The Demographic Disgrace

Being one of the inevitabilities of life, taxes just pass us by once a month with a cheery “So long! I’m off to the coffers!” That’s the sound of the money you earned going off to its new purpose in the public purse, to do good things up and down the country.
It’s going to help sick people to meet the costs of living, it’s going to pay for some unemployed people to maintain their lives of sitting around feeling sad about things and it’s going to subsidise arts, culture and leisure activities for all. Hurrah!
That’s just a tiny, little bit of it though, so where is the rest going? And what good is it doing you, young person?
Well you know that it’s not paying for your bins to be collected and the roads and parks to be kept clean and in good repair because, Why! That’s what your council tax is for! You know it isn’t paying for your house because you’re paying through the nose to a private landlord or living guiltily with your parents. It’s not paying for your kids to be educated because you don’t have any kids and won’t be able to afford to have any for a long, long, long time. You know its not going to pay for the police to keep you safe because every time you’ve ever phoned them they have only turned up after 2-3 hours when it’s too late for them to serve any useful purpose. You know it’s not paying to keep the criminals out of harm’s way in prison, you know because they are outside tipping over the recycling dumpsters, throwing things at the windows and stealing your car. You know it’s not going to help rehabilitate alcoholics and drug addicts because they are out enjoying themselves to death while you spend another exciting night in front of the telly with a bottle of budget Chablis and an ASDA curry between two.

You know that its not paying for your lovely travel by public transport because that’s being arranged by private companies who think cleaning a bus or train once a week is acceptable and that timetables are just a guideline. You know that sizeable chunk of your income won’t be going to uphold the fabulous NHS services you enjoy free of charge because mostly as a healthy young person who has never given birth, undergone a triple heart bypass, been on kidney dialysis or had a hip replacement, you don’t really use them and every time you’ve ever tried recently, you’ve been told to stay at home and call NHS 24 so someone who is not qualified to give you advice can prattle away down the phone. If you live in England, it didn’t pay for your university fees, if you live in Scotland you are pretty much squared up for those fees after a few years of tax and probably already covered it with the tax from that back-breakingly exploitative, part-time job you had whilst you were studying which was essential for you to afford to study in the first place. Likewise you won’t be taking advantage of married couples’ tax savings until you are at least 40 which will be the age when you are able to afford a wedding and/or have a meaningful romantic attachment because you have finally left that quash of eligibility, your mum’s house, behind. You’ve already been told that it’s not going to contribute much or anything to your pension because there won’t be any money left in the pension fund by the time you retire because all those children you didn’t have until you were in your forties are still at school.
So what are young people paying taxes for? What are we getting for our hard-earned cash? We are regularly forking out on fuel tax, alcohol tax and tax on our savings. We are paying tax on our debts, our cars, our flights abroad, our goods and services and our accommodation whether we own it or not. We are seeing very little benefit in return. There is nobody in Parliament looking out for our interests so we don’t have a democratic voice.

If you remember that topical reality-documentary a few years back where Michael Portillo swapped places with a single mum for a week, perhaps you will recall the startling and dramatic change of attitude that befell our beloved ex-MP when he realised the amount of effort involved and the marked scarcity of cash. Perhaps this social experiment should be repeated with a young person swap instead, where the MP in question, perhaps Patricia Hewitt, could try the life of a junior librarian from the London School of Economics who is forced to pay extortionate living costs she can barely afford to live anywhere near her job and commutes on public transport constantly stressing about being late, paying her vast bills and being mugged. At the weekends she cannot afford to drink nice expensive designer wine in a nice designer wine bar. If she is lucky she might manage a binge in a cheap and charmless chain pub. She has a good degree and lots of work experience but cannot get promotion or another job with any prospects. If she continues to work there for the next ten years she will never afford to have a mortgage. Patricia Hewitt was probably born with a silver mortgage in her mouth and perhaps the scales would fall from her eyes.
Some people that I went to school with left and got a trade. They didn’t bother with university or student debt. They have been working full time and are now doing very well for themselves. Up and down the country a large chunk of the young population is doing the same. They have been paying large whacks of money into the public coffers and haven’t seen much return on their investment. Perhaps because they are doing OK financially they aren’t as disillusioned as their useless-degree-wielding counterparts but that doesn’t mean they are getting a fair deal either.
There are also the people who fell by the wayside, who are now claiming unemployment benefit at a small cost to the taxpayer (I don’t have any truck with people who whinge about paying for benefits, they account for such a small chunk of our tax that it makes National Insurance payments look exorbitant.). These people cannot expect anything from the government to make their lives better. The jobs that many of them would be happy to do are being shipped out to poorer, cheaper countries. The influx of economic migrants who are happy to work harder, better, faster and stronger are also flooding the treasury with lots of lovely money and why would the government want to have to spend money on its own people in need of training and encouragement when it reaps the rewards of taxing a submissive workforce? Nobody expects the government to just simply hand over more free money to those on benefits, but it would be nice if they spent it on something useful to help people to lead productive and happy lives instead of things like initiatives to get “mature” citizens back in the job market while young people face ridiculous competition for even quasi-desirable jobs.

While I am in no way a supporter of the Conservative party, they have a vaguely amusing propaganda computer game called Taxman Gordon. Give it a shot young people! Shame you're not too young to remember Thatcher! In fact even if you are, your parents will never let you forget so don't worry about it.

The Critical Condition basklash to 'The John Lewis List' of last week.

After last week’s revelations about Westminster MP’s housekeeping allowances I have been thinking about the way in which this highlights ongoing conservative thinking in the administration of British democracy. It appears under long-held rules, that MPs are “entitled” to allowances for keeping their second homes since they have to have somewhere to live in their constituencies as well as in London.
The amounts of these allowances have been purposely concealed from the British public in case they caused controversy.
This in itself is wrong, the British public are supposed to vote for and approve the rules in an open system. Not allowing the public to cast their critical eyes over a rule with which MPs could easily have a conflict of interest in considering makes me wonder what other rules MPs have been keeping out of the public sphere to avoid “controversy”. Off with their heads! I say.
Regulations allowing MPs to charge £10,000 to the state for a fitted kitchen have attracted particular scrutiny from the media. And no wonder! This rule is hardly equitable for several reasons.
- An MP serving a 3 to 5 year term and having obtained somewhere to live surely should not need a new kitchen? You would expect MPs to buy or somewhere with an acceptable kitchen which will last them that amount of time.
-State funding of enhancements to MPs private dwellings which increase their value is a morally questionable use of tax-payers money.
- The sum of £10,000 is hardly economical. Many people would have to save for years to afford to spend that amount on a kitchen. As was pointed out on a Channel 4 news discussion of the issues, it is possible to get a new kitchen from IKEA for a few hundred pounds. Property developers regularly invest around £10,000 for full development of a property.
- The people of Britain are employing representatives who do not find it acceptable to have anything less than two houses to commute between in order to serve the great British public and yet apply infinitely more stringent rules to those who run the charities they charge with dispensing public money set aside to tackle poverty and inequality. MPs are farming out their duties towards the disadvantaged people they represent to others and distancing themselves further from the cycle of public funds. They are
I propose some suggestions to make this arrangement more equitable. After all, why should MPs be exempt from the kind of costs that everyone else has to consider as part of regular life in a free market economy?
- If MPs have to keep two properties and split their time between those two properties, surely there is a case for housing MPs in council houses in either London or their own constituency? It might have the added benefit of bringing their focus more sharply onto the issues British people deal with day after day which are continually ignored by Parliament.
- If you add up MPs’ housing and taxi allowances there is more than enough money to build an MPs’ housing annexe in London. There are plenty of sites within commuting distance of Westminster where the government could build some modest blocks of flats. Just think how much money that would save in the long run! They could run a bus from the flats to the Parliament and save them their taxi fares! I’m sure MPs will be delighted to be brought closer to their constituents on public transport. It would be a great environmental policy too, they could cycle to work and tootle off home for lunch, further economising! And MPs from outlying regions wouldn’t be so lonely as all their party members would be nearby.
London is the most expensive place in Britain and one of the most expensive places in the world to live. I think it is just absurd to be subsidising MPs to live in private accommodation in the capital when there are thousands of workers who live in outlying areas and commute to and from the city every day at their own expense because they can’t afford to live more centrally.
Another important point is that MPs are being artificially sheltered from the kinds of financial burdens that everyone they represent is exposed to over their lifetime. Serving as an MP is a job like any other and the burgeoning costs of everyday living are something that our political system is perpetuating. Many of the economic problems which lie ahead for Britain stem from spiralling housing, fuel and transport costs. The brain drain, the talent exodus and economic migration are pointing to a bleak future for many sectors. It also brings the bread line down to a level which our government fails to recognise. Perhaps expecting MPs to finance two households and pay for their own travel arrangements is an unacceptable ask, but when you consider the number of young people who cannot afford to buy properties at all and who have to commute whatever distance necessary to reach their workplace out of their own pocket, with rising petrol prices, congested roads, expensive train fares and dreadful public transport provision its really not that out of the ordinary to be seriously inconvenienced and hideously overcharged for the privilege of getting to work.
When I started University, one of the classes in my first year was extended by a weekly off-campus web-link lecture to a college many miles away. I myself lived an hour and a half bus journey from both the University campus and the college. In order to get the benefit of the lectures I was expected to travel to one or the other venue. The web–link live broadcast lectures meant that two groups of people could get the benefit of one lecture in one location. The costs to the University of paying the lecturer twice, plus the travel to and from the college were saved by this initiative. The students at the other end could ask questions via the link. Now that technology allows us to interact and hold meetings and conferences with people wherever they are, shouldn’t our government be taking advantage of this to save valuable resources? An electronic Parliament would be a world-leading initiative of the kind that Britain should be undertaking. It would also provide jobs, experience and opportunities to a growing technological sector. The question for me is can our old-fashioned and expensive government manage the successful and economical procurement and tendering process required for the infrastructure of an electronic parliament when they think that £10,000 is a good price for a new kitchen?

Criminal Records

The RIAA conglomerate of record companies who have managed to claw back revenue from a string of websites, don't appear to be sharing it out to the artists they were supposed to be compensating.
Most of the money was claimed from Napster around 7 years ago as compensation for copyright infringement by the site. However the artists in whose name Napster was decimated have yet to receive a penny.

The story which has been mostly overlooked in the UK press was reported across the US.

The more I read on this subject the more I am becoming convinced (rather than just suspicious) that the record companies are acting under the banner of supporting artists' rights but are in fact trying to claw back money for themselves. They have been threatening ISPs that they had better co-ooperate to combat internet piracy and seem to be spinning the issue in such a way as to suggest that the ISPs are somehow reliant on them. It is becoming painfully obvious that the record industry has no idea how to deal with online piracy and P2P filesharing.

Universal Music, Warner Music and EMI - either collectively or individually - settled claims with Napster, Kazaa and Bolt.com. Napster alone had to cough up $270 million.

NY Post, Feb 28th 2008

It also seems that the politicians charged with sorting out this issue in the UK are woefully out of touch with technology and with music industry practices.
Who is advising the politicians? I'm going to do a bit of digging and see what we come up with.

Will ISPs policing piracy work?
Lord Triesman says yes! Cory Doctorow says no!

MP's Expenses Crackdown! Finally!

Today the BBC are reporting a predicted "overhaul" of the way MPs expenses are handled after Scotland Yard announced that they will not be investigating Derek Conway, better known as that MP who payed his son an exorbitant amount of pocket money out of the state coffers.
Apparently there is no proper system in place to record MPs expenses and the Common's Committee which is currently working on a way forward is promising "a more robust regime for audit."
Well I think it's about time! I think this issue has really opened our eyes to the kind of attitudes that the servants of the people have. I could save that Commons committee lots of time, just make MPs do what everybody else has to do, provide receipts for everything right down to the last bus ticket. Let the allowances be set by the a committee of laypersons as they like to call us lesser beings who have to pay for our own kitchens. If we are going to start economising on public expenditure, let's start with MPs.