Thursday 25 July 2013

Are surveys worth any more than the paper they're written in or who commissions them?



Yesterday Populus published a survey in which it 'proved' that 61% of the population thinks that schools should be free to set the pay of individual teachers based on performance. 

I bet Mr Gove was relieved to hear that since this new rule - where pay rates are set locally, not nationally and are based on performance rather than 'time served' as is currently the case - comes into force in September.

In response the NUT quoted its own survey, undertaken by YouGov in March of this year, which 'proved' that only 25% of parents believe that schools should set their own pay system; that only 19% of parents think academies and free schools are taking education in the right direction and that, three years in, only 8% of parents think that this coalition Government is having a positive impact on education.

Now I don't now about you, but I'm finding something a bit jarring about these two bits of 'proof'.

The NUT survey polled 2,008 people, the Populus survey 1,723 both were covering essentially the same subject and both have been: 'weighted and are representative of all parents (aged 18 and over) in England by region and family type.' (NUT) and:  'the results have been weighted to be representative of all British adults.' (Populus).

I have asked Populus and the NUT for a copy of the questions (in order) that were asked. The NUT ones can (sort of) be seen in the Word attachment to the press release which can be found here  (incidentally thank you to the NUT for providing me with this press release and document in response to my tweet of yesterday). The Populus announcement - you can drill down to data which again sort of provides the questions- can be found here.

Firstly this 'weighting' that both Populus and YouGov talk about. What does that mean? Presumably if you control the weighting you can control the results/conclusion of the whole survey? If so, that makes the thing pretty meaningless as a piece of 'news'. But then who am I kidding, if you want to prove anything by statistics and survey, obviously you can: 

Before we go any further, do yourself a favour and have a quick (2 mins) watch of this. It's brilliant and will save me some time in explanation.

OK so I think most of us realise that this is how surveys work: They're not really there to expand the wealth of human knowledge or to find out the facts or the truth, but are there to help one side or the other to prove or promote its argument. And that you can effectively prove anything you like with a survey.

What amazes me is that news outlets continue to run stories on these things, especially (of course) if the results support their own political stance, and that they actually work in PR terms - they must do otherwise they wouldn't be done so frequently and the survey companies wouldn't be earning so much money.

It's a bit like the old argument that violence on television has no effect whatsoever on people's behaviour (I'm not Mary Whitehouse), whereas the £billions spent on advertising on TV every year does. Erm, just me?

Anyway it (the survey) is a well-known PR trick: The creation of a story that you can control, which purports to have a level of 'credibility' (even if us cynics know that to be untrue, there are obviously enough blythely trusting souls out there for it to be worth the effort) and they also have the added value for the publication of 'proving' what its readers want to be 'proved'. It's win win then.

Except it's bullshit.

I'm not immune, I don't think any of us are: Oh joyous day when that scientific survey found proof that drinking a glass of red wine a day was actually good for you. A glass of red a day would make you live longer. Think what two glasses might achieve? Some of us might live forever.

Presumably this wonderful 'scientific' news only related to Red wine because it was funded by the Shiraz Society and the Sauvignon Blanc Supporters Club refused to pay up? (obviously made up names). This huff Post thing (left) is amusing. It's always had the opposite effect on me to be honest. ;)

From an objective standpoint, looking at these surveys, presented as credible and highly scientific, can be quite funny - as the old saying goes, follow the money. And I love the way that a survey of ten people, seven of whom are, either because of the way the question has been framed or the narrowness of the group itself, in favour of, say,  Scottish independence, can then be extrapolated to the headline '70% of Scots want to leave the union.' It's just silly, but also quite dangerous in the wrong hands. 

It seems to me that a large part of the population is being duped, in this way, into believing shit that just isn't true. Opinions are being formed on the basis of falsehoods. Yes we all know that media outlets are biased in one way or another: one tends to believe as fact those items which support our view of the world and dismiss those that don't.

But where do you go to in order to find the truth these days?

Thanks for reading.






Tuesday 23 July 2013

EU referendum - a vote on Europe or our ruling classes and system?

I've been wondering about our current system of Government in the UK, Europe and, to an extent, in The USA, where it seems to me 'public servants' are no longer working to the agendas of the people they represent and are paid by, but instead running their own show. Doing what they want to do, imposing their view of the world upon us.

And increasingly establishing control via outrageous levels of surveillance, the passing of draconian laws, creation of a bigger state machinery, whether we want these things or not. More on this subject here.

You may have heard about organisations like Bilderberg, Agenda 21, Common Purpose (if not have a look sometime). I find it difficult to understand how these organisations, which have a massive influence on national and international policy are actually connected to the views of 'real' people.

You may disagree and believe that someone has to take the lead in order to move the world forward without the sometimes stifling effect of consulting the people all the time on every issue. There's something in that, given that there will always be vested interests, winners and losers in every decision taken and that sometimes an objective view of the greater good needs to prevail. I just wonder why this process (which includes the United Nations and the EU as major players) needs to be conducted so secretively and often without even a nod towards democratic accountability? What are they trying to hide?

The global AGW man-made climate-change scam, which is costing us $billions as individuals and businesses in significantly higher taxes, effectively halting development and prosperity around the globe, to solve a problem which almost certainly doesn't exist, is a major example of this creeping, unaccountable imposition of others' views on us. More here.  

Anyway, that's (hopefully interesting) background. In my blog you know these people who work for us (linked above) I was wondering about how we might take back some control. I opined that Dave was right, albeit talking about a different subject, that we can't go on like this; with this disconnect between our representatives and ourselves. It's making us fragile as a society, causing massive resentment between the electorate and the elected and could if it continues unchecked, lead to a possibly violent response - not necessarily starting in the UK - because the current system just will not allow the changes that we might want, to be achieved using the democratic and legitimate tools we have available to us.

We're seeing uprising and protest around the globe, yes in southern Europe where politicians don't seem to give a shit about ordinary people but just want to protect their cushy lifestyles at all costs; but also in Brazil, the Middle East, and race related conflict (but it's all politics in the end) in many places including Australia and Sweden.

It seems to me that the current system of rule is creating a powder keg around the world because of the disconnect between the rulers and the ruled, particularly because the rulers are acting increasingly in their own interests and not for the good of their populations. We sigh and shake our heads at the innate corruption that infests africa (for example) but is it really so different in the developed world? Or right here at home? I don't think so. It may be suits rather than bullets, but the end result is the same.

All of which brings me, in a rambling and round-about way (sorry) to the prospect that our (proposed) referendum on Europe could actually be a legitimate method of starting to wrest back some of the democratic powers that are currently being denied us:

A referendum on our membership of the EU will be a big deal. It will see Government (of whatever political hue) almost certainly pushing for a 'stay in' vote. It will see the use of the very machinery I talk about to persuade people that their interest lies in the UK remaining a member of what will ultimately be (and you know this really I'm sure) a federal, united states of Europe. The project simply doesn't work without that ultimate outcome.

And the opposition (whoever it is) will also be fighting on a pro-EU ticket. Defeat would almost certainly be a resigning - or at least a 'no confidence' - issue for the Prime Minister of the day. But what for the leader of the opposition who would also have been defeated by the will of the people? Of course these people are politicians, increasingly without principle and they will of course weasel their way around the problems that such a vote would inevitably create. But there would be a degree of turmoil.

Just as the UKIP successes at the local elections this year caused Dave and Ed to rethink strategy, only on a much bigger scale. Such a vote could, in my opinion, be the perfect catalyst for a change in the system. A change, using legitimate democratic means rather than violence, to reboot the way in which we are governed, to take back some control and to reassert the client - supplier relationship in whch we, the voters are the client and the Government machine is the supplier - subservient to, paid for by, and tasked with delivering the wishes of, the people they're supposed to represent.

It'd be better than civil - or even a wider war. Which is brewing otherwise I think.

Thanks for reading.














Sunday 21 July 2013

Will leaving the EU cost British jobs?

No.

Thanks for reading.

Just kidding, although in essence that single word answer is correct.

The UK had a balance of payments deficit with the Eurozone in 2011 of £46 billion pounds (it's likely to be considerably higher this year). That means we spend £46 billion more on goods produced in Europe than we make on the goods and services we supply to them.

In effect we create more jobs in Europe, to the tune of £46 billion, than we create here at home from being a member of the EU.

I addition, the UK pays £53 million a day to the EU as part of our membership, and receives £28 million back in the form of EU subsidies - so we effectively pay £25 million a day to be a member of this 'club', money which is spent on a variety of things, not all of which are as stupid as has been portrayed in the Daily Mail, but some are of course. £120 million a year is spent moving the whole circus between Strasbourg and Brussels every 6 months in order not to upset the French, for example. Bringing no benefit, whatsoever to the people of the member states who actually pay for this charade.

Some 47% of the EU budget goes on the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) - effectively a fund to keep Europe's inefficient farmers afloat, preserving an agricultural lifestyle in rural France for example, that would otherwise be a major headache for the French Government but which they could not possibly hope to fund on their own.This is one of the main planks of the original EU agreement and why France is so committed to the EU - it has no choice.

Keeping subsistence farming afloat also tends to mean that efficient farmers or more accurately Agri-Businesses make a killing out of the CAP - making massively more from what they produce, even though they would be profitable without it. The CAP also makes it almost impossible for food producers outside the EU to sell their goods in Europe even if their produce is much cheaper to produce. This is essentially why Africa is fucked: technical term for mired in corruption, needing hand-outs and food aid every few years and being raped of its rich mineral resources in return for bribes that go mainly to the corrupt ruling elite. 'Elite' is obviously a misnomer for 'biggest thugs'. 

Without access to free markets there's no way for food producers in Africa to have a sustainable business model and, therefore, no incentive to build businesses, invest in their future, employ people and develop their communities, regions and countries. They are forced to go on living from hand to mouth and is it therefore any wonder, using religion or tribal bullshit, that its people will do anything to get their hands on the levers of (corrupt) power in those countries when there is no legitimate way of bettering themselves? The goal is almost unlimited wealth and power as opposed to abject poverty. The result is unending conflict often with religion harnessed as some kind of excuse for the usually violent atrocities that are perpetrated in the effort to better themselves when 'the West' denies them any other possible route to prosperity.

But I digress (sorry). This £46 billion deficit: I'm not suggesting that we stop trading with Europe in a protectionist way. That is simply not possible in the modern world and actually hasn't really been possible or desirable since Roman times. Trade is good, it enriches our lives, breaks down barriers, prospers from and therefore promotes, peace. Much more than some specious and contrived 'Union' could ever hope to achieve.

We're told that 50% of our business is with Europe and that, therefore, we cannot afford to leave the EU because of the jobs that would be lost in the UK if we did.

But ask yourself this: Do you really think that Europe would stop doing business with the UK - given that they'd lose a £46 billion trading advantage if they did - just because we left this ridiculous 'club'? It's an argument put forward by Ken Clarke and Peter Mandelson that is so stupid as to be off the map in terms of reality and yet is put forward as credible by many media outlets including, in particular the BBC.

Much of Europe is on its knees economically, largely because of the EU: Germany is not of course because its association with the weaker states means that it gets at least a 30% exchange rate advantage compared to what it would have with the Deutschmark if it were outside the EU. So Germany is booming while the weaker nations are tied in and cannot devalue to rebalance their economies in order to become more competitive and kick start their own economies. Forty percent of young people in southern Europe are unemployed and have no prospect of a prosperous future. Because of the EU.  

So there are clearly 46 billion reasons why Europe will continue to (need to) trade with the UK whether we're in or out of the EU. If the UK left the EU and instead joined EFTA (European Free Trade Association) it would remain a member of the European trading bloc but would also (in EFTA but not as an EU member) be free to establish free trade agreements on its own behalf, with any other countries around the world, not on the basis of a collective EU deal, but as the UK in its own right.

And as members of EFTA alonngside Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, we would continue to enjoy exactly the same trade agreement with Europe outside the EU as we do within it. And that's a relief.

To Europe, much more than it is to us.

EFTA rather than EU membership would also mean taking back control of our borders, home affairs and justice as well as our agricultural and fishing policy. It would - obviously there is a 'downside' to leaving the EU - mean that we would not be able to influence EU policy from our position at the top table. Oh woe is me. As if we have any fucking influence at the moment and are not just shouted and voted down by the Germans, French and Belgians at every opportunity. 

And on the £25 million a day (net) contribution we make to the EU - we are the second biggest contributor after Germany - what are we paying for? We're providing aid and subsidy to poorer European nations, which is arguably a good thing, although it seems a pretty expensive way of keeping Greece or Croatia 'onside' when we have major financial difficulties here at home - and this is all taxpayer money of course, paid by you and me. And in return we are sneered at by Eurocrats. They sneer at the UK when we are the second biggest contributor to their contrived nonsense. One leading commentator estimated that the UK would be better off to the tune of £50billion a year outside the EU but that this benefit would in fact be dwarfed by the benefits to be gained from having our own free trade agreements rather than going through the cumbersome, unresponsive and inflexible EU trade machinery.  More here.

We're also, currently, paying for the cushy lifestyles of Eurocrats who seem to me not to care about their own countries but about lifestyles and benefits that would make Solomon blush. We're also paying for the 'state' to exert more control, more surveillance, more petty laws upon we who are paying for it. Laws made, incidentally, by people, mainly of a socialist persuasion, who have no connection with where we live, our beliefs and values or our history and the issues we daily face.

Take a look at Detroit if you think this is a good thing.

I think we need to take back control of our lives, our borders, our laws and our finances. We have, because of our past, stronger connections with other markets in the Commonwealth, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, China, Canada, The US, Africa, than anyone else in the EU. And Europe cannot afford not to trade with us.

It's time the sneering stopped and we told these fuckwits in the EU - not our valued friends in Europe with whom we trade and enjoy good relations - to f*ck off. I think that many if not most other countries in Europe - especially those in the south, would share these sentiments and would, themselves, be much better off in the long run outside the EU than within its suffocating, state-heavy, controlling and micro-managing nonsense.

Thanks for reading. 'No' was more succinct. ;)

Tuesday 16 July 2013

Labour's Legacy and Dave's opportunity?

Labour: Don't fix it, spin it: NHS, Education, MoD, Boom & Bust, Policing, Immigration, WMDs. Welfare, House-building, the economy, the future. 

Just as "New Labour' was purely a marketing and communications trick to get them into power, everything they did was about presentation over substance. Spin over reality, looking good rather than doing good. After the state in which they left the economy, coupled with the fact that they don't seem to give a shit about working people, I am constantly amazed that they have any support at all, let alone leading in the polls - albeit not by as much as they should be at this stage in the cycle. 

Makes you wonder, sometimes about the intellect, thought-processes and blind loyalty of your fellow man and woman. I'm not saying the Tories are perfect in any way - they have many failings too, particularly in relation to surveillance and a mindless accedence to the EU (IMO), but they are tackling many of the failings of Labour, more slowly than I'd hoped, but progress does now seem to be being made. 

They should, in my opinion, be starting to move back towards smaller government, lower taxes and less of a nanny state but that is not really happening yet. Dave also has a big problem with vision and leadership, sticking to vision stuff like 'localsm', 'Aspiration nation' (more here), but he's slowly getting there with help from people like Gove and IDS. Positive signs on the economy (green shoots? nah) together with Ed's lack of any cohesive or coherent ideas and the looming communist threat of the dinosaur unions, do, I think, give Dave an opportunity to win at the next election. He'll probably figure out a way of blowing it, but I hope not.

The following are tweet-sized evaluations of Labour's legacy - I decided to put them in a blog rather than inflict them on my followers one by one. Tell me I'm wrong.

Labour legacy  - spend more but don't check it's working. Ignore complaints & indicators of failure. Leave it for someone else to mend.

Labour legacy  - Don't improve standards just lower the bar. Get thousands of kids unsuitable for academia into University. And suffocating debt.

Labour legacy  - Waste £billions on projects that don't work but send our troops into harm's way with 30 year old kit on a false promise to George W Bush.

Labour legacy  - Agree to go to war then retrofit the 'facts'. Sex-up the dossiers, shut up the media & dissenters. One way or another.

Labour legacy  - have more people filling in forms (so we can spin the statistics), than solving crime or keeping the streets safe.

Labour legacy  - let anyone in - in fact encourage as many as possible but don't keep track of them: there's Labour votes in it.

Labour legacy  -let anyone in; to set up their own schools, communities, religious & ethnic groups. Call anyone who demurs 'racist'

Labour legacy  - Need to build more houses than ever & refresh the social housing stock. Put John Prescott in charge. Build nothing.

Labour legacy  - 'we've ended boom and bust'. Deregulate the banks; put all our eggs in the financial services basket. What could possibly go wrong?

Labour legacy  - create a client state where almost everyone is reliant on hand-outs even if they're working & the UK can't afford it.

Labour legacy 2 - Get Frank Field to come up with a major plan of much-needed reforms then ditch it because it'd be unpopular. Hide it  in the 'too difficult' drawer. Leave it for someone else to fix.

Labour legacy  - of course we trust the people, it's why we now have a CCTV camera for every 11 people in the country & gagging orders on whistle-blowers.

Labout legacy  - Sell most UK gold reserves at the bottom of the market; raid pension funds so this generation will be poorer than their parents.

Of course if more of this is what you want for our country in the future you know where to put your cross at the next election. Assuming you can find your way out of a room and where the polling station is.

Thanks for reading.

Saturday 13 July 2013

You know, these people who work for us...

You know, obviously, that our MPs and civil servants, local councilors, public sector workers, teachers, doctors etc., are there to make our lives better. We pay for them through our taxes to do what we need and want them to do. They owe their livelihoods to us and our desire for them to do the stuff that we're too busy to do ourselves. It's a system that, in theory, works well.

Laws and healthcare, governance, protecting our shores, keeping the place tidy, sorting out planning issues, that's all good work that these people who work for us do.

And they're paid, often quite generously, by us, to do this invaluable work.

That's all good then.

The trouble is that when these people have their own agenda, when they move from being our 'servants' - doing what we want and need to be done - to being the ones in control of what we do, setting the agenda, making laws that we didn't want, enforcing them through surveillance, then, it seems to me, we have a problem.

And that is where we are now. We have the lunatics running the asylum. And it seems that we have no easy way of clawing back our control or influence.

When these people are not 'working for you' but instead working for themselves, making laws that are in their interests rather than in ours, feathering their own nests instead of looking after the greater good of the country...

When they actively pursue the disconnect between Government and voter's opinions, concerns, views and beliefs on issues such as immigration, free speech, foreign policy, the EU, energy and planning policy; the way the banks operate and are regulated/supported...

When their policies, proposals and actions are clearly about party popularity and personal standing with the good of the country coming a distant third in their priorities, whether their motivation is from the unions or big business... 

It seems to me that they have gone way beyond their original brief.

It is clear that donations to political parties have an influence on policy-making - whether it's Unite or the tobacco lobby, green energy companies or the oil industry. Otherwise why would these organisations make the payments? But how can the ordinary voter have his or her voice heard?

Then there's the civil service: unelected bureaucrats who seem to do far more than acting out the wishes of our Government but instead seem to rumble on with their own agenda regardless of Ministers' or voters' wishes in pursuit of some mindless, disconnected and distant edict almost certainly from the equally unelected and unaccountable European Union. How do policies decided in Brussels or Strasbourg actually connect with the local needs and requirements of us in towns, cities and villages in the UK? Or indeed in Greece, Spain, Italy or Ireland?

It seems to me that this 'they work for you' bollocks is just a complete sham. They do work for us in that we are the ones who pay them, but they are working for themselves and have absolute contempt for ordinary people. If we are paying, we are essentially the client in this relationship: And in the world of business, the client calls the shots. The client tells the supplier (the public sector) what it wants and the supplier then does everything it can to meet the clients' requirements.

This is simply not happening in the world any more. What the people want is simply being ignored. It's why we have embarked upon stupid unwinnable wars; why we have allowed completely unchecked immigration and almost no requirement for newcomers to integrate with our society and live within our laws and belief systems; why we are all being royally ripped off by energy suppliers and Governmental 'green taxation', why our strategically important utilities are foreign owned and why bankers can effectively stick two fingers up to the rest of us however disastrously they perform and behave.

I've seen, on twitter, the phrase: '650 of them 65 million of us'. But actually the 65 million seem to be completely impotent terms of having any real influence on how we're governed and what decisions are taken about how we live. 

The level of surveillance we are currently subjected to is completely anachronistic to what is needed for our security. It seems to be much more about he authorities' fear of the people for whom they (proport to) work; much more about control than keeping safe. We are close to having a modern police state akin to East Germany in the post war period - and when the police have been clearly shown to be corrupt this is a terrifying prospect.

It's time for us to take back some control. So that those of us who have the welfare of the country at heart, who take a longer term view of life, who are concerned about what sort of life their kids will lead in 20 year's time (or tomorrow), will have a say. As opposed to the 5-year run of parliament and the 'me me me', 'make it while you can' attitude that currently prevails.

We're being fucked over at the moment. Ripped off and told what to do, by people who are supposed to be working for us. Mr Cameron used a phrase during the last General Election: 'We can't go on like this'. He meant in the way that Labour was mis-managing the country and in particular its finances, but I think the phrase still holds true three years into the coalition administration. We can't go on like this. Can't go on taxing 'ordinary' people to the hilt while allowing corporations to 'do a deal' with HMRC behind closed doors. We can't go on being ruled remotely by Brussels. We can't go on having policy-makers and administrators showing complete contempt for the people they supposedly serve.

I don't know what the answer is. But change is coming. I hope it's not violent but I think it might well be, simply because the system is now so tight, so controlling, so all-seeing, and so weighted in favour of these 'out of control' servants of ours, that using the existing system to deliver change is almost impossible. Social media will help massively as an engine for change but one thing is for sure, in my opinion, we need to change our governance, need to take back some control and need to re-create the original contract between client and supplier, between the people and those who serve us.  

In short, it's time we kicked these self-interested fuckwits out, rebooted our system and our country and got back to what we, the voters, in whose interest these people should be working, wanted in the first place.

It is Bastille Day after all. ;) 

Thanks for reading.

 


Wednesday 10 July 2013

Is it time for us to take back some control?

Here's the thing. We, as a nation, elect people to high office to represent us. To do what we want them to do. We understand that we're a bit busy with our lives, with work, bringing up our kids, the garden, etc. and so we're willing to pay people to do the work of governing which we haven't the time or, frankly, the will to do. We can't really be arsed to sort out the litter collection or the roads or the health service or the protection of our shores, or the legal arbitration of our wrongdoings. We know that we need these things to be sorted out in order for us to have a fair, just and equitable society in which to live, but we're not able to devote the necessary time to make it work.

We have other things to do. Lives to lead.

But we do realise that this is important stuff. It needs to happen if we are to provide for people who are vulnerable or needy. People who are sick or in need of care. People who need to eat but can't work to earn their 'daily bread'. That could easily be us but for the grace of God (whoever He is). So we're happy to pay an amount of our income in order to absolve ourselves of having to do this mundane shit. And by that I mean 'mundane shit' to us, but really important stuff to others, I'm not belittling it.

And joyfully there are people who are willing to do this stuff for us. Of course we have to pay them for their time - and that's only right - but these people will take care of all this shit that we don't have time for and do a good job and will, themselves earn a decent living out of that task.

They're not wealth creators. They don't grow food to feed us or make things that make our lives better, but they are, nonetheless, valuable members of our society. They are, in many ways, the people whose work allows us to get on with the job of creating wealth, feeding ourselves. Perhaps enjoying our lives a little, after we have provided for our families. We might enjoy other, slightly more trivial  human endeavours like sport or the arts. Some of the things that make life worth living; that provide some joy and entertainment as a bonus and a fullfillment of our lives.

Something that takes us out of our drudgery and allows us some respite from the constant battle for survival.

This does not happen because of the people we employ to do this shit we haven't the time for, but they are part of the system that makes this possible. And we should, therefore, be grateful to them.

And we call them 'public servants' and that includes our elected representatives as well as 'professional' civil servants who actually do the work we want them to do for us.

So far so good?

The thing is, that when these people - who we have employed to take care of the shit that we can't be arsed to do - start to tell us how to live our lives. Start to be the ones making the decisions about how we are governed, start to pass laws that we're not involved in creating; start to dictate what we do and how we live, have the power to do things that we might not agree with. Spy on what we're doing: Then we seem to have created a bit of a monster. We have the tail wagging the dog.

We have the 'servants' we were willing to pay to do our messy shit, actually starting to run our lives. And whilst they continue to tell us that we are in control, that they are doing our bidding and they are working in our interests. Are they really?

Or have we actually acceded power to these people who were not good enough to be wealth ceators but are now running our lives?

Do we really want number crunchers, administrators, second-rate fuckwits running the thing?

I think it's time we took control back.  That we, who employ these people to do stuff for us, actually have a say in what they do. It all seems a bit arse about face at the moment.

You may have other ideas of course.

It's a free country. Maybe.

Thanks for reading.  

Friday 5 July 2013

Where did God go wrong?

You'd have to say, if God had created us as some sort of experiment concerning free choice and how people of the same species might work together to solve problems, feed themselves, create freedom and equality, work out how to live together in a way which serves the common good, that the experiment has been something of a failure. Who knows, he may even now be reaching for the etch-a-sketch button and giving us all a shake to go back to a blank screen.




'I added a bit too much greed. A bit too much selfishness. A tad too much aggression. And nowhere near enough generosity.

'Even though I preached it from the highest hills, my message about 'love thy neighbour'; 'do unto others' etc., there was just too much greed and selfishness for it ever to succeed.

'I thought I'd put in enough generosity. There was loads of it in the mixture. Children are born with it ingrained in them. Mass-murdering fuck-heads can be reduced to tears by the death of a loyal dog but not by the deaths of their fellow humans.

'And allowing them to use Me as an excuse to go to war? To kill their fellow humans? That was never part of the plan.  I'm baffled about how my mortal creations can do evil to others - people who are exactly the same as them - in My name.

'Of course it's all about power and control. Of course some people have different qualities - I thought that would be a good thing. Leaders would lead others but they would (in my plan) do so in a way which benefited everyone, looked after the stragglers, made the most of the different talents that everyone has. And those leaders might enjoy a higher standing in society; they might even be better rewarded than some others, but not to the extent that now seems to be the case.

'Certainly not to the extent that they try to dominate and control everyone else for their own benefit rather than the benefit of all.

'It's all a bit of a mess. Actually a total mess. And I can see no evidence to suggest that there's any real hope for the future. It's all conflict, exploitation and war. Not for principled good, but for political and economic reasons. The supression of minorities and especially women. How can 50% of my creation be treated as second class?

'Jesus? Pass me the etch-a-sketch button before they do it themselves.'