Friday, 26 March 2010

Mr & Mrs Clucking Tosspots Part 2.

In what way do the Tosspots endanger society?

Well governing a country competently must be the most difficult demanding role any human could be asked to do. To exceed mere competence by innovation and inspiration would require superhuman attributes of spirit, commitment and the courage to aspire and inspire others and the governed to gain the hoped for improvement. Now, for that to have any chance of happening, or for any secular messiah to announce their potential candidacy, it's necessary to suppose that having won the top governance job, he/she will be allowed to implement their innovative policies. But that wouldn't happen, because the oligarchs of global corporates don't want their freedoms challenged, regulated or their profits lessened by responsibility. This is where they advance their legions of Tosspots and their armoury of mediocrity.

To these Oligarch Moguls, mediocrity is fundamental to the control and growth of their empires. In the growth factors they'll demand and use, often in inspirational and courageous manner the shock troops and tactics of spirit. But once the battles won and the shock has settled mediocrity takes on the mantel of control. It's simply cheaper that way; less demanding of their time and less risk to their resources. By itself profit is an important but not the major factor in their considerations. Profit is like the weather; a movable goalpost left to the Tosspot they've placed in charge to either exploit or defend as a goad to the success or failure of the Tosspots career. No, their real interests, the lifeblood of their existence, is the freedom they're allowed to operate their markets and the size of the share they can hold in them.So perhaps we need to analyse what they mean by 'free market', and whether such an animal given the everyday usage and meaning of these words can, in any sensible way, exist or serve a useful purpose of benefit to society.

The Americans have a saying, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". This is true. At whatever level or in any circumstance the provider is looking for some gain from it. Whether its Mr Chairman Tosspot of a public body or trust being feted twice a week to black tie dinners by suppliers of services or materials in one way ot another the cost is eventually going to be charged to his organisation. Bonhomie is an offshoot of bullshit and both appeal to the braincells of Tosspots. So having got rid of any misconception that 'free' relates to no cost; we come to the alternative of 'free' relating to the facility to exploit without restriction. So how does that pan out?

In muscular terms it comes down to dog eats dog. That may be refined down to the position where it may not be the biggest, or the size of the dog in the fight that wins but the size of the fight in the dog. So in effect freedom for these Moguls is the right to carve up our world as much as they can between the lowest viable number of competitors. For it to be ONE appeals to their avarice, but sense tells them it would make the ONE too identifiable, accountable and possibly be held responsible for the failings of society. In truth that is only a restraint held in abeyance at the moment, should circumstances indicate their bastions of Tosspots would manage to retain control it could be reviewed. For example Murdoch's media empire reckon they're one of nine major players world wide. They expect that nine to be refined down to three and they'll be one of the three that have done the refining. Can you imagine the gains of having six media empires to carve up between the three and why the run of the mill administration and profits of their organisations can be left in safety to the mediocre hands of the Tosspots.

Take another example, which you may regard as being more current, the financial meltdown. Mr & Mrs Tosspots all over the world loosing money hand over fist for lesser Tosspots. Banks collapsing, institutions wavering and probity vanishing faster than a moon rocket. You have to think, given the trillions that flash their way round the financial markets daily, that the fall had to be a major setback to the Moguls. Probably it did, but not in the same way or degree that it effected the banks or other sections of the market where money is their core business. The Moguls still had their markets. Sure there may have to be a bit of readjustment, a couple of short falls to patch up. But what they lost in dividends from investments in the banks could be made up and more by the rates of interest earned on the loans to prop them up. And, because the governing Tosspots reacted in their mediocre way to the mediocrity of the banking Tosspots, their gamble on the banks was now covered by the magic fountain of public funds. Now all they have to do is to wait for the Tosspots to nudge the bank shares back up to the levels expected, while the government Tosspots, having raided the savings and resources of their citizens dry, while driving down in the process their expectations to a lower level of acceptable mediocrity. You could say in the case of banking, mediocrity brought its own mediocre reward.

What about global warming, you ask. ( or perhaps you don't? But my ego will let me assume you do.) Surely that must worry them? Perhaps it does, but I would hazard a guess that the worry won't be on apocalyptic qualities that bother us lesser mortals. Their concerns will be restricted to; have they maximised the exploitation and marketing controls and opportunities it presents them. If the forecast turn into fact, all well and good they can expand with the market. Should global warming turn out to be false, so what/ The Tosspots will have paid for most of the costs and will want to save face by retaining the market so they have another win/win situation with only a matter of minor degrees between the income and profit either way. And, just to rub salt into the wounds inflicted by the Tosspots, by the time that commodity becomes a charge on the consumer all the Tosspotting cost will be incorporated in it. With profits added before another brand of European Tosspots add tax to it.

"To them that hath, more shall they have." and true enough the moguls are major employers of Tosspots. But the biggest employer; way ahead of the Moguls, even with the inclusion of the minor moguls and their novitiate Tosspots is US.

Yes, we pay them to use, abuse, discipline, service, tax and govern us. We accept mediocrity as the benchmark of our society. So what does that make us?

Thursday, 25 March 2010

The Mr & Mrs Clucking Tosspots.

I don't know if its the same the world over, but they seem endemic in UK society and particularly rife in positions of authority.

These people have statistics coming out of their ears, can quote them chapter and verse and deduce from the resultant mash the precise constituents of cause and likely effects. Mr & Mrs Clucking Tosspots are the coroners for societies ills and the standard bearers for it's salvation. Who, from their statistical bag of averaged averages, produce the potions and prognoses we should all swallow and aspire to.

Don't know why, whether its down to a new awareness on my part or a growing commitment on their's, but it does seem as though there's been an exponential growth in the ranks of Tosspots in the last couple of decades. Though the growth by itself could be explained by the Tosspot pool contained in government nurturing and recruiting those of a similar disposition to NGO's, quasi committees, quango's and other positions of authority that are within the governments gift or remit.

Probably the Tosspot effect accelerated when their Clucking could be transmitted over the mass entertainment medias of radio, television and films. When popularity was morphed into marketing by the advertising gurus and the spin of ideal homes and whiter than white washes was spun into ideologies and doctrines of material illusionism. When marketing became a tool not just to promote products but to fertilise minds in the secular religions of free markets, of capitalism over communism - or any other 'ism that challenged or threatened capitalism freedom to manuevre and prosper. While the other ism's polluted their ideologies with despots, capitalism disguised its despots by philantrophy, better tunes and the mastering of marketing control of democracy. It's probably around this stage that, whether by design or happy accident, the market gurus became aware of the potential of Clucking Tosspots at, or near the top of positions of authority.

How else can we explain the likes of Reagan, Kissenger,Thatcher, Nixon, Ford, Bush Snr, Major, The Clintons, Bush Jnr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Blair, Brown, Straw, Prescot???, Balls, Hoone, Byers et al; to name but a few of the top echelon, how such mediocrity could succeed to such high office unless some 'power' wanted them there. Of course the marketing myth is that we the people voted them in. But if the choice is limited amongst Clucking Tosspots any difference is no more than a whisp of irrelevence. But the mediocrity the Tosspots provide and practice is proving very dangerous to the welfare, wellbeing and future of our society.

Tuesday, 2 March 2010

The Price of Democracy

The question that has to be asked is not so much what that price is, but whether apathy minimises or increases the costs of democracy to the extent that it first destroys the processes then on to corrupt democracy itself?

A few days back I commented on a poll Sub Rosa had on her blog. The poll asked what the remuneration should be for Westminster MPs. I commented that I hadn't voted on the poll because I couldn't find a value relevant to the job they had or hadn't done. Then, as an afterthought, I added that I wouldn't pay them at all - I'd let the party they represented pay them.

Tongue in cheek, or throwaway, as the comment had been I thought it might have created a few reactionary sparks. However none appeared, so, as is my wont, with a shrug of quiet humility I turned to other tasks. But the idea wouldn't go away; if nothing else the sparks had excited the synapses - it had some merit beyond the throwaway and, while it may not be a pearl it wasn't so much being cast before the swine as being used as a method to corral and weigh up their value. So here goes.

Lets say the purpose of this exercise is to strengthen our democracy; to give it real goals and accountability. We all know the failings, if not the methods and tactics used to exploit them, of the present system; which in one way or another can all be branded with systemic corruption. From the electoral cradle through governmental lifestyles to their parliamentary graves, corruption has many names but collectively its called the game and its primary purpose is to devalue your vote to beyond the start of infinity. In the process and as an exercise in power it has already demolished the foundation of democracy. How then do we go about getting a fair day's work by paying a fair day's wage to the keepers of our democracy?

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume we have a population of 15 million eligible to vote - on that figure we allocate a price per vote (PPV - everybody loves acronyms) Lets call it £30, so the whole allocation related to MP salaries, expenses etc., would be around £450m per annum.

Or it would be except for the fact that even at General Elections there's little more than 50% who bother to vote. That by itself is a serious blow to democracy and, without putting too much spin on it, a damning indictment on those who profess to govern and work within it. In fact it could be alleged that the practitioners of the present system encourage and benefit from this lack of interest, this self disenfranchisement by the citizenry. In a first past the post system, they've already got rid of half the problem runners, the pros and the thoroughbreds are still in the race but the cuddies, cob's and asses are fed up seeing arses, so they'd rather put a tenner on the tote as a hoof on the track.

This isn't good for democracy, so the need is there to encourage the disillusioned and disenfranchised to use their votes, and for politics to be tied in to that encouragement. So to this end if at a General ( or any? ) Election, only 10 million vote then the allocation for the term of that parliament is only £300m instead of the £450m.

This £450/300m should be allocated to the parties in proportion to their share of the vote?


Good question. But the way I see it is, while we may change a system and invigorate a flagging democracy we're not likely to change human nature. So taking that as a given, I'd let the parties haggle in their own mire on whether the Rt Hon gets X and Suffolk Twit Y while Dull from Hull get Z. We don't care, we want winners not runners. And the failing of the present system is that the RtHon doesn't give a hoot what Dull from Hull wangles in expenses. Since it's all drawn from the unlimited common purse its fair game, but were it to come from the party coffers and the amounts claimed by the dullards was limiting the scope and style the RtHon believed was merited then the fur would fly under the war cries of competence, commitment and ability.

We don't want the distortions of safe seats and stipends, of entrepreneurial nepotism and the hammocks of tradition. We want the bastards to fight tooth and nail for the privilege of representing us under the bastion of real democracy. We might then, like the citizens of Caesar's Rome, possibly profit and get some amusement out of the process.

So there you have it - possibly more an outline than a blueprint; but in the immortal words " salus populi suprema lex est." any method of governance that fails that test is not fit for purpose. The present democracy and governance we have wouldn't even be entitled to sit the prelims.