The EU wins the Nobel what prize?

On Friday, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded their highly coveted Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. According to the Committee, the "union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe."

Well, yes, the EU has done a lot of good. The free movement of people, for instance, has given Europeans the possibility of voting with their feet. Despite what the Daily Mail would have us believe, this right to move will force governments to raise their game. And red tape emanating from Brussels risks stifling growth, but the common market gives European businesses the opportunity to branch out into new markets – a nice by-product of which is enhanced consumer choice.

But the Noble Peace Prize? Seriously? Have the Nobel Committee been living on the bottom of a fjord for the last five years?

Referring to the close ties that exist today between France and Germany, those all too often warring neighbours, the Committee reasoned that "through well aimed efforts and building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners". That is all well and good, but the EU's current policies seem designed to foster distrust and drive regions apart.

Rather than strengthening national ties, as the Nobel committee would have it, the EU's answer to the sovereign debt crisis has resulted in a gradual but sustained erosion of trust between North and South, ditto rich and poor.

De facto EU policies such as favoring of austerity over haircuts for investors, and pushing elected leaders into early retirement, have led to a steep and unfortunate rise in support for nationalist and extremist parties and attacks on foreigners. Crude, prejudicial caricatures of national stereotypes have made a return to many a broadsheet. We have even become accustomed to seeing flags and effigies of our leaders being burned on European streets. 

The foremost reason behind this rise in distrust and animosities is the fiscal imbalance caused by the EMU. It has plunged some of the Eurozone countries, Greece and Spain in particular, into unemployment, civil unrest and violence, while enabling the so-called core countries (Germany, France, the Netherlands, Finland) to live in relative luxury. Their citizens, on the other hand, are becoming disaffected by a growing perception that their taxes are paying for the economic mismanagement of their Southern neighbours. 

The result of this terminal tango has been poverty, distress and paranoia in the South; wealth, resentment and xenophobia in the North. Devising and enforcing such a divisive economic system, that by its very nature creates winners and losers and then sets out to reinforce the disparities, doesn't, to me at least, sound like Nobel Peace Prize territory.

We could also point out to the Committee that less than 20 years ago, on European soil, this harbinger of peace failed to both prevent and bring to an end the vicious and bloody wars in the Balkans. While Brussels was busy setting up the EMU, Europeans were witness to humanitarian atrocities (cf Sarajevo) and very real attempts at genocide (cf Srebrenica). It was left to the US and NATO to bring to an end this tragic chapter in European bloodletting.


But, putting aside all of the above, the prize still doesn't make sense. If the Panel wanted to award a human endeavour that produces stability and fosters peace, the rightful winner would have been liberal democracy. The panel have confused cause with result. There is not a single case of a liberal democracy fighting a war against another liberal democracy: the EU did not create the 60 years of stability on our continent, it was born of that peace. 

Even with such noble roots, these days, the EU disregards cooked books when it served its purpose (cf Greek entry), turns a blind eye to huge overspending by member states (cf rules on deficits), interferes in the democratic process of sovereign nations, refuses to disclose its own accounts for public scrutiny, and brakes its own rules without batting an eyelid (cf bailing out countries).

It has, of course, been a difficult few years, but it is exactly at such times – when the going gets tough – that an institution's true nature will show. On the same day as the Prize was awarded, a more deserving recipient of the Peace Prize, the Dalai Lama, tweeted that:

"Peace isn't the mere absence of violence; real peace must come from inner peace. And inner piece comes from taking other's interests into account".

In this respect, the EU has failed miserably.

An example of a more worthy winner would have been Malala Yousafzai, the 14 year old girl in Afghanistan who is fighting for her life after being shot in the head on her way to school by the Taliban. Her crime, according to the sick and twisted perpetrators, was to promote equality between the sexes. Already at such a young age, she has paid an incredible price for promoting peace and equality, and for having  the courage to stand by her convictions.


The only rational explanation that I can think of, for awarding the Peace Prize to the EU and not Malala, for example, would be that the oil rich and impeccably mannered Norwegians wanted to help their financially embattled neighbour with a donation of €750,000. The prize, in any case, will no doubt be swallowed up swiftly by the beaurocrats, MEPs and special advisors in Brussels. The inhabitants of the European Union, meanwhile, suffering from an economic catastrophe created by their leaders but facilitated by the EU, will more than likely become increasingly marginalised and disenfranchised.

The Nobel Committee has, it must be said, previous form in picking unlikely winners. It was a surprise to most when Obama received the Peace Prize for little more than a a handful of speeches – after which, we should remind ourselves, he increased drone strikes, drew up an official 'kill list', and ordered extrajudicial assassinations on foreign lands. This peace maker even basked in the publicity. Go figure. But at least the hypocricy wasn't quite as rank as Gaddaffi's Libya chairing the Human Rights Commission. 

Perhaps Mao had a point, that political power rests in the barrel of a gun. I'd hope not, but one thing is depressingly clear: when it comes to the decision making organs of our global institutions, the Nobel Committee included, politicking, backhanders and favoritism tend to trump facts, justice and historical accuracy.

The EU winning the Nobel Peace Price? Please. Alfred must be turning in his grave.

Ode alla Toscana

Buongiorno, bella Toscana. Colazione e poi andiamo in spiaggia. Dopo si ritorna a casa per mangiare cibo molto buono con un poco di vino locale. Dopo, sonnellino e poi andiamo ancora in spiaggia. Di sera, andiamo in una bella e vecchia città nelle montagne per mangiare troppa pasta, cinghiale e vino buonissimi. E poi, buona notte. Ripetere domani... La dolce vita, mi piace.

Prossima fermata, Sardegna, ma è difficile lasciare la Toscana.

Rill Rill Atlantis

The last flight of space shuttle Atlantis. Edited by yours truly from the Discovery Science documentary, "The Last Shuttle". Music, "Rill Rill", by Sleigh Bells. (Better in Full Screen.)

Finland's world class education system: a solid foundation for a more balanced society

In a recent article, Polly Toynbee wrote that she wants Britain to "aim for the social and economic balance that thrives in the Nordic nations." Well, Ms Toynbee (and Britain's politicians) would do well to learn from the Finnish education system, because it has managed to promote such an equilibrium by balancing equality with meritocracy. As a result, social mobility and equality of opportunity are a reality in Finland.


Over the last couple of decades, this small nation of 5.1 million people living in the 8th largest country in Europe has created arguably the best education system in the world. While the land is one of extremes, where temperatures range from -50C in the winter to +37C in the summer, there is a remarkable level of uniformity when it comes to primary and secondary level education. However, although Finnish education pops up quite regularly in the news over here, I have yet to see a detailed description of how the system works. So here goes.


The world-beating success of Finnish education can be boiled down to four basic yet powerful features. The first is a strong emphasis on producing high calibre teachers. Second, there are no centrally mandated targets or league tables. Third, fee paying private schools do not exist. And, finally, the system engenders a strong sense of responsibility in one's own actions.


More teacher training, less league tables


As a profession, teachers in Finland are held in high esteem. Although the pay isn't as good as that of, say, lawyers or doctors, the entry requirements are nearly as demanding. Secondary school teachers must have at least a Masters degree in the subject they wish to teach; while places for primary school teacher training are highly oversubscribed and very difficult to obtain.


After qualifying as a teacher, however, the professional is left to do their job and, provided there are no complaints, the state stays out of the classroom. There are virtually no centrally-imposed targets, rankings or league tables to distract teachers from their work at hand. In other words, get the professional right, and a good product will follow.


This lack of testing in favour of professional autonomy is especially interesting given the recent revelations here in the UK of examiners setting standards as low as possible; teachers feeling compelled to help their students achieve high grades, whatever the cost; and the rampant grade inflation that the UK has seen over the last decade. It would seem that the target-based culture has incentivised the different cogs of the UK's education system to focus on ticking boxes rather than on the process of teaching itself. To adapt Charles Moore's brilliant observation about mental processes: education in Britain has become industrial, whereas it should be horticultural.


By contrast, the frosty northern garden that calls itself Suomi has seen no grade inflation in its upper secondary school matriculation exams (equivalent of UK A-levels). Year after year, the only ones to receive an A in each subject are those whose results are in the top 5% nationally. And the next 10% receive a B, and so on. The grade A+ doesn't even exist - and rightly so because as a concept it's as ridiculous as the Americanism "I'm with you 110 percent."


Furthermore, rather than a constant barrage of assessments and rankings, the focus in Finnish classrooms is on teaching kids how to learn - and exam results only gain emphasis when pupils hit their teens. Even so, Finland has consistently led the international rankings compiled by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Meanwhile, despite comparatively high spending per pupil, the UK has unfortunately been sliding down the list and in the latest study of 65 countries managed only 25th place.

Finnish children also start school later, do less homework and spend fewer hours in the classroom than their peers in South Korea, Finland's closest - if not only - competitor in educational success. The average school day in Finland lasts 6 hours, compared to South Korea's 9 hours (not counting the evening tuition expected of South Korean children). Likewise, Finnish children sit at their desks for 192 days a year, compared to South Korea's 220 school days, or a whopping 243 in Japan, another high flyer in the PISA rankings. (The UK school year is 190 days.) And yet Finnish students still manage  to equal and often surpass their Asian peers - and everyone else, for that matter - in educational achievement.


The high value of free education


Another important factor in creating the best education system in the world is the total absence of fee paying schools - as paradoxical as that may sound to people in the UK or the US, for example. In Finland, primary and secondary school is free at the point of delivery, whether you live in Helsinki or Inari, and whichever school you attend.


Schools in Finland (except Steiner education) are state-funded, and local authorities have a statutory duty to provide free education for each child in their area. The local authorities receive funds from the government which are earmarked for education, and the amount is directly linked to the number of school aged children in the municipality - a pupil premium, if you will, of about £5300 p.a. per student.


While the majority of schools have been created and are also run by local authorities, anyone can set up a school provided they meet three requirements: a suitable building and environment; a certain ration of teachers to children; and a curriculum that passes the local authority's vetting process. If a school fails to enroll enough students, it will be forced to shut down due to not qualifying for enough funds to sustain the above requirements.


As for the types of schools in Finland, there is a core centrally-mandated curriculum called Opetussuunnitelma (OPS), which aspirant headmasters must prove that their school will provide. After satisfying its demands to teach the basics (Finnish, maths, science, languages, history, physical education, etc.), each school can then bolt on any manner of specialities with which to attract students and, by extension, government funding. For example, some schools offer additional music, and others focus on sports, or drama, or even horse riding. Some schools might offer the typical local authority school curriculum to 95% of its students, and then offer a specialist class as well.

Each school can also get additional funding from the government with which to purchase and maintain the required equipment for such specialist leanings. This is also the case should a school provide extra services in poorer areas, or if they have a higher than average number of  students with special needs. But, again, the school must garner enough interest from parents and students to make the calculations work.


Because some areas will not be able to provide a specialist school - rural municipalities might simply not have enough pupils to make it sustainable - parents can send their children to any school in the country should they want to nurture a talent they've perceived in their little Pele or Pavarotti, provided that the child passes the required entry tests.


In this way, the Finnish education promotes equality of opportunity as far as the state can deliver, and, crucially, it's not disfigured into that corrosive form of levelling down known as equality of outcome. One school may have a better French teacher, while another may have a superior history teacher, but, overall, children receive the same amount of attention and investment from the government, after which they are allowed to grow and shine to the extent that they work and, therefore, deserve.


Competition, choice and responsibility

When it comes to upper secondary level education, there are some disparities in achievement between particular schools, but this is mainly due to a healthy dose of competition and meritocracy.


Each year, those leaving lower secondary school (16 year olds) can apply to any upper secondary school, whether a vocational polytechnic or an academic high school, anywhere in the country. (I will focus on academic high schools here, as that is where I went.) The schools, in turn, are allowed to cherry-pick the highest achieving applicants first, based on their final year grades from lower secondary school. After a school has filled up all its places with the cream of those who applied, the unsuccessful applicants are then assigned to their second, then third, and so on, choice of school - meaning some nail-biting summer months for the wannabe high schoolers. Every pupil is guaranteed a place, but getting into your dream school is down to whether you worked hard enough and performed well enough to earn it.


Upper secondary level schools in towns tend to receive more applicants than those in the countryside, which naturally drives up the entry requirements at urban institutions. This, however, is compensated by the government's student grants, whereby students can avail of a free monthly allowance and subsidized housing should they wish to study at a school away from home. And this grant is enough to live on, if not in total comfort, then certainly at the level of bohemian luxury associated with 21st century student-life.


Thus, even though there are regional and local differences in the standards of education, there is no reinforcing dynamic where a few schools do ever better while others sink ever lower. Instead, people can choose with their feet and study at any upper secondary level school in the country, provided they have worked hard enough in the classroom to earn their place.

The new Cygnaeus Lukio

Indeed, when I walked the halls of my good old alma mater, Cygnaeus Lukio, the school was the third most popular in my home town. (I chose it so that I could continue being in a music orientated class). Since then, however, it has become the most sought after upper secondary school in the town, and therefore the most difficult to get into. I'd like to think this development is due to the youth of today wanting to emulate my educational choices, but unfortunately for my ego a more plausible explanation would be that my former school managed to attract more students with its speciality offerings in music and science. Also, the fact that it was assigned by the town to move to a stunning new building probably did no harm to its reputation (the premises I was taught in were demolished to make way for a car park).


The high level of achievement attained by students in Finland's upper secondary schools is also, I think, partly due to how the curriculum places a lot of responsibility on pupils to organise and manage their own education. In a nutshell, one must complete 75 six-week courses in no less than 2, and no more than 5 years. Forty-five of these are compulsory (e.g. maths, sciences, Finnish, English, Swedish, PE and history), and the rest are electives (home economics, wood work, art, philosophy, psychology, French and German, or extra maths, or additional sciences, for example). Each course is offered a few times a year, and completing one necessitates passing an exam at the end of the six weeks. Students must plot out their own timetables, determined by what they want to study and when, and if you fail an exam, you have one chance to take it again, or risk having to repeat the whole course (which is the equivalent of throwing an almighty spanner into your carefully laid out timetable). The required amount of courses must be passed before pupils are allowed to attempt the final matriculation exams.

The coveted hat of  a high school graduate

This managing of one's own affairs, naturally, provides valuable training for life in the real world. In my own case, I took it a bit too easy for the first two years by giving myself only 30 or so classes per week. This strategy then backfired, however, in the form of a nightmare final year of 40 hours of classes per week in addition to studying for my finals. My mother always did say, "that which you leave behind, you'll find in front of you" - and upper secondary school sure did drive the lesson home.


So, there you have it, a 1.01 on the Finnish education system, where it matters not a jot whether children eat their morning porridge with a silver spoon or a wooden one because when they get to their state-funded classrooms, the children will all sit side-by-side. They might not treat each other equally - kids seldom do - but at least the state does.


Granted, this type of education system, and the state's investment into each citizen, does not come for free. Finland does have high taxes, but there is currently only a small difference between income tax in the UK and Finland. And while a VAT rate of 23% does make things significantly more expensive than they are in the UK, it is seen by most as an acceptable cost for promoting a society based on fairness.


Also, it has often been said that providing a consistently high standard of education is easier in Finland, with its highly homogeneous society, than it is in a multicultural place like Britain. However, recent studies seem to contradict this analysis as Finnish schools with higher than average immigrant students are also producing superb results.


With this kind of education system, it's therefore unsurprising that the social and economic balance that Ms Toynbee is after is alive and well in up north in Finland. And, even if its still no Utopia, and not everybody manages to bag their dream career, it's still a pretty good state of affairs when one's postcode and family wealth are less important in determining later success in life than one's work ethic, initiative and individual choices.

Burying talents in a muddy Finsbury Square

The camp

Last Friday, on my way to Moorgate after work, I decided to walk through the Occupy camp on Finsbury Square. I wanted to see how they were coping with the dreadful weather we've had this spring - and what I found was anything but a pleasant surprise.

The place was a mess. Some six months after being pitched, the tents looked battered. Everything seemed soggy. There were few signs of life and the din of the city was the only sound to be heard. I saw a mountain of rubbish in one corner of the square, rising from a pond made of its own garbage juice. The ground, previously healthy grass, had been reduced to liquid mud and brown puddles. At times I was unsure of what I was walking on (or worse, in).

There were a few slapdash attempts to create walkable paths. A piece of cardboard here, a plank of wood there, but these were so dispersed and slippery that even Crash Bandicoot would've found it difficult to skip through the camp unscathed. The Square, the mud, the atmosphere; it all made me think of a festival where the final act had long since finished, but the revellers still refuse to face reality, pack up, and go home.

When I finally made it through the sprawl of tents, I found the main information hub. Interestingly, compared to the fall out city that lurked behind it, this place was clean and orderly like town library. I found myself wondering: how could the people who set up this info hub, who obviously had some pride in appearances and organisational skills to boot; how could they put up with all this filth around them? How can they live with front and back yards that resemble pigsties? And why are there still, 6 months into this experiment, no concrete signs of progress or development on the site?

The inhabitants

And, then, it began to dawn on me. I had been thinking of writing a post about how governments like to live beyond their means. To a large extent, I realised, this movement and their actions reflect a very similar mindset of wanting the cake, but not being prepared to earn it. The ideological inhabitants of Finsbury Square argue for power and wealth to be distributed more evenly, but judging by the place they call home, they must either be unwilling or too lazy to work hard in order to increase their share.

Guardian photo gallery (from a sunnier day)

Polis, said Plato, is man writ large. Well, if so, this polity looked like the kind of ruffian you would find living in a cardboard box under a bridge in a run-down part of town.


Granted, they had shown some initiative by turning a bicycle into a power generator. But in terms of creating a sustainable and long term power supply, it would probably turn out somewhat impractical - unless, that is, they fancy cities powered by people in hamster wheels? 

Still, hardly a blueprint for improving the structures of our society, this camp. If this Occupy group can't even manage an acre or so without turning it into the toilet from Trainspotting, then why should we listen to them harping on about how to structure society? Just imagine the state of our infrastructure, sewage, electricity, NHS, telecoms, etc., if these Occupiers were put in charge.

There's nothing wrong per se with turning on, tuning in and dropping out, provided one doesn't become a burden or a bother to others. However, not only does the ship of fools at Finsbury Square spoil public places and ask for handouts, they also have the cheek to belittle everyone else by declaring "Why get a job? I have an Occupation." 

(Well, let's see. Jobs pay for 1) a roof, floor and four walls, 2) water for washing, 3) gas for heating, 4) electricity for entertaining and, most importantly, 5) food to sustain me. But you, on other the other hand, dear Occupier, choose to live in a tent surrounded by mud, refuse and discarded bits of dreadlocks.)

Similar wasters have of course always existed. However, from the Middle Ages up to the 17th century, before the French came up with asylums, rather than being allowed to plant themselves right bang in the centre of town, they were forced to wander the rivers and the wilderness. 

We need not be quite so strict these days, but - here's an idea - why don't these Occupiers petition the government and local businesses for a licence to use vacant properties? They could undertake a binding promise to leave the property in better shape than what they found it in. They could could do it up a bit, make it nicer. In short, they could add value.

The Guardian writes about a meeting that took place in the camp: 'In a bizarre act of protest, an older Occupier called Rob, shouting "fuck your process", left the meeting to fish a ukelele from a nearby tent, then sat strumming for the remainder of the meeting, to the annoyance of several around straining to hear.' This sentence, for me, reflects the camp and its relationship with London in microcosm.

The people being annoyed by the arrogant and selfish rogue playing the ukelele are us, the many, the real 99% who live or work around the Square. The bad apple, Rob, is analogous to the Occupy movement vis-à-vis London. He decided to unilaterally ruin it for everyone else, just like the Occupiers did with Finsbury Square. They have arbitrarily appropriated a public space and reduced it to their own private squalor in order to promote their singular political beliefs, whatever the cost to the larger community.

The malady

In "Protest and Communication", episode 6 of the sublime BBC series Civilization, Kenneth Clark looked at Drürer's famous work, "Melancholia I".

Albrecht Drürer, "Melancholia I"

He said of the engraving, created in 1514, that it was "one of the great prophetic documents of western man." It shows, Clark continued, "humanity at its most evolved. With wings to carry her upwards, she sits holding the compasses - symbols of measurement by which science will concur the world. Around her are all the elements of constructive action: a saw, a plane, pincers, and those two prime elements of solid geometry, the sphere and the dodecahedron. And yet all these aids to construction are abandoned, and she sits there brooding on the futility of human effort."


In the Late Middle Ages, according to Clark, melancolia had meant a simple combination of sloth, boredom and despondency. As radical as the "direct action" activists on Finsbury Square might fancy themselves, today's Occupy movement is actually captured perfectly by the engraving. They have in their lap the most powerful machine yet (the computer) and with it a key (the internet) to virtually every tool in history. But instead of utilizing these to make stuff with, or do things that could improve their communities, they sit down and bury their head on a table, their their talents wasting away in the muddy ground beneath their tents.

Despondency in Finsbury Square

That is no route to progress. It is the opposite, in fact. Where the civilized man develops himself and improves upon his surroundings with a view to making them permanent, the savage merely looks around haphazardly to satiate himself now. The Occupiers have grown up cushioned by the welfare state and the Western life of luxury. As a result, they have little sense of direction, and even less of a work-ethic - instead, they prefer to act on the basis of an incredible sense of entitlement. It is because of these reasons that the movement, while admirable in intent, will ultimately fail.

The alternative

I have no doubt that there are many people living in the camp who have honourable ideas and who really want to make the world a better place. Indeed, I agree with many of the Occupiers' gripes. However, the path to wilderness is filled with good intentions, while the road to progress is paved with hard work. Plumbing, hygiene, waste management, taking care of one's property, construction, gardening, education, health care... that's the stuff that really matters. And as is evidenced by the unholy state of their camp, the Occupiers unfortunately prefer to spend their time and energy on more glamorous and intellectually stimulating pursuits, like discussing the international legal dimensions of eradicating ecocide.

Instead of transforming public spaces into a health hazard, these people should use their time constructively and find something that they can make into an occupation, something with which they can add value. These would be revolutionaries could have put up tents, and then occupied themselves in a productive way by figuring out how to improve and help the area, its people and its environs.  If they had done this, they would have gained more friends, and they might have made a real difference for the better.

The last time I walked through Finsbury Square was on my way to a concert by Terje Isungset. If these Occupiers find it difficult to figure out what it is that they can give to humanity, they would do well to to ask him for some advice. Mr Isungset has made himself famous by playing music with instruments he crafted from birch, ice and stones, to name but a few novel materials. Now that's more like it - and Terje's incredible initiative contrasts glaringly with the the self-righteousness and laziness that are on display at Finsbury Square.

It is May Day after all, the day of the workers, so, guys, you really should get to work. And, please, leave our public parks just that: public.

Higher states of consciousness

A red rectangle with a BBC logo has appeared in the forest, and one furry fellow is investigating it with gusto. At the risk of anthropomorphising, the bear must be wondering where this curious object came from and what it is. The chances of the bears having seen before anything quite like this object are slim to none, which quite likely has something to do with how in thrall he/she is with the colourful curiosity.

We featherless bipedals do the same, and perhaps did even more in the past. The myriad of explanations, thoughts and ideas to have unfolded as a result of our investigations into the things we come across are, to a great extent, what make us human. And there's a good chance, or at least it would be a plausible explanation, that our propensity to be inquisitive was spurred by a novel event or thing that in some way stopped us in our tracks.

Like what happened to our hominid predecessors in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Whatever the shape of our metaphorical monolith, when we found it, we began to not just seek answers, but consciously create them as well. The Dawn of Man came the day we began to share the fruits of this labour. We had made the step from a private language to a public one, and we have been adding layer upon layer of complexity to our languages ever since. The work and thought of our forefathers can be seen, touched and heard today in our society, science, construction and culture; and it is incumbent upon us to continue the efforts.


Pardon the flight of fantasy, but instead of a higher state of consciousness using some unsuspecting bears to collect cutsey-points from an audience, what if our monolith had been something just as inconsequential, like a piece of scrap (or crap for that matter) from a passing space ship. A disused refrigerator, or a broken radioator, or whatever is probably being used out the somewhere in the vast expanse of space.


What if our most treasured, sacred and unifying concepts and beliefs were set in motion by the interstellar equivalent of a rusty hub cap? More to the point, would that make them any less important?

Modern government: truth deficits and overspending

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, made a fib on television last week. When questioned about his decision to pledge nearly £10 billion to the IMF bailout fund, he said  "we've dealt with the debt crisis", and that Britain is now a part of the solution, rather than part of the debt problem. What a double-dip load of hogwash. 

Government debt is at an all-time high and the country has just nosedived back into recession. In addition, Osborne's government has actually set new records when it comes to increasing the UK's debt load. The Coalition's appetite for living on credit has even surpassed the borrowing plans proposed by Labour - which Osborne mocked as reckless and unsustainable. But bad things are never quite as lousy when you do them yourself, are they, George? 

Granted, things have moved on since the election in May 2010, what with the Euro implosion and higher fuel prices, for example. But saying that we've been dealing with our debt problem, while actually piling it on at speeds previously unseen, is doing to the truth what spaghettification does to matter; namely, ruining it. Doing so on camera without even batting an eyelid is behaviour one might expect from as trustworthy a politician as, say, Ed Balls, but the Coalition promised us something better: that they would be about a new kind of transparent politics.

As much as Osborne likes to play games with the truth and obfuscate things by using "debt" and "deficit" interchangeably, this government has done virtually nothing to reign in Government spending. It has, in fact, been increasing it. Meanwhile, Labour still bang on about the untruths  of "cuts" and "too far and too fast", but their version of reality is just as fanciful as the Coalition's. I don't dispute for a second that thousands have already suffered and many lives have no doubt been ruined by the Government's policies and the resulting lack of growth. But as long as long as the debt mountain keeps rising - which it has been - to scaremonger and hark on about deep cuts is disingenuous at best.

There has, thankfully, also been some good news of late - well, kind of. Government borrowing came within its target, but that was mainly the result of QE and ZIRP. These two measures have kept Britain's finances alive, but the lifesaving intravenous drips have done so by punishing the prudent and rewarding the feckless. The pain has simply been shifted onto consumers through inflation, and the inevitable hangover has only been deferred - thus, the measures are as useful a remedy as hair of the dog.

UK debt (excluding external debt) visualised

The real problem we have, which none of our politicians dare to mention for fear of losing face and, thus, power and their day job, is simple. Governments are spending too much. That is the essence of the Sovereign Debt Crisis - debts, deficits, interest rates and markets, all that, they are just a sideshow. This basic fact seldom mentioned in the mainstream media is one that will sooner or later come home to roost, and no amount of QE will be able to prevent it. 

When it does, the only way for us to avert an almighty fall in our living standards - when our debt mountain turns into an overwhelming landslide, as is happening in Greece - is for everybody to get off their assess pronto and begin working as hard as our Asian peers do. 

However, for decades now, our politicians have been offering us services and investment in return for re-election without concerning themselves with how to pay for it, and this has helped to spawn a something-for-nothing culture based on a sense of entitlement. As a result, we in the West have become lazy compared to our peers in developing countries who have no choice but to work for their daily bread. The chances of everyone just snapping out of this soma-induced stupor are depressingly low. Another option would of course be to just give up the hard earned luxuries of the welfare state - but that would hardly be a good turn of events either.

The hole we find ourselves in and the penchant that Western governments have for living beyond their means are highlighted well by this short and clear video about revenue, debts, spending and deficits. It discusses US debt in particular, but the UK finds itself in a similar, if not worse, situation. Enjoy.

Clapham Quotes

I suppose that would explain why we all recognize that same song...

Community ties

Wealth comes in many forms. Watching the people in this video ("The Cause of Labour is the Hope of the World", from the film The Miners' Hymns), it is difficult to escape the conclusion that, over the last few decades, spiritual wealth seems to have declined in almost direct proportion to the increase of material well-being.  A good example of this, I think, has been the proliferation of technological gadgetry, and the effect this has had on our communities.


Prior to the arrival of television, the little leisure time that townsfolk had was more than often spent together, at home, in pubs, on the streets, in parks, and so on. This social life - not to be confused with today's life as mediated by Social Media - along with community events like those of the miners had the effect of cementing the structures of society by binding people together through face-to-face interaction, which often resulted in relationships, a sense of interdependence and friendships.


TV, however, brought the whole planet and everybody else straight into our living rooms, thus bypassing the need to go out in order to meet people and hear the news, and instead allowing people to connect with the outside world from the comfort of their own sofa. In this way, the social unit became ever smaller, and by the 80's community experiences were being reduced from grand gatherings and street parties to family dinners or water cooler discussions about last night's soap opera.


At least scheduled programming and the need to prepare food kept people in the same psychological time zones, but even these unifying structures have begun to crumble over the last decade. Laptops, smart phones and on-demand entertainment in the palm of your hand, along with ready meals and fast food, are now doing to the family unit - the most basic building block of society - what TV did to the street community. Eating together, playing  together or even just huddling in front of the television in common anticipation of the latest episode of The Simpsons are fast becoming increasingly rare. Instead, today's individuals come, eat, play and go as and when suits their own timetables.


While technological innovations are surely not the only culprit, our social spheres have indeed become increasingly solitary over the last 50 or so years - and this has naturally lead to the fragmentation of society. Just compare and contrast our early 21st century town-life to the the people in this video. Dressed in their Sunday best, they look strong and cohesive; full of vigour, a sense of community and self-respect - not to be confused with its bastardised cousin: street "respec". Their purpose and drive are palpable, while the pride they take in their work is evident, and they also exhibit an awareness of something greater than themselves. 


These are all important components of being civilized - and they are all in danger of being lost amidst the blooming buzzing confusion of today's increasingly atomized world. So, if anyone knows of similar displays happening these days, do let me know - because it's moving stuff, people at their best. Enjoy (The video needs sound; hat tip, Eamonn).

A new president at the top of the world

The winner, Sauli Niinistö

Finland has chosen it's 12th President, the Kokoomus (National Coalition Party - broadly conservative and pro-business) candidate Sauli Niinistö. He won the first round of the election, and went on to gather 62,9% of the votes in the second round. Congratulations are in order. Sauli will become President Niinistö at the beginning of March. A lawyer by training - an entrepeneur as well, having run his own law firm in his home town, Salo - Mr Niinistö has previously held the positions of Minister of Justice, Minister of Finance, Deputy Prime Minister of Finland, Speaker of Parliament and, least importantly, but quite interestingly, Mr Niinistö is also the President of the Football Association of Finland. He has on several occasions retired from politics and high office after having previously run for President, but all good things come to those who try, revise, and  try again, it would seem.

The runner up, Pekka Haaavisto

The contrast between the winner and the runner-up candidate, Pekka Haavisto (Green Ulkopolitiikka called him the 5th most influential Finn on the international scene, and he has been highly popular with urbanites, environmentalists, artists and intellectuals, among others.
League), could hardly have been starker - unless Sauli was called Timo Soini (of the lamentably close minded True Finns). Mr Haavisto received 37,4% of the votes, which, although dissappointing to his followers and activists, is a remarkable amount considering the following: he is a Green, he is openly gay, he chose the civilian service over the military (Finnish men must complete one of these or the third option, prison, for their national service), and although he studied Social Sciences in university, he did not complete the degree. His strenghts, however, lay in international affairs in particular: he has worked for the United Nations, UN Environment Program, and the European Union in various capacities, which resulted in spells in Afganistan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Darfur, Iraq, Kosovo, Liberia, Palestine, Sudan, to name but a few not alltogether friendly places. Haavisto is also a Member of Parliament and he previously served as the Minister for the Environment between 1995-99. The foreign affairs magazine

The role of the President of Finland is mostly ceremonial, and they have little power over national or foreign policy. Their main function is to act as the premier representative for Finland on the world stage and in non-European matters in particular. The President is the figurehead of the country and a sort of brand ambassador for all things Pohjola.

Personally, I voted for the losing candidate. At first, I felt that it might not be in the country's interest to have a gay President with an Ecuadorian civil partner, not because I have anything against either - because I honestly do not - but because it might complicate matters and impinge on the national interest should the President need to, for example, drum up trade with less civilized and less modern countries, where the private life of the President might be given more weight than their skills and professionalism. This is only an indictment at certain parts of the world, where prejudices are still far more prevalent than in the West, but in the real world, this could result in less opportunities for Finland PLC. Sad but true - and, after all, we were not voting for equality or justice or morals, but for the person most suited to further the Finnish national interest.

However, although Niinistö ticked all the trade boxes, his downfall for me was having such views as libraries should begin charging for their services, and for being a tad out of touch with the fortunes of the less fortunate in society, along with the discernible arrogance which I felt he displayed in his television debate with Paavo Väyrynen. Still, I walked to the Embassy thinking Niinistö would get my vote, for the abovementioned realpolitik reason,  but when I was standing in the booth, looking at the two numbers, I couldn't help but feel: will I vote for the status quo where leaders must conform to the norm, or should I give my vote to the person who to me seems superior and thereby try to push the envelope of meritocracy, whatever consequences that may have for Finland's economy? I chose the latter - although I must confess that I thought Niinistö would nonetheless win.

In any case, the turnout was depressingly low, 68,9% - makes one think, why should people be allowed to avail of the benefits of a welfare state but not have to take part in its maintenance? - but the demos hath spoken. Congratulations to Niinistö - now just do the right thing and keep the libraries open because there is little more important for the health of a nation than making sure that people can keep themselves well read and informed. And, Mr Haavisto, you did a great job and even though now was not your time, you certainly made Finland step up and show the world what a progressive, egalitarian and open minded country it can be. This election, the way it was managed, the innovative part played by the media, and the positive result for such an unlikely candidate, showed us leading the world by example in all things meritocracy and equality. As Haavisto tweeted after the result, "these elections might be a wave toward something better, which has begun now." If not today, you have brought tomorrow a lot closer, Pekka - for that we thank you, and we can all be proud.

Clapham Quotes

Especially on Sundays...

Ed Miliband's New (make belief) Reality

The lackluster leader of Labour, Ed Miliband, delivered a speech yesterday to the people's organisation London Citizens. It was billed as his nth relaunch, and he focused mainly on how his party would work to create a "New Reality" for Britain. This UK would be based on fairness and it would be one where vested interests are tackled head on so that the proceeds of growth are not just accumulated by those at the top, but also by low earners and the so-called squeezed middle. 

In what has unfortunately become his trade mark style of bland delivery with little substantive content, Mr Miliband also argued that the Coalition had failed by its own measure of getting rid of the deficit over this parliament, and that it was doing too little to stimulate growth while also cutting too much government spending. He accused the government of "shrugging its shoulders" while the UK's economic predicament deteriorated further, which, he argued, was the direct the result of their failed policies.

Hero or zero?

Ed painted a picture where David Cameron and the government were of the opinion that "fairness is a luxury you can't afford in tough times", while Labour would instead be "fighting for fairness", "fighting for justice", and "taking on vested interests." This was Labour as Superhero, dressed in tight red spandex, fighting for you, me and everyone - that is, as long as we fit into his particular concept of fairness.

Granted, there are few successes that the Coalition can boast about, the notable exceptions being Michael Gove's work in delivering choice and freedom to the education system, and George Osborne's sweet talking of the credit rating agencies into letting the UK keep it's AAA status - as a result of which his government is able to borrow with historically low interest rates. The latter in particular is a nothing less than a coup, considering that, in reality, he's spending and borrowing more than the Labour government did before him (although had Labour's Alistair Darling, or, heavens forbid, Ed Balls become Chancellor, the profligacy would most likely have been far worse).

But the Tories in particular, for all their failings - of which there are many - have actually come to love Ed as a result of his inability to convert the unpopularity of the Coalition's cuts into more Labour voters. Some Tories have even said that he's the "gift that keeps on giving", and that the most important thing for the Tories next election campaign is that Ed remains the Labour leader. Labour's woes under his leadership have also not been helped by the seemingly unending barrage of embarrassments from within the party, with a few own goals thrown in for good measure.

How will Ed save the UK?

Policy-wise there was little meat on Labour's policy bones. Ed said that he wanted to begin by "patching up the unfairness of the old economy" by taxing bankers' bonuses and using the proceeds to help those out of work. Noble idea, but it doesn't take into account how banks have already begun switching their remuneration policies from big bonuses to salary increases and other benefits in order to sidestep such money raising measures from HMRC.

His government would also undertake a review of "corporate short termism." As an example of this modern malaise he gave us the Quarterly Review, but he then failed to elucidate what the problem was - should they be annual, then? Or should companies only make Five Year Plans? - nor did he provide any clues as to how this "problem" would be solved.

He then advocated a policy whereby seekers of council housing would be bumped up the list if they were actively engaged in helping their communities. This is fair enough, but what exactly constituted "helping the community" was left to the imagination.

There were, however, some good ideas as well: Labour would set new rules to promote long term and fair wealth creation by looking at plans for a British investment bank to help small business grow - better that than ever more QE. They would also legislate so that government procurement contracts would only go to companies that provide apprenticeships, thus safeguarding jobs for the next generation. And a Labour government would make sure that energy companies give all pensioners over 75 the cheapest tariff - and if you don't, he said, we'll legislate to make sure it happens.

Ed went to great lengths to emphasise that if his party were in government, he would make choices that favour the hard working majority, over those - by implication skiving wasters - who earn enough to pay the 50p tax rate, which, he said, should stay in place.

But a good example his distinctive brand of what we could paradoxically call "Targeted Fairness" was that everyone in the country must pay for improvements on train lines in remote areas, rather than those who actually use the service and will therefore benefit from the upgrade. So Ed's is a fairness that espouses the rights of a "1%" over the "99%", in that the few would profit on the backs of the many.

So, that's how he'll create fairness. Where the money will come from is a mystery as he didn't say, other than the aforementioned bonus tax.

It wasn't us, guv, honest

But what made for truly interesting listening came from Ed The Historical Revisionist. According to him, the crisis that got the UK into its current state of high unemployment and near zero growth came from abroad, like an overwhelming global storm which even the UK was unable withstand. In stark contrast, however, he placed all the responsibility for the UK's continued economic hardship squarely on the shoulders of the Coalition government. A textbook case of what cognitive psychologists would call Actor Observer Bias - and the rest of us would call bull###t.

But Ed still managed to keep a straight face when he promised that Labour would not shirk away from "using the power of the government", and that Labour wouldn't cut the deficit as fast the Coalition, but would do so in a more balanced way - which translates roughly into "I would just borrow more than they are borrowing."

Hardly surprising, that. After all, he was part of the government that presided over a decade long splurge in public spending - one of the main reasons for the economy's current ills and uncompetitive state - paid by a) borrowing, b) the sale of gold reserves at the bottom of the market, c) using up the North Sea oil reserves, d) increases in tax revenue from the real estate bubble and e) the rise of the financial sector, both of which were the direct result of Labour policy decisions. (See the graph below from this excellent overview of the New Labour economy.)

Ed also accused the current government of having failed by their own standards because they promised to eliminate the deficit over this parliament (but not the debt, mind you, as that wouldn't even be touched). It wasn't to be, however, and, as the Chancellor admitted in his Autumn Statement, the government would have to borrow an extra 111 billion. And according to Ed's speech the figure now stood at 158 billion. (The Coalition's spin on why they needed to borrow more than first thought was that they just hadn't realised earlier how bad a state the economy was actually in. Well, it's of little use complaining now, Georgie Boy: you screwed up your figures or were naive when forecasting, or both, so your bad and your responsibility, simple as that.)

And while admitting that there has been an ongoing economic crisis, in Ed's world it's a crisis of the free market, where our governments apparently played no role. What an incredibly lazy analysis this is considering the sovereign debt crisis that is crippling Western governments and which has even lead to the overthrow of two European governments (so far).

Less honest reflection in favour of more cowardly deflection

But at least he knows how to dodge questions from the press and how to deflect blame - thus proving his credentials as a politician. According to Ed, "its the result of the [current] government not being able to get rid of the deficit over this parliament that we will inherit one." Well, putting aside his admirable optimism, what a porky-pie that was! After all, the government that counted Ed Miliband as a Cabinet Minister was the one that overspent and overextended the country's credit card, without putting anything aside for a rainy day (like a real Keynesian would have done), while making the economy less competitive and less effective even when the going was good!

Also, when asked about the note "there's no money left", and why has he only now, 18 months later, come to the realisation that, actually, there really is no money left, Ed parroted the same line again, that "Remember what this government said? They said we are going to clear the deficit over this parliament - now what's happened is that they've failed. They've lost the argument, and now we're going to have to win it. We will clear the deficit in our next government." Words are cheap, Mr Miliband - but why should we trust the party that racked up the underlying debt in the first place?

Another questioner asked that, while you say you will take on the energy companies, as Energy Secretary in the previous government, why did you not do so then? Ed's reply left the whole question unanswered: "we clearly didn't do enough. We didn't do enough. But I'm not here to defend everything the last Labour government did. We weren't strong enough taking on vested interests, but it's part of the recognition about how the world has changed that we now need to take action." Oh, OK, then. Times have changed - so no need to take any responsibility over the "last government" in which you happened to hold office.

One thing Ed got right, though, was that Labour are much closer to where the people are. This is no doubt true, but it's mostly so because they set in place a client welfare state and presided over a huge increase of people on the public payroll - the price of which is a deformed economy, the deficit and the huge mountain of debt underneath it, which we and our children will be paying off for a long, long time to come.

But that's no longer Labour's fault, apparently, because they're offering a "New Reality", based on not taking responsibility and planning to do the same thing again, only this time with a new outfit, and expecting different results.