Done ... Over

The Olympics have finally drawn to a close … haven’t they? Well, if you watch the news channels, apparently not. Even now journalists are interviewing random people who are leaving the country via Heathrow airport to get their applauding opinions of London 2012; it is self-congratulation at its lamest. Anyone would think that the war in Syria (along with many other worthy news stories) had taken a fortnight’s holiday and it wasn’t quite ready to resume just yet, so time may as well be filled with bullshit! Reporters (and anybody else who has drooled too much over the last two weeks) need to take a deep breath and realise that sport is not the most important thing in the world; it’s just a form of entertainment that no longer requires being rammed down people’s throats!

Money Well Spent?

Every week I read the Stourbridge Chronicle (for that is where I am from) and a local story has recently caught my attention. The annual Stourbridge Harvest Festival - enjoyment for all the family - has been cancelled because financial resources have instead been ploughed into Diamond Jubilee celebrations and Olympic fanfare. I imagine this type of cancellation is happening in other areas also. So it’s nice to know that the apparent ‘trickle-down’ effect from big events to local businesses is clearly in effect … or, in fact, not. The demonstrations of national grandeur have actually hindered more regional community enjoyment. It’s almost as if London takes priority! No surprise there.

And in a separate development, I’ve recently discovered that local housing authorities in England are only legally obliged to help homeless people if the destitute are in ‘priority need’, e.g. have dependent children, are victims of domestic violence or natural disasters, are disabled, etc. So if I (who would not fall into a ‘priority need’ category) were to become homeless, I would be left for muggers to gladly beat the shit out of me on the street! I’m not saying it would be easy in these austere times to find funding for everyone, but even a safe room to squat in would surely be better than a cold pavement. Good old right-wing Britain: don‘t bother to help everybody because a few of them might sort themselves out and the rest hopefully won‘t get noticed!

Five Olympic Dreams ... Kind Of

So, the Olympics are upon us, and I’m not really bothered. Well, I’m bothered that the B.B.C. Parliament Channel has been temporarily replaced by Olympic coverage; apparently politics - you know, the governing of the world - is less important than sport. And I’m bothered that the opening ceremony is being given a two hour countdown programme; I don’t mean the show that used to be hosted by Richard Whiteley, I mean literally two hours of counting down. Therefore, here are five suggestions for alternative activities that you could be doing instead of watching the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.

1. Go for a walk. It may sound simple, but most vapid members of society will be watching the ceremony with simplistic awe and fascination, so you would probably only be sharing the streets / countryside with other cool folks.

2. Have a drink in a local pub. Of course be sure to pick one without a television set in order to avoid the deluded pomp and grandeur; then strike up a conversation with another fellow drinker and advance local community spirit.

3. If you know someone who is willing to have sex with you, try to break Olympic records for duration!

4. Phone up your local M.P. and inform them that national identity has more to it than just sport. Rant on about all of your concerns for this country until they’ve missed at least half of the ceremony.

5. Just enjoy the sunshine - you know it’s not gonna be here for long.

Olympic Dreams Equal Potential Profits

When people negatively criticise the forthcoming Olympic Games, one of the common remarks is that the event will only benefit big businesses and political ambitions, while ignoring ordinary workers. Those of a right-wing ideology often retort that wealth will ‘trickle down’ to surrounding local companies as tourism increases trade, and the whole area will get an economic boost, advantaging even those on lower incomes. However, Shelter - a charity for the homeless - has seen increasing evidence of London landlords giving tenants little time to leave their properties, or increasing rents hugely as the Olympics approaches. One estate agent has gone on record saying that properties previously rented for £350 per week were now being marketed for £6,000 per week! How is that going to benefit anyone other than rich people?! As usual, the glorious ambitions of the few are ignoring the vital needs of the many.

Counterproductive!

Len McCluskey, the Unite (a major trade union) general secretary has suggested that civil disobedience could be timed to coincide with the Olympics. This is a bad idea.
In the winter of 1978-9 (the winter of discontent), unions disrupted Britain to such an extent that the majority of the voting public decided that Margaret Thatcher was a necessary Prime Minister. Her seeming ability to restore order to a chaotic situation was more important to people than workers’ rights. But the British public cannot be blamed for this; if bin bags are piled high in the street, gravediggers won’t dig, and the NHS is only open for emergencies, then of course people will lose faith in the current system. This may seem like an extraordinary analogy, but nowadays unions are much more easily condemned than they used to be, so it is vitally important to preserve the public faith.
I personally am not a fan of the Olympics; I would prefer to see millions of pounds spent elsewhere. But there are a significant number of people who are delighted that the Olympics has come to London, and this section of society cannot afford to be isolated. If they are, then how long will it be before the majority of people resent the unions and begin to feel that right-wing governments are necessary for orderly preservation? Then we will see another government like Thatcher’s! The one that made greedy, materialistic capitalism an acceptable aspiration. We must never promote that again to such an extent!
So please, for the sake of socialism and equality, do not strike during the Olympics.

Will The Masses Back Him?

In his New Year’s speech, Prime Minister David Cameron has said that the country can unite this year around the “global drama” of the Olympics and the “glory” of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. Personally, I think the Olympics could turn out to be a colossal waste of money in these austere times, and I’d rather take a dump than watch any more vacuous and mundane footage of the royal family! But unfortunately, David Cameron is probably right. People generally do celebrate these specious national events, as was demonstrated during last year’s nauseous outpouring of jingoistic sentimentality during the royal wedding. So, the nation will unite, money will pour into Great Britain, the economy will recover, people will be able to find work again, we will all be shaking hands with each other as we pass in the street, and everyone will shout “hurrah” from their rooftops as they realise we have all been saved from the doom that has befallen other countries. And the result of all this will be … the coalition government will last forever! So be very careful what you wish for.

Unnecessary Aid

Today the Minister for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, had an email leaked which stated his opposition to the budget for overseas aid becoming set in law at 0.7% of Britain’s gross national income. Downing Street is seemingly disgruntled by this leak, but I have to ask the question: why shouldn’t Dr Fox voice this objection? It seems perfectly reasonable to me when virtually all other government departments are having to cut their budgets due to the deficit crisis. Since when is international aid considered to be so much more important than domestic affairs? The only other main department which is being financially ring-fenced is health, but even that is having to endure the prospect of radical right-wing reform. And overseas aid from Britain was only 0.52% in 2009, so apparently other countries are worthy of a budgetary increase in these fiscally restrictive times!
Another serious problem occurs when we consider which countries are getting most of our aid. If I were feeling flippant, I would say that Pakistan doesn’t deserve much at the moment after having singularly failed to detect Osama Bin Laden’s fortified compound for over five years! But unfortunately, there is a much more disturbing receiver of British taxpayers’ money: the Democratic Republic of Congo. I’ve half a mind to put the word Democratic in inverted commas, because the continuing sexual violence that takes place by militias in that country is probably the worst in the world; and recent wars in DR Congo have created the deadliest conflict since World War II, with 5.4million people being slaughtered. Why should they get any of our money?!
Finally, Britain now spends more on international development than on the environment, energy and sport combined (and that’s with the Olympics approaching!). And even though 0.7% is the figure that has long been favoured by the UN, it is not implemented by many countries. The US, the richest country in the world, only provides 0.21%, and Italy can only be bothered to contribute 0.16%, so why should we have to foot the bill? Therefore I think Dr Fox is absolutely correct to raise this issue, as many more people should in the near future.