Meanwhile, across the Atlantic....

In this, probably my last post of 2011, I thought I'd comment on something that's been keeping me bemused over the past few months - the antics of the contenders lining up for the Republican nomination in the USA. It's not something that has had a lot of coverage in the UK media but, through the internet, it's been interesting tapping into a few US news sources. As an apparently weak and vacillating President Barack Obama struggles on, US governance and policy-making has recently been described as "less stable, less effective and less predictable than it once was". It is obviously in everyone's interests - and I do mean everyone's - that the man in the Whitehouse is of the highest calibre: how do the Republican hopefuls measure up?
It's only a few days before the Iowa caucuses (and I can't pretend to understand fully the caucus/primary system) but all I seem to read about is talk of who is up in the polls, who is down, who has made the latest gaffe and who is the most conservative candidate of them all. To a distant observer like me, they are all saying absolutely nothing of substance. None of them has articulated a vision for the future that seems to be in line with what I perceive most Americans want. Stripped of the rhetoric, the stark central choice they are offering boils down to regression versus progress. And the more regressive the policies, the louder their supporters cheer.
The contenders will keep up their farcical jousting until the presidential race begins in earnest next year. And with what result? The former US president Harry S Truman once remarked "Progress occurs when courageous, skilful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better". From where I sit, I can't see any of the Republican contenders matching this description: unfortunately it pains me to write that I'm not certain that Barack Obama does either. And I don't think we can look to the UK for exemplars: no doubt I'll be ranting about that in 2012. Now there's something for you to look forward to!

David Cameron and our Christian society

In a speech celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, David Cameron this week described Britain as 'a Christian country'. He claimed that Christian values could reverse British society's 'moral collapse', stated that he disagreed with the arguments of secularists, and argued that Britain is only welcoming of other religions because of its Christian heritage. Fine words and ones that have been pored over and commented upon by all and sundry. Far be it for me to resist the opportunity! I'm not going to go into whether or not we do have a Christian society (but, for what it's worth. I think we are good at coveting but not so good at turning the other cheek or loving our neighbours): I want to concentrate on how we should interprete Posh Dave's words.

Perhaps he didn't really mean it. After all, the boy's got form in this area. Remember what he said about the NHS? Perhaps he did not fancy getting into a fight with Rowan Williams and wanted to pacify the increasingly strident views of our more socially minded clergy (and why aren't there more of them making a noise?).

On the other hand, perhaps he did mean it. Perhaps he was implying that his government was an exemplar of Christian morals and values. I do find that a very interesting idea and I think I know the biblical passage from which he gains his inspiration. How about Mark 4:25? "For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath". This would explain his drive to advance the interests of the top 1% towards ever greater riches and dominance, at the expense of the truly needy - the old, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed.

What about the words of Matthew 6:24, Posh Dave?: "No man can serve two masters......Ye cannot serve God and mammon". Christian values, my ****! All I see is your support of mammon.

Who does Nick Clegg remind you of?

Something has been nagging me for a while - just who does Nick Clegg remind me of? Not just physically but also in his role as a hapless deputy? Last night, it came to me. Dan Quayle! If you are too young to remember Dan Quayle, look him up on Google. The more I think about it, the more the comparison seems valid. And it's going to get worse! How much more can the man take without his credibility being completely shredded?

Durban: We messed up

I've already mentioned my very low expectations of anything positive coming out of the recent Durban talks on Climate Change. By anything positive, I don't mean "we are positively going to have more talks and then maybe do something, possibly, sometime" but positive as in "we positively agree that we need to do something now and this is what it is". I'm ashamed that my generation (and it is my age group who are largely responsible for the present situation) appears to be content with leaving a terrible legacy to the generations to come. Along this theme, I'm going to take the liberty of quoting in its entirety an open letter written by Paul Downton and featured on the New Internationalist blog here . He writes:

I’m writing this on behalf of my generation, the generation that has shaped the modern world. With miraculous electronic devices, endless supplies of consumer gadgets and toys, international burger chains and the power of consumerism, we have created a world of plenty and endless progress. It’s a lie, of course; an illusion; and deep down, you know this.

You know that this has all been done with a fuel source that’s about to run out. You know that in creating a cornucopia for humans we have driven other species to extinction and trashed the climate.

You know about the insanity of the financial markets. You know that money is a fiction on which major decisions are made about the future of millions of people and that the real world is worth nothing in accounting systems which are used to manage the global economy. You know that globalization has poisoned and neutralized politics and that corporations run governments. Your generation has been brought up to believe in the power of personal choice – as long as it is confined to the market-place. You have almost unimaginable freedom to do anything you want, except have any real power in the world.

Mind you, we have left you with some cool stuff – you’ve got iPods and rock’n’roll, so you can listen to songs about love, freedom and sex while the world falls apart. Until the batteries run out. While you’ve been playing, we’ve been using the atmosphere as a rubbish bin, dumping the carbon left over after we burned the fuel to make your toys dance. We’ve now stolen the very air you breathe, polluting a future that most of my generation will never see. Sorry about that.

We didn’t mean to screw up quite so badly, not most of us anyway, but that doesn’t change the fact that we did. Big time.

What can you do about it? Nothing, if you listen to the corporate and government apologists. Plenty, if you listen to your own voice. Five years is all you’ve got, starting now. It’s just enough time to turn things around, but the changes needed are nothing short of revolutionary. Don’t believe any of the old rules. This ain’t no video game.

If I were you, I’d be getting angry. Very angry. Full-on, get-out-of-my-way angry. But don’t look to political leaders: they follow money and votes. Don’t expect leadership from major corporations, unless you want to be led over a precipice. And don’t follow sage advice from old folks – they got you into this mess in the first place.

The mess that you see coming out of climate talkfests is an eloquent expression of just what a bunch of no-hopers we really are. We have failed you.

Now it’s your turn.

Very nicely put and, yes, it is the time of the next generation but we (the oldies) must not absolve ourselves of continuing to fight to get things done.

The real life of Adam Bird

In complete contrast to the manufactured drama and manipulated emotions of The X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing and the rest of their tawdry 'reality TV' clones, I commend the following blog to you: IUGR Baby This is what real drama and real emotions are about. I defy you to read it and not be moved.

(Note added after original posting: Several people have asked me if I have a connection with the Bird family. Not a family connection but we have known Chris Bird since he was around 11 years old. He was, and still is, a good friend of our son).

What we seem to be thinking

Buried amongst the rest of the news is the latest report on British social attitudes. This is published every year by the National Centre for Social Research and so far there have been twenty eight of them. I won't pretend that I've read them all but I do dip into them whenever they are released. They make fascinating reading for anoraks like me and their availability is made so much easier, and immediate, now that they are free downloads. You can access the latest here What I find interesting about the data is that they reveal a marked shift to the right in public opinion. Here are just a few points.
Most of us, it reports, believe that the unemployed are deterred from looking for jobs by the too-generous benefits they get by remaining on the dole. Child poverty, apparently, is the fault of parental indolence and indifference. And global warming is a myth. The proportion of people willing to pay higher taxes to spend on health and education has fallen in nine years from 63% to 31%. And while most people agree that Britain needs more housing, 45% don't want any new houses built near them (and this percentage is higher – for example, 58% in outer London – in areas where the housing shortage is greatest).
While most of us believe that the gap between rich and poor is too wide, we don't want the government to try to do anything about it. In fact, the less the government does about anything the better. In particular, it shouldn't strive to make society fairer. We seem to be much more relaxed than we used to be about private health and education. Opposition to private health has fallen since the start of the millennium from 37% to 24%. The majority view appears to be that if the rich want to spend their money on these things, this is their business and nobody else's.
So how do we interpret these findings? Some commentators are citing them as being indicative of sturdy self-reliance, Others regard them as signs of increasing selfishness. Me? I accept the point about increasing selfishness (I could go on and rant about this being the inevitable consequence of capitalism - fear not, I won't!) but I also think that they are the natural feeling of individuals facing hard times and being placed in a position where they must temporarily forego altruism and take care of themselves.
Times are going to get harder and it's not unreasonable to assume that this shift in attitudes will continue. I'll confess that the prospect of increasing selfishness across the population fills me with dismay. It will provide fertile ground for the toxic policies of the Tories which will be to the disadvantage of the already disadvantaged. Whatever happened to 'compassionate conservatism'?

My thoughts on Jeremy Clarkson

The X Factor - revisited

In a previous blog (1st October), I gave my opinion of The X Factor in three words - mediocre, nauseating rubbish, By chance (or was it horrid fate?), I've just caught the last five minutes of tonight's episode. Have I changed my mind? Absolutely no chance but it has given me the inspiration to indulge in some splendidly hyperbolic purple prose!
I just can't regard this programme as entertainment. This is The Jeremy Kyle Show with a very bad backing track, And for Gary Barlow and his cronies to make out that they actually care as this pre-scripted, nonsense plays out is beyond contempt. The X Factor is nothing more than a textbook lesson in how to brainwash the masses through emotional glove puppetry. It is a tasteless, exploitative, intelligence-insulting marketing exercise, and to submit to it is to allow yourself to be intellectually raped.
Gosh, I feel better for that!

The Pope and I agree on something!

I have not been able to blog much over the past week - life has taken over! There are many topics that I could write about but today I thought I'd mention something unique - the Pope and I agree about something. Let me give some context.

It may have escaped your notice but the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place in Durban at the moment (it runs from 28th November to 9th December). The theme for the conference is "Working Together - Saving Tomorrow Today". Pretty impressive, eh?

The devil is in the detail and here's what lies under the grand theme: A primary focus of the conference is to secure a global climate agreement as the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period (2008–2012) is about to end. It is also expected to focus on "finalising at least some of the Cancun Agreements", reached at the 2010 Conference, such as "co-operation on clean technology", as well as "forest protection, adaptation to climate impacts, and finance - the promised transfer of funds from rich countries to poor in order to help them protect forests, adapt to climate impacts, and "green" their economies.

Not quite so impressive, eh? "Finalising at least some of the Cancun Agreements"! How ambitious our politicians are. Well, we all know how successful the agreements made at Kyoto and Cancun have been and this lamentable performance suggests that we should not expect anything too revolutionary (or meaningful) to come out of the meeting. But I always travel with optimism and, going right back to my opening paragraph, I agree with Pope Benedict's message for the delegates attending the conference: "I hope that all members of the international community agree on a responsible and credible response to this worrisome and complex phenomenon, taking into account the needs of the poorest and future generations."

If any delegates are readers of this blog, how can you possibly ignore Benny and I?

Where do you want to live? UK or Somalia?

The right wing narrative in the UK at the moment seems to be:
Little government intervention = good
Taxes = evil
No taxes = good
I've been musing on these points recently and came across a posting in a blog I follow from George Clifford,an Episcopalian minister in the USA. If you are interested in issues of ethics and morality, I commend his blog to you. George's posting struck a chord and I've taken the liberty of developing his theme from a UK perspective.

George starts by relating a story:
Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform (an anti-tax lobby), asked a millionaire visiting the U.S. Capitol, “Who can best spend your money, the government or you?” The millionaire was part of a group of high-earners visiting members of Congress to lobby for higher taxes on high earners. The quick thinking millionaire remarked that if Norquist wanted to avoid paying taxes, he should exchange his citizenship for Somalia citizenship and move there since Somalia has no income tax.
George then asks the question:
Where do you want to live, Somalia or the United States?
Let's cross the Atlantic and rephrase the question:
Where do you want to live, Somalia or the UK?

For me, there is absolutely no choice. I want to live right here in the UK (even with Cameron and Clegg in charge). I enjoy the benefits of living in a society in which the rule of law prevails, rights and freedoms are respected and most social services are provided (at least for the present but beware the future!). I am of sound mind but I am both happy and grateful to pay my taxes. Most of what the government provides, I could not provide on my own. And it's an ideological nonsense to believe that the private sector can always provide the same things cheaper and better. It can't and it doesn't. Running social services as profit centres and regarding those who use the services as costs to be minimised does not work. Witness the appalling report today on standards of care of the elderly. Witness the way the railway system has performed since it was privatised.

Does the government need to take better control of its finances? Of course it does. But it should not do this at the expense of those who have no alternative other than to pay. If only they used as much energy and noise pursuing tax evaders and closing tax loopholes as they do in tackling benefit fraud.

Your starter for 10

It's quiz time! Tonight a group of us are putting our brains together and entering a team in a quiz being organised by the PTA of our local Primary School. Tempted as much by the food on offer (Malaysian curries) as the desire to show how smart we are, it should be a good night.

It was while thinking about this quiz that I read a report of something that Nick Clegg said recently. Something about the fact that the Lib Dems are the “only true alternative” to the Conservatives. Alternative, Nick? Really, Nick?

So I thought I'd devise a little quiz for all my readers. First, read through the following and then answer the question:

Cuts to local government funds, abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, Health and Social Care bill for England, selling off the public forests in England, reactionary changes to social housing tenancies and rents, abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance in England, raising of university tuition fees, axing the planned extension to free school meals, cuts to housing benefits, ending the Building Schools for the Future program for England, increasing VAT, abolition of the Future Jobs Fund, privatisation of the NHS..................

Right, now say whether you think these national measures are:
(a) The works of Satan or the archangel Gabriel.
(b) The works of only the Conservatives, done while the Libdems were out of the room making the coffee and sandwiches.
(c) The works of the Tory Libdem coalition.

Alternative, Nick? Really, Nick? I wonder if we'll be asked tonight who you remind us of?