blog @ pebbl

Dear Chloe Smith MP,

I am writing to you, as I'm sure are a number of other people, after having read a plea from 38 Degrees in regard to the recently proposed Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. Their fear is that the "Non-party campaigning" section could mean that they are unable to run effectively in the future..

I have just been reading over the bill on parliament.uk, and as usual, things are about as clear as an foggy evening in Cornwall. Now whether 38 Degrees' fears have warrant, being a layman in these areas I do not know; but from what I have read it does seem that Non-party campaigns will definitely have reduced expenditure by quite a bit. Political jargon-reading aside, there is one thing I am very clear on, that there is a huge difference between unknown, closed, private lobby groups who work for large scale companies with vested interests; and groups or charities like 38 Degrees that are supported by the general public and who broadcast their aims far and wide.

You can most probably guess at which ones I would support, and which ones I feel need to behave more openly. At the end of the day I do not blindly follow each and every 38 Degrees campaign like many in the political sphere might believe, but I do value their existence and continued operation. They provide a invaluable service of bringing national and local issues to light that I am interested in, issues that would have otherwise -- I'm sure quite happily -- been kept as quiet as possible.

So please can you confirm that this new Bill will not hamper something that I see as a valuable service, and possibly one of the only real ways that the general public can get a partial say in the way this random country is run. If you cannot, then please modify your thinking and your approach. I am all for greater openness when it comes to government, and if what 38 Degrees say is true, this would be a move in the opposite direction.

Thank you for your time, I look forward to your reply.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0097/cbill_2013-20140097_en_3.htm

After posting a quick comment on the Talk London site, I felt that I should elaborate a bit more here. My comment was in response to the following statement:

"The single biggest housing challenge facing London
is increasing the supply of new homes."

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Building more now will just mean more properties are purchased / owned by companies or buy-to-let landlords who already own, and do very well by, multiple properties. Especially when 'Help to Buy' is extended beyond first time buyers, and not limited to numbers of properties. More houses brought into the lettings market will not mean that rents will magically decrease. More likely the new properties will be brought in at the "current rate" and will increase upwards from there.

My experience of Letting Agents are that they specifically advise/convince their landlords on what the "going rate" is for a property, and even after that figure has been plucked from the relative air, they still play psychological tricks on potential renters, counting on the lack of open information and experience that many renters have:

• Constant mentioning of needing to "move quickly" — even on dejected properties.
• Rushing multiple parties around viewings together — instilling greater feel for demand.
• Showing only bad/old stock way before showing that which matches the renters criteria.
• Attempting to rent properties that really should be classed as illegal or a health hazard.
• Showing expensive properties, stating none exist for your target range.
• Magically producing suitably priced properties when mentioning interests with other agents.
• "Other parties have yet to place a deposit.." — start a real or imagined bidding war.
• Delaying tactics when a renter needs to move quickly — forcing last minute decisions.
• Not having a preview of the actual contract (what stipulations?) to hand at the viewing.

On top of the above, when you finally choose to go for a particular property — on the most likely small smattering of information you've been given — you then have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to prove that you aren't a criminal and that your finances are acceptable... Yet nothing of the same is expected of the Landlord, who could quite easily become insolvent or unhinged later on — more often than not, I have not even met the landlord in person.

So in my mind the single biggest challenge is how do we bring in a fairer, more open system that isn't just there to make a profit.

1. How do we get back to a place where shelter isn't treated as a for profit business?
2. How can we prevent runaway prices?
3. Why should the cost of a property increase with demand?
4. How can we escape the tricks of estate agents?

Some solutions?

• Accreditation for Landlords, Estate Agents, Properties, and Renters.
• Public agents that are not paid on commission.
• Public body that renters/landlords can report bad practice, properties or renters to.
• More open information about properties.

Let me first start by saying I obviously have nothing against campaigning for a better tomorrow, and I believe the following campaigns that I mention have merit, however I am getting a little fed up of the sexism that is being involved. It is as if these changes being requested are only for the good of women, and men obviously never have to deal with anything like this, because.. well they are just men who already have far superior lives to women, and are, of course, the root of all the problems.

For example, take the recent rather popularised campaign of Caroline Criado-Perez to improve the reporting controls in twitter — an amiable target what with all the despicable trolls around — however, through all the reporting and her own announcements it is as if this will only be for the benefit of women. Obviously this follows because she is described as a feminist campaigner, but why does being feminist automatically mean you discriminate against men? Why does being a troll automatically mean you are male? True, the statistics might show that on average trolls are more likely to be male, however just because that fact exists does not mean all men are trolls; it also does not mean that men are free from Troll fishing themselves — far from it.

The same is true of another recent campaign Shelve It, again introduced by feminists. Their idea, I find, a little lacking in merit. If they were truly worried about the effect magazines have on the youth in Birmingham then my first port of call would be to hide away the over dramatised, celebrity-focused, weight-loss-addicted, sex-obsessed "women's" magazines. These proliferate far further than certain "Mens mags" and do far more damage in my mind, as they are seen as acceptable, which is why similar articles wind their way into magazines that target younger girls. I do agree that magazine covers are ridiculous, for both men and women — and if some need to be covered up, then so be it — but it should be based on a rule that includes all magazines, not just targeted at a few titles that the campaigners obviously dislike personally.

In my mind the things that should red flag a magazine for covering up should include:

1. Air-brushing of any appearance.
2. Only showing fake-people i.e super slim, glowing teeth or over-toned to the point of explosion.
3. Sensationalised headline titles.
4. Overt or unartistic nudity.

It is the false impressions that are damaging children of today, they sure as hell damaged my generation. Kids need to know more about what real life is like, what real people are like — not what magazines, media and porn show the world to be.

So my complaint put simply — if you are to campaign, whatever it is... please make your campaign fair to all. Even if your efforts are to highlight something that is particularly affecting one gender, I will bet right now, that you will be overlooking and neglecting a seeming minority. You can also bet, if that minority has "typical" male traits, then it is likely you will never have heard of their existence in the first place.