I have been lucky. I left college at 17 armed with more than a few O Levels and found a job in the Civil Service. Fair enough, I only intended to stay there a while until something better cropped up, but nothing ever did. As a result I've now got 26 years service to my name. One of the things I vividly remember was my grandfather telling me that I would get a decent pension, I was working for a decent employer and that civil servants were respected by all. He'd be spinning in his grave if he knew what had happened since.
Something else I was also brought up with was a strong work ethic. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work - and never rely on handouts or the generosity of everyone. That said, I recognise how lucky I've been to avoid the dole queue, the labour market and the job centre. I do however fear for my two children as they will be leaving school (because I can't afford to send them to Uni) during the end of this Cameron Government.
Now never having to need the services of what we now call the DWP, I look in despair at my autumn years. The Government will be raising my pension contribution by £68 a month. I've done the maths, and if I am honest, I am not sure how I am going to meet my out-goings, pay my bills, pay my mortgage and put food on the table. Somewhere, something is going to have to give. The only option I appear to have is to sacrifice my future pension contributions. I know this is wrong, I know this is socially irresponsible, I know that my plans for my retirement will need to change drastically and I know that come the time I am finally pensioned off (and when is pretty much anyone's guess) I will need to rely on state pension subsidies.
So, come my retirement I become dependent on the state. I become a drain on the resources of the next generatons.
And I am not alone. Across the public sector people are starting to do the maths. People are starting to panic about how their contribution rises will effect their households. All this against a backdrop of 5% inflation, a maximum of 1% pay rise over a five year period and spiralling energy costs. Many are coming to the same conclusion as me - give up your future pension in order to survive today. Its a terrible dilemma. And its a scenario the Government haven't considered. A recent survey suggested 33% of public servants will pull out of their pension scheme when the changes come in. That somewhat defeats all the mathematics and forecasts currently on the table. No one has thought about how to deal with mass resignations from the pension scheme. With no contributions, the pensions funds can't grow without state assistance; but accrued pensions will still need to be paid come the time. Its possibly the worse bit of financial planning I've seen since the day of Norman Lamont.
On a more personal and scarier note, the only way I am likely to avoid being a state dependent is not to make it to retirement. I don't consider myself particularly unhealthy now, but as a smoker with a fairly poor diet, I suppose that at some point chickens (southern fried, of course) will come home to roost. Currently I can retire at 57 (40 years service), but under the new "and improved" scheme, I am now looking at working until I am 67 or 68. I'm not backing myself to make it that far. Even if I do, I've little to look forward to.
Friday, 2 December 2011
Thursday, 1 December 2011
HYPOCRISY RULES, OK
Hypocrisy is the pretence of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. It is somewhat different to lying, which is the telling of untruthful statements. Lying is often applied to politicians, albeit in more Parliamentary language. Hypocrisy, however, is not so readily applied, so lets have a go.
David Cameron. You may have heard of him. He is the shiny faced smug twat that runs the Conservative Party and is currently leader of the coalition government. He is quite quick to condemn others for their behaviour. About a year ago, you will recall, students marched through London. A small number of them caused a bit of bother in central London. His immediate knee jerk reaction was to state that those that caused trouble should face the full force of the Law. On the face of it that seems a perfectly reasonable response for a Tory. However, Mr Cameron had previously come out with the following – “we smashed the place up a bit and Boris set fire to the toilets”. Boris, of course, is Boris Johnson the current Mayor of London. This quote was said after a particularly boisterous night out with the Bullingdon Club – an Oxford University club famed for the wealth of its members and its destructive binges. So, Cameron freely admits to smashing places up when he was a student. Did he face the full force of the Law? I think you know the answer.
Now, step forward the Rt Hon Member for Horsham. The one and only Francis Maude. Francis is currently not negotiating with the unions over public sector pensions. I would put a definition for “negotiation” but it seems there is somewhat of a difference of opinion between the standard English Dictionary and the Tory version of the word. The latter pretty much defining it as “telling you how it is with no room for manoeuvre”. Anyhow, Maude will tell anyone who listens that public sector pensions are unaffordable and unattainable (and this falls into the “politicians lying” category). What he doesn’t confess to is his own public service pension. A pension that will see him get a lump sum of £731000 and a yearly payment of £43000. He is happy to take and steal from those that can’t afford, but his own pension pot is secure and not faced with a cut. Francis, not only do you lie, you a hypocrite of the highest order.
And finally, Michael Gove, the floppy faced Education Minister. Recently on SKY news he described my union (PCS) as a bunch of Trotskyites. He preferred to sling names at trade unionists rather than negotiate with us. He also debunked unions and those that take action. Back in the 1970s Gove was a journalist, not only that, he stood on picket lines during times of Industrial Action. So, when it is good enough for Gove to stand in the howling wind and slashing rain to defend his terms and conditions that’s fine. When it is someone else doing it, we are demonised as Trotskyites. Gove, I am embarrassed that you were ever a member of a Trade Union.
Of course the biggest line in hypocrisy belongs once again to the Shiney Faced Smug Twat. He says “we are all in this together”. What a crock of shite, clearly some of us are all in it together. The "it” is brown, smelly and sticky and the “some of us” are those of us unfortunate not to be independently wealthy, taxing off shore or running the Government. What he should have said is “you lot are all in it together, whilst I and my kind will continue to have our noses in the trough”.
David Cameron. You may have heard of him. He is the shiny faced smug twat that runs the Conservative Party and is currently leader of the coalition government. He is quite quick to condemn others for their behaviour. About a year ago, you will recall, students marched through London. A small number of them caused a bit of bother in central London. His immediate knee jerk reaction was to state that those that caused trouble should face the full force of the Law. On the face of it that seems a perfectly reasonable response for a Tory. However, Mr Cameron had previously come out with the following – “we smashed the place up a bit and Boris set fire to the toilets”. Boris, of course, is Boris Johnson the current Mayor of London. This quote was said after a particularly boisterous night out with the Bullingdon Club – an Oxford University club famed for the wealth of its members and its destructive binges. So, Cameron freely admits to smashing places up when he was a student. Did he face the full force of the Law? I think you know the answer.
Now, step forward the Rt Hon Member for Horsham. The one and only Francis Maude. Francis is currently not negotiating with the unions over public sector pensions. I would put a definition for “negotiation” but it seems there is somewhat of a difference of opinion between the standard English Dictionary and the Tory version of the word. The latter pretty much defining it as “telling you how it is with no room for manoeuvre”. Anyhow, Maude will tell anyone who listens that public sector pensions are unaffordable and unattainable (and this falls into the “politicians lying” category). What he doesn’t confess to is his own public service pension. A pension that will see him get a lump sum of £731000 and a yearly payment of £43000. He is happy to take and steal from those that can’t afford, but his own pension pot is secure and not faced with a cut. Francis, not only do you lie, you a hypocrite of the highest order.
And finally, Michael Gove, the floppy faced Education Minister. Recently on SKY news he described my union (PCS) as a bunch of Trotskyites. He preferred to sling names at trade unionists rather than negotiate with us. He also debunked unions and those that take action. Back in the 1970s Gove was a journalist, not only that, he stood on picket lines during times of Industrial Action. So, when it is good enough for Gove to stand in the howling wind and slashing rain to defend his terms and conditions that’s fine. When it is someone else doing it, we are demonised as Trotskyites. Gove, I am embarrassed that you were ever a member of a Trade Union.
Of course the biggest line in hypocrisy belongs once again to the Shiney Faced Smug Twat. He says “we are all in this together”. What a crock of shite, clearly some of us are all in it together. The "it” is brown, smelly and sticky and the “some of us” are those of us unfortunate not to be independently wealthy, taxing off shore or running the Government. What he should have said is “you lot are all in it together, whilst I and my kind will continue to have our noses in the trough”.
Monday, 31 October 2011
A Day in the Sunshine
I’ve got plans for the end of the month. Specifically November 30th. I intend to get up well before the sun pops its milky winter face over the horizon. I don’t like getting up, I don’t like mornings, but on 30th November I will make an exception. At that time of the morning and at that time of year, its going to be cold. Very cold. Even down here on the Costa Del Essex it could well be somewhere below freezing. I’ll make sure I wrap up especially warm, I am going to need it. Why am I doing this?
Well I want to be at work very early. Very early indeed. Though I don’t intend actually going to work. I intend standing outside it for several hours. Holding a placard and occassionally shouting some slogans. If I am lucky I might get to speak to various members of the public who are passing by, some of which will no doubt work for various media outlets.
Last time I did this was 30th June, in glorious sunshine. It was a really good day, because I didn’t have to shout any slogans at people who work in the same place as I do. Because none of them came to work. Well some did, but they stood outside with me. I am more than hopeful it will be same in November, except somewhat colder.
In order for me to have my day in the sun (or snow as it may well be), I will sacrifice about £50 of my salary. That may seem a lot, and it is. But its not a lot as £63 every single month until I retire (or more probably die). When you look at like that, its not bad odds. You see, whilst many may grumble about not coming to work on 30th November because of the financial implications, every single one of them knows that the financial implications of losing this dispute are a lot more serious. For some, it will result in total financial meltdown.
You see the crux of this is that the country is in debt. A considerable amount of debt. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t recall spending trillions of pounds in recent years and I don’t recall betting billions of pounds on the money markets and losing. (though I did win £44 on a football bet some time ago). I do, however, remember paying my all my taxes at the correct rate and the right time. Unfortunately there are plenty out there, mainly those with a lot of money, have spent trillions, have lost big time on the markets and don’t pay their taxes.
You would think that any fair and sensible government would ask those people to pay back the money they’ve lost, wasted or stolen. No, this government decides to steal from those who can least afford it whilst the guilty ones continue to snuffle in their troughs. And not only that, I will be paying for this until the day I die. Me and millions of other ordinary working class people who just happen to work in public service.
And that’s why I will be standing outside my workplace on 30th November. That’s why millions of public sector workers will not be going to work on 30th November. That’s why this isn’t just a dispute about our pensions, it’s a straight faced, hard nosed rejection of this government’s policy. Government is supposed to be by the people for the people. This government is simply by some of the people for a limited amount of people who can afford it.
Well I want to be at work very early. Very early indeed. Though I don’t intend actually going to work. I intend standing outside it for several hours. Holding a placard and occassionally shouting some slogans. If I am lucky I might get to speak to various members of the public who are passing by, some of which will no doubt work for various media outlets.
Last time I did this was 30th June, in glorious sunshine. It was a really good day, because I didn’t have to shout any slogans at people who work in the same place as I do. Because none of them came to work. Well some did, but they stood outside with me. I am more than hopeful it will be same in November, except somewhat colder.
In order for me to have my day in the sun (or snow as it may well be), I will sacrifice about £50 of my salary. That may seem a lot, and it is. But its not a lot as £63 every single month until I retire (or more probably die). When you look at like that, its not bad odds. You see, whilst many may grumble about not coming to work on 30th November because of the financial implications, every single one of them knows that the financial implications of losing this dispute are a lot more serious. For some, it will result in total financial meltdown.
You see the crux of this is that the country is in debt. A considerable amount of debt. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t recall spending trillions of pounds in recent years and I don’t recall betting billions of pounds on the money markets and losing. (though I did win £44 on a football bet some time ago). I do, however, remember paying my all my taxes at the correct rate and the right time. Unfortunately there are plenty out there, mainly those with a lot of money, have spent trillions, have lost big time on the markets and don’t pay their taxes.
You would think that any fair and sensible government would ask those people to pay back the money they’ve lost, wasted or stolen. No, this government decides to steal from those who can least afford it whilst the guilty ones continue to snuffle in their troughs. And not only that, I will be paying for this until the day I die. Me and millions of other ordinary working class people who just happen to work in public service.
And that’s why I will be standing outside my workplace on 30th November. That’s why millions of public sector workers will not be going to work on 30th November. That’s why this isn’t just a dispute about our pensions, it’s a straight faced, hard nosed rejection of this government’s policy. Government is supposed to be by the people for the people. This government is simply by some of the people for a limited amount of people who can afford it.
Thursday, 25 August 2011
ITS WHAT TORIES DO
For those of you young enough not remember the late 80s, the savagery of Thatcher’s Government, mass unemployment and the birth of the yuppie generation, you are in for a shock as long as David Cameron and George Osborne hold onto the strings of power.
Tories are Tories, and Tories look after Tories. They like big business. They like the rich. They never deflect themselves from their aim of looking after their own, and if this means that those of us who need a helping hand, a few more pennies, a bit of security or generally find life tough at times go without then so be it.
The recent riots are an excellent example. In the immediate aftermath, Cameron was blathering on about fatherless children. The demonisation of single mothers has started once again. He failed completely to comprehend that many single parent families (be that one with a mother or a father) work much better than “traditional” families. He fails to recognise that many single parents work very hard to bring up their children. He fails to recognise that is just as likely that kid from a “traditional” family can fall into mischief as one from a single parent family. But that’s ok. Tories like traditional families, so they don’t care if the upset single parents.
Another example are the comments from Philip Davies, MP for Shipley. His comments really upset me because he was the MP who managed to obtain the costs of Compliance Officers in HMRC, something we used to great effect when campaigning to keep our jobs. But now he is in power, he shows his true colours. He basically said that employers should be allowed to employ people with disabilities at less than minimum wage. His logic went along the lines of giving disabled people a chance to prove themselves in society. He completely missed the point that people with a disability do not need patronising in that manner. Many who are able to work, do so. If they do work then they shouldn’t be regarded as slave labour by greedy employers.
And on the other hand Osborne talks about Welfare Reform, and that’s just a neat Tory phrase which translates as “paying less to fewer”.
And finally, we’ll again look at the post riot comments, specifically that rioters should lose their benefits and council houses. That is a massive (and incorrect) assumption that the people who rioted are unemployed and do not own or rent their own properties. From what I have seen, many of those responsible do (or did) have jobs. Essentially what Cameron is doing is trying to punish those without work twice – once in the courts and then again by denying them welfare. He doesn’t of course wonder why people were out on the streets in the first place. He doesn’t of course consider where families who are evicted are supposed to live or how they feed themselves. He doesn’t consider this because it is a safe assumption that none of them involved will vote Tory.
Very cleverly Tories try and build public opinion against certain sectors of society. It’s the Homer Simpson mentality of “identify the weakest kid in the playground and steal his lunch money because he can’t fight back”.
So, Tories do what Tories do. They are looking at relieving the tax burden on the rich by reducing the 50p tax rate. He makes glib promises about tax evasion, but its only words. He continues to fund the bombing of unfriendly oil rich states; yet ignores Zimbabwe and North Korea. His Chancellor makes announcements that will put a million people out of work and then they both scratch their heads at rising unemployment figures. They ignore the chronic youth unemployment rates. They steal public sector pensions to cover up the mess their mates in the banking industry made.
Don’t be surprised at any of this. It’s what Tories do!
That is why the Trade Union movement are fighting back. That is why we take to streets to protest against Tory austerity policies, that is why we take industrial action to protect our public services.
Tories are Tories, and Tories look after Tories. They like big business. They like the rich. They never deflect themselves from their aim of looking after their own, and if this means that those of us who need a helping hand, a few more pennies, a bit of security or generally find life tough at times go without then so be it.
The recent riots are an excellent example. In the immediate aftermath, Cameron was blathering on about fatherless children. The demonisation of single mothers has started once again. He failed completely to comprehend that many single parent families (be that one with a mother or a father) work much better than “traditional” families. He fails to recognise that many single parents work very hard to bring up their children. He fails to recognise that is just as likely that kid from a “traditional” family can fall into mischief as one from a single parent family. But that’s ok. Tories like traditional families, so they don’t care if the upset single parents.
Another example are the comments from Philip Davies, MP for Shipley. His comments really upset me because he was the MP who managed to obtain the costs of Compliance Officers in HMRC, something we used to great effect when campaigning to keep our jobs. But now he is in power, he shows his true colours. He basically said that employers should be allowed to employ people with disabilities at less than minimum wage. His logic went along the lines of giving disabled people a chance to prove themselves in society. He completely missed the point that people with a disability do not need patronising in that manner. Many who are able to work, do so. If they do work then they shouldn’t be regarded as slave labour by greedy employers.
And on the other hand Osborne talks about Welfare Reform, and that’s just a neat Tory phrase which translates as “paying less to fewer”.
And finally, we’ll again look at the post riot comments, specifically that rioters should lose their benefits and council houses. That is a massive (and incorrect) assumption that the people who rioted are unemployed and do not own or rent their own properties. From what I have seen, many of those responsible do (or did) have jobs. Essentially what Cameron is doing is trying to punish those without work twice – once in the courts and then again by denying them welfare. He doesn’t of course wonder why people were out on the streets in the first place. He doesn’t of course consider where families who are evicted are supposed to live or how they feed themselves. He doesn’t consider this because it is a safe assumption that none of them involved will vote Tory.
Very cleverly Tories try and build public opinion against certain sectors of society. It’s the Homer Simpson mentality of “identify the weakest kid in the playground and steal his lunch money because he can’t fight back”.
So, Tories do what Tories do. They are looking at relieving the tax burden on the rich by reducing the 50p tax rate. He makes glib promises about tax evasion, but its only words. He continues to fund the bombing of unfriendly oil rich states; yet ignores Zimbabwe and North Korea. His Chancellor makes announcements that will put a million people out of work and then they both scratch their heads at rising unemployment figures. They ignore the chronic youth unemployment rates. They steal public sector pensions to cover up the mess their mates in the banking industry made.
Don’t be surprised at any of this. It’s what Tories do!
That is why the Trade Union movement are fighting back. That is why we take to streets to protest against Tory austerity policies, that is why we take industrial action to protect our public services.
Saturday, 13 August 2011
PANIC
So, London burned. It was always going to happen. Nick Clegg himself predicted that if the Tories came to power there would be riots. For once he was right. However, that didn’t stop jumping into bed with David Cameron at the first opportunity.
A lot will be said about the riots. Many will dismiss them as mindless acts of violence and greed by the younger generation. In some cases this will be true, but to write the whole thing off in such a glib manner is akin to an ostrich putting its head in the sand and hoping it goes away.
What is obvious is that the country is in a mess. The riots deflected attention from the crippling economic state across Europe and the USA. They deflected attention from Hackingate and the corruptness in the media, Police and Government. These are important issues, and to a certain degree played a part in what happened in the past week.
We have a police force, especially in London, that is being subjected to serious allegations. The police, whether you like them or not, are there to keep law and order. They must be above suspicion. Currently they are not. The shooting of a man in Tottenham raises serious questions about the use of firearms, and specifically, which sectors of society they are used against. IPCC investigations now show that no shots were fired by the victim.
We have a Parliament that has seen its own members imprisoned for expenses fraud. Hardly sets the example for the rest of us does it? A Government that is hell bent on protecting its own whilst the working classes struggle to make ends meet as jobs, services and pay are slashed. I don’t know how much the riots in London will cost in compensation or insurance, but I would be interested to compare that to the amount of bonuses the bankers have been paid in the last two years.
And then we have a media, which has long been regarded with suspicion by those who understand the infotainment they provide is not worth the paper it’s written on. But now, the truth is coming out about bribing police and hacking phones.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that those who took to the streets were right to do so. I’ve no problem with direct action, but what we saw was not political in the strictest terms. A political demonstration would have hit the banks and the tax avoiders. It didn’t. These riots in the main destroyed working class residential areas, small businesses (who face a tough enough task competing with Tescos et al) and involved the indiscriminate beatings of those unfortunate to be passing by. In fact those at the forefront of this are the very people we should be trying to protect.
Am I the only one worried by noises coming out of Government? Firstly, it is not, and never can be, the job of the Government to tell the Judiciary what to do. Cameron et al call for harsh sentences. It is the job of the judges to decide what punishment, if any, is meted out. Do you not show some concern that people are being held in custody for stealing small value items? This is especially true when some who commit far more serious crimes, such as assault, are easily bailed and there are many cases of shoplifting that don’t even get to court?
Were you not concerned that the policing seemed to involve chasing groups of rioters for a few hundred yards and then stopping. The net effect was to simply allow them to continue their violence somewhere further down the road – usually ending up in residential areas. This is a complete contrast to peaceful political demonstrations when the police box you in so you cannot move.
Were you not concerned that the Police were unable to cope with this. What will it be like in years to come when the cuts have bitten and there are far fewer police on the streets?
And, are you not concerned at the knee jerk reaction to all this? An e-petition has gained more than 100000 signatures demanding that rioters lose their benefits. There is one huge assumption in that. It assumes that the rioters were all unemployed. I have not heard anyone stand up and forcibly correct this. And it needs correcting. It is quite clear from the news reports that many people involved are in employment. Are the Great British public suggesting we should have a two tier legal system where those out of work are punished twice, whilst those in work are punished just the once. Are we allowing the unemployed to be further demonised?
Cameron suggests the lack of father figures is an issue. The Tories seem once again to be blaming the ills of the country onto one of the most repressed social groups - the single mother. You’ll note he doesn’t suggest the lack of mother figure may be factor. Nor does he understand (because he is a Tory) that a great many single parent families work perfectly well and in many cases better than traditional families.
The most worrying thing is that Cameron himself seems to be supporting those individuals who decided to protect their streets. The moment you give vigilante groups the green light, you end up with a worse scenario than you started with. There are very strong suggestions that the far right EDL were behind many of these groups, and in at least one case they started to fight with the police. Some of you may have noticed that on Monday night the EDL were openly blaming Muslims for the troubles, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
As Britain clears up the mess, we are waking up to a new society. Hopefully communities will unite across ethnic lines and finally come to the conclusion that we are all in this together. Sadly for Cameron, that wont be his version of that phrase. We must avoid apportioning blame to any sector of society. The troubles were not based on race, were not based on class, were not based on social background, were not based on political ideals and were not restricted to any age group.
The blame lies solely with a society that simply doesn’t give a damn, doesn’t think for itself and refuses to question itself.
A lot will be said about the riots. Many will dismiss them as mindless acts of violence and greed by the younger generation. In some cases this will be true, but to write the whole thing off in such a glib manner is akin to an ostrich putting its head in the sand and hoping it goes away.
What is obvious is that the country is in a mess. The riots deflected attention from the crippling economic state across Europe and the USA. They deflected attention from Hackingate and the corruptness in the media, Police and Government. These are important issues, and to a certain degree played a part in what happened in the past week.
We have a police force, especially in London, that is being subjected to serious allegations. The police, whether you like them or not, are there to keep law and order. They must be above suspicion. Currently they are not. The shooting of a man in Tottenham raises serious questions about the use of firearms, and specifically, which sectors of society they are used against. IPCC investigations now show that no shots were fired by the victim.
We have a Parliament that has seen its own members imprisoned for expenses fraud. Hardly sets the example for the rest of us does it? A Government that is hell bent on protecting its own whilst the working classes struggle to make ends meet as jobs, services and pay are slashed. I don’t know how much the riots in London will cost in compensation or insurance, but I would be interested to compare that to the amount of bonuses the bankers have been paid in the last two years.
And then we have a media, which has long been regarded with suspicion by those who understand the infotainment they provide is not worth the paper it’s written on. But now, the truth is coming out about bribing police and hacking phones.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that those who took to the streets were right to do so. I’ve no problem with direct action, but what we saw was not political in the strictest terms. A political demonstration would have hit the banks and the tax avoiders. It didn’t. These riots in the main destroyed working class residential areas, small businesses (who face a tough enough task competing with Tescos et al) and involved the indiscriminate beatings of those unfortunate to be passing by. In fact those at the forefront of this are the very people we should be trying to protect.
Am I the only one worried by noises coming out of Government? Firstly, it is not, and never can be, the job of the Government to tell the Judiciary what to do. Cameron et al call for harsh sentences. It is the job of the judges to decide what punishment, if any, is meted out. Do you not show some concern that people are being held in custody for stealing small value items? This is especially true when some who commit far more serious crimes, such as assault, are easily bailed and there are many cases of shoplifting that don’t even get to court?
Were you not concerned that the policing seemed to involve chasing groups of rioters for a few hundred yards and then stopping. The net effect was to simply allow them to continue their violence somewhere further down the road – usually ending up in residential areas. This is a complete contrast to peaceful political demonstrations when the police box you in so you cannot move.
Were you not concerned that the Police were unable to cope with this. What will it be like in years to come when the cuts have bitten and there are far fewer police on the streets?
And, are you not concerned at the knee jerk reaction to all this? An e-petition has gained more than 100000 signatures demanding that rioters lose their benefits. There is one huge assumption in that. It assumes that the rioters were all unemployed. I have not heard anyone stand up and forcibly correct this. And it needs correcting. It is quite clear from the news reports that many people involved are in employment. Are the Great British public suggesting we should have a two tier legal system where those out of work are punished twice, whilst those in work are punished just the once. Are we allowing the unemployed to be further demonised?
Cameron suggests the lack of father figures is an issue. The Tories seem once again to be blaming the ills of the country onto one of the most repressed social groups - the single mother. You’ll note he doesn’t suggest the lack of mother figure may be factor. Nor does he understand (because he is a Tory) that a great many single parent families work perfectly well and in many cases better than traditional families.
The most worrying thing is that Cameron himself seems to be supporting those individuals who decided to protect their streets. The moment you give vigilante groups the green light, you end up with a worse scenario than you started with. There are very strong suggestions that the far right EDL were behind many of these groups, and in at least one case they started to fight with the police. Some of you may have noticed that on Monday night the EDL were openly blaming Muslims for the troubles, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
As Britain clears up the mess, we are waking up to a new society. Hopefully communities will unite across ethnic lines and finally come to the conclusion that we are all in this together. Sadly for Cameron, that wont be his version of that phrase. We must avoid apportioning blame to any sector of society. The troubles were not based on race, were not based on class, were not based on social background, were not based on political ideals and were not restricted to any age group.
The blame lies solely with a society that simply doesn’t give a damn, doesn’t think for itself and refuses to question itself.
Friday, 22 July 2011
SILENCE ISN'T GOLDEN
We live, we are told, in a society where free speech is a right. That means that anyone can express their views, but as Voltaire would testify, those views can be challenged. So, you would think when it comes to the big issues of the day that there would be a debate with both sides of the argument being put forward. Not so.
Back in October I was asked to appear on Radio 5 to discuss the Chancellor’s Comprehensive Spending Review announcement. This announcement in essence put half a million public service jobs in threat, a further half a million in the private sector and would greatly reduce many of the services that the public take for granted. All three political parties have their own cuts agenda, and so any debate amongst politicians would simply be “how many”, “how deep” and “how fast” rather than looking into any alternatives.
Anyhow, on arriving at St Stephen’s Green outside Parliament, I was advised that there had been a mistake and I wasn’t required. I’d even put a suit on! So, my colleagues and I took the opportunity to try and get into the media through other means. We started by handing out leaflets explaining the PCS’ Alternative. We were horrified when we were told by a BBC employee that whilst he personally supported our stance, he and his colleagues had been told not to speak to the Trade Unions or give us any airtime. This was because as a publicly funded broadcaster the cuts to the BBC could be that much worse for them if they did!
So here we have a case of the Government attempting to gag the free press. What else is out there that the public do not know or are not being told? How many taxpayers actually know about the £132bn tax gap? How many newspapers have put this scandal into the public domain? Very few, and certainly none of the tabloids or “right wing” media. Isn’t it an offence that whilst they will let the EDL and BNP on their mainstream news programmes, they would not give the TUC a voice?
We are constantly told we are all in this together. Clearly we are not. The actions of UK Uncut have attempted to put the argument into minds of the public, but their actions are usually dismissed by the press who prefer to vilify those who take direct action than explore why they are forced to do so. Another example of the public not being told the truth. Even the March For The Alternative on 26th March was deflected from by the actions of a very small minority who chose to cause trouble in London.
Things are now taking a more sinister stance. Many employers now habitually check our Facebook pages, Tweets and blogs to see what their employees are saying about them. That may be fine if you work in your local shop and slag off customers, but is it right that they start involving themselves in union activities and those who highlight errors in the organisation that would be in the public interest? I’d suggest not. You’ll notice I never identify who I work for.
Then we get the murky involvement in Government itself. The on-going Hackingate scandal (you’ve got to suffix it with “gate” or its not really a scandal) is starting to highlight some very dubious activities between the Police, the Government and News International. One must question whether it is right that news outlets have such access to and control over the mechanisms of both government and the law. Even if everything is above board (and it seems its not) it doesn’t give the right impression.
Generally people will believe what they are told, especially if they are told that there are no alternatives. It is a trick used by dictators from our very earliest civilizations, and we can all site examples where dissenters have been silenced by any means possible. We are not at that stage, I hope. Though isn’t it weird that Dr David Kelly died mysteriously during the Iraq WMD debate and now Sean Hoare, one of the main protagonists in Hackingate has done likewise…..
Back in October I was asked to appear on Radio 5 to discuss the Chancellor’s Comprehensive Spending Review announcement. This announcement in essence put half a million public service jobs in threat, a further half a million in the private sector and would greatly reduce many of the services that the public take for granted. All three political parties have their own cuts agenda, and so any debate amongst politicians would simply be “how many”, “how deep” and “how fast” rather than looking into any alternatives.
Anyhow, on arriving at St Stephen’s Green outside Parliament, I was advised that there had been a mistake and I wasn’t required. I’d even put a suit on! So, my colleagues and I took the opportunity to try and get into the media through other means. We started by handing out leaflets explaining the PCS’ Alternative. We were horrified when we were told by a BBC employee that whilst he personally supported our stance, he and his colleagues had been told not to speak to the Trade Unions or give us any airtime. This was because as a publicly funded broadcaster the cuts to the BBC could be that much worse for them if they did!
So here we have a case of the Government attempting to gag the free press. What else is out there that the public do not know or are not being told? How many taxpayers actually know about the £132bn tax gap? How many newspapers have put this scandal into the public domain? Very few, and certainly none of the tabloids or “right wing” media. Isn’t it an offence that whilst they will let the EDL and BNP on their mainstream news programmes, they would not give the TUC a voice?
We are constantly told we are all in this together. Clearly we are not. The actions of UK Uncut have attempted to put the argument into minds of the public, but their actions are usually dismissed by the press who prefer to vilify those who take direct action than explore why they are forced to do so. Another example of the public not being told the truth. Even the March For The Alternative on 26th March was deflected from by the actions of a very small minority who chose to cause trouble in London.
Things are now taking a more sinister stance. Many employers now habitually check our Facebook pages, Tweets and blogs to see what their employees are saying about them. That may be fine if you work in your local shop and slag off customers, but is it right that they start involving themselves in union activities and those who highlight errors in the organisation that would be in the public interest? I’d suggest not. You’ll notice I never identify who I work for.
Then we get the murky involvement in Government itself. The on-going Hackingate scandal (you’ve got to suffix it with “gate” or its not really a scandal) is starting to highlight some very dubious activities between the Police, the Government and News International. One must question whether it is right that news outlets have such access to and control over the mechanisms of both government and the law. Even if everything is above board (and it seems its not) it doesn’t give the right impression.
Generally people will believe what they are told, especially if they are told that there are no alternatives. It is a trick used by dictators from our very earliest civilizations, and we can all site examples where dissenters have been silenced by any means possible. We are not at that stage, I hope. Though isn’t it weird that Dr David Kelly died mysteriously during the Iraq WMD debate and now Sean Hoare, one of the main protagonists in Hackingate has done likewise…..
Friday, 8 July 2011
NEWS INTERNATIONAL
So, some journalists at the News of the World hacked into phones of not only the rich and famous to obtain juicy gossip, but also a teenage murder victims and soldiers killed in action. Another allegation, not so widely reported outside of the Evening Standard is that some offered massive bribes to police officers in the Met for information on certain cases. Although all indications are that both issues happened some time ago, these allegations have come to light just as News International (the parent company of NotW) are attempting a complete buy out of BskyB, one of the countries biggest media outlets.
For many years the head of News International, Rupert Murdoch, has held an almost Machiavellian grip on British politics. His style of news reporting can, and has, effected General Elections for the last quarter of a century. Thatcher herself regarded The Sun’s comparison between the Labour Party and the Soviet style Communist party as one of the major factors in winning the 1987 General Election and The Sun itself screamed “It Was The Sun What Won It” on its front page. Tony Blair openly courted Murdoch and gained support when Labour swept to victory in 1997. Similarly Murdoch backed the Conservatives last time round and spent the run up to the election battering Gordon Brown whilst lauding David Cameron. It’s quite clear, aside from ruining and wrecking the personal lives of the rich and famous, Murdoch has the ability to destroy political parties if you get on the wrong side of him. His holds an almost unique position in the history of the British media industry, almost a Kingmaker.
The decision to close of the News of the World came as a surprise to many, including those who worked in the paper, and the speed of the closure shocked many. However, the timing could not have been better timed. News International has looked at cutting costs for some time and the outrageous behaviour of some of his journalists, coupled with public opinion made that decision easy. Of course it’s a smokescreen because his main aim is to get complete control of BskyB whilst maintaining the support of the infotainment society that buy The Sun and News of the World. He won’t in the long run lose any profits. Whilst the last edition of the News of the World may result in a vastly reduced circulation as people boycott it on moral grounds; it is likely to replaced by a Sunday edition of The Sun. So, unless vast swathes of the population see through the ruse or continue to object to Murdoch’s style of journalism, the new Sun on Sunday is likely to sell almost as well as the News of the World.
Of course there is the small matter of the 200 or so employees of the News of the World who will wake up on Monday without a job. I wonder if their opinion on workers rights and Trade Unions – which they have sought to undermine with halve truths, myths, lies and political propaganda for many years – will change a result. However, that should not deflect from the fact that 200 people have lost their jobs for no fault of their own due to the actions of others. That is a complete comparison to the situation where we find ourselves as our jobs and pensions are being slashed to pay for the mismanagement of the economy under the current and previous Governments and the collapse of the banking industry. I may not agree with their political persuasion, but an unfair dismissal is an unfair dismissal.
As things currently stand the then Editor of the News of the World, Rebekah Cooke is still in post in a very senior position in News International. She has either not resigned or her resignation has been refused. Clearly this is a case of the person ultimately responsible for the newspaper at the time the alleged hacking took place not taking (or being allowed to take) full responsibility.
Of course added to this is a certain Andy Coulson. As I write this he has just been released on bail. This is the same Andy Coulson who David Cameron brought into his Government and it seems from interviews with Cameron that he was aware of some of the hacking allegations. It does question the scruples of the “man in charge” when he employs someone to a senior position within his team who has such allegations hanging over him. It does beg the question of what other errors of judgement has the Prime Minister made in recent times.
Ultimately, it is likely that the politicians and lawyers will have to sort the mess out. Public Enquiries are being set up, and it would be a surprise if the News of the World was the only paper to be effected. It was fairly clear when the Milly Dowler hacking story broke that television news and the broadsheets were covering it but the tabloids were strangely silent preferring to print stories about the latest escapades involving Cheryl Cole or in the Mail’s case printing lies about public sector pensions.
Since the days of John Wilkes the British press has always enjoyed the freedom to print what it likes without interference from Government. That freedom must be retained, even if at times we do not like or agree with what the newspapers print. But the real issue here may be the very future of the media industry itself. Many people no longer see the point in spending money to read what is essentially yesterday’s news. In the pre PC world other than watching the news on television, newspapers were the best form of exchanging news stories. Today it is different. The advent of the internet and 24 hours news channels affords everybody the ability to get up to the minute news at any time of the day. The question the newspaper owners need to answer is how to keep up with the times. Obviously allegations of hacking into mobile phones and bribing police officers will do them no good.
The only way we are to get accurate and fair news reporting on political issues is to stop buying tabloid newspapers. Hopefully significant numbers will now start using alternative online news outlets for information. Both Twitter and Facebook have had incredible success in getting stories into the public domain, stories which in all likelihood would not have made front pages of the “quality” papers let alone the tabloids.
For many years the head of News International, Rupert Murdoch, has held an almost Machiavellian grip on British politics. His style of news reporting can, and has, effected General Elections for the last quarter of a century. Thatcher herself regarded The Sun’s comparison between the Labour Party and the Soviet style Communist party as one of the major factors in winning the 1987 General Election and The Sun itself screamed “It Was The Sun What Won It” on its front page. Tony Blair openly courted Murdoch and gained support when Labour swept to victory in 1997. Similarly Murdoch backed the Conservatives last time round and spent the run up to the election battering Gordon Brown whilst lauding David Cameron. It’s quite clear, aside from ruining and wrecking the personal lives of the rich and famous, Murdoch has the ability to destroy political parties if you get on the wrong side of him. His holds an almost unique position in the history of the British media industry, almost a Kingmaker.
The decision to close of the News of the World came as a surprise to many, including those who worked in the paper, and the speed of the closure shocked many. However, the timing could not have been better timed. News International has looked at cutting costs for some time and the outrageous behaviour of some of his journalists, coupled with public opinion made that decision easy. Of course it’s a smokescreen because his main aim is to get complete control of BskyB whilst maintaining the support of the infotainment society that buy The Sun and News of the World. He won’t in the long run lose any profits. Whilst the last edition of the News of the World may result in a vastly reduced circulation as people boycott it on moral grounds; it is likely to replaced by a Sunday edition of The Sun. So, unless vast swathes of the population see through the ruse or continue to object to Murdoch’s style of journalism, the new Sun on Sunday is likely to sell almost as well as the News of the World.
Of course there is the small matter of the 200 or so employees of the News of the World who will wake up on Monday without a job. I wonder if their opinion on workers rights and Trade Unions – which they have sought to undermine with halve truths, myths, lies and political propaganda for many years – will change a result. However, that should not deflect from the fact that 200 people have lost their jobs for no fault of their own due to the actions of others. That is a complete comparison to the situation where we find ourselves as our jobs and pensions are being slashed to pay for the mismanagement of the economy under the current and previous Governments and the collapse of the banking industry. I may not agree with their political persuasion, but an unfair dismissal is an unfair dismissal.
As things currently stand the then Editor of the News of the World, Rebekah Cooke is still in post in a very senior position in News International. She has either not resigned or her resignation has been refused. Clearly this is a case of the person ultimately responsible for the newspaper at the time the alleged hacking took place not taking (or being allowed to take) full responsibility.
Of course added to this is a certain Andy Coulson. As I write this he has just been released on bail. This is the same Andy Coulson who David Cameron brought into his Government and it seems from interviews with Cameron that he was aware of some of the hacking allegations. It does question the scruples of the “man in charge” when he employs someone to a senior position within his team who has such allegations hanging over him. It does beg the question of what other errors of judgement has the Prime Minister made in recent times.
Ultimately, it is likely that the politicians and lawyers will have to sort the mess out. Public Enquiries are being set up, and it would be a surprise if the News of the World was the only paper to be effected. It was fairly clear when the Milly Dowler hacking story broke that television news and the broadsheets were covering it but the tabloids were strangely silent preferring to print stories about the latest escapades involving Cheryl Cole or in the Mail’s case printing lies about public sector pensions.
Since the days of John Wilkes the British press has always enjoyed the freedom to print what it likes without interference from Government. That freedom must be retained, even if at times we do not like or agree with what the newspapers print. But the real issue here may be the very future of the media industry itself. Many people no longer see the point in spending money to read what is essentially yesterday’s news. In the pre PC world other than watching the news on television, newspapers were the best form of exchanging news stories. Today it is different. The advent of the internet and 24 hours news channels affords everybody the ability to get up to the minute news at any time of the day. The question the newspaper owners need to answer is how to keep up with the times. Obviously allegations of hacking into mobile phones and bribing police officers will do them no good.
The only way we are to get accurate and fair news reporting on political issues is to stop buying tabloid newspapers. Hopefully significant numbers will now start using alternative online news outlets for information. Both Twitter and Facebook have had incredible success in getting stories into the public domain, stories which in all likelihood would not have made front pages of the “quality” papers let alone the tabloids.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)