Reply to ‘offensive art’ article, Wakefield Express.
Art should not have to deny a right to offend. Isn’t it through having our everyday experiences challenged that we gain a new understanding of things?
This work in that case is timely given the retreat from reason and a reverence for nature over humanity.
Nature of course being inherently 'cruel' and if designed by god then he is not that much to look up to.
Not that I would want religious art to be banned any more than the dead dogs as both can explain more about the human condition.
Anyway, at least it’s organic.
This is another example of local councillors posing as moral guardians as the issue appeared in the local press with our then Lady Mayor, Janet Holmes (lab). One assumes that in her mayoral position the good lady had fur on her collar?
Friday, May 13, 2005
Monday, May 09, 2005
Election fraud? a personal account. Normanton 2005.
A 'campaign' that was always behind before it started yielded quite a result - 780 votes surpassed expectations on one count but does need some explaining.
The decision was made to stand when 2 days before final call a letter was received from Labour man on a mission, Ed Balls, asking for input on his listener panel. Others include a goading 4th estate, various other wind up merchants but mainly the conditions of our daily lives and the direction that we are headed for.
A leaflet was laboured over and eventually spewed out something of a hackjob. All the deadlines were approaching so it had to do.
A day at the printers before final off and a chance to put things in to perspective - What the hell are you doing!?! Followed by a dark, moody period calming to introspection, sleep and facing the inevitable. Whatever faults, at least there was a measure of belief.
Barely subdued anger fuels much action but does little for direction. The election provided an element of direction and a chance to promote some ideas - not particularly my own, but shared ones. The goal in the election was never a personal one, it was more to get people to see the pitfalls and potentials ahead, to challenge their beliefs and see themselves as potential.
All grand plans proved illusory as the campaign fell further behind - 1o, ooo leaflets for 4o, ooo households over 6 days (3500 delivered) and targetted for public meetings.
Brief respite came in the form of a 'meet the candidates' meeting promoted by Churches together (thanks given to secretary, D. Rowland and the Bishop of Pontefract as chair). All the thoughts that had previously seemed so clear were now absent and the 5 minute intro took two hours to prepare and stumbled out over one and a half minutes.
(Dig in.)
Quite a lively event with a small cross section of community players giving us wannabes a grilling. Mr. Balls had done his homework and did sterling work but largely stuck to the party line as did the Tory candidate. The Liberal stand in deviated slightly considering youth and John Aveyard of the BNP gave an honest enough account of his beliefs. Yours truly performed consistently offering half remembered arguments and trying to put the case for humanity.
Chatting to the audience afterwards revealed that it hadn't gone down as bad as first thought.
The rest of the campaign then largely fell into one of technicalities - delivering leaflets and barely any chance to discuss aims with the public.
Meetings prepared on the hoof would have been a joke if the whole thing hadn't been considered something of an experiment. In effect one caretaker heard the first speech and the others were used as practice.
78o votes doesn't mean much under those circumstances other than perhaps representing something of a critical but disconnected public.
And potential.
The decision was made to stand when 2 days before final call a letter was received from Labour man on a mission, Ed Balls, asking for input on his listener panel. Others include a goading 4th estate, various other wind up merchants but mainly the conditions of our daily lives and the direction that we are headed for.
A leaflet was laboured over and eventually spewed out something of a hackjob. All the deadlines were approaching so it had to do.
A day at the printers before final off and a chance to put things in to perspective - What the hell are you doing!?! Followed by a dark, moody period calming to introspection, sleep and facing the inevitable. Whatever faults, at least there was a measure of belief.
Barely subdued anger fuels much action but does little for direction. The election provided an element of direction and a chance to promote some ideas - not particularly my own, but shared ones. The goal in the election was never a personal one, it was more to get people to see the pitfalls and potentials ahead, to challenge their beliefs and see themselves as potential.
All grand plans proved illusory as the campaign fell further behind - 1o, ooo leaflets for 4o, ooo households over 6 days (3500 delivered) and targetted for public meetings.
Brief respite came in the form of a 'meet the candidates' meeting promoted by Churches together (thanks given to secretary, D. Rowland and the Bishop of Pontefract as chair). All the thoughts that had previously seemed so clear were now absent and the 5 minute intro took two hours to prepare and stumbled out over one and a half minutes.
(Dig in.)
Quite a lively event with a small cross section of community players giving us wannabes a grilling. Mr. Balls had done his homework and did sterling work but largely stuck to the party line as did the Tory candidate. The Liberal stand in deviated slightly considering youth and John Aveyard of the BNP gave an honest enough account of his beliefs. Yours truly performed consistently offering half remembered arguments and trying to put the case for humanity.
Chatting to the audience afterwards revealed that it hadn't gone down as bad as first thought.
The rest of the campaign then largely fell into one of technicalities - delivering leaflets and barely any chance to discuss aims with the public.
Meetings prepared on the hoof would have been a joke if the whole thing hadn't been considered something of an experiment. In effect one caretaker heard the first speech and the others were used as practice.
78o votes doesn't mean much under those circumstances other than perhaps representing something of a critical but disconnected public.
And potential.
'Pawns of War?'
War – what is it good for?: a response to Wakefield Express article: British Legion fighting new war – against apathy.
As Remembrance Day came and went maybe the question should be asked – what is it we are actually supposed to remember? Do we agonise over the deaths of our long dead relatives or are we honouring the cause they fought for?
Dodgy headlines such as the raping of Belgian nuns and bayonetting of babies helped galvanize public opinion. Britain’s farmhands, factory and office workers plus a great many from India in particular, other colonies, dominions and protectorates, enlisted to fight for King and country without further question.
These headlines have long been exposed for the propaganda they were, much like Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait (Gulf war #1) or indeed that Fikret Alic symbolised Serbian concentration camps. Yet any criticism or even unbiased analysis of the war, Nation or Remembrance Day invites scorn, that the dead are being mocked.
But who is doing the mocking? Our forebears died in their youth before they had led much of a life. We would better serve their memory by questioning the motives behind the war rather than dulling thought with foolish, sentimental and misplaced remembrance stunts.
The sickest part of events such as Remembrance Day is that the reasons for conflict are whitewashed and the dead resurrected to march for their political masters once more. These men (and women) though dead live on in the memory as a convenient prop for the pantomime and pageantry that is National pride, wheeled out and re-enlisted for every convenient commemoration and hastily reburied when they become stinkingly embarrassing.
Our leadership open up the old wounds of the twisted and maimed and shed crocodile tears over tortured memories. In so doing they mock the dead and seek to lock the minds of the living. Freedom of speech, to criticise, to think and argue a point becomes subverted to the limited concerns of a self-interested and deceitful minority. The national flag effectively becoming a security blanket that muffles discerning voices.
In the Express article, veteran Ralph Denby states that only one year has passed without the death of a member of the armed forces. Doesn’t this nail the myth of Remembrance Day? The day when war was supposed to end? Yet Britain’s leaders and those of an ever-shifting band of allies have continuously waged war and sold short those who believed they were fighting a just cause. To be willing to fight and die for a cause is a noble thing but senseless if that cause is neither believed in nor understood. Perhaps I judge our forebears harshly – after all, what do many of us, let alone your average 19yr old, choose to know about war?
Today’s well-documented and one-sided war in Iraq lumbers on without aim, direction or justification. The very reasons for going to war in the first place have proven to be something of a moving target – buried and resurfacing only to be lost again as war develops a crude logic. Perhaps this may explain public apathy. Our smug leaders, with no opposition of merit, vainly expose themselves through their use of ‘embeds’. Desperate for some hint of success and finding none they cling to so-called glorious days of the past, risk shooting themselves in the foot and opening the whole can of worms.
Read on: The War in Europe: What really happened?
http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WWII/contents.htm
As Remembrance Day came and went maybe the question should be asked – what is it we are actually supposed to remember? Do we agonise over the deaths of our long dead relatives or are we honouring the cause they fought for?
Dodgy headlines such as the raping of Belgian nuns and bayonetting of babies helped galvanize public opinion. Britain’s farmhands, factory and office workers plus a great many from India in particular, other colonies, dominions and protectorates, enlisted to fight for King and country without further question.
These headlines have long been exposed for the propaganda they were, much like Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait (Gulf war #1) or indeed that Fikret Alic symbolised Serbian concentration camps. Yet any criticism or even unbiased analysis of the war, Nation or Remembrance Day invites scorn, that the dead are being mocked.
But who is doing the mocking? Our forebears died in their youth before they had led much of a life. We would better serve their memory by questioning the motives behind the war rather than dulling thought with foolish, sentimental and misplaced remembrance stunts.
The sickest part of events such as Remembrance Day is that the reasons for conflict are whitewashed and the dead resurrected to march for their political masters once more. These men (and women) though dead live on in the memory as a convenient prop for the pantomime and pageantry that is National pride, wheeled out and re-enlisted for every convenient commemoration and hastily reburied when they become stinkingly embarrassing.
Our leadership open up the old wounds of the twisted and maimed and shed crocodile tears over tortured memories. In so doing they mock the dead and seek to lock the minds of the living. Freedom of speech, to criticise, to think and argue a point becomes subverted to the limited concerns of a self-interested and deceitful minority. The national flag effectively becoming a security blanket that muffles discerning voices.
In the Express article, veteran Ralph Denby states that only one year has passed without the death of a member of the armed forces. Doesn’t this nail the myth of Remembrance Day? The day when war was supposed to end? Yet Britain’s leaders and those of an ever-shifting band of allies have continuously waged war and sold short those who believed they were fighting a just cause. To be willing to fight and die for a cause is a noble thing but senseless if that cause is neither believed in nor understood. Perhaps I judge our forebears harshly – after all, what do many of us, let alone your average 19yr old, choose to know about war?
Today’s well-documented and one-sided war in Iraq lumbers on without aim, direction or justification. The very reasons for going to war in the first place have proven to be something of a moving target – buried and resurfacing only to be lost again as war develops a crude logic. Perhaps this may explain public apathy. Our smug leaders, with no opposition of merit, vainly expose themselves through their use of ‘embeds’. Desperate for some hint of success and finding none they cling to so-called glorious days of the past, risk shooting themselves in the foot and opening the whole can of worms.
Read on: The War in Europe: What really happened?
http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WWII/contents.htm
Both barrels.
As a kid I loved it when the family went camping. In them days you could chop down trees, drink home made beer and swim from rock to rock in rivers with leaping salmon - heaven (Boets-y-Coed, actually).
My Dad showed me how to tie a bowline (I was shit at it), but now oddly enough for the first time ever it comes to mind. That knot could save your life he said.
(He also taught me how to blow my nose cowboy style but you don't wanna know.)
My Dad showed me how to tie a bowline (I was shit at it), but now oddly enough for the first time ever it comes to mind. That knot could save your life he said.
(He also taught me how to blow my nose cowboy style but you don't wanna know.)
3 election presentations, 2005.
(A. k. a. 'The experimental education and public humiliation of an Independent candidate'.)
These three pieces were pretty much written on the hoof and were subject to other pressures at the time. As such they don't neccesarily fit the billing but it was hoped that an audience discussion would have taken matters further.
#1 Environmentalism: outline for presentation at Normanton.
Despite informing quite a lot of political discussion leading up to the elections the environment has been sidelined probably because it runs counter to people’s aspirations for a better life, but also because the terms in which it is defined are wrong.
Elections – a time when we believe we can choose how our lives may be mapped out and we have the limited option to exert some influence should be a time when these matters are discussed.
The fact that green issues have been quietly dropped seems to point out that there’s more to this than at first meets the eye.
I don’t want to make this a discussion about Tony Blair –that’s a different matter - but he did promise to make environmental issues - particularly climate change -central to his (expected?) presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading Industrialised nations.
Such is the level of importance attached to this issue that it is likely to inform the political landscape for some time to come, though perhaps in a different form.
Politics, however, is not an exact science and is subject to opportunism. Some elements of the mainstream are trying to change their position yet make out it’s a progression from their last one, hence good old uncle Tony belatedly endorses Nuclear power as possibly the way forward – albeit under the guise of it being greener.
Nuclear power is actually more ‘environment friendly’ but it certainly doesn’t fit into what the green ‘movement’ wants. If anything it’s their ultimate bogeyman, for now.
The whole notion of environmental politics or ideology is backwards, anti human and, in fact, contradictory.
To explain I’ll give you an example –
My own dissatisfaction with life as a teenager led me to become a vegetarian – since recovered, thankyou.
A thawing chicken on the draining board at home looked too much like a dead body and put me off meat. There then followed 5 years of ethnic and organic ‘whole’ foods which gradually slipped into cheese, biscuits and all manner of convenience foods.
The raw nature of whole foods means that nearly every aspect of them is done at home by individual processing – taking all the stones out or risk losing your teeth if you’re talking about lentils – then soaking, slow cooking, etc, etc until they are suitable to eat. And all for a result that is easier attained when these things are done on a mass scale - cheaper, more efficient and plentiful.
*
Ecological arguments undermine themselves by offering a utopian vision that is contradicted by the actions and desires of its proponents.
Despite people’s dissatisfaction with their everyday lives – myself included – we live better and healthier than ever before. Yet there is a deep rooted pessimism about our ability to make things better today.
I’d argue this ability to improve, to progress, is a defining characteristic of human beings and something that we are all capable of.
Curiosity, endeavour, then later industry, science and technology have vastly improved our lot but are being undermined by a widespread belief that we are destroying the planet, that human activity makes things worse.
Of course there are areas for improvement – that’s why people criticise or take an interest in politics.
Notions of progress when applied practically reveal things that we are initially unaware of. Sometimes the results aren’t quite what we expect but then life isn’t an exact science, but again that progressive bent means that we attempt to sort it out.
I think that’s where the confusion lies – how we sort things out, and it depends on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist or believe that a better future can be achieved.
*Nuclear power, Gmo food technology and factory farms, etc actually confound the green argument because more is provided with less thus leaving more time, space and energy for true societal and personal development. . . . tbc
*
#2 ASBOs and discipline: outline for presentation at Stanley.
To anyone who has been on the receiving end of persistent or intense nuisance behaviour I apologise if the following trivialises that experience. Although it is not my intention to do so.
It would be foolish to deny that youth and some adults do, on occasion, pose something of a nuisance to others. Graffiti, litter, petty vandalism and rowdy drunks, etc do exist and indeed always have done to one degree or another, but not to the extent that merits the attention they receive today.
I’m more concerned as to why such petty aspects of behaviour have risen to the forefront of political discussion.
*There is a generalised ‘climate of fear’ endorsed and promoted by an increasingly detached elite – those who shape and implement policy that governs all our lives.
Since no grander vision of how best society can be organised exists anymore mainstream politics has reduced itself to the management of affairs between individuals.
This is something shared by all mainstream parties to some extent, merely differing by degree as to how they choose to entice a disillusioned public.
New Labour in power has initiated over a thousand new laws, rules and regulations.
On top of this there has been a huge growth in advisory bodies, counselling groups and further recommendations as to what we can and cannot do and what we ought to do.
This extends through most aspects of our daily lives whether at home, in the workplace, on the roads, wherever.
This reflects an ever greater distancing of anxious politicians and their desire to connect in which ever way.
However, these attempts to micro manage our lives actually undermine social cohesion and displace authority from those directly involved – parents, neighbours and the wider community and place it in the hands of state authorities.
This insidious encroachment of our liberty goes largely unquestioned. In fact, with no other channel, sections of the public are likely to clamour for even more intrusion, which in effect only serves to make the situation worse.
*We may remember being kids ourselves and, if we are honest, many of us will recall getting up to allsorts of mischief - it's a rite of passage.
On the whole children cannot have the same understanding of events that adults do. They neither have to work for a living, pay the mortgage and other household bills or even bring up children.
As they grow older the things that they were lead to believe in are confronted by reality, but still, society pays lip service to convention and these beliefs are transferred to successive generations, perhaps slightly modified but largely unquestioned.
It’s hardly surprising then that children and youths test the barriers and get up to mischief as they become older.
*Abuse is the term now widely applied to many aspects of behaviour that an individual rightly or wrongly finds disagreeable.
Parents, Teachers and other adults can no longer chastise unruly children without their authority being called into question.
The way education is implemented and the subject matter is an issue of its own yet Teachers are also hampered in their delivery of lessons by unruly classes for fear of inviting an investigation of their behaviour.
Little wonder then that many are fed up with their profession and there is a problem with holding on to staff.
*Proper cases of abuse, adequately covered by existing laws, have been used to introduce a raft of measures that can be and are implanted in what are quite ordinary circumstances.
Such is the all encompassing approach of regulation and its application in trivial circumstances that serious matters go unnoticed until it becomes too late.
The Police, notably in South Yorkshire, have stated that they can no longer attach much importance to burglary and the like, which does beg the question as to why more endeavour is placed in what should be the private realm.
Indeed crime - by any measure - has fallen only to be replaced by the ‘fear of crime’, despite evermore activities now being classed as criminal at worst or subject to investigation by state authorities.
The Chief Commissioner of Police, I believe, actually rebuked Michael Howard for raising fears over increasing levels of crime.
*To conclude this very brief introduction I would argue that these fears are generally overplayed and in themselves problematic leading to ever increasing calls for regulation and further societal mistrust and breakdown.
*
#3 Multiculturalism: outline for presentation at Ossett.
This year the UK will be holding the presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading industrialised nations. Therefore it comes as something of a surprise that this hasn’t featured more prominently in mainstream political circles.
Interesting enough that New Labour decided fox-hunting was more of an issue than something as important as this, deciding to hold any referendum on Europe only after the general election. This in itself proves the limited nature of electoral politics - such is the importance attached to anything that really matters.
The European Union is perhaps best understood as a protectionist zone for European Business; now something of a bulwark against a rapidly emerging far eastern economy and in times past the USA. Although the UK’s special interest with the US has always been one of the factors holding up European integration.
Of course Britain is not alone in this as all European nations have their own specific interests – cohering their respective populations around a set of values, or culture, and safeguarding the interests of their own economies.
Britain’s unique role stems from new international relations that came into effect after WW2 when the world order was determined by America – the true victor of WW1 and 2.
Now though, the USA is the largest debtor nation of all time. This stands in sharp contrast to its post war position as The global economic, political and military power, the world reordered around US interests and defined against the Soviet bloc.
It is the demise of the Soviet Union that has undermined all the old post war institutions and the beliefs attached to them that has led to the crisis of confidence in the west.
Western capitalism’s triumphant mood has proven short lived leading to the quest for new values and cultural identity as all the old ones are called into question.
This process is well under way in the US and has been lurking in the background in the UK for some time.
*Despite many a reason being given for it, the war in Iraq was for no other purpose than to find a sense of mission and reclaim the moral high ground against a brutal dictator – one of many that western governments do business with.
This ill considered venture has been a spectacular failure for the erstwhile ‘coalition of the willing’ and a huge setback for the Iraqi population.
The Iraq war has left a bad taste in the mouth for some and many others choose to ignore it, now that it has descended into debacle.
Yet it may, and should, serve to haunt the establishment for some time to come.
Further intervention abroad is likely to prove much more difficult. Although that is not going to stop them from trying. Expect more character assassinations of foreign dictators and, by implication, their populations.
Interesting to note, that with the failure of the Iraq mission, New Labour has changed tack and turned it’s attention to Africa – the plight of impoverished Africans long being the subject of middle class and radical sympathies.
From Non Governmental Organisations to the Government itself this usually comes in the guise of Aid, charity or ‘sustainable development’ – keeping things pretty much as they are, perhaps selling ethnic goods to ethical tourists or growing cash crops in a very competitive market.
But rarely development like advanced nations. In fact, under the guise of sustainable development and not destroying the planet, the developing world is not likely to see much of any real benefit. This is a disingenuous argument as the world is in a better
state, environmentally speaking, than it has been for centuries.
Rather than giving peasant farmers a fair trade logo and a marginal increase in profit or holding ‘feed the world’ gigs, just a 1% increase of African exports would give $70 billion dollars worth of revenue.
This dwarfs any amount of charitable donations Africa receives and would bring the continent closer to the living standards enjoyed in more advanced countries.
When you consider that 40% of the EU budget goes to subsidising agriculture and that Mozambique – almost the poorest nation on earth – had to end subsidies to its farmers as part of a World Bank austerity package, then things take on a new perspective.
The subsidies given to some farmers were government surplus goods, such as clothing, that they then had to sell and pay back the Government.
Pretty alarming when even the Royal family receive farming handouts in the UK.
Sympathy does nothing for Africa.
It enshrines the belief that Africans and blacks are intrinsically inferior people, worthy of charity and beneficial guidance.
*
The international focus is mirrored by its domestic counterpart, inasmuch as immigrant peoples, of any category, are seen as embodying values that we in the west may find uncivilised or backward.
Some elements of this are indeed true, which is why immigrants come here in the first place – to develop and better their prospects.
Falling birthrates and an ageing population in the UK means that immigration is a necessity.
Likewise, a fluctuating but still buoyant labour market is in need of more overseas workers. *
The belief that foreigners are different means that they are seen as requiring special attention - their cultural differences needing to be respected in the name of tolerance.
Yet many come to escape the cloying confines of their inherited culture only to find attempts to reaffirm it by politicians with a lack of ideas as to any progressive or unifying identity.
Some may recall Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of blood’ speech where he warned of the white man being an alien in his own country.
To some this rings true today.
It’s not too hard to see why what with erstwhile radical politicians banning hot cross buns and the celebrations of diverse cultures and religious festivals in schools.
These things weren’t asked for by minority groups, rather they were foisted upon them by detached politicians.
Yet anything that is overtly British is avoided like the plague, much to the annoyance of members of the general public.
It’s safe to say that a modern understanding of British culture is amiss and
in mainstream circles there is an increasing element of alarm.
A rapidly globalising economy will become very competitive as new markets and souces of raw materials are sought and any economy not up to speed will, obviously, fall behind.
It is this that is driving the search for an inclusive yet multicultural identity.
Multiculturalism is problematic because it celebrates opposing values as being of equal merit which leaves backward ideas unchallenged and creates further division along artificial lines.
*
These three pieces were pretty much written on the hoof and were subject to other pressures at the time. As such they don't neccesarily fit the billing but it was hoped that an audience discussion would have taken matters further.
#1 Environmentalism: outline for presentation at Normanton.
Despite informing quite a lot of political discussion leading up to the elections the environment has been sidelined probably because it runs counter to people’s aspirations for a better life, but also because the terms in which it is defined are wrong.
Elections – a time when we believe we can choose how our lives may be mapped out and we have the limited option to exert some influence should be a time when these matters are discussed.
The fact that green issues have been quietly dropped seems to point out that there’s more to this than at first meets the eye.
I don’t want to make this a discussion about Tony Blair –that’s a different matter - but he did promise to make environmental issues - particularly climate change -central to his (expected?) presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading Industrialised nations.
Such is the level of importance attached to this issue that it is likely to inform the political landscape for some time to come, though perhaps in a different form.
Politics, however, is not an exact science and is subject to opportunism. Some elements of the mainstream are trying to change their position yet make out it’s a progression from their last one, hence good old uncle Tony belatedly endorses Nuclear power as possibly the way forward – albeit under the guise of it being greener.
Nuclear power is actually more ‘environment friendly’ but it certainly doesn’t fit into what the green ‘movement’ wants. If anything it’s their ultimate bogeyman, for now.
The whole notion of environmental politics or ideology is backwards, anti human and, in fact, contradictory.
To explain I’ll give you an example –
My own dissatisfaction with life as a teenager led me to become a vegetarian – since recovered, thankyou.
A thawing chicken on the draining board at home looked too much like a dead body and put me off meat. There then followed 5 years of ethnic and organic ‘whole’ foods which gradually slipped into cheese, biscuits and all manner of convenience foods.
The raw nature of whole foods means that nearly every aspect of them is done at home by individual processing – taking all the stones out or risk losing your teeth if you’re talking about lentils – then soaking, slow cooking, etc, etc until they are suitable to eat. And all for a result that is easier attained when these things are done on a mass scale - cheaper, more efficient and plentiful.
*
Ecological arguments undermine themselves by offering a utopian vision that is contradicted by the actions and desires of its proponents.
Despite people’s dissatisfaction with their everyday lives – myself included – we live better and healthier than ever before. Yet there is a deep rooted pessimism about our ability to make things better today.
I’d argue this ability to improve, to progress, is a defining characteristic of human beings and something that we are all capable of.
Curiosity, endeavour, then later industry, science and technology have vastly improved our lot but are being undermined by a widespread belief that we are destroying the planet, that human activity makes things worse.
Of course there are areas for improvement – that’s why people criticise or take an interest in politics.
Notions of progress when applied practically reveal things that we are initially unaware of. Sometimes the results aren’t quite what we expect but then life isn’t an exact science, but again that progressive bent means that we attempt to sort it out.
I think that’s where the confusion lies – how we sort things out, and it depends on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist or believe that a better future can be achieved.
*Nuclear power, Gmo food technology and factory farms, etc actually confound the green argument because more is provided with less thus leaving more time, space and energy for true societal and personal development. . . . tbc
*
#2 ASBOs and discipline: outline for presentation at Stanley.
To anyone who has been on the receiving end of persistent or intense nuisance behaviour I apologise if the following trivialises that experience. Although it is not my intention to do so.
It would be foolish to deny that youth and some adults do, on occasion, pose something of a nuisance to others. Graffiti, litter, petty vandalism and rowdy drunks, etc do exist and indeed always have done to one degree or another, but not to the extent that merits the attention they receive today.
I’m more concerned as to why such petty aspects of behaviour have risen to the forefront of political discussion.
*There is a generalised ‘climate of fear’ endorsed and promoted by an increasingly detached elite – those who shape and implement policy that governs all our lives.
Since no grander vision of how best society can be organised exists anymore mainstream politics has reduced itself to the management of affairs between individuals.
This is something shared by all mainstream parties to some extent, merely differing by degree as to how they choose to entice a disillusioned public.
New Labour in power has initiated over a thousand new laws, rules and regulations.
On top of this there has been a huge growth in advisory bodies, counselling groups and further recommendations as to what we can and cannot do and what we ought to do.
This extends through most aspects of our daily lives whether at home, in the workplace, on the roads, wherever.
This reflects an ever greater distancing of anxious politicians and their desire to connect in which ever way.
However, these attempts to micro manage our lives actually undermine social cohesion and displace authority from those directly involved – parents, neighbours and the wider community and place it in the hands of state authorities.
This insidious encroachment of our liberty goes largely unquestioned. In fact, with no other channel, sections of the public are likely to clamour for even more intrusion, which in effect only serves to make the situation worse.
*We may remember being kids ourselves and, if we are honest, many of us will recall getting up to allsorts of mischief - it's a rite of passage.
On the whole children cannot have the same understanding of events that adults do. They neither have to work for a living, pay the mortgage and other household bills or even bring up children.
As they grow older the things that they were lead to believe in are confronted by reality, but still, society pays lip service to convention and these beliefs are transferred to successive generations, perhaps slightly modified but largely unquestioned.
It’s hardly surprising then that children and youths test the barriers and get up to mischief as they become older.
*Abuse is the term now widely applied to many aspects of behaviour that an individual rightly or wrongly finds disagreeable.
Parents, Teachers and other adults can no longer chastise unruly children without their authority being called into question.
The way education is implemented and the subject matter is an issue of its own yet Teachers are also hampered in their delivery of lessons by unruly classes for fear of inviting an investigation of their behaviour.
Little wonder then that many are fed up with their profession and there is a problem with holding on to staff.
*Proper cases of abuse, adequately covered by existing laws, have been used to introduce a raft of measures that can be and are implanted in what are quite ordinary circumstances.
Such is the all encompassing approach of regulation and its application in trivial circumstances that serious matters go unnoticed until it becomes too late.
The Police, notably in South Yorkshire, have stated that they can no longer attach much importance to burglary and the like, which does beg the question as to why more endeavour is placed in what should be the private realm.
Indeed crime - by any measure - has fallen only to be replaced by the ‘fear of crime’, despite evermore activities now being classed as criminal at worst or subject to investigation by state authorities.
The Chief Commissioner of Police, I believe, actually rebuked Michael Howard for raising fears over increasing levels of crime.
*To conclude this very brief introduction I would argue that these fears are generally overplayed and in themselves problematic leading to ever increasing calls for regulation and further societal mistrust and breakdown.
*
#3 Multiculturalism: outline for presentation at Ossett.
This year the UK will be holding the presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading industrialised nations. Therefore it comes as something of a surprise that this hasn’t featured more prominently in mainstream political circles.
Interesting enough that New Labour decided fox-hunting was more of an issue than something as important as this, deciding to hold any referendum on Europe only after the general election. This in itself proves the limited nature of electoral politics - such is the importance attached to anything that really matters.
The European Union is perhaps best understood as a protectionist zone for European Business; now something of a bulwark against a rapidly emerging far eastern economy and in times past the USA. Although the UK’s special interest with the US has always been one of the factors holding up European integration.
Of course Britain is not alone in this as all European nations have their own specific interests – cohering their respective populations around a set of values, or culture, and safeguarding the interests of their own economies.
Britain’s unique role stems from new international relations that came into effect after WW2 when the world order was determined by America – the true victor of WW1 and 2.
Now though, the USA is the largest debtor nation of all time. This stands in sharp contrast to its post war position as The global economic, political and military power, the world reordered around US interests and defined against the Soviet bloc.
It is the demise of the Soviet Union that has undermined all the old post war institutions and the beliefs attached to them that has led to the crisis of confidence in the west.
Western capitalism’s triumphant mood has proven short lived leading to the quest for new values and cultural identity as all the old ones are called into question.
This process is well under way in the US and has been lurking in the background in the UK for some time.
*Despite many a reason being given for it, the war in Iraq was for no other purpose than to find a sense of mission and reclaim the moral high ground against a brutal dictator – one of many that western governments do business with.
This ill considered venture has been a spectacular failure for the erstwhile ‘coalition of the willing’ and a huge setback for the Iraqi population.
The Iraq war has left a bad taste in the mouth for some and many others choose to ignore it, now that it has descended into debacle.
Yet it may, and should, serve to haunt the establishment for some time to come.
Further intervention abroad is likely to prove much more difficult. Although that is not going to stop them from trying. Expect more character assassinations of foreign dictators and, by implication, their populations.
Interesting to note, that with the failure of the Iraq mission, New Labour has changed tack and turned it’s attention to Africa – the plight of impoverished Africans long being the subject of middle class and radical sympathies.
From Non Governmental Organisations to the Government itself this usually comes in the guise of Aid, charity or ‘sustainable development’ – keeping things pretty much as they are, perhaps selling ethnic goods to ethical tourists or growing cash crops in a very competitive market.
But rarely development like advanced nations. In fact, under the guise of sustainable development and not destroying the planet, the developing world is not likely to see much of any real benefit. This is a disingenuous argument as the world is in a better
state, environmentally speaking, than it has been for centuries.
Rather than giving peasant farmers a fair trade logo and a marginal increase in profit or holding ‘feed the world’ gigs, just a 1% increase of African exports would give $70 billion dollars worth of revenue.
This dwarfs any amount of charitable donations Africa receives and would bring the continent closer to the living standards enjoyed in more advanced countries.
When you consider that 40% of the EU budget goes to subsidising agriculture and that Mozambique – almost the poorest nation on earth – had to end subsidies to its farmers as part of a World Bank austerity package, then things take on a new perspective.
The subsidies given to some farmers were government surplus goods, such as clothing, that they then had to sell and pay back the Government.
Pretty alarming when even the Royal family receive farming handouts in the UK.
Sympathy does nothing for Africa.
It enshrines the belief that Africans and blacks are intrinsically inferior people, worthy of charity and beneficial guidance.
*
The international focus is mirrored by its domestic counterpart, inasmuch as immigrant peoples, of any category, are seen as embodying values that we in the west may find uncivilised or backward.
Some elements of this are indeed true, which is why immigrants come here in the first place – to develop and better their prospects.
Falling birthrates and an ageing population in the UK means that immigration is a necessity.
Likewise, a fluctuating but still buoyant labour market is in need of more overseas workers. *
The belief that foreigners are different means that they are seen as requiring special attention - their cultural differences needing to be respected in the name of tolerance.
Yet many come to escape the cloying confines of their inherited culture only to find attempts to reaffirm it by politicians with a lack of ideas as to any progressive or unifying identity.
Some may recall Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of blood’ speech where he warned of the white man being an alien in his own country.
To some this rings true today.
It’s not too hard to see why what with erstwhile radical politicians banning hot cross buns and the celebrations of diverse cultures and religious festivals in schools.
These things weren’t asked for by minority groups, rather they were foisted upon them by detached politicians.
Yet anything that is overtly British is avoided like the plague, much to the annoyance of members of the general public.
It’s safe to say that a modern understanding of British culture is amiss and
in mainstream circles there is an increasing element of alarm.
A rapidly globalising economy will become very competitive as new markets and souces of raw materials are sought and any economy not up to speed will, obviously, fall behind.
It is this that is driving the search for an inclusive yet multicultural identity.
Multiculturalism is problematic because it celebrates opposing values as being of equal merit which leaves backward ideas unchallenged and creates further division along artificial lines.
*
Election address, Normanton 2005.
ELECTION ADDRESS Independent Candidate
NORMANTON CONSTITUENCY. Mark Harrop
With falling interest in politics now seems to be an odd time to be offering another ‘alternative to all the others’. But this is not a manifesto, program for social change or management. There are no promises of funds or resources to any particular group. It is more to do with promoting ideas.
Disengagement in social and political life is a huge problem. In times past people have fought and died for ideas – including the right to vote. Such things have driven society forwards. But today cynicism is rife - ‘they’re all the same’ being one of the most widespread and annoying claims to be heard of politicians, although to some extent excusable. Perhaps worse than being all the same mainstream parties appear to have abandoned their traditional principles and now opt for the ‘special offer’ approach. ‘There is no alternative’ – once the battle cry of the last great Tory warrior, and now everyone seems to agree.
The end of the Soviet Union as a model to be defined against has had destabilising effects –in both international and domestic politics. Absent are any competing notions of how a society can best be organised. The ‘left’ is more disorientated than most having never been able to advance an independent program of credibility.
There are limited ideas of a grand vision and a decline in the belief that people can make any positive difference. Instead, there is a deep rooted pessimism about the human condition and a clamour for victim status, special need or single issue.
Are we approaching the endgame of ‘traditional’ politics? The stasis in political life would seem to suggest so. However it would be foolish to expect that things carry on as they are and just hope that we won’t be one of the losers as society faces up to the challenges of the 21st century.
What are the challenges?
The issue likeliest to affect international politics is the rise of eastern economies.
Huge reserves of cheap labour and the dynamism of new growth will be something the west finds hard to deal with. Despite efforts to maintain economic stability, the pull of the Chinese economy already has a significant impact and this is likely to increase in years to come. On this footing alone global politics will change. Alarmist perhaps, speculative? - yes. But history does reveal a habit of change.
Domestically change is already happening as more efforts are made to cohere a cynical and disaffected public around a set of values – any values. Nearly every aspect of our daily lives comes with a recommendation or regulation as to best practice and the bulk of this informed by prejudice if not anxiety on the part of our current leadership.
ASBOs and discipline. There are many aspects to anti-social behavioural orders. On one hand, kids are being hassled for just being themselves – mischievous, exuberant, testing. Adolescence, the transition from child to adult is a clumsy and often difficult period as a child questions much of the fairytale nonsense of their early years and begins to face the realities of the adult world.
On the other hand, there is ever greater state interference in normal activities that used to be worked out within the confines of the family or neighbourhood. The whole notion of parental control has been undermined by overplayed notions of abuse. Unruly kids who may previously have had a ‘clip around the ear’ or be put in their place by a stern word from an adult now no little of such things. Now, discipline is enforced by authorities.
ASBOs are bad enough for kids and, even worse, they infantilise adults and question decision making. They are a symptom of a society lacking direction.
Environmentalism is the scourge of progress. It places human development beneath a sentimentalised view of nature and denigrates our achievements. Alarmist views concerning man’s impact on the planet are nothing new but strike more of a chord in these apolitical times. Indeed there are better ways to run things but they will be harder to determine until people are seen not as the problem but the solution.
Behind all this lies the notion of running down aspirations, or paying ‘guilt’ taxes over non-issues. It depends what kind of world we want to live in.
Immigration tends to be discussed in superficial or alarmist terms. Much discussion is made over the supposed drain on resources that immigration causes yet the contribution made is actually greater per head - £112 goes to the exchequer for every £100 contributed by a UK citizen (2003-4 figures).
Many areas of the UK labour market would collapse without the contributions of immigrants, other areas have seen economic regeneration and attracted more business.
Many British workers see immigrants as a competitive element that holds down wages. There is a kernel of truth in this but such a mechanism exists regardless of immigration and labelling foreign workers as the problem distorts the truth. It is more the case that workers have no mechanism to fight for their interests and the immigrant ‘scare’ becomes a convenient excuse for disillusion. The problem is not one of immigration but down to the fact that society as it exists cannot organise its labour time. Given that capitalism is uneven in its development any notion of immigration controls is pure ideology.
Multiculturalism does nothing but alienate people from one another, setting out an agenda where individuals are viewed as distinct and separate groups in relation to race, culture or religion. The divisive effect of multiculturalism fragments societies further into national, regional, local or the single issue as each becomes promoted as a special need.
Promoting ‘Diversity’ actually does the opposite – it promotes a social code, a barrier. By not challenging ideas that we find odd undermines individual identity. How can anyone respect a viewpoint if all others are equally relevant? Being politically correct is akin to intellectual and moral cowardice – a refusal to challenge the constraints of the norm and acceptance of evermore stifling regulation as to what can be said or done. A dumbing down of culture and relativising of experiences as being of equal worth – you are what you are and shouldn’t expect anymore. In effect, it is a gift to be simple, work hard and don’t get ideas above your station.
Innovation ought to be a basic art but loses out as regulation becomes the norm. A progressive view in art, technology, medical science and humanities – the understanding of that which separates us from everything else, is threatened. Isn’t this a retreat from science, reason and commonsense?
Foolish to predict the future but trends and events prove that it is the actions or inactions of individuals that shape events. A positive outlook will only arise when we begin to question the conventions of the day.
Choose whoever wins the election there will be challenges ahead.
Public meetings-
Normanton: Environment - do we have a problem? Sat. 30th April, 12 –2.00 pm
Normanton Community Centre, Market St. (01924) 302525
Stanley: ASBOs and discipline. Tues. 3rd May, 7.30 – 9.30pm
Stanley Library and Community Centre. (01924) 303130
Ossett: Multiculturalism. Wed.4th May, 7 – 9pm
Ossett Town Hall. (01924) 305573
(1st. edition 28/04/05. Printed at 17 industrial st.)
NORMANTON CONSTITUENCY. Mark Harrop
With falling interest in politics now seems to be an odd time to be offering another ‘alternative to all the others’. But this is not a manifesto, program for social change or management. There are no promises of funds or resources to any particular group. It is more to do with promoting ideas.
Disengagement in social and political life is a huge problem. In times past people have fought and died for ideas – including the right to vote. Such things have driven society forwards. But today cynicism is rife - ‘they’re all the same’ being one of the most widespread and annoying claims to be heard of politicians, although to some extent excusable. Perhaps worse than being all the same mainstream parties appear to have abandoned their traditional principles and now opt for the ‘special offer’ approach. ‘There is no alternative’ – once the battle cry of the last great Tory warrior, and now everyone seems to agree.
The end of the Soviet Union as a model to be defined against has had destabilising effects –in both international and domestic politics. Absent are any competing notions of how a society can best be organised. The ‘left’ is more disorientated than most having never been able to advance an independent program of credibility.
There are limited ideas of a grand vision and a decline in the belief that people can make any positive difference. Instead, there is a deep rooted pessimism about the human condition and a clamour for victim status, special need or single issue.
Are we approaching the endgame of ‘traditional’ politics? The stasis in political life would seem to suggest so. However it would be foolish to expect that things carry on as they are and just hope that we won’t be one of the losers as society faces up to the challenges of the 21st century.
What are the challenges?
The issue likeliest to affect international politics is the rise of eastern economies.
Huge reserves of cheap labour and the dynamism of new growth will be something the west finds hard to deal with. Despite efforts to maintain economic stability, the pull of the Chinese economy already has a significant impact and this is likely to increase in years to come. On this footing alone global politics will change. Alarmist perhaps, speculative? - yes. But history does reveal a habit of change.
Domestically change is already happening as more efforts are made to cohere a cynical and disaffected public around a set of values – any values. Nearly every aspect of our daily lives comes with a recommendation or regulation as to best practice and the bulk of this informed by prejudice if not anxiety on the part of our current leadership.
ASBOs and discipline. There are many aspects to anti-social behavioural orders. On one hand, kids are being hassled for just being themselves – mischievous, exuberant, testing. Adolescence, the transition from child to adult is a clumsy and often difficult period as a child questions much of the fairytale nonsense of their early years and begins to face the realities of the adult world.
On the other hand, there is ever greater state interference in normal activities that used to be worked out within the confines of the family or neighbourhood. The whole notion of parental control has been undermined by overplayed notions of abuse. Unruly kids who may previously have had a ‘clip around the ear’ or be put in their place by a stern word from an adult now no little of such things. Now, discipline is enforced by authorities.
ASBOs are bad enough for kids and, even worse, they infantilise adults and question decision making. They are a symptom of a society lacking direction.
Environmentalism is the scourge of progress. It places human development beneath a sentimentalised view of nature and denigrates our achievements. Alarmist views concerning man’s impact on the planet are nothing new but strike more of a chord in these apolitical times. Indeed there are better ways to run things but they will be harder to determine until people are seen not as the problem but the solution.
Behind all this lies the notion of running down aspirations, or paying ‘guilt’ taxes over non-issues. It depends what kind of world we want to live in.
Immigration tends to be discussed in superficial or alarmist terms. Much discussion is made over the supposed drain on resources that immigration causes yet the contribution made is actually greater per head - £112 goes to the exchequer for every £100 contributed by a UK citizen (2003-4 figures).
Many areas of the UK labour market would collapse without the contributions of immigrants, other areas have seen economic regeneration and attracted more business.
Many British workers see immigrants as a competitive element that holds down wages. There is a kernel of truth in this but such a mechanism exists regardless of immigration and labelling foreign workers as the problem distorts the truth. It is more the case that workers have no mechanism to fight for their interests and the immigrant ‘scare’ becomes a convenient excuse for disillusion. The problem is not one of immigration but down to the fact that society as it exists cannot organise its labour time. Given that capitalism is uneven in its development any notion of immigration controls is pure ideology.
Multiculturalism does nothing but alienate people from one another, setting out an agenda where individuals are viewed as distinct and separate groups in relation to race, culture or religion. The divisive effect of multiculturalism fragments societies further into national, regional, local or the single issue as each becomes promoted as a special need.
Promoting ‘Diversity’ actually does the opposite – it promotes a social code, a barrier. By not challenging ideas that we find odd undermines individual identity. How can anyone respect a viewpoint if all others are equally relevant? Being politically correct is akin to intellectual and moral cowardice – a refusal to challenge the constraints of the norm and acceptance of evermore stifling regulation as to what can be said or done. A dumbing down of culture and relativising of experiences as being of equal worth – you are what you are and shouldn’t expect anymore. In effect, it is a gift to be simple, work hard and don’t get ideas above your station.
Innovation ought to be a basic art but loses out as regulation becomes the norm. A progressive view in art, technology, medical science and humanities – the understanding of that which separates us from everything else, is threatened. Isn’t this a retreat from science, reason and commonsense?
Foolish to predict the future but trends and events prove that it is the actions or inactions of individuals that shape events. A positive outlook will only arise when we begin to question the conventions of the day.
Choose whoever wins the election there will be challenges ahead.
Public meetings-
Normanton: Environment - do we have a problem? Sat. 30th April, 12 –2.00 pm
Normanton Community Centre, Market St. (01924) 302525
Stanley: ASBOs and discipline. Tues. 3rd May, 7.30 – 9.30pm
Stanley Library and Community Centre. (01924) 303130
Ossett: Multiculturalism. Wed.4th May, 7 – 9pm
Ossett Town Hall. (01924) 305573
(1st. edition 28/04/05. Printed at 17 industrial st.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
