France: a protest against Roma expulsion

The summer began with a tough move from French president Nicolas Sarkozy; the government announced and put in place a controversial plan that envisaged the expulsion of the Roma illegally present in the country. Many non-authorised camps have since been closed down and their inhabitants offered 300€ plus 100€ for each child if they agree to get on a plane back to the countries they arrived from, mainly Romania and Bulgaria.

Many in France see Roma communities as a ‘cradle of crime’, with involvement in illegal activities, such as theft and prostitution. The only answer to the problem, according to the French government, is the expatriation of these communities. In July, when French police shot two young Roma in Grenoble and Saint Aignan, groups of local Roma responded with riots and violence.

The policy has been harshly criticised by human rights organisations and a large group of European Parliament members. According to French law, a member of the Roma population acquires the right to settle in the country only if he or she manages to find a job within three months from his or her arrival in the country. This specific law, however, is interpreted as discriminatory against the Roma community, since as European citizens, they should be entitled to move freely across the member countries of the EU. In their countries of origin, the Roma already face a struggle with unemployment, racism, and social and political exclusion.

The Romani as an ethnic group originated in medieval India. It is likely that they had to leave the country following the defeat of their army by the sultan of the kingdom of Ghazna. Since then they have endured slavery and marginalisation at the hands of the various countries they have settled in; in many cases they have been subject to ethnic cleansing and open hostility. The peak of cruelty came during World War II, when the Nazis put in place their project of systemic destruction of the Roma population. Attempts at the extermination of the Romani are referred to as ‘Porajmos’.

One of the main reasons that is usually used to explain the great hostility towards the Roma focuses on the uniqueness of their culture, which sets them widely apart from what is considered to be ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ by the rest of society. The nomadic lifestyle embraced by many Romani groups constitutes a major obstacle to integration, and the lack of a formal registry through which to keep track of the members of their communities makes it difficult for any state to provide services and exert control over them.

The strong communal spirit within a Roma camp means that often members of their community do not feel the need to be part of a bigger society. This is also due to the general suspicion nourished by the rest of society towards this specific group of people that speak a different language, often practice a different religion, and look and think differently. Racism has made it extremely difficult for them to be accepted as valid members of society, or entitled to the same jobs and education as anyone else. Double standards are often applied when a Romani is in search of a job or applies for a decent education, meaning that many are left with no other option but petty crime to sustain themselves. It’s a self-pepetuating cycle, as the more this tendency becomes entrenched, the more criminality within Romani communities becomes organised and difficult to tackle.

A distinct group with individual needs

Many European governments, however, do not seem to be taking the social emergency seriously. Or, at least, they aren’t looking at it from the right perspective. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia it is common to segregate Roma children in classes and schools reserved for disabled children. In Italy a major clampdown on the local Roma began under Silvio Berlusconi’s new government in 2008. The proposal to fingerprint the Roma population present in the country was denounced by the EU as a ‘clear act of racial discrimination’.

Even the UK, which in the past has proved to be quite tolerant towards its community of ‘travellers’, has recently changed direction in its policies under the coalition government formed by the Tories and the Lib-Dems. The Communities Minister Eric Pickles has put forward a proposal that would allow the government to evict the Roma groups with only a temporary permit to use land for their sites. This proposal, part of the wider project to balance the state budget, would see many people being driven back onto the streets and would criminalise those refusing to comply.

Raising awareness on the issue of marginalisation of the Roma community is extremely urgent and necessary. A few positive steps have already been taken; The Decade of Roma Inclusion, sponsored by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and other organisations, is a project that tries to set priorities and identify alternative paths towards the solution of the Roma issue. The countries taking part in it (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Spain), however, still lack the will for an effective change to take place.

A good precedent, however, seems to provide a little hope. In 1989 the Spanish city of Avilés introduced programmes to better integrate Roma people, focusing on employment, education and provision of social services. Starting from 2000 Roma families have been re-housed in standard accommodation along with the rest of the population. Integration seems to have been fully achieved to the extent that the Avilés is now regarded by EU organisations as a good model to export. In the end, the problem of the Roma is not an unsolvable riddle. It will take a while, though, for the national governments to understand that the Roma are not an insect colony, but a group of individuals that need to be treated as such.

Shazia with the UK's PM, David Cameron

Shazia Awan is the CEO of Peachy Pink, which specialises in producing shaping and cellulite-combating ladies underwear. Her company has fast become a household name as she supplies Britain’s biggest department store, Debenhams. Her ambition and obvious talent have recently earned her the Asian Entrepreneur of the Year award.

Shazia is also a member of the Conservative Party and made political history as the first Asian woman to address a Welsh Conservative Party conference. She was selected to represent the party in Leigh, Great Manchester in this year’s Parliamentary elections and is part of a steering group that will be advising front bench politicians on policies that support women in business.

At just 28, this lady isn’t just running in heels; there are sparks flying off her Louboutins!

Have you always wanted to run your own business/ be involved in politics?

After graduating from Cardiff University with a Masters in International Relations I worked as a PR consultant for five years. I enjoyed PR but had always dreamed of running my own business and was frustrated in the role I was in. I believe as soon as you stop enjoying something it’s time to stop doing it, so I handed in my notice with no job to go to.

My idea for Peachy Pink came from the fact that, like most women, I’ve had orange peel skin at one time or another and it really isn’t nice. I wanted to find a solution to help banish the problem. Through my work in fashion PR I made some great contacts, and developed underwear that uses peach extract, green tea and caffeine in a 3D wave knit that massages skin as you move and actually helps reduce cellulite whilst holding in the wobbly bits! Hence Peachy Pink was born.

I’ve always had an interest in politics. I did a degree in politics at Leicester University and joined the Conservative Party when I was 23.

How did you get to where you are today and would you do anything differently?

I started off by writing a business plan but was turned down by every bank I went to for a loan. So, I used my life savings and a credit card to start up Peachy Pink. Looking back now it seems crazy but it felt like the right thing to do at the time!

I drew on my experiences, from university to PR, to help me develop my product. I chose to produce everything from the yarns to the packaging in Italy, which to me is synonymous with quality. I launched Peach Pink with fifty women in their underwear marching down London’s Bond Street – it was fabulous!

I wouldn’t do a thing differently. I’ve worked hard and learned so much. I wanted to be involved in every aspect of the business from creating the website, to the designing packaging negotiating with retailers, which has made me a better businessperson. And of course I love doing the PR!

A few years ago I was lucky enough to be selected from hundreds of people to be on a national mentoring scheme run by Operation Black Vote. I saw the advert in a political magazine and applied, not imagining I would be selected for one of the six places. It was a real honour to be picked and be mentored by Simon Woolley, who I now consider a good friend, and I went on to become the first Asian woman to address a Welsh Conservative party conference!

Shazia shows off her Peachy Pink range

Who helped you along the way?

I have very supportive family and friends who encourage me and are proud of what I do. I feel very lucky to have them.

Who inspires you?

It would be difficult to pin-point one thing or person but I think that we need more strong female British role models. I have always liked Oprah Winfrey – I think what she has done and the network she has built are amazing.

What do you think is the biggest problem in British society today and what is the most positive thing?

The UK is an amazing place to live, and we have a lot of privileges but there are also many problems here and it’s hard to say which is the biggest. There’s still a lot of poverty that many people aren’t aware of, and crime and literacy issues.

Do you feel British or European?

Both! I love to travel especially across Europe.

Which female politicians have inspired you?

From the day I joined the Conservative Party I realised I was in a very privileged position to be surrounded by so many hard working, ambitious and driven women. I’m very lucky to have accomplished women such as Cheryl Gillan MP and Baroness Warsi as role models. I’ve also been working with the Conservative Women’s Forum, who have set up C-WISE. This has been set-up to help give professional and entrepreneurial women in businesses an opportunity to discuss issues that impact their business lives. C-WISE members will have direct contact with the front bench team with responsibility for Business and Treasury.

Do you think it’s harder to succeed in politics and/or business being a woman?

In politics I haven’t come across any obstacles because of my sex. What many people forget is that the Conservative Party gave Great Britain the first ever female Prime Minister. I was fortunate enough to meet Lady Thatcher recently and it really was an honour. She is an inspiration; the epitome of a strong, dedicated and passionate woman not afraid to stand by her beliefs.

In business sexism still exists but I think it depends on the industry you work in. I also believe whether you let it affect your success depends on the type of person you are. There are always difficulties to overcome in life but if you want something, then do what you must to make it happen! I wanted to launch Peachy Pink despite the knock backs from the banks and the state of the economy. I haven’t looked back.

What advice would you give to women wanting to get involved in politics?

Politics can be a hugely rewarding career. I would suggest that anyone interested in politics joins their local political association and work their way up through the grassroots. It’s a great way to learn.

What advice would you give to women wanting to start their own business?

Make the leap! If you believe in your idea and think you can have fun with what you want to do, then go for it. Don’t let anybody ever tell you that you can’t do it or be the person you aspire to be.

What are you passionate about?

Politics and business are a very big part of my life. Social action projects are something, which I am really passionate about. Last year I spent some time in Bosnia helping to build a house for a refugee family and renovating a school classroom and helping turn it into an IT suite, and hope to go back next year. And like a lot of women I love socialising with my friends, going to the cinema, reading a good book and shopping of course!

How do you stay motivated?

I am very lucky in that I love what I do. I always think that life is too short to be doing things that don’t make you feel good about being you. I meditate everyday, and have really wonderful family and friends who are always cheering me on.

Shazia meeting another PM: Lady Margaret Thatcher

Who are you listening to at the moment?

Stevie Wonder/ Beyonce/ Shakira /Madonna/ George Michael/ Alicia Keys/ Cheryl Cole. I just love all music.

Favourite movie?

There are so many to choose from. I am a big fan of Bollywood cinema too so this is really hard. If I have to choose I would say City of Angels with Meg Ryan and Nicholas Cage.

Favourite bar?

Buddha Bar in Dubai is my absolute favourite bar in the world, great music, lovely people and fantastic atmosphere. Oh and a 100ft gold Buddha!

Desert island book?

Eat, Pray Love – I’ve lost track of how many copies I bought for friends.

Favourite European city and why?

I love Italy. Without a doubt it’s one of my favorite countries in the world. I recently went on holiday in Tuscany, which was pure bliss. The people are so friendly, wonderful food, wine and scenery what more could a woman want?!

Dream purchase?

A big secluded farm house in the hills of Tuscany.

What couldn’t you live without?

My Peachy pink pants!

Where do you see yourself in five years?

I wish I knew! Happy, relaxed, successful and still loving what I do I hope.

Can you run in heels?

Yes, of course like every working woman, after a few bumps and scrapes I’ve mastered the art! Four inches at least have become a casual daywear must for me!

Welfare state systems help the poorest

It might not be the first thing you’d consider when thinking about poverty, deprivation and inequality, but welfare state systems are highly indicative of political influence and social policy and can make a huge difference to our well-being, particularly that of women and children.

What is the Welfare State?

Not to be confused with a welfare society, welfare state, which exists in some format across the Western world, is a term used to describe the way in which the state acts to ensure a level of welfare for its citizens. It should not be assumed that all states will intervene to ensure a basic standard of living for all residents or indeed all citizens, but rather indicates that a policy approach and a system are in place. As such, welfare states and benefits will have very different priorities, procedures and outcomes in different places.

Although it is possible to outline several broad types of welfare state, the welfare approach itself tends to fall within two models:

● The state acts as a low level boundary put in place to catch all those who cannot support themselves to a state-determined minimum.

● The state takes first line responsibility to ensure citizen welfare. Welfare is considered to be a right of the individual within society.

Although the term itself can cover a wide range of economic and social priorities and constructs, the existence of a welfare state relies on some desire for equality including the sharing of wealth, and is underpinned by a responsibility of each individual for the good of society.

Which Types Exist in the EU?

There are four main welfare state types in Europe. Within those central strands individual countries will have differences according to need and socio-economic conditions, but key principals will remain constant. Each model has its critics and has a very different impact on employment markets and levels of social exclusion which is particularly important when considering mothers returning to work:

● Nordic: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands observe the Nordic welfare state approach which is centred on principles of citizenship and which has low entry-levels to social assistance. key to this type of welfare state is a focus on ensuring that unemployment is short-term, so public sector employment is fundamental to the running of the system. The Nordic model is dependent on a high income tax. Equality is a leading objective in these states – this can be observed when looking at an inequality map of the EU.

● Anglo-Saxon: The Anglo-Saxon model is more akin to a ‘last resort strategy’ and is observed across the UK and Ireland. Social subsidies are difficult to access and frequently dependent on employability, both in terms of the age of a recipient and in terms of employment history. The Anglo-Saxon model has been blamed for high-levels of inequality particularly among strands of the population such as the elderly and the single mother.

Greek budget cuts have provoked protests

● Mediterranean: The Mediterranean model is more complicated than other European models as it was formed much later (1970s and 1980s) than its counterparts across the EU. Like in the UK and Ireland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain impose conditions on access to social subsidy but conversely, subsidy is focused in pensions rather than unemployment benefits. As such, these countries often have high levels of early retirement. The Mediterranean system has been criticized for encouraging social exclusion, particularly of single mothers who are not incentivised to return to work after having children and often find it difficult to re-integrate with society.

● Continental: The continental model, in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg is similar in approach to the Nordic model although places a stronger focus on pensions. The continental system centres on the security of its citizens. The continental model has been criticized for relying too heavily on parents being married and on men being breadwinners. As such, married mothers are expected to be supported by their spouses and un-married mothers by their families.

What Impact Will Recent and Future Budget Cuts Have and How Will Our Poorest Fare?

Recent financial crises which have ricocheted across the EU are expected to impact on all welfare state systems. One sceptical US Think Tank predicted a general move towards the American welfare model. In Economics of the Welfare State, Gosta Esping-Anderson describes the American welfare system when compared with a non-specific European Model:

‘The American welfare state is designed to address market shortcomings and do what private enterprises cannot do themselves. Unlike welfare states built on democratic socialist foundations it is not designed to accomplish a Marxist redistribution of political power from capital to labour; nor is it designed to mediate class struggle, as is the case with corporatist welfare states.’

Today’s critics predict the demise of European models based on a number of surprising statistical discoveries (the average age of retirement in Greece is 53) which may or may not imply what they appear to at first glance, suggesting that EU models are frequently excessive and corrupt.

In reality however, corruption and excess will not be leading any demise of the welfare state in Europe, but spending cuts will. George Osborne’s recent budget for the UK, including proposed changes to housing benefit, disability allowances and tax credits due to come in between now and 2015, appeared quite regressive in its approach and was rightly criticised for hitting the poorest hardest.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the poorest 10% of families would lose over 5% of their income as a result of the budget compared with a loss of less than 1% for non-pensioner households without children in the richest 10% of households. It added that the budget contrasted with the “progressive” plans for 2010-14 inherited from Labour, under which the richest 10% of households bore the brunt of the cuts.

Recent budget cuts will hurt the poorest

Despite signalling a commitment to cutting child poverty, the coalition appears to have hit the poorest families and is unlikely to reduce current levels. The End Child Poverty campaign has very clearly announced is discontent.

In their report, the IFS said that: “Low-income households of working age lose the most as a proportion of income from the tax and benefit reforms announced in the emergency budget. Those who lose the least are households of working age without children in the upper half of the income distribution. They do not lose out from cuts in welfare spending, and they are the biggest beneficiaries from the increase in the income tax personal allowance.” Evidently, the cuts to welfare will not encourage our unemployed back to work, but could simultaneously push low-earners out of work and out of their homes.

In other EU countries, similar slash and burn approaches are being taken and welfare states are taking the brunt. Governments appear to be aiming for immediate cost savings at the expense of medium-to-long-term benefits.

Perhaps it is time for governments to reassess the success of their approach to welfare, but it is not a time to forget our poor.

Evgenia: passionate about Khimki's forest

Evgenia Chirikova has not been easy to get in touch with of late. The young Russian mother of two has been arrested four times in the past month and become the object of continuous and humiliating attacks by the police. She has not committed any murderous crime, nor is she involved in an embezzlement scandal. She is simply exerting her right to protest against the destruction of an area that her family, as well as many others, have chosen as a healthy and safe environment to live in.

In 2004, the Russian Ministry of Transport decided to build a motorway to connect Moscow and Saint Petersburg. The project planned the passage of the motorway through the forest of Khimki, a city situated north of Moscow. Khimki is renowned for its forest, which is part of the ‘green belt’ that protects Moscow from pollution and provides a natural habitat to many plant and animal species.

Evgenia found out about the project in 2007 when she noticed strange red marks on the trees in the forest. A passionate supporter of environmental issues, Evgenia set up Vzashchitu Kimkinskogo lesa (In Defence of the Forest of Khimki), a movement against the destruction planned. Despite scarce funds and resources, the initiative gained support from citizens, journalists and liberal politicians. It emerged that the planned motorway was in violation of federal law, which forbids the destruction of public forests for road building when alternative routes exist; as they do in this case. In a lucky twist of fate, the company in charge of the work planned failed to provide necessary documentation at the project start date, which after a court hearing meant that logging was temporarily suspended.

The fight has not been easy by any means; in 2008 the editor of the local paper Khimkinskaya Pravda Zhiva (The Living Truth of Khimki) Mikhail Beketov, a pro-active member of Vzashchitu Kimkinskogo lesa, was attacked by unknown assailants and sustained serious injuries. In order to raise further awareness in the local populartion, Evgenia decided to run in the Khimki mayoral elections in 2009. Despite complicated bureaucratic procedures, a lack of funds and personal threats, she managed to obtain 16% of the votes; a real success for her battle and for the organisation. Evgenia’s husband Mikhail recalls: “The Mayor of Khimki was really frightened. He even revoked his decree about the motorway building – this was a small victory.”

The victory did not, however, last long as in 2009 Prime Minister Vladimir Putin transferred the forest from protected land status to land ‘for transport and infrastructure.’ Following this decision, and despite an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, work was set to start on July 14th 2010. Evgenia and other Vzashchitu Kimkinskogo lesa activists demonstrated and picketed the area to prevent the trees being cut down. The reprisal has been violent; on July 16th, Evgenia was almost run over by an unknown silver car. And a week later, members were beaten by a group of individuals wearing white T-shirts and masks to cover their identity. When the Russian militia arrived, they arrested a number of the victims.

According to Mikhail “The police have tried to prevent Evgenia and other activists from protecting the forest by attacking us under any pretext.” On July 28th the protesters marched on Khimki. At the same time, a group of people belonging to an anarchist and neo-fascist movement stormed the Town Hall. This gave the police an excuse to arrest Evgenia for the second time, accusing her of being involved with the violence.

On August 2nd, she was detained yet again, after attending a conference. Following her release the next day, she was ordered to return for questioning on August 4th, but on arriving at the police station, she was arrested and taken to court. According to Mikhail: ‘She was given no time to discuss the matter with her lawyers or invite enough witnesses. In court, police officers were openly lying, [saying] that they heard Evgenia talking about destroying the machinery used to cut the trees, resisting the police, and starting fires in the forest.” Despite Evgenia’s dismissal of the accusations as ‘sheer lies’, the court found her guilty and she was ordered to pay a fine.

The beginnings of destruction in Khimki

At the moment Evgenia is safe at home. But her battle continues. And she wants to make her story known as much as possible abroad. “Without free media, our cause would have failed long time ago” says Mikhail. The aim now is to lobby the Vinci Group; the parent company of  Teplotekhnik, which is carrying out the destruction. She also hopes for support from the European Commission, EIB and EBRD, which have given funds to the Vinci Group. These organisations could potentially use their influence to prevent the area from being destroyed.

And she has a message for everyone. ‘What we can see now in Russia is the restoration of a Soviet-style authoritarianism or even totalitarianism – “upgraded” by the adoption of principles of “wild capitalism”. This mix is especially destructive for both environment and human rights. We are committed to fight it, to protect our freedom, our nature and our way of life. We ask the West not to help the perpetrators of another authoritarian regime in Russia.’

Stepping out of the shadows in politics?

For centuries women and men have had well defined and different gender roles, in society as well as in the intimacy of their houses. Then, little by little, the process to correct the disparity that has always weighed in disfavour of the female universe has started. Equality between women and men has become a commonly accepted value, at least in theory. Many have agreed that gender should not constitute a barrier and that the same opportunities should be available for both sexual categories.

The discrepancy between the recognition of gender parity as a universal value and its effective realisation reveals, nonetheless, the imperfections of our society. This is extremely evident when the participation of women in politics is taken into account. Even in highly developed countries such as the EU members.

The potential behind increased female participation in politics and first of all in the decision-making process is extremely important. Women constitute half of the world population and, therefore, should have a decisive role in promoting legislation that takes into consideration their needs and rights. In addition, women are endowed with specific qualities and skills that could only represent an additional value to society. Their capacities of deep insight and connection with their own and other people’s emotions could be an invaluable instrument in defining the priorities of society.

Yet women’s power is still underestimated. In the European Parliament, for example, only 35% of the members elected in 2009 are women. Even in national parliaments the role of female politicians is quite limited. Scandinavian countries usually score better. According to the comprehensive Database on Women and Men in Decision-Making built by the European Commission the best performing country is Sweden, with 47% of female representatives in its national assemblies. Denmark, Finland and Norway follow closely, with a female political presence oscillating between 38% and 40%. These results, although distant from the ideal fifty-fifty division of elective seats, are quite positive when compared to those scored by other European countries. In Spain a mere 34% of the members of the national parliaments are women. Italy does worse, with at most 20% of female members and only 5 women heading minor ministries in Silvio Berlusconi’s 27-ministry cabinet.

Even if we look at the issue of gender discrimination on a wider scale things are rather bleak. The Global Gender Gap Report published in 2009 by the World Economic Forum, that quantifies the levels of gender-based disparities around the world in different social, economic and political fields, reveals that Italy, Czech Republic, Cyprus and Greece are the lowest ranking EU countries in the list. This is certainly worrying, especially considered that even the majority of former communist countries, which usually register a certain degree of anti-feminism and apolitical attitude among the female population, scored better than them. While Italy ranks 72^nd and Greece 85^th, Lithuania (which in 2009 elected its first female president, Dalia Grybauskaitė), Belarus, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia and Poland do all better than them. Even Germany and the United Kingdom betray expectations, ranking only 12^th and 15^th, despite the former can boast a popular and successful female Chancellor such as Angela Merkel and the latter had its first female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in the distant 1979.

A great number of people in Europe, however, are involved in the fight against gender disparity in politics. In 1996 the European Union’s Council of Ministers recommended the member states to introduce measures to promote more balance in the decision-making process from a gender point of view. Among the steps taken by the European Commission, on the other hand, there are awareness campaigns on the issue of sexual discrimination, the analysis of trends and data collection. In June 2008, moreover, the European Commission has launched the European Network of Women in Decision-Making in Politics and Economy that proposes to become an importation platform to stimulate debate and progress in the area. So far, European countries have been quite reluctant, nevertheless, to introduce the legal and political changes required for the system to become fairer to women.

Italian Minister Mara Carfagna

Although 19 out of 27 countries condemn gender discrimination in their Constitution, only five (Belgium, Spain, France, Portugal and Slovenia) have introduced some form of ‘pink’ quota to guarantee women’s representation in politics. France was the first in 1999 when Lionel Jospin’s government introduced a law that required the same number of men and women in some types of electoral lists. The response to this kind of legislation, however, has been extremely limited, and not only because of the obstructionism of the more traditionalist groups of society.

There is an ongoing debate on whether the introduction of ‘pink’ quotas is the best way to promote the so-called gender mainstreaming (the consideration of gender as a dimension to be taken into account in all political, economic and societal spheres in order for women and men to benefit equally from legislation and policies). A Euro barometer survey published in 2009 shows that 77% of women think that politics is still dominated by men, but only 10% are in favour of a ‘pink’ quotas system.

Some groups reject the introduction of quotas as an unfair advantage in a world that should be neuter-gendered. The truth is, however, that there are still many who do not share the idea that women should play a role in politics. This is often the result of a backward environment, still anchored to old stereotypes. The only way to fight this environment is to support a radical transformation of the society. ‘Pink’ quotas are a good idea only as far as they can help identify the need for a bigger change. To help women to empower themselves has to become the real priority, if we really want to achieve aware and mature gender equality.

Tougher sentences for knife crime?

The UK government’s policies on tackling knife crime won’t effectively prevent such crimes from taking place, some anti-knife crime campaigners believe. Enforcing stricter prison sentences and strengthening police’s stop and search powers are the harsher measures that the Conservative Party, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, has pledged to take against knife criminals.

The Conservative Manifesto states: “Today, almost four out of every five people found guilty of a knife crime escape jail. We have to send a serious, unambiguous message that carrying a knife is totally unacceptable, so we will make it clear that anyone convicted of a knife crime can expect to face a prison sentence. We will introduce mobile knife scanners on streets and public transport, and extend the length of custodial sentences that can be awarded in a magistrates’ Court from six to twelve months.”

Promising though it sounds, “I don’t think [the Conservatives’] policy of harsher sentences for knife crime offenders will change the status of knife crime much, especially for kids that are already in that kind of lifestyle. Kids that already carry knives and are capable of using them do not expect to be caught,” says Lee Carryl, the Citizenship and Personal, Social, Health and Economic Coordinator of Gladesmore Community School in Tottenham, London.

“It will, however, maybe stop people who are thinking about getting into that situation and who are thinking of starting to carry a knife,” Carryl says, who is the organiser of Value Life, the school’s student led anti knife and gun crime campaign.

Value Life first started in 2003 when a small group of students attended a conference led by Citizen Foundation, and since then has held marches, festivals, conferences, and produced documentaries and short films. According to Carryl, Gladesmore Community School does not have a particular problem with students involved in knife and gun crime but it is an issue they are familiar with due to its prevalence in Tottenham.

Aron Jervis, 22, the main editor of the government anti-knife crime campaign It Doesn’t Have to Happen, says that harsher sentencing will only be effective “if they actually do it because now it’s just not serious. No one that I know of and I’ve never read that someone has got the full sentence” of four years in prison if they have been caught carrying a knife.

It Doesn’t Have to Happen is still in the “purdah” period and Jervis does not know whether the Conservative Party will cut the campaign since they have stated that they will cut public spending. Launched in April 2008, the campaign is made up of a team of young people who have experienced or lived in an environment where knife crime is rife. When he was 17, Jervis himself was stabbed five times by an unknown attacker during a fight outside a party. It Doesn’t Have to Happen has since been behind TV adverts, posters and virals which urge young people to stop carrying knives.

He says that the new government might not see knife crime as a key agenda despite the Tories claiming to have stricter policies regarding knife crime than the Labour Party or Liberal Democrats.

“They think they might be able to spend their money on something better and get a different outcome,” says Jervis. He has heard that rumours have been spread in the home office that the campaign will be dropped. “With knife crime, they only see it as London, a bit of Manchester, a bit of Birmingham, but they don’t see it as a nationwide thing even though it happens all around the country.”

Former EastEnders actress, Brooke Kinsella, whose teenage brother, Ben, was stabbed to death in Islington, north London in 2008, backed the Conservatives during their campaigning prior to the elections. Despite previously being a Labour supporter, Kinsella felt that the Tories’ policies on knife crime were the toughest, and is quoted to have said: “Sadly, although I think [Labour] care, I don’t think they have done enough”.

The Liberal Democrats, whose leader Nick Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister, state in their manifesto: “We will make hospitals share information with the police so they know where gun and knife crime is happening. The police can then target these ‘hot spots’ for stop and search to find these illegal weapons and destroy them.”

Both parties favour more effective stop-and-search by the police. On May 20th, the new government released the full coalition agreement, which includes only the above stated policy suggested by the Lib Dems. It seems that sentencing and prison policy are still a source of tension between the new partners. During the election, the Tories argued that knife criminals should expect to face a jail term, and opposed the Lib Dems’ proposition of prison sentences of less than six months. While the Liberal Democrats want to cancel the building of more prisons, the Conservatives want to redevelop the prison estate and halt early release.

Stop and Search: an effective tactic?

Both parties favour more effective stop-and-search by the police. Since May 2008, the Metropolitan Police have been carrying out Operation Blunt 2 whereby they tackle serious youth violence and confiscate deadly weapons such as knives and guns. The Met Police are targeting 13 London Boroughs and say that more than 4,000 knives have been recovered from April 2009 until March 2010 and more than 220,000 people have been stopped and searched.

In March, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was told by teenage schoolchildren in south London in a school conference that police tactics of stop and search were intrusive and that they felt targeted. A statement by the Met Police states: “We are targeting the places where intelligence indicates knife crime is prevalent and where young people are most concerned.”

“Police have a tough job policing their community, but their searching of young people for weapons is an issue in the way that they do it. There needs to be more sensitivity in dealing with young people,” says Carryl from Value Life.

Jervis agrees: “I don’t blame young people for feeling targeted. The stats show it anyway because if you’re from 15 to 21, and you’re a black boy, you’re 60% more likely to get stopped than if you’re white, or something like that. I don’t call it racism but it’s a perception of what people link to crime. That’s the perception of society and that’s what everyone thinks of, really, and it’s so hard to change it, so young people feel victimized.” Both Jervis and Carryl do argue, however, that young people need to recognize that the police are only doing their job.

So far the number of teenage killings this year stand at 11 whereas a total of 14 people were killed last year. Carryl says that these figures are a fraction of deaths in comparison to fatalities caused by car accidents or alcohol-related incidents. He stresses that it is a small minority of young people who carry knives and that there is a disproportionate fear among the public about knife crime, which does not match the reality of the situation.

Carryl says that this disproportionate fear is due to the media: “The media tends to use the youth as caricatures and they stereotype all young people as being feral hoodies.” He argues that 80 per cent of press stories about young people are demonising and negative, while their achievements are hardly ever reported.

“The media uses the scare tactic”, says Jervis. “They can highlight stories so that they seem like something new and people would think ‘ah they’re getting brave’.” This is how incidents such as the murder of schoolboy Sofyen Belamouadden in front of hundreds of commuters at Victoria tube station during the rush hour at the end of March can seem like indicators that London’s knife crime situation is worsening. Jervis and Carryl point out that such knife crimes carried out in public are not unheard of, but Jervis says that, for young people, they attempt to commit a crime that has never been done before.

Although statistics regarding knife crime are not accurate, the media also contributes in blowing the facts out of proportion. Jervis says that the media portrays most youths under the age of 21 as carrying a knife, which influences more young people to carry knives for protection: “I think in young people it plants the seed”.

Although Carryl believes young people that carry knives are a small subculture, Jervis’ experience with It Doesn’t Have to Happen causes him to believe that the majority of youths who carry knives are between the age of 15 and 18 “because it’s when young boys try to change to men and they have all these issues like identity and they don’t want to be looking like a little boy; it’s a macho type of thing”.

The most common reasons that young people carry knives, Carryl and Jervis believe, are to appear superior to others and to show off to friends, or for protection themselves. Since it is perceived that so many young people carry knives, others follow suit “just in case” they need to defend themselves. Statistics show that those who carry knives are more likely to be stabbed as their knife is often used against them.

This was the case for Edy, a Turkish man raised in London who prefers to remain anonymous, when he was walking home one evening after football training around three to four years ago. A black man stopped him outside a park in Stoke Newington, North London, and asked for a lighter, to which Edy answered that he did not smoke.

A poster by It Doesn't Have To Happen

“The man then changed his reaction and brought a knife out from his side pocket and said, ‘You better give me all you got or I’ll f***ing stab you’. As soon as he said that to me I forced the knife out of his hand and threatened him with it.

“He started to get physically and verbally violent even though I still had the knife. He was pushing me around and I ended up stabbing him in his thigh. I was a bit freaked out so I left the scene with the knife still jammed in his thigh and he was on the floor in agony.”

Edy, now 23, had never felt the need to carry a knife beforehand, but has since bought a hunting knife off a friend, although he does not carry it around with him. “It’s just for comfort. I wasn’t exactly looking to buy a knife until my friend mentioned his hunting knife and I remembered what had happened outside the park,” he explains.

So what should be done? It is a combination of methods, Jervis and Carryl believe. The Labour Party placed more emphasis on addressing the sources and motivations behind knife crime in an attempt to decrease it while they were in power. This should still be kept in mind as well as truly enforcing harsher punishments and consequences for those who commit knife crimes. At the moment Jervis says that the problem partially lies in the fact that “Young people get away with too many things now and I think society has collapsed to young people’s needs”.

Carryl acknowledges that the government needs to understand the motivations behind knife crime if it is not already aware of them but it also needs to send a clear message that knife criminals will be dealt with. Laws are not enforced consistently, which explains why many people are in and out of jail “because they’re not scared of it”.

Having successfully worked with young people all over Britain with It Doesn’t Have to Happen by influencing their values and putting them in contact with youth workers, Jervis stresses that “Prevention is better than cure, so it’s better to get to the kids when they are young. Also a lot of people who are involved in knife crime lack confidence, so I think social skills, lifestyle skills [and] confidence building at the ages of eight to twelve” are essential. This way young people won’t be so easily led down the path of gang culture and violence.

Getting students and youths involved in campaigns such as It Doesn’t Have to Happen and Value Life is also important, says Carryl, as “the driving ethos behind initiatives to combat knife and gun crime is that young people need to be engaged, whether they are directly or indirectly affected by it. It is important to make them civic-minded youths and agents of change.”

One person tells us about the consequences of carrying a knife.

Protests against the so-called Legge Bavaglio

I will offer you some free advice. If, a year from now, you find yourself in Italy having a post-coital chat with a high placed government official, don’t record the conversation. You’ll be breaking the law.

Here’s another piece of advice, perhaps less useful: if you find yourself working in an Italian prosecutors’ office, don’t dare leak any documents. Unless you like stretches of jail time of between one and four years. And if you’re a journalist, don’t talk to these people. Sure, they’ll give you great stories about the peculiar business dealings of government ministers, but you’ll have to pay a fine of up to €10,000 for printing anything they give you.

I’m able to give you these little morsels because of a proposed law that’s currently working its way through the Italian Senate. The law – authored by Berlusconi’s justice minister, and, somewhat improbably, made worse by members of Berlusconi’s party – proposes a crack-down on wire-tap evidence, leaks from public prosecutors’ offices, and covert recordings.

It’s true that some of these proposals would be uncontroversial in other countries. Wiretap evidence is not permissible in UK courts, so the position here is more restrictive than in Italy. In numerous US states it’s illegal to record a conversation without the other party’s consent.

Instead, what makes this proposal so controversial is the fact that it so perfectly fits Berlusconi’s need to censor information which reflects badly on him and on his government. In June of last year, Berlusconi was recorded by Patrizia D’Addario after the two had spent the night together: the unedifying transcript can be found here. The episode seemed not to damage Berlusconi’s popularity, but it did anger the Italian Premier.

This year, several members of the Berlusconi government had been implicated in a scandal surrounding public contracts for construction work. The scandal resulted from the publication of intercepted phone calls gathered during the course of an investigation into corruption. Whilst most have chosen to brazen it out, one minister, Claudio Scajola, was forced to resign after he claimed ‘not to know’ who had paid for his house in Rome overlooking the Colosseum. It seemed to many a detail that one might remember.

Given these scandals, it’s entirely understandable why the government should wish to staunch the source of the embarassments. The text of the law is in many places a very petty piece of work, both in its intent and in its scope. There are numerous new, or revised procedural hoops that prosecutors must jump through if they are to have a request for a wiretap authorised; these amendments seem meant to annoy magistrates more than limit their activities.

The most objectionable parts of the law concern the reporting of these leaks: not only is it a crime to leak information from a prosecutors’ office, but it also becomes a crime to publish that information, punishable by considerable fines of up to €10,000. This measure – which, in my opinion, would be unlikely to survive a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights – is only to be expected from a government which has no respect for the media as an independent source of influence within society.

It is worth noting that, whilst major Italian publishing groups shilly-shallied over whether or not to criticise the proposals, Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News came out with a strongly-worded denunciation of the bill. If Rupert Murdoch has become the white knight of the Italian press, what does that say about Italy?

Berlusconi aims to 'gag' the media...

The law would also hit independent investigative reporting. An amendment to the original text of the bill, passed in a late-night parliamentary sitting, introduces a new crime of recording conversations without the consent of those involved. The amendment was immediately dubbed the D’Addario amendment, after the escort who had recorded Berlusconi last summer. Whilst a subsequent amendment permitting covert recording for the purposes of journalism was also accepted, the guarantee is a flimsy one, and would quickly be put to the test if a similar situation were to arise.

With this law, the Berlusconi government is playing the man, as well as the ball. It has gone after the media, with a fair chance of discouraging the reporting of emerging scandals. Were these proposals made by any other government in any other country, they would still be worth protesting. But the fact that it is this government which is pushing this bill is, sadly, an additional reason for concern.

The IMF headquarters in Washington DC

The International Monetary Fund was conceived in 1944 during the Bretton Woods agreements. These important talks involved the representatives of 44 countries who were summoned to face the challenge of establishing a reliable international financial system after the market disorders which characterised the years leading to the Great Depression, as well as rebuilding world economy in the aftermath of World War II.

Since then, the structure and role of the IMF have changed, and its size has increased from 44 to 189 member states. Let’s take a look at its history, its functions, and its most striking flaws too.

The International Monetary Fund Basics

● Membership: 186 countries

● Headquarters: Washington, DC

● Executive Board: 24 Directors representing countries or groups of countries

● Staff: approximately 2,360 from 146 countries.

● Total quotas: US$333 billion (as of 2/28/10)

● Additional pledged or committed resources: $600 billion

● Loans committed (as of 2/28/10): US$191 billion, of which US$121 billion have not been drawn

● Biggest borrowers (credit outstanding as of 2/28/10): Romania, Hungary, Ukraine.

The Main Goals and Aims of the IMF

Article I of the Articles of Agreement sets out the IMF’s main goals as:

● promoting international monetary cooperation;

● facilitating the expansion and balanced growth of international trade;

● promoting exchange stability;

● assisting in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments; and

● making resources available (with adequate safeguards) to members experiencing balance of payments difficulties.

Why was the IMF necessary in the first place?

Between the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the First World War, world economy had been characterized by high growth and integration, as well as stability of prices and exchange rates. International trade was growing at a fast pace, and exchanges were regulated through the Gold Standard, meaning that gold was the economic unit of account in international transactions: all payments between countries were made in gold, in terms of which every national currency’s exchange rate was fixed.

During the First World War, the Gold Standard was suspended as currency convertibility was inconsistent with the need of financing the war. Of course, during the war international trade was very limited, resulting in low treasury incomes. In order to finance the war, a solution had to be found, and the only way to solve this problem was by printing currency. However, such inflationary measures were incompatible with fixed exchange rates, therefore foreign exchange markets had to be closed.

In the 1920s, as most countries were completely bankrupt and the global goods market was less integrated, all attempts to re-establish the Gold Standard system failed; after the 1929 bubble, countries tried to solve their insufficient demand problem by pushing exports through competitive deflation and by raising barriers to decrease imports. However, these mercantilistic measures along with floating exchange rates had huge negative effects.

A US poster promoting economic recovery

As every country pushed exports and prevented imports, world trade declined sharply, which caused unemployment and a sharp decline in living standards. This was the grim international scenario on the eve of World War II, and the Bretton Woods system was structured with the precise intention of learning from the mistakes made in the 1930s. The system aimed at reaching a compromise solution between the rigidity of Gold Standard system and the floating exchange rates of the years following the Great Depression.

The role of the IMF during the Bretton Woods System: funding, surveillance, and US hegemony

With Bretton Woods, the International Monetary Fund was established to provide financial assistance to countries experiencing economic hardships; central banks could borrow funds previously deposited with the IMF from all member countries, so the IMF was to be the central bank of central banks, as well as an instrument for economic cooperation between countries.

In addition, the Gold-Dollar Standard was established: countries agreed to fix their exchange rates relative to the US dollar, which in turn was fixed in terms of gold ( 35 dollars an ounce). Slight adjustments in exchange rates of each country could be made only in case of fundamental disequilibrium in the balance of payments, and only with the agreement of the IMF. Therefore, the IMF also held the role of monitoring and supervising economic policies and exchange rate policies to avoid global imbalances, as well as providing a forum for discussion of the most important international economic issues.

This system only really started to work towards the end of the 1950s, as before then most national currencies were too weak to be fully convertible. Furthermore, in its first years, the authority of the IMF was still too weak to prevent countries from pursuing national policies which were not in compliance with the measures established with Bretton Woods and could damage collective interests of members. The optimism surrounding the IMF proved to be ill-founded from the beginning, as deposited funds were insufficient. The IMF was obviously strongly dominated by the United States from the very beginning: the relevance of every country within the Fund was proportional to their contribution in gold and currency. As most countries were bankrupt after World War Two, the United States alone supplied one third of the whole initial deposit. For this reason, the headquarters of the IMF and World Bank were established in Washington.

The United States also held 75% of the world’s gold reserve, which made them, and not the IMF the main suppliers of liquidity. The hegemonic role of the United States was however widely accepted as it brought advantages to all countries;  European and Japanese economies greatly benefited from US imports and US investment, however the United States continued to increase their foreign debt and pursue inflationary policies. This was in order to fund their huge military spending and social reforms, and so discontent became increasingly widespread among Western European countries who were affected by US inflation but nonetheless had to adopt measures to help the US and keep the system working. A particularly harsh challenge to US hegemony came from France, when it decided to exit NATO and to start exchanging its dollar reserve into gold, while openly criticising the US for their “deficit without tears”, meaning that they could allow themselves a huge foreign debt without paying the consequences of it.

The system eventually collapsed in August 1971, when Nixon announced that the US would unilaterally suspend the dollar convertibility into gold, abdicating their central role and marking the end of the Bretton Woods System. Countries slowly went back to a floating exchange rates regime; this was perceived as dangerous by Western European countries for their economies, thus the process of European integration which eventually lead to the formation of the Eurozone was set into motion.

The IMF after Bretton Woods: surveillance, aid to developing countries, the ongoing financial crisis, and criticism

The end of Bretton Woods also downsized the lending role of the IMF, as requests for funds from advanced countries started to decrease and eventually came to an end in 1983. Since then, and until the ongoing crisis, no industrialised country has appealed to IMF funds ever again. In order to stabilise exchange rates and prevent countries from going back to pursuing competitive deflation policies, the IMF increased its surveillance functions.

IMF voting powers

The importance of the IMF in managing global financial crises came to light during the 1980s debt crisis – kick-started by the 1970s oil shocks – which reached immense proportions and involved several developing countries, mostly in Latin America. Their foreign debt had exceeded their earning power, and they were not able to repay it. The IMF quickly put together a funding plan to be offered to Mexico as well as Brazil, Argentina and the other affected countries, on the condition that national private banks should agreed to negotiate a solution with the Fund to restructure the countries’ foreign debt.

However, the IMF’s estimation of crisis management turned out to be too optimistic: production dropped, inflation rose twice more than expected, restructuring plans were not respected by governments, and the poorer strata of population payed for this. Criticism of the IMF rose again, as it was accused of protecting the interests of international banks rather than those of the countries in need of help; this pushed the IMF to create in 1986 the Structural Adjustment Facility. This long-term subsidised loan plan became the IMF’s main instrument to provide help to the poorest developing countries, which has become one of the Fund’s main tasks since the 1980s.

After the fall of the Soviet Bloc, the IMF also provided assistance to the emerging eastern European countries through the tough process of transition to market economy. It also provided aid during the recurring financial crises which have become more frequent since the 1990s, due to financial globalization, and which have always been particularly severe in emerging countries.

The gravity and frequency of these crises have put into question the ability of the IMF to forecast and prevent them. Another important reason for criticism of the IMF regards the effective benefits of the restructuring programs offered to developing countries. In some cases this seems to have made the situation worse at the expense of the local population, due to the attempt to reduce government borrowing which means higher taxes and lower public spending. Nobel Economic Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz pointed out how the macroeconomic policies imposed by the IMF (especially to Southeast Asian countries) during the 1997 crisis, in fact worsened recession and unemployment, whilst increasing the countries’ foreign debt due to high interest rates.

Echoing his view, Noam Chomsky went further by indicating how the IMF tends to apply double standards, by prescribing completely different policies when crises strike advaced rather then developing countries. Referring to the IMF policies regarding the current financial crisis, he stated: “When so-called developing countries have a financial crisis, the IMF rules are: raise interest rates, cut down economic growth, tighten the belt, pay off your debts (to us), privatize, and so on. That’s the opposite of what’s prescribed here. What’s prescribed here is lower interest rates, pour government money into stimulating the economy, nationalize (but don’t use the word), and so on. So yes, there’s one set of rules for the weak and a different set of rules for the powerful. There’s nothing novel about that”.

He goes on to describe the IMF as a “branch of the U.S. Treasury Department” which mainly protects the interests of lenders and investors of advanced countries, at the expense of poorest strata of populations in developing countries. Other critics point to the lack of transparency and for imposing policies with little or no consultation with affected countries.  Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Harvard Institute for International Development points out: “It defies logic to believe the small group of 1,000 economists on 19th Street in Washington should dictate the economic conditions of life to 75 developing countries with around 1.4 billion people.”

Last but not least, the harshest criticism of the IMF regards the immorality rather than the efficiency of certain IMF policies: a 2005 documentary entitled “The Debt of Dictators” explores the lending of billions of dollars by the IMF, World Bank and other international financial institutions to brutal dictatorships friendly to American corporations.

The Debt of Dictators

A hung parliament would change government as we know it

Confused about what the election’s outcome actually means? But didn’t the boys in blue win? What happens now? We’ve prepared a (very) short run down of what you need to know.

Hung Parliament: The Definition

A hung parliament is a situation which evolves when no parliamentary party has an absolute majority. The term came into use in the UK during the 1970s and is sometimes referred to as a minority government, or a coalition government. In some cases a hung parliament can result in the dissolution of parliament. Though this situation is very normal in countries which have proportional representation (such as Germany or the Republic of Ireland) it is particularly uncommon in the UK where we use the ‘First Past The Post’ electoral approach.

Our last hung parliament in the UK was in 1974 and, prior to that, in 1929. We are therefore in a national state of panic – The administration is woefully underprepared and the electorate is criminally under-informed.

In the simplest terms, the Labour Party would lose its absolute majority if it lost 24 seats. The Conservatives would gain an absolute majority if they gained 116 seats, while the Liberal Democrats would need 264 more seats for an absolute majority. Any other outcome would result in a hung parliament.

What’s the impact of this?

A hung parliament outcome will inevitably lead to a period of uncertainty, following the election. This period will be used for negotiation. We are led to believe that senior civil servants have been working day and night to ensure that this period will be over and done with as soon as possible. The major worry for the UK is that some analysts have indicated that a hung parliament would cause a fall in the value of sterling, higher government borrowing costs and lower economic growth. This is of course uncertain but nevertheless encourages government to ‘hurry-up and come out the other side’.

What are the outcomes?

There are 3 most likely outcomes in the event of a hung parliament:

● Working Majority – If no party has an overall majority and Labour have the greatest number of seats following the election, convention would suggest that Gordon Brown will continue to be Prime Minister, providing he can main/obtain confidence in the House of Commons. This is known as a working majority.

● Coalition – If Gordy does not have an overall majority he may be pressured to stand down. That is, unless he can form alliances with either a whole party or with individual Members of Parliament (a lot harder!). The Liberal Democrats would probably do best in this situation – both Gordon Brown and David Cameron have already discussed the option of coalition.

● Dissolution of Parliament/The Queen Steps In – If coalition is not reached and no party manages to secure a working majority, the Queen may take on a very high profile role in British politics. There are two options. Firstly, she may be asked by Gordon Brown to dissolve parliament, in which case another election would be necessary. A second possibility, a move known internally as ‘the Miliband option’, is that the Queen could appoint someone other than the party leaders to lead government. This could happen if another person was more likely to secure coalition between the parties.

An essential role in how we consume news

The power of the press cannot be underestimated. These aren’t just harmless little stories, they are our window to the world and they have tremendous political influence.

Recently, however, newspapers are losing large portions of their advertisers due to decreased circulation, according to UK Communications Minister Lord Carter. Newspapers across the world have steadily reported declining readerships and the figures are now at critical levels.

For a while, the internet provided a nice accompaniment to print news, however online versions of our much loved and respected titles are now superceding their predecessors. It seems we prefer to get our news for free rather than pay for the privilege; and this really is the crux of the problem facing the owners of the major dailies.

We will pay for our car to be fixed, a nice pair of shoes or our morning coffee but when it comes to the news, not only do we want the very best coverage and commentary but we want it for nothing. What is it about news and information that makes us so averse to paying up? Decent journalism from respectable news sources is the cornerstone of any democracy, but this doesn’t come cheap. Investigative journalism is in fact tremendously expensive.

The contradiction inherent here, as in any democratic society, is that democracy often exists within capitalist countries. A free press goes hand in hand with a free marketplace and this in itself is fraught with irony and contradiction. Here, a newspaper must be considered a business like any other and must be run as such. This of course comes with its own set of problems. Clashing interests from advertisers, editors and owners looking to turn a profit can mean we get PR and advertorials instead of real journalism.

Do newspapers have every right to expect us to pay for news they provide, as we would any other commodity? Or does this very commodification undercut our right to news, debate and social critique as democratic citizens? After all, we also have the right to a fair and speedy trial but that too will cost you (and a lot more than the price of a newspaper).

Government funding has been proffered as a possible solution and if we shove this argument to the far-left, in many ways this is the logical choice, after all we expect the state to pay for education and healthcare, why not the press as well? One could argue that the government should well be stepping in here and protecting the public sphere from any further contamination from big business and the push for profit. Players such as Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer have sullied the Fourth Estate with this need to turn news into dollars. Yet,  perhaps this profit decline is a blessing in disguise; a long overdue opportunity for the government to step in and help steady a faltering journalistic integrity and drive for truth, irrespective of how deeply unpopular that truth may be to advertisers and investors. However, perhaps the condition of state-run schools and hospitals might act as a cautionary tale of what happens when we allow too much government involvement in vital institutions and services.

So too may we simply be swapping a desire for profit with a desire for re-election and a nice government run mouthpiece, perfect for when politicians accidentally bomb the wrong country or spend a little too much of the budget on a wet bar for their country house. Don’t be fooled by the fact that this are your taxes being spent, I doubt it will mean a truly publicly-owned paper. Government influence, no matter how benign, is fundamentally at odds with journalisms’ defining role as watchdog.

Nicolas Sarkozy bailed out French papers to the tune of 600 million Euros over three years, including free subscriptions for every 18-year-old to boost readership. Whilst on the surface this seems a noble and worthy contribution from the French President it is not without its complications. Sarkozy recently likened funding the flailing French media with the government’s assistance for the struggling automotive industry. Cars, however, do not keep democracy alive and kicking. Journalists are responsible for the single most important role within the democratic system – questioning those in power, particularly the government.

Can Sarkozy control what papers say?

Sarkozy’s funding has come with a number of stipulations for the French media, including ‘improving’  articles, drawing in a young readership and overhauling business models, according to The Guardian. The French state has provided 1.5 billion to date in direct and indirect aid, and already this means Sarkozy can barter with editors for the sort of press he thinks France needs.

Yet without his funding, many French papers would have folded already.

The Independent recently reported that Gordon Brown’s response to the newspaper funding crisis was to assert that “people have got used to getting content without having to pay”, going on to add: “There’s a whole sort of element of communication that’s got to be free.” Whether this is to be the fallout of Murdoch’s severing of political ties with Labour, either way Brown’s reluctance to step in with aid is clear.

We need the press to let us know when our political system lets us down, to keep us informed and although budgets are tighter than ever and newspapers subsist on a shoestring, the solution does not lie with government funding. The capitalist model may not be a perfect one but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet.

Unfortunately it’s not as simple as letting the news be the business that it is. Owners with massive shares of media over multiple outlets mean one or two players dominate the entire game and none seem averse to a little editorial landscaping.

Political parties know that if they lose the support of the press they’re done for. A shift in Labour coverage in Rupert Murdoch rags has Labour smelling defeat for the first time in 13 years. The owner of media giant News Corp, notorious for his pro-Labour views and his willingness to push the Labour agenda, has suddenly shifted his sympathies to the Tories. This was heralded by The Sun’s long overdue critique of the PM, attacking his condolence letter to Jacqui Janes. The piece meant Murdoch received a phone call from an upset Gordon Brown complaining about the negative coverage. Understandable really, when the paper you have been in bed with for years suddenly boots you out on the curb without so much as your dressing gown.

Wherein lies the solution?

The next and most logical response would be to charge the public to view online news sites, relying on the assumption that people will be willing to pay for news from reputable sources. It may well be that the solution lies with the problem itself, and the internet may well turn out to be the saviour of our news. Murdoch is of course leading the way, and The Times and The Sunday Times will soon be trialling the introduction of a subscription fee for all online readers. A pound will buy you one day’s access and two pounds, a week, with other Murdoch titles like The Sun and News of the World soon to follow suit. As much as it is easy to dislike what big business can do to investigative reporting it seems this may be the most viable and practical response yet. Particularly when Gordon Brown is reluctant to step into the breach for an institution Britain has always prided itself on.

However this could become an old world solution to a new world problem with media goliaths like Murdoch missing the fundamental truth of this brave new cyber world: that you can’t place the same gatekeepers on information that we used to. Many have accused Murdoch of missing the point when it comes to the internet. Will the public simply sidestep paid sites and read their news elsewhere for free? This may well turn into the era of the blog, of the independent press and of a newly empowered public that does not allow the media giants to mediate their access to the wider world.

The Sun switches its political allegiance...

“If the Times (or any other outlet) believe that its content is worth the payments then they are fully entitled to test the market. The market response will then determine the answer.” Bob Smyth wrote on the BBC News website.

This in itself is riddled with problems. Where are the gatekeepers online? Who ensures quality and truth? All that may be achieved is a widening of the digital divide, making the chasm between the haves and the have nots that much wider and harder to bridge.

Knowledge is power, as they say and it is well informed citizens who will lead Britain into the future, the media should never be allowed to become an elitist institution like so many in Britain. Yet we rely so heavily on the elites for reliable coverage.

Chris wrote on the BBC news site: “If it’s closed off to non-paying then it’ll be closed off to the search engines. Journalists think they are better than everyone else but the truth is free content will beat them. They are terrified of blogs.”

Just as privately run hospitals and schools often mean exclusivity and exclusion for most of us, the possibility of excluding large number of the public unable to afford online access. While it is important for the media to recognise and embrace cyberspace and technology, what does this mean for those of us who rely on news subsidised by advertisements rather than by the average citizen –  us? Who will miss out when we introduce a pay per view system to online news? The truth is there’s a price to be paid for news, no matter which way you turn.

The media has a responsibility to let us know about the issues that affect us yet it is pulled in so many directions by so many conflicting interests. It can never be a self sustaining entity and the business model for democracy is one that we long ago accepted as a necessary evil, for a free and critical society. While we have no dictators or military regimes filtering our information, the trade-off is a profit-driven democracy that needs to make money in order to survive. What this means for journalism in the long term only time will tell as we wait and see what subscription websites do for the Fourth Estate. In an ideal world, you can’t put a price on knowledge. In reality we can and do.