FEATURE: Higher education... what for?

Source: PA

Higher education is meant to be the way to access better jobs. That is, at least, what we have been constantly told. But to what extent is this true? Higher education is, indeed, a via crucis somebody has to follow in order to get to the top positions but this does not mean that everybody that follows a university degree (be it a BA, MA, MSC, MBA or a PHD) will land a good job. Not anymore at least.

Decades ago going to the university was the way to gather all that knowledge that earned you the respect of companies and employers. Since most of the people didn't have the chance to go to university, graduates were scarce and, therefore, in high demand. Now, instead, almost everybody chooses to study a BA at a university. Those who don't take a university course don't actually take it because they don't want to, not because they can't, as it used to be the case. Hence the standarisation and democratisation of higher education (a logical step forward in the educational system, on the other hand) has also brought in its devaluation.

Some time ago those who only had a BA would find a well paid and well regarded job. Now nobody of those do. You are better off working as a shop assistant or as a plumber.

Let's explain it graphically: John and Mark attended the same high school. John decided not to pursue higher education, as he wanted to earn fresh cash as soon as possible, so he started working as a plumber. Mark, instead, thought that his job prospects would be enhanced by pursuing further education, so he decided to enrol on a BA in Journalism. John worked hard, but earned a slightly lower salary than the average. Mark, on the other hand, had to find a part-time job in order to fund his studies at the university, so he worked as hard as John while he studied, during five years. In those five years John bought a car and a house, whereas Mark earned a part-time salary which allowed him to pay for his course fees every year. But it was fine, he thought, as after graduation he would land a good job.

When he graduated, after 5 years, he was already 22. A good age to start his first job. But he soon realised that all he could find were unpaid internships. They told him that it was the price to pay in order to find a place in the industry. A sort of a sacrifice he had to do if he wanted to access to the prestigious and well paid jobs. So he went through two or three internships. In the meantime nothing had changed for John. He kept working hard and earning a fair salary.

After a few unpaid internships Mark could actually land an entry-level job, perceiving the minimum legal wage. It was tough, he had to do many extra hours for free, he had few holidays and a lot of work. But they told him that it was the way to get to better positions. So he worked there. For a year. For two. When he realised that nothing was changing he decided to take a Masters. They told him that an MA in his CV would definitely make the difference. So he took a Masters while he was working fulltime. He even studied a different, more economic-oriented masters, to open up more doors, to make him more appealing for companies. So he gathered all his savings, he spent an awful lot of money, and he struggled for one year combining work and study again. But he managed. And he got the certificate, brand new, that he added to his CV. But nothing changed. So after another year working at the same place and earning exactly the same wage as he was earning three years before (the minimum wage with which he could only pay the basics), he decided to take the big step. In order to boost his job opportunities he decided to study a second Masters abroad, in one of the most prestigious universities in the country. Once again he had to gather the money by combining two jobs, given that the salary he perceived from his main job was too low. So there he was, working from Monday to Friday, nine hours a day, in one job, and from Friday to Monday, six hours a day, in another job. Eventually he gathered the money, he paid the fees and off he went to his new destination.

After another year he had a sparkling CV. 5-year BA taken in two different countries, MA taken in another country. Another MA taken in another country. Four years of work experience in the field. Fluency in four languages.... and still he was unable to find a good job.

In the meantime John still kept working as a plumber and perceiving a better salary than Mark, already 28, would ever get.

And there we have John, 28, working as a plumber for the last ten years, and earning a stable and fair income; and Mark, 28 as well, unemployed, having worked in different low-skilled jobs, some high-skilled ones, having taken three university degrees (two of them while working), and having spent thousands of pounds on an education that did not deliver any result.

The question is obvious: How is it possible that John, basic education and a rather easy life, is getting more money and is living a more stable life than Mark, with different university degrees, languages and different work experience?

Something somewhere went obviously wrong.

Source: Daily Mail

The first reason is that higher education is not a luxury anymore. The democratisation of universities has devalued them. Since everybody can access to university courses, having a BA is the normal thing. It is not something special anymore.

There are of course some exceptions: A degree in a prestigious school or university will probably help you land a good job. But, again, these courses are created by the elite for the elite, and therefore too expensive for a mortal. A Warwick/Oxbridge/Eton... graduate + LSE/London School of Business...MA will land those top jobs. A normal student who can't afford a pricey university is more likely to end up holding a BA and one or two MAs in different universities and, even though in many cases these graduates will be definitely much more skilled and prepared to work than some of those who graduated from top level schools and universities (but who got the money to pay for the course), they won't find a good job. They will land an average-poorly-paid-job.

The second reason is that theoretical knowledge does not prepare you for developing tasks in a practical job. Theoretical knowledge is theoretical knowledge. Decades ago theoretical knowledge was perceived as something extremely prestigious. Those who had this theoretical knowledge would therefore land the best jobs because they were wise and they had been learning in a scholar background not available to everybody.

The third reason is that, even though you can actually find almost a university degree for every single academic field, 90% of them are useless. It is interesting to learn ancient Greek, but you will not be able to compete with someone who can actually manage a business, design a building or simply fix a flooded sewer.

The fourth reason is that many of the tasks needed in a day-to-day basis in a job can be actually done by people who don't necessarily have any theoretical knowledge on the issue. Only an architect is able or even allowed to design a building. Everybody can work as a journalist as long as he is good at it. Everybody can work as a translator if he's good enough in the required language. The journalist who took his degree in Journalism or the Doctor in Philosophy who graduated from a MSC in German Philosophy can't design a building nor fix a flooded sewer. Therefore they won't find a job easily. John the plumber will find a job more easily than them, and will certainly get paid more than them.

The fifth reason is that nowadays companies want people who can develop many different tasks, so rather than hiring three skilled people who will carry out their different skilled work, they want to reduce costs and hire one person who can do the work of the three of them, maybe not as efficiently as they would, but which will definitely be cheaper.

The sixth reason is that in many countries the higher degree you own, the more you should be paid by law. These are called "professional categories" in some countries, and it means that if you hold an MA, you must earn more than someone who just has a BA, even if you are developing the same tasks. Companies don't like that, because this implies that they have to pay more for the same task that some other less skilled worker can do. That is why they either obviate this soft law, or they opt for hiring someone less skilled. This is particularly current in low-skilled jobs that students look for to fund their higher education. The result is clear: some BA students tend to hide to potential employers that they hold a BA in order to land a low-skilled job that will allow them to pay their even further education.

The conclusion, hence, is obvious: if you want to land a good job you need money. An awful lot of money. Save money enough to pay a BA at Oxford University and be good enough to get into Oxford University. Afterward, once you have graduated, save even more money to pay even more money to get into the LSE or the MIT. And after that you're done.

If you don't have the means to do that, the best you can do is spotting the career opportunities before actually choosing a BA. Try to get into the best "normal" universities, cross your fingers, work hard, be one of the best if not the best of the whole university, and maybe you will be able to, at some point, find something not very bad.

If not you can always forget about all this fuss and focus on sewers and waterpipes and keep working since you are 17 as a plumber, earning more (and more stable) money than your scholar counterparts.

By CDR with No comments

COMMENT: On the Scottish referendum

Last May, in the regional elections, Alex Salmond's SNP achieved an outstanding victory, retaining 69 seats in the Scottish Parliament, the SNP's best achievement ever, surpassing their important victory in 2007.

A few days after the elections, Salmond stated that since the final objective of the SNP is the independence of Scotland, the new Scottish Government –which will see a majority of SNP's MSPs, therefore being able to pass any law or bill they want without external support from other parties– would hold a referendum on the Scottish independence in the next few years.

The immediate reaction of conservative politicians was to back the celebration of the referendum as soon as possible, therefore trusting that the majority of Scots do not back the break-up of Britain. But the SNP wants to have a few years to prepare the population for a referendum of this kind, hence it will not take place immediately.

But, first of all, would people in Scotland back a referendum on Scottish independence? And second, what does it really imply?

The first movement of the UK Government was admitting and backing the celebration of the referendum, not opposing it. This does not mean that Cons and LibDems are suddenly on Salmond's side, but it may mean that they really know that a majority of Scots would not back Scottish independence, hence they don't see the referendum as a threat. Indeed past surveys have shown that support for independence among Scots is still too small –around 23%, according to the last Scottish Social Attitudes Survey–.

The SNP has to understand that not all of those who have voted them in the regional elections will back a referendum on Scottish independence.

On the other hand, the representation of those who want Scottish independence may be exaggerated at the polls. Most of the people do not care about Scottish independence, and therefore do not take part in surveys. However, a referendum with certain kind of legal validity would drive them to vote and show their opinion, therefore lowering the percentage of those who support Scottish independence. The turnout at the last elections only reached 49%, but a referendum on Scottish independence would see a much higher turnout.

Finally, Salmond has always campaigned for an independent Scotland where North Sea oilfields would finance the cost of independence. But in the current financial and economical landscape it is unlikely that the UK Government would cede the complete exploitation of the North Sea oilfields to Scotland, losing billions of yearly revenues.

Those who back independence have to sit down and stop thinking if Scotland could achieve independence, and start thinking whether it could afford it.

By CDR with No comments

COMMENT: A brief reflection on the Tottenham riots

When you walk down Tottenham High Road you don't see a dangerous, dodgy district; a grey and ugly suburb where criminals wait around every corner to threaten you. Tottenham High Road is, indeed, the main street of a North London neighbourhood. It could be the neighbouring Wood Green. It could also be Stratford, Mile End, Clapham or Hammersmith. It is a neutral place, dotted with small shops, call centres, groceries and so on. Even the part which faces Tottenham's Police Station, one of the hotspots during the riots, is completely normal.

Of course everything can happen and this neighbourhood can change from day to day and turn into a battlefield, as it was the case barely a month ago. But despite its bad reputation, Tottenham does not look like a pretty dangerous zone where to live.

I read in an article in The Economist that most of the faces captured by the CCTV cameras during the riots in Tottenham were those of black people. It, argues the article, does not mean that the riots were merely aroused by the problem of racism. However, as the article points out, most of the other ethnic groups were not involved in the riots. There is a much larger Bangladeshi community in Tottenham, but none of them looted any shop. The same with other Asian communities.

Then, reports the article, behind the riots and the involvement of black people in them, there are a few questions to bear in mind, a few explanations, such as the situation of the black community, which always arouses suspicion among the Police whenever a crime has been committed, whose children tend to be excluded from school and an important percentage of its adults ends up in jail.

The perception of racism among the black community is very sensible, as the article points out. Many people in the riots could have acted violently as a way to express their frustration and their exclusion of society driven by racism.

However, we should start thinking whether the important question is who took place in the Tottenham riots, who looted the shops, and start thinking about what did they loot.


A very basic way to understand the riots as a reaction against racism is pointing out that, if racism –or angst against it– drove the riots, people would have targeted those who are imposing racism. So far nobody at the riots targeted white communities or private houses owned by white people.

On the other hand, the rioters protested against something, of course, but they only targeted shops. And what they looted were goods. But not all kinds of goods they could reach. As a matter of curiosity, Waterstones, a famous bookshop franchise, was not even touched. If protests were driven by racism, rioters would have looted everything they found on their way. But they didn't. They carefully selected those shops with cool fashion brands, electronic goods, sports garment and the kind, and stormed them.

The fact that the rioters only looted this kind of shops shows to what extent what drove the protests was not an actual reaction against racism, but a reaction against the frustration caused by not being able to purchase all those goods advertised on TV. Looters did not touch a book, but they did loot Primark. They stole clothes and TVs, videogames and laptops. In other words, they "used" the tense and extraordinary situation to steal –and take vengeance on their disfavoured situation.

There is no justification for the riots, but they were definitely not caused by racism. They were not a public outcry against the racist Londoner society. Maybe we should rethink the cause of the riots, forget the easy explanation and analyse what really underlies these acts.

By CDR with No comments

NEW PROJECT: The World in Black and White (365 days of B/W)

The World in Black and White (365 days of b/w) is a project launched in August 18 by Carlos del Romero/Worldindepth. It aims to present 365 photographs in black and white, one for each day of the year, from different places around the world, taken in the last ten years. The photographs are then presented as visual poetry, embedded with brief comments that tell the story behind the picture.

In the next 365 days we will see pictures from places in Spain, England, Scotland, Wales, Canada, the U.S., Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, France, Turkey, Hungary...

Although every photograph will show a feature of a different country, these won't be arranged in a geographical order. The focus of the visual story will be one element in the photograph, regardless of the location.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: A paradise lost

Between 1968 and 1973 the inhabitants of a British Overseas Territory known as Chagos Archipelago were forcibly removed from their homeland. In a very controversial decision, the Government of the UK decided to allow the installation of a US military base in the biggest of the islands of the Archipelago, Diego García.

The removal of the islanders was slow but carefully planned. Months before the complete removal of the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago, their pets were poisoned and their families were threatened .

Then the evicted Chagossians were confined in small communities in the neighbouring Mauritius and in London. They were also stripped of their British nationality, as the government retired their UK passports. In a matter of weeks the Chagossians were forcibly removed from their land and lost their British nationality, becoming a nation with no land and an invisible community spread all over the world.


The roots of the conflict go back to 1965, when the UK dettached the territory from the colony of Mauritius and Diego García was ceded to the US for, at least, the next 50 years. The island would be used for military purposes only, and the inhabitants had to be removed from Chagos. In exchange, the UK received $14 million and closed an important deal to purchase American nuclear submarines .

Given the insistence of the Chagossians, the UK approved an Immigration Ordinance in 1971, whereby any person wasn't allowed to even enter the whole territory. The situation of the islanders was therefore made unlawful. Secret conversations in the British administration lead to the resolution that the UK had to find the way to remove the islanders at any cost, "providing legal power to deport people who will not leave voluntarily, preventing people from entering, and maintaining the fiction that the inhabitants of Chagos are not a permanent or semi-permanent population" .

During the 80s the UK Government tried to settle down the dispute by giving economic compensations which reached £4m to the surviving islanders, and the case was closed and forgotten.

However, in 1998 some of the chagossians who lived in Mauritius took the case to the British High Court, claiming that their removal was made by illegal means. In November 2000, a historical resolution gave the illois their right to return home, as the Court found that their removal was unlawful. It was then seen as the end of the conflict, but the UK Government was not going to give up the islands so easily.

An article on the Chicago Tribune in October 2001 showed the ongoing conflict and the importance of preserving the US military base in Chagos at any cost. As an expert quoted at the article put it, "the US would be seriously affected if we had to leave the island. It is extraordinarily important to us; it allows us to keep a lot of ammunition and ground equipment near the Persian Gulf".

The decision of the High Court evidenced that the UK administration back in the 70s had acted in an illegal way. But, what is the current situation of the conflict? Are the Chagossians in a better situation than ten years ago?


The situation of the Chagossians hasn't improved much in the last decade, and the conflict has reached a stalemate difficult to break. After the Court ruled in favour of the Chagossians, allowing them to return home after more than 30 years, the UK government decided to act quickly in order to prevent the islanders to go back to Diego García, something that could threaten the military base and would put at risk the good relationship between the UK and the US administrations.

In 2004 the UK Government enacted the so-called Constitution and Immigration Orders, whereby the islanders were again refused their resettlement because it would be too expensive and environmentally unsustainable. But again, the High Court ruled in favour of the illois, stating that the 2004 Orders were unlawful. However, the UK Government appealed in 2007 before the Court of Appeal. As John Howell, QC for the Foreign Secretary stated, "this appeal raises issues of constitutional law of great importance. If the approach of the High Court was correct, it represented a revolutionary change in the constitutional law involved, which will affect all British Overseas Territories".

On May 23rd the High Court ruled in favour of the islanders for the third time, dismissing the UK Government's claims. However, the Court also ruled that the UK Government could appeal to the House of Lords directly. Only one month later, the UK administration appealed to the Law Lords and after one year of deliberation they ruled in Goverment's favour by a margin of only three to two votes.

In a public speech, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary at that time, expressed his satisfaction after knowing the ruling. "Our appeal to the House of Lords was not about what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. It was about decisions taken in the international context of 2004. This required us to take into account issues of defence and security of the archipelago and the fact that an independent study had come down heavily against the feasibility of lasting resettlement of the outer islands of BIOT", stated.

The ruling of the Law Lords proved controversial when one of the experts that had been commissioned to carry out an environmental study about the feasibility of the resettlement of the illois was forced to remove his opinion, which was favourable to the return of the Chagossians, from the document .

After the ruling of the Law Lords the Chagossians, throughout the Chagos Refugee Group, took the case to the last instance, the European Court of Human Rights, which is still deliberating.


In April 2010, the UK Government, in a maneouvre apparently not related to the case, decided to set up a marine reserve in the British Indian Ocean Territory. The Government claimed that this decision showed the commitment of the UK with the environment. Several conservation groups backed the decision. "The MPA will cover some quarter of a million square miles and its establishment will double the global coverage of the world's oceans under protection. Its creation is a major step forward for protecting the oceans, not just around BIOT itself, but also throughout the world. This measure is a further demonstration of how the UK takes its international environmental responsibilities seriously", said Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

The decision was criticised by the Chagossians, who argued that the decision of setting up a Marine Protected Area in the Archipelago was taken to avoid the resettlement of the islanders, if the European Court of Human Rights finally ruled in favour of them.

The suspicions of the Chagossians were later confirmed by whistle-blower website Wikileaks, which leaked 500,000 top secret documents from US diplomatic outposts all around the world to four big newspapers in the UK, Spain, Germany and the US. In one of the embassy cables published by Wikileaks, the Director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated that "establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents" .

"We do not regret the removal of the population, since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic purpose", reads the leaked document .

The decision of setting up a marine reserve also aroused ignited discussions in the neighbouring Mauritius, which has been claiming sovereignty over Chagos Archipelago since 1965, and is currently holding a dispute with the UK administration .

With the creation of the marine reserve, the last hope for the Chagossians is almost gone. The Marine Protected Area forbids any human settlement in the whole Archipelago. Even if the European Court of Human Rights rules in favour of the islanders, it is unlikely that they will be allowed to return to their homeland.

On May 19, 2011, different Chagossians' support groups held a conference in London on the future of the Archipelago. The new situation forced the islanders to change strategy. The support groups presented a new project, based on the settlement of small eco-villages in the outer islands of the Archipelago, where some of the Chagossians who are still willing to return would be allowed to live in short-term periods.

Currently there are only around 4,000 Chagossians still alive. Some of them have given up any hope. Some others don't want to fight anymore. As for the rest, those who want to return, time is running against them. They have been fighting for over 40 years and now, in their eighties, they still hope that one day, before they die, they will be allowed to recover their lost paradise.

By CDR with No comments

COMMENT: A stagnant economy?

Source: Treasury

The announced cuts and the increase of the taxes are trying to boost the British economy, which now face the hard task of overcoming the hangover left by the deep financial crisis that hit the whole world in 2008. However, Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, also was forced to announce that despite the reforms and the cuts the 2011 growth forecast for the British economy will be downgraded from 2.1% to 1.7%. Similarly, the forecast for the following year, 2012, will decrease from 2.6% to 2.5%. Finally, the economic forecasts point out that inflation will remain between 4% and 5% in 2011, and will fall to 2.5% in the following year.

The aggressive cuts announced by the British Government will affect various key sectors. The good news is that concerning fuel, the duty is being cut by 1p per litre, and the planned inflation rise in fuel duty, scheduled for last April, was delayed until 2012. These measures will be covered by an extra £2 billion tax applied to the main oil firms present in the North Sea. However, the VAT on fuel will not be reduced. Concerning other key products, the Government won’t reform the planned rises in alcohol and tobacco tax, of 4p on a pint of beer and 15p on a bottle of wine.

Regarding the borrowing, the forecast is £146 billion for this year, £2.5 billion lower than expected. Osborne forecasted that the borrowing will fall to £122 billion in 2012 and £29 billion by 2015-2016. The national debt forecast for this year will reach the 60% of national income, rise to 71% in 2012 and finally fall to 69% by 2015.

Source: Treasury

Is the British economy facing a real threat of stagnation?

All these measures aim at reforming the badly-hit British economy but, will they be enough? Most business groups hailed the Budget, and agreed that would create new jobs, but there are fears among the oil and gas producers, who argue that the £2 billion tax in oil companies will damage a key sector in the UK. On the other hand, the Institute of Fiscal Studies calculated a loss of £200 per household on average after the announced measures were finally applied, last April.

The new measures are regarded as little adjustments that won’t fix the whole problem in the British economy. They are seen as a plan that hopes for growth, rather than an actual plan designed to boost economic growth.

Source: Treasury

Wales, the poorest region in the UK

Wales eyes the Budget with hopes and fears. The planned extra £65 million over the next five years is good for the Welsh economy, yet it fails to balance the negative impact of the announced cuts in the region. Wales is currently the smallest economy of the whole United Kingdom, with an average GDP of less than half as that of London.

Wales also faces the problem of big unemployment rates, the highest of the whole country, peaking at 9%, some 126,000. It is obviously becoming a very worrying problem, and the cuts announced in the previous Budget won’t do any good to it.

The words of Plaid Cymru’s MP, Jonathan Edward, make it clear: “The truth is that the UK Government has no plan B for Wales, and worryingly there is a very real threat of a decade of economic stagnation”.

Yet an extra £65 million over the next five years, including up to £34 million in 2012 is a gift that Wales has to embrace. Yes, it fails to relieve the Welsh economy, but still, it is equivalent to a 0.1% increase in the Assembly Government’s resources. And we see it as the stepping Stone for the recovery of the Welsh economy.

By CDR with No comments

INTERVIEW: Chasing lights and shadows

DAVID HURN (England, 1934) is one of these persons that can be described as self-made men. He self-taught and became an assistant at the Reflex Agency at only 21. Decades later he set up the renowned School of Documentary Photography in Newport. His photographs have registered everything from political demonstrations to the everyday life in Wales. He has already been 55 years on the business, and at 76 he is still an active photographer. His photographs showed the best and the worst, the prettiest and the dullest things, the most glamourouse and the most vulgar scenes; and for several decades he worked with the best and for the best. The Navigator chats with him about his career and the profession of photographer.

What is your latest work about?

Well, now I am focusing on the idea of perspective. Landscapes. I want to imitate those cityscapes and countryside views that the dutch painters depicted on the 17th Century. One of the things I have learned about landscape is that it is a completely different thing, it has nothing to do with what I have been doing in my life.

When did you feel attracted by photography?

In 1954. I was a kid and discovered that there was a Camera Club in my city. I was very shy, and taking pictures behind a camera was a good way to start, I didn't need to be exposed. I went to the club and asked them whether I could join, and they said that I needed a camera to join them, so i bought one. The I started taking photographs. I wanted to be a photographer and I showed photographs of what I knew: weddings, parties, local celebrations...

How were your beginnings?

I took my first photographs in 1955. The first equipment I had at this time was a small Kodak, and I used to sell photographs of weekend celebrations and weddings in Harrods. Now I still keep selling some of these prints. Then I bought another camera, a second-hand Leica, and used it all my life. Just recently I switched to digital. I do still take pictures with film cameras, I think Leica is the best camera ever made and has the best lenses.

Source: Magnum

How did you get to master photography?

I self taught, I learned from how the pros worked. When I started there were no schools, you just learned from making mistakes. It is very important to understand that you need a perfect technique, you cant do anything without having a perfect technique, and the way to learn is practising and practising. I once talked to a pianist, Baremboim, and i asked him what does make a great pianist. And he said "playing the piano a lot". It is the same with photography, you have to shoot and shoot in order to improve. I learned from experience, and especially from other people's experience.

You were one of the first Western photographers to document the Hungarian uprisings in 1956. How did you feel?

In 1956 me and a friend decided to go to Hungary to document the uprisings. We hitchhiked to Austria and then we discovered that some ambulances departed from there and entered Hungary. We asked one of the drivers and he took us. When I went to Hungary I didn't know hot it would be. You learn that things don´t take place when you expect they will, so that´s why I decided to follow journalists. Life had only a photographer there and then they saw me, so they said: "why don´t you work for us?", and once you are there you just have to take pictures on focus, because everything is happening around you.

How did you join Magnum and what did it mean for you?

One of the most difficult things as a photographer is getting access. I didn't know anything about Magnum, they didn't have an office in London, but I met some guys from Magnum, they saw my pictures and they asked me to join Magnum. For me it meant working with people that were better than you are, and you can learn a lot out of it because you watch and you learn. It was a clever thing to do.

Source: Magnum

You also photographed posters for Hollywood movies, especially those about James Bond...

Yes. One of the problems with the photography I do is that they pay low. I discovered that working on movies was a way to make money. I had a friend who worked with Sean Connery and told me that they were planning to do a low budget film called "James Bond". They didn't have a poster for the film, so I did it for them. When we were about to shoot it they told me that Sean Connery didn't have a gun. At that time I collected air pistols, so we made the photograph with my air-pistol. Years later we put the gun on auction and it sold for 300 pounds. I read that two months ago this same pistol was sold for 220,000 pounds.

Tom Carlyle, who did the James Bond movies, did also Barbarella. He rang me once and told me that they had problems with Jane Fonda and asked me to come over. I stayed with her for nine months, photographing her for the movie.

Later on you worked on three books about Wales. What was your purpose?

I have always photographed people doing things. I have curiosity and I try to participate in others' lives, in what you see around you. But you get older, and when I came back to Wales I wanted to show what was culture. What did mean being Welsh? I decided to do three books: how we live in Wales, people who live in Wales and a third book on the landscape of Wales. I left it the last because is more leisure. I´m 76 and wanted to try myself to slow down, that is why I decided to do landscape. What does the landscape, how is it done, the human use of landscape...

What is, in your opinion, the best advantage of being a photographer?

Living as a photographer you meet people and you do those things you want to do. I do take pictures for a purpose. I can´t just wander around and take a picture of something I like. I only record what interests me, but I have to make clear which kind of photograph I am looking for before going out and shoot. I think the world is a wonderful place, it never stops evolving, and I find interest on trying to record what I see. That is such a privilege.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: Strengthening the Welsh dragon

Over 500.000 Welsh voted Yes in the third referendum in the history of Wales, giving the National Assembly further powers in the 20 subject areas in which it can legislate. From now on the Assembly won't need the permission of Westminster to legislate in any of these areas.

The Yes option has been backed by almost a 64% of the voters, in front of a 36% who voted no. The results show an increasing self-confidence in the Welsh citizens: in 1979 a vast majority of the voters said "no", whereas in 1997 the question held in the referendum was approved by a narrow margin. 14 years ago, only 50,3% of those called to the polls voted yes, whereas a 47,7% voted no.

The victory of the Yes campaign in the 2011 referendum shows that Welsh were longing for some changes in the legal and politic governance in the country. However, a major complaint of the citizenship was that there wasn't enough information available about the consequences of the referendum.

The turnout, which was as low as only 35% of those who were called to the polls, show that the questions raised by the referendum were not backed by the majority of the population.

font: BBC

Wales Office to disappear?

But the results of the referendum are already having direct implications. Plaid Cymru leader Ieuan Wyn Jones said this week that after achieving direct law-making powers, the so-called Wales Office's role is difficult to establish.

Jones explained that now it is "difficult to justify" the existence of three different offices for the devolved regions -Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland-, and proposed to create a new UK government department which would merge the three offices.

The Wales Office is a remnant of the past. It was established as a bridge between the British Government and Wales, and it was created by the UK Government to deal with all the Welsh matters.

According to Jones, this office has a diminished role after the last referendum. In the last years it was devoted to handle the National Assembly's requests for more powers, something that has been already granted after the Welsh voted 'yes' in the last referendum, which asked whether the citizenship wanted the National Assembly to be able to have further powers.

The road to devolution

The third referendum in the history of Wales is a milestone for the Devolution, the process whereby Westminster cedes powers to other devolved regions such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Wales has been legally part of the United Kingdom since the Union acts of 1535, whereby every law passed in England would be applied automatically in Wales also. In the late 19th century some acts concerning Wales were passed, such as the Welsh Intemediate Education Act, and a Department of the Board of Education was established in 1907 to deal with education matters in the region. Some years later, in 1919, the Welsh Board of Health was set up in Wales, and in 1949 the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire was established. Its main objetive was to oversee the effects of Government policy.

The origins of the referendum underlie on the so-called "Welsh Office", a sort of delegation that the Government of United Kingdom decided to open in 1965 in Wales to deal with Welsh matters. This office was established with the objective of executing the Government policy in Wales.

Although the Welsh Office gained more powers in the next years, it became clear that Wales was still regarded as an appendix of England, rather than a nation within a country of nations.

A few years later, in 1979, the Welsh citizens faced the first referendum in the history of Wales. They would vote if they wanted to create an assembly with the same functions as the Secretary of State for Wales, that is, the application of UK Government's policy on the region.

The majority of the Welsh who decided to participate in the polls decided to vote no. Over 950.000 rejected the plans exposed in the referendum, whereas only 243.000 approved them. At that time, almost all the main political parties in the region saw Devolution as a threat to the United Kingdom and a concession to the Welsh nationalism, hence campaigned for the no-vote.

Exactly twenty years later, in 1997, the Welsh had another opportunity to vote on a referendum about the autonomy of Wales and the Devolution process. In this new referendum, Welsh were asked whether they accepted the creation of a Welsh National Assembly which would have certain devolved powers, and which would not only apply the UK Government´s policy on certain matters, but would have the power of legislating, albeit the Assembly would be forced to ask the permission of Westminster.

The referendum was approved by a slight majority of only 50.3% of the voters, in front of a 49.7% that rejected the creation of an Assembly. After the polls, the UK Government approved the Government of Wales Act of 1998, whereby the National Assembly for Wales was established, with powers in twenty subject areas.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: The red dragon at the crossroads

24 years after the last referendum, the Welsh will go for the third time in history to the polls to decide about the future of Wales. The referendum, which will be held on the next 3rd of March, will seek to cede further law-making powers to the Assembly.

Almost 3 million Welsh are called to the polls in what is meant to be another milestone in the Devolution process in Wales. The population will be asked to decide whether they want the National Assembly to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas where it has attributions.

Currently, the Assembly can only decide on certain matters, but needs the permission of Westminster to be able to make new laws. If the changes are approved by the citizenship, the Assembly will be able to legislate independently from Westminster.

Wales is the region within the United Kingdom with less devolved powers. Currently, the Assembly has powers to make laws in only 20 subject areas, such as agriculture, culture, economic development, health or transport. Still, it needs the UK Parliament’s agreement to legislate in every area, something the main Welsh parties find unfair, compared to other Devolved regions like Scotland and Northern Ireland, which don’t need the Westminster’s permit to legislate.

However, major subjects such as defence, tax or welfare benefits will remain bonded to the UK Parliament’s whatever the result of the referendum.

The issue of a new referendum about the cession of powers to the Assembly has aroused ignited discussions among Welsh citizens. Wales is currently the poorest region of the whole United Kingdom, with an average per capita income of less half of London’s. Indeed, large areas of Wales have a GDP of 67% of the British average. Moreover, the unemployment rate is bigger in Wales (8.4%) than in the rest of the country (average of 7.9%). The whole region was declared Objective 1 by the European Union, which brought in over a billion pounds worth of European aid in the last years. However this funding has failed to achieve the expected economic regeneration.

On the other hand Wales faces a difficult economic situation due to the recent cuts on the public spending. Despite the spending review hasn’t been massive in the devolved regions, it still implies that Welsh will lose a 7.5% of their budget between 2010-2011 and 2024-2015. Indeed the cuts in Wales will be higher than in the other devolved regions. Scotland will lose a 6.8% of its public budget and Northern Ireland a 6.9%. Precisely one of the historic demands of the National Assembly is to have greater tax powers, which will allow Wales to spend a 15% more of what it spends.

Background for Devolution in Wales

The referendum of the 3rd of March will be the next step in the road to self-government in Wales. Previously, the Welsh voted in two referendums linked to the cession of powers, the first time the region had the opportunity of getting some self-government powers since the Union Act was passed by Henry VIII between 1536 and 1542, uniting Wales and England. Until 1967, any law passed by Parliament which referred to England had to be automatically applied also in Wales. It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that Wales was given a separate identity with the creation of the Welsh Secretary of Education and the Minister of State.

The Devolution process was opened in Wales in the late 70s, and in 1979 the Welsh had the opportunity to vote on the first referendum ever on the cession of powers. The voters were asked whether they wanted the provisions of the Wales act of 1978 to be put into effect. The results, however, showed that a vast majority of the population (79.7%) rejected this first attempt on the creation of a Welsh Assembly and the cession of certain powers from Westminster to it.

Twenty years later, in 1997, a second referendum on the matter was held both in Scotland and Wales. In this case, Welsh were asked whether they supported the creation of an assembly for Wales with devolved powers that, unlike in Scotland, wouldn’t include any tax-varying powers. This second referendum was approved with only a 50.3%, a difference of barely 7.000 votes. The National Assembly for Wales was finally set up in 1999.

Source: The Economist

Yes and no campaigns

During January two campaigns have been launched to inform the voters about the referendum options. All the four parties in Wales (Plaid Cymru, Welsh Labour, Welsh Conservatives and Welsh Liberal Democrats) back the Yes option. The Yes campaign defends the cession of more powers to the Assembly as an important step for Wales, given that “time and money are being wasted” as the Assembly needs Westminster’s permission to legislate.

Aled Edwards, ex member of the All Wales Convention and speaking on behalf of the “Yes to Wales” campaign said that “it is not healthy for any democracy to have to wait years to legislate. It takes many months to get the permission from Westminster”. Edwards also added that the fear of some people to the Devolution process is unjustified. “There are no good arguments to vote no. This referendum won’t lead to the independence of Wales, those who say that are mistaken”, said.

Edwards also warned about the future scenario if the Welsh decide to vote no. “Devolution has made Wales a more equal place. If we vote no, the current process will be stopped, we will have to wait. It would be disastrous. It is not only a matter of legislation. By voting yes we are telling Westminster that we want to legislate on our own, that we are able to do it”, explained Edwards.

On the other hand, the opposing No campaign, launched by the independent pressure group “True Wales”, argue that the Assembly has failed to achieve what was promised in 1997. Nigel Bull, spokesperson of “True Wales”, stated that “when we voted for an Assembly we were expecting something different. We didn’t vote for this. We want a complete reform of the Assembly and the way it is managed”.

According to Bull, the Assembly has been unable to manage the achieved powers in a proper way. “We wasted hundreds of millions of pounds. Hundreds of companies got £ 1-million grants for nothing”, said.

However, Bull argues that “True Wales” is not against Devolution. “We are strong believers in Devolution, but not like this. We didn’t vote for what we have right now. I voted yes in the referendum in 1997, and I still believe in Devolution, but enough is enough”, stated.

Source: Lonely Planet

The road to independence?

The demands of independence for Wales are currently backed only by a small percentage of the citizenship, and even though the Devolution process has given a new prospect to the Welsh identity, it is unlikely that Wales will become an independent state in the next years.

One of the main reasons why is improbable that Wales achieve independence, traditionally has been said, is the size and state of the economy. Wales has a small economy based mainly in the first sector that won’t be able to compete as an independent state.

However, the referendum of the 3rd of March is seen by some people as a chance to get closer to the idea of a fully self-governed state.

The polls are addressed to British citizens, qualifying Commonwealth citizens, Irish and EU citizens, and the voters will be able to vote by person on the very same day of the referendum, by post or by proxy.

By CDR with 1 comment

FEATURE: The spanish economic hangover

Source: Reuters

August 27th, 2010. Sergio wakes up. He feels tired. As an editor and technical director, he has been working in the design of the new show that the TV channel where he works will offer from September. But he also feels worried. Yesterday night he received a phone call. The director of the TV wanted to meet all the workers the day after. Today. In the last months the TV has been struggling to survive the economic crisis. Up to ten workers have been fired. Wages have been reduced.

Sergio arrives. All his colleagues are already there. He can see their worrying faces. Juan, the Director, comes with another guy. He must be one of these important persons who take serious decisions. Juan starts speaking. He stops. He struggles to continue. "The owners just decided to close this TV. It was the only way to balance the accounts. We are all sacked. All of us".

EU figures show that Spain is currently the Eurozone's fourth biggest economy. According to the Spanish Statistics Institute, its unemployment rate peaked at 20% during this year, the highest rate among all the European Union states. Its national debt rose to 64,4% of its GDP at the end of this year and its Public Sector has a debt of over a 50% of the GDP , according to the Spanish Savings Banks' Association. Three years after the advent of the economic crisis, Spain's economy hasn't found the way to recovery.

"The forecast for our budget deficit is 10%. We have an unemployment rate of 20%. Our pension system is bankrupt. We can't have our own monetary policy. We have almost 3 million civil servants and 17 different public administrations. Our building industry is collapsing and tourism is in its lowest peak. The Spanish economy is going wrong, without initiatives, with dreadful perspectives and without a stable structure" , says Carlos Sánchez-Cutillas, Spanish economist and member of the Valencia School of Economists.

Sergio is just one of the 4 million Spaniards that can't find a job in their own country. Whereas the rest of the Eurozone slowly starts growing up again, Spain is unable to overcome the crisis. Is one of these peripheral countries which have been badly hit by the financial crisis. But why does the situation in Spain remain so severe?

"We are in a bad situation because we don't have a proper industrial structure. We never stimulated investigation and development... What happened is that when we joined the European Union in 1986 we found a rich Europe which was keen to fund our development, because they needed new markets. They gave us millions of pesetas before and euros later to stimulate our industry, our services, to build roads... But now these funds are over, and Spain has wasted these 25 years of free money" , explains Sánchez-Cutillas.

Source: Seeking Alpha / Instituto de Crédito Oficial

Carlos Alfonso, Income Tax Inspector at the Spanish Ministry of Economy, points out that the building industry was one of the engines which boosted Spanish economy. "Spain relied an important part of its economic growth on a speculative sector. Any normal income generated in Spain by an economic activity was taxed by a 45%. But benefits derived from buying and selling flats were taxed by an 18%. That created a huge speculative activity. For example if I earned €1.000.000 in my job, I had to pay €450.000, whereas if I bought five flats and then sold them for €1.000.000 each, I would only have to pay €180.000 per flat, making fast money" , says Alfonso.

Property prices have fallen 22.5% since 2007, and 1.4 million homes remain unsold, according to Seeking Alpha . Tourism, the other economic sector in which Spain based its growth, was badly hit during the crisis. Although Spain is one of the leading touristic destinations in the world, Spanish and foreign tourists started cutting their spendings and saving money by not going on holiday. For over 4 million Spaniards -a 20% of the whole Spanish workforce and a 40% of young people, according to Seeking Alpha - holiday trips are a luxury they simply cannot afford right now because they are unemployed. Like Sergio.

"It is not coincidence that charity institutions such as Casa de la Caridad or Cáritas have registered a vast increment of people who come to these institutions in search of aid. Families that a few years ago didn't need any help are queueing at the entrance of these institutions asking for food" , states Spanish Sociologist Óscar García. However, García warns that we shouldn't only blame on politics or economists: "Many people preferred closing their eyes and believing that everything was going well, that the Spanish economy was rising very fast. Then they decided that they would ask for a loan and go on holidays to an exotic destination, or they bought a fancy car while they actually were paying mortgages they couldn't assume" .

Spaniards look forward to the future. The Government's forecast for 2011 shows a tiny recovery, with an economic growth of 1,3% for the first time in the last three years. But the European Commission lowered this forecast to 0,7% in 2011 and 1,7% in 2012; and also forecasted an increment in the unemployment rate, which will reach 20,2% in 2011 before lowering to 9,2% the following year, showing that Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero will have to work harder on the matter.

The Government has just launched a special package of measures in order to cut spendings and boost the economy, such as ending the monthly €426 wage for unemployed people and selling parts of public-owned companies and institutions -airports, national lottery...- but they will prove insufficient, experts say. Spanish public spending reached €350,213 millions in 2010, 20,317 more than in 2009 and 35,691 more than in 2008, according to the Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Source: Seeking Alpha / Instituto de Crédito Oficial

"The Spanish government has been giving public aids and funding to everybody, has increased the public spendings without taking into account the principles of efficiency and economy that should be regarded in every important decision. Because of this, the Public Debt has reached a peak of 9,2% in 2010, which will lead to an increment of taxes and cuts" , explains Alfonso Pérez-Pretel, Spanish economist and President of Iberaudit auditing association.

The current situation of some EU peripheral countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal has raised the topic of a possible bailout for Spain. Greece and Ireland had to be saved by the EU. Portugal seems to need a bailout. It is not that clear in the case of Spain. Spanish economy is two times the size of Ireland, Greece and Portugal's economies combined.

"Europe can't save us. Our economy is much bigger than Ireland's, Portugal's and Greece's. But what is rather likely to happen is that the EU will fund our economy, because we are in debt with Italian, German and french banks, and therefore they can't let us die. What Spanish economy needs is a change in the Spanish society", states Sánchez-Cutillas.

"We need a political agreement to restructure the Public Sector, axing those organisms and institutions which aren't strictly necessary. We would avoid duplicities in the different administrations and unnecessary spendings, decreasing our deficit and being able to invest in generation of employment" , says Pérez-Pretel.

November 19th, 2010. Sergio wakes up. He hasn't found anything yet. Anything related to his former job position. He is now open to anything. He has gone to few interviews for a job position as a waiter. He hasn't been selected. He is the face of the economic crisis in Spain. He is just one of the over 4 million Spaniards victims of an economic turmoil which will take years to overcome.

By CDR with No comments

By CDR with No comments

By CDR with No comments

By CDR with No comments