Why building affordable homes won’t really help young people find property.

London Housing, a photo by Roomic Cube on Flickr.

A BBC article earlier this week cited a Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) report which claimed that a million young people would be “locked out” of home ownership by 2020. It pointed not only to the high house prices faced by first-time buyers, but also to the ever-increasing costs of renting faced by young working professionals.

The article suggests that a way around these problems is to instigate a programme for building affordable homes and to produce a better working rental system. Here however, I argue that such initiatives will merely paper over the cracks that we are likely to see in the housing market. Instead, the root problem needs to be addressed: the UK’s hugely imbalanced economy.

Many articles about young people and housing markets tend to be focussed on issues in London. The BBC article I’ve cited is no different. The problem that we’re seeing in London is that the demand for housing is far greater than the supply, especially amongst young professionals. This problem will continue to persist long into the future, and in all probability will get worse still.

The fact is that graduates and young people continue to gravitate towards London. After all, this is the city that is a major centre for the financial and professional services, government and public sector work, and the creative industries. With London offering unparalleled career opportunities compared to other parts of the UK, young people will continue to flock to London in their droves. As more people continue to move to London, more pressure will be put on the housing stock and prices will increase further still.

Building affordable homes will only provide a short-term fix. If they’re built in London then they’ll be snapped up quickly anyway and we’ll be back at square one again. If they’re built outside London, then there’s a danger you’ll be building unnecessary houses in places where there’s no demand for them.

Ultimately, what’s needed is a more profound transformation of the economy so that it’s less focussed and reliant on London and the South East. We need to build up other cities and areas so that they become viable alternatives to London for young career-minded individuals. That way we have a chance of relieving the long run pressure on houses (and in turn house prices) in London as well as creating other potentially cheaper areas that people can move to.

Adding to this, London’s a city that can’t really geographically expand any further, ultimately meaning there’s less physical space to build new affordable houses. By regenerating and economically stimulating areas beyond London, we can develop regions where there may actually be space to build new accommodation. Again, as the supply increases there’s less competition for housing helping keep prices in check.

Building affordable houses is in itself not a solution to the problem of getting young people onto the property ladder. A house building programme will only be beneficial if it’s part of a broader policy that creates jobs outside London and means that young professionals are less dependent on our capital city.

Disney films are really traumatic, so why do we love them so much?

Scar, a photo by B Dussinger on Flickr.

As a young kid, my cinema experiences were dominated by Disney films and I know that many people my age will be in the same boat as me. Furthermore, with the success of films like Toy Story and Cars, it seems that a new generation is falling in love with Disney as well. However, there’s something I find very troubling. Why is it that we are so fond of Disney, even though most of their films are full of deeply emotionally disturbing and distressing scenes?

Thinking about it actually, whenever someone mentions a Disney film, for me at least it’s the scary scenes that first come to mind. To me, Dumbo is not about a happy-go-lucky young elephant (who may or may not have been on acid…) but is about a poor little creature that gets picked on. The defining moment of Pinocchio is not when he becomes a real boy but when he gets swallowed by that massive whale. Even with something more recent like Finding Nemo, my abiding memory is of a depressed Nemo being stuck in a dirty fish tank and not just generally larking about turtles in the ocean.

Indeed, I can’t think of a single Disney film that doesn’t have the potential to emotionally scar the sensitive and vulnerable – qualities that most young children will have…

I like to think that the reason I’m so fond of trashy action thrillers like The Expendables, Die Hard, and Under Siege is because of Disney. After all, once you’ve grown up as a child seeing a cute fox chained up in prison in Robin Hood, or the evil Queen trying to murder a harmless Snow White, frankly most things in the cinema won’t distress you any longer.

As a rationale human being, there’s no way that I should look so fondly on a company that was responsible for giving me so many nightmares as I kid. Yet I do and will definitely want any kids I have in the future to grow up watching Disney as well. Am I mad…?!

Why a lowering of the voting age is more important than it ever has been

Guatemala Elections - Youth voting, a photo by El Canche on Flickr.

With the 2011 referendum on the Alternative Vote voting system and the appearance of House of Lords reform in last week’s Queen’s Speech, the Lib Dems have been pushing hard for electoral and constitutional reform. In this article however, I argue that they have neglected a more pressing area of reform: lowering the voting age.

There are several factors at play here. First of all there’s the obvious argument about ending the disparities in UK law. There are any numbers of examples that I could cite here. At 16, you’re able to join the army as a soldier yet have no say over the way that foreign policy is managed. Likewise at the same age you can leave school and work full-time yet have no say on government economic policy.

Another argument levelled by opponents of a lower voting age is that under 18s generally have inadequate political or policy knowledge to use their vote responsibly. This argument doesn’t wash with me. I’d argue that there’s already sizeable voter apathy amongst the adult population, with little knowledge or awareness of the policy platforms of the major parties. But there are under 18’s with this knowledge, not least because there are GCSE and A Level students of Politics and Economics. Admittedly, only a small proportion of 16-18 year olds may fall into this category but even if this is the case, surely it can’t be right to exclude these individuals from the election process?

However, these arguments aren’t new and have long been advocated by many a commentator. The main issue for me is that lowering the voting age is a far more pertinent issue now than it has been previously. The UK is going through a period of profound social and economic change. There is a range of wide-sweeping legislation being advocated by parties across the board and many of these would have a long-lasting impact on those that currently are too young to vote.

Take for instance the rise in tuition fees and the scrapping of EMA. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it are, those that will be most affected by the changes have no say in the matter. Likewise, we’re seeing on-going debates over how large public sector pensions should be or whether the current government austerity programme should be reversed. Again, whatever your view on this is, ultimately any failure to tackle the deficit now will mean shifting the debt burden to current non-voters. There may be no way around this but surely it’s irresponsible not to ask younger citizens whether they are willing to take on this burden?

Finally, lowering the voting age would indicate some kind of commitment to the youth today. Many social commentators following the Summer 2011 riots spoke about how many young people felt society was ignoring them. I don’t for one moment claim that giving 13 or 14 year olds the vote would have prevented the riots. However, such a gesture would show that the rest of society does have at least some concern for them. Furthermore, politicians might even pay more attention to the needs of young people in order to secure their vote.

Much of the political and policy debates we hear about today concern the short term. This is important but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that actions taken over the coming months could have profound implications for current non-voters in the long term. More than ever therefore, we need to lower the voting age and give younger people the chance to have a voice and have their say.

Goodbye Ceefax!

Ceefax Weather, a photo by Dan Farrimond on Flickr.

Four days ago, London turned off its analogue TV signal as part of the digital switchover. This also spelt the end for Ceefax, the television-based text service hailed by some as the precursor to the Internet. Although we still have a number of similar features available through the BBC’s red button service, it’s just not the same. It’s clean, crisp, has fancy colours and doesn’t freeze on you. It’s just not the slow and retro service of old!

A number of people have posted articles recently reminiscing about Ceefax. At a risk of coming across as being even geekier and nostalgic than normal, here are some fond Ceefax memories of my own:

Backchat

I guess this was a primitive version of Twitter. Basically, you had a bunch of teenagers who in less characters than a text message, could comment on whatever topic they wanted to. Was very informative (and bizarre at times) and also made me aware of various upcoming bands. So those who mock my tastes in music should blame Ceefax!

Bamboozle

Although this was introduced by Ceefax’s rival, Teletext, this still deserves a mention. A crude and clunky quiz page, Bamboozle was strangely addictive and in the days before Wikipedia, the ultimate source for pointless facts and useless trivia.

The weather map (see picture above)

This was truly inspired. The gaudy colour scheme, the enormous pixels, and the fact it left out the part of the South coast where I lived. Yet we were still massively reliant on Ceefax weather in my household. Given the reliability of the BBC Weather website at times, we might still be better off with this Ceefax version…


News and sport headlines

Anyone who knows me remotely well will know how obsessed I am with the BBC Sport website and my Sky Sports News mobile app. However, back in the day I relied on Ceefax to keep me posted on the latest news. I can easily remember the numbers of the main pages I used to go. 302 for football, 340 for cricket, and 360 for motorsport (as yes I know it's worrying that I still remember this)

Invision sports updates

Genius feature that posted the latest sports scores in the corner of the screen while you were watching normal telly. Helped resolve several arguments at home when I’d want to follow the cricket but when someone else in the house wanted to watch the news, Noel’s House Party or Keeping up Appearances…

Anyway, time for me to stop reminiscing. I fear that I have a lot to do to get my street cred back…

Labour, just give us a shadow budget.

Ed Miliband, Labour Party Leader Portrait, a photo by Dave Wood Liverpool Images on Flickr.

The news has recently been dominated by tit-for-tat politics, particularly over how to manage the economy. Much of the battle between Cameron and Miliband has been about who can deliver the better sound bite or one-liner, and who can provide the emptier piece of rhetoric.

The fact is that there’s very little that differentiates Labour and the Conservatives right now. Both are dominated by people from similar socio-economic and academic backgrounds, and are both chasing the same narrow band of middle class voters. Yet Labour still insist they are fundamentally different to the Conservatives without offering hard policy to show this. But there’s one simple action that Labour could take if they really want to show how different they are: produce a shadow budget.

Many of my Labour supporting friends will still maintain that Labour offers something tangibly different to the Conservatives. Speaking as someone with no real party allegiance I find this very difficult to agree with. Yes, we hear about a Labour push for shallower cuts and the increased taxation of higher earners. Nevertheless, they’ve failed to show that if elected tomorrow, they would reverse any of the fundamental elements of the Coalition’s economic policy. The following quote from Mary Ann Sieghart in the i last week provides a good summary:

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say, “We understand your pain but there’s no alternative, and it’s going to have to get worse.” Labour says, “We understand your pain but we can only fiddle about at the edges to help you.”


That said, one move could change the whole situation – Labour giving us a shadow budget. If Labour really believes that the Coalition’s approach is wrong and that alternative tactics are better, then then why not produce something concrete (and evidence based) saying so? Labour surely has lots to gain from publishing a shadow budget? If they do it properly, they can show themselves as being economically competent, in touch with the opinions of the public, and offering a fundamentally different approach to the Coalition.

Annoyingly though, everyone knows that Labour won’t be producing a shadow budget anytime soon. There are only two reasons for this that I can think of. Firstly, Labour are playing it far too safe and are not willing to take the risk and leave themselves open to scrutiny.

More worryingly though, I think there’s a second factor at play. Labour can’t offer anything tangibly different to the Coalition and the party knows this. Because of this, they’ll make politics a competition about empty rhetoric and personality, not about policy or ideology. Then again, hasn’t politics always been like this?

Five forgotten footballing musical hits from yesteryear

Most football songs, with the exception of World in Motion, Three Lions and possibly Vindaloo, tend to be flash in the pan hits which people forget about within a couple of weeks of their release.  In no particular order, here I re-introduce Extending the Lunch Break readers to five forgotten footballing musical hits (of varying quality) from yesteryear.

1) Come on You Reds – Manchester United and Status Quo (1994)

Oddly, this is one of my earliest musical memories. I remember having really mixed feelings about this song when it first came out. I was hugely anti-Man United at the time but thought this was an amazing tune (note I was aged 7 when this was released). Would Status Quo count as an acceptable guilty pleasure?



2) Du the Dudek - The Trophy Boyz (2005)

This was written in honour of Jerzy Dudek’s performance in the 2005 Champions League Final. The song has a strange Timmy Mallett feel to it yet reached No. 37 in the UK charts. It also spurned a dance craze across UK clubs that lasted about two days.



3) Sven Sven Sven  - Bell & Spurling (2001)

Only twice in my life have I ever thought that England were true world-beaters. The first was when we beat Holland 4-1 during Euro 96. The second was when we beat Germany 5-1 in 2001 which this Bell & Spurling track commemorates. Some good one liners here, as well as some very dubious ones. “Oliver Kahn. Ein, zwei, drei, vier, fünf that’s five in Ger-man...” Indeed.



4) World at Your Feet - Embrace (2006)

I’m a big fan of this track and think it is really under-rated. Not only is it a good football track but I think it’s a good credible song regardless. That said, many have criticised my musical tastes in the past...



5) Pass and Move (It's the Liverpool Groove) - Liverpool FC & The Boot Room Boys (1996)

Nearly as criminal as the cream suits they wore at Wembley that year (see photo above), this dreadful song was released to coincide with Liverpool’s appearance at the 1996 FA Cup Final. That said, John Barnes is typically amazing on this track and just about saves the whole thing.




If anyone has any other forgotten football songs that they’d like to remind me of then I’d love to hear from you!

Are charity appeals for developing countries missing the point?

78.365_road_construction, a photo by ToddMorris on Flickr.

A report from the Charities Aid Foundation in 2011 found that many of the larger charities had been particularly badly hit by this recession. It is hardly surprising then that we see so many hard-hitting charity appeals in order to raise money for projects in the developing world. As a result, we’re donating money to charities thinking that we’re buying food, medicines and clothes for individuals in desperate situations. But I feel these appeals are missing the point. Clearly addressing these issues are important but if we really want to make a real and long-lasting difference in the developing world, we need to be raising money for two other things which are considerably less glamorous: fridges and roads.

It’s worth pointing out that this isn’t a new idea at all. Indeed, I first came across the idea that charities should pay more attention to road construction in an episode of The West Wing.

Giving money to help buy food, provide vaccinations, or indeed to build schools and hospitals merely scratches at the surface of what needs doing. There’s little point in sending food aid to a country if it merely sits in a remote central depot and a) goes off very quickly or b) there’s no way of ensuring that the general population can gain access to it. For that reason it’s even more important for efforts to be concentrated on improving roads and refrigeration units. Likewise, little good will be achieved by sending in money to build schools and hospitals if the road system is so poor that hardly anyone can access the new facilities.

However, from what I’ve seen (which admittedly might not be representative of what’s out there), you see very few prominent charity appeals asking us to donate money for infrastructure building projects. Instead, they focus on more ‘glamorous’ things such as providing farm animals, building houses, and buying clothes to name but a few.

Clearly there’s a role for campaigns relating to these issues but is it right that charity appeals focus nearly exclusively on them? Are the most pressing issues being neglected? Fortunately, according to a close friend of mine who helps write appeals for one of the major international charities, some organsiations have a more nuanced approach. For this charity at least, money goes according to where those on the ground believe it's needed, and not necessarily on the things that the general public hear about in appeals and might base their donations on.

Charities inevitably campaign on what they know will grab our attention (it’s not unreasonable for them to do so). If we were really interested in roads and fridges then charities would surely play on this. But why are we so averse to coughing up for such things? Perhaps it’s to do with the fact that we know that the money would land up going to multinationals who would be most likely to win road construction projects. Even though it might be the most beneficial way of helping a poorly developed country, perhaps we’re still unwilling to fund such a move simply because we don’t want to further line the pockets of big firms.

More generally perhaps, maybe it says much about us as members of society. With the odd praiseworthy exception, we only give to charities only to make ourselves feel better, not because helping others most effectively is our primary concern. But then again, does that matter…?