You got a better option?

So. It’s been a week since François Hollande become the President Elect of France – congrats on that by the way François – and a week since the Greek electorate failed to elect a new government. Both of these things happened as a result of electorates rejecting their government’s austerity measures. The people of France and Greece are tired of austerity, tired of continuous cuts, and they have sent this message to their politicians the only way they know how.

But is there really any alternative to austerity?

The reason that President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Papademos introduced austerity measures was not because they wanted to, but because they had to. It was not because they found them fun, or because they wanted to see pensions slashed, or because they wanted people to live in poverty. It was because their countries were rapidly running out of money and if they had not instituted these measures they might well have gone bankrupt.

People seem to have forgotten that we are still in the middle of a recession. While some countries such as Germany are doing better, it hasn’t finished yet. And a recession means, in the immortal words of Liam Byrne, “there’s no money left.” Imports are costing more, exports are earning less. This means that in order to save money – in order not to have to sell off the Tower of London or something – belts must be tightened and sacrifices have to be made. That means pensions may have to be frozen and jobs cut. It’s messy and at times it may not seem to be working. But I have yet to be introduced to a system that works any better.

Some people advocate spending our way out of the recession. But considering – as pointed out above – that nobody has any money I don’t know exactly how this would work. To spend money you need to have money and right now the only way for governments to obtain money is by instituting cuts. It’s kind of a never ending loop.

I’m not saying I approve of all cuts or even that I think austerity is a good idea or the only option. I certainly think Greece needs to find a proper balance between austerity and protecting those who are most vulnerable in Greek society and I also think the other nations of Europe could possible let Greece off a bit considering what the Greek government’s austerity measures are doing to that country. But at the same time I can’t see the logic in rejecting austerity completely. I have a horrible feeling that both President Hollande and whoever replaces Papademos are going to enter office to discover that what their predecessors were doing was exactly what was necessary.

If someone can come up with a better way to get everyone out of the recession than I will gladly reject austerity. But till then I think we need to just take a deep breath and live with it.

Why would you say No?

I’m disappointed. Not with the local election results, because I always figured Labour would do well. Not with the London results because I always knew – and hoped – that Boris would win, though a higher position for Siobhan Benita would have been nice.

No. I’m disappointed beyond belief with Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield. They were all presented with the opportunity to say yes to the idea of having a directly elected mayor and they all said no. The only place to say yes to the idea was Bristol. I would have thought that Birmingham at least would have said yes to it.

It’s the AV vote all over again. There was not enough information given to the electorate about how it would work. There was too much noise from the no camp and not enough from the yes camp. People were not willing to embrace change. “The system works right now,” people cried, “Why should we change it?” Or more often, “Why should we vote for more money grabbing, arrogant politicians?”

Except that it doesn’t have to be like that. Of the three places outside of London that have now elected mayors, both Salford and Liverpool have chosen former councillors, who already know the city they will now govern and how it works. And Doncaster’s mayor is a member of the small English Democrat party and therefore can’t be said to be part of big party politics. There would be plenty of opportunities for people who understand their cities to become mayors, if only the opportunity was available.

Those of us who believe in greater local government are currently smacking our heads into the wall. You only have to look at first Ken and now Boris in London, or across the pond to guys like Rham Emmanuel in Chicago, Michael Bloomberg in New York and Corey Booker in Newark, to see that elected mayors can and do work. They work for two main reasons.

Firstly, a mayor provides a level of visible accountability, so that people know who is in charge. Ask anyone you like who the head of their local council is. They won’t know. The only reason I know is because I’m a massive politics nerd. However, if there is a mayor then the electors all know who is responsible for running their city and they can contact that individual with their queries, their problems or their complaints.

Secondly, and most importantly, a mayor provides a figurehead, someone a city can unite behind during times of both triumph and tragedy. Rudy Giuliani was that for New York after 9/11 and, whatever you think of him personally and politically, Ken Livingstone was that for London after 7/7. He provided a face and a voice, vocalising the fears and feelings of millions of Londoners in a way that the Prime Minister couldn’t. The PM had to speak for the whole country. But Ken spoke for London.

Liverpool and Salford now have mayors. Bristol will have one shortly. Hopefully they will show the UK’s other cities that the post can work. Then maybe the next time the idea is suggested, there will be a more positive response. 

Respect for Those who deserve It

I’m sure we can all think of times when we’ve been angry or stressed and said things that we didn’t mean and later regret. It’s just something that happens sometimes. However when you’re in a position of authority saying those things can land you in a whole heap of trouble, as demonstrated in the House of Commons on Monday. .

During urgent questions to the Prime Minister regarding the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his actions during the BSkyB bid, the Labour MP for Bolsover, Dennis Skinner, asked why Mr Hunt was receiving “better employment rights than most of the workers in Britain” and implied that he was being used as human shield by the PM. In response Mr Cameron told Mr Skinner - who is eighty years old and has been an MP since 1970 - that he was “free to take his pension at any time” and advised him to do so.

Now, whatever one thinks of the ‘Beast of Bolsover’ who is at times as close to Communist as it’s possible to be without joining the Communist Party of Great Britain and has been best described as a “hard left oddball,” he deserves more respect than that from a fellow MP, and certainly from the Prime Minister. Mr Skinner has been an MP for forty two years – which means he has been around for about as long as the Prime Minster has been alive – and has in that time never missed a sitting of Parliament, arguing that while he was a miner, “if you missed a shift at the pit you’d get the sack” and that his job as an MP deserves the same commitment.

He has never claimed on expenses, has never sought high office within the Labour Party - though he has been both Chairman and sat on the Party Executive - and most importantly has had a life outside of the Westminster Beltway. He is a rare example of an MP who believes in actually representing the people who have elected him and in holding those in authority to account. He deserves respect for that at least, if not for his age.

If the Prime Minister is really determined to move the Tories away from their reputation as the nasty party he needs to stop making comments like this. It’s especially odd as the Conservative Party have a commitment towards “conservative values,” which one would assume includes respect for their elders.

Mr Skinner is tough enough to shake this episode off, but Mr Cameron is already getting flack for it from other members of the Opposition and while I know he won’t, I can only hope that next time he is in the House he will apologise for what is at the end of the day, utterly disgraceful behaviour.   

The Downside of Social Media

I am taking a break from politics this week to take a look at something that popped into my head a few days ago, and before you ask, yes I am fine.

Now, I enjoy modern communications and social media, Facebook, Twitter, 24 hour news. They provide numerous advantages, including ease of communication and the rapid transmission of information, which is certainly useful when you’re trying to organise something, such as the clean-up effort after last summer’s riots, or trying to warn people about something.  But I do wonder whether such a speedy dissemination of information cannot sometimes be a bad thing.

Take the rumour this week that part of the Bakerloo line had collapsed. Someone tweeted it and – to borrow a line from Terry Pratchett – the rumour had got around the world, or at least Twitter, before the truth had got its boots on. Whatever Transport for London said about how it hadn’t happened and they were sending people to check etc, etc,  the rumour still held sway because more people had heard it than had heard the truth. It had split off and spread like some sort of virus.

There is also another bigger problem. Under normal circumstances TFL would have assessed the situation, sent in some inspectors to take a peek and figure out what was going on, then released a statement to the tune of “nothing happened. Just a misunderstanding.” But with the news already going around Twitter at the speed of gossip, they had to make a statement to quash the rumours without being in full possession of the facts. As it is, they were correct, but if they hadn’t been, if they had then had to release a contradictory story, they would have looked like a bunch of incompetent fools.

Another example would be the hostage situation in the Tottenham Court Road yesterday. The press were reporting a guy with a bomb and hostages. Now while there were hostages they were released fairly quickly and far from being some sort of IRA dissident tooled up with Semtex what you had was a guy with a couple of gas canisters and a love of tossing filing cabinets out of windows.  Dangerous in and of itself, but hardly the plot of a Die Hard sequel. But thanks to 24 hour news we got the first initial reports before the facts had actually emerged, leading in turn to panic.

This isn’t me saying that Twitter and breaking news aren’t useful. In times of crisis, when people need to know things immediately – so they can get themselves out of danger say – they are very useful indeed. But there are times when all they do is cause more chaos and upset. They are useful at times; I think we would all agree with that. But I do think people should be more careful about using them as their sole source of news, or taking what they say as the gospel truth. People do get things wrong sometimes!

What to do with the Railways

Once again, a long walk to uni for a lecture led me to thinking about ways to make the country better – seriously my brain is weird place. This time I found myself thinking about trains, trains and the railways.

There seems to be a split between those who want to nationalise the railways and those who wish to keep them privatised. There seem to be equally good arguments for both. If we nationalise the railways it might become a bit quicker, there might be fewer delays and tickets might not cost so much. On the other hand there would be no incentive to improve the system if it started failing. However if we keep it privatised, that incentive exists. Something goes wrong and we – that is the Government – can simply say, “Improve it or I’ll get someone else to run it.” But if we keep it privatised tickets will still cost an arm and a leg.

So I hear you ask, what’s the solution? Simple. We partly privatise, partly nationalise the rail network. Like this.

Stage One

Split the country up into sections. For the sake of this discussion we’ll go with sections that helpfully already exist. East of England, Yorkshire and the Humber, North West, North East, East Midlands, West Midlands, South West, South East and Greater London.

Stage Two

Set up a Government body – we’ll call it the National Rail Board or something – whose job it is to oversee the day to day running of the business. This organisation would set ticket prices, approve the construction of new train lines, write up employment rules, health and safety legislation and deal with all legal problems that might arise such as liaising with unions.

Stage Three

Devolve the managerial operations – such as employment tribunals, organising construction and maintenance and so on – out to local authorities in the regions mentioned above.

This is the nationalisation aspect that I mentioned. The overall running of the railways would be done by the government. Now on to the privatisation aspect.

Stage Four.

The Rail Board would at this point get together with representatives from the Regional Authorities and put the day to day operations out to tender to private companies. These companies would have the responsibility to maintain the tracks and railway stations, provide the trains and hire the drivers. They would be in charge of the actual running of the railway.

This system would allow for both the competition necessary to keep the railways running – as the regional authorities would be able to replace the companies if they felt they were not running things efficiently – while at the same time stopping them from becoming mere profit making machines, as the companies would be employed by the government and paid via government money.

So. What do you think guys?

Going on Strike is a Right

I read an article in the i yesterday that for the first time in a long time incensed me to the point that I wanted to start to throw things. It was the most right wing, elitist piece of bile, I have ever seen outside of the Daily Mail.

‘i writer’ – that is temporary columnist – Sarah Malm, a journalism student at the University of Kent, decided to use her column in the i as an opportunity to vent her distaste of Unions, accusing them of being selfish and holding the rest of the country to ransom. She finished up urging them to “grow a pair” rather than continue to inconvenience the rest of us.

 I don’t know exactly what the unions have done to tick off Miss Malm – I can only assume that she missed a train at one point or something – but she has clearly missed the point of why unions choose to go on strike. It is not simply because they are “pulling a sickie” or anything like that. They are exercising their democratic right to make their voice and opinions heard in the face of unsuitable working conditions.

Let us pretend, for the moment, that you are a teacher in a large inner city school. You are told that from now on you are going to have to work an extra six hours a week at no extra pay. At the same time your sick pay is being either cut or scrapped altogether. What would you do under that circumstance, assuming that negotiations have failed? Miss Malm would seem to suggest that you should simply live with it. Shrug and move on.

I don’t think that’s a solution that’s going to fly with most people.

What Miss Malm also seems to have missed is that – thanks to Mrs Thatcher – unions can no longer simply strike at the drop of a hat. They can however strike at the drop of a vote. If the majority of teachers/nurses/fuel tanker drivers/llama herders have decided that their working conditions are unacceptable and voted on it, then and only then will they stop teaching/nursing/driving tankers/ herding llamas. It is one of the only ways that attention can be drawn and a solution to their problem forced.

Miss Malm seems to believe that the unions are still controlled by the likes of Arthur Scargill. They are not. And by and large those who go on strike are hardworking people, who simply want a better deal in the workplace. They are not the selfish tantrum throwing five year olds that the media rank and file like to make them out to be. A rank and file to which we can now add one more member.

Perhaps one day Miss Malm will find herself in a situation where she is being paid a pittance for the work she does. Then she may feel a little more sympathetic. But right now, I would suggest she go out and talk to those who have gone on strike in the past, and get their side of the story.

Decent journalism is all about balance after all.

Not the Best Idea Ever

First of all, I’m back. Despite the weather’s best efforts I didn’t fly away and end up somewhere outside of Rhyl. It was a bit of a close thing at times though.

Now to business. As I’m sure most of you are aware by now, this year’s Oxford/Cambridge boat race was disrupted by a protestor attempting to swim in front of the boats. This led to a restart, Oxford losing an oar, Cambridge winning and the Oxford bow rower collapsing. All because one man was stupid enough to take a disruptive dip in the Thames.

I mean how idiotic can you get?

According to his blog – the visitor count of which must have shot up since Saturday – the protester now identified as LSE graduate Trenton Oldfield believes that “elitism leads to tyranny.” Let me repeat that for those of you in the back. A graduate of the London School of Economics believes that elitism leads to tyranny.

On his blog, Trenton claimed that his swim was an “act of civil disobedience” as well as a “peaceful,” protest. He argues that history shows that elitism – a belief of being more than somebody else – has always led to tragedy and quite possibly he may be right. But I have to disagree with his tactics.

Now I’m not saying I disagree with protesting. If you think I’m saying that than you clearly haven’t read this blog very carefully. If a government is behaving in an unacceptable way, then the people of course have the right to call them out on it. But there are a myriad ways of doing this. You can join a union, sign an e-petition, write to your MP or go to a legitimately organised protest.  If you have a legitimate grievance then there are hundreds of ways that you can go about voicing it.

Tossing yourself into the way of the University Boat Race? That’s unacceptable.

Mr Oldfield calls for the use of guerrilla tactics as a way to fight against elitism. Stuff like deliberately losing documents at work or serving people you consider to be propping up the system cold food – or the wrong food – if you work in a restaurant. He suggests if you are a taxi driver then you take people by the longest and most expensive route.

Now come on. What exactly is that going to achieve? Will it actually change the system? Probably not. Will it result in people quite possibly losing their jobs and their livelihoods? Quite probably. Protesting is a good thing; I would go so far to say that it is a right. But the types of strategies being suggested by Mr Oldfield are not only moronic but down right irresponsible.

I would say to him – if on some off chance he finds this blog – that if he is really interested in changing the system then hurry up, get elected to Parliament, and change things from the inside.

But don’t you dare ever interrupt the Boat Race again.