And did the goat die?

Cold Comfort Farm, Stella Gibbons, 1932. Echoes of Dickens and P.G Wodehouse (who was a contemporary of course). Beautifully written, wonderfully evocative and extremely funny. Give it a go!

The fire was now burning brightly. Flora lit a candle which she had brought down form her bedroom, and took up some sewing with which to beguile the time until supper in her own room. She was making a petticoat and decorating it with drawn threadwork.

A little later, as she sat peacefully sewing, Adam came in from the yard. He wore, as a protection from the rain, a hat which had lost - in who knows what dim hintermath of time - the usual attributes of shape, colour, and size, and those more subtle race-memory associations which identify hats as hats, and now resembled some obscure natural growth, some moss or sponge or fungus, which had attached itself to a host.

********************

At this moment the trap came to a halt outside a public house, in a small yard opening off the High Street, and Flora was relieved, for the conversation seemed to have entered one of those vicious circles to which only the death or collapse from exhaustion of one of the participants can put an end.

********************

'I am going to take her lunch up to aunt Ada,' she announced. 'If I have not come down by three o'clock, Mrs Beetle, will you kindly bring up some lemonade. At half past four you may bring up tea and some of the currant cake Phoebe made last week. If I am not down by seven o'clock, please bring up a tray with supper for two, and we will have hot milk and biscuits at ten. Now good-bye, all of you. I beg of you not to worry. All will be well.'

********************

The Big Field was covered with long, fresh grass which threw millions of tiny lengthening shadows.  There was not a breath of wind. It was the loveliest hour of the English year: seven o'clock on Midsummer Night.

********************

The air cooled slowly. Flowers shut before Flora's very eyes, but gave out fragrance still. Now there were more shadows than light. The last blackbird that always flies chattering across a summer evening's quiet came dashing down the meadow and vanished in the may-hedge.

********************


Cold Comfort Farm

On Vision

On Vision


I have been critical of 'Call me Dave' recently, but the twitter format means that any criticism tends to take the form of a sound-bite and can be seen as a critic taking the easy way out; not needing to substantiate any of the points he/she is making.

I have also had some fascinating twitter conversations with people on this subject and wanted  to clarify what I mean by my assertion that, without a proper, clear vision, Dave is bound to fail.

And, more importantly, (because I am more concerned about the future of the country than Dave or Nick or Ed or any political party), without vision, the damage that has been and is currently being done to the UK will continue.

I tweeted that 'without a clear vision - if you don't know where you're going - how can you possibly lead anyone anywhere?' Self explanatory, but a bit trite perhaps?

It's quite a big subject and, a bit like not having a clear vision, it is easy to become side-tracked by the minor details and minutiae of the subject: I've tried to start this piece several times and each time swerved off into the ditch before getting very far. I've decided, therefore, to cut to the chase and show you what I mean rather than theorising. We can, maybe, come back to the theories later:

Here's what we need (as a country and, from Dave's point of view, as a Government):

What we need - item one on the agenda

We need a clear vision of where we're going as a nation: What our ambition is, what we aspire to achieve, what we stand for and what that means in the 21st Century both for our citizens and in terms of our place in the world.

This vision needs to be something that most 'right-minded' people can agree upon on the basis of their being British and wanting what's right for their nation and fellow citizens as we travel into the future and meet the many challenges that we will inevitably face. It also needs to be connected to reality - it cannot be ridiculous or totally unachievable, but needs to be aspirational and possible (although not easily achieved).

Only when we have arrived at the point where we have this clear vision for the nation and it has been agreed by the majority of people, can we begin to establish how we are going to achieve it. (There will always be some who disagree with the vision, either for the sake of it or because they have some kind of alternative agenda which is not geared to the future success or prosperity of all but only themselves or their particular grouping/affiliation).

Only when the vision is in place can the different political parties and interest groups enter the fray and make their pitch as to how they would help to achieve this common goal: By which I mean that the over-arching vision is not party political, it's about the country as a whole, but it needs, now, to be redefined by the party in power having been 'mislaid' by the last Government and, so far, not properly reinstated by this one.

The trouble at the moment is that we don't even have this 'item one' in place; or at least it is neither clearly defined nor agreed, which makes setting out a 'road map' as to how we can get there, impossible (and boy are Dave and co confirming just how impossible it is?). The other key element to be mentioned here, is that the vision must also be connected up to the practical plan to achieve it - the two things are inextricably interwoven and must work together to be effective.

Having the vision is critical and vital, but Government then needs to create the action required to achieve it - there's no use having a great vision if you don't also have a clear programme of activity designed to achieve it.

My take on what the Vision should be:

So here's a 'top of the head' go at defining a vision everyone can agree to, and then a demonstration as to how it then works in terms of actions and policies: I'm not putting this forward as a real option by the way.

Vision (made up)

Our vision is that the UK should be 'A world-class nation of prosperous, well-educated, tolerant, healthy and happy people, able to contribute to, and benefit from, the modern world that is the 21st Century.'

Cumbersome? Yes. Banale? Probably. Lib Dem? Not deliberately (just joking my many Lib Dem friends). Inoffensive? Yes, deliberately for the purpose of illustration! Obviously it would need work to make it more catchy/memorable, but not catchy in a way which makes it meaningless. The need for everyone to understand what it means is more important than creating an award-winning 'work, rest and play' style strap-line.

Take 'Big Society' for example: Now I'm an interested and semi-educated observer, but I have no idea what 'Big Society' means. So 'catchyness' can be part of the problem if it does not clearly communicate the vision and, more importantly, ensure that it is understood, so that people are not left behind.

The Vision also needs to be Aspirational (aim high) and 'Open-Ended', which means that you cannot ever really get to the point where you can say, 'ah, we're here, we've arrived/achieved everything we set out to do... and rest..... Now what?' It needs to be an ongoing, never-ending but in an inspiring and motivating rather than a demoralising way.

Agreement?

OK. So are we agreed on the vision? (It is deliberately designed to be as inclusive as possible of course, for the sake of this illustration). If you're not sure, read it again. Trust me on this, if you don't engage/agree, just in principle and for the sake of this argument, the rest of this post will be more difficult.

If so (from Dave's point of view), the issue now is to decide, and then communicate to the population, how our policies and initiatives will help the country to achieve this goal: Essentially, we have now agreed on a 'target destination' and that defines where we are headed (i.e. towards it) and that, in turn, defines which direction we are moving in. So, at last, we are now able to move in a direction, and that means that we are now able to lead people. I know it sounds really stupid/basic to say so, but if everyone is just standing around and not going anywhere (which I would argue is the case at the moment in British politics) then you cannot possibly 'lead' anyone. People who aren't moving or going anywhere don't need to be led.

And if you aren't moving/going anywhere, no matter how loudly you may shout, no-one's going to be following you. Dave.

OK, again the danger here is to disappear off into the detail, which I'm trying not to do, please accept my generalisations here, the alternative is stodgy detail. I'm not seeking to hoodwink by missing stuff out, just to be as clear and simple as possible:

Essentially the vision (which we have now agreed upon) means that we need the country to have better 'stuff' going forward. (I'm guessing you're not shocked by this). Better healthcare, education, housing, policing, pensions, jobs, defence, leisure facilities, roads, parks, etc. And that we need to tackle the difficult issues we face such as the economy/financial meltdown, immigration, unemployment, international conflict, religious division (same thing), energy and waste, planning, infrastructure etc.

But that, if we successfully pursue these goals, the result will be the creation of a better place for everybody: kids, mothers, young people, families, workers, older people, the disadvantaged, vulnerable, needy, women, men, gay and lesbian people, ethnic minorites. Everyone. In line with our agreed vision.

Still agree?

Still with me? Still agree the vision?

If wavering, ask yourself this: do I want a better world for my kids and grandchildren (as well as for myself), or am I just out for what I can get now and sod the rest?

If that question has led you to now discard the vision as set out earlier, thanks for getting this far. And goodbye.

OK cutting to the chase now: We're still together, behind the vision, we agree it. We're committed to it. We understand it. We want what it can do for us now and for our kids in the future. The question (we all want the answer to) is: How can we get there? If only we had a leader to help us...

Enter stage left: Call-me-Dave: 'Hello', waves.

No, I said a leader Dave. :-) (small joke for the left to enjoy there). (or not a joke at all, for the right to worry about).

Achieving the vision

OK so now we're putting forward our ideas about how we achieve these desired goals (and this is now, of course, open to all parties, not 'owned' by any of them - I just happen to be looking at the current incumbents).

{NB: Back in the 60s and 70s the vision for the country would have differed between the Tory and Labour parties in terms of its fundamental end-point: Tories would envisage a laissez fair, small Government market economy, whilst Labour would have tended towards the creation of more of a larger Government 'Command Economy', whereas today both are really after a Mixed economy but with variations based largely on the amount of Government input/intervention - so the overriding vision is pretty much identical.}

They key here, is that the proposed activity and policies must be created in a way which relates back to the clearly defined and agreed vision. And here, at last (I hear you say) is the crux of the point I'm making: I'll take one example, but this relates to everything from granny tax to pasty tax; HS2 to a new runway for London; education standards to tuition fees:

And I'm not shirking controversy here, let's take a nice easy example:

The NHS and Health Care Reform


OK, the goal is to deliver better healthcare in line with our 'world class' vision right? Right. Is the NHS good now? Yes. (ish). Could it be better? Yes. And the only way in which we can change it from where it is now to where we'd like it to be is? To change things, for the better. To make improvements. Agreed?

It's not going to get better without something changing; evidence and experience would suggest that the opposite is true, that it will get worse, rather than better without some positive input and change. But let's just focus on this issue - sorry to labour the point (pun recognised but irrelevant) but are we agreed that we want a better health service? That this fits with our goals for the future and that there is room for improvement? I'm not saying we need to execute nurses or send doctors to the electric chair here, I'm asking do you agree that it needs to be, and can be, improved. If you're not willing to concede this point, then, goodbye, it's been grate.

Yes? You agree so far? Good. So now healthcare reform is one of our long-term goals, part of our vision for the future. Reforming and improving healthcare is now an important part of creating a better, world class country for the C21st - and you agree with this now. Don't you (in principle)?

It might not be easy - I'm not saying it is or will be: The NHS is a complex organisation involving private sector organisations (before you boo, I mean like 90+% of GPs for example); public and 3rd sector partners as well as the NHS itself. It is the third largest employer in the world, only beaten in terms of numbers by the Indian Railways and the Chinese Army; so it will inevitably have a mind-boggling amount of complexity, administrative stuff, bureaucracy, red tape, health and safety regulations and, inevitably, inefficiency. It will also have considerable numbers of people for whom change and eliminating inefficiency is a threat. These people are part of the problem we're trying to address, but don't expect them to be happy about this threat to their cushy, non-challenging jobs.

However, the key is that we agree that it (the Health Service) needs to change; that reform is required in order to deliver our vision and our long-term goals and that it can be done (even if it might be very difficult). So while it might be difficult (told you), we are, nonetheless, committed to it because we agree with the vision and we want what this reform can achieve, which is a better, 'world class' health service for this 'World Class C21st' country.

Making things better

So now the question is how we achieve this, what reforms we make, what changes will make the health service better for us and our families and indeed for everyone.

The question is not whether those reforms should take place, but what those reforms should be. Because, through our vision, we have established that these reforms are needed if we are to achieve our goals. That's not negotiable because we all agree about this. We are, collectively, committed to making this change.

Whether or not you have the vision in place to enable you to explain why the changes are needed, you will encounter people with a vested interest in resisting this change. And if you cannot convince them that they need to help, to get on board, to accept that change is coming - because you don't have the vision and the agreement of the population to back you up - then this vested interest will have a much stronger case. As we have seen all too clearly in the recent past.

In fact, if you can't call on the support of the (majority of the) population who back your vision, you could well find yourself losing the argument. At the very least you'll be mired in the detail. Every little interest group will kick off and everyone who opposes you - like opposition parties and even some who are supposedly on the same side (small joke for the Lib Dems there - didn't want to leave them out) - will be able to garner support - because you have not bothered to make sure that they (the general population) are already on your side.

And then what happens is not that the actual, specific changes are questioned and opposed (by the relatively small self interested groups they affect the most), but the very notion that any changes are needed begins to gather momentum. So because you didn't go through the process of getting people on board, with your vision and the communication of each incremental step along the way in order to arrive at the point where change was agreed in principle (if not in detail), what actually happens is that everyone in the NHS who might possibly face any unwelcome change, actually comes out against every single change you propose.

So, without the vision and agreement, the surgeons come out in support of the cleaners, the British Medical Association (BMA) threatens strike action in support of the paramedics (I'm making this up) - and, ultimately, the opposition comes out in support of the 'dear old NHS' which brought us into the world and is such a fundamental old friend of us all that it would be heartless and just plain wrong to change it at all, ever.

And then you're fucked. Completely, fundamentally and indefensibly fucked. Weren't you Dave? Aren't you, Mr Lansley?

In short, without a strong, clear, agreed vision. You're fucked.

Dave.

And these exact same principles apply to schools, teachers, unions, recipients of public sector pensions, the police, transport and utilities monopolies, local government, the MoD, recipients of Overseas Aid, makers of pasties and static caravans - all of whom could have provided my example instead of the Health Service. If you cannot win the argument by virtue of not only being right, but also having the principled support of the vast majority of the population, then you can lose not only the individual  battle, but also the war.  Dave is currently losing both, in my opinion.

Conclusion

In general terms, people don't like change: They feel threatened, they prefer to deal with what they know, even though they know it might not be particularly good or efficient. They fear their own inadequacies being exposed. So if you propose change, the immediate response of those who might be affected is to oppose it. Which means you need to have a strong, compelling argument as to why change is necessary and plenty of support for your view - secured by a cogent vision.

In conclusion, consider the response you might make to these two - essentially similar, but crucially different statements:

'Change is needed, we know you don't like that prospect, but it is for the good of the country as a whole, it is part of our plan to make the UK better for everyone and to make sure that our kids and grand kids can enjoy an even better life than we do ourselves today. It is part of a plan that has been agreed by the (majority of) people of this country: It needs to happen and it's going to happen. Your choice is to come with us and help, or to oppose us, but, in that case, it will then happen around you anyway.'

or:

'Change is needed, we know you don't like that prospect but we're trying to make things better. Not sure quite why but please help.'

The second is essentially what Lansley and Dave et al have been doing for the last two years. Yes they were faced with a massive deficit when they got in, but they seem to have been trying to make the ditch more comfortable for us to lie in than getting us back on the road in that time. They need some positive direction, some vision. Better connection with the great people of this great country.

They are currently wasting time. Their time and, much more importantly, your time and my time. And we don't have that time to waste.

Past vision:


Maggie was lucky in that the Falklands conflict essentially got her a second term and a mandate and majority that allowed her to tackle the unions and drag the 'sick man of europe' into the modern world. If she hadn't, we'd probably now be getting advice and aid from Robert Mugabe and Mark Serwotka would be the Queen. She had a clear vision - although it wasn't supported by everyone - and was, therefore, able to achieve major things (whether you agree they were good or not is not relevant to this piece). I think it was Frank Skinner who said: 'At least you always knew where you were with Maggie - it was just being there without a paddle that was the problem.'

Similarly Tony Blair's 'New Labour' project was actually more about vision than reality, ditching many of Labour's past principles of socialism (in a changed world - someone tell Bob Crow) in order to get power. New Labour was the vision. Powerful - obviously PR/communications-driven 'new' like 'sex' sells. That vision enabled him to steer a clear and steady path (albeit some might argue it was a path which led, ultimately, to destruction) but nonetheless it was a clear direction and vision which was successful from his point of view. It meant that the party did not wallow in uncertainty and did not, in broad terms (I'm sure you can find examples if you want to) lurch from one fuck-up to the next, as Dave seems to be doing. Continuing Mr Skinner's analogy to include Messrs Brown and Balls, who were only half right when they claimed to have eliminated Boom and Bust: 'At least in Maggie's day we had a canoe'.

Call-Me-Dave

And what do we get from Dave? The Big Society. Anyone? Means nothing - for two reasons - it hasn't been explained and it hasn't been committed to. He doesn't believe it, why should we?

So it's play-acting. Make-believe. Doesn't work and means that he is reduced to lurching between one fuck-up and the next.

Time for vision or exit Dave, in my opinion. I hope he goes for the former, but if he doesn't, it is definitely time for the latter.

Final point, regarding what needs to be done now. I can understand that when he came in, Dave faced a country and an economy in meltdown. Given that, the creation and promotion of a brave new vision was difficult. It is difficult to get people to believe in a project; a journey into a brighter future within a modern world, when they are ass-deep in Government-and-financial-services-created shit. This comes back to my point about the vision being achievable and not ridiculous. At that time, even my banal vision might have been seen as ridiculous and would have been daunting rather than aspirational.

That is not the case now, even though we are not yet out of the mire - and indeed might soon be returning to an even deeper swamp as the EU breaks up. Back then, there was a definite sense of an ending of the New Labour project and the need for some basic recovery work rather than moving on to a new, brave new world.

What I mean is that the fact that they've not had this clear aspirational vision for the past two years is neither surprising nor terminal. It is a situation that can be rectified, but it needs to be rectified as soon as possible - by this Autumn at the latest in my opinion. We certainly cannot wait until the next election when putting yourself forward as a party of fresh new ideas and vision, having had none for five years will be laughable. But there is a chance to make this work, as a sort of 'relaunch' if Dave can (urgently) put together a meaningful vision in the way I describe above.

If he does, it could be possible for him to take the country with him as he goes forward in a positive way. And not just the country, but also his own party as well as me and even you!

I'm not quite so sure about the Lib Dems, but then some things in this world are truly impossible.

And rest.

And I metaphor a drink afterwards

Cryptic tweet wondering why the BBC bothers with 'expert' guests on news and/or arts programmes when, it seems to me, that the hosts, if they don't agree, just talk over the guests and 'put them down'.

Dimbledore is a master of it on Question Time. I know this is somewhat subjective and both sides think that the Beeb is biased against them (I find this laughable, but it is a genuinely held opinion), but watch carefully as he allows pannelists knocking the coalition government to wax lyrical for just a bout as long as they want - see Victoria Coren's seemingly endless, scripted, unfunny, pointless and tedious diatribe this week [was that/is she the most hideous and obnoxious performance/guest they've ever had? The bar is pretty high, but I think she set a new standard]; compared to Alan Duncan (this week, who was pretty feeble to be fair) or Griff Rhys Jones last week who's performance was increasingly viewed with horror by Dimbledore as he (Griff) went 'off piste' from the accepted BBC doctrine of kicking the Coalition and supporting the Global Warming scaremongering scam.

On Wednesday night this week, Paxman told the guests (tory and economist) appearing alongside Nobel economist Paul Krugman that: 'You can't disagree with him, he's a Nobel Prize winner.' Well, Jeremy, in that case, why the fuck have them on the programme then? And in broader terms, why (the fuck) listen to economists now at all - did they predict the current global economic melt-down we're in, or contribute massively to its creation? Why are the people who got us into this desperate mess the right ones to get us out of it, rather than the ones at whom we should be throwing rotten eggs and tomatoes, at the very least?

At the end of that programme, Paxman revealed that former Cameron communications guy Andy Coulson had been arrested on a purgery charge, or at least as Jeremy described this 'innocent-until-proven-guilty former public servant: 'the Tories' former head of propaganda'. Can you imagine the howls of outrage if he'd said that about, say, Peter Mandelson or Alistair Campbell?

Anyway, last night on Newsnight Review, Kirsty Wark did a piece on Tracy Emin's new exhibition 'She lay down deep beneath the sea' at the Turner Contemporary Gallery in Margate - it was clear that the two 'wimmin' got on well during the interview (absolutely nothing wrong with that at all, except when it clouds the objective approach taken by the host when the programme is aired). I'm also not making any judgement about 'Mad Tracy from Margate' (her words), either.

The terminally pretentious Paul Morley talked about it (the show and the shiny new gallery) being a metaphor for Margate, which is falling apart - 'indeed, it is a metaphor for the whole country' (under this coalition Government: - resounding thumbs-up from BBC/Stasi attitude adjustment manager in the wings). Then  a young, good-looking guy, lecturer at Oxford (I think but I can't find his details online and it's not on iplayer yet), who obviously was less than impressed with Emin's new stuff, got his turn:

He thougt the work was childish - and that Emin can no longer get away with this at her age - scratchy and unpolished, just not very good. He also asked how one is supposed to have sympathy for her when the theme for the whole exhibition came about because she was upset when her gardener in Italy cut back her olive vines too severely leaving 'stubs' rather than the branches and leaves that she wanted for the shade? She (said that she) subsequently threw herself to the ground when she saw what he'd done, poor lamb, and related, it, as only artists can, to the situation being faced by her dying father.

La Wark jumped in fast at this point to defend the artist, to justify Emin's thought processes and to explain what she (Emin) meant and why what she's doing is wonderful and, essentially, 'you're not coming on my show again unless you toe the line much better from now on laddie, capisce?'

Well, fine, but don't bother having people on who disagree with you unles you're prepared to at least listen and consider what they have to say, rather than ridiculing them and dismissing their opinions.

When you have journalists interviewing other journalists to get an insight into what's happening: And, more invidiously, when they are providing opinions instead of reporting the news, then you're starting to become the propagandists BBC. Unless of course you're going to tell us what angle (political background) your reporters like Paul Mason come from? He was opining on the future of the EU, (obviously in line with the BBC's 'only report anything about the EU if it's positive for the union or if you just cannot avoid it and then make it look as positive and damage-free as possible), last night. (Obviously the total melt-down of the whole of Southern Europe, bank collapse, failure of law and order and social cohesion is a bit of a bummer - he can see some of the riots from his four-star hotel and it's making sleep a tad difficult at times - but something will turn up in the next few weeks), was essentially his conclusion.

BBC Radio is also always quick to preview any interview with anyone who's remotely likely to be positive about the Coalition by telling the world that, effectively, 'this person has right-wing baggage, so please listen, but don't believe a word'. Maybe they should explain, before Stephanie Flanders makes her reports that she is infinitely more familiar with Labour 'Members' than she is with Tories? Allegedly.

Just a thought.

It's all about Vision Dave

If, in Government, you have a strong, clear vision that people understand, the odd cock-up along the way will not damage you too much.


But if you don't (have  a strong vision) then every cock-up just confirms your ineptitude. They become what you're known for; 'what you do'.


If you have no clear vision: Don't know where you're going - how can you possibly lead anyone anywhere? Time to help Dave to find the exit?



***************************************************************************

Seems to me that Dave is not short of cock-ups; this Government is becoming known for its ineptitude because it has no clear vision.


If you know where you're going, you can drag the idiots & nay-sayers along. If you don't, they will control your direction & speed.


When we needed political giants in the UK and Europe, we got Dave and George, Miliband and Balls. God help us.

Euro tweets

If you 'Mr Responsible' (Germany) give your feckless cousin (Greece) money 2 fix his roof & he pisses it up the wall we sympathise with you 


But if you then give him a load more money even though he hasn't paid you back, and he pisses that up the wall too, who's the idiot then?


Regarding this latest German attempt to take over Europe.. (yes strictly speaking 'Brussels-based EU', but let's call a spade a spade):


Ironic that Germany is using the financial 'credit-to-dependence' model that was so reviled there not very long ago.


So reviled indeed, that they tried to wipe out an entire race because of it. 


Ironic that the first unelected head of state inserted by Germany is Mario Monti in Italy. Wonder if he'll make the trains run on time?


Now they're trying again 2 make Europe 'German'. More austere harder working less frivolous. Taking the 'fun' out of Fundamental economics.


Ok so this time it's with Banks not Tanks, Bonds not Bombs, the IMF not the Luftwaffe but the desired result is the same.


And Cameron comes back from Brussels saying: 'Greece in our time'. You couldn't make it up. Actually, you could,. I did. :-D


*******************************************************************


When the smoke clears from the Euro débacle, some people will be surprised to find that France makes Greece look like an upstanding pillar of the financial community.


Germany just wants to punish people for having a nice lifestyle


So when you've done your hard work, abstemious living, austerity, saving for a rainy day, presumably you'll go on hiliday to Frankfurt, or Düsseldorf? No?


******************************************************************


I think we should replace the Euro with the Olive. Then Greece, Italy & Spain would be rich & we could all enjoy a mediterranean lifestyle  


And Olive's do grow on trees, so if we needed any 'quantitive easing' we'd just ask a greek man to go into his garden with a basket. 


Now you may think that's sillier than trying to turn Greeks, Spaniards and Italians into Germans, but it's not. It's about the same. #No2EU   

Disappointed that the EU hasn't yet taken up my suggestion to replace the Euro with the Olive. Frankly, I'm pitted about it. 

However, by the end of September, I'm confident that the Olive will be worth substantially more than the Euro. You heard it here first. 

In fact by October, the 1970 Esso world cup coin of Paul Reaney will be worth more than the Euro. Not one Euro, you understand, but all of them, combined. 

**********************************************************************

The EU was designed after the last unpleasantness, to eradicate war in Europe & stop one country dominating others. How's that going Angela?


It was designed to preserve individual state sovereignty so smaller countries' voters could contribute to Europe-wide policy. Angela?


It was designed as a free trade area, not a fiscal or political union - that's what we signed up to in 1971. Didn't we Angela?


It was designed to protect democracy not ride roughshod over it- an antidote to previous German plans put forward, quite forcefully in 1939.


It costs £200million a year to move the whole EU circus between Brussels & Strasbourg: Benefit to the people? The square route of fuck all. 


Obviously the French signed up: Say anything forcefully enough to the French and they say 'Oui, bien sür' almost immediately.


Try the same thing with the Brits and they tend to say: 'Do fuck off, there's a good chap. We'll decide what we think if you don't mind?'


*******************************************************************

Congratulations Angela: Germany prospers while the rest of the EU suffers and in the south they head back towards 3rd world status. Happy?


Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, soon they'll be needing aid rather than bills Angela. Food parcels not financial 'instruments'. Happy? 


Yes some of our southern European cousins are financially dodgy, lazy, corrupt..interesting. Fun 2b with. Thank fuck the world's not German.


Yes they spend more time with family & friends; eating good food & drinking wine; less time working than us. So who's got life about right?








Sometimes we can't see the pasta or paella for the parsimonious principles of the plutocrats. Think I'll leave it there :-)

Eurogeddon - the end-game has begun

More bail outs then. This time Spain. Then Italy, Portugal, Eire. Then France. That's assuming they've already written Greece off.


Thing is, if you have any personal money in Greece, in Euros. you now face the prospect of a devaluation and probably reintroduction of the Drachma at 50% of the Euro value. And since you won't want to lose 50% of your money overnight, you'll be wanting to move it to a safe location.


But you can't have it in cash because the banks only hold around 2.7% of the actual 'folding' that would be needed to pay out what people (think they) own.


So you'll transfer your balance to Italy maybe. But the Italian banks will only credit that amount if they're sure that the credit transfer is sound - i.e. the money will be honoured by the Greek bank making the transfer. I'm not sure that they would see this as being real. Greece is insolvent.


And anyway, the same situation will be facing Italy in a matter of a few weeks, so they will be trying to get their money out too. Spain is no different and nor, ultimately, is France which, although it has been very quiet in recent months, Monsieur Holland will be nationalising a major French bank in the next month or so - he has no choice.


You'll recall the 'run' on the bank that we saw at Northern Rock, with queues of people wanting their money out - which was when the UK Government had to step in and nationalise the bank. Only this time it will be on a much bigger scale. Not a relatively small UK bank, but whole countries including Italy, Spain, Portugal Eire, and France. 


There is now a serious prospect of wheelbarrows being a good investment - to carry round the banknotes needed to buy a loaf of bread.


The politicians continue to believe that they can continue to extend lines of credit - in effect, print more and more money (presumably forever) in order to stop this contagion. But with asset values tumbling and 97.3% of Europe's money to be 'found' (i.e. it doesn't exist) this would be impossible. And would, in any case, make the Euro virtually worthless as a hard currency. 


It looks like Germany has already decided that there is no value in throwing more good money after bad. They have no prospect of ever getting it back and yes, the IMF which has famously never lost money in the past, is almost guaranteed to do so this time, just on Greece, let alone the bigger countries' debts. 


But the Eurocrats are faced with losing everything - including their cushy jobs if the whole thing fails and they will, therefore, do anything to try to keep 'kicking the can down the road' in the hope that 'something will turn up'. But it won't. It can't. And the figures are astronomical. Europe's GDP is bigger than the US. Europe is effectively bankrupt and Germany will bankrupt itself if it tries any further to stem the inevitable tide of default and unpayable debt. 


In Greece, the organisations which step in when a country goes bankrupt, in order to provide a softer landing post disaster, are already holding the assets they would normally be taking over in a crisis. So they're already part of the meltdown and not able, therefore, to provide any sort of bail-out.


The prospect of civil unrest (and believe me it will be anything but 'civil') is now becoming almost inevitable. And we now live in a world where even talking about rising extremism is not the done thing.  The atmosphere is now ripe for extremism to not just grow, but potentially take over as Governments are virtually powerless to intervene in any way that would be acceptable to their populations.


So we're no longer talking about a few 'ineffectual muppets' in Brussels that might spend too much money on themselves but don't really do that much harm. We're talking about a clear and present danger of the whole European edifice falling apart because of their failure to keep to their own rules of membership in the first place. Their own unwavering desire to create a united states of Europe, even though fundamentally, it could never work without true political and financial union.


It's a busted flush, but because the leaders have everything to lose if it fails, they will continue to do almost anything to cling on to the prospect of them keeping their jobs. No matter what it costs their citizens either financially or in terms of lifestyle, employment and security.   


And there's no 'big brother' waiting in the wings to lead us out of this catastrophe. The leaders are all, already embroiled in the problem. 


It's coming. As night follows day. Best case scenario would be for the Euro to fail quickly so that we, and the markets could respond to a new world and then start to get on with what comes afterwards, ideally in as painless a way as possible while law and order still holds and gives us some chance of managing the change. 


It will certainly not be without pain nor without conflict, but if it happens quickly with Government apparatus still in place (just), it might just be possible to move forward with minimal violence and pressure on social cohesion and for a new system to emerge. The longer our leaders try to carry on and salvage something from the current shambles, the worse the disruption will be. 


As far as the UK is concerned, we will certainly not be immune to a systemic failure in Europe. It will have a significant negative impact on our own economy but as one of the world's financial powerhouses and as a country that does still have a strong (if small) manufacturing sector and a strong agricultural sector, we are massively better placed to survive this meltdown.


In the short term we will be a safe haven for investment and if we are nimble on our feet, we can take some advantages from the European crisis. Southern Europe will have an exchange rate advantage over us, but they'll be on their knees initially.  And German exchange rates will go through the roof - a singular Germany will have a currency that is 50% higher valued than it is now, when yoked to the rest of Europe, so we'll likely be much more competitive in relation to our biggest rival. Again, this will call for  an ability to be responsive and nimble, but there could well be some good news in the medium term for the UK. 


In any case we'll be able to sell our wheelbarrows. One hopes that we won't be selling too many of our other great export product - arms - to the new Europe.









  

Gooner Family: Are you sure about that?

One of the oft-made complaints about 'family' is that you cannot choose it. It's an accident of birth. Whereas you can choose your friends and, so the theory goes, that is more likely to work out well. But who do you go back to. When the wheels fall off? Who offers undying love and unquestioning support, almost whatever you have done? Your friends or your family? Bear that in mind when you read the following:


I hear a lot on twitter about the 'Gooner Family'. I like the idea. It sums up very well how I feel about the relationship. Of course some people use it as an 'arm-twisting' device for a follow-back, and that's just fine by me. Being a member of the Gooner Family is a good start in my book, but it doesn't make you a different person. You might still be a moron. Sorry about that, but we have to face facts. It is perhaps less likely than if, say, you were a Spud, but I also know some excellent people who happen to support a different team, yes even Spurs. 


I'm an Arsenal fan. I love the club, the team, the ethos, everything about it. It's bigger than me. And you. it's been here long before both of us. It will be here long after we're gone. I'm not a passing fan, something to do along the way. I don't go to the games at the moment because I can't for reasons of finance and distance. But that does not mean that I'm a lesser fan. My first Arsenal hero was Charlie George. It's been a life-long relationship for me.


For me, the team is like my kids. I see every one of them as one of my children: Some are great and I'm so proud of them. Some don't quite make it, but I still love them (like my kids). I wish they were better. I wish they were all heroes. That they all scored the winner in the cup final. Sometimes it just doesn't work out for the individual players. That doesn't mean they weren't trying their best. I don't think that anyone who ever played for The Arsenal has not tried to do their best. Although I have to admit that the (relatively recent) influx of big money into the game has made the mercenary scenario much more likely. 


However, I happen to take the view that, even if you are paid astronomical amounts of money to play for one club or another, you may well have gone to the highest bidder irrespective of your personal loyalties (it's a world game now after all); when you walk out onto the pitch you will give everything you have for the team, the fans and, especially, your team-mates. Yes, maybe as a 'professional' rather than a 'fan' but the result is the same in my view. 


I don't think we can expect footballers to behave differently from the rest of us on that score: It's true that some people (quite a few in my experience) will go to work, do just enough to get by, and take the pay-check. But these people are not the 'rain-makers', not the high-achievers, they are the 'also rans' and I don't think one can become a seriously good professional premier league player these days if that's your attitude.


Sometimes your own kids just aren't quite good enough, however hard you and they tried. You have to remember that other parents' kids are on the opposing team. And they're trying just as hard, for the same reasons. And sometimes they win. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be much of a challenge. And, therefore, not worth the levels of effort, sacrifice and determination that they - and we - put in every week and year. And winning, in the end, against all the odds, over the other family's 'kids' wouldn't be nearly as sweet.


Of course we all want to win. We'd give anything for Arsenal to do well. It hurts like hell when they don't. Today's society wants it all. Now. One can sometimes see this in the views of some of our younger fans - the 'Game-Over so start again and have another go until you win' mentality. But life's not like that. Even if you have virtually unlimited funds available, like Citeh or Chel$ki, it's not easy. What's that cliché? There's no 'I' in 'team'? But there is 'Mate'. I like that concept, trite though it may be. 


So if 'our kids' (your kids) don't win all the time, you need, instead of criticising them, to help and bolster them. To reassure them and to help them to win next time. Criticising them, calling them 'crap' and worse, doesn't help. These are our kids, our family. You might well be disappointed and angry. But remember who they are: 'Our kids'. Our family. Calling them names is more about you and your failings than it is about them. 


They're doing their best. Sometimes I think that you should ask yourself if you are doing the same? I hear a lot about 'Gooner Family' but sometimes I'm not sure if some people understand what 'family' really means. I'm sorry if this view offends you. Actually I'm not really. If, after reading, you're still of the view that some players are crap, and shouldn't wear the shirt. well I'd invite you, very politely, to fuck off.


You might well be a 'fan', I'll grant you that. But you're not 'Family'.