THANK YOU TIM - FOR THE MEMORIES

I have hanging above my desk a photograph taken by Tim Page in Cambodia at Prey Veng in 1993 during the United Nations Transitional Authority (UNTAC) in Cambodia. This was a United Nations peacekeeping operation in that country from 1992 to 1993. According to Wikipedia, this was the first occasion in which the UN directly assumed responsibility for the administration of an independent state, rather than simply monitoring or supervising the area. The photograph rather echoes, for me at least, Théodore Géricault’s painting of The Raft of the Medusa, painted in 1818-19.

Sadly Tim died  24^th August 2022 in Brisbane, Australia. He very kindly gave us the photograph as a thank you for staying with us, when he was last in the UK. A more than generous gift.

I first met Page in Los Angeles. He was living in the Echo Park district of the city. It was 1978 and a mutual friend Ernie Eban had requested I bring back a suit that he had stored at Tim's place in Los Angeles. As I was going to LA, Ernie thought it a good opportunity to get the suit back. On arrival at the apartment, it was suggested that I should take the entire suitcase back to London. This was quite beyond expectations, but I did take the suit and a couple of notebooks back to London. There was a coffee on offer and we sat in his front room next to a pot plant, from which we periodically pulled leaves to roll up and smoke. It turned into a very pleasant and lovely late morning into afternoon. The sun was shining, the sky was blue, it was a classic California dreaming December day.  I next saw Tim in London, six months later, when he came to see a theatrical production of Michael Herr’s book Dispatches adapted for the stage by Bill Bryden at the Cottesloe Theatre in June of 1979. The sun was shining, the sky was blue, it was an unusual June day in London, and it turned into a very lovely evening with some of the leaves that somehow remained of that pot plant in Echo Park.

There are many more memories of lovely afternoons and evenings, with Tim and the leaves.

WE STILL HAVE A BIT OF CACHET

I apologise for past behaviour. I am informed that my blogs are too depressing and full of tedious statistics. My friends do not need to be assailed with grumpy and annoying ennui. It might also smack of preaching to the converted; not that my friends are in any way grumpy or brimming with annoying ennui. Indeed, most are upbeat, but with a realistic appreciation of present world difficulties.

I believe they are discontented with the current political leadership, in particular, a conservative government that seems intent on fulfilling some notion of small central government. At this exact moment they are demonstrating the positive effects of no government at all. Mr Johnson and his cabinet have ceased to govern. The strikes on the public transport network are being echoed by the government, but not just for the odd day, but for the last four weeks and continuing for another two weeks at least. Everything has been put on hold till the 5^th September, when it is assumed that government will go back to work.

In the meantime, no repressive legislation will be enacted and the country will not do anything to breach international law. The only thing to worry about is the ability of the NHS to cope with the fallout of inaction, increasing inflation and whether or not some citizens will manage to survive the assault on their savings/income, and likewise small businesses, including farmers and the self-employed, as well.

If and when the Government returns to work under the new direction of Ms Truss, then the full horror of her regime will reveal itself as she “hits the ground running”. If would be lovely if she hit the ground and kept on running away, but that is another dream. In saying this, I do not seek to sound curmudgeonly. It must be accepted on faith that there is a tongue in the cheek. La langue dans la joue as the French might say, but never do.

There was an editorial in the Economist in connection with the current conservative party leadership election. It reads:

Britons will not choose the next prime minister: he or she will be imposed by the Conservative Party’s factious members. They are facing a choice between an urbane technocrat, with a sounder grasp of what needs doing, and a tested politician, with a cannier instinct for how to do it. As prime minister, Mr Sunak would be unlikely to act foolishly, but the job is inherently political. Ms Truss would be a riskier bet, but may also be more likely to succeed. Whatever their reasons, it looks as if the Tories have opted to be risk-takers. They may be proved right. 

I find it difficult to accept this view of the prospective contenders. To describe Ms Truss as a tested politician with a canny instinct for doing the job, makes me throw hands in the air shouting “You cannot be serious!”. That she may be ‘more likely to succeed’, and that the local Conservative membership in selecting her ‘might be proved right’, renders one speechless.

Ms Truss, even more so that Mr Johnson, has only an uncanny instinct at strategic condescension. She will dress the part and say anything her audience wants to hear; in the manner they would like to hear it. She will adapt her whole persona to play the part her audience most wants her to play.  I have no doubt she has a stylist, voice coach and PR guru to assist her in dressing up for the part at every husting and every venue she is likely to attend. One only has to observe the detail in the pictures of her addressing various rooms. For the most part, where there is a younger, mixed group she is wearing heels, whilst in front of groups looking like residents in a care home, she is wearing sensible shoes. If that is not deliberate, I give up.

The difficulty with this approach to governance, as Boris Johnson has discovered, is that, at some point, posing for photo-opportunities has a limited shelf life.  Inviting the press into a cabinet meeting, to make a speech, purporting to be demonstrating leadership, with smiling members looking on, is no substitute for the actual work of administrating a program of government.

I merely make these comments from direct observation of the images cast across my television screen and whilst surfing the internet. I hope that the view I extract from these observations is tending towards an objective perspective rather than subjective, but from whatever perspective, it is a personal view. The present state of affairs is worrying, so I worry. I do not mean to impose my apparent pessimism and lack of constructive alternatives on others. My lack of constructive alternatives is simply a matter of my own ignorance.

I am a firm believer in higher education, and there are many areas of learning that have eluded me, or I, them. I did not study economics, but I do have an inkling of Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations, although more so his Theory of Moral Sentiments. I can only suggest that the idea of the ‘concerned individual’, and ‘trickle down wealth’ is a construct that comes from a more generous mind than mine. I do not see either view applying to the average man today.

Wealth does not trickle down. Just because one lowers the rich man’s tax burden does not necessarily imply that he will invest more, become more entrepreneurial, or create employment and wealth all around him. He tends to divide the spoils amongst his own supporters and his own people, as for example the higher dividends paid out by BP to its own shareholders in the light of windfall profits. There is no windfall employment as a result. So the fantasy of a lower tax burden for people who actually pay tax, is not a sure fire means of creating productivity. Productivity has nothing whatever to do with tax.

As far as I can make out productivity is to do with the market place. When you reduce the size of the market place and make it smaller, there is little incentive to invest in it. Not enough footfall. By pulling out of a larger common market to create one’s own personally controlled smaller niche market place, there is little incentive for larger and major international entrepreneurial investment. The smaller market will suffer but might possibly pick up the dregs of the larger market place. The amount of tax they pay is up for negotiation after business is concluded and does not have so much sway in initiating enterprise in the first place. The tax burden does not start or stop initiative, the character of the market place does. Britain has become an open field car boot sale of a market. There may be the odd bargain to pick up on an early morning Sunday, but beyond that, the idea of grand economic growth on the basis of weekend trading is a bit of a joke.

There is nothing wrong with being a nation of small shop keepers and market traders, but if one wants a functioning and efficient National Health Service, the tax burden on such small, ticking over business will not do it. There are other matters as well, such as National Education, National Defence, National Public Safety etc.  Those matters require more personnel and more expansive economic enterprise than are available in the British Isles alone.  Being a party to world economics is more than just being a part of the world. You have to be in it and not on the side.

As General Archibald Murray (Donald Wolfit) said in the film “Lawrence of Arabia”:

“In my opinion this whole theatre of operations is a side-show. The real war’s being fought in (Europe), not (here)… not here but on the western front in the trenches. Your Bedouin Army, or whatever it calls itself would be a side-show of a side-show.”

Britain has become that side-show, and as long as it remains such, it will continue to fester under the likes of small minded, antiquated repressive politicians of the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman et al.

Again, I do not say these things to be depressive or merely a malcontent. The United Kingdom still has some cachet. It is a nation that promoted the codification and expansion of human rights and firmly established the duty of care and the rule of law. It is those qualities that attract refugees from round the world. They come because they believe in the promise of Britain to fight for and uphold freedom, human rights, equality before the law and respect for the individual, and therefore for all. These are not to be taken lightly.

The current crop of ministers however, do seek to limit these principles to maintain their control of the state. Their idea of levelling up is to create the lowest common denominator in order to do so, and prevent dissent or criticism of any kind.  So in whatever way you can, speak out and when the time comes, vote them out of office as well as encouraging others to do the same. It will be time to bring the side show back under the big top into the centre ring.  Celia says we should take to the barricades.

GAUDEAMUS IGITUR

I have previously pondered on the matter of higher education and the quality and intelligence of the electorate in the United Kingdom and the United States.  There is a world ranking system of universities. According to the QS World University Rankings 2023 of the top 10 Universities in the world 5 are in the United States, 4 are in the United Kingdom. The odd one out is in Switzerland.

It would also appear that 27, or over a quarter, of the top 100 ranked Universities are in the United States, and 17 of the top 100 in the United Kingdom, which means 44% of the top 100 universities are in the UK and USA. It would also appear that 56 of the top 100 are in Countries where English is the first language. This means that 56% of the top ranked higher educational establishments in the world are taught in English. Even more disconcerting is that 90% of the top 10 are in two countries where English is the first language.

The United Kingdom and the United States hold themselves out as the world leading democracies so far as freedom and human rights are concerned. They can, with perhaps more justification, hold themselves out as leaders in higher education throughout the world.

I find this puzzling and problematic. If these rankings are correct, then how is it that there is a serial liar, would be dictator, and, on the face of it, criminally liable demagogue in line to, once again, assume the Presidency of the United States. As to the United Kingdom, we have just had the intended resignation of another serial liar and convicted criminal, namely Boris Johnson, now being replaced by one of his acolytes. Not only that, but the leader of the country is being chosen by 0.2% of the population, in the most undemocratic fashion, and both of the contenders have right wing agendas which are completely in opposition to the claimed human rights and civil liberties so long lauded by the United Kingdom.

One would have thought that having got rid of Mr Trump in 2020 that would have been an end of the matter; yet, he still claims the support of millions of citizens of the United States, who, I am assuming did not avail themselves of the top ranked higher education that prevails across the country, on the east coast in Massachusetts and New York, the mid-west in, Illinois, and on the west coast in California. Likewise the British electorate are woefully under educated.

I am not suggesting that everyone can attend Oxford, Cambridge, or UCL and Imperial college, but in the UK, in physical terms a smallish sized country, where one is never more than 70 miles from a sea, there are 17 of the world’s top 100 Universities, dotted about the country, including (apart from the four aforementioned) Edinburgh, Manchester, King’s College, LSE, Bristol, Warwick, Southampton, Glasgow, Leeds, Birmingham, Durham, Sheffield and St Andrews. It is a remarkable choice to have.

Furthermore, I am not suggesting that higher education is of necessity a breeding ground for centre, left of centre or just left wing or socialist political thinking. On the contrary a great number of conservative centre and right of centre politicians have emerged from universities.

Higher education does, on the whole, temper thought away from extremism, although not necessarily as is shown by the background of Trump. Johnson, Sunak and Truss.

Donald Trump apparently received a BS Econ. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, which is the business school of the University, a private Ivy League research university, generally considered to be one of the most prestigious business schools in the world. The Wharton School is the world's oldest collegiate business school, having been established in 1881 through a donation from Joseph Wharton. Boris Johnson evolved from Eton and obtained a BA from Balliol College Oxford. Liz Truss has a BA from Merton College, Oxford.

Mr Sunak has a BA from Lincoln College, Oxford and an MBA from Stanford University, number 3 in the world university rankings.

It is clear then that higher education is no guarantee of clear and considered political thought. Mr Trump shows no evidence of any thinking and Ms Truss has been all round the houses in politics, from labour, to liberal democrat to tory, Remainer and Brexit evangelist. There is no end to her political shape shifting.  As to Boris, he was born spoilt and maintained his arrogant privileged naughty schoolboy clown persona, willing to fabricate any story to gain advantage with fantasies of being world king. His great friend at school, Darius Guppy, is a convicted fraudster of the same ilk.

Rishi Sunak is more problematic having gained a first at Oxford, and an MBA at prestigious Stanford where he was a Fulbright Scholar. He does however, because of his ambition in the party, lean to the extreme right. He will most likely not become prime minister, nor is he likely to serve in a cabinet post again for some considerable time. He may well opt out and regain his green card for employment in the United States. There will be nothing for him in the UK. Others, like David Miliband and Nick Clegg both found niches in the United States after their time in UK Politics. So this would be an obvious move for him. I believe my American friends should be prepared to welcome him.

In any event, what is disconcerting is that, despite the quality and extent of higher educational establishments in both the United States and the United Kingdom, we have looming crises, a potential shift towards the hard right and an end of an ethical democratic process, which would usually lead to leadership of strength, integrity and, on the whole, exceptional public service.

I am afraid those days are gone as well as one’s faith in the value of higher education. I could be well off base here, and I would love to be wrong. 

FREE SPEECH - TRUTH TO POWER

Simon Jenkins in the Guardian 16^th August 2022, writes about the problems of free speech in the age of the internet and ‘social media’. Its title is “Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has to be regulated, now more than ever”. The piece is prompted by the assault on writer Salman Rushdie by 24 year old Hadi Matar.

 

A ‘fatwa’ was ordered against him by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, on the 14^th February 1989.. He had ordered Mr Rushdie to be killed for writing the Satanic Verses, which the cleric claimed was an insult to Islam. A $2.8 million bounty was put on Mr Rushdie’s head. Three months later the Ayatollah, himself, died on the 3^rd June 1989. He was 89 years old.  At the time, the Ayatollah was the Supreme Leader of the State of Iran.

 

Khomeini’s own father had been murdered in 1903 and he spent 15 years in exile for his opposition to the Shah of Iran. On the 1^st February 1979, he returned in triumph to Iran and was apparently greeted, according to BBC reports, by a joyous crowd of 5 million people.  In the tenth year of his leadership he issued the following decree:

 

Fatwa issued 14 February 1989

I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet and the Qur'an, as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, have been declared madhur el dam [those whose blood must be shed]. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no-one will dare to insult Islam again. Whoever is killed in this path will be regarded as a martyr.

So it was not just Mr Rushdie who faced assassination, and indeed the Japanese translator of the work, Hitoshi Igarashi, was killed on the 12^th July 1991.

Igarashi

Clearly, anyone associated with the work is still in peril some 31 years after the murder of Mr Igarashi, and 33 years since the fatwa was ordered. Hadi Matar is but 24 years old. According to Wikipedia Hadi Matar is a 24-year-old American citizen. His parents are Lebanese and migrated from Yaroun, in the south of the country, but Matar was born in the US, the town’s mayor told Reuters.

According to NBC News, citing law enforcement sources, he was born in California but recently moved to New Jersey. FBI agents were spotted entering a property in Fairview, New Jersey, believed to be Matar’s address. A boxing club manager in New Jersey told AP news agency that Matar had joined in April but emailed her several days ago to request his membership be cancelled, saying he “wouldn’t be coming back for a while”. Gym owner Desmond Boyle said he saw “nothing violent” about Matar, and described him as polite and quiet. However, he said Matar looked “tremendously sad” and had not wanted to integrate into the group. “He had this look every time he came in. It looked like it was the worst day of his life,” Mr Boyle said. It is not clear whether he had a previous criminal record.

None of this indicates just what young Hadi was thinking when he attacked Mr Rushdie. Could he have been conscious of the Ayatollah’s edict? Difficult to say. He has pleaded Not Guilty, so either he or his lawyer has made a decision to provide a legal excuse for the assault, or at least an explanation as to why he believes his action was without criminal liability. Whether what he will say, in the end, has any connection with freedom of speech is still open to question.

Suffice it to say that the presumption the attack was in response to a fatwa, or was motivated to silence what Mr Rushdie has to say, has been put forward. It may be entirely wrong; however, the defence of Free Speech is nonetheless a very welcome proposition. Any examination of the power of words is of importance.   It is even more so, when those supporting Mr Rushdie extol the idea that he “speaks truth to power”. The idea of speaking freely, truth to power is under the greatest threat in the United Kingdom at present, particularly when one considers the legislation the current Conservative Government have in mind, to curb protest of any kind, and to opt out of Human Rights because “lefty lawyers’ are preventing them from doing what they want. A direct quote from Rishi Sunak. Free speech enshrined in law, and with the force of law, is as important as it gets.

In the United States the matter is specified in the First Amendment of the Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The principles expressed in this very first amendment are just as deep rooted in the history of the United Kingdom, as they are in America; indeed, they were born in the United Kingdom well before the Constitution was written. It is a case of the Common Law being specifically made written law, and forming part of the foundational document of a nation.

Many citizens have forgotten the full force and range of the commitment made to the nation by the composition of those 45 words. As good as the ideas are, they do allow for a multiplicity of opinions, some of which are in total opposition to the very freedoms the amendment is meant to protect. Hence, Mr Jenkins cautionary statement: “Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has to be regulated, now more than ever”.

With that in mind, when it comes to free speech, what does one do about hate speech? What does one do about incitement? What does one do about troublesome and worrying words? How does one define insulting words and behaviour? These are all matters that have been the subject of a number of laws intended to improve behaviour and relationships between people. Such legislation and regulation of behaviour and thought is the most problematic and requires a great deal of thought before prohibitions are put in place.

The freedoms mentioned in that First Amendment are now held out as imperative in most of the Western European democracies. They are in the process of being eroded. World events are not helping, and some world leaders are taking advantage of distractions to curb any possibility of these sentiments surviving. It is the citizen’s duty to be on guard. We each, and every one, of us have a duty of care to ensure that free speech will thrive. This is why, in my view, the hate speech and incitement to violence, from the likes of Donald Trump, is harmful in the extreme and should lead to a criminal prosecution, just as the attempts by the likes of Sunak and Truss to pursue repressive legislation, should be weeded out of parliament. 

There is a clear distinction between speech intended to promote hatred, bigotry, violence and repression and speech intended to proffer opinion, education, instruction, good will, peace and fellowship or simple nostalgia. Such speech must convey truth and expose lies and  deceit.

Speaking truth to power is futile unless there is some serious listening going on. I’m afraid the current crop of demagogues and would be prime ministers are deaf and dumb.. The thunder rolls over my head as I write this blog. Is it a portent of things to come? More of this anon.

I REPEAT - RIDE THE TIDE

Three months ago, in early June, I sent a letter to Mr Starmer, suggesting:

It is time for the Labour Party to stand up. To express the specific policies it would intend to pursue in government and not just criticise the Conservatives and make vague suggestions of what it would do otherwise. It must be bold and state specifics. They must answer the question “What would you do?” with clarity and perspective, not waffle.

I went on to quote from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar Act 4, Scene 3, Lines 218-214 spoken by Brutus:

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

I asked Mr Starmer to ride the tide. Never before has the labour party had such an opportunity to put forward a full program of policies. In the face of the ludicrous charade of the Truss and Sunak prospectus for “change”, that is no change, and does little to deal with the pressing needs of the ordinary citizen, either now or in the future, I urged Mr Starmer to ride the tide.

The Liberal Democrats have pressed forward with policies to implement an immediate freeze on energy bills, and then take it from there as to how best to deal with the more vulnerable individuals as one progressed. It might be a universal solution benefiting those least in need as well, but it would be a starting point from which to address the issues of the most vulnerable, rather than waiting for some magic formula to appear.

I have heard very little from the Labour party other than criticism. Perhaps I am just not hearing or no one is asking. I don’t understand why one does not hear specific suggestions other than what has been called a windfall tax. That’s not enough. The energy companies are making colossal profits, yes, and an immediate tax on those profits is great, but what else? Where does the money go? Does it just go back to the energy companies to pay off the higher energy bills that keep coming? What sort of circular tax is that? Mr Starmer please give us a clue as to what to expect beyond windfalls.

I would have expected a full program manifesto from the Labour party, properly costed (since that seems to be what is required to satisfy critics and the media). The Labour party should be preparing and pushing for a general election now. It must be clear by now, what with a dead duck present administration, holding off doing anything until either Truss of Sunak takes the chair, that nothing will change, will probably get worse, and an election will not be far off.

Equally it should be reasonably clear that Ms Truss appears to be the chosen one. The current members of the dead Johnson cabinet, will probably remain in place. If they are delaying taking action in the face of the current crisis now, what makes one think they will act once she’s in place? What ideas are they formulating to enable her to hit the ground running as she claims?

They will be just as ineffectual as they have been so far. To blame everything on world problems and not the inadequate leadership is the excuse of the lame. Every country has the same problems, but I do not see a similar double digit inflationary rise elsewhere, that exists in the UK. It is as if the government blame game is the same as saying it’s all beyond their control. If that is the case, why not bow out now and let an election take place so that people who might have a solution can get on with it?

If the Labour Party pretend to have the solution, to be those people, then let us see and hear about those solutions now. It is high tide, it will last only a short while longer and is followed by an ebb tide which will flow away, by which time it will be too late for Mr Starmer’s party.

It is about now that the party must make itself heard. Any MP who is interviewed on the media, or makes a speech, or participates in a panel discussion on television, should have a full brief on solutions and be prepared to back them up with specifics, not with criticisms alone. If asked “What would you do” they should be able to give a direct and specific answer and not just say “I wouldn’t do what they are doing”. There is nothing wrong with giving an opinion and making criticism, but the voters want to hear beyond that, they want to hear a direct answer. They do not want to hear someone say, “Let’s be clear about that…” and then go on to be perfectly unclear and evasive. That is the politician’s tool. It is not an answer. Do not say, “Let’s be clear”, just be clear. Do not say ‘We want to help the underprivileged” explain what you would actually do to help. Do not talk about past success, but how you would make the future better, with specifics not waffle. Heart rending speeches and shows of emotive passion and care for others is fine, but voters support people who tell them the truth and how to actually go about making things improve.

I do not pretend to know how to go about doing all of that, and getting heard by as many people as possible, but if there is no one in the Labour Party who does, then woe betide the party. Mr Starmer ride the tide or you, your party and the country will be bound in shallows and in miseries.  

COMMENTS ON BLOG

There has been a problem posting comments on the blog - this has now been sorted and anyone should be able to make comments if so inclined

THE CHOICE OF LEADER

There are problems galore across the world. Each country has its own individual difficulties to deal with, yet on the whole the problems just about everywhere are the same. That is to say that, at any one time, a particular problem may require more immediate attention than another; although, the other problems do not go away and may be exacerbated by an upheaval or catastrophe affecting the whole of the nation. This does not mean that the functions of government cease. Indeed, it becomes more urgent for the state to fulfil its remit.

 

This is so, even if a nation is under grave threat. The most pressing needs [of health, safety, housing, employment, education all of which are connected by communication (phone, public and private transport, roads etc.)] all require a specific government department to oversee and facilitate the most efficient method of providing services to the general population, regardless of circumstances.

 

These are services the public expect.  Each country has set up an administrative system through which these requirements are provided. The citizens elect a body of people to be administrators and an overall chairperson or leader to run the country’s essential necessities. The people so elected, or chosen, perform a public service. Some see this public service as a profession and others as a civic duty, but for whatever reason, all public servants are expected to act with unimpeachable integrity.

 

Giving the possible complexities of providing theses essentials, various ways and means of achieving the best outcome and most efficient service have evolved. As a result, some individuals have put forward theories as to how best to accomplish the task. Various groups have developed and assembled around these theories. Political parties have been formed and the approach and methods of administration are as wide ranging a spectrum as one can imagine.

 

All of this has quite naturally evolved out of the economic relationship between individuals, which has itself evolved since humans have interacted with each other in order to survive. The currency of barter, exchange of goods or services, has evolved into promissory notes or tokens which became money.

 

The provision and service of essentials, as well as the administrators to do the work, requires financing. The citizens must then agree to provide a contribution towards the cost of providing these essentials. The cost is therefore dependent on the size of the nation’s population. The size of the contribution, and method of expenditure, is dependent on the chosen administrators and the pre-eminence they give to the various services. These decisions are all interrelated with survival.

 

In order for there to be a vibrant administration there must be a vibrant economy. In order for there to be a vibrant economy, there must be a vibrant administration. The priorities of the various political parties as to how to create and maintain a vibrant economy to provide the required essential services for the population is what becomes of interest to the individuals who elect them to become the administrators. 

 

There are those who prefer a more simplistic approach to governing and would prefer the provision of services to be taken care of by private citizens selling services in the marketplace. There would be little need for the administrators to intervene, and therefore little need for any sizeable contribution towards the cost of administration. It is then just a matter of deciding which services should remain public services. Perhaps the armed services should be national, as private armies can be dangerous and cause problems.  In general we need armed service to protect the integrity of the nation from foreign interference. Best keep them under civilian authority. Policing? Perhaps that too should be a general public service; however, that can be passed on to local authorities to administer, as they each have particular problems best dealt with on a local level. Education? Why not have both public and private? And so on…

 

Others would see a more involved form of governance as the requirements to provide essential services can be costly. There are many citizens who could not afford the cost of services if open solely to the marketplace. Citizens are entitled to some services as a human right, and to allow difficulties in the way of providing human rights would be unacceptable.  In any event the marketplace has to be controlled and regulated in order to safeguard the individual interests of the citizen as consumer.   The state then has to be more involved in certain matters in order to better protect the individual citizen.

 

In the final analysis one asks what is the scale of the necessities required? How much is required from the economy? What is the strength of the economy?  What is the best way or collecting contributions? The questions over priorities then are a matter of ‘more, or less’. Does the state provide more or less? Do the citizens provide more or less? Must the contributions be equal? Who is capable of providing more and who has to be let off with less? This brings up the question of equality. The problems of inequality in all its aspect around the world seem insurmountable.

 

Just a glance at the current state or world economies shows that there is never enough provided by the citizens alone. There is clearly a limit on what they can contribute and still be able to live the life that have chosen, or to even accept the life they have. It is equally clear that the services required, to enable citizens to live as best they can, cost far more that s/he can afford and so the state borrows in order to fulfil its contract to provide the essential necessities.

 

The question remains then how much control does the state have over the economy of the nation. In a democratic society, total control is anathema and no control is anarchy; however there must be some. The added difficulty is that a nation is more than just an economy. It has a set of principles it holds on to. Human beings think. They have ideas. They have social interaction. They do things. They have beliefs apart from needs and necessities. Indeed, some would argue that having a belief is a necessity. I would argue that it is an inevitable consequence of having a brain. What you believe and think is completely dependent on the individual, but most importantly individuals have human rights.  Providing and ensuring the human rights of its citizens is part of the essential necessities required of the State.

 

A democratic State has an enormous responsibility towards its citizens, and to be trusted to run the State in a manner which promotes the health, well-being, security and freedom of all, each and every one, of its individual citizens, is a great undertaking as well as a privilege. It is not to be undertaken lightly, nor should the responsibility of choosing such an individual public servant be taken lightly.

 

During Bill Clinton’s campaign for president in 1992, his campaign strategist, James Carville hung up a sign in Clinton’s Little Rock, Arkansas, campaign headquarters that read:

1.  Change vs. more of the same.

2.  The economy, stupid

3.  Don't forget health care.

 

Nothing in the current climate in the United States, the United Kingdom or Italy (undergoing its own general elections) suggests that those three points have in anyway changed in respect of what is paramount in focusing on choice of leader.

 

In the United Kingdom we have a private election going on, entirely in the hands of local Conservative Party Members. As to the first point, both candidates are more of the same despite their respective entreaties that they are a focus of change. They both emanate from Boris Johnson’s discredited cabinet. They both try to distance themselves from that cabinet whilst still supporting, praising and refusing to disown Boris Johnson. One of them is still in the Cabinet. What is the change? Because they say so? That is a lie, a fabrication to deflect from the truth, a typical Johnson tactic. So no change there.

 

As to number 2 on the list, the United Kingdom is in for a hard ride. What answers these candidates have put forward on the economy, so far as I can see, are just as fanciful as the other. They have no real idea of what to do. Their respective programs are a matter of ‘let’s suck it and see’. We’ll start with lowering some taxes, now or maybe later, hopefully borrow a lot of money, try to pacify the citizens with a few handouts, and maybe some people will be able to spend us out of recession, or make some investments and kickstart a business. That’s what’s supposed to happen when you lower taxes and raise interest rates, isn’t it? That will stop inflation, wouldn’t it? Who the hell knows? So let’s just suck it and see.

 

As to remembering the National Health Service, they seem to have forgotten about that altogether.

 

The certainty displayed by the candidates for Party Leader and Prime Minister is remarkable. That the whole of the United Kingdom has to listen to this repetitive nonsense and have no say in the matter is despicable. To have a leader chosen on the basis of what shoes, tie or jewellery they wear, or for having too much money, or not being as aggressive as the other is not a uniquely British characteristic, I dare say, but that’s what we’ve got. It’s the Prime Minister, stupid!

 

The entire country is a set for the film “Carry on Britain”. We might just as well have a cabinet consisting of:  Kenneth Williams, Sid James, Barbara Windsor, Charles Hawtrey, Hattie Jacques, Bernard Bresslaw, Joan Sims, Kenneth Connor, Jack Douglas, Jim Dale, Peter Butterworth, Patsy Rowlands, Terry Scott, etc..

 

I would be grateful if any of the readers of the blog could let me know what ministry any of the above might be best at, and who would be their choice of leader. Thank you.

 

 

IS THERE SOMETHING TO PURSUE?

Slight correction to previous blog Maintaining Equilibrium. Roger Steer’s European Newsletter appears in NHSmanagers.net and not Brave New Europe for whom he also writes articles. Sorry about mistake. His piece for August 2022 can be found at:

 

https://files.constantcontact.com/9bc520cb001/18ef9922-8407-4f7d-b863-f936c62ec963.pdf

 

As to my own ponderings, there is an unpleasant feeling in the pit of my stomach about the next few months through to the 9^th November, when the results of the United States Midterm Elections of the 8^th November will be known. Also, by that time, the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister will have been decided on the 5^th September.

 

The double tragedy of a Liz Truss premiership and a United States Congress under the leadership of the current Republican Party, is a scenario out of the worst Stephen King fantasy horror show. I hardly know where to begin in putting into words what this catastrophic occurrence will mean. It seems, rather like a planetary alignment (an interesting astronomical event) a sort of political alignment is developing along far right principles across the globe.  Putin, Lukashenko, Orban, Truss, Trump and so on round the world. Like a belt being tightened around the waist until it becomes impossible to breath in free air. 

 

Do I exaggerate the consequences? Is my knee jerk liberal Londoner reaction getting the better of me? I do not know, hence my feeling of anxiety. 

 

There are events which ease the mind, such as the World Athletics Championships in Oregon. The Commonwealth Games in Birmingham and women’s football Euro 2022 in the UK. The coming together of sports personalities, abled and disabled, who represent universal individual achievements coming together in peace, competing and unifying at the same time.  It is clearly possible to co-exist in peace and harmony, whilst displaying individual skills of the highest kind, and praising each other’s efforts. It is all achieved under a global organisation that endorses a global code of conduct. It plays by the rules. It respects the rule of law.

 

Naturally, because it concerns fallible mortals, there has been the odd glitch; but, on the whole, it promotes free association and supports human rights, to be able to come together and display the extraordinary capabilities of human beings, both physical and mental. 

 

Somehow, the United Nations, although a global organisation, fails to deliver the same kind of unity. The coming together of G7’s and G20’s equally fail to achieve the necessary agreements to promote co-existence, harmony and freedom. Is there some serious flaw in the political makeup of humans? So far as I can tell, most people want the same things: shelter, food, health, safety, education and employment they can enjoy or at the very least tolerate. Over and above the basics is the pursuit of happiness. Surely, how that is achieved and organised can happen in peace and harmony? On the current evidence, evidently not.

 

Just what is Mr Putin trying to achieve with his ludicrous and criminal war? Just what is Ms Truss trying to achieve with her illegal legislation, breach of international law and criminalising legitimate protest? Just what are Mr Trumps’s acolytes trying to achieve with repetitive refrains of stolen elections, America First mentality and shredding of the very basic protections of the Constitution? There is nothing in the overriding agenda of this kind of political thinking that is of any benefit to any society living under their rule. For them to claim otherwise is to fly in the face of reason. That there is an electorate that allows them to continue in this fashion, is beyond understanding. 

 

The United States has been suffering from a barrage of Making America Great Again. The United Kingdom, in similar fashion, has been suffering from a barrage of Taking Back Control. The problem is, that the authors of these mantras have no real idea of what makes America Great or just what it is they seek to control. I realise of course that they know what makes America great for them, and to hell with others, and they know that they seek to control what is best for them and to hell with others, but that is just the point, others matter. 

 

The MAGA campaign has only succeeded in unleashing a mob mentality and there seems little chance the mob can be dispersed. The taking back control has only succeeded in isolating the United Kingdom, dissociating it from the rest of the world, and there seems little chance of regaining its former position. I am sorry to feel that the small and narrow minded have taken over, and hence the feeling of nausea in the pit of my stomach. 

So I ponder, weak and weary, over many curious occurrences round the world. I nod off, nearly napping, but not a soul comes rapping, tapping at my door. There is nothing to tell me nevermore, and so it goes on. I will continue to enjoy the Commonwealth Games, despite the Commonwealth disappearing. I will continue to eat and drink, breath in and out and take the pills, which reminds me, I must not forget to pick up my next prescription. As the sun rises there is also happiness to pursue.

MAINTAINING EQUILIBRIUM

There is a thought provoking take on the National Health from Roger Steer, which I believe is published in the journal Brave New Europe, entitled An Alternative European Perspective- (July 2022) at the following link:

https://files.constantcontact.com/9bc520cb001/8c244bf8-a25a-4d24-bdad-ad0162bb901d.pdf

In my view, well worth a read. Brave New Europe, by the way, is an interesting publication. It claims: “BRAVE NEW EUROPE publishes expertise with a radical face and attitude concerning European politics and economics. We promote critical thinking and the creation of an alternative to neo-liberalism.” It can be found at: https://braveneweurope.com/

In the meantime, the faux election of conservative party leader trundles on, with various short pithy interviews of local conservative party members, most of whom reflect on missing Boris Johnson (have they no shame or concept of honesty and truthfulness) and claim to be leaning towards Liz Truss. Although there are a few Rishi Sunak admirers, some of them also seem to favour the ‘loyal’ Liz Truss. Despite journalists stating that ‘we won’t know till the ballots go out’ it already seems to be conclusive that Ms Truss will be the next Prime Minister. 

 

How is it that a group most opposed to civil liberties, a dynamic free press and rights to protest - in short everything enabling and supporting the freedom of the individual - are able to anoint the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?  I hasten to add that, though they claim respect for the rule of law, what they really support is the rule of power, which they equate with the law. The rule of law tempers power. It is there to prevent abuse of any kind from any source. If that source is the government of the day, or any of its members, then the law can intervene. In fact it is meant to intervene. The rule of law is designed to protect the citizen. It is a universal concept derived from the very first moment two creatures rubbed noses or shook hands together. An agreement to co-exist. 

 

That simple agreement has given rise to any number of clauses in legislation throughout the world to provide for the health and safety of the citizen; nonetheless, there are those who would seek to interfere with that process and impose their own brand of legislation restricting the implementation of the freedoms that simple agreement engenders. 

 

This is what appears to be happening in a number of countries. It is unfortunate and dangerous that it should be happening in the United Kingdom and some other European States, as it is even more dangerous that it is happening in the United States, and yet more dangerous that it has already happened in Russia, China and other areas in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. 

 

I guess I would be classified as an old fart, but please bear with me. I have been pondering the calibre of politicians currently sitting in the House of Commons. There are at present 200 Labour Party members of which 104 are women. There are 358 Conservative Party members of which 87 are women. Of the 44 Scottish National Party 16 are women and of 14 Liberal Democrats 9 are woman. All in all there are 225 women MP’s out of 650, or 35%. The next Prime Minister will be a woman.

 

When I came to the United Kingdom in 1965, the Labour Party were in Government. There were thirteen women in Harold Wilson’s first Government only two of whom were in Cabinet. at one time or another, Barbara Castle and Judith Hart. The other eleven were Ministers, Alice Bacon, Shirley Williams, Harriet Slater, Eirene White, Jennie Lee, Joan Lester, Gwyneth Dunwoody, Margaret Herbison, and three Lords in Waiting, Baroness Phillips (who was first female Government whip in the House of Lords and mother of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Baroness Serota and Baroness Llewelyn-Davies both Government Whips. Baroness Serota’s son Nicholas became director of the Tate Gallery.

 

At the time, there were 18 women elected as MPs and 8 of them had Government jobs. Initially two serving in Cabinet. 

 

The soon to be ex-Prime Minister has seven women attending his last and final Cabinet, namely, Liz Truss, Priti Patel, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Nadine Dorries and Suella Braverman. There are a few other Junior Ministers as well. Not one of them is of the substance and calibre of a Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams, Judith Hart or Emma Nicholson who switched from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party in 1995, or even Margaret Thatcher. They pretend to the fantasy image of a Margaret Thatcher, who at least had some idea of integrity and real respect for the rule of law, even although her politics were reprehensible. 

 

The current lot’s politics are equally reprehensible with no concept of integrity or character, to which they merely pay lip service. How can they continue to quietly condone the appalling mendacious and venal behaviour of Boris Johnson? To continue to spew out nonsense like “He got Brexit Done”, “He masterminded the vaccine rollout”, “He was the first to defend Ukraine”, when he falsely claimed credit for these events, is as dishonest as Boris himself. They talk of others stabbing Boris in the back. Boris Johnson should have been hung out to dry from the moment his true character surfaced at Eton. If anyone finally deserved a comeuppance, it is Boris Johnson. That he continues in office and to maintain the support of the local conservative party membership speaks volumes of the low level of character that is currently claiming membership of, and allegiance to, this party. 

 

To actively condone lies and deceit is not only stupid but extremely dangerous. One only has to observe the current outbursts of the likes of Nadine Dorries, from whom all now appear to be distancing themselves, to realise the depths to which such an individual can stoop. How Liz Truss can tolerate her presence, or support, is indicative of both their lack of character. 

 

I once had a client who described a particular police officer with the phrase “What a low piece of life that is.” He, himself, was not a particularly nice man, but nonetheless he expressed a view that many in the neighbourhood seemed to share in respect of that officer. Community policing was not on his agenda. Would it be too unkind to use the phrase in the case of Nadine Dorries? I think the football fans who booed ex-spice girl Geri Halliwell for her photo op with Ms Dorries says it all. 

 

Also remember, this is a person Boris Johnson is likely to elevate to the House of Lords. This is being done to allow for passage of the repressive crime bill sought by Priti Patel, in the house of Lords. He will pack the Upper House with repressive and right wing peers in the same way that Donald Trump packed the Supreme Court of the United States. It has rendered asunder the Constitution of the United States and the cause of liberty of the citizen and freedom of the press are severely endangered. So will it be in Britain.

 

The colossal failures of this charade of government since the 24^th June 2016, is being smothered under the simple joy of the success of a young women’s football team, that has brought out shouts of delight and singing in the streets. I am sorry to say there is far too much being made of the event than it warrants in the face of the realities of life.  It is great indeed and a wonderful happening, but it does not resolve the issues of inflation, cost of living or saving and fixing the NHS. Would that the money that will now be poured into the women’s football league were paid into the NHS instead. Heresy to say this perhaps but I do not believe out of place. We cannot bury our heads in the clouds of happy and joyous song of “Football’s coming home” when so many find it so difficult to even buy one. I am afraid levelling up is not about chasing another football trophy, or is it? Please let me know.