Where do you want to live? UK or Somalia?

The right wing narrative in the UK at the moment seems to be:
Little government intervention = good
Taxes = evil
No taxes = good
I've been musing on these points recently and came across a posting in a blog I follow from George Clifford,an Episcopalian minister in the USA. If you are interested in issues of ethics and morality, I commend his blog to you. George's posting struck a chord and I've taken the liberty of developing his theme from a UK perspective.

George starts by relating a story:
Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform (an anti-tax lobby), asked a millionaire visiting the U.S. Capitol, “Who can best spend your money, the government or you?” The millionaire was part of a group of high-earners visiting members of Congress to lobby for higher taxes on high earners. The quick thinking millionaire remarked that if Norquist wanted to avoid paying taxes, he should exchange his citizenship for Somalia citizenship and move there since Somalia has no income tax.
George then asks the question:
Where do you want to live, Somalia or the United States?
Let's cross the Atlantic and rephrase the question:
Where do you want to live, Somalia or the UK?

For me, there is absolutely no choice. I want to live right here in the UK (even with Cameron and Clegg in charge). I enjoy the benefits of living in a society in which the rule of law prevails, rights and freedoms are respected and most social services are provided (at least for the present but beware the future!). I am of sound mind but I am both happy and grateful to pay my taxes. Most of what the government provides, I could not provide on my own. And it's an ideological nonsense to believe that the private sector can always provide the same things cheaper and better. It can't and it doesn't. Running social services as profit centres and regarding those who use the services as costs to be minimised does not work. Witness the appalling report today on standards of care of the elderly. Witness the way the railway system has performed since it was privatised.

Does the government need to take better control of its finances? Of course it does. But it should not do this at the expense of those who have no alternative other than to pay. If only they used as much energy and noise pursuing tax evaders and closing tax loopholes as they do in tackling benefit fraud.

Your starter for 10

It's quiz time! Tonight a group of us are putting our brains together and entering a team in a quiz being organised by the PTA of our local Primary School. Tempted as much by the food on offer (Malaysian curries) as the desire to show how smart we are, it should be a good night.

It was while thinking about this quiz that I read a report of something that Nick Clegg said recently. Something about the fact that the Lib Dems are the “only true alternative” to the Conservatives. Alternative, Nick? Really, Nick?

So I thought I'd devise a little quiz for all my readers. First, read through the following and then answer the question:

Cuts to local government funds, abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, Health and Social Care bill for England, selling off the public forests in England, reactionary changes to social housing tenancies and rents, abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance in England, raising of university tuition fees, axing the planned extension to free school meals, cuts to housing benefits, ending the Building Schools for the Future program for England, increasing VAT, abolition of the Future Jobs Fund, privatisation of the NHS..................

Right, now say whether you think these national measures are:
(a) The works of Satan or the archangel Gabriel.
(b) The works of only the Conservatives, done while the Libdems were out of the room making the coffee and sandwiches.
(c) The works of the Tory Libdem coalition.

Alternative, Nick? Really, Nick? I wonder if we'll be asked tonight who you remind us of?

Bluebird: a poem by Charles Bukowski

I'm a fairly regular listener of the Radio 4 programme, Poetry Please and, every now and again, a little gem hits me. Last week, it was a reading of one entitled 'Bluebird' by an American poet, Charles Bukowski. You can listen to the reading by the poet himself on this short YouTube clip I think his voice is wonderfully expressive. Whilst looking for the clip, I came across an animation based on the poem and you can find that here
They are both well worth a couple of minutes of time viewing. OK, I admit that the theme is not particularly cheerful and I'm sure that the fact that the poem resonates with me is open to all sorts of interpretations. I won't indulge in any self analysis but I will say: let's all let our inner bluebirds free.
Here are the words but you really ought to hear the poet read them before forming an opinion on the poem.
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say, stay in there, I'm not going
to let anybody see
you.
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I pour whiskey on him and inhale
cigarette smoke
and the whores and the bartenders
and the grocery clerks
never know that
he's
in there.
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say,
stay down, do you want to mess
me up?
you want to screw up the
works?
you want to blow my book sales in
Europe?
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too clever, I only let him out
at night sometimes
when everybody's asleep.
I say, I know that you're there,
so don't be
sad.

Then I put him back,
but he's singing a little
in there, I haven't quite let him
die
and we sleep together like
that
with our
secret pact
and it's nice enough to
make a man
weep, but I don't
weep, do
you?

Out of the mouth of babes.......

When asked what he thought of his grandfather's blogs, Josh came straight to the point and let his feelings be known.

From the cartoonist's pen

Sometimes cartoonists can capture the essence of an argument in a minimalist way. Here are three cartoons that caught my eye today.
The first encapsulates the general quality of the debate of the issues in the UK. For heavens sake, when the views of Melanie Phillips and Nigel Lawson on global warming are taken seriously by many, what hope is there for the rest of us who want to know the truth?

The second seems to be the prevailing attitude of most people in this country. A simplification? An overstatement? I don't believe so. If you disagree, show me where I'm wrong.

The third follows from the second and shows the rather touching faith that the general public seems to have in the ability of scientists and technology to sort the problem out. It just ain't going to happen, folks, unless WE do something about it directly.

Authoritative reports on Global Warming: Part 1

A good friend from North Carolina (thank you, Carl) sent me a link to an important and authoritative report entitled 'Global climate change impacts in the United States'. The examples it gives, as the title implies, are USA-related but, given the very nature of global warming, there is much in the report of direct relevance to us in the UK. I've abstracted the main points of the summary to the report and given these below. I think two of them sum up the situation very succinctly.
Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced and Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.
The report (linked through the graphic) does not make for cheerful reading but its conclusions can neither be ignored or minimised. Coincidentally another report on the same issue came out this week and I shall refer to that, and make some general observations, in my next posting.

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow.

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase. Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change.

4. Climate change will stress water resources. Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods and water quality problems are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water storage.

5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged. Many crops show positive responses to elevated responses to carbon dioxide. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production.

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge. Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected.

7. Risks to human health will increase. Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts.

8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses. Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone.

9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems. There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. These thresholds determine, for example, the presence of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected.

10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today. The amount and rate of future climate change depend primarily on current and future human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the changes that are unavoidable.

How to save £3,100,000,000

I have been a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) for more years than I care to remember (I've got happy memories of various 'Ban the Bomb' activities at Aberystwyth University in the '60s!). To me it is a matter of principle as I believe strongly that we should be working to rid the globe of all nuclear weapons, so that we can make the World a safer and more secure place.
I find it indefensible that while our beloved (but not by me!) coalition government is forcing through swingeing cuts to vital public services, it is continuing to spend billions of pounds on nuclear weapons. How can any government justify spending £3.1 billion of taxpayers’ money on the Trident nuclear missile system each year? That's £3,100,000,000; yes, £3,100,000,000. Just think what that amount could do if it was spent on social housing, job creation, education, health, policing, community groups, etc! Or, perish the thought, used to reduce the oft-mentioned debt mountain.
The Government has also authorised the expenditure of billions of pounds on its scheme to replace the Trident nuclear submarines / weapons system, even though the decision on whether to press ahead with the replacement will not even be taken until 2016. The original estimate for the new submarines was a massive £11-14 billion, but recently the government has published a progress report which shows that the actual costs are likely to be in the region of £25-26 billion. It has also been acknowledged that the total cost of the whole programme, including lifetime costs, will probably exceed £100 billion. And let's not forget that runaway increases in costs have blighted almost every major defence project in recent years. With that in mind, perhaps £100 billion is an underestimate.
What a waste of our money. David Cameron and his acolytes repeatedly say that they are prepared to take the tough decisions. I bet they don't have the bottle to take this one on.

Correction to my last post.

Looks like the spin doctors were quick off the mark.

A recommendation from No 10

Who would have thought that my fame would spread that far?

Xmas Presents for the Grandchildren? Problem Solved!

I don't think so! But isn't it amazing what you can buy over the internet these days?
(In case you are wondering, DUI = Driving under the influence).

The Oracle of Risca has spoken - be afraid, be very afraid.

My mother-in-law is fond of saying "things come in threes" and I'm wondering what she would make of the terrible trio now facing us.

#1: The global financial crisis and its various manifestations.
#2: Global warming and its implications.
#3: The increase in global population and what that means for future generations. Future generations? Actually, that sounds somewhat abstract - let's make it personal and use "my children and grandchildren". Take a look at this chart from Nature News (published online October 19th 2011 at http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111019/full/478300a/box/1.html)
Of course, there are many who will downplay each and everyone of the above (look out for vested interests who want to maintain the status quo - ask yourself "why?") and say that human ingenuity will triumph. I wish I could agree with that view but I can't. It's a mess and the worrying thing is that I detect no cogent arguments for the best way forward. No cogent arguments at the state level from the political classes, that is, but plenty of activity lower down the pecking order - witness what is happening outside of St Paul's and elsewhere. I'm not so naive to believe that such demonstrations will change the world but it is heartening to realise that there is an increasing level of discontent felt by many people. How can this all be channelled into making real changes for the better? I can offer no solutions apart from taking every opportunity to engage with the real world (and I don't mean the world of soporific celebrity and impoverishing consumerism) and not accepting that more of the same will pull us through. It won't....and on that cheerful note, I'm off to get my porridge!