Timbo and the Order of the Response

Before I begin, I want to clarify a change in the style of these blogs.  About a month or so ago, I started to make videos of my blogs for YouTube: writing the blogs directly onto blogger.com and then making the video.  However, instead, I've decided to reverse the polarity ("I just don' have the puwer!"), and instead decided to write transcripts for the videos, which I then convert into a more detailed written blog for here.  So here goes.

On the YouTube video of my second to last blog, entitled Joe Cotton and the Education Maintenance Allowance (video called Joe Cotton and the Prisoner of the Education System), there was a related video taking me to another YouTuber who makes videos about various political/social events or discussions; he too had picked up on Joe Cotton's speech, and had made a video called Why Joe Cotton is Incorrect.  Refer to my previous post about the article to see exactly what the fuss was all about: http://tinyurl.com/3pcee4e

Tim's response to Joe about why the current government is cutting so much is because the previous government spent so much, and from the language used suggested that the actions of the Labour government caused the economic meltdown.  Whilst I generally agree that a lot of money was spent by government and borrowed from the bank, and that it was generally wrong to do so, I don't think that the last government can be blamed for the current economic situation.  At least, directly – you could go at it at all kinds of different angles.  The point is, the economy was caused by issues on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean initially, which had a subsequent effect here, and as the situation worsened in one of the world’s largest economies, everybody was starting to feel the effects.

The source of the problem came from the the United States of America's property market, which reverberated around the world, particularly here.  Usually when something crashes in the US, it has a lasting economic effect internationally.  All Labour can be accused of is not handling it effectively, but even then you can argue other factors were involved: such as the financial authority being exercised by the European Union or the rapid collapse we were experiencing that would have had effects on the time available to grant massive bailouts to banks or make immediate cuts.  Sure, their plan fell through, but I wonder whether this is because of one of the follies of democracy: inconsistent leadership.  Gordon Brown was booted out and the financial plan of the United Kingdom PLC was dramatically changed by a new government.

He was never a Prime Minister anyway; he should have stayed in the Treasury where he belonged.

Governments have been spending more than they’ve actually received from their national income for years, long before Labour decided to up the ante.  We’ve also had recessions before; in fact, we’ve had one (or close to one) every decade for the past forty years - in the US the last sixty.  There’s always going to be massive rises and huge lows to the economy as long as we base our economic systems on credit.  The government’s not the only one to blame for borrowing: it’s the creditors and the public too.  Banks handing out mortgages and loans that the people can't afford to pay back and the public taking them on.  When the payment is due, the debtor simply finds another creditor with low payment brackets.  You can see the effects in a lot of the things that banks, building societies and other creditors currently do: accessing cash using a credit card at an ATM, paying for goods and services using credit, remortgaging homes, and so on.

The people that have come out of the economy the best is South Korea.  This is partly due to their low national debt, but they've just increased it because they bailed out all their companies and didn't make any cuts.  Why?  Because they know the economic system is flawed at its very conceptual core, so you might as well run with it until something or somebody revolutionises it.

The Office for National Statistics financial review for the last three recessions: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/elmr/08_10/downloads/ELMR_Aug10_Chamberlin.pdf

South Korea's avoidance of the recession: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8015918.stm  -  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124053088380050309.html

http://twitter.com/thesteadyeddie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrzhwJMFVA

Barack Obama and the Goblet of Victory

To be honest, I’m really not that bothered about Osama bin Laden.  After almost a decade, the nutcase with kidney problems has not really been the main focus.  The mourners and the families of the victims of the attack on the Twin Towers will hopefully see this as a form of closure, although judging by some of the interviews conducted by the BBC Correspondent in New York this is not a universal feeling.  Fair enough.  I can imagine it would be very difficult to let go of something like that; when you’re related to one of the victims, the scale will seem so much bigger from that subjective viewpoint.

Osama bin Laden may be dead, but I don’t think it’s going to change the strategy of Al Qaeda.  Considering their fundamental ideology, it may even embolden them.  I think that we need to be careful of a retaliation of some kind; a particularly rattled cell launching a violent vengeance for example.  Bin Laden may have been seen as some sort of leader to a mostly secular and divided terrorist group, but there are so many cells spread out across the Middle East and with links to other groups globally that the War on Terrorism is probably just going to get harder from here on out, if the situation changes at all.

If anything, this is not so much a loss for Al Qaeda, as a win for President Obama.  I get the feeling that the next month or so will truly define his legacy as the President of the United States of America; the immediate reverberations of Osama bin Laden’s death, and the way that he handles the aftermath of the tornados that hit the country over the past few days.  The latter will be especially important considering his response will most likely be compared to the previous administration’s reportedly haphazard response to Hurricane Katrina.

As for the location of where Osama bin Laden was found; well, I expect the US President is resisting the urge to proclaim “I told you so” to the Republican Party, considering I remember him insisting during the election race that dialogue with Pakistan would be needed to further the War on Terrorism.  Stick it to ‘em, Barry.

Joe Cotton and the Education Maintenance Allowance

I read an article the other day through my handy little BBC News application on my phone about a 15-year-old boy who got a standing ovation from the National Union of Teachers after he basically slammed the government's decision to axe the EMA - otherwise known as Labour's financial plan to pay teenagers to go to college.

When the EMA was introduced back in 2005, I was simply astounded at the government's blatant call to pay students to stay in education after 16.  This was even before I found out (to my incredulity) that I wasn't eligible.  It was, to me, a totally ridiculous idea that sounded too good to be true for the hundreds of students who would, in my experience, not turn up to their lessons and then beg their teachers to mark them present because otherwise they wouldn't "receive the financial support that their education requires".  *Rolls eyes*.

Now, by this stage you're probably thinking that I'm just a stuck-up rich boy who thinks that you shouldn't need support to be able to continue your education into college.  Not true.  My incredulity at not being eligible for EMA is actually, I believe, well-founded.  My Dad worked an averagely-paid job as a town clerk, and my Mum moved between jobs as a carer and pharmaceutical dispenser.  I didn't receive a penny.  Friends, whose parents ran successful local businesses, received £20 a week and saved it for their annual trips to Switzerland.

I agree with Joe Cotton on the principle point that he was making.  He urges the NUT to do all they can to keep education affordable and accessible.  Fair enough.  But the whole concept of EMA was flawed from the beginning.  The process by which the Department of Education processed eligibility was too simple, and did not take into consideration family savings or assets; doled out money as cash directly to the students; and was, in my opinion, far too high for something claimed to be simply "education maintenance".  I agree with the principle point being made: some students who want to go to college can't afford to.  Fair enough.  But - and I know this might sound a little counter-productive and slightly strange - the system was too easy.  Too simple.  There should have been better measures in place and a more concise eligibility test enabled for the scheme.  And they shouldn't have been doling out cash.  It was like being paid to be educated.  It was... well, rather crass.

I don't know what the Conservatives have planned, but the allowance in the first place should have been more streamlined at school level.  Instead of handing out pay packets, the schools should have handed out free dinner cards to the eligible, and given those with EMA the books relevant to their courses through their teachers.  Or made the allowance tokens for certain purchases at stationary shops, like WH Smith.

Joe Cotton has a point.  At a time when everything seems to be getting sacrificed in the name of the "financial crisis", is there not one department in government that's not putting a limb on the chopping block?  Let's save the EMA, but do it differently.  Like my view of AV, a financial situation is not a reason to suspend logic (or, in the case of an electoral system, democracy).


If you're on twitter, and want to subscribe to somebody who tweets once in a blue moon, follow me:
http://twitter.com/thesteadyeddie

Stokes Croft and the Road of Glass

Seeing as I spent most of my day cooped up in my house doing really unimportant stuff that included not watching the news, I didn’t hear of the Mad Max inspired events taking place just down the road (said road being just over two miles long) until tonight.  Anybody living in Bristol will know what I’m talking about, and now that you know I live in Bristol, everybody else should know too.

In the late evening and very early hours of Thursday 21^st April and Friday 22^nd April respectively, the attempted purge of a Tesco Express from the streets of Stokes Croft ended in a miserable failure.  Although I don’t expect the store to be opening tomorrow, it nevertheless survived judging by both the amateur recordings and media footage taken of the night.  Almost ironically, the sign at the very least stayed completely intact, which surprised me because whilst time usually wears off a few random letters, several firebombs, flying debris and battering rams could not shift a single one.  Even the panel on which the sign was emblazoned still looked rather shiny.  I mean, come on, if you’re going to kick off like that I expect to be reading “Te-co”, “-esco”, or just “o” – as in, the realisation that maybe this could have been predicted by the oracles I presume the all-powerful Mr Philip Clarke has at his disposal.

In the events of the night, I have to side with the police in their reaction.  I know we only have their word for this, but it seems fairly reasonable: they received tip offs from numerous independent sources that there was going to be a violent reaction on the night in question, and that dangerous objects were being made for the event – a fact made all the more real when they started throwing the buggers.  As far as I’m concerned, the police reacted correctly.  They deployed in response to sources verifying the creation of firebombs, and then called in more forces from other stations when they felt the violence could escalate.  I mean, come on, this is Stokes Croft; it has an existing precedence for this sort of thing.  And considering what they were protesting against, I think the police reacted properly.

Despite this, I have difficulty pinning all the blame on the protesters, although they should take most of the credit for the damage caused and the disturbance created.  My housemate, who has to travel through Stokes Croft to get to work, did so early on yesterday morning and described the scene from the Polish Church down to the Canteen as “a sea of glass”.  He thought it a wonder his tyres weren’t punctured.  Whilst he has a knack for exaggerating things, and he admits he was quite tired (it was about five in the morning), I imagine it wasn’t too far from the truth.  On his way back from work at approximately half past four in the afternoon, they were still clearing up the mess and this time was forced to take a detour.  The reason I find it hard to pin the blame on the protesters is because I can’t help but feel that Tesco really should have seen this coming.

I used to work for Tesco not that long ago, and was having a conversation one day with a colleague who thought all the people protesting the (at the time proposal-stage) store rather odd; it provides stable jobs, affordable food and drink, and actually makes the place look kind of nice whilst the shop front is new.  Stokes Croft – and forgive me all those who think otherwise – is a dive, a complete waste of space that is desperately trying to be artistic and cool but is actually failing miserably.  I come from a town that succeeded in being Bohemian, so I have a good frame of reference, and I can tell you that Stokes Croft is not what it is trying to be.  I have respect for Totnes.  I don’t have respect for Stokes Croft.  Just because it has one Banksy scribbled on the side of a building (a building two of my current housemates once lived in – and even they hated the area) doesn’t mean it’s effing… erm… [insert cool, arty farty type location here].

I’m not saying Stokes Croft needs the Tesco Express.  I’m saying it’s not worth setting fire to things about.  Sure, you want to express yourself (no pun intend… actually, yes there was) but it’s no use causing massive damage to private property and then not expect an army of police officers merging into phalanx formation and shouting “This… Is… BRISTOL!!!” at the top of their voices.  I mean, I don’t know if they did that, but it’s how I’m picturing it in my head.

Heh.  Awesome.

Protest is fine.  But there’s a thick line drawn in permanent marker that distinguishes “peaceful protest” from “rioting with fire at night”.  Stick to the former, and you may actually get your message across.  At the very least you’ll be able to show your distaste regardless of feelings of resentment or allegiance from authority and you may even get support from influential groups or persons.  Don’t let that one idiot with a Molotov cocktail cross that thick line, because all you’ll get is resentment from persons with an objective view.  All I have is two words for those people turning over the big white trailer on Cheltenham Road, smashing their way into the Tesco Express, throwing homemade firebombs at the police and the PRSC members supporting them:

You numpties.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Road-closed-squatters-targeted/article-3479322-detail/article.html

Alternative Vote and the Annoyed Blogger

So, I'm annoyed.  That's right.

I've just read an MSN article titled "AV Referendum: The Celebrity Backers", as I was marginally interested to see who's backing AV and who isn't.  We all know the "Yes" proponents: Stephen Fry, Colin Firth, Joanna Lumley, etc., but I was curious to know who have said "No", as you don't really hear a lot about them in general media.  The first on the list was Sky Sports presenter and former English cricket captain David Gower.  I was in a rather blase and passive mood today, but then I read his reasoning for voting "No" and it got my blood boiling a little, something I'm not particularly proud of.  This is his quote:

"I'm used to a system in sport, in cricket specifically, where if you win, you win; it's as simple as that. If you're first, if you've got more runs, you win the game. I can't see why politics should be any different. You want the best to be at the top, and if they are the best, they will win.  This whole proposed system of AV is, I think, the equivalent of what we would say in cricket or what we would call in cricket the 'googley' - a ball designed to deceive, designed to confuse a batsman. If you don't read it, you don't understand it, you can't play it."

First of all, I was annoyed at the fact that he had the balls (geddit?) to make a direct comparison between sport and politics.  Then I was annoyed at the other "No" candidates who consistently made exactly the same point.  There may be some similarities, and some sporting metaphors may be able to transfer over into the political arena, but not this.  There is no way that you can make that kind of direct comparison between the process of winning in sport and the process of winning in a democratic election.  Here's why:

1. Sport is about winning between two sides, politics isn't.  Generally, sporting events and competitions are about two people/teams competing against one another, and the concept of straight, uncomplicated scoring works in this event.  In two-party political systems, this works, because people can only ever vote for one or the other, and so you can directly gauge the proportions of support for either party.  However, we do not have a two-party system.  Every constituency in the UK has at least three MPs running for Parliament (that I'm aware of - let me know if your constituency doesn't) and so this complicates the issue of proportionality, and makes the ability to gauge the population's choice for representation more difficult.  This is where a system like AV or STV (Single Transferable Vote) comes in, and frankly, the former's a lot simpler than the latter.

2. The conceptual base of sport is entertainment, the conceptual base of politics is governance.  I know this sounds a lot like "sport doesn't mean anything", but that's not what I'm saying - I think entertainment is very important, considering I want to go into the film industry.  Regardless, whatever happens in sport does not necessarily have a direct impact on your life, no matter how much you think that is the case.  Politics, on the other hand, can have very real implications, and choosing who is running the country is important not just to have somebody there, but also to make sure that whoever is in office truly represents the mood of the nation to other countries in a diplomatic sense.  Foreign relations is just one example of many that can be made regarding this idea of "proper representation".  When a football team wins a match, it's not about "representing", it's about "winning".  And it's the inverse of that that should be involved in politics.  A local candidate should not consider gaining a seat in the House of Commons "winning", but the right to represent.

Democracy is a problem in this country, more than I think its population realises.  I am not Monarchist or Republican, but don't forget that we are still one of only a handful of nations left on the planet whose Head of State is chosen by birthright and not the will of its people; we are technically "subjects" after all, not "citizens", our democratic system is there at the behest of Her Royal Highness.

My point is that we should grasp where we can our ability to change this country's political scene, and one of the most vital ways we can do that is through the way that we elect our politicians.  Is your constituency overloaded with people voting for various independent candidates but it's always a Conservative or Labour victory, because they receive the most collaborative votes, regardless of percentage?  You can change that.  Imagine if we found ourselves in a position where independent MPs held the majority.  The Queen would have no choice but to declare a non-partisan house.  Imagine an executive made up of people who wanted to do those jobs, rather than being forced into it by a media mogul-backed party chairman.

It was interesting to see that all the "No" voters in this article were sportsmen.  I don't want to deride their opinion in any way, but I can't help but feel that they really do not understand the massive differences between the way politics should be run and the way a sporting event should be run.

I understand that there are other things to spend our money on, but I'll refer you to my previous blog.  The soldier that needs equipment may be a valid argument to stop us spending millions on a new voting system (I'm not sure why it's going to cost us so much to change the frakkin' form) but he should receive new equipment regardless of the political scenario.  Besides, it's a somewhat unrelated issue.

Below is the link to the article:
http://news.uk.msnaspx?cp-documentid=157030641

Here are the wikipedia articles for AV and STV, the latter being the system originally promoted by the Liberal Democrats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Johann Hari is a Geni... Actually, Let's Not Go Overboard

So, Stephen Fry has once again directed me towards a Johann Hari article today.  This one, however, was rather more to my liking.  You can read it here:


http://www.johannhari.com/2011/03

I know I've been critical of Hari in the past (and trust me, I still think his interview/debate manner leaves much to be desired), but that's not to say I don't sometimes agree with his political ideologies.

Anybody who reads my blogs (which, according to the website, is nobody, so thanks very much (who am I talking to?)), you'll know that my very first blog was about the cuts, and perhaps more importantly, I didn't really come to any personal conclusion as to whether the cuts should be imposed or not.  After reading Johann Hari's article, I find myself agreeing with the basic premise.  Remarkably, it ties in rather well to the comments I made about Margaret Thatcher in another previous post, and her hardline but misdirected approach to trying to alleviate the country's financial problems.

Hari's basic conclusion is to not make any cuts at all.  Nor should we overspend.  In the 2011 Budget, this country will borrow approximately £146 billion, and it is proposed that the amount borrowed will continously fall over the course of the next five years to around £20 billion by the 2015/16 budget.  It will certainly spike the interest of the media as to how the government can afford to effectively scrap £126 billion worth of services.  Whilst I was initially cautiously happy about the slow decrease in the treasury's reliance on the Bank of England, and subsequently the taxpayer, you have to wonder just how bad it will get before it gets better.  Predictably, the loss of services, jobs (rising the unemployment level and causing the government to borrow again in order to sustain the JSA - it's like a effin' roundabout), and so forth will cause the next elected government (hard to say who if AV goes through) to start borrowing again to fulfil their mandate.  To put it simply, it doesn't matter how hard Osborne tries, he's never going to get the country out of its debt to the banks, unless he can solidly explain to the public why they should not borrow money; pay off their mortgages as quickly as possible; stop claiming welfare; and also continuously re-elect the current government by voting for their local Conservative MP for the next two general elections.  Good luck Georgie.

Quite simply, Hari is right.  He mentions in his blog that South Korea is probably the nation recovering the best from this disaster, because they have succumbed to their inevitable fate and decided to just stimulate their economy with bailout procedures.  Yes, this means more debt, but it's something that is hard to control, and further shows the world just how much they rely on bankers to keep nations afloat.  In the case of South Korea - and subsequently how every other country should respond - is like a metaphor for the cake sitting in your fridge that you really shouldn't eat.  But, as soon as you take one bite, it's ruined, so you might as well finish it off.

Mmm, cake.

Like I think I mentioned before, the only way that we're going to get out of this brutal cycle is to change the entire economic structure.  Having an economic society based entirely on credit and the concept of continuous borrowing is only going to worsen the situation.  You need to change it around.  Put financial authority back into the treasury.  Operate on real money again, though I'm not necessarily advocating the return of the Gold Standard.  My friend said we should once, and I looked it up.  I don't think he fully understood what the Gold Standard was.

Anyway, that's my point.  Check out Hari's blog if you haven't already, because it's pretty good, and he draws influences and points from some proper economists and analysts - not that I'm saying he isn't one, but the key to a good argument is heavy referencing.

And yes, I'm still trying to come up with a better metaphor than the cake.


If you're a twitterer/tweeter/twitteringer/nerd, then follow me:
http://twitter.com/thesteadyeddie

My Birthday and Comic Relief

So, it's my birthday today, although it does not yet feel like it.  Maybe it will begin to feel so after 17:30.  At 22, you've kind of exhausted all the important birthdays for the next eight years: you feel the 18th, because there's usually a massive party and you definitely feel it because it feels like Rik Waller sitting on you and talking about his problems.  You can taste it too - tastes like vomit.  The 19th and the 20th kind of make an impact, because I was at university at the time and your friends that don't understand the words "I'm not really a clubber" and "I don't like shots" make you feel it.  Again, feels like Rik Waller, and in my case, without the satisfaction of waking up with a Jessica Alba lookalike beside me.  And, as wrong as this sounds, instead with the face of Tony Blair looking back at me with a constipated smile (I own his autobiography).  Then, 21 is usually celebrated with another party, on the premise that the 18th is nothing but the practise run.

As I write this, actually I've just been handed a barrel load of envelopes that were clogging up the door and two birthday presents from my housemates.  So, now I have two new shirts for the summer and a whole load of cash to spend on... rent and council tax.  Lovely.

However, now that I have the money, I am able to do what I was unable to do a few nights ago, and that was donate to Comic Relief.  I felt inredibly guilty as I was watching it on iPlayer that I wasn't giving, though I did have a valid reason.  I was also pleased to see that the result was up by over £15 million from 2009, making up for the slightly less impressive Children in Need outcome for 2010.  In between the bits I didn't want to watch (not the appeal videos, but the bits with the so-called comics or entertainers I can't stand, like that really camp dancer), I continued to think about how much infrastructure is important to these countries, infrastructure that they simply don't have.  Whilst it is vitally imperative to get aid to the poor and malnourished on the African continent, I just wish that more of that money was being put towards larger, more long-term projects, like water pumps and pipelines, surgeries and equipment, hospitals, ambulances, larger housing projects and... well, I could go on, but I won't.  I know that what Comic Relief does do is huge and incredible when you consider the size of the area and the number of people it is trying to save, though I must admit I was overcome emotionally with the video presented by Russell Brand, about mothers and daughters scavenging on a dump site in Kenya.  It was wonderful to see the girls being rescued and sent to schools and growing up in a safe, clean environment - but it was all the more powerful when they returned to their mothers, who had been given the opportunity by the charity to start their own businesses, and that they now had a home to live in.  Lenny Henry's story about orphans in slums was equally as emotional, who did not wait for the fundraisers to give one family their own home.

There are sceptics out in the big wide world who question the ability of Comic Relief to make real change, and I understand these concerns, in fact, I agree with them.  Short term solutions can only go so far, and it's heart breaking to think that Seventy-Four Million Pounds only does so much year-on-year.

I'll admit something to you now.  A deep, dark secret.  I want to get a job that earns me lots of money.  Millions a year, if possible.  Then, and this is the real secret: I want to set up a charity foundation.  But this foundation will not be about handouts, about aid packages and sending vaccinations out to the Third World.  It will be about construction.  Revitalisation.  Africa still has some of richest farming land in the world, that is just not used to its full potential.  This foundation will send people from the "First World" out to places like Tanzania, Mozambique, Kenya and Uganda, and help them build hospitals with fully-functioning equipment, ambulances, and vaccination centres, and train doctors and nurses who in turn will train other doctors and nurses.  They will build schools and train teachers, who will not only teach literacy and numeracy to children, but also basic skills to a potential workforce who could work in their local community to improve it and continue the work the foundation starts.  The initial workers will also build houses with indoor plumbing, put up safety nets and fences along newly lain train lines, and all sorts.  This foundation will call on the help of not just the generous public in Western nations, but the support of wealthy individuals across the globe to fund these projects.  It will also seek to find support within other organisations such as the United Nations to gain political prominence, and co-operate with First and Third World governments to help provide security and administrative support to the foundation.

Call me a dreamer, but is this too much to ask for?  Is this so beyond the realms of reality that no one has thought of it before?  If such an organisation already exists, why do they not receive the same amount of exposure as charities like Comic Relief, Save the Children, Amnesty International, or the Red Cross?  When I watch things like Comic Relief, Sports Relief or Children in Need, above sadness and depression I feel infuriation.  It makes me angry to think that there are people in this world - something brought to light especially recently with the economic crisis - who earn thousands to millions of pounds a year not just in salary but in bonuses, and who splash this cash on Lamborghinis, four houses and five holidays a year, and believe they are helping the world by donating a fiver to charity.  Mark my words, if I ever find myself earning £10 million a year, here's how I'd divide it up (and bearing in mind if I was earning £10 million per annum, I'd be in the film industry - because, frankly, I'd put myself there):

£80,000 salary (woud pay for the house, nice car, family car, family holiday);

£2,500,000 investment for film projects (I like collaboration on these things);

£7,420,000 personal injection into foundation.

Yes, I know, it's easy for anybody to say they're incorruptible when they do not have the capacity to be corrupted, but I like to think I'm principled enough to actually plan my finances as such if I had the income.  Of course, I may never know, but I don't like to think like that.

Let's say you won the lottery, and the jackpot was £75,000,000.  How would you spend it?  Be honest now.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy and the Order of Channel 4 Live Shows, Part 2

Besides, selling off half the stuff talked about would require a referendum, which would cost us even more money for the government to hear the public sound off a resounding "no" to selling off anything, as was the case in the studio audience on last night's show.  Which just made the whole event that little bit more pointless.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy and the Order of Channel 4 Live Shows

Last night was Channel 4's slightly more unorthodox Dispatches episode, called Selling Off Britain.  I sort of stumbled upon it, if I'm honest, waiting for the Being Human repeat on BBC Three.  As I watched it, I realised just how balmy the whole thing was.

I know, I know - so far my blogging history makes it sound like I'm just bitching about Channel 4's political programming, but I have a valid reason for wondering what the processes were behind the commissioning of Selling Off Britain.  The premise behind the show was to select certain assets owned by the state and sell them off, in an attempt to garner currency and heal the deficit.  Now, aside from one of the guests explaining why it doesn't work like this - for reasons I still don't fully understand - one of the problems behind such a plan exists in precedent.  There has been, in the last forty years, another example of the state selling off assets in order to try and bolster its economy.  There were, of course, considerable differences between the privatisation of our national utility networks and the proposals lain down by Krishnan Guru-Murthy, the presenter of last night's programme.  Selling off our gas and electricity grids were ultimately passed on to public limited companies, and shares were sold off bit by bit to investors.  Selling the Birmingham City Council building would be a straight sell to the highest bidder.

There are reasons why people don't like Thatcher.  She destroyed our primary industrial sector; left millions unemployed with no alternative work; introduced fees to higher education making it more difficult for the unemployed to retrain; and piled resources into a war that no matter how noble cost the taxpayer millions.  Looking back, it is hard to ignore the irony that the British public campaigned against Maggie Thatcher for attempting to alleviate the national debt, but boosted her popularity ratings when she spent that money waging a war for a group of islands barely significant to the modern commonwealth.  Yes, her time in office did have some advantages: she was instrumental in preserving British sovereignty - and by extension, other European nations' - in the European Economic Community (now the EU), and potentially stopping the UK from slipping into some sort of deficit by trying to prop up the coal and steel industries.  My beef with Margaret Thatcher is her disregard for the potential unemployment and refusal to do anything about it.  That alone marks her out as being one of the worst 20th+ Century Prime Ministers this country has had.  For me.

In comparison, selling the NEC or parliamentary members clubs is an even more short term solution.  I almost had a coronary when they suggested selling the British Armed Forces.  Whilst we may rely on Private Military Corporations at times in modern warfare, I'm not sure I like the idea anyway let alone have them be in charge of our national defences.  I'll fully admit that there are some things our military could do without.  A £280 million nuclear deterrent consisting of 100+ active warheads is one of them.  When it comes to nuclear warfare, any number above 1 is generally considered reason enough not to attack somebody.  The concept of a Ministry of Defence is rather absurd, when it operates such potent first strike weapons.

As I said to my flatmates yesterday evening, selling off bits of Britain isn't going to solve anything.  It'll create a short term solution that'll be that much harder to rectify years down the line.  Unless something is changed about the core functionality of a national - or even global - economy, these things will continue to happen, no matter how many restrictions or regulations a government tries to impose on its corporations.  The latter entity will find ways of manipulating the markets and the legal system to create bigger profits, and if necessary, can bribe and corrupt a government to ignore them when they flout legal authority.

Get rid of credit.  A debit-based economy doesn't have these problems because it operates purely on existing money, the quantity of which can be adjusted every year when the government agency handling receipts and expenses - to distance the accounting from the central hub of lawmakers - realises that the national income is not proportionate to the cost of national maintenance.  There are complications to this, admittedly, but it's not half as complicated or manipulative as the economy base we currently practise.  It also makes the government and civil service less corruptible, and the corporations, banks and big businesses more managable.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, the above is purely theoretical, and I do not have the ability to actually test it practically.  But I know I'm bound to have somebody say to me eventually;

"Well, come on then, if you're so critical of the way things are at the moment, what's your brilliant solution, genius?"

David Cameron and the Half-Arsed Attempt To Direct Us Away From The Cuts

So, as promised, my next blog is about the radical, mundane, totally uncalled for attempt by the British Government to tell us to do something we already frakkin' do.

Maybe I was a little harsh.  After all, the basic principle behind the Big Society scheme is noble: the government is basically asking normal people to take up the reigns of some local initiatives to help the country through a difficult financial time.  Why should the British public immediately expect the government to take up responsibility for these things when we are all vividly aware that it simply can't without doing one of two things: raise taxes or borrow more money from the banks.  Doing the first will simply outrage the usual suspects, and doing the second will just make the situation worse.  Yes, it is understandable that people already have jobs, and rarely get the opportunity to do any kind of volunteer work, but there are plenty of people that are capable of participating in the activities related to Big Society.

Those that are capable of participating, participate.  Those that aren't, dont'.  I'll admit, having the government tell us what to do can seem rather patronising, but for the love of the gods don't do it for them.  Do it for yourself.  For your community.  I'm hardly a poster-boy for Big Society, but that's beside the point.  I'm finding it difficult to articulate myself... hold on.

Get off your lazy arse and do something to help your community.  You'll feel empowered, informed, make lots of new friends and you might also find that you've just saved your local government a few thousand pounds, which can now go towards either improving the various services it provides for you, the public, or you may also find that your Council Tax bill has been lowered.

I apologise, I shouldn't have called you a lazy arse.  For all I know, your arse is very active and it's just you.  Booyah.

Johann Hari and the Chamber of Society

So, I've started catching up with the Channel 4 programme 10 O'Clock Live, a show that I've consistently (possibly with an intention) missed since watching Episode 1.  The fact that it was grossly misadvertised, and presented me with something that was not reminiscent of Not The Nine O'Clock News or a British version of the genius Onion News Network, and instead was a haphazard mismatch of various spoofs of other political shows mainly broadcast on the BBC was not the reason.  Actually, hold on, yes it was.

However, since then, I've decided to try and catch up with the programme on YouTube and I've been somewhat convinced that it's not as bad as I thought it was.  Yes, I was initially disappointed with its structure, but after watching the fourth episode I thought it might be worth watching more.  In fact, it was the fourth episode that inspired me to start writing these blogs.  Mainly to vent my frustration at Johann Hari.  Now, before all you Independent readers and liberal politicos immediately switch off, let me make one thing clear: I'm one of you.  Sort of.  I am not by any means conservative, nor do I consider myself liberal, instead I choose to place my political allegiance at the centre of the great "Political Pringle" - like the brilliant Professor Stephen Hawking and his envisioning of the vastness of space being shaped like a crisp, I too have arrived at the conclusion that the spectrum upon which politicians like to tack their name to is shaped like a pringle.  Once, I saw it as my A Level Politics teacher did, as a straight line (with a small line poking out the top with the paragraph "Third Way" written next to it), but then I saw it as a square graph.  Then as a circle.  Then came the 3D objects, and I saw it as a small tussock.  Then a hill.  Then a mountain.  Then I decided: what the hell, let's envision the thing as the frickin' Pennine Mountains.  Now, however, due to much thought and deliberation, I see it as a party snack.

Anyway, as I was saying, I'm not a conservative, nor am I a liberal.  I consider myself central, even though I consistently tell people that central politics does not exist.  Contradictory as it may be, just because a political ideology is not practically possible, does not mean that the subject in its entirety cannot be observed from that location.  And so, we turn to the incredibly liberal Mr Hari.  I have read his articles in the past, and found myself occasionally agreeing and disagreeing with him in equal measure, but I do sometimes think he lets his socialism get in the way of a reasonable conversation.  In Episode 4 of 10 O'Clock Live, David Mitchell chaired a Newsnight-esque debate about David Cameron's in/famous (delete as necessary) "Big Society", with Philip Blond, the man behind the vision; Shaun Bailey, head of charity MyGeneration; and Johann Hari himself, journalist for The Independent newspaper.

Blond starts by explaining roughly what the Big Society is - a subject that I will be talking about in my next blog, if you're interested in reading it the next time you've got nothing better to do than read some sad sap's poorly conceived and ill-thought opinions that he dreamt up whilst pondering his own existence/unemployment.  Then Johann Hari strikes up.  First, he says it will kill volunteering, but fails to mention in what way - that people will stop volunteering in an anarchic response to something that amounts to nothing more than a suggestion by government, or that due to the lack of monetary relief for charities they simply will not have the capabilities to support their volunteers, which kind of undermines the definition of "volunteering".  Then he makes a rather bland joke about Marie Antoinette that delivers precisely the point Big Society is making (which in the mind of myself, but obviously not the amused studio audience, thought was rather like guillotining himself in the foot - you see what I did there?  Funny, haha, etc.) that immediately gets everybody onside.  Ashamedly, even me.

Then, Mr Bailey makes a great point about how most charities in the UK are already relying purely on donations and don't get any financial support from the government.  I am not aware if MyGeneration receives such support, but that's beside the very well made point.  The next time Hari speaks, it's to use a different political topic altogether to try and exaggerate his own point.  Fair enough, he's right - who's going to drop everything to try and save their local library for no pay packet?  But it has never been suggested that the people should buy a forest in order to keep it.  That's a government cock-up that has nothing to do with attempting to shift government assets over to popular maintenance.  His point about the coupling of tax levels and volunteering may be valid, but he uses extreme examples, and does not take into consideration the possible lifestyles and average incomes of those American states.  Regardless, the point is largely irrelevant.  Whilst all elements of politics are intricately linked in some way or another, his point is ultimately trying to link the issue of the complicated tax increases/decreases to the issue of Big Society, which he claims (again, perhaps rightly so) to be nothing more than spin.  Hold on, I mean PR.  Remember, spin is dead (thank you Absolute Power).

David Mitchell, rather appropriately, is the voice of reason, and his voice is rather my conclusion.  Big Society is a good idea, but it shouldn't be branded, and I should stop writing it with capital letters as if it is some sort of marketable product.  Blond is wrong because he subscribes to the idea that in order to get people helping out in the community requires nothing more than a massive, multi-million pound marketing campaign when in fact it requires the personal drive from an individual to get them involved in their community.  We already do it to some extent.  Hari saying that people will do these things less is not tied to something financial as he claims, but I believe is tied more to the population's rebellious child-like persona in relation to the father figure epitomised by government.  People will do it less because the man's telling us to do it.  It's as simple as that.  So, if you feel inclined to help out more in your community, do it, but for the love of the gods don't call it the Big Society.  It may be an attempt by government to pull the wool over our eyes in regards to their limp-wristed handling of The City, but don't treat it like that.  Hari seems to represent a portion of our society that thinks anything proposed by government is justifiably challengable.

My observations of Johann Hari, however, were clouded before, and not just by his literature but also by his television appearances.  I remember Stephen Fry's rather dubious tweet claiming Johann Hari was standing up for justice and democracy or some such thing, directing me to a YouTube video broadcasting the journalist's appearance on Sky News, opposite a candidate for the BNP, Jason Douglas.  Regardless of the viewpoints upheld by the British National Party - which I find as abhorrent as the next person - Hari decided that the best way to make his voice heard in a debate focussing on political issues was to launch a personal attack on Mr Douglas.  Then, when challenged by Richard Littlejohn, the presenter, Hari turned on him, questioning his journalistic integrity.  I responded to Stephen Fry's tweet, citing Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time as another moment when a personal attack was made in the midst of a political debate.  It's a sad day when that happens, and I find it disheartening to think that some people who claim to be reasoned think it detestable when a conservative does it, but cheer when a liberal does it.  And vice versa.

Right, I'm going to prepare myself for all the left-wing hate mail.  That said, if any conservative writes hailing me as a beacon of true blue glory, then I might just have to make my next blog a vicious attack on Margaret Thatcher.

Ciao.