The Reality of Rape Culture (Trigger Warning)

Greetings all, I have not updated for a while, but I am going to be writing for the University paper in the forthcoming year. I will also be posting my articles on here, so expect updates coming more often. Anyway, this is my first one, so while rape culture and victim blaming may not be a new thing for some of you, it will be for the people who will be reading the next issue of LeNurb (that's the name of the paper - don't ask!). Anyway, I hope I've done a good job!

On the 10th of June this year, thousands of women and men marched from Trafalgar Square in the controversial “slut walk”. While the march didn’t make front page news, it was certainly heard about, sparking debates and heated conversation across the country.
My personal view of the march itself is that I find the march's name, "Slut Walk" unappealing, as I do not agree with the concept of "reclaiming" a derogatory word that was never really "ours" to begin with, among other reasons. However, the actual message behind "slut walk" is what I want to talk about. Having had already taken place in the major cities of the UK and all over the United States, as well as future marches planned throughout Europe, the march originated in Toronto, Canada, on the 3rd of April, in response to the comments of Constable Michael Sanguinetti during his talk on crime prevention at a safety forum at York University in Ontario (not to be confused with the University of York in the UK). While Sanguinetti’s “advice” to women that they should avoid “dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized" caused great alarm, they actually reflect an already underlying culture of victim blaming; the idea that society teaches us not to get raped, as opposed to one which teaches people not to rape, and gives an impression that rape can be avoided if potential victims did not dress or act in a certain way. A recent survey by the BBC revealed that a worrying 75% of women and 57% of men believe that some rape victims “should take responsibility for what happened”. These views have been present in the court rooms, and have resulted in rapists being set free on the grounds that the victim was asking for it in some way. Sadly, it is not a new phenomenon.
One model example of victim blaming that I came across while researching for this article was a video entitled “What Guys Think about Modesty – (Modesty Part II), part of a recording of a church sermon regarding women’s dress. The main speaker, CJ Mahaney, read out true life stories of young men who had faced “hardship” during their time at University, struggling to suppress their lust as they found themselves surrounded by provocatively dressed young women. Mahaney’s sermon is reeking in 19th century bigotry, demonising women for how they dress, describing campus as a “loaded minefield”, even going as far as to tell girls to get their fathers to “screen their wardrobes” because “he’s a guy” and knows better than you do on the issue”. Not only does he place responsibility on young women to “protect” men from sexual desire, but it perpetuates a message to them that they should feel guilty and ashamed of their bodies and for having sexual desires themselves (while it may come as a shock to some, women also think about sex).
We also cannot deny that this is a gender issue. Men are never told not to wear shorts or to keep their shirts on in hot weather. They are never made to feel ashamed for being overtly sexual in any way, and are never told that their actions could put them at risk of being victimised. As well as keeping an eye on their clothing, women are told to always be careful when they are out, to watch what they drink, to make sure that they do not travel anywhere alone late at night, and if they are raped, they are criticised for making themselves vulnerable. In May this year, two New York City police officers were acquitted of rape because the victim was drunk at the time of the attack. In Winnipeg, Canada, a rapist was spared jail because the judge claimed that the victim’s “suggestive attire” and “flirtatious conduct” on the night of the attack sent the rapist signals that “sex was in the air”. We also cannot forget that the majority of rapes happen in the home of the victim, and often the rapist is somebody who is known to them. By using the logic of the judges in the cases mentioned above, should we then blame people who dare to allow somebody that they trust into their home?
Of course, we should not ignore the fact that victim blaming can be harmful to men too. To suggest that men are so weak that they are unable to control their sexual urges dehumanises them. It implies that men are so lacking in morals that it is up to women to help them to suppress their “evil” thoughts. It is natural to think about sex, but men know right from wrong, they do not need anybody else to think on their behalf. If somebody is raped, it is because the rapist made the decision to rape them, not because the victim invited them to in some way. If they were “asking for it”, it would not be rape.
I know that I have to be realistic. I am not expecting rape to end overnight, or ever for that matter. It’s a harsh reality that there will always be people who think that they are entitled to do as they please to others in order to feel powerful and controlling, and who will use excuses to try to justify their actions. Nevertheless, as long as we can change the way we educate people on how to treat others, by teaching people not to rape instead of not to get raped, by pointing out that while alcohol, short skirts, and being openly sexual are not illegal, but forcing somebody to have sex against their will is, then maybe less rapists will be allowed to walk free on the streets, giving them the opportunity to attack again. Perhaps more victims will be brave enough to come forward if they are no longer haunted by the fear that they will not be believed. It is time that we changed our attitudes to coincide with the 21st century, and stop allowing this culture that continues to silence rape victims through ignorance and shame.

The 'lock and key' analogy and other lame attempts at justifying the double standards applied to women and sex.

"If a key opens many locks, it is a master key, but if a lock is opened by many keys it is a shitty lock." - A. Douchebag (year unknown)

No doubt you have come across this work of "genius" when a woman points out the unfairness of being called a "slut" or similar if she engages in consensual sex with multiple partners. It is assumed that this will put an end to any objections, that the woman will shut up, and things will be back to the way they should be. Yes, that's right, people actually believe this is a legitimate anti-feminist argument.

I will not only try to explain to the simple minded folk how this fails to justify their hypocrisy, but will also refute the other arguments that people like to use, as well as point out why calling anybody a slut, male or female, is no less closed minded and judgemental than somebody who, for example, is homophobic (if of course you are homophobic, then you might still want to carry on reading, this could help you).

Until very recently, I was guilty of using the word "slut" to refer to women who slept with multiple partners. I now realise how ignorant I was being, and regret it deeply. It fills me with rage whenever I see or hear other people doing it, but what makes me lose faith in humanity even more, is that bloody lock and key analogy. The way how, whenever somebody says it, has such a tone of pride to their voice or in their writing, because they think they are right, that nobody could possibly come up with a better argument. If you are one of those people, I have bad news; your attempt at keeping misogyny alive just got a bit harder.

People who like to use this little comparison seem to forget one fundamental fact: My body is not an object. My sincerest apologies, as I am aware of how disheartened you are to receive such disappointing news, but you cannot compare a part of my living body to an inanimate object - the function of which is completely different. The purpose of a lock is to keep out intruders, to stop somebody from getting inside a particular place. If the purpose of my vagina was identical to that of a lock, the human race would cease to exist. My vagina is not designed to keep out intruders. The comparison is irrelevant. You may as well compare chalk to cheese as a means of establishing a reason not to eat it.

Fortunately, people are finally beginning to see why such a poor excuse for an argument doesn't work. Unfortunately however, this does not mean that they have decided to acknowledge and accept that the name calling is unfair. Now they try to convince us that, because it is apparently so much easier for a woman to get sex than it is a man, a woman therefore deserves the name calling while a man should be praised. Nada. Exactly where is the logic in treating somebody like shit simply because they do something that is supposedly "easier" for them? I can understand why someone would get praise by "achieving" something that is difficult, but I cannot see why somebody should be ridiculed and ostracised because they do not have to make as much effort. Why would you do that? By putting forward this argument, all you have done is made a (rather biased) observation, yet failed to explain the relevancy of it. It doesn't refute any argument whatsoever. Like the lock and key analogy, it is a futile attempt to justify one's misogyny whilst not actually admitting that they are a sexist twat. If there is one thing I despise more than misogyny, it is a closet misogynist.

My final argument, used by both men and women, is the classic "Oh, it's ok, I call men sluts too!"

Now I am willing to bet that out of the people who say that, less than 1% actually do use the word slut to refer to promiscuous men. However, this is not the point I will make. Words like "slut", "slag", "cheap", "easy", "tart", "whore" and the like all have negative connotations. Using this word to describe somebody who sleeps around implies that consensual sex between adults is a bad thing. Something that should be looked down upon, ridiculed, something that is not to be tolerated.

Let me repeat the phrase "consensual sex between adults". Does that sound familiar to you? It is the one and only real defence of homosexuality. No other argument is better, because the idea of imposing laws against what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is an infringement of their civil liberties, and that's the end of it. Any liberal-thinking person would tell you that. If you think homosexuality is wrong, if the thought of having a physical/romantic relationship with a member of the same sex is unthinkable, it doesn't matter, because the actions between consenting adults, has never and will never, ever harm or affect you, or anybody else.

Likewise, if you attach such a negative connotation to anybody, male or female, sleeping with multiple partners by using words like "slut" or "whore", you are no better than a person who calls somebody a "fag" or a "dyke", because you are unfairly judging somebody based on the fact that they, an adult, had consensual sex with other adults. You are treating somebody as a lesser person than yourself because they engage in acts that harm nobody. You have made somebody else's sexual history your business, even though it is not, and that makes you no better than a homophobe, in my opinion. Perhaps what strikes me as the most distressing conclusion to this dilemma is the fact that those friends and acquaintances who refer to promiscuous women as "sluts" are the same people who claim to be open minded and non-judgemental. Yet by calling somebody a slut, in a serious sense, you are doing exactly that.

Misconceptions about Liberals - are people really this stupid? Really? REALLY?

For some reason people seem to have the wrong idea about us liberals and it’s really beginning to piss me off. I am not offended by the words they use, but by the fact that these morons think they know about politics. If you think liberalism is about letting criminals get away with murder, allowing illegal immigrants to live in ‘£1 million palaces’ while they ‘scrounge off the state’ and advocating extremism then you’re an idiot. In fact, idiot is too nice a word. But I won’t waste my time trying to find an appropriate term for your ignorance. So instead I’ll just try to educate you on what liberalism really means in the hopes that it will somehow make its way into your thick little head and you won’t look like such a cretin when you try to be political.
First of all, Liberalism is an ideology, and a very broad one at that. If we were to place it on the political spectrum, it will be in the center. Not the left, which is a common mistake that many of you seem to make all the time. Because the ideology is so broad it is also quite possible to have two people who correctly define themselves as ‘Liberal’ but who share quite different beliefs. From Social Liberalism, to Libertarianism, Anarcho Liberalism to Conservative Liberalism (yes, you read correctly, you can be liberal and conservative at the same time), they all come from the same family. They have the same basic principles, but different ideas on how to achieve them.

Liberalism comes from the Latin term, ‘liberalis’, meaning ‘of freedom’, and freedom is the single most defining feature of liberal belief. Liberals emphasise importance on liberty and equal rights, as well as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade and separation of church and state. These ideas are shared by the majority of people in the free world and are the ingredients for a fully functioning, healthy society. Now explain to me what is wrong with that? What on earth is it about people being seen as equal in the eyes of the law that offends people so much? What is it about letting the people decide who makes the laws that causes some of you to recoil in horror when you hear that dirty word, ‘liberal?’. If you are indeed one of those people, you may want to think, because chances are, if you believe in these principles, you have liberal tendencies yourself.

The media, of course, have indirectly painted a much different picture, and so it has made way for these misconceptions. My very first post to this blog was a quote by the late John F Kennedy, and I will repeat the quote again, as I do not think there is a better definition:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.”
But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

Opinions on JFK may differ but you cannot deny that he hit the nail on the head with this quote.

Another good quote concerning Liberalism comes from the political drama, West Wing, and I have also posted this quite a few times as I feel people need reminding of exactly what liberal ideas have achieved in this country. It is of course, very American but it is still highly relevant.

“Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things…every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.”

As will I.

It is a stupid mistake to assume that we are ‘looney lefties’ who give hard working tax payers money to the lazy. The fact that it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that all ‘poor’ people are lazy is a good point in itself, but the main problem with this argument is that, as I mentioned earlier, liberals advocate a free market, and for many of us, low taxes as well. Some of us prefer money to be spent on education and healthcare to raise the standards of living, rather than given directly to the people. The welfare state is a safety net, not a free money machine for people to exploit. Center-Right economics is the belief adopted by the Adam Smith Institute, named after one of the most famous liberal thinkers in history.

Another mistake, is that we advocate extremism. There are actually people out there who lack the braincells to distinguish belief in freedom of religion from supporting terrorism. This of course only applies to the very few, thankfully, but it’s still an issue I would like to raise. I do not want the laws in this country to be decided by the church, or any other religion. I do not want Sharia law to replace common law, I want a purely secular state. That does not mean, however, that I think Muslim women should be banned from wearing the veil, or that mosques should not be built in this so called ‘Christian country’. Britain is a liberal democracy, and as such, freedom of religion exists. To impose your beliefs on others is wrong, but to prohibit people from worshipping their religion peacefully without bothering anyone else, goes against everything we stand for.

We are not ‘soft’ on criminals. I believe someone who commits murder should be locked away for life, and that life should mean life. I do think it is possible to rehabilitate some criminals in certain circumstances, and I believe that politicians should focus on eliminating the causes of crime rather than trying to squeeze criminals into overcrowded prisons. I also think that, if what I hear about many prisons is indeed true, criminals should be deprived of luxuries such as game consoles and instead positively contribute to society with community service. Another thing is that I am not a huge fan of the death penalty. I think it would be dangerous to go back to it, not to mention it would mean leaving the EU. I do not believe the state has the right to decide who lives and who dies. There are some powers that we cannot let any government have, as to do so would be dangerous.

Finally, the fact that many liberals opposed to the decision made by the UN to allow some countries to continue having the death penalty for gay people does not make us hypocrites. While one of our defining beliefs is democracy, nobody ever said that democracy was a perfect system. The great John Stuart Mill cited Alexis de Toqueville who referred to a ‘tyranny of the majority’, a criticism of the democratic process which indicates that the will of the majority can mean that a dissenting individual would be actively oppressed. In cases such as these it is acceptable to place human rights above democracy.

People who have these false understandings against liberalism really ought to pick up a book, as they may be surprised by what they find out. Whether or not you still agree with these principles after you educate yourselves is up to you, but please do not stand there and insult liberals when clearly you know nothing at all about the word, stop throwing it around willy nilly as if it makes you seem clever to use it against someone in an argument, as all you are doing is making yourself appear utterly ignorant, and tragically thick.

Apology for my lack of posting.

There is really no excuse, I should really update more often. And I will make it my new years resolution to do so, I promise.

I have a Tumblr account now, and post a lot of stuff there, so do come and pay me a visit!

It's been quite an eventful year in British politics. The Liberal Democrats got a taste of popularity, unfortunately is was short lived. Although I am not really fussed about the tuition fees being raised, Nick Clegg has made a fatal mistake that has probably cost him and his party any chances they had of ever getting into power.

Yet I still love their policies more than those of any other party. Unfortunately should I decide to vote for them in the next election there will be a massive stigma attached, as with the rest of them. If you vote Tory you're a milk snatcher, if you vote Labour you're a warmonger, and now if you vote Lib Dem you hate students. Still that's British politics for you. America, I have noticed, does not have that problem, at least not to the extent that we do here. When a Republican candidate runs for election, they are not automatically compared to Bush or Nixon because they happen to represent the same party. (At least that's the impression I get.) At least they judge each candidate individually. That's definitely one aspect of American politics that makes it favourable to British politics. So, yeah, gotta give 'em credit for that I suppose. ;)
Hope everyone has had a good Christmas, and have a great New Year! :)

Hung parliaments and world cup hysteria.

Oh dear, it has been a while since I graced Blogspot with my presence. I have had an avalanche of assignments and exams, but I am pleased to say that I am now free for the summer! Also I am no longer a fresher at Brunel University - unbelievable how fast the time has gone. Since my last visit we have had an election, which is like a Politics student's equivalent of the world cup. I'm pretty sure I must have driven my parents insane as it was all I could talk about. As far as the results went, in all honesty, as a Liberal Democrat voter, it was the best outcome we could have hoped for, but I digress, this blog is not about the election. As much as I have to say about it, I will surely bore you and it is kind of old news now. Just wanted to give it a brief mention ;)

What I am here to talk about is still political in some respects, although it is more just another angry rant about an "issue" that has really got me going. I use quotations for the word "issue" because the truth is it's not really an issue at all. It is merely a combination of hysteria and bigotry that has created this so called issue that isn't actually there. Allow me to explain.
The world cup is approaching, and as always, people are suddenly remembering that England isn't such a bad place after all and that they actually quite like this country and so they get out the England shirts and flags and we all cheer for England until they get knocked out in the quarter finals, and everyone goes back to complaining about what a cold, grey place England is.
So everyone is happy, digging out the St George memorabilia from the attic or the shed or wherever it is they so grievously tossed it three years previously when England failed to qualify for Euro 2008. Everybody has Baddiel and Skinner or Fat Les on repeat, and even the big companies are cashing in on the event. World Cup fever is here once again.
But this time the Sun, that Holy Grail that only speaketh the truth, has made a scandalous discovery. Police want to BAN England shirts from pubs! Oh noes! :O
The offending article can be found here.
Only it's actually not as bad as is first assumed. They only recommend a ban of the shirts during the World Cup for the simple reason that there may be clashes involving drunken football hooligans. I have read the article three times and have not seen the words "Immigrants", "minorities" or "political correctness" mentioned once.
So we should accept that for once, the blame doesn't lie with immigration and that maybe the police have a point somewhat, right?
Wrong.
I came across a lovely little group on facebook. Did these people bother to read the article? Probably not. One outraged patriot says:

"how would they like it if we went and lived over there during the world cup what weve been waiting so long for and full off hope and we forced them to take off there turbans, they dont remove vales and turbans whilst there over here so why should we remove our shirts in our own country?? they shud be greatefull there here nevermind trying to take over the country. WERE ENGLAND !!! ALWAYS WILL BE, NOT PAKISTAN :D"

Do policemen wear turbans? I do not see what Pakistan has to do with policemen wanting to ban football shirts from pubs. Do they do that in Pakistan too?

"come on england im going to wear an england shirt with bnp no 10 on it im english and proud .."

Yes, because the BNP supports everything about the England football team. Wasn't it them who supported Denmark in 2002 because England wasn't "white" enough?. And didn't two senior members of the party claim that Ashley Cole wasn't English and therefore had no right to play for England, despite him being born in London?
So, if it wasn't enough that they were taking all our benefits and jobs, now those nasty immigrants want to steal our world cup too! Never mind the fact that the Sun never even mentioned immigrants in the first place. So once again the Sun’s readers fail to illuminate the issues concerned and demonstrates its inability to differentiate between fact and myth, and the proud patriots who speak for the entire population have made us look like a nation of gullible xenophobic fools.

You know, English pride, and all that.

REAL Feminists.

It saddens me that people simply do not know the true meaning of the word “feminist”. When I say I am a feminist, immediately I am accused of hating men, and pursuing a world dominated by women. No, that’s radical feminism, and only a minority of so called feminists fit that category. (Although frankly I don’t think anybody with this point of view has the nerve to call themselves a feminist, it’s not what it’s about, and it gives the rest of us a bad name.)
Ok so feminism is the idea that women are equal to men. This definition itself gets criticism, namely from conservatives, because “men and women are different, therefore they cannot be equal!” to be perfectly honest I fail to see the logic in this. Perhaps you have forgotten that “equal” and “different” are two completely different words with different definitions? We are all different, no two people are the same, but we can still have equality. It’s a pretty simple concept, and I am quite surprised so many people use that argument when it is hardly rocket science to allow diversity and equality to coexist. But I’ll explain what true feminists mean when they campaign for “equality”.
First, let’s take employment into consideration. Suppose we have two people, their gender is irrelevant, but one is qualified to be a plumber and the other has a degree in primary teaching. Both are unemployed. Let’s say there were to be a shortage of teachers, and both people applied for a teaching position in a primary school, obviously, the person who has the degree in primary teaching will get the job. They are both different but in the eyes of the employer, they are not equal, because the graduate has the appropriate qualifications to be a teacher, while the plumber does not. If they both went for a job as a plumber, then the plumber would have the advantage. HOWEVER, both the plumber and the teacher are allowed to vote, are allowed to get married, and enjoy the basic human rights that the law offers, because although they are different, their salaries are different, but they are both equal in the eyes of the law, just not when it comes to applying for a teaching position.
Ok, now let’s say we have two people, a man and a woman. Both are doctors, both studied medicine at the same medical school, both have the same number of years experience, both specialise in the same area, with the same ability both work in the same hospital. Therefore, both should receive equal pay. A feminist is someone who would look at this scenario and would agree that it would be discriminatory and unfair for the hospital to pay the male doctor more.
Their careers become irrelevant when it comes to other basic human rights, such as the right to vote. It doesn't matter whether a woman is a doctor or a housewife, she should still be allowed to participate in democracy, and she should be allowed to have all the opportunities that men have and so on. She and other women are all equal in the eyes of the law. Her gender should not get in the way of her human rights or her career prospects. That is what I believe, and so I am a feminist, as are those who believe the same. I do not hold the opinion that women should have more privileges than men, which is not feminism.
While we’re still on the subject, I do not believe that men are “objectifying” women, the media is responsible for that, and the media consists of both men and women. I also understand that men are naturally aroused by the female form, and as long as they don’t actually treat all women like objects, which the majority don’t, then I have no problem with lad’s mags like FHM, since they are merely the male equivalent of their female counterparts. Generally speaking, men tend to be interested in similar things, the same with women. I don’t necessarily think that is down to gender stereotypes, it’s down to our hormones and our brains, which is where it starts to get a lot more complicated, but that’s the basic idea.
I also disagree with encouraging girls to stay at home (which, thankfully, has been greatly reduced in the last century). However if I was a mother, I wouldn’t force my daughter to apply to university and get a career that pays lots either, I’d let her decide for herself what she wanted to do, and if that includes finding a husband and staying at home being a mother, then so be it.
So this has hopefully not just explained what I believe and the true meaning of the word "feminist", but also why feminism is important, and people should be a lot less sceptical about it. Do not be afraid to call yourself a feminist, because chances are that those who criticise it are unaware of the true meaning, or not worth your concern.

Social Democracy.

Despite getting a lot of negative media attention of late, the welfare state is a vital institution which benefits us all, whether you are rich or poor.
First of all, let’s establish where our taxes go. They go to our National Health Service, they go abroad, they go into our education and a lot more. They are also shared amongst our citizens, in the form of benefits. This sometimes causes controversy, the main issue being that people claim benefits when they don’t really need it. A common example is claiming unemployment benefits and then making little or no effort to find work. Benefit fraud is a crime and should be dealt with severely. Anybody found to be taking advantage of welfare should have their benefits stopped.
Despite the extra media attention, however, these people still remain a minority. There are plenty of honest people on benefits who genuinely need the extra money. I see myself as a good example. My parents are in debt and I am due to start University in September. I do not wish to cause them extra stress by having them pay for it, but I am also finding it increasingly difficult to get a job in the current economic climate. For that reason, I receive Job Seekers Allowance and have applied for a student loan, both of which are provided by you, the tax payer, via the government. Not too long ago, university was only available to the very rich. Now everyone has the opportunity to realise their true potential.
Then of course there is the single mother, who wants to work to provide for her children so that they can get a good start in life. You, the tax payer, can provide round the clock childcare. Your money also goes to early learning programmes such as sure start. It has been statistically proven that children who learn from an early age perform better academically in later life, are likely to go into higher education and have a good career, and less likely to turn to crime than those who do not receive pre-schooling.
A common argument against social democracy is that people will be dependent on the welfare state, but this is not what it’s there for. Those who completely rely on benefits should have them taken off them. I will not be claiming benefits for the rest of my life. When I graduate from university, I will hopefully have a career with a good salary. The single mother will not need your money forever. Once her children are old enough, they will no longer need a babysitter. Many primary and secondary schools have started to run after school clubs for children with working parents. This of course would not be possible without your money.
Another argument is the ever popular “it’s our money, we earned it, if they don’t want to earn as much as us then that’s their problem etc.” It is your money, but did you know that 54% of people below the poverty line do work? They are providing for the nation but are receiving little in return. This is why the minimum wage needs to be raised to a decent amount which people can live on. That and income support are once again provided by you, the tax payer, and it won’t be permanent because the idea is to break the cycle: Poor parents raising poor children, who will grow up to be poor parents.
An ideal Britain is a Britain that is poverty free. And it is perfectly possible. Norway successfully accomplished the abolition of poverty in 2003.It has the second highest GDP per-capita and the third highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world. It maintained first place in the world in the UNDP Human Development index for six consecutive years (2001-2006) and despite being beaten by Iceland in 2007, it still remains in second place. Following the ongoing financial crisis, its currency has been deemed one of the most solid currencies in the world. It maintains a Scandinavian welfare model with universal healthcare, free higher education and comprehensive social security system, and, in 2007 was rated most peaceful country in the world by Global Peace Index.
If we ended poverty in the UK, everyone will benefit. Statistics prove that the majority of crime in this country is committed by people living below or on the poverty line. Better education will ensure that more of tomorrow’s workers are highly qualified, which means more doctors, more lawyers, more teachers and more jobs overall. Jobs that require low qualified workers will pay a decent wage. Overall, people will be healthier and crime will reduce dramatically, which means that we will not need to spend as much money on the NHS or on our prisons.
But none of this will be achieved without social democracy. The welfare state, the NHS and state education are all what make our country a social democracy, and without these institutions, we would be much worse off. Although we are constantly hearing negative things about the NHS, the problem is not the NHS itself, but the way it is handled. If the government sorted out the problem instead of throwing money at it (by providing more doctors, more beds and cleaner hospitals) then I have no doubt that it could be a world class system.
This won’t happen overnight. But it can happen. And if it doesn’t happen then we will remain in this situation where our money is being abused. The government needs to stop spending our taxes on things like a third runway and expenses that are not needed, and instead spend it on improved state education, childcare and higher wages for workers to provide for their family. If that can be achieved then I see a future where people will no longer have to claim benefits and our taxes are used for better things. It is not solely socialism or capitalism, it is Social Democracy: A combination of the two. If we bring these two ideologies together, it can work for all of us.