The ConservaLaboural Democrats

Welcome to the new political system in the United Kingdom, folks, initiated in 1997 when Tony Blair and his bunch of wet 'Noo-Labour' colleagues swept to power in one of the biggest landslide victories ever seen in the UK.  I call them the 'ConservaLaboural Democrats'.  This means that there is one single party with three wings - a left, a right, and an 'I'll go with whoever's in charge'.

In essence, you can't tell the difference between our three main political parties.  The Conservatives, Labour and LibDems merged in 1997 when it was decided that a single policy of flushing the British way of life down the toilet for evermore would guarantee success for whichever party got into power in a General Election, who would then simply continue the policy of the previous Government, but wear different coloured ties.

Actually, the seeds of this merging were sown even earlier, when John Major took office back at the tail end of 1990, but it was Blair's first attempt at targeting the 'middle England' vote that sealed it.  Since that time, the price of property began to go up and up and up and it was bound to burst one day.

It did.  In 2008.

Someone in America realised that you can't loan people money for a property that they don't have a cat in Hell's chance of paying back.  Oh, how I bet they wish they'd kept quiet.  Stock markets tumbled the world over, and this was great because everybody could now say that the recession was a global one and it was always somebody else's fault.

And on that ticket, the British Conservative Party swept into power via a landslide hung parliament that demonstrated fully the British public's complete indifference to any of the political parties, because they were all essentially the same.  That was in 2010.  When David Cameron asked the Liberal Democrats to join them in a 'coalition', they couldn't believe their luck.  They said, 'Oh, yes please, we quite fancy a spell in Government, it could be the only chance we ever get.  Policies?  What policies?'

If we thought Labour under Gordon Brown were bad, and they were, we were in for a rude shock.  The Conservatives have showed us in three short years just was inept government really looks like.  Their essential means of 'debt reduction' was to make some what they called 'very difficult decisions' because 'we're all in it together.'  Both of these statements have been proved to be a lie.

First, those 'very difficult decisions.'  What were they, exactly?  Oh yes, to aim their sights at the poor, weak and vulnerable and fire everything that they had at them.  Disabled, sick, elderly, unemployed and public sector workers were all shot at.  Hundreds of thousands of public sector workers were made redundant in an effort to get them employed in the 'private sector,' except that didn't work, did it, because there were no jobs for them.  Businesses couldn't afford to pay them because the banks weren't lending them the money to do so.  Then, some bright spark in Ian Duncan Smith's Department for Work & Pensions had the genius idea of restructuring the benefits system, because if you rename the benefits then you've got an excuse to make everybody re-apply for it again.  Go through all that humiliation that many sick and disabled feel again just to get a few quid off the Government because they've changed its name.

But that wasn't the best bit.  No, the best bit was to tell all those already suffering that, if they didn't do what the government told them, they would lose that few quid each week (that they'd probably paid for themselves anyway through years of National Insurance and work health care plans) unless they worked for nothing at whatever jobs they were told to do.  Thus, wheelchair-bound sufferers were told that, if they could move their arms a bit, there's no reason why they couldn't pack people's shopping at Morrisons.  See?  Get the poorest in society to give something back to those who are clearly superior to them because they are putting money into a large business' coffers.

Ian Duncan Smith has had the balls to suggest that disabled people doing such work are being paid by the taxpayer to do so.  He does this without even blinking.  They are not even getting a minimum wage, they are being forced into Soviet-style labour camps to receive the benefits they were getting in the first instance.  Brilliant.  Big business is laughing, because they get free employees thanks to the Conservatives.  Yeah, that was a 'really difficult decision.'

Don't forget, middle-England and marginal seats are where the votes are to be had, so any political party will amend its policies to buy their votes.  Hence, the Conservatives added a strong dose of The Politics of Envy into their 'difficult decisions.'  They justified the above by telling voters that why should such-and-such on benefits have a flatscreen television and a car when Joe Bloggs works so hard and can't afford as nice a car as their neighbour has.

But the Politics of Envy will backfire on the Tories.  After all, there are many millions of people wondering why it is they work so hard while millionaires in Government fiddle the rules so that they can claim mortgages from the taxpayer, and hundreds of thousands of pounds in expenses for things like food and paperclips.  A nurse doesn't get her travel to and from work paid for by the taxpayer, why should an MP?  A teacher can't travel first class to school, why should an MP?

MPs expenses amounted to a whopping £89 million in 2011-12!  That's 26% more than the previous year, and totals £160 million in just two years.  Every time an MP buys an iPad, you pay for it.  Oh, and corporate tax-dodging has cost you, the taxpayer, £700 billion in the last decade.  How's that for the politics of envy?

And that's before I even start on the amendments to the Health & Social Care Act 2012, which comes into full force on 1 April this year.  Oh yes, folks, say goodbye to Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts, they're all going and essentially any health service or department is up for sale to private enterprise who can see profit in it.  I'm sure it's just coincidence that over 140 members of the House of Lords and even more of the House of Commons have interests in companies that would profit from the demolition of the NHS, including Baroness Bottomley, a director of BUPA!

Don't get me started on the Bedroom Tax, either.  Look, middle-England, Joe's brother Fred Bloggs has a spare bedroom and he's on benefits!  Cut his welfare!  Of course, the DWP can justify this by saying that the taxpayer pays for his benefit, so they have the right to cut it if they can think of a reason.  And yet the Queen, and other members of the Royal Family, live in palaces so large, with literally hundreds of spare bedrooms, swanning around claiming millions of pounds worth of state benefits each year, and we let them carry on.  Thousands of corporate business men and women, bankers, lawyers, stock market gamblers, and companies like Google and Starbucks take billions of pounds from the mouths of starving middle-Englanders in unpaid taxes, but I don't see George Osborne and his cronies going after them.  No, that would be a really 'difficult decision.' x

Diary Entry Number 1

When you belong to so many online forums, blog sites and social networking sites, it is sometimes difficult to keep up with it all because you don't want to have to keep writing the same things several times over. Therefore you find that things like blog sites get left by the wayside. I am going to try and address this situation by putting the more mundane elements of my life in this blog. Day 1.

Here I am sitting on my own in my living room because I'm in too much pain to do anything. The pain is in my shoulders my arms my legs and my back. I am actually lying on a bean bag on the floor in my living room. I am using my phone to write this blog because it has a speech recognition function which means I can speak the text and I don't have to write it. My hands tremble too much for me to write a text on the phone.

Those of you who are used to my perfect grammar might be slightly disappointed to see some grammatical errors on this blog. I apologize in advance for this and can only put it down to errors in the speech recognition, as well as my own inability to understand how things work on this phone.  For example, I have no idea how to make this phone do a full stop. Every time I say the word full stop it writes it in full instead of putting a full stop. So I have to stop writing and put 1 in. I also have to correct things where the speech recognition device gets it wrong and I may miss some things. Once again, I can only apologize for this.

As I said before, it is not very likely that I'm going to get much done today. Some days, the cocktail of painkillers that I take just don't seem to work. I sit here trying to read but the pain prevents me from holding a book properly. Some days I could just weep. I just wanted to tell you that. Otherwise not much else is happening. So I will sign off for now and perhaps write some more later. X

TIntern Abbey

Yesterday my dear wife Jane and I visited Tintern Abbey, one of the first Cistercian monasteries ever established in Britain.  Today, it is known as one of the Great Monastic Ruins of Wales.  It is situated not far from the A466 and the A 48, south west of the Forest of Dean; frankly, it is one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen within the United Kingdom (with the possible exception of the Highlands of Scotland).  It takes about 45 minutes to get there from our house in Drybrook, Gloucestershunt.

It was a gloriously sunny day yesterday, and I had promised my wife that we would go somewhere local, which would mean that the journey was short and therefore not too painful for my medical condition.  I drove, which is painful for my leg but better than the pain of going over an unexpected bump in the road - at least I have some control knowing when the bumps are about to hit.

Anyway, back to the Abbey.  According to Wikipedia, the Abbey was founded on 9 May 1131, by Walter de Clare, Lord of Chepstow.  It is the inspiration of poetry by scribes as diverse as William Wordsworth, Alfred 'Lord' Tennyson, and Allen Ginsberg.  It is only the second Cistercian foundation in Great Britain, and the first in Wales, the first British one being from Waverley, Surrey, in 1128.  It is an extraordinarily beautiful place, but not a great deal of the original buildings remain.  Most of what we see today dates from the 14th Century, including the magnificent Abbey building that is the centrepiece of the present-day site.  Unfortunately Tintern, as did every other monastery in Great Britain, fell victim to Henry VIII's Dissolution of the Monasteries, which began in 1536, in which all the monasteries were disbanded, their buildings and assets sold off, and an eventual whopping total of (in 2012 financial terms) almost £500 million was raised for government (and therefore the King's private) funds.

Nevertheless, Henry VIII could not destroy the building itself, which, although left to ruin, has lost none of its magnificent power.  The Cistertians could not have chosen a better site.  The surrounding forestry is beautiful, and the subsequent village is also a beautiful one.  The River Severn flows nearby, and Jane spent a wonderful 20 minutes or so sat on a wall just enjoying the sound of the river flowing behind her.  Next, we went for a tour of the building.  Oh, and the car park machines were not working (I suspect these machines date from a later period than the Cistercians), so we got free parking, and through my disability got free entry as well.  So all in all it cost us - nowt!

Upon entering the site, the first areas you pass through are the more 'domestic' ones.  These include the kitchens, the servery and the 'latrines.'  Few of the walls remain, but there is a lovely serving hatch still there which gives a vivid reminder that real people once lived here.  It is a favourite habit of mine, when going through historic sites of any kind, to imagine myself with those whose habitation this once was.  Actually being there at the time that the site was active, so to speak.  And it is usually little things like serving hatches that help to bring places like Tintern to life.  What was once the kitchen is now nothing more than a cement floor, all but the wall with the serving hatch are now gone.  Other non-religious parts of the Abbey include the monks' Dayroom, which still shows the bases of four stone pillars that apparently once supported a vault.

To the church itself.  Well, as a non-religious person, I can only say that it is one of the most beautiful ruined churches that I have ever seen.  Jane was concerned for the health and safety of those who had built it, given that the roof of the church would have been so high (there is nothing of the original church roof left). What is amazing is that a building such as this was ever left to ruin. Many of the building's original window frames are still in place, but not the glass.

I don't know what I'm doing...

Follow this blog

Simultaneous Blogging Baby!

Check this out, folks, I'm actually writing two blog posts at once!  I'm actually blogging here, at The Life of Meaning, and over at Word Press, where I'm equally disinterested in life, the Universe, and most things.  You see, when one has nothing better to do all day than sit and stare at the wall, these crazy ideas tend to pop into one's head.

Any road, up, I am spending this Sunday morning copying films from my Sky Plus Planner onto DVD.  Let those corporate pigs try and stop me!  BBC 2 seem to have struck some deal to buy up loads of films from the RKO Radio archive.  Last week we had the 1935 Katharine Hepburn film Sylvia Scarlett, and on Saturday it was the turn of Fred Astaire in The Sky's the Limit (1943) and Cary Grant in Every Girl Should Be Married (1948).  They've all gone on DVD, thanks very much, Auntie.  Oh, and that's not to forget the season of Fred & Ginger movies the Beeb have been showing over the last 8 weeks - every last one from Flying Down to Rio  (1933) to The Story of Vernon & Irene Castle (1939).  Of course, any film buff worth their salt will know that does not represent the entire body of work those two made together, because there is one more film, The Barkleys of Broadway (1949) that the two made together over at MGM.  This film did not begin life as a Fred & Ginger vehicle; it was supposed to co-star Fred with Judy Garland, but the then Mrs. Minnelli was so addicted to prescription painkillers that she was not deemed fit enough by producer Arthur Freed to star in the film.  So, in came Ginger Rogers.  Incidentally, it wasn't the last time Judy Garland was kicked off a film - in 1950 she had filmed over half of Annie Get Your Gun before being fired.  Things had to be serious to get booted off a production - all studios panicked about costs, and to do that to a major star meant some serious shit was going down.  That same year her contract was torn up by the studio and she made just one more film in the next decade - A Star is Born in 1954 at Warner Bros.  But I digress.  The Barkleys of Broadway is not an RKO film but it does appear in my boxed set of Fred & Ginger movies - a great set that is too.

So, thank you, BBC2, for continuing to show these great films.

Speaking of digressing, that reminds me - a great-looking film is out in January - entitled The Artist, it is a brand new film from director Michel Hazanavicius about a silent movie actor's fears as the whole of Hollywood adapts to the coming of sound.  Movie buffs, especially those of the "Classic" film, will notice a certain similarity with the 1952 musical classic Singin' in the Rain, but here's where The Artist is different.  It is a 100%, bona fide silent film - possibly the first made during the sound era since Chaplin's Modern Times in 1936.  I say possibly because no-one can be 100% sure, and I'm sure that one of the many thousands of you will correct me if, as is quite likely, I am wrong.  And, if the buzz surrounding Oscar is to be believed, it could be the first film to win the coveted Best Picture Academy Award since Wings in 1928 to be completely devoid of dialogue and, indeed, sound effects - viz., to be silent.  I hope it wins

Well, blog-watchers, I'll stop for now because, as I mentioned, I'm actually writing two at once today.  I've no idea how to link to one blog whilst writing another.  All I can tell you is to go over to WordPress and look up stephenbutler.
x

It's Oscar Time!

Dear Blogwatchers:

So much for my promise to keep updating this blog on a more regular basis. Since I last wrote to you, so much has happened outside my window that I just had to sit there for hours on end and stare at it. Early in December, it snowed. Early in January, it went all foggy. How much more exciting could it possibly get than that?

Anyway, the announcement today of this year's Oscar nominations made me think of both of you, and I resolved to blog upon this subject for your edification.

First off, let me make it perfectly clear that the Oscars were never meant to get this big. The first ceremony, which took place in 1929 I believe, was a reasonably formal dinner in some hotel in Hollywood when, at some point during the evening, a few announcements were made giving the Tinseltown community's views on what the best films of the previous 'season' were. All the winners were known prior to the ceremony; there was no surprises, no gushing speeches, no red carpet and no E! Entertainment channels making 3-hour programmes on the nominees' dresses.

This year, there are 10, yes ten, nominees for Best Picture. The Academy's choices are now so stale and predictable that you can practically name them all the day after the previous year's awards.

For the record, here are my predictions for the year's winners in the major categories. Bear in mind that there cannot be a 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' style clean sweep of the major awards this year:

BEST PICTURE The King's Speech

BEST DIRECTOR Tom Hooper (The King's Speech)

BEST ACTOR Jeff Bridges (True Grit)

BEST ACTRESS Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Christian Bale (The Fighter)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech)

BEST SCREENPLAY (Orig.) David Seidler (The King's Speech)

BEST SCREENPLAY (Adap.) Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network)

BEST MUSICAL SCORE Alexander Desplat (The King's Speech)

BEST SONG Randy Newman ('We Belong Together' Toy Story 3)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY Matthew Libatique (Black Swan)

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS Alice in Wonderland

BEST ART DIRECTION Alice in Wonderland

BEST COSTUME DESIGN The King's Speech

BEST FILM EDITING Black Swan

BEST MAKEUP The Wolfman [only 3 nominees???]

BEST SOUND EDITING Tron: Legacy

BEST SOUND MIXING Inception

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE Toy Story 3

So there we have it. Even I can't take this as gospel though; if Jeff Bridges wins, he will become only the third actor in human history, after Spencer Tracy & Tom Hanks, to win Best Actor two years in a row, so that in itself makes it unlikely, no matter how good he is. And Bridges always delivers. Speaking of True Grit, one must also consider the merits of a remake gaining so many major nominations. It begs the question...why? Academy voters, I can assure you (because I know one or two of them) will be reluctant to go for Bridges since John Wayne won his only Best Actor award for the original film. Wayne's Oscar was seen very much as a sympathy one, after years of far superior performances failed to gain even a single nomination. The same accusation cannot be levelled at Bridges, since, as I have mentioned already, he already has one statue on his mantlepiece, for last year's Crazy Heart.

According to my predictions, The King's Speech will win 6 Oscars, Black Swan will win 3. Toy Story 3 and Alice in Wonderland will win 2 each, with one each for Tron: Legacy, True Grit, The Social Network, The Fighter and Inception.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but I fear Danny Boyle will walk away empty-handed this year, as will the makers of Winter's Bone, and The Kids Are All Right. Despite the predictability of the nominations, some categories are still a complete mystery: why, for example, only three nominees each for Best Makeup and Best Animated Film. Certainly in the latter category, there has been such an enormous deluge of CGI 'animated' films in 3-D that I could come up with more than three nominations without even thinking. Where, for example, is Shrek: Forever After, a far superior film to Toy Story 3. Yes, you heard it here first. Well, probably not first, as I would expect many other sad and lonely bloggers to be writing exactly the same on their unread dissertations.

There are a couple of categories where I was a little unsure about my decision. Best Supporting Actress could go any one of the five ways; I picked Helena Bonham Carter because of the fact that 'life partner' Tim Burton is up for several awards for his Alice in Wonderland, and it could make for some great photo opportunities at the after-show party. Best Original Screenplay is quite a strong category this year, and again it could go any one of the five ways here.

It would be silly of me to speculate on the categories for Best Documentary, Best Short Documentary, Best Foreign Language Film etc., etc., because I haven't seen a single one of them.

Hey ho, we look forward to February 27. The Oscars this year are sponsored by Hyundai, by the way.

Oh, you asked for it...

Yes, folk:

Just a brief note to inform you that, as of today, I hope to be updating this here blog on a far more regular basis. Why? Because I can. And I should. I have discovered over recent months that places like Facebook, as fun as they are, are not the place for the likes of me to be posting impotent rants about the state of the world and the world of the State.

Plus, it's almost time for me to nominate my now-annual Stephen Butler Prize for the album of the year. Start baiting your breasts and wait for the opening of That Envelope. I would do one for Film of the Year, too, but I've only seen three and they were all in 3-D and they were all animated. I could pick a winner out of those three if you like.

Remember the old adage, folks: Smile, and the world goes 'What the f*** are you smiling at?'

I'll be back sooner than you fear...I mean, think.