Day: 28 February 2012

As has been prominently reported by every single news outlet in the country, Sir Fred Goodwin is now simply Mr Fred. He was stripped of his knighthood for his role in the collapse of RBS and the £45 million he has cost the taxpayer through his epic mishandling of the bank. Whilst this move has been loudly trumpeted by Cameron, Clegg and the body who did it, the Forfeiture Committee, Mr Goodwin has been strangely quiet about the whole affair.

Who can blame him really, the poor man’s probably in shock. OK so he might have managed to bring about financial Armageddon, and admittedly he suffered no legal consequences for it whatsoever, but taking his knighthood away? That ought to show the bastard. Obviously it would just be unsporting to think about touching his massive piles of money, or his £16.9 million pension for that matter, I mean talk about kicking a man when he’s down. I feel sure I’m not alone in feeling that losing the right to be called ‘Sir’ is an entirely proportionate punishment for one of the worst cases of fiscal mismanagement this country has ever seen. Here’s how that conversation probably went:

“Sir Goodwin, the press are still saying some awfully nasty things about you,”

“I know, they’re always having a go, they just can’t seem to forget about the whole thing like the City chaps have.”

“Well I’m afraid we’re going to take your knighthood away.”

“You think they’ll leave me alone now they’ve had their revenge?”

“Probably,”

“Do I get to keep my obscene pension?”

“Absolutely,”

“Oh, alright then.”

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

Smacking is back! Or at least it’s back in the news. For those not in the know, smacking was banned in the ’90s, but the law was deemed confusing and clarified in 2005. The law currently forbids smacking so hard as to leave a bruise or redden the skin (sensible enough until you realise, as pointed out by a comedian whose name I can’t remember, that black skin doesn’t redden). And there the issue lay dormant, until MP David Lammy’s comments recently that ‘smacking might have prevented the riots’.

This woulda-coulda-shoulda kind of thinking is as pointless as trying to convince a die-hard liberal parent that the occasional smack might not harm a child so much as they might think. However, Lammy’s comments have re-opened a tin of worms that was best left half-eaten and abandoned at the back of the fridge. In Britain we all seem to fall into one of two camps on this issue.

Camp one: It never did me any harm, and look at me now – I read the Daily Mail so I must be a fully balanced human!

Camp two: HOW could you even THINK about harming a CHILD? You must be a MONSTER to BEAT your own FLESH AND BLOOD (insert wacky constipated face here).

Without getting into this thorny issue – which, for the record, finds me tending towards the latter but acknowledging that very rarely, a symbolic smack MIGHT be the only way to get a message across – it seems that we might benefit more from approaching the riots from a less backward-looking perspective. We can all agree that nobody should wantonly hurt a child, and definitely that those that seem to enjoy it rather too much should be kept from doing so. So much, so unsurprising. But how many people think that smacking should be banned altogether? A poll on the Guardian (which is still running as of writing this)  reveals that even 55% of that paper’s famously liberal readership thinks that smacking is ok. Will there be a ban on smacking? No, the UK wouldn’t accept it. Whether that’s evidence of our anachronistic attitudes is open to debate.

However, Lammy himself has been caught by a trap which it’s easy to be snagged by. In relating smacking to the riots, he’s revealed that he tends towards lazy thinking – ok if you’re expressing an opinion, less so if you’re involved in drafting policy. Because there is no way to prove that smacking by parents reduces, increases or acts neutrally on a child’s future propensity to violence or crime. The assumption that it increases discipline is just that – an assumption, and people have all manner of views, memories and anecdotes concerning it. With that in mind, and with the laws as they are – flawed, deeply, but functional and unlikely to change – what is the point of raising the Smacking Question?

Labour is the party which the naïve might expect to move away from these retrograde questions, and ask more meaningful ones like ‘what is the effect of eviscerating social support for all families while increasing support for financial institutions to the point of alienating us from the rest of Europe likely to be’? But as society swings to the right, Lammy exposes himself as someone with no new ideas – this, not a chronic lack of future spanking fetishists, is the most dire threat that we now face.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

Comment & Debate Editor Ben Green explains why the term ‘U-turn’ needs to be banished forever.

It is virtually guaranteed that if you pick up any newspaper on any given day of the week, it will somewhere contain an article accusing local or national government of a ‘U-turn’. In the figurative sense it is used, a U-turn means a reversal of one’s position, invariably as a result of outside pressure; normally this means that a proposed policy is to be dropped, or a Bill amended or even stopped. Recent government ‘U-turns’ have been the ‘pause’ in the progress of the NHS Bill or the reversal of cuts to disability benefit, and only recently Manchester City Council’s decision to sink its proposed fines for people over-filling their wheelie bins was triumphantly announced as a ‘U-turn’. The common theme throughout these and other stories is the tone of admonishment always adopted by the press in its reporting. A ‘U-turn’ is categorically a bad thing, because the politicians involved have not stuck to their convictions, but instead caved like the slack-spined parasites they really are.

But just for a moment let’s consider what doing a ‘U-turn’ actually means. The government, or council, has come up with a policy which, for whatever reason, seems to them to be a good idea. In the Manchester case given above, one assumes that over-filled bins are difficult for bin men to collect, so the council has devised a plan to address the problem and bring in a bit of much-needed cash at the same time.

Whilst this seems very sensible to those designing the policy, local taxpayers did not see it the same way, so that when the policy was announced there came an entirely justified outpouring of public malcontent and the policy was dropped in the face of this outrage. So here is what’s actually happened: Manchester’s elected representatives have had an idea, which they proceed to implement. In doing so the public makes it known that they disagree and that in this instance their representatives have got it wrong; in response those representatives duly drop their plans. It is very difficult to see how that is anything but a laudable example of democracy at work.

In an ideal world our elected representatives would get it right every time. In an ideal world the only policies and laws government tried to implement at any level would be perfect in every way and perfectly suited to the needs and views of every demographic. Of course in reality this is simply not possible, there are always going to be people who disagree with a policy and in some cases there are always going to be policies which the majority disagree with. This is because politicians, think tanks, the civil service and everybody else involved in these things are, as much as we may like to pretend otherwise, human. The idea that if a policy proves wildly unpopular the government should stick two fingers up and go ahead with it is simply ludicrous, and besides leads to headlines regarding the party’s dereliction of democracy instead of a sneering article about a ‘U-turn’.

It is almost impossible to adequately spell out the mind-boggling lunacy that is on display when papers demand that something be done, or not done as the case may be, which is contrary to the current position and then lambasting the government when they do it. It is the same situation as if a lecturer were to set his class an essay, but after listening to their reasonable protestations that they already had a full workload, decided that they didn’t have to do the essay after all. Now depending on how conceited you are, the lecturer has either reversed his decision in consideration of the solid case put forward for doing so, which on balance is better than the case in favour, or he has done a ‘U-turn’.

As well as the blinding hypocrisy of the thing, there is a secondary problem. If the government are going to smeared whatever they do – as wishy-washy U-turners if they listen or iron-fisted autocrats if they don’t, it seems that there is very little reason not to just do what they wanted to do in the first place. If I were to spend half an hour after an argument insulting anybody who eventually realised I was right, nobody would bother to agree with me. Not only is this whole ‘U-turn’ business irrational and insulting, but it is actively harmful and must be stopped.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

Has exam stress got you down? Have you returned from your immaculate, well-stocked home over Christmas to find yourself once again afflicted by empty cupboards and housemates whose idea of washing up is to leave it in the sink until you do it? Despair no longer then, because – despite first appearances – this article bears a message of hope that might sustain you for up to an hour or so of this bright future.

Subtly it’s come about that those to whom I now speak must downgrade their expectations of the future. Our world, or at least the Western half of it, seems to have run suddenly and irrevocably out of gas (not literally, that will come later). Those who came of age in the previous boom-time generations have spent the inheritance on pointless wars and on keeping most of Britain’s banks afloat when they couldn’t do it themselves. The invisible hand of the market is fisting us, and it turns out that diamond rings and things we used to own (like the promise of a future of abundance) do not make very good lubricant.

Those of us who were born with the ability to be sensibly pessimistic will not, perhaps, be surprised. But to the others who, like me, prefer to stay more optimistic, I offer this in consolation: the problems faced by this generation might prove to be its making. The advantages which characterise it have been proven very effective by the Arab Spring, undoubtedly the most momentous world event (or events) of last year. This is a change whose significance will be proven, whether for good or ill – it is the world’s responsibility to push for the former if possible, but the primary meaning of these events is the importance of allowing the people of the Arab world to determine their own future. Counter-intuitively this might mean intervening to help to prevent the rise to power of any usurping tyrant – a scenario that will with luck remain hypothetical.

Anyone left who cares about the future of this country might seek to apply the same principles here. Although those now coming of age lack the great numerical advantage that the baby boomers managed to leverage for effecting change, we have access to technological advantages comparable to the invention of the printing press and television combined, and each person now can connect remotely with others in ways hitherto unimaginable. Given the right motivations and goals these might prove pivotal in updating the straining power structures of this nation and others. As long as we don’t just use this tech to tweet incessantly about the X Factor we might yet save ourselves from global warming and chronic privileging of some over others…

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

Gary Speed’s recent, tragic, passing at the age of 42 has pushed one of the more delicate topics into the public domain, depression. Depression is not a simple feeling of unhappiness we all inevitably feel once in a while, it is an illness. This, in itself, is a difficult thing to comprehend; a feeling of malcontent so deep and all encompassing that it can, in severe cases, lead to suicide.

Clinical depression is often described as a silent killer; it can attack all that someone holds dear or enjoys in life, leaving feelings of hopelessness and self-loathing. It is not simply that something has upset the sufferer; it is a feeling of worthlessness that can infiltrate all facets of a person’s life, completely reshaping them and, often, making it difficult to continue or see a light at the end of the tunnel. David D. Burns, a professor of Psychiatry at Stanford University, noted “depression can seem worse than terminal cancer, because most cancer patients feel loved and they have hope and self-esteem”.

Despite this stark comparison, the outlook is far less bleak for depression sufferers; symptoms can be improved by medical attention in only a few weeks in up to 90 percent of cases, according to recent research by the American National Institutes of Health. If not treated, it has been found in an independent study by the World Health Organisation that those who suffer from depression or similar mental ailments are often more unhealthy physically. These effects can take a huge toll on all those who suffer from depression.

Unfortunately, in a number of severe cases these symptoms lead to suicide. Suicides will always be great tragedies, especially when, in the reported case of Gary Speed, that person contributed so much in their life. It is, however, a greater tragedy that the subjects of suicide and depression are not discussed to a greater extent in the public domain. Suicide is the second biggest killer of men aged between 15 and 24 in the UK, behind road accidents.

A staggering one in five deaths in this age group is due to suicide – much higher than prostate cancer which, throughout the month of November, has been securely in the minds of all who saw a moustached man. I am not for one second suggesting that the spotlight be taken away from prostate cancer, a more than worthy cause, it simply seems bewildering that an illness so prevalent and with such potential to destroy lives is not discussed in the same way as similarly devastating medical conditions like cancer and HIV/AIDS. Lack of awareness can be cited as a direct reason why as few as a third of those who suffer from diagnosable depression seek medical attention.

While Gary Speed will be remembered by all as the great footballer, manager and man that he was, it is a stark reminder of the devastation that suicide can cause and the need for greater discussion of this silent killer.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected]

 This, if you happen to be reading, bicycle thief, is all about you. Why do we try to rehabilitate offenders? We do it because the criminal is a victim as well; it is not his fault he is forced to steal from his neighbour to scratch a living in this harsh and brutal world. He is but a product of his environment and a ghostly agent tracing out his own life.

Well I disagree. He is a criminal, a vagrant, a hater, a rogue and a defiler of the laws of the land. He doesn’t deserve to be wrapped in cotton wool and told that he really hurt peoples’ feelings.  I recently had my bicycle stolen and – as you may be able to tell – my heart retched with pure hatred and anger, knowing that another human being has stolen an incredibly important possession of mine; and that, if caught, he will be treated as more of a victim than me and be rehabilitated.

 And what is this strange obsession with rehabilitation?  Is that not a wicked and depraved idea unto itself; the idea that you can, through some mechanical system, change the very fabric of somebody’s brain? Change their very soul to what the state demands? It is depraved. Punishment is a much more humane system than rehabilitation, you need only read ‘A Clockwork Orange’ to understand what the ultimate aim of such a rehabilitant system really is.

Alas, we need punishment, not rehab, for these people. The idea that such people are sick is a lie. They are simply evil people who are prepared to suppress those instincts you and I would not dare ignore: empathy, compassion and a sense of solidarity with our fellow creatures. Why is it that their warped sense of morality makes them such victims? How is it Victorian to suggest that people who commit crimes are bad people? And why did they steal my fucking bicycle?

Punishment need not be the cat-o’-nine-tails or the birch; we have prisons to reprimand people with in the modern world. All I ask is a reasonable loss of liberty and time for criminals, I don’t think that six months for stealing a bicycle is excessive. We need prisons because the criminal and I are different in one very important respect; I am not a criminal. I am not the kind of person to hunt this criminal down and viciously beat them, steal from them or destroy their property. We need prisons and punishment for the state to enact its retribution against the offender.

But there are of course a great number of other issues; the police themselves are rather pathetic (not the individuals but the way in which they are organised) in their pointless visit after the crime. The disinterest heard when on the phone to head office and the unending sense that ‘petty’ theft is simply a matter of fact, that I should feel bad for hating the criminal and that it was somehow my fault; had I not only had a thicker chain on my bike or put it in a less obvious place.

So, yes, I do hate Criminals. I think they are evil and deserving of punishment.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected]

When it comes to America, the entire world seems to suffer from an inferiority complex. What makes America better than any other nation? And why are we so convinced we need them to prosper? Perhaps it’s because America is the world’s largest economy? However, if we really take a deep look into the American economy, it is nothing without the rest of the world. On average, America imports 60 percent of its oil resources from countries including Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, the United Kingdom, Norway, Angola, Algeria and Colombia. Seven of those countries are still considered to be underdeveloped nations, a term that alludes to inferiority when put on the global stage. As oil is an integral part of the American economy, it needs those underdeveloped countries in order to top up their own oil field reserves and keep their economy afloat. Therefore, there is no need to feel inferior; in fact if anything those countries should feel superior.

Furthermore, as the second-largest exporter of goods in the world, America needs the rest of the world in order to have a consumer market. Quite honestly, if every nation in the world were to stand up and expel America from the global economy the world would survive, maybe even better than now. Oil resources would be under less pressure as their largest consumer would disappear, nations struggling to compete with American products would be able to step in and fill the void left by the US as they watched their national economies grow. For all of you economists out there, yes, initially it would be hard for supply to meet demand, but over time industries would develop and at the end of the day America would be the country left behind. Therefore, America cannot have a relatively strong economy without other nations.

So America isn’t economically superior to the wider world; maybe it’s democratically superior then? America’s federal system, with its strict network of checks and balances, has been lauded by an array of political scientists as more democratic than those states with majoritarian systems. But apply democracy outside of domestic policies and to America’s foreign policies and this argument soon withers away.

Throughout its history, America has been notorious for supporting repressive dictatorships in order to protect their economic interests; the US knows it needs everyone else to have a strong economy. The Greek military junta of the ‘60s and ‘70s, Cuba’s Batista, the Somozas of Nicaragua, Egypt’s Mubarak, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea are just a few of the names on the endless list of dictators American governments have supported and some which it continues to support today. Clearly, America cannot be considered democratically superior to authoritarian regimes if you value the aphorism “the enabler is as bad as the doer”.

Ok, so America is neither economically nor democratically superior to any other country in the world, so maybe it’s just a historical path we’re stuck on. Since its independence in 1776 America has been incessantly involved in global politics and survival now seems impossible without them, after all, what country can say it has absolutely no American support?

That would be Cuba. Despite relying on American financial and political aid since its “independence” in 1898, in 1959 Cuba managed to cut the umbilical and reclaim itself. Since then Cuba has managed to survive without America. Despite an unstable economy, Cuba has one of the most respectable health and education systems, which are free and universal. In America a trip to the doctor could bankrupt you on some occasions. If a country like Cuba, only 110,860 square miles in size, with limited natural resources and cut off from the world’s largest economy can manage to stay afloat without American help; then why does the rest of the world -including developed nations like the UK- convince themselves that America is superior to them and that they have to do what America says in order to prosper?

Quite frankly it’s because the world lets America exploit them. Like the bully on the playground, America pushes other nations around and these nations take America’s orders because they believe it ensures their protection. But again, if every nation were to stand up to America and say “we’re not taking this anymore”, the country would lose its abusive power.

So take a step back and look at America even more closely. The world doesn’t need America, it only believes it does. And if we remember this in the future, the rest of the world could stand to benefit.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected]

The Union’s ‘monster referendum’ is here and they’re casing for your votes on a great variety of matters. Many of the planned measures would undoubtedly improve the Union – the clause to allow online voting for policy motions would certainly increase the likelihood that any such motion could actually pass. Unfortunately, buried in the mass of by-laws and sub-clauses is a restructuring of the Union Executive and student media which will, if passed, be the end of this august publication as we know it. Alarmist? Possibly, but unfortunately this is the case.

One of the proposed by-laws (“Executive Committee By-Law”) will remove the post of a full-time, paid Mancunion editor, whilst a second by-law (“Media Charter and Media By-Law”) would see the creation of a ‘Student Media Group’ beholden to the Union Executive, rendering whatever remains of the paper independent in name only. So what is the suggested alternative? Members of the Executive have indicated that the editor will be replaced by a current student. They are expecting a student to take on the full-time job of editing a 32-page newspaper, containing in excess of 100 articles every week, with duties including liaising with the design team, chasing deadlines, running editor’s meetings and ensuring the paper is actually printed.

They are expecting somebody to do this not only whilst maintaining their studies, but for free. Our editor is here at nine o’clock every morning and does not leave until five in the evening, often later. Running a newspaper is a full-time job; it is not a society commitment that can fit around more important things, like studying. Even if by use of some miraculous Bernard’s Watch-type device, a student were able to find the time to work a nine-to-five job around their studies, there will inevitably come the point where they have the option of completing an essay / studying for an exam or making the paper come together that week. Quite rightly, in such a circumstance, the paper will always lose.

Fortunately, the Executive seem to have this covered in the aforementioned Student Media Group by-law, where cryptic reference is made to the Mancunion editor’s responsibility to publish a ‘regular’ newspaper. Note that it does not say ‘weekly’. In realising that heaping all of the editor’s work and responsibilities on some hapless student is absurd, the Executive begun to vaguely mention a ‘media intern’. The idea here being that, instead of paying the editor to do their job and run the newspaper, the Union will instead pay the media intern (whatever that means) to do all of the actual work, leaving the student editor free to make editorial decisions.

It is clearly understood that the job of running a newspaper cannot be done by a current student – the Executive evidently accept that it is a full-time job, and that it must remain as such. Yet, bizarrely, they intend to remove the editor and replace them with a paid intern and in so doing not even save money. The upsides to the Executive are obvious; without a Mancunion editor on the board and with the de-facto editor a Union employee instead, they will be able to exercise control over the paper, killing any unfavourable stories and turning this paper into a Union propaganda pamphlet.

I should point out here that the proposed Student Media Group would not only give the Executive control over the Mancunion, but over all student media – Fuse FM and Fuse TV as well.

It is because of these proposals that I and the other Mancunion editors will be abstaining from voting in the referendum. 1,000 votes (of which 501 must be ‘yes’) are needed in order for the referendum to pass. Our best chance of stopping its passage and ensuring the continuation and continued excellence of this paper is by not voting. So now I urge everybody reading this: please do not vote in the Union referendum. Sadly, it is the only way to save your student paper.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected]