Category: British

ULEZ 2

It’s not the first time I’ve experienced poor air quality. It’s a wonderful city but, on certain days of the year, the air in the German city Cologne is unpleasant. It can be stagnated, stale and dirty when the weather’s hot and there’s no wind blowing.

It was compulsory. You get a fine if you don’t have one. I remember getting a green environmental badge for my car[1]. This is a scheme by which the most polluting vehicles are banned from the central city. Introduced in 2008, initially vehicles were not banned but everyone had to have a coloured badge. These were red, yellow, or green depending upon the type of vehicle. Now, only green environmental badged vehicles are permitted to enter a prescribed city zone.

Yesterday, I drove from Reigate in Surrey to Croydon. Purley Way in fact. That’s a part of the main A23 road in the London Borough of Croydon. I now wonder at my sanity in doing so. The traffic was abominable. Purley Way is a mass of shopping warehouses, tarmac, and suburban sprawl.

What’s visible is the provisions for the introduction of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)[2] at the end of the month. Cameras and signs. This doesn’t ban dirty vehicles from London, but it does charge them a £12.50 daily to drive into or within the ULEZ zone. 

So, here are two different approaches to addressing poor air quality. The German one doesn’t require extensive infrastructure, but it does mean additional policing. The London one is more permissive but at a price. Collecting money from polluting vehicle owners to pay for cameras, enforcement, and publicity. Both require signage to warn drivers of the zone boundaries. Both have their detractors who object to any kind of restrictions.

To me, the problem of poor air quality can not be put on the back burner. You don’t need sensors and precision measurement to know that the problem is huge, real, and persistent. Even in my small Surrey town, the marked difference between days of traffic jams and empty roads is so evident. In the middle of COVID, I walked the High Street of Reigate, and the air was as clear and fresh as a Cornish village in winter. This week, with road works underway the town has been one big traffic jam and breathing the steamy air walking the pavement is not nice. Health suffers and it’s not just the environmental damage.

The utility of the internal combustion engine has seduced our communities. Now, the balance between the benefits of driving and the freedom it once symbolised has tipped. The sheer mass of vehicles in urban environments and their daily impact is so damaging that restrictions must be mandatory. There’s no turning back.

In Cologne, these changes are particularly pertinent. It could be said that the whole ball started rolling in that city. In the district of Deutz there’s a monument to Nicolaus August Otto[3]. He was a German engineer who successfully developed the internal combustion engine.

[1] https://www.stadt-koeln.de/leben-in-koeln/klima-umwelt-tiere/luft-umweltzone/die-koelner-umweltzone

[2] https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone

[3] https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/125th-anniversary-of-the-death-of-nicolaus-august-otto

Pathway

Conversation drifts across a table. “What do you do?” It’s a classic conversation starter. Maybe “Where are you from?” comes up just as often. It’s those basics about identity that either bond us together or throw us apart. Or at least tigger certain ingrained responses.

In a society, like ours that has a long tail of class-based judgement, these questions have greater implications than elsewhere. In of itself that is a questionable remark. Leave the UK and similar markers create stereotypes that are easily recognisable. US comedy is full of them. For fans of the classic series like MASH[1] or Frasier[2] they are there is spades. Situation comedy often depends on misunderstandings and social tensions.

Anyway, I’m writing this when it comes to mind what a big gulf there is between those of us who had “desk jobs” and people who worked far more with their hands and wits. The labels of administrator or artisan can be stamped out so easily in British society.

A conversation went like this – I was a coach builder. I built lorries. I could never have done a desk job. My response was – I was lucky. Sometimes, I sat at a desk under piles of paper. Or in front of a keyboard. Sometimes, I travelled to, just about anywhere, where they built or flew aircraft and got to deal with real hardware. But however much there was an overlap between us two seniors at a bar, there was still a gulf that was probably born of a dividing line that was drawn when we were teenagers. Streaming people away from academic study was a grading system, certainly in the 1970s.

You might say that these traditional social barriers are a thing of the past. They are not, are they? In fact, in powerful places the line between people with real lived experience in craft or public service type roles is growing. Take a cross section of Members of Parliament. How many can count an experience of working a skilled trade or hands-on time doing something useful?

The Oxbridge mafia is as in control as it ever has been. Although recent examples from that background should be enough to put people off. The leisurely stroll from Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) to the green benches is so much simpler than any other pathway.

I love the revitalisation of apprenticeships[3]. However, that word now means something different from what it once did. There weren’t such notions as intermediate or advanced apprenticeships in my time, although they were implicit. Just a few found a sponsor and a pathway to a degree course on the same level as those who stayed on at school.

As much as providing new pathways the social context still matters. Elevating the status of apprenticeships matters. This is a first-class stream. From it can come future leaders.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068098/

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106004/

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z4n7kmn

Blind alley

It only takes a few seconds of listening to the UK Government’s spokesperson Sarah Dines MP this morning to realise that the Conservative approach to a serious subject is peppered with one thing. It’s desperation and fear of losing the coming General Election. At every chance an interviewer will stand, such Conservative MPs take the opportunity to dam their opposition rather than answer questions addressing their responsibilities.

I get my news and current affairs top-up every morning via BBC Radio 4. I guess that’s becoming a rarer and rare phenomenon. Yes, as a radio dinosaur, I still have faith in the power of a well-constructed and probing radio interview. Sadly, an interviewer’s best efforts to get to the core of a subject are often thwarted by repetitious political soundbites.

“With respect” is a pernicious way of diverting a conversation away from questions that are embarrassing and hard to answer. That horrid amalgam of lawyerly pomposity and public relations training puts me off my breakfast. 

It’s clear the Rwanda saga is purely political. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Sarah Dines struggled to make a coherent argument. Let’s be quite honest. Threatening to ship immigrants off to Africa is not going to stop immigration.

Stopping the “pull factor” is not going to work by such measures. Those prepared to accept high risks to their lives, in precarious situations will not be put-off by administrative and bureaucratic shuffling in the UK Home Office. For those who have been at the mercy of murderous criminals, as they have made their way into Europe, they are not going to be put off by a lawyerly Minister preaching on morning radio.

This makes headlines in tabloid newspapers and maybe that’s its sole aim. The flaccid excuses given by Conservatives using bad law to make bad decisions for bad political reasons is wasting resources and lives.

Whatever the image makers would like us to see, those who vigorously supported Boris Johnson and Liz Truss as Conservative leaders are still running the country. The 2019 intake of Conservative MPs is jittering and prepared to spout any nonsense to cling on to their seats.

The British people deserve so much better.

Local air

There are cases of synergy. That’s where aviation and local authorities have a mutual interest. This often centres around the economic prosperity of an area. Relationships can be complex, difficult, and fraught with volatility. There are plenty of housing and industrial estates that cover the ground of former airfields. Like the railways that closed under Beeching’s axe[1].

Public interest was dominant 50-years ago, but privatisation dramatically changed relationships. Sustaining profitability through good times and bad have proven to be more than some locations could support. There’s so many combinations and permutations but fewer and fewer active commercial airfields in the UK.

London Manston Airport is an airport that only just clings on to existence. In 2013, the Welsh Government acquired Cardiff Airport. So, some aviation facilities have returned to public ownership and run as an arm’s length business. A few airports are given support to ensure connections exists between remote parts of the UK. Highlands and Islands Airports is an example.

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is coming. This is the extensive use of electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft (eVTOLs). AAM is an innovative concept that will require Vertiports and integration into busy airspace. To make the economics work a lot of routes will be in, and over urban areas.

My view is that AAM will only succeed in the UK if aviation and local authorities come together and embrace it. That is going to be a massive challenge whatever national government does.

In the case of local authorities with a mission of protecting the interests of residents this has often meant objecting to aviation developments. I go back to proposals of 30-years ago to make Redhill Aerodrome a feeder to London Gatwick Airport[2]. This was well and truly shot down by local interests. In fact, rightly so given the complex twists and turns it would have made in the airspace.

AAM needs the harmonisation of standards to ensure interoperability anywhere in the country. There are one or two UK local authorities that are already embracing the potential opportunities of this new form of flying. Coventry City Council is taking on the challenge[3]. It’s welcoming the development of the ground infrastructure for “air taxis” and delivery drones.

By the way, my view is that introducing the subject as “flying cars” or “air taxis” is not a good idea. This creates images from science fiction that may not resemble the reality of these new air services.

[1] https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/our-history/making-the-connection/dr-beechings-axe/

[2]https://john-w-vincent.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/bf3ec-clear_for_take_off.pdf

[3] https://www.coventry.gov.uk/news/article/4232/world-first-hub-for-flying-taxis-air-one-opens-in-coventry-uk-heralding-a-new-age-of-zero-emission-transport

Try again

One of the benefits of democracy is captured in the ideals that underpin it. The fact that an average citizen should be able to influence the society they live in is a big plus. There are plenty of regimes in the world where this benefit is not available. Power is secured and held by a dictatorial few.  

So, here we are in “western” societies at a difficult point in history. Those ideals, that get people to go out an put a cross in a box or put their names forward for election are being challenged. Having done the latter many times, I feel confident in speaking on this subject.

Although each one of us has the freedom to stand for election. To put our point of view forward. To speak freely about our beliefs, and notions as to how the world should work. That is, with the caveat on free speech being the expectation that shouting “fire” in a crowded space, when there’s no fire will be punished. We seem to be stuck in a tide of populism dominated by unusually wealthy people.  By a tiny group.

This is not a rant about wealth. It’s more an observation that despite all our freedoms, our societies still pick people who have exceptional privileges and monstrous egos. In the UK and US, both those in power and those seeking power are often people who do not share the lived experiences of the majority or a “real” understanding of how life is lived in our diverse communities.  

The migration of politics into the realms of soap opera is disturbing. If we look to leaders as a source of amusement, entertainment and sometime fear the outcome is likely to be very bad. Putting a clown in charge of the steering wheel and brakes only works in a circus arena.

We need to reignite the ideals of democracy. To make sure that despite the loud voices permeating the daily news, and talking over each other, a single citizen’s views will be heard. It’s troubling when authorities and administration, politically or bureaucratically motivated, ride rough shod over citizens and communities. This morning, I heard the foolish technocratic notion that all that needs to be done is to better explain. That is not to better take account of or honour the view of citizens and communities but just to explain more. To talk more as a parent telling a child about what’s good for them and what’s not.

Populism succeeds by creating turmoil and by constantly pointing the finger of blame at others. Liberals will not find an answer to this sordid mess by acting and talking as technocrats.

With all the communication tools available to us in 2023, we ought to be able to make sure that no one is left behind. To make sure that genuine concerns, at the grass roots are heard as powerfully as the loud cries of the self-serving demigods. If we haven’t succeeded in this simple aim, we need to try again, and again, and again.

Over the Horizon

Reading Anne Corbett’s article on the Horizon Europe research programme[1], I’m struck by the one step forward and then one step backward walk that the UK is taking. The politics of the moment leaves a UK Prime Minister (PM) dancing on a knife edge. Afraid to fall to the right or to the left of his own party. Having been part of an extremely destructive period in British politics, Rishi Sunak is attempting to re-brand the Conservatives with a colour of nationalism that’s designed to be anything to everybody and as variable as the wind.

From the start of the year, Rishi Sunak has made five promises[2] on economy, health, and immigration. The one on the economy is steeped in blandness. This is presumably to claim success regardless of the situation in the run-up to the next UK General Election. If a PM, of any political party, didn’t want to grow the economy, create better paid jobs and opportunity across the country there would be something distinctly wrong. A wish is fine but what about actions?

I have to say that it’s good to see a UK PM that’s 20-years younger than I am. Particularly when the US is playing out a game of geriatric musical chairs. Russia being plagued with the politics of generations past. China’s building global influence. And to top it all the Earth feeling the impact of climate change like never before.

This why I have such difficulty in understanding Sunak’s attitude to working with our nearest neighbours and closest allies. We have more common interests now than we did in the 1970s when the UK first joined our local trading block. I’m sure the zealots can’t see this fact but undoing the last 40-years is not a good way to forge a future. We can do so much better.

Culham is known for its Centre for Fusion Energy[3]. Its work is collaborative. It needs to be, given the huge costs of working in the field of fusion energy. That’s the way the Sun generates its energy. Here’s an example of the UK being a focal point for European fusion research. Post Brexit, like the problems other research institutions have faced, some researchers returned to continental Europe.

The idiocy of de-Europeanisation serves no one. It’s a residual of discredited political thinking. A Government doesn’t need to advocate re-joining the European Union (EU) but they do need a whole new positive approach to working together with European countries and institutions. Research is at the core of our common interests.

[1] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/07/28/will-the-uk-find-its-way-back-to-horizon/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64166469

[3] https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/

Past Earth

I wandered around the Natural History Museum[1] for an hour, or so this week. It’s one of the London Kensington museums that never loses its appeal. It’s a glorious place of assembled artifacts. At this time of year, it’s bubbling with children of all ages. Those ancient beasts that once strode the planet captivate and fascinate young minds. We can project all sorts of personalities upon them and know for sure we will never meet them wandering the streets.

I didn’t get to meet Titanosaur, one of the biggest animals to have walked the Earth but must go back and make sure I do. We share our planet with the remains of these giants. Luckily, we didn’t have to encounter them on the way to work in the mornings.

I like the reminder that human time and geological time are completely different spaces. We ponder the big news of the day over a tiny passage of history whilst the great expanse of life on earth sits quite in the background. Everything that made us, took billions of years to come to be.

Tracing the past, a couple of hundred million years isn’t much[2]. Yet, in one million we’ve come to dominate the planet as no other life has ever done before. We still have the choice as to our fate. Burning copious quantities of fossil fuel does seem foolish when seen in context. Will self-aware humans be a flash in the pan that comes can goes almost unnoticed by history?

Although, I don’t dismiss even remote possibilities when it comes to the unknown, the claims that non-human sightseers have been visiting us here on Earth does seem purely fictional[3]. There are several distinct arguments against such extraterrestrial alien holidaymakers.

Given the age of the universe, the coincidence of existence of multiple intelligent beings is possible, but they will certainly be separated by unfathomable distances. Even accepting the proposition that one day physics will provide a wizard transport system to cross those vast distances the needle in the haystack problem still means meetings may be extremely unlikely. Then there’s the arrogance that we presume such alien beings will have a shape, form and chemistry that has any meaning to us. Let’s face it, the abundance of life on Earth may be only a tiny range of what’s possible in the greater scheme of things.

No, I will continue to believe that there are rational explanations for lights on Salisbury Plain or deep in the Arizona desert. ET isn’t likely to be bothered with either. Unexplained aerial phenomena will continue to interest people, much as dinosaurs do but one is knowable today and the other may not be for generations, if ever.

[1] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/

[2] https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/mediapacks/earth

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66320498?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

ULEZ

Londoners in all Boroughs need clearer air to breathe

Oh yes. London has an air quality problem. It’s not the only city by any means. My recent trip to Cologne left me in no doubt that cities must address this problem. It’s an insidious hazard. It’s not so – in your face – as noise or water pollution. We’ve this human capacity to normalise bad things. Much to our detriment. Air quality becomes most evident when you move from a place of bad air quality to a place of good air quality. Then the difference becomes acutely noticeable.

Last weekend, I was in the West Country. Way down the A303. The difference is quite striking.

Last evening, I was traveling on the Tube to get to the Albert Hall. The difference is quite striking.

Whatever you may think about the implementation of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in London, there’s a need to do something drastic.

Expanding ULEZ across all London Boroughs from 29 August 2023 is getting a lot of political attention. No doubt some of this is whipped up purely to punish the Labour Mayor. However, the dilemma is clear. Penalising a lot of people who are not directly feeling the discomfort of poor air quality is inevitably going to cause a stink.

Now, we shouldn’t get disproportionately agitated. That fact is that poor air quality is killing people is not in question. The fact that a small fraction of vehicle owners will be made to pay is not in question[1]. The balancing act between reliving an unacceptable situation of harm and causing minimal economic pain is a tricky one. It would be a tricky one for whoever was in power.

My view is that measure that force people to change their vehicles should be accompanied with a practical scheme to compensate them for significant financial losses. Or that the emissions thresholds set should take account of the natural turn-over of vehicles that takes place in normal years. The political controversy of the moment is much because of the speed of change and its coincidence with a cost-of-living crisis that is very real.

Londoners in all Boroughs need clearer air to breathe. But London doesn’t sit in isolation. Afterall the Borough boundaries do not track urban boundaries. Parts of adjoining areas are equally urbanised, and the air doesn’t know about administrative boundaries. The M25 motorway doesn’t do much for air quality, that’s for sure. So, hearing of the London Mayor doing battle with adjoining areas is a bit sad. Solutions need to be negotiated with all impacted parties regardless of the politics.

By the way, I’m not impressed with communications from Transport for London. I clicked on an e-mail sent to me on the above subject and this came up: “This link has expired. Please contact the sender of the email for more information.” Thanks a lot.

[1] More than 4 out of 5 vehicles meet emissions standards, but if you use a petrol vehicle over 16 years old, or a diesel vehicle over 6 years old, you need to check it.

Build, but not here

Hearing Michael Gove on the radio this morning is almost a parody of reality. His warbling language doesn’t encourage listening. It wanders around with undulations and platitudes. He’s articulate in a way that’s like sugar dissolving in tea. I didn’t hear this, but I may as well have heard it:

Yes, we are going to feed your grandmother to crocodiles in the interests of the nation. I have great admiration for those who are stepping forward to be eaten.[1] It’s not just Labour grandmothers who will be affected but a whole range of different people. A government code of conduct will ensure they remain in Elysian fields, at least for the term of this administration. We are fully committed to our manifesto commitment (whatever). By the way: what was the question?

It’s strange that it has taken so long to recognise the virtues of another Michael, namely Michael Hesletine[2]. The idea that government intervention is needed to solve housing problems has resurfaced after a long hiatus. Lack of action over a decade, and more is one issue that may surface in next year’s General Election.

Over the weekend, I had a conversation with a parish councillor in a small village deep in the west country[3]. A landscape of great natural beauty. I said, I was all in favour of schemes to help local people buy property to enable them to build lives in rural communities. However, the prevailing view was that building is inevitably destructive and a not to be encouraged in an Idyllic village surrounded by rolling countryside. An urge to place responsibility for housing on towns and cities runs deep.

There’s a little terraced stone-built cottage in the village up for sale now. It’s priced well over £300,000. Yes, it makes sense for the owner to realises as big a receipt as possible for this property but it’s unlikely that anyone of modest means, who grew-up in the area will be the purchaser.

This small country village has a lively primary school, church, and village hall. Unfortunately, the pub is closed, and the village shop has long since gone. There’s now plans to lay fibre optic cable to better connect this rural community. So, with excellent communication one difference between rural and urban communities is eliminated.

Should such blessed places be reserved for those with deep pockets? The question is not a simple one since those incoming often restore and revive buildings and landscapes. My contention is that a balance should be struck. Rural communities that become isolated, museum like enclaves are not desirable or sustainable.

Minister Michael Gove has some workable ideas, but policy is focused on not upsetting the horses. Housing policy should be higher up the national political agenda, it shapes the fabric of our communities. It’s right at the core of determining who we are, not just now but for decades to come.

[1] Apologies to Monty Python.

[2] https://www.cityam.com/docklands-2-0-michael-gove-outlines-vision-for-new-higher-density-london/

[3] https://www.theblackmorevale.co.uk/2022/10/14/the-map-that-hardy-drew/

Energy Policy

Saint Augustine’s early life was not what we associate with a saint. As a young man he prayed “Lord, make me chaste (pure) – but not yet!” Just now that’s the way, I fear, we are thinking of the environment. Global, national, or local. It’s total human but it needs to be fully recognised for its downside. Yes, we would like to do more to restore our environment and fight climate change but we’d rather it happened tomorrow. Tomorrow, tomorrow.

The instinctive urge to put-off decisions for what appears to be an easier life now rattles down through history. The lesson we might learn is that this approach is generally a bad way of going about thing if long-term success is the aim. Civilizations have ended because they failed to change.

This blinkered approach could be called political expediency. It’s at the core of what has become political populism[1]. The drive to persuade an electorate by retreating from commitments and heralding jam today. This fits our social media saturated public debate to the tee. I want it, and I want it now. The future will look after itself.

It’s a sad philosophy. I say that because the premises is that we may as well live well today because we have no control over what happens next. In populist terms, that’s put down to an imaginary conspiring elite that will inevitably win regardless of what you do. Truly nonsense.

That might have been true in the stone age but its far from true in the 21st Century. In reality, and on average, individual citizens have more choice than they have ever had. I say “on average” because there’s a billion people in the world who still live on the breadline.

Anyway, my point is that putting-off environmental measure is foolish. I’m reacting to a Conservative Energy Minister, has said that the UK government will “max out” remaining reserves of North Sea oil and gas[2]. I’s almost as if the Minister thinks this has no impact. That’s other than short-term political gain amongst climate sceptics and right-wing newspaper owners.

If the target for Net Zero is – yes but not yet – there’s virtually no hope of achieving the goal. Events being what they are there will never be a perfect time to stop using fossil fuels. I’m in agreement that the rundown of fossil fuel use should be graduated. However, putting off real change doesn’t make change easier. In fact, it makes change harder.

In the run-up to a UK General Election the possibilities for policies of self-harm are all too evident. A Conservative Government desperate to cling on to power will wriggle and produce contorted justifications for delay. It’s a basic instinct.

I’m not saying that we should all become zealous exponent of hairshirt policies. What is desperate is that we don’t become side-tracked from practical measures that can be practically taken. Taken now.

Work as though everything depended on you, and the choices you make. That needs to be true of Government Ministers as much as every one of us[3].

[1] https://www.thoughtco.com/populism-definition-and-examples-4121051

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/407b834e-a503-4de9-acab-fcf88d76dbb3

[3] Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you. Saint Augustine