A Change of Direction

 This blog has always been a bit of a mixture of things. I've talked about woodwork, railway modelling, theology and probably a few things I can't even remember. I've also used it as a place to store ideas, articles and links. Writing that makes me realise that at the very least this blog reflects who I am and how my life has changed over the decades.

So I'm going to add a new stream to my thoughts. There's a project idea that's been wandering aimlessly around my mind for some time now. My background is quite diverse, but work began in R&D after completing my degree in Environmental Science and Chemistry. A lot has changed since then but what remains true, and has become more urgent, is that we are having a deeply damaging impact on the environment and time is running out to do something about it. It is that serious.

The problem is that although we know we must act, we're not sure anything we do as individuals will make a difference. I had this conversation with a friend of mine some time ago. He was very supportive of the things I was doing because I knew things needed to change and I wanted to be part of the change. But his attitude was almost to suggest that I was wasting my time because one person can't make a difference.

Well I think otherwise. One person can make a difference and, if that one person can inspire another, then two people can make twice the difference. It's a matter of simple maths. One becomes two, then four then eight and the change becomes exponential. 

So what's my change of direction? Well, I'm going to start writing about an idea I have for a movement. It sounds grand that way, but why not? Why not start a movement? The movement has a simple aim: To leave the world in a better state than we found it. This is an environmental challenge but it is also a socio-economic one too. It's about a sustainable and equitable world. 

I know that this blog has very little traction and very few people stumble across it. I'm not looking to become well-known, I just want my grandsons to inherit a better world. Perhaps you will join me on the adventure.

Post Referendum thoughts

If some of what I've seen and read over the last few days is true, then surely the saddest part of the whole EU Referendum vote is hearing people who voted leave say they are now worried about the consequences of that vote. "I didn't think my vote would count" is something of an indictment of the system as much as it might be of the approach some took to voting. With no coherent vision on offer from anyone with regard to the future, we're left in this somewhat bizarre situation of apparently having voted for something most people aren't sure they really wanted. How very strange.

Even stranger is that the petition for a re-run seems to have been started by a leave voter. Not that a second referendum on the same issue is likely, or even welcome. And I say that as a remain voter. The only place for a second vote as far as I can see is when and if a clear vision, post Article 50 negotiations, is laid out and we are then asked whether the is what we truly want. But then again, I'm not sure that's even possible.

In the end we were probably asked the wrong question, in the wrong, at the wrong time. The leave campaign capitalised on years of negative press and comment about the EU. About who made decisions and how, about rules and regulations that were either never actually on the books or were only ever ideas suggested and rejected. We've always had an uneasy relationship with the EU and the silence from MEPs before and during this debate hasn't helped. Where were the positive voices? Too late now I'm afraid.

And what of the "promises" and "threats"? George Osborne tries to settle the markets by suggesting things won't be as bad as he kept telling us they would be, Nigel Farage says that the £350M we could invest in the NHS wasn't true. No wonder people have such a low view of politics and politicians.

There has been quite a lot of comment about the need to simply get on with it. Accept the outcome and figure out the way forward outside of the EU. But I'm not sure the debate ends there quite just yet. After all, the outcome of the referendum is only advisory, it's not legally binding. Parliament could decide to reject it. That would, I assume, be unprecedented, and who would be brave enough to do such a thing?

Maybe there are some good things that will come out of the mess. Perhaps the EU will take seriously the need to do some deep reforming, maybe there will be debates about how the free movement of people works across a range of contras with vastly differing social policies and systems. Perhaps there will be greater clarity and understanding of what it means to be a member state, what responsibilities and opportunities come with being part of a greater community. Sadly we seem to have chosen not be part of that process.

Perhaps we might also see a change in our one political landscape. If we've got our country back, and I'm not sure we have, (or to be more accurate I'm not convinced the country some people think we're getting back is the country I wanted back), then how will the politics of this new era reflect that? Post upheaval and leadership elections, will there be a greater engagement between politicians and people? Who knows? I suspect we'll drift quietly back into the stars quo of hoping of the best, wanting to believe what those seeking election are telling us, and then expressing our inevitable;e disappointment when it turns out that once again things aren't quite what they seemed to be. That might sound cynical, even overly negative, but it takes an enormous amount of effort to seize the opportunity of change and stay with it.

So, to be positive, I think we will survive outside the EU. It's not where I wanted us to be. I hoped we had bigger hearts and greater vision. To leave just seems too narrow and somewhat selfish to me. If we do have a second vote, then I hope it will focus on more positive things than we have endured through this campaign. And I hope that in the future we will see less protest voting because everyone will realise that every vote matters.

Polling Day is coming

So it's polling day in the great referendum tomorrow. Time for some last day thoughts.

If I'm really honest I'm far from convinced that the question of our membership of the EU can be settled by a national referendum. The issue is too complex for a simplistic in/out vote. I'm not saying that the electorate in general is incapable of understanding the nuances and complexities of membership, but the reductionist campaigning has failed completely to debate the issues in anything like the depth needed to inform anyone.

What we have been left with in tomorrow's vote is a choice between our least and worst fears. We've been told all sorts of worrying stuff from both sides that has little substance and have been allowed to continue to believe some ridiculous stuff about the EU that simply isn't true when you look at the wider context of what it means to be part of the community. I've said before that there is much that needs fixing, but that doesn't make it a bad idea in the first place.

My hope is that we vote to remain and then work hard to build a better system of European government and cooperation. I also believe we need to get better at letting people know what it means to be a member state, how to take our membership seriously and to embrace the responsibilities that come with being part of that wider community.

I would have liked to have seen a far more positive campaign to remain rather than the end of the world scenario that has been peddled these last few months. I do not see our future as a nation being under threat by remaining. On the contrary, the false ideas of what it means to be a sovereign nation poses a bigger threat to our identity with it's apparent desire to be isolated and insulated. Where does "controlling our own borders, making our own laws" etc really take us?

My fear is that the lack of a positive edge to the remain campaign has fuelled the leavers argument and people will vote out because they've been sucked into believing the rhetoric about bureaucrats and red tape. Yes there are some annoying regulations, but annoying doesn't equal unnecessary or unhelpful. And just because we think other countries pay no attention to the rules and regulations is no reason to suggest that they get in our way!

If the European Union is going to work we need to be part of the solution. My family, my work, my community are all richer because of life within the EU (and I don't mean financially). We get to travel without too much fuss. Although we're unlikely to adopt the Euro currency, you can't deny it's benefit when you travel through continental Europe. Imagine or remember the days when you had to carry four or five different currencies if you went on a European tour. I know that wouldn't disappear, but my point is that for all the problems, the EU has been a good thing and if we could only stop moaning about it for a while it might become something even better.

Early thoughts on the European referendum

With the date of the in-out referendum announced I'm bracing myself for the long campaign and all the contradictory information that will assail us over the coming months. Already we've had Michael Gove saying Europe gets in the way of his being able to do his job day to day (some might suggest there are other reasons) and Michael Fallon saying it's not quite so.

Being part of a wider european community will undoubtedly have an impact on how we do things.  Any form of coalition does. Some have been positive some negative, often dependent upon your perspective. For example, most of our environmental legislation comes from Europe. If you're an organisation or company that would rather not have to contribute to clean air or water, then you might consider the regulations an interference. Similarly you might consider some of the regulations about working hours and conditions an unwelcome hurdle, blaming Europe for the red tape that you feel restricts your business.

The question we have to ask is whether we would have these regulations and rights, whether environmental or in other areas, were it not for our memberships of the European Union. Perhaps, as Stanley Johnson said on the news this morning, there will always be a price to pay for being part of a european community, but there is also great benefit too.

There's no doubt that the EU has morphed into something other than the free trade area that it was back in the 70's when we first joined and first had an in-out vote. There's also little doubt that there are many things about the present organisational structure of the community that need to be addressed and some questions about the overall destination of the process that need answers. Are we ultimately headed towards a United States of Europe? Is that what we want as Europeans not just as the UK?

I also wonder why there are not some simple principles about entitlements to things like benefits and health care that are either pan-european, i.e. a basic level of both applied across the community, or some structure that means your entitlement is based on your country of origin. Perhaps this already exists, perhaps these issues only actually exist in the minds of those who want us out. Perhaps the benefits and health questions are actually just red herrings in the debate.

I hope that over the next few months we get some real data and some real facts that make it possible to make a thoughtful decision rather than one based upon headlines and fear-driven speculations.

Friday 3rd Oct. 14

With so much going on in the world it's difficult to know where to start. Watching the events in and around Iraq unfold, one can't help wondering if air strikes by western military forces are a solution or fuel to the fire. We're back to Bill Clinton's question about why they hate us so much. Is this an intractable ideology that has only one agenda and that's the subjugation of all humanity under one paradigm? And, if it's an ideology, can you really bomb it out of existence?

As the Prime Minister announces two more Tornado jets are being sent into action, there's talk of withdrawal from the European convention on human rights. Too much interference from Europe might placate those who see Europe as a threat to our sovereignty, but is it the wisest way forward or is it just an attempt to halt the progress of UKIP? We do seem to have a political system based on emotive arguments, self-interest and soundbites these days. Perhaps it has always been so, we've just not seen it. On the other hand, if it ushers in a proper bill of rights and a new constitution by which we become citizens rather than subjects, then that would be a good thing surely.

Personally, I'm not looking forward to next year's general election at all. Mainly because I would feel guilty if I didn't vote but in realty I'm rather disinclined to do so. Not voting is not a sign of apathy, at least not for me. It would be a signal of dissatisfaction with the system. But the system we have is the only one we have! Catch 22. Vote and make no difference, or don't vote and still make no difference! Maybe I've just become rather too cynical about it all. I'd like to think that people would sit down and think through what they believe and vote accordingly, seeking to find the party or manifesto that best represents those views. Instead I fear we mostly vote for what suits us best, or more likely we vote against something.

The first time I voted it was a rather special occasion. I remember going to the polling station but alas I can't remember the reason! Maybe it wasn't that special after all. I turned 18 in October 1975, the first General Election in which I could vote would have been 1979 when the ailing Labour government of the day was replaced by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative party. But my memory tells me that I voted in something before then, perhaps not long after my birthday in '75. Anyway, apart from one election when I completely forgot that I hadn't been to the polls ( how I did that I can't imagine), I've voted at every opportunity since. In all that time I think I can safely say that my vote made a difference twice, maybe three times because I got to vote on devolution in Wales the first around in the 70's. By this I mean that my vote, along with many others, changed the MP or directly affected a decision. But just because my vote generally speaking hasn't done that, does that make it a pointless exercise?

Come next year I will have to decide what to do. I'm caught between the idea of protesting by not voting and realising that by not voting my vote, albeit a "not vote", won't count for anything because we determine the winner by a majority of votes cast not by gaining a majority of the votes that could be cast. I could, by not voting, actually contribute to the election of a candidate I wouldn't want to represent me! Woe is me!

At least it's been a good week for tennis. I played my first match of the new round of league matches and managed to grind out a win in three sets that took 2.5 hours to play. The other players all look strong so it was good to make a positive start to what promises to be a challenging group of matches. At least there are no politics in tennis....

Does local democracy work?

Well, in answer to my own question: We shall see.

I'll confess that the older I get the less interested I am in voting, especially in National Elections and even European ones. I'm not sure my vote actually means anything, and the argument that if you don't vote you have no right to comment or complain is just ridiculous. None of us vote for the FIFA presidency, but many of us have an opinion about it! In fact, not voting can be more meaningful than voting as long as it's not arrived at by apathy and worn out arguments. Although disillusionment with the political system as it is is probably one of those old arguments!

Anyway, to local democracy. We've got local elections coming up in our borough and I got canvassed the other day. To my surprise I heard myself say that I was beginning to think that local elections might be more important than national ones. If local democracy can be made to work better, then maybe there's hope for national democracy.

I've decided to involve myself in local democracy over an issue that impacts my immediate community. I've taken the first step in writing to a local councillor and refreshingly I got an honest and hopeful reply. A good start. The last time I wrote to political office I got short shrift and was told the Prime Minister knew better than I did. Something history might suggest was somewhat wide of the mark!

Local councillors probably have a tougher job than some of their Westminster counterparts. After all they often have full-time jobs as well as serving on the council (rather than having lucrative consultancy jobs outside parliament-or is that just cynical?). I'm hoping that my initial burst of enthusiasm isn't snuffed out by lack of action or response.

As I said at the start: We shall see!!

David Puttnam on "A duty of care"

This is an interring short talk and worth a watch. It raises a number of issues, particularly around the role of the media, but it has implications beyond that. For those who access the Bible, the theme of "a duty of care" should certainly not be unfamiliar and echoes of Isaiah and the story of the Good Samaritan, to name but two, come immediately to mind.

I guess the really big question from the talk is how do we go about reengaging in a democratic system that has lost it's soul as ours appears to have done.

A Feral Underclass

So, Ken Clarke has given Middle England the data it needs to breathe a huge sigh of relief that the riots indeed where the work of a criminal underclass. According to the statistics on the BBC Breakfast News this morning, 75% of those arrested in connection with the recent events had a criminal record.

Case proved, it's not our fault.

At no point during the hour the news was on this morning did I ever hear anyone ask why they had a criminal record and what might have contributed to the situation. Again the marginalised are simple pushed further away from protected green belt of middle class morality.

Let me say that in no way endorse any of the behaviour that we saw so vividly displayed on our televisions. There are no excuses. But there are explanations, and until we get to grips with the social and economic conditions and inequalities that create any kind of underclass nothing will get solved.

Telling us they were all criminals already really doesn't help solve anything.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Anyone for maths?

I was listening to the news this morning when they were talking about David Cameron's announcement of a crackdown on benefit fraud. It is of course a very middle class thing to assume that hard working, tax payers are being fleeced by benefit cheats. In fact, according to the political correspondent on BBC Breakfast, less than 1% of benefit claims are made fraudulently. This amounts to some £1.5 billion. Another £1.6 billion is "lost" through administrative errors. Not surprising given the complexity and size of the system. Together I make that £3.1 billion.

So where does the £5.2 billion of "welfare and Tax credit fraud" come from that Mr Cameron quotes?

I just get a little bit worried when I hear this kind of rhetoric. No, it's not right that any person should use the benefits system to access money to which they are not entitled. But there are an awful lot of people that don't access money to which they are entitled.

And it does beg another question: How much money is lost to the government through the tax avoidance antics of the wealthy? According to a piece in the Independent, £13 billion of tax is legally avoided by the wealthy and another £12 billion by companies.

So, in other words, if we simplified the tax system we might easily recover more lost tax than we could get back from chasing down errors and deception in the welfare system. Of course we should do both, but it's easier and a bigger vote winner in middle England to go after the benefits system.

Still in a fix

Well I thought we might have seen the end of the story with respect to the election by the end of the day yesterday, but Gordon Brown had other plans! His resignation seems to have thrown a spanner in the works and given Nick Clegg a headache to boot.

I do think it is high time the media began to educate listeners, readers and viewers about the constitution and how we actually go about getting a Prime Minister. All this talk about "unelected PM's" is a distraction  from the core issues that parliament might just need to become a place where democratic discussions lead to better policies.

Early election reflections

Well, after many long weeks and even months of media frenzy, we appear to be headed straight into a balanced, or hung parliament. No surprise there then. In fact, watching the election coverage the only surprising thing seems to have been that this time they actually predicted the correct outcome. That and a few odd gains and losses that were not on the infamous hit lists. When the dust settles, it will be interesting to read the analysis of what has happened and why.

It makes you wonder what the politicians are now going to do if they actually have to win the argument in order to get a policy through parliament. It's bee a while since the party of government has had to work with a small majority let alone no majority at all. Might we see a little more thoughtful debate on key issues? The cynic in me suspects that deals will be done behind closed doors in order to get things through. The optimist in me hopes for a better outcome.

I do worry about the appearance of "The Christian Party". I'm all for Christian involvement in politics, but I'm far from convinced that all Christians should agree to the extent that we can form a party. And the large ad that appeared in the main street where I live read more like a piece of nationalistic propaganda that something I'd call Christian.

The thing that did surprise me was the turn out in some places. Seeing people queue around the block to vote is an astonishing sight in the UK. Of course the ranting and shouting by those who found themselves unable to vote was not so unusual. Perhaps the system has simply adapted to the so-called voter apathy of past elections. What we would we do if everyone turned out to vote!

If history repeats itself, then I guess we can look forward to doing this all over again in the Autumn.

Prime-time debates

I didn't see all of last night's "ground-breaking" first in British politics, but I saw enough. Personally, I didn't like the format. What I saw seemed at times to be just another rehash of the adversarial way we do things in politics and in law and even talent shows. The arguments appeared to be that a Labour government will spend money it hasn't got, a Conservative government will save money the average person cal ill afford and the Liberal Democrats are offering a choice not enough people will be brave enough to make.

My personal experience of politics has been a 13 year Labour government preceded by 18 years of Conservative government, preceded by a series of much shorter exchanges of power through the 60's and 70's. I wonder if our voting has become more selfish over those years. Perhaps it's more that the main stream parties have fought it out on near identical ground. It's like the boat race, with the Lib-dems shouting, "Move apart" as oars clash over the same water.

Maybe there's room for some radical thinking. Maybe someone might point out that the reason you save is in order to provide for yourself in retirement and not to ensure the next generation has a deposit for a house.  Maybe it's time for some radical thinking about what basic healthcare means in the face of ever advancing treatments and costs.

Perhaps there's room for real debate rather than the sometimes vacuous sniping that suggests that the biggest fear in politics today is an unfortunate sound-byte or actually appearing to answer the question.

What I am glad about is that once the dust settles after this election, there's a band of MP's that will go about the business of seeking to do the best they can to serve the people who elected them. I still believe that, even though the evidence sometimes suggests otherwise.