Michael White has posted a balanced but fairly upbeat analysis of Labour's 2011 conference so far. What's got me writing is this little snippet:
"All politicians talk about devolving power from Whitehall, only to reassert themselves against local decisions they don't like, as Eric Pickles is already finding."
And I wondered - why do local people fight back against decisions (mostly planning, I would think) that the national Government thinks would be broadly positive for the country?
I grew up not in suburbia exactly, but in an off urban/rural dividing line. The front of the house faced the busiest road in the area (since slightly healed by a by-pass), while the back looked over flat arable fields. Once they put in double glazing in the front windows it was pretty lovely, but last year we heard that the council is pushing forward plans to pave over the field at the back and build a new housing estate. It's been rumoured for 30-odd years, so no-one is shocked, but it'll be sad for anyone still living there when the bulldozers roll in.
It's no surprise that there is local opposition. The main road may well become insanely busy again, the schools might get overcrowded. It's all great news for owners of various local supermarkets and other commercial enterprises, and the developers will make a packet. The Conservative Council will hold out their hands and fees from the development and massive hike in Council Tax returns will make sacrificing some beautiful green fields a very rewarding one. I'm sure voters across the district will benefit from a small cut in their taxes as a result, and of course it's undeniable that we do need to build more homes - somewhere.
But I wonder - what will the families and home owners fringing the field get? The ones whose view will be irreparably harmed? Whose cars will get stuck in the extra traffic jams, or whose children will end up lost in bigger class sizes? I suspect very little. And I'm sure the same applies to every other NIMBY the country over. The national or regional economy may well benefit from a new factory or energy plant, but do the actual locals - the people who have to look at a chimney or breathe in its smoke - get a fair share of the resultant benefits? We're probably talking money here in most cases, but if you're building a factory of buildings at the end of someone's back garden, the very least you should offer them is a slightly longer garden.
There's a sense, I suspect, for most people that councillors and developers are the only people who really get a pay off from controversial planning, or that any democratic benefits are thinly spread and as likely to apply to someone who'll never see the new developments as those who'll have them shoved under their noses.
This is a post of questions, but I can't help thinking that if we answer them it might just be a fairer way of deciding whether things go ahead than moaning about local opposition in the face of national need. And if you fix that maybe localism could be trusted to proceed unhindered for a while and we can see if it works.
Tuesday 27 September 2011
Wednesday 7 September 2011
Talking Round Corners
There must be some logic, but I fear logic has been superseded by the usual presumption that everyone else is fucking stupid and only understand "fire bad, tree pretty", or in this case Waiting List Up or Waiting Lists Down.
Friday 2 September 2011
Can Benefits Claimants Sue the Daily Express?
I was idly thinking, as I spotted The Daily Express' latest headline "4M SCROUNGING FAMILIES IN BRITAIN" whether there is a possibility of some sort of collective legal action by recipients of benefits in the UK.
Of course, some might think it flattering to be described as 4 metres tall, but putting aside lazy typography there must be some harm befalling these people because of the misrepresentation of their circumstances. Can the Express continue to lie with impunity? I'm not quite sure how it can. You can't call millions of people scoungers and expect there to be no harm caused to them.
Especially since, as usual, their figures are more than selective. It turns out that to qualify as a scrounging household you need only 1 adult of working age. They then admit that 7.25million people are living in these workless households. Wow. Small families. The average family has 1.8 children these days. 75% of households still have two parents. So that's a an average family size of 3.3 people, whereas these "workless families" are only 1.8 people strong. And there are only 1.85 million children in this equation. Who are these families? What are the definitions? Are we excluded pensioners, or is claiming your pension now considered to be scrounging? Are these older workers, whose children have long since left and might be finding it hard to keep up with the ever changing labour market (not that the Express would give a shit, clearly)? All of which is entirely unclear from a Daily Express article that finally admits, despite its screaming headline, that there are 38,000 fewer workless households this year than last, despite rising unemployment. And this is a headline? Did they just forget to mention it last year?
This is not news. It is campaigning. The Express is aligning itself with the Tax Payers' Alliance to support benefit cuts, and ultimately tax cuts. There clearly *is* a problem with worklessness in this country, but it is not one that will be addressed by the kind of economic policies proposed by the TPA. And it certainly won't be fixed by demonising the workless and exaggerating public perception of how many there are, but that is the very mission on which they have embarked. "Confusing and over-generous benefits are trapping people in worklessness" says the TPA. No mention of any other possible factors, but that would confuse there nice simple world view. How about a lack of jobs? Cut benefits, starve the economy of money, reduce jobs, fix worklessness? Is that how the TPA rolls? Good to know they can find novel ways out of the liquidity trap.
But seriously, if I allege on the front page of the Express that Jerry Kitchener of Rotherhithe is a scrounger, I imagine Mr Kitchener might be entitled to some sort of recompense. So why - if I smear 3.88 million households (probably including pensioners, single parents and those too ill to work)- can I keep doing it?
Sometimes I wish I knew more about the law. But at least I feel I'm on safe ground announcing that The Daily Express is poorly written and following a suspect political agenda. The joy of common knowledge.
Of course, some might think it flattering to be described as 4 metres tall, but putting aside lazy typography there must be some harm befalling these people because of the misrepresentation of their circumstances. Can the Express continue to lie with impunity? I'm not quite sure how it can. You can't call millions of people scoungers and expect there to be no harm caused to them.
Especially since, as usual, their figures are more than selective. It turns out that to qualify as a scrounging household you need only 1 adult of working age. They then admit that 7.25million people are living in these workless households. Wow. Small families. The average family has 1.8 children these days. 75% of households still have two parents. So that's a an average family size of 3.3 people, whereas these "workless families" are only 1.8 people strong. And there are only 1.85 million children in this equation. Who are these families? What are the definitions? Are we excluded pensioners, or is claiming your pension now considered to be scrounging? Are these older workers, whose children have long since left and might be finding it hard to keep up with the ever changing labour market (not that the Express would give a shit, clearly)? All of which is entirely unclear from a Daily Express article that finally admits, despite its screaming headline, that there are 38,000 fewer workless households this year than last, despite rising unemployment. And this is a headline? Did they just forget to mention it last year?
This is not news. It is campaigning. The Express is aligning itself with the Tax Payers' Alliance to support benefit cuts, and ultimately tax cuts. There clearly *is* a problem with worklessness in this country, but it is not one that will be addressed by the kind of economic policies proposed by the TPA. And it certainly won't be fixed by demonising the workless and exaggerating public perception of how many there are, but that is the very mission on which they have embarked. "Confusing and over-generous benefits are trapping people in worklessness" says the TPA. No mention of any other possible factors, but that would confuse there nice simple world view. How about a lack of jobs? Cut benefits, starve the economy of money, reduce jobs, fix worklessness? Is that how the TPA rolls? Good to know they can find novel ways out of the liquidity trap.
But seriously, if I allege on the front page of the Express that Jerry Kitchener of Rotherhithe is a scrounger, I imagine Mr Kitchener might be entitled to some sort of recompense. So why - if I smear 3.88 million households (probably including pensioners, single parents and those too ill to work)- can I keep doing it?
Sometimes I wish I knew more about the law. But at least I feel I'm on safe ground announcing that The Daily Express is poorly written and following a suspect political agenda. The joy of common knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)