Purple Poppies

I am glad that the life of pandas is so dull by human standards, for our efforts at conservation have little moral value if we preserve creatures only as human ornaments; I shall be impressed when we show solicitude for warty toads and slithering worms. (Stephen Jay Gould)

I wore a purple poppy this year, and it seems I am not the only one. It was not in place of the red poppy, but in addition to it. They are also starting to make the news across England:

With just days to go before Remembrance Day, a purple poppy has surfaced in Edmonton, and it's raising some eyebrows. The purple poppy is designed to recognize animals who served and lost their lives in war. Kevin Stewart brought 30 of the poppies to Earth's General Store on Whyte Avenue. The store is out of the poppies already. The purple poppy originated in England, where they are supported by the British Legion. Many battle sites throughout Europe even display the poppies, but some Canadian veterans are having a harder time getting on board. (1)

And in London, the well known campaigner for human rights, Peter Tatchell was also supporting the purple poppy:

At the Animals In War memorial off Park Lane, campaigner Peter Tatchell was the guest speaker. He wore a purple poppy, which was introduced five years ago by charity Animal Aid to commemorate animals' suffering during wartime. (2)

But there are other ways animals are commemorated for their part in wars and conflict zones as well. In 1943, Maria Dickin insitituted the Dickin Medal:

The Dickin Medal was instituted in 1943 in the United Kingdom by Maria Dickin to honour the work of animals in war. It is a bronze medallion, bearing the words "For Gallantry" and "We Also Serve" within a laurel wreath, carried on ribbon of striped green, dark brown and pale blue. It is awarded to animals that have displayed "conspicuous gallantry or devotion to duty while serving or associated with any branch of the Armed Forces or Civil Defence Units". The award is commonly referred to as "the animals' Victoria Cross". (Wikipedia)

It was replaced in 1949 by the PDSA's (People's Dispensary for Sick Animals) Silber Medal. And the most recent animal to be honoured was Treo, a black labrador:

Treo, a black Labrador which sniffed out bombs in southern Afghanistan has been awarded the animal equivalent of the Victoria Cross - called the Dickin medal. The eight-year-old 'Treo' twice found hidden bombs while on tour in Afghanistan with the 104 Military Working Dog Support Unit. He is now retired and living with his handler, Sergeant David Heyhoe.(3)

What is the importance of these kinds of actions, from wearing purple poppies to the Dickin medal? The psychologist Oliver James says human beings have a powerful desire to bestow human attributes on animals, and this is the reason. But I don't think that is the whole story, or even an important part of the story, certainly not when I wear a purple poppy.

For me, it represents an acknowledgement that animals have been brought into the field of human conflict, and we are responsible for doing so - and we cannot just treat animals as cannon fodder, as disposable assets, mere tools to be disposed of as we wish. In other words, it is part of a greater attitude to the natural world - to we treat the world as purely there for our convenience, to be pillaged as we wish, with animals such as the great whales hunted to extinction, or do we regard ourselves as stewards of the planet? The "instrumentalist" view of the natural world is shown in C.S. Lewis "fairytale for adults", "That Hideous Strength", where one of the characters contrasts the old Celtic tradition with the modernist Belbury:

"Merlin is the reverse of Belbury. He's at the opposite extreme. He is the last vestige of an old order in which matter and spirit were, from our modern point of view, confused. For him every operation on Nature is a kind of personal contact, like coaxing a child or stroking one's horse. After him came the modern man to whom Nature is something dead--a machine to be worked, and taken to bits if it won't work as the way he pleases" CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength

And this is the crux of the matter - how we treat animals in war - as biological machines of no more merit than a tank or machine gun, or as part of the same world that we ourselves inhabit, is also part of our understanding of the world in which we live. And that is why purple poppies are important, not because of what feelings we impute to animals, but as a significant part of how we think about nature itself. Are we gods, to whom the natural world, like the fickle Greek gods, is merely there for our amusement and pleasure? Or do values of conservation, or the importance of animals and species, form part of a whole pattern in which we ourselves must play a significant role, if we are to survive?

I will conclude, therefore, with a quotation from Gerry Durrell, most apt for a Jersey blogger, in which - far better than myself - he shows how the jigsaw of conservation fits together:

Firstly what does conservation mean? It is not merely the saving from extinction of such species as the Notornis, the Leadbetters Possum or the Leathery Turtle; this is important work but it is only part of the problem. You cannot begin to preserve any species of animal unless you preserve the habitat in which it dwells. Disturb or destroy that habitat and you will exterminate the species as surely as if you had shot it. So conservation means that you have to preserve forest and grassland, river and lake, even the sea itself. This is not only vital for the preservation of animal life generally, but for the future existence of man himself - a point that seems to escape many people.

We have inherited an incredibly beautiful and complex garden, but the trouble is that we have been appallingly bad gardeners. We have not bothered to acquaint ourselves with the simplest principles of gardening. By neglecting our garden, we are storing up for ourselves, in the not very distant future, a world catastrophe as bad as any atomic war, and we are doing it with all the bland complacency of an idiot child chopping up a Rembrandt with a pair of scissors. We go on, year after year, all over the world, creating dust bowls and erosion, cutting down forests and overgrazing our grasslands, polluting one of our most vital commodities - water - with industrial filth and all the time we are breeding with the ferocity of the Brown Rat, and wondering why there is not enough food to go round. We now stand so aloof from nature that we think we are God. This has always been a dangerous supposition.(4)

Links:
(1) http://www.globaltvbc.com/Purple+poppies+honour+animal+heroes/3802534/story.html
(2) http://www.westendextra.com/news/2010/nov/poppies-fountain-remembrance-day-across-westminster-servicemen-and-women-honoured-pete
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2010/02/100224_dog_medal.shtml
(4) Two in the Bush (1966), Gerald Durrell

Legacy

As we approach Remembrance Sunday, let us not forget those who died, and the traumatic experience of those who fought in the Great War...
 
Legacy
 
Pounding noise, shells falling down
And the machine guns raking death
The bombed out remnants of a town
And the dying, gasping a last breath
 
Incessant, each day is always the same
Waiting in muddy trenches, wet, cold
The generals plot, but take no blame
As they send onward a push too bold
 
And then silence, cessation, no noise
Drifting in the wind, calm rests here
Time to go home for the weary boys
Not today's casualty, missed so near
 
On the eleventh hour, peace was sealed
Now poppies growing across the field

Blogging Etiquette Revisited

I'm evidently not the only one to be disgruntled by anonymous commenters who just basically use a blog as a board for posting insults. I see that one local blog has lots of this, and the owner just periodically says "no more of that please", and lets the blogs stay. Thinking Anglicans blog also has the same kind of problem, and they have made this eminently sensible comment:

We have noticed an increasing tendency by some commenters to make ad hominem or derogatory comments about other people - sometimes about other commenters and perhaps more often about people in the news.

We want discussions here to be conducted in a spirit of Christian charity and we are going to take a strong line on this. We will not approve comments that include ad hominem remarks. Comments on someone else should concentrate on their words or deeds. People should be accorded their proper names and/or titles, not a pretend or derogatory name or sarcastic title preferred by the commenter. Please note that this applies to people on all sides of discussions.

Secondly, we reiterate a plea we made a year ago: 'please consider seriously using your own name, rather than a pseudonym. While we do not, at this time, intend to make this a requirement, we do wish to strongly encourage the use of real names.'

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/

It may seem strange posting this directly after my satirical spoof "News from Nowhere", but that is quite obviously a send up. Private Eye, in a robust defense of the "spoof" pages section in their magazine, makes this clear:

"Even to those unfamiliar with Private Eye there are a number of features of the article, on the page on which it appears, and on those surrounding it, that would suggest to such readers that the articles and material on these pages are not genuine. For example (page 20) David Cameron and Nick Clegg are of course prime minister and deputy prime minister, but it is not credible that any reader would so unworldly, or gullible, to think that they were also headmaster and deputy headmaster of an educational institution called 'The New Coalition Academy'. The letter states: "The law of libel recognises that statements made in jest are not actionable."

But the kind of comments on some local blogs, and one blog in particular, are not like that - they make accusations about the morals of individuals, suggest that one employee should have their company blacklisted (presumably to put pressure on him to stop blogging), and have as much reasoned argument as John Prescott gave a heckler with his fists.

It's the responsibility of the blog administrator not to let comments through, not to let them through and then go through a facade of hand wringing, saying "dear oh me, please no more" - and indeed any comments can be deleted even if they've gone through the system.

See also:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/07/blogging-etiquette.html

Grey Ghosts and Voices

May Wedderburn Cannan (1893-1973) was a British poet who was active in World War I. Although she is not as well known today as other war poets, in her day, her poetry about the war was well received, and of the war poets of the Great War, she is one of my favourites. For anyone wishing to know more, I would recommend the recently published anthology "The Tears of War: The Love Story of a Young Poet and a War Hero", complied by her granddaughter Charlotte Fyfe, which has her poems and extracts from letters between May and her fiancé Bevil Quiller-Couch.

Her memoir of her childhood, the war years, and those years immediately afterwards (written towards the end of her life) was published under the title "Grey Ghosts and Voices". In 1918, she was working as a Secretary for the espionage department at the War Office Department in Paris, and at the heart of the armistice. For Remembrance day this year, here is an extract from Grey Ghosts and Voices which gives her vivid account of the final days of the war, the joy of peace, and the sadness of loss:

---

On the night of 4th/5th of November they fired their last Barrage and the Guards entered Mauberge. They were at Villars Pol.

Bertha withdrew. We watched the flags move on the big map in the Colonel's room and could not believe what we saw, and turned to our other enemies; the bitter cold and the 'flu. It was the fore-runner of the great epidemic of 1919.

The Americans, who were short of experience, offered us jobs saying that they would pay us double what we earned and were genuinely hurt and puzzled when we refused them. Insatiable, they organised a "Get together" Meeting in the Trocadero for which they sent us an invitation and the Colonel directed that at least three of us must go. There were French, English and American blocks in the rising seats, and a platform draped with the Allied Flags. Mrs Alfred Lyttleton made a speech; Monsieur Pichon made a speech; some American made a speech. Everyone patted everyone on the back and the English sat rather silent among the general applause. It had been said that Lloyd George was coming over, but in the end, it was Lord Derby, the British Ambassador, who spoke for England.

It hung in the air. A feeling of terrified uncertainty, almost of terrified hope. People in the Pension began to eye us curiously obviously longing, but not quite daring, to ask us if we knew anything.

On the morning of November 11th I was called into the Colonel's room "to take some notes from the telephone." They were all there and got up and made room for me at the table. I think they must have thought that I knew shorthand which I didn't. A voice, very clear, thank God, said "Ready?" and began to dictate the Terms of the Armistice. They muttered a bit crowding round me and I said fiercely "Oh, shut up, I can't hear" and the skies didn't fall.

I wrote in my private short-long-hand and half my mind was in a prayer that I should be able to read it back. I could feel my heart thumping and hear the silence in the room round me_ When the voice stopped I said mechanically "understood" and got up. I made four copies of what I had written and took them in and went back to my little office staff and told them. I can't remember much what we said: I can only remember being so cold, and crying, and trying not to let the others see.

That night it was all over Paris. There were sounds of cheering and rejoicing down the Boulevards as I walked home.

What I thought of was "Recessional." The Pension produced some champagne at dinner and we drank the loyal toast.

And then across the table G. lifted her glass to me and said "Absent". I did not know her story nor she mine, but I drank to my friends who were dead and to my friends who, wounded, imprisoned, battered, shaken, exhausted, were alive in a new, and a terrible world...

Agricultural Unions

Here is another extract from Norman Le Brocq's history of the working class in Jersey. It is the post-war era, and the agriculture now saw a conflict arising between farmer and labourer.

Some notes on values (1). The worth of the potato export market of £994,000 is roughly equivalent to £33 million 900 pounds. In 2009, around 45,000 tonnes of Jersey Royal Potatoes were being exported (99% of the crop) with an estimated value of just under £28 million (2).

The weekly wage of 10/- to 15/- plus works out at around £17.00 to £25.50, and the supplement per vergée was an extra £6.81 per labourer. Meanwhile, the crop was yielding around £120 per vergée to the farmer, equivalent to around £4,090. Clearly, the more farmers could keep wage costs down, the greater their profit. Nevertheless the workers had perks such as free food, and sometimes rent free accommodation.

Where farmers provided living conditions for labourers or casual seasonal labour, these remained very rudimentary even after 1945, and it was not really until the last decades of the 20th century, when the States took a more proactive role in looking at those, largely on fire safety and health grounds. The introduction of "benefits in kind" as being taxable recently, and a value assigned to free accommodation, also hit the farmer hard, as the added value they could offer to their workers was diminished significantly.

Casual labour in 1919 could be local, but was equally likely to be French. The French community in Jersey was very strong, and until recently French lane still had a shop selling French newspapers. The years after 1945 saw a marked decline in French labour, and the introduction of the Portuguese labourers.

It is salutary to note that while the "weekly wage" is mentioned, the week in question is "up to an 84 hour week", which would be the equivalent of two weeks by most office or shop workers today. It is (on average) 12 hours per day.

Agricultural Unions
 
It will he noted that one of the Union Branches existing at this time was that of the Agricultural Workers. It was not a large branch numerically, for the agricultural worker in Jersey was about as backward as anyone in making his grievances public.
 
Although farming is Jersey's chief industry, the large farm is rare. There are some landlords with large landed possessions; but these are split up into small leaseholds, with the owner usually working one of these in person, So in Jersey, tenant and landlord farmers are both great in number. The tenant farmer worked about four-fifths of all cultivated land in 1919.
 
Both types exhibit the typical peasant characteristics: thrift, backwardness of technique, family exploitation, and conservatism in politics
 
The average size of the Jersey farm was seven acres (approx.). Out of the 1,820 holdings of more than one acre, 1,579 were smaller than 20 acres, and only five larger than 50 acres. The number of horses used for agricultural purposes was 2,071. Tractors and lorries were practically non-existent. The number of cattle was 10,172 and the number of pigs, sheep, etc., 4,583. The value of the potatoes exported in 1919 was just under the million pounds. (£994,000)
 
Such was the state of Jersey agriculture. What part did the landless labourer play? The figure for 1919 being unavailable, we can only take a figure for 1931. However, it held good in 1919 with very little modification. In 1931 there were 2,569 agricultural workers regularly employed. We can take 2,500 as being roughly the number for 1919. This shows us that there was only one labourer employed for each eight acres of cultivated land. It will be seen that most of the work was done by the farmer and his family.
 
The agricultural worker was expected to work anything up to an 84-hour week, for which he received 10/- to 15/- plus, sometimes, his keep, or a cottage rent free, or a supply of vegetables and milk. On the whole he was probably as " well off " as the town worker at that time
 
His share of the wealth of the farming community, however, was very small. He dug the farmer's potatoes, with the aid of casual labour taken on for the "season," for  £4 per vergée (four-ninths of an acre) while the farmer was selling the potatoes at about £2 per cental. (An average crop is 60 centals to the vergée.)
 
On June 1, 1919, the potato diggers decided that this was not good enough. They struck. The D.W.R. & G.W.U. had been negotiating with the Farmers' Union or some time without reaching agreement. The farmers had offered £4 5s. per vergée; but this was not definitely accepted. The rank and file, particularly in the south east of the island, asked for £5 per vergée, and called for a strike. The men came out. The Union officials  refused to authorise it and refused strike pay. At this about half the men went back to work at the new rate of £4 5s. After a mass meeting on Gorey Common and some days off kicking their heels, the remainder drifted back to work. So ended the first, and up to the present, the only agricultural workers' strike in Jersey. So ended also, for all practical purposes, the Agricultural Workers' Branch of the Union.

Links:
(1) http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php
(2) http://jerzzy.co.uk/jersey-royal-potato/

GST - The Third Option

Now Geoff Southern has put forward a proposal to peg GST until 2012, the battle lines are drawn. Of course I think that Deputy Southern has little chance of gaining enough support for his proposition to pass but it will no doubt consume considerable amount of States time in speeches before coming to a vote, in which I suspect he will get around 15-20 votes, and his proposition will fail.

We had been told time and again by Philip Ozouf that to exempt food and utilities will mean that GST would have to rise to 6%. In the hands of Senator Ozouf, this is a scaremongering technique designed to ward off any objections to the rise from 3% to 5%. However, rather than taking it as the worst option, I think we should perhaps take the long view and consider it the best of two evils.

This kind of proposition has been seen in the States recently when Senator Francis Le Gresley successfully argued the case for retaining the Christmas bonus for all the local people who were receiving it rather than removing it or restricting it by some kind of means testing. His argument was that if the bonus was reduced but the recipients remained the same the cost would have been the same as if Deputy Gorst's proposition had been passed. Moreover, he was of the opinion that if a proportion of the population lost the bonus they would never get it back but if it was reduced it could be increased when the economy recovered. But the principle fact which enabled him to succeed is that his proposition was neutral in terms of spending cuts -- it did not matter in terms of monetary savings whether his proposition was passed or that of Deputy Gorst - the arguments were conducted quite different grounds and it undercut support for Deputy Gorst.

I would like to see the same kind of neutral proposition brought forward by a State member for GST -- that is to say that GST would be increased to 6% (or perhaps 6.5%, because modern computer systems, as with VAT can easily deal with decimal fractions) together with an exemption from food and heat, light, and water -- the basic domestic expenses which everyone, rich or poor, has to pay. The decision then would depend upon the long-term -- in other words, if future years saw the necessity for further rises in GST to raise revenue, it would no longer cause quite the same level of hardship as it would otherwise do. And if I was a gambler (being a mathematician, I'm not) I'd bet anyone that GST will go up again sometime.

The long view then looks at the possibility of GST rising even to 10% at some point (a scenario deemed a real possibility by the Auditor-General) and the corresponding need to increase the levels at which income support can help all, and bring more people into the net of paying back monies from GST raised, as an increase to around 10% (eventually) would bring many more people to the margins of subsistence living.

And yet unlike the proposition by Deputy Southern, it would be economically neutral, and would be considered on quite different grounds. Remember, once exemptions are in place, it would be very difficult politically to remove them, as in the UK, and if the economy got better or worst, whatever the rate of GST, it would no longer be quite the regressive form of taxation that it now is. So let's hope someone at least puts the Third Option on the table to vote for.

Jersey's Defense Contribution

Senator Sarah Ferguson raised the issue of the Island's defense contribution to the UK recently on BBC Radio Jersey, so I thought it an appropriate movement to delve in the files, and look at this matter.

After the Falklands War, mindful of the way the UK Government had helped with Jersey's post-war economy, and the help also provided by the Red Cross, the States decided to make a one off payment to the Falkland Islands to help with their economy, island reaching out to island. A gift of £5 million pounds was made "towards the expenses incurred in the recovery and rehabilitation of the Falkland Islands", of which £250,000 was made available straight away to the Falkland Islands Appeal, and the rest was originally going towards a jetty.

In the Minutes of 3rd May, 1983, the Bailiff, Sir Frank Eraut, informed the States that that the Lieutenant Governor, Sir Peter Whiteley, had received the following letter from the Home Secretary -

"I wrote to you last July to express my great pleasure in accepting Jersey's most generous offer of donations towards the cost of the recovery and rehabilitation of the Falkland Islands, and to the Falkland Islands Appeal Fund. I am writing now to say how very much Her Majesty's Government appreciates these gifts, and the decision by the people of Jersey that the greater proportion should be donated to the provision of a new deep-water jetty at Port Stanley. I understand that it is proposed to name this the Jersey Jetty, and it will stand, both in name and in the great importance of its function, as a lasting memorial to the thoughtfulness of one Island people to another whose circumstances are, for the present at least, much less fortunate."

In fact, the balance was not used for that purpose. When Peter Crill, the new Bailiff, reported back to the States on 28th January, 1986, he noted that:

I discussed the matter with Senator Vibert and we decided that the most appropriate items would be the provision of new housing and a renovated and expanded water treatment and supply plant. Accordingly, I informed the Home Office and the Executive Council of the Falklands now proposes to use the balance for these two projects. The housing development will be known as the Jersey Estate within which streets will be named after places in Jersey.

But the outcome of the donation had another effect. The Island's generosity had been seen by Whitehall, and the UK had noted that no defense contribution had been previously forthcoming since 1920, when after a protracted dispute, a single 'voluntary' payment of £300,000 was paid, on the grounds that Jersey had fiscal autonomy, and no representation in the UK Parliament.

Accordingly, both Jersey and Guernsey were now asked to pay their part in the defense of the realm. It was not hard to see why. If Jersey was capable of an act of generosity of £5 million pounds (the equivalent today of around £12,600,000) it clearly had money to burn.

The way in which the initial decision was made - like Ministerial decrees, this was decided without any discussion in the States - generated a lot of anger. The consensus was that the States, by acting precipitously, had woken up the UK Government to an extra source of revenue. Guernsey people, in particular, were even more annoyed by having to contribute as a result of Jersey's action.

There were several proposals on the table for defense, the most popular (especially with the Ministry of Defense in the UK) being a minesweeper, which would be supported in costs by Jersey, and which would hark back to the Island's maritime legacy. This look as it it was going to be another "edict from on high", and Ken Webb, writing in Channel Islands' Mensa Magazine, summed this the anger of the general public when he wrote:

How the States of Guernsey Members must be laughing up their sleeves at the stupidity - or arrogance - of their Jersey counterparts. I refer to the Defence contribution the Islands are making to the British Government. As with the question of a contribution to the Falklands, Guernsey quietly, efficiently and, with its feet an the ground, discussed, appraised, and formulated a reasoned judgement - on both issues. In Jersey things are rather different. The Falklands contribution of £5,000,000 was publicly announced to the world's media - THIS BEFORE THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRIBUTING HAD BEEN DECIDED, OR EVEN DISCUSSED, IN THE STATES. A "FAIT ACCOMPLI" WAS PRESENTED AND, REGRETTABLY, ACCEPTED. Where was the courage and moral fibre of the States Members?

Now, with the Defence contribution, something akin is happening. Someone decided a minesweeper would be appropriate and everything since then has been calculated to see that this opinion should be paramount. Obviously the Ministry of Defence say yes - they would be fools not to take advantage of the situation - if you offer a man a five pound note or a fifty pound note he will most assuredly take the fifty. They would have been pleased to accept anything, bearing in mind the Islands do not have to donate at' all. Why could not Jersey have done as Guernsey - sit down quietly, make the decision, and accept the willing acquiescence of the British Government to the decision reached? There is an old Jersey motto:- "Make haste slowly", and it is left to Guernsey to prove the truth of those words.

The Special Committee consistently was recommending a Minesweeper as the contribution, although Deputy Rumboll favoured a contribution to search and rescue helicopter for the English Channel. In the end, Deputy Dereck Carter's proposition of a Territorial Army Unit, itself harking back to the Jersey Militia, managed to win the day, in the teeth of strong opposition.

Pierre Horsfall had won for the Special Committee the mandate (on 28th January, 1986) that "the Special Committee should enter into detailed discussions with the United Kingdom authorities regarding the feasibility of establishing in the Island a Royal Naval Reserve Unit, together with its attached minesweeper, the costs therefore being borne by the Island; and report back to the Assembly." But the TA unit gained support, both with the public (who felt that if Jersey had to pay, at least this was not just writing a blank cheque) and the States. On 21st January, 1987 the States (including Pierre Horsfall) voted against the Minesweeper.

"Pour" (17)
Senators Vibert, Le Marquand, Jeune, Ellis, Manton.
Connétables Grouville, St. Brelade, St. Saviour.
Deputies Mourant(H), Le Gallais(S), Le Quesne(S), Filleul(H), Rumboll(H), Wavell(H), Billot(S), St. Martin, Baudains(C).

"Contre" (33)
Senators Binnington, Horsfall, Baal, Rothwell, Le Main, Brooke.
Connétables Trinity, St. Martin, St. Peter, St. Helier, St. Clement, St. Lawrence, St. Mary, St. Ouen.
Deputies St. Ouen, Morel(S), Le Maistre(H), Quénault(B), Roche(S), Le Brocq(H), Trinity, Vandervliet(L), Le Fondré(L), Grouville, St. Mary, Beadle(B), Thorne(B), Blampied(H), Norman(C), St. John, St. Peter, Carter(H), Mahoney(H)

Presumably extremely annoyed that matters had not gone their way after all, the the President and members of the Special Committee resigned immediately (in what appears to be a fit of pique) after the vote was taken.

It was also agreed "that the Island should make (for 1987) an immediate voluntary contribution of £800,000 towards the defence expenditure of the United Kingdom". (The figure of £800,000 plus inflation, provides a valid bench mark against which to compare future Defence Contributions)"

When this was revisited, Terry le Main put the case for keeping the TA and noted that:

A key argument influencing the States' decision was that the establishment of a Territorial Army Unit would revive the long-standing tradition of service represented by the Jersey Militia and carry that much respected tradition forward into the military service requirements of the modern era. There was also strong support for the idea of a personal service commitment by individual Islanders as well as a collective financial contribution by Island taxpayers.

A further hidden advantage to the Island under the present arrangement is that the Squadron spends the majority of the Defence Contribution locally. This is because the Squadron is labour intensive (the Squadron employs about 100 soldiers and civilians) and because most of its requirements for goods and repair services are not complex (i.e. not like a minesweeper or helicopters) and are thus able to be provided in Jersey.

The argument back then (which I am sure is similar to that now) against a defense contribution was that the Islands simply could not be defended - the events of the Second World War demonstrated that conclusively. This is the same argument that Senator Ferguson has raised again - if there is an invading force in France, it is simply not militarily or economically viable to defend the Island.

Against this is the argument for "collective security". In the 1980s, this was bound up with a Cold War narrative, that Jersey was helping by contributing to a total defensive strategy which was a deterrent against any invading Soviet forces.

But even after the collapse of the USSR, this can still be retained as an argument, and it is even more potent in that members of Jersey's TA have been on active service in recent conflicts, helping to support the effort to keep the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. The contribution is not merely training as part of a "phony war" eventually with Soviet forces, but involves active service in war zones.

Jersey, by making a contribution in terms of expenses and manpower, can be seen as also contributing in its own small way, to making the world a more stable place in which to live, and one in which harsh and repressive regimes cannot seize control by force of arms. In this way, the "collective security" argument still remains as valid as before. Otherwise, we benefit from the efforts of others to make the world more peaceful, and piggyback a free ride for doing nothing.

I should perhaps mention that I am a pacifist, but unless the States make a unilateral vote to make the whole Island pacifist, which would probably involve constitutional problems with the Crown, I see the ethics of a contribution pointing no other way.

Remember, Remember

Bonfire night. Once around this time, the Celtic cross-quarter day, the Irish chiefs and tribes gathered, lit fires, feasted. Later, it was a hate-fest, rather like the flag-burning by Muslims we see today, but today, it's just an excuse for a festival again....

Remember, Remember
 
Remember, remember, the Samhain fire
Where Irish chieftains meet for the feast
The tribal gathering, a time to inspire
And drink well, and eat the fatted beast
 
Remember, remember, the fifth November
Guy Fawkes ready, and a gunpowder plot
And bonfire blazing, until the dying ember
Where a guy was burning upon that spot
 
Remember, remember, as children look
Eager gaze upward, as fireworks blaze
This is not of hate, of the history book
But of simple wonder as rockets amaze
 
Now Bonfire night is come again this year
Drink deep the cider, be of good cheer

In Praise of Excellence

The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and impose them wherever it will. - Jose Ortega y Gasset

Another article from "Thinks!", the Mensa Magazine, back around the middle of the 1980s. Ruth Lawrence was a mathematical prodigy, and this article argued against the status quo, the "Daily Mail" readers who said she should go through school at a normal pace, and lead a normal life. Interestingly, when I was teaching at Bideford Comprehensive, there were a small group of teachers there who thought that not enough was done in comprehensives to encourage the brightest pupils - they said there was a lot done for remedial learners, but brighter kids often got bored and lost interest because they were not stretched enough. This point of view had some support among other teachers.

In Praise of Excellence
A Personal Comment

There can be few people who have not heard of Ruth Lawrence. I have read the newspaper reports of her success in mathematics, and listened to the comments of people. The type of remarks I have heard are often strongly held, but lacking in critical thought. Nevertheless, I
believe that they are dangerous, because they are widespread, pervasive, and encourage the idea that such genius is, somehow, a perversion of the natural order.

The main argument made is of the following form: Ruth Lawrence has missed out on a normal childhood, and, as a result, she is a misfit. Linked with this is the notion that this will bring a psychological trauma in later life, because her intellect has advanced at the expense of her emotions. Despite denials, I cannot help feeling that the proponents of this view would like this to happen, and so be vindicated.

But this argument is badly flawed. It forgets that childhood, as a stage of life that all children pass through, is comparatively modern. You require a good deal of prosperity before you can afford to have such a period in life, which is why mass education only began after the industrial revolution. A feudal or slave economy has no place for idle hands among the lower orders.

Moreover, if we compare the curriculum of today's schools with those of the past, it might easily be argued that the intellect of today's child is advanced at the expense of its emotion. For so much more is packed into each subject than was present even fifty years ago. No one argues that this is detrimental. And why should we assume that this process has ceased in our time? Why should we be so arrogant as to assume that our education can provide a yardstick for all time, even the future? The great diversity in human culture throughout history and spread across the globe, with the multitude of different roles given to children, should make us very cautious of generalisations that are only too clearly linked to our own life and times.

The argument that Ruth Lawrence is likely to suffer sane psychological trauma at a later stage in her life, is based upon the fact that she deviates from the norm. In statistical terms, this is true; it is correct to say that she deviates from the norm, because she is above average. But it is not legitimate to assume from this that she is abnormal in a psychological sense. It is this false confusion of meaning which gives the argument its force, with the word "normal" being given emotive connotations for which there is no evidence.

Against Ruth's unique upbringing, the argument is that she would be happier, better adjusted to life, if she had gone through the general educational mill. In other words, she must be brought down to the level of other children, and forced to proceed at their pace, however frustrating that might be for her, and however much she might blame herself later for allowing others to squander so much precious time and talent. Would that not give rise to the possibility of psychological hurt? Has such a possibility ever been considered? The trouble with education today is a misplaced egalitarianism that prefers to reward failure than to praise excellence. Special help is given to those who find it difficult to learn, and they enjoy going at their own pace in classes of small size especially suited to that purpose. This is most praiseworthy, and I am in agreement with such a practice. But what of gifted children, of the calibre of Ruth? No such advantages are given to them. Instead, they are held back in much larger classes and waste time because the class proceeds more slowly, closer to the pace of the least clever member of that class than the brightest. Where is the praise of excellence here? It may be a good education for the average children, but it is likely to turn genius into mediocrity.

Perhaps those who would prefer such an education as this for Ruth, should listen to the prophetic words of Tocqueville (in 'Democracy in America"), and try to understand why her choice is legitimate:

"From hatred of privilege and from the embarrassment of choosing, all men are at last forced, whatever may be their standard, to pass the same ordeal; all are indiscriminately subjected to a multitude of petty preliminary exercises, in which their youth is wasted and their imagination quenched, so that they despair of ever fully attaining what is held out to them; and when at length they are in a condition to perform any extraordinary acts, the taste for such things has forsaken them."

Postscript:

Wikipedia notes that:

Ruth Elke Lawrence-Naimark (born 2 August 1971) is an Associate Professor of mathematics at the Einstein Institute of Mathematics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a researcher in knot theory and algebraic topology. Outside academia, she is best known for being a child prodigy in mathematics. At Oxford, her father continued to be actively involved in her education, accompanying her to all lectures and tutorials. Ruth completed her bachelor's degree in two years, instead of the normal three, and graduated in 1985 at the age of 13 with a starred first and special commendation. Attracting considerable press interest, she became the youngest British person to gain a first-class degree, and the youngest to graduate from the University of Oxford in modern times. Ruth followed her first degree with a second degree in physics in 1986 and a D.Phil in mathematics at Oxford in June 1989, at the age of 17. Her thesis title was Homology representations of braid groups and her thesis adviser was Sir Michael Atiyah. In 1998, Ruth married the Israeli mathematician Ari Naimark and changed her name to Ruth Lawrence-Naimark.[citation needed] The couple have four children, Yehuda Bezalel (born 2000), Esther Miriam (born 2001), Batsheva Simcha (born 2003) and Yehoshua Aharon (born 2006).

She was estranged from her father, but the problem there seems to be more to do with the way he was trying to be successful vicariously through her own achievements, rather than any psychological problems of her own. Contrary to the prophets of doom, she does not seem at all maladjusted and is happily married, and enjoys having children. Her father now helps with her proofreading.

On her own first child, she said: "There will not be any forcing, no attempt to try and push Yehuda faster than he wants to go. I, though, was always eager to learn more. I want Yehuda to develop in a natural way," she adds. "My husband and I will not do exactly as everybody else does when they bring up a child. But I don't want Yehuda to be 'different'. I want my child to be able to develop in a natural way. I suppose I might have liked my childhood to be different in some ways, but I do not want to judge my parents. And I do not envy them. I was not in their shoes. I very much appreciate the effort my father put in. I am enormously grateful for what he did for me. I can see now that being a parent is very difficult."

Currently, Ruth is still teaching courses on combinatorial knot theory, Lie groups, Khovanov theory, discrete mathematics and various courses on mathematics for physicists and engineers, at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Interestingly, despite her parents being very secular Jews, she has embraced her Jewish culture and heritage very strongly. A glance at her sight shows she is still producing solid mathematical work ; there's also a photo of her, with her name beneath in Hebrew. The area of mathematics she is working on is complex, and she suspects any applications in the real world will take 100 years to be manifest:

In 1997, the Independent commented on her and her work:

Knot theory is the broad term for the rarefied branch of maths Ruth is now studying and teaching at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, near Detroit. Broadly speaking, it is about, well, knots - their geometry and behaviour, the more complicated they get. But try to narrow it down and you will find yourself in a dense thicket of phrases like "partition functions of a topological quantum field theory".

Surely that's about as abstruse, and unapplicable to anything in real life, as they come? She systematically squashes the suggestion, citing the theory, developed at the beginning of this century, of infinite-dimensional complex spaces. Abstruse? Then, certainly. "But it led in the 1920s to the possibility of quantum theory; and that made it possible to understand the idea of energy levels of quantum objects. Which led, in time to the laser. "And even when lasers were invented, people were saying, 'What use is that?' Now, of course, it's everywhere, in compact disc players, laser printers... That's what maths is like: it has always shown itself to be useful in the end."

Links:
http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~ruthel/ - Ruth's Website
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-prodigy-ruth-tells-why-shes-all-tied-up-in-knots-1273133.html

The Danger of Private Fireworks

I have already heard reports of fireworks being let of outside on housing estate close to a children's playground this year. And last Sunday night, the bonfire at Les Creux and the l'Auberge were set alight.

The UK has the following legislation which covers public places - such as a children's playground:

It is an offence under section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875 to throw or set off fireworks in any highway, street, thoroughfare or public place.

But I haven't been able to track anything more specific than a public order offence in Jersey. There are specific mentions in some of the laws, however. For example on roads: "No person shall, on any road throw or discharge any stone or missile or light any fire or firework", and in parks "A person must not discharge a firework". These are liable to a fine, but in the UK, the fines for firework offenses can be given "on the spot", thus obviating the heavy workload of paperwork and court time which could otherwise follow.

It's lucky it is just fireworks outside - which is bad enough - the usual problems have surfaced in the UK, or which more later.

I have nothing against professional organised displays, and indeed I was extremely upset to see the bonfire in St Brelade has been thoughtlessly set alight, but letting any Tom Dick or Harry have access to fireworks if over 18 is quite reckless, particularly given the fact that:

(1) rockets were being fired at cars last year in the St Brelade area
(2) there is currently a spate of cars being set on fire, and I would have thought that releasing more incendiary materials can't help.

In New Zealand, for example schools are regularly subject to arson attacks based on fireworks:

Schools traditionally suffer during the Guy Fawke's period and regularly find themselves the target of arson attacks. Already a classroom at Auckland's Cornwall Park Primary was set alight by arsonists using fireworks. It is a problem the fire service says has significantly increased. "What we know, is an arson season develops around about now," Fire Service manager Peter Wilding told ONE News. "We see an increase, almost a doubling in the number of school fires across New Zealand, for about the next two weeks."(0)

This was cut back to some degree by curtailing when fireworks could be on sale for:

In 2007, regulations were put in place restricting the sale of fireworks. This included reducing the days of sale from 10 to four, a move the Fire Service says dramatically reduced their workload.(0)

This illustrates how fireworks are dangerous as explosive material for incendiary action, and yet most legislatures, like that of Jersey, have severe restrictions on the movement of explosive, but exceptions in place for any fireworks, despite the fact that the Explosive's law covers fireworks: "explosives" has such meaning as prescribed, and shall include fireworks:

- No person shall use any explosives for any purpose except in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister.
- The provisions of this Article shall not apply to fireworks.

- No person shall purchase, acquire or have in his or her possession any explosives unless he or she is the holder of a licence granted to the person by the Minister authorizing such purchase, acquisition or possession.
- The provisions of this Article shall not apply to the sale, purchase, transfer, acquisition or possession of fireworks.

As one UK newspaper puts it: "The UK security service continually warn the public to beware of terrorist explosives and the once a year the UK sells tons of fireworks!".

If you know of any incidents, do report them to the police. One Deputy has told me that "It is important any anti-social incidents are reported to the police in order an 'i-log' is created which helps build up a picture of what is going on where so the police can target specific areas." Of course, it is very difficult for the police, as the miscreants have often moved on once they've set off their fireworks.

Incidents in the UK that are most dangerous come when fireworks are put through letterboxes. I know of only one case of that happening, back in the 1980s, when some bangers were pushed through the letterbox of a bungalow, inside which were a family of four. The father went out, caught the culprits, and allegedly literally banged their heads together, which is why the incident was not reported to the police. I wouldn't advise anyone to take their law into their own hands like that, but I did sympathise with his actions.

In Newcastle, there has been a spate of incidents, one involving a letterbox. The police caught a 16 year old with fireworks, and it does raise the question that, like drinking and smoking, it may be perfectly possible for younger teenagers to get hold of fireworks, despite strict laws on what can be sold. Someone older than 18 may legitimately buy fireworks, and sell them for a profit to youngsters, just as with drink or cigarettes, or the shop keeper may not exercise as much diligence in asking for proof of age as they should.

In the UK, not content with just having laws on age, they have been checked. In Surrey and elsewhere, a series of test purchases are being conducted across the county to check retailers are complying with age restrictions.

But age related laws can provide a level of control. When moves are afoot to increase the age for buying cigarettes and alcohol, it is perhaps perverse that no one has thought to increase the age at which fireworks can be bought to say, 21, to take it out of the range of the drinking culture.

Lives were put at risk when reckless pranksters hurled a firework through the letterbox of a home. The dangerous stunt was the latest in a spate of firework-related incidents in Newcastle's East End....PC Euan Faulke, of the Byker and Walker Neighbourhood Policing Team, said: "It may be seen by some as just a prank, but it poses a huge danger. "Unfortunately these people don't think of the possible consequences of their actions." Police have stepped up patrols in the Byker and Walker areas of Newcastle after a recent increase in firework-related disorder. Earlier this month more than 100 boxes of Chinese Black Cat banger fireworks, each box containing 10 bangers, were seized from a 16-year-old on the street. He received a summons for Possession of Adult Fireworks by a person under 18. PC Faulke added: "We just won't put up with people having a negative affect on the lives of their neighbours.(1)

In Stirling, a firework was set off in front of a home, causing damage. The police are evidently acting pro-actively to control the dissemination of fireworks - and note they are also looking at "those who set off fireworks outside prescribed times". Most of the "rogue fireworks" that I have heard in St Brelade being set off in past years were often done around 10.30 pm or later. In the UK, with regulations made under the Fireworks Act 2003, it is an offence for anyone to let fireworks off during night hours (11pm to 7am).

A family's life was put in danger after a "reckless" firework set fire to a house in the early hours of the morning, police have said. The firework was set off in front of a home in Drymen, Stirling, on Sunday morning while the family, including three children, were sleeping. The porch caught fire but the family escaped unharmed after a smoke alarm went off. A 23-year-old man is being questioned in connection with the incident. Ch Supt Davie Flynn, from Central Scotland Police, said: "It is beyond belief that someone would be so reckless as to set off a firework in the direction of a family home in the early hours of the morning while they slept." The force is in the second week of an operation to crack down on those who set off fireworks outside prescribed times or sell them illegally.(2)

The rapidity with which fireworks can explode also led to another incident in Tyneside. In this incident, a noise in the front garden led to fireworks being set off when the door was opened:

A South Tyneside mum had a lucky escape after a lit firework was allegedly thrown through her door. Donna Brown had opened the front door of her home in Shaw Avenue, Biddick Hall, after hearing a noise in the front garden in the early hours of Sunday. The 40-year-old mum-of-two was pinned against the wall of the passageway as the firework exploded, filling the downstairs property with smoke and causing fire damage to the carpet and sofa.

The best advice, as given by UK Chief Fire Office Paul Fuller is to go to regular organised displays:

Chief Fire Officer Paul Fuller says:

"Every year somewhere in the UK people are injured by fireworks. This is the beginning of a long season for fireworks and candlelit celebrations across a range of cultures represented in Beds and Luton. "On November 5th we recommend families go to organised displays. If you must have your own display then ALWAYS follow the Firework Code on the box. "Injuries and upset are also caused by people misusing fireworks by letting them off in public places at inappropriate times of the day and night. They are dangerous and should be treated with caution.

Statistics exist in the UK for firework related injuries. It would be interesting to see if Jersey's Casualty department has any significant rise in injuries around this time of year. That, of course, is further expense onto the Hospital running costs.

PATIENTS suffering from serious firework injuries are admitted to the Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery in Swansea every year. The majority of patients - adults and children - have injuries to their hands and face and many need to have skin grafts. Experts at the centre, in Morriston Hospital, said these injuries will have an impact on the patients' hand functions and facial appearance over a long period of time.(5)

Links
(0) http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/schools-high-alert-fireworks-3876030
(1) http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2010/10/20/vandals-put-firework-through-home-letterbox-72703-27509688/
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-11673728
(3) http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/Firework-nearly-burned-home.6609826.jp
(4) http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Bedfordshire/Sandy/SG19/Bonfire-Night/Safety-Advice-and-Information/179322-Fireworks-take-care
(5) http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health-news/2010/11/01/how-can-autistic-children-and-families-enjoy-bonfire-night-91466-27576563/2/

How not to answer the question!

Mike Jackson was recently asked about the work to be done on the Promenade to provide a "back route" for emergency vehicles to the Fuel Farm / Power Station etc, which according to Hansard will involve that usual mantra, "consultation" with the people around the area.

Senator Routier asked a question in the States. Note how Mike Jackson cleverly avoids answering directly the question about "the historical appearance of the promenade" and talks vaguely about "enhancement" instead.

Of course, anyone with two brain cells can see if the part of the promenade from (for example) the slipway going west is enlarged to accommodate emergency vehicles, it will completely lose its historical appearance, and have to be pretty well ripped apart; the end result will look more like a road than a promenade. What kind of promenade accommodates fire engines??!

5.11   Senator P.F. Routier:

Following on from Deputy De Sousa's question about Havre des Pas, can the Minister reassure me and Members that the historical appearance of the promenade will be retained in the future, once the promenade is altered?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I think it is essential that the appearance of the promenade be enhanced.  It is not pretty or tidy in certain areas and I would suggest that any work we do will be an improvement to the area.

Later on he pulled the same trick of diversion with his answer, ignoring the part of the question about bus shelters completely, although this is clearly what Phil Rondel is asking about. Instead he answers a completely different message about how many bus routes there are in the country.

5.13   The Deputy of St. John:
Is the Minister aware that the current bus routes, many people living in the country live at least one mile, and further, away from their closest bus stop?  Will he give serious consideration to putting one or 2 bus shelters out into the country for those people who have very limited bus services?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Yes, we continually answer requests for bus services and I think primarily one has to focus on areas of priority in numbers, but should the Deputy have any particular areas which he feels are worthy of consideration I would please ask him to submit them to me.

Mike Jackson has obviously been taking lessons from James Hacker:

"If you have nothing to say, say nothing. But better, have something to say and say it, no matter what they ask. Pay no attention to the question, make your own statement. If they ask you the same question again, you just say, 'That's not the question' or 'I think the more important question is this:' Then you make another statement of your own." (Yes Prime Minister)

Some Notes on Rent Controls in Jersey

The problem of high rents in Jersey and how it should be controlled is problematic. A free market means that the rent soars towards those most able to pay, and the higher salaries of the finance industry drive rents upwards. With insufficient social housing, one means of addressing the situation has been a "rent rebate" scheme, to incorporate more rental units that are provided for social housing outside that housing stock. Just as with social housing, the States are subsidising rentals in the private sector. But social housing is for those residentially qualified, and outside this umbrella, rents continue to increase, often with substandard accommodation falling to those who can afford least.

What about rent control? America has has various forms of rent control for some years, and can therefore be seen as providing a larger evidential base for seeing what occurs economically when some kind of rent control is introduced, such as a rent control tribunal. While the situation is not exact, because of course Jersey has much greater pressures on land, nevertheless, I think that some of the key components of rent control also would apply, because they are basic economic consequences of imposing controls.

In a detailed study of rental controls in Los Angeles over several decades, "Analyzing Rent Control: The Case of Los Angeles.", the authors point out that rent control brings with it various unexpected consequences, all of which offset the impact of the control.

Undermaintenance of Housing Stock

Firstly, they point out that rent control is not price control. By restraining the degree to which rents can rise, landlords seek to claw back more income than they might have done with higher rents by reducing the amount of maintenance upon a building. All buildings need maintenance, either as a preventative measure, or as they deteriorate, and within a rent control situation, the landlord saves money by reducing this.

Rent control ordinances restrict the revenues a landlord can receive from a particular dwelling. If the controlled landlord undermaintains the unit, the flow of "housing services" provided will decline, and the reduced rent may eventually be fully offset by a reduction of quantity; in the interim, the rent reduction will be divided between a lower price for housing services and a lower quantity of services provided. For the tenant, this distinction between price reductions and quantity reductions implies that the gain from rent control is less than the total reduction in rent paid; some of the reduced rent payment is offset by reduced housing services. For the landlord, this distinction implies that the loss from rent control is less than the total reduction in rent received; some of the lost rent is offset by reduced maintenance expenditures.

Landlords will choose to undermaintain their dwellings until their output of housing services declines to a level that is supported by controlled rents. For example, if rent control reduces rents by 10 percent, landlords realize that they are, in effect, selling 10 percent of their housing services for nothing, and they will stop maintaining that portion of their output. The unmaintained portion of their output deteriorates, and eventually disappears.

This means that over time, the quality of the housing stock will deteriorate. It has been noted in Israel, for example, that this can be taken up by the tenants themselves, but this is dependent upon the length of the tenancy. A long tenancy means any remedial work or improvements can be amortised over the length of the stay. Shorter stay tenants, or those whose tenure is dependent upon a renewal in a short term (so that they don't know if they will have their lease renewed), will be less inclined to spend on maintenance. Moreover, the common areas fall to the landlord, and will be subject to the same problem of undermaintenance:

Common areas of Israeli rental buildings are often in a ruinous state, but individual units are well kept up. This reflects two features of tenant substitution for landlord maintenance. First, free rider behavior will lead to undermaintenance of common facilities. Second, tenants will make investments in their units.

Game Playing Strategy for Optimising Rents

The imposition of rent controls also leads to higher rents for newer tenants. Because the rental increase is limited, the best game playing strategy for the landlord is to take the highest rent he can at the start, because the return on rent will fall with controls on increases as the years go by. This may mean some housing stock is priced out of the market:

The landlord will be reluctant to accept the tenant unless the expected present value of future rent receipts is adequate, while the tenant knows that future rent increases will be limited by the rent control ordinance. The result will be that the landlord will demand a higher initial rent from the tenant as "compensation" for the lower rent increases permitted in the future, and the tenant will acquiesce in anticipation of limited future rent increases due to rent control. This strategic behavior yields curious results for both tenants and landlords. Tenants who stay longer than anticipated will reap benefits from rent control in the future. Tenants who stay a shorter time than anticipated, however, will confer windfalls on the landlords by paying higher rents than in the absence of rent control.

Shepherd and Macdonald, in their study of rent control, also pose the problem of how rent controls should increase, and whether that will increase the likelihood of the landlord to get rid of the current tenant in favour of a new tenant paying a higher initial rent. Is the market to be regulated to stop this kind of unregulated rent increases when a tenant moves (which is called "vacancy decontrol")?

If the relative price of housing increases, should real rents be allowed to adjust upward at that time, thereby giving the landlord an incentive to get rid of the current tenant? Or should the adjustments be prohibited, thereby creating a black market, waiting lists, and key money payments?

Related to this strategy for landlords, based on higher rental values at the outset, can be "overmaintenance", where a landlord refurbishes housing stock to reposition it into a different market, and thus have a much greater initial rent:

Rent control laws can cause landlords to overmaintain a dwelling. For example, rent control provisions that exempt luxury units may give some landlords an incentive to upgrade their units to luxury status and to maintain them as such. Similarly, cost pass through provisions that allow landlords to amortize, say, carpets over a three-year period, may give landlords an incentive to invest in higher quality carpets (with a longer economic life) than they might have otherwise selected. In general, if the provisions of a law permit the landlord to raise rents by more than the cost of some maintenance activity, that activity will be undertaken more under rent control than in the absence of rent control.

Removal from Rental Market

The other option for landlords seeking a better return on properties whose rental value is restricted is to remove them from the rental property market by various means, but where the end result is taking the property out of the rental market and onto the buyers or developers market. The study of Los Angeles showed this was occurring alongside the other ways in which rent control was effecting the market.

Landlords could remove their dwellings from the rental market by abandoning them or converting them to other uses, such as condominiums. We call this the "quantity loss due to removals and conversions."

This is also noted in another study by Richard Epstein who notes that rent control may see landlords "want to take their units off the rental market, either for owner-occupancy or for sale as a condominium."

Legal Problems

The problem of undermaintenance and the removal of housing stock from the rental market can be dealt with by adding exclusion clauses. However, the problem is the balance between the landlord and tenant, as this means that funds expended can be regained in various forms from the tenant, essentially making a loophole in the rent control.

Second generation laws go beyond the mere prescription, "thou shalt not raise rents." They add exceptions and exclusions that mitigate rent control's most deleterious effects on landlords' incentives to construct and maintain dwellings. We find that second generation adjustments in rent control laws increase landlords' incentives only by eating into tenants' benefits. In the extreme, second generation controls are no controls at all.

Basically, once rent controls are hedged around with loopholes, landlords will take advantage of those, but the benefits to tenants will be minimal.

Conclusion

The authors' conclusion is as follows:

We believe that two of our empirical findings apply to other communities with rent control. First, the bulk of the transfers from landlords to tenants achieved by a rent control law are realized early in the law's life, but the bulk of the economic cost of the law--the housing stock lost through the inefficient working of the market under rent control--is incurred later in the law's life. Second, legal provisions that ameliorate the deleterious effects of rent control on landlords' incentives to maintain their dwellings reduce the benefits of rent control to tenants.

The studies done in America make one wonder why rent controls continue at all, given the problems that can occur. But the main principle remains the same, to prevent excessive increases by greedy landlords and protect people renting who could be driven down to subsistence levels by high rents:

The stated objectives of rent control were the prevention of "excessive" rent increases while allowing landlords a "just and reasonable" return on their investment in rental housing.

This does not mean that some form of rent control is not desirable, but it does show how complex the situation is, and that unintended consequences can result to go against the main aims of rent control, and any strategy to bring in rent control must be aware of those. I am personally in favour of some kind of rent control in Jersey, which may seem surprising when I have been highlighting the problems that are faced by that strategy.

But against that must be placed the status quo, where the rental market, much as the housing market has been, is driven up by the high salaries of those working in the finance industry, and the less maintained properties, some extremely badly kept, are rented out to those outside that comfortable level of income.

Rent control of some sort would certainly be better than the current situation, and an awareness of the pitfalls shows that it will not be a universal panacea, but may help as long as it is regulated carefully enough to prevent the problems outlined above becoming too prevalent.

Links:
"Analyzing Rent Control: The Case of Los Angeles." by MP Murray , CP Rydell, CL Barnett, CE Hillestad, K Neels, Economic Inquiry. Vol 29, Issue 4 (1991)
"The Moral and Practical Dilemmas of an Underground Economy." Richard Epstein, "Yale Law Journal. Vol: 103. Issue: 8. (1994)
"Rent Control with Rent Discrimination Revisited." A. Ross Shepherd, John F. McDonald, "Journal of Economic Education." Volume: 28. Issue: 4., 1997

The Death of the Doctor

Last week's episode of "The Sarah Jane Adventures" brought back old companion Jo Grant (now Jo Jones), as someone who left the Doctor when fighting for environmental matters in Wales, and has spent her life fighting against exploitation of the natural world, and injustice.

This was very much in keeping with her last Dr Who story, "The Green Death", in which multinational oil refining company Global Chemicals is producing toxic waste products, and Jo heads off to Wales to join the protest movement under Professor Jones:

JO: Oh dear. Doctor, I mean it. I'm going to go to South Wales because they have got to be stopped.
BRIGADIER: Who's got to be stopped?
JO: Well, Global Chemicals, of course. Can't you see the harm this go ahead will do?
BRIGADIER: No, Miss Grant, I can't. Cheap petrol and lots of it. Exactly what the world needs.
JO: No! No, look it's time to call a halt! It's time that the world awoke to the alarm bell of pollution instead of sliding down the slippery slopes of, of, of, whatever it is.

Stevens, the Managing Director of Global Chemicals, is the archetypal big businessman, who is quite clear in his own mind that despite the risks of pollution - and this being a Doctor Who story, mutated giant maggots - his company is acting ethically, and what is profitable is also good for society.

STEVENS: In the end, we all want the same thing. An ordered society, with everyone happy, well fed.
DOCTOR: Global Chemicals taking all the profits.
STEVENS: What's best for Global Chemicals is best for the world, is best for you

Professor Jones, whom Jo falls in love with and later marries, is an environmental activist, and - this was cutting edge back in 1973 - was in favour of renewable sources of energy:

JONES: It's still using up the oil and doubling the atmospheric pollution. No, the world has got to find ways of using the energy the sun is giving us now.
JO: Well, like what, for instance?
JONES: Well, like using the movement of the wind and the tides and the rivers. Well, I mean, like here at the Nuthutch. Well, you are quite warm?
JO: The ambient temperature suits me fine, thank you.
JONES: Heat from the river. And the heat pump works on electricity generated by a windmill. Alternative technology, see.
JO: And no waste, no pollution!
JONES: Exactly.

The same theme comes up later, in the story "Invasion of the Dinosaurs", where a group of idealists are planning to roll back time, and take their group back to a "golden age" before modern industrial society has began to pollute the planet. They are stopped by the Doctor, but nevertheless, he thinks while their means were wrong, their view of the dangers faced by pollution were correct.

SARAH: Poor Grover.
BRIGADIER: The man was mad.
DOCTOR: Yes, well, of course he was mad. But at least he realised the dangers this planet of yours is in, Brigadier. The danger of it becoming one vast garbage dump inhabited only by rats.
BRIGADIER: It'll never happen, Doctor.
DOCTOR: It's not the the oil and the filth and the poisonous chemicals that are the real cause of pollution, Brigadier. It's simply greed.

And so to this week's episode, in which Jo Jones returns, now as a grandmother, but still fighting strongly for environmental issues and matters of social justice. After the villains, the Shansheath, have been defeated, and the Doctor has left, and Jo has left, Sarah Jane Smith reflects on what has become of other companions of the Doctor, and they have all taken up causes, doing their small bit to make the world a better place:

There's a woman called Tegan in Australia, fighting for Aboriginal rights; there's Ben and Polly in India, running an orphanage there. There was Harry, oh I loved Harry. He's a doctor, he did such good work with vaccines, he saved thousands of lives. Oh and there's a Dorothy something, she runs that company - a Charitable Earth, she's raised billions. Oh and this couple in Cambridge, both professors, Ian and Barbara Chesterton. Rumour has it they've never aged, not since the Sixties."

In this script, Russell T Davies captures perfectly the ideals which Doctor Who conveys, and which were particularly strong with during the 1970s with Jon Pertwee and the early Tom Baker stories. Neither the Doctor, nor his companions, are political activists of the right or left, but they all, in their own ways, take a stand against the tendency of the modern world to brush pollution under the carpet, and ignore injustice. They have a moral agenda, and that cuts across class divisions, and the politics of the left and right. As a modern philosopher puts it:

Dr. Who is what modern ethicists would call a deontologist. He places a high value on doing the right thing for the right reason and he is very impatient with utilitarian compromises. The show is very good at presenting the evils that can arise from doing something that obviously seems wrong because it promotes a greater good. That doesn't mean that he can always escape making a utilitarian compromise. (1)

Most politicians look at the world in utilitarian ways, with moral considerations bracketed off. It is usually those who lead protests who do not. Doctor Who tells adventure stories, but in the telling, there is often a confrontation with those people who want to bracket off the moral question - is it right? Martin Luther King expressed this position most forcefully in one of his speeches.

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.

How many of today's politicians really live up to that ideal? And how many ask the other questions?

Links
(1) http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2010/05/the-new-doctor-who.html

Thin Places

A Meditation for Samhain / Halloween...

Thin Places
 
Dusk comes, and in the evening light, the stars begin to shine. I look up and see the great square of Pegasus, and the swirling star dust which forms the Andromeda Nebula. When the universe was half its present age, the light was leaving this distant island universe, and has travelled for millions of years to reach the earth.
 
I cross a stream, and see three small pebbles on the ground below me, and pick them up, and they are icy cold within the palm of my hand, and I intone the incantation of the dreaming stones:
 
I will lift the stone
For substance, virtue, and strength;
May this stone be in my hand
Till I reach my journey's end.
 
It is a clear sky, the patterns of light bright against the dark backdrop of night, and the cold wind blows across the moor. Lyra and Cygnus are overhead, and between them is the dark void which forms the Cygnus Rift. I shiver in the bitter wind, and walk towards the old forest nearby.
 
The forest is dark, and scattered starlight barely penetrates the canopy of branches. But there is a light shining ahead, and I make my way towards it. There is a clearing, where a large tree has fallen, and two lanterns hang from the branches of other trees, their flames flickering yellow. Nearby is a small pyramid of stones, and I bend down and place one of my stones upon the pile.
 
Suddenly I am aware of an old man standing still near me, in a white robe, with a staff in his hand and a golden sickle in his belt, and as I stand up, he pushes back his hood, and I see his white hair, and his sweeping silver beard. He smiles, and beckons me closer, and points.
 
I follow his finger, and see between two branches of a tree that a spider had spun a web, delicate, gossamer, and fine. The silver threads gleam with dew in the lantern's flame. In the centre, the spider waited for its prey, small and black. The man looked at me; his eyes were bright and fierce. Yet he spoke gently.
 
"The fates spin their web," he told me, "and we too weave our own web, the pattern of our lives, of good or evil, of memories of joy and goodness, of our successes and our failures."
 
I watched as the spider crept slowly across the web to where a fly was caught in its meshes. "Here are the ghosts caught in the web of dreams," said the old man, "and now is the night to face the ghosts, for this night the ghosts are unleashed. Here are the phantoms of past hurts, of fears, of regrets, of the roads not travelled, those moments that haunt our days."
 
"Can nothing be done?" I asked, in my distress.
 
"Yes indeed," he told me, "but you must face and ponder your past, and face those ghosts, or they will return from the dark recesses of your mind and haunt you still. But now you must go on further, for not all is dark.  There is fear at the roots. You must look to the deep springs for strength and seek the well of dreams."
 
He handed me one of the lanterns, and gestured towards the forest path. And I left the old man, and went along the path, the trees crowding in against me, branches like fingers trying to catch me. But then there was another clearing, and in its midst, I saw a well, its wall of ancient granite stones, some covered in moss.
 
I gazed down into the well, and the lantern light flickered in reflection. I dropped one of my pebbles down, and the light danced in the water, as the waves spread swiftly out, and the reflection faded, and an image, indistinct, began to form in the swirling ripples.
 
Then the image cleared, and I saw the sun shining warmly upon a green and pleasant meadow, with an apple tree ripe with fruit at its centre, and a river of cool water flowing by. I saw myself there, feeling full of joy and hope, and all those I have known as friends and those I have loved, whether alive or dead, were there, holding hands, and dancing in the sun around the tree.
 
And a woman's voice speaks softly, "Here are the summer lands, the hopes of the days to come, to be yourself as you truly are, and where nothing that is good is ever really lost. This is but a glimpse, and you are seeing only a reflection, darkly, but later you will see face to face. You know it within yourself, that even those you love and befriended are never gone, because you remember them, and they live in you."
 
 I turn my gaze up, and see an old woman in a shawl, with a ruby ring shining on her finger, and she points me towards the path.
 
Once more, I walk the old forest way, covered with wet leaves, but the path suddenly opens up and I am back in the open, once more out on the heath. The night is inky black, and out of the blackness shines brightly and steadily the pale white stars. I look up, and find Capella shining brightly in the night sky, and suddenly there are flashes across the sky, as the Orionid meteorite shower strikes the upper atmosphere and burns up.
 
A bitter cold assails me and then I see a bonfire is blazing, and beside it, I see once more the elder, cloaked in white, and the old woman. Together they gaze upwards where Saturn is shining brightly in the night sky before dawn breaks, and chant together:
 
Come Saturn, ancient planet
In far distant space, cast a net
And draw in rings, many bands
Of colour, falling light on lands
Antiquity rising, now come down
Cold pressure descending, a gown
Of mystic purpose, heavy burden
A crushing weight of glory then
Like mountains of centuries past
Layered, deep, so huge and vast
Freezing waters, such biting cold
Unendurable sorrow, so very old
Yet strength as well, hard as rock
As granite walls, the waves do mock
Fling back the breaking seas, endure
This is Lurga, ancient of days, sure
To strengthen us with powers blast
But a fraction of the planet cast
More would unmake us, take care
Saturn descending, become aware

I warm myself in the glow of the fire while night fades, and the stars fade one by one, and watch the final embers as they die, and then presently the sun rises, and I hear the sound of birdsong. The old man and woman wave at me as they leave, returning to the forest, and I walk away from the trees, into the new year dawning, feeling born anew. I feel the stone within my hand, and it is warming.
 
May this stone be in my hand
Till I reach my journey's end.
 
I let the last stone gently fall onto the deep grass. And I have reached my journey's end.

Gravestone

As All Souls or Halloween approaches, a reflection on life and death...

Gravestone
 
A final word laid down to rest
Memory awakes, a name is said
Awaking thoughts of all the best
Life only complete when dead
 
Moss grows, words fade in rain
Time dissolves all, even stone
Weeps like tears, loss and pain
Of once breathing flesh and bone
 
A dusty road, the gravestone tells
That death comes to each, to all
Each life of heavens and of hells
Until at end of our days, we fall
 
In forests of stone, remember here
Those now gone, and once so dear

A Taxing Dilemma

BBC Radio 4's documentary programme looked this week at tax matters, and in particular, how large corporations manage to re-arrange their corporate structure to avoid paying tax.

While the government axes public spending to try to cut the deficit, Michael Robinson investigates loopholes which let big businesses slash their UK tax bills. This month George Osborne said he plans to make Britain the most attractive corporate tax regime in the G20. But some companies have already moved abroad for tax reasons. And for others able to operate on a global scale, there are many ways for them to reduce their tax liability. So how does the Government square the tax circle?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vhgpl/File_on_4_A_Taxing_Dilemma/

Surprisingly, there was little about offshore jurisdictions. The main problems came from variable tax regimes within the European Union, and the fact that European law trumps British tax law.

In the Republic of Ireland, for example, there are offices where the name plates bear reference to subsidiaries of UK companies but where the companies themselves are simply wealth holding companies. All they hold is money - they have no fixed assets, no employees, and while they have to have directors, the directors receive no remuneration. In essence, they are empty shells, a channel for profits, and yet any tax they would pay is levied at Irish corporation tax rates, and not British ones, which are higher.

The UK had sought to stop this loophole, by means of the CFC (Control of Foreign Company Rules) which declared that companies who structured their corporation to avoid paying UK tax would still be caught in the net - it declared that profits would be applicable at UK corporation tax rates where there were "wholly artificial arrangements intended to escape the [UK] tax normally payable".

The UK therefore decided to pursue this in the case of Cadbury Schweppes:

The position of Cadbury Schweppes Cadbury Schweppes had set up two subsidiaries in Ireland to raise finance and provide that finance to other subsidiaries in the Cadbury Schweppes group. The Irish profits were subject to tax at 10 per cent under the rules then applicable to companies established in the International Financial Services Centre in Dublin. It was agreed by the parties that the set up in Ireland was to enable the profit from the intra-group financing transactions to benefit from the low tax regime in Ireland.(1)

The arguments centred around the "motive" of the company, which is a notoriously difficult area for anything to be proven. The UK argued that the company was subject to CFC rules and should pay UK tax, Cadbury Schweppes maintained it was just part of a general corporate strategy with no particular intent to avoid paying UK tax:

In its written statement to the ECJ before the case was heard the UK Government put forward the proposition that the Irish subsidiaries were solely incorporated to avoid UK taxation and the activities were superfluous to the group's commercial business. Cadbury Schweppes maintained that it had incorporated the Irish subsidiaries to conduct a commercial business of raising and lending money. (1)

The EU courts decision was that any tax avoidance structure had to be shown to be one set up with "wholly artificial arrangements" and the CFC rules would not apply if it could be shown "that controlled company is actually established in the host Member State and carries on genuine economic activities there". Otherwise this would be contradictory to EU law, and a restriction on intra-EU free movement. Clearly, despite to all intents and purposes, there being no operations in the Cadbury Schweppes arrangements in Ireland, the Court accepted that it was set up to "conduct a commercial business of raising and lending money", and therefore the ruling was that the CFC rules could not apply.

The same situation arise with Vodaphone and Luxembourg in 1999:

There are always a number of twists and turns to these UK/ECJ cases and Vodafone is no exception. The case centres around the takeover of Mannesmann in Germany by Vodafone in 1999 and, in particular, the establishment of a subsidiary in Luxembourg which owned the European sub-subsidiary companies in Europe and lent money to those sub-subsidiaries and, in return, earned interest on the loans. The UK Revenue argued that the interest income of the Luxembourg subsidiary should be treated as if it had been received by the UK parent company under the then CFC legislation (2)

But once more this was challenged in the Courts, on the basis of the previous ruling, effectively saying that member states could not interfere in the tax regimes of other member states, and that a company had its own freedoms:

The objective of freedom of establishment is to allow a Community national (including a company) to participate on a stable and continuing basis, in the economic life of another Member State. (2)

The Court of Justice in its judgement yet again provided a reminder to national courts that they are obliged to interpret domestic legislation in a manner consistent with Community law. The treaty is directly effective and supreme over domestic law. (2)

The Court reminded us that it is settled case law that the fact that a taxpayer sought to benefit from a tax advantage provided by another Member State does not deprive them of the right to have their freedoms protected.(2)

What this means, essentially, is that while low corporation tax regimes outside the EU may be subject to challenge, tax competition within the EU could not be subject to the same kind of challenge. It is a major headache which is still present within the UK, as more companies seek to minimise UK corporation tax by restructuring their tax systems to take advantage of the ruling, and billions are lost in UK revenue.

As a result - and this will be familiar to Jersey readers - the UK is facing increasing pressure to increase taxes on that part of its tax intake that cannot be restructured abroad - namely domestic taxes - duties on drink, tobacco and petrol - widening the social security payments (essentially starting to function as a payroll tax) - and increasing VAT, as well as cutting back on benefits expenditure.

This targets the home population, who cannot so easily avoid the tax, and it is almost a mirror image of Jersey's solutions to its zero / ten regime.

But the Cadbury Schweppes ruling has other implications for Jersey. Jersey's Comptroller of Taxes has a very similar clause against tax avoidance schemes in Jersey tax law, but if a corporation structured its system to hold profits elsewhere without direct Jersey shareholdings - ostensibly to "conduct a commercial business of raising and lending money", but at an effective tax rate less than the 20% on local shareholders, Jersey could face a real challenge in proving that its rules applied. Whether it is commercially viable yet is debatable, but in principle the opportunity may yet arise. Of course any dividends or funds that eventually ended up back with Jersey residents from the corporate group would be taxed at 20%, but in the meantime, potentially taxable revenue would be outside the Jersey tax system.

Clearly the move to seek tax harmonisation within the EU would go some way to correcting these anomalies, as the situation as it stands is leading to a "race to the bottom", with the money moving to areas within the EU where it is least taxed. But this is unlikely to happen while EU countries such as Ireland are struggling to cope with the world economic downturn:

Dublin's favourable tax regime for big corporations - currently only 12.5 percent - will remain "a cornerstone of Irish industrial policy," a spokesman for the ministry of finance told Dow Jones news wire. His comments came after the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland urged Prime Minister Brian Cowen to "categorically rule-out" EU pressure on corporate tax. "We have to realise that we are still way out of line in terms of our cost competitiveness, and Ireland's competitive corporation tax rate is one of the few competitive advantages we have" (3)

EU officials have frequently raised the issue of greater tax harmonisation in Europe, with a recent report by ex-commissioner Mario Monti identifying tax divergences as a damaging factor to the internal market. (3)

It is ironic that it is not (for once) offshore "tax havens" that are causing most disruption, but the way in which tax regimes and competition operate with in the EU itself.

Links
(1) www.icaew.com/index.cfm/route/142022/icaew_ga/en/Technical_and_Business_Topics/Faculties/News/Cadbury_Schweppes_and_the_UK_CFC_rules__The_ECJ_Judgment
(2) http://www.accountancyireland.ie/Archive/2006/December-2006/Cadbury-Schweppes--Is-it-really-the-Tonic-Irish-Revenue-Ordered/
(3) http://euobserver.com/19/30950

Henry Mayhew and the Jersey Poor

If a man, his wife, and two children, all go out in the streets selling, they breakfast before starting, and perhaps agree to re-assemble at four o'clock. Then the wife prepares the dinner of fish and potatoes, and so tea is dispensed with. In that case the husband's and wife's board would be 4d. or 4½d. a day each, the children's 3d. or 3½d. each, and giving 1½d. extra to each for Sunday, the weekly cost is 10s. 3d. Supposing the husband and wife cleared 5s. a week each, and the children each 3s., their earnings would be 16s. The balance is the surplus left to pay rent, washing, firing, and clothing. (London Labour and the London Poor, 1861)

"London Labour and the London Poor" (1861) was a pioneering work by Henry Mayhew on Victorian Poverty. Mayhew not only described the habits and daily life of the poor on the streets, he also investigated their finances, and detailed how they tried to make ends meet.

There is a great deal of well-justified concern about how a rise in GST locally will change from 3% to 5%. Clearly it will impact most severely on the poorest, and while there is income support, this often does not apply to pensioners who have saved, and managed to pay off a mortgage on their home or flat. They will have to sell their home, and use all their savings, and then go, cap in hand, to the States. This will impact on the rental market, and the degree to which it will cannot yet be ascertained.

More generally, the poorest in Jersey, who are renting already, will be forced into needing income support to make ends meet, and a culture of dependency will arise, which is not good either for self-respect, or for the finances of Jersey. It means more means-testing, more paperwork (and more staff), and more money needed from the States to support it. And there will be less money in the economy as a result, as people have less to spend, leading to lower returns on GST.

The impact of any rise in GST will be more severe in Jersey than, for example, in the UK, because here it effects the very basics of life - of heat, light, water and food. This is where GST really bites, because it hits essentials, not luxury items, which everyone needs, regardless of income.

I have been told of pensioners who are already finding it difficult to make a balance between heating in winter or eating, and the situation will only get worse. At the very least, the removal of GST from the utility companies bills to householders would ease the situation, and would be fairly simple to implement with modern computerised record keeping.

A letter to the JEP complaining about the low increase in the cost of living says it all - they said how, when the price of a loaf of daily bread - one of the staples of life - has risen so dramatically - and gas costs have just risen - can the index have shown a reduction? Clearly, they could not easily reconcile the increase cost of their personal outgoings with the drop in the RPI. But this is, in fact, understandable when we look at the Retail Price Index.

According to the Statistics Unit, inflation in Jersey has fallen - the Retail Price Index in Jersey was 2.8% in June 2010 and dropped to 2.1% in September. But this is how it is compiled, and note that it is a general measure on goods and services:

The RPI is compiled using a large and representative selection of over 500 separate goods and services. The price movements for each of these are measured at a representative range of outlets. About 2,500 separate price quotations are used each quarter in compiling the index

What we don't have, and clearly need, is not simply RPI statistics of an overall nature, in which the poorest and elderly get swallowed up in the figures, but an index of the price index faced by the poorest - the lowest quartile - and see how that has risen - how the daily household bill of that lowest quartile has gone up, and what proportion of income that consumes. We also really need to know how well the income support system is doing - how are people coping who are on income support - to see that enough is being given to them. A letter to the paper highlights the problems:

I accept that people have no work at home and are following work all over the world but we have less work now and it is becoming scarce. It's a frightening time for residents, and with tax being raised, monies spent on finance, no diversity is being supported. Benefit payments are at an all time high, but only those on benefit get help. Special payments for emergency assistance don't come into play for desperate working families if they have a crisis. (2)

Not only are food costs on the increase (because of the price of wheat worldwide), but also poorer people have problems with dental costs or medical expenses when trying to make ends meet. It is well attested that, in a situation where medical expenses are high, mothers with young children will struggle on and try to do without medical attention when they need it. This was written in 1952, but I have come across Jersey families where it is as true today as then:

Preventable pain is a blot on any society. Much sickness and often permanent disability arise from failure to take early action, and this in its turn is due to high costs and the fear of the effects of heavy bills on the family. The records show that it is the mother in the average family who suffers most from the absence of a free health service. In trying to balance her domestic budget she puts her own needs last. (3)

That is why, of course, so many people on lower incomes make use of the accident and emergency department at the hospital, because it is the only way they can easily make ends meet, especially when they need medical help out of house, when a call out can cost upwards of £80. And it should be notice that matters will be harder soon in the new budget proposals, which aim to severely restrict the use of A&E to just "emergency cases", rather than tackling the root problem of need.

What is needed is the kind of survey that Henry Mayhew did - anecdotal information, no doubt, but accurate nonetheless, and important in understanding just how the daily budget can be balanced, and how difficult it may be. This doesn't mean naming people, but it brings home the individual, out of the mass of statistics, and for those on lower incomes, that will probably turn out to be typical rather than the exception.

Figures depersonalise the situation, they take the politicians away from actual hardship, because they are abstractions from real people. Just as the reductions of grants to Les Amis are made by people who have probably never visited the place (and just a day helping out would let them see what work is done), so too the increase in GST is done by people who have never had to live on a basic pension. That's why we desperately need someone - to highlight what in means to live on a tight budget, and how hard it is to economise. That is often done around Christmas, with the JEP articles, but we need a more comprehensive report that just one or two pages of news print, which are often forgotten once Christmas is gone.

Here is Henry Mayhew again:

One Irish street-seller I saw informed me that she was a "widdy wid three childer." Her husband died about four years since...In the summer she sells green fruit, which she purchases at Covent-garden. When the nuts, oranges, &c., come in season, she furnishes her stall with that kind of fruit, and continues to sell them until the spring salad comes in. During the spring and summer her weekly average income is about 5s., but the remaining portion of the year her income is not more than 3s. 6d. weekly, so that taking the year through, her average weekly income is about 4s. 3a.; out of this she pays 1s. 6d. a week rent, leaving only 2s. 9d. a week to find necessary comforts for herself and family. For fuel the children go to the market and gather up the waste walnuts, bring them home and dry them, and these, with a pennyworth of coal and coke, serve to warm their chilled feet and hands. They have no bedstead, but in one corner of a room is a flock bed upon the floor, with an old sheet, blanket, and quilt to cover them at this inclement season. There is neither chair nor table; a stool serves for the chair, and two pieces of board upon some baskets do duty for a table, and an old penny tea-canister for a candlestick. She had parted with every article of furniture to get food for her family. She received nothing from the parish, but depended upon the sale of her fruit for her living.(1)

Links
(1) London Labour and the London Poor, 1861, Henry Mayhew
(2) Letter, JEP
(3) In Place of Fear, Aneurin Bevan, 1952