Wingeing Brits

So, we now have a new Prime Minister in Boris Johnson. What really annoys me is that there are people 'out there' protesting that he's Not Their Prime Minister. If that's the case, I'm ashamed of being British. I wish I didn't have to write  this. It's been over three years since the EU Referendum. The legislation to bring about Brexit (hate the word.) has been rejected three times by the House of Commons and as a result lead to the downfall of Theresa May. I have to say I feel sorry for her, as she tried her best. Handed a poisoned chalice when David Cameron resigned after the Referendum result didn't go in his favour and had to have a hissy fit and walk away. After all, he was responsible for calling the Referendum. The result was pretty feeble. Remain: 48.1%; Leave 51.9%. (Sauce: The Electoral Commission.) And what makes me really annoyed, 25,359 rejected ballots. What on earth do people have to mess up their ballot papers, what sort of idiot does such a thing? It could have swung the result  in either direction. What a waste!Why on earth are we leaving the E.U. on such a narrow majority? And what on earth were those 25,359 people thinking by those 'rejected ballots,'? (Meaning 'spoilt, void, null, invalid, and not included in the vote count.') Why waste your vote? It's a disgrace. Think how long it took to gain 'Universal Suffrage,' and even put their lives on the line? Those who don't vote in any election General, Local or Referendum, annoy me because of that effort to allow them to vote.

Come on, we British don't just lie down and and roll over like a stupid puppy! That's not the British way of doing things. We don't give in that easily. We're going to be better off outside the EU, we can manage without being bullied and bothered by a load of bureaucrats, most of them having no democratic power. Just look at the buildings they work from in wherever it is in Brussels or Strausberg, have no windows, soulless places, faceless people, with nothing better to do than come up with stupid directives about bent bananas, cucumbers and, dare I say it, condoms! Making a mockery over such crazy things! I'm neither for or against the EU, it took me a while to decide whether to vote Remain or Leave (voting Remain after a lot of internal wrestling over the subject.) But that's not the point. Let's make the best of this whole affair and hold our heads high. Where's the Dunkirk spirit? But all this wingeing and whining is not a British thing. It comes from the 'Dependency Culture,' the, 'I want it, because I'm owed it!" which is not a British thing either. Stand up for yourself and don't be dependent, be self-reliant wherever possible.

Who was the stupid politician who allowed us to sign up to some half-baked treaty, was it at Maastrich that they imposed goodness knows what on us? The 'Single Currency,' the Euro which, thank goodness we had the sense not to sign up to? Was it John Major or Tony Blair? Creep-fest himself, a real creepy individual, always smiling inanely and as sincere  and slimy as a bucket full of eels. Making loads of dosh going around giving lectures and being paid endless amounts of cash on the side.

On top of this the EU has said they won't alter the agreement for Britain to leave the EU. They are going to have to. I don't think Boris Johnson will let them get away with this. They have to be more flexible. This is the problem with the EU, it's too large and cumbersome. It wouldn't surprise me, once we do eventually leave, than it will fragment, slowly, over time. Us leaving is like removing a brick from a wall or one of those games with tiles or bricks in, Jenga, once it's removed, the wall collapses.

A lot of the problems around all this lie with social media, Facebook, Twitter and the like. People can spend a lot of their time wingeing and moaning on there to their hearts content. It's easy to post this sort of stuff on the internet, without having to face another human face-to-face. This sort of person can do his without having to face the consequences. You can be mean and nasty without actual physical contact. Hence all the cyber bullying and meanness that that entails. End of rant. I don't very often mention politics on here, but at the moment I can't resist putting out my opinions on this, which you will have noticed if you read any of my earlier blog posts.

Bored Silly With Brexit?

I don't try to discuss politics on this blog. But Brexit seems to be taking up so much time and energy and column inches in the press and endless arguments from both sides on television that I thought I'd throw my few pennyworth into the ring. The whole thing is crazy, particularly the fact that no-one has any idea how to break the stalemate that has happened in the House of Commons. It's a bit like a really poorly-written episode of the  BBC sitcom 'Yes, Minister.' Except none of the episodes were poorly written.  Even Sir Humphrey Appleby, brilliantly portrayed by Nigel Hawthorne, would have been stumped for words. The following dialogue from this series, written in the early 1980's. It seems that times (and much else) hasn't changed, regarding our thoughts on the subject of the E.U.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
Jim Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that didn't work. Now that we're inside, we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times.
Jim Hacker: But if that's true, why is the Foreign Office pushing for higher membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: I'd have thought that was obvious. The more members an organisation has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
Jim Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: We call it diplomacy, Minister.

Virtually every time I turn on the television news, amongst all the other gloom and doom, we have to hear about stupid politicians who can't agree with anything unless it's what they want to agree with. I feel sorry for Teresa May. Whatever she does is bound to be wrong, not form the point of view of the opposition parties, but when it's her own MPs it must be very discouraging. We don't hear anything fresh from Jeremy Corbyn who is only interested in the possibility of their  being a General Election and the slim chance of him becoming prime minister. He just rants, but we never seem to hear anything positive which might possibly sort out the sorry mess. Well, at least the various factions and parties are 'sort of' meeting to discuss possible solutions, but why couldn't they join forces earlier? The best thing to do when Brexit pops it's ugly head over the parapet when I turn on the news is to either turn over to another channel or just turn the television set off.

In general there seemed a certain sort of apathy about the E.U. before the In/Out referendum. Most people were more interested in celebrities, reality television, sports personalities and any inanity you can mention, rather than the goings-on of a load of bureaucrats in the middle of Europe or even whether we were to 'remain' or 'leave' the juggernaut of the European Community. This could be said of the first referendum in 1975. Looking back, I don't have any memories of it, or even whether I even voted at the time. I don't know whether I was really that interested in it at the time. It didn't even come over my horizon. Who can blame me? Would I have been interested in the goings-on of a load of faceless pen-pushers in an office just off Whitehall? I doubt it. 

Let's be honest, we were taken into the 'Common Market' as it was referred to in the early 1970's by Edward Heath, the then-Prime Minister, without consulting the country and then we had a referendum  in 1975 when a Labour government came to power. I don't remember voting one way or the other at that time, but the result was that we remained in the bloc. (I don't know precisely when they changed it to the E.E.C. (European Economic Community) or then to E.C. (European Community), which, admittedly rolls off the tongue so much easier. From what I've been reading about the referendum in the 1970's, there was a certain amount of apathy amongst the public. I think generally people have no real interest in the E.U. and when it came to the 2016 'in/out' referendum the same could be said again. In general most people aren't interested in something which is distant from their everyday lives. It's run behind closed door, or so it seems. If you see footage on television of the E.U. buildings they look faceless and the same can be said about those that run it, the bureaucrats and the like. Did anyone really and truly think the British people were going to take to being told what to do by a bunch of faceless bureaucrats based hundreds of miles away in a bland, faceless building? Having rules and regulations foisted on us by Brussels or wherever the E.U. is based? I think not. Most of those 'laws' over-ride those made by the Whitehall parliament. Then there's the fact that we're an island. How many times have we been invaded? Once by the Romans and unsuccessfully by Napoleon and the Nazis didn't bother, basically because they knew they wouldn't wind if they'd attempted to invade.

The E.U. doesn't want us to leave. Well, who can blame them? They get a hefty payment from us. How many Billions per year? And they want us to pay something like £39 billion as part of the 'Divorce settlement'? Nobody mentioned anything about this sort of payment during the Referendum campaign. Oh, we were told that we gave them something like £35 million a week, or was it month? And that could have gone to spend on keeping the N.H.S. going. Or payment for new hospitals, schools, mending roads and the infra structure in general. Who came up with that figure? Once we've gone there's going to be a huge hole in the E.U. budget. In other words the United Kingdom seems to have kept the whole thing going with our payments. With the Euro in meltdown, what with the Greek economy needing fixing, and then the Portuguese and the Italian, all expecting to get handouts to pay their debts, without our money coming in to prop things up, no wonder they expect us to pay a hefty price.

More Reading and Watching-1

I'm currently reading Dominic Sandbrook's book 'State of Emergency,' the third of his series of books on the history of Britain since the Suez Crisis of 1956. It's covering the Heath government of the early 1970's and his negotiations for Britain to enter the Common Market, or E.E.C. (European Economic Community) and how he had to get the general public on side and then to get the required support of Parliament. It's interesting, in light of the 2016 referendum on whether Britain should leave what has now become the European Union (E.U.) and how indifferent the people of Britain were at the time. There was a referendum later in the 1970's, when Labour returned to power, which lead eventually to more integration with Europe, the Maastricht Treaty and the eventual creation of the single currency, the Euro (which Britain didn't join, for better or worse.) It's an extremely detailed account of the whole process and well worth reading. I have one more book, 'Days In The Sun' to read once I've completed this volume, and each volume is a think door-topper, each around 600-700 pages. 'State of Emergency' covers the years 1970-74, whilst 'Days In The Sun' covers the years 1974-1979, the year that Margaret Thatcher came to power. I'm hoping that Sandbrook will eventually release a book which covers the Thatcher years of the 1980's and, eventually, one on the 1990's.

The third  series of 'Humans' has finished. It is a co-production between Channel Four and the American network A.M.C., and is based, however loosely, on the Swedish television series 'Real Humans.' I have watched all the series up until now. It has been an enthralling series. If you don't know what it's about, it's set in a parallel world to our own, where synths (robotic humanoids) have been developed to aid humans in many tasks, from caring for the home to working in a range of jobs, such as in factories and warehouses. It's what science fiction should be, it should ask questions about such things as modern life, automation, A.I., computers etc etc. In another respect it can comment on such things which modern society discusses, issues which we are concerned with at present, such as immigration, genocide, integration, the introduction of automation, and how these things effect the world we live in.  As yet there has been no news as to weather a fourth season will be commissioned, but it certainly deserves to be decommissioned as there are so many plot threads which could lead to a fourth season.

I'm watching some of the classic television comedy which is shown on channels such as Gold, Yesterday and W. I've been revisiting sitcoms such as 'One Foot In The Grave.' The one where Victor and Margaret get trapped in their garden shed by a swarm of bees and then Victor has to go to get his eyes tested and has drops put in his eyes and, because he can't see, doesn't realise that everyone has gone home in the optician's. It's as funny as I remember it from first seeing it back in the 1990's. A comudgenly pensioner with a grumpy disposition, the bane of the people he meets, and a wife who often dispares when he is being moody. A gloriously understated performance from Annette Crosbie. Strange to think she played Queen Victoria in the ITV series 'Edward VII.' My mother always made mention the fact, when this actress was on television in anything, that she didn't have all her teeth, for  some strange reason. I hadn't noticed, but it was possibly true. She had all her front teeth, but for some reason or other, had none at the back. Why or how I have no idea. This would be before video recorders were invented, and you could record something off the television and then freeze frame. What an odd thing to remember? And how did my mother know? It must have been a gift to notice such things. Never mind. I digress, as ever. Just saying, it was a long way from Queen Victoria to Margaret Meldrew. She played another queen in the 1970's series on BBC1, 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII,' as Catherine of Aragon, opposite Keith Michell as Henry VIII. It must have been one of the first big colour drama series.

Another episode, from, I think, the second series has Victor attending a life-drawing class and when he gets home he shows the drawing of the naked female model to his wife Margaret, who becomes suspicious when Victor takes a job at the woman's home. Further complicating ensue, as they invariably do in a lot of sitcom, when Margaret has a male neighbour in to help with some jobs around the house and they go out together and one thing leads to another. Misunderstandings and the like, the basis of so much comedy, from Shakespeare right up to date with not only 'One Foot In The Grave' to many other shows, in the theatre and on television.

I recently bought the box set of 'Allo, 'Allo. I absolutely love this series, but I have never seen the earlier episodes. In 1985 I worked on the show as a Supporting Artiste, when it was being filmed on location in and around Lynford Hall, near Thetford, Norfolk. The stable yard was the location of the village square immediately outside Rene café, which is the centre of activities. I was amongst quite a few other S.A.s who played German soldiers and we were supposed to hang around in the square. Some other scenes were shot in the West Tofts Military Training area, not usually open to the public. I also filmed there for a drama/documentary series called 'Soldiers.' We were supposed to be the dead and dying at various battles all round Europe, including the Battle of Waterloo (details of which are mentioned in an earlier blog post on here.)

The thing about 'Allo, Allo' is that it has several plot lines running through it, which is unusual for a sitcom. Usually in a sitcom, you get the same characters appearing every week, and each situation, generally, ties up within each half-hour episode, but with 'Allo, 'Allo you get several of these plot lines running concurrently, the Gestapo chasing after the stolen paintings of the 'Fallen Madonna With The Big Boobies,' The Resistance ('I will tell you this once and once only' etc etc.) The British Airmen and how they will be got out of France to return to England etc etc and how all these inter-relate and run across whole series and, indeed, the entire 80-odd episodes.  It is actually a parody of an earlier BBC drama series called 'Secret Army' which starred Bernard Hepton and Angela Richards, an actress who was in the company when I was starting out in Stage Management at the Everyman Theatre, Cheltenham in 1969. 

Snap General Election and Other Matters

So, Teresa May has called a snap General Election for 8th June. I'm not sure how I feel about this. If it's to get her the 'mandate' she needs to allow her to get the authority regarding Brexit (I do so hate this word.) then I suppose I can see the reasoning, but I think the British public must be heartily sick of votes of one kind or another. I still think the politicians who set up the E.U. Referendum in June last year, those who framed the legislation which allowed it, should be ashamed of themselves, for not making the size of the majority, either for or against, large enough before a decision was made for remaining in the E.U., or leaving it. The fact that the majority to leave was far too small, barely I% to leave, was far too small for  Brexit to go ahead. There should have been a second referendum on the subject. Also, most people who voted probably had not the slightest idea what the E.U. was. I blame politicians for this, not making it clear what the benefits of our membership were or, on the opposite side, what the de-benefits were (if, indeed, there is such a term. But you get my idea. Or, at least, I hope you do.)

Well, enough of politics. I'm just glad that the General Election will be over in around 7 weeks. At least we don't have to have it going on relentlessly the way the American electoral system works. 

It's been fairly sunny for the past few days, but even so, it's not all that warm. There was a slight frosting on the car windscreen this morning. We're continuing to walk to the Academy each morning and we're still taking Alfie with us. He seems to be getting a good deal better at walking on his lead. I think just taking him regularly is improving his behaviour.

Yesterday morning I cut the grass. I did it really early, taking advantage of the fact that it was sunny. If you don't cut it regularly the machine won't do it's job properly. I don't think it's really up to cutting very long grass. Infact, it's really designed for a really nice manicured lawn, made of decent turf. Our bit of grass (I still refuse to term it 'lawn' as it doesn't in the last resemble a 'lawn.') It's all uneven humps and bumps. We saw some really nice turf the other day when we visited Frost's garden centre in Worburn Sands, when we went for a coffee and really nice scones and cream in their restaurant. Carol's last outing of the Easter holiday.

Trumpery, Brexit and A Bitterly Cold Morning

A really bitterly cold morning. The ice on the car really took some shifting. I almost used up an entire bottle of spray anti-freeze. I have to be really careful with cold that intense. I get a real pain in my chest. Not sure I want to induce another heart attack as a result. I think it's because your arteries close up or something. Stops blood pumping through. I'm not going to see what happens so I'd rather be in the warm. The central heating is on. I turned it up a notch yesterday.

So, today is Donald Trump's inauguration. I'm not so sure how I feel about the man. He's made some really nasty comments, he's divisive, what will his Presidency be like? How will we, in Great Britain, get on with the man? More or less the complete opposite ideologically, to Barak Obama. Sorry to see him go. Let's wait and see what happens. I think Trump's style of campaigning during the run-up to the U.S. Election was based on his experience of being on the reality television show "The Apprentice." These shows rely on 'sound bites.' They need them so that people make comments on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. He has used these 'sound bites' to get a reaction, to get people talking, whether for good or bad. He just needs to temper his comments. He says something, and then sometimes regrets it. Something like "The Apprentice" has catch phrases such as 'Your Fired!" which everyone knows. The same with "Strictly Come Dancing" which is manipulated by the media to give it the best stories which can be reproduced in the Tabloid press. Whenever one of the judges says something nice or nasty, it gets a headline in 'The Sun' or 'The Mail.' (Other tabloid newspapers are available.) Do Americans realise that 'Trump' has a different meaning in this country? As George Bernard Shaw so succinctly said about American and British 'English' and the difference, 'two countries divided by one language.' 

As for Brexit (I'm sorry, but I hate the term.), why didn't our politicians make more effort to actually EXPLAIN what the E.U. was about, well in advance of the Referendum in June? How many voters in that vote actually know what they were voting for? So many people, particularly those in the youngest age-group, say from 18-30, don't appear to have any interest in politics. I know the scandal of M.P's expenses a few years ago tarnished the reputation of Parliament and it's members, which is understandable, but how many people really understand what we got out of the E.U.? If you don't understand the process of Parliament or the E.U. (which also has itself to blame.) how can anyone make an unbiased decision, to leave or remain, if they aren't given the facts? most young people seem more interested in celebrity culture, reality television, the latest football results, than politics and in particular, the E.U. How many people do you see walking about the streets with their mobile phones in their hands, and not actually interacting with the world around them?  When the result of the Referendum is going to have such far-reaching consequences, wouldn't it have been more important to vote in this important Referendum than keeping your face glued to a stupid mobile telephone? It was the tabloid press in Britain who were very much responsible for giving the E.U. a negative presentation, which would have swung there readers towards voting to leave. I also blame the government who drafted the legislation which allowed the Referendum. Why did they not have a clause in that which said that the vote either for or against, had to be of a certain percentage one way or another, to allow for a leave or remain decision? The fact that the 'Leave' vote was so low, I don't know the exact figure, but it was as low as 1-2% in favour of leaving the E.U.

Having done some research on the subject of the Referendum on the internet, I find that around 25,000 votes were invalid or blank. What are we to make of this? Why were they 'invalid'? Are some people so stupid that they spoilt their ballot papers so they became invalid? Didn't they think the vote was important enough to use this Referendum properly and actually vote one way or the other? If they had voted, perhaps the difference in the outcome would have been very different. It just shows the ignorance of some people knows no bounds.

E.U. Referendum and Brexit

I don't usually mention politics in my blog posts, but on this occasion, I feel I need to say something about today's events. All I can say is, thank goodness the E.U. Referendum is over. We've had around six weeks of squabbling, bitching, back-biting and thoroughly nasty behaviour, I did vote to remain, but we now know that the result is we'll be leaving the E.U.  Or, to use the horrible word 'Brexit' to refer to Britain Exiting from the European Union. It is no doubt as a result of Greece possibly leaving the E.U. and that being referred to as Grexit (Greek Exit.)It was a very narrow margin between both sides, which, had it been a General Election I imagine we'd have a government with a tiny majority of perhaps 10-15 seats. Well, it's the will of the people, so they'll have to go with the result. I have to say that the E.U. is it's worst enemy. It's just a huge faceless bureaucracy, very distant, and whenever there is any sort of news about it, it's always negative and makes the headlines in the tabloids, whether it's some health and safety issue or the fact that you can't sell bent cucumbers or some such pointless bit of red tape. And these are the things that get made into issues by the likes of the 'Euro-Sceptics' and the Nigel Farage's of this world. Thinking about it further, it does seem crazy in a way that we've been members of the E.U. for around 43 years and it seems mad to now leave it. It has its bad points but I think the good outweigh them. It was a very different organisation in 1975 when we had a referendum about whether we joined and I now learn that we had joined a few years before so why did the government of the day decide we needed a referendum to remain in? I don't think I had many ideas of what that referendum was about at the time and I don't think I had much interest in politics and don't remember voting. But it's a much bigger organisation with far more member countries (I think 27, I may be wrong, but around that number. I'll have to do a bit more research.) There was no single currency, The Euro and it was called the E.C. (European Community.) Up until then, it was always referred to as The Common Market. It's rather like being in a club, a union or even a marriage. You don't leave, or get divorced, just for the sake of it. Over something minor, you should sit down and sort out any differences because the good things outweigh the bad ones. There must be quite a few things in Britain that have been funded by E.U. cash, such as infrastructure, probably road repairs, tourism and education. So it will be interesting to see what this will mean when this cash dries up.

I don't usually continue writing a blog after it's published. But I feel I need to write a bit more on this subject. I have been reading that some people, who voted in last Thursday's Referendum (either to Remain or Leave the E.U.) are now saying, because they voted 'Leave', now wish they had voted 'Remain.' Well, are they totally stupid? How can you vote for something, which in this case is going to have ramifications for each and everyone living in the United Kingdom, and then turn round and say you didn't even know what the Referendum was about, and some people DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE E.U. WAS! It would seem that a great many people are more interested in their mobile phones, Facebook, Twitter and other social media, celebrity and taking selfies of not only themselves but each other than the important issues, things that matter, such as politics, government etc etc. When we go out and about, visiting various places, such as National Trust properties, Whipsnade Zoo and generally to shopping centres and other places, we so often see people with their mobile phones, more interested in taking pictures of themselves rather than the place they visit. Why spend quite a bit visiting, for example, a zoo, and stand in front of an enclosure full of some of the most amazing animals and just take photos of THEMSELVES? It's narcissism gone mad! Then you see people walking around with their mobiles in their hands, and not engaging with the world around them, or others with headphones stuck over their ears. I have even seen people riding their bicycles whilst texting on a mobile or with headphones on. Isn't that dangerous? Aren't they more likely to get run over by a car or they walk in front of a vehicle on the road because they're not paying attention or can't hear a car approaching?

I've seen a piece which shows how much money the E.U. contributed to certain projects around the United Kingdom, for example, the Eden Project. I wonder whether that project would have gone ahead without the E.U. funding? So, where is the cash going to come from to fund other similar projects which create jobs and thus help the economy of this country?