Politics

Mixedmatt is quite the Politician :-) …

Improving the UK rail network, improves the Environment

by Matthew

Higher taxes on the most polluting forms of transport (such as car, air travel, and shipping) should be used to subsidise infrastructure and greener alternatives. It is important that a balance involving the economic cost of a tax increase, versus the damage to the environment is made a priority by policymakers.

That being said, it is clear to see some infrastructure improvements currently in progress on the UK rail network do not go far enough, with some even scrapped altogether (the HS2 Eastern Leg).

What needs to happen
The government needs to invest in UK rail infrastructure (new rolling stock, re-opening of branch lines closed by the Beeching axe of the 1960s) the modernisation/reduction of fares (this has begun and is a positive), and nationalisation of underperforming routes. Such policies if implemented effectively will have the effect of reducing car traffic, and in turn reducing emissions, particularly in more built-up areas. Good progress has and is being made. Some of this is current, some yet to be implemented.

The economic benefits of a joined-up rail infrastructure are extensive. The East West Rail estimates the area’s economic output could lose out by around £93 billion each year without major intervention to address the lack of suitable housing and poor east-west connectivity (East West Railway Company, 2021). What this points to is an increase in government spending is needed on these new infrastructure projects.

The current infrastructure additions
Some infrastructure additions do not go far enough. One of those arguably has to be the East-West Railway, which is currently in construction and is set to be completed in 2030. The line will not be electrified, which means diesel-powered trains will be operating on the line when it opens in 2030. This is illogical as the UK has committed to reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions to net-zero by 2050.

As the Bedford and Kempston MP Mohammad Yasin states “If he (the chancellor) is serious, this week of COP 26 is a good opportunity to commit to the new East-West Rail line being electrified from day one to avoid the need for diesel locomotives and the future costs of retrofitting”.

He has a point, the cost of electrifying admittedly older lines such as the great western mainline has been put at £2.8bn. This is not to mention that electric trains are more reliable and less damaging to track and other infrastructure.

Fitting gantries at a later date means line closures to fit components in tunnels and clearing vegetation to make way for gantries. The case for electrification whilst constructing the railway is sound. Making the investment now will prevent passenger delays and extensive costs later on.

The eastern leg of HS2 (phase 2b) has been scrapped, with HS2 trains now set to run on existing upgraded routes that are already at or near full capacity. To make matters worse they will be operating at nowhere near their designed speed on these lines.

Another setback to the project is the speed on the main HS2 line looks set to be reduced from 248mph to somewhere near 205mph, possibly even further. The frequency of the trains has also been stepped back (Badshah, 2023).

Efficiency
Short-termism and short-sightedness are plaguing large infrastructure projects like this. Governments often only see five years in the future. The reaction to increased home working as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has led many to doubt whether rail capacity will ever increase to pre-pandemic levels.

This is a mistake, the UK population is projected to grow by 2.1 million over the ten years to mid-2030, with England’s population expected to increase more quickly then the other UK nations (Robards, 2022). The ability reliable rail travel has to take cars off the road is well documented (Timperley, 2019).

What is to be done?
Electrification should start as soon as possible across the whole of East-West rail. Other electrification projects should be considered on other lines across the UK network as a priority. Doing this now not only helps the UK meet climate targets but it will keep future costs down, and increases service reliability.

References
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/07/hs2-ministers-to-cut-services-and-speeds-to-drive-down-costs-reports-say

East West Rail must be ‘electrified from day one’ says project promoter

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59334043

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim

Where will our food come from?

by Matthew

As politicians talk big on the climate, one issue that all nations seem unable to grapple with, is that of food supply. Where will our food come from?

This question is of huge concern because the quantity of food actually demanded at present, and is only a fraction of what will be demanded (needed) in the future. The UN estimates that the world’s population is expected to increase by 2 billion persons in the next 30 years, from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050.

At present population growth and climate change are the current and most likely issues to place continual stress on the food system in the long run. As these stresses continue to increase, the cost to the consumer increases.

Other sharp shocks can do significant damage to food systems, such as pandemics (COVID-19) and conflict (the Russian invasion of Ukraine). Both, have the potential to be more common occurrences in the decades to come with the environmental pressures brought on by climate change.

The short-run effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have largely been felt on warehouses and supermarket shelves. On the other end, the problems are not quite so obvious and are brewing.

Environmental issues: Soil and food production
That other end is the production of food, with approximately a third of the world’s soil degraded, and this could rise to 90% by 2050 without action.

To feed 10 billion people we will need 56% more food to be produced globally

The causes of soil degradation vary, the main issues globally are desertification, climate change, the loss of biodiversity and population growth. However, pollution, run-off, erosion, and incorrect agriculture usage also contribute.

Population Growth
Along with other interconnected issues that affect food production. Human society is faced with a historically unique period of population growth, due to a dramatic decline in death rates coupled with constant fertility rates in much of the world. Population growth today consists of lower morality but high birth rates.

This has undoubtedly led to a huge increase in food being demanded in a short period of time, as fertile land decreases.

At present, the demand for food has seen agricultural land expand with the logging of forests and clearance of swamps.

This competition for usable land directly causes environmental issues such as insufficient biodiversity and increasing climate change.

On the one hand, Controls on population growth are desperatly needed in order to sustain the planet but the controls will result in a downturn of the current economic system. The current economic system relies on younger people and exponential growth to contribute to pay retirees pensions.

The impact of Conflict: the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Conflict places its own unique stress on food systems. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has placed increased strain on a food system still creaking due to the effects of the COVID pandemic.

Ukraine is known as being the breadbasket of the world (The Economist, 2022). Whilst this conflict has no climate/environmental origins more conflict will arise due to environmental degradation.

Foreign policy argues that conflict will be less the direct kind but that climate change and environmental degradation will play a significant role in fueling tensions—particularly in conditions of resource scarcity—by compounding existing political, socioeconomic, and security risks (Foreign Policy, 2022).

What we know is there are some troubling times ahead in terms of politics, policy, and migration.

Manufactured food and technology
Manufactured food provides some theoretical solutions to many of these problems. Lab grown meat and plant food can be manufactured but we do not know if these solutions would be better for the environment until mass production is well under way.

Mass production is by extremely energy and resource intensive. As a solution to this crisis it is limited in scope.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) specifies four dimensions of food security. These are food availability, food access, food stability and food use/utilisation.

New, existing, and emerging technologies can address the four dimensions of food security. For example, genetic modification, methods for improving soil fertility, and irrigation technologies can increase food availability (UNCTAD, 2017).

The solutions
Population control – This requires unpopular measures such as the very direct taxation on family sizes or indirect methods of discouraging citizens from having families. Through behavioural instruments for example.

Population control means ending growth, capitalist systems require population growth. Pension systems need a continual supply of younger workers to pay for the pensioners of today. Therefore, population growth requires an upending of capitalism to replace it with another system. A big task!

Technology – Investment in food technology provides some solutions. A lot less land is needed now than in the past to grow the same amount of food, efficiency gains are also far greater. Look at the use of the mechanical plough and in the 21st century drone technology to conduct yield analysis.

Technology offers a lot of potential in terms of increasing yields, shrinking resource usage, and reducing post-harvest losses. It also presents risks, as often the most fertile land identified by scanning technologies is land used as forest or wildlife ecosystems.

Diet changes also have the potential to offer part of a solution to the issue. This has not been discussed above but I bring it into solutions as diet changes are very important to solving this crisis.

Consuming insects instead of meat is one option pre-covid that was pretty much very intensely discussed in food circles and researched on this blog. It provides one option of increasing food supply. However, over consumption is a real risk and most countries already suffer issues with lack of diversity and fewer insects. Consumption of insects will be unsustainable in the long run and place strain on other parts of the food system.

Avoiding meat and dairy reduces global emissions, which has the possibility to in turn increase food supply indirectly. Vegetarian and vegan diets are growing in popularity often due to health benefits. The catch here are that vegetarian/vegan diets need to be balanced to make sure the correct nutrients are being consumed so as to avoid malnutrition.

It is important to state that nearly all of the above options to policymakers to increase food supply are only able to be enacted by richer countries.

One thing we do know is that our supermarket shelves will continue to look sparse. Richer countries need to work through and together with NGOs and international organisations in order to guarantee future food security, without this, the question of where will our food come from, will evolve to become where can we find food.

———————————-
Biblography and sources of interest

Askew, K. (2017) Population growth ‘a threat to food quality’ [Online]. Available at https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2017/11/10/Population-growth-a-threat-to-food-quality (Accessed 5 September 2022).

Davies, L. (2022) ‘Millions at risk in South Sudan as Ukraine war forces slashing of aid’, The Guardian, 14th June [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/14/millions-at-risk-in-south-sudan-as-ukraine-war-forces-slashing-of-aid-world-food-programme (Accessed 24 June 2022).

Harter, F. (2022) ‘“Marching towards starvation”: UN warns of hell on earth if Ukraine war goes on’, The Guardian, 17th June [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/17/united-nations-wfp-hell-on-earth-ukraine-war-russia (Accessed 24 June 2022).

Holmes, O. (2022) ‘US announces plan to build silos on Ukraine border to export grain’, The Guardian, 15th June [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/15/us-build-silos-ukraine-border-export-grain-food-prices (Accessed 24 June 2022).

http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/unsustainable-population-levels (n.d.) Unsustainable population levels | The Encyclopedia of World Problems [Online]. (Accessed 18 November 2021).

Live, A. P. N. (2018) ‘Desertification, Land Degradation, Drought cost India 2.54% of its GDP in 2014-15: Teri study – APN Live’, APN News [Online]. Available at https://www.apnlive.com/desertification-land-degradation-drought-cost-india-2-54-of-its-gdp-in-2014-15-teri-study/ (Accessed 18 November 2021).

Michael Fakhri and Sofia Monsalve (2017) ‘Ukraine helps feed the world – but its farmers, seeds and future are in danger’, The Guardian [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/13/ukraine-farmers-seed-food-crisis (Accessed 24 June 2022).

Monbiot, G. (n.d.) The banks collapsed in 2008 – and our food system is about to do the same | George Monbiot | The Guardian [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/19/banks-collapsed-in-2008-food-system-same-producers-regulators (Accessed 19 May 2022).

Morris, M. (2022) ‘Where will our food come from? | MatthewAshley.co.uk’, [Online]. Available at https://matthewashley.co.uk/?p=5429&preview=true (Accessed 28 August 2022).

Ranganathan, J., Waite, R., Searchinger, T. and Hanson, C. (2018) ‘How to Sustainably Feed 10 Billion People by 2050, in 21 Charts’, [Online]. Available at https://www.wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts (Accessed 5 September 2022).

The Economist (n.d.) ‘The coming food catastrophe’, The Economist [Online]. Available at https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/05/19/the-coming-food-catastrophe (Accessed 22 May 2022).

The Encyclopedia, of World Problems, and & Human Potential (n.d.) ‘The role of science, technology and innovation in ensuring food security by 2030’, p. 55.

Tisdall, S. (2022) ‘Apocalypse now? The alarming effects of the global food crisis’, The Observer, 21st May [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/21/apocalypse-now-the-alarming-effects-of-the-global-food-crisis (Accessed 22 May 2022).

Is the free market the barrier to solving social problems or the remedy?

by Matthew

Despite what we hear in the news media the free market (less government intervention) does not practically exist. However, that does not deter commentators discussing the negatives and positives of the so-called free market that democratic countries seemingly operate in.

Whilst economically protectionist policies (more government intervention) can have detrimental effects in the markets (countries) they are implemented in, they also can serve to work to the advantage of a trading economy.

Matthew’s sliding market economy scale 🙂

In reality, economies of all major trading blocks and nations are best described as being on a sliding scale, with more open economies (less barriers) the UK be considered one, to more planned economies (increased barriers) North Korea at the extreme end.

It is important to keep in mind that despite what is perpetuated on the news and by commentators, the “free market” does not actually exist in reality, and is more theoretical. In practice, all markets in the world are mixed economics.

It is also important to remember that the economy is connected and not independent of other aspects of the world, like the environment, health and future well-being. Economics degrees at some universities are rigid and dictate that economies are separable. However, the work that groups such as rethinking economics is doing to change economic curriculums is outstanding.

The Social Problem and the 2019 General Election
In the 2019 UK General Election this falsehood continued to be perpetuated. The Labour party pushed the narrative that the free market is detrimental to the UK by pushing for more government intervention, through renationalisation and much tighter regulation of the way business operates (Elliot, cited in The Guardian, 2019).

The Labour party focused on its big selling points in its manifesto; free broadband, free adult learning, free dental care, the biggest council house building in a decade, abolishing tuition fees and the establishment of maintenance grants (Elliot, cited in The Guardian, 2019). None of which are bad socially, although how effective a policy of free broadband is questionable (how would the market correct itself in the case of a market failure?). For example, if the sole free broadband provider begun to experience severe technical issues, then where does that leave its customers?

Freer markets as a solution to societal issues
So, why do those who advocate for free markets, or shall we say “freer” markets think of them as solution to all manner of society’s problems?

Solving the societal issues with less intervention
Let us go back to a definition of what a “free market” is, Britannica defines one as:
“An unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal (Orlitzky, 2018). ”

Many economists hold that no one can be made better off without making other individuals worse off, (like the absence of externalities or informational asymmetries, among others) (Orlitzy, 2018).

According to this theory, the indivisible-hand mechanism of self-regulating behaviour, society benefits by having self-interested actors make free economic decisions that benefit them (Orlitzy, 2018).

Many arguments are put forward for using increasingly freer markers with less regulation for solving social issues. From homelessness to climate change, or the quality and safety of council homes.

Indeed, the desire for freer markets can go full circle and begin to adopt protectionist elements. Some advocates for less government intervention in markets, are in favour of the UK leaving the European Union. Such an exit no matter what the end deal is, does lead to a scenario where additional trading barriers are put up with the UK’s largest and closest trading partner.

The advantages of freer markets: Innovation
There are many advantages of freer markets, however, I have decided to focus on one area for clarity and to keep this article concise.

Freer markets are advantageous in that they can provide freedom to innovate more easily. This is probably the strongest argument for less government intervention in markets in the 21st century. A lot of social problems are the result of the lack of innovation.

Depicting the effect of a negative externality and market failure

Without innovation we would not have had steam engine technology or information technology, which has opened markets, created new business models and connected those disadvantaged and excluded from society.

The disadvantages of freer markets: Market Failure

The disadvantages of freer markets are numerous, from profit being the motive for success, market failure, and equality not always equating to equal opportunity. I have selected the one disadvantage that I believe to be most pressing. A free market requires consumption to survive, and it requires this a at unsustainable level, in a finite world.

As the COVID-19 pandemic is proving if people stop spending instead of spending on goods and services a freer market will struggle to stay alive.

Freer markets require spending and production, which consumes vast amounts of natural resources. Freer markets can contribute to increases in pollution, however, they can through emission trading schemes also be used to cut emissions, with intervention! (Such as the European Union’s ETS scheme).

You can see that issues are not black and white and a combination of intervention and freer markets’, work together to achieve targets rather than orthodoxy.

Shifting the sliding scale: Freer markets in the age of Brexit and COVID 19
The challenge the UK faces at present with Brexit and COVID 19 poses significant challenges.

The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union is bringing with it a huge number of unintended/unseen consequences.
The proponents of the UK leaving the European Union argued that a free trade deal negotiated with the European Union would more advantageous than membership itself.

However, the pursuit for freer trade has led to an increase of trade friction (through being a third country) with Department for International Trade officials to advising British business to form EU-based companies to circumvent border issues.

This is an example of an unintended consequence of leaving the European Union, it could be argued however, this was forecast. What this shows is the pursuit for freer markets can in fact have the opposite effect.

COVID 19 poses a significant economic and social threat globally. There is no doubt that economic competition in the pursuit of self-interest between various large pharmaceutical companies aided the rapid development of vaccines. However, those private sector achievements were only matched by public sector intervention.

In Conclusion
This article is not comprehensive but does bring key points to the fore.

Both interventionism and non-interventionism in markets have drawbacks. What this article shows is that the trade-offs have undesirable outcomes, which is too damaging for a country to go one way over the other.

For this reason, countries deploy a mixture of the two. The COVID 19 pandemic is one such example with many large economies intervening in markets to bail out businesses and support citizens.

——

Coronavirus: The Importance of food security

by Matthew

The Coronavirus pandemic has shaken the globe. This once in a lifetime disaster has claimed over 100,000 lives globally and continues to do so. Most international crises do not directly lead to job losses, death, economic insecurity or food insecurity. However, this pandemic has trigged all three.

Food security, or insecurity is largely a problem of the developing world. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) defines food security as “existing when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2020).

To put this into context in the developed world, people do not have to grow their own food for survival, or additional sustenance, however, in the developing world this is more common. Smallholders are dependent on their land, and in many cases are not fortunate to have access to supermarkets as those in the developed world do. This month bare shelves brought the long neglected issue of food insecurity to the unaware rich world.

Panic Buying

As grocery items on shelves disappeared, panic further increased. Shelves in supermarkets that were stripped bare of hand sanitiser and handwash the previous week were soon stripped, of toilet rolls, fresh fruit and veg, tinned food, cereals, crisps, meat, fresh and frozen. Supermarkets imposed limits (arguably way too late). Shelves that were restocked by night workers in supermarkets, were quickly stripped bare by shoppers who rushed in when the stores opened.

What all this demonstrated, is that the supply of food, particularly in the end stage, delivery to customer is especially fragile. Whether through online delivery, or in store. The supermarkets have assured the general public that enough food is available which may be true but the delivery of it to consumers is the weak link. It is possible to see supply disrupted by a number of sick delivery drivers causing issues for supermarkets in a region of the country.

Supply of food in the developed world in normal times is rarely a pressing issue. As Tim Laing professor of food policy at London’s City University puts it “panic buying aside, our supermarket shelves are usually full. We have access to a greater range of ingredients at better prices than at any time in human history” (Laing, 2020).

As a researcher on this topic its interesting to see an actual focus on short and long term issues of food security globally.

Laing in his book warns that the UK is food system is overstretched, open to disruption and far from resilient (Laing, 2020).

Laing goes further to state the bitter reality that faces us ‘we have a massively fragile just-in-time supply chain which could easily collapse; a depleted agriculture sector which produces only around 50% of the food we actually eat, leaving us at the mercies of the international markets; and production methods which are damaging to the environment and human health’ (Laing, 2020).

With UK overeliance on international markets and an inability to grow enough food (due to lack of usable land) for its citizens, which is not solely a UK issue. We have to turn to researching into other means of production and look into altering the means of consumption incrementally.

The food system is fragile, complex and not able to react to the demands of panic buying without interventionist policies, food is very much a finite resource and the production of it even more so. A good thing was at the time of this crisis there were no high rates of food loss present in the UK. This would have put untold strain on the food supply system. The panic buying has now ceased, largely because people have stocks of food to last over two weeks and also because of the restrictions in place at the major supermarkets.

One thing the pandemic is demonstrating is that policymakers must be proactive with regards to the food system, it is not enough for policymakers to take a laissez-faire approach.

More updates on the topic of food security, particularly in this context will be posted here.

References:

Rayner, J. (2020) Diet, health, inequality: why Britain’s food supply system doesn’t work, The Observer, 22nd March [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/22/tim-lang-interview-professor-of-food-policy-city-university-supply-chain-crisis (Accessed 13 April 2020).

Wood, Z. (2020) Supermarkets ready for a new week of rising to the virus challenge, The Guardian, 29th March [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/29/supermarkets-ready-new-week-virus-challenge (Accessed 13 April 2020).

Why is being housed by the state perceived as a personal failure? Part 1

by Matthew

Social housing debates are at centre of the political discourse right now, and they rightly should be following the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the ongoing UK housing crisis.

We need to ask ourselves collectively some very important questions. It is time to move away from the strong doses of individualism we’ve shot ourselves up with and start thinking together as a collective society.

No civilised country, can call itself civilised unless people have housing rights which includes having somewhere safe and secure to live, from the richest to the poorest.

I would like to turn attention in this blog post to the following. Listening to Leading Britain’s Conversation (LBC) earlier in the week, tackling the question of social housing. A caller rang in and stated “Why don’t people work to move out a council home. Why do people in this country think the state owes them everything? My parents came to this country in the 1960’s and they worked and they never relied on the state”.

This sort of viewpoint in regards to council housing is unfortunately far too common in the UK. It’s rather elementary to put your experiences, or someone else’s, as indicative to what everyone being housed by the state should do, or be doing. The world is extremely complex, no two people are the same, no two groups of people are the same, no two parts of the country are the same, the environment you grown up in is not going to be the same as another persons.

The thrust of this blog post though isn’t why some hold such views (as crazy as they are). The caller stated his parents came to the UK in 1960’s and have never relied on the state, that may well be the case but when we read behind this we see the statement holds value judgements. Not everyone is like necessarily like yourself. If you are not lucky enough to have come to the country in the 1960’s when jobs were more easy to come by, or are/were more reliant on the state in the sixties because you have less capital you fall into a category that this caller presumably has.

Statements such as these lead those living on a council estate to fear openly admitting that they do.

‘Social shame’ is present in UK society. This goes for all areas of state dependency, not just social housing.

Grenfell Tower Burning

The Grenfell Tower tragedy highlighted the many failings of UK society. Not just of local government, but by how people who live in social housing are viewed by those who do not or never have resided in social housing.

By this I am referring to both citizens and politicians. Those that have never lived in social housing tend to hold positions of power, over those who do.

This very imbalance is a danger to British democracy, at a local and national level.

The image of the blackened hull that is Grenfell Tower should wake us all up to the dangers of lack of empathy and understanding. It should also wake us up to the face that we need to think collectively in order to help others out. So we too may lead lives that are happy. The more people in our country that are happy and not living in terrible conditions the better it is for society collectively right?

We also need to focus on power, who has power. Why do they have it? How? We need to forever question what government is doing, and be critical. At both national and local level, here it seems in Kensington and Chelsea local government were/are able to do as they please without very little oversight from anyone with power. The residents were disempowered and nobody was listening. This HAS to change but can only be done by mobilisation of the people on mass. The Grenfell Silent March which begins at Kensington Town hall and ends at the Lancaster West Estate is one way of doing this, as well as remembering the 72 victims of the tragedy. Now with Brexit and many other issues on the central agenda it is critical that this does not fall off the political agenda. The people of North Kensington need our support not just for a brief moment, but a lifetime.

Only if the citizens of the UK mobilise can we rid ourselves of the class system that has plagued the UK for centuries, and finally tackle rising inequality. We cannot go on creating areas where there are shops implicitly stating to one section of society this is not intended for you and just (2 minute’s walk in North Kensington) short drive away there are shops targeting a different class of person. It is clear that this will take time, primarily as the upper classes/elites who actually most likely prefer the status quo are more than likely to be in positions of power.

To make matters worse the new leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council (appears she is not so new). Has NEVER set foot in Grenfell Tower or any other tower block at all. I wonder if you can guess which part of Kensington she is living in? 😕

There is a massive disconnect between those in power, and classes. Nowhere is this more poignant then in North Kensington, with similar cases up and down the country.

Clearly, as someone senior in the council she should have visited the tower, without question. This involves conversing with residents, and investigating the many complaints. If she had actually visited the tower in the many years in which residents were complaining, she would may herself have acted. Her position in my opinion is surely is also untenable.

A clear problem is representation, if someone is unable to take the time to step foot in any tower block in a borough they have a deputy leadership role in, how are they supposed to represent all the people in that borough? Especially if this said person is middle/upper class, visibly. Everyone needs to connect with the people they should be working on behalf of, and that means everyone a borough. Nobody in this council appears (or actually cares) about representation of the poor, traditional working classes or service class. I am aware by simply mentioning the class system in this way, I am partly responsible for upholding it.

And finally, Grenfell Tower has clearly changed how these country perceives social housing. Has it truly touched all corners of society? Probably not. For too long social housing tenants have been held in contempt by councils and housing associations. From my own personal experience of living in 1970’s tower block (featured image on the right) reporting issues to Enfield Council and them not being acted upon, often with that familiar response that KCTMO residents had, stating that nobody else has reported the issue and issues often taking long to resolve.

To conclude. Why is Social Housing considered a failure?

Being housed by the state is considered a failure by some in society because of the increasing lack of empathy, the overuse of value judgements, lack of care, lack of oversight by us collectively towards those less fortunate. The over focus on owning property and gaining wealth through property has led to a destruction of society as we know it. This over focus on purchasing property is partly fuelled by the fact that the rental market is poorly, regulated with poor securities.

We have allowed society UK society has become more individualistic, more about “keeping up with the Jones”. The idea that people live in council homes out of choice rather than need as the LBC caller suggests is another reason. It is clear not everyone is the same, and tarring everyone with the same brush is a problem that a majority of UK society appears to have.

Too little oversight at local government level has allowed for conflict of interest, corruption, or just general disinterest all of which seem to be rarely picked up in any official statistics (which is equally worrying!).

This is a tragedy that we are all responsible for. Lacklustre politicians and indifferent citizens. We are all responsible.

(In a few weeks in the top menu, I will add a link with videos of various events recorded post Grenfell for viewers. For those wishing to understand more about the problems residents faced in Grenfell Tower and the Lancaster West Estate the Grenfell Action Blog is a good place to start.)

UK General Election 2017

by Matthew

The political landscape has been shaken up as Theresa May u-turned on yet another promise. The conservatives are very far ahead in the polls now and Mrs May announced that she chaired a meeting of the cabinet where they agreed the government should hold a general election on the 8th June.

In the recent local council elections, Labour was trounced. This election holds importance in the type of Brexit the UK faces will largely be decided come June 8th. Most policies enacted by government aren’t as wide sweeping, and certainly aren’t as destructive over the long-run as leaving the European Union will be.

Therefore, it’s not only critical that everyone gets out to the ballot box. It’s also crucial the public make an informed choice on the type of Brexit (as well as type of governance) they want. Already we have felt the sting of food price rises due to a weakened pound. As prices continue to rise and real wages stagnate over several years this will only compound those at the lower end of society. The social cost is high, as will be the political cost of any government who commits to Brexit in the long-run.

Public opinion can change and political parties would do well to remember that. The public should too. The reality is only starting to just starting to bite, when the Brexit pain really starts to dig in it will be interesting who the new bogeyman will become. Will discourse simply deepen its focus on the other? With people saying we didn’t go far enough about rejecting immigration. Will it just continue to be the EU? The conservative, right-wing dominated media controls information in the UK at the moment so we can make a prediction based on that.

These are all pitfalls that will beset any new government, and could make them unelectable at the next election in 2022.

With all this in mind, choosing the next government is not a decision that any voter should take lightly. This is the most important election of the 21st century so far.

Tim Farron, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn

Main party leaders: Tim Farron, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn

Appleton’s election tip:

Think wisely about the main issue that affects you. Whether that’s the environment (clean air), the NHS (which certainly is from what I’ve experienced recently at breaking point), Brexit (will affect this, and future generations including tie up government resources and development for years to come), immigration (because a sizeable chunk of the population perceive this to be the issue of our times), disability (major cuts over the past 7 years) or if it’s something I missed. Have look at party manifestos see what party best stands up to fix the issues you face. I’d recommend this approach, and not basing it on personality, a leader is an important part of a political party no doubt but the people behind it and the values/issues they wish to tackle are as important.

This marks my first post since December 2016. I want to continue on a little more but I have just come out of a two night stay at Barnet Hospital due to severe glandular fever. I was not able to swallow at all, only spit and was on the verge of throwing up, my tonsils were killing and almost touching.

Hope all readers are well. I’ll be back posting soon. Even more so as I’ve finished and passed my masters for this year. Just one year left 🙂