Thursday 22 May 2014

The Political Wilderness

There are two crisis issues staring at us. First the obscenely absurd wealth ratio between the poorest and the richest standing at 1 to 300 and ever rising. Secondly an economy based on ever increasing consumerism but founded on a World now showing that it has very finite resources and capacity to regenerate those resources. The two issues are of course inter-related but necessarily linked. Both issues need to be tackled, urgently. That takes courage, vision and political muscle. Courage because any solution is going to generate upset as toys are taken away. Vision to see through the mires of preconceptions, adherence to comfortable past practice, to look beyond to how a good Society might be solidly founded. Political muscle simply because there are some big heavyweight opinions or organisations who have a vested interest to maintaining the status quo and can call on inter-global support.

We simply do not have a single political leader with the balls and charisma to sell a solution. I do not care particularly which solution, which view of outcome success. The issues are so big it may well be impossible to define one comprehensive approach. I personally doubt that a single strategy is possible, but nibbling away multi-directionally, but always consistently in the 'right' direction, is not only possible but essential if we are to ever stop this slumber walk into the abyss.

Instead all the Political Parties are pre-occupied with throwing sweeties to the voters. Hoping to come up with the 'best' colour wrapper and flavour combinations that will win voter support and give them their majority. Sweeties like 'immigration', 'EU', 'welfare', 'cost of living' in fact such an array of sweeties that are known to have mass appeal. In the absence of any vision of a just and equitable society it is no wonder the voters will hoover up the sweeties on offer, something, even a sweetie, is better than nothing.

With the Election hype escalating around us, all the Parties on offer are digging deep into their sweeties reserves hoping against hope they can differentiate themselves enough to win out. That their nuance's of colour and flavour will standout sufficient to get that crucial vote that puts them in power. The voters will no doubt be bewildered by the sameness Me To sweeties on offer. For me, there is only one possible vote, "None of the Above". I just hope enough of us can make that one sane choice so that the small voice of reason can be heard over the clamour of sweetie distribution. We all need to hear the voice that talks to these big issues facing us. Put sweeties behind you, time for the big boys to come out.

Wednesday 14 May 2014

When bullying is OK

We all agree it is clear cut, if you are told do what I say, do it now or else. If that else is a clear an unambiguous something far worse that is going make you endure emotional stress and or financial hard ship, you have unequivocally been subjected to bullying. Right? Wrong, not if it is carried out by the State. Now the State has to pursue ten of thousands of miscreants who are trying to evade the law of the land. It is only right and proper that they can stop these miscreant in their unlawful tracks swiftly and efficiently. We don't want to be wasting our time and resources on these repeat offenders. Swift efficient restitution and compliance with the law of the land is what we all want. Particularly if those miscreants are the unemployed. It has entered into our unquestioning social psyche, as our political leaders have told us often enough, all unemployed are shirkers, time waster only in it for easy money living off the State. It is therefore entirely reasonable that they should be subjected to coercion, real and implied threats and official harassment. Got to make them work irrespective. Entirely reasonable that they should be made to forego searching for a real job and be made, under duress, to commit to a job that offers nothing other than promises. Harassment from over-stretched officials, who have heard it all before so many, many times and in anycase have their own performance targets to meet else they too might receive an unfavourable report. Apply the department instructions to the letter, no deviation, no pause for thought, no scope for discretion, just the tick box, onto the next. Yours is not to reason why or to feel any compassion.

Not just the unemployed, naturally, anyone who has the misfortune to depend on the State can be a prime target for State bullying. These are the unwashed masses beneath contempt so it is perfectly alright. Brought up a family now living in a home too big for you, out on the streets or pay a rent increase way beyond your already stretched finances. Do not bleed broken here to us, the smug comfortable, about lack of alternate choice, having to move away from a work/family support network to a distant strange town or your pathetic special caring needs. Get over it. Greater needs must. The greater need is that untouchable Ministry, the Treasury, beyond any reason or argument. When they say 20% budget reduction. Jump to it, comply. When they say reduce welfare costs, cut, slash, importune what the hell it is only the unwashed masses that no one cares a fig about. When they say increase income, turf out lifelong sitting tenants so the now vacant property can be sold at a premium prices to ex-yuppies. Never mind that these same properties were bequeathed to the Nation for the Nation's custodianship of its cultural heritage. Nope, Treasury says raise money, compliance is the only acceptable response.

Just keep in mind that the Government's tactic for the past decade or more is it to defuse blame to some lower level quango's, pseudo government offices or other administrative functions whilst retaining the moral high ground of making decision for the good of the people. Look at us see what we have decided, then failing to make money available to properly implement that decision. Then they can look down at those diffused lower administrations, tut, and say what failure, how under resourced, making such bad judgements calls, a disgrace. It is called a Government WinWin. What ever results comes out of their short sighted policies, they are Teflon coated, nothing sticks on them!

Of course if manner by the Government conducts its affairs is right and proper for them, so it is also for those large conglomerates set up to provide us with essential services. They too have huge numbers of users all out to defraud them, they too need to use fast effective methods to maintain their income stream, irrespective of consequence. Good enough for the Government, good enough for them to. No doubt you will have received those peremptory notices warning you have breached some terms of supply, that requires immediate compliance  within some short timescale else some variant threat of bailiffs to seize goods, your life essentials, or of a court appearance where there will be a fine added to any amount owing together with their court costs estimated at some ridiculous eye watering number. It is just state endorsed bullying, no matter what way you look at it. The usual expectations of fairness and justice are unilaterally set aside by a superior organisation who consider that they are above such niceties. The simple niceties such as no prior presumption of guilt, of a right to offer a defence against an alleged offence and an impartial body, representing those twelve decent men on Clapham Bus, to adjudicate an outcome when disputed and on the appropriate retribution, cash or kind. That is our birth right.

Next time a political leader stands before you pontificating on the horrors of child bullying demand they ensure that all legislation they endorse enshrines the principle of fairness to all with no bullying no matter what age, creed, race or social status.



Thursday 1 May 2014

All the World is a lie

Should I be the cause of a car accident I am required to lie and not admit to being the cause of the accident otherwise my car insurance will be repudiated. I know I caused the accident but cannot say so. The injured party/ies may protest and may clearly elucidate the sequence of events but I am not allowed to agree with them. Obviously I understand that in all the pent up emotions at that moment of an accident my perspective on the events may be distorted. Clearly unscrupulous 'victims' may seek to take advantage of that vulnerability and push events to demonstrate their 'innocence' to their insurance companies advantage. So yes there are grey areas  and we need to be on guard against free admissions where there might be elements of doubt. But not to the point of requiring me to institutionally lie against the plain evidence. When the sequence of events, the facts of the case, are clear to all and witnesses, when does a no comment become a lie. It is a lie if you know the true cause but choose, or are required, not to admit it.

We see time after time, exemplary investigations into corporate failings of one ilk or another, be it meat not as described, irresponsible lending to clearly insolvent clients, to plain manufacturing defects or flawed materials or staff failing to provide the level of care required, and the institution at the centre, twist and turns, shifts focus, counter claims against another party, anything other than admit they failed to act in a timely fashion. In this litigious world we now live in any slight admission will be the staring pistol for a host of damage claims, real, exaggerated to the pure fanciful. All of which would have to be defended at considerable cost even should not guilty as charged be the final outcome. Any admission, no matter how slight, inflames the counter case, hinders the assembly of a not guilty argument. No wonder companies are loath to admit. The end result, the victims, those who suffered as a consequence of bad decision made by others, are left without restitution, with the stigma of blame left in their laps, unable to overcome the mountainous costs of initiating actions against well-heeled corporates. Corporates who can afford to weather the storm of claims, knowing few can succeed against them and that time with eventually erase any suspicion's, so long as they do not concede to any failings. Despite all the clear unambiguous contrary evidence. Dissemble, misdirect, be economical with the truth, even bare faced lie rather than agree to the truth. Company policy.

Our elected representatives, appointed to promote our well-being are now schooled in the craft of avoiding answering direct questions. Anything that might give rise to concerns, or might put in doubt past decisions, that may give an opponent a free scoring point, might upset an important voting or funding cadre, anything that does not have a positive upbeat outturn is to be side-stepped. Far better to answer your own question you are comfortable in answering than answer the actual question posed that might lead you into troubled waters. Of course the baying pack of hyena media is there snapping at your heels just waiting for that  gaff. Any gaff, ill at ease posture or unfortunate turn of phrase, waiting to maximise and ridicule to their waiting audience. Never admit to any mistake, no matter how small as it will be turned into defacto incompetence of government, leadership, policy flaw, loss of voter confidence, anything that may help mud stick. When you speak as an MP the credulity of your party is on the line, so keep to safe issues which will have a favourable reception. Never mind what you actually think, did or did not do. Keeping voters loyal is far more important than esoteric concerns such as honesty or truth.

Our past choices make the Society we now live in. Nothing is immutable, we can change what we have chosen, we can choose to go in different directions from now on. Language is so clear, yet so fickle. The words I speak, or write, will resonate differently to each one of you. You will each form your own unique interpretation of my words. The words are the same, but being unique individuals with our past we bring our own different levels in meaning, experience and judgements to the self same words. What each of us does have to do is seek to choose those words which are as close to the truth, the essence, of what you want to say as you can. The more serious the subject area the more rigorous we have to be. We cannot afford the dashed off but instantly regretted Text or EMail. The recipients reaction to a careless choice of phrase cannot be brushed aside with an oophs, the damage can be lasting, tainting the relationship well into the future. We owe it to each other to be as truthful as we possibly can with each other. I don't buy the white lie, (see also my It is not important) the truth will out, eventually, meanwhile you live in a sham, concealing, obscuring your true thoughts, (see also News Propaganda). No one will ever know? Do you believe that you too are so inept at reading people that you could be fooled?

We live in a matrix society, having to deal with a wide range of peoples from all sort of alien, to us, backgrounds. If you can no longer trust anyone to speak the truth, to be honest, just how are you going to negotiate your way in this Society? Truth is the core trust that binds our Society together. Trust in the truth is what empowers us to make contracts with all those strangers we daily encounter. The next time you witness a Politician, a Company Executive evading giving a direct answer or you are required to agree to lie, pause and ask yourself, "Is this the Society I want to live in?"  
Answer truthfully.