Electric Vehicles & the Weather

I drove from Oxford to Minchinhampton & back a week ago. I thought I knew how bad our roads are living in Oxford, but I was wrong. My journey took me along the A40 & then cross country to Cirencester via the A4425.

I was shocked at the state of the roads, whether A or B roads. We are all used to potholes now, but it was the frequency and the size - Both the depth, width & position of the holes. If they are at the side of the road & there is oncoming traffic you can't swerve out to avoid them. They must be lethal for cyclists. Similarly if they are in the middle of the road, where do you go? The damage being done to cars & the possibility of causing accidents must be high. 

 

Patching is obviously not the answer. All that does is to move the problem down the road, (sorry about the pun), because it is always a temporary solution. The cost & disruption caused by necessary proper maintenance required is obviously much higher. But why has this happened?

It must be a combination of 3 things, increasing volume of traffic, heavier vehicles & climate change e.g. rainfall. I can remember when my father was the first person in our street to get a car & everyone used public transport. We had trams in Birmingham. 

Now many families have more than one car, roughly a third. 78% of families have access to one or more cars. Add to that the increasing weight of cars. The average weight of new cars in the UK has risen by 400kg in 7 years due to SUV's & heavy batteries in electric vehicles. (Why & when did we move from estate cars to SUV's for extra space? Oh yes, like so much else, we copied America). Then multiply that by the huge weight of increasing goods vehicles & public transport. Climate change has meant that we have more frequent extremes of weather, named storms with much heavier rainfall & stronger winds, longer periods of high heat & drought. The only thing that doesn't seem to have increased is frost & extreme cold. But that too adds to the damage. 

It's a perfect storm, (again sorry about the pun), of circumstance added to years of lack of maintenance under the last conservative government. Between 2017 - 2023 council road resurfacing on A roads fell by 37%. The backlog of maintenance funding reached £16.3 billion in England & Wales. The focus was on reactive patching rather than long term preventative resurfacing that is much less cost effective. Austerity has put us where we are in so many areas. Local authority spending was cut by 25% betwween 2011 - 2020 for supposedly "non essential" spending.

The chickens have come home to roost. Bad short term decision making has resulted in huge problems in all of our infrastructure & services. That is the inheritance the labour government  has to deal with. Add to that the fact that the public allowed it all to happen. We could see what was happening & we didn't do enough to hold politicians accountable. 

The right to protest, the right to accurate information & effective oversight, the right to hold decision makers accountable & face legislation & justice must not be eroded. We are in a mess & getting out of it is our responsibility. We will have to pay, one way or another. Inaction is not an option.  

Diagnosis & Fear

Humans have the capacity to communicate through spoken language. We also give clues as to how we feel through facial expression & body language. We are unique. We also have the brain capacity to be able to think & understand all of these & more.

What has that to do with Diagnosis? 

I am beginning to think that our need to have a name, a diagnosis of a medical condition, might occasionally not be advantageous. I wonder if it is too simplistic. Obviously if you have a cancer it is important to know what type & hopefully get it early when it is treatable. That must be true of many conditions. In order to treat successfully medics need to know what they are dealing with.

I think I am concerned more about "neurodivergence" & "mental health" issues. I do wonder if we are given a label we live up to that label. If I have a physical diagnosis there is usually strong scientific evidence & symptoms for that diagnosis. Hopefully if the diagnosis is correct the treatment will help, if not cure. 

Empiric evidence - which is based on experience, without precise knowledge of the cause or nature of the disorder is less reliable & is dependent on the skill & experience of the practitioner. We have devised question & answer tests for neurodivergence, but is that reliable? Divergence & difference is actually normal.

I think my point is that human beings are incredibly complex systems which include physiology & psychology. What we are at birth, our genes, can be modified by experiences - Nature & Nurture. The thing that troubles me today is that we have become very risk averse. Parents are more afraid for their children than in my childhood. Children don't have the freedom & life experience that I did & actually my daughter did too. 

We have also become more culturally afraid. I actually think that the public is being kept in a state of permanenet fear by politics worldwide. We are afraid of the international situation, (wars, rogue leaders...), climate change, food, water & energy security, privatised services not working, the list is endless. We are made to feel powerless. Cynically I believe that this is deliberate at some level, so that the powerful can retain that power by convincing us we need them to solve everyhting. 

All of this is perpetuated by the press & media that constantly bombarding us with the current news reason to be afraid. There is endless diagnosis of whatever that is, with "experts" being hauled in to give their views, which are mostly pure speculation. It might happen, but the chances are it won't. How much postitive news do we hear?

I do think my parents generation & my generation were more resiliant. Shit happens, we understood that & we got on with it. We didn't expect or get a diagnosis or a label to put on it. We knew we just had to deal with it. 

 

  

 

Unintended Consequences

My house was completely re-designed, gutted & refurbished. I am delighted with it. I had an expensive quartz worktop installed in the kitchen. In order to protect it I put a clear plastic tray where I stack the dirty dishes. Over time I discovered a discolouration in the quartz underneath. Not a spillage or stain, something within the very light coloured quartz. Uncleanable. Apparently it's due to UV light from the south facing window. A known issue, but not on the website of the company supplying the quartz & not known to me. A completely unintended consequence. Very annoying.

Yesterday, driving home, I listened to "Toxic" on Radio 4. All about "forever chemicals" like PFAS. These have been man made since the 1940's and are grease, water & heat resistant. Really useful, we all thought. Widely used & present in almost everything - non-stick pans, waterproof clothing, food packaging, cosmetics, the list is endless. Also prevalent now in drinking water, the environment & us. They are extremely persistent & bioaccumulate. Unfortunately they are also linked to serious health risks - cancer, immune system disruption, fertility & developmental issues. Who knew that something so useful could be so dangerous? 

There have been three types over the years - PFOA, PFOS & the latest PFAS. There are over 10,000 different types. They all persist in the environment & our bodies for decades. We have only just woken up to the harm of these forever chemicals & governments are finally going to monitor their presence & do something about their use. It's a bit late though. They are already literally everywhere.

What long term effect will the presence of these chemicals have on both the environment & us? How long have people been aware of the dangers posed to everything? Did manufacturers of these chemicals do enough research into side effects? Or were they simply focussed on their profitability? Did they hide the issues, as has happened so many times before? For example as the petrochemical industry & the drug industry did?

Our fixation with growth & profitability. Our fixation with making life easier because we are so busy & are so time poor. Our heedless march into the future & the unknown. Our lack of interrogation of the possibilities, good & bad, attached to change. Our lack of money & incentive to research & do due diligence. All of these are coming home to roost.

It's a perfect storm leading to disastrous unintended consequences. We need to stop & really think. 

Nationalisation versus Privatisation

Nationalisation is public ownership of private assets, industries or companies. It's often done to manage monopolies, market failures or secure infrastructure. The aim is to prioritise public interest over private profit & ensure service quality & efficiency.  

Privatisation is the transfer of ownership of assets, services or industries to the private sector. The aim is to increase efficiency, reduce government debt & foster competition.

As with everything there are pros & cons for both. 

Pros - Nationalisation is supposed to increase investment in infrastructure, lower prices for consumers, ensure better working conditions for workers & improve strategic control. Cons - Lower efficiency, lack of innovation, political interference & high costs.

Pros - Privatisation is supposed to increase efficiency, reduce public spending, reduce political interference & improve innovation. Cons - Higher consumer prices, job losses, prioritisation of profit over public service, environmental damage & loss of public accountability.

Since the Thatcher government of 1979 the UK has undergone extensive privatisation of major state owned utilities & industries - energy, telecommunications, water, transport, Royal Mail, steel, shipbuilding, aerospace, parts of the NHS, the Private Finance Initiative, justice, education, probation & social care. In other words a huge number of areas that directly affect the lives of every UK citizen. The tragedy is that has meant our services are worse, everything is a lot more expensive & jobs & working conditions have been adversely affected. Its a really dismal picture. 

 

At the same time salaries & bonuses for the people at the top who run these privatised areas have gone through the roof reaching record levels in 2024 -2025. For many, following consecutive years of increase above inflation & workers wages. Bonuses too reached record levels despite very poor performance in some areas. Shareholders, who are presumably doing well too, voted for these bonuses & pay levels. Hardly an independent voice. It's not edifying to see the bosses & shareholders doing so well when the people who work for them are struggling to provide for their families. 

Sadly privatisation has been a failed experiment because of it's adverse impact on people, the environment & what has been privatised. There are things that are so fundamental to a society being able to function well, that they need to be managed for the benfit of that society by those with a vested interest in them. They need to have effective oversight. Water companies have been a catastrophic example of privatisation failure. 

I can apply similar arguments for the selling off of major infrastructure to foreign, not always benign actors. This has followed on from privatisation. So now a significant portion of the UK's critical national infrastructure is owned by foreign governments or companies & sovereign wealth funds - water, energy & power, airports & ports, transport, digital infrastructure. 

What on earth were our government thinking? Well obviously they wern't "risk assessing" or considering possible & probable outcomes in the face of changing circumstances in the future. What they were doing was two things - raising money so that they could keep taxes low & create wealth, thus retaining power. But not only wealth for the country, but for themselves & their network of business friends & acquaintances.

It all started with Mrs Thatcher, but her party has continued the rot for years. So now we are in real trouble & it is debatable whether we can extract ourselves from the mire. We need effective long term planning, but our political system is not set up to do that. Decisions are made in order to keep power in local elections & ensure a second or third term in government. 

We really need highly intelligent, experienced & skilled people to do the evidence based 5 -10 year planning. Not politicians, who generally know nothing about their brief when they become ministers. It used to be the job of the Civil Service. But now we have lobbyists & special advisors. As of March 2025, there were 130 special advisers (SpAds) employed across the UK government, representing roughly 0.02% of the total Civil Service. While the number of registered lobbyists is not centrally capped, research indicates a significant "revolving door," with 31% of former special advisers moving into corporate lobbying or advisory roles. These are not elected & we know little about them & what they do. 

It all needs to be a lot more efficient & transparent.  

 

 

Vetting Process

Vetting is a comprehensive, multi-step investigation of an individual's background, qualifications, and integrity before employment or partnership, particularly for roles requiring security clearance. Developed Vetting is used for government or police roles. National Security Vetting is used for government roles. A security & risk assessment is part of the process & includes financial checks (credit, bankruptcy), social media reviews, and, in some cases, interviews with security officers regarding personal life, associates, and family. For high-level vetting, inspectors investigate potential vulnerabilities, such as financial debt, relationships, or past behavior that could lead to coercion or corruption.

Honestry is mandatory & dishonesty shows a lack of integrity & should result in failure.

The Propriety and Ethics team in the Cabinet Office undertake the due diligence process. Mandleson was supposedly subjected to Developed Vetting. After his ambassadorial appointment he was apparently National Security vetted by UK Security Vetting. 

The question is why, in view of all this, he was ever appointed to such an important role? He obviously lied, but why was he believed? Or was this simply a bad political decision for expediency reasons? Questions were supposedly put about Mandlesons ongoing relationship with Epstein. But wern't  his answers thoroughly checked?

 

The Met is conducting a criminal investigation into the leaking of sensitive information to Epstein & the relationship with him, so we won't get full discolsure until that is finished. But there are serious questions about PM Starmer & chief of staff McSweeny, (who was a protege of Mandleson & pushed for his ambassadorial appointment). 

This is serious enough to bring down not only the prime minister but the government itself. If it were an isolated error of judgement it might not be so bad, but it is only one of several policy reversals, "U-turns," and political misjudgements, since labour came to power in July 2024;- 

• Freebies Scandal 
• Winter Fuel
• 2 Child benefit 
• Tractor Tax
• Universal Credit 
• Employment Rights
• Worker Status Reform
• House of Lords Reform  

I've probably missed some. But you get the picture. 

I'm prepared to believe that Starmer does have the right purpose, attitude, morals & values. But his great fault is perceived lack of good judgement. Parliament is a hornets nest. The hornets will attack weakness. 

Labour were out of power for 14 years. You would think that during that time, as well as being an effective opposition, they would have prepared for government. Especially as it became more & more obvious what a complete mess the consevatives had made of their time in government. The public were more than ready for change. We also wanted a clean government, without all the sleaze & entitled arrogance that typified particularly the Johnson years. We wanted a government that actually represented the people's needs & wishes. 

Now we have chaos & a real possibility of a Reform government. Things couldn't be much worse at such a critical time internationally as well as here in the UK. 

 

 

Unlordly Lords.

Reform of the UK House of Lords has been discussed seemingly for all of my adult life. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014, allowed for the removal of peers who are convicted of serious offences and sentenced to imprisonment. But there are also questions about the fact that they are unelected & about the sheer numbers, currently 846! It is the largest upper house in the world and, as of late 2024, was roughly 25% larger than the House of Commons. The majority are life peers, alongside 26 archbishops and bishops (Lords Spiritual) and a remaining number of hereditary peers. In other words most of them are political appointees - 740 approx. 282 were conservative, 230 are Labour, 177 are crossbench. In addition  there are some lords who are ineligible to attend.

I am not impartial on this issue. I do think that a second chamber is beneficial. However members should be there because of their qualifications, experience & expertise. I also expect them to show evidence of ethics & service to others. They definitely should not be political appointees or generous donors to one party or another. They should be appointed by an independent committee representing the British people. Nor should, as was customary historically, top-level officials, such as Permanent Secretaries, Cabinet Secretaries, and Heads of the Diplomatic Service be given peerages for doing their job. I also think there should be parity between the upper & lower houses. Why on earth is it acceptable for the unelected Lords to be so much bigger than the commons? The current fillibustering of the assisted dying bill by a small number of lords is unacceptable, when it has beeen passed by the commons & the majority of the public support it. 

Then we get to the question of ethics as currently being discussed regarding Peter Mandelson who has had to resign twice from the cabinet, once as Ambassador to the USA & currently from the labour party. He is the grandson of Herbert Morrison, a labour statesman in the 2nd world war & postwar period, who would no doubt be shocked at the current scandal.

 

I haven't met Mandleson, frankly I wouldn't want to. I can only judge him by his actions & he seems to me to be very smug & self serving. Shady dealings with the rich & powerful seem to have followed his political rise to prominence. He seems to value wealth & power above all things & be prepared to do almost anything to move in those circles. At the very least his judgement seems to be extremely questionable. It's a pattern we see all too often in prominent men. He is not alone. Several lords have criminal records;- 

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, convicted in 2021/2022 of serious sexual offences and attempted rape. 

Lord Brocket, served time in prison for insurance fraud involving valuable cars. 

Lord Sewel, resigned from the House of Lords in 2015 following a scandal involving alleged drug use and improper conduct, which led to a police investigation.  

Lord Archer, convicted in 2001 of perjury and perverting the course of justice. 

Lord Black of Crossharbour, convicted in the United States in 2007 of fraud and obstruction of justice.  

Lord Watson of Invergowrie, convicted of wilful fire-raising. 

Lord Taylor of Warwick, jailed in 2011 for false accounting. Lord Hanningfield, also convicted of false accounting.

Jonathan Aitken, former MP and minister who served a custodial sentence for perjury and perverting the course of justice. 

Mandleson is not alone & those are only the ones who have faced the full force of the law. 

Instead of talking about reform & setting up committees our politicians need to act & reform our government institutions. They are disfunctional. They do not serve us. We should not tolerate this abuse of power in the name of democracy. Politics & democracy have become dirty words.