This week has seen another call from a range of health practitioners to fight a war on obesity. Once again there are calls that obese people who do not ‘reform’ their behaviour create an on going cost to the NHS and thus should lose their right to free access and be made to pay for their healthcare. Interestingly a growing number of commentators are calling for the exact reverse of this policy, to pay obese people to lose weight. Would either work?

It is hard to downplay the severity of obesity on the health of the British population and the ensuing cost to the NHS. Statistics are not the core of my argument here however they are useful in giving an idea of the scope and severity of the issue. In theUKit is estimated that 60% of the adult population and30% of the child population are overweight. Of those almost half are obese, that is to say they have BMI readings in excess of 30. The detrimental health effects of obesity are considerable. The NHS estimates obesity sends more than 30,000 adults a year into an early grave and causes hundreds of thousands more severe health issues including diabetes, heart disease and even some cancers (such as breast and prostate). Alongside all this pain and suffering treating the health issues of the obese is extremely expensive. I enclose a detailed chart at the bottom of this piece but the cost to the NHS of treating the obese is already running in excess of £2.3bn, of treating those with elevated BMI its over £4bn, factoring in lost productivity would reveal the true economic cost to be far greater still.

30,000 dead annually makes obesity theUK’s fourth biggest killer (after Cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness – although being overweight can contribute towards those as well). This comfortably trumps deaths in any form of accident (including road deaths and suicides) which numbered 17,000 or deaths caused by failure of the nervous system such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s 18,500.

For a cost comparison the total police budget for the UK 2013 is currently £2.1bn (www. ukpublicspending.co.uk).

So what then of our proposed solutions? I shall go one at a time…

1)    Make them pay

The argument here is straight forward. Given that their medical problems are a direct fault of their poor lifestyle and are not part of a ‘random walk’ it is felt that obese people have the power and responsibility to improve their condition once they are given the medical advice that they must reduce their weight. Failure to do so will result on them both damaging their own health and equally becoming an increasing burden to the NHS and thus the taxpayer who should not have to suffer for their intransigence. The obese cost the NHS extra resources and contribute nothing additional towards it – simply put obese patients do not pull their weight. The ultimatum is therefore obvious. Lose weight or pay your way.

Healthcare economics is rarely simple however and this is no exception, in truth such a proposal would be practically extremely difficult to implement. Firstly although obesity is credited with 30,000 deaths a year very few people actually seek the NHS simply because they are too fat. The truth is they will be suffering from another illness or condition which may well have, but not necessarily been created or extenuated by obesity. If our policy is to charge for obesity related health issues then the only way to do this will be to judge each patient on a case by case basis – how sure are we this person’s high blood pressure is due to their weight and not say their stress at work? The alternative would be to suspend all NHS treatment from the patient, but this seems both excessive and undesirable especially if it went so far as to remove emergency care, vaccinations, mental health, sexual healthcare and much more besides. There are immediately two major issues. The first is that this policy asks for a major administrative burden to with respect to the charging of bills and receipt of payments which would be expensive to implement (and reduce the savings we are striving to achieve). Secondly it would be putting medical practitioners in a very powerful and difficult position of deciding who can receive free healthcare and who cannot (remember many who are made to pay will simply not afford it, private healthcare is expensive and the already ill almost impossible to insure) and in defining how much progress would need to be made for free care to continue.

In short this proposal represents a fundamental change in the principal behind the service which currently offers universal free healthcare to anyone who needed. We would now be judging people on whether they deserved the care. We could argue against giving care to smokers, drinkers, sportsmen (especially those who play contact sports) among a hundred other groups of people as they also put themselves in ‘needless risk’ of needing of NHS treatment. This situation would be permanently divisive and quite frankly unworkable – the equality and equity of the NHS would be lost forever.

My final challenge to the proposal is equally serious. The assumption of both this and the next proposal is that obesity is simply a result of weakness in someone’s lifestyle or character and can be simply overcome by some degree of willpower. I am not a qualified medic however it is clear to me that this assumption is completely fatuous (no pun intended). Obesity and overeating can have many causes, some relate to mental health whilst others are aggravated by genetic conditions. People may over-eat for comfort or to help them cope with stress or sudden loss. Many obese people have no wish to be so heavy and want not to be. In many cases threatening to withdraw or charge for someone’s healthcare will put them under more pressure and worsen their condition, not improve it (of course this would save the NHS budget as the patient would just not take any medical care if it couldn’t be afforded). In many cases eating disorders at the other end of the spectrum should also be examined. Anorexia, like obesity brings a range of nasty medical issues which require treatment on the NHS – do we want also to withdraw healthcare and mental support from those we feel do not eat enough?   

If anecdotal evidence on the failure making people pay for their healthcare is required then we can confidently state charging people for healthcare has done little for the obesity epidemic in the USA -  one of the few countries (the others are mostly islands in the pacific) who’s obesity issues are worse than the UK’s.

2)    Pay them to lose pounds

“Obesity is such a devastating issue, let’s encourage people to drop weight by offering them cash rewards”. This proposal is obviously preferable from the point of view of the patient as their access to healthcare is no longer in doubt (in fact they stand to make a windfall) whilst the pressure on Drs is reduced, but not alleviated as they can only decide whether or not a cash incentive to lose weight is an appropriate prescription, as opposed to deciding the entire future of the patients medical access.

Some of the previous problems remain however. Firstly we could also presumably build a case to pay people for not smoking, drinking, giving up boxing and a host of other activities that may put them in line for some extra NHS treatment. It’d certainly be very difficult not to pay anorexic people for gaining weight. Again one immediately feels that people would find the policy unequal and unfair.   

The next problem is that who would determine how much is to be paid out and for how much weight – would there be a flat rate or a £ for LB rate? Would it be solely at the discretion of the Dr? This would still be introducing a whole array of additional responsibility for the healthcare professional who not only will now be responsible for a patient’s medical care but will also have influence over their income as well.

If the amount of money offered was material then we would be proposing a significant increase in budget for the treatment of many obese people in the hope of savings later. These may indeed occur but I think there would be a serious problem with incentives. Firstly there would be the risk that once the payments stopped the weight loss would stop or worse be reversed (if the incentive really worked). It would be difficult to make patients pay back the money if they gained back the weight and if you tried to do so, they’d probably just not seek the medical attention as readily as they should (simply as they may be effectively charged like those patients under the first scheme). Secondly a material amount of money may have the unfortunate result in people who are not obese gaining weight in an attempt to earn money for using it again (i.e. gaming the system). No matter what would be said against such a practise it is likely to occur particularly for people whom find themselves in real financial hardship. The problem for Drs is it would be very hard to accuse people of this behaviour and even harder to with hold payments from some people when they know of others who receive them for similar conditions. Obviously if the sums of money involved are small then the extent of these issues is negated but equally would people lose 10KG in weight simply in exchange for a £20 M&S voucher?

This leads to the two crucial elements of the issue. In addition to the complications, inequality, mixed incentives and administrative burden I do not think either the policy works. The people for whom this policy is targeted are those who are already struggling to control their obesity in the face of increasingly debilitating and often life-threatening conditions. They know what they need to do and at this stage of the diagnosis know the real significance of their success or failure. I find it very hard to believe that many will be sufficiently motivated by a monetary reward/punishment for taking actions already firmly in their own interests. As I previously described the causes of obesity are many and often it is extremely complex to deal with adding financial burden might help some but it could add a further complication for others who feel they need to ‘earn’ the extra money (poor parents for example) or those simply pressured by it. In a similar case would offering anorexic people money each week to eat more really result in a change in their habits?

My second concern is more personal and again concerns both proposals. I dislike the proposals not only for all the arguments offered above but also because I think all members of our society should have a responsibility towards their health and towards their use of our shared resources (in this case the NHS). In my opinion trying to monetise this responsibility (either by forcing people to pay or by paying them) will divide our society. Healthcare has to be funded there is no doubt about that but both of these policies in effect force us to put a price, a value on an individuals healthcare at the point where treatment is necessary – to what extent should they pay for their own treatment or how much are we willing to the offer them to lose the weight? It is not even clear in whose interest the Dr is acting when asked to make these decisions, the patients or the taxpayers or do we somehow ask them to hold a birds-eye view of society as a whole. In any case it is an almost impossible judgement to make and the results would inevitably be incredibly inconsistent. 

Even private health insurance, the problems of which I examined in detail with my piece on American healthcare aims to charge a premium based on actuarial modelling (the probability of becoming ill) there is no such value judgement on individuals at the time of care aside from the legalise regarding whether or not their insurance covers them or not. Even if paying or charging people for healthcare would change their behaviour which I still greatly doubt, the other side effects, the burden on the medical profession and the philosophy it introduces into society would be a very high price to pay.

3)    What should be done

It is never enough to simply dismiss the ideas of others but I cannot support either of the two proposals for the reasons given. Here are some outline ideas of my own on the issue. I welcome comments.

In some sense I think we have started on the right lines and over the last few years there has been increased promotion of healthy eating and life styling including the governments ‘change for life’ scheme. Food labelling is greatly improved and simple solutions like the ‘traffic-light’ scheme have helped, 5 a day (portions of fruit and vegetables to be eaten) is a universally recognised guideline.

However the severity of the situation just isn’t recognised. The dangers of drugs for example are heavily taught in school and quite rightly, however the drug epidemic isn’t a patch on the scale of the obesity one (<1000 deaths a year are drug related). Much more time and information needs to be spent on obesity and physical health in school.

Jamie Oliver ran a valuable campaign with respect to school meals which I felt a more courageous government could have seized upon and used more aggressively however it was able to make some impact. School certainly seems a good starting place however one thing which alarmed me more about Jamie Oliver’s programme was the negative reaction of many parents. It was clear however much we have improved labelling the impact of poor diet is genuinely not known among the adult population. Adult education on the matter is urgent and massively under invested in. The budget for the governments’ preventative campaign is woeful relative to the amount it is willing to spend on dealing with the symptoms of obesity. I definitely think campaigns similar to those on drink-driving, speeding and sexually transmitted diseases should be launched, showing the impacts of poor diet – such campaigns have significantly reduced the impacts of the above.

Reform of advertising is important. Having fast food restaurants and confectionary companies sponsoring major sporting teams and events clearly sends mixed messages to people as do endorsements by those otherwise associated with a healthy lifestyle (athletes and alike). Tobacco companies have been banned from some time from advertising in this way and I think restrictions could easily be brought in. Stores can be restricted from lining aisles near check outs with chocolate at the height of children and whilst food labelling is clear it remains modest in size – calories and fat content of food should be expanded.

Most apparent however is we need to reform the way we think about obesity. Weight and weight issues are a massive deal in theUK. People are extremely sensitive about their weight and in many cases don’t like talking about it. Often people who begin over eating, gain weight and lose self esteem and turn to eating more opening a vicious circle. We live in a very judgemental society led by a show business culture that most definitely praises thin as beautiful. Pick up any tabloid and stories of a ‘celebrities’ fat

or body issues abound. The pressure of public judgement turns some people to food and others away from it (for some anorexics and bulimics for example). This does nothing for those with weight issues at either end of the scale as the pressure of ‘being normal’ adds to the burden – theUKneeds to break away from this shallow culture. 

The greatest change we need is within ourselves. We are all responsible for our health and the health of those around us. We should support those with problems whilst also making sure we keep ourselves in good health wherever possible. Obese people don’t need cash incentives to change nor do they need the judgements that go with them. They need good quality of information and they need an inclusive, positive society that encourages exercise and a healthier lifestyle. 

The focus should be on prevention and increased awareness of the risks once people are suffering all that can be done is attending to the symptoms

The projections of obesity spending on the table I close with tell their own miserable tale. As a nation we are not doing enough to stop this rapidly advancing plague but we are all responsible for that, not just the government and whilst I make a number of recommendations above as to what policies could be pursued every individual must be responsible for their own health.   

(table from www.fullfact.org)

The idea for this article was given to me by a regular reader of this page. You know who you are. Thank you, not just for this idea but all of those you have given me over the years.

Whilst all societies have a very complex interaction between the obtaining of material wealth by individuals and the development of community and society, nowhere is the relationship more difficult and complicated than that in theUK.

There has been much written over the last few years about ‘excessive pay’ in the UK. In the early part of the last decade footballers and lawyers were frequently singled out as being overpaid and then as economic conditions deteriorated the large payoffs to CEOs and Chairmen of large corporations were treated with disgust. Finally of course with the financial crisis of 2008 the famous ‘banker’s bonuses’ were vilified as typifying the greed that had led to gross malpractice within the financial industry. My objective here is not to defend or attack these undoubtedly large pay packets. Instead I want to consider the following:

It is not easy to make large amounts of money in any of the above ways. Playing football requires endless dedication from a young age, tremendous sacrifice (of one’s education for example) and very little in the way of a plan b should things go wrong. Even the most dedicated of efforts may still result in one not making the grade, career-ending injury or simply becoming Swindon Town’s third choice goalkeeper on a dazzling 15K/year, a career highlight a 5 month loan spell at Forest Green Rovers. Studying diligently from school to the bar in order for a successful legal career is hardly a breeze, neither are the long hard hours as a junior before then having to prove ones talent in court. One cannot become chair or CEO of a serious company without a long record of service and a strong track record. Even the bankers, who earn their money earlier in their career than lawyers or most corporate professionals, will for the most part have had to work extremely hard throughout their academic and then working lives, working extremely long hours and under intense pressure. I am not saying other jobs are easy, I am simply saying that success in these much criticised fields is extremely hard to achieve. Furthermore, whatever the motivation these people have in pursuing their careers they pursue them openly (one cannot secretly be a lawyer), they follow the path of a long and dedicated period and all the while these top earners have paid whatever rate of income tax the state has deemed appropriate. We might decide that tax rate should be changed, but it cannot be done retrospectively these people have acted perfectly rationally and in compliance given the structure of our society.

Never the less mention the pay (or compensation) of these higher earners and they are treated with disdain by many in the British public. Many people argue when faced with the numbers that it’s simply greedy to seek to amass such a vast personal fortune.

On a stand alone basis, this view is perfectly legitimate. It looks a lot less legitimate when compared to the view of another group of people, lottery winners.

The UK national lottery has created over 2500 lottery millionaires since 1994. These people have come into this vast sum of money with a minimum of effort. They have paid no tax on the payment (lottery winnings in the UK are untaxed) and quite frankly in buying the ticket had much the same motivation that the above professions are criticised for (i.e. they wanted to acquire a lot of money). It seems to me therefore that we should view these people with a similar disdain to highly paid lawyers. This is largely not however the case instead we view them as lucky, fortunate people who simply by having some good fortune should be able to enjoy their win and spend it however they like. Those waiting in long queues for their ticket, or members of syndicates clubbing together for a bigger chance at a jackpot are too virtuous their quest for a big windfall.

So on the face of it working for big money is bad, but coming into it via a virtual fluke is acceptable.

The view of those that inherit large sums of money is more nuanced. Those that inherit seem easy targets for critique as many simply consider them ‘privileged’. Now in reality it is fair to say that having material goods is a privilege (after all many don’t) however in the UK the term is somewhat double edged and tends to indicate an element of resentment. What differs with inherited money in my experience is two things. One, people who inherit large amounts are often judged (by all they encounter) by what they are seen to do with their inheritance, if they maintain an estate, employ people or run a successful business or achieve some other widely accepted goal(s) they can often reach wide acceptance although often they are regarded as being accepted ‘despite’ their privileged status. Should how they spend their money not be widely approved of then they are heavily criticised, often described as spoilt or ‘abusing their privileges’. Secondly, although many are not keen on people inheriting large sums they tend to be even less keen on paying inheritance tax as they don’t think the state should claim their own personal property on their death. We tend to get a somewhat mixed view of the tax overall. In my experience people often seem happy to try and avoid the tax as the recipients of their estate will surely not ‘abuse the privilege’ – they are often strangely less confident of others though.

It’s not just the extremes of society where the attitude to money is unusual. For the first time a few weeks ago I saw a TV show called Cash in the Attic. For me it sums up a lot of what’s wrong with the attitude to money we have in theUK. The shows structure is that people seeking to raise money for a set goal invite an antiques ‘expert’ into their home to identify items that could be sold for a profit at auction.

The particular episode I saw featured a single parent living in a large detached house somewhere in the South East (I forget where). She wanted to raise money to send her child on the school skiing trip. Whilst I can understand the mother’s concern that the child couldn’t join their classmates on their (second) skiing trip, it didn’t really feel like a major and urgent cause. In any case the shows host, resident expert and production staff soon rallied scouring the house for antiques (which fortunately mum had a pretty large collection of). What happened next I found somewhat staggering. An object would be found, its beauty and historical and cultural significance explained and its history of ownership and anecdotes relating to the household discussed. All this then faded into nothing when the all important expert’s estimate came out, an estimate as high as £50 consigned a variety of rare and special  personal items to the auction “As long as I get some decent cash for it” Mum decreed. Everything has its price of course and of course these are her things and its her discretion but in my opinion the glorification of a show that has people encouraged to find heirlooms and personal items to sell in an attempt to make some ‘easy money’ surely demonstrates some of the same greed our high flyers are criticised for.

Housing provided another example of the inconsistency. There is a general wisdom in the UK that house prices always go up, that buying housing is a sound investment for it’s a ‘good real asset’ that one can either live in or rent. When interest rates are low we often see people look to take advantage of this always rising phenomenon by borrowing money in order to take advantage. When the new landlords lose money because house prices fall or they cannot find enough tenants the public seems to rally to the defence of its ‘sharp’ businessmen (i.e. the buy to let landlord) and blame banks or the government of the day. The buy to let landlord is unlucky if things turn against them – if things work out as planned then they are not greedy like the lawyers or bankers, they are just doing the sensible thing that anyone could do.

For a long time I simply felt these inconsistencies where a more or less random function within our society. More considered reflection however shows this is simply not the case. I don’t think many people really dislike those that earn a lot but more feel that firstly they do not understand how they achieve such wealth and furthermore that even if they did the opportunity is not there for them and therefore there is a lack of justice about the whole thing. Some feel the wealth is taken at their expense but I think for the most part this ties in with a general lack of information on how the wealth is achieved.

People understand the ‘buy to let’ landlords, lottery winners and those taking their ornaments down to the local auction house. Furthermore most people in the UK can aspire, however remote the possibility, to find a goldmine in their attic, the discounted house to buy or the winning lottery ticket. The dislike of those that inherit is that obviously we can’t all inherit vast wealth but we can at least put ourselves in the place of those that do. Footballer’s vast wealth is largely despised because the average citizen has no chance to compete with them. The special hatred for bankers tends to be threefold. Many in society do not understand how bankers can be worth so much (even in terms of the labour market). This is partly due to a lack of understanding of what bankers and their employees do and also because as the sector has apparently failed surely nobody within it should be paid such a large amount. Added to this of course it is unlikely that an average person will become a successful financier (for some because they haven’t put in a minimum decade of commitment and for others because they would be insufficiently skilled even if they had). Lawyers and company CEOs tend to be treated with a similar dislike and bewilderment. 

What I find most interesting therefore is that as a society our approval or not of wealth tends to be based on whether I could do the same as the person with money. Both in terms of do I know how it was done and also in terms of can I do the same. We do not care about someone’s work ethic, skill or commitment to their profession. We care about equality of opportunity – it’s not fair unless we all have an equal chance of being rich.

It was said the lack of will to abolish the NHS in the UK meant that we were ‘all socialists now’. That is nothing compared to a view that only wealth everyone had an equal opportunity to acquire, not based on skill, talent or accident of birth is acceptable.

As always I welcome comments, Comrades.

Over the past couple of millennia human society has advanced in countless ways in fields as distinct as technology, culture and philosophy. The attitude towards prostitution has however been little changed over the period.  Modern society’s attitude to the sex industry as a whole is at best patchy and inconsistent and at worst bigoted and dangerous.

This article sets out what I think needs to happen to dramatically reduce the numbers of women and men who are victims of sex trafficking. The results of the policies would have far-reaching effects. I do not deny this and I do not analyse them all here in detail – I certainly welcome comments on the issue.

Kidnapping a person for exploitative work in the sex industry is arguably the most heinous of crimes that currently occur in our world, especially in otherwise peaceful nations. The practice is apparently widespread and for those interested I enclose some statistics at the end of this piece. My argument here is not one of numbers; it is tragic for even one person to become involved in this dreadful practice nor do I wish to become desperately emotive on the issue of trafficking. I would only say that the vast scale of the problem adds to the argument that society as a whole needs to address what is happening; no one simple policy will suffice.

Rather than considering sex trafficking as a crime let’s consider the market for trafficking. There is a supply side to this market, the provision by groups of organised criminals of women and men abducted or moved from their homelands under false pretences. Then there is a demand side those people who use the services offered by the abductees. Over recent years we have seen tremendous publicity with respect of sex trafficking. Films such as ‘The Whistleblower’,’ The Day my God Died’ and ‘Trade’ have brought to the public’s attention the savage nature of what occurs all around us. The problem with these films and many campaigns is that the concentration is on the supply of people and our attempts to prevent it. Whilst prevention definitely should be done and the resources spent on it are highly worthwhile we must remember that trafficking occurs because the victims are demanded. People want trafficking to happen and are willing to pay considerable amounts to have it happen. We need to face up to this demand, its causes and what we can do to mitigate the demand.

For many countries around the world the role of sex in society proves difficult and the concept of prostitution extremely difficult to address. As usual here I find it not really my place to discuss the policies of other nations but prefer to focus on the United Kingdom

The UK has a very inconsistent attitude towards sex, the sex industry and prostitution. There is no scope here to provide a historical analysis of why this is the case but sufficed to say that for the most part the nation has historically been heavily religious and monogamous and this backdrop has set the foundations for modern attitudes towards sex.

 In many ways sex in the UK has modernised in the commercial sense. Not only can one buy condoms from every pharmacy and supermarket but our high streets offer lingerie, pornography and even sex toys cheaply, and so long as one is of age, without prejudice. The public in its philosophy however, seems to behave in a near childish way to issues of sex. A celebrity sex scandal fascinates - we must read all the details of the affair on pages five through twelve. The acts of celebrities are deemed shocking. In reality they are no more interesting than the lives of the average person but because we ‘know’ the celebrity owing to their role in something else we feel we have some right to ‘know’ all about them.

The attitude to prostitution is met with a similar childish response: denial. People in the UK for the most part want to turn a blind eye to prostitution, pretending it doesn’t exist. People deny using prostitutes fearing how they will be looked at within society whilst also denying even knowing anyone who would become ‘involved in such a thing’ fearing that even having friends who use/have used prostitutes somehow smears their reputation. Prostitution is legal albeit with a vast number of legal caveats however it’s still very much looked down on, as are the girls supplying - to be called a whore remains one of the harsher insults to receive in day to day parlance.

This should not be the case. People in the UK use prostitutes, we can’t sensibly deny this. Statistics as ever are unreliable but it appears around 7-10% of people are regular users and another 10% occasional users of prostitution or escort services. The users are both male and female (the latter increasingly involved) and come from a variety of ages although male 25-34 remains the largest category. At 20% involvement one could argue prostitution is one of the most popular hobbies in the UK after watching TV. – on a similar note internet pornography takes a similar proportion of UK home band width (this surprised me), we don’t like to talk about this much either. Despite its prevalence we continue to virtually deny its existence.

At this point I have to disclose some personal weakness in the debate. I am not and never have been a user of prostitutes. Therefore what follows is based on understanding and not experience.

Prostitution in the UK, though strictly legal remains borderline a criminal activity. Prostitutes cannot solicit publically (i.e. advertise), kerb crawl, run brothels or pimp/pander. Basically the work must come to them. If I wanted to find a prostitute and I don’t know one offhand (my current circumstances for the most part) I would have a challenge on my hands. This is one way the traffickers have an advantage. Given the nature of our society I need discretion, I need confidence my supplier will be STD free. If I seek escort services i.e. I need accompanying in public in addition to the sexual element of the service I need to find an escort suitable. I have at best a limited idea of how to find such a service, let alone how much I should pay and thus a well organised pimp or trafficker can use the asymmetry of information in the market between supplier and client to their advantage.

At the same time the restriction on prostitutes most certainly leaves them vulnerable. There is no doubt that a small minority of ‘clients’ wish to abuse the service. Many prostitutes therefore put themselves at direct physical risk. Some seek protection from pimps or those actually responsible for trafficking tying them into an exploitative contract. Prostitutes, especially male prostitutes put themselves at considerable risk to their health (mal prostitutes so badly with the prevalence of HIV AIDS).

We therefore have a very insecure situation. We have a large chunk of our population using prostitution and escort services. The suppliers are socially looked down upon and given very little protection by the law, whilst the lack of information also puts clients in a difficult position. The demand for prostitution is large and varied, we are all different and just as in other varied markets (clothes, food, cars etc) a natural market in prostitutes would result in very varied supply. We have however created the perfect conditions for sex trafficking and abuse. The act of paying for sex is legal so anyone actually caught having sex with a trafficked person, had they not been involved in their trafficking is not committing a crime (they may well not know). This needs changing, it needs route and branch change and it needs to happen as soon as possible.

Firstly, we need to get over ourselves. If we don’t want to use prostitutes we don’t have to and indeed most don’t. However we are fooling ourselves hiding the reality of the demand from both sexes for the service. We need to accept it is here; it is always been here and always will be. You’ll never stop the demand for paid sex. We need to change the nature of that demand.

 The first practical change is licensing. People who want to sell sex should be made to obtain a license from the government. This shouldn’t be restrictive from the government side. The following things will need to be offered: A passport or other identification, proof of the applicant’s right to work in the UK, their residential address and their intended place of business if not house calls. The applicant will then undergo a health screening, if STD free they will be given the license. The health screening should be repeated regularly (with a maximum period set of say 6 months) or the license expires. Selling sex without a license should be criminal and face heavy punishments to both the supplier and also the consumer.

Licensing will not eliminated the issues alone; however my first aim here is to destroy the market for trafficked women with the creation of an alternative (in economics speak I wish to introduce a substitute good). It will offer some modest protection to those in the industry at the same time. Brothels should also be allowed, again licensed. The licensee will be responsible for security of the building and also what happens on sight (for example if an unlicensed prostitute is found working there then they will also face penalties). Brothels will be licensed and taxed like any other businesses, prostitutes will be considered self-employed. Advertising in certain areas will be allowed (some magazines, webpages etc) and modest notices at the place of business. My aim is to make the service accessible but not to overwhelm people. I see no reason for a full range of (legal) sex services to be offered in this way accounting for a myriad of tastes and preferences.

The second, most difficult and by far the most important element is that we need to separate out in our complex societies mind a number of different strands of belief and unite behind reform. Many people in the UK are quite reasonably very much opposed to prostitution however many are big believers in personal freedom. In fact some are opposed to prostitution because of their belief in freedom. They argue that people shouldn’t have to prostitute themselves in order to live. Others believe in monogamy and relationships and see prostitution as a threat. Others think it objectivises women. These people can keep their beliefs happily but in my opinion must allow reform. I would also offer the following observations:

Trafficking aside, no one is forced into prostitution in the UK. We have one of the best and most comprehensive welfare systems in the world and still very low levels of unemployment. For many prostitution is the most lucrative option and therefore they feel pressured to earn money this way – that however is a very different issue, and quite frankly in my opinion something in a capitalist country a matter for the individual, we must all choose how we make a living and many career paths have pitfalls. Prostitution is no more a threat to relationships or monogamy than the existence of nightclubs, bars or any other area where people may be tempted away from their partners I think any relationship which breaks on use of prostitutes would have had other severe issues. As for objectification, firstly as I wrote before women are also heavy and increasing users of the service, secondly we could say the same about fashion models and a number of other things – I myself have misgivings about having sex as a business transaction however I simply choose not to partake – the objectification argument doesn’t cut it for me, especially as the result of suppressing prostitution is simply to push it underground.  We do not need to support the industry or make a moral case for it; we need to recognise the demand for the service and the devastating effects of our ignoring it. A licensed, accepted, discreet and safer prostitution industry will hammer the demand for illegal prostitutes, sex slaves and trafficking because you will have a two-tier market, the legal and the not , the service offered similar (not the same) but the risks to the illegal one massively increased for all concerned. You don’t need to like the legal one, you don’t need to use it. You just need to give people the choice.

The key in its success wouldn’t be the licensing; countries like Holland have some modest licensing (not as stringent as laid out above) but remain major destinations for trafficked women. They key is changing public perception of an industry, facing up to our society and recognising it for what it quite plainly is and in doing so making the use of the legalised industry socially more acceptable whilst forever condemning the use of the non-licensed one as dangerous and exploitative.

Many in the UK find it uncomfortable to talk about what happens within the sex industry and with its role in society. For many the whole concept of the sex industry is repulsive, sex is something for people in relationships (or for many only marriages) and is an activity about love not business. I understand this and can empathise with this feeling. However our wish to ignore what happens and sweep it all under the carpet plays into the trafficker’s hands, it gives them an outlet, it gives them power of the client (who wants photos of themselves with a hooker sent to the office?) and it results in thousands of people being taken from their homes across the world and sold like cattle to the pimps and brothel keepers across the country.

 It is our inability to face what’s behind this facade in our society allows these crimes to happen, we can blame the traffickers and indeed they should be punished however it is our demand that feeds them and our money that pays them. We can stop this crime. Not with stronger boarder controls (though again they won’t hurt) but by facing our weaknesses, admitting what exists in our society and changing how we view, respond to and consider it. How many more people must suffer before we will be willing to do this?

Statistics

32mio people enslaved in the world – 80% are forced into sexual servitude (istoptraffic.com)

In 2005 the global human trade industry made profits of over $31.6 billion (I couldn’t find more recent numbers)

Countries where trafficked victims are most likely to end up are Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Brazil, The Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Cambodia.

Going by the statistics of the convictions and prosecutions globally that occurred in 2006 (5808 prosecutions and 3160 convictions) shows that for every 800 persons trafficked, only one is convicted. This is a discouraging ratio of 800:1.

UNICEF has put down its estimated figure of trafficked children for sexual exploitation and forced labor to be approximately 6 million. A report on trafficking presented by the UN (United Nations) office on crime and drugs in 2009 gave the percentage break down of trafficked females, males and children as follows men =12%, children= 22%, women=66%.

In my previous piece {http://cms.dinstudio.co.uk/cms/diary_1_13.html} I discussed how the introduction of user fees has begun to change the way students view going to university. In this segment I lay out some of the changes that the UK still has to make.

The most crucial observation here is that whilst students have begun to change how they will view the service, there has been little change from the university sector in terms of provision. Universities still act as monopoly providers over students once the student becomes enrolled. If the student subsequently struggles with the course, finds it too easy, wishes to change course, university or just take some extended leave they are beholden to the university to permit them to do so. Universities basically offer a ‘like it or lump it’ attitude to their now paying customers – so much for ‘the customer is always right’!

As I wrote before reforming the methodology of funding was helpful in terms of improving the fairness between who pays and who benefits from university education but the real benefits came in terms of making the whole service more efficient. This however also needs to result in efficiency improvements from the supply side.

Almost all major universities immediately declared that they would charge the maximum 9000 GBP per annum for undergraduate degrees regardless of subject as soon as the law allowed them to do so (The LSE plumped for a somewhat publicity seeking 8500GBP). Almost none gave any indication as to how they were going to improve their service to the users who were suddenly paying 27000 GBP for a standard three year programme. One reason for this attitude is that universities are not really seeing a change in total funding, primarily it is just a substitution from government funding to student funding. For many years universities have found themselves in a very privileged position. Because they were funded by the government those who attended them were simply dependent on their services and had very limited means of recourse. Faculties could call the shots, dictating what would be studied, when, with what deadlines and students had very little say in the matter. There is no reason why this should be the case at all. Universities will now be funded by student numbers. Popular and well run courses will be well-subscribed and unpopular and badly run courses will be undersubscribed. Eventually universities that modernise their approach to teaching will out-compete those that remain ‘stuck in their ways’.

The first and most obvious change in approach has to be changing the level of competition between universities for existing students. One of the problems for students in choosing a university, especially for undergraduate degrees is that it can be very hard to assess the suitability of a course before one embarks on it. It is especially difficult if the subject is new relative to what the student was taught in school, no matter how many questions one asks or how many departments one is escorted around with nosy parents in-toe, nothing will give a real feel for the course until you have been at the university for a month or so. There is already plenty of competition for students before they join universities, the plethora of open days and advertising attests to this. However, once enrolled, it is nearly impossible for students to change universities and as a result the university puts very little effort or resources towards retaining their current students.

The weakness of this system is further exacerbated by the methodology by which universities select students. Many judge almost solely on exam results taken when students are aged 16-18. The problem with this is people change a lot over the ages of 16 – 21, their skills, ambitions and goals change – the person offered a place whilst they study at 6^th form level will likely be a very different one than say at the end of their second year at university.  For many this means the course that they choose initially may not turn out to be the one they wish to study as their education develops. This is one of the reasons the UK has such an employment skills mis-match even in higher levels of education, it is also why many people enter employment unconnected with their degree and have to effectively retrain once they finish university.

It is obvious that students should be able to move much more easily between universities. Those too strong for their current courses should be able to apply and if strong enough complete their degree at other institutions (catching up on any necessary materials to ensure standards are maintained), those struggling should be able to move to a course more suited to their needs. Such a student should be entitled to a full degree at their final institution once the course is completed. I’d suggest at least one year would need to be completed at the final institution. If the student wishes to change discipline completely then the work previously studied should be counted as much as possible (as outside electives maybe) and then their transfer be considered on the applicants academic merit. The system at the moment is woeful – there is very little scope for change. Students wishing to move universities have to appeal to their current university (who have no interest in seeing them leave), apply to new courses and hope a transfer is agreed. Often when they move they have to then begin the course from the outset and coughing up a new 27K – hardly an attractive proposition.

Enabling fluid change between courses will force universities to remain competitive and be considerably more dedicated to delivering high standards of teaching as the current university a student was enrolled at would have no say over their transferring away.

Another change which the UK should make is removing the minimum length of courses. At the moment universities make undergraduate degrees 3 years long with very brief terms and gargantuan holidays. University holidays make summer holidays look like eras and extending terms from 10 weeks each to say 14 each (still leaving a healthy 10 weeks holiday in a year – most working people only have 5)  and moving exams to later in the Summer term would enable many undergraduate degrees to be completed in 2 years and at the same time reducing the total amount of fees the student would have to pay (total fees per year would rise but let’s say the total bill for 2 years would be 22K not 27K), the student would only face 2 years of living costs not three and furthermore the opportunity cost of study would fall as students would forgo 2 years salary not 3. Some would argue that they still prefer a three year course so a truly flexible institution should be able to offer both. This change shouldn’t reduce the quality of a degree either – surely a BA or BSc depends on the material studied not length of time spent at university. I think as part of this change total teaching time in a week should increase. Whilst many degrees involve a large amount of personal reading I think all students could cope with 20 hours teaching/tutorials a week – that’s just four hours a day Monday-Friday with say another 30 hours of reading/writing this would put studying on a par with a working week which doesn’t seem unreasonable. Some degrees have as little as 5 hours of teaching time per week. In a similar vein university staff, professors and teachers should be much more accessible – keeping one or two hours as ‘office hours’ a week is hardly sufficient – this should be extended to 5 or more so students can have free and easy access to their tutors.

The new system of funding has had one detrimental result which is the numbers of poorer students and those taking on longer and more costly degrees have either stopped applying or taking somewhat extreme methods of funding themselves (there have been various stories of medical students turning to prostitution to fund themselves for example). Universities need to firstly take a greater role in reassuring students of their finances and providing support and advice in helping their students manage large sums of money which for many will be a first time experience. University careers departments need to be boosted and more resources given over to helping graduates into the job market as greater job security on completion will help settle students on course. At the beginning much more information and advice needs to be given on how university financing will work – the government has been very efficient at imposing fees but it could be a lot more efficient in explaining properly how the system works and what the full implications are – many students are blinded by the size of the debt and cannot really see past the numbers to assess if the degree is the right option or not.

The debate about foreign students in the UK is also a tired one in my eyes. The 2008 financial crisis has left the UK economy in a very vulnerable state with interest rates close to zero, inflation above target, unemployment rallying and the central bank reaching for the printing press. Education is fast becoming a major and important export industry in the UK – foreign students provide a large and substantial boost to national income whilst providing tremendous academic diversity to educational establishments at all levels within the country – my academic development at university was massively augmented by being able to study with people from all over the world and I am forever grateful to their presence there. It is true the UK has had problems with the issuance of student visas and there abuse – but that’s not a case for reducing or limiting student numbers as the government has stated. It is simply a case for improving our border controls. If anything educating foreigners is a massive success story for Britain, it builds a vast Diaspora and network for British industry with alumni circles all over the globe – if anything we need to expand this industry. A change to 2 year intensive degree programmes would give Britain a massive edge over competitors such as the United States and with more flexibility between institutions the UK could become the number  1 destination for the brightest of foreign academic talent.

 The case for reform is overwhelming. Universities have put up large tolls on the road towards higher education – now they need to improve the journey and offer a faster, smoother ride. If done, we’ll have the best system in the world with huge external benefits – Britain’s higher education system could indeed be ‘Great’!

I am hardly an international man of mystery. However, I have had the luxury so far in my life of being well-travelled both via holidays and through spending extended periods of time in other countries. One thing I have felt consistently over time is that people in the UK, primarily strangers (but also often acquaintances) are losing the ability of social interaction.

I am writing this article sat on a train. As normal it has proven very difficult to start a conversation with anyone around me. The mother and teenage son sat opposite me are quite unapproachable. Mum looks with a connoisseur’s critiquing eye at the pages of Hello! Magazine whilst son appears in a kind of strange 21^st century trance. I am not sure exactly what is happening in his mind but the industrial-sized headphones he wears probably contain the answer. My cheery greeting managed to crack a small, short-lived smile on their stone-like faces – I think this might be all I get. I’ve already established the gentleman next to me speaks no English – he’s forgiven and in any case he’s a lot more expressive than the English passengers around him!

I don’t remember trains being this bad 15 years ago say and it certainly isn’t like this in China or India where boarding a train is a gateway to meeting a whole bunch of new people in the space of about ten minutes. Whenever I take the train in the US too I undoubtedly will fall into conversation for at least some of the time with my fellow passengers – in fact for the most part the extremely friendly and talkative nature of Americans is why I like the place so much.

This doesn’t happen in Britain. I am definitely an outlier in being keen to open conversations with people as I travel. I find I am met with disdain, bemusement and pleasure in almost equal quantities. The reality is that many British people would love to pass long journeys with idle chatter, moaning about the weather or the latest disappointing sporting performance. Most however are afraid to open a conversation, fearing being viewed as over-friendly or worse still ‘keen’ – some like my friend opposite would rather stare at reading-matter with a page-burning, laser-like intensity, simply to avoid making eye contact.

The extent of this phenomenon was revealed to me when I commuted by underground. I would see the same passengers on the same train every day but rather than say hello or even smile in acknowledgement of the other it felt like a competition of who could discover the most important looking email on their blackberry (despite the device not receiving signal underground) – truly the train of the competitive society!

It is not just transportation which gives rise to these issues however. Spot and fitness used to be the ultimate in social activity, both in terms of viewing and, more importantly, participation. This however is all beginning to change. Participation in sports teams has declined across the country to be replaced by a massive rise in gyms and ‘health clubs’ (a gym with a swimming pool). I too am a member of a gym – I find it a tremendously strange experience, and not just because I take to a treadmill as naturally as turkey’s do to a large delivery of cranberry sauce.

To go to the gym I approach the building up a hill from my house (which I consider half my routine). On arrival, I enter my ID number to pass through a secure portal – which represents my gateway to fitness. Once through I am standing at the edge of the gymnasium, there is a vast range of equipment from the basic moving platform to complex machinery which not only do I not understand but also look unnervingly similar to medieval torture devices. There will be typically upwards of fifty people in the room but if you stop to listen hardly a word is being exchanged (less perhaps than between the three extremely muscular chaps in the weights area who I see whenever I attend the gym and who I think have taken advantage of the 24 hour opening to save on rent). General gym etiquette involves approaching machinery in turn, pretending no one else is in the room and you taking on the machine, pitting yourself against the weights with a view of perfecting your physique (or staving off obesity and an early grave as in my case). There are no staff in my gym but we are watched by the loving eye of CCTV - in case of issues we have a number to call. The only exception to the no-speaking rule is if you at any point accidently impede someone – then you should apologise profusely, much like you would if you just ran over their cat.   

Watching sport is no better. Falling attendances and participation leave sports clubs under financial pressure across the country as many people in the UK have taken to simply watching sport at home, alone. Whilst there is still a large number who will head out to the pub to watch a match, recent developments in sports broadcasting and improved television technology have lead many to prefer watching spot at home. This in of itself is no big deal to me (despite regretting the closure of local pubs) what is sad I think is the increase in solo-viewing. In the USA most go to a friend’s place to watch ‘football’ here I feel for the most part, one goes home to watch it.

A visit to a supermarket delivers a similarly isolated experience. Once again the ‘norm’ is to ignore one’s fellow shopper and most of the staff and focus on your own personal agenda. This is unless you wish to obtain something from the deli or customer services at which point you can communicate with a member of staff. Don’t worry they’ve been especially trained to deal with this interaction – just don’t catch them out with any unexpected questions! I talk to people all the time in supermarkets, may passion for food overwhelms my respect of social normality – I have even less success here though in starting conversations – unlike the train, plane or stadium my audience isn’t captive and can just scuttle off down the nearest aisle and shop intently – a challenge for those who accidently end up facing a wall of frozen peas. The advance of self-checkout machines denies even modest conversation at the point of paying, except for the hundredth apology i’ve issued to tired looking maintenance staff on the news that I once again have “something unexpected in the bagging area” (a painful sounding affliction I know).

I could continue with examples but I think the picture is clear. There are lots of reasons offered for why we communicate so reluctantly with one another – many blame the rise of i-pods and alike, plugging people in to a device and rendering them unable to hold a conversation. Whilst I think to some extent that happens, I think we are deluding ourselves that if I remove the headphones from the boy sat opposite he’ll become talkative. I’m sure he’d just stare out of the window or fall asleep completely.

Many point the finger at the rise of social media and networking. However I find the argument that websites dedicated to enabling social interaction are really at fault to be incredibly weak. I concede you do get ridiculous situations with groups of people all sitting in a room looking at their smart-phones but when used right the technology enables friendships to be maintained, social engagements created and even complex events to be organised – they can be wonderful tools and certainly can’t be blamed for the problems illustrated above.

I find in reality the issue which seems to only become worse over time is caused by people in the UK becoming increasingly concerned about how they are perceived by others. For a society which actually for the most part relishes in social interaction and meeting new people we have hemmed ourselves in through developing very judgemental attitudes towards people’s appearance, behaviour, manner and conversation. This critique is fuelled not only by the competitive business environment I touched on before but also the glamorous world of the celebrity which keeps many in front of the mirror, treadmill and weight-watchers books for vast periods of time.

Our country is highly-strung, judging and somewhat uncomfortable at times. We should be getting on that train, kicking-back and relaxing with a couple of tea and a chat – after all the trains offer plenty of conversation topics! Instead the atmosphere of four strangers on a table is like four candidates ahead of a job interview.

Let’s stop worrying so much about the perception of others; we’ll be a happier and more ‘united’ Kingdom if we do!

For a while I’ve held off writing about Greece as the country’s problems are constantly written and about and discussed in the UK media. I am however increasingly concerned that much of the debate and discussion on the subject largely misses the fundamental problems, particularly if you happen to be Greek.

The focus of most of the coverage is centred on two issues: When will Greece default and once defaulted will the country remain within the Eurozone or not? I admit both are interesting issues and to a certain extent will be covered by the following discussion. These questions do not deal with the more long term implications of the Greek’s defaulting, of how they got in this situation in the first place and what is required to avoid finding themselves back in this situation in the future.

Successive Greek governments have had a very aggressive approach towards managing the national finances. They have been willing to run large government deficits for many years in succession funding the shortfall in income by issuing Euro based government debt. This approach is not new to their membership of the single currency however as Greek governments throughout the 1980s/1990s did the same issuing in Drachma. Since 1994 the ratio of Debt : GDP has seldom been below 100% (the data before 1994 is little better but the source is less reliable). For most states a debt : GDP <60% is the minimum aim (it is also one of the conditions for Euro entry waived for Greece). Many commentators do not understand why the Greek governments ran such deficits and therefore why the Greek government allowed the country to get into the mess it has done. However to me the answer is very simple and lies in the country’s 20^th century history.

The history of Twentieth Century Europe is one of war and Greece was no exception to that as the country suffered a massive five military revolutions in the period. The present democratic Greek state only came into being in 1974. The previous 7 years had seen Greece controlled by a group of right wing generals (the junta) who had staged a coup d’état. The junta failed following mass student protests in 1973 and later when it found itself totally unable to deal with the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Despite the unpopular nature of the junta (most were put on trial for war crimes and treason in 1975) there remained much work to do to convince the population that the newly formed democratic institutions would be superior, not least because the previous regime had been heavily supported by many of the Western democratic (most notably the US with Henry Kissinger as Foreign secretary) governments that the Greeks were now suddenly meant to be mimicking.

As a result the new government had an urgent need to raise the standard of living for the Greek people to prove its superiority. This anguish increased further whenever there was external tension as the democrats determined to support the new system of government did whatever they could to improve the immediate standard of living for those in the country, even if it meant heavy government borrowing to fund the advances. By the time the mid-late 1990s arrived tension in the Eastern Mediterranean was at break-point levels. The separation of Yugoslavia in 1992 had created tension and civil war across the Balkans and especially between Greece and its northern neighbour Macedonia, whilst in 1996 the Imia/Kardak crisis had brought Greece to the brink of war with Turkey over Cyprus once again. By the time the time the Kosovo conflict broke out it was not just the Greek government who wanted to show how successful a Greek democracy could be but also the rest of the European Union and it was under this political back drop that saw Greece’s Euro entry was secured despite the serious misgivings about the state of the Greek economy.

Unfortunately in Greece whilst some of the institutions of a successful democracy were in place such as the parliament itself, many were not including many unpopular but necessary elements. Of particular note to the current crisis is the toothless nature of the Greek revenue service, which finds it extremely difficult to collect tax revenue. Successive Greek governments, scared of reprisal by voters or due to vested interests have failed to crack down on tax evasion which is endemic in the country along with many other forms of corruption. Many don’t think of European nations as corrupt but when takes a look at the worldwide corruption perception index you have to search a while before you find Greece. It languishes in =80^th position, sharing that spot with Colombia and El Salvador. On this measure Greece lags its neighbour Macedonia (69^th), more emerging European nations such as Hungary (54^th), Poland (41th), Malta (39th) and is a world away from Mediterranean neighbour Spain (31^st), most surprisingly maybe is its dismally far behind the island that so much is argued over, Cyprus is 30^th on the measure. The corruption in Greece fostered by weak governmental institutions which have little confidence in their mandate and coupled with their inability to make tough decisions is what has put Greece in this situation.

It is clear the current model of democracy has failed for Greece. For a supposedly advanced Western country some of the statistics are miserable. In 2010 27% of Greeks lived below the poverty line, unemployment (official) was over 20% with youth unemployment nearly double that – this, despite the fact that Greece had economic growth higher than the Eurozone average every year from 2002 (when it joined) until 2010. The choice now is clear – either the Greek government reasserts strong institutional democracy through reorganising the existing structure or faces the continuing and worsening civil disorder that could result in yet another military or nationalist intervention in the history of Greek politics. As a great believer in democracy and the freedoms that come with it, I close this piece with a brief agenda for how I would approach what is now a dire situation. As you can see with this solution, the more time you can buy for yourself the better which is why I hope the Greeks agree to the latest bail-out package conditions (not because I think austerity works – it clearly doesn’t), I also hope that the Greeks stay in the Euro whether they default or not as this will give more time to make the necessary institutional changes.

The most urgent issue for the Greek government now is raising revenue. At current the attempts are almost desperate, with people neglecting to declare their income and with no sophisticated revenue collection technique the Greek government has put large taxes on electric bills, land and some consumption goods such as fuel. The problem is that these punitive measures are punishing the poor and stifling growth. The government needs to face the people directly. My formula would be one of consumption taxes across the board 30-40% sales taxes (depending on the product) which I would enforce with a new and large Inland Revenue service (the job creation alone would help boost the economy). Against this I’d abolish income taxes and corporation taxes giving massive incentives to both individuals and corporations to work. I would never normally advocate such a regressive right-wing policy but the Greek government needs to start raising reliable taxation now and consumption taxes are the fastest (a new income tax would take months to start rolling into the coffers). The new tax would have to be rigorously enforced by all law enforcement reducing the black market as much as possible whilst the abolishment of both corporation tax and income tax would give the maximum incentive for people to work and employ others. Greece would not have the problems it does if unemployment would drop below 5%. An immediate default by Greece would put the government at great risk – as it would immediately need to square its books and delays in revenue generation would inevitably lead to the government not being able to not only pay salaries but also buy foreign drugs for hospital patients and other such necessary spending. However constant austerity will not help – the Greek people need to be paid, employed and incentivised not thrown onto the scrap-heap in the name of austerity. Some government spending such as pensions could also be derived simply as a % of revenue collected from the consumption tax making it clearer to the public where the money goes. Heavy punishments for evaders must be in place, Greece cannot continue in 80^th place in the corruption table.

Once the tap starts flowing more structural issues need to be addressed. Greece’s reliance on Athens which now houses more than 60% of the people is a clear cause of issues and the Greek state needs to look at how it can redistribute people. Raising agricultural yields are definitely a must for Greece (especially with the CAP a seemingly ‘legitimate’ route to finance) as is maintain and continuing to encourage tourism.

A VAT tax would usually have problems in the currency union with people importing goods from other places, however here geography comes to the rescue as Greece’s relative physical isolation would make transportation and distribution costs relatively high so I think the policy would work better here than elsewhere, it is regressive and hard for the poor but not as bad as tacking on massive taxes to people’s electric bills. The government would need to act fast to encourage and create employment but with a high returning consumption tax then even creation of public sector jobs is possible as a decent proportion of the wages paid return in taxation.

Once a new and powerful revenue institution is in place, the Greek government would be in a position to negotiate on its debt burden with a much safer and more credible threat of default (which given the size of the debt seems to be the endgame). If however we don’t see stronger institutions soon then a default will see thousands lose their jobs, homes and in extreme cases lives overnight and will threaten the very stability of the nation amongst widespread striking and civil disorder.

Whilst this kind of change is hard, some times change is the only way. This is one such time.

Over the last few years, the UK has taken some important steps towards a much needed reform of higher education. Much of this has been seen as controversial and divisive by some, however for me this is just the beginning of a sea-change in both governmental policy and the society’s perception of higher-level education. This is the first of a two-part entry, this section focussing on what has been done, the second will be on what remains to be done.

The most major change in the last decade was the introduction of tuition fees for undergraduate courses. Deeply controversial at the time Tony Blair’s government passed the introduction of tuition fees throughout parliament (Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998) citing the need to pass on (at least in part) the spiralling cost of funding the UK’s universities to those actually using them – the UK government was having to find an additional £350million in 1998/9 alone. Funding higher education was becoming a major concern at the start of the new millennium.

I, like many young people at the time, was aghast. ‘Free’ access to university had been an expectation and a luxury afforded to all those who went before me. How dare the government take away my right to free higher education?

Looking back I feel almost embarrassed at having held such a head-strong, self-centred view backed by little more than self interest and not really backed by any logical argument at all.

The case for free higher education at the point of use is extremely weak. Even if we are going to go to the extreme of making access to higher education a ‘right’ – that doesn’t mean it should necessarily be free. Most people consider that access to food is also a basic right yet few people object to the reality of paying for their food. If people are unable to afford the cost of attending university then there is a strong case for grants and cheap debt financing. This however is already in place as a plethora of funding is available to students, no one needs pay upfront for their fees and in all cases the cost of the courses can be repaid after studying.

The most frequent argument put forward is that having a high number of people attending university benefits us all as people become more heavily skilled, cultured and are able to offer more to society both in terms of labour productivity as well as making a less tangible contribution. There is an extent to which this is true. I for example have paid a great deal more taxes, written more pieces, debated, discussed and contributed to society with respect to numerous issues far more as a result of studying my degree. There is however one person who has benefitted far more than anyone else as a result of me studying my degree and that’s me. My degree has directly led to many benefits, not only tangible through a higher quality of life in material goods but also in terms of intangibles – the right degree ‘opens doors’, gives choices, options and abilities that one would not otherwise be able to enjoy otherwise. Additionally the opportunity to study alongside people from all over the world - a benefit UK universities are well-placed to provide, opened my mind to new ideas and opened my eyes to see the world in entirely new ways.

There is no doubt in my mind that I should shoulder most of the burden of cost for all these benefits – the counterfactual argument – that society should bear the full cost of all this for me, seems nonsensical.

Obviously those considering undertaking a degree now face a tough decision – the opportunity cost of studying is now much higher than it was 15 years ago as students now will pay 9000 GBP per year towards most courses. However this is a realistic choice in terms of the cost of education – why shouldn’t students face up to this choice and really evaluate the costs and benefits of going to study?

UCAS applications were down 10% this year – the British media treated this as a sort of minor disaster with interviews with forlorn students ruminating about the costs of courses. However this country has been plagued for years by people studying unnecessary and often quiet irrelevant degrees that have provided little benefit for themselves or anybody else. There are various reasons for this. Firstly, because for many attendance at university was regarded as a ‘rite of passage’ many students merely chose a subject they didn’t find too tedious in a city they thought would be an entertaining place to spend three heavily subsidised years and hopped on the train. Some went because many of their piers were attending and because it was ‘what one does’. For others it became an issue of social or class status. Which institution one’s son/daughter was attending was a source of pride/ disappointment/embarrassment for many but that emotion stemming solely on the reputation and ‘name’ of the relevant institution not the quality of teaching or applicability of the course.  Non-attendance at university or ‘dropping out’ was largely seen as a snub to a (prospective) student’s intelligence and their status in society.

The introduction of fees has done more than just help the government finance education. It has started to change society’s view of attending university. The ‘right’ to attend is still very much intact – there are nearly 200 institutions in the UK that one can attend – the difference is that one will have to pay for that privilege later on. As a result people are being forced to be making much more realistic, sensible choices about going to university – the financing is in place in the short term but you will be paying ultimately so is it actually worthwhile?

As a result of the change there has been much more focus on the outcome of degrees. Faculties talk of the employment rate of graduates and focus more heavily on pragmatic benefits of attending to help students choose the best courses. Becoming customers of universities through paying fees and not lucky beneficiaries means students are about to become more exacting of their institution whilst the hierarchy  which previously dominated the UK is now under threat as students demand results from their courses and will look more readily beyond the established names if they think the outcome will be better – suddenly now it’s their cash on the line and it feels like there is more at stake.

There are however a number of problems: universities remain uncompetitive, there are fears for take up of more expensive degree programmes (medical degrees for example). Whilst reduced university attendance by lower income groups, precipitated often by weak perception and assessment of future gains compared to present expenditure remains a concern. Similarly, the financing of post graduate education, admission of foreign students and funding of departments whose cultural impact is high but whose financial impact is lower are issues not addressed by current legislation. There is much to do as my next article will begin to examine.

Tuition fees however have been a master stroke that have not only helped eased the funding demands of the UK government but have begun changing and modernising university education both in provision and in terms of its place in society by correctly putting more responsibility on the user of the service to maximise its value.

I was convinced of the benefits by gifted and leading economists when I was lucky enough to study at university, they reasoned me into my view, I hope my piece here helps reason any dissenting readers.

The latest move against Fred Goodwin says little about Mr Goodwin, it says a lot about our society.

Sir Fred Goodwin, or Mr Goodwin as I should now refer, saw his knighthood annulled this week. It represents another totemic blow to a once hero-like figure both within the banking industry and especially in his native Paisley. Let me remind you of a brief biography before considering this decision in context.

Arguably for a time the most successful Scottish businessman of the modern era, Fred came from a working class background and was the first member of his family to attend university. After graduating,  he worked with the accountancy firm Touche and Ross and was extremely successful, heading major projects by his early 30s, including working on the successful takeover of Clydesdale bank by the National Australia Bank, later being appointed the Scottish subsidiary’s director and establishing his reputation for cost cutting.

Clydesdale bank clearly needed to cut costs, having been an expensive part of Midland bank (which itself would later be gobbled up by HSBC). Fred became known as ‘Fred the Shred’ whilst at Clydesdale for overzealous-cost cutting. Whilst there may have been some slightly overreaching and unnecessary reductions he left the bank a much efficient and effective entity than when he’d joined the sleepy 80s (or more like 60s) operation, leaving it in a position to compete in an industry that was to change dramatically over the next 25 years.

 It’s my personal opinion that his being far from having the traditional London merchant banker background, no public school, no Oxbridge (he didn’t even go to the LSE! To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby) and being a Scot to boot left him open to a fair amount of prejudicial comment at this stage, which has stayed with him to the end.

He moved to RBS in 1998 as deputy CEO to Sir George Mathewson, a man who’s background was almost identical to Fred’s and who’s knighthood for services to banking doesn’t seem to be in Question. The ambitious Mathewson bought the National Westminster bank in a £23.6bn takeover – a massive leveraged deal by RBS who only had around £8bn of assets at the time. The timing was exceptional and at the start of the new millennium business boomed. He retired to leave Fred in charge of integration (the young Goodwin’s speciality after Clydesdale) and Mathewson went on to become an iconic figure in Scottish business history.  

RBS under both Mathewson and Goodwin went on a buying binge. They bought Charter One in the United States as a way of breaking into the lucrative North American banking sector. Churchill Insurance, Direct Line, First Active (an Irish firm) where further acquisitions in the first half of the last decade. This appetite for purchase propelled RBS from a regional player to being one of the largest banks in the world in 2007, at one point behind only Chinese giants ICBC and China construction bank and American giants Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase.

By this time Fred Goodwin was considered a heroic for many, the banks emblem was emblazoned across the world from skyscrapers in New York to cricket pitches in India. It lent £9.3bn in 2008, comfortably more than its entire assets in 2000 and had even managed to take a stake in the Bank of China – controlling around £800mio worth of shares.

He was knighted in 2004 for services to banking and was consistently ranked #1 on the most powerful men in Scotland list compiled by the Sunday times. There some reasonable criticisms of RBS’ management – the construction of massive headquarters in both Scotland and America represent to many symbolic gestures of extravagance of an all too brief period of success. However for most RBS was a runway business success having moved from a ambitious regional bank to a giant conglomerate within a few years, its share price was soaring and profits flying higher year on year.

Fred Goodwin was a winner, a knight of the realm and in charge of one of the most successful business ever.

 Then the decision came that would see the whole edifice come tumbling down. In 2007 the financial markets begin to turn on Dutch giant ABN AMRO. The Dutch conglomerate suffered speculative attack and pressure from investors who felt the unwieldy cooperation needed to be split up.

 Goodwin smelled blood. Partnering with Santander and Fortis he launched a bid for the bank with a view of splitting its assets after Barclay’s had launched a bid of its own. To say the Dutch were not keen to be bought is an understatement and Goodwin was forced into making a heady $98bn bid. Still unhappy the Dutch dumped out La Salle bank (a main RBS target within the consortium) to Bank of America for some $21bn. This ‘poison pill’ should have represented game over for RBS, the deal now looked bad (and I am not saying this in hindsight, it was my view at the time) however to the surprise of most Goodwin came back with the same cash bid, Barclays dropped out and the RBS led consortium did the deal.

The deal seriously weakened RBS, its balance sheet was vulnerable, it would have taken several years of strong growth (in the style of the Nat West takeover) to make it work. It didn’t happen, as we all know, and unlike the Nat West take over where Goodwin and Mathewson led RBS into a brilliantly successful take over against considerable scepticism, this time the sceptics were proven right. RBS paid massively over the odds for their share of ABN in a deal that would tip both them and Fortis one of the coalition members over the edge and both were bailed out (Fortis later being sold to BMP Paribas, a cute side story is Santander did rather well out of ABN’s Latin American business’). As the credit crisis bit RBs made record breaking losses and the business collapsed with the addition subprime exposure and loss of equity following the takeover of ABN, RBS’ share price lost 98% of its value in less than 2 years by January 2009.

Goodwin went from hero to villain in the same time period. He was held solely accountable for the collapse, his banking career was over and he opted to take what was a very generous looking pension agreement. His lack of public empathy was revealed here too – £700k per year was far too much to try and be drawing if he wanted to escape scandal and he should have known this, he did eventually agree to reduce it after undergoing massive pressure but the lack of humility he showed during his career was ruining further his reputation now. The British people love a villain and love the luxury of having someone or a group of people to blame for their problems (I’ve referred to this in other pieces also) and so Fred duly vilified across the media. Over the last three years this has continued resulting in the annulment of his honour this week.

When Fred was winning he was adored, praise was lavished as a working class Scottish lad grew to stand at the helm of a conglomerate controlling a bank whose assets were so large at 1.96trillion that had RBS been a country and that its GDP it would have been the 9^th largest country in the world. He was given a knighthood because of this. Now because he got it wrong and made bad decisions we feel we can take it away. This is not reasonable, he was awarded for his services to banking, his commitment to making banks grow and prosper in a way in which he believed. That commitment was unwavering. He was proven wrong, but being wrong is not a crime and he has already paid a price for being wrong. Are we now going to annul the honours of anyone who then goes on to make mistakes and get things wrong? Aside from giving a big incentive to individuals with honours to retire and do less this also would make the honours system another part of the competitive commercial environment we are in and not a reward for service. Maybe there is a strong case for only awarding such things later in life when people are long retired. In reality the move to annul his knighthood is a result of how he is now viewed publically and nothing else.

Aside from anything else, surely annulling the knighthood suggests a precedent?  How can the board of RBS retain their titles, after all they had to approve everything? Sir Tom Mckillop, chairman of RBS at the time keeps his title and is allowed on the board at BP! Sir Victor Blank, Sir David Manning and Sir Julien Horn-Smith on the Lloyds (Chariman and Board Members), surely should lose theirs too as Lloyds did just as badly? What about those at the top of the FSA, should we annul Lord Turner’s title? Of course those senior civil servants at the Treasury were deeply involved in this and the rest of the financial crisis, are we to see Sir Nicholas Macpherson’s knighthood annulled? What about those who have controlled over failing institutions? Should we have punished Sir Graham Day who as Rover boss failed to keep the old British Leyland British in the early 1990s?

The answer of course is that of course we cannot. Honours are given in recognition of people’s contribution in different areas of our lives to reflect our approval and appreciation of their commitment and methods. They are there to reward and encourage people to serve their industry, society and ultimately their country. Thus encouraged was Sir Fred and thus he continued. When it went wrong the British people looked back with all the wisdom of hindsight and with an air of desperation sought out individuals and groups to blame for their problems. The language used to describe Goodwin as akin to that of a murderer but all he is guilty of is being a business man who in trying to make himself richer and more successful made the wrong business decision (as did his board, regulators and government) – British history is full of such people, without risk-taking businessmen we would never have had a banking sector or much of an economy at all to be concerned over.

The annulment of this honour smacks of the worst of British hypocrisy. Our society is willing to get behind you when you’re looking good - you have the whole country in support then as everyone loves a winner. Get it wrong and you’re on your own, despised and demonised - the whipping boy for the rest. As I mentioned before there is no question over Sir George Mathewson’s knighthood, whose methodology was identical to Fred’s but who just happened to not encounter recession in 1999-2005 when it would have wrecked RBS. Britain needs to grow up and stop blaming individuals for the problems of the many.  This latest move is just a cheap shot against someone we no longer support, but it says little about Mr Goodwin who’s mistakes, weakness and failings are well documented, it says a lot about our fair-weather society.  

Supermarkets reflect a classic love/hate relationship for many in the UK and they incur an incredible amount of wrath with what I have always felt was a lack of justification.

Supermarkets are blamed for the destruction of town centres and the homogenisation of our shopping experience. ‘The Left’ accuses them of creating unemployment, environmentalists that they devour Greenfield sites whilst ‘The Right’ complains they throttle farmers, small business and suppliers. We read that the rise of the supermarket had given rise to ‘clone town UK’, has savaged the cultural and commercial distinctiveness we treasure – a ‘Nation of Shopkeepers’ we are no longer.

I’ll attend to each of these objections in turn but first a few simple facts:

1)The majority of people who make these complaints about supermarkets, still shop in them (some of them complete with nectar loyalty card).

2)Supermarkets are partly responsible for dramatically lowering the price of food on a real income basis. By 2008 Households in the UK were spending less than half the proportion of their income on food than they did in 1958 whilst the downward pressure on white goods, clothes and electronics has been substantial. (source UK National office of statistics)

3)Supermarkets have resulted in large increases in access to both variety of type and quality of good to consumer.

4)Supermarkets are by far the most popular outlets for food retail. Alone, the largest 4 supermarkets combined have grown to control over 75% of all UK grocery sales by mid 2011 (Asda 17.1%, Morrison’s 11.7%, Sainsbury’s 16.1%, Tesco 30.5%). Cooperative, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer’s are the next largest grocers, all are supermarkets.

 In fact most of the criticisms of supermarkets are the by-products of their success and popularity. By harnessing economies of scale they have helped to collapse food prices and made items previously considered as luxuries available to families even on low incomes.

Before I start into dealing with the criticism listed above I want to touch on aspect of supermarket shopping that the supermarkets’ detractors will often not focus upon. The creation of the supermarket meant the shopping experience in the UK changed forever. Previously people had to walk the length of the high street, visit a dozen small shops to buy the goods required and then lug the shopping about until everything was gathered before heading back to the car. This process although produces some hilarious umbrella balancing action in wet weather it is obviously less than ideal particularly for parents with young children, the elderly  and even more so for the disabled. It is an often ignored point that with reserved parking for disabled people, and large stair-free, uncluttered shopping environments supermarkets have done a great deal to improve the daily lives of many disabled in the UK. The modern supermarket environment stands in stark contrast. If one chooses to go the supermarket by contrast one can buy everything in a single, warm, covered space usually with adjacent parking. Furthermore all bar the very smallest supermarkets provide wheeled trolleys or baskets enabling the consumer to push their selected items easily both throughout the store and to their cars– the only downside is the wayward trolley driving of a select few shoppers...

Let’s return to the common criticisms I began with. It is undeniable that supermarkets lead to the decline to small independent shops in the town centre. This is primarily because not only do supermarkets provide an easier shopping experience, they under cut on price and often variety. Many people in my opinion and I have been guilty of this myself have a rose tinted view of small independent shops. Whilst their demise is bemoaned by many as they see their town centres changed and even I can have a nostalgic view of history it is important to take a more realistic view. Independent stores charge more because they are economically inefficient, they sell relatively small quantities of products and thus need to charge large mark-up in order to cover their expenditure. Many small store operators, particularly those running small general sores work extremely long hours for wages often far below the minimum wage (just think of Ronnie Barker’s depiction of Arkwright in Open All Hours) and almost never take holiday. Whilst many claim to miss the experience of the local shop we need to remember the high prices for customers, the poor conditions for staff and the arduous slog up and down the high street laden with bag-fulls of goods.

As for ‘homogenisation and clone towns’ one of the more unusual objections I have read is that “all towns used to have a butcher, baker, greengrocer, fishmonger and corner store and now they just have Tesco” (Tescopoly, A Simms)– nothing to me sounds more homogenous than every town having the same 5 small stores and short of the actual name plate on the store and some modest differences in layout how varied are these stores really? Most independent butchers for example sell the same products than most other independent butchers in similar sized outlets. Many think that local stores sell more local produce, and whilst this might be intuitively true national suppliers who provide the supermarkets are by far the majority suppliers of independents – whilst supermarkets are increasingly promoting local and regional produce efficiently, to mass market demand. So whilst supermarkets do wipe out independent shops – I don’t see this is necessarily a bad thing. Yes it means change, yes it means we need to think what to do with town centres, yes some inefficient and expensive shopkeepers will lose out but sort of a need to move on and change I think we have to accept the decline of these stores as a positive evolution not a sad passing of friendly commerce with regret.

We’ll move briefly to environmental concerns which quite honestly I see as the least valid criticism. It is true many supermarkets open on Greenfield sites (although many don’t) but the overall impact of supermarkets with efficient networks of supply and distribution, cost saving economies of scale (even heating one large shop is a lot cheaper than heating 20 small ones) is not so negative. The promotion of local food and local supply lines is not environmentally very beneficial (you get a lot of inefficient producers producing low yields, inconsistently then transporting to the supermarket individually at irregular times. Where farming is inefficient the environment would almost certainly be better served by not farming land and turning it over to managed or unmanaged landscapes.

As for farmers and suppliers it is absolutely the case they are ‘squeezed’ very hard by supermarkets. This however is what consumers want – many flock to Asda, Lidl and the rest to save every penny they can from their weekly shop – for years Asda have advertised with shoppers tapping back pockets full of change, supposedly money saved from a trip to Asda. The extra money has to come from somewhere. But in any case, why shouldn’t suppliers be competed? The supermarkets are competed for every good, why not suppliers. This way inefficient farming will be put under pressure and may see closures – but is this not good? If we believe in subsidising farmers as we do as members of the EU then the government subsidy forum is the correct methodology for supporting the farmers, not random softness and charity from retailers.

There is some validity in the critique that supermarkets increase car journeys as people however this criticism is weakening in potency rapidly due to another change the supermarkets have brought to the UK grocery market. Internet shopping is still a relatively small share of the grocery market in the UK, accounting for 3.8% of the market (IGD) in 2011 (for comparison Aldi had a 3.6% share of UK grocery sales last year, Iceland 1.9%). This is however growing rapidly and is set to double within 5 years (Bloomberg) – this is the most economically efficient and environmentally way for people to shop – they receive their goods from a delivery van delivering efficiently and can get their shopping often with significantly less carrier bags and other packaging that would usually be relied along. A dozen independent shops just don’t have the scope to run an internet business anywhere near as well. Again many don’t like the change from conventional to internet shopping and I myself often prefer to go out to shop – but it has such advantages to those who work long hours or who physically or practically find it tough to get to the shops it will grow and become an important part of the UK grocery landscape....

...as anyone who is reading this must know the internet is here to stay. Supermarkets are too, and we are much the better for their presence.

Whilst I’ve always loved the cinema, I have little intention of writing film reviews on everything I see as many competently do this already. I would like to make an exception this time though.

After only a brief period watching The Iron Lady (apologies for the appalling joke in the title – couldn’t resist) it is apparent why it has caused such controversy. The film depicts an aged Thatcher, supposedly her now, going about her daily life and reminiscing over the past in a conveniently sequential manner. She inadvertently tells her life story through a succession of memories, visions and hallucinations, the latter a function of her advancing dementia.    

The UK as a society has a number of issues to face about how it will care for its increasingly elderly population (I shall write a piece on funding the elderly at a later date). Generally speaking I would describe the British attitude towards the elderly is complex and it is certainly difficult to make generalisations. There is however one overwhelming theme, the British repeatedly demonstrate an embarrassment of the elderly and of the impact of old age. There is an instinctive cultural reaction that very elderly people should be hidden from view and confined to activities designated as elderly, playing bowls, bridge or attending special over 60s/70s evenings.

It is common in the UK for people once they are elderly to be withdrawn from the public eye. This seems primarily due to fear that “the ravages of old age”, frailty, loss of sight and hearing or in the case of Thatcher depicted in the film dementia will somehow tarnish their image, reputation and respect built when they were young. We feel it seems that it is much better to keep them shut away after a certain point so their legacy can remain intact. Many in the UK go much further and argue that it is dignity that needs to be preserved and that seeing people as elderly in some way undermines and belittles them.

This is not a pleasant societal view in my opinion. We all grow old. I’m optimistic that I’ll someday match Thatcher and still be burbling away when I am 86. Whilst I may wish for eternal youth, in reality if I do make it that far I am unlikely to be as physically or mentally able as I am right now. I will be much slower, more easily confused and less certain of the rapidly changing circumstances around me. Assuming I make it there in reasonable health however I would hope to still be a competent person and whilst probably not working formally (although the retirement age might get close by then!) I would like to think I will still find a way of adding value to the society which I would be a part. I am sure it is the same for the elderly people in this country today. The Thatcher so beautifully portrayed by Streep has many moments of great clarity throughout the film, she shows clearly she can still debate, analyse and advise and in fact was at her best when she was engaged in this way. Her weaknesses became much more apparent when she was left alone for long periods not when she was ‘exposed’ to the public.

I am not arguing that elderly people should be just freely exposed to the ravages of public life. However it is clear in the UK that we are only too happy to marginalise our elderly people often to the point where direct family are the only people many elderly are in contact with. This then breeds an unhealthy cycle of time-consuming dependency that can see the elderly resented by their own families as the task of their care, added to an already stressful existence in modern life is considerable. In the future I think it is vital that we build a society based on patience and forgiveness – the mistakes made by elderly people are often comic or frustrating but they are not tragic or embarrassing. The weaknesses of old age come to us all if we are lucky to survive long enough. When I get there I’d like to think people are keen to engage with me, tolerant of my frailties and hopefully are able to accept the weaknesses I will have as a natural progression, a natural and often amusing set of developments that happen frequently in the sunset of people’s lives...for my part I’ll be happy to stick around until I am not longer able to add value to anyone or until I become a great burden to those around me...I admit much of this is very easy for me to write, my life doesn’t involve much exposure to the elderly however this is certainly the approach I adopt whenever I meet elderly people.

What however this doesn’t excuse, is poor behaviour by older people. Another equally flawed prevailing UK opinion tends to be that elderly people always behave well, politely and with decency. This is definitely not the case – being tolerant and patient of people’s natural weakness is different from just tolerating poor behaviour. Excusing poor behaviour by the elderly happens through the same thought process that hiding them away does. That they are unaccountable for their actions as old age somehow takes them over, leaving them at best senile and at worst mad. This is not the case, elderly people need understanding but then treating as normal members of society whether they behave well or poorly.

Many are upset that depicting Thatcher this way is unacceptable whilst she is alive. I am not sure why such a depiction is any better when she is dead – it surely is either decent to make this film or it isn’t – at least alive if wished she (or her office) can offer comment, she certainly cannot once she is dead! I don’t really see the problem of making a biography of someone fairly who is unwell and she certainly isn’t the first real-life person to be depicted as weaker into old age.

What I would remind those who are feeling terribly sorry for her is that no one did more than Thatcher to remove support for the elderly. The Tory commissioned Griffths report (1988) and later Community Care Act 1990 removed massive support for the poorest elderly people, capping public expenditure on nursing home care and moving the service from the NHS to fee-based social service providers. Her housing policy pulled the rug from many elderly people as councils were unable to control and thus provide sufficient social housing and housing with warden support. As for mental health her attitude towards those with mental health issues was savagely demonstrated by both repeated budget cuts the mental health act 1983 which could see people sectioned and given electroconvulsive therapy against their will and without the right of appeal  - it would be one of the first Acts rewritten Labour (2007 Mental health Act). Under Thatcher, people suffering as much as she is now had their care withdrawn, and in extreme cases were even thrown out onto the street without regret. Even if you feel it is generally unreasonable to show an elderly person in this way (which as I have explained I do not) I think given her record, beliefs and policies it would be reasonable to make an exception here.

I wonder if the experiences of her old age have made her question her attitudes in the past. Thatcher in some economic senses was one of the greats, breaking the trade unions and taking the UK from a destitute nation in the 1970s dependent on IMF support to a world economic leader.  However socially she brought division and misery and community failures across the country, her attitude and lack of empathy caused endless needless pain. As I wrote above, I feel the UK has much to consider in its attitude towards the elderly, and it is vital that we change and turn our attitudes around. Whilst I’ll probably never know, maybe Maggie now realises some of her mistakes...

...I hope the lady is for turning after all....

(hope this explains the poor joke in the title for anyone who still has no idea what I am on about)