Tag Archives: Carl Packman

Demanding Travel As Pleasure

Posted on by

House prices in London are stupid, and so, too, are rent prices. The average wage in London is approximately £24k per annum, but to afford somewhere half decent in most places, you’re looking at paying at the very least a quarter of your monthly income on rent alone (nearer half depending on how below average you earn), excluding bills, internet, cider from a Samuel Smith bar on a Friday and the countless amount of birthday pots you have to fill in the office – not to mention your round of “Friday treats”.

For many, the option to live in London is just not there, and commuting to the capital to work is the only option available. Yet anybody watching BBC lunchtime news on Monday the 15th of August will have learnt – possibly for the first time – that they are rich anyway and so it is justified that train fares will be hiked up by on average 8% by January 2012.

Already the daily commute to work is, as Le Corbusier put it, a surplus labour, reducing one’s free time, but with rises, it gets worse than just being extra work. It should count as an increasing loss of earnings.

One commenter on the BBC website put it: “These ticket prices are already making me wonder whether I can afford to make all of my journeys without making sacrifices somewhere else.”

Guy Debord, the Situationist thinker and pissed map reader, said in his thesis on traffic: “We must replace travel as an adjunct to work with travel as a pleasure.” At the moment, the best we can ask for – and I myself commute a fair bit to my place of work – is half a sticky seat with an elbow in your ear and a laptop in your mouth. For travel as pleasure to be even close to being a tenable goal we need the following things as standard:

  • Air con
  • Leg room
  • A seat, or a partial refund if no seat is available
  • One sanitation booth per carriage
  • A request for all carriages to be “quiet”
  • An end to weird, screechy noises to tell you the doors can be opened

For train travel to be pure pleasure, and a joy to pay through the nose for, the following needs to be met (note to Philip Hammond, see this as your benchmark):

  • Luxury leather seats
  • A cap on the amount of people who can board, and a person available to write notes to employers explaining why you are so late
  • A string band
  • A mini-bar subsidised by way of an extra stealth tax on motorists – £1 on every time a motorist is a “dick” (criteria for this to be published at a later date)
  • Second-class travel to be outlawed
  • A button to exterminate mobile phone users or people with loud music

Until these demands are met, I for one will be joining the Campaign for Better Transport’s Fair Fares Now initiative. Join me!

Have you paid for the Royal Wedding?

Posted on by

It’s the Royal Wedding soon – 29 April 2011. Have you bought your tea towel? Have you paid £3 for a bottle of Kiss me Kate from your local Weatherspoons pub?

If you haven’t yet then you need to be quick, the economy needs you! If conservative estimates are correct, £1bn could be injected into the economy as a consequence of this wedding, but it needs you, the consumer, to get out over the bank holiday weekend and spend like your children’s centre or maternity unit depended on it.

Of course that doesn’t matter much because the wedding will cost £5bn to the economy anyway, making the whole occasion a loss to the tune of £4bn – hey but it’s worth it, right? It’ll be the most expensive day that the nation has taken off for a long time but who hasn’t taken a sneaky day off before at the expense of a day’s wages (and a taxation loss of a few hundred frontline police staff)?

I suppose it would be a bit rich to ask either of the families to pay up. The Middleton’s, despite much fuss being made of Kate’s maternal family lineage, which includes coal miners from Byker (as in Byker Grove, I cannae believe that man), are worth £30m. True, that wouldn’t be able to re-pay the loss to the UK economy for an extra bank holiday, but it could’ve at least contributed to the cheesey pineapple sticks and cocktail sausages.

And the other family, the Royal Family, the most Royal of all UK families. They have a bit of cash lying around to see that Kate and Bill’s special day is, er, special, don’t they? Prince Charles, through entrepreneurial ventures, is worth something close to £36m himself. And if that’s the case, why does it matter that in 2009 the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 7p more than in 2010. It’s not a saving, it’s an insult.

The Civil List, which effectively is the Government subsidy for the family (around £38m a year), pays for Royal staff and transport. The Crown Estate says that 70% of that sum goes on staffing costs. But how much do they cost, if you consider that it cost the taxpayer £14,756 for the Prince of Wales to take the Royal Train from London to Cumbria to launch a Red Squirrel Survival Trust. Or consider that it cost £85,700 in charter flights to get him and the Duchess of Cornwall to Italy and Germany in 2009.

Those are some significant staff costs.

But – a big but – they are worth every penny for the money they bring to the economy. The Crown Estate estimates £304m. It doesn’t say exactly how, and I’d love to see some breakdown figures. I’ll give it a guess though: tourism and trade. Though France doesn’t have a Monarchy, and they’re doing okay aren’t they?

Not just okay. France is the second largest economy in Europe, fifth largest in the world and has been growing consistently since 2009. Wow. France attracted 78.95 million foreign tourists in 2010, making it the most popular tourist destination in the world. Their tower – the Eiffel tower – is the most visited paid monument in the world.

So France can do international trade well, and receive tourists without making losses literally all over the place. I’m not liking the sound of this, but perhaps there is no point having a Monarchy. But how do we tell them that?

As far as possible, boycott the nasty 35 {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

Imagine this: every day a big kid at your school takes the money your parent/carer gives you for a measly meal of chicken burger and chips and a can of cherry pop. You’re left asking your mate for a bite on their corned beef sandwich and a couple of crisps.

When you go home you’re asked how school was, to which you reply, in your nonchalant way, fine! The next question, intrusively, is: “…and how was your lunch?” Your only option, in order to save face, and those long dreaded conversations which end in the questioner calling the school, embarrassing, is to lie and say it was fine – even though you had none, and even if you had it would’ve been crap as your school employs a woman with 6 cats to make what might colloquially be called the food.

Imagine the next day that person who steals your food money says they have food for you, but you have to do errands for them. You ask what kind of errands. Their response is to get you to clean their shoes, and the shoes of all their friends, while someone who used to do your job watches you to make sure you do it right. After you’ve done that, they give you a small amount of food – an amount so small that it would take that person only 0.25 of a person’s food money, out of the 20 or 30 they steal from, to afford the food.

Imagine then the wage packet of your parent/carer halved because some people, in the city, started to fuck around, making money by giving someone else’s money to people who were earning 10 times less a year. Your parent/carer decided to continue giving you the same lunch money (on the naïve thought it went towards a decent cause – which was taken by the bully anyway – but the quality of your clothing diminished, your dinner became smaller and of worse quality, you had to move out of your flat near the trees to a flat near no trees, and your lasagne dish turned into Welsh rarebit with peperoni and pasta).

All the time, the bully at school supports your “austerity”, after all, they still get their labour (ie your lunch money) but you get less, and are, thus, less inclined to seek alternatives to the existence of opening your arse to the shaft of a bastard!

Well, believe me, this is what is happening with the 35 bosses of the “big companies” who think it would be a mistake for the chancellor to “water down” his budget, reducing half a million jobs in the public sector and possibly doing the same amount, perhaps more, to the private sector, in order to level national debt – something which has been a reality for-flipping-ever, and is nowhere near as rocky as was Canada, who in the nineties were 101% in debt of their gross domestic product (so, Ozzy Osborne can stop using them as an example).

Yup, we’re being shafted by the cuts, all of us, no matter what sector you are in; the chancellor is screwing you over. Oh, unless you are a loan shark – you’re making a killing!! And the bosses of 35 companies don’t mind, because they still buy your labour under value, still make tremendous amounts of cash, and you continue to live in your prison.

Hey, I don’t know about you, but I might take the only power I have this Christmas – how I love Christmas – and take my money elsewhere. Yup. I will not buy anything from those 35 companies mentioned here. Because if the government wants to screw us over, I want nice people to at least lend me their hearts. If they can’t do that, then fuck them.

What not to call a posho {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

When Samantha Cameron gave birth to her baby yesterday I was in an office in Central London. The news spread in that office of course like the news that Julie from HR has brought in some Rice Krispie treats made with cocaine.

While everyone was wincing and speculating on its weight, I was wondering whether the name would have a double barrel – mainly because my politics is stuck in the 80s (80s Cuba that is).

David Cameron has made it clear that benefits, such as that for a child, should not be received by middle class parents such as him (*cough splutter cough* middle class sir? Don’t let Grandad Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet hear you say that).

But if DavCam is going to be middle class, will he be one of those postmodern middle class people whose names are Plum or Eggnog or something like that, will he stick with his roots and call his child something like Martha Cunningham-Gash or will he go all hug-a-hoodie and call his kid Beyonce or Vodkaandorange (a Dutch name I believe)?

Certainly David Cameron’s identity, back as a shadow leader, was stained by the synonyms of a name. Last year he was said to advise Annunziata Rees-Mogg to insist people refer to her as Nancy Mogg, so as to appeal to the voters of North West Somerset – though some wonder whether it was less about the “poshness” of the name, or whether it was too “foreigny” (that’s right, foreigny!).

Having found out about 30 minutes before writing this small entry I found out, and I think they made a good choice – perfect for postmodernism it has a bit of foreign in there (Cornwall is obviously a bit foreign with their foreigny flag) has a typical English name in there, and has the name of a nurse who saved the world (unlike the Cameron-led budget, which has overburdened the poorest – what a turn up for the books).

That’s right folks, the Camerons have called their latest child Florence Rose Endellion Cameron Rees-Mogg. That about sums it up really.

Self service checkouts mean the end of the world {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

You may have met a manager like this before:

They don’t wear ties because they had a boss once who wore a tie, and he ran himself to the ground, things are easier now, so much so that his (or her) top three shirt buttons are undone, and (s)he’s leaning on the radiator while addressing your team – where you’re all key players.

They are realistic about the working day, having read somewhere, in a Zen capitalist rag, that if a team member (not worker, not staffer, not peasant) relaxes, listens to their personal music player perhaps, then more will get done in the long term, way more than a frazzled brain taking 9-5 too literally.

Want to wear shorts on a hot day? You got it! Want to drink coca cola between tasks, laughing and talking about big brother while the managing director is behind you doing the same? They’ll join you! Want to go for a beer after work, no can do, they’re off to Nobu with their buddies.

This isn’t capitalism, baby. This is capital 2.0 – but it’s virtually the same thing, and it amounts to smoke and mirrors.

Changes the working day doesn’t it! Well, it’s all for nothing!!!

Consider what Roy Mayall, the pseudonym for the postal worker/blogger and occasional comment is free writer, has said about his line of work, on the subject of new Royal Mail investment in multimillion-pound walk-sequencing machines “as part of their new modernisation and investment programme”:

What the new machines have done is to take away the last element of skill from our job. There’s no memory involved any more. We pull out a letter, and we stick it in a slot. We pull out the next letter and stick it into the same slot, depending on the address. Once all the letters from the first address are finished, we move on to the next address. We carry on and on like this until all the letters are sorted.

This does not necessarily speed up the process of throwing off the frame, as most postal workers know their frame so well they can sort it almost as fast without the walk-sequencing technology. Estimates are that it will save about six minutes a frame. Previously, it took about an hour and a half to throw off an entire frame, so six minutes doesn’t really make all that much difference. But what it does mean is that the Royal Mail can now use unskilled labour to do what was once a moderately skilled job.

The optimist may believe that Royal Mail is just buying into more efficient tools to save time in an ever-competitive world, particularly in their industry. But anyone can see, by what Roy Mayall describes, that this new programme has given licence to invest a lump sum into machinery that will undercut skilled work in that industry, saving money in the long term on wages and paying for unskilled workers where skilled ones were needed previously, reducing the need for employment overall.

People tend not to think of this in economic debates, but the supermarket self-service checkout; this machine allows sometimes up to 12 machines to be manned by one person. That is 11 jobs undercut in one shop alone. If a shift is on average eight hours, and the shop is open 24 hours a day, that is 33 less people needed to be employed on minimum wage for the single purchase of 12 machines.

Consider this by regional and then national figures – that’s many jobs, and a lot of money saved.

I could make examples ad nauseum, but I have designated these to show that for all the supposed change in managerial and organisational ethos, across all sectors, the main problem still remains – and always was – in the logic of capital itself, which at its heart sacrifices staff for illusory appeals to efficiency.

by Carl Packman

You can read more of Carl’s thoughts and articles on his blog Raincoat Optimism.

Wikileak in Afghanistan {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

Julian Assange won’t find himself on any leaked document, but he should be under no illusion: he is enemy number 1 now. The owner of Wikileaks may have just tickled a ball too many with his latest release; 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict in Afghanistan.

Homeless Assange, whose profile on the Guardian notes him as confessing a genetic disposition to rebel, has spent the last 24 hours justifying his acts, in light of fierce criticism from the White House, who have said the leaks – probably the result of hacking (their assumption) – which contains classified and sensitive information could put the war effort in jeopardy.

The twitter hashtag #warlogs has had discussions ranging from whether to see Wikileaks forever more as a champion of free speech, or as a danger, more intent on causing naive damage and anarchy rather than any grown up appeal to classical liberal motifs.

Having seen a sample of the records myself I can conclude one thing for the nice readers at Frost Magazine: we are at war.

If you want to find out anymore, say if you want to see what Osama Bin Laden told intelligence in his poetic, tyrannical phraseology, or perhaps you’d like to see how much carnage the Taliban have caused with roadside bombings, go and see the files for yourself.

Though when you see them remember one of the main reasons why this stuff isn’t on public display (other than the issue of a national threat, or sensitivity to families): war is rubbish, people die, and it is often better to put it to the back of one’s mind, for otherwise the emotional proximity to what is really going on can have deleterious effects on a reasonable and rational opinion of the war effort in Afghanistan.

I call this the problem of overproximity, and I first spoke about it last year with regard to the camps in Calais that were home to many migrants. Photojournalist Jason Parkinson, a good guy, was frustrated by then immigration Minister Phil Woolas’ response to the camp. He wrote in the Guardian:

It is easy for Woolas, back in London, to arrogantly state these men don’t deserve asylum in the UK. But in doing so he exposes his distance from the issue. If he had bothered to go to the camps and squats around Calais and talk to these people, hear their stories first hand – perhaps then he would remember they are human beings and not just a statistic or price tag on a government spreadsheet.

It is my contention that it didn’t matter where Woolas made the decision if it involved taking a look at what the UK could do, but certainly visiting the camp was not going to help, only other than putting Woolas in a situation where his proximity to the problem would influence his reponse (we all know his stomach for pressure, just see Joanna Lumley take him down).

The leaked documents have the potential to change people’s mind in the wrong way, it will remind people that death is common to war, and that strategy has not always been good in Afghanistan.

The shock of the reality has the potential to delete from our emotional minds the cost of not challenging the Taliban – this network of extremists will not stop until every son of every scared parent in Afghanistan has forcefully been signed up to fight in their fascist wars.

The Fat of the Land {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

There is a simple reason why I predict the two taser shots received by Raoul Moat on the morning of 10 July had nothing to do with his eventual death. Not because disruptions to ones nervous system couldn’t release a spasm that would set off a trigger to an unfortunate whose gun happened to be pointed at his own head. No (although I’m sure you can find these conspiracies on Moat’s popular facebook fan page). Rather, a bit of shock therapy could shake a bit of sense into the bugger.

Subsequently, I would like to prescribe a bit of shock therapy to our health minister Andrew Lansley if he expects fatty food producers to take it upon themselves to cut salt, sugar and spice (and everything that’s nice) out of the nations food, now that the regulators are out.

With no regulation, why wouldn’t Dave Osler be right to say:

“Anti-obesity campaigning in Britain will soon be brought to you courtesy of Bombay Bad Boy-flavour Pot Noodles, Snickers, Golden Wonder and Fanta. Or at least it will be, if Andrew Lansley gets his way.”

Lansley recently told food manufacturers that if they were to be nutritionally responsible then they could be spared regulation. The next week it is revealed that the Food Standards Agency is to be abolished.

This has been met with calls that government has “caved in to big business”. Either that or food manufacturers, in a week, suitably impressed Lansley that they would be culinary ethical (to coin a phrase). Although Labour health spokesman, and leadership candidate, Andy Burnham, probably hit the nail on the head when he said that: “It does raise the question whether the health secretary wants to protect the public health or promote food companies.”

The same food companies that Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, among many other leading doctors, asked Lansley and the government to stop giving a platform to by allowing them to advertise their products during sports events, shortly after Lansley announced that manufacturers of crisps and confectionery could play a central role in the Change4Life campaign.

One of the main beneficiaries of austerity, be that the killing off of the FSA or for customer popularity, is bad foodies. McDonalds, it was reported in 2008, defied the credit crunch by recruiting 4,000 people to fill ‘McJobs’.

KFC, also back in 2008, according to one report, enjoys “strong growth as Britons are drawn towards cheaper eat-out deals in the face of the recession.”

There were gasps of horror when George Osborne announced OBR predictions of 2m more private sector jobs within five years(although how much of this should be taken at face value is questionable, with the early departure of Sir Alan Budd, whose parting gift was to say the Treasury needs more outside regulation – and he should know). The McJob could be the future; which means less unionisation, less workers rights, and an almost robotic allegiance to the French fry.

There has been one overall winner of this period of negative economic growth, and that is bad food. Unhealthy people die, so why wouldn’t our government want to cosy up to the winners. Lets just hope the public isn’t reminded that Andrew Lansley is being bankrolled by some dreaded private health firm now… (whoops).

The Gall of Prince of Wales {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

Have you ever said out loud: oh my, how have they got the gall to say that? Occasions arise when the gall of your heroes can come back to hurt you. I’m on the political left, and as such I quite like the words of Polly Toynbee, she’s very well skilled in saying things that I want to hear, but she does have some gall.

There was the time when the lads at Though Cowards Flinch noticed that Polly was writing in support of outsourcing to ‘improve standards’ instead of supporting workers’ rights in the public sector. Then there was the time on Question Time when Richard ‘why bring up the world war, just actually why, why‘ Littlejohn outed Polly for her fancy foreign houses (Littlejohn hates foreign houses).

Toby Young, Tory boy of such popular cultural hits as How to show Cameron in a bad light and still love him to bits, pointed out that Toynbee had gall for criticising free schools when sending two of her three own children to private school for part of their education.

When someone finds this out on twitter, I believe it is shortly followed by the hashtag #fail.

Toynbee is someone who ought to represent my political viewpoint, but by night she illustrates a perversion of that view. And it hurts those to whom she writes for the most.

Now that I’ve shown myself to take this approach to people I used to respect, I can now turn to people I have never had respect for, and show them to be gall-ish too.

Prince Charles, it turned out, earned £271m in property deals in 2008, making an estimated £43m in profit.

The Mail reported back then that:

“The Prince’s income from the Duchy [created in 1337 by Edward III for his eldest son Prince Edward to provide an income for the heir to the throne] in 2007 was £16.3million or £12.8million after tax.”

This was after a massive £1m pay rise the year previous.

Yet he now comes out in support of ordinary people against property developers.

As the Guardian puts it:

“It is an unlikely claim for a prince who enjoys a £17m private annual income and employs 16 gardeners but Clarence House today said that Prince Charles believes it is his duty to defend “ordinary people” against profiteering property developers.”

This emergency budget is set to make 1.3 million people unemployed. My suggestion for him showing his support for all ordinary people is by contributing to the cuts, by getting his Mother to wave ta-ta to Edward IIIs outdated financial model, and giving up the Duchy. Then campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy, while throwing support at the scheme to nationalise all ex-royal buildings, thereby safeguarding tourist money to the country.

Until then, the man has some gall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/29/prince-charles-planning-property-developers