We Get What We Deserve

As the steel industry collapses around us and people bemoan that we have lost coal and all sorts of manufacturing to cheap imports, I ask if we have brought this upon ourselves.

Over the last few years we have demanded cheaper and cheaper goods in our stores.

Supermarkets are in competition with each other to sell cheaper food, at a cost to the farmer or producer. We moan about cheap labour being brought in to pick fruit grown here, but we won’t work for that rate ourselves, yet we want the fruit as cheaply as possible. And we want everything, now! Gone are seasonal products. Gone is the joy of waiting until summer to have strawberries for tea, you can have them at Christmas if you want. But only if they are cheap enough.

We want cheap clothes and shoes, so shops bring stuff in from places where labour is cheap, because we can’t make things for the same price.

Fifty years ago my mum used to work in a London sweatshop (you couldn’t call it anything else) and made dresses for Marks & Spencer. Everything was made to the highest quality, all the dresses had proper hems not just a running stitch around the bottom. Even in those days competition was stiff for the cheapest products. Even in those days the skills needed for making clothes was being forgotten.

Once upon a time, not long ago, the area in which I now live was the centre of the UK hosiery and shoe business. Both industries lost out to cheap imports. You can probably buy tights and pop socks at the same price as you could ten years ago.

Where wages are reasonably high we have become a throw-away society. Cheap clothes that are worn a couple of times are easily replaced instead of treasured for years. Too much food is bought because it was cheap and didn’t really break the bank, so it doesn’t matter if it is thrown away; except it does because it has cost farmers and fruit pickers money to produce it in the first place. Gadgets are bought and replaced with a click of a button on the internet. Shipped in from China, Japan, India or Korea. Nothing is made in the UK.

The mantra of “Go compare” has replaced value for money. And there is a difference between those two even if they sound the same. We are encouraged to seek the cheapest rates/deals/products in every walk of life. To some extent this has always been so, but now it has become so intense it risks wiping out the profits of every industry on which we depend. Business is simply that. Business. It is there to make a profit for its shareholders and for future development and although that has become a dirty word to some, without profit there can be no tax gathered from it. Without tax the infrastructure of the country is dented. Without infrastructure the country cannot survive. Pensions depend on profits from shares and investments. The future of our food and welfare depends on being prepared to pay the correct price for the things we need and allowing business to make a profit instead of a loss.

Our future also depends on said businesses paying their dues, too. Stop all the legal tax avoidance that has been going on for years.    

What has Women's Lib done?

Now I want to point out before I start this blog that I respect every modern woman who is fighting for equal rights today and don’t want to lessen their achievements or their aims. What I would like to do is point out to some of the younger people amongst us what it was like for women when I was young and what equal rights has meant for us.

Suffragettes had already won the right for us to vote. Women could train as professional people although not many did. But I’m talking about the day to day equal rights that women did not have.

The marriage vows used to say ‘love, honour and obey.’ For those who took the vows seriously and not as just something to say to get married, this was a very restrictive vow. An example of what this meant is illustrated very well in the Doctor Who episode The Wire, where a very mean spirited man rules the roost. This vow was changed to ‘love, honour and cherish.’ Not sure when but it was in my lifetime as I can remember the debate about the change. Quite a debate it was, too!

When a couple got married the woman took on her husband’s name. In all formal communications she was addressed as Mrs John Smith. Even the Guide Association adhered to this right into the 1970’s. Imagine that. The second half of the 20^th century and women were still addressed as if they were the property of their husbands. No wonder women were campaigning for equal rights.

A woman’s income was not taken into account when applying for a mortgage or other major loan. It was expected that women would stop working to raise children. Even if the woman earned more than her husband, her salary would not be counted. It was the husband who bought the property, not the woman.

And the thing that everyone is familiar with – women got paid less than men for doing the same sort of work.

So this is where we were in the nineteen seventies.

Have the changes made a difference and have we benefitted?

Obviously it is great that women are no longer considered as merely an appendage to their husband. Equal pay for equal work is equally valued although it is still not universal.

But not all pushes for equality have been good, in my humble opinion.  Looking back, it seems to me that the massive increase in house prices started when people could get bigger mortgages because two incomes were allowed. I was on the cusp of this change. We bought the house that was to start our family solely on the basis of one income and have stuck to that policy ever since. I must be one of the last generation to be able to say I gave up work to have a family and have never done more than part time work mainly because I was bored not because we needed my extra income.

I never wanted a career (apart from writing) so I was lucky. I never needed to work thanks to a hard working husband who actually loves working and doesn’t want to retire. But I do feel sorry for all those who have to work in ordinary jobs, the office workers, the shop assistants, the receptionists, the call centre workers, the people who keep things going for the high flyers, who now have to work all their lives to help pay the bills, where once they could take a break while the kids were growing up and maybe go back for a second chance later in life.

Being a working mum and then expecting everyone to lend a hand looking after the kids is something I never had to do. I suppose it is the way of life these days. The current government seems to frown on stay at home mums. But then again the number of stay at home mums is dwindling as mums can’t afford to stay at home. I have never been a great advocate of maternity leave, which may be surprising. I believe that if you decide to have a baby then you should be certain you can afford to have it without returning immediately to work. By immediately I mean within six months to a year in which time you get a certain amount of pay plus a guarantee that your job will be waiting for you when you decide to go back. Obviously there are lots of unplanned babies, so that makes things more complicated, but you can understand some employers being reluctant to take on women if they might have to pay for them not to work. And it’s the ordinary jobs I’m talking about again, not the high flyers.

Society is changing. Women need to work while they are also raising families. I’m not sure if this is good or bad. Mixing in nurseries can be good for children, it helps them to socialise. But it gives less time for them to learn from their parents on things like moral values. It makes it harder for children to relate to parents. Their carers are the people who tell them what to do, why should they listen to parents who do little but get them up in the morning and put them to bed at night? It is possibly too early to say how these children will react when they reach adolescence and adulthood but this could be the reason for the ‘entitlement’ culture that is growing as parents give their children everything they demand maybe subconsciously trying to make up for not being there in the early years. I’m not a psychologist so I’m probably talking rubbish but it is something to consider.

I do think dads should be allowed a limited amount of paternity leave. New mums need help and it can be a very lonely place in those first months. Maybe dads should have every Wednesday off for the first couple of months so that mum is never left alone for more than two days at a time. This may help reduce the incidence of post-natal depression. Just a thought.   

All in all, I do appreciate the steps that have been taken in equality. But I do feel women need to make up their minds just exactly what they want. We need women to have children, otherwise our species will die out. It is a fact that this job cannot be given to anyone else other than a woman. It is time to think that this as equally important as building a house or working in a shop. Maybe it is time women were paid to have children, freeing up thousands of jobs on hold because of maternity leave and re-establishing the pattern of young people taking jobs until they started a family then giving up their jobs for young people to work, or for older people to return after the family raising break.

Just my thoughts. 

Great British Benefit Handout - Myth

My last post was tongue in cheek. This one is not.

I really hate and despise TV programmes such as Great British Benefit Handout and Benefit Street, and equally hate and despise the people who produce and appear in such shows. These people are NOT the norm for people who are claiming benefits in this country. Yes, undoubtedly there are some who use and abuse the system, there always have been and there always will be, it’s part of human nature. But the vast majority of people on benefits are those who genuinely cannot find work or are not fit enough to work.

Those who suffer possibly more than others are single, middle aged people. These people may be single for many reasons, bereavement, failed relationships, have spent years caring for parents, or simply they are people who are happy to live alone.

Not all benefit claimants are uneducated workshy layabouts. Some have degrees. Some have worked for years in industry or commerce or the civil service, but have been put out of their job because factories have closed down, commercial firms and councils of all sorts have had to cut staff and it’s usually the more expensive, experienced staff that are offered redundancy. Middle aged people again, who can’t find the expected alternative job because what young inexperienced manager wants to take on someone who knows more than them?

I’ve just gone through my bills and worked out how much I would be paying if I paid them weekly.

TV £5.60  - more expensive if you pay weekly than monthly, quarterly or annually.

Water - £10 is the minimum you can pay weekly if you get a nice adviser on the contact line.

Power – My power bill works out to £27 per week, paying dual fuel by direct debit which gives me discounts. Many people on benefit have to pay by pre-payment meter, the most expensive way to pay but they can choose how much to put on the card, which probably won’t keep their homes as warm as mine.

Council Tax - £28. I have no idea if this equates to a cheap or expensive area. Probably middle of the road.

This adds up to £70.60 and I haven’t bought any food yet, or clothes.

Anyone claiming housing benefit has to pay Bedroom Tax (I refuse to call it anything else) of £12 per spare room per week, even if there is no alternative accommodation available for them to rent.

Benefit for a single person is £72 per week.

So every week single people claiming benefit are having to make the choice between heating their homes or eating if they want to keep all their commitments up to date.

There is no money to run a car. There is no money for bus fares! Yet the DWP expects job seekers to go out every day to canvas firms for work. They expect job seekers to submit application forms and CVs unsolicited to places, yet there is no extra money to pay for paper and printing let alone stamps. They expect everyone to use the internet to look for jobs even if they haven’t got a computer and cannot afford the bus fare to get to the nearest library. It would be something like a £6 round trip by bus to my nearest town, and probably just as much if I were travelling in a city.

This is the Great British Benefit Handout. This is why there are so many food banks. This is why those who are too proud to seek help are literally starving in an affluent country.

This is what makes me angry.

Of course, this would not make sensational television. It would not put benefit claimants in a bad light and make them scapegoats for a failing government. 

Don't Let Valentine Get You Down

I am writing this for all the people who have not received cards, flowers or chocolates. Do not despair. It doesn’t mean no one loves you if you are in a relationship, it means your loved one has more sense than to spend money on overpriced things that he/she could buy any day of the year for much less!

    Yes, I’m being my usual cynical self. I have known my husband for well over forty years and we have never given each other a valentine’s card or gift in all that time, yet I am secure in the knowledge that things are good between us and always have been. He brings me cups of tea in bed if he is not out working. He makes me breakfast in bed most Sundays. He never moans about the time I get up in the morning!

    When I was at school, St Valentine’s Day was a laugh. We waited to see if we would get a card from an unknown admirer and that was the point. It was supposed to be a surprise, not something from someone we already knew loved us.

    Since Valentine lost his sainthood it has become nothing more than a commercial opportunity, just like Mother’s Day, Father’s Day and Halloween. I won’t put Bonfire Night in the same category because that is surprisingly low key considering how long it has been going. (Did you know it used to be law that you had to celebrate the capture of Guy Fawkes?) And I won’t mention Christmas which is the biggest commercial opportunity of them all with many businesses depending on a good Christmas for survival.  

     Now instead of a simple card, gifts and treats are expected, not just for new lovers (you can expect them to be overly indulgent) but everyone is encouraged to take part.

     So how does this affect people uncertain of their relationship? I’m sure there must be floods of lonely tears shed when that card, box of chocolates or bouquet of flowers does not turn up. Let alone when someone is not whisked off for a romantic meal.

     The people I feel sorry for are those who were born on the 14^th February. Almost any other day of the year they could go out for a meal with family and/or friends on their birthday at no extra cost. But on or near Valentine’s Day ‘special’ meals are put on in pubs and restaurants which are often more expensive than normal meals, especially if the day falls at the weekend as it does this year. My local pub is making Valentine’s Day last all weekend, with a special meal on Saturday and Sunday.

     Maybe it sounds like I’m complaining unnecessarily. But what I’m trying to get at is you don’t need one particular day to show that you care for someone. You can buy them chocolates or flowers any day of the year; you can treat your loved one to a meal any time. And the more unexpected it is, the more appreciated it is (unless your partner thinks you are guilty of something, of course! Ouch, I just bit my tongue). And you can show them your love without spending a fortune just by the way you behave. All year, not on just one day.

    And having one day when everyone is celebrating having a loved one with them, it brings to mind all the loved ones who are no longer with us, bringing grief instead of joy.

    So all in all, the only people to really benefit from Valentine’s Day are the retailers. So as my daughter said in a Mother’s Day card she sent me a few years ago, 

                                                         Happy Hallmark Greeting Card Day!

Paperbacks available

Two of my books, Shattered Dreams and Silent Love are available in paperback.
If you would like a signed copy either message me here or contact me on Facebook for full details.

Great gift for Christmas!

Education not Legislation

It was reported, today (26^th August 2015) that assaults on women on public transport have risen to such an extent that an MP is suggesting the introduction of women only carriages on trains. This is a massive step backwards in many ways and should never happen.

    For decades women have campaigned for equal rights. From the suffragettes who sought the right to vote, the women of the 1960s who burnt their bras in protest at discrimination, right up to the women of today who are still fighting for equal pay for equal work, women have struggled for their place in the world to be alongside men. Now someone is saying they should be segregated, presumably for their own safety, much as they were in the Victorian era.

    This is wrong on every level but mostly because women should be able to walk the streets and travel on transport without fear of innuendo or assault. MEN should be brought up to understand that ALL people deserve respect and that includes women. Just because a woman is attractive, smiles at you or makes eye contact for a second, it does not mean you have the automatic right to touch her in any way let alone assault her.

    Maybe I’m looking at the past through rose tinted glasses, and I am sure there were exceptions, but when I was growing up this is how women were treated. It was all part of the courtesy that was shown to women. Undoubtedly wife beaters, rapists and other undesirables existed but I never felt threatened when travelling alone on crowded buses and trains in London.

    You cannot legislate away bad behaviour. Instead it must be made clear from an early age that every person has a right to their own body; that making inappropriate contact with anyone is wrong. No matter what age, what culture, what creed a person is, no one has the right to make suggestive remarks or gestures that put another person in fear.

    Men cannot turn round and say the sight of a woman led them to behave in an inappropriate way. Men should be in control of their own bodies; difficult I know, when it was designed before civilised behaviour was the norm, but there it is. I have never quite agreed with the Islamic view that women must hide their bodies so as not to incite men. This medieval idea was also prevalent in the middle ages throughout Europe and we have managed to see a women’s hair or ankle without immediately possessing her – most of the time!

    No matter how a woman behaves or dresses, when she is travelling she should feel safe. She should be able to stand next to a man in a crowded tube train without worrying about what will happen when she gets off. She should be able to walk to her destination without fear of being followed or attacked. No matter what the time is, whether it be during the work-a-day rush hour or late at night.

    The idea of women only carriages is totally unworkable. Most trains don’t have enough carriages at the best of times, let alone have spare ones for women only. And how many women do you think there are travelling at any one time? Quite possibly as many if not more than men.

    And women need to be educated as well. While I’m not offering it as an excuse or a get-out clause, men DO react to what they see around them. They shouldn’t, but they do. It’s nature taking hold, the thing that has kept every living thing on the planet producing the next generation.

    But above all else, respect should be the order of the day. Only by ensuing everyone understands this will we create a society where it is safe for everyone to not only travel in safety but walk the streets without fear.  

Whingey Teenager Ads

Have you ever noticed that advertisements seem to go round in cycles? One agency picks up on an idea and then suddenly everyone is doing it – or maybe that one agency is using the same format for more than one client. There is a new one on the radio at the moment that is really driving me to distraction. I can usually filter out advertisements, even enjoy some of them, but this one is enough to make me want to turn the radio off and never switch it on again!

     Someone, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that the voice of a nagging whingey teenager is a good way to make people buy things. This is so wrong on several levels.

Nearly every parent suffers the pleading of children wanting things. The long drawn out Muum or Daad, usually on three notes, can I have…? whatever the latest gadget, gismo, musthave is. At one time the answer would be a firm NO or Maybe for Christmas. These days parents seem more willing to give in. Not sure why. Maybe a compensation for something missing in a relationship, maybe a guilt trip for not providing what the precious child wants. It is a constant, unending, trial that never seems to end.

     So what makes the advertising industry think people will respond to an advert of a child asking for something? As parents or grandparents, we hear enough from our own children not to want to hear it from someone else’s.

     And what products are suitable for this sort of campaign?

     The first one was for a mobile phone, or maybe it was a particular network. See, it was so effective I can’t even remember. But it was for something a teenager would want, something to keep up with her friends. So not only are poor parents being whinged at by their own children, they are getting it from the radio, too.

     The latest one that is really incomprehensible to me, is for a car. Same whingey teenager approach, ‘my friend has one, please, please can we have one.’ But since when was a teenage girl interested in cars. She goes on to describe the benefits – as if she would even know about the things she is talking about. It is worse than being told to buy a car by Jeremy Clarkson!

     I really do not understand the mentality behind this advertising campaign. It’s bad enough that children whinge and whine to get things from their own parents. Who thought this approach would work in adverts convincing sensible adults that they need to buy something recommended by a pleading child? Let’s face it, what do children know about the pros and cons of an item? Their friends have a bright, shiny new toy, that doesn’t mean it is the best bright, shiny, new toy. Have they done the research, checked technical reports, compared the reviews of technical experts? No. they have played with their friend’s bright, new, shiny toy and want one. This is how substandard, low tech, items become best sellers.    

     And then there is the assumption that everyone will give in to this whinging child. If I had my way I would take that said child and lock her in her bedroom until she learned not to ask in that whingey voice, that new things needed to be earned not given just because they are wanted.

     Or am I missing something here?

     I really hope this is not an ongoing style. I’d rather listen to the Go Compare man or the Meerkats!