As a young(er) man I could drink all night and be fine in the morning, walk for miles without so much as a twitch in my legs and get in and out of a chair without making bizarre noises. Looking at my beer belly I realise that soon I'll be old.
It's with this in mind I started to think about retirement. The present Government seems determined to make us work longer and longer by putting back the age of retirement so such an extent I wonder if I'll be alive to see, given that at the current rate I'll reach it in 2045!
But if we look back at when the age of retirement was first set. the first pesion act became law in 1908 for any one over 70 years of age, though this was later lower to 65 for men and 60 for women to allow for lower life expectancy in the working class. But given that the work we did then and the lack of an NHS meant that most would not see more than 5-10 years of retirement before they sadly passed away.
Now with better knowledge of and access to food and exercise, along with a free health care system, We are living longer than ever. Also, not only are we living longer but our bodies are in better shape. Health and Safety rules and better working conditions mean we are fitter and healthier than any point in human history.
To illustrate this there was an advert running on TV that used the line "the good news is that our retirement will now last longer than our working lives, the bad news is........ that our retirement will now last longer than our working lives"
This may seem far fetched but given that we work from our 20's to our 60's and so many last till close the their 100's, that's about 40 years for each.
Many people are suggesting that the delaying of the retirement age is the "bad old Tories" doing what they do well, screwing the poor and using the deficit as cover. And I'm sure there are some in the Tory old guard who do think this way but lets look at the facts.
Firstly, we are stronger and fitter than we were in 1908. there is no reason for people to retire and there has even been a law passed to protect those in work who feel they could continue form being sacked just because of their age.
Also, if you did retire at such an early (relatively) then what do you do? Many working class people see their job as their identity. without it they feel they are nothing.
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Thursday, 1 September 2011
the riots
As promised, I didn't just bash out a knee jerk reaction piece that so many have. looking around they tend to fall into three groups; one, the "string them up and bring back national service" response that is never normally funny except when you hear it from the mouths of terminal lefties. two, the "its all because of tuition fees and cuts to services" line from a certain political party until it was pointed out the cuts they said had caused it either hadn't happened yet or hadn't even been announced!
But the scary one is the reaction that it was the polices fault. They were too light/rough/ill-informed/too informed etc etc etc. From what I can make out the original bad feeling started when the police refused to meet a demo outside a Tottenham police station to answer question on the death of a man by police marksmen. The fact that there was an ongoing investigation meant the police could not make any comment but it was felt they could have been more responsive rather than ignoring them.
Some minor disturbances occurred that was not immediately stopped by police, possibly worried about being seen as heavy handed and uncaring.
Now this is where I'd like to offer an idea. Given that some much "anti-social" crime is ignored by the police and even when the perp does go to court its normally a slap on wrist, many people saw this as a numbers game. If everyone joined in then the police couldn't stop them. Watching footage from CCTV in Woolwich you could see the police horribly out numbered. When people realised that they could riot and there was a very good chance of getting away with it, they just did.
The spread of violence was therefore, nothing to do any political or sociological idea but simply the "teacher-less classroom effect"
Imagine if you will a classroom of any age pupils. the teacher leaves the room for some reason and after a small amount of time someone makes a noise or sound he/she knows is naughty but will make the other giggle. Most in the class find this funny because they know that its not allowed but someone did it anyway. Very quickly a few more join in and quite soon there are more doing/enjoying the naughtiness then objecting too it. In fact, those that do object are fearful and keep quiet or even join in so's not to be seen as "against" the activity.
By the Tuesday after the riots began we had four important things happening.
Firstly that police were drafted in from other areas and holidays cancelled to swell the numbers of bodies on the street to physically stop the riots.
Secondly was the rain. given that almost all riots occur when its hot, whether that's from "holiday head" when you're too hot to think strait or just it's no fun going outside when its pissing it down. Though this was only in a few areas.
Thirdly was the fact that while in the past rioters had a certain degree of backing from the public due to the reasons behind it, ie poll tax or race, this time the public had had enough. The majority were not out looting but from the coming and goings of their neighbours they knew who were and were unafraid to tell them. Communities banded together to defend shops and business's from looters by night and came out during the day to help clear up the mess.
The complaint from the public traditionally about riots is that they are too heavy handed. In the Poll tax riots of 1990, we saw people in wheelchairs and pregnant women attacked by police and scenes on TV of horses charging in made police look very aggressive and nasty. Now the complaint was that they were being too soft and people across the country cheered as police charged in like they did in the old days.
The last thing, and the thing I think most important was the announcement that magistrates were sitting 24 hours a day and that bail was being routinely refused. The idea that some one rioting could go from street to police cell to court to jail and do a 4 month stretch, all the space of 3 hours had a startling effect.
No matter how many police were on the streets the riots could have carried on. the weather only effected a few areas and crime happens all year round. Neighbours don't like you? the kind of people doing the rioting didn't give a shit and any neighbourhood protection would be the same as increased policing, nice idea, but not good enough.
I firmly believe that the riots ended because all the preconceived ideas of rioters were dashed. Gone had the attitude that they couldn't be caught, gone had the idea it takes months to go to court and likely to be dropped and gone, was the promise of a gentle slap on the wrist.
Teacher had returned to the classroom and very pissed off!
But the scary one is the reaction that it was the polices fault. They were too light/rough/ill-informed/too informed etc etc etc. From what I can make out the original bad feeling started when the police refused to meet a demo outside a Tottenham police station to answer question on the death of a man by police marksmen. The fact that there was an ongoing investigation meant the police could not make any comment but it was felt they could have been more responsive rather than ignoring them.
Some minor disturbances occurred that was not immediately stopped by police, possibly worried about being seen as heavy handed and uncaring.
Now this is where I'd like to offer an idea. Given that some much "anti-social" crime is ignored by the police and even when the perp does go to court its normally a slap on wrist, many people saw this as a numbers game. If everyone joined in then the police couldn't stop them. Watching footage from CCTV in Woolwich you could see the police horribly out numbered. When people realised that they could riot and there was a very good chance of getting away with it, they just did.
The spread of violence was therefore, nothing to do any political or sociological idea but simply the "teacher-less classroom effect"
Imagine if you will a classroom of any age pupils. the teacher leaves the room for some reason and after a small amount of time someone makes a noise or sound he/she knows is naughty but will make the other giggle. Most in the class find this funny because they know that its not allowed but someone did it anyway. Very quickly a few more join in and quite soon there are more doing/enjoying the naughtiness then objecting too it. In fact, those that do object are fearful and keep quiet or even join in so's not to be seen as "against" the activity.
By the Tuesday after the riots began we had four important things happening.
Firstly that police were drafted in from other areas and holidays cancelled to swell the numbers of bodies on the street to physically stop the riots.
Secondly was the rain. given that almost all riots occur when its hot, whether that's from "holiday head" when you're too hot to think strait or just it's no fun going outside when its pissing it down. Though this was only in a few areas.
Thirdly was the fact that while in the past rioters had a certain degree of backing from the public due to the reasons behind it, ie poll tax or race, this time the public had had enough. The majority were not out looting but from the coming and goings of their neighbours they knew who were and were unafraid to tell them. Communities banded together to defend shops and business's from looters by night and came out during the day to help clear up the mess.
The complaint from the public traditionally about riots is that they are too heavy handed. In the Poll tax riots of 1990, we saw people in wheelchairs and pregnant women attacked by police and scenes on TV of horses charging in made police look very aggressive and nasty. Now the complaint was that they were being too soft and people across the country cheered as police charged in like they did in the old days.
The last thing, and the thing I think most important was the announcement that magistrates were sitting 24 hours a day and that bail was being routinely refused. The idea that some one rioting could go from street to police cell to court to jail and do a 4 month stretch, all the space of 3 hours had a startling effect.
No matter how many police were on the streets the riots could have carried on. the weather only effected a few areas and crime happens all year round. Neighbours don't like you? the kind of people doing the rioting didn't give a shit and any neighbourhood protection would be the same as increased policing, nice idea, but not good enough.
I firmly believe that the riots ended because all the preconceived ideas of rioters were dashed. Gone had the attitude that they couldn't be caught, gone had the idea it takes months to go to court and likely to be dropped and gone, was the promise of a gentle slap on the wrist.
Teacher had returned to the classroom and very pissed off!
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
The cuts, too fast too soon?
Since 2005 we have been aware in this country that every day spending on benefits and services have far exceeded the income from taxes. During the election of 2010 the Labour party "outed" secret Tory plans to cut spending and raise taxes. When George Osborne not only admitted this but said there was no other way to avoid bankruptcy the Tories poll rating went up, not down. At this realization the Labour party quickly amended its manifesto to say they would cut the deficit by half in 5 years. Quite a turn around from a few days earlier when they were still saying that the deficit is fine and did not need cutting.
Since the election we are seeing what these cuts really mean. Libraries are being closed, meals on wheels are having there funding shut and halls and venues that play host to community groups are facing massive cost hikes. None of this is good and everyone below a certain threshold will suffer.
What i find offensive is now that we are going through what has to be a horrible time, the Labour party are now touting a new slogan, "too deep, too soon" Basically saying that we are cutting in the wrong places (does that mean we were spending on things we didn't need?) and too quickly. What this ignores is the fact that everyday that passes while we are in debt means we owe more interest, which means we owe more overall, which means the interest goes up and ad infinitum.
At present we are paying £180 million a day on interest repayments alone, if the debt was reduced then so would the interest payments and so the need for cuts would be reduced.
To use peoples misery to score political points is bad, but when the misery was caused by the very people who are trying to profit from it, that is just offensive.
When asked to explain what "nice" cuts they would make, or to explain what they would cut to achieve the 50% deficit reduction the Labour party were initially evasive. Now they are blatantly arrogant telling us that because they are not in charge they don't need to explain a thing.
But here's a warning for them from not far away. After the Irish government accepted a bailout from the EU and IMF, a massive cost cutting exercise was started by the ruling Fianna fail party. At every opportunity the opposition party Fine Gael opposed the cuts and said that if they were in charge they would not cut "So deep and so fast" (sound familiar?) and so Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach called their bluff. He held an election on the 25th of February this year which Fine Gael duly won.
And what changes did Fine Gael make the cuts already in place?
Absolutely nothing.
Since the election we are seeing what these cuts really mean. Libraries are being closed, meals on wheels are having there funding shut and halls and venues that play host to community groups are facing massive cost hikes. None of this is good and everyone below a certain threshold will suffer.
What i find offensive is now that we are going through what has to be a horrible time, the Labour party are now touting a new slogan, "too deep, too soon" Basically saying that we are cutting in the wrong places (does that mean we were spending on things we didn't need?) and too quickly. What this ignores is the fact that everyday that passes while we are in debt means we owe more interest, which means we owe more overall, which means the interest goes up and ad infinitum.
At present we are paying £180 million a day on interest repayments alone, if the debt was reduced then so would the interest payments and so the need for cuts would be reduced.
To use peoples misery to score political points is bad, but when the misery was caused by the very people who are trying to profit from it, that is just offensive.
When asked to explain what "nice" cuts they would make, or to explain what they would cut to achieve the 50% deficit reduction the Labour party were initially evasive. Now they are blatantly arrogant telling us that because they are not in charge they don't need to explain a thing.
But here's a warning for them from not far away. After the Irish government accepted a bailout from the EU and IMF, a massive cost cutting exercise was started by the ruling Fianna fail party. At every opportunity the opposition party Fine Gael opposed the cuts and said that if they were in charge they would not cut "So deep and so fast" (sound familiar?) and so Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach called their bluff. He held an election on the 25th of February this year which Fine Gael duly won.
And what changes did Fine Gael make the cuts already in place?
Absolutely nothing.
Monday, 4 April 2011
PR sucks
In this PC world we live in, if I were to make a judgement about a person IQ based solely on the fact that they are blond, or a person ability to drive based on them being a women I would rightly be frowned upon. These and many other prejudices are out of date and have no place in our society. They battle was fought initially by those considered to be "on the left" and as such have found a place in British consciousness as the leading proponent's of equality. As I Conservative I find myself being pre-judged on my political allegiance alone. People will decide for me what my views on race, immigration, sexuality, nuclear weapons etc, etc, are without bothering to look beyond my party membership. Those who are unaware of my political affiliation but know of my views on individual issues are very shocked at how I vote and find this hard to reconcile in their minds. A man I have great respect for was amazed when we talked about party politics and said "I never knew you were right wing!" And this was a man who had known me since I was a child and was a role model to me while I grew up, completely changing his veiw of me based on that one aspect of my life. Where in the past the Labour party have always gone for the easy vote of offering everyone the good life without asking them to work for it, the Tories have always based their political ideology on respect for the establishment and a form of tough love for the people. Encouraging people to stand up for themselves and make something of themselves rather than expecting the state to hand them everything on a plate. What you often see is young people at the start of their careers being jealous of the well off and wanting a fairer distribution of the countries wealth, and yet when these same subjects work hard and gain higher positions in society and at work (and thus higher wages) they suddenly became quite anti the ideas they held in their youth. They now see the reason they have more than others (bigger house, nicer car and holidays) is down to the fact that they have worked hard at school, then university and then in their jobs until they were near the top. And when they hear youngsters demanding that the wealth they have worked hard for should be shared out with those that have not worked as hard they tend to object. To the non-Tory world, the Conservatives dislike the poor and want to cut all benefits, including the NHS. They despise those from abroad or those with different skin colour, religion or sexuality. They're sexist, elitist and only look after the rich and so anything they do is always seen as a bad thing. Whereas the Labour party are seen as the "nice guys" and can pretty much get away with murder (nb. David Kelly and thousands of Iraqi lives) People ignore that fact that were are a Party chaired by a Muslim, have gay men in the cabinet and was the first to elect a woman as leader. The last 5 Tory PMs before Mr Cameron were ALL working class who attended state schools, The last 5 Labour PMs before Mr Brown were all from the aristocracy and went to private school. It was Labour MP's who bullied the Conservative MP Paul Maynard, who suffers from cerebral palsy. And Labour who......... well we'll stop there as I'm getting bored so I'm guessing you are too. The Conservatives do however have "history" Section 28 was an unforgivable attack on the gay community, the rivers of blood speech by Enoch Powell caused such damage to race relations that we are still seeing the effects even now. Both parties have good and bad points and both have members that we consider unpalatable. However, to label one and "good" and one as "bad" is pure laziness and I believe this disgraceful prejudice should go the way of all others, to the confines of history
Thursday, 13 January 2011
cuts cuts cuts
Last Sunday we had a march and rally by the CWU who decided that the privatization of royal mail was a bad idea and wanted to demonstrate in the Prime Minister constituency. Sounds fair enough and normally I'd agree but for a few minor points.
Firstly, he wasn't at home. And even if he was he lives 12 miles out of town. Secondly, the fact that they had to bus in supporters from all over the country and could still only manage a few hundred people should have showed that a 300 watt sound system designed for rock concerts was not the best PA system to use when people 200 yards away are trying to enjoy a peaceful Sunday in the cotswolds.
I find it most interesting that when Peter Mandelson first put the idea forward there were no demonstrations outside his house and when the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave the go ahead the CWU was strangely silent
Two-faced? Double standards? surely not
Firstly, he wasn't at home. And even if he was he lives 12 miles out of town. Secondly, the fact that they had to bus in supporters from all over the country and could still only manage a few hundred people should have showed that a 300 watt sound system designed for rock concerts was not the best PA system to use when people 200 yards away are trying to enjoy a peaceful Sunday in the cotswolds.
I find it most interesting that when Peter Mandelson first put the idea forward there were no demonstrations outside his house and when the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave the go ahead the CWU was strangely silent
Two-faced? Double standards? surely not
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)