Hip! Hip! Hooray! for Mr. Boles and Chaos Theory

I returned from America last week to find the Sunday Observer front page shouting "Key Cameron ally calls for local government planning powers to be replaced by 'chaos.'" Let's leave aside the issue of journalistic integrity and whether that Mr. Boles actually said that. (Or, instead, did he refer to the chaotic appearance that a relaxation of central government control on local government might at first seem to have -- to some -- when compared to the authoritarian, irresponsible and highly destructive attempts by New Labour over the past decade to control every aspect of our existence?). In any case, leaving that aside, personally, I think the idea of "chaos" is a really good one.

All one has to do is look at the result of local planning here in Hastings, the crumbling physical infrastructure downtown, the multitude of empty shops, the lack of employment, the numerous unattended fly-tipping sites, the crime (as symbolised by the ever present CCTV van parked on Robertson Street), to see the effect of so-called "planning." Certainly, chaos could not be worse than what we have become used to; true, we might have arrived at the same debacle without planning, but it would not have cost tax payers 50 million quid.

"Planning" or rather the failure of planning as we have experienced in Hastings has been going on for a long time. Certainly, it was around long before the current economic crisis, so there is no point in trying to blame the banks or America (or China or both or all three) or even New Labour. To be fair, the Conservatives played their own part in this local mess by providing a rudderless interim council that accepted the pre-existing status quo of municipal failure they inherited. And make no mistake about it, planning in Hastings has failed. Official documents show a catalogue of failure across almost every key economic and social indicator.

To be sure, failure has not occurred from a lack of money to throw at various problems. There has been lots of that. Rather, failure has been due to narrow mindedness on the part of the salaried borough officers concerning how improvements to life in the borough can be achieved. This problem is coupled with an apparent inability (or unwillingness) by councillors to exert political control over the bureaucracy. It has failed, also, due to an abiding suspicion amongst key councillors and civil servants of ordinary people in ordinary neighbourhoods and of community groups operating outside official sponsorship, both of which could contribute great ideas (and manpower) to the process of improving Hastings. (This culture of control is deeply entrenched in borough institutions to the point that one can argue credibly that the existing public consultation process is so flawed it is not intended to work.)

Logically, this failure of local policy planning will probably continue if such 'planning' is done in the same old way. It is a difficult cycle to break, however, because a lot of people in local government benefit from doing things the same old way. In other words, planning and policy making can get pretty self-serving. Let me give one example. When I returned from America, besides the Sunday Observer, I got a copy of the Hastings Observer. That paper recounted how the Council had rubbished the idea of electing a strong mayor to run the bureaucracy as being somehow subversive of democracy. Councillor Birch, the leader, is quoted as saying: “The council will in essence continue with the system we have now. We all agree that it is better for openness, democracy and involvement that councillors are responsible for running the authority.” Reportedly, the Conservative opposition agreed. " (I'm not sure just where the Lib-Dems stand on this.) What an odd conclusion to come to in the face of objective evidence of policy failure in so many areas!

So, now, a relevant lesson in how "Chaos theory" could break the cycle of failure in policy planning (and reality-denial) by the Council. Mr. Boles' Theory of Chaos is the opposing idea to this Council's institutional obsession with trying to control everything (and thus controlling nothing optimally.) Instead of Councillor Birch and his cohorts in New Labour and the Conservative Party deciding what system of government is best for us, we would simply decide for ourselves. The laws of England give us that chaotic freedom that Mr. Boles recommends: in Hastings, we require the signature of just 3500 registered borough voters on a petition to force a referendum on the issue of whether or not we should have a directly elected mayor. In other words, the issue of which system of government we should have would be discussed by the public and decided by them through a vote. This, it seems to me, would be better than the issue being decided in private by a self-serving local political class.

Personally, I would feel more comfortable with a mayor elected by us all running the local services, rather than the current system which has representatives of certain wards (and not others) running the show in partnership with an unelected chief executive many people have never heard of. Indeed, I would consider a strong mayor system, more, not less, democratic. But that's just my opinion, so, unlike many of our representatives on the Council, I would like to see it put up for a vote. I would trust the people to make the decision for themselves and why not? Bring on the so-called chaos, I say. As for any fears Cllr. Birch and others may have for the future of democracy, I can only console them that voting on any issue is about as far from being undemocratic as you can get.

How to end Age-related Discrimination -- that is if you really want to

The last government talked a lot about how wrong age-based discrimination is, but, with it's huge majority in Parliament, it could have ended such discrimination once and for all, by making it unlawful to request age-related information until after hiring someone. Indeed, that Labour government's opposition to ageism seemed to be a bit of vote grabbing political window-dressing, for why would you make something supposedly unlawful so easy to get around? Will this new, more fragile coalition government be equally unwilling to tackle the problem? In an era where there is immense pressure on pension systems and, generally, on social programs for older people, wiping out the legal loop-holes that permit ageism should be a priority.

Certainly, older people should not be forced to retire. 25,000 workers in the UK are force retired for no reason but their age. It's not fair and applying the same standard to the Parliament, 1 in 8 MPs would be forced to retire immediately. (Well maybe that should be the exception!). However, the real problem is getting older people hired. No one wants to hire someone over 55 or even over 50, because the presumption is they will only work until 65. That presumption exists because most companies don't want anyone over 65 working for them.

In this day and age, that's not just impractical, it's irrational. The medical facts are thus: 60 is the new 40. There are all sorts of pretty good examples why ageism is impractical as well as irrational. For instance, in an era when financial circumstances mean fuel poverty for many older people, it's even more important for older workers to be able to choose to work longer, especially if they want to. And many do.

What is needed are enforceable laws. Logically enough, if you want to end age discrimination, you pass laws that restrict employers from asking a job applicant's age or for information from which a person's age can be inferred until after a formal offer of employment is made. Really, it's that simple. So, why doesn't this government do that? Or why doesn't the government just set an example by removing age related questions from its jobs applications and refusing to do business with companies that don't do the same? Or, separately, why doesn't the government commit to filling just five percent of its future vacancies with people over 65 year's of age?

The truth is that ageism is not really something governments in general want to tackle yet. The truth is we live in an Ageist society and big business does not want "old" people around. It's a bit like the current government's approach to financial reform. Superficially opposing big banker bonuses makes good political window-dressing, but, in the end, big government tends to want to please big business. It takes major political courage to resist this. In very much in the same way, resistance to passing effective anti-ageist legislation is based on the tendency of big government to side with big business. In the place of truly effective legislation, window-dressing legislation is seen as a politically expedient way of buying the votes of seniors.

Hopefully, simple mechanical koutowing to big business is not something this new government will have in common with the last. If it does, it will be to our peril and by that I mean the peril of us little people. In much the same way that the current financial crisis (and previous ones also caused by banking practices based purely on corporate greed) hurt ordinary folks (while the perpetrators walked away enriched), this crisis of ageing we are well into is going to bite us ordinary folk yet again very hard if it goes unchecked. Far better we take concrete steps now to address it. Let's hope the new government does that.

The Importance of Getting Gits onto the Web

Quality of life is important. Our independence and ability to interact with our community gives us self worth. Everyone agrees, the care system for the elderly currently does not promote the independence or dignity of older people. Focus should be much more on improving life quality for older people. Specifically, that means promoting their independence and ability to interact socially, economically and intellectually with others. But, practically, in a world where pounds don't stretch so far, how can we get the most for our seniors? It seems to me that you don't have to look far for one answer that will contribute greatly to enhancing the independence of seniors in all areas: the internet. To a certain extent we are all in our own way the proverbial old git... it's the "if man were intended to fly, he'd have wings" thing. It is clear that older generations have a similar attitude toward the internet and shun the new-fangled world of the web. Yet, given the potential of the internet to help people who are confined to their homes much of the time or even their rooms to socialise, manage their financial affairs and contribute intellectually to the world around them, is not this one area where a concerted and well-funded public investment and education campaign would have greatest collateral benefits?

How Our Government & Banks Made Fools of Us All

There were 120,000 bankrupticies last year, about three times the number in 2004. In spite of the economic slowdown and, also, due to it, people have been heaping their debt onto credit cards. The consequence of this is that a credit card crisis is looming as banks increase interest rates. However, although lenders in the UK are bracing themselves for a rising wave of defaults among consumers, the banks, including those the taxpayers bailed out, are awash with profit enough to pay out the same grand ole' bonuses they did in the good ole' days.

The International Monetary Fund estimates 7 per cent of the £1,900bn of European consumer debt will be lost. As the continent's leading credit card using country, much of that loss will with UK banks. Moody's, the ratings agency, shows that annualised charge-off rates rose from 6.4 per cent of loans in May 2008 to 9.37 per cent in May 2009. To protect themselves, credit providers have been raising interest rates charged to customers. They have been doing so in spite of the fact that the Bank of England base rate has dropped to a record low of 0.5 per cent. One suspects that these rises also help the bankers running these credit providers to pad their executive salaries further with outlandish bonuses -- the same bonuses that are being further subsidised by the taxpayer's bailout of banks.

So, in other words, while the rest of us are finding it harder and harder to stay out of debt (and although we bailed the banks out of their debts), the bankers are squeezing us more -- in spite of the falling base rate -- while they pay themselves more in the form of huge bonuses. And the government is letting them do it.

The lack of banking reform by the government is not just immoral. It should be regarded as fiduciary irresponsibility and not at all in the national interest in a deep recession such as this one. Rather than reverse course on deregulation of the banking sector in the face of common sense, the facts and the advice of the governor of Central Bank, Mervyn King, the cabinet's economic policy continues to be guided by the Thatcherite pro-corporate ideology of the Blair years: 'When it comes to banks, deregulation is always good, regulation is always bad, no matter what' -- this reveals more than ever the intellectual poverty within New Labour.

With interest rates so low credit providers need to make credit cheaper. The exhorbitant charges they put on consumers who can't pay, another form of profiteering, should be outlawed. Banks should restrict credit availability to people who cannot afford it, but they should not be allowed to charge loan shark rates and then heap arbitrary charges on those caught in the credit trap the banks themselves created. And those who do make their payments every month should get the low interest rates justified by the low base rate.

As Mervyn King has advised the government, banking retail operations need to be split from investment banking. Retail banking operations are essential to economic recovery and should be protected by the government. Investment banking operations, which are often little more than gambling operations, as the current crisis clearly shows, definitedly should not receive such protection.

If the investment banking profiteers were not being given such protection by the government, you and I surely would be getting cheaper credit. On the other hand, those foolish bankers whose profiteering was guided purely by greed, equally surely, would not be getting the bonuses they are getting now. There is a quote from a very educational book written by a bond salesman called Michael Lewis. The book is called Liars Poker and I recommend everyone read it. It goes something like this: 'Every market has a market fool; if you don't know who it is, the chances are you're it.' Our government has allowed those bankers to make fools of us all.

How the BNP Blossomed Under New Labour

It was in the final hours of the campaign in the Hasting's Council elections. I was an independent candidate for Castle Ward. Voters received a propoganda flyer from New Labour warning them that a vote for that 'well meaning independent,' would somehow bolster the electoral fortunes of the right-wing, racist British Nationalist Party (BNP). The flyer made no mention of issues. It was, pure and simple, the form of New Labour attack propoganda we have become accustomed to. I was almost flattered that my merry band of Independents and I had stung New Labour sufficiently to gain this kind of negative attention. Indeed, we managed to get 11% of the vote in just three weeks of door-knocking, so, perhaps, the smear tacticians of the New Labour machine were right to be afraid. But, of course, I have nothing to do with the BNP, as everyone knows, and even without the big money New Labour can muster, I easily out-polled the BNP in the election. But again ... the attempt to link my campaign, in whatever desperate and convoluted way, to the fortunes of the BNP did underline the co-dependent relationship that has grown up between New Labour and the BNP.

First, locally, although it has been unwilling to debate the BNP, New Labour has seemed to feel that it needs the specter of the BNP as a principle campaign prop -- a stool pigeon, if you will. In the last two local elections the BNP loomed large as a tool to bludgeon voters into voting labour out of fear of a possible BNP win. (Essentially, though, this was a silly idea. In Hastings the BNP were and are a non-issue -- like I said, I thrashed them by myself in Castle Ward.)

Second, as New Labour has become much less confident about winning elections on the basis of issues, the party seems to have become more paranoid about any opposition candidate and more willing to deploy non-specific propoganda against opposition politicians. Tying everyone else to the BNP is a convenient way of doing this. (Once upon a time, we would have associated such paranoia and 'hate and fear' tactics almost exclusively with the BNP or the National Front. So, it seems that certain elements in New Labour may have decided they could learn a trick or two from the extremists.)

Finally, if we look carefully at the electoral record, we can see not only that the numbers in the BNP have swollen during New Labour's tenancy at No. 10 Downing St., but that a significant percentage of those new BNP supporters are alienated Old Labour supporters. This helps explain why the Labour government in the hopes of wooing some of these supporters back adopted a number of restrictions on civil liberties that have been proposed, also, by the extreme right. Conversely, it is Labour's Orwellian willingness to move so far towards what we might call the 'wild, wacky wight' (in bugs bunnyspeak) that has allowed the BNP, in turn, to present itself to the public as a centre-right party. It is easy to see how, from New Labour's point of view, one way to winning back wayward working class votes could be to appeal to the fraction attracted to the BNP by it's penchant for authoritarian solutions to immigration issues, for instance.

What does this co-dependency, this sharing of authoritarian ideals, mean in the practical sense? Let's begin with something less controversial: "British jobs for British workers." That's from the mouth of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Pithy and populist, the slogan first appeared on National Front placards in the 1960's and features strongly in current BNP political rhetoric ... and, of course, at New Labour Party conferences.

Let's move on to something more sinister. Under New Labour a two-tier citizenship has been implemented. In the Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill, the government is able to strip a person who has already been naturalised of citizenship for acts (loosely defined as) supportive of terrorism or for activities considered to be detrimental to the UK.' It's the sort of immigration policy that encourages, well, a police state.

Indeed, to get a feel for just how far this government is willing to go to make the term terrorism work for it, I call your attention to the recent police raid on Damien Green's parliamentary office. In doing so, I am not simply talking about the government arresting opposition politicians. It actually gets worse. Scotland Yard's anti-terror squad searched the Tory MP's computer for references to Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, the UK's most prominent citizen rights organisation. Apparently, her criticism of the government's largely successful campaign against our individual rights, including her opposition to 42 day detention without charge, earned her 'terrorist' status.

This is not the first time Ms. Chakrabarti's opposition to prolonged detention without charge has made her the target of the government. In June 2008, Andrew Burnham, New Labour's secretary of state for culture, media and sport was forced to apologise to her for "attempted character assassination." Fortunately for her, she is not a naturalised 2nd class citizen, but a first class (in more ways than one) citizen who was born here, so she can't be thrown out of the country. Other people not born here, that is second class citizens very much involved in the politics of their community, might not be so lucky.

To summarise, ID cards for citizens, extended detention without charge, pro-European (read white) immigration policies and so on are all ideas that began in the extreme right-wing, but which New Labour has "mainstreamed." And there is a reason for this. New Labour wants to attract some of the voters that fit broadly the BNP voter profile. And there is a reason for that, too: The BNP threatens New Labour in what were once safe Old Labour constituencies.

Since New Labour inherited the Labour party machinery, it's core constituency has evolved. It looks after bankers more than bootmakers and barmen. It looks after British Gas not green grocers. However, although the party no longer champions the array of social programs that attracted many of these dis-possessed working class voters in the first place, it still attracts sizeable traditional support from the working class for want of an articulate alternative amongst the major parties. On the other hand, this traditional working class vote continues to steadily erode. An ever larger percentage of that vote, however misguided, is creeping toward the BNP alternative. In an attempt to coax some of these voters back, New Labour has co-opted some of the more insidious right-wing policy brands. This may have won back some of those voters, but probably did more good for the BNP by legitimising their authoritarian approach.

In the 2001 general election, the BNP scored just under 50000 votes across 119 seats; in 2005, it scored just under 200,000 votes. In the 2007 local elections where the BNP secured 300,000 votes for 754 candidates. There are currently 55 BNP councillors, spread across 22 local councils. While the BNP’s overall share of the vote was small, at around 1 to 2 per cent, geographical concentrations of their vote in Labour areas have enabled the far right to establish unprecedented levels of representation in local government. As the far right has steadily made encroachments on New Labour's constituencies, New Labour, like Chamberlain, has appeased the wrong side. And due to this, the BNP has over the years been able more and more to portray itself as a centre-right alternative.

Jobs not jargon, please!

About a year ago, I attended a 'community consultation' having to do with new money coming into Hastings to combat “worklessness.” There was a caveat that New Labour was quick to exploit as the proverbial vote-getter -- there was no definition of what exactly the money had to be spent on ... in other words, “worklessness” unlike the word “unemployment” was a word the council could define to mean any old thing. I remember the leader of New Labour, Jeremy Birch, pointing this out and going on to describe all kinds of things the money could be spent on, so long as some thread of argument could tie it to the idea of 'worklessness.'

After Cllr. Birch finished his little presentation, I stood up behind him to beg to differ. I said, the funding's focus should remain tightly on training and jobs creation. At this stage, I expected the moderator of the discussion, the Tory leader of the Council, Peter Pragnell or one of the other Conservative councillors in the room to agree, or, even one of the Libdems. Unfortunately, I stood alone. In due course, the money was spent on all sorts of things, Street Wardens, maintaining an old weather station and so on. Ah, well, no surprises there ...

I don't believe that buzzwords like 'worklessness' or slogans like 'narrow the gap,' cure unemployment. I don't believe building excess office space and retail space will cause business to miraculously appear on the streets of Hastings.

I believe, instead, that if you make the town presentable, then lower business rates for smaller businesses and give employment and training-based tax incentives to larger businesses, jobs will be created in Hastings ... funding weather stations, anyway, has nothing to do with it.

How I became a politician

My introduction to local politics followed from my involvement with the Queen's Rd Traders (QRT), a small business organisation I helped to found. The role of the QRT was to promote regeneration in the upper Queen's Road corridor, the so-called “Gateway to the Seafront” for most tourists. Our mission was to create a regeneration proposal for the area, including upper Queen's Road and the surrounding residential areas.

After consulting with the politicians, community groups and bureaucrats, we published the proposal. It called for public safety improvements, including the Queen's Road pedestrian crossings at the Morrison's garage and Waterworks Rd, for other improvements to the public highways, enhanced services, including rubbish and dog fouling bins and better community policing.

Councillors from all parties endorsed the proposals, as did community groups and borough officers. Significantly, Godfrey Daniel, the County Councillor for our district wrote to me to say that he believed an Ikea on upper Queen's Road would be good for the area. This is where I began to part philosophical company with him.

I reasoned that an Ikea would put almost every local business on Queen's Road out of business. And, I also thought that it would create huge congestion and parking problems for residents. But this was just the beginning ... I have rarely seen eye-to-eye with Cllr. Daniel since.

In order to lobby for funding for what was called the “Upper Queen's Road Corridor Regeneration Proposal,” I became involved with the Castle Ward Forum and was elected by the committee to represent the Forum on the Area Management Board (AMB) for Central Hastings, co-chaired by Cllr. Daniel, and the Local Strategic Partnership Board (LSP). There was not a single instance I can recall when the AMB met the physical and social challenges with respect to Castle Ward.

I realised that costly and ineffective Area Management Boards were New Labour gadgets set up to give the impression of community empowerment, but which really did nothing of the sort.

Three years on, with no progress on regeneration in the Queen's Road Corridor Gateway (and with no progress being made against deprivation or public safety in Castle Wards hotspots), I decided the system needed fixing. I quit the AMB and LSP, because I believed my continued participation was legitimising public deception and manipulation. I decided to run for Borough Council.

Although, I lost against an amazingly well greased New Labour politicking machine, I did get about 11% of the vote. Voter turn out was terrible, about a third of the electorate, a factor New Labour is better able to exploit strategically. Now, four years on, still nothing has changed, so I'm running again, this time for the County Council seat held by Godfrey Daniel. If electors are motivated, if they motivate each other, if we get everyone to show up at the polls, I can win.

Independent politics and me

While party politics has a role to play in Parliament, it gets in the way at the local level. Councillors should encourage ordinary people regardless of party affiliation to be directly involved in the management of their own communities.

I believe you and your neighbours know best what the problems are in your own neighbourhoods. You, also, have a good idea what the solutions are. I believe strongly in your right to influence directly what goes on in your community and as your councillor, I will take instructions from you, not political party elites.

Now, you will have noticed I am anti-New Labour; this is because they made such a mess of it all. And, this is because New Labour politicians told a lot of stories while they were making the mess. Please do not, therefore, think I believe the Tories or Libdems have done much for Hastings, either, lately. You and I can do better than the lot of machine politicians.

If you have questioned the abilities or intentions of candidates from the major political parties, you probably had good reason for doing so; if you have attended a public consultation and left it feeling you had been manipulated, you probably were; if you think all political parties are the same, it's because they kind of are ... Some people don't vote for one of the reasons above – but those are the reasons to vote.

The candidates of the major parties will try to tell you an independent councillor will be isolated on the County Council; what they don't say is that they will band together to ensure that is the case. The major parties don't like councillors who trust the intellect of the public. They want the public trusting blindly in them.

Don't be fooled. While the major parties can keep me off committees, they can't keep my nose out of the files of those same committees. I'll know exactly what is going on and I will tell you, something they would not necessarily do. And, of course, they can't take away my vote.

We need an elected mayor in charge of Hastings

I favour of an independently-elected strong mayor system of government for Hastings. Remember when people went to town hall meetings and were listened to? It seems to me that only elected officials can be held accountable to the people. So it seems to me, also, that when the chief executive of the town is a bureaucrat, a lot of things get done behind closed doors. One consequence of this is that public opinion is more easily managed; but the real problem is that, because there is much less public scrutiny, poor decisions get taken.

Certainly, these problems are issues in Hastings:

Did you know that no economic impact analysis was done by either Hastings' Borough or Seaspace, before they built the Priory Quarter commercial developments. Their hope was that if we built new office and retail space, businesses might move into them. It's called supply side thinking.

The problem is, we already have loads of empty retail and office space and as businesses move into the new town centre, the old town centre will become more empty and dilapidated ... it's already happening.

A little public scrutiny would have promoted a more balanced plan and some of the millions we had would have been used to fix the current town centre's crumbling infrastructure.

I hope those of you who are reading this will sign the petition that is going around calling for a referendum on changing to a strong mayor form of government.