Category: Democracy

RAAC

Reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) is making the News in the UK. An unknown number of buildings are deemed dangerous because of the aging of this material[1]. RAAC has a limited lifespan. It’s inferior to standard concrete but lightweight and low-cost at the start of its life. It was typically used in precast panels in walls, roofs and sometimes floors.

The UK Government says it has been aware of RAAC in public sector buildings, including schools, since 1994. Warnings from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says that RAAC could – collapse with little or no notice. This “bubbly” form of concrete can creep and deflect over time, and this can be aggravated by water penetration. So, regular inspection and maintenance are vital to keep this material safe. Especially in a country known for its inclement weather.

It’s reasonable to say there lies a problem. The public estate has been through a period of austerity. One of the first tasks to get cut back, when funds are short is regular maintenance. Now, I am making some assumptions in this respect, but they are reasonable. Public sector spending has been under significant pressure for a long time.

The other dogmatic notion that has hindered a solution to this building problem is centralisation. There was a time when local authorities managed schools. They still do but in smaller numbers. Centralised funding has decreased the power of local people to address problems with the school estate.

Aging buildings have something in common with aging structures in aviation. There’s always a demand to keep going for as long as possible. There’s always the difficulty of determining the safety margin that is acceptable. There’s always a pressure on maintenance costs.

Believe it or not aircraft structures do fail[2]. There’s a tendency to forget this source of incidents and accidents but they never go away[3]. What happens in industries where safety is a priority is investigation, feedback and learning from incidents and accidents. The aim being to ensure that there’s no repeat of known failures. Rules and regulations change to address known problems.

The vulnerability to moisture and the limited lifespan of RAAC should have been a loud wake-up call. No doubt it was for some well-managed, well-resourced enlightened organisations. Central Government has bulked at the cost of fixing this known building safety problem. A culture of delaying the fixing of difficult problems has won.

In civil aviation there’s a powerful tool called an Airworthiness Directive (AD). It’s not something that an aircraft operator can ignore or put on the back burner. The AD can mandate inspections and changes to an aircraft when an unsafe condition exists.

In the schools cases in the News, the impression is given that Government Ministers have dragged their heels and only acted at the last possible moment. Maybe the construction industry and public estate needs a strong regulator that can issue mandatory directives. Known unsafe conditions should not be left unaddressed or significantly delayed.

[1] https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/housing-and-planning/information-reinforced-autoclaved-aerated-concrete-raac

[2] https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/N73711

[3] https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/TC-JAV

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.

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.

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

Thumbs down to British Conservatives

It has been a morning when one thing is certain. Real votes, in real ballot boxes give an indication that British opinion polls are not so far off reality. Conservatives got a pounding when voters expressed their preferences. The only thing to hold back the tide was in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, where the local issue was squarely London’s plans to expand its Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)[1]. 

The Liberal Democrats won in Somerset and Frome by a huge majority. The Labour Party won Selby and Ainsty with a significant swing. Prime Minister (PM) Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives are soundly on the back foot.

These seats in the House of Commons (HoCs) became vacant as Members of Parliament (MPs) stood down. In these cases, these by-elections have taken place before a soon coming General Elections (GE). Traditionally, that means there’s an element of protest in by-election results that is often more locally focused than in a GE. However, as Tip O’Neill, a former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, was quoted as saying “all politics is local”[2].

The UK Parliament’s HoCs doesn’t sit again until September, but it will have 3 new MPs when it does.

The British economy is underperforming, its health service is struggling, and the cost of living is punishing a lot of people. So, there’s plenty of work for a government to do, even if they seem to have run out of ideas, momentum, and talent.

In terms of the bigger picture there’s a sign that green issues can present politicians with a double-edged sword. On the one hand voters genuinely want to see progress towards greater sustainability and on the other hand they don’t want measures forced on them that make them poorer. Here’s a challenge to all the political parties.

Now, former London Mayor and PM Boris Johnson has gone back to scribbling for the tabloid newspapers and his political style is heading for the dustbin. British Conservatives are floundering with a national identity crisis. Although the Labour Party should be pushing at an open door, there’re plenty of obstacles that remain in their way. For the Liberal Democrats the news is universally good. They have reestablished themselves in their West Country heartlands.

We are only halfway through 2023. It’s been more than a year since MP, and former Conservative Government Minister Nadine Dorries has spoken in the UK Parliament. She did say she would step down but, so far, when this will happen remains a complete mystery[3]. Being an MP should be a full-time job and not just a badge of status. The people of Mid-Bedfordshire deserve better. So, we await her next move on this subject.

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

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local#:~:text=The%20phrase%20%22all%20politics%20is,he%20did%20not%20originate%20it.

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-65998062

Not again!

Why do we have so many inept and poorly qualified Government Ministers

To be a Government Minister you should have some kind of relevant qualification, or at least ability. Surely? Maybe you are competent in public administration or good at media presentation. In this case the man fronting a UK Conservative Government’s new policy looks, and sounds like a big floundering fish out of water.

Asked the simplest of questions. The very simplest of questions. Those that even the most elementary speaker would have practiced before exposing themselves, this Minister, of Education no less, performed like a partisan chump. Announcing a headline grabbing policy to stop ‘Rip-Off’ university degrees[1] this Member of Parliament went on Good Morning Britain totally ill-prepared[2]. The result was extremely embarrassing.

Why do we have so many inept and poorly qualified Government Ministers? What was totally obvious from the start was that this policy is being introduced without any idea of how it’s going to be implemented. No sense of real life.

Mr Halfron hadn’t given any thought what-so-ever to how to present his virgin education policy. Media interviewers are entitled to ask for illustrations and examples. The public watching, and listening will certainly what to know – what does this policy really mean? Who will be impacted?

Limiting the number of students that can go to university sounds like a profoundly unconservative policy to me. Surely, it’s for young people to make their own choices past the age of 18. If there are “poor” university courses in Britain, then that is a matter for a rigorous system of quality control. It should not be for dogmatically eliminating course subjects. Yet again, a weak Prime Minister and Education Secretary are pandering to a tabloid media agenda.

15 months after graduation there are likely to be many people who are going to be exceptionally successful in later life. To take an example, creative writing may not land a big job, but the spark of imagination and a deal of luck can produce authors who go on the have phenomenal global success.

The problem, Mr Halfron, in Britain is not what you study but the inequities of our society. What is the objective worth of a Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) degree from a Russel group university[3]? Noting that the mistakes made by so qualified Ministers are rarely accounted. Billion are lost to the national economy every year by poor decisions, incompetence, and ideological nonsense. Dare I mention the saga of the other PPE, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). 

What a massive contrast to what’s just happened in the US. The Biden administration has announced a multibillion relief scheme for student loans. The US Education Department says their new plan will help more than 800,000 borrowers[4]. What an effective way of helping past students stand on their own two feet in tough economic times.

POST: And again today. Even when good news is posted the Minister sent on the media round performs no better than a rusty Austin Allegro with an empty tank.

[1] https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/rip-off-degrees/

[2] https://youtu.be/vHOwmZQa37s

[3] https://russellgroup.ac.uk/about/our-universities/

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/14/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-income-driven/

Church & Law

It’s always struck me as a bit strange. Yes, there’s a historic context to this situation. But that can be said of a myriad of legacy rules that we have long since put to one side. Today, there will be a general debate in the Westminster Hall[1]. The topic of the debate is: “Bishops in the House of Lords”. The question being should they be?

The way our system of governance is set up is that bishops have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Now, you can do a double take, if you like. It means that the senior people, representing one religion, have an automatic right to legislate in the UK. There are few countries in the world where religious leaders sit in the legislature. One of them is Iran, for example.

It’s not just one or two representatives. 26 bishops of the Church of England, selected by the church, sit in the House of Lords as a matter of right.

For many democratic countries a separation of church and state is written into their constitutions. The reasons for this are again historic. Conflicts, disputes, and persecutions of the past drove the framers of “modern” constitutions to ensure that religious bodies did not have exclusive influence over national laws.

I believe that one religion, namely the Church of England shouldn’t be allowed to appoint bishops into the House of Lords. In a 21st century democratic country we should take account of the variety of faiths in the country[2]. Each member of the legislature will bring their own faith to their work. So, faith is represented. Giving significant privileges to one faith is unjust.

Putting religious leaders in situations of public conflict with directly elected politicians creates its own problems. You could say that would be the same inside or outside of the legislature but it’s not. The singular privileges afforded to one religion, above all others, to table amendments to legislation is powerful. It’s far more than to speak out in public.

The Church of England is known as “the established church” because of this place in the establishment. It can be argued that this position limits the courses of action it may take. It constrains people of faith to fit an establishment model of behaviour.

I’m expressing these views fully aware of the good that Church of England members can do. The objections to bishops in the House of Lords are based on discrimination, unjust privilege, and unfairness not objection to the good that they can do.

The Church of England should not appoint bishops into the House of Lords. 

[1] https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal44066

[2] https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/6-april/news/uk/bishops-should-not-sit-as-of-right-in-the-lords-commission-argues

Bad Smell

Where is the accountability?

My desk, that’s the one in the early 1990s, faced towards the London Gatwick airport approach. It was a good reminder of the business we were in at the time. Seeing aircraft land and take-off about 500 m from the sheet glass windows of our office block was the daily background. Being in a rugged hermetically sealed building aircraft noise wasn’t a great concern.

Little more than 300m from the building and looking in the same direction was, and still is, the Gatwick sewage works. Its structures were low rise, so it was often hidden behind the greenery. Every so often, a strong wind would blow from the northeast. When it did a distinct odor filled the air. Yes, you guessed it. The sweet smell of the sewerage works would permeate the air conditioning.

This odor was at its most notable in the metrological conditions called an inversion[1]. In fact, given the seasonal frequency of these weather conditions it could be said that Gatwick wasn’t the most sensible place to build a major airport. These occasional pongs were a bit of a joke. Along with the occasional smells of unburnt aviation fuel it was just life at the airport. Lingering odors didn’t stay for long. A day at most and the wind would change direction back to where it normally came from – the south west.

Airports and sewage works are not a good combination for the health of rivers and streams. Long ago, when Gatwick airport was built the tributaries of the River Mole[2] were diverted. The part of that river, the Gatwick stream going north to south, at the end of the runway, is an unattractive V-shaped gully. Not nice for nature at all. There was a track that ran parallel with the river. In the summer, I’d walk that track at a lunchtime as it was a way of getting to the airport’s south terminal.

In the news, Thames Water are being fined for dumping raw sewage in the River Mole[3]. The consequences of the UK’s water regulator[4] taking a relatively hands-off approach to managing water companies, since privatisation in the late 1980s, has come home to roost.

I must admit, I’m not the least bit surprised. So far, the dance of those who shrug their shoulders astonishing. Ministers, regulators, company chiefs are all pointing fingers at each other.

The sequence of events is mind blowing when looked at over several decades[5]. Chief executives attracting massive salaries. Companies being loaded up with debt. Generous payouts to shareholders. Investments in infrastructure not keeping pace.

Ofwat, the regulator talks with incredible complacency. Such weak regulators are no more than a piggy in the middle as the powerful forces of unethical commercial behaviour and disinterested government oversight combine. As millions of families struggle with the cost of living this kind of failure is intolerable. Where is the accountability?

[1] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/temperature/temperature-inversion

[2] https://www.southeastriverstrust.org/river-mole/

[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/thames-water-sewage-spill-gatwick-airport-b2368707.html

[4] https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/

[5] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66103356.amp