Telling Stories

What's in a word?  Once upon a time, 'story' meant an account, either true or fictitious, of events. It could also mean a fabrication or an allegation. In this latter sense, a story was a bit dodgy.

In the past few years, 'narrative' has come to replace story, and in most cases, the dodgyness continues, but even dressed up in the posher term, the dubious nature of the claims being made by the narrator remain.

Politicians and political parties now have narratives which they spin with gusto, as do the media. Not to have a narrative puts a politician or a political party at a distinct disadvantage, and if they don't have a narrative, the media will soon invent one.

Ultimately, though, what they are all doing when presenting their narratives is simply telling stories.  And like most stories, there is an element of fantasy and fabrication.  We overlook this at our peril.  Whether story or narrative, what is going on is an attempt to trick, bamboozle or fool us.

Currently, the stories going around about Corbyn involve two diametric extremes:  a) he's a died in the wool Marxist and therefore both out of touch with reality and is a danger to our Way of Life, b) he's an authentic, principled, sincere man challenging the false pieties of conventional politics.

Frankly, neither story is convincing.  But then, I have to say, neither is the story of Corbyn as future Prime Minister.

Off the rails

I am puzzled.  The British railway system was founded and built by private enterprise.  Eventually, the system ran off the rails, and it was nationalised.  A generation of so later, the then Conservative govt led by John Major returned it to private ownership, setting up a complicated system of ownership (rail track and services separated) with the various services open to competitive bidding.

What has been largely hidden from public scrutiny is the level of subsidy offered to the privately owned rail franchisees.  The figures vary, but the latest I've seen is somewhere over £4 billion net.  In the overall scale of public finance, not a great deal, but nonetheless, it's public (or, to use the cliche, tax payers') money that is being put into private pockets.

In this part of the Home Counties, the rail services are rated in popularity along with 'welfare scroungers' and 'bogus asylum seekers.  The commuters to London, paying £4,000 p.a. for the privilege, probably don't realize that the rail company concerned is actually being publicly subsidised.  So, not only are they paying £4K out of taxed income for a less than brilliant service -- they are also through their taxes contributing to the shareholder's dividends.

The much maligned Corbyn has proposed renationalising the railways as various franchises expire. This has produced the usual knee jerk reactions from the right of centre press and politicians, and quite a few of the public. Rational debate is notably silent.  As is the fact that the current system, while not nationalised, is still publicly subsided. In other words, the tax payer still pays.

One argument advocates cutting subsidies entirely, freeing rail companies from govt micro management, and enabling them to run business-like and profitable enterprises.

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/why-are-rail-subsidies-so-high

Unsprisingly, the TUC takes a different line, as it were:

https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/train-operators-gained-%C2%A327bn-taxpayers-subsidy-last-year

Meanwhile, it seems that subsidies are actually down:

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2014/04/rail-subsidies-down-%C2%A34bn-regulator-reveals

Now, are you confused?  I certainly am.  But I do think that Corbyn's proposal merits serious consideration, and some well informed debate.  Unfortunately, the railways, like the NHS, are political totems. So, I'm not anticipating rational discussion, and the unhappy commuters of Henley will continue to pay for the privilege of travelling in privatised, overcrowded, subsidised trains to and from London, while Cross Rail, built at vast public expense, will have as yet to be experienced effects on rail travel in the Thames Valley.

A SOD Saga

Several years ago, the then Coalition government came up with the Localism Act, which led to the introduction of something called neighbourhood planning. The idea was that neighbourhoods, i.e. parish or town councils, could, with active community involvement, devise a neighbourhood plan (NP), which for the period concerned, define the ways in which the village or town wd develop. In particular, it wd enable the community to say where new housing developments could be located.  All fine and dandy. However, the NP wd be subject to national and district planning constraints, so it wasn't quite the community based planning opportunity that at first glance it seemed to be.

One of the constraints on community planning immediately became apparent when it was announced that, according to the county and district planning strategies for Oxfordshire and South Oxfordshire, Henley (pop. 11,000) wd be required to make room for 450 new houses up to 2027.  There was an immediate convulsion of Nimbyism among the citizens of Henley and neighbouring Harpsden. Henley town Council (HTC) set up a NP process.  This has dragged on for two years, has involved consultation with the community, and two versions of the NP have been put forward for comment.

HTC commissioned a consultancy to prepare the plan, with input from working groups made up of community members. Unfortunately, the result has been a series of documents which look as if they have come from the key board of Dave Brent (of 'The Office' fame, who worked in a fictitious enterprise in a business park somewhere in non fictitious Slough).

The Henley in Transition (HIT) group, of which I am a member, felt the need to make a submission on the latest version of the Henley and Harpsden NP to South Oxfordshire District Council  (SOD) Planning, and I took on the role of editing the copy which, at least in theory, wd be produced by my colleagues.  Fortunately, long experience of working on multi-writer documents had prepared me for this thankless task, and at more or less the 11th hour, and after much rewriting, the final text was ready. Unfortunately, SOD Planning Department had devised a scheme for making submissions which was not exactly citizen friendly, and we had to get our submission to their office by 16.30 on Friday.

Now, this wd have been easy had it not been for a dramatic incident last year.  An Oxfordshire citizen with a shoulder well loaded with chips devised a scheme to get even with the various individuals and organizations against which he had a grudge. Chief of these was SOD Planning.   So, one night, he drove a car loaded with containers of gas right into the foyer of the SOD building in Crowmash and lit the fuse.  Result: total destruction of the extensive SOD premises.  (The mad man concerned is now a guest of HMQ in a secure psychiatric establishment.)

So, the scene is set for yesterday's little saga when, confident that our satnavs wd lead us to SOD Planning at Milton, Malcolm (HIT chairman) and I climbed into the faithful Accord and I keyed the postal code into my vintage Garmin sat nav. No luck. We tried with Malcolm's newer TomTom sat nav. Still no luck.  We tried every permutation we could think of with both satnavs. Nada. OK, so I decided to go via the ruined SOD site at Crowmarsh on the assumption that some some locational information wd be posted there. Arrived. No luck. SOD haven't thought to post notices on the firmly closed gates to direct hapless visitors to their new locations.

Light bulb moment: Google maps. Keyed in info. Site identified.  Near Didcot. Just off the A4130 & near A34. Thus informed, we headed off for nearby Didcot, guided by Google maps. When we reached the A4130/A34 interchange, took the wrong exit, and ended up on A34, Oxford bound. Miles later managed to retrieve that error, and eventually arrived at the Milton business park, which turns out to be exactly the kind of location in which Dave Brent would have been at home. Found helpful map at entrance. Identified target. Reached target. Delivered our submissions. Obtained proof of delivery. Then headed off home, helped by directions from one of the staff who told us how easily to escape from Dave Brent village without hazarding the A34 exchange.   Trip back took 30 mins.

Lessons learned: don't rely on sat navs. Put faith in Google maps. Continue to be sceptical about SOD's location information (and much else).  Oh, and ask a neighbour. "Yes,of course", said my neighbour when I returned, "it's just off the A34/A4130 interchange!"

Back home, I poured -- and consumed -- a generous G&T.   End of saga.