ANDREW CURRY

I find that I've written a lot over the last couple of years about ownership -- and by extension, about land and property. Not enough, it turns out, as I read the news this week that the activists who had occupied an education and environment centre in the Forest of Dean, to try to prevent Gloucestershire Council from selling it off, have been evicted. Legally, of course, it is the Council's to sell. The argument of this post is that it shouldn't be.

There is no business itch too trivial for the British Chancellor George Osborne not to want to scratch it, no matter what the other consequences. So perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise that the sustained lobbying by not one but two separate Heathrow expansion campaigns has got Osborne, or so it's claimed, lobbying his Cabinet colleagues on a change of mind on Heathrow's third runway. I've written here before...about the long-term trends influencing aviation in the rich world. My assessment then was that most of them pointed to a decline in demand for long-haul flight (and in Europe and the United States, probably short-haul as well). So it's probably worth spending some time on the "studies" which support the latest political mood music emanating from Number 11.

In the case of Occupy it has changed the political rules of engagement, for the moment. But we're still at the early stages of an eighty-year economic crisis and a forty-year political crisis. Such crises can take a decade or more to unfold. For now, Occupy has opened up some possibilities.

In my earlier post a few days ago, I wrote about the background to the widespread privatisation of public space. In this second part I look at some of the activist and political responses.

By privatised public space, I mean that space which appears to be a public space (a square or a lane, for example) is in fact owned and controlled by a private landowner (or sometimes managed privately for a public owner.) Either way, different rules apply. It's a trend which has been driven along by private sector regeneration schemes, and reinforced by a plethora of increasingly contentious public order legislation. But it is all but invisible.

A few years ago Citigroup (yes, it's a bank) came up with the notion of "plutonomy" to describe the way the economy was coming. It was a neologism, of course, but one that needed little or no explanation...Another way of describing it is as the rule of the top 0.1%, by the top 0.1%, for the top 0.1%.

One of the reasons for moral panics, it’s argued, is that the underlying phenomenon is too difficult to discuss directly. In the early 1960s, the notion of an affluent working class, which might not behave the same way as the existing middle classes, represented such an underlying social fear. In the end that cohort was the bedrock of Thatcher’s electoral success. Now that 30 years of neoliberalism has once more stripped that brief moment of affluence from the working class – at least in relative terms – the spectre of the young urban poor, and the hidden fear of the return of the English mob, is certainly enough to cause a moral panic. The other question that has emerged in our post-crisis scenarios is, where does the anger go? At least we have one answer to that now.

Here's a thought. One way into several of the policy issues dominating British news headlines -- from the future of the national health service, to the Southern Cross catastrophe, to the funding of higher education -- is to look at them through the lens of Jane Jacobs' distinction, in her book Systems of Survival, between systems based on territory ("guardians") and systems based on exchange ("traders"). Most human societies need both. But when we get the distinctions between them blurred, breakdown and corruption follows.

But the combination of high food prices, open markets and young populations is explosive, and has certainly been a large factor in the uprisings in both Tunisia and Egypt. The Arab countries import more than half their food. And it may be that this urban effect may be one of the reasons why food price volatility is no greater than in the '70s and '80s, but the impact seems much larger.

The report states boldly right at the beginning that “Nothing less is required than a redesign of the whole food system to bring sustainability to the fore”, but nowhere starts to develop the tools which would help people develop a vision of what such a re-design might look like, as if it doesn’t want to say ‘boo’ to power. It seems to take a relatively uncritical view of global and open markets; indeed, whenever the politics of food threatens to break the surface, the report seems to move swiftly on.