Thursday 22 October 2009

Is climate change 'awareness' the answer, or the problem?

So, I was meant to write a blog last Thurs as part of the Blog Action
Day whose theme this year was climate change. I didn't. This was for two reasons. Firstly, I forgot, and when I remembered, I also remembered that I was too busy. Secondly (and you can take this as an excuse if you like) I'm not sure raising awareness of climate change is really worth the effort. My argument is that we have reached a point now where 'awareness' initiatives are actually having a negative effect on motivating public or personal action and, perhaps more damagingly, they act as an excuse for governments unwilling to take they bull by
the horns and make policy (evidently they'd rather stroke the bull and
ask it not to hurt anyone).

While I appreciate the aims of Blog Action Day (while vehemently
opposing its tactless acronym), and find a certain academic intrigue
in the idea of using 'new media' to pressure policy action, I
ultimately think it may do more harm then good. To start with it only
raises the awareness of those who read blogs, in particular those who
read political, environmental, or current affairs blogs. These people
are generally pretty 'aware' as it is (you clever informed lot
you).Further to this, it may only serve to antagonise those who differ
in their views. Now, I genuinely think there are very few who 'deny'
climate change, and on the whole people seem to know a broad range of vague and difficult to quantify activities they can undertake to
mitigate for climate change (or environmental degradation more
broadly). But, nonetheless, people don't appear to like being told
what to do. They dislike it from their parents, they downright hate it
from politicians, so I'm not sure they're going to like it much from
faceless quasi-intellectual cyber monkeys. Now I know the point of BAD (I said I disliked the acronym, not that it wasn't easier to type -
particularly on a Blackberry) was not to directly influence actions of
the individual, rather it was to impore policymakers to take a stand,
but an indirect consequence of this is that a bunch of people write a
pile of stuff that makes them look like prescriptive moralistic
knowitalls. No wonder comedians and clowns (Clarkson included) are
starting to have a field day digging into the Green Brigade.

Beyond this though, and I feel far more serious, is the potential for
such activity as this to act as a smokescreen for policymakers and
politicians who continue to fail to implement policy that will
genuinly affect change. It gives them the excuse to point to groups
such as the BAD bloggers and say 'hey, look, we're doing our best, but
have you seen how wonderfully informed and active our citizenry's
are?' They cab claim some victory when there is none, and can continue to utilise 'awareness' campaigns as an excuse for their own relative
inactivity. After all its much easier creating a TV ad telling us all
how to recycle, then it is coming to comprehensive agreement on
climate change within the international arena.

My solution is thus; assume everyone knows, and point ot the fact that this has changed more or less nothing. Make a stand and say, 'I'm
aware so I've done my bit, now do yours'. I know, you know, we know so surely now its time to stop being so 'aware' and actually see those in
a position to do some real good sit down and write some damn policy
instead of wasting time on trying to make windfarms look pretty on the telly. I don't really care if 'the people' know why there's a new
carbon tax so long as there is one; and I'm not sure the planet cares
all that much either.

Monday 18 May 2009

The solution to the expenses ‘scandal’? Get rid of them all

Recently, I’ve been asked by a few people what I think about the ongoing MP’s expenses saga. The long and short of it is this; I don’t really care. The system certainly needs reforming, I’m glad that those people milking their expenses with abandon have been caught out, and there is no moral justification for the way that our MP’s have behaved. There is, though, a more practical justification that I do think needs consideration, though it falls a long way short of a defence. In the private sector, these people would be paid salaries in a completely different tax bracket, and that’s without the private healthcare, plush hotels, business-class flights all as standard. It’s fair to presume that those who are Minister’s could have progressed to sufficient heights in the private sector to be paid in the millions, rather than thousands. And many backbenchers would be working their way up towards that level. Again, that is not to disregard the extremely liveable salary that MPs get, but to put it into some perspective. What is more interesting to me, though, is not the scandalous disregard for money, but for their careers. We’ve already had a few resignations by those wishing to jump before they’re pushed; leaving with their reputations relatively intact and making for the much warmer waters of the private sector as we speak. It is this aspect that has made me pause to consider a proposal that will be familiar to many a-level Politics students or those who have much interest in American politics but has not really emerged in the public debate at this stage – the idea of fixed term limits.

For those who didn’t have the pleasure of taking AQA’s ‘Politics and Government’ A-level Paper 3 back in 2005, fixed term limits is essentially the idea that people can only be in government for so long. In the US, the President is limited to two terms (so, eight years). (N.B. There are no doubt other good examples of this mechanism, but I’m most familiar with this example). The advantage of this system is that you get an enforced renewal of personnel every so often, bringing with it fresh blood and fresh ideas. If this were to be implemented in parliament, it would prevent anyone entering purely for financial gain as it would be hard to milk too much out of the state in that amount of time, and would prevent any real ‘expenses culture’ taking hold. The consequence of this could be that you get the richer contingent thinking “ah well, at best (or worst) it’s only eight years so I won’t lose too much before I can go back to being Mr CEO”, and you get the lesser-paid contingent eyeing up an attractive salary, knowing that it can’t be their meal ticket for life. This could potentially open up the system to far more people, presenting the opportunity of public service as a short-term ‘sacrifice’ to serve the people - presumably how it was originally envisaged – or a short-term opportunity to influence political happenings and open some doors without it being a long-term career aim.

This may complicate the parliamentary system, admittedly, given that most Ministers have been MPs for a very (sometimes very, very, very) long time and have supposedly been ‘rewarded’ for their competence on the backbenches and in their constituency roles. This argument, though, is nonsense. It assumes that longevity is competence, and wisdom comes with age, both non-starters (a quick look at most of the Cabinet supports my point). The unwieldy nature of government departments must be considered, but the system could be adjusted to allow an extra two terms for Cabinet Ministers to take effect (contingent, of course, on re-election), or acknowledged through some other mechanism. A key advantage of this system is that you get bright new young things coming in with fresh ideas – preventing anyone getting too comfortable and using their position for long-term personal gain. You could also avoid short-term politics as any measure that anyone implements will be unlikely to have properly taken hold by the time their next (and final) election comes around. It would force people to respect their predecessors, and consider their future replacements, moving towards a system of clean and consistent governance. Sure, it would place yet more power in the hands of the civil servants but, given recent revelations, is that really such a bad thing? It may be argued that these ‘bright young things’ don’t have the experience or expertise to be trusted with the oversight of the organs of the state. But if they aren’t qualified to govern, why are we electing them?

So, my solution is to get rid of them all – every now and again – and refresh our parliament and (hopefully) our government. Does anyone really want to tolerate Beckett’s screechy voice, Johnson’s “I’m a postman” declarations, or Gordon’s gurn for any longer than is absolutely necessary? Or have I got this completely wrong? Well... anyone got any better ideas?