If you don’t know about this then please read! It’s very important.

Posted by on

There are two companies, called Cambridge Analytica and Aggregate IQ, specializing in massive data harvesting. The former was originally part of British military operations, and now backed by billionaires. These billionaires, Peter Thiel and Robert Mercer, are dedicated to destroying liberal democracy, trading in disinformation, deception, the overturning of the rather ineffectual electoral laws in the West, and the introduction of a modern form of facism.

Cambridge Analytica used to work on psychological warfare – how to effect mass sentiment change of electoral outcomes and “win hearts and minds”. Now, under Thiel’s ownership it collects microdata from Facebook and other online sites on personality traits, immigration, political partisanship, sexuality, magazines read, holiday destinations, jobs, tax etc in enormous detail, matching the information with people’s addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. This data is meticulously stored and focuses on the most vulnerable and discontented parts of the population. Educated and knowledgeable people are not their thing.

Aggregate IQ is an obcure Canadian company that uses the data gleaned by sister company Cambridge Analytica to identify suitable targets, shower them with bogus stories and alternative facts, and to get them riled up. (Mercer owns Cambridge Analytica and the “intellectual property” of Aggregate IQ). The single aim is to focus on the most vulnerable and discontented parts of the population, and, using psych-ops, getting them to the polls to vote for extreme candidates or objectives, while persuading liberal-minded voters to stay at home. The disruption clique, headed by billionaires Peter Thiel and Robert Mercer, are connected with Trump, Bannon, Farage, Arron Banks and the alt-right. Bannon ran Cambridge Analytica during the Brexit referendum.

Carole Cadwallader, who wrote the original exposure for The Observer, writes , “This is not a story about social psychology and data analytics. It has to be understood in terms of a military contractor using military strategies on a civilian popullation. There is nothing democratic or transparent about the the whole operation.

It is alleged that this very secret operation swung the votes in the three American states that won Trump the Electoral College, and that the activities of Aggregate IQ, a company based in Canada, swung the Brexit vote by getting out the British voters who wanted the immigrants out. Part of the gang who are engaged on this are moving towards what is euphemistally named “managed democracy”.

The point is that in both the American election and the Brexit referendum, the margins of votes between the parties were tiny. Hillary actually easily won the popular vote. By focussing on and manipulating states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (with big Electoral College votes), and infuriating Trump sympathisers using bogus stories, downright lies and hate tales about Hillary, the Democrats, main media and the civil service, not to mention promising policies that are never meant to be kept, the whole election outcome turned turtle. Likewise, the Leave vote in Britain hung on a small minority of manipulated votes, person by person, bogus “fact” by bogus “fact” about the EU, making a fool and an ass of liberal democracy. You don’t need to manipulate all that many people to make that crucial difference. We are being manipulated and don’t even realise it. Epicurus would turn in his grave. (This article originally appeared in The Observer, by Carole Cadwalladr, and was later carried by The Guardian. I have precised it and clarified it – it was originally 4 pages long)

Integration in the UK

Posted by on

Letter To The Times, London

“Trevor Phillips says that we should not expect Muslims to “integrate in the same way” as other communities in Britain. Nobody expects Muslims to become exactly the same as non-Muslims, but perhaps the true question is this: if Muslims are not prepared to change to accommodate our ways (such as women having equal status with men), why should we be expected to accommodate their ways (such as the establishment of sharia courts and madrasas) in a secular, liberal society?

“Religious tolerance is one thing, but appeasement to the extent of undermining our own customs and beliefs is quite another.”
Nina Macfie, Newton Abbot, Devon

Regrettably, the political correctness that took over the UK during the days of the Labour government is still in full swing. I totally agree with the writer. If foreigners wish to migrate to the UK, or any other country if it comes to that, they should fit into the ways and culture of that country. By all means keep their religion, something that can be done quietly and privately, but don’t expect their hosts to adapt to them. It is, after all, their choice to join the host country. I have migrated myself (how well I have integrated only my wife and our friends can say). But I have never for a moment expected any special treatment or privileges. Most people don’t. As Owen wrote on this posting yesterday, Epicurus was a believer in Xenia, or hospitality towards strangers, but I don’t think he would have appreciated, for instance, the migrants to ancient Greece treating women as second class citizens.

Epicurus and Multiculturalism

Posted by on

Yet another of my Modern Philosophy blogs, on a very contentious issue this time. Next week I will give my final rundown on the UK General Election, this time more concisely and with the benefit of having read the party manifestos. I’m also going to be starting a new series called Best of the Week, in which I recommend the best news articles I’ve read over the week, so look out for that this Sunday! 

Epicurus was remarkably cosmopolitan for his time. He famously welcomed women and slaves into his Garden, when most Athenian intellectuals would have regarded learning as an exclusively free male affair. Like most Greeks, Epicurus was a believer in Xenia, or hospitality towards foreigners. It would be lovely to end the post here by concluding simply that because Epicurus was no xenophobe, we ought to welcome foreigners in our society. But for better or for worse, the modern world is far more complex than the ancient world. Terrorism, mass migration, the nation state- all of these ought to have a bearing on our views of multiculturalism, even as they didn’t exist (at least conceptually speaking) in the ancient world.

To begin with, it goes without saying that bigotry and hatred are totally incompatible with Epicurean values. Of course, we must not discriminate against anyone for whatever reason. Every society has to have anti-discrimination legislation, and religious institutions cannot be exempt from them because that would undermine the principle of living in a secular society where every belief and individual is treated the same. I’m all in favour of free speech, but radical extremists who endorse violence against minority groups have no place in a civilised polity. That’s why Islamist and far-right hate groups are quite rightly banned in most developed countries.

However, the present-day Left, particularly in the United States, is not content with merely being against discrimination. For them, there is an inherent virtue in living in a multicultural, multiracial and multi-religious society. Equally, there is an inherent vice in living in an ethnically homogeneous society, particularly if that ethnicity happens to be white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or WASPS as the American Left sometimes derogatorily refers to them. For some reason, the American Left seems to celebrate the culture of the Irish, Italians and Spanish, but never the English, Germans or Nordics. I’ve never figured out why. But for whatever reason, most American Leftists prefer living in places where white Protestants are a minority.

The Left’s arguments are not entirely without merit. They are right to point out the perils of racial segregation. In the United States, school segregation is increasing as the Brown v Board of Education era efforts to bus black children to white areas seem to be fading away. Instead, many towns are splitting away from their wider school districts. These towns will claim they are acting in the best interests of their children, by reducing the time taken to travel to school, and increasing local autonomy over the schools. This may be true, but in practice, the effect of these towns being independent is more segregated schools. If society as a whole is multicultural, it’s very unhealthy for each culture not to interact with each other. Or else negative stereotyping and ignorance of other people’s lives will become more common.

There are other benefits to living in a multicultural society. Your knowledge of the world increases. You gain experience of other cultures and ways of life without having to travel abroad. Many people would consider it more interesting. From an intellectual viewpoint, a greater variety of philosophies, religions and outlooks on life broaden the scope of academic debates. It’s far more rewarding to hear the perspectives of a Christian, a Muslim and a Jew on who God is for example, rather than just three Christians. At the same time, a multicultural society is more likely to be a multilingual one. There are many benefits in business to being multilingual, making the society more globally competitive.

Having said that, I take issue with the American Left’s characterisation of ethnic homogeneity as an inherent vice. Partly because as I’ve just explained, this characterisation in inconsistently applied. It can also be very prejudice. It would be wrong to criticise New Orleans for being too black, or Los Angeles for being too Hispanic. Similarly, I think it’s in poor taste when a certain sort of liberal denounces American towns and cities as being ‘too white.’ And although multiculturalism may have its benefits, what is more important is individual freedom. If people of any race choose to segregate themselves, that may be unfortunate, but it is their right to do it. (Forced segregation as a result of racism is another matter entirely.) I think part of the reason why Trump won the election is because many Americans are sick of snobby urban liberals looking down on rural America as culturally inferior. This snobbery is hypocritical when you consider that many of these liberal cities have very high crime and poverty rates. To be fair, I also acknowledge that many conservatives do not see the liberal cities as being part of the ‘real America,’ which in many cases may be a characterisation motivated by xenophobia.

The American Left’s attitude to multiculturalism makes even less sense when applied to societies outside the United States. Is Israel insufficiently multicultural because it is too Jewish? Is Iran at fault for being too Muslim? Of course not, even if the United States benefits from multiculturalism. The Left ought to respect all cultures equally, regardless of whether it perceives a culture to be ‘privileged’ or ‘oppressed.’ On the one hand that means fighting ethnic chauvinism at every turn, which to its credit the American Left does very well. But it also means coming to terms with the world how it is, not how the Left wants it to be. That means accepting that much of the world, much of America included, is not multicultural, but that there is nothing wrong with that.

Multiculturalism is an even more contentious issue in Britain than in America, because the latter sees itself as a nation of immigrants, but the former does not. In Britain, many people (if not the majority) are opposed to living in a more multicultural society. This can be seen in migration patterns, where towns with a rapidly increasing ethnic minority population generally also have a declining white British population- almost a British version of white flight. The debate is much further to the Right in Britain; the Left cannot support multiculturalism as an inherent good as it would alienate too many of its supporters. Instead, it must defend refugees and asylum seekers on a humanitarian basis, while making the economic case for immigration.

In many ways, multiculturalism in Britain has been a success. Unlike in America, most ethnic minorities outperform whites at school (http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21589874-ethnic-minority-pupils-are-storming-ahead-thanks-partly-tutors-road). Considering that it is a less diverse place on the whole, segregation is not as stark in Britain, which also benefits from not having a history of formal segregation. Most people say that their neighbourhood is a place where people of all backgrounds get on well. Particularly in London suburbs like Northwood, Ruislip or Harrow, many multicultural areas are increasingly affluent.

In Britain, the solution ought to be largely the same as the United States- a visceral opposition to discrimination, combined with a respect for all places regardless of their cultural makeup. I suspect part of the reason for Brexit was that much of rural Britain feels as if a metropolitan elite regards it as culturally inferior (though I don’t believe Britain’s cultural elites are as snobby as their American counterparts.) But in Britain, an additional compromise is required of the Left. America has always been a country of immigration, and most Americans want that to continue. No such majority exists in Britain, however much the Left would like you to believe otherwise. Even as someone who is largely ambivalent on questions of culture, I accept that the UK’s migration rates need to come down, because most Britons don’t want to live in a more multicultural society, and there’s nothing that can be done to change their mind. As an old-world country, Britain is a much harder society to integrate into than the US. Our culture is very distinct and often baffling from a foreign perspective. If the British Left doesn’t understand that soon, it may never enjoy power again.

 

Meritocracy: smokescreen for inequality

Posted by on

An article by Jo Littler on March 24th this year in the Guardian Weekly savaged the concept of meritocracy. Meritocracy, a word that only dates back only to 1956, was originally a word of abuse, describing a ludicrously unequal state that no one would want to live in. Now it is espoused by Theresa May (grammar schools) and Trump (merit-based immigration), and other politically right-wing politicians trying to persuade the public that society should be based upon merit, not privilege.

Since Thatcher, Britain has had a “meritocratic” financial sector which succeeded in driving the economy into a ditch in 2008. In a 1958 essay the philosopher, Hannah Arendt argued that meritocracy contradicts the principle of equality……no less than any other oligarchy”. You can’t re-introduce grammar schools and claim you are promoting equality. On the contrary, grammar schools divide children and offer even more privilege to the privileged. The problem is that rich parents will always spend money on tutoring to give their kids a leg-up into the best schools. In America an unknown number of students owe their presence at Harvard and Yale to strategic donations (a statistic known by the university administrators, but not the public). The beneficiaries then find well-paid jobs in financial companies and perpetuate inequality. The Trump government want to dismantle public education and make schools private. Given the dismal record of most American private schools, this is a recipe for consigning America to the dunces corner of the world.

Neoliberal meritocracy has been responsible for extending entrepreneurial competition into every aspect of life, claiming to be dismantling hierarchies of privilege. Politicians have been characterising the population as either “strivers” or “skivers”, the latter being regarded as morally inferior. On the surface meritocracy is attractive, holding out the promise of moving up in the world. Actually it is a smokescreen for inequality.

In my last year at school the debating society debated the abolition of public schools (for Americans, this is British double-speak for private schools). I spoke passionately for the abolition of these schools and an equal playing field for everyone in a supposed democracy. I was not the most popular person in the school, but I expected it and was glad I said what I said. We should be raising the standards of State schools to that of the best private school, which means recruiting top teachers with top salaries – the best investment we could make. That would encourage the poor, but bright. In the real world the third-rate standard of education for the English poor and not-so-poor has helped to create the catastrophe of Brexit. Similar problem in America. equal opportunity is a core value of Epicureanism. If only we could stop people voting against their own best interests…..

Recruitment of staff

Posted by on

Applying for a job can be a soul-destroying process. For the past few years, the world’s biggest firms have been using AI recruitment software to filter job applications and streamline the process. Existing applicant tracking systems (ATS) typically scan applications for keywords that the employer has selected. Any CVs that don’t fit the bill are instantly rejected; those that pass are stored and indexed for a human recruiter to look through.

If you are job-hunting you should assume that your application will be screened by an algorithm, and maybe rejected, before a human ever looks at it. But such systems are hardly foolproof. They don’t just frustrate people looking for jobs with non-traditional CVs – they are also far from ideal for employers, because the computer is literal and doesn’t do judgement. For example, excessively rigorous screening can mean relevant sections of a CV will be passed over if they contain words and phrases only slightly different from the employer’s preselected ones.

Moves are afoot to make the recruitment algorithms more sophisticated. The biggest name in online recruitment is LinkedIn, which can now sift millions of LinkedIn users for matching talents, then display a list of candidates at other companies with like-for-like skills and experience. Employers will be able to narrow down huge lists of existing contacts to find those with the skills appropriate for a recently advertised job.

The app will also indicate how often a prospective candidate has interacted with the company’s posts on LinkedIn and show whether he or she is genuinely looking for a new job. A “something new” button on LinkedIn profiles can tell employers – except, of course, their own – that they have itchy feet.

Connectifier, another piece of software crawls a range of websites and candidates’ profiles, as well as CVs, to build up a picture of skills and expertise down to the finest detail – things that a recruiter might have a hard time taking into account, for instance, does someone have a lot of friends in a certain location or at a certain company, or harvest data from a site like GitHub, where programmers share and discuss code.

Then there is Reveal, a small Danish start-up touting “a machine learning engine for your recruitment”. The software has been trained on professional vocabulary relating to job descriptions and is able to analyse databases of CVs, looking for candidates who might fit a post. The firm’s algorithm uses statistical models that look at the distribution of words. It understands that “software engineer” or “software developer” are very similar roles, for example. It can detect patterns, and help companies with large numbers of CVs on file to make the most of that data and identify good candidates as soon as new roles come up. The system can even predict how interested a candidate might be in a job change from their current position. This is done by assessing how many previous jobs candidates have listed on their CV and noting how frequently they have moved from role to role.

The fact is, however, that when you put rubbish in, what you will get out is – rubbish. Companies solicit far too many applications, wasting the time both of applicants and staff, and probably missing a talented person who may not be, say, a softwate super-star, but can think laterally and use his or her intelligence and personality to good effect. Potentially good employees are being overlooked as companies do a second-rate job at deciding what they really want – a collegial hard worker with a brain – relying on key words that leave out a host of other useful attributes of the good employee. Personality counts.You are looking for like souls with whom you will be spending a great deal of time. Automation has a place in recruitment, but has to be used intelligently.

An unexpected piece of common sense

Posted by on

From the Financial Timesi:

“The Ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU would be an excellent opportunity for the EU to reverse one of its bigger recent errors in trade policy. It should ditch the whole idea of having rules on investment, or at least rules allowing companies to sue a government directly, in FTAs. Such “investor-state” provisions have attracted intense opposition, not just from the Walloons but also from anti-corporate campaigners.

“Removing these rules would ease the way for future deals. As they do not seem to encourage foreign direct investment, they are more trouble than they are worth. Freed from this unnecessary encumbrance, the EU would find it easier to sustain with its quiet run of closing bilateral trade pacts”.

The above refers to a court action concerning a trade deal between The EU and Singapore. Because of the very contentious right of investors to be heard by small panels of lawyers (perceived to be chosen by the plaintiffs!) in any dispute with a government (the Investor-State Dispute Settlement), every single member of the EU has to sign off on new EU trade deals. This makes the whole process cumbersome. Here is the Financial Times, the very mouthpiece of big business, say “Scrap the ISDS”. Amazing!

Anything that allows us a breather from corporate dominance and the ruthless oligarchy has to be termed Epicurean. But Brits beware! It will be back with a vengeance if and when the UK is free of the “shackles” of the EU. Everything will be done for the rich and the corporations, and, just as the American poor is being double-crossed by Trump, so will the British be cheated by the Brexit crowd. It’s just too obvious. To me, anyway.

Held in Trust

Posted by on

This is a long posting, for which I apologise, but I offer it for a good reason: to illustrate what a really “good life” looks like, a life that would have been greatly admired by Epicurus and all his fellow philosophers. I have disguised his real identity as W.H for the sake of his family – he died just a few days ago. This is the homily, slightly shortened, delivered by a minister who is clearly full of admiration of the deceased, and for good reason:

Held in Trust

It is both an honor and a challenge to do what this homily must do: describe how we have seen the love of God expressed in the life of W.H. It is an honor for me because of who he has been to this church and this community. It is a challenge because there is so much that is compelling, so much that could be said. The extent and variety of W.H’s accomplishments have been exceptional. But amid the quantity of what he did, we must seek the quality of who he was. There we find the marks of God’s love. There we find that we have forged bonds with W. H, and because of him, that can never be broken.

With affection for one another and for their parents, his three children have shared memories that prove wonderfully revealing. Time and again, W.H. served the needs of others, often associates with pressing needs, at times even buying used vehicles from them. He had a way of giving generously and having fun in the process. I wish I had seen him racing along the freeway on the used motorcycle he purchased to help someone in need. I can only imagine him in black leather looking like Fonzi!

Service has been a major theme, including service of his country in the Navy. And then, after education with honors, entry into the legal profession where he excelled, with state and national recognition. He was a trust and estate attorney of the highest caliber. And along with the theme of service, the theme of trust looms large. W.H, in the finest and broadest sense, was a trustee. He was literally a trustee of various institutions, including school and University. and a trustee of various clients and organizations. But in a wider sense, he exemplified trust, that is, reliability, careful management, faithful and principled reliance. He could be counted on, in a world where trust has become fragile, and where few can see that the basis of trust is faith. He modeled what it means to hold others in trust.

That has included a wide circle of friends too numerous to mention. W.H stood by friends and acquaintances when they faced difficulties. In

He had an unusual sensitivity to the changes taking place within the State, and showed us all what it meant to hold something or someone in trust. His intellectual achievements were significant, and he had a thirst for knowledge and a delight in it. Learning was never totally abstract; it was animated, enjoyed, readily shared. He loved to learn.

Even more, W.H loved his family. He and his wife were married for 61 years. Their commitment to one another and to their children and grandchildren has been faithful and energetic.
In recent years, his efforts to encourage others has extended to their grandchildren, with close attention to their studies and their activities in sports, the arts, and scouting. Always with loving interest and warm encouragement.

Such a depth of commitment. Such a foundation of learning and breadth of ability. Such striking humility, that would balk at this praise. Where do such qualities arise? They were the product of a deep Christian faith, which shaped his commitment to service, his capacity to hold so much in trust. His service to this Church and Diocese of is difficult to enumerate because it was extensive. He offered leadership on an array of committees and boards, including terms as junior and senior warden here in this parish.

Yet it is the quality that matters more than the quantity. His principles were clear, his standards high. He was known, when raising funds for this church, to ask why it was easier to spend lavishly at the Country Club than to give to the church where membership was claimed. He wanted to reach for higher standards of service. To hold the Christian faith and the church as matters of the greatest trust.

W.H has left us quite a legacy. Now we celebrate that legacy, with not enough time to elaborate upon it as it deserves. Even as we grieve his passing from us, we are stirred by his example. As we entrust Him to God for the life that is eternal, we face a considerable challenge. As his long-time friend would say, W.H fought the good fight. Now it is our turn.
The quality matters more than the quantity. May we see clearly how God worked in his life, and may that example carry us forward in faith until at last we are reunited in God’s eternal realm. May we take to heart the example of one who served, who learned, who loved. Above all, one who knew what it means to hold in trust.
Amen.
May 15, 2017

The church was large and there was not a spare seat to be had. A huge gathering by most standards. The minister’s words were not hyperbole. As a follower of Epicurus I the respect the religious words spoken above, even if I cannot believe all they mean. The deceased was indeed a genuinely religious man. My point is that we can all choose to live a good life and earn all this respect,as described, with or without the trappings of the Christian church. I would be delighted if half of what was said above were directed towards me personally upon my death.

The betrayal of the working class

Posted by on

In the UK the huge rise in the number of people going to university (now 1.4 million) has been paralled by a collapse of the apprenticeship system, the number of apprentices falling from 250,000 in 1973 to 50,000 in 2016. Technical training for the less academic was dealt a death blow by the transformation of polytechnics into universities in1992.

At the same time there has been little or no improvement in the educational attainments of the bottom quarter of scchool students. 17% of them leave school functionally illiterate and 22% are innumerate. These figures ate similar to that of Albania. The government, faced with globalisation, has preferred cognitive ability and general knowledge to character, competence, experience and technical and manual skills. All this is replicated in the US, and has resulted in a polarisation of which the elites were not even aware – until it hit them. (The Week)

This is really stupid. I remember thinking the scrapping of technical colleges was bound to be a disaster. In my day Oxford Polytechnic was almost harder to get into than the main Oxford University. It had a worldwide reputation. Now called Oxford Brookes, its reputation has declined and circumstantial evidence suggests that it has almost more foreign students than British, many of whom are doing nonsense courses like business studies, which teach them to run a major corporation and to spout business-speak, all, I suspect, to little useful effect. Meanwhile, the country depends on Poles and others for technical skills. If and when they return to their countries of origin the results for Britain will be really scary.

Meanmwhile, the Trump administration in America has just unveiled a budget seeking $1.5 trillion in non-defense discretionary cuts and $1.4 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the course of a decade, while adding nearly half a trillion dollars to defense spending. The plan, titled “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” (don’t laugh – they are robbing you) would dramatically reshape federal spending, cutting anti-poverty and safety net programs, but leaving Medicare and the retirement portion of Social Security untouched. Talk about betrayal!

Re- introducing National Service

Posted by on

47% of British people support reintroducing National Service for 17 to 21-year-old men; 43% oppose it. 42% are in favour of National Service for women, while 48% are against it. And 49% think crime rates would fall if National Service were reintroduced. (YouGov/The Independent)

Regular readers of this blog may remember that I did two years of National Service in the army when I was young. So I have a perspective on this issue that is fast becoming unique, since I was one of the very last men to do it. I was lucky in the experience I had, which grew me up and knocked a tad of arrogance and unrealistic expectation clear out of me. But I would never advocate military service. This is because it is not good for the armed services, who never really got to grips with the horde of reluctant youngsters coming in. Nor was it of real military use or capable of offering the breadth of challenge and excitement that young men wanted and needed.

But some service to the community is a good thing. There are so many people who need help educationally and physically, and they span all age groups. Doing something others without expectation of money or reward is good for the self-image, and teaches the priviledged that service to others is an honourable and rewarding thing. At a time of life when you are idealistic organised service to others (instead of drinking beer on a beach in Thailand) is a better option than an unfocused gap year between school and college.

Actually organising a form of national service is another matter, but in principle I think it would be an excellent thing to re-introduce. Young people who have been accepted for a university would get more out of the university experience as well were they two years older.

The mood of young people in Britain

Posted by on

In many ways, young people in Britain today are the luckiest people to have ever lived. They enjoy a standard of living and access to scientific and technological advancements our ancestors could only have imagined. They are generally a healthy bunch, who exercise regularly, eat healthily, and consequently will enjoy a long life expectancy. Almost half of us will attend university, with the education and unique life experience it offers. Even if we don’t, internet access and the cheap cost of travel has made us the most intelligent and globally aware generation. Living, working and studying abroad has never been easier. Youth unemployment, while still a problem, is far lower than most of Europe- particularly for those who only need part time work. Young Britons demand high wages and reasonable hours, which means that many low-skilled jobs have to be done by immigrants. For the most part, globalisation has been a huge boon to the British youth, which is why a large majority of us voted to remain in the EU. In this respect, we could be considered to be less disillusioned with the present state of affairs than the older generations.

Yet speak to most young people in Britain, and their outlook is often a pessimistic one. Although wages are going up, house prices are increasing faster, making finding affordable accommodation more difficult. More of us may be at university, but mass access to higher education has decreased the wage premium a degree offers. To be truly distinguished in the job market, many believe they have to attain professional work experience prior to finishing their degree; this often comes in the form of low-paid if not unpaid internships, which are hard to come by and can involve long hours. While I personally find university a lot of fun, many students are not suited to a high degree of academic rigour- they simply put up with it because they know their jobs prospects will improve. On top of all this, Brexit threatens to reduce our freedom to live, work and study in Europe. Higher inflation and a worsening economy will reduce our future prospects; this is particularly the case for finance graduates, who are faced with a banking sector which is beginning to move jobs to the EU27. The government’s commitment to reduce immigration to the “tens of thousands” will inevitably involve a considerable reduction in foreign student numbers, decreasing funding for universities. Future undergraduates will be faced with ever-higher fees, since they are now allowed to rise with inflation. Higher education may be the best in Europe (and the second best in the world), but it is also the most expensive.

Here are a few hot-button issues, and the stance of most young people in Britain on them. Bearing in mind I am generalising here, so there will be exceptions as there is with most things. It’s also probably worth bearing in mind that I’m from West Sussex, and attend Exeter University. The young people I know are richer, better educated, and as a result, probably more optimistic and confident than young Britons generally.

Religion: most young Britons are non-religious. Britain is one of the world’s least religious countries, for young people especially. A minority identify as being a part of religion, but only a very small number are practising. This is true across the country, the only exception being ethnic minorities. Having said that, most people are not anti-religion. They may enjoy a carol service, classical music composed for the church, or a choir. They largely regard religion as an outdated belief system as far as morality is concerned, but still appreciate the cultural contributions of religion, as well as its ability to bring people together.

Social attitudes: the vast majority of young Britons are socially liberal, even the religious ones. Gay marriage is accepted, abortion is generally seen as a woman’s choice, most support cannabis legalisation, and religion is not seen as a pre-requisite for leading a moral life. Sex between consenting adults is usually viewed as moral, even if it isn’t always advisable. Young people are also the most passionate about the rights of the transgendered, and removing the stigma surrounding mental health. Some young people are more conservative on crime, immigration and multiculturalism, partly because resistance to social liberalism is strongest amongst ethnic and religious minorities. That said, overtly racist attitudes are rare. Political correctness, while dominant amongst the National Union of Students, does not play a significant role in day-to-day youth culture. As a general rule, British people are far less sensitive than their American counterparts. On a positive note, young Britons today are less likely to have sex, get pregnant as a teenager, get an abortion, smoke, binge drink or take drugs than our parents when they were our age. We may be socially liberal, but many choose to live relatively conservative lives.

Science and technology: nearly all young Britons love science and technology, even if they weren’t very good at science at school. They embrace the contributions science and technology have made to the modern world. Climate change denial, anti-vaccine sentiment and anti-GMO scaremongering are all virtually unheard of. But we also recognise the need to balance utilisation of our scientific knowledge with environmental conservation.

Politics: unlike British people as a whole, most young Britons are on the left of the political spectrum. Labour normally wins a plurality of the youth vote. Until 2015, the Liberal Democrats were also popular with more middle class youth. But their popularity has since fallen due to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition raising university tuition fees. The Liberals’ anti-Brexit stance has thus far, not helped them regain any significant support. A sizeable minority of young people vote Conservative, particularly those from the rural South East of England. In this election, the Conservatives have not made any overt appeals to the youth vote, unlike Labour’s promise to abolish tuition fees entirely. Young people are also far less likely to vote than their elders. This isn’t because of principled non-participation or even apathy, it’s simply because most young people aren’t interested in politics and so wouldn’t know who to vote for. Unlike the elderly, we don’t regard it as a moral duty to vote. This means that politicians simply aren’t incentivised to court the youth vote specifically.

Economics: just as most young Britons are apolitical, even fewer have a view on how the economy should be run. Economics isn’t taught in schools until A-level, so most don’t end up knowing about it. Amongst those who do express an interest in economics, most reject both Communism and free-market capitalism. The mixed economy supported by Labour and the Celtic nationalist parties is embraced, with private enterprise for consumer goods, supported by state investments in infrastructure and education. The NHS enjoys strong cross-generational support. Interestingly, the only young people I know who explicitly reject social democracy are men. The right wing societies at university are overwhelmingly male-dominated; Labour is also majority-male, but to a lesser degree. (The university as a whole is 55% female.) Like with Britain as a whole, there is very little appetite for the free-market amongst the young. Those do who vote Conservative do so for cultural and social reasons, or simply because they value the strong leadership they perceive the Conservatives provide.

Social media: most young Britons are avid users of online social media. Everyone I know is on Facebook. Many are also on Instagram, and to a lesser extent Snapchat, Twitter and WhatsApp. Social media is as much of a curse as it is a blessing. It is an incredibly convenient means of communicating and organising events. It allows information to be shared widely and rapidly. It can even be used to transfer money. But it’s also very hard to get away from, should you choose to have a break. As Bill Maher recently pointed out, social media is designed to be addictive. Many simply can’t break the habit. As far as politics is concerned, social media can be a bit of an echo chamber. Because most young people are on the left, those who express right wing views are often shouted down. Overt abuse is sadly all too common. Many use Facebook to get their news, but will only ‘like’ news sources whose views concur with their own. As a result, I’ve chosen to eschew discussing politics on social media, even privately. I never share news articles. Online debates are unproductive and simply aren’t worth having.

Patriotism: Most young people feel a sense of patriotism, even if they don’t explicitly identify as being patriotic. The vast majority reject outright nationalism because of its divisive and bloody effects throughout history. Unlike in America, there’s no sense of British exceptionalism. Young Britons are a cosmopolitan bunch, who embrace other cultures, and often go abroad when given the opportunity. Many students will choose to spend an extra year studying abroad (this is normally done in the third year.) Patriotism is seen as a nice thing, but it ought not to come above basic human decency.

Finally, I must stress that I don’t agree with a lot of what young people say and do. I don’t like the ‘lad culture’ amongst a prominent minority of young men, with its emphasis on physical prowess and crass misogyny. I don’t approve of the laziness and apathy of many people people- we could really learn from the American can-do spirit. At the same time, many young people work far too hard and don’t know how to relax. I don’t share the gloomy and pessimistic attitude many young people have, though perhaps that’s because I’m in a far more privileged position than they are. Like all other generations, the youth treat the government like a cash machine, and simply want as many benefits from it as possible, without thinking about fiscal responsibility or generational fairness. There isn’t an understanding that if we are to get more from the state, others must get less. I’m not a big fan of the Conservative Party, but least it cares about balancing the budget- something the young could learn from.

A step into the dark for Britain

Posted by on

The EU represents 7% of the world’s population, approximtely 23% of global GDP and 50% of global public spending. Even without Britain almost all the nations of the EU have the highest life expectancy at birth, the best access to education and the highest GDP per capita. The crude capitalism that is typical of China and the United States is made more gentle and people-orientated by the very rules and directives that critics constantly beef about, but which ensure equal treatment in courts of law, time off for women having babies, reasonable holidays, sick pay, safety at work, safe cars, food that doesn’t make you sick, intelligent healthcare, clean air, an improving environment and a host other safeguards for human rights.

No one (except some Brits) wants to leave the EU, they only want to enter. To those of us who lived through the Second World War, the EU is the means whereby we stand together with our (more or less) common values against the illiberal, anti-democratic forces in full throttle : China, Russia, Turkey, Egypt, the list goes on and on. To be in a small country by itself (and 60 million people is now a small country) is a perilous proposition looking forward, and those who say otherwise have little vision. The Rome declaration adopted on the EU’s 60th anniversary said, I quote, “Taken individually, we would be sidelined by global dynamics. Standing together is our best chance to influence them”.

The EU was (is) an Epicurean venture, offering more peace of mind to more people than ever before in history. It needs reforms, yes; leaving? No!
(I owe some of the above to an article in the Guardian Weekly by Natalie Nougayrede, 7th April, 2017)

Thoughts on Brexit

Posted by on

The scale of the impending disaster is becoming clear”, says Will Hutton in The Observer. Unless May changes her position quite substantially, the gulf between the UK and the EU is simply too wide for a deal to be possible. Britain is “certain to go over a cliff; the only question is how great the fall”. Like most loveless marriages, this one is ending in “screaming rows about the money”, said Dominic Lawson in The Sunday Times. The EU’s initial demand for a divorce bill of some €60bn seems to have shot up, to €100bn-plus. This isn’t just Juncker making trouble; it comes from the member states. The UK pays 12% of the EU budget, so Brexit will create a funding “chasm” that terrifies European leaders. Quite apart from dealing with the nitty-gritty, the Government needs to “prepare for the propaganda war”, said Juliet Samuel in The Daily Telegraph. The Commission will try to portray the UK’s leaders as “inept fantasists”, as it did with Greece. So Britain needs to come across as “eminently reasonable”; and it must, at all costs, rein in the xenophobic rhetoric. “If Britons and Europeans start to see one another fundamentally as enemies, a deal will become impossible.” (The Week)

From Martin Dean, Taunton, Somerset:

“I sense that there is an overwhelming sense of apprehension within the country because we don’t know what will be debated/agreed at the Brexit talks but more importantly, we don’t feel the Government can negotiate effectively. The Budget showed their incompetence (as well as the opposition’s) as the Government’s blunder was not spotted by the politicians and their party machines but by the BBC’s political correspondent. If we fail delivering our routine domestic policies, what hope have we at the complicated issues over leaving the EU?
We must recognise that most people in the UK are not political animals. Some can cope with domestic events, very few are interested in European issues, let alone wider world wide affairs. Interest is only taken when it hits home and confronts them. The Times in 1896… ‘Fog in Channel, Europe isolated’. Things really haven’t changed a great deal, so no wonder we are more than concerned”.

There is little hope of peace of mind anytime soon. The i pending train wreck loks pretty certain from the perspective of anyone living across the Atlantic.

A purpose in life

Posted by on

A gerontologist who has researched old age had an interesting experience with a group of young students. They had read books about career strategies and success, many of which emphasised purpose. They had heard motivational speakers exhort them to find a single life passion, without which they were sure to drift, rudderless, through a disappointing career. But one all-consuming life goal in life eluded them.

One student asked him, “This really worries me. Do I really need a purpose in life? That’s what the books say, but I don’t have one. Is there something wrong with me? And how do I get a purpose if I need one?”

My answer is: relax. You are likely to have a number of purposes, which will change as you progress through life. Your focus should not be on a purpose, but on purposes, which change as your life situation, interests, and priorities shift. Don’t be railroaded in the direction of a single purpose, or remain on one train track because the train will change. The trick is to broaden your mind; that is your priority as a young person. Keep flexible, with your strengths, try everything to see what your aptitudes and talents are.

Then determine a general direction and pursue it. Determining a direction, an orientation in life (say, technical, or mathematical or artistic) is easier, more spontaneous, more flexible, and less laden with overtones than some mystical revelation that sets you on an immutable life path. Times change, circumstances change – indeed, change itself is the norm rather than the exception. A grand purpose is unnecessary and can actually get in the way of a fulfilling career. An attractive orientation is what you need.

My wife, an economist, and I, a businessman and amateur actor and painter, found in mid- life a joint aptitude for writing music. Neither of us had a background in music at all (My father told me I hadn’t a musical bone in my body!). You can’t make money out of composing, but that wasn’t the point. We found it a truly joyful experience, almost a mini-miracle that allowed us to work on something creative together, snd have it played by professional musicians. Early in my life I had established is an orientation towards the arts, and this was a great help. I simply decided to spend the money-making part of it in the business world (which can be creative ss well). You never do know where life will lead you, and that is part of the excitement of it.

Letting out illegally obtained homes on illegally obtained land.

Posted by on

“Is what Airbnb doing internationally illegal, or simply a disgrace?

“Imagine a gorgeous home for your next getaway: a well-stocked kitchen, pool out the patio doors, nice linens, flowers on the bedside table. Sounds great, right?

“Here’s the problem:

“That house: stolen.

“That land: stolen.

“The roads on that stolen land to take you to the stolen house: segregated.

“The borders and checkpoints and airports you took to get there: closed to the very people whose homes they are.

“Airbnb, the global tourism giant, is profiting from vacation rentals in Israeli settlements, built on stolen Palestinian land and illegal under international law. Every time someone rents an Airbnb house in a Palestinian settlement, Airbnb takes a cut.

“Airbnb’s anti-discrimination policy states that they prohibit listings that promote racism, discrimination, or harm to individuals or groups, and require all users to comply with local laws. But their listings in settlements are just another example of a trend we’ve seen time and again: corporations turning a blind eye to flagrant violations of international law so they can profit from Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestine.

“This isn’t the first time that Israel has used tourism as both a means and an end: expropriating more Palestinian land and resources in the name of tourism, while also using those tourist images to distract from its human rights abuses. Beach scenes beckon gay men to Tel Aviv — never mind that Palestinian fishermen less than 40 miles away in Gaza can’t work for fear of being shot. Images of fancy wineries promise idyllic getaways — just ignore the illegal settlement outpost beyond the visitor center. And archeological digs offer riveting history lessons — but don’t ask about the Palestinian villages they’re digging under.

“Settlers know as well as Israeli politicians that tourism is a way to legitimise their illegal prescence. By allowing settlement “hosts” Airbnb is doing Israel’s dirty work”. (Jewish Voice for Peace Jan 2016, as composed by them).

The above was written by concerned Jewish activists, not by me.

Airbnb should be comprehensively boycotted until they stop renting these houses. The trouble is that the Western media refuses to broadcast the facts for fear of being branded “anti-semitic”. Therefore the public are quite unaware of the problem. Israel spends a fortune on public relations, and tourists are treated as VIPs, never seeing the other side of the story. Decent, kindly people who have been to Israel and rented houses, instead of staying at hotels, will quite likely excoriate me for even raising the matter, so thorough and comprehensive is the PR produced by Israel. We are all easily persuaded by smiling, happy faces in magazines and on TV, but content not to look too closely at the real situation, comfortable in our denial.

How well parented are the young?

Posted by on

Is this fair?

A YouGov explored Brotosh public attitudes towards 48 groups, categorised by gender, age, ethnicity and religion. They found that people considered white British men in their 20s to be the most lazy, rude and promiscuous people in the country; the most likely to get drunk; and, along with black Caribbean men in their 20s, the most likely to take drugs. The most popular group was white women in their 60s.

I think to damn a whole age group of a single gender is ridiculous. There are many nice, cheerful, polite and considerate young men in Britain. People, make these wild generalisations, often with a particular person in mind, extrapolating from the particular and applying it to the general; but it isn’t fair or reasonable.

What is worrying is that, with two parents working, discipline takes a dive, because the adults are probably just too exhausted to keep nagging their children. Some sre therefore growing up self-centered and lacking respect for anyone, which I think is the fault of parents (not schools ; schools cannot make up for the failures of parenting). A small example: for countless centuries, even before the invention of writing, children were expected to thank grandparents, for instance, for birthday presents, aunts for days out, and family friends for holiday presents. They always needed a nudge or a nag from Mum or Dad, mind you. Now too many young men don’t even bother to return a text message, let alone send a thank you for a birthday gift. All deeply alienating. Thank goodness for the civilised young men – let them not give in to being boors.