Thursday 4 April 2013
The long rambling post that I nearly put on Uborka
(uborka.nu is alive again, so rejoice. It’s all got a bit political over there and it nearly jolly well got my dander up. I almost posted this 2300 word post there, having been invited, but then thought better of it. So, I’ve posted here instead and linked it from over there and put something a little less controversial there, being as uborka is not my blog. I hope the blogging gods will look favourably upon this behaviour).
I’m going to stick my head above the parapet (and thank you Uborkans for the opportunity to do so in this place).
I’m a Tory voter. Mostly. I’ve voted for other parties in my time (the Pro-Europe Tories – remember them? the LibDems – remember them? and the Monster Raving Loony Party -
probably the best use of an X in my entire voting career), but by default I will generally vote for the blue party because I find that they (used to) have the least number of
policies that I found unpalatable (i.e. not more than 95% unpalatable).
The problem now is that, like quite a few other Tory voters that I know, I don’t feel they represent me any more. You see, I’m one of those funny old centre-right people. A bit
like Ken Clarke, but with less Hush Puppies. Not out there with Redwood or Nadine. But not woolly like the yellow party. And not so big government as the red party.
You see, I’m one of those people who quite like the idea of the power of the individual. I quite like libertarianism. I think the best person to make a decision about my life
is me. And, therefore, the same must be true for everyone.
I think gay people should be able to do what they want to do without me or anyone else interfering in what they do. I have no right to say they shouldn’t get married or give a
loving home to a child that needs it or stay in a double bed in a hotel room.
I think the European Union is, on the whole, a good idea. I think we would get more out of it if we put a bit more into it, rather than sniping from the sidelines (even Mrs T
understood that – she never walked away from the discussions in Brussels, whereas DC has done so).
I think government is better when it is small. On the whole, I believe that people, not politicians, know how best to spend their own money and time.
As someone who has spent all their life working with living things, I’m pretty certain that we can find a way to live on this lovely planet without wrecking it. There’s a great
opportunity for our economy if only we pushed a bit of R&D money that way. Progress is possible, in fact it is necessary – but it can be achieved without breaking the place.
I believe that we need a welfare system that helps those that need help. Equally, I’m fairly sure that some people don’t need/deserve the support of the welfare system, but I’m
not yet sure how we figure out who they are. But I am sure we can identify the Philpotts of this world and isolate them without penalizing everyone else who has the misfortune
to need welfare support.
I believe in a meritocracy. That means that, if you’re a grocer’s daughter, you could get to be PM. Equally, if you’re educated in a public school, you are not inherently bad
and unpleasant – you may well be very good at what you do, even if you partook of a little student excess. But being one or the other should not, within the limits of what can be achieved, prevent you from aiming for the best in life. “Best in life”, of course, is for you to define. Not everyone can be PM – one at a time is enough, thanks. Not everyone wants to be PM.
Equally, with meritocracy comes a need for people to want to improve their life. I live in a mixed neighbourhood – mixed in wealth, mixed in background and mixed in attitude,
albeit mostly WASP. If my neighbourhood is anything close to representative (and I doubt that it is), there doesn’t always seem to be a correlation between the desire to
improve life (and I’m sure that improving the world around you improves your own life, by definition) and wealth or background. There are some wealthy people here who are
lovely and give their time, money and energy for others and expect nothing more than a smile and “thanks” in return. There are some poor people who are the same. There are also some wealthy and some poor people who clearly don’t give a toss. I don’t believe poor people are lazy. But they’re not all saints either. Same is true of the wealthy and the
“squeezed middle”. Wealth, inherited or otherwise, is not a barrier to being a good person – being “priviledged” does not make you a bastard and I find the suggestion just as
offensive as saying poor people are lazy scum. Equally, lack of wealth is not a barrier to helping others – just ask the single mum-of-three who is one of the hardest-working
people on the PTA at my son’s primary. Or ask the man I know who was educated at Marlborough (same school as Kate Middleton) and now teaches in a state school.
The poor are not sub-human, evil and to blame for all that is wrong with society. Nor are the rich. We all are. We’ll only fix it if we stop trying to score points off other
people/social groups and try to figure out how to work together to put it right. In my village, one of the things that pains me most is the “them” and “us” culture that divides
the people perceived as “advantaged” from the “disadvantaged”. However, having sat through a few meetings and discussions, I think that divide is, sadly, coming mainly from my neighbours at the “disadvantaged” end of the village. The more prosperous residents can’t understand why, when a meeting was recently held to discuss improving the village
green for everyone to use, some of the “disadvantaged” people stormed out. As some of my wiser neighbours remarked – if someone wealthy wants to pay to do it (they do -
entirely funded by a local resident) then great, why would anyone object? Having questioned one of the objectors, they simply don’t like it because the donor is wealthy. I can’t understand that at all. Surely, if everyone worked together and discussed it, then we could use the cash generosity of some and combine with time generosity of others to make something that benefits everyone. Or am I being idealistic?
If I can afford to send my child to private school (I can’t), then great. You don’t pay for private school out of your taxes (and before people complain about the charitable
status of private schools, most state schools have charitable status or a charitable arm too – why shouldn’t they?). I think grammar schools are a good idea. Making poor
schools better need not be at the expense of the good schools. But make poor schools better is something we should do. Not sure how we do it, though.
There is no reason why state-provided services can not be run by private companies. There is no reason why that should be inherently bad. My father worked for 43 years in the
electricity supply industry – first before nationalisation, then for years when it was nationalised and then finally after it was privatized. He was a union shop steward. He
can tell you what it was like in the 60s and 70s. Private enterprise is often simply more efficient and effective, but we need effective competition so that the consumer
doesn’t get fleeced. Shop around, chaps.
Equally, private enterprise and the market is not always the best solution to a problem. But if you let the state run things, then you let politicians run things. Do you really
I am certain that nothing in this world is black and white except penguins and zebras. Being dogmatic achieves nothing. However, if you do something that hurts or damages other people, you must expect to suffer the consequences – and that sometimes is black or white.
Being Tory doesn’t make you evil. Ditto being Labour, LibDem, nationalist, Green, or whatever. UKIP? That’s another matter. That said, I feel really quite uncomfortable with
quite a few of the current government’s policies. If there was an election tomorrow, I really don’t know who I would vote for (other than the Cucumber Party, obv.). But political discussion will get the best results, I think. So we need a system that allows grown-up political discussion. When you say that you’re going to end Punch and Judy politics, why don’t you?
I believe in a welfare state, but it has a problem. Shockingly, the politicians lied to us when they set it up after the war. And ever since. They told us that we would pay
money in when we could (when we’re working, earning money) and could draw against it when we need it (when we are sick or hurt, old or infirm, when we have kids). Sounds great.
But, the problem is that, since inception, the money raised today by tax or NI is being spent today on benefits and the NHS. And the cost of both welfare and NHS is going up
faster than the income. There is no pot for your retirement. There is no pot for when you have an accident and need help.
Just like my household finances, it is not sustainable to spend more than you earn. We have to square that circle somehow. But we live in a democracy. To quote Churchill,
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” As a result, if I form a political party that will balance
the books by cutting spending on the three biggest costs to the state (NHS, welfare, defence) and at the same time increase taxes (Corp Tax, VAT, income tax and NI), I reckon I would garner about three votes at the next election. All the while we live in a democracy with elections every five years, painful decisions will not be taken for fear of
losing power. Equally, long-term decisions will not be taken as the horizon extends only as far as the next election.
Incidentally, the poor didn’t cause the deficit. The politicians did. They spent money on things we couldn’t afford, which have included the banks, the NHS, the banks, the
welfare state and the banks. Oh, and the banks. Problem is, moaning about that won’t get that money back – we’ve got to figure out how we fix the problems we have. We can
certainly start by not making the same mistakes again (so make sure that all kids are taught history and economics in school, really well). But beyond that we need some new
ideas, some of which might be painful and unpalatable – like increasing taxes (hated by the right) AND cutting welfare/NHS (hated by the left). As for the banks – tricky. You
see, if we let them go under and force the shareholders to take the rap, we suddenly realize that we’re all the shareholders, either as taxpayers because the nation owns some
of the most crippled banks or in the form of our pensions and savings. And, as the Cypriots have found, you may suddenly find your savings disappear/diminish if your banks go under. Hmm. Not so easy to solve that, is it? Best pump some money in to stop them falling over…. oh, shit, we’re back to square one.
So, I propose the following manifesto points for the Uborka party. Others may have other views. YMMV.
1. Replace the current system with benevolent dictatorship. That would get round the short termism and populism. A benevolent dictator will know when to pass the baton. I’ll go
first. And I can promise that power will not corrupt. Absolute power will not corrupt absolutely. Honest.
2. Get involved. Things won’t change if we just sit idly by. That doesn’t mean you have to be an MP – maybe a parish councillor; or member of the school PTA; perhaps the
committee that runs your local social club. Doesn’t matter what it is – get up and do something constructive. You don’t have to run the thing – simply rocking up for your
school PTA and making the teas will be a start.
3. Be nice to each other and to the world. Being unpleasant to the world means that your home and place of work – and that of the people you love and care for – is diminished.
4. Work hard. But enjoy life too. Most things are improved by a smile. Try it. By working hard, you will improve your own lot – and, the better your own lot, the more capable
you will be of helping others/improving the world.
5. Save when you can. You’ll need it one day and don’t reckon on the state having the resources to help you in any meaningful way (ponder the demographics of the UK and work out how many wage-earning tax payers there will be by the time you reach retirement age – doesn’t look good, does it?). But put it in a bank in a sound economy, not the UK. Maybe get some clever people together to try and figure out how to fix the
banks properly, whilst you’re at it.
6. Come up with ideas. Invest in them emotionally. Defend them. Then be prepared to reconsider if it looks like you might be wrong. Our politicians would be generally better at their jobs if they did this.
7. Grow something. The world is calmer around plants. It helps you realise that, even though the world is changing, some things have been much the same for a very long time. Life begins. It blossoms. It produces seed for the next generation. It dies. It helps you take a longer view. You’ll need that.
Sunday 15 November 2009
Well I never
I once wrote the following on this blog about Brooke, having read an article she wrote about autopsy on Barbelith:
As it turns out, that’s not half of what you wouldn’t have guessed!
I rather suspect that the media storm is only just beginning.
Friday 6 November 2009
Old posts that live on
This post seems to live on, with good comments going on. Maybe I should write more food posts….
Monday 29 June 2009
Friday 15 February 2008
Well, there’s a funny thing. For the first time in at least five, maybe six years, I made it to a meeting of blogging types organised by Gordon and featuring an impressive collection of bloggers, some known from years past, some from their writing and some new to me. It was, undoubtedly, excellent. Links to at least some of the attendees as soon as I’m not blogging from my mobile.
UPDATE: I knew that, if I waited long enough, someone else would do the hard work and link to all the attendees.