The bloke next door.

There is a new dialogue in the halls of politics, a dialogue which is refreshing in that it talks about and tackles the issues that worry the ordinary people in this country.
It seems to me that all of a sudden the skeletons are coming out of the cupboard. Skeletons in the form of real socialistic principles which had been placed on a shelf as the Blairite's tinkered around the edges in questioning the Cameron government from their quasi conservative stance.
The issues on the table are the same but the way they are being discussed is new and refreshing and it's all due to a resilient backbencher, thrust into the limelight through what was deemed a clever move to show how democratic the Labour Party could be.
No trouble to the main leadership contestants, to their mind it was all a good idea to stimulate the parties social and economic coverage and would show how advanced the party had become to attract Middle England by acting as a contrast to "Old Labour"
Suddenly everything backfired and the appeal of Jeremy Corbyn simply swamped the other contestants. It wasn't the image thing which the experts maintained was vital, "a leader needs to be televisual or to have the image of an executive chairman". 


Corbyn, is as far from these images as could be. He plays down the city image for the 'bloke next door' and as with the bloke next door you have tendency to believe him since you identify with him. He is no used-car dealer. You listen to what he says and you do not hear the 'party line' being recited ad-nauseam as you did with the other contestants.
There is new spring in the political step and it's so refreshing. 
Whether it can last the 4 years to the next election is questionable but it might wake a few people up to consider the alternatives ?

Middle England

I mentioned in my last blog "Middle England". Who are this, part mythical, middle ground people who political parties need to court to get into power. Within them, during the Blair years was the swing voter that rare but important section of the electoral society who could be convinced to change their vote.
People are largely tribal. Be it the type of sport or the team they follow, be it the shops they use, be it the aspirational education they wish for their children and be it the political party they vote for. This tribalism means, like electrons orbiting the proton/neutron bond they are what they are from birth to death.
Every so often an attractive force comes along which exudes such a powerful force the orbits are effected and the chemistry changed. Tony Blair was one such a force and with his charisma and a positivity he wooed Middle England. To do this he had to project a message that, "we, 'New Labour' have a commonality with your Tory aspirations but we differ because we represent your conscience", which had begun to trouble many after the right wing rhetoric of Margaret Thatcher, in the war she waged, and the societal split she developed by her demand for entrepreneurial  success without which you were a failure.
Middle England is conservative with a small "c". It values tradition and continuity, it doesn't want to rock the boat and yet it is the first in line supporting a charity for someone overseas or an animal closer to home. The conscience of Middle England is qualitative in that it doesn't want  to risk its own fundamental life style but it does see the inadequate nature of society, between the rich and the poor to which is soundly believes it doesn't belong to either. In this position of the middle ground there can be a pull, however slight towards one or the other and it's this opportunity which people like Blair exploited.
Tony Blair became one of them, but what chance has Jeremy Corbyn, with his Marxist background and a life spent challenging the Establishment, what chance has he to dislodge some of those political electrons.
As our society becomes more and more polarised and the gap widens year on year between the rich and the poor there are sufficient numbers in Middle England who feel uncomfortable about what is happening. Their conscience is troubled and if this quiet man with his quiet logic who plausibly answers questions, not with bombast but with an appeal to fair play, perhaps a new dawn in our symbiosis with each other is possible.

Doing things differently.

The more  I listen to Jemmy Corbyn the more I like the cut of his jib.
He has a quiet reasoned response to questions from a hostile press. There are no glib throwaway phrases only what to my ear are the result of thinking about such questions for many years and having kept his feet on the ground amongst the people he represents he has some practical answers. His ambit used to be North Islington but it now attracts a much wider audience and the audience is growing.
Insulated by the sound bites of the last 20 years we have become conditioned to a debate which simply contests the phrases used by the other side, a sort of toing and froing which tired us all out as we sought answers to specific problems.
The Corbyn approach to date has been to answer questions not as an antidote to the other side but to start from first principles. It doesn't mean you will hear necessarily what you want to hear but it does mean that you begin to respect the man for holding his reasoned views. He broke the mould at the Labour Party conference by departing from the standard speechifying and held a two hour question and answer session with the floor of the conference. When have we last heard of that as we steadily become more and more Presidential and decisions were made in smoke filled rooms with out regard to the electorate. Even the press are astounded at his chutzpah and his self confidence.
Plato's philosophy believed in debate to reach decisions, the more you could reason with a person the more likely he would go away convinced. The power of convincing a person is far greater than the power of the diktat. The ownership of an idea becomes the theirs and there is a far greater chance that you will be successful if you carry people with you convinced your ideas are theirs.
Will the media let this work ?
The power of the 4th Estate with its daily feed of commentary and opinion makes people lazy to research their own political stamping ground. People are today told what to think and for the majority, the do what they are told. So if the newspapers and the media decide to destroy him, as seems likely he might be still born.
I was listening this morning to an economist deriding John McDonalds (the shadow chancellor) suggestion of using Quantitative Easing to fund projects which will modernise Britain and create jobs. The economist was astounded, how could we do such a risky thing.
In 2007 the banks were put back on their collective feet using Quantitative Easing. The theory was that the banks were the vehicle to pump prime the economy at large and start lending again to Industry and SBVs. The problem arose when the banks, who had singularly created the crash of confidence which brought the financial system down, simply refused to reallocate the QE funds and instead stuffed their own balance sheets with the money so they could start up the casino again.
McDonalds point is that any funds created must be earmarked for business projects designed to improve our competitiveness. If the media are hell bound to wheel out this 'negativity' expounded by the economist this morning, then there is no way to even start a debate as to why we should consider doing things differently .

Deliquesce

"Deliquesce" describes a melting away into various subdivisions without a central axis.
It's a lovely word,  a perfect word to describe the British as we continue to dissolve our heritage and absolve ourselves of what we used to stand for.
Redcar like so many towns in the North developed a line of business and staked its existence on a continuance of that trade. The woollen mills of Bradford, the cotton mills in many small towns in Lancashire, the car plants in the Midlands all subscribed to one major industry and when the economics changed and the product could be produced cheaper, thousands of miles away in Asia then the heart was ripped out of the town. They became ghost towns, a grim reminder, like the tumble weed desolation out west in the U.S., of man's transitory state.
The Buddhists have a term for it, "impermanence" which for them is the condition of us all throughout our lives.
"There's an ill wind that blows no good", and the contraction of the mighty Chinese economy which we in the West had used to pull us through the destruction of our financial stability by the Banking Industry seems to be coming to an end.
The clever people in the boardrooms of Gencorp and Anglo borrowed heavily to climb on board the Chinese express and now the train has slowed, they have been thrown off like a hobo riding the freight trains East !
The repercussions for so many industries and so many countries who depended on the Chinese miracle will be felt for many years. Australia is very dependent on its export of raw materials to China and one wonders how some of the towns that survive because of the mining there will survive. The gold rush is over for the time being and whilst there will be some stubborn critters who will continue to pan the mountain streams most will pack up, like in Redcar and talk of the "good old days".
Of course in a planned economy there are alternatives and governments come in to rescue or at least retrain the people and attract investment in other industry's  into the devastated area. "That's a sure route to wholesale penury"  I can hear some of you saying, "the Market knows best", but we didn't allow the Market to decide about the broken, insolvent banks 7 years ago, oh no !! There was too much Establishment money tied up there and so they simply took the money from you and me, without a by your leave and plastered the banking industry with "Quantitative Easing", printing Money to cover the debt, effectively devaluing your currency, making future generations poorer but what the hell they won't understand and with the media behind us we can wash the stench away anyway.
Redcar I'm afraid will not be the beneficiary of QE. They will hardly raise an eyebrow in Downing St.

Hypothicated tax

Given we are out of economic balance, we spend more than we earn and have to rely on investment and borrowing to balance our books, why has there been such a strong ambivalence towards raising taxes.
In the early post-war economies, taxation was a tool, not only to bring money into the Exchequer from taxing profits as well as earnings but was also used to dampen consumerism with the inherent balance of payment problems as we bought goods from overseas which we didn't produce ourselves.
The American Republican mantra of small government, and low taxes, where the individual provides wholly for themselves has been the dream of the Tory government since Margaret Thatcher. The concept of "welfare" and using the collective dynamic of society as a whole to support the less fortunate was more a European idea which had always favoured the social responsibility of society towards its citizens.
We as usual sit in large part on the fence of these two ideologies, the American and the European and,caught in the cross steam, we are neither fish nor fowl since, our sense of society was different depending which side of the class spectrum you came.
The Socialist Government in the UK, elected after the war, with the searing memory of the recent depression and the destruction of War, created the Welfare State which, was designed to pay out of general taxation and act compassionately towards people in trouble.
It was intended to cover both economic as well as health and accommodation issues within the nation and, as a humanitarian impulse, has never been bettered.
It's foundation was the contribution we "all" would make through deducting a proportion of our earnings, be they in the form of wages, salaries, investment income such as dividends and the profits from all forms of business enterprise. Taxation fairly applied would bear upon everyone. The concept of a fair society each pulling their weight, each paying according to their ability to pay was for a number of years accepted as the norm.
In the 1970s the politics of Ronald Reagan and the Milton Friedman school of economics was taken and swallowed hook, line and sinker up by Mrs Thatcher and her Chancellor.
The only problem was that the American society, in comparison was dynamic and prospering whilst ours was in decline. Jobs and opportunity in America, at least for some, meant that there was sufficient, well paid work for people to find employment and invest in the dream.
In the UK we were closing industry down at an alarming rate, refusing to modernise and invest we hoped our 'financial enterprise' which historically spread throughout the world would keep on providing the income. But the jobs which kept the ordinary man and women afloat, dried up, and the security blanket which the Attlee Government had put in place was stretched to breaking point.
Underlying the "Friedman economy" is the concept that profits and earnings, belong solely to those who are lucky enough to have work and there is no responsibility for society as a whole to contribute. Mrs Thatcher famously denied that there was such a thing as "society".
Taxation became a dirty word and successive governments have turned away from direct taxation towards indirect taxation such as VAT. The problem with VAT is that it hits, as a proportion of earnings, the poor who still have to pay the same VAT on their purchases as the well off and no account is taken of a persons ability to pay.
There are a number of areas where as a nation and a society we are falling behind when compared to equivalent societies.
For instance funding Health,Education and Housing which we deem vital in calling ourselves a civilised country is now inadequate. The funding can no longer be found in indirect taxation.
As a nation we don't have enough industry or sales to balance the books and as we become more individualistic and selfish, our attitude to others and to society at large begins to loose cohesion.
"Selective Direct Taxation" is in my mind the answer. A tax which is specific and designed to do a job of work. A hypothecated, ring fenced tax, to sort out the underfunding of the NHS for instance. People I am sure would be prepared to contribute a small amount that was transparent in its purpose. Even similarly hypothecated taxes to "build houses" for those who desperately need them and "educate" our children by obtaining a closer approximation to the funds used in Private Education, would benefit the Nation so long as the proceeds of the tax were specifically used to overcome a problem
But direct taxation has been cast as a monster. The media and the politicians have, since the late 70s, demonised the concept of direct taxation as a means for the State to provide the essentials. The gullible public were convinced and bought the idea and we are where we are with the "Front Bench" of the Government, a row of unaffected millionaires cutting more and more of the essentials. Just as we have seen the salaries of the top 2% sky-rocket, the percentage of the tax relative to the amount earned has fallen significantly.
Unencumbered by any relationship towards society these pillars in our society are in effect having a free ride.

Give them bread and circuses

 Do the leaders of our society need to take any notice of the concerns that our general public feel or is it always the case that the rulers 'always know better'.
There are many instances where the public's opinion is denied and an elite make the decisions.
In this country the death penalty is one example. For certain crimes the general public would like to see the death penalty reintroduced. The confusion over the penalties handed out for capital crimes seem to devalue the victim in favour of the criminal especially the crazy system of halving the sentence if the criminal causes no trouble whilst in prison. "Life sentences" which are handed down by the judge are actually not life sentences but relatively modest 10 to 20 years term which with parole is cut in half. It's hardly a deterrent and reflects our unwillingness to build more prisons to hold people for the full term of their sentence.
The public don't know what to make of the sentencing system since if you take someone else's life even on a premeditated crime the jail term is far less than if you steal from a bank. The deterrent to stealing from the "establishment" is far greater than if a young guy is stabbed or kicked to death in one of the less salubrious areas of our cities. The crime of upsetting the equilibrium between a master and his money is far more serious than a petty killing amongst the peasants.
This, if little else describes the gap between the "money" and the poor.

Give them Bread and Circuses was the Roman solution to inequality and we as a nation have always been keen to rush to the sound of the regimental band and the trotting sound of a Royal Carriage. Keen to doff our hats we applaud their passage, their divine right to patronage and a full belly. We know our place and accept that we are wrong to complain about conditions through "collective bargaining" since withholding our labour will not only frighten the horses but scare off the foreign investors, and that will never do since our own 'home grown' investor seeks his return from the much more speculative casino of 'shorting' and betting on the movement of a currency from one nano second to the next. 
No long term view for your British investor, no involvement in the countries infrastructure, leave that to the French,Germans,Americans and now the Chinese !!!
Parsimonious was the description and well it suits us. From the tales of Dickens to the present we have never been a nation looking after its own (other than the Attlee experiment). We care more for animals than we care for our brothers and sisters !!!  

The Underdog.

One of the endearing aspects of the British is their support for the underdog. Uruguay are playing Australia at rugby and the crowd are very vocally behind Uruguay. It was the same the other day when Japan played South Africa. The whole stadium (except the South Africans) were screaming for the Japanese as they attacked the South African line in the dying minutes of the game.

We seem to have it in our DNA to reason an argument for the oppressed the underdog and give willingly to charities supporting issues of deprivation across the globe. Closer to home we seem less sure of our humanity. We have become so brain washed about our own needy that we find excuses and turn away. The individualism that has been garnered by the political ferment over the last decade or two seems to have got in the way of our view of our own society and its needs. We are aghast at the concept of collectively caring and supporting our own underdog in his or her struggle throughout life, we have become imbibed with the idea that we should all be able to cope. 

In effect society today is a much easier place than it was 50 years ago when true poverty and doing without was common, particularly in the cities in the North and their future was correspondingly bleak. Education was in those days based on a three tier system. The Private School, the Grammar School and the Secondary Modern School made up the tiers and in some ways was less devisory than today, allowing the clever pupil an opportunity to obtain the better jobs via the Grammar School.
Demolishing the Grammar option effectively erected a Berlin Wall between those who would succeed and those who were given a glimpse of Valhala but cruelly denied the real thing.
University placement was supposed to be a way out but unless you had a degree in the Sciences Medicine or Engineering many of the so called qualifications were useless and graduates were reduced to working in jobs which bore no relevance to the training they had received.
The underdog in the current society is someone who has been, in part the person who was made a political promise and the promise found to be hollow. Also that section of society who sought a life on Welfare by making themselves "available" and relying on the goodwill of society to look after the child are the unquestionable down side in the mechanism of social caring. Falling pregnant is either an act of will or a situation that could in all but a limited set of situations be avoided but the unmarried mother is no longer a phenomena, rather the norm and everyone pays a price.
The underdog in today's age is relevant specifically to a poor educational outlook and the fundamental economic change which has seen the work that the "under-educated" used to do, move off-shore to so called emergent nations. The underdog is a victim of change and is no less worthy of our concern than any charity project depicting what goes on overseas.

Some pork on your fork

The statement below sent to me from overseas would be an anathema to many of our committed multi-culturalists. The dream of the multicultural fraternity is that we blend the peoples of this earth with each other to provide a stronger better educated hybrid. They do it with animals melding certain traits and anatomical variances to develop a new breed why not humans ?

Of course the controls necessary to add and subtract the things you like and don't like to contrive this hybrid are impossible to put into place and so the process is a gamble with the important assumption that everyone is reading from the same script.

The making of a nation is an arithmetic, collective view which grows slowly over time having gathered the "willing" opinions of the people settled within a nations boarders and who go ahead defining a legal framework to govern.

The concept that people who arrive here have, not only an agenda but a "right" to demand that the framework and the norms are changed to suit them, is enormously dangerous. 

It's not as if their ideas are particularly bad or in fact wrong  it's just that they run counter to the established ideas of the country to which they chose live. If the immigrant reaches a position and is on the verge of demanding that there must be changes within the country they have chosen to live to suit their own ideology, clearly this is wrong and (unless a country is defeated in war) it is ridiculous that it should be pressurised to change.

The deepening resentment and the fear that a "collective view" bolstered by religious dogma has enough clout to convince the Establishment or the Local Government for change is very divisive.

People on the whole are willing to absorb other things into their way of life but it has to be piecemeal not a diktat. The moment people are bullied into change the hackles come up and intransigence sets in. The society fragments and we are guilty of wilfully importing something which either was not understood properly or, for short term advantages we chose to ignore.

There are many countries who have very stringent rules regarding anyone who chooses to live in their county. There is no leeway, you obey their laws obviously, but these laws also extend into areas such as dress and social activities such as drink and who you cohabit with. 

In many ways these conservative societies hark back to a bygone era and people like me, who have reservations about the way we have "progressed" into such a "free" society, where there are few rules and anything goes, is hardly my cup of tea, perhaps a little more old fashioned cultural tradition would not go amiss. But I also note that many of the countries from where the people who would wish to change our society to something more akin to 'their' cultural and religious heritage, do not show much of an inclination to re-emigrate to the society in which their beliefs and cultural proclivities are catered for. 

Strange that eh !!!

GOOD FOR THIS MAYOR. A commercial promoting pork says: "PUT SOME PORK ON YOUR FORK" The MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CAFETERIA MENU and EXPLAINS WHY: Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb. The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why. "Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, and its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate. "Muslims must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec. "They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle not the Canadians who, so generously, welcomed them. "Muslims must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic. Canada accepted many immigrants before Muslims showed up (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants)." "Just like other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity or their culture. "And, if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole. "Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain." The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia. "For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Sharia. "If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere. We will not let you drag Canada down to the level of those 57 countries." "Ask yourself this question - just once: "Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?" "A canteen with pork on the menu is part of the answer." If you came to Canada with the idea that you will displace us with your prolific propagation and eventually take over the country, you should pack up and go back to the country you came from. We have no room here for you and your ideology. If you feel the same, forward it on. If not, hit the delete, and prepare to be displaced.

To think for ourselves

One of the issues that define the current society from what they were 30 years or more ago is the acceptance of built in redundancy, things that will need to be replaced in a relatively short period of time or as in the clothing industry, where things are not bought to last for reasons of changing fashion and therefore the price is the critical criteria not the quality for the clothing to last.
This relatively new market phenomena has led to clothing being manufactured in poor countries such as Bangladesh with outcomes such as the dreadful loss of life in one of their 'sweat shops' when the building collapsed even though the owners were warned of the danger.


The solution of course is in the hands of the purchaser if the working conditions are not of interest either of the government in which the terrible labour practices are condoned or of the companies outsourcing the manufacture. Only the purchaser can really effect the market. 
I have a range of shops and products that are on my "verboten" list and even if I am denying myself something I feel the ethics associated with doing business with these companies is a price I'm not willing to pay.
It is of course only a drop in the ocean and my statement is never heard or felt in the boardroom of the company I am boycotting but never the less I continue not to buy certain products.
Is this foolishness or does it mean that in the only way possible, by withholding my purchase I am identifying with a higher aspiration.
People these days, bombarded as they are with so much information and offers have become malleable to suggestion and seem influenced so much by "others". The footing on which we made our "own" decisions has been taken over by "group think". Our lives are at the disposal of the add man with his conduit into our homes and our lives through the television in the corner.
How many hours in a day are we bombarded with a 'buy signal'. It feeds into our subconscious to such an extent that we would have difficulty recognising the real from the artificial. Is it any wonder that a the moment of any important decision as we are bombarded with conflicting claims as to the truth our own common sense is waylaid by the influence of "others".
To see our way through this cloud of static, this distortion of fact and fiction, we have to blind side the media, at least that part which is so obviously trying to sell us a product. It doesn't mean we are not at risk of swallowing the propaganda which lies outside the section set aside to advertise a product and that we must always be on our guard against the news story which has been concocted by people with an other hidden story to tell. But if we are willing to seek out a number of sources and piece together our own approximation of the truth we will have fulfilled our special position in and amongst other sentient beings, that of using our minds for what they were designed for. "To think for ourselves".

The Volkswagen Scandal

Is this the Volkswagen scandal or the scandal of Capitalism, where to win regardless of the cost is seemed justified.
I have never owned a diesel car. They always seemed too noisy and I always thought that the methodology behind the Diesel engine must, by the nature of its design, produce harmful particulates in the atmosphere which would damage all of us breathing in those particulates.
It was not VW alone which set out to convince the motoring world and the world in general, that we had nothing to fear. The manufacturer had tamed the beast and made it clean, efficient and less noisy. They, the collective industry had a product to sell and the truth has never got in the way of a sale !!
What is striking is that so many people could be induced to lie.
The team of electronic experts who designed the "software" to alter the engine performance when undergoing a test, not an MOT test but a test being carried out by the "regulators" who's job it is to protect the health of general public.
The cars performance is now controlled electronically for so many of its functions and wouldn't have needed any hardware adaptation. We rely on the clever university trained software designer 'boffin' just as we relied on the mathematical wiz kid in the banks to design the "Derivatives" which would disguise debt so we would not have to be faced with the downside of a financial trade.  
There has been voiced recently a worry with "artificial intelligence" creeping in to define much of what previously we had some control over and over by applying a reasoned ethical consideration a control now hidden away in a piece of software.
These things don't happen in isolation and one must assume a whole raft of executive management must have had some inkling of how a potentially dirty process, combustion caused by the compression of the fuel by pressure alone, that this process had been wondrously cleaned up. The word around the boardroom table amongst men and women, seeped in automotive engineering know how must have asked the question, how ?
Well now we all know. Never mind the struggle to clean up our air on the planet, especially in the major cities, never mind the people who are increasingly suffering from respiratory problems due to the poor quality of the air, we have a car to sell !!
How many people at the top table must now be squirming and proclaiming their innocence.
The flaw in business has always been the greed attached to the competitive, market driven capitalistic model. There can only be winners, losers are cast out and have no value but it's this question of who values "value".
If the financial giants such as Goldman Sacs and the Libor rigging Banks are now joined by Volkswagen. If the major drugs companies who sit on drugs which could cure but are not brought to market for financial reasons. If the only consideration that is tabled for a vote at the Boardroom Meeting has doubtful ethical questions hanging around it but these are deemed worth ditching because the Finance Director has such a powerful voice. If this is the modern, nay always was, the face of Capitalism then we should ask ourselves is Capitalism all it is made up to be ?

Reflection

Writing a blog is a bit like writing a diary, not a personal diary but one intended to reflect ones impressions of what is occurring outside in the wider world.

Having read some of my older blogs, I started writing in 2012, I see that I have maintained something of a crusade for certain subjects but on the whole I have allowed myself to comment fairly freely on the human condition generally.
One of the psychological based tests I had to undertake when I worked for Anglo and which was repeated after 10 years by the same firm seemed to perplex them. The observation after the test was that I hadn't 'changed' my views much in the 10 intervening years and this seemed to evoke some surprise from the psychologist. My response was that if you were onto a good thing why change. Ones values were the thing which guided you throughout life and were not for sale.
Being a chameleon, changing ones colour to suit the particular landscape of the time seems to me to be one of the worst traits that a person can have. Values are the measure of the person and when I read some of these older entries I see I am following the same footfall.
Reading a letter I sent home to my Mom and Dad back in 1967, it could have been written today. I'm a little more polished and thank god I have the advantage of the 'spell check' but the structure is the same, the interests and the concerns were with me then as they are today.
We are raised and influenced by our parents and I was particularly lucky to have parents who loved and cared for me and fed me their own interpretation of what they valued in life.
The world hasn't really moved on and all the concerns today were the concerns then. These concerns are in reality based on our reading of society and our relationship to that society.
If we are rich then we often insulate ourselves from society at large and create a bubble of similar people who we feel share our specific concerns. A large section are concerned with their own insecurity, be it due to an insecure financial base or, through the prejudice, of being insular or tribal preferring to see others outside their specific affiliation, as the enemy.
Non of this is bad rather its predicable, since we are always vulnerable !!!

Here lies John

When we say we believe in God do we do so because we are actually looking for a crutch to absolve us from making decisions about life for ourselves. 

When we are faced with a dilemma and have to sort it out in our own mind as to what is good and bad, right or wrong do we not forgo our intellect and fall back on tradition and subvert everything to the religious concept of the 'protective wise father' for which we all crave.
Or rather does our humanity come from "a work in progress", each day each situation providing a fresh canvas for we humans to work from scratch.
Isn't it this which makes us unique, the free will to decide our own reaction to things and in the very act of deciding to find out more about ourselves and scope out a little more defining and developing, refining ever more our individual character.

The dilemma of living a 'religious life' is that you forgo the battle and hand over the 'decision making' to someone else and, in so doing loose the unique 'personal' side of your conflict by amalgamating yourself with mankind as a whole.

Of course there is the Collegiate aspect to religion and the comfort of belonging to a broad church. Finding common ground with so many others is comforting, knowing you are not alone.
It's this awful prospect that at death you are truly alone, with all your fine principles and carefully reasoned argument, you are going to disappear with all the rhetoric and fine phrases into nothing.
One of the unique things about human beings is that we have a mind which allows us to escape the mundane with flights of fancy about our own importance but it's an importance built on foundations in sand. Given time we will be forgotten, the sand will have covered our tracks and it will be as if we had never been here at all.
Sans wine, sans singer, sans end.

We in the image / of who

We are created within the image of our maker. Or at least I think that is the tone of the massage in the bible. Unfortunately we have become more the creation of what the media wishes us to be and that is especially true in the world of politics.
We believe what we are told. That's not a bad assumption since, from our parents we learn all kinds of qualities which we carry through our lives which in large part make us the person we become.
If the message from our parents was based on propaganda then an Orwellian 1984 scenario would be in place. The concern and love which our parents usually hold for us and which mediates their advice is missing when the Fourth Estate has a story to tell and a people to convince for purely political means.
Jeremy Corbyn has had a fair share of media coverage since his overwhelming election to Leader of the Labour Party. His views hark back to a period pre Mrs Thatcher and her push to sell the advantages of the Market Economy and Global Capitalism.
One of the terrifying things about being fed a drip drip story is that it becomes entrenched in your  psyche  to such an extent that it precludes a reasoned evaluation. 
British Rail were the organisation which ran the railways from top to bottom, not just the trains but the track the signalling systems as well as the stations. In those far off, dark, dingy days of rationing and the economic limits placed on so many of the things, the country having just emerged from a ruinous war we forget today what a perilous state we were in. 
My memories of British Rail were of the majestic steam engines and their grimy faced crew. The singular carriages with their solid doors which closed with such a reassuring bang. It was said that the attitude of the employees left something to be desired, a take it or leave it attitude. 
Investment in rolling stock and the upkeep of the track was always a priority and with a cash strapped Exchequer there is no doubt that it lacked the money.
Private enterprise and fresh investors were one alternative but it came at a cost. Any investment demands a reasonable return on the investment before spending on the project in hand. The nature of tendering for a the contract means you have to compete with others wishing to secure the contract which compels you to keep your price down. Therefore, limiting your tender price and ensuring that your investors get a good return leaves less in the kitty for the actual spend on the trains and track.
The mantra that Private Enterprise is better value for money could only be true if the management and the workers of these Enterprise's was immeasurably better and here lies the nub of the issue.
If "Public Enterprise", a different animal to the post war shell shocked organisation, learns how to incentivise and value its workforce, (similar to the Japanese car plant in Northumberland)  then there is no reason why a Publicly Managed and funded rail system should not be run for the benefit of the public who use the trains.  Making rail travel affordable by keeping ticket prices in line with the cost of living, taking traffic off the roads with the considerable savings entailed in road repair and adaptation to the growing usage and being answerable to Government.

History

Reading history is fascinating in so much as it not only tells us in some detail the events of a point in time but also of our attitude and the changes in the way we think today.
I'v been reading a description of the Gallipoli campaign, or fiasco depending on how you view it.
As always there is the political aspect to the set of decisions which focus on the battle and the way it was fought. Then there are the personalities, the Generals and the Admirals who compete for the political ear. People just like us with the same failings we have but immeasurably more power.
In the cast of many, low down hardly worth a mention are the men who are to do the actual battling and, inevitably, the dying !
The political issues which cover the interrelationship between nations and the support and in many cases, the wastage of ones own men and munitions for a county which in all other circumstances would not be classed as friendly, seems a sad if not criminal way of spending your own citizens life blood. 
The plans based on out of date maps and a blinding lack of realism, some sort of "boys own" wish to join up the dots of other campaigns and more particularly perhaps to find a way out of the stalemate and the impasse of the trench warfare on the Western Front, led to gambles with men's lives.
With the hindsight of time one can see this as a Churchillian blunder ably abetted by the generals and admirals who were no match for his bluster. Only Kitchener and perhaps Fisher could stand up to him and Kitchener was far too preoccupied by a million dead on the fields of Flanders to reason him out of his political, rather than military objective.
One is struck by the word "only" when the numbers of dead and ships lost are mentioned as the Fleet initially tried to force its way through the Narrows in the Dardanelles. The perceptible truth that human life meant little to these men of 'vision and great enterprise', or perhaps I should rephrase that and say, they were a price worth paying for the attainment of "a win". 
Today with the eyes of the world fixed each morning, through the news bulletin, on the distress of human beings right across the globe we see human life with a different perspective. 
Could we fight those titanic battles today with there cast of millions, bleeding to death for a few hundred yards of ground or would public opinion take it out of the hands of those who would !!

Mass immigration, good or bad.

How do we come to terms with or fears ?
Are our fears based on a reality which is true or one only perceived by our prejudice ?
The mass exodus of people from North Africa to Europe has created a dilemma. Do we follow our humanitarian instincts fed by the sight of the young children following in the wake of their parents. Children we understand the world over have no say in what their parents decide, they live outside the world of the adult in so far as political perspective is concerned.
For its this broad based 'political dimension' that is at the base of all our fears.
How will a large number of people with such a disparate cultural upbringing and religious observance be assimilated into our already pressured community.
The organisations that would welcome everyone would also be the first on the barricades if school places couldn't be found or hospital beds be made available, in other words they are people who have a humanitarian view that people should be accommodated, what ever the cost.
Another view is that assimilation is crucial and that to assimilate one has to have an under-standing that for people coming into a society must swear alliance to their new home and cast off the old.
The Americans insist in the swearing in ceremony that on becoming an American each new American agrees to relinquish their old citizen ship before taking on the new. It's a very specific and for some difficult moment in the ceremony but it provides an ideological break with the past as you begin to forge links with the new.
In this country there is no such moment and the incoming citizen brings with them all the baggage of the old. Some simple set up camp with their culture and religious needs and create a society within a society which attracts and grows as the numbers swell with newcomers.
We have never recognised this dilemma of separating and segmenting society, not in an official way which we pride ourself would be unethical but by allowing it to happen by natural selection.
People select what they know best. Many a small town in sunny Spain has been ruined by the imposition of the English culture and habits. If it's food, one can accept it.  If it's behaviour than that becomes a different concern since the 'locals' have their own set of beliefs and cultural norms which they cherish. If it is religion then a whole new dimension is opened up which, because of its deep rooted, faith based subservience has an allegiance outside any of the local constrains set within the moral and ethical compliance which govern others.
If there is a pecking order then a 'faith based hierarchy' will always seek control. It is implicit in Gods teaching that right and wrong are bound up in the aspect of belief and non belief. This division has been the cause of so many pogroms, so many massacres down through the ages that it is one of the reasons that secularists decry faith playing a part in the organisational structure of a country.
This being an anathema to a culturally strong religious sect of people, it seems to me dangerous to substantially alter the balance in any country since no amount of reasoned debate will persuade either side. Cohabitation will eventually lead to violence. Implacable opposites become enemies, enemies destroy the fabric of a society.
Look at Northern Ireland and the hatred between Catholic and Protestant. A hatred  which  is between peoples who, not only follow the same Christian thread of religious teaching but have grown up culturally in the same place for generation after generation.
The concept of Multiculturalism is a long cherished ideal and under certain circumstances, seen from afar it is presumed to work but it relays on the grace of people to make it work. Often the differences which are worked through and accepted on a day to day basis only re-emphasise the deep seated differences.
Viva la difference is certainly true in our acceptance of cultural diversity between nations but within a nation it has the power to fragment and eventually disintegrate the subtle glue of acceptance which hold a society together.

A King sized steak

Sitting in a Diner, "The Smoke Haus" in Wind St, Swansea I was on a mission. I had been told to try this place out, specifically the Ribs which for someone 9500 miles away seemed to be the bees knees.
"They" were salivating with every entreaty to visit this eating house and so today at lunchtime I did as bid!!
Ribs are off my personal menu, it's the teeth you see I'm not sure how they will stand up to it but the menu had other things. Burgers for Africa and a range of steaks that were impressive, at least in size.
Years ago, about 1962/3 I went to a steak house in Sea Point called Walters Grill. Run by two enormous Hollanders. Their Walters Special was a thing to behold never mind taste. Rhodesian beef and cowboy appetites were the Oder of the old South Africa. A bit like Texas everything was bigger and better and without doubt these Walters Specials were the best. I don't know the size in ounces but he served them on a wooden breadboard sized board with the steak covering every inch and about 3/4" thick. It was a tour de force to get through it but it was delicious, cooked to perfection on an open fire and tender as slow raised beef was in those days when time and market pressure hadn't become a factor.
I would have said it probably weighed in at 35 - 40 oz.
Today's menu said 24oz. Usually steak is served between 8oz to 12oz and so when I saw the 24oz tag I thought of Walters, happy days !!
It wasn't bad but it was well short of the Rhodesian cut, too many gristly bits.
Anyway as I drank my wine and slowly demolished the steak I had time to cast my eyes around at my fellow diners. Largely women, "large women" in fact,  in their late 20s early 30s who gather to feed and gossip with scarcely a worry. They didn't seem pressured for time and we're still there as I left.
Another table contained a woman who had what seemed like random butterfly's down from her shoulder. Below the elbow her arm was black with the ink of a solid tattoo it was as if she was wearing those arm warmers you sometimes see the African Marathon runners wearing on the cold mornings over here as they line up to demolish our local talent. She had a bearded husband who had little to say for himself and a loverly 2 year old child who was contentedly sitting in a pushchair. Not a tattoo on her yet but what chance has she when Mom fills in the spare spaces not yet covered on her own body and feels the urge to decorate further.
Well like a python I'm slowly digesting my meal, so don't disturb and I'll be back !!!

The passing of an age.

It's funny to think of the passing of "ages" and to have been at the declining end of one.
When I was young we were fed a diet of our history and the place we occupied in the world. The Empire was coming to a close and the Commonwealth was a poor image but still an image of our past endeavours in seeking conquest and trade.
Strange to think how this tiny island had played such a part in the development of so many countries across the world. Of so little landmass we controlled a good proportion of the globe and any schoolboy took it for granted when he saw so much of the Globe coloured in red depicting our sovereignty over the peoples who lived in these countries around the world. We grew up feeling we were the boss and the ships that left Southampton and the other ports around our shores were part of an umbilical cord which connected the mother with her responsibilities.

From the great ocean Liners to the small Merchant vessels which set off and tramped around the world from port to port, no set itinerary, only the directive sent by wireless to the ship from head office in Liverpool "proceed to Bombay for a cargo of tyres destination Buenos Aires"

The docks were a magical place for a youngster with imagination. These ships rising sheer out of the water, surging on the tide, their lines creaking under the strain as if saying we want to be off and soon. The gangplank had an immeasurable pull to our young imaginative minds as we watched the officials and the men sailing the ships come and go about their business. If you were lucky and the ship was about to sail there seemed a sort of feverish activity as last minute, arrangements were made and the crew arrived from the taxi to board their true home from another. Slowly the last office official came down the gangway and up it went emphasising  a separation, our world, from its world. The tugs would fuss around securing their positions as the lines were let go and the gap between the ships side slowly, almost imperceptibly grew. Slow ahead. She swung out into the middle of the harbour.
A blast from her fog horn thanking the assistance and saying goodby to the small clutch of people standing rather forlornly to wave farewell.
Out she went passed the breakwater and into their cars went the "land people" to contest the traffic and return home but now without someone who was in another world, taking a working shift patten which would be their lot until another destination was reached.

The great ships, the massive Passenger Liners were of a different dimension. They were a world within a world and we, who were lucky enough to use them to travel around were treated to an experience which is all but gone. Only the cruse ships remain but they are more floating hotel than ship. They are so large you are swallowed up in their enormity, with the sea and the sense of being afloat lost in the entertainment paradise that their designers think is what a consumer needs to get through the day.

The ships that used to ply the route to the Antipodes, the £10 passage, were in some ways  the equivalent of economy class air. But the cramped hell of a 25 hour air-plane flight was at the other end of the scale to the fun and frolics of a 5 week voyage. Given the equally cramped upbringing of the average Pom, escaping to a new life. Life on board was heaven. There has never been anything to compare, at least in my experience with the freedom found on those voyages and it's a tragedy that, other than a few cargo ships we are now all constrained to travelling in a metal tube !!

Sent from my iPad

The Last Night at the Proms

I'm sitting I one of those traditional English style establishments "the cafe" for breakfast.
The menus is pretty much the same format right across the country. Sausage, eggs beacon, toast with a mug of tea. Nothing fancy just basic 'nosh' for the English palette, served with a dollop of Ketchup and hot sweet tea, hardly paradise, but sufficiently satisfying to enjoy.
In London these cafes are filled early morning with the men from the building trade before going to site, later the pensioners and the welfare come in to while away their long day.
I am in Wales and this cafe seems the centre of a suburban social scene. Women and their babies, shrieking  their presence. The women shriek the loudest, the kids just throw their toys around, its  all about claiming attention !!! The husbands seem shell socked, mutated from their former selves they sit and watch incongruous, unsuited and ineffectual !!

Last night I went with Angi to the open air "Last Night at the Proms" concert in the botanical gardens in Swansea. We didn't know what to expect, whether it would amount to a classical evening or something else. Fortified with a bottle of wine and sandwiches plus fold up camping chairs we, (she) paid the £15 entrance fee and we made our way down towards the stage. 
The field was already filling up but we found a spot and made claim. This is an annual event and is run in collaboration with the Proms in the Albert Hall. 
Swansea has a site, Glasgow in Scotland, along with Belfast in Northern Ireland. The atmosphere is great with the indomitable Pom settling down in rudimentary surroundings, often under leaden sky's, sometimes with a rain shower, as it did with us, but indefatigable in their insistence of having a good time.
People come in pairs but often groups. They dress up with neon glow lights and then proceed to out glow the lights with more alcohol than is good for one. The booze and the piles of food laid out on camping tables means they are going to have a good time come what may. Just to our left and forward were a clutch of women determined to 'out shriek' each other and as darkness fell and the neons wavered about under the rapidly unsure footing of four double vodka's, it was party time !
I'm not sure if any of them had a need to explain to their husbands when they got home but hell, we're having a good time so who cares. We've all been there at some time and if you haven't, oh boy !!
For me there wasn't enough connection to the Albert Hall where the real aficionados were, plus the acoustics sounded so much better from the concert hall but never the less the local BBC Welsh National Orchestra were more or less up for it and anyway "the party was in full swing" !!!

Misrepresentation

It's interesting and predictable that the forces of the Establishment are already issuing statements full of innuendo and mis-truths about what Jeremy Corbyn  stands for and believes in.

The power of the 4th estate is immense. We are more likely to believe the second hand views of people brought before the TV cameras or writing their Column in the newspaper, than the person who holds the view.

The ferocity and the twisting and misrepresentation of what someone has said or their reasoned motives behind making a statement, are the force for rewriting virtually every proposition that an anti-establishment person holds. 

The size and gullibility of the readership and equally of people sitting in front of their TV screens, who's involvement is of a short-attention -span, and who's knowledge is cursory, when despairing statements are made, they swallow them without any further consideration.

Corbyn has said that the continuance of Trident is foolish.

The naysayers say that we need Trident for our defence.

Trident was born at a time of the "Cold War" where the nuclear deterrent was a numbers game and the threat of total annihilation was the only thing preventing World War Three. 

Today we don't have that threat and whilst some very dodgy nations already have, or are trying to obtain a nuclear option there is no overall specific threat. Trident was designed to oppose the Russian nuclear arsenal by providing a retaliatory option which could not be pinpointed by a preliminary strike. There are no threats from the new members to the nuclear club. They do not  have that type of sophistication and even if we were to give up our floating delivery platform we still have retaliatory 'land based' delivery systems that would remind an aggressor of the damage to his society if he were to launch an attack. Of course if a group like ISIS were to obtain nuclear weapons they might argue that in a holy war the death of their own is covered by Jahidi teaching.

We can't afford Trident that's the end of it !!!

The argument that Corbyn has 'supported' Hezbollah is rubbish. What he has done is to have a conversation with them in an attempt to find out and eliminate the bitterness that organisations like that have for us.

In a similar vein, he was talking to the IRA back in the days when no one from government was prepared to do so. Look at the progress dialogue eventually made in resolving the Irish problem and Corbyn was one of those who led the way.

According to the media this morning "he is for withdrawing from NATO". Actually his stance is that the American use of NATO (it is an American constructs) in its furtherance of destabilising and putting pressure on Russia by placing missile  sites in the Baltic countries which were once a part of the USSR and are a significant threat to the Russians.   Corbyn is against using NATO as a covert accessory to American policy. 

This is what he is against, and if the great British public were aware of the Washington agenda they too might be hesitant to follow as pliant ducks in a shooting gallery.

We have to be aware that the forces behind our political stance, in so many cases are the  huge armament contracts and the many millions invested.

He will be bombarded by the press and media on his belief in "Talk" as an antidote to war but we should support him and not be blinded by fear and lies !!!

Sent from my iPad

A man we can believe in

Sitting in my car overlooking the lighthouse off the Mumbles, Jeremy Corbyn has just been announced as winning the election to the leadership contest. 
His win reflects a turning point, at least in the publics eye, away from the Westminster bubble of politics. Away from the resent stereotype of a career politician , a way of making a living instead of emotionally connecting with the people they represent.  They lived within the debating chamber of Westminster,competing for a sound byte or a picture opportunity, and the public became more alienated by the political class.  Listening to the Corbyn who isn't  afraid to speak of a wholly new way of ordering our political priorities the hope is we the public will regain our pre-eminence.
Politics is more than picking winners or more appropretly picking manifesto pledges which will appeal to the floating voter. Politics is about projecting a form off governance which is fair and equitable, 
The Tory voters, for a whole range of reasons would dispute that society, the whole of society represents who we are and would rather airbrush whole sections of society out of their conscience. Sadly we are cast in an Anglo / American capitalistic, market led society which shows little or no compassion for the less-well-off or the economically disenfranchised. Who, through the poor education which we dish out to our young people  ( I think we are 23rd in the world league tables) leave them ill equipped to compete. 
If one of our national characteristics is to uphold the divisive private (public) education, an educational system in which huge fees differentiate how a person will succeed, where the wealth required to afford those fees limits the human pool from which the education is available to 3% of the total population, if this is our "birthright" then we are a very squewed society and have little to feel proud about.
Of course irrespective of Corbyns success we are still left with the same media who weave their stories and sell them as fact. They will continue to misrepresent what he has to say. The satirist will twist, for a laugh what he propounds and misrepresent the message coming back from the people who so fervently need his leadership. That is the nature of our 21st century politics but perhaps the cynicism of the talking shop which make up the Bloomsbury set these days will pause to wonder how their world became so alien to the rest of their countrymen ?

talking Heads.

"Talking Heads" is a series of monologs written by Alan Bennet. They are a deep profound set of very human stories spoken by a group of some of the best actresses of that generation. Patricia  Routledge , Penelope Wilton, Julie Walters, Maggie Smith Thora Heard and of course the writer Alan Bennet. Steam radio at its best, the pathos created by Bennet was that of an incisive craftsman who's eye for the human being and the often tragic story behind the charade was made more real for me because many of the characters were from the north, or at least his turn of phrase made them so.

Bennet is one of those quietly spoken giants of English theatre. Not for his thespian oratory but for his ability to write and craft a character everyone knows from their own experience and to weave a story which is so believable that one can find ones self crying through the sheer touching human  sadness of the story. 

His series of audio books are a treasure. 

The first written and performed by Patricia Routledge on the BBC in 1982, "A women of no importance" portrays the bereft nature of loosing the routine of a job, a job which in her mind gave her the status she so desperately needed.

"A chip in the sugar" tells of the middle aged, rather melancholy son Graham, (a mothers boy), who's mother takes a fancy to a man and his battle with the displacement in her affections. 

Read by Bennet himself its a sad but memorable portrayal of the frail fabric we sometimes build around us only to see it taken away by forces we do not understand.

Thora Hird in "A cream cracker under the settee" and "Waiting for the telegram" portrays the loneliness of a life unfulfilled. She brings tears to your eye as she describes the tug of her Victorian upbringing when she 'shy's away' from the moment of making love with the love of her life a soldier, he never to return from the battlefield, and she never again to experience falling in love.  A moments lost indulgence remains to haunt her into her old age.

From the 'curtain twitcher to the old lady who falls in her home and reflects that no one knows she is there or more importantly, cares !!! His work although written 30years ago is of our time and depicts the loneliness that can come from having many around but who are in such a hurry they are blind to see the need !!!

Sent from my iPad

How will win

The Labour Party is on the cusp of reinvigorating itself and re-identifying with that part of the electorate which the party, under Keir Hardie in 1906 was formed to represent.

Listening to the other people who were on the ballot sheet, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper, one felt the inertia, the same old, same old responses to the crisis which certain sections of society are experiencing, whilst the Tory party and its governance have been in power. There were no solutions forthcoming, no alternative policy only the tinkering around the edges which people who having no imagination are forced to respond.

For too long these people had been part of the New Labour project, a watered down alternative to full blown conservatism. 

Society is in a mess. Not the people who are secure in their salaried, 'golden handshake' protected jobs but society at large, or at least the bulk of those who live and work doing a "job". The term Job is different from being part of management with a progressive plan to advance within an organisation. Doing a job is fulfilling a specific role, be it in low ranking administrative management, as techno skilled people in public administration, electricians plumbers motor mechanics,  working as a clerk in an office, driving a bus or flipping hamburgers all these are jobs and have little or no longevity when seen from the Executives standpoint. 

They have been encouraged to have the same or similar materialistic dreams as the boys and girls at the top but without the financial cushion that their salaries package bring. 

Once upon a time, not too long ago, people in jobs recognised their vulnerability. They hadn't taken the bate of the marketing men and the facility of credit which the bankers were offering and recognised the importance of collective bargaining and union representation in dispute resolution. 

People in jobs are waking up. 

As landlords force up the cost of renting a roof under which to live, having missed the Sale that was on offer before the crash of 2007. The hours and employment structure and the assumption that employers had a responsibility towards its workforce, is a thing of the past and you are reminded that if you have a 'job' you better consider yourself fortunate irrespective of what the job entails.

Jeremy Corbyn is addressing those people with jobs ! His message is simple. 

1. Re-emphasise the needs of society as a whole, what makes it work, what are the basic needs of the population with 'jobs'.

2. Specific Banks to be in the hands of the nation, not in the hands of the speculators.

Investment in affordable housing and the services they require, would be the priority of a national bank.

3. Essential services such as transportation and the utilities should be in the hands of the nation.

We have to find a way to take back from the Market the direction of investment in these essential services and place it back within the national need.

People who need people are the luckiest people in the world

People are all around. Their worlds and their lives running at different speeds and often in different directions. That master of the character description, Charles Dickens penned portraits which live in our minds to this day. His art lay in making those characters seem alive and believable, they exhibited in an old fashioned way many of the human traits that we recognise in ourselves and others. The rich pickings from his observations produced the human pathos which became a political commentary of the life of that time and the capture of the complex interplay between people is what makes his writing the genius it is.
Looking around both left and right I have an abundance of material in the road in which I live and of course I mustn't forget my own life's parody which is full of trips and turns.
Next door to my right lives an old couple, I can use the term old because he is over 80. Having lived a full life which included a stint in the army overseas. He often tries to beguile me with stories of the lands he travelled on the Queens shilling, lands and people who were totally foreign to his life in the hamlet of Bishops Stortford but who made a lasting impression on his young soldiers mind. He was of course insulated by his uniform from the "native people" as well as insulated by the conformity of an upbringing who saw Johnny Foreigner as inferior. 
His wife a terrier of a different cloth who given a better chance in life would have made something of herself but has grown to know her place. She is in awe of certain things and finds great pleasure in visiting the large estates and stately houses to gawk at the better half. But beneath her longing recognition for the material display these these beautiful estates exude, is a fiery determination to be heard and understood in her own right. Her political views are mature.  She prides herself on being a thrifty and is typical of a house proud citizen who's only outward concession is to grow loverly, well ordered flower beds for the passerby to see and admire. 
In the bleak terraced house streets of the northern towns with no gardens, this flourish of human speciality was reflected in the time a women spent burnishing the front step to her house. 
The street is beginning to reflect the times we are living in. Not withstanding my own situation, the young lady next door has under her care two young kids from a failed marriage. The Nepalese woman directly across from me also has two young children but sadly her husband departed the family home, and next to her another young women has been left with three children to bring up. I think in her case although we deduced that her policeman husband was to blame she seems to have made a remarkable quick turnaround and now has a strapping young fella to carry her cases.
The lady next door is Dutch and she so resembles the stoic race of her youth. Attractive but always deep in thought her car pulls in and the disciplined routine of her circuiting the car to open the back doors to let the kids out is routine. There is little laughter only the performance of responsibility which is the lot of some one dumped with the kids. I know that there are many husbands who would give their eyes teeth to have the children and one of the disgraces of modern society is the withdrawal rights a woman has in allowing access of her ex to see the children. That said the pressure on a man or women to bring up children is enormous and never ending. Well,  never ending until "they" feel secure enough to announce they don't need your help any more and depart leaving you where you perhaps wished you were 20 years previously ! The life of an occupational mother or a father today is one of being a taxi, a restaurant, a laundry and a bank with little time for yourself. 
When there are two of you the load can be shared, not always 50,50 but shared in many ways. The biggest and most important thing is that you continue to run your adult lives in parallel to the needs of the children and don't subvert yourself,  as is the danger when you are on your own.