The Arrogance Of Power

If the myriad of ‘Partygate’ scandals which have repeatedly hit Mr Johnson and Downing Street in the last couple of months have taught us plebs only one thing, it’s this: our views do not matter one jot. Unfortunately, they’re – generally speaking – correct.

There’s no way for us Big Public to remove them until the next ‘permitted event’ due in a couple of years time. The ‘independent report’ will be landing on Johnson’s desk and then he shall decide what is done about his own wrongdoing. The police have – rightly or wrongly – decided not to intervene. We are unable to force him – or his minions – to tell us the actual truth of the affair. To paraphrase Scooby Doo; ‘I got away with it despite you meddling public’.

Well, what other reason do you think he was smirking in that interview?

However, as with these types of post, I’m not actually that interested in the whole ‘Downing Street parties’ thing as a topic of discussion – more about what led to first the parties and then the response to it – the ‘culture’, so to speak. For I feel that it’s this which is the true, embedded problem in British society and thus worth talking about.

I shall call it ‘the arrogance of power’.

Lords & Masters

To say Mr Johnson is a ‘deeply flawed character’ is the truth – however, it is not the whole truth. The seeds of Mr Johnson – and the whole system which would allow him to thrive to the point of becoming Prime Minister – lay not down to quirks of fate or accident, but the very socio-economic system which dominates this country. I speak, naturally that of the class system – a beast who’s death is constantly predicted but never confirmed.

The most interesting aspect of the British ruling class – as noted by the likes of Orwell some eighty years ago – is it’s ability to change just enough with the times to avoid becoming a fossil and to co-opt just enough of the successful upstarts per generation to avoid being deposed. In recent decades this primarily took the form of absorbing the top rungs of our ‘nomenklatura’; those professional and managerial elites which increasingly ran the country on their behalf and were predicted by some to become their usurpers.

The key meeting-point of the two groups was ideological; they both have what I shall call ‘the master ethos’. That they believe – for good reasons or not – that they are inherently superior to us oiks; in intellect, learning, culture, drive and discipline. They possess a kind of warped meritocratic justification; they are on top because they’re the best, for if they weren’t some folks from the Lower Orders would have supplanted them long ago, right?

Worse, a large segment of the British public buys into this bollocks too. Deference – to a plummy voice, verbose glibness and patrician arrogance – has been bred into our very bones which causes our knees to bend and heads to jerk downwards when in their presence. How else can you explain the popularity of such period drama escapees such as Rees-Mogg?

I can. That we British have been groomed over centuries to equate said ‘master ethos’, or more correctly it’s outward signs as ‘leadership’. And that this view has become so ingrained that some of us actively recoil when we see one of our masters not conforming to this – as seen as all the hate shown for Reyner for her working-class accent, or Corbyn’s refusal to be impeccably groomed and suited at all times.

Consider that, for a moment. That even now, in the third decade of the twenty-first century, many Britons still apparently buying into ideas that are in reality a load of crap.

A Second Look?

Now I’ve planted ‘the master ethos’ in your head, let’s go back to ‘Partygate’. Johnson had his ‘drinks meetings’, because he was working ever so hard and he deserved it. It was okay that he broke the rules because he was intelligent enough to make sure it was done safely. In fact, the rules were wrong here so it was fine to break them. And he apologised for our inability to understand the ‘special circumstances’ which involved him, because we are too thick to get it otherwise.

I actually think Johnson was telling ‘his truth’ when complaining to Tory MPs that he’d ‘done nothing wrong’. And I also believe that the majority of MPs would have agreed with him too.

That’s part of the problem.

Acton’s Maxim

I could have called this post ‘the arrogance of privilege’ but I didn’t for one reason; the problem is wider than that. This has already been vaguely alluded to with Johnson; a ‘toxic culture’ within Downing Street.

The reason for this is simple; that even after you take into account the sorts of people who could hack working for a man like Johnson, their very proximity to him had a malign effect on their judgement. Despite not being ‘of’ the ruling class (as a rule), they grew to act according to their mentalities; that they too were special, that they also deserved exemptions. It’s not like Johnson was ever a ‘details man’, and even if he was I strongly suspect he wouldn’t have enquired too deeply into the doings of his servants.

I shall argue that the smug superiority, the entitlement writ large from of our masters rubbed off on the underlings; ‘taking their tone’ from them, with others falling into line ‘because everyone else was doing it’. The arrogance rubs off; nay, the arrogance is seen as part of having power in this country, the way to act, ‘leadership qualities’. It’s the true strength of the British ruling class; it takes hirelings and moulds them with elements of the master ethos unawares, which not only makes them better servants but is good ground-work in case they rise far enough that ‘absorption’ is worthwhile.

The whole ‘Owen Paterson affair’ makes more sense when you look at it this way. For truth be told, not many of the Conservative MPs are actually of the ruling class – partly due to the simple fact Parliament is too ‘low-status’ an occupation and only a limited number of safe seats come open each election. This means it’s mainly the ‘hirelings’ and the socially ambitious which try this route; which if done ‘right’ can lead to the end of the rainbow – pots of gold, ermine and sinecures.

Anyway, these MPs took their cue from their masters, which in this case was ‘there is nothing wrong with using your position to further oneself’. To this light, Paterson did nothing wrong. His ‘crime’ was not to be caught, or even to complain about the slap-on-wrist he got as punishment either. It was merely that he caught the public’s eye on it. This meant he was promptly thrown overboard.

Wicked Or Stupid?

Was the question Orwell asked of his own ruling class eighty years before, and I’ve generally come to the same conclusion as he – it’s mainly the latter.

That they do not understand the point that leadership comes from example, that we’re not so dim we don’t remember you said the opposite thing last year, last month, last week. Or that your words and deeds are on different planets, that your promises to us never come true. That your rule is mainly through gaslighting, fear and nonsense, mainly done as your group continues to run the county into the ground, while you treat it like it’s your own piece of personal property.

That the truth of the matter is more alarming; your class has decayed so far that you’ve lost your brains, your morals, your patriotism and even your sense of duty. That all it is now left is the entitlement, superficiality, greed and immaturity.

I wouldn’t mind so much if they simply honest about it all; to baldly state ‘we are in charge, and by jove we’ll do anything and everything to remain so’. But Orwell also tells us why this cannot be so; because not only does such an action make it obvious to us plebs that weaponry may be required to throw them overboard but it also requires them to be honest with themselves regarding their position. And this would require a clear view of the true state of the country, as well as an objective look on their classes’ actual abilities and ethos.

Then everything becomes so much harder to justify. Wilful ignorance is a warm, fuzzy blanket to wrap yourself in, which is a vital attribute for the ‘master ethos’ – it only works if you genuinely believe yourself to be superior.

‘Save Big Dog’

As I sit here, I hear about the Conservatives’ ‘fightback’; mainly based around pandering to some of the hobby-horses of the base. This, I predict shall be successful; for it’s being tailored to the only people who matter – backbench MPs. Keep them sweet, keep this shit clown-show on the road a little bit longer so they don’t vote him out today.

Bound by ties of corruption and lacking any ‘better offer’, I predict most shall remain… for now. But they’ll throw him into the mincer the second they do get said offer. For in the degraded sense of their master ethos, ‘loyalty’ is something you speak of so to lure into a false sense of security the folks who are about to be thrown under the train to save your skin.

I wonder if Johnson shall weep bitterly when they finally do this to him?

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.

Environmentalism’s Class Issue

The ‘green agenda’ is seemingly everywhere these days – from Extinction Rebellion to heat-pumps, veganism to electric cars; it does feel that it is finally gaining decent traction with the Big Public in the advanced nations, which normally means it gets translated into political action (as it finally becomes a ‘vote winner’). Yet, this is a bit of a false dawn, for one critical issue:

The working classes are generally not on board with it. In fact, at times they’re actively hostile towards it.

This is much larger than many of the ‘chattering classes’ suspect; partly due to the simple fact the above folks generally don’t enter their lives or feature in their media – social media itself is a very powerful tool of creating ideological bell-jars. Their scepticism, cynicism and outright denial towards the whole topic often leads to a sneering derision from the ‘climate conscious’, writing off the concerns and questions as stupidity, greed, laziness and/or manipulation by ‘Them’.

Now, there’s some element to truth to this; anti-intellectualism has been a fertile, seemingly inexhaustible resource for the right-wingers to mine electorally since… well, the day universal suffrage came along (particularly if it’s lovingly fed by tabloid news and populist hacks). But it also means that their concerns are rarely heard, and if they are they’re either dismissed or minimised.

The Inconvenient Truth

Is a simple one; ‘climate activism’ (of various stripes) has become not only fashionable but effectively obligatory for the liberal-leaning middle class Anglosphere – something ‘one has to do’ between taking the knee for BLM and proclaiming yourself to be a ‘straight ally’ for the LGBT ‘community’ (for LGBT are a monolithic bloc, just like all ethnic minorities are, which is why they were given BAME. Plus, I object to ‘allyship’ as a concept, but that’s another post). Result; the vast majority of green campaigns are crewed by middle-class liberals, who are mainly thinking in middle-class liberal ways and talking to other middle-class liberals.

Case in point; Extinction Rebellion – I (the personal ‘I’ here) can’t afford to take a day off work to protest, half the time I wouldn’t be able to afford to travel to protest and I certainly wouldn’t be able to afford any mandated fines for protesting. Similar was pointed out by minority groups; having legal entanglements as a campaign strategy was less viable when it came to folks who have always been shit on by said legal system and a criminal record – however minor – can fuck up your entire life.

Naturally, this is something which has been seized on by the forces of reaction; right-wing rent-a-hacks painting campaigners as nothing more than blinkered, naïve ‘metropolitan elites’ and stupid lazy students engaging in their hobby in a most ‘irresponsible’ manner. This looks a kinda stupid strategy when spelt out like this, but it’s powerful when wrapped up in the language and tactics of Us/Them and done in a manner which panders to the prejudices/preconceptions of the audience and plays on their emotions.

But the most powerful element to this strategy was the ‘psychological wall’ which has formed within the working class regarding climate activism – by portraying it as a middle-class hobby, it’s become something that ‘people like us’ don’t do. This mentality is all around us; social conformity is a bitch, even more so when you don’t even realise it’s the conformity kicking in and making the decision for you (one of the lessons I had from getting into fitness; how much BS I’d been spoon-fed on the subject).

Class Agency?

And a rather expensive hobby it is; as the recent discussions around the London Ultra-Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) showed. Hearing one of the proponents clearly richsplaining how we oiks should simply use public transport / muscle power, or get an electric car – which were ‘affordable’ now. Well, the first two options are clearly non-starters for folks who work in the trades, deliveries and so on – we can safely assume that any poor person driving in London does so because they must, as it’s so damn expensive to do so already and thus highly unlikely to be ‘an extra’ for them.

But the second bit – that of affordability – is something worth looking at in more detail.

I mean, citing the fact electrics were ‘so affordable’ from twenty grand means nothing to people who don’t buy new cars. For a minimum-wage worker – like say a carer – that’s their whole annual pay. Okay, you can go used – but a quick search on AutoTrader tells me they’re around three times the price of an equivalent conventional. Then there’s the issue of ‘battery leasing’, which might cut the sticker shock but saddles you with higher monthly costs to the point it could nullify all the savings in the fuel change (or even push you into the red).

Then there’s the issue with charging the thing. To put in a proper home charging station appears to cost around £750, but this assumes that you a) own your home and b) have a driveway. Many folks in rentals don’t have this ability either way – landlord won’t get it put in, and most places don’t have a place to put it either.

This issue is an excellent illustration of how class blinkers work. Our bourgeois greenie here may be personally 100% committed, well-meaning and honest, but not only are they living in a whole different world (which has their own problems, beliefs and norms) but they’re also ignorant (unwittingly or not) of the cardinal rule of wealth – the more you have, the more ‘agency’ (the freedom to made decisions) you possess.

Trick Of The Century?

In their defence, it’s not all the bourgeois greenie’s fault here – because they’ve been tricked. By masters of their craft. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether the folks at Ogilvy & Mather who coined and popularised the term ‘carbon footprint’ and then used it to shift the blame from the likes of BP to us still smirk and hug themselves on thinking about just how damn successful that campaign was.

Like most successful campaigns, this one did have have a bit of logical underpinning; after all, if nobody wanted BP’s planet-killing products – well, they’d not fuck up the planet getting them, would they? BP only does it because it’s demanded by consumers. Therefore, it’s up to us to take ‘personal responsibility’ (another term who’s knickers warm their ankles) and not use the product. In effect, BP is gaslighting us, spewing out their oil while bellowing ‘look what you made me do!’ – a line beloved by many an abuser.

Useful Idiots?

Part of me wonders whether if those ad people knew what would happen next – with the zeal of the convert, our bourgeois greenies would then go off to hector us plebs on our ‘carbon footprints’. I use the religious analogy for good reason; I see similarities between them and the culty Christians I used to live with for a bit as a kid. About the same level as buzzkill, too; the whole austere ‘for the planet’ personal denial of so many things. Flying. Meat. Exotic fruits. Consumer goods. New clothing. Everything, really save smugness.

Yet… poor people are already leading ‘greener’ lives in regards to carbon emissions; while stats are somewhat difficult to come by (for reasons worth a post by itself) it would appear that the carbon footprint for the ‘working poor’ (around £20k/year) is only a quarter of those earning £40k/year.

This makes perfect sense when you think it through. When your world is close to minimum wage, there’s not a lot of flying going on and it’s unlikely your home is either over-heated or full of new carbon-heavy consumer goods. Bitching about cheap ‘fast fashion’ is all well and good, but for many of these folks said clothes are the only ones they can afford and are worn until unusable. In this respect, ‘green’ has become a marketing niche, something for the well-heeled to enjoy, not ‘normal folk like us’.

This leads to a huge misfiring of many green campaigns; telling people to ‘fly less’ completely puts the back up of the family who fly once a year for a week’s holiday. A meat tax? Great, removal of the only cheap source of protein from my plate, while it merely means a bit more on the price of your steak.

All this feels completely hypocritical. The bourgeois, after enjoying the fruits of mass carbon production then reaches down to deny a cut-down version of said fruits to those below them. This is replaying on a global scale; where the rich nations hector the poor on how they cannot reach a level of consumption that we’ve enjoyed for eons because that would be bad for the planet.

Not like this is a new thing. For centuries, our ruling classes have held working-class ‘materialism’ and ‘greed’ against us, saying that that’s wrong. Y’know, wanting a little taste of the prosperity our masters had every day (and we produced!) and desiring to have a fair wage for fair conditions. Their agents in religion weighed in, preaching that poverty was somehow a virtue and put us on the fast-track to eternal bliss. Just don’t ask for any of that in this life, mate. The Wobblies put it well, in one of the parody hymns sung against the Salvation Army;

‘Pie in the sky… that’s a lie.’

Different Viewpoints?

Of course poor people reject this. Our bourgeois greenie doesn’t realise they’re basically telling us ‘ordinaries’ to be colder, have less stuff, travel less and to consume less foodstuffs – remembering these are folks who in national terms have the least to start off with. Their message comes in as ‘for the good of the planet, your life must get more shit’ and the message-maker wonders why they’re told to fuck off. That message is about as appealing as an outbreak of cholera and doesn’t even have the promise of eternal bliss the above one does.

What’s more, poverty warps your mindset. Why should I cut down on the few ‘nice things’ in my life for something in the undefined future? I don’t even know where I’ll be in a year’s time, let alone thirty. A brain, faced with constant juggling of deficient resources, chronic letdowns, routine deception and an insecure, chaotic life does the best it can; focuses on the immediate situation and doesn’t really think about anything further ahead. After all, what’s the point? You can’t do anything about it, you’ll cross that bridge when you get to it. If you get to it.

Déjà Vu?

It’s not like they’re unfamiliar with the experience of dealing with greenies; in fact, it’s been happening for over a century – that is, to be lectured, hectored and coerced by ‘middle-class do-gooders’. For as anyone who’s actually experienced poverty knows all to well; as your income drops you lose certain rights. Often, that of privacy; that when you’re poor, you’re expected to put up with intrusive questioning regarding your personal life way past the point a wealthier person would have to. Or having to justify everything all the time – the need for something, or a decision.

That in this respect, our greenie is merely another ‘do-gooder’ with their condescending tone and crap ‘advice’, often lying through their teeth and with corkscrew logic while trying to impose their constipated view of things on everyone else. The ‘Great Bourgeois Saviour’, striding fearlessly into sink estates with budget-plans and healthy eating charts, just like their ancestors did with Africa a century back, with their Bibles and sneers. The worst elements of the classic missionary, imposed on our own Lower Orders.

I overdraw, of course. But less than you’d think. As I write this, I can see in my mind’s eye the litany of such ‘encounters’ I’ve had with such people over a quarter-century, and I’ve now got the vague desire to spit. That on reflection some of their advice was the correct one, but delivered in such a cack-handed manner that the message itself was rejected. Playing the person and not the ball? Yes. But it takes a conscious effort to counteract your own biases which invariably means most folk don’t bother.

The Path Ahead?

The above are not unsolvable problems – in fact, some only require better salesmanship and different messengers. But there’s two critical problems which cripple any movement on this front, and that’s even before we rule out outright denialism and the wholesale manipulation by forces of the Status Quo, like the legions of lobbyists who attended the recent conference in Glasgow and when the fossil fuel industry alone outnumbered any nation’s delegates (and folks wonder why the agreement was barely worth the paper it was written on!)

The first is for an acceptance of their lack of agency. Or more correctly, their lack of willing agency, for the reasons given above. There’s the issue that for poorer people, the percentage of ‘discretionary carbon’ is pretty low, meaning that most of their footprint is out of their hands. Case in point; my annual three tons from domestic energy.

Now, I’ve done the modifications I have ‘agency’ to and I refuse to cut further because, say living without hot water is deemed ‘unacceptable’. This means it’s down to the energy companies to quit using natural gas for generation, my landlord to bring my heating into the 21^st Century and getting a cash incentive from the state so I can afford to replace my ancient, inefficient white goods quicker.

The second is to appreciate the lack of ‘reward’. The current system at the moment – outside a few exceptions, such as converting to electric vehicles – does not grant any tangible benefits to the actor. In fact, doing ‘the right thing’ in ecological terms usually costs more – in money, in time and/or effort, like going to the local tip vs simply dumping my crap in a handy drainage ditch. Or taking a £200 eight-hour train journey rather than a £50 two-hour flight.

Nor is there any compensation for any ‘cancelled consumption’. Okay, it may be good for the planet that I don’t get yet another pair of trainers or to go without that new sofa, but… why should I? There’s no tangible reward for me to not do it (at least not further than ‘retained cash’). In fact, often the ‘right’ option runs against my own personal, immediate interests.

Lastly, to embrace ‘enlightened self interest’. ‘Tis a dirty phrase; ‘what’s in it for me?’ (partly due to the ‘you’ll be rewarded in heaven’ shit peddled by the ruling classes) but one which poorer people generally follow more acutely (or at very least more openly). You cannot blame them for this; after all, you can’t pay bills with heaven-rewards, oddly enough. It’s a general problem in our society, noted back in the 19^th Century by John Stuart Mill; that while we have a system which punishes bad behaviour, we generally lack any similar mechanisms to reward good behaviour. A society of sticks but no carrots.

Some of the current large plans need better selling for this; to make them more attractive for other, non-ecological reasons. Example; heat-pumps. Why not push hard ahead with them, wrapping them up in the Union Jack – for they will help us ditch gas boilers, and with that cut off Putin’s hand which is currently around our balls heating-wise. Stress that they’ll be made domestically as much as possible, giving decent, well-paid jobs for Britons. Point out that they’ll cut down on our utility bills, and the state is putting in a load of funding to turbocharge development so they’ll be cheaper and better than now.

* * *

It’s rather clear that the planet is getting very close to the ‘tipping point’; the time where the damage has become irreversible and we – and our immediate descendants – will be forced to cope with an increasingly unstable dying world.

This requires drastic action now, but this requires action on a national, governmental level. This requires – for the democratic states at least – a level of public outcry to force real change on them, for only ‘vote winners’ are catered to. That means getting the Big Public to demand these changes, or at very least to stop opposing them. Which relies on two critical points first; one, for the ‘greenies’ to stop thinking they’re already perfect and two, to quit assuming all who oppose them do it for stupid / greedy / sociopathic reasons.

For the first is the worst example of the dogmatic ideologue, and the second is an obvious Bulverism. This combo is seen all the time, but when it comes to climate change we cannot afford to let this fuck up.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.

The English Culinary Cringe?

Occasionally, I come across something which is so wrong it ends up simply bugging the hell out of me, and today’s pain is an article in The Guardian regarding the ‘post-Brexit diet’ by Ms Cosslett. For those who can’t be arsed to read it, the ultimate story is ‘English food is crap’. Okay, I’m 95% sure the article was tongue-in-cheek, but just like The Daily Mash, Black Mirror, and BrassEye, sometimes satire and comedy tells us more truth about ourselves than we’d sometimes care to admit. Or on occasion, more than the creator even realises.

This being that our ‘chattering classes’ have an – at best – ambivalent relationship with English cuisine. And my theory is that this long-term disengagement has been hurtful to all, including the cuisine itself.

Bland, Stodgy & Overcooked?

…is the common perception of ‘English food’ around the world, including at home too. If feeling adventurous, the fourth ‘they have weird things’ will be thrown in for good measure.

This isn’t new; as Orwell noted in his 1945 ‘In Defence Of English Cooking‘ – ‘the best English cooking is simply French cooking’ and so on. This denigration has been around for centuries; Voltaire often quipped that the English only had one sauce – melted butter.

Admittedly, there is some truth in this. A land unable to produce spices is unlikely to feature them a lot in their traditional cuisine, ‘stodge’ is welcome on cold, damp days and the country is one ideal for the production of meat and root crops. And the most delicious stew in the world never looks good and many people have a hesitation on consuming products where they can’t tell the ingredients in.

However, let us accept the premise of Orwell’s article – that there are good ‘English’ products and dishes out there (which is my view too) – as true, and wonder why our cuisine suffers from such a poor reputation. It’s become a standing joke, along with our bad teeth, damp weather, warm beer and a phlegmatic nature that some people wonder if we’re a nation of sociopaths.

Many reasons are proffered for this view; an early and hard industrialisation warping our food supplies, the effects of the Second World War, the dominance of the large supermarkets peddling much poor food, a bland palette nurtured in early years in the belief small children can’t handle flavour, a Victorian prudishness regarding previous, even a bad ‘food culture’ which aims for mere mass satiation rather than pleasure. But I have my own theory, and as I’ve not seen it elaborated elsewhere, shall offer it to you now.

It’s a terribly English reason too. Class and snobbery.

Royal Tables

I’m inclined to put the start-date to this in the seventeenth century; a time where the dominance of Continental, particularly French culture was strong. That we had a series of Royal Courts heavily influenced by the likes of Louis XIV, while looking to the Italians for the last word in architecture and sculpture.

The famous trend-setters of their day, the Court influenced wider ‘Society’, gaining able assistance by those men wealthy (and idle) enough to have experienced the Continent directly in their ‘Grand Tour’. This meant to be proficient in French, to have a taste in wine and know the Classics was the mark of a ‘gentleman’. What you consumed was a mark of status (like everything else) to dine on mutton roulade and Vermicelli soup was not simply aping George III’s own table, but showing that you had the funds to employ a cook who could produce such dishes and the taste to ‘appreciate’ them.

Aping One’s Betters

Naturally, this meant the ‘lower orders’ began to imitate. From tea-drinking to macaroni-eating, our Georgian ‘chattering classes’ took up these with gusto, which then slowly percolated down the ranks to even the provincial ‘gentlefolk’, aided by the gossip magazines of the day. Tomes on household management and cookery assisted this trend; the venerable Mrs Beeton – the trend-setter for the socially ambitious in the 1860s – was filled with praise for French cookery and gave a glossary of French terms.

The long-term result of this was – with hindsight – utterly predictable; English cuisine started to lose status. That as decades rolled on, prosperity increased and product availability widened, to state that you had a fondness for roast beef, beer and suet puddings increasingly marked you out as either working class or a ‘dull provincial’.

That the media followed suit; that more and more cookbooks focused on bringing foreign food into English homes, rather than assisting in replenishing the English culinary tradition. That more and more high-class restaurants aped French cuisine, and our brightest chefs went where the money was.

Quality Decline?

This ‘loss of status’ meant that getting good English food became increasingly difficult. As Orwell noted, it had gotten to the point that if you wanted a good toad in the hole or suet pudding, one would need to visit a private home than a restaurant. That it became a vicious circle; the worse the English offerings, the lower the status, which meant less people desired to learn how to produce it. Result; much of our ‘collective memory’ has been lost, particularly on regional dishes – something which the Spanish, French and Italians have striven to nurture.

Thinking back into my youth of the 1990s, ‘English cuisine’ recalls in my mind Mrs Cheapskate’s ‘Plates of Blandness’, institutional school dinners, mediocre meals at a Harvester-clone or at worst, a ready meal. Hardly encouraging. This meant that ‘good food’ was anything but English.

The Class Divide

I first noticed this perhaps around the age of ten, when I moved to a proper ‘middle-class’ placement. Here, they consumed such things as pasta, wine, brown rice, mangos, Brie and crusty baguettes – a far cry from the Cheapskates’ very lower middle-class diet. They gave me a good grounding in a myriad of world cuisines – except my own.

We can see this in media. Politicians use food symbolism to show they’re ‘common people’; from former Labour leader Milliband eating a bacon sandwich in the 2015 Election to Farage’s pint of ale he appears to have permanently affixed to his hand. It’s also used as shorthand for ‘metropolitan’ / ‘wealth’; the example of Millennials alleged mass consumption of avocado on toast and fancy coffees being the main, perhaps sole reason for our age groups inability to buy a house.

The very English thing about this is the fact that we know all about this but don’t really realise it. Food may not always be the way to a person’s heart, but sure as hell their shopping basket tells us much about a person’s culture. In my book, asking about whether you own a wine rack or taking a peek at your condiment cupboard can tell me much more about your ‘position’ and views than the usual markers.

The Dividing Line?

This, I feel was the point missed by Ms Cosslett. That the very people who feel English cuisine is nothing more than Smash, corned beef and over-boiled cabbage are most likely to have been the most staunch Remainers in the whole Brexit omni-shambles. That at least in culinary terms, they’re more comfortable in Pisa and Bordeaux than Preston and Barnsley (which is the problem).

We see this elsewhere, such as the term ‘Gammon’; which is somewhat apt for said salty thick ham is a staple (or was when I was a kid) of the lower middle-class ‘provincial’ who’s often likely to be ‘very English’ in habits and thus, not overly enamoured with our European brethren or perhaps even familiar with them.

The problem is when these two meet. You see this with the talk about ‘post-Brexit trade’; the former is positively worried about losing precious access to say, halloumi while the latter – never one to consume ‘such stuff’ anyway, wonders what the worry’s about (they should… the UK can’t even feed herself on staples without imports…).

Which is why I call Poe’s Law on the article. It makes the ‘metropolitan Remoaner’ look like some kind of idiot who thinks we were all living on pork dripping, black pudding and turnips before the glorious EU introduced us to food with taste, colour and texture. But it does also shows the other stereotype; that the ‘Brexiteer’ is nothing more than a being powered by xenophobia, planning to make everyone go back to consuming flavourless ham sandwiches and cups of Bovril like presumably they still do.

Sure, there’s a few who’d like to see this; just like there’s a few racists who voted Leave due to their dreams of seeing every ‘foreigner’ shoved into a shipping crate and dumped at Calais. Or in the North Sea. But of all the worries, having to pay a bit more for our wine, oranges and olive oil is hardly the most pressing concern regarding the continuing self-mutilation which is Brexit.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Why Gratitude Is Bullshit

So, apparently there’s a charity called ‘Refugees at Home’ which does what it says on the tin; it marries up refugees who need somewhere to stay on arrival to the UK and the people who have the space to spare. If nothing else, it provides a way to shut up the ‘well, why don’t you have them in your house?’ line spat out on social media if you suggest that something needs to be done about the apparently never-ending migrant crisis within Europe. That is, something which isn’t camps, razor-wire and armed patrols. Y’know, something which shows an iota of empathy, compassion or even being a reasonable human being.

First off, I don’t want to dump on the charity itself, or the people who volunteer for it. They are trying to achieve some good privately in the teeth of an openly hostile state and a population which is suffering from compassion fatigue and crisis desensitisation. However, like they say the path of hell is paved with good intentions, I honestly do not believe this is the right answer. Not by a long shot.

In this case, I have an insider’s view of this situation. No, I’ve never been a refugee, but I did spend twelve years in care – twelve years of living in other’s people’s houses. Seven houses, to be technical about it. And on the whole, it sucked.

The main problem wasn’t the Social Services never coughed up for anything nice. Not the bureaucratic nature they did things. Hell, not even the fact that I had almost no continuity in my life. No. The thing which made it suck was the near-constant expectations that I should be grateful for Every Single Fucking Thing.

This ‘gratitude pushing’ was both overt and covert. That I was lucky to be allowed to live at (placement). That I had a roof over my head, clothes to wear and so on. Imagine the old ‘you should be grateful for (meal) because there’s starving children in Africa’ turned up to eleven. Okay, a bit of hyperbole – but less than you’d imagine. ‘Be grateful for what you’ve got’ was one line I heard so often as a kid that as an adult using it within my earshot will generate a scathing and sarcastic response. Just thinking about it now is pissing me off.

Worse than forced gratitude was the airs of patronage and charity which sometimes accompanied this. One placement had me literally trotted out as a ‘charity case’ (talking about ‘my background’ for extra kudos) which I’m sure made the couple look oh-so-better amongst their fundie church. Quietly ignoring, naturally the fact not only were they paid to host me, I strongly suspect they were turning a pretty profit to boot.

When you look at the situation from the outside – yes, I should have been grateful. Even at their most incompetent, the care provided via Social Services was better than I’d got at Home – no question about it. But of course I wasn’t grateful. No normal person would be. I resented the fact my own feelings were being policed, dictated. Worse, I resented the fact I was being made into a form of supplicant, a situation which usually doesn’t sit well with most folks.

That’s the problem with ‘charitable giving’. The ‘giving’ bit oh-so-often brings out the worst in us; the smug superiority, the condescending manner, the questioning demands for ‘sob stories’, the crossing the bounds of familiarity and a desire for the recipient to massage our egos for ‘we’re so good‘. And the thing is that for those who have never needed help themselves, much of this is utterly unconscious. To stand or sit there, feeling like you’re better than the apparent wreck of a human, figuratively holding their bowl out for alms.

It’s this reason and this reason alone which makes me oppose ‘Refugees at Home’. To have the giver and recipient in the same location makes a power dynamic which is best unhealthy and at worst actively damaging. That in cases of ‘long-term generosity’ it’s much better for it do be done via a buffer – normally, a charity worker – which means an ersatz ‘patron-supplicant’ relationship does not arise. That while it’s clearly ‘better than nothing’, almost all the alternatives are superior to it too.

Which sums up ‘healthy gratitude’ in a nutshell. To be appreciative of what you do have, but not blind that it could be better, or the fact that others will have less than you.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

A British Obsession: University?

The official coronavirus-related shambles continues, shining lights on aspects of our society which were were either ignorant of or we liked to pretend we were (lest we have to do something about it). The ‘current scandal of the weekend’ this time being regarding the awarded A-Level grades; basically put, the teens were awarded the grades which their school was expected to achieve, not what they were (as they were unable to sit the actual exams).

This meant that a hard-working teen in a crap, sink school would find their predicted A’s turned into B’s, C’s or even worse simply on the fact their school ‘didn’t achieve A’s’. On the other side, a rather dullard teen in a fee-paying or selective school found their predicted C’s turned to B’s or even A’s on the similar assumption – their school ‘achieved many A’s’.

Now, the lack of official movement on this clearly classist, divisive action unfortunately did not surprise me. No; what interested me was the comments about A-Levels – and the fact they just revolved around university admissions.

Qualification Inflation?

The message being said by all was unmistakable; everyone doing A-Levels were aiming for university and the ones unable to get in to their desired meant their lives were over. The idea that perhaps not everyone wanted to go to university was not asked. Even worse, the idea that perhaps not everyone should go wasn’t asked either.

British teenagers face a unique dilemma. They are the first cohort in our history where their degree is both in high demand and (usually) carries no premium but lots of debt. Odd situation, yes. And one which most folks over thirty-five haven’t really spotted yet.

The problem is – in a nutshell – that the British economy has a chronic oversupply of graduates; particularly ones in the humanities, arts and social sciences. This means that the ‘degree bonus’ that used to exist is (usually) no more. Worse; degrees have become so thick on the ground that companies are demanding them for roles which in previous decades were happy with lower qualifications, such as for bank staff.

Basically put; so many young Britons gain degrees now, it’s become so devalued to the point that it’s become ‘normal’.

Now, this wouldn’t be so bad… until we remember that these students are paying through the nose for this. Or more correctly, will be dealing with a fifty-grand plus debt-pile for decades hence. Many of which working a myriad of jobs that don’t pay a hell of a lot or even need a degree.

Yet… more and more teens are pushed into ‘going to Uni’ as the One And Only Path. And the reason is oh-so quintessentially British…

Snobbery & Bias

The fundamental problem lies within the British class system, as so many of these things do. It stems from the traditional cultural values echoed by the upper-middle class; Public School – Oxbridge – Humanities – The Professions. A system which was primarily designed to produce lawyers, clergymen and civil servants for a pre-industrial state.

The problem was that the class below them – the ‘ordinary’ middle class – simply tried to ape their ‘betters’. Well, either that or they fell into the ‘association fallacy’ – Eton was a good school, Eton teaches Classics, therefore Classics is good.

So we had the spectre of grammar schools trying to ape Eton, while universities did their best to cultivate an ‘Oxbridge feel’. We still see this now; it was the reason the polytechnics were allowed to become ‘universities’ in the 1990s, it’s why any crusading new head at a failing school starts out by introducing a stupidly formal dress code.

For we all know that the British class system isn’t just about money, it’s about status, one’s position in society. A teacher may earn less than an electrician, but the former will be seen by many to be ‘superior’ to the latter. It’s like that classic ‘Class Sketch’ with John Cleese in it; it’s like every Briton desires to know who they can look up to and down on. And anyone who tells you that this system is dead is either an idiot or a liar.

This bias is compounded by the prejudices within the minds of the educators themselves. For the vast amount of them are from the middle-class, educated along traditional lines and having entered their careers along the method of university. It is the self-fulfilling prophecy; the middle-class teacher believes that being middle-class is the way to ‘succeed’, and thusly does their best to teach their charges to be middle class. To whit; get the grades, go onto university.

Meritocratic Academicisation?

The main problem, however has been the relentless push to ‘get as many into university’ during the last thirty-odd years. The reason for this is simple; it was an half-arsed attempt to build a meritocratic society without actually spending that much or having to change anything.

At the time, it did made sense. Graduates enjoyed a premium in their wages through their entire lives. Academic skills were still pretty short. The numbers of teenagers entering the workforce was proportionately low. And the last thing the British economy needed right then was more unskilled labour.

The problem was that nobody planned anything past this point. As in seemingly nobody considered that the ‘degree premium’ would vanish if the supply of degrees tripled and nobody did any forecasting into what skills the UK would need in the next thirty years. Naturally, during this time the schools were increasingly ‘academicised’ to suit the demands of universities rather than employers or real life.

However, the worst problem was that the degrees which held ‘status’ – the Humanities – were often the cheapest to run. Therefore, it was in the university’s interest to expand provision in say, Media Studies or History rather than Engineering or Physics. After all, it didn’t really matter much as they got paid the same per-head whatever the subject was.

Their partners in crime were the careers advisor. With their own biases towards the traditional academic, ignorance of the alternatives and the incentives to get as many of their charges into university as possible, no wonder few folks chose the other options. Hell, most of them didn’t even know there were alternatives.

Market Malfunction?

If universities were an ‘ordinary’ market, the whole thing would have collapsed long ago. Basic economics tells us that if said products (degrees) were no longer worth the cost (student debt) paid for them when considering value (employment), the demand for the product would decline, substitute goods (apprenticeships etc) would become more attractive and in the long run the equilibrium would re-establish itself.

But we’re not seeing this, for we as a nation are suffering from a mental block regarding universities. As in; a sane, evidence-based and critical look at the whole thing. But that’s the problem; as soon as we start looking at this from a pounds-pence point of view the bourgeois ‘learning for the sake of it’ and all rot that hones into view. An obsolete idea in itself, that there is a ‘time for learning’ and then you ‘get on with it’ for the rest of your life.

Final Thoughts

I don’t want to put off anybody going to university. But unfortunately, the truth has to be faced. That if you’re thinking about university, I’d say to consider the following…

– Will the degree I wish to do ‘pay for itself’? As in; will it lead to a job which pays enough extra to cover all that debt I’m getting into?

– If it doesn’t, is the level of fun you think you’ll have be worth more than around £25k a year?

– Am I considering this degree because I am aiming for a particular career field, or simply because I find the field interesting?

– Is there an actual market demand for my proposed degree? Sorry, the UK does not require any more Gender Studies grads any time soon.

– Is there any other method(s) of gaining entry into my chosen field? As in; one which is cheaper?

– Am I thinking about university mainly because my parents/teachers/friends are going on about it rather than any conscious desire myself?

– Am I wanting to go to university simply to get away from the parental home?

The problem is, ‘going to Uni’ has become such a thing, such a Rite of Passage that it’s very easy to simply get swept up in it and go along with it. Much more so if you’ve not really got that much idea on what ‘you want to do’ anyway (don’t worry, most of us don’t…).

It always takes guts to swim against the tide…

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.

Towers and Statues…

Earlier today, I went out on an expedition to purchase a light-bulb and a couple of other stupidly small items. For this, I had to travel to the nearby town to mine, for my local shops couldn’t provide. Part of the journey took me past the pair of tower-blocks; which were looking particularly shabby, run-down and carbuncle-like. Moment’s hesitation – surely they weren’t that ugly – but then it struck me; they were missing their cladding. The council had finally got round to stripping that crap off it, it seemed (I don’t go to this town much).

I mention this, for quite ironically something reminded me of Grenfell on the very day of the anniversary of the fire which claimed the lives 72 people and injure hundreds more, some permanently.

The Towering Inferno

That fire – and the aftermath – was one of the defining events of the premiership of Theresa May; along with Windrush, the Vanity Election and naturally, Brexit. It highlighted a myriad of long-term issues with the country at that time; the economic inequalities, the ‘race-to-the-bottom’ contracting, the severe housing shortage (in quality, quantity and affordability) and the the tone-deaf ‘we’re sorry you feel that way’ bollocks from (particularly) Conservative politicians, be it local councillors or the then Prime Minister herself.

It is worth looking at the whole disaster again through the prism of Black Lives Matter; here we have a tower-block stuffed with human beings far above the capacity it was designed for in the 70s, which coupled with poor quality of finish and shoddy maintenance created obviously sub-standard living conditions. And that unlike the rest of the borough the majority of these people were from ethnic minorities.

That the Council – elected by the wealthy, white parts of the borough – had deliberately withheld funding for such things as fire safety and decided to not use fire-resistant cladding or fit sprinklers on cost grounds alone. That the money ‘saved’ was actually used to bribe the richest inhabitants via a tax refund just before an election. No guesses needed to work out that the inhabitants of Grenfell or the surrounding pocket of social housing were not amongst the recipients.

On the face of it, this looks like racism. But it wasn’t. At least in a conventional sense of the term.

At no point did the council deliberately decide to house minorities in substandard properties – for all their properties were substandard. There was absolutely nothing stopping a minority purchasing a property within the rich part of the borough – as long as they could afford the several million quid asking-price. The ‘stay put’ orders given wasn’t the callous orders from authority not caring about the lives of non-whites; it was the standard operating procedure regarding high-rise fires – not realising that the renovation had effectively destroyed it’s fire resistance. The shoddy response times from the emergency services wasn’t due to them not caring about minority lives; that was due to funding cutbacks due to Austerity and the fact the council had decided to allow the surrounding area to become overbuilt, thus restricting access.

No. Those folks lost their lives for they were poor. And after stripping out the recent migrants (both legal or not), in this country a higher proportion of minority groups are poor due to the legacy of discrimination. After all, we all know the term “it takes money to make money” and a larger proportion of white Britons grow up with said inherited wealth than minority groups do.

The Unfulfilled Promises

I’m mentioning this because now after three years since the disaster, we can look to see what changes – y’know, all the promised ones – actually bore fruit. Answer: not many.

Yes, some of the flammable cladding has been removed since. Yes, some social landlords have been more diligent about performing things such as gas safety checks. But we’ve seen near-nil movement on dealing with overcrowding, shoddy maintenance, lowest-possible-bid mentality with contracts or increasing the accountability of social landlords from their tenants. Hell, we’ve not even seen any damn legislation to increase the building standards – if the proof of the pudding is the eating, this time we’ve not even been shown a picture of it. Just the promise of pudding later.

I think I can be rather certain that said pudding-promises will remained unfulfilled as long as Mr Johnson is Prime Minister.

Think of the Statues!

Here in the UK, the Black Lives Matter movement has gotten diverted; from against cases of racism in institutions such as the police to the possible offence caused by various statues.

Now, while a few statues basically ‘deserved it’ – the Colston one in Bristol springs front to mind – going after ones such as Churchill, Drake, the building named after Gladstone and so on positively reeks to me of Progressive Identity Politics.

As I explained months ago, this action is classic bourgeois progressivism; the focus on symbols, words and items rather than actual structural change to society. Which is – unless I really don’t understand the situation – what Black Lives Matter are demanding. For it can be terribly easy to remove the offending items – from removing statues to censoring old TV shows – yet allow the ingrained, pervasive legacy of racism to remain strewn though British society.

Unknown Demands

I think a large proportion of the BLM leadership are aware of this. However, they’d allowed the argument to focus on the statues for they’re rather unsure what their demands should actually be – for after all, all this was kicked off by a foreign event, not a British one.

I’m not blind to the power of symbols; but I’m all too familiar with officials – either by accident or design – ‘mistaking the map for the territory’, such as thinking say institutional bullying is ended by an anti-bullying policy and not by actively trying to root it out.

I’ve been around long enough to know that when the demand(s) are fuzzy or aspirational, they’re ignored – what works best is when they’re concrete, ‘reasonable’, will deliver a genuine improvement and can get “outsiders” to rally to it too.

I think you can guess I feel that housing can be this rallying-point.

Delayed Justice?

It is not racism per se; but it’s an issue which affects minorities disproportionately. It also is a perfect bridge for the white working class to join forces with BLM to push for change which will help them all – for in this case, they’re both getting almost equally shafted by our capitalist society. Best of all, it’s harder to argue against; after all, it takes some very interesting corkscrew logic to defend the rights of uncaring social housing providers and greedy slumlords to provide accommodation which is overcrowded, overpriced and unsafe.

If this was carried off, it would improve the lives of millions of people; and minorities would benefit more than others. Yet… it wouldn’t look at all like ‘affirmative action’, which pisses off some folks.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.

Turning Back The Clock?

In less than three days after I wrote that this Conservative government wants to turn back the clock to how everything was just before the pandemic; they decide to attempt just that. In now what is becoming classic Johnson; his speech last night was fully of vague waffle, much of which has now been flatly contradicted by the details provided afterwards. So, rather like with my product reviews, I’ll sum up the true message given to us proles so you don’t have to wade through it all…

Freeloading Wastrels…

We had hints of this mentality a few days before, such as when the Chancellor said that Britons were ‘addicted to furlough’. In retrospect, it may also be the primary reason we went into lockdown so late; for even the Rees-Moggs of the world will realise that when you make it impossible for us working stiffs to shuffle off to our crappy ‘jobs’, we will require funds to allow us the luxuries of say, food. And didn’t want to pay for that, oh no.

Naturally, this idea is relatively stupid; if generous, a view borne from an ignorance of the situation of lockdown for us stiffs – a topic I covered last month in ‘Situational Lockdown‘. A segment of the British people have rather enjoyed being furloughed, yes; but often they’re the ones who already had rather decent standards of living, were in a job where the company was topping up the final 20% of their pay (furlough only covered 80%) and lastly, had ‘other things to do’ – for example, I bet millions of half-finished DIY projects were completed, sheds/garages/lofts cleared of crap, gardens tidied up, clothes buttons re-affixed, freezers defrosted and so on.

However, this ‘enjoyment’ has mainly been of the ‘well, I got productive things done’ type; for lockdown as not only increased our stress levels but also made it impossible to enjoy our time off by going out. In some ways it’s been rather akin to being ill as a kid; sure, you’re off school but you’re too sick to go out and there’s only crud on the TV. If you’re even allowed to watch the TV, that is.

What is forgotten – or deliberately ignored – is that it’s the poorer members of society who have already been kicked hardest by this pandemic. We’re the most likely to fall in between the cracks of the piecemeal supports put in, the most likely to work in sectors which are still operating (such as food retail and warehouses), most likely to not have our employer top up the final 20% of our pay if we have been furloughed, most likely to now be sporting large amounts of debt (esp to landlords) and most likely to be the most stressed out by our domestic situation.

The Return of Bluster

Boris’ is back. You can tell, for all the windy bollocks has returned. ‘Be Alert’; of what, exactly? Sick people? Ones who have runny noses, perhaps? Or has coronavirus become some kind of physical assailant which might leap out of the bushes wielding a melee weapon of some sort at me? Will we be seeing the unveiling of some new logo to go with the mantra, perhaps similar to the one we had during the whole ‘Millennium Bug thing twenty years back?

‘Actively encouraged to return to work’; the same way as those on Universal Credit are? ‘If you can’t work at home’; who defines that? ‘Workplaces are covid-compliant’; says who? The list of clarifications could go on ad nauseam.

Then there’s all the other questions which need asking; such as can companies continue to furlough if they so wish (example; not enough demand for their product/services yet), will workers have the legal right to refuse to work in ‘unsafe conditions’ (such as, no supplied PPE, no handwashing facilities etc), can those who are in vulnerable groups continue to stay at home without any sanction and so on.

Now, some of you might feel that I’m being unduly critical; expecting too much and so on. I reply; why the fuck not? This is the ‘grand plan’ they’ve been working on for weeks, perhaps months and it’s full of holes. I now know what my old teachers felt like when I’d try to palm off a load of half-finished drafts pasted together as a ‘completed project”.

But then again; this is the same people who brought us the omni-shambles which was the Brexit planning. What was I expecting?

Proof of the Pudding…

One of the most worrying aspect is the hows of this ‘relaxing’ is that we have no clue on how all these things will be enforced. Or what is meant to be enforced, now I think of it. Take ‘making workplaces safe’. First off, Johnson never said he would make sure your workplace was safe. In fact, the nearest we got to that was ‘we want it to be safe for you to get to work’. Not a promise. Not even an ‘aspiration’. Just a desire. That you don’t get coronavirus when we’re all stuffed on a commuter train, tube or bus.

Which will be fucking hard indeed; if we’re catching it at work.

That is the concern many trade unions are rightly worrying about; that employers will be marking their own homework – they’ll do sod all to provide PPE, re-organise their premises etc, declare it ‘safe’ and threaten to fire anybody who complains. This will happen; there’s always going to be crap employers out there. It’s actually a great thing in a way; for those who complain or refuse to turn up are quite obviously not the crushed, timid drones which are ideal workers in the frankly shit economic conditions forty years of neoliberalism has granted the country.

Running Before Walking

Thing is, the plans (as much as we have plans) in themselves aren’t actually that bad. I’ve said before how lockdown had turned out to be stupid in places, and there’s been several sectors in which could be re-opened with relative ease (garden centres, council dumps, DIY stores) so to allow some revival of economic activity.

But the problem is that now the lockdown is being loosened too far, too fast, and before we’ve prepared for it. Infection testing is still taking too long and there’s not enough of it. The purchase of hand sanitiser and PPE for the public is still difficult. We’ve not run the Track and Trace system on the Isle of Wight long enough to allow the statisticians to start working out the vectors of transmission. The hallowed ‘R-rate’ is only just below 1.0; meaning that any loosening will cause it to go over this again. Not like we’d have much idea on what was causing it, as much of the country will be re-opened at the same time.

The Rich Man In His Castle…

But not like the owners donors of the Conservative Party care about this. I bet all my supplies of hand sanitiser that those lot will continue self-isolating in their castles until a vaccine is found or we’ve not had any new cases for weeks. That’s the thing with the wealthy; most have enough ‘cushion’ to be in hiding indefinitely, if needs be. The money looks after itself.

Which is the true reason they want us back at work; to go back and earn them money. Landlords want their rent – and no reductions or write-offs! They want us to shuffle back and continue lining their pockets. The longer this goes on the higher the chance we might start uttering heresies like ‘if key workers are key, why are they paid so badly?’ and ‘if the Government can spend billions on furloughing, why can’t they spend millions on homelessness?’

That is a situation which must be avoided at all costs. Said costs will be borne by us. In lives.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Covid Pandemic series.

When Lockdown Turns Stupid

T

Three days ago, a minor hiccup occurred in my life; my computer keyboard stopped functioning. Naturally, this meant no more computer until a new one was obtained (Note: I’d lined up the previous three posts to fire on a time-delay). Unfortunately, a quick dust-off of my spare revealed that it was the older PS/2 connector, which didn’t fit my current rig. Nor did I have an adaptor. Well, I say ‘minor hiccup’, for that’s what it would normally be; but lockdown made solving this purpose much more difficult.

I could not order one online; the fact I required a working keyboard to order said item making it a Catch-22 situation. My local big-box electronics emporium was, naturally closed. So was the smaller independent repair store in the town centre which I believe sold a few spares too. Trusty old Argos was closed. Getting another to order it for me would take a considerable amount of time, then I’d have to work out how to get it from theirs to mine. I did try this; contacting a relative who lived within biking distance. They refused to do it; saying it was ‘unnecessary’. That is, because they think it’s unnecessary for them, it is for everyone else. Ultimately, I had to visit five different supermarkets to find one which stocked this tacky number I’m using now.

If the state’s intention of closing the electronics shops was to stop people going out, well it backfired here. I travelled for around three hours in total, coming in contact with I’d suspect some seventy more people all to simply buy one fucking basic item which normally I could have achieved in less time, less distance and less human contact.

I’m hearing reports of this here, there everywhere; the ways that lockdown is being applied is proving to be stupid, overkill, crazy or utterly callous. In fact, today was a prime example of this. For I had to bury a relatives’ cat in their garden.

This story is simple; a few days ago, said cat looked rather sick. Owner called their usual vet practice; only got a pre-recorded message saying they were closed. Second choice said they’d only open up if it was ‘an emergency’ – ie an accident. Third said the would be willing to see the cat; if they paid five times the going rate for the consult. By the time they’d managed to scrape up the funds; kitty was with the scratching-post in the sky.

To add insult to injury; the local pet crematorium wasn’t open to people to drive up there for the deed as normal; but they did offer a pick-up service. If the animal in question was at a vets, that is. Which it wasn’t, as I’ve explained. So cue me making another ‘unnecessary journey’ so I could wield a shovel. Well done, lockdown!

I have another example, from another relative. They’re in a vulnerable group, have the letter to prove it. However, their beloved landlord – the local council – has decided that they must have an gas check. As in the usual yearly check. Let’s go through the situation, here. Said person – who is statistically more likely to be felled by coronavirus than the rest of us, partly the reason we’re going through all this lockdown crap for – is expected to open their front door to a complete stranger, to lead them throughout their home for around an hour, with them breathing the same air and touching everything. Oh, and they have no PPE whatsoever. Either relative or worker. Council do not give a shit; did not even consider the possibility of delaying said check. Just gave them menaces about ‘breach of contract’ if they refused to let them in. To which I say this; well, that makes lockdown fucking worth, doesn’t it?

There’s reports of this crap all over the country. Why, in the prime-time of ‘planting season’ are the garden centres closed? Surely, ‘social distancing’ can be done in such a place? Being at a time where lots of us are stuck at home, why can’t the DIY stores be open so we can beat cabin fever, clear the backlog of jobs (which we all have) and generate some economic activity? Flytipping is starting to become problematic; for the dumps are all closed too. What if the likes of my cooker dies? Am I supposed to subsist on sandwiches and cup-a-soups until the likes of Currys reopens?

Yes, I hear you say – all of these can be done online now. Lockdown is proving which many working-class folk already knew; problems can be made to go away if enough cash is thrown at it – I can get my turf, timber, a hippo bag and a new fridge-freezer delivered to my door in short notice if I’ve got a high enough limit on my credit card to make the thing happen. Which many folk do not have (including me, for that matter). Once again, I smell the reek of classism, and I’m calling it out.

Why should you care about this? The answer is simple; the more pain and inconvenience a person suffers (such as the individual situation some Britons are in), the shorter the time they’ll support and follow a lockdown. For, due to the ramshackle state of the police, general lack of either public control mechanisms and strong anti-authoritarian streak in British society lockdown is basically an honour system. Lose that, and we’re screwed.

As I finish this post; the lamp-bulb in the room I’m currently in has started to flicker rapidly; either it’s trying to see if I have epilepsy or it’s about to die. This is another problem; for it’s a weird size cap and – if I remember right – the only stockist in town was a big-box DIY store. Which is closed due to lockdown. And I don’t have a spare. Oh for fuck’s sake, here I go again…

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Covid Pandemic series.

Situational Lockdown

One of the few maxims I try to adhere to is the one ‘when finding yourself in agreement with Nigel Farage, check opinion with fine-tooth comb’. I have done so, and still find myself in agreement – that this lockdown has affected different groups of Britons in different ways, much of the pain of it has been disproportionately felt by the poorer elements of our society and both our hallowed masters and much of the general population are unaware of it.

Picking Your Cell…

While there are naturally exceptions to the rule, the pain of lockdown is directionally proportional to the other resources at your command. Spending twenty-three hours a day at home is much less a punishment for one who has the enjoyment of a well-appointed home with many rooms rather than another who’s stuck in a poky flat over-filled with other human beings. My own property is not much larger than a garage, and some of the units in my block are inhabited by couples – in this case, they’ve each got about as much ‘personal space’ as someone in prison would enjoy.

The level of ‘personal outside space’ is different too; the previously-mentioned property will surely have some form of garden for their sole enjoyment, while I (for example) have… a patch of weedy grass and a concrete patio. Which is communal. By our main doors. Which is both visible and accessible from the road. Good chance that this would be defined as a ‘public space’.

This issue was pointed out today by the former Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman; who’s own London constituency is one dominated housing-wise by overcrowded social and council housing mainly provided by tower blocks – asking her to forego a visit to the park reduces her to sitting in her garden with a cup of tea, while denying the park to said constituents has them sitting in a crowded main room, staring at the same wall while their kids are going stir-crazy.

The Unforseen Issues…

Lockdown also throws up the spectre of domestic abuse; not only the obvious fact that now the abused are stuck in the same property as their abuser with no obvious means of escape or even relief – something any abuser will use to their advantage – but the very fact that many of us have accommodation which only ‘works’ for one or more of the parties are out of it for the majority of the time. This will cause a spike of not only ‘incidents’ but also damage to mental health due to stress and so on – I personally know how bad this can get.

Food is another critical issue. Grant Shapps, you might be able to limit your food purchases to once a week (or less), but some of us are not that lucky. Firstly, we may not have the storage capacity for it – I sure as hell don’t, due to the crappy nature of the ‘kitchenette’ with only three cupboards in total. Buying online has minimum purchase levels which some of us – particularly us who live alone – may not be able to get up to. And what about if we don’t either a) have access to the internet or b) don’t have a bank account usable for this (for whatever reason). Let’s not forget that online stores are urging us to only order online if we must.

It doesn’t take into account that even now, most stores are not fully-stocked. Poor people can’t afford to substitute say the £3 toilet roll with the £7 one. We may also have dietary needs which means we have to end up trawling several stores to get what we need. Lastly, we may be buying for others too; yes, I’m shopping every other day but this is partly because I’m also buying for two self-isolators.

Exercise is another big bone of contention. Sorry, Nick Ferrari, just because you feel that an hour bike-ride (as long as alone) or whatever is basically taking the piss, does not mean others do. I’m no way a fitness freak, but I can see why said cyclers would do it – for a lot of us in This Thing Of Ours, fitness is an integral part of our lives; many of these people are feeling acute pain for being unable to attend the gym. And now you’re calling for that outlet to be also denied too.

Similar could be said for the folk who during the weekend decided to put on the sturdy shoes, make a packed lunch and go for a couple-hours worth of a long walk with say the dog. If they interact with nobody and touch nothing, what is the damage? Yes, we may be seeing a few ‘clumps’ of people out and about – but you have no idea on whether they’re part of a household unit.

Travel has also become a sticking-point; though often the criticisms are done from ignorance. Yes, car travel has ticked up a bit; but how many of these are people who used to use public transport and are avoiding it (which is good)? Perhaps they’re making deliveries for self-isolators. Or due to the jobsworthery of their local council, the local parks are now closed, the remaining ones are too crowded for social distancing to work and so they’re travelling to a more isolated spot?

* * *

From my experience so far, the vast majority of Britons are being pretty sensible regarding the lockdown. Sure, a few are taking the piss – but we have that with any situation. Rules applied stupidly bring said rules into disrepute, and thus end up being ignored more. And that’s something which we must not let happen. After all, as the British State lacks either the legal powers, personnel or kit to enforce a lockdown, persuasion must be the name of the game. And this means taking the people with you.

And a critical point of this is remembering that not all of us have well-appointed homes in the suburbs where our finances allow us to buy in everything we’d ever need indefinitely. For I smell the disgusting reek of classism once again, and I call it out.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Covid Pandemic series.

Eating While Poor

One of the things that strikes me online when reading up on nutrition, diet ‘on a budget’ and suchlike is the staggering level of ignorance displayed by so many of the Big Public on the subject. Now, there’s many facets of this topic to be covered; I’ve already looked into why poor people hanker over crap and the common nutritional mistakes made by so many of us, today’s bitch is about the very misconceptions regarding the diet of poor people in general.

The main problem, I’ve come to understand is that British society has become so stratified that those on the higher rungs don’t even understand what poor actually is. That when the average person thinks about ‘poor people’, they reach for the stereotypes put there by the right-wing media; that of lazy, feckless dole-scroungers, gorging themselves on takeaways and drinking all hours, living the life of fucking Riley on your coin, while you sweat it out to keep the wolves from the door.

That picture is so fucking wrong it’s easy to blow the idea to smithereens; like the fact that the basic single payment for Universal Credit is just over £10 a day, which doesn’t stretch that far even if you didn’t have any other forms of outgoings. No, even those on the liberal left have precious little idea of what poor people really subsist on, which often leads to a well-meaning but stupid conclusion; they simply need better education regarding cooking, budgeting and so on.

One of the many reasons for this is the terminology slippage; between ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’ poverty (sometimes, deliberately). The first one is a simple % below the national average income, the latter the line where you are unable to meet your basic needs (naturally, what equates a ‘basic need’ is always debated; as seen by the austere puritannicals when us plebs ‘rise above our station’ by desiring items such as, say a mobile phone or internet connections). Which is the problem; almost all the ‘savvy shopping’ advice, meal-plans and whatnot are mainly geared to the relative poor – in fact one of the motivations for writing this post was encountering a ‘healthy eating on a budget’ plan online which would have cost more than my current diet. Even when they’d promised me I’d ‘save money too’.

Yet all the above doesn’t actually get us any further on the actual point in question; what do genuinely poor people eat in the early-21st Century Britain? This is in fact a much harder question to answer than you’d think; after all, we are used to internet search engines being able – at a few clicks and taps – to provide us with reams of statistics, tables, lists and whatnot on almost any subject of our curiosity. Which is why this post exists; to try to fill this void in information.

Five Baskets

To my own admission, the following shall not stand up to close scrutiny. It’s anecdotal evidence, undocumented, with little coherent methodology and with the risk of ‘overfitting’. But I shall defend it on the basis as far as I can find (so far) there is not anything better to go on. A dim candle cannot beat a bright lightbulb, but it’s better than simply sitting in the darkness.

First Basket comes from a person called ‘Kerrie’ who posted on Quora. According to them, this is/was their fortnight food budget around 2017. While they’ve left off a few things which makes me a touch suspicious (no bread, tea etc.) I have no grounds to think they made up the general tenor of their listing (I mean, this diet is kinda shit, but I’ve seen worse in real life.)

Milk	£1.00
Frozen Meals	£10.00
Pasta	£0.20
Jarred Sauces	£2.00
Chips	£1.00
Biscuits	£1.00
Coca-Cola	£5.00
Crisps	£3.00
Yoghurt	£1.00
Sugar	£0.50
Oatmeal	£4.00
Total:	£28.70

An acute observer will notice several things. Firstly, the complete lack of any fruit or vegetables – excepting any present in the jars of sauce or the frozen meals (which you may count as more coincidental than intentional). Next, a pretty serious lacking in the protein; ‘Kerrie’ is relying on the oatmeal, milk, yoghurt and whatever sorta-meat products in the frozens for it. ‘Highly-processed’ is a very big thing here; the only items remotely resembling the natural state is the milk and perhaps the yoghurt – I’d hate to see what their salt consumption was. Even the items which could be reasonable on closer look aren’t; that ‘oatmeal’ for example are the pre-packaged just-add-water pots rather than bags of the stuff. Lastly, you’ll notice that much of the items are snacky in nature – at very least the frozen meals are functionally a meal, even if a poor one nutritionally.

Second Basket comes from a person we shall call ‘Bob’. They’re a real person, I know them quite well. This is an guestimated purchase-list; I feel they’d either refuse or lie if I openly asked them. But I stand by it; having seen their kitchen / meals / shopping etc and know where they shop (so can work out prices). Here’s what I’d consider an ‘average fortnight’…

Milk	£1.80
Tea / Coffee	£2.20
Sugar	£0.65
Biscuits	£1.00
Chips	£2.00
Meat	£6.00
Frozen Meals	£3.00
Mixed Veg / Carrots	£1.00
Eggs	£1.40
Baked Beans	£1.50
Bread	£1.80
Margarine	£0.75
Pasta	£0.50
Jarred Sauces	£1.00
Lemonade	£1.50
Cheese	£1.50
Onions	£0.50
Savoury Snacks	£2.00
Condiments	£1.00
Jam	£0.50
Total:	£31.60

Once again, we have a real lack of greenery going on; the only time I’ve seen it appear was as a side of a pie-chips combo for a dinner. The next is the heavy weighting towards drinks; ‘Bob’ spends around 19% of his budget on tea, coffee and lemonade (Kerrie’s shelling out 17% for her Coke). In other items, his list is better than hers, though not by much; at least he has more actually recognisable meals – though mainly of a frozen item-chips combos. Don’t get all excited in the ‘meat’; it’s mainly bacon, sausages and sliced, reformed ham for his work sandwiches. Most breakfasts are a fried egg sandwich, which helps the ‘pile o’ starchy carbs’ vibe going on here.

Third Basket comes from… me. In my ‘Year Of Pain’ in my early 20s. Like above, a fortnight’s worth. I’ve scaled up the pricing to match 2020 levels – I recall doing it on about £14 some fifteen years ago, suggesting a basket inflation rate of around 4%, almost double the official figure for the period.

Pasta	£1.50
Milk	£1.20
Pasta Sauce	£1.50
Cheese	£2.00
Eggs	£0.50
Meat	£3.50
Margarine	£1.00
Tea / Coffee	£2.70
Tinned Foods	£3.00
Orange Juice	£1.50
Sugar	£0.50
Bread	£3.00
Condiments	£1.50
Baked Beans	£2.00
Jams / Spread	£2.00
Total:	£27.40

On the plus side; my shopping list is a bit less processed than Kerrie’s was, though is about the same as Bob’s. However, unlike Bob I didn’t have a freezer and lived pretty far away from the supermarket, which increased costs and limited what I could buy. Once again, you can see running themes; the heavy weight towards starchy carbohydrates, salt-laden, long-life products and a dearth of fruit and vegetables (though on occasion I’d get a tin of fruit or something). I got the protein in, though the baked beans was from the looks of it the only major source of fibre. You’ll be right to suspect that I consumed a lot of variants of ‘X-on-toast’. I didn’t die (obviously) but I did lose a fair bit of weight that year and a couple said I’d gotten rather pale. Surprising, that.

Fourth Basket – or more correctly, fourth box is an emergency ‘three-day’ affair from a food bank, as tested by a journalist for the Birmingham Mail in 2018. I’ve given the items an approximate value for comparison purposes…

Milk	£0.75
Cereal	£0.50
Soup	£0.75
Baked Beans	£0.75
Tinned Tomatoes	£0.50
Tinned Vegetables	£0.75
Tinned Meat	£3.50
Fruit Juice	£0.50
Biscuits	£0.50
Pasta / Rice	£0.35
Rice Pudding	£0.35
Fruit	£0.40
Tea / Coffee	£0.75
Total:	£10.35

Two things are obvious here. Firstly, it’s by a decent margin nutritionally better than the previous three examples. But it should be in the respect it’s fortnightly spend is £49, about 75% higher than the above. However, it can be said that in this case they’re relatively unable to take advantage of the larger quantity discounts and can’t really distribute perishables – unwelcome ‘limitations’. I’ll discuss this in a bit.

The other noticeable element is that with the exception of the tea or coffee this is truly a bare-bones diet. If you literally have nothing, this would be very bland; the journalist, for example complained about the lack of jam for their oatmeal and sugar for the tea. It’s this which explained the £1.50 I spent on ‘condiments’- pepper, brown sauce, pickle etc – which I used in an attempt to disguise the fact that a meal was – for example – basically pasta, margarine and with a few flakes of cheese.

Fifth basket is from ‘Thrifty Lesley’ her submission for the ‘£1 a day diet challenge’ from 2014. She used Aldi for pricing, which allows me to re-weight for current prices (turns out it’s 30p lower now).

Bread (22 slices)	£0.36
Flour (1.5kg)	£0.45
Jam (227g)	£0.28
Eggs (10)	£1.09
Brie (200g)	£0.89
Spread (250g)	£0.75
Carrots (1kg)	£0.39
Onions (1kg)	£0.50
Chicken Fillets (4)	£1.99
Total:	£6.70

Several things are noticeable here. The first being; I don’t think it’s possible to squeeze any more nutritional value out of £13.40 a fortnight (for the list is for a week) than Lesley has managed. But even then, she admits that the calorific level (1800 a day average) is a bit on the low side for the sustaining of any male and any active female (thus would be unsustainable long-term). You also notice the relative expensiveness of protein; almost 60% of the budget goes on it. This is down to the fact that she’s tried hard to produce a nutritionally healthy diet – perhaps the first person to really tried to do this (the food bank might have, not sure). But even then, this person won’t be getting their ‘5 a day’. In fact, I suspect that some form of mild malnutrition would be a long-term result here.

However, there’s a clear issue; not only is this diet monotonous as fuck, but is also seriously heavy on both prep-work and cooking time. The first part makes the assumption you’ve got large gobs of free time to make scones etc, while the latter shall seriously rack up the energy costs from many an hour with the oven on – perhaps nullifying much of the ‘savings’ from following this diet.

More damming is the fact that Leslie has – I feel – cheated. The ‘£1 a day’ should cover everything in that day, when hers clearly has not. I’m sorry, suggesting that tea/coffee can ‘top up’ the calorific shortfall cannot happen in this case because it’s not budgeted. Therefore, I’ve produced a ‘supplementary’ list – using Aldi prices again – to flesh out that diet to a point where the person following it does not feel like they’re being tortured.

Milk (2 pints)	£0.89
Tea / Coffee (½)	£1.10
Sugar (½)	£0.32
Apples (6)	£0.95
Bananas (4)	£0.56
Orange Juice (1 litre)	£0.75
Peanuts (200g)	£0.49
Tinned Fruit (1)	£0.40
Condiments	£0.80
Total:	£6.26

It’s not much, really; the ability to have tea/coffee, some fruit, a bit of fruit juice and a little bit of cash to get items such as stock cubes, dried herbs etc to jazz up the basic meals. But it all adds up; the fortnightly spend is now at £25.92, which a keen eye shall see is ultimately very close to both mine and Kerrie’s costs.

And is at around 35% of the basic state benefit for a single person. Before we forget this.

Other Factors…

One thing not obvious to those who haven’t experienced it, but this diet is bland as fuck. A “normal” person can put up with it for a day or two – but after that, it starts messing with your brain in rather serious ways; like how I laid out in my ‘Something Tasty‘ post, this journalist for the Evening Standard experienced and why Kerrie spent 17% of their food budget on Coca-Cola.

There’s other issues too, often not considered by ‘outsiders’. Such as the fact when you’re on seriously limited finances, you may not be able to literally take advantage of bulk buying. There’s also the strong chance you don’t drive, so ‘shopping for deals’ may be much harder. This leads to a conclusion; you’re paying for the cheapness by inconvenience. A trend best shown in Lesley’s plan; she basically calls for many an hour of prep-work to keep the costs low as possible. Yes, it works… but is the cheapness outdone by the hours of prep-work and extra cooking costs? After all, I know ‘Bob’ works full-time and throw on another couple of hours travelling on top of that. Look, when you get in the door tired, sweaty and damn hungry, the last thing you desire to hear is that you’ve got loads of prep-work to do and dinner is the best part of two hours away.

The less said about the fact the ‘budget dishes’ trotted out in the media etc also normally serve 4-6 doesn’t help matters. Bob lives alone. Now, it’s quite possible to do the whole cooking/freezing thing but you’ve got to be both a confident cook and super-organised. Hell, this is an issue even folks like Jack Monroe fall into, and I’ve got a lot of time for them.

Lastly is the marked preference by the poor for non-fresh foods; this makes perfect sense in respect that if you’ve got that tin of corned beef, packet of dry couscous or block of frozen mince, you know it’s there – today, tomorrow, next week, next month. Trust me; I was almost brought to tears on my Year Of Pain when I discovered – for example – that my last two sausages I’d been hoarding had gone off and my meal for the next three days was plain pasta.

The Obvious Question…

Can people eat healthy for the price shown above? Sure they can; I could, if needs be (or could I? Now that sounds like a challenge…). There’s bloggers out there who boast of it, in fact. Yet the section above tells the probable result; gobs of wasted time, lots of bland meals and long prep-times.

But here lies the paradox. The British benefits system, however meagre it may appear to be is just about sufficient to stop people from actual acute starvation (sanctions and delays not withstanding, naturally). Yet it relies on the fact the average Briton has rather high standards (by global/historical terms) and not a huge amount of knowledge of home economics. This means if all those folk living on the state-sanctioned pittance all learned how to spend their cash much better, the chances are the state would soon notice and reduce said pittance to compensate.

And this huge time-skill-cash poor demographic is the reason why our food retailers continue to pump out crud for us to consume, despite all the claims otherwise. Nothing sinister, just free market capitalism, baby. Give the customer what it wants. And while there is a demographic out there who could afford to eat well but don’t – the demographic of people who can’t is much higher.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.