Idiots are not always easy to spot. This is unfortunate because idiots can often be dangerous.
Easier to spot fools can be viewed carrying out Jackass type stunts having uploaded their efforts on to the Internet. Or they can often be witnessed under the influence of various substances and flipping their cars over on a field on the programme Police, Camera, Action. Reckless people are not only dangerous to themselves, but also to others. At least in the above examples the stupidity is there to be seen.
Sadly it is not always straightforward. Switch on a news channel most days and you will witness the seemingly ordinary actions of a rather bland individual in a suit. Yet with the power he has, he has the potential to be the most dangerous pathogen in Britain.
I am of course talking about Sunday Supper favourite, the Prime Minister, David Cameron. It was fantastic to see him taking a well-earned break in Egypt following the recent political shifts there, mainly because while he is there Britain gets a well-earned break from his economic sledgehammer being wielded upon all of us.
Despite my hostility towards Cameron, I was actually naive enough to believe he might be out there doing some good, helping to bring down barriers between Britain and other parts of the world and assist Egypt in their transition towards a fully-functioning democracy. Our hero was doing nothing of the sort.
He was there with a group of businessmen, many of whom involved in the arms trade. While democrats around the world were watching from afar at the winds of change, the dyed-in-the-wool Tory realist was over there trying to exploit the situation for commercial gain.
The precarious economic situation here in Britain is no excuse for being so crudely opportunistic. There is no justification for even contemplating the idea of arming a country presently in a state of political flux. Who knows what shape Egyptian political change will take? Contemplating selling arms to a state currently going through transition to an unknown end is idiotic, reckless and dangerous.
Then again, maybe there is little expectation of Egypt evolving into a democracy. With the last Egyptian President removed and hope of an emerging democratic structure, you have to wonder who the businessmen were there to meet - presumably established elites.
While all this was going on, Britons were stranded in the middle of a similar revolt in Libya. The government was slow to act in organising their evacuation. This is no surprise when you consider that Cameron's mind was clearly elsewhere. This incompetence is to be expected from a government which brought us aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
Sometimes I wonder who I would rather have in the British driving seat. David Cameron, or a reckless idiot from Police, Camera, Action?
Sunday 27 February 2011
Sunday 20 February 2011
The Sunday Supper guide to the big society
David Cameron continues to cause confusion in the Tory ranks by using a word which has historically failed to register with many Tories - 'society'.
After years of being coached by headmistress Thatcher that there was no such thing as the elusive 'S' word, now 'society' features prominently in Cameron's rhetoric. So what is this Big Society he keeps talking about?
We at Sunday Supper are not sure either, so we created our own interpretation of it. This definition is probably not too far off, so hopefully it will help those Tories who need the Big Society explained to them.
It is Tory tradition to cut, cut and cut public services. Their proposed cuts may be less extreme if it was not for the global financial crisis and the behaviour of banks. However it is fair to assume that they would have perceived much Labour spending to be "wasteful" anyway and thus taken remedial action.
The Tories have always loved to preside over a state that has a strong backbone but not bloated. They have never been good at welfare - the public are by and large left to get on with it as one by one services are taken away. The exception is the drive towards more bin collections, a public service that has always warmed Tory hearts.
The problem for the Tories is that their dated ideology needs to be communicated to a public which no longer believes in the 1980s 'greed is good' discourse, where individualism reigns supreme.
This is the age of the ethically conscious, where wealth is envied and treated with contempt. Recycling is a principle which flows through the centre ground. If people see something immoral on the television they are online complaining to Ofcom quicker than you can say "Russell Brand".
This is where the Big Society comes in. While services are being retracted, the idea is the public should get involved in helping communities instead, preferably for free. Cuts in elderly care? No worries, the neighbours can cook a meal for the old dears... hopefully. No rubbish collectors anymore? No problem - the locals can 'muck in' and keep things tidy.
The implementation of it all may be difficult for Tories to comprehend, as society working together is an off-centre concept to them, but they should fear not. From this definition, it is not that far removed from the old Tory line. In 1981, when the purse is closed you are on your own. In 2011, when the purse is closed you are still on your own. The only difference is in that 2011 the public are expected to commiserate together.
After years of being coached by headmistress Thatcher that there was no such thing as the elusive 'S' word, now 'society' features prominently in Cameron's rhetoric. So what is this Big Society he keeps talking about?
We at Sunday Supper are not sure either, so we created our own interpretation of it. This definition is probably not too far off, so hopefully it will help those Tories who need the Big Society explained to them.
It is Tory tradition to cut, cut and cut public services. Their proposed cuts may be less extreme if it was not for the global financial crisis and the behaviour of banks. However it is fair to assume that they would have perceived much Labour spending to be "wasteful" anyway and thus taken remedial action.
The Tories have always loved to preside over a state that has a strong backbone but not bloated. They have never been good at welfare - the public are by and large left to get on with it as one by one services are taken away. The exception is the drive towards more bin collections, a public service that has always warmed Tory hearts.
The problem for the Tories is that their dated ideology needs to be communicated to a public which no longer believes in the 1980s 'greed is good' discourse, where individualism reigns supreme.
This is the age of the ethically conscious, where wealth is envied and treated with contempt. Recycling is a principle which flows through the centre ground. If people see something immoral on the television they are online complaining to Ofcom quicker than you can say "Russell Brand".
This is where the Big Society comes in. While services are being retracted, the idea is the public should get involved in helping communities instead, preferably for free. Cuts in elderly care? No worries, the neighbours can cook a meal for the old dears... hopefully. No rubbish collectors anymore? No problem - the locals can 'muck in' and keep things tidy.
The implementation of it all may be difficult for Tories to comprehend, as society working together is an off-centre concept to them, but they should fear not. From this definition, it is not that far removed from the old Tory line. In 1981, when the purse is closed you are on your own. In 2011, when the purse is closed you are still on your own. The only difference is in that 2011 the public are expected to commiserate together.
Lady Gaga: Original?
Whether she is popping out of an egg or wearing an abomination made out of raw meat, Lady Gaga is prepared to scrape any barrel in her ongoing quest to be both original and outrageous.
It is a shame then that this level of individuality does not extend to her music. I have listened to her latest this week, Born This Way, which at best is an over-produced mess. It also happens to bear more than a little resemblance to the Madonna classic, Express Yourself.
I thought it was just me, until I witnessed similar sentiments expressed widely on the World Wide Web. Surely she can do better.
It is a shame then that this level of individuality does not extend to her music. I have listened to her latest this week, Born This Way, which at best is an over-produced mess. It also happens to bear more than a little resemblance to the Madonna classic, Express Yourself.
I thought it was just me, until I witnessed similar sentiments expressed widely on the World Wide Web. Surely she can do better.
Sunday 13 February 2011
Prisoner voting is more than just an European issue
From the wordsmiths who brought us 'Up Yours Delors!', The Sun newspaper's esteemed band of journalists led the delighted anti-European cries of delight after the MPs voted to back a ban of prisoners being allowed the vote. As a European directive, the British taxpayer will potentially have to pick up the tab to pay any possible compensation fees for prisoners.
It never ceases to amaze me how ambivalent a government can be towards unnecessary expenditure, when under normal circumstances its representatives cannot resist using the word 'cuts'. It would seem the implied instructions to the public are 'cut your spending, be grateful for what you have and there will be no further financial help from us'. That is of course unless you are part of the government, a banker or in prison.
We are supposed to be 'in it together' but these folks are having their own private party. Honourable citizens, upstanding members of the community and anyone not old enough to vote are not invited to this one.
The only conflict I have with my position is the concept of prisoners voting makes me uncomfortable. I would have found it difficult to support prisoner voting. If I feel that way, then I am sure some of the more rabid right-wing parliamentarians must have been having sleepless nights about it. This amounts to making the whole anti-European aspect to the discussion somewhat misleading.
I support European integration to an extent, despite the fact every now and again a piece of legislation flows from Europe which I do not particularly like. Then again, I also despise some legislation flowing from Westminster - more so than ever since last May in fact. The problem for Europe is it lacks the same legitimacy Westminster holds in the eyes of the public. So whereas it is the legislation which comes under scrutiny from Westminster, Europe comes under scrutiny from its legislation.
The right-wingers claim the outcome of the prisoners vote is a victory for UK sovereignty over the EU. Others claim it is another example of anti-European posturing. For me this is about neither. It is about policy.
Despite my discomfort, I accept that eventually there will be a need to compromise. A benchmark will be set which establishes the level of seriousness before an offender forfeits their right to civil participation. Then we can move on and put those possible compensation payments to better use.
It never ceases to amaze me how ambivalent a government can be towards unnecessary expenditure, when under normal circumstances its representatives cannot resist using the word 'cuts'. It would seem the implied instructions to the public are 'cut your spending, be grateful for what you have and there will be no further financial help from us'. That is of course unless you are part of the government, a banker or in prison.
We are supposed to be 'in it together' but these folks are having their own private party. Honourable citizens, upstanding members of the community and anyone not old enough to vote are not invited to this one.
The only conflict I have with my position is the concept of prisoners voting makes me uncomfortable. I would have found it difficult to support prisoner voting. If I feel that way, then I am sure some of the more rabid right-wing parliamentarians must have been having sleepless nights about it. This amounts to making the whole anti-European aspect to the discussion somewhat misleading.
I support European integration to an extent, despite the fact every now and again a piece of legislation flows from Europe which I do not particularly like. Then again, I also despise some legislation flowing from Westminster - more so than ever since last May in fact. The problem for Europe is it lacks the same legitimacy Westminster holds in the eyes of the public. So whereas it is the legislation which comes under scrutiny from Westminster, Europe comes under scrutiny from its legislation.
The right-wingers claim the outcome of the prisoners vote is a victory for UK sovereignty over the EU. Others claim it is another example of anti-European posturing. For me this is about neither. It is about policy.
Despite my discomfort, I accept that eventually there will be a need to compromise. A benchmark will be set which establishes the level of seriousness before an offender forfeits their right to civil participation. Then we can move on and put those possible compensation payments to better use.
We are in it together. Are you?
In a week when local authorities are warning exactly what the cuts to public services are going to mean, let us reminisce how David Cameron assured us that 'we're all in this together'. He was right. We are, or at least most of us are.
Those who face losing their jobs in the public sector are definitely in it - up to their necks in it in fact. So are those in the private sector who will lose their jobs when their bosses decide to make cutbacks because of reduced trade that follows mass unemployment.
So are those concerned parents who want to send their children to a good quality state school, still uncertain of whether or not the eroding architectures will ever be refurbished.
So are those who are concerned about the latest round of NHS tinkering and the effect it will have on their own personal health.
So are those wishing to stay healthy by using swimming pools, tennis courts and other affordable local authority leisure facilities, but face losing them as a result of cuts to the public sector.
So are those young ambitious people who wish to professionalise themselves by going on to further education, but face their ambitions jeopardised by cuts to grants and the hyperinflation of university fees.
So are those who would like the security of their own property - particularly in light of Tory policy that social housing provided by the local authorities is no longer for life - but their aspirations are curtailed by unfeasibly high house prices.
When I declare we are all in this together, I know who I mean. I mean those who are tangibly affected by the cuts. I mean those who will lose housing benefit, often following their jobs snatched from them by austerity policies. I mean young people, who seem to have been beaten to a pulp by the knowledge-snatchers of the Conservative Party. I am not so sure who the Tories mean. Judging by the programmes affected by budget cuts, the main victims of these cuts appear to be the working classes and middle classes. Therefore, I would suggest although we are in this together, we are not all in this together. A slight modification to the DC soundbite is needed.
Those who face losing their jobs in the public sector are definitely in it - up to their necks in it in fact. So are those in the private sector who will lose their jobs when their bosses decide to make cutbacks because of reduced trade that follows mass unemployment.
So are those concerned parents who want to send their children to a good quality state school, still uncertain of whether or not the eroding architectures will ever be refurbished.
So are those who are concerned about the latest round of NHS tinkering and the effect it will have on their own personal health.
So are those wishing to stay healthy by using swimming pools, tennis courts and other affordable local authority leisure facilities, but face losing them as a result of cuts to the public sector.
So are those young ambitious people who wish to professionalise themselves by going on to further education, but face their ambitions jeopardised by cuts to grants and the hyperinflation of university fees.
So are those who would like the security of their own property - particularly in light of Tory policy that social housing provided by the local authorities is no longer for life - but their aspirations are curtailed by unfeasibly high house prices.
When I declare we are all in this together, I know who I mean. I mean those who are tangibly affected by the cuts. I mean those who will lose housing benefit, often following their jobs snatched from them by austerity policies. I mean young people, who seem to have been beaten to a pulp by the knowledge-snatchers of the Conservative Party. I am not so sure who the Tories mean. Judging by the programmes affected by budget cuts, the main victims of these cuts appear to be the working classes and middle classes. Therefore, I would suggest although we are in this together, we are not all in this together. A slight modification to the DC soundbite is needed.
This week's 'do as I say' award winner
Football 'pundit' Mark Lawrenson was once again doing his bit for the football managers' union by condemning the sacking of Roberto Di Matteo by West Bromwich Albion.
Admittedly the sacking was a fairly ruthless response to a dip in form of the team Di Matteo had led to the Premier League.
However I would have taken Mark Lawrenson's position a little more seriously if he had not been so emphatic in his view that Roy Hodgson should leave his beloved Liverpool after a difficult start to the campaign, not helped by uncertainty higher up the Liverpool hierarchy.
Of course it always looks different when it is closer to home.
Admittedly the sacking was a fairly ruthless response to a dip in form of the team Di Matteo had led to the Premier League.
However I would have taken Mark Lawrenson's position a little more seriously if he had not been so emphatic in his view that Roy Hodgson should leave his beloved Liverpool after a difficult start to the campaign, not helped by uncertainty higher up the Liverpool hierarchy.
Of course it always looks different when it is closer to home.
Sunday 6 February 2011
Andy Scott leaves Brentford but who next?
A few eyebrows were raised this week when it was announced Andy Scott had been relieved of his duties as manager of Brentford Football Club. Following twenty-seven years of supporting the League One outfit, nothing surprises me anymore, however in this case I felt his journey had come to an end.
There has been a long-term minority of sceptical Bees fans about Scott's capabilities, but I have to admit I only made my mind up about three weeks ago. I was less optimistic the board at the club would follow suit.
Not that I am happy about it. I am not happy at the expense involved in changing the management team. I am not happy that it ended like this, rather than Scott leaving for a bigger club, like he ought to have done. And I am actually quite sad he has gone and wish him well for the future. He will surely get another chance in a new setting
Scott gave us some good times. The League 2 title was fantastic. Brentford's away trip to Leeds last season was memorable, and we thank him for the superb one-off result against Everton in the League Cup earlier this season.
The success against Everton turned out to be a one-off highlight of a fairly miserable 2010/11 season so far. The quality of the football is said to have diminished. From what I have seen on occasions since 2009 it has never been much different, but it never seems to matter as much when results are acceptable. During the month of January, results plummeted in line with the performances.
After a 4-1 mauling at the hands of a team I would rather not mention on this page for risk of suffering total and utter shame (alright, it was Dagenham and Redbridge) the outcome was inevitable. Fans chanted 'Scott out' at the end of the game, including some who had previously backed him.
That did not stop the comedians from coming out in force. The BBC's Football League Show seemed to be a particular victim of prank e-mails. One comment suggested that Scott had been unfairly dismissed after a month of bad results. Well it must have been the longest month of that person's life.
In August, the first home league match of the season, the Bees managed to lose at home to Walsall. If you wish to know how great that result was, I refer you to the League One table. There have been plenty of disappointments since, with giants Leyton Orient, Rochdale and the MK Franchise all picking our pockets.
Nick Forster, a much-loved Bees player has taken temporary charge, and he will be in with a great chance of being installed permanently if results improve. Other candidates include ex-Bristol City manager Gary Johnson, Dennis Wise and - according to one bookie - Justin Edinburgh (I have no idea either).
For once, there are plenty of interesting unemployed names out there - some probably too pricey for the Bees. Nonetheless, we can excite ourselves with names such as Roy Hodgson, Alan Curbishley and Roberto Di Matteo - at least until reality sets in.
With all the options out there, I cannot make a suggestion this time. All I ask is for the club to not mess it up! The right appointment could take them to the next level.
There has been a long-term minority of sceptical Bees fans about Scott's capabilities, but I have to admit I only made my mind up about three weeks ago. I was less optimistic the board at the club would follow suit.
Not that I am happy about it. I am not happy at the expense involved in changing the management team. I am not happy that it ended like this, rather than Scott leaving for a bigger club, like he ought to have done. And I am actually quite sad he has gone and wish him well for the future. He will surely get another chance in a new setting
Scott gave us some good times. The League 2 title was fantastic. Brentford's away trip to Leeds last season was memorable, and we thank him for the superb one-off result against Everton in the League Cup earlier this season.
The success against Everton turned out to be a one-off highlight of a fairly miserable 2010/11 season so far. The quality of the football is said to have diminished. From what I have seen on occasions since 2009 it has never been much different, but it never seems to matter as much when results are acceptable. During the month of January, results plummeted in line with the performances.
After a 4-1 mauling at the hands of a team I would rather not mention on this page for risk of suffering total and utter shame (alright, it was Dagenham and Redbridge) the outcome was inevitable. Fans chanted 'Scott out' at the end of the game, including some who had previously backed him.
That did not stop the comedians from coming out in force. The BBC's Football League Show seemed to be a particular victim of prank e-mails. One comment suggested that Scott had been unfairly dismissed after a month of bad results. Well it must have been the longest month of that person's life.
In August, the first home league match of the season, the Bees managed to lose at home to Walsall. If you wish to know how great that result was, I refer you to the League One table. There have been plenty of disappointments since, with giants Leyton Orient, Rochdale and the MK Franchise all picking our pockets.
Nick Forster, a much-loved Bees player has taken temporary charge, and he will be in with a great chance of being installed permanently if results improve. Other candidates include ex-Bristol City manager Gary Johnson, Dennis Wise and - according to one bookie - Justin Edinburgh (I have no idea either).
For once, there are plenty of interesting unemployed names out there - some probably too pricey for the Bees. Nonetheless, we can excite ourselves with names such as Roy Hodgson, Alan Curbishley and Roberto Di Matteo - at least until reality sets in.
With all the options out there, I cannot make a suggestion this time. All I ask is for the club to not mess it up! The right appointment could take them to the next level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)