Category: Democracy

Turnip

Root crops come in different shapes and forms. In Britain, most of our sugar comes from sugar beets[1]. It’s weaned the country off colonial sourced sugar cane of decades ago[2]. It’s a large home-grown industry that goes on under the radar. Given recent utterances, Government Ministers may not know that it exists.

There are deep cultural themes that are associated with root crops in Britan. Some of this imagery comes from a long history of growing root crops. Some of this comes from the British war time experience of ploughing up every available space for food production. In a time of food rationing the humble turnip played a key role. The turnip, Brassica rapa L., is one of the world’s oldest cultivated vegetables. Afterall they don’t require a lot of attention and can endure hostile weather quite well.

It’s a common myth that we (the British) all eat seasonally. It was mostly the poorer people in a community who had little choice.

My own recollection is of my father unsuccessfully growing a small field of turnips. They will grow in heavy Somerset clay soil but the mess of cultivating them on land that floods is beyond a joke. Machinery gets bogged down and the harvest is more dirt than turnips. I remember that the crop made good animal feed and little else. The field was quickly retuned to a new lay of grass.

This week, Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Therese Coffey told the UK Parliament: “lot of people would be eating turnips[3]…”. This was a government statement addressing empty British supermarket shelves.

Now, I’m not about to have a downer on the poor turnip. They are a bit of an acquire taste but have meritorious qualities and are inexpensive. It’s more the silliness of the Minister’s utterance in the House of Commons that is surprising. It’s a naive exposition that casts the vital subject of food security as a comic game. The Minister doesn’t seem to have a command of her brief.

We all know that crop production can be sensitive to weather conditions throughout the growing season and at harvest. Farmers know that and live that fact. Supermarkets know that and live that fact. Both food production and distribution adapt, accordingly.

The British problem is that the cost of production has rocketed. Brexit and high energy costs have hammered farmers. Former specialisms in agriculture, like tomato production under glass, are not sufficiently supported to remain viable in current condition. In fact, tomato production is not alone in this respect.

What’s clear is that the UK’s Minister needs to get a grip. She needs to understand the nature of British agriculture and stop making foolish excuses.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet

[2] https://www.countrysideonline.co.uk/articles/british-sugar-all-you-need-to-know

[3] https://news.sky.com/story/eat-turnips-instead-of-tomatoes-suggests-minister-as-she-admits-food-shortages-could-last-a-month-12817794

Truss

Stating the obvious about former Prime Minister Truss, and an attempt at a political makeover[1] does merit effort. There are some people unwise enough to wish to cover up a colossal failure. The facts are clear. Absurdly irresponsible economic and political policies plunged the UK into a crisis. The corrective action taken to recover from that situation cost the UK greatly both in monetary and reputational terms.

The approach taken by the right-leaning Conservative Truss cohort destroyed growth rather than drove growth. The people who announced last year’s mini budget are not “blameless.”

Let’s acknowledge that there will aways be some reckless believers in the approach taken at the launch of the Truss premiership. It’s better that they be heard. It’s better that their foolishness is exposed before it can be acted upon. It’s better that they remain a minority.  

Britain’s shortest-serving Prime Minister can be used as a textbook example of how not to govern.

There’s a search going on to address long-standing economic issues. It requires cool heads and clam reflection. Diatribes rent with dogma are useless and dangerous. Borrowing huge amounts to cut taxes is the sort of act that would have Margret Thatcher turning in her grave[2].

Reputationally the Conservative Party is in the sink. Their party chairman is out. Their deputy PM is hanging on by a thread. Members of Parliament are agitated and flailing around. It’s like the last days of John Major’s premiership.

It must be said that much British economic and political pain could have been avoided. I objected strongly to Brexit. It happened but it did not need to have happened in such a way as to create a massive downside. The loss of trade and good relations with our nearest neighbours has set the country back decades. It’s like we dug a big hole and willingly jumped into it. Our neighbours looked on mystified as to why we choose to jump into such a deep dark hole.

The one thing this current incarnation of the Conservative Party is good at is shooting itself in the foot and taking us all to a place where we don’t want to go.

POST: From a purly poltical standpoint it maybe good that Truss features in the media on a regular basis. liz truss – Politics | JOE.co.uk

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-64533422

[2] https://theconversation.com/why-liz-truss-is-no-margaret-thatcher-when-it-comes-to-the-economy-190816

Rules

Let’s be controversial. Principle Based Rules could be retitled Hypocrisy Based Rules.

Now, I’ve already caused confusion because most consumers, or users of services will not have a clue what I’m talking about. The way rules are put together is not an everyday topic for conversation. Even if, in our complex society, this subject is vitally important.

Listening to the daily news it’s clear there’s been a break down between British Gas and its regulator and some vulnerable customers. Practices undertaken by a British Gas sub-contractor have shocked people. Breaking into people’s homes should not be normal business practice.

Yet, these real-world actions happened, and they sharply go against the “principles” of the energy supplier[1] and its regulator. So, do the rules that exist produce behaviours that fit with public expectations? This is the “how long is a piece of string” question. In other word the perception of the rules, such as they are, can be favourable but when it comes to implementation it’s another story completely.

Sadly, the defensive reactions of both energy supplier and regulator are to frame the whole problem as one of first not knowing then discovery, investigation, and corrective action. This is not bad in of itself, but it’s the most basic kind of reactive response that can be expected. It says to the consumer, we will wait for an influential spokesperson[2] to highlight a failing and then respond to pressure.

Has British Gas captured its regulator? That is to convince them that everything is hunky-dory and maybe convinced themselves it’s hunky-dory too but at the same time not bother to look at customer facing bad practices?

Hence my coining the notion of Hypocrisy Based Rules. I’m not saying for one moment that regulatory rules can be written that have no gaps, inconsistencies, or avenues for “creative compliance”. It can be advantageous to the consumer that an energy suppler has a degree of freedom on how they comply with rules.

What was missing is that regard for the need for constant vigilance. Reports suggest that British Gas’s sub-contractor undertook behaviour that did not fulfil regulatory goals.

Although it’s long in the tooth, this quote from an Irish statesman has resonance:

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance. John Philpot Curran[3]

In this simple sentence “liberty” can be replaced with safety, security, prosperity, and honesty. It’s often been reworked.

[1] https://www.centrica.com/about-us/people-culture/our-code

[2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-gas-prepayment-meter-debt-energy-bills-investigation-wrgnzt6xs

[3] https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Philpot-Curran

3-years on

Today, the weakest arguments are being used to sustain Brexit. Still the advocates of Brexit call for deregulation, slashing taxes but more Government borrowing. The Truss formula, despite its disastrous effect remains popular amongst Brexit supporters.

Britain, having left the EU Customs Union and Single Market, has agreed roll-over trade deals with some countries. However, there has been no huge boost to trade as Brexit advocates claimed there would be after the 2016 vote. Brexit negotiations drag on and on. It’s perpetual motion. Maybe there’s a fix to the Northern Ireland difficulties. Maybe not.

If you are inclined, you can always blame everything on the Government’s pandemic response. As politicians are apt to do, there are quite a few avenues open to excuse away the negative impact of Brexit.

The lies told during the UK referendum campaign of 2016 will not go away.

On the 3-year anniversary of leaving the EU, pollsters have been out and about to gauge public opinion. It seems that apart from some parliamentary constituencies in Lincolnshire, others show a majority think Brexit wasn’t a good idea. 54% say Britain was wrong to leave the EU[1][2].

We don’t not know exactly when the next UK General Election will be, but political parties are gearing up for the fight to come. Because of the dreadful First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system the UK’s opposition parties have a hill to climb in the race for Westminster. Again, referencing the current polls, even with that hill to climb there’s a high likelihood that change is on the way.

The end of this Brexit Government will not come soon enough. Look at the state the country is in. The longer this Conservative party remains in power the more damage will be done.

NOTE: The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union on 31 January 2020. Based on the Withdrawal Agreement that had been ratified by both the EU and the UK, a transitional period during which EU law continued to apply in the United Kingdom ended on 31 December 2020.

POST: Ardent Brexit supporters are saying: we have to give it more time. Judging our economic position after 3-years isn’t enough to draw conclusions. This is like saying that having made a bad investment, it’s best to stick with the bad investment. Some people may agree with this type of argument. I say it’s foolish. The Brexit referendum has done damage. It will only be repaired by reversing a destructive and much regretted decision.

[1] https://unherd.com/2023/01/introducing-unherd-britain-2023/

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-regrets-map-uk-b2272117.html

Faltering Flattening

There are so many aspects of “Levelling Up” which are vulnerable to harsh criticism that it’s surprising that the Conservative Government sticks to this spending project. “Levelling Up” was a project started by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but it has been carried on by successive UK Governments.

The Government’s project is a political project. It’s a slogan. Maybe that should be no surprise.

One explanation for the project’s continuation can be found in Brexit. Whereas the regions of the UK received funds from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) matched by UK Government funds that source of funding was lost upon EU exit.

Redistribution is not new. A drive to improve social and economic conditions is popular, in principle. Creating more opportunities for areas suffering hardship makes sense. That said, this centralised distribution project is flawed in multiple ways.

For a start, any vox pop will show that no one really knows what it means. Some say that “Levelling Up” is when the Government spends in deprived or “left behind” areas.

Even this is doggy territory. There are without doubt areas of deprivation that need assistance. We need to ask, is a beauty contest run by Ministers the best way of lifting those areas out of their disadvantaged condition? Talk of “left behind” areas after decades of the stigmatisation of certain parts of the UK is hardly a positive way of regeneration.

I think the “Levelling Up” agenda has continued in its current form because of the oil tanker effect. That is the propensity of big spending initiatives to roll on regardless because they are difficult to stop. With little time to run to the next General Election (GE) inventing and implementing something new and more effective is just too politically risky.

This second round of funding, worth more than £2 billion, sounds like a lot of money but set in the context of annual UK Government spending of over £1000 billion[1] that doesn’t seem so much. Given that local government spending has been so heavily curtailed in recent years it is reasonable to say that this “Levelling Up” funding is a poor attempt at a replacement.

When central government picks projects to fund on this basis, it’s saying that it knows better than local government. Or is it that it knows how to win votes better than local government?

[1] In 2020/21 the government of the United Kingdom had a total managed expenditure of over 1053.3 billion British, an increase of over a 100 billion pounds when compared with 2018/19. Statista

Poor law making

If you thought the Truss era was an aberration, and that the UK’s Conservative Party had learned a lesson, then please think again. Wheels set in motion by the ideologue Jacob Rees-Mogg MP are still spinning.

The Retained European Union Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is trundling its way through the UK Parliament. The Government Bill will next be prepared for its 3rd reading in the House of Commons[1]. The Conservative Government has brought forward this Bill to revoke, reform or revise all the remaining law in the UK that was formerly derived from the UK’s membership of the EU. This turns on its head the normal approach to changing UK legislation. Revocation is automatic unless there’s an intervention by a Minister.

UK civil aviation depends on several thousand pages of legislation derived from EU law[2]. Much of this law was created with considerable contributions from the UK. There’s hardly any if any advocates for automatic revocation of current aviation legislation. Even the thought of this action sends a shiver down the spin of aviation professionals. Generations of them have worked to harmonise rules and regulations to ensure that this most international of industries works efficiently.

Unless amended, the Government’s EU Retained Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill[3] could turn out to be an absolute disaster. Even those who have an irrational wish to eliminate any and every past, present, or future link to Europe must come up with a practical alternative and do this in an incredibly short time. Without a consistent, stable, and effective framework civil aviation in the UK will grind to a halt. Again, even those who have an unsound need to change for change’s sake will be hitting a vital industry hard, as it is only just getting back on its feet after the COVID pandemic and now setting out to meet tough environmental standards.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when this poor Bill reaches the House of Lords. Once again, the country will be relying on the upper house to add some common sense to this draft law.  

POST 1: The 3rd reading debate makes it clear that the Government is unsure which laws are covered by the Bill. If the Ministers responsible for this legislation do not themselves know its extent, how can anyone expect civil servants working on this legislation to know the full extent of change? A most strange state of affairs Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Third si – Hansard – UK Parliament

POST 2: Retained EU law lays down rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations in the UK Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations (recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (legislation.gov.uk)

POST 3: Retained EU Law Bill is being debated in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February.

[1] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3340

[2] https://www.eiag.org.uk/paper/future-retained-eu-law/

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-retained-eu-law-revocation-and-reform-bill-2022

Stonehouse

Let’s put aside the history for a moment. The 3-part TV drama based on the story of John Stonehouse MP has been dam good entertainment[1]. No need to recount every step in the story. It’s the sort of sequence of events that, had it been written as fiction would have been rejected as too bizarre and not printable. Here life really is stranger than fiction.

He was a rising star of the Parliamentary Labour Party in the early 1970s. He took a very unexpected turn in life’s series of multiple choices. Any explanation he gave seemed comic and a little bit sad. It’s clear why he had to be brought to justice. That said, Stonehouse is far from the first, or last parliamentarian to tell whopping great big lies and somehow expect to be believed.

Watching this story unfold in an era before instant communications, a camera on every mobile phone and streets covered with CCTVs makes me think this must be almost impossible for younger people to get. I may be wrong, but now the scenario would be even more hopeless than it was in 1974. Although, the twist now might be that various media can be convincingly faked.

The actor Matthew Macfadyen does a wonderful portrayal of foolhardiness and haplessness. He’s captured a blank expression that accompanied Stonehouse telling tales riddled with preposterous nonsense. True or not, this is dam good entertainment.

The spouses of parliamentarians have a lot to put-up with in normal times, let alone crazy excursions into fantasies and a partner’s moral bankruptcy. It leaves me wondering why they do it.

I know there’s a strong compulsion to keep-up appearances, or at least there was in the 1970s. There’re many popular British comedies based on the abhorrence of embarrassment and inclination to do almost anything to keep-up appearances[2]. It’s a 20th Century cultural theme.

The fantasy of starting a new life is a strong one too. That’s probably been sustained down the decades much more than aspirations based on social class. The mirror we put up to ourselves called Television regularly screens such programmes as: a place in the sun[3].

The true story of John Stonehouse MP is a complex one. Reading about the times it’s difficult to have much sympathy for him or the choices he makes. Those choices do appear extremely self-centred. Even with a generous interpretation.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13005652/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances

[3] https://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-place-in-the-sun

More Maths?

More maths? Like so many headlines. It depends what’s intended. This call is not new by any means. It has been repeatedly recognised by Governments, that STEM subjects are of vital importance to the future. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and maths.

Between the ages of 16 and 18, a lot of young people drop maths or anything that looks like maths. Understanding that fact is far more important than any dictate from a Prime Minister.

Let’s list some reasons why forcing this is not so easy as a headline might suggest.

Teaching: Mandating more maths without backing it up with the teachers able, enthusiastic, and trained in the subject will likely generate a negative impact.

Bandwidth: for the average student there’s a finite amount of work they will eagerly take on during a pivotal time of their lives. Developing their talents, whatever they are, is surely a priority.

Relevance: a key part of providing more practical maths teaching is convincing students of its immense usefulness in later life. Understanding how maths is used is as important as learning it.

Technology: Digitisation advances rapidly. Maths teaching must take on-board. For example, it’s important to be aware of what’s happening more than knowing every nut and bolt of an algorithm.

All the above are challenges that can be met given adequate resources and a plan. What we get from the PM’s speech is muddle. Numeracy and maths are not the same. I’ve known people who can do remarkable mental calculations on the spot but who would run for the hills if faced with a quadratic equation or a bell curve.

Yes, statistics do underpin a number of activities in everyday life. However, even when you understand their workings the capacity to make bad choices is more in the judgment than in the calculation.

STEM education is a package. It’s part of everything we do in a complex society. There aren’t many occupations that are not touched by the need to know something about the underlying working of our devices, means and methods.

In the past those supporting the humanities may have spoken-up objecting to an overemphasis on STEM subjects. Now, what artist, writer, musician, historian, or geographer does not use technology in their everyday lives? I’d say more maths but done right. Make it practical.

POST: Prime Minister sets ambition of maths to 18 in speech – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Crisis in Health

It’s difficult to think of a more inappropriate person to be Secretary of State for Health and Social Care[1]. He has all the bedside manner of Dracula. Prime Minister (PM) Rishi Sunak re-installed him in that vital Government post. So far, he’s achieved nothing but distress and mismanagement[2].

I shouldn’t joke. The seriousness of the situation in the National Health Service (NHS) isn’t a joking matter. Winter is testing the service to breaking point. Both the statistics and the experience of patients are not acceptable by any reasonable measure.

What’s intolerable is the general Ministerial response. Hard-line rhetoric about not budging on negotiations is callous. Dismissing every call for support by rattling-off lists of figures about Government spending is no help at all. Trying to redirect attention away from the things that need fixing. The shabby politics of avoidance is not what’s needed.

As a personal note, I find the situation indicative of broader failures too. My one term as a Surrey Country Councillor, between 1993 and 1997 is more history than anything else. The problem is that it’s not. I remember papers coming to full council meetings with a title that is pertinent and recognisable today. The subject being “bed blocking[3]”.

That’s 30-years ago, our institutions struggled with making the transition between hospital care and social care. It was clear that there was going to be a growing problem. The demographics pointed to a rising aging population. There was no ambiguity about the facts.

Ministers have come and gone. Quite rapidly over the last year. Each with the responsibility for NHS service delivery, performance, and social care policy. Some like incoherent gad flies, some who span like windmills in a storm, some like patrician overseers but none with the managerial skills needed to address the challenge that stares them in the face.

Most local authorities are dealing with cuts to their budgets, financial constraints and the cost of living demands we all confront. In some cases, they are tittering on the brink of bankruptcy[4]. Many local authorities have been forced to reduce their funding of social care at a time of rising demand. 

It’s mad that, after all this time, we have still not come up with an integrated health service. Pitching the NHS and local authorities against each other for funding is absolutely ludicrous. It’s costing lives.

Today, we must recover from a crisis. Tomorrow, real change must be implemented to prevent a future crisis. It isn’t as if we don’t know what to do!  

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/people/stephen-barclay

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-strikes-barclay-cooper-libdems-b2244466.html

[3] https://fullfact.org/health/bed-blocking-what-it-and-it-paralysing-nhs/

[4] https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/what-it-means-for-kent-residents-if-kcc-goes-bust-277075/

Where’s the common sense?

It’s two whole years since the end of the UK’s Brexit transitional period. That’s since the day when the UK fully withdrew from the European Union (EU). Have we seen any, I mean any, Brexit benefits from the day of the Brexit referendum? The sad truth is – No. We are worse-off. Investments haven’t happened, political turmoil persists and bureaucratic barriers have grown.

Certainly, it’s right to say that British politicians have been busy. They have found lots of targets to blame for this continuing underperformance. You name it; Remainers, young people, environmentalists, protesters, strikers, human rights, overseas aid, COVID, flu, global economic downturn, energy prices, war in Europe, Biden’s administration, China, France, Germany, hot weather, cold weather, the list goes on and on and on. The Brexiter’s blame list is an exceptionally long one. Add to this the fact that Boris Johnson comes in for caustic blame. Often strongest from the people who trumpeted his ascendancy to power in 2019.

Although we should not dwell too much on the past, it’s as well to not let what has happened in this last year be swept under the carpet. Remember 2022, after 44 days, Conservative Liz Truss resigned as British Prime Minister (PM). She was the first choice of the members of the political party most entrenched in Brexit thinking. This extraordinary farce made the country look it was run by like a bunch of incompetent fools, of ill-disciplined fanatics, of preposterous comics.

The blatant dishonesty behind Brexit can not be denied. A recent example was the Government statement on having not attained a promised boost from new trade agreements. A ridiculous political line about not signing deals until they are right for the country is a brazen smoke screen to cover-up a significant lack of achievement[1].

We need some serious common sense injected into our politics. The UK is not going away. The EU is not going away. Both share an immense common interest. Both are faced with similar challenges and threats. Both share the same values.

Brexit has added to costs, adding to inflation, labour shortage and under performance. Most people[2] now accept this analysis and want to see serious change[3]. The more both Conservatives and the Labour Party cling on to the mythology of Brexit, the more damage will be done. Keir Starmer has confirmed that the Labour Party will not seek for Britain to re‑join the EU. What a reckless folly from a would be PM.

POST: referendum – latest news, breaking stories and comment – The Independent

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63808657

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/

[3] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/issue/European_Union