It might not be wisdom, but here's a few thoughts

Some thoughts that keep buzzing around my head, and felt a need to be released…

Being, or wanting to be, a billionaire is a mental illness. I mean seriously… why? How deep is your sense of inadequacy? And why are you inflicting it on the world?

And related to that…

We need to make a lot more use of the word ‘enough’, and the concept it embodies. Do you know when you’ve had enough? Do you know when you’ve done enough? Do you know when you’ve got enough. It’s an imperfect world filled with imperfect people. Understand what’s important and necessary is one key to a contented life, and surely enough is… well, enough. Isn’t it?

The right bang on about rewarding ‘wealth creators’, and I couldn’t agree more. Where we disagree is on who those people are. The true wealth of a country lies in it's people, not an accumulation of money (which is, after all, merely conceptual). Our real wealth comes from learning, and teachers are the true wealth creators, to be rewarded as such. Oh, and the myth of the ‘self made man’ is just that – a myth. We are all interdependent. (Ditto the ‘alpha male’…)

The right bang on about immigrants and poor people as if they were your enemy.  But they're us.  Whereas the scumbags and companies that don't pay their due taxes... yeah, they're the real enemy.

The right bang on about the Starmer government being left wing, or 'socialist', or even 'marxist'. Would this be the same Starmer who purged most of the decent left wingers and socialists from this supposedly socialist part?  (And as for Marxist...🤣🤣)  The last time the UK had a government that could be seen as left wing was the 70s.  It's been downhill since then.

Never be afraid to use the F word when it's the right one to use.  Deform and other far right groups are Fascists.  Use the word, own it, and use this list from the great Umberto Eco to prove it.

I was chatting to a young person on social media and they asked me if, from my great age and experience, I had any wisdom to pass on. At first I thought “no, the best learning is your own experience”, and wasn’t going to say anything. But then I realised that maybe I did have something to pass on, in 2 parts :

First, learn to ask the right questions. They aren’t usually the ones that politicians, the media and advertisers want you to ask. So maybe don’t ask how to stop ‘the small boats’, but why these poor, desperate people are having to take that route? What are the barriers, where is their motivation? It’s not what Niggle Fuhrage and the Daily Fail tries to con you into believing…

Second, look after your knees. That’s the big one!

How did the US elect a moron to be president? Dubya now looks like a towering statesman in comparison. And if you doubt the ‘moron’ tag… try drinking some bleach.

And related to that…

Janey was 100% right (and fat ol' Donnie doesn’t understand how percentages work).

Anyone want to agree or disagree?  What would you add to that list?

Another Future is possible - it's not this one though

 

BUT ONLY JUST...

Before the election I felt that Starmer's campaign slogan boiled down to one statement :

"Vote Labour - We promise to be slightly less shit than the tories."

Which was hardly a high bar to stagger over, was it?

And here we are, after only three weeks or so, and already they are barely maintaining to live up to that 'promise'. Within days of taking office we had the immoral sight of Foreign Secretary Lammy happily shaking hands with a far-right, mass-murdering, war criminal. Now we have draconian action against seven MPs who had the audacity to act in line with their consciences and vote against the continuation of a measure that contributes substantially towards existing child poverty. All part of Keir's continuing war against the heart and soul of what Labour should be, and which his namesake did so much towards.

So there's no doubts, are there? Labour is now a right wing party, only a bit less extreme that the lunatics they have replaced. (To be fair they have at least got rid of the crazy and inhumane Rwanda nonsense, and imprisoning asylum seekers on a giant barge.)

Did people really understand what they were voting for? Or simply opted for something that couldn't possibly be worse than what had been endured for fourteen years? Hope seems in short supply right now...

Where's the alternative?

 WHO'S ANYBODY?

So we're to have a new First Minister in a few weeks from now.  Maybe that's something that was needed.  Although it feel more like the SNP government has been in power for too long. They are running out of ideas, and have serious issues over competence, corruption and honesty. So it would be good to have someone else to vote for, to usher in a more complete change that might bring in real improvements after the next Holyrood election. But who  is that alternative?

Twitter in these Muskian times seems flooded with right wing nutjobs.  And diehard unionists.  Often the same people.  My feed covered in them, unsolicited and largely unwelcome, like a dog crapping on your dinner.  Yes, I could simply block, or see only people I've chosen to follow, but there's something to be said for 'know your enemy', so it's worth persevering and seeing what the people who are causing the problems are saying.

And it gives the opportunity to ask questions.  There's a particular kind of right wing unionist who persistently whines and whinges about the SNP government, and makes constant personal attacks on the outgoing First Minister.  Mysogyny is never far away.  I've taken to asking them what seems like the obvious question - Who is the credible electoral alternative we should be voting for?

And the answer is always the same - Anybody.  When I point out that I've never seen the Anybody Party on any ballot paper their replies become more vague, or they vanish or block.  Most liukely because even they know there isn't a proper alternative.  Only Labour can oust the SNP as a government.  The Tories might like to pretend they could, but Scotland sees through them.  And if greater competence, less corruption and more honesty are the attributes being looked for, then their Westminster record shows them to be ten times worse than anything the SNP have done, without even the latter's humanity.

Which leaves Starmer's party.  Because much as I have some liking for Sarwar, he is still going to have to do the party line from London.  Which is avowedly unionist, doesn't commit to trying to reverse brexshit, and seems increasingly dostant from anything recognisable as socialism.  So what's the point of Labour?  To replace the nasty party in England for sure, but what can they offer this country?  I wait to be wooed.

In the meantime we can only wait to see who the new FM will be, and what they offer.  Sadly, it doesn't really have to be much to be better than the other lot.

Vote Yes for democracy

YES, PLEASE

No big surprise, given the stubborn intransigence of May, that the Scottish Government announce plans to have IndyRef2.  They've tried everything possible to come to some kind of compromise agreement, with Westminster refusing to budge from their one track minded position.  What happens in the next few weeks will be fascinating for anyone with an interest in politics.  Article 50 and Section 30 providing the centrepiece.

As the First Minister made clear the circumstances of 2014 have changed radically.  A decisive vote to remain in the UK has been followed by a far more convincing majority to stay in the EU.  Which union takes precedence?  That isn't really the question.  More to the point, what does Scotland want it's future to look like?  And maybe even more importantly, what might we want to avoid?

It's obvious that the May government isn't going to listen to our elected representatives, so there's a convincing argument in that alone.  Do we want to be a country with a voice or not?  But I think it's how May treats the UK as a whole, at least over the Brexit fiasco, that's the more greatest long term worry and a sign of the UK becoming a deeply unpleasant state.

Democracy is built on the separation of powers to provide checks and balances, to prevent the emergence of dictatorship.  Executive, legislature and judiciary must be able to prevent each other having too much power.  Even if the actual structure in place is less than perfect, the principle they embody is an essential one.  So it's not encouraging to see the executive, the May government, challenge the right of the judiciary to ensure that the rule of law is maintained, as happened when they challenged the High Court decision that parliament must be involved in invoking Article 50.  And have subsequently gone on to override the spirit of the ruling, which was endorsed by the Supreme Court, by introducing a laughably inadequate bill that attempts to sideline the legislature in the Brexit process.  Aided by a spineless Labour Party leadership who have provided no real opposition in this matter.

May, in attempting to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, is acting like a wannabe dictator (shades of Trump).  If that path continues, and there seems little sign of it being blocked, it provides, for me, the most compelling reason to vote Yes.  Bring it on.

Of Salmond and Corbyn

POLITICS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS

I'm back to having a rant again, this time about two aspects of current political discourse which are really getting my goat.

Yes, Alex Salmond did, quite clearly, say that last year's Indy Referendum was a 'once in a lifetime opportunity'.  A fact which gets trotted out by unionists again and again as evidence that there should be no further reference to the matter for at least twenty five years, and that Salmond and other SNP leaders suggesting a further Indyref appears inevitable within a much shorter timescale shows them out to be the most pernicious of liars and totally untrustworthy.

How many of those same people have been quick to condemn David Cameron for stating that there will be no Indyref before 2020, despite Ruth Davidson saying, in the run up to GE2015, that she had consulted with her Westminster leader and could say categorically that the possibility of a future referendum would not be ruled out at any point?  Do I here shouts of "liar, liar" from those self same unionists?  Apparently not.

It turns out that politicians, whenever they are seeking our votes, will often indulge in a practice known as 'hyperbole'.  Leading to, post ballot, another phenomena known as 'broken promises'.  Apparently politicians, and not just from the SNP, have been found exaggerating a wee bit, or even telling outright porkies, just to convince us to vote the way they'd like us to.  Who knew, eh?

So maybe it's best if people try not to draw too deep an inference from a single sentence uttered up by a single politician on one particular single occasion. Because if that's how you gather evidence to back up your opinions then there's a fair chance that you'll end up sounding like a complete arse.

And on to rant part two, again focusing on a phrase that seems to be doing the rounds of all those with a singular fixation. In this case, on the electoral chances of one Jeremy Corbyn. The man who has been the surprise hit of the Labour leadership campaign, despite having been included either to demonstrate the breadth of opinion within the party, or as a token to keep the more left thinking elements in their place.

But Corbyn and his supporters haven't read the carefully prepared neoliberal script that was supposed to anoint the coming of the second Blair. Far from being the token entry he has suddenly become the bookies favourite to win, and the Red Tory faction of the party are furious. "Corbyn is unelectable" they say, appearing to forget that he's looking a strong possibility to win this thing they're having called an election....

But no, this time they mean he couldn't lead the party majority in a Westminster election, because he's too 'left wing' for the electorate. And here's the bit that inspired this rant. "Look what happened in '83" they'll say - that proves it. Really?   So '83, '83, '83 is being trotted out everywhere.

If a week is a long time in politics what does that make three decades? The world is a very different place to the one that saw off Michael Foot.  Who, even five years ago, would have predicted the rise of Syriza and Podemos?  Who, less than twelve months ago, would have predicted the landslide SNP victory in May which returned the 56 MPs who appear to be having to act as the opposition in Westminster, since Labour have all but given up?

The SNP campaigned on anti-austerity platform, similar to Mr Corbyn, and did very. very well out of it, thank you very much. To the point where there were many voters in England wished they had the chance to vote for the party. And let's not forget who was the star of the party leaders' debates, and the only one of the bunch to have positive personal approval ratings going into the election. One Nicola Sturgeon of course.  OK, so Jeremy may lack the First Minister's charisma, but much of the public would warm to a conviction politician who knows what direction he wanst to take and speaks up on behalf of the oppressed classes.

If Corbyn is genuinely unelectable it isn't because of his policies. A huge proportion of the population support rail renationalisation for instance. No, the real enemy he would be fighting isn't voter opinion as such. It's the ways in which that opinion will be twisted against him by an almost entirely right wing press. I couldn't put it any better than Frankie Boyle does : "It’s worth remembering that in the press, public opinion is often used interchangeably with media opinion, as if the public was somehow much the same as a group of radically right wing billionaire sociopaths."

You can see it happening already. Even the Guardian feels a need to mention that Corbyn has been seen wearing a 'Lenin Cap'. Wasn't that the same cap the Beatles wore on an early album cover? Why isn't it a Beatles cap? Or, more to the point, what's his bloody cap, whatever shape it might be, got to do with his politics? Nothing is the answer, so why does it get a mention? Because sneaking in words like Lenin or Marx, however inappropriate the context, is the media version of going "look out or the bogeyman will get you" and hoping the children are scared into being good. Except that we're supposed to be the children....

If Jeremy Corbyn is considered unelectable, as they put it, doesn't that highlight the most serious flaw in our political process? The main stream media is the greatest democratic deficit we face. In Scotland that's been partially overcome through the development of online news and opinion sources that cover a wider spectrum of views. England could do with much the same.

Turns out this rant had three targets to go for!