The Obscurer

What is the state of the nation’s youth? Permanently legless, apparently. That is why the Chief Constable of the Cheshire Constabulary has suggested raising the age limit for purchasing alcohol to 21 years; no doubt a real concern for today’s pissed up 16 year olds, especially as many shops already operate a voluntary code whereby they only serve those who look over 21 in the first place. Are the kids much worse than in my day? Perhaps, but one tragic case doesn’t make it so, and Peter Fahy’s comments seem to me to be more about deflecting and pre-empting the inevitable criticism he knew his force would face for failing to be all places at all times and to prevent anything bad from ever happening.

But drink does cause its problems, otherwise why are Friday and Saturday nights the busiest times down at your local A&E? I’m sure that the problem of drunken idiots causing violence is more down to the perpetrators being idiots rather than drunken; yet even idiots are still able to restrain themselves from caving in someone else’s skull while sober, more often than not. It is the whole drink/idiot combination that creates the problems.

Most of the proposed solutions – raising the legal age, increasing the price of alcohol, preventing drinking in public – seem over the top to me, unfairly hitting the majority of people who drink in moderation, or who even when plastered are only a danger to themselves. But one of Fahy’s comments, lamenting that parents are abdicating their responsibilities, seems more on the money. I was particularly shocked to hear one young lad on last nights Ten O’clock News, who, when asked if changing the drinking age limit would be effective, replied

it would make a lot of difference to young teenagers these days, because parents are giving them the money which is, like, alcohol these days, you can buy a four pack of Stella for a tenner, easily.

It is difficult to know where to start here, isn’t it? Can this be true? Is this lad representative of the youth of today? If so, is his generation rubbish at arithmetic or just poor at exercising their consumer choice? Four cans for a tenner! Where does he shop? Even Thresher wouldn’t dare charge that much, even for the reassuringly expensive wife-beater itself. I don’t know whether to refer him to a maths teacher or to trading standards; or perhaps just direct him to a shop with Booze in the title where he will find that buying four Stellas for a tenner is even easier than he thinks. Indeed, he will see that he can either receive a cool six quid in change, or better still, take them up on their rather splendid 12 for £10 offer.

I don’t consider myself a great ideologue – I don’t know, you may well disagree – and I don’t really approve of ideologies, but I do of course have my own set of beliefs and a sense of morality that could be described as such. I am implacably opposed to the idea of private education for one thing; it seems a basic and fundamental inequity in society that the rich can buy better schooling for their offspring, and if it were in anyway practical I would like to ban the practice. But…if I could afford to, and I was faced with the option of sending my children to a private school or putting them through a state school that I felt was so poor that it would severely hamper their prospects, then I would choose the former over the latter. I wouldn’t deny the charge of hypocrisy, what I would say is that whatever my own personal beliefs, the future of my children is more important than any ideology I may subscribe to.

This thought – that there is a time and place for ideology – popped back into my mind when reading about the current debate surrounding organ donation. Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, has called for a change in the law regarding organ donation so that we have a system of “presumed consent”; rather than “opting in”, so that you have to be on a register for your organs to be used after your death, you have to “opt out”, so it is presumed you are happy for your organs to be used unless you specifically state that they can’t. This has caused a stir; over at Stumbling & Mumbling, for example, a number of commenters have objected, arguing that the proposal violates our rights to do with our bodies as we wish, even after death, and that this is another example of the overarching state. One commenter even says that should this proposal come to pass he will opt out of it, whereas currently he opts in to the voluntary scheme.

But are those opposing the plan reacting ideologically rather than looking at the issue pragmatically? I take it that they all have an aversion to a domineering state and value our human rights, which is fair enough. But human rights are not just abstract concepts to be debated; they are there for a reason, for our benefit. In this case, since there is a clear opt out suggested, and as long there are safeguards in place that ensure any database is properly maintained, that relatives wishes are respected, and that where there are doubts about the prospective donors identity the organs are not used, then I can’t see anyone’s rights are being violated.

And in concentrating on the issue of human rights have the opponents of the move instinctively assumed their position out of ideological reflex, while losing sight of the reasons for this proposal itself; which is simply to reduce the shortfall in the number of organs currently available for donation, so to save the lives of some and to improve the quality of life of others? Even if you do feel that a policy of presumed consent violates our rights, is it such a violation that it trumps the rights of other people to live? Can it be said to be proportionate? I don’t suggest we just jettison a belief in human rights on any occasion that someone sees some benefit in doing so; each instance should be viewed on its merits and it is right to question any proposals. But in the case of organ donation, I wonder if the opponents of presumed consent are reacting on a theoretical level to what they see as an assault on our rights, rather than looking at the issue itself and at what our rights are there to achieve. I wonder if ideology has made them lose their perspective on this occasion.

There may be some good arguments against presumed consent; The Economist last year reported that although Spain already has this policy, it has only “pushed up supply a bit” – which itself suggests that there has been no mass body snatching by the state in that country – and that it has not solved the supply problem. The Economist’s solution with regards kidneys is to allow people the right to sell one of them; this has happened in Iran, so eliminating their waiting list for the organ (they don’t offer a solution to the shortage of organs for heart transplants, though.) My initial reaction, perhaps because of my own ideological position, is to reject the suggestion; but if, as is claimed, the surgery is safe, and if it is true that with proper regulation screened donors with one kidney actually live longer than the average person with two, then why not? Shouldn’t it at least be considered, whatever the understandable concerns?

But perhaps there is a another, simpler way to solve the donor shortage for those who so hate the state interfering in our lives. When the law requiring people to wear seat belts in cars was first introduced I remember Doctors at the time commenting that they were seeing a reduction in the number of suitable organs becoming available for transplant, as people who would have previously died in road accidents were surviving, so denying the world of their organs. Well, doesn’t the seat belt law, and indeed the requirement to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike, infringe our civil liberties? Don’t we have the right to wear what we like when driving as long as it doesn’t affect others? If so, and if these laws were indeed repealed, would the likely increase in fatal road accidents that resulted perhaps provide us with all the organs that we so clearly need?

As unsung heroes go, I can’t think of a better example than “that bloke” who one day came up with the idea of placing reading matter in front of the urinals in pubs. How did we ever spend our time before? Stare into space, or at porcelain, or at our bits? Some (though not me) would of course engage in a wee game of “compare and contrast”. But now, while we slash, we can read half of the lead story in yesterday’s Telegraph; then, our ablutions completed, we can loiter awkwardly, trying to skim read the rest of the article; that is until someone else enters the bogs, so we slowly wash our hands, dry them on the hot air dryer (which keeps cutting out on us as our hands move away from the enigmatically placed sensor) waiting for the other person to leave so we can continue our read; and then a second person arrives and so we finally give up and exit the toilets (the hot air dryer that kept cutting before out is now stuck on permanently once our hands are not only out of the way, but in a different room) and we resolve to read the rest of the article on our next trip to the toilet (not far away; we’ve already drunk six pints); but the next time we go to the toilet that specific urinal is in use, so we decide to finish off the article by reading it on the internet when we get home; but by then we are far too drunk and we forget all about it.

That is why, much as I like newspapers in toilets, the theory is flawed and so adverts can be a better choice. At the John Millington a few weeks ago, for example, I read a sign advertising the forthcoming (yes, forthcoming; I hate the word upcoming) events at the pub. One was for their Fathers’ Day extravaganza, and as someone who will play the fool for any excuse to go out for a meal, I was obviously interested. Problem; the John Millington does not allow children under the age of six years into their pub. Fair enough; their house, their rules. Though I must say I was tempted to phone them and explain just how taken I was with their offer, that I would love to join them for their Fathers’ Day festivities. But I can’t. Because I am a father.

Below the Fathers’ Day adverts was a second item explaining the changes the pub was in the process of making to their beer garden to enlarge, cover and heat the outside drinking area; it wasn’t explicit but I assume it was to make ready for the smoking ban that starts in England tomorrow. You may recall that I have written on the subject before, when I stated that I considered the action somewhat draconian, and that a compromise could surely be found to prevent an outright ban on smoking.

But I’m afraid it’s happened again; I start off as a qualified critic of a proposal but then when I hear the obnoxious views of it’s more vocal opponents I quite unfairly swing round and decide that the new idea deserves far more merit. Because I understand smokers being peeved by the new laws; they want to smoke in the pub and are being prevented from doing so, and if that were all then I can and will sympathise. I can see why they are vexed. It is the further inappropriate invoking of the issue of civil liberties that annoys me and which has shifted my viewpoint. The argument goes that it is our individual freedom to do as we wish and for some people to smoke if they like. Fine; but civil liberties only allow you to do as you wish so long as your actions don’t affect others. Smoking does affect others, be it passive smoking, stinging eyes or stinking clothes. So that is that…next!

Just because it has traditionally been non-smokers who have been inconvenienced by smokers doesn’t make it right. Perhaps it is time to redress that historical imbalance. It is a poor reason to change ones mind, but once again I feel my liberal position has been challenged by those people – in this case thoughtless smokers – who talk about freedom but who evidently don’t give a damn about the freedoms of others. As it is, every few Fridays I go out with Mike to the Kenilworth. Neither of us being smokers, we sit in the No Smoking area. It makes no difference, by midnight the whole place is awash with smoke and our clothes, hair and skin stink of the stuff; and I don’t know about you, but for me bath night isn’t until Sunday. So, while I previously questioned the smoking ban, as it appears in the headlights I can honestly say that I can’t wait.

I’m a hero, apparently. I’ve always wanted to be a hero, and now I discover I am; and it’s not just me who’s saying it. No lesser person than the Archbishop of Canterbury, when speaking at the launch of National Marriage Week, has stated I am a hero; and all because a few years ago I spent more money than I had on a fuck-off big party.

This again. The biannual news story that marriage should be promoted because married couples are more likely to stay together than unmarried couples, and that children tend to do better when being born into married families. It is getting tiresome.

First of all, what’s it got to do with the church? I can see why Rowan Williams would want to bask in the reflected glory of the seemingly favourable statistics associated with marriage, but would that be fair? I was married in a civil ceremony, and one of the rules of such a wedding is that there can be no mention of religion at any stage of the service. As a result it was touch and go at one stage whether the music we picked – Ennio Morricone’s score for the film The Mission – would be allowed. Therefore, surely religion should similarly be explicitly excluded as a potential cause of my successful marriage, and those of my many friends who were also married in civil ceremonies?

Secondly, I wasn’t born married. My wife and I went out together, lived together and even got up to cheeky nonsense together for over four years before we were wed. Would Dr Williams have been critical of our arrangements had he met us at the start of June 2002? Did that much change by the time we were sipping champagne a few days later? We were still the same people, with the same devotion to each other.

And today; am I dedicated to my wife because I am married to her? I don’t think so; that statement is surely putting the cart before the horse. I am dedicated to my wife because I am still in love with her, always will be. It is because I am dedicated to her that I am married to her, not the other way round. I don’t think marriage as an institution can take any of the credit.

But can marriage help keep couples together? Perhaps. I can imagine some people being in the situation where they feel the need to fight to save their marriage, when if they were in a different type of relationship (at least one without kids) they may not feel there was anything to fight for. It is a moot point whether that is a good or bad thing – should you fight to stay with someone just because you are married to them; if you are having to fight, should you really be with them? – but no doubt there are people who have stayed together simply because of the marriage, and the relationship has subsequently flourished once the tricky spell is over. But surely that only works if you value marriage in itself in the first place; simply promoting marriage to people who aren’t inclined to get wed can only be good news for the divorce lawyers. The statistics that show married relationships as being more stable surely just prove that stable couples are more likely to get married; if more people were to get wed simply because they have been cajoled or incentivised by the church or state I can well imagine those statistics converging over time.

Why get married then? Well how about for the same reason I did; simply because I wanted to. The benefits of marriage are intangible, and so they should be. My wedding was the best day of my life, without doubt, and we treasure our memories of that day. I’ve never worn jewellery but I love wearing my wedding ring, not because it is an attractive and valuable chunk of gold, but because it is a link to and constant reminder of my wife. I didn’t have to get married, no one should have to, but I wanted to and I’m glad I did. But I don’t think it has any bearing of the success of our relationship.

So is marriage the “glue that holds society together” as the Telegraph’s editorial predictably puts it? I don’t think so. It may do some good work at the margins, persuading some couples to give their relationship one last go, but that is about it. I don’t think you should dismiss entirely the effect marriage can have, but it is important not to build its part either.

Last week the TaxPayers’ Alliance announced its “Public Sector Rich List”, a roll call of the highest earning workers employed in the state sector. In announcing the list they stated that

Taxpayers will be shocked at the scale of these massive pay awards. Large numbers of people in the public sector are effectively being paid City salaries. It is not surprising that taxes keep going up when the salaries for the public sector’s top executives keep rocketing.

For me the two standout statistics from the report are that the average salary of these government fat-cats, including bonuses, is £259,701 per annum, and that on average they have enjoyed a pay rise of 8.4% over the previous year, compared with a 4.2% rise in the economy as a whole. The full list can be viewed here (pdf).

Look a bit deeper, however (and not very deep at that) and I begin to doubt the point of this list, other than to play to the gallery. In the first place the TaxPayers’ Alliance has chosen to feature only those earning over £150,000 a year. Now, my maths is pretty shaky, but even I know that this means that the average pay of the people on the list is therefore going to be over £150,000 per annum. If you cherry pick the stats in such a way it isn’t that surprising that the overall average wage is going to be as high as it is.

So how many people make up this sample; how many out of the millions employed in the public sector are earning such extravagant figures? Well according to the report the grand total is a whopping 170 people. Are you shocked at that figure? I am; shocked that it is so small. I may be going out on a limb here, but can I suggest that the only reason the TaxPayers’ Alliance are so shocked – and feel that this figure can be considered high – is because they have a mordant hatred of the public sector for its own sake?

As a fair comparison you could ask how many people in the private sector earn a comparative figure? The answer, I think, would be “a lot”, certainly more than 170; only the other week it was announced that 4000 city workers have this year earned £1m in bonuses alone. Now, if I were to criticise such city bonuses there is every chance that I would be accused of the politics of envy; that I don’t is because quite frankly I have only the vaguest idea of the pressures and problems associated with such professions. Is it really any different to criticise high earners in other sectors of the economy?

For the TaxPayers’ Alliance it seems people in the public sector simply shouldn’t be awarded such sums. But why not? How much should they earn? Presumably just less. One argument often voiced is that the public sector doesn’t face the same scrutiny from shareholders that private companies do; but this assumes private companies are listed on the stock market in the first place, which in these boom times for private equity is less likely than ever. Private companies, of course, can go bankrupt, a pressure theoretically absent from the public sector; but does that mean that an equivalent job in the public sector gets an entirely free ride?

Let’s take television as an example. You could argue that the chairman of ITV faces far greater pressures than does the director general of the BBC thanks to the existence of his shareholders; but for one thing to make up for this the chairman of ITV already does earn more money than the loaded BBC chief (source), and for another you could plausibly argue that at the BBC that lack of shareholder power is more than made up for in the form of the far greater political pressure and scrutiny the corporation faces. Other broadcasters of course have different problems again; if you are the head of BSkyB your pay still dwarfs that of your BBC equivalent but your main concern is to keep your old dad happy. For me, though, the inclusion of Channel Four executives on the rich list seems particularly odd; while being nominally government-owned the channel is not publicly funded and has to compete for advertising revenue like most other broadcasters.

Certainly some of the pay awards listed seem pretty large – I will leave it to London’s public transport users to decide whether the £1m+ paid for Bob Kiley’s services amounts to value for money – but as with the city workers I mentioned earlier, I find it difficult to say they aren’t justified without knowing fully what such jobs entail; certainly let’s say that I think running London transport could be quite taxing, and that it is a big job with or without shareholder pressure. The argument for paying such high wages is surely the same one a private sector company would make – that you have to pay these wages to attract the top talent – and public sector organisations often have to compete with private sector firms for the same managers, with the salary (in theory) set in the the same marketplace. You can disagree with this principle, you can argue against high executive pay, but why just in the public sector? You can point out where the public sector fails in comparison with the private sector, but can you really criticise it when all it is doing is aping the private sector? And if you think some of these positions are overpaid best not seek to privatise them, as history suggests that their compensation payments will shoot up even higher as a consequence.

Now, if you are still with me, then I know what you are thinking; here he goes again, he works in the public sector himself so he is bound to defend it. But why should I? I pay my taxes too and I have no interest in my money being frittered away. I am pretty confident that if the public sector were reduced to its bare bones then my job would still exist, so I have no vested interest in any proliferation of non-jobs in and around where I work; if anything I should be more pissed off about them than anyone. While my colleagues and I are facing an enforced 2.2% pay rise I’m hardly eager to defend executive pay rises nearly 4 times that level.

But I’m not defending these levels of pay, I am just questioning their use as a criticism of the public sector itself. What irritates me here is the blinkered and biased nature of the debate. What especially grieves me is that I do think the TaxPayers’ Alliance has a valuable role to play. I agree that the public sector it spending our money, that these executives are our employees and they should be answerable to us. When the TA argue that the public sector should face greater scrutiny and accountability I wholeheartedly concur; when they attack some of my own bete-noires such as the cosy, meaningless quangos and the huge sums wasted on management consultants I couldn’t agree more. However, in apparently objecting to anyone in the public sector earning over £150,000, and to get worked up about even 170 public sector staff receiving such a salary, this report seems motivated purely by spite and disdain, as part of a one sided argument the sees the public sector as only ever bad. It detracts from the very justified points the TA may make, in the same way that the occasional valid criticism one reads on Biased BBC loses its weight because that blog is such a bolthole for Islamophobic fuckwits.

Along these lines I was less than impressed with the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s spokesman Blair Gibbs when he appeared on Victoria Derbyshire’s show on Radio 5 last week. Quite apart from stating that people in the public sector should earn less than their private sector counterparts, and then admitting that many executives had moved into the public sector for “public service” reasons when they could have earned more had they stayed put in the private sector (to which I thought “so what’s your problem, do you just want them to earn even less again”) he then went on to criticise people on the rich list who “we had never heard of in organisations we had never heard of”. As an example of one of these mysterious quangos they had “uncovered” he cited British Waterways, and sneered that all they do is to manage Britain’s canals of which “there are hardly any anymore”; a statement that on a number of levels betrays a quite astonishing level of ignorance.

But I haven’t given up on the Taxpayers Alliance just yet; I will give them one last go. The other day I picked up their Bumper Book of Government Waste. I brief flick through its pages does show up some bizarre examples of the sort of profligacy and empire building you feel would be difficult to get away with in the private sector; on the other hand there appears much that seems endemic to any bureaucracy or large organisation, or which wouldn’t be seen as waste in the private sector, but would for example be seen rather as a mark of a caring and generous employer that enjoyed good staff relations. It is interesting to note that according to the authors’ biographies they themselves have no experience of working in the private sector (that is if you don’t count think tanks, which of course I don’t); as such, unlike me, they have nothing against which to compare their public sector experiences. But we’ll see where the book takes me, and I may report back in time. I can’t help finding it ironic, though, that I picked up a book complaining about waste in a bookshop’s remaindered bin.