Relative Reality

The theory goes that generally collective thinking produces the correct results,  however the current forced fiasco with the pension reform seems to directly buck this idea.

The theory behind the need for reform is simple, the country is broke, people are living longer and because of this people will be claiming pensions for longer – which ultimately costs more.  The facts have changed and we must adapt, if something costs more you have to pay more.

Of course it seems a little unfair that people who signed up for a job thinking they would get a lovely gold plated pension, find when reality sets in they have to have something more affordable.  But unfortunately for them there is no other option.  Unless they think private sector taxpayers subsidising a pension they could only dream of while they struggle is fair?

And then there is the argument about raising the retirement age.  Raising the retirement age by a few years still leaves a huge retirement time because as I mentioned before, people are living a lot longer – it’s relative.

Yesterday the Government made a more than a fair concession which was refused by the Unions.  This is not a negotiation, this is the Unions refusing to cooperate unless they get exactly what they want.

There is one option that seems not to have been considered.  We could keep the pension scheme and retirement age the same, but it will only be paid up to the age people generally lived to when it was originally devised.  Meaning those who are lucky enough to live past that age are not entitled to any more pension money because they have not paid for it.  This makes sense, it’s fair and is giving people what they paid for – a pension up to a certain age.  But some how I think the Unions would not like this taste of reality either.

The Government must hold its ground.

The Dangerous Jesters of Europe

The EU has gone through many changes since the idea was first born, from the idea of a Common Market whose aim it was to build a strong Europe, to the idealogical idea of a quasi United States of Europe.  But now it seems to have become a complete joke to some of the leaders of countries we in the UK have shackled ourselves to.

Firstly, the ignorant actions of Greece’s Prime Minister to suddenly decided to call a referendum.  This goes against the core idea of the EU which is to work together and create mutual benefit.  Mr Papandreou’s selfish actions could bring down the entire Eurozone which will have disastrous knock-on effects for the world economy.

Second up is Italy, whose government is becoming more and more a caricature of its ridiculous self.  Last week an Italian Minster claimed to Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight that the current crisis wasn’t Italy’s fault, a fist fight broke out in its Parliament between MPs, and more recently the ongoing saga with Berlusconi hit a new low when he was named in an American report as being linked to human trafficking.  And now today Mr Berlusconi, who leads a country at the heart of the Eurozone crisis finally took his first step in responding to the escalating problem… by delaying the release of his new album as he felt it a little inappropriate at the present time.

It writes itself…

Wrong Doorstep

It goes without saying that when the economy is suffering from problems, institutions have to suffer protests.  However, whatever the protesters gripes are they are very often directed at a specific institution, and while one may not agree with the protesters action, one can see why it is that institution being targeted.

This however is not the case with the current protest going on outside St Paul’s Cathedral.  The ‘Occupy London Movement’ against the usual suspects of bankers and capitalism has for the past two weeks camped outside not RBS, not the London Stock Exchange, but a cathedral.  A religious monument which upholds strong moral values against greed and other such perceived ‘sins’ of which these protesters claim to be campaigning against.

There are many contradictions within this movement and protest, namely the fact they are complaining about taxpayers money being used to finance bankers bonuses, when it seems quite obvious these people do not pay tax as if they did they would be at work earning it, not protesting.  But that aside, the most fundamental contradiction is plainly and simply that they are sat outside the wrong place.  This protest has not affected the people they are meant to be protesting against one bit, instead it has caused St Paul’s Cathedral which is not a capitalist symbol, but a religious one  a lot of pain and caused three religious leaders to step down.

The even sadder fact is there is talk these protesters could disrupt Remembrance Sunday.  Disrupting such a service clearly has nothing to do with what they are protesting against.

Unless these protesters are cleverer then we initially thought and have purposely chosen a religious place because they knew it would be controversial for a church to order their removal.  The result being that they would be able to stay longer?  If this is the case then they are clearly abusing the Church’s good nature and should be dealt with accordingly.

Although I suspect this is giving the protesters more credit than is due in the tactics department.

EU’ve Gone Too Far!

It’s very hard at the moment not to be Eurosceptic, and is it any wonder, in simple terms the EU is a mess.  There is no need to spend time talking of its woes and the problems it is causing for itself and also for us in the UK, these are acknowledged.  In light of this there is a part of me, along with much of the country that would like to metaphorically stick two fingers up at the EU establishment and leave with a parting shot of, “we told you so.”

In reality we must, for our own good, refrain from taking such drastic steps.  The EU is undoubtedly eroding the UK’s sovereignty, but leaving would remove any influence we as a country have in what is a global player.  The worry the whole world has at the EU going under shows what a massive player in the global arena it is.

However, I talk of staying in, in the very loosest terms.  Staying in the EU in the same capacity of which the British people voted for back in 1975, and no more than that.  What the British people voted for back in 1975 was beneficial to Britain and beneficial to our European neighbours.  What has been implemented since then has nothing to do with benefits, it is purely ideological.

David Cameron is right when he when he says now is not a good time and he believes we are better off in Europe.  The problem is that the EU has pushed Britain to the limit and the people have had enough of it.  They have gone past the point of listening to Politicians saying we will renegotiate and get powers back, as far as they are concerned all they are seeing is the EU dictating to them even more, and therefore in retaliation they see their only option of stopping this has leaving altogether.

David Cameron needs to understand this.  He and the Conservatives must be seen to be taking a no nonsense straight talking hard line with the EU.  In effect, if it benefits us then we are interested, if it doesn’t then it is a ‘no’ and there is no negotiation on that.  Fundamentally we must be in the EU fighting to shape this influential institute to suit us, for us being outside and it wielding such global power of which we have no say in its direction is dangerous.

Had our relationship with the EU been carefully managed since 1975 then this would not have boiled over into a major problem.

Thatcher, Thatcher…. Materialistic Snatcher?

Not a political day goes past without some mention of Margaret Thatcher’s Government.  The Right-wing use her as a benchmark on which to compare the present Tory led Coalition, while the Left-wing use her as a negative comparison.

Yesterday on The First Post there was an interesting article titled, Riots: Were they Mrs Thatcher’s fault of not?  Attributing such despicable behaviour to Britain’s greatest Prime Minister is offensive, but through a quote from Ian Duncan Smith in the article there is a glimmer of a connection.

“Under Margaret Thatcher, he said, the Conservative government “freed up the markets”, but “missed the next bit”. This resulted in “a sort of mid-20th Century society, many locked away in welfarism, and a 21st Century economy.””

I have previously argued on this Blog that our world is made up of two separate sectors, Economic and Social, and both are as important as each other.  This is touched on by Ian Duncan Smith.

“But Smith fell short of blaming Thatcher. Instead, he said what was still needed was social and welfare reform. Thatcher knew this, but “never got there”, and neither have her successors of either party.”

Many of Margaret Thatcher’s speeches refer to social issues, it was something she felt to be important.  Unfortunately, when she came to power in 1979 there was so much to do in both the Economic and Social sector; and the country’s Economics too precedent.  Quite simply, 1979 – 1990 was not long enough to carry out everything that needed doing, and nobody after her took the baton.

It was not Thatcher’s Economics per say, they were immensely beneficial for Britain, it was the fact they were not coupled with a strong Social Policy which caused problems.  This is where, Pankaj Mishra from the San Francisco Chronicle, and Polly Toynbee from the Guardian, quoted in the article are wrong.  Solid Social Policy provides Economic Policy with discipline, without it the problems Mishra and Toynbee talk of are created later down the line.

By freeing up the markets and through privatisation, the Thatcher administration created the foundations for almost anyone to make immense wealth.  However, unlike the traditional wealth creation methods which many people were used to, which involved physically doing something through hard work, this method created wealth without the need to break into a sweat.  In other words, wealth could be created by doing almost nothing physically, and there was nothing physical created at the end.

This move from the secondary sector to the higher earning tertiary sector transformed Britain from the ‘sick man of Europe’, to an Economic powerhouse in which anyone could play a part in.

In a similar way to the school playground game, ‘Whisper down the Lane’, or ‘Chinese Whispers’ as some may call it, without a clear Social Policy the message of the high earning tertiary sector over time became corrupted.  This coupled with a too generous welfare system, in which one often gets more money doing nothing then they would working, and a lack of discipline in schools, has created a message of being able to have what you want without working for it.

This corrupted mentality has caused the problems of which Thatcher’s critics often speak of, and the recent riots were a grotesque representation them.  If anyone is to blame for these riots it would be those after Thatcher who diverged from a winning game plan.

“Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.”  Margaret Thatcher at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in 1979.

 

The First Post article which I refer to can be read here:  http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/83266,news-comment,news-politics,riots-were-they-mrs-thatchers-fault-or-not

Educate, Educate, Educate…. But in What?

RightBlueView has previously criticised our education system as being too exam focused and not teaching pupils skills they so desperately need in their life.  A previous post last week expressed how positive David Cameron’s National Citizen Service would be for young people by allowing them to develop skills beyond passing exams.

This week Martin Lewis who runs the popular MoneySavingExpert website, and is regularly in the media giving advice on all money related matters, is petitioning the Government on making financial education in schools compulsory.  He rightly says:

“It’s a national disgrace that in the 20 years since introducing student loans, we’ve educated our youth into debt when they go to university, but never about debt. We’re a financially illiterate nation, with millions caught by misselling, overborrowing and being ripped off.”

Like National Citizen Service this would be incredible beneficial to the country as a whole, in some respects even more so than National Citizen Service.  Martin Lewis is correct when he says it is a ‘national disgrace’, it’s a fundamental flaw in our education system.

Unfortunately, the lack of financial education in our education system is symptomatic of the appalling incomplete curriculum currently failing pupils.  It is a shameful fact that many young people come out of school nowadays knowing how to pass an exam in the core subjects, but have little knowledge of the political and financial systems which dominate their life so much.  The education system is far too narrow and too dominated by grades, with little regard for actual teaching.

This view is not based on Party ideology, what it is based upon is the principle that giving young people a well rounded education allows them to participate fully in society, be as free as possible, and a contributor as opposed to a dependent of the state.

On top of the obvious academic subjects, schools should be preparing pupils for everyday life.  Pupils should be taught about loans, interest rates, mortgages and other financial matters which are part of everyday life but are poorly understood by many.  It is incomprehensible why a leading democratic country invites its people to take part in elections, yet fails to teach them about political institutions in schools.  Subjects such as basic First Aid would benefit society enormously, but are ignored by the current system.

At present the education system almost entirely ignores vocational skills, leaving those that do not excel in the academic arena to be deemed failures when they may have potential in this sector.  A system which actually fails some young people is totally unacceptable in 21st century Britain.  Britain is in one of the worst economic crisis in living memory, and we are creating more financial dependants of the already overstretched state, simply because the education system fails to recognise and improve some skill areas.

Although not a subject in the traditional sense, discipline needs to be upheld and ingrained in pupils from an early age.  Amongst the numerous reasons being cited for the disgusting behaviour by some in the recent riots, a lack of discipline in schools should resonates most strongly.  Education should not just involve teaching subjects to create job opportunities for Britain’s young people, it needs to cover many more aspects.  Education must shape young people into pleasant, polite and respectful adults who understand the world around them and how they make up what we call ‘Society’.  It must teach the merits of hard work and how one must take pride in the work they do, it must teach morals, the rule of law and the consequences of disobeying it.  Education is not just about passing exams, it is about nurturing young people into adults.

To the credit of the Coalition Government it has recognised schools need changing, but Free Schools, as good as they may be are slightly missing the point.  We must look at what is taught and how it is taught in schools before we focus on something which is essentially aesthetic.

Martin Lewis’ campaign to make financial education compulsory in schools is an excellent start, but it must not stop there if we are to build as David Cameron says, ‘a better Britain’.

Of course this takes money, but most of all it takes a change in the approach to education, and a reassessment of why we educate.  Investment must come in the form of money, but also mentality.

Read Martin Lewis’ arguments here on why we need financial education in our schools:  http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/latesttip/

Sign the petition here:  http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/8903

RightBlueView’s post on National Citizen Service can be read here:  https://rightblueview.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/national-citizen-service-benefiting-an-entire-generation/

The Race to Brand Dr Starkey a ‘Racist’

Dr David Starkey is one of Britain’s leading Historians and for good reason.  His books, his television series, what he has done for British History, all of it is fantastic.  For all Dr Starkey’s criticisms, and there are a few considering his own history of controversy, he is not a ‘racist’, he is a Historian dealing with fact.

Unfortunately, there are some of us who are not mature enough to deal with fact.  Dr Starkey’s appearance on Newsnight last Friday in which he spoke of a particular type of Black culture has had the self righteous, mainly Left, clambering for their 15 minutes to shout “RACIST” from the moral high horse.  When the creator of Midsummer Murder stated the programme would not work with racial diversity, Kelvin MacKenzie branded this a ‘race storm’ on Question Time, Dr Starkey’s comments on Newsnight a few days ago have gone further and created a ‘race hurricane’.

The sad fact is that nowadays, racism, which let us be quite clear is abhorrent, has been inflated to mean any discussion of race, and in the process we have completely forgotten what it is to be racist.  Instead people jump at the chance to shout down anyone who mentions the word ‘race’ as a racist, as if they need to prove they themselves are not.  Why can we not presume, as is the case, that 99.9% of people like myself cannot stand racism.  Why does the mention of race mean one is guilty of racism until proven innocent?

Racism is the belief in inferior races, the belief that the race you are is better then that of another, or all other races.  This view has been used to justify numerous atrocities, notably Adolf Hitler’s belief in the superiority of the Aryan race which led to the horrors of his Final Solution.

Toby Young in his latest Telegraph Blog quotes the dictionary definition of racism from the Oxford English Dictionary as:

“the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races”.

With this in mind, below is what Dr Starkey said on Newsnight.

“What’s happened is that a substantial section of the Chavs that you wrote about have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion. And black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together, this language which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that’s been intruded in England, and this is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country.”

Nowhere in this does Dr Starkey portray any superiority, nowhere does he say as a white man he is superior to his inferior black counterparts.  He plainly did not say this, and the reason he did not say this is because he does no think it.

Every culture has positive parts, but every culture also has negative parts, simply what Dr Starkey did was to identify a negative part of black culture.  ‘Chav’ culture, of which Owen Jones writes about in his book, Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class, could be identified as a negative part of white culture, this is not racist, I am not claiming white people are inferior, I am simply stating an observation.

The irony of this is it is acceptable to identify positive aspects in a certain culture, but as soon as someone like Dr Starkey attributes something negative to a culture, the process becomes racist.

Dr Starkey went on to say that some rap music, and notice the word ‘some’ rap music, not all, glorifies a certain behaviour.  Rap music has origins in black culture, this is a fact, so much so it is often called black music, a fact which is proudly celebrated.  It was pretty pathetic of Owen Jones the other guest, to try and win the argument by asking Dr Starkey to name some rap songs he thought glorified the behaviour he previously described.   The hope being that Dr Starkey would name one and Owen Jones could then name a whole host that did not fit that category, and somehow that proves Dr Starkey wrong.  It was quite frankly childish.  Tony Sewell in his article on Dr Starkey’s comments in the Daily Mail, says this on the subject of rap music.

“What motivated the troublemakers was not genuine poverty but rather a raw acquisitiveness that is fuelled by so much in this black-led youth culture, from the imagery in rap videos to the lyrics of hip-hop music. The twin central themes of this world are sex and material possessions.”

Owen Jones then claimed after Dr Starkey had said the MP David Lammy sounded white that.

“You said David Lammy when you heard him sounded white and what you meant by that is that white people equals respectable.”

Where did Dr Starkey say this in the sentence?

“Listen to David Lammy, an archetypical successful black man.  If you turned the screen off so you were listening to him on radio you’d think he was white.”

If anyone is having racist thoughts I would actually question Owen Jones on this matter.  It was after all he who came out with equating white with respectable and as he later goes on to say, black with bad, not Dr Starkey.

James Delingpole in his Blog in The Telegraph rightly says this was a set up by the BBC.  The facts which Dr Starkey spoke of, were there for three nights for us all to see.  The BBC knew this, and that is why they invited a Historian who is noted for speaking his mind, to come on the show and say what many had been thinking.  The reason was not however for a mature debate on the topic, it was to give the impression the BBC was serving the public interest by weeding out racists.  This is despicable behaviour by the BBC and it deeply saddens me that an institution which I hold in such high regard would stoop this low.

It is deeply unsettling that people such as Owen Jones denounce and stifle much needed discussion by claiming it is racist, when it is clearly not.  I would seriously urge Owen Jones to consult a historian such as Dr Starkey, who could show him plenty of horrific examples of racism, as he has obviously not grasped the seriousness of the term.  Maybe then he would give Dr Starkey the respect he deserves and stop reverting to such juvenile name calling.

 

The Blogs I refer to are listed below:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100100845/was-david-starkey-being-racist-on-newsnight-last-night/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100100911/if-david-starkey-is-racist-then-so-is-everybody/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2026053/David-Starkey-Newsnight-Gangsta-culture-poison-spreading-youths-races.html

The Current Situation

There has been much analysis recently over the riots, the causes and the solutions, which will and should carry on long after this is over.  This would be best done however with a clear head when it is finished.  Looking directly at the current situation, I would like to very briefly make three points.

Firstly, David Cameron’s speech today was what we had all been waiting to hear. He finally got a grip, and shook off the watery talk which got us in this mess in the first place.  Of course we need to look at why this happened, but while people live in fear and businesses are being destroyed, our priority is to restore order before anything else.

Secondly, Looking directly at the current situation, there is another particular issue that appears to be rising.  Whilst I admire the ‘vigilantes’ or whatever they would like to call themselves, as I believe it shows the community coming together, it does also concern me for a number of reasons.  Firstly, that people feel it has come to this. Secondly, with emotions running high they may not show the restraint professional law enforcement does.  And thirdly, and most worryingly, is the escalation this can lead to, depending on how they perceive they are being treated by the Police.  These people need to understand that the Police are in a difficult situation and bringing more people onto the street can lead to confusion.  They have to understand the Police need to be over cautious, and that this does not mean an ‘attack’ on them; it is after all for their own good.  At the same time the Police need to make sure they maintain a firm but good understanding relationship with these people, and that by working with these people this hideous chapter can be brought to an end.

Thirdly, I hope it does not get to the stage of having to use water cannon, rubber bullets, tear gas etc, but if it does then we should support its use.  A clear message has to be sent out, that if you decide to go out terrorising towns, looting, vandalising, attacking Police, and you get hurt in the process then that is entirely your own fault.  Quite simply, if you don’t want to get hurt then don’t go out rioting, you cannot complain about Police heavy handedness when you act like feral thugs.

There is Such a Thing as Context

In an interview for Women’s Own in 1987 then Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher declared:

“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.  It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.”

Unfortunately, this interview is rarely seen in full, and instead the phrase “there is no such thing as society” is all that is quoted.  Sadly this has been hijacked as an example of greed and selfishness.  But reading the whole interview, especially within the context of the current riots, there is a poignant message.

 

The Idiotic Irony of These Riots

For three nights now London has experienced some of the worst rioting and looting it has seen for decades.  Homes, lives, businesses and more have been devastated by a brainless, stupid, thugs… and that’s a kind description.

Some say it is because of the Police shooting of Mark Duggan.  Which we all know it a pathetic justification for such needless violence.  Being concerned against the death of a 29 year old man, and purposely going out to steal a TV and clothes from JD Sports does not make sense.  But then again, these people don’t share a braincell between them.

The most ironic justification is the economic situation.  Most of these lowlifes are on benefits, which due to the burdening economic situation is being reformed and for good reason.  Rioting, looting, vandalism, all costs money, which will only make the situation worse for them and put more strain on their already generous benefits.

The other ironic justification is that some claim it is because the Police do not understand them and doesn’t work with them.  But how can the Police work with people that burn down shops and trash high streets?  If this is how they act, these people are not mature enough, not civilised enough for the Police to build a relationship with.  If they continue to act like this then they have absolutely no basis on which to complain how the Police treat them.  The Police are protecting London, its people, its property and themselves against these scum who have no support.

I’ve not heard one person from these riots explain why they are doing it.  The reason is… because they can’t!