Obama refuses to endorse Cameron’s deficit plan

US president emphasises the need for investment and says that “every country is different”.

The Tories were desperate for Barack Obama to endorse the coalition's deficit reduction plan, but at today's press conference he didn't even come close. In response to a question on the subject from ITV's Tom Bradby, the US president emphasised that "every country is different" and praised the way that "concerted action" by the UK and the US had "yanked the world economy out of recession" – an implicit endorsement of the last Labour government's fiscal stimulus.

Obama, who noted in his introductory remarks that the pair come from "different political traditions", went on to stress the need to sustain investment in "education, science, technology and infrastructure". For the US president, unlike the coalition, economic growth is a precondition of deficit reduction, not a hoped-for outcome.

It was only towards the end (Obama's answers were incredibly long-winded) that he made a token reference to the need for governments to "live within their means" before adding that the "sequencing and pace" of deficit reduction would be different in each country. It wasn't what Cameron and George Osborne wanted to hear.

The irony is that there are some significant similarities between Obama's deficit reduction plan and the coalition's. As I noted in a recent Data Hound column, under the US president's plan, public-sector borrowing will fall from 10.9 per cent of GDP this year to 3.3 per cent in 2016. The coalition aims to reduce borrowing from 9.9 per cent of GDP this year to 1.5 per cent in 2016.

Thus, although the total fiscal consolidation planned by Osborne remains the largest, the difference is not as great as some imply. In addition, Obama plans to achieve three-quarters of the US deficit reduction through spending cuts, including lower debt interest payments, and the rest through tax rises, in a ratio similar to the coalition's 73:27 split.

But the crucial difference is that while the US economy has grown by 1.2 per cent in the past six months, the UK economy has flatlined. The strength of the US recovery means that Obama can afford to reduce the deficit without fatally weakening growth. The same, alas, cannot be said of Osborne's Britain.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ann Summers can’t claim to empower women when it is teaming up with Pornhub

This is not about mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

I can’t understand why erotic retailers like Ann Summers have persisted into the twenty-first century. The store claims to be “sexy, daring, provocative and naughty”, and somewhat predictably positions itself as empowering for women. As a feminist of the unfashionable type, I can’t help but be suspicious of any form of sexual liberation that can be bought or sold.

And yet, I’d never really thought of Ann Summers as being particularly threatening to the rights of women, more just a faintly depressing reflection of heteronormativity. This changed when I saw they’d teamed-up with Pornhub. The website is reputedly the largest purveyor of online pornography in the world. Pornhub guidelines state that content flagged as  “illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive” will be removed. Nonetheless, the site still contains simulated incest and rape with some of the more easily published film titles including “Exploited Teen Asia” (236 million views) and “How to sexually harass your secretary properly” (10.5 million views.)  With campaigns such as #metoo and #timesup are sweeping social media, it seems bizarre that a high street brand would not consider Pornhub merchandise as toxic.

Society is still bound by taboos: our hyper-sexual society glossy magazines like Teen Vogue offer girls tips on receiving anal sex, while advice on pleasuring women is notably rare. As an unabashed wanker, I find it baffling that in the year that largely female audiences queued to watch Fifty Shades Darker, a survey revealed that 20 per cent of U.S. women have never masturbated. It is an odd truth that in our apparently open society, any criticism of pornography or sexual practices is shut down as illiberal. 

Guardian-reading men who wring their hands about Fair Trade coffee will passionately defend the right to view women being abused on film. Conservative men who make claims about morals and marriage are aroused by images that in any other setting would be considered abuse. Pornography is not only misogynistic, but the tropes and language are often also racist. In what other context would racist slurs and scenarios be acceptable?

I have no doubt that some reading this will be burning to point out that feminist pornography exists. In name of course it does, but then again, Theresa May calls herself a feminist when it suits. Whether you believe feminist pornography is either possible or desirable, it is worth remembering that what is marketed as such comprises a tiny portion of the market. This won’t make me popular, but it is worth remembering feminism is not about celebrating every choice a woman makes – it is about analysing the social context in which choices are made. Furthermore, that some women also watch porn is evidence of how patriarchy shapes our desire, not that pornography is woman-friendly.  

Ann Summers parts the net curtains of nation’s suburban bedrooms and offers a glimpse into our peccadillos and preferences. That a mainstream high street retailer blithely offers guidance on hair-pulling, whipping and clamps, as well as a full range of Pornhub branded products is disturbing. This is not about women’s empowerment or mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

We are living in a world saturated with images of women and girls suffering; to pretend that there is no connection between pornography and the four-in-ten teenage girls who say they have been coerced into sex acts is naive in the extreme. For too long the state claimed that violence in the home was a domestic matter. Women and girls are now facing an epidemic of sexual violence behind bedroom doors and it is not a private matter. We need to ask ourselves which matters more: the sexual rights of men or the human rights of women?