20 is too big a number

I watch football matches in which I have "skin in the game", as they say. "They" being I don't know who but let's move on. My interest might be in supporting one of the teams, wanting one of the teams to lose because it would benefit a team I support, maybe just expecting lots of goals. No dreary goalless draws please, let's have action!

The England womens' football team has been providing plenty of action recently. On Tuesday they beat Latvia 20-0 in a World Cup Qualifying match. Twenty! They have so far won all six of their games in group D, scoring 53 goals and conceding none. I wasn't watching because it coincided with another match in which I had that skin stuff. But would I have continued to watch such a one-sided match, once the score reached say 10-0? I'm not sure; I have no previous experience to go on.

In the mens' World Cup qualifying competition we are used to "minnows" like San Marino, Gibraltar and Liechtenstein conceding 6 or 7 and some people complain that "this is embarrassing; there should be a pre-qualifying competition to weed out the weakest nations" and others respond by asserting that these teams will learn, and eventually get better, by playing the top teams.

Overall I think the situation in that case is just about OK and I can see both sides of the argument. But twenty? What can Latvia learn by losing 20-0 to England? They already know they aren't very good, presumably, having conceded 46 goals in their five matches, but this must be horrendously demoralising. And there is a sense in which serious mis-matches undermine the integrity of sport. Had I been watching, I would almost certainly have switched off at half time with the score 8-0. No fun.

By the way, football commentators often use the "this could be a cricket score" phrase when faced with a team scoring five or six in the first half of a game, but this displays a certain ignorance of the game of cricket, where scores of two, three and four hundred are typical. Just saying.

Refugee Christmas

Just back from a lovely family stay in Whitstable. Highlight was yesterday's erection and decorating of the Christmas tree. I know, it's still November, but in these times of virus depression, it cheered us all up.

Last year I decided to nominate Crisis UK as my Christmas charity. I was moved by my daughter in law Gabby's interest in the plight of homeless people and have continued to donate in the last 12 months. This year I'm going for the Refugee Council. As regular readers will know, I have been exercised by the inhumane attitudes to and treatments of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. I recognise that judgments have to be made about the legitimacy of asylum claims but expect my fellow citizens and my government to treat these people with respect while they undergo processing. Human beings, not animals. In the Council's words "we exist to support those who come to the UK in need of safety and we speak out for compassion, fairness and kindness."

The Refugee Council happens to be one of three charities chosen jointly by the Times and Sunday Times for their Christmas appeal this year. Their journalists can illuminate the issue far better than I can:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-christmas-appeal-2021-our-lives-our-dreams-our-country-collapsed-the-refugee-council-helped-to-give-us-hope-again-jd66l2dp2

You might like to read the Refugee Council's tribute to the 27 men, women and children who tragically lost their lives last week whilst trying to reach safety in Britain.

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/refugee-council-pays-tribute-to-27-people-who-died-last-night/

Back to the Beginning

Storm Arwen. Apparently the first storm of the season. Storm naming runs from September each year. The UK does it jointly with the Irish and the Dutch. Which accounts, I guess, for Meabh and Vergil in the 2021/22 list. If your name is Quentin, Ursula, Xavier, Yasmin or Zak, you're out of luck, as we follow the naming convention of the US National Hurricane Center which for some reason doesn't include names starting with those letters. That frankly seems somewhat twentieth century. 

We can all suggest storm names. The Met Office tells me that more than 10,000 UK citizens did so for the current list. That's pretty poor; they need better PR. Although I imagine they don't want to get submerged by social media. Boaty McBoatface. Ruby was selected after a cat "who comes in and acts like a storm... found her name on the list" (she can read?). And "a daughter who leaves a trail of destruction when she comes in the house". Suggesting that the committee has a sense of humour. Or they were short of Rs.

Herbert

I first made the acquaintance of Herbert over two years ago.  He was introduced to me by our son-in-law who explained his many virtues and attributes.  He’s ‘fairly’ unobtrusive, lives on a wall and is the gift that keeps on giving.  The gifts take the form of a year round supply of herbs, lollo rosso, frisée, rocket, chicory, lambs lettuce .... you get the idea.   And all you have to do, is keep him supplied with seeds and water.  

Now this Herbert has been languishing in storage and very sad he’s been. No chance to display his talents and was feeling unloved.  However, he has been rescued, installed in pride of place in his new home and is giving his all.  

So impressed was I, that I ordered a companion for my dear husband who had been giving him longing looks.   

All went well,   Herbert #2 is made in Austria but was happy to join his companion in Britain.   Until - yet another vile consequence of Brexit struck.   Herbert’s new dad received a demand for £66 in import duty.  

That’s a lot of money on top of what he cost. Even if we are spared for a fair few years longer, I doubt that we shall consume sufficient greenstuff to cover his cost.  

Ah well, when we get our eternal reward, Herbert can join his brother, and the coastal family will never be on short commons.   

Pekapeka-tou-roa

This fella (using that in a non gender specific manner, as in 'guy') recently won Bird of the Year in New Zealand.

Pekapeka-tou-roa is a long-tailed bat, about the size of a human thumb.

Yes a BAT! Not a bird. And that has predictably caused outrage. Amongst genuine bird lovers. Alleging the vote was rigged.

Why would a country have a Bird of the Year vote? And do the New Zealanders vote for a Lizard of the Year, a Donkey of the Year? Is it a species of bird that is voted for or a particular animal, such as Billy The Brightest Budgie?

You'd imagine the Kiwi would be a popular choice but that hasn't been the winner since 2009 (Kiwi lovers need to mobilise). Last year's winner was the kākāpō, the only bird so far to have won the prestigious award twice. It came second this year to the  munch-maligned bat.

The competition is organised by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand aka Forest & Bird. It is not known whether there is a Forest of the Year poll (it's quite possible that if there is, it will have been won by a river). The Bird of the Year vote is not limited to members, so is very popular with the public. Well, some of the public: the population of New Zealand, as of today - courtesy of worldometers.info - is 4,822,233; 7,031 of the populace voted in the competition, with Pekapoo winning with 12% of the vote. It's forbidden to speculate whether a Proportional Representation voting system is in place.

From humble beginnings in 2006, when just 458 voters elected the New Zealand fantail the winner,

voting reached a peak in 2019 when 12,022 elected the Hoiho, or Yellow-Eyed penguin, winner with nearly a third of the votes - the most popular fella yet.

New Zealand's Department Of Conservation researchers have been collecting information about long-tailed bats in the Hanging Rock area of South Canterbury. The population is small and vulnerable, numbering only about 100 bats and still declining. So maybe we should be supportive of efforts to bring attention to their plight. Unless, of course, they were the source of SARS-CoV-2, in which case we might think again.

No Donald,

I'm just joking. Don't quote me! Now I'll get all those batophiles on my case. Oops.

Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

There is a question in the wind: should MPs be allowed to have another job at the same time? And who is going to decide the answer to that? You've got it - the MPs themselves! What do you think they will decide? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

If the major supermarkets got together to agree the selling prices of their goods, that would be a cartel and would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If all the local plumbers colluded to set rates, we wouldn't allow it; we'd find someone else to do the job.

MPs already have two jobs: as constituency MPs and as legislators. It has long been my view that these functions should be separated. There is no reason why someone who listens to their constituents and helps to solve their problems should be a representative of a political party. It's a non partisan role. We should elect these people solely to perform that function; they should be independent of party and should have the constitutional right to meet Government Ministers to represent the views, issue and problems of the people of their areas. Being elected as a legislator, on the other hand, would follow the current practice. But we wouldn't need so many of them; just enough to populate Ministerial offices and their opposition counterparts, together with the membership of select committees. Given that the resulting fewer people involved - say 250 instead of the current 650 - would all be busy doing their legislative work, it would be legitimate to ban them taking second jobs.

One of the arguments about MPs (basic salary: £81,932 p.a.) having a second job is that some of those, for instance qualified doctors spending some time each week helping out the understaffed NHS, are more worthy than the obviously freeloading consultants, barristers and the like. I say No! If you want to be a doctor, be one and don't become an MP. One or the other. This is the 21st century, people!

If you say "only certain types of second jobs" or "yes but limited in some way" you create loopholes which will inevitably be used.

Another argument is that doing outside work makes you more rounded, better informed and more effective members of our political community. What, like the current lot? Yeah, that's working well.

"Lots of professional people wouldn't want to become MPs if they couldn't continue in their professions". Good riddance then.

So if MPs are too personally involved to be able to honestly vote on the question of second jobs, who should decide? We should. I'd go for a quick, binding referendum: "Should MPs have second jobs? Yes or No". If the answer is Yes, a supplementary referendum to determine the limits would be held and the results would be binding. We would need a Parliamentary Bill to:

• Make the outcomes of such referendums binding
• Allow supplementary referendums, dependent on the outcome of a primary referendum
• Issue all households with a Referendum Voting Machine so that they could be held almost instantaneously

Cloud cuckoo land? In the USA, lots of states have referendums and various other instruments for citizens to decide on important issues. If we want to do it, we can do so. Get on with it!