Frame completed, shelves made time to see if the doors fit their made-to-measure frames. And flushed with my success with the bedroom door - and given the fact that the frame is now more solidly in place and un-adjustable than a bridge over the M1 - I confidently unwrap the first door and 'offer it up' (professional carpentry term) to the 'gap' (unprofessional layman's term) I've sweated for days, to create for it.
And it fits in perfectly.
When I say 'perfectly' what I really mean is 'easily'. Too easily. The f*cking hole is too big. By about an inch, and since I've been measuring everything in centimetres, that can't be right. The bloody French. It's all their fault.
Still, it's better than being too small a frame, and with the judicious use of architrave and some more wood - if only I had some spare wood, oh yes actually I have about a ton or tonne (Frogs again) of spare wood. Not a problem then.
It's just a case of hanging the door now, hinges and that stuff, what could possibly go wrong?
Have you ever tried to hang a door? I don't mean take it off and then put it back where it was using the same screw holes, I mean hanging a door, from scratch?
Let's just say it's not easy. Like flying out of one's bedroom window unassisted is not easy. Or like eating a combined harvester is not easy.
You see, when the door is perfectly in place and at just the right height that it doesn't 'hit the top or bottom frames, you can't get at the hinges because they're trapped between the door and the frame. And when you open the door so you can screw in the hinges, the door tends to lean a little bit. Not much because you've cleverly put wedges and an old screwdriver and some coins underneath it becuse you're clever like that; but just enough so that when the hinges are aligned just right (and you've found another bloody screwdriver because the one you wanted is now holding up the bloody door), and have been screwed into place on the door and the frame, the door won't shut.
And you've now ruined the wood on the frame and the door where you'd sited your hinges and so the process begins again.
It only took four attempts and I closed the bedroom window so that the kids coming home from school wouldn't learn some new words.
Anyway it worked in the end. Next the two facing doors at the other end of the wardrobe. The first one went in first time, hinges perfect and the door closing and opening as if it had been designed by God Himself. The second door wasn't quite so perfect but I managed to get the hinges in place and had to 'shave' the door a little bit so that it would close properly without jamming on the top or bottom of the frame.
Shaving a door is not what I'd call fun. It involves a shaving thing (I think it's called a surform - which, again, inexplicably I had) and shaving a millimetre off the door for about ten minutes' vigorous and hard work, then 'offering it up' to the frame and finding out that you'd actually shaved the wrong bit.
Anyway eventually the second door fitted the frame; closed quite snugly but closed nonetheless. Cigar time I thought. But first I thought I'd enjoy the majesty of the two perfectly hinged facing doors closing together, meeting in the middle so to speak. Like a butler opening the double doors for you at a posh 'do' only in reverse.
I'd like to say at this point, that they went in, fitted perfectly together like a newly-wed couple.
But the fact is that they didn't. They overlapped. By about an inch.
Underterred, I smiled warmly, and went for a swim. I might or might not have said 'fuck-it' at some point; I can't now be sure.
I'm getting to like the spare room though. The squeaking from next door is a bit of a pain (I can now spell 'squeaking' you'll be relieved to know). I have suggested oil but she just looked at me suspiciously and said 'not until you've finished the bloody wardrobe'. Ho hum. ;)
To be continued...
I've always liked that phrase. It's a bit like 'follow that cab'. Just me? OK then.
Wednesday, 12 March 2014
Day four of the two-day wardrobe construction job
If you've missed the story so far (where have you been?), here, here and here.
I've noticed something about this constructing a simple wardrobe lark. You need a good spirit level. Or, to put it another, perhaps more accurate way, you need very good levels of spirits in the drinks cabinet. Everything looks straighter and more level after a few gins. 'A large gin please.' 'Tonic?' 'If there's room in the glass'. ;)
Jeeves, the cutest most loving dog in the world, pissed over my carpet/bed in the spare room yesterday so I was back on the floorboards. Mind you my back and shoulders were now beyond repair so it made little difference. I did have a feeling of nostalgia listening to she who must be obeyed squeeaking along in her bed as she slept. The sound traveling easily through the un-shutable door.
'Establish where the ceiling joists or beams are (they said on the internet) so that you can screw your frame into the ceiling and make it more solid.' Sound advice.
My only, slight, quibble with it is how, exactly, does one do that? When one has 150 years' of papered ceiling which all sounds either solid wood beam, or empty space? Well I climbed up into the loft of course, established that the beams ran at 90 degrees to the direction of the frame and that I would therefore have to use the joists to secure my frame.
Difficult, perhaps, to identify exactly where the joists were in relation to the bedroom and the emerging frame from in the loft. Were they near the Scalextric set, the model railway box, the stair guard, the pram, the skis, the world's largest collection of knackered lampshades, or the box containing bank statements from 1979?
But I'm not stupid. I took some small nails and my trusty hammer and knocked them discretely through the ceiling either side of the joists, thus identifying the location of the joists in the room below. Taps forehead. Smart huh?
The only thing is that the room below was in fact the office and not the bedroom (geography has never been my strongest suit, especially in the dark).
I've heard that before somewhere too.
Never again will I mock or sneer at flat-pack furniture. My flat-pack came on a truck without instructions, measurements or fixings. Without pre-drilled holes, without the right tools or screws or brackets. Without hinges or rawl plugs. It's the blind leading the deaf.
But despite my many failings, I have now just about completed the frame and it is solid as a rock. It would be easier to dismantle the house than the wardrobe!
Tomorrow the delights of trying to work out how plasterboard works. Wish me luck and stay tuned.
Some pics of the project so far:
Where to start?
Tuesday, 11 March 2014
The wardrobe takes shape. But not necessarily the shape of a wardrobe
If you missed parts 1 and 2 (and let's face it most people did), you can avail yourselves of this professional, step-by-step guide to building a wardrobe here and here. You might want to catch up with the story before reading on. Then again, you'd find yourself in a minority.
Anyway, it didn't take that long to put the bed back together. Compared to HS2 say, or a cricket test match. Four hours tops. I was safely ensconced in the spare room well before 1am.
However I seem to have now installed a slight squeak in the bed frame somewhere. A squeak that I would have been proud to discover in previous years, but now it seems to occur when one is simply breathing rather than breathless.
Anyway the door went back on just fine with some fresh screws. It is true that it doesn't quite close any more, but that's a mere detail....
The next day I was up bright and early. Sleeping on the floor in the spare room can have that effect.
And with renewed determination and the use of a hammer, I got the bloody two-part 'frame' into place against the wall. Thereby breaking the back of the whole project in a single move.
The trouble was that without anything to support the other end of the horizontal 'beam' (even though it was screwed to the vertical one very tightly) it tended to sag a little at the other end.
I may be exaggerating when I say 'a little'. It actually sagged quite a lot. It's a 3 metre long bit of 'four be two' and quite heavy so it was bound to sag I suppose. However it stopped sagging almost entirely when it hit the (fucking) floor. Apologies for the Anglo Saxon vernacular but no other word quite sufficed, either now or at the time.
So instead of a nice tight inverted 'L' shape, I now had a rather slovenly inverted 'V' shape of 3 metres by 2.4 metres. I was tempted to ask if she'd prefer a unique, artistic, unsymmetrical wig-wam shaped wardrobe instead of the boring rectangular one she'd specified, but wisely thought better of it. The spare room is not luxurious, but it is markedly more so than the shed.
Anyway I then had the brainwave of building the other vertical post, at the other end of the wall (not quite the end because that's where the [broken] door is and whilst it won't quite close any more, it's still better than if it didn't open at all for the reason of being behind the wardrobe, in my humble opinion).
So I measured and drilled and screwed, and then came back home to work on the wardrobe. (That's just a joke Dear). And in a matter of moments (that felt like hours - and in fact were hours) I had the second of my 'goalposts' up and securely fastened to the wall.
So now it was just a simple matter of single-handedly lifting up my 'crossbar' and attaching it securely at both ends. Simple.
Again, I may have to admit to a slight exaggeration here. You see you'd have to be Atlas to be able to lift a 3 metre plank (let's call it what it is) of 'four be two' from one end and keep it upright (horizontal) while you attach the screws and brackets to keep it in place, then hold it up and 'walk' along the length of it, at a height of 2.4 metres and then address the other end. Especially when, standing on the step-ladder, trying to keep the thing straight, and with nothing to hold it in place but your screaming arm and shoulder muscles, you find that the drill, cordless bloody screwdriver, brackets and screws are actually 2.4 metres below you, in plain view, neatly arranged, but so far out of your reach that they might as well be in Alaska.
I put some new carpet down on the floor in the spare room that second night. It was much more comfortable.
To be continued...
Unlike Dallas I don't somehow think this is a dream.
Anyway, it didn't take that long to put the bed back together. Compared to HS2 say, or a cricket test match. Four hours tops. I was safely ensconced in the spare room well before 1am.
However I seem to have now installed a slight squeak in the bed frame somewhere. A squeak that I would have been proud to discover in previous years, but now it seems to occur when one is simply breathing rather than breathless.
Anyway the door went back on just fine with some fresh screws. It is true that it doesn't quite close any more, but that's a mere detail....
The next day I was up bright and early. Sleeping on the floor in the spare room can have that effect.
And with renewed determination and the use of a hammer, I got the bloody two-part 'frame' into place against the wall. Thereby breaking the back of the whole project in a single move.
The trouble was that without anything to support the other end of the horizontal 'beam' (even though it was screwed to the vertical one very tightly) it tended to sag a little at the other end.
I may be exaggerating when I say 'a little'. It actually sagged quite a lot. It's a 3 metre long bit of 'four be two' and quite heavy so it was bound to sag I suppose. However it stopped sagging almost entirely when it hit the (fucking) floor. Apologies for the Anglo Saxon vernacular but no other word quite sufficed, either now or at the time.
So instead of a nice tight inverted 'L' shape, I now had a rather slovenly inverted 'V' shape of 3 metres by 2.4 metres. I was tempted to ask if she'd prefer a unique, artistic, unsymmetrical wig-wam shaped wardrobe instead of the boring rectangular one she'd specified, but wisely thought better of it. The spare room is not luxurious, but it is markedly more so than the shed.
Anyway I then had the brainwave of building the other vertical post, at the other end of the wall (not quite the end because that's where the [broken] door is and whilst it won't quite close any more, it's still better than if it didn't open at all for the reason of being behind the wardrobe, in my humble opinion).
So I measured and drilled and screwed, and then came back home to work on the wardrobe. (That's just a joke Dear). And in a matter of moments (that felt like hours - and in fact were hours) I had the second of my 'goalposts' up and securely fastened to the wall.
So now it was just a simple matter of single-handedly lifting up my 'crossbar' and attaching it securely at both ends. Simple.
Again, I may have to admit to a slight exaggeration here. You see you'd have to be Atlas to be able to lift a 3 metre plank (let's call it what it is) of 'four be two' from one end and keep it upright (horizontal) while you attach the screws and brackets to keep it in place, then hold it up and 'walk' along the length of it, at a height of 2.4 metres and then address the other end. Especially when, standing on the step-ladder, trying to keep the thing straight, and with nothing to hold it in place but your screaming arm and shoulder muscles, you find that the drill, cordless bloody screwdriver, brackets and screws are actually 2.4 metres below you, in plain view, neatly arranged, but so far out of your reach that they might as well be in Alaska.
I put some new carpet down on the floor in the spare room that second night. It was much more comfortable.
To be continued...
Unlike Dallas I don't somehow think this is a dream.
Building a bloody wardrobe
If you missed part 1 of this enthralling adventure you can avail yourself of it here.
'Four be two' wood is a bit of an issue for me. You see I have screws that are perfect for the 'two' bit of the equation. But the four bit, is a bit of a mystery. You don't seem to be able to buy screws that are long enough to go through the 'four' side of the piece of wood. Who knew that giving one's wife one (a wardrobe) would be so difficult? I just don't seem to have the length (of screw) required.
I've heard that before somewhere.
Anyway, the wardrobe. I started in the corner and screwed a floor-to-ceiling bit of four be two to the wall. Drilled holes, inserted rawl plugs and everything. And then stood back to admire my work. It was a start. Next the horizontal 'beam' and it was almost built. Trouble was I couldn't screw the horizontal beam to the wall post because it was erm attached to the wall. So it had to come down again and be laid out on the floor so that i could screw the horizontal beam to the vertical one. Because of limited space the horizontal beam had to go under the bed so that I could screw it to the shorter vertical one.
And then when it was soundly and firmly attached, 'solid as a rock' I couldn't actually get the horizontal beam out from under the bed to put it up against the wall.
So I partly dismantled the brass-and-steel bed but I had then to take the bedroom door off to get it out of the room. But that bedroom door has not been off since 1863 when the house was built so it had 150 years' of gloss paint to get through before I could get to the hinge screws which were rusted to fuck (technical carpentry term) and wouldn't come out.
So I drilled them out which took forever, and then took the door off, took the bed out and freed the horizontal beam. I then lifted up my inverted 'L' shaped structure of four be two, snapped it cleanly into place and screwed the horizontal beam into place in my pre-drilled holes.
Or at least I would have done if I could have got the thing to stand up vertically under my bowed ceiling. It would have fitted snugly but easily into place on the wall, but it would not fit under the ceiling between where I was now sweatily standing, and that snug fit against the wall.
And that, friends, is where she found me a few hours later, quietly weeping amidst my screws and saws and endless lengths of four be two. In a bedroom with no door and no bed.
And no wardrobe.
To be continued...
This is like Dallas ain't it?
'Four be two' wood is a bit of an issue for me. You see I have screws that are perfect for the 'two' bit of the equation. But the four bit, is a bit of a mystery. You don't seem to be able to buy screws that are long enough to go through the 'four' side of the piece of wood. Who knew that giving one's wife one (a wardrobe) would be so difficult? I just don't seem to have the length (of screw) required.
I've heard that before somewhere.
Anyway, the wardrobe. I started in the corner and screwed a floor-to-ceiling bit of four be two to the wall. Drilled holes, inserted rawl plugs and everything. And then stood back to admire my work. It was a start. Next the horizontal 'beam' and it was almost built. Trouble was I couldn't screw the horizontal beam to the wall post because it was erm attached to the wall. So it had to come down again and be laid out on the floor so that i could screw the horizontal beam to the vertical one. Because of limited space the horizontal beam had to go under the bed so that I could screw it to the shorter vertical one.
And then when it was soundly and firmly attached, 'solid as a rock' I couldn't actually get the horizontal beam out from under the bed to put it up against the wall.
So I partly dismantled the brass-and-steel bed but I had then to take the bedroom door off to get it out of the room. But that bedroom door has not been off since 1863 when the house was built so it had 150 years' of gloss paint to get through before I could get to the hinge screws which were rusted to fuck (technical carpentry term) and wouldn't come out.
So I drilled them out which took forever, and then took the door off, took the bed out and freed the horizontal beam. I then lifted up my inverted 'L' shaped structure of four be two, snapped it cleanly into place and screwed the horizontal beam into place in my pre-drilled holes.
Or at least I would have done if I could have got the thing to stand up vertically under my bowed ceiling. It would have fitted snugly but easily into place on the wall, but it would not fit under the ceiling between where I was now sweatily standing, and that snug fit against the wall.
And that, friends, is where she found me a few hours later, quietly weeping amidst my screws and saws and endless lengths of four be two. In a bedroom with no door and no bed.
And no wardrobe.
To be continued...
This is like Dallas ain't it?
Monday, 10 March 2014
Building a wardrobe
If any headline I've ever written was guaranteed to bring people in to reading the blog, surely this was it? How can you possibly resist?
I toyed with 'screwing in the bedroom'; 'drilling (for) the missus' in the bedroom' and 'doing it on the floor in the bedroom', but 'Building a wardrobe' was a cut above I think.
When she who must be obeyed opined that she'd like a built-in wardrobe, I suggested that I should give her one. She said she'd rather have a local tradesman give her one instead and that I should get quotes from local tradesmen willing to undertake the task.
Which I did; 'who will give my wife one?' I asked. And sure enough several local men with wood came along and offered their services. Some of them were even carpenters.
In the end, however, she reluctantly agreed that I should take on the task on the basis that they were all quite expensive, and didn't find any who she wanted involved in her drawers.
I got the job. Call it nepotism, having an inside track, being cheap, whatever. I'd been appointed to the task of giving my wife one in the bedroom.
Well as they say a change is a good as a rest, so I set to the task with Gusto. A local Italian lad who seemed to be already at home in her bedroom.
Anyway, I bought some wood. 'four be two' I think it's called. I hadn't seen any 'naked' wood since I was at school and rubbed it down for about two years into a smooth thing that had no discernable use.
Oh and I did drill something to make holes in it so that it could house pencils. I know not why.
Strangely I had an electric saw (I have no idea why I had bought such a thing); a cordless drill (same) and obviously my trusty hammer with which I fix almost everything around the house. I also possess the ability to swear profusely at inanimate objects all the time. I am, although I didn't know it, practically a master carpenter already.
Anyway the delivery guy deposited the lengths of wood on my front doorstep four at a time ('sign here please') and I then struggled to pick up one piece of wood and carry it up the stairs into the bedroom. Of course I didn't struggle to bash each piece against the bannisters or gloss around the doors that I'd recently painted, leaving much evidence of my travails.
Build a frame they said (on the internet). Then simply slide it into place, apply some screws and Bob's your dad's brother. Yeah right. The frame might fit the wall to which one is applying it but standing the thing up in a room with bowed ceilings, is never going to work. Even with my hammer.
To be continued.... I bet you can hardly wait?
I toyed with 'screwing in the bedroom'; 'drilling (for) the missus' in the bedroom' and 'doing it on the floor in the bedroom', but 'Building a wardrobe' was a cut above I think.
When she who must be obeyed opined that she'd like a built-in wardrobe, I suggested that I should give her one. She said she'd rather have a local tradesman give her one instead and that I should get quotes from local tradesmen willing to undertake the task.
Which I did; 'who will give my wife one?' I asked. And sure enough several local men with wood came along and offered their services. Some of them were even carpenters.
In the end, however, she reluctantly agreed that I should take on the task on the basis that they were all quite expensive, and didn't find any who she wanted involved in her drawers.
I got the job. Call it nepotism, having an inside track, being cheap, whatever. I'd been appointed to the task of giving my wife one in the bedroom.
Well as they say a change is a good as a rest, so I set to the task with Gusto. A local Italian lad who seemed to be already at home in her bedroom.
Anyway, I bought some wood. 'four be two' I think it's called. I hadn't seen any 'naked' wood since I was at school and rubbed it down for about two years into a smooth thing that had no discernable use.
Oh and I did drill something to make holes in it so that it could house pencils. I know not why.
Strangely I had an electric saw (I have no idea why I had bought such a thing); a cordless drill (same) and obviously my trusty hammer with which I fix almost everything around the house. I also possess the ability to swear profusely at inanimate objects all the time. I am, although I didn't know it, practically a master carpenter already.
Anyway the delivery guy deposited the lengths of wood on my front doorstep four at a time ('sign here please') and I then struggled to pick up one piece of wood and carry it up the stairs into the bedroom. Of course I didn't struggle to bash each piece against the bannisters or gloss around the doors that I'd recently painted, leaving much evidence of my travails.
Build a frame they said (on the internet). Then simply slide it into place, apply some screws and Bob's your dad's brother. Yeah right. The frame might fit the wall to which one is applying it but standing the thing up in a room with bowed ceilings, is never going to work. Even with my hammer.
To be continued.... I bet you can hardly wait?
Who do you vote for when they're all the same?
I've done a short piece on the Lib Dems from my point of view here.
Short because I believe they're toast and rightly so.
Labour is likely to form the next government in the UK, so I felt that I should do something on them too, perhaps in more depth. I'm a Tory by instinct but not by any kind of tribalist belief; this is intended to be objective, but obviously I am somewhat biased. Let's see...
It was of course so much easier to define ones options on politics during the 70s and 80s. The Tories were essentially about business, wealth creation, low taxes, small government, police and defense, enabling the 'haves' to drag up the 'have nots' through prosperity, achievement and sustainable employment.
Labour was essentially about the 'workers', socialism, the welfare state, the NHS, wealth redistribution, taking from the 'haves' and giving to the 'have nots'.
Then came Maggie who, faced with a basket case economy, ditched many of the union-run inefficient, insolvent industries and, whatever you might think of her personally, delivered an upturn in our economy that was as essential as it was breathtaking. She might have sacked your grandad, but she re-established Britain on the word stage as a competitive economy. That simply would not have happened under a Labour government with its short termist union-driven policies at the time.
And then came Mr Tony, who was Machiavellian in his thirst for power. Without whom Labour would probably have disappeared as a credible alternative government in the UK. He embraced business, broke many of the cast iron Union dominations (Clause 4) of the past because he knew that they were an anachronism. An approach that was well past its sell-by date.
New Labour was essentially standing on the same middle ground as the Tories on almost every issue that faced the country and because every government runs out of steam eventually, he got the Tory voter to tick his box on the ballot paper, not just because it was 'time for a change' but because he represented the bright new future for the country, just as Maggie had done before.
He built upon her legacy, repealed almost none of her far-reaching legislation and continued the drive for the UK to be a business-led player on an increasingly global economic stage. There were of course tinkerings to pacify the 'traditional' left but essentially Mr Blair was the son of Thatcher. Not easy reading for Labour supporters I concede, but true nonetheless.
The trouble was that he cared more about looking good (spin and statistics) than actually solving problems and raising standards. He was not prepared to tackle unpopular issues (defense equipment, the NHS failings, educational standards) but preferred to spin his way out of problems, meaning that they would eventually come home to roost. And how.
Then we had Mr Brown. A man less equipped for high, public facing office, more lacking in charisma, less personable, less likeable as a fellow human being, is difficult to envisage. A blip really in our history. It is perhaps a small comfort to think that the British people never actually voted him in as Prime Minister.
I'm not going to Labour the point ;) about his 'achievements'. There's no need. You might feel that you didn't want to read any further if I were to do so. You know what he was (in your heart of hearts). An unmitigated disaster for the UK and (I would argue) the globe. He abolished boom and bust - and as even Peter Mandelson has said, he was half right.
So where are we now? It's difficult really, isn't it?
Because Labour has moved so far to the right and the Tories have moved so far to the left, that they're almost indistinguishable from each other. It's deeply unsatisfying for the principled voter (whoever he is - I'm not sure he exists - or can exist - any more). 'Yes, we are all individuals'...... 'Im not'.
However, even if you're firmly on the centre ground now (whilst sticking to your grandad's Thatcher bashing and 'Nasty Party' nonesense down the pub), there are a couple of things that you should (but probably won't) factor in to your decision-making processes when next you have that pencil and ballot paper in your hand:
And, just to tease you with another caveat before I deliver the 'beans', much of this depends upon how you look at the world and the UK's place in it. Actually that's not quite true. Much of it depends upon whether you consider those issues at all, or not. It really depends upon whether you take the broader view about the country being successful, competitive, prosperous, or the short-term 'what's in it for me now and next week' view. The former approach is Maggie and to a lesser extent Tony, the latter is the Unions of the 1970s.
The problem is (swear word approaching) that many, if not most people, take the ungenerous latter view. Which is just fucking selfish and stupid in the extreme and makes me incandescent with rage and despair for our country. Long term prosperity and success for us and our kids is so much more valuable than having a couple of quid more next week to (let's just say) waste. But many people simply cannot see that and it's a crying shame.
So, the 'beans'. And taking account of my longer-term 'country-before-self' view (which means sustainable prosperity not short term selfish 'tokens') I'd ask you to consider this:
Because this is truly the difference between the Tories and Labour now. It's not ideology or their left-or-right stance on the political spectrum. The differences are no longer fundamental. It's not about where the front benches went to school - Labour's front bench has as many privately educated 'toffs' as the Tories' so off you fuck with that argument. They're all non-real-job-non-real-world-experience people now. Career politicians who all think they can ride rough-shod over voter's views.
The difference is, purely and simply, 'competence'.
Ask yourself this: Which party of the centre ground (Labour or Tory - they're indistinguishable after all) will face up to the problems we face? Which party will recognise the problems, admit to them and address them? Which party will try to solve the problems we face as a nation and as individuals, will try to address the bigger issues instead of trying to hide them?
Which party will risk unpopularity for the greater good of the nation? Which party will address the unsustainable welfare state (for example), try to address the Welfare trap that so many of our young people find themselves in, and which one will, having recognised the undoubted problem (Frank Field reported as much to Mr Tony in 2004), then try to spin and hide it?
Which party will not accept the reality of our internationally falling standards of education and try to do something about it (against the 'lowest common denominator' approach of our powerful teaching unions) rather than lower standards so it looks good?
Which party will address the failings of our 'envy of the world' NHS instead of trying to hide them?
Which party will send our brave young people into (a questionable at best) conflict with woefully inadequate equipment? And which will address the massive black hole of MoD finances? And invest, urgently in new, 'fit-for-purpose' kit?
In short, which party will grasp the nettle and which party will try to deny that the nettle exists?
We know, don't we, that Labour is completely incompetent when it comes to our economy and finances, but they're so much more than that.
So is it grandad down the pub and next week's welfare cheque that drives you and your vote, or is it the future of this country and our kids? It really is up to you.
What a frightening thought.
I'll add one more thought here if I may. This has been a blog about who one might vote for next time and I haven't mentioned the EU once. However the fact is that if we don't have a referendum and then don't exit the shambolic EU, none of this will really matter. We'll have ceased to be a nation state at which point, quite frankly, you could vote for a prominent local tree and it would have as much meaningful power to deliver the UK's influence on the world and to reflect your local, national and international issues.
It's the biggest issue we currently face in the world and we're sleepwalking into losing our ability to govern ourselves. More here and here. That should also be a factor in your choice about who you vote for next time. After the European elections on May 28th, I expect all major parties to commit to a referendum (not the Lib Dems of course but I did say 'major parties'). At which point it will come down, once again, to competence.
Sleep well.
And thanks for reading.
Short because I believe they're toast and rightly so.
Labour is likely to form the next government in the UK, so I felt that I should do something on them too, perhaps in more depth. I'm a Tory by instinct but not by any kind of tribalist belief; this is intended to be objective, but obviously I am somewhat biased. Let's see...
It was of course so much easier to define ones options on politics during the 70s and 80s. The Tories were essentially about business, wealth creation, low taxes, small government, police and defense, enabling the 'haves' to drag up the 'have nots' through prosperity, achievement and sustainable employment.
Labour was essentially about the 'workers', socialism, the welfare state, the NHS, wealth redistribution, taking from the 'haves' and giving to the 'have nots'.
Then came Maggie who, faced with a basket case economy, ditched many of the union-run inefficient, insolvent industries and, whatever you might think of her personally, delivered an upturn in our economy that was as essential as it was breathtaking. She might have sacked your grandad, but she re-established Britain on the word stage as a competitive economy. That simply would not have happened under a Labour government with its short termist union-driven policies at the time.
And then came Mr Tony, who was Machiavellian in his thirst for power. Without whom Labour would probably have disappeared as a credible alternative government in the UK. He embraced business, broke many of the cast iron Union dominations (Clause 4) of the past because he knew that they were an anachronism. An approach that was well past its sell-by date.
New Labour was essentially standing on the same middle ground as the Tories on almost every issue that faced the country and because every government runs out of steam eventually, he got the Tory voter to tick his box on the ballot paper, not just because it was 'time for a change' but because he represented the bright new future for the country, just as Maggie had done before.
He built upon her legacy, repealed almost none of her far-reaching legislation and continued the drive for the UK to be a business-led player on an increasingly global economic stage. There were of course tinkerings to pacify the 'traditional' left but essentially Mr Blair was the son of Thatcher. Not easy reading for Labour supporters I concede, but true nonetheless.
The trouble was that he cared more about looking good (spin and statistics) than actually solving problems and raising standards. He was not prepared to tackle unpopular issues (defense equipment, the NHS failings, educational standards) but preferred to spin his way out of problems, meaning that they would eventually come home to roost. And how.
Then we had Mr Brown. A man less equipped for high, public facing office, more lacking in charisma, less personable, less likeable as a fellow human being, is difficult to envisage. A blip really in our history. It is perhaps a small comfort to think that the British people never actually voted him in as Prime Minister.
I'm not going to Labour the point ;) about his 'achievements'. There's no need. You might feel that you didn't want to read any further if I were to do so. You know what he was (in your heart of hearts). An unmitigated disaster for the UK and (I would argue) the globe. He abolished boom and bust - and as even Peter Mandelson has said, he was half right.
So where are we now? It's difficult really, isn't it?
Because Labour has moved so far to the right and the Tories have moved so far to the left, that they're almost indistinguishable from each other. It's deeply unsatisfying for the principled voter (whoever he is - I'm not sure he exists - or can exist - any more). 'Yes, we are all individuals'...... 'Im not'.
However, even if you're firmly on the centre ground now (whilst sticking to your grandad's Thatcher bashing and 'Nasty Party' nonesense down the pub), there are a couple of things that you should (but probably won't) factor in to your decision-making processes when next you have that pencil and ballot paper in your hand:
And, just to tease you with another caveat before I deliver the 'beans', much of this depends upon how you look at the world and the UK's place in it. Actually that's not quite true. Much of it depends upon whether you consider those issues at all, or not. It really depends upon whether you take the broader view about the country being successful, competitive, prosperous, or the short-term 'what's in it for me now and next week' view. The former approach is Maggie and to a lesser extent Tony, the latter is the Unions of the 1970s.
The problem is (swear word approaching) that many, if not most people, take the ungenerous latter view. Which is just fucking selfish and stupid in the extreme and makes me incandescent with rage and despair for our country. Long term prosperity and success for us and our kids is so much more valuable than having a couple of quid more next week to (let's just say) waste. But many people simply cannot see that and it's a crying shame.
So, the 'beans'. And taking account of my longer-term 'country-before-self' view (which means sustainable prosperity not short term selfish 'tokens') I'd ask you to consider this:
Because this is truly the difference between the Tories and Labour now. It's not ideology or their left-or-right stance on the political spectrum. The differences are no longer fundamental. It's not about where the front benches went to school - Labour's front bench has as many privately educated 'toffs' as the Tories' so off you fuck with that argument. They're all non-real-job-non-real-world-experience people now. Career politicians who all think they can ride rough-shod over voter's views.
The difference is, purely and simply, 'competence'.
Ask yourself this: Which party of the centre ground (Labour or Tory - they're indistinguishable after all) will face up to the problems we face? Which party will recognise the problems, admit to them and address them? Which party will try to solve the problems we face as a nation and as individuals, will try to address the bigger issues instead of trying to hide them?
Which party will risk unpopularity for the greater good of the nation? Which party will address the unsustainable welfare state (for example), try to address the Welfare trap that so many of our young people find themselves in, and which one will, having recognised the undoubted problem (Frank Field reported as much to Mr Tony in 2004), then try to spin and hide it?
Which party will not accept the reality of our internationally falling standards of education and try to do something about it (against the 'lowest common denominator' approach of our powerful teaching unions) rather than lower standards so it looks good?
Which party will address the failings of our 'envy of the world' NHS instead of trying to hide them?
Which party will send our brave young people into (a questionable at best) conflict with woefully inadequate equipment? And which will address the massive black hole of MoD finances? And invest, urgently in new, 'fit-for-purpose' kit?
In short, which party will grasp the nettle and which party will try to deny that the nettle exists?
We know, don't we, that Labour is completely incompetent when it comes to our economy and finances, but they're so much more than that.
So is it grandad down the pub and next week's welfare cheque that drives you and your vote, or is it the future of this country and our kids? It really is up to you.
What a frightening thought.
I'll add one more thought here if I may. This has been a blog about who one might vote for next time and I haven't mentioned the EU once. However the fact is that if we don't have a referendum and then don't exit the shambolic EU, none of this will really matter. We'll have ceased to be a nation state at which point, quite frankly, you could vote for a prominent local tree and it would have as much meaningful power to deliver the UK's influence on the world and to reflect your local, national and international issues.
It's the biggest issue we currently face in the world and we're sleepwalking into losing our ability to govern ourselves. More here and here. That should also be a factor in your choice about who you vote for next time. After the European elections on May 28th, I expect all major parties to commit to a referendum (not the Lib Dems of course but I did say 'major parties'). At which point it will come down, once again, to competence.
Sleep well.
And thanks for reading.
Sunday, 2 March 2014
A UK 'yes' vote on the EU would mean ditching the pound (and so would no referendum)
The EU's stated aim is to establish a 'United States of Europe'. Run from Brussels/Strasbourg, with a European army replacing national arrangements and a universal approach to movement of people, access to benefits, healthcare, the law, taxation and government.
It would be like the USA where there is a national government making most of the laws but where individual states have the ability to make some limited laws of their own. But where 'local laws' are subservient to the national 'voice'.
You may have views on this scenario, positive or negative. You might think that an overall, Europe-wide controlling government and defense force would be a good thing. You might, like me, feel that being governed from further away, by people you don't know and who, crucially, know nothing of your local issues would be a negative step in terms of democracy and influence.
You might think that bringing some corrupt regimes and relatively poor people into a bigger 'club' will have a positive effect on prosperity in those countries over time. Alternatively you might think that aligning a 'first world' economy with others in which corruption is a way of life, will have a detrimental effect upon our own hard won (relative) prosperity, laws and freedoms.
As we have seen, harnessing unequal partners into a single currency has been disastrous for some participants. Even relatively prosperous first world countries like Italy, Spain and France have and are suffering massively by being tied in to the Euro (effectively to Germany) to the extent that they cannot devalue their relatively inefficient economies (currencies) in order to remain competitive on a world stage.
But Germany is prospering from the Euro because it now enjoys currency exchange rates that are at least 30% lower than would have been the case with the Deutschmark, because the Euro is 'valued' internationally in a way which includes the economies of Spain, France, Italy, Eire, Holland (which is currently teetering on the brink of collapse) and many other economies that are a mere shadow of these formerly successful economies. Like Albana, Greece Romania and Bulgaria.
The EU was established to protect smaller countries from domination by the bigger ones after the last unpleasantness (WW2). It was originally designed (so they tell us) to prevent any more European wars, to protect the weaker nation states and to promote the European diversity that I think we all value. I love Spain because it's Spain. Italy because etc. If I want Germany, I'll go to Germany. The richness of culture, music, food; the differences we find when we visit European countries is what makes them special and valuable in my opinion. The EU is a massive threat to this - it wants to homogenise the continent. To iron out any quirks, any foibles. Any health and safety differences, working hours, retirement policies, taxation systems.
It (the EU) seems to me to want everywhere to be Germany. Efficient. Productive. Soulless. Boring. I'm not saying Germany is boring by the way: It has wonderful culture and great people, music, arts places, history. What I am saying is that it is not Italy or France or Spain - they and others - have their own specialness. Their own value and culture and the EU seems to me to be wanting to subvert those qualities in a way which will make them disappear.
Anyway, here's the rub. Apologies for the wistful rambling!
If the UK stays in the EU we will ultimately have to give up the pound. You simply cannot have a single European state, with universal tax and benefits laws without a single universal currency. There is no model anywhere on earth, in which a single body/government has (or could) operate successfully without having a single currency. if it wants (as the EU does) to homogenise tax raising powers and governance. Some people might point to Canada which has its own currency and is closely linked economically with the US. But it is not governed by the US. The EU model sees us being governed (as we increasingly are) from Brussels.
So just as in 1971 when we signed up to the beneficial 'common market' (which has since developed without our approval into the less-about-trade-and-more-abut-control European Economic Community and now the fully fledged EU), a vote to stay in the EU - or having no opportunity to vote in a referendum - will see us ultimately having to join the Eurozone and give up the pound.
There is no other alternative. But that emotive issue will not be on the ballot paper.
It will simply be the next 'it's not really very important' issue after we either vote to stay in or are denied that vote as this 'death by a thousand cuts' process rumbles on.
As I say you might be entirely cool about this whole thing.
You might well take a 'yeah whatever' approach. That approach has been promoted by the way by the endless joke EU directives on straight bananas, olives etc, to the extent where most people switch off when another EU story breaks. So that when a real biggie comes along, (like retaining one's nation state) people are not interested.
But make no mistake, if we vote to stay in - or, more likely we are denied a vote - we will be giving up not only the pound but our ability to control our own destiny as a nation. And our foreign policy (for example) will be decided by 27 other countries' views rather than our own. I'm not sure if I'd be happy about that if I lived in Gibraltar or the Falklands.
The funny thing (to me) is, that if we left the EU, it would almost certainly fail. We're the second biggest net contributor after Germany. If it failed almost all of southern Europe would be better off. And yet we are ridiculed by EU MPs who show their disdain for the UK endlessly from their ivory towers.
Dave holds many aces in his renegotiation stance but sadly I think he's struggling with the game of 'snap' let alone serious poker.
But then he's a Europhile anyway. What hope is there for us? Farage?
Yikes.
Thanks for reading.
It would be like the USA where there is a national government making most of the laws but where individual states have the ability to make some limited laws of their own. But where 'local laws' are subservient to the national 'voice'.
You may have views on this scenario, positive or negative. You might think that an overall, Europe-wide controlling government and defense force would be a good thing. You might, like me, feel that being governed from further away, by people you don't know and who, crucially, know nothing of your local issues would be a negative step in terms of democracy and influence.
You might think that bringing some corrupt regimes and relatively poor people into a bigger 'club' will have a positive effect on prosperity in those countries over time. Alternatively you might think that aligning a 'first world' economy with others in which corruption is a way of life, will have a detrimental effect upon our own hard won (relative) prosperity, laws and freedoms.
As we have seen, harnessing unequal partners into a single currency has been disastrous for some participants. Even relatively prosperous first world countries like Italy, Spain and France have and are suffering massively by being tied in to the Euro (effectively to Germany) to the extent that they cannot devalue their relatively inefficient economies (currencies) in order to remain competitive on a world stage.
But Germany is prospering from the Euro because it now enjoys currency exchange rates that are at least 30% lower than would have been the case with the Deutschmark, because the Euro is 'valued' internationally in a way which includes the economies of Spain, France, Italy, Eire, Holland (which is currently teetering on the brink of collapse) and many other economies that are a mere shadow of these formerly successful economies. Like Albana, Greece Romania and Bulgaria.
The EU was established to protect smaller countries from domination by the bigger ones after the last unpleasantness (WW2). It was originally designed (so they tell us) to prevent any more European wars, to protect the weaker nation states and to promote the European diversity that I think we all value. I love Spain because it's Spain. Italy because etc. If I want Germany, I'll go to Germany. The richness of culture, music, food; the differences we find when we visit European countries is what makes them special and valuable in my opinion. The EU is a massive threat to this - it wants to homogenise the continent. To iron out any quirks, any foibles. Any health and safety differences, working hours, retirement policies, taxation systems.
It (the EU) seems to me to want everywhere to be Germany. Efficient. Productive. Soulless. Boring. I'm not saying Germany is boring by the way: It has wonderful culture and great people, music, arts places, history. What I am saying is that it is not Italy or France or Spain - they and others - have their own specialness. Their own value and culture and the EU seems to me to be wanting to subvert those qualities in a way which will make them disappear.
Anyway, here's the rub. Apologies for the wistful rambling!
If the UK stays in the EU we will ultimately have to give up the pound. You simply cannot have a single European state, with universal tax and benefits laws without a single universal currency. There is no model anywhere on earth, in which a single body/government has (or could) operate successfully without having a single currency. if it wants (as the EU does) to homogenise tax raising powers and governance. Some people might point to Canada which has its own currency and is closely linked economically with the US. But it is not governed by the US. The EU model sees us being governed (as we increasingly are) from Brussels.
So just as in 1971 when we signed up to the beneficial 'common market' (which has since developed without our approval into the less-about-trade-and-more-abut-control European Economic Community and now the fully fledged EU), a vote to stay in the EU - or having no opportunity to vote in a referendum - will see us ultimately having to join the Eurozone and give up the pound.
There is no other alternative. But that emotive issue will not be on the ballot paper.
It will simply be the next 'it's not really very important' issue after we either vote to stay in or are denied that vote as this 'death by a thousand cuts' process rumbles on.
As I say you might be entirely cool about this whole thing.
You might well take a 'yeah whatever' approach. That approach has been promoted by the way by the endless joke EU directives on straight bananas, olives etc, to the extent where most people switch off when another EU story breaks. So that when a real biggie comes along, (like retaining one's nation state) people are not interested.
But make no mistake, if we vote to stay in - or, more likely we are denied a vote - we will be giving up not only the pound but our ability to control our own destiny as a nation. And our foreign policy (for example) will be decided by 27 other countries' views rather than our own. I'm not sure if I'd be happy about that if I lived in Gibraltar or the Falklands.
The funny thing (to me) is, that if we left the EU, it would almost certainly fail. We're the second biggest net contributor after Germany. If it failed almost all of southern Europe would be better off. And yet we are ridiculed by EU MPs who show their disdain for the UK endlessly from their ivory towers.
Dave holds many aces in his renegotiation stance but sadly I think he's struggling with the game of 'snap' let alone serious poker.
But then he's a Europhile anyway. What hope is there for us? Farage?
Yikes.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)