Wednesday, 16 July 2025

Things I didn't know #5

Did you know the national anthem of the Netherlands is an acrostic? There are 15 verses, so don't tune in if they reach the World Cup final.

Taking the first letter of each verse in turn, you get Willem Van Nassov, an old spelling of William of Nassau, which is not in the Bahamas in this case but refers to - as we Brits would say - William of Orange. Nassau is where William was born in Germany.

The English translation of the first verse:

William of Nassau, am I, of German blood;
True to the fatherland, I remain till death.
A prince of Orange, I am, free and fearless.
The King of Spain I have always honoured.

When he was 11, William inherited the Principality of Orange so presumably it's the Low Countries to which "fatherland" refers rather than Germany. The bit about Spain is a bit disingenuous, since he led a Dutch revolt against the Spanish, starting in 1568 and lasting for eighty years until ending with the Treaty of Westphalia (no, I don't know where that is). Sadly William didn't last many of those years. He, a Protestant, was shot dead by a "Catholic zealot" (according to ChatGPT) in 1584, who earned himself a bounty of 25,000 crowns from Philip II of Spain.

So William was a polyglot but a hero to the modern day Dutch. Good job we don't have any foreign blood in our own UK royal family๐Ÿคฃ

Monday, 14 July 2025

Got stuck in a lift

It's a classic pub conversation: who would/wouldn't you like to be stuck in a lift with? I've had my share of stuck lifts in my long life - who hasn't? - but I can't for the life of me recall any of my lift sharers. I was thinking this question the other day when I was watching Prime Minister's Questions and in particular trying to get to the bottom of who Kier Starmer is, what are his values and what is he for?

If I'm stuck in that lift with him, I'd have to try and come up with a question which requires a meaningful answer; I'm not prepared to accept some kind of recitation of the government's litany of brilliant initiatives, I need to know what he believes in. I actually think I wouldn't be able to get an answer, because he wouldn't regard me as an ordinary bloke but more likely someone trying to trick him. So it wouldn't be long before we resorted to the one subject he feels safe with: the Arsenal. We can mutually indulge our hopes and expectations for the coming season but I suspect that, if I ask whether we should sign the Brazilian Rodrygo from Real Madrid, he'd retreat into diplomatic mode: would he risk upsetting the Brazilians if he didn't think he was good enough for the Gunners (which is my view); or the Spanish if he thought Real Madrid were a fading force and so he'd be better off at the Emirates Stadium (ditto)? I think there'd be enough commonality though to while away an hour or two.

My mind drifted to Rishi Sunak. He has on a number of occasions claimed to support Southampton, the town of his birth and the club most recently relegated with one of the lowest points totals ever. Question #1: will you still go and watch them when they're in a lower league? Yep, I'm trying to trick him. But not so much as to ask him to name Southampton's leading goalscorer of all time; I'm not a bully. So I'd move on to chess. I recall he wanted everyone to learn chess to A Level and every school to have a Maths club. Or was it the other way round? Anyway, I'd want to know if he actually plays himself - I imagine he wouldn't have mentioned it if he didn't - and what's his rating? What's his username on chess.com and shall we play a game to while away the time? The (Evening?) Standard wrote in 2023 that Sunak is "also a keen player" after reporting that Rachel Reeves challenged him to a game. I've been unable to find any response from him, which frankly seems rude.

Which leads me to Reeves. We know she plays chess but, given she was a decent junior chess player (the case for "champion" is disputed), it's likely she's above my level. Even so, if the lift has wifi, I'd definitely challenge her to an online match. Although I'd probably let her win because..you know... I wouldn't want to upset her. I'm not sure we would have much else to talk about. I'd tell her to Keep Buggering On, Churchillian style. She's reported to be a supporter of Leeds United; her constituency is Leeds West And Pudsey, so that sounds a bit...convenient. Let's see if we see her in the crowd on match days now that they're back in the Premier League and on TV. 

I'd be quite entertained by Boris Johnson. I'm a proponent of infrastructure boosterism, always thought his idea for an airport by the Thames Estuary had a lot going for it. If he promised to get my St Austell to Istanbul railway built, I'd vote for him. Unlike the others, I don't think he'd regard me with suspicion and I suspect he wouldn't require much prompting to talk about whatever I asked of him. I might ask him to explain the rugby union offside law - he's definitely not a soccer man - but I'd probably be no clearer after he'd rambled his answer. Which I suspect would be "who cares? If the ball comes out of the scrum, I'm ready to pick it up and run with it". Really Boris, you still think that's possible? Stranger things.....

Who'd be your choice in the lift?

Sunday, 13 July 2025

Things I didn't know #4

The name Australia was given to the Southern continent by Captain Matthew Flinders, whose remains were among those of about 50,000 people exhumed from St James's cemetery next to Euston Station and reburied in Brookwood in Surrey. To make room for the London terminus of the UK's High Speed 2 railway. Which may never be built. Should've stayed in Oz.

Flinders was the first to circumnavigate Australia. He is of course memorialised there: there's the Flinders Range, Flinders Island in the Bass Strait, Station and Street in Melbourne, the University in Adelaide, the Flinders Chase National Park on Kangaroo Island and many statues.

One of the most well-known (although not by me until now) statues is actually in Euston Station, erected in 2014 (the bicentenary of Flinders' death) and is of Flinders and his cat Trim. ChatGPT tells me Trim is "beloved by many Australians", although of the many Australians I have met over there (including my elder son, his wife and her family) not one has ever mentioned this cat. You can check out much more about Trim here:


This picture of the Euston statue is from an interesting website London Remembers:


Trim is nowhere to be seen but is probably snuggled up to the sleeping traveller. This from the Mitchell Library in Sydney will have to suffice for you cat-lovers:


Saturday, 12 July 2025

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous

A brief paragraph in today's Times. Craig Williams, Rishi Sunak's PPS when in government, has been charged with offences under the Gambling Act 2005, one of which involved the alleged placing of a £100 bet on the date of the next election three days before Sunak announced the date.

All very straightforward, you'd imagine. Justice in action. He did not enter a plea at the Crown Court hearing yesterday so he has been sent for trial.

But here's the kicker.

The 52 word "report" ended with the final sentence: "His trial has been set for January 2028". What? Three years' time? I'm not one of those constantly harping on about Britain being broken but what does this say about the justice system? Is Williams playing the system by not entering a plea and hoping it will all go away? Or is he now a victim of a system which, even if he is eventually found innocent of the charges, will trash his reputation and ruin his life for 3 years?

This is beyond ridiculous.

Friday, 11 July 2025

Things I didn't know #3

The Lewis chessmen. Never heard of them until now. 78 12th century (chess is a very old game played at the top level by the very young) pieces, 67 of which are in the British Museum, the remainder in the National Museum of Scotland (which I'd also never heard of).


They (at least some of them) are going on their travels as part of a cultural loan exchange between the British Museum and the French, which will see the Bayeux Tapestry come the other way.

The chessmen are made of walrus ivory and whale tooth, probably made in Norway and found on the island of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides in 1831. The Hebrides were part of Norway - Viking invaders -
 [from the Bayeux Tapestry]

from the 9th century until 1266 when King Alexander III of Scotland paid Norway 4,000 marks and 400 marks p.a. for sovereignty in the Treaty of Perth. The annual fee was supposed to last forever but it has apparently been forgotten about - perhaps Scotland didn't have any marks left after a while.

There's obviously an argument that we should be lending the chessmen to the National Museum of Norway rather than the French.

Thursday, 10 July 2025

Banknotes

Apparently the Bank of England is inviting us to nominate our suggestions for who should appear on the face of the new £5, £10, £20 and £50 banknotes. Despite the fact that no-one carries actual paper money any more. I know, they're made of plastic now, not paper.

For reference the current notes show:

£5 – Winston Churchill

£10 – Jane Austen

£20 – J.M.W. Turner

£50 – Alan Turing

Not sure there is some kind of value assertion here, perhaps that Turing (a genius) has been 5 times more consequential than Jane Austen (anyone could have written her stuff, even an infinite number of monkeys). I feel there should be, so my contributions are value-added:

£5 - Andre Arshavin scoring 4 goals for Arsenal in one match against Liverpool. Of course he's Russian so that might be controversial. Especially with Liverpool fans

£10 - Maradona scoring a beautiful winner for Argentina against England in the World Cup quarter final in Mexico in 1986. Of course it should actually have been just an equaliser because his first goal was scored with his hand. For me Maradona was the GOAT but the Hand of God might not appeal to the Bank of England.

£20 - Geoff Hurst scoring a hat-trick to win the World Cup for England in 1966. No brainer.

£50 - Ray Kennedy scoring the winner at Tottenham's White Hart Lane ground in 1971, winning the League title for Arsenal in so doing. I was there. We went on to win the League/FA Cup double.

I've just checked out the eligibility rules (probably should have done that first):

  1. They must be dead so no Arshavin or Hurst
  2. Don't have to be British or even born in Britain all the above OK
  3. Must have made a lasting, positive impact on British society in some way sorry Diego
  4. Real person not fictional
  5. Not divisive, politically explosive or otherwise controversial Diego strike #2
So some revision is required. The Banknote Character Advisory Committee has recently decided on six themes: notable historical figures, nature, architecture and landmarks, arts/culture/sport, noteworthy milestones, and innovation. I think this means our selections must be themed within one of these. Seems I've gone for either arts/culture/sport or noteworthy milestones, so I have to choose which and then revise within that. Here I go:

£5 - Arnold Schoenberg’s first twelve-tone composition: “Suite for Piano, Op. 25”, written between 1921 and 1923.

£10 - Elvis Presley, first worldwide famous rock n roll star, hugely influencing the development of 20th century popular music

£20 - Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque, founders of cubism am I allowed two faces?

£50 I was going to stick with Ray Kennedy but that would probably be seen as divisive by my Tottenham readers (and the Committee) so I've gone for Emma Lazarus: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...” [The New Colossus] on the Statue of Liberty.

None of these are British but I've followed the rules. It's pretty disappointing (although obviously not for him) that Geoff Hurst is still alive. His time will surely come, I don't doubt. I probably should check to see if any of these have previously been used but I'll leave that to the Committee.

I very much look forward to readers' suggestions. No Boaty McBoatface please.

Wednesday, 9 July 2025

Things I didn’t know #2

Perhaps my favourite tv series, maybe even the GOAT tv series: The West Wing. Lead character: Josiah Edward “Jed” Bartlet. What I didn’t know is that there was a real life Josiah Bartlett, who was one of 56 people who signed the American Declaration of Independence. I know, the spellings of the surname are different but this surely can’t have been coincidence. I think that the fact both came from New Hampshire endorses my view that Aaron Sorkin's character was based on the 18th century Governor of that state.

In my ignorance of American political history, if you'd asked me how many people signed that Declaration in 1776, I'd have guessed at somewhere between 4 and 10, knowing (guessing?) the names of perhaps a couple.

The TV show also taught me about the 25th Amendment. Bartlet (the fictional one, as you'll have observed no double t) invoked it when his daughter was kidnapped by terrorists and he decides he is too emotionally compromised to make rationally correct decisions on the situation. He steps down temporarily but there is no Vice President (next in line) at the time because he resigned after a sex scandal, so the next-next in line Speaker of the House Allen Walken, a Republican (Bartlet was a Democrat) became Acting President. Things don't go well and there is inevitable conflict between Walken and Bartlet's Cabinet, leading to them seriously consider invoking another of the 25th Amendment's clauses and deposing him. Of course, it's drama: Zoey is rescued, Jed returns, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and America's constitution is safe.

The actual 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967, four years after Kennedy's assassination meant that VP Lyndon Johnson became President, in accordance with the Constitution, but there was no Vice President for the remainder of Johnson's term.

If this all seems arcane, it was invoked by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush when they had medical procedures which involved anesthesia. 

Tuesday, 8 July 2025

There's something in the water in Cambridgeshire

South Cambridgeshire District Council launched a trial in January 2023, giving its staff the option of working a four day week with full pay whilst maintaining 100% productivity.

So how did that go? Brilliant, say the staff. Quelle surprise.

Of course, there have been studies. Lots of them, by universities. The council claims £400,000 p.a. savings and is proposing to make the policy permanent at a meeting this month.

You can have as many studies as you want but surely common sense suggests this is nonsense? If you can work hard for 4 days, why not work as hard on the 5th day and radically improve output? If you can get all your work done in 4 days, why not do it in 3? Or do a couple of 24 hour shifts and take the rest of the week off? What if all these employees work extra hard for 4 days a week for a couple of months then revert to their previous productivity rate, still enjoying Free Fridays and going fishing?

This is gloriously mad.

Monday, 7 July 2025

Have we been had?

I wrote recently about The Salt Path. I titled the piece A Triumph of Defiance. But it appears I should have called it A Triumph of Storytelling.

There was an article in yesterday's Observer newspaper:

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-salt-path-whats-in-the-book-and-what-the-observer-has-found

...which reported an investigation by journalist Chloe Hadjimatheou into the backstory which is the basis for the book written by "Raynor Winn" about her and her husband Moth's reasons for walking the Cornwall Coast Path - losing their home and all their money which had been invested in a friend's failed financial scheme. The Observer alleges first that the couple's real names are Sally and Tim Walker, also that Sally Walker was arrested after being accused of stealing tens of thousands of pounds from her employer, leading to complicated loan and surety dealings and eventual loss of their house. The "evidence" presented by the paper is based on testimony from a Ros Hemmings, whose husband owned the business from which Sally was alleged to have embezzled money. Today's Times, reporting the story, asserts that "the Hemmings' family solicitor recalled that Winn [Walker] was arrested and interviewed by police", so it's not just a single source.

Documents are shown which indicate they, at the time, owned a house in south west France; they were not homeless. I watched a video on the Observer's YouTube channel:

https://youtu.be/UY2ivdm9obY?si=cqtRSJ57yptF-FFa

It shows what looks like a falling down, roofless barn. There is no way in which this rundown building could be used as a home in its present state so I don't think that discredits the book's "homeless" assertion.

The report also quotes unnamed neurologists casting doubt on Moth's condition. I discard this as though it's solid evidence, since any reporter worth their salt can find medical experts to support their story, perhaps discarding the views of those that don't. The Times writes that "the couple declined to share their medical records with the Observer".

What to make of all this? Were we misled? That seems indisputable, given the false names and substantially changed backstory. I'm not sure the Observer has much else that stands up and their story has a bit of a stench of tabloid tendencies to knock down successful people (I'm assuming Winn and Moth, after three bestselling books with another to come, are now able to live comfortably; maybe even get the barn renovated). The video is titled The Salt Path lies: how a blockbuster book and film were spun from lies, deceit and desperation, which honestly sounds a bit tabloid-y.  Would the book have become a bestseller - or even got published - if they had been honest about their backstory? Could they have simply said "our story is based on fact but we have not wanted to name people whom we were connected to"? The problem is that, once even a small deceit is uncovered, it's impossible to think back on the tale of the 600 mile walk itself without thinking that maybe lots of little details have been embellished, or even invented.

I've been left with a deep sadness. I enjoyed the book, thought it was a wonderful story, but now this throws everything into doubt. And I feel hoodwinked and gullible. I usually think I have a decent bullshit detector but it failed me here so perhaps, like Ros Hemmings and her late husband, I've been taken for a ride this time.


Sunday, 6 July 2025

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

...chess gender issues re-surface. Sunday Times writer Dominic Lawson (2000-rated chess player, ex-president of the English Chess Federation, son of 1980s Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel and, as far as I know, no relation to any of my readers) shows he's an avid reader of my blog.

Regular readers will recall I posted about women in chess. I think Dominic clearly read it, because today he wrote about the very issues I raised: participation of women in chess, top women players not reaching men's levels, quoting Hou Yifan as exemplar but also as a sceptic of women's lack of capability to sustain the physical demands of chess, etc etc. His column's starting point was a 17yo German who recently won the national girls' under-18 tournament: Nora Heidermann was born a boy but self-identifies as a girl.

So just when I thought I'd put the male/female chess issue to bed by suggesting that women-only tournaments were holding back the development of the top women players, a new dimension raises its ugly head. Lawson takes the opposite view to mine, quoting the example of Scrabble, where 85% of recreational players are women but the upper tiers are dominated by men [so?]. The authority he quotes is Carole Hooven's T: The Story of Testosterone in which she concludes that "men are more disposed to the intense and passionate obsessiveness, shutting out all external activities and interests required to become the world's best over the 64 squares".

Or, as he quotes chess Grandmaster Hein Donner: "What is going on in their heads is narcissistic self-gratification with a minimum of objective reality, a wordless snuffling and scrabbling around in a bottomless pit". Yep, that us boys.

I'll be snuffling in my bottomless pit again tomorrow. Happy Sunday.

Saturday, 5 July 2025

Things I didn't know #1

Did you know there is a World Avocado Organisation? Its Chairman responded to the All England Club's decision to replace avocados with crushed English peas on its menus: "Avocados are too often made a scapegoat in the conversation around food sustainability...the avocado has a smaller 'water footprint' than nuts, olive oil and beef". I read this while eating a breakfast of avocados on sourdough with poached eggs and chorizo. Shout out to Tesco cafรฉ.

I asked ChatGPT to calculate how many avocados - i.e. Zac Bard's members - there are in the world at any given time and it came up with a "guesstimate" of 3.3 billion. That's one avocado for every 2.5 people on earth. Of course it's a floating population; the average lifespan of an avocado is probably.......enough, Nigel!

The important point is whether other fruits have similar organisations. World Tomato Organisation - Nope. World Pea Organisation - also No. You'd imagine lots of Noes. But:

International Banana Association - yes
World Apple and Pear Association - sure
International Cherry Symposium - yep

Also mangoes and blueberries.

Who knew?

Perhaps more importantly, what exactly is the sustainability issue? Should I eschew avos and switch to mushy peas? Ugh.

Friday, 4 July 2025

OBBBA

Everyone needs an acronym. It's Independence Day in the USA and President Trump will get to sign his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) today. He certainly has an eye for the spectacular and the historic. It's certainly Big, weighing in at over 1,000 pages. Beautiful? That's in the eye of the beholder. As for Bill and Act: well it can't be both. A Bill is a proposal and, when it's signed into law, it becomes an Act. It can't be both at the same time. But no-one ever accused Trump of accuracy or precision.

But is OBBBA really an acronym? I always thought acronyms have to be pronounceable as a word and that, for most of us, doesn't fit the Bill (sic). However, if it is frequently used in the written word it's possible colloquially. After all, Americans do odd things with our Big, Beautiful English Language.

One of the most effective political acronyms recently used is MAGA. It's basically the shorthand for Trump's whole election campaign; he didn't need anything else - just shout MAGA, MAGA, MAGA and wear the baseball cap and you win an election. And then continue to use it when you govern, because it defines everything you do.

We Brits are a more restrained lot but I do think our political parties could do with a bit of acronymic oomph. I asked ChatGPT for suggestions and the results were pretty variable in quality. Its most amusing was PRIDE – Protect, Reform, Invest, Defend, Empower for the Conservatives. Can you imagine Rees-Mogg going for that word? Best suggestion was REAL – Reclaim, Empower, Act, Liberate - for Reform. I can actually see Farage et al getting the faithful to shout REAL, REAL, REAL at an election rally. And it fits neatly onto a baseball cap. I asked ChatGPT to draw that for me but after a good few minutes it was clear that I'd broken it. Frozen.

Any suggestions from readers for GOAT acronyms?

Thursday, 3 July 2025

The working class believed that the Labour Party was on their side

I derived the title of this essay from a quote by Lord (Maurice) Glasman, a guru of Blue Labour. The quote came in an interview with Tom Newton Dunn for the Times: “The working class believed for over a hundred years that the Labour Party was fundamentally on their side. And now they think we’re not”. 

But this is not initially about Glasman; it’s about JD Vance. Vance was apparently aware of Blue Labour - I’m not sure how - and sent a copy of his Hillbilly Elegy memoir to Glasman asking, according to the article, “whether he thought America’s Democratic Party could be rebuilt in the same light as Blue Labour.”** Subsequently Glasman became the only Labour politician to be invited to Trump's inauguration, at the personal invite of Vance. This peaked my interest; I’ve always been interested in political thinkers and particularly in radicals, of all colours. I have to admit I’d not been aware of Blue Labour and, until the last seven months, of Vance. I often feel my blog relies too much on flippancy and perhaps that should be balanced by serious thought. So I made a plan.

Step 1: read Vance’s book. So I did. Written in 2016 (when he was 31) it's a very moving account of his childhood and early adulthood in Kentucky - part of America's "Rust Belt": the deindustrialised MidWest/South. He uses the term hillbilly throughout the book almost as a badge of pride; they are his people. His upbringing was just about the most chaotic you could imagine. Dysfunctional mother, absent father, a succession of father figures of varying reliability, a maternal grandmother who, though steadfast and loving, was in Vance’s own words a gun-toting “lunatic” meant that he had zero stability and a developing bafflement as to how adults were supposed to behave.

The statistics tell you that kids like me face a grim future—that if they’re lucky, they’ll manage to avoid welfare; and if they’re unlucky, they’ll die of a heroin overdose, as happened to dozens in my small hometown just last year. I was one of those kids with a grim future. I almost failed out of high school. I nearly gave in to the deep anger and resentment harbored by everyone around me. Today people look at me, at my job and my Ivy League credentials, and assume that I’m some sort of genius, that only a truly extraordinary person could have made it to where I am today. With all due respect to those people, I think that theory is a load of bullshit. Whatever talents I have, I almost squandered until a handful of loving people rescued me. That is the real story of my life, and that is why I wrote this book.

It’s a torrid tale of fear - that he’d be left alone; that he'd amount to nothing; that he'd never get out of the nightmare.

He was saved, first by his sister Lindsay, five years older but more often than not the "only adult in the room", and then by the Marines: "From Middletown’s world of small expectations to the constant chaos of our home, life had taught me that I had no control. Mamaw and Papaw [beloved hillbilly maternal grandparents] had saved me from succumbing entirely to that notion, and the Marine Corps broke new ground. If I had learned helplessness at home, the Marines were teaching learned willfulness."

After the Marines came two years of college at Ohio State and then Yale Law School where he met future wife Usha ("my Yale spirit guide"). Called to the bar, marriage, fatherhood. Welcome to the world, but never forgetting:

I may be white, but I do not identify with the WASPs of the Northeast. Instead, I identify with the millions of working-class white Americans of Scots-Irish descent who have no college degree. To these folks, poverty is the family tradition—their ancestors were day laborers in the Southern slave economy, sharecroppers after that, coal miners after that, and machinists and millworkers during more recent times. Americans call them hillbillies, rednecks, or white trash. I call them neighbors, friends, and family.

In 2018, Vance added an Afterword to the book, giving us a clue to how his political awareness developed.

I tried to lay my cards explicitly on the table in one of the later chapters of the book: I am a conservative, one who doubts that the 1960s approach to welfare has made it easier for our country’s poor children to achieve their dreams. But those of us on the Right are deluding ourselves if we fail to acknowledge that it did accomplish something else: it prevented a lot of suffering, and made it possible for people like Mamaw to access food and medicine when they were too poor, too old, or too sick to buy it themselves. This ain’t nothing. To me, the fundamental question of our domestic politics over the next generation is how to continue to protect our society’s less fortunate while simultaneously enabling advancement and mobility for everyone.

I've usually argued that my own party has to abandon the dogmas of the 1990s and actually offer something of substance to working- and middle-class Americans. And despite all of my reservations about Donald Trump (I ended up voting third party), there were parts of his candidacy that really spoke to me: from his disdain for the “elites” and criticism of foreign policy blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan to his recognition that the Republican Party had done too little for its increasingly working- and middle-class base.

After graduating from Yale he practised corporate law, worked as a Senate aide and became a venture capitalist, a Senator in 2023, Vice-President in 2025. Not exactly a normal life path for a hillbilly but, despite some critics, I see no reason in this book to doubt his genuineness.

Step 2: check out bluelabour.org. I did that too, but it's hard to see through the flummery. 

About

Blue Labour is a force within the Labour Party committed to the politics of the common good. Our socialism is both radical and conservative. It is a politics about the work we do, the people we love, and the places to which we belong. 

Our starting point is the democratic renewal of our country. Blue Labour’s goal is a democratic self-governing society built upon the participation of its citizens in the exercise of power and its accountability. 

Our politics is a challenge to the liberal consensus of the capitalist order, but it does not belong to the revolutionary left. Its inheritance is the labour tradition.

It's hard to argue about any of this because it's just vacuous phraseology. Or maybe I'm too stupid to understand. Newton Dunn describes this as "economically left-wing and socially on the right". Maybe he should write their copy. Moving on:

Blue Labour began as a challenge to the liberal consensus of the capitalist order. Democracy was becoming an oligarchy with the liberal left in control of culture and the liberal right in control of the economy. 

Both Labour and the Conservatives shared a liberal contractual view of society. Instead of mutual loyalties binding human beings into families, groups and nations, Labour saw the individual and the state, the Conservatives saw the individual and the market. Neither spoke about the families and neighbourhoods we are born into, nor about our cultural and religious inheritances. Both overlooked the most basic bonds that hold individuals together in a society. 

In the 2019 general election the liberal consensus was broken. We are entering a new political era. However both parties are products of the liberal settlement. They remain substantially unchanged and so unprepared for the challenges ahead. 

The Blue in Blue Labour expresses our disenchantment with the progressive politics of the last few decades. Things do not always get better. Human life is dependent upon forces greater than our own selves. There will never be an end to human pain and suffering, but it can be made less. Politics is about hope and great achievements, but it is also about failure and tragedy.

This sounds awfully like Reform's (and MAGA's) nostalgic rhetoric. Anti-globalism, anti-statism, anti-growth, lots of antis. Glasman claims "I didn't realise the importance of 'again' in Make America Great Again until I went to Trump's inauguration".

I tried hard to find a policy outline for Blue Labour on their truly awful website. The nearest I could come to is this (forgive the lack of brevity):

Labour must rebuild our national economy. 

1.     Britain must reverse decades of deindustrialisation, to rebuild working-class communities and secure our national security in a new era of global uncertainty. There can be no rearmament without reindustrialisation, and no reindustrialisation without cheap energy. We need cheap, clean energy to bring down industrial energy prices, industrial policy to support industries of critical national importance, and regional policy to ensure all of Britain benefits.  

2.     Austerity was a disaster that hollowed out our state capacity and left communities abandoned. Years of historically low interest rates were wasted by Tory governments who refused to invest in the future and we are now paying the price. We should scrap the fiscal rules, in which economic sense and democratic politics are subordinate to faulty OBR forecasts, and invest in infrastructure and the public realm.

3.     Successive governments have sold off our public services and national assets and utilities, leaving us vulnerable and dependent on others. Privatisation has all too often led to extraction, mismanagement and waste. We should reconsider public ownership for public services like rail, utilities like water, and critical industries like steel.

4.     Buying an ordinary family house has become a struggle for even those on good salaries, excluding many young people from adulthood and parenthood. We have not built nearly enough houses, while immigration has radically increased demand. Government must enable more housebuilding, with the explicit objective of reducing house prices and rent as a proportion of incomes.

5.     Our tax system needs reform to reflect new realities, including that most value is tied up in land and assets rather than income. We should consider taxes on assets, and updating council tax bands to ensure it no longer disproportionately hits those in poorer parts of the country. 

Labour must restore the integrity of the sovereign nation. 

1.     Immigration is not a distraction or a culture war issue; it is the most fundamental of political questions, a cause of social fragmentation, and the basis of our broken political economy. We should drastically reduce immigration, reducing low-skill immigration by significantly raising salary thresholds; closing the corrupt student visa mill system; and ending the exploitation of the asylum system, if necessary prioritising domestic democratic politics over the rule of international lawyers. 

2.     Crime and antisocial behaviour are contributing to a sense that public order is breaking down, with working-class communities usually the victims. We must restore the trust and authority of our police force, clarifying its increasingly blurred mission, so that it can focus on the small number of repeat offenders who are responsible for the vast majority of crime. 

3.     We are proud of our multiracial democracy and we utterly reject divisive identity politics, which undermines the bonds of solidarity between those of different sexes, races and nationalities. We should legislate to root out DEI in hiring practices, sentencing decisions, and wherever else we find it in our public bodies.

Labour must restore the integrity of the state.

1.     The government does not run this country. We have handed over too much control to unaccountable QUANGOs and increasingly powerful courts with the power to block government policy. We should return decision-making to parliament, limiting the endlessly expanding power of judicial review and reforming or closing QUANGOs which make decisions which properly belong to the realm of democratic politics.

2.     The British state is bigger but less effective than ever. The prime minister is right that the civil service is sclerotic and needs reform, but we also need to end the scam of consultants ripping off the government and wasting huge sums of public money. We should restore state capacity by reforming our civil service and ending the corporate commissioning and consultancy racket. 

Labour’s covenant begins with these three political tasks. Their achievement will define the government’s ‘decade of renewal’ and shape the future of the country.

In amongst the generalisations there are probably some ideas that are worth considering but the biggest problem that isn't answered is "what then?" We get rid of half the civil service, net zero, immigration, the ECHR, fiscal rules; and what's left? Of course I recognise that we live in an era of disaffection, of low or no faith in governments and the signs are that those lead voters (or perhaps insurrectionists) to put their trust in those promising simplistic solutions. Unless I am misunderstanding Blue Labour I can't take this seriously.

I'm going to give the final word to JD Vance:

To return to the issue that motivated me to write this book, doing better requires that we acknowledge the role of culture. As the liberal senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued, “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society.” I agree, and my view that there will never be a purely government-based solution to the problems I write about has remained largely unchanged since Hillbilly Elegy came out. That said, I’m hardly a policy skeptic, and I think there is much more our governments could do to address these problems. Better policy requires better politics, however, and like many people, I find new reasons each day to wonder whether our politics are remotely up to the challenge. [and to repeat] To me, the fundamental question of our domestic politics over the next generation is how to continue to protect our society’s less fortunate while simultaneously enabling advancement and mobility for everyone.

Thankyou for taking the time to read my ramblings. I don't pretend to have solutions to the world's problems but am always willing to hear and read the views of others, of all persuasions.

** Glasman replied that the "ever more woke" Democrats were a lost cause.

Monday, 30 June 2025

Headlines and captions

Sub editors are the newspaper equivalents of set piece coaches. They operate largely in the background but occasionally come up with an absolute gem. Like today in the Times where a photo was captioned "Flora Phillips became a butcher because she loves animals". What? In the article Flora says "I tried liver for the first time and it was a straight shot in the veins...I couldn't believe it was possible to see and eat an organ of an animal....It blew my mind". So basically she loves dead, eviscerated animals. I'd advise her cat to keep her distance.

On the same page we get "Bunfight over street artist's burger mural next to McDonald's". Now the Times comes nowhere near the tabloid press in witty headlines but at least this is a decent try. Maybe 4/10.

On page 7 we have the news that the 13 times winner of the Times Crossword Championship has won the first ever World Cryptic Crossword Championships. You'd have thought this eminently worthy of a cryptic headline but the sub-editor had already butchered their way to the end of the day and all we get is "Cryptic fans square off for first world title". Now it's possible this is a monumental anagram but I couldn't see that; you'd have thought some kind of crypticism would have occurred to them.

I don't know how much newspapers use AI for headline writing but I asked ChatGPT for some help.

“Across the World and Down to the Wire: Global Minds Battle for Crossword Crown” is not particularly good and wouldn't fit the page so I asked for more tabloidy. "Clue-mageddon!" is more front page Daily Star; "Across! Down! Out Cold!" perhaps would suit The Sun. Still unsatisfactory. So I asked for an anagram of the Times' headline "Cryptic fans square off for first world title" and was given "Two old rivals sport cut-throat, fierce snuff cry" which is awesome, although inaccurate so I asked it to try again and finally it came up with "Crossword fight: top clan fuels first title fury"

I was not convinced this was a perfect anagram so I asked ChatGPT to check and it said:

Nope — “Crossword fight: top clan fuels first title fury” is not a perfect anagram of “Cryptic fans square off for first world title.” It’s a near miss — stylish, thematic, but technically not a valid anagram.

I was still not convinced so I actually got out pencil and paper. And it's right, it's not an anagram. So why give it to me? It blathered on about needing brute force software so, in the interests of not crashing the national grid, I gave up. But at least I tried, which I suspect is more than last night's sub-editor who obviously went home.



Friday, 27 June 2025

The Defense

A few days ago, I think in the recent Sunday Times Culture section, I discovered author John Banville nominating his favourite book by an underrated author to be The Defense by Vladimir Nabokov. He of Lolita fame (infamy?). It explores the life of a shambling, chaotic chess grandmaster and the parallels between chess and his life. I thought I would read it and, despite my O Level in Russian, to do so in the English translation.

The first interesting thing is that there is five page Foreword written by Nabokov himself (he collaborated in the translation) which amounts to a review of the book. An odd way to begin. Which means I don't have to work too hard to do this. He writes "Rereading this novel today..." as though he'd forgotten it. It was one of his earliest and remained untranslated - for reasons he berates certain American publishers disparagingly - from publication in 1930 until 1964. "I would like to spare the time and effort of hack reviewers...." - Ouch! - "and, generally persons who move their lips when reading and cannot be expected to tackle a dialogueless novel..." I'm determined to disprove his uncharitable assertions.

Obviously my current passion for chess drew me to the book - why else would I read an early novel by an underrated author? - and the Russian title of this novel is apparently The Luzhin Defense. The history of chess is littered with eponymous openings "invented" or inspired by famous players such as the Ruy Lรณpez (16th century Spanish priest), the Evans Gambit (Captain William Davies Evans) and the Alekhine's Defence (Alexander Alekhine, 4th World Champion). Luzhin is our protagonist. By the way, neither Nabokov nor Michael Scammell the translator is an American so I'm not sure why the title has an American spelling.

A brief description of the novel is that it's a love story of a boy/man rescued from youthful awkwardness by, and later mentally destroyed by, chess. And an unnamed slightly rebellious young woman who sees in this strange, socially inept and self-absorbed man strengths that no-one else (particularly her parents) can. Why does the author not name some of the key characters? I guess because he wants to de-personalise them, their qualities being more important than their names.

Luzhin was a loner as a child, disparaged by his classmates. A chance encounter with a visitor to his father's house leads to his being taught chess by his aunt. At least for a while until she has to move away as a result of becoming rather too close to Luzhin's father. He skips school and gradually develops his skills under the tutelage of a mysterious tutor Valentinov, and becomes a Grandmaster, perambulating through Europe playing (and generally winning) chess tournaments. During one such he meets our heroine who, for reasons which we are encouraged to deduce for ourselves, is attracted to him. There are hints:

"..even in this indifference, in his clumsy words and in the cumbrous stirrings of his soul, that seemed to be drowsily turning over and falling asleep again, she fancied she saw something pathetic, a charm that was difficult to define but one that she had felt in him from the first day of their acquaintance."

"She wanted to make his acquaintance, talk Russian - so attractive did he seem to her with his uncouthness, his gloominess and his low turndown collar which for some reason made him look like a musician - and she was pleased that he did not take any notice of her and seek an excuse to talk to her..."

The peak of Luzhin's chess career looms with a match against Italian Grandmaster Turati, which seems to be a kind of playoff with the winner destined to play for the world championship. Luzhin will be playing with the black pieces and spends days, maybe weeks, preparing a surprise defence against Turati's favourite opening. Come the day Turati has his own surprise and all Luzhin's preparation is for nothing. The game progresses with Luzhin's position getting worse and his mental state worse still. Eventually the game is suspended when Luzhin collapses and is hospitalised in a sanatorium. A doctor advises that chess is a reason for his breakdown and his fiancรฉe sets about removing all reminders from his life.

He recovers, becomes calm and happy and they marry. He has no job, no money and no purpose in life, however and it seems inevitable that his thoughts return to chess. He finds a pocket chess game in his dishevelled old jacket with a hole in the pocket and he begins to think about that suspended Turati game. Nabokov plots life events as though they are chess moves; Luzhin is now totally immersed in the game, something he has to keep from his wife and everyone else. Nothing matters except to finish the game with a win. Sadly, it's all too much and he comes to a tragic end.

Nabokov was apparently a competent chess player but wasn't interested in playing competitively, preferring to create chess problems: the kind where you get given a position in a game and have to solve the question "how does white checkmate in two moves?". So you could argue that this book creates a lifesize chess puzzle universe. I enjoyed it very much; the almost-stream-of-consciousness writing, the chess references of course, the evocation of post-war Central Europe with its Russian รฉmigrรฉs, Luzhin's inner struggles and his character. I don't know whether those who know little or no chess would enjoy it as much but it's definitely more than a chess novel.

Nabokov in the Foreword: "My story was difficult to compose, but I greatly enjoyed taking advantage of this or that image and scene to introduce a fatal pattern into Luzhin's life and to endow the description of a garden, a journey, a sequence of humdrum events, with the semblance of a game of skill and, especially in the final chapters, with that of a regular chess attack demolishing the innermost elements of the poor fellow's sanity." You nailed it, Vladimir!

...the exquisite, moist melancholy peculiar to recollections of love, a thousand games that he had played in the past. He did not know which of them to choose so as to drink, sobbing, his fill of it: everything enticed and caressed his fancy, and he flew from one game to another, instantly running over this or that heart-rending combination. There were combinations, pure and harmonious, where thought ascended marble stairs to victory; there were tender stirrings in one corner of the board, and a passionate explosion, and the fanfare of the Queen going to its sacrificial doom...Everything was wonderful, all the shades of love, all the convolutions and mysterious path it had chosen. And this love was fatal.

The key was found. The aim of the attack was plain. By an implacable repetition of moves it was leading once more to that same passion which would destroy the dream of life. Devastation, horror, madness.

Thursday, 26 June 2025

Article 5

President Trump said yesterday that the key component of the NATO treaty - Article 5 - "depends on your definition...there's numerous definitions of Article 5, right?"

This of course is heresy to Western politicians and media, who have always assumed that the definition is clear that "an attack on one of us will be met by all the rest coming to our defence militarily". I recently listened to a podcast produced by Deborah Haynes for Sky News called The Wargame. There are five episodes and the scenario of an attack by Russia on the UK is acted out by a number of recently active politicians - Ben Wallace as Prime Minister, Jack Straw as Foreign Secretary, Amber Rudd as Home Secretary, Jim Murphy as Chancellor and others - and military experts. They meet in one room and a group representing Russia in other. Action takes place in real time.

The scenario starts with an attack on the Murmansk naval base in Northern Russia, probably by Chechen rebels but perhaps even by the Russians themselves. Russia of course accuses the Brits of doing it and threatens reprisals. And so on. Once Russian ships fire missiles at us, we naturally assume article 5 will be evoked and the Americans, French, Germans will weigh in with their planes, ships and special forces. But no. The American President calls on both sides to stop their "aggressive" actions. Eventually the Norwegians and Poles offer some kind of air support. And that's it.

I'm not going to bore you with anything more about the podcast except to say that it has (political?) agendas which become apparent:

  • The UK's military is woefully weak
  • Article 5 isn't worth the paper it's written on
To be fair, Haynes says right from the start that the situation has a 1% chance of actually happening. So we can take it with a pinch of salt, or we can consider the "truth" it exposes.

Let's have a look at the actual text of Article 5:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

So it's "each of them...will assist...by taking...such action as it deems necessary". Not a very solid commitment. I suppose it comes down to trust. In previous US presidential incarnations there was an implicit confidence in Europe's reliance on the Americans to come to our rescue. I'm not sure there's any such confidence in the future after Trump's two terms are over; even a Democrat president might well think differently about Europe than we might imagine.

Then there's "in Europe or North America". So Iran's attack on a US base in Qatar doesn't count, nor would an attack on our aircraft carrier if it's in the Pacific, off the coast of Taiwan.

It makes you wonder whether Trump is right; it's all in the interpretation.

Wednesday, 25 June 2025

Shut up or suck up

How to deal with the 47th President of the United States? It's a problem national leaders have grappled with for six months now. It's gone from fawning (Starmer, Alexander Stubb) through mature assertion (Macron, Carney) to bemusement (Ramaphosa, "death, death, death") and belligerence (Zelensky, "you're gambling with World War III...it's going to be great television"). It doesn't appear to make any difference. Starmer's cringeworthy production of a letter from the King out of his pocket like a magician got us a tariff reduction to 10%. Here's how the others did:

Finland: 10% (no letter, no king)
France: 10% (no letter, definitely no king)
Canada: 25% (no letter, same king, no state visit)
South Africa: 35% (poor Cyril)
Ukraine: 10% (no letter, no punishment)

Today we saw the รผbermensch of cringe, Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte laying down the red carpet and prostrating (castrating?) himself on it in front of President God with this extraordinarily obsequious message:

Mr President, dear Donald,

Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no-one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.

You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening. It was not easy but we've got them all signed onto 5 percent!

Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world. You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.

Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.

Safe travels and see you at His Majesty's dinner!

- Mark Rutte

Ugh. Pass me the sick bucket. He gets paid €317,000 a year tax free for this bag of wind.

Hippocrates close your ears

"Do no harm" is not actually part of the 5th century BCE oath attributed to Hippocrates, which included things like swearing by (not at) the gods, living a virtuous life and avoiding surgery (because that's for surgeons). Modern day doctors, in their graduation ceremonies, probably feel that they don't fancy at least two of these so they typically (it varies by institution) swear to uphold codes of some fairly obvious ethics, including something like the aforesaid aphorism. It's reasonable for us as citizens to expect our medics to practise their trade in an ethical way.

The British Medical Association, which represents "junior doctors" (who apparently now want to be called resident doctors, who cares), called a series of strikes in 2023/24 covering 44 days of action - or perhaps we should say inaction - after having claims for a 35% pay rise rejected by the then Conservative government, which instead offered them 6% plus a lump sum, followed by increased offers, all of which were rejected by the docs. In September last year they finally settled with the Labour government for 22.3%, some backdated, some for the following year. The BBC reported that "more than 1.2 million appointments and treatments had to be cancelled because of the strikes".

Now they're back. It's reported in today's Times that Dr. Ross Nieuwouldt, the co-chair of the resident doctors' committee of the BMA said "the vast majority are excited to to go again" as the union prepares a new wave of strikes  in support of a 29% pay rise.

Now I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of these on the face of it ludicrous pay claims (how's that for not commenting?). What irks me is the morality of key public servants withdrawing their services. As a teacher, I never joined a union. My principle was that I didn't want other people speaking for me and that I personally would never have gone on strike and - as I saw it - deprived my students of my pearls of wisdom. That would have been immoral. Basically I'm not a joining person - I don't even belong to my residents' association; I only joined Cornwall Croquet Club because it was a closed shop - no pay, no play. Fair enough.

I am instinctively supportive of the concept of trades unions and I'd have to concede that over the years I benefited from pay rises negotiated by the teachers' unions with the governments of the day. I just don't want to join your club.

But teachers striking? Not for me. Junior doctors getting "excited" over forthcoming withdrawal of labour? No, do your jobs; serve the public. Do no harm.

Sunday, 22 June 2025

Supermajorities

23. That's the size of the majority as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (also known as the "Assisted Dying Bill") passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Voted For: 314, Against:291, Didn't Vote: probably around 37 once you exclude the Speaker and the 7 Sinn Fein members.

I do wonder whether such a narrow victory (less than 4%) is sufficient to endorse a highly contentious change to life in the UK. I always thought that the Brexit referendum, as a constitutional issue, should have required some kind of supermajority in order to pass. Typically in constitutional matters of all kinds - the constitution of your local tennis club, for example - something like a two-thirds majority is required to succeed. It's a protection against short term changes in people's opinions, unexpected consequences and even voter persuasion/manipulation. The Assisted Dying Bill is not a constitutional issue, it doesn't change the way our country is run but it fundamentally affects an aspect of our way of life, of our culture, maybe our understanding of our humanity. Most of all, once the change is made it's extremely difficult to reverse even if the consequences prove to be perverse (as some would say of Brexit).

I have always been ambivalent about this Bill, mostly because I cannot separate my own feelings on it (which I genuinely can't anticipate) from the "greater good" arguments which seem to emphasise the benefits for perhaps small numbers of people. It's the thought that I simply don't know how this will work in practice that would have me vote against it were I an MP. That isn't to say I'm against all change; I'm happy to see fundamental (in the sense that it is almost certainly irreversible) change if there is a huge proportion of informed opinion (and therefore, in Parliament, votes) in favour.

Most of what our elected representatives vote on is transactional: increase this tax now, we can change it later if fiscal circumstances change or a new government is voted in. A majority of 1 is OK. But generational change is different and in my opinion requires much greater support. Not 100%, that's not realistic and open to manipulation but some kind of supermajority that guarantees near-permanent approval, near-certainty that this is the right thing to do and future generations of MPs will almost certainly not seek to revoke it.

There are different kinds of supermajority definitions including combinations of minimum turnout, overall majorities of those eligible to vote (this Bill would have required 326 to pass on that measure), two-thirds or three-quarter majorities. In a UK-wide referendum, for example, it would be reasonable to require the majority consent of each of the four nations for fundamental change. Ask the SNP! I don't think our politicians give sufficient consideration to the mechanics of our (unwritten) constitution. It feel like "winging it" is a British tradition that we cherish.

I just don't think 23 is enough to wing it.

Saturday, 21 June 2025

St Austell to Istanbul direct

I love trains. I once had a house where there were trains at the bottom of the garden. When we first moved in the noise disturbed sleep; after about a month we no longer noticed them. These were not proper trains, they were just London suburban, carrying drones to and from dreary work. Proper trains are intercontinental.

I once dragged my family onto a train at London Victoria to begin a journey which would end in Istanbul a few days later. This was 18 or 19 years before the Channel Tunnel opened. I was probably seasick on the ferry. I had always dreamed of romantic train journeys: the Trans-Siberian Express, the Canadian from Toronto to Vancouver, the Orient Express. The most practical and least expensive option was, I decided, to go from London to Istanbul. Probably the best part of it for me was the months of planning using the Thomas Cook International Timetable, each leg of the journey meticulously planned and eventually booked, hotels in Paris, Venice and Istanbul itself, all ready for the big day. [Note: school teachers = long summer holidays].

Things don't always go as planned. If you miss the once a day sleeper train from Belgrade to Istanbul - not pre-bookable through Cook's because it was run by Bulgarian Railways and there were no signs in English in Belgrade station to show where the booking office was - you may have to adjourn to a Communist era hotel and dinner at probably the only McDonalds in the Balkans. I still have this image in my mind of waving goodbye to the train, but the following day we got our travel tickets early and eagerly awaited the train as it approached, from Berlin I think. We had not, however, got sleeper berths booked but an intrepid English-speaking co-traveller advised us to just get on the train, find a sleeper compartment and occupy it pending purchase of the berths.

We also hadn't realised that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had had some kind of tiff with the Greeks about visas so, when we got to the Yugoslavia/Greece border those without visas had to debark onto the platform and try to deal with it. Middle of the night, long queue at the visa station, only drachmae accepted, we had none of course (we're only transiting), risk of the train going without us, I did what any proper Englishman would do: ushered the family back onto the train and into our compartment with instructions never to move, queued until it was obvious that I would miss the train, got back myself, held breath until the train departed. Ticket inspector - visas? Shrug, point at watch, sorry-no-speakie-Greek, absolutely not moving, arrest us if you will. Inspector moves off, too much trouble. Sleep to Istanbul. By the time we made the return trip the politicians had sorted it out and no visa required.

I loved it all. I thought back on this when HS2 was first mooted in 2009. My dream of cross-European travel might come true; I could embark in Cornwall, where I was now living, bypass the awful London underground, sleep through the Channel Tunnel and wake up somewhere exotic like Barcelona, Prague or Athens. But no, there's no HS2 to Cornwall. And no link to the Channel Tunnel. No link to Heathrow airport. Not even a link to London termini. When I was a boy, I was very much into trainspotting (steam train era) and I used to travel across north London to somewhere called Old Oak Common where an adventurous young lad could find a viewing point to see the trains going in and out of London Paddington; the iconic locomotives of the Great Western Railway.


But Old Oak Common was where HS2 would stop, after which travellers would have to get a bus - maybe even a horse-drawn carriage - into London.

HS2 was never designed to go anywhere interesting. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds - who wants to go there? At least go to Edinburgh, Holyhead, Penzance, Inverness, York - places worth visiting.

Who wants high speed anyway? Classic rail travel is leisurely, taking in the scenery of places you haven't been to before and would love to come back to; not Birmingham. Whilst sipping a glass of cheap plonk.

18 years ago, after my elder son's wedding in Sydney, Australia, I traversed the continent on a 3 day train trip from Sydney to Perth. 


(I know, it's faded with time and the Cornish sun)

Desert all the way but some interesting side trips including to a Kalgoorlie gold mine. Flew back to Adelaide where I joined the Ghan train to Darwin via Alice Springs. Scenery, glass of Aussie Shiraz.

If Britain actually wanted un Grand Projet, as a symbol of national brilliance, openness and ingenuity, HS2 should have joined up [levelled up?] Scotland, Wales, the South West, Heathrow, London termini and linked to HS1. Pay for it all by imposing swingeing air travel taxes.

I dream that one day I'll be sitting on platform 2 at St Austell station


awaiting the arrival of the weekly Penzance to Istanbul sleeper train. £1500 return for senior citizens, plonk included. Book early, it'll be popular. See you there?

Friday, 20 June 2025

Remoralising

Zia Yusuf, the Reform UK chairman (at the time) said, in the aftermath of the party's strong showing in the recent local elections, that young people were being taught to "hate their country", they needed a "sense of pride" about the UK, as he said his party's mission would be to "remoralise" young people.

It's 30 or so years since I was a teacher, and I've never taught in a primary school, so I have no idea what pupils are taught nowadays but common sense would suggest that hating their country isn't part of it. Nor is stimulating a sense of pride in their country. More likely is that teachers are performing their duties to open their students' minds through thoughtful examination and analysis of facts.

There are two issues here. Firstly factual accuracy and context; the job of education is not to close people's minds but to present and explore in a balanced way the history of your own country, say. But there is also the hidden truth that the United Kingdom is a multiracial and multicultural society and not all of a school's pupils will regard the UK as "their" country. Is it not reasonable that young people whose families have strong Asian heritage should be encouraged to have pride in the lands of their parents as well as the land in which they were born? I suppose I should take Yusuf at his word; he didn't say pride about the UK exclusively.

But why pride at all? I'm British, having been born here of British parents, but I can't honestly say I feel proud to be British, any more than to be a European or a citizen of the world. I don't remember at school the issue of pride in my country came up at all. Maybe I missed that class; my secondary school History teacher was the most unpleasant person who ever taught me, and I failed his subject miserably.

I could talk about football here but not all my readers are interested so I'll go for cricket instead. Remember Norman Tebbit and his "cricket test"? I think it was in the 1990s that he used the phrase to suggest that it was necessary for South Asian and other immigrants to the UK to support England against, say, India in a test match. If they "failed" the test, they were insufficiently assimilated (his word, not mine).

Of course it's not unreasonable to expect immigrants to respect the culture and values of a country in which they choose to live. To learn the language, abide by both laws and customs, absorb and understand the history of their new country and, above all, integrate. Maybe inter-marry. Retain pride in both old and new heritages.

I had begun floundering here, because immigration is such a complex and treacherous issue to debate. Then along came Emma Duncan. She is a regular columnist in the Times, where she writes mostly on economic issues from - in my opinion - a centre right perspective. Today she wrote about Parallel Histories, an educational charity. She describes their teaching of controversial history using a dual-narrative methodology. A teenager states "the repeated refusal by Palestinian groups to accept the existence of Israel is a major obstacle to peace. There cannot be a negotiation when one side refuses to accept the other's existence." The student is then required to change sides and articulate contrary views: "Israel has to be accountable for its actions. Until then there will be no peace, just a surrender and the people of Palestine will never accept surrender disguised as diplomacy."

This sounds to me a better type of education than dog whistles about pride and hate.

Thursday, 19 June 2025

We’ve got some but you can’t have any

"Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons". The nations which say this just happen to be those who already have such weapons. “It’s OK for us but not for you” seems to be the mantra. If it’s fine for “us” to demand you forgo such weapons should not “we” get rid of ours?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been signed by 191 countries since its inception in 1968. Five of those countries were given special recognition for already having nuclear weapons - USA, Russia (earlier the Soviet Union), China, France and the UK. Since the Treaty has disarmament as one of its three pillars, it is suggested that these five were expected to get rid of their nuclear weapons over time [some hopes!]. North Korea left the Treaty in 2003 after years of trying to have it both ways by continuing to contravene the Treaty whilst remaining a member, and conducted a nuclear test in 2006. Three major nations never signed the Treaty: India and Pakistan actually conducted nuclear tests in the 1990s, Israel has never confirmed whether it has nuclear weapons. Which leads us to Iran.

In 2010 Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei issued a fatwa declaring the use of nuclear weapons as forbidden by Islam and stated that Iran was not pursuing them. Iran remains a member of the Treaty and has consistently maintained it has the right (under the Treaty) to enrich uranium to the level required for the production of peaceful nuclear energy. Three days ago Iran announced that its parliament was drafting a bill to withdraw from the NPT.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed its latest resolution regarding Iran on June 12, formally declaring Iran non‑compliant with its nuclear safeguards obligations. As Israel is not a member of the Treaty, the IAEA has no jurisdiction to inspect its facilities.

Does anyone actually know whether Iran has nuclear weapons or is imminently planning to build and use one? Israel believes they could have the capability soon and is determined that that shouldn't happen. That's easy to say if you've already got your own. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Neither do I want Israel to. Or India or Pakistan for that matter.

I fear the Non-Proliferation Treaty is pointless.

If you don't want to be Anonymous

Don't be anonymous - let's see who you are. Here's how to do it.

1. Select the Google app - press/click the big G:
2. Tap on your profile picture at the top right:
3. Select Google account:
4. Select Personal Info:
5. Go to NAME and click the right arrow:
6. Click the right arrow once or twice and edit your Name:
and Save.





Wednesday, 18 June 2025

16,540 miles

Auckland City are the current champions of the New Zealand National League. Football is the third most popular sport after rugby union and cricket in that country. By winning the league the club, who play in a stadium with a capacity of just over 3,000, qualified to compete in the OFC (Oceania Football Confederation) Champions League against clubs from Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and New Caledonia. In April this year they actually won it. In fact they have won it for the last four years in a row and in 11 of the last 13 years.

They’re not even the best team in Auckland. Auckland FC play in the Go Media Stadium which has a capacity of 25,000. But they can’t play in the OFC Champions League because they play in the Australian A League and Australia is in the Asian Football Confederation. They actually finished top of the A League in 2024 but were denied the opportunity to play in the Asian Champions League because they are based in New Zealand which, as we know, is in the Oceania Football Federation. In fact, although they finished 1st in the league phase they didn’t win it because 1st through 6th compete in a series of playoffs to decide who wins the title and they were beaten by Melbourne Victory.

I hope you’re keeping up.

Anyway a couple of weeks ago Auckland City flew 8,270 miles to Cincinnati to take part in the FIFA Club World Cup.

And got beaten 10-0 by Bayern Munich.

Why bother?

The answer: $6.25 million. Just for turning up. Theoretically they could get an extra $2.5 million if they win a match. In a couple of weeks' time they will take the 8,270 return journey home. Maybe they could buy a new stadium.


Where is everybody?

Following yesterday's exploration of conspiracy theory, I thought I'd mull over the Fermi Paradox. I asked ChatGPT about it.

********************************************

Ah, the Fermi Paradox—one of the most deliciously frustrating mysteries in science.

At its core, it asks a simple question:

“Where is everybody?”

In other words:
If the universe is so big, so old, and so full of stars (and planets), why haven’t we seen any signs of intelligent alien life?


๐Ÿง  Origin: Who Was Fermi?

The paradox is named after Enrico Fermi, a Nobel-winning physicist. In 1950, over lunch with colleagues at Los Alamos, he supposedly blurted out:

“But where is everybody?”

They were chatting about UFOs and the likelihood of life in the universe. Fermi realized that based on the size and age of the Milky Way, alien civilizations should already be here—or at least their signals should be.


๐ŸŒŒ The Logic Behind the Paradox

Here’s the thinking:

  1. There are 100–400 billion stars in the Milky Way.

  2. Many of those stars have planets. Estimates suggest billions of Earth-like planets.

  3. Life evolved on Earth relatively quickly, geologically speaking.

  4. If intelligent life develops commonly, then some civilizations should be millions of years ahead of us.

  5. In millions of years, they could have:

    • Explored the galaxy

    • Sent probes everywhere

    • Built giant structures

    • Left signals we could detect

But... we see nothing.
No ships. No radio signals. No evidence of colonization. Not even so much as an alien potato chip wrapper.


๐Ÿ•ณ️ So Where Are They? Theories and Possibilities

Here are some of the leading explanations people have offered—ranging from sober science to existential dread:


๐Ÿงฌ 1. Life is Rare

Maybe Earth is a freak accident. Life may be:

  • Rare to begin with

  • Often wiped out by asteroids or climate shifts

  • Likely to stay microbial forever


๐Ÿค– 2. Intelligent Life Destroys Itself

The “Great Filter” theory says most civilizations self-destruct before they reach the stars—via:

  • Nuclear war

  • Climate collapse

  • AI run amok

  • Biological weapons

Sobering, isn’t it?


๐ŸŒ 3. We’re the First

Someone has to be first. Maybe we’re the early bloomers, and in another billion years, the galaxy will be full of chatter.


๐Ÿ™ˆ 4. They're Hiding

Advanced civilizations may:

  • Choose not to contact us (the zoo hypothesis)

  • Use communication methods we don’t understand (quantum? neutrinos?)

  • Be deliberately quiet to avoid predators (the dark forest theory)


๐Ÿคฏ 5. They’re Already Here... and We’re Too Dumb to Notice

Maybe they're microscopic. Or post-biological. Or living in forms we can’t perceive. We could be like ants trying to understand the internet.


๐Ÿงช 6. We Haven’t Looked Hard Enough (Yet)

The universe is huge. We’ve only just started scanning for alien signals, and SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has covered a tiny sliver of the radio spectrum, for a tiny amount of time.

Imagine listening to one second of one radio station, and concluding no one broadcasts music.


๐Ÿช So What’s the Verdict?

The Fermi Paradox doesn’t say aliens don’t exist
it highlights the weird silence in a galaxy that should be screaming with life.

Whether it’s because we’re rare, doomed, or just not looking in the right way, no one knows.

But it haunts astronomers, physicists, and philosophers alike—and it’s one of the best reasons to keep looking up.

********************************************

Now, as I and my fellow Star Trekkies know, the aliens are out there but you need a warp engine to go and find them. But there's plenty to get our teeth into here. For myself, I really hope we're not alone; it would be tremendously exciting to find some extraterrestrial life. And does SETI really exist? Hopefully Elon (clearly a Trekkie at heart) will have protected them from his chainsaw.

On their website seti.org I am promised 

When we make first contact, you'll be one of the first we contact.


Sign me up! (to avoid confusion, this is not the same as "Beam me up, Scottie")

I am familiar with the Dark Forest theory from the 3 Body Problem book 2. But I had to look up the Zoo Hypothesis. Apparently it suggests that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations are intentionally avoiding contact with Earth, observing us like animals in a zoo to allow for our natural evolution and development. Readers of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will be familiar with something like this, although in reverse: the mice are actually hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who built Earth as a giant computer to calculate the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Which turned out to be 42. Again, I want this to be true.

What worries me most though is why ChatGPT starts its replies with a big sigh "Ah...". And "an alien potato chip wrapper"? I have to have a look at its settings.

I asked it stop the "Ah" beginning and it agreed to.

Tuesday, 17 June 2025

Flight BA149

From time to time I explore the offerings on the Sky Documentaries channel. Last night I watched Flight 149: Hostage of War. There was a thorough review in the Guardian a few days ago so I'm just going to focus on a few essential points. It is centred around events on 2 August 1990, a date best known for the start of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

My default position for "revelations" of secret government plots is scepticism. Nevertheless some known facts exist:

  • British Airways flight 149 left London Heathrow at 19:05 BST on 1 August 1990 en route to Kuala Lumpur with stops scheduled in Kuwait and Madras (now Chennai). The flight had been delayed from its original departure time of 18:00.
  • The flight touched down in Kuwait at 04:13 local time on 2 August, by which time Iraq's invasion had begun.
  • Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher stated in Parliament that the flight had landed before the invasion began. In 2021, however Foreign Office papers were declassified and released and showed that the UK government was not only aware that of the invasion before the flight's arrival time in Kuwait but that they "allowed" the flight to take off from London knowing that there was a risk the invasion would take place imminently. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss confirmed that the government had misled British Airways by not passing on a warning about the invasion.
I'm going to skip over the horrendous depictions of Iraqi behaviour in the film and move to the key assertion behind its focus on the class action being taken on behalf of 95 of the passengers against the UK government and British Airways, which is that there are suggestions that a "military looking" group of young men boarded late in London, deplaned first in Kuwait and may not have been included in the passenger manifest (which would have been illegal under UK law). 

The inference posed by the programme makers is that it's possible that the UK government had a group of special forces operatives (referred to as The Increment, a supposed group of former SAS soldiers and MI6 officers) added to the flight in order to operate undercover in Kuwait. On 2 October 1992, in response to a question on the issue, now-PM John Major said "I can confirm, however, that there were no British military personnel on board the flight". Of course, if the Increment exists and is a group of ex-military, this would have been a truthful statement.

Following a BBC documentary about the flight in 2007, there have been a number of claims from "reliable sources" that something of the kind actually occurred.

My inherent scepticism allows that (a) it's a plausible explanation (b) that it's equally likely to be untrue (c) even if it's true, isn't that what you'd expect a responsible government, about to go war, to do? (d) there are sometimes legitimate reasons for governments to lie (e) it may sometimes, for the "greater good", be possible to argue that sacrificing the liberty, and even perhaps the lives, of 367 innocent passengers in order to further the long term defeat of a ruthless dictator. As you can see, although it's a really well produced and purposeful film, I don't easily buy into the easy conspiracy theory, attractive and entertaining though it is.

I look forward to hearing of your opinions, if you watch it.