Karachi   ->   Sweden   ->   Karachi, again   ->   Dubai   ->   Bahrain   ->   Karachi, once more   ->   London and Leeds

Saturday, July 27, 2013

The Boss in Leeds (or why politicians love industrialists)

So, The Boss visited Leeds this week. Bruce Springsteen was the first one to play in the newly completed £60m Leeds Arena. Previously, he is said to have visited the city in 1985 where the concert was held in Roundhay Park.

Bruce Springsteen - Leeds Arena - 24th July 2013
Bruce Springsteen - Leeds Arena - 24th July 2013 by Bradford Timeline

In another side news, some traffic warden issued parking tickets to the lorries carrying equipment for Bruce Springsteen's performance at the arena. Leeds City Council felt very embarrassed about it, and cancelled the tickets afterwards. This is what Leeds City Council had to say about the cancellation of the fine:
We accept this is a little embarrassing but the attendant was doing his job - if a little too efficiently," said a council spokesman. "When you prepare a city to open and host a huge, state-of-the-art new venue, you're bound to get the odd teething trouble ... Having considered the special circumstances, [Bruce's] tickets were quickly cancelled.

I wonder what's so embarrassing about it, and why weren't their clear instructions about it in the first place? If I am a ticket warden and my duty is to issue tickets, why would my boss be embarrassed about issuing tickets?

And when I wonder, my mind wanders...

Why is it that politicians are so much "in awe" of industrialists and capitalists? If a political figure is representing a common man, and they all surely claim to do so, why he/ she be so humble and flexible for those who are clearly not common?

‎(Comic) Does money give corporations more access to government? [yes]
(Comic) Does money give corporations more access to government? [yes] by mysticpolitics

Well, it surely has something to do with money. But not all politicians are corrupt; may be not entirely corrupt. But their love for industry and capital is ubiquitous.


So, this is what finally makes sense to me: A politician, even a genuine well-wisher-of-common-man type, wants to decide the fate of people; that's why he/ she is in politics in the first place. To do so, they require money. And the money comes from "big shots." The collective tax collected from common man must be peanuts as compared to sales and other corporation taxes collected by the government. So, modernisation is in the favour of politicians---it empowers them with more money to make decisions about the life of others; they will always like to do so, even if the common man is better off without the "modernisation" that they want to impose.