What's In A City?

For those of you who don't know, with it being Jubilee year the Queen got the chance to create a new city within the UK.  I guess there have to be some perks to doing the same job for so long.  In order to be eligible, towns and boroughs bid for the chance to be that city, obviously spending a certain amount of public money to do so.  My borough of Tower Hamlets was one of them, however it didn't win.
Now, if there was some tangible benefit of being a city then it might be worth punting a few quid on it.  However if you are called a city then that is it - simply, you are a city.  You do not get tax breaks or to make your own rules any more than you can anyway, it doesn't give you the chance to build a toll gate for everyone who wants to come in, or probably in some cases for those wanting to get out.
So why would you bother?
According to the Tower Hamlets mayor, it would provide extra investment and was backed by businesses.  Personally I start running for the hills as soon as I find out that something has been backed by business since it therefore probably benefits big business in some way and nothing more.
It is far more likely that the mayor saw this as his chance of creating his legacy, to become the mayor who made Tower Hamlets a city.  It would certainly add to his after dinner speaking credentials.  Much more than, say, the mayor who brought food waste recycling to every resident, or perhaps the mayor who created pelican crossings that work in favour of pedestrians and not cars.
Whatever the reason, in a world where less and less money is being spent on public services, my mayor decided to spend even less by giving his ego a boost by betting on something with extremely long odds. He would have been better off buying us all a lottery ticket which would have provided investment to small shops who have lottery machines, a portion of which would have gone to charities, and if anybody won then they would probably also spend their winnings locally.
But then, I doubt 'business' would have back that, would they?

London Loop - Upminster Bridge to Harold Wood

We walked the next section of the loop today, albeit a much shorter one than before in order to break up a too long section; in total it was roughly four and a half miles.

We started back at Upminster Bridge, in sight of the windmill that is in Upminster itself, and after a short walk through a nice housing estate we came across it again while crossing a railway bridge.  It is about two hundred years old and was still being used up until the 1930’s.

From here we passed through three frosty fields, although the sun was surprisingly warm.  It was good that the fields were frosty since they would otherwise have been quite muddy.  In one of them sat two old leather sofas, on which sat some teenagers.  It’s a situation I only ever imagined happening in American films, but maybe that’s where they got the idea from.

 

At the far edge of another field was a pony having either a late breakfast or an early lunch.  He took very little notice of us since his food was obviously far more interesting.

 

A nice stroll across the Ingrebourne again and through some lovely damp smelling woods before we hit upon what we both hope will be the nastiest part of the whole loop; roughly one mile of walking alongside a busy road, only half of it with actual pavement, the rest with grassed verge.  Not nice.

However, we were rewarded by getting to Pages Wood, a lovely area with paths going all over the place, trees and this very cute ‘Duck’ bench.  It would be lovely to have somewhere like it very close by in which you could spend an hour just strolling. 

 

The woods fed into Harold Wood Park, which was very large and would be a great place to play and spend time.  I have to admit that the cricket ground and pavilion looked lovely and I could imagine it being a great place to play.  From here it was just another short walk to Harold Wood station and the end of this walk.

Riot of Questions

Luckily I was out of London during the riots a fortnight ago, and luckier still, despite living in east London, my home and area was not affected. However, it has not stopped me pondering them over the last two weeks.


Despite all that has been said in the media, there is still no particular cause cited and I doubt that there ever will be. After all, very little is being said now anyway since the news moves on very quickly these days.

That there is something inherently wrong with our society is obvious and as far as I believe, it is down to one simple thing and to many things all at once. The worship of money as the saviour of our souls is the problem, along with all that stems from it.

We are constantly bombarded with advertising for clothes and cars, possessions, status ideals, and it cannot be coincidence that the majority of things looted were fancy trainers and jewellery. It wasn’t the basics such as food. Is it no wonder that people feel like they’re failing in life if they do not have these things?

Money causes far more problems that it solves. Give someone money and it never be enough, they will always want more. Give someone a flatscreen TV and they want it with HD. Give them one with HD and they want it to be surround sound with 3D capability and a Sky subscription.

People also want to work. Some people think that they don’t, probably because they’ve seen their parents without jobs and never worked themselves, but deep down they want to feel part of society, to contribute, and surely the only way to do that is through work?

It is ridiculous to have a society where people flog away for 60 or more hours per week, while some do nothing. Surely it would be better for everyone if we all worked 25 hours a week and that it was enough to get by?

There is also too much expectation on people to be and have to be completely independent as young as possible. To have your own home, with all mod cons, at 21, along with everything your parents worked towards for forty years. Years ago children stayed at home with their parents until they married, contributing something towards housekeeping, and saving for the future. Now it’s all spend spend spend on themselves and living as far away as possible. Is it parents pushing their children out, or expectation on behalf of the children that they should have it all now? I don’t know.

I have posed more questions than answers, and the only answer I can come up with is that the only true way forward is a completely moneyless society in which people understand that as long as they have food in their bellies, a roof over their heads, a job to do, and family and friends nearby, that they need nothing else.

It must also be a society in which we are all equal, no matter what job we do, no matter whether we are male or female, in which there is also no concept of ownership, other than everything owned in common by all.

Unfortunately the recent experiments in Communism within Russia and China have shown that this can still go wrong, however those societies did not abolish money and ownership and perhaps that’s where they did go wrong?

I’m no expert in these things, I have no idea whether it would actually work, or how you would bring it about, and perhaps it’s nothing more than a utopian dream, but I like to think that it’s a dream worth having.