peterbirks (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
peterbirks) wrote2010-08-29 01:56 pm
peterbirks) wrote2010-08-29 01:56 pm
No-one told me that cuts would mean bad news
Kind of a "no shit sherlock?" morning for the newspapers, isn't it? Nothing so wonderful/sickening/depressing as watching the media whip itself into an unheard-of degree of moral outrage about something they either don't understand or which they should have know was coming anyway.
But, well, maybe the media just reflects the population at large on these two. First the News of the World "exposes" the fact that the Pakistan cricket team is subject to certain external influences. Considering the fact that members of the Pakistan cricket team have been stomped on for this at least twice since 2001, this is a genuine "no shit, sherlock" and immediately goes on the Birks "no shit, sherlock" "honours board" for the month.
This seems to tie in with some British view of sport that it is "different". So, players are expected to play for their country for "pride", even though they are professionals. They are not meant to be subject to external financial influences because, even though they are professionals, at heart it is a "game". And, although cheating in business is expected, cheating in games for financial reasons is, well, morally wrong. Luckily, in this instance, it is also illegal. Wouldn't it be nice if a dive to get a penalty was a criminal offence under some kind of "attempt to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception" law? After all, if staying in the Premiership is worth a million quid to a player, surely attempting to deceive the referee in such a fashion qualifies as some kind of criminal financial offence?
The second appearance on the NSS hounours board for the month is (a) the announcement that NHS Direct will go the way of the dodo and (b) the outrage from the general population, let alone Labour politicians. I said that this would happen the second any cuts became "real" rather than "hypothetical", and so it comes to pass.
Radio 5 got a chap who used NHS Direct to explain why it was a useful service -- his main argument appeared to be that it saved him embarrassment when discussing a "personal" condition. Hmm, I think that even the Beeb might have found a better case for keeping NHS Direct alive.
I'm not sure how many times people will have to be told this, but the argument that "it does a useful service" just isn't good enough. The arguments that "it saves money in the long run" or that "it's an investment for the future" also don't cut the mustard. We are in the total shit here. We have been spending money that we haven't got on "useful" services for decades (think January and February when Homer was mayor of Springfield, before the money ran out). Yes, NHS Direct is a very nice thing to have. It's a very useful service. It does very good things for lots of people. None of which, I fear to say, matters a toss at the moment. Because we haven't got any money. I'm amazed that there aren't people on the right actually arguing that the NHS is a luxury that we can no longer afford. Because, well, that's really how serious the situation is.
And we really are getting into the situation where we have to say things as bad as "life expectancy in this country has been extended by spending money that we haven't got". In other words, some adults have lived longer and, yes, some children have survived, at the expense of future adults' life expectancy and future children's survival. That's how much we have borrowed from the future.
When the situation is put as starkly as that, NHS Direct appears rather less of an absolutely vital service. Think intensive care units for new-born babies being closed. Think halving the number of ambulances on the streets. Think really bad shit like that.
No-one likes being the bringer of bad news. No-one ever gets thanked for telling people harsh truths. That's because people are in the main still not bright enough to realize that the person bringing the bad news is not by definition the person who made the bad news happen. And people like even less to be told "the reason that this is happening is all your fault, because if you didn't retire at 60 with an inflation-proofed pension, if you had carried on being a productive member of society, then perhaps NHS Direct would still be a luxury that we could afford. But you didn't, you thought that after a mere 40 years work that entitled you to 40 years of non-work. Well, sorry guv, but the numbers don't add up." Instead, they have to say that it's the fault of the banks, big business, "wasteful" government spending (whatever that is -- I'm sure that there isn't a single government expense that some group, somewhere, will tell you is absolutely vital).
Even Boris Johnson doesn't seem able to cope with these harsh realities. Crossrail, properly functioning underground trains, anything that smacks of investment for the future, is probably doomed. For a decade or so it's a matter of immediate return, not a "comfortable society". Like I say, we've spent away our right to comfort. I just would have hoped that we would have been a bit more realistic about the fact than the Greeks. Apparently not.
________________
But, well, maybe the media just reflects the population at large on these two. First the News of the World "exposes" the fact that the Pakistan cricket team is subject to certain external influences. Considering the fact that members of the Pakistan cricket team have been stomped on for this at least twice since 2001, this is a genuine "no shit, sherlock" and immediately goes on the Birks "no shit, sherlock" "honours board" for the month.
This seems to tie in with some British view of sport that it is "different". So, players are expected to play for their country for "pride", even though they are professionals. They are not meant to be subject to external financial influences because, even though they are professionals, at heart it is a "game". And, although cheating in business is expected, cheating in games for financial reasons is, well, morally wrong. Luckily, in this instance, it is also illegal. Wouldn't it be nice if a dive to get a penalty was a criminal offence under some kind of "attempt to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception" law? After all, if staying in the Premiership is worth a million quid to a player, surely attempting to deceive the referee in such a fashion qualifies as some kind of criminal financial offence?
The second appearance on the NSS hounours board for the month is (a) the announcement that NHS Direct will go the way of the dodo and (b) the outrage from the general population, let alone Labour politicians. I said that this would happen the second any cuts became "real" rather than "hypothetical", and so it comes to pass.
Radio 5 got a chap who used NHS Direct to explain why it was a useful service -- his main argument appeared to be that it saved him embarrassment when discussing a "personal" condition. Hmm, I think that even the Beeb might have found a better case for keeping NHS Direct alive.
I'm not sure how many times people will have to be told this, but the argument that "it does a useful service" just isn't good enough. The arguments that "it saves money in the long run" or that "it's an investment for the future" also don't cut the mustard. We are in the total shit here. We have been spending money that we haven't got on "useful" services for decades (think January and February when Homer was mayor of Springfield, before the money ran out). Yes, NHS Direct is a very nice thing to have. It's a very useful service. It does very good things for lots of people. None of which, I fear to say, matters a toss at the moment. Because we haven't got any money. I'm amazed that there aren't people on the right actually arguing that the NHS is a luxury that we can no longer afford. Because, well, that's really how serious the situation is.
And we really are getting into the situation where we have to say things as bad as "life expectancy in this country has been extended by spending money that we haven't got". In other words, some adults have lived longer and, yes, some children have survived, at the expense of future adults' life expectancy and future children's survival. That's how much we have borrowed from the future.
When the situation is put as starkly as that, NHS Direct appears rather less of an absolutely vital service. Think intensive care units for new-born babies being closed. Think halving the number of ambulances on the streets. Think really bad shit like that.
No-one likes being the bringer of bad news. No-one ever gets thanked for telling people harsh truths. That's because people are in the main still not bright enough to realize that the person bringing the bad news is not by definition the person who made the bad news happen. And people like even less to be told "the reason that this is happening is all your fault, because if you didn't retire at 60 with an inflation-proofed pension, if you had carried on being a productive member of society, then perhaps NHS Direct would still be a luxury that we could afford. But you didn't, you thought that after a mere 40 years work that entitled you to 40 years of non-work. Well, sorry guv, but the numbers don't add up." Instead, they have to say that it's the fault of the banks, big business, "wasteful" government spending (whatever that is -- I'm sure that there isn't a single government expense that some group, somewhere, will tell you is absolutely vital).
Even Boris Johnson doesn't seem able to cope with these harsh realities. Crossrail, properly functioning underground trains, anything that smacks of investment for the future, is probably doomed. For a decade or so it's a matter of immediate return, not a "comfortable society". Like I say, we've spent away our right to comfort. I just would have hoped that we would have been a bit more realistic about the fact than the Greeks. Apparently not.
________________
no subject
(Anonymous) 2010-08-31 09:41 pm (UTC)(link)You say "In other words, some adults have lived longer and, yes, some children have survived, at the expense of future adults' life expectancy and future children's survival. That's how much we have borrowed from the future." Without defining 'some' this means nothing more than we've overspent a bit so we'd better rein it in a bit to get back on track (as you very well know). To go from that straight to banging on about halve the number of ambulances is pure meaningless rhetoric.
no subject
To defend the point though, I don't think it's the contention that NHS Direct will be solely responsible for the halving of ambulances in 2012. But the philosophy of spending on pretty (and sometimes useful) baubles such as NHS Direct has led to overspending on a scale that will require significant cutbacks at some future point. Without wishing to go all Thatcherish here, on a domestic level, it's the equivalent of going round the supermarket buying nice food that is good for you but which isn't an essential. The following week you can't buy cornflakes and potatoes. It's not rhetoric, it's hyperbole.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2010-09-01 08:32 am (UTC)(link)The use of hyperbole (which is pretty much the same as meaningless rhetoric - discuss) begs the question. You've done it yourself by saying significant. I think that we need to rein things in, but do not agree at all with the scale of cuts discussed by the coalition - which are being widely accepted as inevitable.
no subject
My point was that to panic and get into a state of moral outrage over something as nice as NHS Direct (a bit like taking sugar out of our coffee) is indicative that most people are of the school of "oh yes, cuts are necessary", but seem to imagine that this can be done without it having any impact -- a head-in-the-sand approach that infuriates me. No, the cuts being discussed by the coalition are NOT inevitable. Indeed, a "cobbled together" "solution" is far more likely, one that will send us down the path of Greece. If you want to carry on borrowing from the future (and, without doubt, most voters do) then go ahead and do it. But for heaven's sake stop thinking that this is a "solution". It isn't.
Our ways of life, including the NHS as we now know it, pensions as we now understand them, the ratio of our working life to non-working life as we have become accustomed to, have all been based on a lie. The voter doesn't want to admit that and so, as a result, blames anyone who tries to say that it's the case, rather than admitting that the system that we have established is unsustainable.
This is really just a first-world version of bread and other staple subsidies introduced by governments in developing economies to keep people happy. Easy and popular to introduce, hard to get rid of.
If "rhetoric" is required to stimulate a response, then rhetoric is what we need. Because none of the population seems to want to read the figures.
And, of course, no offence taken. Rock on demagogy :-)
PJ
____________
Grecian 2010
No, seriously. Comparisons to Greece are fast becoming the Godwin's law of what I now see is being called the "Great Recession." (I'll take a Lesser Depression and a bottle of chlorpromazine, please.)
There are certainly interesting parallels to be drawn. I think our institutional obsession with owning a nuclear deterrent has similarities with Greek military spending, although at least the Greeks use Turkey as an excuse -- all we've got is a dimwit argument that we'd no longer be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. (Uganda, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Nigeria and Lebanon presently sit alongside us: w00t!) One might argue that the fear of financiers fleeing the country is almost as paralysing as the Greek fear of the plutocrats taking their money offshore.
In the end, however, it's hard (but as ever, not impossible) to see how the UK could cock things up quite as badly as Greece.
One other point on the central issue: brain-dead headlines in the media, plus the usual torrent of ill-thought-out opinion on the Internet from people ... er, like me ... who wouldn't have had a voice ten years ago, do not really add up to a convincing case for schizophrenia on this topic.
On the other hand, they might very well amplify the natural latent stupidity of mankind to the point where we really are schizophrenic. Isn't technology wonderful?