The Problem that Snow Places on the UK

Another week has come round surprisingly quickly. In fact I was taken back with how soon another Tuesday had arrived. But another Tuesday means another issue; but more light hearted this time, from Guns (in the previous post) to Snow.

Its supposed to snow again in Bristol today. Joy. I really do love the snow; the way it makes everything look idyllic and magical. The fun that is inevitably going to be had with friends, frolicking around on the downs or in the garden. For me the snow touches into everything that was good about childhood, and brings back fond memories. The snow doesn't have to come at a particular time or location; after Christmas and even snow on the ski slopes and at home is perfect for me. The University closures, the lie in and then the inviting cold of the snow beckons once again. Such fun! I think you all get the message that I love the snow. But its not because its snow, its because of its scarcity; the fact that its rare and de facto, precious. So I guess you must be wondering why on earth I would choose something, so arbitrary, and which for all intensive purposes that I love to be discussing on this blog today. Well that ladies and gentlemen is simple... Money.

No I am not talking about the massive amount of sponsorship I get from advertising the product Snow,  but instead discussing the economic problems that snowfall creates in the UK. I am sure you will all be relieved to know that I have a simple yet cheap solution. So when it snows in the UK, there is a culture prevalent that means that everything will come to a grinding, resounding halt. I can remember vividly, anytime the forecast the night before had predicted snow, I would be up at 07.00am, radio on listening to see if the powers that be had granted a snow day at school. Its the same with every child and teenager up and down the country I can imagine. A couple of inches of snow will bring everything to a stop and this needs to change. Buses don't run, business don't open as travel is treacherous, planes don't leave for destined locations around the world, and frankly this is unacceptable. The 2010 winter snow was has been estimated to have cost the UK economy anywhere from half a billion to one point two billion pounds a day in lost revenue, sales, work etc depending on whether you believe the Head of Researcher at RSA or the economists from the Channel 4 news team and the economist's economists. I have statistics on my monitor now showing that quarter slump in the economy and that analysts blamed the snow for our dip into the red. In a world that is dealing with financial institution collapse and recession and economic downturn across much of the world, losing six billion in five days seems utter madness. The worst bit is that it is avoidable. I'm not talking about controlling the weather, but changing the status quo.

So here to my plan of action. Its rather simple; change the culture of the UK when snow arrives. Instead of this destructive culture where we look for the snow for an excuse to get a day off work and a lie in, and to have a laugh in the snow, why not change that? There are two things I require government to do. One requires investment of a small amount in keeping trains and airports running, and having more people clearing roads, the second is about this culture. Some of you may scoff and say 'Changing the culture of a place is more difficult that you think Rah rah rah'. But in truth its quite straightforward. Government should demand that its personnel come into work even if there is snow on the ground. Of course there should be lee way for people who are late and in difficult circumstances. But I think you will find that the incentive of not being sacked is rather a potent one. If Government takes the initiative with this, big business and ordinary business will too, or if not then they should be persuaded to. If everybody Expects things to run smoothly, and it be business as usual, then guess what? It Will! With schools still open, parents don't have to skip work, with banks open the high street will open. Hey Presto! There is an argument that people don't come to work not because it is due to some national systemic laziness but in fact that it is dangerous to drive on roads. So, let me ask you how countries that get seasonal snow regularly deal with it? They have a greater investment in services yes, but most people have chains for their tyres. If you live in a rural area with bad roads that are not gritted you may find more trouble, but honestly that is was community is for, and you can trek to the nearest bus stop to get to work. If the government announced plans that come what may, they expected employees to be at work, and the private sector did the same, I can guarantee you that imports of chains, and then sales for public use would go through the roof. With a campaign targeted at making drivers aware of the changes and how to drive safely in the snow there shouldn't be any more casualties than there are now. So this winter in the UK we got a few inches of snow, except maybe for Scotland and the highlands which will for obvious reasons get more than is average for the UK. So here is a photo of a Canadian road, a country that has long seasonal spells of snow.

That on the sides of the road has to be at least 7 metres tall of snowfall. Really we should have nothing to complain about here in the UK when we get a few inches... But we do, because we are British. People are expected to get to work, its part and parcel with living in Canada. We should really take a lesson out of their books. 

So earlier I mentioned the need for government spending in changing attitudes. I strongly believe that with government spending in the areas outlined shortly and with the expectation of business as usual, we can build a new culture. The argument has always been not to invest in greater methods of dealing with the snow because, "it doesn't happen every year", "it would be a waste of government spending" and more. Do these ring bells? Well they should do because every year some junior minister is marched up onto the camera and repeats the same jargon again and again, year after year. And yet, the snow comes almost every year, the last three to four years it has come without fail. So it would not be a waste of resources in the long term. It is another expense but surely the Government can no longer be as short sighted as it has been and neglect this issue any longer. Government only needs to spend in a few areas, some I have mentioned already; public educational campaign nationwide. Other aspects that need to be sorted are investments in more gritters, bulldozers to drive away snow from roads and more people to do these jobs. With this investment here, more roads can be kept clear, people will be more willing to drive. Airports need greater abilities to clear snow from runways or heat runways, buses need to be fitted with chains, and train tracks need to be kept clear. These last three objectives don't need to be necessarily done with public money either. They are independent companies, and should take the responsibility for maintaing a good service, so BAA and Great Western and other train service providers, start providing a reliable service to customers. I think this is a little mean to ask private enterprises to fork out, so government assistance is necessary, but the option for no government intervention is quite possible. With travel and logistics working as they should on any other normal day, the country will run like clock work. It may very well be a sizeable investment needed, but I would not believe you if you said it was going to cost six billion to implement this every year. With the need for new gritters etc, British business can be supported, keeping contracts, and safeguarding jobs which is an optional bonus within this veritable utopia that I imagined.

I think the point is that it will not take a lot of brain power, effort or capital to get this started. If I can imagine a reasonably watertight solution to these problems then the civil service can do too. I believe that I am not asking too much of Government or the public, the main issues to do with money and safety have in my mind been satisfied with the proposals put in place. There is perhaps the exception of the elderly in this equation of sorts, but they should behave in the ways that they would if they were not able to get around due to snow anyway, namely stay at home. Adequate caring institutions should be able to bring residences hot food and supplies if its needed. The best thing is that the snow will still be there after work, or after school. Its not going anywhere and the precious hours that will be enjoyed in the snow will be all that more special because its rare and precious even more so than now because the usual working day will exist. I might be tempted to research this more and deliver this to government depending on feedback.

I hope you have enjoyed reading, please type your email into the mailing box on the top right so you can automatically keep informed with any updates and new material. Thanks for reading.

The Gun Debate in the US, Yes another British Opinion

So something that has been perceived to be done to Death by British people courtesy of Piers Morgan is the debate about gun law in the US of A. Before people start saying that I have no right to comment or know nothing about US culture or the US, just hear me out and you might be pleasantly surprised. I think that we should look at this objectively, and though the shootings at the school are tragic and ultimately make any argument emotional, it would be much more effective to be rational under the circumstances. So I think I would like to state first that Piers Morgan does not represent the British people, and in fact most of us despise him in any case. He also didn't tackle the argument from a sensible angle but, for a better expression, he put his foot in it...

But lets not be too harsh on Pierce. He has his own sensibilities and British misgivings about the world, and I would like to share these with you, just so you can perhaps start to empathise, or relate to what Piers Morgan was thinking. British gun law is very draconian; our national handgun team doesn't practice in the UK because they are legally obliged not to, they train in nearby European countries. Our police force are not all armed with firearms, only a select few in each force are permitted to use guns. You may well think that this is a ridiculous set of circumstances, but it has kept the mortality rate by the use of guns down; there were just 39 deaths by a firearm in the UK in 2011 compared to the US which had 9146 or near that figure. Even if you divided the US total by five because the UK population is a fifth of the US's it would be nowhere near. These harsh and stringent rules that have been in place for over a decade now came about through two incidences that shocked the majority of people in Great Britain; they were the Hungerford Massacre of 1987 and the Dunblane school massacre of 1996. After Hungerford most semi-automatic long barrelled weapons were criminalised, and after 1996 basically all handguns over a calibre of .22 were criminalised. This is the historic rhetoric that Piers Morgan brings to bear in his argument. Nowadays, the concept of owning a gun for the majority of people in the United Kingdom is laughable, only a select few who compromise largely of the upper class and the farming community own firearms, typically shotguns. So I hope I have shown where British people are coming from and this includes Pierce (unfortunately) when we talk about guns. However, just because we have our own prejudices and beliefs doesn't mean we should be forcing it upon anybody else.

America's relationship with guns is also historical. It was put in the constitution to allow its citizens the rights to bear arms against potential occupation, and to safeguard the people in the future from oppressive government which is a theme that runs through the constitution many times, in terms of limiting Presidential power etc. The Constitution is it at the very heart of American identity and is almost sacred in that respect. It has defined their culture and history across just over 200 years. I think the best way of saying this is that the gun law should be respected for its historical and cultural importance and its role in the formation and the continuation of America and her peoples. For many people the right to bear arms for defence against an overarching, potentially brutal government is as real now as it was 200 years ago and this fact should not be forgotten. Its easier to just say its for protection, and that plays a part but is a separate issue itself. The ability to form citizens militia and have firearms is important to many Americans. I can understand in this train of thought that the argument stating that automatic weapons are needed for this very reason can be persuading, that in this future counterfactual history weapons of equal calibre and quality to that used by the military is important in providing adequate defence for families. So I believe the argument for this side can be summarised into three main points; historically and culturally significant, for protection and safety and finally to combat potential circumstances in the future where weapons that do real damage are required. I believe that gun ownership is vey much tied to US traditions and culture and in that respect is a good thing, and there is a genuine need for guns in many places in the US.

But there is a nuance to the argument, I am not in favor of total free gun access. The gun lobby has wanted to keep the status quo and just keep these sorts of weapons away from the people in society who typically instigate these types of crime. But I think that though solid in theory, this will fall down in practice. I believe it opens up the doors to all sorts of Supreme Court challenges and effectively the same sort of tragic activity will continue. I would like to say now that Piers Morgan was not trying to 'take away your guns' as the Gun lobby put it recently. I believe he was referring just to automatic weapons, particularly assault weapons, and even if he wasn't he should have and should have known better. The problem is that assault weapons are designed for one purpose and one purpose only; that is to kill lots of people in a very short space of time. I cannot imagine any circumstances where you would need a machine gun for day to day life. If you want to shoot for sport or hunt, take a rifle or a shotgun, if you are living in a rural area and need protection carry a shotgun, if your a gang-banger take a light concealable handgun (semi or fully automatic at your preference), if you are a quiet, odd person who wants to murder a lot of innocents for no decernable reason take an assault rifle or carbine.  The laws that the Obama administration are looking at will not be mentioning taking away US citizens rights at all, its only limiting them. The USA will never have such stringent gun control laws as here in the UK, but in our modern, civilised planet that we inhabit; in the western world the carbine and the assault weapons should be put aside for military use only. To give an answer to the NRA's proposals that having more people with guns is a good idea, in short thats a terrible idea. What sort of a society needs ordinary people to be trained, armed with dangerous weapons? I thought you were America not some pseudo civil war destroyed country? Thats not the America I was taught about. If the training wasn't enough think about the mental screening, and then what is stopping this person taking this gun that they have been given and turning it on the people they are destined to protect? By proliferating guns and putting more of them in the hands of the ordinary people you are building on this pre-existing culture of guns that I talked about previously, but in a negative way. By arming more people, you make it normal instead of something that was designed to be a special tool, a special tool designed for death. I think thats the crux of the argument; guns are not toys, they are tools designed for an efficient purpose. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy guns, or enjoy the experience of hunting etc, but everything should be done in moderation, and if you take an assault weapon to hunt with, your not a very good shot now are you? And where would the fun be?

I hope that you have seen that I have tried to be balanced. I think that though I cannot relate and empathise totally, guns in America are part of US culture and should be protected; but there are instances where certain makes, models and variation of gun should be removed from the consumer platform for the safety of all. Thats all I am arguing, that certain guns be removed not all of them. At the end of the day its not me to be the judge on what happens in the USA and I am sure there will be some of you who are happy with that. But whatever happens there will be people across America and the rest of the world taking an interest, getting happy or disheartened by the future of this issue. Whatever the result, the American people will take it in their stride for better or for worse. I would like you to think as you go on one thought; if it were your son/daughter caught in the middle of another tragedy that we have seen recently, and you had the opportunity to change the law on the sale of these weapons that serve no purpose in the civilian world today, and did nothing, could you look yourself in the mirror and say 'I did the right thing'?