Alice in the Age of Austerity

Originally written in February 2011. Heartfelt apologies to Lewis Carroll. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

To be honest, it took me all morning to realise that he was a robot. In retrospect his overuse of the word 'synergies' in the 9am meeting should have aroused my suspicions, but I was too busy coaxing the coffee pot. When he stood up and opened fire with a pencilgun it was quite a surprise, and the bullet-proof boardroom glass suddenly seemed like a wise investment. We all dived under the table in time, although Councillor Q's ear was clipped by a bullet, sending him into a somewhat hysterical state. Between us, J and I managed to wrap a laptop cable around the robot's ankles whilst he was reloading and take him down.

The Strategic Infrastructure Community Kickoff meeting thus irrevocably disrupted, we dosed Councillor Q with brandy and tied our cyborg infiltrator to the Chief Executive's posture chair for interrogation. More than likely it was sent by Human Resources (recently and ominously renamed Meat Assets) to destroy us all, thus saving money on redundancy payments. Unluckily for them, we actually read our contracts, noticed the 'waiver in case of death by robot' clause, and put in place appropriate procedures. The robot had little of interest to tell us, other than the name of the company HR had rented it from, so the admin team deprogrammed it and repurposed some circuits to enhance the water cooler. I flipped a coin with D for its natty leather briefcase. None of us were exactly sure how the pencilgun worked, so I filed it under 'Programme Management procedures' where it is unlikely to ever be found.

That little incident resulted in the Termination Threat Level in the building being raised to Mauve, which will be somewhat tedious if I end up leaving the office last, as I'll need to release the war termites. At least I never arrive first; those little menaces are harder to gather up than set free. Threat Level Mauve also means random DNA, personality, and Voight-Kampff tests, which generally mean learning more than you ever wanted to know about your colleagues. I'm still trying to forget the extent of enhancements that P has had.

After lunch I wrote up minutes, hesitant as to whether 'Homicidal robot attack' was best noted under Action Planning or Any Other Business. The Chief Executive gathered us together to give a pep talk, which was well meant but made me think he was taking the whole thing a little too seriously. There wasn't really any need to wave an AK-47 around, even if it was neatly embossed with our corporate branding. We don't have the budget for military training courses, so he suggested push-ups during team meetings. The idea wasn't greeted with much enthusiasm, but the AK-47 impeded serious debate about it.

Once all that had settled down, it was my turn to sweep the fire escape for mines. I found 3 cheap Tesco minelets and a delux Waitrose tank-buster, which is usual for the middle of the week. Dropped them off in the specially-reinforced recycling bin; hopefully they'll be turned into something more useful. A couple of phone calls followed, on such flimsy pretexts that I suspect they were checking whether the robot had been successful. I mean, who phones local government to ask what the time is?

Donned helmet and knuckle-duster fingerless gloves for the cycle home, although unfortunately I left my greaves at home. The Local Army of Local Arbury have been setting up roadblocks, which don't appear to serve much purpose beyond reminding those passing through that they still exist. I think Arbury took it a bit personally when the council decided to strategically ignore areas with lower than average house prices. After a initial period of chaos and warlord-ism, though, their big society bin collection service has become a lesson to us all. The lesson being, 'Don't throw anything away that you wouldn't want thrown back at your face'.

The pothole slalom in Chesterton continues to get more exciting. I zig-zag raced some guy on a red mountain bike; he won by a whisker after very nearly crashing into a van. Several people outside the pub applauded. A bus driver beeped, but I don't think that was meant to be appreciative. No call to use the brass knuckles this evening as the motorists seemed peaceable, probably as a result of the ceasefire on the A14. I gather the lorry drivers have agreed to hold talks and start clearing the razorwire off sliproads.

I had to show my Neighbourhood Identity Tag at the top of the road, and picked up this week's local vegetable vouchers. The People's Community Market had a nice selection of potatoes, but no onions at the moment. It's a pity that I don't like beetroot as there's quite a glut. Perhaps I could use beetroot juice to dye the curtains magenta?

It was my turn to make supper, which I successfully managed under strict supervision. The herb garden on the morning room roof is flourishing nicely, it was definitely worth shoring up the whole structure with pallets (which also make it more defensible). A troupe of Jobless called round at about 8 to ask if we had any odd tasks. They looked so sad that I got them to sort my bookshelf by colour, in return for some stew and cups of tea. Apparently they have a big encampment on Coldham's Common and are considering taking over the empty retail park. Sounds like a good plan to me, those empty units are havens for wolf-cockroaches at the moment.

The powerdown was scheduled for 10pm, and we just managed to get the washing up done by then. As it was a warm night, we sat outside around a campfire, telling stories, making up new obscenities, and playing the Yes and No game. There were some stunning shooting stars to be seen - although L insisted they were Girton weapons tests rather than astrological phenomena. If so, their range has markedly improved.

Slept peacefully until 3am, when some raucous students flew over in a helicopter, flinging oyster shells and laughing in a distinctly horsey manner. Their hilarity was soon curtailed when the Neighbourhood Order Billet deployed nets. The colleges should really secure their helicopters better, or at least stop teaching first-year engineers how to hotwire them. The rest of the night was quiet, or at least not loud enough to wake me. The morning news (who was apologetically late; apparently his alarm clock broke) said that refugees from Chittering started a bar fight at about 5am, but were soon subdued and thrown in the river.

I fed the frogs in the shed and checked my emails when our internet ration came through at 8am. Lucky that I did, as the Chief Executive had decided on a dispersal strategy and told us all to work at home, in an email sent at 2am. That's all very well for his part of town, but down here if you're found at home and healthy during the day you get press-ganged into tasks involving shovels. Usually digging or repelling invaders. The simplest thing to do was to volunteer as a lookout, which is definitely more fun than joining the argument about the Neighbourhood Plan. It has become increasingly esoteric and focused on tangents of dubious usefulness, like specifying a regulation neighbourhood beard length.

The lookout post is at the apex of the pedestrian railway bridge, which forms the current boundary with our adjacent neighbourhood. The border isn't in dispute, so lookout duty mostly involves spotting dangerous wild animals, tasering Wisbech stowaways, and tagging the odd tourist. There's a gazebo with a two-way radio, and you can usually get some hoodie kid to fetch coffee for a small fee. I read a couple of lengthy legal documents, but reflected that they have little relevance as long as the police continue their siege mentality on Parker's Piece. I hear that their defensive emplacements look rather beautiful from the air, but make them totally unreachable by anything but carrier pigeon. Even those are unreliable since the latest Jamie Oliver cookbook became popular.

One of my colleagues who lives nearby wandered over at lunchtime and kindly shared a cheese sandwich. We discussed the current state of the job market; she's considering going for an IT job that only pays in pumpkins. I think she'd be better trying for employment at the University. They may insist on microchipping and an equity share of your children, but at least their currency can be exchanged before it goes mouldy. We agreed to keep each other updated, then she had to go and take over as Head Mistress at her neighbourhood school.

In the afternoon I drafted a Board paper and after some complex calculations caught up on the house energy bills. We're currently ahead, but must use less electricity next month otherwise the difference will need to be made up in plasma donation or nursing time. I do pity the neighbourhoods with no medical facilities, but having a treaty with Addenbrooke's is a double-edged sword. At 3pm the next shift began and I tried to slip away and get home. The Neighbourhood Order Brigade were having none of that, though, and I was planting saplings and felling traffic lights until nightfall. There was carrot soup and toast on the table when I got back; I love my housemates.

There was also a letter from my parents waiting for me, addressed in Celtic as well as English so that the The Ancient Kingdom of the Iceni (formerly Suffolk) postal service would accept it. Mum says that Dad has been promoted to Wise Old Man on the Parish Council, after telling a historic anecdote that lasted 47 minutes without repetition or hesitation, but plenty of deviation. I'm so proud. Mum is already an official Wise Old Woman, although she isn't too keen on the title. Their alpacas are doing well, and Mum says she's making me a jumper with their wool. The debate about whether tiled roofs are evil and should all be replaced with thatch continues to rage; it seems that a growing minority consider caves to be the preferable alternative. No more noise from Norfolk (or Them Up North, as Mum puts it) although constant vigilance is being maintained. It sounds like both parents are happy and enjoying the picturesque local sport of 'throwing rocks at the Landrover'. Neither of my cousins have returned from their quests yet. They occasionally phone home on stolen iPhones to let us know they're OK. My aunt has started breeding quails.

By the time I'd finished reading this missive it was raining pretty hard, so the campfire was a no go. We checked the sandbags and seagull-repellent, then trekked over to the local pub, which had some rock band and a scrabble tournament. They also have enough independent PV on the roof to avoid powerdowns, so the lights barely even flicker when the neighbourhood grid goes down. Wading home was a little tricky, as the puddles were full of eels. I swear Fenlanders are deliberately introducing the slimy buggers for nefarious purposes. One of them nearly chewed my bootlace off (an eel not a Fenlander, on this occasion).

The house was pretty cold and the mould staging a comeback, so to cheer ourselves up we constructed the community trampoline. Otherwise known as jumping up and down on a pile of mattresses. This confuses the neighbours, which is always fun. They've quietened down a lot since the Neighbourhood Order Brigade discovered they were students and put them on sewer-digging duty. The volume of puddles suggests they're slacking off a bit, I have to say.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow, as it'll be my turn as Neighbourhood Mayor and walk the boundaries, carrying a big stick and giving orders. I intend to ensure that the Neighbourhood Plan must be in haiku, tax tabloids for every capital letter that they use, and outlaw bacon in all its evil forms. Viva Big Society!

Au Revoir

I haven’t written anything here for eight months and therefore think I should officially label this blog abandoned. Although I have had ideas for posts and even begun the odd draft, nothing has materialised for a few reasons.

Firstly, the original impetus for this blog has gone. When I was working in the public sector and constantly horrified by the ill-considered and counterproductive policy changes the coalition was forcing through, I wanted an outlet. Whilst in a local government organisation, the work I produced had to be politically neutral and acceptable to local councillors. When I found this intellectually frustrating, the blog provided a space to say what I really thought. Since being made redundant nearly 14 months ago, I’ve been a postgraduate student and have had all the intellectual freedom I could want. That need for an outlet is no longer there.

Secondly, writing variations on, “I told you so,” would be tedious, as well as boring for you to read. The issues my colleagues and I raised with housing, economic, and planning policy changes are all manifesting, and being brushed aside by the government. (Keep up with this via The Guardian and Telegraph.) There seems no value in constantly repeating the same points when doing so will change nothing about the situation.

Thirdly, my focus is now on in-depth research of a specific area of environmental policy. Although I still try and keep up more broadly with planning, housing, and economic issues, the idea of the PhD is that I become an absolute bore about one very narrow area. Although I sometimes toy with the idea of blogging about that process, I think it would be very onerous to read and have only a tangential relationship to the Age of Austerity.

Lastly, I did begin a series of posts on climate change, but am disinclined to continue them mostly because contemplating carbon emissions at the moment is deeply depressing. Even today, PWC released a report reiterating how far we are from a relatively safe emissions trajectory. The frequently-quoted target of two degrees is now essentially impossible and we are heading instead for six. Human civilisation as we have come to know it wouldn’t survive that for long. I don’t think the blogosphere needs another person ranting angrily about how humanity is failing as a species and should probably save the more constructive comments for my studies.

I might pick up this blog again at some point, but it’s hard to say when. I am not the public sector worker I was when I started it and I both think and write differently as a result of being back in the academic world. For instance, I have a saved list of potential blog post topics, some of which I thought up years ago, such as state capitalism in China, what the fall of the USSR can tell us about the US, path dependency, what fairness means, and infrastructure in the UK. When I was a public servant I would have felt qualified to write something on such subjects, on the strength of having read one or two books about each, kept up with the Economist’s commentary, and thought a bit about them. Now my standards have changed, and from an academic perspective I don’t have anywhere near the background knowledge and depth of understanding to comment to a satisfactory standard. This doesn’t mean that I don’t have opinions, of course, they are just qualified with, “As far as I know”.

There is something I heard at an economics seminar recently and would like to share, though. It would seem that the macroeconomics establishment is currently trying to integrate banking into their models. Incredible as it may now seem, when I was taught macro the banking sector wasn’t considered worth making a variable in long term economic growth. Anyway, a professor demonstrated his new model, which was immensely complex and I didn’t follow all of. What struck me was in the Q&A at the end, when he commented that the growth prospects of the UK economy in the short and medium term depend on our current output gap. This is the currently unused capacity of the economy, which is just waiting to be used again when demand/confidence/both rise. Government economic forecasts rely on the existence of a significant output gap, which would allow economic growth to pick up rapidly. The interesting thing about the output gap as a variable in a complex macroeconomic model is where the data on it comes from; a qualitative survey of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). That’s a lot flimsier than it initially appears from the seemingly authoritative graphs and tables.

This isn’t the final entry, however, as I’ve unearthed a silly thing called, ‘Alice in the Age of Austerity’ that I wrote years ago in honour of Lewis Carroll’s birthday. I will post that soon. Moreover, don’t expect me to shut up on twitter. Indeed, perhaps I’m just being lazy? 140 characters are far less effort than a detailed blogpost. But I am expected to be lazy now, being a student.

I hope that something I’ve written here has interested you at some point. Thank you for reading Welcome to the Age of Austerity.

Don't think about it

Whilst trying to get my thoughts about climate change in order, I came across a book, ostensibly about transport and mobility, that clearly expressed several points that I was inarticulately groping for. It's always wonderful when that happens. The author is a Danish academic called Malene Freundenal-Pedersen. She examines transport choices from a sociological perspective, which provides a very interesting contrast to the predominantly technical, pseudo-objective approach transport planners use. But more than that, she describes some important general characteristics of 'late modern' life in the developed world:

1. Individualisation. (Emphasis on individual choices and the need/entitlement to create your own lifestyle that expresses who you are as an individual.)
   
   
2. A disassociation of time and space. (Technology allowing communication, work, and leisure pursuits to take place practically anywhere.)
   
   
3. Reflexivity. (This is a single word for the fact that we are aware of the society we live in, and are both influenced by it and influence it. The term implies a self-consciousness and need to substantiate or legitimise the conditions of society.)
   
   
4. Risk awareness. (Linked to reflexivity, as we are constantly re-evaluating risks based on a constant flow of new information.)

But the most important, to my mind, is the fifth: Ambivalence. This can be seen as a response to the first four factors, which in combination tend to produce insecurity and anxiety. A mass of information, a deluge of risks, a cavalcade of apparent contradictions, and an onerous set of expectations are hard to handle; unless you choose to ignore or deprioritise certain things. This is everyday ambivalence. For example, on a daily basis I'll contemplate which of my library books are close to being due back, whether I need to buy more peanut butter, and what I need to prepare for the next day. At the same time, I know but choose not to dwell on, for example, the facts that women work two-thirds of the world’s working hours but only earn 10% of the income, that China's economic boom is causing environmental catastrophe, and that there are approximately one billion people in the world without enough to eat. Overwhelming, unpalatable information of this kind abounds in the media, but usually loses the competition for attention with minutiae of life. As Freundenal-Pedersen puts it:

Ambivalence can have an overwhelming impact on everyday life and result in paralysis if not dealt with through routines.

As I understand it, ambivalence helps us get around the guilt that should result from awareness of the damage our comfortable lifestyles wreak. Thus, climate change is a phenomenon mired in ambivalence. Although the scientific consensus is unequivocal, we can't feel or touch climate change as such, struggle to fit it into our risk assessment frameworks, and cannot reconcile it with our individual lifestyle choices. The implications of this initially seem extremely gloomy, as it seem that before we even try and remake our economic and political systems to respond to climate change, we have to somehow overcome our collective social mindset and dominant culture.

I've said previously that I think imaginative, utopian thinking about the future is necessary to address climate change. We need to imagine a better world, and Freundenal-Pedersen neatly points out what that is so difficult in today's society:

Modern society has shaped us into individuals, with no room for utopian visions or communities shaping these visions. As individuals, we are too preoccupied with creating our own individualised picture and reality of the kind of life we wish to inhabit; a life which focuses on unlimited freedom and possibilities and opportunities to buy whatever we desire...

Without imagination and aspiration another, more real and significant menace is born when these imaginings, dreams, and utopias disappear, and we subsequently forget how to play and live life beyond the frames already existing...

We are getting swept into a cocktail of freedom as an individual good, with guilt becoming the regulator for how free we can actually act.

Things are not hopeless, though.

Many of the individualised citizens in late modern everyday life still dream about and long for strong communities, close connections, and less fear of the future.

How do we address our ambivalence? By telling new stories, contemplating better lives, and designing utopias together. Freundenal-Pedersen terms this 'social learning', which could be as simple as discussing collectively what you think would make the world better. We use narratives, often generated and reinforced by the media and advertising, to justify our daily choices to ourselves. These are changeable. Indeed, arguably reflexivity and constant access to information via technology allow narratives to evolve relatively quickly.

Now, I enjoyed this sociological theory, but it's only useful if the implications can be used pragmatically. In reality, do social understanding and norms shift slowly or abruptly? Conveniently, there is a striking example of an abrupt, institutionally-induced shift observable right now. It occurred shortly after 11th May 2010. Prior to that date, UK politicians spent their general election campaigns ducking the prospect of government spending cuts. Once the coalition government was in place, the emergency budget appeared and suddenly significant across-the-board cuts were presented as essential. The media, which has pounced on any mentions of cuts during election campaigning, appeared to turn upon the public sector. It was painted as bloated, wasteful, unnecessary, and an impediment to growth. Public services, including the welfare state, were without exception presented as unaffordable, overgenerous, and in need of reform. I don't think the scale of this shift in public consciousness has been adequately acknowledged. Prior to the election, talk of cutting benefits was basically taboo; now this is taken for granted. David Cameron has taken very effectively taken advantage of the UK's ambivalence towards the public sector.

In a slightly perverse way, the successful sale of of the austerity story to the British public gives me hope that a similar shift can occur in relation to climate change. Ambivalence can be exploited to drive through huge institutional change without the need for a public campaign, or even widespread public acceptance. You could even use the 2008 Climate Change Act as an example - it got widespread public support, but was subject to a virtually unprecedented level of political and media consensus. How many people really thought through its implications for their own daily lives? Would it have gained the same support if The Daily Mail had claimed, not without justification, that it would raise petrol prices? (I realise that this train of thought isn't giving much credence to democracy; how that interacts with climate change deserves and will get its own post.)

Freundenal-Pedersen suggests a renaissance of utopian thinking in civil society is necessary to slowly overcome ambivalence. Much as I like this idea, I consider it neither sufficient, nor fast enough. Reawakening utopian dreams is important, but most people will likely remain ambivalent about the infrastructure underpinning them. To have any hope of radically reducing emissions, I think we must also look to institutions.

All quotes from 'Mobility in Daily Life' (Malene Freundenal-Pedersen, 2009).

Social Science Fiction

The future is intrinsically fascinating to me and fiction presents it more vividly than most non-fiction. I will admit to something of a fondness for dytopian literature. Utopias are compelling too, but well-written ones are much harder to come by. So here is a slight digression from my climate change posts, a list of dystopian fiction recommendations. What issue most concerns you? These are all futures that we should try to avoid; pick your poison.

Acute housing shortage? Strikingly depicted in Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison. New York is stiflingly overpopulated, the oil has run out, anyone is entitled to squatters rights over the tiniest empty space and abandoned cars are prized as homes. I strongly suspect this book was written as an extended argument for the better access to contraception.

Endemic pollution destroying human health? Try The Sheep Look Up by John Brunner, a master of the genre. Constant food contamination scares and outbreaks of disease steadily push down American life expectancy and promote political instability. Overconsumption has poisoned the basic essentials of life. This novel has a particularly memorable, distinctly dark ending.

Capitalism gone to extremes? I give you Market Forces by Richard Morgan, in which Naomi Klein's worst nightmare manifests itself and civil wars offer the best investment opportunities. Über-macho traders duel with cars and kill anything in the path of profits. Although written prior to the credit crunch, probably reads more plausibly in light of it.

Dependence on the internet and obsession with celebrity? Gwyneth Jones' Bold As Love series is less depressing than most dystopias, but still depicts the collapse of civilisation and regression to subsistence-based feudal squalor. The catalytic event is the destruction of the internet, and events that follow include a civil war with armies led by pop stars.

Desertification and a precipitous fall in agricultural productivity? Earthworks by Brian Aldiss uncompromisingly shows the starvation and hopelessness resulting from inadequate food and crippling inequality. Unusually, it is centred on Africa, which adds to its punch.

Ground war in Europe with 21st century weaponry and guerilla methods? Kaleidoscope Century by John Barnes brings it to life. This novel is notably uncomfortable to read, in part due to the nature of the narrator. This is a Europe wracked by the horrors of failed states; war crimes and endemic AIDS.

Extreme weather triggered by climate Change? The Carbon Diaries by Saci Lloyd is to my mind the most immediately plausible of the bunch. It realistically explores how carbon rationing would work, through the eyes of a teenage girl. The tragedy is that it is already too late and climate change has taken hold. The discomfort of reducing your carbon footprint is neatly compared to the terror and danger of droughts, storms, and floods.

Withdrawal of public services and urban ghettoisation? The most effective depiction is a French action film, Banlieue 13 (District 13). Although predominantly an action flick, one of my favourites in fact, the premise is excellently realised. A deprived neighbourhood is walled in and has all public services withdrawn, as politicians no longer want to have to deal with it. Naturally, heavily armed drug dealers take over. To my disbelief, I recently read a US planning commentator recommend this exact approach, couched as allowing poorer areas to embrace the benefits of gated communities.

What I think characterises all these novels, as well as the dystopian genre in general, is the sense that things will only get worse. As I've said before, I think this mindset must be overcome in order to make progress in tackling climate change. Dystopian novels try to make a point and act as a warning, it isn't often that they propose a solution to whatever terrible situation humanity finds itself in. Wallowing in disaster is not a luxury that non-fiction, and reality, can afford. The vividness of dystopian novels is deceptive; the real world is much more complicated and ultimately interesting.

If you would prefer not to contemplate hellish theoretical futures, I suggest a recent, wonderfully snide novel of the banking crisis called Other People's Money by Justin Cartwright. Much too gentle and of the current moment to be a dystopia, it nonetheless dissects our relationships with banks and money beautifully. The old certainties of the banking system are dying. This novel could be read as a eulogy.

What do we want? When do we want it?

The first set of questions that occurred to me when considering climate change concern the future. What sort of future do we expect? What do we want the future to be like? Do we value the future less or more than the present? How far into the future do we consider it worth planning? How much risk to our desired future are we willing to tolerate? To what extent do we consider events beyond our lifetime as beyond our influence or interest?

Do we have a duty to future generations? I believe we do, as we should as species take responsibility for the problems that we've created. That's a grand statement, but translating it into policy is incredibly difficult. It's also easy to state that life is expected to improve as time passes, and that we should invest resources now to try and ensure this is the case. The counterargument generally raised to this is the current egregious state of inequality in the world. Billions still lack clean water, food, and basic bodily security. This is encompassed by the Millennium Development Goals, which are as follows: end poverty and hunger, universal education, gender equality, child health, maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, environmental sustainability, and global partnership. Climate change isn't explicitly mentioned, even under the seventh goal. Is it more important to meet these goals first, before we contemplate emissions reductions? Should our lack of willingness to solve today's problems be an excuse to dismiss those of the future?

In my view, it is deeply unwise to separate climate change from other long term global problems. Clearly climate change is already impeding the achievement of the Millennium Development goals and will continue to do so. Notably, the countries worst effected by climate change are those who have contributed least to it. Subsistence farmers will starve before subsidised agribusinesses notice much of any change in productivity. It is a horrible irony that the United Kingdom, where the Industrial Revolution began, will likely remain attractively temperate whilst millions are displaced from Asian coasts and equatorial Africa. This raises the ethical question: when we contemplate an abstraction of the future, are we really considering the welfare of our whole species? Do we just care about our own children, or those of our own country?

If we in the Western world genuinely believe that reducing our greenhouse gas emissions today is too expensive and would involve sacrificing too much of the comfort and convenience to which we have become accustomed, then so be it. However it is not acceptable to presume this without considering the full ethical ramifications. If we put off reductions in emissions, we are tacitly assuming that the future will be more dangerous, that currently entrenched problems will become more difficult to solve, and that our own wellbeing is both more important than that of future generations in general and those of developing world in particular. If we are to be that selfish, we should at least be honest with ourselves about it.

In the UK we have the 2008 Climate Change Act, a piece of legislation that commits successive governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels, before the year 2050. This is an extremely important thing, as it provides the first inkling of a vision for the future. Although it in no way ensures that the target will actually be met, setting out a framework for the future that is desired, expected, and planned for is a powerful step. The aim of the Act is to prevent each government from deferring action on climate change until the following term of office. If it can survive the current coalition intact, the Act will have started to do its job.

When the Climate Change Act was passed, it demanded consideration of what we expect the UK to be like 42 years in the future. Now 2050 is 38 years away. Consider how much has changed in the last 38, let alone 42, years. In 1974, society, technology, and politics were very different. The rate of change seems only to have accelerated since. Within the constraints of an 80% emissions cut, what do we want from 2050? Personally, I want greater equality, lower consumption, and a fundamental reassessment of economics. I want fossil fuels to be seen as quaint and outdated. I want understanding to be valued above ownership.

From a less idealistic angle, we could simply require security and prosperity in 2050. If ignored, climate change will diminish or even destroy both. A future of rapid warming and dramatic climate shifts is unlikely to be attractive to anyone. And yet approaching the future in this way, as something to be feared, seems to promote paralysis and short-termism. Climate change becomes something too terrifying to contemplate; might as well enjoy life and waste energy while we still can. It seems to me that getting to the point of meaningful action requires greater thought. Once you've accepted that the future will be different, it is vital to consider how you want it to be different. In the current trajectory of increasing emissions and floundering economics, I see a huge failure in imagination. Things won't stay the same. If we value the future at all, we have to consider how we want it to be. In the UK we at least have the Climate Change Act as a starting point.

What is climate change to you?

This term's lectures have got me thinking about climate change as an abstraction and about how we individually try to make sense of it (or not).

I've spent a fair amount of time reading and thinking about climate change, but have always had the sense that there is more I could investigate but choose not to. For instance, I haven't watched 'An Inconvenient Truth' as I assumed it was meant to convert doubters and so wouldn't be so relevant to me. Whether that's true or not is rather beside the point, it was a rationalisation I made as a result of thinking I knew enough about climate change. Essentially, I thought that knowing more would just depress me. I was being, perhaps rationally, a coward.

I get the impression I'm not the only one who has done something like this: avoided reading or hearing any more about climate change because it is just such a vast and terrifying concept to process. Individually, such avoidance seems rational as individually we can do relatively little to alter the scale of climate change, even if we can imagine it. But collectively humanity has caused a quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that are altering the climate. In theory we must, as a species, be able to deal with this. There are a vast array of obstacles preventing us from doing so, and the first is understanding what climate change is.

I do not mean the science. (If you want a crash course on that, try here.) I mean the translation of that science into understanding, into policy, politics, culture, and everyday life. Climate change is a process, it has no fixed beginning or end. It is not directly priced, it has uncertain timescales, and it forces us to confront many difficult questions outside the objective sphere of science, about the future of our species, how we live, and what we value. It is intangible and locationally unspecific. It can be seen as a controversy, as a justification for specific policies, as an inspiration for the reinvigoration of civic society, or as a threat to security. Analogies can be drawn with terrorism or the hole in the ozone layer. Commentators from scientific, policy, economic, legal, and ecological fields interpret it very differently. Different sections of the media frame it in a variety of ways, to fit their particular agendas and narratives.

I am trying to overcome my previous complacency and come to my own understanding of what climate change means. What is certain in that humanity is emitting greenhouse gases at an accelerating rate. We are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and our climate scientists agree that this is changing the climate. Our current economies, lifestyles, and cultures are dependent on such emissions. If we are to reduce our emissions as radically as science tells us we need to, then the process of change in the climate will need to be mirrored by a process of transformative change in humanity.

There is as yet no popular narrative, no story or metaphor, that adequately explains this. Indeed, our popular culture and zeitgeist seem averse to any change that isn't technological. The developed world seems to expect that the current economic, political, and social rut will continue, except with better iPads. Perhaps the first step to confronting climate change is accepting change, full stop. The future needs to be different to the present, very different. I wonder to what extent the denial of climate change and attacks on climate science are provoked by a fear of any change.

I intend this to be the first in a series of posts discussing difficult questions about climate change, to try and clarify my own thoughts as much as anything. Here is the point from which I start, which will doubtless colour everything else I might say on the subject: I believe that anthropogenic climate change is the greatest challenge faced by humanity. We are collectively capable of summoning the intelligence, vision, and resources to confront it, but are equally capable of not doing so. And I agree with George Monbiot that, 'If we fail in this task, we fail in everything else.'

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.