The Vicars Daughter

Subject: The Vicars daughter.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are so easily led, led by the nose, led by what the newspapers feed them, by what they hear on their TV. 

In this age of celebrity the prime minister has to be first and foremost, charismatic, the issue of politics and Manifesto are relegated to incidental. Even in terms of political pronouncement it comes to us through the filter of analysis by the pundit.
What hope a world filled and fed on sound bites, of twitter feeds, artificially specified to limit the number of words no matter how complex the issue which needs explaining.
Subliminally we are becoming myopic, turned on and off by a flash of light that in its fleeting moment has some information which we absorb by osmosis not really aware that our brains have been changed by these repeated messages, no matter how banal.
Politics used to have content, it was absorbed and valued by the relevance it made for "us" and our specific economic situation. It spoke to the situation we were in and we were fairly certain that our aims and needs were catered for by this party or that. The effectiveness of the party was of less relevance than its stated desire since we understood the difficulties in a complex world where the odds were stacked against us.
Today we see whole swathes of working class Labour voters voting for the Tories on the basis that Jeremy Corbyn has been repeatedly painted as the village idiot, a mantra which has become the bread and butter of certain powerful news papers and media outlets.
The editing of the TV broadcast with an initial attack on Corbyn and then a prognosis of ills which can only be due to his leadership, is the everyday script of most of the mainstream soothsayers. No mention that it has been many years since the Labour Party was in power and the list of ills which beset the country now are the direct result of Tory policy. 

The list is endless as we track back to 1970s NHS waiting times. The inability to build houses to meet the affordability of working class incomes and the fact that in the public sector the affordability has been hampered by pay rise freezes dating back seven years. Our schools in many areas have become, once again, merely holding pens for dissatisfied youth who on leaving school are faced with not having any relevant skills and a bleak job market of underpaid temporary work.
This massive indictment of the Conservative party is barely heard in the cacophony  of character assassination reined down each day, month in, month out on Corbyns head. No analysis of what he is saying, no acceptance of the financial disaster some families are now facing, only the ceaseless corruption of the man's character.
It's a bleak world we are facing post Brexit made intolerably worse by a Tory led, vicars daughter who is insensitive to criticism and insensitive to the harm she will knowingly inflict on whole swathes of this nation.

Nationhood and the Kafkaesque State

   

Subject: Nationhood and the kafkaesque State.

Consider the difference between a nation and a state.
A 'state' is a multi ethnic, multi cultural collection of people and beliefs. A 'nation' is a ethnic and culturally the same collection of people who can be recognised by their sameness.
Under these definitions Scotland Ireland and Wales are 'nations' and England is a 'state' given its wholesale diversity, wilfully carried out by successive governments for wholly economic reasons. The arguments in Scotland and Ireland about needing recognition and independence for ethnic reasons was lost on the English decades ago as the people succumbed to the onslaught of multiculturalism. The tools used, such as political correctness was the equivalent of placing non believers in the stocks in the market place and pelting them with ripe fruit. The fussed up odium, mostly in the chattering classes in London who had at their disposal the press and the media to reinforce their prejudice meant that it was a brave individual who stuck his or her head above the parapet.
Part of the smoke screen to persuade people that their nationality was intact was the move away from calling themselves English and rather say, we are British, a term of inclusiveness to include the Scots, Irish and Welsh whist disguising the dismantling of England as a Nation and replacing it as a State. There were deliberate moves put out by the establishment to make talking about being English inappropriate and slightly racist. Any attempt to convert the English to think of themselves as a sovereign nation (impossible now given my definition of nationhood and the multicultural mix we now have), with parliament attempting to devote itself to recognising questions which were wholly concerned with matters within the boarders of England ran into all kinds of headwind and constitutional problems.
With decades of Tory right wing rule in London committed to dismantling the welfare state and the public sector those nations such as Scotland, with a far finer appreciation of the society it sees itself a part of and the damage the London based government seems determined to inflict on the "uneducated hooligan white van man, St George flag flying louts", is not in their own pedigree. Un-inflected as it is to anywhere near the same degree as the elitist public school mentality in England which is myopic to the pain and suffering it imposes on that very 'nation' it has reduced to a "kafkaesque state". 

The Garden Bridge

Subject: The Garden Bridge.

Once upon a time there was a bridge which professed to be a garden bridge, a bridge as imagined by Joanna Lumley, one of the nations luvvies who has been able to reinvent herself by popping up all over the place and has the ear of people in power.
The bridge has been described as a 'folly', an ornament, little functionality other than a statement which describes a desire to have one.
If you are Bill Gates then you can build follies all over the place it is after all your own money. But what if the folly is to be built with public money. What if the people who desire the folly and who have already lined  up a design company who have agreed to build the folly, then the only hurdle is to ensure the rules governing the spending of tax payers money can if necessary be circumvented.
These rules depend on 'costed plans' being presented to the client and the companies who tender for the work being sufficiently able to meet the technical standees and have some sort of track record and the expertise to build it.
The ex mayor of London, our current Foreign Minister, probably the 3rd most important official in the land had taken up the project and offered, through the offices of Transport for London, to meet 50% of the cost to do the preliminary planning work. George Osborn, the 2nd most important minister of the crown, promised the other 50%.
To date 80 million pounds have been invoiced without a spade entering the soil.
Models must have been made and plans showing the artistic representation drawn up. Negotiations with certain bodies who keep an eye on "planning" must have been entered into with perhaps a few lunches.  Legal consultation doesn't come cheap but consuming  80 million pounds in times of austerity is highway robbery.
Today we listened to the editor of an architectural journal describe how after 2 years of digging for information into meetings where no minutes were kept (remember this is public money and I would have thought minutes a statutory requirement), he described a plethora of dodgy practice to obtain the go ahead for the bridge to be built and secondly to explain where the 80 million was spent and who got it.
Thomas Heatherwick in collaboration with Arup the builders presented their plans along with two other design/builders and submitted tenders. Both of the other competitive bids had the pedigree to build and design bridges, Heatherwick had virtually non. Heatherwick and Lumley had many preliminary meetings with Boris Johnson the mayor prior to the other designers being brought on board to tender. The tender process a, statuary requirement, was obfuscated by a preference already being in place.
Two of the officials in TFL have subsequently been taken on by Arup in senior positions "but no assumptions can be drawn" we are told, according to the powers that be, that their pursuance of the Garden Bridge project, to the benefit of Heatherwick / Arup, had anything to do with their new jobs. Yeh, pull the other one !!!
Only today has the current mayor, Sadiq Kahn pulled the plug on the project. But will we see a proper independent investigation of Boris Johnson or TFL and their involvement.  Will they, as usual sidestep any legal remedy, "too big to tumble" "too engrained in the establishment", "too many pals pulling for them" !!

What chance the Infidel

Subject: What chance the Infidel

The argument raging about freedom of expression, the freedom to wear what you want the freedom to join which ever congregation you want, both religious and political, always rightly expresses its rage at 'loosing the right of an individual' to follow what ever course they wish to follow, so long as it does no harm to others.

Two things spring to mind. 

The law is all about the individuals freedom and doesn't seem to acknowledge that individuals are few and far between. Most people are collegiate in the sense they are followers of a group. It should therefore be the group and its intentions which should be scrutinised.

The second thing. Is the balance in any society, between the groups and the influence a group has on society as a whole in equilibrium 

Wearing the Burka or a Yarmulke, a Turban or the symbolism of hanging a crucifix around your neck is an example of Group Speak. It is a reflection of an individual's choice and in so doing the individual is expressing their right. The question of whether  wearing a Burka is simply a Patriarchal travesty is a topic for another day. 

But what if the person decides to wear the swastika, is that freedom stretching societies goodwill because of its connotation with the extreme National Socialist Workers Party in Germany, the Nazi party. This is an example of a group become persona non grata and their rights as a group curtailed. 

Any group can have atavistic tendencies, desires which reach far back into the past and which their proponents wish to reignite within modern culture. Whether it is healthy and benign like the Morris Dancers I went to watch last weekend, or an anarchist group who see current society as despotic and wish to bring their own form of despotism into play to defeat it is the point.  One is tolerated and the other not so, even though its aims have on an individualistic basis a perfectly tolerable argument.

The toleration of an argument, a point of view, is at the basis of the human rights act but if the aim of a group is subversion (an attempt to transform established power) then society has a right to defend itself. 

The question being asked is :- Does religion in the form of Islam pose a threat, since Islam is more than a religion it is also a social and legal code based on religious belief.

The behaviour of people who follow a religious code is implicit, it's behaviour towards other people should reflect the teaching of a tolerant god. 

The tolerance of the Hindu the Buddhist, and the Christian (these days) is benign and stays well within the tolerance of secular society. 

The Jews because of their exclusivity are less well tolerated and almost feared because of their strength in networking between each other in business, particularly in finance. 

The Muslims are beginning to be feared because of their historic intolerance to people outside their faith made even more confusing by the intolerance they show towards each other depending on which sect or branch of the religion you belong. 

One has to ask the question " if they can be so brutal towards each other what chance the infidel".

The Bardo

   

Subject: The Bardo

In Buddhist terms, that place after death where the departing spirit lingers before moving on to become something else. A sort of clearing house for Spirits.

This question of Spirits and the world they occupy has a fascination brought on by growing old. The God story is too neat, too simple, too comprehensible. It encompasses our need to be cared for, to receive protection, to be loved. It builds on a story which if it were fiction would be a good read but explained as fact is over the top in at least one sense, it places too much emphasis on us as human beings when all around us the power of the universe makes us seem so puny. 

The simple time line that in 50 billion years the sun will implode, having used up it'd hydrogen and the lights will go out in a very spectacular way. This event alone makes a mockery of the few thousand year time line the Worlds religions have been around. The story of the Bible or the Koran are folk driven with mankind being placed naturally in the centre. Mankind is after all writing the story, prompted, it is suggested by god who having created everything on such a vast scale wishes to install some social norms and ideas on how we should all get along.

It is argued that the concepts of love and respect are religious ideals but of course they stretch back much earlier and were discussed philosophically by the Greeks and before them in even greater antiquity. The socialising of mankind picks up its thread in the Agrarian development seen in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East 10.000 years ago, long before the concept of a monotheistic god but for many reasons, the idea of a one, all powerful, Father figure took hold and we are where we are today. 

The idea of a spirit world is much older and dealt with the problems of death and our relationship to it. The essence of our lives lives on and is not destroyed by our death.

Of course it too is fanciful, other than in the philosophical sense that our good lives on in others, as for that matter so does our bad. We visualise an 'ether', a void into which our thoughts can tumble as entities in themselves when we die since it is difficult to imagine ourselves as not having any purpose or value other than what we do on earth in the short time we are here. 

Surely our ego tells us we are worth more than that. Worth more than a piece of wood which decays as we do. It seems our minds have contrived this immortality for us, where we continue to live in state, alongside our maker, like the prodigal returning home, all forgiven.

"There was a door to which I found no key

There was a veil through which I could not see

Some little talk awhile of Me and Thee

And then no more of Me or Thee".

Crossing the line together.

Subject: Crossing the line together.

What fine specimens of articulate manhood, the English marathon runner who had over extended himself short of the finishing line and was collapsing as his system closed down and his saviour the Welshman who selflessly stopped running and achieving his own time to help this chap to get across the line.

Interviewed afterwards one felt they were both "salt of the earth" as they explained their reminiscence of the event. It was so refreshing to see the bare bones of running camaraderie exemplified in this way, so refreshing after the days of hyperbole and down right avoidance of what we understand as truth, as the politicians embark on their election 'story telling'.

Human endeavour is what elevates our species to do the things it can feel proud of. Sport is often a signpost although with the cloud that doping brings, not all athletes are motivated by their innate will to win within the confines of their own ability. Money and fame distort the human desire to be acknowledged for being good at what they do and like, power is to politics, it blemishes achievement. 

The politicians seem immune from telling porkies. It's a recognition of their success in the trade if they can, with straight face and without any sign of an ethical tick tell downright lies. The lies might be laced with genuine thoughts that what I am saying is something I want to happen but it doesn't excuse the truth which invariably makes their desire only part of a wish list, something a child would send to Santa.

One has the sense that the politician who least likes lying and therefore is the most exposed to ridicule and derided is Jeremy Corbyn. When asked a difficult question on disarmament for instance he can not put aside his life long belief that nuclear arms are simple too dangerous and should be banned. There are many reasons why this can be questioned but you have to admire the man for not sidestepping his convictions. It is so un-political and as the leader of the opposition it puts him in a nearly impossible position. As a populous we don't seem to want the truth we would rather be fed half truths since this bolsters our view of the world and the place we have within it.

The truth is unpalatable. It means changing the way we live our lives and insists we rationalise our hopes and bring it more into line with the reality around.

Since as human beings we find bad news something to be avoided we fixate on good news even if in our heart of heart we know the news is a sham to make us feel good.

The politics of at least one party is so encompassed with providing benefits which effect only a small section of society and yet appeals to a much larger section on the proviso that the political contract also has something for us, irrespective of historical data which deny this. Yet we live in hope, a hope born of the snake oil seller.

  

Making another culture our own.

Subject: Making another culture our own.

We are rightly concerned about hurting others. In a balanced caring community we try to evoke amongst its members a sense of letting be, by that I mean we recognise that people are different and have for a myriad of reasons and other points of view.
In a mature society we insist on freedom of speech within the law and would be dismayed if someone denounced our right to disagree with someone, particularly with the governing class who's modus operandi is to pursue politically objectives that are not always our own.  The balance we observe is largely based on 'reciprocity', an exchange which has at its heart, mutual benefit.
Societies today are becoming more and more complex as ethnicity, culture, religious affirmation, a proclivity towards sexual preference, complex gender issues, and so much more, as the dust on the heels of those seeking to join a society come from all corners of the world and who's affinity is purely an economic one.
Politics these days try's to represent all reaches of society, not only the core values and in its attempt at being open handed it is often open to conflict from the sections it wishes to appeal to as well as those who are ignored and left behind.
Labour is in a pickle because it has voters, some of whom voted to come out of the EU largely because of open door immigration (free movement of people) which had put tremendous pressure on the Health Service, Schools, Employment and generally where ever a service provision is made to the people. Others within the party see the economy being hit so hard that the immigration issue will fade into insignificance if we don't find a market to trade into.
UKIP have stung the middle class commentators by drawing issue with the insistence of the Muslim population to demand the wearing of the Middle Eastern, Burka on the streets of Britain. The security gained by seeing someone's face and reading their acquiescence or resentment and one presumes their intention, is something which in a court of law has been a prerequisite of the trial. The suggestion also that the Burka precludes any sort of integration and leads to ghettos being formed where women do not learn the language or mix in society, still less are able to go out to work, has no place in a modern Britain. But the "rights" we decree to all get in the way.  We seem oblivious of the fact that the Muslim population is doubling every 10 years, 9 million by 2020 and will make up 50% of the population by 2050. This wouldn't be so controversial if they were not seen, tied as they are by their strong religious adherence, to be a consolidated group who speak with one voice. Their insistence of conforming to Sharia Law is already a fact of life within the community, a fact to which we close our eyes for fear of social disruption but of course the disruption later will be greater unless of course we turn over and capitulate.
Foreign culture whilst richly informative is the result of many things, not least of which is time. Culture is an organic expression of the norms which describe a society and religion plays an enormous part in identifying the values within a culture.
Chinese culture is ingrained with the philosophical acceptance of Confucius who instigated, within the society, a system of social and ethical awareness.
Japanese culture is likewise indebted to Shintoism for its inter personal respect.  Countries who practice the Muslim religion are seen at odds with the conflicting interpretation of Shia and Sunni, seeming incompatible towards each other, an incompatibility taught at home to the children who grow up hating the other sect. Christianity is still hugely influential, particularly in South America in the guise of Catholicism whilst the foundation of a mix of evangelical and orthodox Protestants vi with Catholicism in North America.
Each religion or philosophy is entrenched in its belief and so long as the beliefs are contained to the geographical areas where they are strongly represented all is well.  But bleed that influence across boarders and continents, one begins to see the inevitable displacement of the indigenous culture, with un-fortelled consequences.
The advent of mass communication, mass travel and the instability of North Africa has meant that the cultural bleed is now a haemorrhage into Europe and the cultures of Greece, Italy, France and Germany are being placed under tremendous strain. The strain is leading to a rise in nationalism and closed borders and was the catalyst for Brexit.
The liberal elite are caught in a bind with their Athenian consensus of a freedom based on democracy which itself relies  on the law to make democracy work. If laws are in place but the politicians dig their heads in the sand, it is left to law enforcement to take the strain but who have over the last few years taken a beating as the "human rights" lawyers run rings around them and made them frightened to act for being accused of racism.
It's a rum old world and unless we clearly define our own character and the institutions that define it we will eventually have to take on another.