One-track minds

A really short history of one privatised railway route.

East Coast Mainline.

• First it was privatised. Taxpayers gave the franchisee billions in subsidy and through upgrading the infrastructure.
• Then the operator failed to make their insane financial model work and walked away: the state took it over again, in the form of a company called Directly Operated Railways. 
• DOR was so successful that subsidies come to 1% of its income, less than all the other 15 privatised operators, 32% of whose income is taxpayers' money, on average. 
• About 20% of the money paid back to the government by train operators comes from DOR. 
• DOR is to be privatised again. 

So in summary: a state railway, in a fair and real-world test, is shown to cost taxpayers, the government and the passenger less than a privatised one. So it's being privatised.

At this point, one can only surmise that evidence is far, far less important than ideology. What a stupid government.

Piss off, Portas

Those of you based in the UK may have seen lots of headlines about The Dark Place and 11 other cities winning £100,000 each to 'revitalise' their central districts, a competition overseen by the ubiquitous Mary Portas, one of those individuals who has turned self-confidence into national prominence.

Local bigwigs are orgasmic about this, which I think is utterly foolish. £100,000 is a nugatory sum to spend when the challenge is this big. It won't make the slightest bit of difference. Instead, the government has spent £1.2m to a) draw attention to the fact that most of Britain's urban areas are identically depressing and b) to further this woman's career.

The simple fact is that there are two ways to solve this city's problems. The first is to repair this country's damaged economy. That might sound glib and facile, but I mean it, and you certainly won't hear my useless multimillionaire MP Paul Uppal (last website update: 1 month, last Tweet: 17 days) making this point. Conservative and conservative Labour governments decided to pursue an economy based on rock-bottom wages for the vast majority, with the proceeds of financial speculation temporarily filling the gap in government funds. That's come to a crashing halt and the population is too poor to carry on spending.

If you believe in consumerism - and I don't - then the answer is easy: pay people more. Divert some of the billions which accrue to directors and shareholders (FTSE CEOs earn an average £2.7m) and thence offshore, to the workers. They'll buy new shoes and wallpaper and Katie Price 'novels' and ice-creams and bicycles.

Secondly, this competition is a symptom of our urban failure, rather than a solution. The language is of consumption, while the planet burns. What this town needs is a mixed economy, like an Italian city centre. Not just a place to shop (the appalling Paul Uppal prefers to talk about shoppers who should be privileged rather than citizens) but a place to chat, flirt, sunbathe, vote, argue, preach, proselytise, sing and dance, read and rally. City centres should be microcosms of their communities: we need to reflect the messiness and irrationality of the population. If the kids want to skateboard and the old people want to sit and watch the world go by, they should be free to do so.

Sadly, The Dark Place has opted for the sterility of the monoculture.

 But most of the money will be used for a Dragon's Den-style project to support entrepreneurs while solving one of the city's biggest problems. Wolverhampton has the fifth highest level of empty shops in the country, and so new businesses will be given grants to move into abandoned buildings to trade and showcase their work.

This is ridiculous. Cities are more complicated than piss-poor TV entertainment. We all know what 'entrepreneurs' want: subsidies and higher profits, achieved by blackmailing local government, importing shoddy tat and depressing wages. Who are these 'entrepreneurs'? What qualifies them for the term? Who judges them? Why not 'support' local citizens - perhaps some of these abandoned buildings could be turned into Citizens' Advice Centres, trades union offices, child-care centres, art galleries or educational establishments (we used to have a city-centre 'HE Shop': long since closed).

Local power has been put into the hands of 'City Centre Company' known as WV One (sadly and rather covertly supported by my employer, the local university, though perhaps it will provide a non-consumerist voice), rather than retained by local government in the interests of all.

WV One works with partners in a co-ordinated and proactive way across the city to attract new investment, shopping and leisure facilities and to encourage continued improvement in the city's environment, safety and access. 

As far as I can see, there has been no debate about this. The result is that the city's future will be narrowly focussed on consumerism, and by corporate consumerism at that. The city is virtually dead in terms of independent shops: there's no baker, no cheese shop, no independent book shop, no wine and beer outlets, no independent shoe shops and very few independent clothes shops.

The result of course is that shoppers' money flows out of the town to Swiss and Cayman accounts.  The physical results are two-fold: appalling architecture and a population discouraged from doing anything other than shop in the city centre. If WV One and its counterparts in other cities get their way, any non-consumerist behaviour will result in exclusion from space which once seemed public but turn out to be private.

This is already under way here. Under the deeply Orwellian headline: BID Will Put Businesses In Charge, WV One announces that local democracy has been abandoned. I thought - perhaps naively - that I was in charge, in some small way, by casting my vote for a council. But no.

A Wolverhampton-educated woman has been appointed to lead the establishment of a Business Improvement District (BID) that will put local businesses in charge of improving the city centre trading environment.
University of Wolverhampton law graduate Michelle Baker has joined WV One as BID Director with a brief to help city centre companies decide if this is the right approach for Wolverhampton.

Thanks Michelle, but a) there are almost no 'local businesses', just national and international chains, and b) how about us, the inhabitants. The paucity of Michelle's thinking is cruelly exposed:

“A BID can stimulate economic growth and a positive sense of place but for businesses, the real benefits are on the bottom line.  With the support of city centre companies, a BID in Wolverhampton could provide a quality shopping and social experience in the city centre with increased footfall and consumer spend and reduced crime levels.  It would stimulate the economy, improve on the existing appeal and market the city centre as a destination of choice.”  

These could be additional security measures, more events, city centre hosts or rangers and better marketing to attract footfall.”

They just can't think further than corporate profits - not that this kind of announcement is brought to the attention of the general public, who would, I suspect, think of themselves as more than pound notes with footfalls.

We need to beware of these weasel words: what does she mean by a 'social experience'? We know that Uppal and Co. want to sweep the streets clean of beggars, religious loonies, political groups and charity collectors - just like Albert Speer in Germania. 'Additional security measures' = private security guards with no responsibility to the general public, just to their employers, no duty to prevent crime, simply the task of getting rid of inconvenient or annoying people. As to these 'city centre hosts or rangers': how are they any better than 'charity muggers'? Either they're salesmen for tacky promotions or they're another force used to sweep the streets clean of intransigent non-enthusiasts. (Read all about this and similar schemes in Anna Minton's excellent Ground Control).

This city is full of weird and wonderful people, with interesting and exciting ideas. Many of them work for the council, so it's strange that that organisation is so keen to pass on its responsibilities to these unelected, partisan and unaccountable bodies. There's little sign in the city centre of citizens' priorities, ideas or activities - nor will there be if Portas and her friends get their way. The mantra - despite 4 years of evidence to the contrary - is 'private good, public bad'. I reject this. Citizens are brilliant, and its time we stopped accepting that we're the lead weight on the economic and social balloon. That's why I'm such a big fan of UK Uncut - the real Big Society.

At least Michelle and her friends are honest in this headline: this is a coup. The question is, what are you and I going to do about it?

Update: Uppal's risen from his regeneration tank to 'welcome' the bid. Thus proving that while he doesn't believe disabled children deserve state benefits, private business does. So he is a socialist of sorts… redistributing our taxes from the poor to the rich. (Oh yes, could somebody show him how to deploy an apostrophe?). 

O Brave New World…

(… that has such people in't, as Prospero says).

The Prime Minister wants to privatise public services

"We will create a new presumption – backed up by new rights for public service users and a new system of independent adjudication – that public services should be open to a range of providers competing to offer a better service. 

Right. Because corporations are so competent, compete freely on quality and price, and always have the consumers' best interests at heart.

Do they ever operate cartels to fix prices? Oh yes.
Do private healthcare firms cheat their customers? Why yes, they do.
Is privatised rail travel cheaper and better? Well, no. And taxpayers are funding the 'privatised' companies more than we funded British Rail.
Surely something's worked better in the private sector? How about Directory Enquiries (the 118 numbers). Sorry: the prominent firms cost about £1.40 to dial and then take many more pounds off you if you let them 'complete' your call.

Well, look, surely the corporations, because they're driven by a need to make profits, are rational and clever?

I don't even need links for this one. Just a list.

Lloyds
Barclays
Natwest
Royal Bank of Scotland
Northern Rock
Britannia
HBOS
Bradford and Bingley
Goldman Sachs
Lehman Brothers
JP Morgan
Barings
(and for the historians)
Guinness / Distillers / Mirror Group and many, many more.

What about the privatised industries? Haven't they thrived, once freed from the dead hand of the state? To name but a few:

British Steel
Rover
British Coal
British Nuclear Fuels
ICI

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Cracks in another tyranny

Looks like the Tories' childish plan to sell our forests to the highest bidder has been suspended 'to allow for a review' (quietly and cynically, while we're thinking about Egypt). They're even managing to blame the previous government, which is a bit of a stretch. If a stupid idea falls when nobody's watching, does it make a sound?

Let's attack student fees, the EMA and the NHS dismantling next. But don't forget the greenwood: it's only a suspension.

This blog brought to you by BeJam

Kerrywoman points me in the direction of this article by Vincent Browne, about the corporatisation of public space, and the way we blithely accept that corporate interests should trump all other concerns.

Browne objects to the way that the new national rugby stadium in Ireland is known as the Aviva Stadium instead of the old Lansdowne Road, despite the Irish taxpayer funding well over half the project. Names are important in Ireland - plenty of streets, towns and counties had their British colonial names replaced with Irish ones (e.g. Dún Laoghaire used to be Kingstown), but would anyone in Britain object?

Certainly Stoke City's new ground was the Britannia from day one, and I haven't heard anyone object to the Emirates - but how would you feel about the Tesco Wembley Arena or Twiglets Twickenham? Bodyform Buckingham Palace?

Save the BBC

Like the Open University, the NHS, the Royal Mail and other British public services, the BBC is an absolute star, proof that government works. Like these other institutions, it has problems, and like them, it's under attack by the forces of capitalism which say that only profit should inform our thinking (despite the global demonstration of capitalism's rapacity and appetite for destruction we're currently enduring).

The BBC is terrified of the incoming Conservative Party government.

If there's a single reason to vote Labour, it's that the Tories are going to cut everything that impedes the power of their friends. Usually, parties stand on a ticket of what they think is good for the citizens: with the Tories, they stand for whatever is good for their friends, and screw the voter (whom they construct as a bundle of greed, fear and selfishness anyway). They need to remember this: the market is a tool, not an end in itself. If we don't want it, it should go. The people like the BBC. Only tawdry commercial rivals, driven by greed and an outdated ideology, want to destroy it. Unfortunately, our political leaders listen only to such people.

In particular, this means that the BBC is going to be stripped bare because Murdoch's News International wants advert-funded, biased, hysterical and profitable TV to replace publicly-funded provision.

If you're a pop music fan, imagine a world in which you only ever hear top-ten, major label, reality-TV derived stuff. No Lady Gaga, no weird novelty hits, no Joy Divisions or bedroom tinkerers or odd commentators on life as it's lived now. Just an endless succession of manufactured, demographically calculated mimers or fake rebels advertising hair wax. If you like classical music, prepare yourself for a world in which the only tracks played have been sanitised by appearing on adverts (ClassicFMworld).

If you like news, imagine a world in which corporate activity is always presented as saintly. One in which newscasters tell you that the Prime Minister is a communist, or a reverse racist or a Nazi (i.e. watch Fox News now). Investigative journalism - dead. Speaking truth to power - gone. Boring but important investigations - abolished.

If you like comedy, imagine a world without Chris Morris, Alan Partridge, The League of Gentlemen and a host of others. Nothing weird, innovative or worthy - just programs tailored by the demands of advertisers. I doubt that the Tories will tolerate The Thick of It.

There are programs made by and for Tories which will go to the wall too. Songs of Praise: brought to you by some televangelist. Antiques Roadshow, sponsored by Cash4Gold. Last of the Summer Wine, full of Sanatogen product placement. Points of View? Not any more: f**k you. Kids' TV sponsored by McDonald's and a host of tatty toy manufacturers. Soaps advertising soap once more… Normal Tories like the BBC as much as anyone else: it's only the corporate shills at the top of the party who hate the idea that the public sphere should give any space to noncorporate voices.

And imagine this schlock punctuated (indeed, suffused with) adverts, product placements and hectoring. A shrunken public sphere in which only consumption has value.

Who wrote this BBC proposal?

It was drawn up by the corporation’s director of policy and strategy, John Tate, a former head of the Conservative policy unit, who co-wrote the party’s 2005 manifesto with David Cameron.

All becomes clear. The Tories have captured the BBC already. It's a hostage: bound, gagged, whimpering and developing Stockholm Syndrome. Why else would you employ someone who is ideologically opposed to your very existence. John Tate should be sacked, then tarred and feathered by the viewers.

This is hell. And it's coming to your living room in 2 months' time.

Workers of the World, Throw Off Your Labels

Let me tell you a story.

During the first half of the century, people looked at their schools, hospitals, transport systems, mail companies, prisons and a whole host of other services and realised that if they all got together and paid for them to be run by the state, they'd be more efficient and distributed/run fairly. So we gradually acquired state railways, a National Health Service, pensions and other benefits and government-run schools.

Then governments stopped investing in such services properly, because while taxpayers demanded top quality services, they didn't want to pay for them - except in genuinely civilised countries like Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. These services declined - not terribly, but appreciably.

Then a new bunch of lying, smart-suited gits came along and said that 'efficiency' was the preserve of capitalism, because 'competition' would drive prices down. The Conservatives fell for this hook line and sinker, because they don't believe in all of us pulling together anyway - they want competition between citizens. So the rich can buy better services and the rest of us have to put up with whatever we can afford. If you think that's fine, look at the American health service, which takes up far more of the national income than the British one, yet leaves 46 MILLION people outside the healthcare system, on top of a decline in wages since the 1970s. So much for efficiency. The drive to make a profit contradicts the desire for quality - you only have to look at private prisons, 'outsourced' school meals and hospital cleaning or privatised railways to see that profits are derived by cutting corners.

The little things get to me on a daily basis - not being able to afford dental work, Coke machines in schools, 'sponsored' roundabouts, adverts on everything. Prisoners given no chance for rehabilitation because education, drug treatment and pyschiatric help are expensive - and now my institution never mentions the social and intellectual benefits of education: instead, we have a 'business' model in which 'efficiency' conquers all. How 'efficient' is opening a new world to a student through a good book or a fiery discussion? Not at all - so let's get rid of it. O Brave New World.

Think of this: imagine a world without the BBC. No licence fee, you might think. Brilliant. Then you notice that the news is a bit lightweight. Fewer overseas correspondents. Less politics - your advertisers don't want you upsetting the government. Then perhaps the consumer investigations will disappear - your advertisers certainly don't want you criticising them. Perhaps Top Gear, already a whore for the car industry, stops saying anything negative at all. Your soaps start featuring little plugs for products. The weather report tells you to get down to B and Q to buy a barbecue - and suddenly your world has no space not festooned with adverts.

You kick in the TV and lacerate your foot. You dial 118 999 and after a while, it's answered somewhere in Southeast Asia. After some negotiation, a private ambulance arrives, meter running. You look through the brochures, trying to decide which hospital you should go to - the ambulance driver's suggestions carry a hint of 'on commission'. They all look the same - reassuring doctors, smiling nurses, TV in every room, but there's no price list and you can't tell which one's best. You give up and pick the first one on the pile. Oh dear - 15 miles is expensive, and your insurance doesn't cover the ambulance trip. Nor, when you arrive in a state of considerable delirium, does it cover self-inflicted wounds, and treatment will max out your credit card, so you accept an expensive, branded aspirin from a tired doctor wearing a Boots the Chemist white coat and a bandage and hope you get better. Oops - the hospital cleaning has been outsourced to a company which provides inadequate numbers of ununionised, untrained cleaners who, unmotivated by the recently-reduced minimum wage and long hours, don't make the best job of it. So you pick up MRSA.

Time off to recover? No chance - benefits have been cut and privatised, and you're not 'deserving' - you hobble back to minimum wage work and never walk properly again, and lose your job as a postman for one of the private services. You turn to minor crime and end up in a privatised cell for 23 hours a day, losing your skills, getting ill on no exercise and the worst, cheapest food available and picking up a drug habit and some useful criminal skills. On your release you find that your kids, having departed Coke High with no qualifications but a conviction that fizzy drinks help the world to sing 'in perfect harmony', can't support you or even themselves.

All this is because you don't want to pay taxes. Of course, it will only happen to other people. Poor people. You and your kids can go to private schools, elite universities and professional jobs - unsullied by the predations of companies owned by your pension fund and encouraged by the governments you vote in because they talk about 'hard-working families' needing tax-breaks, about 'choice' and efficiency. Not your fault. When they steal from you, smash up your SUV, rob your mobile phone, it's because they're evil, feckless scum who don't want to work or better themselves. Isn't it?

(I gather the US isn't far from this dystopian vision already).

All this, actually, is just a plea for you to read John Harris's piece in today's Guardian, in which he warns us all of what to expect over the next few years. It's grim. Here's a little bit on hospital cleaning:

Not long ago, I met two hospital cleaners whose jobs in Bury St Edmunds had been outsourced to a company that blithely cut the workforce in half. "We were always on about infection in the hospital," one of them said. "Instead of four cleaners on the ward, they said, 'We're going to put it down to two people, but you won't have to hoover.' Effectively, they were saying, 'clean less'."

Don't vote Labour - they love this stuff because it's not socialism and they're all joining the boards of private service providers. Don't vote Tory. They love this stuff because it's not socialism and they own the private service providers. Oh dear.

Sorry. I seem to have become suddenly rather angry. The sooner I move to Norway, the better.