I've come to consider it somewhat of a duty to attempt to keep abreast of the news. We should, shouldn't we? It's a kind of obligation that goes along with living in a 'democracy', to be aware of what is happening, often supposedly, 'on our behalves'. Otherwise, when we're actually required to 'participate', how will we be able to put our role into some kind of context, upon which we might then act?
That's what I've done, anyway. Perhaps, at first, I didn't use to view reading, watching or listening to the 'news' as something of a duty, because I was just naturally curious as to what was going on in the world, but, regardless of the reasons for beginning to take an interest in regional, national and global affairs, a kind of reciprocal duty is how I have now come to regard this simple interaction with the radio, television and some of 'our' newspapers.
That's not to say that I claim to be able to keep abreast of all that is currently judged to be newsworthy, or that I fully understand the finer points of international currency fluctuations. Things like that, I presume, will never, by covert design, be entirely revealed to minions like me. I suspect that the vast majority of us just glaze over, when somebody with an important-sounding voice informs us that the FTSE is up or down a seemingly-random number of points. And, by the time that these already forgotten points have seeped through to the real world, where they might actually impact upon an aspect of our everyday lives, we no longer make the connections, even though we may harbour more than a niggling suspicion that someone is really to blame.
Of course, there are also times when things are just too darned depressing to watch- the repeated and most graphic footage of natural disasters, MPs, from within their far more cosy lives, seeking to justify their outrageous greed or English football's latest over-remunerated revelations. At such times my language has been known to blossom into something far more colourful, often to the point where watching the news offers absolutely nothing that might be conceived as beneficial to personal wellbeing, nor helpful to any degree of domestic harmony. So, at such moments, the option of whether to watch or not might have already been wrested from my control.
Oh, so often, when attempting to analyse any 'newsworthy' event, we may stumble upon finer points, secreted within finer points, any of which might seek to lure us down any number of alternative pathways to discussion. But, I ask, entirely for the purpose of continuity, you understand, that we take much of what I have written thus far at face value, just for the present.
Having 'accepted' this dubious premise, do you still, like myself, find yourself, daily, confronted by items with which it is virtually impossible to agree? And, before you nod affirmation- how can you not?- thinking, "We all do that at times," allow me, please, to clarify further. What I mean isn't just that I find myself opposed to certain proffered opinions, arguments and statements; my objections increasingly seem to run so deeply that I can find myself offended by the mere premise of certain political 'discussions', before they have even commenced.
Having 'accepted' this dubious premise, do you still, like myself, find yourself, daily, confronted by items with which it is virtually impossible to agree? And, before you nod affirmation- how can you not?- thinking, "We all do that at times," allow me, please, to clarify further. What I mean isn't just that I find myself opposed to certain proffered opinions, arguments and statements; my objections increasingly seem to run so deeply that I can find myself offended by the mere premise of certain political 'discussions', before they have even commenced.
Seeking to analyse this (let's for the moment refer to it as a) gulf, that serves to separate me from the world in which I reside, I think that I may have hit upon one very significant and major contributor to this chasm.
There have been more than a couple of reported issues lately, with which I have struggled to get to grips. Indeed I would go as far as to say that I am as certain as it is possible to be that the alluded to issues are (currently) unresolvable, from within our society's 'chosen' political framework.
For example, let us consider the very recent issue of 'dealing with rioters', perhaps in the extreme circumstances whereby they might be actively seeking to burn inhabited properties, thereby (obviously) accepting that others might die as a consequence of their actions. To shoot or not to shoot? Would you or I, were we armed, actually shoot upon someone who is seeking to burn our home and family?
For my part the answer is, "Absolutely!" if such were the very last resort. Having studied so much footage and comment, relating to recent events, it strikes me that reasoning would have been unlikely to result in anything other than significant injury to the intervener. So, yes, I am as certain as someone who has never so much as held a gun can be, that I would shoot, and might additionally resort to any form of violence that I deemed, in my heightened panicked state, to be justified.
For my part the answer is, "Absolutely!" if such were the very last resort. Having studied so much footage and comment, relating to recent events, it strikes me that reasoning would have been unlikely to result in anything other than significant injury to the intervener. So, yes, I am as certain as someone who has never so much as held a gun can be, that I would shoot, and might additionally resort to any form of violence that I deemed, in my heightened panicked state, to be justified.
But, would I want to know that Police officers, acting on someone else's orders, could shoot such people? Remember the control that I reluctantly sought is now no longer mine. Is the answer still a rather more reluctant 'yes'? Someone, armed with something akin to a Molotov Cocktail, who might view my (should it happen) heart attack, in the stark reality of their life, as a wallet gaining opportunity, threatening to set my home and family ablaze? Again, priorities scream, "Absolutely, shoot!" But, just pause for thought for a moment; in so doing, might I not also be accepting yet another tweak to a system that is becoming ever more reactive and divided? "Where next?" I might be justified in thinking, as I cradle my vulnerable and recently saved-from-certain-death family.
You see, the real problem, I believe, is that the debate, as it stands, doesn't really have an answer; not the sort of answer that a civilised society should be seeking anyway. And that's because, I would argue, that the questions that really need to be asked at the outset are not (by design) being asked. Ask the right questions first and then the subsequent debate might take on an entirely different, and more pertinent, hue.
Currently, we reside in a country (the UK) where capitalism is king; not just king but some crazily elevated and unchallengeable deity, that nobody- not New Labour, certainly not the Conservatives, not the invertebrate Liberal Democrats, nor any other likely-to-get-elected party- dares nor wants to significantly question. This would be an increasingly laissez-faire system, based upon the simple premise of supply and demand, entirely controlled by those with the biggest wallets. Now, even if we naively accept that successive governments haven't sought to tweak, even further, the gradient of the 'level playing field' upon which we are expected to eek out an existence, in a country where the richest 3% grasp 95% of everything, before we can seek to make any sort of headway we need to address this point. The issue of the great divide is not only highly significant, it is also accelerating away from the poorest and in favour of the richest at an ever more alarming rate, and has been doing so since (I think) 1979.
Ask yourselves this: If supply and demand (with additional tweaking from the richest, via their pawns in government) really dictates the level at which goods and services are to be made available to the wider public, how is the 'right' price arrived at? Imagine, as a fictitious shop owner, of a fictitious shop, with the freedom to determine your own fictitious retail prices within, that you seek to maximise your profits- a good thing we are constantly being reminded. You would consider, I would imagine, the means by which profits are to be sought, thus the customer and his or her means to pay.
Now skew this beyond comprehension, by factoring in the range of customer incomes; a very 'hard-earned' £115,000 per week with many taxes avoided, right down to a reluctantly paid £150, with all manner of variables ranged in-between these extremes. Remember that exploiting your fellow human beings is the system under which we currently exist and aspire to thrive, so pitch your prices where you hope they will gain maximum profits.
Supply and demand remember; you wouldn't just give things away to beggars hoping for a free hand-out, so don't be taken in by the sob stories of those who haven't sought quite so hard to climb the employment ladder; make them show you the money before you relinquish your goods. Remember also that if lovely Phil Davies MP has his way the gap could become even wider, so this might also affect your calculations in the future.
Supply and demand remember; you wouldn't just give things away to beggars hoping for a free hand-out, so don't be taken in by the sob stories of those who haven't sought quite so hard to climb the employment ladder; make them show you the money before you relinquish your goods. Remember also that if lovely Phil Davies MP has his way the gap could become even wider, so this might also affect your calculations in the future.
I know it's just a fictitious shop and you, for the purposes of musing this idea, are just pretending to be a shop keeper, but, on the other hand, this is basically the system by which so much of our lives are currently being governed. If you can afford the rail fare in to London, to undertake your job, it's because your income is deemed high enough to permit you to travel, in no way because of your need to travel. When, should it happen, your salary is not enough to afford such luxury as travelling to and from your place of employment it is simply because you are being judged, via your means to pay, as insignificant to the aims of the provider of the train 'service', which is to maximise its profits.
The same is true of your means to buy or rent a property, your means to afford a holiday, visit a distant or sick relative, eat at a certain restaurant, obtain the right foodstuffs for a healthy lifestyle, heat your home or shack, clothe yourself, travel at all by any means, increasingly your access to adequate health care, ultimately your means to live as a dignified human being. And, if you've noticed this widening gap and every day had your nose rubbed up against the consequences of this gap, would I be right in thinking that you would feel almost ostracised by society, disenfranchised, an almost persecuted minority? Might you, in your anger and almost parallel universe, wish to react somewhat differently to the world around you?
Now, imagine changing just one thing, in this unequal society. For example bringing the incomes of the top and the bottom earners closer together. Let's imagine bringing them as close as, for example, the top earners never receiving more than twenty times the lowest earners. £150 x 20 = £3000 and who amongst us wouldn't jump at the chance to take home three grand a week? Consider how this might affect the imaginary prices in the imaginary shop. Consider how it might affect the likelihood of rioting taking place in some of our inner cities, or simply your chances of being able to avail yourself of an affordable dentist.
Do you see my point? Maybe we need to change the parameters within which these discussions are being undertaken. Then, maybe, just maybe, the answers that are arrived at will suggest more in the way of genuine solutions and rather less in the way of reactionary responses and further subsequent restrictions upon our freedoms.
Fingers crossed and good luck to everybody as we release those magic balls.
Posts
