ALL ABOUT THE WOMEN?
I write this an hour or so before the seven way party leaders debate takes place, to be shown on ITV. It's the only time this will happen, before this General Election, and very different from anything ever seen before in the UK (although relatively commonplace in Scandanavia). Will it have any influence over the outcome of the voting process? With such a close result forecast, and indications that this will be a very different looking Westminster assembly to those gone by, I think the answer has to be a resounding Maybe.
Back in 2010, when the first televised leaders debates took place, there were only three men involved. And one quite clearly showed he had a stronger TV personality than the others. The 'I agree with Nick' movement which followed gave the Liberal Democrats their largest number of seats in decades and propelled them into the current coalition. There was a lot more to it than that of course, but most commentators reckoned that the success of Clegg on the screen was a significant factor.
So who is most likely to be the new 'Nick'? Well, not Clegg himself, because his stint as Deputy PM has lost him all credibility. He'll still come across well, no doubt, but his record of the past five years will throw a damp towel over any fireworks he tries to launch tonight.
And the same can be said of the other men standing alongside him. The four posh boys have been in the media incessantly and are largely known quantities. Although there are some differences between their parties, there are more similarities. All wish to continue to pursue the austerity agenda, to one degree or other. All are happy to waste billions of pounds on a Trident replacement. Labour will offer a little more social justice than will Torykip, and the LibDems will offer.... I don't really know and I'm not sure many people care. Farage will bang on about the non issues of immigration and the EU because that's all he knows. None of them will offer us anything new, imaginative or visionary. Just more of the same. And see where that's got us. This is Daily Fail politics.
So we have to look to the three women to offer something new, something which will get people talking and create a buzz of expectation. Do any of them have that ability?
The Greens do offer a genuine alternative to the same old same old. They do show imagination in wanting to tackle the problems, not just the symptoms. They recognise that the capitalism we have is broken and does not serve us, the citizens of the UK, well. But. Natalie Bennett has not proved to be a strong performer in front of the cameras. She's certainly intelligent and on top of her brief, but lacks the spark required to shine on screen. If only the wonderful Caroline Lucas or Patrick Harvie were there in her stead.
Nicola Sturgeon leads the party which all recent polling has indicated could hold the balance of power on May 8th. Although long established as a leading force in Scottish politics she was largely unknown in England. Recent media attention, and her own decision to make some speeches down south, both situations which have emerged in response to those polls, have made her a bit better known to the English. But I think some will still be surprised by her skills. She comes across extremely well on TV and will know exactly what it is she wants to achieve from this appearance. The message that the SNP, if allied to a Labour government, will push the latter towards a more left wing agenda, will be well received by Labour supporters, and some of their MPs, who feel the party has drifted too far to the right. There are a lot of red rose backbenchers who'd happily vote against Trident, or in favour of higher taxes.
Which leaves me with one contender. Leanne Wood remains almost unknown outside Wales. From what I've seen of her she comes across extremely well, and has a number of similarities Sturgeon - a confident speaker who will come into this knowing exactly what she wants to get out of it. She will have the element of surprise on her side, coming into this as an unfamiliar face and voice. My money's on Leanne to be the new 'Nick' (but without the subsequent acts of betrayal....)
All three of these women are the antithesis of the four dull lookalikes they'll be standing up to tonight. Different backgrounds, different policies, different world views. Far more in touch with reality beyond the Westminster bubble and the London centric focus that weighs us down. I look forward to seeing them do their stuff.
Thursday, 2 April 2015
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
The most obvious target for 'austerity'
THE BIGGEST WASTE OF THEM ALL
If you've spent any time working in government, or just taken a keen in interest in the spending of Whitehall departments, you'll be aware that one above all others is a bye word for wasting money, mostly because of regular procurement failures. The euphemistically named Ministry of Defence has effectively thrown away billions of pounds of taxpayers money, but public criticism of it is rare. How often do you see articles like this? The Establishment is at pains not to have this major failing pointed out. Especially when the economic buzz word of the moment is 'austerity'.
Why do I say euphemistically? In recent decades I haven't seen our military having to do much in the way of actual defending. They have, however, taken part in more than their fair share of invading and occupying. If the UK continues to act in the way it does it might be better to revert to the much more honest pre 1960s title, The War Office. Or, better still, maybe just do what it says on the tin and act as a defence force?
With public spending being drastically cut it's inevitable that the military should take a share of the burden, and there have been the usual right wing moans about numbers of soldiers being cut. Indeed ukip (who else?!) have stated that if they ever had any actual power (fortunately a highly unlikely scenario) they would increase the war budget, to more than 2% of GDP, despite being proclaimed haters of 'the big state'. But then most of their ideas are on the mad side so it's no surprise.
The UK is already one of the biggest spenders when it comes to the military. It's interesting that of all the post-imperial Europeans states only Britain and France cling to pretensions to be some kind of 'world power'. Perhaps this ego trip attitude comes from still having permanent seats on the UN Security Council? Or is it simply an inability to let go of the past and recognise how the modern world operates? Whatever the reasons this emphasis on military power looks completely out of step with the actual needs of our society.
In fact the MoD could, should, be contributing vastly more to the savings in government that we are constantly told are necessary. And there are two obvious ways of doing so. The first is hardly worth dwelling on, for the multifarious benefits of scrapping the nonsense that is Trident have already been well documented. Clinging on to this vestige of imperial power makes the UK look more pathetic than strong. And how strange that someone like ukip, who constantly moan about the mythical controls the EU exert over us, are happy to have our most destructive weaponry held at the beck and call of the USA. At least we have a say in how the EU is run....
My second idea is one that isn't given a lot of thought at the moment, but feels like an obvious step. If we are to take the sensible step of slimming down to a purely defensive role then we should be scrapping the arcane distinctions between army, navy and air force and rolling the lot into one UK Defence Force. Much of that procurement waste mentioned above comes from unnecessary competition between the heads of the service. Each is concerned with their own prestige and pushes the need for the latest 'must have' tank/plane/ship, with little concern for the bigger picture. Streamlining the command chain would get rid of these little battles, concentrate minds more fully on strategic defence needs, and make a few expensive generals et al redundant.
As a bonus, scrapping these links with the imperialist past may help speed a culture change which helps as to look forwards, not back. The military we need now is not one which looks to a history of conquest and occupation.
If you've spent any time working in government, or just taken a keen in interest in the spending of Whitehall departments, you'll be aware that one above all others is a bye word for wasting money, mostly because of regular procurement failures. The euphemistically named Ministry of Defence has effectively thrown away billions of pounds of taxpayers money, but public criticism of it is rare. How often do you see articles like this? The Establishment is at pains not to have this major failing pointed out. Especially when the economic buzz word of the moment is 'austerity'.
Why do I say euphemistically? In recent decades I haven't seen our military having to do much in the way of actual defending. They have, however, taken part in more than their fair share of invading and occupying. If the UK continues to act in the way it does it might be better to revert to the much more honest pre 1960s title, The War Office. Or, better still, maybe just do what it says on the tin and act as a defence force?
With public spending being drastically cut it's inevitable that the military should take a share of the burden, and there have been the usual right wing moans about numbers of soldiers being cut. Indeed ukip (who else?!) have stated that if they ever had any actual power (fortunately a highly unlikely scenario) they would increase the war budget, to more than 2% of GDP, despite being proclaimed haters of 'the big state'. But then most of their ideas are on the mad side so it's no surprise.
The UK is already one of the biggest spenders when it comes to the military. It's interesting that of all the post-imperial Europeans states only Britain and France cling to pretensions to be some kind of 'world power'. Perhaps this ego trip attitude comes from still having permanent seats on the UN Security Council? Or is it simply an inability to let go of the past and recognise how the modern world operates? Whatever the reasons this emphasis on military power looks completely out of step with the actual needs of our society.
In fact the MoD could, should, be contributing vastly more to the savings in government that we are constantly told are necessary. And there are two obvious ways of doing so. The first is hardly worth dwelling on, for the multifarious benefits of scrapping the nonsense that is Trident have already been well documented. Clinging on to this vestige of imperial power makes the UK look more pathetic than strong. And how strange that someone like ukip, who constantly moan about the mythical controls the EU exert over us, are happy to have our most destructive weaponry held at the beck and call of the USA. At least we have a say in how the EU is run....
My second idea is one that isn't given a lot of thought at the moment, but feels like an obvious step. If we are to take the sensible step of slimming down to a purely defensive role then we should be scrapping the arcane distinctions between army, navy and air force and rolling the lot into one UK Defence Force. Much of that procurement waste mentioned above comes from unnecessary competition between the heads of the service. Each is concerned with their own prestige and pushes the need for the latest 'must have' tank/plane/ship, with little concern for the bigger picture. Streamlining the command chain would get rid of these little battles, concentrate minds more fully on strategic defence needs, and make a few expensive generals et al redundant.
As a bonus, scrapping these links with the imperialist past may help speed a culture change which helps as to look forwards, not back. The military we need now is not one which looks to a history of conquest and occupation.
Thursday, 19 March 2015
Emily doesn't like visitors
WHEN YOUR FRIENDS TAKE UP WRITING TIME
I am in the habit of writing every day. Correction. I have an addiction which means I must write every day. It's somehow become an essential part of my day. Not that everything I write then goes on to be read by anyone, that's not really the point. But sometimes I'll pass it on to my wife to have a look at, and some of it ends up on this blog. When I feel there's something I want to say.
In our home the time when I go of to write, whatever time of day that might be, I am then 'being Emily'. The origins of which form a long story I won't go into on this occasion, but suffice to say it doesn't involve me dressing up in any way....
This week we have a couple of old friends staying with us for six days. They're a couple who share so many of the same interests we have that we always have a good time with them, much of it involving, art galleries, live music, theatre, cinema etc., and they will even be attending their first ever ice hockey match with us on Sunday. So it's great to see them again and we'll have fun. My only problem is, Emily doesn't like them being here.
I enjoy playing the host, making people feel at home, making their stay comfortable. This morning I took them tea in bed, tonight I made a truly excellent (sorry, but it's true) chicken curry. We've been to a couple of galleries, a music shop from which we all emerged with the odd CD or two, done some sightseeing, and sampled some of each other's music choices. Good times. But when does the writing bug get satisfied? In the end my compulsion to type is greater than my sense of duty to our guests. So they are all in one room watching a DVD, whilst I am in solitary next door, battering away at the keyboard. Emily demands it and she can not be denied. I'm sure they'll understand (or I'm just confirming their opinion that I'm a bit cracked).
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
As John Lennon said.... Imagine
WORSHIPPING A FALSE GOD
I don't watch BBC's Question Time too often. It mostly infuriates so what's the point? The panel is invariably packed out with right wingers and you can almost guarantee that the audience will contain a ukip plant (by which I do indeed mean an unthinking vegetable) who'll try to drag in the irrelevance of immigration no matter what the subject. But occasionally there is someone invited who is not just a decent human being, but also clear thinking and articulate. Step forward Armando Ianucci who stood out as a voice of reason in one recent episode.
So it's no great surprise to find him writing this piece in the Guardian and getting right to the heart of what's currently wrong with our society. It's all about the money.
As Ianucci points out we are being conned into believing that the most important aspect of our lives is money, the economy, business, banking - call it what you will for these are all sides of the same coin (sorry....). How have we got ourselves into the position where the needs of real people, the great majority of people, are considered secondary in importance to something that doesn't actually exist?
Now saying that money isn't real isn't very fashionable, is it? It goes against everything we're told by politicians, the mass media, business representatives. Or, to put it another way, by all the people who have power over the rest of us and are getting richer and richer. But money is only a social construct. It's an abstract. People can exist without money, but the reverse does not apply.
Consider an apocalypse scenario in which organised society has broken down. What advantage does the rich person have over the poor one? None at all, for money, wealth, is only of value within a particular ordered structure. And if we want to rid ourselves of this curious god then it's the structures, and the culture underlying them, that need to be changed.
The so called 'laws of market' are not like the laws of physics. The later are immutable, the former were made by human beings and can be amended, unmade, reconstructed as we see fit. If there is the understanding and will to do so.
Of course anyone who challenges the orthodoxy of the Establishment will be derided, because it's the Establishment that sets the rules, that frames the questions which shape the answers to be allowed. There is no room for diversion, let alone imagination or vision, as Natalie Bennett was made all too aware of recently.
There is no easy answer to this, other than the insidious power of thought and desire for change. If there is ever to be another way of doing things it will take many years to get there, although a start can be made by reversing the disastrous policies, and associated greed, of what in the UK we usually call Thatcherism. In other countries we have seen the rise of Syriza and Podemos. In the UK there are only the Greens, and to a lesser extent the SNP and Plaid Cymru, who provide a mainstream challenge to the prevailing doctrines, with movements like UKUncut and Occupy showing that the desire exists, but in a form which is not yet ready to create a mass movement.
It's a plus to have a public figure like Inanucci speak out in terms which object to the way things are, and point out that it need not be this way. Societal and cultural change is never going to be easy - turning a supertanker would appear to have the agility of a ferret in comparison. But that's not the same as impossible.
I don't watch BBC's Question Time too often. It mostly infuriates so what's the point? The panel is invariably packed out with right wingers and you can almost guarantee that the audience will contain a ukip plant (by which I do indeed mean an unthinking vegetable) who'll try to drag in the irrelevance of immigration no matter what the subject. But occasionally there is someone invited who is not just a decent human being, but also clear thinking and articulate. Step forward Armando Ianucci who stood out as a voice of reason in one recent episode.
So it's no great surprise to find him writing this piece in the Guardian and getting right to the heart of what's currently wrong with our society. It's all about the money.
As Ianucci points out we are being conned into believing that the most important aspect of our lives is money, the economy, business, banking - call it what you will for these are all sides of the same coin (sorry....). How have we got ourselves into the position where the needs of real people, the great majority of people, are considered secondary in importance to something that doesn't actually exist?
Now saying that money isn't real isn't very fashionable, is it? It goes against everything we're told by politicians, the mass media, business representatives. Or, to put it another way, by all the people who have power over the rest of us and are getting richer and richer. But money is only a social construct. It's an abstract. People can exist without money, but the reverse does not apply.
Consider an apocalypse scenario in which organised society has broken down. What advantage does the rich person have over the poor one? None at all, for money, wealth, is only of value within a particular ordered structure. And if we want to rid ourselves of this curious god then it's the structures, and the culture underlying them, that need to be changed.
The so called 'laws of market' are not like the laws of physics. The later are immutable, the former were made by human beings and can be amended, unmade, reconstructed as we see fit. If there is the understanding and will to do so.
Of course anyone who challenges the orthodoxy of the Establishment will be derided, because it's the Establishment that sets the rules, that frames the questions which shape the answers to be allowed. There is no room for diversion, let alone imagination or vision, as Natalie Bennett was made all too aware of recently.
There is no easy answer to this, other than the insidious power of thought and desire for change. If there is ever to be another way of doing things it will take many years to get there, although a start can be made by reversing the disastrous policies, and associated greed, of what in the UK we usually call Thatcherism. In other countries we have seen the rise of Syriza and Podemos. In the UK there are only the Greens, and to a lesser extent the SNP and Plaid Cymru, who provide a mainstream challenge to the prevailing doctrines, with movements like UKUncut and Occupy showing that the desire exists, but in a form which is not yet ready to create a mass movement.
It's a plus to have a public figure like Inanucci speak out in terms which object to the way things are, and point out that it need not be this way. Societal and cultural change is never going to be easy - turning a supertanker would appear to have the agility of a ferret in comparison. But that's not the same as impossible.
Monday, 16 March 2015
What Ed won't be doing
AND FOR HIS NEXT TRICK....
Word is that Ed Milliband has turned down the starring role in the next Star Wars movie, and is refusing to be considered as Daniel Craig's replacement as Bond. He's also flatly denied that he will be the new senior presenter on Top Gear or be dong a centrefold for Penthouse.
Possibly.
Any of these things might be true since, in the real world Mr M has said he won't, under any circumstances, be accepting something else that was never offered to him. Namely, a coalition with the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon had already clearly stated that under her leadership the party will not take any action which supports another Tory government. And that any support for a Labour administration would be on a confidence and supply basis, and not formal coalition. So Ed's stating that something which was never going to happen isn't going to happen isn't all that meaningful. But it does, once more, pander to the right wing media. And makes him look even more pathetic in the eyes of Scots (although in the eyes of this Scot he remains by far the less worse choice for PM when matched against Cameron).
Sturgeon is too canny an operator to be drawn into the Westminster government as an active partner - she's seen what that did to the Lib Dems. And her vision is already looking well beyond what happens in May '15, to the Holyrood elections next year. She wants an even more convincing majority in the Scottish Parliament than she has at the moment.
Which should also reassure left leaning English voters who fear an SNP volte face which would see them support a Tory government in return for major concessions in devolved powers. Some point out the previous SNP minority government used Tory support to get it's programme through, but that was in very different circumstances. Then the aim was to gain power and use it to demonstrate competence. Which led on to the 2011 majority result. Any association with the Tories would put this at risk, for the Conservatives remain a toxic name to most Scots.
If the current levels of SNP support hold up until 7 May they could well end up being the third largest party at Westminster and, whether the English establishment and media like it or not, have a major role in determining who forms the next UK government. That would be the same establishment and media that wanted Scotland to remain in the union, yet now don't want Scotland to be able to choose their own representatives, or have some say in the running of that UK state we are still a part of (for now).
You can't have it both ways guys....
Word is that Ed Milliband has turned down the starring role in the next Star Wars movie, and is refusing to be considered as Daniel Craig's replacement as Bond. He's also flatly denied that he will be the new senior presenter on Top Gear or be dong a centrefold for Penthouse.
Possibly.
Any of these things might be true since, in the real world Mr M has said he won't, under any circumstances, be accepting something else that was never offered to him. Namely, a coalition with the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon had already clearly stated that under her leadership the party will not take any action which supports another Tory government. And that any support for a Labour administration would be on a confidence and supply basis, and not formal coalition. So Ed's stating that something which was never going to happen isn't going to happen isn't all that meaningful. But it does, once more, pander to the right wing media. And makes him look even more pathetic in the eyes of Scots (although in the eyes of this Scot he remains by far the less worse choice for PM when matched against Cameron).
Sturgeon is too canny an operator to be drawn into the Westminster government as an active partner - she's seen what that did to the Lib Dems. And her vision is already looking well beyond what happens in May '15, to the Holyrood elections next year. She wants an even more convincing majority in the Scottish Parliament than she has at the moment.
Which should also reassure left leaning English voters who fear an SNP volte face which would see them support a Tory government in return for major concessions in devolved powers. Some point out the previous SNP minority government used Tory support to get it's programme through, but that was in very different circumstances. Then the aim was to gain power and use it to demonstrate competence. Which led on to the 2011 majority result. Any association with the Tories would put this at risk, for the Conservatives remain a toxic name to most Scots.
If the current levels of SNP support hold up until 7 May they could well end up being the third largest party at Westminster and, whether the English establishment and media like it or not, have a major role in determining who forms the next UK government. That would be the same establishment and media that wanted Scotland to remain in the union, yet now don't want Scotland to be able to choose their own representatives, or have some say in the running of that UK state we are still a part of (for now).
You can't have it both ways guys....
Friday, 13 March 2015
Did I just agree with Nigel Farage?!
A BIT OF IRONY GOES A LONG WAY
Yesterday I posted my thoughts on the Jeremy Clarkson farrago and ended it with a quick dig at another pompous posh boy, Nigel Farage. So I had to laugh this morning when I read that the ukip Dear Leader was being quoted on the same subject and that his views were not far off those I'd already expressed. Ha ha. I suppose it had to happen one day, that I actually find myself in agreement with a man I'd normally be the polar opposite of.
So well done Nigel for coming out with a bit of that famed common sense. Although I hope nobody thinks this will entirely change my view of the man. I still think he's an odious, racist, blustering, fear-mongering, tax avoiding, self important, pandering to the rich, proto-fascist, anti-democratic, grade A dickhead who’s a menace to civilised values and a poor excuse for a human being..
But it’s good to have sense of perspective sometimes, eh?
Yesterday I posted my thoughts on the Jeremy Clarkson farrago and ended it with a quick dig at another pompous posh boy, Nigel Farage. So I had to laugh this morning when I read that the ukip Dear Leader was being quoted on the same subject and that his views were not far off those I'd already expressed. Ha ha. I suppose it had to happen one day, that I actually find myself in agreement with a man I'd normally be the polar opposite of.
So well done Nigel for coming out with a bit of that famed common sense. Although I hope nobody thinks this will entirely change my view of the man. I still think he's an odious, racist, blustering, fear-mongering, tax avoiding, self important, pandering to the rich, proto-fascist, anti-democratic, grade A dickhead who’s a menace to civilised values and a poor excuse for a human being..
But it’s good to have sense of perspective sometimes, eh?
Thursday, 12 March 2015
Don't judge Clarkson yet - either way
THE CLARKSON CONUNDRUM
I wouldn't exactly call it a major news story, but Jeremy Clarkson has once again been making the headlines for the wrong reasons. This time he's been suspended by the BBC and his programme, Top Gear, won't be shown in the coming weeks. In reaction to that the social media world has gone a bit crazy. Again. There's an on line petition called for his reinstatement, which has attracted hundreds of thousands of signatures. And there are those saying he's finally getting what he deserves and about time too. What is clear is that for the BBC to suspend one of their greatest cash cows someone must consider that whatever took place was of a very serious nature.
Neither mass reaction makes a great deal of sense to me. For a start we have yet to hear a definitive account of the alleged incident which resulted in the BBC's action. The story goes that the Top Gear team were filming on location, got back late to their hotel, and found that the chef had gone, but had left cold platters for them to eat. Clarkson is said to have got into a temper about this, shouting that he wanted steak, and eventually punching a member of the team in the face. The victim was a long time member of the team, albeit relatively junior in the hierarchy (but I'm guessing everyone is regarded as junior to Mr C). A hotel manager is then said to have cooked some hot food to placate the irate star.
None of this has been officially confirmed to the general public. And probably won't be until an investigation has been completed. And only when that information is available does it make sense to take sides in the matter. What does seem clear to me is that in most workplaces, if you punch a colleague, particularly someone you have a degree of power over, you would be automatically sent home and told not to come back in until the facts have been established. And if the allegation proves to be true then you would be dismissed. Is that so hard to understand?
So the reactions have had little to do with what may or may not have happened. To those who see Clarkson as some kind of anti establishment hero he can do no wrong and is being vilely persecuted. Others look at his long history of racism and bullying and immediately assume he's guilty in this case on the back of that. Personally I've always thought he was an obnoxious, bigoted twat, but that's of little relevance, except that it gives me some understanding of where the anti-JC lobby is coming from, even if I don't agree with them on this one.
But I am mildly baffled by what the people who signed the petition thought they were saying by doing so. I can only think of three reasons so far, none of them very palatable. Maybe they feel that workplace bullying/violence shouldn't be taken seriously? (But how would they react if their boss punched them for some perceived minor misdemeanour?) Or they perhaps think that Clarkson's "star" status means he should be treated differently to others? (Which sounds eerily like "One law for the rich and powerful, another for the rest of us....) Or that this is all some BBC conspiracy to get rid of their hero? (Ignoring the fact that they make millions of pounds out of his product.)
Or is there some other reason I don't know about? Or have people, perish the thought, just jumped on a knee jerk bandwagon (sorry) without actually thinking through the implications of making their mark....? In the unlikely event that any Free Clarkson signatory gets to read this I'd be fascinated to know what your motivation was.
Meanwhile, in other news, another gaffe-prone, privileged posh-boy has been putting his foot in his mouth again. Farage came out in favour of allowing racial discrimination, to the surprise of few, and has since been furiously back pedalling to say that what he said wasn't what he meant. Just how far into the past does this idiot want to drag our societal norms?
I wouldn't exactly call it a major news story, but Jeremy Clarkson has once again been making the headlines for the wrong reasons. This time he's been suspended by the BBC and his programme, Top Gear, won't be shown in the coming weeks. In reaction to that the social media world has gone a bit crazy. Again. There's an on line petition called for his reinstatement, which has attracted hundreds of thousands of signatures. And there are those saying he's finally getting what he deserves and about time too. What is clear is that for the BBC to suspend one of their greatest cash cows someone must consider that whatever took place was of a very serious nature.
Neither mass reaction makes a great deal of sense to me. For a start we have yet to hear a definitive account of the alleged incident which resulted in the BBC's action. The story goes that the Top Gear team were filming on location, got back late to their hotel, and found that the chef had gone, but had left cold platters for them to eat. Clarkson is said to have got into a temper about this, shouting that he wanted steak, and eventually punching a member of the team in the face. The victim was a long time member of the team, albeit relatively junior in the hierarchy (but I'm guessing everyone is regarded as junior to Mr C). A hotel manager is then said to have cooked some hot food to placate the irate star.
None of this has been officially confirmed to the general public. And probably won't be until an investigation has been completed. And only when that information is available does it make sense to take sides in the matter. What does seem clear to me is that in most workplaces, if you punch a colleague, particularly someone you have a degree of power over, you would be automatically sent home and told not to come back in until the facts have been established. And if the allegation proves to be true then you would be dismissed. Is that so hard to understand?
So the reactions have had little to do with what may or may not have happened. To those who see Clarkson as some kind of anti establishment hero he can do no wrong and is being vilely persecuted. Others look at his long history of racism and bullying and immediately assume he's guilty in this case on the back of that. Personally I've always thought he was an obnoxious, bigoted twat, but that's of little relevance, except that it gives me some understanding of where the anti-JC lobby is coming from, even if I don't agree with them on this one.
But I am mildly baffled by what the people who signed the petition thought they were saying by doing so. I can only think of three reasons so far, none of them very palatable. Maybe they feel that workplace bullying/violence shouldn't be taken seriously? (But how would they react if their boss punched them for some perceived minor misdemeanour?) Or they perhaps think that Clarkson's "star" status means he should be treated differently to others? (Which sounds eerily like "One law for the rich and powerful, another for the rest of us....) Or that this is all some BBC conspiracy to get rid of their hero? (Ignoring the fact that they make millions of pounds out of his product.)
Or is there some other reason I don't know about? Or have people, perish the thought, just jumped on a knee jerk bandwagon (sorry) without actually thinking through the implications of making their mark....? In the unlikely event that any Free Clarkson signatory gets to read this I'd be fascinated to know what your motivation was.
Meanwhile, in other news, another gaffe-prone, privileged posh-boy has been putting his foot in his mouth again. Farage came out in favour of allowing racial discrimination, to the surprise of few, and has since been furiously back pedalling to say that what he said wasn't what he meant. Just how far into the past does this idiot want to drag our societal norms?
Tuesday, 3 March 2015
The SNP leads - who will follow?
WEEL DONE CUTTY STURGEON
At last. A major UK politician has finally had the sense/bravery to put our society's greatest problem at the forefront of her party's policies. The constant sidetracking by the parties of The Establishment - ToryKip, the Lib Dems and, sadly, Labour - follows the narrative set by the rich owners of the likes of the Sun, the Fail and the Excess. A narrative that, more and more, favours the already rich, chips away at the quality of life for the majority, and victimises the defenceless and innocent. They focus on the great right wing shibboleths of debt, economic growth, the casino banking culture, and feed us the non-issues of immigration and EU membership (both of which are quite clearly, if a balanced view is taken, beneficial).
Now Nicola Sturgeon is saying that the biggest priority to be tackled is Inequality. This makes clear sense from both left and right wing perspectives. It puts the people, and protection of our most defenceless citizens - the true marker of a civilised society - as the most important factor in determining government actions (which is exactly what democracy should be about). But it could also lead to a more dynamic, as well as fairer, economy. By spreading economic activity and wealth on a better distribution curve you create a society where more people are actively contributing, and wealth is used within the community rather than hoarded. I've no idea how anyone can set about measuring such a thing, but there have been studies which show that the happiest period for British citizens was that much maligned decade, the seventies, before the disastrous government promotion of greed as a positive force in the eighties. The seventies, were also, surprise, surprise, the decade of greatest equality.
Of course the SNP may have no impact on the problem. They are fighting against major entrenched issues, not just in Scotland, but internationally. Indeed, for me, the greatest failing of the EU is it's repeated entrenchment of neoliberalism - just ask Syriza. But at least they are trying, at least they have put our biggest issue at the forefront of public consciousness.
This still doesn't make me a committed SNP fan. I have serious concerns about their tendencies towards over centralisation, and increasing disdain for civil liberties with regard to public data (all too reminiscent of the way New Labour totally lost the plot ten years ago). But in bringing inequality to the forefront, and making it central to what they do, they have shown themselves to be the most progressive force amongst the major UK parties. If, as polls suggest, they end up being a major influence in Westminster after 7 May, their vision may end up benefiting more than just the people of Scotland.
At last. A major UK politician has finally had the sense/bravery to put our society's greatest problem at the forefront of her party's policies. The constant sidetracking by the parties of The Establishment - ToryKip, the Lib Dems and, sadly, Labour - follows the narrative set by the rich owners of the likes of the Sun, the Fail and the Excess. A narrative that, more and more, favours the already rich, chips away at the quality of life for the majority, and victimises the defenceless and innocent. They focus on the great right wing shibboleths of debt, economic growth, the casino banking culture, and feed us the non-issues of immigration and EU membership (both of which are quite clearly, if a balanced view is taken, beneficial).
Now Nicola Sturgeon is saying that the biggest priority to be tackled is Inequality. This makes clear sense from both left and right wing perspectives. It puts the people, and protection of our most defenceless citizens - the true marker of a civilised society - as the most important factor in determining government actions (which is exactly what democracy should be about). But it could also lead to a more dynamic, as well as fairer, economy. By spreading economic activity and wealth on a better distribution curve you create a society where more people are actively contributing, and wealth is used within the community rather than hoarded. I've no idea how anyone can set about measuring such a thing, but there have been studies which show that the happiest period for British citizens was that much maligned decade, the seventies, before the disastrous government promotion of greed as a positive force in the eighties. The seventies, were also, surprise, surprise, the decade of greatest equality.
Of course the SNP may have no impact on the problem. They are fighting against major entrenched issues, not just in Scotland, but internationally. Indeed, for me, the greatest failing of the EU is it's repeated entrenchment of neoliberalism - just ask Syriza. But at least they are trying, at least they have put our biggest issue at the forefront of public consciousness.
This still doesn't make me a committed SNP fan. I have serious concerns about their tendencies towards over centralisation, and increasing disdain for civil liberties with regard to public data (all too reminiscent of the way New Labour totally lost the plot ten years ago). But in bringing inequality to the forefront, and making it central to what they do, they have shown themselves to be the most progressive force amongst the major UK parties. If, as polls suggest, they end up being a major influence in Westminster after 7 May, their vision may end up benefiting more than just the people of Scotland.
Thursday, 26 February 2015
My favourite place - complete with recipe
BEAUTY SPOT
This is Newhaven Harbour, situated on the northern edge of Edinburgh, and the southern bank of the Firth of Forth. It was once the focal point of the fishing village of Newhaven, and the long, low red building on the eastern side was the fish market. Not so long ago, certainly well within living memory, it was a major employer in the locale and bustling centre activity from the early hours of each morning.
Nowadays there are few catches being delivered (there's one being made in the first photo), and most of the boats moored here are for pleasure use only. The old market building houses a couple of restaurants, which enjoy spectacular views from their and windows and terraces, an excellent fishmonger, and the latter's processing and distribution plant. They have another couple of fish shops in the city, and supply many restaurants, pubs etc in the Edinburgh area. So the old links have not completely died away.
There isn't a lot going on nowadays, traffic in and out of the harbour walls is sparse, and an ugly hotel has been stuck up at the north eastern corner. But this spot has become my favourite place in the world. I love going there whatever the weather, season or time of day. On a bright, clear day there are long distance views across to the hills of Fife and up the Forth to the famous bridges, both of which can be seen clearly in the distance (you should be able to make them out in the fifth of the pictures above). But when the haar descends, the dense fog that blows in from the North Sea, it becomes a world all to itself, suspended from reality like Brigadoon. You can make out a few boats bobbing, hear the sound of the water slapping against the hulls and harbour sides, but even the lighthouse at the end of the breakwater can be hidden from clear view, becoming an eerie, shimmering finger of white raised in insult against nature.
This is a place I never tire of visiting, of photographing, of sitting watching the gulls and sailors and tourists and locals savouring the beauty of the sights it provides. I love it primarily for itself, but I also have some roots here. It wasn't a place we came to much when I was young, as we lived on the other side of the city (although I did go to primary school near here). Only many years later did I discover the family connection.
For a while that old fish market building housed a Newhaven Musem, which we visited with my parents. There were old photos of workers from the fishing industry, and tt came as a surprise that my dad could identify by name several of the old fishwives, in traditional harbour dress, as people he'd know as a child. But even then he didn't talk much about the connection between himself and the village and harbour. It was his death some years later that provided me with the evidence of just how close this relationship was. He'd been born in his parents' house, one street back from the harbour front. His mother had worked at gutting the fish coming in, his father was a fish porter (I had only ever seen him as a school janitor).
Now I'm not one to believe in psychic links or suchlike, and coincidences are usually just that, events with no causal relationship. But there is a weirdness in thinking that this particular spot on the planet, which I revisit constantly, had such close links to my immediate family. But yeah, still just coincidence!
There are a couple of other attractions beyond the sensory allure. Up the road is one of best cafes in the city, The Haven, and I already mentioned that fish shop. Too often fishmongers had, have, an off-putting aroma and confused display. You can forget that in Welch Fishmongers of Newhaven. Beautifully displayed, fresh, great variety. There's a tank of live lobsters to your right as you come through the door, and some attractive fishy-related crockery in the window. And they make their own smoked salmon pate which is irresistible. No, I'm not being paid to say this....
They also do an excellent, and cheap, fish pie mix, with offcuts of salmon, cod and smoked haddock. I've used it as the basis for an excellent fish curry, as this recipe I concocted demonstrates. Go on, give it a go.
MIXED FISH CURRY WITH SPICED COURGETTE
Ingredients (for 2 people)
350g fish pie mix (see above - if making up your own it should include some smoked fish)
2 tsp mustard seeds
1 onion, chopped
1 celery stick, finely chopped
1 green chilli sliced into rings
2 garlic cloves, finely chopped
4 medium tomatoes
creme fraiche
1 tsp each of ground turmeric, ground ginger, garam masala
salt to taste
1 large courgette
1/2 tsp each of cumin seeds. fennel seeds, chilli powder ground
1/2 tsp each of cumin seeds. fennel seeds, chilli powder ground
Cupful of basmati rice
Method
Soften tomatoes in boiling water and seive finely, discard solids
Fry mustard seeds until they begin to crackle
Add onion and celery, fry for 5 minutes
Add chilli and garlic and fry until onions are soft
Add fish (chopped) and remaining spices
Fry for 1 min
Add seived tomatoes and couple of dollops of creme fraiche to get a creamy consistency
Simmer for 5-10 minutes depending on your fish
Add salt to taste
Meanwhile....
Put the rice on to boil and once it's cooking fry the courgette spices for 1 min
Add sliced courgette and salt generously, stir well and keep it moving occasionally
Fry until soft
Put the rice on to boil and once it's cooking fry the courgette spices for 1 min
Add sliced courgette and salt generously, stir well and keep it moving occasionally
Fry until soft
Serve with rice in middle, courgettes to one side, curry to other
A Viognier goes well with this if your chilli isn't too much of a hot one!
A Viognier goes well with this if your chilli isn't too much of a hot one!
Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Amateur critic - a review blog
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
It's been a while since I posted anything here. Lack of inspiration, lack of time, other things to do. And general indolence. Especially that one. But some of the time gets taken up with going out to be entertained. That includes a few cinema visits, but mostly it's live interaction that I'm seeking. Music, comedy, drama - and ice hockey. A week doesn't normally pass without seeing some kind of gig, play or match.
Of course the decision on what we (it's mostly 'we') go to see is derived from our own eclectic tastes. So the music is mostly folk, preferably in small, intimate venues, and you're unlikely to see me at stadium events. The plays are more likely to be new works than classics. And the comedy will be in clubs or pubs rather than theatres. While the hockey, well, that's been documented here before.
I have no qualifications to be much of a critic. I'm resolutely unmusical, rarely funny, while my amateur acting days are long behind me and would make no claims to anything more than some basic competence. As for ice hockey.... I doubt I'd stay upright for more than five seconds.
But there might be some people out there looking for new music, or seeking an independent opinion on a touring play or a comedian who has yet to achiev national fame. OK, I doubt anyone will be much interested in my uninformed opinion on hockey matches, but you can't please everyone. So I have a new blog, giving brief reviews of events I've been to. Don't expect much in the way of depth, but at least you should be clear about whether this individual liked what he saw or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)