High Street Blues

The following post is like any good discussion or debate in that it brings up two points of view and in much the same way as a battery has two electrodes, the positive anode has its negative counterpart, the cathode.

I was journeying through the South East countryside recently on a rather long and ponderous bus ride that took me through places I’d never heard of, and it occurred to me just how miserable our small town and village high streets look for the most part. If they aren’t a few locals milling about short of being ghost-towns where dusty little bric-a-brac shops seem to be permanently closed and tiny Post Offices-cum-newsagents-cum-grocers are open for just a few hours every day either side of lunchtime, they are filled with half-empty charity shops, dreadful kebab parlours and sparsely-furnished coffee shops where the lattes and cappuccinos don’t really taste like coffee at all but rather scorched bland milky wetness. In fact, in many cases the only thing missing from these high streets is the occasional ball of sagebrush blowing across the road whipped up by some lonely breeze. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking charity shops, I’ve picked up one or two bargains from their bookshelves myself over the years but how many do we really need? In some high streets you’ll see three, four, perhaps even five charity shops doing battle, each one purporting to help improve the lives of the sick and aged of our society as well as those unfortunate animals who find themselves without a loving home. But once upon a time there would have been jumble sales in village halls for this kind of aid and the high streets would have been home to good old fashioned sweetshops or ironmongers, greengrocers and butchers.

Nowadays of course, everyone and his uncle drives five miles to their local superstore where every conceivable shopping need is catered for. You want bread, beer, Brussels sprouts? Go to the superstore where you can buy one and get one free. You want to buy a new TV or a cordless drill? Go to the superstore and save 10% on both. You want banking, insurance, a new pair of shoes? Go to the superstore, it’s all there and more often than not at a better price than can be found elsewhere. And isn’t it great that we can all go home with a bargain? Why, we’ve probably even bought things we didn’t really need but hey! they were on special offer so what the heck! I’ve actually saved money! And yet what a double edged sword it is.

It’s understandable that we all want a bargain, we all want to save pennies in these lean times but unfortunately the flip side is, the superstores get all the business and therefore all the power. And so, poor old Somersbottom’s Bakery in the high street has to close down because they can’t afford the rent anymore and dear old Mrs Wigglesbury behind the Post Office counter who’s been the smiley face and chatty friend to all for two generations has closed down because our great leaders in their slimy corridors of power have decided that we don’t need her anymore. Perhaps if we stopped using our cars for every single little trip – to get the paper or a pint of milk – perhaps if we hadn’t all rushed out to save a few quid at the nearby superstore, our rural community shops that had previously supplied us with our weekly needs might still be around. But maybe that’s what our government wants.

Okay, that was the negative. Now for the anode of my thoughts. Micro Pubs! I saw an article on the news recently regarding this fairly new concept which seems set to become a minor explosion around the country and it made me almost ‘whoop’ with joy. I find it heart-warmingly wonderful that certain enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to open up these tiny drinking establishments and bring a little life back into these derelict premises that litter our country high streets and hopefully it’ll spark the beginnings of a resurgence in rural community life. Not only does a Micro Pub recycle these business properties that have become casualties of our times but they also utilise the terrific home-grown products of our often struggling Micro Breweries that would otherwise probably struggle to survive. Great British Ale!

How many of us are put off by the frightful noise and garish flashing lights of our pubs today where you can hardly hear yourself speak over the din and the person serving you barely offers more in the way of chitchat than the price you must pay, where the beer is often overpriced, poorly kept and mostly fizzy and foreign? I’ve often heard it said that the only way a pub can make money these days is to serve food and while that’s all well and good and some of them serve very good homemade food indeed, many of them serve nothing more than microwaved muck that they market as “hearty fare”. And anyway, shouldn’t food be what restaurants serve? A pub should be a place to go for a nice pint or two, to chat with friends or strangers who may or may not become friends themselves, not a place filled with every kind of entertainment from bleeping video games to the incessant screening of sporting fixtures. If you want those things go to an arcade or a sports club. Once again, it’s the case of a single concern trying to accommodate all for the sake of profit over good neighbourly service and while it might be construed as convenient, killing two birds with one stone, so to speak, it bypasses that crucial connection of trust, kindness and loyalty between purveyor and consumer that we all secretly wish was still present in our retailing experiences.

I for one sincerely hope that the emergence of the Micro Pub will herald the coming of the Micro Greengrocer and the Micro Fishmongers and Ironmongers and the return of many other shops of yesteryear so that all our high streets thrive once again and we don’t have to jump in our cars and drive five bumper-to-bumper miles polluting the air with our overpriced petrol just to buy a new pair of socks. Or maybe that’s what our government wants.

 

 

Why Britain is Not a Democracy

Democracy is viewed by many people as a positive political system. Many also believe that Britain upholds our democracy. But what exactly is democracy? And is Britain really up to the high standards that democracy demands?

Democracy is most commonly seen as a government in which the people have the supreme power. This is usually applied through their elected agents, otherwise known as MPs, under a free electoral system. But this definition is vague and questionable, despite being highly praised with positive connotations. Indeed, it has been speculated that democracy is not bound to any one definition. This was pointed out by George Orwell, who was quoted as saying, “The defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”

It can even be argued that ‘democracy’ is just used in place of ‘free’ when describing a country’s status; countries which aren’t free are ‘undemocratic’, although ‘undemocratic’ is vague in itself as something which is undemocratic could simply be another political system. The question of whether these ‘undemocratic’ countries have a fair political system never comes into play. After all, how could it possibly be fair when it’s not democratic?

This stems from the idea that democracy is having a vote, not whether your vote makes a difference. In other words, an elected dictatorship. Walter Winchell agreed with this, saying, “too many people expect wonders from democracy, when the most wonderful thing of all is just having it”. If holding elections were what constituted a working democracy, then Britain would be just that. But this can be compared to China’s political system in which there are eight parties (other than the CPC) that you can vote for but, essentially, they all stand for the same points.

But if democracy is more about the freedom of the people and whether their vote matters at all in the long-run, then it can be argued that the UK is falling below the democratic standards with almost four in ten voters choosing to abstain as they feel they don’t have a say.

Democracies, in theory at least, should have parties which represent groups of people who stand for different ideas. At the moment, there exists only the three main parties; the Labour party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. If you were to vote for any of the smaller, more obscure parties, it’s highly likely that nothing will come of your vote.

We will forget for a moment what each of the leaders of these three parties say what they stand for and instead look at what they have actually stood for. The Liberal Democrats, during the 2010 elections, promised that they would scrap University fees across Britain. In fact, that was one of their biggest points on their manifesto. But they didn’t do that. They did the opposite and agreed with the Conservative policy of raising tuition fees. Another example would be the Conservative cuts to public spending. This is an expected Conservative move (they have done so on numerous occasions during past recessions, including the Wall Street Crash) but Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor, stated, “We cannot make any commitments now that the next labour government will reverse rises or spending cuts.” Ed Miliband, leader for the Labour Party, agreed, saying the Labour government would continue to make cuts. Elections which lack any competing agenda are pointless.

Leading on from this is one of the biggest moves from the coalition government when they first came into power in 2010. They set up the Your Freedom website in the hopes that people would vote on controversial topics and hear what they wanted directly, rather than through their elected agents. But this proved to be useless as the public decided they wanted a review of the smoking ban and were ignored entirely. The Coalition stated they “had no plans” to review it.

If there is no real difference between the ideologies of the main political parties, no difference as to what party you vote for, can Britain really call itself a democracy?

New Green Tax Means 10% Hike

Just lately it’s almost like a string of bad jokes, 20% on pasties, buy your fuel while you can, but have you heard the latest to come out of Westminster? Households face being hit with extra bills for home improvements under “green” plans proposed by the government. Residents wanting to replace boilers, get some new windows put in or build a conservatory or extension could be blocked unless they carry out other work such as loft and wall insulation.

Continue reading New Green Tax Means 10% Hike

Give Peace a Chance – John & Yoko’s Bed-in for Peace: A Review

Some Background

Following John Lennon’s and Yoko Ono’s marriage in March 1969, the couple embarked on a campaign for peace from their hotel beds, beginning in Amsterdam and moving on to Montreal. In addition to the bed-ins, the campaign involved sending acorns during April to world leaders to symbolise peace, hoping that they would plant them. In the spring of 2009, Yoko again sent acorns to world leaders in celebration of the 40th anniversary of the acorns sent in 1969. In that same spirit, Joan Athey sent copies of this book to world leaders, including Prince Charles and President Obama.

Continue reading Give Peace a Chance – John & Yoko’s Bed-in for Peace: A Review

News in Briefs 25/03/12

This week’s News in Briefs is reporting on a very eventful week of news as the Government’s annual budget was released and something just seemed to be happening on all fronts. But does this necessarily mean that it was interesting news? Well that’s completely up to you to judge.

Political Oops of the Week

George Osborne must have thought that he had pulled a fast one when he announced his budget as most things were relatively positive with the increase of the personal allowance and the announcement that the country’s borrowing had been cut drastically, but then he announced his attack on the pensioners.

Within 24 hours his face was pasted on the front page of every major newspaper in the country with various combinations of the words “Granny Tax”, “Muggers”, and “You Bastard” (Ok, I may have made that last one up, but the sentiments remain the same). But why did Mr. Osborne make such a catastrophic political error?

If history has taught us anything there are two things you don’t touch in British politics. One of these is the NHS and the other is the pensioners. This is for two reasons: firstly, pensioners are old and have no shame so they will attack you mercilessly, and secondly, we all have a special place in our hearts for the pensioners who are now trying to enjoy a quiet retirement.

Angry old man
Wanna throw down, rich boy?

You can touch the single mothers, you can kick the poor, you can even kiss the behinds of the richest people in the country, but you never touch the pensioners. In my personal opinion, the chancellor presented a fairly good budget this year, but his mistake was amateurish and it practically wiped out all of his good work. So whatever possessed him to do this only he can know for sure.

The Painful…

Although I didn’t really delve into this subject last week, Fabrice Muamba has to appear on this list due to the sheer manner in which the incident occurred.

For those of you who don’t know, Fabrice Muamba collapsed in the middle of the game against Tottenham Hotspur last weekend and was practically dead for 80 minutes as he was unresponsive to CPR and the use of electric shocks. The good news is that he’s recovering well and will surely survive now, but the bad news is the impact it would have had on people around the country.

What we have to remember is that children will have been watching at that time and the cameras did capture Muamba having a cardiac arrest as he went into a type of fit. Judging from the reaction of the crowd and the deathly silence in the stadium, I believe that many people must have thought that they had just witnessed a 23-year-old man die in front of their eyes.

It was certainly quite painful to watch, but at least he’s recovering well. Get well soon, Fabrice.

…And the Pointless

As we can all imagine, Team GB have been training hard and working with more fire in their bellies than ever before for the summer Olympics in London. Wait, what? They haven’t? Well what have they been doing then? Oh, yes, I remember now, they’ve been spending their time modelling one of the worst outfits ever created by the hands of humanity.

Team GB really managed to embarrass themselves this week as they unveiled an ugly smudge of blue, indigo, sapphire, and whatever else was in there with a splodge of white stuck in the middle of it. Apparently the white is supposed to symbolise the flag of Great Britain in some parallel universe, but I’ll be damned if I can see it.

My question is what was wrong with the other outfits? And shouldn’t Team GB be getting someone else to mess around for the media when they are this close to the Olympics? I’m not going to argue over why they shouldn’t be wasting time on this, but I’ll leave the criticism to the entire nation who will no doubt be baying for blood when they fail to win a medal.

The So Outrageous that it’s Borderline Hilarious

This golden nugget of news appeared in the dying embers of this week as the shooting championships in Kuwait ended and the winners were honoured with their medals and national anthems, at least that’s how it should have happened.

All the athletes were honoured, and now it was time for the winner from Kazakhstan to be honoured with her national anthem. But Maria Dmitrienko stood dumbfounded as the anthem of her native country was actually that which the film Borat used during their mockumentary produced a few years ago.

Borat

But give the girl some credit because the Borat anthem didn’t stop Maria Dmitrienko from standing there with her hand on her heart without moving a muscle. The athlete didn’t seem to mind the Borat anthem too much, but her team were furious as they demanded an apology. Luckily, all was well as the medal ceremony was rerun and the organisers apologised.

However, from a personal point of view, I think they should have played the Borat anthem again for a second time just because it would have been utterly hilarious. What are they going to do shoot….ah never mind, they did the right thing. Rule #1 of real life trolling, never troll the winner of the international shooting championships more than once.

A Positive Outlook for the Week

This week’s positive outlook for the week is a little sparse because I’m not feeling all that positive at the moment. However, I will provide a couple of predictions for next week. The Labour Party will attack every single thing the Coalition has done in the last few weeks than more venom than ever before. And I’m going to be bold and say that Ed Miliband may come out of his shell and elevate himself in the eyes of many with his upcoming performance this week.

One area of world affairs I’m enjoying at the moment is North Korea and there rocket-powered satellite they intend on firing in honour of their Eternal President. As the launch date grows closer tensions are rising and it makes for very interesting reading as the most powerful nations in the world are essentially fighting with nothing more than an overweight child.

So maybe next week won’t be as bleak and irritating after all…

Ethicists Propose After-birth Abortion

Opinions on abortion are still divided and the topic causes heated debates from time to time, not least during the Presidential campaigns when hopeful candidates speak of their personal outlooks. Yet if the termination of an unborn child with no consciousness is not divisive enough, two ethicists working with Australian universities claim in the Journal of Medical Ethics that “after-birth abortion” should be permissible from an ethical standpoint.

After-birth abortion, once the name has been peeled back, simply means murder, although the two ethicists in question, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, prefer the term to murder or infanticide because it emphasises “that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”. Also rejected is the term euthanasia, because the reason for the killing may not be because of the child’s best interests, but those of the parents.

Part of the controversy regarding abortion is deciding at what point the termination should be allowed, with current rulings settling at 24 weeks. After-birth abortion would necessitate extremely grueling, confusing and rigorous rules to determine an acceptable case, and Giunilini and Minerva state that it will be acceptable in such instances as putting the well-being or life of the family at risk, and consider Downs Syndrome as a good example because “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.” Ultimately this would mean that any newborn that puts a psychological, social or economical burden on parent or society could be subjected to an after-birth abortion. The potential risk should this ever become law is setting the stage for eugenics, where, hypothetically, new criteria could be set for an ‘acceptable’ human being and anything less than that would be considered a burden on the family or society. This would be less likely if the decision relied solely on the parents, but if societal burdens were brought into the equation then the possibility of state interference could not be ruled out.

According to the authors, after-birth abortion is morally acceptable because newborn babies are not people in the “morally relevant sense” but instead are “potential persons” because to be considered a person, in their opinion, means being “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” However, this viewpoint does not seem to touch upon how a child with perfect mental capacity – that would understand its existence – but a physical condition that would burden the family or society would fit into the suggestion of after-birth abortion. Essentially, Giubilini and Minerva are asserting that, from an ethical standpoint, newborn children should not be considered actual persons anymore than a 23-week-old fetus is, despite the state of consciousness that a born child has. This is highlighted in their defence of after-birth abortion that “merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence,” although they make no attempt to define at what age someone is considered an “actual” person.

For many, this idea would seem abhorrent. Yet there is the case of at least one woman that may confuse the issue because she wishes her son had never been born. Not for reasons of not loving her child, but because his condition will not only kill him in the near future and causes intense suffering for the child and his family while he is alive. In other words, this is the sort of scenario Giubilini and Minerva were likely thinking of in their paper.

Emily Rapp is the woman in question, and her son Ronan, who is nearly two, suffers from the progressive genetic disorder Tay-Sachs disease. Although still alive, Ronan is paralysed and blind as a result of the disease. His mother says that had she been aware during her pregnancy that her son would suffer daily seizures and be paralysed to such a degree that he cannot even swallow, she would have saved him the pain and suffering and opted for an abortion – but his condition went undetected. Emily Rapp stressed that while she would have had an abortion, it “would have been a different kind of loss to mourn and would by no means have been a cavalier or uncomplicated, heartless decision.” She also goes to great lengths to ensure people know her words are not borne out of a lack of love for her son, but rather her love for him is so great she wants to spare him the pain – to the point that she would live without him: “I’m so grateful that Ronan is my child. I also wish he’d never been born; no person should suffer in this way…with no hope for a cure. Both of these statements are categorically true; neither one is mutually exclusive…I love Ronan, and I believe it would have been an act of love to abort him, knowing that his life would be primarily one of intense suffering, knowing that his neurologically devastated brain made true quality of life…impossible.”

It goes without saying of course that wishing you had undergone an abortion in hindsight and killing a child you can physically hold in your arms are not the same thing, but does a real-life example of a parent who sees the suffering in her child’s life and a degree of kindness in termination blur the lines of morality enough to make after-birth abortion an acceptable idea? Or is it the case that it opens too many possibilities for abuse; that people suffer at any age and we need to just accept that is how life is?