The Sunday Rant
Aug. 28th, 2011 09:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
millionreasonsThe more I see of Cameron, the more I feel some kind of grudging respect for Thatcher, that hideous old bag who I expect the Teselecta from Dr Who to visit just before the end of her 'timeline'. But at least Thatcher had some kind of plan, some kind of vision, some kind of idea to turn England's economy away from unionised northern working class manufacturing towards non-unionised southern aspirational financial services. Replace one industry with another. Britain weathered the '30s depression by sacrificing the ship building of the north for the house building of the south. Tough tits for everyone in Jarrow, hurrah for Metroland.
It wasn't until after the war that the north rose again. In the '50s and '60s, it seemed that everyone: writers, musicians, artists, politicians originated from beyond the Watford Gap. My 1970s childhood was voiced by Northeners (The Flumps, Blue Peter, Ivor the Engline). But in the '80s, Eastenders replaced Corrie, Martin Amis displaced Alan Sillitoe, there were New Romantics rather than the Mersey sound. Norman Tebbit not Dennis Healey. Under Thatcher, the working class went out of fashion.
Thus it is again. Cameron's had his riots, his colonial-esque war, his high unemployment, even a strike which didn't last quite as long as the miners' strike. The Tory Coalition is just an '80s tribute government, but I still don't really know what they are for. Small government, yes, but then what? The Big Society, based on the idea that people will volunteer after or instead of their jobs, is not so much laughable as dismissable. It's a blue sky focus group concept rather than a political ideology.
I think what Cam 'n' chums want is just to be successful. The MP Expenses Scandal was referenced when the rioters were being defended - the implication being that if the people at the 'top' are grasping and greedy and take what they can because they can get away with it, then why should the people at the 'bottom' be any different? Surveys in which kids say they want to grow up to be a celebrity and not a doctor, lawyer, astronaut, are constantly invoked when talking about the moral bankruptcy of the age. But if the people in government only want their political lives to be effortless rather than effective, then why shouldn't children emulate that?
Meanwhile, the BBC seems to be turning into the Daily Mail. Article on their breakfast news show yesterday asked if there was a correlation between the number of unemployed young people and the increase in immigrants entering the country. Not until young people are prepared to fruit-pick, bus-drive, old people-care or nurse can this question be answered.
It wasn't until after the war that the north rose again. In the '50s and '60s, it seemed that everyone: writers, musicians, artists, politicians originated from beyond the Watford Gap. My 1970s childhood was voiced by Northeners (The Flumps, Blue Peter, Ivor the Engline). But in the '80s, Eastenders replaced Corrie, Martin Amis displaced Alan Sillitoe, there were New Romantics rather than the Mersey sound. Norman Tebbit not Dennis Healey. Under Thatcher, the working class went out of fashion.
Thus it is again. Cameron's had his riots, his colonial-esque war, his high unemployment, even a strike which didn't last quite as long as the miners' strike. The Tory Coalition is just an '80s tribute government, but I still don't really know what they are for. Small government, yes, but then what? The Big Society, based on the idea that people will volunteer after or instead of their jobs, is not so much laughable as dismissable. It's a blue sky focus group concept rather than a political ideology.
I think what Cam 'n' chums want is just to be successful. The MP Expenses Scandal was referenced when the rioters were being defended - the implication being that if the people at the 'top' are grasping and greedy and take what they can because they can get away with it, then why should the people at the 'bottom' be any different? Surveys in which kids say they want to grow up to be a celebrity and not a doctor, lawyer, astronaut, are constantly invoked when talking about the moral bankruptcy of the age. But if the people in government only want their political lives to be effortless rather than effective, then why shouldn't children emulate that?
Meanwhile, the BBC seems to be turning into the Daily Mail. Article on their breakfast news show yesterday asked if there was a correlation between the number of unemployed young people and the increase in immigrants entering the country. Not until young people are prepared to fruit-pick, bus-drive, old people-care or nurse can this question be answered.
