Tag Archives: Politics

Disappointment and conflict

Posted on by
Reply

I grew up in the 70s and ran a business for over 20 years from the mid-80s through to early 2000s.

I remember things like the 3-day week, the bread shortages, the power strikes. I remember the strikes at British Leyland (where I worked) and that being the cause for M and I to move south, for different jobs and a better life.

My working life started in those days of the things I mentioned before and the power of the unions and the constant battle between the government and those unions.

And then came someone who promised us change and change for the better. Where hard work would be rewarded with a better life, more money, a sense of purpose and riches beyond our wildest dreams.

The first thing to do, of course, was to rid the country of those all-powerful, self-serving unions.

And that was done, more or less. So, here we were, going onwards and upwards towards a much better future.

And, then, for reasons more of accident than purpose, I ended up running a business.

It was also the time that M & I split and V came on the scene.

I suppose I could have been a good businessman, a successful businessman were it not for one thing – me.

You see, I had a problem. What I “had” was a business that felt more like a family – a community of like-minded people. As time went on, we employed more people and the business grew. And that was where the problems started. I understood that it was a cut-throat world in business. I understood that the suppliers were in this game to make money out of us and that we were there to make money out of our customers. What I could never get to grips with was that some of the people within the company itself were there to get what they could – even at the expense of the company.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that before the 80s people were, somehow, kinder, more willing to help one another, etc. Nor am I saying that during the 80s and onwards, there were no people who were kinder and helpful because that would not be true.

And it’s not like I’m looking back with rose-coloured spectacles either. In the 70s, the unions, with that huge amount of power, were not interested in doing the best for the country but only in getting the best deal for their workers (and, for those at the top of the union, for themselves). In the 70s, with the destruction of the unions, the time came for the industry heads and the rich to have their way. That was the change.

And, so, we went from the selfishness of the unions to the selfishness of the bosses.

And, I was one of those “bosses”. Well, when I say that, I was the Managing Director. And this is where the problem came in.

I found, as the business grew that more and more often I was disappointed. Not immediately, but after I had time to think about it.

First, I would be angry. Someone would do something that was stupid or, more likely, against the general good of the company. I became very angry. How dare they do this thing? What are they trying to do, bring the company down?

But, after a number of hours or days, my anger would morph into disappointment which, in turn would turn to disillusionment and, finally, resignation. But, certainly, the disappointment would remain. And grow with each occurrence. And, in the end, I had had enough.

And, whilst it looks like I am blaming everyone else, be assured that this is not the case. For I realised that the real cause of all this was myself. It was my inability to fully understand the world that was created in the 80s and 90s. It was my inability to see that the selfishness that became the by-product of the rush to make something of yourself, on your own and stuff who it hurts or destroys, had been made into a positive thing. Something to strive for. Something to laud and praise. And that was my fault.

Of course, the conflict arose because, whilst it was perfectly OK for us to “stuff” the customer, it was not OK for my employees to do the same to us.

Thereby causing conflict in me.

I was trying to be a good businessman whilst, at the same time, trying to safeguard the company – not for me but for everyone in it. And that was the problem. Not everyone thinks the same.

And, leaving that behind was a great relief. The conflict (and the sleepless nights – which were almost every night) disappeared and I became more relaxed and happy with myself.

Until last week when, again, the anger at the way that people thought rose up and engulfed me as it used to do which has, already morphed into disappointment and is fast changing to disillusionment.

And then this little old lady died. And it helped me to understand the problem. For it was she that spearheaded the drive to “self”. It was her that, rather than clip the wings of the unions, destroyed them and, with it, any pretence of people working together – so much so that, during the 90s there was much made of team building – necessary because the whole thing had changed and it was all about oneself and not the general good.

Don’t get me wrong, the unions needed to be curbed – just not destroyed. The over-large, mammoth nationalised industries needed to be reformed, just not broken up, sold off to the highest bidder and then dismantled. The annoyance that BT (British Telecom), for example, no longer care about serving the British public but only about making a profit seems incongruous if it comes from the right-wing thinkers. That was, in the end, what they stood for and that is why this now-dead lady sold them off – so they could pursue profit above everything else.

I came to understand that during my time as a “businessman”. The pursuit of profit was, of course, important but not at the expense of everything and everyone. And that’s why I couldn’t understand those people who were, of course, Thatcher’s children – children who had grown up believing that it everything was up to you and you should ignore anyone who stood in your way destroying or, at least, leaving behind those who were less fortunate than yourself.

I don’t have any strong emotion for the little old lady who died. I don’t know her after all. And I don’t hate her for what she was. She was, after all, a product of the age, of the self-serving union’s super-powers and she was lucky that, at that moment, many people (and even me!) agreed that “something” had to be done.

But, in the end, as people in power (the unions in the 70s and Thatcher and Blair in the 80s and 90s) do, they took it too far and destroyed the very fabric of the country and, for that, I was angry which has turned, in time, into disappointment then to disillusionment and, finally, into resignation. It is the way things are.

Was she responsible? Yes, to a certain extent, she was. Should she be vilified? Well, yes, if that lights your candle – but do it in private or use it as an example of what to do right or what to do to fix it. And remember that although she may be typical of “that kind of person”, she was just one of them. The problem is that she, as a result of becoming the Prime Minister and having so much power, created a whole world filled with the same type of people. Those people without compassion. Selfish and ignorant to to the needs of those around them. Less of a team than a collection of individuals, each striving for their own goals.

Some,of course, would say that that was alright. Certainly those who are Thatcher’s children and benefited from this way of thinking.

For me, I am glad I am out of it. I am glad I don’t think like that. I realise that, as a result, probably, I am and will never be rich and powerful – but that’s OK by me.

Now to get through this stage (this current one from last week) and move on. This time, retaining enough of the anger/disappointment/disillusionment to make sure that I move on, not only in my mind, but also in reality.

Finally, am I glad she’s dead? No, I’m not. In the end, this fragile little old lady died. Alone in a hotel room. We’re all alone when we die but I would like someone to be there to hold my hand. Maybe she didn’t want or need that but I somehow doubt it and, for that, I am sad for her.

And, although I don’t particularly like him (possibly because he IS one of Thatcher’s children), this piece from Russell Brand is rather good.

Talking about a revolution

Posted on by
6

I suppose it’s not really for me to say anything given that a) I don’t really understand Italian, b) I don’t really understand the politics and c) I never vote (any more) ……

but …….

A bit of background. In the recent elections, the Five Star Movement (M5S) got something around 25% of the vote and were the largest “party” (in terms of votes) but, because of the way that the system works here, they got far less than 25% of the MPs in the parliament.

They were elected on the basis that they would change the system. Removing the corrupt practices (and people); reducing the enormous expenses run up by the parliament and MPs; give the power back to the people. They promised to do certain things like, take a wage cut when they were elected, not form an alliance with another party just to get power (see the Lib Dems in the UK – need I say more?), etc.

Then came the first thing the new parliament had to do. Elect a Speaker. It seems that there was this final run-off between 2 candidates and, at the vote, Fat Pete (Pietro Grasso) won. Now, he could only win with the support of some (maybe even a few) of the M5S MPs. Now, before the vote, it had been agreed that the M5S MPs would submit blank votes (it seems this is a secret vote done by paper) – but the reality was that some, quite obviously, did not submit blank votes.

Beppe Grillo is angry. He wants to find out who the M5S MPs are and expel them from the “party”. Some of the M5S supporters are suggesting that BP is trying to run the “party” exactly like the existing system whereas the M5S MPs were elected to represent the people. The new Speaker is a well-known anti-Mafia campaigner. It is said that the M5S MPs from Sicily were the ones that voted for him, since they have been successful in Sicily because of their anti-Mafia stance.

It is also said that some M5S MPs voted for him to ensure that Schifani (a ultra-right-wing candidate proposed by Berlusconi’s party) didn’t get in.

BP accuses these MPs of having “lied” to the voters.

So, here it is, my opinion (for what it’s worth):

You can’t stop the corruption and the huge expense by working “within the system”. It’s important that this parliament fails (and fails quickly) to enable people to vote again. Having seen how well the M5S has done, more people are likely to vote for them. Now they are seen as a force for change and change is what Italians want (I think). If they get a much bigger vote, they might be able to form a government and actually DO something. Already the MPs have said they will only take a proportion of their salaries – but they cannot change the system to make this compulsory – unless they get control.

If they start trying to work “with the system”, they will, ultimately fail (as have the Lib Dems in the UK) and disappear from view (as will the Lib Dems at the next election).

So, they need to make the parliament fail and quickly.

This is the bigger picture. This is the road to salvation. This is a revolution.

C’mon guys – get with the bigger picture!

p.s. I like the name “Fat Peter”. It makes me smile.


Tracy Chapman – Talking About A Revolution

M5S Manifesto

Posted on by
Reply

Further to my last post, here is the manifesto, in English for the biggest vote-catching party in Italy at the recent elections.

Some of it you (and I) don’t get since it is the repeal of certain laws here.

However, most of it seems just like common sense. Doesn’t mean they could achieve it though.

M5S Plan for Government

In the meantime, there’s talk of another “Technical” government. That will be a whole new disaster, for sure.

And the leader of the left-wing majority coalition (who still need M5S to pass any laws) says he won’t try to win over Beppe Grillo.

And now some people are saying that BP should start talking to them – which, of course, he absolutely should not. His whole point has been that the people currently “in power” are corrupt and are the reason Italy is in bad shape. And he’d be right. If this thing is going to work, they (the M5S) HAVE to stay out of it.

As I’ve always said, for the politicians we have, the only way forward is to get rid of them all and start again – with people who will do it for the good of the population and not for the good of either themselves nor for the good of the bankers or big business.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Italians are NOT crazy and a comedian is NOT in charge.

Posted on by
Reply

I have to say something about it because it’s not just mildly annoying but, rather, very annoying.

A comedian was NOT elected to the Italian Parliament. A comedian did NOT win more votes than any other party. A comedian CANNOT, in any way, be compared to the other person they consider a clown – namely Mr B.

That’s just like saying that Ronald Reagan was an actor when he became President of the USA or Arnold Schwarzenegger was an actor when he was the Governor of California.

There should be a “used to be” somewhere in these headlines and media reports.

For a number of years now, Beppe Grillo has been campaigning against corruption and waste in Italian politics and Parliament. That’s not really a funny thing and nor was he doing it to boost his status as a comedian. Nor, in fact, given his party’s “rules”, can he ever take a seat in the Parliament given that one of the major “rules” is that no MP should have a criminal conviction – of any kind. And as he has a criminal conviction, he won’t be an MP.

From outside Italy, there’s so much misunderstanding about Italy and the way that it works (for good and bad).

For a start, there isn’t a system here like the UK/USA. There aren’t two or three parties. Beppe Grillo’s M5S (5 Star Movement) had the biggest share of the vote in the whole of Italy – 25% – and 75% of people voted (they have a very high turnout in Italy compared to, say, the UK) – this means that, as the biggest party, only 19 people out of every 100 voted for M5S.

It’s hardly a mandate.

And, that’s part of the problem. If his was the biggest party (from the votes) and, yet, less than 20% voted for him, what about the other parties? Well, the other parties are smaller. And there are lots and lots of them. What happens is that the bigger parties form groups with other, smaller parties and hope that they can get through a whole parliament without having to go back to the polls. And this is one of the reasons there have been so many governments since the war. They don’t last very long (in general) because the ties that bind the bigger parties to the smaller parties depend on the smaller parties getting what they want.

So, in reality, at no time has Berlusconi ever been truly elected to Parliament. But, on a number of occasions, he HAS been able to form a government by getting into bed with some smaller parties who, in a broad sense, share his and his party’s views.

The other thing to remember is that this is not really a united country. This is, in fact, a country of regions. And the regions each have their own parties. Take the Lega Nord, for example. They are a Northern Italy party. In fact, one of the things that they really want is to separate North and South Italy. The North is the “powerhouse” of Italy and the South the very much poorer cousins. So, if they want to separate and let North Italy be it’s own country, it will be unsurprising to you that they don’t have anything to do with the South and, therefore, there are no Lega Nord representatives from south of, say, Florence (I don’t actually know how far south they go).

We don’t have the equivalent in the UK but it would be like having the South East Party – who only operate in the South East of England and want London to break away from the rest of the UK. It’s difficult to imagine because they just wouldn’t get enough votes for any of them to become an MP and, if they did manage, they would only get one or 2 MPs at the very most. It is not the same here.

And, because of the way that Italy is, people vote, not for the main person but, rather the local person. Politics is localised. Sure, they know that, by voting for a local person you will end up with one of the bigger politicians but, still, it’s about who you know locally that’s the reason that you vote. And, by being local, I mean almost a neighbour. Or the friend of a friend. Or the friend of a relative. And it’s by word of mouth. M5S changed this generating its support via the Internet. Via websites and Facebook and Twitter – something the bigger parties are only just getting used to (and in to). Beppe Grillo, having been banned from TV for saying some things that the ruling elite didn’t like, had been using the Internet and his website to campaign for years. They just got a bit more serious this time. And it shows.

But let’s look at why 20% of the population voted for the M5S. It wasn’t really against Mr B. It was a vote against the ruling elite (which includes Mr B – as well as ALL the other parties); it was a vote against the corruption, against the excessive number of MPs, their excessive salaries and their enormous pensions (for which they become eligible almost as soon as they step through the Parliament doors), against their expenses (they have hundreds of cars available to them) and against their over-riding desire to make sure that they are OK, even at the cost to the taxpayer.

Of course, it’s not over yet. There’s no overall winner. There’s little likelihood that there will be a government that lasts even a year (even lasting until Summer seems a bit far-fetched) and so, as normal, it will be back to the polls.

I’m not saying, for a moment, that BG and his party are the “saviour” of Italy. Remember Obama? He was going to be the saviour of the USA. Remember Clegg? He was going to control the excesses of the Conservatives. It just doesn’t work like that. Once these people get into power, they find that it’s not so easy to wipe the slate clean and start again. And so, it will probably be for BG and his MPs.

We shall see.

However, what this is NOT is those insane Italians voting for a comedian (as opposed to a buffoon) to lead them. It’s not a joke nor even slightly funny and, if they do manage to get some sort of real power AND they do all that they say they will do (and are seen to be doing in Sicily – i.e. giving back a large part of their salary to lend to small businesses, for example), then there is real hope for Italy to lead the world away from this undemocratic and, frankly, quite disgusting ruling of the plebs by the elite. It’s time that the rest of the world caught up with the Italians.

And, of course, THAT’s exactly what worries the “markets” (aka the banking elites). Now they have control. Give people real freedom and you get something like just happened in Switzerland. Or worse – they get thrown out all together.

The wolves are in charge, it seems

Posted on by
Reply

Finally, it seems, people are starting to wake up.

I have done several posts in the past giving my view that, if you want to really protect your sheep from the foxes, you don’t put the foxes in charge of looking after the sheep.

Nor do you put some sheep in charge. They are, after all, frightened of the foxes.

And, yet …….

And yet, that is exactly what we have done.

The steps go like this:

1. Liberalise everything so you cannot check what the banks are up to.
2. The banks learn how to make more money by “playing” the systems (see recent news about LIBOR manipulation).
3. Everything goes tits up.
4. Blame the sheep for using the fields that the banks have lent them.
5. The sheep in charge, being frightened of the banks (wolves) ask what they can do to fix the situation.
6. The wolves reply that, since the sheep were to blame in the first place and, unless you want to lose the fields, you need to cough up some dosh.
7. Even better was when the wolves managed to get one of their own (e.g. Monti – an ex-Goldman Sachs player) in a position of power.
8. All head sheep say we need austerity, having been told that by the wolves.
9. Austerity means the sheep don’t get fat and so can’t be sold at market. No money coming in.
10. The wolves are laughing all the way to the bank.

Sooner or later this nonsense will stop.

In the meantime, gives a much more business-like take on what I’ve said above.

Thanks to Alex from Italy Chronicles for the heads-up.

Do you want your kids to be gay?

Posted on by
Reply

David Davies, some homophobic Conservative MP (well, MP for Monmouth, actually) has suggested that

“most parents would prefer their children not to be gay”

As a result, there has been all sorts of articles and people attacking him.

Sorry, but, as a gay man, I agree.  Why would anyone WANT their child to be born to be discriminated against?  I mean to say, if they are gay is one thing but you wouldn’t actually want it – in the same way that you wouldn’t WANT your child to be blind or deaf from birth.

Of course, in reality, it’s a sad reflection on society as a whole but, unusually (and probably a first), I agree with him.  I’ve seen too many gay people who are unhappy with how they are – not because they are gay, per se, but because they have found it difficult to ‘fit into’ a world full of gay-bashers, gay-haters and a general feeling of being unwanted.

The fact that he’s said this, of course, should mean that he backs the gay marriage thing – if only to make this preference disappear (or, at least, be reduced).  Sadly, he doesn’t heed his own words and, instead of a reflection of (a bad) society he treats it as a good reason to oppose gay marriage.  MPs should be about making society better not trying to make it worse.

Oh ….. wait …. stupid me.  MPs have never really been about that, have they?

Meanwhile, the will we/won’t we debate about gay marriage rumbles on …….. and on ……

It’s worse than pulling teeth.

The end of the world?

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine a different world.

A world where everyone considers everything they do and say as to what impact it has on other people – and then they censor what they do/say based on whether there is someone, anyone, out there who will find it distatseful or, God forbid, offensive.

It’s a kind of utopia. Everyone will be nice and courteous. Nothing will be said that will ‘hurt our feelings’. Nothing, quite obviously, will be said in rage and, as a consequence, there will be no anger.

Without anger, there will be no need to defend anything and without the need for defence, there will be no war.

And everyone will live happily ever after.

Won’t they?

I mean, surely, that’s what we all want, sin’t it?

The problem with this, of course, is that the term ‘free speech’ becomes redundant. If you are only free to say nice things, what’s the point?

I try to be nice to people, espcially people I know. A friend I haven’t seen for two years or so was told by me that she ‘looked fabulous’. She did – but that’s not really the point. I am, of course, able to say ‘You look tired’ but a) it wasn’t true and b) I don’t think it’s very nice to say that. So I don’t. She’s changed her hair. It’s now short and blonde. I could have said a) your hair looks awful or b) you look like a prostitute. But I didn’t because it wouldn’t have been true and, anyway, it’s not a nice thing to say. Instead, I said ‘Your hair looks lovely’, which it did.

So, was I using ‘free speech’ and saying what I felt? Well, yes but, equally, even if they hadn’t been true, I may have said something like that anyway. And, at that point, I am no longer using ‘free speech’.

But, why not? Didn’t people fight for this right? And if people laid their lives down for this right, why the hell ain’t I using it?

But what if I DID? What then?

Well, most probably, old friends would, suddenly, be a little unfriendly. Now, if I didn’t care, that wouldn’t really be a problem, I guess.

And, at what point would something I said become genuinely offensive? And how do you measure offensive in the first place?

Does the feeling of ‘That’s not very nice’ constitute offence? What if something said makes you feel like bursting into tears? Does that make it offensive?

What if I made some joke about a person who had recently died? A sick joke? I mean, a really sick joke about someone who died very recently that I didn’t know? Well, the dead person wouldn’t be offended. But their family? There again, how would their family know if I just told this very sick joke to my friends who live thousands of miles away from the family?

But, what if one of MY firends was offended by it? There again, how can they really be offended. Are they just saying they’re offended because they think my joke is really sick and not something one should say?

And what is the difference between telling a really sick joke to my friends from saying, for example, that I’m going to blow an airport up should my flight be cancelled for the fourth time, when I’m really angry. I mean, we all say things in the heat of the moment. Things said in anger aren’t really meant.

How many times have you said, ‘Oh I could kill so-and-so’ but, in reality, and, even given a weapon and anonimity, you would NEVER do such a thing. It’s an expression to mean you are REALLY pissed off with a person.

‘They should just bomb the place’ – another expression which I’ve heard said because someone doesn’t like what they’ve heard of about or seen at a place. It doesn NOT mean that they would actually do it. And, if the murder or bombing were to actually take place, most normal people would be horrified that they had said it.

After all, these are just words, however tasteless and disgusting they may be.

And, if we go back to our utopian idea of having a world where no one says anthing that will offend anyone else – what kind of monstrous world have we created?

And yet, this is what ‘they’ seem to be trying to achieve.

And it would be as boring as hell or worse. Even if I don’t agree, or even like, what people say and even if I am outraged by some of the stuff that’s said or done in this world – at least it is premitted to be said or done.

Anyway, for more of the same, read this little article.

Let’s just say that mob rule is the real offensive thing here. And even without the prison sentence, I think that, maybe, Matthew Woods has learnt a valuable lesson – as we all do when we are young and say things that may be considered offensive or crass. Most of us, nearly all of us, don’t go to jail for it, though!

Religion, Lies Part 1 (and THAT newspaper.)

Posted on by
Reply

The DailyHateMail is at it again.

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, apparently, in a speech that was issued (but not actually made), called the people opposing the right of marriage for gay people, bigots.

Today, the headline in the DM says I apologise for my gay marriage ‘bigot’ slur, says Clegg as he tries to limit fallout caused by remark

Clegg wrote a letter which, apparently, says:

‘Those extracts were neither written or approved by me. They do not represent my views, which is why they were subsequently withdrawn.

‘While I am a committed advocate of equal marriage, I would never refer to people who oppose it in this way. Indeed, I know people myself who do not support equal marriage and, although I disagree with them, clearly I do not think they are bigots. Nor do I think it is acceptable they, or anyone else, are insulted in this way.

‘My views on this issue are no secret, but I respect the fact that some people feel differently to me about marriage, often because of their religious beliefs.

‘I hope this explanation helps clarify what happened yesterday as well as my position, and I hope that the serious error that occurred will not cause lasting offence.’

Well, a couple of things here.

1. Clegg didn’t make the speech. And, in any event, these people don’t actually write their speeches. So, someone (but NOT Clegg) wrote the speech which was issued ahead of the event at which Clegg was going to speak. The to-do that occurred as a result meant that the words were changed (or, perhaps it really WAS a mistake).

2. The letter that Clegg subsequently wrote does not apologise for something that he didn’t say in the first place.

3. The definition of a bigot, namely a person having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of their own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others, seems to fit quite well. That’s religion for you.

Saving? Where? Oh – you mean NOT spending more than before? Is that saving? Really?

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine I spend €300 per month, every month.

Then imagine that the government decide to increase sales tax (VAT/IVA) or something from next month. It will mean that, in future, instead of spending €300 I will have to spend €350.

Then, imagine that the government decide to postpone the tax increase until, let’s say, the end of the year.

So, instead of spending €300, as I do now, I will be spending €300 – the same – until the end of the year.

Let me just count out how much I have ‘saved’. Oh, I see that, in fact I have not saved anything but I will not be spending extra for a little while yet.

Compare this with:

I spend €300 per month every month.

The government CUT taxes from next month. It will mean that, instead of spending €300 per month, I will be spending €250 per month. In this case I will be spending €50 less and, so I can actually ‘save’ that money. It’s a kind of bonus to me and is a real saving since I will, actually, be paying LESS.

People’s ideas of ‘saving’ is incredible. The only way you save anything is to spend LESS than you did before.

V used to try this thing with me some times, a long time ago, and it’s logic was of the very worst kind.

The little scenario went like this:

“Do you know how much I saved with this shirt?”

“Well, as you actually SPENT money, I can’t see how you have SAVED any at all!”

“But it was a bargain”

OK, so I paraphrase a lot – but you get the picture. I know other people who do this – it’s not just him.

But back to recent news.

If a tax increase is not put into effect, nobody has SAVED anything at all. It does mean that, in the future, people will not have to spend as much as they might, but it hasn’t made anything cheaper.

And so, this latest so-called U-turn by the government of the UK to NOT put up the tax on petrol (gas to you, Gail) as had been planned, is being lauded and trashed by all and sundry at the same time. But it seems, to me, that everyone is missing the point or points.

This decision to postpone the tax hike will NOT mean that anyone will SAVE money. They will just not spend as much as they might have done.

And this is no U-turn. The hike is not cancelled – merely postponed.

So here is something that is being done in response to the beating they were getting for daring to increase a tax when the country is all but down the drain (See my post Death Valley – UK High Street). But don’t think, for a moment, that anyone will be saving anything.

And then there was this little piece with a video of the Newsnight “interview”

… and then this stupidness – in the same paper!

To be honest, she deserved everything she got. The answer to “When did you know?” is very simple and involves a time or, at least, a date. From there on, it was always going to be downhill.

But, then, if they can equate ‘saving’ to ‘not having to spend more’ then, I guess, we’re all doomed. Might as well have V go and be Prime Minister! :-(