Next Please

There’s no celebration. No fanfare. Today, the UK get a new PM. The 4th in 6-years. We have seen Cameron, May, come and go. Now Johnson is going in favour of Truss. If there’s a celebration, it’s that Johnson is going out of Number 10 Downing Street. The removal van is, no doubt, fully laden.

This is a transition that needs to be made as quickly as possible. For too long the Johnson cabal has been lingering and doing little of any use to the nation. However, the jobs are distributed it’s a time when decisions must be made fast, but with a degree of smart flexibility.

Truss has none of Johnson’s ability to bluff and shtick. The new PM has a delivery that’s wooden and gaff prone. Nevertheless, Tuss has beaten others who would dearly love to be in the hot seat. Although, there’s good reason to question why anyone sane would want to be PM in September 2022, given the vast size of the in-tray that is waiting.

Smaller taxes and smaller Government may have been Truss’s shop window to Tory members but that’s not what’s necessary to dig the country out of the doldrums. This is a time for intervention. We have markets that are actively working against the interests of the British people.

Denying the aftereffects of Brexit also needs to go in the dustbin. It’s only by recognising a problem that a better path can be taken.

The last thing we need is a laissez-faire leadership. The textbooks of the Reagan era do not contain the solutions to the problems of the 2020s. Immediate changes to the energy market are needed. Regulation is a major part of those changes. Not micromanagement but structural change. The accumulation of huge profits because of our peculiar regulatory structure can’t continue.

On this momentous day, change must happen. However, as a word of caution, that transformation must not disregard the real and urgent nature of climate change. If our hot summer wasn’t an indicator sufficient to catch the attention of the new PM, and whoever is appointed as energy secretary, then look at what’s happening in Pakistan[1].

Winter is coming. Short-term measures must prepare us for winter, but the long-term perspective is vital. Not only do we need to decarbonise but reducing demand for energy for heating is achievable. For too long the benefits of improving Britain’s housing stock have been neglected. We don’t need more spiel and the hands-off approach should be for the dustbin.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pakistan-floods-more-than-450-children-killed-in-e2-80-98horror-show-e2-80-99-with-death-toll-feared-to-rise-further/ar-AA11uXnL

Platform & Mockery

It’s accurate to say that there will be a new leader of the British Conservative Party. An announcement is expected and there’s not much that can derail it. Up and down the country the members of that national political party have been twiddling their thumbs and marking ballot papers.

To me, the use of the word “new” is to stretch the langauage to the far corners of the Earth. The politician backed by the pollsters to win is nowhere new on the block. What’s fascinating is the two Conservative candidates for Prime Minister (PM) have been spending their time rubbishing the record of the last decade of Conservative Government. Funny old world.

In a huff from starting blocks The Mail, newspaper, has screamed unfair because mainstream comedians love to mock the likely winner of the Conservative Party’s selection process. This is mega silly. Mocking our leaders is as British a British can be. Recently, I was in the V&A[1] in London and I couldn’t resist a look at the Spitting Image puppet of Margaret Thatcher. If anything, in terms of mockery, we are getting tame. Leaders of any poltical creed are fair game in a free country. Often the humour is spiky but shines a light on a truth. That is so much better than the playground bickering and insults that are gaining momentum among the far right and left.

Exercising a lot of media pundits is the question of when there will be a General Election. The drop-dead date is at the end of 2024. So, practically, any new British PM will have not much more than 18 months to make a big show, and shift the agenda onto their ground. Tough task at any time.

Today’s News suggest that this natural poltical ambition will be incalculably difficult to deliver. The phrase: “Events, my dear boy, events,” comes to mind. When asked what troubles a PM, former PM Harold Macmillan[2] answered with those words. It’s become a popular quotation and so true.

Past events linger. Banking crisis, Brexit, COVID and international tensions. Current events are unpredictable. War, Energy prices, Inflation and the Climate Crisis. Future events often give no notice. None of these are small. All we need now is another troublesome Icelandic Volcano to burst into life.

By the way, Harold Macmillan was the target of wonderfully sharp mockery by a cartoonist called Vicky[3]. His works are a good study of British culture and society in the 1950s – 60s. I expect poltical cartoonists will be happy to mark this day as a good one for future work.

POST 1: There are 605 days until the 2nd May 2024, a likely date for the next General Election. The last one was 998 days ago, meaning we are 62% of the way through the current Parliament. Much can happen.

POST 2: It is my great pleasure to introduce the new British PM Liz Truss ‘Cheese Speech’ to Conservative Party Conference 2014 – video Dailymotion

[1] https://www.helenacurrycreative.co.uk/margaret-thatcher

[2] British Conservative politician who was Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963.

[3] https://www.cartoons.ac.uk/cartoonist-biographies/u-v/VictorWeisz_Vicky.html

Humans in Space

Smart people have strong views on human space flight. In my mind, human space flight isn’t a football for arguments over public verse private. How missions are funded is less important than the fact that they are funded. Space flight will always be a high-risk activity. Those risks will sometimes be borne by the public sector and sometimes by the private sector.

Saying that all we need is robotics in space is to overstate the case for robotics. No doubt, robotics will play a fundamental part in exploration. It’s one component in a bigger picture. Humans need to go to space. That’s a rather a didactic statement. It needs to be challenged. So, my answer has several parts, and here they are:

Firstly, it’s not that we have a choice, given the nature humans have demonstrated over the last million years. Discontent with staying in one place, we are constantly on the move. We’ve inhabited every part of the globe. Even the most inhospitable parts. It’s extremely unlikely we will counter that instinct to travel, to go, and to see for ourselves. First-hand.

Secondly, every robotic mission has limitations based on the design of the machines we send into space. A designer must use the knowledge of their time to anticipate what may be needed, often a decade from the first moment they sat at their computer. The adaptive capability of humans is unmatched. However, machines advance, it will be unmatched for tens of decades ahead.

Thirdly, our lives are full of stories of imaginary flights. From Leonardo da Vinci vivid creativity to the practical achievements of the Wright brothers. Imagination spurred on inventors to bring to life ways in which humans could take to the air. The same applies to space flight. Flash Gordan is a comic book character. We know that Star Trek is a fiction. The film Gravity stressed the dangers of space. None of this detracts from an imbedded predisposition we have for space-based adventures.

Fourthly, when faced with the new it’s not always clear what to do. However, if unprecedented situations arise, we humans rise to the occasion. The inventive capacity of people is unique. When the machinery around us fails we come up with answers. We work out a way to get over the problems. Being able to rapidly fix things matters in space[1].

Fifthly, our species is successful, in part, is because we face risks. It could be said that existence requires us to face risk, but we do it anyway. Our enjoyment of dangerous sports is one indicator. People train to face perils and are thrilled to overcoming challenging circumstances. Collectively we delight in their achievements. Why go to space? – Because it’s there[2].

It’s more than evident that from the perspective we have in the here and now, we can only see so far ahead. A few will see further. What seems obvious to a highly educated commentator on human space flight may be rendered null and void at a stoke come the next discovery.

NOTE 1: On the third point, I found a quote from Orville Wright. “No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris. That seems to me to be impossible. What limits flight is the motor.” So, even with his inventiveness and imagination it only went so far. [Early Flight – From Balloons to Biplanes].

NOTE 2: On the fourth point, the experience of my early career working on ground test equipment for communications satellites comes into play. Extensive testing is needed on any space borne systems. As I remember it being said – we don’t make ladders that high.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo13.html

[2] Why climb a mountain? British climber George Mallory gave a famous response in a New York Times interview in 1923: “Because it’s there.”

Moon Mission

Wishing Artemis well in the plan to go back to the Moon

The universe is big, I mean really big, but our nearest neighbour is close by. Seeing our unique satellite orbit the Earth is as common an experience watching the weather. No need for a telescope.

The circumference of Earth (distance around Earth at the equator) is roughly 40,000 kilometres (25,000 miles). The distance to the Moon is 10 times the circumference of the Earth, or roughly 400,000 kilometres (250,000 miles[1]). That sounds like a lot but compared with the dimensions of our solar system it’s nothing much.

The first humans walked on the Moon on 20th July 1969. I was 9-years old. I watched the event in our living room on a small black and white TV. Around the globe, hundreds of millions of people watched as Armstrong stepped out on the surface of the Moon for the first time[2]. For good or ill, humanity changed on that day.

A plan for returning humans to the Moon is underway[3]. NASA’s new lunar mission is ready for launch. Called “Artemis” a mission is on the launch pad. In ancient Greek mythology, Artemis was heavily identified with Selene, the Moon.

This project will work with industry and international partners, like the European Space Agency (ESA)[4] to send astronauts to the surface of the Moon. The European Service Module (ESM) will provide for future astronauts’ basic needs, such as water, oxygen, nitrogen, temperature control, power, and propulsion.

It’s a big day. Exploration is a part of human DNA. These are the next steps. I wish the project every success.

POST: Well, we get to use that well used phrase – Space is hard. “Space is hard.” But why? — Elizabeth A. Frank (elizabethafrank.com)

[1] 225,623 miles away when it’s at its closest. The Moon’s orbit is not a perfect circle. When the Moon is furthest, it’s 252,088 miles away.

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

[3] https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

[4] https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/ESA_Web_TV

Do something

Understanding British reticence is part of understanding Brexit. This phenomenon is not new. Not new at all. It maybe culturally embedded. There’s an array of wonderful cartoons from Punch on the theme.

The late 1950s were peppered with such an inclination to paint a colourful picture: “You’ve never had it so good[1]” but closing a blind eye to unemployment, industrial stagnation, threatening Russians, and the aftermath of Suez. Substitute inflation for unemployment and Brexit for Suez. It’s all too familiar.

The early 2020’s is the era of unwillingness to do something about Brexit or talk about its damaging impact. All the time knowing that an accumulation of evidence all points one way. The nation is playing the 3-monkeies, in pretending that the facts don’t matter. It’s a lack of moral responsibility on the part of politicians who refuse to accept facts, looking the other way or faking ignorance.

Today, we see that Britain’s Brexitism, if there is such a word, is dedicated to a permanent anti-European sentiment. We see it in national newspapers like The Telegraph all the time. We hear it from would be political leaders. I’d even say we smell it.

This is done by politicians and establishment figures to preserve the sanctity of the 2016 referendum and as a means of explaining daily political failures. There must be a wild European ogre on the horizon otherwise the danger is that people might blame Brexit.

There are more successful times when the national code was discretion, pragmatism, and realism. These options have been thrown out of the window by the true believers in power. Such wise options are seen as “lefty” or U-Turns.

Johnson’s Government has capitalised on British reticence. Indications are that his successor will do the same, if not more so. The ideology of Brexitism is an over-simple belief. Which maybe explains why it spawns so many meaningless political slogans.[2] If it was complicated or in touch with reality the ideology would be more difficult to sustain. Hence the Brexiters inclination to capitalise on British reticence.

The means to break this destructive chain, whose links go from bad to worse, is radical change. The important part is that it must be change that the British people want. I suspect the conditions of that change are brewing. The next General Election must not be more of the same but under a different colour. There must be higher matters on the table when the country next decides.

POST: For balance, I’ll put the case for the Brexiters. The Brexit project has failed because the “liberal” and “lefty” establishment and outsiders that have sabotaged it. That is the civil service, the unions, the opposition parties, the judges, lawyers, the media, including the BBC, the banks, including the Bank of England, industrialist, immigrants, local government and anyone who isn’t a Brexiter and those countries that are punishing the UK. If that doesn’t work they then blame Harry and Megan. Yes, it is that mad.

[1] Conservative slogan in 1959.

[2] Get Brexit Done. Brexit means Brexit.

Sun & Wind

My morning routine includes switching on the radio. That already marks me down as being of a certain age. News and current affairs isn’t always a cheerful way to start the day but, at least, as a result I feel a bit better informed about the world and its ways.

Listening to Vince Cable[1], at the end of the BBC’s Today programme this morning[2] I agree. [At run time 2:37]. Sir John Vincent Cable, yes that makes me even more inclined to listen to him, has a wealth of knowledge and experience and puts his case well.

Yes, we have had four major shocks to the British economy. The banking crisis, Brexit, COVID pandemic, and war in Europe. Amongst these Brexit was self-inflicted and has cost the UK a great deal. To lump on top of all that we have had incompetence in Government the like of which hasn’t been seen for decades.

The blatant idiocy of suggesting that the answer is fracking to produce more gas and more exploratory drilling is needed are the ultimate in short-term planning. The UK is not the US. Believe it or not, there is a global climate crisis and burning more fossil fuels makes it worse. Short-term planning is one of the reasons that the UK economy is underperforming. Proposing more of that approach is to further embed reckless incompetence.

Vince is right. We should make it easier to build onshore wind turbines in the UK. I’m not saying completely deregulate the planning systems. That would be entirely foolish. However, in local development plans we have ridiculous absurdities that name wind turbines and solar farms as a particular danger to the character of the landscape. So, any proposal that is brave enough to come forward gets slapped down immediately. Local politicians run for the hills.

Like all such regulatory issues, there needs to be a balance struck. There are numerous places in the UK were wind turbines and solar farms have a great deal more positive impact than negative. Proposals for renewable energy developments should be given a leg up. The UK is blessed with renewable energy assets in wind, seas, rain, and enough sun to make a difference.

I am first in-line to defend the beauty of our countryside but not everywhere is equal in that respect. Not only that but compared to nuclear power stations of any size, wind turbines and solar farms can be removed after a life of service with little sign of their former presence.

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

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001bbsv

Holiday from reality

All aboard for the fantasy rollercoaster. We are in for a new season of irrational excess. The winner of the competition for UK Prime Minister (PM) is to be a character out of Westminster folklore.

Mythology is powerful. It permeates our lives in the snap assumptions, unconscious bias, and it races through the pages of the tabloid press and social media.

I’m culpable. It’s that click-bait headline that stimulates an instant response. It can be as few as six words. “PM chews gum and walks too.” Immediately, the instinct to disagree is triggered in my mind. How can that be? So, I unwittingly join an avalanche of rancour and feed the machine.

People are more than the professional polarisers would like us to think. However, the idea that is a let-out clause for preposterous nonsense is not one that should stick. A candidate who wins votes by peddling blatant right-wing gibberish is dangerous.

For all the Brexit promoting fiction he is guilty of, in this case, former Minister Michael Gove[1] is right. It’s a nice journalists turn of phrase, being “on holiday from reality”. This is addressing Truss’s proposal to cut taxes as inflation takes-off and the cost-of-living presses hard on us all.

Pertinent when the Johnson, caretaker PM is holidaying. His would-be successor likes to pretend to be a next generation Thatcher but never has such a claim been more wayward. Thatcher wasn’t an advocate of ungrounded economics.

Back to the human capacity to believe political fantasies. It’s hard for progressives and more rational thinkers to accept but it’s real. Once upon a time there was a “centrist” wing of the UK Conservative Party that would debunk childish economic fictions. With a few exceptions, those people are now mute or considering their futures.

Since the 2016 EU referendum, the UK Conservatives Party has been transitioning into a version of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). These crude libertarian junkies have taken control. Brexit is not permanent. In fact, healthy national politics is dynamic and in-tune with what people are thinking. Unfortunately, a small self-selecting constituency is picking the UK’s next PM.

Get ready, the national rollercoaster ride is about to get a lot scarier.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/michael-gove-says-liz-truss-is-on-holiday-from-reality-as-he-backs-rishi-sunak-for-pm/ar-AA10Rtgq

Energy cap

The letters “Of” have been used as shorthand for “Office of” in the names of several regulators in the UK. There are at least two of them that are gaining an unparalleled reputation for incompetence[1]. Maybe, I’m being unfair. Afterall, a regulator can only do what the legislation that created it will permit it to do. They are not lawmakers. They can only interpret the law in respect of their own responsibilities. That law, however amended, is relatively stationary in the face of events.

One way of explaining what has happened is to admit that the ethos and rules in place were devised to serve past times. In the world of services provided by industry, the environment has changed dramatically, in more ways than one. A cacophony of events, Brexit, recuring political ineptitude, war, and climate change have made the framework created for British regulation obsolete.

It’s like trying to use a Thatcher / Blair era computer in the world of today’s internet and mobiles.

Now, what’s clear is that we have a bunch of Ministers who haven’t a clue what to do when faced with this problem. Conservatives keep a picture of Sid[2] on their bedroom walls.

The call has come from the Greens to nationalise everything[3]. This too is an inept solution to current problems. This was the dogma that Labour once held dear. How the political landscape changes.

Despite the calamities befalling us, we must get off fossil fuels. Again, Conservative politicians are on the wrong page. Britons needs encouragement to switch and insulate[4] not to stoop to fossil fuels industry lobbyists. The notion that the solution to a painful recession is to burn the future is absurd.

Let’s get out of the rut. Defending, and being constrained by a framework of organisation that’s out of date is no use to anyone. That is why the Liberal Democrat proposal to freeze the energy price cap is a good start. We desperately need to buy time, with escalating inflation, to come up with a new regulatory scheme. One that works for customers. One that works for the environment. One that works for you and me.

[1] Ofgem – the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets and Ofwat – the Water Services Regulation Authority

[2] To encourage individuals to become shareholders, the gas privatisation offer was advertised with the “If you see Sid…Tell him!” campaign.

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62577830

[4] Home insulation has been slashed by the current Government

Foot shooting

In the 1970s and 80s, Europe’s aviation industry strove to create common airworthiness codes. In 1983, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed that bring together 11 national authorities, including the UK. These countries agreed to improve European safety regulation; develop common codes and common interpretation of those codes and extend cooperation.

Given the immense efforts the UK applied to creating the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and subsequently the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) it is unsurprising the hope of continuing involvement remained until the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was signed.

Leaving the European system of aviation safety regulation is a consequence of the political choice of a hard Brexit. Exiting EASA membership was not accompanied by leaving other European institutions. However, the implications of no longer being an EU Member State have rippled through out the whole aviation system. As the UK becomes less Eurocentric so the rest of Europe becomes more Eurocentric. Yet, the UK will surely wish to continue to exercise influence within regional bodies. This is incongruous but it is a political choice, and such choices have consequences.

Another case of immense efforts, the UK applied, was to collaborative working in aerospace research. UK organisations and academic institutions benefited significantly from participation in the Horizon Europe project and its predecessors. This is being run down despite assurances given in the TCA. An impasse has arisen over the political shenanigans related to the Irish border.

Now, the lawyers have got involved there is surely nothing good that will come if it[1]. The overall message is negative. With Conservative leadership candidates stirring up anti-EU sentiment just to get votes, it’s hardly likely there will be a reconciliation any time soon.

Yet again, the UK is perfecting the art of shooting itself in the foot. A sad situation. By the way, I do think this situation will be resolved in the fullness of time. The EU published a Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe in November 2021. To quote:

(g) Global engagement: Develop a coherent global engagement strategy and common tools, promoting shared European values and principles for R&I in terms of international cooperation and capitalising on the attractiveness of research in the Union; ensure the Union’s scientific and innovation strategic autonomy while preserving an open economy; promote a level playing field and reciprocity based on fundamental values; enhance R&I partnerships and strengthen, broaden and deepen collaboration with third countries and regional organisations.

The last line ties in nicely with the TCA and creates a need to solve the issue of UK engagement. That would be wise for both parties in the end.

POST 1: The consequences are real Thanks to Brexit, I lost a €2.5m research grant. I fear for the future of UK science | José R Penadés | The Guardian

POST 2: Grants lost At least 115 UK researchers to lose their ERC grants – Research Professional News

[1] https://sciencebusiness.net/news/uk-launches-legal-case-against-eu-over-horizon-europe-association

Coming election

A moment of pure speculation. Barring a military take over, there will be a UK General Election before January 2025. When we have such national elections about 70% of the voting population get sufficiently motivated to put a cross in a box on a ballot paper. Yes, a few doodle or write “none of the above” on their papers but it’s a tiny number that go as far as to protest their frustration.

It’s always a good time for public relations agencies, tabloid newspapers and political gurus. The potential for appallingly cringemaking headlines and earworm like slogans is manifold. Some of these folks will be writing pages of forthcoming books on “how it was won” long before it was won.

Today, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has taken the role of caretaker to a new extreme. He’s more of a couldn’t care less taker of the p*** PM. The forthcoming election will be a race between at least three horses and maybe even four. Conservatives, Labourites, Liberal Democrats and one or two Greens will be trying to capture the high ground and launch themselves on the doorsteps of the UK. 

The issues will be stark. Armageddon isn’t on the cards, yet, but there will be dire circumstances as a background to the future campaign. Each party will be saying the other is an incompetent bunch of nincompoops. Each party will be stressing their unique qualities and indisputable solutions to all and sundry. A daily routine of shifting news stories will be a bombardment of severe intensity.

Free speech is a first principle of democracy. That said, I’ll bet that there will be an acute reluctance amongst competing politicians to mention one six-letter word. I almost wrote competing “pelicans”. Now, that conjures up an image of huge birds fighting over an unfortunate fish.

In the idea world candidates will be engaging in polite discussions with those who hold different views and hoping to persuade them of a view they hold dear. In the idea world candidates would avoid denigrating or insulting those who hold views that are difficult to understand.

The six-letter word is – Brexit. All the objective evidence points to the failure of this project. It’s clear the current Conservative Government is frightened of people saying Brexit has failed. In complete antithesis to free speech, they are clamping down on civil servants and those who work with Government to ensure they don’t highlight Brexit facts.

Come the next General Election the inevitability of tribalism and short termism will kick in. The UK’s voting system encourages polarisation. There’re absolutely no nuances. Debate on Brexit is likely to get squeezed to the side-lines as Conservatives and Labourites pretend it can still work.  

To unlock a better future for everyone we do need Proportional Representation. Otherwise, the same old, same old will haunt the country for years to come. The fight needs to be for honesty.

Was I right, or was I right? Fishy parrot