Unable to Buy

All the major UK media carried a story yesterday about how public workers can’t afford to buy houses. I’m sorry, but I’m actually quite unsympathetic about this.

You see, the public workers that are mentioned in the story are teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters. And with the exception of the teachers, all the others are a self-inflicted problem. Well, not self-inflicted per se, but most certainly it’s a problem that’s come about through the decisions of the employers of these public workers about 20-25 years ago.

Before the 1980s, hospitals, police forces, and fire brigades all had subsidised accommodation for their staff/members (whichever you want to call them). In some areas, the police and nurses in particular had whole housing estates of subsidised housing. The same is true of the MoD, and soldiers having subsidised housing although even that is now coming to an end.

In the 80s and 90s, though, the various authorities (regional police forces, health authorities etc.) decided to sell off those housing areas, and make some money. OK, a load of money. So that’s what they did – bang, all the subsidised housing getting sold, giant profits being made on the sales, and not a thought to what would happen in the future.

And that’s what resulted in the current situation. If the subsidised housing were still available, the affordability of it for those key workers in the public services wouldn’t be an issue.

Just another case of short-sighted (and greedy) actions for a quick profit, and no thought to the future…

Drinking Habits

One year ago today, the UK licensing laws changed to allow 24-hour drinking, which in theory was going to mean that there wasn’t the crush of people at 11pm when the pubs closed, and that it wouldn’t mean loads of drunk people were all chucked out at the same time to wait for taxis etc., which was when fights broke out.

So, one year on, has it worked? According to the BBC, No

There was also a load of old bollocks being spouted at the time that 24-hour opening would mean people went out and drank more, or more regularly, and so it was The End Of The World (© Daily Mail, Daily Express, et al.).

One year on, has that happened? According to the same story, No.

What a shocker.

Of course, it’s not the time that’s the issue when it comes to drinking (and to many other things) – it’s the fact that in most cases, the amount of disposable income that can be used for socialising, drinking, whatever is a) finite and b) hasn’t changed. So while people have more hours in which they can drink, they still have the same amount to spend on drink, and so the change hasn’t happened.

Quelle surprise.

WWID – The thoughts and responses

OK, so – following on from this post where Gordon asked what I’d do in relation to terorrist plots, here’s a few thoughts.

Bear in mind these are all based on a couple of fairly major assumptions, namely

1. I’m Prime Minister, or equally high up in government
2. I can also turn back time
3. I have the power and support to do these things – although not as a dictatorship, obviously. That’s got its own problems

Because the first thing I’d do is tell the US to sod off, heed my own people’s obvious protest and marches etc., and not get involved in the war in Iraq. Personally I believe that one decision would’ve saved us all a lot of the hassle that’s followed. Simply standing up, heeding the electorate’s voice/wishes, and looking like a respectable statesman and “man of the people”, rather than some renfield of Bush.

As for the hysteria and hype regarding terror plots and the like, I would probably do the following:

• Not use the “threat level indicator” as a political and media tool – Bruce Shneier writes about this far more eloquently than I can – but instead attempt the (for a politician) earth-shatteringly different policy of being honest. Currently that level is “Severe” which means “an attack is highly likely”. Which really is just mealy-mouthed political bullshit. It doesn’t give a timescale, it doesn’t give any indications, and that status could apply anytime, anywhere. There’s always the chance of an attack somewhere, sometime.
• Carrying on from that, I think just a basic rider of Being Honest would work wonders, particularly if also blended with some common sense, rather than hysterical reaction.
• Personally I’d also try to have worked to provide a relationship with the media that also wasn’t based around hysteria and panic. Perhaps prosecuting some of the papers and/or TV media for promoting racial hatred and bigotry would do the job.

And with regard to airport security and the like? Hmm, I don’t know just yet. I agree that security checks are necessary – but (again going with that Honesty and non-Hysteria thing) I’d want ones that actually did something. The hysterical reactions to stupid shit like the “shoe-bomber”, and now having to remove shoes – that’d get stopped. Or if shoe checks are necessary then you bloody well make sure that you provide benches or something for people to sit on and put the damn things back on again afterwards…

I’d not have put in a lot of the crap about nail-clippers etc. in the main security check, though. What I would do would be put the security screeners on a decent wage, rather than being at minimum wages. If it became necessary, make that section into a government organisation, and do it efficiently. Pay for decent people instead of minimum wage, and get people who are capable of making the process a lot smoother and more efficient. Enforce getting decent training, and also arrange for full-blown training exercises. That is the way to get both the airports, the staff, and the public used to this sort of issue – do it, while making it very public that this is a training exercise – give people warning of what they will and will not be able to do during that training exercise. So you make it real, and yes, it’ll be a pain in the arse, but it means everyone knows what’s going on.

I think actually that works as an idea.

But it’s not just airports – it’s making people aware without making them paranoid. I haven’t quite got that sussed yet.

What I would do though is look at the bigger issues. Personally I believe wholeheartedly in an integrated society – where all people are treated the same. I know I’ve caused ructions about this before, and I never explain it all that well, but basically I believe that people should be treated the way we wish to be treated. I don’t want to force my religion, beliefs, creed, or whatever down anyone else’s throat, and I don’t believe anyone else should be allowed to do the same to me. At the same time though, I think that people should accept others, and not try to use the differences in order to divide and pigeonhole. Unfortunately, I think that’s too optimistic, because by nature Man seems to want to divide, categorise, and pigeonhole – and build up wars and conflict around those differences.

So if I were PM? The main thing I would do would be to bring in a policy of equality. Not lip-service, not this bullshit “inclusive” society where every little faction has it’s own sector – which seems to be what most people think “inclusive” means. In my experiences with local government and the like, being “inclusive” meant having a seperate department and “team” for every different faith in the area, every racial background, every sexuality and orientation, and to me that was actually divisive, not inclusive.

Equality – treating everyone the same, that’s the idea. Working so that people don’t feel minimised, disowned, disenfranchised, and thus don’t despise their own country.

Or am I completely wrong? I’m looking forward to the comments on this one…

July 7

OK, first of all, I’m not saying any of what follows to be denigrating to the people who did suffer in the suicide bombings on July 7th last year. I just want to make that absolutely clear.

However, how does huge media coverage of the memorial events make any difference? And why are we all being pushed into a 2 minute “memorial” silence for it? I don’t have a problem with the various news services showing the memorial events – personally, I think they should be private, for people who were involved and affected by the events, rather than this Diana-esque national outpouring of faux grief, but that’s my view – but I don’t see why entire breakfast programmes and so on had to cover the subject.

Maybe it’s just me, but the BBC and ITV programmes this morning seemed to be glorifying the acts of terrorism – and wasn’t that supposed to be becoming a criminal act? The BBC bleated on earlier this week about how a survey said that 13% of those surveyed thought the bombers were “martyrs” for “the cause”, yet now they’re going through the events in detail, showing how badly everything was affected. Is that not making the bombers, the causes of these events, into – to some minds at least – heroes?

I realise that the London bombs affected a lot of people, and I agree that there should be memorial services, events and the like. Should they be made national, with things like the 2 minute silence? Probably not. Should the memorial services be televised, with people’s grief and memories of the events made public, made into just so many more 3-minute filler items? No.

And how do the people who were involved feel? Surely these news reports, with video footage of the events, just brings it all back to life for them?

I don’t know. I don’t know anyone who was affected by the London bombings. I can’t speak from experience. What I do know is that the media coverage just leaves a really nasty taste in the mouth.

Redistribution of Mortality

I don’t know if it’s just me in this case, but the news about Gordon Brown announcing a plan to increase the number of vaccinations in Africa and potentially “save 10 million lives” raised a question in my mind.

If they’re saving all these lives, given the current conditions in the area, won’t this just be 10 million more people who have the potential to die from starvation/famine, instead of from measles, polio, hepatitis B, tetanus, and diphtheria?

Or am I missing a point somewhere?