Politics & Politicking

Britain is not in the top 10 most democratic countries of the world. They are;- 

Rank	Country	Total Value Index
1	Denmark	0.958
2	Norway	0.956
3	Finland	0.946
4	Sweden	0.946
5	Germany	0.944
6	Switzerland	0.934
7	Netherlands	0.93
8	New Zealand	0.928
9	Belgium	0.925
10	Costa Rica	0.914

The UK actually comes 17th or 18th according to;-

https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2025/uphill-battle-to-safeguard-rights 

"Violence and the repression of political opponents during elections, ongoing armed conflicts, and the spread of authoritarian practices contributed to the 19th year of declining freedom. In the year to come, all those who understand the value of political rights and civil liberties must work together in the defense of democracy".

Anyone who thinks that because they live in a democracy they are safe, should think again. We live in a complex, interconnected world. We rely on other countries for basic necessities. Our biggest imports are cars & oil, closely followed by medicinal & pharmaceutical products & gas. The UK's biggest food imports are fruit & vegetables. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281818/largest-import-commodities-of-the-united-kingdom-uk/

We are an island. We don't have a huge land mass & what we have is diminishing due to construction of one sort or another. There is a limit to how self sufficient we can be. Our skills & manufacturing capabilities have declined drastically. We depend on other countries for vital goods. We don't even have the capability to defend ourselves adequately any more. This has all been a result of political decisions, particularly over the 13 years of Conservative rule. 

Many people are disinterested in politics. Considerable numbers don't trust politicians to tell the truth or make decisions in the best interests of the country as a whole. When politicians are unwilling or unable to answer simple direct questions, but spout the PR they have been trained to say, is there any reason for people to think otherwise?

Labour came into power promising change. I don't see any reason to trust them any more than I did the Conservatives so far. We need & deserve better politics than this.   

Redistribution & Economic Justice

Redistribution - distribution of something in a different, fairer, way, typically to achieve greater social equality.

200 million migrants regularly send back money to support their families and communities. These cash transfers reach around 800 million people — about one in ten people globally.

I have given quite a bit of money to my family & to charities for years. I am fortunate, I can afford to do that. I don't come form a wealthy background. My parents owned their own house, but had no capital savings to speak of. But because both my husband & I had a grammar school education, we both also had well paid, secure, professional jobs with good pensions. In my own small way I have tried to put into practice Economic Justice - a set of principles that aims to create equal opportunities for all people.

Economic Justice sets out to eliminate glaring inequalities in wealth, income, and property. It's about fairness. That seems to be seriously lacking in our world today. I have been watching "Go back to where you came from" on channel 4. It is enlightening - https://www.channel4.com/programmes/go-back-to-where-you-came-from  None of the participants are "bad " people, but they have very different views on refugees & migrants, which possibly represent the polarity of view in the UK from the far right to the liberal socialist. 

The one fundamental thing I feel is at the root of so many problems facing the world today is inequality & unfair distribution of everything from the basic necessities of life to wealth, education, justice & health care. People who don't have those things don't need our sympathy. They need our empathy & following on from that our will to share more equitably.

I increasingly do not recognise the UK. I think we have become a populist travesty of ourselves. We want to reinforce our borders & keep migrants, whether refugees or economic, out. We seem to be getting more & more insular on our island. We are also becoming less & less tolerant, more & more frightened & angry.

I just wish every one of us could really put ourselves in the place of so many people in our world who do not have what we have - a safe home, enough food, access to basic services, freedom of speech & freedom to be ourselves whatever our sexual orientation. We are not living under dictators - yet. 

We cannot, as a country, take in every refugee & migrant who wants to come here. We only have a relatively small land mass & we are financially broke. But we can & should work with other free countries to help solve the root problems that are causing a huge mass movement of people around the world that is ever increasing.

The problem will not go away. We have to find a humane way to fix it in the countries of origin of the migrations.  We also have to have proper legal ways for people to claim asylum here in order to help stop boat crossings. Currently we are not generally considered to have a "good" asylum process for applicants. They are complex and strict, with many challenges for applicants, including long processing times, a high burden of proof, and recent legislation making it more difficult to claim asylum. 

 

 

 

Compromise - компромисс

Compromise is a basic negotiation process in which both parties give up something that they want in order to get something else they want more. There is a pie to be divided up, and whatever one side gets, the other side loses. Each side must be willing to make concessions in order to achieve a resolution. By definition both sides need to be involved. A negotiater or mediator might well help the process, but an agreement cannot be achieved if one of the parties is not present.

It seems self evident to me. So why isn't it self evident to Trump & his acolytes? 

I have to wonder why the USA are behaving in such a transactional & confrontational way, which is certain to offend Ukraine & Europe, who are directly affected by the war between Russia & Ukraine. Historically war always ends in negotiation & compromise. At some point the pointless death & destruction has to end. 

The Spanish Reconquista lasted 781 years & ended in 1492. The UK's longest is a hypothetical state of war between the Netherlands and the Scilly Isles which lasted 335 years without a single shot being fired. But these are unusual.  Currently Myanmar has been at war for almost 80 years. 

The senior US delegation headed by Marco Rubio sat at a table for almost 5 hours with the Russian delegation headed by Sergey Lavrov. No other interested parties were invited. The US has sanctions in place against Lavrov, (for his part in a "brutal war of choice") & Putin, their assets have been frozen during the Ukraine war.

 

Does Trump really see no reason why this seems odd to more rational people? The only reasons I can see for Trumps behaviour are twofold;-

• He wants the "glory" of supposedly ending the war & desires a Nobel Peace Prize. God forbid he gets it, but Obama got one in 2009...... 
• He know that reconstruction after wars generates huge profit for the countries & businesses that do the work. He wants a slice of that. He is one of the many, very wealthy, Americans for whom enough money is never enough.

Trump is the arch appeaser & capitulator. How dare he ask Ukraine for mineral rights for critical minerals including aluminum, gallium and titanium as "payment" for America's support in the war. The Ukrainians must win. If they don't there are repercussions that simply don't bear thinking about. Repercussions that will affect America too. But Trump only sees a deal, money & power. He isn't capable of rational thought about world consequences. 

If it weren't all so appalling it would be funny.

 

Morning Coffee & Afternoon Tea

I remember, when I was a young married woman with a small child, having morning coffee with women friends. It started off as just coffee & biscuits, but ended up as coffee & gateau as everyone tried to outdo everyone else. At that point I think I stopped going. Too much pressure & not relaxing at all. 

Coffee was supposedly discovered by an Ethiopian goat herder, Kaldi, after he noticed his goats became more energetic after eating the berries of certain trees. If you want to know more this is a link;-

https://stonestreetcoffee.com/blogs/brooklyn-coffee-academy/the-history-of-coffee

The first recorded coffee house in England was opened by a Turkish man Jacob in Oxfordshire in 1652. This was followed by the first in London in that same year, established by a Greek man Pasqua Rosee. 

https://oldspikeroastery.com/blogs/blog/history-of-london-coffee-houses

Coffeehouses were "penny universities" where politicians, artists, writers and other intellectuals  met, each frequenting their own establishments. They were places of discussion, knowledge sharing & a hub for creative ideas. Many influential historic individuals met there including Samuel Pepys, John Dryden, Samuel Alexander Pope and Isaac Newton. 

I really don't feel properly alive until I've had my morning cup of coffee & I look forward to it every day. Friends I meet for coffee carry on the tradition of interesting discussion.

Afternoon tea is a whole different thing to my mind. Drinking tea began in China & Charles II started the habit in England. But afternoon tea didn't begin until 1840, started again by the aristocracy. It became a fashionable social event for the upper classes.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Afternoon-Tea/

My experience of afternoon tea is a mug of tea using a teabag & occasionally a biscuit. I drink it playing Solitaire on my iPad or reading. Sometimes friends & family come, but it isn't really an event, it's a pleasure. What I really don't understand is why a very upper class tradition continues today, mostly in the middle classes. 

According to the British Social Attitudes Survey we still define ourselves in terms of social divisions. We have a monarchy and an aristocracy still owning much of the land the Conqueror gave them, with privileges reinforced by public schools. We also have a working class, inheritors of serfdom, for whom trade union leaders such as Mick Lynch, who just like Watt Tyler, sees it as his role to fight. 

Is this really a good thing in the 21st century? Are we hidebound by "tradition" & the mores of the upper classes? I think we are if we continue to think that apeing the behaviour of a supposedly higher class is sensible or necessary. Shouldn't we want to be a meritocracy? Shouldn't we value people for who they are and what they do, rather than where or to whom they were born? 

Honours & Honour

Should Honours be automatic or assumed due to a job or position an individual holds? Is it appropriate to give honours to celebrities? Or should there be more variety in the types of work rewarded?

6% of higher awards went to people in the north of England and only 4% to people from working-class backgrounds. 60% of beneficiaries of "higher" awards, such as Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) and knighthoods and damehoods, lived in London and south-east England. Prestigious awards seem to be concentrated on affluent people from affluent areas. Chief executives, professors and senior civil servants were common recipients. It is not based on merit; it's based on the top-down nature of our UK society.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdx91g00g2o 

Some people feel so strongly about this issue that they turn down an honour like Benjamin Zephaniah.

Rarely an honour is handed back, like Paula Vennells. Sometimes an honour is removed, like Rolf Harris.

Do we know who nominated recipients? If not why not? How many are nominated by community groups or the public? Do we really want the British Empire anywhere near an honours system - MBE CBE OBE? Should a Prime Minister automatically have the right to bestow honours regardless of how long they have held office or how good they have been at the job? (I won't name names, but I'm sure you can guess). I can see that it might be appropriate for someone like the monarch to present the honours, but why do they have the right to nominate recipients? How in touch with people deserving of honours are the Aristocracy, the Mandarins of the Civil Service or the Politicians?

There was a Select Committee report on reforming the honours system in 2004 which recommended "an end to further appointments to the Order of the British Empire, the Order of the Bath and the Order of St Michael and St George; the foundation of a new Order of British Excellence; a phasing out of titles and name-changing honours; reforms to increase the independence of the selection process through the establishment of an Honours Commission and the end of the ‘Prime Minister’s List’ and other ministerial honours lists; and proposals for increasing public awareness of the system".

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/212.pdf  

Not a lot seems to have happened as a result. In 2006 -7 there was the "Cash for Honours" scandal. We still have a class & wealth ridden society. Successive governments continue to nominate people to the Lords to bolster their party representation & create political imbalance. But that is another Blog Post.

 

 

Justification & Trump

Justification is showing something to be right or reasonable. Neurologically our brains create our thoughts, which may or may not be accurate. We all do our best to justify what we say or do. Or what we don't say or do, which can be equally wrong. We have to accept that there are always different ways of looking at things. What we ourselves believe may or may not be true.

The trick is to remain open in our thinking & accept that complexity exists & there are often different interpretations of reality. We might be right, but someone else may have a different perception & they may also be right. 

All of that said, it seems to me that we are living in an alternative universe. 

We are living in a world of "post truth", of lies & obfustification, of people in power not answering reasonable questions, of manipulation & indoctrination. We are at the mercy of "bad actors" who crave wealth & power at any cost. People who not only don't mind "collateral damage", but don't even have it on their radar because they are narcissists or worse. 

I doubt that people with these personality types even contemplate the need to justify their actions or what they say. The idea floated by Trump, (such an appropriate & accurate surname for the man), to make a holiday playground for the rich out of the devastation that is Gaza is obscene. It would contravene international law & amount to ethnic cleansing, never mind the absurdity of expecting nearby countries to accommodate all the Palestinians. 

When Gaza is eventually rebuilt it could be much better than it was with modern building techniques. But what happens to Gaza should be in the hands of the Palestinians with help from the international community. Not in the hands of a seemingly unhinged American president who sees everthing through a narrow transactional lens. The opportunity he sees is to make himself even more wealthy & to have yet another exclusive playground for a golf course.

I have no idea how Trumps mind works, or Musks for that matter. But I do wonder how on earth they justify what they say & do. I just do have to hope that at some point they have a Damascene Conversion & realise that they could be agents for so much good in this unstable & unfair world we live in.

Is Solar & Onshore Power our Easter Island Moment?

I watched last night's BBC Panorama programme - "Rewiring Britain - the race to go green". I thought it was interesting & balanced. I hope the Government was watching too.

We know we need to generate far more electricity in order to stop using unsustainable non renewables. At least I hope we do all agree on that. Developments in both onshore & offshore sustainable generation have moved forward at pace. The technology is amazing & is improving all the time. 

The problems are twofold - 

• We don't have appropriate infrastructure to transport the electricity to where it is needed efficiently e.g. Substations & Pylons.
• The current solutions are industrialising the landscape & using precious productive farm land e.g solar "farms", substations & pylons again

 

It seems to me that the decision making is based mainly on cost. It is cheaper & quicker to do it above ground on land. If we continue along this route, not only will the government alienate the public who have valid concerns, but we will lose land we desperately need for food security & wildlife habitats. 

Exactly what they think happened on Easter Island, where the population perished because they chopped down the last trees & they were too far away from land to be able to establish themselves elsewhere. This could be our Easter Island moment. Not me - I'm too old. This is the possible future we are bequeathing to our grandchildren.

If the government are determined not to listen to valid concerns & won't learn from what Holland, Belgium & Germany et al are doing we are sounding our own death knell. It just seems so obvious & short termist to me. Yet again we are going down the route of not thinking of the inevitable outcomes of bad choices.

Surely the point of government is to look widely at evidence & select the best, least harmful option? Or am I too idealistic? Is Britain incapable of that because of our adversarial, power at all costs, (sorry about the pun), system of government? 

We need to wake up & see the light.