angryrantz.com

Recent (and not so recent) elections, whether National or local, have been almost invariably marked by one key feature: Low or very low turnout. This is a serious failing of democracy and, as I am frequently reminded by my wife, an insult to those who strove to gain the vote for women. It is similarly insulting to those who fought for voting rights for the poor in the 19^th Century and for ethnic minorities in the 20^th Century.However, the question is who is perpetrating the insult.

Successive Governments have invested heavily in investigating and addressing so called “voter apathy”. All the major parties and, no doubt the smaller parties too, expend much time, energy and money attempting to “engage the electorate”. All this assumes that we just don’t care who is in charge. Isn’t it possible that we just don’t want any of the individuals or parties on offer to be in charge?

What we would like is to see more individuals and parties worthy of the votes our forefathers and mothers strove to gain for us. They sought the vote for future generations not as a nice perk for us, but as a responsibility entrusted to us to use wisely and with discretion. We fail to turn up at the polling station not because we are apathetic, but because we are angry at the standards, policies and behaviour of those we are expected to choose between.

In a true democracy we should have the right to say we don’t like any of the available options. Giving us a “None Of The Above” option would give our politicians a chance to assess the true level of voter apathy and “engage the electorate” by offering a response to which they are willing to cast their precious vote. The election would still be won by whichever specific candidate and party gains the most votes and seats, but there will be a clear indication of the desire for a new style of governance rather than Government and an insight as to how many voters may support any parties offering such a change.

All across the UK, households clean and sort various materials from their domestic waste and put it out separately for recycling.  We have all been convinced to help by doing our bit to save the planet and reduce the amount of waste going into landfill sites.  We also pay a little extra on our Council Tax to cover the expense of the collection and risk prosecution and fines if we fail to comply.

The recent financial meltdown and collapse in commodity markets has led to yet another tax on British households.  Due to the (very) low value of recycled materials, it is no longer viable to sell the stuff we have diligently sorted from our waste.  This material is now going to be stored, possibly for months at a time, in warehouses etcetera around the country.  This will cost money and guess who will pay – It’s those lucky Council Tax payers again!

Three things cross my mind:

1)                  Surely we are recycling to reduce carbon footprints, conserve resources, reduce landfill usage etcetera.  Money made from selling the stuff is not the reason we are doing it!  Regardless of market prices, environmental benefits still remain unchanged.

2)                  Most businesses will go through periods of great success and high profit, but these will be mixed with periods of low profit, even loses.  This is surely the result of a free market economy.  A strong business will ride the hard times and reap the benefits when things improve.  I’m sure the companies involved have been happy making large profits whilst commodity prices were high.  Did the profits go to reduce the Council Tax bills? Were they invested in storage facilities as a hedge against periods when the values fell?  Were they hamstered away by grateful shareholders?  I know which one I’d put money on!

3)                  If recycled materials are stockpiled for up to 6 months, the market value will probably never reach viable levels again with such a massive reserve waiting to flood the market.