Originating post: vying for position

I hold Margaret Thatcher and every jackass that followed responsible. Now in 2010 a fresh but frighteningly similar bunch of goons are asking that we elect them into power. They speak blithely of ‘change’ and ‘the common good’ and ‘a brighter future’ in tones that wouldn’t convince an 8 year old. In fact all they can honestly promise is that the will more or less perpetuate the stagnant, diseased behemoth their predecessors so cynically threw together.

They keep insisting that a vote for anyone other than one of them(the 3 main parties) is a wasted vote. Can we wake up now please? What’s on offer is a media-savvy slew of snake oil salesmen. Its all about what you are being seen to be rather than what you are. Who are they? They barely know themselves. All they are qualified to do is appear at ease among TV people and journalists. The real world? I don’t think so. You wouldn’t want Jonathan Ross to run the country would you?

The only thing worse than voting for one of them is not voting. Make a little effort. Its not too late to go out and form a personal opinion about one of the alternative party candidates. You will probably find that you like them much better. They probably wont win this time round. But every vote the same old greedy bastards don’t get is a nail in their coffin. They have to go. Lets make it sooner rather than later.

Dont be afraid. Vote with your heart.

Originating post: vote with your heart

How many of us are truly passionate supporters of these gangs of greedy bastards? This is a time when the Australian voting system would serve us well. Australians are required by law to vote, but there is an extra box on the ballot paper enabling voters to register there dislike of all the available candidates. Were we given that option in the UK, and we voted honestly, it would make for some interesting arithmetic.

If we are to have fresh blood taking over the reins of government, we have to vote for them. Yes they may lose at first, but the more people that vote for minority candidates, the more others with similar convictions will be inspired to do the same. And the more the incumbent fat cats will tremble in their custom made loafers. Instead of allowing the status quo to discourage potential future alternatives from running, we can positively encourage new candidates to step forward.

The only wasted vote is not voting at all. Don’t let the big boys fool you. They don’t care about you. Vote for someone who does.

Originating post: wasted votes

What kind of cost-cutting madness is this? Is this a prelude to a whole range of products that, in the name of economy, no longer meet requirements? Shorter staircases…lets save wood and jump the last couple of steps. Floorboards too thin to support a person’s weight. Lukewarm freezers…. Sound systems you can barely hear, even at maximum volume.. Perhaps solar clocks….

There is an advertising catch phrase I’ve heard on the TV that goes, ‘It does what it says on the tin’. It has entered the vernacular here in the UK. It seems to imply that nowadays just doing what it is supposed to deems a product miraculous!

Hear ye, manufacturers! Its not much to ask…

Originating post: non-stick glue

This is indeed a venerable ‘seat of learning’. Great men and women have studied, researched and taught here for centuries. Many students have gone on to become world leaders or captains of industry. The feeling of proximity to the ‘corridors of power’ is tangible.

Yet on a trip to town on Monday, it was all to easy to forget this side of Cambridge.

To a great many people who live in and around it, Cambridge is overwhelmingly about one thing only….shopping! The Xmas frenzy is in full swing, and as I wandered through the pedestrian zone, making my few humble purchases, I was struck by how grim it all seemed. The excess of it all, disgusting as it is, is no longer a surprise. But the spirit of good will to all men seemed thin on the ground. Armies of shoppers, laden with bags and parcels, barging through dense crowds, seemed more like a refugee nightmare.

Cambridge has been plagued with traffic problems for a very long time. Yet the city fathers have seen fit to allow the construction of not one but two shopping malls in the centre of town. I thought half the point of shopping malls is that they be on the outskirts of towns, to attract traffic away from the centre, and allow more spacious parking facilities.

In the 1960s, Petty Cury, one of the most beautiful old streets in the city, was largely demolished to make way for the hideous Lion Yard development.

Then in the early 1980s, after years of bitter argument, much of the area known as the Kite was raised to the ground to make way for the Grafton Centre shopping mall. A lot of terraced housing, shops and popular meeting places were destroyed.

In early 2008, after a long period of construction, the Grand Arcade was opened, making the now decrepit looking Lion Yard, to which it was attached, look like an afterthought.

Traffic now queues for hours to get into one of the expensive multi-storey car parks that sit alongside these cathedrals of commerce. Shoppers eventually emerge from their cars, tired and belligerent before they have even begun.

It is hard to understand why anyone would put themselves through this misery. Yet the social and commercial pressures are such that great numbers do. Thus in the minds of the greedy bastards responsible, it is all a great success, and the disregard for aesthetics and history is thoroughly justified.

So a unique and beautiful old town has been transformed into just another multi-million pound trading centre, with the same stores and products found in any walking street in Europe.

Perhaps the big winner is internet shopping. Given the choice of a day in the concentration camp conditions in town, or a quiet couple of hours at home in front of a computer arranging to have purchases delivered to your door, what would you prefer?

Originating post: I live in a shopping mall

This has to be the last word in senseless, prejudiced generalisation. The hoody is a very practical, affordable, modern garment. Large numbers of teenage boys wear them. Some of these boys find themselves going through an antisocial phase. Duh! Teenage boys have found it hard to stomach society ever since there’s been a society. Does this mean that anyone who wears a hoody should be treated as a dangerous criminal? Most of these ‘disaffected youth’ also wear trousers, have teeth, and sleep with their eyes closed. Are these characteristics we should view with more suspicion?

I have seen middle aged white people on a New York subway, cringe in fear when a group of black school children boarded the train. Was it because they were children, or because they go to school, or because they were black, do you think? This ‘hoody’ nonsense is the same brand of lunacy.

I’d like to see some of our public figures appear in hoodies, as an identifying gesture. Were Gordon Brown, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Prince Philip, and say, Anne Widdecombe to be photographed wearing hoodies and loitering beside a cash machine, wouldn’t this send out a consoling message to all the fraught and concerned citizens trembling in the suburbs?

Or perhaps enforced hoody-wearing could be used as some kind of punishment. I’d like to start at the top. For crimes against humanity, and gross misuse of power, lets begin with Tony Blair, George Bush Jr. and Simon Cowell. I envisage a UN Special Services squad kidnapping all three of them and throwing them out of the back of a van in downtown Lagos, wearing nothing but boxer shorts and a pink hoody.

Originating post: whats in a hoody?

Turnout in general elections went from 78.8% in 1974, to 59.4% in 2001. If from the total number of voters who did turn out you subtracted all the politicians, their staff and party delegates; all the media flunkeys who make a living reporting and commenting on the whole charade; and all the corporate cronies with vested interests in the outcome, how many ‘ordinary citizens’ would remain?

You’d think our leaders might be alarmed by the dwindling interest in their existence. But maybe the opposite is the case. If the trend continues there will come a time when the whole circus is a self contained bubble within which the aforementioned groups strut and preen, and conspire indefinitely to their mutual advantage without a single ‘ordinary citizen’ to get in the way. There would be no demands for ‘accountability’, or ‘a fair deal’, or ‘equal rights’, or any other misguided notions of democratic order. They could vote themselves into power again and again at regular intervals. They could finance each others wildest schemes and lend each other money at favourable rates and they could publish glowing reports and documentaries congratulating themselves on their acumen.

Sounds familiar doesnt it? We are almost there. Can we do anything to change it? Hard to say. Certainly blogs like this wont make a blind bit of difference. I’m in favour of tax evasion. Hit ‘em where it hurts. We can change our lifestyles and lose them a great deal of money. Remember all our bad habits play right into their hands. They rely heavily on most of us drinking, smoking and driving cars. Which is why all those pastimes are so heavily taxed. They cant bust you for cleaning up your act.

I’d also like to see a change in the voting laws. I’d like voting in general elections to be made compulsory, as long as there is an option to tick a box that effectively allows you to be counted among those who believe all the candidates and what they represent suck. That would make for some interesting statistics.

Originating post: unnatural selection

Every household in the country would like the services of a cleaner and a gardener. Most of us either pay for these out of our pockets, or do without and do the work ourselves. Yet taxpayers are expected to fork out so Gordon Brown and company can keep the heirlooms dusted and their herbacious borders looking trim? In their second homes?

The recent spotlight on MPs expenses is long overdue. Of course they need some help. They are obliged to travel between their constituencies and Westminster sometimes several times a week. There is a great deal of paperwork, phone calls and emails involved so some kind of office and secretarial help is inevitable. Although by working class standards, they are very well paid, £64,766 pa, it is reasonable to expect some financial help in these areas.

They also often need to stay overnight in London. Here is where the trouble begins. Why is it a given that MPs should all have bijou London residences? All spotlessly clean with well tended gardens? At our expense? So they have somewhere to get pissed with their mates after a long day snoring in the Commons?

Scandals have always surfaced from time to time, detailing excesses of some of our elected leaders. Its not for us to point the finger or judge their off duty behaviour. The point here is who should pay for it. There is a world of difference between shelter for the night, and the kind of homes in London we are being asked to contribute to the upkeep of.

All kinds of people are obliged to spend many nights away from home in the course of their work. Truck drivers, sailors, musicians and actors are examples. Most of them are used to very humble sleeping arrangements and make the best of it. When they file their tax returns at the end of the year they righteously claim the cost of some of this as legitimate expenses.

In my self employed tax return I dont remember ever seeing a section for cleaning and gardening.

Originating post: cleaning & gardening

My twin sons in New York bought their younger brother in England a birthday present. In good faith they mailed it to him at our home address. A considerable amount of time passed, after which we received a letter from Parcelforce Worldwide, informing us that HM Revenue & Customs had raised(?) a VAT charge of £18.44 on my son’s parcel. To this Parcelforce had added a Clearance Fee of £8. Delivery of the parcel was subject(?) to payment of charges totalling £26.44.

And so, a 14 year old boy must save up most of his pocket money for 3 weeks in order to receive his birthday present?

 I spoke to my sons in New York, and confirmed that they had indeed paid Sales Tax at the time of purchase.

I then phoned the local Parcelforce depot, where the parcel was being held. They were unable to speak on behalf of HM Revenue & Customs, but explained that the Parcelforce Clearance Fee itemised in the letter was a standard(?) charge made for collecting and administering the tax levied. I asked them whether, in the event I was able to have the tax refunded, I would also be able to reclaim this clearance fee. They assured me that in that event, HM Revenue & Customs would refund that as well.

I now began calling HM Revenue & Customs. Predictably, they were permanently engaged. After several days of sustained effort, I decided to contact them by the email address indicated in the letter. The next day I received the following response,

Thank you for your email. Curently the
customs4parcelforce@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk facility has been suspended until
further notice. However, you can telephone….etc…

The response went on to outline the 3 options open to us. We could pay the charges, have the parcel delivered, and with the accompanying paperwork, try to claim a refund. We could request a re-assessment by a Customs Officer which would take up to six weeks. Thirdly we could refuse the parcel and ask Parcelforce to return it to the sender.

I have opted for the first and yesterday I paid the charges. I promise not to bore you with the tedious saga of trying to get my money back.

There are a number of issues here that bother me. As far as I understand, Sales Tax in the US and VAT in the UK amount to the same thing. I dont think either country expect this to be paid twice.

It also sheds light on the questionable standards of service on offer by postal authorities both here and in the US.  The US Mail have taken my sons money but have not kept their side of the bargain. At the time of posting, isnt it incumbent on those you are paying, to explain any difficulties there may be in the parcel being delivered?

Finally there is the modus operandi of HM Revenue & Customs. Their tax gathering zeal appears to enable them to collect money that may not in fact be due, and then make reclaiming it time consuming, and difficult. Most of us accept the reality of taxes. As long as one is not trying to evade payment, it is reasonable to expect fair treatment from tax authorities. When there is a righteous query, and they cannot be reached on the phone, and their email facility is suspended indefinitely, they are reneging on their duty as public servants to be available and accountable.

Come on, fellas. Your job is taking our money. At least try and make us feel good about it!

Originating post: the tax office is away from its desk spending your money

I was browsing comments after watching this moving video clip. Most were full of praise and wonder. One stood out in opposition. The writer claimed global warming was a hoax, suggested the speech and video were part of a sinister political exercise, and most disturbingly, claimed the USA was ‘the most generous nation in the world’.

Quite how he thought that dubious fact countered what the young girl had said is beyond me. But it highlights a flaw in so many of our good intentions. We are confusing donating with sharing. They are not the same.

Even though money is apparently in short supply, we are still attached to the notion that if you throw enough money at a problem it will go away. Charities persuade us that tiny percentages of our incomes can make enormous differences to people in need. This is clearly true and not to be undervalued. However, when it comes to global crisis, it is skirting the issue.

A central factor in current world problems is the large divide between rich and poor societies, between East and West. Yes, this is nothing new. But we need something new. Can we accept what sharing means and put it into action? One dictionary definition says sharing is, ‘to use, participate in, enjoy, receive, etc., jointly.’

With our neighbours, and people throughout the world, this means both the good and the bad, the wealth and the problems. Till now, our rich nations have gone out to assist the less fortunate in all kinds of ways, but only as long as their pampered lives back home have not been significantly cut back. This will no longer do.

When you give a homeless person on the street money how does that help them? Often as not, it will merely help them buy drink or drugs that enable them to forget their predicament for a short time. All too soon reality returns with a vengeance. This is not solving a problem but compounding it. Could you instead invite them to your home, feed and bathe them, provide them with fresh clothes and a place to lay down and sleep?

 The lip service currently paid to less fortunate societies by way of aid and counsel from Western governments, only nurtures corrupt regimes and fosters further resentment and desperate measures by the dispossessed inhabitants. We are barely scratching the surface. Can our nations open our borders, accept and welcome our brothers and sisters, and go to their countries and help put in place workable infrastructures for a sustainable future? And do without, ourselves, to make it happen?

More to the point, can we even begin to start thinking and acting along these lines? It is our world and it is a world we share today with six billion people. Share. How can we do otherwise?

‘Idealistic claptrap’, I’m sure would be the response of many. That is a knee jerk reaction. We dont want to share what we have. Certainly not equally. It is contrary to human nature. We have worked hard to attain what we have. Why should we give it up to be squandered by people we dont even know? If they are in trouble they have brought it on themselves. Serves them right. Its a dog eat dog world. Survival of the fittest……..and so on…

Sharing means saying truthfully, ‘Whats mine is yours, and whats yours is mine.’ We need to get used to the idea that nothing less will do.

Originating post: scraps from the high table dont make it