Category: Uncategorized

However, the government obviously doesn’t seem to, because it does nothing about it. Before I tell you what it is, I want to explain how Maggie Thatcher and her broken arm triggered the thoughts. In another few weeks Sophie will be 89, and I’m not that far behind her, but it annoys me a little, when we, the Wrinklies, are told that we are a burden on society because we are living too long, costing too much in healthcare, and contributing nothing. I wonder where the credit crunch would be if it weren’t for all the the investments and savings of the Wrinklies. What Europe would be like if we hadn’t stopped Hitler. It wasn’t the Wrinklies who gambled their savings on the stock market, it was the rising, affluent, champagne drinking youngsters, with their fancy cars, their fancy flats, and their disregard for others. I make no apology for being a Wrinkly. My generation and I have had our fair share of austerity and most of us have led reasonably responsible lives, but we did mostly enjoy ourselves.

The reason we have lived so long is mainly because, as I have said before, we were born into austerity, perforce we exercised because there was only public transport and few of us owned a car until the 50s and 60s. We had no EU, so the French had not by then forced government to have Set Aside rather than growing our own produce. We were not terribly well educated in foreign food, I suspect in 1950 only the wealthy had ever heard of a lasagne, and we were only just beginning to learn about wine. There was no television to tell us what we ought to be eating, carry-outs were practically unheard of, and pleasure was simple, and generally involved exercise. So what I mean by being obvious, is that the government should not be advertising and preaching about obesity, dietary and exercise, they should be instituting fresh home-grown food, offering both the young and the not so young, many more opportunities to exercise in interesting environments, and increasing public transport so that people save money for their old age, and walk more. I can point to a number of three-car families, those who would never dream of cooking fresh ingredients for themselves – need I say more?

We the Wrinklies are a living example of the qualities needed in the early stages of life, for providing a healthy, possibly less sophisticated but more enjoyable life, which is a lot cheaper than advertising, and a lot more fun than going to Weight Watchers, and special diets. When did you last play cricket on the green, handball, fly a kite with your kids, or even ride on a bus?

My regular readers will know that I am very poor at surfing the Internet, but I suspect that I am not alone in that. One of my grandchildren has taken his whole family on holiday to Spain. I’m not a person to panic, I weigh up the odds and then make a decision. On television yesterday there was a longer than usual piece about the swine flu epidemic and how they were changing the risk level. This prompted me to go and find general geographical information about the densities of the cases on the Internet, so that I could have some idea of the risks that my family was taking.

I remember strikingly, those first visuals of the people coming from the various overseas destinations where the flu was at its highest, like Mexico. At the time I was amazed that a flight of people coming from there seemed to be allowed to arrive, collect their baggage, and mingle with the population of the airport, the underground railway and all the other conditions without hindrance. It was obvious to me that this would cause pockets of people who could have been infected, or were infected, and the result was that almost immediately schools were closed.

I tried to find out this morning, on the Internet, what was the protocol in GB for dealing with people coming from flu hotspots. I also hunted for simple advice in easy sentences, about what were the hotspots, and the foreign office advice concerning those locations. I found myself in a multi-page maze of information on everything but what I wanted. I don’t doubt that if I were prepared to sit here for an hour or two I might just be able to winkle out the information that I’m looking for, which is the risk factor in certain parts of the world that I might have if I choose to have it as a holiday destination. In addition I tried to find without success, in simple terms, as a regional list, the restrictions that would be placed upon me if I went abroad to one of these areas, and those that I would be subjected to on return. I not only consider these questions sensible, I think that they are essential so that people who are concerned not only for themselves but their effect on others, can make sensible, reasoned and reasonably accurate decisions on a percentage risk basis. Some travel is essential, there is no doubt about that, but I consider that travelling on holiday is a non-essential, compared with even a minor risk that one could be infected, and infect others. The fact of the circulation of the air within the aeroplane is a factor, not to be ignored. We are told, like all other pandemics, this one will die down and disappear eventually. Am I wrong in thinking that it is more sensible to go somewhere that is free of risk, or better still stay at home, until the risk is zero?

Am I making a fuss about nothing? A whole school being forced to close, seems a high price to pay for one sample of ten days on a foreign beach

A heading on the on the web, on the 13th of June, stated that Alistair Darling in a report to the financial Times, was warning that the fluctuating price of oil could seriously affect the financial recovery of the Western nations, as a result of the Arab states finding their economy to have been suffering in recent months due to the price of oil having fallen. The corollary of the statement is frightening, it implies that the whole of the world that has not access to its own oil, is having its finances controlled by the Arab states, Russia and any other oil-producing nation, with all the parameters that that implies. Just prior to when the credit crunch was fierce, oil was at a price roughly double what it is today, and the oil producers realising that we were between a rock and a hard place, immediately reduced the price.

We, through our ridiculous transport policy are having to import more oil than we should need, because of the ascendancy of the motor car and the degeneration of public transport. Oil itself is not exactly endangered as a commodity, because the Pole areas have not been thoroughly investigated, but it’s obvious that it is a diminishing resource irrespective of that fact. If we are to become less dependent on the price of oil for our budgeting, and therefore on the whims of the oil producers, we must rationalise our public transport system to what it was before Beecham tinkered with it. With the building up of our cities and large towns, we are inhibited to some extent, from the possibility of improving the rail system, which is the most important, simple and economic means of transportation. In Belfast the problem was reversed, the north part of the city was totally revamped to accommodate a motorway, so change is not necessarily impossible.

It is crazy that we are constantly increasing the size of motorways at the expense of farmland in what is really a very small, overpopulated country. Making local transport more amenable to the population, and subsidised if necessary, so that the burden of using it falls equally on the whole population through the taxation system, then we will have corrected this latest discovery of particles in the exhaust of vehicles which is damaging our children in particular, while reducing the traffic on the roads, which in turn will be a safety measure, and lessen the stress to the individual of driving and finding parking. We will also not have to worry about our motor industry, as it is already dwindling rapidly. I have always believed that the necessity to maintain the automotive industry was a linchpin of the economy and has been one of the stumbling blocks to improving our transport infrastructure. We will also probably help reduce quite considerably, the requirement of importing so much oil

This is just a comment, not a thesis. There are a number of parameters that require thought, most of them point towards reducing the import of oil, so I beg you, think a little on the matter.

This essay was generated by my introduction to the amusing punishment of the Naughty-step, and the way it seems to have been accepted by my great-grandchildren, to the extent that in play they send one another there, or a miscreant teddy bear. This caused me to look back at my own childhood in the 20s and 30s. There was a mantra that everyone seemed to honour, ‘If in doubt, thrash.’ When I was seven I was whailed with my father’s belt. In elementary school we were all caned for the most minor infringements and had blood blisters on our hands and bottoms, to prove it. The interesting thing was that I don’t remember a case of parents taking the side of the child against the authority. I was even caned for each mistake I made in repeating the poem that I was supposed to have learned for homework, up to a total of four. My mother accepted the situation as being normal, because she was a Victorian and had been brought up in that strict regime. We children accepted that it was a part of life, it was hurtful, and certainly stressful, from the minute you knew you were a candidate for yet another thrashing. But life was too interesting to dwell on something where there was no alternative and means of redress. At secondary school our prefects were permitted to cane, but the miscreant had the choice of the matter being referred to the headmaster, who would then cane you. This was really a clever move, because the disgrace of being caned by the headmaster, rather than one of the teachers, was so horrendous, there were none to my knowledge, except myself, who ever tested it.

Today the whole thing has reversed, a child can attack a teacher, and the teacher has very little redress. Parents take schools to court, or badger the headmaster. We were hit on the head with anything that came to hand, including the sharp corner of a 60° setsquare, or given a slap round the ear. I frankly don’t remember, and I was beaten more than most, that I suffered any serious psychological problems, I didn’t even have bad dreams. It was the system, we were inured to it and we accepted it because everybody did. The thing I’ve written about before, which I find highly amusing was that one child was sent to the Naughty-step, when she returned to continue to play, after the period of her incarceration, she promptly whacked her sister. It seems the Victorian values have come down through the genes.

I would like someone to explain to me why I should not be sceptical that the current philosophy for abandoning corporal punishment, in the hope that persuasion in some form or other, has not brought us to the level of irresponsibility, lack of self-control and lack of respect for others, that is so prevalent today. Postulating that damage to the psyche by corporal punishment is inevitable, is more to do with specialists wanting their theories accepted, without sufficient experimental evidence, tested response and historical experience, or what factual evidence taken over a wide area, in different circumstances, and different regions, might prove.

Yesterday I said that I thought it would be unlikely that all these changes that were proposed will be put into effect. In other words all the rhetoric, the heart baring and admissions were all window dressing. It seems I was right. I also said on a previous day that Brown would retain his position as Prime Minister, because there were strong people behind him, the bully boys, threatening the Backbench, and anyway, today being a politician is often more to do with having a job, than it is sticking to your own principles.

I think I’ve already said previously that my father-in-law used to say ‘Whatever you say, say nothing.’. This is precisely the current situation, a case of all talk and very little do. One of the protocols I am talking about seems to be, that providing the factors are not irrefutable, convenience, coupled with pragmatism and self-interest are more important than the spoken promise. Add to this a long finger that reaches years rather than weeks into the future, and you have what I see as the current political situation, and the way in which our problems are being dealt with. I’m not in any way under the impression that by a change of leadership the whole thing will be turned upside down, and the changes that the new leadership had proposed as being essential, would be implemented. Not only the level of rhetoric, but the intensity of the way it is presented is not so much like a debate as a shouting match in the Public Bar of a pub on a Saturday night, with all the sincerity that it implies on Sunday morning.. I am convinced that I put the case in yesterday’s article cogently, that very little would be done.

If you look at the EU, European parliaments, the American system, not to mention South America, Africa, Russia, and Eastern European states, I think our system is no worse than any of them, and a lot are considerably more so. The ubiquitous man in the street speaking any language you like, is just as disillusioned as we are. Unfortunately he is also so busy with his own life, he has neither the time nor the inclination to fight for a change, with strikes, marches, taking the politicians apart, and to court. This would require funding, an overall National will, and yet more leaders, who also would have their own agenda. So, the current ones will go on wiping his eye, peering out at him through the windows of the gravy train, and that is about all he can expect in today’s political climate.

On May the second this year, on this blog, I predicted that the proposed changes in the Unionist party, inaugurated by David Cameron, would lead to the Unionists having minimal representation. It didn’t take a brain surgeon to work that out, but it is a fact that it has happened. I don’t blame the electorate, because the whole thing is being confused by spurious rhetoric, and hollow promises, when our so-called leaders in Stormont, can’t agree on anything substantial, and we’re drifting into a morass. I fail to understand how approximately two thirds of the electorate can be virtually disenfranchised, when once they were the main force in Northern Ireland. If this is allowed to persist without remedial measure so that the Unionists present a common front, we might soon be ruled from Dublin. Is that the ruse? More than one government has given the impression that Northern Ireland is a drain on Britain, when in actual fact because we are behind the times, I believe our standards are as high as any on the mainland.

There are still those Unionists who were part of the old government machine, and I urge them to sort their differences out, find a common path and let Unionism take the position it once did and represent the majority once again. There is no arguing that in the distant past, there were levels of injustice, but to a great extent these have been amended, and the electorate on both sides of the political divide have not the same outlook nor the intensity of outlook that brought us to the Troubles. The Nationalists understandably will go on working for a United Ireland, while at the same time it is hoped, they will ostracise terrorism in the name of a United Ireland. I do not wish to be a rabble-rouser, and I’m certainly not putting ideas into the minds of the UFF, as they are unlikely to read this blog, and anyway can draw conclusions as well as anyone. But if push comes to shove, and the Unionists are totally sidelined, we could be put back 40 years, and by past experience, for what?

There’s a hackneyed phrase from the Bible that says ‘Forgive them for they know not what they do.’ I think this applies in the current government crisis, where everybody is shrieking for change, not only in Westminster, but in the EU and Local Government, yet they have not got an idea of the cost in disruption, financially and in many other ways, even if they seem to have knowledge of what they really want. Across the world there are so many different types of government from dictatorships to our four-tier system, if you include the Queen, which indicates the variety of ways it can be viewed. I have worked for a consultancy, been a consultant, a contractor, been a civil servant in Local Government, the Northern Ireland Government, the Imperial Civil Service, been self employed and unemployed, and a serviceman. In all these experiences I have found that the detachment of central government is the most serious problem to the function of the country. One of the problems is that a proportion of those in control at the higher levels and in Parliament is more concerned with their own advancement than they are in the general welfare of the public, and so detached that there is little communication with the grass roots. So it is essential that if there are any changes these points should be taken into account. So let’s do so.

If you take the analogy of a ship, there is a captain in total control, and a series of departments interacting, but with their own responsibilities. This is a system that works from the time the ship leaves port, until it reaches its destination, and it has worked for thousands of years. Local government is rather like a ship, it is virtually autonomous if it is not subjected to government checks and balances at every turn. If things go wrong the local people are the only ones who suffer, not the whole country, and the remedy is in their own hands. Once Central Government imposes its influence, this introduces another time factor, another set of checks and balances that have already been dealt with, in other words, apart from the financial side, it is a total duplication. If the taxes are local, sensibly drawn up and applied, then central government has a smaller input on how the money is spent and from whence it comes. The government always has the right to take the council to task if it misbehaves, but it seems there is no one to take the government to task because it is so remote from the man in the street. This is not so with Local Government.

If we’re going to change things then let us go back to the good old days, when we knew our councillors, knew that of few of them were not too trustworthily, so we were alert, we were consulted and we consulted in our turn. I believe that this is the cheapest, most effective, and easiest way of changing our governing system, for the sake of the man in the street, not those who control him. If you have councils up and down the country, properly run, and fulfilling all the requirements of the local people, then the burden on central government is cut down to size, and a requirement that 600 plus MPs would no longer pertain, not to mention the burgeoning civil service, and the spin doctors. Government is there, like the captain of the ship who supervises, coordinates and deals with problems without the ship, and if the system is applied to government as a whole, it will be more efficient more easily vetted and more economical.

They are not all political, but unfortunately the greatest of them is a person in the government. I take strong exception to Lord Mandelson being part of the government. Firstly because he is unelected, secondly because he has had to resign on two occasions for the sort of thing the current fuss is about. Thirdly because now he has become once again a power to be reckoned with as he was previously, when he was a spin doctor. I am firmly convinced that he has had a strong influence over Gordon Brown, is a stronger character than Brown, and is now being talked about as the deputy leader in fact if not in name, that I translate as leader, and a reason why Brown feels confident that he can remain in office. To extend this objection I believe that so-called spin doctors should be prohibited from being a permanent part of a government machine. Advisers are another matter entirely, they are brought in for a specific job, especially as no one is omniscient. If however, a speechwriter also becomes a speech composer, which I believe is currently the case, when certain MPs speaking off-the-cuff are so poor, while their written speeches are of an exceedingly high standard, this should be curbed. If the country has voted the government in, then the government should govern, not be a tool for other people who influence them, possibly with their own agenda.
Do you object very strongly to finding yourself talking to somebody halfway across the world, with a very strong accent that can be difficult to understand, when all you want is a telephone number of a friend in the next street, or maybe help with the problem of a new gadget that you bought? This of course is part of a wider objection, the transference of a lot of our work and much of manufacture abroad. These again are cases where the government seems totally oblivious of the long-term effects of these cost-cutting exercises, which only advantage those doing the cost-cutting, not the country as a whole.

I am so often disappointed these days, when I have been persuaded to buy a boxed meal, or a meal in a tin, and when I start to eat it and discover it is absolutely objectionable. The fact that there are so many on the shelves, implies that a high proportion of those buying them are happy with them. I can’t believe that I am alone in finding both the quality and the tastes of these substitutes for an old-fashioned meal, to be substandard. Periodically pictures, as part of advertisements, show presumably highly educated dieticians designing and testing new meals. I just wonder whether my taste buds are singular, or whether those of the testers are more to do with profit than culinary excellence.

One last gripe. I have always found it ludicrous, that people can fly large quantities of produce halfway round the world for a price at point of delivery less than it costs to produce it in a field 3 miles away. People are making our lives ever more complicated because they want us to take pains in ensuring that we have recycling, we are careful with our electricity usage, we buy cars that have low carbon emission, and yet we can feed the atmosphere with waste gases from all this transportation. Perhaps this credit crunch will bring a bit of sanity back into our lives.

There were great changes made to our political system in the 70s that have been continued on a sort of broad-brush principle ever since. In particular it was the way in which things that were really serious and affected us most, were centralised. The reason I feel is that those in charge have not had the experience that the older generations, who have seen and recognized the pitfalls of these changes, have had. There has been a steady move away from careful, considered change, to the sort of changes that have now been perpetrated causing the credit crunch and political meltdown. These latter are clearly the result of those in charge having more interest in their own aggrandisement, than that required by their responsibilities. One glaring example was the removal of the matron from the hospitals, and turning hospitals into trusts, where those required to operate the system had less say than they had previously. I have been warbling on for three years in this vein, with no change at all, and others have been doing the same, It therefore seems that we need to have a mechanism, similar to a referendum, that addresses certain aspects of our lives, and that we, the average citizen, may contribute in a reasoned manner, rather than by extravagant rhetoric.

We have by the very nature of this discussion, a tool that can be used, providing that somebody, or some people, have the wish and the energy to run a series of referenda covering topics that the general public feel need attention. I refer to the Internet. I give you one basic example to make the point. Three years ago not only I, but the press as well, were constantly writing about the growth of debt being allowed to build, unmonitored, and unrestrained. Warnings were given and not heeded. If we had had, at that time a website devoted entirely to taking public opinion on a question and answer, tick the box, basis, I believe that we wouldn’t be where we are today because the majority of people, and in particular those over 60, a reasonable portion of the country, would have been totally averse to the overspend. If the Telegraph is prepared to do as much damage as it has to our political system, then perhaps it might offer some readdress by sponsoring such a tool. I firmly believe that this will be a winner, because people would feel at long last that their opinions were of value, and they were not just a cipher, a statistic on an electoral roll.

By the number of people who read on this blog the number of pages they do, I feel that what I say appeals, I know that others are also saying the same thing, but by the same token, it still seems that we are being ignored where it matters. This post therefore, will be ignored also

Lateral thinking concerning Parliamentary elections, prompted this, and the way government, local government and advertising’ promulgate their information, on the assumption that everybody is on the Internet. It creates a two-tier system where some are disadvantaged. We have all seen it. The cleansing department no longer posts its arrangements through the letterbox, but relies on you finding out when the collection is, from the Internet. The National Health Service and many other services seem to operate on this misguided basis that we all have access to the Internet. If people consider libraries, Internet cafes, and using other people’s computers, then the assumption is accurate, but life just isn’t like that.

The other day I phoned in the reading on my electricity meter, and was amazed that the whole business was carried on electronically as if I was talking to a young woman. There were no problems the whole thing went smoothly. This made me think that the tedious business of going up to a school to make my mark in an election seems archaic. The whole idea of course is that everything has to be secure, but when parts of the United Kingdom work on the principle of ‘vote early and vote often’, I feel we should harness the system used by the electricity board. As far as I know we all have a Social Security number. If we were to add to that the year of our birth as two digits, our initials and three more digits of our own choice, have it recorded on the electoral roll, I feel that this, accompanied by the typical questions that were asked by the electricity board, would be adequate to provide security. We could telephone on voting day, to a number provided for the particular candidate of our choice, dial that number, answer the questions, and our vote would be cast. The phone calls, to prevent gerrymandering, would be recorded. All the calls would be local, and if there was some problem with the telephone traffic in high-density areas, even with alternative numbers for the same candidate, people could be given periods of time in which to vote, because they would have access to a telephone be they at work, at home or even visiting, through the day, I believe it will be to the interests of the voter, make counting a lot easier, and would not require this army of volunteers throughout the day. One even greater advantage would be that the thorny problem of referenda, either selective, or general, would be easier and cheaper to apply.