An Interesting Question

I read that Mr Putin is to 'review' the legality of the independence of the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. One can only wonder at what the NATO/US/EU response will be. Another Munich Accord a´la Chamberlain's 1938 agreement with a certain gentleman with similar ambitions for his country and people? Perhaps everyone should demand a 'review' of Russia's occupation of East Prussia, the so-called Kaliningrad enclave.

Mr Putin plans, apparently, to review the legality of his county's recognition of the three small states who, as historians will know, have been overrun and occupied by just about everyone in  the neighbourhood in the past. Their brief breath of freedom between 1919 and 1939 saw them first occupied by Nazi forces, then by the Soviets. Neither occupying power earned much love or respect. Stalin's deportation of 'natives' was followed by the implanation of native Russians, so now all three countries have fairly large ethnically 'Russian' populations - just as was the case in East Ukraine, parts of Georgia and several other parts of the former Soviet empire Mr Putin has 'reclaimed' in the interests of 'protecting the ethnic Russian population' ...

In 1939 Britain, France and the Empire went to war with Germany over the invasion of Poland. Now the question hangs in the air over whether or not we will stand up for the three small Baltic States. Is their membership of NATO and the EU worth the paper it is presumably written on? Maybe, maybe not.

One problem that I can see is that Russia is far better armed now than NATO, and far less restrained by concerns of 'sovereignty', morality or international sentiment. Should Mr Putin decide the 'recognition' is illegal, what then? Another Ukraine? Very likely, although, with his army already massed on the doorstep, I suspect it will all be over in a matter of hours -- long before any of our western leaders can even get their heads round the question of a response.

Which leaves them with the same option Chamberlain faced in 1938. Oooh, we'll impose 'sanctions' and then more 'sanctions' as we watch Mr Putin roll over Finland, Poland and perhaps even the Eastern States of Germany. Do anything to stop him? Oooh, can't do that, it would be unpopular in the ballot box, and we no longer have the means anyway.

So much for 'Peace' and the 'Peace Dividend'. So much for 'Peace in our time' at any price and at all costs. We seem to have forgotten the important mxim - Si vis pacem; para bellum.

Human Migrations

Humans have been migrating, I suspect, since the dawn of time. There have been many reasons for it I suspect, starting with the need to move when a familiar area can no longer support the tribe, clan, family and going all the way up to conflict and the need to escape. Individually the reasons can range from the desire to find a sexual/breeding partner to the desire for wealth and power. Then there are those who can see no hope of leading a life of hope or fulfilment in the place of their birth, and need to move to find employment even of the most basic once they reach adulthood. And when even that is denied them through war, discrimination, crime and corruption or lack of any viable opportunity, they are forced to take desperate measures.

This is where we see the sort of tragedy unfolding in the Mediterranean at present. As the latest death toll rises, we hear all the usual politicians wringing their hands and saying all the usual things about ‘addressing the problem at its roots’ but doing nothing.

Reading all the usual twaddle from politicians, ‘aid agencies’, UN officials (many from the countries that ARE the problem) and commentators on various news shows, one is struck, very forcibly, by the lack of any workable solution being proposed by any of them. The UN and various ‘humanitarian’ groups all want Europe to throw open its borders and let the hordes in. No checks, no restrictions - just take them in and presumably house, feed and clothe them. Our political leaders want to give more ‘aid’ or send ‘advisers’ and, of course, the Aid Agencies and NGOs all want more money so they can do more to ‘lift people out of poverty’. All very laudable, but none of it actually addresses the root of the problem - incompetent and utterly corrupt governments.

In our haste to ‘de-colonise’ Africa in particular, we overlooked something rather important. Very few of the new ‘nations’ we left south of the Sahara had any ‘tradition’ of settled civilisation prior to colonisation, and even fewer were actually homogenous peoples. Most included more than one tribal group, and most of those tribes were traditional enemies who preyed on each other until forced to stop by the colonial power. The Mashona were happily enslaving all their neighbours and selling them to Arab slave traders at Mombasa and Dar Es Salaam right up until the British - at the behest of none other than Cecil John Rhodes (whose statue has just been attacked and now removed from the campus at University of Cape Town) sent in the Army to put a stop to it in 1898. That’s right, 1898! Robert Mugabe, take note.

Southern Africa is the classic example of historic migrations, since ALL the current ‘Bantu’ tribes now claiming it as their ‘homeland’ actually only arrived there after 1700 - around 40 years after the Dutch established their trading post at the Cape. They displaced the indigenous peoples, the Khoi folk, who formed three groups, a coastal people known to the Dutch as Strandlopers, the ‘Bushmen’ who inhabited the drier inland regions, and the Hottentot peoples of the western Cape. Another group who inhabited the central plateau - now the Free State and Northern Cape - have vanished entirely, their only traces being dry stone constructions of cattle pens and strange ‘beehive’ houses entered on hands and knees through an angled tunnel entrance. Like the Khoi peoples, they were driven out, driven into the deserts, and eventually killed on sight by the invading Bantu. Though to hear it now, it was the Europeans ‘wot done it’. Sadly, for the builders of the stone huts, the White explorers that found their remains were about fifty years too late.

So what is driving today’s mass migrations? 

To a very large extent it appears to be the failure of the post-colonial governments of almost all the African states to provide any sort of stable government. Plus the total lack of any prospects for employment, education, or to house, feed, and clothe oneself decently. Almost certainly one of the most powerful drivers is overpopulation. There simply aren’t the natural resources to support the populations now trying to subsist on them. Water is an obvious one, but so is arable land. I suspect that one reason sub-saharan Africa has not produced any settled cities or permanent agriculture is that the soil and the water available cannot sustain them. 

Thus, until fairly recent ‘colonial’ history, the agriculture tended to be slash and burn, farm it until the soil and the water was exhausted - then move on. Most of Africa is not covered by dense jungle or forest - by far the largest portion of it is desert or semi-desert, and most tribal systems prior to the colonial rush, were hunter gatherer and nomadic. Neither of these systems is suited to the massive expansion of the populations all over Africa, and the lack of industries, and lack of commercial traditions (in the western sense) means that most now have to find ways to make a living independently of the sort of system the developed countries enjoy. Nor is it likely that these will develop in the short term, given that corruption is rampant, nepotism, tribalism and sometimes xenophobia reach into every aspect of daily life.

Only those folk who have seen the shanty towns, the lack of infrastructures, the sewerage running in the streets and the lack of even the most basic services in these countries can begin to understand the desperation many feel. Only when our political classes, who burble on about ‘poverty’ and ‘economic development’ as if throwing money at it will change it, even begin to understand how their approach is simply enriching the most corrupt, and grinding the poorest even further into the mire will we begin to find a solution. Tanzania’s President has recently sold almost the entire Masai Mara off to the Sultan of one of the Gulf States. One point 6 MILLION square kilometres of land, as a ‘private’ safari park. Pity about the Masai who are now being driven from the land their forefathers first settled around the time the ‘Prophet’ the Sultan follows was hiding out in the mountains. 

Mozambique is selling huge tracts of land to the Chinese and to Western entrepreneurs for ‘development’ - and turning to small subsistence farmers off, forcing them into squatter camps, or into the hands of people traffickers so they end up on overloaded boats drowning in the Med or elsewhere in their efforts to find a decent life somewhere. The same thing is happening all over Africa, and while the IMF, the UN and other applaud these deals and approve the funding on the grounds it will help ‘develop’ the country, the reality is that most of it finds its way straight back into Swiss and other bank accounts held by - you guessed it - the ‘governing’ families and Parties who sold land they don’t ‘own’ in the first place.

Is it any wonder then that everywhere you look in Africa there are conflicts, armed and otherwise? Everywhere you look there is grinding poverty that can never be addressed? Is it any wonder the people resort to such desperate measures as to board unsuitable vessels and take the risk of catastrophe to reach what our prosperity projects as the land in which the streets are paved with gold, and everyone is a millionaire?

Easy for idle protesters, many on State handouts, to ‘demand’ we simply open the borders and take them in. Easy to scream, rant and shout that ‘more must be done’ to save the boat people, but what do we do with them once they are here? We have unemployment, we have people in poverty, we have people in need of assistance, and much as we’d like to, we simply can’t take in all those we’d like to. The solution lays in Africa itself, and though it may be painful, that is where it has to be addressed. Not on the open sea between Europe and North Africa, and not in Italy, Southern France, Britain, Greece or anywhere else in Europe.

I would suggest it has to start with stripping the ill-gotten gains from those in power there, and, perhaps under international supervision, the construction of proper infrastructures, proper services and the founding of proper industries, commerce, and, of course, education. That would be the sensible way to go — but since we’re dealing with politicians (with their own peccadilloes to protect) I will not be holding my breath to see it happen.

What if Scotland decides to stay in the UK?

Ever since the Blair/Brown mangling of the UK’s Constitution, there has been a large question mark over the status of ‘England’ within the Union. Scotland has a Parliament, Wales and Northern Ireland have Assemblies, but England has … Westminster, which, we are constantly told is the “United Kingdom Parliament”. In other words, “England” is represented by its MPs sitting in a joint parliament making decisions that apply only in England and determined to a large extent by Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs.

Let’s take a look at the actual make-up of the Westminster Chamber (I’ll leave the Lords out of it for the moment - that is another problem entirely thanks to Blair!). There are 650 MPs currently in the House of Commons, of whom 533 are ‘English’ (though in reality some are Scottish or Welsh Party Members in ‘English’ seats), 40 Welsh, 59 Scottish and 18 Northern Irish. In effect it means that there are 117 MPs voting on laws that have little or no impact on their own constituents in matters ‘devolved’ to the Scottish Parliament or the two Assemblies. Worse, it means that the voters in each of these constituencies actually has TWO MPs - one 'local' and the other in Westminster, while the 'English' constituencies have only one, in Westminster. Since a majority of the constituencies in Scotland and Wales are invariably also Labour, Nationalist or Liberal Democrat supporters, there is a clear bias against the representation most frequently the choice of ‘English’ voters. Reference to the map clearly shows this.

To further complicate the story we must also recognise that there are 53 million people in England, 3 million in Wales, 5.29 million in Scotland and 1.8 million in Northern Ireland. This means there are fewer voters per MP in Scotland and Wales than there are in England. Then there are arguments about the allocation of funds to the various components as well, with the per capita spend in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland higher than anywhere in England. And all of this is ‘managed’ by Westminster where those 117 ‘National’ MPs make very sure their voters ‘interests’ are paramount. It is a very tricky question and, to use a hackneyed expression, thorny issue. One the politicians hoped they could evade by breaking England up into ‘Regions’ so each Region had its own Assembly and could safely be sidelined.

That plan fell apart when the first ‘Region’ resoundingly rejected being made autonomous and being made to pay for yet another hot-air talking shop for meddlers. The surprise was that it was a Labour ‘heartland area. To date the only such ‘Region’ to accept the ‘honour’ is the London conurbation where the Greater London Authority has an Assembly which presides over the 33 Boroughs and cities that make up what everyone outside the UK calls ‘London’. The problem when the voters rejected the ‘Regional Assembly’ proposal was that Blair and his planners had no alternative plan, no back-up to answer what has, for many years, been known as the “West Lothian Question”. For some reason, all our ‘political’ class are terrified of allowing the ‘English’ to have their own voice, their own Parliament.

Perhaps it is time to call this bluff, and for the ‘English’ to demand the same status as the Welsh, Scots and Irish (and come to that the Suzerainties of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man). Perhaps it is time to reject entirely the divisions imposed by Westminster and Whitehall in their ‘Regions’ and demand an English Parliament based outside of London. Surely, if we are going to continue to play this so-called ‘democracy’ game, it is only right? The problem is that the Liberal Left (and possibly the Conservative Centre as well) seem to be absolutely terrified by the thought of an 'English' Parliament. One has to ask why?

As I see it there are several purely ‘political’ problems to address here. The first is that the ‘first past the post/winner takes all’ electoral system is so far past its ‘sell by’ date it is a joke. The second is to acknowledge that, without the Scottish and Welsh MPs, Labour will never form a majority government in England. The third part of the problem is that Westminster, and to a large extent, Whitehall, will have to be completely restructured with Whitehall being cut back and many of its Departments devolved completely to the four national governments. I would suggest therefore that Whitehall would be responsible only for overall ‘Treasury’ functions, Defence, Foreign Policy and matters pertaining to Immigration, Citizenship and mutual internal arrangements. Westminster itself could be slimmed down dramatically, losing perhaps half of its current denizens and all their ‘hanger’s on’.

The more I consider this, the more I like it. Moving the activities of the Civil Service closer to the people they purport to serve  - the taxpayer - will make them far more responsive to reality, rather than their imagined world. It will also break what Jonathon Swift called “the echo of the London Coffee House”. As he said, there is a tendency in Westminster and Whitehall to believe that “London” is the whole of the UK, and this has caused problems all through the ages. Shifting an ‘English’ Parliament out of London, and ejecting all those departments that are devolved as well, will certainly cure that tendency.

I believe the idea of a Parliament for England is an idea whose time has come. The only question is how to compel the denizens of Westminster to accept it.

The wheel turns slowly ...

As someone who grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s I sometimes look back and wonder at the hubris that sprang from the 'triumph' over Nazism and Japanese expansionism, which coupled with the Doomsday angst of the Cold War, to produce the world we live in now. As the saying is; "We didn't see THAT coming!" Mine was probably the last to grow up with teachers and parents word being 'law', in a world where 'drugs' were used by losers and idiots and we recycled everything glass, and even tin cans. Compost was something you made yourself if you were a gardener, and you didn't go to the supermarket for your groceries, meat, spare tyres, car parts and everything else. Even dog and cat food was bought raw from a butcher, and cooked, then minced by hand and sealed into 'preserve jars' and stored in the refrigerator.

Fresh vegetables came in bulk from the local 'German' Market held every Saturday in the Municipal Market Halls, which often supplied a plump fresh chicken for our Sunday dinner. Chickens and eggs were all 'free range' in those days, and, yes, not cheap. I look back in amazement now that roast chicken was our 'luxury' once a week, and we ate stews, meat loaf, fish pie and many other dishes which 'stretched' whatever meat was available. My grandmother (who lived above us with my grandfather) baked biscuits, cakes and other treats, and made jam - her speciality was orange marmalade - and also pickled and preserved a lot of the vegetables. Peas came in the pods, in large string sacks, and my brother and I had the job of shelling them and storing them in large glass storage bottles. Beans also had to be cut and the 'string' removed so they could be stored and there was very little went to waste. It wasn't that we couldn't afford the odd bit, it was more a case of being very aware that by some standards, we were very well off, and waste was definitely something to be avoided.

Groceries were bought daily from the local greengrocer who also stocked a range of tinned and bottled goods, liquor came from an 'off-licence' and meat from a local butcher (who happened to be my uncle). Fish we bought fresh from the fishing boats, or at our local fishmonger, milk was delivered in a hand drawn cart and the empties collected, washed and refilled, as were almost all other bottles. We could make a bit of pocket money going round looking for 'lost' empty cold drink bottles and returning them to the shops who paid 1d (One whole Penny!) per bottle. But then, a Mars Bar about three times as big as the ones you get now, cost 6d and a slab of Cadbury's chocolate cost 2s 0d (Two shillings, or twenty-four pennies, for the post metrication generation!). Wages were, by todays standards, low - my father earned only Thirty-two Pounds, ten shillings (32/10s/0d) a month and my mother around Twenty Pounds. Out of that they paid the rent, fed and clothed my brother and I and ran a car. There were few 'luxuries' - but heck, we had plenty and appreciated what we had.

Looking back I can now see the gradual change that came over our world, starting in the late 1950s, probably around 1958/9. First came the supermarket. Instead of carry a basket up to Henry's Shop as it was known locally, we all ended up going to the supermarket on Saturday after the German Market. Then we had to carry the shopping out to the car in the large paper bags. It wasn't long and 'Henry's Store' was downsizing, then closed. Our trips to the Market became less frequent - usually only now for the occasional fresh chicken. After all, we could get everything we needed at the supermarket - and it was cheaper.

Somewhere along this road, cold drinks stopped coming in glass bottles. First they went into tins - actually aluminium, and later into plastic 'bottles' which you threw away. Convenient, yes, but now we had a rubbish problem. Being a 'free-range' kid, something else I noticed was the way in which suburbs and townships were expanding. By the time I left school, a lot of the places I'd hiked through as a Scout were now covered in houses, laid out as townships and simply no longer 'wild space'. That accelerated from around 1965 and by the time I married whole tracts of land I'd camped on, or visited or known as farmland was covered in houses. And that brought with it the first 'ecological crisis' - rubbish.

Between 1945 and 1965 we'd somehow managed to shift from a society that minimised waste, recycled as much as possible (even clothing was 'passed down', collars and cuffs 'turned', shoes resoled and so on) to one which threw everything away at the first sign of wear, or the first sign of an 'improved' version, and the 'consumer' society took off. Great for the profits of the companies feeding this, not so good for the animals now being 'factory' farmed as things to be bred, fed, slaughtered and packed for the supermarket without compassion. Some say we turned the African Slave Trade into an 'industrial' process - you should see how we treat animals in our 'consumer' desire for cheap excess.

The first indication that something was going very wrong was the streamers of discarded plastic shopping bags adorning every fence around our cities (I grew up in Africa in case readers don't know) and the waste dumps began to overflow. It got worse, waste simply couldn't be cleared fast enough in some areas, and most of it was ecologically non-degradable. I hadn't been in the fire service lonbg when the first recycling businesses started to spring up, someone having realised there was more to the old Yorkshire saying of "where there's muck, there's brass" than just a quaint expression. At first though, they could only handle paper and clothing, but gradually that extended into other things.

For some of us, it was funny to watch as the wheel turned slowly back to doing things we remembered as kids as being 'normal'. This is why, now resident some six thousand miles north of where I was until 1987, I sometimes find it annoying to be lectured by soime snotty nosed 'Green' clutching his/her iPad/iPhone/Android/(Insert Name of Latest Gizmo Here) and dressed in designer jeans, teeshirt and synthetic jacket and expensive trainers, about the need to 'save' the planet by cutting down my 'consumerist' lifestyle. I should laugh, after all, my wife is constantly nagging me about wearing shirts I bought almost twenty years ago, or my extreme reluctance to give up perfectly serviceable furniture to the Crunchy-Munchy truck when I'm damned sure someone, somewhere out there would love to have it and use it.

Yes, it is convenient to be able to go to the supermarket and buy cheap produce. It is convenient to be able to discard my drinks carton/can/bottle, but there is a hidden cost to all this 'consumerism' and it is one we all end up paying. Yesterday I raised the issue of energy, and here again, I must point out that back in the 1950s, our power was locally generated by a small coal burning power plant (as Josephus pointed out, the coal creates steam, which turns the turbines, which ...) and our home had only one power socket per room, one central light fitting and in the kitchen we had a grand total of two power sockets, the light and an electric stove! Luxury. Power was expensive, and we didn't 'waste' it. If you left a room, you turned the light off. Nor did you waste water. the supply was metered and my father was always quick to 'have a go' if the monthly bill was higher than usual.

I think we have reached a turning point as a society. The straightforward 'consume-'til-you-bust' model is broken. The model most 'Green' organisations promote is unworkable and unsustainable with our populations at present levels. Somewhere between the two we need to find a balance, consume less, recycle more efficiently (I've just watched a perfectly good lounge suite be destroyed by the Crunchy-Munchy truck - one which, if there was a decent furniture recycling system in place would have been cleaned, any defects restored, and passed to someone who needed it) and relearn the art of living, rather than existing in a constant rush.

Yes, the 1950s were probably the apogee of the western dream lifestyle for many, but the naked consumerism that began in the 1960s is not an ideal model either. As Fagan says in Oliver Twist, "I t'ink I better t'ink it out again". Perhaps not me, but perhaps some of those very clever people in the corridors of power - assuming they can stop gourging long enough to do so ...

Mr Cameron? Mr Milliband? Mr Clegg? Frau Merkel? Anyone?

The High Cost of Green

Germany was very quick to shut down their ageing nuclear generating plants in the wake of Fukushima, driven to a large extent by the hysteria whipped up by Greenpeace and the Green Party here, both of which have long anti-nuclear credentials. The problem was, of course, how to replace them. All the 'renewable' technology is expensive, ecologically extremely damaging in the places where the necessary minerals have to come from, and needs to be supported by more 'conventional' technology. Plus, of course, the distribution 'grid' was not designed for rapid switching from one source to another, or to distribute power across very long distances.

Anyone familiar with electricity distribution and generation knows that ideally one has the generating station and the user as close as practicable to one another as possible to maximise efficiency. The greater the separation, the greater the power drop across the 'net' and the less efficient the whole thing becomes. Less efficiency also means more cost. And that is what is currently exercising the German government, industry and commerce - and the ordinary people more than anything else.

In the last sixteen years 'energy' prices have gone up exponentially for the ordinary householder. The rise starting in 1998 is due mainly to the drive to switch from coal and oil to wind and solar, but is now further complicated by the rushed closure of the nuclear plants in 2011. For the ordinary householder electricity has risen from €0.17,11c per kW/hr to €0.28,73c per kW/hr (3.5% per year). The main reason for this is that the biggest users - heavy industry - are being subsidised in order to protect jobs. To hold their costs low (and protect the employment of the individuals who pay for household use) the cost of the 'Greening' of energy is being passed to the private individual.

The problem for the 'Greens', most of whom are middle to upper income earners or students and others on 'supported incomes' is that the larger population has noticed, and are starting to complain bitterly. Their complaint is, as the Chancellor, Frau Merkel acknowledges, justified. But now everyone is between a rock and a hard place. Efforts to reduce energy use have failed, and failed spectacularly. Resistance to building more windmills is stiffening, with increasingly angry exchanges between rural communities and city dwelling Greens and energy chiefs who want to cover every landscape with towering windmills and, of course, the power lines for distribution.

The government here is acutely aware of these concerns and is trying to find alternatives. They are also very aware of the fact that a large slice of the gas used in generating and heating of homes comes from Russia - a particularly tricky source at the moment - while we are actually sitting on vast quantities of a material that sends the Greens into a frenzy - brown coal. Ironically most Green campaigners have failed to realise that diesel and gas turbine generators are being installed to 'support' their beloved 'renewables' while they furiously oppose the building of new clean technology conventional power plants. And don't even mention anything nuclear ...

So the costs continue to rise while the politicians struggle to balance the need to ensure a stable and secure power supply, the Greens continue to dream of 'restoring' the climate to a non-existent idyllic past 'norm' and the rest of us pay. The greatest irony is that the poorest members of society are, in effect, paying proportionately more for this than those who so passionately enforce their vision of a 'better world' on the rest of us. As they say, there is the view from the Ivory Tower, and then there is reality.

Debating Europe

I was interested today to see an item from Sir Richard Branson, stating his belief that the UK needs to stay in Europe. He makes a good economic case for it, and he is not alone. I note that the body that represents the major British companies makes the point that thousands of jobs and a large amount of the UK's income would be in danger if the UK decided to leave the EU. Not unexpectedly, on such a polarised subject, the comments appended to Sir Richard's well thought out argument range from the downright rude and typically 'anti-wealth' sort, full-on anti-EU in any form, through the 'it's-all-a-Nazi-plot-and-we'll-beat-them-again-in-a-fight-for-our-freedom', to the supportive.

We do need to get a more balanced debate going on this. I note most of the extreme anti-EU/anti-anyone-pro-EU comments seem to come from typical 'tabloid' type readers, but I dare say this is a generalisation which may be unfair. There are, of course, some very well informed people on the anti-EU side of the argument, and they are worth reading and engaging. At the other end of the spectrum there are others who feel the debate can't be had at all, and shouldn't be, and the whole does seem to be complicated by our politicians inherent ability to obfuscate, conceal motives and generally not play with a straight bat. Plus, the Whitehall penchant for using every EU Directive to 'gild the lily' and gold plate their badly written and often conflicting 'regulations'.

There are good arguments on both sides of the debate, not least being that the Pound Sterling is a very strong currency at present, and any attempt to bring it into the €uro is likely to cause major problems. There is also the problem of England's, in particular, ancient legal system which is at odds with the systems in use in Europe. The funny part of that is that many in the UK think that the European systems do not have the same 'protections' built into them as is the case with English Common Law - and they are wrong. If anything most European systems are stricter and more demanding on standards of evidence and protection of the innocent. Some even give the victims of any crime a say in court with the victim having counsel alongside the Prosecutor. Where there is a misunderstanding on this in the US and the UK is that there are no Juries, but there is an extremely rigorous review of the evidence for a prosecution at each step of the way - so when someone is finally accused and brought to trial, the evidence is generally pretty strong. Of course there are failures - but show me how the English or the US system is free of error.

Put simply, the UK system allows the courts to determine what the relevant law means in most cases, and builds up a body of 'Case Law' which is used in all future cases involving that legislation. In Europe the law means what it says and the application of it is left to local enforcement, with the court acting in a more refereeing capacity to determine the 'degree of guilt' involved in the breach of it. Thus, while most EU member states take a 'directive' and paste it into their statute books, in the UK a two page Directive can become a hundred page document full of if, but, maybe and 'wriggle' space. As a lawyer friend once remarked, it is the principle of English Law that if it isn't specifically forbidden, it is permissible, and regulations are always read looking for a way to avoid compliance. I suspect this is what frightens many on the 'anti-EU' side of the debate - they don't want to give up being able to evade complying with anything they can.

Recently there has been much debate about the UK taking the same position as Switzerland or Norway and being 'affiliated' to the EU as part of a trading bloc, but not within it. That does overlook a couple of elements, the first being that Switzerland is now having to open up more of its activities to scrutiny, without really having much influence in the affairs of those demanding it. The reason is that they have enjoyed being a Tax Haven, and now the chickens have found a roost. Germany bought a CD quite openly and discovered the extent of tax evasion by people who, frankly, should know better. One has now been convicted and will spend three years in jail, and repay the €28 million he evaded. Even Norway is finding itself having to comply with EU regulations in return for its 'special' status, and I am convinced that they and the Swiss will eventually join up fully.

A part of the argument that, for me, makes much more sense, is that of sheer size as a trading bloc. Britain has lost almost all of its heavy industrial capacity, for reasons I won't enter into here, and is no longer self-sufficient in food or energy production. It is possessed of a welfare system that is more generous and more expensive than anyone else's and its politics and the penchant for boycotts, sanctions and so on among sections of its body politic, have isolated it from many of the markets it enjoyed up to the 1950s. Yes, we are a nuclear power, and we have the four ISBN submarines to prove it, even though, under Mr Blair, and now Mr Cameron, we don't have a full outfit of missiles for all of them and none actually carry a full complement of warheads anyway. Our Fleet has been run down and reduced to the point, almost, of being a coastal defence force, with fewer Type 45 destroyers than we actually need, and most of its ships so specialised they are probably not suited to the types of operation they are now called upon to conduct - such as anti-piracy patrols. Our Army is being further reduced, from 102,000 to 82,000 and the plan is to increase the 'part-time' soldiers of the TA to 30,000 to make up the difference. Then there is the question of the RAF. Some of their aircraft cost almost as much as a small ship, and they've been cut as well.

So how do those who argue that 'Britain will stand alone again against the Fourth Reich' propose to do so? With what? The days we could turn just about anyone into a sailor, soldier or airman, churn out destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers, tanks, bombs, shells and aircraft in weeks or months are gone. The shipyards, factories and resources are gone, and even in WW2 Britain never actually stood alone - she had all her colonial and Dominion and Empire Forces totalling almost a million men, plus their factories and resources to call on. It really is time to drop that particular pipe dream. Those days are over, we are a small, overcrowded, and probably over governed island, a small and increasingly insignificant fish in a world which sees one of our former 'possessions' now operating a larger and more powerful fleet than our own.

As I see it, Britain needs to think again about our relationship with Europe. We can be a part of it, and yes, it does need to be restructured and reformed, or we can be a small and largely annoyingly irrelevant offshore refuge for tax evaders and destination for tourists. True, we have some oil and gas reserves offshore (and possibly on land) but then there is that welfare bill to pay. If we join Europe properly, and play it to our advantage, we can continue to exert a powerful influence in the world alongside the rest of Europe. Together Europe has a better punch in terms of Defence, in economic clout (why do we think the US finacial markets expend so much effort talking down the €uro?), in terms of political punch and in manufacturing output. But, we need to look very carefully at what does work for everyone in the UK, and what could be made better. Our biggest problem is we think in the short term only, this month, this quarter, this year - we need to break that mould and find a better way to think and plan. We need a vision.

Sir Richard's 'vision' (with many other entrepreneurs and businessmen) is to stay in Europe and to find a way to make a United Europe work for everyone. We can embrace that, or we can turn inward, to a pre-Tudor "Little England". I know which one I prefer.

Blinded by the Bias ...

Sometimes one reads an article online which makes one sit back and wonder whether one is living in a parallel universe to the author. Some of the articles and comments on the subject of 'climate change' are a good example, but politics and, at the moment, the events in Ukraine and Crimea are fuel for many such. Today's prize must, I think, go to the Iranian Ministry of (Mis)Information which has announced that the US 'shot down' the missing Malaysian airliner in order to disrupt Iran's relations with China, Malaysia and Korea ...

The one that really caught my attention this week, however, was an article on a blog which asserts that the EU's 'interference' and 'breech of faith' in 'forcing' the Ukrainian government to sign up to full membership of the EU 'forced' Mr Putin to act to 'protect' Russia. The fact that this was written by someone who lives and works in the UK, and is an otherwise intelligent person (as I judge from the erudite articles he posts) I found a little disturbing. Though I know he is very anti-EU, this was stretching things in my mind. It didn't take me a lot of searching the find numerous articles from sources outside the EU (and therefore 'tainted' in the minds of the anti-Europe lobbies) that present a more balanced picture. It goes back a few years, and the Ukrainian 'dream' of joining the EU begins during the Presidency of Mrs Timoshenko, though it could predate her. It was the Ukrainians who, no doubt looking west over their border and seeing how standards of living in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Roumania and the Baltic States has risen far more rapidly than to their East, who wanted to join up and share this improvement.

Not unnaturally, the EU Heads of State (not the Commission), were cautious. Suggestions that they could also join NATO were dismissed, but not, it seems in the more rabid minds of some parts of the British and Russian Press. A 'Trade Agreement' was proposed by Brussels, but the Ukrainian government wanted more and that triggered unease in Russia. Timoshenko was swept from power in what is now said to have been the most massively 'rigged' election in a 'democratic' country and a pro-Russian (He is in fact an ethnic Russian whose family were 'transplanted' during the Stalin years) declared President. The negotiations with the EU promptly stalled and that rubbed salt in the wounds, made far worse when Mrs Timoshenko was dragged into court on what now seem to be very flimsy charges and jailed. Not unnaturally, the ethnic majority of Ukrainians made their feelings known in no uncertain terms, which provoked a Moscow directed response of suppression.

Listening to Ukrainians on our television, and reading their letters in the local press, one gets a different picture to that painted by some UK bloggers whose hatred of the EU seems to blind them to the realities of Moscow's very clear intention of retaining control of Ukraine no matter what. As Josephus pointed out in a previous post here, the Russians wish, for a variety of reasons, to retain a 'buffer' of satellite states between them and the west. There may well be historic reasons for this, but it does ignore the desires and wishes of the majority ethnic populations in all these countries. Stalin's relocation of entire populations are remembered with a great deal of anger, and in some areas that is further fuelling the problems. That is the situation in Crimea (which was never originally part of Ukraine) where the Crimean Tartar population was moved or suppressed and replaced by Russians (the Tartars still form 16% of the population), and it is mirrored in the eastern regions of Ukraine where Russian families were forcibly relocated to displace Ukrainians.

Many reports suggest that the 'citizens militias' that seized control of government buildings in Crimea and set up their own 'autonomous' government were Russian troops out of uniform and acting under orders from Moscow. As evidence it is said they behaved in a disciplines and co-ordinated manner, knew exactly who and what to target and blockaded the Ukrainian troops and ships with a precision that speaks of very careful planning. The Ukrainian Navy is, in fact, trapped in its harbour because a Russian naval vessel has been deliberately sunk across the entrance. The order to do that can only have come from Moscow.

But all of this seems to be ignored by the anti-EU press and bloggers in the UK. To them the 'enemy' is Brussels, the EU commission and everything to do with the EU. I can only wonder what they may be seeing in this that I am not. To me what is very clear is that Mr Putin is determined to expand the 'Russian Federation' back to the borders of the former USSR, to keep the former Soviet Republics firmly in Moscow's control and to restore control of the governments of the former Warsaw Pact countries to politicians 'friendly' to Moscow. He is ruthless enough to stop at nothing as the west should have learned from Chechnya, Georgia and now the Crimea.

One thing I have learned since I moved to live in Europe is that much of what is blamed on the EU in the UK, is in fact arising in Whitehall. It is Whitehall that deliberately (or perhaps incompetently) misinterprets, gold plates, abuses or extends every EU Directive. It is Whitehall that uses every Directive to extend their power and interference - and then blames the EU. Yes, there are some problems with the differences between European Legal systems and the English and Scottish systems, but these are constantly compounded in Whitehall - not in Brussels. It would be nice, just once, to see some balance in this debate, and a little truth in Whitehall, but I fear that will never be possible.

Maybe we need a Mr. Gorbachev. Some 'Glasnost' in the bureaucracies on both sides of the channel would be nice, but perhaps more importantly, some factual and unbiased reporting in the UK media would help as well. I suppose I can dream ...

Rising Nationalism

I have previously written that I find 'nationalism' worrying, partly because i grew up and spent a large part of my life in a country divided by it, and finally isolated and, some would argue, now destroyed by it. So I watch the arguments made by English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Russian, Ukrainian and other 'nationalists' with some concern. It is my experience that the frontmen of 'nationalist' movements are often xenophobes, small minded men seeking power with a vision focused on a goal which may look desirable, but which is often unsustainable in the longer term.

It seems to permeate every society and it is probably the number one cause of conflict in the world. I know it is fashionable to blame religion, but when one really looks hard at the underlying causes, religion is frequently invoked as a 'cloak' beneath which a rather poisonous agenda is concealed. We are currently seeing something of this sort in the Middle East, in Eastern Ukraine and in the Crimea. Mr Putin is arguing in the Ukraine and the Crimea that "Russian citizens" are being threatened and that Russian Orthodox Churches being attacked by "separatists" and "agitators" and that this gives him the right to "protect" the ethnic Russians. Conveniently he ignores the fact that the Crimean crisis was sparked by Russian speakers overthrowing the interrim government set up in the wake of the overthrow of the Janukowski regime, and that the "concerned Russian citizens", according to many reports, were actually soldiers and sailors from the Russian bases there.

The real cost of the wests "Peace Dividend" now comes to the fore. We have cut back our defence capability to the point that we are now impotent. If Putin did decide to launch a takeover of the Ukraine, the Baltic States and the rest of Europe, we couldn't stop him. At least, we couldn't do so without resorting to nuclear strikes and we all know where that will lead. So, the peace campaigners of the 1960s and 70s could end up getting their wish. We could be 'Red' without even much of an effort from the Kremlin at the present rate of progress. And that leads me back to my starting point - nationalism. Possibly the only thing holding Mr Putin in check at the moment is the fact that within his "Federation" there are a large number of ethnic minorities, and each one cherishes some hope of one day being able to return to the "land of their fathers" from which they or their parents were often forcibly exiled under the Stalinist Regime.

In the west we already confront the problem of internal splits and divisions over ideology, over distribution of wealth and now of narrow nationalist interests promoted, quite often, by politicians who know they can never be big players or wield the kind of power they would like - so they focus on stirring up fear and discontent among their supporters and on attracting others to their cause. Then they can carve out a little fiefdom for themselves and pretend to be more important than they really are. Again and again we can see this on the pages of history, and repeatedly the majority of folk - who were usually quite happy with whatever dispensation existed - suffer the consequences when it all goes sour.

Many times I have asked myself why so many fall for these pipe dreams touted by people who are sometimes fairly obviously not on the same page as the rest of humanity. Partly, I suspect, it is because we like the status quo in terms of our own security, our cultural heritage (which is often a rather romanticised and sanitised version of the truth) and, whether we like to admit it or not, being associated with people from our own culture, skin colour and so on. We have a tendency when feeling insecure, to revert to our 'tribal' roots. So, the man bashing the loudest and most 'patriotic' sounding drum will be attractive to some of us at least. Never mind that his vision my, on closer scrutiny, be toxic, or that it may detrimental to everyone else's interests. It makes for a comfortable feeling at the moment - so we go with it and we don't dig too deeply, and we certainly don't ask questions. Those of us who do, generally find ourselves being reviled, "sent to Coventry", and even being forced out of society altogether.

Much of the anti-EU vitriol one sees regularly in the UK media falls into the category of narrow 'nationalism' and that is born out by the comments one sees whenever anything pro-EU is uttered or published. Perhaps one of the most stupid statements I come across regularly on reading anything about the EU - either for or against it seems - are statements like "it is the Fourth Reich", or "we beat them in 1939-45 and we'll do it again". Both of which make me wonder which planet the commentators live on and how many moons they can see at night. I could cite many, many more equally silly and sometimes downright stupid comments and statements, all of which lead back to a very narrow and nationalistic point of view. What troubles me as we contemplate the upheavals in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, the Ukraine and elsewhere is that these forces appear to be on the rise. In the Middle East the 'nationalism' is being masked by the involvement of Islamist idiots who want to bring about a new Caliphate, but the real underlying problems in Iraq, Syria and Turkey are nationalist/tribal and not religious.

I'm sure our politicians know all of this, but they choose to play along with the "it's all religious" view of the Middle East, even though it is now exposed by Mr Putin's Crimean and Ukrainian ambitions. The really scary aspect is that I believe our western political elites are frightened. They don't know what to do about it. The political systems and the bureaucracies they have created are no longer in touch with the electorates. Their 'governance' is being questioned on all sides by ordinary people, and those people want a return to a simpler, more locally based form of governance. We want to take power away from faceless bureaucrats and representation away from Party Hacks who pass unhindered from universtoty activism, via "Special Adviser" and Civil Service, to Member of Parliament/Congress or whatever. We want an end to the political classes looking after their cronies in commerce and industry and letting everyone else sink or swim. So we turn to small minded nationalism and localism - with all its attendant dangers.

My experience of 'nationalist' politics makes me wary of it, and of those who espouse it. I do not like the power wielded by bureaucrats, and I detest the self-serving politicians who seem to infest every government. I recognise the need to have a strong and representative government in place, and I also recognise the need to manage economies and the welfare of the populace, and therein lays my real dilemma - how best to achieve that without producing either the extreme localist nationalism, or the remote, overweaning 'internationalism' that appear to be the only alternatives at present.

Perhaps it is time we actually sat down and started considering where we are going as we allow small, petty, local politicians to drag us toward greater fragmentation in the west, while elsewhere the opposite is in progress, swallowing the small nationalist minorities one by one.

Answers, please, on a postcard.

Tension in the East

At present the world is focused on the tension between the Russian Federation and the Ukrainian people, and, as ever, there is a long history here, and a lot of deceit, passion and ambition. If one looks back in history, the Ukraine has had some very varied fortunes. It straddles one of the 'High Roads of History' and has seen waves of invaders from time immemorial. It has been 'occupied' by Ghengis Khan's hordes, it was once divided between the Ottoman Empire, Poland and Lithuania. Even the Hungarians have held parts of it at times, and from about 1400 onwards, the Russians have gradually absorbed more and more of it.

The people who identify themselves as Ukrainian have been deported, relocated, supplanted and suppressed, but they remain an ethnic and linguistic group. And they have, over the years held onto that no matter where they are, and, if possible, have drifted back to their land. The Crimea is a complicated problem on all sides, since it was not, except geographically, part of the original Ukraine, and its people were the Tartars, a largely Muslim group. Enter 19th Century politics, and the desire of Britain and France to prevent Russian influence spreading into the Middle East, and now we have the Crimean War in support of the dying Ottoman Empire. The outcome is probably best descriobed a stalemate, since Russia retained possession of the Crimea, the Ottomans lost territory and Britain and France got no more than a halt in Russian expansion. Add to this our support (by Naval bombardment) for the White Russian forces in the Black Sea and Ukraine-Crimea and you begin to see the background to the present difficulty.

Like the Georgians, the Tartars and the Ukrainians weren't too keen on the Bolsheviks who were mainly Russian, and fought for the White Russians, probably hoping to win their freedom from the Russian hegemony. Lenin and then Stalin exacted a ferocious revenge for that. Particularly under Stalin, large numbers of Ukrainians were deported from the eastern areas and replaced by ethnic Russians. The Tartars resisted, got 'cleansed', and then deported, and replaced by ethnic Russians again. Post 1945 western leaders - according to Josephus the Correspondent on this blog - may have been naive when they forcibly returned to Russia the captured Georgians and Ukrainians who had joined the German Nazi SS to fight against Stalin. The 40,000 Georgians were executed almost as soon as they landed, and the Ukrainians (some reports refer to two 'Divisions') simply vanished. No doubt some of the skeletons that turn up from time to time are all that remains of them.

The Ukrainians hoped, when the USSR broke up, to be able to restore their independence - lost since around 1600 - and become a part of the western European family of nations with which they identify themselves. They reckoned without the fact that the ethnic Russians, transplanted into their midst, would have none of it. Russia depends on the Ukraine for its supply of wheat. The Ukraine is not called the 'Bread Basket of Russia' for nothing. The problem for the Ukrainians is that, under the treaties binding them to Russia, it is the Kremlin that sets the price they get for it, and determines who they can sell to. Having all but exhausted the oil and gas reserves in the Ukraine, the Russians are now the suppliers of both commodities to that country - and again, the Kremlin dictates the terms, prices and conditions. Every winter in the last few years, the Kremlin has 'turned off' the supply to the western parts on one pretext or another, usually to prevent the sort of overthrow of their puppet regime we have just seen. And then there is the Russian military presence.

The Crimea is a complication. Until Kruschev placed it under the administrative control of Kiev in 1954 it was never a part of the Ukraine. Now, of course, it is essentially an armed camp, bristling with ethnic Russians and Russian troops. Not surprising, of course, since it is the base for the Black Sea Fleet, and the place where all the Russian Duma members have their holiday homes.

Josephus, in an email to me recently, summed it up like this -

I've been reading the BBC news pages on this topic and find some of the usual half-truths and blinding ignorance on display. 

However, they show maps of the ethnic demographic and the votes in the EU/Russia referendum.  The split is almost exactly linked to the ethnic identity in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.  Basically, those with EU neighbours wish to be closer to the EU and those with Russian neighbours whish to be closer to Mother Russia.  I find this totally understandable.

Putins actions, however are being misrepresented, yes he wishes Ukraine to remain a buffer state between him and NATO, it prevents him having a hostile boundary to "police".  The USSR had its buffer states, but they are now mostly EU, most notably Poland and the former GDR.

Putin has (knowing full well he would not be opposed directly) flooded Crimea with troops.  Bearing in mind that 58% of the population identifies as  ethnically Russian and that the Naval lease on the Sevastopol base runs until 2042 this will have been quite easy, it is also rumoured that officials are handing out Russian passports like sweeties.

BUT!  Crimea is not Ukraine, yes Kruschev handed it to the Ukraine Oblast in 1954 but it is a very separate region.  Ukraine could give Putin Crimea and hardly notice the difference.

The real question is "Can Ukraine consider itself one united country when 70%+ of the Eastern populace voted to stay East and 70%+ of the western to go West?"

Should Ukraine split itself along ethnic and language lines?

Bohemia certainly seems happy as the Czech Republic and Slovakia, such splits have been made within recent memory, the Balkans also provide examples, although not perfect ones.

Josephus has found the following images which explain something of the population split rather well.

 

The western powers find themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma here. Should Mr Putin get away with 're-incorporating' Ukraine into the Russian Federation as he evidently would like to do, who among the former Soviet satellite states will be next to be targeted? I suspect that this is a question many are asking privately, and many of the former Russian vassal peoples must be worried. We have seen his enforced partition of Georgia, and there has been a similar 'grab' of part of Moldova. Always the excuse is the same  - to 'protect' the interests of ethnic Russians. 

Funny how no one seems to make the link between these and a certain 'leader' in the 1930s and 40s who made similar claims. Nor does there seem to be any acknowledgement of the right of the majority populations to choose who their governors should be. The fact is that the Russians have consistently flouted the Geneva Convention articles which forbid ethnic transplantations and the seizure of territory from sovereign states by military force. If they are permitted to continue in this manner, what is to stop everyone else from doing the same? There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere - but I can't see the present collection of western politicians doing it.

Climate and Weather

Once again I see the terrible weather the UK and Europe have been enduring - the UK in particular taking the brunt of it - is fuelling the 'Global Warming/Climate Change' hysteria. Yet another 'paper' has been rushed into print claiming that 93% of the 'missing heat' (the gap between reality and climate model predictions) is lurking in the oceans. The Polar Vortex responsible for this battering we are currently enduring is, apparently, caused by the ice loss and warming of the Arctic Ocean. The paper also claims that Antarctica is losing its ice shelves, and the reason for the current increase in ice there is - you got it - global warming 'trapping' a vortex over the continent.

I get fed up with selective quotes, buzz phrases (the users of which seldom actually know what they mean) and headlines like "unprecedented" or "worst XXX in history". I get fed up with being told that something has never happened before, when right in front of us is ample evidence that it has, and may even have been worse. Why did the Victorians build the Embankments along the Thames in London? Why did the coastal authorities in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries spend enormous amounts of money (often the landowner's own) and effort building land drains, dykes and sea defences? Because none of these events or storms is "unprecedented" except in the minds of idle ignoramuses who never check their facts and are totally ignorant of any history. In medieval times an entire town vanished overnight in a storm that hit the Frisian coast of Germany. Archaeologists now know that wasn't 'unprecedented' then either. Holland has suffered massive flooding throughout its history, and the Thames suffered 'catastrophic' floods at regular intervals until quite recently. In fact, in February 1928 there was massive flooding in much the same areas now affected, people drowned in the western suburbs of London in the floods. So how is the current flood 'unprecedented'?

There can be no doubt that the climate is changing, but to ascribe it, as so many reports do, purely to the Carbon Dioxide emissions of mankind is pure garbage. "Carbon" has become a 'catch-all' word for everything Greenpeace and its devotees cal a 'greenhouse gas' - in which group they now include water vapour. But how many of the idiots who earnestly repeat this trash actually understand anything at all about the 'gases' they deem to be so harmful? Not many if any of the conversations and news reports I am constantly bombarded with are anything to go by. Once again we see the likes of the Labour Leader, and the Minister for the Environment trotting out the buzz phrase that 'we must de-carbonise society' in order to 'prevent catastrophic climate change'. As I have repeatedly said, the day I see proof they can control the rise and fall of the tides, is the day I will subscribe to this trash. Until then, stop running around like Chicken-licken screaming the sky is falling, and let's get real. The answer to climate change - a natural phenomenon that has been happening since the planet first formed - is to adapt.

Stop building in flood plains would be a good start. The Somerset Levels were a sea marsh until they were drained in the 18th and 19th Centuries, so were the Fens. The other little wriggle is that we now have probably 30 times the number of people living in Britain than at the beginning of the Industrial Age. Urban sprawl has increased run-off, created 'heat islands' and 'micro-climates' which all mess up the weather patterns - so let's take a look at the effect those have as well.

Let's do something positive about finding a reliable and efficient source of electrical energy. I'd love to see the figures for the output of all those damned useless windmills during the storms. I'm prepared to take a bet with the High Street Bookmakers that it was not the vaunted 17% capacity they supposedly give. I'd be surprised if it was as much as 1 or 2% because with the wind speeds reported, most of them will have had to be shut down to prevent damage. So the alternative supplies will have been brought online - massive diesel generating plants quietly installed by the wind generating companies to keep the current flowing when the wind turbines aren't producing. And Drax, the massive coal burning plant currently being converted to burn wood chips imported from Western Canada by rail and ship loads. Yes, I expect that does a huge amount to "de-carbonise" our energy use, Mr Milliband.

Yes, let's replace hydrocarbon fuelled vehicles with electric ones - but let's find a more efficient way of using those than with massive and extremely toxic batteries. Let's find better ways to build and insulate our homes. Let's make those less vulnerable and more efficient even if that means replacing and redesigning all the building stock we currently hang onto as if it were the epitome of architectural and construction achievement. Frankly, most of it was substandard when built, and it hasn't improved with age. I'm not talking about real heritage buildings, but, seriously, what is the attraction of a Victorian Terrace built for "t' workers up t' mill"? The rooms are often damp, cramped and even if the house has been renovated, built right onto the street, has no garden and the street outside is choked with the cars not invented when the houses were built.

Climate Change, like the tides, is unstoppable. Like the tides, or continental drift, we can't stop it. So let's, for pities sake, stop wasting time and money trying to 'stop' it. It's time to get seriously real. The 'Climate Scientists' can't actually say which way it's going anyway, since nature has, so far, refused to conform to their fantasy models, and while Britain is bombarded by rain and storms, the North American continent is being buried in snow and ice. All down to 'Global Warming' you see. Most of these models are using data that has been 'smoothed' or 'averaged' and 'adjusted' to fit the model, which means the data fed into them is pretty close to being worthless - except in terms of how much money can be extracted from the tax payer to keep funding the circus.

So here's a radical idea. Stop funding the research into this. Let the UN pay for it if they can find the money and divert it from the wastage and corruption of that fraudulent organisation. Stop funding the multi-million dollar operations of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, etc., all of which are now become purely political (socialist/communist) organisations. Stop subsidising the inefficient wind farms (a wind turbine is, at best, only 27% efficient, whereas a coal fire power station is at least 43% efficient and most likely more). The money saved could be invested in rebuilding our building stock, and in new generating plants with the latest and most efficient technology. Wind and solar won't do it, and neither are as 'clean and green' as their proponents like to argue.

I think I really must stop being practical. I wonder of the Church of Climate Change dances and uses tambourines in their worship? Might be good for a laugh ...

Jewish Presence in Israel

Every so often one stumbles across something unexpected and interesting on the blogosphere. One such is a blog I found yesterday which had a fascinating article about a necropolis in the Jezreel valley which was the burial place of the wealthy and famous families of Jews following the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Bet She'arim was developed as a burial place following the Roman ban on the continuance of Jewish worship and burial in Jerusalem. It continued in use under the Byzantine regime which continued the ban on Jews in Jerusalem and only gradually fell into disuse after the Muslim conquest of the area.

In the last couple of centuries, the site was seriously damaged by grave robbers, but the Israeli government has placed it under strict control. Today archaeologists are able to examine each of the several huge man-made caves and their associated tunnels and burial chambers properly. One does have to wonder why it is not listed under the UNs Heritage protection programmes - but then none of the important Jewish shrines, tombs and archaeological sites are. There is a great fuss over Jews attempting to visit those still under Muslim control. There is also rampant vandalism of those and some major Christian sites by Muslim vandals, but not a word of criticism from the UN about that. There is considerable evidence to suggest that there has been a very concerted effort in East Jerusalem, during the time it was under Muslim control, to erase all trace of Jewish history, and that is ongoing as the Waqf that controls (by international and Israeli agreement) the Al Aqsa Mosque and the platform surmounting the Temple Mount has 'enlarged' a number of underground structures and, contrary to the same international agreements, carried out a systematic programme of destroying anything and everything that might be Jewish or Christian in origin in the areas they control.

Bet Sha'arim is important, since it demonstrates the continuous presence of Jewish leaders, thinkers and merchants - plus, of course, the ordinary folk who worked for and supported them - in Israel from at least the time of the Roman occupation. Bet Sha'arim, the town, was the seat of the 'exiled' Sanhedrin, and the seat of the School of scholars that shaped and formed the post Temple form of Judaism. Why, therefore, do we hear nothing whatsoever about it in our media? Or, for that matter, in our histories of the area?

Probably because it would show that the arguments that Israel is an 'illegitimate' Nation are false. That would, presumably, not suit the narrative of the history of the region our current crop of so-called leaders wish to present.

Capitalism or Communism?

The polarisation of this question generally provides only the answer the particular protagonist wants and that is an absolute. Sadly this always masks several important points, one being that neither is actually 'perfect' for everyone or for every economy. Both have serious flaws in practice. So I was recently very pleased to see the following answer to an online debate.

118

 

Eivind Kjørstad, 

Communism and Capitalism are abstract ideas. None of them can function in a hypothethical "pure" form, because both of them carry in them the seed to their own destruction: "pure" capitalism unhampered by restrictions or government oversight would lead to crises and excesses that makes the current financial crisis seem like peanuts; you'd have people starving on the streets, and a handful of people owning everything. We already live in a world where the wealthiest 85 people on the planet own more than the poorest 3.5 billion. A world where it instead was the wealithest 10 people on the planet owning 99% of everything would not be desirable. 

But pure communism is also unworkable: attempting to remove the profit-motive never works, and if it did, the result would be a catastrophic fall in productivity and a world of poverty as a result.

Real economies are a mixture of ideas from many different inspirations, including communism and capitalism. Good governance is not about finding the ONE TRUE ANSWER and then implement it in it's purest form. Good governance is about finding a reasonably good balance between the many competing priorities.

Enough capitalism to make people productive. Enough communism to avoid having people starve on the streets. Enough capitalism to make it worthwhile to start businesses, yet also enough of a social security-net that even if the business fails, you'll still not need fear for your basic nessecities.  

It's not always a conflict, sometimes there's synergies: A good social security-net makes it easier to start a business, because that's always going to be a risky thing to do (most businesses fail in their first 5 years), and knowing that you'll still be fed even if you fail, makes it easier to accept that risk. 

So the question should not be: What is better, capitalism or communism ? 

The question should be: What is the right balance of ideas ? What are the good parts of communism, and how can we incorporate them, while minimizing the downsides ? What are the good parts of capitalism, and how can we benefit from them while reducing the downsides as much as possible?

I find this writer has summed up my own feelings on this question perfectly, the only problem is that, at present, both the 'capitalist' and 'socialist' political party types are too close to, if not in thrall too, the absolutist proponents of both philosophies.

Resurgence of killer bugs ...

Congratulations are, I think, in order to the mass media and to the anti-vaccination hysterics. Diseases that should be a thing of the past are making a lethal comeback in Europe, the UK and the North American areas - not to mention everywhere else. The reason? Those hysterics who still maintain that vaccination against measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, polio and so on are the cause of autism, allergies and bad behaviour in their offspring.

In the last five years according to these maps, all of the above diseases have seen a massive surge in the numbers being reported. Having been almost killed myself by a bout of chicken pox - a reportable and quarantine requiring disease - one of my children brought home after being infected by a child sent to school with it, I feel very strongly about this. Measles is a killer, many people in Africa do not have any resistance to it and cannot develop it thanks to their genetic make-up. Even where it doesn't kill, it can lead to deafness, blindness and a number of other 'congenital' problems. Passed to a pregnant woman it can result in miscarriage and where that is avoided, to birth defects. Rubella can cause blindness and deafness in the unborn child, and I hope we don't have to spell out how much of a killer poliomyelitis is.

So to all those 'caring' mothers who refuse to have their children vaccinated - GET A LIFE! GROW UP AND GET SOME DAMNED COMMON SENSE! Your stupidity is allowing preventable and very dangerous diseases to make a serious comeback. YOU are killing people, harming babies and endangering your own children.

This anti-vaccination campaign started because a doctor, totally without medical or scientific proof, talked up a link between MMR vaccines and autism. It turns out HE had a pecuniary interest in killing the triple vaccine, because HE held the patent for a single Measles vaccine which was losing sales to the triple vaccine.

Do we really want to see a return of small pox? Do we want to see a resurgence of TB? Or Polio? We will if this anti-vaccine stupidity is allowed to continue. I suppose we can but hope that the first victims of such an outbreak are the morons who refuse to vaccinate.

Fatherhood

I recently read an article by David Lammy, a Labour MP, entitled "We all need more help to become a better man". I may not agree with his political ideology, but I can and do agree with what he says in this very thoughful article. It is very true that men in general are reluctant to discuss issues of masculinity. It is also true that today there are any number of female role models - but very few worthwhile male ones in the public eye. Yes, I know there are the footballers and rock-stars - but are they really the best role models we can find for young boys and men?

Many men of my generation grew up with father's who had been through the war, just as they grew up with father's traumatised by the 'Great' War and I suspect that affected their ideas of masculinity and parenting to a very large extent. It certainly did in my case. My father suffered endless nightmares and drank heavily to drown them out. He'd served in the RN, seen men die in battles, seen men drown trapped below decks, burned in cordite fires - and finally fought in the Cheong War in the Burmese Arakan peninsula campaign. He had good reason for his nightmares - but he was hardly equipped to raise my brother and I - or to provide us with a good role model of fatherhood.

My 'father substitute' was my maternal grandfather, but like my father, he'd seen the slaughter, the lunacy and the inhumanity of war at first hand. He'd served in the Royal Inniskillen Fusiliers and went over the top on the first day of the Somme. After six months of recuperation from his wounds, and now deemed unfit to continue as an infantryman, he was reposted to the Royal Garrison Artillery and spent the rest of the war delivering 7.2 inch howitzer shells onto the German trenches while they returned the favour. He too had his demons that sometimes disturbed our sleep, and he too had problems with being a 'father' model.

So when it came to my turn to be a husband and father - what did I know about it? Well, I certainly didn't want to emulate either the 'don't argue with me - do as you're told' approach of my grandfather, or my father's way of always managing to detract from any achievement. He had a special line in always managing to make anything I did sound like failure, and I certainly didn't want to go down that route with my own children. So I tried to be the perfect father/husband a la romantic novels. Fail. Big time.

My eldest was 14 when my marriage finally broke down, my son just 11 and my youngest just turning 8. It was, without any doubt at all, the hardest moment in my life. In fact, in the months leading up to it I had found myself considering stepping onto the track as the Canterbury East to Victoria train approached my station. I've never been quite sure whether I simply lacked the courage, or whether, having as a fire fighter, dealt with the aftermath and seen the trauma such actions cause, I couldn't bring myself to inflict it on my family, the train driver or the other folk on the platform. Either way, at 43 years of age, I had to find my own feet again, find a new home, and build a new life - one I was determined would include as much time with my children I could manage.

David Lammy makes the point that his father 'walked out' of his life at the age of 12, and that struck a cord with me, because I'd more or less done the same to my kids. OK, I didn't really have much choice. Remaining in London on the salary I was then earning wasn't an option. I simply could not afford to pay the maintenance necessary to keep my family afloat and housed (the house we owned was in very negative equity to put it mildly) pay my bank loans (taken out to bridge the equity gap) and rent a room. A cardboard box beneath Waterloo Bridge was hardly an option my employers would be happy about, so I accepted that I would have to change career and location. That took me to Gloucestershire. Now reality really bit. I could afford a drive to London (ironic - going by car was cheaper than the train fare!) once a month, and spend around six hours with my children. Yes, that was the reality, and that is the reality for many 'absent' fathers who make the effort to stay in touch.

It isn't funny, and it isn't nice - but who, besides you and your children, gives a damn?

To my mind, many 'modern' fathers face this problem. We are completely unprepared for the responsibilities and we often have no real role model around which to shape our ideas of what a father does or how one behaves. Some, obviously, are lucky and do have great fathers, others, like me, have had to look beyond our own families to find a role model, with varying degrees of success. Now add in the complication of the demands of modern employment.

As I said earlier, my career was with the fire service. When I joined in South Africa, the job was a 'live in' situation with us being 'on call' 24/5 and having two days off in seven. With your family (if you were married) living at the fire station you had plenty of time with them, but the downside was also that they saw and heard plenty of things you might have wished they didn't. When we moved to a shorter working week, my wife and I were the first to take advantage of being able to 'live off' the station. But, with a shift based on an 84 hour week, I didn't see nearly as much of the children as I had. When we moved to London that was compounded by the commuting conditions one encounters in London - while my employment was 9 to 5, there was a one hour (if I was lucky) journey at each end of that, plus to time to get to the stations and wait for the train. So I was leaving home at the time the children were just getting up and getting home again about an hour before they went to bed.

We had the weekends, of course, but it's funny how those fill up with grocery shopping, DIY around the house, the garden, sorting out things for your own parents ...

Yes, Mr Lammy, I could certainly have used some good role models, and some decent guidance as I grew up in how a real man responds to things. Yes, I have also seen all the 'New Man', the 'Metrosexual', the New Age Man and all the rest. I don't think that making 'Paternity Leave' payments larger, or the arrangements for parental shared leave easier will cure this, primarily because the root of the problem lies in how our own fathers behaved and how they taught us to respond. Faced with a problem, my father dived into a bottle, I didn't, but I certainly found my own ways to try to skate around it, or to not deal with something. Neither approach was a good one.

What we really need is a new approach to raising boys in our society - not a 'social engineering' one, but a common sense approach. One that provides boys with good role models, not damaged and broken ones, not ones that are self glorifying and self absorbed. At present I suspect that the majority of boys in our society find their role models among their peers, which is why we are seeing gang cultures and 'laddish' behaviours. We need to educate parents - and perhaps politicians and social engineers - in the fact that boys do need as much nurture, guidance and care as the girls. But I rather suspect I'm not going to see it change in my lifetime or even in the next generations.

We have to start somewhere though, and at least it is now being talked about.

The Pensions Debacle ...

I used to have a quote on my office 'action board'. I can't recall who said it originally, but it summed up the constant state of financial difficulties over a wide range of issues. It said simply: Don't expect me to drop everything to deal with some crisis caused by your lack of planning.

As I follow the dispute between the serving fire fighters, the government, and the employers over their current pension age and pension provisions, I am constantly struck by how the pensions crisis is now the fault of the fire fighters, pensioners and everyone else. It is a crisis created by the abysmal planning and practices of the politicians and civil servants (who have looked after themselves very nicely - thank you), and it could have been foreseen - in fact some did - more than sixty years ago. The Fire Fighters Pension Fund should have been revised in 1974 when the service underwent a massive re-organisation and expansion, but then, as now, all the politicians and civil servants involved saw, was a nice source of 'revenue' from all those extra contributions.

The root of the problem actually goes back, in the UK, to 1908, when a Parliament dominated by middle class and aristocrats with a paternalistic mindset, voted to create a State Pension to be paid to all working class men reaching the age of 70. It seemed safe enough at the time perhaps, as the average age at death of 'working men' then was a mere 45 years of age. Note the pension was only for men at the time, but post WW1, it was expanded to include women and the retirement age was lowered - but what everyone failed to notice was that the introduction of the first generation antibiotics, better working conditions, healthier food and access to better medical care also increased the life expectancy of the people it covered. Suddenly many more people were qualifying for a pension - and drawing it for longer. Did Parliament, the civil service or anyone else make any change to the way they were funding it? No. They continued to collect the small contribution each worker paid into it, and treated it as 'revenue' to be spent on any and every pet project and expansion of the State.

This is a particularly sore point for the fire and rescue service personnel. There were, and still are, very good reasons why they retired at 50 or 55. Only officers above the rank of Senior Divisional Officer could continue to 60, and it all has to do with your reflexes, your bodies ability to recover from heat and cold stress, injury and general health and fitness. The vast majority of people cannot achieve the levels of fitness now being demanded of fire fighters at age 50, let alone 55 and as for at age 59 - forget it. Worse is that the Minister concerned and his civil servants are being decidedly 'economical with the truth' when they say that only a small number of fire fighters will be affected. Their own report states that as many as 90% of fire fighters could fail to maintain the fitness level at age 55. They are also failing to be honest about how much the fire fighters are contributing to their pensions. Where the majority of Pension Funds have taken between 4 and 9% of salary from their members, the Fire Fighters are contributing 14 -17% of income.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that our local and national politicians have squandered the money (we won't mention Gordon Brown's raid of 8 billion on private pensions that destroyed the majority), treating the contributions as a nice way to subsidise the local and national tax pot. Of course, it would all have been fine and dandy as long as the workforce continued to grow. As long as more people were 'in work' and paying into the pot, everything is hunky-dory and we can get away with this sort of economic sleight of hand. Unfortunately, the 1930-40s dream of 'full employment' and state run industrial and commercial activity fell apart - and the politicians and civil servants can't bring themselves to admit that it was not only never achievable, but is a direct cause of their present crisis.

Not one penny of the money they have collected for the last 106 years was ever invested to cover the promises they made year after year, election after election. As for the Treasury's 'economists' - I wouldn't trust them to invest the small amount of money I once had in an ISA! Frankly, if anyone ran a business the way they run the national economy, the Serious Fraud Squad would be considering a major prosecution. The fire fighters have a right to be up in arms, and their current Chief Fire Officers are as much to blame as the politicians they serve. The various Local Authorities have taken the contributions from the men and women in their service for years and used it to subsidise the Rates and now the Community Charge.

Now that the revenue is shrinking as they cut down the service side (while expanding the paper shufflers and 'non-operational' side), they want to cut their losses by blaming the fire fighters. There are claims that a fire fighter that is fired at 51 because he can't maintain the fitness level or has been injured, can be 'redeployed', but this is false. Until ten years ago, he or she could have been, but since Labour' modernised the service, all the posts they could have been redeployed to have been stuffed with 'non-operational' and non-fire fighting staff. It was claimed then that this was 'cheaper' - so the fact that these folk are now, on average, earning the same as or more than the fire fighters they replaced is possibly another small problem the politicians are being 'economical with the truth' about. The truth is - and the reality - is that someone being 'let go' for health or fitness reasons at 51 is highly unlikely to find employment at anything like the income he or she enjoyed at that point. Nor will they be able to claim their full pension, or any pension until they reach 60 and then the new threshold of 67 for the State Pension.

Tough one, and I'm sure all the lovely and caring politicians and civil servants will pat him or her kindly on the back, and tell them the usual platitude that it's a tough deal, but you could have made provision for this contingency yourself ... Then they'll take their gold plated tax payer funded pensions and their knighthoods and laugh all the way to the bank and the bistro.

I have used the fire fighters as an example here, but the truth is that all pension funds are in the same state, and all pensioners and contributors to pension funds are being put under similar pressure. Suddenly it is their fault that the Treasury, the politicians and the civil servants have, down the years, squandered the money they have taken from us. If an insurance company did the same with its policy holders premiums the courts would deal with it very quickly indeed. Perhaps that is what we should now be doing, bringing prosecutions for fraud against the various public bodies that have taken our money on false pretences and now want to change the rules to shift the blame.

Now there's a thought for those of a legal mind and ability ...

Badly Drafted Law ...

In recent years we have seen a plethora of laws hit our statute books which, despite the 'assurances' of the Minister responsible and the efforts of all the members of the various committees, working parties and lobby groups, have impacted in 'unintended' ways upon our society. It is refreshing therefore to see that the latest such law has been heavily amended by the Lords. They have struck out the vague and nebulous concept of attempting to legislate against someone 'annoying' another. The vacuous spokesperson from the Home Office, responsible for this latest bit of idiocy, tried to give the 'assurance' that the law would not be used to stifle debate, or to interfere with the right of free speech, religion or 'insulting behaviour'.

Funny, that, because it is the courts which decide what is an is not annoying - not some chinless, faceless and unanswerable wonder from the civil service no doubt up to the elbows in the drafting ink. The Blog Archbishop Cranmer has an excellent article covering the whole mess, entitled "Outlawing 'annoyance' is Cameron's crassest Law". I commend it to readers. He has the details and says it far more eloquently than I can.

As he points out, the way the law was originally drafted had come in for criticism from lawyers and judges from across the political spectrum. It was a licence to anyone and everyone with a stake in political correctness to stifle criticism and debate. When such advice comes from so large a group of legal experts, the government and their civil servants should pay heed - but they didn't. It now remains to be seen whether they accept the Lord's amendment - passed by 306 to 178 with independent Peers, Labour Peers and rebels from the coalition all voting for the change.