Posts Tagged ‘society’

The middle class problem

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

When I say ‘the middle class problem’, I don’t mean that the middle class are a problem in England which must be exterminated. Nor am I referring to wider gripes with the notion of class itself. I’m actually bemoaning the fact that I’ve been beset by what I call a middle class problem. These are a specific kind of problem, which I will illustrate to you via the medium of an example.

My housemate was once leisurely ambling homewards from Cambridge city centre and, upon feeling somewhat peckish, stopped to buy a falaffel wrap from a local purveyor of nourishment. However, there arose an unintended consequence of his consumption of this foodstuff; amidst his ravenous demolition of the aforementioned wrap, he managed to spill houmous on his chinos, rendering them unfit to re-wear until they had been washed.

Now, I don’t imagine that houmous is high up on the shopping lists of those who perceive themselves to have little money. Nor do I imagine that chinos, often acquired for an unjustly elevated price from Gap, are their first thoughts when they wear out a pair of trousers. Both of these products are generally purchased by those with a little disposable income. A problem related to houmous and chinos is, therefore, likely to be confined to the middle classes.

Similarly, when the handsfree chord for your iPhone begins to malfunction, this is a middle class problem.

As I sit atop my duvet, at half an hour to midnight on a cool Summer’s evening – the duvet itself being bought from Marks & Spencer, thus continuing the middle class trend – I am troubled by a different middle class problem, on a level of typical unimportance for such a problem. It’s my foot; it aches because I’ve been walking around too much in my Birkenstock sandals.

Though I can commend them for their sturdy build quality, the sandals are only marginally more pleasant to walk with than my own bare feet. I have sprained a muscle in my left foot simply by walking around in the blasted things.

And that, my humble readers, is a middle class problem.

Mediawatch: In defence of IDS

Saturday, July 3rd, 2010

My thoughts go out to Iain Duncan Smith tonight because, if I were him, I’d be feeling rather frustrated. Over the last week, he has been grossly misquoted and misrepresented by media and politicians alike.

Speaking as an ardent socialist, I naturally believe that there are plenty of evils associated with a Tory-led coalition, but Iain Duncan Smith is not one.  Few cabinet politicians, ever, have been as knowledgeable and astute as him in their field; few have been as fit for the post they are serving as IDS is for his.

Following years of research, IDS and others concluded that Britain’s workforce is too static. That is to say, people remain unemployed because there is not enough of an incentive for them to leave their immediate locality and attempt to find work. A return bus ticket can become an unjustifiable expense.

He has been talking of the need to make it socially and financially viable for people to get to a workplace, or even move house if they are prepared to do so. But only if they wish to.

This has been wildly misconstrued, completely deliberately, to suggest that IDS believes the unemployed are too indolent to get a job, and must be coerced into moving house to fill a vacant job position.

Take a look at the Mirror’s coverage – see ‘Work Secretary Iain Duncan Smith unveils extreme Norman Tebbit-style policy for jobless‘ and ‘Iain Duncan Smith’s advice to struggling families: Let them wear hand-me downs‘. The former even attempts to use a distant familial connection to Princess Diana on his part to indicate that he is of a class which does not care for the ordinary British citizen.

I suppose we expect this of the media; tabloids routinely wholly fabricate stories or construct extreme arguments which are distantly grounded in a mere slither of truth.

But we should expect better of senior Labour politicians. This is Ed Balls’s reaction to IDS’s argument:

“The remarks suggest that he’s thinking of taking away the housing tenure, the right to a social house and saying you’ve got to move.

So actually he’s going further than saying on your bike. It’s on your bike and lose your home.”

Here, we witness Ed Balls lying. This is simply NOT what Duncan Smith is saying, and is not even close. It is despicable that he and his shadow cabinet colleagues would dare to suggest this, and proof that Labour have a long way to go before learning why they have been booted out of power.

Thank god for the Independent, who remain true to their name. In an article entitled ‘Mr Duncan Smith deserves a hearing‘, they offer a brief and balanced analysis of what was actually being said.

Having heard (in person) Duncan-Smith’s argument and knowing about his years of work with the Institute of Social Justice, having witnessed his genuine sincerity and desire for social justice, I am absolutely appalled by the way that media and senior politicians have knowingly and misleadingly portrayed him as a snobbish tyrant.

The attacks on IDS represent exactly the kind of tribalist and pointless partisan politicking which actually prevents social progress in the UK. Labour politicians need to have the integrity to admit that he knows his stuff (which some will actually do); the media should have the integrity to represent him fairly; and the public need to see through this and understand the truth of his remarks.

Iain Duncan-Smith is a man with integrity, intelligence, and a desire to improve the lives of Britain’s less well off. He deserves the trust of the public, and should be left to do his job, free of this bullshit.

Homosexuality and Political Office

Monday, June 21st, 2010

Today I have spent some time reading Welcome to Everytown: A Journey Into The English Mind by Julian Baggini. In the book, he uses his experience of living for six months in England’s most typical postcode in order to make sense of the English mindset.

His experience and reflections are often insightful, but one observation seemed particularly apt in light of recent political events. Consider this:

It’s easy to think that homophobia is a thing of the past, like racism. But both assumptions are demonstrably false. Things have certainly got better, but true equality is still elusive, Britain didn’t get an openly gay member of parliament until Chris Smith in 1984, and it is still common for gay politicians to hide their sexuality. Nor can you blame them. A BBC poll showed that 39% disapprove of homosexuals in high office, and only 48% approve. There is clearly a religious factor hereL 44% of religious people disapproved compared to 26% of those with no religion, But either way, it is a very large number of people for a supposedly tolerant society.

David Laws was recently forced to admit his own sexuality following revelations about his parliamentary expenses. It’s a shame that he felt he ought to cover it up in the first place, as you’d hope that it would be nothing to be ashamed of. Financial wrongdoing aside, it is lamentable that anyone might feel they need to conceal their sexuality from those known to them, or to the wider public.

You’d hope that we, as a society, will become increasingly tolerant to the point where it simply won’t matter.

***

(Welcome To Everytown is written by Julian Baggini, and was first published by Granta in 2001. The extract above was taken from p.89 of the hardback edition).

The St George’s Cross: Racist or not?

Monday, May 31st, 2010

I’ve redecorated my website a little, to move away from the minimalistic white and grey of before, towards an homage to my hero William Morris. As part of this redesign, I’ve included a temporary little feature at the top, to demonstrate my support for the English football team during the upcoming World Cup in South Africa.

This feature, as you will have observed, takes the form of St George’s flag bunting. As it turns out, I don’t think any commonly used flag is currently so divisive as the English national one. For me, it simply conjures up fond thoughts of my home country, and all its beautiful peculiarities. For others, the flag carries connotations of racism and hooliganism.

As neither a racist nor a hooligan, I like to use the flag in defiance of these contemptible qualities, and think we should all do the same. That said,  I stopped short of buying England home and away replica football shirts yesterday, deciding that these did have too much of the hooligan about them – something confirmed later in the evening as thuggish men staggered about Cambridge chanting and swearing loudly, talking of punching and kicking people, all the while draped in their England shirts.

And so I wonder, has the flag been lost to connotations of racism and thuggery? I rather hope and think not, but what do you think?

Girls that go for the wrong guys, and vice versa

Friday, February 19th, 2010

I become bemused and exasperated in equal measure if I hear a girl state that they “always go for the wrong guys”. How can it really be that nice people are attracted to complete jerks? What is appealing about dishonesty and unfair treatment?

I was going to launch into a lengthy post which elaborates on what I think about it all, but I’m not sure I have an awful lot to say. I’d love to know why people find themselves attracted to nasty people, and why they don’t solve the problem.

It’s a strange phenomenon.

[I haven't gotten myself into a pickle which has caused this post, by the way. Just a couple of friends of mine have expressed this same sentiment recently.]

McFight

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

I frequented the McDonalds in the centre of Cambridge yesterday, to appease my craving for one of their cheeseburgers. Whilst I was stood patiently in the queue, it all began to kick off.

A man on the far right of the line of queues was glaring at a man on the far left of the queues. At first, I figured that the initial acknowledgement was one of friendship, but the “Wot you f***in’ lookin’ at” seemed to suggest otherwise.

As they locked heads and started exchanging words, most of which were the f-word or the really naughty one that nobody’s meant to say, it became apparent that they only had a few brain cells to share between them. Unfortunately, the amount of brain cells they had was not the requisite amount which ensures that a human knows how to utilise their brain cells.

No fists were thrown, but there was a considerable amount of head-locking followed by the loud shouting of brainless thuggery, accompanied by attempts to restrain the Neanderthals involved. One member of staff knew man-on-the-right and joined in the swearing and gesturing at man-on-the-left.  I, meanwhile, stayed alert and altered my coordinates so as not to be bowled over by said oafs.

After their little scuffle, the man on the right returned to scoffing fries whilst awaiting further food. The man on the left, I think, left the establishment. They had both embarrassed themselves, and the result was a scoreless draw. I thought it unwise to posit this opinion to the young gentlemen, so I refrained on this occasion.

There is my account of a McFight.

Lamenting the Supposed Creepiness of a Compliment

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

Via a bizarre set of circumstances, I discovered that somebody felt my toast to a friend last week was a little odd. In my toasts, of which there are only three so far, I briefly summarise what is amazing about a person whom I believe to have exceptional moral fortitude or strength of character.

All too often these days, people complain about negative things without praising positive things. I would not want to be such a person. Highlighting what I respect about people in this way is, for me, an important way of encouraging people to continue to be nice. It seems sadly true that nice people just don’t get the recognition they deserve for being so generous and considerate.

This is why any suggestion that a compliment of this nature is weird angers me greatly. Sometimes it is just decent to compliment somebody for the good that they do, without having a hidden agenda, or hoping for anything in return. Sometimes, it’s just nice to think that registering your admiration for somebody’s character might encourage them to stay strong if their resilience ever falters, which is a likely occurrence in a harsh society such as this.  It’s the same kind of sentiments which cause people to view genuine generosity with some kind of suspicion. Sometimes, people just want to do a good turn.

The only reason that it is possible to view one of my toasts, or complimentary posts as odd, is because people simply don’t compliment or thank each other enough. This is not my fault.

What makes this amusingly more anger-inducing is that the person in question attempted to use this praise as evidence for my girlfriend that she ought not be with me. Why? Because the person I praised happened to be a different girl perhaps? Who knows. But it is pathetic to twist an honest attempt to express my respect for someone into a sign that I am somehow an unreliable boyfriend. Ignorance like this troubles me.

On Human Greed

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

One of the things which makes human beings stand out as exceptional creatures is their ability to deny their own nature for the common good. Look at people who abstain from sex; they tend to believe that sex is something special which needs to be guarded, so they repress their own desires to (in their eyes) benefit society.

I have often argued this above point to praise what humans are capable of. Whilst promoting the power of humanity, I have often stated that a human’s ability to deny their own natures for the good of others makes them remarkable. However, there is a more cynical and arguably more realistic way of reflecting on this issue.

There are many humans, particularly those in positions of power, who are aware of the damage that satisfying their desire for wealth has on society. Knowing that they are playing an active role in perpetuating inequality, they remain content to earn a living via ways which are socially irresponsible.

It would not be wise to argue that the recent crisis in the banking sector was caused by stupidity. Few bankers could really, having consulted even their own meagre consciences, denied that their job is socially useless. By and large, “fat cats” have been aware that they were making an extravagant living by running the masses’ future prospects into the ground. It didn’t matter to them, because they were satisfying their own disgustingly exorbitant appetites for material possessions.

Likewise, there are hordes of intelligent journalists who write articles for odious publications like The Sun, The Daily Express and The Daily Mail who are fully aware that the opinions they print, carefully constructed to persuade the gullible, are completely ludicrous and designed merely to cash in on petty prejudices. They know that they are making it increasingly impossible to build a fairer and more compassionate society, but choose instead to taste the rewards of quick remuneration and respect from people that they have denied a proper education.

Both bankers and journalists of this kind are aware of how their indulgence damages society, but see no reason why it is their responsibility to do anything about it. Knowing fully well that humans possess the ability to be selfless, and that selflessness would remove swathes of people from situations of gross injustice, they continue to reap the rewards of a corrupt system whilst strengthening the system itself. Put simply, they choose to be selfish over being selfless, in complete awareness that it harms more people that it benefits.

This causes an ever-growing obstacle to progress, and is highly depressing.

To summarise, it is a wonderful thing about humanity that some people repress their own selfish desires to look after the interests of others, but a more depressing thing that people who know the advantages which could be gained from this, use their cunning to instead profit from and perpetuate a stupidly unjust model for society.

This links to an ongoing debate I have with a friend, who fears that imposing a hefty rate of taxation on high-earners would cause a ‘brain drain’. I wonder if this is only true if you equate braininess with desire to profit materially from your braininess. I wonder if a great chunk of the greedy (yet influential) would leave for a less taxing nation, leaving a remainder of altruistic and intelligent people who previously had little influence but have a greater desire to improve everybody’s lives as opposed to their own.

We have to find a way to build a society where it is in one’s own interests to do what is in the population’s interests as a whole, in the short term and the long term. A society in which it is entirely pointless to simply look out for one’s self. This is why governments need to be strong and deny the ruling class (and let’s not pretend that there isn’t one), of the undue influence which they use to maintain their grasp on resources, power, and essentially, happiness.

High taxation would benefit the masses. It would scare many wealthy people off, but we’d be better off without them. For a while, it is quite possible we’d be materially worse off by doing this, but in the long run, it would build a brilliant foundation for a society where it is simply ridiculous to tolerate the levels of greed which are essentially encouraged and worshipped in our current society.

The Conservatives on Marriage

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Much has been made in the news this week of the Conservative Party’s opinions on marriage, as they deliberate over whether or not they can actually afford to offer tax breaks to married couples. Is advocacy of marriage actually a strong policy? And should tax breaks be offered to make it a more attractive proposal*? Here are some thoughts of mine, which as usual, may be completely off the mark.

Firstly, the institute of marriage is prejudiced against people who are homosexual. You cannot get married to somebody of the same gender. It is just not allowed. Seeing as homosexual relationships are no more detrimental to society than heterosexual ones, the promotion of marriage (as opposed to unmarried long-term stable relationships) is a tad backwards.

Secondly, marriage in itself is an empty commitment to most people these days. ‘Until death do us part’ is a vow that few seem to take seriously. It’s not the marriage itself that provides a stable upbringing for any children that result from it; instead, what matters are the attitudes about relationships held by the two people embarking on it.

Thirdly, offering financial incentives to entice people to make decisions which should me made on the basis of their own principles is entirely ludicrous. Tax breaks for married couples may well increase the marriage rate, but it would increase the divorce rate too, when hastily-married couples realise that a little extra cash won’t keep them in a relationship they don’t want.

What do you think?

* 10 double-entendre points for me, thank you very much.