TODAY'S "POOR" NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD !

I am sick to death of hearing the whinges of the so-called 'poor' in our country. Viewers and listeners are treated to the regular whining of single mothers with umpteen children, ill-matched couples in council houses or pensioners bemoaning their lack of income. None of these people, or those who interview them, ever remind these moaners that, regardless of what they may think, they are all infinitely better off than were their forebears even as recently as 60 or 70 years ago, Additionally, interviewers don't dare to ask questions about the paternity of children and location of absent fathers.

As recently as the 1950s, few homes in the UK had fridges or freezers; even washing machines were almost a luxury for many, while dish washers were all but unknown. Few families had a car, many did not have a television; the main source of entertainment was the radio, with just 1 or 2 BBC channels available and reception often problematic. The best alternative was a trip to the local cinema or, for children, to go on a bike ride or play with friends in the local park.

Most homes did not have a telephone, landline only of course, and those that did probably shared it with a neighbour; most had to use the telephone box at the corner of a nearby street, if there was one and if it wasn't already in use. Mobile 'phones, 'tablets', laptops, and all the other technological paraphernalia had not yet been thought of. Children sitting alone playing computer games was a nightmare for the future.

There was no such thing as the internet, while 'online shopping' and home delivery had yet to be invented. Foreign holidays were a luxury reserved for the genuinely wealthy. For most, clothes were handed down from generation to generation, designer clothes were for the rich and 'fast fashion' a thing of the future, as was fast food, excepting fish and chips. Eating out meant a pint and pie at lunchtime; family outings to restaurants were unheard of, again except for the rich. No one but the wealthy drank wine, for most men it was beer while their ladies drank gin or port on the rare occasions on which they went out to the local public house. 

Men went to work from the age of 15, as did the women until they married, after which they'd stay at home, clean, cook and look after the children. Young men aged 17 to 21 were required to undertake a period of service in the armed forces, between 18 months and 2 years followed by 4 years, or 3½ years, as reservists. For good or bad, fathers provided for their families and didn't leave women to bring up their children alone or with vast handouts from the state.

Despite all of these deficiencies, trials and tribulations, people got on with their lives and accepted their lot, while striving for better days. Listening to the continual gripes of today's generation, mollycoddled as they are, weighed down with sack loads of state benefits and every 'mod con' imaginable, tripping off to foreign parts for their annual holidays (it was Southend or Blackpool in the 1950s), and dolled up in their fancy outfits, makes me see these pampered prats as the utterly self serving and self obsessed morons they are.

And these are the people who will choose our next government, lead our country forward through this century and into the next. God Help Us.

PUTIN IS A SYMPTOM OF A DEEPER MALAISE.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to be in some trouble as the Ukrainian population is putting up rather more of a fight than Vladimir Putin had bargained for. Despite the destruction of its towns and cities and the emigration of millions of its women, children and older citizens, Ukraine refuses to surrender to the brutality of Putin's military assault.

Putin has clearly miscalculated and there are reports that he's sacked a number of senior army officers for failing to get the job done. Apparently, the advance of his forces on a number of fronts have all but ground to a halt and he's resorted to mass bombing of civilian targets in an attempt to terrify the population into surrendering. Even worse, it is suggested that he may be on the point of deploying chemical or biological weapons, something which is outlawed and reviled by all civilized nations, not to mention assorted international bodies and treaties. Would Putin even go further and use small scale nuclear weapons, thereby risking an escalation of his limited attack on Ukraine into a full blown European, or even World, War ?

Putin is a monster, a tyrannical and despotic ruler in the mould of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong. For years, the Western world appeased him and became increasingly reliant on his exports of oil, gas, coal and other natural resources. In truth, much of Europe has been appallingly let down by its political leaders who have sort cheap products while ignoring the potential danger from a despotic and expansionist regime. In similar fashion, the West, led by political elites with utterly misconceived priorities, have allowed themselves to become reliant on China, various states in the Middle East, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and assorted other countries in the 'Third World' for supplies of all sorts, ranging from oil and gas to foodstuffs and clothing, our mobile 'phones and laptops, even the production of drugs and vaccines. In short, the West has outsourced control over its own economies and is now subject to the whims of a whole assortment of countries, all of which can now set the terms of trade to suit themselves and at least some of which are potentially hostile.

This is a consequence of the failure of a smug political elite over a period of several decades, an elite which has been far more interested in gaining election and winning power than in worrying about the future. Today, our country along with the rest of Europe is on the edge of a precipice but, shockingly, there does not seem to be a single political leader who is prepared to admit the situation they have brought us all to, nor who is prepared to begin the task of reversing our decline. In fact, they seem more interested in controlling us, through various legislation which has its origins in George Orwell's nightmare novels "1984" and "Animal Farm".

Nero famously fiddled while Rome burned. Our leaders have done just the same, only the conflagration has taken longer to take hold and even to be discovered. What is needed now are some real leaders who will cut through the red tape and utter lunacy of 'wokeish' ideology, who will begin the process of regenerating our manufacturing base and ending the reliance on others. 

What chance ?

WHY IS THE WEST SO ARROGANT ?

Many countries around the world have cultures and behaviours which we, of the 'civilized' West disapprove. Such countries are frequently critiicized for their 'barbaric' treatment of an assortment of miscreants, as well as of people whose views, attitudes, behaviours or cultures they simply dislike or disapprove of.

There is logic in this but also a degree of arrogance. How can anyone define terms such as 'civilized' or 'barbaric' ? Indeed, not many centuries ago, the very things which we now find unbelievably awful were common practice in our own country, in fact we did even worse. While the Saudis cut off hands, feet or heads, we habitually burnt people at the stake or sentenced them to be 'hanged, drawn and quartered', a fate which involved partial hanging, castration, disembowelment and finally cutting into 4 pieces. Has anyone ever invented a more barbaric means of execution ? No doubt there are other contenders for the most abominable method of  execution but I think this serves to demonstrate that we 'civilized' people are not far removed from similar atrocities.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently visited Saudi Arabia in pursuit of an improved arrangement for the supply of oil and gas from a kingdom which is overflowing with these necessities of modern life. Given that an increase in supplies from the Saudi kingdom would be matched by a reduction on reliance on the abomination which is Russia under Putin, this seems to be a perfectly sensible approach. However, Saudi Arabia does not share the West's attitudes to many things. As a Muslim nation, it takes it's direction from its reading of the Muslim bible, the Koran. Of this, many in the West, do not approve and yet ......... .

Why is the 'West' so dogmatic in its view ? Why is it so certain of its rectitude ? Of course, much of this arrogance is based on its belief that Christianity is, effectively, the one and only true religion, which is quite obviously the most appalling example of arrogance ever visited upon any human population anywhere. However, there are also other factors such as belief in individual freedom and to what extent this should be over-riding, listened to, or even tolerated. On this subject, the West has generally worked on the basis that countries are governed according to the supposed 'will of the people' as exercised through 'free and fair' elections.

More poppycock. Elections in the 'West' are as fixed as they are in supposedly less democratic countries, they're just fixed in a different way. The rich and powerful still gain dominance, whether they espouse politics of the left or right, and they still impose their will on a largely docile population. In the West, governments do not resort to terror in order to control their people, instead they are rather more subtle - they use the media to spread stories, however true, debatable or entirely fictitious, which tend to push a largely ignorant and suggestible populace in the desired direction.

That this has nothing to do with democracy is obvious; that it is devious, likewise. In the United Kingdom, a democratic vote of the entire population which produced a majority in favour of leaving the European Union was met with massive and still ongoing opposition from the defeated elitist  minority, who continue to look for ways of overturning the will of the democratic majority. Have this minority not heard about democracy or do they simply have an arrogant belief that 'they know better' ?  While a democratic majority would almost certainly vote for the restoration of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, those in power will never allow a vote on such a subject, as they themselves disapprove. Where is the democracy in this ? The goal of 'net zero', a highly nebulous concept which relies mostly on exporting our production of carbon dioxide to third world countries, is implemented with very little public consultation and even less consideration of its consequences; the costs are entirely unknown but we, the people, will pay for it. The rich and powerful who decided to pursue this ludicrous cause and, of course, run the country, will find the costs of no concern, the rest of us will have to choose between heating and eating.

To be clear. I have no more time for the appalling and barbaric behaviour of countries such as Saudi Arabia than I do for the Russian bombing of helpless civilians in Ukraine. At the same time, I deplore the appalling activities of 'militias', 'freedom fighters', 'guerrillas' or any other pseudo-military groups which have reigned terror around the world in recent years and yet largely avoided any significant attention. Far too often the West has seemed reluctant to take sides against such groups, for fear of 'picking the wrong side' or supporting the 'wrong cause'. 'Wrong' of course, meaning whatever didn't sit comfortably with western ideals or economic ambitions, rather than any more fundamental definition of right and wrong. The West set itself against the likes of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and the leaders of the Taliban and determined to remove them from power by force; only partial success has left behind little more than chaos, with several countries decimated. Now that Vladimir Putin has taken a similar approach towards achieving his goal of bringing Ukraine back into Russia's sphere of influence, he is vilified. Of course invading a sovereign nation is wrong, destroying its towns and cities, ruining its economy and killing thousands of its citizens is wrong, but why was it apparently acceptable when the West was doing the same to numerous middle eastern nations ?

The Soviet Union, under Stalin and then Khrushchev, perpetrated a tyranny over their own nation as well as over all of eastern Europe. Yet we, the civilized peoples of the West, backed away and allowed these tyrants to rule, for fear of the consequences of confronting them. Instead we launched our assaults against easier targets, and continued to do so as the Soviet tyranny was replaced by a Russian one. At the same time, we said little about the 'barbarity' of many other regimes around the world, with which we continued to trade and count as 'friends'. 

Today, we are reaping the rewards of this ambivalent and basically selfish attitude towards life, one which has been practiced by Western political leaders for decades, in pursuit of popularity, electoral success and power.

BERCOW - HOW THE MIGHTY ARE FALLEN

I will admit that I always thought John Bercow, former Speaker of the House of Commons, was a rather pompous, arrogant and unpleasant little man. That he also used his position as Speaker to try to advance the cause of the 'Remainers' during the Brexit debate was obvious and another reason for my dislike of him. His abuse of his position was palpable and shocking. However, having no direct personal knowledge of the man, I had no idea just how nasty he really was.

Yesterday, a report by an independent committee revealed that they had found Bercow to be a serial bully and serial liar. For someone who had ambitions to be appointed to the House of Lords, as has been usual for retired Speakers for centuries, and to go down in history as a 'Great Speaker', this determination is crucifying. Bercow had already left his erstwhile home in the Conservative Party and joined Labour, largely in pursuit of a seat in the Lords; it had become clear that the Conservatives were never going to put him forward for such an honour so what else was he to do ? For a man blinded by ambition and his own self importance, there was no choice but to forget whatever beliefs he had ever held and simply sign up with anyone who might, just, give him what he wanted. Jeremy Corbyn, a man whose political views could not have been further removed from those of any Conservative, eventually did propose him for a peerage but the nomination was blocked due to the investigation into his behaviour.

Now, and following the release of the utterly damning report, Bercow has found himself on the point of being kicked out of the Labour Party and ostracized by the entire political establishment. The report says that, were he still a sitting Member of Parliament, the committee would recommend that he be expelled by resolution of the House, and recommends that Bercow never be allowed a Parliamentary pass again, effectively banning him from ever being promoted to the House of Lords and barring him from being anything more than a public visitor to the Palace of Westminster in the future. 

To compound his dishonour, Bercow has thrown scorn on the report, calling it amateurish, unjust and a travesty of justice. Rather than acknowledging any wrongdoing and apologising, Bercow has denied all the allegations against him, decried those who made the allegations and criticised those who spent some 22 months going through the evidence in minute detail.

Never has any Speaker so defiled this great office of state. What a nasty little man he is.

PUTIN - JUST ANOTHER BRUTAL TYRANT.

Only in  a world of make believe could anyone come up with the latest words uttered by the Russian tyrant, Vladimir Putin.

According to this monster, Russia has "no bad intentions towards (our) neighbours". He says that "everyone must think about how to normalise relations, cooperate normally and develop relations normally". Putin also claims "And all our actions, if they arise, they always arise exclusively in response to some unfriendly actions, actions against the Russian Federation".

If things weren't so serious, I would laugh out load. 

It may be argued, and some do argue, that Putin's invasion of Ukraine has come about because of his perception that Ukraine was becoming to close to the West, with NATO keen to develop its ties to the country and Ukraine itself looking to join the European Union. It is suggested that Putin sees this as a direct threat to Russia which must be negated. In his eyes, diplomacy has failed and so direct action is the only course, Ukraine being perceived to be acting in an 'unfriendly' manner towards its huge neighbour.

What an absolute load of poppycock. Russia is vastly bigger than Ukraine and has enormously greater military power, including the possession of nuclear weapons. While Ukraine may have found the West attractive, it also has strong historic links to Russia and has done nothing to harm its former Soviet master. Ukraine has not massed an army on its border with Russia, it has not sent those troops across the border, supported by aircraft, parachutists and much other military paraphernalia. Ukraine has not launched bombardments of any Russian cities and has not attacked or killed any Russian civilians.

However, in Putin's fantasy world, the very existence of Ukraine as an independent state which might look favourably upon the West is abhorrent. In his mind, Ukraine was, and always should be, part of a Greater Russia, just as other former Soviet states should be. His action in invading Ukraine, for the second time, be it noted, after his earlier invasion and annexation of the Crimea, serves this purpose and this purpose alone. It demonstrates that Putin, and Russia under Putin, is no different from the old Soviet Union under its brutal dictators, Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, all of whom ruled over regimes of mind blowing horror.

How Putin can believe that anyone will accept his ludicrous assertions about having no bad intentions and acting only in the face of 'unfriendly actions' has to remain a mystery buried deep inside the skull of this psychopath. Were the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London or the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury acts without 'bad intentions' ? Were these acts which demand any 'normalisation of relations ? Did Litvinenko or Skripal represent any real danger to Russia ? Does any normal country send its operatives on missions to foreign nations to carry out the assassination of civilians ?

In Russia, all dissent is met by the full force of a military dictatorship. Opponents of the regime are rounded up and thrown into prison; if they're lucky, they may face a show trial and an opportunity to confess their guilt and beg for forgiveness, if not they simply 'disappear'. It is no fun being an opponent of someone like Putin, so most normal Russians keep their heads down and their mouths shut. They suffer in silence, as they have done for centuries, first under the Imperial Tsars, then the communist dictators and now under a man who seems to be at least as monstrous as any of his predecessors.

If Putin really wants a normalisation of relations and cooperation, the path is there in front of him, should he wish to walk it. Withdraw from Ukraine, pay for the costs of reconstruction, accept that Ukraine is a sovereign and independent nation, able to determine its own future, give an undertaking not to carry out any further such aggressive acts against either other nations or individuals and, start behaving like a human being rather than a psychotic mad man

Not much chance of that then. When Putin dies, he will go down in history alongside those other cruel and brutal men of history, the likes of Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin, Hitler and others who brought about the slaughter of hundreds, thousands, even millions in order to satisfy their cravings for power. He will be vilified, rightly, and his legacy will be written in the blood of Ukraine.