UKIP MP Wannabe Chased Out Of Party By Couple Who Talk To Angels

I could not wait to get back to my desk and type this post!

I will start by explaining why I am so excited. Today was a bad day for myself. Nothing particularly unpleasant happened to me, it was just dull, tiresome and completely uneventful. The sort of day that is undesirable to someone who is 'self-employed', whilst simultaneously managing to not be the least bit irksome. It was a textbook example of a nothing day. A day slowly ticking by, minutes the length of days, everyone filled with no real response to anything. That was until my journey home! Upon a chance reading of an article I was overcome with joy, a smile crept across my otherwise solemn face, and laughter burst forth uncontrollably as if erupting from some long dormant volcano unleashing its wrath upon the days apathy (it seemed that long to me). My mind wandered between the errors that these UKIPpers had made when describing this couples beliefs (as you would expect from that bunch of idiots), and the delights of imagining how conversations between the parties involved would have played out. So lets take a trip into the wonderland, the gift that keeps on giving, the little Englanders imaginarium, UKIP. Time to pick it apart and highlight it as the traditional inane ramblings of UKIP members, full of contradictions and inaccuracies.

I guess I should start by highlighting why the ex-UKIP candidate Jake Baynes and his local party chairman Graham Livings exemplify stupidity. This is mostly out of courtesy for those who practise the same or similar spiritualities, but also for my own enjoyment. 

JB: "I do think if someone is saying you are in touch with the angelic realms I have to call into question their judgement."

As opposed to being spoken to or listened to by God? In whatever form he/she may take thinking a mystical being living in the sky or another realm is listening to you is bizarre when you state it like that. How can you make such bold claims dismissing one set of beliefs and claiming they have no place in your party, whilst at the same time ignoring equally irrational beliefs expressed by other party members? Are Christians not infiltrating your party with their wacky beliefs? This is particularly odd when you think about it separate from the 'crazies' tag he is trying to label their beliefs as, 'angelic realms' sounds suspiciously like popular culture's representation of Heaven does it not? 

JB: "Everyone's got their different beliefs. It's not for me to belittle anyone's beliefs. People have different views. But if Ukip is trying to shake off this fruitcake image thing, we're not doing a good job of it." 

Oh Jake Baynes this quote started so well... Right up until the but! When a UKIPper says that little word you know it is all going to go wrong. You cannot say it is not your place to belittle yourself and then imply that because of their beliefs they are fruitcakes. That is belittling their beliefs! That is contradicting yourself within four sentences! That is UKIP! I can see why he was relatively well thought of within the party.

GL: "We've been infiltrated by the Glastonbury occult. I've heard a lot of people say locally they won't be voting for Ukip because of this. It needs to be addressed."

Now now Graham! Calm down a bit! I am sure you have heard them say they will not be voting for UKIP for multiple reasons. Mostly, I imagine, because you are a bunch of xenophobic ultra-right-wingers who could not care less about the plight of anyone other than your rich chums. Are you planning on doing something about that too? Or will you simply continue with that one policy you have? The one which is to be scared and hateful of anything that is not 'English enough' for your followers. If it is the latter I am sure your followers could not care less about someone's 'occult' connections. In fact it probably would make them the sanest person in UKIP. 

*GL: "Ukip has a prescribed list which states the no one who has been a member of the BNP or the English Defence League should be a member, but when they sat down and wrote out the prescribed list, they wouldn't have thought to put occultists down." 

Yeah, because being a practising alternative spiritualist and then wanting to join UKIP is beyond the pale. It is comparable to (or worse than) being member of a racist party or group and then joining a bunch of xenophobes. At least openly racist people (along with view equally as archaic) would be voted for by your membership and supporters.

*JB: "They say they get their divine inspirations from the Archangel Michael, and to be honest, I don't think that has a part to play in politics".

To be fair to Jake Baynes, this time I couldn't agree more. I do not think that religion or spiritual beliefs and politics should be mixed at all. What was that about gay rain?

**GT: "Ukip are not out to demonise everybody".

Nope, not at all. I have never known UKIP to demonise (or be derogatory towards) large swathes of the UK population, just: immigrants, homosexuals, women, the poor, environmentalists, non-Christians, ethnic minorities, the list goes on and on.

And they're off again the Wacky Racists go on and on. Each liar determined to win, manoeuvring for position, looking for the opening that will put him in the lead. 

Will the Dastardly Dicks ever manage to win a race? Or will they always fall short? Drat, Drat, and Double Drat!*** 

*Quote from a different source to the original article that inspired this post.

**Glenn Tucker, UKIP party member; also one of the 'occultists'.
***Yes I know it was a poor joke, but I really wanted to call them Wacky Racists. Also Dastardly Dicks kind of suits them!

Matalan The Miserly

I am not keen on purchasing from companies that exploit the opportunities presented by global capitalism, primarily by using low-paid workforces throughout the world to maximise profits on items sold to us in the western world. It is an act perpetrated by a system that encourages and enables morally bankrupt to flourish through ruthlessness and selfishness. Unfortunately, like most of us in the west, at times we have almost no option but to buy from many of these cheap high street chains. Many of us do so knowing the full implications of our purchases, and exactly why these items are so cheap, despite the huge profits being generated by these brands. The employees of these factories work on clothing for western consumption in truly atrocious conditions, often being over-worked, terrible living and working conditions, or in many cases worse. However, all of this is ignored by the company, by its marketing teams, and most importantly for this façade of guilt free shopping to continue, by the consumers. We do not know about it, and we do not care about, because they are not from our world. They are not from the developed world. An attitude that has paved the way for the brazen attitudes towards cheap labour, and their rights, that we see all around us.

So what does this have to do with Matalan? Well they are just one of many, many retailers exploiting this abundant resource comprised of huge swathes of impoverished people in the world, and a perfect example of the uncaring, calculating nature of global capitalism. Especially in light of the tragic events in Bangladesh over a year ago, and their refusal so far to pay the necessary compensation to the victims and their families. The continued stalling over what should be a straight forward admission of guilt only exposes the company (and the many others like them) for what they are. A company that places the needs of their owners ahead of the right to safety, security, and anything resembling a decent living standard for its indirect (and hidden) employees. 

When you examine the numbers associated with this example of execrable behaviour towards members of Matalan's own global supply chain it brings the nature of this facet of western consumption into focus. The sharp contrast between how Matalan wishes to be perceived as a family friendly brand, and the truth (that they couldn't care less about the families of those victims), is eye-opening for many. When you see the figures it becomes increasingly difficult to comprehend the callousness of the family who owns Matalan, the Hargreaves family (just so everyone knows who they are). 

1. In 2013-14 tax year Matalan made sales of £1.12billion.

2. Forbes list the Hargreaves net worth as $1.3billion.

3. Matalan only owe the fund £3million.

4. For their troubles the sweatshop workers of Bangladesh earned on average $38.50 per month whilst creating all those profits for Matalan et al.

Yet it looks like this appalling situation will bypass most of Matalan's customers, in addition to the plethora of other value brands consumers once again. All whilst the sweatshop, as a tool for profit masquerading as opportunities for the impoverished, is defended by many of those within the establishment.

Misleading Conservative Propanganda: WE Are Not Better Off

News broke on the 25th July that we in Britain are out of the dip caused by the recession. Surely this is reason to celebrate, for now we will all be prospering in comparison to the recent austerity years, we have all been saved from perpetual poverty by the Conservatives attacks on the poor, have we not? Well no, not at all. The news was that the economy is now 0.2% higher than before the banking crisis in 2008. On the surface that seems straight forward enough, we have recovered considerably. That is exactly what the Tories want us all to believe, they want us to believe that they are our saviours, that we should continue to accept their Draconian economic recovery plan, that we should just trust the establishment they represent. It is all nonsense. The GDP figures, despite the Tory propaganda claiming otherwise, do not tell the whole story.

Per person the economy is nowhere near the pre-crisis levels, it is quite obvious if you just think about it for a second. A 0.2% rise above the pre-crisis peak spread out amongst the pre-2008 population and the considerable number of new UK residents does not equal a growth per head, irrespective of how hard you try to make it look like it does. The celebrations from people on the right (wrong) side of politics to this news just shows how deceitful they are prepared to be to flog their brand of nonsense to the public, especially as we enter the countdown to the next general election.

The fallacy that we are in a better position now is further undermined if you just look at what the strongest sector is, the only sector to show real growth, and what typifies the nature of the work in that sector. The service sector makes up by far the biggest part of the UK economy, it accounts for around 80% of all jobs in the UK. That alone does not mean much, but when it is dominated by a low-paid workforce it paints a picture the government does not want you to see. One where minimum wage jobs are (to an extent) abundant and everyone in work is barely scraping by, unsurprisingly to the delight of the Tory parties wealthy clientèle. The same ones who own the companies, have received huge tax cuts, and experienced mountains of preferential treatment from the millionaires club located within Westminster. They are the only people celebrating this news, they are once again (as if it ever stopped) raking it in.

Afterall, everyone else in this country has either lost their jobs, or seen pay freezes/cuts/negligible increases (delete as appropriate). All whilst inflation has continued to rip chunks of hard earned pay from our wallets to be used solely on the essentials. Forget those little things that make life bearable, a meal out, a holiday, an ice-cream on a hot day. It has become all about the staycations, the bargain bucket, and bottles of frozen squash for the rest of us.

Bloody Romanians, Coming Over Here, Taking Our Jobs And Our Overcrowded Homes

Okay, it is time to talk about that lot. Not the Romanians, I have nothing against them, it is the 'battalion' I am referring to. The Christian Crusaders of Britain, the inarticulate defenders of 'British Values', the collective of contrived facts spat fervently at anyone who is not 'Indigenous', the hypocrites in Britain First. There is so much I want to write about these people, but in the interest of keeping this brief I shall concentrate on one article on their website, one that came to my attention today.

Lets start with the obvious, this article is worded to cause hatred towards immigrants. The frighteningly large benefit payments being a particularly favoured technique of the tabloid/racist media to encourage the readers of trash like this to view all immigrants or the unemployed with suspicion. Anyone who in any (often fabricated) way can be identified as similar to the subjects of the article are labelled as a figmental drain on our dwindling and stretched resources. This is done oblivious to the contradictory facts that are usually glossed over in the article, thankfully this 'article' is no different. The article, as I have already pointed out, has a headline purposefully reminiscent of the tabloid benefit hysteria, it makes the reader instantly feel animosity towards an innocent family. 'Romanian immigrant family of 17 on £55K a year benefits seeking a bigger home', it screams "how dare you come over here and scrounge of us hard working British taxpayers". Where this hate mongering falls short is that later, and very clearly stated is this "The Tomas arrived here from Prahova in Romania in 2012, lured by the prospect of a better life for their children. Father Mihai, 47, says he earns £1,800-a-month as an electrician".

So where do these benefit payments come from and why are they getting them? Well thankfully this article was written by idiots, and as such they provided the answer. I say they provided the answer but in truth they just plagiarised this nonsense, passing off the racism as their own. It should be noted that the 'writer' is one of those idiotic racists who clearly can only be objecting to the fact they are not 'indigenous British' (a joke of a statement as it is), but pretending otherwise under some flimsy pretext. The article on this ridiculous and abhorrent website states that "Mihai pays £1,700-a-month rent but the size of his and wife Veronica's brood means they receive a series of benefits. The family say they get £2,500 in tax credit, £1,400 in housing benefit and £700 in child benefit which totals £4,600 a month". I could just leave that right there and assume you know what all of these benefits are for exactly; however, in the interest of clarity a breakdown of these facts would be quite useful now. That is shall provide.

Tax Credit: 'Tax credits are state benefits that provide extra income to people responsible for children, disabled workers and other workers on lower incomes'.
The key point is that this family receives these tax credits precisely because they are working and are paid poorly (especially for those living in London). If workers were paid better there would be no need for them. Simple as that.

Housing Benefit: 'You could get Housing Benefit to help you pay your rent if you're on low income'.
Obviously there are some regulations regarding eligibility, but if they are receiving it, which they are, presumably they are eligible. As they are eligible they are well within their rights to claim, in fact it is stated that they pay £1,700 per month in rent, on £1,800 per month wages it would be crazy not to receive this benefit. The real enemies here are the greedy landlords who fleece people and the system for every available penny.

Child Benefit: A benefit designed to help provide the essentials for all children, it is a relatively small payment per child and does not in any way cover the cost of raising a child. Child Benefit is paid at a higher rate for the oldest child. This is £20.50 a week. If you have other children, you get £13.55 a week for each of them'.
Hardly going to help the parents rake in the cash is it?!

Then comes the usual role call of knee-jerker's, racists or Labourtories/Conservatives/UKIPpers who jump on any bandwagon that diverts attention away from real issues. The two quoted in this plagiarised piece are Susan Hall and Glenn Hearnden. Interestingly, they omitted the UKIP MEP Tim Aker from their racist role-call but chose to paraphrase his quote in the Express article in which he stated that "this simply illustrates Britain's soft touch approach", using his tired analogy of Britain being a 'soft touch' in their first sentence (like most racists they cannot think for themselves). It is also possible they omitted that particular crack-pot because they are competing with UKIP for the title of 'grandmasters of all things little Englander', either way I couldn't care less; they are both equally deserving of any sane persons scorn.

One final note... you know an article is little more than racist fear-mongering when The Express and The Daily Mail are reporting the story, and is gaining favourable reaction on Storm Front.

I couldn't be bothered with writing a post today... Here's a very poor first year essay

I wouldn't advice anyone taking a module on Work, Employment and Society to plagiarise this. It was one of my first essays submitted for university, the language and grammar are awful, it barely follows academic conventions, and more importantly, it was submitted via turnitin so you WILL be caught out.

If you want to think of it as a study aide, useful only as a guide to know what not to submit go ahead, unless you are happy with barely scraping a pass.



Managing rapid change within particular work settings

This essay will explain both upskilling and deskilling of workplaces and the changes that can occur for the employees in the workplace. The essay will first explain what is meant by deskilling, and will provide the theory that the deskilling of the jobs effect the employees job security and removes the need for highly skilled workers to be employed with the technological advancements. After this the essay will focus on the way that chefs have had their profession deskilled by both the outsourcing and pre-preparation of the food that is served in the restaurant and technological advancements that have allowed this to occur. Following this the essay will highlight the growth of highly skilled job sectors in post-industrialised nations and how this has affected the economy and moved it away from traditional manufacturing to one based on professional knowledge based jobs or the service industry. Finally the essay will look at the rise of computer based jobs in the US from the 1960’s to 1990 and how this has coincided with a greater demand for highly skilled professional working in many sectors of work involving the technology.

Changes in the workplace can be caused by a variety of different parameters; one of these is the deskilling of jobs that can occur in workplaces. There are many benefits for companies to change the methods of production that they use and to deskill the work that takes place by their employees through new innovations in technology. Zuboff referred to the process of adopting technology in the workplace as automating, “The process of automating work operations involves the replacement of living labour with technology: thus it is characterised by a deskilling of work” (Noon, Blyton 1997; 117) the automating of the workplace reduces the amount of employees needed to produce the service provided by the company, and those who do remain in their jobs after the automating process find that many of the skills required before the technology was in place are no longer needed, so the company does not need the skilled professionals to produce the service. Deskilling allows for the employer to pay the employees within their organisation a significantly lower rate of pay, this reduces the pay roll and offers the company a larger profit margin. This process also offers the employer the flexibility of being able to hire a larger amount of people to do a job, and as such allows the company to be able to hire and fire employees far more easily. The deskilling of work is often known as Taylorism or Fordist mass production, this process involves a regimented approach to the work that employees undertake. Jobs are made routine and simplified, often with the help of machinery or other forms of technological advancement, for the employer the benefit of this is that people can easily be moved from one role into another due to the low level of skill required to perform the tasks they are given. Braverman claimed that this is “central to capitalist production in its industrial phase” (Sayer, 1991; 50) although Braverman was writing about this process in an industrial sector of work de-skilling is a change that can occur in many areas of work beyond industrialised areas of work, when this form of change occurs those working in this sector can find that they have less security in their employment. Within white-colour jobs such as the design industry, the effects of the deskilling of the job has also been researched, the results give support the Braverman’s deskilling thesis. Cooley’s researched the impact of computer aided design on those employed in this role, Cooley stated that “There is already evidence to show that CAD, when introduced on the basis of so-called efficiency, gives rise to deskilling of the design function and a loss of job security” (Cooley, 1987 cited in Edgell, 2006; 59). This research suggests that the impact technology has when introduced to help companies make profits can often lead to the employees of companies to feel less secure in their jobs. The deskilling of the jobs that these employees undertake can result in a higher level of staff turnover for the company, this could be partly due to the task of hiring an equally skilled replacement becoming easier as the skill level required to design, craft or operate a piece of machinery is lessened.

Highly skilled jobs are not free from the risk of becoming deskilled, jobs where creativity is important to the employees are also frequently standardised with the aim of increasing efficiency. A study done in the hospitality sector of work, found that chefs have a high attrition and turnover rate in work, this can be attributed to the standardisation of their workplace and the food. Robinson and Barron explained that “The application of technology and standardisation can both ensure higher profitability and ease the burden on an underskilled and underresourced kitchen” (Robinson and Barron 2007; 916). The turnover of staff in the chef profession can be attributed to this deskilling of their work, although the business may benefit from the adoption of the new technology and standardised practises, the chefs may feel that its use in the kitchen limits their creativity in their work and reduces their technical skill development that they might otherwise have gained through the experience of more traditional cooking methods (Robinson and Barron 2007). Fine researched the use of outsourcing to improve efficiency in a kitchen; he noted that chefs were often worried about the application of the outsourcing of the food preparation and the widespread usage of these pre-prepared produce. Fine observed that there are “two principle observable mechanisms of deskilling in the professional kitchen: the use of convenience foods, and capitalisation and the application of technologies” (Robinson and Barron 2007; 918).

Deskilling is not the only form of change in working environments that can occur, the opposite can also occur, this is called the upskilling. When writing about the upskilling of labour in a post-industrial society, Bell’s thesis argues that in a post-industrial society traditional power sources such as the possession of wealth or property have become less important, in a post-industrialised society the power is in knowledge and those who possess knowledge have a greater share of the power in the society through this knowledge (Edgell, 2006), this argument is supported in The Brave New World of Work, Beck writes on the subject of this transition from a industrialised economy to one based on knowledge that “Knowledge, not work, will become the source of social wealth” (Beck 2000; 40). Within the upskilling thesis Bell explains that is the key to the post-industrial society, with the economy moving from industrial work to service and professional jobs the change has an impact on many people working within that society. The upskilling of the labour market means that not only those within education have to learn new skills but also many people in full time employment may find that they are being trained or have to learn new skills in order to compete in the labour market. The post- industrialised society according to Bell would see a change in the nature of work and this would result in a larger proportion of jobs being taken up by the service sector, Bell argues that this would see a “decline of blue-collar workers and the increase in white-collar workers, especially the scientific and technical occupational category” (Edgell, 2006; 63). This increase in knowledge based jobs has been recorded by the OECD Jobs Study 1994; the study noted that there was a significant increase in jobs that are typical of a knowledge based economy (Warhurst and Thompson, 1998) and a movement towards this kind of economy with education being the primary source of access to power in the workplace. This knowledge based occupational group has become more prominent in our society as the economy has evolved. To be employed in the sectors that these professional workers are you require a high level of education, often university degrees, as such those seeking employment in a knowledge based society must first achieve a high standard of education. This movement in the job market can cause issues amongst those in full time employment within a society; the workers may find that in areas with traditionally manufacturing based economies the risk of unemployment increasing, with jobs moving out of these towns or cities into countries where manufacturing the goods is cheaper. This may lead to a significant proportion of the population of that town or city unemployed and needing to re-skill or up-skill to increase their employability in order to find new work.

Much of the upskilling of work within society has come from advances in computer based technologies, these technologies can often require an in depth knowledge of the systems to run the programs or provide the input to achieve results. A study conducted in the US by Autor et al. between the 1960’ and 1990 found that “increase in the rate of growth of demand for more educated workers is concentrated in the most computer-intensive industries and those industries with rapid growth in computer investments” (Young-Hwa 2002; 94-95). Autor et al further researched into the possible link between the relationship between the educational upskilling and the rate of computer usage of the workforce in the US and the investment in these high end technologies and computer based jobs.

Deskilling has had a huge effect on the work lives of many people in society, they have been forced to deal with a rapid change in their work lives and have been subjected to a loss of security in their jobs as a result of the deskilling of their labour. Many find that the jobs they are working in have become increasingly monotonous in their nature or that the need for their skills is becoming less important as technological advances are replacing human skill with the precision and efficiency of machinery. Many jobs have seen an increase in production from this new technologies and staff numbers decrease at the same time, this has allowed for teams of low skilled workers to be employed on a less expensive salary than the skilled workers. Although this has largely occurred in the manufacturing sector it has also occurred in professional or formerly professional jobs, for example chefs or clerical workers. However, the UK is now a post-industrial country with an ever increasing growth in highly skilled professions this is where the upskilling of the labour market has occurred primarily. There has been a rise in these knowledge based jobs with an emphasis on educational achievement as a gateway into the higher professional jobs. The knowledge based economy has become a large proportion of the economy in western countries and employers therefore must adapt and learn new techniques and gain more knowledge in order to achieve good career prospects. This therefore, has been the most important change in the working environment for many employees, they must continually adapt to the changing environment to be able to retain their jobs in this knowledge economy.

References

Sayer, D. (1991) Capitalism and Modernity An Excursus on Marx and Weber, London: Routledge.

Edgell, S. (2006) The Sociology of Work, London: Sage

Beck, U. (2000) The Brave New World of Work, Polity Press: Cornwall

Noon, M. & Blyton, P. (1997) The Realities of Work, Macmillan Press: Basingstoke

Warhurst, C. & Thompson, P. (1998) Hands, Hearts and Minds: Changing Work and Workers at the End of the Century, in Thompson, P. & Warhurst, C, eds. (1998). Workplaces of the Future, Palgrave: Basingstoke

Robinson, R. & Barron, P. (2007) Developing a framework for understanding the impact of deskilling and standardisation on the turnover and attrition of chefs, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 4, pp. 913-926.

Young-Hwa, K. (2002) A State of Art Review on the Impact of Technology on Skill Demand in OECD Countries, Journal of Education and Work, 15, 1, pp. 89-109



Hope you enjoyed reading the single worst piece of work I have submitted for anything.

P.S. I can't remember if this was a draft or final version... Submitted way too long ago

Thoughts on Consumerism

I was watching a television show last night on BBC 2 called the men who made us spend, it validated so much of the cynicism I hold about the world of people. That world we call a society. It never ceases to shock me, the waste, the attitude, the idolisation of the next must have thing. I must specify that I am no Luddite. I, much like nearly everyone else in the world, embrace useful innovation. Anything that improves our lives or does something non-useful but provides entertainment (which I guess you could argue is useful as a stress relief) is fantastic. Innovation is a must, it is required for human civilisation to progress enough to benefit everyone on this small rock. What I am not so keen on is the systems of manipulation that drive much of this 'innovation'.

Too often innovation is falsified by companies through techniques such as marketing or planned obsolescence. These techniques drive the wheels of consumption. Often in places where the need for upgrading the current technology was not at the forefront of concerns in pre-consumerist society. It is the Capitalists relentless drive for ever increasing wealth accumulation that causes this disposable attitude towards perfectly functioning items, unless of course they are designed to break. The actual needs of those consuming these goods are never truly considered, instead they are created, it is almost exclusively a manufactured desire for change. One man's answer perfectly sums this up, when asked about the new features that have improved the iPhone 45032s "Um... basically probably not much, there's a finger print scanner which is very cool". When questioned about queuing for three days for an upgrade on his phone, which does pretty much exactly what his current one does, he replied "at the end they brought out something new that we all want"*. What the guy said wasn't as important as the gist of it, which was that they want to buy simply because it is the new thing to own. It doesn't have to last, why would it? Not when these consumers, these wallets, all of us... have been conditioned to accept that what we buy, often for substantial sums of money, will be falsely upgraded 3-12 months down the line. It's the American Dream in action, the few can get very rich selling items to people who have no real need for them, made particularly sweet as these consumers are all to happy to buy into it. To hell will the important things in life, I've got the new Google Glass, I have the latest piece of nonsense and can show how amazing I am to the world through this item I was told to consume... What do you mean I look like a twat?

It's not just digital technology corporations at it either, they all are, some more widely publicised than others. 'The men who made us spend' highlighted how planned obsolescence began, through the humble light-bulb, in a bid to increase profits. They simply wanted them to last shorter lengths of time to increase the need for them. Hell yeah I here you say, who needs any kind of reliability? Screw the environment, what has that ever done for us? To continuously package minor improvements in technology as must have items is one thing, and as long as there is an improvement (however slight) it could never be too objectionable. However, the idea of throw away consumption that was adopted so readily by the Capitalists did not cease with items that can be upgraded, it extended to single function 'consumables'. [Enter stage left].... IKEA, who through clever advertising managed to change the western worlds attitude to furniture. It no longer served a specific function, a chair was no longer a chair, a table became something else, it all began to say something about you. IKEA and their ilk had done the remarkable, they had effectively made function, durability and reliability secondary considerations. This new drive to consume in every aspect of our lives is as Zygmunt Bauman states packaged around a "constant pressure to be someone else". In these few words he expressed the essential characteristic of consumerist society, the new capitalism, we no longer buy things because we need them, we buy them because the advertisers tell us we want them, they tell us what to think about the types of people who own these desirables, and in a magical way they say something about you.

We have all become George A. Romero's zombies and we are all loving it.

* at least I think he said that! the guy mumbled a lot of that.

Move Along World, There's Nothing To See Here.

There is an overwhelming sense of trepidation as I begin to type this post out, a nervousness only matched by the fleeting but powerful peaks of excitement, what may this post may do to my poky little blog? Will it be a source of supportive and engaged traffic? Will it spawn an assemblage of enemies in a way that only the internet seems capable of? The most likely scenario of course is that it will do nothing, leaving this blog and blogger to carry on as normal. Yippee!

By now you're probably wondering what the point of the earlier nonsense was, there was none, but fear not I do have a point to this post. It is about Israel... More specifically the recent attacks by Israel and the ongoing oppressing Palestinians. I could have just cut to the chase but I am sort worried about getting a disproportionate amount of hate for this, you know kind of like the Palestinians.

I am going to state this clearly now just so everyone is completely sure and it cannot be used against me, it is sad that I have to but that is the nature of these things. ISRAEL DOES HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND ITS PEOPLE FROM ATTACK. They are people and EVERYONE has the right to life. Okay now that is out of the way and I feel I might have covered my defence from anyone who wants to accuse me of anti-Semitism (unlikely but worth a try) onto the post I go. The act of war itself between Israel and Hamas is not of concern to me, Hamas launched rockets into the Israeli cities and Israel struck back. What does concern me is the civilian death toll, reportedly one Israeli has died through a concerted effort by Hamas to kill Israelis, a tonne of innocent Palestinians dead through a concerted effort by the IDF to kill every 'terrorist'. This would be acceptable if it was only terrorists that the Israeli Defence Force was killing off in their thousands, but as history tells us it isn't. The number of civilian causalities is alarming, like this recent bombing of a home for the disabled because a 'suspected' terrorist lived in the same building. Or perhaps the deaths and substantial injuries inflicted upon non-combatant adults and children in Palestine due to the Israeli fire-power, do these seem acceptable? This seems especially one-sided when contrasting the deaths and injuries that have occurred in the most recent conflict. 

Unfortunately, much of the problem goes beyond the conflicts, it is experienced everyday by those living within Palestine. Israel as the larger, richer, and internationally supported country holds all of the cards. Much, if not most, of the resentment that has caused this conflict to drag on and escalate has come to down to Israeli policy towards the state of Palestine and its people. To control a nations means of production, to limit their right to self-determination with your powerful friends, and to systematically reduce to the size of Palestinian territory (thus reducing living conditions for Palestinians), will always create hostile attitudes towards their neighbours. Whatever you think of Israel and Palestine surely this, coupled with the false attitude that only Jews have any historical right to the land, is harmful to any prepositions of peace in the region existing in the future. Control over borders, water, food and countless other items or amenities which can be switched off at will by Israel, is not how you build trust and cooperation with Palestinians. Surely all peoples would attempt to fight back in the face of such oppression? Even if their chance of success holds such minuscule odds. When you think about it you undoubtedly have to ask if Israel wants any Palestinians to continue to exist, such is their domination over the Palestinian people and their lands. The recent comments by Mahmoud Abbas about this being a "genocide against the Palestinian people" (although culturally insensitive) are hard to deny. Particularly in light of these revelations whereby a politician, and growing numbers of Israelis, are calling for the blood of Israel's enemies. The enemies being all Palestinian people, whether aggressors or not.

Yet it seems to many all condemnation of Israeli tactics and persecution of the Palestinians is Anti-Semitic, rather than just humanitarian concern for an oppressed people. A few examples of this nonsense are presented here, here, here and here. That is not to say that much of it can be anti-Semitic, it is just too easily used to detract from the very real arguments against some of Israel's actions. It is these actions stretching back to the creation of the state of Israel that has caused this on-going conflict. That's not to say the Palestinians are completely blameless, they are not, but to me it just seems as lopsided as the death toll.

If you couldn't be bothered to read all of that here is a nice animated video for you, it pretty much sums it up.

No one is more insufferable than he who lacks basic courtesy

Okay, I should really lay my cards on the table and show you my hand on this one. I am very annoyed right now with the sheer amount of rude people I have met over the last two weeks. They will be referred to from now on as 'people'. The reason for this is largely due to the vast majority people who I have spoken to fall within this rude 'people' category, seriously like 90% of them. In all honesty that's too many for me to bother distinguishing. You are all getting tarred with the same brush because the chances are you, your friends, your family, even lovely Mrs Gibbons from across the street who is a member of the salvation army, you probably all fall into that category. If you do not believe me that it is this common I propose a test, go knock on a strangers door and try to talk to them without receiving a torrent of abuse, vile looks that make you feel like human waste, or just the simple slam of a door into your face. Now I appreciate that door to door people are very annoying, most try to sell you junk (or products depending on your opinion of the tat on offer) aggressively, but this is not an excuse for launching into a tirade at a person when the personal circumstances that have led him or her into this position are not known. Have some damn courtesy people, that door knocker almost certainly is very poorly paid and hating their job, perhaps they are going through a particularly bad time and this is the only way they can make ends meet, or maybe they are already struggling with some personal problem that will not be bettered by being made to feel worthless.

Moving on and feeling the need to clarify, this is not just a moan about the 'people' who I have met over the last few weeks either, it is part of a much larger problem, part of an epidemic within our society. It seems to me that the main reasons for this are lack of interpersonal skills and an emotional distancing from your fellow human beings. We are all, without exception to large swathes of 'people' in this country, simply walking wallets, or tools to provide them with services. There is little or no regard for others, for their well-being and needs, all social interactions (beyond the few friends and family they consider worthy of their precious and rationed manners) boil down to the exchange of goods or services. People believe they require no other social interaction, no need for manners, no desire to communicate with anything other than contempt for the human in front of them, all because they have that new thing they see on telly. From shop assistants to nurses I have witnessed a lack of common decency to others by a wide variety of people, this has happened so often that it is impossible to argue against the widespread alienation of people from the rest of the human world. It is there and it most definitely exists within modern society. It is easy to blame this on the capitalist system, a way of ordering the world so that it encourages all workers to view others as being in competition with them, rather than in cooperation and existing as part of the same community. I do blame it just to make that clear. This attitude is actively encourage by our 'betters' but... what is not excusable is to view other people as sub-human just because they have knocked on your door whilst doing a job they hate, or because you wrongly assume the customer is always right (trust me they rarely are), or because you are so used to being aggressive to others you act that way to those who are helping you. 

Perhaps even more grinding is the assumption by these 'people' that somehow this job is you. That you somehow fit into a category of person because of a job. That they mostly judge other people based upon their misguided notions relating to the exchange of commodities. You are related to the mythical properties of the tat you are selling, in it you become a further appendage of the machine. To these 'people' who are rude at their doors it seems all methods of exchange have an extra added value. Something that is attached additionally to the actual, monetary value of goods. This value has little basis in the goods being exchanged. Poor and rich alike have paid for the tat I am being forced to shift. This value they create in their heads is not directly beneficial to them. The value is in their own feeling of superiority over the scum, the vermin, the undesirables who feed their inexhaustible need for consumption. When we come knocking I suspect they secretly delight in the opportunity to engage in the socially acceptable act of belittling a door canvaser. It is acceptable because as we all know, we are not human, we are at the bottom of the pile. You can be as rude as you want and maintain the moral high-ground. After all, it is not like we deserve even the most basic of courtesies. 

Politicitian in Idiotically Timed Comment Shocker

I take no joy in writing this particular blog post. Unlike my previous posts I have a degree of sympathy and an affinity with the politics of the party this man represents. Even taking this into account, I cannot find it within myself to not criticise the man for his foolishness. His foolishness in believing that taking to social media to share his strong views on the British Soldiers on Armed Forces Day was anything other than harmful to his party. Having spent much of this spring/summer lamenting the overwhelming amount of air time the four big British right-wing parties were getting on the BBC in the run up to and after the European elections, all whilst the Green Party were being ignored, I was hoping for some publicity for real and sensible politics. Then out of the blue came publicity, gained through an ill-thought-out tweet that was sent off into the melting pot of fury and indignation that is the internet. What a fucking idiot!

Don't mistake this posts as condemnation of his opinion, I really do feel for Ben Duncan, he was only expressing his views which also happen to be the views of many within this country. What I am criticising is the very public arena they were expressed in, coupled with the timing, and the lack of consideration given to the nature of the arena to which he felt the desire to release them into. For those who have perhaps missed the tweet he wrote "Armed Forces Day has certainly brought the hired killers onto the streets of #Brighton today", I find that hard to agree with. What are soldiers, sailors, marines and bomber or fighter pilots if not hired killers? They are after-all hired by the British government to kill the real or increasingly fictional enemies of the nation.

More importantly, I believe they were an ill-timed and poorly worded comment on the other parties use of the armed forces. Whilst it may be true that the soldiers are hired killers, it is not them as individuals that authorise this killing, they are primarily designated as a defence force. A force designed to defend this sovereignty of the British nation but increasingly being used aggressively in what could be described as US/UK petro-imperialism. This I feel is given weight beyond my own interpretation of what his tweet said by the Green Parties stance on the armed forces. In their manifesto which hasn't been amended since 2008 and viewable here, the Green Party's policy on defence expresses the belief that ""Defence" is the protection of homeland against attack and does not justify pre-emptive strikes against nations and organisations. Military intervention for peacekeeping or conflict prevention cannot be justified unilaterally. It is irrational and immoral to continue activities that exacerbate threats to international and local security". This seems like a perfectly reasonable manifesto point and one that looks (at least on the face of it) to support what Ben Duncan had tweeted in a moronic manner. I admit I could be completely wrong and he really could have been having a dig at the servicemen, but I am not convinced that is what he had intended to do.

Either way this was an idiotically timed comment from a representative of a party which has been struggling to gain a proportional amount of air time (particularly referring to the pre-euro election political broadcasts) on the BBC and in other media outlets when compared to their popularity. They are simply ignored, unless something negative happens (thanks Ben!) or the media can put a 'loony left' spin on things. I mean it was Armed Forces Day mate, a day that celebrates the veterans of justifiable wars alongside those who have served in our imperialistic conflicts. You just cannot be that insensitive and get away with it, not in the public spotlight and especially as someone in the public spotlight when you lack basic internet common sense.

There has been an apology and he has today been 'removed' from the party but I fear the damage has already been done.

Fighting The Tide! Britain's Epidemic of Ignorance

In my job I am surrounded by predominantly (I say that because one lad went to Gads Hill School) working class fellas. This is one of the few positives about my current employment situation. The days are filled with some degree of enjoyment and a small measure of freedom from the stiff mentality that penetrates most workplaces, especially those appealing to certain sections of the population. However, with this comes the menace that is the tabloid newspaper, a blight that has reduced large swathes of the British population to bile spewing idiots. The idiots who are often heard screaming tabloid phrases like the ever classic 'Broken Britain' when any young yob does something even slightly menacing, or mildly annoying. The same idiots who call all immigrants 'illegals' regardless of their immigration status and who believe 90% of the legal illegals are on benefits raising 48,561 children to be suicide bombers, either that or benefit scrounging but job stealing plumbers. To call them idiots is a tad harsh, but to me an idiot is anyone who does not stop to think, examine and then immediately dismiss this tabloid bullshit. Perhaps a better description would be ignorant. This ignorance is not necessarily (at least in my opinion) due to a character flaw but engineered by a tabloid press that wishes to breed this working class anger. A tabloid press that, with a few exceptions, is a Conservative megaphone. Simply setting out to repeat their divisive propaganda and spread it like a case of the clap amongst the working classes.

The reason I am writing about the nonsense propagated within the tabloid rags is because of a conversation I had with a colleague today whilst I set about earning my £3.33 per hour wage (thank you austerity by the way). He at more than one point used the term 'illegals', when he obviously meant regular legal immigrants, just before lambasting their presence in the UK and their benefit scrounging ways. I, as a left-leaning class traitor, believed I should intervene in his rant about some people who have every right to be in this country. In doing so I asked him what paper he had been reading. Not at all surprisingly to many it was that bastion of all things open-minded and sensible in this world.... the Sun. The paper that jerks knees left, right or centre depending on which political knees need jerking for sales*. This particular conversation went on for quite a while, back-and-forthing over what we believed, who was right, and the spin that all (or at least most) newspapers put on their source information to engineer an argument that better fits their agenda. A lot of what he said that wasn't backed up by something he read in a newspaper made sense, his own observations were reasonable and although I didn't agree with a lot of it I could understand his rationale behind it. However, this was often when something he read in the Sun would creep back into the picture and put an end to that. The conversation went on for so long I had pretty much exhausted myself trying to counter all of the arguments, expose the lies and find the partial truths in what he was mentioning (when I knew enough about the subject). I thought to myself that this was just one person, one individual out of the millions that consume this garbage masquerading as fact everyday. It was then that I found myself coming to the conclusion that as long as these 'news'papers exist it will always be an uphill struggle to get the nation to adopt sensible political views (and no I'm not talking about Labour here). This is not a criticism of him as a person, or of the working class in general, how could I criticise when I too was reading every page in the Sun and other shitrags at his age before somehow getting myself off to university? This is a criticism of those 'news'papers and their mostly right wing lies, their omission of facts, and their inclusion of partial truths carefully spun to catch human flies in their web. This is criticising the damaging effect on the otherwise sensible ideological leanings of the working class, on the people I work with, and most of all on the nation.

One massive positive was that he hated UKIP and knew more about their rarely mentioned and frankly bloody terrifying manifesto than most people I have spoken to... every little win and all that.

*Disclaimer: There are no prizes for guessing the knees that are being jerked in what he was reading.

FeMail: One of many future criticisms of that paper and its associated nonsense

I do not want this blog to be solely a voice of criticisms of the Daily Mail, there are many issues in the world that need to be pointed out. Unfortunately, I do not think I will be able to avoid it that often, they are just that easy to become angered at, and they are just that despicable. My issue this time is not with an article, as inevitably most of my criticism of that Nazi mouthpiece will be, but with a section on their website. As you have probably deduced having glanced at my title this particular grievance is with a section on there website called FeMail. The Daily Mail have it seems made a clear distinction between news suitable for male and female audiences, reasonable it seems because as we all know men are from Mars and women are from another damn solar system. It's either that or the Daily Mail is populated by sexist troglodytes, I'll let you decide.

I know some people out there will be thinking what's the problem? If you don't like it don't read it. That response to the inclusion of this section on the website is somewhat missing the point. The continued existence of this gender binary between male and female interests whether in small or large social interactions only further entrenches the deep-rooted gender inequality in society. The idea that there is innate differences between the sexes and their interests is ludicrous, any apparent difference is a result of one or multiple forms of socialisation, like the promotion of gendered differences in media publications. I think it is now time for a highly unscientific study, but trust me what I highlight here will be common across more than this one day at a particular hour.

The top story one each page.

Mail Online: Horrific moment feral gang of baby-faced thugs cornered terrified teenager in launderette before brutally stabbing him to death.

So do the Daily Mail believe this is suitable for its female readership?

Femail: Duchess of Cambridge's hair is back to its glossy best as she arrives at Wimbledon (and she's wearing a recycled dress too!) 

OMG!!!! Hold the front page, forget the alarmist (but admittedly horrific) news story we have just had a snap of a celebrity and a royal come across our virtual desk!!! This is the news our female readers want to know about. Not something remotely resembling news, it has to be celebrity gossip otherwise how will it hold a feeble woman's attention?

I'll just quickly round up the next five headlines scrolling down.

Mail Online: 

Woman Dubbed the 'Angel of Woolwich' for confronting Lee Rigby's killers is detained under Mental Health Act after 'race rant' at Tesco pharmacist. 

Do dogs talk to each other with their EYES? Canines have a secret language based on their gaze, study claims.

Pensioner who lived in £70,000 council house leaves £1.2MILLION to charity in his will after carefully saving during 40 years in the merchant navy.

Is Facebook killing your marriage? How people who use social media are 32% more likely to leave their spouses.

National leaders must now 'obey' Germany, claims Farage as he attacks spectacle of EU flag being 'goosestepped' around Brussels to European anthem. (I had a hard time resisting the temptation to tear into this)

Femail: 

Kim Sears looks bright in bold pink as she arrives to support Andy Murray at the Wimbledon quarter-finals... but where is Dimitrov's girlfriend Maria Sharapova?

The Queen is cheery in buttercup yellow as she gets behind-the-scenes look at Commonwealth Games venues.

How DOES she manage her diary? Beatrice arrives at the tennis after attending every star-studded event this week - and it's only Wednesday!

Holly Willoughby named celebrity with the best-dressed bump, beating Kimberley Walsh and Kourtney Kardashian to top spot.

Devastated mother-of-two demands criminal investigation after hair extensions fitted with SUPERGLUE force her to shave her head and leave her with bald spots.

As you can see the Daily Mail believes male readers should only be concerned with this dross (couldn't bring myself to call it news as most of what is on that website is far from that) which is generally serious in tone, and although still predominately shit can partially resemble important developments in the world of politics, science or the social. The 'female friendly' articles are in complete contrast to this, they are relationship or fashion orientated gossip pieces, with little or no (mainly no) attempt made to reflect and report real issues within the world. The wording of the headlines draws upon the notion of feminine concerns with beauty, the domestic and all that guff. So there you have it, the Daily Mail is once again exhibiting evidence that the writers, editors and pretty much everyone associated with it resemble shaved gorillas in their thought. In other news.... Scientists discover that the world orbits the sun whilst positioned at an angle. They claim that this is why it is currently ridiculously hot outside. Who would have thought it?

Starting a new job and my thoughts on the situation

So, I've been as poor as fuck for ages. I haven't had a regular income source for over a year and half, albeit able to survive (barely) because I was in full-time education. I've become desperate as my money has ran down to a few pennies and I've accumulated a massive debt. So today I took the plunge and got a job with seemingly the ONLY company in Medway willing to employ me. Why am I blogging about it? Well it's simply really, it does not have a guaranteed regular wage. Saying I am nervous about my financial well-being is an understatement. I could easily be able to make some sort of living (as in being able to buy some food, drink and live in a building with a roof) just as easily as being left to rot in poverty due to not being on any sort of wage. Basically, I feel like I might be fucked, and more importantly, I can't do anything about it. My university screwed me out of being able to wait any longer for the right job by withholding a vital bursary until well after I require it. Additionally, this countries measly unemployment benefit would hardly help me to be able to withhold for a short time until I find a job that I want to do, I am qualified to do, or even just a job that would actually support me without this ridiculous risk of it all crashing down after one or two pay-less weeks.

The privileged few who decide upon such things, or if you prefer, the 'old boys' who have run this country (seemingly forever) will tell you that there is no meaningful barriers to achievement. Essentially, they deny the blindingly obvious structural inequality. The inequality that we at the end of the stick covered in layers of old and new shit have observed and experienced. They will tell you that people are afforded the chance from all backgrounds to go to university, to leave university with great future prospects, and step into a job that elevates ones position on the class/economic/social ladder. This is just bullshit for the most part, the ones who are at most risk of never achieving such a thing are the poorest of the lot, those whose families have been on benefits for one reason or another their whole lives, or those whose families are in the lowest income brackets. They cannot remain out of work after university long enough to find a decent job, assuming they had managed to scrape through university with the help and support required from family, friends and whoever else can spare a little. Even that increasingly becoming less and less realistic when you factor in the rising living cost and other expenses related to university and home life. 

It's not simply whilst you are at university either. These problems relating to your background continue once you've graduated. Recently I had an assessment with a recruitment company in London. This particular agency was prestigious and one that was highly contested. There must have been roughly 50 to 60 people in this room all vying to be picked. The fact I was not picked is not why I am mentioning this, I knew I was very unlikely to get picked. What is important about this is that about 70% of the people who were picked were from privileged backgrounds. They were not working class men or women. I had suspected this would be the case when speaking to both my fellow candidates and the assessors beforehand; as they announced who would be taken on I was not disappointed. In knowing who was to be taken on I felt both vindicated and incredibly pissed off. What I had been saying for weeks about the job market I had observed was definitely true, class still matters in the UK today. I am not stupid, I know there could be other factors in the selection. However, such an overwhelming advantage for those who were able to dress in expensive suits, as this agencies own emailed information suggested, or who spoke in an accent you would associate with 'privileged professionals' cannot be ignored. Even the job applications themselves, ones that openly state they will only accept applications from those at red-brick universities, can be hugely off putting for a working class individual. An individual who may not have had the required support (both financial and domestic) to achieve the grades to gain entrance to these exclusive clubs, but nether-the-less achieved a comparable qualification at another university. If you do not believe me read this. Inequality of opportunity like this will not be helped by the tuition fee increase. Those who run these red-brick universities are able to charge more than the less prestigious former polytechnics. It will create a larger class divide in our higher education. Something to which I am sure many in the upper-middle classes will be delighted about, they can finally keep all of the riff-raff out.

Yes, there will be a lucky few who find it easy and are hired, in spite of obvious classism, into favourable jobs within weeks of leaving university. Yes, there is an opportunity to move on in life if you are from an underprivileged background. However, as I have discovered recently these opportunities are less common than  people claim they are, and many of us from very poor backgrounds will be in no better position once we graduate than we were before university. We will still be taking low-paid jobs and be left wondering why we even bothered.