Out with the old ...

Out with the old and in with the new as the saying is. 2013 has certainly seen its ups and downs, and I suspect a few people won't be sorry to see the end of it. Hopefully 2014 will bring better fortunes for us all. For my own family there have been some great times and some of the others as well. My youngest daughter got married in July to a man I really like. My eldest finished her Bachelor of Science degree with Honours, and my son is currently doing what he loves - flying helicopters.

Silke, Harry and I had a great holiday in the UK, travelling around in a hired camper van, the only snag being the battle we had with the UK's 'rules' concerning animals (even with 'Pet Passports') arriving by air with their owners. Next time we'll know, and travel by car!

Our trip took us through Dorset, Devon, Cornwall and Gloucestershire, giving us a chance to walk on beaches, explore the history and catch up with friends. It was lots of fun and the Camper Van proved to be a good way to do it.

A trip to Belgrade for a conference for  me proved interesting, and Silke had similar conference trips to Hamburg and Thuringia. Our papers were well received - rewarding considering the amount of effort that goes into preparing them.

The rest of the year has been taken up with a wide range of work related activities for Silke, the publication of one new book for me, and preparation of another. The work I've tackled for a history of my former place of employment seems to have stalled temporarily while I try to find information, anecdotes and pictures of one of its 'former' manifestations, and, of course, lots of 'playtime' and walks for Harry.

All that remains is to wish all my friends and  readers a very happy and prosperous 2014!

What does 'Aid' really do for the 'poor'?

The subject of 'Aid' is always a touchy one. There are many arguments for richer nations supporting projects in poor or developing nations, the chief being that, in so doing, we foster good relations and reduce the forces of envy which translate into terrorism and violence against the 'haves' in the West. One the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that very little benefit is actually produced for the providers of 'Aid' or for those it is supposed to help. I was reminded rather strongly of this last night as I watched the launch, by India, of a Mars probe.

India is, currently, in receipts of a few hundreds of millions of pounds of Aid money from the UK government. This is supposedly supporting a range of programmes targeting social and poverty relief issues, and it is ceasing next year. Allegedly. Now here is one of the things that bothers me about the handouts - which have been going on since 1947 - and it is this: India has one of the worlds largest 'poverty' problems in the world. It has a huge number of its reported 1 billion inhabitants living in basic conditions, and subsisting on minimal wages, but it is now the possessor of one of the largest Naval Fleets in that region, equipped with nuclear capable submarines, aircraft carriers, and the latest ship borne aircraft and missiles. It is a nuclear power, and it boasts a space programme - but the UK, which is busy slashing its udgets, reducing its Navy to a coastal defence force, and its other armed forces to little more than token units, is giving India 'Aid'.

Nor is this the only example. Pakistan has been a net beneficiary of Aid for all of its existence, yet its a country described as 'failing'. Corruption is rife, poverty is the biggest 'growth industry' and it provides more radical Islamists to wage terror campaigns than Iran which is supposed to be the seat of Islamic fundamentalism. Zimbabwe is another. Billions in Aid went in for years, but the currency collapsed, the people are starving, the infrastructure is collapsing and the only beneficiaries seem to be Mugabe and his thuggish cronies whose Swiss Bank accounts are stuffed with the proceeds. The same seems to be happening in South Africa, where people who, prior to 1994, were drawing benefits in the UK, or street traders, car salesmen and shopkeepers in the Apartheid years are now billionaires while the countries economy struggles, corruption is rampant, poverty increases and the infrastructure can't be maintained. Ther list goes on and on, and the countries pouring this 'Aid' money into these bottomless pits are making cuts to their own budgets to pay for it.

The UK has cut its Defence Budget to ridiculous levels, it can't afford (we are constantly told) to pay pensioners, and threatens to reduce this 'benefit' (which it is not - we all pay for it through our working lives. We've earned it and had the Whitehall parasites invested even a portion of what they've collected they'd be rolling in money) for those now in work - and paying into the funds Whitehall continues to squander. The UK has no space programme, allegedly because 'there is no benefit to be gained from it', but in reality, because they waste the money on other things. But we are funding India's albeit indirectly. The cuts to Defence are now coming home to bite, with the possibility, on the eve of the Scottish Independence Referendum, of the Govan and Scotstoun shipyards, dependent on ship orders for the RN, closing. Nor is Britain alone, these questions are being asked in Germany and several other countries, but it is one the politicians everywhere don't want to answer.

The truth is that 'Aid', well intentioned as it is, allows the recipient politicians to divert funds they would and should have spent on whatever the 'Aid' is targeting, to other projects. In many recipient countries, the corruption is so entrenched, that the Aid might as well be paid directly to the bank accounts (Swiss) of the families of the politicians who have a nice line of contractors who are the sole winners of any contract going. Usually companies run by wives, sons, cousins or other relatives, and the 'product' delivered is often a joke, and not what it was supposed to be. An example that would be hilarious if it wasn't so stupid, was a contract awarded in South Africa to a relative of a Minister to proivde proper toilets in all the 'informal' townships. What the contractor didn't do, was plumb any of them into a sewer, a water supply or anything else. He built concrete slabs, placed a 'throne' on it and moved on. Thousands of them, in every township. No enclosure, no plumbing, no sewerage removal. Mega-millions into bank. Easy.

When one considers the cost of India's Space Programme, the UK's Aid package is quite small beer, but, considering that we didn't even spend a tenth of the amount of Aid we give India, and less than a fraction of a percent of what we hand out in Aid on our joint effort through the European Space Agency, one does have to ask the question; why? Is there any benefit to the UK from this largesse? Is there any benefit to those on the receiving end (excluding of course the corrupt politicians)? From where I stand, the answer is no. We have almost two million unemployed, we have sold off most of our heavy industries (ironically our steel plants and our prestige car manufactuers to Indian owners) and we can't pay our own bills - but we hand out huge amounts that, spent at home, could at least support a great deal of redevelopment in areas that desperately need it.

We can't pay pensioners, we have a crippling unemployment 'benefit' burden, we are slashing government services and selling them off to foreign operators, we have no Space Programme, our Armed Forces are shrinking to the point of non-existence, but we can hand out billions in 'Aid'? There's something very wrong with that picture, but perhaps those responsible are standiong to close to the trees to see it.

Ten Years of Blogging

Today is the tenth anniversary of my starting a blog. I can scarcely believe it has been this long, and it has certainly gone through a number of changes, and seen many more, along the way. I think the most appropriate way to mark this milestone is to pay tribute to those who have shared the journey, who read my ramblings and occasionally leave comments and suggestions for posts. Some have even joined me in posting their thoughts here.

So I have to say thanks to Ozguru, also known as Gil, who first got me blogging on his then website, back in 2001. Sadly I have been unable to retrieve those early posts., so now count as my first, this one. When that website became too big for his management (and the demands of family and normal day job) we migrated to PixyMisa's MuNu site. The only problem being that, as Ozguru set it all up, I had difficulty getting into the settings to sort out one or two problems, and he didn't have the time to. So, eventually, and rather sadly, I migrated to the present host, Blogger.

Sadly, I've had to record the passing of a few friends, and seen the closure of several blogs as well. Church Mouse edited many of my posts and introduced me to a range of interesting characters and bloogers. She regularly fed me items of interest to blog about as well. Sadly, she died of cancer a little over four years ago, gone, but certainly not forgotten. I have been joined on the blog by Mausi, VC, formerly The Postulant and now Josephus all of whom have, from time to time, posted and contributed and who still contribute with suggestions and ideas.

I've ranted about politics and politicians, pondered some of the deeper mysteries of life, theology and history. I've celebrated some of my successes and shared some of my failures. It often surprised me that anyone read my thoughts, but it also encouraged me to broaden my writing and get some of it published. That has been an adventure all of its own.

So here it is, my tenth anniversary Blog Post. I can only wonder what the next ten years will bring with them.

The Economics of 'Growth'

I am not a statistician, but I have some experience in using 'statistics' to make a point on occassion, or to persuade an audience that 'something' is happening or must be done. I have sufficient knowledge of the manner in which the data is is collected, how it is processed and sometimes manipulated, to be very suspicious when they are used by politicians, civil servants and certain 'scientists'. The majority of these folk are, like me, broadly 'illiterate' with regard to the significance of a whole range of things the raw 'numbers' appear to indicate, and completely illiterate when it comes to understanding the very complex mathematical 'models' used to work out what the data means.

Thus, when the Treasury (or a politician) talks about "economic growth" I take it with a large dose of salt. Why? Well, I have several reasons. First of all, I am one of those awkward people like Thomas the Twin (Thomas Didymus or Doubting Thomas). I tend to believe what I can see, feel, measure physically (THAT may surprise a few folk) and things like statistics tend to show only a small portion of the bigger picture. Secondly, in my lifetime, world population has gone from some 2 billion to 7 billion, and the world is creaking ecologically as a result. We are running out of all manner of things (I don't think hydrocarbon fuel is one of them - we keep finding more untapped 'reserves), but water and food certainly are. So is space for housing.

Yet all economists, and all national economies are built around the supposition that populations, wealth acquisition, commercial and industrial expansion, will continue to grow. The whole kettle of fish is built on the assumption that we will continue to buy and discard ever increasing quantities of 'consumer' goods. But, as far as I can see, this bubble is alreay almost at bursting point. Populations in most developed countries are either static, or declining if one removes the mass migrations coming in from less developed countries. The basket of 'goodies' that is used by the Treasury to measure 'growth' in the economy of any nation is full of some pretty ephemeral items. Like salaries and wages, like orders being filled, unemployment numbers, and new registrations of businesses. Inflation is adjusted for in these measurements, but everyone massages that figure to the point of worthlessness as the truth might scare away investors, or provoke revolution.

We hear of 'new' industries replacing old ones, which is true, but these new industries don't employ the vast numbers needed to address unemployment. Often they have the reverse effect. Unemployment in many countriues is also a seasonal thing. In Europe quite a number of the 'pavement cafe' operators shed staff (some even close completely) in the winter, and reopen in the Spring/Summer. They and their staff are 'unemployed' during the winter months, which slews these figures. If the banks have a 'good' year, that boosts the 'balance of trade' and so we see 'growth' - but it seldom feeds down to the rest of us.

Another major reason I doubt the 'growth' economics model can be sustained is that I don't think populations can continue to expand. In 1945, Britain had a population of some 20 million. It is now 60 million and growing, yet, even as it grows, it isn't growth due to births - it is boosted by migration and large migrant families. Unemployment keeps increasing, and, because we have a socialist system of 'benefits' so does the costz of running it. Ironically, as the population grows, the actual contributions to pensions, social benefits and so on from tax on the employed is in danger of falling off. Thus, our governments are increasingly compelled to engage in some dubious economic tactics to cover their spending plans. They borrow money on an eye watering scale, always on the promise that 'growth' will enable then to repay it. They increase taxes, adjust some of the 'hidden' taxation to increase its impact and encourage everyopne to spend, spend, spend - so the economy can 'grow'.

However, demographically, there are signs the world population is not going to continue its upward growth. China is seeing the start of a downturn, largely because a preference for male children means they now have an almost 2 to 1 male to female population of under 30s. India is also starting to show similar signs. Germany's population was found recently to be 1,8 million less than was estimated, and similar patterns are emerging elsewhere. So, if populations are not 'growing' naturally, how can we sustain 'economic growth' and continue to buy today and pay with tomorrow's 'growth'?

I suggest that we need, urgently, to find a new economic model. One which is sustainable, fair and does not involve stepping back to subsistence living for our populations while those who have done well out of the economics of 'growth' and literally robbed the bank, bask in luxury.

An Earthquake in Rome?

For quite a while now there has been a problem in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg. A project to renovate several historic buildings and provide a new flat and administrative centre for the Bishop lay at the heart of what was in the media, but now it has emerged as only the tip of a very large iceberg which has finally forced Rome to take action. On the face of it, the project seems entirely reasonable. The buildings needed restoration, and the old Bishop's residence and office were no longer either fit for purpose or really habitable. So far, so good, but now enter a new Bishop in 2007, an academic with aristocratic ambitions and an authoritarian attitude, and things go downhill fast.

It needs to be explained to non-German residents, that the RCC bishops enjoy quite a degree of autonomy. How they use that depends on how 'traditionalist' they are, or how 'liberal'. The 'new' Limburg bishop belongs in the ultra-traditionalist camp, and, according to some of his disaffected congregation, sees himself as a medieval 'Fuerstbischoff' - a Prince Bishop in English - whose authority was not to be questioned and who 'ruled' his See without deference to anyone. That he also has, as do most of the RCC bishops, a 'private' Trust set up in the 19th Century which he may use 'for the enrichment and furtherance of the Church' means he is more or less independent of the opinions of anyone else as well. That is where the problem really starts. The Roman 'rules' for the expenditure of money on building projects require that Rome be consulted on any project over €5 million. The bishop went to considerable effort to make sure the way the project was 'costed out' kept each part of it just under that ceiling - so no one except his immediate 'team' had any idea of how much was being spent. In fact one senior member of his advisory Board, when questioned on National television, responded with the irritated exclamation: "Hallo? We're all good Catholics. We didn't expect our Bishop to deceive us, so we didn't question what he told us."

A pity really, because now it is revealed that the costs have soared to over €30 million, and likely to rise still to over €40 million when all the damages caused to adjoining properties are taken into account. How did this arise? Well, despite the impression created in the media, it isn't all going on the Bishop's flat. There are in fact ten major projects, the flat, chapel and administrative centre being among them. They do, however, form the lion's share of it, partly because the Bishop has a taste for luxury and partly to meet his artistic ideas (like exposing some of the 'natural rock formation' beneath his residence to the view of visitors - with a little 'improvement' of course) and to display some of the church treasures so visitors can enjoy them.

More important is the fact that the laity eventually smelled a rat and have demanded answers. One, an avowed member of the RCC actually fixed Luther's 95 Theses to the Bishop's gates. Another managed to gain access to the cathedral clock tower and reset the bells to strike 13 times at midday (the Angelus is rung by twelve strokes of the bell at Midday) which reflects a folk saying that the bell striking thirteen is an end. The loss of trust is enormous, and it is slowly emerging, itself an earth shattering event, that the bishop has more or less alienated all his senior clergy, most prominently the Dean of Frankfurt, and now even the Dean of Limburg cathedral itself has broken his silence and admitted he and the bishop were not at the same table.

The earthquake in Rome is that the Pope has now relieved the bishop of his duties, sending him 'on leave' to 'recover' while a commission looks into the whole affair and reports. That it has sent a shock wave through Rome is now exposed, this must be the first time in a long, long while, that Rome has responded to public external pressure in this way. While the bishop isn't yet removed from his post, it is clear he cannot expect to return to Limburg, itself a major departure from normal Roman practise.

What it exposes, of course, is summed up in the statement of that adviser - it is not done, by 'good' Catholics, to question their bishops. Rome has long enjoyed that 'status' for its bishops and other clergy. 'Ordinary' people cannot, must not, dare not, question their authority. This has led to massive abuses down the centuries. It was one of the reasons the Reformers fought to break away from Rome in the 16th Century. It was a major cause of the formation of the Church of England, and it was a major factor in the misery (and ongoing problems) in Ireland for much of the 20th Century with abuse of power in politics, in social issues and in the treatment of women and children in the 'refuges' managed by the RCC for the Irish State. In Germany as well, abuses are emerging (alongside those of the former DDR 'orphanages' for children removed from 'unsuitable' parents) and the repercussions are yet to be fully appreciated in some quarters. Rome is right to be taking definite action, but this is just one issue it needs to address urgently.

The Limburg affair has sent a shock wave through the Church and through Germany, but, as I said at the outset, they are addressing, at present, only the tip of a much larger iceberg. They will need to act very swiftly to deal with all the other problems before this loss of credibility damages them fatally. There is no place today for "Prince" bishops ruling autocratically, nor is there really a place for unquestioning obedience in matters of faith. Limburg will get a new Bishop, one it is to be hoped, with a more pastoral understanding of his role. He will not have an easy task, but neither does Pope Francis as he grapples with a Curia determined to resist any attempt to open some of the discussions Rome knows it must have if it is to retain or regain any shred of credibility.

Leave of Absence ...

The Monk has been in Belgrade for the last several days. The purpose of the visit was to deliver a paper at a conference held by the Serbian Fire Protection organisation DITUR. It has proved to be an interesting and rewarding experience. The Monk freely admits that he has been very fortunate to be able to travel to many countries as a 'guest' of his professional colleagues and has always been very well looked after. He has also had, as a result, the opportunity to see and experience at first hand aspects of the host country and society that he would not have if he were to go there as a 'tourist'.

Westerners often have a view of a country or nation largely coloured by what they have read in newspapers (almost invariably negative) or seen on television. We tend to form our opinions from limited sources and often negative reporting on some event in any given country. Quite often the experience of the traveller is distinctly at odds with the 'information sources' consulted. So it is with the Serbs. Theirs is an ancient culture, but it is one that suffers from having been sandwiched between many different empires down the ages. The Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Magyars, Turks and eventually Austro-Hungarians and the Russians have all had a go at dominating and absorbing them. In recent years NATO had a go and the scars are still present, yet the welcome couldn't be warmer, the desire to be accepted as a part of Europe, and perhaps above all, to be recognised as having some legitimate concerns regarding the annexation of land they settled long before the Byzantines and their successors imposed their rule, to provide expansion for some of their more recently arrived neighbours.

There is a rich cultural mix in Serbia. It is now re-emerging in the post communist nation, and they are rebuilding their culture, their lifestyle and their country. There can't be many republics that welcome back the descendant of their former Royal House, and give him an official residence!

It has been a very interesting visit, the Monk's second to this fascinating city, and once again he has found the people welcoming, the atmosphere relaxed, friendly and hopeful. His contact with shopkeepers, hotel staff and the delegates was marked by their warmth, friendliness and by their willingness to help at every level. Should any reader have the opportunity to visit this country and the city of Belgrade - don't hesitate. The experience will be rewarding.

Looking After Number 1 ...

Following on from yesterday's post, I have to make some comment on the state of the western democracies in the light of the economic decisions and activities as I see them at present. Watching a televised debate last night on German television several things leapt out at me. Firstly, the German economy is currently strong and this is, in part, because the labour market is largely free. People negotiate their wage levels with their employer, not with some national minimum in mind. It has led to a situation where there are lots of "mini-jobs" and many on the lower end of the pay scales hold down two and even three such hourly paid jobs. Secondly it is because, with some notable exceptions, the employers and the unions work together and not in opposition.

The exceptions are the "international" employers and the "state" owned (or the state has a major share and say in the running of them) companies. Here the pattern is confrontational, and one does have to wonder why. The debate last night highlighted at least one reason. One of the debaters was a passionate lady from Die Linke, the former Communist "Socialist Unity Party for Germany" which ran the East German State with an iron fist, secret police, guns, walls, fences and all. She provided, for me, the perfect example of the passionate ideologue with little or no experience (or contact with) the realities of the world or the lives of the people she claims to wish to "improve". Her passionate interuptions, tirades and denunciations of everything and everyone who dared to say anything she disagreed with was evidence enough of her inability to recognise any other point of view, but it was compounded by her emphatic stance on the position of tax and ownership.

On the first, she was adamant that everyone had to pay more tax so that the infrastructure, the schools, the nursery places, health care and virtually everything else could be "improved" according to her ideal. She became extremely aggitated when it was pointed out that a large portion of the crumbling infrastructure lay in the parts of Germany her party had run for over 40 years and failed to improve. That the shortage of money for this everywhere in the western parts now is largely the result of it having to be prioritised to bring the eastern Lände up to standard. For me this highlighted the political divide across the west, between the well-to-do "socialists" who see themselves as "liberal, enlightened and benevolent" and driven by the desire to create a "fair" society in which, presumably, everyone enjoys a "fair" division of wealth. The trouble is, that their idea of "fair" usually means they keep the power and the wealth, and the rest of us get to share what they determine to be the appropriate reward we "deserve". On the second point she was ambiguous and rather evasive, but the implication was that her party believed they should have a say in who had what.

On the other hand at present we have the "conservative" politicians who are perhaps better described as "monetarists" and want a society in which tax is low (most of us would say we want that), government is small and less intrusive and they and their cronies, supporters and camp-followers are free to reap uncapped and unrestricted rewards. Of course they also believe that some of the wealth needs to be directed to keeping the less fortunate from the barricades and to maintaining infrastructures. After all, what is the point of owning a Jaguar or a Bentley if you can't drive it on the roads, or the airport terminal is falling apart and you can't actually use it to get to your First Class seat for that holiday on a private island? People notice if the lights go out because the power lines fell down, or the gas stops flowing through the pipes because the gas mains are broken. So they tend to spend just enough to keep that from happening, and by shuffling the cups (round and round they go - where the pea is no one knows) you can keep people from noticing that the pea is actually shrinking.

It may well be true (and I certainly believe it is) that our civil services have become bloated and that the senior elements of it are way overpaid, that our politicians are lining their pockets at our expense, but then, it has ever been thus. A simple reading of the tales of the corruption in the corridors of power in the 17th to 19th Centuries - which led to the creation of the civil service as we know it in the first place - to realise that the wheel has turned full circle and we are back to a very similar state. The corruption is less visible, but just as in the 18th Century contracts were handed out to cronies and friends, now they go to "preferred bidders" with gold plated get out clauses and inflated bids. The whole thing runs, as has been exposed in a number of political biographies recently, on a very selective and very closed network. One that runs not only through the upper echelons of Westminster, but through Whitehall and on into the major companies of the commercial, mercantile and industrial side as well. If you aren't in that network from the start, you'll find a very solid glass ceiling in place - unless you've the money to buy your way round it.

That network is the key to power and the real wealth of most western nations. One needs patronage, one needs the right contacts. One needs that all important "nod" from the right heads to gain access. A single "black ball" and you're out, forever on the periphery. It's a fact of life in the corridors of power, but even insiders can fall out of the net. As one very senior civil servant once confided at a dinner I was Master of Ceremonies for, "the way to survive in Whitehall is to be THE expert on some 'problem'. You must never offer a solution, just be THE person who everyone has to consult if they need to know anything about the problem." He went on to explain that sometimes one had to 'create' a problem ...

To this must be added a new phenomenon in Whitehall/Westminster - the Special Adviser. These individuals are usually students of political 'science' and are hired at marvelous salaries to 'advise' ministers on specific subjects. Some are straight from university, activists with a passion for some single issue, full of 'factoids' about that issue, but with little grasp of anything beyond it, or indeed, of any of the impacts adopting their preferred solution will bring. Thus we have the Chief Scientist being told by an impassioned non-scientist how ecologically unsound it is to use a diesel car. This, despite the said scientist explaining that the diesel car is more economical and less ecologically damaging to manufacture and run than the alternative hybrid whose batteries have a life span of five years. These cannot be recycled and the manufacture of them produces some really toxic and ecologically damaging wastes - which cannot be reprocessed.

Then one looks at where the SpAd came from and who his/her connections are and, surprise, surprise, there's a network connection through school, university, Party and possibly even family. That is the bottom line unfortunately. The Whitehall/Westminster/City network has existed for centuries and it exists in one form or anther in every country, no matter the ideological flavour of the government. It exists for one reason only, to preserve those in the "Upper Ten Thousand" (the classic 1%) in their positions of power and wealth, and to make sure their dynastic successors remain in it.

Can we change it? Probably not, since destroying one such network will simply give rise to a new one. The best way to deal with it is to learn the rules of this game, and then play it to your own advantage, not always the easiest thing to do, and probably a very selfish view. Better still, in my view, is to play the game, but with a moral and honest view to sharing the reward. That, perhaps, is what the political class is not prepared to do.

The Fall of Empires ...

I have recently been re-watching Simon Sharma's History of Britain and it reminds me, in places, of other histories I have read of Rome, Greece, Persia and even China and India. They all begin in the same manner, and they all end up going down the same route to collapse. The key elements always seem to be the same, first is expansion, usually driven by ambition (though frequently disguised as 'trade'), then comes the opportunistic building of personal wealth, fiefdoms and power bases, followed by a period of consolidation. Then greed, usually for power and wealth sets in, generally as those who first established the situation make a little room for the second and third tiers of society and allow them a small share of power or wealth.

These 'lesser' magnates are generally the root of the problem. They envy everyone above them and conspire to grab as much of that wealth as they can - often hiding behind the mask of 'striving for a better dispensation for those less fortunate than themselves. The reality is that they generally take to themselves power, and with power, wealth, or at least the access to great wealth for their friends and supporters. In the process they use and abuse the populations they have taken control over. Add in a rich mix of totally unscrupulous adventurers to be found in any society, and you have the seeds for the fall of any empire ready grown. The signs are there in every society, there rises an 'elite' class that subsume to themselves the key positions in government and the supporting bureaucracy, academia, the media and information sources. Then they, in their turn, take care of those most useful to them (usually people from the same 'elite' class as themselves) in key positions in commerce and industry.

One finds them using many, many ideological cloaks for their real agenda most of them very attractive to those remote from power and the sort of wealth these elites have at their beck and call. The bottom line is that they control the access to the type of education they enjoyed, they are also gate keepers to the sort of key positions they award themselves and their friends, and though they give every impression (to the gullible) of being concerned about this or that section of any community, the reality is that they will sacrifice anyone and everyone to remain in power and to keep the wealth they have accumulated. If, at some point, there were perceived to be an advantage - say the acquisition of technology from aliens - that gave them some major advantage, there would be little hesitation in sacrificing the greater part of the human race (out of sight of TV and the media) in order to obtain it. Study the wider origins of the first world war and it quickly becomes apparent that there was a substantial "war party" in Britain manipulating any and every situation because they perceived that destroying Germany and regaining a dominant position in Northern Europe would boost trade and industry - and profits. German trade and industry was 'stealing' the market and had to be destroyed. (See the reasons Britain insisted on all goods imported from Germany having to be labelled 'Made in Germany'. It backfired. It came to be seen as a mark of high quality.)

Plato wrote at length about this trend toward the amassing wealth and power in a small group in his treatise on government "The Republic". Frankly, we should make it compulsory reading for everyone. I suspect, however, there will always be those who have the ambition, the drive and the Machiavellian streak in them, to delude enough people to support them in whatever they wish to embark on.

Long ago I was taught to look behind the ideology, to break it down and ask the important questions such as "who will decide what is fair? Who will apportion the rewards? What will they get if this comes to pass?" It is frequently informative.

As Simon Sharma has reminded me, the British Empire was supposed to be benign, based on mutual support and mutual trade. It failed because the men of power decided to plunder the treasuries of the colonies and the subjected peoples. India was turned into a fiefdom for the sons of the wealthy and for 'adventurers' with the wit to run what would today be termed fraudulent scams. When the colonies demanded (like the Americans in 1776) more say in return for their taxes, they were, if not vilified, at least treated with contempt. And, when the colonists became too inconvenient, or a hinderance to the latest schemes in Whitehall - they were, in many cases, thrown to the lions.

It will not end there either. The current political elites in the western world are already shifting their (and our) wealth to new ventures in new nations. When the time is right, they will abandon their current crop of 'beneficiaries' and move on. Since they also control the media and education, they will continue to blind a majority to the reality of the world they have created right to the last.

Sadly, they'll probably get away with it as well.

Living on our past ...

Sometimes one stumbles across something prescient when looking for something else. I am often astonished at some of the things I find when researching history and today turned up a gem. It was written when the British Empire was at its height, and perhaps the denizens of Westminster and Whitehall need to have their noses rubbed in it. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle penned the following poem after HMS Foudroyant was wrecked at Blackpool in 1897. She had served as Admiral Nelson's flagship at the Battle of the Nile, then in various roles until she was sold to become a 'school ship' in the 1860s. What incensed Conan Doyle (among others) was that the wreck was stripped of her fittings, the copper from her bottom being turned into medallions to be given to school children a few years later, and the hulk sold to a German salvage company for two hundred pounds.

The interesting thing is his tirade against those who can only see a monetary value in everything to do with Britain's heritage. That is a problem that is still with us, we seem to be in the hands of a political class who are prepared to sell the very pavement from beneath our feet if it serves their purpose to do so. Read Sir Arthur's tirade and weep -

H.M.S. FOUDROYANT

by

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Who says the Nation's purse is lean,

Who fears for claim or bond or debt,

When all the glories that have been

Are scheduled as a cash asset?

If times are bleak and trade is slack,

If coal and cotton fail at last,

We've something left to barter yet

Our glorious past.

There's many a crypt in which lies hid

The dust of statesman or of king;

There's Shakespeare's home to raise a bid,

And Milton's house its price would bring.

What for the sword that Cromwell drew?

What for Prince Edward's coat of mail?

What for our Saxon Alfred's tomb?

They're all for sale!

And stone and marble may be sold

Which serve no present daily need;

There's Edward's Windsor, labelled old,

And Wolsey's palace, guaranteed.

St. Clement Danes and fifty fanes,

The Tower and the Temple grounds;

How much for these? Just price them, please,

In British pounds.

You hucksters, have you still to learn,

The things which money will not buy?

Can you not read that, cold and stern

As we may be, there still does lie

Deep in our hearts a hungry love

For what concerns our island story?

We sell our work perchance our lives,

But not our glory.

Go barter to the knacker's yard

The steed that has outlived its time!

Send hungry to the pauper ward

The man who served you in his prime!

But when you touch the Nation's store,

Be broad your mind and tight your grip.

Take heed! And bring us back once more

Our Nelson's ship.

And if no mooring can be found

In all our harbours near or far,

Then tow the old three-decker round

To where the deep-sea soundings are;

There, with her pennon flying clear,

And with her ensign lashed peak high,

Sink her a thousand fathoms sheer.

There let her lie!

The Pressures of Work ...

An item in the news caught my attention during the week. It concerned the health of white collar employees and workers today, and the fact that many are suffering "burn-out" early in their careers. Others are developing serious mental health problems and turning the alcohol and drugs as a way of coping with the stress of their employment. Rising alcoholism and drug abuse in many workplaces is a major cause for concern, but I would suggest that this is no surprise, given the demands placed on employees today.

Many find themselves on a sort of treadmill, where the only way to stay in their current roles and keeptheir income, is to take on ever increasing workloads and responsibilites, for ever shrinking rewards. For most an annual review is something to dread, it seldom results in an adequate reward through a decent rise in salary, and usually simply keeps them 'on board' for the across the board settlement employers and Union negotiators love to haggle over. The trouble is that 2% of the average workers salary is a lot less money than 2% of a Board Members. In real terms the incomes of those at the lower end of the pay scales are often in reverse once inflation and other increases in the Cost of Living are taken into account.

An unintended consequence of the Minimum Wage has been to push wage bills higher, and that has meant employers being forced to do one of two things, increase prices, or cut back on staff. Again, for those on the lower end of the pay scales, the differentials between the salaries paid suddenly vanished as the government pushed the lowest wages upward. Initially, the scales rose to match that, however, increasingly, they don't and more and more workers are on "minimum wage" scales as a result. Once again, the obsession with "across the board" increases based on a percentage of salary, is causing a wodening of the gap between the top and bottom wage scales, something our political masters and their accountant and lawyer friends in various Boardrooms seem unable to grasp. One expects the Union Bosses to be mathematically illiterate on such matters, but it should be obvious to everyone - but apparently not.

Longer working hours mean less time to engage with family or friends, and that is compounded by the "connectedness" of the internet which means that a boss can reach you by email even on a day off. Mobile phones mean you're always available and smartphones mean that you are never away from your email either. Take a look at the world we lived in before the technology revolution and you find that a day off was exactly that. The boss would not have tried to reach you to 'just check' something, it could wait until you came back. Now, of course, thanks to the desire of the Boards of many of the mega wealthy supermarket chains and one or two other companies, we have seven day trading. The politicians handed out assurances initially that no one would be forced to work on Sundays if they wished to observe the day religiously. The reality is that, if you want a job, and the employers says "this is the deal - you'll be on a roster and take two days off in each week, which may, from time to time, be a Saturday and Sunday", you're going to be a pretty determined person to refuse to accept the conditions.

As usual, the assurances of a politician are worthless. The only way it could possibly have been made to work as they intended, was to make the members of the company boards and management work the same way as their staff, but that was never going to happen. In one sense I am relieved to be retired and to no longer face the stresses now being imposed on the younger generations now entering the workforce, or trying to keep afloat in the morass. I am not surprised to read that alcoholism is an increasing problem in workplaces, or that many others are turning to 'recreational' drugs to cope with the pressure. The solution is simple, but I suspect it would take a major revolution in society and perhaps an outright refusal by the workers to continue to labour under these conditions to bring it about.

So, I don't expect to see any change in the forseeable future.

Churchill - sometimes scarily prescient.

The tide of history has a nasty habit of turning very subtly. I have recently been reading a book I have long had, but which needed lots of concentration and time to attack (over 1,000 pages) and is a slightly different take on the history of the peoples of the British Isles. Naturally, some aspects discussed are covered by the writings of one of the giants of world leadership, Sir Winston Churchill, and I find it interesting to cross refer to what he said on some aspects of the history covered by Norman Davies in his account, The Isles. There are some surprising agreements between what Churchill suggested would come to pass and what Davies is chronicling. 

So it was a bit of a surprise this morning to receive an email from a friend, one of those in constant circulation, with something from Churchill I have just read about as an 'aside' in the book by Davies.

FROM A SPEECH GIVEN IN 1899: 

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!  Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.  The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.  

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.  It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ..." 
Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).

Unbelievable, but the speech below was written and delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist.  It probably sets out the current views of many, but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master.  Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries. 

He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. Perhaps most remarkable of all, he was a mediocre scholar at school and at Sandhurst, but his powers of observation, and ability to absorb the essence of cultures, history and complex situations gave him an ability to rise above mere education. In a sense he was a polymath, his interests wide and his knowledge encyclopedic.  He was a prophet in his own time.  He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.  We are unlikely to see his like again.

The Monster in the Closet

An article on The Medievalists site flags up an interesting point about how governments of all stripes down the ages have used fear of some threat to steer the ordinary people down the desired path. History abounds with examples where the supposed threat from some 'monster' has been used to create support for a war, or to drive a campaign for some potentially unpopular political move. Every dictator and autocrat in history has, at some time, used this device - but it may surprise many to realise that even "democratic" governments use it. In fact you can find examples all around us today.

The motivation for it is straightforward. A government wants to raise support for a particular campaign, so they need to create the fear that, unless the desired course of action is taken, something bad will happen to the nation. So there is a drive to create an "enemy" that is a threat to the peoples' sense of security. Hitler's classic use of this in targeting "The Jews" is a good example. First he resurrected the Tsarist Secret Polices' forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and made a great play of the passages in that which purport to require the mixing of blood from non-Jewish children to make Matzos. Instant "monster" in the community. Of course, what he and his henchmen were really after was control of the population, so they needed to focus on an "enemy next door".

It must be said that the British government did a very similar piece of work on the Germans during and shortly before World War 1. The arms race was expensive, so various reports were commissioned to talk up the "threat" posed by the German Fleet and Army. In reality the underlying reason it was necessary was the fear in Westminster and Whitehall of a German Empire that threatened British trade and export markets - but that wouldn't have played well with the populace. The answer was to play up a threat to "our way of life" by creating the myth that the Kaiser wanted to recreate the Roman Empire in Europe and "conquer" Britain. It was even suggested that Germany and the Germans wanted to rule the entire world and would stop at nothing to achieve it. Once the war started the propaganda became almost hysterical, with the Germans accused of bayoneting babies, eating the corpses and boiling down dead Allied soldiers corpses to make soap.

It has to be said though, that some of the German Army's actions in dealing with "agents-provoceteur" and supposed "spies" certainly helped the media frenzy, but what is often overlooked is that the British, French Italians and Russians weren't exactly squeaky clean either.Only now are some of the atrocities from the Allied side emerging. We've all heard of how the German's executed the nurse, Edith Cavell, but how many of us have read a single line about the two German nurses the British shot after a similar trial and using equally suspect "evidence"? The Bryce Report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, is detailed and contains some balance, but does include a number of speculative statements and tends to enlarge on other instances where there was little positive evidence to support it.

Prior to the 1880s when the anti-German feelings began to arise - sparked by their success in the war against the French in 1870 to 71 - we'd had a very similar campaign painting the French as baby bayoneting savages, hell bent on destroying the British way of life and world domination.

Both of these propaganda images, however, have stuck. There are still people who believe that Germany "started" World War 1, and that the objective was to defeat Britain and take over the Empire. There are still people who believe that the French wanted to march across the channel and behead evryone who didn't support their Revolution.

More recently we have seen the Soviet Union and its satellite states paint "The West", but the US in particular, as the "enemy of the people" and as "undemocratic" (which must be the ultimate irony) while the US and most western nations raised the spectre of "communism", and communists having designs on your house, car, personal wealth and everything else. We thrive on "monsters" and now that the threat of communism has fallen away, our governments have found a new one. Now it's either "Anthropomorphic Climate Change" driven by "Carbon" and our need for transport reliant on hydrocarbon fuels, or "The EU" and the hordes of "economic migrants" apparently waiting to flood into the UK (and other western European countries) to "steal our jobs" after 2014.

In the Middle East and most other Islamic countries, the ever handy "Jews" are available as the "monsters" eating non-Jewish babies, stealing the food from starving Muslims, raping their women, corrupting their children and, of course, secretly ruling the world and controlling the finacial markets. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are the ever popular source for most of this monster building. At various times different "monsters" have been drawn by propagandists, the white community in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) or the white population of South Africa, the Maoists, Islamists, anyone on the "right" of politics is now a Fascist and so on. The main criteria is that the "monster" must be remote from the population you are trying to steer, must be fairly nebulous and far to powerful for any mere individual to handle alone. It doesn't matter that the average Joe Public is unlikely to ever meet the monster, just that they must think about it, worry about it and be prepared to endorse what the government says it will do about it.

We've moved on from Vampires, dragons, werewolves and the supernatural, now the monster in the closet is the racist, the churchgoer, the foreigner, Brussells (I have some sympathy with that one), the immigrant or the guy who believes in freedom of expression. It doesn't matter who or what the monster is, as long as enough people believe it affects them, governments will continue to create them. Perhaps it's time we all grew up and stopped believing in the monsters governments, the media and sometimes our own imaginations create for us.

Someone had to say it, and who better ...

There are times when you read something that simply resonates through you, and an article in The Spectator today does just that for me. Entitled "Chief Rabbi: Atheism has failed", I find myself nodding at almost every well considered sentence. A trawl through the many comments, most by those who claim to be atheists, shows the reasons why. They simply cannot get past their concept that 'religion is responsible for all the problems.' One even tries to claim that pre-Christian Europe had a better sense of morality, and another that Sweden having the highest rape count in the world is because their 'secular' society 'enables' the victims to report it.

In fact the level of commentary and opinion in the comments alone underscores exactly what the Chief Rabbi says -

A significant area of intellectual discourse — the human condition sub specie aeternitatis — has been dumbed down to the level of a school debating society. Does it matter? Should we not simply accept that just as there are some people who are tone deaf and others who have no sense of humour, so there are some who simply do not understand what is going on in the Book of Psalms, who lack a sense of transcendence or the miracle of being, who fail to understand what it might be to see human life as a drama of love and forgiveness or be moved to pray in penitence or thanksgiving? Some people get religion; others don’t. Why not leave it at that?

Ironically, those making these comments all consider themselves to be intellectually superior to anyone of faith. Once again, the Chief Rabbi says it far better than I can in his observation -

Richard Dawkins, whom I respect, partly understands this. He has said often that Darwinism is a science, not an ethic. Turn natural selection into a code of conduct and you get disaster. But if asked where we get our morality from, if not from science or religion, the new atheists start to stammer. They tend to argue that ethics is obvious, which it isn’t, or natural, which it manifestly isn’t either, and end up vaguely hinting that this isn’t their problem. Let someone else worry about it. 

That is the key. Don't worry about morality, it's someone else's problem. That is how Sweden has got where it is, with soaring rape statistics, major problems with immigrants not integrating, a loss of moral compass in many areas of public life. We should take note of his observation that humanity has been here before. In Ancient Greece in its decline and in First Century Rome as it started to slide. Epicurius of Greece and Lucretius of Rome were, in there day, the 'Atheists' and Secularists of our time. Ironic then that the Rabbi can quote Bertrand Russell to make his point -

These were two great civilisations on the brink of decline. Having lost their faith, they were no match for what Bertrand Russell calls ‘nations less civilised than themselves but not so destitute of social cohesion’. The barbarians win. They always do.

As we are learning, the barbarians are at the door, in fact they are among us, but exactly how do we fix it? The Chief Rabbi is right when he says the 'religious fundamentalists' of all faiths and none are the chief threat within, but there are others waiting without. It now becomes a question of whether we can - or wish to - pull back from the brink.

Homer Simpson the new male image?

I was somewhat surprised to read this article in The Guardian, entitled Men and boys now second class citizens. It touches on a number of issues I have problems with concerning the way in which men (and by default, boys) have been depicted in the last twenty or more years at least. It has become fashionable to always show the males in any advert, TV show or film as being slightly less intelligent than the female leads. Advertisers often show men as being either stupid or one step removed from the stone age. Personally I don't find Homer Simpson funny, he's a stereotype, he's stupid and, frankly, revolting. His son is no more appealing, a smart-ass, crude, ill-mannered and well deserving a good thumping.

Yes, there are men like Homer, and far too many kids like Bart, but they are not as numerous as the TV, films or advertisers would have us believe. These negative images of men extend into a wide range of other fields as well. Men are typically presented as sexual predators and children are taught not to respect or trust just about everyone by the constant stream of advertising to promote child safety. In part this has arisen in order the advance the equality of women in the workplace and public life, but I suspect it has now gone far too far. There is a danger there as well, one the promoters of this image of men as violent, weak, machoistic, mysoginists would do well to remember. It was said to me many years ago during a discussion over a problem with an individual who always tried to detract from anyone else's achievement. What you take from another by slander, you take twice from yourself in respect.

How do we expect boys to grow up with real values if they are taught their father's are basically just better spoken/educated/looking variants of Homer Simpson? How do we expect them to develop real values when they are told they are no better? What do we expect of them when their "heroes" are foul-mouthed footballers, or drug taking Pop stars? No wonder other societies and cultures are beginning to laugh at us.

We are all human, we all have flaws and failings, but not all men are stupid, not all men are sexual predators, not all men are mysoginists. You may argue that men have it coming as the Guardian article suggests (I disagree - but you'd expect that), but that simply expressing a modern prejudice in politically correct language. Why should a boy be made to feel he is inferior? Why should he be made to learn in a system designed entirely to favour the learning style of girls? That is what the comprehensive system of education has become. Yes, some boys do cope with it, but the majority don't. That is a fact shown by scientific studies, but ignored because it doesn't fit with the ideological dictat that says girls and women must be given the advantage.

You cannot take something away from one person to improve the lot of another without damaging both by so doing. The one will resent being impoverished by being disadvantaged, the other will assume it is a right, and cease to appreciate the effort necessary to attain the full benefit. Both, in the end, will be brought into conflict. When a well qualified young man can turn around and tell someone he doesn't expect to get promotion in his career because of his gender, his skin colour and his religious affiliation you know that the situation is becoming serious.

It is time to call a halt to the presentation of males in general as stupid, boorish and incompetent. They don't deserve it, and ultimately everyone will lose by it.

Lobbying; Counter to democracy?

A debate ongoing in Germany (and long-running in the UK) concerns the influence exerted by lobby groups, often representing very small and narrow "special interests", have on government. The big question is, what does their influence really mean for democracy and the much vaunted "will of the people"? It is not a simple question for, as far as I can see from reading history, lobbying seems to have been a major part of the political system since mankind first started to organise their activities. Certainly, in the UK, arguably the oldest modern democracy, the power of various lobby groups and campaigners has always played a major role in government.

If one looks back to the Parliaments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (questionably democratic to be sure), one soon sees that the land-owning gentry and the anti-catholic religious factions had powerful lobbies in Parliament. Beginning in the late 18th Century, the agricultural community lobbied hard for protectionist laws which became known as the Corn Laws. These kept the price of all grain crops high, by the simple expedient of imposing prohibitive import taxes on cheaper wheat, barley and maize anyone attempted to import from elsewhere. Of course, that impacted on the price of the working people's staple food - bread - and that kept industrial wages high. The industrialists and the Middle Classes lobbied strenuously for the repeal of these laws, and the 'beneficiaries' lobbied as hard to keep them. It took a series of poor harvests and finally the tragedy of the Irish potato famine to get these (and one or two other bits of pure 'protectionism') repealed.

The unintended consequence of the repeal, however, was that while the prices fell initially, so did production. Farmers simply could not afford the wages for producing a, then, labour intensive crop. Within ten years Britain was importing over 50% of the 'Corn' (a generic term then used to describe all the grain crops) it consumed. Ironically that put many of the very people the repeal was supposed to help, out of work, house and community ... In fact, it sparked the major movement out of the rural areas and into the cities as unskilled farm hands tried to find alternative employment. It also triggered a major move toward the Trade Union movement.

Today most people don't realise that lobbying is a built-in part of the political system, and always has been. The Labour Party has its origins in the desire of the Trade Union movement to have access to the organs of power in Westminster. Many of its MPs are 'sponsored' by Trade Unions, some by more than one. The exact form of the sponsorship varies, of course, and is subject to the 'Rules of the House', but they are not alone in this. Almost all MPs are 'sponsored' by one group or another. The Chambers of Industries and Commerce, the Trades Unions, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Childline, the Society for the Protection of Children, English Heritage, National Trust, the RSPCA and many others are all involved in various levels of lobbying for whatever 'cause' they promote.

The question really is, just how much influence do they have on the plethora of laws, regulations and other 'policy' decisions made in Whitehall and Westminster? Do they, as some, like Greenpeace, often claim, represent the 'majority opinion' of the public? Or is that simply another claim that is likely to go unchallenged because there is no way to measure it accurately? Even the much vaunted 'ballot box' of an election is now suspect, since in the last quarter century, if not longer, turnout seems to have been shrinking. Blair's much trumpeted 'landslide' was not such a triumph when taken as a percentage of the potential vote. The 'turnout' was low, just clearing 51%, which means his 'share' of the vote was considerably lower than the published figure which ignored the absentees.

There does need to be some element of lobbying in our system. How else can the interests of small groups, or matters of narrow interest be driven through the monolithic egos and the sheer weight of bureaucratic inertia that is any government today? The problem, as I see it today, is the plethora of passionately driven campaigns run as 'single issues' and whose promoters often refuse to see the ramifications and implications of their desired outcome.

Reaching back into history, one can point to the Abolition of Slavery, a laudable intention on every level. The only problem being that the Abolitionists didn't take any account of what the freed slaves were going to do, where they would live, or how they would feed, clothe and keep themselves. That oversight has left a legacy that still bedevils many countries. So too with the Corn Laws, and one could point to many more recent well intentioned, but ultimately very damaging, 'successes' by lobbying groups, such as the 'fuel price escalator' which has driven up fuel prices, but not driven consumption down, and pushed up the prices of almost everything else because of the rising cost of transport.

It is easy to form the impression that our elected representatives in Parliament live in an environment now where they don't appreciate the difference between what 'The Party' and the various lobby groups who brief them say, and the reality of the lives of the people bearing the impact of all these wonderful ideas. I don't think we can change the nature of lobbying a great deal, but I think we can make it much more transparent and compel our MPs to acknowledge the very real problems they cause when they impose something a lobby group want. It will be an interesting debate - and I am not sure the solution will ever be found.

Is Democracy Broken?

In some parts of the world it certainly looks that way. An article in the Huffington Post entitled "From Istanbul to Rio and Philly; This Democracy Thing is Broken" certainly gives the impression the author thinks so. I suspect he has a point, certainly the idea that a "majority vote" rules seems to have got lost. Now those who disagree with any elected government regard it as a "right" to conduct campaigns of "civil disobedience" as they try to force a change of policy, ideology or even the government to whatever it is they approve of. The current unrest in Turkey is a case in point, the government of Mr Erdogan was elected by a majority vote in a popular election which was even held up as a "model" for the rest of the region, but it appears there is a substantial group who want to throw him out and replace him with someone else.

That has always been one of the problems with "democracy" you are stuck with whoever the majority voted for, and since many vote in what I shall call a "tribal" manner - in other words they simply can't bring themselves to vote for the candidate of any party other than the one they always vote for - it can mean, in a system such as Britain's or the US, that in some constituencies, the 'tribal' Party will always win, even if the candidate is technically a "Dead Parrot". Most other systems share this problem, the candidates are usually part of a "political elite" who have all the levers of control to the media, the money to promote themselves and sometimes even the tacit support of a large and very influential body entrenched and protecting their own interests in the inevitable bureaucracies that are the real governors of any nation. It is said that it actually takes ten years or more for the economic changes initiated today to filter through the bureaucrats and become a reality for everyone else. A similar 'reality lag' affects almost everything else as well.

We have the illusion of being able to change governments, but I no longer believe this is real. All to often only the faces in the front row change, the same faceless puppeteers remain in the background pulling a new set of strings. Recently I reread an item I have now managed to misplace, which postulated that the 'life' of any democracy is about 200 years, then it degenerates rapidly into a form of oligarchy and dictatorship with burgeoning bureaucracy no longer serving "the people' but turning inwards and protecting its own rights and privileges, while the "Political Class" pull up the drawbridge and place barriers to any threat to their own continued hold on power. Another article raised this again, pointing to the current arguments in the US about the power of the Federal Government and the entrenched power of various Federal Departments. There are certainly echoes of what happened in Rome and in various other "democracies" of antiquity.

Vice Admiral, Horatio, Viscount Nelson made an interesting statement regarding "republics" -

"I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics...there is nothing but tyranny & oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty...He [Napoleon] is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property...nothing is free from this monster's grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects...a King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt"

While I acknowledge that he is speaking from the perspective of his own era, I have to say that my own experience of living in Republics that he has a point. When I look at some of the "Presidents" purporting to "rule" various nations, I see would be "Emperors" and many of them are not subject to the limitations sensibly imposed by the French post Napoleon, or in the US which limits the President to a maximum of two terms. For many, and even for the "best" examples of democratic societies and governments, I suspect it is an illusion. As long as we have a "ruling political class" and an accompanying and permanent "bureaucracy" we cannot have a true democracy, one in which a candidate is personally known and who, when 'sitting' in whatever legislative body, actually votes according to what his or her constituents want and NOT the "Party Line" because that is what the ideology demands.

I'm not sure I would say "Democracy is broken" but it is certainly not very healthy at the present moment wherever I look at it. What I'm not so sure of, is how it can be cured. Revolutions, as Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and many others prove, is that the replacement for the overthrown regime is often worse than the one it replaces. Corruption is rampant everywhere, even in the west. There it has a different, quasi-legal face, but it is still present in the manner government contracts are awarded, legislation is 'modified' to suit lobby groups and so on. 

Perhaps the Admiral had it right, perhaps the answer is a return to rule by a "King in Council" - but that also has its problems and history is littered with examples. Plato ha.d it right I think, at least his 'model' of the phases of a 'republic' has been validated by history. It remains only to see where ours goes from here ..

Judge not ...

Several recent conversations have given me to think - always dangerous - about the way we respond to other people, how we see them and how we 'see' ourselves. Each of us is unique, we may be siblings, we may share cultural, economic and even intellectual experiences, but we remain unique. In part this is probably genetic in that it impacts on the chemistry on which we operate, but to a very much larger extent it is because each us, through childhood, had different interactions with parents, relatives, neighbours and other children. Where one person may find criticism a challenge to improve, another may find the same sort of comment so discouraging they become convinced they can never master something.

The old saying that one should not criticise another unless you can walk a mile in their shoes is very perceptive. The trouble is that we cannot 'walk a mile in another's shoes' since we can never fully experience the world as they have been conditioned to do so. What we can do is take account of someone else's family background, their self-perception and their reactions to the world, and try to be understanding when faced with what we may consider to be a poor response to something. All too often though we find that it is easier to shun someone we label as 'awkward' or even as 'stupid' than to deal with trying to adjust our own prejudices, fears or responses. We tend to shun behaviours that we see as 'negatives' in ourselves.

Part of the 'growing up' experience we all go through teaches us to self-analyse and to be self-critical. Once we develop a certain 'image' of our abilities, we can either excel or, where the 'image' is a negative one, fail to develop at all. Naturally we also develop the 'image' we present to the world, which may be very different to that we have of ourselves. That can lead us to making an effort to 'hide' what we see as our inadequacies by overplaying behaviour that we think shows the opposite. People who suffer from an image of themselves which reinforces their insecurities, often try to present themselves as confident and 'in control' which can make them seem aggressive and over assertive. Of course, the response this gets from many of the people they meet tends to reinforce their 'inadequacy' self-image and it becomes a bit of a vicious circle.

In my own case, I learnt quite early to consider myself as not particularly bright, and that being noticed usually got me into a lot of trouble. The most damaging 'praise' I got constantly was the statement, "Well done, you did OK, but you could have ..." That "but you" always stung and it always meant that whatever I'd done was never going to be good enough. On the other hand, my attempts to please often resulted in attracting the wrong response. So I learnt to be invisible. Fortunately, I still got noticed by people who encouraged me and tried to reverse the negatives. Thankfully, in part, they succeeded, but it was a long and very uphill battle to eventually build up the confidence to tackle taking responsibility for myself, my career, a family and eventually emigration to a new world and a new life and career.

It came as something of a shock, ten years ago, to meet some old school acquaintances who told me they'd 'envied' me at school. There was a double shock here, first in their perception of my home and family life, and secondly that theirs might have been tougher than my own. Even more surprising was the discovery that many of those who'd had far better and more economically stable homes, had not achieved even a third of what I had since leaving school. All the assumptions I'd cherished about their 'advantages' over me were blown out of the window and it made me realise how dangerous it is to allow yourself to think in this way.

We are unique. Each of us has strengths and each of us has weaknesses. We each choose whether to build on the strengths, or reinforce our weaknesses. The latter is self-destructive, the former is much harder work, but infinitely rewarding, but even more so is the realisation that each and every person we meet faces the same choices, though their choice of development may be influenced by experiences we can never share. That is when one realises that it is important to be grateful for the rewards you reap, and, at the same time, to be tolerant of the failures you see in others. None of us is every 'perfect' and we are certainly never 'right' a 100% of the time. We all have our own failures, or 'skeletons in the closet', but equally we have our triumphs. We should celebrate those more, but we should also celebrate others triumphs as well.

Above all else we need to avoid judging others against our own self-criticisms. We need to understand why someone else behaves or responds the way they do. We need to 'walk a mile in their shoes'. Probably we need to make peace with ourselves as well. Often those who throw dirt at others do so out of a sense of their own inadequacy and are attempting to make themselves feel superior in doing it. In fact, as one of my mentors once told me, what you take from another, you take twice from yourself. The saying "Judge not, lest you be judged" reveals an enormous truth, for, when we 'judge' someone else, we are exposing some of our own inadequacies and prejudices. Never a good thing to do.

We are not all the same, though we may be 'equal in the eyes of God' we do not have the same experiences, the same world view, or the same abilities. It behoves us to remember that, and to make allowances. A lot of conflict can be resolved simply by trying to understand someone elses point of view and, in today's 'polarised' world, that may be a good starting point.
 

An Admirable Prince

Yesterday was the 92nd birthday of HRH Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich, the Consort of HM Queen Elizabeth. He spent it in hospital recovering from what is described as 'abdominal surgery' and one of the most touching images I have recently seen, was of our gracious Sovereign walking into the hospital carrying a birthday card for the man she fell in love with when she was a 13 year old Princess and he an 18 year old Cadet at Dartmouth.

The Press love to mock him, making a huge fuss over his supposed public 'gaffes', accussing him of 'racism' or of being 'out of touch' with 'the people'. I would suggest that the people who write these attacks do so largely out of a desire to drag down someone so much more able, and with so much more to his credit than they will ever achieve. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on three separate occassions, none of them official, and none of them 'formal', yet, on the second and third encounters he immediately recognised me and said, "We've met before. Remind me of the last occassion."

He has a formidable memory for names and faces, a razor sharp sense of humour and a powerful intellect. His sense of duty is legendary, and his relationship with the Queen, his wife, is as solid as the Rock of Gibralter - despite numerous attempts by the Press to find 'dirt' to cast aspertions. The devotees of Diana accused him of all manner of things he was supposed to have said or done to 'destroy' her, all of them false. He doesn't mince his words, and calls a spade a spade. Anyone who earns a rebuke from him is going to get exactly what he thinks and not something that can be misunderstood.

Until his latest illness, Prince Phillip has followed a punishing schedule of official duties and appearances. He is Patron of, and takes an active interest in, over 800 charities. He served in some of the most active theatres of WW2, earning several 'mentions in despatches' and decorations. Since then he has served the nation and its people with humour, loyalty and dignity, often in very difficult circumstances. At 92 I would suggest that the vast majority of his detractors would be making excuses to retire, it is a mark of Prince Phillip's sense of duty that on the eve of his operation he accompanied the Queen to Westminster Abbey to mark the 60th Anniversary of her coronation, despite being noticeably unwell and having to cancel two other engagements later.

I have nothing but admiration for this man, and I hope he recovers quickly to look forward to many more years of health.