ON BECOMING DISENGAGED

I find myself in limbo. It is more of a feeling than an actual place, yet it is very much a state of being. This state where I am in, is probably the only place in which I have some control, although it is a state in which no control is required. The state of limbo is, I am quite sure, occupied by many people, and because it is so populace, we cannot see each other, although as we go about outside our homes, we occasionally recognise a fellow citizen of limbo from a comment they may make or from a look in their eye.  Some people deliberately go there and others, like myself, just find themselves there. It is a gradual shift, a sort of disengagement. It’s not stopping the world, but it is, sort of,  getting off it.

 

The French verb and phrase se dégager comes to mind.  It is a very useful and succinct way of expressing separation. It is useful for telling people politely to go away.  ‘Dégage!’ or, ‘Je me dégage’ is often heard in French films, usually spoken by some surly youth. In any event it is a passport to limbo. Je suis dégagé, or more correctly - Je suis désengagé.

 

This state of being disconnected is brought about by the endless frustration of repeatedly complaining about the state of the world and realising that one has no influence or power to do anything about it. Most of us are not politicians or public servants who are tasked by our governments to improve the situation and bring about co-operation and rational thinking. The desire to create a healthy, prosperous and peaceful existence, full of the joys and beauty of life, is clearly the main goal of our elected representatives; yet, the finding of common ground and equality is just as elusive as it has ever been.

 

Our democratic state tells us that each and every one of our votes is vital and will have great effect and bearing on our future as a result of the representatives we elect. So get out and vote. That is your power as an individual citizen. Even better, if you care so much, have the energy and the will, put yourself forward as well.

 

Not so easy, and one must have a powerful ambition to lead.  There’s the rub. Looking around the world, the calibre and quality of current leaders, and some prospective leaders, in powerful office is dismal. There are few democracies around the world where voting has any chance of bringing about real change or at least preventing a monumental political disaster. Most of the EU, the United Kingdom and North America, have had for some time (so I believe) fair and honest elections. There may be others, but there is no doubt that the coming election in the United States in November is of vital importance. Were the entire western world to have a vote then the outcome could possibly be predicted, but the vote is limited to citizens of the United States, and judging by the interviews one is exposed to over various parts of the media, the very possibility of a second Trump administration is cause for extreme anxiety.

 

As I do not have a vote I am disengaged from the process. I am disengaged from voting in all elections around the world, save the United Kingdom. Given the mode of elections in the UK, the only vote I have is to vote in the London Borough of Lambeth and Greater London. As to that, there are three Labour MPs for Lambeth, all of whom have solid Labour majorities. In a general election I can only vote in the Vauxhall Constituency.  As to more local government in Lambeth, that too is solidly Labour and my vote is limited to the Oval Ward of the constituency. My vote therefore is limited. I can vote for some local representatives directly but have no actual vote for the Prime Minister. I am in effect disconnected from the choice of leader.

 

Is it any wonder that I am in the state of limbo. There is the fiction in the United Kingdom that voters are electing a particular party to govern the country, and that it is the leader of the party who commands the vote of the electorate. It is through the leader that the voters elect a party representative, no matter what that representative is like. There is the assumption that all of a political party’s choice of representatives are merely cyphers. The fact that they are individuals does not matter. They are labels one votes for. Is that it? Is that how we are meant to vote? Vote for a party not the individual? We are voters without any say in when and how we have a general election, or any election for that matter. Voting for individuals makes little impact. Is it any wonder that I am disengaged.

 

There is of course the age old remark (not attributable to any one person) “If voting changed anything, it would be abolished”; however, I am not advocating abandoning the concept of voting. It is or can be a useful method of establishing the will and priorities of the majority, but that must be tempered with some care for the wishes and preferences of minorities. Universal suffrage is exactly that, and how we suffer in the doing of it. There is no one anywhere who does not, at some point in their lives, express a political opinion, some view as to how, where and when it is appropriate to behave in a specific way - in a manner that is generally deemed to be the most appropriate and least offensive - the most diplomatic. Overthinking this politically correct approach to life has led to much mirth and satire. It is not necessarily without merit. Careful and respectful communication can be very effective. And yet…

 

I know that I am not alone in the state of limbo. We can rage against the violence and mayhem in Ukraine, the Middle East, Myanmar, Yemen etc. We can listen to and watch intrepid reporters showing us and analysing the daily horrors, but can do nothing actually to stop it. Giving aid and sympathy to the grief stricken and the victims on the ground is laudable, but it is not stopping the carnage. Indeed the incessant and insistent news is never out of mind. How do I stop the constant internal screaming in my brain,  “STOP THIS INSANITY!”?  Is it any wonder that I am becoming disengaged?

YET MORE CRAP

I have been silent for a couple of weeks owing to the rather depressing nature of things around the world. Whilst some areas of the globe are actively engaged in violence and horrific death, elsewhere there appears to be stagnation. Western leaders make forceful statements indicating their displeasure at what is going on, but seem powerless to have any influence whatsoever.  Why does Mr Netanyahu not listen to Mr Biden et al. in the United States? Why is Mr Sunak hesitating on not supplying further weapons to the State of Israel?

 

According to UK defence export statistics for 2022 published on 17^th November 2023, by the Department of UK Defence and Security Exports, the United Kingdom had sold, on average, £4.5 Billion a year of defence exports to the Middle East alone, since 2017. That’s £22.5 bn in the last 5 years.  The same department claims that the United States has defence exports to the rest of the world of over $200 bn in the last five years. Clearly wars make money, and given a country’s requirements for funding its own welfare, business and security, that amount of income is hard to turn away from. Just how much of that trade stays in private hands or into the state coffers is another matter.

 

There is a hint of hypocrisy in summoning Israeli ambassadors to account for the IDF’s current admitted horrific mistake in killing British and international aid workers. What can possibly rectify such an error? What sort of compensation can be made and who will provide it? What is the point of the useless huffing and puffing of Foreign Secretaries, Secretaries of State, Presidents and Prime Ministers? We are no nearer a solution.

 

People have demonstrated throughout the world as well as in Israel itself to stop the war, indeed to stop all wars; yet, we have political stagnation. Our elected representatives seem unable to act and carry out the will of the people. What is the problem? What planet are we living on?

 

From what I see on YouTube and other media, those American citizens about to vote in November, appear more concerned with stopping immigration at the Mexican Border and giving support to a justly indicted blowhard attempting to bully his way into the presidency. How does he have the gall to say “There’s gonna be a bloodbath if I don’t get elected”? What has happened to America? Why is he still not on trial? How can the Judiciary allow such delay? For God’s sake America, get a grip!

 

As to the United Kingdom, the current Prime Minister is on a treadmill to Rwanda, in the belief that by some miracle his party’s inadequacy will disappear. He no longer sees the harm and damage he is causing the country with his stagnating terminal government. It is at the end of its tether. Why must we be dragged down with it?  He scoffs when asked ‘when will there be an election?’. Surely he must realise it’s what the people of this country desperately want. Why is he being so obtuse?

 

The country’s economy is all over the place. The saddest part is the poverty it is causing and the mendacity of businesses and companies taking advantage of the situation to increase their profits at the expense of the average citizen. Banker’s bonuses are no longer open to scrutiny; water companies having caused major damage and pollution, whilst pocketing huge dividends, now seek to increase prices to supposedly invest in cleaning up their mess; insurance companies are now charging exorbitant fees claiming increased risk owing to inflation.

 

In particular vehicle insurance is going through the roof, so to speak. In order to have a vehicle on the road, of any kind, there is a legal requirement that the driver be insured. This gives insurance companies virtually carte blanche to charge what they like. Owing to the increased expenditure now involved in settling the smallest claim, the cost of comprehensive insurance has skyrocketed to extortionate levels. It is as if the insurance companies are making drivers provide them with the full amount of any claim they might make down the line so that all the company has to do is settle the claim by giving the customer their own money back. They have become a sort of saving banks for road users. Save up for your own compensation and if you don’t make a claim, well thank you very much. The state is allowing insurance companies to charge you for taking your money and reluctantly giving some of it back and still pocketing the excess. That’s legally sponsored extortion. Make a claim and your premiums go up and up. 

 

How is that justified?  That not only applies to vehicles, but to all sorts of insurance. Is it any wonder that there are hundreds of insurance companies and agents. Money for old rope comes to mind, and the law allows it.

 

Our house insurance has almost trebled and a friend’s car insurance has risen to an astronomical £6000 for a year from £1000 odd for the previous year, and he has made no claim during his time with the insurance company.  

 

The following is from the Association of British Insurers website:

None of my circumstances have changed, my car is one year older, and I’ve still not claimed. So why has my motor cover price gone up?

We can understand why it might be frustrating or distressing to see prices rising when key factors such as your no-claims haven’t changed.

But recent premium rises in motor insurance have been driven by a sharp rise in the cost of claims, often at rates higher than inflation.

For example, the cost of vehicle repairs jumped 32%, with the cost of paint increasing 16%, spare parts up 11% and the cost of replacement cars increasing by 47%. These have been largely driven by the price of energy. These factors impact heavily what it costs to pay a claim for a theft or an accident. Paying claims for those customers that suffer a loss is the key part of an insurance policy.

Your quoted renewal price may also be impacted by reform in the way insurers price new and existing customers. See the below question for more details here.

Finally, as your price partly reflects the risks you face of having to claim in the future, it may be that your local area has seen more traffic accidents or thefts recently, which could mean your renewal quote is higher. Or it might be the case that your insurer’s data suggests the make or model of your vehicle has become riskier. Such factors are less likely to change quickly though, so should only account for a part of any changes, compared to bigger factors like inflation. There are also factors unrelated to risk to consider too, covered in our final FAQ below.

 

What they are saying in effect is that the customer pays the increases and the company’s profits are unaffected and consequently go up as a percentage of the increase. Insurance companies never lose money. They pay out on a claim and get it all back from the next set of premiums. Not a bad wheeze. The flimflam they give you about risk is just that, flimflam.

 

So where are we now? Your average law abiding citizen, going about their business ends up paying for everyone else’s bad behaviour in an economic system that benefits the few. The gap between the haves and have nots is widening. It is curious that migrants are fleeing countries that are described by the likes of Mr Trump and his acolytes as shit-holes. They seek to escape the crap that surrounds their lives. What appears to be happening is that the isolationist policies (Brexit – America First and other Nationalist right-wing thinking) is turning this country as well as the United States into shit-holes, which no doubt will soon see refugees going the other way. This current conservative government is doing everything it can to get us there. The very fact that water companies were given a licence to print money without any proper supervision has allowed them to dump crap all over the place.  Stockholders have benefited for years from treating this country like a toilet. Having fleeced the customers since privatisation, am I wrong in claiming that they now want the average law abiding customers to pay to clean up the mess? 

 

Just what has Ofwat been doing? On the website it states: …the website sets out how we will work with others for the benefit of customers of water and wastewater services and wider society in England and Wales both now and in the future.

 

So why have things got so bad people have to be warned not to go in the water because it can kill you, or certainly make you very sick? The web site also states:

Our strategy sets out our three strategic goals: To transform water companies’ performance; to drive water companies to meet long-term challenges through increased collaboration and partnerships; for water companies to provide best value and outcomes for customers, communities and the environment, now and in the future.

 

When does that start? Ofwat was formed on April 1^st, 1989. I guess it was an appropriate date and they have been fooling us for the last 35 years. Is it any wonder I find it difficult to sit down and write about nice things, and not go off on a rant every 5 minutes. Enough for now and perhaps more of this anon. I need to go to the loo.

A POINT OF VIEW

There is a program on BBC Radio 4 entitled A Point of View which features the view of a variety of people in the public sphere. I think it might be worth a listen to this podcast at: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001xfxk

It's only 9 minutes. You may haver to register and sign in to the BBC iPlayer to listen to the program - assuming you can get the BBC on line in the US

John Nicholas Gray (born 17 April 1948) is an English political philosopher and author with interests in analytic philosophy, the history of ideas, and philosophical pessimism. He retired in 2008 as School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

IS IT A QUESTION FREQUENTLY ASKED ?

There appears to be an outcry against smart phones. In particular ‘parents’ are worried about the effects of mobile phone usage by children and teenagers. On a more political business level, the United States Government is suing Apple in an antitrust iPhone monopoly lawsuit. It is claiming that the company has illegally prevented competition by restricting access to its software and hardware. “Apple has maintained its power not because of its superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behaviour” according to US attorney general Merrick Garland.

 

So on the one hand, excessive and addictive mobile phone usage is causing deep psychological and behavioural problems in children and teens, and on the other, exclusivity by one manufacturer is restricting other companies from greater competition and proliferation of mobile phones.

 

Indeed, the usage of mobile phones has dramatically changed a lot of human behaviour and social interaction. The increasing technical capability of mobile phones, from simple phones to include voice messaging, then text messaging and on to internet connectivity and a variety of video connections (face time, WhatsApp etc..) has indeed been a technical revolution which has dramatically changed social interaction. The drive to combine computer innovation with personal communication and enhanced capabilities has been relentless.

 

Before any of this got going, I can recall reading the ‘funny papers’ and marvelling at Dick Tracy’s two way wrist radio which began in 1946.  Now, we have the smart watch which seems to be an even more compact personal computer. The implanted chip may well be on the verge of making us all cyborgs.

 

So where do we go from here? There is no doubt that the addictive effects of the smart phone are causing significant disruption and changes in our behaviour, and not just in children and teens. Sleep patterns and other aspects of our behaviour have been modified. How did we manage before the proliferation of mobiles? It takes an effort to remember. The telephone box or kiosk in stores, on the street, at airports and railway stations were prolific. The dial was eventually changed to push button and the method of payment and connection was simplified. Can you remember “Push button B” or was it A? Some people could somehow tap the cradle buttons and get connected for free. All very different now.

 

As to meeting up with friends, arrangements were made in advance or one just turned up. It was a more fluid and clearly more interactive approach to relationships. One spent more time with friends and relations in person, out of necessity and circumstance. Of course one could spend a lot of time on long phone calls, but that was more to do with distance and with close friends and family. It was also in addition to personal contact.

 

The telephone was usually on a table in the hall. The long lead, the extension and multiple phones around the flat or house came along for convenience and increased usage. So far as businesses were concerned the installations of multiple lines and switch boards were introduced. There were many operators and an information service along with telephone directories galore. So much paraphernalia and many people were involved with telephones. When one called one always spoke to a person. It took a while before the answerphone was introduced but one would generally speak to a living being. On the whole, the telephone industry employed a lot of people and became widespread multinational public as well as private companies.  In any event it was all people. First and foremost we interacted with people.

 

Much has changed. Now any interaction with organisations is met with interrogation and instruction by a voice telling us what number to tap, or what to say, with advice to go on line in the first place. The website should be the first port of call with its list of frequently asked questions, none of which are the one you want to ask. Also one no longer taps buttons, one speaks or swipes across an image. The style and method of interaction has dramatically changed.  The days when people walking down the street, talking to themselves and gesticulating, might be considered in need of help, have become an everyday fact of life. One does have to admire the dexterity and skill which some people - generally the young - demonstrate when texting. Of course the language we use has significantly change. When did access and impact or text become a verb? One used to have access to something or make an impact on something or someone and write a text or send a message. We now access, impact and text all over the place.

 

In any event, people being born into this world have an entirely different perspective and approach. Much of it seems to be great cause for concern. Children are apparently becoming more isolated and perhaps actually less communicative despite the ease with which they can communicate through their smart phones. They are also prone to be influenced in a negative way by the myriad of stuff that comes through to them because so much of it is crap and deeply worrying. Sadly, the scams, bullying and scatological material is as prolific as the very valuable information that is also available on the net. Unfortunately, the sad character of a great number of human beings has led to the creation of the dark web and hacking. All of this has given great cause for concern.

 

Controlling and policing the internet is extremely problematic. Blocking and editing material is far more difficult that one can imagine. The difficulty of using technology to control technology has become apparent. To attempt to ban and control the use of technology in any way is equally problematic. Making it illegal for children to have smart phones is not a solution. Because of the rather sad nature of our society and for matters of safety, for a child to be able to contact a parent or call for help in an emergency is perhaps something of a necessity.

 

The tragedy is that the use of the internet has become a weapon in the hands of some people. One finds oneself thinking about it as one does about the use of guns in the United States.  In the absence of being able to ban guns, because of a constitutional amendment, many citizens speak of “responsible gun ownership”. It is only a matter of teaching people, and children in particular,  how to look after guns and use them ‘responsibly’. What on earth does that mean?  

 

Should we now be speaking of teaching responsible use of the internet in the hope that the phishing and other forms of scamming and negative social engineering will disappear? How far can one legislate and criminalise internet activity without massive infringements of civil liberties and damaging political social engineering as well. I feel for the parents whose anxiety over their children’s stress and anxiety apparently brought about by the proliferation of smartphones, is overwhelming. I heard a mother this morning, on radio 4’s Today program, seeking to find a way forward and trying to set up a group or lobby of parents to find a solution. It only adds to one’s own stress and anxiety.

 

I confess I spend a lot of time on the internet. I enjoy the stuff I find surfing around the web. It keeps my 80+ year old brain engaged. It can be very helpful as well as deeply frustrating when dealing with officialdom; but on the whole, it’s a great invention, despite the number of scams and chicanery all over the place. One can be alert to these things. As an instance in point, when you get an email informing you that a package has failed to be delivered and you are not expecting any such package, how did the delivery firm, you’ve probably never heard of, know your particular email address? Not difficult to work out it’s for the bin. Yes there is a lot of it, and of great concern, but there is so much more to enjoy and to share.

 

I do not know what the solution is. That education should make the difference is a given, but education, like stiff sentencing for deterrence, has made little difference in world affairs. The problems in Middle Europe, the Middle and Far East, and the African continent are all conducted, discussed and debated by educated people who cannot seem to find common ground and closure of hostilities. It is not so much that one must make children aware and to beware of scams and chicanery, one must make children not want to become mendacious scammers, thugs and bullies. With the likes of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and, yes, Boris Johnson and others, so easy to spout lies and give voice to delusions, is it any wonder that some think it’s ok to behave in that way.

 

But if you want a bit of diversion and cultural education in the artistry of writers Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett, director Mitchell Leisen, producer Arthur Hornblow Jr under the banner of Paramount Pictures go to this site: https://ok.ru/video/3084433033961

 

Called Midnight, it was released in 1939, the same year as Gone With The Wind and Wizard of Oz to name but two in that extraordinary year which took the world into quite another era from which I believe we are still recovering. Anyway it’s worth an hour and a half of your time. You won’t regret it. You’ll like the acting as well.

 

 

JUDICIAL THINKING

I sometimes wonder about the process of thinking in the United States of America. In particular the thinking related to the prosecution of Mr Trump and a number of co-defendants.

In the indictment by the state of Georgia, the state wrote: “Trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and wilfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favour of Trump. That conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity.”

The group, the state charges, “constituted a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury”

Part of the evidence against him and his co-defendants revolves around and incident on the 2^nd January 2021, when in a recorded telephone call, Mr Trump asked Brad Reffensperger, a Republican serving as Georgia’s top election official, to overturn the election by stating “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state”. Mr Raffensperger refused.

The Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, prosecuting the case, has already obtained convictions of some of the co-defendants in the case who have pleaded guilty to some charges. Scott Hall, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro have all made plea deals with the prosecution..

We have had a hearing for the last few weeks over the suitability of the Ms Willis to continue prosecuting the case because of a relationship with another prosecuting lawyer involved in the case. There in nothing about this relationship that has anything to do with the evidence against the defendants. It is solely an attack on the character of the individuals concerned with the prosecution and NOTHING to do with the evidence against the defendants. I repeat NOTHING to do with the case against the defendants.

The Judge, Scott McAfee, overseeing the case, has been listening to ridiculous evidence concerning Ms Willis and has now stated that there was an “appearance of impropriety” and that either Ms Willis or Mr Wade (the other prosecutor) should leave the case to resolve that. The claim was that their behaviour had compromised the integrity of the case. The judge disagreed yet still went on about appearances. In what way? As stated before, four defendants have pleaded guilty without Ms Willis and Mr Wade’s affair causing any distraction or loss of integrity.

The insanity of the claim is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone reading about the case or listening to this charade playing out. The defence lawyers had argued that Ms Willis should be disqualified because her relationship with Mr Wade, whom she had hired, had compromised the integrity of the case. How a personal relationship has anything to do with the case against the defendants is a mystery. What has a personal relationship got to do with the evidence against the defendants?  In what way does an affair between Ms Willis and Mr Wade affect examination of the evidence against the defendants for conspiring to commit acts of racketeering in Fulton County, in the State of Georgia? I repeat myself  as I am baffled.

If there is any impropriety, it is allowing the defence to even have a hearing about their contention that it does. The failure of the Judge to take a firm hand and give short shrift to the hypocrisy of the defence’s proposition makes one very concerned about his ability to conduct a trial where the defence will do anything to try to divert attention from the facts in evidence. Mt Trump and his co-defendants behaved like gangsters and are continuing to do so at every opportunity. It is so glaringly obvious to the rest of the world, yet, apparently not to the citizens of the United States of America, and worryingly not to the judiciary either. When are the courts going to actually take serious decisive action against the chicanery of Trump and Co.?

NOT A GREAT DAY

On the 7^th December 2023 I posted a blog entitled Stop the Boats – A Solution which can be found at: https://fbuffnstuff.blogspot.com/2023/12/stop-boats-solution.html.

I commented jokingly:

 

 “I would have thought the best thing to stop the dinghies would be to supply safer transportation across the channel, straight to an airport, show them the Welcome to Rwanda Brochures and send them on their way with a cash bonus of £20,000 to help them get settled once they arrive. Better yet, just fly them straight from the nearest airport in France.”

 

We now have the following report from BBC News by reporter Kate Whannel, 13 March 2024:

”UK to pay failed asylum seekers to move to Rwanda under new scheme:

Failed asylum seekers are being offered up to £3000 to move to Rwanda under a new voluntary scheme. The plan, first reported by The Times, is understood to be a variation of an existing voluntary returns scheme, where failed asylum seekers receive cash to return to their home country.”

 

So where are we on the question of deterrence? The mixed signals presented by the variety of strategies to implement the Government’s Rwanda scheme are bewildering. Does anyone in the Home Office or, indeed, in the entire executive government of the United Kingdom, have any idea of what they are doing?

 

David Neal, who was serving as independent inspector of borders and immigration from March 2021 was fired from the position last month, and has yet to be replaced. His view of the department has been less than complimentary. He is quoted as saying immigration failures went to the top. The Home Office is dysfunctional and in urgent need of reform, the recently sacked independent borders inspector has told the BBC’s Today Podcast.

 

I would go further and suggest that the entire government is dysfunctional and in urgent need of reform. I do not understand what the Prime Minister is hoping will happen between now and the formal end of the current Parliament on the 17^th December 2024.  Allowing the 25 working days to prepare for the election, it must be held on the 28^th January 2025, but surely it should be held within this calendar year. To continue to drag things out as if their legislative program had any hope of long term validity is delusional in the extreme and decidedly counterproductive and injurious to the nation as a whole. This conceited, selfish self-serving clinging on to power is an embarrassment of colossal magnitude.

 

The present conservative party’s machinations over the last 13+ years have weakened and destroyed the character of the United Kingdom. They have produced a self-centred egotistical society with serious economic and cultural divisions, more prone to dishonesty and violence then ever, through their austerity measures and failure to maintain the public services essential to the well-being of a modern nation. National Health and Education have been reduced to a shambles. The damage inflicted has been so deep that any new government, no matter what their political persuasion, will have an almost impossible task of recovering and remedying the situation. I say ‘almost’ out of some vestige of hope, as I cannot be so thoroughly pessimistic.

 

The very wealthy in any country can do what they like and go where they please without any worry. There is also a comfortable middle class that, at the moment, can carry on and lead reasonable normal lives, but not without some anxiety that their security could come crashing down. The bulk of the population is struggling, although it might not appear so on the surface. That state of affairs seems to apply to most of the developed democratic nations. It is certainly the case in the United Kingdom. I may be wrong and, if so, I am willing to be corrected.

 

As to the United States I no longer have any idea. The political landscape can only be described by reference to the Grand Canyon, the divisions are so deep. The current tendency to idolise and support a psychotic demagogue, despite his overt criminality, pending convictions and overwhelming unsuitability to hold any office, is staggering. It will be an end of the great experiment of 1776 and after 248 year it will perish from the earth. What is so sad is that it will take a lot of the rest of the world’s democracies with it.

 

As you can tell I am not in a particularly happy frame of mind this morning. I will go and have a nice lunch to cheer myself up. Thankfully there is still a kitchen to escape to.

WHAT'S IN A PLAY

Celia and I recently went to the National Theatre to see Dear Octopus, a play by the novelist and playwright Dodie Smith, which was written in 1938 and opened in London at the Queens’ Theatre, on the 14^th September 1938.  In her book, Dear Dodie: The Life of Dodie Smith (1996) Valerie Grove comments:

“The real first night, at the Queens Theatre on 14 September 1938, began gloomily. The crisis in Czechoslovakia was on everyone's mind. During the first half, the house was subdued, faces grave and laughs few. It seemed to have become dull. Then, in the first interval, a dramatic deus ex machina, Charles Morgan, arrived from The Times with news, which spread like wildfire through the theatre, that Neville Chamberlain was flying to meet Hitler at Berchtesgaden. It was as if the whole audience breathed a sigh of relief. And from then on the play went superbly, and built to a magnificent reception."

The play opened at a time the world was in turmoil and so it is now.  There is a passage in the play which has particularly stayed with me. It is a dialogue between Charles and his sister-in-law Belle, who at one time had feelings for Charles. It comes in Act II, half way through scene three:

 

BELLE.

You've never written your book Charles, or gone into Parliament.

All the things you planned as a boy

CHARLES.

I've never done any of them.

BELLE.

You would have done if you'd married me.

CHARLES

I wonder. You women are much too fond of fancying you can make geniuses of men.

And anyway, there are far too many books written and far, far too many people in Parliament.

BELLE.

Don't pretend Charles. You had great gifts.

CHARLES.

Not really, Belle. You see, when I came to have a little leisure to explore the minds of other men, I found that everything I wanted to say had been said by someone else. I was always expecting to get some epoch-making new idea, but I never did. I think I might have had a shot, at politics—but there were so many far more important things to do.

BELLE.

What things?

(The dance music stops. Talk and clapping can be heard.)

CHARLES.

Surely you have realized that any house that contains Dora also contains a number of Little Jobs? You would be surprised, for instance, what a very large number of shelves I have put up and an almost equally large number 1 have taken down. (He walks down c.) Then there have been children to play with, dogs to take walks, gardens to plan, neighbours to visit.

BELLE.

And you call these things important?

CHARLES.

I do indeed. I call the sum-total of any man's happiness important.

BELLE.

Have you been happy, Charles

CHARLES

So happy that I am sometimes tempted to erect a statue to myself. I should like people to be reminded that happiness isn't quite obsolete. (He goes back to BELLE.) Have you been happy, Belle?

BELLE.

That's rather a cruel question.

The exchange is very much of its time. Indeed it is very similar to the sort of emotion and thinking taken up by Noel Coward in This Happy Breed written in 1939, again written during a world at war. The idea that the family is paramount. It is a toast to the family, “To the family—that dear octopus from whose tentacles we never quite escape, nor, in our inmost hearts, ever quite wish to."

What strikes me most however, is the phrase “You’ve never written your book or gone into Parliament. All those things you planned as a boy”.  How many of us have stumbled over this thought? Most of the people I know must have had the notion, although I can think of a number of friends who have at least done the writing, and one or two who have dipped into the pond of public office. Having done neither, I greatly admire those who have.

During a particular discussion at a friend’s house, over dinner. I was asked by the host “If you had been Prime Minister of Israel on the 7^th October, what would you have done?”.  My first inner thought was, if I was prime minister anywhere at this particular time, what would I do? It is an easy question to ask. Indeed, how often have we heard journalists ask opposition politicians during an interview “What would you do?”. There is never an easy answer. I like to think, that if I had been Prime Minister of Israel, then October 7^th would never have happened and there would be peace in the middle east.  

Nonetheless, we have what we have. Would my response have been different from Mr Netanyahu? Again, I like to think so, but the emotions of the moment and the feelings of rage and despair being felt by so many around one, would make the decision exceedingly difficult. There is a scene in Lawrence of Arabia (co-written by Robert Bolt) which depicts the Arab Army who come through a village that had been devastated by the Turkish Army. They pause looking out at the Turkish troops in the distance:

 

Is it not an easy scene to watch any more than the current flow of newsclips from Ukraine or Gaza. “Not this” is all one can say. Think of the future is all one can ask. There is a road to Damascus.. In the meantime there is the horror. There will come an end and there will come some kind of resolution. Whether it will be sufficient to end the heartache and resentment among the participants to the carnage, one can only hope. Agreements are tough to maintain. The Good Friday Agreement of the 10^th April 1998 still manage to hold, although on occasions it may seem fragile. Curiously it is a hovering peace that one hopes will settle solidly on the ground.  So long as talking continues that should happen. ` I do not know what prejudices have been handed on to the youth of Northern Ireland during the last 26 years, but the fact that the current first minister, Michelle O’Neil is from the Sinn Féin political party, is some progress towards normalisation. 

The other matter brought up by the dialogue in Dear Octopus is the excuse proffered for not writing the book or seeking public office “I found that everything I wanted to say had been said by someone else.” Too often have I found, in reading journals and other publications and listening to broadcasts and discussions, that much of what I feel deserves attention or consideration, has been ably and clearly expressed by another with a wider platform and access to a wider audience. In some instances by a public servant, journalist, writer or commentator. Quite often amongst my friends and acquaintances, which is probably why they remain friends and acquaintances. I tend to avoid confrontation and continued association with people who have opposing and strongly held views. That would be my loss. Sometimes confrontation can be instructive and even helpful to clarify or improve one’s own thoughts.

Once, in conversation with some people, I heard one person remark to another, after that person had expressed an opinion on a certain matter “A lot of people think that” to which came the response “Oh really? I must change my view at once”. I don’t think I am quite a contrarian as that, but perhaps I should change my mind about a lot of things. A damascene moment is perhaps just around the corner, but in the meantime should I take no prisoners?

I MIGHT CHOOSE FRANCE

I was listening this morning to the Today Program on BBC Radio 4 and a couple of members of the House of Lords were interviewed in relation to the Rwanda Bill now before the House of Lords for scrutiny, amendments and approval.  The bill is the fabrication of the Government in response to the Supreme Court’s decision against deporting refugees to Rwanda on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to declare that Rwanda was a safe country. It was drafted to override the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and any legal pronouncements by the Court of Human Rights.

 

The apologists for the Rwanda Bill such as Michael Howard are amazing in their duplicity of thought. Whilst arguing that Rwanda is a perfectly safe country, and people should have nothing to fear by being sent there, he firmly believes that the policy is right and will act as a deterrent to people attempting the journey across the Channel from France. He added this at the end of his interview on the Today program this morning.

 

“After all France is a perfectly safe country…  and if people have the option of staying in France or going to Rwanda it’s a fair bet that they might choose France”

 

So Rwanda is a safe country, but the prospect of being sent there is so awful that the risk of being sent there outweighs the risk of crossing the channel in a rubber dingy. I wish someone could explain that is more detail.

 

The other argument put forward by Lord Howard was that the unanimous decision of the five justices was wrong and overstepped their role as unelected judges in deciding government policy. The separation of powers is rightly accepted, but it is for parliament to decide on such matters and not the judiciary. Parliament is sovereign in all matters. The Divisional Court had stated that the Rwanda Policy was lawful and this bill is to restore the status quo that Parliament is sovereign. It is not for unelected Judges to adjudicate against that, which the government claim is what the Supreme Court did. Parliament is accountable, they are elected representatives, the Judges are not. In respect of the separation of powers, in this instance the court has overstepped the mark.  

 

So what we have is effectively a constitutional issue relating to conflict of law and legislation or rather argument as to the interpretation of legislation by the courts. What is legislated by parliament becomes law. The courts enforce and interpret the legislation with regard to the law as written in the statues produced by the legislature together with the already existing common law - at least what little of it still exists. If the Government thinks that the courts have wrongly interpreted the law, then it can produce legislation clarifying the position, to better reflect the intentions of Parliament. Which is what is going on at present.

 

Before that happens the proposed legislation must be approved by Parliament, which includes the House of Lords, although the final say is down to the House of Commons. Fort5unately in this case, not everyone agrees with the likes of Lord Howard, even though the majority of the Lords is made up of Conservative Party adherents.  There are some ex-conservative ministers who disagree radically with Lord Howard. Lord Kenneth Clarke being one.

 

The Rwanda fiasco is the policy of our present Conservative Government. There is the matter of the separation of powers – executive, legislative and judicial – but this government’s party majority in Parliament is such that its policies, no matter how stupid or venal, are bound to get through. In effect, because of the nature of the system - Government always being made up from the majority parliamentary party - the executive and legislative end up being one and the same. So the only other separate power to scrutinise and balance the workings of the government is the judiciary, who are, quite rightly, left to be independent. The judiciary ensures the continuance and strength of the rule of law. Parliament may make the law but it is the judiciary that has to enforce it and bad law can sometimes be found to actually be contrary to the rule of law. Hence clarification is sometimes necessary. The Government can do what it likes up to a point. The judiciary have a duty to make that point to the government,

 

What also surprised me about Lord Howard’s interview was that he kept referring to Parliament being sovereign and saying elected representatives are the ones who are accountable, as opposed to judges who are not elected. Parliament is not just the House of Commons, which he seemed to be implying. The House of Lords is not elected either, yet it is part of the Parliament. Are the Lords not accountable? Should their views be ignored as well? Every person is accountable for his/her actions. It doesn’t take a vote to decide that.

 

Parliament may be sovereign, but it too is subject to the rule of law. Legislation based solely on opinion and not on fact and evidence is a poor basis for creating law. Those politicians who proudly proclaim to act on their belief have led us into the worst of nightmares and wars. The not so long ago belief in non-existent weapons of mass destruction is an instance in point. Deterrence has not worked as an effective policy since the severity of the Hammurabi Code nearly 4000 years ago. If it had, the world would be without violence or dishonesty.

 

Which brings us back to the Rwanda policy. Deterrence or fiscal necessity. Cheaper to send the refugees abroad that to have to deal with them in the UK? Either way is expensive. Given the numbers that are likely to be sent there and the cost involved per individual, it may be more economic in the long run to let them stay, find employment and start paying taxes. I know that’s not so simple to do in this day and age by anyone, let alone a refugee; but, it may be more profitable as time goes by.

 

In any event, I don’t know, just expressing an opinion on the options.  To paraphrase Michel Howard, France is a perfectly safe country, if people now had an option of staying in France or going to Brexit Britain, it’s a safe bet they might choose France.

DEMOCRACY SOLD OUT

 

The Supreme Court of the United States is no longer to be seen as an independent institution and part of the checks and balances built in to the Constitution of the United States. The separation of powers in government is a bedrock of American Democracy and the independence of the judiciary is vital in upholding the rule of law. The judiciary is there to prevent the executive branch of government or the legislative branch from becoming a dictatorship.. The Supreme Court has been the final arbiter in the legal system establishing the limits to which the executive and legislative branches of local, state and federal administrations can exercise their power. The principle that no single individual is above the law within that framework is at the core.  The rule of law is paramount.

 

To even consider the argument that the head of any executive branch of any organisation is immune from upholding the law is tantamount to accepting dictatorship. To even make the argument is, in my view, an outrage. Mr Trump’s attorneys have stretched the concept of immunity for the holder of the office of President of the United States well beyond its limits. The argument that a sitting president is immune from prosecution of any kind unless or until he is formally impeached and found guilty by a two thirds majority of the senate is despicable. That any individual would be allowed to kill off any opposition and remain in situ is preposterous, or is it that Mr Trump would seek to emulate Mr Putin for whom it appears this doctrine applies.

 

The founding fathers, unfortunately, never contemplated a leader capable of such mendacity, chicanery and criminality as Donald Trump, and so, in deciding on the question of a finding of guilt by the Senate, chose a two thirds majority rather than a simple majority. They clearly shied away from unanimous as being too onerous or difficult to achieve. One also has to bear in mind that when the constitution was established the senate was a much smaller body of 26 people, which is only a quarter of the current membership; however, the fact of presidential impeachment has nothing whatever to do with the basic principle of law. No person is above the law, and most particularly when it comes to crime.

 

It is of course possible for a person to be granted judicial immunity by the State for individual offences, but only in exchange for testimony against other offenders. No one has blanket immunity because of office. That would be contrary to any public policy in any democracy across the world. Dictatorships are another matter, but be that as it may, for the Supreme Court of the United States to even hint that the lower courts’ unanimous decisions thus far need any examination or debate is, as one commentator put it, “selling American democracy down the river”.

 

Not only is the decision to accept the question atrocious, but the scheduling and delay is deliberate interference in an overdue prosecution of Mr Trump and his co-defendants, some of whom have already pleaded guilty. The court knows full well what it’s doing as they could easily schedule and settle the question in a matter of days. This court is no longer worthy of any respect and has merely prepared the planks for the coffin in which to bury the last vestiges of democracy in America.  

 

If the American voters do not come out in fury at this outrage then there is no hope for what we have come to think of as the free world. All we will have left is a Trump dictatorship and a Putin autocracy. East and west with the bodies pilling up in between or accumulating in the frozen north and south.

 

There are too many conflicting energies at large in the world. President Macron suggesting western troops on the ground in Ukraine which would no doubt lead to an escalation of war. There is also a call for a prolonged cease fire in the Middle East, which is having little effect in the face of Mr Netanyahu and his supporters. Violence in the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea and Yemen continues. The list of conflicts supposedly in the interest of restoring peace is growing. Why does it always seem necessary to create carnage to bring parties to a conference table?

 

My anxieties continue to fester, what with the inability of governments to come to terms with its citizens. Elected representatives are meant to work at improving the lot of the individual citizen by improving the lot of all citizens. There is dissatisfaction on all fronts. In France, farmers are turning signs upside down, to indicate their world has been turned upside down. In the UK strikes, never before contemplated by personnel in the NHS, have become repetitious, as have actions by rail and transport workers. Politicians are always declaiming what ‘the people want’ when in fact they are merely claiming what they want. Representatives no longer care about what their constituents actually think, but are so immersed in bolstering a party line that they will say anything and make the feeblest excuses and arguments to support the party line, and at the same time claiming opposing parties have no plan whatsoever. It is no longer about what the people actually want and need, it is about staying in power. Keeping the job is all that matters. Public service is mere lip service. In the UK the electorate is somewhat at sea, floating like refugees on the Raft of the Medusa waiving rags to attract the attention of some distant saviour on the horizon.  Never has a painting been more appropriate to the current human condition across the world. One can only ask, what has changed in the last 200 years besides the capabilities of a mobile phone, which is actually useless in the middle of the ocean without a network? We are left with waving rags for any kind of attention.