Friday, 30 October 2009
The recently enacted industrial action from postal workers has been an unacceptable and regressive step taken by those trying to force better conditions in sorting offices and on daily postal rounds. Whether or not their demands are justified, and by the evidence given they may well be overworked as compared to years gone by, their decision to strike is one which takes no consideration for its true consequence in terms of their future employment.
Strike action, when taken in a service which actually affects a large number of people, is often met with harsher criticism than strikes in less integral industries. People feel aggrieved that they, the consumer, are forced to be dragged into industrial disputes. This is something particularly relevant to business owners, especially those who in this case may not be able to afford to outsource their postal requirements. So strike action in these important areas must be taken with the most stringent and careful considerations, realising that whether their demands are justified is not the only article of relevance to those effected. This postal strike has been underlined firmly by negativity in most circles, and a lack of interest in its actual objectives. Most newspaper headlines have been more obsessed with the replacement of the striking workers with temporary staff, or even scouts, and with the problems that the action has caused, rather than any reflection on the aims of those involved.
In my opinion this action is ill-judged, at a time of economic recession when people are less likely to immediately feel sympathy for those who have employment, and especially if such workers effect others economically through their actions, something which many small business owners will claim to be the case. The general public consensus does not seem to be in favour, whether because of increasing lack of interest in trade unionism amongst today's public, or because of short-term circumstances, but either way it seems that this decision to strike is not productive. However more damning than a lack of public sympathy is the future business ramifications for the post office. This is an industry seriously suffering from the rise of email, internet social networking and a number of reputable and well-known competitors. The numbers of items sent via Royal Mail has been declining year on year for a while, and strike action is bound to increase this only further. People who may have still been sending letters, or sending parcels via Royal mail, will be tempted to turn to email, or use the another company. This is particularly important in business where in addition to an increasing need to be more respectable in environmental terms an increasingly unreliable post office leads to calls for more internet based transactions and communications. Companies who rely on sending packages, such as mail order catalogue businesses, are also going to be further inclined to move away from Royal Mail. All in all this action will surely lead to a downturn in business for an already somewhat stricken and ailing post office. Its record and reputation was increasingly in decline, and its business was slowly being taken away by other forms of communication or by rivals before this industrial action, i worry for its future after these actions have come to a close and people have to reconsider whether they can really trust Royal Mail, or whether they really need the services being provided.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Tony Blair has recently been proclaimed as a leading candidate for the position of President, eventually gaining public support from former colleagues, such as Gordon Brown and David Milliband. However with Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel both being regarded as 'unenthusiastic', his chances of success seem to be significantly reduced, with the scant conciliation that Silvio Berlusconi, hardly the most respectable and admired of politicians, is happy to back him in the role. However i feel that Blair failing to land this illustrious and ground-breaking role may well be a major setback for Europe.
While i agree that Blair's Iraq war legacy and the generally held, and probably misplaced, belief that he created a world of politics orbiting around spin and deception are flaws to Blair's claim for the presidency, he holds what no other candidate does: prestige. He has been described as an EU president who could 'stop traffic', he is familiar, i would argue generally well respected in politics, and has undoubted charisma and enthusiasm. Tony Blair has been one of the highest paid speakers in the world since retiring from British politics, and people do not usually pay huge sums of money to hear someone they actively despise talk to them. The idea that Blair has no credibility in politics, or evokes negative sentiment from most people when they reflect on his tenure as Prime Minister is simply untrue. Someone of Blair's standing is exactly what the EU needs, someone who can give the mass of people, who at this moment in time see the organisation as bureaucrats being overly paid for setting the correct curvature of a banana, the impression that it is a worthy and respectable organisation which may, if given time and resources, actually create a more cohesive and effective partnership in Europe. This could lead to the entity as a whole being regarded as a major world force, in a way that since the growth of America from 1945 no European country has managed.
Is Tony Blair the perfect candidate for European president? Quite clearly not, however is Tony Blair the most practical solution to the EU's biggest problem of lacking a sheen of respectability amongst the populace of Europe, in my opinion yes. Other candidates, such as Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch Prime minister, lack real notoriety in world politics, and the European Union presidency has the potential to be one of the most important positions internationally. Tony Blair gives this role its only current chance of allowing the EU to succeed politically, providing the partnership with charisma and respectability in its leadership and encouraging more support from across its member states, and across the world.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
I was lucky enough to encounter American politics first-hand this summer. During a trip to Washington D.C. I was immersed in the heated debate over 'Obamacare', the 44th Presidents attempts at introducing publicly financed national healthcare. However I don't want to get into the merits of this strategy, nor generally the content of US politics. What struck me as particularly interesting, at least in comparison to British politics, was the involvement of the American public, and the reaction to Obama as a president, one which seems to hide darker traits behind its outward veneer of the freedom of protest.
I was in mid town D.C. during a march of the 'Tea Party Patriots', and their associated followers, who numbered, according to police reports, over 2 million. They were adamantly against the introduction of public Healthcare, and some had travelled for over three days to prove this to the incumbent government. I found it very impressive that this number of people could, in literally a few days, arrange a march on Washington, with almost every member carrying some form of placard, or wearing some form of themed t-shirt. They showed to me a passionate enthusiasm for their country, and for its democratic principles, and undermined the levels of democratic involvement in active politics currently evident in Great Britain. However this march also showed me an extreme example of trends which have been hinted at since the inauguration of President Obama, namely the indication that racism is still present in parts of American society.
Some of the sentiments expressed on this march, referring to Obama as the anti-Christ, or depicting him in a Nazi uniform with a Hitler moustache, or as Stalin, were shocking, inappropriate and ignorant. Overlooking the stupidity of comparisons simultaneously with both Hitler and Stalin it is disturbing that an American President, supposedly the pride of Americans as their sovereign, and historically lauded as a figure of democratic greatness and an icon of the 'American Dream', can be highlighted as being anything like the most evil men in history. Despite differing political allegiances it is hard to believe anyone in Britain would seriously compare any mainstream figures of British politics to Hitler, and this opened my eyes to a nastier side of American politics. It could be said that no American president has ever faced such a backlash, and commentators have remarked the vast difference between this administrations reception and that of President Bush's, or even another President who attempted to introduce healthcare, Bill Clinton. Obama has done little different politically to President Clinton in his scheme of nationalised healthcare yet, while I cannot vouch first-hand experience, it seems that a massive gulf has emerged in the extremity of opposition encountered in the respective cases. This radical difference leads to questions over why, and many commentators have highlighted race, depressingly, as an aspect of contention. How can Americans, who have previously condemned anyone insulting the President as treacherous and un-American, relate him to the devil or Hitler? It seemed to me on this march, highlighted to some degree by images as Obama as the Joker from Batman, that many of its participants, largely southerners, felt the underlying urge to insult the President in terms of race, however they had realised that this was no longer acceptable in mainstream politics and as such went as far in other directions as was feasible. Locals who were not on the march confirmed these suspicions, admitting to me that some Americans are struggling to deal with the concept that a black man has the ability to lead the country.
No one can say conclusively whether America is still infected with the spectre of racism, however it seemed undoubted from my personal experience that some Americans, admittedly a minority, are prejudice against Barack Obama for reasons other than his politics. As a result some have resorted to extreme and unacceptable forms of protest, and have begun to generally overlook the historical sanctity of the Presidential office. It goes without saying that race as an issue is unacceptable in any modern democracy, but in a country with such a chequered history surrounding this problem, and such a pride in democratic and egalitarian principles, it is even more shocking.