Isn't it fun when there's an awkward bugger before you in the queue for the bus? Wouldn't life be easier if these difficult people would just disappear? Well now there's a means to that end, friend: it's called CAPITALISM!
So there I am with my bus ticket and the guy in front of me, with a pair of crutches, presents his ticket to the driver. Unfortunately it appears it's the wrong ticket. He wants to get back to Bristol, but the driver is having none of it because - according to him - the ticket is not valid in Weston super Mare. It's a Bristol zone ticket which doesn't cover the journey he's making. In response the guy makes an appeal to ignorance: why was he sold the wrong ticket then when he asked to go to somewhere that the ticket he was sold won't allow.
It doesn't really help that First Bus' ticket system is a complete nightmare. But that's the price of profit I guess. You might reasonably think the solution would be to just have one ticket and allow people to travel with it - after all it's not as if there's a whole raft of people just waiting to abuse this by spending all day making frivolous journeys. Even if that were the case, so what? It's not as if the buses aren't running and there aren't seats.
I digress.
You see this is a problem that only exists because of our economic system. I have no idea whether the guy was trying it on or not, I couldn't see the ticket. In the end he had to pay the difference and required the help of someone generous enough to give him 70p to do so. The driver was having none of it.
It's a problem because the driver is placed into a position where he has to assume the worst. It's his job that will be on the line once the accountants notice a shortfall in that route's takings. I did note that he seemed a little too eager to reach that conclusion, mind you.
There's no system in place for what happens to people left in that situation. What if it had been a school pupil? A person of limited capacity or old age? First doesn't care because...profit. They have to assume that guy is trying it on or tough shit. The only reason this situation exists is because First wants to make a profit. Despite the fact they are running what is essentially and entirely a necessary public service, their only priority is to ensure that they are not down £2.70. If you b the wrong ticket by mistake (yours or the drivers) that's too bad and you can expect, along with your crutches, to toddle off to who cares.
This everyday example, something we see all the time I would assume, is a perfect example of just how capitalism poisons us. In any other world those two people would have been birds of a feather. In fact they likely are: two members of the working class. I doubt that guy was the Secret Millionaire or something, or Undercover Boss. No, he's just trying to get by having to depend on the value of his labour, just the same as the driver, but the capitalist class, through the mechanisms of the system, set them against each other. It's another day at the master's table, count the crumbs plebs.
Saturday, 30 September 2017
Saturday, 23 September 2017
Welcome to Little England Where I Ride The Highest of Horses!
I think that's a suitably pretentious title. Also note, this is (and not for the first time) the pettiest and shrillest of rants you are likely to ever hear from me. Enjoy.
So I take a walk usually two or sometimes three times a day. I follow the same route which takes me across the local cricket pitch. Technically this field is privately owned, though I don't respect those rights. Why: because I don't agree that the earth should be subject to private property rights and because these are communal resources. That's not an invitation to vandalism or neglect of course.
I walk across the middle of the pitch and someone shouts at me. I can't hear him, which no doubt provokes him. Apparently he's 'scarified' that part of the field, despite it looking like a muddy puddle with no fence, signage or obvious indication of groundwork. Had that been the case I'd have avoided it, it's not an imposition to do so.
What then ensues is a ridiculous argument that, in my opinion, betrays the attitude of the Little Englander and his 'my home is my castle' mentality, so prevalent hereabouts. I think it's a fascinating insight into the mind of Middle England, carefully disguised as a petty article on a cheap blog :D
So I have no idea what he's talking about, though I later discover, after his passive aggressiveness gets turned all the way to 11, it's seeding new grass. There's no indication of this at all, they couldn't be bothered to put up a sign saying 'mind the square', which would have taken five minutes to do.
This is all red rag to me, stupidly of course. All he had to do was walk over respectfully and politely warn me off explaining what was happening. That would have been fine, I've no desire to cause a problem. So I'm on the square at this point and he's getting angry because he couldn't say prior to me entering the forbidden zone to mind where I was walking. This is after he repeatedly flounces off, waving his arm at me muttering 'forget about it'. Stupidly (more) I keep pushing him on this. Why: because I know what these people are like. This is the local recreation club/sports club people and they swan around like they own the place.
This is the Little England: it's where these long standing cliques assert their authority. My problem with him wasn't that I was doing something I shouldn't, it's that he assumes that I should know this, and, that my response isn't a grovelling forelock tugging apology to the local village godfathers, I'm in the wrong immediately. It doesn't seem to cross his mind that all he had to do was walk over politely and ask me to watch where I was walking. No problems mate.
Instead he points out that I've walked into the forbidden zone as if I've deliberately set out to vandalise this sacred space - and believe me that's how these people behave: it's their land and woe betide anyone else who dares use it. There's a sign on the fence at the edge warning people to keep their dogs on leads. Nobody does, including members of this group. This is their world and what they say goes; recently they held a referendum which successfully granted them permission to build a massive new clubhouse right onto the adjacent recreation field. The result of this will be to impede the view across the entire field (which is something I consider important), and deny a huge chunk of it to the community at large. Regardless of legal rights, these fields are enjoyed by lots of people.
The most telling statement though was him pointing out that he's seen me do this many times before, which is true: I always walk across that part of the field (unless it is obviously being worked on or fenced off). So he's had ample opportunity to speak to me to make sure there isn't a problem. Why then hasn't he? Does he not care? No, what he expects is for me to say how high when the village mafia demand that I jump.
I point out his attitude is terrible, my dander is up at this point. Not a terribly productive way to behave, but I feel like I'm being held hostage by his passive aggressive attitude. He does that think where he walks right up close and then waves his arm and walks off saying 'forget it', as if to say "you're a moron". Nope, I just expect a bit more respect from people demanding the same of me, especially without precedent. If you can't signpost your intentions to work on the field, I can't divine them.
He ends by saying "fucking asshole" (I'm sure I'm that, for all sorts of reasons!) but not before informing me, right in my face, that he was a local copper for 26 years. So what? Is he going to use the police powers he no longer has to arrest me for a crime that hasn't been committed?
Why is all this relevant? Because it shows how these people think: they expect you to comply to their rules in the community they perceive to be theirs. Rules you don't know that would be upheld as 'common sense', because that's how people think these days. Common sense is appealed to and invoked all the time by those who struggle against the ghost of political correctness and the Daily Mail infused spectre of "health and safety gorn maaaaaad!". When you fail to comply to the village mafia a blunt and boorish appeal to authority is issued, no matter how crass or irrelevant. What the fuck do I care you were a policeman; this isn't a legal matter and you ain't no copper anymore!
This is the ugly face of Little England. This is their fiefdom, carved from linseed and willow, cricket stumps and cucumber sandwiches. A world where local cliques run rackets around everyone else because that's the tradition. Now I look forward to an afternoon of swearing little league soccer players in the field nearby kicking the ball at my window without a care. Pip pip!
So I take a walk usually two or sometimes three times a day. I follow the same route which takes me across the local cricket pitch. Technically this field is privately owned, though I don't respect those rights. Why: because I don't agree that the earth should be subject to private property rights and because these are communal resources. That's not an invitation to vandalism or neglect of course.
I walk across the middle of the pitch and someone shouts at me. I can't hear him, which no doubt provokes him. Apparently he's 'scarified' that part of the field, despite it looking like a muddy puddle with no fence, signage or obvious indication of groundwork. Had that been the case I'd have avoided it, it's not an imposition to do so.
What then ensues is a ridiculous argument that, in my opinion, betrays the attitude of the Little Englander and his 'my home is my castle' mentality, so prevalent hereabouts. I think it's a fascinating insight into the mind of Middle England, carefully disguised as a petty article on a cheap blog :D
So I have no idea what he's talking about, though I later discover, after his passive aggressiveness gets turned all the way to 11, it's seeding new grass. There's no indication of this at all, they couldn't be bothered to put up a sign saying 'mind the square', which would have taken five minutes to do.
This is all red rag to me, stupidly of course. All he had to do was walk over respectfully and politely warn me off explaining what was happening. That would have been fine, I've no desire to cause a problem. So I'm on the square at this point and he's getting angry because he couldn't say prior to me entering the forbidden zone to mind where I was walking. This is after he repeatedly flounces off, waving his arm at me muttering 'forget about it'. Stupidly (more) I keep pushing him on this. Why: because I know what these people are like. This is the local recreation club/sports club people and they swan around like they own the place.
This is the Little England: it's where these long standing cliques assert their authority. My problem with him wasn't that I was doing something I shouldn't, it's that he assumes that I should know this, and, that my response isn't a grovelling forelock tugging apology to the local village godfathers, I'm in the wrong immediately. It doesn't seem to cross his mind that all he had to do was walk over politely and ask me to watch where I was walking. No problems mate.
Instead he points out that I've walked into the forbidden zone as if I've deliberately set out to vandalise this sacred space - and believe me that's how these people behave: it's their land and woe betide anyone else who dares use it. There's a sign on the fence at the edge warning people to keep their dogs on leads. Nobody does, including members of this group. This is their world and what they say goes; recently they held a referendum which successfully granted them permission to build a massive new clubhouse right onto the adjacent recreation field. The result of this will be to impede the view across the entire field (which is something I consider important), and deny a huge chunk of it to the community at large. Regardless of legal rights, these fields are enjoyed by lots of people.
The most telling statement though was him pointing out that he's seen me do this many times before, which is true: I always walk across that part of the field (unless it is obviously being worked on or fenced off). So he's had ample opportunity to speak to me to make sure there isn't a problem. Why then hasn't he? Does he not care? No, what he expects is for me to say how high when the village mafia demand that I jump.
I point out his attitude is terrible, my dander is up at this point. Not a terribly productive way to behave, but I feel like I'm being held hostage by his passive aggressive attitude. He does that think where he walks right up close and then waves his arm and walks off saying 'forget it', as if to say "you're a moron". Nope, I just expect a bit more respect from people demanding the same of me, especially without precedent. If you can't signpost your intentions to work on the field, I can't divine them.
He ends by saying "fucking asshole" (I'm sure I'm that, for all sorts of reasons!) but not before informing me, right in my face, that he was a local copper for 26 years. So what? Is he going to use the police powers he no longer has to arrest me for a crime that hasn't been committed?
Why is all this relevant? Because it shows how these people think: they expect you to comply to their rules in the community they perceive to be theirs. Rules you don't know that would be upheld as 'common sense', because that's how people think these days. Common sense is appealed to and invoked all the time by those who struggle against the ghost of political correctness and the Daily Mail infused spectre of "health and safety gorn maaaaaad!". When you fail to comply to the village mafia a blunt and boorish appeal to authority is issued, no matter how crass or irrelevant. What the fuck do I care you were a policeman; this isn't a legal matter and you ain't no copper anymore!
This is the ugly face of Little England. This is their fiefdom, carved from linseed and willow, cricket stumps and cucumber sandwiches. A world where local cliques run rackets around everyone else because that's the tradition. Now I look forward to an afternoon of swearing little league soccer players in the field nearby kicking the ball at my window without a care. Pip pip!
Sunday, 17 September 2017
What do I think employment figures mean?
Seems like every time these figures come out, if they are preferable, the government takes credit.
That's as bonkers as DEFRA claiming that, if the weather's nice, it's down to the government. I'm surprised they haven't tried that one yet.
The Tories have done precisely nothing to positively affect labour market conditions, how can they? They would argue their policies favouring low tax and no regulation (i.e. no workers rights) make Britain attractive for employers. But the truth is that it is demand that drives employment; no boss is going to hire people just because he has less red tape to deal with and less corporation tax to pay because that would eat into his profit margin.
If there's increased demand for his commodity then that is the most likely - but by no means guaranteed - stimulus for taking on more staff. But even then it is just as, possibly more so, likely that he will simply cut his wage bill (again, the issue of curtailing workers rights and putting industrial tribunals out of reach for the plebs) and/or compel existing workers to do more. We can see this too through the propaganda associated with 'hard work'; it is a perennial tool in the capitalist toolbox: work harder and be valued more in society - by friends, neighbours and of course family. Especially if you're a man (but pay no attention to rising male suicide and the rising rates of depression - one of the top three most compelling health problems of our age).
This week the latest unemployment figures revealed a drop of less than one percent in the number of people registered unemployed. There is also a rise in the number of people employed. Whether the two correlate exactly I don't know, so I have no way of knowing how we can account for what happened to those people no longer registered. They could be economically inactive, they could be starving, sanctioned, on the sick, or subject to any statistical DWP shenanigans. Obviously some will have found work.
But so what? The labour market itself is fundamentally precarious. Low wages, and below the rate of inflation, simply means that you're at best trading one shit income for another with no guarantee that, a year from now, the situation won't be reversed. But the Tories don't care, and so this nonsense will play to their voters who will correlated this supposed success with their nasty attitude to the unemployed. That's the real issue for me: that Tory supporters will see this as vindicating their hateful attitude. We know it doesn't work; Universal Credit hasn't fully rolled out and is utterly dysfunctional, no help is given to people found fit for work, and the Jobcentre does nothing to help people other than refer them as cheap labour (look how that works!) or send them to schemes that haven't the power to do anything either (except threaten people with referrals to decision makers).
There is nothing the Tories can take credit for. A small dip (which may well be a few thousand people - lives that of course matter) is, in my opinion, a blip. It is just the shifting current of economic winds, and it is these winds that still have the power to blow apart the house of cards that is the capitalist economy. The Tories can't control it, probably don't want to, and so it's our lives that are affected when that house collapses, and it's entirely possible that could happen again soon.
That's as bonkers as DEFRA claiming that, if the weather's nice, it's down to the government. I'm surprised they haven't tried that one yet.
The Tories have done precisely nothing to positively affect labour market conditions, how can they? They would argue their policies favouring low tax and no regulation (i.e. no workers rights) make Britain attractive for employers. But the truth is that it is demand that drives employment; no boss is going to hire people just because he has less red tape to deal with and less corporation tax to pay because that would eat into his profit margin.
If there's increased demand for his commodity then that is the most likely - but by no means guaranteed - stimulus for taking on more staff. But even then it is just as, possibly more so, likely that he will simply cut his wage bill (again, the issue of curtailing workers rights and putting industrial tribunals out of reach for the plebs) and/or compel existing workers to do more. We can see this too through the propaganda associated with 'hard work'; it is a perennial tool in the capitalist toolbox: work harder and be valued more in society - by friends, neighbours and of course family. Especially if you're a man (but pay no attention to rising male suicide and the rising rates of depression - one of the top three most compelling health problems of our age).
This week the latest unemployment figures revealed a drop of less than one percent in the number of people registered unemployed. There is also a rise in the number of people employed. Whether the two correlate exactly I don't know, so I have no way of knowing how we can account for what happened to those people no longer registered. They could be economically inactive, they could be starving, sanctioned, on the sick, or subject to any statistical DWP shenanigans. Obviously some will have found work.
But so what? The labour market itself is fundamentally precarious. Low wages, and below the rate of inflation, simply means that you're at best trading one shit income for another with no guarantee that, a year from now, the situation won't be reversed. But the Tories don't care, and so this nonsense will play to their voters who will correlated this supposed success with their nasty attitude to the unemployed. That's the real issue for me: that Tory supporters will see this as vindicating their hateful attitude. We know it doesn't work; Universal Credit hasn't fully rolled out and is utterly dysfunctional, no help is given to people found fit for work, and the Jobcentre does nothing to help people other than refer them as cheap labour (look how that works!) or send them to schemes that haven't the power to do anything either (except threaten people with referrals to decision makers).
There is nothing the Tories can take credit for. A small dip (which may well be a few thousand people - lives that of course matter) is, in my opinion, a blip. It is just the shifting current of economic winds, and it is these winds that still have the power to blow apart the house of cards that is the capitalist economy. The Tories can't control it, probably don't want to, and so it's our lives that are affected when that house collapses, and it's entirely possible that could happen again soon.
Friday, 15 September 2017
Experiment 2 - Class War!
Another opportunity to stare at an overgrown reed bed - this time with added fencing!
You can also listen to me rant some more about that bizarre human mantis aristocrat, Mogg, as well as the recent nonsense about falling unemployment, and the general class war that I think we're in (were we ever out?).
Thanks for watching, I intend to look into the unemployment thing a bit more.
You can also listen to me rant some more about that bizarre human mantis aristocrat, Mogg, as well as the recent nonsense about falling unemployment, and the general class war that I think we're in (were we ever out?).
Thanks for watching, I intend to look into the unemployment thing a bit more.
Sunday, 10 September 2017
Experiment 1 - Moggadons All Round
I thought I'd try something. I made a Youtube clip while I was out on walkabout. Please enjoy an incoherent rant surrounding by dying plants. Feel free to like (or not), subscribe (or not), or ignore, or whatever. This is just, as they say, a test.
Tuesday, 5 September 2017
Experiments in Sound and Vision
Youtube is all the rage these days - that is, there are a lot of angry people on Youtube spreading rage, and indeed outrage.
However I'm posting this as an experiment: I'm tempted to dip my toe into the Youtube water. I've participated in Hangouts (conference calls on Youtube using Google + accounts) before and now I'm interested in finding out if there's enough interest in hosting such things, with a view to discussing the sorts of issues I talk about here.
Of course that means addressing such issues as anonymity and privacy since no one should be forced to show themselves on camera or risk being doxxed. People that do that are just bullies and I want nothing to do with them.
There's a lot of angry right wing trolls on Youtube, they spread a lot of bullshit from the comfort of their Patreon-fuelled armchairs. It would be interesting to hear, in a respectful space, a discussion of how things can be different and better in our broken country.
One day I'll get around to talking about some of these people; one of the more (in)famous of these trolls lives not a million miles from here (depressingly). For now, here's a fantastic take down of one of them, an acolyte of the Alex Jones school of paranoia called Paul Joseph Watson. A grubby little shoutist who sits at home sneering at everyone left of him (which would seem to be everyone that isn't him).
.
However I'm posting this as an experiment: I'm tempted to dip my toe into the Youtube water. I've participated in Hangouts (conference calls on Youtube using Google + accounts) before and now I'm interested in finding out if there's enough interest in hosting such things, with a view to discussing the sorts of issues I talk about here.
Of course that means addressing such issues as anonymity and privacy since no one should be forced to show themselves on camera or risk being doxxed. People that do that are just bullies and I want nothing to do with them.
There's a lot of angry right wing trolls on Youtube, they spread a lot of bullshit from the comfort of their Patreon-fuelled armchairs. It would be interesting to hear, in a respectful space, a discussion of how things can be different and better in our broken country.
One day I'll get around to talking about some of these people; one of the more (in)famous of these trolls lives not a million miles from here (depressingly). For now, here's a fantastic take down of one of them, an acolyte of the Alex Jones school of paranoia called Paul Joseph Watson. A grubby little shoutist who sits at home sneering at everyone left of him (which would seem to be everyone that isn't him).
.
Sunday, 3 September 2017
U.N. and Them
What are my thoughts on this?
It's a humanitarian crisis. Is that a phrase we should only reserve for famines in Africa or force majeure? We seem to have a blind spot to these things when they are on our own doorstep - it couldn't happen here, could it?
Yes.
Seven years of the most brutal selfish and greedy governance, not to mention the least competent, has brought us to the point where the United Nations are telling the Tories they are causing a 'human catastrophe' amongst the disabled and the sick. This is not the first time, and even that doesn't include their comments on the hated and spiteful (not to mention ineffectual) Bedroom Tax.
Do the Tories persist with these policies because they actually believe they are correct or even moral?
Or is it because they have no other way to appease the media attack dogs and/or the braying Shirefolk that delight in persecuting the poor as they do torturing foxes and badgers?
Is it both?
We have a government, in a first world country that, for a time, appeared to be at the top of the world's league tables for a great many things. Now we have a country where the streets are paved with sleeping bags and broken souls.
A country where people have to do without the support they need, not just to live independently (ie work and pay taxes) but to live at all.
You might think this awful reality would galvanise those opposed to the careerist policies of the bumbling ideologues of the blue rinse brigade, but instead the reality is one of division. It is the oldest game in town: the less people have, the more they fight amongst themselves. It must be the fault of Muslims, refugees (who are all Muslims because brown skin, right?), people in wheelchairs, people on crutches, people without jobs, people with their curtains shut at the wrong time of day. Your life is shit because of them. So let's take what little they have and...wait, you're putting it straight back into your pocket!
This question was raised in the Canary by journalist Steve Topple: can the disabled community ever recover from this. That's a question none of us should have to contemplate. Are blue badges becoming the new yellow stars? When will this end? How many more have to die or lose their dignity before someone stands up and says enough?
Don't be telling me I'm invoking Godwin's Law; it always starts at a low level, and there's always people to downplay the brutality marginalising those that speak out before it's too late. We must listen to those who know, and what they are telling us is real. This is a human catastrophe.
It's a humanitarian crisis. Is that a phrase we should only reserve for famines in Africa or force majeure? We seem to have a blind spot to these things when they are on our own doorstep - it couldn't happen here, could it?
Yes.
Seven years of the most brutal selfish and greedy governance, not to mention the least competent, has brought us to the point where the United Nations are telling the Tories they are causing a 'human catastrophe' amongst the disabled and the sick. This is not the first time, and even that doesn't include their comments on the hated and spiteful (not to mention ineffectual) Bedroom Tax.
Do the Tories persist with these policies because they actually believe they are correct or even moral?
Or is it because they have no other way to appease the media attack dogs and/or the braying Shirefolk that delight in persecuting the poor as they do torturing foxes and badgers?
Is it both?
We have a government, in a first world country that, for a time, appeared to be at the top of the world's league tables for a great many things. Now we have a country where the streets are paved with sleeping bags and broken souls.
A country where people have to do without the support they need, not just to live independently (ie work and pay taxes) but to live at all.
You might think this awful reality would galvanise those opposed to the careerist policies of the bumbling ideologues of the blue rinse brigade, but instead the reality is one of division. It is the oldest game in town: the less people have, the more they fight amongst themselves. It must be the fault of Muslims, refugees (who are all Muslims because brown skin, right?), people in wheelchairs, people on crutches, people without jobs, people with their curtains shut at the wrong time of day. Your life is shit because of them. So let's take what little they have and...wait, you're putting it straight back into your pocket!
This question was raised in the Canary by journalist Steve Topple: can the disabled community ever recover from this. That's a question none of us should have to contemplate. Are blue badges becoming the new yellow stars? When will this end? How many more have to die or lose their dignity before someone stands up and says enough?
Don't be telling me I'm invoking Godwin's Law; it always starts at a low level, and there's always people to downplay the brutality marginalising those that speak out before it's too late. We must listen to those who know, and what they are telling us is real. This is a human catastrophe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)