Satellite Offices - I've said this before...

...perhaps it's a crap idea? But I've thought about this for some time (I've written about it on here before too) and I can't think of reasons why it wouldn't work for many many types of work. And I'm sure many other people must have thought of it too because it's pretty simple and quite obvious. And some companies and organisations already do it.

It seems to me that satellite offices - by that I mean small local offices of larger companies or organisations - is a simple solution that would help with a number of problems: traffic and transport, quality of life, the environment, massive disparities in house prices and struggling local economies.

So many people drive or struggle on inadequate, unreliable and expensive public transport to the big towns and cities for work because there isn't any work where they live. And companies pay through those nose for large office spaces in the most expensive areas AND lose time and money to traffic and transport issues as well as problems with workers' childcare and ill-health. Meanwhile, businesses in small towns and villages struggle to make ends meet, with many local shops, pubs etc closing all the time.

So why, when many many jobs can be done remotely these days, do we not have more satellite offices in small towns and villages? Or for that matter, in large towns with heavy unemployment. Workers could walk to work or drive short distances, having dropped their kids off at school. Shops, cafes, pubs, restaurants would open up to serve the workers. House prices would start to even out, so those in more 'central' areas would become more affordable whilst those in less central areas or in towns/villages with inadequate transport provision would become more valuable. Quality of life would be hugely improved for spending less time in traffic.

Of course there are many jobs where it's necessary to be on-site for most of the time. But if less people are travelling to central business areas, transport would be somewhat easier. And many jobs would benefit from more localised offices, and can use web conferencing for meetings and paperless electronic fileservers that most employers should be using now anyway.

This also feeds into my uncertainty about HS2: although we desperately need a more modern rail network, HS2 will not provide that; it's not a network - it's just one line. It will make many areas even worse off, some areas even more expensive and will only serve a very thin strip of the country.

I just can't see many reasons why having more satellite offices wouldn't be hugely beneficial and I would estimate that of the people I know, more than 50% of them work in jobs that could be done from a smaller local office. Perhaps the government should be spending £50bn on this scheme instead.

The government's 'lobbying bill' will actually worsen the problem.

Lobbying - to anyone who doesn't know - is where representatives of a company or organisation representing a group of companies, have an audience with the government in some shape or form whereupon discussions are held on a topic of importance to the companies. The majority of this, of course, is done with profit in mind.

Surely this shouldn't be allowed? Well it is. Many many decisions that have been made over the last few decades have been influenced by lobbyists. Everything is up for cosy discussion with whomever has the resources to do so: policing/security, healthcare, alcohol and tobacco advertising and licensing, rail franchises, TV deals, waste, fire services - EVERYTHING.

The Lib Dems wanted a bill to control lobbying and make it more transparent. It should have fallen to Nick Clegg to oversee this but he declared a private interest because the law firm his wife works for are involved in lobbying, so it fell to his Conservative junior minister instead.

The bill as it stands, does not include direct lobbying, only third-party lobbying. So staff from Centrica, for example, could lobby to their hearts' content to help their case for fracking, whereas a group representing charities campaigning for British retailers to tighten their policies on supplier standards wouldn't be allowed to. The bill's definition of a lobbyist is so tight that it would be incredibly easy to get around. Also, it wouldn't cover staff crossing between government and private companies. At present, there are staff from a number of companies actually working in the government, on 'secondment', in advisory groups or lifted straight into new, prominent roles.

This is from The Independent online (Sunday 6th Oct 2013): "Sam Laidlaw, the chief executive at British Gas owner Centrica, whose chairman Sir Roger Carr led industry opposition to Labour’s conference announcement, is a member of David Cameron’s Business Advisory Group, which briefs the Prime Minister on “critical business and economic issues facing the country”. Tara Singh, a former public affairs manager at Centrica, took up her newly created role at Number 10 this week as Mr Cameron’s personal advisor on energy and climate change."

The 'big six' energy companies have met with the Department for Energy and Climate Change 128 times since the coalition was formed. In contrast, there have been only 26 meetings with representatives of energy consumers. Surely this proves that consumers are less important to the government than the big six energy companies?!

Members of the public are allowed to lobby their MP. But doing this individually by letter or even in person, has little to no impact. This lobbying bill will prevent groups representing individuals to lobby the government. The Labour party are proposing changes to the bill which, if accepted, will fix most of the issues with it. But it will still be going on, behind closed doors, in the corridors of power, restaurants, hotels and bars across the capital (and occasionally elsewhere). Big companies have been getting closer and closer to the government for the last 20 years and as long as this goes on, the less interest the government will have in the interests of the people it is nominated by and paid to represent.

An electoral system-booze selection analogy.

Imagine you had an event you needed to buy drinks for, and were restricted to only one option of wine, beer, or spirits. Which would you choose, given your 10 guests had the following preferences?

	Wine	Beer	Spirits
Person 1	3	0	2
Person 2	2	0	3
Person 3	2	3	1
Person 4	0	3	2
Person 5	3	2	1
Person 6	1	3	2
Person 7	2	3	0
Person 8	2	0	3
Person 9	3	0	2
Person 10	2	3	0
TOTALS	20	17	16

Wine is the clear winner and beer only narrowly beats spirits. In a proportional representation system, most people get their first or second choice. 

However, in a first-past-the-post one-person-one-vote system as currently employed in UK general and local elections, beer would win because it was the first choice of most people. The fact that more people didn't rank it at all than the other options counts for nothing.

In this event scenario, you would of course provide more than one option. Unfortunately, the only way this can happen in British politics is when two of the three collude against the other. And that, as we know, tastes foul.

Hardly anyone voted to change our stupid system. If only the 'yes to AV' campaign had come up with something like this?!

The lies continue

I've been too busy to write any posts here for a while and there are plenty of lefty bloggers doing this far better anyway. But I like to have a rant occasionally.

It seems that, despite our ability to fact-check everything instantly on our smart phones, tablets etc, the lies continue and sadly, they still seem to be working. Here is a list of the right wing's favourite lies (some of these are new favourites) and brief responses to them:

1) The last government caused the financial crash.

The banks caused the crash. We know this. Tighter regulation would have forced the banks to work to use more stable methods but Labour, under pressure from the Tories and the whole financial sector, continued with the deregulation policies started under Thatcher's reign in the 80s. Had Labour even mentioned they were considering tightening regulation, the Tories would have torn them to shreds over it and the right wing press and all of the economic might of the right would have brought the Labour government down before the crash happened. And then it would have happened anyway.

2) The UK's debt is/was bigger than most countries

Wrong. The coalition government uses percentage terms when it suits them, and cash terms when it suits them. In cash terms, the debt is/was higher but that is because our economy is bigger. Put it this way: someone on £1m per year can spend a lot more on his/her credit card without even worrying about it, than for example, I could.

3) The last government borrowed too much

In 2007 before the crash, the national debt was lower than in 1997 when the Labour government took over the economy the Tories had left. Then the Tories' friends in the city needed bailing out and borrowing had to soar.

4) The last government spent too much on welfare and disability benefits

The economy was doing great before the financial crash. Spending on benefits was down because unemployment and underemployment were low. This means fewer people needed benefits and - double bonus - more people were paying more income tax.

5) Immigration costs too much

Economic migration benefits the economy as a whole. Healthy young people from across Europe come to the UK, work hard, pay their taxes and take very little from public services. Non-economic migration doesn't pay for itself but this is different and will not be changed by the Tories charging people who are here to work for healthcare.

6) The public sector leaks money; the private sector is great

Wrong and wrong. The trains are affordable and reliable since privatisation, right? No. Gas and Electricity? No. Water? No. In each of these cases, the government use our taxes to subsidise the railways, improving infrastructure etc and to improve gas and electricity pipelines. If we were all paying the same for these things but instead of being squirrelled away in tax havens or other dodgy tax avoidance measures the profits were invested back into the system, we'd have much better railways and trains and energy supplies. An example: East Coast rail is the last publicly-owed rail franchise. Despite this, it costs the tax payer less money than ANY of the private franchises. Why? Because the profits are invested in upkeep and improvement projects and the government doesn't need to use our tax to fix problems and upgrade infrastructure. It's not rocket science (but if we did use rockets to get to work etc you can guarantee Richard Branson would be making a mint whilst we subsidised the space ports).

7) Labour's links with the Unions causes corruption of the house

Ok so this isn't exactly a lie. A couple of grubby cases of fiddled selection makes the union links look worse than they are. The Tories, however, reside in huge glass palaces and should not be throwing bricks. Why is it that the poor are paying for a disaster caused by the rich? Why have the large financial concerns received ever-more preferential treatment since the coalition came to power? Why have we not got our money back despite the banks doing well again and paying themselves large bonuses? Why will David Cameron not agree to a cap on donations suggested by Ed Milliband? These and other questions can be answered by simply stating that the Tories are, and have long been, bankrolled by their wealthy friends in the financial sector. The Tories will, and are telling barefaced lies when they claim that massive donations do not buy influence. These very wealthy business and individuals have become so via shrewd deals and not by throwing money away or being charitable. Why would they pay so much to a political party if it was not in their interests?

And you can check all this using your preferred search engine and the words "official UK government statistics".

I'm almost as fed up with Labour failing to argue these cases as I am with the Tories' constant lying. The constant shouting and arguing in the house of commons holds up proceedings massively and I'd like to see that time used by an assistant to the house checking the facts or figures or other outlandish claims made and the speaker forcing whoever has lied to the house to apologise and admit to it. That would stop them.

Divisive in death as in life

I have now had a little time to reflect on the passing of Margaret Thatcher. I haven't ignored the opinions of those who think she was a great prime minister, or think she saved the country. But this is my take. 

Thatcher divides the nation now as she did in politics: polarising opinion like few have ever done. This will be her legacy. A divided nation: thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands - for whom employment became unattainable. The forgotten people who have not known regular employment in their families since the 1980s who are now derided and crushed by today's Thatcherites.

A stubborn politician; not for turning even when her targets retreated she attacked them for her own gain. She supported Pinochet who killed somewhere between 1,200 and 3,200 of his own people and tortured tens of thousands more. She denounced Nelson Mandela's liberation movement as a "typical terrorist organization".

Thatcher's politics focused on encouraging people to go out and help themselves; this is positive. But some took this too literally; taking all that they could at any cost. The culture in the city changed dramatically during this period and we are all too aware now of the result: a massive financial meltdown that the poorest, who are not responsible, are paying for. The decisions made by her government to let entire industries crumble with no thought about the consequences are responsible for condemning whole sections of society to a life without work. She encouraged people to buy their council houses but neglected to build more; leaving councils to pick up extortionate bills from private landlords. Now the current government are trying to combat this by moving people away from expensive areas (which is tantamount to social cleansing) and cutting their benefits if they have an extra room. A period of prosperity between 1998 and 2008 hid the issues that the current government are now dealing with in callous and cruel ways. Just as Thatcher would have wanted it. 

Much will be said about the first, and so far only, female British prime minister. I'd be interested to hear how feminists feel about her legacy. Our main parties are still dominated by men; it would appear that she changed very little in that respect. Thatcher did change politics. She defined an era and cast a very long, potentially infinite shadow over the country. Change was needed in UK politics but her party's policies have had a long, negative effect. She is still such an evocative figure across the globe but that is not always a good thing: we can all think of political figures who will endure in our memories and most who do do so for negative reasons. 

Tributes will in the main be positive. Those from the left who are asked will be respectful; those from the right will be gushing. Many will call for respect but she did not always show respect and I would stand up for anyone who has reason to respectfully decline that call. 

If you think she was good for this or for that, you're entitled to your opinion. But so are those who were permanently affected by her time in power. They deserve to treat her passing as they see fit.

The crooks writing the laws

"The 30 companies called in to help write the new 'controlled foreign companies' rules have some 3,000 subsidiaries themselves in tax havens"

Yep.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/01/accountancy-big-four-laugh-tax-office

Don't forget to hate the banks.

I haven't been on here in ages. Mostly because I've had more important things to
do like getting my head around the various tasks in my new job.

I know I'm lucky and most of my ranting is not based on what I think I deserve or how I'm feeling the effects of what the government does, it's with the poorest and most vulnerable in mind.

But just for a few minutes I'm going to focus on something slightly less important to the worst off. 

I'm going to talk about all those people who got on the property ladder during the boom years. There are terrible cases of banks - who were quite happy to lend large sums in the good times - taking peoples' properties away who can't pay their mortgages; usually as a result of the problems they cause. But as I'm talking more from personal experience, I'm going to concentrate on those who were sensible and bought something that wasn't too over-priced that they could comfortably afford. Many of those people are now at a point in their lives where they need a bigger home. And they're stuffed. 

In the downfall from the boom, many many people lost their jobs and had to switch to interest-only mortgages whilst they got back on their feet (or took jobs paying them a lot less than their pre-recession ones did). The recession was NOT the fault of the poor; it was the fault of the banks - we should never forget this. 

The property market was unrealistic and could never continue like that and that was caused by the banks too. People could pay more for homes because the banks would lend more and prices kept on rising. Then all of a sudden, we found out. We found out what the banks had been up to and that the economy was on a knife-edge. They stopped lending; people stopped buying. Prices stagnated and in most areas, they fell.

Despite being bailed out by taxpayers and being given more "incentives" (hand-outs and tax breaks to you and me) by the government, banks are still not lending and the housing market continues to stagnate.

Bail-outs, forced mergers and various financial sector changes mean that some banks have been off-loading some of their mortgages. At the moment, many homeowners are temporarily paying over-the-odds to a bank who doesn't want them any more. But they can't get a new mortgage deal because they don't have permanent jobs; those are rare since the government forced these ever-tougher austerity measures on us all.

So because of the situation people have been in as a direct result of the recession, many have only paid a tiny amount of their mortgages and large numbers will be in negative equity. This being the case, moving to a larger property is impossible and people are going to either have to try and cope with their original small homes or cross their fingers that time will not get the better of them.

So to sum up:

The banks caused property prices to be very high
The banks caused the recession
The recession caused countless job losses

Job losses meant mortgages unpaid
The recession caused house prices to fall
The banks, despite having lots and lots of our money, are not lending
The banks reluctance to lend keeps property prices low
The weak market means many won't get what they paid for their properties and many in negative equity.

Societies should protect the most vulnerable. This shower of shits caused the mess we're in and yet the Government shields them from everything and even goes marching, all pig-headed to the EU to fight on their behalf. Meanwhile, the poorest and most vulnerable are losing jobs, having services taken away, benefits cut, being vilified for not having jobs that don't exist and basically, being turned into 'the problem'.

Instead of looking after the banks, we should be kicking them until they give us our money back.