Rural Unemployment

I worked from home today so I had the pleasure of the BBC News channel this morning while I was logging on. There were several interesting reports - student fees and benefits were the hot news of the morning - but the one that really caught my attention was a report that said unemployment in rural areas was lower by percentage than in urban areas. The BBC went on to report about two young people from rural communities, one apprenticing as a butcher and a young woman learning a trade as a stone mason. It was a very interesting report but sadly, very poorly reported and sorely under-researched.

I spent my adolescence in a rural Scottish community so I know too well the choices and issues that people living in rural communities face. I therefore wasn't surprised by the statistic and can immediately think of some reasons for it that the BBC didn't even mention.

Firstly, populations in rural communities tend to be quite static, occasionally increasing or declining, but not usually by too much. Planning constraints and green belt often limit the number of homes that can be built which limits the potential for growth. This in turn has the additional effect of inflating house prices as demand (by wealthy investors looking for holiday homes or second homes) outstrips supply.

Employment and education also tend to control the population. Back when I was approaching the end of my school days, if you were good at exams, you were encouraged to go to university (if you weren't the careers advisors made other suggestions, including the armed forces, college in Inverness 40 miles away, apprenticeships or work.) and going to university meant moving out and moving away. Dundee is the nearest city to Strathspey, where I grew up, and is around 90 miles distant; Aberdeen and Edinburgh are just over 100 miles away and Glasgow is about 125 miles away. As a school leaver in the Highlands with decent exam results, moving away was a virtual certainty. However, because of the type of employment available in the area, staying away was an almost equal certainty.

While there are plenty of employment opportunities in rural communities, they can also be quite limited and often unstable and this keeps young people away. In Strathspey, many of the employment opportunities are based on the tourist industry, which is highly seasonal and horribly unstable. There are plenty of positions in hotels and bars, in retail and in sports and leisure but this type of work is notorious for being there one minute and gone the next. Tourism is dependent upon so many factors: Lots of cheap overseas deals is death to the British tourism industry; something like a Foot and Mouth outbreak keeps visitors away in their droves; even the wrong sort of weather (a warm winter or a wet summer) might result in a massive drop in visitor numbers and global terrorism keeps foreign visitors away too. It's also ironic that the recession is doing wonders for our tourist industry: When the nation is prosperous, British tourism suffers as people are able to spend more money on overseas holidays to exotic destinations. Rural communities do present other opportunities; in farming, land management, environment, education, social care and local government, but such positions are far less abundant

In addition, when you live in the middle of nowhere, the cost of living is also higher. In a city, if you can't get work, you get rid of your car and you shop in Aldi instead of Sainsbury's. When you live in a rural community, you need a car because there is limited or no bus service. (Where I lived, the Doctor was in the next town, 3 miles away, as was my school and the chemist.) In a rural community it also costs more to run your car. In a city you have a choice of any number of petrol stations to fuel up (I have 6 choices within a 5 minute drive of my house or place of work) but in a rural community, there might only be one within a 30 minutes drive. A captive audience means a higher price. And forget going to Aldi for your shopping; if you're lucky you might have a supermarket in your town, but you might equally be reliant on a supermarket quite some distance away, or on smaller shops with higher prices.

Don't get me wrong, rural life is wonderful. Living in a rural community is an enriching experience and if I felt it was a viable option, I would have moved back years ago. The air is cleaner, locally produced food is better, the pace of life is more relaxed and the view is magnificent, but make no mistake, rural life is also bloody hard. For more than a decade I watched my parents working hard to make their business - a gift shop and cafe - work through years of tough conditions. It was graft. Every single day. And decisions had to be made with the business and their survival in mind. (I got married in September because that was the best month dictated by the requirements of the business.) It doesn't surprise me that unemployment is higher in the urban areas than in rural communities because, in a rural community, if you lose your job or it disappears because of a bad season, the choice is to get something else, quickly, or leave for a place with more opportunities. When you also consider that young people, who tend to move away from rural communities to take up study after school, are the worst affected by unemployment, and the statistics mentioned by the BBC begin to make more and more sense.

What Else Are They Hiding?

Back in 2007 it became all too apparent that for years, banks around the globe had been trading irresponsibly. In the space of a year, something in the region of thirty global banking organisations went from operating normally to teetering on the brink of oblivion. The consequences of this fall from grace are well documented and continue to be felt by ordinary people all around the world as unemployment, higher taxation and low interest rates begin to erode the money in our pockets.

The warning signs of the crisis were there to be seen, if you chose to look hard enough, but you didn't have to be Vince Cable to see them. There were plenty of symptoms of the ongoing corruption that anyone could spot.

As early as 2006, thousands of people were successfully reclaiming bank charges by arguing that they were unlawful penalties. These were the charges levied by banks for each bounced direct debit, bounced cheque or for each transaction that exceeded an overdraft limit. Charges were, at that time, typically around £30 or £35 each, and it was not unusual for a bank to make multiple charges for a single infringement, for a bank to charge against transactions that they were able to block, or to refuse a transaction for less than £30 only to then levy a charge of £35. They were sneaky and underhanded practices that punished those most in need of help, like people on low incomes and individuals suffering temporary financial problems beyond their control. Banks justified their practices using a number of excuses, and defended them in court by claiming that the charges recovered additional administration costs. At one stage extra admin costs for these functions were estimated to be somewhere between zero and £6 per transaction. Most banks continue to charge over £10 per fee, and many continue to charge almost double that.

In addition, there are thousands of PPI (Payment Protection Insurance) policies may have been mis-sold. Payment Protection Insurance covers the policy holder in the event of redundancy or illness. However, many of the policies have been taken out without the borrower's knowledge or consent, have been sold when not needed, or been sold where the policy didn't apply so that the borrower could not actually make a claim.

There have also been multiple complaints about other products being 'sold' without the borrower or account holder's knowledge. Most banks now have privilege accounts that include extras, such as holiday insurance, mobile phone insurance, breakdown cover and more. For these so-called services, the banks charge anywhere from £10 to £20 per month, adding up to somewhere between £120 and £240 per year. If you don't take a holiday abroad, don't have a mobile phone (or have home contents insurance that already covers your mobile phone), don't drive a car or pay separately for breakdown cover, this is money. It is better in your account than in your bank's pocket. Even if you do take advantage of one or two of these add-ons, you are still probably paying well over the odds for the product.

Today I read that the British Bankers Association is seeking a judicial review of new rules that are due to come into force on the 1st of December designed to prevent these kinds of practices and to ensure those that have been mis-sold PPI receive refunds. The BBA's reasoning for seeking a judicial review is that they believe the new rules are illegal. It seems the actual reason for the review is that the banks are concerned that they could be forced to refund billions in mis-sold PPI policies, but worse, that this could then set a precedent that would open the doors to refunds for other mis-sold products. It makes me wonder what else the banks have swept under the rug that might be a liability for them.

The fact is that practices that have been employed by most, if not all of Britain's banks, have left them horribly exposed to liability and litigation. These practices may not have been systemic, but the were certainly endemic. They were callous, ruthless, devious practices that were possibly encouraged and, when complaints started to roll in, were certainly ignored. The banks made a mint off unsuspecting customers and in many cases refused to issue refunds when they were caught out. This is a mess that is of the banks' own making. It's time they accepted the legacy that they have made for themselves. An apology for their collective arrogance wouldn't go a-miss either.

Making Your Mind Up

If you watched X-Factor at the weekend, you will probably number among the thousands (if not millions!) of people that were outraged that contestant Gamu Nhengu wasn't chosen to go through to the live finals. The question is, how far do you take it?

There's a lot being written at the moment about the decisions made on the Sunday night show. Firstly, I'm reasonably happy with the judges' choices in all three categories. There are some contestants I would have put through - Diva Fever were so much more interesting than 1 Direction - and some I would not. But ultimately, I feel the quality is quite high so it's hard for me to be too angry. However, I was just as disappointed as the rest of the nation to find Gamu cast out of the show.

Not only is Gamu stand-out talented but she also had a unique sound and image, unlike a couple of the other girls. Although I liked all the girls, personally, I would have put Gamu through in place of Katie Waissel. Of all the girls, Katie was the only one who completely buckled under the pressure. Cher Lloyd also failed to perform, but had serious tonsilitis and should not have been singing or even speaking. She tried and in doing so put her voice at risk of damage. I believe that shows enough committment to warrant her place in the final. Katie's performance, however, came on the back of a poor first audition and left me with concerns about her stability as a contestant and her ability to perform on the live show week after week. Gamu had no such problem and showed maturity and poise; traits that she has demonstrated consistently throughout the process thus far.

Having said that, over the last couple of days I have been pretty horrified to hear and read about the outlandish reaction of some viewers of the show. When I heard people had actually complained to ITV and to Broadcasting Standards, I thought it a sad reflection on the attitude of people to the business of entertainment. Boys and girls: It may come as a surprise to you, but X-Factor is a business! When I read online that the show's producers were working with the police to investigate death threats against Cheryl Cole, I was horrified!

Those who make and are involved in the show have no committment to you other than to provide a product that appeals to enough people to make it commercially viable. They don't owe you anything and - at this stage - their choices are their own and don't need to be justified to you, the audience. Get over it! Grow up! Put it in perspective: In a couple of years' time, the name Gamu Nhengu will be all but forgotten. (Unless, of course, she's returns for a second crack at it - which I hope she will.)

Obviously this sort of backlash is unfounded and, quite frankly, ridiculous. What further annoys me is the public response to the revelation that Gamu and her family have been instructed to leave the country or risk deportation. I have read all sorts of bizarre comments from 'it's terrible that Gamu lost out because she doesn't have a visa' to 'why let Gamu's mother claim benefits when she's not entitled to them' to outright 'let them stay' (for no reason other than liking Gamu). There is a propensity in this country, although we are not alone in the tendancy, to blame everything on immigration or immigrants: People who can't get a job often sit back and blame it on foreigners 'taking our jobs'; problems with the NHS get blamed on immigrants coming for free health care and stretching the system; sometimes people even try to pin social problems like bringe drinking or yob culture on 'foreign influences'. When I then find the general public advocating a softening of the rules for special cases, I find myself intensely frustrated. The Home Office is apparently 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'

I feel bad that Gamu and her family may be forced to return to Zimbabwe. It's one of the few places in the world that I really wouldn't want to live. However, a visa was granted based upon certain conditions and rules. If you break the rules you lose the visa. It's not complicated and it shouldn't be complicated. Gamu's mother took money from the state that she wasn't entitled to. I'm sad that she hasn't got a more stable country to return to, and that her children, who have made lives for themselves here will have to leave it behind, but that is where my sympathy ends.

So, am I disappointed that Gamu isn't going to be in the live shows? Sure am! Will I avoid watching or avoid supporting other contestants because of it? Sure won't! At the end of the day, I watch X-Factor to be entertained and I will continue to watch up to the point it is no longer doing so.

Fame Without Heart

I love movies. In all shapes and sizes. These days I don't get to the cinema for the latest releases very often, but I watch movies on Sky and I have a Lovefilm account to boot. It takes me a while, but I usually get around to seeing everything I want, sooner or later.

I remember when the Fame remake was out at the cinema last year. I wanted to see it with my mate, Claire. I always loved the original, including it's classic '80s theme tune and, as girls, this sort of girlie movie is right up our street. Unfortunately, we never quite got around to seeing it so I was pleased when I noticed it was on Sky this afternoon.

It wasn't well received last year. Film critics and movie goers seemed to agree that it was a poor remake. But, being stubborn, I generally like to make my own decisions. I wasn't expecting much and 'not much' is precisely what Fame delivered.

It's a broad retelling of the classic movie. The structure of the plot and the various situations that are employed are similar, but for some odd and unexplained reason, all the character names have been changed. It is by no means identical to its predecessor but the bones of the original story are still there.

Although the bulk of the cast are little-known actors, (most of the actors playing the students had only done TV bit parts or uncredited work before) the makers did managed to secure some serious experience and talent. Kelsey Grammer, Bebe Neuwirth and Charles Dutton are all superb in their roles. Charles Dutton in particular is charming as the acting coach, Mr Dowd. Despite their lack of previous experience, there are some other surprisingly impressive performances too. Kay Panabaker (currently starring in superhero drama, No Ordinary Family) is beautiful and vulnerable as Jenny Garrison and Collins Pennie does a nice job with tough, yet sensitive, Malik Washburn. All the actors are clearly talented; dancing, singing and playing their way through Fame with conviction.

Director, Kevin Tancharoen, has experience directing musically themed TV shows and documentaries and his experience is shown in the visual and musical styling of the movie. Fame is visually appealing: There are some spectacular scenes, like the school 'CarnEvil' (I'm guessing this was supposed to be a Halloween Party) and the end of school show. And, as one might expect for a film about a performing arts school, it is musically interesting too, although the soundtrack is unlikely to appeal to someone who doesn't like hip-hop.

So why doesn't it work?

The problem with the 2009 version of Fame is all too obvious (and all too common). The weakness is not in the acting, the directing or the sound. The blame for this movie abomination lies firmly with the writer. Perhaps Allison Burnett has tried too hard to maintain the structure of the original, or perhaps it's because the characters aren't her own (new names, same stereotypes). Or perhaps the screenplay falls foul of the performing arts, collapsing under the weight of the visual and musical style. Either way, the retelling of this classic drama is undramatic and soulless. Sure, the actors do a good job with what they have been given, but tragically, what they've been given is one-dimensional and uninspiring. The acting performances are individually pleasing, but the characters are shallow and move around the flat world in near isolation. They don't grow or develop and crucial moments, like Kevin's near suicide, don't have any lasting affect.

When I think back to the 1980 original, I think of memorable characters on a journey of self-discovery, facing personal and professional challenges. It's a story that has heart; the one thing that the 2009 remake completely lacks. What a waste.