It’s the economy…stupid so watch this space!

Spain experienced 5 years of double-digit recession before recovery was confirmed in the first quarter of 2014. However the jobless rate overall in 2014 was 25%, and unemployment is likely to remain at 20% for several years. Spanish workers have experienced falling salaries though the low rate of inflation has helped to maintain household purchasing power.

An election in 2015 will no doubt be fought on the state of the Spanish economy and the austerity measures that the EU has required of Spain. Despite its sizeable majority, the Spanish Government remains brittle due to alleged corruption and the re-emergence of demands for independence within the regions. The continuing talk of secession by Catalonia will no doubt shadow the Spanish Government for some time to come.

The Greek election being held this day, Sunday 25 January, will also no doubt influence the outcome of the Spanish election and impact on the future of the EU as it will on other elections across Europe over the coming year(s).

Out for lunch

In Spain, the hours that shops open (9 to 2pm and 4pm to 8pm) is regulated by the Government. Yes the long lunch is regulated and is synonymous with Spanish culture. Both ensure its adherence!  In towns and villages the shutter and roller door are a constant reminder that when in Spain…..

Wonderful ...but windy!

The medieval villages and towns of the Catalonian region with their walls and narrow laneways provide both protection from the next invader and from the heat and the Tramontana (wind) that blows across the Pyrenees in winter and is both fierce and biting. Descriptions abound on its impact on both buildings and lives.  From the walls and lines of beech trees that have been designed as windbreaks to its effect on people including the ‘making of children giddy on the first day and causing depression when it blows for a week’.

 

A good read!

Thought for the Day - 22/01/2015 - Rt Rev Graham James

Good morning. I’ve been unable to get an old Beatles’ song out of my mind this week. Friends sang “When I’m 64” for my birthday on Monday. I’d rather expected it. Now I discover that Paul McCartney originally wrote the words when he was just 16. The chorus “Will you still need me, will you still feed me” questions whether affection survives ageing. But it was probably adolescent insecurities about lovability which inspired it. We often project present anxieties well into the future.

At the time the song was written there were plenty of wider insecurities in the world. Nuclear weapons, the Soviet threat and the escalation of the Vietnam War: they were then the background for the personal dramas of our lives. I feel almost nostalgic for such times. The choices we faced seemed clearer. For those so inclined, CND marches or anti-Vietnam demonstrations gave a vehicle for protest. It was the policy of Western Governments which many people then wanted to change. 

Now, as in France last week, leaders of those governments march with the people. Governments protest too. And sometimes seem almost as bewildered as those they govern. None of us would have predicted that jihadist terror would be such a threat nor that we would feel so helpless personally to do anything about it.

 Such helplessness may be why there seems such weariness in our public and political discourse. Routine policy quarrels about the mansion tax, the NHS or the deficit seem to miss these broader insecurities. Perhaps this is why those who have a longer perspective on political and social questions are heard with more respect. Elder statesmen such as Jimmy Carter and Mikhail Gorbachov are honoured more now than when in office. In South Africa, despite his reported retirement from public life, Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s voice is still heard with reverence, though not so much by those in power. Elder statesmen are most respected when they do not claim too much. We respond positively to informed humility.

There’s a gospel story about two very old and humble people, Simeon and Anna. They both saw the child Jesus in the temple at Jerusalem and discerned in him the promise of a new age. It wasn’t just the passing of the years which gave them insight and wisdom. Their humility kept them open to the unexpected. TS Eliot dismissed the idea that age alone makes us wise and then went on to write:

“The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.”

Humility isn’t a sign of insecurity. Nor is it weakness. But it causes other virtues to flourish. It’s often accompanied by hope for a better future – possible even when you’re 64.

Independence? Many not sure this time around!

The citizen participation process on the political future of Catalonia,  a non-binding vote, was held by the Catalonian Government in November 2014. The ballot consisted of two questions: "Do you want Catalonia to become a State?" and "Do you want this State to be independent?" The second question could only be answered by those who had answered Yes to the first one.

 

There were 2,305,290 votes cast overall and it was estimated that the turnout estimates, published by media outlets, was between 37.0%  and 41.6%. Whilst  80.8% of the cast votes supported the Yes-Yes option, 10.1% the Yes-No, 4.5% the No option. The relatively low turnout suggests that the momentum for independence is yet to be realised. Many Catalan flags adorn the balconies in Barcelona and in towns and villages across Catalonia. They have not as yet translated into votes in the ballot box.

The recently announced Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (Republican Left of Catalonia, ERC) candidate for Mayor of Barcelona, Alfred Bosch, is a strong advocate for an independent Catalonia. He sees the City of Barcelona as taking its place on the international stage as a Capital City of a Nation State. Bosch may be the catalyst for this momentum if elected in the City elections in May this year.

http://bit.ly/1xjOPQT

Whose best placed to be liveable and sustainable?

Both Barcelona and Melbourne seek to be liveable and sustainable but come from a different spatial and land use base. Barcelona is one of the world’s most low rise and high density cities with population of 1.6 million covering an area of 102 km2 and a density of 15,991 km2. Metropolitan Barcelona has a population of 5.3m in an area of 4,268 km2 and a density of 1,250 km2.

 

Melbourne’s suburban sprawl is well known and established. The City of Melbourne forms a fraction of the metropolitan area also known as Melbourne. The confusion is obvious to overseas observers and astounds even the most ‘locally’ committed politician. The level of astonishment increases when it is revealed that it takes 31 municipalities to govern a population of 4.5 million in an area of 9,900 km2 with a density of 430 km2.

The City of Melbourne has 5 of the 6 tallest buildings in Australia and recently approved developments no doubt aim to maintain this status. Such new developments have become common place on brownfield sites but recent skyscraper developments have taken over strategic sites in the city centre threatening the pedestrian life of the City. 

Barcelona City’s public transport system ranks among the world’s best and most utilized with 80% of journeys within Barcelona being by public transport, on foot or by bicycle. Its increasing focus on walking and cycling city is evident from the infrastructure improvements currently underway, reducing road space and creating separate bicycle lanes and marinating pedestrian activity and safety. 

Melbourne’s public transport system is under pressure from increased usage as car travel becomes less and less convenient and affordable (time and money). The failure to invest in public transport over the last decade has led to inequity for those who live between the radial link cracks. No wonder Melbourne’s land use and transport nexus challenges governments and academics alike.   

Whilst Melbourne has been ranked as the world’s most liveable city by the Economist Intelligence Unit for the fourth consecutive year it also ranks as the fourth most expensive.

Liveability based on consumption will be found out sooner or later.

http://theconversation.com/no-sustainable-population-without-sustainable-consumption-1774

Corporate power challenges democracy

George Monbiot, in the Guardian on 8th December 2014 wrote: “Does this sometimes feel like a country under enemy occupation? Do you wonder why the demands of so much of the electorate seldom translate into policy? Why the Labour Party, like other former parties of the left, seems incapable of offering effective opposition to market fundamentalism, let alone proposing coherent alternatives? Do you wonder why those who want a kind and decent and just world, in which both human beings and other living creatures are protected, so often appear to find themselves confronting the entire political establishment”.

And in conclusion he wrote: “Corporate power has shut down our imagination, persuading us that there is no alternative to market fundamentalism, and that “market” is a reasonable description of a state-endorsed corporate oligarchy. We have been persuaded that we have power only as consumers, that citizenship is an anachronism, that changing the world is either impossible or best effected by buying a different brand of biscuits. Corporate power now lives within us. Confronting it means shaking off the manacles it has imposed on our minds”.

It strikes me that whilst our conservative governments pay a great deal of attention to other sectors in our society such as Trade Unions and the ‘corruption’ they are accused of waging against the State, they seldom address or in fact raise the spectre of corporate power. We in Australia know only too well that it exists in our mass media and mining companies who hold sway over electors through editorialising and million dollar marketing campaigns to protect their profits and power. 

Our democratic system, governments and courts are overwhelmed by their power and our political parties become beholden to their largesse when it comes to protecting their own power base. And the electorate at large is so intimidated by their messaging and persuaded by their nationalist rhetoric that our politicians are incapable or reluctant to challenge corporate power. It is identified by Monbiot as critical to our capacity and preparedness to address the global and local challenges that confront us, be they economic, social or environmental. 

The Guardian editorial has identified the additional threat to democracy in the form of transnationals that ‘straddle the globe like colossi, beneficiaries of the last century’s turbocharged capitalism’. It reveals that of the top 175 economic entities in the world in 2011, including whole nations, 111 were giant corporates. 

Professor Sikka of Essex University states the obvious yet hardly ever articulated response,  ‘Corporations have no loyalty to any place, people of community’. The editorial headline, ‘Transnationals are mighty, but not beyond government reach. Democracy could still battle back’, reflects there call for action by national and local governments to legislate, regulate and at the local level, ‘name and shame’. 

The Enfield Council in England for example is campaigning to force utilities to give work to local firms and for banks to lend more to local firms with the threat of being named and shamed.  

We need to build community awareness and action to ensure that our leaders are empowered to challenge corporate power and ensure that people come first.
  
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/12/08/there-is-an-alternative/

UK jigsaw is broken!

The devolution debate has continued in earnest following the Scottish referendum that saw a slim result for the No vote. The election of a new government in Westminster in 2015 will need to grapple with the twin challenges of the unity of the UK and membership of the European Union. The relative sucess  of the major political parties, now including UKIP, at the polls will define the future of the UK jigsaw.

The four nations of Scotland, Ireland Wales and England are much in the news with the recent debate in Westminster fueled by the Scottish referendum. There are many Tories who are pushing for English MPs only to vote on England matters and thus define more starkly the UK as a jigsaw of nations ‘independent’ from Westminster and Whitehall. ‘England for the English’ was the cry in the House of Commons early this month.

The United Kingdom is clearly battling its future on many fronts and people are not voting through their ballot box nor for now with their feet. In the last election 23 million people did not exercise their right to vote. That number exceeded the number who voted for both Conservative and Labor candidates. And devolution to many does not stop at the borders of the four nations but extends to local government and the need to grant additional powers and resources to the local level. This reflects the growing alienation from Westminster and the growing concern that the UK is broken and needs to be fixed.

An excerpt from a debate in the House of Commons on 16 December reveals the underlying issues surrounding devolution and the state of the nations.

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab): Does the Leader of the House accept that 23 million people—more than voted Conservative and Labour combined—did not vote at the last election; that 10 weeks ago we came within 400,000 votes of the Union dissolving; and that a right-wing party is now coming in at 15% in current polling? Does he accept that the people are saying, “It’s broken; we ought to fix it”? Does he accept, too, that failure to include a comprehensive English devolution settlement based on the vehicle of independent local government and to substitute it with a minor issue of moving around the green benches of the Titanic on English votes for English laws just does not meet the historic need put to the right hon. Gentleman to do this job of putting forward a Cabinet Committee on devolution. Has he not missed that historic opportunity?

Mr Hague: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks, and I am grateful to his Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its input so far and its discussion of all these issues. This is partly about decentralisation and devolution to local government in England. However, I have seen nothing to suggest that that will address the problem here in this House where laws are made of having some Members able to vote on things outside their own constituencies and other Members not able to do the same. That is why we have to make sure that, in addition to decentralisation, we address that further issue here as well.

Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s statement because of the democratic deficit that exists. I ask Opposition Members to imagine what they would think if we English Members of Parliament were to sit on the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament and vote on their issues. I am sure they would find that equally galling. I caution my right hon. Friend about taking the advice of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). It is no good saying that we should just look at the historical facts, because we cannot anticipate what may come up in the future that would need a veto from English Members of Parliament on English matters.

Mr Hague: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. It will always be valuable to look at the historical record, but we cannot forecast the composition of future Parliaments, or indeed the issues they debate. Irrespective of issues and party considerations, we have to try to put in place arrangements that are fair to the whole of the United Kingdom—including England.

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I never expected to hear such a load of rubbish from such a normally sensible person? It is inappropriate to call it a dog’s breakfast because any sensible dog would turn up its nose at it! The principle ought to be inviolable that the vote of every Member of this House should be equal on all issues that come before it. I give notice to the leadership of both sides that I shall vote against any other proposal whoever puts it forward, and including a Labour Government. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Mr Hague: Well, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) just made the case that it is broke. The right hon. Gentleman may prefer different solutions from mine, but as I say, some of his hon. Friends are advocating that it is broke. The right hon. Gentleman has to understand that there is not an equality between Members of Parliament now because, of course what we are able to vote on is already different as a result of devolution. That is the point that he is not taking into consideration. We all take due note of his concern and his opposition to any of these proposals, but it will not be possible to suppress and avoid this debate. This issue has to be resolved.

Liveable but undemocratic!

The Melbourne (sic) Model that gives 2 votes to business is about to infect Sydney City. A Kennett Government gerrymander and supported by future coalition and Labor governments has plagued the the City of Melbourne since it was introduced. 

Lord Mayor Doyle does not see it this way and in Background Briefing supports the Melbourne Model and offers the view that local government is about property and not citizenship.  

In fact he has been very critical of Lord Mayor Moore in her opposition to giving business 2 votes.  In so doing he stands alongside Allan Jones and the Shooters Party. 

Interestingly the report of Local Government Electoral Review Panel and chaired by Petro Georgiou, found the Melbourne (sic) Model to be undemocratic! It recommended that "a corporation may only nominate one representative who may be only enrolled once in a municipality".

Maybe the Lord Mayor's history is correct but his view is of a bygone era. Surely one could not argue that state governments should also favour property above citizenship? It is fortunate indeed that state politicians do not hark back to their undemocratic roots!

The battle for the City of Sydney

Background Briefing  Sunday 5 October 2014

RN Sunday Extra

New legislation that gives businesses two votes in Sydney City Council elections is under attack for being undemocratic and an attempt to oust long serving Lord Mayor Clover Moore, but proponents say businesses are denied a voice under the current voting system. Ann Arnold reports on the players behind the contentious bill.

 You can listen to the program on -

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-10-05/5779864

City of cities

Shanghai is is a City of cities. With some 30 million people inhabiting the City there is a myriad of lives being lived from the sophisticated and high life consumerist society to the other end of the economic powerhouse that is today’s China. There is an air of productivity and growth in this City. The City is clean on the ground but not so much in the air. Traffic moves thick and fast with the constant blaring of horns. The buses are particularly aggressive but so too are the large black limoesine that cruise the roads oblivious to the traffic lights and pedestrians and even the cars around them.

In Nanjing East Road the mall is packed during the day and night. It is less a sophisticated mall and more a eating and budget retail pedestrian space. Off the mall the streets and more ‘chinese’ and the shops are specialty in the main with the corner sites being taken up by large departments stores stocking all manner of perfumes and high/low fashion. In some suburbs I have visited the streets are quieter and the pedestrian areas are wider and the cafes spill on to the footpaths. The streets are well treed and their coverage provides a most pleasant atmosphere for walking, shopping and looking. In summer they must surely be a most welcome addition to what would be an oppressive and hot Shangainlese climate.

The friendliness of people seems to know no bounds to seat giving to portrait drawing on the Metro. Getting directions is not as easy as might be first thought given that English in the schools is compulsory. Maybe the instruction needs to be improved! And maybe we should be learning Chinese. The problem is that even if they do no understand directions are given with a smile and hand wave. Not sure if this is ‘face’ or just wanting to get on with their lives.

The metro is packed! But people are both aware of the squeeze and there is little pushing and shoving on the trains or escalators. The Metro is both cheap and efficient and is clean. Graffiti is non-existent and I suspect eating on the Metro is not allowed. If it is people take their leftovers with them. The stations are well marked on the stations and in the trains a running commentary in both Chinese and English and a map lighting up the station ahead.