British – Page 17 – John Vincent

1974

Inflation. A sign of our times. What in days gone by could be bought for a penny, now you need at least 50 pence. Coins exist for a few more years but their fate is sealed. This week, my 50p got me a 7-inch single from 1973. A flash of memory. Top of the Pops with Alvin Stardust[1] appeared like magic. It was in an unregarded box in the corner of a high street charity shop. What a delight to pick up such an important historic artifact for only 50p. A relic from my past.

With a typically glam pop music title, “My Coo Ca Choo” gave Alvin Stardust a Christmas hit in the 70s. On TV, he dressed in black leather like an imaginary Gene Vincent. Mind you, most of us kids of 1973 had no idea about 1950s rocker Gene Vincent. So, Stardust carried it off, acting out a rock-a-billy character to the delight Christmas audiences. He’ not remembered the way that Slade are remembered. To me there a connection that unique.

These threads. These recollections centre around brief and happy moments. The formidable farmhouse of my youth had more rooms than we ever used. Downstairs at the front of the house were the two square living rooms. Both with tall sash windows looking out to the South. On the one side was our everyday living room. On the other was a room that was kept for special occasions. High days and holidays. Oddly that room was called by us “New Room”.

We all decamped into the New Room for Christmas. That’s where the Christmas tree sat. That’s where the decorations went up. It took a while to get the room into a comfortable, liveable state. Most of the year it was relatively neglected. After the fireplace had been stoked up, bringing warmth, and drying out the damp outside walls, the room became the centre of our Christmas days. The “nice” sofa was pulled up to get the most warmth from the compact fireplace. Still there was plenty of space to litter the room with games, toys and torn wrapping paper.

It was the Philips company that introduced the first compact cassette recorder[2]. Until I looked it up, I didn’t know that it was as early as 1963 that the cassette first appeared. Cassettes dropped in a world dominated by vinyl records. So, the ability to record sound, without spending a pile on a reel-to-reel tape machine, was a great novelty and a lot of fun.

At first, I thought this Christmas memory was from 1973 but it couldn’t have been. It must have been 1974. That’s me at 14. Already at that age, I had a strong interest in electronic bits and pieces. My hobby was finding out how things worked. Often testing them to destruction. Living on a working farm there was plenty of opportunity to get to know about mechanics, hydraulics, and electrics. A little of chemistry too. However, for me circuits, valves and transistors had a particular fascination.

Christmas present in 1974? Well, it was a classic Philips compact cassette recorder and a K-tel compilation cassette called “Dynamite”. I must have had some blank cassette tapes too. What a compilation tape that was! Mud, Wizzard, Suzi Quatro, Mungo Jerry, Nazareth, Steeleye Span, Alice Cooper and, you guessed it, Alvin Stardust. 70s glam pop at its hight.

My flash of memory was sitting on the carpet to the left of the tiled fireplace engrossed in 1974’s Christmas present. I still have K-Tel’s Dynamite in a box somewhere. From yesterday, I have at least got a 7-inch single, in good condition from that distant era.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/oct/23/alvin-stardust

[2] https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co465542/philips-portable-tape-recorder-tape-recorder

Change needed

In so far as voting systems are concerned, it’s often been misleadingly said that Proportional Representation (PR) would result in endless back room deals and politics conducted behind the scenes. This is because different political parties would need to negotiate more often than they need to do so in a purely adversarial system. However, whether that political negotiation is in public or in private isn’t on the ballot.

Today, we have a perfect illustration of the downside of the current First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system in the UK. The results of the UK’s voting system are not a broad representation of the views of the voting public, rather it’s the representation of the factions of the dominant political party. That is dominant in terms of numbers of elected Members of Parliament (PMs).

Instead of negotiations going on between political parties with defined aims and objectives UK citizens have negotiations conducted behind the scenes in back rooms inside a political party.

Rather than tolerating more than one secret “star chamber” of MPs, we ought to be questioning these unstable undemocratic practices. The fragile coalitions within political parties, like the Conservative Party, are completely fragmented and hold wholly different views on important issues.

Surely, it would be much better if different party factions were honestly represented by the own political party. That would give the voting public a fair choice. That would make voting more meaningful. Today, under FPTP the voting public have no idea what they will get. Don’t doubt that statement just recall what has happened in the UK since 2010. The UK’s electoral system is broken. That’s why current opinion polling says that the level of trust in politicians is low and getting lower.

With PR difficult issues are openly discussed. Political parties exist to promote their philosophy. If they are liberal, they are liberal. If they are authoritarian, they are authoritarian. If they are progressive, they are progressive. If they are conservative, with a small “c”, they are conservative. If they are internationalist, they are internationalist. If they are nationalist, they are nationalist.

Today, for the two political parties often taking power in the UK their official names don’t mean a thing. It says little about what they will do when elected to a position of power.

In 2019, the Conservative Party were given a big majority of the seats in Parliament despite only winning 44% of the vote. Yet, MPs from fringe factions will stand-up pontificating about their representation of the people. Constantly, saying that the British people want this or that when such loud assertions are clearly untrue.

The UK’s FPTP system means that millions of public votes are wasted. Large numbers of people are denied a voice, and the make-up of Parliament does not reflect how people cast their votes. The UK’s electoral system is not fit for purpose.

Good News

It’s good to see. Sad, in terms of so many lost years. Now, the UK has rejoined the Horizon Europe and Copernicus programmes with a new agreement with the EU.

The evidence is clear. Most people in the UK have recognised the mistake of Brexit. What public polling there is shows a strong trend going one way and one way for sure. A post-TCA Brexit poll of polls shows a stable rejection of Brexit. The British public worried about the economy, inflation, and the NHS. Brexit is a minority interest[1].

Even those who voted for Brexit, including the current Prime Minister (PM) have come to recognise that the UK needs a new set of agreements with the European Union (EU).

Announced back in September[2], a new customised deal opens the world’s largest research programme to UK scientists, researchers, and businesses. It could be seen as baby steps, but the direction of travel is towards much more collaboration with our closest friends and neighbours across Europe is on the cards[3].

This week, the UK was welcomed back to the Horizon research family. Starting from 1 January 2024, UK citizens will be able to participate in the EU’s research and innovation programme. This is a tremendous victory for common sense and a win-win outcome for global scientific advancement. British researchers and scientists will now be able to apply for grants and projects with certainty.

The UK joins Canada and New Zealand with an association agreement[4]. Other non-EU countries are also negotiating for an association to Horizon Europe. The current version of Horizon Europe began in 2021 and runs until 2027.

I’d written before about how the UK had shot itself in the foot by being so dogmatic about Brexit that it had severed links that it had no need to sever. One day we will look back on the post 2016 madness and wonder what it was all about. Historians and social scientist will write voluminous tones on every aspect of the subject. Textbooks will fill libraries. They will do so to warn of the mistakes that can be made by headline chasing Conservative politicians.

The economy continues to be seen as a most important issue for the country. Reconstructing a productive relationship with our European partners is an absolute must.

Let’s hope this move will reestablish some of the wonderful industrious links between universities across Europe and with other global partners. In the past UK researchers led a high percentage of projects. Life will be different as a non-EU country. Nevertheless, participation in the programme is a great boost. It’s not free but it is worth every penny or cent.

[1] https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-issues-index-september-2023

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-joins-horizon-europe-under-a-new-bespoke-deal

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-moment-for-scientists-researchers-and-businesses-as-uk-association-to-80-billion-horizon-research-programme-officially-sealed

[4] https://sciencebusiness.net/news/horizon-europe/uk-primed-rebuild-its-standing-eu-research-after-officially-joining-horizon

Half full

Winter Sunday mornings are a good time for mild depression. Awake to grey skies as the bedroom radio clicks into action. Well, that’s one way of looking at the words dribbling out of the airwaves. Bouncing off the bedroom walls and hitting my half awake ears.

It’s billed as a weekly reflections on topical issues from a range of contributors. That’s elementary well-crafted BBC wibble[1]. Range of contributors means radio chums who sit well with the semi-religious Sunday schedule.

If we go back a couple hundred years, a middle-class family would be huddled around a hulking great bible looking for insights and explanations of the world around. Technology, namely radio, gives us the opportunity to squeeze all that into a short morning sermon. Now, the internet means a keen listener can revisit an ephemeral broadcast, any time, and any place.

Sunday morning should, in my mind, mean an articulate 10-minute essay on anything. Yes, anything. Often, it’s a rush to be profound and tickle unwilling asleep brain cells. This can start with controversial words that are then diluted for the breakfast table. Rather than writing a best-selling self-help book that only sells at international airports, Radio 4 drags in a version of deep thought to churn over a subject that’s vaguely topical but not quite. Vaguely philosophical but not quite.

Strangely, I like listening to the laconic warbling of someone like Wil Self[2]. It’s true that I can only do that if the dosage is reasonably thin. An excessive exposure to early and intense thoughts about the human condition can get overwhelming. Especially when sentences are the length of a double decker bus.

Sunday’s awakening is a moment in the week when I can be assailed by adolescent optimism or gravelly pessimism. Bravura passages can run the gamut of the whole of history. Equally, they can dissect a microscopic moment of personal revelation.

I’m going to get Confucian. If I recollect correctly, he has something to say about NOT being obliged to accept gifts that are not given with the best of intentions. It’s a kind of allegory. It’s a good one for the social media age.

Let’s say Suella Braverman does a slot on the BBC’s Point of View. I might be included to turn the radio off. But that’s not a good reaction for me, a person who believes in freedom of speech within civilised and reasonable limits. There’s the rub.

The essence is that it’s one thing to be offered a gift of someone’s great “wisdom” but there’s no obligation on my part to accept it. I think, in this country there’s too much a tradition of not rocking the boat. That’s to accept a gift as a matter of politeness. Even if the gift is quite appalling or bound to be harmful. Some cultures and countries don’t have that problem. I’m a great fan of Dutch bluntness. It’s a classical Britishness that has unwanted repercussions whereby we tolerate that which should be given short shrift.

How did I get to this point? Don’t tell me pessimism is good for us on a damp gloomy Sunday morning. Human events are not mostly random. Agreed randomness is a big part of life but please drop the “mostly”. Understanding probability is a useful skill. Randomness isn’t so random. But don’t let such an understanding led you to think that choice is immaterial.

I will choose. Radio, on or off. Get up now, or slumber.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001t34q

[2] https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/out-of-their-minds/

B. P.

A forensic dissection of the recent past is highlighting how major decisions are made in the corridors of power. It’s not nice to hear but it is good to hear. Transparency is a benefit of democracy. What we see is not pretty. There’s that saying about politics and making sausages being much the same. We desire results but are shocked if we study how sausages are made.

We easily get trapped in the noisy interchange between personalities. Newspaper headlines draw on our fascination of who said what and when. The more embarrassing the chatter the bolder the headline. The questions how and why are not given as much attention.

Even sampling a little of the reports of the compilation of evidence there’s a trend emerging. Much of this has to do with the way administrators, politicians, and scientist (practitioners and the theoretical) understand each other or don’t.

The classic divided between the Bachelor of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (BA) and the Bachelor of Sciences (BSc) is firmly embedded in our society. The divide between Oxbridge and the rest can look like a deep gorge. The divide between those who are instinctive hustlers and gamblers, and analytical reasoning calculators is uncomfortable.

Putting the above to one side, what shines through the submissions of the UK COVID inquiry is an embedded lag between events and a reaction to events. Knowledge with hindsight is wonderful. Time and time again after big events, files are taken down from a dusty shelf and on their pages is a register of risks. Within that the register is a discussion of risk of an event that has just become history. This week we heard a former Prime Minister almost admit that the COVID pandemic wasn’t taken as seriously as it should have been until it nearly killed him.

What does this say about our propensity to plan or take plans seriously? What does it say about becoming overcome or steamrollered by events? What can we do better to be prepared in future?

Lessons learned are fundamental to improving any way of working. It’s a feedback mechanism. Taking what can be derived from a crisis, catastrophe or momentous event and writing it down. Using that to make strong recommendations. Then tracking changes and moving forward to what should be a better prepared state.

We know we don’t have to wait for bad events to happen before we prepare. Our human imagination provides us with an effective means of anticipation. Tragic in the case of COVID is the ignorance of warnings that previous events had provided. The lesson from SARS[1] were know.

Maybe this is the Cub Scout coming out in me. Yes, that was part of my early upbringing in the village of Somerset. The motto of the British Scout movement[2] has a lot going for it: “Be Prepared”. Much of what goes with that motto is anachronistic, but the essence is immensely valuable.

[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome#tab=tab_1

[2] https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2017/05/08/be-prepared-scout-motto-origin/

Dangerous way to act

Why choose to make a deal with Rwanda the issue that breaks the UK Conservative party? It’s not the biggest issue facing the UK. It’s not the highest priority of voters if we take the opinion polls as an indicator. It’s only a totem for the far-right fringe. What we have is a sign of a stubborn disunity. Almost a fatalistic rush to collapse. An admission that there is only defeat over the horizon.

Clearly, the issue that should be addressed is to competently manage legal immigration. The numbers are orders of magnitude higher than those crossing the channel on small boats. Not only that but the backlog of unprocessed people dwarfs that which could be shipped to a third country.

A Government faces thousands of difficult policy choices every day. At this part of the electoral cycle, focusing down hard on one that is bound to cause disruption, dissent and disillusionment is politically foolish.

Let’s face it, to win a coming UK General Election progress must be shown on the two issues that are top of the concerns of voters. One: a cost-of-living crisis. Getting inflation under control. Two: fixing health and social care. Leading changes to health services and properly funding social care.

So, with the above in mind how is it best to react to the UK Government’s latest attempt to seal a deal with Rwanda. Through a legislative proposal there’s to be a definitive statement that Rwanda is a safe country. This is to be an unquestionable rule. Setting aside other existing laws.

What a dangerous way to act. Opening the door to this type of authoritarian legislative proposal opens the door to all sorts of acts that no one would want to see. Dictatorial nonsense. With the UK Conservative party’s current logic:

Why not a law that says that British rivers are clean. That would solve the problems of sewage discharge – not.

Why not a law that says that climate change is fixed. That would resolve global warming – not.

Why not a law that says that the tide must not come in. Dam – that one has been tried.

At the seashore, when King Canut[1] commanded the tide to stop, we all know the outcome. Since then, his name rather unfairly has become a byword for a delusional attempt to avoid the inevitable. When what he was attempting to do was to demonstrate the limits of his power.

It’s now more likely that my predictions of the date of the next General Election maybe driven by events. The limits of the power of a Prime Minister are most evident when those standing behind him slowly shrink away.

[1] https://www.royal.uk/canute-great-r-1016-1035

GE2024

Let me spectate. I’m no professional commentator, pollster or political pundit but do try to keep myself up to speed with the current affairs. The question in the mind of a lot of people is: when will the next UK General Election take place?

In these days before Christmas, it’s possible the Prime Minister (PM) doesn’t even know the answer to this question. It’s a balance of how strategic or opportunist he will be when it comes to making such big decisions. Most current predictions are that the Conservatives are destined to be defeated. The gap in the national opinion polls is substantial. That makes the decision of timing of an election one that could mark the end of the current PM’s term of office or elevation to Conservative saviour. Currently, political parties are desperately selecting candidates for each constituency. Something is afoot. Better stop there before I get tempted into a pun.

Let’s put aside any consideration of a winter vote. Arctic weather gloom hovers like cold mist. With the prospect of large heating bills upsetting most of the population there’s no politician who will want to accept the blame for that situation. Naturally, they will say that they are working at pace to tame inflation and overseas conflicts are the root of the pain.

The first step on the road ahead is next year’s springtime. Local elections are expected. Every year, they take place on the first Thursday in May. This is when a third, or less of the electorate put a cross in a box. At the same time London’s next mayor will be elected. So, 2nd May 2024 will be like a mini political barometer. Real votes in real ballot boxes are always a better indicator than sampling or sage views.

The European Parliament election is scheduled for 6th to 9th June 2024. You may think this European Union (EU) election has no bearing on the UK, but I beg to differ. If there’s a significant advance of right-wing political parties across Europe, then the impact will be felt in the UK.

The 2020 United States (US) presidential election was quite a show. In prospect, for the 2024 US presidential election is a gripping event despite the weak selection of candidates. That US national election is scheduled for Tuesday, 5^th November 2024. Guy Fawkes day[1] in the UK.

Let’s assume the Conservative party will want to hang on, not to the bitter end, but to get as much time elapsed after the pandemic shockwave, Partygate, mini budget madness and the cost-of-living crisis as they can. We are still reeling from the post-Brexit political earthquakes that have trashed confidence and the economy. Will the cost of government be political exile? That all said, people have shifted a long way since last year. The big question is: who do you trust?

The UK’s Labour party opposition should be confident and smiling. However, the opposition probably feels aggrieved having to wait so long for others to fail before getting an opportunity to win a general election. What doesn’t help is that the electorate are now pessimistic about any sustained recovery. Sadly, the public mood is beset with quite a sense of decline-ism.

Traditionally, in the UK, September is party conference season. That leaves October open for an election. But as noted above there’s a news media attention getting clash between what’s happening in the UK and US. Since significant geopolitical tensions are going to be raging throughout 2024, I think that topic may not be an influencing factor on the UK election date question.

Rolling the dice as late as October 2024 has several advantages for the incumbents. If there’s good summertime news, say inflation reduced and a modicum of economic growth the government will claim a great success. The struggle between democracy or autocracy around the globe could give a UK PM a platform on which to make one or two grand gestures. Also, with nearly a year to go, the opportunity for the opposition parties to trip-up increases.

When polls ask is Britain a better place to live than it was ten years ago or a worse place to live than ten years ago the pointer points at worse. It’s hard to imagine this will not impact voter intentions.

#ukpolitics #ukpolitics #politics #generalelection

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/the-gunpowder-plot-of-1605/overview/people-behind-the-plot/guy-fawkes-/

Ineptitude

Yesterday’s announcement went like this: “The government will also increase the minimum income required for British citizens and those settled in the UK who want their family members to join them.” This Conservative view, that families are a burdening the State persists like a stubborn stain.

The Universal Declaration of Human Right says: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Clearly, by the measures announced, in the case of this UK Government the family is not a fundamental group unit of society. In fact, family members based overseas will be required to separate in the event of a person accepting a low income in the UK. That low income in the UK maybe relatively large when compared with what is available in their home country.

I guess this is fine for lawmakers when considering the level of a Minister or Member of Parliament’s salary and benefits. There’s no impediment that will impact their lives in this respect regardless of the nationality of their partner and children.

What I’m wondering is: what will be the case if a British pensioner, living in a European country, who wishes to return with a partner or children who don’t have British passports? If the increased threshold of £38,700 applies, then that will effectively ban them from returning unless they have a generous pension. It may be the case that they have worked on overseas and accumulated a non-UK pension, but this would be irrelevant if the deciding factors is a UK earnings threshold.

I don’t think there’s much disagreement that those who wish to move to the UK should be able to support themselves. The UK minimum wage is set at £21,673.60 for a 40-hour week. So, is the UK Government saying that no one can support themselves on the UK minimum wage?

Ministers have been quick to deny any responsibility for the chaotic state of the immigration system in the UK. Instead, they pretend that they are adapting to changing circumstances. The fact that they are 100% responsible for the current circumstances is brushed aside.

Having persisted for years with one set of flawed notions Ministers now announce another set of ill-thought-out proposals. The Brexit slogan of Take Back Control did not envisage giving control to a cabal of incompetence. In stark reality, that is what has happened.

The knee jerk reactions and ever shifting sand of the last decade need to come to an end. The British people should not be denied a General Election. More months of more chaos and ineptitude are incredibly damaging.

POST: U-turn. Minimum income requirement will not be increased as much as originally announced. A new threshold will be applied from the spring. A policy designed to exclude people from entry to the UK has been watered down for practical reasons.

Dr Who at 60

Now, I can be nerdy par excellence. It makes me nervous to the extent that there are far more knowledgeable scribblers on Doctor Who. It’s not like the internet is without a massive amount of coverage of every aspect of the time lord’s life. Although, I’m not sure I’ve seen the details of David Tennant’s shoe size – yet.

Last night, way out on the edge of the know universe was a spaceship. Somehow it got there through a random worm hole. The drama doesn’t expand as to what the enormous ship does, or why it only had one crew member or the anarchic mix of technologies.

Almost like a sketch from the Twilight Zone, the mystery mounts as we are asked to go beyond our normal understanding. That’s a good plot line, in that anything then becomes possible. So, at the edge of what exists there’s nothing but blackness ahead. Behind is everything that was ever known in space and time. The good, the bad and the indifferent. And where most of us would rather be.

The end of everything, as far back in time as it’s possible to travel in this story is not empty. A malevolent force or mystical entity hides there hoping to one day make its way forward in time to annihilate everything it finds. Malevolence is so often associated with emptiness. It’s a primal thing.

That’s what The Doctor and annoying companion Donna encounter when the Tardis goes awry. Given that it was spilt coffee that threw them to this point in space and time maybe the transport ship they encounter was an intergalactic coffee carrier or a shoe carrier. With respect to Douglas Adams.

Titled “Wild Blue Yonder” the tale told wasn’t so much blue as void of natural light. Way yonder lurked a clever and evil shape shifter. So, evil that the Tardis runs away, as it rebuilds itself. Our two protagonists were then marooned on a giant ghost ship with no idea what’s happening. Now, that’s a fine plot. Adrift in the deep darkness.

Over a series of frantic moments, the story pieces together. The original pilot of the ship turns out to be a hero, prepared to sacrifice themselves to destroy the nameless baddies on the ship. The pilot’s cunning plan was ticking away at ultra slow speed to evade the speedy thinking malevolent thingies. Distracted but feeling imprisoned the shape shifting villains put all their energies into attempting to copy The Doctor and Donna.

The copies strategy then appears to have been to hop on board the Tardis when it returned. That’s a bit of a plot flaw. Since the Tardis would presumably only return when the air of evilness had been destroyed. That’s what did happen in a wonderful just-in-time moment. Concluding the story with the destruction of the spaceship and the physical forms of the lurking baddies. Thus, again we are all saved from extinction. Open is the question of whether the lurking baddies still lurk.

This 60th anniversary special was for fans. To those uninitiated into The Doctors world, it must have been confusing. Difficult to follow. In fact, rather slow in parts. David Tennant as the 14th Doctor is the best modern incarnation. Long may the Tardis take us to the limits of imagination. It’s possible that the 120^th anniversary will include a virtual world that we will be able to step into and be immersed in a vast spectacle. Good luck to those who last that long.

Future

The road to fixing climate change is not an endless road. Today, our whole approach to climate change goes somewhat like this:

I’m not sure I’m convinced. Yeah, maybe we have a problem. We should do something. Definitely, but send me the plans, I’ll get to it, I’m busy. Time passes. What was it we should be doing? Oh yes, but that plan is for (insert a name) not me. I’m not contributing much to the problem. Anyway, there’s time between now and (insert a date).

So, we go on. There’s no doubt that there are changes needed to tackle climate change that are immensely difficult to do. Trouble is that by fixating on those difficult problems we talk ourselves out of doing the easier things. Let’s put simple actions like home insulation on the agenda again. Let’s loosen-up on our ridiculously restrictive policy on wind farms. Let’s invest in our national electrical grid to permit more connections to be made easier and quicker.

Yes, it’s advantageous for the PR companies employed by high carbon businesses to talk up difficulties and herald small gains as miracles. I mean, that’s what they are employed to do. On the other side we have PR companies employed by activists and campaigners who paint pictures of dire consequences and delinquent Governments.

I keep pointing out the dangers of populism and nationalism. The history of both is not a good one. They generally make most people poorer and a minority richer and more powerful. However, the tactics they use to gain popular appeal don’t seem to die off down the ages. A case in point is the story of Rome and Julius Caesar, as he crushed Roman democracy and seized power[1]. The chronicle is being well told on BBC 2. In the Britian, it’s often only their incompetence that halts the progress of Caesar like characters. Not mentioning any names.

To make change happen on climate change there needs to be a greater appeal to the populous. Expecting politicians to take a lead on the subject is nice in theory but wanton of hope. In our system of governance terms of office can be measured in days. Expecting neurotic politicians to step-up to a challenge that requires real long-term commitment is asking a bit much.

Campaigners will not give up on highlighting the challenges ahead. Periodically, politicians will pick-up on that campaigning fervour and try to jump on-board. However, as soon as a more immediate public concern comes along, they will jump-off.

I’m not saying that the cost-of-living crisis isn’t a number one priority. What I am saying is that a cost-of-living crisis is not an excuse to put climate policy on a dusty shelf for another few years. The road to fixing climate change is not an endless road.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0gjlmkv