridge, Mass. Mimeo.

Mellinger, AD, Sachs, JD and Gallup, JL (1999) Climate, Water Navigability, and Economic Development, CID Working Paper No. 24, September

Montesquieu, C. L., 1750. The Spirit of Laws (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1989).

Section 4:

 UN (2015). Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. [Online] UN. Available from: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20%28July%201%29.pdf [Accessed 4 December 2015]

Stiglitz, J. E., A. Sen, et al. (2009). Report of the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress.  [Online] Available from: http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm  [Accessed 25 November 2015]

 

Section 5:

 Manning, R. (2006) ‘Will “Emerging Donors” Change the Face of International Cooperation?’ [Online] ODI Lecture.  Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/38/36417541.pdf [Accessed 20 December 2015]

Marysse, S. and Geenan, S., 2009, ‘Win-win or unequal exchange? The case of the Sino-Congolese cooperation agreements’, Journal of Modern African Studies, 47.

Naim, M., 2007, ‘Rouge Aid’, Foreign Policy, 1^st March.  [Online] Available from: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/02/14/rogue_aid [Accessed 20 December 2015]

Rajani, R. (2012). If Development Were Soccer, USAID Frontiers in Development.

Green, D (2013). Baking cake. Oxfam blogs. [Online] Available from:   http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=16154   [Accessed 28/12/2015]

Rodrick, D (2011) The great divergence, the other way around. [Online] Available from: http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2011/07/the-great-divergence-the-other-way-around.html   [Accessed 28/12/2015]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Reasoning on the EU referendum

Hi all, in light of the #EUreferendum this Thursday I thought it fair that I detail to you some honest thoughts on it, my overall choice, and some benefits of this referendum. It is in a format similar to that of a Q&A. I am also listing all of this from the top of my head and thus based solely from my own understanding. Just a reminder and caveat too- this is entirely my own opinion for why I have chosen to Remain and you should make your own informed choice based on your own assessment.

Sections in this article:

• Pros of remaining
• Problems with remaining
• Benefits of leaving
• Problems with leaving
• How I believe Leave and Remain have managed to gain momentum and my overall disappointment
• My overall conclusion
• Benefit of the EU referendum
• Why I would encourage those to vote.

Pros of remaining:

• Stronger Economy. 90% of economists, a notable number of international organisations, a number of world leaders and business people have all noted that UK being in the EU enables more opportunities for jobs, trade, and business. There are trade agreements with over 50 countries outside of the EU and there is currently an ongoing and controversial agreement with America called TTIP. Moreover, statistics show that immigrants on the whole arrive in order to work and contribute to the economy and remain campaigners particularly emphasise this.
• Stronger United. A number of references have been made by Remain campaigners that since the EU has developed it has created agreements which have prevented war between previously warring nations and through free flows of people, money, and trade has allowed nations to learn from each other and has given Brits the opportunity to work, travel, and live abroad visa free and vice versa. Over 1.2 million Brits live abroad.  Remain campaigners would state that international issues such as environmental standards, climate change, and terrorism requires countries to work together in unison, not divided and apart. Having a ‘seat at the table’ (buzzword) will enable us to have our say on these transnational matters. Importantly, Remain advocates such as Trade Unions and Labour note that the EU has enabled rights for maximum hours of work every week, gender equality, and employee rights to be enshrined in the law. Therefore, it prevents predatory opportunities for a more right-wing government such as our current one from exploiting workers.

Problems with remaining

• Possibly unsustainable immigration. Remain campaigners tend to avoid this on the whole and focus on the benefits that immigrants bring to the economy. Leave campaigners however point out that with the current numbers of net migration (Migration adjusted to take into account those from the UK who left the country in the same period), the UK population is estimated to be 80 million by 2050. In total, 333,000 net people entered the UK this year which is an unprecedented level (Approx. half from the EU) and there are fears amongst the population about the impact this level of migration as a whole will have on public services and integration for local communities.  This is particularly exacerbated by deep spending cuts by the government due to austerity.
• Slow, opaque and bureaucratic EU. There is a consensus that the EU is sluggish, ‘sclerotic’ (Buzzword) and overtly bureaucratic and that economic growth within it has been gradually reducing every year. Remaining part of this has been likened to “staying in a sinking ship” (Buzzword). Whilst I wouldn’t call it ‘undemocratic’ (Buzzword) I wouldn’t deny that it is not the most democratic and I would like to see a more transparent system in place. Whilst we can elect MEP’s (we have 73) who can debate on policies, they are not able to actually propose these policies. The European Commission formed of 28 ‘unelected heads’ (Buzzword) (our current government chose our representative) are the ones who actually propose policy. This is the main sticking point for Leave campaigners.

 

Benefits of leaving

This leads on well from the above point.  If we are to leave the EU, there really is no way to know what will really happen.

A possibly brighter future- Advocates see it as an opportunity to step out in faith and leave the ‘failing’ (buzzword) and slow EU and instead form our own trade agreements with those of former commonwealth countries (such as India) and other big international players without having to go through all 28 members of the EU  and needing a consensus.  The best case scenario could see us as the ‘tiger economy’ and being nimble and strong enough to dictate trade deals with whomever we choose.

Immigration- there is a growing call for an ‘Australian points-based system’ which has been Farage’s catchphrase for years and now it commonly utilised by all leave campaigners. LEAVE argue that we can leave the EU and thus not have to abide by the rule of the ‘free movement of people.’ This way we can control immigration to sustainable levels and have ‘the right people for the right jobs.’  Advocates claim that this would reduce the unfair bias that the UK currently have towards non-EU migrants. There is indeed a bias as under current legislation enacted this April, non- EU immigrants (this includes Australia, US, and Canada) who have lived in the UK for less than 10 years and earn under £35,000 and in “non-essential sectors” will have to leave the UK. This is utterly ridiculous in my opinion as the figure is so high. Foreign students also fact tight regulations after graduation and thus many have to head back home which I see as a massive drain on the economy and a massive shame.

 

Problems with leaving

The problems here are potentially huge.

Economy- One problem is that there is no doubt that our economy will be affected. Fears about this possible Brexit has already cost the FTSE-100 to lose £80 billion worth.  There is no doubt that in the short-run we will be a lot worse off. The medium and long run is uncertain in this extent. It will take up to 2 years to negotiate our leave from the EU and it is unknown how long it will take to conduct trade deals with the various amount of countries in Europe and the world.

Immigration- There is a good chance that this will not change. We are currently part of the single market which is the main reason why we joined the EU in the first place. Being part of this market makes it easier for trade and for the exchange of services within the whole area. From countries Germany, Spain, France, Denmark, Sweden, to the UK and vice versa. Being part of this market is so important that Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland despite being outside of the EU have ‘opted-in.’ However, in order to have full access to the single market and in particular with trading services, you have to allow for the ‘free movement of people’ which is what Norway does despite not being in the EU. Therefore, Norway has to accept all EU regulations for this single market but does not have much say about how this takes place as they are not part of the EU. If we wanted to part of this single market fully, we’d have to allow for the ‘free movement of people’ which would defeat the point of leaving the EU to reduce European immigration.

Racism- Levels of the far-right movement are at an all-time high in Europe and indeed the world (i.e. D.Trump) and I am genuinely worried that Leaving the EU will only increase this. Whilst not everyone voting to leave the EU is racist, most of those who are racist are voting to leave the EU. A lot of the campaigning for leaving the EU has been scaremongering about ‘migrants taking over’ and Turkey and other poorer countries joining the EU who will ‘flood the UK’. This scaremongering has led to the creation of those deemed foreign as the ‘other’- what the working class in particular will blindly accept. This is further fuelling intolerance, xenophobia, racism, and anti-Muslim feeling to rise to unprecedented levels.   Now if the Leave campaign had campaigned positively about the need to have sustained migration, and less on stigmatising all foreigners that may have been acceptable. But instead the campaign has played on people’s inner fears about having the country taken over by ‘migrants’, ‘refugees’, and people who are not following the British way of life. Sadly, this is not new as Blacks and Indians faced similar abuse when they arrived in post-ww2 Britain.  Whilst we are seemingly becoming tolerant towards groups such as those of a different sexual orientation, we are simultaneously becoming intolerant to those who look and behave differently then us.  UK is in an identity crisis

Swexit- Scotland is overwhelmingly in favour of remaining and so is the Wales and Northern Ireland to my knowledge. Leaving could well in fact trigger an independence referendum in these countries and then little England will end up being well… little England and no longer United.

 

How I believe Leave and Remain have managed to gain momentum and my overall disappointment

In my opinion, the Leave campaign have very deftly managed to gain momentum due to appealing to those disenfranchised, disheartened, and unsettled with the current system. Polls show that demographically- elderly people are more in favour of leaving due to most likely seeing what was just an economic union when UK joined in 1973 to a fully reigning institution that does inevitably impact on UK law and policy. In my opinion, many of these elderly people may still also have the dream of a time when Britain was more native white English, and thus Leaving becomes attractive with the belief that the number of immigrants can be reduced. Moreover, those from working backgrounds are also more likely to vote leave. This, I believe is down to the Leave campaign impressively targeting local issues and thus making it very real for those voting. For example, a lot of campaign material has focused on saying that uncontrolled migrants from the EU are disproportionately getting the best access to houses, taking English workers’ jobs, straining services such as the NHS, increasing waiting times for GP’s, and difficulties in getting school places. These are all issues that appear very close to peoples’ hearts and is much more tangible than say, focusing on the overall economic problems.

The truth is that these local service issues are from our government’s doing. They have deliberately chosen to underinvest in public services across the country as part of a neoliberal (pro-privatisation) agenda that they’ve had for years. This has caused strain on services (due to less funding) in local areas and therefore it is true that these are in fact real issues. If the economy was doing fine and people had jobs, I believe the issue would be lessened. But because many working class brits are already disillusioned with the system and establishment, and see groups of foreign workers arriving into an area- the blame game is simple. We’ve seen it time and time again. Indians and blacks (like mentioned earlier), the Polish (post-2004), and Romanians and Bulgarians (Post January 2014).

The truth is that the Leave campaign has struck such a chord with some who are upset with the current system in such a way that they will defy all matter of reputable evidence suggesting the leave is ‘economic suicide.’ I would explain it in a simple metaphor. The Remain campaign has tried to use facts and figures in an overall picture- so that people have to think about not just the impact on them but the greater economic picture. Thus they have tried to reach the voters’ “heads”. The Leave campaign however has addressed local concerns, worries, and tensions and thus has tried to reach the voters’ “hearts.” It thus appears to be a battle between the “head” and the “heart”.

My overall disappointment is that fear has been used to sway voters and not one of wonder and of empowerment.  It is similar to that of Scotland where fear was used to persuade voters to stay.  The Remain campaign has decided to ride on the back of reputable economists, studies, etc. with something along the lines of “If these people say it is better we stay IN, then it must be true.” And to those who want to vote out, it has been suggested that they will be supporting Putin and Isis and creating “world war 3.” The Leave campaign has similarly used fear of immigration and inflating local concerns to reinforce and exaggerate voters’ fears to an unprecedented level.   I wish that instead of harnessing fear, both had instead talked honestly about what the EU has done (Remain) and a hope for an autonomous and independent UK to forge their own future (Leave).    Both have also used dubious economic figures such as the £350 million sent to the EU every week (OUT=False) and that Households with be £4300 off if we leave the EU (Remain=false).

 

My overall conclusion

Weighing up the various costs and benefits, I have decided that I would like to Remain in the EU and will be voting accordingly.  One thing that nearly put me off from voting altogether is that both campaigns have just appeared to be Tory Infighting. And I have to admit that I have a deep resentment against the Conservatives- after 4 years of studying their policies and its devastating impact on local communities, disabled people, those on benefits, and on working families.  My utter dislike for Cameron himself nearly drove me to vote Leave! But in Leave I am similarly not a fan of some of its Tory advocates such as Michael Gove (Ex- education secretary who was despised amongst teachers) and Ian Duncan Smith (Ex- Work and Pensions minister who was despised due to his unfair policies). Not much choice here either sadly.

But the truth is that this vote is much bigger than just the Conservatives and will affect us, those we love, and our wider communities. It is not just a distant legislation conjured up in parliament with no relevance to us. This time it is about you and me. I’d encourage you that as you come to your decision that you are certain about it and are prepared to accept the long-term effects too.

If you decide to Leave than I completely respect your decision if you have thought about it.

 

Benefit of the EU referendum

A benefit of this EU referendum I believe is that it has led the general population to have a much greater sense of what the EU does and its importance to us. For many in generation Y (Post-1990s), we have grown up with the EU and thus perhaps unquestionably accepted its influence. Now is our chance to truly think about it and to have a genuine debate about its benefits and costs.

Another benefit is that I believe that this referendum will create a greater participation rate for elections. In the May 2015 elections, we had a 66.1% turnout which was one of the highest on record. With record numbers of people registering to vote this year, my hope is that is around 85-90%

 

Why I would encourage those to vote.

I’m sure you are aware that people have died to vote and to have their say in society. But if that doesn’t sway you how about I tell you something.  In the last few years we have had dramatic increases in tuition fees (which now are to increase every year with inflation), lies about loan repayments from the government, scrapping EMA, scrapping the maintenance grant, cutting youth centres, and enabling a living wage BUT only for the over 25s. One reason is that the government only have short-term goals in mind and do what they can to please the electorate who vote them in. It is widely known that the voting participation rate amongst young people is lower than that of the older generation. Therefore, the government if faced with a choice of choosing between services for the elderly or the young they will undoubtedly choose the former. If we however have a higher turnout of young people than the government will be forced to listen to our concerns or face being bunked at the next election.

Therefore if you still don’t know what to vote, I recommend that you spoil your ballot. That way whilst you do not choose a side the government will know that you participated.

Choose wisely this Thursday and may the odds be ever in your favour.

Judah out.

Ofsted in Sunday schools? The government has taken its Counter-Extremism Strategy too far this time.

Last Sunday’s service at my local church was like any other. After worship, praise and singing it was time to usher off the children to Sunday school before our pastor started his sermon. Off the children went to be taught by volunteer leaders about valuable principles such as forgiveness, loving and serving others, working diligently, paying taxes, not stealing or lying, and having mutual respect for those around them – key British values that the government would almost certainly endorse.

However, the opportunity for Sunday schools to operate freely in this way is under threat. Unbeknown to the children involved, there is a very real and overwhelming fear amongst Sunday school teachers that they will be labelled as ‘extremist’ under current proposals, and may face bans or even closure as a result. The key instigator of this concern is the government’s Out-of-School Education Settings Consultation.  Unveiled last November, it outlines that teaching rights for not just Sunday schools but indeed any type of institution providing education for children under the age of 19 could be drastically infringed on. What’s worse, there is a strong likelihood that these crucial organisations may be forced to close down. The controversial proposal aims to force all ‘intensive’ education settings to register with the state; to have Ofsted inspect them; and to impose severe sanctions such as banning teachers and closing premises if they are deemed to be “promoting undesirable teaching that is incompatible with fundamental British values, or which promotes extremist views”.  The government’s crude definition of these ‘British values’ consists of “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

Consultation arising after years of counter-terrorism legislation

This misguided consultation follows a steady wave of legislation aimed at tackling ‘extremism’ at its root. In 2011, the unveiled that an integral focus would be on reducing the chances of harm to children due to exposure of extremist views. These concerns were further amplified with the Trojan Horse scandal which arose in November 2013 when a letter was discovered that described an aggressive Islamic take-over of Birmingham schools. Whilst the validity and reliability of the letter is still questioned, Peter Clarke’s official investigation concluded that there was sufficient evidence of “co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action…to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos” in a number of schools in Birmingham. Clarke’s report strongly influenced the 2015 Counter-Extremism Strategy announced by Cameron in October last year where he re-affirmed plans to crack down on the extremism which he believes has ‘poisoned’ children with hate and intolerance. In my scrutiny of the strategy, it is clear that Cameron’s focus is largely on Islamic extremists and that of madrassas (Islamic schools) in education settings which led him to his inference that teaching intolerance will be shut down.

However, the troubling fear that has recently arisen was triggered following the close of the consultation on January 11^th when the head of Ofsted, Michael Wilshaw confirmed on LBC radio that in order to be ‘even-handed’ when tackling harmful Islamic ideologies, Sunday schools would be targeted. Whilst I wouldn’t call for Sir Wilshaw to resign over his comments, this feels like an utter betrayal as Lord Nash, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Cameron have reassured that Sunday schools would not be targeted. A resultant wave of Christian organisations have expressed their fears with the likely detrimental effect on Sunday Schools and following a passionate debate in January, over 20 MP’s from a range of parties concluded that the consultation plans are a gross infringement on religious freedoms and should be buried.  However, what is even more troubling is the eerie silence on the government’s end since the debate and an unsettling fear currently remains in the hearts and minds of those working in church.

 

Fundamental Christian rights being undermined

 

Sunday school teachers and churches therefore have every right to be utterly concerned with this proposal.  The government is indomitably infringing on a fundamental right for Christians to practice their religion without fear of persecution. Ever since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 which saw a shift of power from the monarch to the people, its first clause states that the English Church has the right to conduct its affairs without its liberties impaired.  The right to practice religion freely is also enshrined in Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Article 9, it states that freedom for everyone to manifest their religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance should not be compromised. Article 10 further observes that everyone has a right to freedom of expression including that of holding opinions and ideas without interference by the government and regardless of frontiers. Religious beliefs like this are similarly protected in sections 4 and 10 of the Equality Act 2010.

In light of this, should the government pursue their proposal from the consultation despite the thousands of worried responses and public outcry, this would constitute a straightforward breach of the UK’s Human Rights legislation according to Professor Rivers, an expert on law and organised religion.  What is perhaps even more hypocritical and ironic about this proposal is that on page 61 of the Conservative Government manifesto 2015, it states that upon election, the government will “reject any suggestions of sweeping, authoritarian measures that would threaten our hard-won freedoms.” How telling is it that they are unashamedly reneging on the very premise in which they were elected? If this does not shame the government to recall their decision than what does?

Vague definitions stigmatising Christian teaching in Sunday schools

 

An even more worrying concern arising from the consultation is its poor definition of what constitutes ‘non-violent extremism’, ‘British Values’, ‘emotional harm’ to children, and ‘undesirable teaching’; all terms utilised in the consultation and the Counter Extremism Strategy 2015. It has already been documented that Christianity is increasingly being marginalised in society and viewed as out-of-touch and there are worries that what is being proposed under this consultation will allow for those of a more secular mind-set with a dislike for Christianity to label teaching in Sunday schools as “undesirable” and advocating “extremist” views. This was highlighted by 4 MP’s who in a letter to the Telegraph noted that by simply teaching that marriage is only between a man and woman, Sunday schools are likely to be classed as advocating “extremist” views and face being shut down. There has already been evidence of Ofsted shutting down education settings under the guise for not “promoting British values enough” and there are well-grounded fears that this possible legislation will give Ofsted further powers to regulate Sunday schools and thus interfere with private religious practice.

 

Now I’m not advocating that the government should be complacent in targeting extremism by simply doing nothing.  Far from it. I’m sure you’ll agree that we live in an uncertain and dangerous world. From 9/11 and the 7/7 terror bombings, to the very recent attacks in Paris, Brussels, and Turkey; innocent lives are increasingly being damaged and ripped apart due to the atrocities of extremism. The rise of Daesh and their murderous intent, their rejection of values such as that of human dignity and the freedom to practice religion without persecution, and the radicalisation of disillusioned young people are colossal challenges that we as a nation must face today.

If we are to effectively tackle this radical extremism, we must do it in a logical, effective, and reasoned way. In their misguided attempt to root out and defend brits from extremism, the government’s Out-of-Education Settings Consultation threatens to decimate the very freedoms of those it seeks to protect. Targeting Sunday school leaders is much more ‘big brother’ and ‘big state’ than the ‘big society’ approach espoused by the government.  Instead of a wide-sweeping attempt for the government to appear that it is ‘doing something’, I urge them to instead take an intelligently thought-out, evidence-based approach to tackle extremism ‘in all its forms’. Forcing Sunday schools to register and regulating their teaching will not only prevent this from occurring, it will divert efforts and precious resources which can be better utilised in a much more targeted way to confront extremism at its root.  The government should get rid of their increasingly draconian approach of limiting Christian freedoms because continuing along this path would not make Sunday schools ‘extremist’, but the government itself.

 

 

More like this:

 

BBC News. (2015). Trojan Horse ‘plot’ schools timeline. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-28370552 [Accessed 14 May 2016].

Bingham, J. (2015). Sunday schools and bell ringing groups could face ‘radicalisation’ inspections. Telegraph. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12046557/Sunday-schools-and-bell-ringing-groups-could-face-radicalisation-inspections.html [Accessed 19 May 2016].

Bruce, F. (2015). The government’s extremism strategy is dangerously ineffective. Grassroots Conservatives. [online] Available at:  http://grassrootsconservatives.org.uk/news/permalink/2015-12/the-government-s-extremism-strategy-is-dangerously-ineffective [Accessed 3 June 2016].

Cameron, D. (2015). Counter-Extremism Strategy Statement. Facebook. [online] Available at: https://www.facebook.com/DavidCameronOfficial/posts/1067675516590099 [Accessed 18 May 2016].

Christian Institute (2016). Joint Statement and Call for action. [online]  Available at: http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/OoSS_JointStatement_CARE-CC-EA-LCF-CI.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2016].

Elliot, J. (2016) Ofsted will become state regulator of religion. Evangelical Alliance. [online] Available at: http://www.lapidomedia.com/ofsted-regulator-religion-evangelical-alliance [Accessed 12 May 2016].

Gov.uk. (2014). Guidance on promoting British values in schools published – Press releases. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-published [Accessed 7 May 2016].

Hope, C. (2016a). Tory MPs warn that Sunday schools could be banned from teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman. Telegraph.  [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12093949/Tory-MPs-warn-that-Sunday-schools-could-be-banned-from-teaching-that-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html [Accessed 1 June. 2016].

Hope, C. (2016b). Ministers told to sack Ofsted chief over threat to raid Sunday schools in extremism crackdown. Telegraph. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12102135/Tory-MPs-call-for-Ofsted-chief-to-resign-over-threat-to-raid-Sunday-schools-in-extremism-crackdown.html [Accessed 14 May 2016].

Hope, C. (2016c). David Cameron pledges to stop Ofsted inspectors raiding Sunday schools and Scouts’ meetings. Telegraph. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12108953/David-Cameron-pledges-to-stop-Ofsted-inspectors-raiding-Sunday-schools-and-Scouts-meetings.html [Accessed 7 May 2016].

LBC news (2016). Sir Michael Wilshaw: Live On LBC – 14th January 2016. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG499Amnb_0 [Accessed 13 May 2016].

Marshall, T. (2016). 600 British jihadis caught trying to enter Syria since 2012. [online] Evening Standard. Available at: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/600-british-jihadis-caught-trying-to-enter-syria-since-2012-a3158181.html [Accessed 12 May 2016].

Newstatesman. (2014). The new intolerance: will we regret pushing Christians out of public life?. [online] Available at: http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/01/new-intolerance-will-we-regret-pushing-christians-out-public-life [Accessed 12 May 2016].

Parliamentlive.TV. (2016). Debate on the proposed regulation of out-of-school education settings. [online] Available at: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/26ccaa60-67c0-4321-b5e3-b47be504d5b1?in=09:30:00 [Accessed 7 May 2016].

Parliamentlive.TV. (2016). Lord Nash regulating unregistered schools [online] Available at: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5a6a4610-f69c-4fdd-bf33-8d847f4b4fe6?in=11:13:40&out=11:18:39  [Accessed 29 May 2016].

Sellgren, K. (2015). David Cameron: Prime Minister warns over extremist teaching. BBC News. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34464137 [Accessed 22 May 2016].

The Christian Institute (2016). Out-of-School Settings. [online] Available at: http://www.christian.org.uk/out-of-school-settings-faqs/ [Accessed 11 May 2016].

The Guardian. (2011). Religious leaders are out of touch with issues of sexuality, survey reveals. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/21/sexuality-religion-young-people-survey [Accessed 12 May 2016].

 

Academic reading list:

 

Brown, C.G. (2013). The Death of Christian Britain: Christianity and Society in the Modern World. London: Routledge.

Bruce, S. (2013) Post-Secularity and Religion in Britain: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 28:3, 369-384, DOI:10.1080/13537903.2013.831642

Conservative Government manifesto (2015). [online] Available at: https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/Blog/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf [Accessed 12 Jun. 2016].

European Convention on Human Rights (2010). [online] Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf [Accessed 4 May 2016].

Gov.uk. (2014). Birmingham Schools: Education Commissioner’s report – Publications. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/birmingham-schools-education-commissioners-report [Accessed 18 April 2016].

Gov.uk. (2015a). Counter-Extremism Strategy 2015. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470088/51859_Cm9148_Accessible.pdf [Accessed 12 April 2016].

Gov.uk. (2015b). Out-of-school education settings: registration and inspection – Consultations. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/out-of-school-education-settings-registration-and-inspection [Accessed 3 May 2016].

Gov.uk. (2016). Prevent strategy 2011. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf [Accessed 21 March 2016].

Social Policy student wins #InternSelfie competition

Nice 😀

Social Policy Enhancement

Judah Chandra, a third year Social Policy student, has won the Careers Network’s #InternSelfie competition. Judah, who spent a month in China last Easter, took a photo of himself with the “oldest Japanese-war survivor”. Judah’s trip was part of the Study China Programme which was funded through a University of Birmingham Gateway Bursary.

Judah explains,

“The three week Study China 2014 programme offered the opportunity to interact with Chinese students, academic staff, local families and businesses, and to access to the facinating country of China. Activities included completing an intensive Chinese Manerin course designed to develop my written and spoken language skills, as well as a course in Nation and Nationalism. Through the curriculum of workshops, trips and excursions I was introduced to the real China and experienced cultural activities including Tai Chi, calligraphy, traditional music, Kung Fu. These helped provide me with an insight into everyday Chinese life…

View original post 36 more words

And the winner is…. Intern Selfie competition winners announced!

Just to note- Don’t let anyone tell you that taking selfies are completely pointless. I submitted a selfie from my study China trip in Easter a few months ago on twitter for a Uni competition and completely forgot about it. Then I got an email yesterday and found I won first place ‪#‎itsthelittlethings‬

Real Voices

We’ve had so much fun at Careers Network looking at all your entries for the Intern Selfie competition and the time has come for us to announce the winners.  Our judges were looking for a inspiring intern selfie and they certainly had plenty to choose from!  From working with the flying doctors in Australia, undertaking quantum optics research in Chile and working in  Public Affairs and Communications Department in China, it was amazing to see how our students were seizing work experience opportunities in a variety of countries as well as a variety of sectors.

We were inspired by all the intern selfies we saw but this is a competition and a competition has to have winners….  And so here are the winners of the Intern Selfie competition:

Best Intern Selfie from the College of Social Sciences Professional Development Module

Jess Long

Jess Long on a BP Internship in indirect procurement.

Best…

View original post 195 more words

My Education

Written sometime in the summer of 2012 at the start of University, 1st year.

My Education

Sticking it out with difficult stuff- is it really worth it?

Today I realised that sometimes you just have to stick at stuff once you’ve made an initial commitment. I started a voluntary placement at the Citizen’s Advice Bureau a month ago with one of my course modules and would never have imagined it could’ve been as amazing as how it was today.   After my first few hours there on the first day- I was ready to give up and go somewhere else. I’d had a horrid few hours filling in long forms, online tests, and talked at about regulations by an employer that didn’t seem particularly interested or keen, in an unknown and dreary environment. But today’s experience in the same place was full of colour-  loads of laughter with the girl’s in my team and an employer who I had a fantastic chat with and for the first time got the team cookies and doughnuts! Plus she kept saying the day before how proud she was of the team as well as commending the work I had done personally.  With this in mind , what I once saw as a prison is now a place of productivity.  What was once grey has now become great. And I would have never have experienced this if I had gone with my initial thoughts and not listened to my brother who urged me to try just one more day and see how I felt. Family are a key asset and vital but that is something for another blog post.)

I’m not saying to stick at everything. Only to encourage you to stick at things that instead of just bringing satisfaction in the short term, will be useful and integral for yourself and others in the long term too.  I’ve made the mistake of forgetting this too many times for my liking.  I dropped Spanish GCSE despite being good at it as because I “found the teacher boring”.  Something that I’ve regretted since.

I turned down free piano lessons from an experienced teacher as I found theory uninteresting and hated going to lessons every week.

I didn’t know what course to do so I switched 3 times- African Studies- History- Social Policy just two weeks before I had even started my degree!

Sticking at things is difficult. There’s been many times throughout my degree I’ve felt like quitting it- even just two weeks ago where I was almost in tears with stress from an assignment I’d left too late and with a real fear that I wouldn’t get it done in time. I was shaking from the stress and was about to just not submit the assignment, nerves racking my body. But with encouragement from my brother and a flatmate I actually completed it against all odds.  I know many students have had doubts with their degrees but what holds them is the long-term picture. They know that at that moment in their lives- a degree is the best platform for creating opportunities for the future.

Can you get at where I’m going? Stick at the things, even though difficult because IF they really are the best thing for you, then it’s worth pursuing.  As the great Charles M. Schwab (the mastermind behind one of the largest steelmakers in the US) said:

 

I wonder what would happen in a society where people put an end to procrastination and being half-hearted about events in life. O what a Brave New World.

And so It would seem to me that ‘Sticking it out with difficult’ and the right stuff, really is worth it.

Police Powers: Infallible, fair or just plain unjust?

Looking at this, (https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights) it’s crazy to think that the Police have so much power. Yes it’s all very well and good if they’re doing their job properly. But what if they’re a racist, sexist, and xenophobic and decide to stop and search you because of what they perceive you to be doing? And if you want to sue them it’s basically impossible due to all the rights being in their favour and them being allowed to use “reasonable force” which is a pretty vague term.

I’m not saying I don’t like the Police. They provide a vital public service and help ensure security and safety in the country. My only issue would be for those who misuse their powers on the persons they are legally binded to protect; that’s when it becomes a real social issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/17/police-trust-brits_n_4615052.html

“The British public is also deeply divided over whether they think it is right for police to target their criminal investigations on certain ethnic minorities because they are statistically more likely to commit a type of crime.

A sizeable proportion of the public (40%) agree that officers should be allowed to do this, while almost exactly the same proportion (41%) said they opposed the policy.

But again race heavily influences how people view this question.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of those from BME backgrounds disagree with the policy, whereas just 39% of white Britons are against it.

A separate poll for Sky News found that more than half of Britons believe there is a culture of cover-ups within the police.”

 

 

Students VS an oppressive institution. Desolation is the only way forward?

So this footage ( http://www.redbrick.me/2014/01/protesters-at-the-university-of-birmingham-clash-with-security-staff/) was taken today which filmed University of Birmingham students and various other students from other universities clashing with security. It’s a shame such clashes are taking place but this is the only way some students feel they can have their voices heard. I’ve felt the same myself when despite all the suggestions I give as a student rep on committee’s- often this is disregarded. It’s me against an authoritarian system. And yes- just like the 2011 riots there are few who just want to join just to cause a bit of destruction. But all in all- I think what they are ideologically fighting for- a more democratic university, better contracts for support staff and lecturers, and a criticism of why the Vice Chancellor can earn £419,000 a year- up 28,000 from the previous year and now the highest paid Vice Chancellor in the UK… (http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/university-chiefs-under-fire-for-huge-pay-rises-after-tuition-fee-hikes-9034893.html) Does what he is doing equate to such a high basical salary whilst lecturers and support staff are facing pitiful pay rises and zero hour contracts?
I may not be the hugest fan of these protests at the university that are becoming ever more common, but I do commend that fact that some students have had enough and are doing something they believe is right. However, I fear that this will spiral into even more of a problem as the University is responding through placing injunctions on ‘occupy’ protesters on campus, taking students to court/ placing charges against them and now some students are facing expulsion. Such a harsh crackdown on these surges ( 10 arrests were made by police today) are only going to create an even more disgruntled student community. It reminds me of Thatcher’s harsh and totalitarian response to the Miner’s strikes in 1979. So what will happen in the future? More staff and student protests are definitely going to happen and I just hope that the University can respond in a better, more democratic, open-minded and logical way or I fear that the angry wrath of students and staff alike will be fuelled even further and spiral out of control… until there is no return…

http://www.redbrick.me/2014/01/national-demonstration-held-at-old-joe/

Video:

http://www.redbrick.me/2014/01/protesters-at-the-university-of-birmingham-clash-with-security-staff/

The truth about University

A few days ago…

Ahh I’ll do this post properly later. The truth is that University students go to sleep too bloody late for no legitimate reason… unless they’re going clubbing -if that’s even legitimate?