A few very quick words on this, as I have had this conversation many times and it seems sensible to pin it down. Do not expect subtlety – this isn’t an essay.
Hysteria over a Greek default, restructuring, haircut – whatever you want to call it – is in part manufactured and in part stoked by ignorant and sensationalist media. We’ve been told several times over the last few years that the world is about to stop turning. It hasn’t and won’t. Such alarmism is deeply unhelpful and entirely counterproductive. We really shouldn’t feed that particular beast.
Debt default, restructuring or partial write-off (a haircut) is, of course, not a good thing. But neither is it the end of the world. It is completely part and parcel of lending. It is explicitly expressed in the rate of interest. The reason entity A can borrow at 5% while entity B can only borrow at 20% is because B is seen as much more likely to default than A. That is how it works. So, let us not act like it is some unprecedented act of economic vandalism. It isn’t.
Then there is the issue of ‘moral hazard’ – the idea that if entities can take risks with no consequences this would act as incentive for more reckless risk-taking. This is a massive red herring in the Greek context. The idea that anybody might look at what has happened in Greece in the last six years and think “yeah, I’ll have me a bit of that, let’s borrow lots of money” is manifestly ludicrous. The consequences have been dramatic. Greece is, if anything, a cautionary tale on unbalanced budgets, however the remaining debt payments are now handled.
So, let’s keep a cool head and not propagate tabloid-style analysis full of chewing-gum terms, simply because it sounds good and gives a boring moment in our lives a little frisson.
Everyone is sagely offering reasons why this or that party can’t or shouldn’t participate, as if we have done these debates for centuries, always exactly so. We haven’t. We only had the first ones in 2010 and the political landscape has changed significantly. So, since we are making it up as we go along, why not make it inclusive, diverse and interesting?
At the very least we must keep the criteria internally consistent. There is not a formula which could yield the result of Conservatives and Labour in three debates, LibDems in two and Ukip in one, with all others excluded. Not a single logical formula. I have read both the watchdog’s recommendation and the BBC’s leaked draft coverage proposal. They are, frankly, bunkum.
If we go by the last election result, Ukip shouldn’t be included. If we go by number of MPs several other parties should be. The DUP has the fourth highest number of MPs currently. If we go by poll popularity, the LibDems should not be anywhere near two debates and the SNP certainly should be. If we go by the last European Elections, then the Greens should be in. The current composition smacks of dodgy, reverse-engineered sophistry, used to justify a result already predetermined by some grey man who evidently knows what we need to see.
On top of everything, this questionable methodology has ended up excluding all female, all non-English leaders. As a matter of fact, the debates will take place entirely among white, straight, rich, well-off, middle-aged, English blokes, from a tiny area in the South East.
Nor do I have any time for this “not a national party” nonsense. No parties stand in every constituency in the UK – none. We assume that a party which only stands in one nation has nothing to offer to the political debate. We spent the last year being told how valuable the UK’s constituent nations are and how they make us the great nation that we are (whatever, but different blog). What if one of the major parties has to enter a coalition with Plaid and/or SNP after the election – would it not be useful for the electorate to get to know them?
There are no hard and fast rules. We are making this up and the conventions we establish are important. Let’s be inclusive in our national debate. Let’s not complain about stale politics, then do our very best to keep it stale.
What is tolerance? It seems to be something we all think we have amply in general, but rarely when it comes to specifics. We all like to think we are tolerant, but happily confess we can’t stand X, Y and Z. “We pride ourselves in being a tolerant society”, dither faceless leaders, while introducing legislation to victimise this group or that.
It is a quality I hear much about, in Britain especially. But I have to tell you, social awkwardness so crippling it ensures aggression is repressed is not tolerance. Bitching about each other quietly, in an interminable private internal monologue, isn’t tolerance. It’s just dysfunctional bigotry.
In any case, what sort of goal is “tolerance”? I don’t want to live in a society where we merely tolerate each other. What a mean little abstract noun to aim for. Understanding, compassion, support , love, grace, generosity – apparently, they’re just too lofty. The most we can hope to leave behind now is a sort of passive-aggression, masquerading as forbearance. My generation’s legacy.
Can we hurry up with Humanity v.2.0 please?
Today, I was reminded of the work of Jason deCaires Taylor, which I find deeply touching. He makes sculptures – really quite beautiful, technically accomplished and thought-provoking – which he then plunges into the sea and plants with living coral. He allows the work to grow and photographs it. The results are quite haunting.
Jason deCaires Taylor (born 12 August 1974) is an English sculptor specialising in the creation of contemporary underwater sculptures which over time develop into artificial coral reefs. Taylor integrates his skills as a conservationist, underwater photographer and scuba diving instructor to produce unique installations that encourage the habitation and growth of corals and marine life. His early work includes Vicissitudes, Grace Reef, The Lost Correspondent and The Unstill Life. All are located in the world´s first public underwater sculpture park in Molinere Bay, Grenada, West Indies, commissioned in 2006. More recently his most ambitious project to date is the creation of the world’s largest underwater sculpture museum, MUSA, situated off the coast of Cancun and the western coast of Isla Mujeres. Works in the museum include Hombre en llamas (Man on Fire ), La Jardinera de la Esperanza (The Gardener of Hope), El Colecionista de los Sueños (The Dream Collector) and La Evolución Silenciosa (The Silent Evolution).
His website can be found here.
Many commentators have chosen this moment to be very brave and intellectually honest about Islam. But if we are going to be brave and intellectually honest, especially in the aftermath of events this incendiary, then let’s be brave and honest about the whole thing, including our relationships with each other.
The reason criticism of Islam as a religion is often branded as racist is that it often is. Not always, but often.
Of course, if you don’t experience this prejudice in your everyday life, it is easy to be blind to it; to deny that people use the mantle of legitimate criticism of a religion to justify their own secret, ugly prejudice that is bundled up within the concept. But I suspect, privately, unfashionably, we might all acknowledge the possibility that there are many more people than we would ever admit, who make assumptions about, distrust or even hate brownish looking, foreign sorts.
And so, in the same way that we demand of Imams that they take particular care, that they all come out and condemn the attacks – because there is a provably significant percentage of idiots who need such unequivocal guidance, we must demand the same of intellectuals with a platform. We cannot recognise the power of others’ words, but not ours. Confirmation bias is a wondrous thing in the context of a digital age.
I know I’ll be jumped on for saying this, because it seems that to ask for calm moderation is tantamount to terrorist apologism right now, but we have a choice to either amplify the terror being spread or douse it with an ice cold bucket of calm logic. I think some comments, both by politicians and in the press, have not quite stayed the right side of that equation. They weave rather tenuous evidence into an “all people who are Muslim are an imminent threat to you” narrative.
If a panic is created about Muslims in general it is, in my view, entirely foreseeable that people who look Muslim, regardless of their actual status, ethnicity or views, will bear the brunt. People can shrug their shoulders and go “that’s not what I intended” all they want, but that is what will happen. We know this. In this context – and knowing this to be the case – one can choose whether to fan the flames or not.
I’m not talking about not telling the truth (whatever your truth is). I’m talking about not sensationalising that truth. Measure every single word with care. And I’m not asking this because of some vague wooly pinko fear that people’s feelings might be hurt. I am talking about real harm. People do terrible things when they’re scared.
So, next time someone rolls down their car window and shouts at me “take your sharia law and fuck off home” (even though I am a Greek atheist, but when have facts made a difference to the terrified?) I shan’t be thankful for the sort of public comment that you think makes you terribly brave and edgy. When people who fled these regimes are spat at in the street, they won’t praise you for your scattergun intellectual honesty.
Hysteria is the black teat from which forces of darkness suckle nourishment. Panic is the terrorists’ aim. The sort of hysteria and panic that makes the police put seven bullets in a Brazilian’s head on a crowded train, just because his features were swarthy. Hysteria and panic is what we must absolutely avoid.