Whilst recently in Cardiff, I walked past a pub, the King's Cross, which had a rainbow flag flying outside. I was looking for somewhere to eat and so asked some people standing outside with their pints. After my meal, I returned for a drink to the King's Cross. It had sign bearing a portrait of the hetrosexually-challenged King James VI (James I of Wales). I ended up chatting to the guy who had given me the directions earlier. It turned out that he was Cllr. Layton (Percy) Jones of Plaid Cymru. We discovered we knew several people in common.
Gaydar is the ability of gay men to identify other gay men in majority straight company. Incidently, it is not really about physical atrraction; it is just about knowing they are the same as you. Gaydar is quite superfluous in establishments such as the King's Cross. Any straight guy there would, in any case, volunteer this fact as soon as you spoke to him. But could there be such a thing as Natdar - the ability of nationalists to spot fellow nationalists in otherwise non-political situations?
Sunday, 27 June 2010
Budget Trek - The Next Generation
I have been on a foreign trip to Wales and England and therefore could not blog about the budget in a timely fashion. So instead of repeating what has been already said, I shall take a different tack.
Of the many injustices perpetrated by Margaret Thatcher's adminstration, one rarely mentioned is the way that their 'reforms' of tax and public spending led to a net redistristribution of wealth away from households with children to single people and childless couples. Anyone that rears the next generation will make sacrifices. Thus, it seems only fair that those of us, that, for whatever reason, will not raise children should make some sacrifice through the tax system to help those that do.
The budget freezes child benefit (a cut in real terms), abolishes various grants given to those becoming parents and will cut public services, many of which disportionately benefit households with children such as education, social services as well as many local amenities such as swimming pools, parks, libraries and out-of-school activities. It is inevitable that the planned cuts in public spending will affect these services. Of course cuts to local amenities affect everyone, but adults with children will use them more than adults alone. If charges are imposed or increased, the cost per adult is greater.
George Osborne has stated that it is the responsibilities of families and not the state to bring up children and that appears to be his justification for these cuts. He misses the point. No one doubts that families should be responsible for looking after children whenever possible but children are expensive. It a mark of a fair society that fact is recognised. Thatcher did not believe in society (fair or otherwise) and it seems that little has changed in the Tory Party since.
Of the many injustices perpetrated by Margaret Thatcher's adminstration, one rarely mentioned is the way that their 'reforms' of tax and public spending led to a net redistristribution of wealth away from households with children to single people and childless couples. Anyone that rears the next generation will make sacrifices. Thus, it seems only fair that those of us, that, for whatever reason, will not raise children should make some sacrifice through the tax system to help those that do.
The budget freezes child benefit (a cut in real terms), abolishes various grants given to those becoming parents and will cut public services, many of which disportionately benefit households with children such as education, social services as well as many local amenities such as swimming pools, parks, libraries and out-of-school activities. It is inevitable that the planned cuts in public spending will affect these services. Of course cuts to local amenities affect everyone, but adults with children will use them more than adults alone. If charges are imposed or increased, the cost per adult is greater.
George Osborne has stated that it is the responsibilities of families and not the state to bring up children and that appears to be his justification for these cuts. He misses the point. No one doubts that families should be responsible for looking after children whenever possible but children are expensive. It a mark of a fair society that fact is recognised. Thatcher did not believe in society (fair or otherwise) and it seems that little has changed in the Tory Party since.
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Patriotism and National Pride
I am not the World's greatest football fan and I rarely watch games but I do find facinating and a somewhat disconcerting the hysteria in England (my country of birth) over their team's performance in the World Cup. For the record, I am not supporting any team.
I have been away from England for nigh 20 years now, having made my home in Scotland. But, when I did stay South of the Border, the reaction to sporting (and specifically football) defeats seemed quite normal because that is what everyone else thought and did. It is only with hindsight and nearly 100 miles distance I have come to realise just how bizarre this behaviour is. When England fails to win the World Cup (as looks likely), it becomes a source of national humiliation and soul searching. Even if they were defeated in the final, the team would return in disgrace. As I write, England has to win a game to remain in the competition. This may yet happen but the excuses for defeat and subsequent accusations are already being prepared. Why?
When, some years ago, Bobby Robson, the then national manager, suggested that England did not have a divine right to beat other countries he was pilloried by the tabloid press. Clearly England do have this divine right. When they lose or even draw it is nothing less than an inversion of the natural order. It is not that the other team were better - this could not possibly be the case. Something has gone terribly wrong and someone is to blame. The culprit must be found and publically humiliated. Is it any wonder that the England manager is nowadays a foreigner? No national would want to live with the shame.
In 1998, I went out for a pint on the day Scotland exited the World Cup. There was live music - a one man singer and keyboards act. He led the whole pub in Flower of Scotland (twice). Yes, we had lost. There was disappointment but no disgrace. We tried our best but the other teams were better. There was no national crisis of confidence. Contrast this with England, which had already exited, undergoing the sad but inevitable handwringing and subsequent witch hunt. There was no singing of anything in any alehouse the length and breadth of that nation.
The 1998 World Cup was perhaps a formative time for me and not because I watched the matches. That Glasgow pub experience was influential; it was patriotism I could identify with. A year later I voted SNP for the first time. Some time after I became a Party member and activist. Please understand, I have nothing against England or the English; after all, my family live there. It is just that I can no longer feel part of it.
I have been away from England for nigh 20 years now, having made my home in Scotland. But, when I did stay South of the Border, the reaction to sporting (and specifically football) defeats seemed quite normal because that is what everyone else thought and did. It is only with hindsight and nearly 100 miles distance I have come to realise just how bizarre this behaviour is. When England fails to win the World Cup (as looks likely), it becomes a source of national humiliation and soul searching. Even if they were defeated in the final, the team would return in disgrace. As I write, England has to win a game to remain in the competition. This may yet happen but the excuses for defeat and subsequent accusations are already being prepared. Why?
When, some years ago, Bobby Robson, the then national manager, suggested that England did not have a divine right to beat other countries he was pilloried by the tabloid press. Clearly England do have this divine right. When they lose or even draw it is nothing less than an inversion of the natural order. It is not that the other team were better - this could not possibly be the case. Something has gone terribly wrong and someone is to blame. The culprit must be found and publically humiliated. Is it any wonder that the England manager is nowadays a foreigner? No national would want to live with the shame.
In 1998, I went out for a pint on the day Scotland exited the World Cup. There was live music - a one man singer and keyboards act. He led the whole pub in Flower of Scotland (twice). Yes, we had lost. There was disappointment but no disgrace. We tried our best but the other teams were better. There was no national crisis of confidence. Contrast this with England, which had already exited, undergoing the sad but inevitable handwringing and subsequent witch hunt. There was no singing of anything in any alehouse the length and breadth of that nation.
The 1998 World Cup was perhaps a formative time for me and not because I watched the matches. That Glasgow pub experience was influential; it was patriotism I could identify with. A year later I voted SNP for the first time. Some time after I became a Party member and activist. Please understand, I have nothing against England or the English; after all, my family live there. It is just that I can no longer feel part of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)