Tag: UK

Over the Horizon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Past Earth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ULEZ

Londoners in all Boroughs need clearer air to breathe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Build, but not here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Apologies to Monty Python.

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

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

Energy Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short-sighted

None of that comes cheap.

OK. Why are mini-nuclear power stations such an irrational idea? The industry is selling these untried, untested power station as completely unlike that which has gone before. A Conservative Minister has been echoing their marketing brochures.

Let me say, with power generation there are some basic realities that remain the same.

Fuel must be transported to power stations and waste must be removed from them on a regular basis. For coal, that was the reason for the sitting of large power stations in the past. For gas, there was more flexibility in location, but the costs of transportation still needed to be minimised. For such innovations as waste-to-energy plants, proximity to the source of waste presented a major problem. Neighbourhoods rarely invited these plants to be built close by.

Spreading the distribution of nuclear fuel and waste around the country doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Cost of transportation are high. Safety is paramount. Security is always a grave concern.

Now, I understand the need for limited numbers large-scale nuclear power stations. They provide a reliable base load when the renewable sources of power are not available. The wind doesn’t blow.

Although, there are a variety of different international companies in the nuclear business the notion of a “free market” in the conventional sense is not a real prospect. The investments needed to be competent and meet regulatory requirements in the nuclear business are huge. Projects are there for the long-term. A whole working career of a nuclear engineer may be locked to one technology.

Experience has shown us that a goal of zero accidents rarely delivers a reality of zero accidents. These are complex engineered systems. It doesn’t matter if they are big or small the complexities remain. Yes, safety can be managed in a safety critical industry but there had better be preparedness for worst possible outcomes[1]. With these nuclear plants decommissioning and recovery from significant incidents of contamination must be accounted for in any design, implementation, and operation. None of that comes cheap.

Overall, in Britain there are much better paths to travel than the mini-nuclear one.

It absolutely astonishes me that, given the enormous tidal range of the Severn Estuary[2] we have never captured the energy of those waters. Equality in a nation, with a coast as large as ours, we have only ever dabbled in wave power[3]. Let’s have some genuine innovation. Let’s think like the Victorians and build for the long-term.

Why are we so incredibly short-sighted in Britain?

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13047267

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

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salter%27s_duck

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/

Summer

The perpetual cycle of the seasons is what divides up our lives.

It’s a summer day. The shadows are shorter. Different parts of the garden are illuminated with bright sunlight. Early summer flowers are in decline. The next set of blooms are starting to sparkle. Gardening experiments are showing signs of maturity. Maybe there will be some marrows[1] this year. I don’t just grow them for their large yellow flowers.

February 2023 was the driest on record across the UK. Yet, we have had hard soakings that left the ground waterlogged. The overall impact on my garden’s sandy soil has not been good. The year has developed slowly. Some of the vegetation has thrived but others have been set back. My large bay tree is thriving but shedding lot of dead leaves. The cold snap we had, when the temperature dipped to minus ten degrees C took its toll.

I may be unusual but faced with this summer glory, I feel a little sad. It’s the peak of the season. It’s like getting to the top of the roller coaster and knowing there’s only one way to go from here. Surveying the wonderful greenery, its transience is all to evident. My mind flips to the middle of winter. That dramatic transformation where the trees are stripped of their leaves. It’s like my brain saying: “do we really have to go that way?” Off course we do. The perpetual cycle of the seasons is what divides up our lives. We have a finite number of summers. It’s not a time to waste in gloom rooms sitting at computer screens.

Yesterday, I moved an apple tree. It was looking poorly in an unhelpfully shaded spot. Fortunately, this move wasn’t back breaking. I’d planted the small tree in a large square pot. Am I bleary eyed? Already, early this morning, it looks better. If trees could talk, I’d expect a complement.

Luckly here, although we are in a town, we are surrounded by greenery. Out to the front of the house is a railway embankment. A place were urban foxes have their societal meetings. The fence and the railway make a large space of relative wilderness. Apart from an electricity substation and a one or two telegraph poles, the divide is a haven for wildlife.

Out the back of the house we’ve the benefit of the shade of chucky mature trees. A community of squirrels have a highway that takes them up and down the large oaks. They make weird noises, like the foxes do. At dusk and dawn, it’s a musical festival out in the back garden. A loud but tiny song thrush sits on a TV aerial and broadcasts to the whole neighbourhood.

Lavender is in full bloom[2]. It grows well here. The local bees are having a field day. I never fail to be impressed by their industriousness. There’s a variety too. Now and then, a massive bumble bee will do a fly past. They are not stumped for places to visit.

I’m ready for the “Big Butterfly Count[3]” as it starts later in the month. There’s been a few and far between out and about so far this year. I’ve seen some large white butterflies. This national survey is one small way to help to stop butterfly decline. 

It’s the best time of the year. Let’s enjoy it while it lasts.

POST: It did get up to 30 degrees C. A hot dry summer day.

[1] https://www.rhs.org.uk/vegetables/marrow/grow-your-own

[2] https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/lavender/growing-guide

[3] https://bigbutterflycount.butterfly-conservation.org/

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