Leveson Boredom

I cannot be the only one who is completely bored with the Leveson Inquiry, the tittle-tattle of who said what to whom and when; how many times Dave texted Rebekah; whether they met at a point-to-point meeting or at a fair in Chipping Norton. The entire matter holds as much interest for me as does the latest goings-on in one of the soap operas that daily appear on the television screen. Ah, hang on………..

It is not just the Leveson Inquiry with which I am becoming bored, but politics in general. “My government…..” intones the Queen. Her government? Her government, the real one in Brussels, is no more hers than it is mine. Recognising that her speech is actually written by the Cabinet of the day one has to ask which idiot wrote: “My government is committed to reducing and preventing crime”. Do we not have a police force, which costs us quite a bit, to do just that? So just what the hell business is it of government?

We are informed by John Lawson, head of pension policy at Standard Life, that if, after 2026, the state pension age increases in line with changing life expectancy anyone who is now 37 won’t be able to start drawing their state pension until they are 70; and that for anyone born in 2012, it would mean their having to work until they are 80. Let us assume someone born today follows a career in the building trade as a bricklayer – just how many bricks will a 79 year-old actually lay and thus remain productive to his employer? This to me sounds very much like a state-sponsored euthanasia scheme – keep the buggers working until they drop. And the increase in life expectancy has come as a surprise to politicians? Have they not been fed statistics on an annual basis that would have informed them of this had they bothered to read them?

Apparently, if newspaper reports are to be believed, householders will pay for wind farms under new laws by means of costly subsidies for ‘green’ electricity averaging a further £200 increase in electricity bills. We then find Ed Miliband accusing the coalition of having an energy policy which contains nothing to help people struggling to make ends meet. And Ed Miliband would do what differently? The man is just as wedded to the same policy as the Coalition!

According to Twitter, Andy Coulson does not want more barriers put between politicians and journalists as public interest in politics is falling. Perhaps Coulson needs reminding that if journalists did that which they ought to do – ie, educating the public about the shenanigans that passes for politics and holding politicians to account, public disinterest would be negated. Of course, there is also the point that if politicians did not have the power over the people that they do then the relationship twixt politician and journalist would not be the issue that it has become.

Reverting to my previous post in which I posted a video of an interview with Thomas Sowell, one cannot help repeating his remark about Obama and applying it to Philip Hammond, who has been put in charge of a department of state dealing with a matter about which Hammond has not the slightest experience, by a person of similar inexperience or understanding. And we accept a system of democracy which allows such a crass decision to be made?

When considering how our system of democracy should be changed to one that puts the people in charge of their own destiny – and the cost of said change – would it not be simpler and cheaper were we not to just hang the lot of them and start with a clean sheet?

Just a thought………..

 

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

15 Responses

  1. I have watched most of the Leveson Inquiry and compared to Lord Hutton, I am very very impressed with the judge. he expressed today a wish to have completed his task and be set free indeed for (I suppose the word is ‘proper’) judging elsewhere.
    I agree with Dr Richard North of Eureferendum.com that there is very little interest in this outside of the Rosencrantz and guildenstern courtiers in Westminster.
    http://www.eureferendum.com/Default.aspx

    However I generally think that 24 Hour TV News has had every right to cover this live.

    Nonetheless when the police march in London was so little covered today because of Leveson, it has made me rethink. Coulson could have been adequately covered in a two minute on the hour precis.

    The 20% police cuts will hurt real people everywhere unless like HS2 (Cameron’s train set) seen off.

    The only people who can be indifferent are the present Westminster and ex-Westminster, Whitehall, Royal Park set who have staggering police protection including military and armed police. I do not despise them this. I just want good police levels for every community.
    Unlike the NHS where senior management will greedily absorb increase in funding by just adding if possible another 0 to their pay, the police do use the resources they are given to fight frontline crime.
    Unlike Leveson, the removal of frontline police officers will directly affect communities far from the Westminster court.
    http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2012/05/please-oppose-police-cuts-and-please-note-the-avengers-is-headed-for-1-billion-box-office-by-the-weekend-but-non-us-revenue-will-still-be-the-biggest/

  2. Edward Spalton says:

    The Leveson enquiry is interesting to the political class and their parasitic commentariat because it is about THEM.

    Ian Hislop pointed out succinctly that all the dreadfull things the press had got up to were already illegal. The law already in position had simply not been enforced.

    The employees of Murdoch et al simply would not have dared get up to the industrial scale criminality revealed, if they had not had a nod and a wink from the politicians and the police that a blind eye would be turned. Indeed the police were in on the racket, being wined and dined and getting bungs.

    With regard to pensions, it is obvious that the present levels (particularly in the public service) simply cannot be maintained. There has to be a mixture of higher contributions, later retirement and reduced benefits to account for increased longevity. However, it is often a mistake to project trend lines forward. I have known a good few firms go bust from doing that. You are quite right though about people who have physically strenuous occupations – their bodies simply wear out and they don’t draw the pension for as long as those in sedentary jobs.

    • david says:

      Accept that which you write, however I can but repeat had the problem been tackled as it cam to light, perhaps the extension of the working life could well have been avoided – insurance, cutting/nipping public sector pensions in the bud, so to speak?

  3. Peter C says:

    “My government is committed to reducing and preventing crime”

    So might Hitler have said, indeed I have no doubt he did, just as it was the justification for the Stasi and every other police or repressive state in the world. It is not the police’s or the government’s job to reduce and prevent crime, it is the job of society at large and before the government pre-empted it they largely did and did it well.

    I was brought up in a working class home and neither I nor any of my friends, even in our teenage years, were in any way criminally inclined, mischievous and rebellious perhaps, it was the sixties, after all. We had respect for other people and other people’s property. I regularly walked home alone from around the age of 15 from the town centre after meeting/visiting friends between 11.00 pm and two in the morning, using a footpath that ran for about a mile and a half, part of it along side the railway at the bottom of private gardens and part of it skirting the edge of my school’s playing fields. Only once in the six years before we moved away was I ever bothered and that was because as I turned a sharp corner there were four boys and two girls sat along both sides of the path with their legs extending toward each other, effectively blocking the way. Not being foolish I just continued straight on, nodding at them, and as I approached they all drew their legs back. As I passed through them one of them suddenly said, “RIGHT! Let’s do it.” and that was the moment I experienced a flutter of worry. I don’t know what it was they planned, but when I glanced back they were disappearing around the corner in the direction back to town. Did I suddenly start taking the long way home thereafter? No I didn’t, because an incident like that while causing momentary nervousness was not an indication of any danger. In those days there was plenty of violence around, mods and rockers, of course and the effects of drink, but it wasn’t the mindless, random thuggery of today, those ‘having a go’ at each other were for the most part following an agreed encounter, people on the sidelines were not involved unless they chose to involve themselves. Indeed, if you were walking along and came across a group fighting and blocking the way and you were obviously not a part of either, if you called out, “Hang on boys, can I get past?” the likelihood is they would stop fighting and draw back to let you do so, then go back to fighting.

    The government broke up communities, killing the automatic correction and crime prevention of Mrs Jones wagging finger and snarled, ‘you wait ’til you get home, Johnny Smith, don’t you think I won’t be telling your mother what you’ve been up to!’; the government took the local bobbies off the beat, the ones who knew who the real criminals were, who needed keeping an eye on and who was an idiot and treated them appropriately ranging from a stern talking to through a clip around the ear to arrest; the government started pushing people’s rights to do as they liked, the government and Establishment denigrated people that took a stance against antisocial behaviour, putting them in the wrong; the government and Establishment discouraged people from interfering if they saw something, giving free licence to yobs and so on.

    The society we have today is the child of government, no one else is to blame. In order for the government to ‘prevent’ crime it has to assume that every one is a criminal and try to watch everyone, everywhere and all the time, Oh, just like they already do and will soon be monitoring every communication in real time instead of just backtracking the ones that include ‘trigger’ words and phrases. And hasn’t it worked out just peachy up ’til now, NOT!

  4. TomTom says:

    The Elizabethan Era MkII has been an unmitigated disaster. Crime has increased in all areas, especially White Collar Crime which goes unpunished and for which David Laws might be an example. The whole culture is rotten and the economic system is built on fraud and a culture of scamming. That is what has corroded social values.

    Take away work and you take away respect; take away men’s jobs and you undermine their authority. The 1980s devastated swathes of industry and recovery never happened. Whole regions have had 30 years of decline with Banking boosted to replace real production.

    The whole Parliamentary Farce should move to City Varieties in Leeds and revive “The Good Old Days” because it is costume drama in what is increasingly The Wild West

    • blingmun says:

      “The 1980s devastated swathes of industry and recovery never happened.”

      I think you’ll find that the devastation was mostly complete by the late 1970s.

      • TomTom says:

        From experience I disagree. I know which companies were destroyed in the 1980s, I know where their derelict sites are. I know the age of people with HND Engineering backgrounds who do unrelated jobs now their former employers are defunct. I know which takeovers destroyed which plants. I recall how unsupportive Government was of companies when city transaction fees were more important.

    • david says:

      Agreed, maybe surprisingly from your viewpoint……

      This response to your first post – for some reason my replies have got out of sequence!

  5. John says:

    The “increased longevity” applies mainly to those in sedentary occupations. Those lifting bricks, steel, shoveling shit in farmyards and building sites or patrolling streets do not have the same “three-score-years-plus-a-load”, and if they do it is with greatly decreased mobility/ability.
    Not only is it “state sponsored euthanasia”, but it is also state-originated eugenics.
    We seem to be heading backwards, to the 1930′s.
    Mind you, that is what the “green” philosophy has been about since it started.

  6. Ian E says:

    ‘our system of democracy’

    aka Hypocracy.

  7. TomTom says:

    Actually Ian it is KAKISTOCRACY

  8. david says:

    Agreed Edward, but my point about pensions and retirement age is that why has it all been left so late? Why did no-one foresee the problem earlier when they had the stats to do so? Where was the Conservative (at the time) opposition?

    • Peter C says:

      It is not something unknown, David. Margaret Thatcher’s government saw it and introduced private pensions as I am sure you know. Why did they not do the same with the public sector? Afraid to grasp the nettle and do it is the answer. Even the current proposals are little more than tinkering at the edges, in no way are they a solution. Just like Osborne’s ‘cuts’ are cuts in the rate of increase, indeed almost every governments’ cuts are of the same type.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012