Reaching the parts other British urban acts couldn't - why So Solid represented a watershed for British music

Despite largely not being active as a collective for some years, So Solid continues to be name checked by current artists in the ‘urban’ music scene. The collective had a profound impact on today’s thriving urban music scene that sees such acts as established fixtures in the UK pop charts. So Solid clearly left their mark on the music scene beyond UK garage and its apparent successor Grime.

So Solid’s rise to prominence was somewhat unprecedented for a British urban act not from the RnB scene that mainstream audiences typically find more palatable. Before garage, urban British genres had become a voice and representation of multicultural Britain but typically reached a glass ceiling when it came to commercial success. Jungle had flirted with the mainstream charts with hits such as M Beat and General Levy’s Incredible and Roni Size and Goldie managed to take Drum & Bass beyond the underground. Going further back, it had been a similar story for other homegrown genres. The reggae infused genre of Lovers Rock brought a sound that reflected the identity of multicultural Britain and the second generation of post-war Caribbean immigrants. Songs like Janet Kay’s Silly Games and Louisa Marks’ Caught You in a Lie were able to capture mainstream attention. Yet despite the popularity of Lovers Rock, mainstream success was relatively limited.

Conversely, early UK hip hop, which some might consider to share similarities with garage, struggled to permeate the mainstream. Indeed, garage ultimately became what early UK hip hop sought to be. After an early identity crisis of British rappers adopting faux American accents, acts such as London Posse reflected inner city British life in records like How’s Life in London. Nonetheless, early UK hip hop was unable to step out of the shadow of its American counterpart. The slick videos, the arguably more radio-friendly production and major label marketing, was regarded by many in the UK as superior to anything that could be produced closer to home.

More significantly, UK audiences found it difficult to connect with early UK hip hop. Hearing rap in a British accent sounded alien and the images of UK rappers shared too much of a resemblance with American rappers for a meaningful distinction to be made. The clothes, the demeanour and in many cases the vernacular of many artists was just too American for many to embrace. The American twang still adopted by some rappers didn’t help either. Consequently, it added credence to the notion that rap, or rap influenced genres where an ‘MC’ would be the focus, could not be successful with a British accent.

Returning to garage, the more soulful side of the genre was able to experience crossover success with records like MJ Cole’s Sincere. But the smooth vocals and production of these records were sufficiently non-threatening to ensure they could make the transition from the then popular garage rave scene to mainstream radio. Meanwhile, So Solid and other garage collectives including Heartless Crew and Pay as U Go Cartel, were experiencing a burgeoning popularity with a grittier side of MC based garage. This would soon translate into mainstream success and be championed by British youth beyond the inner city communities in which the sound was born.

So Solid, and the garage collectives that followed, reflected inner city Britain in a way that had not been done before. Their image, vernacular and diction reflected that of inner city youth and their ethnically diverse membership portrayed a Britain where class lines had become more prevalent than race in drawing up communities. Indeed, the visuals of So Solid’s debut video Oh No (Sentimental Things) celebrated the garage scene and captured inner city London at the time. Even the production of their music had a London-esque sound to it. Their Britishness was according to how they and inner city British youth had defined it.

There was also the unpolished image of So Solid that led to their credibility. Some members of the collective were more media savvy than others but overall there wasn’t anything manufactured about the collective.

Like most garage collectives of the time, So Solid’s earlier music didn’t seek the lyricism or messages present in hip hop. With few exceptions, their lyrics were superficial, often repetitive and club-friendly. But that didn’t matter to their success and if anything, it made them more accessible to mainstream audiences. Their videos also matched the quality and hype of those made by American urban acts. Videos like 21 Seconds and Ride Wid Us were as glossy as those made by the Americans but the braggadocio they displayed had something British about it. Gradually, even mainstream media wanted to know about the sprawling “crew” that was So Solid.

Again breaking away from American notions of urban music, So Solid looked to Jamaican-influenced sound systems and sound clashes as the format for their own Garage Delight club night. Led by Megaman, the collective also exuded a confidence that didn’t portray them as second-rate wannabe American rappers.

The connection So Solid was able to establish with British youth was central to their success. Inner city youth identified with them and with that endorsement, their popularity grew. Garage brought British youth their own sound but So Solid gave it a persona that they could identify with beyond music. This marked a departure from the idolising of American music that British youth could not identify with yet steadfastly championed often over British urban music.

It’s arguable that had it not been So Solid, another collective would have had the same impact had they come along at the same time. Indeed, So Solid was a product of Britain at the time and a response to British youth seeking a sound and accompanying scene of their own. Nonetheless, So Solid seemed to tick all the boxes in achieving that and their success speaks for itself. Where Heartless Crew further reflected the sound system influence on garage and Pay as U Go Cartel and other East London collectives had a grittier sound that would become the forerunner of Grime, So Solid seemed to strike the balance for success that would transcend the garage scene.

Since the garage scene’s heyday, hearing an MC with a British accent no longer sounds out of place and even a hint of an American accent from a British rapper or MC is reproached. The credibility now lies with homegrown acts and American acts are no longer placed on a pedestal above their UK peers.

Despite the controversy they faced, So Solid represented a watershed for British urban music. The garage scene as a whole was instrumental in bringing about the shift but So Solid were arguably at the helm. While they may not have been everyone’s cup of tea musically, their impact is unquestionable and they arguably helped to create the British urban music scene that exists today.

Klitschko vs Chisora… or should that be Haye vs Chisora?

After the unacceptable pre-fight antics of Dereck Chisora slapping Vitali Klitschko (and later spitting water at Wladimir Klitschko), Chisora seemed to partly redeem himself (as a fighter rather than a person) to some boxing fans. His performance showed more heart than many thought he would bring to the ring.

I thought Chisora would crumble under the pressure of the occasion and would be defeated by Klitschko in scenes that could resemble Ivan Drago vs Apollo Creed in Rocky IV. Fortunately for Chisora, and with all credit to him, I was wrong. He took several big shots that would have floored many fighters in what has become such a lacklustre heavyweight division and went the distance against an experienced (yet ageing) champion in Klitschko. His pre-fight behaviour was deplorable but he could take solace in his gutsy performance. That was until it was overshadowed by the scenes at the post-fight press conference.

David Haye, who attended the fight as a summariser for BoxNation, had also attended the post-match press conference. However, when the Klitschkos’ manager, Bernd Boente and Haye began an exchange about the failed negotiations for a fight between Vitali Klitschko and Haye, it prefigured the eventual confrontation between Haye and Chisora. Add a character as volatile as Chisora, Frank Warren’s and Bernd Boente's disdain for Haye and Haye’s hurt pride after losing to Wladimir Klitschko, and on reflection some confrontation was probably inevitable. Not to mention Chisora has previously made his dislike of Haye clear in interviews and claimed they’d eventually fight inside or out of the ring. That may have just been trash talk but now the latter has actually happened.

The brawl between Haye and Chisora was clearly bad for British boxing and boxing overall. Neither Haye’s nor Chisora’s pre-fight conduct in the build up to their fights with Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko respectively went down well with many boxing fans. Many felt they had gone too far beyond the pantomime often required to sell tickets and PPV buys in boxing. But their brawl has taken this to another level that many fans and pundits outside of the UK especially will use to criticise British boxers and indeed British fight fans.

Everyone involved was culpable. Bernd Boente could have refrained from goading Haye (and therefore encouraging Chisora) as could Frank Warren. Chisora could have kept it verbal and stayed in his seat and Haye could have chosen not to respond to Boente or Chisora and risen above their bait. Many will blame Haye for throwing the first punch. However, with a man as unstable as Chisora in his face, and given Chisora’s previous threats, I doubt he was ever going to rely on the confrontation remaining non-physical.

Haye’s manager and trainer Adam Booth was cut during the melee and Haye certainly hurt a bloodied Chisora who would already have been bruised after 12 rounds with Klitschko. It mirrored something out of WWE rather than the sweet science. Immediately following the brawl, Chisora also threatened to “shoot” Haye and the German police are now involved. If he hadn’t gone too far with his earlier antics, Chisora has now taken it much further. The British Boxing Board of Control is bound to take action against Chisora for his televised (and now viral) threat to shoot Haye and he could even lose his licence. Haye, although not having renewed his licence since his “retirement”, could also face difficulties in doing so for future fights given his conduct at the press conference.

Haye has made it clear that he wants to come out of “retirement” to face either Klitschko brother and that he wants no one but them. But given his hiatus from the ring since his defeat to Wladimir, one or two fights to address any ring rust could be worthwhile before taking on Vitali. After Chisora’s performance against Vitali, he could have been a possible opponent for Haye in a domestic match-up with the bad blood between the fighters helping to generate interest. Nevertheless, in a fight where Haye would hold most of the cards as the bigger attraction, he may not want anything to do with Chisora now. Conversely, he may now relish the opportunity to finish what has become an extremely personal feud which would lead to claims that the fracas was somewhat staged. I doubt it was, at least not to the extent of the scenes that actually occurred.

Chisora came off very badly in the build up to the fight, only to partly redeem himself as being worthy of a shot with a performance that showed heart. But now he has greatly sullied his character and the sport yet again. And while many saw Haye’s presence at the press conference antagonistic, Boente, Warren and Chisora gave him the platform for what would later ensue. Indeed, I blame Boente and Warren as much as Chisora and Haye as they knew full well what was likely to happen. You can even see the slyness in Warren’s demeanour as Chisora gets up to approach Haye.

Boxing is often accused of being a violent sport by those that don’t understand the discipline, dedication and heart it requires and scenes from the post-fight press conference will only have served to reinforce such flawed views. The hype is sometimes necessary to sell fights but Chisora crossed that line on more than one occasion. Chisora’s trainer, Don Charles, was vocal about being underwhelmed by the slap Chisora gave Vitali at the weigh in and even he may now have had enough of Chisora to prompt him to walk. Add Chisora’s fate at the hands of the BBBoC and his immediate future in boxing does not look rosy. Worse still, boxing itself has taken another hit in its reputation.

The right principles but a flawed approach – why the government’s stance towards the proposed benefit cap needs a rethink

The proposed benefit cap of £26,000 a year (or £500 a week) is arguably the most prominent proposal in the government’s Welfare Reform Bill. The cap is intended to ensure anyone on benefits does not earn more than the average gross earnings of working families and it has been well received based on public opinion. Unsurprisingly, the sentiments of some right-wing politicians and media (in suggesting that most people on benefits are merely abusing the system) have gone some way to reinforce that.

There are of course people on benefits who knowingly abuse the welfare system and have made a lifestyle choice not to work. And the more generous the welfare system is, the less likely they are to have an incentive to work. One aim of the government’s proposed benefit cap is to address this by eradicating the perception for some that benefits are an alternative to employment. But the government has failed to acknowledge that these attitudes do not account for everyone on benefits. Indeed, the government’s one-size-fits-all approach is the fundamental failure of the proposed reform.

The reform also doesn’t take account of the respective circumstances of someone on benefits, particularly those that have not been subject to long term unemployment and families with children. On the latter, the Bill was defeated in the House of Lords following an amendment that child benefit be excluded from the cap.

In the current economic climate, many unemployed people have been subject to redundancies in both the private and public sector. Being on benefits for them is not a choice but a necessity due to circumstance. However, the rhetoric of the Bill appears to ignore this and effectively plays the employed against the unemployed in galvanising public support for the reform. The government has also neglected to fully consider the impact of the cap on those recently made unemployed.

Take a family living in modest privately rented accommodation where the main earners have become unemployed. Under the proposals for the benefit cap, their housing benefit may not meet their rent payments and consequently they could be compelled to move to cheaper accommodation and possibly social housing. Yet social housing is subject to waiting lists and local authorities have increasingly sold their housing stock in recent years. Compounded by the legacy of the Right to Buy scheme, social housing stock surely cannot meet the demands of an increasing number of people that may require it. Alas, the government has seemingly disregarded this in formulating its policy.

The government has argued that people should not live in accommodation beyond their means and taken in isolation, they’re right. But a family whose financial situation has deteriorated in a short time, and due to no fault of their own, is not the same as the families the Daily Mail like to report on.

There isn’t an apparent solution to this but the government doesn’t appear to have given it much consideration. Some have accused the government of “social cleansing” in forcing those on benefits to move home, particularly in London where rents are higher than elsewhere in the country. This could lead to further ghettoisation of the “haves” and the “have-nots” – something I doubt some members of the coalition government would be averse to given their own social class and views on society.

The lack of consideration for children in the Bill is a further error on the government’s part.

The government has argued that making child benefit exempt from the benefit cap would encourage some people to have more children to receive more in benefits. Regrettably, for some that is perhaps true. But the children themselves should not suffer for their parents’ poor choices. What the government fails to acknowledge is that it cannot always legislate to address attitudes in some sections of society. Therefore there will always be irresponsible people that choose to procreate without the means to responsibly support a child.

At present, child benefit is a universal benefit and should not be considered in the context of welfare payments. Furthermore, is it right that parents and their children be subject to reduced benefits if they suddenly become unemployed? Surely helping people in their time of need is the crux of the welfare system. Yet the Bill goes against this very principle.

In many respects, the proposed benefit cap may appear well intentioned and it is right that no one is better off on benefits than they would be in employment. Indeed, for many, £500 a week in benefits is frankly too generous. The cap aims to ensure deliberate unemployment is not rewarded or seen as a viable alternative to working. But despite its aims, it’s not been fully thought out and clearly lacks pragmatism.

The benefit cap needs to be compatible with the principles of a fairer and pragmatic system. But if the government cannot achieve this, the proposed reform will not differ from attempts of previous governments that have tried and failed to overhaul the British welfare system.

Safeguarding British interests? Is that really why David Cameron vetoed EU treaty change?

David Cameron had always promised to safeguard British interests when it came to EU treaty change. Most notably, that meant vetoing any deal that would require the UK to cede further sovereignty to the EU or a tax on financial transactions (a Tobin or ‘Robin Hood’ tax). Despite the significance of the proposed treaty change for the strength and viability of the Eurozone, something undoubtedly in Britain’s interest, the Prime Minister was adamant from the outset that both would be deal breakers where he was not willing to concede.

Consequently, and to the delight of Europsceptics, Cameron vetoed EU treaty change. Instead, the remaining EU states (minus the UK) are now likely to sign up to an ‘inter-governmental accord’ – essentially an agreement without the robustness offered by a treaty.

Cameron maintained that safeguarding British interests would be his priority in any negotiations. And in his capacity as Prime Minister, it’s difficult to argue against that approach. But it’s debatable if British interests were wholly behind his decision to veto EU treaty change. Given Britain’s relative insularity and aversion to supranationalism, surrendering further sovereignty to the EU would always be a thorny issue to say the least. Furthermore, given this aversion, any treaty change would have been met with significant opposition from Conservative backbenchers in Parliament.

While he surely realised the significance for the Eurozone, had Cameron not used his veto he was faced with the wrath of his own party. This isn’t exactly a British interest but had he decided otherwise, Cameron would have returned to a hostile reception from his own backbenchers. Instead, Cameron has returned a hero to many in the Conservative party as he surely knew he would. The Eurosceptics have celebrated Cameron using his veto with many hoping this may even prefigure a shift in Britain’s relationship with the EU and a possible referendum. Cameron may not be a popular figure amongst EU member states but he has avoided a political backlash that could have done much damage to his leadership and political career.

While many would disagree, Cameron may have perceived his decision to use his veto as a reflection of his fellow MPs’ views – a valid perception given they are elected representatives – and as a result one of British interests. But the extent to which his opposition to a Tobin tax can be considered as safeguarding British interests is also questionable.

Cameron, George Osborne et al have argued that the financial sector plays such a significant role in the UK economy that a Tobin tax would be to the detriment of the UK. They argue it would compel the financial sector to relocate abroad and risk the not-inconsiderable tax revenue and jobs created by the sector. Cameron therefore unashamedly declared his intention to protect the City of London during negotiations on EU treaty change.

As I wrote in a previous post on the proposed UK banking reform, measures that might not please the City of London would not lead to a mass exodus of the financial sector from the UK. Were a Tobin tax to be introduced within the Eurozone, indeed some might make the move elsewhere. Yet given this would be applicable to the entire Eurozone, this would surely mitigate that risk. The government’s previous argument of alienating the City of London with a UK-only Tobin tax is therefore less applicable than it previously was.

If too big to fail isn’t fitting, too big to antagonise certainly seems appropriate when considering the government’s stance towards the financial sector. Cameron’s consideration of the financial sector when discussing the safeguarding of British interests is telling as in this instance he sees the two as inseparable. According to the Financial Times, hedge fund managers are now the biggest donors to the Conservative party. Coincidence that their interests are perceived by Cameron as one of national interest? I think not.

Were a Tobin tax to be introduced, it’s likely they’d be some annoyance in the city. But this would hardly be to the extent that averting the tax could be considered to safeguard British interests.

While many outside his party may disagree with his decision, Cameron arguably used his veto to safeguard what he perceived to be British interests. However, he certainly safeguarded his leadership and the interests of the City of London along the way. And while he might defend it as otherwise, Cameron’s decision to use his veto wasn’t exclusively based on safeguarding British interests per se.

Following Cameron’s veto, Britain is now faced with isolation and a loss of influence within the EU. The inter-governmental accord isn’t as rigorous as treaty change but it is nonetheless a forum that the UK will not be party to. Furthermore, this could be a move Cameron comes to regret, especially if it ends up threatening the same British interests he claimed to be protecting by using his veto.

The public sector national strike - why it was about more than just pension reforms

The UK-wide public sector strike on 30 November was primarily over the government’s proposed reforms to public sector pensions. Essentially, the government wants public sector workers to work for longer, pay more in pension contributions but receive a reduced pension based on a career average salary rather than their salary at the time of retirement. But the strike wasn’t just about the trade unions and their members’ opposition to pension reform. It was just as much about articulating the frustrations of a public sector that has been demonised by the coalition government and the right-wing media.

The strike also held significance for politicians and unions. For politicians, this wasn’t limited to the government as the strike represented a dilemma for the Labour Party in its unwillingness to support or condemn strike action. And for the unions, the biggest strike action since the general strike of 1926 bolstered their legitimacy, despite claims from the government that they failed to represent members in calling for strike action.

The proposed pension reforms are based on the recommendations of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, the Commission led by former Labour MP John Hutton (now Lord Hutton). John Hutton’s tenure as Secretary of State of Work and Pensions would suggest him to be suitably experienced to chair the Commission. Yet it’s hard to ignore the fact that he was invited to do so to give the proposals some credence as a Labour politician; effectively doing the bidding of the Conservative-led coalition government.

Regardless of the political party or persuasion of the Chair of the Commission, the government clearly sought reform in line with the Commission’s eventual recommendations. Admittedly reform might be necessary but reform of this nature arguably isn’t.

With the population living longer, there’s bound to be a gap between pension contributions and pension payments. Therefore increased contributions in some form are necessary to bridge the gap without overly relying on the taxpayer to achieve this. On that basis, I don’t oppose a reasonable increase in the pension age and/or in pension contributions (although it should be noted that this was actually addressed in pension reforms by the Labour government in 2007 which were agreed with the unions). But an overall reduced pension, particularly for low paid public sector workers, is simply unnecessary and unfair.

The government has defended the proposed reforms as necessary and said that public sector workers earning less than £15,000 and those close to retirement will see no change to their pension contributions. That still leaves millions of public sector workers that would be adversely affected.

While the unions may appear to take a hard line approach in public, privately, the ‘more for less’ approach is surely the sticking point for them too. Furthermore, as Dave Prentis, General Secretary of UNISON wrote in the New Statesmen, many believe the reforms are merely a way to generate extra money to put towards the deficit. It’s a cynical but hardly far-fetched notion, particularly given the coalition government’s perception and targeting of the public sector.

The coalition government (most notably the Conservative MPs within it) has sought to vilify the public sector from the outset and it has been subject to much unwarranted opprobrium in what appears to be ideologically driven disdain. Ironically, taking this stance towards the financial sector would be much more appropriate in reflecting the public mood – an observation clearly lost on the government.

Nowhere in the public sector has been immune from austerity measures, including redundancies. Announcements of the latter have been almost celebrated by the government which merely serves to put the boot in and illustrate the government’s disdain for the public sector.

Many public sector workers would acknowledge that there is inefficiency and waste in the public sector that is just as frustrating for them as it is for their fellow taxpayers in the private sector. But amidst the inefficiencies and need for austerity measures remains the valuable contribution many public sector workers provide. Nonetheless, the government continues in its contempt for the public sector while devaluing the valuable work of teachers, medical professionals and other public servants.

The coalition government and the ring-wing media would have the public believe the public sector is getting an easy ride while the private sector bears the pain of austerity. However, there’s clearly no truth in that whatsoever.

The government would have hoped that the strike would further alienate the public in any support for the public sector and the unions. Nonetheless, a BBC survey commissioned prior to the strike suggested 61% of people empathised with the public sector workers taking strike action. It’s not overwhelming, but it’s certainly a measure of support and perhaps the government will have to rethink its approach towards the public sector if it seeks to capture the public mood.

In another political implication of the strike, Ed Miliband again missed the boat in refusing to support or condemn strike action.

Miliband’s stance has achieved little beyond causing frustration amongst the left within the Labour Party and its traditional supporters. In seeking to portray Labour as a centrist party and appeal to the electorate that once supported New Labour, Miliband has further attempted to distance himself from the left and the unions (without actually opposing the principles behind the strike). However, he hasn’t done it with much aplomb and it’s yet to pay dividends for him or the Labour Party. It’s also bound to frustrate the unions who continue to account for the majority of the Labour Party’s donations.

In the build up to the strike, the government continually attempted to undermine how representative strike action was of union members’ desires. The government was at pains to bring to the attention of the public the relatively low turnout of some of the ballots for strike action – perhaps prefiguring attempts to introduce a minimum turnout when unions ballot members on industrial action.

Consequently, poor turnout for the strike itself would have undermined the unions’ legitimacy in calling for strike action. It would also have provided the government with an opportunity to challenge how representative the unions actually are of members’ desires.

Speaking of turnout, it’s worth noting that in the 2010 general election, the Conservative Party, the most vocal partner of the coalition government in their anti-union sentiments, only gained 36% of the vote. And that was in an election that saw 65% turnout. Therefore only 23% of the electorate actually voted for the Conservative Party – hardly basis to pontificate about the legitimacy of strike action based on the results and turnout of the ballot for strike action.

The number of public sector workers that decided to strike certainly suggests the unions have the support of their members. The government must surely now realise that the anger and frustration shown towards the proposed pension reforms is palpable and isn’t down to rabble-rousing by the unions or limited to pockets of the public sector. Going forward, the unions can have confidence in their legitimacy in representing members’ wishes in negotiations on pension reforms and the government should be wary of assuming otherwise. Indeed, union leaders are surely relieved that the strike action had the response it did.

During Prime Minster’s Questions on the day of the strike, David Cameron referred to the strike as “a damp squib”, further example of the government’s arrogance and lack of empathy for the public sector. Yet the extent of the strike action would certainly suggest otherwise. According to the BBC, 29 unions backed the strike which resulted in the closure of 18,342 schools. That’s hardly a damp squib.

It’s difficult to gauge how those outside the public sector perceived the strike action. There has been some support from individuals that empathise with the grievances that led to the strike. Furthermore, the number of public sector workers that decided to strike, many for the first time, has perhaps shown that they are genuinely aggrieved and justified in their opposition.

Only a day before the strike, the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement announced the current two-year pay freeze for public sector pay would be followed by a 1% cap on pay increases – essentially a pay cut when considered against inflation. Further redundancies in the public sector were also announced.

Public sector workers don’t expect to be exempt from shouldering necessary austerity measures alongside the rest of the country and it’s clear that they aren’t. Conversely, the government is less vocal about those within the Square Mile doing the same. David Cameron claims “we’re all in this together” but it seems some are in it more than others.

The national strike may have been about public sector workers’ opposition to pension reforms but it voiced their wider frustrations in being targeted and demonised by the coalition government. The strike brought the frustrations of public sector workers to the awareness of the wider public and presented an opportunity to reflect on the valuable role that they contribute to the state and wider British society. Alas, while the government and the right-wing media maintain their rhetoric, many will remain vilifying a sector that continues to work for their benefit.

Cuba is ripe for change but not quite ready for its own ‘Carib’ spring

The Arab spring was motivated by a number of factors. Rising unemployment, a disaffected population (especially amongst the educated youth), poverty, the respective governments’ poor record on human rights and government corruption all contributed to the Arab spring. An age of social networking also advanced the protests, enabling the protesters to organise and inspire others.

Across the Atlantic Ocean, another country shares the attributes that led to the Arab spring – Cuba. Cuba ticks all the boxes that lead to a disaffected population but has not experienced a revolution since that led by Fidel Castro. Reforms in early 2011 have removed many government subsidies and brought unemployment for many; hardly ingratiating the government with those Cubans already disaffected and those that expect the government to continue its paternalistic role.

An educated youth that cannot relate to what some older Cubans may consider as the halcyon days of the regime (largely contributed by the government being bankrolled by the Soviet Union), are also increasingly frustrated. Younger Cubans are disillusioned with modern day Cuba and while Cubans are restricted in using the internet, they are becoming increasingly worldly with the limited access they have. Add poor human rights and a ‘them and us’ perception of party officials into the mix and there’s little difference between Cuba and the Arab states that experienced protests and were forced into regime changes. So why is Cuba not ready for its own ‘Carib’ spring?

I previously wrote an article questioning the longevity of the Cuban revolution. Based on my experience in Cuba and the experiences of Cubans themselves, it was questionable how long the regime could survive without Fidel Castro at the helm. At the time, Fidel Castro’s ill health had not long become public knowledge. He had become notably absent from public life but was still President, even if not fully discharging his presidential duties. Now Castro has officially stepped down as President, only to be replaced by his brother Raul, the regime has seen some changes such as the reforms announced in early 2011. But fundamentally, little has changed to suggest a departure from life in Cuba under Fidel. Indeed, Fidel Castro in many ways personifies the revolution and despite any disdain for him from some Cubans, the regime is arguably more cohesive while he is still alive.

Modern day Cuba has China and Venezuela to replace the benefactor it once had in the Soviet Union. However, China is said to desire a similar approach for Cuba to that taken by its own government in moving towards a mixed economy. This might be reflected in the recent economic reforms but China will be keen to see more. The economic reform in Cuba under Raul Castro might be considered significant for Cuba but it’s not exactly a mixed economy.

Chinese and Venezuelan assistance in the Cuban economy prevents a bad situation from becoming worse. Take their assistance out of the equation and the consequent increased poverty and intolerable austerity measures would surely compel Cubans to revolt out of desperation more than anything else. So far, Cubans have not reached that level and Raul Castro will be conscious that financial support from the Chinese especially cannot be taken lightly. To assume subjecting Cubans to further poverty would not threaten the cohesiveness of the regime would be folly and naïve. Raul Castro will therefore be aware that the government cannot permit the economy worsening beyond current levels.

Further economic reform in Cuba is likely. Yet in the first instance it is likely to be out of obligation to further reduce the untenable role of the state within the Cuban economy or to satisfy Chinese desires.

As Cubans experience the impact of the economic reforms, they may develop an appetite for free market principles that the modest offerings of private enterprise are unable to satisfy. This will depend on the success of the economic reforms and the consequent standard of living for Cubans that embrace them.

Coupled with China advocating a mixed economy for Cuba, the economic reforms may unintentionally pave the way for concessions to be made. Should the government be unwilling to make such concessions as fast as Cubans desire, the reforms could even be a catalyst for vocal opposition towards the regime.

Unofficially, the Cuban economy already possessed many of the offerings that the economic reforms will bring. The black market in Cuba has long existed alongside the ‘official’ economy. Many Cubans have covertly embraced private enterprise and circumvented the state in their activities. The relaxation on buying and selling property and further sanctioning of small businesses now means the government can tax transactions in these areas which many Cubans are unlikely to appreciate. If the economic reforms put a squeeze on the black market, it will be met with indignation that could also lead to opposition towards the government.

Such scenes are nonetheless unlikely to be imminent and it is too early to assess the effect the economic reforms will have on Cubans.

Considering the similarities with the Arab spring, Cubans do have a disadvantage in their restricted use of the internet. The internet in Cuba is slow, expensive and inaccessible for most Cubans. The use of social networking sites to organise protests as seen in the Arab spring is therefore currently beyond Cubans. This limits their ability to mobilise meaningful and coordinated protests. Particularly given the stance of the Cuban authorities towards those that oppose the government, and in the context of Cuba’s record on human rights, safety in numbers is crucial for any uprising in Cuba.

The restrictions in using the internet also limit the global awareness of Cubans. Cubans largely rely on state run media and interaction with foreigners for an insight into the wider world and this has perhaps meant their ambitions are bridled by relative ignorance. That said, being able to make more money as a waiter than a doctor or other highly skilled profession, largely due to tips, makes it apparent to educated young Cubans especially that the status quo is unsatisfactory. Many young Cubans are also increasingly able to critique the regime with the increasing awareness they possess.

A significant distinction between the circumstances that led to the Arab spring and those in Cuba is the impact of the US embargo. While the traditional Cuban economic model has been proved to be unviable without foreign financial assistance, blame for Cuba’s economic woes cannot wholly be attributed to the regime.

The US embargo has had a tangible effect on Cuban society and the Cuban economy, most notably with the lack of food and medicine available in the country. The Cuban government needs little propaganda to illustrate the United States’ contribution to Cuba’s economic ills and commentators beyond the island condemn the embargo for the unjust impact it has on ordinary Cubans.

The embargo provides a convenient and somewhat justified opportunity to shift some blame for the social and economic problems in Cuba from Havana to Washington. In contrast to the Arab spring, the regime in Cuba is not wholly culpable and the Cuban government will be able to argue this as long as the embargo remains. Ironically, ending the embargo could therefore be more effective in threatening the cohesiveness of the regime than the embargo itself.

Cubans that speak candidly of their disdain for the regime express much of the frustration shown by protesters before the Arab spring. The hallmarks of dissatisfaction with the government are already apparent and have long been burgeoning amongst the Cuban population.

Speaking to younger Cubans especially, this disaffection and frustration is very evident. Like the Arab spring, any forced change in Cuba is likely to come from the educated Cuban youth. Unlike the older generation, they are too removed from the revolution led by Fidel Castro for nostalgia and blind support for the regime to compromise their outlook on the reality of life in Cuba.

Cuba appears an ideal candidate for anti-government protests on a widespread scale. But despite the parallels, Cuba faces further challenges in uprising than the Arab countries where the Arab spring took place. Nonetheless, frustration for the regime is growing within Cuba and while reform may be able to postpone further change, it cannot hold if off forever. And if the government decides against facilitating this, Cubans may eventually be compelled to demand it for themselves.

Can Occupy London achieve anything?

The Occupy London protests, inspired by and established in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City, has occupied the forecourt of St Paul’s Cathedral, minutes away from the London Stock Exchange, since 15 October 2011. The protesters, like others of the Occupy movement, have stated their opposition to corporate greed and social and economic inequality. Like others of the international Occupy movement, the protesters claim to represent the frustrations of the majority in society with the slogan ‘we are the 99%’.

Support for Occupy London (or ‘OccupyLSX’) has been mixed but is arguably well positioned to gain momentum. Against a backdrop of high unemployment, rising inflation and opprobrium for the financial sector, in principle, many would probably empathise with the protesters’ frustrations (albeit not to the extent of being motivated to camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral). But despite this, any momentum doesn’t appear to be forthcoming.

With a lack of clear aims, a less than receptive audience in the coalition government (where the Conservative Party, ideologically not a natural supporter of the protesters’ cause, is the majority partner) and the fallout from resignations and controversy surrounding the clergy of St Paul’s Cathedral, Occupy London has struggled to make inroads. Can Occupy London therefore achieve anything with its current approach?

Occupy London has set out a broad opposition to corporate greed and a desire for social and economic equality. With a nebulous statement of aims, Occupy London has failed to articulate a credible alternative to the status quo. Not dissimilar to the wider Occupy movement, without refined aims, Occupy London will therefore surely continue to fail in galvanising wider support.

The protesters’ failure to establish clear aims has also mitigated their ability to target and lobby an audience that can advance their cause. This has been exacerbated by the debate they hope to encourage having less presence in mainstream politics than would be desired. Some Labour Party supporters may have hoped Labour could have capitalised on this in desperately seeking to reinvent itself and capture the public mood but the party has failed to do so.

As a mainstream political party, Labour would find it difficult to wholly support the Occupy movement without further alienating itself from the business community. In defending what many business leaders criticised as an anti-business message in his keynote speech at the 2011 Labour Party conference, Ed Miliband defended his comments to the media, telling the BBC “this isn't anti-business; it's anti-business as usual”. Subsequently, Labour has failed to meaningfully contribute to the debate generated by the Occupy movement.

The Labour Party has struggled to position itself to appeal to a cross-section of the electorate as New Labour once did. Occupy London presented an opportunity for the party to enter the debate and reaffirm its commitment to social and economic equality as one of the pillars of the Labour party. Alas, whether Miliband could strike the balance to successfully articulate this while not appearing anti-business is certainly doubtful and it represents another missed opportunity for Labour.

Occupy London has also presented challenges for the clergy of St Paul’s Cathedral and the wider Church, probably the most publicised aspect of Occupy London while a site remains at St Paul’s.

Initially, the protesters were welcomed by Rev Dr Giles Fraser, the Canon Chancellor of the cathedral, but the welcome by the cathedral was short lived. Amid health and safety concerns, the cathedral was closed for the first time since the Blitz, a move that arguably raised the profile of Occupy London but not for the reasons it would have hoped. Given the iconic status of St Paul’s Cathedral, its closure may even have led to some disdain for the protesters.

Following the protesters reorganising themselves to address the cathedral’s concerns, the cathedral was reopened. However, this coincided with Giles Fraser’s resignation. This was a decision made in light of concerns that any action to remove the protesters could lead to their forcible eviction and in the name of the church; a principled and admirable decision that clearly played on his conscience. His resignation wasn’t the only causality of the controversy. Following the decision to pursue legal action to remove the protesters, another member of the St Paul’s clergy resigned. And in an even bigger departure, the Dean of the cathedral, Rt Rev Graeme Knowles, also resigned, announcing his position as ‘untenable’ in a statement issued by St Paul’s Cathedral.

Legal action to remove the protesters has since been suspended but the episode has forced the wider Church of England to ask itself questions over the handling of the protests and where it should align itself in the debate.

Occupy London presented the Church with an opportunity to become vocal in the wider debate posed by the movement, particularly in an ever increasing secular society where its relevance is no longer a given. While the Church need not support Occupy London per se, it should have seized the opportunity to speak out on the social and economic inequality that underlines the Occupy movement.

Inadvertently, Occupy London has raised significant questions for the Church. The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, has subsequently supported the protesters’ cause (but not the protests remaining at St Paul’s Cathedral) and there is a sense that the Church realises its priorities may have been misplaced when considered in a wider and social context.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has also entered the debate and announced his support for a Tobin or ‘Robin Hood’ tax, a small tax placed on financial transactions. The campaign for a Robin Hood tax brings a credible and achievable aim and the Archbishop’s support is a profound contribution to the debate following the fallout surrounding the St Paul’s Cathedral.

Unlike many protests, the Occupy London site at St Paul’s Cathedral does not appear confrontational. Even critics of Occupy London cannot suggest the protests are anything but peaceful. With a general assembly, regular speakers, music and ‘Tent City University’, a centre for learning within the site, the atmosphere is not one of urgency and instead akin to a commune. It could be argued that the protesters are not protesting but merely encouraging dialogue to bring their cause to prominence in the hope that it will effect change.

Occupy London has expanded from St Paul’s Cathedral to an additional site in Finsbury Square (‘OccupyFS’) and Occupy London has said further sites will follow. If subsequent sites are established, it is still questionable if they will have the impact required to effect the change they desire.

Occupy Wall Street, the inspiration for Occupy London, began in fairly lacklustre fashion. However, the number of protesters eventually grew and the protests themselves multiplied around the United States and abroad. Nonetheless, this has arguably not achieved anything tangible beyond increased visibility that has perhaps encouraged debate surrounding the status quo. While Occupy London may grow in the same fashion, it may be subject to the same fate.

While it’s still early days, Occupy London appears to have achieved very little. The protesters should be commended for holding a peaceful protest that appears to be content in stimulating debate in the hope that it will gradually effect change. Yet this passive approach is unlikely to be effective, especially with a lack of realistic aims and a credible alternative that can be championed by others. On reflection, the most significant consequence of Occupy London has been the controversy and subsequent debate within the church on its position over social and economic equality and the ills of corporate greed.

Without refined aims, Occupy London cannot achieve anything beyond dialogue. But given its approach, maybe that’s just fine with them. The movement may claim to represent the 99% but they’ve certainly not captured their attention. And until they do, their achievements will remain limited at best.

Why won’t hip hop let rappers age?

As a relatively young genre, hip hop’s elder statesmen (and women) are relatively young themselves; certainly young enough to not compromise their creativity or the extent to which they remain prolific. Yet in contrast to other genres, they are resigned to no longer being deemed relevant by the most recent generation of hip hop fans and generally celebrated in a historic rather than current context.

The Rolling Stones, U2 and Madonna are just a few artists from rock and pop that continue to be as relevant as they are creative and credible. They sell out world tours and consistently find themselves in the Forbes and Sunday Times rich lists for musicians. Yet within mainstream hip hop, and specifically with regard to rappers, an artist’s relevance often appears to dwindle with age.

As a wider culture, hip hop is generally opined to comprise music (rapping and DJing), street dance (‘breaking’, ‘b-boying’ or ‘breakdancing’) and street art (the origins of which lie in graffiti). The culture has rapidly grown for each aspect of hip hop to become highly visible within mainstream culture. The influence of hip hop music can be seen in most contemporary genres and elements of breaking can be seen in most contemporary dance. Hip hop inspired art has also permeated fashion, contemporary design and the traditional art scene. Paintings by artists such as Banksy are highly sought within the art community and a painting by Ben Eine was an official gift to Barrack Obama from David Cameron. Nonetheless, hip hop music has arguably achieved the most mainstream success from within the culture.

Hip hop has long been associated with youth culture. From an accessible form of expression to the parties where hip hop was birthed by DJ Kool Herc, hip hop and youth culture have often been considered inextricable. Yet as the musical genre gets older, so do its fans. Nonetheless, hip hop within the mainstream refuses to relinquish its youthful demeanour and rappers have largely followed suit.

Given the mainstream success of hip hop, it would be assumed that this would equate longevity in the careers of artists from within the genre. Yet rappers appear to experience a shelf life that commonly correlates with their age. Fans and the expectations within the scene itself appear to dictate this. Furthermore, many rappers themselves contribute to this oddity by often remaining in denial about their age via their image, persona and lyrical content.

If art imitates life, hip hop in the mainstream can often be considered an exception to the rule. From the video girls to the suggested opulent lifestyles depicted in lyrics and numerous music videos, many mainstream rappers are portraying an image that in many cases is a nothing more than an audio and on-screen persona. Similarly, the lyrics and image of a rapper in his or her 30s depicting the lifestyle and espousing the attitude and perspective of someone in their teens, presents just as much of a fallacy. In their refusal to reflect their maturity in their music and accompanying image, rappers are just as guilty in this charade.

Understandably, rappers seek to remain relevant and that can mean adapting for newer and younger audiences. Nonetheless, in alienating existing and mature fans and risking a lack of relevance with potential younger fans, it’s a high risk strategy if that reinvention goes too far and isn’t deemed organic.

There are notable exceptions of rappers within the mainstream who have managed to retain credibility while straddling mainstream relevance with mature sensibilities. Beyond his lyrical prowess, Jay-Z’s success into his early 40s has arguably been contributed to by the organic reflection of his own maturity in his content and image. Jay-Z was also one of the first artists to usher in a more mature sartorial style than had previously been seen in hip hop, boldly pronouncing “I don’t wear jerseys I’m 30 plus” on ‘What More Can I Say’ from The Black Album. Similarly, and of the same era, Nas has also achieved a similar success and longevity in remaining both credible and relevant without pandering to mainstream desires for what could be considered formulaic and superficial music.

Fans of hip hop have also been at fault. Compared to other genres, fans of mainstream hip hop are notoriously fickle. Where artists of other genres can experience a significant hiatus between projects, sometimes waiting several years between albums while their fans patiently await new music, few rappers are afforded that luxury within the mainstream. The biggest hip hop artist of the day can sell millions of albums and be a household name. But wait too long to release their subsequent project and many of those fans will cease to be interested. The need to remain relevant with the latest sound or fad therefore becomes even more pressing. While an artist like Dr Dre can wait over a decade between projects without any apparent loss of interest, not to mention being one of the older figures in mainstream hip hop, he remains one of very few artists that can achieve this due to his iconic status. Furthermore, it could be argued that his relevance is attained via his primary role as a producer.

Outside of the mainstream, many hip hop fans remain less capricious. Many so-called ‘old-school’ rappers, who rather than compromise their content and artistic integrity by youthfully reinventing themselves, have indeed experienced success outside of the mainstream. While they may no longer be visible in the pop charts, they can be assured of performing shows across the world and a fan base that celebrates their contribution to the culture.

Unlike other genres, younger hip hop fans appear less interested in artists of yesteryear. Rather than denoting classic music by artists of legendary status, the label ‘old school’ has become synonymous with irrelevance for many younger fans in the mainstream. It is therefore little wonder that so many rappers resist a mature persona in their quest to stay relevant to younger audiences.

Hip hop is still a relatively young genre. Yet it needs to evolve and mature with its fans while continuing to cater for new, younger audiences. Like other genres, there is no reason why hip hop cannot offer something for everyone within the mainstream rather than deciding rappers lose their relevance once they reach an age wrongly deemed too old to be credible. More established and older artists need not reject their maturity or comprise their integrity to remain relevant; artists such as Jay-Z and Nas have shown that credibility and relevance to a broad audience of all ages and within the mainstream isn’t exclusive to younger artists.

Just as hip hop culture should embrace its maturity, so should rappers and their fans. Moreover, if artists of other genres can continue to be relevant as they and their audiences mature, there is no reason hip hop should be any different.

Does online social networking signal the end of traditional communication as we know it?

Online social networking has undoubtedly changed the way people communicate and has made online interaction with others easier and increasingly effortless. The success of innovative advances in communication has always depended on the increased ease they provide in facilitating communication with each other. Online social networking is no different and social networking websites have taken this ease to an unprecedented level in a relatively short space of time.

Despite their popularity and the extent to which social networking websites have been embraced worldwide, criticism centred on their privacy (or lack of) is on the rise. As a result, critics of this have been sufficiently vocal to prompt U-turns in privacy policy by the likes of Facebook. Cyberbullying has also increased with social networking websites providing a further conduit for this. Notwithstanding the benefits, online social networking has certainly presented some challenges. One such challenge that is typically overlooked is the impact of online social networking on the wider way we communicate with each other.

The easier it becomes to communicate with each other, the less thought is given to what we actually communicate. Social networking websites provide the ability to communicate with the world, not just our ‘friends’ or ‘followers’. Yet, this is with such ease that many status updates or tweets are clearly posted as the result of an unfiltered thought process. Some people clearly have no qualms about sharing the first thing that comes into their head, no matter how irrelevant, offensive or just plain stupid it might be. Not to mention, when it comes to communicating with real friends (not the Facebook type) via social networking websites, our communication often has less substance than it might have once had in a letter or even an email. Therefore will the erosion of meaningful communication be a legacy of online social networking?

Technology will always change the way we communicate. The advent of text messages brought a simple way to communicate via short, succinct messages – ideal while on the go or in situations where it isn’t practical to have a telephone conversation. Yet the instant approach it brought also made it a somewhat disposable mode of communication. This was exacerbated as mobile phone companies provided phone plans that included unlimited text messages or an amount of inclusive text messages that effectively offered just that.

As many teachers will attest, text messaging, and latterly messaging services such as Blackberry Messenger, has also led to the infiltration of so-called ‘text speak’ in what should otherwise be formal written English in schools and beyond. Unless schools are now requiring students’ written answers to be within 160 characters, there really is no argument that justifies this.

Similarly, the instant and disposable nature of some modern communication has meant paragraphs and punctuation are lost on some people who see nothing wrong with never-ending sentences and a wall of text.

Social networking websites are no different from text messaging and instant messenger services in having a wider impact beyond their principal aim. However, the extent of their impact on social interaction is even more apparent.

An attraction of social networking websites is the ease with which users can share information. Arguably, the social voyeurism websites like Facebook facilitate can almost guarantee its appeal to the human nature of curiosity. Conversely, it’s a braggart’s paradise as an ideal format for inviting compliments and sycophancy. And then of course there is staying in contact with people, many of whom you might not otherwise interact with. However, how highly does staying in meaningful contact actually rank when it comes to social networking websites? The above would suggest it isn’t a priority for many.

Even those cringeworthy couples that appear to live out their relationships online surely still speak to each other beyond the likes of Facebook; online social networking is yet to reach the heights of substituting reality. Nonetheless, it does play a significant role in how people now interact and that interaction has become defined by superficial communication. Sincere compliments have been replaced by ‘likes’ and meaningful correspondence has been replaced by generic messages. Consequently, where does that leave more meaningful communication?

Regrettably, the time and thought applied to writing letters and even emails appears to be lost on many in an age of online social networking. In many instances, this is merely in response to the changing pace of modern society. That need not mean contact between friends become meaningless as social networking websites promote what has become a culture of disposable communication.

Facebook has already sought to further its influence with its ‘next generation’ system that will bring emails, Facebook’s instant messaging, Facebook messages and text messages to one place. Facebook’s ambition is seemingly to become a one-stop shop for all our online communication (although the likes of Google are likely to have other ideas). A one-stop shop where people can have all the disposable communication they desire.

Despite the popularity of social networking websites, it is questionable to what extent reality will mirror the superficial interaction of social networking websites. Conversely, some would argue ‘rent a friend’ services such as RentAFriend.com aren’t a far cry from those sentiments.

Social networking websites have undoubtedly changed the way we communicate with each other. In some cases where they have brought efficiency to how we interact with people, it has been a change for the better. Yet they have also devalued the notion of genuine communication in the process. An age of letter writing is unlikely to return but some of the thought and meaningfulness accompanied with putting pen to paper wouldn’t go amiss within modern communication.

The Royal Wedding: a Double Celebration for the Royal Family

The popularity of the British monarchy has undoubtedly been subject to gradual erosion, most notably during the post-war era. With British society becoming relatively more egalitarian than yesteryear and with the rise of republicanism, it would suggest the British monarchy is no longer revered to the extent it once was. However, the royal wedding, and the accompanying scenes of royal wedding mania across the UK, has gone some way to refute this.

The late Princess Diana was hugely popular with the British public. This was particularly notable given it was during a period of waning popularity for the House of Windsor. That public adoration has seemingly been passed on to her sons, both of whom have inherited their mother’s humility, ability to connect with the public and a desire to champion charitable causes. Therefore it is unsurprising that Prince William’s marriage to Kate Middleton has generated an unprecedented interest and adoration for the royal family since the turn of the twenty-first century.

As a UK resident, the fanfare and media frenzy in the build up to and during the royal wedding has been overwhelming and at times mildly amusing. According to the Guardian, at least 1 million spectators flocked to the streets of central London, many congregating outside Westminster Abbey and Buckingham Palace or lining the wedding procession route. Street parties around the UK celebrated the royal wedding and some of the kitsch souvenirs to commemorate the wedding have included sick bags and an aptly named line of condoms. Clearly this is an event that has captured much of the country.

Of course, the republican voices of disdain for the royal family, particularly during an event of such magnitude that was largely funded by the public purse, have not been silent. Indeed, Republic, a group that seeks the abolition of the British monarchy, held their own alternative "Not the Royal Wedding" street party in London. However, overall, such sentiments have certainly been dwarfed by those of the pro-wedding masses.

In times of such austerity in the UK, further criticism of the royal wedding could have been anticipated. Juxtaposed with the pomp and splendor of the event, an aberration in everyday scenes of modern Britain, the wedding could certainly have attracted much disdain. However, conversations about the royal wedding overheard in public, numerous tweets and comments appended to online reporting of the wedding have merely been punctuated by the aforementioned rather than taking centre stage. Patriotism and a high regard for Prince William and his new bride have on this occasion trumped the subject of austerity and republican rhetoric.

How long this revived public euphoria for the royal family will last is uncertain and it is likely to be focused on the newly wed royal couple themselves. However, the royal wedding has certainly provided the royal family with somewhat of a PR victory and galvanized their supporters. It might even result in impeding calls for republicanism in Britain; a dou