Elton John and the simple pleasures

Baa Humbug! Santa never seems to get me what I ask for. Is a yacht and a royal flush of Vegas show girls too much to ask? The answer appears to be yes. Instead, I got the usual selection of humorous and worthy books, a couple of items for the kitchen and a new pair of slippers. The gap between living the dream and reality has not been this wide since the Christmas of 1997 when I asked for a Nintendo and got a moth in a presentation case. It's a little bit funny but, at times like these, my mind regularly wanders to a doleful refrain, 'If only I was Elton John.'

As various documentaries, interviews and articles over the years have demonstrated - what Elton wants, Elton gets, and the the Rocket Man wants a lot. His spending is legendary. In the year 2000 the High Court  heard how he managed to spend £30 million in twelve months. It was revealed that he spent a staggering £293,000 on flowers alone over a 20 month period. His Windsor home contains 70,000 cds and each Monday he receives an update from HMV about new releases so he can order multiple copies for each of his four homes. But what's the harm? He is a wealthy and talented man so why not let  man him indulge himself with these harmless fancies?

I suppose that if his self-indulgence was limited to spending his own money on millions of pounds of tat then it would be fine. Unfortunately, it seems that his retail therapy was a sign of a greater malaise. He has spoken publicly about his drug and alcohol problems. "I thought drug addicts were people who stuck needles in their arms - and I was the biggest junkie there was. I came very close to dying. I'd have an epileptic seizure and turn blue and people would find me on the floor and put me to bed, and then 40 minutes later I'd be snorting another line." Drugs or shopping? Psychologists have long recognised that shopping brings about a profound, but short lived, feeling of euphoria, hence, the need to repeat the process. It's not called retail therapy for nothing.

So why am I talking about Sir Elton? Yesterday, it was announced that Sir Elton and his partner David Furnish have become parents to a son born to a surrogate mother in California. Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John was born on Christmas Day. The baby is a healthy 7lb 15oz and the new parents said, "We are overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this very special moment." The birth follows the couple's attempt to adopt a 14 month old HIV boy from the Ukraine last year. It ended in failure when the Ukrainian authorities failed to recognise the validity of the civil partnership that they entered into in 2005 and they though Sir Elton, at 63, was too old.

The case provokes some interesting questions: surrogacy, civil partnerships and same sex adoptions. All of which I am going to ignore today. They continue to be controversial and the debates rage on. I am sure I will return to them. However, what has always struck me about the issue of childless couples and the explosion in IVF and other remedies is that, to me, it reflects a rather unsettling development in our society: let's call it,  'Don't go breaking my heart' syndrome' - a manifest inability to accept you just can't always get what you want.

In my lifetime, our culture has seen a remarkable turnaround. It is not that long ago that Michael Cain's character, Harry Palmer, in the Ipcress File was considered a gourmand for buying tinned champignions. Back in the 1970s, with the exception of antibiotics, medicine had barely progressed beyond the leeches and bleeding stage for the general population. Most importantly, the almost complete absence of credit meant that people were used to waiting, saving and making-do.

I am no Luddite. Over-cooked liver and bacon, anyone? Who can doubt the huge benefits that medical innovation has brought and even the expansion of credit has helped to democratise many experiences in life that were previously closed to large sections of our population. However, it is not hard to see the down-side as well. Obesity is at levels where it is possible that average life span may decline, medical science's ability to keep people alive is threatening to bankrupt the NHS and the dangers of credit are obvious. The fact is that we are caught between a crocodile rock and a hard place. The simple fact is that  most of us simply don't know when to say 'when'.

I think that the baby making and adoption industries provide good examples of these movements in our society. The intention is not to demonise people who have had difficulty conceiving. However, I do think it reflects aspects of the 'you can have it all' society. There have been nearly four million IVF babies born since 1978. However, studies have shown that there are higher health risks associated with IVF babies, not just because of the techniques themselves, but because of the underlying health of the women carrying the baby or, very often, babies. Age plays a big part. These problems are often responsible for the difficulty in conceiving in the first place. The body is saying no but science and individuals are saying it is worth the risk - because of the quest for personal happiness.

Like Elton, a large part of society is caught up in a desperate search for happiness and is over-indulging.  Whatever the means available, does 63 years old sound like the time to be starting a family? It's not just reaching for the Quality Street. Elton could be in for a bit of a shock. Many studies have shown that parents are less happy than childless people. In a 2008 paper, sociology professor Robin Simon concluded that “parents experience lower levels of emotional well-being, less frequent positive emotions and more frequent negative emotions than their childless peers.” I love spending time with my children but a lot of parenting is just hard work. You have to get enjoyment from spending time with your children doing pretty mundane things. How many nappies will Elton be changing?

A few years ago I was lucky enough to visit Hearst Castle in California. Randolph Hearst was a newspaper magnet and the inspiration for Orson Welles' Citizen Kane. In many ways he was the Elton John of his day. He had brought historical artifacts and architectural features from around the world to form a bizarre Tim Burtonesque vision. All the features had been robbed of their integrity. It was truly kitsch. Yet, within this architectural carnage I noticed that the vast medieval banqueting table was laid with bottles of ketchup. They seemed like the only authentic items in the whole place. A simple pleasure amongst Hearst's monumental vanity and appalling taste. What was the lesson?

Now, where do you begin?

I realise that I may have to wait a long time for the yacht and the showgirls. Well, it's good to have a dream but frankly I wouldn't really know where to begin if I did get them anyway. Instead, I'll put on my slippers, open up a new book and tuck into the children's chocolate selection boxes when they're not watching. Yes, there are some advantages to having kids.

Seasons Greetings

...and may your God go with you (or not) depending on your persuasion.

Best wishes

Joe

...and a child was born to save us!

A nine year old girl in Norfolk has been given a life-saving treatment thanks to a transplant from a sibling. On the face of it, this is not a particularly newsworthy story. It must happen pretty often. However, in this instance, the transplant came from a 'saviour' sibling - a baby created specifically to provide a match for the sick child. Without this treatment, Megan Matthews would have died.


Megan suffers from Fanconi Anaemia, a rare inherited condition which can cause bone marrow failure which makes it impossible to produce blood. The condition meant that Megan was unable to fight infections and she required blood transfusions every three weeks. The BBC reported that since the transplant, Megan has not required any blood products and now attends Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge for a weekly check-up.


Megan's parents are reported as saying that they always wanted another child but were concerned that he or she could be born with the same condition. Also, a naturally conceived child would have had only a one-in-four chance of being a match for Megan's bone marrow. Instead, the parents worked with teams at three hospitals in Cambridge, Bristol and Nottingham. using IVF techniques, CARE fertility in Nottingham took cells from three day old embryos and tested each one to see it it was a suitable for transplant. Two embryos were implanted and a baby boy, Max, was born. Max was a perfect tissue match and in July an operation took place in Bristol to transplant cells to treat Megan's blood disorder.


Megans's life has been transformed by the operation. She no longer has to have regular transfusions and she can now fight off infections so will not have to spend so much time in hospital. However, the transplant is not the end of her difficulties. Over 20% of people with Fanconi Anaemia develop cancer, often acute myelogenous leukemia. About 60-75% of FA patients have congenital defects, commonly short stature, abnormalities of the skin, arms, head, eyes, kidneys, and ears, and developmental disabilities. The median age of death is 30 years old. 


In an interview with the BBC, Kate Matthews said: "Max is loved for being him and not for what he has done. He has completed our family and now I have a bubbly and healthy girl." However, as Josephine Quintavalle, Director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics said of Max: "He owes his life to his capacity to be of therapeutic use to his sick sister, otherwise he would not have been chosen in the first place." The fact is that, Megan is facing a life of illnesses that could possibly resolved because of Max. What if, as is possible, she needs a kidney transplant in the future?


The guidelines for living donor transplants in the UK state, 


'the age of consent for medical treatment was clarified by the Gillick case. This determined that minors who are able to understand fully what is proposed and are capable of making a choice in their best interest could give medical consent irrespective of their age. However, even in the case of a “Gillick competent” minor where there is parental consent for donation, it would be advisable to seek consent from the High Court before proceeding. The British Medical Association considers that “it is not appropriate for live, non-autonomous donors (minors) to donate non-regenerative tissue or organs'. 

At that moment the regulations would appear to be pretty clear. However, it was only in 2005 that the House of Lords changed the law and ruled that it was lawful to create 'saviour siblings' in order to treat genetic disorders. Already the live donor guidelines provide a degree of ambiguity that could be exploited in the future: twins and 'Gillick competent' children. This is a rapidly changing field of medicine and has wide legal and ethical implications. 

How far do you think it should go? 

Truth or dare?

Brian Hanrahan

What is the role of a journalist? The question came to mind on the news of Brian Hanrahan's death aged 61. His death has brought tributes from across the country. Colleagues in Northern Ireland praised his commitment to integrated schools - mixing Catholic and Protestant children, while John Simpson wrote, 'Brian Hanrahan was the kind of journalist BBC correspondents aspire to be - always precise in his use of words and facts and scrupulously honest.' 

For many of you, like me, Brian Hanrahan's death will have brought back memories of the Falklands War, where he became famous for his report of a Sea-Harrier operation, "I'm not allowed to say how many planes joined the raid but I counted them all out and I counted them all back. Their pilots were unhurt, cheerful and jubilant, giving thumbs up signs." It was one of the most memorable quotes from the conflict.

Peter Snow

Meanwhile, 7000 miles away, in the UK another battle was taking place, between the BBC and Mrs Thatcher's government. On 2nd May 1982, Peter Snow, presenting Newsnight, had commented that information provided by the Argentine government was unreliable but he also brought into question the veracity of information from the British government. This was objectivity taken too far according to the government who complained that it was 'too neutral.' Tory MPs went further and argued that the BBC were guilty of treason.

Novelist, Julian Barnes, who at the time was a Guardian journalist, called the Falklands War, 'the worst reported war since the Crimean'. He argues that while the 'armed forces defeated the Argentinians, the Ministry of Defence was putting to rout the British media.' For 54 of the 74 days their were no images of the conflict available at home. He goes on, 'If bad news couldn't be hidden, it was certainly repositioned: thus the estimate of casualties at Bluff Cove was covered by heartening shots of the QE2 returning home. Reports were censored, delayed, occasionally lost, and at best sent back by the swiftest carrier-turtle the Royal Navy could find. Michael Nicholson of ITN and Peter Archer of the Press Association prefaced their bulletins with the rider that they were being censored. This fact was itself censored.'

During the war, Britain suffered 258 deaths (over 300 Falklands veterans have subsequently committed suicide) and 777 wounded. In addition, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and 2 auxiliary vessels were sunk. For Argentina, the Falklands War cost 649 killed, 1,068 wounded, and 11,313 captured. In addition, the Argentine Navy lost a submarine, a light cruiser, and 75 aircraft. The cost at the time was £2 million per islander. However, the Falklands were saved and Britain once again asserted itself on a world stage after years of decline. The Argentine military government fell soon after and democracy was reintroduced. Why don't you weigh up the cost / benefit. However, domestically the most profound effect of the war was the turnaround it produced for Mrs Thatcher.

At the start of 1982, 48% of respondents in a Gallup poll had rated her as the 'worst' Prime Minister ever, 12% more than Neville Chamberlain. The ten weeks of war saw her approval rating soar to 84 per cent. The pollsters noted that her rating improved after the war was mentioned during the poll interview. Meanwhile, the Labour Party had sunk to its lowest ever rating and support for the emerging SDP - Liberal Alliance had stalled. In the 1983 General Election, the Conservatives and Mrs Thatcher's brand of 'conviction politics' stormed to a massive 144 seat majority and the miners strike, privatisation and yuppies followed.

Conviction politics? Political theorists have concluded that there was no such thing as 'Thatcherism.' There was never a coherent ideology. Rather than convictions she had an instinct for taking opportunities as they arrived and exploiting them. The Falklands is a case in point. Britain had been trying to get rid of the Falklands for decades. As Julian Barnes notes 'the ardent Thatcherite, Nicholas Ridley, presenting a leaseback solution to the House of Commons only two years previously, was forgotten. The fact that we'd traded with the junta, welcomed its leaders and sold arms to them, but now realised that it was a filthy dictatorship after all, was swallowed without a burp.' 

Following the war the 'Franks Report' exonerated the government for any responsibility for the war. It is not a surprise, how many commissions ever criticise the government that appoint them? Given that the military junta in Argentina had published full plans of its intention to invade the islands three months earlier in their national newspaper La Prensa, it is difficult to believe the argument that no member of the government was informed by a civil servant of the impending disaster. Mrs Thatcher had also sent disastrous signals to the Argentinians by announcing the withdrawal of the the UK's only naval presence, HMS Endurance, from the area and replacing the full British citizenship of the Falkland Islanders with a more limited version. 

The day after Brian Hanrahan's death, Richard Norton-Taylor, the Guardian's security editor, argued that  the MOD still make it difficult to get access to sites when something goes wrong. However, as in the Falklands, there are very few restrictions on reporters embedded with troops. He describes the experience of living alongside the soldiers and sharing their risks as being seductive and believes the natural tendency is for correspondents to be sympathetic. However, he notes that relations are not so cosy that issues such as 'friendly-fire' deaths, which took weeks to be reported in the Falklands, are now reported immediately. For Norton-Taylor, 'the question is whether restrictions of the kind asked of Hanrahan in the Falklands should have been accepted by journalists.'

It is a fair question. The government's stranglehold on the news from the Falklands is demonstrated by the Boys Own lexicon that  developed during the conflict. How many men of my age still don't get a frisson of excitement at the word 'yomp'? Most of the media were happy to crank up the nationalist rhetoric and the thrill of a fight filtered throughout society. Brian Hitchen, editor of the Daily Star caught the mood when he said, "Most people would have been pig-sick if there hadn't been a fight." The blood-lust reached its height with the famous 'Gotcha' headline in the Sun on the news that the Belgrano had been sunk and 1200 men had died. Even the Sun realised it had gone too far and retracted the headline in later editions. 

What is the role of a journalist? Surely, in a democracy it is to reveal the truth, no matter how unpalatable that may be to vested interests. Brian Hanrahan's most famous quote 'I counted them all out and I counted them all back' was also part of the nationalist rhetoric. It is stirring but ultimately vacuous. As a journalist, if you can't reveal the bad news - should you reveal the good news? Isn't that called propaganda? I think it is highly telling that, in her memoirs, Mrs Thatcher called Brian Hanrahan 'an excellent BBC correspondent' for his Falklands reports. How many times did Mrs T use 'excellent' and 'BBC correspondent' in the same sentence? It is right that we should celebrate Brian Hanrahan's life and work but please let's try and leave that phrase out of it. 

Of course, even I can't blame the Tories for starting the Falklands War. The war was an attempt by a tyrannical leader to shore up their government by distracting the population with an aggressive foreign intervention. Oh hang on a minute...

Should we save Auschwitz?

Auschwitz has been saved. The German government has announced that it will contribute $80 million towards a long-term conservation programme. The Fund, set up in 2009, aims to raise $120m to preserve the site in southern Poland. The US has agreed to contribute $15m and Austria $6m, with other countries, including the Netherlands, Switzerland and the Czech Republic agreeing smaller amounts. The museum commented that, "for the first time in its history, the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial has a real chance of creating an ongoing, long-term conservation programme that will make it possible to safeguard the remains of the camp for future generations".

Auschwitz-Birkenau is probably the most well-known site of the Holocaust. Between 1942 until autumn 1944, 1.1 million people were murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau, as part of the Nazi's 'Final Solution'. 90% of those killed were Jews, delivered from across Nazi-occupied Europe to the gas chambers. Tens of thousands of Poles, Roma and Soviet prisoners were also transported to the camp. On January 27, 1945, Auschwitz was liberated by Soviet troops, a day commemorated around the world as International Holocaust Day. In 1947, Poland founded a museum on the site of Auschwitz and roughly 30 million people have subsequently passed through the iron gates which are adorned with the infamous message, 'Arbeit macht frei' ('work makes you free'). However, age and visitors have taken there toll and many of the barracks, gas chambers and other buildings are in need of urgent repair. 


German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said "Germany acknowledges its historic responsibility to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive and to pass it on to future generations." In this country the history is well-known. I was raised at a time when the Holocaust was still producing very obvious consequences. The Arab-Israeli wars, the discovery of war-criminals and Simon Wiesenthal made the Holocaust part of the news cycle of my early-life. Today, teaching the Holocaust is a compulsory subject at Key Stage 3 (age 11-14). Last year 75,000 people from the UK visited the site, many from schools. A Labour government programme has ensured that two pupils from every 6th Form in the country get funding to visit the site.

Tourists at Auschwitz

Why is Holocaust education compulsory? There are various reasons that people regard the Holocaust as so important. Firstly, it illustrates the extremes of human nature. The Holocaust demonstrates how 'evil' the human race can be, but also, shows the resilience of victims and the bravery of those who helped. A second reason is, as Primo Levi, an Auschwitz survivor said, "It happened so it can happen again." The third reason is to not allow Holocaust deniers to erase the crime from history.

In one of the more insightful moments of Alan Bennett's dreadful 'The History Boys', Hector, the Falstaff of teaching, questions the wisdom of Holocaust field trips, "where would they eat their sandwiches?" It sounds trivial and critics have inferred that, overwhelmed by the enormity of the Holocaust it suggests he chooses to ignore it. I don't think that is the case. I think Bennett recognises the enormity of the event and is suggesting it can not be taught in a traditional manner. He asks, "How can the boys scribble down an answer, however well put, that doesn't demean the suffering involved?"

I think reducing The Holocaust to a question in an exam is demeaning. It trivialises the events. The emergence of 'grief' tourism on the scale of Auschwitz provokes similar difficulties. I can't help but be disturbed by the idea of millions of people visiting the site. Demand has become so great that the Museum authorities have had to limit admission at peak times. A quick look on the internet indicates the level of tourist infrastructure that has developed because of this interest. Can that be right? On a basic level, ask yourself what is the appropriate way to proceed through such a site? Where do you eat your sandwiches?

In a recent BBC online debate, world-renowned authority on Auschwitz, Robert Jan Van Pelt argued that, once the last survivor has died, the camp should be sealed and the buildings be allowed to decay and the grass grow over them. He explained that many Auschwitz survivors believe that 'a visit to the camp can teach little to those who were not imprisoned there.' He believes this view is 'best summarised in the text of Alain Resnais' celebrated movie Night and Fog (1955), written by the camp survivor Jean Cayrol. As the camera pans across the empty barracks, the narrator warns the viewer that these remains do not reveal the wartime reality of "endless, uninterrupted fear". The barracks offer no more than "the shell, the shadow".'

Tourists at Auschwitz

But doesn't allowing Auschwitz to disappear play into the hands of those who deny the Holocaust? It is a strong argument. In the same debate, Prof Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, former inmate and Chairman of the Auschwitz Council argues that, "it lies in the nature of man that when no tangible traces remain, events of the past fall into oblivion." He continues, Auschwitz "has grown to be a global symbol and a warning against all forms of contempt for mankind and of genocide."

One of my practical concerns would be how do you preserve the camp? It seems that the nature of the project will be to replace rather than preserve. In researching this piece I found this comment on a forum discussing the US decision to contribute to the fund,


"In the army we got to take a tour of Dachau, The one thing that sticks out in my mind was how new everything looked. I mean it looked more like freshly built than restored. The camp itself looked like it had been built yesterday. So it would be hard to tell if it really was old. I always remember asking myself that question when I left. Why did all that stuff look new?"

The site had a lot of denial mixed in with the debate. This man, however, was clearly troubled and in the context of the site it was particularly worrying that the work at Dachau had provoked such doubts. Are the wider and more important aims of Holocaust education served by people questioning the integrity of Auschwitz and the other camps? Prof Bartoszewski argues that, "If we allow Auschwitz-Birkenau to disappear from the face of the Earth, we might just be opening a way for a similar evil to return." I suppose my main point is that 'similar evil' has returned many times since the Holocaust despite the existence of the site.

The camp was the implement of death. Like a gun or a knife. It did not cause the deaths. The deaths were the logical conclusion of a process of dehumanisation. This process was described by Hannah Arendt, the German Jewish philosopher, in her work 'The Human Condition.' She argued that the modern world alienated people from one another because life had become a private experience driven by individual consumption. Viktor Frankl, an Auschwitz survivor, sums up the argument neatly, "I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." So what is the lesson?

Tourists at Auschwitz

In 1966, Theodor W. Adorno, one of the most important philosophers and social critics in Germany after World War II, proposed his theory of  "Education after Auschwitz without Auschwitz.' Central to his theory is that the curriculum should not contain 'any detailed descriptions of the most heinous atrocities'. His research demonstrated that excessive attention to extreme cruelty made small-scale cruelty seem not that bad. He also promoted the idea that children be taught that everyone plays the role of bystander, victim and  perpetrator at some point in their lives. This would teach them the mechanisms that lead to different types of behaviour. Finally, by not focusing attention on the Holocaust the curriculum allows children to develop sympathy for all victims not specifically Holocaust victims. 

Adorno recognised that the lesson of the Holocaust was that humans need to feel empathy - so they can identify with other people in other situations and they also need to be confident autonomous beings - achieved by promoting the ability to: reflect, contemplate, make one’s own decisions and not automatically go along with the crowd (non-conformity).  

I think that it is a mistake to focus on Auschwitz. Ultimately, the Auschwitz debate has already been won and I suspect won by groups with more personal interest in the preservation of the camp than I can hope to understand. However, I do not believe that maintaining Auschwitz beyond the death of the last survivor serves any purpose. The true lesson of the Holocaust, as subsequent genocides have shown, is that we must fight the promotion and acceptance of dehumanising philosophies. In this fight,  ideas, not symbols, are our greatest enemy and our greatest ally. 

Eric Pickles - The Fat Controller

The Fat Controller

Council cuts are nothing new but Eric Pickles' announcement that councils in England will face cuts of 9.9% next year is a particularly stark Christmas message. The cuts are part of a four year plan to reduce Central Government funing to Local Government by 28%. At the same time the Government is publishing a Localism Bill, designed to, 'devolve greater powers to councils and neighbourhoods and give local communities control over housing and planning decisions.'

According to the GMB Union 79 councils have issued warnings about job cuts and it is estimated that 74,000 jobs wil be lost in the New Year. So, not a merry christmas for many. GMB national officer Brian Strutton has commented that: "Local government seems to have been sacrificed on the altar of spending cuts and the whole range of council services will be dramatically slashed. From what we've seen, support for the needy and vulnerable will be particularly hard hit including carers for the elderly and children's social workers. So will street cleaning and refuse collection."

The Bradford Protests

Pickles has some 'previous' in this line. In the late 1980s, after a time as Chairman of the Young Conservatives, Pickles emerged as the 'beast of Bradford' a right wing leader of Bradford City Council who slashed the council's budget by £50 million, reducing the workforce, over five years, by a third. In comparison with the Bradford firebrand, Pickles, who had previously been a communist and was regarded as a 'wet' Tory during his early career, appears to have returned to those left-wing roots by only making 9.9% cuts.

To show that he is a well-rounded figure and not completely averse to public spending: during the expenses scandal Pickles admitted he claimed an allowance for a second home because he had a four hour journey to work although he lived only 37 miles away from Westminster. For average size commuters the trip only took 90 minutes. Despite his tough image Pickles has a sensitive side. In 2006 a fish and chip shop in his constituency launched the 'Eric Pickled Egg'. The item was removed when Pickles complained that egg represented a personal slight and said the episode was 'in bad taste' because he, in fact, disliked vinegar.

Pickles might be taking away with one hand but he is giving us the Localism Bill in the other. The Department for Communities claims,

"Decentralising government is at the heart of everything we do - transferring power from central government to local authorities and the individuals they represent. We want to achieve a position where strong, empowered local government is able to act in the best interests of its residents with the necessary support, not interference, from central government institutions. We are going to make it clear who is responsible for doing a job and give communities the powers to ensure it is done. We will strengthen democratic accountability and hold elected officials to account, for example through referendums and greater transparency." 

Power to the people! In principle it is difficult to disagree with the aims of the Bill. One of the Bill's more innovative clauses confers a “protected status” on important 'community assets' such as pubs, libraries or even shops. If one of these properties goes on the market, local people are given extra time to buy and keep the service going. In rural locations, particularly, this could be a valuable power. There will also be a new right to let community or voluntary groups run local services like meals on wheels which would be paid for by the council.

However, some of the proposals are rather concerning. One of my early posts noted that the housing benefit reforms would, "lead to homelessness and since there is a statutory duty to house homeless people, the cost will ultimately fall back upon the government anyway, or will that duty be removed?" (http://canthingsonlygetbetter.blogspot.com/2010/10/housing-no-comment.html). The Localism Bill proposes to end the statutory duty for councils to house homeless people permanently in affordable accommodation. Instead they will be able to discharge their responsibilities by finding them private rented accommodation for at least 12 months.

Another less publicised aspect of the Bill is the proposal to reform the Housing Revenue Account. For those who don't know, it is sets the level of central government subsidy for council housing. The social housing budget has already been cut by 50%. If you throw in the new powers for people to approve or veto "excessive" council tax rises (how many will vote for the necessary increases to maintain services?) then we are looking at a very grim picture for social housing and those who rely on it to keep their heads above water.

Ultimately, given the size of the cuts, I think we will see councils taking some very tough decisions.  Rather than deciding which services to enhance according to local priorities, we will see people deciding which front line services will have to be cut or lost. As the BBC's Nick Robinson said in his blog recently, "Governments with money centralise and claim the credit. Governments without cash decentralise and spread the blame." He pointed out that this cynical view was not his own but came from a top Tory 'policy wonk'. Make deep cuts and then sit back and let the local councillors take the flak.

Eric Pickles - 'the Beast of Bradford' 

In 2010 local councils were responsible for spending £177 billion, a huge slice of government expenditure, yet most of us don't know the name of our local councillor. You may not be a direct beneficiary of all these services, but we all benefit from the opportunity they provide for members of our community.

Time to get involved before Eric gets rid of it all. If we don't, at least we'll know who ate all the pie. 

Julian Assange and Wikileaks

There is a news story around at the moment that may have escaped your attention – it involves the publication of a few private cables sent by diplomats of the US of A

Julian Assange

This blog does not intend to go into the rights and wrongs of leaking confidential and potentially damaging state documents, although I am in favour of it, but rather the draconian and frankly scary response of America.

There are the usual hang ‘em high brigade that you get in any ‘national crisis’ – Congressman Mike Rogers being a prime example. Congressman Rogers says that execution would be an appropriate punishment for the soldier widely thought to helped leak classified military documents to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. 

 "I argue the death penalty clearly should be considered here," explained Rogers. "He clearly aided the enemy to what may result in the death of U.S. soldiers or those cooperating. If that is not a capital offense, I don't know what is."

Ex Vice-Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin called for him to be hunted as an “anti-American operative with blood on his hands”, whilst Representative Peter T. King called the leaks “terrorism”.

More sinister is the attempts by the American government to ‘persuade’ various companies that having anything to do with Wikileaks may be harmful for their business.  It is thought that it was US political pressure that provoked Amazon to stop hosting Wikileaks, EveryDNS to break Wikileaks.org’s domain name, eBay/Paypal to stop facilitating financial transactions, Swiss Post to freeze a Wikileaks bank account (in perhaps the first instance in recorded history of a Swiss bank taking residency requirements seriously), and Mastercard and Visa to cease relations. 

The US Government may not have the powers to directly stop the confidential information reaching the public domain but they are doing everything within their power to disrupt and block Wikileaks. Meanwhile, the US Government is content to allow Visa and Mastercard to allow links on the Klu Klux Klan website enabling donations to be made.

Then we get to the very tricky detail of the international arrest warrant for the alleged rape of two Swedish women by the high profile head of Wikileaks, Julian Assange.  I would never support a man accused of such a terrible crime without knowing the facts more thoroughly and I can not comment on his guilt or innocence as I do not know enough about the incident. 

What is striking, of course, is the timing of the warrant.  Mr Assange has stated that he tried to speak to the police in Sweden when the accusation first surfaced but that they thought the evidence was not sufficient to proceed.  He then left Sweden with the knowledge of the police and came to England.  He was not in hiding and British police knew how to contact him. 

Assange's British lawyer says Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny is flouting international law and staging a "show trial" by keeping him in the dark, calling it "impossible for us to prepare a case if you don't know what the allegations or evidence are." It wasn’t until the leaked cables starting being published that an international arrest warrant was served. This could be a mere coincidence, I will let you draw your own conclusions from that.  What I do hope is the justice is done for the proper reasons rather than any political ones.

Luckily there are many people out there in the cyberworld who believe in the freedom of the internet. From the twitter campaigns aimed at spreading support for Wikileaks, encouraging donations and urging action against the aforementioned companies as well as posting links to the documents themselves, to the sites posting links to Wikileaks to countries who are willing to let them on their servers (Bolivia).  There are also many who are happy to take the law into their own hands and fight fire with fire – apparently Mastercard and Visa sites have been the subject of intense cyber attacks since they announced their decisions.

Beauty and the geek

To me, Wikileaks shows that powerful governments will do anything to keep the truth from the unwashed masses, but, in the digital age, they are fighting a losing battle – and I do believe this battle is part of a bigger war against the ever increasing power of big governments and, sometimes bigger, corporations. Thank goodness for the computer kids who never had girlfriends.

Viva la geek revolucion!

READING THIS COULD BE DANGEROUS

Today Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks who is facing extradition for sexually assualting two women in Sweden, is due to appear in court in London in a fresh attempt to secure bail. Please welcome guest blogger, Kitey, as he gives us a personal view of the scandal.

There is a news story around at the moment that may have escaped your attention – it involves the publication of a few private cables sent by diplomats of the US of A

Julian Assange

This blog does not intend to go into the rights and wrongs of leaking confidential and potentially damaging state documents, although I am in favour of it, but rather the draconian and frankly scary response of America.

There are the usual hang ‘em high brigade that you get in any ‘national crisis’ – Congressman Mike Rogers being a prime example. Congressman Rogers says that execution would be an appropriate punishment for the soldier widely thought to helped leak classified military documents to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. 

 "I argue the death penalty clearly should be considered here," explained Rogers. "He clearly aided the enemy to what may result in the death of U.S. soldiers or those cooperating. If that is not a capital offense, I don't know what is."

Ex Vice-Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin called for him to be hunted as an “anti-American operative with blood on his hands”, whilst Representative Peter T. King called the leaks “terrorism”.

More sinister is the attempts by the American government to ‘persuade’ various companies that having anything to do with Wikileaks may be harmful for their business.  It is thought that it was US political pressure that provoked Amazon to stop hosting Wikileaks, EveryDNS to break Wikileaks.org’s domain name, eBay/Paypal to stop facilitating financial transactions, Swiss Post to freeze a Wikileaks bank account (in perhaps the first instance in recorded history of a Swiss bank taking residency requirements seriously), and Mastercard and Visa to cease relations. 

The US Government may not have the powers to directly stop the confidential information reaching the public domain but they are doing everything within their power to disrupt and block Wikileaks. Meanwhile, the US Government is content to allow Visa and Mastercard to allow links on the Klu Klux Klan website enabling donations to be made.

Then we get to the very tricky detail of the international arrest warrant for the alleged rape of two Swedish women by the high profile head of Wikileaks, Julian Assange.  I would never support a man accused of such a terrible crime without knowing the facts more thoroughly and I can not comment on his guilt or innocence as I do not know enough about the incident. 

What is striking, of course, is the timing of the warrant.  Mr Assange has stated that he tried to speak to the police in Sweden when the accusation first surfaced but that they thought the evidence was not sufficient to proceed.  He then left Sweden with the knowledge of the police and came to England.  He was not in hiding and British police knew how to contact him. 

Assange's British lawyer says Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny is flouting international law and staging a "show trial" by keeping him in the dark, calling it "impossible for us to prepare a case if you don't know what the allegations or evidence are." It wasn’t until the leaked cables starting being published that an international arrest warrant was served. This could be a mere coincidence, I will let you draw your own conclusions from that.  What I do hope is the justice is done for the proper reasons rather than any political ones.

Luckily there are many people out there in the cyberworld who believe in the freedom of the internet. From the twitter campaigns aimed at spreading support for Wikileaks, encouraging donations and urging action against the aforementioned companies as well as posting links to the documents themselves, to the sites posting links to Wikileaks to countries who are willing to let them on their servers (Bolivia).  There are also many who are happy to take the law into their own hands and fight fire with fire – apparently Mastercard and Visa sites have been the subject of intense cyber attacks since they announced their decisions.

Beauty and the geek

To me, Wikileaks shows that powerful governments will do anything to keep the truth from the unwashed masses, but, in the digital age, they are fighting a losing battle – and I do believe this battle is part of a bigger war against the ever increasing power of big governments and, sometimes bigger, corporations. Thank goodness for the computer kids who never had girlfriends.

Viva la geek revolucion!

Mad Men - the best TV ever?

An impressive figure stands in the corner of an artfully decorated, early 1960s office. We only see his back, a featureless silhouette interrupted by just a hint of a humanising white shirt collar. He surveys the room. Pondering. Is it his office? Will he stay? Almost immediately the commanding figure is reduced as the camera pulls back. We are the second person in the room, a silent witness, observing the man, now smaller, exposed and more vulnerable in the middle of the office.

Opposite us a Scandinavian desk archly provides a note of solidity in an otherwise intangible room. Vague decor merges, through windows barred by blinds, with the monotonous grey sky to envelope a glimpse of pastel skyscrapers. What sort of cell is this? How can it hold him? Nothing but the desk and the man has substance.  

The self-assurance has gone. He's uneasy and we're uneasy for him. The music is a pulse. A potential threat like a discordant heart-monitor. Pressure. This is a man's world. No room for weakness or sentiment. Image is everything. The only personal touches in the room are the barely perceptible outlines of hard liquor bottles stacked on the table - like the ghosts of the men who have vacated the shadowy chairs. The bottles are an elegant testimony by the prosecution. Only the spinning fan shows signs of life.

Yet the cocktail chic has a seductive quality - the aspirational magazine style draws the man further into the room. He steps forward and places his briefcase on the floor. His silhouette is like an exclamation mark on a blank page. An assertion of individuality that breaks the tension. Sudden and catastrophic. Everything in the office is shattered and sucked into a sterile abyss while the man stands transfixed and helpless. The screen dissolves briefly into black only to reveal that the darkness is the man and he is falling.   

 

A man falling from a Manhattan skyscraper. 50 years of American history. A logical conclusion. His descent is witnessed by a wet dream of giant advertising hoardings promising every pleasure - but for him the price has been too high. He is not the only casualty. Fatherless children accuse the man with their smiles as he falls past the scarlet lips and fishnetted thigh that for once are untouchable and unmolested. The only thing he wants no one can sell. 

Dissolve to black again as we anticipate the impact, but no, there is one more twist. The camera pans out to reveal the man sitting nonchalantly in a chair, a cigarette in one hand and no doubt a whiskey in the other. Composed? Yes, but he stares into a grey void. What can he see? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcRr-Fb5xQo

Conservatives and the economics of happiness

Lord Young's remark that most Britons 'had never had it so good' received a great deal of criticism last week and saw him resign from his role as a government advisor. Given the current economic circumstances and the depth of the Coalition's cuts even David Cameron called the comment 'insensitive and inaccurate'. Insensitive, yes, but inaccurate? 

Rolling news has a habit of picking up on these gaffes, cranking up the hyperbole and making more of them than is really necessary. "Tory makes insensitive remark about the the poor shocker!" "Cameron makes a dig at a man for being short!" It is not really news, is it? The problem with this sort of reporting is that it may fill airtime but it also generates a slightly fraught atmosphere. It betrays a tendency to play to the mob. 

The trouble with Young's remark is that from a historical perspective it may be true. Like a Don in Tom Sharpe's 'Porterhouse College' - historians (sorry real historians who read this) tend to find that 'current economic circumstances only last ten years or so'. From this perspective, even making allowances for the mirage of wealth during the highly inflated house-price boom - most of us really have never had it so good. Now calm down and let me explain. During my lifetime we have seen our country transformed. The grey, conservative world of my childhood has disappeared. Never again will tinned mushrooms be regarded as a rather sophisticated addition to a meal or orange juice be seen an acceptable starter in a restaurant. 

Our society has been transformed. A huge proportion of lives have been changed for the better. Sexual equality, racial equality, gay rights, a huge increase in the standard of living for the vast majority and, of course, the advent of 52 inch plasma TVs. As this blog testifies, I think there are still huge problems but the advent of the minimum wage, statutory housing responsibilities, free pre-school education demonstrates how successive governments have attempted to address the barriers to social inclusion to varying degrees. Yes, it's a work in progress but please don't get caught up in a sentimental vision of Britain. Have you read any of David Peace's novels?

Please don't take away my TV

Yet the sting in the tale is that despite all the improvements we are more unhappy than ever. In the highly respected Legatum Prosperity Index, which annually measures well-being across a range of eight indicators from economic to social cohesion, the UK came 13th but 20th in terms of life satisfaction. Compared to most 'developed' countries: we are more scared of crime, work longer hours, have an older retirement age and despite a very high level of political stability, a very low regard for our politicians. One of the saddest statistics was that only 35% of the population believed they could trust other people. In the top country, Norway, 74.2% felt they could trust others and even the USA beat us.

Since 1990 Richard Layard, now Baron Layard, has been promoting an alternative view of economics in his role as Programme Director at the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE. Layard's work has become known as 'Happiness economics'. Briefly, he argues that relative rather than absolute income is the best indicator of happiness. People compare themselves to their peers and judge their 'happiness' accordingly. Increased purchasing power may make us unhappier if our position compared to others is worse. This effect may nullify any positive effects of economic growth and simply drive people to work harder in order to bridge the relative wealth gap. He calls this the rat race effect.

Richard layard

This research, however may seem like a debate that can only relate to the few very rich developed countries. It is no accident that the happiest countries are some of the wealthiest. At he very least it would be simplistic not to recognise that there is a minimum level of income that allows people to stop subsisting and instead start living. However, even leading free-market organisations have begun to advocate 'sharing the wealth'.

Layard's conclusions are supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Their 2010 report demonstrates the happiest countries also have the least inequality in income between rich and poor. Meanwhile the significantly less satisfied Brits and Yanks have a much great divergence in wealth. The OECD also concludes that in order to maximise worldwide economic growth, policy-makers should address levels of income inequality. Economic growth is not enough. It is a win-win situation because they note, as an aside, that there may also be a 'poverty reduction dividend' attached to these measures.

David Cameron's announcement that the Coalition will spend £2 million in an attempt to measure our  happiness has been met with derision. The rolling news juggernaut has got to work already and the mob are at the gates. Let's hope he has the political courage to see this through. I think he may be onto something. Despite the 'historical' trend of growing wealth we are less happy. Making 'happiness' rather than purely economic growth the goal would could have a profound effect on the assumptions of our policy-makers. It's an exciting thought.

Pure economic interests might drive a foreign policy that lands us in Iraq, but would a policy based on broader outcomes like social cohesion do the same? We are constantly warned that our top bankers will flee to other countries if the government dares to regulate their activities. Well, according to the OECD, it is in virtually everybody's self-interest to let them go.

To think that Ken Dodd was right all along...

"To me this old world is a wonderful place

And I'm just about the luckiest human in the whole human race

I've got no silver and I've got no gold

Just a whole lot of happiness in my soul"