Conduct unbecoming

Subject: FW: Conduct unbecoming.

 

When I was growing up, a slob was, in part defined by his demeanor, appearance or bearing and one absolute no no was to walk about with his hands in his pockets. To have your shirt hanging out especially at the back when wearing a suite was also a sign which distinguished the slob from someone who was respectful of others as he was of himself by confining his dress code and his conduct within the social norms of a society which judges people in part by the way they look.

There have always been exhibitionists, the dilettante, the avant garde  people who stand out in the way they dress. The effort to look different is an art form and can be respected but to thrust your hands in your pockets as you walk being interviewed by the press with the cameras on you, well it might go down as normal on the streets of an impoverished housing estate but on the streets of Whitehall and when the slobbish behavior is exhibited by no less a personage than the future Prime Minister, then we must all shudder as to how low we have shrunk as a nation proud of our ability to at least look the part.

If the dress and the shambolic answers to questions were the affectations of some eccentric, then all well and good but when Boris Johnson effects to present himself as our future leader then I think we have all gone a little mad entertaining the man and what worries me even more is the wholesale buying into the charade by so many who I would have thought of as sober intelligent people. How can I see a dissembling fool and they the messiah, the leader out of the wilderness.

In his so called toe to toe debate last night, with his rival for the job Jeremy Hunt on ITV  he avoided so many questions with the bluster and obfuscation that characterises him. That silly stupefied grin, a sort of Jack Benny stare (Jack Benny was a famous American comedian who's trademark was the deadpan look) but which with Benny was part of the joke, with Boris, it makes him the joke ! He refused not only to give straight answers to questions but when he did answer it was pure drivel, pure waffle, pure nonsense yet the audience lapped it up. It's like a tragedy is being performed but the TV audience have been misdirected into the wrong show and believing it's a comedy, laugh their selves silly.

It's inappropriate, that's the only word to describe it, its inappropriate that at a moment in our history as a nation, when wise heads are required, we are given a jester. 

The jester was there as a counterpoint to the serious business of ruling a country, the jester was always the fool in the court to the assumed wise head of the King and never never taken seriously.

Of course what I don't do is take into consideration the ideological imperative of the Conservative faithful to win the next election. Party politics is a dirty game with so much of what a non politician would see as fair and reasonable only to be trashed by the professional politician who sit in a rarefied environment we call 'The House of Commons.

A jeremiad

Subject: FW: A jeremiad

 

 

Have I become a 'jeremiad', a teller of woe, bitterly lamenting the state of society, it's morals and ethics, always in a serious tone of sustained invective, an angry harangue, a  rhetoric of decline.
Is life so serious that one can feel the need to go on about it in blog after blog, raising the spectre of so much that is wrong when one could just as soon write about the things that are right. It's a good question, this weighing right from wrong and spending time highlighting one or the other. Does a wrong cancel out a right, is there a balance sheet, a debit or credit where we, as individuals stand before the quartermaster and explain our deficiency. 

The religions of the world would have us believe yes and the whole emphasis of religion is this concept of living the good righteous life to gain admittance to heaven. But of what is right and what is wrong depends it seems on interpretation. Although we do have pointers set down in religious books, the individual in us would have us make excuses for our particular transgression or make a hierarchy of evils and claim his or hers was way down at the bottom of the list. 

"The evil that man do lives after them, the good is interned with their bones", seems far from prosaic, it gets to the kernel of the matter, that the bad things outweigh the good simply because they live in our minds, longer than the good. 

If true we have to comment on the bad and bring our combined attention to the bad in the hope that good will come from unearthing it, since it is also presumed that man has no way of recognising the bad he does unless it is pointed out to him or to her.

Even the worst offenders are within the boundaries of their mindset and it has been argued that even the worst have been able to justify their actions by manufacturing some sort of dilemma in their personal life which stunted the understanding necessary to feel another's pain. The sadist for instance has the fall back of neurological mis-wiring and it could be argued that 'their wrong' is a right thrust on them by nature. 

The wrongs I feel need airing are not the individual wrongs of a pathological killer but the collective wrongs done to society by a collective who cannot of themselves claim some sort of neurological defect other than the one induced by breeding. If we are bred to not see or are so far removed from other people's lives that we can't comprehend the pain we inflict and we issue instructions to the Benefit Office to say that payments will stop until we have investigated a particular anomaly or that the payment of a Benefit will be, from now on be paid monthly and not every week, and therefor the recipient will have to wait three weeks before receiving their allowance, forcing them to turn to loan sharks and a never ending spiral into interest on interest payments, which grow and never end.  If these enactments of judicial oversight, on lives already blighted by poor education and virulent unemployment then I need to jeremiad as loud and as long as we can because, in their case the bad will be interred with their bones and nothing will be said or done, still less understood.

From solipsist to Prime Minister

Subject: FW: From solipsist to Prime Minister

 

 

The word solipsist describes Boris Johnson well, it encapsulates him as being, ego driven, selfish, and self indulgence. A solipsist who believes  that "only ones 'own' mind is sure to exist, knowledge, or anything outside ones own mind is unsure and in the external world, other minds can't be known".
The national and world scene is accorded the same indulgence by Boris.  His compass, his lode stone, his magnetic personal power to influence, only bares on those he can see, which unfortunately excludes most of us and leaves us out in the cold.
Of course he is a narcissist and has little empathy or consideration for others, and yes he is arrogant and self-centred. He's manipulative, selfish and patronising, just the sort of chap we need to lead the country out of the hole we are in. There is no need for diplomacy, no need for consultative politics, no need for a plan, when bags of rhetoric will do.
Perhaps we need a Mussolini, a fascist voice to hypnotise the masses with un-affordable promises. Perhaps we need our cake today and the future will take care of itself.
The more I see of the chap on the political hustings, the more it seems we are in a Gilbert  & Sullivan operatic farce, where quick rhyming  repartee is applauded, irrespective of any meaningful message.
I suppose many Italians hated being represented by Berlusconi and millions of Americans are embarrassed by Trump, so if we have to put up with Boris for a couple of years it's no big deal. But is it. Doesn't it reflect the electorate in some way and doesn't it say something, if a sizeable number of people are persuaded to endorse him then perhaps the very understanding of the society we live in is also flawed.
If you have socialistic tendencies, (a reference to expanding your concern for society at large), one is amazed at the callous nature of people towards their own countrymen in rejecting even the most minimalist standard of support for the needy. If of course you are a 'free marketeer' then the position people are placed in is of their own making. Berlusconi, Trump and Thatcher were all for a top down easing of regulations and those pesky taxes some of us have to pay. With the benefit of an increased surplus from higher profits,  the infamous economic 'trickle down' is supposed to occur and the cycle of a cap in hand subservience starts. We queue at the  food bank' and thank our lucky stars we were not born in Syria. But being born in Syria is not the question, the question is, how have we reached such disparity in our own country. How have the 1% left us so far behind that increasing numbers need to factor in the food bank whilst the 1% look around for a yacht in Monte Carlo, whilst the government still cast around for ways to ease their tax burden further. In years gone by this would have brought people onto the streets but in today's world of stunted indifference we are cosseted by a new release on Netflix or the juicy profile of those 'people behaving badly' because they are truly in the gutter.
That heinous character Jeremy Kyle, manipulating inarticulate people to rage about a partner, is indicative of how low we as a society have sunk. The Kyle show had its following, the advertisers were happy to see the numbers tuning in and the authorities, as in the time of the Coliseum were happy to hear the roar as the lion took down another slave.
Boris as ringmaster cracking his whip, that self indulgent leer on his face, or is it the grin of a mentally challenged person, no matter, we are being primed to attend his coronation, after which all the preposterous things he promised will count for nothing, they were only said to ensure he obtains his life goal, that of becoming Prime Minister.

Any Questions

Subject: FW: Any Questions.

 

 

"Any Questions", or at least the chairmanship of the program, is changing hands as Johnathan Dimbleby steps down after at least three decades of running the show. He was the skillful skipper of the show, the guiding hand when things began to get out of hand, , that element of conformity and good sense which has made the show one of the best BBCs flagship programs.

For those of you who do not live here, this weekly program Any Questions, gathers people who are leading lights in their particular field and politicians who appear as the mouthpiece of parliament (not necessarily of ourselves) to discuss the political / economic questions that are current in the news.
Johnathan Dimbleby comes from one of the famous families in the UK. In my childhood the Dimbleby family were famous for the father, Richard Dimbleby a commentator on the BBC.  Invariably he headed up those grand moments of state, the Funerals of our heads of state, the Coronation of our Queen, it was always the measured tone of Richard Dimbleby describing the Pomp and Circumstance, the attendant Kings and Queens, the Lords and Ladies, the costumes they wear and the historical notice it brings to us all. The troops who form the procession, the regiments and what they represent, their role in Empire were all provided by Richards measured tone, the quiet but detailed backdrop to the splendor of the occasion.
His resonant voice, his rhythmic and knowledgeable description was a masterpiece of the world of radio which we enjoyed before television invaded our every minute.
That other BBC icon is Johnathan's older, possibly more famous brother, David who become famous for his epic wild life programs which have become a benchmark across the globe for revealing the animal kingdom in all its splendid complexity.
Davids commentary and the magnificent photography which became even more magnificent and revealing with the use drones and cameras recording months of footage, cut down to only a half hour program, the average attention span of today's homo sapiens.
Tonight it's Johnathan's turn to take a bow but entwined is the debt we owe to this family of broadcasters who, as a whole and individually, envisioned a world and for a short time made it ours.

Will we become a Heritage site

Subject: FW: Will we become a Heritage Site.

 

 

Jodrell Bank has been given World Heritage status for its place in the Parthenon of scientific discovery, I wonder how long the UK will be in obtaining that status as the first nation to lose its Heritage. An inheritance writ large but now sadly and woefully depreciated because we lost sight of its actual value for the subjective pleasure of the short term gain.

Now-a-days It's as if our very birthright is up for grabs as politicians via with each other by offering the most outlandish claims to substantiate their personal grab for power. It's as if you thought it alright to sell your grandmothers savings for a night in the casino. The hubris knows no bounds. The plan from school to journalism, to mayor of London and then to sit ineffectually, nay idiotically as a minister of state waiting all the time for the Gordian knot of Brexit to strangle Mrs May, smirking away his time on the back benches, not adding one iota to the debate or the dilemma parliament found itself in, waiting his time for his fellow colleagues to throw out the PM and then toss in his own hat as if he will be the saviour who knows all the answers. Many of the public and the press are in thrall to this Machiavellian figure and I fear for the future. 

It's like a farce, or rather one of the Euripides tragedies he was schooled on in Eaton, a tragedy which reveals the fundamental weakness of human nature, and the obsession of a few narcissists. In Ancient Greece as now the stories remain the same. Euripides portrayed in his tragedies the foibles to which man is heir to, the collective shallowness of those around the quixotic leader, the emperor without clothes, the sad and all too familiar opportunistic game, to take rich pickings later.

Perhaps like our cod and haddock the UK will be depleted to near extinction, only a faint mention of our greatness in the history books which will recall leaders who took decisions with an eye to the future and substance of the matters they were dealing with.

Television programs depicting our demise in virtually every feature of technology and engineering are common, they run hand in hand with programs showing an equal demise in our housing estates and the culture which has been fostered on many by the shutting down of these industries. 

The nuclear industry of which we were leaders with the USA. The aeronautical industry in which we had a dozen competing firms, designing and manufacturing the best civil and fighting aircraft. Our genius was evident all around this small island, no outsourcing, no bits and pieces manufactured in far off countries, it was all done in U.K. in workshops up and down the land, financed by home-grown backers, not the wealth fund of an Arab state with all the political overtures which come from being beholden to your lender.

These things were not done to us by a foreign state, we were not defeated by foreign armies or forced to dismember our industries and pay reparations like the Germans. 

We did the dismantling ourselves as if in some sort of pathetic self flagellation exercise where Friedman economics proclaimed profit before everything else.

The profit of the casino before the profit of industry, the short term profit rather than the long term view with massive consequences for the people who were ditched in a frenzy of selling short. We sold ourselves short on the assumption that something else would come up and it has, in the discombobulated image we call Boris Johnson.

I have a dream

Subject: FW: I have a dream.

For most of us events dictate our lives. We plan a future perhaps in a company, the company is taken over and we are made redundant. We plan for a holiday and the country we wished to visit is placed under quarantine. Illness or an accident plays havoc with our plans. Maybe it would be better to conclude that plans are little more than observations which we hold until told the plan is no longer relevant.
For some people, life is different. They might have money, they may be penniless but they have a belief that they are different and deserve to be where their plan takes them. We could describe them as obsessional, refusing to accept that anything or anyone can get in their way. They will do anything to make their plan come true.
If we consider Boris Johnson as one of those people, someone who even at school was reported as a boy of immense self belief in his own destiny

and yet lacked the composite skills to pull together that parts of a plan, the detailed nitty gritty to make it work. He was a good debater but like all debaters who rely on their skill to manipulate an audience with words and phrases but lack the character to get beyond the words.
Of course he came from a privileged background and went to a school where privilege is rooted in its ethos. He saw himself as powerful and gifted, he believed that he would be Prime Minister one day and coveted the job as if it were his own long before he became the contender to be chosen by an unrepresented anachronism, the Tory party membership.
The problem is that the majority of thinking people don't see him in the same light, his gifts seem the obscure gift for, the Classics, Latin and Greek, hardly the most motivating curriculum vitae for running a modern twenty first century country. Listening to Boris one wonders what his marks were in Logic and Ethics those other pillars of the classical world, did his logic beguile even his lecturers impressing them that the only logic he knew was of his own success. Ethics, well he must have been missed that class as he mendaciously commits one act after the other. His duplicitous, deceitful, disingenuous nature which is openly acknowledged by people who know and have dealings with him would under normal time rule him out of the job, any job but we seem committed in a weeks time to a kamikaze attack on all we thought meaningful. 

As he commits the government under his leadership to ever larger promises of ever more billions of pounds directed to some section of the voting public, they must surly know it's all lies,  the lies he tells in parliament when at the dispatch box on his first Prime Ministers Question Time, the lies he tells the nation, the lies he has habituated into his character like a second skin to defend himself against the real world, a world he never really knew.

The funny thing is that the public would rather have his 'lies' than the honest concern for their welfare as stated by Jeremy  Corbyn. If it weren't so sad it would be funny.

The price we pay

Subject: FW: The price we pay.

It strikes me that one of the great injustices of modern times is that sport has become the domain of the relatively well off, or at least those who can afford the subscription to the Sky and BT sports channels.
There is not much left for the poorer section of society to watch, other than snooker, the occasional athletics meeting, Rugby Internationals and of course, everyone's perennial favorite, the Badminton Horse Trial. Everything else has been bought up by Sky and more recently BT, and unless you can afford the £60 quid plus, a month, all those eye watering events discussed on the news and in the papers are off limits to ordinary mortals.
When I was growing up the game of football was the working man's elixir. For Half a Crown (two shillings and sixpence in the old money) you could pass through the turnstiles in any ground and watch a match. Today the game costs £50 to £80 quid and that's without a bag of salt and vinegar crisps. The people's game has been transformed into a game watched by the more comfortably off and the man in the street, who used to slavishly support his team week in week out, come wind or rain, now has to go into the Dog and Duck to watch it for the price of a pint or three, roughly £8 to £12.
Yet another example of how society has been dismembered into those that have and those that haven't, the poor and the comparably not so poor.  We're not talking of a Ferrari on the driveway but a relatively expensive, £60-70 Sky monthly subscription to watch the game you love, of which at least 50%, of your subscription covers the  time the adverts are screened, selling you stuff you never imagined you wanted. Factor in the eye watering amounts paid to the football clubs which has now skewed football, as it has skewed golf, motor racing and the cricket league in India, to such an extent that the players, now mega rich themselves, live on a different planet to the rest of us.
This contortion of what society, not so long ago, thought fair and normal, that sport is for everyone, not packaged and siloed off only to those who can afford it.
It's the essence of capitalism, that the consumer is chosen by the size of their monthly pay cheque, finds another hurdle to differentiate us by.
You were identified when born  by which side of the rail track you lived on, what we would now refer to as your post code. But the national interest in sport crossed all barriers and it was an unspoken bond to always make these sports available right across the demarcation line of economic well being. You still had to pay the entrance fee but this fee was carefully controlled not to exclude the fans. Once in  the ground the differentials clicked in and the price of a seat in the main stand, close to the directors box made those areas out of reach to the ordinary fan, but no matter, he was catered for within the ground and could cheer his head off as loud as anyone.
Then the monetisation of everything became the norm, the  financial leverage that a brand could obtain  and soon some bright, 'non fan' saw the opportunity to exploit the brand and we are where we are today.
The spin off is that the Premier League can afford to buy the best players irrespective of country, the down side is that the local footballers don't get to play on the weekly fixture list and our nation team is poor as a result.
There are consequences for everything and when the next, smooth talking snake oil salesman comes knocking on your door (and I don't only mean Boris)  look behind the glib promises for the hidden downside, usually the price you pay is more than the entrance fee.