The City and the City

The most striking and entertaining academic writing that I came across in 2011 was by Rem Koolhaas. I found an extract from his book 'S,M,L,XL' in the innocuously titled 'Urban Design Reader' and loved it. Much of the planning literature I've read has been about the process and its aims, whereas Koolhaas makes sweeping, judgemental statements about what already exists. It makes a refreshing change. Also, he's very funny.

Rather than make my own inevitably depressing predictions for the year ahead, I give you the abridged Generic City. It seems like a 2012 sort of place to me.

Identity is like a mousetrap... The Generic City is the city liberated from the captivity of centre, from the straitjacket of identity... The Generic City is what is left after large sections of urban life crossed over into cyberspace... The dominant sensation of the Generic City is an eerie calm... The Generic City is fractal... Its main attraction is its anomie... [airports] are on the way to replacing the city... The in-transit condition is becoming universal... The great originality of the Generic City is to abandon what does not work... The street is dead... Housing is not a problem... [sites] are like holes bored through the concept of city... The roads are only for cars... The Generic City presents the final death of planning... Its most dangerous and most exhilarating discovery is that planning makes no difference whatsoever... It is open and accommodating like a mangrove forest... There is always a quarter called Lipservice, where a minimum of the past is preserved... Tourism is now independent of destination... Shrimp is the ultimate appetizer... The only activity is shopping... Close your eyes and imagine an explosion of beige... Voids are the essential building block of the Generic City... Postmodernism is the only movement that has succeeded in connecting the practice of architecture with the practice of panic... Bad weather is about the only anxiety that hovers over the Generic City... The architecture of the 20th century needs unlimited plane tickets, not a shovel... The new infrastructure creates enclave and impasse... In each time zone, there are at least three performances of Cats. The world is surrounded by a Saturn's ring of meowing.

Whether you agree with him or not, Koolhaas paints quite a vivid picture, doesn't he? His writing reminds me a lot of William Gibson, somehow. Happy new year.

The World Has Changed

As part of my masters course I have to write an extended essay about the government's planning reforms. As I have something of an interest in this and been blogging on the topic for over a year, I may have put in a word requesting an essay title of this nature. I'm looking forward to writing a proper academic critique.

Pursuant to this, I've been digging through the Localism Act, which received royal assent on the 15th November. Are you feeling more local yet? Relative to the rumpus about the draft National Planning Policy Framework, the Localism Act hasn't received much attention in the press. This is interesting, as in planning terms it is much more powerful. It has the force of statute, whereas the NPPF will only be policy and therefore possible to overrule depending on the circumstances. Laws are also far more difficult to dislodge than policy, once enacted.

The Localism Act isn't just about planning, and another post will likely be devoted to a tirade about its housing sections. However, it does fundamentally change the way plans will be made and planning applications determined. Every government in the past half century seems to have made similarly seismic changes, so I'm sure the planning profession will do their best to roll with all the new acronyms. When trying to make sense of the structural changes, I found it useful to construct diagrams*. Sorry, they aren't colourful. In an attempt at clarity, I've missed off various bodies that exist (or did) here and there but aren't (or weren't) ubiquitous, like Urban Development Corporations, London Mayors, Local Enterprise Zones, and the like. Unitary authorities are bundled in with district councils.

This is how planning policy-making was:



All very hierarchical, don't you think? This is how it is now:



Note the direction of the arrows, as this indicates who overrules who. During the Labour years, Local Development Frameworks had to be compatible with Regional Spatial Strategies. Now, Neighbourhood Plans will override Local Plans, which are merely re-labelled Local Development Frameworks. The Neighbourhood Plan has to be adopted by a local referendum first, though.

Am I the only who thinks that the new system looks potentially a little chaotic? I speculated on what the hell the draft bill thought it was doing with neighbourhoods a little while ago. Neither I nor, I suspect, anyone else has any idea how many Neighbourhood Forums there might be, or how neighbourhood referendums might work in practise. The legislation gives no limits as to the minimum or maximum geographic size of a 'neighbourhood'. Given the assumption that Parish Councils will serve the same purposes in rural areas, the easiest urban comparison would seem to be electoral wards. London has 624 of these and Cambridge 14. That's a lot of plans, and there is no requirement for them to be consistent.

As for how individual planning applications are determined, the 2004-2010 way was as follows:

Planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations, such as national policies, characteristics of the site, and local opposition, indicate otherwise. (Paraphrasing the heavily-amended Section 70 of 1990 Town and Country Planning Act and the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act)

From now on we will do it like this:

Planning applications are determined with regard to the development plan, presumably the Neighbourhood Plan as that overrides the Local one, material considerations, and any local financial considerations relevant to the application. There's also the presumption in favour of sustainable development, although that's in the (currently draft) National Planning Policy Framework rather than statute and therefore would just be a material consideration. 'Any local financial considerations' could include the meagre New Homes Bonus that Local Authorities get when new homes are built; it could potentially also include the financial impossibility of a Local Authority providing sufficient infrastructure to support a proposed new development as a result of CLG cutting their block grant by 20%. (Paraphrasing Section 143 of the Localism Act)

If I had a more mercenary** twin, they would be a planning lawyer, leafing through yacht catalogues in the expectation of an explosion in lengthy planning appeals. If you are in fact a planning lawyer, then good luck in this neighbourhood morass and please consider donating a portion of your fees to support unemployed former public servants.


* Thank you, OpenOffice.
** Evil seems rather strong; I've met some very pleasant planning lawyers.

Reading List

A while back I read an excellent book on the financial crisis: Freefall by Joseph Stiglitz. Although it provides a clear and compelling explanation of how the US housing bubble formed, infected banks around the world, and nearly brought then all down, my overriding impression was that Stiglitz was barely restraining himself from just writing, 'YOU BASTARDS, LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE! LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE STILL DOING! BASTARDS, BASTARDS, BASTARDS!' I might be projecting slightly there, but Stiglitz is clearly very unhappy about the abject failure of banks to behave responsibly, their apparent inability to admit to any failure whatsoever, and their craven lobbying for their losses to be born by governments. As we all should be, and books like this are very important.

Much of the other literature on the financial crisis that I've read has been too measured. For instance, Gillian Tett's Fool's Gold provides the best explanation I've come across for the toxic financial products that banks invented, with a narrative concerning the team at JPMorgan who came up with many of them. Tett clearly has to tread a fine line - she interviewed these people for her book and presents them as three dimensional characters, so won't fully condemn their behaviour. Nonetheless, the bigger picture cannot be ignored. What should have been technical innovations of interest only to industry specialists spread throughout the financial system like a virus and precipitated the credit crunch, the worst recession for 80 years, and a sudden ballooning of government debts. Stiglitz spells this out clearly, Tett does not.

(As an aside, one of the many ironies of the crisis is that had the US not sold so many of these financial products abroad, as the financial markets are so globalised, their impact would have been much worse in America but the rest of the world's banks would have been relatively unscathed. Thanks for the exports, yanks.)

Neither book addresses the current government debt disaster (crisis seems too gentle a word), as they were both published two years ago. Back then we were worried that banks would not be able to pay their debts. Now it is governments that look doubtful, as the debt burden has been nationalised. The final chapter of this one hasn't even begun yet, but I distinctly doubt it will be pretty.

Meanwhile, my fellow students and I are still spammed by leaflets and emails suggesting we attend recruitment events for investment banks. Naively I assumed that this recruitment hard sell had waned in the past few years; apparently not. These adverts are always very innocuously worded, emphasising words like 'challenge'. It really angers me that quite a few students might swallow this stuff and equate working in The City with succeeding in life. This is what I want to say to them:

You do not have to be a banker.

The careers service assumes that you want to get a job in The City. The big banks are trying to court you with swanky events, free pens, and high starting salaries. They are trying to create an aura of prestige around themselves. But be absolutely clear about what their business is - transferring wealth from the poorly-off to the already wealthy. They aren't creating anything that wasn't already there, just moving worth around and exaggerating the value of investments.

Theirs is an industry that recently experienced systemic, catastrophic failure, and required gigantic bailouts from the public sector. The banks lobbied against any government regulation then systematically failed to manage risk. They have undermined the fundamentals on which the world economy is based and left the mess for others to clear up. Unemployment is high and growing, first world governments are threatening to default on their debt, and there is no way back to business as usual.

Is this really the industry you want to work for? Do you genuinely think your intelligence and skills are best used to make wealth inequalities worse? And the backlash against bankers has hardly begun - do you honestly want to be on the wrong side of it?

It may seem at the moment like banking is the most obvious career option, simply because banking firms make the loudest play for your attention. There are many other things you could do. In my third year as an undergraduate I shared a house with six other women. The seven of us are all ambitious, intelligent, and driven, but not one of us got a job primarily motivated by profit. One teaches English as a second language, one monitors dangerous diseases at the Health Protection Agency. Another is an army officer, yet another works as a civil servant in the Treasury. Amongst out number you will also find a doctor and a Teaching Assistant who writes novels on the side. I myself have worked in Local Government, helping to plan new communities for the past three years. Can you honestly tell me that our various talents and abilities would all be better spent trading collateralised debt obligations?

The world is facing massive challenges - climate change, terrible inequalities between and within states, demographic shifts, not to mention rebuilding our economies to promote well-being rather than endless, impossible growth. Those are real challenges worth confronting, rather than pursuing the pseudo-achievement of pushing up refinancing fees. There are a myriad of career options out there; don't waste your brain and your life on banking.

If you're still tempted, at least go in with open eyes. Read Freefall and Fool's Gold, then try and tell me that Goldman Sachs et al deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, my next career step is to apply for a PhD, as I find myself very much enjoying the life of research. I doubt there will be much of any funding around, but I intend to have a damn good look.

Much Ado About Windfarms

Now that I've been made redundant, I've decided to become an armchair auditor. As an employee of a local council, I was under an obligation not to allow my personal opinions to interfere with the execution of local councillors' wishes. Such is the democratic operation of local government. This can at times be acutely frustrating, as local councillors sometimes made decisions that were very difficult to justify, and which I personally disagreed with entirely. To begin, an issue of particular interest to me: renewable energy.

South Cambridgeshire District Council covers the doughnut of attractive villages and farmland around Cambridge. It has no major population centres and a lot of picturesque and very expensive rural housing. The council has a rather two-faced approach to renewables; they love solar panels but hate wind farms.

This August their Climate Change Working Group were updated on a project to install solar panels on South Cambridgeshire Hall, the council's office in Cambourne. Which I believe is already quite an energy efficient building, as it would built quite recently. At a full council meeting in July it was also resolved to review its policies in order to encourage the installation of solar panels on listed buildings. Moreover, it is encouraging that South Cambs have kept up their local councillor Climate Change Working Group, as too many Conservative councils ditched any such thing as soon as Pickles lumbered into CLG.

However, their seemingly enlightened approach is rather undermined by Motion 90B:

It was RESOLVED that this Council supports seeking energy from renewable resources. However, applications for wind farms (2 turbines or more) cause deep concerns to our residents by nature of their size, scale and noise. This Council believes that a minimum distance of 2 kilometres between a dwelling and a turbine should be set to protect residents from disturbance and visual impact. If the applicant can prove that this is not the case a shorter distance would be considered. This will be addressed during the review of the Local Development Framework.

Notice the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support the figure of 2 km. It was apparently arbitrarily chosen to ensure that wind farm development would be considered unacceptable throughout South Cambridgeshire, as one local councillor commented that nowhere in the district is less than 2 miles (note different metric) from a dwelling. As far as I am aware, there is no map available to show what, if any, area in the district would be acceptable for wind turbine development under this edict. For reference, the government standard for a buffer zone between a wind turbine and a built-up area is 600 metres.

I was pleased to see that a member of the public responded back to this with a very sensible question:

In what way exactly would a wind turbine be judged differently to another structure of a similar size such as a manufacturing plant, water tower, crane or communications mast etc. as regards visual impact or noise? Does the motion mean that a planning application for a wind turbine might be rejected whereas an application for some other development of equivalent size, noise etc. would be considered for approval?

The councillor's answer shows how hollow the motion was - all planning applications must be considered on their merits, and refusals on the basis of, 'I just don't like wind turbines, so there' will be overturned at appeal anyway. Without evidence that a wind turbine within 2 km of a house will have a significantly detrimental effect, the whole thing is pointless posturing.

This stance would be more defensible were wind and solar capacity in the area comparable. The East of England Renewable Energy Capacity Study looked at the technical potential for renewable energy just last year. The whole report can be found here. It doesn't disaggregate to district level, but the whole of Cambridgeshire has the technical potential to produce 45,536.8 Gigawatt Hours of electricity from wind. The figure for solar is 230 GwH. South Cambridgeshire has a lot of agricultural land, ideal for wind farms, but lacks roofs to put solar panels on so the contrast in potential is likely to be even more stark.

I reserve most of my rancor for Cambridgeshire County Council, though. The County owns quite a bit of agricultural land, which it has been trying to use more effectively to bring in money. One plan was to site wind turbines on some of this land. Councillors agreed to this and a considerable amount of feasibility work was done. This was the plan:

Should all of the 4 sites proceed as outlined, based on current values the Council's income could peak at an annual rent of more than £700,000. The corresponding agricultural rent for the land lost would be less than £1,000

Plus, of course, more renewable energy and lower emissions. Local news coverage was positive and a considerable amount of consultation took place in the identified sites.

Then Councillor Nick Clarke became leader of Cambridgeshire County Council. A report went to the County Council Cabinet on the 6th September seeking to defer and basically kill the project.

It's worth reading that report, in order to confirm that there is no justification provided for the decision. Officers couldn't come up with any reasons for it in their report, but politicians did it anyway. Putting aside the environmental implications, £10,000 has already been spent on developing the project, and thus wasted if it stops. These two sections of the report (which, please note, is supposed to set out why this project isn't happening) are worth quoting:

[...] if wind farm development proceeded on all four sites over the twenty-five year life of the leases the Council’s income would peak at close to £900,000 per annum, unadjusted for rent reviews or inflation. In addition there would be direct payments by developers into local community funds of about £80,000 per annum. There are also Government proposals to allow local authorities to retain all of the business rates from wind farm sites in their area.

[...] Several tenants, with the Council’s encouragement, have been investigating the potential for small scale wind turbines on their holdings. One tenant was looking at a 100m tall but most were looking at 20m turbines which are smaller than a telecommunications mast. These capitalise on Feed in Tariffs which are expected to change in April 2012 and are considered by many to be an excellent business opportunity and are mostly receiving planning consents from District Councils.

It is also proposed that these developments are halted too. These have less of a visual impact than full size wind turbines and produce good financial returns for both the tenants and the Council. It is proposed to reimburse one tenant’s abortive costs for feasibility work which will be in the region of £5,000.

So Cambridgeshire County Council is forgoing a considerable amount of money, losing several thousand through contract breaking and abortive work, all because 'Fenland has too many wind farms already'. As the report notes, that is a purely anecdotal view; the people consulted in detail about the projects had much less negative, simplistic opinions.

You might ask why I blame this decision, which I believe is nothing short of moronic short-sighted NIMBYism, on Councillor Nick Clarke. Well, he boasts about it on his blog. His comment about putting people before profit is priceless. His inaugural speech as leader began with the phrase 'open for business'. He believes Cambridgeshire County Council should above all support and involve businesses, although apparently not those that develop wind farms. Choosing to 'put people first' in this context is a bit rich when you consider the cuts to transport, schools, and social care which merited no such consideration. Indeed, some of those cuts need not have happened if the council had, say, uncovered a large and steady source of annual income from its farmland.

Despite Councillor Clarke clearly thinking this decision was a crowd-pleaser, local media coverage was at best ambivalent. But this wasn't the end of the story, as not every County Councillor agreed with Clarke. The Enterprise, Growth, and Community Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee called in the decision. Although they didn't have the authority to overturn it, they have kicked it back to Cabinet, with a request to give reasons this time.

Quote from the minutes:

In discussion, Committee Members raised the following issues:

Wind farm development was supported and promoted by both local and national policies, and was also the policy of the Administration’s party. There was no rationality, either through evidence or policy basis, in the Cabinet decision;

Pointed out that there was a natural limit to the number of wind turbines that could be constructed. The Cabinet decision would not stop wind turbines being developed, it would merely stop the County Council and County Council tenants receiving any benefits from wind farm development;

A number of Committee Members indicated that they had been consulted prior to this Cabinet decision and had indicated that whilst some of them were not opposed to windfarms in principle, they were opposed to further wind farm development on the basis of the feedback received from their residents. It was also pointed out that the subsidies offered to develop wind farms ultimately came from tax payers’ pockets;

Suggested that the blanket ban approach needed to reconsidered, possibly to include permitting small applications below a certain height, or on a case-by-case basis;

Stressed the Council’s responsibility for its tenant farmers, and the need to reconsider this decision very carefully on the basis of evidence, and in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders; [...]

Cabinet will discuss this again on the 25th October, with a recommendation to at least lift the blanket ban on wind turbines. Cabinet meetings are open to the public, but unfortunately I have lectures that clash so can't attend. No doubt it will be enlightening.

Here is a further insight into the County Council Leader's views on wind farms:

I recognise that there are an extreme range of opinions from eco warriors who want to save the world and think that emitting less carbon in Cambridgeshire is the answer to those who just don’t like them towering over the landscape.

The trouble is if you mix in some political mantra, a Liberal Democrat opposition party who have lost their way and finding it very difficult to make any traction politically and a ruling group who want to make a positive difference for the people of Cambridgeshire a fuss is bound to happen.

(That is a direct copy and paste; I have resisted the urge to correct the punctuation and grammar.)

This should not be a party political issue. The wind turbines were proposed by a Conservative County Council administration and are now being ditched by another Conservative County Council administration. Moreover, Councillor Clarke admits that there hasn't been a proper consultation, just a few people from Fenland saying they don't like wind turbines. When this much money is at stake, that's just not good enough.

Now that I'm no longer working for a local council, I, like Nick Clarke, can 'tell it as it is'. In this case, a huge pile of bullshit. Putting people before profits, huh? People were not given the choice between a few wind turbines and local services cut being because the council ignored a £900,000/year source of income!

Properly designed wind farms, sited with local consultation, do not blight people's lives. Rolling blackouts might, and that is what we will have in 2018 if we do not invest in ALL methods of energy generation, as well as energy efficiency. There isn't a choice between wind farms and business as usual, there's a choice between wind farms and blackouts. Councillors claim that their electorates wouldn't tolerate wind farms, because they are happy to listen to small but very vocal campaign groups. Turbines aren't appropriate everywhere, but councillors wilfully ignore empirical evidence, which they seem to see as threatening. By promoting a needlessly adversarial approach to planning wind farms, councillors are preventing communities from sharing in their financial benefits. Neither is it true that everyone in Cambridgeshire hates them on principle. In Gamlingay the community are installing one of their own.

However, there are reasons to be cheerful. I comfort myself that Councillor Clarke can huff and puff against wind farms all he likes, but it'll do him little good. Although it can impede wind development on its own land, the County Council has no planning powers to prevent it elsewhere; these lie with the districts. Moreover, the anti-wind districts will find that the presumption in favour of sustainable development overturns every refusal of permission on appeal.

I've largely lost faith in the ability of local government to tackle climate change, at least in its current form. The government is wilfully ignoring the incongruence between the binding targets of the Climate Change Act and Carbon Budgets and the fact that many Conservative local councillors won't even listen to the phrase 'climate change'. There is no leadership on environmental issues to be found in most local council chambers, just apathy and cowardice disguised as 'reflecting the concerns of the electorate'. Their electorate includes young people like me, and our voices are not being heard.

This is not the case throughout Cambridgeshire, though. Cambridge City Council deserves much wider recognition for its efforts to tackle climate change. There is also a project trying to approach planning for renewable energy in a constructive, positive manner: the Cambridgeshire Renewables Infrastructure Framework. It is well worth getting involved with, as it brings individuals, businesses, and politicians together to discuss renewable energy reasonably, like adults. Such informed dialogue is badly needed to redress the balance. Local councillors are making retrogressive and short-sighted decisions; their electorates must hold them to account.

RIP Communism and Capitalism

A not-terribly-welcome aspect of my new student lifestyle is the odd night of insomnia when I simply cannot get my brain to shut up. Now that it is being encouraged to think, it doesn't necessarily want to stop just because the time happens to be, say, 4am. Luckily I don't usually have to get up the next morning. Less luckily, I do need to tomorrow.

Recently I've been thinking about free market capitalism and Marxism. Until the financial mayhem started in 2008, it was quite widely accepted that the former had triumphed and Marxism was more or less dead. Francis Fukuyama's 'End of History and the Last Man' is the best-known exponent of this. (To my shame, I haven't read it yet.) From what I can tell, Fukuyama and a host of other commentators assumed that democracy and free market capitalism were inseparable. The vast human suffering caused by the totalitarian regimes, of the USSR and China in particular, made socialism something to dread. Marx' proscriptions for the future had been fatally undermined.

Something I recently noticed about the financial shenanigans (which really need a definitive name but are unlikely to get one before they end) is that they follow Marx' view of capitalism as unstable and subject to periodic crises. Free market capitalism assumes that markets are self-correcting, yet the debt crisis in which we find ourselves was caused by the operation of free markets. Large international banks systematically understated and mismanaged risk in pursuit of profit, in the process causing an asset-price bubble that could not be sustained. Once property prices in the US began to fall and mortgage defaults increased, financial products that had been valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars became effectively worthless. This took place because unregulated free markets failed. Bankers' incentives did not encourage them to promote societal or even economic good. Information asymmetries were rampant, market power was highly concentrated, and risk was incredibly poorly managed. These problems occurred in markets that were either unregulated or extremely lightly regulated, and did not self-correct. Governments were required to step in and shore up these banks, in order that their wider roles holding deposits and lending to individuals and businesses could continue.

The bailouts have nationalised the losses made by banks, whilst their profits remain privatised. I oversimplify somewhat, but this is broadly why we now have terrifying levels of sovereign debt. Three years ago the fear was that banks had too much debt and not enough assets, now the same fear is gripping whole nations. The operation of free financial markets has destabilised entire countries. If he could, I'm sure Marx would say, "I told you so."

Now that the debt has been nationalised, it is everyone's problem. Repayment is hindered by the fact that the mind-bogglingly large sums were effectively borrowed against the value of future economic growth. That growth is no longer happening, largely as a result of the ongoing credit crunch and austerity measures designed to reduce the debt. Even the IMF admits this. The great economist Keynes took the view that recessions are caused by inadequate overall demand for goods and services; Marx also noted that capitalism periodically suffers a crisis of overproduction. Arguably, we could get growth going by stimulating demand - but this would require taking on more debt, which returns us to the starting point. In order to grow as we did before, we'd have to recreate the conditions that got us into the current doldrums. I doubt this is even possible.

Moreover, now seems to be a very good time to consider whether it is socially and environmentally desirable to stimulate demand and therefore consumption. Doesn't the Western world consume more than enough already? Is endless economic growth worth the social costs? However, very few seem to be speaking up for a Marxist revolution, for the very good reason that however accurate his assessment of current capitalism might seem, memories of communism's failure are still fresh. In my idealistic view, maybe we've gone beyond the capitalism/communism dichtomy and into a post-ideological era? Perhaps another ideology will appear, but for the moment we need to work with what we've got, two big ideas with big flaws and a wealth of information as to how they've been implemented with varying success. I think the new theory should be pragmatism. Not every country, region, or city will desire or require the same balance of free markets, regulation, public participation, taxation, etc.

There should be more choice and less absolutism. Rather than trying to shore up a clearly broken system, the EU could be considering what reforms would promote the greatest wellbeing. This is obviously easier said than done, given that institutions have their own momentum and the banks are fighting hard to survive despite having brought about their own ruin. However, I am a great believer in the power of imagining a better world. In the UK at least, this has fallen out of fashion and an apparent political and economic death spiral has made us a nation of apathetic pessimists. In a recent yougov poll, 80% of respondents said the state of Britain's economy was quite bad or very bad. Just 3% said it was good or very good. When asked how they thought the financial situation of their household would change over the next year, 62% said it would get worse and 8% said it would get better. Meanwhile, 53% said that Cameron is doing badly as Prime Minister, 54% said Milliband is doing badly as Labour leader, and 69% said Clegg is doing badly as Liberal Democrat leader. In response to a question about whether the current government is good for 'people like you', 24% said good and 53% bad. As a snapshot, that's quite a revealing survey.

In order to avoid pervasive depression, both economic and social, we need to first accept that there must be ways to make things better. I don't know what the new economies of pragmatism would look like; hopefully when I get round to reading 'Prosperity without Growth' I'll start getting an idea. What I have noticed is that The Economist chastises the Occupy Wall Street movement for a lack of ideology and lauds the economic successes of China whilst lamenting the decline of America. Lest we forget, China is far from a free democracy. The most successful free market economy of recent years is ostensibly communist; how can this be reconciled with the supposed opposition of the two ideologies? In my opinion, it no longer can be.


Soon to come: recommended reading about the credit crunch and Cambridgeshire's sometimes fraught relationship with renewable energy.

Begin Again

Last Friday was the final day of my job and of the organisation that I worked for. The last few of us recycled, donated, tidied, or claimed whatever was left in the office, had a final lunch, switched off the lights, locked up and left. It was a very emotional moment. Although all of us have found new occupations of one sort or another, we are conscious of losing a team that worked incredibly well. From my experience and others, that seems all too rare. It is also dispiriting that our projects will either cease or be transferred to another organisation with considerably less resources to devote to them. I hope to find an equally rewarding job with equally excellent colleagues one day. At the moment it seems like a long shot.

This was my desk at the end:



I now officially a redundant public servant and MPhil student. The transition from employment to studenthood was of necessity very quick, as I was made redundant on Friday and inducted into my course on Monday. Student life is different to working in local government in a number of notable ways. Most strikingly, I not only can think for myself but am strongly encouraged to. Since the Coalition government arrived on the scene, local government has been forced to bite its tongue about the cavalcade of admonishments, changes, and cuts that have been rapidly dished out. I have written briefing notes summarising new policies, without the freedom to point out their immense drawbacks (other than here, naturally). In some ways more significantly, as a student I no longer have to censor myself to avoid offending the sensibilities of local councillors. I quite understand why local government employees must do this to some extent, but after a while it rankles. Moreover, I got tired of having to dumb explanations down, reduce reports to three bullet points, and take out long words that councillors might not understand. I no longer need be entirely neutral about local issues on this blog and intend to take advantage of it.

The other graduate students I've encountered so far have gone straight from undergraduate to postgraduate study. I am apparently somewhat exotic by virtue of having real-world experience of a full time job. That makes me greatly appreciate something they take for granted - intellectual freedom. My MPhil work is largely independent and self-taught, my thesis topic entirely my own choice. Although I will doubtless become accustomed to this and somewhat blasé in time, at the moment it's intoxicating. However, the five year gap between degrees does leave me in the somewhat peculiar situation of being eight years older than the undergraduate first-years, and yet frequently mistaken for one.

Blast from the Past

The countdown to redundancy for everyone left in my office now stands at 8 working days. Accordingly, desks are being cleared out and many things unearthed. I have, for instance, found a copy of the FT from April 26th 2010 with an article about 'The Demolition Job that Awaits the Next Government'. With hindsight, it is rather striking.



Apologies for the poor quality cameraphone photo. The main point of the editorial on the left is that £37 billion of savings will need to be found from the public sector in order for the deficit to be halved by 2014. It is noted below the pie chart that all three political parties have failed to identify anything like that level of cuts in their announcements to date. Incredibly, of the three it was the Conservative party that had at that time announced the smallest level of cuts. £7 billion a year, to be precise.

The FT's modest proposals for cuts were as follows:

• Axe two aircraft carriers, which has not occurred.
  
  
• Reduce prison numbers by 25%, which has has not occurred, although Ian Duncan-Smith did entertain thoughts in this direction. Then came the wrath of the Daily Mail, and the riots. Thus the prison population has reached a record high.
  
  
• 5% cut in public sector pay for a year, which has not occurred, as the FT high-handed assumed that central government could just do this whenever they wanted. Which wouldn't be very localist, frankly. Public sector pay has been frozen, though, and with inflation running at 4.5%, that amounts to a cut in real terms. Moreover, there are now 240,000 fewer jobs in the public sector than there were last year.
  
  
• Means test child benefit, which is in progress.
  
  
• Scrap winter fuel payments and free TV licenses. Wow, the FT really cares about the elderly. This hasn't happened and there are no plans to do it. This government is far keener on withdrawing support from the young.
  
  
• Halve spending on NHS dentistry. Here is a rich irony for you, as this is presumably predictated on NHS dentistry being inefficient. It is one of the areas of the NHS run on more competitive, private sector lines. The government is now planning to bring that same ethos to the entire NHS in the health and welfare reform bill. Will the result be cost savings, chaos, worse health outcomes, or none of the above? Who knows - certainly not the government.
  
  
• Stop primary and secondary school building for three years. There is more irony to be found here. Building Schools for the Future was scrapped, and Local Authority budgets cut so that any new schools would need to be developer funded. However, the Free Schools policy will mean more schools coming into being. Is money being saved overall? The Department for Education took a smallish budget cut over the spending review period, so presumably that's the idea.
  
  
• Halve spending on Teaching Assistant salaries. Again, the FT is getting a bit high-handed if it thinks central government can just reach down into schools and fire half of their TAs. That said, many such jobs are probably looking less secure as schools look to absorb funding cuts.
  
  
• Cut funding to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Island by 10%. The government went for 7% overall.
  
  
• Halve spending on road maintenance and upgrades. This takes in two sets of cuts; to the Department for Transport (which is responsible for trunk roads) and to upper-tier local councils (which are responsible for local roads). The former took a 12.6% cut, the latter about 26% cut. A number of planned major motorway upgrades have been ditched and many local authorities have cut their pothole budgets. Whether this amounts to halving spending is hard to tell.
  
  
• Delay Crossrail for at least three years. This has not happened; Boris managed to save Crossrail from the axe.
  
  
• Withdraw concessionary fares for pensioners. The FT does seem to have something against the elderly. This has not happened and is unlikely to.

Abolishing the Child Trust Fund and Education Maintenance Allowance were also mentioned in the article - both of which are happening.

That amounted to £37.4 billion cuts over four years. In the Comprehensive Spending Review the government announced £83 billion cuts over four years, more than twice as many. Quoth the FT on April 26th 2010:

Spending cuts on the scale outlined in the Financial Times' analysis appear too politically risky to contemplate

Excuse me while I laugh bitterly. The FT proposed instead to raise income tax and VAT. The coalition have done the latter, but also cut or frozen the budgets of all government departments. Significantly, they have laid particularly hard into the welfare state, which the FT treated as sacrosanct.

What a change in just over a year. I suspect that the 'political risk' the FT mention was simply steamrollered by shock and awe tactics. The public sector must be cut immediately or the country will run out of money and citizens will have to start eating one another! (Only a slight exaggeration of the Spending Review rhetoric.) I think the FT underestimated people's apathy and lack of awareness of what the public sector does. Few protest when told that a government department's funding is being cut by 20%; it just seems like a number. When that means a fall in income or the closure of a local service, complaints start. By then, it is probably too late.

Titans Will Clash

Hostilities have erupted between The Telegraph and the Department of Communities and Local Government. The former has launched a campaign against planning reforms in general and the draft National Planning Policy Framework in particular, called Hands Off Our Land. Or as I like to call it Not In Our Back Yard. CLG seem to feel the need to respond in terse, aggressive fashion to their every article here, here, here, here, and here. I pity the poor civil servant required to write those.

Frankly, this is a war I hope they both lose. Each side is as prone as the other to making sweeping, alarmist statements without such fripperies as evidence, for example:

75,000 HOMES TO BE BUILT ON ENGLAND'S GREEN BELT!

PLANNING DELAYS COST THE ECONOMY £3 BILLION A YEAR!

At the heart of this acrimonious dispute lies the paradox of modern Tory conservatism: free markets versus nostalgic protectionism. At the moment it appears that the government favours the former and local government the latter. This of course reduces a complex and nuanced issue to black and white, but such is the current tone of the debate.

Pickles and co have been insisting that localism will cause all areas to embrace development, against experience on their doorsteps. The Telegraph has spotted the disjunct here and pounced. Notice the obvious subtext here, that people want localism in order to prevent development.

The draft National Planning Policy Framework has caused this storm. Apparently the fact that the Localism Bill isn't actually that localist wasn't widely noted, but the presumption in favour of sustainable development is pretty unequivocal. George Monbiot is outraged about it; he doesn't often agree with the Torygraph.

I continue to think that both sides are partially right but mostly wrong. The planning system is too complicated and does need simplification. However the Localism Bill makes it more complicated, and ignores the fact that most people will only get involved with it if there is a specific proposal nearby that they want to prevent. And that is perfectly rational! In these austere times, few want to spend ages debating community projects unless there is some hope of them happening. People should be encouraged to get involved in planning, but not obliged to.

Without doubt, the draft Planning Policy Framework doesn't give a clear enough definition of sustainable development and puts far too much emphasis on economic growth. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is hugely risky. Outside greenbelt land, it will become extremely difficult for local authorities to refuse planning permission. If they do, appeals are likely to be granted. However, I don't think most people are staunchly pro- or anti-development; it is the job of the planning system to determine which development is right within limited available space. Importantly, the draft framework should make it much easier to get planning permission for wind turbines, something that fills The Telegraph with dread and me with delight. Meanwhile Yougov polling suggests that, if anything, the electorate in general are confused and apathetic about the whole thing (pdf).

I noted in July that the draft planning policy framework had not got very much media coverage. That has definitely changed. Neither Team Pickles (and their allies the British Property Federation et al) nor Team Telegraph (and their allies the National trust et al) seem open to compromise. With engaging hyperbole, the planning reforms have recently been described as political suicide and even a recipe for civil war. The fight can only get dirtier and, hopefully, more entertaining. For once local government isn't directly in the firing line, so excuse us whilst we sit on the sidelines and have a little schadenfreude party.

The More I Read The Less I Know

England has suddenly exploded with rioting. It's happening as I type this. One of my friends has been evacuated from her flat because a police station down the road was petrol-bombed. It is grotesque and terrifying that law and order can break down so quickly and comprehensively, that so many people suddenly resort to violence and looting with seeming impunity. It is genuinely difficult to comprehend the seriousness of what is happening. The last riots of any comparable scale happened before I was born.

I've been following the media and twitter coverage closely. The Guardian, Telegraph, and BBC have impressively thorough 24 hour feeds, delivering a stream of images and anecdotes to illustrate the mayhem. The sheer shock and horror at rampant arson, vandalism, and theft naturally breeds an urge to understand why. Why is this happening? How has it escalated so dramatically? And why now?

The impression I've got in the last few days is that it is simply impossible to answer those questions at the moment, and attempts to do so are largely interesting for what they reveal about the commentator. As ever, the wider the generalisation, the more likely confirmation bias is to be at work. Compare for yourself:

Two utterly different views from the Telegraph: Philip Johnston and Mary Riddell.

Camila Batmanghelidjh in the Independent

Richard Littlejohn in The Mail

Nina Power in The Guardian.

For international flavour, Doug Saunders in the Canadian Globe and Mail

From bloggers: Penny Red, Winston Smith, The New Economics Foundation, and Rosamicula on livejournal.

The main point of difference between commentators seems to be the allocation of responsibility; society vs individual and state vs market. Despite this it has surprised me to what extent there is overlap, despite variations in tone. Bringing party politics or even distinctions between right- and left-wing into consideration of the riots seems somewhat artificial, and has happened in the press less than it could have done. The violence is more sudden and uncontrollable than anyone expected, right or left wing, and it is therefore difficult to explain with standard right vs left political narratives. There seems to be more use of such narratives on Twitter, probably due to its inherent difficulties with complexity. Nuance cannot adequately be conveyed or statements properly qualified within 140 characters.

Speculation is rife as there is simply very little data at the moment. We don't know who the rioters are; images in the news suggest predominantly poor teenagers, but there are also reports of adults. We don't know how many there are. We don't know the full extent of what they've done and may still do. Most importantly, we don't know their pretexts for embarking on this illegal, destructive, dangerous course of action. Factors that have been suggested include: rising inequality, weakness in the penal system, amoral individualism, family breakdown, lack of trust in the police, endemic unemployment, consumerist popular culture, drugs, failures of the education system, lack of respect for authority figures, cuts such as the abolition of Education Maintenance Allowance, absence of aspirations, and violent video games. All of these and more could apply; the foolish thing at this point would be to rule anything out for ideological reasons.

It would of course be very convenient for my personal opinions if I could blame the riots solely on the coalition government's cuts and wider economy-centric, rather than people-centric, policy making. But there isn't enough evidence to support or undermine that view. I believe that those two factors are significant, however I could be wrong. For something this big and bad to happen, there cannot be a single simple explanation. Once the police have re-established order and the dust has settled, it should become clearer why the riots occurred, and then we face the more difficult task of doing something about it. The mindset and circumstances that led people to riot will need to be tackled somehow, otherwise there is bound to be more violence to come.

[insert planning related pun here]

As the Guardian pointed out today, there is just too much news at the moment. Too many tragedies, unfolding economic disasters, and environmental catastrophes, as much of the deluge of news is bad. Something that hasn't had much coverage, however, is the draft National Planning Policy Framework issued yesterday. I can see why it hasn't been afforded a lot of notice, but this document is very important indeed. It will have a vast influence on how the UK's built environment changes, or does not, over the next few years.

One of the government's stated aims for CLG has always been to simplify the planning system. Ministers decry the huge volume of planning guidance, which runs to thousands of pages and represents to them so much red tape. This is to be replaced by a single National Planning Policy Framework, which will set out simply how the government wants planning to work. Everything else will be delegated to local and/or neighbourhood level, regions having been abolished. Rationalising reams of guidance on a large number of specific issues (for example, transport, flood risk, and telecommunications) into a single, simple document was never going to be an easy task. This explains why the national framework has been repeatedly delayed.

Now we finally have it, and it runs to a mere fifty-three pages plus glossary. This is certainly much more convenient than all that it replaces, and students of planning law will be delighted to find their reading lists reduced in such a radical manner. The framework provides a neat summary of the issues that 21st century planning has to grapple with. (With the exception of gypsies and travellers, who aren't mentioned at all. Presumably acknowledging them was considered too contentious, and their needs were assumed to be tacitly included in planning for housing requirements.) For the most part, existing guidance is rationalised, for example the flood risk and retail policies. However, there are also some very significant changes. In short, NIMBYs beware, you're in for a scare.

The primary role of the planning system is now explicitly to deliver sustainable development, defined as meeting economic, social, and environmental needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The long-promised 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' is set out, and rather heavy-handedly the following is added, 'significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system'. It could be argued that this turns the role of the planning system from plan-making to getting out of the way.

The government harps on about increasing people's control of planning, but this presumption will do the opposite. Councillors would find it very difficult to refuse planning applications, and even harder to win appeals against refusals. When your local plan is outdated, refusing an application would only be possible if 'the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole'. More significantly, even if an up-to-date plan is in place, the presumption in favour of sustainable development still applies and must be taken into account. Neighbourhood plans will not be able to block development, only to propose more of it. The whole system is being reweighted in favour of planning applicants.

Local plans will also need to be based on objectively assessed needs, requiring 'proportionate' and integrated evidence on housing, economic development, infrastructure, and the environment. It is significant that the last goverment's housing targets were below the assessed housing need. Also, the housing section of the framework flatly states that, 'The Government's key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes.' This is reinforced by the further statement that, 'Local Plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.' Ergo, more housing development, especially in places with poor affordability.

I don't want to give the idea that the new planning world will be a complete free-for-all. Local plans will still be able to specify restrictions on how land is used or whether it is developed, as long as there is evidence to support this. How much of a free-for-all actually ensues will depend on how these two adjacent clauses are balanced in practise:

'The planning system is plan-led. Therefore Local Plans, incorporating neighbourhood plans where relevant, are the starting point for the determination of any planning application.

'In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.'

That is where planning lawyers will be spending many billable hours in years to come.

Meanwhile, allocations of land in Local Plans will need to be viable and deliverable, whereas currently they merely have to be deliverable. I think this terminology change means that local planning authorities will have a harder time getting financial contributions from developers - when those contributions are subject to viability. To get technical for a moment, the Community Infrastructure Levy (when implemented) is like a tax on development and developers cannot negotiate it down if their development seems less profitable. However, the proportion of affordable housing in a housing development is subject to viability, and where the line is drawn depends on case law.

So planners will now have to determine from the outset whether sites 'provide acceptable returns to a willing land owner and willing developer', taking into account contributions to infrastructure and affordable housing. This is incredibly difficult and would I suspect make it easier for developers to argue down levels of affordable housing. Or perhaps not, as plans must also be based on evidenced need, and there is plenty of evidence that affordable housing is needed around the country. (As an aside, case law suggests that 'acceptable returns' for a developer are currently around 20% profit on costs. Supposedly they can only get bank loans if such high returns can be demonstrated.)

The framework would seem to make it much more difficult for local planning authorities to refuse planning permission on the basis of factors like poor design, impact on traffic, or inappropriateness of siting. However, lest the shires start to panic, 'The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts.' The draft framework assumes that new buildings in the green belt are 'inappropriate' and should not be allowed except under 'very special circumstances'. Interestingly, such circumstances include development approved by micro-referendum under a Community Right to Build Order, which would be permitted as long as it preserved the qualities of the green belt.

Personally, I am very interested in the effect that the new planning context will have on the delivery of renewable energy. Broadly I think the framework could improve the situation, although this is by no means certain as there are several policies that would interact. Firstly:

'When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.'

Depending on how 'very special' case law deems the global threat of climate change to be, this could be used to prevent renewables on the green belt. Which, lest we forget, covers 13% of England. However, elsewhere in the framework it is stated that:

'local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low-carbon sources,' and

'When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development and:

• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low-carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and

• approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once opportunity areas for renewable and low-carbon energy have been mapped in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying opportunity areas.'

Notably, the government has dampened the pro-renewables language in the earlier independent practitioners draft of the framework (that they comissioned), which stated that:

'When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should [...] not presume against energy development outside mapped areas nor require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low-carbon energy or question the energy justification for why a proposal for renewable and low-carbon energy must be sited in a particular location.'

I think the effective difference is that local planning authorities are being given the chance to plan pro-actively for renewables, but also potentially constrain where they are developed. There is thus the possibility that very limited space could be designated by lots of local planning authorities, adding up to a woefully insufficient national renewable energy supply. That said, until local planning authorities actually set out such pro-active policies, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. Moreover, it would seem to still be a strong consideration once plans are in place, likely resulting in a high rate of success at appeal.

I do feel sorry for planners. They must be under enormous pressure to get their local plans in place and up to date as soon as possible, to forestall all kinds of unexpected planning applications, whilst also being required to involve as much of the community as possible, even if the community are reluctant and the provisions of the Localism Bill still in flux. As plans must be needs-based, a lot of evidence about housing, economic development, and all kinds of infrastructure is urgently needed. Moreover, there's the Community Infrastructure Levy to implement if the local planning authority has any hope of collecting meaningful contributions to infrastructure from development over the next few years. Also forthcoming zero carbon homes requirements, which will force local planning authorities to decide what to do about allowable solutions (a form of carbon offset). Meanwhile, planning budgets are being slashed and posts lost, planners are branded obstructive bureacrats, and local councillors tend to take the government's localism rhetoric at face value. Tough times for the planning profession.

But how can you as a citizen make the National Planning Framework work for you? If I had money to invest, this is what I would do. First, dig through DECC's renewable energy data to find rural local planning authorities with a lot of wind energy potential. Then I'd check which have out-of-date local plans, likely ending up with quite a substantial list. Within those areas, I'd look for agricultural land suitable for wind farms (taking into account buffer zones and other factors set out in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure), rent or buy it, then put in planning applications for wind farms. Even if the local planning authority found some pretext on which to refuse the applications, they should be easily won on appeal, thanks to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

This strategy should yield good financial returns, whilst increasing the UK's renewable energy supply, greatly annoying climate change deniers, and highlighting the vast chasm of understanding between national and local Conservative politicians. The attempts of local councillors to describe wind turbines as economically, socially, and environmentally unsustainable would be entertaining to witness, I suspect. (If you'd like a sneak preview, read this recent appeal decision. Hard as it is for me to say, in this rare instance I agree with Eric Pickles.)

Overall, my opinion of the draft Planning Policy Framework is inconclusive. It could allow rampant poor-quality development and general mayhem, but won't necessarily. A lot depends on the interpretation of the word 'sustainable'. Planning guidance did badly need simplification, and although I don't agree with every facet, this framework is a better start than I was expecting. As ever, the devil will be in the detail. A word of advice, though. If you are genuinely averse to new development and would like avoid exposure to it, move deep into the greenbelt because this new vision of the planning system looks not unlike the Thatcher model of the 1980s. Except, hopefully, with more wind farms.

Stormy Weather

I have a confession to make: I can't bring myself to read the Open Public Services White Paper. Whenever I try and steel myself to pick it up, all I can think of is David Cameron tearing the social contract into tiny pieces whilst laughing maniacally. That is not a pleasant mental image.

Instead, I've read Vince Cable's 2009 book about the credit crunch, titled 'The Storm'. He wrote it in haste to try and explain the causes of the financial downturn, back when the idea of Liberal Democrats in the cabinet would have provoked disbelieving laughter. Reading it with the benefit of hindsight is very interesting.

When I borrowed this book from the library, I thought it would display the vast extent of Cable's hypocrisy once he become a government minister. I was surprised to find that some of his 2009 viewpoints accord quite closely with the coalition's stated programme. The book articulates Liberal Democrat ideology much more clearly than any of their election campaigning ever did. Cable's view is liberal in the old-fashioned sense of the word; pro-markets and anti-state in principle, but agreeing that there is need for a strong legal, regulatory, and fiscal policy basis for markets to operate within. Superficially, this agenda seems to differ from the Conservative Party (who dispute the need for a strong legal, regulatory, and fiscal policy basis, painting it all as red tape) and the Labour Party (who are more pro-state, insofar as they actually invested in public services). That's a vast oversimplification, which credits UK political parties with an ideological coherence that they don't have, but it does point to a certain sympathy between Conservative and Liberal policies. Labour at least pretended to put people before markets.

Cable clearly articulates the need for reduced UK public spending to get rid of the so-called structural deficit (a disputed term, I should add). This is now the coalition's favourite soundbite. He also emphasises the need for stronger regulation of banking. The current government have talked about this at some length; their actions have conspicuously failed to live up to their words. Remember Project Merlin and how banks continue to ignore it? Remember when banks were allowed to pay unlimited bonuses? I don't think that this was what Cable had in mind in 2009. That said, his concern was the need for multilateral reform, given the international nature of the crisis. He has been making the right noises, just without supporting action.

There is a seemingly minor but critical distinction to be made between Conservative and Liberal Democrat economic policy: in his book Cable proposes public sector cuts once stimulus has got the private sector growing; Osbourne's approach is predicated on cuts to the public sector acting as the stimulus. The former nuance has clearly been subsumed under the great coalition carnival of cuts. As I've said many times before, I doubt such sudden and deep cuts will turn out well for anyone, least of all the most vulnerable in society, the economy, and the Liberal Democrats as a political party.

'The Storm' makes it clear that unbalanced housing policy contributed significantly to the economic crisis. Cable notes that the hysterical pursuit of home ownership (influenced by political, financial, and media hype) brought about a destructive house price bubble. To avoid it happening again, a more-balanced housing market with greater proportions of social and private rented property is needed. That is definitely not what the present Housing Minister and his ministry are working towards. Interestingly, Cable suggests that a period of deflation could help to prevent a second property bubble. In 2009, this was a real possibility and deflation did actually occur (if you go by RPI). These days, inflation is above 4% and being driven by food and fuel prices rises over which the government has very little control. Both markets are dominated by cartel behaviour and global in nature, as other chapters helpfully explain.

This book is definitely at its best when looking at the global picture; the rise of China and India as economic powers, the perversity of richer countries borrowing heavily from poorer, and trends in energy and food markets are all summarised neatly. I strongly take issue with the relegation of climate change to an afterthought, though. Nonetheless, 'The Storm' is well worth reading and covers a lot of ground within 157 pages. Ultimately, though, it is fatalistic. The UK is waning as economic power, many contributory factors to the downturn remain beyond UK policy control, and even if we get our domestic policy in order recovery will remain difficult.

Cable sensibly doesn't try and predict the future; he didn't foresee the alarming prospect of Greece, Ireland, Italy, and the US threatening to default on their debts, for instance. Rather, he presents a frankly depressing vision of where things were in 2009 and the main problems that needed to be addressed. It's now 2011 and those problems remain unfixed; rebalancing the housing market, investing in education and research to strengthen the economy, economic rebalancing away from financial services, and promoting fairness by using the tax system to reduce inequality. I haven't seen evidence of the coalition government making progress with any of that, despite frequent name-checking of the latter two aims.

I still think that Vince Cable has acted hypocritically and consider his callous attitude to Southern Cross unforgivable. However all politicians (indeed all humans) are hypocrites sometimes and working in a coalition inevitably requires compromise. The astute analysis in 'The Storm' demonstrates that Cable must realise how ineffective and downright dangerous most of the policies he has to support are likely to be. As the economy stalls, the euro totters, and America seems doomed to be downgraded, I wonder if he thinks such compromise was worth it?

I did find one prediction in the concluding chapter of Cable's book: 'There is a long period of austerity ahead'. It's hard to argue with that.

On The Street

The government has a glorious vision that they will end rough sleeping, a praiseworthy aim that no-one can in good conscience take issue with. The Prime Minister, no less, states in the introduction to their new vision document that,

It is an affront to this country that last winter, one of the coldest on record, there were people still sleeping rough on our streets. While the temperature dropped below freezing, many were making do with doorways and cardboard boxes for beds. In a civilised society, this is totally unacceptable.

How right you are, Mr. Cameron! Moreover, he goes on to say that,

...tackling rough sleeping is not just about providing homes. It is about dealing with the wider causes of homelessness, from family breakdown and mental illness to drug addiction and alcoholism. This is a complex, multi-faceted problem.

Again, very true and reassuring to hear that at the highest level the government understand the complicated nature of the problem. If only this understanding was matched with some idea of the solutions. Set out in the vision document are six cross-departmental commitments to end homelessness. Before I get to them, here are seven actions the government is taking or has taken that are directly relevant to the number of people without homes. None of these are mentioned in the vision document:

1. Radically altering the nature of social housing tenure. Currently mean weekly rent in the social rented sector is £75, less than half the private sector level of £156. The government is introducing a new tenure called 'affordable rent', which by default will be set at 80% of private rent (although theoretically there will be flexibility to set it lower). New and moving tenants will be presented with this exciting new tenure, plus existing tenants may be encouraged to switch. 'Affordable rent' tenancies will also be fixed term by default; currently social renting offers a tenancy for life or until the tenant no longer wants it. All this amounts to making social renting much more expensive and less secure.
   
   
2. Cutting housing benefit in a number of ways (including capping, indexing to a measure of inflation that doesn't including housing costs, and calculating local housing allowance with reference to the cheapest 30% of properties rather than 50%), such that it won't be enough to cover either 'affordable rent' or private rent in many places. This is expected to reduce the government's spending on housing benefit by £1.8 billion. The Chartered Institute of Housing calculated that the changes could price private tenants on housing benefit out of, well, Britain.
   
   
3. Weakening the duty on Local Authorities to help the homeless. Currently if you are homeless and ask your Local Authority for help, they can offer you private rented accommodation but you do not have to accept it. Under the Localism Bill proposals, if you did not accept the private rented option, the Local Authority wouldn't have to help you any further. The devil is in the detail here; how suitable does the offer need to be? What if it is too far from your job, or your child's school? Private rental is also insecure, with assured shorthold tenancies rarely lasting beyond 6 months, prone to volatile rent, and of poorer quality than other tenures.
   
   
4. Cutting Local Authority funding, which impacts both on housing departments and on charities that rely on public sector grants, which form between them the front line of help for the homeless.
   
   
5. Reforming the planning system through the Localism Bill, to remove regional housing targets and introduce confusing new ways of involving neighbourhoods (whatever they turn out to me). The Chief Executive of Taylor Wimpey, one of the UK's biggest house builders, said this of the proposals:
   
   ...can I tell you my great fear? In three years’ time, it all stops. We are operating currently on existing consent and on land banks. We need a flow of consent coming through the process to maintain and grow business. I fear that we will reach a point, in about three years’ time, when what we have currently on the stocks runs out, where in fact we have not got that supply coming through. That is the big challenge. That is the sort of transition [...] which so badly needs to be addressed.
   
   House builders obviously have a bit of a vested interest here, but he also has a good point. There is a shortage of housing in the UK and uncertainty about the planning system will only delay the building of anything.
   
   
6. Cutting the National Affordable Homes Programme from £8.4 billion (2008-11) to £4.5 billion (2010-13, notice the overlap) and stating that it will only be spent on the new 'affordable rent' tenure. This housing will not meet the needs of the most vulnerable and impoverished people, by definition those who are most at risk of homelessness.
   
   
7. Rejecting the conclusions of the Rugg Review, which called for regulation of the private rented section to deal with abusive landlords and substandard accommodation. The review proposed a light-touch system of regulation designed to stabilise the sector and encourage investment. The sector was supportive, but the government labelled it red tape and that was that.

As a result of this combination of policies, affordable housing will become scarcer, private renting remain insecure, social and private rents will rise, and housing benefit will reduce, whilst the Local Authority safety net weakens. The implications are worrying, and the Department of Communities and Local Government is well aware of it. The six-month-old letter recently leaked baldly states that just the changes to benefits will generate more than £270 million of additional costs to Local Authorities and cause 40,000 households to become homeless.

Wait a moment, didn't the Prime Minister say he really wanted to end rough sleeping? Let's look at the government's six commitments to do so.

1. 'Helping people off the streets' by providing £20 million for a Homelessness Transition Fund. If that much money could end homelessness, surely there would be no-one sleeping rough at the moment. It will go to Homeless Link,a body representing organisations that work with the homeless and be spent on grants to pilot new ways of working.
   
   
2. 'Helping people access healthcare' by, well, I can't really tell. The verbs used are 'highlight', 'support', and 'work with'. I've used such phraseology before and know what they equate to - very little. The government is trying to devolve healthcare commissioning to the local level, so how can they ensure the health needs of the homeless are fully met in every locality?
   
   
3. 'Helping people into work' by using the Work Programme. However effective the new private-sector led approach might be, it will be impeded by the fact that there are currently 2.6 million more unskilled workers than jobs. If there aren't enough private sector jobs, what then?
   
   
4. 'Reducing bureaucratic burdens' by reducing guidance and local authority reporting requirements. I genuinely don't understand how this will this tackle homelessness. Ironically, it might make it harder to calculate the level of homelessness nationally. Notably, there's also no mention in the report of how CLG will even monitor whether their pledge is being met.
   
   
5. 'Increasing local control over investment in services' by analysing the costs of homelessness. That one just sounds like a non sequetur. Community-based budgets are also referenced, but it seems quite a heroic assumption that giving the community greater control over Local Authority money will automatically result in better services for the homeless. The government has also removed the ringfence on homelessness grant, leaving Local Authorities free to spend it on whatever their councillors might choose. Call me unduly cynical, but the homeless are not a big local election voting demographic. It's worthy of note that taking away the ringfence on the Supporting People budget (which also assists the vulnerable) has resulted in it being dramatically cut by many Local Authorities.
   
   
6. 'Devolving responsibility for tackling homelessness' by giving the Mayor of London unspecified new responsibilities and £34 million to try and cushion the seismic impact benefit changes will have in London.
   

That final so-called commitment is the real key to this. The government has made a grand statement about ending rough sleeping, something that no government has managed even in times of economic growth and increasing public spending, then dumped the responsibility for actually doing it onto Local Authorities. Whilst making unprecedented cuts to their budgets. Nice work, Mr. Shapps. Is it really credible to presume the measures that form this vision will more-than-counterbalance the huge negative effects of other policies?

The above might give you the idea that I am doubtful that rough sleeping will cease to exist over the next four years. Meanwhile, the Mayor of London has pledged to end rough sleeping in the capital by 2012. According to figures from the charity Crisis, 3975 people slept rough at some point in London during 2010/11, an increase of 8 per cent on the previous year's total of 3673 and of more than a thousand since 2005/06. The cuts to housing benefit have yet to be implemented. Five and a half months to go, Boris. Good luck.

Actually ending rough sleeping would be a strikingly impressive thing to do. However the government's policies are already increasing homelessness, and by their own admission will continue to do so. Far from articulating ways to solve the problem, they are making it dramatically worse. Their whole vision for ending rough sleeping is thus just an empty promise and a waste of words. I can only hope that the members of parliament who signed their names to this incredibly hypocritical document are eventually held to account for it.

Who Cares

This was not an easy post to write, but has been on my mind for a while. Social care recently made the news due to the possible collapse of Southern Cross, which cares for 31,000 frail elderly people in 750 homes around the country. Prior to that story breaking, I suspect much of the public knew little about how social care works in this country, unless they needed to ask for it. The government's online portal Directgov largely bundles social care into its 'Disabled People' section, but its remit is wider than that. As well as the disabled, care should be available to all other vulnerable people who need it: the elderly, children, even whole families. The responsibility for this lies with upper tier (county) and unitary councils, not the National Health Service. However practically all councils have contracted out elements of care to the private sector, for example paying for elderly people to stay in private care homes like those run by Southern Cross.

The British population is an ageing one. Government statistics state that between 1984 and 2009 the number of people aged 65 and over in the UK increased by 20% to 10.1 million. In 2009, 16% cent of the population were aged 65 and over. The number of people aged 85 and over more than doubled over the same period to 1.4 million and the percentage aged under 16 fell from 21 per cent to 19 per cent. People are living longer, which is cause for celebration. However, the public sector is not keeping pace with demographic change. It is inevitable that as the population ages, the cost of social care for the elderly will rise. It is already one of the largest chunks of county council expenditure, generally second only to education provision.

To date, the government's approach to social care strikes me as disgracefully negligent. The Department of Communities and Local Government took the largest budget cut of any government department in the Spending Review; their administration and programme budget reduced by 51% over three years and their capital budget by 74%. This is the department that funds local government, and naturally the cuts were passed on. Cambridgeshire County Council, for example, needs to cut £116 million from its budget in five years, including cutting 25% of social care funding. Yet Communities and Local Government takes no responsibility for social care, as it ostensibly belongs to the Department of Health. Unless I've misunderstood somehow, having completely seperate government departments funding and setting policy for such an important service is incredibly dangerous and counterproductive. CLG's sudden reductions in grants to local councils are putting vulnerable people in need of social care at great risk.

That's the national picture, horrifying in a dry statistical way. Contrast this with a personal experience. My Grandfather was born in 1920 and worked for the National Health Service as an administrator from the end of the Second World War until his retirement. He is 91 years old and my Grandmother, who is 85 years old, can no longer care for him, as she has been doing for many years. He is incontinent, can barely walk even with a frame, and has dementia. He was taken into hospital three months ago with an infection and has remained there since. The infection has cleared up, but the frailties of 91 years cannot be cured. The county council's social services have determined that my Grandmother cannot take care of him alone and he needs overnight care. However the county council do not provide overnight care at home. Whether this is a long-standing policy or a recent cut I'm unsure, but the result is that my Grandfather needs a place in a nursing home.

All the affordable care homes within a reasonable distance are full and have waiting lists, leaving my Grandfather in hospital limbo. He cannot be discharged as he cannot be cared for at home, so for the past few months he has been a textbook bed-blocker. Although he is generally quite content, this is an extremely upsetting and difficult situation for my family. My Grandfather does not need to be in hospital, but there is an acute shortage of the kind of care that he does need.

This is the reality of social care for the elderly today. There aren't enough places in nursing homes for people that need them. Even when places are available, quality of care is variable and sometimes totally disgraceful. Southern Cross demonstrates the ugly side of privatisation - when companies fail their customers suffer. A public service responsible for the lives and wellbeing of the frail elderly should never be allowed to fail. It should not be the case that you can only have a comfortable, secure old age if you can pay at least £500 a week for the privilege. I am ashamed that I didn't realise how bad things had become, and how much they may worsen as cuts continue, until my Grandfather needed care.

I was utterly sickened by Vince Cable's statement that the government wouldn't consider bailing out Southern Cross. Eight hundred and fifty billion pounds was spent bailing out the banks. £850,000,000,000. It was apparently worth propping them up despite their refusal to reform, but putting £230,000,000 towards the care of 31,000 of Britain's most vulnerable people is considered unreasonable. To put that in the clearest possible terms, the rent bill that Southern Cross is struggling to pay is less than 0.03% of the cost of the bank bailout. Southern Cross clearly acted in a financially irresponsible manner; so did the banks. But banking is not an essential public service, and care of the elderly is. I defy Vince Cable to look into the eyes of a ninety-one year old man and tell him that care homes don't deserve a bailout. I defy him to look into my eyes, the eyes of anyone with a frail elderly relative that they love, and say that care homes can be allowed to go bankrupt. Why should Vince Cable even make such a statement? He is Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. How does that position give him the authority to talk about care of the elderly?

The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights recently criticised the UK's privatised social care model for failing the most vulnerable, which was reported with unusual forthrightness in The Telegraph. The government cannot continue to ignore social care and treat it as purely a problem for local councils. Major reform and investment are needed. As a society we need to face up to old age and give the elderly the care and dignity that they deserve. This is not a party political issue and there is no question of whether we can afford to care for our older generations. It is our fundamental responsibility as a society to do so.

I love my Grandfather and have so much to be grateful to him for. He helped to instill in me a social conscience and awareness of the importance of learning from history. He deserves so much better than his current situation and it makes me very angry that there's little I can do to improve it. Even if a care home place does finally turn up for him, it's incredibly worrying to think that he might get poor care or that the home could go bankrupt. At least my Grandfather has a wife, children, and grandchildren who love him very much and are doing our best to get him what he needs. I hardly dare think of how frail elderly people with distant or disinterested relatives, or no-one at all, cope with the current system.

National action is needed now to save social care from collapse, but I fear that the current government will continue to put austerity first. The Coalition insists that cutting public spending is their absolute priority. I disagree with this for many reasons, but what it really boils down to is that I think human rights are more important than the mirage of What Is Best For The Economy. Comfort and dignity in the last years of your life are rights, not products. In a country as rich as the UK this should go without saying. My Grandfather and his generation were my age when the government brought the welfare state into being. He worked throughout his life with the belief that the government would take care of him in his old age if he needed it. It's despicable to take away that safety net now that he does need it and no longer has the ability to fight for it. Those of us who can stand up for the right of the elderly to be cared for must do so. Not just for those who need it now, but to secure our own future wellbeing.