Children in Need

Children in Need? Of course they are- some of them- how could they not be, what with all of this austerity malarky? In fact there is much to support the contention that many of those most in need have, in effect and/or by default, been specifically targeted to shoulder far more than their 'fair share' of the current political austerity cuts. That is to say that they are thus far more likely to be in need as a direct consequence of current government policies. Enter, stage right, cuddly Terry Wogan!

It really doesn't take a genius to deduce that the more deeply divided a 'society' the more manoeuvrability there will be, at the bottom end, for all sorts of exploitation, from the driving down of the minimum wage in the resultant burgeoning black market economy, right through to various forms of child abuse for financial gain. Honestly, this resultant situation really isn't open to serious contention. If the truth be told, it's actually the free-market's usual response to tougher times.

Thanks to BabyBare11

Just as the ruling elite's response to any reportage of such might be to play down the significance of these issues, or to attempt to somehow undermine the credibility or scale of the problem. Much as George Osborne might continue to refer to the tax-avoiding wealthy as, "those hard working families," whom he doesn't want to, "penalise," with the nation's tax arrangements, just before he finds yet another means by which to overtax the rest of us.

There are those, more observant amongst us, who might even regard the current austerity measures, far far more worryingly, as a convenient subterfuge for the ushering in of a very much more corporate state. That would be the privatisation of huge sections of the NHS, creeping corporate sponsorship of education, the pandemic sweep of the multinational companies, the subtle undermining of all manner of employment or disability rights, that sort of thing, just in case you hadn't yet picked up on the signs.

Thank you University of Exeter

So yes, of course there will be children in need, just as there are elderly residents in need, just as there are seriously ill patients in need, just as there are supposedly 'fully employed' and 'legitimately' tax-paying families still, and increasingly, in need. One might never actually hear the words spoken, "It's the price worth paying, for the changes we wish to pursue," but current actions on the part of 'our' coalition government cannot possibly have completely obscured this begging-to-be-addressed issue.    

Thus it's well done again to Children in Need, is it? Something approaching £27 million raised at the last count, and who amongst us can deny that much of this might indeed enable all manner of much-needed work in the cause to ensue? But then, rather less popularly voiced, is it not also possible that all of that fun and fanfare of the big day is perhaps also masking several hugely-urgent but curiously never seen-to-be-asked questions? For example, 'Do all of those famous faces, all of those humorous sketches, does all of that marketable music, all of that glitz in any way exacerbate the problems that the whole affair attempts or purports to address?'

Thanks also to yksin

My contention is that a vastly divided state is a sure-fire way of creating many of the problems that Children in Need professes to be attempting solve. And we are very much a divided state, accelerating as I write ever further in that divided direction. No longer are we the 'aspiring to achieve better' state, more the 'aspiring to have absolutely everything' conglomerate of corporations and, again, it doesn't take a genius to surmise that if some of 'us' are aspiring to have absolutely everything then most of us will be left with vastly less.

Following this trail of thought for a while longer, allow me to draw to your attention the vast wealth that many of those most vociferously supporting Children in Need have accrued in this finite world. In Sir Terry Wogan's case some of that wealth-accruing has even been achieved care of Children in Need. Although it is not clear (to me) whether this is still the case, for many years, in the cause of hosting this worthy-charitable cause, Sir Terry was the beneficiary of a not insubstantial fee of around £10,000 per annual event.

Thank you University of Exeter

Supporting my contention that he has insidiously over-accrued, Sir Terry, I believe, upon first being confronted with this long-and-conveniently-obscured fact, claimed not to have spotted the change to his current bank balance. Easily done Tezz, easily done! Just the other day I found myself the unexpected beneficiary of several grand. It's happened to most of us at some time or other, I shouldn't wonder.

I believe that the iconic Gary Barlow also put in an appearance on the big day, although I have to admit that I was otherwise engaged at the time, so was unable to witness the grand spectacle. In Gary's case- or is it Sir Gary, I forget?- no fee was involved and I don't suppose he gave a moment's thought to the incidental publicity that his seldom-seen face received. Time given freely in the cause! But, another thought occurs, did the actual time given cancel out the taxes avoided; those avoided taxes that have, contra-aspirationally driven yet another small wedge between the have-a-lots and the have-rather-lesses?

Having not watched the night's charity fundraising I'm perhaps not in the best position to scatter such thoughts but, 'Were we operating in a fair and progressive tax society, just how much of that £27 million might have been raised, more appropriately and quietly, by those performing so publicly for the cause?'

I'm guessing that various PR teams would have been strongly advising against such blatant hypocrisy, so I'll assume that at no point during the evening did any important bod from Starbucks, Amazon, Google, or perhaps some mysterious tory donor, appear with one of those big cardboard cheques, for a seemingly large sum of money. You know, one of those self-publicity cheques that are always going to be (stage) wowed and applauded, yet are also always going to be worth immensely less than the accrued benefits of living/operating in such an unequally-taxed society.

Finally, thanks to prawnpie

So, go on, tell me that I'm wrong, or that I've missed the point. Better still, tell me that we have to continue to pursue these vastly divided 'society' policies, in order to prevent the multinational crooks from taking their businesses elsewhere.

Much better all round if we just bow down and accept the fact that we're going to have to increasingly compete with the third world, in so far as working market practices go.

At least that way we can all look forward to many more years of Children in Need, catering as a bizarre result for a growing number of children in need, brought about as a direct cause of the growing unequal division of wealth. The perfect example of a self-fulfilling prophesy!