The Dating culture amongst Indians

Since the early nineties when I was growing up in New Delhi, life for a teenager in India appears to have come a long way. My generation and those younger are much more amenable to dating and figuring themselves out through relationships that are not initiated strictly with an intent to get married. Like most things in India the trends across social strata vary so while the upper middle classes may have begun to the embrace some form of casual dating while the bulk of the population does, I think, still tend to favour the tradition “introduction” route, or at least works to maintain that perception.

Amongst the group that has tended towards the independent pursuit of life partners, there still are very many who continue to favour the family driven process. I find it rather interesting but also question how long culture can stand up against economic independence?

The reality of life in India, wealthy or otherwise, is that we like to live in large joint families back home. If not in the same home, we live near enough to lovingly interfere in each other’s lives. Cousins are like siblings, and everyone is an Aunt or an Uncle. Along with this, we then tend to live under someone else’s rules for much longer than in the West. Perhaps only on marriage or maybe much later does a young family or couple get the chance to settle down in their nest and draw up their own rules.  At the same time, younger affluent Indians are becoming economically independent at an earlier age.  They are adults, but they live like children in the sense that they don’t have all the responsibilities of independent living – paying house bills, cleaning up, cooking, etc. Young Indians succumb to the privileges of living with parents and in doing so hand over some autonomy in their own lives. They inevitably develop distinctly different outward personalities – the work/friends personality and the one at home; The latter to fulfill the expectations of the parents, hence the loss of autonomy.

Through our culture, while economic independence was not achieved until much later in life, incomes from individuals within a family were pooled for a common budget and joint decisions were made to enable a happy co-existence, but now that the younguns can afford their own cars and flats below the age of 30yrs, the strain on who they are and who they present to their parents might start to give. There will be a reduced inclination of subservience to the parents under whose roof a young adult lives. While the parents were the driving force behind the decision to get married and whom to marry, it might no longer be so since the married couple will be living in DLF while the parents live in Green Park.

If the bride is no longer going to have to adjust to the groom’s family home with incumbent traditions and dynamics, why would the incumbents continue to have a dominating vote in selecting her? The new bride will move in to her married home with her husband and they will begin life in their own nest. She doesn’t need to wake up at a certain time to be able to help in the family kitchen before the communal breakfast. She doesn’t need to learn how to make tea in 4 different ways to please all tastes and she certainly doesn’t have to dress to seek her in-laws’ approval either.

The dynamic of a newlywed life is changing. Economic independence is bringing about this cultural change. Sure I still know many of my generation who still look to their parents for advise, but if we can get up and go to work every day, make up our own mind about what job we want to apply for, pick out our own flat and choose our own car …why can’t we select our partner in life too? It’s not about marginalising parents from this process, but more about understanding why smart, aware, financial independent individuals are not confident enough in the social arena to know what they are looking for in a life partner and then, how to go about finding them. Perhaps, they simply prefer to follow their parent’s choice in the matter. Is that becuase in these matters, we are in fact quite a shy nation? The personal confrontation of approaching another person to reveal our true feelings for the fear of rejection or even simply to have to reveal our emotions, is a fairly frightening thought. The alternative of managing a relationship through parental intervention is a somewhat easier concept to accept. Perhaps with economic independence being achieved earlier in our lives, where we are forced to take most decisions for ourselves rather than revert to the household norm, we will overcome any such hesitation on the relationship front ; that certainly was my own experience.

My bet is that very soon, within my lifetime, we will see a marked shift whereby young Indians will learn to go through the heartbreaks and joys of romance, live and learn by the process of trial and error which eventually leads to understanding themselves better. And the only way to figure out what you are looking for in someone else, is to figure out what you yourself are all about first and not be afraid to have your heart broken.

______

I’m curious about where the thinking stands currently - if you have literally a few minutes to click a mouse a few times, would be great if you could complete this short poll. Results will be published for public enjoyment. All hail Google docs...


Quick Poll - please click!

Why Indians dig fairness...

Is it the result of a century of white rule or is it just that we crave what we can't have? Whichever one you think it is, have a read of this explanation by Alyque Padamsee ...

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/business/she-is-not-a-moron-she-is-young

He may have been a great judge of indian aspirations to have crafted those memorable ads back in the day, but Mr Padamsee sure is trippin' if he really thinks Indians chase white skin because of it's reflective qualities!

By a look at the comments on this article, he really has misjudged his fellow countrymen by miles on this one. 

By George, I think he did it!

Only last week, we were discussing how the government appeared to be stalling. Too much rhetoric, not enough action. In times like this, when so much is obviously fixable and the hardships being suffered provide need for immediate solutions, I for one, want to see the government making practical, sensible decisions. Ok, so its the government and it don't always work that way, but the stalemate has been broken.

By George, I think he did it!

Political sympathies aside, today's heavily leaked budget, was practical and necessary. There are probably elements where it could have been even more brave but it did what necessary. The opening statements set the tone, the subsequent details confirmed the intentions.

So much of the critical rhetoric now is focusing on the 45p tax but that to me is unjustified political opposition. The pain was shared by the top and middle earners with much needed concessions for the low income earners. Good to see the obvious loop-holes surrounding stamp duty being closed out - they really are after those "static assets"!

I only hope that this is the beginning of a trend that sees a shrinking government, a growing vibrant private sector with public sector wages finally seeing some reality being brought into line with the private sector.

The Lost Generation...

It is a broad generalisation, but not inaccurate, to say that many young people have less sense of their responsibility and need for self sufficiency today. This is in my view caused by, amongst other reasons, a generous welfare state which can lead to dependency within a family across generations. We are subsequently faced with young people without motivation who are in fact selecting the rational choice based on what they observe around them of less work to achieve payout comparable to the working population. The solution here needs to be of the “stick” variety rather than “carrot”. The former is needed to stem the spread of the problem; the carrot is used to address the prevalent symptoms.

For the wellbeing of individuals and society as a whole, it is in our collective as well as selfish interest for each of us to pursue occupations that we hopefully enjoy and have a natural interest in. This is the ideal aim that most working adults might not relate to as they head to work each morning but it is the ideal that ought to be targeted through increasing exposure. Students and young people can only identify what they enjoy based on what they have come across. The education system needs to be able to expose them to ideas beyond their usual comfort zone. This can be in the form of exposure to occupation, languages, culture but also the working environment, social work, community involvement, etc. The aim here is to also provide a reality bite by subjecting them to the real world notion that actions have consequences and that there are pressures of adult hood to be prepared for. If students see more, they identify options that they are naturally inclined towards and are self motivated in pursuing these (the “carrot” approach).

Along with Sir Terry Leahy’s publicised remarks about the education system not supplying employable youth, the recent articles in the FT(Jobs for the young and Education system ‘failing business and workforce’, Feb 21) discuss the softer skills and training that are lacking in young people ranging from personal presentation, conversational skills, work ethic etc.

How do young people get the idea that wearing a hoodie to a job interview is not appropriate? To some extent it is an observation of a generational gap. The evolving trend over time has been to adopt informality and the younger generations are naturally less formal and more relaxed than older ones. However there continues to be a need (at least for now) for professionalism in the work place. The stick approach will state that young people learn to do whatever is needed else they pay the consequences for not abiding i.e. unemployment and low income. The carrot approach means that they are given experience while at school to become familiar with and understand this concept of making themselves better employees and productive workers.

At the end of the day, this is a social issue. The culture supported or created by the welfare state has contributed to its establishment. Poor standards of literacy and numeracy are more directly targeted by education but the softer skills and life training needs to become a core part of the school experience. This is not about the state taking over and interfering it is about the state (since we have one) being concerned for its overall wellbeing.

A few points I would like to see executed in mainstream education that every student has to go through:

1. Classes for managing personal finance

2. Compulsory community work

3. Compulsory work shadowing/experience (paid or unpaid)

While attending University and further education is not a must for every student, getting a job and being self sufficient is.
 

My Letter to the Editor of the FT re. Education

Below is my letter to the editor of the FT in response to a few articles published in today's edition on education and the failings of the current system. Let's see if it's good enough to be selected for being published!

I’ll follow up with another post outlining my views on the causes of the observed failing.

__________________
Dear Sir,

In his article Brian Groom (Education system ‘failing business and workforce’, Feb 21) discusses the skills and training that are lacking in young people ranging from poor levels of literacy, numeracy to interpersonal skills. Certainly professionalism at work means adopting a certain presentation and style of interaction. This has to either be learnt through observation or instilled through education. We are back at the starting point of tackling a social issue, where young people do not have a role model to absorb these life skills from and education is not filling the void.

As a 28 year old, I am perhaps of the generation immediately preceding the one being described as “lost” which is facing record high unemployment and rightfully causing much concern.

I fear that the approach being taken to address the issue, today as well as in the past, is inherently ineffective. There may be much wisdom amongst the experienced politicians and educationists but they are severely lacking in empathy towards a young generation which even I at my age feel disconnected from. We have to create solutions that tackle the true cause which is social in nature and deliver it through the education system in a design that is appealing to the recipients, the young people themselves. Imposition will only face a reluctant audience.

A doctor should prescribe the medication but it is the patient’s prerogative to select the honey flavoured syrup over the orange flavoured one.

I am not an educationist but I have spent some limited time thinking about this subject while working on a documentary and helping to kick-start a campaign by young people to tackle these issues of young people. A solution needs to be found through a dialogue between young people (NEETs, current students, recent students, etc) and policy makers; this is currently missing but is desperately needed when determining what shape policy should take so it will be adopted rather than be resisted.

Yours Faithfully,

Miss Riddhi Bhalla
Volunteer for Change the Future

Listen out for my interview with BBC Radio 4 You and Yours on this subject....Available on iPlayer (fwd ahead to 41 min) 

Nick Clegg is championing the social mobility drive so getting an internship is “open and transparent” to change the “who you know not what you know" culture.

It appears that 100 companies have signed up which include some of the largest supermarkets, banks, law firms and energy providers including Barclays, HSBC and Santander, and retailers Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer and Morrisons.

 The companies have agreed to advertise work experience places in schools and over the internet, rather than just telling informal contacts.


They also agreed to work with schools to encourage pupils' ambitions and make internships “open and transparent” so poorer children were not put off.


The firms also agreed to use so that application candidates were not screened out because they went to the wrong school or come from a different ethnic group.


While this is all rather commendable I’m afraid Nick is behind the times. 11 years ago as an A Level student I managed to go online and apply to various internships or work experience days being offered by Investment Banks. I repeated the same process with one of the Big 5 accountancy firm and then again during my first year at a University to get a 3 week internship at an investment bank. Lastly I secured a summer internship in my penultimate year of University which led to a full time job offer.


I assure you that I neither knew the difference between a consultancy firm and an investment bank, nor did I know anyone who worked at either. The process to apply, the requirements and timeline were clearly posted online.


This is the reality of the financial sector broadly. The internship process is transparent as is the graduate recruitment process. There are also very strong diversity drives within this industry championed by the very senior most people. Banks like to make money. They want to hire smart people who they think can help them make more money;  They don’t care where a student went to school and even what degree they may have done. All it comes down to is aptitude and being able to demonstrate ability.


Unfortunately, private schools in the UK are very good at providing opportunity to their students that allows them to develop this work ethic and also be able to demonstrate it in an interview when asked “can you give me an example of when you assumed the role of a group leader?” Students have more support through careers advice, mock interview and training that leads to better interview performance.


By comparison, state comprehensives do not provide the same support. Hence students don’t perform as well in interviews. It is also a reality that they are perhaps less likely to apply to the financial sector because of less information.


What Nick Clegg needs to do is address this issue with state schools so more students are encouraged to apply. I can assure him that the financial industry has had an open door for the last decade or more, at least.


This observation about how accessible the financial sector is can largely be applied to larger firms. The 100 or so that have signed up have reached a level of institutionalisation where there is a clear process for everything aspect of functioning and recruitment is one of them. The big HR departments at these other large firms outside of finance also have invested in creating clear processes and then presenting them on their websites and offering opportunities for students to learn about them. For any profit seeking company the aim is to attract the best. The larger firms have the resources to advertise themselves and they have already done so. Nick’s drive for social mobility will not cause much improvement since he’s trying to change the wrong elements of the equation.

Besides motivating students across the state sector broadly and informing them of opportunities beyond what they see in their immediate surroundings, Nick needs to tackle opacity within small, medium sized businesses and less “institutionalised” sectors. Media, films, arts broadly, etc do not have a clear process of how they hire and who they hire.

As someone who tried to make a documentary, short films and a feature film I can confirm that unless you have the former head of BBC drama on your side, you ain’t getting a big wig casting agent to return your call. That’s where the “who you know” culture really has a stronghold. It’s those smaller businesses and informal sectors that don’t have huge HR departments or websites that explains step by step how to apply at different stages of your life.

So good for Nick for promoting a noble cause but if he really wants to make a difference then he needs to:

1.      Make the state school sector better at informing and preparing students so more apply for internships

2.      Get the informal sectors and SMEs to sign up for providing clearer guidance on their recruiting policy

2. a.       But don’t criticise them for firing incompetent interns!

3.      Provide government support to businesses that cannot afford to hire interns through grants etc

The result of these actions will be that the pool of students applying for internships will be braoder, beyond just the very motivated and private school educated, but also sectos of the economy beyond finance will become more accessible hence helping in some small way to redress the unbalanced UK economy.

The tragedy of Hester's pay at RBS

These are sad times when ill informed mass hysteria overrules reason and rationale.

 Crony capitalism has become the latest buzz word in a list that includes WMDs and moral hazard. And so let’s behead all bankers for they are the epitome of evil.

RBS is a basket case. It failed under the previous leadership of Sir Fred Goodwin and now it is state owned. For the state and UK tax payers to benefit from this situation, the bank has to recover. Stephen Hester was brought in to do this job. He is not the cause of this wreck. He is hopefully its saviour.

Tax payers own 82% of RBS market cap. If RBS stock price recovers, the state stands to benefit. Steven Hester’s job hence, is to increase the bank’s share price from its current depressed value.

 What better way to incentivise him than to pay him in the same stock that the taxpayer owns so his interests are perfectly aligned with ours. Isn’t this the precise proposal that has been touted as the solution to end short term profit seeking behaviour from bankers?

Well then why the media driven outcry over his bonus compensation? Yes, he got a bonus in a year that RBS lost money. But he hasn’t been paid out in cash from a depleting source. He’s been paid in the same currency that the government owns. If he wants to increase his private wealth he will work to maximise the stock price and in doing so, will benefit the tax payer.

 Over the public outcry he has now turned down this stock compensation. That means he has no upside from driving value for the tax payer any more. He was paid his base salary for the year so now why should he bother working harder? There is no personal upside for him. £1.2mn for a base salary might sound a lot to the common man but for the top bankers, as we hope Hester is, it’s relatively meagre. The reality is that globally finance pays inflated salaries. For one bank, or one country to singularly pressure its financial sector to cut wages, means that that bank or country will no longer be able to attract the best talent. If Hester is as good as we all hope he is, then he is now severely underpaid and not motivated to work in our benefit.

The problem we face today is that the media has received the backing of the public in beating up bankers and in brandishing the government as accepting hand outs from this sector. There is no longer a reasonable discussion about what is fair and what is outrageous. In the Hester case, the government cannot stand up for him because they will be labelled as succumbing to “crony capitalism” and Labour will jump at the chance to push this opinion.

I wish we could see more reasoned judgment from the media and perhaps the private sector itself but unfortunately the audience does not want to listen. There is a cry for blood and that is all that they seek.

Welfare Reform bill - Key policy proposals worth knowing about

Some of the key policy proposals are listed below. The full white paper can be accessed here

·         radically simplify the system to make work pay and combat worklessness and poverty

·         The Government is committed to ensuring that no-one loses as a direct result of these reforms. We have ensured that no-one will experience a reduction in the benefit they receive as a result of the introduction of Universal Credit

·         If the amount of Universal Credit a person is entitled to is less than the amount they were getting under the old system, an additional amount will be paid to ensure that they will be no worse off in cash terms.

·         people will no longer have to take a risk in moving from one system to another. For those in employment, Universal Credit will be calculated and delivered electronically, automatically adjusting credit payments according to monthly income reported through an upgraded version of the Pay As You Earn tax system (on which HM Revenue & Customs will be consulting shortly). The system will be simpler and will respond more quickly to changes in earnings so that people will not face the same complexities as they do now, particularly at the end of a tax year. As a result people will be much clearer about their entitlements and the beneficial effects of increasing their earnings by taking on more hours or doing some overtime.

·         People will have one system to contact rather than having to repeat information to three separate bodies, so strengthening the connection between financial and labour market support.

·         By allowing recipients to benefit financially from doing small amounts of irregular work Universal Credit will reduce the incentive for people to commit fraud by failing to declare work.

·         capping household benefit payments so that families do not receive more in welfare than median after-tax earnings for working households

·         Single taper would apply to earnings net of tax and National Insurance meaning that the highest Marginal Deduction Rate for low-earning workers would be reduced from around 96 per cent to 65 per cent for those earning below the personal tax threshold and to around 76 per cent for basic rate taxpayers.

·         The aim would be to allocate some of the current support to those working fewer than 16 hours, so that all types of work are rewarded.

·         it will now be financially rewarding for a lone parent to work 15 hours per week, or 17 hours per week (both of which would not have been financially rewarded under the existing system which only recognised 16 hours per week); and should more hours be available, the extra earnings will no longer face a Marginal Deduction Rate of 96 per cent. Under the current system a lone parent working 16 hours at the National Minimum Wage would only increase their take home pay by £5 a week if they increased their hours to 25 hours. Under Universal Credit the same lone parent would increase their take home pay by £17.

·         we are considering an option of allowing those pensioners who choose to extend their working lives to claim Universal Credit, rather than Pension Credit, so that they can take advantage of the tailored in-work arrangements. We would welcome views on this approach.

·         Financial support will remain unconditional for people who we do not expect to be able to work or prepare for work. None of the changes set out in this White Paper change that basic principle.

·         Disability Living Allowance - We intend to retain its role, outside the Universal Credit, as a non-means-tested cash benefit. It will continue to be paid to people in and out of work. We plan to consult shortly on our proposals, which will complement the support provided to disabled people by Universal Credit.

Welfare Reform Bill and why it is must be passed

The proposed reforms to the Welfare system are drastic. The intention is to address the dependency culture, weed out the frauds and hence create savings to assist the deserving. I think we all generally support this aim. The opposition amongst British opinion appears to be based on the negative impact these changes might have on some deserving recipients. The reality is that this division and opposition to the reforms are being based on ideology rather than facts.

 The Tories have a poor reputation when it comes to caring for society. Meryl Streep’s effort hasn’t cured the hangover some Britons still carry from the Thatcher era. But we need to put ideology aside and not turn this into a character assault against the Tories.

 The government’s drive for reform is coming from a necessity for change. A policy that affects so many people that form a heterogeneous group will unavoidably lead to small group that looses out. These will be the exceptional circumstances. We need to figure out a way of addressing their situation – that remains outstanding but it’s not being ignored.

 

We can argue about the policy details and how to improve it based on facts. What I am losing patience with is opposition that is based on painting the reforms to be the evil Tories’ scheme to squash helpless citizens and attributes them to mal intent.

 Yes, the policy could be improved – there is always room for improvement. So voice your opinion and contribute to the feedback that the government is seeking in its consultation period that runs to 30 April 2012. What we can do is try to highlight the exceptional cases so that policy may further be tweaked to address their case.  Click here.

 There will be individual cases who are thought to “lose out”. Their situation should not be used as a reason to block this reform but instead should be used to shape it.

 I do think where the government falls short is in communication. Especially when radical changes are being proposed, clarity of communication, explaining why and how is critical. The coalition has not done a good job of this. But again, let’s not hold that as an example of vindictive intentions.

 The case studies considered by the government show that their research has tried to be comprehensive. Where housing benefit may be reduced, other measures are boosted to support people who rightfully need it.

 There are a number of points about the reforms that I strongly believe are undeniably positive. They will make assessment, collection and receipt easier by not having to chase multiple forms and paperwork.

·         The Government also announced the inclusion of an additional bedroom within the size criteria used to assess Housing Benefit claims in the private rented sector where a disabled person or someone with a long term health condition has a proven need for overnight care and this is provided by a non-resident carer(s)

·         When Universal Credit starts and people do more work, they will lose about 65 pence of every pound they earn after tax. This means that we (government) will let people keep some of their benefit before they start to lose money from their benefit because of their wages. We call this the taper.

·         There are many others that I will post in a separate blog

The bottom line is that there are very many reasons for reform and that the proposals go a long way in addressing these. It is not a final policy and the government is keeping an open door to invite feedback during the consultation period. Let’s acknowledge that what is trying to be achieved here is very brave – while many previous governments have recognised the need for reform, the controversy surrounding such a sensitive issue has prevented action. Here is a government being brave, and risking its popularity to make necessary changes. Speak up to shape policy but blocking it will continue injustice.

 

Here are some facts on the current situation and the full length white paper can be read here

 

·         working-age welfare budget has increased by 45 per cent in real terms over the last decade – while the deserving population demographics have obviously not deteriorated by the same proportion, or even close

·         5 million people are on out-of-work benefits in the UK, and 1.4 million of them have been receiving out-of-work benefits for nine out of the last ten years. Not only that, but we now have one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe, with 1.9 million children living in homes where no-one has a job ­– Where possible, people have to be incentivised to work. The proposed single taper will benefit people who work any amount of time and will increase as more hours are worked. Under the old system only 16 hours per week was recognised, any time below or above this was not credited

·         contributions from the public resulted in over 1,600 responses via post, email and through the online consultation site ­– all the voices in opposition who wish to block the reforms should be instead contributing to this consultation.

·         In 2009, 2.3 million contacts to the Department for Work and Pensions were driven by people contacting the wrong agency and 1.4 million by people contacting the wrong office. 3 This complexity prevents people taking up benefits to which they are entitled. For example, in 2008/09 only between 38 and 51 per cent of those in work and entitled to Housing Benefit actually claimed. The Government spends a further £3.5 billion each year on administration.  -  A key focus of the reforms and Universal Credits is to simplify the whole system. One contact point, less paperwork, fewer government departments involved, eliminate duplication of resources, easier transition in and out of work and monitoring of benefits. Hopefully more of the deserving recipients will now apply and savings from wastage can be directed to the rightful beneficiaries.

·         Spending on working-age Housing Benefit has increased by more than 25 per cent to £14.2 billion -  once again, the population demographics have not shown the same proportional change to match the increased spend hence there is significant wastage.

I wanna live like Common People...and claim £26k in benefits

The attraction of a music festival is perhaps bewildering. Sure, the atmosphere of watching a live band perform in front of a huge crowd is fantastic. But for this pleasure, we each pay a not insignificant amount of money spending a few days in unhygienic conditions amongst other germ carriers, sleeping in discomfort and having to queue 20mins for the privilege to pee in a contagious plastic box.

This is notwithstanding that I have succumbed to the allure.

Why?

Because there is a certain charm in living like common people. At some level, that image of a carefree and somehow happy existence, where every day brings a new adventure and doesn’t start with an alarm that shrieks at Silly A.M., is irresistible. The festival on a sunny day resembles a happy hippy camp free of routine and restrictions and responsibility. Can you pee standing up? Great. Pick a bush.

The allure of being poor and living a rock bottom existence with nothing to lose is a glass full of optimism. Nowhere but up. High risk, high reward. Nothing to lose so let’s risk it all. After all, only fools and horses work.

Compared to the hooky antics of Del Boy and Rodney, Britain today presents a rather sad story. The brothers lived a hand to mouth existence that survived only on their creativity to identify goods (sometimes faulty and/or illegal) that could be bought cheap and sold less cheap. They were poor but proud. They certainly gave nothing to the government - they evaded VAT and income tax. How much would they have contributed any way? But critically, they expected nothing either. Their self supported lifestyle was a boot strap model of entrepreneurship where failure was acceptable. They had courage and they were not lazy.

Last week, flicking channels mindlessly got me to stop at a Channel 4 documentary interviewing a 30-something girl who lived on benefits. They were helping her find a job to get her off benefits. Surely going to work every morning, contributing and having a purpose in life is good for any one’s self esteem?

No. This one didn’t want to do this, that or the other. Most things were boring so why should she? She wasn’t destitute. Our taxes were paying for her to stay at home. She eventually thought working in a care home might be nice and comfy. But she didn’t like cleaning up after old people and the kitchen was a bit dull. She went home instead.

Welfare is the second highest category of expenditure within the UK’s public spend at 17%. Health and Pensions top the table at 18% each. It’s no surprise that the government is trying to reform each of them. We can argue about the way they are going about it, poor communication, misguided changes, but it is undeniable that changes need to be made.

The minimum wage for an able bodied worker above the age of 21 years is £5.93. An 8 hour, 9-5 job, 5 days a week leads to an annual gross of £12,334.40.

The government today is proposing to limit universal benefits (housing, living, child, etc) to £26,000 p.a. equivalent to an hourly wage of £12.50

While the private sector average annual salary is £21,000.

And the public sector average is just under £26,000 (and notably, higher than the private sector).

Today the Opposition and various sympathisers are raising cry that the proposed Welfare bill with the cap at £26,000 and various other restrictions that limit unemployment benefits, etc, will make many people homeless through not being able to afford their current urban residence.

Reality is that, while there are many who deservedly receive benefits due to disability, age, etc., there is tremendous wastage due to the structural incentive created by the state to not work. Individuals are self selecting the optimal outcome for themselves by choosing to not work. The type of individuals falling into this category are such as described in this BBC report

Minimum wage has to more than double in this situation for individuals to be incentivised to work. Working for less than £12.50, is the sub optimal choice and these individuals are making the smart decision by choosing not to.

Now I don’t expect that the Welfare State is going to reach a stage any time soon, where this inefficiency is entirely corrected, but as the government is trying to do today, we can attempt to make some improvement. In the meantime what the rest of us dumb taxpayers can do is fight the hard fight to encourage common people to make the bad decision and get a job.

The Oxbridge race row (apparently they don't like Black people)

I'm a brown woman who went to Cambridge. In my second year at Queens' college the JCR Committee (Junior Combination Room, ungrad reps) announced a special competition.

What is the sum of the number of letters in the last names of all the Sri Lankans in Queens'?


Why? Coz there were a darn too many of them and on average, they had 15 letters in each of their last names. Now, that was just 7 years ago.

Unless Queens' had a preference for Brown over Black or had a disproportionately large number of the Cam Lankans (which is didn't), I think that is a fairly good example of how prevalent all of us ethnics were around the University. I left uni with 6 good black friends and I wasn't even out looking for any of them! Desperately trying to get away from the masses of Indians, frankly, I was stretched to find adequate white company.

Does Oxford have a materially different representation? Cameron, I fear, did mess this one over. His reference to the sole black student admitted by Oxford in 2009 appeared to be missing the word "caribbean". Perhaps that should make it a more reasonable statistic however from my experience at Cam, which had a scholarship arrangement with Trinidad, there were a bus load more around. Why not ask the Oxford African society of their perspective? Does Oxford actually have a restrictive policy?

Well, given that applicants are selected at the individual college level rather than through some omnipotent University level admissions committee, this is unlikely. Getting 30+ colleges at either Ox or Cam to agree to anything is pretty challenging. To execute a unilateral, anti-black acceptance campaign seems preposterous.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of self selection through which fewer black candidates applied to Oxford, even in comparison to Cambridge. It could be anything - arts reputation over a science orientation, etc. In my experience, the black students in Cambridge were Africans rather than Black Brits. There is an important difference. Black Africans who apply abroad, as any foreign student, are doing so from a very different platform to local students. Applying to a foreign university for them means a greater educational focus, scholarship or wealth. In being a local applicant, Black Brits don't need to compete at the same level and I think in many cases that is reality.

What this points to, once again, is a need for reform in the British education system so a comprehensive educated student can develop aspirations and the aptitude to attend university. Where Oxford and Cam perhaps fall short, is in how far they go in encouraging students to apply to them, beyond the top independent school presentations. But then, I don't really blame them. They have finite resources and targets and need to maximise their marketing potential. I don't expect them to replace their day at Eton with a day at Chatham High but perhaps on the back of this attack (another one!) they should consider changing their image. Moreover, projecting a more informed image of themselves where potential students of all backgrounds realise that they will have familiar company and that the door is open for all colours.

If the government wants to see more Black faces at Oxford, the government needs to provide a better system that delivers more worthy black candidates to Oxford. This black row is a lazy argument. 

Immigrants!... send them back to where they came from

Sure, admittedly, I have been drinking from the Cameron fountain since my own mini U-turn following  his appointment but unashamedly, I do applaud DC for his Hampshire speech. Our noble PM had the guts to go where not many other dare to walk and when they do, they don't strut as he did but rather sheepishly hop, skip and jump the ugly truth. Now rhetoric and policy are entirely different matters of course, but so far the rhetoric sounds good.

In summary, what DC said is that immigrants undoubtedly have contributed a tremendous amount to Britain in numerous ways but we need to be selective about who we let in and through which channels. Students, refugees, skilled labour, entrepreneurs and the wealthy are all mentioned.

As a first generation Indian immigrant I think it is incredibly important to consider the integrationissue and not be sheepish about expecting immigrants to localise and adapt. It starts with speaking English and goes as far as preventing forced marriages. It's essentially the perfect diet about the quality but not quantity of calories since the British waistline is bursting.

The coolest thing about this speech (yes, the coolade sugar is setting in now) was how he kept it real and spared no sensitivity from being poked at. Ultimately we know the Brits would rather live on the dole than work for minimum wage doing something considered to be beneath them (Enter the POLES)... DC nailed it. He tied it back beautifully to why Britain needs to get her lazy tusch off the benefits couch and get productive. Only then will this dependency on cheap labour will recede and note that they haven't stolen any jobs yet. Policy however has to play the tough role of being able to discern between contributing and detracting immigrants.

I'm Indian and I don't want to live in Southall because of all the other smelly Indians who've turned it into the less attractive parts of Delhi. And no, don't tell me the food is amazing, coz it ain't. And it definitely isn't worth the lack of hygiene. Street food in India is safer by comparison... (ok, maybe I exaggerate).

My family celebrates every Indian festival and makes as much noise as the family running the cash'n'carry in Wembley. But there is nothing in my culture that prevents me from blending in to the British landscape while still being Indian.  Now the Opposition of course attacks mindlessly. So for clarity, the new policy released till now does not prevent foreign students from applying to British universities any more than before so the LSE need not fret. Foreign students with job offers post graduation will not be deported.

The crackdown is on excessive baggage for the state; precisely the noncontributing aliens we all complain about. There will be no dependent visas allowed for undergrads, only for postgrads from now. Only approved education institutions will be allowed to sponsor students for visas so every education provider needs to get authorised for the purpose of cracking down on bogus agents who pose as colleges and traffic people over under the guide of students. The prerequisite standard for English has also been raised.

Bravo! This was a very cool speech indeed.

I commend it for its relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness and guts. Let's see if the policy now sustains this trend...

_____

Read DC's speech transcript here 
Student visa policy outlined here

Jamie's Dream School... still waiting for Superman

Jamie's Dream School is a pretty interesting experiment at the very least. It is the laboratory that education reformists could only have dreamt of until now: pick the worst examples that the system has rejected and then find solutions to turn them around. Startlingly, as Episode 1 points out, these rejects are in fact a huge group, growing in thousands every year. So perhaps it is the system that needs fixing (so goes the hypothesis).

It is noble cause to give these 20 kids another chance - and not just any ordinary chance either. We can argue about whether the show has the kids' best interests at heart or whether it just makes for good TV (as I am about to), but there is some merit to the effect that it has highlighted some very important points about the student-teacher dynamic - notoriously through David Starkey's outburst but also through Simon Callow's gentle persuasion, that eventually gives way to "shut the fuck up".

Well, how many geniuses does it take to light the spark of inspiration?

This petri dish exposes the views of many practitioners - good and bad. Hence revealing the misalignment in many cases between what wisdom preaches and what practice may prove otherwise. It also exposes the various types of mentality, characters and backgrounds of the rebellious youth who present themselves as a problem to the system.

Some of us viewers might have held sympathy for the teachers at the outset; some of us may have felt for the hard done-by students. Watching the teachers erupt upon trying students and students overreacting disrespectfully towards shocked celebrities has most likely neutralised any prejudices we started off with.

Undeniably the involvement of famous folks grabs our attention but it may also make us more receptive to changing our minds.

Ultimately though, what is the purpose of this Dream School experiment?

I think it is to plug the holes in the mainstream education system which is failing to address the needs of a growing group of individuals and delivering illequiped citizens to drive society forward. The two are related.

Without commenting on what might perhaps be Jamie's true intentions behind spearheading this, I'll stick to assessing his execution. First the facts.

a. Millions of pounds spent on facilities - new school building, provision of specialised equipment such as for the biosphere, history artifacts, science labs, etc

b. famous names and generally well acknowledged experts - albeit without any teaching experience at the school level

c. dedicated time individually to figure out personal issues and identify interests

d. small class sizes

Given that the goal is to find sustainable solutions that can be implemented for the benefit of masses i.e. through mainstream education, the expense of this experiment renders it less relevant for this purpose. The cost of such a micro project can of course not be borne by state education. Why not take a derelict school building or one that recently belonged to a failed school that may have been shut down (as numerous do)? Let's firstly kill the pretty factor in this documentary.

Arguably we shouldn't be hand picking the students either but I suppose they appear to be a diverse enough bunch and in all practicality this may have been the easier solution given parental approval, insurance, etc type of issues that need to be resolved.

But you know what, let's even put this stuff aside. There are more severe failings to consider.

Teachers are not just a knowledge bank. If that was the case, Jamie ought to have distributed encyclopedias and saved a few quid. Teaching is a skill, and one that develops with experience. Watching celebrities who might be experts no doubt, crashing on the learning curve as they learn to teach, is frankly a waste of time we have with these kids. This is where the Dream School gets self indulgent. Instead why did JO not simply pick experienced teachers who have dealt with such kids before, as he did for the role of the headmaster? The students would have had an easier time not having to deal with Starkey's tantrum (amongst other things) and teachers around the country watching this, who might be struggling with similar kids, could have learnt a thing or two about how to better deal with them. Additionally, families, parents, guardians could have benefited from that observation as well.  But sure, it wouldn't have made for as exciting TV...

What do these kids really need?

Watching their disrespectful behaviour, lack of accountability, selfishness, short attention span - what they need is a reality bite.

As one of the grandparents said (and I paraphrase), "..she's looking for way to start claiming benefits instead of getting a job for the rest of her life like normal people...".

That's the truth. Most of these kids have a sense of entitlement without any responsibility. Perhaps they get that from their families who may have a similar attitude or from families who have not instilled any independence or self dependence in these kids.

Struggle, perseverance, focus and commitment are entirely alien concepts to them.

I recognise that there are teenage mom's understandably overwhelmed by the situation they are in and they need support. But I have no sympathy for kids who sense of time passing is based on the number of fags they have burnt through that day...

The greatest service Jamie can do for these kids is to get them to face reality while he has their attention. Let them spend may be a month doing the job they can get based on their current qualifications. Let them queue at the Job Centre, face rejection, be interviewed and support themselves 100% independently for this time. Struggle to make ends meet. Face the consequences of their actions till date and lose their get out of jail cards.



Right now they rebel and get celebrity attention. Too many people care for them and pick up after them. Why would they change?

A true service to the community would shadow their real world experience and document their shock on facing reality. On national television that will serve as a stark lesson to all other similar voluntary truants and troublemakers.

It's laughable and unhelpful to make them think that their schools have failed them without any fault of their theirs. Henry was on camera saying he couldn't make up his mind about either becoming an actor or a photographer or something else. Seriously? Does he have any sense of the struggle needed to become an actor. The job juggling, waiting on tables desperately waiting to hear back the nth audition.

The current school day at the Dream School is exceptionally stimulating but wasted on kids who treat it as an amusement park ride. Enjoy and move on.

There is no denying that schools need fixing but so do the kids. The school system needs upgrading and revising in terms of content, structure and culture. The kids need to grow up and take responsibility. Would I ever want to hire Harlem if I were running a business ? No. As a tax payer do I want to support her and her family? Definitely no.

School's need fixing but this show is not providing the solution. Hugely disappointing for the amount of resources it has splashing about and geniuses at its disposal. It seems the world is still Waiting for Superman to Change the Future...

Oops...I did it again - a post script

Below is my response to a friend's objection to various points made in my original blog....

ok, so I think we disagree on 2 key points - offenders' right to human rights (which was the key basis of the judgement) and successful demonstration of not reoffending.

I genuinely think that a sex offender does not have grounds to justify their own human rights. It's similar to a murderer (to take an extreme example) or a terrorist. Now, the classic problem here is of identifying guilt accurately - allegation vs. truth. Hence the moral argument for me remains on restricting an offenders right but given the practical and administrative limitations of being able to identify guilt accurately, passing life long sentences is difficult. However, it is a case of who needs protecting more - society or offender and in the event of doubt, we have to err on the side of protecting the community. Hence what I object to is the supreme court passing a judgement based on moral grounds. I think this is invalid. If instead they had addressed the issue of, as you identified, ranges of sexual offences, consent, causation, etc and acknowledged the challenge with discerning between these cases, then the ruling would have carried more weight and would also highlight the need to educate people broadly about these issues. I heard someone on Radio 2 once describing how their life was destroyed following false accusations as the local community ganged up on them and her husband (the accused) ended up committing suicide, following which the girls who accused him admitted he didn't commit any crime and wasn't even aware of who these girls were. That's the scenario we want to avoid through protecting the innocent alleged offenders, but offenders don't deserve protection...

Secondly, the problem of practical administration of justice applies to your comment " If someone has reformed their life and is able to demonstrate it to a high standard..." - issue is how do you know for sure they are reformed or rather is it a case that their offences are not known? I think the police needs to continue to monitor any suspicious individuals all their lives but then they'll be launching an appeal on how it violates their right to life or freedom. Again, if they are a suspect, we have to protect the community rather than their rights. And to say after 15 years it seems fair to give them a second chance is entirely unjustified - for instance, through all of this you haven't tried to even consider the plight of the victim. Are they back to normal after 15 years? "Fairness" does not come into. The only issue is, as you point out, that perhaps amongst 24,000 cases there are a couple who don't deserve to be included in that group so let's not ruin their life. To that I provide the above solution where the police still tracks and monitors all - innocent or guilty, we don't know - and so re offences are prevented and in time guilt will be identified but the monitoring happens in the background so it doesn't interfere with life.

The 11 yr old might be a new person by the age of 40 - or he might not. My point was that it's either nature or nurture and the authorities need to identify which. If its his psychology that is unbalanced he's not likely to be any difference and if it's nurture, then figure out what in his home environment drove him to it. It may not be driven by his own intent, but he is acting due to an external cause that then needs to be eradicated or he won't be any different when he's older.

Re. voting - this is just such a silly debate in my mind. A blanket rule here of not allowing prisoners to vote keeps the looney's out of it. Sure again there are a few unlucky guys who get caught up in it, but really, what difference does it really make if they can't vote? how many of them even bother to? Yes, technically, it takes away their right to vote, but it's such a non issue that doesn't really affect their lives, that the optimal decision without any doubt in my mind is to not allow them to vote. When we talk about sex offenders and impact restrictions or registration has on their lives, I can understand the need for debate given the consequences and impact on their quality of life. But seriously, not able to vote? It's insignificant.

Oops...I did it again - sex offenders and cons

Hello. I am a 17 yr old boy. When I was 11, I raped a 6 yr old boy and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. Now, that track record is killing my social life and I can't travel abroad to play for my rugby league so, is there any way we could all forget about this little boo-boo and move on? Ta.

Sex offenders - old and young, repeat offenders all need to pay for their offence and repent. An adult sex offender displays clear intent through planning and committing to a carrying out a violating act that continues for not insignificant length of time. This along with perhaps an unbalanced psyche warrants a permanent trail to protect the community that he or she lives amongst. Why should their human rights be given any consideration after committing such an offence?

Recently debate has emerged on allowing sex offenders the ability to apply to repeal their inclusion on the sex offenders register. What is supporting their case? Their basic human right apparently. At the moment sex offenders have to register with the police before travelling abroad or over 3 days. Scotland allows for a review of individual cases following a length of time over which there is no repeat offence noted. England has the good sense to strengthen the terms by requiring offenders to register before travelling abroad for any length of time.

Why in God's name are we as a nation wasting air, TV and print space to even consider improving their access to a social life?

If sex offenders find their lives restrictive - it's for a darn good reason! If they have a problem with it - too bad! They should have considered the downside before the crime.

Along with the sex offenders, some rather forgiving backbenchers have campaigned for prisoners to be able to vote. Ok. So you have bad judgement and/or are mentally disturbed that's why you are locked up but it's not all bad coz surely you can make the optimal, rational decision for chosing the leader of the nation. Either elections are unimportant these days or the rehabilitation processes just got super effective.

Why, why, why are we wasting time adn thought on trying to provide rights to people who entirely disregarded others?

In some cases, fine, I understand there might be opportunity for a second chance. In few rare situations such as perhaps the 11 yr old, one can argue, acted without fully understanding the consequences and gravity of his actions. Such a situation requires intense scrutiny into his upbringing to identify and eliminate the social cause of his behavior. Should he be allowed to travel with his rugby team? Maybe, may not - can his shrink guarantee he isn't just a more lethal version of his 11 yr old self? Was it nature or nurture that cause his action? If its the former, can he be reformed? If it's the latter, is he reformed?

If it can't be guaranteed, is it worth the risk?

For reoffenders, surely  no one can be idiotic enough to suggest they deserve a third chance?

I find it amusing how the country and the western world held bankers responsible for the crunch and never wish for them to return to the hay-day of big bonus payouts again. Never, ever, ever...even though the big bad banks took a big hit in one year and some are still hurting.

BUT, rapists and criminals - they get a normal life and skip around scott free like it all never happened. Seriously Supreme Court, get some perspective.

Human rights are this all encompassing banner that is being exploited by criminals. the government needs to take a stand and shut them up. Who cares how long ago the crime/rape occurred - it happened and there is a victim or victims suffering. Has any one checked if they have been able to return to a normal life? and what about the victims who we don't know about? Offence free 15 years could simply be offenced we don't know about.

I have a simple rule, you don't have rights if you don't respect those of others.

Surely the age old wisdom of tit for tat ought to apply here. If the supreme court can't see the justice in this, the judgement of the Supreme Court is henceforth severely doubted.

What motivates people? Fear, Passion or Incentive?

What motivates man?

One or more of these:

Passion
Fear
Incentive

Over the last year I produced two short films in the time I was unemployed and living off the grid. This immediately followed my four years at an American investment bank which perhaps epitomises most people's concept of a capitalist institution. Going from that world driven by unashamed monetary incentivisation as blatant as a carrot on a stick, the world of independent film makers working on a no-budget project (note: that does not mean porn!) taught me a few things about human nature. Today as I am working within a small, again independent, self supported team of volunteers trying to make a dent in the debate over education reform, my observations on factors of motivations continue.

The charity sector is significantly reliant on unpaid, volunteered services of people who simply care about a cause. The same people in their bread-and-butter jobs are contrastingly driven by what they get paid. in my two short films I was mesmerised when working with teams of 30 odd people, each of whom were complete strangers, to see that they actually turned up for each of the 3 days of shooting at different locations around the Greater London area; all for the opportunity to meet other like minded people, grow their list of experienced and with the hope to be part of the next big thing. Unfortunately, I didn't produce the next big thing so it was just another notch in their belt and they moved on to the next project to work on, receiving nothing more than food and drink for the days on set which by my own admission is not an incentive by anyone's food quality standards.

In parallel, they go on to their waitressing jobs or computer programming desk and haggle over their pay, holidays, benefits for each and every last penny. It's not also the case that these 30 odd people simply turned up as most do for their daily work routines. They gave a shit. There was passion, creativity and a general unarguable sense that we were working towards the same cause united only by the fact that we all wanted it to be as good as it could possibly be. In other words and in every employer's ideal, each worked to the best of their ability and worked as if they owned the set.

Incentive is the most common tool deployed to motivate and is a reminder for many of us for why we wake up every weekday morning. Even if it is not money itself, it is perhaps what money can acquire for us that motivates and so inevitably acquiring more money is the objective. Often where passion and incentive collide, it can lead to reduced wealth as we trade off incentive for the ability to follow our passion and that ability to follow our own path compensates for the lack of or reduced monetary compensation.

The most successful people conversely are an example of where the pursuit of passion generates wealth. I seriously doubt those who top the Forbes Rich List despise the start of each day for work related reasons.  Undoubtedly many of them reached where they are today purely in the pursuit of profit - the incentive motivation to get rich or die trying.

The benefit of passion over incentive as a motivation is also a point of administration. Lack of meritocracy or inaccurate assessment of skill, effort, etc can destroy the chase for the carrot and leave behind a group of disgruntled employees. The classic case of perception vs. productivity kicks in - a game so many of face timers know well. As long as the boss thinks we are working, all is well.

Fear, I will argue, in fact the most efficient method of motivation and one that undoubtedly leads to the desired result fastest. The eerily perfect running of the Chinese Olympics is a recent example. A simple example we can all empathise with is the one of a student desperately cramming the night before an exam to avoid the consequences of not achieving a certain grade.  Perhaps also why fear is so effective is because, of the three factors, it is the most primaeval feeling driven by our instinct to survive. Understandably, the unpleasantness associated with this and the coercive methods to achieve it clearly undermine its use.

Passion is self administering and a cheaper solution. Most importantly, the results are arguably superior to those delivered by either incentivisation or fear.

Passion has no ceiling in terms of targeting achievement. Fear targets the outlined goal in the prescribed way with no room for creativity or individual contribution. Incentivisation has a glass ceiling to the limit where there can be no more marginal increment in incentive due to greater output. In light of this, it astonishes me why every business, institution or government doesn't operate along the principle of inspiring passion amongst its citizens. The first step towards this would be to acknowledge it.

I think it is quite timely that my recently acquired hero, PM Cameron is championing research to monitor  the happiness of Britons and the quality of life at a time where so many feel despair and are struggling. Unfortunately inspiring passion isn't as easy as writing a cheque so motivation is more often driven by a suboptimal factor that can boost but not sustain our satisfaction or happiness. The good thing however is that Passion is contagious. Your worst subject at school becomes less dreadful when you have a cool teacher who cares about the subject and shows you why its interesting which often enough leads to better results.  The limitation in spreading the passion factor is that most of us are in situations we don't care for, subordinate to seniors who suffer the same. At the other end, this is perhaps why we harbour some envy for entrepreneurs who appear to do what they like and seem to have a lot of fun being successful.

Sure, you may argue that if we each did want we wanted, who would do what nobody wants but everybody needs? And even then I'm pretty certain that there would be takers for driving the city garbage trucks. There will of course also be the flip scenario with over subscribed posts and even if we all would rather like to have Jeremy Clarkson's job and get paid to blow stuff up, there is only so much stuff in the world to blow up! This selection process would however be automatically smoothened out to avoid such excesses as passion is not the sole determinant in selection. Many of us have multiple interests and the selection is realistically subject to living standards and ability.

I commend Cameron for attempting to implement his Big Society talk into action. It won't be easy as we trudge our way through daily strife but hopefully, if he holds on to his passion, it will eventually trickle down and at some point, each of us will feel that domino fall.