Immigration is once again making headlines in the UK with Gordon Brown calling last week for new British citizenship tests and David Cameron launching an attack this week against what he calls ‘state multiculturalism’. Cameron is urging the Conservative party instead to support a model of integration as he believes multiculturalism is leading to ethnic segregation.
The UK is not alone in engaging in national debates about immigration and citizenship. The majority of Western liberal democracies are facing similar challenges today, each trying to figure out the best strategy to manage ethnic diversity within their borders, often aiming to strike the right balance between national cohesion and identity on the one hand, and the celebration of cultural diversity, on the other.
As a Canadian, I am quite familiar with the subject of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is seen as part of Canadian values and of our national identity. That is not to say however that there are no critics or opponents to multiculturalism in Canada - there certainly are. However, as the first country in the world to adopt a policy of multiculturalism in 1971, Canada has evolved with and backed this policy over the past 36 years. The policy of multiculturalism became institutionalized when it was incorporated into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 and then entrenched in law with the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988.
Examining Canada’s policy of multiculturalism over these years is revealing as it shows how the policy has transformed and modified itself over time. Beginning with a primary focus on celebrating differences in the 70s, to managing differences in the 80s, and to an emphasis on inclusive citizenship in the 2000s, the policy has reinvented and adapted itself to the shifting changes in the national landscape. Just recently, in a United Nations conference, Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, firmly stood by Canada’s policy and described Canada’s cultural diversity as “its greatest strength”.
What will be the fate of multiculturalism in the UK? Will the backlash against multiculturalism that has been growing since 2005 result in its demise?
What I see as being truly fundamental in order to engage in a constructive and fruitful national debate over immigration and citizenship is for the proper groundwork - extensive research, perhaps in the form of a commission - and framework to be laid. Members of Parliament need to provide more information and greater clarity around the meanings and implications of the multiculturalism and integration models. The pubic has the right to understand the terms of the debate so that they can express their views and opinions on these issues.
Friday 29 February 2008
Missing the Mark?
You have to stand back and admire the latest PR coup from M&S. Their announcement about reducing the use of plastic bags for food secured huge publicity yesterday, and again today as the PM has endorsed their leadership position. It's fantastic PR, similar to their coup last year, when a few days after they announced their great financial figures they launched Plan A.
The real question though, is aside from the PR - is there any substance to the plastic bag ban? Don't get me wrong - great PR is worth it's weight in gold - it's part of how corporate reputations are made and retained. But, it has to have substance and has to stand up to scrutiny. And I don't think the plastic bag ban does - in fact I think it's a dangerous distraction from the real issue.
What we need to understand in the UK is that environmental responsibility - whether by individuals or corporations is a complex and multi-layered series of actions or abstentions. Carrier bags are a great invention - they are light, but have immense carrying capacity - so they score high on public convenience. Alternatives to plastic bags, such as the reinforced paper bags introduced in Ireland, are reputed to have a higher carbon footprint than the now demonised plastic bag. Additionally, they are not as flexible so you need more bags to carry the same volume of food.
Unsurprisingly, none of this complexity - and there's more once transportation is factored in - gets reported. It seems to me that unless and until we can have a more subtle and even sophisticated debate about the environmental impacts of our convenience laden lifestyles, PR stunts will continue to lead and shape our green behaviour. And that is immensely dangerous, for corporations who may find their packaging the focus of the next trophy target, and for the public who are lulled into a false sense of having 'done their bit'.
Does this mean we should wait till we know everything before we do anything? Of course not, but doing incomplete and / or inappropriate things may, in the long term be worse for the environment. What is does mean is that we should reject simplistic solutions that make us feel better, but are ultimately meaningless.
The real question though, is aside from the PR - is there any substance to the plastic bag ban? Don't get me wrong - great PR is worth it's weight in gold - it's part of how corporate reputations are made and retained. But, it has to have substance and has to stand up to scrutiny. And I don't think the plastic bag ban does - in fact I think it's a dangerous distraction from the real issue.
What we need to understand in the UK is that environmental responsibility - whether by individuals or corporations is a complex and multi-layered series of actions or abstentions. Carrier bags are a great invention - they are light, but have immense carrying capacity - so they score high on public convenience. Alternatives to plastic bags, such as the reinforced paper bags introduced in Ireland, are reputed to have a higher carbon footprint than the now demonised plastic bag. Additionally, they are not as flexible so you need more bags to carry the same volume of food.
Unsurprisingly, none of this complexity - and there's more once transportation is factored in - gets reported. It seems to me that unless and until we can have a more subtle and even sophisticated debate about the environmental impacts of our convenience laden lifestyles, PR stunts will continue to lead and shape our green behaviour. And that is immensely dangerous, for corporations who may find their packaging the focus of the next trophy target, and for the public who are lulled into a false sense of having 'done their bit'.
Does this mean we should wait till we know everything before we do anything? Of course not, but doing incomplete and / or inappropriate things may, in the long term be worse for the environment. What is does mean is that we should reject simplistic solutions that make us feel better, but are ultimately meaningless.
Friday 22 February 2008
Olympic Politics
China has definitely been faced with quite a PR challenge, or some would say, nightmare, trying to uphold a clean and positive image to the rest of the world, as it is faced with what seems to be an incessant series of controversies and criticism. Whether it is the concern over human rights abuses at home, the controversy over China’s involvement in Sudan, or the latest drug fears over human growth hormone (HGH) production, China seems to have a lot more on its plate than simply preparing for and running the Olympic games.
These issues are important and should not be dismissed or diluted, but finding the most effective and appropriate way to address them is what needs to be considered. I would agree with the Foreign Secretary, David Milliband’s statement on Wednesday “that boycotts are not a right way” to address these matters. For real change to take place other strategies should be adopted.
All this raises the debate of whether we can continue viewing the Olympics as strictly a sporting event? And if not, where do we draw the line? Whether or not China should be hosting the games is perhaps something that should have been on the discussion table back in the summer of 2001 when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) selected China and the city of Beijing - in the first round, let it not be forgotten - to host the summer Games. Media and world attention should maybe start looking into the criteria used in the selection and nomination process. In 1999, an independent Ethics Commission was created, but little to nothing is known about this entity. This clearly calls for a more open debate around the IOC in general, which is well known to be manipulated by money and power.
Rather than boycott the Olympics in China, it seems to me that a more effective strategy lies in working in cooperation with China on these issues, and strengthening its international ties. Resorting to isolation and shaming tactics is often ineffective.
Moreover, one cannot dismiss the positive changes that have been occurring in China recently. Any country would agree that foreign and national policy cannot be changed overnight. Being in the international spotlight for 17 days might help bring about the legacy of change that the world would like to see.
These issues are important and should not be dismissed or diluted, but finding the most effective and appropriate way to address them is what needs to be considered. I would agree with the Foreign Secretary, David Milliband’s statement on Wednesday “that boycotts are not a right way” to address these matters. For real change to take place other strategies should be adopted.
All this raises the debate of whether we can continue viewing the Olympics as strictly a sporting event? And if not, where do we draw the line? Whether or not China should be hosting the games is perhaps something that should have been on the discussion table back in the summer of 2001 when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) selected China and the city of Beijing - in the first round, let it not be forgotten - to host the summer Games. Media and world attention should maybe start looking into the criteria used in the selection and nomination process. In 1999, an independent Ethics Commission was created, but little to nothing is known about this entity. This clearly calls for a more open debate around the IOC in general, which is well known to be manipulated by money and power.
Rather than boycott the Olympics in China, it seems to me that a more effective strategy lies in working in cooperation with China on these issues, and strengthening its international ties. Resorting to isolation and shaming tactics is often ineffective.
Moreover, one cannot dismiss the positive changes that have been occurring in China recently. Any country would agree that foreign and national policy cannot be changed overnight. Being in the international spotlight for 17 days might help bring about the legacy of change that the world would like to see.
Thursday 21 February 2008
Joining up school services
On the 19th of February, I attended the Launch of the Progress School Governors Network in Westminster, with the Rt Hon Ed Balls as the speaker. He spoke a lot about issues that we have heard before, but that didn’t make them any less poignant.
His focus was on the role of schools in the wider community, and the need for schools to be better linked with children services and health services. The thinking is that the schools should be the early warning indicator, and then schools need to be able to engage with Social Services and the Housing Association. I totally agree with this idea in principle, but understand that it may be difficult to work in practice.
He believed that this emphasis on joining up these support services is fundamental to tackling barriers to children reaching their potential. The Governing bodies, therefore, need to ensure that the school is equipped for this to happen.
His other key point was about raising the education age to 18 – either through school, college, apprenticeships or work based training, in order to break the link between poverty and opportunity. He explained that vocational schemes should give an opportunity to everyone, and remove the 2 tier system that currently operates.
I agree that both joining up schools with other local services, and creating better educational opportunities for all children through different vocational schemes, is really important to improve lives of children in this country. And I really hope that the DCSF can achieve these goals, not only to help every individual child to reach their potential, but because more skilled young people entering the workforce will ultimately contribute immensely to the success of the UK economy.
His focus was on the role of schools in the wider community, and the need for schools to be better linked with children services and health services. The thinking is that the schools should be the early warning indicator, and then schools need to be able to engage with Social Services and the Housing Association. I totally agree with this idea in principle, but understand that it may be difficult to work in practice.
He believed that this emphasis on joining up these support services is fundamental to tackling barriers to children reaching their potential. The Governing bodies, therefore, need to ensure that the school is equipped for this to happen.
His other key point was about raising the education age to 18 – either through school, college, apprenticeships or work based training, in order to break the link between poverty and opportunity. He explained that vocational schemes should give an opportunity to everyone, and remove the 2 tier system that currently operates.
I agree that both joining up schools with other local services, and creating better educational opportunities for all children through different vocational schemes, is really important to improve lives of children in this country. And I really hope that the DCSF can achieve these goals, not only to help every individual child to reach their potential, but because more skilled young people entering the workforce will ultimately contribute immensely to the success of the UK economy.
Friday 15 February 2008
Comparing strategies – learning from ‘star recyclers’
The Scottish Government’s 2008 International Review of Recycling Policies that provides an overview of policy levers that have led to high levels of recycling and composting of municipal waste across a range of international jurisdictions shows us just how much can be learnt from observing our neighbours; especially those that have met and surpassed EU targets.
What stands out for me in this review is the success that large-scale schemes such as the introduction of a landfill tax or variable charging for household waste has had. Research conducted in Bavaria, Netherlands, Flanders and Austria shows that these countries have the highest rates for recycling and composting municipal waste, each of them reaching above 60%.
The challenge however seems to lie in striking the right balance. There is the risk that some schemes may be perceived as being too demanding on customers. Even though Sweden and Switzerland are among the recycling ‘role model list’, the review reveals that household ‘sort and bring’ systems in these countries have received criticism for this very reason.
Nevertheless, what does seem to be clear is that having the right infrastructure and incentives in place is indispensable if one is to achieve their desired targets. In Ireland, where there is a lack of processing facilities, this has resulted in 30% of municipal waste being exported and higher treatment costs. As for incentives, they help to encourage stronger partnerships between government, municipalities and industries.
In the UK, according the Materials Recycling Week 2008 State of the Nation Report, most local authorities would like to see improvements in the provision of recycling and waste collection services. Their intentions are indeed in the right place, but with local authorities expecting their recycling rate to be around 45% on average in 2010/11, these targets fail to meet national and EU objectives.
What does the UK plan on doing about this? The Stern Report clearly demonstrated to the nation the economic cost of failing to address environmental issues. If the UK is to improve its standing – whether it be in recycling and waste management, or in another area - more leadership is required from the government. Someone needs to set the pace for change.
What stands out for me in this review is the success that large-scale schemes such as the introduction of a landfill tax or variable charging for household waste has had. Research conducted in Bavaria, Netherlands, Flanders and Austria shows that these countries have the highest rates for recycling and composting municipal waste, each of them reaching above 60%.
The challenge however seems to lie in striking the right balance. There is the risk that some schemes may be perceived as being too demanding on customers. Even though Sweden and Switzerland are among the recycling ‘role model list’, the review reveals that household ‘sort and bring’ systems in these countries have received criticism for this very reason.
Nevertheless, what does seem to be clear is that having the right infrastructure and incentives in place is indispensable if one is to achieve their desired targets. In Ireland, where there is a lack of processing facilities, this has resulted in 30% of municipal waste being exported and higher treatment costs. As for incentives, they help to encourage stronger partnerships between government, municipalities and industries.
In the UK, according the Materials Recycling Week 2008 State of the Nation Report, most local authorities would like to see improvements in the provision of recycling and waste collection services. Their intentions are indeed in the right place, but with local authorities expecting their recycling rate to be around 45% on average in 2010/11, these targets fail to meet national and EU objectives.
What does the UK plan on doing about this? The Stern Report clearly demonstrated to the nation the economic cost of failing to address environmental issues. If the UK is to improve its standing – whether it be in recycling and waste management, or in another area - more leadership is required from the government. Someone needs to set the pace for change.
The Global Game
The Premier League and its Chief Executive Richard Scudamore have announced than an extra round of competitive league games could to be staged abroad in the 2010-2011 season. Reaction to this has been mixed – and rightly so. UK-based supporters are strongly opposed, as is the majority of the media. Furthermore, those countries that may host the match appear lukewarm to the idea, along with the governing bodies. The new Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, has been mindful not to endorse the scheme.
Such a round of extra fixtures are expected to strengthen the league’s hand when discussing its next TV deal. Michael Platini, UEFA President, argued in an Economist ‘World in 2008’ article that a fascination of sport should prevail over a fascination for money, yet his advice does not seem to have been heeded by Scudamore et al.
It is not just that such an extra round of matches seems to have been concocted for fiscal reasons that makes this proposal unsettling, it is the lack of thought being given as to the implications of such matches.
Taking matches abroad means dealing with the social and cultural issues that can be found there. Manchester United recently made a mid-season visit to Saudi Arabia, a trip organised in all likelihood to help lessen the financial burden the Glazer’s have given the club. Yet, as the Guardian’s Richard Williams correctly highlighted, no consideration was given to the fact Manchester United were playing in front of 80,000 men as women were not allowed to attend. No consideration was given to the fact that having Manchester United playing such a match may been seen by some as the club, at best appearing ignorant to the issue of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, and at worst endorsing that status.
If the Premier League and English teams really must chase global money, and competitive fixtures abroad are to become a reality, they should be better prepared to deal with global issues.
Such a round of extra fixtures are expected to strengthen the league’s hand when discussing its next TV deal. Michael Platini, UEFA President, argued in an Economist ‘World in 2008’ article that a fascination of sport should prevail over a fascination for money, yet his advice does not seem to have been heeded by Scudamore et al.
It is not just that such an extra round of matches seems to have been concocted for fiscal reasons that makes this proposal unsettling, it is the lack of thought being given as to the implications of such matches.
Taking matches abroad means dealing with the social and cultural issues that can be found there. Manchester United recently made a mid-season visit to Saudi Arabia, a trip organised in all likelihood to help lessen the financial burden the Glazer’s have given the club. Yet, as the Guardian’s Richard Williams correctly highlighted, no consideration was given to the fact Manchester United were playing in front of 80,000 men as women were not allowed to attend. No consideration was given to the fact that having Manchester United playing such a match may been seen by some as the club, at best appearing ignorant to the issue of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, and at worst endorsing that status.
If the Premier League and English teams really must chase global money, and competitive fixtures abroad are to become a reality, they should be better prepared to deal with global issues.
Thursday 7 February 2008
The aftermath of Super Duper Tuesday
So – the Democrats can’t decide between Obama and Clinton. I can no longer decide between them either – although until recently I’ve been backing Obama and his message of change, a brief scan of his book, ‘The Audacity of Hope’, reveals his belief in unilateral action and that the UN should not have a veto over America’s actions. From the perspective of international relations, an Obama Presidency may not result all that much change in America’s behaviour abroad.
Regardless, Super Tuesday ended with Clinton winning the more delegates, but Obama securing the most states. While the Republicans seem to be heading towards clarity, the Democrats still cannot seem to believe their luck – two electable candidates after years in the political wilderness.
The party needs to be mindful that should competition become too bitter within the party, it will be to the detriment of all Democrats – a divided party will not appeal to voters, and John McCain is the Republican candidate most likely to appeal to independent and undecided voters in a Presidential election.
Once a candidate has been selected, it has been suggested that Clinton or Obama should offer the other the position of running mate. While some may view this as a dream ticket, I believe it is far more likely to be a nightmare ticket. If parts of Middle America are not ready for a Black President, or a Female President, having a running pair of Obama and Clinton could turn out to be electoral suicide – especially against a white male who served in Vietnam.
The primary season now moves onto Obama-friendly states such as Maryland, Washington, and Virginia. Clinton may have to wait until early March before her campaign regains momentum. Attention should not, however, remain just on forthcoming states. The third placed, and recently retired candidate John Edwards is still sitting on 64 delegates – and has yet to indicate when they will be released and allowed to re-select their candidates. It could be these 64 delegates that tip the balance conclusively.
Regardless, Super Tuesday ended with Clinton winning the more delegates, but Obama securing the most states. While the Republicans seem to be heading towards clarity, the Democrats still cannot seem to believe their luck – two electable candidates after years in the political wilderness.
The party needs to be mindful that should competition become too bitter within the party, it will be to the detriment of all Democrats – a divided party will not appeal to voters, and John McCain is the Republican candidate most likely to appeal to independent and undecided voters in a Presidential election.
Once a candidate has been selected, it has been suggested that Clinton or Obama should offer the other the position of running mate. While some may view this as a dream ticket, I believe it is far more likely to be a nightmare ticket. If parts of Middle America are not ready for a Black President, or a Female President, having a running pair of Obama and Clinton could turn out to be electoral suicide – especially against a white male who served in Vietnam.
The primary season now moves onto Obama-friendly states such as Maryland, Washington, and Virginia. Clinton may have to wait until early March before her campaign regains momentum. Attention should not, however, remain just on forthcoming states. The third placed, and recently retired candidate John Edwards is still sitting on 64 delegates – and has yet to indicate when they will be released and allowed to re-select their candidates. It could be these 64 delegates that tip the balance conclusively.
Monday 4 February 2008
Dynastic Politics
As the American Presidential primaries continue, the field of contenders continues to narrow. On the Democratic side of events, with the announcement of John Edwards’ retirement from the race, the remaining two candidates are involved in an increasingly tense battle. Both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama can rightfully fancy their chances of reaching the White House – the Republicans are unlikely to recover from the disaster that was the Bush Presidency in time for this election.
Consequently, a new Democratic President looks likely – but which of the candidates will be victorious?
The Clintons appear to believe in Hilary’s unquestionable right to become America’s 44th President. This can be partly blamed on the dynastic politics that has emerged in America in the last few decades, with Bushes and Clintons each taking their turn in the White House. However, such rotation between two families does little for the democratic process. The argument for such rotation might be stronger were it not for America’s sorry state both at home and abroad. America needs a new President, with a new surname.
Consequently, a new Democratic President looks likely – but which of the candidates will be victorious?
The Clintons appear to believe in Hilary’s unquestionable right to become America’s 44th President. This can be partly blamed on the dynastic politics that has emerged in America in the last few decades, with Bushes and Clintons each taking their turn in the White House. However, such rotation between two families does little for the democratic process. The argument for such rotation might be stronger were it not for America’s sorry state both at home and abroad. America needs a new President, with a new surname.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)