Saturday, Jun 13, 2009
Car Scrappage Pilot Complete - What Next?
Telegraph: US Cities May Have to be Bulldozed in Order to Survive
"Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline. The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature. Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area". (any suggestions for locations in the UK?)
Posted by alan @ 11:47 AM (6854 views) Add Comment
57 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. paul said...
According to Michael Moore, Flint Mi. has around 50% of the residential housing derelict or foreclosed. Fifty percent!
2. nubbers said...
For those of you familiar with Douglas Adam's Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy, I am rather reminded of the comittee of the Golgafrincham Ark Ship B (contains all the useless middlemen). On crash landing on prehistoric Earth, they adopt the leaf as their currency, but then find that they have a bit of an inflation problem, so they revalue the leaf by burning down all the forests.
3. enuii said...
Like this bit at the bottom of the article:-
'Flint's recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply. They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them. The city wants to specialise in health and education services, both areas which cannot easily be relocated abroad.'
Sounds like an unsustainable, service based, government funded wheeze to me that may only make things worse in the long run.
4. Dbc Reed said...
The UK already has the Pathfinder programme which goes round demolishing thousands of working-class terraced houses in places like Hull ,L'pool.It was the brain child of John Prescott.Pathfinders were RAF light bombing missions sent ahead to mark targets with incendiaries, so waves of heavy bombers could completely destroy whole areas.
5. happy mondays said...
What a great idea, we should adopt it here, starting with parliament, then the boe, square mile and any other area / business that destabilise this country for there own self interest.
@ nubbers please do not give them ideas..They are crazy enough.
6. uncle tom said...
The US still has a significant rate of population growth, so areas of abandonment should be very much the exception, and not a major issue nationally.
There was significant abandonment of homes in rural East Anglia, due to mechanization of agriculture; that only ended about 30 years ago, and there are still pockets of abandoned houses in the more dismal Welsh mining villages. In the cities, the collapse of manufacturing saw major abandonment issues in places like Liverpool and Middlesborough.
I strongly believe that all empty property, regardless of condition or local demand; should be subject to 200% council tax, and doubled again if it is deemed to be derelict. Empty property should either be inhabited, or if there is no demand for it, cleared away and the site cleaned.
There should be simple procedure for local councils to seize a property, and a requirement for them to do so, if there are council tax arrears of 2 years or more. If the freeholder is not resident, they should have an obligation to register a correspondence address with the local council, and be responsible for the payment of council tax; or risk losing the property.
7. stillthinking said...
Prescott had similar ideas, Pathfinder or something. Knocking houses down. Unusually, in the UK this plan was tried during high demand for housing and with compulsory purchases.
8. mr g said...
Suggestions for the UK: Basingjoke (intentional spelling), Guildford, Godalming, Tonbridge etc
9. lenny said...
Slough has to be number 1 in the Demolition Charts this week pop-pickers!
10. nomad said...
I don't much like South Molton.
11. letsgetreadytotumble said...
Milton Keynes, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Blackpool and Dundee.
There's more, but that's top of the list.
12. charlie brooker said...
Its good to see the Americans grab the bull by the horns (no pun intended).
Urban sprawl has become a massive problem. Places like Singapore and HongKong have had no choice but to build vertically and look at how succesfull their economies have been. In Singapore, by managing land carefully they've got extra space they grow stuff like trees, bushes, flowers and grass making for a very pleasant environment. Its when you come back from places like that you realise what a dirty dilapidated place Britain is rapidly degenerating into.
Since the dawn of civilisation humans have always lived in permanent stone built cities and until now they either been destroyed by enemies ror consumed by nature. Humans do not have a track record of demolishing entire cities (or even nations) to be rebuilt in a better fashion.
This is the first time in history there has been mass transportation, communication and education so its given us the capacity to identify how to do things better more quickly and the tools and techniques to do it with.
In just about every facet of life we scrap older models and replace them with better ones: cars, tvs, music players, even building design itself but once cities get laid down no-one to date has ever thought to scrap and replace them with something better. Cities do have built in use-by dates; many in Britain have passed them by. Huge swathes of Britain need demolishing and re-establishing. IMHO few places actually come up to scratch.
13. charlie brooker said...
With regards to candidates British cities for rebuilding Liverpool and Colchester stand out. Colchester - being Britiain's oldest town and one built by the Romans - is deeply ill suited to today's traffic demands. Its an awkward town to live in. It was built on a steep hill as a fort to defend the Roman encampment against attack from British tribes and still today its centre still follows much of the original Roman street layout. Consequently the town centre easily snarls up during rush hour.
What makes city centres often very ugly is a combination of repressive architecture (grotesque car parks etc) and an absence of foliage. You'll very often see trees being planted where new road layouts go in but relative to Singapore's efforts the British approach to incorporating nature into city design in soul destroyingly token at best.
You just have to wonder how many of our councillors and town planners have ever travelled abroad fo the word's best ctities and learn lessons from them and to see just how stylishly attractively and relaxingly towns can be planned and decorated to enhance quality of life for their inhabitants. Tthe answer I suspect is very few as most of them are too busy down at the masonic lodge to broaden their horizons.
Singapore was lucky that it was founded by a botanist (Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles) who gave Singaporeans with a love for gardening. Singapore was also founded with a blank canvas at a time when many of today's British cities had thanks to the Industrial Revolution already very hap-hazardly expanded.
If only London had, after the Great Fire of 1666, been rebuilt according to Wren's plan. If that had happened a principle for British town planning would have been set in place.
http://www.oldlondonmaps.com/viewspages/0345.html
14. charlie brooker said...
Readers will of course remember seeing pictures of New Orleans even a few years after Hurricane Katrine had done its worst. Street after street of abandoned homes.
Did anyone else share the sense that it might be better to relocate those homes to higher ground and demolish the flooded areas leaving them to nature?
Same goes for Tewkesbury in 2007.
15. Endgame said...
South Molton, Devon? It looks nice to me. You dont know what rough is!
16. taffee said...
point I get is that we are obsessed with growth wheres if in fact we reduced world population we would probably live better lives with plenty to go round
I would also point out that my uncle sold his mothers house in 1993 in wales for £7,000....when did every house in the country suddenly become £200,000?
17. little professor said...
Mish's view on the news that the median house price in Detroit city has fallen to a stunningly low $6,000 (£3,600):
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/medium-home-prices-in-detroit-fall-to.html
18. general congreve said...
Charlie Brooker @ 11 - Sure, our old cities suffer because of modern traffic requirements, but I'm not too keen on turning every town and city in the UK into another Coventry or Milton Keynes.
Taffee @ 14 - You've got the right idea mate, kill lots of people, get all that traffic and human waste off the streets and out of my fecking way. The black death did wonders for those that survived it.
19. nomad said...
This from CB @ 12.
"You just have to wonder how many of our councillors and town planners have ever travelled abroad fo the word's best ctities and learn lessons from them and to see just how stylishly attractively and relaxingly towns can be planned and decorated to enhance quality of life for their inhabitants. Tthe answer I suspect is very few as most of them are too busy down at the masonic lodge to broaden their horizons."
You've just sanctioned millions pounds worth of jollies for local councillors and local authority executives.
Let me suggest that they just send one person - me if you like - who can let them have a video.
20. happy mondays said...
@ 16, you are correct, but let's get it Right this time! Target all the greedy low life F**kers who suck the life out of planet earth and the rest of us, for there own ego and personal gain!
21. iguana said...
We believe that this form of urban / rural regeneration is already underway as 'enterprising' individuals have converted a number of BTL properties into urban 'farms', thus removing empty houses from the housing stock, and at the same time providing employment for otherwise unemployed pushers, and providing evidence of much heralded green shoots.
22. Charlie Brooker said...
@19 nomad.
No I've highlighted their insularity. When our leadres are elected merely on the basis of their party name
23. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
24. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
25. tyrellcorporation said...
bulldozing perfectly good houses sounds a bit like reducing the unsold stock overhang to falsely limit supply and spur demand to me. When will the west just stop fiddling with their housing markets and concentrate on tangible productive industries?
26. charlie brooker said...
@19
No, I have again highlighted the inappropriateness of Britain's political leaders and its consequences for the country. Their insularity and ignorance is actually a reflection of the British public generally who pig ignorant and clueless as to why the country is in a mess.
Britain's prevailing democratic system means that instead of public officials being selected for office on the basis of qualifications and experience, candidates are elected on the basis of nothing more discriminating than party affiliation. Instead of learning state-of-the-art skills to use when in office, British politicians spend their time either building alliances to win office or undermining their opponents to ensure they don't. That's why, as the old saying goes, anyone capable of reaching public office is unfit for it.
If you yourself apply for a job you have to submit your CV and answer probing questions from a panel of the company's internal experts. They want to recruit the person who will do best in that role. You are competing against others for the role and chances are you won't ever meet them.
But ask yourself this question : when was the last time you raised campaign funds and ran an advertising campaign to make sure you were the successful candidate?
Since when were you ever presented with a political candidate's CV - the sort you would submit for a job application?
Given your answer to the above question how can you be sure your public representative is better qualified than you or any other candidate for the office he aspires to or occupies?
We all know Britain is falling behind the rest of the world and much of the country's talent is leaving by the boat-load.
Have you ever stopped to ask how much international experience your public representative has, such as the number of countires they've worked in, how many cultures they've studied or how many languages they speak?
Since when do political candidates in Britain get challenged on their visions for your area and what real world experience they have based that vision on?
How many times has your local councillor let you know he will work to revitalise your area based on the stunning, most modern, most wealthy, most prosperous places of the world?
The answer to all these questions is never.
There is a lingering sub-concious belief in ther UK that because someone is standing for office they must be fit for it. Well, that's BS. Its because voters in Britain neglect the scrutinization of their political representatives and their worthiness for office that the UK continues to slide down the international rankings.
I strongly suspect that the population of public representatives in the UK is shockingly mediocre relative to what it could be if only new approaches to democracy where undertaken.
You choose your leaders and they in turn give you the country you deserve.
27. devo said...
You've made some great points there, Charlie.
What now?
28. titaniccaptain said...
My suggestion is England in its entirety for bulldozing and send all the non indigenous peoples of Britain back home (Hold it)......... by that I mean anyone from Roman, Saxon and Norman descent.....oh dear that's nearly all the English and Scots gone from mainland Britain leaving just the Welsh and the Cornish left....that should give enough are to feed the Welsh quite nicely with room for a nice garden in the area for all the Welsh in what is now commonly known as "The South".
29. titaniccaptain said...
.......oops.....My suggestion is England in its entirety for bulldozing and send all the non indigenous peoples of Britain back home (Hold it)......... by that I mean anyone from Roman, Saxon and Norman descent.....oh dear that's nearly all the English and Scots gone from mainland Britain leaving just the Welsh and the Cornish left....that should give enough area to feed the Welsh quite nicely with room for a nice garden in the area for all the Welsh in what is now commonly known as "The South". Happy Hols all.
30. charlie brooker said...
Just imagine you go to a job interview. Lets say its a professional position; operations director, financial director, company secretary or something and you start by saying "Hello I'm your Labour/Conservartive/Liberal Democrat Party candidate".
It would be insane, would it? Yet that is the system we have for selecting those who manage Britain's affairs.
Modern companies don't recruit on the basis of your political allegiances, they select on the basis of the value you bring and that's why companies thrive whereas UK PLC bombs.
Also imagine this: You own and run a company and one of your staff is causing problems - underperforming, making costly gaffes, offending customers and even stealing. You call them into your office and warn them that their poor performance is worrying enough but theft is unacceptable. You tell them you have no choice but to sack them and may have to involve the police. They then have the temerity to look you in the eye and dictate to you they will be staying in their job until the end of their five year term and have already nobbled the police. Well, that's the situation we just experienced at Westminster. Since when did subordinates (politicians) dictate to superiors (voters)?
Anyway, Devo, you ask 'what next?'
The idealist in me says we need a root and branch reform of the democratic system in the UK. The form of democracy we have is obsolete - a throw back to ancient times. Expecting the prevailing system to deliver cutting edge management of the country's affairs is like expecting a consultant to perform neurosurgery using a truncheon or a etching a microchip with a quill.
The realist in me finally accepts that having seen how other countries run their affairs much more succesfully than the UK does, that I can now see the whole political/government/media system in the UK for the pernicious, dangerous, mischievous brawl that it is. It simply cannot deliver success to the country. It's the manifestation of some especially carcinogenic memes from Britain's ancient times. Conflict is preferred over cooperation. Vendatta takes precendence over vision.
Because of that I realise that life is too short and my thirty year addiction to current affairs has never changed anything and won't ever.
For any optimist out there who hopes there is something in what I say then here's the principle: The era of party politics must be brought to end. Policy and personality must be entirely and completely separated.
The people must decide their own vision for this country based on their principles and values entirely free of personalities. That vision must then be administered by managers selected by the public. The countries managers must be told in no uncertain terms by the voters what kind of country they want it to be and that the selected managers are obliged to implement that vision - not the other way around.
Candidates applying for these managerial roles must apply for the positions with absolutely no support mechanism around them like campaign teams, fund raisers or opinion sampling - only the candidate would be allowed to represent themselves just the way only you represent yourself when you got to a job interview - and be prepared to face numerous grillings from the public.
During this time the media would be banned from reporting on these events completely, ensuring no media baron can exert influence to ensure the selection of a favourable administration. They can do what they do best and bring celebrity tittle-tattle instead.
Only a revolution could ever bring about the sort of system I'm proposing above but given the prevailing system has such a strong grip on the nation's mindset and insitutions, I won't be holding my breath.
Meanwhile the country goes to the dogs.
31. devo said...
27. charlie brooker
Thanks for that. In my opinion, your analysis of the current situation is second-to-none. However, my initial reaction to your suggested way forward was one of disappointment.
Don't get me wrong, I can't offer a better solution as yet, but I know that when I do, it will be far more radical than anything I've come across so far.
32. charlie brooker said...
Three stand out issues in the UK are that so few people are educated to degree level, so few understand or debate the constitution and that so little attention is paid to the most successful countries of the world. Essentially the UK's population is largely ill-equipped to see the problems and clueless as to how to solve them.
When was the last time you saw a documentary about say Taiwan's success at peak time on a main channel?
How many people do you know that have visited say Vancouver? (best city in the world, apparently)
Meanwhile z-list celebs dominate the nation's thoughts.
33. enuii said...
Charlie, big mistake in your last post, many people are educated to degree level but it doesn't neccesarily make them intelligent or able understand or debate the consitution. There are also many people who are not degree educated but are able to put up more coherent and sensible arguments than their fellow degree educated citizens.
A degree is a key to certain jobs, five years down the road it is almost meaningless and is most certainly not an entitlement to a good salary or a nice house.
New Labour Gruppenfuhrer Brown has a degree in History and we must remember that History degree's were widely taken by less able students prior to the media studies generation. Nick Griffin also has a degree just like most of our members of parliament do in one second rate subject or another. Meanwhile on the other hand most of the UK's homegrown millionaires and entreprenurial business tycoons do not, but know what rewards hard work and a little calculated risk can bring.
In essence most of the UK's problems have been caused by those who are in charge of us and do have degree's as I'm sure most political sociopaths do.
34. devo said...
I doubt that a long term solution to our current problems is going to be made at a national level.
Globally - probably.
Locally - possibly.
Just throwing ideas around.
35. devo said...
Has Edward de Bono anything to say about our current predicament?
Now might be a good time to adopt some 'Six Hat' thinking.
36. devo said...
"The people must decide their own vision for this country based on their principles and values..."
I'm not sure why, but this proposition makes me feel rather uncomfortable.
I sometimes wish I'd never read Lord of the Flies.
37. inflation is eating my savings said...
boom bust war.creation destruction.
38. dbc reed said...
@charlie brooker
Colchester already has been completely destroyed:by Boadicea in the first century.
If only the first plan for Milton Keynes had been implemented.The County Architect had a brilliant plan for all these scattered settlements
linked by a light railway which was to be paid for on Fares Fair principles out of the rates (for owner occupiers)and out of rents ( people used to build whole towns near London where you could just move in with a tenancty agreement).Instead they got an American bozo to build it on a grid with all those roundabouts.So much more modern and forward-looking!
Like Fares Fair itself, brain-child of Henry Georgite guru, Dave Wetzel, this was an opportunity to lay down a marker for future development.
But as always, the UK establishment screwed it up: they took Fares Fair to the High Courts.Pay for transport infrastructure out of rising property values?That would never do!
39. sold out said...
Basildon
40. devo said...
p4ac would have had some interesting comments to make on this thread, were he still here.
41. Harry Cowen said...
Westminster plus Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath,
42. nomad said...
An observation which may or may not be a prelude to what comes next. Most of us are currently running for shelter in the sense that, feeling unable to influence any of our supposed representatives in any way, we are concerning ourselves with our immediate family and environment. Barriers are going up, not physical in the form of security and stockpiling as yet but that may come.
43. charlie brooker said...
enuii,
Its true that many are ediucated to degree level but not I suspect the majority.
A degree is - or atleast when I was a student - instilled disciplined impartial thinking that's why i mentioned it.
Regardless of who here is right or wrong, its good to see we have had a debate about the structures and dynamics of how our country and our cities should be managed. If Britiain is to have a worthwhile future this debate needs to be taken to the public mainstream.
44. sold out said...
Charlie brooker
great posts but am not sure if you need a degree to realise that the political system is rotten to the core and the wrong people are involved.
The dumbing down of a nation that probably started in the seventies is to blame for the ignorance.
45. charlie brooker said...
sold out,
True you don't need a degree to understand the current system is not delivering, but if you have had to study for a degree chances are your mind might be disciplined and therefore incisive enough to get to the root of the problem and also to propose effective solutions.
I'm quite sure there is the odd intelligent bin-man here and there but for the most part bin-men typically do their jobs then spend the rest of the day either at the bookies or at the pub.
Last week Dano Sonnex and accomplice Nigel Farmer were jailed for life for murdering Gabriel Ferez, 23, and Laurent Bonomo, 23, in New Cross in June 2008.
Right up until the point they committed their crimes, Sonnex and Farmer had exactly the same democractic rights as you or infact anyone else did. Once they were jailed they lost their right to vote and ts good that they did.
However this higfhlights another major problem I have with British democracy : One voter one vote. What a hopelessly blunt approach tool that is and I'll show you why:
Suppose you had a referendum on a particular issue. Sonnex and Farmer's votes would convey exactly the same strength as say the White Van Man, Sun Readers, Hair Dressers, McDonald's staff as would the world's leading experts in the matter. Can you imagine your bosses holding a board level strategy meeting at work to discuss the future direction of the company and when it came to the vote the caretaker, the cleaner, the security guard and the porter were invited to take part in the board vote on an equal basis? Insanity!
Yet that is the means by which the managers of the country's affairs are currently selected. With all the extraordinary advances we've made over the last 100 years, especially in terms of computing power, transport and communications, the British continue to suffer under the neolithic incompetent system they do. The tools are readily avaialble to improve matters dramatically bringing UK democracy kicking and screaming out of the steam age into the internet age but it suits politicians to keep to the current system and the people are largely too ignorant or inept to see the need to act.
PS I can remember when the internet first started it was in black was white. We had to put on our Sunday Best before we were allowed to use it and when we shut down Windows we had to stand and sing God Save The Queen.
46. Notaguru said...
@41
Most of my work colleagues are degree educated with a significant minority holding a masters or PhD. Not a single one saw this house crash coming and quite a few of them think very highly of new labour’s economic policies (it suits them). I think you are making a classic mistake of confusing the ability to acquire and retain [prescribed] knowledge with intelligence.
The corporate model that you advocate can at times produce very good results, but can also result in some of the biggest disasters (HBOS anyone?)
47. shipbuilder said...
CB - can't agree with your last post - the idea that there is an intellectual hierarchy (what is intellect? - funnily enough, defined by those who have it) are therefore some more suited to vote/run things than others is exactly what has failed us. Snobbery, in short, and a short road to fascism. The idea that in this world, someone's job adequately reflects their ability, talents, intellect and achievements is utterly laughable to anyone who has actually met and talked to anyone outside the comfortable middle-class existence that I imagine most here have. Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning.
I do agree, however that those who run things should be qualified to do so. Unfortunately, to those unable to think outside our current system, that leads to the conclusion that private business, as we now know it, is best suited to this. Putting profit above progress is another big failing.
My belief is, like devo, that something much more radical is needed.
48. charlie brooker said...
shipbuilder.
You lambast what you don't agree with but can't offer a better solution. Recently our politicians suggested that charging different people different amounts for life insurance premiums was discrimination. As an actuary Devo must have held his head in his hands. I know I did. Life insurance companies price their products to the reflect risk, typically taking into account factors such as sex, age and lifestyle.
Discrimination occurs in many facets of life and for good reason.
If your other half was (heaven forbid) involved in a major road traffic accident are you seriously telling me you would not stop a dustman performing the surgery because to do so would be snobbery?
If you yourself were wrongly accused of murder, like say Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption, are you seriously telling me you would not object if your defence lawyer called Coco The Clown as an expert witness, because to do so would be a short road to fascism?
Of course not! You want the right people for the job. Yet you are saying that violent uneducated drooling bovine chavs from Britain's worst stink estates should for example have as much say in the finer points of environmental policy as the world best climatologists?
If you apply for a permit to stay in Australia (and now even Britain) you submit an application and its accepted or rejected on the basis of a points system. Just the kind of system I'm thinking of for a new system of democracy. All countries require you to submit detailed applications they can assess so that in granting you stay they are not worsening the the quality of the population Everyone gets a vote, but the strength of their vote is based on APOLITICAL CRITERIA reflects their capacity to understand the issues and ABSOLUTELY NOT BASED ON ADHERENCE TO POLITICAL DOGMA.
I am happy for anyone to live a life of complete ignorance if they choose to. That's their choice. But the price for ignorance regarding pressing national issues is a lesser say in its affairs.
49. charlie brooker said...
shipbuilder
Just to show you how ludicrous the current system is consider this: When you learn to drive you have to pass a practical test and a theory test. No-one complains that that is fascist - everyone undertands the absolute necessity for safe driving. Its only right that you are assessed for your fitness to control a vehicle on the roads lest you injure or kill others or yourself.
Perhaps its because the dick establishment in Britain so sanctimoniously refuse to screen the fitness of its citizenry to participate in the selection of the country's adminstrators, that the country is all covered in sh1t.
50. charlie brooker said...
shipbuilder
If you want an HPC related analogy consider this: A long time ago banks rather sensibly assessed the quality of mortgage applications their customer submitted to them. They did things like background checks, verifying this and that and the other with third party agencies.
When deregulation came along they decided to ditch the checks.The result? A global depression.
51. devo said...
When deregulation came along they decided to ditch the checks.
That wasn't very clever, was it?
52. shipbuilder said...
Charlie - to suggest that I meant for anyone to be allowed to do any job is just silly. I think I made my point pretty clearly. I see no problem with those running the country being required to be 'qualified' for the job. However, your idea of a natural 'ruling class' of intellectuals (by their own definition) is nothing new, in fact what we have had for centuries, and part of the problem. There is a huge difference between being well educated and being smart, for a start. As for my alternative, I suggest that the first step is disqualifying from power those who actively seek it - how's that for discrimination? A randomly selected member of the public, in my opinion, could only make better decisions than any politician, because their decisions could not be clouded by self-interest. Most people, despite what many 'educated' and insular seem to think, are neither stupid nor incapable of understanding what is going on in the world.
53. Charlie Brooker said...
shipbuilder
With regards to the issue of voters under the current system members of the public are better qualified to drive cars than they are to steer the country - and that is ludicrous.
Perhaps a better way to deem the fitness of an individual voter to vote is to ensure they sit a theory test weeks or months before an election - just the way a driver is required to sit a theory test before being given their licence.
54. Charlie Brooker said...
shipbuilder
With regards to the issue of voters under the current system members of the public are better qualified to drive cars than they are to steer the country - and that is ludicrous.
Perhaps a better way to deem the fitness of an individual voter to vote is to ensure they sit a theory test weeks or months before an election - just the way a driver is required to sit a theory test before being given their licence.
55. Charlie Brooker said...
shipbuilder.
If you were interviewing candidates to fill a role at a company you owned and ran you would ensure that you took steps to test and vetted the candidates to make sure you got the best person for the job.
In the interviews you would ensure that the candidates were posed questions by employees best placed to assess the worthiness of the candidates.
Now lets flip that situation around.
Suppose you were going to a job interview. What kind of interviewing panel would you want to have to face?
If you were a genuine expert you would be happy to face tough questioning. If you were a charlatan you would want to face the least capable most docile panel possible in order to pull the wool over their eyes.
56. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
57. charlie brooker said...
shipbuilder I am keen to get debate going on the issue of British democracy. My comment regarding the use of holding a degree as being a proxy for general level of awareness of issues was intended just as that. – a proxy. I hope you would agree its a fair point, but I must further comment there other ways and means to determine the fitness of an individual to take part in the democratic process that do not raise howls of protest along the lines of educational apartheid.
As I have already said, in order for someone to drive a vehicle they are required to take driving lessons, then pass a practical and a theory test. It demonstrates they are competent and prove they will not pose a risk to themselves or others.
No such requirement applies to voters. Any Tom, Dick of Harry can vote. Those least capable of considering the issues have exactly the same right and the same strength of vote as those best capable of considering them. And that in my opinion is a highly dangerous thing.
Under the current system of democracy in the UK, drivers are better vetted to drive vehicles than voters are to steer the country.
Why would this be the case? Simple. Politicians, in tandem with their friends in the media, are happy to let the current system prevail as, like the sociopaths and psychopaths we know them to be, they wilfully exploit the noble concept of democracy for their own ends. They glorify the democratic system as it stands to such reverence to ensure that any outsider suggesting improvements are demonized as heathen. They fool the public into thinking that improving that system would be heinous act.. It would not be. The only offence would be to the politicians and media barons who happily exploit the status quo for their own evil ends.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution man has invented a massive array of new ideas and continually strived to improve upon them. Democracy, just like any other aspect of human affairs should be continually re-examined and improved to provide better performance, yet what have in place is little better than the system that develop several thousand years ago in ancient Greece.
If you were running your own company and had need to recruit for a vacant role you would ensure that all the candidates were strictly vetted. You would ensure that when they came for interview they were tested for their competence by staff best placed to assess them. You would want to ensure you recruited a genuine expert and not a charlatan.
Now lets flip that situation around. Suppose you were attending a job interview. What kind of panel would you want to face? If you were a genuine expert you would be happy to face tough questioners. If you were a charlatan you would want to face the most docile least probing interviewers. That’s how British Democracy works today. Our politicians want this system to be place. A dull pig-ignorant compliant electorate suits them down to the ground and that’s why we are inflicted with mushroom management (kept in the dark and fed on manure such as tabloid papers and reality TV).
I have no problem that every one has the chance to take part in the democratic process - just the same way every has the right to apply for a drivers licence.
I do however have a major problem that voters are not screened in any way for their suitability - the way that drivers are.
Also to draw further from the driving analogy :
Car insurance companies charge premiums according to the risk you pose. Reckless drivers are penalised with higher premiums than the conscientious. I am quite sure most the drivers here on HPC are competent and strive to pay the lowest car insurance premiums possible by driving safely and looking after their vehicles. So how would you feel if the government passed a law that outlawed the charging of car insurance premiums priced according to risk? Angry, right?
Therefore why can’t that principle of assessing individuals fitness for purpose be extended into democracy?
There’s any easy way to assess the fitness of someone to take part in the democratic process just the same way there is assess the fitness of someone to drive : Set them a test – 50 easy multiple choice questions. Look at how well they scored. Let the strength of their vote be determined by the quality of their answers. That solves everything.
The competent will score well. The ignorant will score poorly. Anyone wishing to improve their score has every opportunity to do so by paying attention to the issues and educating themselves. Deservedly so. Vote by merit.
Those who make an effort reward themselves with a stronger say.
Those who make no effort automatically marginalize themselves.
As I said before, I have no problem if people wish to live a life of complete ignorance, but the price to pay is a lesser say in the democratic process.
The pig-ignorant would suddenly have no excuse. Their say in the democratic process would be muted by their own inaction.