I've been watching EastEnders for so many years now, and I don't think it's ever been in such a dire state as it is, and has been for about a year now, in any other point in its history. I'll spend a little time in this blog post explaining why I think this...
Before I start, though, I should probably note that the use of the word "dire" here is in no way meant to suggest that the reason why EastEnders is dire is because of Dyer... Danny's one of the best things about the show right now. I'll get to him later.
Where did it all go wrong?
So. There is a general opinion that things started to go wrong when the previous producer, Sean O'Connor took over, and there was talk amongst the residents of the square about how bad the bin collections were. There was much wailing about why such trivial things as the bins could possibly be worth mentioning the the square.
However, I disagree with this; whilst the bin collections were never ever going to be a main plotline, talk of them added a bit of a sense of realism to event in the square; making it appear like any other place in the country. It was a touch of kitchen sink realism that help root the Square in the real world. The bins were background detail; not main plots.
I think the point where it all went wrong was when Roxy and Ronnie drowned in the swimming pool.
It's all too easy to kill of characters in soaps, and generally I'm of the opinion that it should only be done when there's a major plot point to be made from the death, or the nature of the character is that they just would never up and leave the life they are leading. With Ronnie & Roxy, it was just a sensationalist way to get these characters out of the show. And I groaned.
Contrast this with the Lucy Beale death; that had huge repercussions for various characters in the square; not only the Beales themselves, but the Brannings also. Especially Max (more of whom, later). The mystery of who killed her, the eventual framing of Max, his time in jail, and his subsequent revenge plot... whether you liked that or not, it had impact; it was followed through.
Ronnie's death admittedly made Jack in to a single dad... Roxy...? Meh...
And it went bad from there...
Behind the scenes hoo-ha
There has been all sorts of talk about behind the scenes issues. There are rumours that early last year the BBC was so unimpressed with one week's episodes that these four were edited down to just a single episode. This is not a surprise as there was a disjointed feeling to episodes late winter/early spring of last year.
This was compounded by the bus crash week of episodes; the suggestion is that this week of episodes was intended to air later than it actually aired, but BBC higher ups insisted it be brought forward. This caused all sorts of continuity hiccups, as (for example) one week Martin's badly injured under the bus, and the next he's back on his market stall as if nothing had happened. Curiously, there was also no sign of damage to the bridge the bus hit in to, or any hint of repairs being made.
Over the summer, the show mostly coasted, and eventually Sean O'Connor left, being replaced by John Yorke. All would be well in the world... surely?
Sadly not.
Hitting the reset button
It's clear that as soon as Yorke arrived on the scene he swiftly set about curtailing any of O'Connor's plotlines he wasn't keen on as soon as was possible, and without taking logic in to consideration at all.
So, Michelle's stalker plotline, building for months, is over in a single episode with a few threats from some of her friends, and all of a sudden... he's gone.
Ditto, the plotline with Bex and her teacher and the "love triangle" with her mum... one quick wrap up episode, and he's gone.
The question of Jay's parentage... done away with in a 30 second conversation with Max...
...and Max... oh, Max. When he returned to the square, we were promised a long, slow burning, revenge plot from him. O'Connor clearly had a masterplan for this, but as soon as he left, Yorke set to undoing all the damage Max and his Weyland friends had inflicted on the square. This didn't take a single episode, as it involved sorting out the chip shop, Queen Vic, the cafe, the launderette, and the car lot; but it was all brought to a head with hasty speed. Max cut off, James laughing like a comic book villain, Luke being bundled in to the back of a van never to be seen again... and... and...
And the final tie-up of the plotline was quite dreadful with James Wilmott-Brown essentially saying "oh, if anyone were to get access to that safe, it contains everything they need to bring me and Weyland down completely, and scupper all my plans for Albert Square"... by the end of the episode, just that had happened.
It gets worse
Still, at least all this clearing out of the dead wood would mean that things can only get better, surely...?
No...
Enter Aidan. Aka JP.
His plan to rope various of the Square's residents in to some kind of criminal job initially showed promise... until it happened. It seemed largely to be played for laughs, with Mick being locked in to the Vic, then getting to where he needed to be in his slippers...
...and lets not forget that the location the van was actually robbed in was right outside the Arches. Phil Mitchell's Arches. One of Aidan's robbers. Robbers who all had their faces covered to hide their identities. Except Aiden. Striding around, wielding his cane, barking orders. It was a fiasco.
In the aftermath we've had the tedium of where the money ended up. Who stole it. And... oh, I'm struggling to find the words to actually give a toss about this. Which is rather similar to most of the gang who haven't even mentioned that they're missing out on their cut of the robbery for weeks now.
I should probably also mention Halfwit, the ring, and Lady Di. But it's just so stupid.
But Aidan... since the robbery he seems to have grown in stature from being someone Phil was banged up with to a major crime kingpin in the EastEnd. From menacing Vincent - who really needs to grow a pair - to running drugs in the Vic, it seems he's a major player. (When he was revealed as the drug runner's boss, I actually laughed out loud, it was so ludicrous.)
The problem is, we never had the build up to this, so it doesn't seem real. Johnny Allen would have eaten him for breakfast. He was a proper East End villain.
This plotline has also, somehow, brought Melanie Owen back in to the square. Great actress, but she's wasted here. And her personality vacuum of a son... well, we might care about how she lied to you about how great a man Steve Owen was, but in your third episode (or second? we'd barely seen him) it really has no impact at all.
EastEnders is sinking fast. And it's frustrating as amongst the rubbish there's still some absolutely brilliant things...
Max Branning
Frankly, Jake Wood is the best actor in the show right now, and every time he's on screen it's electric. It's so gutting that Max's revenge plotline was cut short, at the point it was really just getting going.
I mentioned earlier that I didn't like it when characters are killed for the sake of it, and I stand by that; but Wood's performances as Max after Abbie fell from the roof of the Vic, and eventually died, were electric.
My recent highlights of the show have been the fleetingly brief moments he's shared the screen with Tanya (Jo Joyner); were I in charge of EastEnders I'd be doing all I could to get Joyner back in the show permanently, or at least for a much longer stint, as the pair of them together is just absolute TV gold.
The Carters
I love the Carters. Danny Dyer is absolutely in his element as the landlord of the Queen Vic. When he first got the role, he said he's like to do a 20 stretch in this role, and I hope he get his wish. Kellie Bright complements him perfectly as his Mrs, Linda.
His mother Shirley is the fly in the ointment, and is gloriously sarcastic. She saw through Fi long before anyone else.
The extended family is great fun too; I'm still hoping for the return of Annette Badland's Aunt Babe, but I fear her bridges are burned. Timothy West's all too brief run as Stan was a highlight, also.
The Taylors
I also really like the Taylors. They're an archetypical soap "bad" family like Carol Jackson and her brood before her, and like the Battersbys in Coronation Street. Karen is a really endearing character with potential, and her kids are a decent brood with many opportunities. I hope we see her sister again soon.
So, what can be done...?
Firstly, get rid of Aidan. The actor playing him is brilliant, but the character just isn't working. Having said that, it seems almost certain that they're lining up a "who killed Aidan?" plot, with multiple possible killers. Mick. Vincent. That dreadful Ciara. Mel.
Secondly make sure that Max has decent plotlines going forward; remember, Jake Wood is the best actor in the show. Give him strong material and the show will go from strength to strength. Jo Joyner back more will also help. Any time they are on the screen...
Thirdly, do decent things with the Taylors. I'm really like the Bernadette & Ted friendship, and Keegan's showing signs he's not the irredeemable scrote he first appeared to be. Make sure you do something decent with Keanu. And give Karen the opportunity to bounce off as many of the square's residents as possible. Which means keeping her in the launderette.
And finally, remember that whilst the big events may draw in more viewers, what matters more are the smaller things. The character moments. The bits that are just a bit of fun, that add colour to the show. If you have strong characters, doing things that fit with them, it doesn't matter if it's something epic. Some of the best moments in the show have just been two characters talking. EastEnders is about ordinary East End folk getting on with their lives. That's when it's at its strongest.
Tuesday, 27 February 2018
Thursday, 18 January 2018
23 - Babylon
Babylon 5 was our last, best, hope for peace... so started many episodes of this mostly brilliant show first screened in the 1990s, now getting a much deserved repeat on PickTV.
I've only caught bits of occasional episodes on the repeats (I have the whole thing on DVD) but it always reminds me of how great the show was. Here was a show that sought to eschew the story of the week model of science fiction TV; where at the end of each episode a figurative reset button was pressed, and the happenings of the episode were rarely mentioned again.
Babylon 5 had a lofty aim; to tell a single story, over 5 seasons. Beginning. Middle. End. Where the actions in one episode could have serious ramifications down the line. Where the answer to a single question could change the entire face of the universe. Where characters had realistic motivations, and were often deeply flawed. It was a breath of fresh air.
It wasn't perfect, of course, and through its run it had its share of clunkers. And some of the dialogue could be a little clunky. But I'd argue that overall, it was probably about 75% brilliant. And the heights of the brilliance in these 75% of the episodes more than made up for the times it was bad.
Whilst there was a 5-year plan, the realities of television production got in the way; for various reasons main characters were removed, plot lines shifted around or compressed, uncertainty over whether there would even be a 5th season caused a raft of issues that showed in the early episodes of that season (a season that was more than redeemed by the plotlines forming mid-season, leading to one of the finest episodes ever).
To my mind, the aspect of the show I always return to, and always praise the most, is the relationship between two of the opposing ambassadors; Londo, and G'Kar. This relationship develops in entirely unexpected ways over the course of the show, and is never more than entirely compelling. Peter Jurasik and (the late, much missed) Andreas Katsulas light up the screen whenever they are on it. Even if these two appear in a clunker of an episode, they make it worth watching; at least in the scenes they are in.
There is so much I could say about the show... but what I'd like to talk about is what should happen to the show in the future. Part of me would like some sort of a continuation; but the story has been told. I'd always been against remakes, but having seen the JJ Abrams Star Trek films, and Ron Moore's version of Battlestar Galactica, I think this could work for Babylon 5.
What I'd like to see is a remake of Babylon 5 with 5 seasons of 10-13 episodes in each season; each episode lasting 45-60 minutes (depending on what length the episode needs), on Netflix. That way some of the padding can be cut out - and the necessity to do 22 episodes a season necessitated this - so that the story can be pared back a little to the essentials.
This could also mean that the shape of the show could change a little, and some of the changes forced upon the show could be undone. So that it's not a carbon copy of what went before. Also, it could show some things that the original show should have done - like the full story of Londo & G'kar's deaths. I know this was dealt with in books; but that's not the same.
I'd also countenance a complete recasting of the whole thing; I'd maybe include some original cast members in different roles (remember how well Richard Hatch was integrated in to the Battlestar Galactica remake), but all the principal characters would be completely different.
This would be difficult. Especially Londo and G'Kar. But not impossible. I'll admit, I have thought a lot about who should play certain characters, and I can't picture who would be a good fit.
In fact if I were in charge of recasting, the only character I can say with any certainty I'd cast would be Mr Morden. And he would have to be played by Adrian Lester. Can you imagine how wonderful that would be?
As long as the cast was right, and JMS is in charge. I think it could work.
I've only caught bits of occasional episodes on the repeats (I have the whole thing on DVD) but it always reminds me of how great the show was. Here was a show that sought to eschew the story of the week model of science fiction TV; where at the end of each episode a figurative reset button was pressed, and the happenings of the episode were rarely mentioned again.
Babylon 5 had a lofty aim; to tell a single story, over 5 seasons. Beginning. Middle. End. Where the actions in one episode could have serious ramifications down the line. Where the answer to a single question could change the entire face of the universe. Where characters had realistic motivations, and were often deeply flawed. It was a breath of fresh air.
It wasn't perfect, of course, and through its run it had its share of clunkers. And some of the dialogue could be a little clunky. But I'd argue that overall, it was probably about 75% brilliant. And the heights of the brilliance in these 75% of the episodes more than made up for the times it was bad.
Whilst there was a 5-year plan, the realities of television production got in the way; for various reasons main characters were removed, plot lines shifted around or compressed, uncertainty over whether there would even be a 5th season caused a raft of issues that showed in the early episodes of that season (a season that was more than redeemed by the plotlines forming mid-season, leading to one of the finest episodes ever).
To my mind, the aspect of the show I always return to, and always praise the most, is the relationship between two of the opposing ambassadors; Londo, and G'Kar. This relationship develops in entirely unexpected ways over the course of the show, and is never more than entirely compelling. Peter Jurasik and (the late, much missed) Andreas Katsulas light up the screen whenever they are on it. Even if these two appear in a clunker of an episode, they make it worth watching; at least in the scenes they are in.
There is so much I could say about the show... but what I'd like to talk about is what should happen to the show in the future. Part of me would like some sort of a continuation; but the story has been told. I'd always been against remakes, but having seen the JJ Abrams Star Trek films, and Ron Moore's version of Battlestar Galactica, I think this could work for Babylon 5.
What I'd like to see is a remake of Babylon 5 with 5 seasons of 10-13 episodes in each season; each episode lasting 45-60 minutes (depending on what length the episode needs), on Netflix. That way some of the padding can be cut out - and the necessity to do 22 episodes a season necessitated this - so that the story can be pared back a little to the essentials.
This could also mean that the shape of the show could change a little, and some of the changes forced upon the show could be undone. So that it's not a carbon copy of what went before. Also, it could show some things that the original show should have done - like the full story of Londo & G'kar's deaths. I know this was dealt with in books; but that's not the same.
I'd also countenance a complete recasting of the whole thing; I'd maybe include some original cast members in different roles (remember how well Richard Hatch was integrated in to the Battlestar Galactica remake), but all the principal characters would be completely different.
This would be difficult. Especially Londo and G'Kar. But not impossible. I'll admit, I have thought a lot about who should play certain characters, and I can't picture who would be a good fit.
In fact if I were in charge of recasting, the only character I can say with any certainty I'd cast would be Mr Morden. And he would have to be played by Adrian Lester. Can you imagine how wonderful that would be?
As long as the cast was right, and JMS is in charge. I think it could work.
Sunday, 3 December 2017
22 - Games
I'm finding myself increasingly frustrated by video games. And this is, mostly, a relatively recent thing, and has been building in the time I've had a PS4.
Whilst I'm not a particular gaming obsessive, over the years I've had a Spectrum, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, PlayStation, Wii, 3DS, and PS4.
I'll go through the things that are annoying me lately...
New Games needing an update.
I can't recall a game on the PS4 that hasn't needed a patch before I start to play it. If it's a game that's been around a bit, I can understand that there might be some potential improvements that may have come to light, based on customer feedback; but on new release games? Really? That's rather a tacit admission that that they couldn't be bothered to get the game right before duplicating all the copies of the game. In the old days, before 'net connection was the default a company had to get it right from the off.
This leads to...
The insane amount of space taken up by games on the hard drive of the PS4.
Because every game needs an update, and because this needs storing on the hard drive, this takes up a huge amount of space. This, coupled with the fact that each game copies an amount of data from the game disc on to the hard drive, as well as save game data, means only so many games can be stored. And not enough for all the games I have...
Because of this I keep on having to delete stuff off. Which means next time I want to play that game I'll have to re-download the updates. Unless..
Well, this leads to...
The lack of ease of upgrading the hard drive.
There's USB ports on the thing. Why can't I just plug in an external drive in to one of these? But, no, it seems the only way to do so is to open up the PS4, take out the old one, make sure everything's copied over on to a bigger HD, and then stick the new one in. It's somewhat of a faff...
And then there's...
DLC.
I mean. Do you need it? For each game is it relevant? If you buy a season pass for all this stuff in advance, how do you even know it's going to be worthwhile, or worth the money? Or does it mean when you buy the game, you're only getting a bit of it, and to get the whole game you need to buy this stuff? I liked it that when you bought a game that was it. You had, in one hit, everything there was for the game.
And then...
Dumb omissions made by games makers.
There seems to be a bit of a trend whereby you have long standing games series, and over time you get to know them and what to expect from them. Then when they release new versions, elements are conspicuous by their absence... take for example;
Street Fighter V - the Street Fighter games have, all over the course of their history had a mode based on the original arcade games whereby you fight a series of ten fighters, each getting progressively harder, until you get to the toughest boss. This is absent from SFV. There's a story mode where you switch from character to character, and another one where you fight three or four matches on an individual story... but the main meat of an SF game just isn't there...
(I should actually note here, that SFV is a good use of DLC; there's some extra characters, and you can either pay from the off to get access to them, or you can earn them through fighting. That's a good compromise.)
Gran Turismo Sport - now this one is very frustrating, in that they've actually forgotten to put the actual fucking game as an option... yes. Really.
In the earlier GT games, you had to enter series of races, and through this you could earn money to buy better cars, or upgrades to cars, to win more races. You could tweak the performance of your cars to get an edge on the competition. When you earnt a new car it was a real achievement; especially when you had you're eye on a specific car. You could also earn places in more difficult races by passing licence tests completing specific tasks, and earning different licenses. It was tricky, a challenge, but so much fun.
There was also an arcade mode, for quick races, but that was always just a side thing, and not the main event.
Fast forward to GTS, and it has the arcade mode, it has the driving test side of things... but the actual career style mode... not there. It feels like the heart of the game has been torn out of it, and the whole thing feels terribly incomplete.
Add to this, you get awarded new cars left, right, and centre. For example, if you play it and drive 27 miles in a day - which takes very little time - you get an extra car. Every day. There's no achievement. Getting a new car just elicits a shrug, rather than being an achievement.
This version does have an online mode, but that's somewhat half assed. There's tracks you can race on each day, but only at specific times throughout the day, which to me seems very limiting, leading to waits for the race to start. There's also tournaments you can enter, but these only run on some days, and you have to enter at specific times in advance. I don't know if I'll be on the PS4 in two days' time. I might be. I might not be. Again, it's limiting. Just makes me not want to bother...
(As an aside; I recall Mario Kart online on the Wii. When I played that mode, I'd have a race up and running in less than a minute, based on whoever was online at the time. If the Wii could do this, surely the PS4 can?)
This is all very frustrating, as GTS plays so very well. What there is I enjoy, but I think I'd rather be playing GT or GT2 on the original PS. And that's surely not right?
Wouldn't surprise me if a proper career mode is something they'll add on as DLC at a later stage and charge a wodge of case for. When it should have been part of the thing from the off...
Guess I should have waited for the reviews before getting this one... but then who would have thought that they'd have not bothered including the actual game???
There's some good stuff...
It's not all bad on the PS4; I keep going back to Grand Theft Auto V; it's just a wonderful, expansive game with so many things you can do in the town. Sometimes you just want to drive around the town, ignoring the main missions. Just hang out there. Get distracted by things... go do one of the races. Get in a chase with the cops. It's just one of the best things there is.
Talking of one of the best things there is... the PS Store sells a nigh on perfect version of Bubble Bobble. That I'd play this old game on new tech is a testament to its enduring appeal. And I'm currently #38 in the world on the 5-minute high score mode. 1-credit high score mode... well, I'm a bit lower.
Can we have Grand Theft Auto 6, now, please...?
Whilst I'm not a particular gaming obsessive, over the years I've had a Spectrum, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, PlayStation, Wii, 3DS, and PS4.
I'll go through the things that are annoying me lately...
New Games needing an update.
I can't recall a game on the PS4 that hasn't needed a patch before I start to play it. If it's a game that's been around a bit, I can understand that there might be some potential improvements that may have come to light, based on customer feedback; but on new release games? Really? That's rather a tacit admission that that they couldn't be bothered to get the game right before duplicating all the copies of the game. In the old days, before 'net connection was the default a company had to get it right from the off.
This leads to...
The insane amount of space taken up by games on the hard drive of the PS4.
Because every game needs an update, and because this needs storing on the hard drive, this takes up a huge amount of space. This, coupled with the fact that each game copies an amount of data from the game disc on to the hard drive, as well as save game data, means only so many games can be stored. And not enough for all the games I have...
Because of this I keep on having to delete stuff off. Which means next time I want to play that game I'll have to re-download the updates. Unless..
Well, this leads to...
The lack of ease of upgrading the hard drive.
There's USB ports on the thing. Why can't I just plug in an external drive in to one of these? But, no, it seems the only way to do so is to open up the PS4, take out the old one, make sure everything's copied over on to a bigger HD, and then stick the new one in. It's somewhat of a faff...
And then there's...
DLC.
I mean. Do you need it? For each game is it relevant? If you buy a season pass for all this stuff in advance, how do you even know it's going to be worthwhile, or worth the money? Or does it mean when you buy the game, you're only getting a bit of it, and to get the whole game you need to buy this stuff? I liked it that when you bought a game that was it. You had, in one hit, everything there was for the game.
And then...
Dumb omissions made by games makers.
There seems to be a bit of a trend whereby you have long standing games series, and over time you get to know them and what to expect from them. Then when they release new versions, elements are conspicuous by their absence... take for example;
Street Fighter V - the Street Fighter games have, all over the course of their history had a mode based on the original arcade games whereby you fight a series of ten fighters, each getting progressively harder, until you get to the toughest boss. This is absent from SFV. There's a story mode where you switch from character to character, and another one where you fight three or four matches on an individual story... but the main meat of an SF game just isn't there...
(I should actually note here, that SFV is a good use of DLC; there's some extra characters, and you can either pay from the off to get access to them, or you can earn them through fighting. That's a good compromise.)
Gran Turismo Sport - now this one is very frustrating, in that they've actually forgotten to put the actual fucking game as an option... yes. Really.
In the earlier GT games, you had to enter series of races, and through this you could earn money to buy better cars, or upgrades to cars, to win more races. You could tweak the performance of your cars to get an edge on the competition. When you earnt a new car it was a real achievement; especially when you had you're eye on a specific car. You could also earn places in more difficult races by passing licence tests completing specific tasks, and earning different licenses. It was tricky, a challenge, but so much fun.
There was also an arcade mode, for quick races, but that was always just a side thing, and not the main event.
Fast forward to GTS, and it has the arcade mode, it has the driving test side of things... but the actual career style mode... not there. It feels like the heart of the game has been torn out of it, and the whole thing feels terribly incomplete.
Add to this, you get awarded new cars left, right, and centre. For example, if you play it and drive 27 miles in a day - which takes very little time - you get an extra car. Every day. There's no achievement. Getting a new car just elicits a shrug, rather than being an achievement.
This version does have an online mode, but that's somewhat half assed. There's tracks you can race on each day, but only at specific times throughout the day, which to me seems very limiting, leading to waits for the race to start. There's also tournaments you can enter, but these only run on some days, and you have to enter at specific times in advance. I don't know if I'll be on the PS4 in two days' time. I might be. I might not be. Again, it's limiting. Just makes me not want to bother...
(As an aside; I recall Mario Kart online on the Wii. When I played that mode, I'd have a race up and running in less than a minute, based on whoever was online at the time. If the Wii could do this, surely the PS4 can?)
This is all very frustrating, as GTS plays so very well. What there is I enjoy, but I think I'd rather be playing GT or GT2 on the original PS. And that's surely not right?
Wouldn't surprise me if a proper career mode is something they'll add on as DLC at a later stage and charge a wodge of case for. When it should have been part of the thing from the off...
Guess I should have waited for the reviews before getting this one... but then who would have thought that they'd have not bothered including the actual game???
There's some good stuff...
It's not all bad on the PS4; I keep going back to Grand Theft Auto V; it's just a wonderful, expansive game with so many things you can do in the town. Sometimes you just want to drive around the town, ignoring the main missions. Just hang out there. Get distracted by things... go do one of the races. Get in a chase with the cops. It's just one of the best things there is.
Talking of one of the best things there is... the PS Store sells a nigh on perfect version of Bubble Bobble. That I'd play this old game on new tech is a testament to its enduring appeal. And I'm currently #38 in the world on the 5-minute high score mode. 1-credit high score mode... well, I'm a bit lower.
Can we have Grand Theft Auto 6, now, please...?
Sunday, 8 October 2017
21 - Housing.
The first thing I'd like to say about this post is that really this is pretty much a stream of consciousness about the subject of housing. It's some of my initial thoughts on the topic; no more than this, and should be read with that in mind. I may return to topic another time... But for now...
TL:DR version of this piece; the housing system in the UK is fucked.
Of course, the problem is rampant capitalism. That is, the pursuit of money above all else, whereby the acquisition of money and wealth is the be all, and end all. Of course, all businesses want to make money, as if they don't they will soon go out of business. But there is a difference between a business that exists to make a reasonable amount of money to cover its costs, improve its services, and to make a reasonable profit, and those businesses where everything is geared towards squeezing the absolute maximum they can get away with.
I know the counter arguments here, in that the markets will self regulate and that if a business charges too much for its good and services it will go out of business. But the big companies are not daft. They have teams of people who work analysing data to report to them exactly what they should be charging in order to maximise every single penny of profit.
And its this that's at the heart of why our housing system is in such a perilous state.
It used to be the case that mortgages were based on multiples of three or three and a half times the salary of supplicants. Then, house prices started to rise, and rather than the market correcting itself (as capitalist theory suggests they should), with prices correcting to that level of multiples, things went different.
The banks and building societies started to increase the multiples of salary they would lend on. Four times, five times, six times salary, etc. This was intended to help people to have a greater chance of affording these increasing property prices.
Of course, estate agents aren't daft. They soon twigged what was going on, and knowing that there were these increasing multiples available to those seeking to buy, they advised their clients that they could get more than they might initially have thought for their homes.
(It is a point to remember here that an estate agent's client is the seller, not the buyer, as it is they who pay the commission on the sale, and the greater the price of the sale, the greater the value of their commission, whch is based on a percentage of the sale of the house.)
So, house prices continued to increase, and this increasing value became a real political issue. More and more people were being excluded from being able to buy a house, as prices had gone even beyond the multiples of their salary they could afford. Deposit amounts increased, and formed higher percentages of the price of the house.
All of this meant that people were having to attempt to save many thousands of pounds - tens of thousands - whilst managing the day to day costs of living, including the rental of their current homes (I'll come back to renting later).
Politicians on both sides of the house have long since struggled with this thorny dilemma, as on the one hand you have people who can't afford to get on to the housing ladder, and on the other you have those who do own their homes who want to protect the value of their houses.
Any action taken to lower house prices would be a great benefit to those trying to get on the housing ladder. However, for those who already own it will mean their house becomes a depreciating asset, they'll have a mortgage with negative equity, and owe more to their mortgage provider than they could get if they sell it.
Shared ownership, and “help to buy” schemes are no more than a sticking plaster over the problem, and don't actually address the issue. They are trailed as being there to help people get on to the housing ladder, but really all they are doing is maintaining the excessively high prices of properties by offering subsidies to buyers.
The property ownership boom of the 1980s was fuelled by Thatcher's decision to sell off council housing stocks at a cut price; whilst this increased the number of property owners, it shrunk by a significant amount the stock of housing that councils could offer to its residents, which in turn increased the amount of private renting in the country, and by extension eventually the amount of people buying houses only to rent them out, vis the “buy to let” concept.
There's a lot of talk about what constitutes a "fair" rent, or an "affordable". The problem is these levels are based on that horrible thing called "market rates", which ties in with the comments at the start about capitalism; the "market rates" for rent are, essentially, as much as landlords can get away with charging. So, these "market rates" are as high as they can be.
A much fairer way of setting "fair" or "affordable" rents would be to base them on the national average wage; that way they would actually be based on the ability to pay. You'd have a scale of rents, based on the type of property - you'd expect a three bedroom house to cost more to rent than a one bedroom flat, for example - with some regional variations. This would be a much fairer way of setting rents.
And whilst I'm complaining about renting, there's another bugbear of mine; clauses in rental agreements that prevent you from doing things that really should be considered "normal" living. For example, many private rental agreement prohibit the tenant from having pets; to my mind this is unnecessarily restrictive. The counter argument is that sometime pets can cause damage to the house or furniture, so the landlord doesn't want them in the house for that reason. However, there is a counter to the counter in that it would be a simple matter to put in a clause in respect of pets that if the tenant has a pet they are responsible for the cost of any damage caused by them. There are other examples I could cite.
Moving on to one final issue; the overwhelming amount of developments of “luxury apartments” that seem to be springing up. Ever time I see a sign advertising them I read the word “luxury” as “over-priced”. There's enough of these already. In London there are apartment buildings where vast numbers of the apartments are unoccupied. They are bought up by investors who see them only as assets to be bought at one price, and sold at a higher price a few years later. They are not bought to be lived in, just as boxes to be bought and sold.
I think there are few (barring those doing the buying and selling of such properties) who wouldn't see this as a problem. Every empty property is a property that could be being lived in. But how to solve this problem? Well, if we return to the cause of the problem in the first place – capitalism – the solution is surely to make it unprofitable to leave the properties empty. Perhaps if a property is left unoccupied for more than a certain amount of time, say six months, without good reason then it could attract an additional tax based on the value of the property. Don't want to pay the tax; rent the property out. This may not go down very well, but it would be a way to reduce this kind of property speculation. Personally, I'd also apply it to second/holiday homes as well, but that might be a step too far.
Thank you for taking the time to read these ramblings. I may return to some specifics, in more detail, at some point; but this is a reasonable, albeit lengthy, overview of some of my initial thoughts on the topic.
TL:DR version of this piece; the housing system in the UK is fucked.
Of course, the problem is rampant capitalism. That is, the pursuit of money above all else, whereby the acquisition of money and wealth is the be all, and end all. Of course, all businesses want to make money, as if they don't they will soon go out of business. But there is a difference between a business that exists to make a reasonable amount of money to cover its costs, improve its services, and to make a reasonable profit, and those businesses where everything is geared towards squeezing the absolute maximum they can get away with.
I know the counter arguments here, in that the markets will self regulate and that if a business charges too much for its good and services it will go out of business. But the big companies are not daft. They have teams of people who work analysing data to report to them exactly what they should be charging in order to maximise every single penny of profit.
And its this that's at the heart of why our housing system is in such a perilous state.
It used to be the case that mortgages were based on multiples of three or three and a half times the salary of supplicants. Then, house prices started to rise, and rather than the market correcting itself (as capitalist theory suggests they should), with prices correcting to that level of multiples, things went different.
The banks and building societies started to increase the multiples of salary they would lend on. Four times, five times, six times salary, etc. This was intended to help people to have a greater chance of affording these increasing property prices.
Of course, estate agents aren't daft. They soon twigged what was going on, and knowing that there were these increasing multiples available to those seeking to buy, they advised their clients that they could get more than they might initially have thought for their homes.
(It is a point to remember here that an estate agent's client is the seller, not the buyer, as it is they who pay the commission on the sale, and the greater the price of the sale, the greater the value of their commission, whch is based on a percentage of the sale of the house.)
So, house prices continued to increase, and this increasing value became a real political issue. More and more people were being excluded from being able to buy a house, as prices had gone even beyond the multiples of their salary they could afford. Deposit amounts increased, and formed higher percentages of the price of the house.
All of this meant that people were having to attempt to save many thousands of pounds - tens of thousands - whilst managing the day to day costs of living, including the rental of their current homes (I'll come back to renting later).
Politicians on both sides of the house have long since struggled with this thorny dilemma, as on the one hand you have people who can't afford to get on to the housing ladder, and on the other you have those who do own their homes who want to protect the value of their houses.
Any action taken to lower house prices would be a great benefit to those trying to get on the housing ladder. However, for those who already own it will mean their house becomes a depreciating asset, they'll have a mortgage with negative equity, and owe more to their mortgage provider than they could get if they sell it.
Shared ownership, and “help to buy” schemes are no more than a sticking plaster over the problem, and don't actually address the issue. They are trailed as being there to help people get on to the housing ladder, but really all they are doing is maintaining the excessively high prices of properties by offering subsidies to buyers.
The property ownership boom of the 1980s was fuelled by Thatcher's decision to sell off council housing stocks at a cut price; whilst this increased the number of property owners, it shrunk by a significant amount the stock of housing that councils could offer to its residents, which in turn increased the amount of private renting in the country, and by extension eventually the amount of people buying houses only to rent them out, vis the “buy to let” concept.
There's a lot of talk about what constitutes a "fair" rent, or an "affordable". The problem is these levels are based on that horrible thing called "market rates", which ties in with the comments at the start about capitalism; the "market rates" for rent are, essentially, as much as landlords can get away with charging. So, these "market rates" are as high as they can be.
A much fairer way of setting "fair" or "affordable" rents would be to base them on the national average wage; that way they would actually be based on the ability to pay. You'd have a scale of rents, based on the type of property - you'd expect a three bedroom house to cost more to rent than a one bedroom flat, for example - with some regional variations. This would be a much fairer way of setting rents.
And whilst I'm complaining about renting, there's another bugbear of mine; clauses in rental agreements that prevent you from doing things that really should be considered "normal" living. For example, many private rental agreement prohibit the tenant from having pets; to my mind this is unnecessarily restrictive. The counter argument is that sometime pets can cause damage to the house or furniture, so the landlord doesn't want them in the house for that reason. However, there is a counter to the counter in that it would be a simple matter to put in a clause in respect of pets that if the tenant has a pet they are responsible for the cost of any damage caused by them. There are other examples I could cite.
Moving on to one final issue; the overwhelming amount of developments of “luxury apartments” that seem to be springing up. Ever time I see a sign advertising them I read the word “luxury” as “over-priced”. There's enough of these already. In London there are apartment buildings where vast numbers of the apartments are unoccupied. They are bought up by investors who see them only as assets to be bought at one price, and sold at a higher price a few years later. They are not bought to be lived in, just as boxes to be bought and sold.
I think there are few (barring those doing the buying and selling of such properties) who wouldn't see this as a problem. Every empty property is a property that could be being lived in. But how to solve this problem? Well, if we return to the cause of the problem in the first place – capitalism – the solution is surely to make it unprofitable to leave the properties empty. Perhaps if a property is left unoccupied for more than a certain amount of time, say six months, without good reason then it could attract an additional tax based on the value of the property. Don't want to pay the tax; rent the property out. This may not go down very well, but it would be a way to reduce this kind of property speculation. Personally, I'd also apply it to second/holiday homes as well, but that might be a step too far.
Thank you for taking the time to read these ramblings. I may return to some specifics, in more detail, at some point; but this is a reasonable, albeit lengthy, overview of some of my initial thoughts on the topic.
Saturday, 7 October 2017
20 - Tea
There's a thing about Star Trek; The Next Generation that, for some reason, really bugs me. And it's something really trivial.
It's to do with Jean Luc Picard.
No, it's not about how a Frenchman has a perfect English accent. It's way more trivial than that.
Whenever Jean Luc orders his favourite drink from the replicator, he says;
"Tea. Earl Grey. Hot"
Just let that sink in. Think about the thing you've never noticed. The thing that, really, seems completely illogical...
Okay.
First he says "Tea." Fine. Yes, he doesn't want coffee, whiskey, or that drink Data once described as "green".
Second he says "Earl Grey." Again, yes; otherwise he might have got English Breakfast, Darjeeling, or maybe a nice peppermint tea.
Then he says "Hot."
And therein lies the problem.
The default way for tea to be served is "Hot." If I were to go in to a tea shop, and want a pot of tea with my cake, I would not expect to have to tell the person taking my order that I wanted it hot. That would be expected.
So, why do the replicators on the Enterprise, the flagship of the fleet, need to be reminded every blimmin' time to serve a drink exactly how it is meant to be served? What nincompoop didn't think to set "hot" as the default, and only require a modifier should some poltroon decide they want cold tea? Think of all the times Jean Luc has had to waste time saying a redundant "hot". Think of all the times all the Starfleet officers have wasted time saying a redundant hot!
Think of the time it's taken me to write this post about the word "hot". How I could have been spending it writing a section of a great work of fiction. Or maybe writing a piece of biting social criticism. I could have written a piece of such political bite it could have forced the Prime Minister to resign. (Don't you think she looks tired?)
But no. I write about how Jean Luc Picard ordered his tea in a TV show that ended over 20 years ago.
This, dear reader, is my life in a capsule.
It's to do with Jean Luc Picard.
No, it's not about how a Frenchman has a perfect English accent. It's way more trivial than that.
Whenever Jean Luc orders his favourite drink from the replicator, he says;
"Tea. Earl Grey. Hot"
Just let that sink in. Think about the thing you've never noticed. The thing that, really, seems completely illogical...
Okay.
First he says "Tea." Fine. Yes, he doesn't want coffee, whiskey, or that drink Data once described as "green".
Second he says "Earl Grey." Again, yes; otherwise he might have got English Breakfast, Darjeeling, or maybe a nice peppermint tea.
Then he says "Hot."
And therein lies the problem.
The default way for tea to be served is "Hot." If I were to go in to a tea shop, and want a pot of tea with my cake, I would not expect to have to tell the person taking my order that I wanted it hot. That would be expected.
So, why do the replicators on the Enterprise, the flagship of the fleet, need to be reminded every blimmin' time to serve a drink exactly how it is meant to be served? What nincompoop didn't think to set "hot" as the default, and only require a modifier should some poltroon decide they want cold tea? Think of all the times Jean Luc has had to waste time saying a redundant "hot". Think of all the times all the Starfleet officers have wasted time saying a redundant hot!
Think of the time it's taken me to write this post about the word "hot". How I could have been spending it writing a section of a great work of fiction. Or maybe writing a piece of biting social criticism. I could have written a piece of such political bite it could have forced the Prime Minister to resign. (Don't you think she looks tired?)
But no. I write about how Jean Luc Picard ordered his tea in a TV show that ended over 20 years ago.
This, dear reader, is my life in a capsule.
Thursday, 26 January 2017
19 - Orwell.
I never would have thought that George Orwell would ever have had anything to say about internet dating... yet he does. Sort of. I came across this article he wrote today for one of his regular columns, and this portion of it seem eerily like internet dating in the 21st century.
Yes, it's true it relates to a printed periodical, rather than the internet. But the underlying principles of this article hold true...
Orwell was right about big towns. They're full of people who are lonely, but wishing they weren't. People who pass each other silently by, who would otherwise potentially be good friends if only they could talk. But it's not the done thing to approach people, and to start something up. Sometimes I think I should be brave and give it a go. But then, like in that Smiths song, a strange fear grips me...
Still, onwards and upwards...
Yes, it's true it relates to a printed periodical, rather than the internet. But the underlying principles of this article hold true...
I'm sure I don't need to point out all the similarities here. Internet dating seems to me to be the least worst way of meeting someone, but it's so frustrating and I have so few other opportunities to meet someone even vaguely suitable. If I'd been around in the forties I swear I'd have ended up putting an ad in that paper, or similar."THE MAY number of the Matrimonial Post and Fashionable Marriage Advertiser contains advertisements from 191 men seeking brides and over 200 women seeking husbands. Advertisements of this type have been running in a whole series of magazines since the sixties or earlier, and they are nearly always very much alike. For example:Bachelor, age 25, height 6 ft 1 in., slim, fond of horticulture, animals, children, cinema, etc., would like to meet lady, age 27 to 35, with love of flowers, nature, children, must be tall, medium build, Church of England.The general run of them are just like that, though occasionally a more unusual note is struck. For instance:I’m 29, single, 5 ft 10 in., English, large build, kind, quiet, varied intellectual interests, firm moral background (registered unconditionally as absolute CO), progressive, creative, literary inclinations. A dealer in rare stamps, income variable but quite adequate. Strong swimmer, cyclist, slight stammer occasionally. Looking for the following rarity, amiable, adaptable, educated girl, easy on eye and ear, under 30, secretary type or similar, mentally adventurous, immune to mercenary and social incentives, bright sense of genuine humour, a reliable working partner. Capital unimportant, character vital.The thing that is and always has been striking in these advertisements is that nearly all the applicants are remarkably eligible. It is not only that most of them are broad-minded, intelligent, home-loving, musical, loyal, sincere and affectionate, with a keen sense of humour and, in the case of women, a good figure: in the majority of cases they are financially OK as well. When you consider how fatally easy it is to get married, you would not imagine that a 36-year-old bachelor, ‘dark hair, fair complexion, slim build, height 6 ft, well educated and of considerate, jolly and intelligent disposition, income £1,000 per annum and capital’, would need to find himself a bride through the columns of a newspaper. And ditto with ‘Adventurous young woman, left-wing opinions, modern outlook’ with ‘fairly full but shapely figure, medium colour curly hair, grey-blue eyes, fair skin, natural colouring, health exceptionally good, interested in music, art, literature, cinema, theatre, fond of walking, cycling, tennis, skating and rowing’. Why does such a paragon have to advertise?It should be noted that the Matrimonial Post is entirely above-board and checks up carefully on its advertisers.What these things really demonstrate is the atrocious loneliness of people living in big towns. People meet for work and then scatter to widely separated homes. Anywhere in inner London it is probably exceptional to know even the names of the people who live next door.Years ago I lodged for a while in the Portobello Road. This is hardly a fashionable quarter, but the landlady had been lady’s maid to some woman of title and had a good opinion of herself. One day something went wrong with the front door and my landlady, her husband and myself were all locked out of the house. It was evident that we should have to get in by an upper window, and as there was a jobbing builder next door I suggested borrowing a ladder from him. My landlady looked somewhat uncomfortable.‘I wouldn’t like to do that,’ she said finally. ‘You see we don’t know him. We’ve been here fourteen years, and we’ve always taken care not to know the people on either side of us. It wouldn’t do, not in a neighbourhood like this. If you once begin talking to them they get familiar, you see.’So we had to borrow a ladder from a relative of her husband’s, and carry it nearly a mile with great labour and discomfort.
Orwell was right about big towns. They're full of people who are lonely, but wishing they weren't. People who pass each other silently by, who would otherwise potentially be good friends if only they could talk. But it's not the done thing to approach people, and to start something up. Sometimes I think I should be brave and give it a go. But then, like in that Smiths song, a strange fear grips me...
Still, onwards and upwards...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)