The future starts tomorrow

I was born, years and years ago, oop north. I don't, sadly, say in "t'north" as I might have done had circumstances were different in my life, but I had parents who largely insisted on the benefits of good communication. I also spent some time being raised in London where people said "didn't I?" at the end of sentences. Or more accurately, "dint eye?"

Anyway I might, in other circumstances when the age of finding work approached, have had to find work in some steelworks or down a pit in Yorkshire. Had I stayed in Manchester longer than I did, possibly looked for work in a cotton mill. Maybe even in the pit again, as these things were on both sides of the Pennines. As it happened I didn't, but even as I set out to do other things in life those mill and steel jobs were beginning to disappear and pits were starting to be closed. (By the way, the next time someone tells you that it was Thatcher wot closed the mines, you might want to point out that far, far more were closed under that shining example of the Labour movement, Harold Wilson. No, don't bother: the left never likes truth so save your breath.)

But as my 16th birthday approached I was one of the many young men everywhere who were turning their thoughts to work -- as opposed to having a career as many were similar to my family in that they were largely working class -- I had choices. It wasn't a question of not having a job; it was more which sort of job did you want. It wasn't unusual either for young people to be offered a better job than the lower paid one in which they started out at a company if they exhibited some aptitude.

But, there were jobs. Not always great jobs, but secure because there was a demand and demand meant people wanted you to keep on doing what you did and in turn, kept on paying you. Maybe it involved moving a shuttle on a loom or beating metal or hewing coal, but there was paid employment. Like all employment, it took time to learn to do it efficiently and even safely, but you had years ahead of you to master the skills required.

There were issues of working conditions and pay and fairness in the workplace but apart from wildcat strikes spurred by those who thought despotic Russia was the pinnacle of human love, they were issues that could be resolved with give and take on both sides.

Then, those jobs we thought were here forever began to disappear. Some were replaced by the new demands of a changing world, but most of the old bash and mash tasks went away. Better observers of life than me will point out the trend was turning away from manufacturing and more to serving, and as leisure opportunities increased there was a greater demand for retail and entertainment and -- significantly -- people who would be prepared to work all hours serving others coffee and asking if they wanted fries with that.

Now this brings me closer to the point of this: one of jobs, and with it, immigration. The two are inextricably intertwined. After all, you wouldn't travel miles from home and not be sure there'd be something there waiting for you. Unless you come for the benefits (which may or may not be substantial) you are going to want some sort of income from, say, working.

I heard on the radio this morning a man saying -- ahead of the expected influx of Romanians and Bulgarians as soon as 2014 begins -- that the NHS was reliant on foreign (including non-EU) workers coming here to help out. He also pointed out that at airports at four in the morning there weren't any white anglo-saxon youths working behind the counter of coffee shops. The late (or very early) staff were more likely to be from third-world countries. Therefore the man reasoned, there was a need for bringing in labour from overseas if only because our feckless yoof couldn't be arsed to do any of it. (By the way, the last bit is my rough interpretation of his words. Don't blame him.)

The man had a point: we are indeed very dependent on people coming here and filling jobs we can't do. This however dodges the point some of us can already grasp. You see, the trouble is not with the needed workers but with the ones who come here to do the jobs the people already here can do. More, there is going to be a huge problem with all their dependents arriving too. A future problem we are making for ourselves.

I freely admit that if I had to take job in some parts of the world as much as I'd miss my family, I wouldn't take them there. Like it or not, there are some atrocious places in the world where women are very much an inferior species: I could not contemplate taking my family with me because of any potential risk to the females. Anyway, this isn't about me. It is about the men who come here to work and bring their kids and even their wives who may be quite likely to bear more children.

This is the future problem, and one that won't go away any time soon. At some point the three or four kids of a newly arrived immigrant are going to want jobs. But those jobs aren't there right now, and as we automate and trim our own production facilities or become more reliant on cheap Chinese imports, there are only so many jobs going to be available. The job filled by one man needs to be expanded to allow for his offspring to have work. Can't see that happening, can you?

That coffee shop at an airport will need only so many staff, and more coffee shops opening up and offering 24 hour service may not be the answer.

If I look at the kids going to my local school I can see (and hear) an increasing number of non-native English little ones. Quite a mix, one way or another. Good luck to them, but as those numbers grow they are going to get restless when job and career time comes around in a few years' time. For now, dad's job and various benefits may help tide things over but there are no guarantees ahead, despite what politicians may pretend. If the kids get restless (and experience has shown young males can get restless in all sorts of unhappy ways) then the outlook isn't good.

Of course, newly-arrived dad may eventually take his family 'back home' but then again, no guarantees. Especially if there is free money and family services on offer here. Free money which has to be found from taxing a shrinking work force.

There is also, by the way, the problem of perceived 'heritage' and cultural differences. A lot of second and third generation immigrants have sometimes rejected the British way of life and claim they want to be true to their roots, which can mean they demand their roots springing up here. It is not always a smooth process or an untroubled desire to make what they think they left behind ought to be here on the streets of British cities.

All this however is for the future. Today is December 31 and tomorrow a new future dawns. It may even dawn under a placid sky. I wouldn't bet on it though.

The thick, the thin and the fertile

You voted for democracy, and you got demographics. You didn't get the choice you wanted, other than at that moment of making mark on a piece of paper and trusting it would counted fairly, but you did get the fact that the demographics of your world are changing with your (all too brief) choice.

You voted for common sense and you got something you didn't expect. You got people arriving and then more people who will, by sheer weight of numbers, crowd you out. More and more people who will arrive on these shores who have no alliance, no sympathy or very little commonality with you and yours. Your homeland, your culture and your heritage is of no interest and little value to the newcomers: everything you hold dear is merely something regarded as a convenient stepping stone to other demands and needs.

Worse of all, we voted via democracy for an elite class who were eager to bring about this change in our demographics. We don't know why they do it and we have not the slightest idea why it is so important to them, but it is. They work hard to persuade you it is in your interest, but they know that it isn't. They don't exactly lie but then they don't have to, because they don't tell the truth.

This is a puzzle that will, I expect, bedevil historians in years to come -- at least if they are allowed to examine this aspect of life in the 21st century. As the winners get to write the history books they can also set agenda for what is being written, and chances are they won't want much of the truth emerging. Or the demographics will have changed so much that it is actually immaterial what happened in the past, other than approved mythical tales from some ancient fiction.

You and yours will be a history easily forgotten and though our overpaid, underworked elite who brought this about will also be long forgotten it will be of no consolation to what may survive from your bloodline.

What am I talking about? The change in your immediate world. It is one of demographics, and the outlook is not good.

Take for example the work of Danish psychologist Helmuth Nyborg. Don't worry that you have never heard of him; you need to worry about his message from his studies.

Nyborg, living among a changing world within Denmark, has examined the projections of population growth in his own country. Now you may say that you don't care about Denmark, but we are closer to them than we might think, and what is happening there is quite likely to happen here.

What Nyborg has found is that there will come a point in Denmark's future where there will be a tipping point and Denmark will cease -- sometime around the year 2085 -- to be a first world country and become, simply by the make-up of the population and its attendant IQ, a third world country.

The indigenous peoples of that peninsula and all its islands will by then have been crowded out by immigrants with traditionally lower IQs than native-born Danes. These people, with lower intelligence, will not do as much wealth-creating work (they may work hard and work cheerfully in less-demanding jobs but unlikely to be in employment that will create a wealth that all can share) and as native-born Danes decline so will the tax revenues, which makes investments in education, health and infrastructure less and less possible. Curiously, the thing that attracted many immigrants to Denmark was a higher standard of living and liberal benefits; once that can't be provided towards the end of the 21st century it is a moot point whether these 'temporary dwellers' will return to their former homelands.

After all, if there is no money easily available you might not want to try to live in an essentially colder climate.

As already observed from studies in Norway, Nyborg's findings are that the collective level of IQ is falling as more immigrants arrive from overseas, especially those from sub-Sahara countries and parts of southern (though not eastern) Asia as well as Latin America. Before we go any further let me say I am fully aware that IQ is becoming a discredited measure of intelligence, and I am equally aware that projections and predictions have a habit of going wrong. The future is never what we think it will be, though history has shown that people can be just as thick tomorrow as they were yesterday.

I also am aware that Nyborg's work has been called into question on the basis of complaints -- one of which was a valid question of how he converted fertility rates to birth rates. In fact, without probing his formulae I would go so far as to say a projection from now is altered as money lessens. Each loss in tax revenue eventually dissuades people on lower incomes from having babies as the tax-breaks and benefits are withdrawn. If there is no money to pay people to have babies even the sexually active find ways to avoid it.

However there is no doubt that a decline in the birth rate of native Danes will occur. There is always the issue that some responsible parents prefer not to bring children into volatile society, so a decline in birth rate could well be further affected by perceptions of threat and insecurity. When the police can't protect and the courts won't and the politicians actively work against its citizens, then having children is a risk some would rather not take. Not unless, like the self-satisfied elite who rule us, you can afford a bolt-hole to run to when it all goes wrong.

Nyborg and other researchers may well be wrong in some fine detail, but he alone may be worryingly right in the general sweep of it all. Basically, if you import people with larger families and lower intelligence (however you measure it) then the more that is taken from society and not replaced with equal or better will result in a decline.

So, if that is Denmark, then what of us? Do we do it differently here?

Do we have more to look forward to of the thick, the thin and the fertile here in the UK?

Coming up: the return of the sun

Yesterday I had some Jehovah's Witnesses call round. No, I hadn't invited them but they thought they'd drop by and share their views with me. Fair enough; it gave me chance for me to offer some thoughts of my own about spiritual and human progress and compare these ideas with theirs. Interesting stuff, and me telling them that the 'writing on the ground' episode was perhaps the most significant thing Jesus did in his time on earth at least made them raise their eyebrows.

These Jehovah's Witnesses were two nice ladies and they had, thank the Lord, a sense of humour about life. We all welcome that, and in our chat while I did point out that as I live in an area with a fairly larger-sized muslim population (and some of the men are very much of the larger size, even if the women aren't so much) I was sure their 'message' wouldn't get through at every door. Not so, they said: most people of all persuasions would talk and share views and even take leaflets. Apparently this pair frequently encountered a muslim woman I had seen on several occasions walking rapidly round the local park in long robes and trainers, a lady who wanted to keep herself in shape, and they would talk to her about religion.

Perhaps they had to walk rapidly alongside to show her the bible, too.

I asked these two JW ladies what they wanted from me, other than to show me their bible. Did they want me to convert? Not at all, they said: they recognised that people have their own way to matters godly (or not) but wanted to share the word of God with me. At this point I explained I had a problem, given the number of gods currently available and how many exclusive words had been issued –– all a long time ago, mostly –– and in many cases demanding lifestyle limitations or commanding actions which were often conflicting and contradictory. The suggestion would be all these gods were separate entities who really liked one lot of people over other another and actively disliked other chunks of their creative efforts. Mind you, I have never bought the premise of an angry God who is easily satisfied with the death of a few humans. When you can build galaxies (assuming he or she, as I also explained to my two visitors, did build galaxies) I don't see why One would be thrilled with the death of a handful of tiny teeny organisms, cosmically speaking.

It would be like me getting very angry about an ant walking on my newly laid lawn. In my omnipotence did I really not see that possibility coming? Would I really have to resort to shouting at other ants to sort the damn problem out?

Now behind me during this discussion was a Christmas tree. Small and sparsely decorated since the last visit of my grandson who thought he would redecorate it by moving all the baubles off and putting them somewhere we haven't found yet. I asked if they believed in Christmas and they said of course not. It was pagan. Or Pagan, if you believe in that stuff.

Yes, I agreed, it was and didn't our northern European forebears have it right, celebrating the return of the sun? Look at it this way, I said: it was cold and dark and you couldn't do anything anyway as nothing was growing, so why not hunker down and have one hell of a good time. The sun was coming back and once things started to grow, you would have no time to eat, drink and take it easy. Soon it would be back to the demanding schedule of planting and hunting and trimming and raiding and all aspects of being wild and woolly.

Good for them. No, of course Jesus wasn't born at Christmas (wow, what a coincidence that would have been) but we northern Europeans need to have a party when the sun showed it was coming back. I even think we know it's coming back so we were never dozy enough to pray for something that has happened few billion times before. No, this was purely party time, and that's what we do up here. Some of us do it pretty well too and have the hangovers to prove it.

Attaching a religious festival to this fun event made a whole lot of sense as it was too dark and cold to do anything but party, so why not pray between courses?

Here we are then, rapidly approaching the shortest day and then, praise be! Our friend the sun returns.

Ra will never have looked so good.

I for one am looking forward to the mornings getting lighter, the evenings staying brighter and even putting the Christmas tree away for another year. I mean there's mowing and planting and raiding to be done when the weather cheers up.

Until then, cheers!

Cutting off your own vote to spite your face

That political parties (and individual entities within those loose confederations of bandits, narcissists and self-servers) make mistakes is a given. Hardly a week goes by without some gathering of our moral superiors getting egg on their collective faces, or some hapless person in their closed ranks being exposed or hung out to dry for the sake of 'political expediency.'

As I like to say, so it goes. What else did I expect? Wisdom, care, public service, intelligence? If I did I would be disappointed. It hasn't happened so far and the sensible money would be on it not happening again. Oh, the words will be fine enough. Stirring speeches will be made, earnest looks given, rough sort of promises made though as a court ruled while ago a political party manifesto does not in any way constitute a promise or imply a contract. It is a lovely 'pie in there sky' document and other than fine example of the writer's skill and printer's craft, it's not much else.

Now, I might vote at the next election -- I did at the last one though mostly in the hope of stopping a sock puppet of a disgusting cult getting into parliament, which happily didn't happen -- but if I do it will be in the full knowledge that voting will not make one iota of difference to me. All I might expect in return for giving someone a leg up to the promised land of gravy trains and well-filled troughs is more taxes and ways to make me feel bad about myself.

I think we should be clear on this. While we know that governments seemingly give with one hand while eagerly taking away with the other three or four, they and their agents (aka the media) will work even harder to make us feel bad in some way. There will be subtle and not so subtle hints that being British is one of the worst things ever and we must make generous recompense to the rest of the world. As it happens, your money and your freedom of speech and action within the law is as good a thing to sacrifice as any.

But if I had to pick out one error that successive gub'mints make these days (yes, I know, so hard to choose between so many) it is the mistaken belief that immigration will boost their share of the vote.

Our great and good leaders, preening themselves at the top of the pile, do need votes to keep them preening in the manner to which they have grown accustomed. As the native British tend to see through the thin camouflage that our political parties throw up it follows that our political parties like the idea of having more voters who don't yet know what's going on.

Lowering the age of voting would be one way, because da yoof has been known to be seduced by shiny things and flashy trainers so promises to provide more free shiny and flashy goes down well. Some of our young are passionately idealistic and want world peace among other laudable ambitions, and if you get their vote you can carry on doing whatever.

(What! You mean... democracy is only voting once every so often and then not having any say in what those in power do thereafter? But surely, when we voted we were going to have a say in it all, right? Are you telling me that democracy lasts all of three seconds while you make your cross on the ballot paper? For heaven's sake, some might say that this democracy thing is a bit of a sham.)

Giving votes to truculent though passionate young teens may be temporarily good for some parties, but takes time. The swiftest solution is to open the doors to anyone who wants to be here and promise them (if they speak English) a lot of what they want. You get them in and among it all offer them ballot papers. Postal ballots too, if that helps someone fill them in on their behalf.

Hey presto, we have all those people already here and voting and those coming in being helped to vote too. Politics is back with a bang. What could go wrong?

Trouble is, a lot. It isn't hard to see those who come in gradually begin to want their own way of life rather than adopt ours and with that preference would be their own parties and policies to further their own interests even more. This way the votes dry up in the traditional way. The book where making newcomers feel part of British life may have had the appendix that they have to like British democracy and established parties, but it soon becomes apparent that wasn't much of an enticement. Perhaps they stopped reading long before then. For example, we have people in some places wanting, because they occupy most of one street, to rename their street after their own hero in their language. The current street name of, say, a former local mill owner means little to them when they have heroes of their own champing at the bit.

If newcomers can push to rename streets and demand local shops do not sell certain things and have areas where normal police intervention is diminished then they can just as easily form their own political parties. No one at Westminster will be happy but equally as they don't have the courage to say 'no' to anything it all goes ahead.

But this goes further than people recently arrived here. The established voting base begins to feel valueless because clearly their chosen established political parties don't think much of them, so their reaction is why vote at all? If you feel betrayed by someone you tend not to keep them on your Christmas card list.

Let's say you live on a street that many of your neighbours are anxious to rename to celebrate a man in a distant land who may, or may not, have cut heads off various unworthies. You wonder what the hell is going on, and why the party you voted for every time without question could allow this situation to come about. I am not sure you would vote for the hated 'other side' in traditional Brit politics because the 'other side' turned out to be just a complicit. So, no votes there then for anyone.

Gradually the weakening of the British identity (which may or may not be a good thing in the eyes of some) results in a decline in the British political system. No bad thing, considering what our great and good get up to, but equally it lets in smaller groups with radical agendas that quite probably will divide and fracture society even more.

The structure of British politics was based on the limited influence of two parties with the occasional mumblings of a significant third party. It was one or the other most of the time though if you really felt the need there was the temptation of going with the minor third party as a protest vote.

In future these two-and-a-half parties will be smaller and faced with more 'opposition' than they'd like, they would have less ability to enjoy themselves at our expense. The seeds of this have already been liberally sown, and now we await the weed-strangled harvest.

It should be fun. Of sorts.

Strictly Come Hectoring

There are times I watch television, just as there are times I read or paint or even mow the lawn. I don't do any of them exclusively and as always there are things in my waking life that divert me because they are simply there. Television is one of them, and this cultural phenomenon can be seen in many ways, including being a force for good and enlightenment or equally as a complete waste of time. But however it is viewed, television is part of life.

There have been times I have needed what an old friend of mine (who incidentally wrote comedy for television) portrayed so accurately as 'necessary compost.' We all need it. Sometimes each of us needs in some way to kick our shoes off and do bugger all watching something on the box. Moving wallpaper at times, at others feeding the exhausted inner self.

Not everyone though loves television. I once know a man who worked for the BBC in lighting, who admitted cheerfully that he rarely wanted to watch it when he got home from work. It would annoy him to see anything badly lit but most of all he had seen the magic close up, and he knew it wasn't magic at all. This man also said that the last thing anyone wanted at the BBC was to watch television (I am always amused by people on telly who say they enthusiastically watch other shows or personalities on the goggle-box. They don't if they have any sense.) The bosses and all the rest of the workers, including the great and good actors and breezy personalities who dominate at great expense our airwaves, etc, would rather do other things than bathe in the light from the idiot's lantern, as my old headmaster used to call television.

I used to work with a married couple who avidly listened to the radio out of work and refused to have a television in their home. But as the woman made badly-fitting shorts for herself to wear and knitted him ties that hung even more badly while he bawled at people over their seeming lack of understanding of IT issues, I can see why they had no time for the box. Sure, they'd miss things like Breaking Bad if they hadn't got one but think of the money they'd save on the telly tax.

Ah yes, the vast amount of money we are required to pay for our state media service. Who knew that propaganda was so expensive to run? You would have thought a lie in favour of NuLab was fairly cheap to produce as they showed often during the Blair/Brown fiascos.

The BBC is slickly done and equally slickly oiled to present the State's view, no matter what you think. Which may explain why on a popular early evening show we had Romanians telling us how much they had already contributed to British society, amazingly just ahead of the planned arrival of a whole lot more architects and actors and so on from that country.

Equally I was amused how a regional politician, again on the BBC, told the audience (twice) that she wanted a northern city to be "child-friendly" by closing several men-only clubs. At no point did the BBC 'journalist' facing this woman question how a late-opening club for definitely and checkable over-21 males was opposed to child-friendliness. This too in a place where not so far away it wasn't unknown for members of a certain religion to try to seduce young girls not of their family.

No one at the BBC apparently likes asking the awkward questions. If you thought journalists are supposed to ask 'why?' then you'd be wrong. The BBC don't like that, but why rock the boat when the rewards for typing up gub'mint (or would-be gub'mint) press releases are so rewarding?

I am not much in favour of the BBC, as you might guess by now. It is supposedly a 'service' but it has astonishing biases and doesn't serve everyone by any means, and some of the biases are pretty obvious. I have heard and seen -- as you have -- presenters fawn over socialists with vague and ill-thought out 'plans' for our suppression (sorry, social engineering) and then openly scowl at those who aren't in favour of state intervention in everything. It was telling when one broadcaster at the Beeb revealed that on the night Blair's lot won in '97 the corridors at the BBC were full of empty champagne bottles. I expect we paid for those from our TV licences, because if it was their own money they would have taken the empties back.

Yes, the joy at the big State Broadcaster having a Big State government back in business caused those champagne corks to pop, and pop again.

Recently the BBC sent a huge number of people to South Africa for Nelson Mandela's funeral and a casual observer may have been forgiven in thinking that Mandela was British, given the amount of time and space that was devoted on every news bulletin -- TV and radio and tinterwebz alike -- to the death of a 95 year old man. But, the Beeb deemed it necessary to praise and then praise some more the passing of this man. Of course, I accept there may have been little else in the news, because you may not know this but a TV news show of half-an-hour has to have half-an-hour's worth of news, preferably with film.

No one ever says, halfway through the News, "Oh well, that's it. Nothing more going on."

(On this matter increasingly we are shown a lot of blurred or out-of-focus' videos lest we think the people in the shot are guilty of whatever some report says, or we get feet to stare at. Trainers, natch, if they are unemployed male yoofs, push chair wheels if unemployed single mums on benefits.)

You only have, however, to listen to the BBC instead of watching it to detect the hectoring tone of the Corporation. The news slants subtly towards criticisms of capitalism and rejection of any traditional or conservative viewpoints. Good news on the economy? BBC not happy, so cut to Labour posturing in the House of Commons as they say they don't approve, followed but the newsman or woman's pointed question about whether we are all benefitting from this upturn in fortunes. How about a Vox Pop of people saying how little they have now? Then there are the experts the BBC bring in, who soon reveal themselves to be either not very expert or having an agenda to push.

But as I say it is all slickly-made and to a large degree sick-making. It is subtle, but watch and learn. You pay for all this (120 BBC staff to South Africa apparently, and there were 600 plus sent crying and screaming to hotels in China for the Beijing Olympics... Aunty must know some low cost airlines) and they feed you propaganda and bias and little homely pieces about how multi-culuralism has helped us all.

Perhaps it has, but occasionally wouldn't it be good to hear the other side so we can judge for ourselves? No... wait, no time for that! Next up it is Strictly Come Hectoring and you won't want to miss those TV celebrities doing all that polished, glamorous hectoring for you.

More or less a century of change

Every so often I invite any reader of this blog to roll around their brain some statement or other. Usually they contain a truth (either for good or ill) and hopefully helps inform people. What it informs them is of course completely up to the reader, but it is presented for acceptance or rejection.

What I am going to offer today is a passage written by the historian A.J.P taylor and I believe taken from his book 'English History 1914-45:

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission . . . The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913–14, or rather less than 8 per cent of the national income.

Now it is easy to point at this and say a lot has changed in almost 100 years. In fact, it changed pretty dramatically with the outbreak of World War One and it would be stupid to think Britain, Europe and a whole chunk of the rest of the world could go back to how it was before that war broke out.

By the way, I am currently reading 'Catastrophe' by Max Hastings which is about the build up to 'The Great War' and details how various pressures (a lot of them internal or self-inflicted) was forcing the direction of the European powers to war. It is revealing too in that period how unprepared these powers were for a war on such a scale -- Britain for example had a small army and was unsure where a tiny Expeditionary Force would be sent as we still mistrusted France -- and what a mess these countries and empires were politically. The people who had the power largely wielded it to preserve their way of life and not in order raise living standards in their own nations. The ordinary people were beginning to knock on the door and if there was anyone home they weren't listening.

On the other hand, it is much the same today. We still have a small army, we don't know what to do next, our leaders love power for their own privilege and not yours, we probably still mistrust France (and with them, the EU) and guess what, no one is still at home.

But what Taylor was pointing out was that the Big State hadn't been refined. There wasn't the mechanism for controlling people as there is today. Freedom of movement for those who could afford it (or even who wanted to go) and the nation provided a few essential services but other than that saw little reason to interfere.

I know this was no golden age. Labour activists and Trade Unionists can swiftly and rightly point to abuses and horrors and restrictions on the working man, most notably through wages and conditions. But equally I can say that a century's worth of interference by these same objectors haven't eradicated all the problems by a long way, and they aren't wise men and women by any means. In fact, the time a Trade Union official told me I might not have a job in future if I left the union to go into management still irritates me. Almost as much as the time when, as a Trade Union member along with a handful of fellow workers had a legitimate complaint against our employer, I was told to drop it as "it wasn't worth bothering with" from the Union's point of view. Not big enough, you see.

Anyway, be that as it may: water under a bridge and we move on. My point here is that Britain had a time when the Big State wasn't everywhere and didn't need to be in everyone's faces. A Big State that grew to swallow vast amounts of taxation and one that is remarkably keen to limit its own people with diktats and edicts and laws and regulations, while not very good at asking who exactly is coming to live here and why. Indeed, can't even seem to ask how many are coming to live here.

What we can conclude from two major wars (and a host of minor conflicts that were probably unwinnable even if we had the will to win) is that this was just what those who run the country wanted. Here was a golden chance to restrict and modify, to check and control, even if the controls were selective and the aims obscure.

There is no doubt the standard of life -- our lives -- has got a whole lot better in 100 years for many people, but I would argue this is not down to the successive 'give us power to do what we want' governments whose best reaction to anything is to regulate in order to deny people certain freedoms.

But, when the chance came along on the backs of the deaths of tens of millions then all credit to governments because they took the opportunity and grasped it firmly. An iron grip that probably they won't relinquish any time soon. With their hands on power, there is nothing they can't do when it comes to limiting people who pay taxes and generously pay the controllers' wages and expenses.

More of this for them, less of that for you. My, how things have changed in a 100 years.

Numbing numbers

The other day I saw one of those Tweet-battles that erupt on the social media network. On reflection, it may have been a skirmish rather than fully fledged war, but so it goes. Teeth were bared, feelings hurt and fingers danced on keyboards. The subject of this latest exchange of fire was immigration and population numbers, the argument being the obvious one that immigration is okay because Britain has plenty of room.

Nine square miles to each person, trumpeted a leftie who objected (as the caring, sharing left must) to any statement that uncontrolled immigration is bad for the UK. 'Go up in a plane and see for yourself,' he finished up his 140 character rejection of what many may see as common sense. Lots of room so let everyone in, no questions asked!

This is the sort of thinking that gets left-leaners into so much hot water so quickly. It's playing with numbers that are neither accurate or even sensible.

It may seem obvious to you that a statement like 'one person for every nine square miles' suggests that going up in a plane would show vast tracts of land with just one person in it. You would overfly a piece of land measuring three miles by three miles and spot a solitary waving figure. Possibly waving to say "Have you seen anyone else? I can't find anyone and I'm lonely." I suggest the reality is that at this time of year shopping malls and streets and pubs are jam-packed full there are millions who have deserted their nine-square miles and headed into places where you can't even see a cat let alone swing one. You'd fly for hours and not see anyone because they are all queueing for Santa's grotto.

To the left however, once a ridiculous figure is stated there is rarely an attempt to look at the facts and come up with the real number. The argument made and the point won, in their view, however ridiculous it seems. Anyway, to put this into the realm of some sort of accuracy, the total official population of the UK according to the 2011 census is 63,182,000 in an area of 94,525 square miles, which gives around 668 people per square mile.

I presume that some of those square miles are water, bog or even steep-sided mountains, which would concentrate those numbers more.

I should say here in defence of our light-thinking leftoid that the concentration of people is far greater in London and much less in the Outer Hebrides, where I expect there are indeed nine square miles where you'd be hard pressed to find even a sheep waving. I'm not sure though that all the immigrants so beloved by our socialist friends will want to go and live off the coast of Lewis.

Here's a second problem. Note the words "official population of the UK according to the 2011 census" because there is anecdotal evidence that the figure is far different. I know, this is in the same territory as 'one person for every nine square miles' but the truth is what is official from two years ago has long been overtaken by more people arriving and apparently, not all being recorded.

(This reminds me of a story I was once told by a former army officer about a squaddie stationed in Germany who wanted to change his name. The CO of the unit asked the man to bring in his passport and advised he ought to bring in his wife's passport too. "She hasn't got one," the soldier said. "She's never had one." Of course, the army had flown the soldier and his missus to Germany without going through passport control, but it emerged that the man's wife couldn't have a passport as she had no country of birth. She had been born on a freighter at sea and smuggled into the UK, where she grew up without ever being on any official books. This was the first time the issue of nationality had come up for her. Okay, that's one person, but add her to the half-dozen of illegal entry cousins about which an Asian man told a BBC news programme and we begin to see that the official figures are at least seven out.)

If as some say Britain has far more people here than officially recorded then letting more in seems a bit dangerous. I don't mean dangerous as in the weight of bodies on the surface but dangerous in the way that overcrowding raises tensions, stretches resources (we don't for example leave injured or ill illegal immigrants on the streets; we put them in the same queue for hospital places you face) and makes those anti-fraud gestures over benefits look pathetic.

"We can afford it," say people who, with their casual disregard for numbers, have no idea where money comes from and how much things cost. But then, if you support a political ideal that prints money and throws it at everything then perhaps it doesn't matter.

I mean, you can always spend another billion to solve the problem. Actually, it never 'solves' the problem but merely re-orders it into different package, but that's whole other story. Let's go back to the spend, spend, spendathon of finding another billion to make everything perfect, or at the very least perfectly acceptable.

A billion is a fabulous number because it my be beyond your scope of understanding. It's just, well, a lot. But let me explain how much 'a lot' actually is.

A day is 86,400 seconds, so a million seconds is just under twelve days from now. Therefore, if you are spending a pound a second (and government departments can outdo that, easily) it takes you nearly two weeks to clock up a spend of a million quid.

But governments don't deal in millions. They do billions as a matter of routine. Now a billion is, in the UK, a million times one million. So that's a million lots of 12 days at our spending rate of a pound a second. Twelve million days equates to almost 32 years.

Think of it: thirty-one-and-a-bit years of spending a pound a second. Morning, noon and night, every day. Every single day, whether you want to or not. You spend because every second of that time -- half of some people's lives -- demands such consistency to hit the desired 'target.'

But people glibly talk about big numbers as if they are 'achievable,' or they talk about big numbers as if they are vast open areas that easily accommodate humans. Either way, they are vague ideas but fine for winning political arguments. We print money, we spend, we are happy. Therefore we print a real lot and spend wildly and we are even happier.

In fact, if you overfly the UK you will see, every nine square miles, little piles of banknotes fluttering in the breeze. Go on, get in a plane and look for yourself.

Meet Cliff Edge

Funny old world. You steam along doing what has to be done and then you meet Cliff Edge.

Cliff Edge however, despite the use of capitals here, isn't a person. If he was, you might find way to get past him. No, cliff edge is what you reach when you can't go any further on the road of progress.

Cliff edge is when you have done everything you can and you face a crisis. Traditionally (and in this I mean a recent tradition) the 'cliff edge' occurs in taxation where the tax-payer meets a point where a small increase -- or step -- leads to a huge loss. Or fall, if you prefer. Usually it is a tax-payer moving into a bigger tax band but as he or she has just entered it at the very bottom the corresponding penalties are enormous.

I know... we shouldn't talk about taxation as a penalty. What was I thinking? It's obviously a boon to society because now the feckless can be plied with free cash. For heaven's sake, where's my socialist upbringing?

But putting taxes aside there is another cliff edge we are increasingly encountering. It's the one on the road to progress, and I don't mean fiscal progress towards the nirvana of millions of people who don't do anything being rewarded generously by the state from taxation imposed on the fewer numbers who work. No, this is about progress in matters mechanical and achievements achievable.

I was once talking to some students and they were a little gob-smacked to learn from me that by and large all the major discoveries in science have been done, and they were done between about 1875 and 1925 or so. In a window of a little over fifty years human beings came up with how to generate electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio and television, heavier-than-air flight, the telephone, splitting the atom, plastics and a whole host of 'smaller' inventions and triumphs that make life what it is today.

I do accept that matters like glass and paper and stainless steel came before this time and the discovery of DNA and use of fibre-optics came after. There's a whole bunch of things we did before 1875 that are important and work continued after 1925 on many exciting issues. But the essential point is this small slice of history was the window in which we saw huge advances in the everyday things we have and use. It was a turning point for the world. Many of the achievements listed in the previous paragraph you will encounter every day (though possibly encountering rapidly-splitting atoms may not be good, even if our kissy-lovey world has kindly given regimes like the one in Iran the green-light to carry on trying to split them over the heads of other nations.) Anyway, the point is you use the technology of this golden age of invention and discovery every day.

Oh no, what about tinterwebz? Surely not, you cry! There's something that has come along that your golden age didn't have. Okay, well it relies on the telephone, and electricity shielded with plastics, radio waves and probably an adaption of television technology.

But, but... wait... my keyboard contains aluminium!

Oh yes, aluminium. The Greeks knew about it and could be made by 1840, though if it hadn't been for improved ways to efficiently smelt the mineral in the 1880s thanks to electricity, we might not use it much these days due to the expense.

My argument is that when it comes to the things we use we have already done the hard stuff. A lot of what we get now, such as the ubiquitous mobile phone, is an adaptation of things we already had. That doesn't mean we don't redefine and adapt, but it does mean we owe an enormous debt to the bewhiskered men (and resolute women) who made the breakthroughs.

So, why are we at a cliff edge? Well, we can't take the next step. We made the engine and we made aircraft and we made rockets and we made computers and we put a man on the moon and...

And nothing much more. We aren't likely to go back to the moon because of the cost, and anyway we are too busy banning lightbulbs and shouting at people to save energy. The next step is at the cliff edge and we don't fancy the effort to take a leap over it. Sure we can teeter and inch forward but it isn't really step forward again. The spirit and energy that drove man to make huge discoveries has largely gone, and been replaced with the ability to write memos to each other.

We don't like entrepreneurs and pioneers and adventurers any more, because they consumed resources and colonised people and spent money that would be far better off going to the poor who are struggling to watch TV on piddling little 40 inch plasma screens and could really do with a hand out so they can have a new 50 inch screen.

I could argue with myself that all this is irrelevant because we don't know what else to invent or discover, but then if we don't look we won't see. There is also the problem that probably a lot of those pioneers and discoverers broke all sorts of health and safety rules and ignored diversity in their workplace and almost certainly didn't fully support unionised labour. They were just so... well, so selfish.

Fortunately for us however the view from the cliff edge is wonderful. Providing we don't start thinking we ought to take a leap into the unknown we can feel quite safe.

Bang, bang, you're alive!

The other day I was in a discussion with a left-leaning relative. Now if you have read my ramblings here you may be aware I don't think much of the left. I will for now avoid listing all their hypocrisies and devious ways because to be honest it gets boring recounting what is already obvious to anyone who can think, so let's move on. The important thing to know is this relative, apart from thinking socialism will one day magically solve all the problems it has failed to solve in the past, is a good person.

As fate would have it the young man works in advertising, and in fact some of his greatest successes have been to help persuade people to pay for things they enjoy. As we all have to pay for things we don't like, it comes as a refreshing change to cough up for something that gives pleasure. But hey, that's the evil of capitalism for you, right? Socialism would never approve of such a horror.

Anyway, the conversation moved round to guns, which may seem odd in a society that technically doesn't have them. Plenty of people in Britain do, and some of them are law-abiding citizens. But as I say, the impression is we in these islands ought not own a weapon that uses gunpowder to propel a small piece of metal.

Ought not perhaps, but a lot of people are armed and it isn't just in the major cities. A taxi-driver in a small town once told my wife he had found a gun on the back seat of his cab after fare paying passenger got out, which he turned in to the police.

My relative was shocked when I said I would own a gun if I could. Not you understand to leave on the back seat of taxis or even to shoot innocent people. But I would want it for a degree of self-protection on the basis of defending the people I love against someone breaking in to my home. I am not sure I could shoot someone but if push came to shove and it was an illiterate yob or me or my family at risk I admit that my feeling is the illiterate yob ought to be persuaded to go away. As wise words might not be enough to deter IY the gun would come in handy.

It wouldn't be a toy. The important thing would be to learn how to shoot accurately, how to clean and load the weapon, how to be responsible with it. My family would learn too how to use it and treat it with care. I may even feel a gun would be useful when various hordes are rampaging the streets looking for food and may think my family's food ought to be theirs, but that's a dark future yet to be visited on us.

My relative was adamant, in a nice way as he is a kind person at heart, that guns are bad and lead to evil. Apparently in the left-view guns equal terrible things, though it is okay for agents of the state to be well armed and have those with the correct line of thinking able to carry the sort of weapons that you can't have. He didn't believe entirely that as we gradually see more government power it means more guns, though only on one side but not the other. Yes, yes, I know... I hear the lefty whines that the bigger government is the more they are on our side, which of course is why they act in a superior fashion, make decisions based on whim and chatter and live separate lives to you and me.

But the age old fear of bullets or ballots raises its head again. You would have to ask would I have a gun to influence the ballot box? Not at all, because I no longer believe the ballot box brings good government. It brings people to power who want power at any price and allows them to make very good living for themselves while handing out orders to those who are denied. Me having a gun wouldn't change any of their selfish desires so I leave them to count the ballots as they wish and manipulate (or ignore) laws to allow voting fraud.

Oh yeah, that happens but hey, let's not talk about it too much.

A gun is not the embodiment of evil. Not in the way that controlling people to make them slave away and staying cowed while tossing them distractions (bread and circuses, anyone?) is evil on a grand scale. A gun is, in the end, a tool and like all tools it has to be maintained and treated with care. It isn't a political position, or a statement of 'manliness.'

If a dark future is visited on us, and it may be closer than we would like given the sort of decisions our elected leaders make so liberally, a gun would be a tool that may save a life I care about. Of course, I could just call up an agent of the state and ask, nicely, if they would mind coming round to save me and mine. But maybe the phones are out, the agents of the state have run away and are in hiding, or even if I ask they could respond: "We'd send someone over but they're probably in the baying mob outside because everyone is as equally hungry."

Using a handy tool to stay alive may well be no bad thing at all. But before you get excited and think I am bristling with weapons I have to say I obey the law as it is: I don't have a gun at all, other than a fake 1847 pepperbox pistol for when I dress up in my steampunk top hat and goggles and victorian walking cane. As the gun has no moving parts and solid barrels I don't have to clean it, so that's an advantage.

On the other hand I might get into taxi one day and find a gun on the back seat, dropped by some low-life or would-be terrorist. I really hope it's a fully loaded Glock, is all I can say.

Mind the gap

Over the years, it has become obvious that despite all the stern efforts at mind-control and making us drones behave, there is a gap growing in society. I'd call it a schism but I went to Secondary Modern so I can't spell it, in which case I will stick with a gap which suggests you can close it. Schism is too much like ravine and sounds unbridgeable.

I am not sure it is bridgeable. The gap we have is between levels of thought and attitude and although we may be berated for not having as much unconditional love for other groups and ethnicities as our superiors might like we find it hard to understand what they are thinking. It's a gap that seems to grow every day, one way or another.

Yesterday I read of a man who was arrested, held and had his computer seized because he posted jokes online about Nelson Mandela. I can see this is a sensitive subject: a 95-year old man dies in another part of the world having, some will suggest, once been in jail for reportedly terrorist related offences. The world's media and the great and good leaders go into overdrive and eulogies and praises pour in. For all I know about South Africa such adulation may well be deserved. I know some people say the Rainbow Nation has turned out to be a violent society that hasn't come to terms with its past and thus not found a place in the modern world, but I am merely repeating what is said.

Given that the police may be called if I make a joke about the man's death (and before you reach for the batphone to summon the law, please note that I wouldn't) I won't say a word. But I am troubled that the police have been wrenched away from enforcing Facebook terms and conditions and required to check out some not-very-funny attempts at humour.

I don't really think a lot of jokes about people dying are all that funny. When much younger I used to hear jokes about people going to heaven and challenged at the Pearly Gates (not a sister of Bill, before you ask) but to be honest they weren't funny. Listening to a painfully told tale of why Sherry, Penny and Fanny couldn't get past St Peter were, well, painful. But arrest? Taking of DNA? Seizing of property?

I think this action is a bridge too far, and it will never cross the growing gap.

This poor man's tribulations were the result of someone -- a local councillor who saw the jokes -- calling the police. There I would suggest is the gap I am talking about. A person thinks something is funny when it might not be and another person apparently thinks it is an offence to make jokes about a dead person. The gap is between two people who see the world differently, and increasingly there are sections of us seeing the world differently.

I may (or may not) see South Africa as a shining example of multi-racial harmony and prefer not believe those stories of increasing numbers of murders and rapes in that part of the world. I have never been to SA though I did have a relative who emigrated there and was happy enough behind the high walls and iron gates round his house. I do believe South Africa is a beautiful country and I am sure it will continue to make progress.

However another gap emerges here between those that say something and those who say 'don't say anything.' The gap is between those who think one thing and those who think another, and that bastion of freedom known as speech is duly checked and restricted in order to achieve harmony. We are told our parliamentary system is based on debate where one person (or group) puts forward one view and someone (or some other group) counters it, and from this a general truth emerges. It's an important principle of democracy that with discussion a gap can be bridged. It might prove a rickety old bridge that can't take any weight, but an effort has been made to join two sides.

While I doubt whether this joke-teller and this councillor could have entered into a meaningful debate I do think the gap between their points of view is one of attitude, and this troubles me more. Attitudes are entrenched, despite all the concerted efforts to tell us otherwise. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the more anyone insists we adjust our attitude the more we dig our heels in our our side of the gap.

Yes, we could exchange views and agree to disagree. Or I could call the police and demand the full weight of law, or at least the threat of it, be applied.

I would therefore suggest that the person who called in the agents of the state has one mindset and it could not tolerate the thoughts of another. A gap then of huge proportions, and it is everywhere we look. We are assailed daily with suggestions or demands or orders to correct our thinking, but there are people who are told to obey and conform and accept that don't see it that way at all.

These people may ask, with some good cause, why we are so hell-bent on trying to make one mind where there are many. The actions of this councillor in calling for police intervention is troubling because we would like our elected councillors to be thoughtful people who can recognise that there are many shades in society.

But this ill-considered action means the gap has grown a little more between different factions. The 'us and them' divide has been increased a tiny bit more. People who thought that balance and fair play and even tolerance suddenly find themselves a bit further away from an opposing and even authoritarian point of view. The thoughts of one has upset the feelings of another, and something must therefore be done using authority and invested power.

For me these gaps are growing, because we increasingly see those of one attitude trying to insist that their view is the only view possible, and any other opinion is forbidden.

There was a time when people might react to poor jokes with the crushing: "Do you know any with funny endings?" But today jokes are deemed political statements with dubious intent and contain thoughts that must be eradicated in order to ignore the gap at our feet.

I have my views, but please don't get me started on why the chicken crossed the gap.

The road to hell is paved with good weedkiller

Years ago I had a neighbour who was somewhat ahead of his time. Had he been born forty years later he could have been in the vanguard of some revolutionary young idealists, determined to change the world -- or make everyone suffer in the process.

This man, who I will call Dave, had been in the police force. He had, no doubt, served his community well in his time in uniform but he was retired when we moved in next door to them. He was still active, and being active made him want to interfere in other people's lives. Dave was the sort of man who would offer good advice that he had no intentions of following himself; he would have made a good modern lefty in that he could dispense instructions for what you should do but neglected to follow them for himself. All the while he would say he only did it because he cared.

Dave was outwardly a genial chap in many ways but it soon became clear he had fallen out with members of his family and was disrespectful to his wife. I doubt he did anything bad to her but he would airily dismiss what she might say in front of other people and according to some accounts he wasn't nice to her at home. More than that, he liked to interfere in other people's lives -- and certainly in their gardens.

It wasn't unusual to come home and find Dave had climbed into our garden (as he did with other neighbours) and do something to the plants. He would clear what he deemed to be weeds or trim a rambling plant you may have liked. The worst aspect was he would clamber over the fence (no, wait, he forced it down to get in) and then apply weedkiller where he thought it was needed. Given that we did not use weedkiller anywhere in our garden this wasn't the best news we wanted.

One day when everyone was out he brought his weedkiller round and 'watered' a glorious, bright evergreen hedge between ourselves and the neighbour on the other side. The hedge developed terminal brown patches, which upset both my wife and I and the old guy we shared the hedge with. "The weeds were getting out of hand," Dave said imperiously when asked if he had done it. You see, that was his attitude in that something had to be done no matter how damaging it was. He was just the man to do it, too.

The trait of the left is just the same: nothing can allowed to simply be if you have something to hand  with which you can poison a few healthy, if untidy, plants.

(The man's attitude was summed up when he started feeding our dog some gravy that made our pooch fart badly. When I asked him not to do it his response was: "We'd get used to it." Trust me, dog flatulence isn't something you want to get used to, but Dave knew best.)

Dave's greatest moment of interference was when one autumn morning he got up early and as day dawned he was up another neighbour's apple tree collecting the fruit, apparently on the basis that he hated to see things go to waste and he thought the family at number 57 had no right to let the fruit go uncollected on their own tree. As he never spoke to this family (they had fallen out some time before) he hadn't bothered to ask if they were going to collect the apples. Dave came to a conclusion all on his own and went ahead before anyone was up.

However Mr 57 and his wife slept at the back of the house and as the man opened the curtains that bright morning he was astonished to see Dave up the apple tree in 57's back garden, helping himself. Cue a storm of colourful shouting for Dave to remove himself at once.

Of course Dave had been a policeman and had, as far as coppers needed, a rudimentary grasp of the law. However trespassing apparently wasn't one of them, or rather if it was then it was the intention was all that mattered. Dave intended to make his surrounding world better his way so perhaps he thought that property and trespass were irrelevant. Again, a good solid left-wing trait we see all too often. Your property belongs to them when it suits them.

We eventually moved away from Dave and his unhappy wife and I believe they moved too, possibly to fresh pastures where neighbours could get a free weedkiller and apple collecting service even if they didn't want it.

Lucky them, and lucky weedkiller manufacturers to have their own champion. Thanks to people like Dave I expect there won't be a single weed or even a flower between the paving stones on the road to hell.

How much is that toxic in the window?

Last month in the United Sates (no, please bear with me here, as I fully accept not everything in the world happens in the US of A) a professor was accused of racism by some of his students. Why was he racist, you ask? Well, given that racism is everything nowadays it must be obvious that he had made some terrible accusation about the origin of ethnic people, or suggested that some were by the dint of having different colour skin, less able to do the tasks set.

But no, he hadn't. He had just done his job in helping teach the young.

He corrected their work. He committed the cardinal sin of correcting grammar, spelling and punctuation. This action was, it was claimed by some students, a form of "micro-aggression."

No, I shit you not. He had the temerity to correct their work and the reaction from a group of his students was to accuse him of racism.

At this point you will think that Mr Val Rust of the University of California at Los Angeles' Graduate School of Education and Information Studies had made derisory comments on their work that clearly made hackles rise. Apparently not. He was concerned, as any teacher should be, about the quality of their ability to communicate accurately. As Rust said to his colleagues in a letter: "I have attempted to be rather thorough on the papers and am particularly concerned that they do a good job with their bibliographies and citations, and these students apparently don't feel that it is appropriate."

His attitude to wanting his students' work to be clear and correctly identified however made the youngsters tremble with indignation. According to them in a letter they read in a public meeting (in front of Mr Rust, who was required to listen to what was said as part of the everlasting quest for fairness): "There are documented and undocumented stories of a hostile and toxic environment for students of colour here in Moore Hall and throughout the campus."

I am inclined, being the old git that I am, to wonder aloud if the documented stories they lay claim to had been properly researched and the accompanying bibliographies and citations were accurate. Or could it be it is the "undocumented" that are far more interesting to them?

Also, it has to be said that unless they know that Rust was a guilty party in this it isn't his fault there are undocumented stories. Usually in the real world these are called rumours or hearsay or even lies, but no matter. If he wasn't part of the great undocumented it wasn't his fault.

But the important thing is to protest. At a sit-in demonstration students recounted their experiences (and probably their feelings too) of racial discrimination while others listened. According to the University newspaper: "Some said they wanted the university to investigate these incidents and provide additional funding for improving campus climate."

Ah, here we are getting to the nub of the matter: "Additional funding" is needed. Money, which in a lefty-orientated world solves everything. I presume that this extra funding has to come from people's pockets and I presume too that the students would howl with anger if their fees rose as a consequence. So, someone else can fund this from our favourite magic money tree. You might also think (stupidly, like me) that "campus climate" is what the students contribute towards all the time. If there is nastiness in the air I suspect it is not solely driven by marks on a paper submitted to a professor.

I do suspect that a sloppy student or two thought they could get away with a sub-standard use of English, and thought that its is the same as it's or that there and their are interchangeable on a whim. I also wonder, privately, if these were students doing the "Information Studies" part which is a nice way of saying it's okay to theorise about watching youtube and surfing the 'net where language is what you can away with. U kno wot I mean man, LMAO!!!

Rust also said there had been a conversation between two students in class over "critical race theory" which he allowed by not stopping the discussion. The interpretation of this is: two 'students' were busy talking instead of working and getting hot under the collar but he didn't intervene, fearing if he did he might be seen to side with one or the other. I would imagine that would be very toxic.

By the way as I have taught, I do know just what might trouble him here: I once had a lad from the horn of Africa shouting across a large room at two lads who came from nowhere near Africa over some comment stirred by a blast of loud music and how he was going to sort them out because one of this pair had whispered "I bet your mother would like that sort of music." I wouldn't call it a conversation as such but I did intervene, telling one to calm down and the other two to stop winding up their classmate. And no, I didn't mark their work because none of them ever did any work to mark in the few lessons I had them. So no toxic going on there then.

'Toxic' is one of those fashionable words that bounces round, batted by those who like to talk, or shout, about race issues. I have to say I didn't particularly admire any of my three 'students' and anyway I am not sure they could spell toxic if asked. But we see increasingly there is a toxic atmosphere in the world and this must be countered. Probably by more money.

I do know that everything has a price and even the most vile and toxic attitudes can be changed my more funding. In fact, I suspect that all toxicity on this campus can be removed by having speech-and-look monitors on each corner, checking nothing is said, nothing inferred. This way no feelings will be hurt and no toxic gases released, other than from too much curry the night before.

And if these damned professors would stop marking students' work as if it was important, da yoof wouldn't need to maintain a toxic attitude towards them, either.

Feelings are a piece of cake

The Chicago Tribune carried the following report recently, and something in it strikes me as significant.

"A Colorado bakery owner illegally discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake a wedding cake for the pair last year because of his Christian religious beliefs, a judge ruled on Friday.

Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer ordered Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, to accommodate sex-couples or face fines and other possible penalties.

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling.

“This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

The case involves Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who said Phillips refused to bake a wedding for their wedding celebration when they went to his shop in 2012. The couple was wed in Massachusetts, one of 16 U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage, but wanted to have a celebration of their nuptials in Colorado.

Colorado allows civil unions for same-sex couples, but defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Phillips refused to bake the cake, saying his Christian beliefs prevented him from doing so.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, which ruled that Phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination at public accommodations based on race, gender or sexual orientation. On Friday, Spencer upheld the commission’s findings."

I am fascinated by law and, in another time and space and given the choice of destiny, I might have chosen some branch of the law to pursue as a career. I would do this because I believe properly structured laws provide the essential foundation of society. I may disagree with various views and opinions but they are just that; they remain ideas which I might support or reject but it is laws that require me to comply. If I do not like them while I have to obey, I do have the right to press my representatives for a change in the law that troubles me.

But let me go back to this ruling in the States. Bearing in mind I am not a lawyer, nor am I American and I do not have any qualifications to raise any legal points on this, it still troubles me.

I do not and will not enter into any debate about gay marriage. If a government passes a law we must assume it has been properly debated (though there is some view that parliament is guilty at times of making laws that are ill-considered, knee-jerk twitches to some current fad) and we trust it will be applied equally to all of society within the framework of the legislation. We know it's not, but that is another issue to be explored another time. The system we have is one of law and as such gay marriage has, in the UK, passed into law. Nothing more to say about that.

However this is about Colorado and has been made clear that while gay marriage is not lawful in that state, and the couple in question went to another state to be declared married, the United States –– being a collection of entities with their own laws under an agreed umbrella –– ensures the commonality that a marriage in one state is upheld in another. For example, you can't get married in say New Jersey and find that Arizona has unmarried you.

So these two men are married because that it is agreed across the fifty states. End of.

The ruling though isn't about this; it is about a man refusing to make a cake.

Now I do not know why these two men went to this baker and I do not know what words passed between them. I do not know if the married couple were 'making a statement' or whether they genuinely went into the shop and asked for a decorated cake because it was their nearest store. They may have requested something specific on the icing (what the Americans call frosting) which the baker objected to. They may have wanted it obvious in some way it was a celebratory cake for two men as men having a sexual union. No idea, and not relevant.

The baker refused to take the order, and while my understanding is that a shop-owner can refuse to serve a person (though this may be British law and agreed by the judge here) it always seems odd in a competitive economy that anyone turns down business. From my viewpoint, that's his prerogative.

At some point the baker, who has certain beliefs, made it clear he wouldn't make the cake for whatever reason. Had he said he could not fulfil the order for a reason allied to being too busy or not wanting any more commitments, one supposes the two men would have gone elsewhere. No disrespect to the baker but one cake may be much like any other. Ingredients apart, naturally.

This man however said no and probably cited his presumably firmly held beliefs to justify his action. I was not in the place at the time so I do not know what passed between the three and though this may have been fully explored in court, it's not within my knowledge. let us just say there was a disagreement.

Now I have been into shops and endured not very good service. Once or twice I have said something but most of the time I have left and simply resolved not to shop there again. I presume that this couple had the same option but they chose instead to file a legal complaint.

Once the legal process is begun, it has to be carried to a point where what might be called satisfaction by one or other party (or even both) is reached. After all, this did not presumably carry any act of physical intimidation, no violence took place, nor any theft or fraud resulting in financial loss. Unless this event has been badly misreported, those actual crimes did not figure in the court case. This was apparently about hurt feelings.

The judge said that. "Hurt caused to persons," he made clear. People had endured hurt feelings.

Now this is what troubles me: the law is responding to feelings and not to anything actual.

If I went into a shop and I was called a twat to my face (I suspect once on a holiday in North Wales the locals in the shop spoke about me in some derogatory terms in their language, but what the hell?) I might say something back about who was the bigger twat and leave. They wouldn't be getting my custom again and I am sure I would tell family and friends not to shop there if they could help it. But I am not sure I would think it worth my while to advertise I had 'hurt feelings' because, frankly, who cares?

I am not a delicate flower, nor am I emotionally upset when not liked by people I don't like. But here were two grown men who found it necessary to show their hurt and, worse than that, found a judge who put their feelings above all else. But then we don't have many judges it seems these days who say "get out of my court and stop wasting my time."

I am not sure here what the "cost to society" is either. The judge believed there was and maybe his ruling explained how and why. Fair enough: his job is to look at this case closely.

But if this is solely about hurt feelings then the law, that bedrock of society, is far more flimsy than I thought possible. On this basis we can all have 'hurt feelings' and nothing much would get done, I suspect, because we would all be too busy checking our feelings for possible hurt.

The judge did his job, but he did in my opinion do it poorly. But then, I wasn't there so I can't really say. All I can say is my feelings for the solidity and reliability of law have been hurt.

Very badly hurt, but I am not complaining.

He who Laffers last...

One of my beefs against socialism, among numerous dislikes explored variously in these blogs, is the complete inability of those who lean to the left to understand economics.

I presume there is, somewhere in socialist heaven, a money tree that keeps on giving. Sadly, here on earth where we have to endure all the misfires, misjudgements and assorted blubbering moonbattery of the left, there is no money tree. But, and all lefties are overjoyed by this, there is taxation.

Something wrong with the world? Then tax someone. Don't like someone's thoughts? How about a handy tax? Polar bears dying? Hey, there's tax for that.

Ideally the left likes to tax the rich but if that isn't possible (after all if you do that you have to tax your own elite and 'leaders' who usually are wealthy, too, but please don't tell anyone) then the obvious answer is tax anyone and everyone. By all means dress it up as fairness and equality, but make sure everyone pays. Preferably pay again and again. This, in case you are wondering, gives socialists the cash to squander on light-headed, thought-free schemes and ill-considered 'social engineering' gestures which often, purely coincidentally, also helps their own elite get richer.

Pretty much win-win for the left and the left's millionaires with this scheme, very much lose-lose for society as a whole. But who cares about them when there is a political agenda to pursue?

All of which brings me to the Laffer Curve, and why socialists fail to understand money (except when they are helping themselves to other people's, of course.)

The Laffer Curve is a fairly straightforward diagram that reveals, as simple truths are happy to do, that if you forcibly reduce the number of people who can be taxed, the amount of tax gathered will fall. No shit, Sherlock? I hear you cry. Shit indeed as this is always news to socialist governments.

France did it recently with their caring, sharing new lefty bosses and found a good number of their wealthy citizens opted to no longer live in France to avoid paying higher taxes. Do'h!

The essential principal of Laffer is taxation income alters in response to changes in the rate of taxation. Basically, a government gets no tax income if there is no tax imposed, and at the other end of the scale they get no tax income if it reaches 100 per cent taxation. The reason? The 100 per cent tax payers cease to exist as they can't stay alive, or find a way to stop being taxed. Like living elsewhere.

Between those two points is a curve, which while disputed exactly what the shape of this curve is, the principle is that the more you tax people the less they have to spend on themselves. They also begin if they can to indulge in various tax evasion plans or, if you prefer, dishonesties to keep body and soul together. They stop spending and that cuts the income of other people who rely on money moving round.

For example, take the taxation levied at the petrol pump. Currently the UK government takes 64 per cent of each litre of petrol sold (slightly less for diesel and a lot less for LPG) and most drivers put up with it. It is deemed unfair by some but a balance has been struck, of sorts. Now let's say that the tax rate rises to some 75 per cent: petrol will be sold still but apart from the price rise in distribution of foodstuffs and other goods, a lot of people will start -- if they can -- cutting out 'fun' journeys like seaside trips or cinema and theatre visits or even visiting elderly relatives.

Less problem this as the Big State will always provide scads of people to nurse and aid the elderly. Oh wait, these helpers have to be paid from the public purse, right? And what's that, it costs money to do that? Who knew?

Fuel costs rise, road use declines, motoring related businesses suffer, but more importantly for the government (who try not to go where ordinary people have to go, like traffic jams) tax income falls. Our caring, sharing ruling classes now have a problem; if they raise the tax at the pump they theoretically get more money but fewer people buy the stuff. That could well mean a lot less money for all those exciting caring and sharing schemes like giving immigrants large free houses, for example.

But the Laffer curve bites at various points where a tipping balance is reached. What that level is, is a matter of debate. Some say that between 65 and 70 per cent is the optimum point of most tax revenue before decline kicks in, others pitch it lower. We also have to acknowledge that modern life isn't just at the petrol pump; there are a huge number of things to be taxed away from fuel duty.

I accept that getting all these different factors in balance is difficult, but the underlying thrust of all socialist governments is to tax the wealthy. Squeeze the rich, and make them pay for everything. Or rather, squeeze most of the rich and excuse the ones you like.

But if you are unaware of the Laffer curve effect you may be tempted to just tax people and impose financial burdens. I do accept that a lot of lefty drones get giddy at the thought of making the rich pay for all the left's excesses, but there aren't that many rich people to do it all. They get poorer, they run out of cash or they run away. After all, if you can afford a house in London you may well be able to afford a house in a warmer place with less tax. At some point socialist governments have to look at how they can fund their silly idealisms and making the rich become poor might not be the best idea ever.

Every rise in pressure on disposable income for ordinary people affects their ability to spread that wealth by using the money for goods and services they want. True, if you are left-leaning you think the Big State should do that. Choice and individual responsibility are uncomfortable ideas for socialism because then the people don't need them to oversee, demand, nanny or decide for people what's best.

A sort of Laffer curve kicks in too with things like minimum wage. The more you raise the minimum wage (double plus good indeed and a surefire vote winner) the more services and products cost, so people buy less. Or they demand more money themselves to pay for that 99p burger that has rocketed to £1.49, in which case they stop having fries with that as they queue longer because there are fewer staff behind the counter.

You see, economics is a very fluid subject, and as such not easy to grasp all the implications and effects. More akin to the dark arts than a simple 'look and see' exercise. It may explain why no two economists can agree and why a huge part of government is walking a sort of fiscal tightrope, or should be.

Every so often we vote in a socialist government who promise to spend, spend, spend and then when it flounders and debt rockets they slink away as all their heady plans fall apart. Two or three years later they are back saying we need to spend, spend, spend again and this time they have just the plan to make it work.

You can chart their chatter on a sort of Laffer curve: the longer they are out of office the more they raise the promises until even they begin to see that tipping point where fewer and fewer people are believing them.

Choices, Choyces, Choyseses

There are lots of debates going on at the moment around us -- no, wait... there are lots of shouty statements of position and accusations flying and ludicrous claims, which I suppose is just another day in the World of Democracy. It passes for sensible debate these days so lets go with the flow and shout back.

Somewhere among all this yelling and posturing is the subject of education, or as many of us feel at the moment, 'edukayshun' because spelling isn't one of the aims of teaching the young any more. In fact, it is hard to determine what education -- whether you spell the word correctly or not, innit -- is trying to achieve these days.

It ought to be acknowledged that in many ways education is the root of everything we do and aspire to, yet it gets pushed behind other things in a queue of urgent matters. You could say get the teaching of the young right and a lot of other things follow more easily. I won't by the way say 'automatically' because I had a boss once who would say things in the business should happen 'automatically' but they never quite did; if someone didn't make an effort and be focussed on the task then the 'automatic' didn't happen automatically.

Anyway, let me not talk about a man who ran a publicity department in the media sector having gained a degree in geography. On the other hand, that may be part of the problem... Universities handing out degrees like confetti in subjects that no one but the tutors think is important and which have no bearing on real life can be assumed not to help. I have no problem with geography as a subject (I like it myself; some of my favourite people live in places around the world) but unless you go into a business that needs geography it is a bit of a waste for media management.

I want however to talk about education before we get to the 'Non-normative Gender Identification in Mayan Architecture Studies' degree level. We need to talk about what the younger ones are learning.

The consensus is they are not learning very much at all. Each year they seem to be asked to take in less and less and yet are praised for being able to even attend a class even if they only mess around in it when they arrive. Dumbing down is the phrase, though this ought to be 'dumming down' because the silent b can be damn tricky and if we eliminate all those awkward spelling problems we are less likely to have the kids in det any more. But then maybe spelling isn't important. Maybe being able to communicate effectively doesn't matter. Perhaps being to add up simply doesn't add up for the young any more when machines and electrickery can do it for you.

But what then is important? We really are struggling here, because a lot of people will tell us that the young are changing and we must change too.

I am not sure about this. I don't think we as humans essentially change whether there are computers and rap music or whatever around us. History by and large has shown the fundamentals that drive us are the same however we dress things up. We can see that people tend to remain people and whatever humankind does usually comes to the same sort of reaction and desire. The young have to be made aware of this if they are to have a chance. They have choices to make and the better able they are to evaluate the choices that will confront them throughout life will help. For example, we might reasonably assume that some practices like heavy drinking, drug taking and so on tends to result in problems of health so it is wise to make the young aware of them.

But I am not talking about lecturing them: I have taught and I have had to resort to lecturing and some of the kids stayed awake. Amazing, because I can be pretty boring when I get going.

No, you cannot just hand out leaflets and give powerpoint presentations. You have to give the youngsters the ability to discern matters for themselves. This requires children to learn to focus and be aware and apply themselves to a task.

If the young are taught the need to be self-disciplined and thus be able stick to a task to achieve a result then they are less likely to be distracted by the shiny things glittering in the mud at their feet. Ideally they need to be aware of others and their own evaluation processes and they need to think for themselves by examining the options and trying to foresee any consequences.

I am aware that this is very much in the 'touchy-feely' abstract realm that bedevils teaching, but in my defence I would say it has to be rooted in the three Rs. Kids need to be taught the value of being able to read, write and do basic sums.

Most of the youths I taught were mid to late teens, but they had little concept of the need to read and write and few of them had any idea of numbers and less of how to manipulate them effectively. It was painful trying to have a conversation with some of them because they could not focus their minds and concentrate on the conversation. Having a laugh with their mates while having their feet on the desk and playing with their mobile phone in lessons was more of interest to them. Oh, it happened from time to time and was better than work they thought. But please don't think that discipline was the issue here: the college I was at was very keen on this (outwardly) because it had put signs on the wall of each class saying 'no mobile phone use in class' though it may have well have been a picture of a puddle of water for all the difference that made. I did try once to demand a student hand me her phone in class but all she did was refuse. Take it higher because the college frowned on it? No, I was told to just let it go. It didn't matter. No one wanted the confrontation and anyway, why stop one when they were all doing it? Make the lesson more interesting and varied and then this girl wouldn't want to text her friend sat next to her, okay?

I could have dressed as a clown and juggled balls with the subject of the lesson in neon on them and I doubt it would have done much good here. This girl wasn't very bright even if a nice enough kid in that she wore her jeans on the right way round, but nothing much else was going on. She didn't read much (certainly not the signs on the wall of the class) and she couldn't spell (though thankfully copying and pasting from wikipedia meant her work was understandable) and adding up wasn't anything that interested her.

You will be pleased to know however she endured it all, stuck out the course and eventually got her piece of paper that showed she was a successful student. I hope the diploma helped her get a job.

But this young lady, like many others in the classes I taught, had slipped unseen through the early school levels. Somewhere, her education failed to show her the joy of reading or the value of communication or even the importance of numbers. But above all she had no ability to achieve a task. She, like many others I met, felt no urge to do anything on time. Allowances were made, deadlines extended, work corrected by the teaching staff but never really resubmitted by the students.

As one student said when he triumphally handed in a late piece of inadequate work, "You have to accept this or the college doesn't get money from the government." Smart lad: he was right because attendance was everything, keeping them there no matter what mattered the most. No matter what he did (as a colleague of mine found when she was assaulted in class sexually but told the lad had to stay in the class. She just had to make sure she didn't go near him in the lessons until he suddenly upped and left of his own free will).

The smart-if-late youth too lasted the course and got his diploma and I expect he is now earning the 30,000 a year they all thought they would get the minute they left college. Apparently my lectures on the unlikelihood of that salary materialising fell on deaf ears.

But to go back to the education issue of the young. Making it a priority to teach them, maybe with no excuses, to focus on achieving a task on time and present their work in a clear and understandable manner will do them more good than anything else in the long run. And if they still can't focus and achieve because they really are quite different to anything that has arrived on this planet before then at least they can tell us how and why they are different.

Why do I like people and hate socialism?

It's a question I have asked often, and maybe I am beginning to get the answer. How come if I like people why do I despise the cult of socialism which professes to like all people?

Let me explain my thoughts on this as best I can. I doubt whether any of this is breaks new ground or is even illuminating  but I have to try and say it.

Essentially, I find most people okay. Some of them are great, some of them waste of space but the majority are decent people trying to do their best in frequently trying circumstances –– and make no mistake about this, everyone has some circumstance in their lives which makes them feel isolated or hurt or even in varying degrees feeling anxious or downright fearful.

There are many people who have had shattering events in their past or worry about a future they can see isn't going to be great. They may have to face both the past and the future alone and may not, between those worries, have a great life right now. It happens and there are no easy answers, no platitudes or cosy chats that will make it easier for them. We all have to make our journey.

The more you look this huge majority of people and talk to them the more you realise that they are trying to balance a number of factors in their lives. Many are pulled by responsibilities and affections and most of them by and large silently get on with what they must do. Sometimes they screw up, sometimes they make someone else very happy, but they do what they can.

There are people who exhibit a small and quiet bravery in their lives, putting up with some hardship that when you discover what it is you wonder how they keep going. But they do. Sure, they may complain from time to time but then we all do. It's inevitable to try and let it all out; if we didn't moan about our lot it is possible the internal pressure would blow us apart.

Sometimes though we all come across the story or example of someone's difficulty and simply say, wow, I'm not sure I could do that. Oh, and if I had to do it I would complain to the heavens.

Years ago I read an article by the late Chris Brasher who as a journalist (post-athletics career) had gone to meet a sheep farmer who lived miles from anywhere. It was a late spring and the snows descended which in some remote parts of Britain can still be very dangerous indeed. Being a sheep farmer and miles from anywhere the man had a responsibility to the animals in his care; he was making a living from this so everything he did was to help him and his family as well as help the sheep. He wasn't looking after sheep because he thought they were fluffy friends. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement.

The snow fell deep and the wind howled and the sheep farmer set off to get one of his sheep who was having trouble giving birth. Brasher went with the farmer and together they waded through the drifts some two or three miles into the hills. If you have ever walked in deep snow you soon realise it is not only cold and wet but very tiring as well as slow going. Add to this the uncertainty of the land with its many dips and rocks all hidden under snow then it becomes incredibly tough. Well, they located the pregnant ewe and the farmer hoisted the sheep on to his shoulders in a sort of fireman's lift and carried the sheep back to the farmhouse to tend to it. The farmer had done it before, alone, and would probably do it again. No trade union, no support group, no forum for his angst, no counselling, no fine words from a politician miles away. He did this because he had to do it, and chances are he would be astonished if you called him a hero. He wasn't: he was just a man who was willing to carry a sheep in weather conditions that could well kill him if he fell badly or collapsed. It would be unlikely the sheep would turn out to be like Lassie and go and fetch help.

The sheep was brought home, the lamb born and the job done. Done until next time a sheep out on the moors needed help again and the farmer would set off, just like perhaps thousands of shepherds and sheep farmers do all over the world every year, unpublicised and unpraised.

I remember reading this and then the last thing Brasher said at the end of the article has stayed with me. He wrote that after doing this and experiencing it all, he would never complain about a bus being late again.

Well, we all complain about the bus being late as it were, because eventually we tend to forget the hardships of others or even to a degree the hardships we ourselves have faced. The bus being late is probably neither here nor there in the great scheme of things but we forget that, even if we know deep down inside we are glad it came eventually.

I try to remember this story because it reminds me to tone down the complaints I feel I am entitled to make. It helps me stay in the right frame of mind.

So this brings me to socialism. This brings me to thing that I dislike more than I can tell you.

Oh, I can easily paint a picture of the hypocrisy and the deceits and the shallow intentions and the smug, endless grins of left-wing people who have made -- and are making -- a very comfortable living for themselves by 'being on the side of the people' and not giving a damn.

When Gordon Brown (a man whose ineptitude was to help plunge this country into crisis after crisis because he knew all about the economy he said) was prime minister he was confronted by a woman who complained, with some justification many would say, about immigration. When she made her view known this great man ran away, calling her a bigot. This was accidentally recorded so we knew what he said. But you see, Brown was an ardent socialist; he 'cared' about people the way all socialists do and yet here was someone with a care who he had no time for. Busy schedule for a man being busy being busy, I am sure, but then how convenient he had to be hustled off. How inconvenient he revealed, as all socialists eventually do, how much they despise the ordinary people they profess to love.

You as an ordinary person are there to be used, and socialism uses you better than anything. You are classified and labelled and reduced to the level of a drone. You are meant to watch in awe as those who 'care' manage to care for themselves far more than you will ever do. But get this: they do not want you to join them at the top. You are a mere worker, someone who merely toils so they don't have to toil. You are required to do what they don't want to do, what they can't do. Your job is to fetch the sheep in through the snow while they attend conferences and form committees and drink liberally to the health of their friends who share the warmth.

Oh, of course their impassioned words sound fine and noble and uplifting and they even have a song about a red flag that makes them all weep as one. But the red flag that has flown over so many people's heads has been a disaster for humanity yet socialism can never see, or rather will not admit, that all the tyrants and thieves who have waved that flag do it because they don't really care.

The left has heroes who aren't heroes. People like Che Guevara who was a murderer. People like Mao and Pol Pot who 'led' their people to starvation in fields. Men like Stalin who gave orders that his soldiers who had been captured by the Germans would, on their release when the war was over, be shot for having been caught. A hero's welcome home, indeed.

These are the socialist ideals you are meant to worship. You are meant to say as the left does: we love gay people and we fully support a religion that hangs gays. You are meant to echo the lefty feminists who say: we hate the privileged male but we will not raise our voice against small girls having their genitals mutilated.

You are meant to say: I will shout in anger against Thatcher who closed some twenty-odd coal mines but will not raise my voice against Labour PMs like Wilson who closed far, far more.

You see, you are meant to be a puppet, responding to tear-jerking and knee-jerking and all the jerks who assemble under the red flag, and do it without question.

Socialists for me are those who find ways of saying heartfelt things they never mean. This does not make me a Tory or some right-winger but it does mean I have seen what socialism does. It is a cult that says one thing and very much does the other. It stands remote and aloof and makes statements but never backs them up. Socialists become the self-glorifying elite, scurrying over each other to get to the top, preening themselves on hubris and untruths and all the while making statements of intent but never producing the goods.

If you care for people you do more than talk; you have to listen and that means you have to listen to their fears. You have to listen to their real voice, not some imagined hack of a dead man by the name of Marx.

Socialism repeatedly criticises people who do something to help others by blaming them for not doing even more.

Socialism is about complaining, not at the side of the road about the next bus, but from the comfort of  a public-funded luxurious car, sweeping past and sneering at the people who stand waiting.

Socialism has shown time and gain it is not about helping people who are trying to help themselves, but about making political capital from them. It is about power. It is about saying these people need the help of the state but we want to be the Big State and then not do very much at all to help.

Socialism will not carry that sheep through the snow for you, but they have a committee who can talk about ludicrous theories of global warming causing more snow. I am sure that would really help the ewe give birth and make you feel better that they are safe and warm but have some very concerned words for you.

This Big State that socialism wants has all the words but can't even begin to look at the desperate state of many people's lives, not unless it allows them to offer platitudes and gives them votes in order to put them in the comfort for which they yearn at your expense.