The BBC is coming in for some criticism following reports that they employed a dozen dog owners to walk up and down a street and encourage their animals to foul the pavement.
It's a stunt to promote a new series about how the public sector cuts affect an ordinary suburban street. In the series, the street residents lose services such as waste collection, street lighting and access to libraries.
To be honest, I have some sympathy with the BBC. My sources tell me that they originally tried just removing the plethora of "services" provided by the council which aren't deemed essential - lesbian outreach workers, climate change oordinators, youth offending teams, street scene directors, health and safety inspectors, safety camera partnerships, asylum seekers support, translation facilities and so on - but it didn't make good TV.
No one noticed these services had gone.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Slaying the beasts
Back in the nineteen seventies, Britain was a country with a strong manufacturing sector that dominated our economy. Unfortunately, we also had very powerful unions and this created serious problems for the various governments of the time. The power of the unions meant that management - particularly the weak management in nationalised industries - were unable to bring in new technology or working practices that would improve productivity and/or quality.
This resulted in that decade being marked by over the top demands for pay rises, shorter hours, longer holidays and frequent, prolonged and very damaging strikes in all sectors of manufacturing/production. The nationalised industries and the power of the unions represented a beast created by Labour policy which the Tories under Thatcher, on coming to power in 1979, were determined to slay.
They had a plan and slay it they did. Unfortunately, in killing the beast of too powerful unions and nationalised industry, they also struck the coup de grace for manufacturing/production. This was not accidental - as I said, the Tories had a plan.
Their plan was to switch Britain from a manufacturing/production led economy to a service based economy - and financial services in particular. It was the perfect solution - a stable, conservative industry, solid and dependable with little or no union ties. A loose monetary policy followed allowing an expansion of easy credit and the de-regulation of the financial services industry. The "Big Bang" of 1986 led to a huge expansion of this industry, the rise of the "yuppie" yelling "buy, buy" into his brick of a mobile phone and the "greed is good" generation.
Pretty soon Britain had moved from a primarily manufacturing based economy to a service based economy - the Labour beast of trade union power was dead and the future looked rosy. Unfortunately, there was a flaw to the plan. A service based economy requires something to service and the market in Britain is very very limited for such services. Take out a huge chunk of that market - in the shape of productive industry - and the service industry will have to look elsewhere for business if it is to expand and meet the demands asked of it.
Never fear - something came along that enabled this expansion. The rise of interconnected computer technology and, in particular, the Internet. This meant that financial transactions could be conducted from anywhere to anywhere. You didn't need to be in Hong Kong to buy a business in Hong Kong. Globalisation was born - again.
The trouble was, it was hard to compete against the massive foreign financial companies in a global market. So British financial industries had to become bigger and more powerful - so they started gobbling up one another and then started to gobble up whatever they could abroad - and, unfortunately for us, it also meant that foreign companies could equally gobble up our companies.
This had the opposite effect from that intended. Instead of making the industry more competitive it made it less so. Instead of there being hundreds of banks and building societies to entrust your money to there were less and less as more and more were taken over by the giants of the industry.
Ultimately, in slaying the Labour beast of trade union power, the Tories had created one of their own - bank power. Only this was even more powerful, more demanding and even less controllable. While the unions only had power in Britain, the banks had tentacles that reached all over the world - it was impossible to impose regulation on an industry which could just decamp to another part of the world where the regulation was less stringent and yet still retain its influence and share of the market in the UK.
The solid, conservative, safe and dependable industry that had been the basis for their creation had turned into a ravenous, insatiable monster incapable of self-restraint and increasingly demanding as it became aware of its own awesome power.
The upshot of all this is that the beast created by the Tory Party has wreaked even more devastation and harm on Britain than that of the Labour Party. What is more, the Labour Party were utterly in awe of the beast; afraid to confront it and unable to slay it - and that task has now fallen to the Tory Party.
"I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.”
The Frankenstein Tories must slay the monster they created.
This resulted in that decade being marked by over the top demands for pay rises, shorter hours, longer holidays and frequent, prolonged and very damaging strikes in all sectors of manufacturing/production. The nationalised industries and the power of the unions represented a beast created by Labour policy which the Tories under Thatcher, on coming to power in 1979, were determined to slay.
They had a plan and slay it they did. Unfortunately, in killing the beast of too powerful unions and nationalised industry, they also struck the coup de grace for manufacturing/production. This was not accidental - as I said, the Tories had a plan.
Their plan was to switch Britain from a manufacturing/production led economy to a service based economy - and financial services in particular. It was the perfect solution - a stable, conservative industry, solid and dependable with little or no union ties. A loose monetary policy followed allowing an expansion of easy credit and the de-regulation of the financial services industry. The "Big Bang" of 1986 led to a huge expansion of this industry, the rise of the "yuppie" yelling "buy, buy" into his brick of a mobile phone and the "greed is good" generation.
Pretty soon Britain had moved from a primarily manufacturing based economy to a service based economy - the Labour beast of trade union power was dead and the future looked rosy. Unfortunately, there was a flaw to the plan. A service based economy requires something to service and the market in Britain is very very limited for such services. Take out a huge chunk of that market - in the shape of productive industry - and the service industry will have to look elsewhere for business if it is to expand and meet the demands asked of it.
Never fear - something came along that enabled this expansion. The rise of interconnected computer technology and, in particular, the Internet. This meant that financial transactions could be conducted from anywhere to anywhere. You didn't need to be in Hong Kong to buy a business in Hong Kong. Globalisation was born - again.
The trouble was, it was hard to compete against the massive foreign financial companies in a global market. So British financial industries had to become bigger and more powerful - so they started gobbling up one another and then started to gobble up whatever they could abroad - and, unfortunately for us, it also meant that foreign companies could equally gobble up our companies.
This had the opposite effect from that intended. Instead of making the industry more competitive it made it less so. Instead of there being hundreds of banks and building societies to entrust your money to there were less and less as more and more were taken over by the giants of the industry.
Ultimately, in slaying the Labour beast of trade union power, the Tories had created one of their own - bank power. Only this was even more powerful, more demanding and even less controllable. While the unions only had power in Britain, the banks had tentacles that reached all over the world - it was impossible to impose regulation on an industry which could just decamp to another part of the world where the regulation was less stringent and yet still retain its influence and share of the market in the UK.
The solid, conservative, safe and dependable industry that had been the basis for their creation had turned into a ravenous, insatiable monster incapable of self-restraint and increasingly demanding as it became aware of its own awesome power.
The upshot of all this is that the beast created by the Tory Party has wreaked even more devastation and harm on Britain than that of the Labour Party. What is more, the Labour Party were utterly in awe of the beast; afraid to confront it and unable to slay it - and that task has now fallen to the Tory Party.
"I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.”
The Frankenstein Tories must slay the monster they created.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
A perfect storm
I must say that I found it quite amusing to listen to the boy George reacting to the news that GDP had shrunk by half a percent and blaming it all on "bad weather". He may or may not be right about whether it was the coldest December on record that caused GDP to dip so alarmingly, but it was his use of metaphors that I found amusing - "we're not going to let bad weather blow us off course" he said.
I'm sure the boy thought he was being terribly clever when he said that and, judging by the smug look on his face, it appears that he did indeed think that - but as an analogy he was horribly wrong. You see, as any sailor will tell you, when you get bad weather the last thing you want to do is fight against it. It's much easier and safer to ride out a storm and then return to your course when the weather eases than it is to keep a smashed and broken vessel afloat let alone going in the right direction. So, what you do is you run with the weather and you let it blow you off course - or you find a safe harbour and take shelter.
I don't know if what Osborne and the coalition are doing is the right way to get us out of our economic predicament, but my gut feeling is that it will not help. The problems with our economy run far deeper than the structural deficit - in fact, I think that is merely a minor distraction from the real problem which is that we are a nation addicted to debt, living on credit and with no real way of paying off what we owe.
The coalition - along with the Labour party - have no plans to address the real problems with our economy. Yes, I do mean they have none - zero, not a single idea. The only plan they have is to reduce how much more they spend than they raise through tax - reduce it, not eradicate it. In other words, their only idea is to put a little less on the national credit card each month, but they still plan to spend more than they - we - can afford.
Unless and until we have a government which actually understands the fundamental flaws of our economy we will continue to be blown to pieces by a raging storm while we stay "on course". The trouble is, we're on course for oblivion and our government is demanding "full steam ahead".
I'm sure the boy thought he was being terribly clever when he said that and, judging by the smug look on his face, it appears that he did indeed think that - but as an analogy he was horribly wrong. You see, as any sailor will tell you, when you get bad weather the last thing you want to do is fight against it. It's much easier and safer to ride out a storm and then return to your course when the weather eases than it is to keep a smashed and broken vessel afloat let alone going in the right direction. So, what you do is you run with the weather and you let it blow you off course - or you find a safe harbour and take shelter.
I don't know if what Osborne and the coalition are doing is the right way to get us out of our economic predicament, but my gut feeling is that it will not help. The problems with our economy run far deeper than the structural deficit - in fact, I think that is merely a minor distraction from the real problem which is that we are a nation addicted to debt, living on credit and with no real way of paying off what we owe.
The coalition - along with the Labour party - have no plans to address the real problems with our economy. Yes, I do mean they have none - zero, not a single idea. The only plan they have is to reduce how much more they spend than they raise through tax - reduce it, not eradicate it. In other words, their only idea is to put a little less on the national credit card each month, but they still plan to spend more than they - we - can afford.
Unless and until we have a government which actually understands the fundamental flaws of our economy we will continue to be blown to pieces by a raging storm while we stay "on course". The trouble is, we're on course for oblivion and our government is demanding "full steam ahead".
Monday, January 24, 2011
Childish things
Am I the only person who thinks we should all just grow up?
Because it seems to me that we are living in an increasingly infantilised society - just about everything going on in our country today seems to be dominated by childishness.
I don't just mean politics - there has always been a somewhat childish aspect to that for as long as I can remember with their name calling, petty arguments about who said what and so on and so forth. It may seem more childish today because of the amount of coverage it gets and the presence of TV cameras in parliament, but I don't think it's ever really been that different.
No, I mean childishness in wider society. It's apparent in architecture where elegance and grandeur has been replaced with brash flashiness. It's apparent in the names and logos of companies which have chosen to change their names from something solid and grown up - like Norwich Union - to some infantile made up word like Aviva (when I was a kid, Aviva was a car made by Vauxhall).
It's apparent in the liveries of our trains, buses and airlines which have replaced muted, understated, conservative liveries with bright, garish primary colours much beloved of children and then daubed huge slogans all over them. It's apparent in the way we dress with fully grown adult and often middle aged men and women dressing like teenagers (there was a time when the young dressed like little adults - now it's the other way around - the middle aged dress like big kids).
And it's apparent in the way we live our lives with men and women in their thirties still living with their parents and behaving like they were still 18. They drive around in £30,000 motor cars on never ending credit, splash thousands of pounds every year on two or three foreign holidays a year and spend their evenings wasting money in pubs and clubs, online gambling or playing computer games with like minded people all over the world - then they have the effrontery to complain that they can't afford to get on the housing ladder.
Grow up! Stop wasting your money, save a deposit, find someone you love, get married and buy a bloody house of your own!
Of course, it's all too easy to blame our national dependency culture for all this - and I am certain that there is an element of that to the problem of this infantile society. After all, children are dependent - and if they retain that dependency when they become adults then are likely to retain childish elements to their character - but I can't help wondering if our societal desertion of Christianity may have something to do with it as well.
As St. Paul put it in a letter to the Corinthians "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." The fact that we don't do that anymore - instead we cling to our childhood long into adulthood - is perhaps why our society has become increasingly childish.
It's time we all grew up.
Because it seems to me that we are living in an increasingly infantilised society - just about everything going on in our country today seems to be dominated by childishness.
I don't just mean politics - there has always been a somewhat childish aspect to that for as long as I can remember with their name calling, petty arguments about who said what and so on and so forth. It may seem more childish today because of the amount of coverage it gets and the presence of TV cameras in parliament, but I don't think it's ever really been that different.
No, I mean childishness in wider society. It's apparent in architecture where elegance and grandeur has been replaced with brash flashiness. It's apparent in the names and logos of companies which have chosen to change their names from something solid and grown up - like Norwich Union - to some infantile made up word like Aviva (when I was a kid, Aviva was a car made by Vauxhall).
It's apparent in the liveries of our trains, buses and airlines which have replaced muted, understated, conservative liveries with bright, garish primary colours much beloved of children and then daubed huge slogans all over them. It's apparent in the way we dress with fully grown adult and often middle aged men and women dressing like teenagers (there was a time when the young dressed like little adults - now it's the other way around - the middle aged dress like big kids).
And it's apparent in the way we live our lives with men and women in their thirties still living with their parents and behaving like they were still 18. They drive around in £30,000 motor cars on never ending credit, splash thousands of pounds every year on two or three foreign holidays a year and spend their evenings wasting money in pubs and clubs, online gambling or playing computer games with like minded people all over the world - then they have the effrontery to complain that they can't afford to get on the housing ladder.
Grow up! Stop wasting your money, save a deposit, find someone you love, get married and buy a bloody house of your own!
Of course, it's all too easy to blame our national dependency culture for all this - and I am certain that there is an element of that to the problem of this infantile society. After all, children are dependent - and if they retain that dependency when they become adults then are likely to retain childish elements to their character - but I can't help wondering if our societal desertion of Christianity may have something to do with it as well.
As St. Paul put it in a letter to the Corinthians "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." The fact that we don't do that anymore - instead we cling to our childhood long into adulthood - is perhaps why our society has become increasingly childish.
It's time we all grew up.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Eggs in one basket
It's been fascinating listening to various economic experts and politicians discussing the "too big to fail" banking industry and deciding that the only way this can be addressed is by breaking them up in some way.
There is nothing fascinating in what they say - just the way they reach their conclusions as if there is no other way.
But there is.
The first thing you need to ask yourself is why is the banking industry "too big to fail". There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the "banking industry" has become - by design - a huge part of our economic makeup. Since the nineteen eighties we have gone through a progressive and deliberate change from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy.
Of course, we've always had a service contingent to our economy because a manufacturing based economy requires services, but the service sector was always secondary to manufacturing. It's also worth pointing out that the financial services sector of the service based economy is not the largest part of that sector either - that honour belongs to retail - but it was by far the largest "exporter".
The second problem we have is that the "banking industry" is concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations who have been allowed to expand and crush competition. In other words, a substantial proportion of our economy is concentrated in the hands of a very few people. It's not really an industry at all - it is little short of an authorised cartel and only a few steps away from a total monopoly. I won't go into the detail of this right now, but all of this has happened not because of a lack of regulation, but because of a proliferation of regulation - it just happened to be the wrong sort of regulation.
So, we have too big a part of our economy in the hands of too few people and that is why the banking sector is deemed "too big to fail" - we've not just put all our eggs into one basket we have chosen to chuck away the all the eggs that we didn't think we'd need until we only had a few left.
The answer to the problem can not be solved by simply breaking up the banking industry. You will have more eggs, but they will still be in the same basket. The problem will still exist - the hope is that some of those eggs might survive any future crash, but that is far from guaranteed.
The real solution to the problem has to be more fundamental than that. It requires redressing the balance of our economy so that no single sector dominates so utterly. The best way to do that is to make manufacturing the basis of our economy once more. Only by rebuilding our manufacturing and production sectors of the economy will we solve our problems. It will solve the problems of unemployment, the balance of trade, the structural deficit and the banks that are too big to fail.
It won't stop inflation or boom and bust, but those are constituent parts of a capital based economy anyway - and as long as they are managed they aren't always a bad thing.
Yet none of this occurs to the people who govern the country. They'll continue to keep putting all our eggs in the same basket and we'll still be the ones cleaning up the mess when they drop the lot.
There is nothing fascinating in what they say - just the way they reach their conclusions as if there is no other way.
But there is.
The first thing you need to ask yourself is why is the banking industry "too big to fail". There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the "banking industry" has become - by design - a huge part of our economic makeup. Since the nineteen eighties we have gone through a progressive and deliberate change from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy.
Of course, we've always had a service contingent to our economy because a manufacturing based economy requires services, but the service sector was always secondary to manufacturing. It's also worth pointing out that the financial services sector of the service based economy is not the largest part of that sector either - that honour belongs to retail - but it was by far the largest "exporter".
The second problem we have is that the "banking industry" is concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations who have been allowed to expand and crush competition. In other words, a substantial proportion of our economy is concentrated in the hands of a very few people. It's not really an industry at all - it is little short of an authorised cartel and only a few steps away from a total monopoly. I won't go into the detail of this right now, but all of this has happened not because of a lack of regulation, but because of a proliferation of regulation - it just happened to be the wrong sort of regulation.
So, we have too big a part of our economy in the hands of too few people and that is why the banking sector is deemed "too big to fail" - we've not just put all our eggs into one basket we have chosen to chuck away the all the eggs that we didn't think we'd need until we only had a few left.
The answer to the problem can not be solved by simply breaking up the banking industry. You will have more eggs, but they will still be in the same basket. The problem will still exist - the hope is that some of those eggs might survive any future crash, but that is far from guaranteed.
The real solution to the problem has to be more fundamental than that. It requires redressing the balance of our economy so that no single sector dominates so utterly. The best way to do that is to make manufacturing the basis of our economy once more. Only by rebuilding our manufacturing and production sectors of the economy will we solve our problems. It will solve the problems of unemployment, the balance of trade, the structural deficit and the banks that are too big to fail.
It won't stop inflation or boom and bust, but those are constituent parts of a capital based economy anyway - and as long as they are managed they aren't always a bad thing.
Yet none of this occurs to the people who govern the country. They'll continue to keep putting all our eggs in the same basket and we'll still be the ones cleaning up the mess when they drop the lot.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Seeing the light
I've posted before about how this current generation - my generation - have got to be the most selfish generation ever to have held power in Britain. I say this because we seem to be forever changing things to suit what we want and, in doing so, deprive future generations of the opportunity we had to enjoy things we took for granted.
For example, my generation enjoyed free tertiary education. University students got grants, college students were sponsored by employers and there was an abundance of apprenticeships in all manner of trades and skills. Forget all this rubbish about how only 20% (or whatever it was) went to university - back in the seventies as many, if not more school leavers went on to tertiary education than do now and they didn't end up with a £40,000 debt for doing so. So selfish.
Another example, although not currently in place, is the idea of getting rid of the traditional six week school summer holiday and replacing it with a four week break instead. Why? Why would we want to do this when the majority of us remember those six golden weeks of our summer holidays with such fondness? Why? Because it doesn't suit us to have kids today taking six weeks off - it interrupts the social and personal lives of the now generation too much, apparently. So selfish.
The latest idea is to change our clocks to Central European Time. Why? So that more of "us" can enjoy an extra hour of daylight when we most want it. Forget the inaccuracy of this statement - no matter how you set the clocks you get the same amount of daylight - it's the sheer selfishness that astounds me. We're told that if we set the clocks forward to CET we can have an extra hour of daylight to enjoy a drink or go shopping. Seriously? As if Britons don't seem to spend enough time getting bladdered or worshipping in the secular cathedrals we call "shopping malls" already!
Perhaps the most stupid comment was that it would make people happier. Really? Bearing in mind that happiness is an entirely subjective thing - what makes me happy won't necessarily make you happy - it seems pretty obvious that the idea of getting up and going to work or school in the middle of the night makes most people pretty bloody miserable.
I'm old enough to remember the last time they tried this in the late sixties. It was an unmitigated disaster. I remember getting up in the dark, eating my breakfast in artificial light and walking to school in the dark. It was dreadful. I also remember how hard it was to get to sleep when it was still daylight at 10PM. Truly awful. And today, as a parent, I know how hard it was for my kids to get to sleep when the sun was still shining and how hard it was to get them going on those cold, dark mornings.
Those who tell you switching to CET would be good for "us" - don't mean you and me. They mean it will be good for them and them only.
They are utterly selfish.
For example, my generation enjoyed free tertiary education. University students got grants, college students were sponsored by employers and there was an abundance of apprenticeships in all manner of trades and skills. Forget all this rubbish about how only 20% (or whatever it was) went to university - back in the seventies as many, if not more school leavers went on to tertiary education than do now and they didn't end up with a £40,000 debt for doing so. So selfish.
Another example, although not currently in place, is the idea of getting rid of the traditional six week school summer holiday and replacing it with a four week break instead. Why? Why would we want to do this when the majority of us remember those six golden weeks of our summer holidays with such fondness? Why? Because it doesn't suit us to have kids today taking six weeks off - it interrupts the social and personal lives of the now generation too much, apparently. So selfish.
The latest idea is to change our clocks to Central European Time. Why? So that more of "us" can enjoy an extra hour of daylight when we most want it. Forget the inaccuracy of this statement - no matter how you set the clocks you get the same amount of daylight - it's the sheer selfishness that astounds me. We're told that if we set the clocks forward to CET we can have an extra hour of daylight to enjoy a drink or go shopping. Seriously? As if Britons don't seem to spend enough time getting bladdered or worshipping in the secular cathedrals we call "shopping malls" already!
Perhaps the most stupid comment was that it would make people happier. Really? Bearing in mind that happiness is an entirely subjective thing - what makes me happy won't necessarily make you happy - it seems pretty obvious that the idea of getting up and going to work or school in the middle of the night makes most people pretty bloody miserable.
I'm old enough to remember the last time they tried this in the late sixties. It was an unmitigated disaster. I remember getting up in the dark, eating my breakfast in artificial light and walking to school in the dark. It was dreadful. I also remember how hard it was to get to sleep when it was still daylight at 10PM. Truly awful. And today, as a parent, I know how hard it was for my kids to get to sleep when the sun was still shining and how hard it was to get them going on those cold, dark mornings.
Those who tell you switching to CET would be good for "us" - don't mean you and me. They mean it will be good for them and them only.
They are utterly selfish.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Choice or pressure?
Baroness Warsi is the Tories Minister Without Portfolio. Given that her latest speech seems to be nothing short of a rant at Britain for not accepting and embracing Islam and its followers, I think the Tories really ought to either give the daft woman something to do or kick her out of the cabinet.
"The minister without portfolio will also warn that describing Muslims as either “moderate” or “extremist” fosters growing prejudice. "
Is that right? So it has nothing to do with followers of the ideology routinely exploding themselves amongst and killing honest, everyday folk going about their daily business then? Or the fact that as they grow in number then so their demands for concessions to their repressive ways grow more vociferous and outrageous? Apparently it has nothing to do with Britons being forced to give up their ways, traditions and customs of a thousand years so as not to cause "offence" to people who are newcomers to our country.
She has a point, though. There is no such thing as a "moderate" Moslem - just Moslems who fully engage in putting the demands of their ideology into practice and those who are passive. The Minister Without Brain goes on ....
Really? Around my way, you're more likely to hear a kid say "the family next door aren't Moslem, but they will be soon".
“And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a burka, the passers-by think: 'That woman’s either oppressed or is making a political statement’.”
The curious thing about this statement - apart from how unlikely your average passer-by is going to think such a thing - is that up until 10 years ago the sight of a woman in a burka on a British street was virtually unknown even in predominantly Moslem areas. Around my way, Moslem women who used to dress in conservative, but definably western clothes are now routinely wearing Moslem dress including scarves and burkas and they only started doing that when a large group of fundamental Moslems moved into the area.
Was that through choice or through peer pressure? I have asked, but they won't say - which says it all.
"The minister without portfolio will also warn that describing Muslims as either “moderate” or “extremist” fosters growing prejudice. "
Is that right? So it has nothing to do with followers of the ideology routinely exploding themselves amongst and killing honest, everyday folk going about their daily business then? Or the fact that as they grow in number then so their demands for concessions to their repressive ways grow more vociferous and outrageous? Apparently it has nothing to do with Britons being forced to give up their ways, traditions and customs of a thousand years so as not to cause "offence" to people who are newcomers to our country.
She has a point, though. There is no such thing as a "moderate" Moslem - just Moslems who fully engage in putting the demands of their ideology into practice and those who are passive. The Minister Without Brain goes on ....
“It’s not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of 'moderate’ Muslims leads; in the factory, where they’ve just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: 'Not to worry, he’s only fairly Muslim’."
Of course - we've all heard the boss say that haven't we? Actually no - I can't say I've ever heard any of my bosses ever even mention the religion of a co-worker in almost 40 years. Indeed, the only discussion I've had with any of my bosses regarding a Moslem was when a boss of mine decided to put a new Moslem colleague next to a Sikh colleague. I had to then go to my boss and explain that although they may both be Asian in descent, Sikhs and Moslems don't get on too well as a rule and that the pair of them spent most of the day bickering and insulting each other. It's the only time in my entire working life that I have ever heard one colleague describe another as a "fucking Paki!"
“In the school, the kids say: 'The family next door are Muslim but they’re not too bad’.Really? Around my way, you're more likely to hear a kid say "the family next door aren't Moslem, but they will be soon".
“And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a burka, the passers-by think: 'That woman’s either oppressed or is making a political statement’.”
The curious thing about this statement - apart from how unlikely your average passer-by is going to think such a thing - is that up until 10 years ago the sight of a woman in a burka on a British street was virtually unknown even in predominantly Moslem areas. Around my way, Moslem women who used to dress in conservative, but definably western clothes are now routinely wearing Moslem dress including scarves and burkas and they only started doing that when a large group of fundamental Moslems moved into the area.
Was that through choice or through peer pressure? I have asked, but they won't say - which says it all.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Do what I say, not what I do
To be honest, I have no idea if the proposed NHS changes will make things better or worse - but I don't think those who are claiming they will have an effect one way or the other know any better than I do either.
I have to admit that I actually thing the changes make a lot of sense from a layman's perspective. - surely it is better that the money follows the patient than the patient follows the money? - but I've not really studied the proposals and, to be quite honest, don't really care that much. The NHS is a gargantuan bureaucracy and I don't seriously expect that to change.
What is of more interest to me is the reaction from a certain quarter of British society to these proposals.
You see, I'm a conservative (not a Conservative - please note that there is a difference and these days it is a significant difference) and as such I am the sort of person who is always being accused of being resistant to change and opposed to radical ideas.
To be fair, this is partly true. I'm not resistant to change - I just believe that change should come through slow, measured steps and not through giant leaps into the unknown. I am opposed to radical ideas - but only untried and untested radical ideas. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of radical change if that means a change back to a tried, tested and proven process of doing something which we know works and works well.
But the annoying thing for me is that the very people who are opposed to these radical changes in the NHS are the very sort who are most likely to criticise me and my like for our resistance to change and radical ideas.
The reality of these progressives is that they only want radical change to the things that they don't like. They are completely opposed to radical change that has an impact on their pet projects and the NHS is their most precious pet project.
It is the clearest case yet of do what I say, not what I do.
I have to admit that I actually thing the changes make a lot of sense from a layman's perspective. - surely it is better that the money follows the patient than the patient follows the money? - but I've not really studied the proposals and, to be quite honest, don't really care that much. The NHS is a gargantuan bureaucracy and I don't seriously expect that to change.
What is of more interest to me is the reaction from a certain quarter of British society to these proposals.
You see, I'm a conservative (not a Conservative - please note that there is a difference and these days it is a significant difference) and as such I am the sort of person who is always being accused of being resistant to change and opposed to radical ideas.
To be fair, this is partly true. I'm not resistant to change - I just believe that change should come through slow, measured steps and not through giant leaps into the unknown. I am opposed to radical ideas - but only untried and untested radical ideas. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of radical change if that means a change back to a tried, tested and proven process of doing something which we know works and works well.
But the annoying thing for me is that the very people who are opposed to these radical changes in the NHS are the very sort who are most likely to criticise me and my like for our resistance to change and radical ideas.
The reality of these progressives is that they only want radical change to the things that they don't like. They are completely opposed to radical change that has an impact on their pet projects and the NHS is their most precious pet project.
It is the clearest case yet of do what I say, not what I do.
Priorities
There has been a bit of coverage in the media recently about library closures. Up and down the country, local councils desperate to save a bit of cash are marking small libraries for closure and in many cases the local communities are not happy about this.
The councils argue that they have to save money and these facilities are not sufficiently used to justify keeping them open. This is nonsense. The reason they are closing libraries is all about priorities.
Most people, when they think about their local council, understandably think about the basic essentials which they believe their council tax money is used for - rubbish collection, keeping the streets lit and clean, care and support of the elderly and so on - but the chances are that your local council have other ideas.
You see, they don't see things the way you and I do. What we consider a priority and what they consider a priority are often completely different things. For them, collecting rubbish is just a nuisance they could well do without - which is why they are so willing to change it from weekly to fortnightly and why you will see rats running around outside Number 10 Downing Street. The country is now a filthy tip because councils no longer consider collecting rubbish to be a priority.
What they consider priorities are things like ... helping drug users get their daily fix, assisting asylum seekers in maximising the benefits they can obtain from government, ensuring young people convicted of assault are given every assistance possible on their release from a young offenders institute and so on.
When it comes to the environment, our councils are more concerned about the impact of "global warming" on the Arctic polar bear population than the impact of their failure to keep the streets clean on the local brown rat population.
Libraries are way down the list of priorities and many of the things we consider priorities are not much higher up that list. This is why they - along with care and support for the elderly - are top of the list of council cuts. The priorities of ordinary local tax paying people count for nothing compared to the priorities of the progressive liberal elite who rule this country.
The councils argue that they have to save money and these facilities are not sufficiently used to justify keeping them open. This is nonsense. The reason they are closing libraries is all about priorities.
Most people, when they think about their local council, understandably think about the basic essentials which they believe their council tax money is used for - rubbish collection, keeping the streets lit and clean, care and support of the elderly and so on - but the chances are that your local council have other ideas.
You see, they don't see things the way you and I do. What we consider a priority and what they consider a priority are often completely different things. For them, collecting rubbish is just a nuisance they could well do without - which is why they are so willing to change it from weekly to fortnightly and why you will see rats running around outside Number 10 Downing Street. The country is now a filthy tip because councils no longer consider collecting rubbish to be a priority.
What they consider priorities are things like ... helping drug users get their daily fix, assisting asylum seekers in maximising the benefits they can obtain from government, ensuring young people convicted of assault are given every assistance possible on their release from a young offenders institute and so on.
When it comes to the environment, our councils are more concerned about the impact of "global warming" on the Arctic polar bear population than the impact of their failure to keep the streets clean on the local brown rat population.
Libraries are way down the list of priorities and many of the things we consider priorities are not much higher up that list. This is why they - along with care and support for the elderly - are top of the list of council cuts. The priorities of ordinary local tax paying people count for nothing compared to the priorities of the progressive liberal elite who rule this country.
Friday, January 14, 2011
An EU success story
This is so incredible it is almost impossible to believe - until you realise that it is the EU at work and then, not only is it believable - it is inevitable and it represents a success story for the EU.
The EU has managed to approve, print and send out millions of 2011 diaries to schools - including 350,000 to British schools - which include the holidays, feasts and festivals of every major religion except one ...... Christianity.
At first, one reads this and wonders how nobody spotted the error. However, when you think about it you understand that the "error" was inevitable.
For 2000 years Christianity has shaped the culture of every nation on the continent of Europe and yet, despite this common thread, every nation in Europe developed differently with different cultures to create unique nations. Consequently, Christianity has been a barrier to the very ideals and principles of the European Union.
The EU is forever going on about "celebrating" diversity, but the truth is that the EU only wants to celebrate EU approved diversity. The influence of Christianity on the cultures, institutions, laws and customs of the European nations is something they want to eradicate because that influence has been different in every nation - and if you plan on integrating those cultures, institutions, laws and customs in one then the first thing you have to do is eradicate the influence that shaped those cultures, institutions, laws and customs.
The very fact that these diaries have been produced without any reference to Christianity is evidence of how successful the EU has been in achieving this within its own bureaucracy - because it is inconceivable that these diaries did not go through an approval process which would have required a number of different departments and senior technocrats checking and approving the content.
These people have been brainwashed for decades to ensure that they bow down to all the EU approved cultural diversity of foreign religions while ignoring the one that shaped European civilisation. So they will have checked and rechecked that the diaries include Diwali, Ramadan, Hanukkah and what have you, but it would not have occurred to a single one of them that they were missing Easter or Christmas.
So, this represents a success story for the EU. They have successfully eradicated Christianity from their bureaucracies. Unfortunately for the EU, outside of their buildings, the people of Europe still remember it.
The EU has managed to approve, print and send out millions of 2011 diaries to schools - including 350,000 to British schools - which include the holidays, feasts and festivals of every major religion except one ...... Christianity.
At first, one reads this and wonders how nobody spotted the error. However, when you think about it you understand that the "error" was inevitable.
For 2000 years Christianity has shaped the culture of every nation on the continent of Europe and yet, despite this common thread, every nation in Europe developed differently with different cultures to create unique nations. Consequently, Christianity has been a barrier to the very ideals and principles of the European Union.
The EU is forever going on about "celebrating" diversity, but the truth is that the EU only wants to celebrate EU approved diversity. The influence of Christianity on the cultures, institutions, laws and customs of the European nations is something they want to eradicate because that influence has been different in every nation - and if you plan on integrating those cultures, institutions, laws and customs in one then the first thing you have to do is eradicate the influence that shaped those cultures, institutions, laws and customs.
The very fact that these diaries have been produced without any reference to Christianity is evidence of how successful the EU has been in achieving this within its own bureaucracy - because it is inconceivable that these diaries did not go through an approval process which would have required a number of different departments and senior technocrats checking and approving the content.
These people have been brainwashed for decades to ensure that they bow down to all the EU approved cultural diversity of foreign religions while ignoring the one that shaped European civilisation. So they will have checked and rechecked that the diaries include Diwali, Ramadan, Hanukkah and what have you, but it would not have occurred to a single one of them that they were missing Easter or Christmas.
So, this represents a success story for the EU. They have successfully eradicated Christianity from their bureaucracies. Unfortunately for the EU, outside of their buildings, the people of Europe still remember it.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Some challenge!
Perhaps the daftest travel "challenge" I have ever seen is currently being aired by the BBC. No, it's not the presenters of Top Gear trying to see who can get from Florence to the top of Mount Etna first in thirty year old Italian classic cars costing under £500 - it's Brian Milligan attempting to drive from London to Edinburgh.
What's so challenging or unique about that? People do it every day - some even go there and back. Not only that, the Top Gear team recently had a London to Edinburgh challenge of their own - Jeremy Clarkson in a steam powered train, James May in a Jaguar XK120 and Richard Hammond on a Vincent Black Shadow. If I remember correctly, the race was won by May who pipped the steam train to the post in the Jaguar after about 8 hours.
So this "challenge" is neither unique or particularly challenging - except Brian Milligan is doing it in an electric car - but why do I think it's so daft?
Because it's taking him five days to get there.
I really don't understand the BBC's point to the challenge. If they are trying to tell us that electric powered cars are viable alternatives to the standard internal combustion engine powered cars they are failing miserably. Nineteen fifties technology thrashes the latest 21st century electric wonder by four and half days!
If they are trying to demonstrate how "cheap" it is then that is a total failure too. Even assuming that Mr. Milligan is staying at an ultra cheap £30 a night B&B every night that's still going to set him back £120 - more than enough to get your average petrol driven family saloon all the way from London to Edinburgh and halfway home again. Imagine the cost of driving from London to Edinburgh in an electric car with a family of four - you're talking about the better part of a thousand pounds and ten days just to travel there and back. You can get to Florida and back cheaper and faster!
All they've proven is that electric cars are neither cheap, practical or even viable alternatives to traditionally powered cars. The mere fact that I could leave for Edinburgh now - four days after Mr. Milligan set out - and still get there before him proves that the electric powered car is the worst possible choice. Indeed, your average seventeenth century stage coach would get you from London to Edinburgh quicker than an electric powered car. So much for progress!
What's so challenging or unique about that? People do it every day - some even go there and back. Not only that, the Top Gear team recently had a London to Edinburgh challenge of their own - Jeremy Clarkson in a steam powered train, James May in a Jaguar XK120 and Richard Hammond on a Vincent Black Shadow. If I remember correctly, the race was won by May who pipped the steam train to the post in the Jaguar after about 8 hours.
So this "challenge" is neither unique or particularly challenging - except Brian Milligan is doing it in an electric car - but why do I think it's so daft?
Because it's taking him five days to get there.
I really don't understand the BBC's point to the challenge. If they are trying to tell us that electric powered cars are viable alternatives to the standard internal combustion engine powered cars they are failing miserably. Nineteen fifties technology thrashes the latest 21st century electric wonder by four and half days!
If they are trying to demonstrate how "cheap" it is then that is a total failure too. Even assuming that Mr. Milligan is staying at an ultra cheap £30 a night B&B every night that's still going to set him back £120 - more than enough to get your average petrol driven family saloon all the way from London to Edinburgh and halfway home again. Imagine the cost of driving from London to Edinburgh in an electric car with a family of four - you're talking about the better part of a thousand pounds and ten days just to travel there and back. You can get to Florida and back cheaper and faster!
All they've proven is that electric cars are neither cheap, practical or even viable alternatives to traditionally powered cars. The mere fact that I could leave for Edinburgh now - four days after Mr. Milligan set out - and still get there before him proves that the electric powered car is the worst possible choice. Indeed, your average seventeenth century stage coach would get you from London to Edinburgh quicker than an electric powered car. So much for progress!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
So, liberal lefties, which is it?
I have no idea if the screwball who went on a killing spree in Arizona was influenced by "right wing" talk radio and aggressive political rhetoric or not. However, it seems to me that the people who are making this leap of faith are from the very same liberal left who pooh pooh any suggestion that there could possible be any link between violent imagery, dialogue and lyrics in film, television and pop music and the increasing violent and aggressive behaviour in society.
Either these things do have an affect or they don't. Which is it?
Personally, I abhor the gutter level politics common in the USA and increasingly prevalent over here (Phil Woolas, anybody?), but I believe it is symptomatic of the general decline in moral standards, self discipline and self control in society which has been encouraged by the liberal left over the last fifty years.
I'm all for a return to a civilised society based on common decency, good manners and politeness and I much prefer people to self-censor than have censorship imposed on them, but I think it's hypocritical for those on the liberal left to complain about something they have brought about.
Before they start criticising, they ought to take a good, long, hard look at themselves.
Either these things do have an affect or they don't. Which is it?
Personally, I abhor the gutter level politics common in the USA and increasingly prevalent over here (Phil Woolas, anybody?), but I believe it is symptomatic of the general decline in moral standards, self discipline and self control in society which has been encouraged by the liberal left over the last fifty years.
I'm all for a return to a civilised society based on common decency, good manners and politeness and I much prefer people to self-censor than have censorship imposed on them, but I think it's hypocritical for those on the liberal left to complain about something they have brought about.
Before they start criticising, they ought to take a good, long, hard look at themselves.
Money to burn
I make no comment about the collapse of a trial against a bunch of environmental activists accused of plotting to close down a power station other than to suggest that if the Met can afford to have someone working "undercover" in such a group for ten years then they have plenty of scope for cutting costs without affecting "bobbies on the beat".
Monday, January 10, 2011
Measuring the cost
There seems to be something of a growing murmur in the media about petrol prices again - with reports that the recent VAT rises and duty increases has pushed the price to £1.30 a litre. The trouble is, it doesn't sound that bad at first - only when you realise that that is the equivalent of almost £6 a gallon does the significance of the cost hit home.
Of course, we all realise that the cost of filling our cars up is higher than it has ever been, but most people do one of two things. They either fill their car to the brim and pay with a credit or debit card or they put in £10, £20 or £30 worth at a time and pay cash If, like me, you, you do the latter then £20 worth of petrol will always cost £20 regardless of whether that is 10 gallons or 3 gallons.
Petrol prices are exorbitant and they have a significant impact on the economy. Most goods are transported around the country by road and the higher the cost of doing this the more prices go up to compensate. The government like to tell us that they are doing this for our own good to ward off the catastrophic man made global warming which doesn't exist - but the reality is that they do it because it raises bucket loads of revenue for them to waste on their numerous vanity projects.
My real complaint about petrol prices, though, is the continued war by the establishment on natural, human measurements in the form of British Imperial in preference for Napoleonic or, as the establishment likes to call them, metric measurements. It's been going on for years, but has increased in pace in recent years. The weather reporters frequently tell us that we can expect 10 centimetres of snow and no one understands what they are talking about. Most of us do rough conversions in our head - 10cm is about 4 inches.
The annoying thing about the petrol prices, though is that nobody measures their cars economy in miles per litre - it's always miles per gallon. That is what the car manufacturers base their performance figures on - mpg and mph, but for some reason we're now expected to do mental conversions in our heads.
Metric measurements might be great for the scientific community, but they are not great for human use. If someone tells you they are 5' 10" tall you know how tall they are and whether they are short, tall or average height. If someone tells you they are 182cm tall most of us don't have a clue. Similarly, if someone tells you they weigh 12 stone 6lbs you can visualise their bulk and know instantly whether they are fat, thin or average. If someone says they are 56kg you don't have a clue what shape they are.
More importantly, though, with imperial measurements we know what we are getting when we buy something. So if we buy a lb of butter we know it's a lb of butter. If the following week it's only 15oz we notice that. On the other hand, when we buy 476g of butter one week we don't necessarily notice the next week if it's 470g.
This happens a lot since we started moving to metric. Manufacturers reduce the amount by seemingly insignificant amounts but continue to charge the same for it - and we don't notice because few people, unless they actually check and record it, realise that what they bought last week weighed 2 g more than the same item they bought this week for the same price. It's inflation by stealth.
Imperial measurements are human measurements. They are easy to understand because they relate to human things. They relate to human things because they are based on human things. When we are told that we can expect 4 inches of snow we know that is roughly a palm span deep. If we're told it's going to be 15cm we don't have the same guideline.
Likewise, petrol prices of £1.30 a litre mean little to most people because they don't realise what that actually is - although they know it is more than it was a fortnight ago - but when you explain that that is almost £6 a gallon it all becomes clear.
Of course, we all realise that the cost of filling our cars up is higher than it has ever been, but most people do one of two things. They either fill their car to the brim and pay with a credit or debit card or they put in £10, £20 or £30 worth at a time and pay cash If, like me, you, you do the latter then £20 worth of petrol will always cost £20 regardless of whether that is 10 gallons or 3 gallons.
Petrol prices are exorbitant and they have a significant impact on the economy. Most goods are transported around the country by road and the higher the cost of doing this the more prices go up to compensate. The government like to tell us that they are doing this for our own good to ward off the catastrophic man made global warming which doesn't exist - but the reality is that they do it because it raises bucket loads of revenue for them to waste on their numerous vanity projects.
My real complaint about petrol prices, though, is the continued war by the establishment on natural, human measurements in the form of British Imperial in preference for Napoleonic or, as the establishment likes to call them, metric measurements. It's been going on for years, but has increased in pace in recent years. The weather reporters frequently tell us that we can expect 10 centimetres of snow and no one understands what they are talking about. Most of us do rough conversions in our head - 10cm is about 4 inches.
The annoying thing about the petrol prices, though is that nobody measures their cars economy in miles per litre - it's always miles per gallon. That is what the car manufacturers base their performance figures on - mpg and mph, but for some reason we're now expected to do mental conversions in our heads.
Metric measurements might be great for the scientific community, but they are not great for human use. If someone tells you they are 5' 10" tall you know how tall they are and whether they are short, tall or average height. If someone tells you they are 182cm tall most of us don't have a clue. Similarly, if someone tells you they weigh 12 stone 6lbs you can visualise their bulk and know instantly whether they are fat, thin or average. If someone says they are 56kg you don't have a clue what shape they are.
More importantly, though, with imperial measurements we know what we are getting when we buy something. So if we buy a lb of butter we know it's a lb of butter. If the following week it's only 15oz we notice that. On the other hand, when we buy 476g of butter one week we don't necessarily notice the next week if it's 470g.
This happens a lot since we started moving to metric. Manufacturers reduce the amount by seemingly insignificant amounts but continue to charge the same for it - and we don't notice because few people, unless they actually check and record it, realise that what they bought last week weighed 2 g more than the same item they bought this week for the same price. It's inflation by stealth.
Imperial measurements are human measurements. They are easy to understand because they relate to human things. They relate to human things because they are based on human things. When we are told that we can expect 4 inches of snow we know that is roughly a palm span deep. If we're told it's going to be 15cm we don't have the same guideline.
Likewise, petrol prices of £1.30 a litre mean little to most people because they don't realise what that actually is - although they know it is more than it was a fortnight ago - but when you explain that that is almost £6 a gallon it all becomes clear.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
The great bank stitch up
A few months ago I received a letter from my energy supplier informing me that my "account" was in credit to the tune of a little over £1000.
I wrote back thanking them for the information, but stated that I wasn't aware that my "account" with them was actually a savings account and could I, therefore, have my money back - with interest of course.
I heard back from them this week - not regarding my missing money, but to inform me that my direct debit is to increase once again. This started me thinking about direct debits and, subsequently, about banks in general.
I'm old enough to be able to say that when I first started work I was paid weekly in cash. I was actually in full time college (it would be "university" now), but every Friday lunchtime I'd hop on my little FS1E and tootle across town to the office to collect my pay packet - a little brown envelope with a see through plastic window through which one could discern various notes and coins and a (handwritten) pay slip.
It's worth pointing out that I was paid the princely sum of £16 a week back then, but after deductions and giving my mum a fiver for "keep" I was left with a little over £7 - if I'd been on the dole I would have got £9 a week! Nevertheless, unless it is something you have experienced yourself, you can not possibly understand the sheer joy of getting that pay packet every week - happiness was a little brown envelope in 1977.
My only expense (other than the exorbitant amount charged by my mum) was the HP payment on my second hand FS1E for which I put aside £3 a week. Once a month I'd tootle off to the local dealer where I handed over that month's payment in cash and the dealer would fill in a little payment book to record the transaction in meticulously neat handwriting. I still have the payment book somewhere in my loft. The rest of the money - all £4 plus some loose change - was mine to do with as I pleased.
It doesn't sound like a lot of money, but somehow I managed to be down the pub every night with my mates where we'd enjoy a couple of beers and a few games of darts. If I did run out of money before the next Friday it just meant that I couldn't go to the pub until pay day - never more than a day or two so hardly a disaster - and, of course, come next Friday lunchtime I was flush with cash again.
The point I'm making is that I didn't have a bank account or even have need of one. Unless you are someone who works in some trade where payment by cash is the norm, I'd guess that not many people these days are familiar with this concept of weekly pay in cash, but back in the seventies it was pretty much the norm for most working class people.
My mum worked part time for a small local printing company and was paid weekly in cash. My dad worked shifts at a huge, multinational corporation and was paid weekly in cash. They didn't have bank accounts either. In fact, my dad didn't actually write his first cheque until well into the 1990's after he'd retired!
Of course, my parents did have a mortgage and, therefore, a building society account - but that was it. Banks were everywhere on the high street - there were at least four in my local high street in the 1970's ... there is one now - but it didn't matter much that they didn't open until 10 AM and closed at 3:30 PM - we hardly used them. Occasionally they came in useful for paying a bill, but even that wasn't necessary - you could pay bills in post offices or even in some local shops. High street banks were generally places for local shopkeepers to pay their takings into - God knows what they do now!
The point I'm trying to make is that there was a time when for many of us - quite probably a significant proportion of the population of Britain at the time - banks were always there, but largely unnecessary for us. We didn't need "cash point" machines because we were paid in cash. We didn't need direct debits because we got a bill and paid for it with cash. If we wanted to buy something that we couldn't afford we either saved for it or, like with my FS1E, we paid cash in installments. We didn't need banks.
This all seemed to change in the 1980's when being paid weekly in cash fell out of fashion. Instead we were paid monthly by credit transfer. I was told this was "better" - but it didn't feel like it to me. For a start I'd lost that little bit of weekly joy that came in a brown window envelope.
I still got a brown window envelope, but now all it contained was a payslip - nothing like the pleasure one got from having the money as well. On top of that, my money now went into a bank account and the only way I could get that money was to go to a bank and withdraw it. I couldn't see how it was "better" then and I still can't see how it is better now - it might have been better for the employers and certainly better for the banks, but for me .......no.
The irony is that as banks became more and more essential to more and more of us the more they withdrew from the high street. If I want to get hold of my money I have to make a special journey to go and get it.
The banks have us over a barrel. My parents generation got by without ever needing them for the most part, but we have to have a bank account or we pretty much don't exist. This is why they treat us like scum rather than valued customers - we're not customers to them ... just revenue streams.
We're just numbered accounts that the banks and the various corporations that feed off them shuffle our money about with scant regard for whose money it is they are actually shuffling. It's all one big con to make us spend money we don't have and for them to accumulate money they are not entitled to - and I've had enough.
I'm getting rid of all the direct debits. From now on I'm going to pay bills by cash and only on demand. If my energy supplier sends me a bill I'll tell them to take it out of my "account". I have to have a bank account for my pay to go into, but I'm going to run it at bare minimum levels - I'm fed up of being treated like rubbish by unaccountable and uncontactable corporations - I'm going back to basics.
I only wish more of us would do the same. Only if we start standing up for ourselves can we force these faceless bureaucrats to come out of hiding and start treating us like people again. They think that because they've pushed us into a situation where we "need" them that we don't have a choice. The reality is that they need us more than we need them. Without us they have nothing and it's high time they realised this.
Join the revolution.
I wrote back thanking them for the information, but stated that I wasn't aware that my "account" with them was actually a savings account and could I, therefore, have my money back - with interest of course.
I heard back from them this week - not regarding my missing money, but to inform me that my direct debit is to increase once again. This started me thinking about direct debits and, subsequently, about banks in general.
I'm old enough to be able to say that when I first started work I was paid weekly in cash. I was actually in full time college (it would be "university" now), but every Friday lunchtime I'd hop on my little FS1E and tootle across town to the office to collect my pay packet - a little brown envelope with a see through plastic window through which one could discern various notes and coins and a (handwritten) pay slip.
It's worth pointing out that I was paid the princely sum of £16 a week back then, but after deductions and giving my mum a fiver for "keep" I was left with a little over £7 - if I'd been on the dole I would have got £9 a week! Nevertheless, unless it is something you have experienced yourself, you can not possibly understand the sheer joy of getting that pay packet every week - happiness was a little brown envelope in 1977.
My only expense (other than the exorbitant amount charged by my mum) was the HP payment on my second hand FS1E for which I put aside £3 a week. Once a month I'd tootle off to the local dealer where I handed over that month's payment in cash and the dealer would fill in a little payment book to record the transaction in meticulously neat handwriting. I still have the payment book somewhere in my loft. The rest of the money - all £4 plus some loose change - was mine to do with as I pleased.
It doesn't sound like a lot of money, but somehow I managed to be down the pub every night with my mates where we'd enjoy a couple of beers and a few games of darts. If I did run out of money before the next Friday it just meant that I couldn't go to the pub until pay day - never more than a day or two so hardly a disaster - and, of course, come next Friday lunchtime I was flush with cash again.
The point I'm making is that I didn't have a bank account or even have need of one. Unless you are someone who works in some trade where payment by cash is the norm, I'd guess that not many people these days are familiar with this concept of weekly pay in cash, but back in the seventies it was pretty much the norm for most working class people.
My mum worked part time for a small local printing company and was paid weekly in cash. My dad worked shifts at a huge, multinational corporation and was paid weekly in cash. They didn't have bank accounts either. In fact, my dad didn't actually write his first cheque until well into the 1990's after he'd retired!
Of course, my parents did have a mortgage and, therefore, a building society account - but that was it. Banks were everywhere on the high street - there were at least four in my local high street in the 1970's ... there is one now - but it didn't matter much that they didn't open until 10 AM and closed at 3:30 PM - we hardly used them. Occasionally they came in useful for paying a bill, but even that wasn't necessary - you could pay bills in post offices or even in some local shops. High street banks were generally places for local shopkeepers to pay their takings into - God knows what they do now!
The point I'm trying to make is that there was a time when for many of us - quite probably a significant proportion of the population of Britain at the time - banks were always there, but largely unnecessary for us. We didn't need "cash point" machines because we were paid in cash. We didn't need direct debits because we got a bill and paid for it with cash. If we wanted to buy something that we couldn't afford we either saved for it or, like with my FS1E, we paid cash in installments. We didn't need banks.
This all seemed to change in the 1980's when being paid weekly in cash fell out of fashion. Instead we were paid monthly by credit transfer. I was told this was "better" - but it didn't feel like it to me. For a start I'd lost that little bit of weekly joy that came in a brown window envelope.
I still got a brown window envelope, but now all it contained was a payslip - nothing like the pleasure one got from having the money as well. On top of that, my money now went into a bank account and the only way I could get that money was to go to a bank and withdraw it. I couldn't see how it was "better" then and I still can't see how it is better now - it might have been better for the employers and certainly better for the banks, but for me .......no.
The irony is that as banks became more and more essential to more and more of us the more they withdrew from the high street. If I want to get hold of my money I have to make a special journey to go and get it.
The banks have us over a barrel. My parents generation got by without ever needing them for the most part, but we have to have a bank account or we pretty much don't exist. This is why they treat us like scum rather than valued customers - we're not customers to them ... just revenue streams.
We're just numbered accounts that the banks and the various corporations that feed off them shuffle our money about with scant regard for whose money it is they are actually shuffling. It's all one big con to make us spend money we don't have and for them to accumulate money they are not entitled to - and I've had enough.
I'm getting rid of all the direct debits. From now on I'm going to pay bills by cash and only on demand. If my energy supplier sends me a bill I'll tell them to take it out of my "account". I have to have a bank account for my pay to go into, but I'm going to run it at bare minimum levels - I'm fed up of being treated like rubbish by unaccountable and uncontactable corporations - I'm going back to basics.
I only wish more of us would do the same. Only if we start standing up for ourselves can we force these faceless bureaucrats to come out of hiding and start treating us like people again. They think that because they've pushed us into a situation where we "need" them that we don't have a choice. The reality is that they need us more than we need them. Without us they have nothing and it's high time they realised this.
Join the revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)