WILL HUTTON : EURO-LOONIE.

Listening to the self-appointed economic expert, Will Hutton, the other day, I wonder how he has achieved the eminence that he has.

He believes that the UK was wrong not to join the Euro; he thinks that we will eventually regret this to such an extent that we will beg to join because our future will be determined by the disparate members of this group. He says that debts only matter when they are crystallized - does he not understand that this is actually what has happened ? He talks about the countries working hard to make the Euro work when what is actually the case is that the politicians have done the work in order to avoid their own crushing embarrassment, while the people would rather have nothing to do with it. 

What planet does he live on ? The Eurozone is a construct based on so many impossible assumptions that it cannot continue to exist in any realistic form. The only way that the Eurozone can survive is if the Germans continue to support most of the poorer nations by giving them vast amounts of financial support, or the European Central Bank prints enormous quantities of unsupported currency, leading to eventual hyper-inflation - are either of these scenarios going to happen ? Politically, the Eurozone has to survive, while realistically it is dead on its feet. Hutton is right in believing that Britain has a tough time ahead and he may be right that the Eurozone will show a tendency towards recovery in the next few years, but their recovery will be slow, difficult and quite probably with fewer members than now; he believes that Britain's recovery will be much more problematic unless we tie ourselves more closely to the Euro. The truth surely is that the whole European experiment is doomed to failure and will inevitably be overtaken by the rapid expansion of the developing economies of China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as by the enormous growth in the populations of most of the 'Third World' over the next century. Europe is destined to be overrun by immigrants from Africa, Asia and, probably, South America, to such an extent that the Europe of tomorrow will be unrecognizable to anyone of Europe today. What these immigrants will want to do is anyones' guess.

Hutton, I believe, has some important position at Cambridge University, the justification for which truly escapes me. This man comes across as an arrogant, socialist idiot and I despair for his students.Why is he so feted by the BBC, appearing regularly on a variety of serious political and discussion programmes ? Could it be that the socialist bosses at the Beeb find his views attractive ? Surely not, but then where are the right wing economists on the same programmes ?

TIME TO FOOL AROUND, AGAIN.

What is it about our politicians that they seem hell bent on changing things ?

Watching today's 'Daily Politics', we have a discussion about whether or not to change the semi-annual movement in our clocks. Some daft Conservative MP of whom I have never heard before, Rebecca Harris, has put forward a 'Private Members' Bill' which seems to have gained favour with the Government. As a consequence, a trial of a change that would see us adopting GMT+1 in winter and BST+1 in summer is being considered. This would, in effect, mean the UK moving to Central European Time, even though the Greenwich Meridian, on which all of the world's clocks are based, runs through it.

Those in favour of change have a variety of reasons, principally a load of nebulous nonsense about boosts to the economy, reductions in road deaths and allowing people to make better use of the daylight hours. Those against say these reasons are rubbish, that they don't really want to still be in the dark at 10:00 in the morning, and many people who have to atsrt work early, including schoolchildren, will be spending half their days in the dark.

I don't really care much about the arguements but what gets me very hot under the collar is the continual drip, drip, drip, of these attempts to change everything that the people are used to in their everyday lives, when the world is falling down around our ears. Does the government have nothing of greater importance to worry about or are they simply trying to divert our attention from more weighty matters ? I suspect it's the latter but, hopefully, it won't work with this particular piece of political shenanigans. 

CALENDRICAL FIDDLING DOWN-UNDER

A few weeks ago, I read an item in the press that reported a change in the way in which histiory was to be taught in schools in Australia; the terms 'BC' and 'AD' were to be replaced by non-denominational alternatives such as 'BCE', 'CE' and 'BP', whatever these mean.

My initial reaction was to throw my arms in the air and scream. Then I stopped and thought for a few minutes.

Why is it that the calendar of the world, a minority of which is Christian, should be governed by calendrical terms that are inherently Christian ? Indeed, why should any of us be governed by any calendar other than the one that is determined by the sun, moon and stars ?

Logically, there needs to be a starting point so that we can calibrate our historical chronology, but different cultures already have these. It is only the relatively recent predominance of the Christian religion that has led to the majority of the world's nations being forced to accept the accompanying Christian calendar.

The Australians are both right and wrong in their proposed changes. They are right to identify that Christian era dates are anachronistic and need replacing. They are wrong in simply seeking to replace these with nebulous concepts that either mirror the Christian dates but use different terminology, or with dates that simply have no meaning to most people.

It would be far preferable if all nations and cultures could agree on a common date as the starting point for modern civilisation and use that as 'Year 1'. The original date would, inevitably, be a date already recognised in a calendar, Christian or otherwise, but it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to find an accommodation that would see this date as being the agreed starting point for all nations and all cultures.

PLANET DINOSAUR JUST 'JURASSIC PARK' ON TV.

Watching the BBC series on 'Planet Dinosaur', perfectly narrated by John Hurt, I have to say that the graphics, and the story, are somewhat gripping. However .........................

Since when could a multi-tonned object with leathery wings take off from a standing start, as shown in the last programme ? Is it really likely that a huge long-billed flying dinosoar could exist outside of a very specific eco-system ? What is the evidence for weird dinosaurs with colourful wings that a) were loving towards each other, and b) stayed with their eggs until they hatched ?

The graphics make a great story but where is the real science ? To me, it's all a bit like 'Jurassic Park' - great entertainment but ................. ? I know the Beeb didn't make the programme and, looking at the credits, it was mostly supported by an assortment of people from American institutions, but it is surely wrong to present such a programme as fact when it is nothing of the sort. This was more an exercise in attracting an audience than in disseminating real scientific truth. Lots of hyperbole, amazing graphics and the propogation of a view of the world that is barely, if at all, supported by the facts that separate us from the world of more than 100 million years ago.

Given that our understanding of our own country's history of less than a thousand years ago is a little blurry, how can we possibly have any real knowledge of what was happening one hundred thousand times as long ago ? Yes, we can make guesses but to present such as fact ?

"BREAKER" MORANT v THE QUEEN : NO CONTEST !

With the Queen's visit to Australia raising the temperature in the Republican campaign there, the Aussie Attorney General's announcement that he's to raise concerns about the fairness of the 1902 court martial of Harry "Breaker" Morant seems to be an utterly transparent piece of politicking.

Morant was executed while serving with the British forces in South Africa and after what was quite probably a flawed legal process; nonetheless, it was also probably typical of its time. The case was the subject of a film some years ago and has been reviewed on previous occasions but, at this distance in time, it must be highly unlikely that any new evidence can be uncovered or that or that the old evidence can, or should, be reinterpreted.

The action of Robert McClelland, the Attorney General in question and a member of a government led by the extreme Republican, Julia Gillard, is clearly an attempt to divert attention and warmth away from the monarchy at a time when the Queen's visit has been all the news. That the best the Republicans can come up with is to bring up a century old piece of supposed injustice says more about the paucity of their other arguments than anything else.

It doesn't really matter whether Australia remains a monarchy or not, but it surely does matter that its politicians are quite happy to play such childish games with their constitution. If the Republicans have a sound argument, let them come out with it. loud and clear; if they haven't, they do nothing to further their cause by raising such time-worn issues as the 'fairness' of a military trial that took place 109 years ago. Meanwhile, the Queen simply does what she's been doing for 60 years, winning hearts and minds without any apparent effort at all.

NAZISM : ALIVE AND WELL AT THE INTERGENERATIONAL FOUNDATION.

Some young bunch of left wing loonies calling themselves the "Intergenerational Foundation" is suggesting that what they delightfully term 'Old People' should be 'encouraged' to leave their homes, often where they have lived for decades, in order that younger people can take them over. There doesn't seem to be a definition of what an 'Old Person' actually is, but then for those in their 20s, anyone over 40 might well be considered to be a target.

This organisation, yet another charity though how it deserves such status is beyond me, is unhappy that the Old People have so much more than the young ones. It sees this as unfair and most clearly seen in the possession by Old People of large houses which the young ones can't afford. Apparently, the Old People have robbed the young of their entitlement to all the benefits they believe they should have.

This is without doubt the biggest load of hogwash anyone has ever concocted. What is really happening is an extension of the greed that now pervades our society in every way. No longer do the young expect to have to earn their place in society, but they expect to be handed it on a plate. They expect to have everything they want, NOW, and without having to pay a going rate for it. All the rubbish about the unaffordability of houses would disappear if there was a bit more realism, morality and honesty in our world.

In days gone by, when people married and had children they stayed together. There was no splitting up after a few years and sending the children off into some twilight limbo-land. Children stayed at home until either they moved out to seek work or until they were married; even then they may well have stayed in the home of one or other sets of parents, as my own parents did, until they'd saved enough to afford to rent somewhere of their own or to put down a deposit on a purchase. In the early years of a marriage, holidays were a luxury; a houseful of fancy 'white goods' and other electricals was in the future and a car could only be dreamt of. All of these things had to wait.

Many will, of course, scream that that was all in the past and we are now in the 21st century, where things are different. Yes, some things are different, but there is no reason why the basics should have changed except for the shocking decline in moral standards and the appalling and unsustainable rise in expectations. Today, 'relationships' founded on having fun (no longer marriage for most) frequently last no more than days or weeks; in ones that last longer and produce children, the parents too often seem to think that they can carry on as they did before they were a family, spending every halfpenny they have on their own enjoyment, while dumping the children in nurseries or with grandparents at every opportunity. These wholly inadequate young people have been brought up to believe that they have an entitlememt to a job, a house and lots of enjoyment, without ever understanding that they also have responsibilities that may require them to forego some of their fun in favour of attaining their future ambitions or bringing up their children. This deplorable state of affairs has, of course, been exacerbated by a succession of Governments, hell bent on being seen as young and trendy, as well as being driven by the insane notion that the whole country can live a sustainable existence on a mountain of debt.

Now, in answer to some genuine problems that exist in our society, this "Intergenerational Foundation" wants to steal the 'Old Peoples'' homes to give to the young ingrates who can't be bothered to manage their own lives properly. They argue that they want greater 'fairness' in society which is simply another way of saying that they want something they haven't got, but you have; 'fairness' as a concept is so subjective as to be meaningless and yet is trotted out by assorted groups who all want the same thing - something for nothing.

What next ? Increased taxes and lower pensions for the 'Old' ? Putting all the 'Old People' into forced labour camps where they can be made to 'repay' what they've 'stolen' from the young ? Euthanasia for the over-60s ? This is a philosophy that may well have found a degree of favour with the NAZIs. After all, they placed the blame for Germany's position after WW1 on the Jews and other minority groups - blacks, homosexuals, gypsies etc. - and set about depriving them of everything they had. First they labelled them, and then, step-by-step, they increased the penalties for being whatever they were. Are we now looking at the beginnings of a modern-day 'Hitler Youth' that will eventually turn its guns on the 'Old People' ?

EDUCATIONAL FAIRYLAND

Hearing the daily drivel about what the Government is doing to improve educational standards, I have to wonder what they really know about normal, everyday people.

While the 'experts' pontificate about all sorts of educational theories, the rest of us try to deal with the real world. In my case, I have no children of my own but know a variety of teenagers through their parents. In one particular case that I'm thinking of, I try very hard to convince a 14 year old that she should work harder at school in order to fulfill her potential; given today's fancy for encouraging everyone to aspire to University, she certainly should be looking in that direction, however, she is far more interested in playing with her 'phone and doing as little as possible in order to avoid being considered 'nerdy'. Sadly, her parents, who are divorced, don't seem to have any real interest in their daughter's education.

My young friend, let's call her Gertrude, is an intelligent teenager, far more intelligent and 'commonsensical' than many of her peer group, but she is intractible when it comes to her own education, potential and future. She appears to have little or no ambition, has no real idea of what she wants to do in adult life, and sees achieving her 'predicted' school exam results as being all that is necessary. Any suggestion that she could achieve better results with a bit of effort is met with a scowl.

Why is this ? The answer is simple yet denied and even ignored by those in power. In any school environment, being part of a group is important; being a loner is to be considered strange, weird and is an invitation to abuse and bullying. In a comprehensive school environment, the most powerful are often the most stupid; those with a ha'peth of brains are frightened into denying their innate intelligence and thus do whatever they can to deny their own intelligence in order not to be considered clever or 'nerdy'. To add insult to injury, the imbecilic practice of telling children their predicted grades months in advance of their exams simply depresses any desire to better themselves. It becomes good enough to simply achieve whatever grade teacher has predicted, whether that is a real reflection of the child's ability or not, and denies many children the opportunity of achieving their true potential.

While all of this is happening, our Glorious Leaders embrace the celebrity culture, which is far more attractive to young people; they 'knight' characters such as McCartney, John, Jagger and Geldof, plus a ridiculous array of other media and sports 'stars'. They seem to feel it's necessary to refer to their adherence to the music of the Arctic Monkeys etc. in order to gain approval, all of which tells the youngsters that celebrity is where their futures lie. The popular media concentrates on this same celebrity culture and places far more emphasis on the doings of some inconsequential character in some TV soap than it does on anything to do with real life. As a result, far too many of the younger generation seem to believe that their own futures lie in this ridiculous fairyland rather than in any real world in which educational attainment has any importance.

I hope I can eventually convince Gertrude that she is worth more than her 'predicted grades'; I'd like to think that she might fulfill her true potential, but the odds are against her. Many people will say it's all down to her, but they'd be wrong; it's actually all down to her parents and other adults around her, and to the educational environment created by the Government and media. If the adults show little or no interest and the media, aided by the Government, emphasises only the possibilities associated with 'celebrtity', what chance do most of the children have ?

Will anyone ever put things right ?