Tax – it’s not a fee for services

There is a prevailing sense that paying tax is something everyone naturally wants to avoid. I think it is a pernicious undermining of any kind of social cohesion to give this view too much credence.

It is made worse by the fact that it goes hand in hand with the view that the rich – because their income and assets are often quite mobile – can avoid paying tax and would be stupid not to whereas less well-off people whose income and assets are less mobile (and, because they consume more of their income they pay a lot of tax through consumption anyway) are the patsies that can’t get round paying tax but would love to find ways of doing it.

Income-tax-Flickr-630x400Indeed, even in the game ‘Monopoly’, taxes are seen as something to be avoided.

This then leads to the accepted ‘wisdom’ that taxes on the rich will lead to the rich and their money running away and therefore it is better to tax people who can’t run away or to tax consumption (or land) because it is easier and therefore more certain in terms of the tax take.

All of this fails to see that tax is actually something we should not avoid.

What is tax for?

Why do we pay tax at all? Historically rulers raised taxes to pay for their wars. Those are the sorts of taxes I’d be the first to run away from. But in modern society, taxes are raised for different reasons (although we still pay for the military through our taxes, but that is a separate issue).

First, taxes are there to provide a budget for the state (national, regional, local government) for them to do the things we want them to do. In a democracy, ideally, election campaigns would be about what different parties are planning to do and how they are going to pay for it so we can make an informed choice.

So taxes pay for the health service, the education system, security services including the police and fire service, social care, parks and other public leisure amenities, welfare for people to ensure no-one goes hungry or homeless, decent infrastructure (water, power, gas, transport, etc.) and support to the economy where it needs it. There is a certain amount of ‘interfering in the markets’ involved in this, but that is no bad thing. Anyway, that’s an idealised version of what tax might be for.

But taxes can also have a redistributive purpose and impact – i.e. closing the gap between the very rich and the less well off. For example, Sweden is a country known for its high taxes and it is therefore a country with significantly less income inequality. And we know that less income inequality leads to better social outcomes across the board[1] and IS THEREFORE BETTER FOR ALL MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.

Paying for Services

If we look at taxes as a way to pay for services, what should this look like? There are two ways of paying for services: paying foSnakes and ladders board.r what you actually need and paying into a pot that covers your needs whatever they are. So it’s a bit like a game of Snakes and Ladders.

There are some services where it is perfectly clear that you can’t ‘pay as you go’ for what you need. Street lighting would be a good example. How would you measure what any one person or household needs or uses? So those services have to be funded out of a common pot. They are ‘public goods’ in economics speak. That means, we all need them but the amount each of us needs isn’t quantifiable.

There are some services where this isn’t so clear. Take transport, for example. It only works if the infrastructure is there (the rails, the roads, the rolling stock, the system, the network, the timetable and all that. But those people who use transport also make defined journeys that are measurable and can be charged. And we do have a hybrid system. Taxes pay for some of the infrastructure and pricing of tickets pays for part of it, too, and for the variable costs arising from actually running the service. For road transport – i.e. using roads – the cost is entirely met by taxes, though some of them are taxes on the cost of transport, such as petrol/diesel and the like.

Finally, there are services which some people need and others don’t. But the provision of these services is still in part a public good. Having hospitals is a good idea even when you don’t need them yourself. Having schools benefits society as a whole because education contributes to society (whether you have children or participate in courses at any given time or not).

So then the question arises: should we pay taxes to make sure services are there when needed for the people who need them; or should we pay fees for the services we use; or should we have a hybrid system.

Social Care in the Spotlight

There’s been much in the press about the so-called ‘dementia tax’ or ‘death tax’. What is it about?

Dementia Tax

Essentially, the Conservative Manifesto is proposing that people who need social care in their old age who have assets – in this case we are talking principally about the family home – have to contribute to the cost of that care out of their wealth until they have only £100 k left.

The idea is that this would apply to the cost of care whether it is provided in ones own home or in a residential care setting.

There are problems with this approach:

  • This approach puts the bulk of the potential risk of needing care on the individual rather than society; that is the direct opposite of how the NHS works in terms of being free at the point of need. As a society, we need to decide whether we want to approach social care needs in this way. Needing social care is a burden quite apart from the cost of it. It’s a bit of the luck of the draw.
  • Valuations of properties vary over time. It is hard to see how a system could be devised that would guarantee £ 100 k left over at the end.
  • The only way people could stay in their own home and pay for care out of the asset is to go for an equity release scheme, a kind of insurance policy that signs the asset over to the insurer (less the £ 100 k we presume). But will the insurance premium (i.e. the cut the insurer would definitely want to take) be taken out of the £ 100 k? And could the executors delay selling until they have achieved a decent price – or at least the price on which the deal was based? Because until all this is clarified, this looks like an insurance mis-selling scandal waiting to happen.
  • Under the proposal, the partner is protected, i.e. if a couple live in the house and only one of them needs care for a period and the other survives that partner, they can remain in the house. But what if, say, a daughter or son lived with an aging parent and provided some of the care. Would they be turfed out of their home with maybe less than £ 100 k left over after the insurers have had their cut. And where would they go? And what responsibility would the local authority have to find them accommodation. Some of these daughters and sons are not young themselves and may have given up careers to look after their parents.

These are only the most obvious pitfalls. Would it not be preferable if there were a way in which those who are asset rich paid into a pool (all of the people who are asset rich, not just the ones who need care, that is) and the care for those who need it is then paid for out of this pool. I’m quite in favour of some form of inheritance tax that moves significant amounts of such assets to the public purse for this purpose.

Fee for Service?

Equality, Justice and Reality

But this is only one example of a stark choice between a tax based or a fee based system of paying for necessary services.

Governments are also about providing the framework for the sort of society we want to live in, the framework in which our values can be reflected in day-to-day choices.

So we need a basic social contract that determines what people can expect from society – education, health care, social care, infrastructure, welfare, security, and the like, and what people expect to put into the pot to ensure that all these things are available for anyone who needs them – tax.

And any service that is provided, or that we want to have provided in this way has to be run in the public sector because it would be odious to think that tax would feather the nest of private enterprise and multinational companies. That is why privatisation of the health service goes against the grain; that is why privatisation of education goes against the grain; that is why charging tuition fees goes against the grain.

The society I want to live in is one where we all contribute, cheerfully, in accordance with our means and receive in accordance with our needs. That calls on each of us to maximise our potential to contribute because it makes sense and gives everyone a sense of worth.

[1] The Spirit Level, accessed at: on 26 May 2017

Image Credits

Monopoly Income-tax-Flickr-630×400.jpg

Snakes and Ladders 503001-snakes-and-ladders-board.jpeg

Dementia Tax FullSizeRender.jpg

Equality, Justice and Reality Cb5z_y_WwAAs46G.jpg


Posted in Equality, GENERAL ELECTION, Politics in context, Tax Matters, Welfare | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

An Economy That Works for People and Planet

It is almost impossible not to see that the approach that we as a society have taken to economic development, to the way the economy is shaped, hasn’t worked for many people and is devastating the planet.

Why is that?

Or more to the point, what is the economy for and how does it need to function in order to serve people and planet?

Of course, it is not possible to answer these questions in a short blog; nor do I have the answers. I’m not an economist (which, given the current state of the world may be a relevant qualification to attempting answers to the questions) and I couldn’t possible try to even map out a comprehensive answer.

But it is essential that these questions are answered; it is essential that ordinary people try to contribute to the answers; and we won’t get any sensible answers if we leave it to economists who are bought into the model that doesn’t work.

So here are some basic questions.

Does money grow on trees? Well, no, it doesn’t. But it might as well. Because it is basically created out of thin air by banks. Most of the money in circulation is in the form of credit (or debt). These two things are broadly the same thing unless you have cash your pocket. And even that is, in a way, credit/debt because you can only use it to exchange it for goods and

One of the fundamental problems with our economy is this: we have forgotten that money is a means of exchange and it is based on trust between people and organisations. It is not a commodity that has any actual use value: you can’t eat it, you can’t drink it, you can’t heat your house with it (well, not very efficiently, anyway). But because we think of it as a commodity, people hoard it and feel they need more and more and more of it. And that drives greed. And that drives inequality.

Does a free market economy work? Lots of people will counter this question by saying that there isn’t a better model rather than answering it. We need to remember that the free market (and all other economic mo
dels) were created by people. It’s a bit like anything else designed by people: there are alternatives and over time things tend to be changed (and often the reason to change is to improve things, although it doesn’t always work that way).

The same is true for the free market economy. Classic free market theory is based on a lot of assumptions. When I took some Economics classes at university (albeit a few decades ago), the first thing we were presented with was the law of supply and demand. The lecturer said (I kid you not): the theory of supply and demand, which governs price is based on the assumption that all buyers and all sellers have perfect knowledge of the market.

Supply-and-demandWell, it doesn’t take a brainbox to debunk that one. So you want to buy a broadband and phone package. Have a look on the Internet and look at the options. There are so many, and they are so not comparable, perfect knowledge is a pipedream. That’s just one example.

If this assumption is false, doesn’t it follow that the theory sits on hollow feet? And should we therefore change the assumption to one that stands up to scrutiny in the real world? And formulate an economic theory that therefore more closely resembles the lives we live?

Do we value the contribution of different factors of production correctly? What do we mean by different factors of production: land, capital, resources, and labour.

factorsofproduction-150827181746-lva1-app6892-thumbnail-4It is that simple. Although some argue that the fourth factor isn’t resources but entrepreneurship. I’d argue about that because that is only one specific form of labour which is put into a separate category to ensure it gets valued differently. And don’t let them tell you it is different because it involves risk taking. Tell a coal miner or someone working as a fisherman in the high seas that they don’t take risk. But they’re not considered entrepreneurs. Rather, the person sitting behind a desk getting them to do these things is the entrepreneur!

It strikes me that there are very different rules that apply to the value of any given unit or type of any one of these four factors.

One of the important issues is: how much of one of them does someone control and does that give them more control than others who have less?

Of course, all this is very complicated once you get into detail. But in essence, and because labour comes packaged as individual people offering a strictly limited amount of labour each, they can be controlled by other factors (or by the people who own the other factors) unless they band together to fight a joint corner. And what has happened to Trade Unions in the last 40 years? I leave that one for you to work out.

The most mobile of these resources is capital, especially in the form of money (remember: that is debt/credit). You can take it anywhere and so you can dictate to those who have less mobile factors at their disposal the price at which you’re willing to pay for theirs. That introduces an imbalance. And often people who have capital have it because they inherited it or because they were very lucky or because – for one reason or another – they have got themselves into a position where they are paid way more than others.

So why do some people get paid more than others? You could imagine (just for arguments sake) that each unit of labour – irrespective of what you do and what the outcome of that unit of labour is – is valued at the same level. Imagine: someone who cares for people in a care home gets paid the same amount per hour as someone who designs complicated financial products in a bank. Or someone who cleans a school or cooks the school dinners gets paid the same amount per hour as the person running the school. I know, you’ll say that’s idiotic, not fair, doesn’t provide an incentive to ‘better yourself’ etc., etc.

Fair wagesSo how should we value labour? What is the rate for the job? People will argue that factors such as education, training, responsibility, the complexity of the job should all factor into this.

But what about looking at how important for society a given job is as a determining factor for pay? So, is a nurse more important than an investment banker? Is a teacher more important than a racing driver? Is the person who keeps public toilets clean more important than a footballer? Is the tax collector more important than a pop star? Just asking!

Where does any this leave us?

This isn’t the place to put forward a totally alternative economy. But one thing seems clear to me: we need an economy that works for all. And that gets back to the question: what is the economy for? For me there are a few essential pointers:

  • It should provide everyone with a basic decent life (that is everyone, not just everyone like us)
  • It should ensure that we consume what we need (that is only what we need, not what we want to make us feel better or more superior to our neighbours)
  • It should ensure that all that we produce for consumption is produced with the minimum input of natural resources; even less of them if they are rare or finite or contribute to pollution and climate change
  • It should ensure that services that are essential are valued properly and that those who provide them have dignity and respect
  • It should ensure that the fruits of our labour are harnessed for our communities and not drained away by multinational interests
  • It should ensure that taxes are levied to pay for public services that contribute to this type of economy: social and care services, health services, public low carbon transport, good education and so on and so forth
  • It should ensure that there is a balance between work and leisure time; that means that the available work is distributed as fairly as possible – all those who can and want to work have some work, rather than some people having far too much work and others not enough
  • It should ensure that those who can’t work are cared for with both resources and services that they need

Time for ChangeYou get my drift.

Think about it. It would mean changing everything. It would mean thinking completely differently. But we can do it. And if you put it that way, doesn’t it make sense?

Image Credits:
Money growing on trees: money-growing-trees-form-many-large-bills-path-included-43035759.jpg
Supply and Demand: Supply-and-demand.jpg
Factors of Production: factorsofproduction-150827181746-lva1-app6892-thumbnail-4.jpg
Fair Wages: 001372acd7d31169dabb02.jpg
Time for Change: 6a10da68d42bd1ce02430fabbbe58aba.jpg
Posted in Economics, Equality, Politics in context | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Please let us come back to our senses!

As per the Guardian, Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell said the burgundy passport had been a source of national “humiliation”.[1]

This was posted in the Guardian on 2 April. Had it been the day before, I’d have put it down to an April Fool.

But what it does show is this: there are lots of people out there – MPs included who should know better – who haven’t the first idea of what the EU is and how it works and who are all too willing to turn their ignorance into media hyperbole.

Are we really willing to have policy made on the basis of that low level of debate?

British_biometric_passportWhen I heard this absurd statement about the burgundy passport being a ‘national humiliation’, I thought: I wonder how long the old blue passport has been in existence. How is it that for some their British identity is so bound up with the colour of their passport?

So it was interesting for me to note that the old blue passport
only came into existence in the Old Blue Passport1920s. And of course, prior to the UK joining the EU, far fewer people needed a passport because far fewer people regularly took holidays on the continent of Europe (or beyond for that matter). No, I’m not saying that this is an achievement of the EU. What I am saying is that international travel has become so much more accessible in the last 40 or so years that having a passport has become so much more important.

So a very large number of people who hold UK passports today will never have had an old blue passport.

The other thing that is very important to note is that of course, it wasn’t some faceless bureaucrat in Brussels who decided that we should all have the same passports and that they should all have the same colour. It took years for the European Union member states to agree on a common passport and on the colour for it. Why did they choose burgundy? I haven’t the first idea. I do remember the endless debates being reported and people saying how silly it was to spend so much time on something so trivial as the colour of a passport.

A European passport was first discussed at a summit of heads of state and government in 1974 – i.e. with the UK present and participating.

The delay in its implementation (it was issued by member states from 1985 onwards although not all of them used this format immediately – for example the UK began issuing them in 1988) was due to differences of opinion on the colour (yes, they too were being extraordinarily silly about this) and about the format and whether it should be machine readable or not.

Even after this agreement was reached, and if you look at the passports of different member states, the actual colours and design of the cover still vary.[2]

What is in place today is not a European passport. All passports within the EU are issued by the member states and are passports of the member states. All that the common format does is to allow citizens of member states to be identified as such quickly and easily at the border.

And yes, of course, when we have left the EU we will have to look at what format our passport should have. It can’t be in the EU common format. And anyway, our passports are redesigned every 5 years (if only marginally) for security reasons – i.e. to reduce the risk of counterfeiting. So yes, let’s have a debate about this by all means. Let’s talk about what is necessary and sensible. But the question of colour of the passport really isn’t top of list and really isn’t about ‘national identity’. Why not have future passports in the shape of a credit card so they fit into an average wallet? It could look a bit like our electronic driving licenses, couldn’t it? Or maybe there should be choice of colour depending on which town or country you’re from (just joking!).

1_unicorn on UK passportLet us not start talking about national humiliation about trivia. And if you look closely at both the images of the UK passports above, the thing they have in common is that they feature a unicorn. So that may be the important pointer to identify that we need to preserve.




[1] Accessed at: on 3 April 2017

[2] Accessed at: on 3 April 2017

Posted in Constitutional Reform, Politics in context | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A dark day for the UK – and for Europe

Let’s start with a quick time-line:

Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 09.05.39

This table of contents comes from Wikipedia on ‘Events of the 20th century’. It’s war, war and more war. It’s violence and discord.

Interestingly, the European Union doesn’t feature on this list. So let’s fill in the gap.

Of course, there had been attempts at uniting the continent of Europe (however you may wish to define it) before the 20th century. Being entirely biased in highlighting a few of these attempts, I would have to say that William Penn – a well known Quaker, writing in 1693 came up with an idea that presaged some of the structures of the European Union, albeit in the context of principalities and kingdoms rather than democracies.

But none of this happened seriously until the 20th century. And then it needed two world wars and a combined death toll of well over 100 million people to bring politicians in Europe to their senses – at least in part.

So, immediately after the end of World War 2, France, Beligum, Luxembourg and the Netherlands on one side and Germany and Italy on the other started discussions on how to avoid future wars.

They set up the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951. The idea was that if there were common rules and trade across borders in the commodities of war (which at the time were coal and steel) then this would lower the likelihood of war.

In 1957 – just 60 years ago – this widened to the European Economic Community (the Treaties of Rome were signed) and since then there has been a gradual expansion of the European project both in terms of geography and in terms of the scope of it.

Has it been all good?

Far from it. As an economic bloc the European Union has promoted unfettered capitalism for a number of year. It has not had an altogether benign impact on countries outside it. The trade terms it imposed on African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (the former colonies of some of its member states) weren’t always wonderful – and probably still aren’t.

It has been dominated by the interests of big international corporations.

But it hasn’t been all bad either. In fact, it has done a lot of important things that are good.

Achievements of EUIt has enhanced the ability of people to meet and travel between countries. The freedom of movement of people has had a lot of bad press lately; but it is, at least in part, the reason why holidays in the Med and city breaks to Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam and Copenhagen have become common place for many.

It has generated a level playing field in terms of education and academic credentials across the EU.

It has supported the development of democracy in Spain and Portugal, in Greece and in Eastern Europe – through the prospect of membership and the benefits of that.

It has supported economically weaker regions.

It has brought about protections for workers, consumers, animals, and the environment.

It has imposed standards on pharmaceutical products that safeguard health.

And it has achieved something that [i]nothing else could (or did) before: it brought about peace within its borders that has lasted for over 60 years. As a result, there are now at least three generations of people in Europe who did not grow up with the experience of war on their doorstep.

Just a few facts:

The European Union is governed by a number of institutions:

EU Institutions

The European Council sets the broad strategy. Who are the members of this? The Heads of State/Government of the member states. It is not them who impose rules on us, it is us who impose rules on ourselves through the agency of our Heads of State/Government who we elect.

The European Commission drafts the rules on the basis of instructions from the European Council and the Council of the European Union. This is a more complex institution but basically it has a political tier (the commissioners) who are nominated by the member states governments and confirmed (or otherwise) by the European Parliament. But they do not impose rules. They draft them, for agreement by the Council of the European and the European Parliament.

The Council of the European Union is one of the two legislative bodies which debates, amends and agrees the rules/legislation. This is made up of the relevant ministers of the governments of the member states or their civil servants depending on the level of detail at which the debate is happening. Like the European Council, it is not them who impose rules on us, it is us who impose rules on ourselves through the agency of our Heads of State/Government who we elect.

The European Parliament is the other legislative body. They, too, debate, amend and agree the rules/legislation. We elect them directly on a country by country basis. We can hold them accountable for what they do.

The European Court of Justice ensures that the rules/legislation once agreed is implemented correctly. Its jurisdiction is restricted to European legislation. So it doesn’t tell us what we can and can’t do. It simply adjudicates about whether we as individuals or as a country have been treated fairly under European legislation and whether our government has applied European legislation (which it has agreed to freely) fairly.

I just thought I’d set out the actual machinery in the simplest terms possible to remind us that any talk of ‘them’ telling ‘us’ what to do and undermining our sovereignty is hogwash. The principle of the European Union is sharing sovereignty for the greater good and to maintain peace.

So why is today a dark day?

Article 50Today, the UK government is invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This article allows for a member state to withdraw from the European Union. Of course, this day was

bound to come after 23 June 2016 when as a country – and by a narrow margin – we voted to do this.

I was and I am a firm supporter of remaining in the European Union.

I do not accept that because of the vote in June last year we now have to shut up and stop voicing our opinions about this regrettable and retrograde step.

In my view, we are turning our back on the most impressive peace process that has occurred in living memory. We are turning our back on decades of social progress: for workers, for consumers, for the environment, for health and safety and for diversity. We are embarking on uncharted waters for a future we cannot predict. We are shutting the door on our main market without knowing how that will play out. But more importantly, we are closing ourselves off from a serious, long-terms project to bring about greater cohesion between diverse people; an experiment that – in the long term – could stand as an example to other parts of the world in desperate need of models for peace.

And we are giving up – seemingly willingly – our not inconsiderable influence over how this project will develop into the future, risking in the process not only our own fate but that of the whole project.

At a time when populist nationalism is on the rise again – the very cause of much of the carnage of the 20th century, we are prepared to isolate ourselves on the basis of trying to regain a lost era and an identity firmly based in the past.

Our children and grandchildren, when they weep over the next lot of war dead in Europe, will not thank us.

[i] Picture Credits:

Screenshot of events of 20th century: from Wikipedia accessed at: on 29 March 2017
European Achievements: accessed at: on 29 March 2017
The Main EU Institutions: image created by the author
Article 50: from a European Parliament briefing accessed at: on 29 March 2017


Posted in Behind the Headlines, Constitutional Reform, Peace, Politics in context, UK-EU | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Reflecting on Globalisation

Globalisation has had a bad press. Everyone seems to be against it. And yet, do we know what it is that we are against? And are there aspects of it that aren’t all so negative?
What is globalisation?
It is interesting that generally speaking, globalisation is seen as an economic thing. Searching for a definition of globalisation, the first ‘hit’ on Google is:

Screen Shot 2017-03-22 at 12.55.15

But of course, that’s only part of the story.
A broader definition would probably put it like Wikipedia does: the process of international integration arising from the interchange of worldviews, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.
For me, globalisation meant, first and foremost, that the world was becoming more accessible than it had seemed when I grew up in a small, conservative, parochial town in southern Germany. Globalisation (although at the time I didn’t use or even know that term) meant: getting away from the constraints of place.
How did that even appear on my horizon? We didn’t travel far when I was young. We lived close enough to international borders so that we had experience of crossing them, of hearing other languages spoken, of showing passports and of using foreign money. But it was still on a very small scale and there wasn’t an expectation that we would spend anything other than holidays ‘abroad’.

Passport visas

When I grew up, in the 50s and 60s of the 20th century, we had only just come out of the second of two devastating wars. Neighbouring countries were still viewed with some trepidation and fear, if not outright hostility.
So when in part because of our connection to Quakers and in part due to marginally reducing travel costs, the prospect of travelling to the US and spending a year there came into view, it seemed the most amazing and liberating thing that had ever happened or would ever happen.

And of course, once you step on that train, you can’t get off. Having experience of other cultures, making friends in other places, inevitably and irrevocably changes you – for the better. However scary the experience is.

Who is us?

Limited Experience of Interconnectedness

One of the things that is important to remember is this: very few people, comparatively, have the experience of being in a different place. I’m not talking about 2 weeks’ holiday or a shopping spree to New York. I’m talking about living in another place, with other people, having to learn to adapt to another way of doing things. And language is only one – and not even the most difficult – aspects of this.
So the positive experience of broadening horizons, of seeing things from a different vantage point, of breathing more freely in terms of the way one thinks, is not a universally shared experience.

Even with 60 years of the European Union and many years of the Erasmus student exchange programme, it is still only a small percentage of all students who participate. According to EU statistics, there were 19.6 million students in higher education in 2013 , for example and there were 268 000 participants in the Erasmus programme . That makes about 1.3 %.

So if very few people actually gain this experience, it is not altogether surprising if only a very few people actually feel strongly about the interconnectedness with others that this experience brings.
On 20 March 2017, Dr. Giles Fraser spoke on the BBC Radio 4’s ‘Thought for the Day’ about this. He was commenting on a book, ‘On the Road to Somewhere’ by David Goodhart, published on 17 March 2017 by C. Hurst and Co.
Essentially, Dr. Fraser was reflecting on the notion that there are people who are ‘Somewheres’ who have a loyalty to place, to home and to their own people and there are ‘Anywheres’ who operate as nomadic individualists who don’t. He suggests that there is a somewhere that can transcend place (I think what he was driving at was seeing religion (in his case) or possibly more broadly ideology as a ‘somewhere’. In that sense he was asking ‘who is us?’

The bigger problem

But then it struck me that as one of the nomadic individualists of this analysis I’m not a great fan of what is more cEconomic Globalisationommonly understood by economic globalisation either. And this, in my view, is the rub: globalisation isn’t one thing and therefore it is not possible and not sensible to have one view about it.
Economic globalisation has enabled large players in the many markets to do
some or all of the following:
• Move work from one economy to another, chasing lower wages and poorer employment rights
• Move goods from one economy to another, chasing higher prices and higher returns
• Move their headquarters from one economy to another, chasing lower or no taxes
All this is classic business economics of course: you try to produce at the lowest possible cost; you try to sell at the highest possible profit; and you try to spend as little as possible on non-productive costs (such as taxes). Makes sense, doesn’t it? Or does it?
What are the consequences for real people?
• Unacceptable working conditions: including slave wages, zero hour contracts, no benefits, no job security, no unionisation rights. All the power in the hands of the employer, none in the hands of the workers

negative side of globalisation• Unacceptable strain on the planet: too much stuff is produced; too much stuff is consumed (much at incredibly low prices) and a kind of artificial demand is stoked with advertising that leads people to spend, spend, spend (on credit of course). So we go and buy cheap clothes and shoes, not worrying too much about who paid the price for this. But at the same time we don’t like the fact that our wages don’t go up because there’s always someone else somewhere who will do the work for less and with less security.
• Unacceptable strain on the community: if taxes are low, governments have less to spend. If people are technically self-employed, there is less by way of employers’ contributions to pensions and social security. If governments don’t have money, then people working in the public sector don’t get decent wages; services aren’t delivered, and society grinds to a halt.

All these are consequences of globalisation; much of what is happening to make the world economy into one single economy, would not be possible without the extensive global transport and communication networks that already exist. Of course, those, too, have a major impact on the planet. If we ship carpets halfway across the world because wool is cheaper in New Zealand and labour is cheaper in India but the carpets are needed in Europe, then we need fuel to do this.
But all these are also consequences of immeasurable greed – the greed of shareholders and of bankers who cannot understand that if the wages of the workers can’t go up and if their contribution to the common good isn’t made, then their returns should also be curbed.
When did it become commonplace to think that capital should have no controls on its returns but labour should be squeezed to the lowest level of pay?
So, yes, globalisation plays a part but it is driven by greed. And, ironically, for those of us who are nomadic individualists, this is not forced to be our normal modus operandi, not least because we have seen how other people live and that there is more to life than profit.
earthday2008The solidarity that comes from a global outlook, from an understanding that our place is Earth and that we share it will all other people here now and here in the future and many other living things, is an understanding that could curb the greed that drives the downside of globalisation.





Theresa May said in her conference speech in October 2016: ‘But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means. ’ She couldn’t have been more wrong. We need to understand that the somewhere we belong to is the world and that our people are all people. That will be the starting point for learning how we can live together peacefully and with justice. We need to understand that so long as people flee the place of their birth for want of food, for want of clean water, for want of a roof over their head, for want of basic security and safety there will be no peace anywhere. We need to understand that so long as there is the level of global inequality we see now, there will be no justice anywhere.
We need a new movement: a popular movement of the ‘Somewheres’ and the ‘Anywheres’ together for peace and justice. When that has been achieved, the question of how enmeshed we want to be with place or with ideology will become irrelevant and simply a matter of personal preference. It will be a time when we will have friends across the globe (made possible through the Internet) and where the main issue for all of us will be to have a good life – a life that can only be good if life is good for others, too.


Image Credits:
Image of visas in passport:
Erasmus logo:
Negative impact of globalisation:
The world in our hands:




Posted in Peace, Politics in context | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Education Under Occupation: No way to treat a child

The treatment of children in war zones and in conflict is critically important for the prospect of peace in the future. I am reblogging this piece to bring it to another audience, to highlight the important work that the EAPPI programme is doing and to highlight the work of DCIP, a charity that works tirelessly to protect vulnerable children.

EAPPI UK & Ireland Blogs

By Margaret, Northern West Bank

Several times a week I walk with my team of Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAs) alongside students from the villages of as-Sawiya and al-Lubban ash-Sharqiya for a kilometre alongside the A60 – the main road from Jerusalem to Nabulus – to their schools. As we walk among the children they have great fun teasing us in Arabic and testing out their English.

Our purpose is to provide a protective presence for the children as they walk past Israeli troops. The soldiers usually stay by their vehicles opposite the front of the boys’ school or walk into nearby fields and around to the back. On our first day as the new EA team here, however, the soldiers tell us that they need to walk among the children to catch a boy who they allege threw a stone yesterday.

View original post 584 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post Truth Era? In defence of truth

Lately, the phrase ‘post-truth’ has gained currency in describing the times we live in, much like post-modern or post-industrial might have been used previously. This phrase sticks in my crow.

  • First, what does it mean?
  • Second, is it true – although that question may be thought to be tautological?
  • Third, what do we do about the assertion that it is true when we think it isn’t or shouldn’t be?

What does ‘post-truth’ – or for that matter ‘truth’ mean?

To answer the question of what ‘post-truth’ might mean, first we need to think about what we mean by truth. And whether we spell it with a lower case or capital ‘T’.

To me, truth can be two very different things:

  • One is evidence-based fact. That should be a self-evident concept. Either something is or isn’t a fact. Either an incident happened or it didn’t. Either a thing exists or it doesn’t. But of course I know that philosophy, physics and other disciplines have ways of questioning these things. However, those questions go – in my understanding – more to the question of what a thing or an event is and less to whether it is exists.
  • We know of course, that different people perceive events differently. To appreciate this, all we really need to do is to listen to or read witness statements relating to the same incident from several different people. And that is the other thing that truth is, in my view: the honestly held opinion that something is the way it is perceived by any given individual.

From the point of view of both understanding the world around us and assessing the truth of information we are given, both of these aspects of truth are important. There is nothing wrong with having our own perception of the world around us. It is normal and it is human. There is also nothing wrong with maintaining that our perception is true (for us); but it never is and never can be ‘The Truth’; because that suggests that other perceptions of the same event or thing are wrong or false.

This view of truth also leads to a clear understanding that anyone can change their perception of the world around them and find to a new/different ‘truth’ for themselves. A good example would be that once we had a photo of the planet earth taken from space our understanding of what the earth looks like and what it means to have a finite planet change irrevocably for just about everyone who saw that photo.

And then there is the thinking about and analysing of facts, things, and events. To what extent is that truth? Well, this is where things get a bit complicated. Because we all have a set of assumptions about how we see things and that influences how we analyse and interpret what goes on around us. And so, when others tell us things and give us their assessment or analysis of what they are discussing, then we need to understand what those assumptions and perceptions are, and indeed, what interest they may have in a particular view of the issues.

When people speak about ‘post-truth’ I can only assume that they suggest that we now live in an era when it’s ok (or at least common place) for people to assert facts and make up events that don’t exists and never happened and people believe it because they said it, or because it is on social media and millions of people have shared it or because it sound plausible.

Is it true?

There are elements of what I believe people mean by post-truth that are happening.

So-called opinion-formers, people we tend to listen to, for example politicians or journalists, or celebrities or people we admire, say things and they are taken as true because of who said it. Or because of how often they get shared in social and other media.

There is another kind of ‘post-truth’; the media create headlines which sound as if they mean one thing when in fact they don’t and if one reads the article in full it is made clear that the headline is not the whole story or even not the story at all. But of course, our busy lives mean we often don’t read beyond the headlines.

But does that mean we can call our current era a ‘post-truth’ era? This would be reasonable if this kind of media behaviour were more prevalent now than it had been in the past.

I haven’t seen any research on the question of whether this is so, but I rather suspect people have always said things to aid their viewpoint without too much regard for the truth of what they said. The difference today is that we hear a lot more of the stuff in more and more abbreviated form and with less and less access to contextual information about why people are saying what they are saying.

So there is a lot of lying going on. But does that make our era a ‘post-truth’ era?

I would say (and granted, this is my opinion) that we have a choice about whether we live in a ‘post-truth’ era or not.

We know people lie; we know people lie for different reasons; we know people say things that aren’t true, sometimes without malice. So we have a choice. And the only way we would actually be living in a ‘post-truth’ era would be if we accepted everything we’re told and didn’t check it out. But we don’t need to do that. We shouldn’t do that.

So what do we do about it?

Many years ago when I started a new job in a local authority in the North of England, we had an induction week for new management staff, which included a session with the Chief Legal Officer. He started his presentation with the following statement: ‘Assume nothing, check everything, trust nobody’. At the time, I thought that this was a dreadfully negative view of the world. But all these years later I’d say: wise words.

It is tedious, I know; because it’s more comfortable and less time consuming to just get news from sources we trust (usually because they share our view of the world). But if we want to maintain a society where truth matters, where we stand up for truth, which respects everyone (because very nearly always lies are told for the benefit of some and the dis-benefit of others) then we have to live by that maxim.

When I read or hear something I ask these questions:

  • Does it make sense?
  • Is there any reference to sources of background and factual information?
  • Who is telling the story? Do they have vested interests? Are they likely to be well informed about the matter?
  • If most of the information is capture in a picture – what might be wrong with the picture? Pictures can be staged. And infographics aren’t there to tell the ‘truth’, they’re there to tell a story from a particular view point.
  • Is it the full story?
  • What are the consequences of believing what is said?

It makes life very difficult sometimes. Because just one item on the news, just one story in the press, one tweet, one Facebook post could take time to check and may lead nowhere. But I am getting more and more careful about simply re-tweeting and sharing. I use fact-check website. I look on the websites originating the stories to find out: Who is writing? Who is paying? Who is advertising? All these things matter.

And one final thing: when people shout assertions in massive halls crowded with people prepared to shout back slogans (be they from the right, the left, the middle or from Mars) be very afraid and don’t trust what they say.

Posted in Behind the Headlines, Politics in context, The mechanics of politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment