In about a year's time me and my girlfriend will be leaving these shores for a 'sabbatical', a year long trip into the void that is the world, to gain new experiences, new friends and new memories that will last us a lifetime and hopefully keep us content till we are trapped in the mundanity of old age and ill health. This trip though is not something we have decided to do on a whim oh no. It has been talked about, fantasized about and mulled over for the best part of our relationship from the latter stages of university, to training and starting new jobs and the years spent in-between. For me this is the dream, the chance to experience something a lot of people say they would like to do but never get round to doing it, or get so stuck into the tedious inevitability of routine that the thought of taking a risk and getting out of all that for a while seems overwhelmingly daunting. I don't blame them; going on a trip of this magnitude has its risks, not least the fact that leaving our jobs could be deemed irresponsible! I kind of agree but look at it this way, we are saving the money up ourselves, meaning that although we will be pretty penniless and unemployed at least we won't have the immediate comedown of a mountain of debt to scale upon our return! In addition to this, why do we have to be constrained by economics!? What a sad life we would lead if something you have planned for so very long could no longer be achievable due to a recession or an over eager Tory hell bent on massive public-sector cuts! We have no responsibilities, no ties that won't be there on our return, and a feeling that if we don't do it now then unfortunately it may never happen.
Now ever since I can remember I have had this infatuation with places, place names and where they are in the world. I can trace this all back to when I used to go round to my grandma's house after school on a Monday afternoon where she would make me two crumpets smothered in butter and a sweet milky tea. She would sit me on her knee and pull out what I thought was the most famous atlas in the world due to its sheer size and sense of importance. We would sit flicking the pages looking intently at all the countries of the world with their river systems, mountain ranges, secluded bays and obvious desolation. It was this sense of wonder, of infinite possibility that got me wondering and the excitement grew through the years until I was school and could beat anyone at the capital city game, giving the geography teachers a run for their money with Nicaragua and Uzbekistan!
Losing my brother three years ago to cancer definitely put things into perspective. Although never holding massive ambitions to travel the world his death served as a mental warning, maybe that I was now aware of my own mortality and that life was just too precious to be sat watching TV or just idling along spending your best years wishing it away. Life has now become very pressurised but at least it has served to point me in what I believe is the right direction. This trip for me, rightly or wrongly, is all I want to do, all I have ever wanted to do. Whilst others were dreaming of careers and making money, all I have ever wanted to do is see the world and meet as many nice people as possible, call it daft, call it irresponsible, call it what you like, in a world full of overused clichés, we have one life....MAKE THE MOST OF IT!
Wednesday 14 July 2010
Friday 16 April 2010
Election debate number 1
So the first ever pre-election priministerial live debate passes, embracing presidentialism and giving the public, at least for a while, the chance to remind themselves that politicians are relatively real people. What this live debate has done, looking past the political engineering and one-upmanship, has once again linked the public to popular politics much like Nick Griffin’s tumultuous appearance on Question Time a few months ago. This has both its benefits and its flaws, on the one hand any attempt to get the public to engage with politics has to be seen as a positive, this goes without saying. On the other hand this idle attempt at showcasing the future leadership of this country leaves quite a strange taste in the mouth.
The debate itself went largely without incident with each candidate at their stereotypical best. Gordon Brown unexciting and uninspiring, David Cameron hollow, with style (make-up) over substance and then Nick Clegg, the leader of the third party in British politics, eager to make a name for himself on the equal footing in which the live debate provides. In essence each leader did everything that they were expected to do, David Cameron wanting to point nuclear weapons at China aside, they all managed to neither significantly help or hinder their cause in a way that was going to have a big influence on the way people will vote. Out of the three leaders up there only David Cameron had anything big to lose and in most respects he reminded everyone watching that despite some populous ideas on immigration and school discipline he has very little else that will distance himself from the other leaders, apart from maybe the most orange face. As a signal of intent David Cameron provided almost nothing in the way of a nucleus for change.
If the inevitable does happen and Mr Cameron does win a majority on May 6th the comparisons are likely to be drawn with New Labour’s victory in 1997. Coming on the back of 18 years of a Tory government the New Labour agenda promised, and provided for a while at least, the prospect of real change lead by a man who provided the real promise of making a difference. If David Cameron and the Tories think they are on a similar bandwagon after 13 years of a Labour government, they are sadly misguided.
As for Gordon Brown the debate was never going to portray him in the greatest of lights. Gordon Brown is just not made for modern, publicity driven election campaigns. Gordon Brown is the type of politician that should be left in the backroom to read big dusty books on Milford and Keynes and devise policy, not out in the shop window scaring the babies. To be fair to him though he handled himself ok but wasted too much time on reminding the public of the Tories flaws. He should have taken this time to convince the public that to vote Labour won’t mean the continual breakdown of society and the risk of a place on the economic slagheap.
The real winner of this debate and the one with the least to lose was Nick Clegg. Being the least well-known of the three all he had to do was not to make a tit of himself, which he managed to achieve quite comfortably. Giving concrete policy promises and answering the public on first-name terms he provided the freshness and ease of speech which Mr Cameron can only yearn for. Only time will tell what this could do for the Liberal Democrats but with solid and respected politicians like Vince Cable behind him they surely have to be taken much more seriously on the back of this performance.
The debate was odd that’s for sure, with the set looking like it cost the equivalent of the X Factor’s firecracker budget it was hard to give the occasion the seriousness it deserved. Added to this the presenter looking at best like an overeager sixth former and at worst Alan Partridge at his camp and socially inept best it lacked the sheen and legitimacy that the BBC adds to these occasions. Let’s just hope that the bland realisation that politics is dead can in part be resurrected by two more debates.
The debate itself went largely without incident with each candidate at their stereotypical best. Gordon Brown unexciting and uninspiring, David Cameron hollow, with style (make-up) over substance and then Nick Clegg, the leader of the third party in British politics, eager to make a name for himself on the equal footing in which the live debate provides. In essence each leader did everything that they were expected to do, David Cameron wanting to point nuclear weapons at China aside, they all managed to neither significantly help or hinder their cause in a way that was going to have a big influence on the way people will vote. Out of the three leaders up there only David Cameron had anything big to lose and in most respects he reminded everyone watching that despite some populous ideas on immigration and school discipline he has very little else that will distance himself from the other leaders, apart from maybe the most orange face. As a signal of intent David Cameron provided almost nothing in the way of a nucleus for change.
If the inevitable does happen and Mr Cameron does win a majority on May 6th the comparisons are likely to be drawn with New Labour’s victory in 1997. Coming on the back of 18 years of a Tory government the New Labour agenda promised, and provided for a while at least, the prospect of real change lead by a man who provided the real promise of making a difference. If David Cameron and the Tories think they are on a similar bandwagon after 13 years of a Labour government, they are sadly misguided.
As for Gordon Brown the debate was never going to portray him in the greatest of lights. Gordon Brown is just not made for modern, publicity driven election campaigns. Gordon Brown is the type of politician that should be left in the backroom to read big dusty books on Milford and Keynes and devise policy, not out in the shop window scaring the babies. To be fair to him though he handled himself ok but wasted too much time on reminding the public of the Tories flaws. He should have taken this time to convince the public that to vote Labour won’t mean the continual breakdown of society and the risk of a place on the economic slagheap.
The real winner of this debate and the one with the least to lose was Nick Clegg. Being the least well-known of the three all he had to do was not to make a tit of himself, which he managed to achieve quite comfortably. Giving concrete policy promises and answering the public on first-name terms he provided the freshness and ease of speech which Mr Cameron can only yearn for. Only time will tell what this could do for the Liberal Democrats but with solid and respected politicians like Vince Cable behind him they surely have to be taken much more seriously on the back of this performance.
The debate was odd that’s for sure, with the set looking like it cost the equivalent of the X Factor’s firecracker budget it was hard to give the occasion the seriousness it deserved. Added to this the presenter looking at best like an overeager sixth former and at worst Alan Partridge at his camp and socially inept best it lacked the sheen and legitimacy that the BBC adds to these occasions. Let’s just hope that the bland realisation that politics is dead can in part be resurrected by two more debates.
Tuesday 13 April 2010
Why Cameron doesn't want you
So Mr Cameron today unveiled his mighty new manifesto in the bold hope that it represents something completely unique, an unparalleled document so unalike to any other political party it would almost make us want to clean his shiny bicycle every morning. The truth is the Conservative manifesto seems to have fallen flat right at the moment when it should have underpinned Mr Cameron's growing sense of complacency as to who will win the election on May 6th. It offers little or no major alternatives to Mr Browns own manifesto published yesterday, other than the fact that Mr Cameron seems to believe that the way to cure the countries budget deficit it so punish the public sector.
Now the Tory party’s language over the past few months, especially George Osborne’s has at best been annoying and at worst a full fish-slap across the face. How can he possibly say, in many public speeches, that we are all in this together?? I had absolutely nothing to do with this mess; neither did 99% of the population, so the audacity to stand on his platform and give us some public-relations smothered spiel about how we all have to do our bit stinks of hypocrisy of the worst kind. Now the main focus of the Tories successful campaign, and let’s face it- they will win, is that within 50 days of the general election they will enforce an emergency budget. In this 'emergency' budget they will lay down their plans for a massive overhaul of the £128 billion budget deficit on far greater scale than that of the Labour Party. Within this budget the Tories will announce massive public sector cuts, something which, if you think about Labour's massive public sector spending is fair enough, but what the Tories are proposing is to hand out the 'punishment' of the recession squarely at the feet some of the hardest working and in most cases over-worked people in the land.
This is no more evident than with teachers, who for years now have seen their profession turned from one of the most inspiring and important roles in society to arguably one of the most frustrating. Held back by years of a government who believes that whatever the rights of the teacher, they will always come second place to the rights of the child, including in this the fact that to discipline a pupil is a near myth nowadays. In fact, one child was allowed to stay in a friend’s classroom for 6 months even though everyday the child attacked other children, other staff and caused mayhem on a 'Damien' scale. The answer to this was to put him in another room to 'play games' or to reward him for not smashing the face of the teaching assistant. Now although this is surely (and hopefully) an isolated incident it is part of a much wider problem. Teachers are asked to perform miracles and it can't continue. They are castigated for not hitting targets when this should never be a target driven profession, they are bullied into 'controlling' violent children and then vilified for not doing so, they are given paperwork after paperwork when they should be teaching and marking and are given responsibilities to teach all children at the same level, even if some pupils are clearly not capable. In what other profession would this be allowed to happen? On top of this they have the 'privilege' of having to put in 80 hours plus per week.
And what is the Tories answer to this? There answer is to freeze all public sector pay for at least 1 year, with the probably intention to make that three years. So in a profession where they are social worker, prison guard, crowd control, admin assistant, learning assistant and a multitude of others they are now being asked to effectively take a pay cut? Is that fair? Is it fair that the blokes who have cleaned the gutters, mended the bin lorries, cut the hedges, shovelled the shit and sick off the street for forty years now be asked to work till they are 66 and accept a much reduced 'slap in the face' rate of pension??
Now if Mr Osborne thinks we are all in this together, I ask you this. Let’s sacrifice your pension, give you a classroom of inner-city school children to teach and then tell you we are taking away your money. No My Osborne I don't think we are...
Now the Tory party’s language over the past few months, especially George Osborne’s has at best been annoying and at worst a full fish-slap across the face. How can he possibly say, in many public speeches, that we are all in this together?? I had absolutely nothing to do with this mess; neither did 99% of the population, so the audacity to stand on his platform and give us some public-relations smothered spiel about how we all have to do our bit stinks of hypocrisy of the worst kind. Now the main focus of the Tories successful campaign, and let’s face it- they will win, is that within 50 days of the general election they will enforce an emergency budget. In this 'emergency' budget they will lay down their plans for a massive overhaul of the £128 billion budget deficit on far greater scale than that of the Labour Party. Within this budget the Tories will announce massive public sector cuts, something which, if you think about Labour's massive public sector spending is fair enough, but what the Tories are proposing is to hand out the 'punishment' of the recession squarely at the feet some of the hardest working and in most cases over-worked people in the land.
This is no more evident than with teachers, who for years now have seen their profession turned from one of the most inspiring and important roles in society to arguably one of the most frustrating. Held back by years of a government who believes that whatever the rights of the teacher, they will always come second place to the rights of the child, including in this the fact that to discipline a pupil is a near myth nowadays. In fact, one child was allowed to stay in a friend’s classroom for 6 months even though everyday the child attacked other children, other staff and caused mayhem on a 'Damien' scale. The answer to this was to put him in another room to 'play games' or to reward him for not smashing the face of the teaching assistant. Now although this is surely (and hopefully) an isolated incident it is part of a much wider problem. Teachers are asked to perform miracles and it can't continue. They are castigated for not hitting targets when this should never be a target driven profession, they are bullied into 'controlling' violent children and then vilified for not doing so, they are given paperwork after paperwork when they should be teaching and marking and are given responsibilities to teach all children at the same level, even if some pupils are clearly not capable. In what other profession would this be allowed to happen? On top of this they have the 'privilege' of having to put in 80 hours plus per week.
And what is the Tories answer to this? There answer is to freeze all public sector pay for at least 1 year, with the probably intention to make that three years. So in a profession where they are social worker, prison guard, crowd control, admin assistant, learning assistant and a multitude of others they are now being asked to effectively take a pay cut? Is that fair? Is it fair that the blokes who have cleaned the gutters, mended the bin lorries, cut the hedges, shovelled the shit and sick off the street for forty years now be asked to work till they are 66 and accept a much reduced 'slap in the face' rate of pension??
Now if Mr Osborne thinks we are all in this together, I ask you this. Let’s sacrifice your pension, give you a classroom of inner-city school children to teach and then tell you we are taking away your money. No My Osborne I don't think we are...
Thursday 18 February 2010
Grief
Three years have passed and still the throbbing sensation of hurt lingers on. People say that the stages of grief are somehow scientifically proven to resemble a process with an eventual end point. What they fail to realise is the complexity of the human spirit and how this ‘process’ can be dramatically inconsistent person to person. Deep inside I know this numbness of emotion probably won’t heal and that nothing I do or say will ever make me the person I once was. Losing close friends or family is the ultimate dejection, leaving people with that unbearable feeling in the pit of the stomach of pure desperation. But for some it is more periodical, constantly nagging away at you, resurfacing when you least expect it. Looking around you feel completely disconnected with everything and everybody, constantly envious of their pain-free existence but constantly guilty of wanting to put your problems on theirs.
I lost my brother in December 2006, just before Christmas. At the time of his illness (a kind of cancer which goes everywhere) it all seemed very surreal. I myself was nearly 300 miles away at university which kind of put me on the periphery of what was going on, neither shielding me from the pain nor preparing me for the inevitable outcome. Three years on and the pain seems to reverberate around my consciousness like a dove stuck in a barn, hitting the rafters every now and then. It’s a strange situation, knowing that most of the people you know will never have to go through this, its as if bitterness has become your one true emotion knowing that for most people the worst thing they will feel will never compare to what you have been through.
Still, three years…time certainly makes a difference. For me it has lead to myriad of questions both consciously and more importantly, subconsciously. It is the latter which is taking more extracting, meaning help from unbiased professionals who don’t seem to do much other than recap and summarise, it is these things which seem to be their most valuable trait.
Grief is such a complex emotion.
I lost my brother in December 2006, just before Christmas. At the time of his illness (a kind of cancer which goes everywhere) it all seemed very surreal. I myself was nearly 300 miles away at university which kind of put me on the periphery of what was going on, neither shielding me from the pain nor preparing me for the inevitable outcome. Three years on and the pain seems to reverberate around my consciousness like a dove stuck in a barn, hitting the rafters every now and then. It’s a strange situation, knowing that most of the people you know will never have to go through this, its as if bitterness has become your one true emotion knowing that for most people the worst thing they will feel will never compare to what you have been through.
Still, three years…time certainly makes a difference. For me it has lead to myriad of questions both consciously and more importantly, subconsciously. It is the latter which is taking more extracting, meaning help from unbiased professionals who don’t seem to do much other than recap and summarise, it is these things which seem to be their most valuable trait.
Grief is such a complex emotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)