大象传媒

MOONBASE?

Yesterdays announcement, that the US was looking to establish a base on the moon, is probably another of those pie in the sky PR attempts to re-establish the good fortunes of NASA. It certainly has much to commend it. It would represent a major stepping stone not just to the Mars mission, another bit of PR hype, but to the long-term development of space which 鈥� in line with our demands for ever expanding frontiers - we should be working towards. The energy required to launch materials into space would be a mere fraction of that needed for launches fro the earth, and without the major environmental considerations here. It would be so low, indeed, that linear accelerators catapulting bulk loads into earth orbit would dramatically cut costs 鈥� without any pollution.

The problem with the suggestion is that it is almost pure spin. Nothing is said about the earth orbiting space stations which would be another major component; where the existing international space station staggers from crisis to crisis. Nor is anything said about the launch vehicles fro the earth to orbit.

In reality our perfunctory space age ended with the last man leaving the moon in the 1970s, in itself another 鈥� albeit much larger 鈥� PR even. The cancellation of our future in space was made, behind the scenes, by Richard Nixon. Plans were then, in the early 1970s, already well advanced for putting a space lab on the moon where astronauts could stay for weeks on end whilst exploring their surroundings; much as the current 鈥榖lue sky thinking鈥� suggests. It was even proposed that this lab could be joined with other modules to form a self-sustaining village. This was not, unlike the current spin, all hot air. It was firmly based on tried and tested vehicles. Thus, the third stage of the Apollo vehicle 鈥� essentially a fuel tank 鈥� would have been fitted out with all the equipment needed as a home for the lunarnauts. This would then have been boosted to land on the moon, to await its prospective occupants arriving by the lunar lander. All of this was so well advanced that it could have happened within a matter of months. Then, of course, tricky Dicky covertly cancelled the whole thing; putting back the development of space by half a century!

Dare we hope that the US will at long last pick up the pieces, or do we have to wait for the Chinese 鈥� who now promise to do so 鈥� to take up the challenge in practice.

TOWN PLANNING?

Yesterday鈥檚 discussions about the problems of town planning seemed to conflate two separate issues. The first of these is the level of unnecessary bureaucracy individuals face in obtaining permission for a simple extension. The first point to make is that most small extensions (up to 10% on terraces and 15% on others, not in a conservation area) do not need permission. This takes most extensions out of the system. The next point is that planning permission on average only takes an average of 8 weeks, and in any case this will run in parallel with the building regulations application which typically is handled by the same group within the council. The process is relatively cheap (拢135 against the tens of thousands the work will cost) and the forms are easy to fill in. It will require reasonably accurate drawings, but even more accurate ones are needed for the building regs; and both are needed to protect you from expensive, and sometimes dangerous, mistakes. Finally, as an independent process, it takes much of the sting out of the discussions with neighbours; where the proposed new process would demand that they give their permission 鈥� surely a recipe for creating bad will! All in all the current system has few problems handling this side of the work, it is almost all simple clerical work.

On the other hand, the controversial large schemes 鈥� especially those at the infra-structural level (such as airports) 鈥� can, and usually are, subject to inordinate delays. This is not because the applicants, and the planning authorities, need to take years; if the necessary documentation (including the full case for and against) was in place, they could take a matter of months or even weeks. The problem is that time has to be made available to all the objectors, and their can 鈥� in the case of the largest schemes 鈥� be literally hundreds of these. Moreover, these protestors have learned that a major weapon they hold is that of delaying tactics; in effect filibustering. The need, therefore, is to reduce the delays from these groups; who mostly fall into one NIMBY category or another. Perhaps tighter control on their 鈥榙ay in court鈥�, without denying them their rights, would help.

However, another factor might be to address their financial considerations. At a time when an individual鈥檚 home is 鈥� for most 鈥� no longer their castle but their piggy bank, a prime consideration for NIMBYs is the impact on their investment. They fear, with some justification, that they will lose money. One answer, therefore, might be to err on the generous side in offering compensation. If the offer was based, say, on a realistic (independent) appraisal of the 鈥榣oss鈥� plus 10% for the inconvenience involved, I suspect a large proportion of those affected would take the money and run; and put pressure on those remaining to let them do this. The 10% extra would almost certainly be less that the cost of the time delays! But, of course, the system would have to be trusted by both sides; a major problem when there is so little trust around these days.

STEADY AS SHE GOES, SHIPMATES

The Chancellor鈥檚 pre-budget report today seemed to say that the country was safe in his hands, forward looking but with no changes which might frighten the horses. In particular he seemed to want Labour supporters to know that the New Labour project would be safe in his hands; despite the new-fangled commitment to going green. Strangely that also seems to be the message of David Cameron!

So, come the election in 2009, what choice will there be. The ship of state will still be running smoothly; if not all bets are off! Education results will at long last have shown that the massive sums thrown at it were worthwhile. The health service, under Patricia Hewitt (the government鈥檚 most capable manager) will have successfully completed its changes and will be the envy of the world. Political life will be boringly predictable; how could government be better run!

What then of David Cameron? Apart from being a nice young lad - the message his husky chasing, bike riding and hoody hugging PR machine would have us believe, what can he offer which is different? We all wait with bated breath, especially his supporters who are wondering when Conservative policies will re-emerge, for Cameron to tell us what will be different about his message. There is just so much niceness which can be attached to one individual.

Of course, if he does find something that resonates with the electorate then all bets are 鈥� once more 鈥� off!

OLD VALUES FOR NEW?

David Cameron鈥檚 objective has been to move the Conservative Party image to embrace new, softer and more socially driven (PollyToynbee?), values. His PR machine pushes these new values whenever possible. When challenged about the hard policies behind this mage, however, he ducks the question by saying that he is waiting for his policy review groups to report.

So far two policy review groups have reported, though whether these are the ones he will be deferring to is not yet clear. The first, a couple of months ago, was on fiscal policies. This backed the traditional party line; of tax cuts at the cost of services.

The one today (11 December), from the group headed by his predecessor, Ian Duncan Smith, proposed a return to family values; though going further, in the headline, to 鈥榁ictorian values鈥�. John Major鈥檚 government found this line rather less than a vote winner, so how does it mesh with the PR put out by David Cameron. Will the new slogan be 鈥楬ug a hoody and transport him to the colonies鈥�!

Maybe Cameron will somehow duck this advice from the statesmen within his party, but 鈥� as it is in line with the party鈥檚 traditions 鈥� will he win the inevitable argument?