Author: cherokoff

I have listened, during the course of today, to a variety of programmes, and items, related to refugees, and more specifically to child refugees in camps in France.

Whilst each interview, each story, each unbelievable struggle breaks the heart, yet again, the world still turns, and a huge swathe of humanity becomes dust.

There are too many tales of fear, sadness, bravery, damage, danger, exploitation and shame to make it easy to get a grip on what is important, or most important, or viable, or worth attempting.

And yet, and yet. There are people who put the safety and comfort of displaced souls ahead of their own security. Who, every minute of every day, work tirelessly to make a small dent in the endless wall of despair and despondency. And they are heroes, and angels, and they carry on.

What they are not are those in power. The rulers, the ministers, the presidents – they are quick to criticise and sympathise in more or less equal measure. They make statements offering support, and prevaricate over the provision. They condemn the causes and causers of the refugee crisis, and support and exascerbate the conflict. And do not ackowledge their responsibility, and do not accept their involvement in the instigation.

I am not stupid, and I realise that this is complex, and complicated, and the reasons and reasoning are contorted and distorted by old animosities, religious divergence, misguided geographic allocations.  I know there is no simple answer, and that, along with the arrogance and pride there is also fear and lack of trust. And there is also always self-interest.

But it is simple, in the end. Because, for better or worse we are all stuck on this planet together for the foreseeable future. So we must find a solution. And that doesn’t mean that we have to like everyone, or anyone. But, at some stage we have to learn that every time we hurt someone else, we hurt ourselves too. There is no injury-neutral scenario.

And nor can we close doors, or borders, and think it will all go away, because it won’t.

But please, please, please can we look for another way. Too many tears have already been spilled, and many of them are mine. I want to stop crying over everything but joy.

The news today has had various reports, interviews, commentaries and evasion regarding the high number of long-standing customers of the top 6 energy suppliers paying more than the cheapest rate.

Whilst the industry’s position is basically “If you don’t ask for a change, we will charge you the higher rate – because we can”, it strikes me that this is just another example of how ‘The Market’ fails the majority.

If you want a mobile phone, there are an infinite variety of makes, models and packages to choose from, and the choice is yours. You don’t NEED a mobile phone, there are alternatives, and what you select, or get lumbered with, is up to you, and the small print.

Electricity is electricity, gas is gas. If there were faster versions in the cables, or hotter versions in the pipes, then a market makes sense. But it is what it is. So the price is down to what the supplier can get away with. And if you do not keep track on when your contract expires, then any appealing introductory rate disappears and back you go to the higher (highest?) rate.

Now, those introductory offers can only exist because the majority of customers don’t change supplier after the contract ends, and the difference subsequently charged covers the lower introductory price. At least, that would be the fairer argument.

However, I am not convinced that that is the truth. If the introductory rate is a viable economic price for the provider, then this is nothing less than exploitation of a population by providers of necessary energy.

I will hold my hands up and admit that I am a foolish and muddled socialist, who sees more value in social provision than individual acquisition; but I do accept that commercial markets exist, and will continue to do so.

But does it have to be at its most avaricious in every sector? There must be circumstances where, because we have no choice regarding the energy we use, that a more supportive and less exploitative approach can prevail. As always, those with less will always suffer more, so go on Theresa May, start caring for them all right here!

I must admit to being a little distracted over the last few days by the weird and wonderful world of the US presidential nominee conventions. At first, we look askance at all that happens over the ocean, and feel smugly comforted by the fact that we would never get into a situation where the choice for the leader of the country is between:-

the wife of a past president, who is widely distrusted because of her close relationships with financial institutions, votes and actions in unwanted and unwarranted wars;

a four-times bankrupted,  racist, misogynist builder who has to attach his name to everything.

While comparisons between Hillary (why two l’s I have no idea) Clinton and Theresa May might be a little tortured, or not, at least it is another historic hurdle for the US – nominating a woman for the highest office. And that is a good thing. And from public statements to date it would appear she at the very least intends to continue the progress instigated by her predecessor. Actually, that is another potential similarity between Clinton and May.

However, when we get to the other nominee, all bets on sanity are off. Supported, apparently, because he says what he thinks without concern for the political niceties, the reality is a sociopathic egotist who says whatever he wants, without reference to the truth, reality, this planet! That is even before we move on to insulting, women, Mexicans, Muslims, the handicapped, or the parents of military personnel who died serving their country. It has stopped being funny and has become a frightening view of one potential future.

Trump’s lunacy, however, is not the point for this posting. What came out of the race for the Republican nomination, and the rhetoric  that followed, was the willingness of the targeted electorate to ignore or, more worryingly, to acknowledge and then ignore, all the outright lies and exaggerations presented as fact.

We may laugh at their gullibility, but large swathes of the UK electorate are just as guilty. Both sides of the referendum debate at the very least exaggerated beyond any logical limit, and as far as the Leave campaign were concerned, lied outright, continued to do so, and when questioned subsequently dismiss them as ‘politics’ and ‘history’.

That is not acceptable. It could be said that Cameron and Osborn have paid for their untruths by being unceremoniously dismissed, or scuttling away as quickly as possible, and Gove likewise. But Johnson has been rewarded to be the buffoon on a national stage, and Davis and Fox have their reward with the most important government posts in many a year.

Whether the referendum will stand in the end or not is for another day. What is important as a lesson that we, as a total electorate, have to learn is that politicians lie. They have admitted as much. We just have to stop accepting it.

And, as an addendum, we need to stop the media allowing them to get away with it quite as easily as they do.

Imagine a circle, with 2 points on the circumference directly opposite each other. One point is stability, the other is anarchy.

If offered the choice, I suspect most people would choose stability. And that is democracy.

Society, to function effectively for all, requires consensus. It requires an agreement to compromise on those points that divide us, and come together around those that hold us together. Simple really. And in small social constructs this can be achieved fairly easily.

The larger the societal structure, the more organised and regulated the machine of concensus becomes. Representation becomes a requirement where numbers work against a discussion including the whole group. But this too can work, and has, and can do so in the future.

However, it can only work if the principle of democracy is clear and unequivocal. It should mean a compromise, so that, although not everyone will be 100% happy, no one is 100% miserable either. Cooperation. Compassion. Cohesion. All good words. All that should be the basis of our approach to democracy.

Unfortunately, the human race being what it is, this would make life too easy. When numbers grow larger, groupings with common interests develop, and the concensus around the point of stability become more polarised. But, as long as we remember why we ar doing it, whether the consensus settles a little to one side or the other of the central point shouldn’t make too much difference. Just a different approach to arrive at more or less the same place.

But with the construction of organisational machines comes a hierarchy – of expertise, of assumed superiority, of the imposition of different social stratas. And all of a sudden you have the distorted, biased, unequal and selfish ‘democracy’ we know and hold in contempt.

So, what do we do? We take the only thing we have left, our vote, and we make statements. Sometimes these votes can be a positive force. When a party goes too far away from where it should be – supporting and protecting the powerless – then a re-alignment is justified. Unless the representatives decide to ignore the voice of complaint.

Sometimes, however, these can be a negative. A protest against becoming invisible leads to the UK leaving the EU. A protest against a right-wing clogging of the democratic process leads to the selection of a 4 times orange bankrupt as the potential leader of the most powerful country in the world.

Let us try and remember what democracy really means, rather than the tribalism that it has become.

And to those who manage the machinery, remember why you are there – to keep the machinery working, not for yourself, not for a museum exhibition, but as a means of providing a supportive concensus for all.

So, it would appear that BHS, and its employees, have been extremely badly treated. Exploited and stripped of value by an uncaring owner. Except for Green’s immediate family, who seem to have done O.K. from the fiasco, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that verdict.

Whether or not he has his knighthood removed is a side issue. With the money at his disposal, it won’t make a ripple. But it would salve the consciences of government and its failed compliance monitoring machines.

What it doesn’t do is provide an answer for stopping future malpractices. And the reason for that requires a look a little further back over our shoulders. Accepting that any organisation is open to operational abuse, and the larger the organisation is the more prone it is to such abuse; there was, until fairly recently, a group of organisations whose purpose was to monitor the fairness, or lack of it, of the employment practices of Capitalism. They were called Trade Unions. You may have heard of them.

Ruthlessly attacked by the Thatcher government, and continuously disemboweled by subsequent governments, including the present one, is it really any surprise that practices exposed at BHS, and Sports Direct, have happened, and will continue to happen.

The latest incarnation of ‘May’ style toryism will not change the direction of the protection of workers rights, and leaving the EU, with working practice regulation  enshrined in law, will only make matters worse. This is what is meant by freeing ourselves from EU rules that restrict business. The regulations restrict the opportunity to unfairly exploit, with freedom definitely only on one side.

So, one more or less knight is irrelevant. Sanctimonious protestations of disgust are irrelevant.

How about, for example, insisting that all companies with more than a stated number of employees should have union representation as a statutory requirement. If you want to look after the workers, then ensure the structures are in place to do it, rather than mouthing platitudes and doing nothing!

The last general election was lost, partly because the PLP stepped way way back from supporting their party leader – standard practice it would seem – but mainly based on a lie. The lie that, not only are the Labour Party unable to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, but were responsible for the large amount of debt that the Tories had to sort out.

Without going too deep into history, the banking crisis was ignored, the recovery and significant improvement brought about by a Labour government was ignored, and the big lie was told. And it worked. And has continued to work.

Cameron left No 10 extolling the rolling uplands of a future he had instigated, and although May totally bitch-slapped him, standing on exactly the same spot, and the lies continue.

And further lies, by both Tory sides in the EU Referendum debate, left us with the result we have now.

So, what has all this to do with the leadership election? Well, firstly I wanted to have a good whinge. Secondly, I am wondering if the PLP will ever learn that these games don’t work. They are inherently dishonest.

It is totally unacceptable that there are elements of anti-semitism in the Labour Party, but it is disingenuous in the extreme to even imply that they have only appeared since Corbyn became leader. It is equally unacceptable that there are any forms of threatening or intimidatory behaviour against any party member, a Corbyn supporter or otherwise. And if you can prove that Jeremy Corbyn has instigated any of it then prove it, or stop the accusations of inaction. He has condemned them, repeatedly. Is he required to tour each office to guard them, or can we acknowledge that, when a mandate is dismissed then some elements will get angry. And there will always be some elements with less control than would be desirable.

This aggression will never be right, in any circumstances. Neither is  ignoring an overwhelming mandate, and distorting facts, statements or implied intentions to win the arguement.

Honourable and reasoned behaviour is what is required from all sides. The alternative is obvious. If you stirr shit with a big enough stick it will fly everywhere, and then all you have is a bad smell – on everyone.

And so it begins. And not with the statements of the candidates today, apparently. It started at PMQ’s. Or so the media, and Owen Smith, seem to think.

Having listened to PMQ’s, and the cut and paste versions put out by a variety of media sources, what is very clear is that the two sides of politics is becoming ever clearer.

Jeremy Corbyn asked serious, sensible questions of the leader of a party that has now been in power for over 6 years. Not one question was answered directly, or honestly, or with any form of respect for those that Theresa May stated she was the PM to care for. Instead, as if by some strange osmosis of the post, the broo-ha-ha bollocks arose through her.

So she can crack a joke, but only at the expense of the vast swathes of people in this country who are struggling. So she can get the boys behind her to return to the playground and bellow unintelligibly  as they have for years. So much for change. ‘Animal Farm’ reborn.

And it proves what? That Jeremy Corbyn can’t cope at PMQ’s? No. It proves that, whilst there is one man attempting to present a more reasoned and honest approach to politics, the Tories, and too many of the Parliamentary Labour Party, seem unwilling, incapable or potentially uncaring about moving forward from their ‘games’ and start to do what they claim to be there for – represent and work for ALL the people in this country.

Sadly, there seems little or no shame across large sections of the padded benches of MPs. And they wonder why so many are disillusioned with politicians.

However, when more people join the Labour Party in 1 day than the Tories total party membership, there may be a glimmer. As long as, when the mandate is clear, as it was before, the PLP honour their party membership and get on with the real job.

I have a feeling that, in the depths of the Tory party machine, moves are being made to ensure that membership can be kept as low as possible. After all, if they had a surge like the Labour Party, they may have to act more like a democratic organisation, and less like the props for an elite.

So, the Eagle didn’t land so much as fly away. O.K. Fair enough. It makes it easier in some ways to have a straight forward choice. And, from the opening statements, its would appear that Owen Smith intends this to be a reasonably polite debate. Good to know.

However, it seems that some in Jeremy Corbyn’s camp feel obliged to play the silly games of ‘he said XYZ umpteen years ago, therefore he is a reactionary / closet Tory / Blairite.

Can we get away from this. Please. If anyone should appreciate how statements made in the past can be misrepresented then Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters should. He has been the subject of concerted campaigns, from both inside and outside of the Labour Party, to depict him as something so remote to actuality it becomes ludicrous if it wasn’t so serious. And it’s all done by misquoting, cutting, splicing and curtailing detail and nuance in order to fit a 5 second bullet point.

So, if there has to be a leadership election, can we please keep it clean, keep it honest, and retain the moral high ground. An argument of ideas and approaches is fine, and valid, and would be a healthy demonstration of what politics should be.

And then they vote. And as was expected, the result was overwhelmingly in favour of continuing the unjustifiable maintenance of the nuclear deterrent.

And a man votes, as he always has, with his conscience, and is castigated by those in front and behind him. For being honest, and honourable, and not waving his dick around and declaring that ‘Yes, I would kill 100,000 innocent people if it gets me votes’.

And I know that the Prime Minister doesn’t have an actual dick, but she has the metaphorical one that seems to be the prerequisite of the political leader – the instant sound bite, the image.

But what will be the difference to our continued possession of weapons of mass destruction? Will ISIS suddenly back away now we have made this decision? Will South Korea suddenly turn away from technically fallible testing and agree to behave like the good little chaps we expect them to be? Will Putin admit that he was just pretending to be pissed off with the west?

No.

So, as that isn’t the answer, perhaps we should try something else. Except we are. We are talking to our ‘enemies’ all the time. This is just posturing to justify political expediency, and not for the people’s benefit. You know, the people our new Prime Minister was pledging to work for a few days ago.

As a place to start a blog, there is nothing like beginning with something small and not in the least divisive.

Ignoring the stupendous amount if money involved, because its alternative value in so many sectors of our society is obvious, there is a simple question to answer: is there any validity in possessing an independent nuclear detterent?

The world has changed exponentially since the first two nuclear weapons were used, and the presence of nuclear weapons throughout the world, in the hands of a varied group of countries with differing and very different agendas, has done nothing to reduce a vast array of large and small scale wars, with devastating results. In fact, it could be argued that, during the 2nd half of the 20th century, the world’s 2 super powers used their nuclear impasse to fight any number of wars by proxy across the world. And that situation continues today.

As to the more parochial basis of the UK possessing nuclear weapons, as has been stated on numerous occasions, they are acting as a detterent every day. But against what? Against who? Our ancient enemies are now our friends – until Brexit kicks in, and don’t get me going on that! Our cold war enemy(?) is still there; smaller, no less belligerent but with a back story that deserves some respect, and with no intention of attacking western Europe, or us. After all, even belligerents doing shoot themselves in both feet.

Other rogue regimes? Maybe. But let us not forget that at one time or another the vast majority of those have been, or are expedient friends.

And any claim that it has reduced either the threat or actual activity of terrorism is ludicrous. Nor has it stopped those military involvements that we have recently been engaged in, or still have an involvement.

So what, exactly, is its purpose? Just because we have nuclear weapons doesn’t mean that we have to keep them. And if it is the entry ticket to the ‘Big Gang’ in the world, then it is too high a price to pay. It has no use, no value, and no moral or financial justification.

There would of course be ramifications to disarmament, not least ensuring that those financially dependent are adequately and sensible dealt with. We have numerous examples of where this has not been done with other industries to know what is needed.

As to our place – read influence – in the world, if our place at the top table is valid then it should be because of who we are, not what lethal weapons we have in our back pocket. And there are a large number of countries across the world with influence, impact, and all without the compromise to their integrity by the possession of weapons of mass destruction. We entered a war apparently on their existence elsewhere – any lessons to learn there?

I have absolutely no doubt that this will not make the slightest difference either to the public discourse or to the parliamentary decision,  but this is one NO!