Day: December 16, 2019

Subir Shukla

‎@Janmejoy If you take a look at the amounts released, you will find that the country as a whole is not really able to use more than 70% of the funds made available… 
     There\’s a need to understand the nature of social \’filters\’ involved. Things such as buildings, textbooks – concrete things that can be touched, inaugurated or \’released\’ and credit taken for – tend to get done. But a child\’s right to learn is a lot more than that, and needs a new set of relationships and processes in order to be attained. It\’s common to have \’disco bhajans\’ (i.e. allowing a western \’pollution\’ of a cultural aspect) but more difficult to implement the notion that a child does not need to be beaten in order to learn (in fact, while teachers are responsible, many parents also insist that their children be kept in discipline through corporal punishment; similarly, look at the response to CCE…). It\’s like trying to ban spitting or dowry (for which a law exists…). 
     Similarly, the notion that you do not need to memorize or be given explanation – instead you should learn through activity, exploration and projects (which is what the RTE provides for) – is not the easiest to implement even for those who are seriously trying, including in the NGO sector, including in the organizations that are seen as the \’teerth sthal\’ of education. Another crisis – and this is a professional, considered opinion of a curriculum/textbook/materials developer after closely examining materials from all over the country for 20 years – is that the NGO \’products\’ in terms of curricula / materials / pedagogy / teacher development are also fairly weak when it comes to the kind of quality desired, the constructivism to be implemented, the kind of equity-oriented and diversity based classroom that is now needed. Indeed the textbooks of several states would rate much higher. 
     @Naaz, steps about how to make \’special training\’ or create a differential classroom which must necessarily result, are not really spelt out in RTE documents. (This is just an example, and there are several more such aspects, esp about how to help those in the system realize that post-RTE, it is THEY who are the \’beneficiaries\’ and children / parents / community are the REASON for the system to exist.) 
     I\’m afraid the real import of many of the RTE provisions have not really been understood and a whole lot of \”why aren\’t you doing your job\” kind of comments are being passed around. While these will help in situations such as getting children admitted, other aspects such as getting discrimination (subtle and overt) to reduce, community to be empowered, teachers to be enabled to create vibrant and equity-oriented classrooms, in 1500000+ schools, (including private schools), are something else altogether. \’Protesting\’ or \’raising\’ voice may curb something negative, but doesn\’t necessarily make something positive (e.g. teaching better) happen. I\’ve written about \’preventive power\’ vs \’generative power\’ elsewhere in this blog.
     The perspective changes when you\’re someone who has to actually deliver the RTE, and I haven\’t found much in the various fora that is dramatically helpful, or not known or not being tried out. A lot of the suggestions are very vague (ideas such as \’involve the community\’, \’empower the teacher\’ are outcomes of steps, which themselves are not always spelt out, or examples given of a very preliminary level..). Many of the issues (such as teacher attendance and accountability) are larger governance issues and need a larger strategy, some of which is indeed being thought about at different levels. I still believe that people thinking and working on these issues have a great deal to contribute – both within the government set up and outside. Hence my request for the kind of engagement that foregrounds concrete actions.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Practicing righteousness

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 6:1).

To this point, Jesus has discussed prohibitions found in God’s Law: do not murder, or even surrender to anger; do not commit adultery, or even surrender to lust; do not resist an evil person. Even the positive commandment, love your enemies, is largely a prohibition against treating people in response to what they have done in the past or what they might do in the future. Each of these commandments relates to our neighbors, the people we encounter in this world.

Jesus now speaks of positive things and of things pertaining to our relationship with God. He describes three things God expects us to do: giving to the needy, praying, and fasting. Jesus does not question whether we will do these things—he firmly says, “When you give… when you pray… when you fast….” These are positive actions, but Jesus adds one prohibition: we are not to do these things in a way that calls attention to ourselves from other people.

In this tightly-knit set of teachings, Jesus repeats a refrain. He says that what we do to impress people here on earth will be ignored by our Father in heaven. Only the things we do secretly, thinking about God and not about other people, are seen and rewarded by God. Our relationship with him is an inner relationship, a matter of the heart. When we start trying to impress people—when we want to be recognized on earth as holy, religious, spiritual, or good-hearted—we omit God from our spiritual life.

Other religions know this as well. What matters most in many religions is a relationship with the divine. Things done for attention here on earth are ignored in heaven. God is our first priority; everything else is forgotten as we draw near to God.

Many teachers would frown even at Jesus’ mention of a reward from our Father in heaven. If we do holy things to earn a reward, we are not really doing them for God. What sounds like a paradox is actually sensible: Whatever we do on earth to earn a reward earns no reward; whatever we do to serve God without seeking a reward will be rewarded.

Jesus plainly says that God rewards those who seek him. His reward is not measured in worldly ways—in money or influence or even good feelings. We are not invited to tell God what reward he should give us. God chooses the rewards he gives. He has already given us gifts and blessings, including the forgiveness of our sins and eternal life in the new creation. We have the kingdom of heaven. We will be comforted. We will inherit the earth. We will be satisfied. We will be shown mercy. We will see God. We will be called sons of God. What reward do we need or want beyond these gifts? God chooses fitting rewards for those who seek him. He has selected rewards for all those who set aside the things of this world because their hearts already are in the kingdom of heaven. J.

China’s Issues

Every country faces challenges and China is no exception. But by global yardsticks, China’s issues are less critical than what most other countries face.  It is after all the one country in the world which does not face a serious growth challenge (at least as of now).  China is however such a large country that even a seemingly minor issue is of gigantic scale and one that will affect the whole world. This is why everybody in the world ought to take a much greater interest in this country.
This post is a compendium of social, political, economic and moral issues that China faces at this point of time, in no particular order
Maintaining GDP Growth : The “contract” between the Communist Party and the people is a simple one – Economic growth for political control. When economic growth falters, this contract will be put under strain. There are a number of challenges to maintaining economic growth and some of them are articulated below. You can’t grow endlessly at 8%+. The inflexion point has come.
Quantum of Debt  : China’s debt to GDP ratio is galloping and is now above 300%. Much of the growth over the last decade has been debt fuelled. Growth will seriously falter if debt is cut. That’s why the elusive “soft landing” is proving so difficult for China. Just for comparison, India’s debt to GDP %, which I often cry about is “only” 130%. The United States, of course is a leader at 350% !
Income inequality : Every country faces this problem, but China faces it as bad as the US. The Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality is 0.42 (higher the number, greater the inequality). The US is 0.46. India is 0.35. China is starting to have first world problems
Ageing population : Because of the one child policy that was rigidly enforced until recently, China is rapidly ageing. It will be the first country in history to have an ageing problem before it got rich (remember, on a per capita basis, China is still middling). With a poor social security network, who is going to pay for the aged and take care of them in a decade or two. China has the peculiar problem of one grandchild for four grandparents.
Corruption : We have spoken of it in previous posts. It is a serious problem.
Environment : China faces an acute environmental problem. The government is actively tackling it, but the problem is a huge one and one that was allowed to build up to crisis levels over decades. China also faces an acute water problem (worse than India’s). There aren’t easy solutions. Much of the north is virtually a desert, but with teeming populations.
Restive provinces : The one thing China is absolutely terrible at is integrating people who are culturally different. 93% of China is a homogeneous Han (those who talk about diversity in China have no clue what diversity really means – come to India).  The two largest provinces Tibet and Xinjiang are restive and brutally suppressed
Rising nationalism : Very few Chinese would recognise this as an issue, but it really is. Anti foreigner sentiment is high – its easy for a large number of Chinese to be fanatically against a nation if whipped into a frenzy of perceived slights. The Chinese government is increasingly bullying in its approach – Japan (Senkaku), entire East Asia (Nine dash line), India (Doklam and Arunachal). The average citizen who only has access to government propaganda gets whipped into dangerous nationalism. The Chinese would do well to ponder over this – why do they have so few friends ?
A moral vacuum : To an outsider, this might seem to be a strange issue, but many Chinese would immediately relate to it. Firstly during the Cultural Revolution and then in the breakneck speed of economic growth, its ancient culture, beliefs and traditions have gone. Today money is the predominant (only) religion.  In other countries, religious and  social organisations provide a balance to the materialism. In China they do not exist, or if they rise, are brutally exterminated by the government (see what happened to Falun Gong). So many Chinese wonder – after money what? And they may then turn their attention to demanding a level of freedom not in consonance with what the party is comfortable with.
And so this is the real major issue that China has faced since the mid 1980s and continues to face now. What is the balance between economic freedom and growth and political and other freedoms. The first flare up came when Zhou Enlai died in 1976. The second major flare up came during the Tiananmen incident in 1989. Since then there has been an uneasy truce, but one which has never gone away. Some day it will rear its head again. How China confronts it, and who is in power in China to confront it, will have tremendous consequences for the world. 

So, What Now? Knowing the 7 Myths of Highly Ineffective Education Systems, What Do We Do?

Continuing to live with these myths is to deny ourselves the opportunity to succeed, especially for those who need education the most. The first step is to accept that these notions have indeed affected our work in trying to bring about better education. Acknowledging this is not a sign of defeat but of learning.
After acknowledgement, however, come reflection – and small steps. 

Here are some small steps that all of us can take: 
  1. Discuss these ‘myths’ and related issues with as many people as you can. Question and contest them, or support them, with your experiences, facts and data from your sphere.
  2. If you are in any way connected with education – as a student, parent, teacher, CRC-BRC, official or resource person, NGO worker or decision-maker, make one small change every month which in some way empowers children or teachers or HMs. (Our team, Ignus PAHAL, will soon be producing a poster presenting a graded list of these small, doable changes at the school level.)
  3. Talk with as many stakeholders as possible and within reach (and in the limited time available) about what they would like. They might suggest things they could do – and a small beginning may be made to a partnership in bringing about improvement that is gettable. It may be a better way to help children wash their hands before the mid-day meal, or managing to start the school 10 minutes earlier so that learning time increases, or ensuring used textbooks are circulated better, or working out how you may share your expertise with children or teachers.
  4. Find something interesting you can share with children. It may be a news item (e.g. did you know that for some reason, the MHRD – and some of the other ministries of education in the country – face a problem with monkeys troubling them?), or an interesting story you’ve read or know (but no moral tales please!) or a suggestion for something they can try out (e.g. making a paper plane turn in a predicted direction) or find out (e.g. why the inner margin of a textbook page is wider than the outer margin – okay, that is too easy but you get the idea).
  5. Find a way to convert complex educational ideas into simpler forms so that a person with no background in education or no access to ‘high’ language may understand it. E.g. ‘non-detention is not the same as non-evaluation, and that by detaining children we are making them pay the price for the system’s failure and also supporting the idea that it is fear which leads to learning’. Can you find a way to make this idea easy to understand for millions of teachers, parents, SMC members and others? (You can guess why this statement was selected as the example…)
  6. Use your mobile – call up a teacher, or text her an idea or send your appreciation. With children, use the stop-watch, camera and calendar in your phone to do activities. If you know an official and have a good enough relationship, make him or her uncomfortable by reading out sections of this article (don’t get into a bitter argument – a gentle, understanding approach may be more useful!).
  7. Finally, please add to the discussion on these 7 Myths and, perhaps more importantly, to the list of suggestions.

But all these are very small things, you might say. They can’t achieve much. Well, not if many, many, many of us are doing them! Perhaps it’s a myth too that only when some large government programme is in action can change take place. This ignores local ingenuity and the sheer numbers that can make government efforts look feeble – or boost them to make them actually succeed. Towards this, your views and ideas may be more powerful than you imagine. And that’s not a myth!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

An emerging mystery in education reform

Over the last two decades, the number of professionals / resource persons / researchers / academics has dramatically grown in two areas related to educational improvement / reform — planning and evaluation — but not so much in the part that comes in between: IMPLEMENTATION! We have more and more data on learning outcomes, provisioning or the lack of it, \’non-performance\’ of personnel, expenditure incurred and the like, but comparatively very little on, say, emotional incentives that help teachers change, or practices that enable diversity to become a resource rather than constraint, or ways in which debilitating hierarchies and lack of equity can be addressed in large scale, or how systems learn to be more responsive…

In particular, the ability to evaluate children\’s learning as well as programme \’outcomes\’ has seen the greatest degree of rigour and academic/professional depth. Suddenly, there is a large number of agencies undertaking research, assessment and evaluation, and \’data\’ related activities such as monitoring / tracking. And we have people who have studied in places such as Harvard / Cambridge etc. evaluating the work of those who went to somewhat less distinguished schools/universities, studied courses that didn\’t really prepare them to design or execute brilliant programmes…. And who, of course, are not really able to get teachers to be more committed or display innovation or even basic professional capabilities. Interestingly though, the various studies / data bases + analyses by the highly qualified minds come up with results that their less qualified counterparts can quite accurately predict beforehand!

So why are the highly qualified academics/professionals so involved with evaluation and planning rather than actually getting things done? I believe because it is EASIER – easier to point out what is going wrong than actually make it better, easier to give \’recommendations\’ than nitty-gritty details that might lead to improvement (and which you can learn only if you really dirty your hands and undergo the deep frustration that teaches you what works or doesn\’t).

Perhaps all this is doing a disservice – certainly more and more people in the system are coming to believe that whatever they do is not going to work, and will probably not stand up to the \’scrutiny\’ of these \’intelligent and knowledgeable\’ people. There is also a tendency to focus on what will \’please the researchers\’ – hence some states devalue all-round education to emphasize only reading and writing and numeracy; or are forever \’piloting\’ aspects that should be well-known after so many decades and therefore diverting energy from larger systemic reform that is required post-RTE. Looks like the law of unintended consequences is beginning to operate…

[At a later date I hope to write a more \’researched\’ and \’data/evidence-backed\’ piece elaborating on this – in the meantime, comments really welcome!]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Prime Minister’s meeting with Shigeru Kitamura, Japan Secretary General of NSS

Mr. Shigeru Kitamura, Secretary General of National Security Secretariat (NSS) of Japan called on Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi today.

The Prime Minister welcomed Mr. Kitamura on his first visit to India after assuming charge in September, 2019 and stressed the importance of the growing strategic partnership between the two countries for peace, progress and security in the region. He expressed the confidence that the discussions of Mr. Kitamura with the National Security Advisor of India would pave the way to strengthen this vital aspect of bilateral cooperation.

The Prime Minister recalled his warm friendship with Prime Minister Abe and conveyed that he looked forward to welcoming him in India for India-Japan Annual Summit next month.

***

Are teachers villains or victims?

At some point or the other in their lives, almost everyone has held the view: \’If only teachers did their work better, so many problems would be solved…\’  Schools would be so much better off, isn\’t it? Education would be great and our lives very different as a result; in fact, society itself would change, if only teachers did their work better.

People who think thus are, of course, only being \’nice\’. Because there are any number of others who have less \’nice\’ ways of putting it. \’Bloody teachers, curse them, they don\’t work at all. They\’re never there in school, and when they\’re there they don\’t teach. And if they teach, they don\’t teach properly, beat children, and don\’t even know themselves what they\’re supposed to teach. All they\’re interested in is their salaries, and making money from the grants that flow to the school.\’

In fact, this is unfortunately a very widely held view, especially among officials, supervisors, trainers and others who are in any way responsible for and towards teachers. Condemn them, point out all their flaws (exaggerate where it helps) and hold them accountable for all the ills of the education system. Teacher condemnation remains the starting point of many discussions related to improving education.

Anyone who spends time in school trying to implement what teachers are asked do on a daily basis soon finds that motivation has a way of evaporating rather rapidly. You\’re supposed to teach children of one class, but you find yourself teaching more than one class, of children at different ages, with huge variations among them.  Often, you don\’t know their language, and whatever you do, so many of them seem not to be getting it at all (partly also because they cannot attend regularly). Far from support, you get indifference (often derision) from those who are supposed to support you (head teachers, community representatives, supervisors, officials). Soon, if you happen to be from another area than your posting, you start trying to get yourself transferred.

Those \’above\’ them are not immune to exploiting teachers either – using their services to support their own administrative tasks, or even asking them to pay bribes for getting their travel allowance or even school grants (I came across a state where teachers used to be paid only Rs.400 as the TLM grant, with someone siphoning off Rs.100!).

But this doesn\’t mean teachers should absent themselves from school or beat children up, you would say. It\’s true, they shouldn\’t. It\’s just that it\’s so hard (and rare) to experience success as a teacher that it\’s not so surprising. Perhaps our system is victimizing teachers such that they\’re becoming villains? Or do you think they\’re only victims? Or are they really villains?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Islam and its Denial. Part I

The inability to face the Islamic threat, indeed, the outright whitewashing of Islam, has striking similarities with past difficulties coming to grips with the nature and threat of Communism. During the first thirty years of Communism, from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech of 1947, social democrats refused to face the stark evilness of Communism. Seen as a brave “social experiment” to engineer a new human nature devoid of “selfish” impulses, the left denied, apologized, diminished, trivialized, or otherwise excused the Soviet catastrophe.

Few social democrats or left-liberals were immune to the collectivist dream, one that turned into a nightmare in Russia and eventually China, Cambodia, etc. Even that most respected of American intellectuals, John Dewey, went through a sympathetic period in the late 20s but come to his senses and spearheaded a critical examination by the mid 30s. Both The New Republic and The Nation downplayed the problems of International Communism during the whole decade of the 1930s – the “Red Decade”.

Today, Islam is new to most people in the West, and we are going through a similar denial stage. Only this time the denial is on the left and the right. The left dismisses the threat of Islam as a mere epiphenomena reflecting what they see as the underlying dynamics of American empire and oppression. On the left, there is sympathy of our Islamist enemy even if the religious form is seen as an unfortunate by-product. I’ve written about this in detail here and here.

The right has a hard time believing a religion can be bad – especially the ecumenical intellectual conservatives who dominate the main venues of conservative discourse. Fresh from victory in the Cold War, where they see Godless Communism defeated by the Judeo-Christian West, they are unprepared for the threat of a super-religion. How could trust in God lead one astray? I’ve discuss the conservative’s mistake here.

Currently, I’m reviewing the denial phase during the rise of Communism. I suspect the parallels will be revealing. I’d appreciate references on this period. Leave a comment or e-mail your suggestions

Call the SNP\’s bluff


Just in case you were not following the British elections, a small earthquake happened. The Tories won, the Lib Dems were wiped out, Labour performed poorly, and UKIP performed well but got no rewards. The bigger earthquake happened north of the border where the Scottish Nationalist party (SNP) won all seats bar three in a landslide, essentially running on a plank of Scottish independence.
This blog is a politics free zone and this blogger does not comment on political matters although he has (obviously !) strong views on every matter under the sun including Scottish independence 🙂 But he can and will argue a point of view on the economics of the issue of Scotland\’s secession.
Scotland runs a much higher level of expenditure as compared to the income it generates. If it were a separate nation, it will be running a deficit of 8% of GDP, as against the UK\’s 4%. The SNP is even more to the left than Labour and wants to spend more. In the cuckooland of irresponsibility that all opposition parties operate in, this is all very possible. 
Scotland\’s economy is tiny and is heavily influenced, even now, by oil. With the current low prices of crude, Scotland\’s already iffy finances would be in dire straits if it was an independent country. But thankfully it is not and is currently being bailed out by the English tax payer.
When the referendum was held last year (and Scotland voted to narrowly stay in the UK), it was promised to the Scots that the powers to tax and spend would be devolved to the Scottish parliament. What the SNP wants is the power to tax and spend, but continue to get the bailout by the English tax payer. For a period of transition this is acceptable, but this is not a sustainable proposition. What the Tory government would probably do is to immediately devolve the powers to tax and spend, but set a graded target of deficit reduction to the UK average over , say a five year period. That is enough to turn the squeeze on any government in Scotland. Independence would start to look an increasingly unattractive proposition.
The issue of independence will never be settled on economic grounds. Everywhere in the world it is settled on emotional and political grounds, even when it is blindingly obvious that it would be a case of economic suicide. It is for the electorate to decide, although every Anglophile, including this blogger, has a view. But one thing is certain. If the UK called the bluff and handed over the management of finances to a Scottish parliament, in an election five years later, whether Scotland is an independent nation by then or not, there is no chance that the SNP will win 56 seats. Its time to make the SNP accountable.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Call the SNP\’s bluff


Just in case you were not following the British elections, a small earthquake happened. The Tories won, the Lib Dems were wiped out, Labour performed poorly, and UKIP performed well but got no rewards. The bigger earthquake happened north of the border where the Scottish Nationalist party (SNP) won all seats bar three in a landslide, essentially running on a plank of Scottish independence.
This blog is a politics free zone and this blogger does not comment on political matters although he has (obviously !) strong views on every matter under the sun including Scottish independence 🙂 But he can and will argue a point of view on the economics of the issue of Scotland\’s secession.
Scotland runs a much higher level of expenditure as compared to the income it generates. If it were a separate nation, it will be running a deficit of 8% of GDP, as against the UK\’s 4%. The SNP is even more to the left than Labour and wants to spend more. In the cuckooland of irresponsibility that all opposition parties operate in, this is all very possible. 
Scotland\’s economy is tiny and is heavily influenced, even now, by oil. With the current low prices of crude, Scotland\’s already iffy finances would be in dire straits if it was an independent country. But thankfully it is not and is currently being bailed out by the English tax payer.
When the referendum was held last year (and Scotland voted to narrowly stay in the UK), it was promised to the Scots that the powers to tax and spend would be devolved to the Scottish parliament. What the SNP wants is the power to tax and spend, but continue to get the bailout by the English tax payer. For a period of transition this is acceptable, but this is not a sustainable proposition. What the Tory government would probably do is to immediately devolve the powers to tax and spend, but set a graded target of deficit reduction to the UK average over , say a five year period. That is enough to turn the squeeze on any government in Scotland. Independence would start to look an increasingly unattractive proposition.
The issue of independence will never be settled on economic grounds. Everywhere in the world it is settled on emotional and political grounds, even when it is blindingly obvious that it would be a case of economic suicide. It is for the electorate to decide, although every Anglophile, including this blogger, has a view. But one thing is certain. If the UK called the bluff and handed over the management of finances to a Scottish parliament, in an election five years later, whether Scotland is an independent nation by then or not, there is no chance that the SNP will win 56 seats. Its time to make the SNP accountable.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Call the SNP\’s bluff


Just in case you were not following the British elections, a small earthquake happened. The Tories won, the Lib Dems were wiped out, Labour performed poorly, and UKIP performed well but got no rewards. The bigger earthquake happened north of the border where the Scottish Nationalist party (SNP) won all seats bar three in a landslide, essentially running on a plank of Scottish independence.
This blog is a politics free zone and this blogger does not comment on political matters although he has (obviously !) strong views on every matter under the sun including Scottish independence 🙂 But he can and will argue a point of view on the economics of the issue of Scotland\’s secession.
Scotland runs a much higher level of expenditure as compared to the income it generates. If it were a separate nation, it will be running a deficit of 8% of GDP, as against the UK\’s 4%. The SNP is even more to the left than Labour and wants to spend more. In the cuckooland of irresponsibility that all opposition parties operate in, this is all very possible. 
Scotland\’s economy is tiny and is heavily influenced, even now, by oil. With the current low prices of crude, Scotland\’s already iffy finances would be in dire straits if it was an independent country. But thankfully it is not and is currently being bailed out by the English tax payer.
When the referendum was held last year (and Scotland voted to narrowly stay in the UK), it was promised to the Scots that the powers to tax and spend would be devolved to the Scottish parliament. What the SNP wants is the power to tax and spend, but continue to get the bailout by the English tax payer. For a period of transition this is acceptable, but this is not a sustainable proposition. What the Tory government would probably do is to immediately devolve the powers to tax and spend, but set a graded target of deficit reduction to the UK average over , say a five year period. That is enough to turn the squeeze on any government in Scotland. Independence would start to look an increasingly unattractive proposition.
The issue of independence will never be settled on economic grounds. Everywhere in the world it is settled on emotional and political grounds, even when it is blindingly obvious that it would be a case of economic suicide. It is for the electorate to decide, although every Anglophile, including this blogger, has a view. But one thing is certain. If the UK called the bluff and handed over the management of finances to a Scottish parliament, in an election five years later, whether Scotland is an independent nation by then or not, there is no chance that the SNP will win 56 seats. Its time to make the SNP accountable.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Call the SNP\’s bluff


Just in case you were not following the British elections, a small earthquake happened. The Tories won, the Lib Dems were wiped out, Labour performed poorly, and UKIP performed well but got no rewards. The bigger earthquake happened north of the border where the Scottish Nationalist party (SNP) won all seats bar three in a landslide, essentially running on a plank of Scottish independence.
This blog is a politics free zone and this blogger does not comment on political matters although he has (obviously !) strong views on every matter under the sun including Scottish independence 🙂 But he can and will argue a point of view on the economics of the issue of Scotland\’s secession.
Scotland runs a much higher level of expenditure as compared to the income it generates. If it were a separate nation, it will be running a deficit of 8% of GDP, as against the UK\’s 4%. The SNP is even more to the left than Labour and wants to spend more. In the cuckooland of irresponsibility that all opposition parties operate in, this is all very possible. 
Scotland\’s economy is tiny and is heavily influenced, even now, by oil. With the current low prices of crude, Scotland\’s already iffy finances would be in dire straits if it was an independent country. But thankfully it is not and is currently being bailed out by the English tax payer.
When the referendum was held last year (and Scotland voted to narrowly stay in the UK), it was promised to the Scots that the powers to tax and spend would be devolved to the Scottish parliament. What the SNP wants is the power to tax and spend, but continue to get the bailout by the English tax payer. For a period of transition this is acceptable, but this is not a sustainable proposition. What the Tory government would probably do is to immediately devolve the powers to tax and spend, but set a graded target of deficit reduction to the UK average over , say a five year period. That is enough to turn the squeeze on any government in Scotland. Independence would start to look an increasingly unattractive proposition.
The issue of independence will never be settled on economic grounds. Everywhere in the world it is settled on emotional and political grounds, even when it is blindingly obvious that it would be a case of economic suicide. It is for the electorate to decide, although every Anglophile, including this blogger, has a view. But one thing is certain. If the UK called the bluff and handed over the management of finances to a Scottish parliament, in an election five years later, whether Scotland is an independent nation by then or not, there is no chance that the SNP will win 56 seats. Its time to make the SNP accountable.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Call the SNP\’s bluff


Just in case you were not following the British elections, a small earthquake happened. The Tories won, the Lib Dems were wiped out, Labour performed poorly, and UKIP performed well but got no rewards. The bigger earthquake happened north of the border where the Scottish Nationalist party (SNP) won all seats bar three in a landslide, essentially running on a plank of Scottish independence.
This blog is a politics free zone and this blogger does not comment on political matters although he has (obviously !) strong views on every matter under the sun including Scottish independence 🙂 But he can and will argue a point of view on the economics of the issue of Scotland\’s secession.
Scotland runs a much higher level of expenditure as compared to the income it generates. If it were a separate nation, it will be running a deficit of 8% of GDP, as against the UK\’s 4%. The SNP is even more to the left than Labour and wants to spend more. In the cuckooland of irresponsibility that all opposition parties operate in, this is all very possible. 
Scotland\’s economy is tiny and is heavily influenced, even now, by oil. With the current low prices of crude, Scotland\’s already iffy finances would be in dire straits if it was an independent country. But thankfully it is not and is currently being bailed out by the English tax payer.
When the referendum was held last year (and Scotland voted to narrowly stay in the UK), it was promised to the Scots that the powers to tax and spend would be devolved to the Scottish parliament. What the SNP wants is the power to tax and spend, but continue to get the bailout by the English tax payer. For a period of transition this is acceptable, but this is not a sustainable proposition. What the Tory government would probably do is to immediately devolve the powers to tax and spend, but set a graded target of deficit reduction to the UK average over , say a five year period. That is enough to turn the squeeze on any government in Scotland. Independence would start to look an increasingly unattractive proposition.
The issue of independence will never be settled on economic grounds. Everywhere in the world it is settled on emotional and political grounds, even when it is blindingly obvious that it would be a case of economic suicide. It is for the electorate to decide, although every Anglophile, including this blogger, has a view. But one thing is certain. If the UK called the bluff and handed over the management of finances to a Scottish parliament, in an election five years later, whether Scotland is an independent nation by then or not, there is no chance that the SNP will win 56 seats. Its time to make the SNP accountable.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Call the SNP\’s bluff


Just in case you were not following the British elections, a small earthquake happened. The Tories won, the Lib Dems were wiped out, Labour performed poorly, and UKIP performed well but got no rewards. The bigger earthquake happened north of the border where the Scottish Nationalist party (SNP) won all seats bar three in a landslide, essentially running on a plank of Scottish independence.
This blog is a politics free zone and this blogger does not comment on political matters although he has (obviously !) strong views on every matter under the sun including Scottish independence 🙂 But he can and will argue a point of view on the economics of the issue of Scotland\’s secession.
Scotland runs a much higher level of expenditure as compared to the income it generates. If it were a separate nation, it will be running a deficit of 8% of GDP, as against the UK\’s 4%. The SNP is even more to the left than Labour and wants to spend more. In the cuckooland of irresponsibility that all opposition parties operate in, this is all very possible. 
Scotland\’s economy is tiny and is heavily influenced, even now, by oil. With the current low prices of crude, Scotland\’s already iffy finances would be in dire straits if it was an independent country. But thankfully it is not and is currently being bailed out by the English tax payer.
When the referendum was held last year (and Scotland voted to narrowly stay in the UK), it was promised to the Scots that the powers to tax and spend would be devolved to the Scottish parliament. What the SNP wants is the power to tax and spend, but continue to get the bailout by the English tax payer. For a period of transition this is acceptable, but this is not a sustainable proposition. What the Tory government would probably do is to immediately devolve the powers to tax and spend, but set a graded target of deficit reduction to the UK average over , say a five year period. That is enough to turn the squeeze on any government in Scotland. Independence would start to look an increasingly unattractive proposition.
The issue of independence will never be settled on economic grounds. Everywhere in the world it is settled on emotional and political grounds, even when it is blindingly obvious that it would be a case of economic suicide. It is for the electorate to decide, although every Anglophile, including this blogger, has a view. But one thing is certain. If the UK called the bluff and handed over the management of finances to a Scottish parliament, in an election five years later, whether Scotland is an independent nation by then or not, there is no chance that the SNP will win 56 seats. Its time to make the SNP accountable.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

China\’s Issues

Every country faces challenges and China is no exception. But by global yardsticks, China\’s issues are less critical than what most other countries face.  It is after all the one country in the world which does not face a serious growth challenge (at least as of now).  China is however such a large country that even a seemingly minor issue is of gigantic scale and one that will affect the whole world. This is why everybody in the world ought to take a much greater interest in this country.
This post is a compendium of social, political, economic and moral issues that China faces at this point of time, in no particular order
Maintaining GDP Growth : The \”contract\” between the Communist Party and the people is a simple one – Economic growth for political control. When economic growth falters, this contract will be put under strain. There are a number of challenges to maintaining economic growth and some of them are articulated below. You can\’t grow endlessly at 8%+. The inflexion point has come.
Quantum of Debt  : China\’s debt to GDP ratio is galloping and is now above 300%. Much of the growth over the last decade has been debt fuelled. Growth will seriously falter if debt is cut. That\’s why the elusive \”soft landing\” is proving so difficult for China. Just for comparison, India\’s debt to GDP %, which I often cry about is \”only\” 130%. The United States, of course is a leader at 350% !
Income inequality : Every country faces this problem, but China faces it as bad as the US. The Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality is 0.42 (higher the number, greater the inequality). The US is 0.46. India is 0.35. China is starting to have first world problems
Ageing population : Because of the one child policy that was rigidly enforced until recently, China is rapidly ageing. It will be the first country in history to have an ageing problem before it got rich (remember, on a per capita basis, China is still middling). With a poor social security network, who is going to pay for the aged and take care of them in a decade or two. China has the peculiar problem of one grandchild for four grandparents.
Corruption : We have spoken of it in previous posts. It is a serious problem.
Environment : China faces an acute environmental problem. The government is actively tackling it, but the problem is a huge one and one that was allowed to build up to crisis levels over decades. China also faces an acute water problem (worse than India\’s). There aren\’t easy solutions. Much of the north is virtually a desert, but with teeming populations.
Restive provinces : The one thing China is absolutely terrible at is integrating people who are culturally different. 93% of China is a homogeneous Han (those who talk about diversity in China have no clue what diversity really means – come to India).  The two largest provinces Tibet and Xinjiang are restive and brutally suppressed
Rising nationalism : Very few Chinese would recognise this as an issue, but it really is. Anti foreigner sentiment is high – its easy for a large number of Chinese to be fanatically against a nation if whipped into a frenzy of perceived slights. The Chinese government is increasingly bullying in its approach – Japan (Senkaku), entire East Asia (Nine dash line), India (Doklam and Arunachal). The average citizen who only has access to government propaganda gets whipped into dangerous nationalism. The Chinese would do well to ponder over this – why do they have so few friends ?
A moral vacuum : To an outsider, this might seem to be a strange issue, but many Chinese would immediately relate to it. Firstly during the Cultural Revolution and then in the breakneck speed of economic growth, its ancient culture, beliefs and traditions have gone. Today money is the predominant (only) religion.  In other countries, religious and  social organisations provide a balance to the materialism. In China they do not exist, or if they rise, are brutally exterminated by the government (see what happened to Falun Gong). So many Chinese wonder – after money what? And they may then turn their attention to demanding a level of freedom not in consonance with what the party is comfortable with.
And so this is the real major issue that China has faced since the mid 1980s and continues to face now. What is the balance between economic freedom and growth and political and other freedoms. The first flare up came when Zhou Enlai died in 1976. The second major flare up came during the Tiananmen incident in 1989. Since then there has been an uneasy truce, but one which has never gone away. Some day it will rear its head again. How China confronts it, and who is in power in China to confront it, will have tremendous consequences for the world. 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1