What would you do with £3300?

Well what would you do? Over the last few years the government has created £200bn in quantitative easing in order to bolster the faltering banks and promote lending. At the end of October it was suggested that an extra £75bn could be added to this figure to try and stimulate a generally sluggish economy. The original £200bn equates to £3300 per person for the whole of Britain. But what if, instead of giving the money to the banks and saying ‘lend this to people’ (which kind of got us into this mess in the first place), they gave the money to us, the people, instead. Now of course this is a radical and dangerous concept, as we are obviously far too irresponsible and stupid to just be given money. I mean all those people just spending money where they like, that’s hardly the free market is it? But can you imagine everyone just being given nearly three and a half grand. To just do what you want to do with it. For a start the bar takings that weekend would be significantly up and I think the general mood of the country would be buoyed.

My plan would be simple: finish paying off the student loan and pay off what’s on my credit card. Then I’d probably buy myself a nice pair of shoes and either go for dinner somewhere really, really nice or buy an extra suit for work. Whatever is left over would go into my savings.

The overall result of this surprisingly sensible approach would be really quite positive. I’d have around £200 a month more to spend due to not paying off debt, my credit history will be improved, I’d have provided a small boost to the cobbling and catering/tailoring industries and I’d have increased my resilience to future unexpected problems by having more money put aside. I would have a bit less stress. I’d also be able to consider where my career is at knowing that I don’t have to earn x in order to get by and pay my bills/rent/debt, but that I could earn x-y and be ok. Meaning that I could maybe consider a step across to something different. Just three and a half grand and I’m considering a career change? Well, it opens up the chance to think hard about it.

That is genuinely what I would do if someone walked up to me and gave me £3300 today. And let’s be honest, while undeniably a decent sum of money, £3300 isn’t that much. It’s hardly life changing. But it could pay off someone’s debt, be a deposit for a rented flat in a different city where there are more or better jobs, help put you through university, get a new car, contribute to the start-up for a new business or simply take your stressed out family on a nice holiday. It could spark a change in circumstance that could lead anywhere. It provides options, possibilities. Choice.

£200bn going straight to the banks doesn’t strike me as creating those sorts of things.

Now it’s time for the real witch-hunt

Yesterday’s announcement of the bids for the World Cups in 2018 and 2022 was gutting for everyone involved with football in Britain. Though England were bidding for the World Cup I can’t imagine there were many people in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland who didn’t want them to win so they could see the World Cup being played on their doorstep. The reasons why the World Cup should have come to the UK are myriad and have been talked about endlessly. Let’s be honest, as football fans you know we’d put on a great show and pack out the stadiums without having to resort to bussing people in.

Despite presenting what FIFA called an ‘excellent’ technical bid, England only managed to get 2 votes (one of them England’s). FIFA have since come out and stated that media intrusion and allegations against high ranking FIFA officials put them off. The Panorama programme broadcast on BBC One on Monday highlighted what many who follow football already knew, that FIFA is a corrupt organisation. The repeated appearance of Concacaf president Jack Warner was no surprise to those who have paid any attention to the World Cup bidding process.

By hiding behind the fear of media scrutiny FIFA have occupied a cowardly position which shows that something is rotten in the state of football. How fitting that an organisation as crooked as FIFA have given the 2018 World Cup to what is basically a gangster state. The recent wikileaks cables from the US Embassy have estimated that over $300bn is siphoned out of the Russian economy every year in bribes. Corruption isn’t quite on the level of a failed African state, but it’s not far off. Add in the racism that greets most black footballers whether playing for home or visiting teams and you’ve got a recipe for a World Cup that could be fraught with problems.

If FIFA think they’ve been put under the spotlight already then I think it’s time to show them what a real UK media witch-hunt is like.

First things first, the bid team should release every detail of the bid process. Who spoke to who about what, who paid for what, publish all accounts and transactions, all correspondence whether public or private. The demands that FIFA were asking of the government, the new laws and tax exemptions that parliament would have been forced to pass. Throw it all out into the open. Make it public domain. If FIFA is clean they should have nothing to fear. But as I just pointed out, it is obvious that their conscience is not clear.

Then let the papers do what they do best. Forensic scrutiny of the minutiae the material looking to expose any semblance of wrongdoing or hypocrisy. Which sets off a seemingly endless cycle of 24 hour comment and analysis on TV, radio and websites. Stories about a story about a story about FIFA corruption. Hyperbole, allegation, speculation, rumour. Questions in parliament, pressure on the FA. Demands that ‘something is done’.

We’ve all seen the ridiculousness of what can happen when some MPs claim a few quid too much on their expenses, imagine what they could do with details of unelected officials taking hundreds of millions of dollars of bribes. The UK media still has a high reputation across the world, outlets such as The Times, The Guardian, The BBC can spread the campaign throughout football in Europe and then globally. If the Premier League decide to put their oar in then you can guarantee the world of football will sit up and listen given it’s money, power and reach. Create so much pressure that FIFA simply have to cave, or that some sort of body decides to formally investigate them.

Seriously, what do we have to lose? Most of the members of the FIFA executive committee will be dead or retired by the time we get a chance to bid again. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and by turning over the rotten log we may be able see the woodlice scurrying away and stop them. This isn’t sour grapes from the losers. Much as the World Cup would have been amazing if held in England, for many it would have been done with a peg on the nose to hide the stench of corruption. This is an opportunity to reform and improve the way that football is run globally.

______________________________________________________________

As a postscript, I really do hope Israel qualify for the Qatar World Cup. Or that there are some openly gay footballers playing for national sides by 2022 (homosexuality is illegal in Qatar). Just to see how open and welcoming the Qataris really are.

In defence of the public sector

There seems to be a rising tide of resentment towards the public sector at the moment, it’s as if the public sector is being blamed for all the ills that have befallen the economy and the country of late. There’s headlines and noise over high earners in the public sector. Talks of swingeing budget cuts and general resentment over what some perceive as ‘cushy’ pay and conditions. I feel like it’s time for a defence of the public sector, what it does and what it stands for, and to address some of the arguments that are constantly trotted out.

First things first, I need to point out that I work in the public sector. In fact I work in local government, so what I write comes from that perspective. Can I just point out now that we had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the banking sector. In fact I feel that a bit more public sector style ethos of social responsibility would have helped prevent it. So quite why we’re on the receiving end more than usual is a bit baffling.

Another caveat I’d like to add is that I think the public sector is far from perfect. I will happily admit that there are huge areas for improvements within the public sector, and the organisation I work for in particular. There are systems that don’t work, there are employees that swing the lead. There are also systems that work magnificently well, and inspirational people who achieve so much impact with so little resource it’s astounding. So a lot like all other organisations everywhere really. But what I’ve started to resent are the accusations, wilfully misinformed talking points and downright hostility that’s being directed towards the public sector in general.

So, let’s have a look at some of the accusations/myths/harrumphings that go around:

“Executive pay in the public sector is too high! Too high!”

The hypocrisy of this argument really gets to me. So bankers are saying that they need to pay high wages and bonuses to attract the best staff? But the public sector isn’t allowed to pay decent wages for the top jobs? Please remember that these are people running multi-million pound organisations, employing thousands of people. Cardiff Council has a turnover not that far off a billion pounds a year and employs 18,000 people, delivering vitally important services that keep a medium-sized city and national capital running. What’s the going rate for that in the private sector?

While I agree that local authority Chief Execs and senior civil service people get paid a lot of money, as do GPs, let’s not denigrate the jobs that they do. They’re important, high profile positions. The people who do them are, for the most part, talented and dedicated people who work extremely hard. As are the bosses of companies that have smaller budgets and much smaller workforces than a small English borough council, but who earn a whole load more money. I’m all for more evening out of the differentials between the highest paid and the lowest paid, but that figure isn’t as bad in the public sector as it is elsewhere in society. How about we shout about raising the wages of, I don’t know, nurses? (Sidebar: since when did all nurses become angels? I admire the job that they do, it’s tough, incredibly important and they deserve better pay, but they’re still just doing their jobs). I think people get the idea stuck in their heads that because they’re ‘public servants’ they should work for free. That, frankly, is bullshit.

“Wages in the public sector are higher on average than the private sector”

Technically this may well be correct. But this is because the lowest paid workers in the public sector (cleaning staff, construction and maintenance staff, binmen etc) don’t actually work in the public sector any more. If you privatise the jobs of the lowest paid in the public sector, wouldn’t you expect there to be a jump in the median and average wages? Privatisation has meant that contracts for these services have largely been outsourced to private firms, who have often simply kept the same staff and slashed their wages. The result is that public sector employees who remain are generally those that are more qualified, experienced and skilled and which command higher wages.

Another point is to ask whether there is a moral obligation on the part of the government as an employer to pay decent wages and give decent terms and conditions of employment to its employees. If the government wants to improve working and living standards for people, open up the idea and culture of flexible working and work/life balance then surely they should have their own house in some semblance of order first.

“They get constant pay rises. I didn’t get a pay rise this year, why should they get one!”

Every year that I’ve worked in the public sector I’ve seen my real wages decrease. How? Well inflation has been running at 3 – 4% for most of the years that I’ve been working in local government. Our pay rises have generally been 2 - 3%. You do the workings out. It hasn’t been too bad for me personally as I’ve got promotions so my wages have gone up as I’ve got promoted. But for people doing the same job that they have done for years (yeah, some people like being library assistants and just doing that job for years on end. Isn’t this the kind of public sector ethos you admire?) then this is a disaster as year on year they are getting poorer.

“Gold plated pensions”

Two words: Trade Unions. The fact that the public sector is one of the most highly unionised workforces in the country, and that we have a single employer (the government) to negotiate with means that we can actually exert some influence. The pensions that are on offer in the public sector are a lot better than private sector pensions. But that’s because we actually have pensions worthy of that name. Hard work by T.U.s have resulted in the protection of rights to agreements that were signed up to decades ago. Private sector workers are ultimately (and rightly) jealous of public sector pensions. So organise, unionise, fight for terms and conditions and fight for pension rights. Lobby the government and employers. Stop whinging because you didn’t hold onto them or never had them and go out and get them. Since when has a race to the bottom to ensure that we are all poor as fuck when we retire been regarded as a good thing?

Also, the whole gold-plated thing is seriously overstated. Pensions are non-transferable between different areas of the public sector. You can’t transfer a local government pension to a civil service one to a police one. So the only way to build up that decent pension is to work in one section of the public sector (i.e., just in the Fire Service) for your entire career. And anyway, it’s only really high earners on final salary schemes that get nice pensions, and they’ll be well off anyway, because, uh, they earn pretty decent amounts of money. Otherwise, the pensions are mediocre to crappy. The average female local government pension is £1800 p.a. That’s hardly gold-plated now is it?

I’m under no illusions, decent pensions will not be available for me when I retire, I don’t even know if I’ll work in the public sector for the rest of my career or not. I know that I need to make my own arrangements for some form of retirement and know that I will not be able to rely on any promises made to my generation about how we’ll be provided for. But for those people in their 40s and 50s who have paid into their pensions in good faith throughout their working lives to have them ripped away when they have a limited amount of time to do anything about it? Well, what’s the point in trying to right some perceived inequality by creating another gross and very real inequality?

“We need to slash public spending”

*Sigh*. Slashing public sector budgets by the figures that are being bandied about (20%, 25%) would mean massive cuts in the workforce (some say around 900,000). And I don’t think the impacts of this have been fully considered. This means 900,000 people needing redundancy payouts. This means 900,000 people unemployed and claiming benefit. This means 900,000 people looking for jobs when jobs are scarce. Which means many of these will need some kind of training. Oh yeah, the budget just got slashed for that didn’t it.

I don’t think the impact on public sector purse in terms of extra payout in benefits and how much it costs to cut a workforce by this number have been thought out. I’m not saying keep people employed for the sake of it. I’m saying properly think about the real costs to the state and society overall when you start talking big about spending cuts. And remember these are people’s lives here.

So nearly a million people in the country simultaneously tightening their belts and reigning in their spending. Is this what is needed when we’re trying to go for economic recovery, around 1 to 2% of the population suddenly out of work and cutting their spending?

“What about all the non-jobs in the public sector? What the hell is a diversity co-ordinator, what do they do?”

I will say this now, the stupid job titles and slightly impenetrable job descriptions do not help matters. And I will concede that organisations can overstep the mark in terms of getting involved in services and schemes that they shouldn’t bother with. But...but.

A lot of these ‘diversity’ ‘inclusion’ ‘coordinator’ type roles that attract criticism have grown because, well, you all like to have your say don’t you? Society demands to be included in decision making more and more, they want to be consulted and asked. What society forgets is that asking people their opinions slows up decision making as you then need to then take these opinions into account and change what you’re doing. And it makes everything cost more.

For what it’s worth, I imagine a diversity co-ordinator is likely to be talking to groups of people, getting them involved in decision making, helping facilitate communities so they can have a say, change their communities for the better, and ultimately become more self-sufficient. Often this will be with some of those groups that are on the margins of society. Because while it’s become relatively easy to reach the main rump of society and get their opinion it’s still very difficult to get to those that, due to language, age, economic circumstance, etc are excluded. And if we’re gaining people’s opinions then it needs to be a representative view of the whole of society. While those who can log onto their PC and spew out an email detailing their thoughts are easy to reach, those on the margins do require a bit more effort. And that’s only fair isn’t it?

“It’s a job for life”

Bwa haha haha! Really? You actually think that?

In most public sector organisations there is reform and restructure every 3 to 5 years, which includes job cuts. People in the public sector are forced to reapply for their own jobs all the time. Many of the jobs now advertised are temporary contracts dependent on funding from various different organisations, funding that is liable to disappear depending on the whims of government ministers. A case in point are youth workers. I’ve come across a few in one of my many different jobs within local government. These are people working with some of those young people who attract the most opprobrium in society and the press, trying to make sure they’re no causing trouble, they are going to school, that they’re occupied. Yet their jobs can exist month by month depending on funding streams and budget pressures. You tell them they’ve got a job for life.

On a personal note, the majority of the jobs I’ve had in my career in local government have been temporary. My substantive, permanent post in my local authority is a job that I haven’t done for 5 years. Instead I’ve been on a series of short term secondments, projects and placements.

“It’s a bloated bureaucracy”

Show me an organisation with more than 500 employees with minimal red tape and no waste that delivers 20-odd distinct and separate services and has to be democratically accountable. Go on, please. I’d genuinely love to see it, go there, learn from it, and then take what I’ve learnt back to my organisation.

Yes, there is waste in the public sector. I’ve seen it, been frustrated by it, possibly even contributed to it. But don’t think this doesn’t go on in every medium to large organisation across the world. Humans are inefficient. It’s just in our nature. If you’re going to whinge about it, show me how to cut it properly. Without just imposing arbitrary budget cuts or telling us we need to outsource. Most certainly without resorting to consultants. And without resorting to the dog-whistle smears that I’ve just talked about. Be constructive.

Look now see…

It boils down to this. Attacking public spending is an easy target for lazy headline seekers such as politicians, commentators and the Taxpayers Alliance. It’s something a government is in control over, and be seen to be ‘doing something about’ and taking charge. Fact is the figures that are being talked about that will be saved are tiny compared to the total of national debt that is owed and the amount of money that was spunked on saving the banks.

It also stops the politicians addressing some of the real problems that this country has: banking regulation, reform and disaggregation; building a green economy; properly addressing transport infrastructure issues; a highly imbalanced and loophole ridden tax system; a completely inflexible benefits system that doesn’t encourage people to take employment when they can. To name only five things that require urgent attention.

How to upstage Rhodri in one easy movement

So this is a weird story. In the office someone said that a Plaid AM had defected to the Tories. I instantly remarked 'one of the rural ones yeah? They tend to be a bit right-wing'. No, turns out it's one from South Wales East, a bloke from that heartland of Tory politics, uh, Newport. And really, check out the reasons. Respect for the royal family? WTF??

Mr Asghar is the first AM to 'cross the floor' since the Assembly came into being. In terms of Westminster this has happened many times over the years. A little bit sensational, generates some headlines, but not of that much consequence unless majorities are especially slim.

But the difference here is that Asghar was elected as a regional AM from the additional list system. For those not too sure, Wales has a form of proportional represenation which includes traditonal first-past-the-post constituency members, and top-up list members to reflect proprtionality.

Because Mr Asghar is a regional list AM, he wasn't directly elected, he was selected as a representative of his party from a top up list of 4. So while you'd expect Plaid to jump and say 'resign!' as a standard response from a party that just lost one of its members to a rival group, in this case I think the call is justified. By crossing the floor Asghar just abdicated his democratic mandate.

Changing currents or stormwater disruption?

In a diversion from the usual sport related topics on this blog, I’m going to take on politics today. The results are in after the European elections on Thursday and I have to admit that I was left reeling at the news that the Conservatives won the popular vote within Wales. Yes, that’s the Conservatives. Winning in Wales. Frankly I’m stunned.

To add to this, UKIP managed to beat the Lib Dems in the race for the fourth seat, leading to them seriously considering targeting seats in the Assembly. Contributing further to the shocks, the BNP party managed to get only 1000 votes fewer than the Greens. Honestly, I thought we were better than that.

As most will be aware, we in Wales are traditionally very much to the left end of the spectrum compared to other parts of the country, so for right of centre or out and out right wing parties such as UKIP to gain seats like this is a surprise. The question is whether this is a change in the political currents in Wales, or merely a muddying of the waters due to the massive stormwater runoff emanating from the Westminster expenses debacle, the economic crisis and the general implosion of the Labour party as a viable and credible political entity.

Turnout was obviously low (30% or so) but I’d be interested to see where the turnout was highest in Wales. Did traditional Labour voters in the Valleys just not turn up at the polling station, or does this represent a genuine shift to the right in Welsh politics?

Labour would have been hoping that they could rely on the Welsh vote to bolster their performance and provide some sort of salvation at the ballot box. I can only imagine how shocked they must be at this result. But what they must realise is that the Labour party that stood for election nationally is not the Labour party that the people of Wales, especially South Wales, have traditionally voted for. They are now a centre party, not even a centre-left party, and with the lack of a genuine left of centre party nationally (Plaid still put people off with the nationalist tag though their politics are generally the most in line with mainstream Welsh political beliefs), swathes of the Welsh electorate are left feeling disenfranchised.

If there is an imminent general election (Labour at the moment seem to be delaying the inevitable in that respect) then it could be that Wales will be the only place left in the UK where Labour is in power. They will have a handful of local authorities where they have overall control, where they have none in England and only two in Scotland and a power-sharing agreement in the Senedd with Plaid. Quite a shift from a decade ago where they controlled Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and many local authorities.