Surrender to Stupidity

The Surrender Bill is getting a lot of bloated attention. Just pause for a second. The executive head of our democratic parliament, our Prime Minister, is rubbishing his parliament that has democratically decided that we must not leave the EU without a deal. If he feels so strongly against it, he should present a counter Bill to nullify it. But of course he cannot, as he does not have a majority in the House nor within his own Party.

Bluff and bluster may be a successful at a personal level but you cannot run a country by bluff and bluster. In a sales pitch you might get away with pretending you will just walk away. But not at National levels. The bluff that UK will walk without agreeing a deal is utter nonsense. The EU knows it, most of the country knows it, so why discredit your integrity by pretending to hold an impossible position. The rest of the sane world knows there is too much at stake. The breakup of the United Kingdom for one. Turning our backs on our closest neighbours is another. Unravelling 40 years of close integration is another, but the list goes on and on. At some point an agreement with the EU will have to reached. Not facing that reality, holding up the pretence of another (unspecified) option will result in a lot of pain and damage.

Another bluff tactic is to claim that the Country has Decided. No it did not. Half the country definitely did not decide to leave. It is worth recalling that the ripples of a divided nation, catholic v protestants lingers on even to this day. Our Nation is divided over the EU. As in all inflamed disputes, in the end the opposites just have to sit down, talk and reach an agreement. That is what a Prime Minster worthy of the position should be doing, Not fanning the flames of discord.

As our Prime Minster continues to fail to recognise and respond to the deep division within our country, what are we to do? Twiddle our fingers whilst grabbing unquestioningly every soothing soundbite offered, lap up all the electoral gift baubles as if they were substantive and a real, or do we demand better? Is the retention of a United Kingdom worth fighting for? Are we really content to retreat to a gated community to keep all those unpleasant neighbours at arm’s length, do we really want to surrender having any voice in the world that is listened to? Do we want a fantasy future or face up to the hard issues before us? For that we need a Parliament that reflects all of us and a Prime Minster who has integrity, able to seek accord and with a vision which does resonate with our core values.

Not that lone voice

I have been going on about how the Political Parties have subverted democracy to their own power cause. See: The Political No Vote, Political Wilderness, Living a Now Life. I choose not to select a Party and if I am not able to Vote for a person to represent me, me not their party, or am not able to vote for None of the Above then I will not Vote. In parallel I object to being reduced to making the illiterates mark of an 'X' to signify my choices. In this day and age we are capable of expressing and uniting on a far wider and complex range of thoughts, opinions and agreements. An 'X' says nothing. Going on about it but apprehensive, was I unrealistic, too idealistic, too remote from the nitty gritty of every day, just an oddball with a soap box.

Turns out, thanks to, of all publications, the New Scientist - We the People (see also A Vote for Change) that I am not alone! Across the democratic world there are thousands of people with similar thoughts all looking to find better ways of applying democracy in practice. People with very similar ideas actually trying out and trailing alternative ways of enabling the everyman to contribute to a consensus view. Vindication! With Facebook and Google claiming to know before I do where my interest lie why oh why have they not promoted these other organisations onto my news feeds? Surely it cannot be that no advertising income is being generated by peoples democracy? So join in the discussion, you and I are not alone, there is a movement out there of like mind people. We just need to connect with them.

The Political Wilderness

There are two crisis issues staring at us. First the obscenely absurd wealth ratio between the poorest and the richest standing at 1 to 300 and ever rising. Secondly an economy based on ever increasing consumerism but founded on a World now showing that it has very finite resources and capacity to regenerate those resources. The two issues are of course inter-related but necessarily linked. Both issues need to be tackled, urgently. That takes courage, vision and political muscle. Courage because any solution is going to generate upset as toys are taken away. Vision to see through the mires of preconceptions, adherence to comfortable past practice, to look beyond to how a good Society might be solidly founded. Political muscle simply because there are some big heavyweight opinions or organisations who have a vested interest to maintaining the status quo and can call on inter-global support.

We simply do not have a single political leader with the balls and charisma to sell a solution. I do not care particularly which solution, which view of outcome success. The issues are so big it may well be impossible to define one comprehensive approach. I personally doubt that a single strategy is possible, but nibbling away multi-directionally, but always consistently in the 'right' direction, is not only possible but essential if we are to ever stop this slumber walk into the abyss.

Instead all the Political Parties are pre-occupied with throwing sweeties to the voters. Hoping to come up with the 'best' colour wrapper and flavour combinations that will win voter support and give them their majority. Sweeties like 'immigration', 'EU', 'welfare', 'cost of living' in fact such an array of sweeties that are known to have mass appeal. In the absence of any vision of a just and equitable society it is no wonder the voters will hoover up the sweeties on offer, something, even a sweetie, is better than nothing.

With the Election hype escalating around us, all the Parties on offer are digging deep into their sweeties reserves hoping against hope they can differentiate themselves enough to win out. That their nuance's of colour and flavour will standout sufficient to get that crucial vote that puts them in power. The voters will no doubt be bewildered by the sameness Me To sweeties on offer. For me, there is only one possible vote, "None of the Above". I just hope enough of us can make that one sane choice so that the small voice of reason can be heard over the clamour of sweetie distribution. We all need to hear the voice that talks to these big issues facing us. Put sweeties behind you, time for the big boys to come out.

Baffling silence

Just had our three major political parties annual conferences where they address the prevailing issues of the day. Not a mention of social inequality and the desperate need to reduce the gap. I confess I did not pay close attention, certainly did not read cover to cover all the various speeches. Yes I did pick up on one or two minor concessions that could be interpreted as paying a token lip-service to giving the underprivileged just a tad more. However the extremes between those that have and are getting more and those who do not have and are getting less, are so wide with the gap increasing at such a worrying rate.Nothing but a seismic shift in policy from any of three parties is going to even begin to change the present courses. That would have hit the headlines. Even I would have notice that. No, our political leaders attuned to the cares and worries of our Nation, are indifferent to the loss of self-respect, lack of hope and disassociation for the growing army that are having to give up more so that the few can enjoy. Those that have seek to isolate themselves from those that have not, ring fencing their privileged access to the key essentials of life, education, health and homes. A polarised society with a ghettoed rich isolated from the morass is a dangerous society, everyone is degraded by it, rich and poor alike.

The only word I hear is we must stay on course to ensure this slow recovery continues. All parties seem well content and satisfied in continuing to follow this Alice-In-Wonderland economic policy. A pyramid selling type of policy that is founded on creating money so we can spend more. That spending pays off the interest on past loans, so we must take out new loans to create the more money we need to spend to keep the wheels turning. If only we can increase our spending we can, we might, keep ahead of the spiralling debt interests that have to be paid. Just another pyramid selling scam but this one brokered by government.

Spending disproportionately of course, those with get even more while those with a little have to give up that little and those without have to do with even less. Never mind the rich spendings will trickle down as swill to feed the masses. Except that is not how it works. The rich are in a catch up race with the unseemly rich. The unseemly rich are grabbing ever more to show a gap and distance to those on their heels. Their spending is in the realm of the stratosphere, buying up banks that create money or controlling lead industries to set the prices that others must pay. You get the drift, the poor that have to give up are giving up even more to the outlets that the rich control and directly benefit from. Trickle down just does not trickle, another aspect of this crazed Alice-in-Wonderland economics. Economics based on principles where the real life consequences that fail to conform to theory are then assumed not to apply to the theory and can therefore be safely excluded. Told you Alice-in-Wonderland rules.

Salaried MP's

I have no axe to grind whether MP's get a salary increase or not. What really worries me is the idea that an MP is in salaried employment. A career MP! Old fashioned as I maybe I thought politics was all about being driven by some principal, some sense of social well being, the desire to serve the Nation and to its citizens. I cannot square these two views. If you are salaried, your career depends on you hanging on in there, going with the flow, keeping hold of your job by finding the middle non-contentious ground so you are always in employment. Surely this is the exact opposite of what our MP's should be doing?

The vary last comparison I would want to make with an MP is a Bank employer or even a Doctor or Teacher. A career requires you to compromise, to fit-in with the aims of your current employer, to subsume your own aspirations and get behind what ever is the current corporate objective, no matter what your personal views. I really do expect an MP to have ideals, to believe in and standby those ideals, to argue and fight for those ideals and to be prepared to stand-down if those ideals fail to win majority support.

Everyone should be eligible to stand as an MP, irrespective of background and certainly not restricted only to those of independent means. Therefore so that those in the lowest paid sectors of  society too have the real option I can agree that a non-discriminatory income needs to go with being elected. Clearly the cost of representing a northern seat is of a different order to the cost of that in one of the Home Counties. The incurred costs of representing your seat should be funded by the Nation. Why does a healthcare worker on or near the minimum wage need to put on a salary scale on par with a Doctor, Bank Manger or Teacher just to serve as an MP? If you are not on the minimum wage you can afford the gamble, if your passion to serve is strong enough, to resume your career if the gamble fails. You are sufficiently well cushioned that you do not need any state intervention to be able to stand, if chosen.

Being an MP opens many doors of opportunities. It gives you an unparalleled access to a wide network of contacts that would never be possible without serving as an MP. Many perfectly legal opportunities open up, during and subsequent to your seat as are very many more totally unacceptable and highly dubious opportunities to cream off the top. That is why we want our MP's to be driven by principle and not by greed. So an income just above minimum wage, sufficient to ensure all can serve. The running costs actually incurred and verified to be reimbursed. If gifted person are thereby discouraged from offering themselves because they might lose out on the deal then the Nation does not need them and is far better off without their opportunism. So principled persons with a desire to serve, roll up roll up!

Postscript. Should MP's use First Class travel? No, no, no special privileges to set them apart. They must live the lives of all other citizens who have to cope with the rules they pass through parliament. If anything their lives should be made more onerous, be wide open to the full wrath of the state against the citizen. I would like to see MP's sign on weekly and then have to justify that they were working full time as an MP and did attend parliament session before they could claim their wage and expenses.

Fair Cop?

For the record I am underwhelmed by this whole Police Commissioner vote thing. The government advertising to whip up public interest really says it all for me. It is the classic 'which slice of the pie' do you want. Stop car vandalism or stop drunk louts or stop house thefts or stop speed abuse or stop drug pushers. The answer is of course all of the above and some more as well. The problem is there just is not enough pie to go round.

What I take exception to is that the government retains tight control of the permitted expenditure and manner and methods to be employed in policing our country. The Police Commissioner is just the 'locally elected' fall guy to take the heat of accountability off from the government decisions which make it impossible to attain the public's policing aspirations. As an aside, 'locally elected' of course equals a political parties nomination with first loyalty to the Party not the electorate.

Just yet another deliberate, cynical tactic by the government to divide to rule. Make someone or organisation 'accountable' at local level to take all the blame complaints and criticisms. Whilst retaining all meaningful control back at central government, preventing them for exercising and employing new innovative and structurally different ways of skinning the impossible cat. They were devised by government so government could escape public blame for failing to adequately source and fund an effective police force.

Living a Now Life

In this era of information overload and instant vox pops by courtesy of the social network sites, putting a cross against some others nomination to signal your consent for the next five years seems just a tad limiting. Time to radically rethink how democracy must work in this era opening up before us. A democratic society is all about finding a consensual middle ground, inclusive of the widest majority. The twittering of tweets around a theme that has caught the public's imagination is as clear a demonstration of how a new democracy might work as could be found. The public have opinions, want to share it and most of all want their opinion to count.

Simple. One downside is the public are impetuous, rushing to voice an opinion so expressing a gut emotion rather than reflective thought. Sometimes the populous 'hang the murderer' on reflection is not the right response when eventually it emerges the youth was not the victim as initially seen but a drunk youth who fell into the path of a lawful car. So we have to steer away from instant polls to determine our future paths and find a more reflective and considered route. It takes time before all the shades of opinion really begin to emerge. The first headlong rush of 'me too' subsides and slowly other options and different takes begin to gather support. This is the point when we want public opinion to begin to influence our future.


Step up to the plate our leaders. We still need you to guide, gather and promote a future view for others to line up behind. The numbers of your disciples determining the impact you have in setting the national agenda. Of course large following will always be easily gathered by keeping close to the knee jerk responses, but does not make for good politics though. We have to re-educate ourselves as to the how's of debate, not character assassination, but about issues. The how to cut to the quick, compare and contrast and weight the strength of evidence for and against. Learn to listen to the nuances of those we disagree with, the better to confound their flimsy arguments. A sophisticated mature agenda but one I see every evidence of being attainable in this our society. A wrong path is not forever immutable, it is possible to change tack and find that other route.


The present media outlets own the political agenda, they determine what and the context in which any thoughts may be presented. That is despite any political parties strong resolve to address some other aspect of that issue. Our media controls the selection, the presentation and the target audience for any political announcement. In our new brave world, at present anyway, no one owns the ether and ideas are 'free' to spawn, gathering critical mass and attention focus. 'Free' because of course the search engines which decide what is at the top of your noticeboard is determined by their own objectives and criteria. So a hint of caution then, when nevertheless, a vogue posting can go viral just by being networked to friends.  Our new leaders have to sign up to this networked world and claim dominance amongst all those that profess to like their agenda. 


A different world, but still a world where we have to take long term strategic views of how to evolve and adhere to that policy for more than short term opportunism. I see a willingness to follow good leadership, I see loyalty prepared to weather bad times for the promise of good, I see a mature adult society that can rise to the challenges of being part of their societies evolution. What I also see are huge numbers of people disaffected by how the current system works against their interest. Where the 'X' fails to reflect the complexity of ideas they have about their and their families future.

Politics Without Parties

No apologises, this is going to be a long read. As it is central to all my political thoughts, stay with it, it might reward. I have previously set the challenge, Good Government, the Political No Vote, Centre Revolution, so how is it going to work? A democracy that is fully reflective of public opinion and is not carolled and strait-jacketed into a power base, survival at all costs organisation. As considered in my Consensus post, we need leaders, lots of them, all with slightly different take on issues. I am not even against political parties, per say, providing they are background support, not running and controlling what can or cannot be said and by whom. The over-arching objective is that the voters are offered individuals to choose between on their merits. In soliciting votes their views on the key questions of what makes a nation successful, are paramount. Not necessarily their own original views, just views that they understand and adopt as their own, with sincerity and not just for the voter appeal. Individuals who stand because they want to make a difference, not because of their wealth, connections or desire to win power or some popularity contest.
There is the first rub. Our media are fixated on failure or guilt that can be exposed in simple banner headlines. Subtlety, shades of opinion, complicated adjustments depending on degree are way out of their comprehension. It has to be either black or white. Either you are right, move on or you are wrong, in which case throw everything in, to prove how wrong. Not the vehicles to review a range of opinion or evaluate where a central position might lie, nor how extreme left or right any positions might actually fall. Not the place for measure considered debate, either right for that day, or wrong in which case lets seize on this error and display the weakness shown. Bully boy tactics dressed in grown-up speak.


The government of the day enjoys the luxury of a civil service, part of whose function are to present to the Cabernet minsters position papers. An elite cores review of any policy proposal, looking at all the consequence, knock-on events and implications for other policies. A whole gamut of allied and associated causes and effects that reverberate off the policy proposal. Likewise for any opposition counter policy proposals.
 
To escape the media blame game we need to get debate and objective critique of policy out into the open for all to see and consider. Not just government policy but any policy. Let us have the best informed and widest overseeing of all envisage consequences, benefits and penalties, so we can all reflect and judge the strengths or weakness of any policy put forward for the public dominion. Does not need a huge civil service army to effect. Nowadays we can exploit the on-line world. In a forum setting, ordinary citizens can lodge their reactions to any proposals, for and against. The forum moderator would be a small panel of 'civil servants' to hone the comments down to simple pro or con arguments. Voilà, a position paper is borne for all to see, to chip in, to tease, to test and reflect on all the varied responses. To arrive at their own opinion where the fair, pragmatic solution might lie. Ready to be persuaded to rise to another plane by their prospective candidate. Democracy might just work.


This then is the second rub. Money. To get ideas out into the public arena takes money. The more money, then the more effective, more attention seeking and more likely to wins the hearts of your target audience. Hearts, as you are only selling aspirations, not reasoned arguments. Money buys attention, buys respect and buys support. Money to buy media space. Money to buy slick attention seeking material and messages and money to buy audience research to iron out any misrepresentation's before launch. So a game only for a rich boy or organisation. 

Completely counter to the goal of any one being able offer themselves and their sincerity for election. First a commitment. No one stands unless they are so convinced of their need to serve that they are prepared to risk all. Secondly a cap, a very low maximum figure, topped up by the state if need be, to promote and draw attention to yourself and then a minimal salary if elected. Since the salary element came in for our MPs, the desire to serve has been supplanted by the greed for a cosy lifestyle. This salary has to be scaled back, so it is not a feather bed but an adequacy that all, irrespective of social background can afford to serve their country. Finally public online sites where candidates can be seen, their views and opinions offered and they can enter dialogue with their electorate.
 
The next and is it the final rub? There is no ready made political party to take up the electorates voting decision and to run a government.  Political parties are a lazy self-indulgent convenience useful to class based society. They no longer reflect our society. Our government should be a fluid alignment of the majority views, not cast in stone, a constant wheeling alliance of best interests, consensual views and trading off of benefits. That way we might just get a government that does actually reflect and respond to the society we actually live in. Not some ritualistic archaic left-over arrangements we currently toil under. A government in-touch and in-tune with its people, reactive and reflective of the constant changing moods, fears and aspirations.
 
No one suggested democracy was easy. No one claimed democracy gives you clear, decisive and consistent governance. We are after all herd creatures prone to take fright at the least alarm. It takes persons of stature and statesmanship to arise, be recognised, to lead and steady the herd, keeping them on track. That is democracy in action.

Consensus

Consensus is beset with contradictions. A consensus takes form as a wraith out of the mists, suddenly everyone seems to be concerned about the same topic and leans towards one convergent view. Yes of course there are always the controversial ones either with heads buried deeply in the sand or with backs firmly planted against the general trend. It is remarkable how from one day to another a topic arises and people, apart from these exceptions, all seems to hover around a consensus view. We are born with this innate desire to seek out the middle ground and conform, at a subconscious level, almost without rational monitoring.

That said, the consensus wraith does not just materialise out of the ether, the thought, the idea, the spark, the argument position is seeded. Seeded by a leader, a very lowercase leader. Just one that thinks for them self. Most people follow received ideas, just a few have, from time to time, that original thought. But then it has to be broadcast, to be put it out there, no point just being internalised. That separates the little player from the bigger player, how socially connected and the potential sphere of influence one is against another. We are not talking here about the greatness or otherwise of the 'original idea', just the social connectivity and how potentially fast it can spread out. The capital letter Leaders do not necessarily have to have original ideas, but they do need to be connected with a circle who do generate ideas. They can then use their perceived status to broadcast those worthy ideas more widely, ensuring a faster pickup and a greater chance of entering into the public conscious.


Which idea gets picked up, and which idea, though intellectually far more profound or relevant, is cast aside, is another aspect of this almost sub-conscious sensing for the common ground. Our expectation is that the strength of the argument, or the higher moral ground, or overturning a gross injustice, or a razor sharp insightfulness that cuts through the fog of confusion is what inspires these new ideas. Occasionally it is one or another or combination of these worthy ideals. More often it is just timing.  Some ideas just hit the right note, at the right time, making relevant comment, about something that is on the surface or is bubbling away just under the surface of conscious thought. It is just ripe to be picked up. It is not necessarily an amplification of, or bringing clarity to, something already out there. It often is but it can be an entirely novel idea that just happens to ripen at that time when people are ready for it. There is no better explanation. 

We are beginning to discover that the thoughts that we hold in our minds are not direct products of the conscious and therefore logical thought sequences but are a meld arrived at though sub-conscious processing of sensory imput, past experiences, memories and anticipations of social reaction. We justify the logic after the thought becomes conscious. Until that moment we have no conscious power to control the internalised processing.


There rest is all down to momentum. If broadcast widely the greater the chance it will be picked up, enter into the common domain, to be tested and balanced against all those social interactions, looking for concord, to be adopted or rejected. But from time to time a good idea hits the right or needed note, or offers a solution out of an impasse that is immediately picked up and reverberating in harmony becomes magnified and you get what we now might call a viral idea. It spreads like wild fire, it is just right for the moment.

So our would be leaders and other shapers of public opinion are all trying to plant seeds to form public opinion and swing consensus their way. We, the public, sway this way or that, trying to pick up signals from all our social interactions which way is the wind blowing today. We are the spontaneous consensus, unpredictable, contrary, perverse, whimsical, irrational but always with the majority behind us. 

Done in Our Name

Safety, and particularly highway safety, is highly emotive so beware anyone who steps up to rock that cradle. The core issues are clear beyond dispute. The closing speeds of vehicles on opposite direction carriageways are at their most extreme. Accidents can occur where vehicles end up crossing into the opposite carriageway, so these carriageways must to be separated. When these cross-overs happen the resulting carnage is horrific with inevitable loss of life. I do not underestimate the mental and physical distress on all those involved in cutting people out as a result of such an accident, trying to save lives and then having to break the news of a life lost so suddenly. There were three well established carriageway separators, tension cable or moulded sheet steel on posts, dense bush planting and now a new mass concrete continuous section about 900mm high.

We as a society do not choose to protect lives at all costs from the risk of death. The car manufacturer makes commercial judgements as to how much of life safety features are introduced into a car as standard. Not what is possible. Simply what is thought might seen as affordable by the customer, you and I, compared to a competitor. Or at best what we might choose as an extra over option and at what price level. Not a lot on the evidence and well, well short of the possible. How much to spend in saving lives is a pragmatic choice made by you and me. When we condone, as in stand by and watch, our youth going out to get plastered beyond their ability to control their life's consequences we have no right to take a high moral stand point. When we condone, as in standby and allow our politicians, to cut back spending on the frail elderly needy, so there are insufficient resources to ensure the basics of life are provided routinely hour in hour out. The essentials of shelter, food, basic daily care and minimal social contact, just the bare essentials, ignoring higher aspirations of improving their quality of life and giving them a meaningful environment to respond to. Then we have given up any right to claim life matters, claim it is our high priority.

So lets keep highway safety in perspective. Emotive yes, but actually lower down the pecking order I suggest than care for the elderly, care for our new born and care for our youth. Keep it real. Highway safety is yet another pragmatic cost choice. We are very aware of the scenes of road carnage as we pass by. The number of incidents are actually quiet small. 400 hundred cross-over events in a year resulting in 40 deaths. Keep it real. How many teenagers die as a result of excess alcohol? We probably dont know any more than we know how many elderly die of neglect or babies from inadequate natal care. These are not huge numbers considering the number of daily road journeys made. It is called risk management, something we are not used to thinking about but really do need to get a grip on. The level of risk is low and therefore tolerable compared to costs and consequence of trying to significantly improve on these figures when our journey qualities would have to take a huge nose-dive.  Look around and see how much more relaxed our European neighbours can be about their road safety without incurring horrendous road causality figures.

So what has got me all fired up. CSB', concrete safety barrier's. I cannot recall a single political parties manifesto that referred to the need to replace motorway barriers. In these times of extreme austerity when services we hold dear are being cut off, not slashed and reduced, but simply turned off, who was it that got to decide in our name to spend hundreds of millions of pounds replacing these central barriers? Who in our name decided without reference to us, without inviting our opinion, that a replacement scheme was essential and should go ahead without consultation, without advertisement to us the public. Just de-facto. The decision was made and it happened. Who got to weigh up the rival merits of the different options and who made the decision, vetted by what watchdog committees, that concrete was the out and out winner? Such that ripping out the old barriers and replacing them with concrete was a right choice for our nation at this time? The interim advice IAN 60/05 that can be seen here, issued by the Highways Agency gives some insight. It appears to be a classic one-sided rival lobbying argument that has swept the board. All the contra arguments are brushed airily aside as if of little consequence. Only the supporting arguments, in favour of concrete, are given any credence. Note how concrete, one of the worst environmental materials, is given an unquestioning thumbs up, because it is home produced! This is indicative of the level of debate. Very partial and very one sided. So who cares. We all should.

The visual intrusion of these concrete barriers is horrendous. They are scale-less, featureless, will weather appallingly and reduces the drive experience to one of unrelieved visual boredom. Motorway designers had learnt their lesson and put gentle curves back into more economic straight roads just to relieve this visual boredom. At millions of pounds we are now relentlessly undoing that past insight. They cannot be easily replaced, we are now stuck with them for the future. But we should rise up and protest and stop more being laid down. This is not the driving experience any of us will relish, blinkered by the unrelenting featureless barrier that strips away any sense of distance and scale. That destroys any sense of the passing countryside. UKplc will become known as the bad driving experience of Europe. Design and environmental issues do matter and do have to be balanced against other priorities, even that of saving lives.

Bankrupt Nation

Been here before, so see also my Government Savings, this Nation is overspending on its Government. Compounded by us, its citizens, with unrealistic, or rather unaffordable, expectations of what can actually be provided or responded to. The size of slice taken to run UKplc is far too great compared to the income UKplc can generate. We are living way beyond our means and get by, by opening a new credit card then spending to its limits without being able to pay back the interest. Suddenly people are waking up to the total absurdity of private investment in new NHS hospitals. It always was crazy double thinking but it got politicians off the hook and gave a back door way to pay for the desperate re-investment required. A back door that had a very nasty and a painful bite some years on. A bite some people are only now waking up to. There is a huge yearly ongoing cost just to service the investment. A cost way in excess of what it would have cost if governement had made the investment directly.

We are in the centre of fudge land. We have expectations of what our country should do and provide for us. UKplc just cannot afford to meet those expectations. The politicians cannot, if they are to survive, tell us to our face that we cannot no longer get what we expect as of a right. UKplc cannot borrow more as it has already exceeded its spending limits. So fudge, enter the world of magic mirrors, where you can spend on huge luxuries, but not actually spend, well not today but only later on down the line. A huge HP loan with deferred easy payments. Everyone happy right? Of course not. As the deferred payments kick in, as they must some time, surprise, surprise, what you have left to spend has been sharply cut back and you owe more to the remorseless repayment schedules and have nothing left to buy for today. It was and is a lunacy.


Yet we clearly do need massive investment in the NHS, and schools and roads and transport. We do actually need to upgrade the apparatus of government and bring it kicking into the ways of the C21 world. We are not in the realm of finding 5%, 10% or even 25% efficiency savings. We really do have to take stock of what we, UKplc, are and what is the level of governance that is supportable. We were once a global power with a huge global empire, a key player. US of A has made it its business to take us out of that role. Today we are a crowded off shore island associated with a big powerful European Union of large nations struggling to come together and work in some sort of harmony. We are a marginal small bit player. Getting marginalised because we fail to play our trumps wisely and opportunely. At this level of play we simply cannot afford  grandiose ideas of having an aircraft carrier, with all the attendant fleet, nuclear submarines, an airforce with world strike capability nor an army able to fight in all theatres of the world. What is affordable within our current so much smaller role in the world is a national defence force able to defend its frontiers, if you must, working in close collaboration with our neighbours. That is the stark reality.   


I do not have a down on the defence services per say, more on that another time maybe. It is just that they encapsulate so well this bloated transition from global power to small bit player. We cannot give up the baggage of our past and come to terms with today's realities. We just do not have the income to sustain a world power role. But look around and there is evidence of this same bloat everywhere. Ministries and support institutions that were fit and proper for an empire but are grossly oversized and over ambitious for our now current status. We need a new slimmed down model of government that is fit, sleek and apt for the situation we now occupy. Many cherished objects and institutes of national pride may have to be sacrificed as we navel gaze our way from that empirical past down to our new needs. Political Parties have talk the talk for years, exorcising this tip here or this unloved limb there, tinkering, not radical. We need radical now, what is the minimum basics we must have to survive in today's world? That is the starting premise.


Along the way we will have to confront the issue of our expectations that 'they' can and will do everything about all those things that perturb us in our daily life. This is a socialist fantasy, actually a nightmare dream, of the State being the all provider. We are too unique, too diverse and too individual to ever be content with a uniform state provision. But there is a lot of comfort in that escape route, the government must should do that, sort it out so I do not have to bother about it. It is lazy, self-indulgent thinking that has become deeply rooted in our national thought. Time to turn tables.Out of the chaos will emerge a sleek, energetic and quickly responsive UKplc up for taking on of what ever challenges lie around the corner. Confident in its abilities and able to deliver decisively. Well that is my dream.