From Cradle to Grave

I have been brought up with the expectation that the State would look after my every needs from cradle to the grave. Clearly this is not possible. Just as a belief in Father Christmas, this is a wholly unrealistic fantasy expectation. Yet it is a wide spread, fervently held expectation, almost as a moral right of citizenship that this shall be delivered to me, if not everyone else. No politician, if they hope to survive,  dares to stir the foundations of this expectation. But for all that it is a fantasy, incapable of implementation.

The human condition is complex, diverse and we are only now getting glimmers of how it might work and come together. One persons needs are of such a different magnitude to another's. Those needs so real and pressing at the time are not immutable. Satiated, the need merely shifts and moves on to new arenas. The time, place and even the company can have a huge impact of the perceived desperation of the need. For some, having an need is a prerequisite to life, without a need to share, they are vulnerable, isolated, cut-off. Their need is their way of relating and claiming attention and reassurance from those around them. Little wonder then that the State has not the least chance of satisfying the needs of its citizens.

All needs are very real to those that live with there lack of resolution. It is rather like deciding on degrees of killing, which is the kinder or more humane method? You might think that providing a wheelchair to a non-ambulant person is a clearly demonstrably more real and justifiable need than reading a newspaper to an elderly person. It all depends on circumstance and expectations. If the non-ambulant person is really missing companionship, the wheelchair may not provide the answer. Hearing the newspaper read may be the last desperate cling onto reality in an otherwise slide into dementia. You tell me which is the real need. Meeting needs is not about cost, it is not about the practical ease of provision, it is not about the physical against the emotional, it is all about a person perception of their need and how it might be provided for. Whether it is a wealthy housewife unable to cope with dusting, a single mum trapped in unsuitable accommodation all across the spectrum to a severely disadvantaged person that needs help just to breath. How can the state cater for all its citizens needs? It simply cannot.

It is the citizen, with their supporting network they have drawn around themselves, that has to address and resolve their own needs, within the pool accessible to them of financial, practical or emotional assistance. Harsh but that is the reality. No magic wands to sweep you out of your circumstance out in to some fantasyland where problems have been banished. We have to live with what we have got and have to learn to overcome the disadvantages of being in that place we find ourselves. Unfair, inequitable but that is life, we do not get to choose were we are born. Which is not to say the State has to be uncompassionate, it has a duty of care to look after those that fall for whatever reason.

Those that fall due to no fault of their own, they are worthy of every possible support and assistance to get back on their feet. Just short of that support becoming a crutch is the catch. As humans we are always going to get it wrong, taken in by a sucker story, to refusing a genuine tale of woe because it appeared self-induced. Despite all the wrong calls, the majority will be desperate needs rightful for state intervention. For all those other self-inflicted needs the state eventually has to provided a final safety net. We cannot let our citizens slump into degradation and despair. There has to be a safety net. It is just that the safety net does not have to equate to  an equivalence of self-sufficient suburban life with own front door and fully equipped and furnished home. The horrors of the workhouse are real and current memories, no going back to that. Short of the workhouse, a place of safety not full of all creature comforts, but a supportive environment to provide shelter and reassurance, for the individual, or members of or up to the whole family,  during that struggle to get back onto ones feet. That is the states remit. That is the extent of the state meeting the needs of its citizens. Well short of support from cradle to grave.

BBC is on the Game

More and more of the BBC's 'light entertainment' output seems to be about indiscriminate product pushing. A media self-attractor appears, uses the format, whatever it is, to ruthlessly plug their book, CD, series, show, tour. The host for the format appears submissive and resigned to just being an escort from one plugger to the next plugger, waiting in the wings. Each plugger in turns taking every opportunity to thrust their product at the camera. At least the shopping channels are up front and open about it, they are just there to sell product. The BBC comes, or rather came, with loftier ideals. 

The BBC and its audience is in a deep relationship of free give and take, based on trust and goodwill. The BBC offers itself for free and the public accept that free offering  with the assumption it is untainted. Clearly a commercial programme maker is dependant on generating revenue and that need impinges on what and how it goes about making it programme offerings. Clear and understood by them and their audience. 

Its charter requires the BBC to appeal across the broad spectrum, inevitably its business is feeding the voracious appetite for 'celebrity' titbits and light entertainment new arrivals. They have to be in and on the media circus where the trade is "I make myself available to appear with you, in return I get to talk about my product". They, the BBC is inescapably in the selling game, of tease and seduction, a role that is as close as it gets to prostitution. Where the waters get muddled and muddied is the degree of how free and easy are you? Is the BBC there as a common-garden whore, harlot, hooker, strumpet or rather as some refined courtesan? 

The distinction that separates a slut from a courtesan is fine but hugely significant. The difference at the lowest point where anything goes as long as you want it and long as you pay for it, to the other highest discreet end, where an accommodation of desires is reached without overt commercialisation and all veiled in good manners and refined conduct.  Where prior selection, distinction or approval are the order of the day not the going rate.

One consequence of being on the game, at whatever level, is that it brings with it the attention of the pimps. Those that want control and influence on the money generated, the how's of the 'service's' provision and restricting who does or does not get access and to which aspect of the 'service'.  The courtesan, to retain self-respect and that right of prior approval and selection, has to negotiate a way past these leeches who seize every opportunity to coerce the abandonment of these lofty ideals.


In the beginning when everything was all corporately funded and sourced it was more like a marriage of mutual convenience. Then the BBC, no longer the sole provider, was seen along side and judged in comparison to the  'successful commercial' providers, brazenly displaying attractive wares each carrying clear price tags. To keep, up with the 'commercial successes', the BBC has whittled away its corporate distinction, in the process losing the sense of what set them apart. It has reached a point now when the question has to be asked, do they still set their own agenda or have they become a mere vessel open for exploitation by the commercial world?

It is no longer clear with any BBC programme whether it is freely sourced,  unbiased and presented purely from some artistic, cultural or educational endeavour. Or is it, as is now so often the case, linked or even tied to some other objective manipulated by others outside of the corporate BBC. We the viewers can no longer rely on the impartiality of the BBC. That trust has gone.  Every programme offering has to be assessed, is it given freely without qualification, is it a disguised free offer of inducement or is it just a blatant bribe? Lets be clear here. The BBC has opened itself up to commercial exploitation and joined the world of prostitution. It offerings can range from the benign, its own commissioned  programmes from independent producers, to buying an outsourced complete programme, to bidding in auction wars with rivals all the way through to accepting programmes just as vehicles to sell product. Where now is our courtesan?

Politics Without Parties

No apologises, this is going to be a long read. As it is central to all my political thoughts, stay with it, it might reward. I have previously set the challenge, Good Government, the Political No Vote, Centre Revolution, so how is it going to work? A democracy that is fully reflective of public opinion and is not carolled and strait-jacketed into a power base, survival at all costs organisation. As considered in my Consensus post, we need leaders, lots of them, all with slightly different take on issues. I am not even against political parties, per say, providing they are background support, not running and controlling what can or cannot be said and by whom. The over-arching objective is that the voters are offered individuals to choose between on their merits. In soliciting votes their views on the key questions of what makes a nation successful, are paramount. Not necessarily their own original views, just views that they understand and adopt as their own, with sincerity and not just for the voter appeal. Individuals who stand because they want to make a difference, not because of their wealth, connections or desire to win power or some popularity contest.
There is the first rub. Our media are fixated on failure or guilt that can be exposed in simple banner headlines. Subtlety, shades of opinion, complicated adjustments depending on degree are way out of their comprehension. It has to be either black or white. Either you are right, move on or you are wrong, in which case throw everything in, to prove how wrong. Not the vehicles to review a range of opinion or evaluate where a central position might lie, nor how extreme left or right any positions might actually fall. Not the place for measure considered debate, either right for that day, or wrong in which case lets seize on this error and display the weakness shown. Bully boy tactics dressed in grown-up speak.


The government of the day enjoys the luxury of a civil service, part of whose function are to present to the Cabernet minsters position papers. An elite cores review of any policy proposal, looking at all the consequence, knock-on events and implications for other policies. A whole gamut of allied and associated causes and effects that reverberate off the policy proposal. Likewise for any opposition counter policy proposals.
 
To escape the media blame game we need to get debate and objective critique of policy out into the open for all to see and consider. Not just government policy but any policy. Let us have the best informed and widest overseeing of all envisage consequences, benefits and penalties, so we can all reflect and judge the strengths or weakness of any policy put forward for the public dominion. Does not need a huge civil service army to effect. Nowadays we can exploit the on-line world. In a forum setting, ordinary citizens can lodge their reactions to any proposals, for and against. The forum moderator would be a small panel of 'civil servants' to hone the comments down to simple pro or con arguments. Voilà, a position paper is borne for all to see, to chip in, to tease, to test and reflect on all the varied responses. To arrive at their own opinion where the fair, pragmatic solution might lie. Ready to be persuaded to rise to another plane by their prospective candidate. Democracy might just work.


This then is the second rub. Money. To get ideas out into the public arena takes money. The more money, then the more effective, more attention seeking and more likely to wins the hearts of your target audience. Hearts, as you are only selling aspirations, not reasoned arguments. Money buys attention, buys respect and buys support. Money to buy media space. Money to buy slick attention seeking material and messages and money to buy audience research to iron out any misrepresentation's before launch. So a game only for a rich boy or organisation. 

Completely counter to the goal of any one being able offer themselves and their sincerity for election. First a commitment. No one stands unless they are so convinced of their need to serve that they are prepared to risk all. Secondly a cap, a very low maximum figure, topped up by the state if need be, to promote and draw attention to yourself and then a minimal salary if elected. Since the salary element came in for our MPs, the desire to serve has been supplanted by the greed for a cosy lifestyle. This salary has to be scaled back, so it is not a feather bed but an adequacy that all, irrespective of social background can afford to serve their country. Finally public online sites where candidates can be seen, their views and opinions offered and they can enter dialogue with their electorate.
 
The next and is it the final rub? There is no ready made political party to take up the electorates voting decision and to run a government.  Political parties are a lazy self-indulgent convenience useful to class based society. They no longer reflect our society. Our government should be a fluid alignment of the majority views, not cast in stone, a constant wheeling alliance of best interests, consensual views and trading off of benefits. That way we might just get a government that does actually reflect and respond to the society we actually live in. Not some ritualistic archaic left-over arrangements we currently toil under. A government in-touch and in-tune with its people, reactive and reflective of the constant changing moods, fears and aspirations.
 
No one suggested democracy was easy. No one claimed democracy gives you clear, decisive and consistent governance. We are after all herd creatures prone to take fright at the least alarm. It takes persons of stature and statesmanship to arise, be recognised, to lead and steady the herd, keeping them on track. That is democracy in action.

A Day of Shame

The Queen bestows the highest award in the land on the Duchess of Cornwall! A day of shame and humiliation for what was once a proud nation known for its high moral standing and lofty principles.Yet another example of how the monarchy is so out of touch with real life, as lived and experienced by ordinary people. A closet of pampered, spoilt mediocrity inbred with the delusions you always get want you want and have whatever you desire, regardless of cost or consequences.


The viper in the nest is of course the Prince, Heir Apparent, who chose to stand before the world declare his oath of marriage whilst all the while continuing with his other concealed life, with his long standing mistress. Know nothing of the mistress and have no wish to. In my book, the other woman that comes between a marriage, who wreaks a family unit and encourages a weak male to follow his lust and not his principles, is not a woman to admire or reward with high honour. This is not someone who got involved with another in a broken relationship. Oh, no. This is some one who was more than willing to stand by whilst a wife was declared to the world and then carry on regardless. To be rewarded for hanging onto her target, for not letting decency and good sense prevail, but opening herself to her suitor to ensure his continuing attention, is plain wrong. She should be sidelined by society, not shunned, but to be openly displayed that this is not how adults conduct themselves. Wallace, in contrast stood by her man but received no recognition throughout her life. What value judgements do our monarchy use to get it so consistently wrong. Other than of course that they are so wrapped up in their cosy inward looking bauble they have no comprehension about life outside it.

No doubt in the minds of the monarchy there are loads of extenuating reasons why this honour had to be given. None justify the insult now made public to all those other commoners that have been awarded an honour for truly significant  contributions to life, in so many heart rending ways. A public snub, a cock of the royal snoot to all those commoners. Your well earned and well deserved award has just been trashed. These awards and honours are not the playthings of the monarchy. They used to be regarded as the ultimate honour and should be the ultimate public recognition of services, beyond the call of duty, for services rendered. Not laying on your back giving pleasure to a man who should have had the sense and decency not to have been there but back home supporting his chosen wife.

Fine, let the Prince and Duchess forgo all privileges and retire to a private life then even I could wish them well. Until they accept their lack of moral judgement they are condemned. We are living through a period where the glues that binds society together are held in contempt. Fairness, tolerance, putting others first, being true to your word, not taking advantage of the weak and vulnerable, integrity, standing up for what you believe in, dare I say it, honour, all, they all sound so old fashioned and quaint, so unfamiliar in today's rush and grab world. Yet unless we can trust that person next to us we cannot function as a society. We are going to have to rediscover these old values. We need our leaders and public figures to stand proud and affirm by their lifestyles these essential but now old fashioned sounding qualities.