Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Regularity]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

"Deeds" is more 17th century

Precisely.

 

[Edwardian]

44 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was quoting from memory. "Deeds" is more 17th century, I've also found it given as "acts". The second line of Wilmott's poem is variously given as "whose promise none relied on".

 

Apostles have acts, so do martyrs

[sem34090]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But that group (to which I belong) has been dominant for so long and at the expense of other groups in our society that equity and justice demands some rebalancing. All I hear is the howl of long-abused privileges being curtailed.

I, personally, agree for the most part. But ultimately that majority will still turn to whomever offers them the best deal. If the necessary re-balancing is so clearly seen to be making them into the enemy, then they're never going to get behind it. 

 

I speak as a young man who, until relatively recently, was in an educational environment that seemed to be celebrating anyone other than myself in the name of diversity and redressing the balance of things. Despite being, certainly financially, the worst off person in that setting I was made to feel as if everyone else was suffering because of my existence. It was presumed, on the grounds of my racial, gender and sexual characteristics that I should have nothing to complain about and thus help, which I now realise I should have received (And which others who were perceived as 'disadvantaged' received), was not exactly forthcoming. I also went through something of an identity crisis and at one point genuinely believed that I didn't have a valid identity that anyone was allowed to say nice things about. It's petty, but it was enough to really drag me down to not-quite-the-bottom.

 

I realise that this has left me with a decidedly skewed view of such matters, and one which I have subsequently realised has only a limited relation to the world at large. I do feel, however, that more could be done to bring about positive change without evoking such a response as I described above. I scared myself with how far I was beginning to get drawn in by "The Right" as ultimately that was seemingly the only voice that was speaking to people like me rather than simply blaming all of the world's problems on us and deeming my concerns invalid.

 

Thankfully, now that I am out of that environment and have a very supportive partner who's offered some insight into life from the other side, as it were, I'm beginning to unpack where my thoughts originated and am getting over myself somewhat.

[Edwardian]

I think there has been a failure of the Left and the liberal establishment to engage with 'socially conservative' voters and to persuade them of the virtue of an inclusive society.   That 'social conservatism' might well be a legacy of that establishment's neglect of those who have justly felt 'left behind'.  The North-East has plenty of self-identifying white working class people who can entirely justifiably complain  of such neglect.  They might reasonably feel both neglected and excluded from consideration in favour of others. Result? BREXIT. No , the EU or immigration is not the reason why you're unemployed or can't get an appointment with your GP. But I bet it often seems that way.  Fertile ground for nationalist-populists in the UK.  Labour MPs, who for years relied on pure tribalism to retain their Red Wall seats and who, therefore, never effectively challenged the populist fallacies the newspapers played to their 'socially conservative' constituents, have now paid the price of that.

 

I too, have felt a taste of being blamed and devalued. R4 is constantly demonising white, straight, male middle aged blokes.  We are the cause of all the world's ills, it seems.  It does seem rather personal and, for someone like me, who has, frankly, had some very tough times and remains financially insecure, it can be galling.  If there is a patriarchy, it seems to have left me out of the winnings. That  there are people worse off is never very much of a consolation, especially when the finger pointing is often by people clearly better off than I am; in terms of wealth and/or access to a platform. 

 

However, I reflect, as Sem no doubt does, that none of that chatter, irritating though it may be, negates the importance of fighting for freedom and an inclusive and progressive and fairer society.  The trick is not to neglect the hardship, challenges and self-worth of individuals not privileged enough to vote for a Hampstead MP. 

 

Speaking of  demonistation and MPs, I heard John Howell, member for the grim and neglected region of deprivation we in the UK call Henley upon Thames, opining on The Week in Westminster today that HMG's new immigration policy is good because it does not demonise all asylum seekers. See what a decent bunch of fair-playing chaps we are!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Edwardian
spelling!

[Hroth]

9 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I too, have felt a taste of being blamed and devalued. R4 is constantly demonising white, straight, male middle aged blokes.  We are the cause of all the world's ills, it seems.

 

I was listening to Front Row on R4 yesterday evening, presented by female voices, interviewing female participants on subjects that did not speak to me at all, which is concerning as it shoudn't be part of feminist slanted output.

 

This was followed by an episode of a drama based on HP Lovecraft themes.  Odd...

 

I then gave up in case Any Questions had me foaming at the mouth!

 

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

I was listening to Front Row on R4 yesterday evening, presented by female voices, interviewing female participants on subjects that did not speak to me at all, which is concerning as it shoudn't be part of feminist slanted output.

 

This was followed by an episode of a drama based on HP Lovecraft themes.  Odd...

 

I then gave up in case Any Questions had me foaming at the mouth!

 

 

I  become increasingly unaware, in a conscious sense, of whether a panel on a programme is all or predominantly female, which I think is a good thing. Same with ethnicity and other qualities that really shouldn't matter.

 

And, reading back over my last post, I do see that because there are still inequalities (for sure) that need to be addressed, it is probably in practice very difficult for the Beeb to avoid some of the sanctimonious finger wagging that goes on. But still, no one likes to be condescended to (I don't feel that, of course, because I'm too arrogant and intelligent ) or blamed or, frankly, nagged, so I suppose my point is I can see how some of the 'virtue signaling',  or categorisation of certain groups or certain attributes, as problematic becomes counter-productive in many circles.  For my part, I just tend to think, "aw, bless" and turn to R3.

 

My ultimate consolation is that, given to err is human, it's probably best that our national media errs on the side of nagging a fat old white bloke than failing to challenge the sort of nationalist-populist agenda that seems to be taking hold.  Anyway, when I'm dead, my kids will be free to talk about how men of my generation screwed it all up!

 

 

[Compound2632]

But at least we white middle-aged males can take consolation in our railway modelling. We have that privilege left.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, sem34090 said:

But ultimately that majority will still turn to whomever offers them the best deal.

Really?

Ah, the sweet folly of youth.

 

The majority will vote for bread and circuses, and what they perceive to be the best deal for them now. That perception will be based on what they have been told repeatedly over a number of years, such as "no one is talking about immigration" (they were, but it wasn't the root of all many if any of our problems) and "Europe keeps interfering" (when legislation aims to harmonise conditions to create a level playing field for trade, which is why we joined and what we signed up to). Long term thinking, such as, "Will there be any form of state care/support/pension when I retire?" is discarded in favour of, "Oh look, my income tax is falling!" despite this being a regressive idea that benefits the wealthiest in the long run, and fairly quickly in the sort run, too.

 

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But at least we white middle-aged males can take consolation in our railway modelling. We have that privilege left.

Whilst it does seem to be more that segment of the population in the hobby, I do know some women modellers, and some working class. I don't know any who are not white, but I do know of a couple.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Regularity said:

Whilst it does seem to be more that segment of the population in the hobby, I do know some women modellers, and some working class. I don't know any who are not white, but I do know of a couple.

 

I knew I was exposing myself to that objection as I wrote. Like all crude generalisations, it isn't true in detail. Railway modelling is a consolation open to all.

[Regularity]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

Railway modelling is a consolation open to all.

I knew you meant that: other than working class as well as middle class (and probably a few aristocrats!), the hobby does tend to be white and male.

[Edwardian]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But at least we white middle-aged males can take consolation in our railway modelling. We have that privilege left.

 

We do. Though I'd like to think it's a more inclusive hobby in every possible way than has traditionally been the case.

 

And in retrospect, it always feels churlish to complain at all.

 

That's a useful test, perhaps; when being wound up by someone claiming that, just because previous generations were dominated by white men oppressing people, it's somehow no longer my turn, and I should just shut up and take the collective guilt upon my shoulders, I'll just reflect that this is an inevitable irritant born of a necessary period of re-adjustment, and that, if I do complain about it, I'll only feel I've been rather petty and self-obsessed; I remain relatively privileged.  

 

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I knew I was exposing myself 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Edwardian
spelling!

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Well now, that would be "exposing myself to ridicule".

[Edwardian]

5 minutes ago, Regularity said:

... and probably a few aristocrats ... 

 

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

I think there has been a failure of the Left and the liberal establishment to engage with 'socially conservative' voters and to persuade them of the virtue of an inclusive society.   That 'social conservatism' might well be a legacy of that establishment's neglect of those who have justly felt 'left behind'.

 

IMO, there's a lot of truth in that once you get to the very top of national politics, and the local politics of a tiny number of urban areas, the latter giving us the "Islington" stereotypes,  but much less truth in it when you look at most local politics at county/unitary level - most of "the left" in local politics is incredibly conservative, or at least non-radical, thereby reflecting most of its constituents very well, and many MPs are not all that radical either (the same is true in the centre and on the right TBH).

 

But, the failure to engage, failure even to see,  that you mention has been hugely important, IMO, and hasn't been limited to the left-liberal axis, the liberal-right axis has been just as blind to the subject, which is why Cameron "didn't see it coming" in 2016. Everyone has neglected the practical concerns of a significant proportion of the population, leaving a yawning gap, into which the demagogues and false-prophets-of-easy-answers have happily stepped, as they always will, seeing it as the doorway to unfettered power.

 

Its worth considering that most people probably don't think of democracy as an end in itself, that's a very intellectual view of it; they see it as a means to obtain things that are important to them, and if it consistently fails to deliver, particularly if it fails consistently to deliver economic security and a valued place in society, they are unlikely to feel that the concept itself is worth defending very strongly, and will begin to look to alternatives that purport to offer those things on a plate, particularly if the alternative comes disguised by a very friendly face, tousled hair, a good sense of humour, and exudes optimism.

 

Quite where that takes us, I'm not sure but, I think if I were Mr Starmer, I might be looking to push a quite broad and basic "economic security and valued place in society" agenda, and to emphasise  social-responsibility, for which I think there is now quite an appetite for the first time in absolutely ages, and through which there is a route to widespread self-confidence of the proper kind.

 

"What did you do in the peace, Mum and Dad?"

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Regularity]

46 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

"What did you do in the peace, Mum and Dad?"

Interesting.

I have noticed that politicians at the top seem to fall into one of three broad categories: able administrators - think of Clement Attlee; “wartime/emergency leaders”; and peacetime caretakers.

The last is by far the easiest role: don’t meddle, don’t rock the boat, just keep people happy.

Bozza might even have made a half decent job of it (though I have my doubts) but undoubtedly he’s not up to the demands of paying attention during a looming crisis, let alone coping in the midst of it.

[Nearholmer]

24 minutes ago, Regularity said:

three broad categories: able administrators - think of Clement Attlee; “wartime/emergency leaders”; and peacetime caretakers.

 

But, that misses genuine "change agents", whether it be change that you like, or change that you don't, the very few people who preside over a radical shift. Attlee, as you say, administered a shift, but I'm not sure you can say that about Thatcher, she was much more an active agent, although both were riding waves that had built-up before they came to power. I think that Boris was trying to cast himself into that role by helping to engineer the B-thing; he saw himself as a constructive boat-rocker, but fate has made him captain during a fierce storm, which isn't the same job at all, leaving aside whether his boat-rocking was rooted in genuine conviction or simply opportunistic.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

leaving aside whether his boat-rocking was rooted in genuine conviction or simply opportunistic.

 

"Be careful what you wish for."

[Caley Jim]

With freedoms come responsibilities, among which are the responsibility to do and say nothing which will harm, disadvantage, insult or offend your fellow citizens.  It seems to me that many of those in this country who claim to protest in the interest of civil liberty conveniently ignore that.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

Every right has its corresponding duty and vice-versa.

[Regularity]

"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." - Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939)

 

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855)

[Adam88]

To coin a phrase, I feel that I'm in a minority of people who are not in any minority.  I must be aggrieved.

[Compound2632]

Every single one of us is in a minority of one.

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

"Be careful what you wish for."

 

Which was one of the problems I was in a vague way alluding to. Our mutual problem is not one of sensible regulation, but one of over regulation which can create harmful collateral effects not considered when apparently sensible changes are not sufficiently examined. As I pointed out in the case of people under 18 being legally unable to buy ordinary kitchen cutlery.

 

The Australian legislative and legal system is pretty much the same as that of the UK. Obviously there are some different approaches in regulations which affect things but broadly speaking we're pretty much identical. And our criminal enterprises are probably the same also and usually arising from fights over control of the lucrative drug trade.

 

In Victoria a few years ago, the police were concerned about their legal difficulties in bringing to trial people known to be involved in firearms related matters, especially possession of illegal firearms. All too often after gang members or in the case of our bike gangs their club houses were raided and illicit arms discovered the police were frustrated because they couldn't pin down who to charge with the offences because they met a wall of silence. So serious criminals were able to escape prosecution. While the illicit arms could be seized those responsible would go free or facing lesser charges - firearms crimes being subject to quite, and understandably, severe penalties.

 

In order to address this matter an amendment to the Firearms Act was drafted and without any consultation was to be submitted to the Parliament. Being involved in these matters in my day job I was made aware of the changes the amendment would make. Now to be clear I personally felt that aim of amendment to close this annoying loophole was acceptable as, being involved in the field I don't want the privileges (not rights along the US model) we legal firearms owners have, eroded because of the actions of a criminal minority. However while the intent was excellent the wording was a disaster. 

 

On receiving a draft of the proposed change I immediately contacted by email the Department and the senior adviser who had been responsible for drafting the change. I pointed out that the wording as it stood had the potential to drag into any criminal charges laid, people who were innocent of any involvement simply because they may have been in proximity to the perceived offence. This is dangerous because even if you are innocent and clearly demonstrated to be innocent in the ensuing criminal trial you are subject to costly legal charges and in the case of weapons offences, being deemed a prohibited person which can impact on one's life in all sorts of nasty ways. I pointed out that there needed to be legislative safeguards in place to prevent this.

 

The senior adviser rang me and also, and fortunately replied by email. I say fortunately because being young and enthusiastic they thought that I, being old and beyond retirement age, was someone who needed to be addressed in a condescending and patronising fashion along the lines of "you're concerns are noted but we have studied the matter and you will understand that the expert advice we have received shows that what you are claiming won't happen, etc.".  Now having been involved in this area far longer than the person who was lecturing me had been alive, I was not all that mollified by their reply. So I did exactly what was necessary - I circulated the response to my query, with my additional comments, to other senior officials involved in the issue, as well as amongst my contacts in our common area of interest.  The result was that the senior adviser who drafted the changes was moved away, and the legislative changes were not put to the parliament. The changes were quietly shelved - I wasn't all that popular in some official circles but that's something that happens.

 

About a year later the change was quickly rushed through the parliament at the end of a a sitting. Guess what happened - the first case that came up under this ill-considered change collapsed on appeal along the lines of what I suggested would happen, much to the chagrin of the authorities and rendered that section of the Act unenforceable until it was redrafted. So that is a small example of what happens when governments lose sight of the need to consider collateral problems when they draft legislation based on "good" intentions. If governments or individuals forget to be careful what they wish for the end results can be at the least embarrassing, and at worst disastrous.

 

So much of what we are seeing in many areas now as the power of social media and the instantaneous transmission of events and reactions are leading us ever more in the direction of legislation being a reaction to something rather than a tool to create something that is of long term benefit but does not erode any further those few privileges and rights we have left. 

[webbcompound]

Unfortunately much discussion around contemporary politics assumes that largely the agent, actors and audience are still constrained and defined by control of physical  geographic borders. For many years now, and with accelerated impact in the last decade military strategy has taken account of there being other ways to succesfully carry out warfare than on the kinetic battlefield (that is the one where people and things hitting people and things decide outcome). This was an area of my research till I gave up and retired. The traditional view of military intelligence has been one of observation, direct personal contact, and of course killing people and installations. This has not really been the case for a long time. Sattelite technology a long time ago gave the military the ability to read your newspaper from space, and pretty well everything you want to find out these days can be done very rapidly by watching data flows online.

 

In response to this situation the military innovated and moved onto the cyber battlefield. Want to disrupt your biggest threat (as, say, Russia might in relation to the EU)? It is easy, if you have the personell resources to, say hypothetically, massively influence a vote causing the withdrawal of one of the three biggest influencers within the EU.

 

Russia and China have massive military units engaged in this, in the case of China more than 10,000 military personnel. America has, although apparently much less efficient due to the fissile nature of the US military. Britain has, but, as befits the British way and our post war status, ours (77 Brigade) is stitched together from pre-existing units and not up to strength. The mission of 77 Brigade, as publicly stated is "... to challenge the difficulties of modern warfare using non-lethal engagement and legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of the opposing forces and adversaries." and "77th Brigade is an agent of change; through targeted Information Activity and Outreach we contribute to the success of military objectives" On the public website this is framed as being primarily in support of the kinetic battlefield, but this has always been a fuzzy concept as demonstrated by General Kitson's book "Low Intensity Operations" published in 1971.

 

So the question of who is "left behind" and what they believe, and why, is these days not as straightforward as it used to be. We all like to think our views are our own, independently arrived at, sensibly thought out and often immutable. (and the other chaps' are not) Unfortunately even the most cursory view of the current political scene shows that for the most part that cannot be the case.

 

Distracting ourselves with model railways and historic warfare; or knitting socks, and hats with furry ears for babies,  is one way we have of distracting ourselves from the aweful reality of our 21st Century world.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by webbcompound

[Edwardian]

14 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

We all like to think our views are our own, independently arrived at, sensibly thought out and often immutable. (and the other chaps' are not) Unfortunately even the most cursory view of the current political scene shows that for the most part that cannot be the case.

 

 

 

That is a fascinating post and a very important point. 

 

As someone for whom recent events, 2016 onward, have really not gone as I would have wished, there is a temptation to see those who voted for deleterious outcomes to have been misled or deluded. 

 

While acknowledging the recent failure (in the UK) of the Left (too busy up its own dreaming of ideological purity) and of the centrists in politics (divided between the three mainstream Westminster parties, when the only two of which with significant numbers were pulling apart towards towards opposite extremes of magical thinking ) to stop the delusional rightwards drift, there are significant long-term factors. 

 

As ever, nationalist populism is the symptom, not the cause, of disease in the body politic. It jolts us out of our complacency with the uncomfortable revelation that devotion to a progressive, inclusive society and even, as was pointed out above, to democracy, is really not a given for people who do not feel that they are being given a fair crack at life. 

 

Before the events of 2016, there had been years and years of neglect. There are so many places in the UK that have felt forgotten and seemed down at heel for years. 

 

There had been decades of poison dripped from the pages of newspapers in the form of frankly made up 'straight-banana' stories by cynical, irresponsible or buffoonish journalists (like one Boris Johnson), that the political establishment was unable or unwilling to contradict; there was often a political advantage to standing back and letting the EU be blamed for anything unpopular. 

 

If there are sinister dark forces manipulating honest voters in their thousands to adopt as their own nationalist populist views, then one only has to look at our own press. Murdoch is enough of a Bond Villain all by himself without needing to engage in some Buchanesque conspiracy with Agents of a Foreign Power.   If you don't believe that his tabloid had a significant influence, perhaps consider the urban population of Liverpool, where, thanks to its egregious Hillsborough coverage, the Sun is not read, as the BREXIT control group. The Guardian reported how the (splendidly named) Florian Foos and Daniel Bischof produced research claiming that Euroscepticism in Liverpool had gradually subsided during the course of the city’s 30-year boycott of the Sun.

 

So cue Farage, Cummings, Gove et al and the stepping up of pro-leave sentiment by the right-wing popular press. Consider, then, the Lord Ashcroft Poll, examining the wider attitudes of 2016 referendum voters.  Look, if you will, particularly at the sections on national identity and and social attitudes. The correlations establish, to my mind, the understandable pre-disposition to vote certain ways.

 

I reach two conclusions.  First, the most effective 'manipulation' is the drip-fed misinformation and distortion over many, many, years, that results in a certain view of something, say the EU,  being accepted as a given, as a perceived truth.  Second, pre-disposition born of discontent at being 'left-behind' is the major factor.  The short-term manipulations of Cummings, Murdoch and Putin merely held open the door to a room many were pre-disposed to enter.       

 

Taking all that into consideration, did it really need the People's Liberation Army or a bunch of Cold War sore losers in Moscow to tip the scales?

 

Well, any influence, great or slight, is a concern, and that is not to say that they did not try, that they did not have some influence, or that even the attempt is sufficiently harmful and egregious that we must act decisively to defeat that threat. 

 

The bigger point, however, is surely that over a generation or more, we in the UK have been letting down significant portions of the population with the result that we made the return to nationalist popularism, not a thing we'd had cause to fear for many decades post War, near inevitable.

 

As for the tank-less, ship-less, 'plane-less future of our armed forces, I do agree that cyber and remote warfare capability are essential and, at present, under developed within the UK military establishment.

 

But, at the same time, there is a faddish element to some of this thinking and the idea that it is either or between these newer capabilities and older conventional ones.  There have, for instance, been cyclical fads in favour of the aircraft as the only thing necessary to win a war.  This became popular in the late 1930s and has its echo in more modern 'air campaigns'.  Then, as I recall, there was a moment when, having screwed ourselves up to spend a lot of money on Apaches (while neglecting any replacement of our slow and aged aluminium 'armoured' recce vehicles), we tried to convince ourselves that helicopters could do anything and ground reconnaissance was passé. Well, yes, leaving aside the fact that there is a lot you can see at ground level that you cannot see from above (and vice versa), that would be fine if it was always a nice sunny day. or rather, a nice sunny day without a man in a T shirt with an RPG on his shoulder. 

 

I also bear in mind that there are occasions when ground has to be taken, and to be held.  For that you need tanks and artillery and the PBI. I also bear in mind that there are times when drones cannot fly, when their perspective is not, in any case, the full picture, and when communications fail or are jammed. There will always be times when you need ground recce that can get down with its belt buckle to the dirt and see what is actually happening.