Category: Democracy

Reflections: Decade Since Brexit

Ten years ago, the world was a different place. “The past is a foreign country”. That bit is true. I still had an apartment is Cologne. Although, that phase of my life was coming to an end. The first two months of 2016 were about wrapping up the loose ends. Deregistering, as is the way when leaving German. Coming to a settlement with my landlord. Packing up and moving back to the UK. Saying goodbye to my regular haunts. Saying goodbye to a wonderful city.

Being an astute watcher of the UK political landscape, I could see that a vail of discontent was hovering over my homeland. There was a frustration amongst those in government. Can this endless debate about the UK’s place in Europe be resolved? Can it be knocked on the head once and for all?

The UK Prime Minister (PM), David Cameron was sitting on a small majority after the General Election of 2015. Conservatives were nervous but wanting to retake the agenda by trying to put to bed the Europe question. As it turns out Cameron made a grave mistake. He entertained the notion of a national referendum to advise the government on what to do next. An act that was uncommon to the UK’s normal way of doing business.

Probably one of the most foolish political acts a UK PM has taken in a very long time. Naturally, in 2016 few had an idea of the chaos that would be unleashed by this attempt at quelling internal Conservative Party wranglings. It’s true that these wranglings were not new. Just perpetual or should I say perennial.

My return to the UK wasn’t a celebration of the achievements we had made in Europe. That collectively we were in a much better place than before. That we had build something to be proud of. No, it was more of a submersion into an angry and emotional row. A heated row littered with misinformation and just simple run of the mill nonsense.

As I write this it’s plainly evident that the experiment, that was Brexit, damaged the country. Not only that but it resolved nothing. Instead of settling an issue it stirred up animosities and tribal conflicts. Today’s soap opera on the right-wing of UK politics is evidence enough of unresolved rivalries and ideological divides. An insular mindset and unresolvable differences.

In January 2016, there was no practical plan to leave the European Union (EU). It was almost unthinkable. Surely sensibility would prevail. That’s the political trap that Cameron fell into. Dare I say an almighty display of his cultured public-school arrogance. Convinced that if arguments were put to the public authoritatively, logically and rationally a remain result would be a simple foregone conclusion. That the political risks were manageable. That’s how wrong a man in power can be.

Moving on a decade. Yes, it is that long. Lots of water under the bridge. To the idiots on stage now, I say: the UK is not broken. It surely isn’t in as good a place as it could be. Had Brexit not taken place then we’d all be much more prosperous. We would be contenting with continuity. That includes squabbling right-wingers, but the fact is that they will never ever desist.

What’s sad is that the opinion polls say that a significant number of people want more of the same. More nonsense from the people who brought us Brexit in the first place. More from those doomsters and has-beens who complain without any realistic ideas of how to solve problems. A karnival of conmen.

Now, in the UK we have two right leaning political parties that are almost the same. One being the Conservatives and the other Reform. Each trying to outdo each other to attract the same voters. Stirring up discontent wherever they can find it. Projecting a negative image of the country whenever they speak. Feuding in a way that should convince people that neither is fit to govern.

POST: These folk explain it all in clay. Claysplained (@claysplained) • Instagram photos and videos

Strengthening Partnerships

Is it time for a new European alliance? The sands seem to be shifting as geopolitics suffers the rumbles of a communal earthquake. It’s a time for those who share similar values to come together. An alliance of people’s who believe in liberty, rule of law and self-determination. However our world might be viewed it’s a place where it’s surely better to be part of a bigger community than it is to stand alone. Power can be dangerous in the hands of a few.

Now, I know that nationalist and separatist voices can be loud and often superficially appealing. Absolute autonomy, if there is such a thing, does mean fragmenting partnerships and breaking-up communities that work well together. Long term stability is accrued by working with others.

I live in a complex place called the United Kingdom (UK). It’s not one kingdom but several. Yesterday morning, I stood at the bases of a statue that remembers ancient times and a pivotal moment in a gathering of unity. Having grown up in Wessex, I’m acquainted with this monarch given the number of places where his name is elevated.

King Alfred the Great was born in 849, in the town of Wantage. No, that’s not the mythical King Aurthur. Alfred was an able leader whose legacy warrants the word “Great”. He drove off troublesome Viking invaders and unified part of Anglo Saxon England. You bet there were probably dissenters who predicted that a novel kingdom could never work.

Viking invaders made their mark everywhere they went. They had mastery of the seas and a stubborn determination to explore and exploit without bounds. I guess, in England even now there’s a little bit of them in all of us. The brutish aspects of Viking society were their downfall. Smarter, more educated and learned leaders, like Alfred outwitted them in the end.

Culturally, Greenland is European. I’d go as far to say so is a major proportion of western Canada. The people who inhabit that large icy island are the ancestors of the Vikings.  

The US has rightly recognised the need to strengthening Greenland’s security. Without doubt the best way to do that is via a reliable long-term partnership.

When the Vikings conquered a land, they forced its inhabitants to pay the Danegeld. To fight them King Alfred demanded service and taxes from landowners. You might say throughout history there’s no escaping death and taxes.

If Greenland is a mineral-rich territory, as is reputed, then it seems logical that some of that wealth be spent on security and defence. This matter doesn’t require the US to control Greenland. It does require the US and Europe to agree ways and means and work together.

It’s a massive counterproductive proposal to punish countries who disagree with a US take-over. Whacking tariffs on close partners is a way of making new conflicts and not boosting common interests. If the threat to this island territory is posed by Russia and China, then they must be quietly smiling.

Now, I know that nationalist and isolationist voices don’t see common security interests the way multilateralists do. Agreements need to be made in the frame of – what’s in it for me. It’s not just Greenland that needs a North Atlantic alliance to work, it’s all of us. The capacity to defend US and European interests in the Arctic is best served working in partnership.

Aside: I’ve never stepped on Greenland’s soil but have flown over it many times. The North Atlantic tracks that divide up the airspace run over both ocean and the tip of Greenland. Views from an aircraft window are of a vast wilderness.

Political Intolerance

Although there’s a growing intolerance in the UK. That can be seen in the opinion poll ratings for the Reform Party. Voicing opinions that are likely to arouse conflict, and division has become a calling card. Done on a regular basis the media can’t resist covering every foghorn moment. This offers them a disproportionate coverage, as if the sky is falling every day.

Kinda funny that a European folk tale, with a moral twist, is the basis of a political strategy in 2025. “Chicken Licken” got hit on the head by an acorn and deduced that the world was about to end so he’d better tell everyone right away.

I started, although there’s a growing intolerance in the UK, and meant to lead on to deducing that I’d say that people in the UK are more tolerant than those in the US. Now, this isn’t the case. For from it, tolerance is being stretched to the limits in the US.

For all the bad Press the current UK Prime Minister (PM) gets, his language has been coherent, deliberate, and understandable. That is like most of his predecessors, except the one who was in office only as long as a lettuce remained fresh, namely perhaps Liz Truss. Starmer is a lawyer after all. Not a great orator. Certainly not a comedian.

If Labour’s leader Starmer stood on a public platform and exclaimed “nobody understands magnets” I’m sure he wouldn’t last longer in post than Liz Truss did. See how intolerant people are in the UK.

Humanity understands magnetism. That’s down to a couple of heroes on mine. Michael Faraday[1] and James Clerk Maxwell. By applying experimentation and mathematics they both mapped out how electromagnetism works. Much of the modern world depends on their discoveries. Electrical power is at the core of technical society.

If the PM were to redefine his government’s environmental policies and take against wind energy, I doubt that he’d say, “The windmills are driving the whales crazy, obviously.” It’s true that the UK has a lot of wind turbines in the North Sea and that there are whales who pass that way[2]. That sentence alone would have the members of the House of Commons rolling in the aisles. It would be difficult for supporters and opponents alike to remain calm in such a situation.

On both sides of the Atlantic there’s so much debate and discussion about artificial intelligence that it’s impossible to get away from it. Yes, there must be a few ostriches, with their heads in the sand, who when asked wouldn’t know of the existence of AI. Can’t be many though.

So far, the PM hasn’t resorted to saying “Around the globe everyone is talking about artificial intelligence. I find that too artificial, I can’t stand it. I don’t even like the name.” Naturally, I stand to be corrected because there may come a time at Prime Minister’s Question Time that the subject of dropping the word “artificial” comes up. It’s hasn’t yet. If this subject became part of the ding done exchange at the dispatch box in parliament there is one thing for sure. Everyone would know that it would be time for a new PM.

Will Starmer survive 2026. My prediction is that he will survive in post but that will not stop arguments about his future. Overall, here my conclusion is that people in the US are far more tolerant than those in the UK.

[1] https://www.mritannica.com/biography/Michael-Faraday

[2] https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/marine/marine-mammals-and-sea-turtles/minke-whale

Lessons from Nature

I once said to Kwasi Kwarteng[1] that peak Boris Johnson passed during the early part of his terms as London mayor. Naturally, predicably he didn’t agree with me. This was in the Parliamentary constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge in 2017. I was the Liberal Democrat candidate standing against former Conservative Minister Philip Hammond. The public event we were attending was in Egham in Surrey.

Wow. A hell lot of water has passed under the bridge since that time. It’s like looking back at medieval history and trying to find a thread that links with the here and now. Governments have been and gone, careers have flourished and collapsed, Trump has been and gone and then returned and as was predicted Brexit has turned out to be a disaster.

Here’s a thought. It has always astonished me that we have a common fallacy. If a shelf regarding person who makes a lot of noise was once, even for a fleeting time, good at one job, they will be good at a loosely similar job. What a load of nonsense. So, it has turned out to be.

I’ve been watching the BBC’s series Kingdom[2]. About the animal kingdom. I know that the filming of such a spectacular series takes an enormous amount of dedication and effort. We get the pleasure of watching a well edited set of stories about leopards, hyena, wild dogs, and lions.

It’s tough out there to survive the seasons in the imposing Zambian landscape. We get to see the shifting of power between animal families and from generation to generation. It’s raw nature doing what it does and what it has been doing since the dawn of time. In what appears a paradise, nature is cruel. Rivals quickly exploit weakness. It’s going a bit far to draw a direct link between the rivals in the wild and the rivals in our parliamentary democracy. That said, there are lessons nature can teach us.

One is that top dogs don’t stay top dogs forever. They get their moment in the sun and then it passes. The fight to make a claim on a territory is perpetual. Yes, the cycles of the season have their impact and luck, good or bad, plays its part.

Two, is that a bad move remains a bad move. Ignoring crocodiles is never a good move. Wandering about without the protection of the pack is a high-risk strategy. Backing off, and fighting another day, is the best way to deal with a bigger, meaner, and hungrier opponent.

Where am I going with talk of these two different worlds? Human nature and animal nature.

It’s my reaction to seeing the scribblings of a former Prime Minister wibbling on about how dangerous it would be to reverse Brexit. Boris Johnson, that man whose star faded a long time ago, is writing for tabloid newspapers. He’s writing exactly what anyone would expect to see from those who will not learn from experience.

A bad move remains a bad move. Now, nearly ten years on, a bad decision remains a bad decision. Write what you like, it’s impossible to transform a failed project into a kind of utopia. What’s worse is to try and scare people by writing that we must tolerate failure because we once adopted a failed project is ludicrous. It’s irresponsible. It’s mad.

[1] UK Chancellor of the Exchequer from September to October 2022 under PM Liz Truss.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002hdgh

Civilization’s Edge

Civilizations rise and fall. That’s not new in the human experience of the last couple of thousand years. One of the causes of failure is an encounter with an entirely unexpected threat. When I say “unexpected” I mean unprepared for threat. Then finding that the defences that have been constructed fall simply and quickly because they didn’t anticipate that threat.

Another reason for failure is a perpetual human characteristic. Arrogance. Everyday imagining that the pinnacle of achievement is – now. Look how smart we are in the 21st Century. Capable, Superman like, of leaping so far ahead of our forefathers.

I’m a child of the analogue age. I was born into the space age. What that brought us, by necessity, was the digital computer in all its myriads of forms. Yet, from day one, it’s no better that a mass of fast switches. Ones and noughts. Nothing more. Nothing less.

With miniaturisation and an understanding of how materials work a massive, global, interconnected digital system, called the INTERNET, has been constructed. It’s flexibility and utility are undeniable. Its extended human capabilities way beyond that of past generations.

Now, I can start a sentence with “however” or “but” or despite this fact. The whole enterprise is still an unfathomable, dynamic number of ones and noughts.

There’s a kind of vulnerability that is elemental. Whatever might be written about powerful Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems it’s fair to say that the “A” is entirely accurate but the “I” is a bit of a myth. Mimicking intelligence is more the order of the day. That does make people shudder because that mimicking is so fast and draws on a massive amount of information. Seemingly that surpasses human capabilities. It doesn’t.

I write not of the machines that we have today but of those to come. I’ll resist the mention of the number 42. What’s happening is an acceleration of developments. These highly versatile tools that are permeating every aspect of life are not frozen in time. They overhaul themselves on a regular basis. What comes next is indeed machines that make machines. Algorithms that write algorithms.

Humanity is unprepared for the emergence of an intelligence that genuinely fits that bill. The whole idea of sovereignty and human autonomy might go out of the window. The ability to exercise control over where we are going is lost.

There are a lot of wealthy folks who are of a libertarian frame of mind who don’t seem too concerned about this race to the point of loss of control. This could be an expression of arrogance or ignorance or both. It could be the ultimate expression of short-termism.

It’s going to require real effort to hang on to democratic systems where we all have a stake in the direction of travel of our society. Money buys influence. Now, that influence is adverse to the idea of trying to regulate or moderate the advance of technology.

Civilizations rise and fall. Are we racing towards a cliff edge? Put aside climate change for a moment. Stop me from any tendance to doom-monger. My thought is that a comfortable, stable, prosperous society needs regulator instruments that work to mitigate threats. Let’s not be persuaded to ignore that reality.

A New Customs Union

Let’s not put up taxes. Let’s trade more. Seem obvious. Well not in late 2025 in Britain. This possibility must be forcefully put on the agenda for debate in parliament. Raise revenue, rather than raising new taxes, has got to be the better way to go. The bigger the pot the more chance that a government has got to balance the books. Taxes have their place but not to be the default opinion, in all cases.

The Labour Party has been talking the talk on growth in the economy but frequently marching in the opposite direction. It’s as if they embrace the comfort blanket of domestic tax increases too readily without thinking of the long-term impact. Habits are hard to change.

Before, what a majority agree was a mistake, Brexit, trade with our next-door neighbours was in a much healthier position than it is now. We’ve (UK) created barriers and obstacles that have diminished our trading position to no advantage whatsoever. Coming up for a decade of backward thinking.

In parliament, the Liberal Democrats are tabling a bill that calls for creating new Customs Union (CU) with the European Union (EU).

What is a CU? Simply put, it’s a trade agreement between countries to abolish tariffs on the goods they trade with each other. So, instead of barriers and obstacles to trade, the whole process becomes easier and cheaper.

Yes, such an agreement with the EU would have implications for relations with non-EU countries. What I’d say in that respect is that such negotiations with non-EU countries on tariffs haven’t been going so well in the last year. The UK has been buffeted by the policy of other nations, where their policy often spins on a dime. On / off fragile agreements don’t add enduring value.

Such a new CU with our next-door neighbours would boost the UK’s GDP by a significant amount. A boost of £25bn a year for the public finances is predicted. Thus, the growing demands that drive for domestic tax increases would be abated or at least be affordable.

Do you remember? So, many advocates of Brexit said we’d never leave the CU. It’s easily forgotten but some of the most ardent Brexit supports were saying this to the electorate. In essence being untruthful.

Back in January 2017, the Conservative Prime Minister (PM) of the time confirmed that the UK would not remain in the EU CU. What a massive mistake PM May made. The repercussions have been devastating for businesses and the public up and down the UK. It was an act of disfigurement that damaged our economy for nothing more than political dogma.

Sadly, we are where we are. I wouldn’t start from here. Wouldn’t it be great if negotiations started to take the UK into a new CU with our nearest, biggest trading neighbours and partners.

Sadly, the way the parliamentary vote will go is rather predicable. The Labour Party, in its current form, is not the internationalist Labour Party of its history and traditions. Currently, government support is not forthcoming. They prefer to talk the talk without walking the walk.

Post: Fix Britain’s Trade – Liberal Democrats

UK’s Digital Dependency

Under the title of “Culture” The Guardian newspaper offered an article that caught my eye this weekend. The author, Tim Wu was offering a point of view about the economic landscape that we inhabit in Britain. The theme was the drift that has taken place whereby we find that a huge dependency has grown-up over the last couple of decades. That is the unassailable dominance of a small number of US companies throughout the whole of our country.

What am I using to write this remark? It’s a computer program called “Word” sold to me by a multinational company called “Microsoft.” What’s strange is that this way of expressing my relationship with Microsoft isn’t commonplace. There’s a tendance to treat software, like Word as if it has always been with us and always will be. Like the public roads I drive my car on. Completely taken for granted. That is until a problem arises.

This Saturday article wasn’t about computer software per-se. Although the world of computing is riddled with intellectual property rights there remains a kind of openness to new ways of doing business. Digital ones and noughts are like the text on this page. They can be rearranged in all manner of diverse ways. The combinations and permutations are almost infinite.

Tim Wu argues that we should look to the way transport systems developed as an analogy to the electronic communications infrastructure we use.

Roads developed in the era of the horse. More than 200-years ago, before the time of the railroad. In fact, they go back a lot longer than a few hundred years ago. The Romans were particularly good road builders. However, that was a state enterprise aimed at getting armies around a sprawling empire.

The condition of roads in Britain took a leap forward when commercial enterprise found a way of getting an income from the primary land transport system of the day. Road tolls were a way of building and maintaining a network of highways. This network was physical. Fixed in place.

Digital infrastructure is more than cables, wireless systems, and databanks. Without the human interface all that extensive structure is unusable. That’s were a small number of US companies dominate the marketplace. This complete extra territorial dominance is, like my comment about Word above, taken for granted.

Tim Wu’s analogy doesn’t cut the mustard. It does illuminate an inconvenient truth. The reason the big US companies are driving the future of communication and technology is because they have captured a massive global income stream. However, much of that position depends on the laws that prevail in each nation. That prevail at a time when globalisation was seen as almost unquestionable. Now, the question arises has national sovereignty been sacrificed on the alter of progress? If so, what next?

There’s often been a hard kick-back against anticompetitive behaviour. Monopolies are not considered the best way to serve the public interest. Nevertheless, throughout history they have been pivotal in our story. Like it or not, that’s how the elegant country houses and castles of Britain were paid for and furnished. The same experience can be witnessed at the Newport Mansions[1] in the US.

How do we democratise rapidly advancing technology? There’s a mighty big question.

[1] https://www.newportmansions.org/

Public Broadcasting Value

It seems to be the season to have a downer on the BBC. As the gloomy light of winter gathers all around. The trees are shedding their leaves and that hunkering down mentality is invading my thoughts. Lawns no longer need mowing. Soden with moss and leaf fall.

I understand the dislike that partisan commercial broadcasters have for publicly funded broadcasters. The question of a “level playing field” and “bias” is always likely to come up.

Making a living from commercial advertising is highly competitive. Demands never stop. Seeking income from a marketplace that rises and falls with fashion and fad. That’s hard. Admittedly, there’s the compensating factor of wealthy benefactors or owners, prepared to make a loss, pumping funds into like minded companies. Shifting sands of political influence.

So, looking across the aisle at a major broadcaster that gets funds from the public, as a matter of law, must seem rather disconcerting. Certainly, it’s the sort of issue the wealthy benefactors or owners of media are going to kick at. Some to the extent of wanting to destroy chartered institutions with an ethos unlike their own.

What is a “level playing field” in the British media landscape? Can there ever be such a thing? That’s not an easy question to address. Shifting sands of public likes and dislikes shape the playing field (sorry about the metaphor overload). What might have been considered as independent, objective and neutral in the 1990s is way different from that now, 30-years on.

The British media landscape is not static, nor should it be so. In the period of three decades digital communication has advances at lightning speed. The sheer diversity of channels of communication has multiplied (even if they do repeat the same messages).

One sign of a healthy debate is the self-flagellation that the BBC often undergoes. As an institution, doesn’t it like to agonise about itself. With good reason considering some of the grave errors it’s made in the past. Supporting presenters whose behaviours have been found to be appallingly bad, and even criminal.

Let’s not tar everyone with the same brush. To be able to make mistakes and then correct them, with a good degree of learning in-between, is a strength. Some partisan commercial broadcasters seem unable to do this with any conviction. They just move on.

A publicly accountable broadcaster has no choice but to stand in the dock and take a reprimand, when appropriate. That’s no reason to shut it down. It’s a reason to make sure lessons are learned and not forgotten.

Doing a simple intuitive cost-benefit analysis. Taking the BBC as an example. What it offers, when it works well, far outweighs the costs. Listing three points, these have significant value: unifying impact of having a trusted national broadcaster, quality, broad base and originality of its output and editorial independence (not selling products or ideology).

Overseas critics may get upset, now and then, but that’s for them to get over. There’s no way such critics should shape the future of the broadcast media in Britain. That would be untenable.

Reinventing Debate

Once upon a time. A wise sage of great age, a not so bright mean-minded troll, a flighty light-headed dreamer and a jobsworth cog in a lumbering bureaucratic machine all met round a table. Bright lights shone on them so they could not see the masses assembled in ranks who had come to gawk at them in their deliberations.

What a strange tale can be told of their troublesome quarrels. To keep the peace, rarely with success, a queen of spades presided over their preordained disorder. Weekly viewers were invited to take a winding decent down the rabbit hole. Rarely was that rabbit hole decked with anything other than predicable hewn earth.

That’s how I think of the BBC’s Question Time in 2025.

Once upon a time. A programme of thoughtful debate, conducted by articulate men and women who wrestled over current affairs, each with a slice of insight however different their perspectives. Painting contrasting visions of the rights and wrongs of the day. Getting to the heart of the matter as their chairperson questioned and tested their opinions. Or so I thought.

Whereas I’d only hide behind the sofa when the Cybermen stomped around on Dr Who, now I desperately search for the TV remote control whenever Question Time is announced.

It’s not that I don’t enjoy debate. Far from it. It’s a wonderful thing to witness, if it’s done well. Honest debate is much needed given the complexities of our world’s trouble. The idea that everyday people question those who make a career of espousing their opinions is undoubtably a sound one. A little slice of accountability is a powerful medicine.

Sadly, a programme format, that was created for black and white TV, lingers on like the ghost of a smartly dressed long-gone presenter. The audience is treated as if they were merely brought in the shout and howl like citizens of Rome, as the lions’ devoir some poor sap. Playing the crowd both at home and in the theatre, the chosen names of the day become as predictable as cabbage butterflies seeking cabbages.

My fantasy would be to have a real-time on-line forum. A virtual and physical place where answers to questions and rational opinions could be sought. No lack of drama but where the focus was on discovery and inquiry. Another dimension that takes account of the new media landscape. That is, providing a civilised and respectful space where, by the end of the show advancing new ideas or changing minds becomes possible.

If regular topical debate just means reinforcing polarisation the rabbit hole will get deeper. Much deeper. All sense of common sense will be lost. A routine of gainsaying each other will thunder on as a pointless parade. Like an ever-darker version of The Prisoner. I’ll switch off.

#BBC

Embracing Uncertainty

Imagine siting under a great wide spreading old oak tree. Acorns falling all around. The ground littered with whole ones, crashed ones and half eaten ones. It’s more the half-eaten hazelnuts that the squirrels leave behind that I’m thinking of. On one of those cool days, like this morning, when the rain has abated and the sun beams are streaming across the glistening fields. It was lower than 2 degrees, early this morning, so a heavy drew rests on the grass and leaves.

Think of title for a book or film that sums up the state of current affairs. I’m tempted to say “All the President’s Men” but that’s been well done in the 1970s. Not only that but the word “scandal” may have lost its meaning. Political fiction and reality are melding into one. Anyway, I don’t want to follow the crowd and obsess about America.

Was there ever an age when prosperity seemed assured and the population was happy. When men and women of honourable intentions and wisdom, judicially ruled the land? Maybe not. Or when it happened, to some limited extent it didn’t last beyond a generation.

Any title for a book or film would have to encompass the persistence of change. Nothing upon nothing ever stands still. In fact, that’s one of the few things I can write that is an absolute. A real natural absolute phenomenon. Everything we know of moves relative to something else and movements mean change. We never breath the same air.

In a storage box of my books there’s a title: “Thriving on chaos[1]“. That’s more to do with an attitude to change. It doesn’t sum up the moment although it does imply that chaos is normal. I’m not going there fully since not all change is chaotic. Life is punctuated with regularity. It’s the traditional saying about death and taxes. Those two are regular occurrences.

A financial crisis or stock market crash or bursting bubble seem to hit us as an unexpected instant of violent change. Unexpected that is until hindsight kicks in and we all wish we’d listed to siren voices. Analysis streams from the outcome of a crisis[2].

A title for a book or film would need to include the recurrent nature of both good and bad consequences. It would need to emphasis our inability to accurately predict what’s going to happen next. That is even if one or two of us may get it right.

All this leads me down the road of a manner of thinking that’s all too common to me. That’s the world of probabilities. Addressing that slippery ell called uncertainty. So, what could be better as a title than: “The Age of Uncertainty.” Oh look, that’s been taken back in the 1970s. What could be better than the title chosen by John Kenneth Galbraith[3]?

He looked at the chaotic but repetitious nature of our common history. Going way back. Unsurprisingly a little cynical and monosyllabic at times. I’ve been rewatching his BBC television series. It’s impressive.

Acorns are falling all around. An unusually large number, this year. Next year – who knows? If I could find some reliable data, I could do some probability calculations based on past seasons. But with certainty, I can say that we are in an age of uncertainty. Acorns will fall. How many – well that’s the question isn’t it.

[1] https://tompeters.com/thriving-on-chaos/

[2] “The Storm” by Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat politician, looking at the 2008 global economic crisis.

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002l6sc/the-age-of-uncertainty