politics

The Circle

People talk about politics being in circles… that we have “left” and “right” wings whose extremes meet and become indistinguishable. I had a vague idea of what that meant but the idea is still confusing. However this made more sense today after reading the typical one-dimensional views on BBC News forums. The topic is getting the unemployed to work for benefits.

I found it a little surprising that so many mentioned the phrase “right wing politics” with terms like “scroungers” and “wasters”. Yet chastising those members of society that do not contribute to the productivity of the nation is an idea championed by communism as a mechanism to encourage “comrades” to renew their efforts within the workforce. Of course communism is deemed to be “left wing”.

Politics is just weird. People are even weirder.

...with no replies just yet.

Political Incorrectness

I recall whilst at school in a Religious Studies class, we were asked as an exercise to describe ourselves in six words. Some were selected by the teacher to read out the words they had chosen. He had deliberately chosen students with some questionable views and hardened fronts to start. The first had chosen "straight" as one of his words, and the others followed suit.

He then asked me to read mine. "Straight" wasn’t one of the words on my list. I won’t deny that it was quite a confusing time, and put into that position I did want to affirm my heterosexual orientation, so I followed suit, changing one of the words on my list.

On finishing, the teacher was close to fits of rage. He branded the class as homophobic bigots and dismissed the class. At the time I did feel rather ashamed. I had let peer pressure get to me, and I had described myself with a word that did not immediately come to mind, so I can’t really say it was an honest reflection of my opinion of myself. But spending two hours last night staring into space, reflecting on these kinds of things, I thought to myself: ‘what if I had said "gay"?’.

If anyone in the class had done just that, perhaps they might have been admired for their courage, but they certainly wouldn’t have been admonished for their narrow-mindedness.

It seems that is what political correctness is all about. It’s not so much about ensuring that individuals and minorities aren’t offended by the words or actions of an individual; rather it seems to be a concession by those of the majority to accommodate a minority group.

Having said that, I empathise with the origins of the "PC movement" — its purpose is to give everyone a level playing field, to let everyone know where they stand, and to give the appropriate protocol for those who wish not to cause offence to others.

Conversely, for those that exercise their right to "Freedom of Speech" in order to cast aspersions and wilfully cause offence are entirely wrong to do so: indeed it is quite possibly a criminal offence, and as such Freedom of Speech does not entitle them to intentionally offend someone.

So, in summary, political correctness is a good thing in its foundations, but has lost its way in its development. In my view, I don’t really follow the political correctness protocol, but I don’t cause offence either. Rather, I follow the don’t go there protocol, since for the most part there is no real need to. If you don’t want to cause offence, you naturally stay clear of anything that might.

...with no replies just yet.

Politics for Politics’ Sake

Everyone is excited about these American elections. I find that a little odd. A country over the pond is deciding on who is going to be the next ruler of the world. I’m not that bothered really.

Who really cares about whether Barack Obama is leading the candidacy race? Who cares really over the Hillary Clinton campaign? Or even all those seemingly countless other candidates that want to be the next president of the United States — should we be that bothered about it?

Yes, it might be important for international relations. Yes, it might influence much of what goes on between various countries of the world. But should we take any more notice of international politics than we do in local politics? It seems a little peculiar that we should gawp at celebrities being lined up for the White House over which we have no control when so many of us — it seems — moan about everything that affects us. It’s a shame.

Lesson of the Day

Even if you can’t change the world, you can still make a difference.

...with no replies just yet.

The Communist Manifesto

I would very much like to have a read of Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto. I would love to have a massive rant about how communism could work, but point its flaws. My biggest gripe with communism is the paradox of how there can be a supreme leader in a land of equals.

I would also like to point out some problems with democracy. Although democracy seems a fair way of representing the people, it does not necessarily mean that the best person for a particular job will get it. For example, it is my suspicion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not require a degree in Economics, or some other financial qualification. And what makes a good premier? From recent events, it seems that someone who is cool in front of a grilling from unrelenting opposition is more desirable than someone who makes good decisions.

Another alternative is absolute monarchy. Now, most will dismiss this out of hand, but a sole occupier of supreme power over a state has its advantages. For a start, there are no pretences about fairness – it is almost unashamedly unfair. That way, everyone knows their place. However, one could argue that this is in existence within religion, and no-one can deny that the rules decreed within a religion are very much open to interpretation. I guess the difference is that the king can sort a deviant out now, whilst the god would sort it out later.

So what political system is best? My personal favourite is the Dingle clan (aside from the incestuous characteristic of the family, of course…).

...with no replies just yet.

Bad Business #2

I’ve just been reading the BBC News article War of words amid postal strike. I wonder whether the CWU really have considered the future implications of their strike action.

In my view – though obviously not through the eyes on an expert it must be said – Royal Mail is almost definitely facing job losses. This can occur through one of two scenarios.

  1. Royal Mail accepts the terms of the strike. Royal Mail doesn’t modernise, and it retains the alleged 40,000 faced with the axe. If that happens, Royal Mail will continue to lose millions of pounds per week: thousands face redundancy.
  2. Royal Mail rejects the terms of the strike. Then the strikes continue, and Royal Mail’s clients look elsewhere. Royal Mail will lose more than just millions per week: the whole workforce faces being laid off, with no pensions, and nothing to moan about.

There is a third choice of course. Let Royal Mail modernise, let it win back the business it has lost in the last five years, let the future take care of itself. But the future is the last thing in the CWU‘s thoughts, it seems.

...with 2 replies.

Big Dave’s Magic Wand

If we were looking for a prophet of our times, we really need not look any further than David Cameron. I had underestimated his delightful pearls of wisdom, but if you think about what he says for long enough, perhaps they will start to make sense eventually.

Taken from the BBC News website, David Cameron prophesies that keeping struggling pupils back a year will create a magical revolution in schools.

In the original article in the Sunday Telegraph by Patrick Hennessy, David Cameron talks about making weaker pupils attend summer schools at the end of Year 6 – the final year of primary school – to improve before secondary school. Furthermore, a pupil would retake the final year if their achievements do not meet government targets – I would assume. Hennessy writes:

[The proposal's] most eye-catching initiative is a call for the worst performers at the end of year six – the final year at primary school, when children reach the age of 11 – to catch up either by attending summer schools or in some cases resitting the entire year. This would lead to children of much more widely differing ages becoming classmates than is usual in the present system, which is strictly delineated by age.

If I may be so bold so as to suggest that mixing class ages in this manner is deluded, then I should remind David Cameron of a few things. Firstly, an underachieving child faces trauma enough, without being threatened of the possibility of having to face another year of school. Secondly, dragging a child down a year is not going to improve that child’s confidence – anything but. Even if the child is not embarrassed by being brought back a year, there is a transparent possibility that he or she will have constant reminders. Thirdly, both Cameron and Hennessy may well have forgotten about forming and forging social groups, and losing the security of your social circles will probably hinder a child’s development anyway.

But I could be wrong. Prophet Cameron might have forseen a successful blue future… But I reckon if that happens and your child hates school now, I’d consider a personal tutor.

...with no replies just yet.

Grave For Dave

I don’t like to get too political, unless either I feel strongly about something, or something is so ridiculous it is worth mentioning. This is one such occasion.

David Cameron hasn’t had a good week. When he isn’t making an arse out of himself, someone else seems to be doing it for him. After all the media’s guffaws at the gaffes over the Conservative’s hospital "report", with apologies given then retracted, Cameron goes and says this:

Common sense suggests that with young people you need to hit them where it hurts: in their lifestyle and their aspirations.

If someone claims that common sense suggests that punishing youths faced with no future is to make sure they have absolutely no hope, I would suggest that this person has no common sense.

This quote is from a story on the BBC News website, where Cameron suggests that young offenders should be immediately barred from driving. This seems a little backward from the Tories: promoting civil liberties with one hand and taking them away with the other.

The real problem the Tories face when tackling social disorder is that they have absolutely no clue. A lot of what they "know" about social imbalances and antisocial behaviour is what is found in newspapers. It is akin to me commenting about the state of Iraq: I have no clue because I have never been there. But for Cameron to come up with hair-brain schemes to combat these problems, which really aren’t any better than trying to hug all the hoodies, is akin to me saying that we should solve all the problems in Iraq by banning all bombs.

...with no replies just yet.

Split Or Twist

Have you ever known a Tory politician to be divorced from his or her spouse? To be honest, I really can’t think of any obvious examples. Indeed, that is true of a lot of politicians across the main political parties. So who better to advise us on families that are falling apart?

The Conservatives have reiterated their intentions with regard to mend social problems with money by announcing their ideas for family tax reforms, citing "the biggest shake-up of the welfare system since the 1940s". As every politician knows (or soon will), throwing money at a lame horse won’t make it run. It’s as if the Tories don’t realise that marriages break down for reasons other than money. And by enticing couples to stay together with the promise of money, they are perhaps taking risks in causing other problems.

The BBC article suggests that the tax would be around £20 a week for a couple, with the intention for it to be easier for one parent to stay at home while the other one works. This seems rather like taking us back to the 1940s: there are far fewer housewives and househusbands now, and by far more professional couples with children.

In amongst these proposals there seems a harsh punishment for single parents. As soon as your children reach eleven, you are expected to start working thirty hours a week. If their married contemporaries can work as much as they like for their combined salary plus £20 a week, plus any other tax credits that they can receive (though their very existence is in danger should the Tories get in), it is going to be tough on them.

And after all that, what does it solve? Well perhaps we will have fewer single parents (because, let’s face it, after that further slap in the face from the Conservatives, the Tories only really leave one "easy way out"). We will probably also have more unstable households with endless rows and emotionally damaged children, leading to further social problems. But at least their parents are better able to afford the counselling.

I apologise for the cynicism and the dark nature of my opinions, but I really don’t understand where the Tories are coming from. If the British people were so fickle to vote the Conservatives in on the basis of these proposals, then there must be a lot more very happy families in Britain than I ever imagined.

...with no replies just yet.

Soft Outlook

Some things keep me awake at night that really shouldn’t. They are evolutions of the tiny seeds that lead to vastly ranging chains of thought. In particular, a few nights ago, I was thinking about the state of the world.

It spawned from remembering what the children in Japan were like. You would often see infant school-aged children wandering on their own to and from school on the railway network. They do not seem scared or intimidated by the experience – they seem not to have a care in the world. And this led me think that the world is only as happy as its children.

Japan is known for being a place of low street crime. Indeed I noticed that there was very little by way of graffiti. The children seem to be safe wandering alone in the country’s capital. They seem happy enough, and don’t rebel. Compare this to London and indeed many of Britain’s cities, you see that there are stark contrasts. I feel that discontent amongst youth in any nation will lead to discontent later in life. This discontent manifests itself in many ways: through crime and social disobedience, for example.

Tackling poverty in this country is a way of tackling not only youth crime, but crime in later life in the future. At least that is the theory. I would like to see the children of the United Kingdom happy and see our country reap the benefits. However I feel that the hard work proposed and started by Labour might be undone by the Tories, should they win the next election. I’m afraid having David Cameron hug a hoody and pay parents to stay together wouldn’t fill me with confidence. I’ll be sorry to see Tony Blair go.

...with no replies just yet.