"I've seen religion, from Jesus to Paul."
- John Lennon, I Found Out
Many people think,"If my enemy is wrong, I must be right." But this is not true. My enemy or opponent can be wrong, genuinely wrong, & I can be wrong as well at the same time. My enemy's wrongness does not automatically validate my position. Both parties to a dispute can be wrong.
You may object that applying this makes it impossible ever to decide who is right or wrong, or who is which in which combination or mixture; that all one can do is float reading the newspaper in a Dead Sea of indecision. Not at all. It is simply a permanent caveat in this impermanent World.
A similar idea applies to the experience of conversion in the individual. Just because I've been converted, it doesn't mean I've gone from wrong to right. I can be wrong before conversion, & wrong in a different way, or in the same way but expressing it differently, afterwards. St.Paul - going from Saul to Paul & the Road to Damascus (Acts, ch.9) being one of the great paradigms of the experience of conversion - & St.Augustine of Hippo seem to me prime examples of this; they were wrong before conversion, & wrong in a different way afterwards.
You can see the continuity before & after in St.Paul's personality in action; whether against or for Christianity, whatever he thought & believed, he was going to do something about it. As Saul he was wrong to persecute the new sect. His strong reaction against it surely betrays a secret attraction, as is so often the case with Inquisitors, which prepared the ground for the Road to Damascus. After his conversion, Paul was equally insistent that Jesus was the only true route to salvation, which if you're not a Christian is a highly contestable position, granting that 'salvation' of some kind is even necessary. I can argue that Christianity is offering me the solution to a problem I don't have in the first place, creating a problem where there isn't one; that I am in a state of lacking God's grace. If there is no God in the Christian sense, then I cannot lack his grace. Salvation as a metaphor for psychic development is a different matter. I may well be in need of that. To be fair to Christianity, what matters is the actual experience & not the cultural label clumsily attached to it.
When I hear St.Paul preaching Christianity, my reaction is to shout out with the craftsmen & people of Ephesus, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians !" Things move on though, & it is as anachronistic to worship the Classical gods & goddesses, however attractive, as it is to write a play in blank-verse.
This proposition that one can be wrong both before & after conversion is one of the things that Camus is getting at in La Chute, although he never states it explicitly that I can remember. This is one of the reasons I find that book so powerful.
A thought to leave you with: western Christianity in my opinion has far more to do with Paul & Augustine than it does with Jesus.
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Against Coldplay
The following was prompted most immediately by catching Coldplay at the end of Later Live .... with Jools last night. Behind it lies their appearance at Glastonbury this year, & a close acquaintance with what I hesitate to call their oeuvre, acquired unwillingly while working in retail, in a shop that sold music to be exact. My time in retail coincided closely with Coldplay's rise to prominence. I vividly recall Parachutes gradually becoming a bigger & bigger hit. All their subsequent albums were played *cough* extensively in the shop. So I know whereof I speak.
Of all the bands that have high reputations, Coldplay seem to me to deserve theirs the least. The appeal of Coldplay eludes me, especially given their level of success, which I find almost inexplicable. It's not that I can see they are good in some sense but just not to my taste; I don't admit that they're good at all.
Coldplay seem to me the dullest band in the world. Here's another song exactly like the last, which was rubbish, with no memorable melody & indifferent lyrics. Even their name itself - Coldplay. What does that mean ? A dull label for dull contents. Vacuous, thin, vague, pointless, hollow.
The only reason that I can think of for their success is that many people must want 'music' that is unchallenging, easy, substanceless, that doesn't upset them or invite them to think. Coldplay are the Indy-stadium eqivalent of Mantovani or James Last.
One of the tests of quality in Art is, "Would the world be a poorer place without it ?" Coldplay emphatically fail this test. If they had never existed, nothing would have been lost.
Of all the bands that have high reputations, Coldplay seem to me to deserve theirs the least. The appeal of Coldplay eludes me, especially given their level of success, which I find almost inexplicable. It's not that I can see they are good in some sense but just not to my taste; I don't admit that they're good at all.
Coldplay seem to me the dullest band in the world. Here's another song exactly like the last, which was rubbish, with no memorable melody & indifferent lyrics. Even their name itself - Coldplay. What does that mean ? A dull label for dull contents. Vacuous, thin, vague, pointless, hollow.
The only reason that I can think of for their success is that many people must want 'music' that is unchallenging, easy, substanceless, that doesn't upset them or invite them to think. Coldplay are the Indy-stadium eqivalent of Mantovani or James Last.
One of the tests of quality in Art is, "Would the world be a poorer place without it ?" Coldplay emphatically fail this test. If they had never existed, nothing would have been lost.
Sunday, 23 October 2011
On Being Walloped Right Between The Eyes
The following is a list of those rare things that walloped me right between the eyes the first time I encountered them, a moment in each case of being transfixed by its effectiveness & utter relevance:
1. Sweet Sir Galahad by Joan Baez, performed at Woodstock.
2. The film Le Feu Follet ,directed by Louis Malle.
3. A Heart Needs A Home by Richard & Linda Thompson, performed on The Old Grey Whistle Test.
This experience is infrequent & extremely personal. A major part of the impact is precisely that the impact is unforeseen, unanticipated.
This puts these particular items in a special category for me all of their own. The initial contact, the lightning-strike, is beyond enjoyment; it is about absolute recognition.
Before, I am sitting down just to give them a go, see if they're any good or not, but something quite different happens ....
.... do you know the feeling ? What are your equivalents ?
1. Sweet Sir Galahad by Joan Baez, performed at Woodstock.
2. The film Le Feu Follet ,directed by Louis Malle.
3. A Heart Needs A Home by Richard & Linda Thompson, performed on The Old Grey Whistle Test.
This experience is infrequent & extremely personal. A major part of the impact is precisely that the impact is unforeseen, unanticipated.
This puts these particular items in a special category for me all of their own. The initial contact, the lightning-strike, is beyond enjoyment; it is about absolute recognition.
Before, I am sitting down just to give them a go, see if they're any good or not, but something quite different happens ....
.... do you know the feeling ? What are your equivalents ?
Monday, 17 October 2011
The Opening of 'Tous Les Matins du Monde'
(The following is a transcription* of the monologue from the opening of the film Tous Les Matins du Monde, written by Alain Corneau & Pascal Quignard. It is delivered by Gerard Depardieu, playing the French composer Marin Marais (1656-1728) in old age. Marais was a very important Court musician at this time, and is supervising a lesson with a large group of students .... he becomes impatient with what he appears to regard as the nonsense being talked by the sub-instructors, who are actually taking the lesson .... he calls for a viola da gamba & plays the start of a piece of music ... then he orders the shutters to be closed, & in almost-darkness he begins to reminisce about his own teacher, Monsieur de Sainte Colombe .... he appears completely transported, lost in memory, & says :)
Austérité. Il n'était qu'austérité et colère. Il était muet comme un poisson..... Je suis un imposteur [murmurs of dissent from the students], et je ne vaux rien [louder murmurs] .... J'ai ambitionné le néant, j'ai récolté le néant; du sucre, des louis, et la honte .... Lui, il était la musique. Il a tout regardé le monde avec la grande flamme du flambeau qu'on allume au mourant. Je ne suis pas venu au bout de son désir .... J'avais un Maître. Les ombres l'ont pris. Il s'appellait Monsieur de Sainte Colombe ....
Austerity. He was nothing but austerity & anger. He was mute like fish .... I am an impostor [murmurs of dissent from the students], & I'm worthless [louder murmurs] .... I aspired to nothingness, I reaped nothingness; some sugar, some gold coins, and shame .... As for him, he was music itself. He always looked at the world under the great flame of the torch that is lit for the dying. I didn't live up to what he wanted for me .... I had a Master. The shadows took him. He was called Monsieur de Sainte Colombe ....
* Since this is a transcription there may well be errors in the grammar.
Austérité. Il n'était qu'austérité et colère. Il était muet comme un poisson..... Je suis un imposteur [murmurs of dissent from the students], et je ne vaux rien [louder murmurs] .... J'ai ambitionné le néant, j'ai récolté le néant; du sucre, des louis, et la honte .... Lui, il était la musique. Il a tout regardé le monde avec la grande flamme du flambeau qu'on allume au mourant. Je ne suis pas venu au bout de son désir .... J'avais un Maître. Les ombres l'ont pris. Il s'appellait Monsieur de Sainte Colombe ....
Austerity. He was nothing but austerity & anger. He was mute like fish .... I am an impostor [murmurs of dissent from the students], & I'm worthless [louder murmurs] .... I aspired to nothingness, I reaped nothingness; some sugar, some gold coins, and shame .... As for him, he was music itself. He always looked at the world under the great flame of the torch that is lit for the dying. I didn't live up to what he wanted for me .... I had a Master. The shadows took him. He was called Monsieur de Sainte Colombe ....
* Since this is a transcription there may well be errors in the grammar.
Saturday, 8 October 2011
'Prezza' - John Prescott
I'm reading Whatever It Takes by Steve Richards at the moment, which is an excellent account & examination of the New Labour years focusing on Gordon Brown. I'm also reading Tony Blair's autobiography, A Journey. Inevitably the subject of John Prescott comes up a lot in both. You could regard him as the third person in the Triumvirate, junior to Tony Blair & Gordon Brown but absolutely indispensable.
John Prescott was crucial to the New Labour project for two reasons. First, someone was needed who was sufficiently powerful to hold the ring between Gordon Brown & Tony Blair in their remarkably bad relationship, and to broker temporary truces when things went completely awry. Second, Tony Blair needed a person who could sell New Labour to the grass-roots of the Party, and reassure them because there was someone they trusted at the heart of both Government and the Party.
The one person who could do all this was John Prescott.
Being able to fulfil all of these functions at once is what gave Prezza his immense power in the New Labour Government, his heading of the vast super-Department of Transport, Environment & the Regions.
BUT .....
Prezza's position in the third Triumvir always reminds me of an exchange between Mark Antony & Octavian in Julius Caesar (4.1.11-40). The subject is Lepidus, their third Triumvir. It's worth quoting in full. Antony & Octavian, having seen off the conspirators who assassinated Caesar and taken power in Rome, are agreeing who is to be proscribed i.e. written on the list of who is to be executed as an enemy and political opponent. Lepidus was with them, but Antony has just sent him off on an errand. Antony starts talking about him:
Antony : This is a slight unmeritable man,
Meet to be sent on errands. Is it fit,
The three-fold world divided, he should stand
One of the three to share it ?
Octavian: So you thought him,
And took his voice who should be prick'd to die
In our black sentence and proscription.
Antony : Octavius, I have seen more days than you;
And though we lay these honours on this man,
To ease ourselves of divers sland'rous loads,
He shall but bear them as the ass bears gold,
To groan and sweat under the business,
Either led or driven, as we point the way;
And having brought our treasure where we will,
Then take we down his load, and turn him off,
Like to the empty ass, to shake his ears,
And graze in commons.
Octavian: You may do your will;
But he's a tried and valiant soldier.
Antony : So is my horse, Octavius, and for that
I do appoint him store of provender.
It is a creature that I teach to fight,
To wind, to stop, to run directly on,
His corporal motion govern'd by my spirit.
And, in some taste, is Lepidus but so:
He must be taught, and train'd, and bid go forth:
A barren-spirited fellow; one that feeds
On objects, arts, and imitations,
Which, out of use and stal'd by other men,
Begin his fashion. Do not talk of him
But as a property.
John Prescott was crucial to the New Labour project for two reasons. First, someone was needed who was sufficiently powerful to hold the ring between Gordon Brown & Tony Blair in their remarkably bad relationship, and to broker temporary truces when things went completely awry. Second, Tony Blair needed a person who could sell New Labour to the grass-roots of the Party, and reassure them because there was someone they trusted at the heart of both Government and the Party.
The one person who could do all this was John Prescott.
Being able to fulfil all of these functions at once is what gave Prezza his immense power in the New Labour Government, his heading of the vast super-Department of Transport, Environment & the Regions.
BUT .....
Prezza's position in the third Triumvir always reminds me of an exchange between Mark Antony & Octavian in Julius Caesar (4.1.11-40). The subject is Lepidus, their third Triumvir. It's worth quoting in full. Antony & Octavian, having seen off the conspirators who assassinated Caesar and taken power in Rome, are agreeing who is to be proscribed i.e. written on the list of who is to be executed as an enemy and political opponent. Lepidus was with them, but Antony has just sent him off on an errand. Antony starts talking about him:
Antony : This is a slight unmeritable man,
Meet to be sent on errands. Is it fit,
The three-fold world divided, he should stand
One of the three to share it ?
Octavian: So you thought him,
And took his voice who should be prick'd to die
In our black sentence and proscription.
Antony : Octavius, I have seen more days than you;
And though we lay these honours on this man,
To ease ourselves of divers sland'rous loads,
He shall but bear them as the ass bears gold,
To groan and sweat under the business,
Either led or driven, as we point the way;
And having brought our treasure where we will,
Then take we down his load, and turn him off,
Like to the empty ass, to shake his ears,
And graze in commons.
Octavian: You may do your will;
But he's a tried and valiant soldier.
Antony : So is my horse, Octavius, and for that
I do appoint him store of provender.
It is a creature that I teach to fight,
To wind, to stop, to run directly on,
His corporal motion govern'd by my spirit.
And, in some taste, is Lepidus but so:
He must be taught, and train'd, and bid go forth:
A barren-spirited fellow; one that feeds
On objects, arts, and imitations,
Which, out of use and stal'd by other men,
Begin his fashion. Do not talk of him
But as a property.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
What is Bulletins for ?
This blog, Bulletins, is quite simply a flexible vehicle for me to express whatever is uppermost in my mind at the time of writing.
Every so often, I return to working intensely on the mosaic in my head, which is my Understanding.
It is also like a collage which is being perpetually rearranged: some elements added, some cut; some emphasised, some diminished; some urgent, some underlying & essential.
The collage is perpetually in flux, sometimes rapidly & sometimes very slowly, but always, to a greater or lesser extent, waxing & waning like the Moon.
Every so often, I return to working intensely on the mosaic in my head, which is my Understanding.
It is also like a collage which is being perpetually rearranged: some elements added, some cut; some emphasised, some diminished; some urgent, some underlying & essential.
The collage is perpetually in flux, sometimes rapidly & sometimes very slowly, but always, to a greater or lesser extent, waxing & waning like the Moon.
<--------------------------------------------->
Holding a thought safely until I can pour it into my notebook is like carrying a cup full to the brim with precious liquid.
<--------------------------------------------->
Here's an image of the process of writing for you. It's what I imagine throwing a pot is like (I've only seen it done, not done it myself.) The lump of clay is your original idea or set of ideas. Throwing it on the potter's wheel is the equivalent of drafting; the slip is your knowledge of grammar and the nuts & bolts of language. Putting the piece of writing into its final form is like firing the pot. Lastly comes publishing the piece, which is like putting the finished pot on display on a stand, for people to make of it what they will.
Here's an image of the process of writing for you. It's what I imagine throwing a pot is like (I've only seen it done, not done it myself.) The lump of clay is your original idea or set of ideas. Throwing it on the potter's wheel is the equivalent of drafting; the slip is your knowledge of grammar and the nuts & bolts of language. Putting the piece of writing into its final form is like firing the pot. Lastly comes publishing the piece, which is like putting the finished pot on display on a stand, for people to make of it what they will.
<--------------------------------------------->
In a magical ritual, an invocation, you perform a certain set of gestures & words. In music, in writing it is exactly the same. Hence these activities have a correspondence to Magic. It's just the same in acting, painting, sculpture - all the Arts. Sport & cooking also. All these activities have resemblances to one another, and all contain the possibility of Magic, as does Magic itself. For a magic ritual badly performed will not succeed.
As regards Sport, think of the similarity between the Magician's circle on the ground within which he or she works, and the diagrams likewise - think of the similarity between that and the markings on a pitch for any given sport.
The ritual also takes place in Time. On this subject Napoleon had an apposite insight, specifically about battles. He said:
All battles are concerned with Space & Time. Space you can regain, Time never.
Writing projects Thought through Space & Time. Is that not the fulfilment of a Magician's Dream ?
In a magical ritual, an invocation, you perform a certain set of gestures & words. In music, in writing it is exactly the same. Hence these activities have a correspondence to Magic. It's just the same in acting, painting, sculpture - all the Arts. Sport & cooking also. All these activities have resemblances to one another, and all contain the possibility of Magic, as does Magic itself. For a magic ritual badly performed will not succeed.
As regards Sport, think of the similarity between the Magician's circle on the ground within which he or she works, and the diagrams likewise - think of the similarity between that and the markings on a pitch for any given sport.
The ritual also takes place in Time. On this subject Napoleon had an apposite insight, specifically about battles. He said:
All battles are concerned with Space & Time. Space you can regain, Time never.
<--------------------------------------------->
Writing projects Thought through Space & Time. Is that not the fulfilment of a Magician's Dream ?
Russia & US Both Back Their Strategic Partners in MENA*
Last night in the UN Security Council, Russia & China both vetoed a European-drafted UN Security Council Resolution which threatened sanctions against the government of Bashar al-Assad if it does not stop its crackdown on its civilian opponents in Syria. The vote was 9-2, with 4 abstentions - India, South Africa, Brazil & Lebanon.You can find the details in the following articles: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15181794, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hxy8J12x2Z7wmSMAkRiTS3OphFRg?docId=N0768781317806676225A
,http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-05/russia-to-resist-western-led-regime-change-after-syria-veto.html
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said regarding the failure of the resolution: "...the courageous people of Syria can now clearly see who on this council supports their yearning for liberty and human rights - and who does not."
One of the main motives of the Russian govt. for vetoing the resolution is that it is supporting its strategic partner in the region, Syria. The Russians have a servicing point for naval vessels at the Syrian port of Tartus, their only military facility outside the former Soviet Union. This support despite the consistent & ongoing human rights' abuses of the Syrian govt., the fact that it has killed at the very least 2,700 of its own citizens in its crackdown against dissent since March this year, & injured, arrested & tortured many more.
The Russian govt. is only doing what the US govt. does as well though - supporting its strategic partners in the region. In the case of the US, in MENA these include Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Bahrain, President Saleh in Yemen, & until very recently Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. The US 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain & has its headquarters there. Human rights' abuses are nothing like on the same scale in Bahrain as in Syria, nevertheless they also take place there. For instance, the Bahraini govt. in September sentenced 20 medics to between 5 & 15 years in prison simply for treating people injured during anti-government protests in March (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15105270)
Furthermore, human rights' abuses are not incidental to the govt. of Saudi Arabia, which supported & supplied troops to the crackdown in Bahrain, in their country but systematic & intrinsic. So they were in the Egypt of Hosni Mubarak, which the US supported for 30 years.
President Obama said in the UN General Assembly on 22nd September this year that he will veto the request to the UN of the Palestinian Authority to have recognition of Palestine as a full member state if that request goes to the Security Council. This is another example of the US govt. backing a strategic partner in the region, in this case Israel. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15033357)
Russia & the US both back their strategic partners in the region. It is easy to condemn the human rights' abuses of the strategic partners of another Power.
*MENA is a useful acronym you may not be familiar with. It stands for 'the Middle East & North Africa'.
,http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-05/russia-to-resist-western-led-regime-change-after-syria-veto.html
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said regarding the failure of the resolution: "...the courageous people of Syria can now clearly see who on this council supports their yearning for liberty and human rights - and who does not."
One of the main motives of the Russian govt. for vetoing the resolution is that it is supporting its strategic partner in the region, Syria. The Russians have a servicing point for naval vessels at the Syrian port of Tartus, their only military facility outside the former Soviet Union. This support despite the consistent & ongoing human rights' abuses of the Syrian govt., the fact that it has killed at the very least 2,700 of its own citizens in its crackdown against dissent since March this year, & injured, arrested & tortured many more.
The Russian govt. is only doing what the US govt. does as well though - supporting its strategic partners in the region. In the case of the US, in MENA these include Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Bahrain, President Saleh in Yemen, & until very recently Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. The US 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain & has its headquarters there. Human rights' abuses are nothing like on the same scale in Bahrain as in Syria, nevertheless they also take place there. For instance, the Bahraini govt. in September sentenced 20 medics to between 5 & 15 years in prison simply for treating people injured during anti-government protests in March (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15105270)
Furthermore, human rights' abuses are not incidental to the govt. of Saudi Arabia, which supported & supplied troops to the crackdown in Bahrain, in their country but systematic & intrinsic. So they were in the Egypt of Hosni Mubarak, which the US supported for 30 years.
President Obama said in the UN General Assembly on 22nd September this year that he will veto the request to the UN of the Palestinian Authority to have recognition of Palestine as a full member state if that request goes to the Security Council. This is another example of the US govt. backing a strategic partner in the region, in this case Israel. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15033357)
Russia & the US both back their strategic partners in the region. It is easy to condemn the human rights' abuses of the strategic partners of another Power.
*MENA is a useful acronym you may not be familiar with. It stands for 'the Middle East & North Africa'.
Monday, 3 October 2011
BBC response to me re David Starkey on Newsnight, 12.8.11
Dear Mr Brown
Thank you for contacting us regarding ‘Newsnight’, broadcast on Friday 12 August.
We understand some viewers felt David Starkey's contribution to the discussion on the England riots was inappropriate and racially offensive. We note some viewers also felt Dr Starkey's views were not sufficiently challenged by presenter Emily Maitlis.
Firstly, it is important to stress that Dr Starkey’s views are his alone and not those of ‘Newsnight’ or the BBC. It is part of ‘Newsnight's remit to air and challenge controversial views and we believe his perspective on the riots was robustly challenged during the course of this discussion.
The aim of this, at times heated, ten minute debate was to examine the causes of the recent riots and looting and in many ways it encapsulated different strands of opinion, both ideologically and socio-economically, as to what provoked the violence. Presenter Emily Maitlis directly challenged David Starkey’s views on a number of occasions, asking: ‘Is black culture the cause of the rioting?’ and ultimately ending the discussion by asserting that Dr Starkey was ‘using black and white cultures interchangeably as good and bad’.
Aside from Emily Maitlis’ interjections, guests Owen Jones and Dreda Say Mitchell clearly took exception to David Starkey’s opinions and were given ample time and space to make their disagreements heard. Owen Jones particularly highlighted that many people listening would find the views expressed offensive, and Emily Maitlis provided further context - making it clear that David Cameron had stated that this was not a race issue, and that people taking part in the riots came from a range of ethnic backgrounds.
Although some viewers found David Starkey’s arguments offensive, others agreed with them. It is not ‘Newsnight's’ job to censor the views of our guests; the programme would rather challenge them in a robust way on air, and allow viewers to draw their own conclusions. We believe this discussion was conducted in a fair and professional manner.
Please be assured your concerns were raised with the programme.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
Kind Regards
BBC Audience Services
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Ed Miliband Gives Benefit Claimants a Thorough Kicking
Last Tuesday (27th Sept 2011) Ed Miliband delivered his speech as Leader to the Labour Party Conference. You can read the full text here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15081234
I have excerpted 4 passages which are the context of what I am going to say.
Ed on Business:
1. You've been told all growth is the same, all ways of doing business are the same. But it's not. You've been told that the choice in politics is whether parties are pro-business or anti-business. But all parties must be pro-business today. If it ever was, that's not the real choice any more. Let me tell you what the 21st century choice is:
Are you on the side of the wealth creators or the asset strippers?
The producers or the predators?
Producers train, invest, invent, sell. Things Britain does brilliantly. Predators are just interested in the fast buck, taking what they can out of the business. This isn't about one industry that's good and another that isn't. Or one firm always destined to be a predator and another to be a producer. It's about different ways of doing business, ways that the rules of our economy can favour or discourage.
Ed on Benefit Claimants:
2. The something for nothing of celebrity culture. The take what you can of the gangs. And in parts of some of our communities, a life on benefits. You know what your values are. But they are not the values being rewarded in our benefits system. We must never excuse people who cheat the welfare system. The reason I talk about this is not because I don't believe in a welfare state but because I do. We can never protect and renew it if people believe it's just not fair. If it's too easy not to work. And there are people taking something for nothing. And if at the same time people who have paid into the system all their lives find the safety net full of holes. No wonder people are angry.
3. So we need a new bargain at the top of society, and in our benefits system too. So it rewards the right people with the right values. But it isn't delivering that. And we've got to fix it. If you think putting it right means just stripping away welfare then you are better off with Iain Duncan Smith and David Cameron. But at the same time we have to face the truth. Even after reforms of recent years, we still have a system where reward for work is not high enough. Where benefits are too easy to come by for those who don't deserve them and too low for those who do. So if what you want is a welfare system that works for working people then I'm prepared to take the tough decisions to make that a reality.
4. I believe in a benefits system with values. And I believe in the value of work.
Both people in business & Benefit Claimants felt demeaned & caricatured by Ed Miliband in his speech. Ed's message on both of these sections of our society was reinforced by interviews given by Sadiq Khan (Shadow Justice Secretary, who ran Ed's campaign for the leadership) & Andy Burnham (Shadow Education Secretary) subsequent to the speech. The idea they are touting is of replacing what they call the something for nothing culture with a something for something culture.
The difference between people in business & Benefit Claimants is in their ability to respond to these attacks. Successful businessmen & leaders of business organisations were all over the News rebutting Ed's swipe at them; they are perfectly well able to defend themselves.
Not so Benefit Claimants. None of them were asked for their view on Ed's claims that it's too easy not to work, how much reality that depiction contains. As a description of the Benefits System, Ed's is about 10 years out of date. Ed either knows this, in which case he is consciously lying, or he doesn't, & therefore doesn't know what he's on about. Either is bad, the first possibly worse.
This is what makes Ed's attack on Benefit Claimants all the more disgusting. He is kicking a group who can't kick back, & who don't form a large enough bloc of voters for it to matter what they think. Ed is playing to the prejudices of the crucial swing-voters whose votes he seeks. It's cost-free for him, but not for the actual Benefit Claimants he is merrily joining in stigmatising.
If pressed, Ed would say that he only means some Benefit Claimants.
Imagine if he got up & said, "Some Black people are alright, but as for those dirty Niggers ..."
(It's worth comparing what Ed M had to say about Welfare reform with what Iain Duncan Smith said subsequently at the Tory Conference: http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/10/Iain_Duncan_Smith_Our_contract_with_the_country_for_21st_Century_Welfare.aspx
As far as I'm concerned, they are interchangeable. IDS just says it at greater length.)
ADDENDUM: I predict that Ed Miliband will not make it as Leader of the Labour Party to the 2015 election. He will be unseated because his personal ratings & those of the Party in the opinion polls will remain too low. Ed Balls will also not be Shadow Chancellor by 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)