Author: cherokoff

Well Theresa May, this is an interesting one for you. Statements made on the steps of No. 10, in the first flush of triumph, can come back to bite. You are looking out, particularly, for those without the advantages of money, privilege, family connections.

So where, I wonder, does that fit with the potential expansion of the Grammar School option within the educational system. The answer is simple – it doesn’t. To consider the expansion of ‘public school-lite’ is to fly in the face of any statements of fairness, balance, equality of opportunity.

For too long the provision of education has been a political tool, endlessly tweaked, re-engineered, semi-privatised at the expense not only of those who work in it and are the recipients of it, but society in general.

There can be no true equality of opportunity whilst a better education can be purchased. And although it is a slightly unfair example, and whilst I know privately educated people who are wonderful, have a look at the ‘public school élite’ who have been, and still are, in positions of power.

Allowing the buying of a better education creates inequality, and a division, not on the basis of the best or most deserving, but purely on financial terms. And once you establish a pinnacle, you create a pyramid of provision, with a higher position on the slope matching social position.

If you remove the divisions, remove the privilege, remove the unfairness, then perhaps we could concentrate on developing an educational system that isn’t compared against an advantaged apex, but purely against what can be achieved for all.

No doubt there would be accusations of lowering standards, leveling off, reducing aspiration. But why would this be so? Why could it not, instead, be a focussing of skills, approaches, to serve all. To prove that there is really nothing to stop every child achieving their true potential, irrespective of socio-economic circumstances.

If you want to change the bottom, you have to start at the top, not by pulling down, but by pulling up. I would recommend a level playing field, but the public schools will soon be the only ones with any left.

So go on Theresa, be the first PM to actually do what they say they will.

Talk about déjà vu ! Right back to the good old days with a vengeance, and with all the standard ingredients.

MP. Family man. Prostitution. Actually, quite old-fashioned really. And as usual there is a clamor from both the tabloids and those saints in government declaiming continuation as untenable.

And he has resigned from committee chairman, and no doubt hopes that something else comes up quickly to get him off the front page. And no doubt it will.

However, the pain goes on for his family, and that is where I struggle with the sanctimonious hordes. There will always be innocent victims pushed unwillingly into the headlights, and receiving scars that may never really heal.

And through it all, the hypocrisy. Yes, as public servants it seems fair that we should have some expectation of honourable behaviour, but they are human. And whilst I would never condone dishonesty, especially within a family situation, the prurience is a little beyond the pale.

Those that proclaim the loudest, I suspect, can afford a close examination of their own lives the least, but that never stops the tabloids from lurid exposures, or politicians from saintly statements.

There is always the question of whether a public servant cheats in their private life, will they do so in their public role? And I don’t know that there is a definitive answer. It isn’t acceptable behaviour, but that doesn’t mean it’s a public matter.

Neither would I ever advocate that favours and deals are done behind closed doors, because that way lies corruption.

However, trial by tabloid should also be a thing of the past. There is no justification for private individuals to be damaged for the sake of a front page splash, and the sooner we stop exercising ourselves over private lives, and concentrated on the damage being done to us in public, the better.

And for god’s sake, Keith Vaz, if you are going to behave like an idiot, if you did, then remember who you are, remember your position and your visibility, most importantly remember your family, and don’t!

There has been an acceptance among the great and the good that the main reason women do not have pay parity with men is because they don’t ask. Or don’t ask often enough. Well, here is a shocker for us all – they do.

A survey in Australia has found that women DO ask for pay rises as often as men – they just get refused more often. And, as the majority of the decision makers will still be men, there is no real surprise there.

Now, I can see what the obvious problem with this survey is. It was done in Australia, which is a large planet, similar to us in many ways, but clearly not close enough to apply. After all, they have sunshine, end all their sentences with a rising tone, and men are so much more sexist there than here.

Potentially uncomfortable as this hopefully will be for the alpha males out there, there is another piece of news that has emerged that shows some flickering signs of society being rebalanced.

There has been an increase in prosecutions for online sexual harassment, along with an increase in domestic abuse prosecutions, both physical and mental. There is a long way to go, and there is still too much ignorance – and denial. But at least the framework is there for justice to prevail.

The remaining problem, unfortunately, is the fact that there are still far too many men who don’t see the problems, or worse, don’t see it as a problem.

Get a grip chaps. Not of your dicks – we are well aware you know where that is – but of your consciences, your moral centres, your better selves. It’s not difficult, honestly. Just repeat after me:-

Women and men are equal. They have equal rights. They are real people.

And breath!

Example One: when democracy works.

A leader has become aware that a considerable element within his core support are not happy about what they see as undue control from outside forces. In one of those wonderful light bulb moments, he decides that everyone should be allowed to decide what he / we should do about this external influence.

So, he offers everyone, over the age of 18, the chance to tick a box next to the opinion they feel best represents their feelings on this. Would that were true – too much nuance in that idea. No, the offer was simple, Yes or No. Whatever happened to grey?

And the No’s won. Not by a lot, and not by anywhere near the number that didn’t tick a box, but they won. And the result, being democratically decided, will be carried forward, even though a good number of those in charge do not agree with it. Because that is democracy, isn’t it?

Example Two:  when democracy doesn’t work.

A professional association, and a large proportion of its membership, have spent a long time arguing, negotiating, disrupting, reaching and breaking stalemates, with its big boss. After some fractious and acrimonious moments, an apparent compromise was reached.

The leaders of the association took the negotiated proposals back to its membership, recommending acceptance. The big boss stated that it would be imposed ‘whatever’.

Being a democratic association, they put the offer to the vote, and those that had been at the centre of the ongoing argument rejected it. A majority said No. And although a good number of the governing body of the association didn’t necessarily agree with the decision, as a democratic organisation they have accepted it.

Now, on the face of it, the situations would appear to be exactly the same. But if you look closely, there are differences. Both situations were caused by crass stupidity – the first by a Prime Minister with more arrogance than sense, the other by a Health Minister with even more arrogance, and an apt rhyming surname.

The difference is that the first example works because if it is dismissed the Tory party would implode and be out of power – and power is all. The second example doesn’t work because if it did then the Tory party loses its assumed hold on power, and power is all.

So, if the government must be governed by a democratic decision, then surely the BMA (British Marxist – sorry – Medical Association) must also be governed by the same rules.

And on that basis, perhaps some consideration from the Health Secretary of what the problems actually are, rather than more dick-waving to the detriment of those directly effected, would perhaps be helpful.

That is democracy, isn’t it?

And another thing! I have tried very hard not to swear on here but WTF!? £1.65billion in football transfer fees. O.K. It’s a free market blah blah blah.

At the same time the government is using cuts in its new Disability Benefits regime to remove Motability vehicles from Paralympians.

Both are groups of elite athletes. However, the free market only applies to one group. Is the obscenity of the wage bill for a Premiership football squad ever justified? For those who buy the tickets to watch them? For those that can’t afford the ticket price? Or the replica shirt?

There is so much that is positive that can come from sport, at all levels, but there is also the clearest divide between the have and the have-nots. And a demonstration of exactly how divisive extreme wealth can be. It creates false gods, false aspirations and resignation to non-achievement in equal measures.

And I know that salaries paid to professional footballers has nothing to do with an austerity government cutting wherever they can, even when national heroes and heroines are involved. And yet it does.

Because there is a pervasive attitude of ‘money is all’. Community, compassion, consideration, fairness. They exist, even in our fractured society. But they fight against the more powerful extremes of selfishness, greed, ‘me first’, and a divide getting ever wider.

And it doesn’t just effect this society, this country. As evidenced by the idiocy of the Brexit vote, it will bleed across borders, and prove that a country, or a good proportion of it, can put themselves before the wider good, accepting the bullshit of self-satisfied bigots, who will not suffer because they are financially secure no matter what.

And before anyone says that the problems of the rest of the world are not down to us, read your history and see which ‘democratic’, ‘free-market’ countries carved up the globe to their own benefit, and continue to influence by direct and indirect means, the maintenance of that market, at the expense of freedom, justice, equality and the sanctity of life.

I am tired of feeling angry and disappointed by our continual inability to see beyond ourselves, but I will keep ranting.

And will celebrate every small, defiant flame of compassion lit by extraordinary ordinary people.

Well it is, isn’t it? Makes the world go round. Drives invention, progress, new and ever newer gleaming bright things. Provides a form and framework for our society, and makes everything wonderful for us all. Or at least, potentially.

Or does it?

After the EU decided that Apple owed enough in unpaid tax to finance a struggling ‘third world’ – hate that phrase – country, the fact didn’t surprise me, and neither did the amount. What I found astounding was that, along with Apple, the Irish and US governments were up in arms.

So, I wonder, exactly how wonderful is Capitalism? It certainly makes a lot of money for some people – not many, but some. It also provides jobs for a lot of others. So far so good. But when the organisation is bigger financially than a country maybe some form of restraint is needed.

If Apple needs to create a non-existent head office to save 14.5 billion in taxes then either they are very bad business people, or they are plain greedy. And implying that they can find a different country to operate from if you make too much fuss leads me to suspect the latter.

As we seem to have settled on the capitalist matrix as the standard societal form, does that mean that we have to accept the unjustified greed that goes with it. If someone starts a company, builds it up, develops and expands it, then a decent remuneration seems justified. But is it necessary to be so extreme? Is 100 times the average wage good enough? Does it need to be 200 times? 300?

The answer is, it seems, as much as you can get away with. The obscenity of inflated salaries is the norm, across any and every industry. And the divide it creates is the reason there is a disconnection in society. Interesting that if the masses complain about the pay gap it is from jealousy and greed. If a corporate director pockets millions it’s an indication of their value.

Maybe, just maybe, if the billions syphoned off by the few was spread wider, and further down the pyramid, then maybe, just maybe, large numbers in our society may feel a little more valued, and a bit more connected.

It’s not a universal panacea for all the world’s ills, but adjusting inequality just a little could go a long way to prove that we have moved forward, that we do value everyone, that we do live within an inclusive society.

I love being naive.

Maybe a slight over-simplification, but the past few days have reaffirmed the fact that, although there has been progress in a variety of arenas, and much is stated publicly regarding the need for awareness, equality, understanding; this world is fundamentally still misogynistic by nature.

The latest public demonstration has been the, thankfully reversed, banning of the burkini on some French beaches. Now, I understand the trauma that France is suffering in the aftermath of a number of recent horrific attacks by despicable psychopaths in the name of nothing to do with Islam. And I understand that there is an urge, even a need, to retaliate. But this one made no sense. At all.

Firstly, the burqa was banned in France 6 years ago, and has changed nothing as far as terrorist activity. And with the recent ban, short-lived as it was, yet again focuses the reaction, revenge, restriction, on women.

I am no expert, but I assume that the burqa, and all the other variances of ‘modest’ dress within the Islamic community, were originally instigated by men. However, I can also understand why many women may take it as a style of choice, especially in a world where the female body is extensively and extremely objectified.

The bottom line is that it is, and should always be, a choice. Both in secular societies, and in those where the societal rules are governed by a state’s religion, allowing for a respect for the rules. It is difficult, but respect for all sides is the only way that progress, understanding and acceptance will emerge.

However, the knee-jerk reaction, and targeting of women, moved me to a more insidious, quietly destructive and wide-spread phenomenon. I am consciously aware of two women who have suffered both mental and physical cruelty within outwardly happy relationships. I say I am consciously aware as I must accept that there are significantly more cruel and inhuman situations within outwardly normal couples.

The scars may only be internal, but they are deep, severe and of a long duration. They delineate and prescribe the relationships and responses to the rest of the world, and will govern, to a greater or lesser extent, the remainder of their lives.

Derided over the years for being parochial and irrelevant, although not by me, ‘The Archers’, a simple tale of country folk?, has taken up the cause of this sociopathic cruelty, and shone a light where society has tried for too long not to look.

I have seen, and continue to see, the harm this cruelty can cause, and the ongoing pain. And, because i care about these women, It hurts me too.

But, until there is an acceptance across the whole of society of such a deep rooted and destructive problem, then All Men Will Remain Bastards.

Apologies for the heading, but as the media have been having fun with puns, I thought I might as well join in.

And while, on one level, it may be amusing to witness the ‘battle of the beards’, or ‘the grapple of the greys’, there is something a little more serious to be considered.

Firstly, Jeremy Corbyn commented on the train being ram packed, and sat on the floor in the corridor until later taking a seat for the remainder of his journey. On the surface, a fairly basic statement of dissatisfaction with provision on the railway line being travelled.

Accusations of making cheap political points would perhaps be valid, but only assuming that the other passengers, a mother and baby and a couple celebrating their third anniversary, amongst others, were also doing the same. Which they clearly weren’t. Never mind the provision of selected excerpts of CCTV by Virgin – would it be cynical to assume some bits were left out?

At no stage did Corbyn name the franchise company, and in fact he praised the staff for their efforts to provide as good a service as possible for all the passengers. Offered an upgrade to 1st Class he refused as it wasn’t fair on the other ‘corridor’ passengers, but took seats vacated by a family that were upgraded.

The farce begins when the other graybeard, Richard Branson, decides to wade into the fray, with various attempts to dismiss the situation as political posturing. Ignoring the question of whether Branson pays his taxes in the UK, Virgin Trains, along with almost every other train franchise, receive billions in subsidies from us.

Which means that we pay the franchises their profits. Against a background of ever-rising rail fares well above inflation. Why wouldn’t Branson squeal when someone with access to media coverage highlights the shortcomings of a privatised service that has fallen so far short of what is should, and put billions into his pocket, along with the other franchise owners.

The logic of re-nationalising a public service is undeniable, except of course by the billionaires who profit from it. So, taking the source of two opposing views, I am more confident in accepting that put forward by someone who is NOT looking to make money from it.

 

Time to stir the pot a little. I noticed that Jeremy Corbyn raised the aspiration to turn the House of Lords into a second elected chamber, so I thought I would throw my view into the ring.

If we take the potential negatives of an elected second chamber, the most obvious is that you end up with the sort of legislative stagnation that has created real financial, social and administrative problems in the USA. By turn, this has led to the anti-political eruption that brought Trump to the fore.

The second, and equally problematic concern, certainly in the UK, is the political disconnection of large swathes of the population. It is a huge struggle to get people to vote in the number of elections, both national and local, that we have now, without adding another to the list. We have been governed for far too long by governments elected on significantly less than 50% of the electorate, and nothing convinces me that will change dramatically anytime soon.

As to the positives, removing the ridiculous presence of hereditary peers gaining political influence through their genes, rather than capability, seems the clearest reason. As does the removal of the terminally unjustified appointments by political leaders, on either side, in an  attempt to pack the chamber with supporters, or as favours for services, and more often monies, rendered.

I would also like to see the removal of the religious presence, as our legislation is not based on a particular religious ideology. If it is, then you better pick the right one!

If we assume that the House of Commons is the singular source of legislation, then, ideally, the second chamber should be there to assess, question, recommend, criticise and hold to account that legislative process.

That is why the presence of experienced, accomplished and committed members from a wide variety of careers – away from the political bubble – is always going to be an asset as the basis for chamber membership. The question is, how they are selected. If it is on value added to the discourse, then political affiliation is secondary, and that is as it should be.

The problem then arises as to who does the selecting. It would be ideal to have a totally independent selection process, but at some stage there would be party political input, so here is my initial suggestion.

Firstly, the election is done on-line. There are very few eligible voters who do not have access to the internet, and there can always be processes to pick up the remainder, which will reduce very quickly numerically.

Secondly, it is on the basis of career and capability, not political allegiance. So, no indications of party loyalty will be included. And no electioneering on behalf of any candidates by any politicians.

Thirdly, there is a need to reduce the total number of members, so there would be no replacements for hereditary peers – or they can have their membership removed immediately, which seems fairer – and, based on the agreed maximum number of members required, replacements would be selected once a sensible number of spaces existed. For example, if there were 5 required, you can choose from a list of 10. Unless there was a specific shortfall in an area of expertise.

This structure may well change, but as a means of creating an alternative chamber for assessing and questioning proposed legislation, it’s not a bad place to start.

I must admit that I thought it would be a while before the sequel to this would emerge, and I suppose if we are applying strict dictionary definitions this isn’t really a sequel. Perhaps a proof of past – or on-going – attitudes, or an indicator for the future.

It would appear that Saudi Arabia has been dropping bombs in Yemen, using weaponry from the £3 billion sales deal with the UK. Yes, us. Along with more from the USA and France. In contravention of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Now, naturally, government spokesmen have stated there is no evidence that what we have sold to Saudi has been used to target civilians, but I suspect you may get a slightly different response from  Médecins Sans Frontières, whose hospitals have been bombed repeatedly.

I know we have a long-standing relationship with Saudi Arabia, based I assume on both having royal families, and shared ‘enemies’ over the years. Which of course also means that, notwithstanding their less than appealing human rights record, and our apparent strident discussions regarding this, we will continue to deal with them, and more specifically sell them weapons of efficient destruction.

It begs the question of exactly how far down the road of either human rights abuse or murderous involvement in other country’s wars does a country need to go before the UK government will say enough is enough.

It also raises a clear indicator for our future negotiations outside the EU, and the moral restrictions that includes. If there is money to be made, then any question of dubious behavior will come a very poor second behind the need to prove that one of the worst decisions made by the British people – ever – was actually a good move.

And meanwhile innocent people, and those brave souls who try to care for them, will continue to die, not at our hands, but with tools we made. That takes the shine off a summer’s day.