The best people for the job

"It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, who is poor." - Seneca

"I want my leaders to be the best people for the job", said a friend to me recently, over a Jamaican lager on one of the first sunny evenings of Spring, in another friend's back yard. On the kind of evening that can't help but fill you with optimism, a cloud suddenly formed in my mind.

Not because of the deep-seated, unquestioned, desire for a leader; not even for the denial of our own worth, the insidious idea that some people are just better; but because he believed that only by paying them lots of money would we attract these 'best people',  these ubermensch, and that our politicians weren't actually paid enough.

Perhaps it's based on a fair premise - that, in a fair world, those who worked the hardest would be best rewarded (and another, distinctly dodgy, premise: that wealth is the best reward). Perhaps, as a teacher himself, that's just an idea he desperately needs to cling to, to stay optimistic as those poor underpaid politicians keep piling up work at outside his classroom door - his own mental light at the end of the tunnel. One day, Lord, one day. But it's denial; in George Monbiot's phrase, "if wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire."

And even in that imaginary fair world, the more money for better people premise only works if you want to be led, rather than represented - if you want politicians to look up to, someone to adore, rather than representatives who know how you feel. Fuck sympathy, I want my politicians to have truly empathetic understanding of the dread fear caused by an unexpected bill landing on the doormat - and then work hard to eliminate that fear for everyone.

This is something that Mujica, the world's poorest president, understands.  Now that he's attained office, he's on a deliberate drive to make the presidency 'less venerated'. He refuses to live in the official presidential palace, instead using it as shelter for homeless people during the coldest months. While our own venerated leaders are driven around in limousines, Mujica gets about in an old VW Beetle.  His presidential salary is about $108,000 per annum, but he donates 90% (mostly to programs for expanding housing for the poor), which leaves him with an amount comparable to that of an average Uruguayan. 

When asked if he has enough to live on, Mujica's response is straight-forward:

"I do fine with that amount; I have to do fine, because there are many Uruguayans who live with much less"

Life dominates thought and determines will; if your life is one of privilege, how often will your thoughts be with the poor? How likely will reducing inequality be your will?

Queen Pig

Be the inferior to no one, nor of any one be the superior’

William Saroyan

Lots of people say, ‘oh, leave off the royal family, they do a lot for charity, y’know?’. If I was an unemployed multi-millionaire, I’d do a lot for charity, too. Many fine people do work for charities; most manage to get there everyday without the aid of a chauffeur. That the royal family are themselves a charity should negate any charitable work they do; why not cut out the middle man and give the cash straight to those in need? This might avoid parties, palaces and peacocks being skimmed off the top.

‘Yes, but what about the tourism, man? Don’t forget the tourism!’ It is as patronising as it is insulting to the entire nation to suggest that people would not visit our green and pleasant land without the Windsors – that the entire sum of our cultural worth resides in the crown and its cronies. France doesn’t have a monarchy, but plenty of people go to Paris to see the Louvre. I hear the food’s half-decent, too.

We Brits love democracy. We’re mired in misadventure all around the globe, obliterating foreigners and putting our own sons and daughters in danger in its name. Yet, in our own country, we’re happy with the hypocrisy of having a picture of a lady on our stamps and sterling who believes she deserves to be there by divine right – because God said so. And simply because, for as long as we care to remember, it has always been so. Doesn’t democracy deserve better? Are we so unimaginative?

"The Argument of the Broken Window Pane...

...is the most valuable argument in politics today." - Emeline Pankhurst.

Letter to Dame Joan Ruddock, Labour MP for Lewisham Deptford:

RE: Early Day Motion to repeal s.144

Dear Joan,

It has to be said, at the outset, that I have very little faith left in the parliamentary process in general, and the paliamentary Labour party in particular. Is Liam Byrne a Tory in disguise, or what? Does wearing red have any meaning for him, or merely salve his conscience? Abstaining from the vote that will force people to work for free is an out and out betrayal of the working class in this country – all it takes for evil to prevail, and all that. I notice that you never rebel against your party – are they always right?

So I'm wondering if you can help to restore a little bit of faith – to prove that there are still good people left in parliament. I'm writing to ask you to support John McDonnel's Early Day Motion to repeal the odious section 144 of the Legal Aid Sentancing and Punishment of Offenders Act.

I was one of the 2000+ respondants to the Ministry of Justice's euphemistically titled consultation, Options for Dealing with Squatting, that were against criminalisation; along with people like the Law Society, The Metropolitan Police Force and homelessness charities Crisis and Shelter, a full 96% of respondants were against criminalisation. All were ignored, in favour of the seven landlords that took the time to respond. What is more important to you as a politician, protecting property or protecting people?

Of the 33 arrests made since section 144 came in, not a single person was found to be displacing a homeowner. Indeed, ministers and the media alike deliberately misled the public over this issue, and constantly conflate homeowners with empty property. Are you on the side of those desperately seeking shelter, or are you on the side of the super rich? As Alter, a lib dem think tank, explained in its response to the consultation:

“This change is contrary to the interests of UK taxpayers. It would provide a valuable state funded benefit to wealthy tax avoiders. This influential lobby has the ear of Conservative Justice Minister Crispin Blunt. If he were concerned about ordinary property owners who actually pay tax in the UK, there are far cheaper ways of protecting them from squatters.”

Here is an article I recently wrote on the subject, for the New Internationalist. It explains why I think the law has caused more harm than it might have prevented. Why I think that Alex Haigh, an apprentice brick layer searching for work in our capital (a striver, to use your own devisive parliamentary language), did not deserve a custodial sentence and accompanying criminal record for seeking shelter in a property that had been empty for over a year. And why I think L&Q property are the real criminals in this scenario.

http://newint.org/blog/2013/03/12/squash-squatting-law-impact-report/

One of my friends has recently been toying with the dangerous idea of joining the Labour party. After your most recent betrayal, I told him he'd be better off hurling a brick through his local Labour party's HQ wndows (a la Emeline) than walking through its doors and signing up. I do hope you can go some way to prove me wrong.

Best wishes,

Vyvian Raoul

ps. Everywhere I go I hear people talking of alternatives to the Labour party. If you want to stop people fighting against you, you only have to start fighting for them. The only apathy I'm aware of is from those in power towards the needs of those who are not...

Mr. Hollywood

It was with intrigue that I read Mike Weatherley MP's recent comments about the squatters on the Grand Parade:

“This is yet another example of middle-class, well- educated layabouts creating a mess at society’s expense when they should be hard at work like the rest of us.”

I was intrigued as to how Mike considers himself to be 'like the rest of us'? After all, how many of us - as Mike does when he goes to work for the Motion Picture Licensing Company – get paid £422 an hour?

Mike likes to portray himself as a rock music lovin', curry competition judgin' man of the people; the truth is, Mr Weatherley is more Hollywood's man than Hove's. In 2012, Mike did just 72 hours of work (six a month) for the MPLC and was reimbursed a total of £34,000. That's in addition to the £65, 738, he gets paid as an MP, and the £24,192.77 he claims in expenses for travel and accomodation. At a time when most are struggling, we have to ask – when was the last time Mike Weatherley felt the dread-fear of an unexpected bill landing on the doormat?

And one wonders just how hard Mike's working for Hollywood's money. His own website proclaims that he's just helped to push through changes to copyright legislation worth £500m to the industry; indeed, Mike is currently the secretary for the all party parliamentary committee on intellectual property.

How close does this come to the line where conflict of interest is concerned – and how squarely is his mind on the residents of Hove and Portslade?

Something for nothing culture

On Sunday afternoon, we held a swap shop in Sanford's communal area. The idea was simple: trade in your old stuff for new old stuff. People brought along clothes, books, music, dvds and all manner of assorted ephemera. The only rule? No cash must change hands.

It was interesting that people accepted swaps that were definitely not in their favour - not only graciously, but gladly. Insistantly, even. Complete madness, total lack of self-interest. And yet they walked away with a smile on their face. Their stuff had taken on a new value: how much happiness is this old tracksuit top worth? Because with my tracky top, I also got a little kindness - and charity never taketh away so much as it giveth.

The exchange was a human one, between two humans - not one human versus a giant faceless mega corporation. The market didn't set any prices: we decided our own worth. And the banks didn't mitigate any transactions; no invisible electronic debt passed hands, nobody typed in their pin. The Queen didn't show her face all day.

Money connects strangers as strangers; a swap connects strangers as friends.

First as farce, then as tragedy...

“People are being made unnecessarily homeless and very vulnerable people are suffering as a consequence. This legislation was based upon prejudice and has only made matters worse. This new evidence demonstrates so clearly the need to repeal this misguided law.” - John McDonnell MP

In August 2011, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation, optimistically entitled Options for Dealing with Squatting. Successive governments have attempted to 'deal with squatting', but from the outset it was obvious that this one would continue the crusade not by addressing supply and demand in the housing market, but by seeking to criminalise people they termed 'squatters'.

After ignoring the 96% of respondents that were against criminalisation – including the Law Society, homelessness charities Crisis and Shelter and even the Metropolitan Police Service – the government did indeed press ahead with its plan. Last September, seeking shelter in abandoned residential properties – squatting – was dealt with: under section 144 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), anyone found putting a roof over their head in this way would be punished by up to 6 months in prison or a £5000 fine.

Six months later, Squatters Action for Secure Homes (SQUASH) has released a report into the effects of that law. As we predicted before the law was passed, our findings suggest that homeless and vulnerable people have been disproportionately affected. In the midst of a housing crisis, at a time when homelessness is rising, the law has further narrowed options for many, and is indeed sending otherwise innocent people to prison.

The right-wing press - papers made by property owners for property owners – laid the ground for this legislative attack by carpet-bombing public opinion with endless articles about unwashed, east-European cuckoos in the nest displacing honourable Hampstead homeowners. Members of Parliament made proud speeches about protecting those 'homeowners', deliberately conflating homes and empty houses (and never mentioning the donations they receive from property developers). "We want to send a clear message to would-be squatters that it is simply not acceptable to occupy someone else's home", proclaimed Justice Minister Crispin Blunt.

But it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. At the time, property lawyers and housing experts pointed out that ministers and the media alike were deliberately misleading the public to push through their property protection law. And now SQUASH's research has further exposed that dishonesty: not a single, solitary squatter arrested under the new law was found to be displacing a homeowner.

During the rush to criminalisation, John McDonnell MP asked a pertinent question in a parliamentary debate: “will it cause more problems than it seeks to cure?”

Section 144 couldn't help but cause more harm than it prevented because, in reality, squatting caused almost no harm in the first place: the harm the new law would cause quickly became palpable. Within weeks, the first scumbag squatter was banged up: 21year old brick-layer Alex Haigh, who had no prior criminal convictions, was struggling to find work in the capital and had sought shelter in an empty Pimlico property. It had been abandoned for more than a year by its owners.

Ironically, those now behind bars may have escaped an even worse fate: recently a homeless person in Kent died outside of an empty bungalow, which media reports suggest he had previously been prevented from entering by the police. Section 144 was pushed through as farce: it is being manifested as tragedy.

But rather than rolling-back, recently promoted conservative MP Mike Weatherley has proposed an early day motion that calls for the law to be extended to commercial properties. Ominously, it already has 24 signatories.

At the very least, SQUASH calls on the government to carry out a full, independent impact assessment before further criminalisation is considered; if parliament wants to protect all of the people it represents - not just those that own empty property - it should repeal this law; it has already caused too much harm...

Find out more and take action at the SQUASH campaign website.

Read this article on the New Internationalist site.

This is dedicated to all my folks

This is dedicated to all my folks
Diagnosed with a bad case of that proper upbringin
And never took the time to fall in line or follow
Or swallow the thoughts
Of the recognized committees who lurk throughout ya cities