However you vote on Thursday, make sure your decision is not based on prejudice, hatred, deliberately distorted information, uninformed opinion, or even nostalgia—a faulty faculty at best—or on a whim. Remember: this choice can't be reversed; it's that serious.
If you are an older person, as I am, remember that what we decide will have much less impact on us than it will on our children and grandchildren. Ask them, if they are old enough to understand, what they want. Respect their choice and support them in it. They are the ones who must live with Thursday's decision.
If you feel aggrieved that you had no opportunity to choose in the previous referendum about Europe, you now have the opportunity to choose but please recognise that you will also be putting the generations that follow in the same predicament. Make the best choice for them, not just the one that suits you.
Visit the BBC's Reality Check web site for useful information to help you make or even check your decision. Please keep an open mind to what you read there.
We are collectively responsible for whatever happens next . . .
Showing posts with label Current Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Affairs. Show all posts
21 June 2016
25 January 2013
Harry's 'Game'
Much has been made in the news in recent days of Prince Harry's remarks about his time in Afghanistan as a gunner in an Army helicopter. He has admitted to killing Taliban fighters, and you could hear raised eyebrows in the news reader's tone even if the actual facial expression was successfully suppressed.
Some of Harry's remarks have been seen as glib, if not actually offensive; 'Take a life to save a life,' for example, or '...taking [the enemy] out of the game.' I really wonder what's wrong with people.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of our troops being deployed in Afghanistan, the fact is they are there. Not only are they there, they are being attacked by the Taliban with the unmitigated intent to kill as many of them as possible. What are our troops supposed to do, if not defend themselves?
My grandfather fought in the First World War. On one of the rare occasions he talked about it, I asked if he had killed any Germans. He admitted (not confessed) he had in hand-to-hand combat, not just with his Lewis gun from a safe distance. His explanation was that if he and his comrades had not killed the Germans, the Germans would have killed them; 'It was them or us.'
So, Prince Harry has killed Taliban fighters. I am sure this young man does not take pleasure in the taking of life. I deplore war and its consequences but the equation is an easy one to understand: if he did not fire his machine gun at the enemy and 'take them out of the game', you can be sure that the Taliban would be taking the Prince's comrades out of the game. The killing of the Prince himself would be seen by them as an illustrious triumph. It is either British troops who die or Taliban fighters; it is British mothers who must grieve or those of the Taliban. Would it were neither but fanatics such as the Taliban are not in the least offended by the death of their enemies.
Nor should we take offence at the expression 'taking them out of the game.' This is not a sign that our Prince is a jingoistic warmonger. I think of World War Two fighter pilots who talked of fallen comrades as having 'Gone for a Burton' (Burton's being a brewery). These men were not being facetious in the face of tragedy, they were putting a psychological distance between themselves and the horror of their losses and what must have seemed, for some of them at least, their own inevitable demise. I wonder how closely those who are critical of Harry would hold the realities of war were they in his shoes . . .
Prince Harry is a soldier. He is doing a dangerous job in a dangerous place. Many of our front line troops have killed Taliban fighters; in that respect, Harry is but one of the many. How many people would complain if Harry had not done his job and allowed British troops to be killed?
Prince Harry is a soldier. What do you expect him to do? Really?
'Harry's Game', by the way, is the title of a Gerald Seymour novel: an excellent read — but then, most of his novels are.
Some of Harry's remarks have been seen as glib, if not actually offensive; 'Take a life to save a life,' for example, or '...taking [the enemy] out of the game.' I really wonder what's wrong with people.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of our troops being deployed in Afghanistan, the fact is they are there. Not only are they there, they are being attacked by the Taliban with the unmitigated intent to kill as many of them as possible. What are our troops supposed to do, if not defend themselves?
My grandfather fought in the First World War. On one of the rare occasions he talked about it, I asked if he had killed any Germans. He admitted (not confessed) he had in hand-to-hand combat, not just with his Lewis gun from a safe distance. His explanation was that if he and his comrades had not killed the Germans, the Germans would have killed them; 'It was them or us.'
So, Prince Harry has killed Taliban fighters. I am sure this young man does not take pleasure in the taking of life. I deplore war and its consequences but the equation is an easy one to understand: if he did not fire his machine gun at the enemy and 'take them out of the game', you can be sure that the Taliban would be taking the Prince's comrades out of the game. The killing of the Prince himself would be seen by them as an illustrious triumph. It is either British troops who die or Taliban fighters; it is British mothers who must grieve or those of the Taliban. Would it were neither but fanatics such as the Taliban are not in the least offended by the death of their enemies.
Nor should we take offence at the expression 'taking them out of the game.' This is not a sign that our Prince is a jingoistic warmonger. I think of World War Two fighter pilots who talked of fallen comrades as having 'Gone for a Burton' (Burton's being a brewery). These men were not being facetious in the face of tragedy, they were putting a psychological distance between themselves and the horror of their losses and what must have seemed, for some of them at least, their own inevitable demise. I wonder how closely those who are critical of Harry would hold the realities of war were they in his shoes . . .
Prince Harry is a soldier. He is doing a dangerous job in a dangerous place. Many of our front line troops have killed Taliban fighters; in that respect, Harry is but one of the many. How many people would complain if Harry had not done his job and allowed British troops to be killed?
Prince Harry is a soldier. What do you expect him to do? Really?
'Harry's Game', by the way, is the title of a Gerald Seymour novel: an excellent read — but then, most of his novels are.
15 November 2011
Reflections on Remembrance
Remembrance Sunday has come and gone again. Over the years, the usual commemoration for me has been a brief introduction in the course of a normal church service, sometimes given by a veteran or, more usually, the widow of a veteran, then two minute's silence, sometimes followed by a recitation of, 'They shall not grow old...' There was never anything disrespectful about the event but there was always the impression that it was something that was done because it was the thing to be done; and I certainly think it should be done; we should never forget the cost of the freedom we enjoy today.
A couple of years ago, my Beloved and I were in London at this time of year and so made a particular point of attending the Remembrance ceremony at the Cenotaph. It was a notable event, and no doubt deeply meaningful for those who have either participated or lost loved ones in armed conflict. We stood next to an ex-serviceman who attended every year. I would like to say we were there to honour those who gave their lives as much as he was but clearly it was a much more personal thing for him. For me, the pomp of the event lessened the experience.
This year was very different. Having recently become involved in a local church, we attended the joint Remembrance commemoration in the village. The whole service was given over to the act of remembrance, attended by servicemen and women from a nearby barracks, elderly veterans marked out by their medals, and uniformed youth organisations, and followed by a procession to the local war memorial.
Seeing the boys' and girls' uniformed groups reminded me of Church Parades I attended when I was a Cub. I was surprised to realise that I had no clue at that time what Church Parade was about, and amused to note that modern day members do not seem to be taught how to march.
At the War Memorial, we and a couple of hundred others observed our two minute's silence, witnessed the playing of last post and the laying of wreaths, offered prayers, and remembered the fallen. It became a much more meaningful event.
The War Memorial bears the names of those from our village who gave their lives. The realisation of that grounded the event, making more real the fact that real people, local people belonging to families that still live here and remember their fallen, had left their homes and loved ones and given their lives so that we could know and enjoy peace in our land.
I thought about the futility of war, its waste of life and the lost potential, all for the vanity of evil men bent on oppression and conquest. If only we could find some other way to settle differences, or even just accept them...
I thought also about those who did not die in war or conflict, who survived maimed, or even unscathed but who nonetheless sacrificed their youth, and who have since born the mental scars of their experiences. I remembered my grandfather who fought as an infantryman at the Somme and in other battles in the First World War, rose to the rank of acting Major in the Home Guard during the Second, but died 21 years ago at the age of 98. Though he survived, I believe his children lost the father he could have been, and I the grandfather, as a result of his experiences in the trenches.
War is a dreadful thing. We do not appreciate or value the peace we have in our land anywhere near as much as we ought. We owe the fallen and those who fought and survived a debt of gratitude. I would like to think that, could they see us, they would be satisfied with what we have made of their legacy but, somehow, looking at us and the way we are, I doubt it...
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
(From 'For the Fallen' by Laurence Binyon, 1869-1943.)
A couple of years ago, my Beloved and I were in London at this time of year and so made a particular point of attending the Remembrance ceremony at the Cenotaph. It was a notable event, and no doubt deeply meaningful for those who have either participated or lost loved ones in armed conflict. We stood next to an ex-serviceman who attended every year. I would like to say we were there to honour those who gave their lives as much as he was but clearly it was a much more personal thing for him. For me, the pomp of the event lessened the experience.
This year was very different. Having recently become involved in a local church, we attended the joint Remembrance commemoration in the village. The whole service was given over to the act of remembrance, attended by servicemen and women from a nearby barracks, elderly veterans marked out by their medals, and uniformed youth organisations, and followed by a procession to the local war memorial.
Seeing the boys' and girls' uniformed groups reminded me of Church Parades I attended when I was a Cub. I was surprised to realise that I had no clue at that time what Church Parade was about, and amused to note that modern day members do not seem to be taught how to march.
At the War Memorial, we and a couple of hundred others observed our two minute's silence, witnessed the playing of last post and the laying of wreaths, offered prayers, and remembered the fallen. It became a much more meaningful event.
The War Memorial bears the names of those from our village who gave their lives. The realisation of that grounded the event, making more real the fact that real people, local people belonging to families that still live here and remember their fallen, had left their homes and loved ones and given their lives so that we could know and enjoy peace in our land.
I thought about the futility of war, its waste of life and the lost potential, all for the vanity of evil men bent on oppression and conquest. If only we could find some other way to settle differences, or even just accept them...
I thought also about those who did not die in war or conflict, who survived maimed, or even unscathed but who nonetheless sacrificed their youth, and who have since born the mental scars of their experiences. I remembered my grandfather who fought as an infantryman at the Somme and in other battles in the First World War, rose to the rank of acting Major in the Home Guard during the Second, but died 21 years ago at the age of 98. Though he survived, I believe his children lost the father he could have been, and I the grandfather, as a result of his experiences in the trenches.
War is a dreadful thing. We do not appreciate or value the peace we have in our land anywhere near as much as we ought. We owe the fallen and those who fought and survived a debt of gratitude. I would like to think that, could they see us, they would be satisfied with what we have made of their legacy but, somehow, looking at us and the way we are, I doubt it...
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
(From 'For the Fallen' by Laurence Binyon, 1869-1943.)
04 November 2011
Public Sector Pensions Crisis
I am sick of hearing some private sector workers bleating on about how their taxes are being used to pay public sector pensions. It is true that state pension is paid from taxes and all of us who pay tax, whether in the private or public sector, are therefore funding state pension. That means that I, a public sector worker, am playing my part in supporting retired private sector workers just as much as anyone else is.
It is a myth that private sector workers pay public sector pensions through their taxes.
Let me point out that for the last 34 years I have been paying income tax, just as private sector workers have. For the whole of that time I have been paying into a pension scheme (unlike some in the private sector) and so it is I who have made provision for the pension I will eventually receive.
Down the years, government has taken my pension contribution and promised, through a contractual agreement, benefit in retirement through the NHS Pension Scheme. Government has not, however, taken my contributions and invested them in order to generate those benefits. No. My contributions go into the treasury and government uses the money as it sees fit.
You could consider that government uses the contributions of working public sector employees to pay the pensions of retired public sector workers.
The unions have suggested to government that a proper investment scheme be set up using public employees' contributions so that public sector pensions are self-sustaining and clearly independent of the tax system. This is, of course, unpalatable to government because it would no longer have access to a very large amount of money to mismanage.
What is truly tragic is the failure of government to ensure that private sector workers are signed up to a decent, properly regulated and ring-fenced pension scheme, that people like Robert Maxwell cannot make off with the pension funds of those who are, and that companies are not allowed to take pension fund holidays so they can pay bigger dividends to their shareholders.
Private sector workers should be up in arms to make sure they are treated well rather than trying to see that the public sector gets done down. Instead of moaning, 'Why should they have that?' they should be demanding, 'Why can't we have it too?' As far as I am concerned, everyone should be able to look forward to financial security in their declining years. There are no free hand-outs to be had, however. Future security means giving up otherwise disposable income now in contribution to the fund.
I pay my way in society through my taxes and make a contribution to society through my work. I am paying for my pension. I am not a parasite!
It is a myth that private sector workers pay public sector pensions through their taxes.
Let me point out that for the last 34 years I have been paying income tax, just as private sector workers have. For the whole of that time I have been paying into a pension scheme (unlike some in the private sector) and so it is I who have made provision for the pension I will eventually receive.
Down the years, government has taken my pension contribution and promised, through a contractual agreement, benefit in retirement through the NHS Pension Scheme. Government has not, however, taken my contributions and invested them in order to generate those benefits. No. My contributions go into the treasury and government uses the money as it sees fit.
You could consider that government uses the contributions of working public sector employees to pay the pensions of retired public sector workers.
The unions have suggested to government that a proper investment scheme be set up using public employees' contributions so that public sector pensions are self-sustaining and clearly independent of the tax system. This is, of course, unpalatable to government because it would no longer have access to a very large amount of money to mismanage.
What is truly tragic is the failure of government to ensure that private sector workers are signed up to a decent, properly regulated and ring-fenced pension scheme, that people like Robert Maxwell cannot make off with the pension funds of those who are, and that companies are not allowed to take pension fund holidays so they can pay bigger dividends to their shareholders.
Private sector workers should be up in arms to make sure they are treated well rather than trying to see that the public sector gets done down. Instead of moaning, 'Why should they have that?' they should be demanding, 'Why can't we have it too?' As far as I am concerned, everyone should be able to look forward to financial security in their declining years. There are no free hand-outs to be had, however. Future security means giving up otherwise disposable income now in contribution to the fund.
I pay my way in society through my taxes and make a contribution to society through my work. I am paying for my pension. I am not a parasite!
23 May 2011
On Super-injunctions
Here in the uk, we've had a furore caused by celebrities obtaining court injunctions to stop the press publishing details about their sordid little affairs. They have all been rather upset that hundreds of users of twitter and other social networks have felt free to ignore the courts.
My thoughts?
Don't expect to keep under wraps if you can't keep it in your trousers.
My thoughts?
Don't expect to keep under wraps if you can't keep it in your trousers.
On the Benefits of being Ill
The experience of the last week or so has been an interesting gastro-socio-philosophico-literary ride. As I write, I am on sick leave having been smitten by a particularly nasty bug (I won't go into the gruesome detail but, if that kind of thing interests you, google campylobacter).
I've had a couple of nasty bugs before, of which one almost finished me and another took 14 weeks to get over. The latest pestilence had me feeling almost as bad as I have ever felt in my life and fearing another long journey back to health. For the first two days I slept, being physically capable of only the short, frequent and necessary excursions from my bed, and mentally almost lacking the will to make them. I ate nothing, mainly to starve the invader, partly from lack of interest.
In the midst of all that, I thought of a friend of my Beloved's who was about to undergo drastic surgery and whose prognosis was far worse than mine. At least I knew I would recover; she faced she knew not what. It's not that there's 'always someone worse off' to think about. Feeling how I felt, it was much easier to empathise with her in her plight. We all-too-often merely sympathise with the afflicted without ever sharing in (or really caring about) their suffering. We distance ourselves from their hopelessness; it's less disturbing that way.
A few days later, and having the benefit of a downstairs toilet, and feeling a little improved, I took to watching daytime TV. Yes, that's how bad I felt. Actually, some of it was interesting; much more was mindless. There are programmes about people trying to raise cash for trivial escapades by auctioning the junk in their homes, or buying dilapidated houses at auction and trying to make fat cash from the investment of a few licks of magnolia. And the adverts: so long; so boring; so repetitive; so many.
Then I thought of the audience. What kind of people watch this stuff? Obviously, people like me who are laid up for a while. The housebound, who have no escape. Judging by the adverts, people who are up to their eyes in so much debt they can only just afford the satellite subscription. Or who have some pretext on which to enter litigation. People who are easy prey for parasitic organisations that charge for services that are free, like reclaiming your payment protection insurance premiums. Whoever we are, we still have brains and need stimulation instead of the mesmeric tripe churned out by even the BBC.
For the afternoons, I sought out SciFi programmes. I have finally had my fill of Stargate SG-1 and the various Star Trek series, certainly I had one episode too many of Voyager (The Week of Hell, in two parts). Crass, mind-numbing pap. I think they have all run out of ideas.
A couple more days and I was well enough to be bored. I was no longer prepared to put up with daytime TV and resorted to a much more stimulating medium: the printed page. Actually, I found a couple of books that my Beloved had acquired long ago and that I had not read. I was pleasantly surprised. Skin and Bones by Tom Bale I found slow at first (although that may have been an effect of my then under-nourished brain) but it soon became a gripping read. Very well written, too. Now I'm reading Winter in Madrid, by CJ Sansom, which is proving to be one of the best reads I've had in a long while. The imagery in books truly is better than on TV.
In these days when Government is imposing cuts, we are in danger of losing such valuable services as lending libraries. It's tragic to think that the value of these institutions may have been undermined because of the convenience of daytime TV. We should be promoting libraries, not closing them. Yes, I know there's a lot of crap on bookshelves too but you don't have to read it. Daytime TV is to reading what the naso-gastric tube is to the knife and fork. The latter allows you engagement and variety. You can only get emulsified slop through the former.
At the beginning, abstinence from food was surprisingly easy. The reintroduction of food had to be a careful process. I had to take only bland food at first so as not to upset my delicate and sometimes painful gut. As someone used to eating curry and stir-fry, and a lover of chocolate, I was delighted to rediscover the flavour of basic foods cooked simply. Rice and steamed vegetables were delicious: it was as though my taste buds revelled in their very existence. Strangely, my first glass of wine and my first square of chocolate last night were disappointingly offensive to my palate. I'm hoping to recover very soon from that problem. After all, I lost over a stone in a week and have to put at least some of it back on so I am well enough to return to work and normal life.
Being ill is never fun. It has however been interesting, providing a change of pace and time to reflect on the things we take for granted.
And now I am well enough to write again. Too bad, you may say. Well you didn't have to read this.
The Philosophico- Part
I've had a couple of nasty bugs before, of which one almost finished me and another took 14 weeks to get over. The latest pestilence had me feeling almost as bad as I have ever felt in my life and fearing another long journey back to health. For the first two days I slept, being physically capable of only the short, frequent and necessary excursions from my bed, and mentally almost lacking the will to make them. I ate nothing, mainly to starve the invader, partly from lack of interest.
In the midst of all that, I thought of a friend of my Beloved's who was about to undergo drastic surgery and whose prognosis was far worse than mine. At least I knew I would recover; she faced she knew not what. It's not that there's 'always someone worse off' to think about. Feeling how I felt, it was much easier to empathise with her in her plight. We all-too-often merely sympathise with the afflicted without ever sharing in (or really caring about) their suffering. We distance ourselves from their hopelessness; it's less disturbing that way.
The Socio- Part
A few days later, and having the benefit of a downstairs toilet, and feeling a little improved, I took to watching daytime TV. Yes, that's how bad I felt. Actually, some of it was interesting; much more was mindless. There are programmes about people trying to raise cash for trivial escapades by auctioning the junk in their homes, or buying dilapidated houses at auction and trying to make fat cash from the investment of a few licks of magnolia. And the adverts: so long; so boring; so repetitive; so many.
Then I thought of the audience. What kind of people watch this stuff? Obviously, people like me who are laid up for a while. The housebound, who have no escape. Judging by the adverts, people who are up to their eyes in so much debt they can only just afford the satellite subscription. Or who have some pretext on which to enter litigation. People who are easy prey for parasitic organisations that charge for services that are free, like reclaiming your payment protection insurance premiums. Whoever we are, we still have brains and need stimulation instead of the mesmeric tripe churned out by even the BBC.
For the afternoons, I sought out SciFi programmes. I have finally had my fill of Stargate SG-1 and the various Star Trek series, certainly I had one episode too many of Voyager (The Week of Hell, in two parts). Crass, mind-numbing pap. I think they have all run out of ideas.
The Literary Part
A couple more days and I was well enough to be bored. I was no longer prepared to put up with daytime TV and resorted to a much more stimulating medium: the printed page. Actually, I found a couple of books that my Beloved had acquired long ago and that I had not read. I was pleasantly surprised. Skin and Bones by Tom Bale I found slow at first (although that may have been an effect of my then under-nourished brain) but it soon became a gripping read. Very well written, too. Now I'm reading Winter in Madrid, by CJ Sansom, which is proving to be one of the best reads I've had in a long while. The imagery in books truly is better than on TV.
A bit More Socio- Stuff
In these days when Government is imposing cuts, we are in danger of losing such valuable services as lending libraries. It's tragic to think that the value of these institutions may have been undermined because of the convenience of daytime TV. We should be promoting libraries, not closing them. Yes, I know there's a lot of crap on bookshelves too but you don't have to read it. Daytime TV is to reading what the naso-gastric tube is to the knife and fork. The latter allows you engagement and variety. You can only get emulsified slop through the former.
The Gastro- Part
At the beginning, abstinence from food was surprisingly easy. The reintroduction of food had to be a careful process. I had to take only bland food at first so as not to upset my delicate and sometimes painful gut. As someone used to eating curry and stir-fry, and a lover of chocolate, I was delighted to rediscover the flavour of basic foods cooked simply. Rice and steamed vegetables were delicious: it was as though my taste buds revelled in their very existence. Strangely, my first glass of wine and my first square of chocolate last night were disappointingly offensive to my palate. I'm hoping to recover very soon from that problem. After all, I lost over a stone in a week and have to put at least some of it back on so I am well enough to return to work and normal life.
Being ill is never fun. It has however been interesting, providing a change of pace and time to reflect on the things we take for granted.
And now I am well enough to write again. Too bad, you may say. Well you didn't have to read this.
05 May 2011
On the Death of a Fanatic
So, Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Is the world a better place without him? No. It is just as bad and just as good after his death as it was before. Humanity seems perfectly capable of producing evil men however many we dispatch to the courtroom of eternity. The deaths of Stalin and Hitler did not end atrocities. Pol Pot, Pinochet, Galtieri, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Mugabe and more rose to fill the void.
Has justice been served? Well, yes and no. Bin Laden has caused the death of thousands if not millions of innocents; he had to be stopped. Those that live by the sword shall die by the sword. What about the injustices perpetrated by Western powers on other peoples? Terrorists do not emerge from a vacuum. Some who perceive themselves to be oppressed will always aspire to be the oppressor.
Will terrorism diminish? Of course not. I will be surprised if no atrocities are committed to avenge Bin Laden. Al Qaeda has lost its most recent leader. It may be distracted for a time while key figures struggle for ascendency but it will not remain leaderless. It may have lost access to Bin Laden's money, but there are surely other wealthy fanatics in the world willing to fund terror.
The world is not a safer place. I think it's a bit too soon to rejoice ...
Is the world a better place without him? No. It is just as bad and just as good after his death as it was before. Humanity seems perfectly capable of producing evil men however many we dispatch to the courtroom of eternity. The deaths of Stalin and Hitler did not end atrocities. Pol Pot, Pinochet, Galtieri, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Mugabe and more rose to fill the void.
Has justice been served? Well, yes and no. Bin Laden has caused the death of thousands if not millions of innocents; he had to be stopped. Those that live by the sword shall die by the sword. What about the injustices perpetrated by Western powers on other peoples? Terrorists do not emerge from a vacuum. Some who perceive themselves to be oppressed will always aspire to be the oppressor.
Will terrorism diminish? Of course not. I will be surprised if no atrocities are committed to avenge Bin Laden. Al Qaeda has lost its most recent leader. It may be distracted for a time while key figures struggle for ascendency but it will not remain leaderless. It may have lost access to Bin Laden's money, but there are surely other wealthy fanatics in the world willing to fund terror.
The world is not a safer place. I think it's a bit too soon to rejoice ...
13 February 2011
Blimey! I've got a Bonus!
This week, I was awarded a bonus of £100-worth of vouchers to spend any way I like in honour of my 25 years of loyal public service with the same employer. I really appreciate the gesture, meaning I will be able to afford the iPod Touch I want. Seriously, it is good to mark the occasion in this way.
It kind of takes the sting out of the £1.45 million pounds the leader of my bank is getting for this year alone.
It kind of takes the sting out of the £1.45 million pounds the leader of my bank is getting for this year alone.
12 January 2011
More Money Wasted on a Banker
It seems that the Lloyds Banking Group has at least two million pounds more than it needs.
Just think what good could be done with that. Four hundred thousand mosquito nets to protect children in Africa, perhaps. That's just one idea. I'm sure the money could be put to good use in Haiti, for another.
The bank has come up with a much better idea: let's give it to someone who has absolutely no need of it. What can possibly justify a bonus of TWO MILLION POUNDS? Is this not an immoral waste? Even if the banks don't want to do some positive good, what about them clearing up the mess they made instead of leaving us, the British taxpayers, to pay off the deficit caused by shoddy banking? We even own a huge part of Lloyds, for goodness sake. Don't they owe us some reparation?
What is the bonus for? Doing a good job? Didn't Mr Daniels buy HBOS and get Lloyds into debt in the first place? If he's done a good job in recovering his failure, give him a couple of grand and do something useful with the rest of the money. £2k is a much bigger bonus than I'll get - £2k bigger, in fact.
Our government has shirked facing the issue, of course, telling us, 'Bankers may move to overseas banks if we don't let them have their bonuses.' I have two things to say to that:
Just think what good could be done with that. Four hundred thousand mosquito nets to protect children in Africa, perhaps. That's just one idea. I'm sure the money could be put to good use in Haiti, for another.
The bank has come up with a much better idea: let's give it to someone who has absolutely no need of it. What can possibly justify a bonus of TWO MILLION POUNDS? Is this not an immoral waste? Even if the banks don't want to do some positive good, what about them clearing up the mess they made instead of leaving us, the British taxpayers, to pay off the deficit caused by shoddy banking? We even own a huge part of Lloyds, for goodness sake. Don't they owe us some reparation?
What is the bonus for? Doing a good job? Didn't Mr Daniels buy HBOS and get Lloyds into debt in the first place? If he's done a good job in recovering his failure, give him a couple of grand and do something useful with the rest of the money. £2k is a much bigger bonus than I'll get - £2k bigger, in fact.
Our government has shirked facing the issue, of course, telling us, 'Bankers may move to overseas banks if we don't let them have their bonuses.' I have two things to say to that:
- How dare the bankers hold us to ransom?
- Given the mess they've made, who would want the spoilt brats?
16 October 2010
Felicitaciones a Chile: Misión cumplida!
I sat up quite late on Tuesday night watching the BBC news channel's coverage of the unfolding drama in Chile. It reminded me of the night I sat up on the occasion of the first moon landing, and I am unsure which of these momentous dramas is the more gripping.
I had to give up my wait because I had to go to work on Wednesday. As it turned out, this was the right decision since the first miner did not emerge from the 'bowels of the mountain' (to quote President Pinera) until 4 a.m. UK time. I did watch the report on Wednesday morning before going to work, and allowed myself to be late enough to see a live rescue.
Throughout the rescue, the world watched on and saw the same sequence of events repeated faultlessly 33 times. I saw only a few of them live but each one brought a shot of joy as each man rose to freedom. I know that, had I been able to watch all 33 in real time, not one of the events would have seemed in the slightest déjà vu. The world has been glued to its global television set. The events have filled our news bulletins. We have found it compulsive viewing and I wonder why? What made it so special?
Chile has broadcast around the world a message of hope and faith. It has declared, 'People count!' and spared no effort to demonstrate that truth. For once in this sorry human world, we have seen something positive and uplifting, and it has done us good.
I rejoice with each of the miners at their release and reuniting with their loved ones. I also salute those incredibly brave members of the rescue team who went down the shaft without the certain guarantee of recovery to assess and support those being rescued. I shall remember for some time the image of them standing in the mine when all the miners had gone, holding up a banner bearing the words 'Misión cumplida': mission accomplished. The surge of emotion I felt on seeing that almost had me in tears.
Well done Chile! You have inspired the world.
(and thank you Google for the following translation - y gracias a Google por la siguiente traducción)
Me incorporé muy tarde la noche del martes viendo la cobertura del canal de noticias de la BBC del drama que se desarrolla en Chile. Me recordó a la noche me senté con motivo del primer alunizaje, y estoy seguro de cuál de estos dramas trascendental es la más apasionante.
Tuve que renunciar a mi esperar porque tenÃa que ir a trabajar el miércoles. Como resultado, esta era la decisión correcta desde el minero principio no salir de la 'entrañas de la montaña "(para citar al Presidente Piñera) hasta las 4 am hora del Reino Unido. Hice ver el informe en la mañana del miércoles antes de ir a trabajar, y me permità ser lo suficientemente tarde como para ver un rescate en vivo.
A lo largo del rescate, el mundo observó y vio en la misma secuencia de eventos repetidos 33 veces sin fallos. Sólo vi a algunos de ellos en vivo, pero cada uno traÃa un tiro de alegrÃa, ya que cada hombre se levantó a la libertad. Sé que, si hubiera sido capaz de ver los 33 en tiempo real, no uno de los acontecimientos habrÃa parecido en el déjà vu menor. El mundo se ha pegado a la televisión mundial. Los acontecimientos han llenado nuestros boletines de noticias. Lo hemos encontrado ver compulsiva y me pregunto ¿por qué? Lo que hizo tan especial?
Chile ha difundido en todo el mundo un mensaje de esperanza y fe. Se ha declarado, "contar con gente!" y no escatimó esfuerzos para demostrar que la verdad. Por una vez en este mundo de los humanos sentimos, hemos visto algo positivo y estimulante, y nos ha hecho bien.
Me alegro con cada uno de los mineros de su liberación y el reencuentro con sus seres queridos. También saludo a los miembros de la increÃblemente valiente del equipo de rescate que fue por el hueco sin cierta garantÃa de recuperación para evaluar y apoyar los que están siendo rescatados. Yo recuerdo hace algún tiempo la imagen de ellos de pie en la mina cuando todos los mineros se habÃan ido, sosteniendo una pancarta con "Misión Cumplida" las palabras: misión cumplida. La oleada de emoción que sentà al ver que casi me hizo llorar.
Bien hecho Chile! Que han inspirado al mundo.
I had to give up my wait because I had to go to work on Wednesday. As it turned out, this was the right decision since the first miner did not emerge from the 'bowels of the mountain' (to quote President Pinera) until 4 a.m. UK time. I did watch the report on Wednesday morning before going to work, and allowed myself to be late enough to see a live rescue.
Throughout the rescue, the world watched on and saw the same sequence of events repeated faultlessly 33 times. I saw only a few of them live but each one brought a shot of joy as each man rose to freedom. I know that, had I been able to watch all 33 in real time, not one of the events would have seemed in the slightest déjà vu. The world has been glued to its global television set. The events have filled our news bulletins. We have found it compulsive viewing and I wonder why? What made it so special?
Chile has broadcast around the world a message of hope and faith. It has declared, 'People count!' and spared no effort to demonstrate that truth. For once in this sorry human world, we have seen something positive and uplifting, and it has done us good.
I rejoice with each of the miners at their release and reuniting with their loved ones. I also salute those incredibly brave members of the rescue team who went down the shaft without the certain guarantee of recovery to assess and support those being rescued. I shall remember for some time the image of them standing in the mine when all the miners had gone, holding up a banner bearing the words 'Misión cumplida': mission accomplished. The surge of emotion I felt on seeing that almost had me in tears.
Well done Chile! You have inspired the world.
(and thank you Google for the following translation - y gracias a Google por la siguiente traducción)
Me incorporé muy tarde la noche del martes viendo la cobertura del canal de noticias de la BBC del drama que se desarrolla en Chile. Me recordó a la noche me senté con motivo del primer alunizaje, y estoy seguro de cuál de estos dramas trascendental es la más apasionante.
Tuve que renunciar a mi esperar porque tenÃa que ir a trabajar el miércoles. Como resultado, esta era la decisión correcta desde el minero principio no salir de la 'entrañas de la montaña "(para citar al Presidente Piñera) hasta las 4 am hora del Reino Unido. Hice ver el informe en la mañana del miércoles antes de ir a trabajar, y me permità ser lo suficientemente tarde como para ver un rescate en vivo.
A lo largo del rescate, el mundo observó y vio en la misma secuencia de eventos repetidos 33 veces sin fallos. Sólo vi a algunos de ellos en vivo, pero cada uno traÃa un tiro de alegrÃa, ya que cada hombre se levantó a la libertad. Sé que, si hubiera sido capaz de ver los 33 en tiempo real, no uno de los acontecimientos habrÃa parecido en el déjà vu menor. El mundo se ha pegado a la televisión mundial. Los acontecimientos han llenado nuestros boletines de noticias. Lo hemos encontrado ver compulsiva y me pregunto ¿por qué? Lo que hizo tan especial?
Chile ha difundido en todo el mundo un mensaje de esperanza y fe. Se ha declarado, "contar con gente!" y no escatimó esfuerzos para demostrar que la verdad. Por una vez en este mundo de los humanos sentimos, hemos visto algo positivo y estimulante, y nos ha hecho bien.
Me alegro con cada uno de los mineros de su liberación y el reencuentro con sus seres queridos. También saludo a los miembros de la increÃblemente valiente del equipo de rescate que fue por el hueco sin cierta garantÃa de recuperación para evaluar y apoyar los que están siendo rescatados. Yo recuerdo hace algún tiempo la imagen de ellos de pie en la mina cuando todos los mineros se habÃan ido, sosteniendo una pancarta con "Misión Cumplida" las palabras: misión cumplida. La oleada de emoción que sentà al ver que casi me hizo llorar.
Bien hecho Chile! Que han inspirado al mundo.
12 October 2010
The Rescue of the Chilean Miners
My thoughts and prayers today are with the 33 men trapped underground in the Chilean mine and with their rescuers.
I can only imagine the intensity of the conflict between anxiety and excitement they and their families must be feeling on this, the day on which the rescue shaft will be put to its intended use. I am thankful that it has been made ready well in advance of the original estimate of Christmas.
I can only imagine the unbounded joy and profound relief they will experience on being re-united with their loved ones.
I wish them all well with the imminent rescue, and in coming to terms with normality after what must surely have been a life-changing ordeal. I am sure it will be difficult, having lived in this horror, to re-adjust to life among those who have not lived there with them.
May this rescue be successful without loss and without problems along the way. May the men and their families be given all the help they need to find resolution of the past and direction for the future.
I can only imagine the intensity of the conflict between anxiety and excitement they and their families must be feeling on this, the day on which the rescue shaft will be put to its intended use. I am thankful that it has been made ready well in advance of the original estimate of Christmas.
I can only imagine the unbounded joy and profound relief they will experience on being re-united with their loved ones.
I wish them all well with the imminent rescue, and in coming to terms with normality after what must surely have been a life-changing ordeal. I am sure it will be difficult, having lived in this horror, to re-adjust to life among those who have not lived there with them.
May this rescue be successful without loss and without problems along the way. May the men and their families be given all the help they need to find resolution of the past and direction for the future.
02 August 2010
Unemployment Policy in a Big Society
Government seems to be displaying a lack of joined-up thinking.
Messrs. Cameron and Clegg want us to stay in our jobs for longer, meaning that the number of people in need of work will increase. If we older folks don't leave our jobs, there will be less opportunity for those just starting out to find work. If there is nothing done to increase the number of jobs, this measure will lead to growing unemployment and more claimants for state benefits such as job-seekers allowance.
They want to encourage benefit claimants to work by reducing the value of benefits relative to paid employment, meaning that the number of people in need of work will increase. More people looking for work means that more jobs are needed. If nothing is done to increase the number of jobs, this measure will lead to growing unemployment and a greater burden on charitable organisations trying to support unemployed claimants whose benefits are inadequate.
Somehow, all employers need to be willing to take on more people. That's not very likely, as the last decade or so has seen employers make their dwindling workforce do more work. One way they do that is to not replace us when we leave or retire. So, even if we didn't have to work longer, there would be no extra opportunities for the unemployed to find work...
Public services are being pruned to make them more efficient. For example, the NHS's Primary Care Trusts are being abolished. This will lead to the redundancy of thousands in the PCT sector. The job currently being done by PCTs is being dumped on GPs, who would rather be looking after their patients and so will need to employ other people to do the extra work. Where will they get them from? Ah! Ex-PCT employees! Or some of them at least! We can make them work harder but we'll pay them less. And ourselves more for the extra responsibility we have to carry. The rest can get unemployment benefit... And we don't have to spend the money inside the NHS. Let's try out private health care. That will reduce the burden on the NHS even more, meaning fewer staff are needed. More efficiency savings! Never mind, they can get unemployment benefit.
The Government wants to encourage the 'Big Society', where more people volunteer and exercise greater social concern. Good idea. Because of the government's policies, there will be lots of unemployed people available for looking after many other unemployed people. So maybe the government has got it right, after all...
Question. Who is going to pay for it and how? Presumably, those of us still in work until we're 90 being paid peanuts by GPs.
Messrs. Cameron and Clegg, you have provide an incentive to employ, not just an incentive to work!
Messrs. Cameron and Clegg want us to stay in our jobs for longer, meaning that the number of people in need of work will increase. If we older folks don't leave our jobs, there will be less opportunity for those just starting out to find work. If there is nothing done to increase the number of jobs, this measure will lead to growing unemployment and more claimants for state benefits such as job-seekers allowance.
They want to encourage benefit claimants to work by reducing the value of benefits relative to paid employment, meaning that the number of people in need of work will increase. More people looking for work means that more jobs are needed. If nothing is done to increase the number of jobs, this measure will lead to growing unemployment and a greater burden on charitable organisations trying to support unemployed claimants whose benefits are inadequate.
Somehow, all employers need to be willing to take on more people. That's not very likely, as the last decade or so has seen employers make their dwindling workforce do more work. One way they do that is to not replace us when we leave or retire. So, even if we didn't have to work longer, there would be no extra opportunities for the unemployed to find work...
Public services are being pruned to make them more efficient. For example, the NHS's Primary Care Trusts are being abolished. This will lead to the redundancy of thousands in the PCT sector. The job currently being done by PCTs is being dumped on GPs, who would rather be looking after their patients and so will need to employ other people to do the extra work. Where will they get them from? Ah! Ex-PCT employees! Or some of them at least! We can make them work harder but we'll pay them less. And ourselves more for the extra responsibility we have to carry. The rest can get unemployment benefit... And we don't have to spend the money inside the NHS. Let's try out private health care. That will reduce the burden on the NHS even more, meaning fewer staff are needed. More efficiency savings! Never mind, they can get unemployment benefit.
The Government wants to encourage the 'Big Society', where more people volunteer and exercise greater social concern. Good idea. Because of the government's policies, there will be lots of unemployed people available for looking after many other unemployed people. So maybe the government has got it right, after all...
Question. Who is going to pay for it and how? Presumably, those of us still in work until we're 90 being paid peanuts by GPs.
Messrs. Cameron and Clegg, you have provide an incentive to employ, not just an incentive to work!
10 May 2010
Electoral Chaos
Well, here we are with a hung, or balanced, parliament. As they wheel and deal to decide who should form a government, how to unravel the tangled mess we have given them, let's hope they got and remember the message: we aren't all that happy with any of them.
Mr Brown has decided to go; do we have Mr Clegg to thank for that? Despite comments in my previous postings, I do wish him well; I believe him to be a decent and genuine human being. We still have no idea of who we are likely to get in place of him. It won't be Mr Clegg. It could still be Mr Cameron. If the Lib-Dems ally themselves with Labour, who will lead the country while Labour elects its new leader? I guess Mr Brown...
There is always the danger, of course, that the Lib-Dems will hang themselves out to dry by whatever decision they make. If they go with the Tories it will give a genuine majority in the house but I can't see either party tolerating the alliance for long. The Lib-Dems could be accused of compromising their principles. The Tories will complain that they are being restrained from implementing their more radical policies (no bad thing, from my point of view). If they go with Labour, there will still be no clear majority in the House. Government will be reliant on the good will of smaller parties such as the SNP and Plaid Cwmru who will be in a position to manipulate Parliament to suit their causes (a good position for them). They will be seen to have pushed the losing Labour party back into power.
Chances are we will have another election in October. By then, if we get another Lib-Lab Pact, we may have a form of Proportional Representation in place. It will be interesting to see how politicians sort out the ensuing hung parliament. Still, it works in Europe and New Zealand. At least they will have a mechanism for sorting out who is in charge and the horse-trading won't be necessary. Labour may be left wondering how they would have faired in a First Past the Post election with a new leader. Of course, they could wait and see how their new leader inspires the public and, if favourably, call an election before they have chance for a referendum on electoral reform, thus stabbing the Lib-Dems in the back...
Interesting, isn't it?
Mr Brown has decided to go; do we have Mr Clegg to thank for that? Despite comments in my previous postings, I do wish him well; I believe him to be a decent and genuine human being. We still have no idea of who we are likely to get in place of him. It won't be Mr Clegg. It could still be Mr Cameron. If the Lib-Dems ally themselves with Labour, who will lead the country while Labour elects its new leader? I guess Mr Brown...
There is always the danger, of course, that the Lib-Dems will hang themselves out to dry by whatever decision they make. If they go with the Tories it will give a genuine majority in the house but I can't see either party tolerating the alliance for long. The Lib-Dems could be accused of compromising their principles. The Tories will complain that they are being restrained from implementing their more radical policies (no bad thing, from my point of view). If they go with Labour, there will still be no clear majority in the House. Government will be reliant on the good will of smaller parties such as the SNP and Plaid Cwmru who will be in a position to manipulate Parliament to suit their causes (a good position for them). They will be seen to have pushed the losing Labour party back into power.
Chances are we will have another election in October. By then, if we get another Lib-Lab Pact, we may have a form of Proportional Representation in place. It will be interesting to see how politicians sort out the ensuing hung parliament. Still, it works in Europe and New Zealand. At least they will have a mechanism for sorting out who is in charge and the horse-trading won't be necessary. Labour may be left wondering how they would have faired in a First Past the Post election with a new leader. Of course, they could wait and see how their new leader inspires the public and, if favourably, call an election before they have chance for a referendum on electoral reform, thus stabbing the Lib-Dems in the back...
Interesting, isn't it?
03 May 2010
Prime Ministerial Debate No. 3
Well, that's it. We've seen them all. Now, at least, we have something to help us make up our minds.
I thought the last debate was interesting for as much as was not said as for what was. We had a nice demonstration of adversarial politics, of which we are all well and truly sick, with Mr Brown and Mr Cameron slagging off each other and having a dig at Mr Clegg. Mr Clegg seemed very quiet, apart from attempting to correct statements made by the other two about Lib-Dem policies. Perhaps he was content to let them show us that they would only give us more of the same.
Mr Brown
Actually, I thought this was a better performance from him. More commanding. He seemed to identify the Conservatives as his primary target, presumably believing them to be the only genuine challenge to Labour. Perhaps he sees the need not to come last in the popular vote so that he might get enough support to form the next government. I believe he has a good grasp of the problems we face and genuinely wants the best for the UK.
Mr Cameron
The polls seem to indicate he won this debate. I can't think how. What were people judging by? Not policies, if Mr Brown is to be believed. Mr C. indulged in quite a bit of scaremongering. For goodness sake, grow up. I believe he wants to be in power and hopes we are sick enough of Labour to give it to him. I think he is out of touch.
Mr Clegg
As I've said, he was relatively quiet. I think he talks sense. The other two seemed to want to make his immigration policy out to be something it is not but he held is own.
Whatever you may think of them,
In the last few days, there will be a lot of 'baby-kissing'. Don't be impressed by that. It doesn't at all mean they are in touch with the electorate - it just means they want your vote. Give your vote to the candidate who best demonstrates he or she deserves it by their service for you in your constituency and for our country.
Please use your vote on Thursday. It Matters.
I thought the last debate was interesting for as much as was not said as for what was. We had a nice demonstration of adversarial politics, of which we are all well and truly sick, with Mr Brown and Mr Cameron slagging off each other and having a dig at Mr Clegg. Mr Clegg seemed very quiet, apart from attempting to correct statements made by the other two about Lib-Dem policies. Perhaps he was content to let them show us that they would only give us more of the same.
Mr Brown
Actually, I thought this was a better performance from him. More commanding. He seemed to identify the Conservatives as his primary target, presumably believing them to be the only genuine challenge to Labour. Perhaps he sees the need not to come last in the popular vote so that he might get enough support to form the next government. I believe he has a good grasp of the problems we face and genuinely wants the best for the UK.
Mr Cameron
The polls seem to indicate he won this debate. I can't think how. What were people judging by? Not policies, if Mr Brown is to be believed. Mr C. indulged in quite a bit of scaremongering. For goodness sake, grow up. I believe he wants to be in power and hopes we are sick enough of Labour to give it to him. I think he is out of touch.
Mr Clegg
As I've said, he was relatively quiet. I think he talks sense. The other two seemed to want to make his immigration policy out to be something it is not but he held is own.
Whatever you may think of them,
- it is important to use your vote
- it is imperative that you vote according to conscience, not because of the way your grandfather and father before you always voted
- it is better to vote for something rather than against something else
- it is essential to remember that it is your vote to cast as you believe best for the United Kingdom
- do not be manipulated by one party into casting your vote to their advantage on the grounds that to do otherwise would let the other lot in.
- if you don't vote, don't complain afterwards.
In the last few days, there will be a lot of 'baby-kissing'. Don't be impressed by that. It doesn't at all mean they are in touch with the electorate - it just means they want your vote. Give your vote to the candidate who best demonstrates he or she deserves it by their service for you in your constituency and for our country.
Please use your vote on Thursday. It Matters.
25 April 2010
Prime Ministerial Debate No. 2
Once again, I had to record the debate and watch it at a later date. So, how did they do this time?
Mr Brown
Actually, he gave a much better performance, not that I think that performance is what a general election is about. However, he did get less in the way of what he was trying to communicate. Well, done Mr Brown.
Mr Cameron
More of the same, I'm afraid. He said nothing that convinced me that I want him for my Prime Minister, or that I can trust the Conservatives with my country. Whilst not part of the debate, I think the smear tactics deployed against Mr Clegg during the week just about sums them up. Mr Cameron, you may as well not turn up for the next debate if all you have to offer is more hand-waving and specious argument. The Tories were claiming that he won this debate. Whatever were they watching? Did I record the wrong thing?
Mr Clegg
Another consistent and good performance. He continued to hold his own. I do hope that his WYSIWYG claim is true.
The winner? Neck-and-neck with Mr Brown and Mr Clegg, with last week's showing putting Mr Clegg in front.
Actually, in my constituency we have a two-horse race between Lib-Dem and Conservative, labour having come a disastrous third in the last election. The Tory candidate doesn't come from here, has failed to win seats in other parts of the country and is standing here because his first choice didn't want him. How cynical is that? Our MP is supposed to represent us. How can, if he doesn't know us or our area?
Since the only reasonable choice for me is to vote Lib-Dem, I need not watch the last debate. I shall, though, because I take my right to vote seriously.
Mr Brown
Actually, he gave a much better performance, not that I think that performance is what a general election is about. However, he did get less in the way of what he was trying to communicate. Well, done Mr Brown.
Mr Cameron
More of the same, I'm afraid. He said nothing that convinced me that I want him for my Prime Minister, or that I can trust the Conservatives with my country. Whilst not part of the debate, I think the smear tactics deployed against Mr Clegg during the week just about sums them up. Mr Cameron, you may as well not turn up for the next debate if all you have to offer is more hand-waving and specious argument. The Tories were claiming that he won this debate. Whatever were they watching? Did I record the wrong thing?
Mr Clegg
Another consistent and good performance. He continued to hold his own. I do hope that his WYSIWYG claim is true.
The winner? Neck-and-neck with Mr Brown and Mr Clegg, with last week's showing putting Mr Clegg in front.
Actually, in my constituency we have a two-horse race between Lib-Dem and Conservative, labour having come a disastrous third in the last election. The Tory candidate doesn't come from here, has failed to win seats in other parts of the country and is standing here because his first choice didn't want him. How cynical is that? Our MP is supposed to represent us. How can, if he doesn't know us or our area?
Since the only reasonable choice for me is to vote Lib-Dem, I need not watch the last debate. I shall, though, because I take my right to vote seriously.
18 April 2010
Ah! Nick Clegg! So that's His Name!
Did you see the Prime Ministerial Debate the other day? I watched it on Saturday morning having been out on Thursday and recorded it. It thought it was very interesting, giving a clearer insight into what is on offer in the forthcoming election.
Mr Brown
I thought he was a bit stuffy, and disdainful of the other two. I think everyone knows he is not very good in front of a camera and hope, since we are electing a Prime Minister and not a film star, that everyone is able to take that into account. Even so, he did nothing to convince me that I want another five years of Labour. Even though I've voted Labour in the past, I don't think I will be this year.
Mr Cameron
Bluster. Posh. PR. Spin. More interested in office than service. He just does not convince me that he knows how many ears and mouths he has. Or that the numbers indicate the proportion in which they should be used. I get the impression that he does it all for effect. He comes across as someone projecting an image. He may well be a very decent human being and a nice man. I just can't see him in Number 10. Even though I've voted Conservative in the past, I don't think I will be this year.
Mr Clegg
Frankly, a breath of fresh air. I have to say I was very impressed with this man. If he was setting out to project an image, he very successfully projected the impression that what we saw was the real thing, not a put-up job. He talked sense almost all of the time. Mind you, I thought Tony Blair was a good guy, so what do I know? I have voted Lib-Dem in local elections before. We'll have to see how their policies hold up to a good bashing from the Reds and Blues before I make my final decision. Would it be a wasted vote? Well, if everyone who would like to vote Lib-Dem but thought it would be a waste actually voted Lib-Dem, we might just find ourselves with a Lib-Dem government... Could they be worse?
Mr Brown
I thought he was a bit stuffy, and disdainful of the other two. I think everyone knows he is not very good in front of a camera and hope, since we are electing a Prime Minister and not a film star, that everyone is able to take that into account. Even so, he did nothing to convince me that I want another five years of Labour. Even though I've voted Labour in the past, I don't think I will be this year.
Mr Cameron
Bluster. Posh. PR. Spin. More interested in office than service. He just does not convince me that he knows how many ears and mouths he has. Or that the numbers indicate the proportion in which they should be used. I get the impression that he does it all for effect. He comes across as someone projecting an image. He may well be a very decent human being and a nice man. I just can't see him in Number 10. Even though I've voted Conservative in the past, I don't think I will be this year.
Mr Clegg
Frankly, a breath of fresh air. I have to say I was very impressed with this man. If he was setting out to project an image, he very successfully projected the impression that what we saw was the real thing, not a put-up job. He talked sense almost all of the time. Mind you, I thought Tony Blair was a good guy, so what do I know? I have voted Lib-Dem in local elections before. We'll have to see how their policies hold up to a good bashing from the Reds and Blues before I make my final decision. Would it be a wasted vote? Well, if everyone who would like to vote Lib-Dem but thought it would be a waste actually voted Lib-Dem, we might just find ourselves with a Lib-Dem government... Could they be worse?
07 April 2010
General Election 2010 - Heaven Help Us!
So the General Election has been set. Now what are we going to do?
Seriously, I think the British public faces an incredibly enormous problem. Our politicians have shot themselves in the foot, to put it mildly, over recent months. The expenses scandal, as a result of which several MPs are being prosecuted, and the 'Taxi for Hire' scandal have all but demolished any confidence we had in our elected representatives. The simpering manner in which the government has handed great wads of taxpayers money to bankers so they can continue living in luxury and claim fat bonuses while the rest of us wrestle with the hardships of the recession, if it does not make us vomit, gives us serious indigestion. We can be forgiven for thinking that our MPs are a bunch of self-seeking charlatans who seek office for their own ends and have little, if any, interest in the common man. Why on earth do they think we would want to re-elect them to govern us?
In my view, there could not be a worse time to have an election. Goodness knows we need one. Something has to change but do any of the parties have the wherewithal to get our great United Kingdom back on its feet? What are we looking for?
The problem with elections is that we are not really given chance to say what we want. We are given at best the choice of what politicians want to give us, at worst the chance to decide the outcome of a popularity contest. Labour wants us to believe they are the best party to lead us out of recession and, since they presided over the slide into the mess we are in, perhaps they are the ones who best understand it. The Conservatives are going on about a stronger society; it sounds different, at least, perhaps even hopeful, but wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said there was no such thing as society? The Lib Dems go on sounding sensible, if a little wishy-washy, but no-one believes they have the experience to run the country; look at those who do have the experience and ask if it helped... Well, they all have a month to impress and convince us, and, boy, do they have their work cut out. I, for one, have no confidence in any of them, and seriously wonder whom to vote for and if it's worth bothering.
Some warn that a hung parliament may result from a poor turn-out in the election and that this is a bad thing for the UK. Is it really a bad thing? Parties would have to work together to get things done, and what they do would have to be balanced and reasonable. Plenty of coalition governments exist in Europe and seem to work without too much difficulty. Is it not much more dangerous to give one party an insurmountable majority?
Whichever of them wins, they had better come up with the goods...
Seriously, I think the British public faces an incredibly enormous problem. Our politicians have shot themselves in the foot, to put it mildly, over recent months. The expenses scandal, as a result of which several MPs are being prosecuted, and the 'Taxi for Hire' scandal have all but demolished any confidence we had in our elected representatives. The simpering manner in which the government has handed great wads of taxpayers money to bankers so they can continue living in luxury and claim fat bonuses while the rest of us wrestle with the hardships of the recession, if it does not make us vomit, gives us serious indigestion. We can be forgiven for thinking that our MPs are a bunch of self-seeking charlatans who seek office for their own ends and have little, if any, interest in the common man. Why on earth do they think we would want to re-elect them to govern us?
In my view, there could not be a worse time to have an election. Goodness knows we need one. Something has to change but do any of the parties have the wherewithal to get our great United Kingdom back on its feet? What are we looking for?
- We want to be able to place genuine confidence and trust in honest government.
- We want our elected representatives to represent us, not their ideologies.
- We want them to be committed to the issues that concern us, not to lining their own pockets.
- We want them to achieve results, not just make promises.
- We want them to understand that they are our servants not we theirs.
The problem with elections is that we are not really given chance to say what we want. We are given at best the choice of what politicians want to give us, at worst the chance to decide the outcome of a popularity contest. Labour wants us to believe they are the best party to lead us out of recession and, since they presided over the slide into the mess we are in, perhaps they are the ones who best understand it. The Conservatives are going on about a stronger society; it sounds different, at least, perhaps even hopeful, but wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said there was no such thing as society? The Lib Dems go on sounding sensible, if a little wishy-washy, but no-one believes they have the experience to run the country; look at those who do have the experience and ask if it helped... Well, they all have a month to impress and convince us, and, boy, do they have their work cut out. I, for one, have no confidence in any of them, and seriously wonder whom to vote for and if it's worth bothering.
Some warn that a hung parliament may result from a poor turn-out in the election and that this is a bad thing for the UK. Is it really a bad thing? Parties would have to work together to get things done, and what they do would have to be balanced and reasonable. Plenty of coalition governments exist in Europe and seem to work without too much difficulty. Is it not much more dangerous to give one party an insurmountable majority?
Whichever of them wins, they had better come up with the goods...
23 October 2009
BBC Showcases BNP
I have just watched this week's Question Time featuring Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, and perhaps the most controversial piece of BBC broadcasting the nation has seen for many years.
Was the BBC right to invite Mr Griffin onto the panel? The BBC has no right to deny a voice to anyone in a democratic society that prides itself on freedom of speech and expression. British people (of whatever colour or ethnic origin) have a right to know where political parties stand; how better to hear it than direct from the mouth of the horse? Or should that be a sheep? Or, perhaps, a wolf disguised as a sheep?
What do I think of Mr Griffin? I think it takes a particular kind of courage to expose one's utter bankruptcy in such a public way. Maybe courage is the wrong word...
Was the BBC right to invite Mr Griffin onto the panel? The BBC has no right to deny a voice to anyone in a democratic society that prides itself on freedom of speech and expression. British people (of whatever colour or ethnic origin) have a right to know where political parties stand; how better to hear it than direct from the mouth of the horse? Or should that be a sheep? Or, perhaps, a wolf disguised as a sheep?
What do I think of Mr Griffin? I think it takes a particular kind of courage to expose one's utter bankruptcy in such a public way. Maybe courage is the wrong word...
21 August 2009
The Lockerbie Bomber, Compassion and Justice
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has received a hero's welcome on arriving in Libya. Understandably, there is an outraged response from many of the families of victims of the Lockerbie incident, of which al-Megrahi stands convicted of causing. Should he have been released? In my view, not in these circumstances.
Al-Megrahi was planning an appeal before the prospect of release on compassionate grounds arose, at which new evidence purported to show his innocence would have been presented. Had that evidence been compelling, his consequent release would have been just and fair, and any right-minded person would have even wished him compensated for wrongful imprisonment. Given his medical condition, the correct action would have been to pull out all the stops to hear his appeal without delay so that, if justified, he could have been released legitimately and returned home to die in the bosom of his family.
Why did he drop his appeal? Was it merely because he had been told to expect release on compassionate grounds? Was it because the evidence was flawed and unlikely to secure release? We will never know, unless the BBC makes a documentary about it.
Supposing that the new evidence fell down in court, that would leave us with a dying man still guilty of murdering 270 people without the slightest crumb of compassion and having never shown any remorse for the atrocity (were he innocent, I would expect him to show none, although he may be expected to express the same sadness and outrage that we all feel about Lockerbie). If his conviction were to stand, would compassion be sufficient grounds to release him?
This is not an easy debate. We all want justice for the wrongs done to us. We all need mercy for the wrongs we have done. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."
Forgiveness is conditional on repentance and even then is an act of grace, not something earned by remorse: the victims are still dead. Had he shown true remorse, mercy could have been either extended to him on compassionate grounds or rightly withheld in the interests of justice. Mercy could have included everything short of release, leaving him to finish his sentence in better, even pleasant, surroundings. Mercy can and should be extravagant but it does not have to be stupid.
There are other things than the short-term fate of one man to weigh: the victim's families, international relationships, the greater struggle against the evils of terrorism. What has Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision shown to the world? That his ethic (for he does not speak for us all) is better than the terrorists'? I think not. I think it will be perceived by our enemies to show that we in the West are weak because of our muddle-headed thinking and will eventually be defeated.
This 'act of compassion' will be seen as a triumph not of our nobility but of their cause.
Al-Megrahi was planning an appeal before the prospect of release on compassionate grounds arose, at which new evidence purported to show his innocence would have been presented. Had that evidence been compelling, his consequent release would have been just and fair, and any right-minded person would have even wished him compensated for wrongful imprisonment. Given his medical condition, the correct action would have been to pull out all the stops to hear his appeal without delay so that, if justified, he could have been released legitimately and returned home to die in the bosom of his family.
Why did he drop his appeal? Was it merely because he had been told to expect release on compassionate grounds? Was it because the evidence was flawed and unlikely to secure release? We will never know, unless the BBC makes a documentary about it.
Supposing that the new evidence fell down in court, that would leave us with a dying man still guilty of murdering 270 people without the slightest crumb of compassion and having never shown any remorse for the atrocity (were he innocent, I would expect him to show none, although he may be expected to express the same sadness and outrage that we all feel about Lockerbie). If his conviction were to stand, would compassion be sufficient grounds to release him?
This is not an easy debate. We all want justice for the wrongs done to us. We all need mercy for the wrongs we have done. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."
Forgiveness is conditional on repentance and even then is an act of grace, not something earned by remorse: the victims are still dead. Had he shown true remorse, mercy could have been either extended to him on compassionate grounds or rightly withheld in the interests of justice. Mercy could have included everything short of release, leaving him to finish his sentence in better, even pleasant, surroundings. Mercy can and should be extravagant but it does not have to be stupid.
There are other things than the short-term fate of one man to weigh: the victim's families, international relationships, the greater struggle against the evils of terrorism. What has Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision shown to the world? That his ethic (for he does not speak for us all) is better than the terrorists'? I think not. I think it will be perceived by our enemies to show that we in the West are weak because of our muddle-headed thinking and will eventually be defeated.
This 'act of compassion' will be seen as a triumph not of our nobility but of their cause.
17 July 2009
All About Everything
Well, I haven't blogged for a while, mainly due to lack of inspiration. It's not that there's been nothing to comment on; quite the opposite, in fact. I've just been unmotivated, having been drained by demands in the real world.
While we're on the subject of the Lions tour, didn't they do well? Five minutes more in the first game and we could have won. One stupid error less in the second game (resulting in an impressive kick for three points) and we would have drawn at least, leaving the series open. The emphatic thumping in the third and final game ought to have shown the South Africans how lucky they were to have got away with a series win.
Our soldiers are out there laying their lives on the line for a cause none of us is entirely clear about. The recent offensive has resulted in higher fatalities, some of which could have been avoided if the army had access to better and sufficient equipment. Come on, Mr Brown. If you are going to fight a war, you have to be committed to it, one hundred percent. After all, the 186 British service men and woman to date who have lost their lives have given their all. The 186 families of those men and woman have given far more than they care to. If you want our troops out there in harm's way, then equip them properly. If you are not prepared to equip them properly, then bring them home, now.
I want to express my appreciation to the people of Wootton Bassett for the respect they continue to show for our returned dead and their families.
Lions
I almost wrote something about the eye-gouging affair in the recent British & Irish Lions tour. I was going to vent my spleen on the South African player concerned but research showed me that he had appealed against the sentence and had been absolved of the serious charge of deliberately sticking fingers in an opponent's eyes only an hour before I put fingers to keyboard. Such is life. I still think the South African coach's statement appearing to imply that foul play was acceptable was outrageous, despite his subsequent 'clarification'.While we're on the subject of the Lions tour, didn't they do well? Five minutes more in the first game and we could have won. One stupid error less in the second game (resulting in an impressive kick for three points) and we would have drawn at least, leaving the series open. The emphatic thumping in the third and final game ought to have shown the South Africans how lucky they were to have got away with a series win.
Swine Flu
Then, of course, there's swine flu still doing the rounds. Is it serious or isn't it? I suppose it is if it kills you but it appears to be no worse than the normal seasonal flu - except those who have died are not in the traditional vulnerable demographic, the frail and elderly. Despite this, panic appears to be setting in. I don't know with any certainty anyone who has had it, although my neighbour has been confined to barracks with suspected swine flu. The woman in my garage's office was so absolutely loaded and debilitated with cold last week that she was my best candidate. She should have stayed at home instead of coughing on her left hand, picking up my keys with the same hand, coughing on her right hand, transferring my keys to her newly-splattered appendage, and then passing my keys to me. I'm sure real flu would have overcome even her exemplary dedication to duty. I've had a cold this week. That's good enough for me. Flu? Don't want it.High Finance
Hasn't it gone quiet on the Parliamentary expenses scandal? Are the police still investigating? Will we see heads roll, or will it all quietly go away because there are more serious things in the news to hide it with? Bankers are back in the news again. Making money. Will we ever learn?Afghanistan
The death-toll in Afghanistan continues to rise. Whatever the rights and wrongs of our military involvement in that country, it is completely unacceptable that our troops are sent out with less than sufficient and inappropriate equipment. Even General Dannatt, the head of the British Army, has taken an unusual political stance and is making clear that our soldiers do not have all they need. Despite this, Mr Brown is insisting that the troops are properly equipped; what would he know?Our soldiers are out there laying their lives on the line for a cause none of us is entirely clear about. The recent offensive has resulted in higher fatalities, some of which could have been avoided if the army had access to better and sufficient equipment. Come on, Mr Brown. If you are going to fight a war, you have to be committed to it, one hundred percent. After all, the 186 British service men and woman to date who have lost their lives have given their all. The 186 families of those men and woman have given far more than they care to. If you want our troops out there in harm's way, then equip them properly. If you are not prepared to equip them properly, then bring them home, now.
I want to express my appreciation to the people of Wootton Bassett for the respect they continue to show for our returned dead and their families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)