For reasons that now escape me I’ve just finished watching The street that cut everything – this was an “experiment” where Nick Robinson persuades a street to give up all council services for 6 weeks. The very subtle (no honest it was subtle really – like a brick wall across Brandshatch) sub-text was that councils are terribly good value for money and that cuts can only affect vital services and are therefore evil.

That said I was hugely impressed with how well the street actually did, they managed to meet all the “challenges” aunty threw at them and stay on budget (just about – one can’t help but suspect that the additional challenges were set to make sure the budget didn’t last). The community (on the whole) pulled together and did a damn good job of going from having the council provide everything (including social interaction) to having to do it for themselves. Oddly as many dodgy libertarians might predict a community can actually pull together and choose to help each other out when asked to do so.

So that said, I may have hinted that I considered the “experiment” to be somewhat rigged. So lets ignore the in built slant to the situation in that no one on the street had any knowledge of any of the bits of legislation they were expected to adhere to, they also couldn’t make use of any of the economies of scale notionally available to the council. The best bit of rigging though was the funding they got, which was their council tax – so no slice of any central government funding, no slice of the business taxes, in fact nothing from any of the other funding streams that the council have. But I suppose in balance to that they didn’t have to pay anyone to do any of the jobs as they were doing it themselves (though then also had to also do jobs beyond their street as well). That though really was the huge hidden flaw – they were pretty much forced to organise along traditional council lines, there wasn’t the scope to really try anything radical. For instance they had to have weekly rubbish collections or they’d be fined – anyone had weekly rubbish collections of late? One of the residents insisted on free school meals and the same provision for getting their child to and from school and wouldn’t consider other options provided by the community – especially when it went wrong the first time it was tried.

So what the program did manage to show was that a single very small street, isn’t a viable self supporting community especially when people aren’t allowed to give additional money to the community. So wow if you ham-string a community it doesn’t do so well – who’d have thunk it.

 

Having been freed from the tyranny of saved links by dint of my computer crashing, I’m going to mutter about possibly the least interesting topic in poltics at the moment. Yes the “AV or not to AV” question, this is we’re told the most important thing to have happened for hundreds of years, a once in a generation chance to radically change our political system. to which I can only say “piffle” we’re being sold a bill of goods, being presented with a false choice.

If this is such an important question, why wasn’t it on all the party manifesto’s before the election? If this is such an important question how have we got to the point of a choice between only two systems with no debate in less than the space of a year? More than that who says this is our only chance? If the matter really is so important, why can’t we throw it back to our elected representatives and say “Nope not good enough try again”? Previous changes to our political settlement have been led by the people not imposed by the incumbent political elite. I’ve not seen a huge out cry demanding that we change our voting system, let alone that we change it to AV. Can you imagine the king turning up at Runnymede and telling the barons,
“Look you can either carry on as things were, or as an alternative I’ll let you write letters to me when you’re unhappy. What you want a parliament and rights? Sorry no can do – just as things were or writing letters”

That’s the false choice we’re being presented with, if we genuinely do want a new political settlement do we really want to leaves it’s details up to the incumbent bunch of proven corrupt party apparatchiks that sit in parliament? Or perhaps if a new settlement is needed it should actually be driven by the people – rather than letting a false grass roots movement made up of incumbent vested interests? Changing how we get people into power won’t stop them being corrupt, creating ways for us to get them out of power, like the proposed recall bill, might help. Though we are talking about people that have exempted themselves from the new anti-corruption legislation that will apply to us lesser mortals.

I’m not going to bother discussing the various merits or otherwise of AV vs. FPTP as I reject the choice. Let’s no throw out a system which has worked reasonably for hundred of years just because some corrupt thieving toe rags who got caught with their fingers in the till have drawn up a plan on the back of a fag packet to change the way we put their snouts in the trough (forgive my mixing of metaphors). They’ve still not sorted out the mess they made of “reforming” the lords, they’re pointedly ignoring the implications the regional assemblies and laws have for the act of union it self. So are these really the people we want to entrust changing our system of government with? Given their past performance do we really think the choices they’re deigning to give us are all of a sudden not motivated by self interest?

As a final thought I would suggest that if we wanted FPTP could be made a lot more representative if we the electorate actually voted for who we wanted to get in and not tactically. We might surprise ourselves and change things – after all tactical voting helps make the main parties so terribly safe and similar. If they start getting knocked into 4th or 5th place by small parties that seem to actually listen to what people want, who knows they might start paying attention as well. In the mean time how about that right of recall?

 

I’m afraid I must indulge in that most terrible of things, a blog post about blogging. Having had to think about why I joined OH on hist first little stroll and why I continued almost on my own the other day I also started to think about why I’m writing here and what I want to achieve with both of them if anything.

Continue reading »

 

Tin foil hat area
Something that I’ve been struggling with for a while is how to respond to the apparent constant salami slicing of our freedoms without sounding like chicken little, and I’m increasingly convinced that it cant be done.

The problem is the creeping nature of the beast as so well expounded by Leg Iron

“The Creeper is a slow and insidious technique. On trains, it started with one no-smoking carriage. On buses, it started with smokers at the back and upstairs on the double deckers. It was not a new technique even then because, as the Filthy Smoker’s post reminded me, it had already been used – and is still going – on seat belts.”

The problem is as Leg Iron expounds that each individual step seems quite reasonable and well nothing much to object to then the scope increases or there’s a bit more compulsion and on it creeps. If at any point an idea is objected to too strongly it’s just shelved for a bit until the noise dies down then brought back, each time fewer people object as it got dropped the last time and the objectors looked like loons. Or the idea is floated by some thing tank or pressure group not anyone in power so why object to some random idea being floated by some random group, except it gets people used to that idea, then it becomes normal and the people that object are seen as reactionary and a bit bonkers.

So we now have people calling to ban smoking in cars for the children (not houses yet…), people being arrested for selling legal products, a call to ban alcohol advertising before 9pm (remember when tobacco was advertised on tv?), not to mention calls for controls on knives, salt, fat and having fun generally – or if you must have fun perhaps you could just not breed? None of this is of course aimed at ordinary people.

This could all be just unrelated puritanism and empire building or it could be about controlling the population, it is after all much easier to control people that have done something wrong or can be accused of it. But at that point it I start reaching for my tinfoil hat, as I really don’t think the government or any organisation is that organised. Of course if they were they’d want us to think they weren’t.

I have though I think reached a plausible answer, it isn’t planned it just the organic natural direction in which the state tends to head unless constantly challenged. Assuming the best of intentions from everyone in the state unless curtailed it’s always going to head towards authoritarianism as it’s made up of people that want to improve things, that think they know best, and we just need convincing. Each step could be taken in good faith but just like with us that just makes the next step seem reasonable, if we just get people to stop doing X then Y lives will be saved that must be a good thing! We select our leaders to be risk adverse and so we end up with a nannied controlled curtailed country.
The problem is of course that a risk adverse culture much like a risk adverse person won’t achieve much and will collapse.

So all that said I think all that one can do is accept that sometimes you maybe should be wearing a tinfoil hat and certainly people are going to thing you should be, but keep responding to every kite flown no matter how many times it gets hauled back in for later. With luck eventually enough people will realise they’ve been denormalised and kick the state back down for a while. Unless of course we’ve finally managed to select so well for the risk adverse that the majority really do want every aspect of their lives controlled*.

* I’m sure I read similar fears very recently but I can’t remember where so sorry no link.

 

Catching up on that afore mentioned reading of blogs, the dauntless LegIron has commented on Bin rage which is currently a minor grumble of mine with currently no obvious solution. Where I live my non-recyling is taken away fortnightly which is usually fine I don’t normally have more than a shopping back of rubbish a week to throw out, so I have a small wheely bin, all well and good. Except every now and then I have a sort out, such as when my housemate/lodger moves out and suddenly my bin is full to over flowing. Now back in the day this wasn’t a problem you just filled a few more council bin bags and put them out for collection, but no the sticker on my bin says no “side waste” and the lid must close. There’s a recycling depot just 10 minutes away which is no use as none of this is recycling material, I don’t drive so the dump’s not an option. So either I pay the council about 35 quid to turn up with a garden clearance van for a few bags of rubbish, or I get to store my trash for a number of weeks or months filling up my bin each fortnight once the more fly friendly trash is in there … or I could investigate fly tipping and then report that to the council get them to take it away for free and maybe if I’m lucky get a reward or something. I know which option is more appealing.

Now onto the question, the news which I accidentally watched has alerted me to the fact that there have been terrible floods in Pakistan and that this humanitarian disaster requires the west to dig deep into it’s pockets and give large amounts of aid from money it doesn’t have. All very normal but what I’m wondering about is the pakistani officials/spokes people and the like talking about “avoidable loss of life”.
Pakistan is officially the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”, and last I checked Islam believes in predestination, when it’s your time to go it’s your time to go and no matter what you do you can’t avoid it. Therefore surely none of that lose of life is avoidable and it’s an affront to Allah for us to try to prevent these people from dying? I suppose the argument is that we should give succour to the living who aren’t on the days list to die to make them more comfortable, all well and good – but “avoidable loss of life”?

 

Once again I foolishly read the Metro on my way to work, you’d have thought by now I’d know better. The very front page greeted me with two disparate examples of idiocy.

The lesser of the two was that random strangers decided to impose themselves on the family and friends of Raoul Moat because he’s “an hero” (as I believe they say in popular youth culture). From the mouth of on of the inconsiderate cretins demonstrating such a lack of manners came this utter gem:

“I absolutely loved him. I just think he is a hero and I wanted to pay my respects. He kept them coppers on the run all that time. Fair enough people died but they must have deserved it”

With so much lunacy in that short statement to choose from I’ll just observe that as only two people died (if one includes Mr Moat) then for that ladies statement to be true Mr Moat himself must have deserved it. Which is I think something that can be widely agreed upon.

The bigger idiocy which also got the larger headline comes from Manchester where the local councils want to pass a by-law to enforce minimum pricing on alcohol, at the proposed level of 50p a unit, which will no doubt do worlds of good for the local economy given the size of Manchesters student population. So why would the good councillors of Manchester get this idea from why, from Our Life an NHS funded pressure group. As LegIron observes it’s a stupid unworkable idea, that resembles nothing so much as the first creeping controls on smoking. The idea is so stupid is both unlikely to be allowed nor to work if it is allowed, and yet it keeps being suggested by various sources in various places. Someone really is determined to get booze onto the denormalisation and control conveyor.

And finally a bit of nonsense from Facebook where a commentator reaction to the news that the COI will cut up to 40% of staff with cries of outrage that the evil Tories (not coalition) were going to sacrifice these vital government marketing jobs all 300 hundred of them, and just think of the cost that having 300 spin doctors on the dole will be compared to say oh paying them much larger chunks of money out of the same taxes that would pay their benefits. Mind you never know some of them might even be able to get another job despite the allegation that “Some of those people have enver worked anywhere other than at the COI”.
Instead the government should just create more jobs as apparently you can’t cut your way out of a recession (which I believe is technically over anyway), so I guess the last quarters increase of 8% increase in job adverts probably didn’t actually happen.

Anyway that’s enough idiocy for the day, next time I’ll try to remember not to read the papers.

© 2011 Anonymong Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha