johnwvincent

Rain

It’s Thursday. Heavy rain is expected during the day. More rain. Soaking ground that is already soaked. Greening this green country. Forecasts are saying that the temperature high will be 12 degrees C. Now, that sort of temperature in mid-February is on the high side.

I’m doing that typical British small talk routine of talking about the inclement weather. Brezzy, wet and overcast. Not the sort of winter weather to raise the spirits. Spring like but it’s not spring. Although my daffodils are happy to smile in a spring like way.

It’s a time of the year when ice and snow should, at least be possible. That’s down South too. Surly we should have a couple of days of irrational panic as public transport systems slow to a halt and long-lost woolly jackets are pulled from dusty cupboards. Instead, there’s an almost permanent warm dampness.

With over 10-hours of daylight the garden is slowly beginning to wake up. One cheerful annual sight is the Camellias[1]. This year, they have an abundance of buds and flowers. Even with the wind shaking-off some of the flowers, the bushes are an array of colour. What’s more is they have survived the sandy soil and its inclination to be chalky as we sit at the base of the North Downs. In my sheltered south facing garden I’ve got two long lived bushes that flower in sequence. Both pink but one slightly redder than the other.

In my days in Cologne one of the delights of this time of year was a visit to Die Flora, der Botanische Garten[2]. It’s free. The Camellia house there was full of an amazing collection of varieties. The garden greenhouse is open every year between January and April. There’s a pathway through the house that shows off the plants at their best. Just as mine, they flower at different times and so there’s always something to see.

The sky is a blanket of grey. The trees are shimmering in the wind. Everything hangs with a wetness that rests heavy on the branches. It’s a major umbrella day.

Dangers to avoid. Those huge puddles that accumulate on corners where the drains are blocked by fallen leaves. The cars and trucks that take no heed of pedestrians crammed onto narrow pavements. The fountain of water that shoots into the air and covers all around.

[1] https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/camellia/spring-flowering

[2] https://www.cologne-tourism.com/arts-culture/sights/detail/flora-and-botanical-garden-cologne

One moment

I feel uneasy to quote Stalin but will do. In fact, there’s some disagreement as to whether he can be attributed. This short sentence may tell us something about the human condition. It’s not something that’s pleasant to acknowledge[1].

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.

This is a ghastly historic saying. It’s enduring because there’s resonance in the words. One quick look at a national newspaper, tabloid or not, and the contrast between the detail afforded to stories of individuals and the aggregate impact of terrible events is significant. A journalist might say that’s because stories about people are relatable. Stories about complex and catastrophic situations involving masses of people are harder to witness, interpret and tell.

Alexei Navalny’s death is a tragedy. If he had lived, would he have been the Nelson Mandela of Russia? I wonder. Maybe not but he could have been the catalyst for change. Even if that change was to be slowing in coming.

A tyrannical regime that eliminates an opposition leader. History is littered with such dreadful events. Power corrupts. However, it’s notable that such events do not always end well for a tyrant. The name and the event become a strong echo that lasts for a very long time.

Images show police in Russia dragging mourners off. In the snow and ice. These images are not ones of a confident nation. In gathering to mark the death of an opposition leader Russian people are taking great risks.

Will there be consequences because of Alexei Navalny’s death in prison? There ought to be. Time will tell. Let’s look forward with hope. Let’s hope that Russia takes a different path in future. It’s a great country with enormous potential. Sadly, it’s going in a direction that will just deliver more catastrophes and tragedy.

[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/

14-years

All political parties have factions. If the aim is to corral all liberals, social democrats, conservatives, or socialists and keep them under one roof it’s always going to be a hard job. Even as we speculate about the shelf-life of the traditional political ideologies, they remain powerful.

Liberals can be particularly difficult in this respect. It has been said that getting liberals to go in one direction is like trying to herd cats. However, that picture is a dubious one in times when great injustices must be addressed, or a good cause strongly fires campaigning spirits.

What’s fascinating is the decline and fall of “normal” conservatism. That mild mannered compromise between self-interest, traditional values and deference has slowly fallen apart. It could be because of its poor fit with modern society but it’s more likely to be because it has ripped itself apart from within. Factions have strengthened and the core beliefs that formerly bonded people together have fractured. Brexit may have been both symptom and cause.

There’s the case that populism has been radically amplified by modern media. A crescendo of views and all we hear and see is the peaks and troughs. Anything in the middle is drowned out.

So, the current Prime Minister’s (PM), let’s remember we’ve had a few, calls for unity. It’s a trumpet sounding in an anechoic chamber. Not likely to be heard, except by himself and those standing next to him. Their smiles are professional smiles. Their hopes are forlorn.

Analogies are fun. Another one came up this week as the Parliamentary byelection results appeared. The British electorate could be compared to a sea going super tanker. That is, being big and having so much momentum, changing direction takes a long time. Once that direction has set there’s not much that can be done in the short-term. That national super tanker maybe going slightly left of centre whatever happens. Of course, a crude analogy isn’t necessarily true. It’s more of a prediction of what might happen if pivotal events do not intervene. That’s easy to say. It’s less easy to anticipate such dramatic earthshaking events.

One thing I can feel confident about is that this is not a re-run of 2019. No way. Nor is it a re-run of 1997. A vital ingredient is missing. We have no charismatic political leaders. Vision is in short supply.

Facebook has a habit of throwing up pictures from the past. One it threw my way this week was of me standing in Crawley town looking every bit a parliamentary candidate. That was 2010. I looked at the image and thought – if only I’d had some inclining of what was to come in the next 14-years.

If only I’d anticipated how badly the coalition would turn out for liberalism. If only I’d anticipated what foolish gamblers Cameron and Clegg were in thinking a national referendum would silence the Europhobic hordes. If only the Labour Party hadn’t gone on a doomed left-wing romp. If only the reality of Johnson’s unfitness for office had sunk in earlier.

Looking back provides lessons. It doesn’t predict what will happen next. We all to often get hooked on linear projections based on where we stand now. Forecasting is as much a mystery as ever it has been. That said, I think doing the maths is better than looking at the tea leaves or seaweed. A narrative for the future could read – don’t think “that’ll never happen,” think change is natures way of keeping us on our toes.

Here’s a prophecy. This one has good and bad. Long talked about and feared by those who milk the status quo, Proportional Representation (PR) will be implemented for national elections in the UK in the next 14-years. The dated model of big tent political parties will crumble. Ballot papers in years to come will have something for everyone. So, what’s bad about that transformation? Populism will not die. It will just eke out an existence in many new forms.

QT

Over the years the BBCs Question Time (QT) debate programme[1] has played an important part in political discussions. It was a must watch for political activists and students at all levels. In fact, anyone interested in understanding the political views that permeate the country.

Unfortunately, the programme has declined to become a dull backwater for viewing if there’s nothing else on. The format is locked in to an awkward seeking of balance at the expense of an inquiry into the reasons and justifications for widely different views. There’s little in the way of vigorous cross-examination or investigation into the core values of the speakers.

I don’t want to blame the person who chairs the debate or the BBC for hanging on to the QT heritage. The programme has played an important part in the life of the country, in the past.

I don’t want to be one of those social media complainers for whom any deviation from the age of Robin Day is a blasphemy. Those black and white days are a wonderful snapshot of a long-lost era. The relationship between the public and their politicians has changes beyond recognition.

There’s no doubt that we have all become somewhat more superficial than may have been the case in the past. Politics has become something that is marketed to us as a commodity. It shouldn’t be that paper thin.

At its best such a debate programme gets to the fundamentals. If it merely tracks yesterday’s headlines the results are predicably shallow. Audience and panel members simply echo what we already know. What we’ve already heard elsewhere throughout the day.

What I want to know is more of the why and less of the what.

Say, a social liberal politician objects strongly to a dilution of human rights and a hard right leaning conservative welcomes such a dilution. We may already know that’s the positions they have adopted and campaigned on but are those positions of convenience or core beliefs?

Exploring what panel members really think and what they might really do is surly more interesting than allowing them to play to the audience, at home or in the room. I want an objective chair to put the panel members under pressure to uncover any deceptions. Deference born of an obsession with balance is as bad that born of class or impoverishment.

One of the parts of the format that seems unquestionable is the requirement to answer questions posed by members of the public. The audience is supposed to represent the members of the public not in the room. They rarely do. I’d much rather see a town square type format. That’s where the members of the public engaged are not so pre-selected or self-selecting. Walk out into a typical high street and randomly ask what question do you want answered? Do it live.

QT needs a major shakeup. It’s not quite dead. Its revitalisation is possible, but it needs to get off its current path.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t1q9

EVs

I do find the anti-EV campaigning on social media a bit peculiar. It’s a bit like the arguments for smoking that were made in the 1950s and 60s. Combustion engine vehicles are slowly but surely going to become history. The time for that change is the subject that should be discussed and not whether it’s a good idea or not[1].

One “argument” out there is that adding together all the elements that make-up an electric vehicle there’s a lot of environmental cost in their production. There’s no doubt that nothing is for free. For example, mining lithium and cobalt are not nice in every respect. There’s the concern that demand could quickly eat-up global supply too.

The “arguments” I’ve seen fall apart when considering not only the vehicle production environmental costs but the lifetime costs of an EV when compared with an internal combustion engine vehicle. 20-years of belching out toxic emissions stacks-up. 20-years of using renewable electricity is a far better solution. In theory the potential for recycling valuable materials is high with EVs too. However, we have yet to see if that works successfully in practice.

Other “arguments” look to demean the performance of EV’s when compared to conventional vehicles. Naturally, the time taken to recharge is one of the biggest gripes. For a conventional fuelling at a petrol station a tank can be filled with 500 miles worth of fuel in 15 minutes. For a current EV more preparation, planning and patience are needed to achieve a lesser range.

Some EV performance figures are far superior to conventional air breathing vehicles. Acceleration is one. Powerful electric motors unencumbered by complex mechanical transmission systems react immediately to demands[2]. EVs use power better.

There’s another gripe or moan and that’s about weight. Taking two comparable vehicles, in performance terms, the electric one will be heavier. That’s the technology we have now.

It’s a different kind of weight if that makes any sense. What I mean is that an EV is roughly the same weight whatever the state of the machine. Whereas a vehicle that uses liquid fuel varies in weight according the amount of fuel on-board. Of course, all vehicles vary in weight depending on the payload they carry (goods or passengers or both).

What’s a little difficult to take from the anti-EV lobby is that those who complain about EVs impacting roads, due to their weight, are rarely the same people who express concerns about heavy diesel delivery trucks or Chelsea tractors thundering down residential roads.

There’s one hazard that must be managed for all types of vehicles. A view of a serious fire involving either an EV or a conventional vehicle quickly shows what that threat can do. What we have now less experience dealing with EV fires. They can be severe and difficult to supress.

Regulation is often reactive. The fire threat is real. In this case maybe we do need fire suppression systems in integrated household garages. Multistorey car parks packed full of EVs are going to be a real challenge if a major fire sparks off. That said a fire started with a “diesel-powered vehicle” can be just as challenging[3].

[1] https://www.ft.com/video/95f86c5d-5a94-4e63-bbe8-6cc5ffb59a2b

[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a38887851/why-are-evs-so-quick/

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67077996

Housing

It was astonishing to listen to a Conservative Minister this morning. My diet of News and current affairs always starts with the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. Lee Rowley MP was everything you would expect from a former management consultant turned poltico.

Basically, the man is in denial. Everything is fine and all we need is one or two tweaks. Housing problems, only happen in Labour run areas. Everything is peaches and cream. Converting offices and shops into dwellings is perfectly fine. High prices for small cubes without windows – what’s the problem?

Then Mr Rowley wiggled around in his seat when asked outright: what’s the aim? How many houses will the latest proposal delivery? The answer was evasive. It’s not about numbers so the Minister said. Policies without a measure of success or failure are like sentences without meaning. This Minister couldn’t stand on the record of Ministers gone by, so he waffled.

The Minister for Housing is the person in the UK Government responsible for national housing policy. So, after 14 years in power we might expect us, the public, to be reaping the benefits of the seeds sown at the start of a term of Government. Nothing like that is remotely true. Initiative launched now are framed as if a unique and radical new approach is being taken to improve a dire record. Ignoring that the record is that of the current Government.

I don’t want to forgive the Minister, but he has only been in the job since November last. Chopping and changing Ministers is a habit of this Conservative Government. It’s almost like they hot desk, a few weeks here and then a few weeks there. Never enough to get much done.

UK housing, planning, and building is in a poor state. The demand far outstrips supply. Prices are ridiculous. Typically, the percentage of a young person’s income spent on accommodation is horrendous. Rents are high and first-time house buyers are finding it harder and harder. Tenancies are insecure and landlords are giving up.

Although, I remember having to endure high interest rates, at least housing was affordable in the mid-1980s. On a moderate income a mortgage could be secured for about 2 to 3 times annual income. My first brick built two up, two down, was a big step but it was affordable.

I believe this is going to be a General Election issue. Or it should be. It’s time for young people to come out and vote. It’s time for their voice to be heard. It’s time for a major shake-up in the way housing is provided in the UK. Policies enacted in recent years have punished those at the bottom of the ladder.

That’s my thought for the day. Change is vital.

POST: In his BBC radio programme, Tim Harford explains the statistics used in political debate and the News. The Minister above was comparing apples and pears, as is so often the case, when talking about the social housing that has been built[1]. Comparing the period before the Conservatives came to power with the period afterwards, using different metrics is a deception.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001w86h

Drive

Listening to talk radio passes the miles of spray as I thundered down the motorway in the heavy rain. Oddly, going West to East seems somehow to be “down” although that makes no sense at all. Today, the M4 looked at its least attractive.

Inherently, those who take the time to phone in to radio stations are a self-selecting group of people who have been themselves been selected by the station’s editors. Afterall, who wants a dull silence or an abusive incoherent rant? That’s what social media is for (smile).

I’m guilty as a listener of quick stereotyping. I’m human. Radio voices do give a hint of education and personality. Unfortunately, my irrational biases are not too different from a lot of people. That association of a middle English accent-less voice as being “intelligent” is so easy to make. Contrasted that person with a broad regional accent, God forbid, West Country, then it’s all to easy to think smock and pitchfork.

What I’m recalling is a man speaking in the poshest London accent one can imagine. The subject was flip flops (flippy floppy[1]) that opposition politicians are doing as they change their policies. Is it national News that circumstances change and policies change accordingly? Apparently, it is.

He was saying that he had intended to vote Labour in the forthcoming UK General Election because he wanted change. It’s time for a change. Now, recent announcements had put him off. The radio host asked him who he was going to vote for when the election finally came. His answer was not inspiring; the devil you know, he said. My reaction was one of destain. I wanted to shout at the radio; you mean after all the screw-ups this lot have made you would still want them back in power!

I thought how can an intelligent person, maybe that was a leap too far, stick with the devil you know, when you know that devil is so grossly incompetent? Their overall performance has been poor. It’s a mystery but is that’s a common view? Is the taste for change so weak?

That sort of spur of the minute instinctive reaction is quite legitimate. Afterall, it’s a secret ballot. So, if that’s the way a person feels then that’s the way they will go. Comfort blanket politics.

My problem is that the whole notion of accountability goes out of the window if people constantly stick with the “devil you know” regardless of what they have done. If choosing differently is always considered to be too risky then no one will ever know if things can get better (to paraphrase a slogan from a past election[2]).

There’s some political mendacity here too. If we go back to the 2016 referendum, it was decidedly risky to vote for Brexit. That didn’t stop tub thumping right-wing politicians from pushing the risky option. Now, those same right-wing politicians want to cling to power so they are advocating exactly the opposite. That’s to encourage the electorate to think that change is far too risky. I can image a new political slogan saying – Yes, we are awful but we say we are not so awful as all the others. Dick Emery[3] would be proud.

[1] https://youtu.be/CFNML_MGq-M

[2] https://youtu.be/V6QhAZckY8w

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/03/dick-emery-dies-archive-1983

Space

Eutelsat OneWeb is a growing global connected community. That’s what the publicity says. Once upon a time I wrote about OneWeb. I wrote about it in the context of Brexit.

One of the touted benefits of Brexit was autonomy, in other words, British innovation leading the way to benefit Britain above all others. It’s that aggressive assertion of sovereignty that was at the core of Brexit. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that this was part of Brexiters fantasies?

In the Brexit turbulence the UK Government walked away from the EU’s Galileo programme. The UK no longer participates in the European Galileo or EGNOS programmes[1].

Then in 2020 the UK changed its original post-Brexit position and scraped building a national alternative to the Galileo satellite system[2]. At that time, Business Secretary Alok Sharma offered around $500 million of UK public money to acquire part of an organisation in trouble, called OneWeb.

OneWeb is a commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellation now with an element of Government ownership. It’s network of satellites doesn’t have a global positioning capability, like Galileo.

To get its satellite network up and running, an expensive business, OneWeb merged with French company Eutelstat. Today, if we look at the 2020 investment made with public money the financial situation doesn’t look good. That doesn’t mean to say that things will not turn around in future years[3].

The Times newspaper has taken a nationalist view of the circumstance[4]. It’s a point that the intellectual property is not in the hands of the UK Government, but the investment could still turn out to be a useful long-term commercial bet. It’s gambling with public money.

As an aside, I’ve been looking at buying a new dishwasher for the kitchen. It’s made me aware of a capability that I had no idea had been developed. Namely, the connection of dishwashers via the web. I think this is what is called the Internet of Things (IoT). So, imagine that, British dishwashers connected by space as a Brexit potential benefit.

However, if there’s a change in the UK Government’s political direction after the next General Election there’s a strong possibility that the UK will return to the EU’s Galileo programme with some manner of partnership. When we get to 2026, we may look back on the decade behind as a vacuum, much like the vacuum of space. A time when an uncertain direction cost a great deal.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-involvement-in-the-eu-space-programme

[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-scraps-plan-to-build-global-satellite-navigation-system-to-replace-galileo/

[3] https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/oneweb-uks-gamble-satellite-startup-pay-off

[4] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/656bd77c-c106-47c3-840b-674e9efc4f0e

Food

Food security matters. Much like energy security matters. Much like access to basic commodities. There are fundamental matters of supply that must not be ignored. International trade is a two-way street. But it must be a two-way street on the level. It’s possible to imagine a set of scales where there’s a balance between both sides. Maintaining that balance is a dynamic business.

It’s easy to understand how aggrieved farmers in Europe feel if they are subject to unfair competition. It’s the same in the UK. If say, meat comes into the UK, produced at a lower standard than domestic produced meat, and that undercuts farmers prices, that’s unfair and unwise.

News doesn’t just concern agriculture. Over the last weeks discussion about the UK’s ability to produce basic commodities, like steel, has occupied minds. Imports maybe cheaper. The trouble is that countries jeopardise domestic security and merely offload environmental concerns by increasing dependency on others beyond certain points. A sensible balance must be struck.

Political, marked trade imbalances are a nightmare. British farmers may not be so overtly militant as some on continental Europe, but they have a strong interest in influencing what laws say. Bandwagon jumping politicians from the far-right and far-left are taking advantage of the discontent that exists. None of these empty barrels have answers. That doesn’t stop them making a lot of noise.

Post-COVID, in all sorts of industries, there’s been, and still is, significant supply chain problems. For example, the price of farm machinery has gone through the roof. Although general inflation appears to be slowly coming down the hike that has happened, has happened. It’s bedded in.

Looking at the gap between input prices and outputs shows an unhealthy situation[1]. Producers have been squeezed. Their margins have been squeezed. It’s certainly not a good time to be a milk producer[2]. Even with optimism for the longer-term, today’s bills still need to be paid.

In the UK, there’s an often written about concern surrounding the power of the established major supermarkets[3]. These are almost monopolistic in their position in the marketplace. On the walls of their food warehouses pictures of smiling farmers and clean, shiny tractors are all the rage.

Because so much food goes through the doors of the supermarkets, if farmers want to protest, they are probably a better target than the UK Government. Alternatively, British farmers may need to work to reduce the influence of the middlemen. Going direct to the customer may not be for everyone but more could be done.

In a General Election year, it unlikely that politicians will pick a fight with British farmers. Their ears may prick-up for a short while. That’s a good time to make the case for domestic production.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agricultural-price-indices/agricultural-price-indices-united-kingdom-november-2023

[2] https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/dairy-producers-braced-for-an-uncertain-future-nfu-survey-reveals/

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/280208/grocery-market-share-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

Look ahead

Much as I support the UK Government’s position on hormone injected beef, the exit from negotiations on trade have wide implications. Maintaining the regulations that ban the use of hormones in beef is a good move for farmers and consumers.

However, for cheese exports the collapse of talks is tragic. Zero to 200% is one hell of a tariff jump. The UK will be in a worse position with respect to trade than it was pre-referendum. That’s with a strong ally, namely Canada[1]. Brexit has made us worse-off.

Yet, the Brexit supporters that remain, still herald Brexit as a wonder. Logic plays no part in their thinking. It’s easy to respond in an angry way to this self-inflicted blindness. It does no good. The stubborn streak in those who have dug a big hole is a thick one. And the hole is getting ever bigger.

Clearly, there’s no urgency on the part of Canada[2]. On the UK side the urgency is much greater. The need to stimulate growth to bring about a recovery in the British economy is much needed. Sadly, the legacy of a decision made in 2016 has made created a weak negotiating position.

For a long time, the UK has been given a soft landing due to transitional arrangements. Now, these arrangements are drying up. Far from the propaganda of the Brexiters, trade deals are not easy.

The problem is a reference back to the past is like crying over spilt milk[3]. How to go forward when the relationship between different States has been significantly changed is no simple matter. The situation is not irrecoverable but the avenues that can be explored are limited.

So, I caution of a never-ending lament. Brexit will need to be rectified. The means to do it are tortuous and may take a long time. The means to undo the mistakes of the past may face opposition from many quarters. One of the predictions for the European elections, this year, are that there will be a swing to the political right. Several right-wing political parties across Europe are on the ascendancy.

Instinctively these right leaning political parties are likely to less internationalist and more focused on immediate domestic concerns. So, third parties, like the UK, may not be high on Europe’s future agenda. On the UK side the major political parties have gone quite on Europe. There’s plenty of campaigning on international issues, like climate change and military conflict but little on enhanced working together.

There are many national news stories where solutions are best arrived at by greater communication, cooperation, and coordination. This year, so far, the signs are that these three “c” are going to take a back seat. Ironic, isn’t it. Facing greater international challenges than for decades, States choose to look inward. This myopia will continue until leaders speak positively of the future. Vision is needed.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/canada-britain-pausing-free-trade-agreement-talks-2024-01-25/

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-uk-trade-cheese-1.7094817

[3] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cry-over-spilt-milk