Thursday 27 January 2011

LET'S END POLITICAL POSHNESS.

Andrew Neil's thoughtful programme, 'Posh and Posher', about the way in which our political masters are being groomed from an ever narrower background of 'posh' public school and Oxbridge education, concluded that the solution to the problem was to improve the state's education system. He even went so far as to suggest a return to a form of selection and the re-introduction of Grammar Schools.

Oh, music to my ears ! The abomination of Comprehensive schools, which have dumbed down education to a point at which most children now leave school with barely any ability to read or write, little understanding of simple arithmetic and absolutely no knowledge of history or geography, was an invention of the left, designed to achieve exactly what it has - an ignorant populace that will provide no challenge to its rulers.

Why the conservatives went along with this disastrous policy is anyone's guess, but they did and must bear their share of the blame. What they must now do, at the earliest opportunity, is to reverse the policy and re-establish a system that gives all children the opportunity to blossom in whatever field they are best suited to. Whether their talents are academic, vocational or technical, they should be guided by the education system to achieve their own level of excellence. The lunacy of 'one size fits all' education, and 'mixed-ability schools and classes' must end. Comprehensive education has all but destroyed the ability of the vast majority of people to climb the ladder of social mobility and has taken us to a land in which our rulers are increasingly drawn from the ranks of those with public school educations. Let's hope that Mr Neil's programme is merely the first shot in a war that we must win, a war for our futures.


HOLOCAUST NONSENSE

Apparently, today is 'Holocaust Memorial Day', something of which I was happily oblivious only a few short years ago.

This day is an entirely modern invention, mainly intended to make sure the world doesn't forget how horribly the Jews were treated in the past, with specific reference to the German concentration camps of World War 2. Inevitably, the scope has had to be extended in order to prove that views such as mine are wrong, however, the emphasis is still largely on the Jews.

Of course, the Jews suffered shockingly under the Nazi regime, but so did other minorities - gipsies, the disabled, homosexuals etc - though these are rarely mentioned in the headlines. While we are now sometimes reminded of the atrocities committed by Pol Pot in Cambodia, and the more recent events in Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur, what do we ever hear of the treatment of the Armenians by the Turks, or of the millions murdered by the regimes of Stalin and Mao Tse-tung ? What are we told of the virtual extermination of the native North American population or of the disgusting treatment of the Irish during the years of the potato famine ? While it may not be a genocide, what about the treatment of the native Palestinians by the immigrant Israelis ?

It would be much easier to accept this nonsense of a 'Holocaust Memorial Day' if its coverage properly recognised not just the atrocities of the Nazis and a handful of other modern events that have gained media topicality, but also the atrocities committed by today's power-brokers, the USA, Russia, China and the UK. It is also time that Israel stopped using the past as an effective excuse for its behaviour towards the indigenous population of the land that it expropriated in 1948 and later.

Until such time as these countries admit their own parts in the barbarisms of their recent histories, 'Holocaust Memorial Day' will remain nothing more than a bit of Jewish propaganda in my eyes. 

Tuesday 25 January 2011

WOMEN ARE OFFSIDE.

That yesterday's news bothered to report the somewhat moronic conversation between a couple of football commentators says more about the world we live in than anything that the two goons concerned said themselves.

That the monstrous regiment of women should have risen up in such high dudgeon over something so inconsequential, and that the media and others then latched onto the story as some sort of news is a frightful indictment of modern society. I neither know nor care whether the female official in question was right, wrong, or had bandy legs; it is a matter not only of supreme indifference to me, but also of no importance whatsoever in the real world.

We appear to be trapped in a mindset in which any reference to women being less able than men in any sphere of life is automatically branded as 'sexism', while the opposite is taken as being an obvious statement of truth. Women such as the egregious Harriet Harman and Jenny Murray tell us daily how wonderful women are and how badly they're treated by those awful misogynistic men.

When will men actually pull themselves together and fight back ? It is abundantly clear that men and women are different, both pysically and mentally. This is not to say that either gender is better than the other, but it is a fact that they have different interests and abilities. Men are generally bigger, stronger, faster, more competitive and more aggressive; this suits them to a range of activities and careers which utilise these attributes. Women tend to be more caring and thoughtful, more gregarious and, dare I say it, more interested in 'home-making'. To deny these truths is equivalent to joining the 'Flat Earth Society'.

It is a fact of nature that many men want to run companies, become engineers and play rough, tough games. It is an equal fact that many women don't want to do these things, but they do want to enter the 'caring professions', or rhe media, and are happier being led than taking the lead. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ANY OF THIS. That more aggressive females, such as Ms Harman, have greater personal ambitions does not imply that all women are similarly motivated, any more than finding a man who has little or no personal ambition implies that all men must be the same.

The bottom line is that men and women are not equal. Miss Whatshername, the football official, may well have known the 'offside rule', but perhaps she was out of her depth in trying to transfer her knowledge and skills to a game played at a faster pace and more aggressively than would have been the case had it been a ladies match; or perhaps she was not. Who cares ? The remarks of the commentators may have been unfair and even offensive, but we aren't talking about anything of any real importance here; again, 'who cares' ?

Let men and women do whatever they want to do, within reason and without the constant badgering of the feminist lunatics. As long as the field of opportunity is level, everyone will find their own place and if that means 99% of Boardroom directors are male while 99% of midwives are female, so be it. It's the natural order of things.

Friday 21 January 2011

A GREAT BRITISH (RAILWAY) JOURNEY

Having been at school with Michael Portillo, I have to mention that we were never close. Indeed, despite spending several years in the same class, we rarely conversed and mixed in different circles. While his circle prospered, mine seems to have vanished without trace, but that's another story.

When I discovered, years later, that 'Polly', as he'd been known, was becoming a leading light in the Conservative party I was less than enthusiastic; my schoolboy recollections of him were such as to have left me with few feelings of fellowship towards him and I saw him as being simply another oily, grasping politician. 

As time passed, I have to admit that I began to find him slightly less obnoxious and even found myself in agreement with him on various political issues. While the nation cheered his demise at the 1997 General Election, I found myself sympathising with the rather pathetic figure who'd just been so humiliated by his electorate. His later political manoeuverings seemed to be horribly unstructured and did him no favours, culminating in his withdrawal from the political stage. Which is when he found his true milieu.

For the last few years, Portillo's appearances on 'This Week', mostly alongside Diane Abbot, have been an absolute delight, combining serious political debate with charm and humour, but it is his most recent televisual series which has really been a revelation. "Great British Railway Journeys" is television at its very best; the amount of detail crammed into each 30 minute programme, with no apparent rush, is a tribute to Portillo's presentational style. His easy manner, yet full of genuine enthusiasm for his subject, should be a lesson for many other TV presenters who seem to 'gush' ceaselessly at every opportunity. In Portillo's programmes, it is his subjects - trains, railways, towns, people and industries - that take centre stage as he guides his viewers around some long-forgotten elements of this nation's history.

It's taken a long time but, after a 'Great British Journey', Michael Portillo has truly arrived. Good onya, 'Polly'.

Friday 14 January 2011

SAINTLY POPE ?

In this age of space travel and other astonishing technological advance, it's  very difficult to understand the anachronism that is the Roman Catholic Church.

It seems that the present Pope, Benedict XVI, is about to 'Beatify' his immediate predecessor, John Paul II, paving the way for John Paul to eventually be declared a saint. Apparently, John Paul II has been credited with the miraculous curing of a nun who, reportedly, had Parkinson's disease. If another miracle can be attributed to the late Pontiff, he will then qualify for promotion to full sainthood.

What sort of nonsense is this ? If the nun in question did, indeed, have Parkinson's disease, her apparent cure may have been the result of a natural remission or even a consequence of normal medical treatment; occasionally, people do benefit from entirely unexplained recovery from illness. There has to be a possibility that the nun didn't actually have Parkinson's disease at all, so there has been no cure.

Nonetheless, the RC Church is happy that John Paul has answered various prayers and cured this woman, miraculously and from beyond the grave. They don't release the evidence for this determination, it's all a matter of blind faith for the faithful. John Paul II may have been a good man, though anyone who rises to such a height in any worldwide organisation is likely to have at least a few skeletons in his cupboard. What is certain is that he did not cure anyone.

The issue for the Church is that this man was Pope for a very long time, he was the first non-Italian Pope for centuries and he survived an assassination attempt; the Church feels the need to recognise all of this in some way. "Forget what, if anything, he did to modernise the Church or to improve the lot of the millions of Roman Catholics who live in dire poverty all over the world, at least partly because of Church teachings, and let's concentrate on celebrity", seems to be the message.

Thursday 13 January 2011

ROBERT P-P-P-PESTON

I have no idea whether Robert Peston knows his subject but he is so obviously no good at his job that it's astonishing he's still got it.

I've just listened to him talking endlessly about something to do with BSkyB and saying almost nothing at all. His halting, rambling and stammering delivery is a nightmare for anyone trying to follow what he's talking about, similar in some ways to the abominable breaks in delivery used for effect by Tony Blair.

As a rule, I find BBC commentators to be both knowledgeable AND easy to listen to; one or two, Nick Robinson springs to mind, I had initial concerns about but he quickly changed my opinion. The Beeb has many excellent commentators as well as Robinson - James Landale, Stephanie Flanders and Mark Mardell are prime examples as well as the likes of Bridget Kendall and Kate Adie. But why-oh-why do they have to inflict the dreadful Peston on we poor listeners and viewers ?

Saturday 8 January 2011

LOOSE ENDS NEED CUTTING OFF.

I have just had the unfortunate experience of listening to Radio 4's Saturday evening offering entitled 'Loose Ends'.

This egregious show, in common with too many others on the same channel, seems mainly to advertise the latest escapades of various media personalities, pop groups or whatever. Tonight's show did have the rewarding presence of a great actress, Sian Phillips, though her appearance was simply aimed at publicising her latest venture in cabaret.

Some unknown goon talked at great length about something to do with the Israelis and a wall or fence, which he seemed to find humorous, as did at least some of the other studio guests; I suspect no Palestinian would have laughed. This was related to his book on the subject which is, apparently, being published in the Spring.

The programme was interrupted on at least 2 occasions by a noise that was introduced as being music, however, be assured that no real musician had any connection with it. Presumably, the people making the noise had an album coming out or are performing somewhere that felt the publicity would be good for sales.

Why does the BBC put out this drivel ? Programmes such as this, and 'Start the Week' and 'Midweek', as well as the morning television slots, seem to have only one purpose - to publicise the generally mediocre activities of others in the entertainment industry. By all means, let the commercial channels do this but the BBC should distance itself from this type of media back-scratching. 

When I look at what my TV licence costs me, and consider what I get in return, I know full well where my axe would fall, given the chance. Let's have some proper programmes instead.

Thursday 6 January 2011

STARGAZING LIVE.

Professor Brian Cox has provided another fascinating series of programmes, this time looking at the stars and planets in a very interactive way. Dara O'Brian was a rather surprising support, demonstrating an unexpected ability to talk intelligently and lucidly about complex issues while Cox was, as always, very easy to listen to and very informative. Why we needed a woman in Hawaii, however, is anyone's guess. Liz Bonnin's phoney expressions of wonderment at every opportunity were an annoyance, her interviews mostly puerile and her 'catch phrases', such as the aggravating 'excellent' used throughout the first programme, presumably aimed at an audience of under 10s. 

But the biggest mystery is why on earth was it thought necessary to involve Jonathan Ross. He had nothing to contribute except for a few childish remarks and his appearances were simply a distraction from the real subject matter. To trivialise a serious science subject in this way does the BBC no credit at all.

Sunday 2 January 2011

RING OUT THE OLD, RING IN THE NEW.

So 2010 has ended and we all enter 2011 with heads held high, full of confidence; or do we ?

Last years was pretty grim, but the next year or two promise to be far worse. Already, I've seen petrol prices above 130p per litre and we know rail fares and postage prices are rising well ahead of inflation. Interest rates are artificially low, to the detriment of all those frugal folk who've managed to save a few coppers for their old age. Houses are still much too expensive for first time buyers in some parts of the country and rents are rising. The Eurozone is in crisis, Britain and the US are both struggling, trades unions are threatening serious action in pursuit of 'fair' pay. Where will it all end ?

For what it's worth, I think it will end badly. By this time next year, I can see the base interest rate much higher than now, at least  4.5% and probably higher; house prices may well fall back quite steeply as demand dries up even more, but rents will continue to rise, creating a nightmare scenario. Severe disruption through strike actions looks almost inevitable as does higher unemployment. Europe will survive but countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain will suffer very badly; the US will become increasingly interested in the 2012 Presidential election and withdraw into itself. 

The UK's coalition government may survive, but it seems certain to lose a few members at least. It's inconceivable that Vince Cable will still be in post come the year end and there must be a chance that we'll be confronted with at least a rearrangement of the coalition by then, if not total collapse. This was a marriage made in hell and only the desire to hang on to power will hold it together for long.

Roll on 2012.