History but who's history

History is, by the nature of its communication a view point written from a biased position.

A number of books have recently been reviewed covering the origins of the First World War.
Being English I am used to an English slant on the telling of the events, but much more importantly, the reasons behind the action. English historians make great use of archival material which prop up the sympathetic influence already in the historians DNA, through his upbringing. It's not to say this is one sided propaganda but I often wish I could read the history from the German viewpoint, especially the opinion of the German people. 

Most of our history comes from the actions of the important players and their specific agendas and of course they initiate and control events but I think one of the mistakes we make is the way we are led to form collective opinions about "the enemy". 
The image of men fighting each other on the battlefield, killing each other and yet, each individually sharing a great deal of common ground, the German candlestick maker is a replica of his British counterpart. His life within his family and his community was similar, his hopes and needs were much the same and yet here on the battlefield they were trying to kill each other. They were driven by propaganda and a code of conduct that inculcated action without much thought. Discipline, to do what you are told without question was the ideal of the fighting man and the mechanism to obtain this brain washing was put in place by the State, no mater which side you were on.
I haven't read a German, a Russian or a French account of either of the World Wars and perhaps it would do us the world of good to receive, through our educational system a balanced picture of not only the different societies but how a different society views us.
Much of our history is jingoistic, calling on patriotism to bind us in a common effort but when, after the passage of time we are still swayed by propaganda then perhaps it is time to consider the fact that, in so many ways we are duped into believing things that are the brain child of a manipulative class who select for their own purpose what we should read and think !!!

Does charity begin at home

The European Union in Brussels are instructing member countries to include income from prostitution and illegal drugs into the national GDP figures.



Some of the countries in Europe, Holland comes to mind have legalised the call girl industry as well as sections of the drug trade and so can audit the income from these industries to swell the tax base. In our case we would have to estimate the income obtained, income on which, because it is illegal no tax is claimed and therefore we would be hit by a levy for which the exchequer has no receipts.

Be that as it may. The estimated extra income from drugs and prostitution will now swell the GDP on which is based, as a percentage of GDP, the amount we give away in the form of Aid to foreign countries.
It pushes the amount up, currently 2% of our GDP, by a billion pounds.from 12 billion to 13 billion
Under what might be called normal circumstances, if we were in 'surpass' then the altruistic giving which we know is not so much altruistic as an incentive paid to keep business channels open might be acceptable.
But when we have to borrow heavily, the interest on the borrowing is equivalent to our current defence expenditure, then the adage "charity begins at home"begins to rings true.
You would deem an individual irresponsible if, unable to pay their creditors they started giving what little they had away, but that is what we are doing.
It's argued that the aid oils the wheels of business but in any other guise this seed money would be illegal, much like a kick back is but some how one is wrong and one is more than right it is laudable and highly thought of, at least it is amongst the chattering class and of course the main beneficiaries, the business sector would be very sad to see the taxpayers money not aiding and abetting his opportunity to make a profit !
We already support his bottom line by topping up his miserable wage structure with benefits. The wage a man or women receives from many of these highly praised 'new jobs' (a million new jobs according to Cameron) is so low people that the families can't live on it, and we have to add to the wage with extra money paid out of taxes.
What a mad, mad world we live in.

Another massacre

Yet another horror as Muslim fighters entered a school and went from dormitory to dormitory demanding the students read verses out of the Koran. Those who couldn't were shot !!

How can we digest this abomination where, in the name of a religious movement death is meted out according to a ghoulish test. 

Every Muslim who lives in this country should be calling for reprisals and the extinguishing of these barbaric people who besmirch the name of the Muslim religion. Sadly I am still waiting to see or hear Muslim leaders decry the barbarity. I see no protests on the street or in the Muslim media, all I hear is a deathly silence.
A nation, and to all intents and purpose Muslims are a nation (a large body of people united by common descent, history and culture) have to decide who's side they are on in these matters.
The concept of brotherhood has to be set aside when the brother behaves in this way.
Our acceptance of shared nationality must have the precursor that, not only the rule of law which is in use in the host state has to be the one and only law of the land but our that values towards human life have to be the same otherwise there can be no Union and without Union there has to be a divorce, a split and the parties go their own way.
Avoiding this issue is criminal and we do so at our peril !!!
This issue has to be openly and repeatedly discussed it can't be ignored as too sensitive involving those shibboleths, minorities and religion which produces acute nervousness in the Westminster clique. We have to bring these issues out into the open since they are there, bubbling just below the surface, building a head of pressure which will eventually explode into violence.
Not talking manufactures misunderstanding, misunderstanding leads to further misunderstanding and this has to be avoided at all costs if the two societies can attempt to live in harmony. It is a sad fact that integration has not been successful, the cultural differences prevent it but the host state has to be sure of its predominant position since the differences are so fundamental and have little commonality.
The situation is not dangerous since the critical mass is still some way away but as the years role by there will come a time when with the population growth being so dissimilar, the catch up date is about 2050 and the concept of what this nation stands for must be considered.

A clarion call

You don't often see or hear one on the airwaves these days. Like the dinosaur they seem to have died out. I'm talking of a fully paid up member of the Communist party.

With the election about 4 weeks away we are being bombarded with politics and the wide swathe of political ideology that people carry around with them. To many Politics is a dirty word to others a life long interest. Their lives are tinged with political discourse and reasoning. Their understanding of their place in the society is bound by their understanding of the mechanisms that allow us to cohabit a space or a country. Politics is this mechanism and we prosper or fail according to how well the political system works.
To hear this chap speaking of the concept of what communism meant to him was a breath of fresh air after the shallow self centred immunity of capitalism, as practised by the centre right parties in this country. 


It has become so out of fashion to hear proper socialist values propagated in our country. The idea that we could have a society where the rewards of the endeavour in a country should be shared by "all" its citizens. 
The press and media have throttled the life out of the concept that we should all work according to our abilities and yet be willing to ensure that no one is disadvantaged by our success.
The cake is greedily gobbled up by those nearest to it and the rest can go hungry seems the only thing we educate our kids to do. "To get on" is a business of grasping what you can by fair means or foul and then to distance yourself from the losers as quick as possible. The concept of a homogeneous society is an anathema to the Thatcher babes who sincerely believe in only the strong should survive, a belief akin to fascism. 

Walking home from the shop

Walking back from the shop in the sunshine of a Spring day one is as always reminded of the intricacy of life and the society around. Exercise when you reach retirement, if you don't have an active hobby, is a constant reminder to accept that the fitness, which comes with youth has to be sought out when old. Walking to the shop instead of climbing in the car is not a natural reflex but once you are on your way the benefit is around you and you soon become absorbed in 'things'.

The dog chasing a ball, the birds hopping on the path in front of you. The sounds of the birds in the hedgerow are magical in their range and texture, the excited chatter of the school kids, the sound of sawing as the DIY guy repairs his fence. 

One of the pleasures is the civilised habits of the people in the small supermarket I often use. People are polite to each other and the staff are always helpful and supportive, it's as if we can get it right when the make-up and the critical mass of the people are just right. Good, considerate behaviour becomes the norm which it should be. With this balance we begin to see each other not as contestants but as fellows enjoying a daytime activity.
The sun has a lot to do with this upbeat mood and as I wander home with tonight's meal in hand I wouldn't swop you for all the tea in China.

The leaders debate.

We've had the "leaders debate" and it all went along in a civilised fashion. We didn't learn much except how the individual leaders performed, perhaps that's what it was all about and therefore had some value.

The polls, which I am always somewhat sceptical about seemed to place the labour leader marginally ahead as a whole but the minor parties did very well with the three women, Scottish SNP Nicola Sturgeon, the Welsh, Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru and the Greens Natalie Bennett, who all did very well in explaining their positions. As the established parties bashed the same old, same old back and forth, these female leaders were prepared to grasp other issues or at least challenge the establishment on its tired centrist viewpoint. 

Of course the "........ In the wood pile" was Nigel Farage who is something of a one trick pony and talks continually of pulling out of the EU. His approach is, on the one hand, the cost of membership (without mentioning the payback in terms of the market and the subsidies we receive especially for the poor areas in this country) and the genuine problem of immigration.
It's strange and very revealing that all the other party leaders went out of their way to demonise Farage when he tried to make the case for limiting immigration and pointing out, being in the EU deny . Immigration like race, sexuality, size, gender, and a growing list of subjects, is off piste. When he questioned the cost of 'health tourism' as we struggle to afford the NHS he risked drawing attention to the people who have AIDS and who come into the country to avail themselves of the expensive treatment. He was roundly criticised for daring to suggest that we shouldn't offer free treatment to these non domiciled people.
It's again, one of those 'no go' areas, a mind set of the Metropolitan Political Class having a turn of the vapours a political class which is firmly anchored in a time when we could afford to have a conscience and provide for all and sundry and haven't woken up yet to accepting our precarious financial position.
The Greens and Natalie Bennett were our old fashioned conscience worrying about global warming and wishing to see our economy open to all and sundry in terms of immigration. She had a social wish list without a costing and made one realise how far we have slipped economically since we simply can't afford many of her ideals.
Plaid Cymru's  Leanne Wood sang the cause of Wales and was very clear she had great poise as she delivered a pretty constant diatribe against the Welsh Labour Party which was a bit of a problem for Ed Miliband since she was arguing parochial politics whilst he was concentrating on the wider cause.
Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP came out as a feisty combatant who's platform was based on the need to reappraise the plight of the ordinary man in the street. In the UK, the thrust of the Conservatives has been based on cutting the benefit bill (with all the attendant social issues) ,in an attempt to bring down the financial deficit as they have presided over developing a low pay, low skilled workforce to ease the labour costs and maintain margins whilst massaging the unemployment figures. Sturgeon's social awareness is to my mind a breath of fresh air and one is drawn to the Scottish attitude, withdrawn as it is from the Westminster bubble and the predefined interests of the City of London.

But who,we shall see.

It is always a problem voting here in BS, its a Conservative stronghold and so my vote gets lost in their inevitable majority. In the past I voted Liberal and once, as a protest vote I voted for Arthur Scargills party The Socialist Labour Party founded by Scargills as an antidote to Tony Blairs New Labour (Mrs Thatchers brainchild).
The politics of Scargills have been continually demonised by the Press. His stand against the closures of the pits was seen as the act of a recalcitrant unionist who refused to accept the need for mine closures. The politics are long and tortuous but in the many things what Scargill said about, not only his own industry but industry in general in this country he has been proved right. Lack of investment and short term perspectives that have plagued this country for years were signalled by Scargill and ridiculed by the largely right wing press.
Thatchers use of the police to break the strikers was criminal. She used the police force like a private army to beat up the miners and the divisions which sprung up as local policemen were used as provocateurs which meant that down, within the families of these men, family members wouldn't speak to other members of the family for years.

Who will I vote for ?
Should it be for local issues or for national ones. Should it be for the candidate or for the policy.
Is it charisma or the nuts and bolts of ideology ?
The polls can't call it and it looks like a hung parliament with an amalgam of political views coming together to cobble an agreement to govern.
In some ways this thinning down of the political dogma is a good thing and, in so far as being representative of a larger batch of "the people" is more democratic.
When I enter the voting booth I will see who is on offer. I will smile as I place my cross and think of the collective power of the people to effect and deny all the rhetoric and the hot wind of people who think so highly of themselves, with a simple cross.
But who. We shall see !!!

Democracy the equitable sharing of power within a society is thought best to operate through a universal franchise, one person one vote.

Each individual has an opportunity to consider the electoral profile of each party by listening and reading each parties manifesto, choosing which they consider would best suit their particular circumstances. Voting for the local candidate who represents that party should, if there are enough similar minded people who also vote for that party, secure a voice in the next parliament.

But here is where it goes wrong. To produce a so called strong government a voting machine capable of making decisions and carrying a specific manifesto forward, a "first past the post" winner takes all system was created.

A new Government will now only represent a 'minority' view.

The combined parties who have lost, polled many more votes than the winner, (excluding  the people who for what ever reason decided not to vote) and represent the majority.
Clearly, the "majority" are now forced to witness policy enactment in Parliament to which they are opposed.

The system creates an enormous feeling of disfranchisement and the society lapses into political apathy.

I would like to suggest a radical solution, one which would draw on the strength of the many. Draw on views which at least would then be heard in parliamentary debate, with the possibility to influence decisions.

1. I propose that when the individual votes are counted, so many for each candidate and collectively, so many for each party, the pool of votes for a party, irrespective of regions and would indicate the strength of support for that parties manifesto and should be registered as a block vote.
The election would illustrate the numbers who had actually voted for a party across the country.
2. Out of the total votes cast, the percentage of the of people who voted for that particular party, irrespective of where in the country, would entitle that party to field so many Parliamentary Seats in Parliament.

3. The candidate chosen to sit for a particular Party, would be a matter for the Party, much as the make up of Government is decided not by the voter but by the Party after the election has been held.

First past the post has created the situation where only in a few marginal seats can individual voters hope to influence the outcome at an election.

True Representative Government with all shades of opinion and ideological make up, ready to debate and more importantly represent the views of all the electorate, is currently not on offer but would, if my proposal were to come into effect.

I suppose to ask the usual incumbents to even consider relinquishing power is the equivalent of whistling at the moon !!

But just imagine,the Vote in Parliament would be a proper reflection of the people Parliament it is supposed to represent. Parliaments function of designing and passing Acts which effect us all and which, at the moment, we feel excluded would be truly democratic and not the farce we see today.