Category Archives: Current Affairs

Changes at the Beeb?

Posted on by

There has been much speculation recently over whether or not the BBC should continue to charge a licence fee, currently standing at £145.50 for a year’s viewing. There is talk that the Corporation can instead make its income by selling a package similar to Sky TV or by even showing advertisements though the 1922 founding fathers would turn over in their graves at the thought of such heresy.

Other television companies seem to get along alright relying on advertisement revenue so why should the BBC be any different? Some will complain that one of the great attractions of the BBC is that there are no commercial breaks during its programming but does it really matter that much?

May be it’s a sign of age but I quite enjoy ITV’s commercial breaks giving me the opportunity, as they do, to make myself a drink of coffee or nip out to the little boys’ room!

On balance, perhaps people would prefer to save themselves the £145.50 and put up with the commercial breaks as long as there is no loss of quality in the programmes. And as for revenue well, commercial organisations are prepared to pay top dollar for adverts at peak viewing times so that shouldn’t be a problem. From the Government’s point of view, all that revenue is going to mean some hefty tax bills so it seems a winner all round.

Blues Boy

Posted on by

Sad news, at the end of last week, that BB King, one of the greatest Blues guitarists of all time (many would say the greatest) had died at the venerable age of 89.

His life reads like a classic tale of the Blues, born into poverty in rural Mississippi in 1925 and, at the age of 21, leaving home to seek fortune and fame, like many before him, on the streets of Memphis, Tennessee.

Like other black musicians he had to endure racial prejudice and segregation which for many years meant a denial of access to the whites-only theatres and concert venues which would have allowed him to develop even faster than he did. He once said that “Playing the Blues is like having to be black twice” and it wasn’t until the “British invasion” of music in the 1960s that his career really took off without restriction.

He was born Riley B. King but, once in Memphis, he earned the musical moniker “The Beale Street Blues Boy” (after the street where he played as a busker) and then just plain old BB (Blues Boy) King.

It is my good fortune to be in Memphis at the moment and I will most certainly visit the bar on Beale Street that bears his name and will there raise a glass to the memory of a true giant of the music world.

The Government You Deserve

Posted on by

Thomas Jefferson, founding father and 3rd president of the USA, is credited with saying “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”

England is a conservative country and has elected a Conservative government so, for England at least, we have the government we deserve. The same cannot be said of Scotland, which is now predominantly represented by the Scottish Nationalist Party, a militant and socialist organisation diametrically opposed to English conservatism.

The implications for the new government are clear, do nothing and Scotland will inevitably head towards independence causing the UK to collapse. To preserve the UK, changes will have to be made by either giving Scotland further devolved powers or by altering the whole set up of the UK and creating a US style federation. None of this must be funded or underwritten by the English taxpayer and this has to be driven home to the Scottish Nationalist Party leadership.

Talking of which, Alex Salmond, the former Scottish Nationalist Party leader, stated this morning that “the Scottish lion has roared”. Maybe, but I would hope that Parliament’s other members, outnumbering his party by 12 to 1, will convert that roar to a mew. I doubt it though and  I think we had better prepare ourselves for five years of whingeing and disruption by the Scottish Nationalists until they get what they want.

Spending What You Haven’t Got

Posted on by

Austerity is a word we have heard much of over the last few years. It is derived from the word “austere” which my 1984 Collins dictionary defines as “stern”, “forbidding” or “showing strict self-discipline”.  Austerity itself  is defined as “tightened economy, as from shortages of goods”.

The reason the word is so familiar nowadays is that the Coalition Government used the term to describe the actions they would need to take (and, of course, did take) to deal with the country’s severe debt which existed when they came to power in 2010. The word is now used as a weapon by opponents of the Government’s economic policies.

In the run up to the general election barely a day has gone by without some politician or other appearing on our television screens to tell us that his or her political party is going to spend £10 billion on this or is going to save £12 billion on that. They rarely tell us how they going to afford to do so.

Even a child knows that if he wishes to buy a packet of sweets costing £1 and he only has 70 pence he will have to wait and find the extra 30 pence before he can buy those sweets. You cannot spend money that you haven’t got. A good lesson in life.

You can always borrow the money of course but you will have to pay it back at some stage. That is common sense, pure and simple. It’s a pity that it is lacking in so many of our politicians. Unless, of course, they are telling us a pack of lies – surely not?

Ordinary?

Posted on by

On Friday some national newspapers ran a story about two “ordinary Yorkshire lads”, Hassan Munshi and Talha Asmal, who recently left the UK for Syria, presumably to join Isis.

At the risk of sounding racist (since anyone touching on this delicate subject is usually deemed as such) I would hardly think that “ordinary Yorkshire lads” would place high on their to-do list the act of joining a group of Christian-murdering, child-raping Islamic psychopaths.

I would have thought that “ordinary Yorkshire lads”, irrespective of colour or ethnic background, would be more concerned with drinking Tetley’s bitter, chasing girls on a Saturday night and playing cricket, but maybe I’m just old-fashioned.

Minority Rule

Posted on by

It’s frightening to realise that a minority political party representing a fraction of the British electorate could effectively render the country defenceless. That is the nightmare scenario facing the UK at next month’s general election.

With two major political parties it used to be the case that the party with the majority would form the government and for the next  5 years would effectively rule the country according to its election manifesto. However, with an increase in the number of minority parties that is no longer the case, as the last 5 years of coalition government have clearly demonstrated.

In effect, the party supported by the largest proportion of the electorate will not be able to put their policies into practice. A clear indication of this was provided yesterday when the Scottish Nationalist Party (the SNP) announced that in spite of the fact that both major political parties, Labour and Conservative, wish to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent the SNP do not. If the SNP do form part of a future coalition government they have made it quite clear that they will end our nuclear capability.

Unfortunately for the majority of the UK electorate, who clearly do wish to maintain a nuclear deterrent (and imagine trying to hold off somebody like Vladimir Putin without one) the danger is that the SNP, with possibly 5 or 6% of parliamentary seats, could end up being king-maker and coalition partner to a weakened Labour party and thus achieve their aim.

So, not only do the SNP wish to lead Scotland to independence and break up the UK they also wish to emasculate us. If that doesn’t convince the undecided on how to vote on May 7th then nothing will.

Paying the Price for the Minority

Posted on by

It’s unfair isn’t it how, so often in life, the innocent majority regularly pay the price for the actions of a culpable minority. The first time that most of us experience this is at school where the whole class are detained in the classroom, and prevented from going out to play, due to the actions of a naughty boy (it was usually a boy, wasn’t it!) who refused to admit responsibility for his act of mischief.

We were reminded of this in the most horrific way when a German airliner crashed into the French Alps on Tuesday killing 150 men, women, and children. The tragedy was caused by the direct actions of the co-pilot who, for whatever reason, seems to have deliberately crashed the plane into a mountain but indirectly these innocents were killed as a result of 9/11 and the legislation that followed.

On September 11th, 2001, the deaths of nearly 3,000 people were caused by Islamic fanatics gaining control of four commercial airliners and, as a result, it was decided that henceforth all doors leading to the flight deck would be made ultra-secure. An unfortunate consequence of this undoubtedly sensible and logical move was that on Tuesday, the captain of the German airliner was unable to open the door and gain access to the flight deck once he returned from taking a short break.

Similarly, tragedy occurred at the Hillsborough football stadium in April 1989 when 96 innocents were crushed to death against barriers preventing them from seeking the safety of the football field. Indirectly, they lost their lives as a result of the actions of a hooligan minority whose violent actions in the 1970’s and 1980’s caused the authorities to order the construction of cages preventing fans from invading the pitch and attacking the players and one another.

How terribly tragic and sad. Sometimes it’s difficult not to despair of humanity.

Defenceless

Posted on by

It is widely agreed among politicians, historians and military experts that the world is now a far more dangerous place than at any time since the height of the Cold War back in the early 1960’s.

The Western world faces not only the ever-present danger of Islamic fanaticism but also the threat of a resurgent and brutal Russia under Vladimir Putin. Add to the mix the threats of rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, to name but two, and the danger becomes clear for all to see.

The British response? We fail to commit ourselves to the minimum Nato target of an allocation of 2% of our gross domestic product (GDP) towards defence but do, however, commit ourselves (the British taxpayer) to spending 0.7% of our GDP, some £10 billion, on overseas aid.

Nobody could begrudge the giving of money and aid to alleviate poverty and suffering, but when that aid goes to countries with larger defence budgets than our own (and in the case of Pakistan, a far bigger army) you have to question our sanity.

Setting the Record Straight

Posted on by

No decent, right thinking person could fail to have been incensed last week when apologists for the brutal beheadings by IS extremist and British citizen, Mohammed Emwazi, sought to blame MI5 for his actions.

According to political activist, Asim Quereshi, the cold blooded murders of aid workers and journalists were carried out not by a sadistic psychopath but by “an extremely gentle” and “kind” man. The fault, he said, lay not with Emwazi but with MI5, who had been tracking him for a number of years and in so doing had “radicalised” him.

The reaction of our Government was predictably lame so it was heartening to hear the response of London Mayor, Boris Johnson to Mr Quereshi in a radio phone-in. Boris Johnson, clearly in touch with the majority of the country, said –

“The focus of your indignation and your outrage should be on people who go out to join groups that throw gays off cliffs; that behead people who do not subscribe to their version of Islam, that glorify in the execution of innocent journalists and aid workers.”

By setting the record straight, Johnson clearly demonstrated that he is a man both with cajones and the courage to speak his mind; rare traits in a politician.

Our Choice.

Posted on by

There was uproar in certain parts of the media last week when it was revealed that insurance comparison websites are directing customers towards insurance policies that generate greater commission for the websites. The practice was condemned as deceitful and unethical, but why?

The whole point of using an agent is surely to save us, the customers, both time and money and if those objectives are achieved then why begrudge the agent his slice of the action?

Insurance brokers, financial advisers and the like can make a small fortune from the sale of pension, life insurance and other policies. No doubt some are less than honest and will invariably seek to put the earning of commission above service to the customer, but that short sighted practice is unlikely to see them survive in business for very long.

Common sense tells us that the best defence against exploitation is to shop around and speak to as many agents as we feel necessary. The final choice is ours and ultimately, as long as the customer receives what he wants and needs does it really matter what the agent or intermediary earns from the deal?