Circuses, but Less Bread 1532


The London Olympics are already achieving the number one aim of the politicians who brought them here, which is making our politicians feel very important indeed.

The media is quite frenetic in its efforts to make us all believe we should be terrifically proud of the fact we are hosting the Olympics, as though there were something unique in this achievement. If we can’t competently do something that Greece, Spain and China have done in recent years, that would be remarkable. Of course the Games will be on the whole well delivered, sufficient for the media and politicians to declare it an ecstatic success. Some of the sporting moments will be sublime, as ever.

But did it have to be in London? We won’t know the total cost of the Games for months, but it will cost the taxpayer at least £9 billion and I suspect a lot more. I also suspect the GDP figures will, in the event, show that the massive net fall in visitor numbers has hurt the already shrinking economy further.

But to take the most optimistic figure, holding the Olympics in London has cost every person in the country an average of £150 per head in extra taxes. That is £600 for a family of four. Actually it is in the end going to be well over £2,000, as of course the money has been borrowed on the never never, and taxpayers are going to be paying it off their whole lives, along with the sum ten times higher they are already paying direct into the pockets of the bankers through their taxes.

The very rich, of course, don’t pay much tax, so they are not worried.

But to take just the figure of £600 extra taxes for a family of four, the lowest possible amount, and not including the interest. Is having the Olympics here really worth paying out £600 for? If Tony Blair had approached the head of the family and said “We are going to have the Olympics in London, but it’s going to cost you £600, would the answer have been from most ordinary people: “Yes, great idea, this is that important to us”?

People are not disconcerted because they don’t see that they have to pay. There is no special Olympics tax, and they pay their taxes in a variety of ways, and individuals are not the sole source of taxation. But this is nonetheless real money taken from the people in pursuit of the hubris of politicians.

I love sport. I hate the corruption of the International Olympic Committee, Fifa and the rest; I hate the vicious corporatism and militarisation of our capital and absurd elitism of the transport lanes; the sport itself I love. But with the economy contracting, and the NHS being farmed out for profit, is it really worth £600 for a family – and many families are really struggling in a heartbreaking way – is it worth the money to have the Olympics here rather than in Paris?

Of course it isn’t. I think many of us will feel an extra pleasure watching the Opening ceremony because it is British. Patriotic pride will surge. It is not wrong to enjoy the spectacle tonight on TV. The corporate well connected and ruling classes will enjoy it in the stadium.

But after you have watched it on TV, ask yourself this question. How much more did you enjoy it than enjoy watching the Beijing ceremony, and was that margin of extra enjoyment something that everybody in the room would have paid out £150 for?

Because they just did.


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

1,532 thoughts on “Circuses, but Less Bread

1 39 40 41 42 43 52
  • Suhayl Saadi

    “There aren’t any ‘aboriginal’ English. They/we are made up of Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Danes, Dutch, Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Israelis, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Africans, Romanis, Pakistanis, Indians, Tamils – the list goes on, and beautifully on.

    I think, despite the history, that this is why I am quite fond of the place today, myself. As well as its culture, from Hamlet to Attack the Block.” Technicolour.
    .
    Absolutely.
    .

    Now, for a scary night, where is that black-bearded immigrant, Eric Campbell? Watch out, Charlie, he’s behind you!!!
    .
    http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?hl=en&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=JDJ&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=7r8AiCstUR-VBM:&imgrefurl=http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/kakula/post163367288/&docid=XQzGzzggnE4-rM&imgurl=http://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/c/2/73/732/73732323_EricCampbell.jpg&w=604&h=699&ei=RoUlUIOXGKes0QXBmoCgCg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=367&sig=109891428453465515415&page=1&tbnh=122&tbnw=113&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:85&tx=55&ty=61&biw=1024&bih=579

  • thatcrab

    “There aren’t any ‘aboriginal’ English.”…
    Yeah, but thats not why you had to lecture about the ‘misleading’ word is it? Its because they havent been vicitimised like the irish et all.
    Well thats me told mrs T

  • Suhayl Saadi

    And as for Charlie Chaplin, well, he was a Commie, wasn’t he? A Red, under the bed. He ate the jackboot and got banned by the FBI. Good on him!
    .
    Eric Campbell was a larger-than-life figure on screen and so perhaps his picture too was metabytic.
    .
    Both were British immigrants (to the USA and then, in Chaplin’s case, on to Switzerland). They must’ve worked very hard.
    .
    Now, moving on to Stan Laurel…

  • technicolour

    “Its because they havent been vicitimised like the irish et all”

    How do you justify being so flippant, without actually being funny?

    “clashing egos” – of course, this about ‘me’ versus ‘you’. Like I am gaining from it in some way. Bah.

  • technicolour

    (answering own question) Of course, if people were allowed to be their normal decent selves, without being twisted by fear and hate, and the voting system and the media were not skewed towards extremism, I, and everyone else I love, would benefit immeasurably. So not ‘ego’ but definitely self-interest,

  • Chris Jones

    Suhyal and Technicolour obviously still insist on highlighting an agenda of colour/ethnicity whereas nost other commentators are way beyond that and try to deal with the issues down on the ground:economics,food,water etc

  • nuid

    Thatcrab: “Clark did get a rough ride for his putting his feelings on language situations”
    .
    Got a rough ride from whom? I simply expressed my own interest in picking up bits of other languages when abroad. Either languages are something that interests you, or they’re not. A bit like football, or computers, or playing the guitar.
    .
    Later, when Clark stated that an extra language would “use up” brain power that could otherwise be used for something else, I disputed that, and said that multilingualism was beneficial to the brain. I don’t call that giving someone “a rough ride”. (Just look at the rest of this page!)
    .
    “and he was advised even by myself in someway to learn/be interested in other languages.”
    .
    Could you point me at that please? I can’t find it.
    .
    Mark: “Personal abuse or belittling a fellow contributor to invalidate their argument I believe is self perpetuating and ultimately destroys the essence of the argument for observers and should be deleted.”
    .
    I used to believe that too. Now when I see someone throwing around “as thick as pigshit” or “a bit of a cunt” or similar, I have a better idea of who/what that person is.
    .
    doug scorgie: “Nuid. Fanny flaps”
    .
    Fanny flaps what?
    .
    This whole “discussion” which was begun by Komodo (who said, “I just get sick of the uniform PC reflex-Left which predominates here. I’d like people to think about the issues raised by the uniform xenophobe reflex-Right … which are not necessarily invalid.”) has, IMO, achieved nothing other than upset. (And one claimed “conversion” the sincerity of which I very much doubt.) I vote to terminate it too.
    .
    To finish on a lighter note, seeing as it’s Friday night an’ all, here’s a little graphic (about what the British say, and what they really mean):
    https://twitter.com/gnasher72/status/234027678305513473/photo/1/large
    .
    and here’s a (non-PC) video of Olympic sailing, with commentary by an Irish comedian, which was apparently taken seriously abroad – or at least, not recognised for what it was:
    irishcentral.com/sport/Irish-mock-Olympic-commentary-goes-viral—-International-media-doesnt-get-the-joke—VIDEO-165394776.html (add prefix)
    .
    ‘Night all

  • glenn_uk

    “I vote to close comments” – why? This is free speech in action, and rather respectful and interesting free speech at that, all things considered.
    .

    Suhayl: I value your perspective, intellect, wisdom and compassion, not to mention a remarkably versatile ability to articulate. That is why I’d be genuinely interested in hearing your answer to the question I put earlier – how many people do you think we should aim to have here, in the UK?
    .
    If the answer is “no limit”, because it’s a human right to breed as often as one damned well pleases, we have a population that continues to expand. Not just in numbers, but in personal consumption per capita (and not to mention average waistline). This is more than matched around the world, and it is absolutely not sustainable.
    .
    If we’re saying not only are we going to expand internally, but we’re going to accept newcomers too, where does it end? Are we even bothering to kid ourselves any longer that there is a long term future for our society?
    .
    If people decide to massively reproduce on such an overstretched resource like this country, and this planet, we are utterly doomed and there is no serious question about that at all. Substantial reduction is our small, vague hope, together with massively improved efficiency and replacement of energy sources. Ain’t going to happen, frankly.
    .
    So what should be limit, and how should that be achieved? If the limit is reached and immigration is still considered a basic and necessary right, would we have to limit reproduction on the home front – whether that be for “natives” (if you will) and newly arrived people? We have got to face up to how to deal with a limit in population, if one accepts it is even necessary.

  • glenn_uk

    Technicolor: Apologies for my delay in responding to your suggestion that I crunch a different set of numbers, based on a proposed emigration that counters immigration.
    .
    However, that actually does suppose that a balance is desirable. Your notion presupposes that if influx approximates the outflow of people (regardless of nationality), then all is well. Are you – as appears to be the case – arguing that the current population level is more or less ideal? Because if people coming in approximates people leaving, then the only argument is one of the desirability of the race of those in this country – that is the thrust of your position. Fall on one side, and you’re a racist, and therefore wrong.
    .
    But it really isn’t as simple as that.
    .
    We can argue the toss about who was here first, what makes a “true Brit”, multiculturalism and so on forever, while the house burns down around us (and indeed, we probably will). In the meantime, humanity’s increasing weight is crushing sustainability out of the environment, comprised primarily of numbers, consumption, and the type of consumption. We are moving in the wrong direction on every front. People migrating to developed countries will most definitely move in the wrong direction on all three.
    .
    One can be in favour of this migration, and feel very good about their humanity in allowing such freedom for individuals. It’s easy to be so generous when the ultimate price for such largess will not be paid by us.

  • thatcrab

    Hi Glenn, That seems to be the overarching principle of population, squeezing immigration, but i put that against passerby’s overarching principal of lifeboat to keep it open.

  • glenn_uk

    Thatcrab: Such a notion makes it even more stark. If we accept (as any sane creature surely should) that infinite expansion on finite resources is not possible, then the one-in, one-out principle has to come into operation once a notional limit is reached.
    .
    So with your lifeboat scenario, sure – we have to take on people in need. But that means we have to discourage reproduction on the home front to an equal extent. Are we prepared to accept this necessary price? Of course not.

  • thatcrab

    “People migrating to developed countries will most definitely move in the wrong direction on all three.”
    .
    Developed countries currently have higher resource usage but lower birthrates. And 2 or 3 kid per family average is persuadable to keep population steady, as a part attempt at global population size containment, restricting immigration seems to play a highly ineffective part. We can slash our resource usage much easier than we can slash reproduction.

  • Anapa

    Passerby,
    Thanks for your comment in reply to Komodo. You typed my thoughts. I would rather have time and live with my relatives in a small village rather than being away from them in a cosmopolitan city. I wish there was no war or dictators supported by western crap who then single me out that i am an immigrant in their country.

  • Mary

    The D Mail have removed all that prejudicial copy on Stuart Hazell and there are just five brief lines now. They have a photo of him buying vodka whist he was being searched for. More muck raking.
    .
    The police have not come out of the case too well. A child could have worked out that the loft was a place to look for something hidden.

  • Mary

    The World Service broadcast a distressing documentary last night on the heroin addiction in Pakistan as a result of the opium production flowing from Afghanistan. The facilities for treatment are poor. The figures for the number of addicts range from half a million to one million on a Google search. Nobody knows how many there are and nobody cares apart from one small charity in Karachi.
    .
    Karachi heroin addicts: Cold turkey the only cure
    Mobeen Azhar
    Radio 4’s Crossing Continents
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19152346
    .
    Yesterday two more deaths of British military in Afghanistan were reported making a total of 424 since Blair joined Bush’s Operation Enduring Freedom on October 7 2001, less than one month after 9/11. Geddit? These latest deaths plus the deaths of three American soldiers in the week are barely reported amongst the swill of victories in the Oympics.
    {http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/both-died-in-the-nad-e-ali-district-which-has-been-1247484}

  • nuid

    Thatcrab:
    .
    “and he was advised even by myself in someway to learn/be interested in other languages.”
    .
    Could you point me to that please?

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Sorry, Glenn, I must’ve missed your question. Thanks for your kind words, which I do appreciate. Actually, Chris asked me and some others the same question(s), with a list of possible figures, 2-3 days ago and I answered it as best I could, then: 9.8.12, 10:37pm.
    .
    I’ve copied and pasted:
    .
    “Chris, forgive my ignorance, but I really don’t know. 6) and 7) are daft. I’m not sure the numbers game is the key here. I think it’s more about what kind of country we want to be and perhaps an acknowledgement that there has always been immigration and emigration and that these movements have varied over time due to a multiplicity of historical/economic factors. Since the time of the Norman Conquest and its long aftermath (since 1066 and all that seems to be in great vogue), there has never been “limitless immigration”, there have always been filters which have been as much about people generally not wanting to move, actually, unless they have to, nor have there ever been (to quote Thatcher) “floods” of foreigners, nor will there be. I think it’s a spectre raised to create division and fear. Technicolour’s early posts about imperial foreign policy, economic policies (neo-liberal) and the reasons people move is worth re-reading. Immigration, then, in the current global configuration is inevitable. In general, over time, it has brought great benefit to our society.
    .
    Since you asked the question, which of the seven figures would you select, and why? And why and how were those figures chosen by you?
    .
    Thank you so much for your consideration. Much appreciated. Have a good evening.”
    .
    There you go. I think that some here – like yourself, Glenn – are genuinely trying to discuss the matter of labour, capitalism and wages, and so on. But I think there is an ugly subtext, as I’ve said, which Komodo’s positions (their comments) and those of some others (eg. Old Mark, Giles) clearly exemplifies. I am concerned that the basic assumptions which allow these positions traction and power are being accepted without question by a wider range of prominent and supposedly ‘progressive’ people, say, by Ed Milliband (eg. the fallacy that immigration lowers wages). My own list of questions for Komodo – which, after 4-5 days, remain largely unaddressed, refer to subjects – Enoch Powell and so on – all raised, not by me, but by Komodo.
    .

    I would refer people once more to how this discussion seems to have begun – by Komodo complaining about/being irritated by the multi-cultural nature of the Olympics Opening Ceremony and complaining that there were too many Polish-speakers on their street. I think we are avoiding confronting the sub-text – and when I attempted to confront it, I was confronted (again, as with my attempts to confront the issue with Alfred, some time ago) by the loquacious and brilliant Nextus. I’m not sure what people are afraid of.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Mary, yes, indeed, that – heroin addiction in Pakistan – began in the 1980s with support for the so-called ‘Mujaheddin’ by the CIA, ISI and so on. It’s been a huge problem ever since.

  • Clark

    I don’t like it here since this argument. Every point I made was misrepresented or ignored by a bunch of dedicated left wingers backing each other up. They smeared my opinions without even bothering to explore what it was they wished to obliterate.
    .
    Don’t you lot realise that you’ve turned into crusaders? You’re all there to back each other up, you’re not interested in hearing any point of view but your own, you’re buoyed by self righteousness, and your ends justify your means. You seem to have no self doubt.
    .
    The roots of tyranny exist in all humans. You think you’re pure? No; you haven’t looked within carefully enough. You’ve just found a cause you consider impeccable, which absolves you from exercising your conscience as you pursue it.

  • thatcrab

    Hey Clark dont sweat it mate, it wont be the first or last clash of positions here. And dont worry about being a host while things are lairy.
    .
    Good recaps Suhayl, sorry for my pram rattling all.
    .
    The Poet Laureate writes: “We’ve had our pockets picked,the soft, white hands of bankers, bold as brass, filching our gold, our silver; we want it back.”
    Remarkable.
    .
    That might have been the first time ive heard about 1 million heroin addicts in Pakistan, a scourge.

  • DonnyDarko

    From the wings it looks like sabotage.
    If I were you I would set a limit Clark.
    And we await on Craig’s next input.
    It is a shame to watch the blog descend into the toilet.

  • Mary

    I agree totally Clark. I should think the likes of Kamm and Aaronovitch (if they come here) are laughing like drains. A complete let down for Craig’s blog. I have stayed out of it as you might have noticed. It has been a completely circular argument and what effect has it had to improve our present condition?

    PS I thought you were going away? A break from the thankless task that you and Jon perform would be good. Shut it down for the duration until Craig returns.

  • Apostate

    Re-the “liberal press”

    According to the Meeja reader discussed yesterday a sub-group of those readers who believe what they read in the papers is composed of people who can perfectly well think. However from sheer mental laziness this group seizes on everything that someone else has thought with the modest assumption that the
    someone else has exerted himself considerably.

    Together with the credulous masses, who constitute the rest of Group 1, and the overwhelming majority across all three groups of readers, these people are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them. As a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of others.

    For the mentally lazy sub-group within Group 1 the liberal media and press is the prime source of their information about the world. The liberal media spin cultivate their image as one wherein they are the embodiment of respectability and objectivity. For the most part they eschew the language of coarse expression, reject physical brutality and crusade for struggle with intellectual weapons. This spin bedazzles readers whose education has pumped “knowledge” into them but has removed them from the instinct of nature wherein full understanding is achievable.

    For full understanding industry and good will alone are no use. The undervalued and almost eradicated innate intelligence of “mass-educated” readers precludes them from taking the path to instinctive full understanding.

    The bourgeois-democratic press adopts a tone most suited to its intellectual demi-monde consumers. With fine sounds and phrases they lull their receptive soft-head readers into believing that morality and objectivity are their guiding lights.

    Notwithstanding their bogus “education” Group 3, now labelled “conspiracy theorists” and formerly known as the purveyors and readers of “backstairs political literature,” have retained that intellectual curiosity in which a genuine free-flow of information thrives.

    “Conspiracy theorists” can be traced all the way back to Antiquity. Conspiracies conducted by powerful elites against the benighted masses and their intellectual fellow-travellers have always caught the attention of the vigilant citizens.

    The recently deceased Gore Vidal averred not long before his demise that the conspiracy modus operandi was integral to the US political landscape. After all what was a political party but a conspiracy to take-over the state?

    In The Origins of Totalitarianism in 1951, Hannah Arendt blamed the phenomenon of conspiracy theory for the rise of 20th century dictators like Stalin and Hitler:

    http://www.henrymakow.com/hannah_arendt_a_jew_grapples_w.html

1 39 40 41 42 43 52

Comments are closed.