|
|
|
How Civilised Is Modern Britain?
Asks Andy Crow
|
Jeremy Clarkson's much publicised suggestion that strikers
should be shot would have already drawn far too much comment were it
not that there seem to be a few people who don't think it
outrageous. The shooting of social protesters in various Middle
Eastern countries has been an everyday occurrence this year: the
so-called Arab Spring. Here in the 'civilised UK' we ought to be
able to take it as the joke I'm sure he intended it to be, but the
outraged response to the BBC ( more than 20,000 to date) demanding
his sacking indicates that Jeremy has struck a very raw nerve. We
need to ask ourselves how civilised is modern Britain.
Local activists distributed leaflets around and amongst the public
sector strikers marching in Whitehaven which say amongst other
things that 'Fair is worth fighting for'. The cynics or realists
will readily tell you that 'life isn't fair', it is one of the first
and most painful lessons of childhood. But we aren't wild animals
obeying the 'law of the jungle' we are members of a society which is
supposed to have 'civilised' values. The objective of a society is
that everyone benefits. A wolf pack is more civilised than the
modern Britain. Wolves hunt together and share the spoils.
Margaret Thatcher was fond of saying that running a national economy
was like managing a housekeeping budget. In principle that is
probably true though of course the numbers are much bigger and it is
massively more complicated. If we were to reverse the analogy and
manage our household budget the way governments run our national
economy where would we be? As a nation our main source of income (so
we are told) is financial services. The City of London provides the
income for our national 'family'. The City as we all know provides
essential financial services for industry and commerce, insurance to
offset disaster, mortgage finance to put a roof over our heads and
fill-up our pension pots. Except it doesn't. It operates like a
gigantic casino. So let's send father out to the casino to play
roulette and blackjack. When father's on a winning streak everything
is fine and there are little treats for the family. Father keeps the
bulk of the winnings because the Ferrari is expensive and the steaks
at the casino are expensive (and you wouldn't believe what they
charge for the champagne) and he has to keep-up appearances. Mother
can potter to work and make enough to keep the household fed in the
little hatchback and do the school run until it all goes wrong and
dad has a run of bad luck. Now we have to cut back our spending so
the second car has to go because it will save all that travelling
cost. Mother can't get to work, but that doesn't matter because she
was only working in a care home and not very well paid and the kids
are old enough to stop school ( who needs an education when there
are no jobs). Since the other families are doing the same there's
nobody to staff the care home and no money to pay the weekly fees
anyway so Grandma will have to come and live with the family. She
can share the dog basket, it won't be for long because she's
outstayed her three-score-and-ten and the sooner she pops off the
sooner we can have her savings. How long would a family survive if
it organised its affairs like this? It isn't a viable, sustainable
way to run a family. And it isn't a viable, sustainable way to run a
country.
But that, in a nutshell, is what 'Plan A' looks like. The wider
European strategy is very similar and that won't work either. And on
the off chance that it does it won't fix the mess that we are in.
How can public service workers express their dissatisfaction with
this state of affairs? They can lump it and watch their living
standards go down the pan along with the services they provide or
they can........ ? Ideas on a postcard please to E2D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
