jump to navigation

Working poverty: beyond the breadline August 23, 2009

Posted by Rhian E Jones in Politics.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

As the recession continues to bite, commentators continue to scrap over which of us bears the most impressive teeth marks: part-time and temporary female workers, those stuck in Britain’s post-industrial wastelands, or the Eighties-redux ‘lost generation’? The media’s preoccupation with the recession’s impact on unemployment, rather than the wage cuts, increased workloads and greater insecurity heaped upon those still in work, has been reflected in the response of both main parties. Labour in particular have ramped up their championing of paid work as panacea, chivvying the jobless into employment in an increasingly bloody-minded fashion with no apparent concern for what awaits us there. This Stakhanovite drum-beating is at odds with the reality of both poverty and work in modern Britain.

Under Labour, the National Minimum Wage has had a positive effect on the gender pay gap and, together with Working Tax Credits, has significantly raised the incomes of millions of working households. However, the problems of working poverty persist and are only increasing under current conditions. A trawl through IPPR research shows that almost six in ten poor UK households have someone at work, more than ten percent up on a decade ago. In 2006, more than one-fifth of all UK workers were paid £6.67 an hour, equivalent to 60 per cent of full-time median earnings. Handwringing over increased unemployment obscures that section of the population who cannot sufficiently stretch their wages to cover their cost of living, and who endure conditions which can be as stressful and soul-destroying as the full-time search for a job. The modern worker is subject not merely to financial hardship but also to insecurity, long hours, low pay, exploitation and sexual and racial harassment. The TUC’s Commission on Vulnerable Employment reports that over two million people endure “intolerably poor” working lives. As UK unions have been systematically defanged, so protection from increasingly unscrupulous employment practices has been undermined or disregarded. In addition, any party which aims at the emancipation of labour must recognise that material security, and the space and energy it grants us, is a cornerstone of creative and intellectual fulfillment. An insidious effect of working poverty, and the relentless, low-level grinding routine which accompanies it, is its theft of mental as well as physical resources.

Concentrating on driving us into work at any cost, Labour ignores that work is not a guaranteed escape from poverty. There has been little debate on what would constitute a fair wage, or what combination of regulation and support should be available to workers and employers. In politics and media, the issues of low pay, bad conditions, and the many inadequacies of Tax Credits and other attempts to tinker with the basic injustice of wages which fail to keep pace with the cost of living, are overshadowed by issues surrounding the jobless or those in long-term receipt of benefits. While the latter group are sensationalised and demonised, the working poor are almost entirely absent from the arena of debate, and too busy or exhausted to shoulder our way into the spotlight.

This is a situation in which resentment is effortlessly bred, and in which it is easy to lose sight of what unites us. The Labour Party was founded on a desire to prioritise the needs and interests of workers, and, in today’s neo-Victorian socio-economic landscape, these ideals are once again glaringly relevant. Labour must accept that a job is currently not enough to secure a reasonable standard of living, nor is it a safeguard against exploitation, stress and insecurity. Government policies on wages, taxes, credits and benefits must acknowledge the existence of working poverty, identify the problems inherent in employment alongside those of unemployment, and devote a similar amount of resources to tackling them. When the working poor are able to live rather than existing, Labour will have succeeded not only in regaining the support of a core demographic, but also in making employment an appealing prospect in itself rather than a dead-end into which it is obliged to force us under threat of destitution.

A Conspicuously Quiet Foghorn April 6, 2009

Posted by Frank Snow in Atheism and Religion.
Tags: ,
add a comment

I’ve been noticing an irritating trend lately.  It concerns the appearance of a not inconsiderable number of pearl-clutchingly dismissive articles laying into the perceived horrors of the “New Atheism” and why it’s a waste of time/morally wrong/will bring society to collapse/oh god won’t somebody please think of the children.

A good example of this from Madeleine Bunting appeared today: Real debates about faith are drowned by the New Atheists’ foghorn voices.

It begins with a rather choice comment, which bemoans the imminent collapse of British Christianity and then speculates:

One can only presume that the New Atheists are organising a fabulous party to celebrate. Richard Dawkins could stump up for the crates of champagne out of his sumptuous royalties from The God Delusion.

I’m getting really fucking sick of this.  This article comes at the end of a long line of comment, all of which basically comes together to say that these people are deeply unsettled by the idea that atheists have managed to carve out some space in the public discourse, and actually have a voice these days.  This is because the “New Atheists” are horrible brutes who always say mean things, holler at us from the sides of buses, and generally ruin everything by having an opinion and daring to express it.

After reading the article, I found myself imagining Madeleine Bunting as a person who never really goes out much these days, just sits in her living room, playing with finger puppets and howling with indignation when one of them says something nasty about religion.

I am particularly annoyed because it is this kind of straw-man building that is used to argue against a coherent atheist voice.  Accusations such as “shrill” and “strident” are thrown around, and the mysterious and sinister cabal of “New Atheists” are said to have “foghorn voices”.

This is a particularly irritating and absurd claim that goes a long way to demonstrating Bunting’s prejudices on the matter.  Atheists do not have “foghorn voices”.  Religious discussion still dominates in the public discourse, with religious authorities and “community leaders” being consulted on all manner of topics, sometimes regardless of whether or not they are actually qualified to comment.  Atheism has a comparatively smaller voice, and yet, whenever an atheist speaks out over something or dares to write a book suggesting that gods might not be real after all, suddenly they’re horrible jerks.

It is a particularly distasteful equivocation because it equates “having a voice that can be heard” with “having an overbearing, dominant voice that serves only to spew bile over the faithful”, the result of which seems to be the implication that atheists should not have this voice because people of apparently extremely delicate sensibilities will be upset.

I have no time for that.

There is almost certainly no god.  That is how I feel on the matter.  And I will not allow anyone to try to silence me by trying to claim that by saying it in a clear voice that I am indulging in some kind of contemptuous certainty that blasts its opinions shrilly into the night.

I will put up with claims that I am amoral, missing out on true happiness, or lacking in a way of discovering wonder and beauty in the universe, because I know that those claims are wrong.  What I will not put up with is an attempt to silence me or others like me by indulging in this straw-man denunciation of the “New Atheists”.  They are a spectre, a monster under the bed that has been created to frighten people into believing that atheists are strident bullies, and it ought to be put to rest.

Independent “Filmmaker” in Propagandistic Bullshit Shocker! February 22, 2009

Posted by Frank Snow in Games.
Tags: ,
4 comments

So here we have a trailer for a documentary film entitled Spencer Halpin’s Moral Kombat, a film apparently tackling the subject of violence in video games. However, (at least according to the trailer), what we actually have is a steaming, sensationalist turd of a rhetoric piece spouting anti-gaming nonsense.

Now, a lot could be said about why this trailer doesn’t know what the fuck it’s talking about, but there are a few standout points for me. The first of which is that they actually interviewed lawyer and anti-games activist Jack Thompson. If you’re not sure who that is, he’s one of the first few interviewees, the man with the tiny face that talks about Cain and Abel as if it actually happened. Ol’ Jack is rather renowned in video-gaming circles for being an incoherent vomit-puddle of a man who understands the medium he’s campaigning against about as much as an amoeba understands String Theory. He was once banned from practicing law in Alabama for acting like a petulant child in court. There’s nothing wrong with wanting a balanced viewpoint, but no film about video gaming that wants one can have Jack Thompson anywhere near it. He’s an insane, narrow-minded conservative throwback, and the only things bigger than his head (although not his face) are the massive blinkers he insists on wearing.

The second point being the claim (by apparent association) that video games were essentially responsible for the attacks on the WTC, because Flight Simulators were used to train the men who piloted the jets into the towers. Flight Sims are not, never were and never will be video games. They’re exactly what it says on the tin: fucking simulators. The entire point of them is that they teach you how to fly aircraft. You might as well move to ban flight instructors as well, because they’d do an even better job of teaching you how to fly. Video games on the other hand, violent or otherwise, set out to entertain, and therefore do no better a job of teaching how to commit acts of extreme violence than do films or novels.

And I have no idea who said it, but: “we are who we are pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” What a crock of pathetic, unquestioned nonsense rhetoric bullshit. Does that mean that Christian Bale is a murderous psychopathic businessman, or that Cate Blanchett is a telepathic Elf-Queen? I wonder if the person that said that ever listens to any of the stream of mephitic sewage tumbling from his mouth. At least now it’s on record, so if he ever wakes up from the intellectual slumber he’s tumbled into he might one day hear those words and realise what a tosser he once was.

Now, whilst it’s probably obvious what my opinions are at this point, I really am all for a fair and balanced inquiry into what the cultural impact of violent video games truly is. But if this is the quality of discourse that we can expect on the matter, then I for one welcome the day when all we do for entertainment is listen to the gentle, grey hum of the fridge. At least then there will be no chance of being exposed to this documentary.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.