Changing of the Guard

What's the purpose of Nouse today? That was one of the questions posed by the new, quirky, independent political pamphlet ‘Free Lunch’, which launched their first print publication this week.

In a clever juxtaposition, modern day Nouse was compared to its original editions published in the 1970's. Like many energetic start-up publications, Nouse was then classified as a 'psychedelic magazine', positing a political conscience of resistance, protest and criticism. Its original writers- amongst them the current Chancellor Greg Dyke, existed within a 'collective'- groups of radical students united through anxieties of nuclear war, global capitalism and participatory democracy. Nouse therefore existed as a means to channel fear, organising the student movement within the cultural maxim of wider revolutionary change.

Today, Nouse is much larger, attempting to appeal to a wide distribution of readers across campus. More importantly, it operates in a cultural context far different from Dyke's editorship. With the end of the old 'culture wars' of the late twentieth century, students now exist in an age where the anxieties of debt and joblessness occupy a more pertinent concern. Universities are no longer the hotbeds of revolution, but rather the 'finishing schools' necessary to secure white collar professions and stable incomes. After all, the student socialist international is hardly likely to pay your mortgage.

 Furthermore, Nouse's levy from student contributions to YUSU, brings with it the additional need to appeal to the wider student body. Devoid of the universal causes of the 70's, student papers across the country find themselves holding different responsibilities- in this case, ensuring the openness of their unions, and holding accountable those in positions of authority. Indeed, while the revolutionary impetus may no longer be prescient in the minds of the student body, concerns regarding how their universities are run are still paramount as ever.

This doesn't mean that pamphlets like Free Lunch shouldn't have a role on campus. In fact, freedom from YUSU or NUS regulations allow criticism- not just of old guard publications like Nouse, but also of the nature of universities within contemporary society. In recapturing the sensibilities in which established publications were founded on, independent media allows for new channels to voice opinion and dissent- an undisputable benefit for students.

More importantly, publications like Free Lunch can give the old guard a chance to step back and be reflective. Have traditional media outlets truly represented student causes? Should campus media advocate ethical, social and political causes in an age where student politics is expected to be apolitical? Indeed, if papers like Nouse exist to inform and provide a voice to the collective student body, then should it become more involved with politics?

 The publication of Free Lunch adds to the rich history of creative student media embedded within this university. It also comes at a time when new cultural questions have emerged, relating to both the nature of universities and the type of students that study in them. And while the publication presents a refreshing response to these challenges, it also serves to remind established media outlets not to take the student voice for granted.

We Must Reclaim Our High Streets

With the recent collapse of HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster, there seems a consensual acknowledgement that the proverbial 'death' of the British high street is closer than previously anticipated. With it, has come a hurried rush of authors keen to pen its obituary, reminiscing a time where high streets had once forged the identity of local communities, assuring us at least of some humanity in the unforgiving face of mass consumerism.

Yet, such nostalgia is often procured from self indulgence. In an age where the values of collective society are often conflicted, romanticised notions of the high street are commonly used to denounce the domination of big business, tax avoiders and monopolistic practicioners. Indeed, the importance of the high street is not simply its ability to bind local communities, but also in that it operates within the context of a 'moral economy'- providing benefits for businesses, employees and consumers.

In reality, this high street died a long time ago- and much to our delight. Banished were those expensive unreliable independent shops, to be replaced with bigger and more glamorous chain stores offering greater choice and a more pleasurable shopping experience. In embracing the individualism of the late nineties and early noughties, we in fact facilitated a cynical model of free market capitalism, in which the integrity of our communities were irrelevant, so long as we could continue shopping.

Some of the high street's post-mortems have relished in the thought of chain stores becoming the victims they once anihilated- vulnerable to obscure management structures offered by the likes of Amazon or Asos.com in producing cheaper and more efficient services. They argue that the high street has failed in pleasing the consumer, and therefore deserve- as economic orthodoxy dictates, to be punished.

However, such applause only legitimises this venomous model of enterprise.

Instead, we should view this as an opportunity to reclaim our high streets, giving them a new lease of life in which they can truly work in the interests of local people.

The benefit of this would not simply one of financial value or material indulgence.

Instead, it would help to encourage creativity, community values and a sense of

collective identity. Through local business and young entrepreneurship, a type of high street more reflective its local culture and better valued by its residents would be far more resilient than ones dominated by lifeless chain stores, devoid of any real human value.

Utopian as it might sound, the lesson of the high street's demise should not in glorifying the free market, but rather, to understand the profound responsibilities local people have in defining their own communities.

'The One Nation Alternative' : An Interview With Rachel Reeves MP

I recently had the opportunity to interview Rachel Reeves MP  on behalf of my university newspaper, Nouse. Below is the transcript:

This week, Nouse Events hosted Rachel Reeves, Member of Parliament for Leeds West and Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who spoke on the ‘Coalition’s failures and Labour’s alternative’. In the course of the evening, Reeves spoke about her motivation for joining the Labour party, the coalition’s failure to address structural economic problems and how a Labour government could help to create a fairer society. Nouse spoke to her after the event.

What attracted you to the Labour movement? Is there a distinction between the Labour Party and the Labour movement?

“I joined the Labour party when I was 17 and shortly after joined a trade union and felt that I was part of the Labour movement as well as the party. The two parts reinforce themselves. The labour party campaigns through politics and parliament for change and the trade union movement does so in the workplace. They complement each other through economic change in the workplace and a campaign for lasting change.”

Looking forward to 2015, in the event that Labour doesn’t attain a majority, is coalition government something you would have to look at? What would the conditions be?

“The Labour Party are campaigning to win and as we are 10 points ahead in the polls that would give us a majority of about 60 seats and we have set out 106 seats that we are focusing on at the general election in 2015, including seats we lost in 2010 to the Tories and Lib Dems. I’m confident that with the right campaigning and under Ed’s leadership we can win in 2015 and that’s what we’re putting all of our efforts in to. If we were not successful in that then we’d have to look at other things, we’d have to look at how the electorate views you. The Labour Party would never go into coalition with UKIP as we are diametrically opposed in how we see Britain’s role in Europe. We don’t want to leave Europe so that would not be a possibility. The Lib Dems are going to have to campaign incredibly hard to keep half the number of seats they’ve got because people feel incredibly let down, most of all students, who voted for a party who said they’d get rid of tuition fees and then trebled them. We are campaigning for a majority at the next election but we can’t be arrogant in politics, because it is up to the electorate to decide who they want to govern.”

What would Labour repeal or reform from the legacy of the coalition?

“That’s really hard because we don’t know what the economy is going to look like in three weeks’ time let alone three years. So we haven’t set out our manifesto and it would be unwise to do so because we don’t know what the economic inheritance of an incoming Labour government would be, so we’ll have to wait until nearer the time. But we’ve set out some of the principles that guide us and our voting record in Parliament is a guide to how we would govern and we would govern as One Nation, where everybody has a stake in the economy and society, and it isn’t just a few at the top who plough ahead whilst those on middle and low incomes are left to fend for themselves. In terms of public services, for example, we’ve been very clear about our opposition to what the government has done to the National Health Service which goes against the interests of patients and the NHS we created in 1948.”

If Labour were in government, how would the party respond to the current EU situation?

“The Labour Party believes that Europe needs to be reformed for British interests and for the wider people of Europe. The first area where we need reform is in terms of the economy. At the moment Europe is pursuing a collective austerity approach which is sinking some economies in Europe further into recession and pushed up unemployment, particularly amongst young people to more than 50% in some countries. We think that should be the priority of politicians, including David Cameron, right now rather than on a referendum in 5 years’ time on some unspecified treaty or constitutional change.”

One of the most pressing issues that students face is to do with housing and landlords taking advantage of them. What would the Labour Party do to combat these things which don’t fall into the sphere of fees and so on?

“Ed Miliband made a powerful speech at the Fabian Society Conference where he talked about some of the problems we face with “rip-off Britain” and one of the areas he identified was in the private rented sector, and this has grown substantially in the last few years, not least because people can’t afford home ownership. People in the private sector need much greater protection than they get currently from rip-off landlords and rip-off letting agencies as well, and Ed has said that he’d like to see a register of landlords with local authorities having power to strike them off those registers, but also much greater transparency on fees and charges that letting agents are allowed to put on tenants. Those things will be a big help for students but also for new graduates, many of whom are going to find that home ownership is a long way in the future, and also many families who are living in the private sector now as well. The average age of buying a house now without parental support is now something like 38, so given that trend and that sort of reality I think this is a very important area. It’s really good that Ed Miliband said this in his speech last week.”

Mali Intervention and the Gaullist Legacy

And so the New Year is inaugurated with of the next phase in the 'era of intervention'. On January 14th, French president Francois Hollande iniated 'Operation Serval'- sending fighter jets to prevent Al-Qaida linked rebels who control the north of the country from siezing the capital, Bamako. News of France's intervention have inevitably brought up questions familiar to us; How long will French troops be stationed in Mali? Will Hollande's efforts rid the south of Islamist advance succeed? Most salient of all, will this be France's Afghanistan?

It was always likely that Mr.Hollande's decision to intervene would be met with accusations of 'neo-imperialism'. And while the legacies of Iraq, Afghanistan and even Libya are still pertinent, we should acknowledge that 'Operation Serval' actually occupies a far more complicated position than recuctionist paradigms we have become accustomed to in the discourse of 'intervention-politics'. Indeed, Hollande's operation cannot simply be reduced to one of humanitarian sympathies, or the overt intention of imposing liberal democracy. In contrast to his then presidential opponent Nicolas Sarkozy, Hollande had neither professed a faith in military intervention or the desire to extend French influence overseas.

Nor did Mali pose a territory of immediate strategic importance in Africa. While there does exist a supply of natural resources- particularly in gold, it does not hold such an abundant supply of fuel resources that military protection would be necessary for the survival of Western economies. Further, social, economic and environmental crises have long fragmented Mali, even beyond the Islamist-held North, where various cultures and communities function along ethnic and sectarian lines.

When acknowledging the inherent complexities within Mali, as well as the economic woes currently faced by the French, it might seem as if Mr.Hollande's decision may be the undoing of his presidency. That of course is too early to tell, but any claim of a 'second Algiers' or a repetition of Afghanistan should be considered carefully. For in reality, the resilience of Gaullist foriegn policy and the international responsibility would have rendered any president in the Elysee Palace little choice but to intervene.

For while the consolidation of 'militant islamism' within Western Africa has been cultivated since the 1990's, it is evident that the movement in Northern Mali became increasingly empowered after the fall of Gaddafi- an operation which the French led. For while Libya may have rid itself of dictatorial rule, the flow of arms and military training empowered various rebel groups linked to militant Islamist organisations- particularly the ethnic Tuarengs who defected from the Malian army and compose a significant porportion of the Malian population. This is not to say that the current crisis is due to the last Western intervention- contrary to some of the anti-war protesters in Paris. But it is true that a poor assesment of Libyan rebel groups, and an unclear post-war resolution did allow groups once in the shadows to attain significant political capital over the disarray. Although French officials may never directly say it, much of the decision to intervene is likely to lie in an assumed responsibility both to protect, and in atonement for past sins.

Intervention in Mali ultimately illustrates how the conduct of foreign policy in former colonies cannot be removed from the Gaullist principles of 'continuity and independence'. The formation of this 'special relationship' between the 'coloniser' and the 'colonised', pioneered by former president Charles de Gaulle in 1958, forms the cultural apparatus in which France maintains an historically-rooted moral duty to assist its colonies in the process of developing institutions to secure a true and lasting independence.

So it is perhaps the case that French intervention has occured not simply for humanitarian reasons, or to defeat tyrannical terrorists, but also in fulfilling a continued responsibility toward its former colonies' both in terms of securing common interests and providing a stable path of self determination .

How We All Became Alex Jones (Kind Of)

  

Over the past few days, a video showing the Infowars.com host, Alex Jones' tirade against CNN anchor Piers Morgan has become a viral sensation. Within the space of 15 minutes , Jones not only declared Morgan as a 'hatchet man of the new world order' but also might threatened war on the Obama administration if any action to forcibly sieze guns took place. 

For those of you unfamilar with Alex Jones, a simple youtube search will provide you with a range of videos and radio shows, where he is far from shy when it comes to controversy. Most of his videos criticise governments, mass media, law enforcement or any other form of percieved authority will usually implement itself within the wider context of the 'New World Order'- much of which informs Jones' logic behind the necessity of firearms for all civilians (which he considers not simply as a 'freedom', but a duty for all citizens).

Jones might seem like an entertaining character, far removed from the accepted sensibilities of 'proper' society. But in a stange way, he also represents much of how society views itself within our age of internet mass communication. Scary as it might sound, we may in fact all be like Alex Jones- paranoid, narcissistic and anti-elitist.

When looking at the Jones V Morgan video for the first time, one thing that might be particularly striking is just how much conviction Jones has in his own position. So much - that even when Morgan tries to outline his position, he is loudly accused of being a foreign agent of New World Order. This assertion makes more sense when contextualised with other content on infowars.com, where Jones seemingly characterises those he views as enemies, simply as operatives within a grand network of authoritarianism.

But Jones is not simply a conspiracy theorist for the sake of it. In fact, he is very much the embodiment of the 'Californian ideology'- an idea developed in the early ninties that combined concepts of libertarianism and technology as a way to challenge old institutions of power and the self-appointed elitists that ran them.

At the same time, he also represents the ideology's most prescient flaw- rather than breaking down old structures of power and authority, people like Jones instead embody new types of elitistm-in this case, assuming authoritative reporting, without the legal restrictions or checks more associated with the national press.

Indeed, one only needs to look at the format of his online show to see this in action; rather than hosting debates or inviting guests with contrary views in order to conduct fair and balanced reporting, Jones instead spends his half hour broadcasts reporting on his own opinions- portraying himself as an anti-elitist hero, within an artificial world he can assume complete control of. And in many ways, Jones is not alone in doing so. Popular bloggers such as Pamela Geller and Michael Savage also poise themselves as anti-elitist heroes, operating within virtual spaces in which they can characterise their opinions as facts.

Instead of disregarding Alex Jones simply as a 'gun-loving nutjob', we should also consider what he represents within the wider context of new media. While it is easier than ever to occupy our own virtual spaces- whether through social media pages, blogs or Youtube channels, it is even easier to let our lives become dictated by them. Through his website, Alex Jones not only became unwilling to accept criticism, but also unable to respond toward it in a dignified manner- instead resorting to petty accusations and loud shouting. And while Jones' tirade might only represent its most extreme effects, we should also acknowledge that even the most casual users of social media cannot always remove themselves from the temptations of internet narcissism.

Tory Distortion : Wages and Welfare

Nearing closer to 2015,  a flailing coalition and Nigel Farage clinging to your like an annoying child at the supermarket has undoubtedly spooked the Tories as of late. It seems that the compassionate, supposedly non-ideological coalition of 2010 has faded, and the games of dirty politics have truly been inaugurated in 2013.

It seems that the geniuses at Conservative HQ have decided to resurrect one of their most disgusting campaign slogans yet- crudely labelled 'strivers versus shirkers', although 'scroungers' or even 'vermin' might suffice as an alternative phrase for the latter.  In effect, this incredibly vitriolic (and ironically, rather Victorian) image is an attempt to win the hard-line right wing that have defected to UKIP (estimated to be around 18% + of the Tories) and to try for the highly unlikely, second attempt to secure a majority in 2015.  And while most people take the necessities of dirty politics with a pinch of salt, the Tories have indeed, slipped to a new low. Through a perverted manipulation of statistics, an attempt to marginalise and vilify those on welfare is being implemented in a way the editors of the Daily Mail could only dream of.



The Claim

Ian Duncan Smith (IDS) has claimed that welfare benefits have risen disproportionately higher than private sector wages over the past ten years. This, he says, is unfair to the 'strivers' who work while welfare claimants presumably sleep, watch TV and eat cereal in their underwear. IDS hopes that welfare reform- which in this case involves curtailing some benefits, while capping others at a 1% increase p.a (below inflation), will force claimants to, as one remembers just a few years ago, 'get on their bike'.

Realities
I thought that I would try out some statistical fact checking in order to see how legitimate these claims were.

This graph from NOMIS shows an average increase in wages between 2002-2012 to have increased by just under 30% (29.87). Note that there are some methodological discrepancies which I havent accounted for, mainly due to time.

Comparing this with welfare is difficult, as there are multiple measurements in which this can be conducted. Ed Balls, Labour Shdow -Chancellor, compared the statement to JSA figures. This Fact Checker correctly notes the increase in JSA allowance for those over 25 without dependents to have increased by around 31%,  far from the stark contrast one would expect from IDS' statement.  So while IDS might be right in theory, the margin between welfare and pay rises is far too narrow to justify a significant attack within the strivers vs scroungers paradigm.

So then we come onto this wonderful gem, that IDS stated to the Daily Mail (you really couldn't make this up) that : 

average benefits rose by 20% over the last five years but the average weekly wage for private sector workers rose by less than 12% (link here). 

The chart documenting changes in weekly earnings here show that between 2002-2007, average weekly earnings across the labour force rose by around 16%, while 2007-12 saw a much lesser increase, at around 10%. At the same time, a key benefit we are looking at, the JSA, increases from £59.15 in 2007 to £71.00 in 2012, which does collate to an estimated 20% increase.

Yet, this point alone is disingenuous. Unless IDS has been living under a rock for the past 5 years, which unfortunately doesn't seem to have been the case, he would have noted that this fairly significant financial crisis kind of happened between 2007-2009/10 which had a fairly significant effect on wages. Thus, prior to the recession, wages were roughly on par with the increase in JSA benefit, while the downturn saw a shift in the balance, whereby wages were considerably less. Take this into account, and the whole 'strivers vs scroungers' doesn't really seem as clear as IDS would have you believe.

Why Wiletts' Proposals Won't Benefit Marginalised Communities

The universities minister, David Willetts, recently argued that higher education institutions marginalised 'white working class' males in their selection process, suggesting that admissions offices should approach such people using the same initiatives offered to disadvantaged ethnic minority students.

Amiable as his intentions might have been, Mr. Willetts has displayed a remarkable degree of naivety, both in his assessment of class in contemporary Britain, and the societal function of universities. His comments are also surprising, considering the minister's previous commitment to allowing universities greater autonomy over their operations, away from the temptations of top-down government interference.

Much of Willett's statement, and subsequent article in the Independent, responded toward recently released figures noting a 6.3% decline in UCAS applications since last year. Statistically, such a decline is concentrated from students from more disadvantaged backgrounds, who are less inclined to consider the higher education option. Indeed, much of this has to do with the accumulation of debt- which regardless of structural changes, places a debt burden of over £25,000 on students taking on a three year course. For students from poorer backgrounds, this in itself acts as a primary deterrent.

However, the underrepresentation of white working class students isn't simply a monetary issue. In 2008, the National Audit Office published a report which showed that a £392 million investment drive between 2001 and 2008 to encourage such students to attend university had failed to produce its desired results, seeing only a 2% increase in applications from such students.

What Mr. Willetts seems to be missing, is that the relationship between white working class communities and universities, still finds itself poised within rigid systems of class.

The academic sociologist, Louise Archer, noted in 2005 that perceptions of education and employment are imbedded within the histories of class groups, and are therefore valued through a cultural measure. In this case, while it is common for students from affluent or middle-class backgrounds to regard universities as a means to acquire skills necessary for long term, white-collar employment, it might be the case that students from poorer backgrounds, with familial histories of industrial labour, not to view higher education as such a necessary requirement.

Certainly, this is reflective of the university's role within class consciousness; for middle class students, university remains the natural rite of passage, to which their social position is later asserted through professional employment. Yet, the understanding of identity for white working class students may be much more difficult to assert, where social and familial histories continue to be founded on traditional communities of industrial labour rather than the middle class professions. Certainly, it is true that many white working class students find themselves distanced from university, not because of its academic connotations, but rather that universities have traditionally been placed within a systems of class outside of their own.

As David Willetts' university reforms further increase the costs of higher education, and in so doing continues to reduce universities into institutes of middle-class professionalism, attempts to recruit students from traditional white working class communities are likely only to find themselves in vain. Though Mr. Willetts is right that students from white working class communities have a plethora of untapped potential, the idea that universities should take advantage of this is heavily misappropriated, and ultimately ignores the cultural role of universities within different communities. Unless universities are reformed in a way that allows for different economic communities to be adequately accommodated, efforts to broaden university education across socio-economic boundaries will continue to remain an expensive failure.