I am not going to say it, I'll tell you this now. Already I see people sending "Happy Xmas" messages to other people's facebook walls. STOP! It isn't Xmas yet! It is annoying! Although in the household I am in at the moment you would have the right to be confused. We are breaking with tradition and having our Xmas dinner today on the eve. This is out of sympathy for my Mum who unfortunately has a night shift on Xmas, and thus would rather avoid all of the stress/anger and finally joy that the dinner preparation brings before attending to patients. It suits me because it seems to extend the Xmas experience. Dinner today and presents tomorrow. That suits me fine.
I am quite thoughtful at this juncture. Likely because in many ways, 2012 promises to be a year of positive change for me. First and foremost I have made the radical decision to take evening classes that will tutor in how to write a novel. Those of you who know me well may have had a curious feeling of deja vu, and you would be forgiven for doing so. I have been yapping on about doing that for a while, and have barely started before abandoning the project. That was unfortunate but at the time was for the best, my last project in many ways was a reflection of the sort of person I was nearly 2 years ago. Disatisfied would sum it up. And in some ways angry. But I can say with a smile that I am simply not that person anymore. And so my ideas about what to write have changed and settled on a different project. I don't want to go on about it, I would prefer that anyone who is interested would ask me privately about the novel. It is basically an anti-Twilight book, that is the only clue you are getting.
The other positive change that will take place is myself and my dearest girlfriend moving in together. We have now been together for just over 2 years, and I can say with no exageration that she has changed my life (for the better in case you are wondering). I mentioned before that I am not the same person I was 2 years ago, much happier, and she has played a big part in this change. This will be an adventure for both of us. We are both are own people and more than a little odd, but I am sure we will settle down in our new place before too long. Wherever that may be. So long as it is devoid of crooked/crazy landlords, money grabbing agencies, leaking walls, leaking ceilings, dodgy electrics, junkies and other obstacles to a setttled homelife in Bristol that have plagued both of us over the years. I am greatly looking forward to it. The other positive change in 2012 again I will have to ask people to contact me privately about, if they are curious to know. Sorry about the mystery but I have seen people say too much online before and endanger their current circumstances. Rest assured that everything is alright, no one will be hurt. And this is definitely something I am looking forward to. In many ways I should have done it a long time before, but I am pleased that it will happen soon. Better late than never.
As ever I have watched 2011 from a political angle with a keen eye. It has been a very busy year indeed. Evil doer deaths have gone up: Colonel Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il as a late entry. There have also been some rather sad ones as regards talented individuals as well, including but not exclusively the actor Pete Posthelwaite. The UK Coalition government between my party the Liberals and the Conservatives is battered but holding. Riots sadly broke out in majory cities of this country, a very sad incidence which I am sure most of us will learn the wrong lessons from. Mark my words interested politicians, the putrid press and the moronic sections of the public will look at Egypt and suggest that we should have police as skull-cracking as theirs. But I could write a book about how stupid the public can be.
The so called Arab Spring has been a real object of fascination for me. In many ways my interest in current affairs stemmed from my fascination with the Middle East, which for better or worse caught my attention in the 9/11 period. I learned from that horrific event, as good as anything to be salvaged from that terrible day one could say. Since learning about the region I have long looked at the various kingdoms and autocratic regimes in the region, hoping that one day the people would cry out for freedom. In a true case of the lesson of 'be careful what you wish for it might come true', it in many ways has. Gaddafi in his arrogance tried to mow down his people with machine gun fire when they expressed their displeasure at him, he departed in an ugly way to be sure, but at least he won't harm anyone. In Tunisia a graduate reduced to selling vegetables set himself on fire in public, setting off a chain of evens that pushed out the thug-in-chief Ben Ali out of power, and has subsequently lead to free elections. Egypt is still in a state of flux. And in a more bloody way, so is Syria. These are exciting times to be sure. I will watch them with great interest.
And so we come from the Middle East back to the UK. I have often expressed my exasperation at my countrymen as well as those who lead them. This year has been one of moral shocks that have hit us to the core. And what have we learned? Very little. 'Why is this?' one wonders. A part of the reason is I feel because we as a people refuse to seriously look ourselves in the mirror and face our society's contradictions. What we do is as much of a cause of these contradictions as what our politicians do. And on that subject we have in some ways sadly become more cynical and conformist when it comes to suggestions of forcing positive change.
Our press in one way or another is largely rotten. No broadsheet barely bothers to disguise it's partisan bias. Tabloids are for the most part putrid piles of garbage that feed lies, hate, superstition, fuel our mstrustful nature and our addiction to learning about other people's misery. Our addiction to learning about other people's intimate private lives pushed the papers we made powerful to rise to new levels of unethical behaviour. The phone hacking scandal was awful, but it or something like it will be sure to happen again. Why? Because the cause is still there. WE are the cause. We made the News of the World powerful and we could see as it died it's death, its filth hasn't really died, it has taken on many other forms. Dreck like the Sun and other similar dregs of the press have taken up the News' refugee readership. And thus the circle of life continues.
There has been a lot of fury aimed at the bankers in our country. Some of this is encouraging, others not. Smouldering public anger and resentment is a powerful force that can either be constructive for destructive, too often the later. It is the former if it directed constructively. Members of the last regime are shamelessly stoking this anger. This is ultimately a move that will reap short term benefits for them but will bring terrible long term detriment to all of us. Let us get a few things straight, incompetence and greed that exists within some of the banking community lead to the crash. They should deservedly be punished and ostracised. Bob Diamond lives in a dreamworld. And Fred Goodwin (I will not acknowledge his title) is a walking disaster. But that does not mean that all of their rivals should punished for the bad behaviour commited by a few. That isn't justice. That is revenge, so I say no to the Robin Hood Tax. Immoral behaviour is not restricted to the rich, nor is self delusion.
And self delusion takes me nicely to the monarchy. Now tomorrow afternoon I am sure many people will take the time out to listen to the Queen deliver her message. No doubt she will touch on a theme which will be aimed to resonate with people which she deems lower than her, that is you, myself and everyone else. A lovely propaganda broadcast, a sweet and well spoken elderly lady instead of some dictator with a beard. You can question the bankers, you can take a dump on the press and you can make politicians sound like burglers. But one thing that is always frowned upon in this country is speaking the ill of the Queen and the royals at large. You can't talk about their priviliged access to our government, their publicly maintained large estates, their publicly salaried staff, their corrupt behaviour or their special position in the eyes of the law.
Einstein was right, nationalism in many ways is a plague on mankind. More like Alzheimers on mankind I say. We forget simple facts and who we are. And who we are is a slightly cantankerous but proud people who have survived various upheavals and 2 world wars only to call ourselves democratic, and yet keep the priviliged and undemocratic black heart of our society mantained the same as it ever was. And even further, be pleased that it is still there. Because they do good! They give money for sure, but don't many Britain's? Are they above the law? Oh they are nice to foriegners abroad and bring in tourists. The former is a stupid reason, the later is irrelevant. I would hope we are all fine representatives to our country when we go abroad. Versailles is devoid of inbreds (other than perhaps some tourists) and makes far more money than Buckingham Palace.
Protecting these so called blue bloods is a disgrace to our integrity, our democratic way of life and us as a people. I will be happy to rain on their parade during next year's Jubilee, the Queen may think she rules over her subjects but she does not rule me! And I for one am not afraid to tell her. She is a historical hangover, WE are the people. And we do not need her where she is, either she gets in line with the rest of us or she earns our scorn, by pretending she is better than us. Kate and Wills disgraced this country by making London a police state when they got married, and confined us Republicans into the furthest random corner of London, surrounded by police. This time we will be marching, and if peaceful protesting is an arrestable offence, then I guess I will soon have something interesting to put on my CV before too long!
This country is great, and we make it great. Merry Xmas. I am off to fetch my grandma for Xmas dinner.
Saturday, 24 December 2011
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
This Lib Dem wants an EU referendum
Ordinarily I would be gleeful at seeing the Conservative Party suffer a historically large rebellion within it's own ranks. Yesterday in response to a petition sent in by the public a vote was put to Parliament, to decide if a public referendum about this country's membership of the European Union should take place. The government and opposition voted against this referendum, the majority of votes for the referendum being from rebel Conservatives (111 votes were cast against, 80 of them rebel Tory votes).
Like I said ordinarily I would say good, what's bad for UKIP and the Tory 1922 Committee is good for me. And ultimately good for the country. Now I am not so sure.
If you ask many people about what the EU does many people wouldn't have much of a clue beyond it being involved in promoting trade in the continent. Yet the body is ever expanding, and even has its own Parliament. With this the body has gone on a law creating frenzy. Many of these laws automatically become entwined with our legal system, only occassionally coming under direct parliamentary scrutiny. Much of this is unsettlingly under the radar, we hardly take notice of it happening.
We vote in MPs because we want them to influence the formation of laws in ways we see fit. Already we substitute our interests to representatives in Parliament, this is the consensus to have us represented but prevent "mob rule". But by that logic the consensus is stretched a lot more when our country's let alone our own voting power declines, in the face of representatives from other countries, voting in a parliament of 25 nations. That isn't to say we are being taken over, that is to say it is harder to ensure that our interests are spoken up for in this wider forum.
Suddenly our interests are smaller fish in a bigger sea. It stands to reason that some people may worry about this. And they have a right to. Public concern in such institutions can be alleviated by measures that allow greater transparency to be introduced as well as measures to give them people more of a direct say.
People can put up with a lot. But one thing they are intolerant of is being promised to have a say in a big decision, then having that oppurtunity taken away from them. The previous government did it with the Lisbon Treaty and signed it, even when other EU member countries trusted their people enough to let them have a say. And now our government is responsible for snubbing the will of the people. It is as though the government turned around and said to the public "we are smarter than you, we have to make this important decision for you. Because we know best". By putting across this message our three main parties have effectively betrayed us all.
The EU have become an off limits debating topic. The more it does the less likely its very real faults will ever get attention. The inherent contradictions are there but somehow progress in solving them alludes us. This is because the UK main parties have made the EU a political pillar issue, meaning to mention it in a critical way is sure to get you labelled as a crazy isolationist.
Well I am not an isolationist. Far from it. I know why my party has no spine on the hard issues when it comes to the EU, vested interests. Our leader is a former MEP, that is why he used his recent public appearance to call for the scalps of Euro-sceptics. Our former shadow foriegn policy spokesman Ed Davie has had business links with Europe for many years, and the Europe revolving door extends further into the party. It is arguable that the opposite bias exists on the Tory bench, with much of the party favouring a closer relationship with the US. Labour tends to flop both ways in the extreme. The Lisbon Treaty was dooley signed, and our airspace was made available for the safe passage of US terror flights under New Labour.
This power bloc mentallity is embarrasingly simplistic. We need to start considering a balanced relationship with both power blocs, and appreciate the divisions within Europe especially. For instance some eastern European nations who have worked hard at spending wisely have scoffed at Greece, an early member of the EU not know for fiscal discipline yet getting in far earlier than the eastern bloc countries. Germany too is starting to wonder about the future of Europe since their capital is being used for many of the bailouts being carried out. And let us not forget about the BRIC countries, the rising powers. Less so Russia. Perhaps it is time we use more of our energy to reach out to them.
The EU started as a free trade body, yet not many of the member countries as a whole operate on purely free trade rules. Protectionism still exists. The EU Cap and Trade scheme is a sham, that has ended up giving money to some of the continent's most polluting industries. The EU parliament expenses report has been censored, not letting us know how OUR money has been spent. The French farmer still gets more agricultural subsidies while British farmers struggle to turn a profit. Serbia is given a fast track to talks after spontaneously pulling a war criminal out of its hat (more impressive than a rabbit trick any day of the week), yet Turkey struggles even to get talks about talks to enter the EU. And the final insult is that France, a country has now banned the burkha has criticised us for breaching human rights.
This will and has gone on for years. I think the EU and its advocates and detractors need to have an open debate. If the EU is worth saving then let us go to political war over it. If it is going to rob us blind more than it helps us then let us get out of it. At the very least we need to make the issue of the EU a lot more open to the public. More informative for sure. Part of that is giving people a reason to learn. Why look up something that you have no stake in? Give people power, and they, some at least will strive to be responsible.
But please, no more telling us the economy is too bad to make this decision. This issue will be less likely to be debated in the easy times, not more. Besides the economy is hardly ever rosey these days, but life goes on. And don't make leaving the EU akin to the country becoming an isolationist outpost of evil, slipping towards poverty. I doubt European countries will all simply stop trading with us if we left the EU, they have an interest in continuity in that regard as much as we do. Putting power out of people's hands is FEEDING anti-EU extremism, not reducing it.
If politicians want to destroy UKIP then fight them on their own terms. Hit them where they live, blow their single issue wide open. Then condemn them to obscurity for the rest of their natural lives. And at the same time make the EU seem less inhuman and more relevant to people's lives.
This Lib Dem wants an EU referendum, and condemns his leader for cheating the public out of what they have asked for.
Like I said ordinarily I would say good, what's bad for UKIP and the Tory 1922 Committee is good for me. And ultimately good for the country. Now I am not so sure.
If you ask many people about what the EU does many people wouldn't have much of a clue beyond it being involved in promoting trade in the continent. Yet the body is ever expanding, and even has its own Parliament. With this the body has gone on a law creating frenzy. Many of these laws automatically become entwined with our legal system, only occassionally coming under direct parliamentary scrutiny. Much of this is unsettlingly under the radar, we hardly take notice of it happening.
We vote in MPs because we want them to influence the formation of laws in ways we see fit. Already we substitute our interests to representatives in Parliament, this is the consensus to have us represented but prevent "mob rule". But by that logic the consensus is stretched a lot more when our country's let alone our own voting power declines, in the face of representatives from other countries, voting in a parliament of 25 nations. That isn't to say we are being taken over, that is to say it is harder to ensure that our interests are spoken up for in this wider forum.
Suddenly our interests are smaller fish in a bigger sea. It stands to reason that some people may worry about this. And they have a right to. Public concern in such institutions can be alleviated by measures that allow greater transparency to be introduced as well as measures to give them people more of a direct say.
People can put up with a lot. But one thing they are intolerant of is being promised to have a say in a big decision, then having that oppurtunity taken away from them. The previous government did it with the Lisbon Treaty and signed it, even when other EU member countries trusted their people enough to let them have a say. And now our government is responsible for snubbing the will of the people. It is as though the government turned around and said to the public "we are smarter than you, we have to make this important decision for you. Because we know best". By putting across this message our three main parties have effectively betrayed us all.
The EU have become an off limits debating topic. The more it does the less likely its very real faults will ever get attention. The inherent contradictions are there but somehow progress in solving them alludes us. This is because the UK main parties have made the EU a political pillar issue, meaning to mention it in a critical way is sure to get you labelled as a crazy isolationist.
Well I am not an isolationist. Far from it. I know why my party has no spine on the hard issues when it comes to the EU, vested interests. Our leader is a former MEP, that is why he used his recent public appearance to call for the scalps of Euro-sceptics. Our former shadow foriegn policy spokesman Ed Davie has had business links with Europe for many years, and the Europe revolving door extends further into the party. It is arguable that the opposite bias exists on the Tory bench, with much of the party favouring a closer relationship with the US. Labour tends to flop both ways in the extreme. The Lisbon Treaty was dooley signed, and our airspace was made available for the safe passage of US terror flights under New Labour.
This power bloc mentallity is embarrasingly simplistic. We need to start considering a balanced relationship with both power blocs, and appreciate the divisions within Europe especially. For instance some eastern European nations who have worked hard at spending wisely have scoffed at Greece, an early member of the EU not know for fiscal discipline yet getting in far earlier than the eastern bloc countries. Germany too is starting to wonder about the future of Europe since their capital is being used for many of the bailouts being carried out. And let us not forget about the BRIC countries, the rising powers. Less so Russia. Perhaps it is time we use more of our energy to reach out to them.
The EU started as a free trade body, yet not many of the member countries as a whole operate on purely free trade rules. Protectionism still exists. The EU Cap and Trade scheme is a sham, that has ended up giving money to some of the continent's most polluting industries. The EU parliament expenses report has been censored, not letting us know how OUR money has been spent. The French farmer still gets more agricultural subsidies while British farmers struggle to turn a profit. Serbia is given a fast track to talks after spontaneously pulling a war criminal out of its hat (more impressive than a rabbit trick any day of the week), yet Turkey struggles even to get talks about talks to enter the EU. And the final insult is that France, a country has now banned the burkha has criticised us for breaching human rights.
This will and has gone on for years. I think the EU and its advocates and detractors need to have an open debate. If the EU is worth saving then let us go to political war over it. If it is going to rob us blind more than it helps us then let us get out of it. At the very least we need to make the issue of the EU a lot more open to the public. More informative for sure. Part of that is giving people a reason to learn. Why look up something that you have no stake in? Give people power, and they, some at least will strive to be responsible.
But please, no more telling us the economy is too bad to make this decision. This issue will be less likely to be debated in the easy times, not more. Besides the economy is hardly ever rosey these days, but life goes on. And don't make leaving the EU akin to the country becoming an isolationist outpost of evil, slipping towards poverty. I doubt European countries will all simply stop trading with us if we left the EU, they have an interest in continuity in that regard as much as we do. Putting power out of people's hands is FEEDING anti-EU extremism, not reducing it.
If politicians want to destroy UKIP then fight them on their own terms. Hit them where they live, blow their single issue wide open. Then condemn them to obscurity for the rest of their natural lives. And at the same time make the EU seem less inhuman and more relevant to people's lives.
This Lib Dem wants an EU referendum, and condemns his leader for cheating the public out of what they have asked for.
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Worrying about the Right Things is a Good Start
We can often get ourselves worked up over nothing, or nothing much. Just a few weeks ago I found myself surprisingly nervous heading on the Eurostar for my first holiday in mainland Europe, to stay in Paris for a week. My family bar a few are all shocking at foreign languages, especially French. I am sadly not one of the exceptions to that rule. As we got out in Gar Du Nord the dumb tourist persona overshadowed me (albeit temporarily), as I came to the realisation that I was in a country full of a majority of people whom I would not be able to communicate with. At least not on any but the most basic level. Oh sure I had my trusty phrase book, I bought two as though I was on an army partol and needed a back up lest I be defenceless in unfamiliar territory.
Needless to say such concerns were embarrasingly largely irrelevant. Myself and Anna got to our hotel using enough French and awkward gesticulation to get us to our destination to the taxi driver. Tired and somewhat amused by our attempts at communication, the driver dully drove us to our hotel. Everywhere else we either learned our phrases well enough to pass by, or like in the greasy cafe across the road from our hotel, we ended up talking to someone who wanted to practice their English. With the exception of the hotel caterer at breakfast time, she was exceptionally rude at our attempts to communicate with her. She offended all of the European guests in our room, to the extent that I thought we may have to band together, in a sort of strange re-enactment of the coalition that brought down Napoleon in 1815. Nothing so dramatic happened, we left the crone to tyrannise the breakfast room for the rest of the week and got breakfast elsewhere.
Why did this happen? Why did I waste my energy worrying? I snapped out of it eventually, just so you all know I very much enjoyed my holiday. I was after all going on holiday in a civilised country (some would perhaps disagree). The fear was eventually replaced by a sober reality check. Bouts of fear can make people do crazy things, so can anger.
At the moment I feel there is too much fear and anger in this country. Much of it, though not enough has been ploughed into constructive outlets. It in many ways isn't surprising, our country has gone through a rough patch. We have made it through a recession only to be faced by an ever bleaker economic future being slowly revealed. Then came the cuts. Then came the riots. Then phone hacking. You hear noises about us not being able to trust: bankers, cops, journalists and especially not politicians.
Right now much of the anger is being taken out on the corporate world for alleged (and in some cases definite) greed, through the now global protests inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement. In many ways I smile at this new trend for activism. But the beard stroking former politics student in me urges caution.
A common theme I see in these current activist upheavals left and right wing, is the theme of big monoliths (government and corporate) disadvantaging and in many cases betraying people outright. The betrayal myth has existed in politics in many forms for years. Sometimes it has been rightly invoked. But at other times it has been invoked to provoke base feelings of resentment and anger for destructive ends. A negative example of this betrayal myth is the 'Stab in the Back' myth used by the Nazis to deadly effect in the 1930s. This myth described the German people being corrupted from within by a fifth column of Jews and Communists.
Now I am not trying to say that teenagers and middle aged Mum's in New York or in London are going to start causing genocide. Activism trumps apathy in my book any day, so I am pleased to see people up and out. What I am concerned at is the undirected and unconstructive display of raw emotion on display, where will it lead? Where is this going? Does anyone know? I guess my main worry is that people are talking about problems everywhere, but actual solutions are hard to come by.
What is the answer to corporate greed? Does anyone want to answer it? Why not? Too complicated? Perhaps. But if one is out on the frontlines, surely they shouldn't be afraid to be put on the spot. Myself on the anti-nuke protest a couple of years ago would say the solution to the problem I have highlighted is unilateral disarmament. I am concerned that if this movement does not get constructive really quickly it will either run out of steam or turn into something undesirable.
I think a lot of this rests with people's acceptance of easy answers. The hardest answer to hear though, is that you are not part of a solution, or that you are unknowingly part of the problem in some way. Corporate debt is rampant, but so is personal debt. Yet the movement to highlight the latter is miniscule compared to the movement to the former. Having said that, yes corporations have a lot to answer for, but we too remain imperfect.
Make no mistake though. The government too is at fault. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have allowed a culture of fear to descend on the country. Suddenly people are afraid to protest, and the disgraceful restrictions on protesting in London remain. London became a totalitarian state during the Royal Wedding, casting us protestors for a republic outside of the party like a dangerous revolutionary linch mob. People are being demonised by two former vandalisers and arsonists. In this respect the world has trully gone mad. We are told that this kind of societal distress is new and requires harsher medicine, this is complete tosh. Read a history book, we have been through worse.
The point I want to make from all this is the following. Misdirected fear and anger are hardly ever good things to have around. Yes, blame those responsible. But remember that your farts don't smell of roses. ALL people have a stake in a better tomorrow. Just raking up the past and getting bitter over it will only go so far. People need to dare to think of solutions, not worry about the consequences. If you are proven wrong, admit it, and take it in your stride.....and start again! We're British, the stiffer upper lip is a national treasure. And so is our knack for succeeding in times of adversity.
Needless to say such concerns were embarrasingly largely irrelevant. Myself and Anna got to our hotel using enough French and awkward gesticulation to get us to our destination to the taxi driver. Tired and somewhat amused by our attempts at communication, the driver dully drove us to our hotel. Everywhere else we either learned our phrases well enough to pass by, or like in the greasy cafe across the road from our hotel, we ended up talking to someone who wanted to practice their English. With the exception of the hotel caterer at breakfast time, she was exceptionally rude at our attempts to communicate with her. She offended all of the European guests in our room, to the extent that I thought we may have to band together, in a sort of strange re-enactment of the coalition that brought down Napoleon in 1815. Nothing so dramatic happened, we left the crone to tyrannise the breakfast room for the rest of the week and got breakfast elsewhere.
Why did this happen? Why did I waste my energy worrying? I snapped out of it eventually, just so you all know I very much enjoyed my holiday. I was after all going on holiday in a civilised country (some would perhaps disagree). The fear was eventually replaced by a sober reality check. Bouts of fear can make people do crazy things, so can anger.
At the moment I feel there is too much fear and anger in this country. Much of it, though not enough has been ploughed into constructive outlets. It in many ways isn't surprising, our country has gone through a rough patch. We have made it through a recession only to be faced by an ever bleaker economic future being slowly revealed. Then came the cuts. Then came the riots. Then phone hacking. You hear noises about us not being able to trust: bankers, cops, journalists and especially not politicians.
Right now much of the anger is being taken out on the corporate world for alleged (and in some cases definite) greed, through the now global protests inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement. In many ways I smile at this new trend for activism. But the beard stroking former politics student in me urges caution.
A common theme I see in these current activist upheavals left and right wing, is the theme of big monoliths (government and corporate) disadvantaging and in many cases betraying people outright. The betrayal myth has existed in politics in many forms for years. Sometimes it has been rightly invoked. But at other times it has been invoked to provoke base feelings of resentment and anger for destructive ends. A negative example of this betrayal myth is the 'Stab in the Back' myth used by the Nazis to deadly effect in the 1930s. This myth described the German people being corrupted from within by a fifth column of Jews and Communists.
Now I am not trying to say that teenagers and middle aged Mum's in New York or in London are going to start causing genocide. Activism trumps apathy in my book any day, so I am pleased to see people up and out. What I am concerned at is the undirected and unconstructive display of raw emotion on display, where will it lead? Where is this going? Does anyone know? I guess my main worry is that people are talking about problems everywhere, but actual solutions are hard to come by.
What is the answer to corporate greed? Does anyone want to answer it? Why not? Too complicated? Perhaps. But if one is out on the frontlines, surely they shouldn't be afraid to be put on the spot. Myself on the anti-nuke protest a couple of years ago would say the solution to the problem I have highlighted is unilateral disarmament. I am concerned that if this movement does not get constructive really quickly it will either run out of steam or turn into something undesirable.
I think a lot of this rests with people's acceptance of easy answers. The hardest answer to hear though, is that you are not part of a solution, or that you are unknowingly part of the problem in some way. Corporate debt is rampant, but so is personal debt. Yet the movement to highlight the latter is miniscule compared to the movement to the former. Having said that, yes corporations have a lot to answer for, but we too remain imperfect.
Make no mistake though. The government too is at fault. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have allowed a culture of fear to descend on the country. Suddenly people are afraid to protest, and the disgraceful restrictions on protesting in London remain. London became a totalitarian state during the Royal Wedding, casting us protestors for a republic outside of the party like a dangerous revolutionary linch mob. People are being demonised by two former vandalisers and arsonists. In this respect the world has trully gone mad. We are told that this kind of societal distress is new and requires harsher medicine, this is complete tosh. Read a history book, we have been through worse.
The point I want to make from all this is the following. Misdirected fear and anger are hardly ever good things to have around. Yes, blame those responsible. But remember that your farts don't smell of roses. ALL people have a stake in a better tomorrow. Just raking up the past and getting bitter over it will only go so far. People need to dare to think of solutions, not worry about the consequences. If you are proven wrong, admit it, and take it in your stride.....and start again! We're British, the stiffer upper lip is a national treasure. And so is our knack for succeeding in times of adversity.
Friday, 9 September 2011
Environmentalism: Its All In the Presentation
I had a discussion with my girlfriend the other day about a subject which is quite dear to both of us. That is the world's efforts to take greater care of the world we live in and combat the phenomenon known as Global Warming. Sometime it is nice to talk to someone who agrees with you, preaching to the choir as it were. When I talk her about this subject it is clear she has strong feelings about this subject, that people aren't doing enough to prevent damage to the Earth, she usually has stronger feelings than myself about this.
Strong feelings about global warming and the state of the planet in general can be positive. They get people motivated into either thinking constructively or better yet towards equally constructive action. But you can only learn so much from people who agree with you. I find often far more interesting discussions can be had with people who either disagree with you or half believe you. It really gets you testing your arguments to defend your beliefs and hopefully advance them, on the unconvinced or nearly convinced.
I had the opportunity to engage in one of these debates with a more right wing leaning friend of mine, over a drink (which turned into four). I put it to him that the planet is clearly being abused. He agreed. I declared that sensible and constructive legislation should be put through to regulate human activity (the 'r' word often being a toxic one in the right wing vocabulary). He agreed on principle. Wearing my politics a bit more on my sleeve I said that is near lunacy to declare that man made global warming is anything but a solid fact. My right wing friend looked uneasy, and then decided to intervene. And shock horror he presented himself as a climate change denier. Given my strong feelings on the subject you would have thought I would have taken a disliking to him after this. For an instant I was, but then I got to thinking: he cares about the planet but he is unconvinced about global warming, perhaps he isn't alone.
Indeed he is not. And he has a right to that opinion, and he has the good fortune to live in a society where different opinions are expected. But all too often I feel conformity is an even more expected element of modern British society. Not just in British society either, I sense the US is not much better. Over there the global warming issue in the wake of political polarisation between Republican and Democrat have regrettably turned this issue into a political football. I am admittedly naturally left leaning which stereotypically would incline me to more readily accept the more pro-environmentalist camp, which at the moment does not look like the Republican side. Over in the US it seems as though in some quarters global warming scepticism or indeed denial is shown as a badge of honour. In Britain I find a general acceptance of global warming is the accepted norm, with the other extreme almost being treated as the ugly sisters of our society.
This I feel is the ultimate logical flaw in the ideological minds of both extremes in the political spectrum, left and right. The more readily you write people off, be they an alleged murderer, an anti-capitalist, a hippy, an unemployed person, a climate change denier or even someone who just simply disagrees with you, you are in some way taking easy way out, and avoiding the easy answers. There aren't always easy answers for difficult questions. And simply erasing people who are seemingly in the way of a solution to a big problem is ultimately a fools’ errand. Especially since you will likely need at least some of those people on your side, if not at least listening to your position.
I share the environmentalist's frustration at people who are climate change sceptics. For myself the evidence is overwhelming, and as far as I can tell a majority of the world's scientific community believe that climate change is in part at least due to man-made activity. But wishing away people with frustrating opinions never works. And railing at them like they are puppy killers and baby eaters (which I feel some pressure groups do) I feel does massive harm to the cause of environmentalism and its supporters. Some people just are not interested in what may or may not be happening now that may have severe consequences later. They want pragmatic solutions, and to be talked to like a human being, not a simpleton.
At the last party conference for my party in Liverpool I had a long talk with some of the Green Liberal Democrats at their stall. I ended up having a long conversation with one of them, subtly moving us away from talk about me giving them a joiner’s fee to their group (it cost me enough to stay in the city); we ended up talking for a while about practical ways of promoting sustainable living. I have to say, many of the examples I had been shown amazed me. What I particularly found interesting was the introduction of so called Smart metres to homes, thus allowing people to monitor and regulate their energy use. I thought this could potentially be marketed to people less sold on the global warming concept, since they would likely be a lot more interested in saving their pennies. Before I left on a high though I decided to confront the man before me with the question of nuclear power, and where he stood on it. Judging by his unease he agreed with our party's critical stance on it. He mentioned that this issue was being debated. Sensing another donation drive coming on in the conversation, I stated my views politely and bluntly. Nuclear power isn't perfect but it is statistically safer than the media portrays it as, and it is a damn-site cleaner carbon-wise than coal. I thanked him for his time and then left the conference for the day. On the way out I dodged a small kid with his trade unionist family jumping in my face and calling me a right wing Tory-Nazi.
Back in 2006 while on holiday in St. Ives Cornwall, while enjoying the sun I also enjoyed a lot of reading. It was then that I read a book which blew me away, when I least expected it. This book is "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. James Lovelock a British independent scientist is known in environmentalist circles for advancing the Gaia theory. This theory represents the entire planet as one giant self sustaining and self regulating organism. Not as an organism in the same self aware sense in which we exist, but still very much living, and to a certain extent self healing. That is self healing to a finite amount.
With this theory laid out Lovelock drawing on a massive crash course about how the basic chemical processes that sustain life occur, and how ancient natural cycles and processes are being disrupted by man, proceeded to deliver a well aimed wrecking ball at many myths held up as true in Green circles. Buying organic food is basically an expensive con scheme tells Lovelock, which represents farming practices often more damaging than those using more 'artificial' methods. Nuclear power isn't perfect but it is suicidal to the planet to completely disregard it, therefore more nuclear plants should be built.
The book was incredible. It was like being hit by a sledgehammer made of years of scientific research, the bluntness of an old man (Lovelock is 92) who hasn't got time for wasting, his awe for a truly incredible planet trampled by mankind's ignorance, and most importantly; sheer common sense. If anyone has to read just one book about the cause of environmentalism, take my word for it that this one is worth it.
After reading Lovelock's book, talking to my right wing friend and putting my door step canvassers' and my politician's brain on I re-evaluated my thoughts on environmentalism. It struck me that as Lovelock pointed out, that the awful truth is that anything we do now will in some ways be too late. The Earth will be damaged one way or the other, the various crises will inevitably come, so any plans now will have to involve crisis management (flood defences, learning to adapt etc). My second thought is that not everyone is going to buy the same argument. Some will need reasoning as much as coercing. Door step canvassing by experience nurtures a certain instinct within you about which are the right buttons to push, when trying to put your point across. But what most people loathe and are quick to rebel against, is being treated like an idiot, or being made to feel that they are not being listened too. Certain interest groups point at the shrill cries of environmentalist groups, and cry hysteria and extremism. In my view the response to these attacks should be a counter-attack with reasoned debate, and a respect for the other side's position.
When it comes to the offensive on interest groups that either claim that the environmentalist case is flawed or exaggerated, parties on the side of environmentalism may find it an advantage to advance a charge on several fronts. It is a fact that global warming is not the only issue facing this planet. Soil erosion, deforestation, the mass extinction of species, water pollution/shortages and air pollution are debating points to advance for starters. Many of which have their own scientific data built up over years to back up their case. Much of the talk I hear from the tub-thumping front runners of the Republicans concerning environmental policy is that they simply think global warming is a phantom menace. A paper tiger made out of hundreds of alarmist reports released by liberal leaning members of the scientific community. The way to deal with these people is to simply outflank them. People may be in doubt about global warming, but you can't ignore trees disappearing, water becoming toxic, tuna becoming contaminated and air in cities becoming toxic.
While watching 'Gasland' a documentary about Shale Gas drilling in the US, my girlfriend sighed when she heard the Chairman of a Senate Committee mentioned something about their concerns about "the economy and the environment". At first I didn't understand the distaste she was expressing, then I realised the point she was making. We humans have become the masters of self delusion. We routinely reshape the world how we want it, cutting down stuff here and concreting stuff there. Until we kid ourselves that we are completely separate. Separate from plants, animals and ultimately the planet. That we are the masters of all we survey. And within this little fantasy land we create our precious economy which dictates our lives, to the point where the planet and thus life itself becomes cheap.
This is the point we need to get across most I feel. We are not and will never be separate from the planet. And like it or not, the Earth is much more likely to survive us than the other way round. I believe that as we trash the world, we will ultimately be the ones to suffer. Recessions will seem like cakewalks when we really reap what we sow, as a result of our actions and inactions. The only question now is how much life will be left on this planet other than human life, when we finally change our ways. Like it or not the changes we have to make come into conflict with some of our long held beliefs. The long held belief of man's superiority and omnipotent intelligence on this planet needs to be taken down a notch or two. I feel some although not all of this human arrogance has its roots in some aspects of religion. But that is not likely to just disappear, so we come back again to pragmatic reasoning.
To sum up, I feel that environmentalism at the moment is a cause that will only today go so far. The often impatient and dogmatic approach taken by many of the movements supporters I feel will only do push it further towards irrelevance, in the eyes of the public mainstream. Changes will have to be made most definitely, but they must be workable ones. And they must not be at the price of people's freedom, most importantly their freedoms of speech and expression. I despise smug middle class Greens preaching against air travel, now budget airlines is making international travel more accessible for millions. I care about the environment, but I myself will still fly. The carbon emissions of planes, needs a pragmatic and effective solution. Not the severing off of my country into a permanent island.
Environmental damage and green house gases need to be reduced quickly. Common sense is what we ultimately need a lot more of.
Strong feelings about global warming and the state of the planet in general can be positive. They get people motivated into either thinking constructively or better yet towards equally constructive action. But you can only learn so much from people who agree with you. I find often far more interesting discussions can be had with people who either disagree with you or half believe you. It really gets you testing your arguments to defend your beliefs and hopefully advance them, on the unconvinced or nearly convinced.
I had the opportunity to engage in one of these debates with a more right wing leaning friend of mine, over a drink (which turned into four). I put it to him that the planet is clearly being abused. He agreed. I declared that sensible and constructive legislation should be put through to regulate human activity (the 'r' word often being a toxic one in the right wing vocabulary). He agreed on principle. Wearing my politics a bit more on my sleeve I said that is near lunacy to declare that man made global warming is anything but a solid fact. My right wing friend looked uneasy, and then decided to intervene. And shock horror he presented himself as a climate change denier. Given my strong feelings on the subject you would have thought I would have taken a disliking to him after this. For an instant I was, but then I got to thinking: he cares about the planet but he is unconvinced about global warming, perhaps he isn't alone.
Indeed he is not. And he has a right to that opinion, and he has the good fortune to live in a society where different opinions are expected. But all too often I feel conformity is an even more expected element of modern British society. Not just in British society either, I sense the US is not much better. Over there the global warming issue in the wake of political polarisation between Republican and Democrat have regrettably turned this issue into a political football. I am admittedly naturally left leaning which stereotypically would incline me to more readily accept the more pro-environmentalist camp, which at the moment does not look like the Republican side. Over in the US it seems as though in some quarters global warming scepticism or indeed denial is shown as a badge of honour. In Britain I find a general acceptance of global warming is the accepted norm, with the other extreme almost being treated as the ugly sisters of our society.
This I feel is the ultimate logical flaw in the ideological minds of both extremes in the political spectrum, left and right. The more readily you write people off, be they an alleged murderer, an anti-capitalist, a hippy, an unemployed person, a climate change denier or even someone who just simply disagrees with you, you are in some way taking easy way out, and avoiding the easy answers. There aren't always easy answers for difficult questions. And simply erasing people who are seemingly in the way of a solution to a big problem is ultimately a fools’ errand. Especially since you will likely need at least some of those people on your side, if not at least listening to your position.
I share the environmentalist's frustration at people who are climate change sceptics. For myself the evidence is overwhelming, and as far as I can tell a majority of the world's scientific community believe that climate change is in part at least due to man-made activity. But wishing away people with frustrating opinions never works. And railing at them like they are puppy killers and baby eaters (which I feel some pressure groups do) I feel does massive harm to the cause of environmentalism and its supporters. Some people just are not interested in what may or may not be happening now that may have severe consequences later. They want pragmatic solutions, and to be talked to like a human being, not a simpleton.
At the last party conference for my party in Liverpool I had a long talk with some of the Green Liberal Democrats at their stall. I ended up having a long conversation with one of them, subtly moving us away from talk about me giving them a joiner’s fee to their group (it cost me enough to stay in the city); we ended up talking for a while about practical ways of promoting sustainable living. I have to say, many of the examples I had been shown amazed me. What I particularly found interesting was the introduction of so called Smart metres to homes, thus allowing people to monitor and regulate their energy use. I thought this could potentially be marketed to people less sold on the global warming concept, since they would likely be a lot more interested in saving their pennies. Before I left on a high though I decided to confront the man before me with the question of nuclear power, and where he stood on it. Judging by his unease he agreed with our party's critical stance on it. He mentioned that this issue was being debated. Sensing another donation drive coming on in the conversation, I stated my views politely and bluntly. Nuclear power isn't perfect but it is statistically safer than the media portrays it as, and it is a damn-site cleaner carbon-wise than coal. I thanked him for his time and then left the conference for the day. On the way out I dodged a small kid with his trade unionist family jumping in my face and calling me a right wing Tory-Nazi.
Back in 2006 while on holiday in St. Ives Cornwall, while enjoying the sun I also enjoyed a lot of reading. It was then that I read a book which blew me away, when I least expected it. This book is "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. James Lovelock a British independent scientist is known in environmentalist circles for advancing the Gaia theory. This theory represents the entire planet as one giant self sustaining and self regulating organism. Not as an organism in the same self aware sense in which we exist, but still very much living, and to a certain extent self healing. That is self healing to a finite amount.
With this theory laid out Lovelock drawing on a massive crash course about how the basic chemical processes that sustain life occur, and how ancient natural cycles and processes are being disrupted by man, proceeded to deliver a well aimed wrecking ball at many myths held up as true in Green circles. Buying organic food is basically an expensive con scheme tells Lovelock, which represents farming practices often more damaging than those using more 'artificial' methods. Nuclear power isn't perfect but it is suicidal to the planet to completely disregard it, therefore more nuclear plants should be built.
The book was incredible. It was like being hit by a sledgehammer made of years of scientific research, the bluntness of an old man (Lovelock is 92) who hasn't got time for wasting, his awe for a truly incredible planet trampled by mankind's ignorance, and most importantly; sheer common sense. If anyone has to read just one book about the cause of environmentalism, take my word for it that this one is worth it.
After reading Lovelock's book, talking to my right wing friend and putting my door step canvassers' and my politician's brain on I re-evaluated my thoughts on environmentalism. It struck me that as Lovelock pointed out, that the awful truth is that anything we do now will in some ways be too late. The Earth will be damaged one way or the other, the various crises will inevitably come, so any plans now will have to involve crisis management (flood defences, learning to adapt etc). My second thought is that not everyone is going to buy the same argument. Some will need reasoning as much as coercing. Door step canvassing by experience nurtures a certain instinct within you about which are the right buttons to push, when trying to put your point across. But what most people loathe and are quick to rebel against, is being treated like an idiot, or being made to feel that they are not being listened too. Certain interest groups point at the shrill cries of environmentalist groups, and cry hysteria and extremism. In my view the response to these attacks should be a counter-attack with reasoned debate, and a respect for the other side's position.
When it comes to the offensive on interest groups that either claim that the environmentalist case is flawed or exaggerated, parties on the side of environmentalism may find it an advantage to advance a charge on several fronts. It is a fact that global warming is not the only issue facing this planet. Soil erosion, deforestation, the mass extinction of species, water pollution/shortages and air pollution are debating points to advance for starters. Many of which have their own scientific data built up over years to back up their case. Much of the talk I hear from the tub-thumping front runners of the Republicans concerning environmental policy is that they simply think global warming is a phantom menace. A paper tiger made out of hundreds of alarmist reports released by liberal leaning members of the scientific community. The way to deal with these people is to simply outflank them. People may be in doubt about global warming, but you can't ignore trees disappearing, water becoming toxic, tuna becoming contaminated and air in cities becoming toxic.
While watching 'Gasland' a documentary about Shale Gas drilling in the US, my girlfriend sighed when she heard the Chairman of a Senate Committee mentioned something about their concerns about "the economy and the environment". At first I didn't understand the distaste she was expressing, then I realised the point she was making. We humans have become the masters of self delusion. We routinely reshape the world how we want it, cutting down stuff here and concreting stuff there. Until we kid ourselves that we are completely separate. Separate from plants, animals and ultimately the planet. That we are the masters of all we survey. And within this little fantasy land we create our precious economy which dictates our lives, to the point where the planet and thus life itself becomes cheap.
This is the point we need to get across most I feel. We are not and will never be separate from the planet. And like it or not, the Earth is much more likely to survive us than the other way round. I believe that as we trash the world, we will ultimately be the ones to suffer. Recessions will seem like cakewalks when we really reap what we sow, as a result of our actions and inactions. The only question now is how much life will be left on this planet other than human life, when we finally change our ways. Like it or not the changes we have to make come into conflict with some of our long held beliefs. The long held belief of man's superiority and omnipotent intelligence on this planet needs to be taken down a notch or two. I feel some although not all of this human arrogance has its roots in some aspects of religion. But that is not likely to just disappear, so we come back again to pragmatic reasoning.
To sum up, I feel that environmentalism at the moment is a cause that will only today go so far. The often impatient and dogmatic approach taken by many of the movements supporters I feel will only do push it further towards irrelevance, in the eyes of the public mainstream. Changes will have to be made most definitely, but they must be workable ones. And they must not be at the price of people's freedom, most importantly their freedoms of speech and expression. I despise smug middle class Greens preaching against air travel, now budget airlines is making international travel more accessible for millions. I care about the environment, but I myself will still fly. The carbon emissions of planes, needs a pragmatic and effective solution. Not the severing off of my country into a permanent island.
Environmental damage and green house gases need to be reduced quickly. Common sense is what we ultimately need a lot more of.
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Riots Debate: Reloaded
The past fortnight has been an unusual one for Britons. First and foremost the country experienced sudden outbreaks of rioting in many of the country’s major cities. More surprisingly the leaders of the three major parties in the UK abandoned point scoring at the expense of each other, for the duration of the worst of the violence. Then barely after the fires were put out, it was business as usual.
Throughout the worst of the violence all parties (including those of the Coalition Government) called definitively for order to be restored. Speaking in Peckham on 9th August Ed Miliband said “There can be no excuses for the violence, the intimidation of people. That can never be excused, that can never be justified. That is why the immediate priority is to restore public order and public safety”. Aside from a few comments about the government protecting people’s property, criticism of the government was kept to a minimum.
The Labour Leader’s conciliatory approach did not last long. On the 15th August he spoke of his distaste at the government’s “knee-jerk gimmicks rushed out without real thought”. This covers his view of the government’s expansion of riot training, the tough sentencing of rioters, the authorisation of the use of new crowd control tools for the police and Cameron’s initiative to channel public funding towards some of the UK’s poorest families. To explain why so many young people took part in the riots Ed Miliband highlighted societal factors such as greedy bankers, expenses fixing MPs and phone hacking journalists. These were all blamed for increasing resentment among young people.
Ed Miliband’s statements outlined above may have an element of truth about them. Many of the measures Prime Minister David Cameron put through to aid the police were arguably not helpful to restoring order. For instance police sources have pointed out that fairly atypical to average riot outbreaks, gangs of assailants in this instance tended to move in small packs of four at most, as oppose to larger mobs more typical of riots. Because of this the unwieldy Water Cannons have limited usefulness in hitting their mark without causing collateral damage. So called baton round bullets travel approximately at the twice the speed of a well thrown cricket ball. Consequently these types of bullets can often be dodged by targeted parties, possibly leading to innocent bystanders being injured. Since these measures have been authorised there are very few instances of the police actually using these weapons to quell the riots.
It could be argued that stronger communication between the police leadership and Number 10 could have ensured the implementation of measures more useful to the police. Or was this a PR move by Number 10 to send a message to the public and the rioters about how willing the government was to raise the stakes? While both points have merit it is possible that Number 10 practised a bit of selective hearing while communicating with the police. The police have an interest in seeing the cuts to their service curtailed, and they are not alone in their protestations. Cameron is allegedly at odds with Boris Johnson over the potentially detrimental cuts planned on police numbers within London. Certainly PR was on Cameron’s mind with his consistently defiant message of maintaining order throughout the riots. He also consistently displayed an approving attitude at the courts running overtime and giving out consistently harsh sentences. I believe here Cameron may have opened himself up to a charge of hypocrisy.
A few months ago Cameron made much of his disapproval towards the rise of so called ‘super injunction’ media censuring court orders issued to protect certain high profile figures from media harassment. Cameron argued that it was the job of Parliament to decide laws, and the judges to interpret them and not create them. Many court judges have issued tougher than average sentences for offences to rioters. They argue is that the offences occurred at the time of an uproar of violent behaviour, by implication making other people’s actions influence an accused person’s sentence. I for one believe this is a very disturbing trend.
I believe David Cameron, Ed Miliband and even Nick Clegg are putting political motives before finding pragmatic solutions that this country urgently needs. David Cameron arguably has an interest in appeasing coalition-sceptic Tory backbenchers with a tough law and order approach. Ed Miliband is hardly credible citing societal factors that allegedly caused the riots, having been in a government that had 13 years to take action on any of them. There are credible reports that Nick Clegg was involved in arson in his youth, and avoided prosecution. Overall I believe the people of the UK will unlikely to have the sensible and balanced debate it deserves from its elected representatives.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Shooting Yourself in the foot and complaining about it is the British way
I haven't posted on here in a while. For the most part it is because I have started posting on the more official blog Political Promise. After a few false starts they have consistently started to post my articles. This week they seem to be taking a bit longer over it. I suspect this is due to the recent disturbances in the UK. You see my article was about something in no related, how socialist poster boy Hugo Chavez is turning Venenzuela into a corrupt, dictatorial and dysfunctional hellhole. To put it subtly. Anyway, when these disturbances kicked off to my surprise at least two articles were published about these disturbances on Political Promise, well that's it I thought, no one is going to care about my Chavez article. Perhaps the site owners will take their view. But I tell you what I spent more than a few hours researching and writing that piece. So if they don't publish it this weekend I am going to send them a frank (but civil) email urging them to do so, and lay on the emotional blackmail by telling them that I committed a lot of time on it. If that fails then I'll just publish it on here, then bother them again. Oh what an exciting life I do lead.
I have been hesitating about whether to comment much at all about the UK riots for most of this week. I nearly decided against it since like many of us I imagine, I could find frustratingly few definite facts to get a grip on, and make sense of this madness. I haven't done much better since then. I have made a consciouss decision to resolve to explore this issue in greater detail when the fires have stopped, the fighting has stopped, and all of the reactionaries have shut their gobs, and the Little Englanders have scuttled away to hide under their tabloid rags. Fear and anger are hardly ever decent ingredients in people's decision making, or in the forming of their opinions. Like Tommy Lee Jones said in Men In Black "The person is smart, people are dumb, panicing and dangerous animals, and you know it".
Of all of the times that riots happen this is decidedly one of the most inconvenient, if there is ever a convenient one. The economy is struggling on like a rusty bicycle. The world is looking to us as the host the next Olympics. We are trying to pay off our debt, and are actually cutting police numbers as their work is clearly increasing. Nothing about this is satisfying for me. Least of all the loudest people who always seem to have an answer for these kind of situations, they are many. They are the tabloids, the scared, the angry and above all the Little Englanders.
Let me tell you who the Little Englanders are: They don't give a damn about the world or politics and all of that boring stuff. Until any of it threatens their job, their friends job or otherwise breaks up their routine. Perhaps with the assistance of stuff spontaneously being destroyed and burnt in their streets.
They don't want to read newspapers. They are too depressing, and full of things they may have to look up to understand. But this would waste precious seconds in their perfect and small worlds.
They prefer to read papers that probe into the lives of the famous. Famous by achievement or purely by prostituting their lives in the papers, and using the payoff money to hide behind their shame. They want to be consistently reminded that celebs experience unhappiness, embarrassment and heartbreak just as much as us. Often even more! So much the better, it isn't the Little Englanders life after all.
They blindly support the royal family as almost uber celebs. Paying almost no attention to the hierarchical and arcane values they stand for, and the utter indifference and snobbery they all ultimately hold towards us on some level.
They vote the same way all the time if they even vote. Their party could be running a platform of mandatory tarring and fearthering for all, but they would still vote for them again. Because they are funny, or have nice hair, or they generally just like them. Party manifestos are for nerds and wierdos in their opinion.
They use government declared times of austerity to become even more small minded and ultimately distrustful individuals. So what if entire families are being flushed down storm drains in India? Things are bad here they say. Why are we fighting here? Why don't we just leave all of those people to those friendly religious Nazis?
This country is great and has always been great. Stop talking about depressing stuff like Amritsar!
These are the Little Enlanders, and their numbers are growing. If we are not careful their influence will allow the reactionaries and the human parasitic filth that run the tabloids like Piers Morgan. He has started spreading his venous views on Twitter. How dare he. Why can't he just cross into the US and die in a horrific plane crash that would cause him agonising pain, and leave the rest of the passengers remarkably OK? There is still time. He and others have been calling for the deployment of the army. This is a terrible idea, beyond terrible even. For one it would send a signal to the rioters that they are winning, for another it is simply not necessary. It also sends completely the wrong message. Our country will get through this, as it does with many other things. We had riots in the 70s and 80s that didn't require martial law. It will be much the same case this time around.
Sooner or later we are going to have to ask why all this happened. And answers like, "because young people need more skull cracking and tear gasing" just won't cut it. The way these riots have simultaneously burst out merits our attention. And serious debate. Is the House of Commons up for it? Nowadays I am more inclined to say they are more likely to have a sensible debate than the public is, and that is saying something. We need a serious culture shift to make serious and contructive debate accessible and thriving again, in this toxic environment such a culture will surely struggle.
I have been hesitating about whether to comment much at all about the UK riots for most of this week. I nearly decided against it since like many of us I imagine, I could find frustratingly few definite facts to get a grip on, and make sense of this madness. I haven't done much better since then. I have made a consciouss decision to resolve to explore this issue in greater detail when the fires have stopped, the fighting has stopped, and all of the reactionaries have shut their gobs, and the Little Englanders have scuttled away to hide under their tabloid rags. Fear and anger are hardly ever decent ingredients in people's decision making, or in the forming of their opinions. Like Tommy Lee Jones said in Men In Black "The person is smart, people are dumb, panicing and dangerous animals, and you know it".
Of all of the times that riots happen this is decidedly one of the most inconvenient, if there is ever a convenient one. The economy is struggling on like a rusty bicycle. The world is looking to us as the host the next Olympics. We are trying to pay off our debt, and are actually cutting police numbers as their work is clearly increasing. Nothing about this is satisfying for me. Least of all the loudest people who always seem to have an answer for these kind of situations, they are many. They are the tabloids, the scared, the angry and above all the Little Englanders.
Let me tell you who the Little Englanders are: They don't give a damn about the world or politics and all of that boring stuff. Until any of it threatens their job, their friends job or otherwise breaks up their routine. Perhaps with the assistance of stuff spontaneously being destroyed and burnt in their streets.
They don't want to read newspapers. They are too depressing, and full of things they may have to look up to understand. But this would waste precious seconds in their perfect and small worlds.
They prefer to read papers that probe into the lives of the famous. Famous by achievement or purely by prostituting their lives in the papers, and using the payoff money to hide behind their shame. They want to be consistently reminded that celebs experience unhappiness, embarrassment and heartbreak just as much as us. Often even more! So much the better, it isn't the Little Englanders life after all.
They blindly support the royal family as almost uber celebs. Paying almost no attention to the hierarchical and arcane values they stand for, and the utter indifference and snobbery they all ultimately hold towards us on some level.
They vote the same way all the time if they even vote. Their party could be running a platform of mandatory tarring and fearthering for all, but they would still vote for them again. Because they are funny, or have nice hair, or they generally just like them. Party manifestos are for nerds and wierdos in their opinion.
They use government declared times of austerity to become even more small minded and ultimately distrustful individuals. So what if entire families are being flushed down storm drains in India? Things are bad here they say. Why are we fighting here? Why don't we just leave all of those people to those friendly religious Nazis?
This country is great and has always been great. Stop talking about depressing stuff like Amritsar!
These are the Little Enlanders, and their numbers are growing. If we are not careful their influence will allow the reactionaries and the human parasitic filth that run the tabloids like Piers Morgan. He has started spreading his venous views on Twitter. How dare he. Why can't he just cross into the US and die in a horrific plane crash that would cause him agonising pain, and leave the rest of the passengers remarkably OK? There is still time. He and others have been calling for the deployment of the army. This is a terrible idea, beyond terrible even. For one it would send a signal to the rioters that they are winning, for another it is simply not necessary. It also sends completely the wrong message. Our country will get through this, as it does with many other things. We had riots in the 70s and 80s that didn't require martial law. It will be much the same case this time around.
Sooner or later we are going to have to ask why all this happened. And answers like, "because young people need more skull cracking and tear gasing" just won't cut it. The way these riots have simultaneously burst out merits our attention. And serious debate. Is the House of Commons up for it? Nowadays I am more inclined to say they are more likely to have a sensible debate than the public is, and that is saying something. We need a serious culture shift to make serious and contructive debate accessible and thriving again, in this toxic environment such a culture will surely struggle.
Monday, 4 July 2011
The Right Hook: Ken Clarke’s Justice Reforms U-turn
Being in charge of a party with a traditionally tough stance on justice, Prime Minister (PM) David Cameron’s chosen figure for reforming in the justice system seems unusual. In the place of someone notably hard-line on crime, a known maverick within the party was chosen in their place. In stepped Kenneth Clarke, the Coalition Government’s Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor.
Besides being one of the longest serving MPs Kenneth Clarke has a reputation within his party and the House of Commons for not siding with mainstream opinion. He is President of the Tory Reform Group, which is notable for its progressive and pro-European stance. To add to this mix Clarke has been notable on many occasions against party decisions he does not approve off, often in a very public fashion. Once instance of this happened in 2006 in which Kenneth Clarke labelled Cameron’s proposing of a Bill of Rights to be “xenophobic and legal nonsense”.
So why did Cameron choose Clarke? It could be that Cameron, continuing his campaign theme of representing a new and reformed Conservative party different from the old. To press this theme convincingly to his Coalition partners the Liberal Democrats as well as the public, it is likely that he thought it a prudent decision to appoint someone to the justice post with reformist credentials.
As Clarke started to reveal his ideas for justice reform, polls started to indicate that public opinion was at best uneasy about changes being proposed. These included lessening the justice systems primacy on prison time, when possible potentially making more use of community service as a possible alternative. Improvement of rehabilitation facilities was also proposed in the original proposals. David Cameron at the time these proposals were unveiled, seemed to consent to them.
However the proposals revealed in a justice reform bill published on 21st June seems to have taken a noticeable step away from reform, and more of a step ideologically towards conservatism. This is evident in some of the new proposals such as deporting foreign national prisoners. Clarke’s proposal to offer sentencing discounts are also absent from the new bill. The new bill has revealed a vague commitment to impose sentences on individuals who carry knives, who act in a threatening manner. The bill also presents a proposal to impose new legal restrictions on squatting.
Opposition to Clarke’s reformist agenda reached fever pitch shortly after Clarke in an interview with BBC 5 Live made a comment about “serious rape”. Despite the context of the point he was making, alluding to the different circumstances in which rape can happen, his quote ignited a media storm. The red top tabloids in particular presented Clarke as soft on rape as well as by extension soft on rapists.
This was shortly followed by Cameron sidelining Clarke in favour of the new proposals, assuring the media that he felt the old ones sent “the wrong message”. Perhaps the timing of the media storm and the vocal grumblings of the Conservative backbenchers were a coincidence in Cameron’s revelation in deciding that Clarke was sending the wrong message, perhaps not. What is clear is that the problem of the UK’s ever growing prison population remains, as well as the problem of reoffending. Clarke’s proposals may well be flawed, however they did seek new solutions to persistent old problems. In return for this Clarke was overruled, discredited and effectively fined by his PM who has instructed him to cut an extra £130 million from his ministry’s budget. He has been clearly been made an example of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)