Category: Uncategorized

It seems to me that we are being subjected continuously, verbally, by presentations on TV and in the press, that there is such a diversity in the solution to our problems that only an election could solve them. To me this is rank nonsense, because it is universally accepted that we are living in a unique situation in which there has never been any precedence, and therefore an accepted solution. Equally, an election would disrupt the whole process of parliament for several weeks, just at the time when we need quiet, intelligent analysis, rather than rushed decisions, because those in charge are not only worried about the state of the nation, but of their own futures. An election could give a total change in management, or at the least, a Cabinet reshuffle, neither of which will improve the situation in any way. I strongly suspect that each of the parties is flying by the seat of its pants and is merely guessing at the best way out of our financial problem. This would appear to be confirmed by the fact that the liberal solution, as offered by Mr Clegg on television, is little more than a variation of that offered by the Labour Party. What is happening, and what I believe to be disgraceful, is that political brinkmanship, coupled with opportunism, is ruling, instead of a combined, reasoned, and agreed approach to a problem which is so far reaching and so vital to our future. There is bound to be an element of ‘suck it and see’, which demands that anything that is done, must be done reasonably, and with limitations, so that the way forward can be piloted.

To do virtually nothing, as implied by Mr Cameron’s speech, would seem to amount to sitting on your hands until you know which way the wind is blowing, by which time it might be too late. To paint with a broad brush could place us in a situation beyond which retraction, or change of direction would be difficult if not impossible. This is a time when politicians should bury the hatchet, and apply their joint energies to achieving not only a solution, but one of equable outcome. The Cabinet has enough on its plate without fighting a rearguard action from the opposition, who in turn is criticising but not advising in the spirit one would expect from those we have elected to look after our welfare to operate in a crisis, comparable with Dunkirk.

Am I the only person who thought that when I put my cash card into the slot and typed in the code number, within microseconds money had been transferred from my account to the payee’s? Perhaps not as quickly as that, but if I can send an e-mail and receive an answer within a matter of a few minutes, I would have thought that the whole of the banking system operated on-line. How wrong I was!

I write this as a warning to other folk who might be as simple minded as I am. A bank employee has told me officially that when you use your cash card in a bank, or anywhere else, it takes four days for that transaction to clear through the system. We had lost a credit card account and so arranged with the young lady in a bank to transfer my money from my account to the credit card account belonging to the bank. You can imagine my frustration when I discovered that I was being charged a late charge when in fact the money had been withdrawn from my account on the day intended, but that it was going to take four days to clear. To me this is absolutely crazy, the money was not leaving the banking system, if somebody had made a cock-up, it could easily have been rectified, and there was no possible chance of it going astray. So when they say that they give you a month to pay, they are being economical with the truth, and even if you pay them in the bank, presumably it has to be four days before the account is due, so why not say that instead of 30 days within which to pay, you only have 26.

It is no good pointing out that the credit crunch that we are in, which is losing us money in every way it would be possible, including our shares, was caused because the electronic system of share dealing was instantaneous. How is it that these folk were making instantaneous fortunes, and we simple folk with a small bank account are penalised because the banking system itself while being able to deal instantaneously is not prepared to deal with customers at the same speed?

I have noticed over the last seven or eight years that the number of people owning dogs has reduced, and that every year the size of the dogs seems to reduce also, presumably because there are no parks for the large ones to romp on, that the regulations concerning dogs on a lead have become more stringent and more enforced, and the little ones only need a short walk, have a lot less fur and cost less to feed. I wonder if the small dogs are as much fun, as highly manipulative, as intelligent as their big counterparts, like the Border Collies and the Golden Retrievers. My daughter has a very manipulative, charming and almost human Border Collie. Whether the dog will approve of being referred to as ‘almost human’ is a debatable point. Just for a bit of fun I wrote doggerel as if written by my daughter’s sheepdog, a bitch, would you believe called Charlie?

Doggerel From A Dog

Charlie’s View

I have some pals of the canine kind,
Who think the humans an awful bind
By the things they do and the things they say;
They leave me speechless, in dismay
Of ever understanding them.

Take my name just as a sample,
Not for a bloke! But an armful
Of furry friendship, love and joy?
Absurd, an idiotic ploy.
There is no understanding

O f course we know we’ve got them taped
Our silly grin they think we’ve aped
>From them, when we’re really focused
On food, a walk, not hocus-pocus.
How can they be so stupid?

Doesn’t do a bit of harm
To rub your ear along their arm.
They think it’s love, not just an itch.
The jokes on them and ain’t it rich?
I suppose they are born stupid.

Their baby talk I cannot stand,
I’m 90 years old in doggy land
Treating me as if only born
To all that awful verbal corn,
I’ll be stupid next!

Still, it’s not a life to be changed
One meal a day, and all arranged
The way I like it, I could do worse
Perhaps by complaining in verse.
Maybe it’s me that is stupid!

The old saying, ‘big fleas have little fleas… ad infinitum’, is virtually saying there is no equality in nature. Similarly, the old adage that ‘with socialism all are equal, but some are more equal than others’, gives confirmation that in relationships there is no such thing as equality. I’m not writing about inequality per se, as it is inevitable, but rather the absurd levels to which inequality has risen inside the last decade. I have a hang-up about how much money is enough for anyone person or any one family. Those who have read this blog will be aware that I have been penniless for long periods, and comfortable for the whole of my life, because friends and relatives have helped out in the bad times. I can understand people wishing to better their lives, their situations and their outlooks, but to earn in a year and expect to earn every year, what amounts to the budget of a small African country, to me is absurd, even accepting that 40% of it will go in taxes. It would seem that salaries have become a status symbol, when bank directors can vote themselves vast sums for doing their job, and the only reason they are looking for higher salaries is to show the other bank directors that they are better than the others are and are a more desirable commodity. There is no way they will ever be able to spend that level of cash, and this philosophy, if one can call it that, rather than display, has seeped insidiously into the entertainment industry in all compartments, from football, to film stars, film directors, television presenters and a host of other fields. The people who really matter to the man in the street, who really look after his welfare, are based in the health and the services that he needs, and will never be in that bracket of remuneration.

The idiocy of this development, which now seems so widespread, and to encompass so many aspects, is inevitably draining the resources of the individuals whom these people with their large salaries are serving. All of them are being paid from revenues obtained by selling services of the banks, the radio and TV companies, football clubs, cinemas, theatres, the list is endless. So many of the individuals who are supplying the wherewithal to feed this financial frenzy, are at the bottom of the financial scale.

In thinking about our problems today, I started looking back over the centuries at the horrendous mistakes that have been made, not only by this country but by the whole of Western Europe since the Middle Ages. The worst of them all I believe was the slave trade. This, like most of the other mistakes, was to do with greed. In retrospect I am convinced that the building of national empires, the religious indoctrination of the indigenous populations, and the boundless commercial greed at the same time, brought us to where we are today – international chaos.

It was the exhortations concerning global warming that we are now receiving, which started the thought process. For the first time I realised that those who, in the past, had charge of our national assets, such as coal and iron, were hell-bent on selling it abroad for their own aggrandisement, enabling them to build monumental houses on vast estates. In fact they were giving away the heritage of those assets for future generations. One example is that we’re now arriving at the situation where the quality of the coal being mined, and sold to households, is so inferior it is a hazard to life as a result of the inclusion of slate.

The aspect I find most serious is that we are still handing over to foreigners control of aspects of our lives that are vital to us, for example, our labour-force is providing the muscle and the local supervision of some of our utilities, while the ownership of those utilities and the profit base is abroad. Once upon a time we could rely upon our banks being British owned and British run, that is no longer the case. It’s hard to find a British manufactured car on our roads, and the majority of our electronic equipment is sourced abroad. What I think the government fails to understand is that apprenticeship, in its broadest sense, as a matter of starting at the bottom and fighting your way up the ladder, is the only route to a high quality workmanship, and it can only be achieved in a manufacturing environment. The quality of the majority of tradesmen that we have today cannot compare with those who were earning a pittance in the 20s and 30s. This is not their fault, it is the responsibility of the government and industry, who are not prepared to finance the old apprenticeship system. It is also to some extent the fault of the nation as a whole, who have this conception that a university degree is the very least that their children should achieve, and that working with their hands is beneath them. The fact that 20% fail to finish the course and thousands are finding a job of their choice is unavailable, doesn’t appear to come into the equation. It seems that our finances are now based more on intellectual properties, financial dealing than manufacture and export, where this will ultimately lead I have no idea, and will not be here to find out – once again I am wringing my hands at the future that I see for our young people.

When I was a boy in the 30s we were taught in Sunday School that the world would come to an end at the millennium – translated as sometime in the future. In retrospect the whole idea was obviously crazy, because in 70 years there would be the millennium, and nobody seemed to notice the fact, but a lot of us believed that in the future the world indeed would suddenly cease to exist altogether, not just the world that we knew, which in fact is the case. Three things last week generated these thoughts, one was clearly the spread of mayhem to the Indian Subcontinent, at such an incredible level. The second was that someone was trampled to death in New York, just for going to a sale, brought on by the credit crunch; and the third occurrence was that one day there was ample parking in our High Street at 11 o’clock in the morning, unheard of, allegedly because a store in Belfast had a 25% off, sale.

I notice that Gordon Brown, is choosing a lot of photo opportunities to smile at the cameras as if he had discovered the wheel. We are also told, although not fools enough to believe it, that Labour is climbing the ranks in the popularity polls. If they are, I suggest that this is as a result of the screaming rhetoric of the Conservative leader. There used to be a running joke that the Brits abroad, not speaking the language, would shout ever louder in English to get their point across. What I really find incredible, and against the philosophy that Brown is proposing, in order to get us out of the financial difficulties, and to keep money flowing, are these insane high-pressure sales by the larger companies, to the detriment of the smaller traders, and thus shifting large amounts of money into select pockets. It is evident that the idea of a bargain is irresistible to a lot of people, irrespective of whether the need is real or imagined. I was always a little sceptical of the government doing exactly what they were urging us not to do, get into debt. But when it is set on a particular path, to me it would seem that some sort of rules should pertain that make us follow that particular path for the good of the majority, not just those with spare cash, or a hefty cash flow problem.

I read on Google today that the change in VAT is allegedly bringing about a price war between the big retailers. Presumably implying that the 2p change in VAT is going to make that much difference. It seems so contrary to what I had expected. About a mile and a half from where I live there is a row of small shops which are frequented by those living nearby, and so small and so fully stocked, that more than four people within the shop at any one time make moving about like a chess game. It struck me when I was in it that it would take hours for the shopkeeper to re-price all the goods as a result of the 2p reduction. This then made me think about the differential between those at the bottom of the scale, who have about 10,000 a year to spend, which will provide them with a saving of about four pounds a week if they spend it all. While at the other end of the scale, with people earning 10 million a year, of which they get, say 6 million after tax, I strongly suspect that most of that will be going abroad to a tax haven, instead of the VAT on six million generating more trade in this country, or oiling the wheels of the banks. What happens between is a matter of scale. I just wonder if I am the only person who thinks along these lines? The government certainly doesn’t! My Dutch friend Jan tells me VAT in Holland is 19%.

In some ways it can be a curse to have an analytical mind, as it makes one pull things apart to find out what makes them tick. In Part 1 of these two posts I criticised a lot of the drama on TV because of aimless chatter and impossible wreckage. Then I discovered ‘Love Actually’, the zany, impossible, but to me, hilarious and joyful film, with just enough pathos to heighten the contrast. I wanted to understand why I could look at it more often than other films that were highly praised, and why when I was watching it I tended to sit with a silly smile on my face. I believe I have discovered that this film has aspects that, to my knowledge, no other has, and has been carefully put together so that the story builds inexorably to the conclusion, which too, is joyful.

The aspects that I refer to, firstly is that there are practically no long periods of dialogue, indeed the dialogue is the smallest feature. Secondly we are treated to a series of separate stories where the participants are seen together in a common scene, but the audience is not aware that we will be seeing them all under different circumstances, and in the penultimate and final scenes, see them all together again. Thirdly, there is a certain amount of background music, which for once doesn’t drown out the dialogue, and is used so that subconsciously we are aware that we have moved from one cameo to another, and the music itself is memorable. Each of the cameo stories, taken prosaically is impossible to believe, but the sincerity of the acting, the lack of any intent to send the stories up, encourages one to go back to one’s childhood and enjoy a ridiculous fairytale, without being critical of the content, or relating it to reality.

It would spoil the pleasure for those who have never seen the film, for me to comment on the actors and the acting, except merely to say it is done with a very delicate touch and very competently. I believe it is the simple and smooth transition from one cameo to the next, together with the story being told more by what we see, what we infer, than what we hear, which makes easy viewing. For me the joy was in the underlying ridiculousness of all situations and the apparent honesty with which they were portrayed. I accept that this film is not to everyone’s taste, but with a silly season coming up, it will be repeated regularly, and I strongly advise you, if you’re not totally of a serious disposition, to give it a go, because it has all the elements of some of the better comedy, like ‘Open All Hours’ when the actors don’t overtly play for a laugh, but the humour is paramount.

To people of my age the television, and television drama in all its guises, is the staple of the evening, often bolstered by DVDs, when the menu is repetitive. This tends to make one take more interest in the reason why one prefers one film to another, in retrospect. When I was at University I joined a group to put on a show at Christmas for charity. I was a backroom boy, I put things right when they went wrong, operated the lighting system and did anything I was told to do. The result of this, strangely, was that when I went to London and managed to scrounge front seats for a popular drama, I discovered I couldn’t get into the story of the play because my mind was more taken up with what actors call ‘business’, those little short speeches or actions, in the old days the act of lighting a cigarette, and so on, to give one or other of the actors on stage a moment to reposition himself, or for someone else to come from backstage.

I have already written about how I find the modern films suffering from endless car chases and extravagant mayhem, innumerable bullets being fired from guns holding only seven cartridges, and fisticuffs that would put one of the men in hospital with broken knuckles, and his opponents in the morgue, rather than walking into the sunset. Sensation seems more important than a cohesive, riveting story. The reason I suspect is cost. Not everyone can write riveting stories and dialogue, in order to take the place of the mayhem, and probably the cost is cheaper by smashing up cars that are wrecked anyway, than to pay more, for better and more notable actors to flesh out the story.

My complaint with some of the film-drama which is on television, is that the dialogue is more what you would expect from a soap – endless gossip, or quite often technology and technobabble in such stultifying portions and patently so impossible, that they annoy rather than amuse, thus replacing the dialogue of a serious film. In many cases the actors’ accents are regional and almost unintelligible especially in American films. I have come to the conclusion, by comparing the drama that I found tedious, with ones that I could see time and again and still enjoy, that the pace of the films that I liked were not only slower in action, but the number of the cast was small enough at any one time, to enable one to remember not only whom they all were but where they dovetailed. This inevitably meant that the staging, the filming, and the dialogue had a lot more to do with building the story. The films that I took exception to were full of players, being offered to you in such numbers, and I don’t mean extras in crowd scenes, that it was difficult to remember who they were, and why they were there. They were also given uninteresting dialogue that would bore you to tears, rather than carry the story forward. It seemed it was writing for writing’s sake, rather like the current novels with 500 pages, which makes one wonder if the royalties are paid by weight.

The best example of films that pleases all ages, is the Bond series. They open with a theme of naked women swimming or cavorting while the credits are coming, which in itself shows a level of understanding of the psyche of the audience; it sets the mood. The story unfolds in a serious of cameos, in each of which is the main character and a number of sub-characters, whom you may or may not meet again. The story is told in a chain of linking episodes which enables even the dullest of us to keep abreast of who is doing what and why. The technical innovations are amusing, clever, often practical, and some technically impossible, but for a while you believe them because you see them function. At the other end of the drama spectrum is the highly successful, Colin Firth version of Pride and Prejudice. It is a three-hour epic, slow in pace, but again, a series of cameos containing only a few characters carry the story forward, some you may never see again, and others reappear from time to time. The social behavioural differences between the Bennett family, the clergyman, the upper-crust folk, and the servant hall, is clearly defined, not only to underline their differences, and the differences in our culture, but to add drama and suspense to the story; unlike Bond, it does not travel on high octane, it has high moments of drama, underscored by domestic scenes and rural scenery.

It is rather ironic that Harriet Harman, the Equality Minister, has chosen Joan Bakewell as the official voice of old people, thus, I presume, distancing herself from what her mouthpiece might say. Joan is advocating a sort of selective euthanasia, but is a bit vague as to who is going to do the selecting, while urging in the face of all the pros and cons, set out in the website, euthanasia.com, and ignoring the fact that the medical profession has recently voted against euthanasia. This credit crunch seems to be causing a lot of rashness, and statements that are not properly thought through, and can only be construed as money-saving, and moneymaking in some cases. What is increasingly noticeable is that not only the government, but commerce is using well loved and highly respected TV personalities to put across unpalatable messages on TV. At the time when the hard-pressed, and particularly those with debts, are fearful of the current fiscal situation, I find it highly improper, and contrary to the advice of the Citizens Advice Bureau, that these people are promoting debt gathering agencies, when they themselves are not recognized as knowledgeable in that field.

I wish to quote commercial behaviour by those most of us might consider top shops, as being totally contrary to the Prime Minister’s aim, and worse still borrowing, to get us out of the credit crunch by spending on the high street. I see it as ‘Pull up the ladder Jack, I’m all right’. The other day Sophie and I had a sort of virus and our daughter kindly offered to pay our bill at Marks & Spencer’s. Unfortunately she had picked the day when M&S had decided to offer 20% off everything in the shop. As a result she found it impossible to park, and worse still having to queue to get into the shop. The bill was not paid. It has been suggested that Marks & Spencer’s reduction extravaganza, was a reply to Debenham’s offer of 25% off for three days. About 40 years ago I knew a man who ran a number of shops selling high-quality ladies clothing, and suitable accessories. About a month before sale time he would go to the wholesalers and purchase a large quantity of articles that were below the quality of his normal stock, and sell this off as loss leaders. I just cynically mentioned this in passing. Shopkeepers of course, have the freedom to do as they like, without let or hindrance, providing it is lawful. I remember as a child, with little or no pocket money, at Christmastime, breathing on copious toyshop windows, wanting without hope. The sudden, short-lived sale policy, I believe is cynical. At a time when people are considering reducing spending for fear of the future, taking such a large cut across the board, is giving a level of temptation that many would find irresistible, and a high percentage of those will be people whose credit cards should be left at home. There is no shadow of doubt that most of the shops, large or small, are going to have to offload stock to improve their cash-flow, and so before and after Christmas we will see offers and sales, but I hope not to the level of these two referred to above. In their case, some people who were forced to be at work will feel aggrieved, because in particular, by the speed with which it was promoted, and in the M&S’s case because it was only for a one-day, it has been selective of those who could take advantage, midweek.