Yes
Adarsh Makdani
Despite what the papers would have you believe, the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (Muslims, Climate Change, Cancer and Princess Di) are not slipping into their jodhpurs.
As a nation, we have a stable, liberal democracy. A coalition between two parties, roughly in the centre, that works (comparatively well). We might not rank high on “happiness” scales, but we aren’t facing a revolution, whatever your feelings about Nick Clegg.
Our legal system is a model for the rest of the world. Individual rights (and eBay purchases) are protected by law. And, Moneygeddon has been averted! Beer and Petrol cost a bit more, but that’s fine because one shouldn’t Drink and Drive.
Education until 18 is Free. Healthcare is free at the point of treatment, and the NHS is an institution to be proud of. The State looks after the poor and infirm. The Press, including our national broadcaster, are free from interference, and the world looks on at the BBC in awe.
The wars we fight are not on your doorstep. Despite Iraq and Afghanistan, the UK is relatively free from terrorist attacks, and we get to pick who we’re at war with. Should the international situation go Titsup we have the Special Relationship with one super power, a large number of able bodied electricians from the other, as well as our own armed forces and… a Nuclear Deterrent. (Which won’t be used, and could just be a ship with “Nuclear Deterrent” painted on).
The UK can cope with Climate Change, and any energy or food crises. Plenty of crops grow in the UK, and more would through GM. We’re pushing towards renewable energy, and nuclear power will keep us self sufficient should we fall out with Russia over gas.
Security is a state of mind. The country has never been safer. So relax.
No
Kit Stewart-Sandeman
Security has been defined in military terms for far too long. States round the world spend vast quantities of military technology on the presumption that the only way to to increase security is to possess ever larger guns. This only works on an assumption that other human beings are inherently malicious, but we can see from a fleeting glance at world affairs in 2011 that war is the exception, and peace is the norm. The bulk of this money is therefore misspent.
Besides, we may have the best arsenals in the world, but they are completely ineffective against climate change. Those who deny climate change are as deluded as those who believe there is nothing we can do about it. Climate data shows a very clear rise in carbon levels in our atmosphere, and scientific consensus has emerged on the issue. Whether or not human activity is predominantly responsible is irrelevant; rising carbon levels cause rising temperatures, in turn increasing both the quantity and severity of atmospheric phenomena. This crucially brings further instability to our food system.
This is where we see the greatest levels of absolute insecurity. The slightest inclement weather, such as the Russian heatwave last year, cause soaring food prices. The dependency of agriculture on fossil fuels is even more alarming, and the issue is not being properly addressed; the recent in-depth government report on the severity of the crisis went virtually unnoticed. Biblical scale food shortages and famine are shortly going to spread throughout the world; this is anything but secure. By viewing humans as the master and possessors of nature, we have abused and exploited this earth, and as a direct corollary our tenure here is set for review. At our current trajectory, we are not set to implement any of the changes necessary until it is really urgent, at which point it will be too late.
Our position on this earth may well return to one of security, but for now we are anything but secure.
Cowardly Disclaimer:
The comments above don’t necessarily reflect the authors’ own viewpoints. This was the first in what we hope will be a series of debates, the later of which we hope will be more considered, informative, but may still be as polarising. In this instance the arguments were somewhat caricatured, as you may have noticed. However, that is the way with debates; they favour extremes of opinion, rather than the grey middle ground. I hope that as the publication matures we find a balance between exciting, engaging and enraging extremes, and informative, well considered, unobjectionable fence-sitting.
Depending on the consensus, in future we may not choose to disclose who wrote which argument. Comments could then be directed at the “Yes” or “No” camps, without feeling so personal – however that may be too cowardly.
Your comments will be appreciated, and we’ll respond where appropriate.
Also, I promise to proof-read better. Excessive use of capitalisaion has been Fixed.
Adarsh Makdani
2 Comments
you've obviously never been poor or infirm
Dear Anon,
Please read the Cowardly Disclaimer I’ve now added.
To say nothing of my own experience, the government / the state is required to look after the ‘poor or infirm’, and where it doesn’t it is a failing of the system, or meddling politicians rather than the principles. Admittedly that’s of little comfort to people who are facing cuts to essential services or benefits*, but the argument, used by many in the “Yes” camp is that this is how things should be, and that makes us infinitely more secure than in the USA, where health insurance companies play God, or in France, where one has to pay for healthcare upfront, and is reimbursed later. Admittedly this ignores the arguably better care elsewhere, or even the reality that in the UK things are not as they should be.
*I hate the word benefits, having to make a claim because you cannot afford the situation you are in is not a benefit. The process is difficult, humiliating, and I’d argue that most people would think it more beneficial not be in that situation in the first place.