Doth is a funny word. Although we have a number of words ending in 'th' (and truth is one of them) the word doth is far from the most common, though it is a key part of the memorable phrase: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Methinks then I am indebted to Shakespeare for coming up with that one and giving it to Queen Gertrude in Hamlet, because it encapsulates not just what a lady might do, but the whole of humankind. In particular, I am thinking here of our old friend, AGW.
Recently a ship of excitable people set sail in a vessel named "An Inconvenient Truth" to follow in the footsteps of an Antarctic explorer. These people weren't however historians, but people convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that that their theories that there would be no ice in Antarctica in summer were beyond reproach. As the science of Anthropological Global Warming was so emphatically settled several years ago, what could go wrong?
What went wrong was a lot more ice than they anticipated. But what was wrong before they set off was being trapped in their AGW mindset. Having been seduced by an idea that increasingly looks ridiculous. A bit like a ship hemmed in by ice, if you like.
I do think there will come a day when people will look back at this AGW farce and wonder how such a delusion gripped so many people when all the signs pointed to a reality that didn't match the wild posturing. A modern, frantic South Sea Bubble that engulfed some if not all of us.
Now before you start screaming I am a terrible example of the monstrosity known as a climate change denier, I'd like to point out that I do believe in climate change. Happens all the time. Has happened throughout history, will happen for aeons to come too. I expect it will continue until the sun goes supernova and the planet gets fried into a whole new climate change.
I just don't believe it is all the fault of human beings. Nature is vast and complex and there are factors at play we can't really comprehend from such a limited viewpoint. Humans don't always have a huge breadth of vision, but while we do have some breadth we ought to resist thinking the experiences of a limited time span while we are keeping records (which may or may not be accurate) somehow constitute all of life.
Oh, sure, as a species we humans are wasteful. No question about that. Of course we exploit resources and haven't always considered the impact of mining and drilling and reshaping river flows. To some degree we spoil and are slow to repair. On the other hand we are not as powerful as we may think. Good old mother Nature can concoct forces a thousand times more powerful and earth-changing than anything we can manufacture.
Our wonderful planet can throw us off in the cosmic blink of an eye, and the sun can do whatever it likes whenever the mood takes it because we have absolutely no influence on this small star on the outer fringe of our galaxy.
But it is a vanity that we humans are such an important element in this planet's life. Our little globe of rock and iron and water has been around for a whole lot longer than us and may well outlive us all, but the belief we are responsible for everything that happens from now on is just silly. More than that, the idea we know everything there is to know about everything is beyond ridicule. Frankly, we have just scratched the surface.
Yet our capacity for self-delusion never abates: we think if we believe something it must be true. Further, we think if we shout louder and louder then wisdom and agreement will follow, and better still follow with generous gratitude. Protesting loudly doth do the job.
Six or seven years ago the largely self-appointed 'experts' screamed that the "science was settled" as regards AGW. There was no point in discussing it or examining it because we only had four more years to save the world (even if the world will blissfully go on spinning round a moody sun whether we are here or not) and we were doomed by the fact we made lightbulbs without clear glass, or something.
But the lady was protesting too much. She was howling, and she was purple in the face with rage about how bad we were, how we were killing the planet. There was no time to think, no time to examine. Hurry up and hurry up along the only road we can see. The science was supposedly settled and there was no time left to look and certainly no reason to apply brain.
Worst of all, the main stream media rushed to join in with all this screaming, but then as bad news is far more interesting than good news I suppose it was inevitable. The MSM loved AGW and we who asked "Is this really true?" could all just STFU.
One thing we can be sure about though is it's not over until the fat lady sings, however much she doth protest beforehand. Ain't that the truth?
Thursday, 2 January 2014
Tuesday, 31 December 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, 22 December 2013
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?
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?
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
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!
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!
Tuesday, 17 December 2013
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.
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.
Monday, 16 December 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, 14 December 2013
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)