A heroin addict murders a baby boy and is sentenced to ten years in prison.
Cunningham, 23, was initially accused of murder, but a jury at the High Court in Glasgow returned a guilty verdict on the lesser charge of culpable homicide earlier this month.
Murder is what it was - the vagaries of the Scottish legal system might find some other name for it, but this lump of worthless scum murdered that child. There is no question of his guilt. There is no doubt about whether he did it or not - or indeed that the child endured immense suffering before he finally passed away.
Consultant paediatric surgeon Professor Robert Karachi, of Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, said the injury was consistent with a child receiving a “massive blow” and Brandon would have been in “severe pain” before he died. He had suffered up to 40 injuries, including bruises, scratches and four fractured ribs.
And the justice system decrees that ten years is sufficient punishment. Ten years of soft incarceration, three square meals a day, and better treatment than the child could ever have dreamed of - and the scum won't even serve ten years. Out in five. And no doubt he'll have access to all the drugs he wants while inside so he can rot his pathetic little mind still further.
He'll be out in five years and then we, the taxpayer, will be expected to pay for his keep, housing and drug habit.
As I said, there is no doubt that he did it - none whatsoever. And there is no doubt that other children are going to be killed in the same brutal way by the "boyfriends" of single mothers who care more about their own selfish needs more than they care about their kids - who, after all, are really nothing more than tools by which they obtain more benefits to which they feel they're "entitled".
And those who administer our justice system think the death penalty is barbaric? I think letting child killers off so lightly is barbaric. Even if you are against the death penalty, how can anyone think that a ten year prison sentence for depriving a child from his three score year and ten is sufficient punishment?
Anyone who kills someone under the age of 18 should receive an automatic life sentence of three score year and ten - 70 years in other words - with no possibility of parole. Better still - hang the bastards.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Racism and sexism
A couple of things bugged me over the weekend regarding racism and sexism. We've already had people claiming that the economic crisis was caused by white blue-eyed men - yeah, maybe ... but if it was it was because white, blue-eyed men were lending money to black and Hispanic people who didn't have the means to pay back what they owed. I'd also argue that African economics is largely controlled by black, brown eyed men and they don't make a particularly good job of that.
We've also had the usual bunch of femiloons telling us that the credit crunch is the result of male, testosterone fuelled dominance in the banking sector and that this would never have happened if there were more women at the top of the industry. From my experience of the banking sector (which isn't inconsiderable although mostly indirect) it is not so much testosterone that fuels the risk-taking as cocaine and greed - and women seem just as prone as men to those. It's also worth bearing in mind that before there were ANY women in banking it was a very cautious and conservative industry.
It's also worth pointing out that other industries which have become female dominated - notably education and social services - are falling apart. For some reason, this leads me to the conclusion that feminising an industry doesn't necessarily make it better, although there could be some merit to the argument that the more women there are in an industry the more "testosterone" fuelled men become as a result of their instinctive desire to impress the female - and once an industry becomes dominated by women the men become effete and ineffective.
It seems to me to be a stupid thing to suggest that the crisis is down to men - white or black. It's down to all of us - male, female, black white, brown or green with yellow spots - and our addiction to debt. You might just as well argue that it's down to the Scottish seeing how both our Chancellors and Prime Ministers have come from that nation over the last 12 years or so. Maybe if they'd be English we wouldn't be in the cack we are, but I doubt it.
I also got annoyed at the weekend when I read something by someone about the lack of black managers in "English" football. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I used to be. Before football became obsessed by money I used to enjoy it - and I'm looking forward to watching the film about one of my all time heroes of football management, Brian Clough, in The Damned United.
The thing is, though, black people have been part of English football for some considerable time. There is a shortage of good black managers - maybe they just have more sense than to get involved in the merry-go-round that calls itself football management these days - but you could equally argue that there is something of a shortage of good English managers seeing how our national side is managed by an Italian.
The thing that really irked me though is that English football stands accused of putting barriers to black progression that do not exist - but no one bothers about Scottish or Welsh football. How many black players are there in the Scottish football team? How many in the Welsh? How many have there ever been in either of those national sides?
Why is England the only part of Britain where racism can exist?
We've also had the usual bunch of femiloons telling us that the credit crunch is the result of male, testosterone fuelled dominance in the banking sector and that this would never have happened if there were more women at the top of the industry. From my experience of the banking sector (which isn't inconsiderable although mostly indirect) it is not so much testosterone that fuels the risk-taking as cocaine and greed - and women seem just as prone as men to those. It's also worth bearing in mind that before there were ANY women in banking it was a very cautious and conservative industry.
It's also worth pointing out that other industries which have become female dominated - notably education and social services - are falling apart. For some reason, this leads me to the conclusion that feminising an industry doesn't necessarily make it better, although there could be some merit to the argument that the more women there are in an industry the more "testosterone" fuelled men become as a result of their instinctive desire to impress the female - and once an industry becomes dominated by women the men become effete and ineffective.
It seems to me to be a stupid thing to suggest that the crisis is down to men - white or black. It's down to all of us - male, female, black white, brown or green with yellow spots - and our addiction to debt. You might just as well argue that it's down to the Scottish seeing how both our Chancellors and Prime Ministers have come from that nation over the last 12 years or so. Maybe if they'd be English we wouldn't be in the cack we are, but I doubt it.
I also got annoyed at the weekend when I read something by someone about the lack of black managers in "English" football. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I used to be. Before football became obsessed by money I used to enjoy it - and I'm looking forward to watching the film about one of my all time heroes of football management, Brian Clough, in The Damned United.
The thing is, though, black people have been part of English football for some considerable time. There is a shortage of good black managers - maybe they just have more sense than to get involved in the merry-go-round that calls itself football management these days - but you could equally argue that there is something of a shortage of good English managers seeing how our national side is managed by an Italian.
The thing that really irked me though is that English football stands accused of putting barriers to black progression that do not exist - but no one bothers about Scottish or Welsh football. How many black players are there in the Scottish football team? How many in the Welsh? How many have there ever been in either of those national sides?
Why is England the only part of Britain where racism can exist?
The shaming of the police
JuliaM on Ambush Predator reminds me of the story of the family left to burn to death while police prevented would-be rescuers from trying to help.
As I was travelling between clients yesterday I heard a lot of comments from so-called "experts" on the Jeremy Vine show claiming that the police were acting correctly by stopping people from going in to help as "untrained" people have no idea what they are getting into and could have ended up dead themselves.
This is a very stupid thing to say as very few of us are aware of what we are getting into when faced with a life-threatening situation. The thing is, those people who the police were stopping were adults capable of making their own decisions - and like any decent minded adult they were not prepared to stand by when children's lives were at stake.
Personally, I consider that those people were prepared to risk their own lives to try and save those kids something to be proud of - they can all hold their heads up high - but I find the behaviour of the police utterly reprehensible. Once upon a time the police would have been the first ones in there leading the rescue attempt - now they are prepared to sit and watch children burn to death. Worse still, they'll stop anyone else trying to save them!
As a father and an adult I believe it is the responsibility of EVERY adult to put themselves in harms way when the lives of children are at stake. To sit by and do nothing while children die in front of you is disgraceful and the police today should be hanging their heads in shame.
As I was travelling between clients yesterday I heard a lot of comments from so-called "experts" on the Jeremy Vine show claiming that the police were acting correctly by stopping people from going in to help as "untrained" people have no idea what they are getting into and could have ended up dead themselves.
This is a very stupid thing to say as very few of us are aware of what we are getting into when faced with a life-threatening situation. The thing is, those people who the police were stopping were adults capable of making their own decisions - and like any decent minded adult they were not prepared to stand by when children's lives were at stake.
Personally, I consider that those people were prepared to risk their own lives to try and save those kids something to be proud of - they can all hold their heads up high - but I find the behaviour of the police utterly reprehensible. Once upon a time the police would have been the first ones in there leading the rescue attempt - now they are prepared to sit and watch children burn to death. Worse still, they'll stop anyone else trying to save them!
As a father and an adult I believe it is the responsibility of EVERY adult to put themselves in harms way when the lives of children are at stake. To sit by and do nothing while children die in front of you is disgraceful and the police today should be hanging their heads in shame.
Joke of the day
Comes from the Telegraph.
Gordon Brown is under pressure to demote Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, amid claims that her authority has been critically undermined by the pornography on expenses row.
Ha ha ha ha - Jacqui Smith - authority!!! - ooooh, good one. Side-splitting stuff. Honestly, I've seen more authority from a Peach Melba.
Gordon Brown is under pressure to demote Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, amid claims that her authority has been critically undermined by the pornography on expenses row.
Ha ha ha ha - Jacqui Smith - authority!!! - ooooh, good one. Side-splitting stuff. Honestly, I've seen more authority from a Peach Melba.
Living within your means
If there is one thing which is apparent from the row over MP's expenses, it is that most of them appear to spend considerably more than they earn.
The salary for an MP is around £60,000, but we're supposed to believe that somehow these people spend more than twice that amount in "expenses". You can bet your bottom dollar that if I made expense claims that amounted to more than twice my salary my company would be asking a few awkward questions, but we're supposed to think nothing of MP's doing this?
One thing is certain - either MP's are absolutely crap at managing their budgets, in which case why on earth should we consider them fit people to manage the national economy - or they are money-grubbing bastards ripping off the taxpayer for all the cash they can, in which case they are defrauding the nation.
So - which is it? Useless at their job or corrupt fraudsters?
Either way they need to be sacked - every single one of them.
The salary for an MP is around £60,000, but we're supposed to believe that somehow these people spend more than twice that amount in "expenses". You can bet your bottom dollar that if I made expense claims that amounted to more than twice my salary my company would be asking a few awkward questions, but we're supposed to think nothing of MP's doing this?
One thing is certain - either MP's are absolutely crap at managing their budgets, in which case why on earth should we consider them fit people to manage the national economy - or they are money-grubbing bastards ripping off the taxpayer for all the cash they can, in which case they are defrauding the nation.
So - which is it? Useless at their job or corrupt fraudsters?
Either way they need to be sacked - every single one of them.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Criminals
Do you think politicians actually understand what they are elected for?
It seems to me that most of them don't - or rather they think it is different to what it actually is. Maybe, I've got it wrong - but my understanding of their job is to enact legislation which is designed to 1) protect the nation and the people from attack by foreign agencies; 2) make decisions and regulation designed to improve our economy and standard of living and 3) enact laws to protect the law-abiding majority from various nefarious criminals and criminal gangs.
It's apparent that they really can't be arsed with number 1, preferring - as they do - to let plenty of foreign bastards intent on doing harm to us into this country. It's increasing clear that rather than bother with number 2 and ensuring our economy is strong and self-sufficient they are determined to leave what remains of our economy to be picked over by the vultures of globalisation until we're a total basket case.
But perhaps worse than either of those is the fact that those we elect to enact legislation our clearly a bunch of degenerate criminals themselves. It's not just the pathetic Home Secretary and her dreadful money-grubbing antics over her "second home" or even her porn-addict husband getting off with the five-fingered widow at taxpayers expense - it's the fact that they are all doing it and seem to consider virtually a "right" to rip whatever cash they can out of the taxpayer pocket.
How can we trust them to protect us from criminals when they behave as criminals themselves? Why should we trust them to be moral guardians when they clearly lack any concept of morality?
Our ruling class is utterly corrupted - morally, emotionally, financially and politically. Not just one or two of them, but the whole damn lot of them. They've got to go.
It seems to me that most of them don't - or rather they think it is different to what it actually is. Maybe, I've got it wrong - but my understanding of their job is to enact legislation which is designed to 1) protect the nation and the people from attack by foreign agencies; 2) make decisions and regulation designed to improve our economy and standard of living and 3) enact laws to protect the law-abiding majority from various nefarious criminals and criminal gangs.
It's apparent that they really can't be arsed with number 1, preferring - as they do - to let plenty of foreign bastards intent on doing harm to us into this country. It's increasing clear that rather than bother with number 2 and ensuring our economy is strong and self-sufficient they are determined to leave what remains of our economy to be picked over by the vultures of globalisation until we're a total basket case.
But perhaps worse than either of those is the fact that those we elect to enact legislation our clearly a bunch of degenerate criminals themselves. It's not just the pathetic Home Secretary and her dreadful money-grubbing antics over her "second home" or even her porn-addict husband getting off with the five-fingered widow at taxpayers expense - it's the fact that they are all doing it and seem to consider virtually a "right" to rip whatever cash they can out of the taxpayer pocket.
How can we trust them to protect us from criminals when they behave as criminals themselves? Why should we trust them to be moral guardians when they clearly lack any concept of morality?
Our ruling class is utterly corrupted - morally, emotionally, financially and politically. Not just one or two of them, but the whole damn lot of them. They've got to go.
Friday, March 27, 2009
National Insurance: This is where your money goes
And it isn't being spent on providing world class health care, but world class pay for bosses.
Top NHS managers awarded themselves inflation-busting pay rises last year, as private sector staff faced a pay freeze.
Average pay for trust chief executives soared by 7.5 per cent in just one year to £142,450, while nurses are having to make do with just 1.9 per cent.
And those in the private sector are making do with -10% - or unemployment.
The best-paid hospital boss is on £230,000 - enough to pay for more than ten nurses, while two saw their pay rise by more than 30 per cent.
Since Labour came to power, Health Service chief executive pay has almost doubled (up 98 per cent).
Still, at least those super bosses have overseen a massive improvement in the quality of health care the NHS provides. May be I'm being a bit harsh on these poor, underpaid hospital bosses - after all, there aren't many of them are there?
The shocking details of pay hikes given to senior bureaucrats in the NHS between 2007 and 2008 comes a day after it was revealed that the number of managers has soared quicker than the number of nurses.
There are now 39,900 managers in the NHS - up 9.4 per cent in one year. But there are 6,000 fewer GPs and 15,00 fewer midwives than managers (not sure if that was supposed to be 1,500 or 15,000 - that's how it appears on the Mail web site - Stan).
Nice to know our money goes to the needy - i.e. those who need a new Range Rover and a Merc convertible for the missus.
Top NHS managers awarded themselves inflation-busting pay rises last year, as private sector staff faced a pay freeze.
Average pay for trust chief executives soared by 7.5 per cent in just one year to £142,450, while nurses are having to make do with just 1.9 per cent.
And those in the private sector are making do with -10% - or unemployment.
The best-paid hospital boss is on £230,000 - enough to pay for more than ten nurses, while two saw their pay rise by more than 30 per cent.
Since Labour came to power, Health Service chief executive pay has almost doubled (up 98 per cent).
Still, at least those super bosses have overseen a massive improvement in the quality of health care the NHS provides. May be I'm being a bit harsh on these poor, underpaid hospital bosses - after all, there aren't many of them are there?
The shocking details of pay hikes given to senior bureaucrats in the NHS between 2007 and 2008 comes a day after it was revealed that the number of managers has soared quicker than the number of nurses.
There are now 39,900 managers in the NHS - up 9.4 per cent in one year. But there are 6,000 fewer GPs and 15,00 fewer midwives than managers (not sure if that was supposed to be 1,500 or 15,000 - that's how it appears on the Mail web site - Stan).
Nice to know our money goes to the needy - i.e. those who need a new Range Rover and a Merc convertible for the missus.
Advertise this
As liberal wingnuts contemplate allowing abortion clinics to advertise on TV (as if they don't have enough business anyway) I wonder if the adverts will carry health warnings?
A girl of 15 died five days after an abortion because of a blunder at her clinic, an inquest heard yesterday.
The sexual health organisation Marie Stopes International, which ran the clinic, was strongly criticised by the coroner for procedural failings. He warned it could face legal action.
Not sure what the big deal is, myself. After all, what's one more dead kid in an industry devoted to killing children?
A girl of 15 died five days after an abortion because of a blunder at her clinic, an inquest heard yesterday.
The sexual health organisation Marie Stopes International, which ran the clinic, was strongly criticised by the coroner for procedural failings. He warned it could face legal action.
Not sure what the big deal is, myself. After all, what's one more dead kid in an industry devoted to killing children?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Then and now
I loved the seventies - but I was nine when they started and nineteen when they finished so I didn't worry too much about politics, economics or employment, but they were defining times for kids growing up back then.
I don't remember the fifties - being born in 1960 - but I do seem to recall that back then kids didn't have their own identity. They tended to have hair cuts like their mums and dads, dressed in mini versions of their parents clothes and listened to the sort of music their parents listened to - until rock'n'roll came along.
A generation later and things have swung the other way. Now we have parents who dress like their kids, wear their hair like fifteen year olds and listen to Girls Aloud. Things are not totally different, though - with eight year old girls encouraged to wear things designed for thirty year olds with no sense of shame.
But for me, the seventies were MY time. We had our own music - glam rock at first, then punk later. We had our own sartorial elegance - different from my parents, different from my older brothers and different again from the next bunch of teenagers with their New Romantic look. We even had our first experience of the freedom that your own form of motorised transport could bring with the rise of the sports moped. People forget that, before we got our hands on Yamaha FS1E's, Suzuki AP50's and frantic Fantics, the only form of transport available to 16 year olds were pushbikes, buses or the crappy mopeds with baskets on the front.
Even so, I was well aware of the problems of the time. The power cuts in the early seventies were actually quite exciting and fun for kids my age, but I was well aware of the problems they caused for my folks - as well as the high inflation, cost of food and industrial strife.
According to official figures, our public sector today isn't much larger (maybe even smaller?) than it was back then, but the big difference is that the majority of our public sector back then was producing something - something which they don't do any more.
The irony of all that is that if we had a public sector today like the public sector of the seventies - but without the union power and militancy - we'd be far better placed to come through this economic crisis than we actually are simply because we still produced things. Sure, the car industry would still be in dire straits as it is now, but our coal industry would have been flourishing (as, indeed, our current coal industry is - but it's too small to make much difference now).
I keep hearing so-called economic "experts" telling us that the government have to keep spending to "create" jobs - but jobs doing what? Spending more money on an unproductive public sector isn't going to achieve anything except even more massive levels of debt for our children and our children's children to deal with. It's a great way to bankrupt the nation, but other than that I can't see what it will achieve.
Our governments - both Tory and Labour - have hitched us to the services industry and, as I've said before, this is a mistake. Services do not lead an economy - they are supporting structures to a manufacturing industry. That is why they are called "services" - they service something.
The only way out of this crisis is to produce something which we can sell to the rest of the world - even if it costs you money to make it. At least you get some revenue back. If you spend £400 billion quid on a public sector and get nothing for it, that still costs you £400 billion. If you spend £400 billion and get £200 billion in return it is costing you half as much. A £200 billion loss isn't great, but it's still better than a £400 billion loss!
So I'm all for the government spending money IF they spend it on producing something. UK Coal are struggling to find investment to open up new pits - give them the money! GM are threatening to shut down Vauxhall Motors - buy it off them! Corus are closing down steel plants - take them over!
Nationalisation, in the short term, is the way to go. It shouldn't be reserved for banks - indeed, I'm not sure that it is even sensible to support banks that way - it can work for industry and it is only by producing something that we will get out of this mess.
The public sector is the key to our future. We have to cut out the unproductive chunks and divert the cash we spend into producing something. There is talk of cutting defence spending - how ridiculous is that? It is the right time to actually increase defence spending - but only if you spend the money buying things made in Britain. Get those aircraft carriers going - but not with French contractors. Get new trucks and patrol vehicles for our soldiers - but not German or South African ones. Get new aeroplanes (ones we actually need rather than expensive and largely useless Eurofighters) and transports for the RAF, but find a way to build them here.
The public sector has to move from being unproductive to productive. The government has to cut the current public sector by a half and divert the money - plus more - into nationalised industries with a longer term aim of selling those industries back to the private sector once we are through this mess (but with a provision that those industries remain British owned and located in Britain.
Production is and always has been key to economic survival. The USA will recover quicker than us because it makes things still. Germany, France and Italy will survive better because they make things still. A nation that makes nothing is worth nothing.
I don't remember the fifties - being born in 1960 - but I do seem to recall that back then kids didn't have their own identity. They tended to have hair cuts like their mums and dads, dressed in mini versions of their parents clothes and listened to the sort of music their parents listened to - until rock'n'roll came along.
A generation later and things have swung the other way. Now we have parents who dress like their kids, wear their hair like fifteen year olds and listen to Girls Aloud. Things are not totally different, though - with eight year old girls encouraged to wear things designed for thirty year olds with no sense of shame.
But for me, the seventies were MY time. We had our own music - glam rock at first, then punk later. We had our own sartorial elegance - different from my parents, different from my older brothers and different again from the next bunch of teenagers with their New Romantic look. We even had our first experience of the freedom that your own form of motorised transport could bring with the rise of the sports moped. People forget that, before we got our hands on Yamaha FS1E's, Suzuki AP50's and frantic Fantics, the only form of transport available to 16 year olds were pushbikes, buses or the crappy mopeds with baskets on the front.
Even so, I was well aware of the problems of the time. The power cuts in the early seventies were actually quite exciting and fun for kids my age, but I was well aware of the problems they caused for my folks - as well as the high inflation, cost of food and industrial strife.
According to official figures, our public sector today isn't much larger (maybe even smaller?) than it was back then, but the big difference is that the majority of our public sector back then was producing something - something which they don't do any more.
The irony of all that is that if we had a public sector today like the public sector of the seventies - but without the union power and militancy - we'd be far better placed to come through this economic crisis than we actually are simply because we still produced things. Sure, the car industry would still be in dire straits as it is now, but our coal industry would have been flourishing (as, indeed, our current coal industry is - but it's too small to make much difference now).
I keep hearing so-called economic "experts" telling us that the government have to keep spending to "create" jobs - but jobs doing what? Spending more money on an unproductive public sector isn't going to achieve anything except even more massive levels of debt for our children and our children's children to deal with. It's a great way to bankrupt the nation, but other than that I can't see what it will achieve.
Our governments - both Tory and Labour - have hitched us to the services industry and, as I've said before, this is a mistake. Services do not lead an economy - they are supporting structures to a manufacturing industry. That is why they are called "services" - they service something.
The only way out of this crisis is to produce something which we can sell to the rest of the world - even if it costs you money to make it. At least you get some revenue back. If you spend £400 billion quid on a public sector and get nothing for it, that still costs you £400 billion. If you spend £400 billion and get £200 billion in return it is costing you half as much. A £200 billion loss isn't great, but it's still better than a £400 billion loss!
So I'm all for the government spending money IF they spend it on producing something. UK Coal are struggling to find investment to open up new pits - give them the money! GM are threatening to shut down Vauxhall Motors - buy it off them! Corus are closing down steel plants - take them over!
Nationalisation, in the short term, is the way to go. It shouldn't be reserved for banks - indeed, I'm not sure that it is even sensible to support banks that way - it can work for industry and it is only by producing something that we will get out of this mess.
The public sector is the key to our future. We have to cut out the unproductive chunks and divert the cash we spend into producing something. There is talk of cutting defence spending - how ridiculous is that? It is the right time to actually increase defence spending - but only if you spend the money buying things made in Britain. Get those aircraft carriers going - but not with French contractors. Get new trucks and patrol vehicles for our soldiers - but not German or South African ones. Get new aeroplanes (ones we actually need rather than expensive and largely useless Eurofighters) and transports for the RAF, but find a way to build them here.
The public sector has to move from being unproductive to productive. The government has to cut the current public sector by a half and divert the money - plus more - into nationalised industries with a longer term aim of selling those industries back to the private sector once we are through this mess (but with a provision that those industries remain British owned and located in Britain.
Production is and always has been key to economic survival. The USA will recover quicker than us because it makes things still. Germany, France and Italy will survive better because they make things still. A nation that makes nothing is worth nothing.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Them and us
The public sector can look forward to "inflation busting" pay increases while the private sector struggles.
NHS staff, police officers and teachers were all told yesterday that their awards will be met in full - on the day the Retail Prices Index, which is used to set pay rises, fell to zero for the first time in 49 years.
Nice for them - not so nice for those of us in the private sector whose pockets are being picked to service these arrangements. Still, no one minds teachers, coppers and nurses getting more money, do they?
Meanwhile, senior civil servants earning up to £200,000 a year are pressing for a 3 per cent increase in the pay pot used to boost their salaries.
Officials from their union, the First Division Association, claim the boost is needed for around 4,000 Whitehall staff on at least £60,000 because their pay lags behind equivalent posts in the private sector.
Fine - go and get a job in the private sector, then. Oh, there aren't any. Nor do you get the security, fat pension and the opportunity to retire at 60 either.
John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: 'The public sector is at present an entirely recession-free zone.
Recession free? Hey, it's still boom time at the public sector trough - it's just a question of how many more people can stuff their snouts in it before the private sector is sucked completely dry.
Last week, official figures showed that 30,000 jobs were created in the public sector last year, while 105,000 were lost in the private sector.
Not too long at that rate. Enjoy it while you can, public sector piggies - the revolution is coming.
NHS staff, police officers and teachers were all told yesterday that their awards will be met in full - on the day the Retail Prices Index, which is used to set pay rises, fell to zero for the first time in 49 years.
Nice for them - not so nice for those of us in the private sector whose pockets are being picked to service these arrangements. Still, no one minds teachers, coppers and nurses getting more money, do they?
Meanwhile, senior civil servants earning up to £200,000 a year are pressing for a 3 per cent increase in the pay pot used to boost their salaries.
Officials from their union, the First Division Association, claim the boost is needed for around 4,000 Whitehall staff on at least £60,000 because their pay lags behind equivalent posts in the private sector.
Fine - go and get a job in the private sector, then. Oh, there aren't any. Nor do you get the security, fat pension and the opportunity to retire at 60 either.
John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: 'The public sector is at present an entirely recession-free zone.
Recession free? Hey, it's still boom time at the public sector trough - it's just a question of how many more people can stuff their snouts in it before the private sector is sucked completely dry.
Last week, official figures showed that 30,000 jobs were created in the public sector last year, while 105,000 were lost in the private sector.
Not too long at that rate. Enjoy it while you can, public sector piggies - the revolution is coming.
Tip of the iceberg
I doubt whether there are very many people on this earth who truly recognise the sheer scale of the economic crisis that is slowly unfolding before us - I know I don't. I have my suspicions, of course and those suspicions are being enforced on a virtual daily basis.
There are some people, obviously, in each national government who have an inkling of just how bad it could be based on what they know about the state of our economy - and they know far more than they are letting on to you and I. One of those would be the governor of the Bank Of England.
In a highly unusual intervention, the Bank’s Governor, Mervyn King, said that the Government must be “cautious” as Britain faces “very large fiscal deficits”.
This is a civil servants way of saying "we're up the creek without a paddle and there is one bloody great waterfall coming up". The Telegraph says that this is likely to "anger" the PM as he tries to get other nations to put up some cash in the "the biggest financial stimulus the world has ever seen". Actually, I think we've already done that - and it hasn't worked.
Mr King’s warning undermines not only Mr Brown’s plans but also the foundations of the G20 summit that the Prime Minister is hosting in London next week, since the meeting is broadly regarded as a platform for world leaders to agree to spend extra billions on averting a global depression.
Seeing as those "foundations" were built on rapidly shifting sands, it wouldn't take much to undermine them. Spending billions - or even trillions - won't help because the solution to debt is never more debt.
It is rare for any leading public official — let alone the Governor of the Bank of England — to deliver such a public warning over the country’s finances in the run-up to the Budget. However, appearing before the Treasury select committee yesterday, Mr King gave warning of the dangers of borrowing any more.
“I’m sure the Government will want to be cautious in this respect,” Mr King said. “There is no doubt we are facing very large fiscal deficits over the next two to three years"
Two to three years? Make that two to three decades and you'll be a bit closer to the truth.
“Given how big those deficits are ...."
And they are very large, but the government is keeping quiet about just how bad the situation really is.
"..... I think it would be sensible to be cautious about going further in using discretionary measures to expand the size of those deficits."
For God's sake, stop spending money we haven't got!!!!!
“The level of the fiscal position in the UK is not one that would say: 'Well, why don’t we just engage in another significant round of fiscal expansion?’ ”
In other words - either someone else has to bail us out or we're fucked. Which, of course, is why Brown wants the rest of the world to spend big. For some reason, they don't seem too keen to cripple their own economies just to save Gordon's arse. People can by fickle.
Make no mistake, if the governor of the Bank Of England is saying these things then the situation is far, far worse than the government are letting on. Civil servants like this just don't do this sort of thing unless things are very dire indeed.
And they are. All we have seen so far is the merest tip of the iceberg. There is a whole lot more to be revealed yet.
There are some people, obviously, in each national government who have an inkling of just how bad it could be based on what they know about the state of our economy - and they know far more than they are letting on to you and I. One of those would be the governor of the Bank Of England.
In a highly unusual intervention, the Bank’s Governor, Mervyn King, said that the Government must be “cautious” as Britain faces “very large fiscal deficits”.
This is a civil servants way of saying "we're up the creek without a paddle and there is one bloody great waterfall coming up". The Telegraph says that this is likely to "anger" the PM as he tries to get other nations to put up some cash in the "the biggest financial stimulus the world has ever seen". Actually, I think we've already done that - and it hasn't worked.
Mr King’s warning undermines not only Mr Brown’s plans but also the foundations of the G20 summit that the Prime Minister is hosting in London next week, since the meeting is broadly regarded as a platform for world leaders to agree to spend extra billions on averting a global depression.
Seeing as those "foundations" were built on rapidly shifting sands, it wouldn't take much to undermine them. Spending billions - or even trillions - won't help because the solution to debt is never more debt.
It is rare for any leading public official — let alone the Governor of the Bank of England — to deliver such a public warning over the country’s finances in the run-up to the Budget. However, appearing before the Treasury select committee yesterday, Mr King gave warning of the dangers of borrowing any more.
“I’m sure the Government will want to be cautious in this respect,” Mr King said. “There is no doubt we are facing very large fiscal deficits over the next two to three years"
Two to three years? Make that two to three decades and you'll be a bit closer to the truth.
“Given how big those deficits are ...."
And they are very large, but the government is keeping quiet about just how bad the situation really is.
"..... I think it would be sensible to be cautious about going further in using discretionary measures to expand the size of those deficits."
For God's sake, stop spending money we haven't got!!!!!
“The level of the fiscal position in the UK is not one that would say: 'Well, why don’t we just engage in another significant round of fiscal expansion?’ ”
In other words - either someone else has to bail us out or we're fucked. Which, of course, is why Brown wants the rest of the world to spend big. For some reason, they don't seem too keen to cripple their own economies just to save Gordon's arse. People can by fickle.
Make no mistake, if the governor of the Bank Of England is saying these things then the situation is far, far worse than the government are letting on. Civil servants like this just don't do this sort of thing unless things are very dire indeed.
And they are. All we have seen so far is the merest tip of the iceberg. There is a whole lot more to be revealed yet.
You can not buck the market
In the post I referenced on Iain Dale's blog yesterday, I left a comment about the fallacy of "capitalism with a conscience" which someone replied to. Their reply was the standard "head in the sand" response and full of holes. Here is what they said.
"Yep, the law of comparative advantage. Excellent isn't it? Country A can use its comparative advantage to get wealthier by making trainers and country B can move on and make higher value added products which it can sell to country A because it is now wealthy enough to buy them. Free trade. Doncha just love it?"
First of all, the "law of comparative advantage" is not a law. It is a theory based on bilateral trading agreements between nations. It assumes that each of the two countries trading have things that the other can either not make at all or can not make at reasonable costs. It works very well when you have something that another country does not - like oil, as the Middle Eastern nations know only too well - but when you don't, it sucks.
Secondly, the author forgets that there is a basic law of markets which is that a market will always work to find a level. In other words, market distortions have to be eradicated and an equilibrium reached. Globalisation creates market distortions - so the market has to adjust to eradicate those distortions.
Using trade tariffs and restrictions we can compensate for that, but without these things in place there is only one way that the market can find a level - production costs. Either theirs has to rise until it balances with ours or ours has to fall to balance with theirs - and it has to balance quickly.
As good an indicator of production costs as any is GDP per capita. In the UK this is around $37000 per person per year. In China it is $6400 per person per year and in India it is $2900 per person per year.
Just as a company producing trainers can not compete against another company with considerably lower production costs, neither can a country. In the absence of trade restriction, the market has to find a balance.
The person who responded to my comment suggested that we move on to selling "higher value added products". They didn't say what these were, but it is either a stupid or an arrogant suggestion. It is stupid because, in a globalised economy, companies will move their production to wherever it is cheapest whatever it is they are making. If costs are broadly similar then there is also some sense in moving your production to wherever the market for your goods is. If the market is also where production costs are considerably cheaper there is absolutely no point whatsoever in retaining a high cost production facility in the west when you can do it cheaper in China and the Chinese are the ones buying what you make!
It is arrogant because it assumes that those emerging economies are too backward to produce those "higher value added products" - it is saying, "don't worry, we're just go on to making stuff they can't". Who says they can't? Nations like China and India are churning out hundreds of thousands of high calibre graduates every year - with degrees in technical skills - and they all get jobs. Here, meanwhile, the relatively few graduates we produce struggle to find enough graduate placements for their skills. We have the most highly educated bar staff in the world, but something tells me that isn't going to be enough to base our economy on.
The technology gap closes very quickly - particularly when those emerging economies have become industrial giants in their own right - and you can not buck the markets. Recessions happen when a market becomes distorted and has to correct itself. Depressions happen when this happens on a global scale and the market distortion is even more marked. The market correction we are seeing now is as a result of the disparity between the per capita wealth of the emerging economies and our own - the market has to find a level.
This can not be stopped by pumping money (which you don't have) into an economy that produces nothing the world wants in the global market or that it can not produce itself for less. It can only be stopped by employing mechanisms to compensate for the market distortions and that - whether you like it or not - means protectionism.
"Yep, the law of comparative advantage. Excellent isn't it? Country A can use its comparative advantage to get wealthier by making trainers and country B can move on and make higher value added products which it can sell to country A because it is now wealthy enough to buy them. Free trade. Doncha just love it?"
First of all, the "law of comparative advantage" is not a law. It is a theory based on bilateral trading agreements between nations. It assumes that each of the two countries trading have things that the other can either not make at all or can not make at reasonable costs. It works very well when you have something that another country does not - like oil, as the Middle Eastern nations know only too well - but when you don't, it sucks.
Secondly, the author forgets that there is a basic law of markets which is that a market will always work to find a level. In other words, market distortions have to be eradicated and an equilibrium reached. Globalisation creates market distortions - so the market has to adjust to eradicate those distortions.
Using trade tariffs and restrictions we can compensate for that, but without these things in place there is only one way that the market can find a level - production costs. Either theirs has to rise until it balances with ours or ours has to fall to balance with theirs - and it has to balance quickly.
As good an indicator of production costs as any is GDP per capita. In the UK this is around $37000 per person per year. In China it is $6400 per person per year and in India it is $2900 per person per year.
Just as a company producing trainers can not compete against another company with considerably lower production costs, neither can a country. In the absence of trade restriction, the market has to find a balance.
The person who responded to my comment suggested that we move on to selling "higher value added products". They didn't say what these were, but it is either a stupid or an arrogant suggestion. It is stupid because, in a globalised economy, companies will move their production to wherever it is cheapest whatever it is they are making. If costs are broadly similar then there is also some sense in moving your production to wherever the market for your goods is. If the market is also where production costs are considerably cheaper there is absolutely no point whatsoever in retaining a high cost production facility in the west when you can do it cheaper in China and the Chinese are the ones buying what you make!
It is arrogant because it assumes that those emerging economies are too backward to produce those "higher value added products" - it is saying, "don't worry, we're just go on to making stuff they can't". Who says they can't? Nations like China and India are churning out hundreds of thousands of high calibre graduates every year - with degrees in technical skills - and they all get jobs. Here, meanwhile, the relatively few graduates we produce struggle to find enough graduate placements for their skills. We have the most highly educated bar staff in the world, but something tells me that isn't going to be enough to base our economy on.
The technology gap closes very quickly - particularly when those emerging economies have become industrial giants in their own right - and you can not buck the markets. Recessions happen when a market becomes distorted and has to correct itself. Depressions happen when this happens on a global scale and the market distortion is even more marked. The market correction we are seeing now is as a result of the disparity between the per capita wealth of the emerging economies and our own - the market has to find a level.
This can not be stopped by pumping money (which you don't have) into an economy that produces nothing the world wants in the global market or that it can not produce itself for less. It can only be stopped by employing mechanisms to compensate for the market distortions and that - whether you like it or not - means protectionism.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Conscience, my arse!
Iain Dale supports Cameron's call for "capitalism with a conscience" over on his blog.
To be honest, I've not read either the Cameron speech or the blog entry, but the mere post title drives me into one of my rants. Capitalism with a conscience? It doesn't fucking exist, sunshine.
Capitalism is NOT nor has it ever been a political ideology. It is an economic system based on supply and demand, managed within markets and which performs best with light regulation. It is an economic system which is widely used by liberal western democracies, oppressive dictatorial regimes and totalitarian governments regardless of political ideology. Stop confusing capitalism with conservatism or any other political ideology - it isn't one and it sure has hell doesn't have a conscience!
This is how it works. Country A has an industry making trainers. It has a dozen or so companies all competing for business in country A and as they all have to comply with the same employment laws and regulations the production costs of their products are all within a few pounds of each other - say £30 - and a retail of around £40.
Country B has an industry making trainers, but few employment laws, a low wage economy and no qualms about either using child labour or making them work 80 hours a week. They have a dozen or so companies making trainers and as they all work within the same regulation the costs are within a few pence of each other - say £3 - retailing at £4.
For years and years country A refuses to allow country B to flog their trainers in country A and both nations have decent industries. Then along comes "free trade" and fuckwits like Cameron.
Country A removes trade barriers and cheap imports from country B start flooding in. Instead of selling them for just a quid profit they can now sell them at a £20 profit. Country B's training shoe industry thrives - country A's dies.
Country B now has a hundred companies making cheap trainers, still has bugger all employment law and still doesn't give a toss that 8 year olds are working 80 hours a week for tuppence an hour because it is earning shed loads of money from flogging trainers to stupid western nations. Capitalism doesn't have a conscience - it really is beggar thy neighbour if you let it. In fact, that is the whole fucking point of capitalism! When was the last time a BMW dealer suggested you check out the local Audi dealership instead of buying one of their motors?
That's capitalism for you. The whole point is to get an advantage over your competitors - whether that is in business or as a nation. It's great as long as you keep it inside your borders, but once you start trying make it work globally it really fucks your economy up big time - as we're discovering.
If we want a conscience with anything it is with our government - a conscience that demands that they govern according to the needs of their own people rather than anybody elses. Yes, that means British jobs for British workers and protectionism - because that means we stop importing dirt cheap products from foreign countries where they don't give a toss about employment law, child labour, human rights and oppressive government.
Anyone think Cameron is prepared to do it?
To be honest, I've not read either the Cameron speech or the blog entry, but the mere post title drives me into one of my rants. Capitalism with a conscience? It doesn't fucking exist, sunshine.
Capitalism is NOT nor has it ever been a political ideology. It is an economic system based on supply and demand, managed within markets and which performs best with light regulation. It is an economic system which is widely used by liberal western democracies, oppressive dictatorial regimes and totalitarian governments regardless of political ideology. Stop confusing capitalism with conservatism or any other political ideology - it isn't one and it sure has hell doesn't have a conscience!
This is how it works. Country A has an industry making trainers. It has a dozen or so companies all competing for business in country A and as they all have to comply with the same employment laws and regulations the production costs of their products are all within a few pounds of each other - say £30 - and a retail of around £40.
Country B has an industry making trainers, but few employment laws, a low wage economy and no qualms about either using child labour or making them work 80 hours a week. They have a dozen or so companies making trainers and as they all work within the same regulation the costs are within a few pence of each other - say £3 - retailing at £4.
For years and years country A refuses to allow country B to flog their trainers in country A and both nations have decent industries. Then along comes "free trade" and fuckwits like Cameron.
Country A removes trade barriers and cheap imports from country B start flooding in. Instead of selling them for just a quid profit they can now sell them at a £20 profit. Country B's training shoe industry thrives - country A's dies.
Country B now has a hundred companies making cheap trainers, still has bugger all employment law and still doesn't give a toss that 8 year olds are working 80 hours a week for tuppence an hour because it is earning shed loads of money from flogging trainers to stupid western nations. Capitalism doesn't have a conscience - it really is beggar thy neighbour if you let it. In fact, that is the whole fucking point of capitalism! When was the last time a BMW dealer suggested you check out the local Audi dealership instead of buying one of their motors?
That's capitalism for you. The whole point is to get an advantage over your competitors - whether that is in business or as a nation. It's great as long as you keep it inside your borders, but once you start trying make it work globally it really fucks your economy up big time - as we're discovering.
If we want a conscience with anything it is with our government - a conscience that demands that they govern according to the needs of their own people rather than anybody elses. Yes, that means British jobs for British workers and protectionism - because that means we stop importing dirt cheap products from foreign countries where they don't give a toss about employment law, child labour, human rights and oppressive government.
Anyone think Cameron is prepared to do it?
Why didn't I think of that?
This is a brilliant idea. A garage that disappears into the ground. My only concern is that a "Cardok ‘mono’ lift with a flowerbed or water feature on top costs £42,000 plus VAT - plus the installation charge which varies according to ground conditions." while a "lift robust enough for another car to be parked on top and lifted up costs £48,000 plus VAT and installation".
It's not the price that bothers me, it's the fact that Joe Bloggs the plumber might come along to fix your boiler one day and park on the Cardok that isn't robust to support its weight. It won't be much fun to face a £1000 bill for a new boiler and then find a Transit van has nosedived onto your Porsche.
Explain that one to your insurance company.
It's not the price that bothers me, it's the fact that Joe Bloggs the plumber might come along to fix your boiler one day and park on the Cardok that isn't robust to support its weight. It won't be much fun to face a £1000 bill for a new boiler and then find a Transit van has nosedived onto your Porsche.
Explain that one to your insurance company.
At last! Someone in the media "gets" it!
And I'm delighted to see it's someone as respected as Niall Ferguson.
Suppose that a government can have any two of the following things, but not all three: globalisation, in the sense of openness to international flows of goods, services, capital and labour; social stability; and a small state. Or, to put it differently, conservatives can pick any two from an open economy, a stable society and political power – but not all three.
Ferguson points out - as I've been saying - that globalisation always leads eventually to a major collapse of the economic system. He claims it is every 50 years - personally I believe it is much quicker than that. Globalisation in its current form has only been happening for the last 15-20 years and that was the case before the previous global depression and the one before that (and both previous periods of globalisation were preceded by the emergence of a new communications technology that allowed for globalisation). But I'm not going to argue the specifics with Ferguson - the point is that he confirms my own thinking that globalisation ALWAYS ends in a major economic crisis. But I'm a nobody and Ferguson is a respected economic historian - so I'm just glad that my view is not completely off the wall.
Ferguson also goes on to confirm my own belief that globalisation is often seen as an instrument of conservatism, where as I believe that it is actually an instrument of socialism. After all, what is globalisation if not a redistributive system for wealth? Wealth flows out of the established economies to the developing economies as manufacturing and industry is relocated to those countries where labour is cheap and plentiful. The established economies maintain an appearance of affluence by resorting to huge amounts of credit and the credit bubble begins. Eventually this credit bubble gets too big, the whole thing goes "pop" and depression strikes.
As Ferguson also points out, when the major economic crisis does strike, socialists immediately turn to their preferred Keynesian economic model based on big government and regulation to stem the collapse of globalisation - and it always fails. So globalisation is not conservative.
I'd even argue that it is not "capitalist" even though it has the appearance of it. Ferguson points out that globalisation creates market "distortions" which are the very antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism will only work successfully if the market in which it operates is either totally free or totally even.
This is why it works so well within a national context where a government can assure an even playing field for all competitors, prevent anyone gaining an unfair advantage through lower labour costs or lighter regulation and protect against the emergence of monopolies. As soon as you take capitalism out of the national context you lose those capabilities - the markets are distorted and, eventually, the system fails as the markets try to "even" themselves out.
Given that we've never had a "free market" in the modern era (the last 1000 years or so) that means that either workers in Indonesia, for example, gain the same rights, pay levels and protection that we in the west do - or vice versa. Do you really want to earn a dollar an hour for a 60 hour week?
OK, OK - having said all that and despite the fact that I'm delighted that someone as respected as Ferguson both agrees with me and has come out and said it, the truth is that Ferguson argues that rather than give up on globalisation we should sacrifice social stability. I understand what he is saying, but I would argue that it is actually the worst option.
You see, Ferguson suggests that social change is relatively pain free - and it can be if framed within a national context and perpetuated through social mobility (as he suggests), but with globalisation you don't have that national context and, once again, you don't have the capacity as a nation to manage it. All the social mobility is taking place elsewhere - in China and India - but this impacts here through unrestricted immigration, job losses, fractured communities and, as Ferguson notes, social instability. The eventual result of that - as it was in the thirties - is social instability on a global scale and that leads, eventually, to global conflict.
Ferguson is right that you can have any two from globalisation, social stability and a small state - but he is wrong to suggest that social stability is the one we have to sacrifice. Actually, I don't even totally agree that you can have globalisation and a small state because the global regulatory burden will impose conditions on national government - just as our membership of the EU has contributed to the state growth by imposing directives which require implementation at national level.
Globalisation is not conservative because it leads to social instability and a big state. It is not capitalist because it distorts markets and creates monopolies. It is not democratic as it leads to corporatism and takes power away from the electorate. Apart from all that, it is downright dangerous as it leads to economic meltdown and global conflict.
I don't want it and I have no idea why anyone does.
Suppose that a government can have any two of the following things, but not all three: globalisation, in the sense of openness to international flows of goods, services, capital and labour; social stability; and a small state. Or, to put it differently, conservatives can pick any two from an open economy, a stable society and political power – but not all three.
Ferguson points out - as I've been saying - that globalisation always leads eventually to a major collapse of the economic system. He claims it is every 50 years - personally I believe it is much quicker than that. Globalisation in its current form has only been happening for the last 15-20 years and that was the case before the previous global depression and the one before that (and both previous periods of globalisation were preceded by the emergence of a new communications technology that allowed for globalisation). But I'm not going to argue the specifics with Ferguson - the point is that he confirms my own thinking that globalisation ALWAYS ends in a major economic crisis. But I'm a nobody and Ferguson is a respected economic historian - so I'm just glad that my view is not completely off the wall.
Ferguson also goes on to confirm my own belief that globalisation is often seen as an instrument of conservatism, where as I believe that it is actually an instrument of socialism. After all, what is globalisation if not a redistributive system for wealth? Wealth flows out of the established economies to the developing economies as manufacturing and industry is relocated to those countries where labour is cheap and plentiful. The established economies maintain an appearance of affluence by resorting to huge amounts of credit and the credit bubble begins. Eventually this credit bubble gets too big, the whole thing goes "pop" and depression strikes.
As Ferguson also points out, when the major economic crisis does strike, socialists immediately turn to their preferred Keynesian economic model based on big government and regulation to stem the collapse of globalisation - and it always fails. So globalisation is not conservative.
I'd even argue that it is not "capitalist" even though it has the appearance of it. Ferguson points out that globalisation creates market "distortions" which are the very antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism will only work successfully if the market in which it operates is either totally free or totally even.
This is why it works so well within a national context where a government can assure an even playing field for all competitors, prevent anyone gaining an unfair advantage through lower labour costs or lighter regulation and protect against the emergence of monopolies. As soon as you take capitalism out of the national context you lose those capabilities - the markets are distorted and, eventually, the system fails as the markets try to "even" themselves out.
Given that we've never had a "free market" in the modern era (the last 1000 years or so) that means that either workers in Indonesia, for example, gain the same rights, pay levels and protection that we in the west do - or vice versa. Do you really want to earn a dollar an hour for a 60 hour week?
OK, OK - having said all that and despite the fact that I'm delighted that someone as respected as Ferguson both agrees with me and has come out and said it, the truth is that Ferguson argues that rather than give up on globalisation we should sacrifice social stability. I understand what he is saying, but I would argue that it is actually the worst option.
You see, Ferguson suggests that social change is relatively pain free - and it can be if framed within a national context and perpetuated through social mobility (as he suggests), but with globalisation you don't have that national context and, once again, you don't have the capacity as a nation to manage it. All the social mobility is taking place elsewhere - in China and India - but this impacts here through unrestricted immigration, job losses, fractured communities and, as Ferguson notes, social instability. The eventual result of that - as it was in the thirties - is social instability on a global scale and that leads, eventually, to global conflict.
Ferguson is right that you can have any two from globalisation, social stability and a small state - but he is wrong to suggest that social stability is the one we have to sacrifice. Actually, I don't even totally agree that you can have globalisation and a small state because the global regulatory burden will impose conditions on national government - just as our membership of the EU has contributed to the state growth by imposing directives which require implementation at national level.
Globalisation is not conservative because it leads to social instability and a big state. It is not capitalist because it distorts markets and creates monopolies. It is not democratic as it leads to corporatism and takes power away from the electorate. Apart from all that, it is downright dangerous as it leads to economic meltdown and global conflict.
I don't want it and I have no idea why anyone does.
Roll out the barrel
In a comment to my previous post, the Fat Bigot (excellent blog, by the way) seems to have a degree of sympathy for the Tory party with regards to not doing anything to upset the public sector. To be honest, he's right and I completely understand that point of view, but my point is that by doing so the Tories are abandoning the very people who actually support them and who they exist to represent.
The public sector has plenty of support and representation in political life. They have the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and various small parties such as the Greens and even the BNP who all openly support big government. They have multiple unions to organise and direct their grievances. They have the bulk of British media supporting their cause and only too willing to offer support and justification for the public sector.
The private sector has nothing and nobody. The large corporations do have leverage - substantial leverage - in so much as they can, if government does something which adversely affects their ability to do business, threaten to move elsewhere, but the vast majority of small businesses, self-employed and private sector employees have nothing.
We are not organised. We don't hold protest marches when government action slashes our pensions. We don't go on strike when they pick our pockets to feed the state machine. We don't picket government buildings when government policy leaves us without jobs - we just bend over the barrel like we're told to.
That is what the Tory party existed for; to provide political representation and a voice to the millions of individuals who make up the private sector. Now they cosy up to the public sector with their mates from Labour and Lib Dems. They go to great lengths to keep the public sector happy while telling us to shut up and get on the bloody barrel.
And they expect us to vote for them?
Bollocks to that. They've abandoned us - we should abandon them.
The public sector has plenty of support and representation in political life. They have the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and various small parties such as the Greens and even the BNP who all openly support big government. They have multiple unions to organise and direct their grievances. They have the bulk of British media supporting their cause and only too willing to offer support and justification for the public sector.
The private sector has nothing and nobody. The large corporations do have leverage - substantial leverage - in so much as they can, if government does something which adversely affects their ability to do business, threaten to move elsewhere, but the vast majority of small businesses, self-employed and private sector employees have nothing.
We are not organised. We don't hold protest marches when government action slashes our pensions. We don't go on strike when they pick our pockets to feed the state machine. We don't picket government buildings when government policy leaves us without jobs - we just bend over the barrel like we're told to.
That is what the Tory party existed for; to provide political representation and a voice to the millions of individuals who make up the private sector. Now they cosy up to the public sector with their mates from Labour and Lib Dems. They go to great lengths to keep the public sector happy while telling us to shut up and get on the bloody barrel.
And they expect us to vote for them?
Bollocks to that. They've abandoned us - we should abandon them.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The public sector needs telling - no kidding!
There's an advert doing the rounds on ITV right now - as with a lot of adverts I can not tell you what it is advertising or for which company (not because it is illegal - I genuinely can not remember) - during which the narrator refers to kids as "drains on resources".
As anyone who has kids will tell you this is a largely accurate description of children. Yes, we love them to bits and we wouldn't want to be without them, but they cost an awful lot of money. Most parents are openly honest about this both to themselves and to their own children, but for some reason we're less likely to be so honest about public sector employees.
To be honest, I don't love public sector employees to bits. If the truth be told they are often pompous, officious jobsworths with an over-inflated self-importance which, more and more these days, is often linked to the most sanctimonious self-righteousness. While we're being truthful, the other fact of the matter is that I, like many other people, could quite easily do without the vast majority of public services which are not actually there to serve the public at all - just niche groups.
And yet, for some reason, when it comes to the massive cost of public sector employees we're supposed to treat these people with kid gloves which we don't even reserve for our own children. In The Telegraph today, Janet Daley reminds us of how the Tories are currently trying to perform a high wire balancing act as they juggle tax revenue with public sector costs and the prospect of having to form the next government.
While Cameron, Osborne and Hague are only too willing to be "straight and honest" with the private individual and private enterprise, they increasingly fudge the issues relating to the single area which, whoever does form the next government is really and truly going to have to get to grips with; public sector spending. The reason for this, as Daley points out, is the worry that if they are "straight and honest" with the public sector then the public sector will behave like children and throw a major tantrum.
Even the usually reliable Daley falls into the trap - calling public sector employees "taxpayers". They aren't taxpayers - they are tax recylcers. The government takes a big fat lump of money from the pockets of private sector employees and businesses then hands it to public sector employees and "businesses" - and they give a small proportion of it back to the government. For the vast majority of public sector employees, the chances are that they will get every bit of what they pay in tax back with their pension - and then some. And who picks up the tab for all this - the private sector.
The Tories are only too happy to be straight and honest with those of us in the private sector. We're the ones bearing the brunt of unemployment, we're the ones whose pay is falling (average earnings in the public sector are now higher than in the private sector) and we're the ones whose hard-earned pensions are being plundered to pay for the pensions of those in the public sector.
We treat the public sector more softly than we treat children. Telling them what a great job they do, how they are so invaluable to society and so on - boosting their esteem in the same way the "all must have prizes" education system does to badly behaved children.
The truth is that the public sector is a massive drain on resources. They aren't using the money well, they mostly aren't doing a great job - most are crap at whatever job they do (and which the private sector could do a lot better, for less) and they mostly are insulated from the economic reality which those of us in the private sector face.
Some one, at some time is going to have to say enough is enough and start getting tough with the public sector. It doesn't need pruning - it needs cutting down, the roots dug out and replanting.
As anyone who has kids will tell you this is a largely accurate description of children. Yes, we love them to bits and we wouldn't want to be without them, but they cost an awful lot of money. Most parents are openly honest about this both to themselves and to their own children, but for some reason we're less likely to be so honest about public sector employees.
To be honest, I don't love public sector employees to bits. If the truth be told they are often pompous, officious jobsworths with an over-inflated self-importance which, more and more these days, is often linked to the most sanctimonious self-righteousness. While we're being truthful, the other fact of the matter is that I, like many other people, could quite easily do without the vast majority of public services which are not actually there to serve the public at all - just niche groups.
And yet, for some reason, when it comes to the massive cost of public sector employees we're supposed to treat these people with kid gloves which we don't even reserve for our own children. In The Telegraph today, Janet Daley reminds us of how the Tories are currently trying to perform a high wire balancing act as they juggle tax revenue with public sector costs and the prospect of having to form the next government.
While Cameron, Osborne and Hague are only too willing to be "straight and honest" with the private individual and private enterprise, they increasingly fudge the issues relating to the single area which, whoever does form the next government is really and truly going to have to get to grips with; public sector spending. The reason for this, as Daley points out, is the worry that if they are "straight and honest" with the public sector then the public sector will behave like children and throw a major tantrum.
Even the usually reliable Daley falls into the trap - calling public sector employees "taxpayers". They aren't taxpayers - they are tax recylcers. The government takes a big fat lump of money from the pockets of private sector employees and businesses then hands it to public sector employees and "businesses" - and they give a small proportion of it back to the government. For the vast majority of public sector employees, the chances are that they will get every bit of what they pay in tax back with their pension - and then some. And who picks up the tab for all this - the private sector.
The Tories are only too happy to be straight and honest with those of us in the private sector. We're the ones bearing the brunt of unemployment, we're the ones whose pay is falling (average earnings in the public sector are now higher than in the private sector) and we're the ones whose hard-earned pensions are being plundered to pay for the pensions of those in the public sector.
We treat the public sector more softly than we treat children. Telling them what a great job they do, how they are so invaluable to society and so on - boosting their esteem in the same way the "all must have prizes" education system does to badly behaved children.
The truth is that the public sector is a massive drain on resources. They aren't using the money well, they mostly aren't doing a great job - most are crap at whatever job they do (and which the private sector could do a lot better, for less) and they mostly are insulated from the economic reality which those of us in the private sector face.
Some one, at some time is going to have to say enough is enough and start getting tough with the public sector. It doesn't need pruning - it needs cutting down, the roots dug out and replanting.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
From hippy to hypocrite
The Met are warning that the upcoming G20 summit will stretch them to the limit as anti-globalists line up to vent their anger at world leaders.
Given that I'm always banging on about globalisation being a bad thing you may be forgiven for thinking I'm on their side - I'm not.
For starters, they are not just anti-globalist - they are usually anti-capitalist as well. I'm not and never have been. For me the capitalist economic model is still the simplest and the best - but within a national context so that you, as a nation, can manage that capitalism for the benefit of your nation. Not that I think it requires that much management - I'm in favour of keeping regulation to a minimum, but I do accept that regulation is necessary and also that capitalism has a natural cycle which includes booms followed by regular, if small, downturns. The management capitalism requires is restricting imports that can distort the local markets and lead to the inevitable spending boom which leads to the inevitable credit boom, followed by the inevitable huge market crash.
Most of the people who will be protesting at the G20 summit will be radical socialists and new age hippys, though. They all moan about "globalisation", but you can bet your ass that there will be plenty of protesters dressed in cheap t-shirts made by 8 year olds in Indonesia, expensive trainers that cost £5 to make in China and bellies filled with booze from Germany and burgers from Brazil. A good number of them will be smoking spliffs which they believe to be filled with the best Thailand has to offer, but was actually grown in a maisonette in Catford. A delicious irony.
I don't like their attitude. I believe the best way to protest against globalisation is to do as much as you can to avoid having anything to do with it. Buy local goods from local producers in local shops. I know that the vast majority of people who go to these demonstrations don't do that - they voice their anger at these events and chuck bricks through the windows of McDonald's then go back to their own little hovels filled with cheap junk from all over the world to binge on a Big Mac, fries and chocolate shake.
They want to be seen as "radical" - but when they get home they're as globalist as the next person - and stinking hypocrites.
Given that I'm always banging on about globalisation being a bad thing you may be forgiven for thinking I'm on their side - I'm not.
For starters, they are not just anti-globalist - they are usually anti-capitalist as well. I'm not and never have been. For me the capitalist economic model is still the simplest and the best - but within a national context so that you, as a nation, can manage that capitalism for the benefit of your nation. Not that I think it requires that much management - I'm in favour of keeping regulation to a minimum, but I do accept that regulation is necessary and also that capitalism has a natural cycle which includes booms followed by regular, if small, downturns. The management capitalism requires is restricting imports that can distort the local markets and lead to the inevitable spending boom which leads to the inevitable credit boom, followed by the inevitable huge market crash.
Most of the people who will be protesting at the G20 summit will be radical socialists and new age hippys, though. They all moan about "globalisation", but you can bet your ass that there will be plenty of protesters dressed in cheap t-shirts made by 8 year olds in Indonesia, expensive trainers that cost £5 to make in China and bellies filled with booze from Germany and burgers from Brazil. A good number of them will be smoking spliffs which they believe to be filled with the best Thailand has to offer, but was actually grown in a maisonette in Catford. A delicious irony.
I don't like their attitude. I believe the best way to protest against globalisation is to do as much as you can to avoid having anything to do with it. Buy local goods from local producers in local shops. I know that the vast majority of people who go to these demonstrations don't do that - they voice their anger at these events and chuck bricks through the windows of McDonald's then go back to their own little hovels filled with cheap junk from all over the world to binge on a Big Mac, fries and chocolate shake.
They want to be seen as "radical" - but when they get home they're as globalist as the next person - and stinking hypocrites.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Victorians versus progressives
Actually, talking about Darwin and the Victorians reminded me of something else I was going to say. I’m sure many of you will have noticed that I have a great deal of admiration for the Victorians and their approach to life, morality and Britain.
I guess progressives would assume that I crave some sort of return to Dickensian times – with the accompanying poverty, squalor and hardship of those times. I don’t – but it’s also true to say that the Dickensian era was during the early part of Victoria’s reign and I, like most, point to the transformation of Britain from those early Dickensian times to the incredibly advanced nation of 60 years later as an indication of just how successful Victorian Britain was.
My basic point is this. I don’t crave the idea of going back to candles, horse drawn Hansom cabs and piles of manure in our streets (do you realise that the car was considered an environmental saviour in its early years?). I don’t crave the substandard heath care, shortened life expectancy and prolific child mortality. I don’t crave the dreadful working conditions, child labour and dangerous working practices of those early Victorian mills and factories.
What I crave is the Victorian idea of marrying technological progress to social conservatism and Christian morality to improve society. The fact is that Britain as a nation and as a people advanced further, faster and more certainly during those years than we did before or since.
The reason for this is simple. Victorian Britain was far from perfect – but guided by conservative beliefs, Christian morality and a strong belief in the British nation the Victorians got more things right than they got wrong while the progressives – guided by their Marxist doctrine, moral equivalence and belief in internationalism get more things wrong than right.
I don't want to live in Victorian times, but I do want to live in a Britain guided by Victorian principles much more than progressive ones.
I guess progressives would assume that I crave some sort of return to Dickensian times – with the accompanying poverty, squalor and hardship of those times. I don’t – but it’s also true to say that the Dickensian era was during the early part of Victoria’s reign and I, like most, point to the transformation of Britain from those early Dickensian times to the incredibly advanced nation of 60 years later as an indication of just how successful Victorian Britain was.
My basic point is this. I don’t crave the idea of going back to candles, horse drawn Hansom cabs and piles of manure in our streets (do you realise that the car was considered an environmental saviour in its early years?). I don’t crave the substandard heath care, shortened life expectancy and prolific child mortality. I don’t crave the dreadful working conditions, child labour and dangerous working practices of those early Victorian mills and factories.
What I crave is the Victorian idea of marrying technological progress to social conservatism and Christian morality to improve society. The fact is that Britain as a nation and as a people advanced further, faster and more certainly during those years than we did before or since.
The reason for this is simple. Victorian Britain was far from perfect – but guided by conservative beliefs, Christian morality and a strong belief in the British nation the Victorians got more things right than they got wrong while the progressives – guided by their Marxist doctrine, moral equivalence and belief in internationalism get more things wrong than right.
I don't want to live in Victorian times, but I do want to live in a Britain guided by Victorian principles much more than progressive ones.
Darwin's dangerous idea?
Over the last few weeks the BBC has been paying homage to Darwin as if he was the only person from the Victorian era who had an impact on the world. He wasn’t – indeed, his idea probably had less real impact than that of many others, but he is, quite probably, the only one whose idea progressives feel they can support.
They feel that way because it gives them a chance to rubbish the thing that they believe holds back their cause; religion - specifically, Christianity.
The trouble is, I don’t believe Darwin’s ideas do rubbish Christianity. If anything, his idea supports the Bible version of creation. It just depends on how you interpret it.
The first thing you have to consider is that The Bible version of creation was written some 3-5000 years before Darwin came along. As very few people even a hundred and fifty years ago had the slightest inkling of the concept of evolution it’s not surprising to find that those who wrote the Bible had even less – and yet they manage to describe it in surprising detail though within the context of the times.
It starts off with the basic idea that God created light. Well, we now think that the universe started with a “Big Bang” – but given the absence of anything for sound to travel through there would not have been a bang – just an awful lot of light. Am I the only one who thinks that for someone to have predicted that 5000 years ago was quite a remarkable achievement?
Perhaps they just got lucky. OK – well, next they say that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Impossible? Of course – if you think of “days” as earthly days. I don’t – instead I believe the “six days” were actually the six major eras which ended with mass extinctions. The seventh day is the modern era which will end with mans extinction – Armageddon. During this “day” God leaves us to our own devices until the time comes when we either blow ourselves to kingdom come or die out naturally.
Again, considering that there is no way that those who wrote the Bible could know about the six major eras and mass extinctions isn’t it natural that they would have put it into a context they understood? And it remains a remarkably accurate overview of the development of the universe and earth.
Still not convinced? Ok – how about the fact that the Bible claims that every living thing came out of the sea – including the birds and insects? We now believe that life did indeed first evolve in the sea and that even the birds and insects evolved from creatures that emerged from the oceans and took some first tentative steps on land for some reason. How did those who wrote the Bible know this?
What about the idea of Adam and Eve being the first man and woman? The Bible doesn’t say they were. Indeed, it clearly says they weren’t. What it does say is that Adam was the first man who God endowed with a “soul” – the first self-conscious, rational thinking human animal. Long before we get to the story of Adam and Eve we hear how God gave man “dominion” over the other creatures – and we know that humans were indeed exploiting animals for their own progression long before the Bible was written. The Bible also tells us that Cain – the surviving son of Adam and Eve – goes out and takes a wife. Where do you think this wife came from if there weren’t any other humans around?
Finally, there is the story of the apple and the “Tree of Knowledge”. You don’t have to be a scientist to work out that the “Tree Of Knowledge” is science. What the Bible is saying is that before we started to use science for advancement of the human race, God “provided” everything we needed – food, shelter and so on. As long as we didn’t use science we would be able to exist quite happily – but by no means as successfully.
As soon as Eve takes a “bite” out of the apple – she starts getting ideas. This is the point at which God says – OK, you don’t need me any more – you’re on your own son. The Bible suggests this was a reproach – but I believe that this was always what God intended. Much like a parent will care for a child, but always intends that that child will, eventually, make their own way in life without their parent.
The Bible gets it right on the “Big Bang”, the six “days” of the major eras ending with mass extinction and life originating in the sea. It also explains how the birth of science – starting with clothing – was the point at which God took a bow and left us to it – he rests on the seventh day and we are living in that day.
Sure, he makes a couple of other appearances to other people – basically to try and keep us on the right path just like any parent would – and when things get real bad he sends his son to remind us of what he is all about, but other than that God lets us pretty much get on with what we want.
Darwin’s dangerous idea? I don’t think he was the first to think of it.
They feel that way because it gives them a chance to rubbish the thing that they believe holds back their cause; religion - specifically, Christianity.
The trouble is, I don’t believe Darwin’s ideas do rubbish Christianity. If anything, his idea supports the Bible version of creation. It just depends on how you interpret it.
The first thing you have to consider is that The Bible version of creation was written some 3-5000 years before Darwin came along. As very few people even a hundred and fifty years ago had the slightest inkling of the concept of evolution it’s not surprising to find that those who wrote the Bible had even less – and yet they manage to describe it in surprising detail though within the context of the times.
It starts off with the basic idea that God created light. Well, we now think that the universe started with a “Big Bang” – but given the absence of anything for sound to travel through there would not have been a bang – just an awful lot of light. Am I the only one who thinks that for someone to have predicted that 5000 years ago was quite a remarkable achievement?
Perhaps they just got lucky. OK – well, next they say that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Impossible? Of course – if you think of “days” as earthly days. I don’t – instead I believe the “six days” were actually the six major eras which ended with mass extinctions. The seventh day is the modern era which will end with mans extinction – Armageddon. During this “day” God leaves us to our own devices until the time comes when we either blow ourselves to kingdom come or die out naturally.
Again, considering that there is no way that those who wrote the Bible could know about the six major eras and mass extinctions isn’t it natural that they would have put it into a context they understood? And it remains a remarkably accurate overview of the development of the universe and earth.
Still not convinced? Ok – how about the fact that the Bible claims that every living thing came out of the sea – including the birds and insects? We now believe that life did indeed first evolve in the sea and that even the birds and insects evolved from creatures that emerged from the oceans and took some first tentative steps on land for some reason. How did those who wrote the Bible know this?
What about the idea of Adam and Eve being the first man and woman? The Bible doesn’t say they were. Indeed, it clearly says they weren’t. What it does say is that Adam was the first man who God endowed with a “soul” – the first self-conscious, rational thinking human animal. Long before we get to the story of Adam and Eve we hear how God gave man “dominion” over the other creatures – and we know that humans were indeed exploiting animals for their own progression long before the Bible was written. The Bible also tells us that Cain – the surviving son of Adam and Eve – goes out and takes a wife. Where do you think this wife came from if there weren’t any other humans around?
Finally, there is the story of the apple and the “Tree of Knowledge”. You don’t have to be a scientist to work out that the “Tree Of Knowledge” is science. What the Bible is saying is that before we started to use science for advancement of the human race, God “provided” everything we needed – food, shelter and so on. As long as we didn’t use science we would be able to exist quite happily – but by no means as successfully.
As soon as Eve takes a “bite” out of the apple – she starts getting ideas. This is the point at which God says – OK, you don’t need me any more – you’re on your own son. The Bible suggests this was a reproach – but I believe that this was always what God intended. Much like a parent will care for a child, but always intends that that child will, eventually, make their own way in life without their parent.
The Bible gets it right on the “Big Bang”, the six “days” of the major eras ending with mass extinction and life originating in the sea. It also explains how the birth of science – starting with clothing – was the point at which God took a bow and left us to it – he rests on the seventh day and we are living in that day.
Sure, he makes a couple of other appearances to other people – basically to try and keep us on the right path just like any parent would – and when things get real bad he sends his son to remind us of what he is all about, but other than that God lets us pretty much get on with what we want.
Darwin’s dangerous idea? I don’t think he was the first to think of it.
File under s for stupid
Melanie McDonagh hits on one of those laws which brings unintended consequences.
[Tom Nicholson] is the former environmental policy officer who is claiming – under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 – that he was dismissed from his job because of his "philosophical belief in climate change".
Those who drew up the wording of that particular law, which outlawed discrimination on the grounds of faith, didn't leave much scope for misunderstanding about what it meant. "Religion and belief," it explained, means "any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief". And that, you would have thought, was that. What nobody took into account was that "philosophical belief" would cover convictions about carbon emissions.
No - or indeed countless other "philosophical beliefs" such as a belief in Nazism or a philosophical belief that child pornography is "art". As a result of this stupid law, drawn up by stupid people we can expect to see all sorts of claims and counter claims - all in the name of equality.
For instance, if someone, a guest house proprietor perhaps, has a philosophical belief that homosexuality is a disgusting and depraved practice and refuses to permit homosexuals to stay in his guest house he could be prosecuted for discriminating against homosexuals. He can, of course, then claim that he is being discriminated against because of his "philosophical beliefs".
As a result we'll find out who trumps who in the "equality" battle. Personally, I wouldn't hold out much hope for the guest house owner - unless he is black, Asian or Moslem - but I wouldn't blame him for trying.
Similarly the BNP can point to their "philosophical beliefs" as justification for any number of policies which others might deem "racist" or "bigoted" - but it's their beliefs and, according to this law, it must be illegal to discriminate against them for having those beliefs.
Like most "equality" laws and "human rights" laws it is a stupid and pointless law which will benefit nobody in the long run except the lawyers who thrive on this sort of thing. Stan's first law of equality states that the more you try to legislate against discrimination the more discrimination you will create - an offshoot of the law of unintended consequences.
[Tom Nicholson] is the former environmental policy officer who is claiming – under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 – that he was dismissed from his job because of his "philosophical belief in climate change".
Those who drew up the wording of that particular law, which outlawed discrimination on the grounds of faith, didn't leave much scope for misunderstanding about what it meant. "Religion and belief," it explained, means "any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief". And that, you would have thought, was that. What nobody took into account was that "philosophical belief" would cover convictions about carbon emissions.
No - or indeed countless other "philosophical beliefs" such as a belief in Nazism or a philosophical belief that child pornography is "art". As a result of this stupid law, drawn up by stupid people we can expect to see all sorts of claims and counter claims - all in the name of equality.
For instance, if someone, a guest house proprietor perhaps, has a philosophical belief that homosexuality is a disgusting and depraved practice and refuses to permit homosexuals to stay in his guest house he could be prosecuted for discriminating against homosexuals. He can, of course, then claim that he is being discriminated against because of his "philosophical beliefs".
As a result we'll find out who trumps who in the "equality" battle. Personally, I wouldn't hold out much hope for the guest house owner - unless he is black, Asian or Moslem - but I wouldn't blame him for trying.
Similarly the BNP can point to their "philosophical beliefs" as justification for any number of policies which others might deem "racist" or "bigoted" - but it's their beliefs and, according to this law, it must be illegal to discriminate against them for having those beliefs.
Like most "equality" laws and "human rights" laws it is a stupid and pointless law which will benefit nobody in the long run except the lawyers who thrive on this sort of thing. Stan's first law of equality states that the more you try to legislate against discrimination the more discrimination you will create - an offshoot of the law of unintended consequences.
Bring back rationing!
Frank Skinner (yes - that Frank Skinner) is having a go at fatties in The Times comment section.
We bullied and nagged smokers, made adverts that said they smelt so awful they were unkissable and finally, with the smoking ban, we literally turned them into shivering outsiders - all because we knew it was for their own good.
Speak for yourself, Frank. I've never bullied anyone and I'm not about to start now. I don't smoke (except for the very occasional and increasingly rare cigar), but never had a problem with those that do. I'm not fat either and I wasn't one of those kids who used to call other kids "fatso" at school. Then again, I'm not a progressive and was brought up by socially conservative parents who taught me that it was wrong to mock others and rude to point and stare.
Actually, Mrs Stan may take exception to me claiming not to be fat. It's true that I've put on a little weight recently and have had to buy some new trousers with a 36" waist - just for comfort, though - but if Skinner really wants to help fatties why doesn't he come up with some practical measure rather than just bullying and nagging? How about bringing back rationing?
There aren't any food shortages (yet), but the hedonistic lifestyle which the progressives have spent 50 years promoting has virtually eradicated the idea of self-restraint. So it we can not be relied upon to restrict our food intake ourselves perhaps the government should do it for us.
I know there are a lot of people who read this blog who, like me, grew up in traditional working class families. They remember the days when the cupboards weren't full of snacks and treats even though we spent a far larger proportion of our income on food than we do today. We relied on our basic three meals a day for our calorific intake - if we were really lucky we'd maybe get a chocolate digestive to dunk in our Ovaltine before bedtime - but remarkably enough we survived quite happily and even had the energy to be outside playing for most of the time when we weren't in school.
So, in the absence of self-restraint, which the progressives were so keen to abolish - why don't they bring back rationing and force people to eat less? Of course I'm joking, but Skinner started it.
We bullied and nagged smokers, made adverts that said they smelt so awful they were unkissable and finally, with the smoking ban, we literally turned them into shivering outsiders - all because we knew it was for their own good.
Speak for yourself, Frank. I've never bullied anyone and I'm not about to start now. I don't smoke (except for the very occasional and increasingly rare cigar), but never had a problem with those that do. I'm not fat either and I wasn't one of those kids who used to call other kids "fatso" at school. Then again, I'm not a progressive and was brought up by socially conservative parents who taught me that it was wrong to mock others and rude to point and stare.
Actually, Mrs Stan may take exception to me claiming not to be fat. It's true that I've put on a little weight recently and have had to buy some new trousers with a 36" waist - just for comfort, though - but if Skinner really wants to help fatties why doesn't he come up with some practical measure rather than just bullying and nagging? How about bringing back rationing?
There aren't any food shortages (yet), but the hedonistic lifestyle which the progressives have spent 50 years promoting has virtually eradicated the idea of self-restraint. So it we can not be relied upon to restrict our food intake ourselves perhaps the government should do it for us.
I know there are a lot of people who read this blog who, like me, grew up in traditional working class families. They remember the days when the cupboards weren't full of snacks and treats even though we spent a far larger proportion of our income on food than we do today. We relied on our basic three meals a day for our calorific intake - if we were really lucky we'd maybe get a chocolate digestive to dunk in our Ovaltine before bedtime - but remarkably enough we survived quite happily and even had the energy to be outside playing for most of the time when we weren't in school.
So, in the absence of self-restraint, which the progressives were so keen to abolish - why don't they bring back rationing and force people to eat less? Of course I'm joking, but Skinner started it.
Play the game
Over on The Times they ponder the fact that Gordon Brown's hopes of saving the world are fading fast.
Gordon Brown’s hopes of leading the world out of recession at next month’s pivotal summit in London were undermined yesterday when European leaders flatly rejected calls for a further massive stimulus package.
I have a certain sympathy with the various EU leaders who are saying that they shouldn't go spending more money until they know whether the last stimulus has worked yet. It won't - but I have a certain sympathy with them. If it's any consolation, any other proposed stimulus from Brown won't work either.
The problem for Brown is that his belief in "interdependency" has left Britain almost wholly dependent on what others do - particularly in the EU. Consequently he knows that if he can't get the other EU nations to spend big to stimulate their economies the outlook for Britain is even more bleak.
You also have to admire the sheer chutzpah of the EU as well - with this.
They will also agree to fight against protectionism. Behind the consensus, though, lie deep fears among smaller countries that larger economies such as France and Germany will prioritise their industries over support for the principles of the EU’s internal market.
They are already agreeing to make up the difference in workers wages who are losing out due to the downturn. If that is not protectionist - what is? The EU is partly designed as a "protectionist" system. This is why we have the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - to protect French farmers and rural communities. There is no other reason. Germany, meanwhile, still (as far as I'm aware) retain laws prohibiting foreign ownership of their key industries - such as car manufacturing.
This is something which so many commentators forget - or choose to ignore - the fact that most countries still retain substantial forms of protectionism. It's just that rather than being simple, transparent protectionist measures such as trade barriers and tariffs, they use hidden structures which - apart from anything else - cost a fortune to implement.
Britain is one of the few countries which doesn't have protectionism - and that is why we have such a dependency on other nations and why we are predicted to suffer in this "recession" more than any other developed nation. Either we learn to "play the game" the way the French, Germans and US do or we pick up our ball and go home. That's the choice we have - until we make that choice we'll always be the losers.
Gordon Brown’s hopes of leading the world out of recession at next month’s pivotal summit in London were undermined yesterday when European leaders flatly rejected calls for a further massive stimulus package.
I have a certain sympathy with the various EU leaders who are saying that they shouldn't go spending more money until they know whether the last stimulus has worked yet. It won't - but I have a certain sympathy with them. If it's any consolation, any other proposed stimulus from Brown won't work either.
The problem for Brown is that his belief in "interdependency" has left Britain almost wholly dependent on what others do - particularly in the EU. Consequently he knows that if he can't get the other EU nations to spend big to stimulate their economies the outlook for Britain is even more bleak.
You also have to admire the sheer chutzpah of the EU as well - with this.
They will also agree to fight against protectionism. Behind the consensus, though, lie deep fears among smaller countries that larger economies such as France and Germany will prioritise their industries over support for the principles of the EU’s internal market.
They are already agreeing to make up the difference in workers wages who are losing out due to the downturn. If that is not protectionist - what is? The EU is partly designed as a "protectionist" system. This is why we have the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - to protect French farmers and rural communities. There is no other reason. Germany, meanwhile, still (as far as I'm aware) retain laws prohibiting foreign ownership of their key industries - such as car manufacturing.
This is something which so many commentators forget - or choose to ignore - the fact that most countries still retain substantial forms of protectionism. It's just that rather than being simple, transparent protectionist measures such as trade barriers and tariffs, they use hidden structures which - apart from anything else - cost a fortune to implement.
Britain is one of the few countries which doesn't have protectionism - and that is why we have such a dependency on other nations and why we are predicted to suffer in this "recession" more than any other developed nation. Either we learn to "play the game" the way the French, Germans and US do or we pick up our ball and go home. That's the choice we have - until we make that choice we'll always be the losers.
Then and now
Anyone as old as me will remember the strife that hit our car makers back in the seventies - just as it is today - but what a difference thirty years has made!
Back in the seventies the car makers were our own and were desperately trying to bring working practices, production techniques and quality control up to the standards of foreign competition - but were thwarted at every turn by militant unions.
The irony of all this was that the union militancy ensured that those car manufacturers would close down and thousands of jobs would be lost, but it was all about "solidarity" back then - one out all out.
If management had dared to suggest that they were going to shut the plant down for 4 months, lay off hundreds of workers or reduce their pay by 10% that would have been it - a long and bitter strike, picketing, secondary picketing and accusations of "scab" would have abounded.
Today, the workers at the foreign car plants that just happen to be located in Britain (for now) accept the decisions of their Japanese masters meekly and compliantly. They have to. They know only too well what will happen if they don't because they remember what happened in the seventies - and even more recently with MG Rover where a perfectly viable and last British major car manufacturer was brought to its knees once more by union intransigence.
Like most sensible people, I want "British jobs for British workers" - but I also want them working for British companies. I only hope that, should this ever actually happen, the unions will behave in much the same way they do for Toyota, Honda and Nissan and not the way they did for Triumph, Austin and Hillman.
Back in the seventies the car makers were our own and were desperately trying to bring working practices, production techniques and quality control up to the standards of foreign competition - but were thwarted at every turn by militant unions.
The irony of all this was that the union militancy ensured that those car manufacturers would close down and thousands of jobs would be lost, but it was all about "solidarity" back then - one out all out.
If management had dared to suggest that they were going to shut the plant down for 4 months, lay off hundreds of workers or reduce their pay by 10% that would have been it - a long and bitter strike, picketing, secondary picketing and accusations of "scab" would have abounded.
Today, the workers at the foreign car plants that just happen to be located in Britain (for now) accept the decisions of their Japanese masters meekly and compliantly. They have to. They know only too well what will happen if they don't because they remember what happened in the seventies - and even more recently with MG Rover where a perfectly viable and last British major car manufacturer was brought to its knees once more by union intransigence.
Like most sensible people, I want "British jobs for British workers" - but I also want them working for British companies. I only hope that, should this ever actually happen, the unions will behave in much the same way they do for Toyota, Honda and Nissan and not the way they did for Triumph, Austin and Hillman.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sex education in Yorkshire
Isn't this what the progressives wanted?
At the same time a report by the East Riding Safeguarding Children Board a year ago disclosed that up to 14 members of staff had inappropriate relationships with pupils aged 11 to 18.
And it seems that having "inappropriate relationships" still isn't enough to get some teachers sacked let alone jailed.
Of those, seven were still teaching, although it was not made clear if they were still at the same school.
Well that's alright then.
Given the fact that progressives seem to think that more and more sex education is the only answer to rising teen pregnancy, abortion and STD rates one wonders whether these teachers are perhaps just a little ahead of the curve in providing extracurricular practical demonstrations of the subject.
Give the progressives a few more years and these teachers won't be getting jailed or sacked - this will just be "homework".
At the same time a report by the East Riding Safeguarding Children Board a year ago disclosed that up to 14 members of staff had inappropriate relationships with pupils aged 11 to 18.
And it seems that having "inappropriate relationships" still isn't enough to get some teachers sacked let alone jailed.
Of those, seven were still teaching, although it was not made clear if they were still at the same school.
Well that's alright then.
Given the fact that progressives seem to think that more and more sex education is the only answer to rising teen pregnancy, abortion and STD rates one wonders whether these teachers are perhaps just a little ahead of the curve in providing extracurricular practical demonstrations of the subject.
Give the progressives a few more years and these teachers won't be getting jailed or sacked - this will just be "homework".
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
A new economic order
Over on The Telegraph, Irwin Stelzer argues that Britain's language, legal system and time zone will ensure that we will "ensure its economic future". I'm not convinced.
First of all, as far as language is concerned it is quite true that English is the language of commerce and has been for some time, but this hasn't stopped thousands of call centre jobs leeching to India and Pakistan. The fact is that the very fact that English is now so widely spoken is the reason why it is no longer necessary to have your headquarters or what have you in England anymore. The other point to bear in mind is that just because English is the language of commerce today is no reason to suppose it will be in, say, fifty years time. It could well be Mandarin Chinese.
Which brings me on to the second point - time zone. Britain benefited from being slap bang in the middle of the two economic global powerhouses; Europe and America. That balance has been shifting for some time now to between the USA and Southeast Asia - notably China. This downturn is going to see that process sped up as China - a country smothered in protectionism - will continue to have economic growth while Europe shrinks rapidly. By the time this crisis is over the transformation will be complete. Our time zone will be of no benefit as we sit on the fringes of the economic powers.
Finally, the legal system. This is a curious one as Britain has been sliding down the table of good countries to do business in for some time now. With Britain part of the EU and the EU hell bent on tougher regulation to restrict business practices the likelihood is that it will become increasingly difficult to do business here. When you also consider that there are several countries with legal systems based on our own - India, Australia and New Zealand for example - who will be much closer to the centre of the new economic order, then why would any business want to come here?
It's actually quite interesting to consider that not only is there an economic shift occurring, but that there has also been a significant change in strategic relationships too. The much vaunted "special relationship" between Britain and the USA is increasingly less so, while Australia continues to build closer ties with the USA. I think that is symptomatic of the future.
Stelzer is pinning his hopes on a status quo which shows no sign of happening. The assumption that Britain is going to be able to benefit from our geographic location, language and legal system is entirely misplaced as - once this is all over - we will be well out on the fringes of what is happening in the global economy.
All the more reason to stop pinning our hopes on "services" which can be provided better, cheaper and more conveniently elsewhere. Bad news for us, but good if you happen to be Antipodean.
First of all, as far as language is concerned it is quite true that English is the language of commerce and has been for some time, but this hasn't stopped thousands of call centre jobs leeching to India and Pakistan. The fact is that the very fact that English is now so widely spoken is the reason why it is no longer necessary to have your headquarters or what have you in England anymore. The other point to bear in mind is that just because English is the language of commerce today is no reason to suppose it will be in, say, fifty years time. It could well be Mandarin Chinese.
Which brings me on to the second point - time zone. Britain benefited from being slap bang in the middle of the two economic global powerhouses; Europe and America. That balance has been shifting for some time now to between the USA and Southeast Asia - notably China. This downturn is going to see that process sped up as China - a country smothered in protectionism - will continue to have economic growth while Europe shrinks rapidly. By the time this crisis is over the transformation will be complete. Our time zone will be of no benefit as we sit on the fringes of the economic powers.
Finally, the legal system. This is a curious one as Britain has been sliding down the table of good countries to do business in for some time now. With Britain part of the EU and the EU hell bent on tougher regulation to restrict business practices the likelihood is that it will become increasingly difficult to do business here. When you also consider that there are several countries with legal systems based on our own - India, Australia and New Zealand for example - who will be much closer to the centre of the new economic order, then why would any business want to come here?
It's actually quite interesting to consider that not only is there an economic shift occurring, but that there has also been a significant change in strategic relationships too. The much vaunted "special relationship" between Britain and the USA is increasingly less so, while Australia continues to build closer ties with the USA. I think that is symptomatic of the future.
Stelzer is pinning his hopes on a status quo which shows no sign of happening. The assumption that Britain is going to be able to benefit from our geographic location, language and legal system is entirely misplaced as - once this is all over - we will be well out on the fringes of what is happening in the global economy.
All the more reason to stop pinning our hopes on "services" which can be provided better, cheaper and more conveniently elsewhere. Bad news for us, but good if you happen to be Antipodean.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Fiiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhttttttttt!!!!!!!!
From The Times by Magnus Linklater.
Drink is the cause of nearly half of all violent incidents; in nearly a million assaults last year, the aggressors were believed to be drunk.
I expect the "cause" behind the violence was actually a disagreement of sorts - and as for the "aggressors believed to be drunk" - believed by whom and by what measure? Regardless of all that, the question remains that if almost half of violent incidents had drink as a factor that means that more than half of violent incidents involved sobriety.
So which is better - drinking or not drinking? Only one way to find out .......
Drink is the cause of nearly half of all violent incidents; in nearly a million assaults last year, the aggressors were believed to be drunk.
I expect the "cause" behind the violence was actually a disagreement of sorts - and as for the "aggressors believed to be drunk" - believed by whom and by what measure? Regardless of all that, the question remains that if almost half of violent incidents had drink as a factor that means that more than half of violent incidents involved sobriety.
So which is better - drinking or not drinking? Only one way to find out .......
Shut the stable door - the horse has gone!
A teensy weensy bit late, methinks.
Particularly when you bear in mind that the banks are currently very loathe to lend money to anyone right now. One also wonders when they are going to do something about the extortionate interest rates that tend to be charged on credit cards. A simple "thou shalt not charge more than 5% above base rate" would be a good start.
I actually have several credit cards, but only really use three of them. I have one which I only use for online purchases - which are very rare as I really do not trust internet security - and another which I use for large payments in stores, car servicing and holidays. The third I use for paying bills in restaurants.
The lowest limit I have - on the card I use for online purchases - is £5500. When I first got the card (more than 15 years ago now) it was £500 and I have never exceeded that amount or requested any increase! In fact, I haven't requested an increase on any credit card since I was about 25 - back in the mid-eighties.
The others I used to use for specific things - like buying petrol - but have in recent years been relegated to sitting in my drawer unused. I stopped using credit cards to buy petrol after several people I knew had their cards "skimmed" in local garages. I know that is just as likely to happen in a restaurant, but as I don't eat out that often, always use the same card and know exactly when and where I used it if anyone does try to skim it I can easily trace it back.
Whenever and wherever possible I use cash. It is quick, easy and convenient and much harder for anyone to take it from you without you knowing. The only problem with that is that cash doesn't go as far as it used to and I don't like carrying large amounts of it so I have to make frequent trips to the cashpoint, but that is much better than finding out a month later that someone has bought a second hand car using your credit card.
The other advantage, of course, is that it is much easier to keep a track of my spending and therefore easier to budget. Cash is great - I thoroughly recommend it.
Particularly when you bear in mind that the banks are currently very loathe to lend money to anyone right now. One also wonders when they are going to do something about the extortionate interest rates that tend to be charged on credit cards. A simple "thou shalt not charge more than 5% above base rate" would be a good start.
I actually have several credit cards, but only really use three of them. I have one which I only use for online purchases - which are very rare as I really do not trust internet security - and another which I use for large payments in stores, car servicing and holidays. The third I use for paying bills in restaurants.
The lowest limit I have - on the card I use for online purchases - is £5500. When I first got the card (more than 15 years ago now) it was £500 and I have never exceeded that amount or requested any increase! In fact, I haven't requested an increase on any credit card since I was about 25 - back in the mid-eighties.
The others I used to use for specific things - like buying petrol - but have in recent years been relegated to sitting in my drawer unused. I stopped using credit cards to buy petrol after several people I knew had their cards "skimmed" in local garages. I know that is just as likely to happen in a restaurant, but as I don't eat out that often, always use the same card and know exactly when and where I used it if anyone does try to skim it I can easily trace it back.
Whenever and wherever possible I use cash. It is quick, easy and convenient and much harder for anyone to take it from you without you knowing. The only problem with that is that cash doesn't go as far as it used to and I don't like carrying large amounts of it so I have to make frequent trips to the cashpoint, but that is much better than finding out a month later that someone has bought a second hand car using your credit card.
The other advantage, of course, is that it is much easier to keep a track of my spending and therefore easier to budget. Cash is great - I thoroughly recommend it.
Freeze the licence fee? No, scrap it!
I suppose Cameron ought to be congratulated for suggesting that the BBC licence fee should be frozen for a year - at least he is trying to think of ways in which the government can help the ordinary person in the street even if it is pathetic.
Better still, why not go all the way and just scrap the licence fee altogether?
I used to be a supporter of the licence fee - and still could be if the BBC would stop being a lefty mouthpiece. When I was growing up the BBC could be relied upon for three things. Good, clean family entertainment; thought provoking, interesting documentaries based on fact and quality drama.
What about balanced reporting I hear you say. Well, what about it? The BBC has never had balanced reporting during its entire history - or if it did it would have been for the briefest of times sometime between the end of World War Two and the start of the swinging sixties - but I never noticed it. The fact is that the BBC news reporting used to be predominantly pro-British. It was, effectively, a propaganda machine during the war years, but even after that it still remained predominantly a pro-British institution.
Such was its Britishness that the main news bulletins when I was young- which used to last between 15 and 20 minutes - consisted almost entirely of home news. The first ten minutes or so would be devoted to reporting on events in Britain, followed by a brief two minute round up of foreign news and the rest filled with sports news.
To see how much this has changed one only has to look at yesterday's lunchtime news. The lead report was about an Austrian child rapist, followed by an in depth report on Denmark's decision to award compensation to women who have developed breast cancer after years working night shifts and a long piece about some judges in Pakistan getting their jobs back. The only news about Britain was a brief mention about a minimum price for alcohol.
As for the rest of the BBC - the idea of "family entertainment" was sacrificed a long time ago on the altar of "yoof culture". Their prime time output is dominated by programming which is either leftist or youth obsessed - or both. Their factual documentaries are almost always based on left wing progressive ideas and designed to promote those ideas only and never to give credence to any alternative theories.
As for quality drama - well, the BBC still manages the odd success, but on the whole it is drivel driven by the same institutional left wing thinking that dominates Auntie these days.
And apart from all that - the BBC carries as much advertising these days as ITV. OK, it is only "advertising" the BBC, but it is still advertising!
If the BBC could return to the kind of institution it once was - and through which it gained its reputation - then I'd be happy to pay the licence fee, but as long as it remains institutionally leftist, youth-obsessed and politically biased I say scrap it.
Better still, why not go all the way and just scrap the licence fee altogether?
I used to be a supporter of the licence fee - and still could be if the BBC would stop being a lefty mouthpiece. When I was growing up the BBC could be relied upon for three things. Good, clean family entertainment; thought provoking, interesting documentaries based on fact and quality drama.
What about balanced reporting I hear you say. Well, what about it? The BBC has never had balanced reporting during its entire history - or if it did it would have been for the briefest of times sometime between the end of World War Two and the start of the swinging sixties - but I never noticed it. The fact is that the BBC news reporting used to be predominantly pro-British. It was, effectively, a propaganda machine during the war years, but even after that it still remained predominantly a pro-British institution.
Such was its Britishness that the main news bulletins when I was young- which used to last between 15 and 20 minutes - consisted almost entirely of home news. The first ten minutes or so would be devoted to reporting on events in Britain, followed by a brief two minute round up of foreign news and the rest filled with sports news.
To see how much this has changed one only has to look at yesterday's lunchtime news. The lead report was about an Austrian child rapist, followed by an in depth report on Denmark's decision to award compensation to women who have developed breast cancer after years working night shifts and a long piece about some judges in Pakistan getting their jobs back. The only news about Britain was a brief mention about a minimum price for alcohol.
As for the rest of the BBC - the idea of "family entertainment" was sacrificed a long time ago on the altar of "yoof culture". Their prime time output is dominated by programming which is either leftist or youth obsessed - or both. Their factual documentaries are almost always based on left wing progressive ideas and designed to promote those ideas only and never to give credence to any alternative theories.
As for quality drama - well, the BBC still manages the odd success, but on the whole it is drivel driven by the same institutional left wing thinking that dominates Auntie these days.
And apart from all that - the BBC carries as much advertising these days as ITV. OK, it is only "advertising" the BBC, but it is still advertising!
If the BBC could return to the kind of institution it once was - and through which it gained its reputation - then I'd be happy to pay the licence fee, but as long as it remains institutionally leftist, youth-obsessed and politically biased I say scrap it.
The thin hi-vis yellow line
The Telegraph wonders whether single beat patrols as re-introduced by the new Met chief is going to be enough to win back public support.
It is rare to see a bobby patrolling alone, yet it used to be unusual to see them on the beat together. It is heartening, then, to learn that London's new police chief, Sir Paul Stephenson, intends to require his officers to patrol as singletons except when it would be patently dangerous to do so. This would double police visibility and make officers more likely to communicate with members of the public instead of with each other.
To be honest, around my way it is rare to see a bobby who isn't in a patrol car. In the last fortnight I can only recall seeing one policewoman not in a car - and she was in a garage buying sweets while her colleague waited on the forecourt in a large Volvo estate with the engine running. We have PCSOs of course and they patrol in pairs as they swoop on the evil wrongdoers of Slough who dare to park adjacent to the cash point for two minutes.
The Telegraph also refers to something I feel strongly about.
There will be arguments, especially from the Police Federation, that the job is more dangerous than it once was; and in some inner-city estates this may well be true, though that owes much to the loss of authority that has come with changes to the way the police act and dress.
The way the police act and dress is vitally important. First off, the way they act towards the general public is often, at best patronising and at worst down right rude and aggressive. But the way they dress is my biggest issue. The purpose of the uniform was to establish authority without appearing threatening to the general public and the reason the police used to wear those strange pointy helmets was to make them visible. It worked - you could spot a policeman in a crowd a mile off and when you met him up close he came across as a reassuring authority figure.
Now they stroll around in peaked caps and wearing luminous hi-vis jerkins which give them all the authority of a motorway maintenance worker. Add on the stab vest and the jumble of equipment hanging around their waist and the first thing that strikes you when you come across a modern policeman is that they are all set for a spot of violence. If the police go around always looking as if they expect violence to erupt at any moment is it any wonder that the general public have a raised fear of crime?
Getting the police back on the streets, getting them back in proper uniforms and behaving properly towards the average citizen would all be good moves, but the single most important thing they could do is reacquaint themselves with the 9 principles of policing as laid down by Peel. They are as relevant today as they have always been.
It is rare to see a bobby patrolling alone, yet it used to be unusual to see them on the beat together. It is heartening, then, to learn that London's new police chief, Sir Paul Stephenson, intends to require his officers to patrol as singletons except when it would be patently dangerous to do so. This would double police visibility and make officers more likely to communicate with members of the public instead of with each other.
To be honest, around my way it is rare to see a bobby who isn't in a patrol car. In the last fortnight I can only recall seeing one policewoman not in a car - and she was in a garage buying sweets while her colleague waited on the forecourt in a large Volvo estate with the engine running. We have PCSOs of course and they patrol in pairs as they swoop on the evil wrongdoers of Slough who dare to park adjacent to the cash point for two minutes.
The Telegraph also refers to something I feel strongly about.
There will be arguments, especially from the Police Federation, that the job is more dangerous than it once was; and in some inner-city estates this may well be true, though that owes much to the loss of authority that has come with changes to the way the police act and dress.
The way the police act and dress is vitally important. First off, the way they act towards the general public is often, at best patronising and at worst down right rude and aggressive. But the way they dress is my biggest issue. The purpose of the uniform was to establish authority without appearing threatening to the general public and the reason the police used to wear those strange pointy helmets was to make them visible. It worked - you could spot a policeman in a crowd a mile off and when you met him up close he came across as a reassuring authority figure.
Now they stroll around in peaked caps and wearing luminous hi-vis jerkins which give them all the authority of a motorway maintenance worker. Add on the stab vest and the jumble of equipment hanging around their waist and the first thing that strikes you when you come across a modern policeman is that they are all set for a spot of violence. If the police go around always looking as if they expect violence to erupt at any moment is it any wonder that the general public have a raised fear of crime?
Getting the police back on the streets, getting them back in proper uniforms and behaving properly towards the average citizen would all be good moves, but the single most important thing they could do is reacquaint themselves with the 9 principles of policing as laid down by Peel. They are as relevant today as they have always been.
Monday, March 16, 2009
A note of optimism
There is no doubt that over the last few months I’ve been predicting a very bleak future for Britain and, indeed, the world. I make no apologies for that.
I seriously do not believe that the vast majority of people in this country have the slightest inkling of the scale of the disaster which is about to engulf us. The relative prosperity we have enjoyed since the end of World War 2 and particularly in the last fifteen years leaves most of us completely unprepared for what is about to happen. There are very few people around today who really understand what real poverty and real deprivation are. In a decades time I expect the vast majority to have more than just an understanding – they will have experienced it first hand.
This all sounds very bleak – and indeed it is – but I’d like to offer a note of optimism to my predictions of doom and gloom. You see, my belief is that the ultimate result of all this will be the emergence of a better nation.
I’m not convinced that Britain will come through it intact. In fact I believe it won’t. I’ve mentioned before that I believe the EU will collapse – well, I also believe that Scotland will cling onto the EU dream longer than England will want to. The resulting schism will see the break up of the Union – although only temporarily. Once the EU does collapse I believe that both the people of Scotland and England will recognise that they have a better future together than apart or as part of any other union.
I also believe it will be the end of progressive liberalism and everything associated with it – cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, welfarism, globalism and so on – and the return of the kind of benign nationalism which once dominated our political thinking and political parties.
I believe we will also see a return of social conservatism and personal responsibility. By that, I mean a rejection of the hedonistic and self-destructive lifestyles which have been more or less promoted over the last 50 years and a return to family values and marriage as the principle institution through which they are established.
I believe we will be a more moral society where self-restraint and moderation are once more considered attributes rather than faults and where immoral behaviours are once more frowned upon and carry a social stigma.
I believe we will become a well mannered and polite society once more where respect is something which is gained by showing respect and consideration to others and not something demanded under threat of violence.
I believe we will become a more self-reliant and self-sufficient nation once more where the majority of what we buy is produced in our own country, is of high quality and can more than hold its own in comparison to foreign produced goods.
I believe we will see the end of modern “environmentalism” and a return to proper environmental protection where we don’t carpet our green and pleasant land with ugly wind turbines and giant housing estates called “eco-towns”. I see a nation where environmentalism starts with looking after our own homes, gardens, streets, villages, towns, cities, farms, woodland, pastures, meadows, rivers, streams, lakes and so on and not about some made-up concern about something over which we have absolutely no control whatsoever.
I believe we will see a return of “aestheticism” – a rejection of modernist things for the sake of modernism. I believe we’ll see a rejection of the brutalist, modern, generic architecture which has blighted our towns and cities and a return to the more subtle and distinctively English styles that complement our landscape rather than dominate it.
I believe all this will happen in the coming fifty years. As a result, I believe the Britain of 2048 will feel more recognisably familiar to someone from 1948 than 2008 with all the benefits that modern life has to offer married to the values, norms and practices of a Britain from a bygone era.
I believe all this because I believe in this nation and its people.
I seriously do not believe that the vast majority of people in this country have the slightest inkling of the scale of the disaster which is about to engulf us. The relative prosperity we have enjoyed since the end of World War 2 and particularly in the last fifteen years leaves most of us completely unprepared for what is about to happen. There are very few people around today who really understand what real poverty and real deprivation are. In a decades time I expect the vast majority to have more than just an understanding – they will have experienced it first hand.
This all sounds very bleak – and indeed it is – but I’d like to offer a note of optimism to my predictions of doom and gloom. You see, my belief is that the ultimate result of all this will be the emergence of a better nation.
I’m not convinced that Britain will come through it intact. In fact I believe it won’t. I’ve mentioned before that I believe the EU will collapse – well, I also believe that Scotland will cling onto the EU dream longer than England will want to. The resulting schism will see the break up of the Union – although only temporarily. Once the EU does collapse I believe that both the people of Scotland and England will recognise that they have a better future together than apart or as part of any other union.
I also believe it will be the end of progressive liberalism and everything associated with it – cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, welfarism, globalism and so on – and the return of the kind of benign nationalism which once dominated our political thinking and political parties.
I believe we will also see a return of social conservatism and personal responsibility. By that, I mean a rejection of the hedonistic and self-destructive lifestyles which have been more or less promoted over the last 50 years and a return to family values and marriage as the principle institution through which they are established.
I believe we will be a more moral society where self-restraint and moderation are once more considered attributes rather than faults and where immoral behaviours are once more frowned upon and carry a social stigma.
I believe we will become a well mannered and polite society once more where respect is something which is gained by showing respect and consideration to others and not something demanded under threat of violence.
I believe we will become a more self-reliant and self-sufficient nation once more where the majority of what we buy is produced in our own country, is of high quality and can more than hold its own in comparison to foreign produced goods.
I believe we will see the end of modern “environmentalism” and a return to proper environmental protection where we don’t carpet our green and pleasant land with ugly wind turbines and giant housing estates called “eco-towns”. I see a nation where environmentalism starts with looking after our own homes, gardens, streets, villages, towns, cities, farms, woodland, pastures, meadows, rivers, streams, lakes and so on and not about some made-up concern about something over which we have absolutely no control whatsoever.
I believe we will see a return of “aestheticism” – a rejection of modernist things for the sake of modernism. I believe we’ll see a rejection of the brutalist, modern, generic architecture which has blighted our towns and cities and a return to the more subtle and distinctively English styles that complement our landscape rather than dominate it.
I believe all this will happen in the coming fifty years. As a result, I believe the Britain of 2048 will feel more recognisably familiar to someone from 1948 than 2008 with all the benefits that modern life has to offer married to the values, norms and practices of a Britain from a bygone era.
I believe all this because I believe in this nation and its people.
Are they thinking what I'm thinking?
Seems they might be at last.
The country is displaying early symptoms of being trapped in a so-called “debt deflation trap” where families find themselves pushed further and further into the red every month, according to a Bank report published today.
As the article points out, there are remarkable parallels with the Great Depression, but - like all the other published articles about this current economic crisis - fails to point out that the motivating factor behind both this current dilemma and that of the Great Depression was the illusion of affluence created by globalisation.
Until this is recognised then there is not the slightest possibility that we can recover from it. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be.
A national economy when managed in a national context is a self-sustaining thing. You have a population with needs and wants - food, power, goods - and a national economy will build up to provide for the needs and wants of its population. This creates agriculture, manufacturing and industry. Supporting that infrastructure will be the service side of the economy - retail, banking, insurance and so on.
It should be recognised that the service side of the economy is nothing more than a supporting structure for the main part of the economy - production - and not a self-sustaining entity of its own, unlike production. This is why it was always a foolish gamble to place so much emphasis on turning Britain into a service led economy and one that was bound to fail.
Not only are nationalised economies self-sustaining, they are self-correcting as well. As long as you keep managing the economy within the national context and maintain a healthy productive sector you will always be able to manage downturns and keep them relatively modest - but as soon as you try to become part of a globalised economy you are heading for a major and spectacular failure and it is this that we are now seeing come to fruition.
Globalised economies can not work for a number of reasons. First there is the disparity between working conditions and wages which creates market distortions which national governments can not manage (whereas, within the national context, they can).
Those market distortions and the lack of national controls on imports means the loss of the productive sector in your own nation and a flood of very cheap imports. At first, this seems like a good thing as we can buy more with less - but as we are seeing it also feeds a consumerist boom.
The consumer led boom leads to the financial services sector seeing the opportunity to make lots of money and that leads to the kind of irresponsible lending which we have seen over the last decade. This irresponsible lending leads to even more debt - personal, corporate and national - and creates a self-inflating bubble which, eventually, goes pop.
Well, that bubble has now popped - as it always does - and the consequences will be dire for most of us. Those countries which will be least affected by this will be those countries that still retain a productive economic sector as the main part of their economy which allows them to manage their economy within a national context.
Those that will do worst will be those countries that have given up their productive sector in the misguided belief that they can be the service capital of the world. Guess which category we fall in to?
Is it any wonder then that Gordon Brown is doing his utmost to ensure that the world does not turn to protectionism. He'll fail - they will. They'll have no choice eventually and many of them - our EU partners included - are already doing so.
As I've said before, the result of this and previous governments (the Tories are just as culpable) misguided economic beliefs which were driven by their equally misguided political beliefs of progressive liberalism will be the ruin of Britain.
The country is displaying early symptoms of being trapped in a so-called “debt deflation trap” where families find themselves pushed further and further into the red every month, according to a Bank report published today.
As the article points out, there are remarkable parallels with the Great Depression, but - like all the other published articles about this current economic crisis - fails to point out that the motivating factor behind both this current dilemma and that of the Great Depression was the illusion of affluence created by globalisation.
Until this is recognised then there is not the slightest possibility that we can recover from it. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be.
A national economy when managed in a national context is a self-sustaining thing. You have a population with needs and wants - food, power, goods - and a national economy will build up to provide for the needs and wants of its population. This creates agriculture, manufacturing and industry. Supporting that infrastructure will be the service side of the economy - retail, banking, insurance and so on.
It should be recognised that the service side of the economy is nothing more than a supporting structure for the main part of the economy - production - and not a self-sustaining entity of its own, unlike production. This is why it was always a foolish gamble to place so much emphasis on turning Britain into a service led economy and one that was bound to fail.
Not only are nationalised economies self-sustaining, they are self-correcting as well. As long as you keep managing the economy within the national context and maintain a healthy productive sector you will always be able to manage downturns and keep them relatively modest - but as soon as you try to become part of a globalised economy you are heading for a major and spectacular failure and it is this that we are now seeing come to fruition.
Globalised economies can not work for a number of reasons. First there is the disparity between working conditions and wages which creates market distortions which national governments can not manage (whereas, within the national context, they can).
Those market distortions and the lack of national controls on imports means the loss of the productive sector in your own nation and a flood of very cheap imports. At first, this seems like a good thing as we can buy more with less - but as we are seeing it also feeds a consumerist boom.
The consumer led boom leads to the financial services sector seeing the opportunity to make lots of money and that leads to the kind of irresponsible lending which we have seen over the last decade. This irresponsible lending leads to even more debt - personal, corporate and national - and creates a self-inflating bubble which, eventually, goes pop.
Well, that bubble has now popped - as it always does - and the consequences will be dire for most of us. Those countries which will be least affected by this will be those countries that still retain a productive economic sector as the main part of their economy which allows them to manage their economy within a national context.
Those that will do worst will be those countries that have given up their productive sector in the misguided belief that they can be the service capital of the world. Guess which category we fall in to?
Is it any wonder then that Gordon Brown is doing his utmost to ensure that the world does not turn to protectionism. He'll fail - they will. They'll have no choice eventually and many of them - our EU partners included - are already doing so.
As I've said before, the result of this and previous governments (the Tories are just as culpable) misguided economic beliefs which were driven by their equally misguided political beliefs of progressive liberalism will be the ruin of Britain.
Faith, hope and charidee
Another year and another Friday evening spent trying to avoid anything remotely related to the annual celebrity hypocrisy fest known as Comic Relief. I understand that this years event raised record amounts which is something the British people can rightly be proud of - but the celebrities involved less so.
I'm one of those people who believe that helping charities is something which should be done quietly and privately. It should be put into context by the fact that the total sum raised on Friday was roughly half that raised by the late Jeremy Beadle alone over his years dedicated to supporting various charities which he did without the fuss and self-aggrandisement that those celebrities wheeled out for Comic Relief like to display.
Add on the blatant hypocrisy of various pop-stars, comedians and other celebs who fly out to some African village to watch some poor kids die of malaria then moan that a £5 mosquito net could save them. For some reason, it never occurs to them, as they and their film crew head back to their five star hotel, that a few grand out of their more than considerable personal wealth would probably provide enough mosquito nets for that village and the dozen or so surrounding villages too.
Sorry if this sounds mean-spirited, but I don't like all this self-publicising "look at what I am doing to help" displays of the modern charitable giving. No doubt in my office there will be various young men and women telling all and sundry how they shaved their heads/waxed their backs or sat in a bath of baked beans for 5 minutes all in the name of charidee. As for the celebs - all they do is give up a few minutes of their time or go on some trip somewhere (who pays for that, by the way?) and they think that is enough.
I don't think it is. They should all take a leaf out of the Jeremy Beadle book of charity support - except that requires real effort and real dedication and doesn't bring anything like as much publicity.
I'm one of those people who believe that helping charities is something which should be done quietly and privately. It should be put into context by the fact that the total sum raised on Friday was roughly half that raised by the late Jeremy Beadle alone over his years dedicated to supporting various charities which he did without the fuss and self-aggrandisement that those celebrities wheeled out for Comic Relief like to display.
Add on the blatant hypocrisy of various pop-stars, comedians and other celebs who fly out to some African village to watch some poor kids die of malaria then moan that a £5 mosquito net could save them. For some reason, it never occurs to them, as they and their film crew head back to their five star hotel, that a few grand out of their more than considerable personal wealth would probably provide enough mosquito nets for that village and the dozen or so surrounding villages too.
Sorry if this sounds mean-spirited, but I don't like all this self-publicising "look at what I am doing to help" displays of the modern charitable giving. No doubt in my office there will be various young men and women telling all and sundry how they shaved their heads/waxed their backs or sat in a bath of baked beans for 5 minutes all in the name of charidee. As for the celebs - all they do is give up a few minutes of their time or go on some trip somewhere (who pays for that, by the way?) and they think that is enough.
I don't think it is. They should all take a leaf out of the Jeremy Beadle book of charity support - except that requires real effort and real dedication and doesn't bring anything like as much publicity.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Blogging frustration
I've started about four or five different posts today - and failed to finish them all! The reason is that I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the stupidity of journalism in Britain today, but I find it hard to put my point across coherently enough and that makes me even more frustrated.
So I'm going to take a bit of a break from blogging for a week or two.
What I find most frustrating is the lack of understanding from both our journalists and politicians of some simple facts regarding what they call protectionism. The truth is that cheap imports and unrestricted immigration might seem OK while we're in a boom, but the reality is that it is only possible while we all have jobs and income.
The thinking over the last 10-20 years has been that we can lose all these jobs that we used to have in manufacturing and make up for it by investing in high technology and services. Services are a dead loss - especially as they are often the easier to move to cheaper foreign countries than manufacturing is. That's why all the call centres have been moving to Bangalore and Islamabad over the last 10 years - and it's just as easy to move financial services as it is call centres (especially when the politicians start trying to regulate it!)
High technology is a great idea - but what drives high technology? Manu-bloody-facturing of course! The reason Britain used to be at the forefront of technology back in Victorian times is that we were making all sorts of things - and necessity is the mother of invention.
The idea that you can just develop high technology skills when you're not making anything that requires high technology is just daft. If we had a manufacturing base worthy of the name - making cars, ships, aircraft, electronics and so on - it might be worth while, but as we aren't what are we going to use this high technology for.
Sure the government can pour billions into researching nano-technology or what have you, but unless there is a manufacturing process which will benefit from it and which will give us a competitive edge over the rest of the world then what is the point? All that will happen is that some company in China will benefit from it - not us.
Protectionism is necessary because of some simple truths. We need to have jobs to earn income to buy goods. Those jobs have to come from somewhere, but if more and more cheap imports are allowed in then it becomes increasingly hard to maintain those jobs. If more and more immigrants are allowed in it becomes increasingly hard to win one of those jobs that are available.
Unless we take action now to protect ourselves and start building a proper manufacturing base again, we're going to see a resurgence of two things in Britain over the next 5-10 years.
Deprivation and poverty.
So I'm going to take a bit of a break from blogging for a week or two.
What I find most frustrating is the lack of understanding from both our journalists and politicians of some simple facts regarding what they call protectionism. The truth is that cheap imports and unrestricted immigration might seem OK while we're in a boom, but the reality is that it is only possible while we all have jobs and income.
The thinking over the last 10-20 years has been that we can lose all these jobs that we used to have in manufacturing and make up for it by investing in high technology and services. Services are a dead loss - especially as they are often the easier to move to cheaper foreign countries than manufacturing is. That's why all the call centres have been moving to Bangalore and Islamabad over the last 10 years - and it's just as easy to move financial services as it is call centres (especially when the politicians start trying to regulate it!)
High technology is a great idea - but what drives high technology? Manu-bloody-facturing of course! The reason Britain used to be at the forefront of technology back in Victorian times is that we were making all sorts of things - and necessity is the mother of invention.
The idea that you can just develop high technology skills when you're not making anything that requires high technology is just daft. If we had a manufacturing base worthy of the name - making cars, ships, aircraft, electronics and so on - it might be worth while, but as we aren't what are we going to use this high technology for.
Sure the government can pour billions into researching nano-technology or what have you, but unless there is a manufacturing process which will benefit from it and which will give us a competitive edge over the rest of the world then what is the point? All that will happen is that some company in China will benefit from it - not us.
Protectionism is necessary because of some simple truths. We need to have jobs to earn income to buy goods. Those jobs have to come from somewhere, but if more and more cheap imports are allowed in then it becomes increasingly hard to maintain those jobs. If more and more immigrants are allowed in it becomes increasingly hard to win one of those jobs that are available.
Unless we take action now to protect ourselves and start building a proper manufacturing base again, we're going to see a resurgence of two things in Britain over the next 5-10 years.
Deprivation and poverty.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Useless interviews
Watching the Andrew Marr show and a dreadful interview with Peter Mandelson by the host. Mandelson keeps talking about improving the international regulation of the banks and Marr can't or won't ask the obvious questions.
Who manages this regulation?
Who formulates this regulation?
Who implements this regulation?
To whom are they accountable?
Who votes for them?
I find it incredible that these people just assume that some sort of international regulatory system is either possible or desirable within a democratic system. It isn't - it's not even compatible with it, but they just don't ask the questions!
All Marr is interested in is asking stupid questions about saying sorry and custard.
Who manages this regulation?
Who formulates this regulation?
Who implements this regulation?
To whom are they accountable?
Who votes for them?
I find it incredible that these people just assume that some sort of international regulatory system is either possible or desirable within a democratic system. It isn't - it's not even compatible with it, but they just don't ask the questions!
All Marr is interested in is asking stupid questions about saying sorry and custard.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Globalisation IS inherently unstable
I'm no fan of Eric Hobsbawm, the communist apologist and sometime historian, but I have even less time for those who have no knowledge, or worse, interest in history. Over on The Times comment section, Martin Ivens has a go at Hobsbawm for having a go at globalisation.
Hobsbawm got a hearing on Radio 4’s Today programme to feast on our current woes, saying: “Globalisation, which is implicit in capitalism, not only destroys heritage and tradition but is incredibly unstable.” Forgive me for thinking that globalisation and the market has dragged hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, India and the developing world.
Hobsbawm is wrong about globalisation being implicit in capitalism. It only becomes implicit in capitalism when capitalism transcends national governments, which is corporatism and not part of western liberal democracy. For most of the hundreds of years in which there has been capitalism there has been no globalisation. it only flourishes when socialism flourishes combined with a new communications technology.
There have been three instances when this has happened. Once in the late 19th century with the arrival of the telegraph and Marxism. Again in the early 20th century with the telephone and communism. And today following the development of the internet and progressive liberalism. Other than that, capitalism has muddled along quite nicely without any problem other than the odd short recession cycle.
So even though Hobsbawm is wrong about globalisation being implicit in capitalism he is correct that it is inherently unstable. The "hundreds of millions" dragged out of poverty were thus dragged not by globalisation, but by the application of capitalism in those countries. That would have happened with or without globalisation.
What Ivens is missing though is that the depressions which always follow globalisation cause untold misery for millions more. It was the depression of the thirties caused by the globalisation of the twenties which allowed the rise of fascism and Nazism which killed millions in the forties and led to the suffering of countless millions more.
Even without the wars, the poverty that resulted in the USA as a consequence of the depression was worse than probably anything that nation ever encountered before or since. The USA never stopped being capitalist, but it did stop being globalist - and it recovered and flourished as a result.
Ivens cautions that we should not wish a return to the pre-globalisation days of the seventies as if the problems of those times were related in some way to there not being any globalisation. He is, of course, wrong. Most of the problems we had back then were problems which were more or less unique to our country and not experienced in anything like the same way in the rest of Europe and certainly not in the USA.
Most of our problems in the seventies had socialism at their root - belligerent unions and militant officials who refused to accept modernisation and technological advances that were necessary to make us competitive with the rest of the world in what was the early stages of globalisation (driven back then by the earliest stages of internationalism and our membership of the EU).
Ivens thinks times were grim back then - claiming that the governments were "impotent in the face of terrorism, union militancy and economic decline." Does he think they aren't now? Only this time it's not just the British government - it's all of Europe and the USA too. If he thinks things were bad then he is going to be in for one hell of a shock. As they say - you ain't seen nothing yet!
Hobsbawm got a hearing on Radio 4’s Today programme to feast on our current woes, saying: “Globalisation, which is implicit in capitalism, not only destroys heritage and tradition but is incredibly unstable.” Forgive me for thinking that globalisation and the market has dragged hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, India and the developing world.
Hobsbawm is wrong about globalisation being implicit in capitalism. It only becomes implicit in capitalism when capitalism transcends national governments, which is corporatism and not part of western liberal democracy. For most of the hundreds of years in which there has been capitalism there has been no globalisation. it only flourishes when socialism flourishes combined with a new communications technology.
There have been three instances when this has happened. Once in the late 19th century with the arrival of the telegraph and Marxism. Again in the early 20th century with the telephone and communism. And today following the development of the internet and progressive liberalism. Other than that, capitalism has muddled along quite nicely without any problem other than the odd short recession cycle.
So even though Hobsbawm is wrong about globalisation being implicit in capitalism he is correct that it is inherently unstable. The "hundreds of millions" dragged out of poverty were thus dragged not by globalisation, but by the application of capitalism in those countries. That would have happened with or without globalisation.
What Ivens is missing though is that the depressions which always follow globalisation cause untold misery for millions more. It was the depression of the thirties caused by the globalisation of the twenties which allowed the rise of fascism and Nazism which killed millions in the forties and led to the suffering of countless millions more.
Even without the wars, the poverty that resulted in the USA as a consequence of the depression was worse than probably anything that nation ever encountered before or since. The USA never stopped being capitalist, but it did stop being globalist - and it recovered and flourished as a result.
Ivens cautions that we should not wish a return to the pre-globalisation days of the seventies as if the problems of those times were related in some way to there not being any globalisation. He is, of course, wrong. Most of the problems we had back then were problems which were more or less unique to our country and not experienced in anything like the same way in the rest of Europe and certainly not in the USA.
Most of our problems in the seventies had socialism at their root - belligerent unions and militant officials who refused to accept modernisation and technological advances that were necessary to make us competitive with the rest of the world in what was the early stages of globalisation (driven back then by the earliest stages of internationalism and our membership of the EU).
Ivens thinks times were grim back then - claiming that the governments were "impotent in the face of terrorism, union militancy and economic decline." Does he think they aren't now? Only this time it's not just the British government - it's all of Europe and the USA too. If he thinks things were bad then he is going to be in for one hell of a shock. As they say - you ain't seen nothing yet!
Friday, March 06, 2009
Eh?
Mary Riddell in The Telegraph.
Critics wonder whether they can bear another 15 months of Brown. They should ask just how well they would fare without him. Voters will, soon enough, have their say on his fate. But if he had been ousted last year, or Mr Cameron had already been parachuted into No 10, it seems unlikely that a "novice" would have navigated disaster so surely.
Does she mean navigated us into disaster? Because that's where we are headed. Or is she seriously suggesting that Brown has steered us through the worst of this already?
I can't believe that someone as naive or stupid as this woman gets work in journalism.
Critics wonder whether they can bear another 15 months of Brown. They should ask just how well they would fare without him. Voters will, soon enough, have their say on his fate. But if he had been ousted last year, or Mr Cameron had already been parachuted into No 10, it seems unlikely that a "novice" would have navigated disaster so surely.
Does she mean navigated us into disaster? Because that's where we are headed. Or is she seriously suggesting that Brown has steered us through the worst of this already?
I can't believe that someone as naive or stupid as this woman gets work in journalism.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
The crumbling facade
Do you remember the time travel cop show, Life On Mars - and particularly how it ended?
It turned out that Sam was indeed in a coma, eventually recovered from that and returned to the present - only to find that the present wasn't all it was cracked up to be. He pretty soon realised that for all its materialism, 24 hour facilities and shiny glass and concrete superficiality there was little holding the present together.
Instead he preferred the simpler times of the seventies where, as there was fewer distractions for your attention, communities actually tended to bond and were more tight knit. You might only have had a few mates, but they were real mates rather than a thousand far-off acquaintances on some social networking web site who you really didn't know from Adam.
Consequently, Sam made the decision to abandon the shallow modern world and return to the seventies by taking his own life. We're all about to undergo something similar, but we're not going to have to kill ourselves to do it and I don't think it's going to be as much fun as it was for Sam.
The thing is, I believe that multiculturalism and progressive liberalism have severely damaged the fabric of society. The only thing holding the whole mess together for the past 15 years or so has been the consumer boom which has managed to just about patch over the cracks by providing cheap and plentiful distractions from our crumbling social system.
However, this is all about to end and the signs are already showing that the shiny facade of the modern world is starting to crumble. The place where this is most evident is on the high street as more and more shops close and are boarded up. You may also have noticed the dreadful state the roads are in. For years they have been bad as various companies have dug them up, laid their particular cables then filled them in - only for some other company to come along a month later, dig them up, lay their cables then fill them in again - but now they are even worse as the winter has taken its toll.
There will, of course, be a drive to repair them soon - but there won't be enough money to do them all or to do them properly. Similarly this will be repeated in our schools, hospitals and public buildings. In the private sector, repairs and maintenance will get lower priorities as demands to cut costs means money is diverted to priority areas. Gradually, at first, and then in an increasing torrent our infrastructure will crumble and then the whole shiny edifice of progressive liberalism will tumble too.
At the same time, living standards will be on the decline and we will have less money to spend on luxury items. This age of materialism and consumerism is ending and, as it does, we're going to find ourselves looking for other means to satisfy our social urges and leisure pursuits - and we'll look for that in our communities. Unfortunately, those communities are often so fractured that, rather than providing comfort, they will provide confrontation as various disparate groups compete for limited social and leisure facilities.
There are tough times ahead for all of us. Get used to it, because this is going to last years not months - but if we keep our heads and make the right choices we will come out of it a better, more secure and far less superficial society than we are now.
It turned out that Sam was indeed in a coma, eventually recovered from that and returned to the present - only to find that the present wasn't all it was cracked up to be. He pretty soon realised that for all its materialism, 24 hour facilities and shiny glass and concrete superficiality there was little holding the present together.
Instead he preferred the simpler times of the seventies where, as there was fewer distractions for your attention, communities actually tended to bond and were more tight knit. You might only have had a few mates, but they were real mates rather than a thousand far-off acquaintances on some social networking web site who you really didn't know from Adam.
Consequently, Sam made the decision to abandon the shallow modern world and return to the seventies by taking his own life. We're all about to undergo something similar, but we're not going to have to kill ourselves to do it and I don't think it's going to be as much fun as it was for Sam.
The thing is, I believe that multiculturalism and progressive liberalism have severely damaged the fabric of society. The only thing holding the whole mess together for the past 15 years or so has been the consumer boom which has managed to just about patch over the cracks by providing cheap and plentiful distractions from our crumbling social system.
However, this is all about to end and the signs are already showing that the shiny facade of the modern world is starting to crumble. The place where this is most evident is on the high street as more and more shops close and are boarded up. You may also have noticed the dreadful state the roads are in. For years they have been bad as various companies have dug them up, laid their particular cables then filled them in - only for some other company to come along a month later, dig them up, lay their cables then fill them in again - but now they are even worse as the winter has taken its toll.
There will, of course, be a drive to repair them soon - but there won't be enough money to do them all or to do them properly. Similarly this will be repeated in our schools, hospitals and public buildings. In the private sector, repairs and maintenance will get lower priorities as demands to cut costs means money is diverted to priority areas. Gradually, at first, and then in an increasing torrent our infrastructure will crumble and then the whole shiny edifice of progressive liberalism will tumble too.
At the same time, living standards will be on the decline and we will have less money to spend on luxury items. This age of materialism and consumerism is ending and, as it does, we're going to find ourselves looking for other means to satisfy our social urges and leisure pursuits - and we'll look for that in our communities. Unfortunately, those communities are often so fractured that, rather than providing comfort, they will provide confrontation as various disparate groups compete for limited social and leisure facilities.
There are tough times ahead for all of us. Get used to it, because this is going to last years not months - but if we keep our heads and make the right choices we will come out of it a better, more secure and far less superficial society than we are now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)