Takes Two to Tango, or not

There are two sides to a partnership, so it is really annoying me that the Scots seem to consider it is solely up to them whether they leave the Union or not. No, we too are part of the Union and we too have opinions on whether it is a good thing or not. Our future as England is going to be radically changed so we too should be asked, is this something we welcome? The weight of our views on keeping the Great Britain together is just as relevant as the Scots desire to split apart. Sure if a partnership is under stress, is tearing itself apart, separating might be the only possible outcome but before that, when you have hundreds of years invested in a Union, it might be worth both sides pausing and seeing if the differences can be reconciled. Not the one side walking off in a huff. Beside there is so much invested estate to disentangle, at the least both sides could think about how they might sunder that estate before stepping over the line.

For me we have so much to gain if the Scots leave. Just think, at last we would no longer have to fund a 'National' postal services to all those remote sparsely populated regions, pretending the Outer Hebrides had anything to do with us! Not just Post, but Rail, Telephone, Broadband, suddenly the economics look so much better when you dont have to factor in a hostile terrain, distance and low population per square mile. I have no doubt that many other organisations from such as national chains like supermarkets to airlines would all benefit from not having to be seen to cater for a 'National' area and could just concentrate of the profitable densely populated south. Of course it is not all win, Scotland does have the upper hand in hydro-electric, deep sea harbours, with the off-shore oil fields still proving a useful stream and, no doubt many other things. But as we thrust pros and cons lists back an forth, all it serves to prove is that our United Kingdom is far greater than just the sum of each individual part.

 It would be great shame if some short-termism led to our Nations splitting up out an of egoistical pique. Our past proves our united strengths, each benefiting from the individualism of the other component nations. I hope we can continue to stand together, face up to the EU as a Great Britain and help it to move towards a better place.


.

My House is my fortune

Once my house was my castle, the bastion of security and stability. The solid core binding the family together and the fortress to repel all invaders or those seeking to undermine our chosen way of life.
No longer.

My house is my fortune. Just an asset to be exploited, a transitory thing with no emotional ties to be dumped when the next opportunity presents itself. No point spending time or effort, investing in the properties future, unless it can be shown to produce an immediate return increase. So quick-fix, eye candy, on trend solutions, never mind getting to the bottom of the rot or decay. Several problems emerge out of this differing attitude. For a start house are not short-lived consumer goods to be re-cycled at the next fashion of technology change. They will outlive us by hundreds of years, we do need to keep them in good shape and relevant to the society of the time. That may require more than a quick immediate return, someone might have to invest in a longer term outcome.

A house is also a home, a home to a family. Family ties are not just those between each member of the family but with the wider community. If we are all doomed to be rootless, migrants, always on the move, never having the time or inclination for other than shallow superficial connections with our neighbours, what sort of sustainable society is that? We have to root ourselves and engage and care about the community that we live within. It is that community that shapes and defines us. It is what makes our family a family, the network of connections to those around us and the environment within which it is set.

So why this urgent need to move on, to move up the property ladder, to get to the next plateau of possibilities? It is fear, the fear of missing out of the ever remorseless spiralling upward of house prices. Fear of being left behind, fear of falling off and not being able to get back on. A fear generated and inflated by all the media, ever harping on about the latest price rises and easy sales to made. But houses are not consumer goods.Their price rise has nothing (or at least very little direct connection to) to do with the cost of land or the floor area or the actual cost of construction. Remember house prices are established by some bloke with a clipboard walking up and down a street, comparing this one to the others and to the prices similar houses have sold for. The price of a house is not its cost, but a reflective valuation of something deemed to be everlasting, someone's guess as to what it might sell for. So long as someone is prepared to pay that price then that is its worth. And why not when we are constantly reassured house prices can only go up. In this present very uncertain economic world where else can you put money that will grow? Houses are the only assured place because their value just goes on going up and up. The bubble just gets bigger and bigger, what is not to lose? Well for one thing, the bubble is so large it has cut off its renewal source. No new players can afford to come into the bottom of the market to sustain the chain. Second thing those player that do manage to join take on debts well beyond a sensible ratio to their income. Thirdly there is a rapidly diminishing pool of punters able to buy at the top end. Fourthly the only thing keeping the bubble growing is confidence, the expectation that the price will rise tomorrow and all the tomorrows.


I cannot think of any clearer indicators that the bubble is poised to burst. All such seemingly unstoppable bubbles have always burst in the past, there is no reason to believe this bubble is going to be any different. The fact that the world economies are dependant on the bubble continuing, their 'growth' coming from the increase in house loans, will not stop it happening despite various governments desperate attempts to shore it up. Their concern at the financial mess it will cause is not sufficient rationale to stop the burst, but just makes it louder and messier. When the inevitable burst comes and we somehow claw out of the ensuing mess perhaps we can once again get back to our house being our home and castle, a place of permanence and security.

A primer on how to alienate

11% pay rise for MP's! Tragegically and laughably out of touch but then see also my post on salaried MP's! 

A minus 5% decrease would be a start to bring them a whiff of reality. But only if it came with a fresh contract ultimatum. Resign, thereby losing all rights to insurance and benefits, or accept a new, (that so popular and well supported), zero hour contract. Each weeks continuation of employment subjected to renewal by their electorate. With their role open to anyone to claim it who speaks a form of English, will toe the Party Line and is prepared to work for less. Of course as they are now self-employed consultants there is no holiday pay, no pension plan and naturally any expenses come out of their own pocket.

With this new contract there is just a chance our MP's will emerge from their  protective bubble of privilege and get a taster of the conditions they are instrumental in setting up for us ordinary folks, that is everyone else that is not part of the super rich elite. When their feet are fully grounded in reality maybe our MP's might be trusted then to legislate for us again.

Compare and Contrast

First off a story I have just heard, a man arranged a German car-sharing trip with a stranger, as is common-place over there, to a ferry port. This stranger calls off the trip, car is not ready. So our man takes the train to the ferry, missing the last ferry, to catch the ferry the next day. Arrives in England and is hauled off and subjected to a strip search, a thorough search of his luggage and some five hours of interrogation, where his denials were dismissed with disbelief and hostility. What is even worse, a female passenger, he just happened to exchange a couple of polite pleasantries with, sharing the hazards of travel sort of stuff, was also given the same treatment. His crime? He had by mischance managed to exchange a couple of EMails with a suspected drug dealer! What do we have, the planned car journey manifestly did not take place, the two individuals never met and we are left with secret snooping on private EMails giving rise to a suspicion, just a possibility with no tangible supporting actual physical evidence. Just a person somewhere being suspicious.

That evening I watched a documentary about benefit fraud (Britain on the Fiddle). Of the three cases offered up for our entertainment was the case of a man with two identities, one of which was also receiving disabled benefit, all fraudulently claim benefits. The hard physical evidence was there, double passports in two names, video recording of man working easily and physically with no sign of impairment, photo records of living at different addresses to that claimed, variety of cars all in use by him yet the investigation drags on because there is not yet enough evidence to ensure a conviction and the Police are too busy to bother with such a minor contraventions! So plenty of hard evidence but whether by incompetence, sloppy documentation leading it open to challenge or just too overwhelmed with work to fit in bringing the cast to court, a man manifestly living out a fraud, is allowed to continue. Eventually yes the wheels are in motion, months down the line and he does go to jail. But just compare and contrast. The overt working of the legal systems and the covert unaccountable systems.

If you have emotional hype on your side, think drugs, terrorism or even pedophilia, then  anything can be justified, perpetrators are beyond any compassion, beyond any hope of even the most radical do gooder defending some basic civil right. No, for fear of condoning, we willingly acquiesce  to secrecy, to abandonment of all rules of proof and justice being seen to be done. In our name we will allow unknown, unaccountable individuals to trash the rules that have been crafted over centuries to give everyone a chance to protest their innocence. Not to be subjected to the whim and fancy of a Another's suspicion.

In this oh so PC world we are tripping over our feet of zealous correctness and have lost our confidence to know right from wrong. So the burden of proof has to be able to withstand so many minor technicality challenges. For fear of giving offense we lean over backwards to allow the legal counter-challenges that then grind our system down so that fraudsters can wriggle this way and that way. 

To interpose authority into someones life, to prohibit their freedom to carry on seeing a dying mother, or making that interview, or declaring their love or just travel for the joy of it, there has to be significant cause, not just an idle suspicion.

Brush with Democracy - another shade

After losing at two appeals and on the fifth application a local site nearby has finally won approval to form a new vehicular access, and, incidentally create yet a further habitation. Which side of the coin do you see? Persistence rewarded or sheer bloody mindedness, contrary to all local wishes, eventually winning out?

The background. The main road out of the village is narrow, only a car and half width, no verges, with hedges or low walls on either side. This section has a blind corner at either end of a some two hundred yard length of road. Towards the further end the road crosses a stream with stone parapets to either side. All typically Somerset. The local residents find this road difficult to drive and even more dangerous to walk or cycle. No forward visibility and nowhere to go to, or make room to pass. The initial application for two houses to one side of this narrow section of lane had many objectors, eventually it was approved on the basis that no vehicular access should be allowed off this narrow section of lane.

So after a further five applications and two appeals the Planners Officer recommends Approval to the forming of a new access off this same narrow section of lane, just before the bridge. Apparently car speed monitoring demonstrated low risk and visibility splay requirement were achievable. I have a smidgen of sympathy for the Planning Officer. If it was refused again and went to Appeal and if at the Appeal the Applicant could now show compliance with those same reasons used to refuse it last time, the Council could incur considerable costs for being unreasonable. All in all a bad decision and the thugs in our society, prepared to defy all to take what they particularly want, win. The initial decision, no road access of this stretch, was the right one.

Local democracy is a fragile thing. It is hard enough to marshal and focus opinion when freshly engaged to resist a bad application. But to have to return to the same subject time and time and time and time again when you thought you had won first time is beyond the possible. People do have lives and cannot keep going back over the same issues with fervent militancy. The trouble is that Planning decisions are not based on the degree of support or objection to any one proposal by the local residents but rely on the wording of obscure Planning Polices and detached objectives. More on that shortly.

If Planning was only just about what the local residents or even surrounding community thought, there would be no development. It would always be in someone's back garden, therefore to be objected to. You just cannot keep placing all developments, objected to by the vocal organised, near to the weak and ineffectual who are not able to organise a protest. Who would welcome a school, factory, fish and chip shop at the end of their garden? Sure there are bound to be lots of ideas where else they might be located so long as not there at the end of my garden. In the simple early days of Planning there were clear well understood objective principles that guided the application process. Certain areas were decreed suitable for certain type of development so long as specific criteria were met. Residents could object but would have to show that these criteria were breached in some way. A lumpen handed fairness to the community in general but not to the individual.

With time the process has become hugely complicated and complex. The vagaries that follow from this complexity allow a high degree of parochialism, with objective rationale being the loser. What we have now are a series of interrelated Policy Statements. Each Policy Statement being a huge cumbersome document, the result of a prolong and intense period of inspection, challenge, appeal, review and approval. Finally some years down the line, the plan is published and for those few weeks when everyone can remember what it was supposed to enshrine, it remains relevant and the working tool.

The District Council publish their Local Plans for each settlement based on the Structural Plans published by the County Council setting the framework for each of its areas and which in turn it to is based on the government's own published planning strategic objectives for the nation and the regions. From bottom up each is fully referential and compliant with the Policies of the next layer up. So well honed words severally checked for compliance with all relating Policies and stripped of vagueness and ambiguity to the point of course that they become meaningless generalities. Reading any Policy statement from one tier or another, there is no way you can see what is meant and intended when it comes to the specifics of planning in your own patch. Their sweep is too broad and general, stepping well aside from the specifics that might give a clue to the usual conflict of interest arising out of any patch of ground. What is worse we get sweeping aspirational design generalisations that apply totally inappropriately or to some nowhere place. Designs in our patch are to be based on guidelines set up for the Exmoor National Park! Chalk and cheese indeed. Now I like some of the chalk I have seen within the National Park but it is an irrelevance when sorting cheese from cheese in our patch.

Reflecting a view from a contrary stance to that expressed in my Brush with Democracy, we end up in the similar position. An over-blown, bloated planning system no longer responding or recognised by the communities on the ground on one hand. On the other intransigent individuals that are belligerently resist the common good when it compromises their own selfish aspirations find the chinks amongst those generalised words to drive in their wedge. As decisions have to founded on those same words, the Planner is left wrong footed and commonsense flies out of the window. A through spring clean is overdue. Get back to simple objectives with Planners working alongside with the community to help the community understand its planning problems and to achieve it's aspirations. Explaining any National or regional strategic requirments for their local patch and winning support. Not perfect, rough and ready, we may even have to wait before another airport, barrage, power station, motorway can be built. In the end only words can win and keep communities united.

Baffling silence

Just had our three major political parties annual conferences where they address the prevailing issues of the day. Not a mention of social inequality and the desperate need to reduce the gap. I confess I did not pay close attention, certainly did not read cover to cover all the various speeches. Yes I did pick up on one or two minor concessions that could be interpreted as paying a token lip-service to giving the underprivileged just a tad more. However the extremes between those that have and are getting more and those who do not have and are getting less, are so wide with the gap increasing at such a worrying rate.Nothing but a seismic shift in policy from any of three parties is going to even begin to change the present courses. That would have hit the headlines. Even I would have notice that. No, our political leaders attuned to the cares and worries of our Nation, are indifferent to the loss of self-respect, lack of hope and disassociation for the growing army that are having to give up more so that the few can enjoy. Those that have seek to isolate themselves from those that have not, ring fencing their privileged access to the key essentials of life, education, health and homes. A polarised society with a ghettoed rich isolated from the morass is a dangerous society, everyone is degraded by it, rich and poor alike.

The only word I hear is we must stay on course to ensure this slow recovery continues. All parties seem well content and satisfied in continuing to follow this Alice-In-Wonderland economic policy. A pyramid selling type of policy that is founded on creating money so we can spend more. That spending pays off the interest on past loans, so we must take out new loans to create the more money we need to spend to keep the wheels turning. If only we can increase our spending we can, we might, keep ahead of the spiralling debt interests that have to be paid. Just another pyramid selling scam but this one brokered by government.

Spending disproportionately of course, those with get even more while those with a little have to give up that little and those without have to do with even less. Never mind the rich spendings will trickle down as swill to feed the masses. Except that is not how it works. The rich are in a catch up race with the unseemly rich. The unseemly rich are grabbing ever more to show a gap and distance to those on their heels. Their spending is in the realm of the stratosphere, buying up banks that create money or controlling lead industries to set the prices that others must pay. You get the drift, the poor that have to give up are giving up even more to the outlets that the rich control and directly benefit from. Trickle down just does not trickle, another aspect of this crazed Alice-in-Wonderland economics. Economics based on principles where the real life consequences that fail to conform to theory are then assumed not to apply to the theory and can therefore be safely excluded. Told you Alice-in-Wonderland rules.

Institutional lunacy

I just dont get it, a massive loan is taken out to buy a company at some extortionate eye-watering price and then the costs of paying the interest of that massive loan is dumped on the company who struggle to pay it, or more often fail and go bankrupt. In the meantime all the fatcats along the way are creaming off their bonuses for putting together all the different components of all these massive deals. This is supposed to enrich us and make us a wealthier nation? This is not a one-off, this has now become a routine practice. A companies stock value is something to play with, to generate a higher stock valuation or manipulate a fall in value before a buyin. Welcome to the russian roulette of the stock market. Except the bullet ends up in all our heads. We are the losers, irrespective of whether the gamblers win or lose.

A companies stock should be there to help it grow and sustain itself for the long term, any stock value rise reflecting its successful strategy should be a bye reward. The stock market player and their institutional backers have stood this on its head. Today's stock market value is the only thing that counts and the consequences for the company, short term or long term, its survival, prosperity or it imminent bankruptcy are all of no consequence, other that how those situations can be best exploited to gain a stock market increase. It is sheer utter lunacy.

These massive loans that a company has to default on (its business just cannot not feed that amount of interest payment), get traded on, as if they are real assets, an illusory promise to pay is used to raise yet more money. Crazy, absurd but it is going on and no one is saying stop, this is plain stupid. The politicians are silent, we are on the road to recovery! The institutions are silent, so long as their investors see growth who gives a toss about a companies or a nation's future. The company, its employees and we are all helpless as our voice counts for nothing. The Stock Market is run, controlled, mediated by and serviced by the Institutions, who are answerable to zilch.

Yet interest payments are not wealth, increasing debts, good or bad, are not wealth. Wealth comes from producing goods or services that others want to buy. That takes the long game, time, care, commitment and a long term investment in renewing, updating and streamlining the provision in this increasingly competitive global market. The demands for this long game view could not be higher or more important. Instead we saddle companies with unnecessary debt loans that kill them off, the good with the bad. Their goes our future. We have to make it stop. Institutions have to be reigned in and their dominance of the Stock Market taken away. No Institution should be allow a shareholders voice. All decisions of a buy-out must have a majority of (non-institution) shareholders voting in agreement. Put people back in control. Invest in and support all those worthy companies who are working for our and our children's futures.