the brilliantly leaping gazelle

Category: Uncategorized

My election notes. E-Day – 44

 

 

Playground

One of the more curious aspects of this snap General Election was how it completely surprised everyone.

No-one saw it coming. Not the legions of political pundits, who often act as intermediaries for ‘ sources close to’, not the journalists who offer instant opinion, now even more instant in this age of social media. Not even the upper echelons of her own party knew. Even though Teresa May presides over a Conservative party with seemingly unassailable lead in the polls over Labour – and the polls are never wrong are they – it was assumed that much commented upon caution would prevail. And prevent her from doing what she has just done.

That’s what I find so curious. I mean not letting any of the opposition parties know until you announce it, fair enough. I mean you wouldn’t tell a bank you were going to rob them, but you’d tell the people who needed to know, perhaps not the exact time, date and location but let them know to expect something. The people supplying the cars, those providing safe houses, fences if emptying deposit boxes was involved, the people who needed to know in advance.

But no.

She didn’t.

But then given the ludicrous manner of her becoming PM in the first place, is it such as surprise? Remember the morning after European Referendum? When we awoke to discover that the country had voted to leave Europe? One might have thought the Leave campaign would immediately effect a seamless and a well thought through plan to ensure stability. To provide reassurance to those who had voted to Remain that the sky wasn’t going to fall in. To offer reassurance to our allies and to the global financial markets, to offer some vestige of competent leadership, giving the impression of calm, sober efficiency and business as usual. But rather the leaders of the Leave campaign spent the weekend after the vote quietly promoting themselves as David Cameron’s successor whilst publicly disavowing any such intention.

Eventually we ended up with Teresa May, a bit like at school when teams are picked in the playground and all the best players have been chosen and on it goes until only the rubbish ones that no-one wants are left.

That’s Teresa May.

 

My election notes. E-Day – 45

fight

 

This is going to be a brief post, because as I type these words I am grimacing in pain caused by a trapped nerve in my back.

Anyway, The Guardian had a headline today that claimed:

Jeremy Corbyn vows to ‘fight every seat in every corner’ of Scotland.

And this got me thinking. What if we took him, and indeed all the party leaders at their word – because all of them will say at some stage of the campaign that they’re fighting for something or other – and put them all in a large boxing ring and said ‘On you go, last person standing wins the election.’

There’d be no weapons, but no referee either. It wouldn’t be to the death but it wouldn’t be one on one. It would be a free for all. It would be interesting to see who worked together to beat the other party leaders into submission and also when they’d turn on each other.

It would of course be televised, providing an ancillary benefit of strengthening the UK’s negotiating position abroad. If the leaders of the G20 countries had incontrovertible evidence of exactly how much our PM wanted to be PM and the lengths they were willing to go to in order to prove, it might make focus their minds somewhat, especially if diplomats let it known that PM was taking a tough stance negations.

Putin wouldn’t be worried though. He’s a black belt in judo.

And we could mix it up. For one election there’d be Mastermind type contest, the next The Cube type contest and so on, to prevent leadership contests weren’t simply about who was the hardest. Although thinking about, a Naked Attraction format is certainly a possibility….

My election notes. E-Day – 46

boogers-7

Here we go again, and we’d better get used to it, political parties engaging in something I call manifesto clickbaiting. A proposal that has about as much chance of becoming law as they do of forming the next government. Something that will both hopefully – for them, if not us – dominate the news agenda. And act as a political dog whistle to people who are undecided or wavering;

UKIP is to include a ban on the full veils worn by some Muslim women as part of its general election manifesto, its leader Paul Nuttall has said.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show Mr Nuttall said wearing a burka or niqab in public was a barrier to integration and a security risk.

Although this proposal might be seen by some as the state suggesting what can and can’t be worn by women – which some religions do very well on their own without the the state getting in on the act – worse was to follow;

Mr Nuttall also told the programme that he wanted to prevent Islamic sharia law becoming “a parallel legal system in this country”.

“It cannot be right that we have court or councils in this country where the word of a woman is only worth half that of a man. That has no place in a liberal, democratic, functioning Western democracy,” he said.

But he said that Beth Din, Jewish rabbinical courts, would not be affected, because they had been established for centuries and the Orthodox Jewish population was falling.

So there we have it. If something has been established for long enough, that’s OK, is it? Really? Is the permissibility of things now, according to Ukip at least, based on how long they’ve been happening? By that yardstick – and there seems no other logical interpretation – because I’ve always eaten my bogies that’s OK?

My election notes. E-Day -46

mainToday is a day of two polls, which together illustrate how political polling has as much credibility as shampoo adverts.

Today there is a poll in the Daily Mail that carries the shock news that;

Theresa May’s hopes of winning a landslide election victory suffered a major blow last night after her poll lead plummeted to 11 per cent amid the row over her tax and pension plans.

A Survation poll for The Mail on Sunday put the Conservatives on 40 per cent, followed by Labour on 29 per cent and the Lib Dems and Ukip level on 11 per cent.

It means Mrs. May’s lead over Jeremy Corbyn has nearly halved in four days: a poll immediately after she called the Election gave the Tories a 21-point advantage.

However, there is another poll, first published on the Guardian homepage as a top story, but now relegated to the politics page announcing the equally shocking news that

The Tories have more than doubled their lead over Labour to 19 points since Theresa May called a snap general election last Tuesday, according to a new poll that suggests theConservatives are heading for a landslide victory on 8 June.

Confused? Possibly, if one only reads the headlines and the first paragraph of each story. Although the Guardian to be fair does point out in the second paragraph:

The survey by Opinium for the Observer, conducted on Wednesday and Thursday of last week, puts the Tories on 45% (up seven points compared with the previous week), while Labour is down three points on 26%.

To be fair? Sorry, I meant to be vague. At least the Daily Mail put the Guardians poll in a slightly more understandable context;

Last night an Opinium poll, taken before the tax, pensions and overseas aid row, put the Tory lead at 19 points.

So who to trust? It’s a tough one! But earlier on I mentioned shampoo adverts? You know, the ones on the television that claim that 93% of women agree that this shampoo is the best shampoo in the history of ever? And for a few seconds you think ‘ Wow! 93%. That’s impressive.’ But then reason and logic kick in. And you see that buried in the smallest possible writing is the revelation that only 200 women were asked if they agreed. And you wonder how such a big claim could be based on such a little sample. Who, for example are these women?

And then you start to question the validity of ALL polls, realizing that the sample of people questioned in survey is low – in both cases above less than 2100 – and remembering that at the last election in 2015 pretty much every poll got it wrong!

My election notes. E-Day -47

The last couple of days have required some deft footwork from Phillip Hammond, the man who puts chance into Chancellor. In refusing to rule out an income tax increase and increase in VAT yesterday, he was probably remembering the humiliating climb-down over plans in his budget to increase National Insurance Contributions for the self-employed. Unfortunately, the last Conservative manifesto explicitly stated that they wouldn’t. Hence the climb-down and his reluctance to make any pledge that might bedevil him later.

If only Teresa May had been as cautious and had been paying attention to Parliamentary debates and what her Ministers say. When asked about her commitment to protecting the triple lock – introduced in 2010 and which guarantees that the state pension will rise by the rate of average earnings OR the Consumer Price Index OR 2,5% whichever is the highest- she said yesterday:

 All I would say to pensioners is just look at what the Conservatives in government have done.

However she stopped short of any pledge that she could be held to, which is an electoral gamble because pensioners are the demographic most likely to vote but against that but pensions amount to a whopping £92 billion of the welfare budget. And the population is ageing, meaning not only are there more pensioners, but those that there are are living longer.

But on Thursday, – the day before she invited pensioners to examine the governments record – in a debate about pensions, the issue of annual uprating of pensions for pensioners who’ve emigrated came up. At the moment where you move to depends on how much you get. Some have theirs annually uprated, whereas some have them fixed at the amount the pension was worth when they left. Which depending on where they’ve emigrated to, could be a substantial amount indeed. Richard Harington, the Pensions Minister uttered a stark reminder of exactly where this governments priorities lie.

The governments position remains consistent with that of every government for the last seventy years and the annual cost of changing a long-standing policy will soon be £0.5 Billion which the government believes cannot be justified.

My daily election notes. E-Day – 48

clear-bar-of-soap-with-a-razer-blade-inside-thumb

One of the less edifying effects of Teresa Mays decision to call a snap election hasn’t been to cause the Labour MP Clive Lewis to postpone his marriage – his honeymoon was booked for June 6th – but rather what in parliamentary terms is called the ‘wash-up’.

Basically the ‘wash-up’ puts me in mind of schoolchildren with an essay to complete who, because the sun is inviting them out to play have left it until a few days before the essay is due in to start writing it. With a panic they realise that their answer will inevitably involve lots of detail to digest, understand, consider and formulate a coherent answer. But far too much detail than the time available to them allows. So they do the only thing they can do. They cherry pick details and pad those details out. Or at least they hope they cherry pick.

That’s the problem with cherry picking, one isn’t always certain that the only the sweet cherries have been picked; if one does it in a rush, then in all probability one will end up with some sour ones. As a way to write an essay it’s not ideal.

But as a way to create legislation it’s insane.

The Finance Bill 2017 will be rushed through the Commons and the Lords so it can be enshrined in law before parliament breaks. Whilst there are some important tax blah in it, the bill runs to 700 pages. Time means that only the most important will make it in to a slimmed down bill for parliament to pass into law. It also doesn’t allow for any scrutiny or for someone to say ‘Hang on, you’ve left all these things out and left that in. Explain you’re reasoning’

It’s as if the Dangerous Dogs Act fiasco never happened

Until tomorrow.

My daily election notes. E-Day – 49

wp-1460153964605 article-1350637809580-1593c21d000005dc-797525_223x335

In the run up to the election, I’ll be temporarily suspending my recent blog writing apathy in favour of attempting to write a short blog every day of the campaign and my thoughts on it. I’ve always been inordinately fascinated by politics and it’s potential to effect transformative change for the betterment of both the individual and therefore society.

But as I wrote in back in 2014

Quite why there persists in people’s minds the idea that politics is complicated baffles me, as politics isn’t complicated at all. One is meant to think that it is, and that suits the main political parties just fine and dandy. Political parties claim to want voter engagement but actually they fear an informed electorate. Largely because, just as Dorothy discovers in ‘The Wizard Of Oz’, the electorate will realize when they pull back the curtain that the wizard is not a wizard at all, but in fact an ordinary man, and they will react with anger that for so long the truth has been hidden from them.

In a later entry, I promise to outline my theory that anyone who understands how a family operates – the dynamics and tensions that are at play, the ever shifting balance of powers between the parents and the children and the temporary alliances built on need – can understand politics. Anything that is so complicated that at its most basic level it cannot be explained to anyone with an I.Q. larger than the radius of their kneecap, suggests that the fault lies with the person attempting to simplify the complicated. I promise I will outline my theory in another post, but now is not the time.

 

The time is now however to speculate on the possibility that the retiring Labour MP Andy Burham is related to Captain Black, him off of the Mysterons? Are some unseen hands pulling his strings?

Is Amandan Aibreain a modern day Peter Rachman?

96be4ee0_19063_000_3513

The inevitable doesn’t just happen. It only happens to be inevitable when one is able look back and correctly assess and interpret the conditions that allowed it to happen. Then, and only then, does it become inevitable. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, because it allows us to make the same mistakes, except now they’re re-packaged so they seem something new and modern. As H. L. Mencken observed “ No-one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

The housing market in London, were, if it was house, be condemned. Actually, no it wouldn’t. The house would be bought by a property developer, knocked down and in it’s place would go shiny new flats to be bought by foreign investors. As Lex Luthor notes in ‘Superman Returns’ “ They ain’t building any more land” (Which isn’t strictly true. Ask the Dutch.) But the point still stands, land is at a premium, demand for housing far outstrips supply, so much so that in increasingly desperate times, people will do increasingly desperate things.

So it comes as nary a surprise to learn of a Harry Potter-esque scenario, whereby a bed under some stairs was offered up for the bargain price of £500 a month. Mind you it was in Clapham. Or that people are sharing bedroom space with complete strangers because the rent for a single occupancy room is so high. Even a room with a bunk bed is called a ’twin room’. At £295 per person per month. Communal living is making a comeback as young professionals seek to negate the prohibitive cost of living in London like a rabbit in a hutch.

Barnet House, an 11-storey office building, could be converted into 254 studio flats, if an application by building leaseholder Meadow Residential is approved by the council.

Around 95 per cent of them would be smaller than the national minimum space standards of 37sqm, with the smallest being around 16sqm.

That is around 40 per cent smaller than the 28 sqm average Travelodge room

 

So, therefore it comes as no surprise to learn that Amadan Aibreain has submitted plans for a three new capsule hotel. Capsule hotels are nothing new. They first appeared, as I understand it, in Tokyo where space is at a premium and only the wealthy can afford those premiums. Essentially a capsule hotel offers a bed and amenities the more you pay, the better they are. So profitable have these been that it was it didn’t take long before one of these opened in London. The Z hotel boasts that;

 The building is a designer conversion of a Victorian townhouse, within a prominent block of mixed architectural styles. Inside, you find 106 rooms set over 8 floors. And it places you in Lower Belgrave Street, just off Buckingham Palace Road, and a stone’s throw from Victoria Station and the local theatres.

But the catch is that the Z hotel is only intended for short stays and ever the entrepreneur, Aibreain was quick to see a gap in the market. His ‘novel’ – some might say – ‘immoral’ idea, is that for the majority of the day the room is empty. Thinking that no one wants to pay for something they will not use, his bright idea is to offer rooms available to be rented in blocks of hours throughout the day. As he says “I was in a hotel in Bucharest years ago and it struck me that I only spent 8 hours of every day sleeping in the thing, the rest of the time it wasn’t used and it struck me, what if one could make better use of the time I wasn’t using it, making it more cost efficient”. There is no limit on the duration of the stay either.

Essentially, he sells use of each room in blocks of eight hours. Amazingly, it has proven to be a success because it seemingly gets around the problem of affording rent in London. He already has one in Canning Town with a further three planned for elsewhere in London. His hotels offer a place to sleep and not much else, but then I suppose with most things existing only in a digital format nowadays, the idea of having a large record collection, books, photos, videos is more a generational throwback to the past – all of these can be stored on a laptop or an external hard drive. So what is the compulsion to surround us with stuff? And more pertinently, can one afford the space to have it with you? I write this whilst looking with some irony at my own large record collection, proudly amassed over the years and it truly is a mass. Although it isn’t as much as a mass as I would have liked.

But to get back on topic Amadan Aibreain reminds me of nothing more than a modern day Peter Rachman, a landlord who came to notoriety in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s by renting out properties to the desperate that were squalid to but for an extortionate rent.

News just in..

5966154-3x2-940x627After my last post, which was read by less people than Elizabeth Taylor had husbands, I thought I’d really mine the depressing angle by writing about my depression. In the usual course of events, I wouldn’t write about my depression not out of feeling guilty about it or some other nonsense, but more that writing about it potentially exacerbates it. But as the events of last Sunday night did a fine job of doing that, I needn’t worry too much on that score.

So then to Sunday night which proved that yes, whilst it may well be good to talk, the outcome resulting from it depends on to quite a large degree on whom one is talking to. Ideally they are not only an active listener – by which I mean one who not only pays attention, but also indicates they are doing so by referencing things one said earlier on – but also possess an intuitive emotional intelligence – knowing the difference between a long pause to collect one’s thoughts and silence, etc. My mother has many fine qualities, but being encumbered by emotional intelligence isn’t one of them.

And it sometimes happens that when I’m about to set off to visit my mother, the ‘black dog’ might start barking; the ‘black dog’ being what Winston Churchill called his depression. The former doesn’t induce the latter I hasten to add. Anything can set me off. And because my mother doesn’t – for reasons known only to her – wear her hearing aids, my partner has to ‘phone up and cancel the visit with a vague excuse about me not being up to it.

Last Sunday was different. I know well that my mother views such excuses with disdain and thinly veiled contempt, not least because of her sudden and inexplicable interest in wholly irrelevant things when I do arrive following a cancelled visit. Discussing people I don’t know doing things I have no interest in. Not turning the television off. Or worse still, turning the volume off on the television but blatantly watching it with the subtitles on. So even though the ‘black dog’ was barking loudly, I decided to go, in order that she could see for herself what a good thing it is for all concerned that I don’t visit on such occasions.

After perfunctory greetings, it was down to business as usual; her talking about things that interest only her, at length and with mind numbing detail. If one were cynical, one might almost suppose this was deliberate; a ploy to prevent one from perpetrating a conversational hijack. On and on it went. Finally I said that when my partner ‘phones and says I’m depressed. It doesn’t mean I’m a bit grumpy. It’s quite serious. I was in the middle of giving a watered down version of how bad it can get – because she is my Mother – when she said, “Oh, I had no idea you were depressed.”

After a few seconds spent digesting the sheer idiocy of this statement I asked her in what possible universe would one not be depressed in my situation? How could someone wake up after a month in coma only to discover that the person they were exists only in the past tense, as a fading memory and not be depressed? To discover that ones life was now an existence, something to be endured not enjoyed? (Granted, yes, there have been good times, but they are massively disproportionate to the time spent accruing them.) To find that one couldn’t walk, had a speech impediment and now had fine motor skills that were as much use as a lead squash ball? How does one begin to explain the enormity of regret I have about waking up from the coma in the first place? The regret I have the dreadful and ongoing impact of the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’ has had on others? There is so much regret and anger – at me for being in this situation – that one might have thought that possibly, just possibly, someone who’d known me all off my life might consider that such a turn of events wasn’t exactly what I’d planned. But then I remembered who I was talking to. This, after all is the person who when she was a nurse would always want to be there when patients who’d attempted suicide by taking a overdose would wake up after a stomach pump. Not to offer them counsel and a warm smile. But rather to see the look of disappointed frustration on their faces because she found it amusing.

I’m not making that up. I wish I was. She boasts of it. She admits that she’s emotionally detached. She is one of those women who, for whatever reason, isn’t maternal. Don’t get me wrong, I love her to bits, but she makes Leonard’s mum seem touchy feely.

So in retrospect, expecting her to have anything approaching a humane reaction to what is a human reaction to an inhuman circumstance was perhaps overly ambitious. Mind you, I’ve learnt that saying ‘Keeping sanity at bay’ is a sound bite that satisfies most enquiries as to how I’m doing. Hardly anyone asks why.

Perhaps it’s because they know they should ask, because it’s the right thing to do now, isn’t it and people just love being well thought of? Perhaps they think asking with a concerned face makes them appear a better person? Or perhaps because they don’t have the requisite amount of time that the answer warrants?

Or perhaps they fear that if I start, I won’t stop.

 

Are humans like the aliens in ‘Independence Day’? Or are we breeding ourselves into extinction? Or both?

20-facts-that-make-everyday-fears-less-terrifying-5

 

**THIS BLOG CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE FILM OF THE DAN BROWN BOOK ‘INFERNO’. IF YOU PLAN TO SEE IT, BUT HAVEN’T YET, STOP READING.**

Last night my partner and I watched ‘Inferno’. It came as no surprise to me to discover that a film based on a book by Dan Brown wasn’t going to be all that exciting. But the most audacious aspect for a mainstream Hollywood film was it’s central thesis. At the start we see the villain giving an internet talk spelling out the problem of global over-population. He addresses the consequences for the planet of this if it remains unchecked. But having seen seen the problem and being a billionaire, is in a position to do something about it.

We find out that he’s created a virus that will wipe out half of the worlds population. The film features on the race to find the bomb that contains the virus before it explodes and releases the virus. Two things leapt to mind, firstly, if you had conceived and thought things through with such impeccable logic wouldn’t you just release the virus? And secondly – and most importantly – was villains plan so villainous? If half the world’s population were wiped out, would that be such a bad thing?

Why is it that human life needs to be sustained? Do all preventable deaths need to be prevented? Rather than smoke less, drink less and exercise more, we should be doing the very opposite. Our life expectancy – in certain parts of the world anyway – has increased well beyond our planets ability to sustain the amount of us. Every second there are four births to every two deaths. It took until 1804for the global population to reach 1 billion. And 2 billion by 1927. By 1974 it was 4 billion and by 2024 it is predicted to reach 8 billion. And it’s only going to increase.

graph

Are we just the very worst kind of hypocrites, advocating, then justifying and then implementing culls – population control by killing – of other species? Sometimes it is claimed that such drastic action is warranted on the grounds that the current levels of other species population growth would, if left unchecked, present a very real threat to the survival of that species. Yet it seems to me an incontrovertible fact that the species in need of culling, certainly from the planets and our continued existence is Homo sapiens. And that’s assuming that breeding ourselves into extinction is a bad thing. As this five-minute video makes clear, the planet would do just fine without us.

And when one considers ‘Earth Overshoot Day’ – the point at which humanity goes into ecological debt – and how early it is getting every year, the only rational conclusion is that more humans are only going to exacerbate this problem, because the primary goal of capitalism is to sell us things, this treadmill of consumerism will never stop. Until we exhaust the planets resources that is. We are like the aliens in “Independence Day’ who use up all the natural resources of a planet, strip it bare and move on. But unlike the aliens, we can’t go anywhere else.

In all but one important respect humanity is like an elderly person who is doubly incontinent and wearing an adult nappy, we made the mess and will have to stay in it. Only no-one’s going to clean up this mess for us, We have to. But don’t show any signs of doing so. And it’s not as if we were unaware that we were causing the problem. We knew. We knew what needed to be done but didn’t do it when less controversial measures were needed, so only drastic solutions remain. The situation reminds me of the Japanese resuming hunting whales for ‘scientific reasons’. In what possible universe is that a good idea?

So it was with an air of resigned frustration that I greeted that news that President Trump in one of his first executive orders was to withhold any U.S. government funding from any U.S. overseas agency that either gave birth control advice or provided abortions. One might be forgiven for thinking that he might have had more urgent matters to attend to. Possibly? Or was he taking his cue from the Chinese, who’ve announced an end to their ‘one child only’ rule. Or from the Catholic Church which opposes birth control?

Yes, things are bad.

So here’s a solution. But first of all, we need to establish some givens in order to accept the hypotheses that there is a problem before we can think about a possible solution. First of all, are there too many humans currently alive for this planet to sustain? And can governments support this? The United Nations isn’t sure,

Whether the growing numbers of older persons are living their later years in good health is a crucial consideration for policy development. If the added years of life expectancy are spent with disability, then demographic trends could portend substantially increased demand for health care. If the onset or severity of ill health is instead postponed as life expectancy increases, then the pressures exerted on the health system by a growing population of older persons may be attenuated. So far, evidence of trends in the health status of older persons is mostly limited to high-income countries and points to different conclusions depending on the study or context, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions about the fundamental questions.

And the more people there are, the greater the amount of food needed to feed them. As Thomas Malthus in his ‘Essay on the Principle of Population’ of 1798 observed that “Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. (1,2,4,8,16, etc). Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. (1,2,3,4, etc) A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew (sic) the immensity of the first power in comparison to the second.’

Therefore, if we take the films ‘Logan’s Run’ and the much under-rated ‘Soylent Green’ as our inspirations, both of which offer a rather unedifying view of a distant and not so distant future. In ‘Logan’s Run’ no one lives past 30. In ‘Soylent Green’ which is set in a not too distant future, because the present and future are black and white and only the past is in colour there are corporate run euthanasia centres where people go to, well, what else could you do at an euthanasia centre? They then turn the dead into a meat substitute, what else. So to my way of thinking anyone over 75 has a civic duty, nay, a social responsibility and for the survival of our species not to go on living.

This isn’t as heartless as you might first imagine. What would they be missing out on? Age related diseases like dementia or Alzheimer’s. Or a stroke? Gradual infirmity? The list goes on, but the point is, who on earth would want to miss out on all that?. Additionally, if one knew one wasn’t going to see 76, might not that focus the mind and prevent one from the tyranny of tormented regrets about wasted years?

And at the other end of life too many babies are equally a detriment to the survival of the species. Actually, no they’re not. They’re worse. An older person would have consumed less of the planets resources because – in the West at least – there was less in their lifetime for them to consume. But now there are more people, and even if they each consume less per person, because there are more of them, consumption will necessarily increase. And they’ll have children. And the wheel keeps turning. Until it falls off. Some have argued that having children is the single most catastrophic act for the survival of our species a human can do. These views might seem extreme now, but remember how most of the environmental issues that have engendered behavoiur modification sounded forty years ago?

The facts don’t lie. Neither do they allow room for sentiment. If we believe that culling is both necessary and desirable for the survival of other species, we must first look at our own.