Borders [2015]

Borders are just the boundaries of

Where sets of rules apply.

Where being different, for example,

You can live or you must die.

I don't want persecution

Of people like me

To wander free.

Neither do I want persecution of you.

______

Somewhere between

The far side of

The Middle East

And just over there

The rules change.

A transsexual stoned

In Seaside City

Is a

Recreational

Happenstance.

A transsexual stoned

In the Middle East

Is a

Public

Execution.

______

Especially,

I am wary of people

Who have been raised to

Believe it is their god's will to

Stone me.

Perhaps it

Is no surprise

I am wary of people

Who refuse to respect

Our bounded freedoms.

It is true,

You cannot see

Political boundaries

From the depth of space

But they are very real on earth,

This planet where we have to live.

______

Europe is an area of land.

It has hot bits and cold bits,

Flat bits and bumpy bits,

Bits that are dry and

Bits that are less so but,

It isn't the land that

Made Europe the magnet

For the disenfranchised

From elsewhere in the world.

______

Soil has no more or less problem than sand

With colour or gender or preference,

With who walks hand in hand

With whom or for why

They can't stand

Each other.

It's just

Land.

______

I am fifty-three, born

Only seventeen years

After World War Two.

When I was born a

European, peace was

barely old enough to

ride a motorcycle and

still too young to vote.

This year,

European Peace

Is seventy years old

And we take it for granted.

______

But it has taken people seventy years

Of tolerance, of understanding,

Education and co-operation

To get where we are,

To become where

Everyone else

Wants to

Be.

It didn't come for free.

______

We did not achieve this

Lasting peace in secret.

Our methods are in

The public domain.

______

Our methods are

The European public.

Our customs and practices,

Our rules and regulations,

Our laws and public behaviour

Are what makes Europe

And Europeans

Successful.

The peace

And calm,

The time

To think

Can no more

Be stormed

Or occupied

Than a pub's

Quiet ambience,

Its calm can be

Enjoyed

By anyone

If one

Pugnacious

Seeker

Of it destroys

The very thing

That drew them.

The System

My most recently FB-encountered proponent of dismantling the current "system", that which has evolved over many thousands of years and which has made life gradually easier for all those who engage with it than it would be for them to scratch a living from the earth with their bare hands, was a city-dwelling DJ, one who was pictured on their profile page living in a modest but softly furnished flat, fully clothed and smoking a suspiciously large, hand-rolled cigarette.

Were it not for the current "system" they would have no electricity, food, water, flat or furnishings, they would be naked and the only psycho-active substances available to them would be mushrooms and toadstools unlikely to be found growing nearby, and if they wanted to go anywhere else they would have to walk barefoot to get there.

They really haven't thought it through. Unless, of course, what they really want is for everyone else to continue to operate the current "system" and for themselves just to freeload.

Three Little Piggies 2017

Three Little Piggies 2017

[Only the president's name has been changed]

_____

Across Europe houses are built of brick, stone, concrete and other durable materials.

Mediaeval houses had the stoutest of timber frames with solid infills. The timbers were connected with simple push fit joints and held in place with wooden pegs.

Even in the changing climate, at least for now, Europe does not suffer destructive typhoons and hurricanes.

Yet, in almost every photo of the aftermath of a seriously destructive storm in the USA I see a pile of wood, a bank, a pile of wood, maybe a hotel, a pile of wood, a gas station, a pile of wood etc..

I suspect even Donald Trump could be explained to that it isn’t just when big bad wolves huff and puff that houses of sticks and straw offer little protection.

Surely it is cheaper for the taxpayer to subsidise the building of strong houses that will last for generations, even in such vulnerable areas, than it is to deal with emergency evacuations and the constant rebuilding of homes just as fragile as those they must replace.

© John Barrow (Po) 2007 & 2017

The Digital Despot

It has long been the case that any common-goal movement comprising humans will fractionate over time. In the olden days this would happen after the common goal had been achieved, when petty squabbles took the place of the new-found boredom. The principal effect of social media in particular is to accelerate the process such that the fractionation happens way before anything useful gets done.

Some of the problem arises from the plethora of available movements to digitally support. In the olden days you had to get off your arse and write letters, attend meetings, rallies and events to be part of something. Now people seem to think clicking "Like" on a Facebook page adds weight to anything. It plainly doesn't.

Imagine you are despot who feels the need for a Personal Guard of hand-picked and handsomely paid elite soldiers at your side to make you look 'ard. Imagine you oppress a million people and they start getting umpty. If every single one of them slagged you off on Facebook and Twitter you wouldn't be upset. But if just one in a hundred of them got off their arses, got together and turned up on your doorstep looking for you you would brick yourself.

So the digital despot simply diverts a few currency units from the Personal Guard budget across to the Social Network Unit. It is much more efficient and a lot safer to disrupt or distract discussions online than it is to stand up in an assembly hall full of militants waving a cat picture or suggesting that another cause is of greater worth than the one everyone just gave up their evening to support.

The few who can remain focussed on the big picture and who see but are not distracted by its intricate detail will still achieve change.

[2nd June 2014]

The Manifestos

An unexpected postal vote form arrived so I figured I had better mug up a bit sharpish on who is offering what and how much it is going to cost. To this end, I visited official websites and cheerily downloaded documents to read from the two main contenders for government. 

I was intrigued as to why the Labour Party chose to publish their balancing of the books separately from their Manifesto so, because it was unusual, very much shorter than the manifesto and bound to be full of numbers, Funding Britain's Future was the first of the three documents I read. I was impressed. It looked like a summary profit and loss account, showing itemized policy costs being totaled and balanced against the total of itemized policy savings or additional revenue, with a little extra put aside to cover for fluctuations.

I then looked for a similar table within the Conservative Manifesto to compare it with but there wasn't one. All of the Conservative cost and saving / revenue balances were included within the body text as each policy item was outlined so I ended up reading the whole thing.

In it the Conservatives set out their policy stall across a relatively concise 88 unillustrated pages and mention costs, savings and revenues and how things balance as items arise throughout the Manifesto document. I note the policies themselves are written with a confidence one might elsewhere associate with the statement of common sense, the kind that requires no argument for because anything else would clearly be silliness. End of.

My next read was the Labour Manifesto.

WTF is it with some political parties these days feeling they have to badmouth the competition to make themselves look good? Are not their policies supposed to stand confidently up on their own as being obviously the sensible thing? The Labour Party felt the need to make derisory and at times misleading mention of the Conservatives 68 times in its 123 page manifesto, which averages out as just over a jibe on every other page!

Anyway, aside from this peculiar "we are all victims together" tone in which they were presented alongside many brightly coloured photographs, Labour's policies included no surprises, unlike the policies in the Conservative Manifesto which were a lot closer to the political Centre than I had expected them to be.

The big surprise from reading the Labour Manifesto came from their apparent hoping that no one would ever think of comparing it with their separate Funding Britain's Future publication, you know, the one where the sums balance. Well...

It seems Labour's ruse for getting the books to balance is to include only the costs arising from just enough Manifesto proposals to absorb the few savings anticipated. There are many other proposals in the Manifesto that would incur significant additional costs that are not included in the calculation in the document "Funding Britain's Future" but there are no other proposals from which savings or revenue arise.

Policies aside, the Manifesto documents tell me:

Conservative - Vote for us. We propose to do this stuff and pay for it this way because it makes sense to us.

Labour - Vote for us. Our stuff must be much better because we are not horrid Conservatives.

Labour having published Funding Britain's Future alongside but separate from their Manifesto tells me they knew they couldn't get the books to balance if they took account of all the costs that would arise from their proposals so they avoided including any of them in the Manifesto itself.

Taking into account the proposals and the presented costings for them:

If these two Manifesto packages were tenders to design and build you a house I would have to advise you to go with the Conservative bid and end up reliably warm and dry, even if it isn't in the home of your dreams.

Labour's bid promises a very comfortable and well equipped residence but their price won't cover all of it. So, unless you were able to stump up a whole bunch of extra cash, the build would run out of money before the roof went on, leaving you cold, wet and broke after a relatively short period.

As to Labour's proposed £250bn investment fund:

The idea of a government funding vast infrastructure projects to boost an economy is an outdated one. The consultation and planning period is lengthy and has to be carried out by experienced people, only a handful of contractors have the experience to undertake the work when the planning is complete and the bulk of it is undertaken using huge machines, many of which are sourced from abroad.

Infrastructure projects are a great way for a government to spend lots of money in a hurry, thus bumping up GDP, but the money doesn't filter down in to as many pockets from where it can be spent to support the rest of the economy as it used to when there were a thousand men with shovels and families to support doing the work now undertaken by one or two drivers of large and complex machines.

The rail construction industry is not one that needs such a massive injection of funds. Were these funds to be injected into the sector in the hope the activity in it would increase significantly in a short period of time that hope would be promptly dashed. There simply wouldn't be enough appropriately trained, qualified and experienced people to make it happen. By the end of the first parliament, even if the rail projects were launched on day one, there would be a huge bill for design, consultation and legal fees but no material progress whatsoever.

I don't advocate making any commitment to borrowing billions of extra pounds to spend on anything until Brexit is settled, until trade rules are agreed and the country can work out what it will be able to afford to repay.  If, however, a government were hell-bent on borrowing hugely against an unknown future, I would strongly advise them to build houses not railways.

Spending any given sum on building houses would generate more, and more varied, employment than spending the same sum on building railways and the benefit of all these new builders having money to spend in the wider economy would be felt within months and the housing market would almost immediately begin the process of rebalancing, as it adjusts to the prospect of adequate supply.

If the same pressures were applied to buying up land for housing as would have to be applied to buying up land to run railway lines across, and if the same overall budget were to be made available, it is not beyond imagine that by the end of the first parliament there would be a thriving construction industry, reduced unemployment, no housing shortage and house prices would have fallen noticeably.

I still wouldn't recommend Britain borrowing against an unpredictable economic future, that of trading under as yet undefined post-Brexit rules, because it is daft not to defer any significant borrowing until enough is known to work out what Britain will be able to afford to repay. 

At least if a government invests in housebuilding and the sums are awry and the project has to be shelved half way through there would be still be more houses for people to live in than before, just not as many as they had promised. A half- built railway is no use to anyone.

Trump Meets Obama

From watching the brief photo shoot held after Trump met Obama I am given to think Trump has no real idea of what to do now he has won the election, that he had little or no understanding of what the President's job he fought so hard for actually involves and is now daunted by the prospect of taking it on.

As CEO of all the States of America Trump will no longer have the option of bankruptcy law to fall back on if his grand plans fail, he will not have the personal safety net he relied upon so famously in business.

As round-the-clock front man for the whole USA Trump will no longer have the option to re-shoot or to edit out mistakes, as he could when his personal brand of Reality had TV appended to it and came in short episodes.

For the first time in his life Trump will be just as responsible for the wellbeing of the fired as of the hired and that responsibility will be absolute, as will be his ultimate responsibility for everything else happening in America, too.

So, Citizens of America, be grateful there exist Congress and the Senate to temper any madnesses that might arise from Trump's total lack of experience in the hugely frustrating game of politics he is now elected to play. Even if he avoids meltdown, he will become visibly stressed, he will lose weight and even his hair will suffer.

Meanwhile, don't waste the next four years of your time and energy on fighting amongst yourselves or on just praying for a better world. Instead, get together to use those same hours and that same effort to make genuine improvements to it.

Po's Letter To The Americans

Dear "Christians",

Read your fucking book.
Open the gospels, take a look.

The man on your cross, him with the beard and hair,
Was nailed up for saying life's much better if we share.

In a message word-approved by the 1st English King James
He said, ignore petty differences and concentrate on sames.

He said, Don't give cash to gods, instead pay taxes to your Caesar.

I say, next time, vote to share them out so everyone's lives get easier.

© Pastor Po 2016

The Labour Party is falling victim to its core supporters’ failure to adapt to its own success

The history of the Labour Party movement is complex and lengthy so, other than for the satisfaction of an academic interest, it is far less wasteful of time not to study in detail this gradual evolution but instead to look only at before-and-after snapshots of the social environment in which it has taken place. It is by comparing just these two views that one can most clearly see the enormity of the cumulative effect of the myriad incremental changes that have happened since the beginning of the 20th century.

Whether by drafting independent legislation or by incorporating EU legislation into local law, successive UK governments of all shades have transformed the national workplace such that today it would be barely recognisable to anyone employed when the Labour Party won its first seat in Parliament, especially that it has become a reasonable expectation for any and every worker to remain healthy and uninjured by their work throughout the duration of their career.

Other surprises might be that rest periods are compulsory, working hours are limited, holidays, sick and maternity pay are rights of permanent employment, whether full- or part-time, equality is enshrined in law and the average Trade Union Member is in the middle income bracket.

Even when the existence of the NHS and a pretty comprehensive benefits system are added to the list of social improvements, it is still not that the status quo should be considered “job done” and that Labour should just pack up and head to the pub, but the point definitely has passed beyond which new tools are required if they are to carry on without causing damage to the work already completed.

This is not to suggest they should replace like-for-like all their steam-age structural remodelling equipment with electric versions of the same, rather that they need different tools, those with a lighter touch and which are more controllable, if they want to achieve the quality of finish that is expected in the 21st century, modern tools that didn’t exist when Labour was born because there was not yet the need for them.

Gone is the simplistic distinction between the Conservatives defending the interests of the landed, the Liberals doing the same for those in business and Labour trying to stop everyone else getting shafted along the way. Although, even as far back as 1903, Labour, the party of the employed, was doing deals with the Liberals, the party of the employers, to prevent the Conservatives from winning a general election, so things were never really as straightforward as they were made out to be anyway.

Outside of socialist doctrine, in today’s Britain there is no working class struggle because there is no working class. There are those who earn more than others and there are those who earn less or nothing, but the tradespeople the Unions were created to improve the lot of are pretty much fine now and there is no widespread circumstance placing a blanket restriction on self-betterment for anyone.

It is easier today than it has ever been for anyone to study anything they wish to. Attending a better school doesn’t actually get a child access to any more knowledge than they can get on the device they use to moan on social media about how little hope they have of ever achieving anything and to swap pictures of genitals. No adult is disenfranchised for good simply because they didn’t learn something before they left the education system, unless that is what they have grown up to believe.

_____

Without a genuine oppressed working class there is not only no need of traditional socialism but there is an obvious benefit that would arise were socialists to stop insisting that there is one, because the only folk who cannot take advantage of today’s truly unprecedented equality of opportunity irrespective of birth circumstance are those who refuse to acknowledge it.

It follows that the most urgent and simplest solution to a lack of social mobility is to stop anyone being taught –
 A) that there is a working class,
 B) that they are part of it,
 C) that it’s grim and
 D) that there is no way out,
 a doctrine uncannily similar to that used by worship clubs to spuriously justify their own parasitic existence and to keep the peasantry in check.

Socialism may have been, in its day, an appropriately simplistic reaction to the then current circumstance but in today’s Britain it has become a pretty straightforward hindrance to those it proclaims its key intention is to assist, spreading self-doubt by preaching the pointlessness of ambition.

_____

Human nature has it that all people want to be as comfortable as possible and that most people share the expectation that greater effort should bring greater reward but those who cannot provide for themselves should be supported collectively by those who can. Whether it has been the best hunters running extra quickly to take the best quarry for the village pot or a parent putting in some overtime to enable their own family to enjoy a more exotic summer holiday destination while the taxes they pay support the basic needs of others, the underlying trend can be seen to be the same, as can the inevitability of a small minority thinking it’s fine to invade a village and steal soup or to break in to and nick a telly from the home of a family while they are away.

The majority of people everywhere are naturally moderate in their political view but ultimately, if push comes to shove, they are more concerned with the wellbeing of themselves and those close to them than with anyone else, which puts them fractionally to the right of yet still within the political centre.

If Labour wants to play a more major role in government in the future it needs to recognise that the average working person in Britain today has more than they ever had before, enough that traditional socialism has become to the majority a threat to their personal advancement and not a promise of it.

Workers now do have rights, a benefits system now does exist and the NHS now is there to keep everyone in reasonable health, even under a Conservative government. So it is hardly outrageous to suggest that a nineteenth century philosophical blunt instrument devised when these things were beyond imagine is inappropriate for the political twenty-first century, just as a heavy hammer that serves well to knock a hole in a wall is useless for making good the finish around its edges.

______

In 2016, the Labour Party is behaving like a worship club does when its appeal diminishes in a changing society and it becomes faced with a choice between discarding what were previously inalterable tenets promoted as edicts from its god and running out of congregation in the modern and more educated world, the officers who run the club insisting the club’s focus should be returned to the original fire and brimstone performances to boost their audiences while failing to appreciate that today’s public just want to have a bit of a sing-song and to enjoy that they no longer need to worry about burning in hell.

Ashcroft and Cameron

In true tabloid fashion, the disclaimer acknowledging the story might be bollocks ...

[that no corroboration of the story has been received by the authors of the book & article and that their request for sight of the photo has been ignored and that the whole thing could just as easily be a case of mistaken identity or even an elaborate hoax and that even the prop said to be in the picture was not an uncommon find at parties attended by students at that university at that time]

... doesn't come until after the authors have told *only of their hearing of* the story themselves.

[Hearsay evidence - noun - (law) evidence based on what has been reported to a witness by others rather than what he has himself observed or experienced (not generally admissible as evidence)]

I'm left wondering whether I am intended to believe the photographer had their own darkroom, seeing as a roll of film with the implied image on it wouldn't be one you would readily entrust to the local chemist for processing or stick in a bag and bundle off to Bonusprint. Certainly not if you were rich, whichever side of the camera you had been.

I think whoever it was blocked Lord Ashcroft's appointment to Government made a good call.

Even if the allegation were to be completely true and blah, blah, blah, I am reassured that the eight million pounds donated by the author to the Conservative Party didn't buy him the level of influence he wanted it to. He appears far too spiteful.

Boarding Schools and Bad Leaders (FB May 25th 2015)

The Guardian article currently doing the rounds, the one about boarding schools producing bad leaders, is clearly an emotionally exaggerated piece rather than a factual one.

It is simply not appropriate to describe going to boarding school as having to "survive the loss of [one's] family".

Being away from home for a small and finite number of weeks is a bit scary to begin with but, as traumatic experiences go, it is not in the same league as being orphaned and I think it an insulting analogy to anyone who has suffered the latter.

It is nonsense also to suggest, a little further down the same (first) paragraph, that communal living hinders the formation of relationships. If anything, the enforced sharing of living space tends one to learn how better to get along, form friendships and collaborate with people whose company one might not otherwise choose.

I also take issue with the author stating later in the article, " Bullying is inevitable and endemic in 24/7 institutions full of abandoned and frightened kids."

In reality, bullies' reigns of terror are usually quite tame and short-lived in boarding schools, because any inflicted physical injury will be promptly discovered and even bullies have to sleep sometime and they are then as vulnerable as anyone else. In today's world, bullies are also at considerable risk of expulsion from school with no money back for their parents and their place being re-sold. Litigation aside, failing to eliminate bullying is bad for business.

Simply sending children to boarding school is not the same as "abandoning" them. That's emotional rubbish again, as is the sweeping description of boarding pupils as "frightened kids". I attended two boarding schools, one of which I enjoyed and one I didn't, but at neither did I feel abandoned or would describe myself as being frightened.

At a guess, the author has issues arising from his own upbringing, education and early career. He graduated in Sanskrit from Oxford, taught in India, became a carpenter, retrained in psycho-spiritual stuff and for the last twenty years or so has been generating income as a therapist and writer, while apparently seeking a blameable entity to excuse his own self-perceived inadequacies in the area of relationships and gender.

But while I can only guess at the article's author's exact motive, reference to history confirms that David Cameron stood for election in 1997, has been an MP since 2001, the leader of the Conservative Party since 2005 and in 2015 has just commenced his second term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I am sure most would concede this record to represent success in leadership, even if it has not been in their preferred direction.

If you are fortunate enough to be able to offer your children the opportunity to experience boarding school and they are up for it go for it. Certainly don't let anyone put you off because someone who went to boarding school became Prime Minister. Twice. That would be daft.

Tube Strike (FB 8th July 2015)

Today I find myself amused by noting how many of the moans and groans about the Tube drivers strike, particularly those mentioning the drivers' working conditions, contracts and existing remunerations packages, are coming from those whom I might describe as "under 30, something-for-nothing-socialists".

I suspect they have no idea that these and other "cushy" positions held within the rail industry are the direct legacy of the nationalised services of the 1960s and 1970s and that it is not possible in law for the "private" companies now responsible for providing the services today to get them changed.

Trade Unions, initially created to avoid workers being trampled on by their employers, didn't stop at defending their members' reasonable interests and achieving fairness across the board. Instead, they kept on improving their own members' lots at the expense of the lots of other workers, many of whom were also funded by the public purse. Collective greed is still greed.

Socialism might be wonderful in theory but it doesn't work when you apply it to real people in the real world. It never has and it never will. There will always be generous people and greedy people and there will always be lazy people and those who work hard. Any system that ignores these differences and overlooks that some people will simply cheat for their own personal gain whatever the rules are will be doomed to fail.

"Big Business" (FB 9th July 2015)

The "big businesses" I keep seeing people moan about are just as accurately described as "major employers", providing incomes for their own staff and for the staff of their supply chains and distribution networks.

The last time I did the sums relating to a relatively large company I worked for, I discovered that for every £200 I was paid by the company I contributed no more than 40p to the shareholders of the company, whose personal investment enabled the public infrastructure works we carried out to take place. This still strikes me as a pretty good deal for continuous employment.

Conversely, my greediest employer ran one of the smallest companies I ever worked for. In a single year, simply by doing my job well and managing his company better than he had, I was able to improve his gross annual income by a sustainable £125,000 yet he was reluctant to raise my salary above 10% of that figure. I made him £2000 for every £200 he paid me and I withdrew my services at the end of that year.

Whether it is fashionable or not to mention it, in the unemotional world of sums involving real world numbers, employees almost always get a fairer deal from larger companies than from small ones.

Labour Party Leadership (FB 5th August 2015)

While I have no direct interest in Party political matters and am consequently not following closely the news coverage of the Labour leadership contest, I am picking up enough in passing to establish the gist of the debates and to note how many people seem to have a misunderstanding of human nature.

The further to the left the Labour Party leadership goes the further away from potential to form government it goes.

The general electorate is naturally self-interested and the majority will always sit just to the right of centre, only voting towards their the left when the alternative is too extreme for comfort or cocks things up spectacularly, as in the 90s when New Labour was pitched left of Conservative but not by far.

Being able to eloquently present and debate a left-leaning opinion is not enough to make it work. If an Opposition proposal is too radical it ceases to be an option for the majority to consider as a viable alternative to a Government proposal and the opportunity to bring about change by diverting votes is lost.

The ideal is to return the country's direction to straight ahead, not to keep swerving it from side to side, to make steady progress rather than boom then bust. Yes, it is dull. The simple administration of an economy should be dull.