Wednesday, January 14, 2009

[litter] a symptom of deeper issues


Not sure if reducing litter and graffiti reduce serious crime but IMHO, there is a correlation between rubbish on the streets, graffiti and a sick society, at least at the micro-level.

Of course many are sick of it and want campaigns like this:

Keep Britain Tidy have launched a renewed campaign to clean up the UK's dirty streets to coincide with the first anti-litter act exactly 50 years ago to this month. It aims to restore a sense of community pride and encourage everyone to clean up their patch. Across the nation, community groups, schools and businesses have pledged support. It's hoped more than 10,000 clean-ups will take place and half a million bags of litter collected.

It's not just the rotting fish head effect which leads to the conclusion that "a sense of civic pride is doomed", i.e. if the head's rotten, the rest follows suit. It's also people's change in values over the past two generations, since the 50s. This blog has consistently maintained that the Christian ethic was certainly not followed in past decades but at least it existed and kids at least knew about the sermon on the mount and the ideals they were supposed to live up to.

The gospels have no monopoly on charity and kindness but they were a major force in limiting people's excesses on a day to day basis in this society. Someone said to me yesterday: "If you found a million pounds on the street, would you hand it in?"

Today - I'm not so sure. If you did, you're likely to be subject to investigation, acquire a police record and will be under surveillance from there on in. You'd not get any reward for your altruism. In the late 60s, I'd probably have handed it in and something nice might have come from that act.

You can't expect people to act with dignity if they're robbed of it but this is a two way street. Whilst the government's policies have been criminally negligent, the societal attitude of "why should I work when no one cares and I'm drawing tax-payer's money to keep me in this lifestyle" is equally culpable.

Just removing benefits is not going to achieve anything other than starvation in the short term. It certainly was the case five years back that you could have found work if you really tried, if you retrained but that is not the case now. Even with your worthless NVQ, there are 500 applicants for every position you go for.

Frankly, I find it galling to hear politicians and civic groups calling for civic pride, as if it is something which exists outside of the context of society. It's the same, to me, as that annoying song "don't worry, be happy", sung to someone who's just lost his job. In that glib cliche is lack of understanding and lack of caring.

The permanent and cynically unemployed underclass, including many single mothers and Rab C Nesbitts who consider society should be supporting them is also balanced by a new class of people today really wanting the dignity of their skills set recognized but literally unable to get anyone to take them on.

Mandelson's £20bn to stop businesses going to the wall should have been injected years back when there was still some real money in the economy. £5mn is a small business? This is just a cynical ploy for the collapsing infrastructure of medium and large business. Small entrepeneurship is already dead in the water.

Step One - get these bstds out. Step Two - Cameron gets rid of adversarial politics and creates an assembly style legislature, with him at the top if he likes [for now]. Step Three - cut the crippling taxes but at the same time educate people that their lifestyle is going to change, to contract, in line with their real incomes.

9 comments:

  1. All the people on the gov't dole (ie welfare here, not sure what it's called there) should have to clean the trash and graffiti ... at least then we'd be paying them for something

    ReplyDelete
  2. Right and what about the ones who are actively seeking work, five or six hours a day, i.e. they can demonstrate they've been going to interviews and are following an action plan?

    The ones you're referring to - yes, I agree. There are many playing the system and they're the ones to put to work in a voluntary capacity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "to put to work in a voluntary capacity": there's a logical flaw there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If the people on the dole were to be put to work cleaning streets and graffiti they would create loss of jobs for people who already do it,only changing who is on the dole.

    Every country carries a rate of unemployment for many reasons, least of which there not being jobs for every single citizen.It's only when those ratios exceed the usual percentages that problems occur.

    It's better to cut back on spending at the levels which would really have an impact like the royal pay list and fat cat politicians' inflated salaries/ perks.
    Rather than there not being enough money in the collective coffers, the problem is unwise distribution and waste of funds.
    A country can't fatten a sea of politicians , spend trillions on war AND have money left for the more crucial things.

    Think of the income generated if we got rid of the financial burden of the royals and turned the castles into paid tourist attractions alone.Add to that no more perks for politicians[they would still work for the title and sense of power ,even at a lesser base salary]also stop wasting tax dollars imprisoning people for non- violent crimes.Do we really need to invest so much money in the court and prison systems to imprison people for unpaid parking/speeding tickets/petty theft and the like? Make them do some kind of volunary work instead as restitution.

    When times are tough, the most vulnerable carry the blame-single mothers, people of ill health, the elderly who should be supported if they are truly unable to work.
    Also, no lawyer is worth £300- an hour! Cut their salaries to £75 - just cuz they deserve it!
    * Don't tell my lawyers I said that. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Make them do some kind of voluntary work instead"

    Oops!, destroyed your own logic there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Deeply flawed, in fact.

    If the people on the dole were to be put to work cleaning streets and graffiti they would create loss of jobs for people who already do it,only changing who is on the dole.

    Right, they would.

    Well spotted, Anon, blooper there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So Uber; you believe that you should take from those that have/earn and give to those that don't.

    For the good of everyone of course. Every lawyer that gets paid 300 (pounds/dollars/anything) is worth it to the person paying. If not, they don't get paid that amount and their fee drops. Supply and Demand actually works.

    If the people 'already being paid to do it' (clean) were doing a spot on job; James wouldn't have this post out. You don't remove the people already doing the job, you get them help from people that are making money for being alive.

    Cut back on spending is the single greatest idea ever; too bad governments don't ever seem to adhere to it :( Although salaries play a very small percentage of governmental spending; they could be adjusted (since most governments are the ones that set the pay rate instead of the people). The biggest non-defense spending in the US is the taking care of other people bills :) (in the UK and other developed countries Im sure it is also). Instead of gov't supplying people with the funds, care and whatnot to live, they should just help those people get on their feet.

    Distribution is not 'unwise'; spending on war will always be high, unless of course you want to lose, then it will be much lower. What are the 'crucial' things that get missed when this spending occurs? Nothing, that's why gov't keeps growing; everything becomes 'crucial' to someone or some group and eternally gets it's share of the money.

    Not jailing people for 'non-violent' crimes is almost a good cause, except that some of those crimes actually lead to other violence. And if you're not going to jail people, how do you really expect them to stop doing the illegal things?

    So instead of jail; you'd prefer indentured servitude or slavery? Yes I know what you mean, but the definition of 'making someone do volunteer work' (even though it isn't logical) is either one of those 2 options (IS earns their release, slaves are given theirs)

    When times are tough; it is usually the hardest working people that carry the burden. The people that get up everyday and work so they can pay the goverment to take care of those people that won't or can't do it themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Instead of gov't supplying people with the funds, care and whatnot to live, they should just help those people get on their feet.

    Agree completely but the question is the kneejerk reaction in getting people away from that. My point is that you can't just suddenly pull the plug and let them starve because the loss of jobs has gone so deep that they won't be able to immediately find work, even if they want to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Agree completely but the question is the kneejerk reaction in getting people away from that. My point is that you can't just suddenly pull the plug and let them starve because the loss of jobs has gone so deep that they won't be able to immediately find work, even if they want to."

    This has been known since welfare started, the problem is that no matter what; when you change it, it will hit hard to those 1st people. So to avoid that 'kneejerk' it never gets changed.

    When you take the band-aid off; its better to pull fast than to pull slow

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.