A minimum standard of living in Britain today includes, but is more than just, food, clothes and shelter. It is about having what you need in order to have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society

I should talk about the statement made on page 11 of the 2010 MIS report where the concept of well-being is implicitly linked to lacking an MIS and how well-being is a confusing concept that broadly comes down to living a happy and healthy life. I should note that having good well-being is something covered by definitions of poverty yet remains a very separate concept. I should point out that you can be filthy rich and sad and lonely. You could possess the resources to participate in society but you might be heavily depressed and isolated and thus be unable to participate in society have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society (a condition not only of the definition of the minimum income standard but also of definitions of poverty – notably Townsend’s often cited 1979 work). I should say about how we wouldn’t assume that the described situation is one of poverty and begin to talk about the seemingly necessary link between resources and poverty. I should then finish by saying that all such thoughts are pre-emptive and I will need to be very careful that I don’t prejudice my findings with my expectations going into the research.

But all of that is put to the back of my mind. You see I’ve just been sitting in the Starbucks in Muirhead Tower at Birmingham Uni. Almost every time I have sat in that Starbucks I’ve noticed that there are particularly geeky, often fat, middle aged, male academics in there doing their utmost to hit on foreign visitors. Their conversations are punctuated by long and uncomfortable silences and frequently involve explanations of what makes ‘guys’ and ‘girls’ so different. These explanations have the feeling of arguments repeated from the pages of books rather than the voice of actual lived experience. Where most people would talk about their ‘mates’ or their ‘friends’ these academics seemingly prefer to refer to their ‘social group’ which servers to accentuate their oddness and utter lack of any true first hand experience of either friends of girls. I feel bad for the foreign visitor who most often sits there looking like they want to run away but who yet remains polite and tries to steer the conversation to more professional matters. The academics sensing that the focus of the conversation is changing frequently make some kind of brief comment before refocusing the conversation not from the professional to what they do at lunch time and how they love to go to the park. I’m distracted and my mind wanders, at first I think of such academics as massively annoying but my mind eventually forgives their lack of interpersonal skills. Perhaps these academics are a good little case study of how one can have poor well-being (feeling isolated and lonely) and yet being free from poverty.

Ruth Lister’s book Poverty helpfully separates out concepts, definitions and measures. Concepts of course are abstract whilst definitions are more precise (separating out a term from other terms). Measures go further, to look at specific aspects of a definition. For example a measure of poverty might be one’s income – but a definition is more likely to be about a lack of resources (both financial and material). Definitions are borne from specifying our more abstract ideas (our concepts). If definitions are borne of concepts one needs to gather information on how poverty is conceptualised before one can provide a definition. My dissertation task will be to discover how people in the UK conceptualise poverty and from this determine a definition.

Defining poverty is, to say the least, tricky. There is no agreed definition. Some definitions focus on a lack of resources (financial and/or material). I’ll write and discuss them another time. Now I have a question about another way of defining poverty – a Sen type definition of poverty as “the failure of basic capabilities to reach a certain minimally acceptable levels” (1992: 109). Under this definition people are unable to choose between ways of living that they may value. They lack the ability to convert their capabilities into ‘functionings’ (things they can actually do). Capability to function for a disabled person may be lower than someone able bodied as to do similar things may be more expensive. One could argue that the duty of the state is to ensure that such ‘failings in capability’ are combated. For example, the state may take responsibility for the provision and installation of ramps, lifts and wider doorways in the home of a disabled person so that the individual does not have to carry the burden of this cost and thus can spend their income on the kinds of things an able bodied person might spend money on. For the sake of clarity, I continue with this (over simplified) example. The able bodied person and disabled person may have exactly the same income but the able bodied person would be able to afford to buy a good quality house (which of course is better for a whole host of reasons – not least for one’s health) whereas the disabled person must purchase poor quality housing (which could very well be bad for one’s health) in order that they have the money left over to pay for the ramps, lifts and widened doorways that they need. If the government assumes responsibility for ensuring that capability to function is equalised and so provide and install these types of improvements to the disabled persons home then that person can afford to live in a house of equal quality to the able bodied person (because they no longer have to use part of their income on lifts, wider doorways and ramps).

My question is this: what separates this view – in which capability to function is equalised – from the notion of equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity would state that all people should have an equal chance of being able to succeed in life. The capabilities approach would seem to say that people should have an equal chance to fulfil their capability to function. So am I missing something? What is the difference between equalising capability to function and equalising opportunity? Obviously I will continue to read but I’d like thoughts (which means I need to get some people to read this!).

Cameron and First Past The Post

Cameron asserts that he does not wish to reform the way we actually elect MP’s. He claims that proportional representation shifts power to the ‘political elites’ and away from your everday man or woman in the street. I would ask the question: how does proportional representation take the power away from the man and woman in the street and hand it to the political elites? Surely if anything takes the power away from the men and women in the street it is First Past The Post? Surely a more proportional system would mean that fewer votes are wasted – giving those whose vote would be wasted under the current system more of a say and allowing the electorate to be represented in Parliament at a level more in line with what their votes have requested.

Personally it is something else that troubles me about PR. That is about its potential to shift the balance of power to a third party. Would the Lib Dems become a party of constant governance? If this was to be the case then is PR potentially more undemocratic as a third party is effectively able to choose who they will allow to form the bulk of the executive with.

For example – presumably if the next election was conducted in a more proportional system and the Tories achieved 33%, Labour 30% and the Lib Dems around 20% then a Con-Lib coalition government may well be set up. If at the next election (remembering this example is purely hypothetical) Labour achieve 33%, Tories 30% and Lib Dems around 20% again then presumably a Lab-Lib coalition would make sense. Of course in both cases if the party with 30% could muster up enough support from other smaller parties then the Lib Dems may choose to form a coalition with them to gain an overall majority. This all means that the Lib Dems could effectively be in government all the time. It would also mean that the Lib Dems would be able to choose who they want to be in government with which would increase their power further.

However, I must admit that I’m not sure how well this argument stacks up.

Reducing the Number of MP’s

Cameron also puts forward a proposal to reduce the size of the Commons stating:

at the election we’ll include proposals in our manifesto to ask the Boundary Commission to reduce the Commons – initially by 10% – and, while they’re at it, to get rid of the unfair distortions in the system today, so every vote has an equal value.

Is this a basic contradiction – to decrease democracy by having more people represented by each MP and to increase democracy by making each persons vote count more? But how will votes count more if he wishes to keep FPTP and cut the number of MP’s so that each individual MP represents a larger amount of people?

I would guess that Cameron would point to his other pledges as shifting ‘power to the powerless,’ so let’s examine one of them.

Cameron proposes a new power of citizen’s initiative, with local referendums on issues where over 5% of the electorate have signed up.

If you manage to get 5% of the electorate to sign a petition you will get your voice heard in Parliament. However, it’s the people that elected into Parliament that would then debate your issue. If you and the 5% of the electorate who have signed your petition are at odds with the policy of the majority Party in parliament then it is unlikely that your petition will be useful. For example, consider I started a petition in support of PR (say for example the below are in support of implementing the recommendations from the Jenkins Report) – it is unlikely that the Tories (the probable next government) would ever allow such proposals to pass. So I think that this claim is something of a fallacy.

Again, the driving principle of reform should be the redistribution of power from the powerful to the powerless. That means boosting parliament’s power to hold the government of the day to account.

But you are reducing the power of parliament to hold the executive to account by reducing the number of MP’s and taking more power away from the powerless by increasing the number of people represented by each MP. The size of the executive is unlikely to change but the size of the chamber controlling them and holding them to account – voting on their proposals and taking part in Committees, would reduce.

Just a very short conclusion to sum up my thoughts: I would argue that Cameron’s rhetoric of redistributing power from the powerful to the powerless is simple empty with regard to electoral reform and that a reduction in the number of MP’s actually serves to do the opposite – reducing democracy as each individual MP represents a larger amount of people.

You could argue either way about this statement but broadly I think basketball is beginning to experience some growth in this country and we should be actively working to encourage that growth.

It’s always useful to outlay some history. Go back 15 years – 1994: the Chicago Bulls are about to win their third straight NBA championship, Michael Jordon is a global megastar described by some as “Jesus in Nikes” (see David Halberstein’s book Playing for Keeps: Michael Jordan and the world he made) and Channel 4 has two basketball magazine shows (NBA Raw and NBA 24/7) and a live game on every week. Manchester Giants (then the best team in Britain) play every home game in a packed out MEN Arena and the future looks promising.

Fast forward three short years. ITV have outbid Channel 4 and now play one highlights show (which competes with the BBC’s Football Focus) every week. The show just isn’t as good or as credible as Channels 4’s Raw and 24/7. After destroying the programming ITV then set about almost destroying themselves along with a number of lower profile sports clubs (through the collapse of ITV digital). The ‘basketball boom’ is wiped out. Crowds rapidly decline and Manchester Giants move from the massive MEN to the smaller Velodrome before going totally out of business.

Since the collapse of the TV revenues, the Giants and interest in basketball, the sport has been undergoing something of a reconstruction. For years there was no TV coverage – now TV coverage is limited to one NBA game a week in the middle of the night on Five. Not the kind of coverage that there was back in the day from Channel 4. However, a rise in basketball fortunes could be considered to be happening. In the last three years the National League has expanded greatly – there are now more divisions, more teams and more clubs with youth structures and longer term plans. In addition the newly formed Great Britain team have, over the passed two summers, achieved promotion to Division A of the European Championships and qualified for the Eurobasket (the European Cup for basketball). They will compete against some of the worlds best teams in their group stage including the World Champions and Olympic Silver Medalists, Spain. However, they have had zero real TV time.

Basketball is one of the countries most participated sports. It is played in most schools and is popular there because it is simple to understand, involves a good number of players at any one time and is indoor – an advantage in a country where it rains so much. Moreover, as was commented by coaches and players during my dissertation study basketball has a “street cred” – an identity with youth and hip hop culture that many find appealing. Basketball is the positive side of this culture – there are many negatives which can be picked out too. Involvement in sport is a positive behaviour. In my experience it gives young people a controlled outlet for their aggression, fosters a feeling of belonging and provides young people with an array of life skills (controlling aggression, understanding the value of hard work and team work, being able to communicate confidently with different groups of people to name but a few)*. Of course sport is not the only way to do this – there are many other activities that can give so many benefits and basketball (and sport in general) is not for everyone. However, we should not ignore the benefits of sport simply because some do not enjoy it. I believe we should work to actively encourage participation in sports like basketball (and in other activities such as dance, theatre, music etc.) by providing opportunities for people to get involved in them. That means facilities that can be used for free, well organised and well funded community clubs so that these activities are accessible to all. This would be expensive and many will say just too expensive. However, my experience and my dissertation project has led me to believe such activities are part of a broader education that can help us to develop social skills that are important for individuals and society as a whole.

*Often these benefits are unevidenced when presented in literature. Again this is the case here – what I have drawn on is my own experience and the qualitative data that I gathered as part of my dissertation project (which is far too long and boring to put on a blog).

This week this article “Comment is Free” at the guardian speaks of the death of Labour and of lost opportunity. Back when Obama was elected many political commentators were proclaiming a shift in politics to the left. The bank bailouts and action taken both at national and international levels in an attempt to stimulate economies seemed to support and was heralded in the same fashion. But now it is as though this shift to the left has been forgotten. Brown and the Labour party do not seem to realise that what is needed is for them to shift back to the principles which they have abandoned. Shift back to a position where a 50% income tax on the richest 1% is not put forward as a pragmatic way to increase tax revenue but out of an ideology which is rational and moral.

Moreover, Obama is not just hugely popular in the States – he is hugely popular here. He is popular not just because of his remarkable achievement of being the first African-American President of the US. He is not popular just because he seemingly understands the problem of real people. He is not popular just because of his wonderful and refreshing aura of integrity. He is popular partly because of all of those things but Obama is also popular because of his policies. He has introduced a programme of withdrawal from Iraq, he has closed Guantanamo Bay. He has made a start on health and education reforms that will help the poor and the average American citizen.

Brown is clearly unable to live up to Obama’s characteristics – he is never going to be black, he is never going to understand the problems of real people, he has ruined his integrity. But could Brown commit to and undertake a new policy agenda that will restore faith in the Government – a policy agenda that commits to reforms that will help the poor and the average British citizen? Perhaps Brown is too much an embodiment of the past to step so progressively into the future. Sometimes Parties implode and are plunged into crisis by people vying for the job of leader when the current leader does not want to give it up. But perhaps Labour really does need a change of Leadership. Perhaps they need someone who can make the bold policy decisions that would move the Labour party back to where it originated from. Back to the left. The question is: who could be that new Leader?

Yesterday Alistair Darling had the toughest job in the UK. Announcing a budget amid soaring levels of national debt.

Maybe I am naive but I thought this his announcement was as good as it could have been. For me there was much to welcome – not least the 50% tax on those earning over £150,000.

After watching BBC’s 10 o’clock news and their Breakfast News this morning I can’t help but feel that a skewed approach has been taken when reporting on yesterdays budget. I expect to criticism to focus on the massive debt the nation now faces and I understand that it is a major issue that many people are concerned about. However, I’ve heard nothing on comparison between the UK debt and that of other countries. I’ve heard no explanation of the ideology that a tax on the rich puts forward and (from my point of view) the promise of a job or training for under 25’s seems to have taken a back seat.

So how do we compare with other countries? Darling announced yesterday that the UK’s debt will be 59% of GDP at the end of this year, 68% next year and 79% by 2013-2014. US national debt stood at 72.5% of GDP in September 2008. That was before Obama announced his trillion dollar rescue package. 

I personally think that it is right that the rich pay more in tax and I think it was right to raise this to 50%. Bad Conscience gives reasons (which I agree with) for progressive taxation much better than I ever could when arguing the injustice of flat rate taxes like VAT. However, these reasons have not once been put forward as part of any of the reporting on the budget that I have seen. Converse to ideology Brown has been preaching the 50% tax rate is about pragmatism. Please tell me if I am incorrect. I would be delighted to see such coverage in a piece of mainstream media.

Surely at a time when the greatest recession since 1939 is being blamed on the selfishness of wealthy bankers it would be a vote winner to justify not only the ideology behind a more progressive taxation system but also on a more simple level to those who don’t care about such ideology. To plug the tax rise as an opportunity to make those super rich bankers who have collapsed the economy, help us to recover. Surely that approach could be taken and be popular with “the man on the street.”

I myself would subscribe to the ideology behind progressive taxation that is so well laid out by Bad Conscience. However, I do think that there would be tabloid room for a headline of “Greedy Bankers To Be Forced To Pay For Recession”.

I also think the promise of a job or training for under 25’s who have been unemployed for over a year is something to welcome. I would ask is it enough? Why not go further and implement job creation schemes, open not just to those registered unemployed for over a year but to anyone who is unemployed. Yes these schemes may be expensive, yes we may have to borrow but more people in jobs means more people with income. More people with income means more people spend money. More money spent the more confident businesses feel. It is the positive multiplier effect and it is the Governments duty now to ensure that they take the lead on creating it.

In Birmingham there are many languages spoken and I would not be surprised if someone told me that 100 different languages were spoken here. So should I really be surprised to find out that there are two primary schools in Birmingham where 99.7% of the children have English as an additional language (EAL). 36 Birmingham schools have over 90% EAL students, 17 more have over 80%. Nearly 22% of Birmingham Schools have a majority of EAL students.

Let’s be clear what EAL means. English is not the first language for children in these schools. Indeed, English may not even be the second language for these children. It could in many cases be third or even fourth. It is an additional language and sometimes needs to be taught from scratch. I can see the Daily Mail headline already but unlike the bigots that write that paper I understand why a child may live in Birmingham and not speak English before school and I don’t have a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is targets placed on these schools and the way in which some schools meet these targets.

Even if a primary school school has 99.7% EAL students they are still expected to achieve the same standards, in the same length of time in English, Maths and Science. I know a teacher who works at a school with 92% EAL. The school faces closure at the end of the year if the pupils do not achieve the national targets. The teacher I know (who is not from the UK) has said that where he’s from, rather than threaten such a school with closure, money would be pumped into the school. Extra resources would be put on hand and more teachers could be employed. This is absolutely the right way to do things.

I believe that for a school with 92% EAL students to meet any target for English, that could reasonably be placed upon a school where English is the first language, it will need more teachers per pupil (and this is really what the whole education system needs). This allows teachers to give more instruction and guidance at an individual level. Every child gets more attention when there are more teachers in the class and as should be the case Every Child Matters and with the greater attention they can be paid, they feel like they do.

But a school that faces closure will throw up more problems too. It is the greatest pressure a teacher could be put under. The assertion is “get the results or lose your job.” This means teachers are much more likely to cheat. A couple of weeks ago I went out to eat with two teachers (who do not work in the same school as the previously mentioned teacher). They were discussing how teachers cheat on SAT’s papers in year 6. Where they are allowed to read the actual question out loud they are not allowed to infer or help in any other way. From the conversation I had with the two teachers it seems apparent that some teachers do at least infer and at worst give the answers. It is certainly the wrong thing to do but would it be a surprise that highly stressed teachers cheat in an attempt to keep their jobs? Of course, we can not be sure that this really is the case because it is effectively a result of hearsay.

But how are we going to get more teachers? How are we supposed to cater for these smaller class sizes? And how do we stop teachers cheating (if they are)?

In terms of getting more teachers, the answer is not just money. Teaching has to become something that people really want to do. Unfortunately, we have grown up in the era where money is paramount in our lives. New ambitious graduates often look at salaries before they look at jobs. Of course that is not always the case. Many graduates wait for the job they want or spend some time considering what they really want to do. However, the lure of teaching hasn’t been strong enough. More needs to be done to encourage people to become teachers and more money should be put into schools to pay for the staff and infrastructure.

Now I’m off the point because doing this would help all schools and not just those that have 90+% EAL students and are not achieving the national targets on English (but that’s not a bad thing). Perhaps, we should target the most challenging schools first with such an initiative – in which case the schools with 90+% EAL would be a very good place to start.

And the cheating? I think as teachers get to spend more time giving help, guidance and actually teaching individual children the will feel more secure about the ability of the children in their class and as a result the “need” to cheat will be somewhat taken away. (That is if they cheat now of course, of which there is no solid proof in this country that they do)

Those who know me will know that as I don’t drink, I am likely to have some quite strong opinions when it comes to alcohol. However, I don’t voice them very often for two reasons. 1. It would be very easy to misinterpret my opinions and this may lead people to think that I am judging them. I’m not interested in doing this and though I don’t agree with drinking heavily I certainly don’t judge people who do it.  I don’t agree with the action but I don’t think any less of them as people. 2. I often can’t be bothered to explain to people who usually ask me why I don’t drink during a trip to the pub or a night out.

Some would say my opinions are very strong – I think that people drink heavily to escape from themselves. I don’t feel I need to do that. I think that people drink heavily to escape responsibility, so that even when they could control their actions they feel that they have an excuse not to do so. I don’t want to do that. I think that people drink heavily because they feel they have to because everyone else does. I don’t feel the need to do that. So I don’t drink at all.

Some may say, why not drink just a little bit then. I have many answers. 1. I don’t like the taste of alcoholic drinks in general – I have tried an array and I don’t like any of them. They all have a similar aftertaste that lingers and that I just don’t like. Some people like these drinks – I don’t, so I don’t drink them. 2. It is much cheaper not to drink. People frequently say a pint of coke is often the same price as an alcoholic drink. Well then get me a cordial. That won’t be. 3. I think often a little bit leads to a little bit more which leads to a lot. Most of my friends are sporty people. Sporty people (in general) drink a lot when they go out to a bar/club. I’m sure those of you who have attended university will have noticed the various sports teams getting plastered around your campuses and generally ending up doing stupid things. Much of this is peer pressure. If you drink at all then it is much easier to pressure you, it is easier to get you to join in alcohol related banter. Some people say that no one can force you to drink, but if you drink a little bit, it is much easier for those around you to get you to drink a lot. I find its best just to steer clear altogether.

Now that my personal view on alcohol is established, for anyone who reads this and does not know me and for those that do whom I have never explained that to, I feel that I can continue

I want to take issue with two things. Firstly the irresponsible pricing of drinks (particularly white ciders – Frosty Jacks, White Strike etc.). Secondly, I will confront drinks offers often used as advertising for pubs/clubs. Throughout I will use what I believe is now an accepted premise that binge drinking is a bad thing which has negative externalities that impact upon society in a variety of ways. I will not go in to the many ways binge drinking impacts society or debate whether or not binge drinking is a bad thing.

Drinks pricing is something that has recently been accepted as an issue that needs to be addressed, as this article from the guardian shows. To find out why let’s take an example; it is possible to buy a 3 liter bottle of Frosty Jacks White Cider for £3. That’s cheap. As a result, Frosty Jacks is popular with three prevalent groups – teenage drinkers, students and alcoholics. I am obviously open to being corrected but I know of no-one who buys Frosty Jacks because they enjoy the taste and I know of no-one who has bought a 3 liter bottle of Frosty Jacks without having the intention of finishing the bottle in one evening and (ususally doing this on their own). I believe that Frosty Jacks aims at binge drinkers and alcoholics who see the cider as a way of getting a lot of alcohol for not a lot of money. So I am fully in favor of pricing alcohol by the unit rather that the bottle and I think it will work to an extent. I am not a prohibitionist but I do think that the Alcohol market should be very tightly regulated and that firms such as Frosty Jacks should not be able to target binge drinkers and alcoholics by pricing their drinks so low whilst simultaneously providing the consumer with a large number of units.

Whilst my first issue now seems to be at least on the policy radar, my second issue certainly does not. Drinks offers are often just as irresponsible and designed to get the customer absolutely hammered. This is seemingly a good tactic for clubs/pubs. I have lost count of how many times I’ve had friends tell me “man I spent so much money last night. I got drunk and took another £40 out.” If this, as I suspect, is uncommon then it is no surprise that pubs and clubs put on offers that encourage their customers to get totally and utterly hammered. Indeed, some pubs/clubs make no attempt to hide this. A pub on Broad St. in Birmingham until recently advertised a night DJ’d by “MC Hammer-ed” which had several ridiculously low priced drinks offers aimed at getting the customer “hammer-ed” – the pub also has a poster with the drink aware symbol. Another club in Birmingham offers shots for 80p a go. Many of my friends in Birmingham will already by aware of my opinions about “Vodbull”. The “Vodbull” club night (the pricing may have changed – I’m not sure) advertised Vodka Redbull mixers for £1 each. Some may find it an interesting note that this particular mixer does two things to your heart, the alcohol from the vodka slows it down whilst the redbull – with its various stimulants – speeds it up. I went twice, the second time I went for someone’s birthday. On this night, the birthday girl ended up in the paramedics room, another member of our party ended up in hospital and most people ended up either carrying someone or being carried home. I decided to leave when I saw someone throw up off a balcony that overlooked the dance floor. Those dancing below were so wasted, they didn’t even notice that they were now all covered in someone else’s vomit. I never went again.

Recently binge drinking has been given space on the policy agenda and if it is truly to be addressed as a problem, it is not enough to merely address the problems caused by Frosty Jacks. Irresponsible drinks offers should not be allowed on the grounds that they encourage binge drinking