Politics is now a religion. Are you a believer or a heretic?

Fun Facts: Fake News actually dates from the late 19th century, when it was used by newspapers and magazines to boast about their own journalistic standards and attack those of their rivals. The term ‘post-truth politics’ was first coined in 1992.

To add some context, George H. W. Bush was US President. John Major was UK Prime Minister. Twitter was still 14 years away from Foundation. Mark Zuckerberg would have been in elementary school. In fact, what was to become the internet was still embryonic. It was only a few months earlier on 6 August 1991, that Tim Berners-Lee posted a short summary of the World Wide Web project inviting collaborators.

Fake News has been with us since before US President William McKinley was assassinated and the UK Prime Minister, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was briefing Queen Victoria.

The reason I share these fun facts with you is that the pandemic and associated lockdown saw me return to social media after a gap of about seven years. It amazed me that social media considered both post truth politics and fake news as new phenomenon. Politicians have been playing to our emotions for as long as I can remember. I have always considered that newspapers using emotional language in headlines to sell newspapers was to be expected.

Though the biggest surprise is how social media users have settled into large groups that act as echo chambers for their own beliefs. These echo chambers are full of emotional outrage, and, where politics is concerned, delight in pointing out fake news, moral turpitude [Note 1], perceived corruption and double standards. When you follow politics on Twitter, you certainly see that emotion in bucket loads; people with unfailing belief that what they say is right and, sadly a paucity of facts. Not that this makes it any less fun. I have to confess to joining in with gusto. After too much coffee and a couple of extra dried frog pills it really helps fill those lockdown hours.

It also throws up some interesting and random reading matter. One that caught my eye was a short piece in the New European saying that the Leave Campaign for the Brexit Referendum turned Brexit into a religion. The research paper is currently embargoed, so I cannot give you the hard work behind the paper, sorry. However, it did resonate. Returning to social media, the behaviours of some when talking politics did seem to replicate a religious zeal in their political belief.

I don’t have many followers on social media and I limit the number I follow, but I do try to follow some that I don’t necessarily agree with politically. It wasn’t long before I found myself asking ‘How can they believe that?’ I quickly found that pointing out facts and supporting statistics to things that I felt were incorrect didn’t change minds, just led to emotional responses and even wilder claims and conspiracies.

That is post truth politics in real life [Note 2]. Post-Truth politics is defined as relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts. This got the old synapses sparking and flying off in their usual tangents and I had to try to answer the tricky question, “why do people believe that?”.

It turns out it was easier to answer than I thought [Note 3]. People accept lies and half-truths as long as they align with their beliefs. An explanation can be found in this Psychology Today article .  It blends nicely with the principles that Steve Tesich used when he coined the phrase post-truth politics in his 1992 essay. We are more likely to believe something if it plays to our pre-existing beliefs and bias.

In my corner of my particular echo-chamber on social media, it is amazing how emotional people become when you point out that something they believe and supports their bias is not supported by facts or peer reviewed research. How they refuse to accept the facts that run counter to their belief. Their unshakeable confidence brought about by their faith in their view. Psychologists have a name for this, Confirmation Bias [Note 4]. I have failed miserably to sway minds and change views, perhaps because of the reasons put forward by Christopher Dwyer, again in Psychology Today.  We all love to be right and hate to be wrong, but we must use critical thinking to decide what we believe and what to do.

Dear reader, I am about to take a synaptic tangent. The more observant amongst you and those who are able to follow my rambling and often wordy writing style might have noticed that the words emotion and belief figure highly in this piece. Belief and emotion also figure in why people are religious as again explained in Psychology Today [Note 5].

Reading social media, it seems easy to gain the perception that decent folk have disappeared from political life. That critical thinking is no longer part of the political process and decision making. It is easy to look at Donald Trump and Boris Johnson and believe that there is no critical thinking behind how they behave. They are continually fact checked and are shown to be economical with the truth and perpetuating misinformation. Yet people believe them. If you look at the opinion polls, voters trust them. They are successful by which I mean that they get more votes than the other guy which is what they are there to do. [Note 6]

Then I looked closer at the way that they present themselves and their messages. They make their supporters out to be unique and special. They imply that those who do not support them are somehow unpatriotic or enemies. Their goals are the will of the people. Rallies and photo opportunities are full of symbolism, evangelical fervour and that sense that the audience was there to worship rather than have values challenged.

This can only be deliberate.

We are witnessing politics as a religion. Our choice of political party grants us a right, while those of another party are heretics. Your party of choice governs your mantras. It comes with its own commandments. The confirmation bias for truth is nailed on.

The culture war is no accident either. Culture represents our current values and intellectual achievement. It is supposed to make use look inward and challenge our values. To apply critical thinking to try and overcome confirmation bias. If your political message and career is built on playing to that confirmation bias, the last thing you need is those supporters applying critical thinking to your message.

So, how do you break the hold of a political party that is using the techniques of religion to gain and then hold on to power? That is a question that I cannot yet answer. It will involve getting people to challenge their own values and improving critical thinking, but just how this is done requires many pots of coffee and an extra supply of dried frog pills.

A solution must be found. History gives us insight into what happens when a country becomes divided between competing religions. After Henry VIII broke with the church of Rome in 1533, religious persecution became a tool of the state. It would be nearly 300 years before the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829.

NOTE 1: Turpitude is such a good word, don’t you think? It has that gift of hinting at the meaning in a sinister way as if it is wearing a top hat and twisting its moustache. BTW it means depraved or wicked behaviour or character.

NOTE 2: Yes, I do realise that social media is not real life. You can throw all sorts of examples at me of the evils of social media and those who run it, but you are missing the point. This stuff has been going on for years before social media. Social media is a tool that shines the spotlight on it. Censoring social media or even banning it won’t stop it happening.

NOTE 3: I am aware of the irony of this statement. Yes, I went to the internet, found an article that supported my view of the world and accepted it. Maybe I am guilty of confirmation bias. Read the article, question it, look for evidence if you think I am wrong and challenge me on it. I like to think I am big enough and ugly enough to examine my own values and beliefs.

NOTE 4: Sadly, I have not found any linkage between this psychological theory and sex. On social media, every psychological study or idea appears to have something to do with sex, especially when it gets reported in newspapers. I’m sure that it hasn’t got anything to do with the fact that sex sells.

NOTE 5: If you are not religious, or prefer to practice your faith as an independent traveller, fear not. This isn’t an attempt to convert you. It is an important point that needs to be made as I meander my way to a conclusion and search out other ways to add additional footnotes.

NOTE 6: It is convenient to pick Trump & Johnson as examples as they illustrate the point that contemporary politics is pushing the buttons as if it is a religion. You could also find parallels in the cult of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour Party or Bernie Saunders in the US. Trump & Johnson are the best examples because they have turned it into a slick, professional art form supported by a well-funded political machine.

Following up on Democracy with my MP

Three weeks ago, I wrote to my MP to ask for his commitment to democracy.

As yet, he has not replied. There could be no end of reasons for this in these unusual, Covid times. I need to stay calm and remember that stuff happens. That when things go wrong, it is far more likely to be a cockup rather than a conspiracy.

So, rather than go off down some rabbit hole of conspiracy invention, I will simply take a deep breath, a swig of strong coffee and try again.

Now, it would not be appropriate to simply re-send the last letter. Although it is only 3 weeks since it was sent, events have moved on.

Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, has been in the headlines again after his illegal intervention support of a Tory donor, he now has conspired with his junior minister to do a spot of gerrymandering to ensure that funds are routed to his and the junior minister’s constituencies.

Oliver Dowden, Culture Secretary, has floated an idea that would further undermine public services broadcasting in this country by privatising Channel 4.

The UK has had its credit rating downgraded by Moody’s. Not a totally unexpected event given the Covid situation & Brexit. However, one factor in the downgrade was the erosion of democratic institutions.

There may be other events I should have noticed and worthy of inclusion. Sadly, the general standard of this government has highlighted so many examples of incompetence, corruption and general disregard for the health and wellbeing of this nation and its democracy it is like trying to follow an individual starling in a murmuration.

Therefore, I took my original letter and revamped it before sharing it with my MP. As always, I will keep you updated with any progress.

The letter is below for your delectation and delight.

Dear Mr Pursglove,

I wrote to you on the 28th September to highlight my concerns over the direction of travel of this government with regard to maintaining the safety of the British Democracy and its institutions. Having not yet had any response, I am writing again as I fear that the original may have been misplaced.

Since that original letter, other events have occurred that serve to increase my disquiet over just how safe democracy in this country in the hands of the current government. The questions have therefore been updated to take these events into account.

Do you as an MP commit to the continuing democracy of the United Kingdom? By this, I mean more than ensuring that the people are able to vote. This includes ensuring the supporting institutions and democratic principles are robust; adequately funded and ensuring adequate scrutiny is applied to Government actions?

Do you also commit to ensuring the government is subject to full scrutiny to ensure that it follows the rule of law?

As you hold a Politics degree, I am sure you will be disturbed that one of your constituents would ever feel the need to ask their MP to commit to British democracy. As you are a passionate campaigner to regain sovereignty from the EU, I am sure that you would be aghast if having regained our sovereignty, it became tainted by corruption, unelected advisors, contempt for the rule of law and an erosion of our British freedoms.

To assist, below is a summary of why I feel current government actions threaten the future of our precious and fragile democracy and some supplemental questions.

1.            The Civil Service is supposed to be provide independent & impartial advice and support in the implementation of government policy. Since this government has come to power, they have systematically replaced senior Civil Servants with their own, seemingly political appointments. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?

2.            The government has signalled it is intent to limit access to Judicial Review of government. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?

3.            The judicial system has been subject to a series of cuts and budget constraints over the last decade that has resulted in ever growing backlog of cases. This backlog has only been made worse by the current Covid crisis. Do you commit to ensuring that the funding of our legal system to address the backlog and ensure that our justice system is functioning effectively?

4.            The Russian Report was published by the ISC on 21/07/2020. This showed some unsettling interventions in the UK political system. Subsequent revelations in the US has shown that these interventions have been widespread and deliberately designed to subvert the democratic process. Do you commit to pushing the government to holding an independent enquiry into the impacts of the foreign interventions into the UK democratic process and putting forward recommendations to prevent this in future?

5.            Government ministers appear to be avoiding scrutiny and taking actions that appear to be corrupting the democratic process. An example being the allocation of the Town Fund which appears to have been done in a way that ignores the advice of officials and benefits Conservative targeted marginal seats. It also appears that Robert Jenrick has manipulated process to ensure funding for his and a junior minister’s constituency in what some may describe as gerrymandering. Do you commit to ensuring that the decision is reviewed and that funds are allocated according to need rather than political gain?

6.            The government appears to be denuding the Public Service Broadcasting, BBC and the free press in the country of funding while placing political friends in positions of authority that can influence the impartiality and freedom of the press. Do you commit to ensuring that the BBC is adequately funded and maintains full editorial independence? Do you also commit to ensuring that adequate scrutiny is put upon the plan to privatise Channel 4 so that the public service aspect of its output & editorial independence is maintained?

7.            Michael Gove has signalled a willingness to amend the UK Human Rights Act ‘to make it easier’ for the government to enact ministers’ executive orders. Do you commit to protecting the UK Human Rights Act, that you will ensure that no changes will be made to the act without full and proper consultation and that when any actions come to be voted upon, they will be a matter of the MP conscience rather than a three-line whip?

May I also draw your attention to the recent downgrade of the UK Credit rating to AAA3 by Moody’s. In what is a highly unusual step, one factor in the downgrade is the erosion of democratic institutions with the Internal Market Bill cited as an example.

I should remind you of why your government finds itself having to breach international law and are struggling to find convincing arguments to justify this shameful action. You supported the Withdrawal Agreement. You voted to reduce the time to scrutinise the agreement, even though at the time concerns were raised over the impacts on the NI peace accord. You then fought and won an election based on the flawed Withdrawal Agreement. That may not have been an issue, but you then voted on an Agriculture Bill that removed food & animal welfare standard provisions sparking the fear that food produced to the woeful US standards would find its way into the EU via Northern Ireland.

The mess of the Internal Markets Bill is of your own making and by showing such disregard to International Law, has destroyed any moral authority the UK may have had when dealing with China on Hong Kong. It now has an adverse impact on the cost of government borrowing.

 

I look forward to your response on the many questions raised in this letter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Simon Holder

Big Brother is Watching me and Beaming Subliminal Messages into my Brain

That title, eh? Makes it look like retirement (or economic inactivity) has turned me into a conspiracy theorist convinced that I am being manipulated by dark forces to their bidding.

What was it Kurt Cobain said? Something like “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”

I know, all this talk of grand conspiracy theories to grab power and hold the populace is all total twaddle and comes from the paranoia of the ignorant. Then I watched Channel4 News. Of all of the UK news outlets, Channel4 News has become the one I believe is the most fearless, although a touch left of centre on social issues. Well last night, they ran a story about how data gathered through social media had been used to supress voting in the US 2016 election.

I suppose it is my progressive, liberal upbringing, but I was shocked. My first reaction was denial, it could never happen here in the UK. Then synaptic tangents started to kick in.

Those strange seemingly random posts that crossed my timeline on Facebook in the run up to the Brexit referendum; the rather outrageous claims from apparent strangers on Twitter; emails highlighting political issues or politicians. They could all just be coincidence of course.

When you start joining imaginary dots to some of the news stories you see, you do start to wonder. Is Dominic Cummings employing black magic data mining techniques to subvert democracy? Are the Russians targeting our elections? Just what was the result of the meddling highlighted in the Russia Report?

I could be slowly turning into a keyboard warrior driven by paranoia over conspiracy theories. There again, maybe the political parties and pressure groups may know more about me than I give them credit.

There is only one thing to do and that is find out. One of the better regulations to come out of the EU is the data privacy laws. The link, if you followed it, takes you to the ICO who are charged with ensuring compliance in the UK. The law also gives you certain rights as to how organisations use your data and allows you to get a record of what data they store.

I came up with a cunning plan to find out what the political parties store about me and what they think they know.

So, I am going to write to the various political parties and organisations and ask them:

What data do you hold on me?

How do you use the data you hold on me?

Who do you share my data with?

To be honest, I don’t hold out a lot of hope on that last point, but if I do find out, I shall be writing to those third parties as well.

Grab your tinfoil hat, up the dosage on those dried frog pills and watch this space. Let’s see what happens!

UPDATE 12:15 29/09/2020

An automated response was received from the Labour Party telling me that in order to process my request, I had to provide photo ID. I guess this kind of adds a layer of security to the process. Anyway, this has been supplied and I await developments.

UPDATE 11:30 02/10/2020

LeaveEU has responded asking me to fill in a form and send it back to them snail mail. I might also send it back email, just to free my inner rebel. Nothing yet from the Conservatives or LibDems.

UPDATE 14:00 05/10/2020

The Conservatives have requested proof of ID before they will process my request. This has been provided.

UPDATE 11:00 06/10/2020

The LibDems have now responded. They too want proof of ID which has been provided.

UPDATE 09:30 19/10/2020

LeaveEU have emailed me a reminder to send in the information they need to process my request. This has already been done, but I sent the info again via email.

Asking my MP to act for UK Democracy

I am writing to my MP again.

This is not big news; I quite often fire off letters to my MP.  To be fair to him, he always replies, but as yet not in a conclusive and fully supportive manner.

Being an MP, I’m sure that he gets a lot of correspondence and there will be letters from other constituents that take an opposing view to mine.

However, this letter is different. This letter is about the future of British democracy. So, I should expect a full and committed endorsement of the need to maintain the democracy of this country and the institutions that ensure its scrutiny, right?

Just feeling the need to question that statement suggests to me that I am losing faith in the commitment of this government to the basic principles of our democracy. That is incredibly sad. I have grown up believing that the British democracy is a great and noble example that the world should follow; That the British system is so good, nobody ever felt the need to write it down and call it a constitution; That our elected officials treasure the system as much as I do and would never act counter to the spirit of freedom and democracy.

Yet now we have an elected government that appears to be determined to undermine the very fabric of our democracy and are making it appear incredibly fragile.

At this point I could go off on a long and detailed list of the indiscretions of the UK Government. Give examples of how little value they place in truth, honesty and integrity. Go off on a long and impassioned rant over the ignoring of the Nolan Principles of Public Life. Wind myself up over cronyism, favours for their mates, perceptions of corruption and gerrymandering.

I am not sure that I have the stomach for that right now. Instead I will just post my letter to my MP. I will revisit this when I have a reply.

-Letter follows-

Dear Mr Pursglove,

Many thanks for your letter dated 18th September where you responded at length about the Internal Markets Bill. I fear some confusion must have been generated by the way I presented my query as this was only part of my concern that I raised as a supporting point & a symptom to highlight why I was uncomfortable with the direction of travel of the current government.

I will therefore attempt to ensure clarity as I repeat my query.

Do you commit to the continuing democracy of the United Kingdom and ensuring that the supporting institutions and democratic principles are robust and adequately funded to ensure that adequate scrutiny is applied to Government actions? Do you also commit to ensuring the government is subject to full scrutiny to ensure that it follows the rule of law?

As you hold a Politics degree, I am sure you will be disturbed that one of your constituents would ever feel the need to ask their MP to commit to British democracy. As you are a passionate campaigner to regain sovereignty from the EU, I am sure that you would be aghast if having regained our sovereignty, it became tainted by corruption, unelected advisors, contempt for the rule of law and an erosion of our British freedoms.

To assist, below is a summary of why I feel current government actions threaten the future of our precious and fragile democracy and some supplemental questions.

• 1       The Civil Service is supposed to be provide independent & impartial advice and support in the implementation of government policy. Since this government has come to power, they have systematically replaced senior Civil Servants with their own, seemingly political appointments. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?
• 2.       The government has signalled it is intent to limit access to Judicial Review of government. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?
• 3.       The judicial system has been subject to a series of cuts and budget constraints over the last decade that has resulted in ever growing backlog of cases. This backlog has only been made worse by the current Covid crisis. Do you commit to ensuring that the funding of our legal system to address the backlog and ensure that our justice system is functioning effectively?
• 4.       The Russian Report was published by the ISC on 21/07/2020. This showed some unsettling interventions in the UK political system. Do you commit to pushing the government to holding an independent enquiry into the impacts of the foreign interventions into the UK democratic process and putting forward recommendations to prevent this in future?
• 5.       Government ministers appear to be avoiding scrutiny and taking actions that appear to be corrupting the democratic process. An example being the allocation of the Town Fund which appears to have been done in a way that ignores the advice of officials and benefits Conservative targeted marginal seats. Do you commit to ensuring that the decision is reviewed and that funds are allocated according to need rather than political gain?
• 6.       The government appears to be denuding the BBC and the free press in the country of funding while placing political friends in positions of authority that can influence the impartiality and freedom of the press. Do you commit to ensuring that the BBC is adequately funded and maintains full editorial independence?
• 7.       Michael Gove has signalled a willingness to amend the UK Human Rights Act ‘to make it easier’ for the government to enact ministers’ executive orders. Do you commit to protecting the UK Human Rights Act, that you will ensure that no changes will be made to the act without full and proper consultation and that when any actions come to be voted upon, they will be a matter of the MP conscience rather than a three-line whip?

At this point, I wish to briefly return to your letter on the Internal Market Bill. It appears to be a standard letter that a number of MP have sent to constituents and I am sure you have already been made aware of the inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions made within it – not least the selective and totally incorrect citing of the Miller Case.

I should remind you of why your government finds itself having to breach international law and are struggling to find convincing arguments to justify this shameful action. You supported the Withdrawal Agreement. You voted to reduce the time to scrutinise the agreement, even though at the time concerns were raised over the impacts on the NI peace accord. You then fought and won an election based on the flawed Withdrawal Agreement. That may not have been an issue, but you then voted on an Agriculture Bill that removed food & animal welfare standard provisions sparking the fear that food produced to the woeful US standards would find its way into the EU via Northern Ireland.

The mess of the Internal Markets Bill is of your own making and by showing such disregard to International Law, has destroyed any moral authority the UK may have had when dealing with China on Hong Kong.

 

I look forward to your response on the many questions raised in this letter.

UPDATE: It is now three weeks since I sent the letter. As yet, no response. A follow up is needed.

Primeval Swamp of politics again

If Twitter was the primeval rain forest and I were the time traveler doing the tourist thing to gawp at dinosaurs, my footprint would pose no threat to the delicate butterfly. I know that I cannot exert influence on the great and good on Twitter any more than I can travel in time.

Yet occasionally I find myself on the periphery of a debate that I feel is so important, the 140 character limit cannot hope to convey my thoughts, let alone change minds. So it has proved with the horrible violence and rioting we see in the US at the moment. The synaptic tangents it set off highlighted uncomfortable parallels in what we are seeing here in the UK when it comes to democracy, Covid response and Brexit.

What set this off was my rather innocent suggestion that if Americans insist on calling these ‘race riots’ akin to those in 1968, then they are actually reducing the chances of bringing about real, meaningful change.

Leaping back 300 years or so ago, a little spat took place in one of the British colonies. Wealthy landowners took offense at being asked to pay their taxes and so rose up in violent insurrection. They took on the mighty British and won. Having won, they were then faced with the rather tricky task of defining how they wanted to be governed.

It was a turbulent time and I will take a simplistic view of the philosophy behind the discussion. Somewhere in this meandering morass of a blog there is a discussion about the competing theories of Thomas Hobbes and john Locke.

When Thomas Jefferson came to draw up the US Constitution, just having fought the British he didn't buy into the ideaof the Hobbes assertion that human beings are incapable of ruling themselves so need to be kept in their place by a dictator. So, the US Constitution was written from the Locke viewpoint that government authority is gained through the consent of the people.

Just in case, dear reader, you have any doubt, I must state for the record I abhor racism. It is a cancer of society that if it cannot be stamped out, must never be condoned or encouraged. I hate the use of any stereotyping that is used to suggest that another human being either through their choices or accident of birth can be considered as being inferior to another, they are just different. Diversity brings new and potentially interesting views into our lives; embellishes our culture; broadens our outlook and ultimately makes us stronger and better.

Now back to the matter in hand. The US Constitution was therefore drawn up based on the Locke principles of government by consent.

While the riots in the US ignited by the spark of Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, killing an unarmed black man, George Floyd. The anger that erupted seemed to stem from accusations of racism.

Yet, the root cause is not racism, that was just the flint that provided the spark. The problem in my eyes at least is that it was another example of what happens when you cease to police by consent. The founder of the British Police, Sir Robert Peel wanted to ensure policing by consent and set out principles of transparency, integrity and accountability to achieve legitimacy in the police.  

However, it isn’t just policing by consent that is the issue here, we appear to have lost focus on the need to govern by consent as well. Despite the Locke principles that are enshrined in the constitution, the need for government by consent appears forgotten. Instead we have a leader who appears to be operating straight out of a handbook written by Hobbes.

This is why we need to be careful about describing this as a race riot. It has a lot more to do with how the current art of politics is about encouraging tribalism. Elections in the US and the UK are being won and lost on it.

This is why describing the cause as racism is not only wrong but ultimately counterproductive. Racism only plays on the tribal images of us and them. It is how lazy (and ultimately dangerous) politicians get elected by using this tribalism and the language of populism. They make it all sound so easy and are quite happy to espouse policies that marginalize minorities if it gets them the majority the crave. 

Social liberals (of which I hope I am one), have been getting it all wrong for this very reason. We are outraged by racism and howl at the moon. What we should be calling out is the eroding of government by consent and the way that those in charge are playing the system to their own advantage.

I would love to say that this is a US problem. It is not. The UK has suffered from it as well. At the last election we had the Tory tribal call of get Brexit Done while Labour were evoking a class war. The Liberal Democrats, who should have been highlighting how they were the guardians of government by consent were politely trying to fight a battle that was already lost and remained puzzlingly silent on the need for consent.   

Now if you ever wonder just how dangerous this new Hobbes politics is, consider Covid. Lockdowns have been the cornerstone of attempts to battle the virus until there is a vaccine. Maintaining lockdown of a country is hard and relies on behavioral science to bring all of the population – not just some of the tribal elements together so that everyone obeys the rules. The US, UK, Brazil and Russia have not been able to hold the lockdown together for various reasons and it is no surprise that in terms of deaths they are among the world leaders.

What is worse, it is election year in the US. If everyone allows this tribalism to continue and not highlight the need of government by consent, we risk further erosion of any government and policing by consent.

UK Citizens Bonus

I believe that once the COVID19 lockdown is over, UK society will need to embrace a new social reality. The ‘old’ social contract between government and the people has been rather turned on its head by the necessary responses to the pandemic and there is recognition that the economic impact will require huge government intervention.

During the crisis, key workers have been the ones that have kept society functioning. Those key workers are often people who view their work as a calling such as doctors and nurses, where salary is not the key driver for their career choice and money isn’t a method of scoring success.

Other key workers, such as supermarket staff, drivers and binmen, have traditionally low-paid and often insecure jobs out of necessity and lack of choice.

An article in the Independent today suggests that up to a third of the key workers earn less than £10 per hour.

When all of this passes and we emerge from our cocoons into the new normal, I hope that we will recognize the moral injustice of this and do something about it. Indeed, should no action be taken, there will be palpable anger amongst the populous.

One answer would be finding a way to better reward the low paid and disadvantaged. I have long thought that as a country we have the wealth and ability to provide every adult of working age with an income over and above what they earn.

The government are now uniquely placed to take action on this. They are taking steps to try and mitigate against the economic maelstrom that will follow as the impact of locking down the country feeds through into the economy. They are seeking to provide mechanisms that will mitigate against unemployment, collapse of businesses and turmoil in the financial markets. They have pledged £30bn so far in funds, but have also offered loan guarantees to business banking lenders and recognized that they will need to offer bailouts to some business sectors.

So, how can we also afford to support the economy and correct the moral injustice of the low pay of our key workers?

The answer is to set up a UK Sovereign Wealth Fund. Income generated from this fund would be divided up equally between every working age British Citizen. To be clear, this Citizen Bonus would not be taken into account when calculating minimum wage rates, welfare entitlements, student loan repayments or pension payments.

Say the Citizen Bonus is £1,000 per head tax free. To some that may not seem a lot, but to a low paid worker on £8.75 an hour that could be the equivalent of 3 weeks wages. It could be the difference between making the rent or feeding the children.

The bad news that this would probably cost the UK about £30bn a year and therefore require a Sovereign Wealth fund in excess of £600bn.

The good news is that with a bit of nimble footwork, political will and deft project management, the government can start to seed the fund and in these unpredictable times are uniquely placed to kick start the wealth fund.

This is how:

•           Any government bailout to companies would require a company to lodge equity into the UK Sovereign Wealth Fund. This would be accompanied by warrants that would allow the wealth fund to purchase equity at a future date at a set rate, a method employed by Warren Buffett when bailing out Goldman Sachs.
•           The government have set up the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CLBILS) that allows companies to borrow money from banks while the government guarantees the loan against bad debt. Effectively, the government is offering free insurance against bad debt. By insisting on an ‘insurance payment’ on each loan, this money can be used to seed the wealth fund.
• The current Bank of England (BoE) Quantitive Easing(QE) scheme can be amended to allow the BoE to use the money generated by QE to be sent direct to the wealth fund and be used to invest in equities, property etc. This would also boost the value of pensions and investments and help protect the insurance industry.
• Any direct business grants from central or local government would require the company receiving the grant to place a proportion of the value in equity into the wealth fund. This would include Research & Development grants.
• A change in Land Laws to make it mandatory that any income generated by UK land or property be paid to a UK tax domicile or UK incorporated company. A proportion of the extra tax revenue would be paid to the wealth fund.
• The law on trusts would be reviewed, especially family trusts, to ensure that when these trusts pass to a new generation of family, a small proportion of the investment will be passed to the wealth fund.
• The National Trust would be asked to pay a small levy based on profit to the wealth fund.

Now, I am not saying this will be easy. I am not saying it will be quick. It lays a foundation. It is sustainable. It means that everyone shares in British economic success and growth. It certainly seems to be a way to ensure that we recognize our key workers and to help lift people out of poverty.

Wouldn't it be nice if...

I have overdone the dried frog pills.

It is not my fault, I rather lost track of the doseage while watching on-line Taskmaster videos.

As a result, I started to have fantasy COVID19 leaders press briefing hallucinations. This, dear reader, isn't as horrific as you might fear. In fact, it is a synaptic tangent that you may wish to travel at some point.

Imagine the scene. Boris enters the 10 Downing street briefing room dressed in a "Who's the Daddy" t-shirt, Eric Morcambe shorts, long pink socks and sandals.

Boris waits while the various attendees on the videoconference sip water and recover from their swooning until he announces that he is going to do something different with the briefing.

Boris is going to leverage the collective wisdom of those attending to review the last four weeks and see if there are things that can be done to grease the wheels in way that will get this horrific journey over with a little bit quicker! Not only that, he is going to do it in the form of an Agile Retrospective!

At this point Matt Hancock enters the room dressed in a French maid outfit. OK, I need to pause writing and have more coffee to expunge that image for a minute. Please feel free to ignore or dress him in your outfit of choice.

Our esteemed Health Secretary then picks up some post-it notes and a dry marker before announcing that he is the scribe for the event.

Boris then throws open the floor to answer four critical questions:

• What worked well for us?
• What did not work well for us?
• What actions can we take to improve our process going forward?

OK, that first question comes as a curved ball to the assembled denizens of the press. After all, giving anybody positive feedback comes hard to hardened hack. That said, there are some things that we should probably say have worked. Social distancing has been followed; food supply chains maintained; ventilators designed, built and supplied; economic contingency plans implemented; critical workers are hanging in there despite the challenges; the British public are volunteering to assist in whatever way they can.

In fact, if I didn't have point to get to at some point before lockdown ends, I could probably produce quite a list of the things that have gone well up to this point.

What has not worked well? Now this is where the British Press come into there own. I can imagine that the list here would be quite large and headed by Testing, Testing and TESTING. Also quite high up there will be procurement of PPE. There would be others, but I have to admit that I would probably zone out and go and make a cup of tea and a sandwich while the press corps blow themselves out.

This is when my dried frog pill hallucinations really kick in. Just as they start on the last section about actions to take to improve, it becomes totally surreal.

The screen in the briefing room fills with my image, complete with a cornflake and tomato sauce sandwich in hand. Boris smiles. Matt Hancock curtseys. Boris asks me, what actions would I like to see to improve process.

Pausing only to wipe tomato sauce from my beard, I grab my chance.

- If there are issues with procurement of garnering specific skills or materials, why isn't there a central website which outlines what you need and giving people a contact point if they are able to plug a particular gap?

- There is quite a cottage industry started up making visors and PPE equipment if my social media feed is to be believed. How do people get the fruits of their labours to the people who need it?

- If there is an issue with washing and steralising re-usable PPE, why are we not opening up the industrial laundries normally used by hotels to provide the NHS with extra capacity?

- When the government is providing loan guarantees and bailout money to bigger companies, why is it not insisting on warrants and share equity that can be used to start a sovereign wealth fund that could, in future, be used to provide a #UKbasicincome?

- Could the common cold unit be used as a template to test volunteers who have had COVID19 to validate if recovery from the virus provides the immunity we all crave? 

I would imagine at around this point, the sight of me with aforementioned sandwich may prove too much for poor Boris and I would be cut off mid flow.

Still, I had my fantasy 5 minutes of glory in my fantasy press briefing. I, rather like Donald Trump, think that it all went very, very well and that the ratings will go through the roof.

The trouble is that the effects of the dried frog pills will wear off where as this lockdown is set to continue.

Getting the hang of it again

Right then, let's see if I remember.

I take my right forefinger and dip it in that special green gloop distilled from various exotic herbs and leaves gathered by Mattress Madge....

... Ooo that rather tingles, I wonder what would happen if I ....

No! Concentrate Simon.

Right, take the forefinger and let it wander over this keyboard thingy. That's it, this feels like what I used to do.

Look! words are appearing on the screen. They seem to be appearing in some sort of order. It's as if I am speaking to the world and I can sit here and pretend they listen, nod sagely and then go out and do stuff that will lead to the overthrow of an oppressive regime.

My word. That is rather impressive.

I set out just to show a few people that I am still alive and it leads to an evil dictator fleeing his oppressed people's wrath to start peanut farming in a sub-Saharan African state.

OK, if the Nobel Peace Prize people are out there, if you drop me an email, I will tell you where to send the cheque.

I am not dead.

I should point out to everyone that I am not dead. OK, so some parts of me don’t function as quickly as they did when I was younger, but all my bits are still in place and in working order (See Note 1).


However, I do realise that I haven’t posted much for a while. Poor Inspector Jones is still being perplexed by the odd and Archie McRamie is still missing. In fact, there has been very little movement or signs of activity anywhere on these pages.

The reason is that I have a new job in London. For you Merkins, London is the big city where the Queen lives. However, nobody there speaks like Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins – unless they are an American who is trying to blend in with the crowd. (See Note 2).

So while, I’m at this, I should cover off a few other bases for our Merkin cousins. In my time in London, I haven’t seen a pearly king or pearly queen. There are not handcarts selling roasted chestnuts on every corner. Even though I work in the very heart of the city, I am not required by statute to wear a bowler hat (See Note 3). Chimney sweeps are noticeable by their absence and there hasn’t been a foggy day in old London town that I have noticed.

It is all a bit like believing what you see on Fox News or read in one of Murdoch’s Evil Empire newspapers. Part of you really wants to believe the myth you are presented with, but the reality is far more mundane, ordinary and less likely to put money in News International’s back pocket.

Anyway, I am continuing along my own sweet way. I will be posting the next part of “A Couple of Tenors Short” when I have finished doing some major edit work on the manuscript.

So until then, have fun everyone and.....




Note 1: All that is except for my appendix which is long gone. According to Wikipedia, this isn’t a great loss. Never being a member of the eats, shoots and leaves brigade, I have never really missed the thing.


Note 2: Speaking like Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins while in London doesn’t help you blend in. In fact, if you dress up in a lime green, spandex body suit, wear fairy lights and talk to fellow passengers on the tube you will blend in better.

Note 3: I would caution anybody visiting London to avoid people wearing bowler hats. The only people I have seen wearing the things are invariably trying to part tourists from their Sterling.

If You Ever Plan To Motor West

Here is Part 66 of “A Couple of Tenors Short”. 

I have mentioned this before, but from here on in reading the recap then jumping into the middle of the story will rather ruin it. The recap will now start to include some major spoilers on the plot which, up until now have just been hints and clues.

Also, I have to apologise in advance that the updates to the story will be limited to weekends for a while. I have just started a new job in London which looks like being long hours with the added inconvenience of the commute, so it is unlikely that I will be able to give you any updates during the week.

In my search for the oddest of news, I read that article and found myself frustrated. You would have thought that the journalist could have told us if the gambler behaved like this because he was winning!  

Another easy quiz question, so it is more about guessing the artist rather than the song as some may be surprised to find the answer is not what they expected.

OK, the quiz question out of the way, here is my mantra. This is a serial. Any new-joiners should start with the opener known as Part One.   

The troublesome recap has now settled into its new home. You can find the recap here!

Now read on...

The wine waiter poured the wine into Jones’s glass. As he did so, Jones leant forward, his eyes transfixed. When the glass was a third full, the waiter filled the professor’s glass as Jones’s hand hovered near his own glass.

With both glasses charged, Jones carefully picked up his glass by the stem and swirled the hay coloured liquid before sniffing it extravagantly and letting out a long sigh. He brought the glass to his lips and tasted the wine noisily, moving it around his mouth his eyes closed before he swallowed and he let out a low moan.

“You approve?” The professor watched Jones intently.

“It is everything I expected it to be and more.” Jones grinned. “I’m afraid that a policeman’s wage doesn’t compare to a University Professor’s.”

“For the moment...” Professor Ibsen gave a weak laugh. “I am most fortunate to be blessed with a large expense account which isn’t subject to much scrutiny.”

“Back to the matter in hand!” Jones replaced his glass on the table reluctantly. “When did you last see Sergei Plutov?”

“About three, four months ago. A few days before the fire.”

“Fire?” Jones’s eyebrows shot up.

“Yes, there was a fire in Sergei’s lab, but I am getting ahead of myself.” The professor waved his hand gently.

Sergei had gone to work for Cauldron’s electronics firm at their main R&D centre in West London. He had been attached to the development of new neural interfaces for computer games consoles. For over a year everything seemed to be going really well. His research was well resourced and he felt he was making good progress. Indeed, Sergei had let slip that he had felt he was on the verge of a huge breakthrough.

The story was interrupted by the arrival of the main courses. The professor paused in his tale as the pair tasted their meals and discussed them before continuing.

The next time that Sergei had visited the professor, he was upset. He and all his equipment had been moved out of the main R&D building to a small anonymous unit South of the river. Sergei had met with Sir Terence Cauldron who didn’t seem to understand the results and progress. As a result, Sergei was convinced that his entire project was going to be cancelled just as he was achieving promising results.

A few days after that, there was a fire at his new lab. All his equipment computers and papers had been totally destroyed. At the time there were whispers that it was an insurance job, a way for Sir Terence to recoup some of the money spent on Sergei’s research, but nothing was ever proven.

The professor had tried to contact Sergei, but without success. Someone told him that Sergei had returned to Russia, but the professor knew that wasn’t true because he had seen Sergei’s name amongst competitors in various triathlons in the UK.

“I was devastated, Inspector. Truly devastated.” The professor shook his head slowly. “I tried again and again to contact him to tell him that his position at UCL was always open to his return, but he never answered my calls, emails or letters. In the end, I just gave up.”

“There was no contact at all?” Jones pressed.

“Absolutely none.” The professor shook his head again and took a large draught from his wine. “In hindsight, I should have tried harder. Maybe, if I had, poor Sergei would be alive today.”

“You can’t blame yourself.” Jones stated as he put down his knife and fork, moved his hands to his lap and clenched his fists under the table.

“I know.” The professor nodded and took a mouthful of his risotto. “It is kind of you to say that, but it doesn’t really make me feel any better.”

“It was his choice, but, no matter what, you always feel you could have done something more.” Jones nodded with total empathy.

 

Well Sweet Little Sista's High In Hell

Here is Part 65 of “A Couple of Tenors Short”.  We are now at a point where two things happen.

Firstly, I need to point out that from here on in, reading the recap then jumping into the middle of the story will rather ruin it. The recap will now start to include some major spoilers on the plot which, up until now have just been hints and clues.

Secondly, I need to get some feedback on the next four parts. There are some explanations of sorts about what might be happening – or they could be major red herrings. I need to know if these parts sound plausible and that I haven’t opened up a major plot hole. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t give much away in my responses to your feedback – there are a few twists and turns in the plot to come!

In my search for the oddest of news, I read that article and found myself frustrated. You would have thought that the journalist could have told us if the gambler behaved like this because he was winning!  

After what was the easiest of quiz questions, today’s question must rank up amongst the hardest. You will probably need the answer.

OK, the quiz question out of the way, here is my mantra. This is a serial. Any new-joiners should start with the opener known as Part One.   

The troublesome recap has now settled into its new home. You can find the recap here!

Now read on...

“He’s an odious man.” Professor Ibsen muttered as he speared a scallop with his fork. “I’d rather take a chair in an American backwater than live in a country with Terence Cauldron as Prime Minister.”

The scallop was lifted half-way to the professor’s mouth, where it paused.

“I didn’t mean for that to be said out loud. Sorry” The scallop found its way to the professor’s mouth where it was savoured. “That man is the reason we lost the unfortunate Sergei.”

“You think that Sir Terence was involved in his death?” Jones spluttered.

“Good Lord No! He has other methods to achieve his ends. I meant that we lost Sergei to academia.” The professor paused as he took another mouthful of his starter. “Now, the witch he has as head of research, I wouldn’t put anything past her, but Sir Terence is far more... subtle.”

“Who is his head of research?” Jones smiled and raised a friendly eyebrow.

Professor Ibsen didn’t answer.  His brow furrowed and he carefully replaced his cutlery onto his plate before gently massaging his temples with both forefingers. “I’m normally so good with names, yet hers alludes me. I cannot even bring a picture of her to my mind.”

“That’s OK. I’m sure it will come to you.” Jones said quietly. “Just tell me what happened.”

It hadn’t taken long for Professor Ibsen and Sergei to develop an excellent working relationship. The research was going well and Sergei was tutoring a number of undergraduates. After about 6 months, Sergei had come to see the professor to talk to him about a theory he was developing.

“It was farfetched and fanciful.” Professor Ibsen took a pause to allow himself to fully appreciate his last scallop.

“Totally wrong you mean.” Jones took a piece of the crusty bread and buttered it.

“It was a theory. The problem was that he had based it on scant observations and other theoretical work. He hadn’t considered how he could scientifically test it. The best science often starts with a seemingly farfetched theory. When they are tested and validated by scientific method, everyone tends to say ‘that is so obvious, why didn’t I think of that? ” 

The professor had discussed the theory with Sergei who was very keen to seek funding to pursue the idea further.  The professor had been against the idea, feeling that it was better that Sergei complete his PhD first. They had discussed it long into the night and Professor Ibsen had felt he had dissuaded Sergei.

Jones then questioned the professor on whether the discussion was in fact an argument, but Ibsen was adamant that it had been friendly and constructive.

The discussion between Jones and Ibsen was interrupted by a waiter in a pale yellow kimono clearing the plates. Professor Ibsen ordered ‘his special’ bottle of wine without checking with Jones before continuing with the story.

Somehow, Cauldron and his head of research got involved. About three months later, Sergei announced that he was going to take a sabbatical from his PhD and go and work for Cauldron’s electronics company to develop his theory and see if it had practical applications. The professor had tried desperately to dissuade him, but Sergei was adamant and had left UCL.

“So you did argue.” Jones stated flatly.

“Not at all.” Professor Ibsen replied calmly. “In fact, we stayed in touch. He would often come to speak to me about his research and we would discuss it - often over a long dinner in this very restaurant.”

The wine waiter, resplendent in a shimmering pale green kimono arrived with the wine. Ibsen tasted it and declared it excellent.

“Ah!” Ibsen placed his forefinger to his lips. “I forgot, you are on duty. I suppose you will not be taking wine.”

Jones inspected the label on the bottle of Pierre Luneau-Papin Muscadet Brut de Cuve Number 3. His hand quivered for a moment, but stayed on his lap.

“Well, professor.” Jones smiled broadly than ran the tip of his tongue across his lips. “On this occasion, I am prepared to make an exception to the rule.”

 

When I Get Older, Losing My Hair.

Here is Part 64 of “A Couple of Tenors Short”.  

I’m not really into the news today; I have other things on my mind. Instead I give you the oddest video. It is one of those videos that really needs the sound on and to be watched through to the end.

 Never being one to ignore the obvious, this is probably the easiest ever of my quiz questions. Despite that, I will still give you the answer.

OK, the quiz question out of the way, here is my mantra. This is a serial. Any new-joiners should start with the opener known as Part One.   

The troublesome recap has now settled into its new home. You can find the recap here!

Now read on...

The restaurant was well lit and modern. The decor was all light woods and chrome with contemporary sculpture and lighting. The tables all laid with crisp white linen, silver cutlery and shining glassware. When Jones announced himself at reception, he was informed that Professor Ibsen had not yet arrived and he was shown up a spiral staircase to a small bar. Jones ordered tonic water, paid for it, filed the receipt in his wallet and went and sat down on a cream sofa next to the chrome railings of the balcony.

The dining area was busy. Most of the tables were occupied by city types, resplendent in designer waistcoats and cravats. A string quartet played sea shanties from a small stage in the far corner. Occasionally, diners would break from their meal and join in. At the end of each song, polite applause rippled around the room.

A polite cough caused Jones to turn around. A small man dressed in a crumpled white linen suit over a lurid purple and green Hawaiian shirt stood expectantly, clutching a red duffle bag tight to his chest.

“Professor Ibsen?” Jones asked politely as he stood and offered his hand.

“Yes, and you must be Inspector Jones” Professor Ibsen shook the hand warmly. “I’m so sorry to keep you waiting. Our table is ready.”

The professor led the way downstairs where they were met by a pretty young girl wearing a peasant dress and a white apron. She handed them a menu each and led them to a table where they were met by a waiter wearing a pale blue kimono. The waiter pulled out a chair for Jones who sat and watched the process repeated for the professor.

“Would you mind if we order before we have our chat?” The professor asked in his chocolaty baritone. “I hate to be a bore, but I’m afraid I am on a tight schedule.”

“Not at all, professor.” Jones picked up the menu and studied it closely.

“Thank you.” The professor paused. “Over the page there is a section for the less sophisticated palate.”

Jones flicked the page, saw that it consisted of various pies and battered fish and flicked it back quickly before continuing to study the main menu.

The waiter in the pale blue kimono returned and they ordered. The professor chose scallops and king prawn risotto, Jones a Thai fish soup with lemongrass and lime with sea bass to follow.

“You surprise me, Inspector.” The professor gave a broad smile. “You do realise that the Thai soup will contain a lot of spices and exotic herbs?”

“Hardly, exotic. A few onions, garlic, ginger, lemongrass, chilli, wine and fish stock mainly.” Jones did his best to return the smile. “Why does my choice surprise you?”

“I have been guilty of applying my stereotype of a policeman upon you.” The professor smiled again. “I hadn’t expected that a policeman would be aware of and educated in matters of the epicurean and the elite. All the policemen I have met have been part of the cakes and circuses brigade.”

“I guess I am an enigma. A privileged man who has never cared for Huxley.” Jones raised an eyebrow as under the table his fist clenched and unclenched.

“Touché, Inspector.” Professor Ibsen gave another smile as he leaned back in his chair. “However much I would enjoy arguing over merit of utopian visions...”

“Or dystopian.” Jones interrupted.

“Err, quite.” The professor scratched his chin and observed Jones. “I fear we need to focus on the purpose for our meeting, the unfortunate Sergei Plutov. What happened to the poor man?”

The explanation Jones gave was bald and non-committal. Professor Ibsen nodded the entire time it was being delivered.

“Given that you came to talk to me in person, can I take it you believe he was murdered?” The professor leaned forward and observed Jones closely.

“It is too early to take a view on that.” Jones stroked his moustache and straightened his cutlery. “At the moment, I am working on a theory that the death is connected to another case I am working on.”

“Hmmm...” The professor gave a low baritone rumble. “It is real shame. Sergei had such talent. As well as a physicist he was an international class tri-athlete. If he had been able to set his priorities correctly, he could have really been a name in astro-physics.”

As they waited for their starters, Jones carefully coaxed information about Sergei from Professor Ibsen. Sergei had been born and brought up in Moscow, by his well off parents. His father, who died in a skiing accident, was a prominent bio-chemist. His mother, a philosophy professor had recently retired. Sergei had a sister who had visited on a couple of occasions. The professor thought that she worked for an American bank in the Far East.

Sergei had attended the finest schools and had an exceptional record, attaining a top class degree from one of Russia’s finest University. When he applied to do a PhD at UCL he had been snapped up and granted a generous bursary. He didn’t socialise much outside of the athletics and swimming clubs, but his work was always of the highest calibre.

The starters arrived. Both men examined them closely. Jones wafted a hand over his dish to speed the scent of his soup to his nostrils.

As Jones reached for his spoon, he became aware that a man in a bright pink silk waistcoat had approached the table. The stranger was tall and of average build. His mop of sandy coloured hair flopped over one blue eye.

“Professor Ibsen!” The stranger extended a manicured hand bedecked in heavy gold jewellery towards the Professor. “I’m so glad I have run into you. We need to have a chat. ”

The professor stood and shook the hand warmly. “How nice to see you, again! May I introduce you to my dining companion? This is Inspector Jones. He is a policeman.”

The stranger’s smile evaporated. He glared at Jones, then flicked his head to temporarily remove the hair covering one eye.

“Inspector,” the professor turned to Jones who removed his napkin and stood. “May I introduce you to Sir Terence Cauldron.”

“Delighted to meet you, sir.” Jones smiled and offered his hand which Sir Terence reluctantly shook.

“I can see you are busy, professor.” Sir Terence quickly withdrew his hand. “I shall have one of my people phone you for an appointment.”

With that, Sir Terence turned on his heel and headed for the exit. As he left, Jones thought he caught an expletive escaping under Sir Terence’s breath.