The BBC and The Sky at Night

For all its travails and the political pressure it comes under there is nothing to match the BBC in the world of broadcasting and more widely the gathering and presentation of information in as near neutral way as is possible. True, there has been money wasted on executive pay-offs but the private sector ideologues are in top of the draw greenhouses throwing stones – except that they have the added luxury of having installed unbreakable glass.
The BBC World Service is one of the few ways open to this country to project its influence in the world – a benign influence earned from impartial, complete and trustworthy information. But it too has faced narrow minded and ill-motivated cuts.
Many of the BBC’s self inflicted executive financial wounds stem from the dire culture of managerialism that was introduced under a government of similar ilk to the one we endure now. Hopefully, much of this worthless bossing around is now being reconsidered, with the savings invested in high quality programmes.
But the BBC is not perfect and it has made real blunders when it comes to Birmingham with the disinvestment in studios and programmes made here and the cancelling of Carl Chinn’s programme as examples.
Alas, the BBC is now on the verge of another programming miss-step by threatening to axe The Sky at Night. Few programmes would have survived the loss of an inspiring and dedicated presenter such as Patrick Moore but the new presenters have been doing very well in my view.
The BBC, as a public service broadcaster, has a remit to provide educational programming. It is on this basis that they collect the licence fee and no programme can claim to fill this remit more strongly than The Sky at Night. Many of today’s scientists and academics state that their enthusiasm for their subject was inspired by this programme and many more ‘armchair’ enthusiasts such as myself have gained much from it over half a century. What other programmes can boast that?
If you agree that The Sky at Night should be saved, please sign the petition at www.change.org

In Place of Greed

Some readers of this blog may recall an unsuccessful government policy that was attempted back in the 1960s called ‘In Place of Strife’. This was drawn up at a time when industrial relations and trades union activity in various forms were seen by some of the establishment as the major problems facing the economy.
In the 21st century of course the position is altogether different. Some of the principal issues facing ordinary people and which diminish the economic quality of life in this country and much of the western world are the damaging aspects of globalisation on domestic industry, the activities of disreputable banks and usurious money lenders, commercial avarice, exploitation of those with little power, corporate disloyalty to community and nation, deception of the consumer and gross and increasing inequality - to name but a few.
These are amongst the principal malfunctions of today’s discriminatory economic system, with rank greed and selfishness, particularly corporate, being at the root of most of the ills aided, abetted and frequently amplified by ideology driven government economic policies.
So it is that this country in particular, ever the zealot when it comes to capitalist ‘purity’, desperately needs a new economic and societal strategy, one that might well be entitled ‘In place of greed’, and one that is accompanied by essential reforms in the body politic.
Years of experience show that it is futile to tinker at the edges with ineffectual to non-existent ‘regulation’, messing about with money, fiscal or monetary, and ad hoc steps to remedy ‘market failure’. And to make matters worse the government always casts the solution in terms of ‘the market’ anyway.
By way of a computing analogy, when the operating system has reached a comparable point of dysfunctionality and instability, the very least that is needed is a system reboot. Better still would be the installation of a fundamentally different operating system – and I do not mean the typical, profit motivated cosmetic ‘sidegrade’. But what essential features would such a system have?
In the longer term, if we want to bring an end to needlessly harsh and counter productive austerity, exploitation, grossly unequal incomes and diminished national esteem, then I believe that policies such as those set out in earlier posts on this blog need to be implemented. These constructive changes would shape the development of a better and fairer future society. They are needed to enable the rebuilding of industry, national morale, and the personal and mutual respect and security that contribute to the Common Good.
Governments are often derided – quite understandably – but high quality and capable governance is in fact desperately needed, as is starkly evident almost every day. Positive engagement by government in implementing constructive policy is essential in aiding the achievement of widely supported goals. Government should set aside partisan doctrine, release itself from the nefarious influences providing its political funding and involve itself proactively in the process of building a wider and lasting prosperity.
The re-establishment of respect for ordinary citizens throughout commercial and institutional life is essential. This should be accompanied by a desire to seek the Common Good that should become second nature at both corporate and individual levels.
An economic system is not an independently existing abstract entity to be served and revered. Rather, the system should be at the service of society and it is what we choose to make it.
Furthermore, the Common Good can be enhanced with or without endless increases in the technical measurements of GDP - should we decide to do so. Perspectives can be changed, commerce can be reformed and productive industry can be re-established. Government can be engaged and publicly owned exemplar institutions with a genuine service ethos can be established.
Perseverance and patience would be required in good measure, but at least the journey this time would be towards the Common Good rather than away from it. The people deserve no less.

Very Expensive Credit

We hear much about the corporate usurers still being allowed to issue payday loans at unbelievable interest rates and we have also heard much of late from George Osborne about how he deserves the credit for the recent economic uptick. Very expensive credit if you ask me. Utterly unbelievable – and grossly unfair to boot!
This is because a couple of months ago I stood on my head in the corner and said ‘gobbledegook’ three times and that’s obviously what caused the economic improvement! The two things have clearly gone together and if Mr O hadn’t messed things up with his wretched austerity policy, I’m sure that my ‘topsy-turvy gobbledegook’ method would have produced even better growth!
I would agree with Mr Osborne on one thing if no other - that the debate on whether his policy works or not is settled. In fact it was settled at the outset – his upside down economics have made things much worse and cost the country dear.
As corroborating evidence compare our performance with countries that have adopted more reasonable policies. The result of such a study is that our GDP growth is 3 percentage points down on what it otherwise would have been – and perhaps the recovery would have been founded on something more substantial than a consumer credit surge and an election geared housing boom.
I have recently been reading a very interesting book called ‘The Victorian City’ about London in the time of Dickens. Perhaps Mr Osborne and his friend ‘The Quiet Man’ have been reading this too, no doubt admiring the medicine of the time and the century before and the conditions of the less well off in Dickensian society.
Mr Osborne perhaps noted that some patients in Victorian times who had been bled and leeched sometimes got better. Obviously draining the lifeblood out of the patient works! Go leeches! Of course, we won’t concern ourselves with how the sickly individuals would have got on without the bleeding and leeching? A good three percentage points better I think.
We’ve got the best part of two more years of the government’s flawless logic and all the misery and bias that follows from it, but then perhaps we’ll see an end to it. One can but hope that they’ll pay the price of that expensive credit on election day.

No such thing as a free polity

‘There’s no such thing as a free lunch’. So goes the dictum of the late Milton Friedman, not one of my favourite economists but he was right on this if not much else. The same adage applies to the funding of parties in democratic political systems.
Government on the cheap through political parties that take large sums from wealthy organisations or individuals, serves the people ill and has a high but hidden price. Good government unreliant on sectional interests is not a free good, it comes at a modest cost but it is a price that is well worth paying.
So I was pleased to see reports that an incoming government formed by the current opposition would substantially increase the public funding of political parties and introduce a cap on individual donations.
I hope that these reports are true and that other political parties will accept this policy – by in one case insisting on what they originally stood for and in another by changing tack and putting the public interest before their own.
Inducement to put private or sectional interests before the public interest is what most major donations to political parties are all about. This of course will always be denied, but you’d have to be pretty credulous to believe that kindness of heart, self-denial or a generous concern for the common good were the true motivations. There are undocumented but effective understandings between donor and recipient.
What the country in fact gets is policy bias, more than a little something in return, which will also, of course, be denied. This bias in government policy that can cost many, many times more than increased public funding up front and it can also lead to an overcrowded House of Lords and so yet more policy bias in the future.
Our friends the lawyers and the more self-serving politicians will no doubt attempt to weasel their way round any such regulations limiting the size of contributions (witness the political action committees in the US).
But the system that results from enhanced public financial support and donations capped to four figures is still going to be far better than the deeply flawed one that we have had to put up with, and bear the cost of, for so many years.