WHAT LESSON LEARNED ? A short reminder

Today was showcase the conservative viewpoint on the Today program on Radio 4 with back to back interviews of ex-prime ministers Rishi Sunak and Tony Blair. Mr Blair has written an open opinion piece about what he perceives is necessary actions for the current Government  to adopt. His viewpoint is now, in effect, a return to Margaret Thatcher’s reliance on the market place to bring about “growth”, which they all keep harping on about. This market place he speaks of is the world of A.I. - Embrace and adopt or die. This technological revolution is in the same category as the industrial revolution. Britain was great then and if it has any ambition to be in the premiership of nations, then it must fully embrace this technology. 

I notice that Mr Blair keeps using his usual strategic condescending tone. He begins a statement, does a little hesitation and then says “look, the thing is…” He keeps saying “look…” as if it denotes sincerity,  honesty and truth. In my view to does none of those things. During Mr Sunak’s interview, Rishi, on being questioned about Mr Blair’s ‘essay’, stated that he supported much of what was said. Mr Blair was most gratified that Mr Sunak agreed with him, with a tone of ‘how could he not’. This view was also expressed when it was suggested that Ms Badenoch agreed with him.  What it boiled down to was that the welfare state, in order to support paying pensions, disabilities, the NHS and defence, could only do so by laying off some of those commitments on to the private sector. So by creating or allowing 'for-profit' organisations to run aspects of public welfare, the state would benefit financially and become part of the power elite of nations. So, while claiming support for human welfare they would fully embrace private enterprise.

What they seem to suggest is that private enterprise must be allowed to flourish, and they could only do that if they were not taxed and allowed to pay people without imposing any additional employers contribution to employees national insurance. In fact it might be better to stop national insurance all together and pass on the whole question of personal insurance for health and welfare to private insurance companies who could then run the whole system; for a healthy profit of course. Hospitals, medical practices and welfare care and homes could then be run as separate private companies receiving their funds from private billing and insurance claims. Whatever state tax burden there was, would be covered from a multiple of private companies. The tax would be less for each individual company but would collectively supply more in total. 

The only problem with that is, private enterprise does not and would not benefit the majority. The wealthy and rich would find no problem in paying for services and insurances (as they do now) but those who live from pay check to pay check and are on  disability benefits or income support, would be locked out. The cost of insurance premiums is unaffordable for those people even now, let alone if the whole system were privatised. One need only look at the United States, which, with all it’s wealth, has very high insurance premiums under its pitiful national health care provisions. 

The only thing of sense that came out of the interviews is that leadership in government must declare a policy. Some direction as to what kind of society we wish to live in. The prime factor is an appreciation for the rule of law. Do we want basic freedoms of speech, thought and religion? Fair employment practices? Health and Safety? Habitable affordable homes? What is the best and most efficient way for the state to provide these basic services for its citizens? Is it really through private enterprise or should the collective state be responsible? 

In addition, what and how is the best and most efficient way to negotiate between nations and the global economy? Can a diplomatic service be handed over to private enterprise? Should there be a United Kingdom Foreign Office Plc. 

Just how far does one go to indulge private enterprise?  I know a number of people think that the country already is or should be UK plc. It is a slogan that has long hovered over Britain; but, that is not the case. The sole purpose of a Nation is to tend to and look after its citizens. To allow them to be safe, healthy, educated and to pursue whatever endeavour they choose to fulfil their lives. 

The attitudes and so called policy decisions preferred by the rich, Sunak, Blair, Badenoch and probably Farage are exemplified in 1843 with the Publication of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. Sadly, it is just the kind of political position they have without even realising it. 

“…the clerk, in letting Scrooge’s nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.
“Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,” said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. “Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?”
“Mr. Marley has been dead these seven years,” Scrooge replied. “He died seven years ago, this very night.”
“We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,” said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word “liberality,” Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides—excuse me—I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!” 

GREAT EXPECTATIONS IN BRITAIN

Shambles. This seems to be the operative word to describe the current state of world affairs. A scene or condition of complete disorder or ruin; maybe even, a place or scene of bloodshed or carnage. I heard, on the radio,  a comment made in relation to Italian politics, that the Italian people were ungovernable, or rather that the Italian people carried on with their lives as if the country had no government at all. This attitude towards government would indeed make a populace ungovernable. It was suggested by the commentator, who followed up the remark, that the United Kingdom’s citizens were becoming like the Italians.

In my view, it is not so much that the people are ungovernable, but that, despite the elected government, the population could carry on as if the government had no real affect on their lives, hence they carried on regardless.  The shit show that appears to be the political landscape is one that can be argued about and discussed  at great length (in some news programs ad-nauseam), and yet allows people to carry on with their daily activities, occupations and other endeavours; but, because it is a shambles, people are less inclined to be dragged into political discussion, listen to or watch current affairs programs. It is just too irritating and depressing. It appears to suggest that what happens in Parliament, stays in Parliament, which is the problem. What happens there, seeps out and does affect the lives of others to a greater of lesser extent depending on where one sits on the eco-socio spectrum

It comes down to expectations. We elected a party whose representatives produce a manifesto, or list of legislative measure, which is meant to improve the state of the nation, and the individual lot of each and every one of its citizens. This instills in the electorate an expectation of what a government can actually do. We expect violence and dishonesty to be curtailed because political parties claim they have a program through which crime, in general, will be tackled and reduced if not eradicated. They also claim they have a grip on the economic life of the nation. Employment will be universal, wages will continuously rise, inflation will be reduced and there will be perpetual  growth. The ideal economy will include not only a free market but a thriving welfare state. Some claim that while the state may not be able to provide 100% of health and welfare, the private sector will be able to take up the slack. The levels of taxation therefore are flexible depending on which side of the political spectrum is in control. Some institutions are of course wired in as being essential to the state, the NHS, the Armed Services, Police and Security, the Legal System being the most prominent. 

These institutions  are therefore expected to run with 100% efficiency, but as we all know, they do not. Various governments claim they have the solutions to improve these services and make them more effective and efficient. They boast of budgets and funds assigned to these public sectors in the belief that the amount of funding will no doubt be channelled to improve the service. For some obscure reason, the efficacy of services is equated with the amount of money allocated to provide the service. Again, the reality is that money is not the issue. The issue is the people to whom the money is given to provide the service. It’s to do with skills, integrity, levels of ambition and a real idea of what is expected and what can be made possible.  The idea is for expectation and possibility to go hand in hand, and reality is an ever changing landscape. It is the conduct of humans across the globe that affects every nation’s well being. Economies and welfare are variously dependent on the actions and consequences of this global activity. Violent upheavals, both natural and man made shape what happens on a daily basis. 

The cost of repairing natural disasters, of prosecuting conflicts and repairing the aftermath, is substantial. The sheer scale of funding required can have nothing but a negative effect.  The waste and deployment of men and arms, followed by reconstruction is an insanity, and the complete opposite of efficiency. It should have no place anywhere. It is a scenario entirely man made and funded. The people who are paid and control the budgets of these destructive institutions are clearly not worth the salaries they receive. It would appear that they are not only incapable, but are fraudsters of the worst kind. Claiming to be suing for peace and security through aggressive self defence is a sham. The collateral damage engendered by these charlatans is to cause world wide ruination and should receive universal condemnation; yet somehow, that does not appear to be expected. 

Whilst there are public demonstrations against wars and injustices in countries that permit these processions to take place, there is still the expectation that individual governments are able to cope with and deal with the trials and tribulations caused by actions taking place abroad.  There is somehow the belief that these foreign entanglements really have little or no local effect whatever, and that it is a poor excuse of blame outside events for local failures.  In my view this is shortsighted. There are no longer any outside events. If ever this was demonstrated, the closing of a 75km (45 miles) stretch of water has made that abundantly clear.  Equally clear is that the perpetrators of this insanity should be prosecuted under international law, yet that is unlikely to happen.

Instead, the difficulties of many national leaders are exacerbated by public expectations. Why is their leader not taking charge of the world? Why is our nation in such turmoil? Why is our party not unified but  thrown into disarray? How is it that our leaders fail to live up to expectations?  Oppositions thrive and heckle with no real solutions either. There are no ‘knights of the round table’ ready to change in is actually capable of delivering relief, with slogans and quick instantaneous fixes. It is not going to happen. A temporary blip of political fanfare is not solving the problem. Unity and realistic expectations however, might see a way clear. A collective cross party unity would be preferred, but humanity has somehow avoided that possibility owing to prejudice, bigotry and small minded nationalism which is actually the least patriotic position to be adopted. I do not expect a coalition of minds, but then what else does one have a right to to expect, and just because a local mayor has been able to make the busses run on time is not a sure fire certainty that he can make a Nation more efficient. The Nation expects.

HOW ARE YOU FEELING TODAY ?

About a year ago, perhaps longer, I attended Kings College Hospital A & E Stroke Unit, for a suspected stoke. I was having a problem with the right side of my body (trembling right arm and complete numbness in the right leg, causing me to drop things and fall over) I have since had the matter dealt with at St Thomas’s and Guys Hospitals by the insertion of a stent which is allowing greater blood flow to the brain and providing the necessary oxygen to vastly improve the situation. I am, more or less, back to what one could call normal. It’s just age and getting older. 

Recently I received a phone call from a young person at the King’s Stroke Register asking me to complete a follow up form to gauge just how things have progressed. I confess, I cannot remember the actual date I attended the Unit. At the time I did I not think what I was going through was a particularly severe condition which would classify as a stroke. I was still reasonable articulate, my ability to count backwards was good,  I could calculate numbers by subtracting 7, I knew who the Prime Minister was , I knew where I was and I was aware of the date.  In any event, it was deemed a stroke of some kind, so I was sent the questionnaire. I am not aware whether the person who rang had full knowledge of the treatment that I have received since that visit so I wasn’t sure what sort of survey the might be, but I suggested she email me the forms and I would send them back a.s.a.p. I have done this but I have yet to receive any acknowledgment that the forms have been received.

I did find the questions a rather mixed bag of straight factual enquiries (date of birth, where you live, follow up repetition of incidents or new conditions, follow up medical appointments, do you have careers, get meals on wheels etc..) and qualitative valuations of ones general feelings about life. (I have just received an acknowledgement - tee hee)  The answers to these ‘feeling’ questions where tick boxes with:
Not at all -A little bit -Moderately- Quite a bit - Extremely
And yet others with:
All of the time - A good bit of the time - A little of the time -Most of the time- Some of the time- None of the time.

So when asked “How much time during the last month have you felt calm and peaceful?”  and “During the last month,  have you felt downhearted and low?” I believe the entire population of the UK might have a similar answer.

There is also a heading: 

This questionnaire is designed to help us know how you feel. Please give the reply which comes closest to how you have been feeling in the past week. Don't take too long over your replies: your immediate reaction to each item will probably be more accurate than a long thought out response.

To which one responds:
Most of the time - A lot of the time - Occasionally - Not at all - Nearly all the time - Definitely as much - Very definitely and quite badly - A little , but it does’t worry me - Not Often - Sometimes- As much as I always could - Not quite so much now - Time to Time
( These are all tick boxes)

The general questions relating to these replies are, inter alia:
I feel tense or ‘Wound up’.
I get a sort of frightened feeling like butterflies.
I get sort of frightened as if something awful is about to happen.
I feel restless as if I have to be on the move.
Worrying thoughts go through my mind.
I get sudden feelings of panic
I feel cheerful
I can laugh and see the funny side of things.

For my answer to that last question I ticked  - As much as I always could. Indeed, none of the above conditions, in my view, applies specifically to strokes, unless one thinks that just being alive is a form of stroke in itself. I do not think there is a person anywhere in today’s current climate who does not at some point feel wound up, butterflies or that something awful is about happen. Just watching or listening to the news is enough to elicit any of those feelings. I would add that in the current state of affairs,  one’s immediate reaction is  probably just as accurate as a long thought out response. 

It also occurs to me that perhaps it would be interesting to conduct my own survey. I wonder how Messrs Starmer,  Macron, Trump,  Putin,  any Labour MP or Republican Congressman might answer the questions? So herewith below is the relevant section of the forms. Perhaps you could let me know your feelings on the matter? I would love to know how cheerful you are 😁🤣 Replies to edwardklein@btinternet.com.

 

FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN

I have sent this email to Mr Starmer at No:10 -  

 

As our government is meant to be run by Cabinet Responsibility you should seriously think about changing the cabinet. You have appointed people to run the various ministries. If the public is so dissatisfied with the way things are going, clearly the ministers are at fault and failing in their jobs. I would suggest you take hold and sack all who have failed and appoint more able people in their place. It is for you to decide. Take hold, sack the lot of them and make the changes you want. If not call for a general election. See what support that gets from your party.

HISTORY GONE ASTRAY - WHAT HAVE WE BECOME?

The United Kingdom is a very peculiar country. Although a monarchy, it has given rise to a constitution which in turn gave birth to the rule of law and advocated for individual freedoms and the rights of man. This is not an insignificant achievement for any Government. So far as the rights of man are concerned, it has taken time over the centuries to codify and secure many of those rights with significant legislation. Some of it remains through the common law, but most is validated through statute. As a result, one would think that this progression towards a civilised and free democratic society under the watchful eye of a monarch, would, on the whole, represent a liberal, outgoing and enlightened population; yet, it is apparent to me, that that is clearly not the case.

Since the dominance  of Robert Walpole, generally regarded as the first Prime Minister, in 1721, who is classified as a Whig, there have been 20 Conservative Prime Ministers, 16 Whigs, 10 Tories, 6 Labour, 6 Liberal, 2 Scottish Unionists, 1 National Labour, 1 National Liberal and 1 Peelite.  So far as the Whigs are concerned, they were a mixed bag of centrist liberals and more right leaning  Liberal Unionists, which as Lady Bracknell says in Oscar Wilde’s play The Importance of Being Earnest in questioning Jack:

Lady Bracknell: ….What are your politics?
Jack: Well, I m afraid I really have none. I am a Liberal Unionist.
Lady Bracknell: Oh, they count as Tories. They dine with us. Or come in the evening, at any rate. 

Walpole was in office for over 20 years and the Whig party for over 62 years. For the next 64 years, the Government was led mainly by Tories with the odd Whig period. In 1834 the Conservative Party was founded out of the Tory Party, and a conservative government continued to rule for another 21 years. 

In 1859 the Liberal Party was founded apparently as an alliance of Whigs, free trade-supporting Peelites and reformist Radicals. These factions all merged to become the Liberal Party. On the political spectrum they were a centre party and for the next 63 years they traded government with the Conservative party, their last Prime Minister in office being David Lloyd George. From 1922 to 1935 things were in flux. There was brief blip of the very first labour government under Ramsay MacDonald from 24 January 1924 to the 4th November 1924 when the Conservatives under Stanley Baldwin were in Government for the next 4 plus years years,  From 1929, during the world depression  there was a succession  of National Governments, first under Labour   for 6 years then from 1935 under Baldwin and Chamberlain until 1940 when Winston Churchill took the Office in May 1940 through to July 1945 when the second Labour Government under Clement Attlee took office.    Churchill returned in 1951 and the Conservatives ruled for  13 years until Harold Wilson took office for Labour in 1964. Since then the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have traded governments. For the next 60 years the Labour Government has ruled for 22 of those years and the conservatives for 38. The longest conservative spell was for effectively 14 years between 2010 and 2024, during which time the country has become the most divided it has ever been.

Historically it would appear that the United Kingdom electors have chosen a centre to centre right leaning Government.  For some obscure reason, in the last 10 years that electorate has moved further to the right rather than maintain that position of liberal unionism they clung to for so long in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. What is more extraordinary, is that as the 20th century evolved and with two massive world conflicts being dealt with, the country, still clinging to its hierarchical class ridden society, began to grow closer together. Indeed the upheaval of wars brought about collective national governments comprising all parties. With the cataclysm of the second world war it was the Labour Party that set to work to bring about a more cohesive and pluralist society with the Nationalisation of Coal and Health in 1946, the nationalisation of gas and electricity in 1947 and 1948 respectively. Oddly, the nationalisation of water did not occur until 1973 during a conservative administration under Edward Heath. All of this was thrown away by the Thatcher government during her 11 years in office followed by 6 years of John Major. An 18 year stint of Conservative government that began by championing the idea of free flow capitalism and privatisation to the maximum.

Privatisation created a number of very rich people as well as a growing number of poor people. We are lucky that the National Health Service survived at all. Its has been underfunded and allowed to fester despite the miracle that it has managed to keep the majority of our citizens alive and in reasonable health. It has its flaws but it would be an outrage were it to go the way of water, gas, electricity, rail and transport services, which provides only dividends for its stockholders and little else in the way of contributions to the taxpayer or the state. The failures of privatisation are painfully apparent. It has contributed to the depletions in council and affordable  housing. The great mantra of owning your own home as not only been debunked, but it has caused even more difficulties in even being able to rent one. The costs of rail and the pollutions cause by horrific mismanagement of water services are also instances in point. 

The legacy of the state pulling back, doing less, but seeking to control more is what we are left with. Hence the divisions. The nationalist and populist rhetoric has nothing to do with welfare, but everything to do with separation and isolation rather than co-operation and inclusion. It is becoming a grasping and judgemental populace with entrenched positions and prejudicial bigoted views. 

Consider the billionaire who provides five million pounds to a dissembler and separatist just so he can have the freedom to scam and claim a parliamentary salary from the United Kingdom as well as a pension from a European Parliament he was once a member of, despite doing everything he could to dismantle it by spouting incredible lies and division. The hypocrisy is glaring and his venality is appalling; yet he leads a party that voters have given over their local authorities security to, which will also allow it to pillage local funds and create yet more hopeless divisions. The insanity, short sightedness and ignorance of this is extremely depressing. The one party that has a proven history of peoples welfare at heart is ignored because for some reason Keir Starmer isn’t likeable. 

Just to remind you, 46 Conservative, Whigs and Tories and only 6 Labour Prime Minsters have been in Government. Without those 6 you would have no pension, no health, no housing, no care at all were it not for the efforts of those politicians and supporters of the labour party. What is not to like about what they have already accomplished? One man gets your back up and all you can articulate is “I don’t like him”. What is wrong with you? You would prefer to sell out to an idiot who shows off his socks to demonstrate patriotism, smokes and downs a pint? Is that your hero? The scammer who accepts 5 million pounds for not doing anything? “It’s because he likes me and wants to keep me safe. I don’t have to do anything for it”.  Do You believe that?

I never quite thought the British voter was as ignorant as some of the populist American Trumpers one occasionally sees interviewed on TV; however, I stand, or rather, sit corrected. Celia tells me that most people have no idea or are completely ignorant of their own history and the achievements in social welfare that have occurred to make our lives better. If that is the case, what is being taught and what information is being made available. Is none of this available through AI? I suppose the danger of AI is thinking “Isn’t AI great, I don’t even have to learn anything, it will do it all for me”. So what program is voting for you? I guess, your right, you don’t need to know anything. What could I be thinking. Sorry to bother you. 

If you have a problem with my view, do let me know.