Empire

The great experiment. Give over your country to a vast multi-cultural experiment.
Listening to a debate on the legacy of Empire one is immediately struck by the diversity of the people. If one were to equate them by ethnicity they were united in damming the pomposity of the host nation and its claim to have offered much to the nations conquered.
Sitting at home as a 'Pom', listening to how bad we have been, particularly when judged by today's standards of PC, one finds it hard not to ask the question "why do you stay amongst us". Of course the reply is that "this is my country as much as it is yours" and we have to understand that with this piece of paper entitling nationality, even a Martian would get the vote.
Audiences are assembled, contrived even, with the aim to pass a message to us, the dumb viewer and the issue of race and ethnicity is a minefield these days and with such a rainbow nation and we hold opinion at our peril.
The Empire was a trade mission on a grand scale. Conquering nations to exploit them for raw materials, setting up the infrastructure to efficiently ensure the business was carried out, modernisation of roads and particularly railways, the erection of ports and storage buildings and above all, the encampment of a class of people to rule, the civil service, and the military to lend a hand when necessary.
The immersion of, shall we call them, British standards, meant that 'centuries old' customs like the burning of wives when the patriarch died, eventually became a no no, as did some of the more extreme practices in countries where patriarchal power was cruel and obsessive. The slave trade was stopped and the Caste System modified.
Listening to the well fed multicultural audience decrying the rigid largely patriarchal structure of the Victorian era, (led of course by a woman), one saw the frustration and deep resentment of history, their history, their resentment bubbling to the surface, something they carry around with them each day as they walk the streets of London or Manchester, bemoaning their past but not willing to return and lend a hand at restoration.
There were no aboriginal's, no maori's, no relatives of the convict colony only people of colour who for what ever reason saw themselves particularly disadvantaged by their past, incensed by the history of oppression and distortion which the rule of Empire had brought.
Even today 50/60 years on, with the nations in Africa, The Caribbean and even India, still languishing in so many ways, it seems easier to blame Empire and specifically the English for the demise "in the land of their fathers".

We ignore them at our peril

In a democracy probably the most important moment is when the votes are counted and the picture begins to emerge of who is to form a government or take control of a council.

Watching the results of the council elections across the country one is struck by the dichotomy which runs through society. On the one hand the busy, involved people who do the legwork for the constituency member. On polling night they are there throughout the night supporting the results as they are revealed, applauding their man or woman as the numbers are announced. They have worked tirelessly through the previous weeks knocking on doors in good or bad weather, taking the rough with the smooth as people react to being called away from their TV to be asked their intention on a matter which the bulk of them couldn't care less. The couldn't care less brigade are especially prominent when the election is not for the government of the country but simply to put bums on the council benches where they presume the excitement is limited to refuse collection and not a wholesale political tilt of a General Election, as the ideological plates shift. The problem is that central government are relinquishing more and more powers to devolved government and increasingly also to Big Business where the 'quangos' now run huge swathes of what used to be the remit of central government.
People are becoming increasingly frustrated with politics as they see around them slippage of standards, closure of facilities, and a ever widening gap between those people, the very small minority, who are successful and the also rans.
The concept of an egalitarian  society has been dashed away as national identity has been consumed by the global culture where decisions are made in far off boardrooms, in far off countries who care little for the conditions down on the street. Brave New World where hand me downs and food banks provide the cement to keep people above water whilst the social structures which were painstakingly built up after 1945 languish due to a lack of commitment and funding. The concept of taxation, to equitably recycle the wealth and fund basic provisions for the people of a country, such as retirement homes paid out of the public purse rather than rely on the exploitation of the private sector is just one element but a crucial element as the country demographic changes. I see today that mortgages are being extended to 80 year olds !
We were on the right track and whilst I blame Margaret Thatcher for the ideological shift I blame even more our Masters of Industry in not responding to the changing industrial scene specifically in their unwillingness to invest and modernise. Short termism, cashing in the dividends and splashing out on flashy symbols of a shallow self aggrandisement.
We are where we are but I believe that specifying or ring fencing by 'statute' and not relying on a politicians manifesto to fund certain parts of the "social imperative" such as schools, healthcare, and caring for the old and infiremed each are priorities in any civilised society and we ignore them at our peril !!!

Why

This process of exploding into life through the genetic sequencing of cells from an embryo into a baby and then through the various stages of life through to death wiping the slate clean of that specific existence is hard to take. It's the source of all religious belief in that religion places us outside the human state into a coexistence with God. God and his family, which includes us has a purpose which in the cold light of day the description of our biological travel doesn't.
As we develop a sense of who we are the biological us is supplanted by the mental image of us  which is continually developing as we grow and develop through our external experiences. The who we are crosses from the human, to the mental assumptions we make of ourselves and there's no end to the complexity in that process.
Therefore the question of who we are has twin paths one which grows and becomes more complex as we grow older and we spend more time with ourself and the other path the biological path which sadly is a slow trail of disintegration from about our late teens early twenties and we begin to loose more cells than we replenish, in purely biological terms we start to die.
Growth on the one hand disintegration on the other what a bummer. Who wrote that script ?
Coming to terms with the truth and setting aside the wonderland of an afterlife, in which we keep our identity is difficult. They say you live on in your children and the memories your loved ones have of you but its pretty short change in the contentment stakes for this confident, all learning developmental creation we carry around in our own mind as to who we are, not to have some sort of immortality prize.
There is a notion that this, out of body concoction that we make of ourselves is not really out of body, it's foundation lies in the chemistry of the mind which is rooted in the brain, a very physical organ which dies along with the rest of us.
The spiritualists would have us believe we reach out to a collective spirit world which remains interconnected but separate but it all smacks of a religious phenomenon which is a surrogate to life 'in our fear of death'.
Maybe it is just so improbable, this story of our life and its importance to us. Maybe evolution got it wrong in developing our minds to think latterly about the consequences of this and that which led to a moral code and the search for answers. The story of Genesis, of right and wrong, of free will is a human concoction, man's attempt to define himself and distance himself from the other animals but in its trail of knowledge it tipped the balance in asking the one question that can never be answered. Why ?

The Hounds didn't catch the Fox

How we love an underdog, the Foxes have triumphed. It took a late equaliser from Chelsea to draw with Tottenham the only club challenging Leicester to seal their their victory of winning the Premier League. Leicester City, previously the Leicester Fosse's ( fosse,meaning moat or ditch) had beaten the odds, 5000 to 1 (I wonder how many of their fans risked a quid on that) and from near relegation this unknown club has won possibly the hardest league in the world. It's not like winning a cup game where luck can play a part or the opposition have an off day, no this effort of theirs has spread itself over the whole season right from the beginning, right from the 'get go', each game, slowly emerging from the pack, slowly being discussed slowly being mooted "what if".
The main teams, the Manchester clubs and the London Clubs with their millionaire players and huge resources,  the new signings having thrown huge amounts of money at finding success were defeated by a club who's wage bill was a fraction of theirs.  

Although this has  been somewhat busted with the 5 million pounds paid to Claudio Ranieri their charismatic manager on completion of his success but I think he is worth every penny.  Perhaps the trend of paying on results would make the players more aware that the vast sums the player draws each week can only be substantiated by his performance. Greatly reduced wages with a large bonus at the end would concentrate their minds on the effort required each week.

As if to emphasise the good news, that a club can come from nowhere, the manager displays the rank opposite from what we see each week from the big clubs where the managers display egos and bad grace to resemble the size of their salary package. No scowling  Marino, no blank faced, self denial of Louis van Gaal only the chirpy, happy face of a seemingly thoroughly nice man who supported his players from the beginning and gave them the self belief to succeed.

Learning to tie your shoe lace

The child is 15. He can't tell the time or do his shoelaces up, he is to all sense and purpose, illiterate.
What chance does he have in this modern competitive world of being able to make a living or raise a family, other than rely on help to get by. He doesn't have mental issues other than he was not encouraged at a certain age to learn the basics, instead his mother seems to have found it hard to insist on any sort of  performance level which we would all take for granted and work hard for our children to attain.
Tomorrow a number of parents are withholding their children from school in protest about their kids being made to sit tests at 6 years old.
Now I know that in some European countries the age when children start school is much later than what we demand over here and there is some evidence that these children catch up pretty quickly to the standard of the early starters. Perhaps it reflects the conditions which the children are exposed to in the hum drum pressurise society in the UK. Some societies such as ours are a pressure cooker where parents, especially mothers have to place  rearing their child on the back burner in favour of earning money to put food on the table.
Our society and our government insists on every able bodied person being in work and the role of bringing up a child is relegated to second place. The intricate job of raising a child properly is viewed as second rate and we see the result when, in this case the mother assumed it was someone else's job to follow the progress of her child. We all can be blamed for taking our eye off the ball and assuming the school will do what is required but in the modern ideological set up  where teaching basics by rote is out and a tender, communicative, child centred  supportive teaching formula  is practised  (in the Private sector rigorous testing is the norm) without bench marks to judge a child's performance many children fall through the cracks. The problem then is, in this world of "all are winners", the business of making excuses and avoiding any sort of conflict with the child takes over but we are left with the unpalatable fact that a child is on the scrap heap.
We continue to plummet down the international school tables with our home grown children being unable to cope with adult life. We have to rely on immigrants from societies who have no qualms in ensuring by what ever method, their children gain an education often in much more primitive conditions than our children are exposed to here.
With our child orientated mumbo jumbo, we are failing our kids as they become displaced by these people from overseas who are tough and willing to learn what they don't already know and make a contribution to the workforce.

When are we going to wrest away from the Teacher Training Colleges, where graduate learn all this psychological stuff and are inculcated with 'child centrist concepts', unable to recognise that their systems are not producing the goods. We need more Michael Gove like rigour in our syllabus but of course he was seen off by the teachers, and their union, a vociferous  lot if ever there was one. 

The teaching cabal

Those of you who live on this tiny island will be aware that the Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan was roundly heckled the other day addressing the Teachers Conference regarding the need to change all Primary Schools currently controlled by Local Government into Academies. Although the funding will still be from government, the actual control of the school on matters such as hiring and firing of teachers, the actual allocation of the budget and crucially the curriculum will be in the hand of the Headmaster.
Our schools are failing the children and society. We are falling well behind other comparable countries in terms of exam results which is a scandal given that the basic infrastructure has had so much money thrown at it in the last 15 years, specifically in building refurbishment.
There seems to be three major issues :-
Large classes (immigration plays a part).
Poor parental guidance (the parents are the embodiment of the continuing failure to educate and give these people aspiration).
The teachers themselves who seem caught in an ideological mindset where, for instance discipline is rejected for the laudatory but often illusory ideal of winning hearts and minds by other methods.
Teachers have always been a rum lot. I suppose assimilating your day with young juvenile minds makes you slightly off balance when it comes to adult judgement but the incessant call for the rights of children, irrespective of whether the kids understand that with rights go responsibilities, has skewed the relationship between pupil and teacher.
You go to school to learn was always the diktat in my day and if the teacher had to emphases this with corporal punishment so be it.
Today this is an anathema. We have to win them (the children) over and convince them that it's all in their best interest. For many it's enough, they understand the need for education and the pathway it provides in adulthood for a better standard of living, but there are a significant minority who come from sinkhole estates and dysfunctional families, who cause such disruption in class and school and were the teacher is severely limited in what they can do, short of calling the police, who themselves have to tread a minefield regarding their own actions.
Self serving Politicians, as always seeking to impress their own views, have hit on the idea that Academies are the answer.
By localising control, the actions will, it is assumed be tailored to suite local conditions and therefore more effective. It has the ring of common sense in that the conditions of each school vary so much that a blanket solution is impossible. The counter argument that breaking the centralising grip on schooling will leave the school system open for a drip drip privatisation of our schools without the clout that the large school fees bring to the "Public School" system.
Divide and rule comes to my skeptical mind since real independence would be on very shaky ground with funding still in the hands of the central paymaster.
Just to boor you all again I refer you to my suggestion to the Education department 5 years ago when I suggested the schools should grasp the nettle and use technology to a greater extent.
One of the greatest innovations in education was the creation of the Open University by Harold Wilsons Government. I was amazed at how a properly designed teaching system could teach even a dullard like me how to visualise the interconnectivity between maths and physics, how each held the others hand, how through superb audio visual graphical representation the pennies began to drop in my mind which had up until then never seen, nor was it possible to show on a blackboard, the cross-over between mathematical theorem's and the forces at play in for -instance engineering. My plea to the educational establishment was to use the facility of the Open University and pump lectures down the fibre network into the classroom each day  specific bullet points for the teacher to act as moderator, emphasising the message through further discussion. All schools have the ability, through their interactive white boards and the Internet connection to begin to focus teaching not through an array of variable teaching ability but on the gold standard of the OU
My letter to the Education Department, and it covered a range of issues, was answered in a polite "we thank you for" and whilst their reply did address some of my ideas, this idea, to centralise lessons was a bridge too far. Centralise the lessons meant bypassing to some extent the autonomy of the teacher so, irrespective of its benefit, it was denied on ideological grounds.

The Jewish Question

It was more than hot air. The program 'The Big Question' decided to encourage discussion between the Israeli lobby and the anti Israel group regarding  the current arguments surrounding Ken Livingston's comments about Zionism and the discussions its leaders had with Hitler and the repatriation of the Jews to the emerging state of Israel in 1933.
If it were meant to be discussion then it failed. If it were meant to illustrate the depth of hate between people who, for no other reason than a idiosyncratic position regarding the state of Israel vis a vis Palestine, a political issue, actually bordered on the fanatical.
The case of Palestine and the Israeli homeland is pockmarked with emotive issues which a reading of the history does little to capture the true feelings of the participants.
Opportunities squandered by politicians who were feeding their own particular followers with a story they wanted to hear.
Less than rigorous pressure applied by the US,  Israel's paymaster, to insist on concessions.
The intransigence of the Arab lobby which saw itself numerically superior, with a large swath of world opinion on its side, particularly as the Israeli side has continued to colonise the West Bank against the United Nations mandate.
The shouting match which took over discussion was broken momentarily by the the Bishop of Manchester who quietly observed that it was sad that "people in boxes only see what's in their own box".  The intolerance shown by both sides was unusual, given that, in our society we do all it can to avoid conflict, appeasement is much more our thing but in this matter it's better to keep the knifes in the drawer.
"The Jews are not a people they are a religion". 

That was a statement which for me clarified everything. The Jews are the embodiment of their faith.  The American Jew is an American following the Jewish faith. The Jew living in London is an Englishman who attends the synagogue. Therefore the activities that are going on in Israel are a 'national' event and do not effect the Jewish faith, other than they are Jewish people who hold opinions about the matter of Israel.
As a collective, under the banner of a religious faith, much like the Muslim, the Jews are indefinable other than by their faith. Their faith not only defines them but binds them together in a much more powerful combination than say nationality. The rules of religious observance are stronger than national ones because they are specifically for the individual, a direct correlation between him/herself to God. There is no such relationship in a secular society and when we use the word Jew or Muslim, Hindu or Christian we have to differentiate them from ourselves because we are not comparing like with like.
Of course just as Muslims are now linked to ISIS and suicide bombings, Jews are linked to Wall Street and abnormal banking practices.
The theory of Jewish world domination (the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) through finance, fed by their inclination to be money changers and as such, crucially to control the thing which binds us all, money.
Goldman Sachs is the epitome of a super powerful, Jewish run, self serving bank, who's part in the downfall of the banking system in 2007/8 was accentuated when its chairman, Lloyd Blankfein said to the American Congressional Committee, "that the financial rigging", which lay at the bottom of the 'Derivative'/ 'Credit Default Swap', fraud in ordinary man's language, but in Blankfeins world it was "a method of trade between consenting adults". 

It could of course be compared to people who place a bet on the roulette wheel in the casino knowing their chance of winning is low and yet still place the bet. But there are very stringent government imposed rules placed upon the casino not to rig the wheel.  In the case of Goldman Sachs  the wheel was replaced by the value of mortgages which were deliberately tinkered with, to make them appear what they were not and therefore making the whole process, in my eyes at least, fraudulent.
Why is this anything to do with the Jewish community you ask when we have agreed that the term Jew refers to the religion.  But if there are enough people carrying on in such a manner from such a specific segment of society, than guilt by proxy  is enough for most people.
Jewish exclusivity doesn't help. Like the Masons they are seen to promote their own interests to the exclusion of others and so is it any wonder they are viewed with suspicion developing the sort of heated debate we saw this morning.