Written by Joe Downing    Saturday, 21 November 2009 13:44   
Return to sender
Comment

Joe Downing why the uproar over Gordon Brown's misspealt letter was more than a typo...


Last week Gordon Brown misspelled the name of deceased soldier Jamie Janes on a letter of condolence sent to his mother Jacqui. The letter was said to have been hard to read and untidy, which Gordon blamed on his eyesight.

I don't think we should be angry at him for this. For a start, until writing this I thought the soldier's surname was “James”, which is what the PM wrote. I certainly don't know anyone called Janes and neither does my spellcheck. Perhaps it should have been flagged up by one of Gordon's team but they probably couldn't make head nor tail of it either.

I think the business surrounding the letter, and Brown's failure to bow properly at the cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday, sky-rocketed out of proportion because the writers at The Sun and the other unofficial members of the Brown-hating club were making it as clear as possible that they think he's an idiot.They know that it doesn't really matter if he bows or not. A letter doesn't matter to them, it's just politics.

People are angry at Brown because they can see that so many men are dying in Afghanistan. I suppose not bowing or keeping abreast of your admin looks as though you don't appreciate what the soldiers are doing. Even Sun journalists, unless of course they have shares in oil or the arms trade, would want to see soldiers coming home alive (they are human).
 
But by actively supporting withdrawl, the public and especially the Britain-loving-tripe-pedalling right-wing writers are accepting that the war is pointless and that our soldiers are losing. Rather than 'our boys' unconditionally dying for Queen and country, they died for nothing. People don't want to believe that, so they don't speak out against the war. On Remembrance Sunday they bought poppies and muted 'Something for the Weekend' for two minutes. In reality the right-wing press can't ever support an end to the war, they propagate the idea of empire, flags and fighting.

Instead these journalists carry on like it's a war with a real enemy and purpose. They look desperately for someone to come up with a 'reason' to be at war which nobody can give them, blaming Brown for this lack of imagination and conveniently forgetting that they're a massive part of the opinion-forming press. They wax lyrical about better protection and support, and seem to think that a limitless amount of money can make soldiers immune to the dangers of war, but it's being at war which is 'the unnecessary danger,' not slightly-less-than-perfect helicopters.

In an article about Brown's letter, the Daily Mail quickly turned to the war in Afghanistan and observed the irony of there being 'limitless money available to bail out the banks and not enough for protection in war'. This observation was pleasing. The bit about spending any more money on war is ridiculous but at least the Daily Mail has identified the worst drain on the budget.

So what about printing off more money and developing jobs in crucial green industry for young people? Janes is one in a never ending cargo of fatalities from Afghanistan. Young men and women like him will join up for work in the army as long as there are few jobs. People join the army because it will always open. If you came from a less fortunate background and did badly at school you will have effectively stopped learning at about 14 and become embroiled in the well-known tailspin of not understanding and misbehaving at the back of the class. It is about providing a sense of self-worth.
Join the army and you can leave the Job Centre, returning a sense of pride and responsibility that is not fulfilled by other options. If the country spent money on the lucrative public sector we would give people the choice between workplaces.

The Mail will point you to the poorest people in the country: you can turn out their pockets and find the 'billions of [pounds] poured into benefits, the greatest moral evil of broken Britain'. They say 'the welfare state has eroded the incentives of the poorest members of our society to build better lives for themselves'.

So, there are jobs but people are just too occupied in embossing the terraced house with gold leaf to bother taking them up?

What about Jamie Janes? Son of mum-of-six Jacqui, he attended Hove Park Comprehensive in Brighton where students' attainment on entry is below average, especially in literacy. Janes began his army career at Harrogate Foundation College at 16, and was fighting by the tender age of 18.

It would look like Jamie's situation proves that in fact, not content waking up at midday and playing state-subsidised PS3, people who have no other options are perhaps forced into a career in the armed forces.

The army is an employer like any other, the difference is that this one isn't trying to sack workers or cheat employees to maximise profit. There are always jobs in the armed forces because the service it provides is paid for by us and serves us. All I'm saying is if this was the model for green energy, trains, social building... you've got the idea, fighting would not be such an appealing way to make a living.

The Mail was right about the banks; they have shown us that money is available if we need it. But don't spend any more on war so that more young people end up flying home in boxes. Stop the war and spend on jobs and services.

The sad truth is that for Gordon, all the names blend into one. No one will really be happy until Gordon's letters to unsuccessful X Factor contestants are the sum total of his weekly communication. People are angry because they know Jacqui's letter is not the last.

 

Comments
Add New
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Title:
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Newer news items:
Older news items:
 
Author of this article: Joe Downing