First Impressions of Africa

I arrived at Kokota International Airport in Accra, Ghana, at midnight on Monday. Having expected to be decimated by a wave of heat, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the temperature is actually not too hot. It is more like very warm British summer days without suffocating humidity.

One feature of Ghana at this time of year, however, is extreme dustiness. This is apparently caused by winds blowing down from the Sahara and makes breathing/visibility less easy than usual. Where I am staying in greater Accra is particularly dusty. My black shoes I intended to wear for work have already turned brown.

So far I have enjoyed my stay in this fascinating country. The people are almost universally friendly with most truly taken aback by the presence of white people in their neighbourhoods. Things here are pretty laid back. Most people do not bat an eyelid about doing stuff quickly or on time. This pace of life suits me quite well!

Earlier in the week I drafted some agreements relating to a new school that is being constructed in rural Ghana. A couple of days ago we were able to go and visit the school so it was nice to see what we were working towards. In the last couple of days I have started work at the Human Rights Commission, working largely on family based mediation, which I intend to write about later in my stay.

Assuming I survive the unbelievably dangerous road system and do not contract any tropical diseases, I will be posting weekly updates on my stay in Ghana. I look forward to sharing some of the weird and wonderful experiences I will be exposed to!

My African Adventure

On Monday I will be leaving the frosty wasteland of England and jetting off for the sunnier climes of Africa. Starting next week, I will be volunteering as an intern with Voluntary Partnerships for West Africa (VPWA) in Ghana, working on human rights and justice projects.

I'm not entirely clear on exactly what I will be doing in Ghana but I'm sure I will find out soon enough. My impression is that I will be assisting communities in dispute resolution through mediation/informal litigation and also providing advice to local people about their legal rights. I am supposed to do that knowing next to nothing about Ghanaian law and Ghana in general, of course. Personally I feel sorry for the poor souls I will be 'helping' but I'm sure it will be a positive experience for all involved!

I'll be working with VPWA for two months before flying down to South Africa and spending a few days in the beautiful city of Cape Town. After that I'm picking up a tour of southern Africa, visiting the Namibian desert, the Okavango delta in Botswana, and then finishing off at the majestic Victoria falls in Zambia.

Throughout my trip I will be blogging my experiences - highs and lows- of living and working in Africa. In addition, I'll be giving my views on Africa in general and hopefully recording some of the life changing lessons I'm sure to learn while spending time in this beautiful continent.

Playing the Race Card

This week's conviction and sentencing of two men for the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993 should have been a proud moment for all of those people who have campaigned for justice for almost twenty years. Lawrence's parents, Doreen and Neville, expressed relief that their son's killers had been held to account after a long and flawed police investigation. Many people would be forgiven for thinking that this event represented a watershed point in UK race relations.

Any benefits this case could have produced, however, were dampened by the comments of politicians and writers in the media following the trial. The most notorious of those has been the remarks of Labour MP Diane Abbott, who discouraged a black journalist from questioning the merits of referring to 'one black community'. Abbott said that this 'divide and rule' tactic was something white people love to employ and that black thinkers should not engage with this approach.

For this she has been roundly criticised. Labour leader Ed Miliband forced her to issue an immediate apology for issuing an 'unacceptable' comment. Deputy PM Nick Clegg called her remark 'stupid and crass'. Unsurprisingly, Abbott's political opponents jumped at the chance to brand her a racist and to call for her sacking.

The interesting thing about race is how it makes people forget their principles. Despite general criticism in the mainstream media, Abbott was largely defended by writers on the left. Feminist commentator Laurie Penny, for example, argued that us ordinary folk had failed to understand that Abbott was reflecting on a history of structural racial politics. Samira Shackle of the New Statesman claimed that Abbott was not intending to make a general comment about the attitudes of white people as a whole.

Really? The comment 'white people love playing divide and rule' looks pretty general to me. An intelligent MP, she could have said 'racist white people' or 'oppressive white people'. She didn't. She said 'white people' meaning precisely that: white people in general.

Granted, I may not have an in depth understanding of structural racial politics, but that seems like racism to me.

It's not just the Diane Abbott row that has exposed hypocrisy on the part of certain commentators. Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre was quick to use the Lawrence verdicts as a vindication of the actions of his newspaper back in 1997 when it ran a headline accusing a number of men, including Dobson and Norris, of Lawrence's murder. These men had not yet been convicted of any crime relating to Stephen Lawrence and were therefore innocent in the eyes of the law.

Despite this flagrant perversion of the ordinary course of justice, liberal commentators took the chance to forgive the Daily Mail, an otherwise right-wing, xenophobic publication, and support the headline claiming innocent men were murderers. Instead of reserving judgment until the outcome of a fair trial, these commentators just assumed these aggressive, racially intolerant, working class white men were responsible for the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Human rights barrister (someone who should understand the presumption of innocence better than anyone) David Malone, posted a link on twitter to a post claiming the headline amounted to brave and bold journalism. I doubt he would have reacted in the same way had the Mail accused a number of young Muslim men of acts of terrorism. Would that be bold and brave journalism? Or would it be an example of feral media distorting the correct legal process?

I was delighted for the Lawrence family when I saw that these disgusting individuals had been brought to justice for a cowardly, racist murder of an innocent young man. I was equally pleased to read commentary from the likes of Trevor Phillips, someone who has done more for race relations in this country than most, claiming that the UK was now a better, more tolerant country in which to live. The hypocrisy of certain people on this issue though is further evidence that we are still some way from being able to have a sensible discussion on race.

The Case for a Living Wage

Today the Chancellor outlined just how much of an economic mess this country is in. According to George Osborne, the UK economy is now unlikely to grow beyond 1% in either this year or the next. Various factors are trotted out to explain our decline; so far Osborne has blamed snow, strikes, riots, Europeans, and even Kate and Wills.

As for answers, most of the Government's rhetoric has been directed towards 'deregulation' and 'easing burdens on businesses'. Examples of this include Vince Cable's plan to make it easier to sack people and Chris Grayling's intention to scrap the vast majority of EU health and safety provisions. Welfare reforms designed to encourage people back into work have very much taken on the 'stick' rather than the 'carrot' tone with punitive new measures for job seekers who refuse work.

The problems in the British economy mainly derive from an absence of key demand. Growth is stagnant because people are not working and therefore not spending. Any plan to change our economic fortunes must be geared towards motivating the human capital largely wasted at the current time.

One way of doing this is to introduce what has been called the 'living wage'. Put simply, this involves raising the national minimum wage rate to £7.20 (£8.30 in London) from its current level at £6.08. The living wage is designed to enable every worker in the country to provide their family with the essentials of life. Currently, the scheme is voluntary and there are a number of employers that adhere to the campaign by paying their workers the higher rate. If it was incorporated into law, however, the economic benefits would be significant.

Firstly, it would serve as genuine encouragement for those on welfare to find work. Many young people in particular fail to see the incentive in finding a full time job that promises a weekly income of £200 at the most. Instead, they are content to spend their time on benefits at a huge cost to the taxpayer or, failing that, many turn to a life of crime to supplement their earnings. While tough welfare reform to prevent abuse is also required, the introduction of a living wage would motivate those in desperate situations to turn their lives around.

Secondly, it would improve levels of productivity in the economy. If employees know that they are receiving a decent wage they will be more likely to work hard to keep their jobs. In addition, they would be more likely to actively seek out promotion opportunities in order to rise further up the income scale. Improving productivity in the workforce is hugely important for the UK given the fierce competition from highly efficient economies, such as China and India.

Employers who have brought in the living wage have reported a 25% drop in absenteeism and significant gains in terms of work quality as a result of moving to the higher rate. Rather than making employers more cautious before taking on new staff, therefore, there is every chance that the living wage could actually boost recruitment.

David Cameron and other senior Conservatives like Boris Johnson have voiced support for the living wage campaign. If they truly believe in the merits of this cause, however, they will pledge to enact the living wage as law in order to get our economy moving again. Doing so would send out a positive message that trust and optimism will get us out of this mess, rather than the fear and division current policies are producing. Time will tell if the Government has the bravery to face down its demons and do what is right for our country.

We Must Not Let Eurosceptics Ruin Our Future

It's decidedly unfashionable these days to say anything positive about the European Union. Received wisdom is that European integration has become a 'failed project', an obsession of the political class enjoyed at the expense of ordinary people in the UK. The recent problems in the Eurozone have served to add fuel to the fire with any prospect of the UK joining the single currency howled at with derision by almost all mainstream commentators.

While only one national newspaper, the Daily Express, advocates outright withdrawal, it surely cannot be long before all centre-right media clambers onto the bandwagon. British politics has become hugely Eurosceptic in recent years. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is set to replace the pro-european Liberal Democrats as the third largest party at election time. This in turn has shifted the centre-ground further towards the Eurosceptic cause. Whearas the Conservative Party was previously divided on the issue of Europe, with fierce battles between the likes of Ken Clarke and John Redwood, these days Tory backbenchers and activists are almost exclusively hostile to all things European. The debate now within the party is how to go about distancing the UK from the EU, not whether this is a desirable objective.

There is no doubt that Europe faces challenges and needs reform. The aysemmetric development it has undertaken since the advent of the Euro was always going to create problems. Economies in southern Europe, such as Greece and Italy, are fundamentally different from Germany and France and require contrasting monetary policies in the abscence of fiscal harmonisation. As George Osborne has pointed out, it is a matter of 'remorseless logic' that the only solution to the Eurozone crisis is full fiscal integration (without the UK, of course).

This should not, however, obscure the cold hard reality that the UK needs Europe. Eurosceptics like Nigel Farage & Co simply have no idea of the modern world in which the UK has to exist. For them, it is still 1910 and the British Empire serves to protect our economic and military hegemony across the planet. We do not need help from a bunch of lazy, uncivilised countries on the continent.

The fact is that Britannia no longer rules the waves. China, India, Brazil, and Russia now rule the waves. The only possible way in which we can survive in this new world is by co-operating with our nearest neighbours on a more integrated basis. A Chinese trade delegation would not give much weight to a British representative claiming to represent a mere 60 million people. If that represenative spoke for 500 million European citizens, however, he may start listening.

So what does the EU need to do now? It must re-connect its leaders with the people and convince them of the merits of integration. One biproduct of economic downturns throughout the ages is nationalism. Only by making the argument that trade and co-operation promote growth and jobs will European leaders begin to really sell Europe. It must also address the continuing issue of the democratic deficit. The time has come for direct elections for the European President and the Commissioners. This will go someway towards ameliorating the sense of it all being a bit of a 'stitch up' by a bunch of unaccountable technocrats.

What cannot happen is for national leaders to turn their backs on Europe for good. It would be a fundamental mistake for politicians to retreat into a nationalistic comfort zone and indulge the false claims of Eurosceptics that we are 'better off out'. After all, the loser will not be the mandarins in Brussels, it will be the British people.

Ferries, Fredalos and Flying Boots: How Harsh Should We Treat Sportsmen?

It goes without saying that England sports fans are used to disappointment. Year after year we endure frustrated expectations and, more often than not, outright embarrassment. The latest such episode was the failure of the England rugby team in the World Cup.

England were dumped out by a fairly average French side after much of the damage was done in the first half when 'Les Blues' savaged our defence. Throughout the tournament, England had struggled to string any kind of form together so it was little surprise when we collapsed to our inevitable defeat. Perhaps naturally, therefore, the headlines were dominated by off the field antics.

Our campaign in New Zealand was more akin to a club rugby tour than a professional, determined attempt to win a major international sporting event. The players were frequently spotted getting wasted in local bars in between matches. Mike Tindall, the England captain and member of the royal family, was photographed appearing to cheat on his new wife in the early hours of one morning. Surely the most notorious incident, however, came after our collapse against France when centre Manu Tuilagi was reported to have jumped off a ferry in Aukland harbour.

England coach Martin Johnson attempted to defend these antics by claiming to treat the players as 'adults'. In his view, professional sportsmen should be given the freedom to enjoy themselves on tour and to take responsibility for their own performance. If this includes binge drinking, fooling around in bars, and midnight swimming, then so be it.

Fabio Capello attracted a great deal of criticism (from me included) for the way he conducted his disciplinarian, military approach to the England football team's campaign during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. On one hand, it surely cannot be helpful to induce a state of fear into players before they take the field. Nerves stifle creativity and inhibit any kind of relaxation on the pitch. On the other hand, there is something to be said for treating a professional expedition as just that, rather than as a glorified piss-up where players are free to do as they please.

Of course, the ideal situation would be one where the players themselves recognise the importance of representing their country. An excellent example of this can be found in the current England cricket team, where coach Andy Flower and captain Andrew Strauss have created an atmosphere of constant professionalism and high standards. This is a far cry from England teams of old, which would include frequent day trips to vineyards (David Gower) and moonlit pedalo voyages (Andrew Flintoff). Today's England side recognise the importance of fitness, quality, and conducting themselves properly off the field. It is no coincidence that under Flower and Strauss they have become the world's number one side.

The Foolishness of Interfering With the Family

Last week I lambasted commentators on the left for blaming the Government's economic policy for the senseless destruction seen in what is now being referred to as the 'England riots'. Shortly after writing that piece, however, I felt I had unfairly singled out the lefties for criticism. Many of those at the other end of the political spectrum have also come out with bonkers theories about the causes of the riots.

One such theory, repeated almost as if it were gospel by those on the right, is that a major factor in leading to the violence and looting was the failure of the last Labour Government to properly instil 'family values' in society.

Peter Oborne, for example, writing in the Telegraph, railed against the decay of family values under Blair and Brown:

Most disturbing of all was New Labour’s teaching on the family. Behind much of the outrage of the past few days lies the absent father, and the collapse of traditional marriage. Young children, boys in particular, need male role models. If they cannot find such figures at home, they will look elsewhere. Horrifically, this means joining the gangs that caused such mayhem and destruction.

He was joined by Daily Mail columnist, Melanie Phillips, who loves a good old moral panic even at the best of times:

When Labour came to power in 1997, it set about systematically destroying not just the traditional family but the very idea that married parents were better for children than any other arrangement.

So apparently, it is Tony Blair and the Labour party who are responsible for the destruction of families and the 'feral youth' roaming our streets.

The sheer ridiculousness of these comments is not immediately apparent. It is true that there are more households with fatherless families than ever before. It is equally true that there is a disproportionate number of young people in the criminal justice system who come from such families. To imply that the Government is somehow responsible for this, however, is absolute, unbelievable nonsense.

Oborne and Phillips seem to imply that there was a Minister in Whitehall, who for 13 years was charged with monitoring the daily routines of Britain's families. If Mr and Mrs Smith in Coventry had a row, this was obviously a failing on the part of the Labour Government to properly buttress the married, two parent family. Whenever a father deserted his pregnant partner, this was a clear and unforgivable error that had been perpetrated by Labour party officials. Of course it was nothing at all to do with that particular couple, who for any number of reasons, had separated. The fault had to lie with Labour.

Much is said of the abolition of the married couples' tax allowance. It is argued that by making it more financially viable for single parents to live on their own, Labour, in Phillips' words set out to 'destroy the traditional nuclear family'. What a load of rubbish. Only a person with a warped sense of the realities of life could suggest that a tax break would have any impact on a family's choices. If a father loves a mother, he will stay with her. That is true whether or not he receives favourable treatment in the tax system.

The Government simply cannot influence what goes on in the homes of its citizens. To suggest otherwise represents a Stalinist imposition of rules and regulations totally alien to a liberal democracy. It is a particularly curious angle for those on the right to take, given their hostility towards government when it tries to introduce basic controls like the minimum wage and maternity rights.

Even if, as in the disturbed minds of Oborne and Phillips, the Government had absolute influence over the choices of people in adult relationships, preserving the 'traditional nuclear family' might not always have the desired effect. Huge numbers of successful and prosperous individuals now come from one parent households. It is frankly insulting to those people to suggest that the Government ought to have prevented their parents from separating. Coercing fathers - financially or otherwise - into staying with their partners against their will may not produce the happiest children.

No, the cause of the riots was not the decline of two parent households under Labour, or the deficit reduction programme under the coalition. Nor was it immigration (an odd argument to make in light of the amazing unity shown by different communities across the country), police brutality (I am certain most of those seen looting foot locker did not know the man shot in Tottenham), or our 'celebrity culture' (the rioters only seemed to idolise themselves). When all is said and done it was nothing more than opportunistic crime committed by those who made a rational decision to take that course of action. So please stop the moralising.