The Manchester Magazine

Monarch Airlines: Competition in a fatal game

10/3/2017

A drab morning at Manchester // Ph: RHL/ Wikimedia Commons

Analysis Confusion, shock and disbelief prevailed in Luton, and across the UK, with the collapse of Monarch Airlines earlier this week. We unpack the market trends, governmental responsibilities and consumer dynamics involved

Samuel Lindblad
Deputy Editor
Richard Bolton
Editor-in-Chief,
in Luton

Monday morning and staff, families and holidaymakers were arriving at work and heading to airports to catch flights - all blissfully unaware. The morning announcement reiterated from the early hours sunk in as workers were informed they were now redundant, left to call their families to break the news, and holidaymakers were stranded abroad.

To assess the general sentiment in Luton, THE MANCHESTER MAGAZINE travelled down to Monarch HQ as well as the local airport to speak to locals, airline staff and holidaymakers, searching for their thoughts on the matter and looking to hear the press debrief. What follows is a little of that sentiment, expounded across an insight into current market trends to emphasise and shed light on the dialectical findings of ailing British industry.

Manchester Conservative Party Conference
The twentieth anniversary of the Bank of England’s independence saw Theresa May grace the podium to deliver a warm and loving defence of the free-market economic regime that has come to dominate much of the global marketplace. As she spoke elatedly of the triumphant success of the market economy’s unique ability to lead us from our dark, dismal lives into the comforting warm bosom of capitalist success, one could only imagine the feeling of defeat that pulsed through the hearts of those crying out for market intervention to salvage the overnight meltdown of Monarch Airlines and the catastrophe that ensued.

The speech could be seen to be a marked shift away from her prior rhetorical offerings as the contented centrist. May previously espoused the need for regulation and sincerity in a market dominated by the cult of “selfish individualism”, and remained certain that at least some market corrections would be necessary to curb the rising inequality that historically follows a deregulated economy. Oddly, her appearance at the Bank of England was lacking in advocacy of anything other than non-intervention.

Her defiance to Jeremy Corbyn’s strictly interventionist approach to economic policy comes as no great surprise. One can too, if politically able, come to accept the about U-turn of her economic rhetoric given the current attacks on free-market economics by the left. The irony, of course, can be found in the precarious timing of her defiance to interventionist opposition – with Monday’s collapse of Monarch Airlines resulting in one of the greatest taxpayer-funded repatriation operations of modern times.

A condensed market's race to the bottom
Monarch Airlines' ability to deliver competitive prices to passengers was under pressure long before this week's headlines. A turbulent few years for the airline saw large redundancy packages and pay cuts handed to workers in 2014 to salvage operations. Even since trimming the proverbial fat, the crippled post-Brexit-referendum sterling had weakened the airline’s ability to purchase fuel and operate efficiently enough to remain competitive. The great looming unknown that is Brexit uncertainty has undoubtedly played a significant role in the collapse of Monarch; especially so in what concerns the deterrence of engagement with Monarch by both the consumers and the investors that may have saved the struggling airline.

The great looming unknown that is Brexit uncertainty has undoubtedly played a significant role in the collapse of Monarch.

Monarch’s collapse comes after a series of airline failures and problems that have, for the most part, been heavily prophesied by industry regulators. Intense market saturation and a race to the bottom to win consumer preference has seen many airlines push down prices far below sustainable operating levels.

Ryanair’s withholding of annual leave for pilots can be attributed to the airline giant’s attempts to stay fiercely competitive and deliver its service to consumers at the cost of its workers – with pilots scrambling for their rights to unionise and to take affirmative action against their employer. This has resulted in the cancellation of flights for over 400,000 passengers. Luckily for Ryanair, their accumulated financial buffers and capital holdings should prove adequate to starve off any short-term liquidity problems that may arise from their correcting of the backlog. Unfortunately for airlines like Monarch that do not have the luxury of Ryanair’s scale, the exogenous Brexit shock to profits, and failure to remain intensely competitive, has left it entering forced administration.

There is an argument to be made regarding the ecological unsustainability of such a model of competition. This becomes poignant in the case of a carbon-intensive industry like air travel. Where markets are left to saturate so potently that prices are driven down to the point where air travel becomes the cheapest way to get from Southampton to Heathrow - albeit via Tuscany, Lapland and Reykjavik - the question must be asked as to whether environmental costs (typically labelled as externalities by economists) outweigh the financial benefits. At what point does such vast quantities of outsourced degradation become recognised as a viable reason to intervene in market competition? A society in which noise, air and environmental pollution and degradation are not effectively internalised by the polluting agent, via incentive alignment dictated by a regulatory body, or offset by initiatives of sustainability, greater efficiencies or transition to less damaging fuels; questions need to be asked of our priorities.

Further, unemployment because of market competition is one of the many issues that May’s dictation of free-market successes failed to address. While EasyJet has expressed a vague interest for some of Monarch’s landing slots at Heathrow, all-in-all the company is looking to be unvalued by many competitors or external investors as simply excess capacity within the industry. And while Monarch is hardly the jewel of the British economy or the flagship carrier like British Airways, it is still a valuable source of income for thousands of workers who may now be unable to pay their mortgage, meet their short-term credit obligations in the structural transitory window of unemployment.

A vacated Monarch HQ Monday morning // Ph: Richard Bolton

Empty car park at Monarch's flight training centre // Ph: Richard Bolton

The rise and fall of a zombie economy
Advocates of more laissez-faire economic policy implementation would oppose any government intervention in smoothing out market fluctuations such as those which have caused the airline to cease operations. It is neither impossible nor historically rare to see the government offer a guiding hand in the process of market consolidation. Yet, the support by banks and government to allow zombie companies in the UK economy to idle on may well point to features of low productivity and economic growth in recent years.

Zombie companies are those that struggle to raise enough cash to service their debt. This survival merely offsets judgement day when interest rates start to rise. A firm that can limp along, and take up resources in the economy but not invest.

The matter of resource devotion to ailing companies is a shadow that looms over the British economy. For instance, liquidity from banks is tied up in struggling companies and not available for more vibrant small businesses or entrepreneurs. The spectre of forbearance - banks giving breathing space to (risky) borrowers - instead of writing down losses on loans and making provisions for similar collapses to Monarch, simply aren’t taking place, and ultimately, serve only to prolong the inevitable.

Extending credit terms to companies in this way is not necessarily a terrible thing, providing it isn't choking off new lending and new investment. May’s indication that intense free-market competition paves the way for sustainable and equitable development seems seldom met by any sufficient policies that ensure the financial security of those workers who bear the real weight of market fluctuations in their resulting transitory unemployment when zombie companies collapse. When one happens now and again due to an exogenous shock, they may bounce back. However, when an internal policy decision, such as a hike in interest rates occurs and many companies start to fold; the distinct lack of policy cushioning by the Conservative government will unfold.

Of course, branding all principles that underpin a market economy as intrinsically evil would be as short-sighted and ill-informed as inferring that any form of state intervention is a categorically ineffective and prehistoric policy choice. While, in theory, both socialist economic plans and market-based solutions have the potential to ensure fair and equitable growth; in practice neither ideology functions in the way that theory would assume under laboratory conditions.

While EasyJet has expressed a vague interest for some of Monarch’s landing slots at Heathrow, all-in-all the company is looking to be unvalued by many competitors or external investors as simply excess capacity within the industry.

To polarise the ideologies is to remain rooted in faction-like cultism that hinders progression and does little to help those left behind by neoliberal policy choices. It does not take an economist to gauge the value of at least some government intervention – even if only to ensure those few thousand workers that suddenly found themselves unemployed will have food on their table next month and their homes will not be foreclosed upon. Masoud, a Luton resident, told THE MANCHESTER MAGAZINE: “It will ultimately be a blight on the community. Aviation is one of the main employers in and around Luton. Without the additional work capacity offered by Monarch, who knows what the families and airline staff will do now.”

Theresa May has become somewhat of a parody of herself. While churning out centrist rhetoric that attempts to value greater public spending and public investment, May simultaneously takes her place at the central bank to publicly defend deregulation and forgo the idea of government intervention entirely.

A long way home
On Monday, what few airline staff that remained in work by 10 o'clock were stilling coming to terms with their fates. Aminah, an airline technician trainee, told THE MANCHESTER MAGAZINE: “I came into work this morning aware the airline had been struggling to finance training contracts and the centre over the past year. However, we were told it was just restructuring to deal with competitors also deploying low-brow market share grabbing tactics. Little did I know that my manager would inform me with tears in her eyes we were now all out of work. I have two children at home and only meagre savings to support them. Why has the government not done more to cushion this blow?”

The repatriation operation to bring home those 100,000 holidaymakers stranded by the collapse of Monarch is just another managerial public expense in a chain of broken market fluctuations. In the vein of bank bailouts during the financial crash, the public pocket is responsible for ensuring the correction of market fluctuations that may never have occurred had deep deregulation never been administered as a means of boosting economic growth. Mounting constraints on public expenditure see public services driven to the point of collapse – so further siphoning funds into broken markets that on aggregate do very little for the average worker seems overbearingly reductive.

Monarch’s collapse was not the first example of a company failing to remain competitive, nor was it unforeseen, and nor will it be the last. Free-market advocates may brand the failure of weaker companies as both fair game and as a necessary component of ensuring market efficiency. John Moulton, investor, believes ousting weaker business models is a key aspect to restore balance growth and entrepreneurial culture to the UK economy. But in taking the macro perspective, it is easy to glaze over the human-centric consequences allowing capitalism to progress without constraint. We can only hope that May’s next rhetorical pivot results in a stance that would truly attempt to build a better Britain. TMM

2 Comments

WE'RE BACK!

9/24/2017

0 Comments

TMM - Always One Step Ahead // Ph: Jake Hampson/ The Manchester Magazine

Feature The Manchester Magazine welcomes all new students and those returning to Manchester for the 2017-18 academic year. We are back in business with a fresh team and great articles in the pipeline. Stay tuned as we strive to always be one step ahead

Staff

THE MANCHESTER MAGAZINE is back at work and our team could not be more motivated. We have had another highly successful year in 2016-17, with our efforts being recognised at the National Student Publication Association Awards. After being nominated for several categories in the previous edition of these prestigious awards, TMM ended up taking home the award for the “Best New Publication in U.K. and Ireland” in 2016-17. The panel judges, from outlets such as The Times, Metro and The Scotsman, commented on our “breadth” and “depth” of articles, and our commentary on lending “unique” and “niche perspectives” to local and global affairs.

A plethora of articles were published and recognition was received at both local and national level. From our feature on the state of Hong Kong, to our coverage of the Italian banking crisis and internal political conundrums, the quality of material produced was something that our readers and writers can be proud of. Our collaborative spirit too landed us important opportunities, including a Media Partnership with the New Stars Competition to showcase international strings and pianoforte talent, strengthening our ability to provide informed insights into high culture.

At this point, a special mention should go to the leadership and guidance of our recently graduated Editor-in-Chief António Rolo Duarte, without whose diligence and passion for THE MANCHESTER MAGAZINE, it would not have taken off the ground to receive such high acclaim and accreditation. Other noteworthy contributors from the past 2 years are the co-founder and deputy editor-in-chief Jeanmiguel Uva, without whose patience and creative commons flair we might have been left in a sticky patch or two; Jake Hampson, our social media and marketing strategist; and Edoardo Tricerri for coordinating our expansion and editorial management expertise. They will be sorely missed at the newsroom this year as they progress into this publication's Board of Directors.

We have laid strong foundations these past two years, however, never one to rest on our laurels, we have lots to accomplish over the upcoming year. We will be working hard over the next months to deliver the best writing talent on offer from students matriculating at The University of Manchester. We cannot wait to share with you the extraordinary articles that we have been working on over the Summer. So stay tuned.

In the meantime, we heartily encourage you to take a look at (and for our regular readers, to revisit) some of our most successful and discourse stimulating pieces from 2016-17. From their nuanced, informative appeal and in-depth, rigorous niche angle approaches that draw upon incisive and sophisticated reasoning, these pieces embody the spirit and crux of THE MANCHESTER MAGAZINE to its fullest.

We have made a short selection of articles within five main genres. Not all our articles fit perfectly within these five genres, however they will give you a general idea of how THE MANCHESTER MAGAZINE is organised and what we strive for.

Analysis
When it comes to analysis, we are looking for two things which should be present in very large quantities: critical thinking and clarity of writing. Our analysis is thorough and comprehensive, yet it is sharp and incisive.
Boots Instead of Briefcases – by António Rolo Duarte – delves deeper into the legacy of Rio 2016 Summer Games for a UK Government looking to capitalise upon a Second Place finish in the Olympics, amongst politicising other global sporting successes.
Grenfell Tower: A Question of Class? – by Richard Bolton – snapshot trigger piece in the immediate aftermath of the towering inferno in Kensington that brings to light much of the strife and disenfranchisement of a modern Britain divided by class war.
The State of British Values – by Richard Bolton – An in-depth assessment of the woes betiding a modern multicultural Britain wallowing in nostalgia of an idealised and gilded age, yet overlooks all too readily the underlying hypocrisy therein. From the forgotten generations of an ageing British demographic, to homelessness amidst an age of prolonged austerity in post-Brexit Britain; the state of British society is in peril.
Oxfam, Davos and Inequality Today – by Ryan Khurana – Heralds the dynamism of modern market economies and rebukes the ideological reporting made by Oxfam into inequality in the wake of Davos. In particular, Ryan challenges the conception that inequality is necessarily bad, alongside misinformed principles of money creation by exogenous means and challenges the portrayal of ownership as being necessarily exclusionary.

Interviews
The bar is set very high for our interviews. We might not publish one every week, but our readers know it is worth the wait. We find the most interesting people, with the most fascinating stories to tell, and send our most experienced interviewers to get the job done.
The Rebel Who Kept Manchester Safe - by António Rolo Duarte and Jeanmiguel Uva - perhaps a more poignant piece in 2017 for Manchester residents in the wake of the Manchester Bombing at the Ariana Grande concert. Sir Peter Fahy, as retired Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, set in motion across his illustrious 34 year career, certain strategies and organisational response planning for such terrorist events. His efforts contributed to the subsequent crackdown on the Manchester terror cell houses, tracking of associates and even the location of the suitcase bomb near to the current Editor-in-Chief's door.

Columns
Our columns are already an iconic part of our website, where our writers add their personal touch to the magazine. They are often shorter pieces which make for a more relaxed read, even though they often touch on serious and well-researched topics. They must be entertaining, yet informative and engaging. Unless we are looking at a long-form, particularly powerful comment piece, this is where most of our opinion articles appear.
All by Miles Knapp
All by Lauren Goodfellow
All by António Rolo Duarte

Culture
Our main area of expertise is politics and current affairs. However, we have said from the start that we are a student magazine – not an academic journal. The student brain needs creativity to prosper and music, art, sport, cinema, fashion, food and theatre are all essential components of this development. In the culture sections, we want fascinating, engaging articles which take us to a world different from our own.
From The Internet With Love - by Samuel Lindblad – a snapshot frame into young artists trying to break into the scene in the age of social media
The Pearl of the Danube – by Tyler Bryce – insight into the emerging student weekender city of Budapest

This is a brief selection of some of our articles from last year. There are plenty more great pieces of writing across the website, so do keep browsing! You can also follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. We will be back with new articles in no time.

Note: We are currently recruiting new writers for The Manchester Magazine. For more information, contact the editor-in-chief at

0 Comments

A long way home

6/19/2017

0 Comments

Protesters celebrate the legalization of homosexual marriage in Washington, DC in 2010 // Ph: Erin M/ Flickr

The past few decades have seen significant improvements in the rights of LGTB people across many Western nations. But the road to equality is a long one, and there is still much work to be done

Samuel Lindblad
Senior Writer

As an openly gay man living in one of the UK’s most liberal cities, it’s easy to be lulled into a belief that everything is as inclusive as it seems. As countless peers, co-workers, friends, and family reiterate, the world isn’t as bad as it used to be.

Seemingly dowsed in relief that proverbial temporal clichés portray a world where LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) people are seen as equal members of society, many members of the public, including many of those that do not identify as heterosexual, seem to disregard the UK government’s inexplicably ignorant view of the rights of LGBT people.

To an extent, the people who say the world has changed are right. There have been several seismic shifts towards that, albeit illusive, ideal of social equality. The HIV/AIDS diagnosis is not the death sentence it once was, nor does it carry the same stigma that would have been more potently prevalent several decades ago. The passing of equal marriage legislation in the UK and in several other western states has seen hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples granted the right to marry. Society’s shifting attitude towards LGBT acceptance in much of the West goes a long way to ensuring the community is not faced with the same ostracism it once was.

And yet, the granting of equal marriage is far from being solidified in the public discourse. Accounts of religious skepticism that lead to disputes over cake sales in the USA were early indicators of a predominantly Republican resistance to equal marriage that, over time, has blossomed to maturity in the form of an array of policy augmentations that remove the prohibition on federal contract holders to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and see funding for HIV/AIDS treatment cut and reallocated to conversion therapy programmes aimed at “fixing” sexuality.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempts to disown the events unfolding in Chechnya are particularly humorous in light of Russia’s strict anti-gay propaganda laws that make even the notion of LGBT equality both illegal and generally unspoken of in the mainstream media. Reports of gay men being rounded up and taken to torture camps in preparation for decimation by the Chechnyan leader Ramzan Kadyrov are mirrored by ISIL’s public execution of a gay man in Mosul last year - with the only discernible difference in the ideological standing towards LGBT people being ISIL’s intention of publicising the gay extermination and Kadyrov’s attempts to spin the events to be nothing more than rumours.

Many members of the public, including many of those that do not identify as heterosexual, seem to disregard the UK government’s inexplicably ignorant view of the rights of LGBT people.

Significantly less barbaric, yet no more acceptable, is Theresa May’s overwhelmingly negative record of voting against LGBT rights of adoption and marriage for the majority of her career. Tim Farron, who recently stepped down as the leader of the Liberal Democrats, recently came under scrutiny for being unable to objectively assert his acceptance for LGBT people; with many citing his religious stance as the cause. Even Labour’s manifesto for the 2017 general election has seen the pace of attempting to induce LGBT inclusivity worldwide slow. Where Ed Miliband’s 2015 campaign proposed the creation of a group whose sole aim would be to influence international law for the better of LGBT+ worldwide, Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was lacking. Albeit small PR mishaps for the Lib Dems and a rushed manifesto for Labour, the general media coverage of the political climate for LGBT rights in this election has been lacklustre at best.

Whether covert political discrimination or outright brutal execution, the attacks on LGBT liberties by those in power depicts the delicacy and fragility of the rights afforded to LGBT people even in the world that isn’t as bad as it used to be. Cases of physical brutality and mental degradation imposed on members of the LGBT community for doing nothing more than existing are, sadly, reflected in many aspects of day to day life in most of the world.

The National Union of Students’ (NUS) 2014 report “Beyond The Straight and Narrow” probed the lives of many young LGBT people in order to gauge their experiences in education in the UK. The report illustrates the lack of security that many young people face as a direct response to their sexual orientation - with four out of five transgender students feeling unsafe on their University campus and one in three being victims of bullying or harassment. Further, the report finds that lesbian, gay, and bisexual students are almost twice as likely to experience homelessness, to take out high-risk payday loans, and to be in large amounts of debt as their heterosexual counterparts. This report depicts that, even in its liberality, the UK still plays host to the lingering sense of inequality that resonates far more than it should with young LGBT people.

Manchester's "Gay Village" on a summer evening // Ph: Whereisemil/ Flickr

Alan Turing statue in Manchester // Ph: Umh Sapiens/ Flickr

With the UK general election spawning a minority Conservative government likely to be propped up by the Democratic Unionist Party’s ten parliamentary seats, many are curious – and reluctantly so – to hear what kind of deal has been struck between the two parties in order to reach the number of seats required to govern. The DUP have a long standing history of creationist, anti-abortion, and anti-LGBT views that have largely played to the disadvantage of progressive legislation being implemented in Northern Ireland – with several attempts to legalise same-sex marriage blocked in recent years. Theresa May’s unique brand of slimy conservatism and the DUP’s sepia-toned, vintage perspective on human rights could, quite easily, cause major disruption to the lives of many women and LGBT people.

It is easy to imagine the potential of how such extreme conservatism could play out: a slow erosion of the values and liberties that have been fought for over the past fifty years, similar to what can be observed in the US; a malignant blockade between the legislative and the executive preventing further implementation of progressive, liberal laws; and the nightmarish vision of some DUP executive declaring the fate of gay politicians as sealed – locked out of democratically-derived power most likely because, even though the world isn’t what it used to be, two men walking in to Downing Street would not exemplify the ideals of the more conservative voters and their retrotopian vision of the 1960s – when nobody was gay or had HIV/AIDS.

One major problem that helps create such views is the lack of LGBT-inclusive education in the UK. Lack of any targeted education for LGBT people, and education for non-LGBT people that teaches of equality and equity, is fiercely overlooked as a strong social barrier between sexual minorities and the majority, and does little to combat ostracism at a young age. The experience endured by many who do not fit the sexual norm in primary and secondary schools is bleak at best. It seems unacknowledged by politicians that lack of inclusive education creates a foundation of partisan knowledge in children that, consciously or unconsciously, creates a bias that will always tend towards the social norm and away from the minority. While not inferring that all conservative views are derived from a lack of LGBT education, I argue that a more inclusive education from a young age could go a long way to helping dilute the views of those who wish to see the rights of LGBT people revoked.

A more inclusive education from a young age could go a long way to helping dilute the views of those who wish to see the rights of LGBT people revoked.

Moreover, the question has to be asked as to whether LGBT people are being properly represented in parliament. While the UK elected a record-breaking number of LGBT politicians on June 8, 2017, it is still viable to assume that little will change with the education system due to the lack of public attention. Politicians talk of societal meritocracy and its intrinsic benefits without acknowledging structural asymmetries that both hinder the potential of young LGBT people and undermine those who have managed to overcome their predisposition, and while we should definitely be championing those who do gain power, we should also be focusing on those who cannot. What about those who are LGBT and severely socio-economically disadvantaged? Is it enough to have representation in parliament without significant attention to the problems that many young LGBT people face?

Regardless, the momentum behind the push for LGBT equality seems frighteningly weak in 2017. It must take appreciation of the problem from both LGBT people and the wider UK populace in order to find an equitable and sustainable solution to liberal rights. While, yes, the world has made many significant movements in the right direction, we seem to be regressing to a state in which rights afforded one day can be revoked the next. It is no longer acceptable to have a government that refuses to speak out and act on the infringements of liberty perpetuated in many of our nation’s allies, and it seems fundamentally regressive to attempt to forge diplomatic ties with nations that still refuse to acknowledge the existence of its gay population.

The world is not what it used to be, but nor is it what it has the potential to be. Times have changed, but they haven’t changed enough. As long as an LGBT person’s fate is decided by anything other than pure autonomy, there is progress to be made. TMM

0 Comments

Grenfell Tower: a question of class?

6/19/2017

0 Comments

An image of Grenfell Tower, the 24-storey building which burned down in London on June 14, 2017 // Ph: ChiralJon/ Flickr

Analysis Much has been written about the specificities of the Grenfell Tower fire, but a deeper understanding of it is needed. We bring you a perspective on the socio-economic dynamics and implications of the event

Richard Bolton
Chief Writer

Gentrification is le cri du jour for cities like London. It brings lagging areas, wallowing in intergenerational lapsing of disrepair and abandonment wrought with high crime, black market activities and impoverished council-dependent dwellers into modern, expensive residential property at whatever the cost. Often, these impoverished areas sit adjacent, juxtaposed with their ultra-luxury high-rise apartments. We see this affair the world over, from the more startling contrast of Rio to Lagos, Mumbai to Nairobi.

For London, Grenfell Tower is one such site, nestled in the startlingly affluent neighbourhood, arguably London’s most prosperous, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Developers have been itching to buy and demolish the old council concrete jungles and in their place erect ultra-luxurious multi-million pound modern apartments. And it just so conveniently happens that a previously dilapidated tower block that underwent recent renovation and re-insured to the hilt as ‘near-new finish’ goes up in a puff of smoke. Assumptions are contagious and stereotypes picked up on a whim, and run through the mainstream media and into British conventional society. Although we live in Britain, we are by no means immune to the blind scheming of ambition and greed.

What happened?
A block of flats in an affluent central London setting which has undergone recent refurbishment to the alleged tune of £10 million was caught on fire due to a faulty electrical appliance and highly flammable cladding on the outside acting as a chimney to the rising flames, engulfing the building before tenants could react. Their response and emergency services were slow due to the absence of fire detectors and alarms and hose reels and safeguards in building regulations to prevent incidents such as these from occurring.

What will happen now?
Inquiries will begin into the incident to establish the true reason for the fire and the inadequacy of the fireproofing of the building by the tenant management company and their outside contractors. All at the behest of our newly elected PM.

The fire will have undoubtedly destroyed much of the fundamental fabric and structure of the Tower, rendering it unfeasible to salvage. The land may be sold off to the highest bidder on the private contracting for the luxury apartments market by the owners Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council. In place of the old council flats will rise an ultra-luxury modern set of apartments with restaurants and convenience stores to cater to foreign investors and affluent city workers. Those previous residents relying on their council support will be forced out of the area and resettled.
Asbestos may well be present in such a building that requires specialist and costly dismantling process. The alternative is to sell off the site and recoup on the insurance, push the displaced residents to another constituency to rehouse as central London remains too cost-prohibitive and untenable for the central London council to front.

The block had conveniently been re-insured to the hilt after its works leaving the Council with a healthy ROI and ready to sell on to the highest bidder, meanwhile evicting the displaced tenants out of having to provide accommodation for them in London’s most expensive Borough. Two birds with one stone with higher insurable value and equally removing the undesirable immigrant communities as being a blight on their otherwise affluent area. Grenfell is nearby to high-end property in Finsted House which has had repeated troubles with petty crime, leading to restricted access to the Grenfell residents with no loitering and gated systems installed. The winning bidders will undoubtedly cash in on their new projects with issuing freehold based 99 year leases, extortionate ground rents and service charges to the unfortunate suckers who buy into their luxury apartment blocks. Everybody in government and business closely associated with the affair has had all their chickens come home to roost at once.

Although we live in Britain, we are by no means immune to the blind scheming of ambition and greed.

Meanwhile, the British public is handed a dismissive Boris before a committee and austerity is the usual suspect for poor building materials and regulations into fire safety. All the while, firefighter responses are depleted, and the capitalist neoliberal system is to blame for faulty oriental fridges that were the cause. Send some contractors and tenant managers to jail for manslaughter, wipe your hands and everybody moves along, content in their conventional knowledge that the world has been put to rights.

London’s heroic firefighters
Firefighters only supposed to fight fire for 4 hours while on duty at any given time were forced by cuts made under the Conservative government to battle the blaze for 12 hours as residents and locals were evacuated to a safe distance by emergency response units. Sadly, 10 fire stations have been closed in London due to budgetary cuts for emergency response units. The London papers have carried the cries of popular voice and are acknowledging the implicit involvement of the austerity measures on response impacts in scenarios such as these, and lauding the heroic efforts of a solo fireman who ran into the raging inferno to save lives. Whatever the ill nature behind the poor redesign, we can take pride in living in a society with high professional emergency response services shown day in and out.

Fridge-freezer fire trail
It should be noted that the implausibility claims as to exploding fridges should be measured by the 2011 towering inferno at the top of Bermondsey Tower. Beko fridge freezers were recalled after a fire burned through the top four floors before firefighters could get it under control. Original claims led investigators to believe the cause was a lightning strike, that ultimately turned toward these Beko models. A faulty defroster timer switch on the appliances and house fires have shown to be linked.

An estimated 500,000 of the affected devices estimated to be present in homes and businesses across the country, many of which in the capital. London Fire Brigade’s Assistant Commissioner For Fire Safety Regulation remarked after the incident: “Any fire can be lethal but the London Fire Brigade is particularly concerned about this because fires involving any sort of fridge freezer develop rapidly and produce an enormous amount of toxic smoke”.

Perhaps having known about these details and the high prevalence of certain Beko models of high risk fridge freezers in blocks like Grenfell gave the perfect opportunity for a deferred opportunity to move in the developers. Ensure high prevalence of sketchy consumer durables in high rise blocks that one wants to acquire and develop, renovate with highly flammable “aesthetic” coating and reduce fire prevention and action gear to an absolute minimum. No hose reels, alarms, detectors or building regulation checks as to fire-proofing of the materials used to refurbish the blocks.

The narrative of a faulty fridge exploding, sending the entire structure up in flames seems implausible at best, and more likely convenient to have already ascertained the cause so soon after the incident occurred. The events as relayed by mainstream media would have it that: A fridge explodes, fragments ignite the window blinds and then the flammable plastic sheeting added by the £10 million upgrades to renovate the Tower catch alight in a blaze and the entire building is momentarily engulfed in flames. The design was such that the cladding was spaced apart from the buildings superstructure, creating a chimney effect, sucking up the flames greedy for oxygen and fuel. Re-watch the videos of the incident unfurling that were not confiscated by authorities on site and one will find the fire starts and works upwards from the outside in, rather than the usual room to room and floor to floor.

A protest with Grenfell in the background // Ph: Wasi Daniju/Flickr

Londoners are still grieving // Ph: Wasi Daniju/ Flickr

Questioning the cost of upgrades to the Tower
I realise we are in 2017 and £10 million may not go very far, but to have no working sprinklers, no working fire alarms, no working fire hose reels, a highly flammable “pretty” exterior and complaints made by the Grenfell Action Group into fire safety all but dismissed is outrageous. It would be remiss to ignore these as merely minor overlooked details and corrupt opportunistic refurbishment providers colluding with their local government tenancy management company. Perhaps the old adage ‘a suit and a smile always cut the ice’, forget the distorting and twisting of fact and fiction blurring the two.

10 million pocketed or corner cut and short changed and into those back pockets. The inquiry may well reveal a paper trail, but perhaps more conveniently a lack of funds as the simple run of the mill excuse to blame austerity once more for the next crisis in town. A convenient closure and manslaughter charges for one or two refurbishment and tenancy workers. No such accusations will be brought to bear against Mr Philip Davies and other filibustering MPs who talked the hind legs off a donkey to prevent the safety motions from reaching the vote.

Where was the basic fire safety? The windows were new, the heating replaced, and the “pretty” plastic exterior refers to the externally mounted insulation. The purpose was to increase aesthetic of the block in an otherwise affluent neighbourhood, alongside improving environmental friendless of Grenfell Tower.

£60,000 quotes for the lift replacements for Grenfell have been thrown about inattentive as to their accuracy. Having consulted lift technician companies that fit these skyscraper blocks out with low specification grade lifts; this figure appears to be by the floor. In addition to which, Grenfell also had new windows and heating installed. Perhaps the costs were closer to the figured billed after all. The works were carried out while the residents remained in situ. In terms of the culprits that should bear the fault of the 12 deaths today, we should look to the cladding specification that was rated as appropriate by the compliance agency subject to building regulations for fire safety – the building is owned by the Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council who have a management agreement with a not-for-profit organisation, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organization (KCTMO) – and their outsourced, opportunistic contractors as to the corner-cutting and cheap materials that went into the cladding. A further culprit may be the MP textbook filibuster Philip Davies.

Philip Davies – Filibuster and friend to rogue landlords?
The Tory MP for Shipley managed to thwart several bills to prevent abuses. However, the “straight-talking Yorkshireman, unafraid of being controversial”, as self-proclaimed in June 2005 on election, fell lamentably short in his claim to be “brief”. He successfully killed off undesirable legislation by long, meandering speeches. Filibustering is Parliamentary for “talking a bill to death” and Davies was king. Legislation to stop rogue landlords evicting tenants asking for basic repairs? Obstructed. Calls to enshrine Government aid budget in law? Attempted thwart.

More notably the instance of preventing backbenches from making mandatory the installation of smoke detectors fitted into rental and council properties, regulate payday lenders and force councils to provide support for disabled. Time in Commons is limited, and bills can be de-railed and not even carried to the vote if enough MPs carry on talking until the time allocated for debate has been used up. The only means whereby our House of Commons can avoid such outlandish scenarios is by 100 MPs voting for closure on the motion in hand – something that may be hard to achieve when most are absent from the House at any given debate.

It has always really been an issue of class in this country. Men over women and children, over the blacks and ethnics. And then further subdivided as would reveal convenient. Cue Grenfell.

Philip Davies and Christopher Chope have talked into the ground legislation intended to protect the poor and marginalised in exploitative landlord hearings. The indifference shown by certain MPs to the errant cost cutting for landlords and non-mandatory attitude to safety protocols for remedial repairs and fire have endangered the vulnerable in London’s highrises. Meanwhile their financiers and the shady refurbishment companies are equally culpable as rogue opportunists.

The only noteworthy incidence where enough MPs have been present at the behest of their constituencies expressed requests for attendance and participation were on international aid commitments and healthcare reforms, wherein supporters of the bills were forced to issue a Whip on their members and muster more than the minimum 100 MP’s to table a closure motion and force the legislation to a vote.

A comparative analysis
One may be forgiven for thinking this sort of underhand practice only takes place in corrupt third world countries. The more shocking and perhaps overlooked details point to the sheer audacity of these actions taking place in 2017 England.

Baldia Town’s 2012 fires in Karachi, Pakistan are now practically forgotten history to the meek cultural memory these days. However, the precedent is all too similarly convenient, compromising lives of factory workers and local residential blocks as collateral damage to raise the profile of the area so opportunistic investors can swoop in. Similarly, “Skid Row” in downtown Los Angeles was famous for its homeless community for the past 50 years, not being evicted as the area is gentrified to make way for luxury serviced apartments like those at Medici near the Financial Quarter catering to high fashion students and investment banking interns.

Warnington Green, closer to home in London, has seen the poor shipped out to reallocated residences in subsidiary periphery towns Oxford and Reading, meanwhile the cleared area leaves prime London residential property potential for multi-million pound flats catering to the foreign investor market. All manner of methods are deployed by the conniving big business developers eager to get a piece of the action. Distraction techniques such as feeble weak handed politics or crisis in this or that seems to strike at the opportune moment it comes to clear an area for redevelopment sans the original residents – usually ‘undesirable’ ethnics, immigrants or marginalised workers. For Britain, many call the race card, however, this came later to divide the poor into subcategories. It has always really been an issue of class in this country. Men over women and children, over the blacks and ethnics. And then further subdivided as would reveal convenient. Cue Grenfell.

The historical context
The Conservative government should not be fully acknowledged as to blame for the high rises initially. Labour built the concrete jungles as a failed social housing programme to cater for the lack of viable residential land and rising population. Eviction from Victorian terraces into concrete skylines – the future was not half bright. Conservative cutbacks and recent prolonged austerity programmes have led to the declining quality standards for these council tenanted builds, among other passed planning permissions on structures and gentrifications.

Confiscation of Evidence
Curiously, the evidence begins to mount. Local bystanders have complained and appealed to the authorities and media that their phones that filmed the fire spreading upwards through the cladding chimney have been confiscated, evidence kept under wraps rather than requested to be sent in. Whether the council covering up their sloppy handiwork in the affair or otherwise, these actions are suspect when they are carried out by members of law enforcement.

The public is demanding greater transparency // Ph: Ron F./ Flickr

Philip Davies has come under scrutiny // Ph: Mark Hakansson/ Flickr

The first-person interviews and reports from local residents appear to have been dismissed or negated on account of incorrect recollection or traumatising events. It seems to gloss over the question of class. Many of the tenants were immigrants and represent a lower class that is deemed undesirable and so unfit for interview to present to the mainstream public eye. Conveniently there were bountiful well-educated expert pundits and police chief commissioners and fire deputies to comment on the blaze. One only need look at the YouTube clips from the incident.

Social cleansing in Kensington and Chelsea appears to take the form of create an incident that allows eviction from the area and rehousing with the tag-on option to regenerate the area to be more socially acceptable for rich elites to reside and invest. One such man who has considerable background influence and is likely poised to benefit is Frank Lowy. He owns Westfields. The mall in Kenya that was attacked was owned by himself, and speculation his security did not pursue threats seriously, but instead raised insurance protection on the centre fell on deaf ears to the cries for ISIL heads. Grenfell Tower is adjacent to Westfield Shopping Centre. Following the money trails to who would benefit from the opportunity and there, concealed among the rubble and ashened concrete, is convenience, if not discrete motive. This may sound more appropriate in downtown Guangzhou evicting the local squatter settlements as the city expands or Russian Oligarchs wanting to demolish old Soviet Union numbered blocks for something a little more upmarket and desirable for their clientele.

Final words
It always seems to bore down to class struggles when it comes to social injustice in the UK. Why it strikes people as surprising when we see ethnic minorities and marginalised working-class voices reeling on live television after they have lost their families or been affected by yet another catastrophe baffles the culturally imbued thinker. Times like these expose stark inequalities in society. The desperate in society would not choose to live in these death traps were there another way or feasible alternative. The council seems just as culpable as the corner-cutting refurbishment company assuring standards and protocol were met, doubly so through ignoring cries of concern as a matter of gross negligence on the RBKC part. A preventable disaster that highlights the social and ethnic cleansing by class organisation, disregarding the rights of communities that are deemed undesirable, and so should be subject to regeneration to remove their blight on the property that surrounds them.

I rest my case that manslaughter is the charge for the filibustering MPs deliberately lining their pockets by big time developers and landlords, through to the lack of concern and contempt shown by the council and their tenant management company, with the worst charges going to those who promise safety with their product in receiving £10 million to make alterations, without either the means or willingness to carry out the renovations to a scrutinised standard.

Economic marginalisation and segregation at its finest. As Desmond Tutu once espoused action in lieu of inaction and complacency in the face of wrongdoing: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” We too should demand answers. If these are not satisfactory, then we should demand change. TMM

0 Comments

Financial woes: the student loan debacle

5/22/2017

0 Comments

A protester in Melbourne, Australia // Ph: Eloise Acuna/ Flickr

Analysis Tuition fees were first introduced at British universities in 1998 and since then the discussion over how students can pay for them has gained prominence. We discuss the financial conundrums of today's student loans

Richard Bolton
Chief Writer

While many look back fondly on their days at school or university – sports competitions, days out, free time and friends – it is all too easy to overlook the implications of simply jumping on the bandwagon all your peers are and rushing into higher education. Before you take out that student loan for university it may well pay dividends down the line to assess how much of your future income will be eaten away by interest repayments without putting a dent on the initial loan toward tuition fees or maintenance loans. Undertaking a student loan seems like just the next piece in the puzzle as you progress from school to higher education. However, despite the euphoria and trepidation that comes with an unfamiliar environment and all the challenges that may bring, there may be one further consideration often overlooked – the repayments impact on future financial security in undertaking a student loan.

Historical perspectives
The British Government officially outsourced student financing to the private Student Loans Company in 2015, meaning any repayments of loans go directly to this company and not the government. The government are simply the guarantor, and therein lies the issue. Shifting the current roster of students enrolled and incoming from a public asset into private hands means that the money we thought we were borrowing from the Government to pay for our ‘public’ university education flows straight to private financial institutions.

Hindsight, freedom of information requests and parliamentary records indicated this was years in the making, albeit side-tracked in PMQ’s, debates and interviews. The failure of the Liberal Democrats while in coalition government to demand the concessions of David Cameron to prevent tuition fees rising from £3000 to £9000 was pegged on Nick Clegg – even though the media slant forced him into a Catch-22.

As David Cameron reiterated time and again “we are all in this together”, however, there is a clear divide between those who have the means to pay higher education upfront and those who must bear the burden of debt. The evidence once more sheds light on that Orwellian vision “some are more equal than others”.

Now, every student loan that was backed by the UK government, including the pre-1998 loan book, is in private hands and tied to debt collection companies and the Student Loans Company's specified interest rates. A confidential report fell into the hands of the Guardian and False Economy which was a research plan of how the coalition government of Tories and Lib Dems could privatise the pre-2012 loan book.

Politicians have and continue to dismiss the sale as merely another step in the process of bringing down the national debt with “austerity” to which “no one is immune”. Alongside other public assets which have undergone privatisation, like the Royal Mail and NHS, the student loan book will undoubtedly prove to hold adverse long-term consequences.

The Retail Price Index is predicted to reach 3.6% by first quarter of 2018, rising from 3.1% recorded from this March which translates into the bench for September on. The student loans company currently charges RPI + 3% on a sliding scale of income, the rate of interest accumulating on loans will be at 6.1% by September and 6.6% by Q1 2018, all other things being equal, such as the SLC not deciding to raise the repayment rates beyond 3% over and above the RPI. On previously undertaken loans this will remain capped, for instance 1.25 per cent on those before 2012.

There is a clear divide between those who have the means to pay higher education upfront and those who must bear the burden of debt.

What is all the fuss about?
The interest accumulated on £31,000 in the year after leaving Higher Education will be £2046. The loan repayments set at 9% of your salary will mean that a graduate needs to earn £42,000 to cover the interest gathered on the tuition fees alone. This is not including maintenance loans for accommodation, books and food. The reduction in fees will be £24 for a high-flying graduate who comes straight into the workplace at £42,000. Given the average median income in the whole UK lies at £27,000 this year. Ouch.

The burden of the debt may not be fully appreciable in the short-term context, but added up over the 30 years for both partners in a couple earning the median salary of £27,000 each, whom both took out only tuition fees for a standard 3 year degree at £9000 per annum will end up paying back together given the anticipated rates for 2018 onwards in the region of £43,000 at current rates over 30 years, holding salaries relatively constant. After 30 years from leaving study, the loan is cleared for them.

Meanwhile, however, the rate of interest repayments will have gathered a further £180,000 over the full period, even discounting the £43,000 'repaid'. Although these figures retain their accuracy under expectations the prevailing UK median wage rate remains stagnant throughout the period, the relative proportions of repayments will remain constant as wages track, yet lag behind, RPI + 3%. This means that the couple will expect to reduce the £180,000 with higher payments, yet still have a large debt after 30 years.

The Office for National Statistics tells us the median was £8,565 in 1987, and stands at £27,000 today, a rise of 215 per cent. Were the income to rise over the next 30 years for a newly graduating student, it would stand at £58,050 in 2047. (Yet, the likelihood of wage inflation to keep pace with the rate of CPI is debatable. One only need compare the next 30 years with the former as having been one of the greatest in raising the living standards of the general population with innovation and inventions changing the way we live and interact). This leaves the relevance of wage inflation largely superfluous as the repayments remain at 9% p.a. and the rate of interest accumulation at RPI + 3% rendering higher repayments tied to median incomes rising will still dwindle below the rate of interest. Therefore, the overall arrears are not being depleted as students had been led to believe when undertaking the commitment.

Implications of the 30-year cap
The current cap of 30 years from graduation a student is obliged to continue paying off their student loan has changeable terms written into the contracts. This leaves graduates as potentially vulnerable to coming under commitment to pay off their loans until they retire.

Student Loans are not currently defaulting here in the UK at the concerning levels in the USA since we have only recently witnessed the significant rises in tuition fees, stagnations in real household income, and are about to feel the pinch from interest rate hikes in the wake of Brexit and also to accommodate for the Eastern and Southern European students higher default rates due to lower incomes in those countries. Bearing these factors into consideration mean that this isn't the kind of issue that is likely to cause a new recession or a fiscal crisis for the Bank of England to tackle in the near future. But the economic impacts - such as first home ownership age is ever rising, worse credit ratings carving slices off the middle classes alongside delaying marriage and having children later in life - are already being felt, and they could persist for some years.

"Playing around with education"? // Ph: Jake Rustenhoven/ Flickr

A nursing student attends a protest // Ph: Manu le Manu/ Flickr

Many students will spend most of their lives paying off a student loan for an education that should be free, and a certificate that gets outdated within a few years. Top employers will simply just opt for hiring another student who is a fresh rosy faced new graduate. Social mobility in the UK has decreased, as reflected in recent statistics of university attendance. 49 per cent of the poorest will apply to university and get in as opposed to 77 per cent of the richest. Mapped against the strong underlying link between a lack of social mobility and inequality, only Portugal is more unequal and bearing lower social mobility in the developed world.

In addition to which, the generational trends between sons expected to earn similar Real Wages as their fathers before them. The Rowntree Foundation has found that the top 1% of society earn more now than the rest as a slice of national income shared than any time since 1930. Therefore, everyone who attends university today who does not have parents or grandparents to pay their tuition fees and maintenance, faces a disadvantage through higher fees and costs. Atop of which, these students are unlikely to be in the 1 per cent of top earning families in the country, and so, in all likelihood earn a smaller slice of the national income pie than their parents, and their parents before them in real terms. An intergenerational crisis is unfurling, with the high rates of attendance on courses which charge unserviceable fees not justifying the investment with guarantees of a return in income or employment afterwards and falling or stagnant real wages since the 1980s reflectively in the UK. Ultimately, the problem is compounding in preventing social mobility between classes in the majority of cases. Naturally, there are exceptions based on affirmative action, but these are few and far in between when one considers the holistic circumstances.

These issues exist alongside the burden of taxes rising proportional to their incomes and high costs of living for renting in cities such as London where they may venture in order to find the best paid jobs. Added to this, the dilemma that poor credit of not being able take out other loans if the student debt is not currently being amortized, renders them barred from taking out serviceable interest loans for cars, homes or even to start up small businesses. As Daniel Townsend, a satirical politico commentary from Nova Scotia commented, “Students will be trapped in a prison of financial enslavement”.

Is there a choice?
While many of us, students, signed our lives away on forms with small print in T&C’s from SLC to borrow money from the government to study at university, we arguably did provide permission for changeable loan terms. Thereby, we have unwittingly become bound in by codified law to continue paying, and we had the “option” to not sign the form each year of university. Ergo, therein lies the Catch-22 in that had we not signed the form, most of us would not have been able to afford to attend. Accordingly, there was not a fair choice to be made.

Worse for the taxpayer
The double whammy becomes apparent when you bear into consideration financial ‘synthetic hedges’, whereby the UK taxpayer is the effective guarantor for all loans the government so chooses to administer – including EU nationals hailing from countries with decidedly lower average incomes than domestically. The chances of repayment, including severance of funding ties and association a hard-Brexit may leave, will render chasing down defaulters unfeasible. Meanwhile, the private SLC leapt at the ‘sweeteners’ offered to potential buyers.

Government mismanagement is rife
The previous pre-1998 loan book for student loans was worth £900 million and yet ended up in the hands of private debt collectors for a miserly £160 million. The money miss-management and conservative schemes are wreaking havoc with the long-term finances of this nation.

An intergenerational crisis is unfurling, with the high rates of attendance on courses which charge unserviceable fees not justifying the investment with guarantees of a return in income or employment afterwards.

Student loans have been a fixed income return for the government as a public asset. And yet, the underlying concerns over the short-term privatisation were likened to Gordon Brown, while Chancellor of the Exchequer, selling off swathes of the UK’s gold bullion reserves undercutting true market prices, costing the UK taxpayer £7 billion. The British government has sacrificed future income in selling off our loans, comparable to the squandered long term investment potential Britain’s gold bullion reserves once held.

While selling off public assets to the highest bidder in the private arena constitutes part of a wider political agenda, it sadly reflects political postulating gone awry. Strategies to reduce public sector net borrowing and to improve the national debt appears superficially to align with austerity measures. The reality is higher future taxes on the general population and a decline in living standards from curtailed public services. All the while, our student debt climbs ever higher, ruling out the possibility for many parents to help supplement their children’s higher education.

Education as a right, rather than a privilege
An era of austerity should not have to mean fees triple, university workers’ job conditions are worse, or we should accept lower pay and higher taxes. Student bodies have led campaigns up and down the country since 2012 to protest the moves. However, the lack of transparency in state affairs has left the organisational capacity hindered by accusatorial stances against “militant” students. The leaked report that outlined all plans to privatise, raise tuition fees and sell off old loan rosters had 90% blacked out when national papers got hold of it. Ultimately, the citizens have little accurate or detailed information to hand in the process of SLC’s changes to new contracts that will inevitably affect us all. It all sounds terribly undemocratic.

Meanwhile, MPs have often condemned student campaigns against fee hikes and interest rate changes, however, the lack of transparency and diversion of talking agendas have all but smothered the real student loan issue.

Financial security deterring students from applying
Universities increase their course numbers and accommodation by the year, anticipating an upward trend that they aspire to capture in competing for the potential students with other comparable universities. The hike from £3000 to £9000 led to a reduction in applicants and subsequently uptake rates. However, expectations from peer pressure, school trends and reputation to grade inflation have cornered many young people today to reinforce the notion that the only way to a stable career and financial security is by higher education.

Olivia Arigho Stiles remarked the government's move to privatise as "imposing a retrospective hike in tuition fees, further eroding the access and attractiveness of higher education to less advantaged students” Further hikes looming on the horizon alongside increases in repayments threaten to deter applicants who are already unsure of their financial security through higher education and beyond in a crowded, competitive job market and dissuasively outpricing housing market.

The bottom line
In the UK, we live in a democracy. Our elected politicians should be answerable to their constituents as our represented voice of the people. Where decisions are made by politicians in the pockets of lobbyists and private companies taking them out for lunches and dinners in between sessions of Parliament, leading to alternate revolving door and regulatory capture interests having a disproportionate say in policymaking, this constitutes a break from this expectation.

Our voices have been ignored. Democracy is not made up of important social decisions that take place outside of the public sphere, beyond our knowledge and our control. This is not Turkey with her curtailed civil liberties and ban on Wikipedia. Concurrently, if politicians truly wish to win us over on the matters that count and affect many lives in this country in the run up to June 8th, they must include us in the conversation. TMM

0 Comments

<<Previous

Search the site...

Monarch Airlines: Competition in a fatal game

WE'RE BACK!

A long way home

Grenfell Tower: a question of class?

Financial woes: the student loan debacle

features by

The manchester magazine