Home building needs a hand; retail and profit is often the enemy here too.

A thought occurred to me that the lack of land available to build homes on might have a link to the growth in retail seen over the last two or three decades.

I looked over maps of places I’ve known for more than a decade: the Chorley area and the Manchester area. I recalled buildings etc that existed ten or twenty years ago in certain places and realised something quite worrying but not altogether surprising.

Business premises often stand empty for a long time after companies go out of business or move elsewhere. Whenever something is demolished, be it old run down housing, empty warehouses and business premises etc, it is more often than not replaced with a new retail development of some kind, often a supermarket. Sometimes a supermarket with a petrol station and a row of large retailers. Stores such as Currys, Carpetright, Halfords etc have always used this sort of development but now high street stores are there too: Marks and Spencer, Next, New Look etc. The new stores and office developments tend to be larger than the next nearest alternative, and when the customers/clients cease to use the original stores, they sometimes close even if they were not intended to. This results in town centres becoming quiet and often with many empty shops. And those customers who were still using the shops that are left behind will gradually stop using them too as the decline continues.

I’m well aware that linking town centre closures to out-of-town retail developments is nothing new. But this is the first time I’d thought about the impact on housing. Town centres are not usually the best places to live and as shops close, areas become run down and are even less desirable. So with retailers buying up land – and with councils encouraging this because such projects usually bring in revenue in the short term, where will new houses be built?

We don’t need to build on green field sites; we need councils to look more closely at commercial development proposals and only accept those that use existing commercial sites, or at least carefully consider the availability of land for future housing before giving them the green light. They also must lower town centre business rates, or raise out-of-town rates to match. Public transport may need to be improved and town centre parking will need to be looked at.

Town centre regeneration is a well-known issue and towns need to bring customers back there from the outskirts, leaving those areas free for housing projects. This can work hand-in-hand with the idea of satellite offices I’ve mentioned before.

I'm aware that using my memory to note the changes in of a couple of towns is not a scientific way of viewing the entire problem but wherever I go, I see new, or fairly new out-of-town retail parks so I can only assume this issue is replicated across the country. Something needs to change.. 

Something HAS to change

This government, particularly that smug git Gideon Oliver Osborne (that's his name - he added 'George' himself), are very satisfied with themselves. What they've managed to do is shrink the state and cripple the poor and vulnerable enough to reduce the budget deficit a bit* and we even have a bit of growth.

*For anyone who doesn't quite understand these terms yet - and you're in powerful company, because the Tories regularly get it wrong too - the 'budget deficit' is basically the difference between money coming in in taxes and money going out to pay for public services, benefits, pensions, handouts to people like Richard Branson, MPs expenses etc. A 'structural deficit' is a term sometimes used when an economy has been running at a deficit for some time. Deficits can be re-balanced either by recouping more taxes (so closing tax loopholes, or if there were more people in work paying income tax,that would help) or by making cuts. The 'national debt' is the amount of debt the country is in. That hasn't been falling, despite the cuts.

The growth, of course, is based on more personal debt, mostly as a consequence of buying homes. This had to happen eventually: people have been buying far fewer houses in the last 3 or 4 years so it was only a matter of time before people started to buy again. The 'help to buy' scheme has, inevitably, driven prices up because it enables people to get 95% mortgages again, meaning there are more people in the market and very few new homes being built.

So with house prices now back on their pre-recession trajectory, are we in a better place? No, absolutely not. This current flurry of housing market activity will not last unless the economy begins to re-balance and this current government's policies will not help that.

Already there are people in some areas earning good salaries who can't afford a modest home and elsewhere people with average and above average incomes are unable to buy a house that less than ten years ago would have been well within their means. Salaries, which have fallen dramatically in real terms* since the crash, are still rising lower than inflation and significantly more slowly than property prices. So this growth that the government are milking will flat-line again in no time, unless salaries start to rise. But the reason salaries are not rising is not going to change any time soon.

*'Real terms' basically means 'taking into account inflation' and is only used by politicians if it suits their point.

Capitalism works when those at the lower end of the economic scale can afford to buy luxury good. The way that capitalism has evolved in most countries, particularly in the UK and US is not about those with money being liberal with it - unless of course that money is someone else's. Company chairmen/women do not satisfy shareholders by paying staff good salaries and in a time of austerity, those employers who value, reward and share profits with their staff have to be more cautious. On top of this, public sector organisations are suffering - or are at risk of - huge cuts and so they are also having to change pay structures.

So with no one driving salaries up for the majority of workers, who on earth is going to be able to afford to buy homes? At present, a lot of properties in certain areas - particularly London - are being bought by overseas investors who then rent them out. But as the sale prices increase, the rents will rise and eventually, potential tenants and some of these overseas investors will be priced out too.

I can't work out what the Tories' plan is. Either they know that their policies are destined to fail the economy but are using this opportunity in government to rip chunks off the state and feed their wealthy friends and donors with nice public services at bargain prices. Or they are actually completely inept.

I'm not sure which is more worrying.

They're selling OUR assets, so where's the outrage?

I found out yesterday - and I can't believe I had missed this one for so long - that the government are fiddling with further and higher education to encourage private sector growth in the area. And of course, we're talking about the Tories here, who 'encourage' private sector involvement by handing them pots of public money and tipping the scales massively in their favour.

This is on top of the Royal Mail privatisation, which was at least well reported unlike the NHS, fire services, security and probation, and all the other sell-offs that are going on under our noses.

So where's the public outrage? These services have been built up with taxpayers' money for decades and we're just sitting by and letting this government sell them off to their rich friends and donors for bargain basement prices. On top of that, they'll now be profit-making organisations and as a result, will need to change in order to make profit. There will be cuts to spending - probably meaning job losses - to increase profit margins, unprofitable areas will be cut out altogether (which will have a huge impact on services to rural areas, for example) and overall, the quality of the service will suffer. Either that or they'll start to cost a lot more. I actually think - looking at the railways, water, electricity, gas and all of the other things that have been privatised over the last few decades - that they'll cost more AND be lower quality.

These are OUR services. WE paid for them and nobody voted to sell them off to the rich friends of the tories. If someone broke into your home, took your possessions and sold them off for profit you'll never see, you'd be livid and would expect the police to do something about it. This is hardly different. And the BBC yet again are failing to report what this government is doing so a lot of people have no idea.

Scottish independence

Ever since the debate became serious a few years ago, I've been hoping that Scotland votes 'no'. This is mainly for two reasons:

1. I have been hoping to see borders coming down, not new ones going up. Borders divide 'us' from 'them' and are usually as a result of some form of conflict. Borders divide us and are used to control us. I don't like borders.
2. The way the debate has been conducted. I don't trust Salmond. Much of the debate has been fuelled (pardon the pun) by the fact that oil and gas off the coast of Scotland boosts the UK economy as a whole and many Scottish people would prefer this to be kept to themselves. But it will run out in time. The campaign has become very much one of 'them' vs 'us' and puts all English people on the wrong side. I like Scotland and want what's best for Scotland and I don't like being one of 'them'. Especially when 'them' are Tories and the contented (yet oddly grouchy) upper middle class and landed gentry.

Despite this, I would love to have the opportunity to vote for something that has the potential to mean real change to the political landscape. The Tories are supported by the wealthy and others who don't want to pay taxes that might benefit anyone other than themselves. Yet repeatedly we have their ideals forced upon all of us, whether by a Tory government, a Tory-led coalition or a Labour party following a general right-ward shift of mainstream British politics since the late 1970s.

I think that if people in the north of England (where I was raised and have now returned to from Scotland) had the opportunity to break off from Westminster, many would vote for it. And it wouldn't just be the north: people all over England feel that the last few governments have served a few rich people in London and the 'home counties' and for the most part, ignored the rest.

So although I still hope Scotland votes 'no', if they vote 'yes', I'll seriously consider moving back up there.

To vote or not to vote

In the aftermath of Russell Brand’s appearance on Newsnight and many responses to it - some in the public eye and some just on twitter - I’ve been thinking about the pros and cons of turning up to vote on polling day.

I’ve also been thinking about the pros and cons of people in the public eye having their say and as far as Russell Brand goes, I can see mostly positives. His popularity brings this sort of political discussion - and the idea that we don’t have to just put up and shut up - to people who might feel that they’re usually excluded. And the coverage his appearance on Newsnight (following his article in The New Statesman) received has opened up debate about our voting choices amongst some our most established political commentators.

Brand advised people not to vote, although he would expect individuals to be able to decide for themselves. And there’s a distinction to be made between ‘voting’ and ‘turning up’: it would be good to have a ‘none of the above’ option but whilst there isn’t one, many people might not know that they can spoil their ballot paper. 

Robert Webb, amongst others, hit back strongly suggesting that people fought for the vote and we shouldn’t waive our opportunity to have our say. But right now, many people feel that none of the main parties speak for them and what’s more, none of them can be trusted. A few people decide that they would like to vote for one of the smaller parties but many decide, understandably, that in order to keep the party they like least out, they must vote for the party that has the best chance of keeping them out.

I have always voted. But recently, I’ve struggled to decide who to vote for (although if we had a proportional representation system, or even AV, it would be much easier: with the current options it would be Greens followed by Labour followed by Lib Dems followed by anyone else standing against the right). In 2010, I was very seriously considering voting for the Liberal Democrats but a couple of their policies just didn’t seem convincing (for example taking the income tax threshold up to £10k p.a. - I think introducing a living wage is a better idea - seemed to have flawed Maths at the root of its supposed funding) and I eventually voted Labour. I wasn’t at all happy with Tony Blair’s time in power; it seemed that New Labour were far too much like the Tories. They took us to an illegal war in the middle east. They were keen on expanding on the flawed PFI projects started under John Major. They were clearly very comfortably in the pockets of the City and Gordon Brown made the Tories very happy when he removed yet more financial regulation; phase 2 of Thatcher’s Tories’ big bang plan if you like. Such were the meagre choices, they were the best hope I had. I now know more about Brown's time as chancellor and prime minister (selling off our gold reserves for example; intentionally causing market fluctuations which might have made the city happy but which ultimately left those of us propping up the economy even more burdened) which makes me even more disappointed. But I would still have voted for them because our first-past-the-post system almost forces you to vote for one of the main two parties. Of course, when Tory lies and the right wing media convinced the public that the recession was Labour's fault (which, despite Brown's actions, it wasn't), they lost.

The problem with not voting of course, is that it is assumed people can’t be bothered or don’t think it affects their lives. I suppose that sort of apathy might be indicative of people feeling that their lives are fairly ok. But it's probably more likely at the moment that people feel it doesn’t make any difference who they vote for because none of the main parties will actually run the country in the interests of the majority of the people they represent. And on recent evidence, they're right.

The Labour party shifted right in the 90s because keeping to the left - albeit not too far left - hadn’t worked for them. After losing the election, their rhetoric was that of a party accepting the idea that the recession was their fault and and trying to convince the public that they can be trusted. The result: slightly diluted Tory policies. Now they seem to be moving back to the left but if they don’t promise to reverse the cuts, the NHS reforms and changes to welfare, it’s hard to know for certain if they’re really beginning to return to their original, socialist ways. It’s understandable in a way because the dominant right-wing media’s Labour-bashing is deafening. 

The Liberal Democrats are likely to have now lost much of their support, having assisted the Tories with what seems to me like an even more right-wing government than Thatcher’s: her party didn’t try to sell off the NHS or the Royal Mail. Most of the prominent Lib Dems also repeat the party mantra in interviews and nod approvingly in parliament when they could say “I don’t agree with this decision personally but we are the minority party in this government and have pledged to support this particular policy.” If the Tories had been forced to form a minority government, they wouldn’t have had the parliamentary majority needed to carry out many of the cuts, sell-offs and reforms that have hit the public hard (although many have been snuck in through snide policy-writing under the noses of parliament or whilst other more pressing matters were at hand). So the Lib Dems are absolutely complicit. Nick Clegg’s repeated assertions that they had no choice but to form the coalition is just plain wrong and the Lib Dems might struggle to shake off this period "in power".

The soundbites all parties utter; the inability to answer straight questions and the lies just flow like Russell Brand’s flowery language. How on earth can we decide who we trust if we can't tell what politicians really think?

It’s interesting though, to go back over the argument many people have used about why we should vote: “because people fought for your right to have your say.” Is it not time, then, to fight again, this time to bring about a fundamental reform of our political system? 

The difficulty of course is that what we all want isn’t exactly the same. You can’t just want ‘change’; there has to be some sort of direction and I think there are lot of small groups offering their own brand (no pun intended) of new politics - although I’ve yet to see any projected visions. I think it’s likely though, that they will all share a few common beliefs:

1) The government should serve the people not private business interests.2) The environment can and should one of our top priorities.3) The NHS, rail and energy services should be nationalised. And possibly RBS too.4) Members of Parliament should not have second jobs or any other links with private companies.

Any such movement is going to very very tough, despite having public opinion mostly on side. The most conservative (those wanting to keep the status quo) are the wealthiest, most powerful and the best served by the media and their message will out. Perhaps we will see a collaboration of disparate groups before the next election, coming together to give people something else to vote for, even if that is simply advising anyone who feels disillusioned to add their own tick box to their ballot paper and vote for ‘none of the above’.

Vote-winning tactics: tell people what matters

Political parties should listen to the what the public wants and if appropriate/possible/viable, act accordingly. But they don't. They already have their agendas, and simply set their media minions out to feed the public with stories.

As I've discussed before, the right-wing is far better represented in the media than the left. The left have The Guardian/Observer, Channel 4 News and The Mirror. The right have The Sun, The Telegraph, The Times, The Mail, The Express and Sky News. This gives the right-wing parties a distinct advantage. In these austere and Tory-led times, tales of immigrants on welfare, healthcare tourism, benefits claimants in mansions and bloated, wasteful and even dangerous public sector organisations pad out the pages (often the front pages) of the right wing papers and the minutes on Sky news.

Before long, the public have soaked this up and get angry and feel ripped off. As interest in these matters grow, the themes seep into BBC radio and tv shows and the right-wing angle permeates as many of the other stories as possible. Meanwhile there's real corruption in the private sector, with big business lobbyists and donors paying the government millions and in return, getting billions of pounds of public money to provide services, or policies bent in their favour. And yet most people don't have a clue.

Job done. The Tories can now justify their nasty policies by arguing that this is what the public wants and hardly anyone is aware of the real scandals blossoming over expensive dinners and rounds of golf.

This is how politicians get things done: via close links and shared interests with the press. But let's not have press regulation because of course, that would lead to the press and politicians getting too close...

Union-bashing

Watch or listen to any of the political programmes on the BBC (Today, Question Time, Sunday Politics, Andrew Marr etc - and no doubt on ITV and Sky too although I don't watch those channels) and you will hear a lot about Union bullies and corruption, all with Labour's handling of it as the main political issue at stake.

The Tories and the right-wing media are getting desperate. Labour are ahead in the polls - although the right-wing media's constant dirt-throwing continues to soil Ed Milliband's opinion poll ratings and inexplicably, Cameron seems to be more popular. The right haven't got much to bash Labour with any more now that the public seem to have grown tired of the 'it's all Labour's fault' rhetoric. After all, it's three and a half years now since they lost the election. So the right are returning to the old Tory favourite theme that served Thatcher so well and are bashing the Unions.

Large sections of the public seem more than happy to accept that all Unions do is bully employers and hold them to ransom with threats of strike action, causing problems for people requiring public services. Whilst what went on in Falkirk was a disgrace and shouldn't be allowed to happen, the idea that Union bosses are power-mad bullies is out of order. If it wasn't for the Unions, women and indeed all working class people wouldn't be allowed to vote. We'd all be working - children included - long hours in appalling conditions for very low pay. We live in a time when workers are under immense financial strain, meanwhile employers are finding new ways of controlling their workforces such as forcing them to become self-employed (which removes their obligations on paid leave, sickness leave, expenses etc) and using 0-hour contracts. Many employers are also using numerous part-time staff instead of fewer full-time staff to avoid having to pay employer's NI contributions. They simply do anything they can to increase the bottom line. With workers at the mercy of such penny-pinching and controlling employers, it's clear our Unions are still valid and are relied on by many hard-working people to try to reign in some of this behaviour.

Often companies, and even governments refuse to engage in talks with Unions, despite being obliged to do so. They make decisions that affect workers or the general public without consultation and often will hide away from attempts by Unions to negotiate. When a rich CEO or Director has made such a decision and then chooses to hide away at home so that he doesn't have to face the workers, is it so wrong of the workers to go to their house and confront them there? And is it such a huge crime to dress as a rat? It's not like they threw dead rats at their windows or shoved them through their letterbox. If they won't discuss matters with Union reps in a boardroom, what are workers expected to do? Just accept shoddy treatment and shut up? These bosses must be able to sleep comfortably despite treating their workers with contempt; I don't think memories of a man dressed as a rat outside their vast house will keep them awake at night.

Trotting out the old stories about Union bullies is a good way of deflecting attention from the corrupt lobbying and massive Tory donor windfalls that are happening all the time. These stories creep into our subconscious, introducing the idea that workers rights are not important and that powerful company bosses should not have to answer for their actions.

This is what this government wants: control the workers; show them their place.