Gordon's Two Pence

Yes that's right, the budget was announced yesterday, and like all good performers Mr. Brown followed the time honored tradition of droning on for a while then dropping a bit of a bombshell right at the end to make everyone forget everything that he had just said and focus on the good news. Bad news, bad news, moderately good news, bad news, bad news, oh and I'm going to lop 2p off income tax.

To be fair to him, it worked on me for a while. I was listening to it all unfold on radio5, and while for the most part the changed he was announcing were of little consequence to me directly I was quite interested. Corporation tax is not something I lose sleep over generally, and I don't smoke nor drive a 4x4 so I was smugly thinking to myself that I had got away unscathed this year, then just as the jeers were rising in the commons, and Cameron was limbering up and practicing his one liners, Brown just happened to say that he was lowering income tax to its lowest level in 20 years or so. "Hmmmmm", thought I,”that sounds good to me."

And then I got to thinking, he's a politician, it's all smoke and mirrors really, he giveth yet taketh away surely. So, I went through some of the the other details of the budget, the bits he wants us to ignore, and found it. National Insurance will be re-aligned, political speak for increased. Obviously petrol is going up, so the two pence in the pound I no longer pay to the government in income tax will be paid instead in petrol. Oh, and this is the most interesting thing, the lower rate of taxation which currently stands at a mere 10% for those on low incomes, will be abolished. Now, this doesn't affect me in the slightest, and indeed getting rid of it will pretty much cover the governments lost revenue when the middle rate of income tax falls to 20%, but surely a left wing government should look after those on low incomes? Call me old fashioned but....

Anyway, back to the fact that all politicians are liars. Sweeping statement admittedly, but prove me wrong and I will gladly take it back. You see there's something that strikes me as slightly strange about politics and politicians in general. Basically, there is no legal requirement for them to do what they say they are going to do when they are elected. Put it this way; imagine you need some major building work doing at home, so you get three separate quotes. First fella comes round in a big red transit, he's a fairly skinny looking builder to be fair, obviously the brains behind the operation, but his mate who jumps out of the passenger door is a hefty looking sod who is obviously no stranger to a bacon sandwich. Now, they give the job the once over, have a pot of tea, the fat one writes a few things down in the margin of The Sun while the other fella does all the smooth talking. They leave, and say that they will post a quote out to you in a day or two. In the meantime, builder number two comes round, brand new blue Mercedes van, this fella isn't even wearing overalls and there's no sign of anyone else with him. He comes in and talks the talk, looks around a bit, asks for an earl grey, makes a few notes in the margin of the Telegraph, and leaves, the quote will be in the post in a day or two. Finally, builder number three comes round, an old timer in a little yellow Bedford rascal, the kind that will blow over if you sneeze. Now, he's a different kettle of fish altogether, he doesn’t even look at the job, he just asks who else has been round. So you tell him, and he tells you that what ever quotes you get he will match, but what he can promise is better service. He seems trustworthy enough, and he knows what he's on about, but when you ask him about experience on similar projects he clams up a bit, and beats a hasty retreat. Shame really.

Anyway, a few days later the quotes arrive and there's not much between them. So you make a choice based on the builders themselves. Either way, you have a quote and a detailed list of what will be done, so you make a choice and you are happy. Now, if this was actually a building job we were talking about, and the builders didn’t stick to the quote and the agreed job specification, then what you would do is take them to court, citing breach of contract or something, and probably win substantial damages. However, in this case what actually happens is that the builder in the red van turns up for day one on the job, with his fat mate in tow. They have a look, check the plans, check the job spec for the extension you require, throw it in the bin and build you a pond with an ornamental fountain. Every now and then the builder in the blue Mercedes drives past and shouts at them, and tells you that he would have done a better job. So you have a word with the red builder and tell him you're not happy and that you didn't agree to this and if you had known he was going to build a pond you would have chosen the other fella. He smiles, obviously, waves his hands a bit, and tells you not to worry, this change is necessary for the good of your house, and that anyway whatever he promised to deliver back then he now aspires to deliver in the future, and those aspirations will in fact become the long term goals for him and fatty. Furthermore, none of what he says has any kind of legal foundation anyway, to bollocks to you, he can't stand around chatting with you all day, he's got a big demolition job on up the road in Baghdad Avenue and he's got to get cracking before the council turn up and ask for his planning permission documents, which he hasn't got.

Right, in the words of another Gordon, "Sarcastic criticism of Budget - DONE"

The second "N" in Historian

I was reading an article in the Economist today (check me out!) about the life of a famous American historian and liberal who was close to the Kennedy administration. An interesting read to be fair, actually it was an obituary now I come to think of it, which is neither here nor there, but one thing struck me as I was reading. Fortunately it was a figurative strike, and not a literal one. As with most newspaper articles there were little subheadings throughout the article, and one in particular caught my attention - An Historian in Love. Now, being a bit of a stickler for grammar myself I obviously found no fault with the use of "An", it is grammatically correct. But, and this may sound a bit strange, but is it a bit too correct? What I mean is that we are all taught to use "An" before a noun beginning with a vowel, which is all fine and dandy, and then we are told to use it before nouns beginning with a "H" too for reasons best known to someone who cares. I never really thought about it before, but I happened to say this little subtitle out loud to see how it rolled off the tongue, and frankly it didn't. Try it now, "An Historian in Love". Now try it without the n, "A Historian in Love", now I admit it sounds a little unusual at first, but it seems to roll far easier in my opinion. That then got me to thinking about our use of "whom", and I remembered once being told that my use of "whom" in a piece of work, although correct, was almost too correct and a little bit pretentious. Now, fortunately I didn't reply "pretentious, moi?!" and merely erased the offending "m". Language changes constantly, I know this as well as anyone, and in many cases the changes are for the better, so maybe it is time to drop the n in front of nouns beginning with a, or indeed, an H. What do you think?
That said, not all changes in language usage are for the good. I was walking past a large office block the other day and I saw a sign in the window that caught my attention "Jobs available init".
Now, although hardly proficient in the current language of the street, I am aware of the over usage of the word "init" at the end of sentences, particularly among the disaffected, working classes and other people who shouldn't be allowed to vote. So, being an upstanding citizen and a great believer in people talking proper, I took it upon myself to highlight this aberration to the company receptionist. It didn't go too well. Before I had even found my stride in explaining the complexities and vagaries of the English language the aforementioned receptionist popped a chewing gum bubble, tapped a well chewed HB on the desk and informed me that the sign actually advertised positions currently available in the I.T department. Needless to say I beat a hasty retreat.

Obviously, that didn't actually happen and was added merely for comedic effect. Honest.

Until next we meet.

My thoughts on...

...Let’s start with a nice, easy, uncontroversial topic. After all, I wish to ease myself, and indeed you the reader, into this soon to become regular feature on my blog. So, nothing too taxing to begin with. Let’s start with the war in Iraq. Not the current war in Iraq. Not even the one in the early 1990s. I mean the 100 year old war in Iraq.

“WHAT?!” I hear you cry, “The war in Iraq has not been going on for 100 years, that’s a preposterous exaggeration! No doubt intended to spark debate and controversy and all kinds of Dan Brown like conspiracy theories and spin off movies with a decidedly dodgy looking long haired Tom Hanks in the leading role. I must close this page immediately and no longer subject to myself to such ridiculous propaganda, mud slinging and misrepresentation of the facts.”

Well, ok I admit it, you got me there. But, before you do close this blog, allow me to explain myself. I was just doing a bit of reading about the Middle East, the Gulf region and the area which used to be known as Mesopotamia. In fact, if truth be known I once read an Agatha Christie book called, rather grandly I thought, ‘Murder in Mesopotamia’, and ever since I wondered if this was indeed a place or merely a made up and rather exotic sounding holiday destination for Hercule Poirot. So, imagine my surprise when I discovered that according to Wikipedia “Mesopotamia refers to the region now occupied by modern Iraq, eastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and Southwest Iran.”

That got me thinking about how strange it is that come countries or regions change their names; Ceylon became Sri Lanka, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, Burma became Myanmar and Mesopotamia became, drum roll please….THE AXIS OF EVIL.
Well, more or less anyway.

So, back to the point. In the course of my afternoon research of Mesopotamia, and yes I have too much time on my hands, I read something that made me sit up and take notice. Namely, that in a remote part of the region, in a place called Masjed Soleiman, the first recorded oil well in the region was constructed in 1908. The city lies in what is now southern Iran. Shortly after this oil discovery, as I’m sure you know, World War I began. Now, I’m not going to go suggest that the War began as a result of this discovery, mere unhappy coincidence of course. However, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, the country we now know as Iraq was created and fell under British rule. Hopefully, you are beginning to see where I’m coming from. If not, keep reading.

In the 88 or so years since the end of WWI, the UK has been at war with, or occupying Iraq for almost 50 of them. So, yes I lied, the war on Iraq has not been going on for 100 years, but rather on and off for about 90.

Now, I don’t intend for this to become some kind of political blog, as I myself am slightly confused as to where my political allegiances lie, however, it does strike me as a little bit odd that for 90 years or so we have placed such importance on Iraq and Iraqi oil.


It’s almost as if this oil, and its ownership, has become a major part of Western foreign policy or something, surely not? Now obviously the Americans have told us that this is not the case, and they invaded Iraq, twice remember, for reasons other than oil. Disposing of Saddam, protecting Kuwait, Finding invisible weapons etc etc.

Now, I’m no apologist for Saddam Hussain or any other tyrant for that matter, I think Iraq will be better off without him, but that is neither here nor there. When the Americans invaded in 2003 guess what the first thing they did was? Bomb Saddam’s palaces? Bomb all possible locations for the infamous WMD? Send in the weapons inspectors? Seek UN approval, or no they should have done that before, oops! No, that’s right; they went in and secured the oil fields. Hmmmmm interesting. Add to this the following fact, in a state department document released recently; Iraq is described as “A stupendous source or strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history”.

Like I said, I don’t want to preach politics, but wouldn’t it be nice if Messers Bush and Blair came out and said, quite openly, that one of the main reasons for invading Iraq was to gain control of the oil fields, thus guaranteeing supply to the west for the foreseeable future. Nice, but unlikely.
If you want a bit more information about this, type the following into google: west seeks glittering prize in Iraqi oil fields, and see what The Times had to say on the matter!

Next time it won’t be as heavy I promise, I’ll give my thoughts on something more trivial!

My thoughts on....

Evening one and all. Or one. Or two. Or however many people actually read this. Probably just me to be fair but what does it matter?!

Anyway, I've decided I am going to try and write a serious piece every now and then giving my overrated opinion on a specific topic. I hardly expect this to be front page news admittedly, but the idea behind writing this post today is that I can't back down now, I have to stay true to my word. Well, I suppose I could just delete this post and forget about the whole thing but where's the fun in that? Now, when I say that I'm going to write a serious entry about a topic let me explain, it's the topic that will be serious, there are no guarantees that what I write will be anything of the like. I'll try, but it doesn't always come naturally to me. But the topics will be definitely serious, news items and the like. And I'll add the first one in a few days, tentatively pencilled into my agenda is to write a piece on Iraq, but you never know it might turn out to be a critical essay on the relative merits of cheese as an accompaniment to toast. Either way a riveting read awaits.

Till then I guess.

Lost for words

There's a banner link at the bottom of the page. Please follow it. It will make you shake your head in disbelief.