I wrote back in July 2005 : It is the beginning of the end for democratic government in the UK. I am serious. The announcement of a one kilometre exclusion zone around the House of Parliament, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005, banning protests even by one person, no matter how peaceful, signifies the retreat of our rulers from their people into the equivalent of a bunker. History tells us what happens to regimes that isolate themselves from the people. They collapse or are overthrown. Yesterday I heard two UK politicians, Members of Parliament, one a Labour MP, referring to the legislation passed and planned by the UK government to be on the way to a police state. They are right. We are in a parlous situation when MPs start referring to Britain as a police state. One of the myths that persist in the UK, when thinking of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia etc, is that 'it could never happen here.' Well it is happening here, right now. The mechanisms whereby a government could exercise arbitrary and total control over its citizens are being put into place. The order creating the exclusion zone around Westminster did not need approval from Parliament, did not need a debate. All the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, had to do was sign an order under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Simple. The order was made on June 8th 2005 and came into force today, July 1st 2005. All Charles Clarke had to do was sign it and deposit a copy in Parliament, so that our elected representatives know what the executive is doing. They know, but cannot affect, amend, reject it. There appears therefore no reason why Charles Clarke should not issue similar orders covering any other area in Britain: military establishments, public buildings, ministerial homes, in fact any area at all. Remember too that you can be imprisoned in your own home, for ever, by this government if they think you are connected with terrorism, without disclosing any evidence to support their claim. ID cards, as proposed by the UK government, go far beyond the requirement to prove identity, and mean that the government, as well as many other organisations, will be able to track your every move. The satellite tracking system proposed for all cars in the UK will also enable your rulers to track your every move as you travel. We need to wake up, quickly. I have to assume that, if there were protests, major protests, just outside this exclusion zone, Charles Clarke could and probably would, sign another order extending the zone. We need to say 'No' to all this. We need to say it loudly, repeatedly and continue to say it until these pieces of legislation are repealed. If not, then democratic dialogue is dead and when democratic dialogue is dead, the only other alternative, apart from giving in, is revolution.

Well, the Act is being used. In the last fortnight, taxi drivers who were planning to drive round Parliament Square four times at 1pm on a Thursday in protest at changes to the congestion charge gave up their protest when told that they would be in breach of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. Yes, it does say 'Serious'.

A few days ago a woman was found guilty of breaking this Act. Her 'serious' crime? Trying to read out the names of the 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq at the Cenotaph. She was not alone. She had a companion who was intending to read out the names of the Iraqi civilians who have been killed. Some serious protest in terms of a threat the the UK parliament, which was what it is theoretically intended to protect. Our Lord Chancellor remarked about this: "The idea that we take a measure, which is a public order measure, designed to protect our Parliament building, as depriving us of freedom of speech is ridiculously overdone". So presumably our esteemed Lord Chancellor believes that reading out a list of war dead at the Cenotaph constitutes a threat to Parliament and does not diminish our right of free speech. I beg to differ.

   Thank goodness for the Law Lords - the highest UK court - for ruling unanimously against the use of evidence in terrorist cases which might have been obtained by torture. The government in the form of Charles Clarke and Hazel Blears are trying to argue that this will have no effect, that the UK abides by such a rule anyway. In this case, why was such a court case necessary? Why did this government set up the Special Immigration Appeals Commission - in effect a secret court - which stated that it could indeed consider evidence that may have been obtained under torture, which led to the court action. It is so commonplace for this government to treat its citizens with such contempt, to pretend that a judgement contrary to a body set up by the government is not in any way a setback for their policies which are so inhuman in relation to any group of people that it believes the general public are out of sympathy with. Once more the UK judiciary is on the side of freedom, fairness, justice. The outrage is that the judiciary should have to be brought in to rule as such against the government's intentions to the contrary.

December 6th 2005

   To return to the spiritual sphere for moment. The concept has to do with connectedness, interdependence. There is always the union, fusion, between the inner and the outer world. To the extent that we are open to a manifestation of the spirit and it connects with the inner manifestation, then we are whole and pregnant with power. I do not just refer to the spirit in the Christian or any other particular sense: it could be labelled the Tao, an animal spirit, the breath of God, the life force. The labels are not important. What is important is the connection to the universe and thence to our fellows. What follows then is the possibility of action, to give birth to that power in whatever sphere is appropriate - politices, art, relationships etc. That power, coming from that source, is unselfish, compassionate, a force for good, for how can the universe be against itself?

This 'spirit' can be found in innumerable ways but always I think via an inward path which enables the inner component to connect with the outer. It has always been the force behind the creation and maintenenance of this site but I am becoming more aware of how much more power there is if only I remain open to it. There is also the realisation that communicating this in some way matters. This has nothing to do with conversion or persuasion. It is more to do with saying 'Look' to another when we see, say, a beautiful sunset. Neither person sees quite the same sight, neither has quite the same experience, yet there is a sharing in that moment. There are many books - religious or otherwise - on this subject, but reading, including reading this, is but a prelude to an individual experience. This individual experience is also universal and contains ample power to change the world.

Anyone can tap into it. The future of our species depends I believe on how many do so, how soon and what actions flow as a result. These people will almost always be the 'little people', ie the people without power in the current system. People with current power have too vested an interest in sustaining the status quo. Never believe that you as an individual cannot make a difference and if you wish to make a dfference, find a way to connect with that power.

December 2nd 2005

   If the reports are true it's three (rare) cheers for Tony Blair for being willing to give up at least some of the UK's EU subsidy. He faces criticsm at home but there can be no justification for the UK, a rich state, hanging on to such money whilst the poorer nations struggle. For once, a statesman like action. Is there yet hope for Tony to turn into a statesman? Let's hope so.

December 1st 2005

   "As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists" says George Bush. Would these be the same terrorists that Saddam Hussein kept out of Iraq all those years? Or would these be 'new' terrorists that have sprung up as result of the occupation? Either way, they are of George Bush's making.

Back

November 2005

November 29th 2005

   The more I think about the world and how it is, the more I differentiate between spirituality and religion. That is not to say that believers in 'organised' religion, in whatever form it takes, cannot be spiritual. Some of the most spiritual people have been leading figures in major religious movements. What I mean is that spirituality rather than a fixed set of beliefs is more important. So what is spirituality and why is it important. Spirituality is about being both whole and a part and about meaning. Without meaning, how can we live a meaningful life? Without believing we are autonomous and a part of something larger, how can we contribute to society and care for others? If our life is not meaningful and we do not belong, then we are alien and alienated and will not engage with our family and friends let alone the problems of the world: poverty, disease, ecological disaster etc. If we are not fundamentally whole - however much we fail to be so - how can we be joyful and share in and contribute to the joy of others? Spirituality is not an optional extra. It connects with everything, binds everthing together, makes sense of everything. It is also continually changing, evolving. as different perspectives and layers are revealed, if we are open to the revelations before us. It is the opposite of fundamentalism. It enquires and questions and is therefore feared by authority. It is powerful and has never been needed more as we sleepwalk to disaster as a species. The spiritual path is inward and not selfish, long and with instant reward, difficult and effortless, painful and joyful.

We need as many spiritual seekers, with as much variety in their searches and beliefs as possible.

November 26th 2005

   I was surprised that most people on Question Time on the BBC the other day considered that whether or not George Bush considered bombing al-Jazeera should be kept secret on the basis that Heads of State should be able to speak freely and confidentially. This of course is so, but the point was missed that a memo is written. Speaking and writing are fundamentally different. Once something is committed to paper and passed to someone else, particularly at governmental level, then it has some official status, it is a statement made after some consideration. This does not mean it should then automatically be made public, but in the UK, the test is whether or not it is in the public interest. There is a case on this occasion for this, yet the Attorney General uses some of the UK establishment draconian powers to stop any disclosure or indeed any discussion. I may be in breach of this order right now.

The other significant point about all this is the fact that everyone believes it could be true. It says a lot about George Bush that people believe he may indeed have suggested such an obviously bone-headed and counter-productive action.

November 22nd 2005

   "the important thing, if you know you are doing the right thing, is to carry on doing it." No prizes for guessing who said that: Tony Blair, on supporting building new nuclear reactors in the UK. Note the "know". Tony Blair does not 'believe', he 'knows', an attitude which stifles dialogue, compromise, awareness of grey areas. Black and white thinking, which in my work as a therapist spells, often, long term work: black and white thinkers are notoriously difficult to engage with, find relationships difficult, get themselves into untenable situations. Black and white thinkers and thinking should have no place in politics. It is a tragedy at the personal and national level that we in the UK have such a Prime Minister.

November 16th 2005

   I never thought I would be saying three cheers for a member of the Bush administration in the context of the Middle East, but three cheers for Condoleeza Rice making some progress in providing some measure of freedom for the Palestinians in Gaza. To have control of the Rafah crossing and to be 'allowed' a port could mean a real improvement for the inhabitants of Gaza. There are cautions however. If Israel, watching over closed circuit television, detects an instance or two of arms being transferred in and uses this to abandon the whole deal, this would yet again demonstrate Israeli bad faith. No system can be perfect and it is possible, even probable, given the history, that such attempts will be made and some not detected. Another, not so much caution as certainty, is that Ariel Sharon, based on past record, will use this show of Israeli 'magnanimity' to insist on concessions/rewards in the West Bank, ie more Israeli illegal settlements. This is the equivalent of a wife beater expecting a reward for reducing the frequency of the beatings and should be seen for what it is. So, cautions, but in the meantime, let us hope and believe that this hope is not naivety.

November 10th 2005

   Three cheers for the Labour MPs who finally stood up for and by their principles and voted against the 90 day clause. The whole episode has been disturbing for the lack of logic and dubious tactics employed by the government. As we know, few terrorist suspects have so far been detained for 14 days, let alone 90. There is no clear logic which says detaining suspects for less than 90 days will of itself increase the risk of terrorism, whereas there is a clear logic that detaining people without trial risks alienating some: alienation we can ill afford. The government refuses to use measures like 'phone tapping which would help and uses arguments like the time taken to decode computer data when a refusal to supply the key to the data is an offence in itself for which the person can be detained and indeed convicted. Whilst awaiting trial on that charge the other investigations could continue. The police are used, in the House of Commons iteslf, to bolster up the government's case, a ploy which is shabby and for which senior police officers must bear some responsibility. The argument that the police are experts, have expert knowledge and information and are therefore right and their advice should be followed is palapable nonsense. If we followed this logic we could dispense with criminal trials altogether: the police have evidence which they believe means that Joe Bloggs committed the offence, they are the experts, so we find the said Joe Bloggs guilty'. This is the logical conclusion to 'the police must be right' argument. I believe few people would accept that. We also know the same argument was used re the intelligence information on Iraq, which was catastrophically wrong.

On a point stemming from that - the concept that the police are by definition right - it was alarming that even one MP in the debate yesterday made reference to a 'police state'. If our elected representatives are getting alarmed at this and Tony Blair did not just brush it off, he reacted as one who knows the point is meaningful, then we have cause to worry.

November 8th 2005

   There appears on the face of it to be no point in risking defeat on the 90 day issue, other than Tony Blair's pride and belief that he can get away with anything. However, a thought strikes me. We know that the 14 day period is hardly ever used, but what if the police have this bright idea that they want the power to haul suspected terrorists off the sreets, detain them for up to 90 days, then release most without charge or trial, for the sake of breaking up their momentum, to disrupt their plans. Makes sense from the point of view of the police. The snag is that, apart from the civil liberties argument, such a strategy would create such resentment as to lead to the sort of problems that France is now facing (for very different reasons). If such tactics did not increase the number of terrorists it would certainly increase civil unrest.

November 7th 2005

   As The Observer reports, one statistic gives the lie to Tony Blair's demand for a 90 day internment of terrorist suspects. Since January 2004 only eleven people have been detained for the full, present, 14 days and all of those were charged. So where are the hordes of would be terrorists, about to bomb our major cities, who at present the police cannot detain because they believe the 14 day limit is too short? The present law appears to be working in this respect. Again, the Prime Minister appears to have gone down the 'WMD' cul de sac. The real danger is that if and when draconian measures are needed, no-one will believe this government.

November 4th 2005

   The end of the second act of the Blunkett drama shows how low standards have become in UK politics. A former Home Secretary ignores reminders about the ministerial code three times and then claims he did nothing wrong, apparently only reluctantly relinquishing his grip on power when the author of that code publicly ctiticised him. But still he maintains he did nothing wrong, claiming confusion over the word "advice". David, it is not mandatory to follow advice, if it were, it would be instruction or orders. This is from a man who when Home Secretary believed that immigrants to the UK should have a "modest grasp of English". Perhaps government ministers are allowed to have a less than modest command of English. Tony Blair, as usual, twisted the facts into his own deluded form of reality, when he said that David Blunkett was not guilty of any "impropriety". So breaking the ministerial code three times is OK in the eyes of the Prime Minister? Standards have indeed fallen.

November 1st 2005

   The news from the West Bank is horribly familiar and horribly depressing. Let us recap. Israel assasinates/murders/carries out a targeted killing (take your pick) of a Palestinian terrorist - let us give Israel the benefit of the doubt and assume they were right in that estimation. The small matter of a cease fire was disregarded. Predictably, the first suicide bomber for some months killed Israelis in retaliation, continuing the abominable cycle of tit for tat actions. Equally predictably, Israel now moves its tanks into the West Bank - Jenin again - and carries out air strikes in Gaza. Israeli army chief of staff General Dan Halutz declares a "war to the bitter end" against Islamic Jihad. A spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Raanan Gissin, talks of "bring [ing] justice to them" (the Palestinians). The term 'justice' for such arbitrary killings - only one step up from terrorist attacks on civilians - is grotesque. When will Israel learn that 'war' is never the answer. Never. Ever.

Back

October 2005

October 31st 2005

   Tony Blair -again. He has an article in The Observer of October 30th about climate change in which he said several interesting things. Firstly, "people forget that the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto when Bill Clinton was in the White House". So we should blame the American people, not George Bush, for voting in such a Senate. Secondly. "We need to see how the existing energy technologies we have such as wind, solar and - yes - nuclesr, together with new technologies............." A pretty clear indication that the nuclear option is likely to be followed, ie build more nuclear power stations. A 'solution' which will be denied, if Tony Blair has his way, to countries like Iran. Thirdly, "This year has seen an unprecedented profile and attention given to climate change. Perhaps not the political theatre some would have wished for......" "Political theatre": a pejorative phrase for standing up to the US, for being true to one's principles, for caring sufficiently to make waves. In other words, he has failed in the Quaker phrase to "speak truth to power", the truth he appears to believe in as you read the article, the power being the economic, political and military power of the US.

October 26th 2005

   Tony Blair provides more evidence of his top priority - war, war, war - as mentioned in the last entry when he refused to rule out the possibility of military action against Iran. His first, instinctive thought on any issue is to impose control, impose his will. He has innumerable mouths and no ears.

October 24th 2005

   Tony Blair introduces yet another proposal which is all spin and no substance: 'independent' schools. Schools which are funded by business, charities and parents' organisations, based on the spurious basis of parental 'choice'. Which local area school is business more likely to invest in, the poor inner city area or the leafy suburb? Yes, the answer is predictable and the result equally predictable: the affluent attract more funding and become more affluent, the poor get poorer. Tony Blair is indeed the son of Bush when one thinks of the remark made by George Bush: "Here we have the haves and the have mores". The aspect that really annoys me is that Blair knows all this. He does not believe his own spin. He is without principle and his original declaration that education was to be his top priority: "Education, education, education" was patently untrue. His top priority has been "War, war, war".

October 21st 2005

   It may have been 200 years' ago and appear to be perfectly reasonable to mark the battle of Trafalgar, but it is still a celebration of war. A celebration of violence, death, injury, indifference or hatred towards the 'enemy'. It also reflects the status of the armed forces in the country which is further reinforced by yet another member of the royal family going into the army. It gives the lie to the pretence that the UK is a Christian country.

October 20th 2005

   I have been off the air as a result of the computer crashing, buying a replacement and painfully re-building the system from scratch as I cannot transfer my system files and some of my backup data discs did not wotk. I have still to restore some web facilities.

I see that Europe is now very active in planning for an outbreak of bird flu with a possible crossover to humans. What a shame that little assistance seemed to be provided to the source of the outbreak in Asia. If help had been given then maybe it may not have spread, or not spread so quickly. So short-sighted.

October 3rd 2005

   There is a wilful intent to create an Islamic Terrorism 'bogeyman' in the UK and probably elsewhere. Thus Jack Straw cites the Chechnyan attacks as part of Islamic terrorism, the BBC says that the Bali bombers have links to al-Qaeda. There is the implication that 'the West' is facing a combined onslaught on many fronts. The reality is somewhat different. Both the Chechnyan and Bali 'movements' have more to do with a localised struggle for independence or autonomy. Of course any movement will have links to movements which share at least to some degree aims, principles or beliefs. The presentation would not matter so much apart from the fact that it is used to justify unacceptable reductions in civil liberties as well as fomenting fear and hatred where none need exist.

   There is another woefully poor 'justification' from Jack Straw for admitting Turkey in the the EU: to admit a Muslim country (note the absence of the use of 'Islamic state') to the 'Christian' EU, thus showing that the EU is multicultural etc etc. The first problem with this is that the EU is not Christian. It is nominally Christian, but any country or group of countries that embrace the principles of the free market without extensive mechanisms to take care of the poor, weak and sick fails to pay even lip service to any Christian principles. Secondly, Europe has the continual opportunity to integrate people of different backgrounds and faiths, trying to add a Muslim country which would be the largest state by population seems to be a high risk strategy on this logic. The issue of Turkey joining is not religious. For me it is (over?)simple. Turkey is not geographically part of Europe, so if there are good reasons for extending the EU to include Turkey then we need to rename the EU and call it what it appears to be striving towards. We would need a name that acknowledges the reality of that aim: to become a regional (super)power. I have grave doubts about such an aim, but let us be honest in what we are about.

Back

September 2005

September 29th 2005

   Eight words from an eighty-two year old at the Labour perty conference are clearly eight words too many for a government supposedly defending our free and democratic way of life. It comes as no surprise that no dissent is allowed: we were used in the General Election to journalists being denied access to 'public' meetings. What is much more disturbing is the questioning of this loyal Labour supporter - some reports say 'arrest' - under the anti-terrorism laws. Just what clause of the law might he conceivably have broken? The same law that saw a Labour MP's camera seized and photographs of conference queues destroyed? If these laws can enable the government to treat its supporters and MPs in this way, what might be done to its opponents? We are much closer to having laws that can be used in a totalitarian way than most people realise. If the Labour MPs won't oppose it, the opposition parties certainly should, otherwise we are sleepwalking into a profoundly undemocratic society.

September 26th 2005

   One thing that Hurricane Katrina has demonstrated but which is, predictably, being ignored by the politicians, is the failure of a free market capitalist state to ensure that its infrastructure is adequately maintained by public funding. The blind belief, insistence, upon low taxation (which simply means that the rich get richer) starves essential services of funds. Hence the inadequacy of the levees, in spite of repeated warnings of the need for investment.

UK politicians meanwhile continue to spout the conventional dogma of 'low taxation, high growth' economics. This translates into poor public services and an ever-increasing gap between rich and poor. In the UK 1% of the population corner 25% of the wealth. The poor - overwhelmingly black - suffered the most in New Orleans. The poor in the UK - overwhelmingly non-white - would suffer disproportionately in the UK also in similar circumstances. What happened to the principles of social justice?

September 23rd 2005

   It is heartening to see that the US/European moves towards sanctions against Iran - see previous entry - are running into opposition from Russia and China. These countries may not succeed in stopping sanctions and Russia certainly has a vested interest in Iran's programme but it provides some hope that the US/EU axis might not always get its own way.

   On an associated matter, it is interesting that the BBC recently, in connection with the rescue of the two SAS men in Basra, has started to mention Iran as a source of support for the 'insurgents' and used the terms 'militia' and 'militants' interchangeably when referring to those holding the SAS men. Bearing in mind Tony Blair's paranoid criticism of the BBC for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, is this a way of smoothing his ruffled feathers?

September18th 2005

   I am against the use of nuclear power, whether for energy or weapons. Even for energy it creates a huge storage problem as well as the risk of leaks etc and what we need is the creation and therefore the consumption of less energy. However, it is arrogant, hypocritical and offensive for the US and Europe to threaten Iran if it continues with its nuclear programme. The whole attitude stinks of 'we've got it, we're responsible, you can't have it because you are irresponsible' and, even worse, 'we've got the power to make you obey and we'll use it'. The usual bully boy tactics we have come to expect from the 'rulers' of the world. I wrote pre-Iraq invasion that Iraq could be the saviour of the world if the US were to be forced to back down from its 'do as we say or else' attitude. Alas, Iraq is paying dearly and the leaders of the 'rulers' show no signs of having learned anything. Will Iran also have to suffer because of the US government's arrogance and blind belief in its own righteousness? The American empire will wither away in time. How many millions will suffer before its demise?

September13th 2005

   Two items which indicate the ever increasing control being exerted over UK residents. The first UK citizen has been placed under house arrest under the new anti-terrorism laws. Un-named, not charged, no limit to the length of time s/he can be held. The person may pose a grave threat, but the rule of law has been sadly undermined, the rule under which a person has to be charged, tried and found guilty before being locked up. Secondly, the resolve of the other Blair, Ian Blair, Head of the Metropolitan Police, to continue the 'shoot to kill' policy where terrorist suspects are concerned. We have come a long way since the furore over the 'Death on the Rock' incident, when shooting to kill terrorist suspects - this time IRA suspects - was regarded as a crime. We in the UK are getting ever closer to the US, where 'shoot to kill' is so common, as in New Orleans recently.

Meanwhile, television programmes worry about the increase in gun crime. The link is obvious and increasing the powers of the police to shoot people just escalates the problem up another notch.

September 8th 2005

   There is a debate about introducing a flat rate tax. I have views about progressive taxation etc but that is not the point I presently want to make. The point is that the justification for a flat rate tax is that it stimulates economic growth. If the rate is not to be so high that it is politically impossible to introduce, then economic growth is the only way that government revenues and therefore public services can be maintained. The desirability of economic growth is an unchallenged assumption, an assumption that it is a good thing. Indisputable. Well, there are two things I would question about economic growth. Firstly that it inevitably contributes to global warming, climate change and consequent effects that could be catastrophic for the human race. Secondly, what purpose does economic growth serve? Does the latest television, mobile phone etc etc really increase the sum of human happiness?

Questions that the developed nations seem not to ask are: how can we provide everyone in our society with the basics (food, water, power, health services, accommodation, education); how can we help other nations less well off to achieve these things; if and when this has been achieved, how can we manage our resources so that there is a viable future for humankind.

The world might look very different if these questions were adressed.

   Correction to the previous entry. The actual figures of aid for each country are in thousands of millions of dollars, thus the US gives $19,000m, likewise the other countries.

September 5th 2005

   Awful as the disaster in the US is and there is absolutely no doubt that people there need and deserve all the help they can get, there is something disturbing about the US asking for aid from others. This is a nation which is extremely wealthy in every way, having the food and other essentials, means of transport etc etc. For others to want to help is natural and laudable. What sticks in the gullet somewhat is the request for help from a country who is second to the bottom of the 'aid league', giving in 2004 a mere 0.16% of GNP. (Italy was bottom with 0.15%) Contrast that with the derided French who gave 0.42%. Indeed, even in absolute terms, the French figure of $8.5m and the Japanese figure of nearly $9m are not so far below the US figure of $19m. There is a myth that whilst the US percentage is low, the actual amount dwarfs those of other countries. Well, if we add France, Germany and the UK together, we get $24m. Not bad for old Europe. The agreed UN figure is 0.7%. In 2004, only Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden met or exceeded that figure.

So, I do not in any way begrudge the help, from whatever source, being provided for the victims of hurricane Katrina. I just wonder at the contrast between the niggardly giving, the statement by George Bush a few days' ago that the US could take care if its citizens and now the request for aid.

September 2nd 2005

   I am struck by the contrast between the scenes of looting, the National Guard toting guns, the desperate, hysterical cries for help that are the scenes we see on the television from New Orleans with the scenes showing the quiet dignity of Africans walking mile after mile in search of food at times of drought. Now I am quite sure that those scenes do not tell the whole story in any of these cases of natural or human-made disasters. Nevertheless, it may show two things. Firstly that the veneer of American civilisation, that Americans want to foist on the rest of the world, is quite thin. Second, that maybe those who have little can tolerate having even less rather than those who have much and cannot cope with any reduction.

Another aspect is the appropriateness - much as this sounds heartless - of such storms affecting the US. Whilst I have great sympathy for the individuals who are suffering, the increased frequency and violence of these storms are at least partly due to the reckless use of energy, especially by Americans. If they continue to occur, maybe even George Bush may start to make two and two add up to four. The tragedy is that it is likely to cost many thousands of lives before the appropriate action, that of limiting consumption - is taken.

Back

August 2005

August 28th 2005

   I have been travelling for the last couple of weeks in France - rural France - and I see more than ever the need to preserve some aspects at least of their culture in the face of the standardisation of globalisation. I saw a presentation of the way of life in Aveyron, a way of life close to the seasons and the earth. I spoke to someone living in a small town in the Loire valley who would not dream of locking his car when he parks it. In some families at least the tradition of eating together persists, creating relationships that help to reduce the sense of aimlessness and isolation that young people so often feel. In rural France at least there remains a sense of community so lacking in the 'Anglo Saxon' culture which pervades the world more and more. I do not believe we should all be like the French, but some of their values are worth preserving and treasuring.

August 9th 2005

   A small tribute to Daniel Barenboim (and the late Edwad Said) who between them founded the West Eastern Divan orchestra, composed of Jewish and Arab musicians, in spite of opposition from both sides. It is a wonderful example of how to connect communities with each other, how 'the other' can be seen to be human, normal. Indeed Barenboim says you cannot tell Jew from Arab as they chat together, both being Semitic. They are due to play a concert in Ramallah, which no doubt will engender more prejudiced criticism. Were there to be more Barenboims in the political world.

August 9th 2005

   If, a fortnight or so ago, someone down in the junior ranks of the civil service had suggested looking into the possibility of charging Muslim clerics in the UK with treason, we would have scoffed at the very idea and assumed it would have never seen the light of day. Now, in the Alice in Wonderland (or should it be Alice in Nightmareland) world on Tony Blair's government, such an idea is being seriously considered. It is ludicrous and shows just how extreme the UK government has itself become.

On the same subject of freedom of speech, it is proposed to ban the Hizb ut Tahrir organisation. My understanding is that this group wishes to establish (they would say re-establish) an Islamic caliphate - a sort of super state as I see it. Now, whilst I do not agree with that, I also understand that they do not advocate or use violence, believing that they can persuade people to support this cause. What is the fundamental difference between this organisation and any other political, non-violent organisation? It could be argued that the UK Independence Party and those who want a European super state, being against the present stance of the UK government, should also be banned. They too want to establish a different political system from the present one, they too do not advocate violence, but rely on persuasion. Were either to succeed they would affect the lives of everyone in the UK, would overthrow the status quo. The proposal to ban non-violent groups strikes at the heart of freedom of speech, makes a mockery of any claim to a democratic way of life. Voltaire's maxim: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." is certainly not the maxim of this increasingly non-democratic government.

August 5th 2005

   Isn't it amazing how politicians try to turn bad decisions into 'good' ones. George Bush is now claiming that the struggle in Iraq is justified as part of the war on terror. He conveniently forgets that before the invasion of Iraq, Iraq posed no terrorist threat, Saddam Hussein, for all his faults, did not harbour terrorists and he and Osama bin Laden were personal enemies. Bush was warned by many that invading Iraq would increase terrorism, not reduce it. Those predictions have come true. Tony Blair tries to deny it: no connection between the occupation of Iraq and terrorism. It's interesting that Downing Street has made no comment on Ayman al-Zawahiri linking the London bombings with Iraq, or on George Bush's comments either. Questions for George Bush: 1.Just where were the terrorist cells in Iraq, George and 2. How many of these have you rooted out. Oh, and 3. How many have formed since the invasion? We know the answers: 1. Don't know. 2. None 3. Lots.

Meanwhile people die. War is never the answer. Never. Ever.

   Have you noticed the stories about the NHS cuts? How many local hospitals are being threatened with closure? How many NHS Trusts are in the red? The UK government is spending vast sums of money propping up an illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, will soon be taking a decision on replacing the UK's nuclear deterrent, again using vast sums of money and meanwhile health care services are suffering. I worked in the NHS from 1996 to 2002 - each year the Trust's budget was reduced.

So money goes to waging war and making weapons of mass destruction. At home health care is squeezed, abroad people die of starvation. I do not like the Bush/Blair view of life, it seems more like a way of death.

August 4th 2005

   The situation in Niger reminds me of Darfur - very different in many ways but a common thread: the reluctance on the part of those countries better off to help. Contrast this with the situation in Iraq where thousands of troops occupy a nation and there is continuing loss of life on all sides. Niger is a natural disaster - is there any real difference between a tsunami and a drought? The only significant one is that the effects of a drought is and were forecast, yet still we did nothing. Sudan is similar to Iraq in which sections of the population are at the very least discriminated against. The real differences? Oil and Israel. Substantial oil in Iraq and a fear that Israel - a loose cannon - may carry out strikes against Iraq.

Back

July 2005

July 28th 2005

   I saw a night photo of South East Asia, designed to prove the point that North Korea is so backward that it appeared to be in darkness in comparison with all the brightly-lit countries around it. There is no doubt that the standard of living in North Korea could bear improvement. However, the shot drew attention to another point: just how much energy is spent (wasted) in developed countries. All this energy/light adds to global warming. I have often wondered for instance about all the road lighting in the UK. Is it so necessary? It presumably means that vehicles can go faster at the same level of safety as on an unlit road - although I wonder about this anyway. But even if this is so, the extra speed consumes more fuel per mile, more global warming. Why are we always in such a hurry anyway? Where does all the use of energy get us? Not towards a more humane and happier society, that's for sure.

July 24th 2005

   It is depressing to read reports of the economic effects of the London bombings. As if it mattered. The UK authorities are still obsessed with economic growth. They are still being dishonest in terms of their 'commitment' to tackling the effects of climate change whilst still trying to expand an already prosperous economy which creates more than its fair share of pollution. When, oh when, are we going to get any honesty in this so=called democracy.

July 22nd 2005

   I am one of those who cast doubt on the existence of al-Qaeda and a worldwide terrorist threat to Western democracy. Commentators are now suggesting, since the London bombings, that we have now gone quiet. Well, I may be proved wrong, but I have yet to go quiet. When I compare what has been happening with what was happening during the height of the Irish 'troubles', when terrorists had a small area in which to hide and the security forces had a small area to protect, there is a striking difference. Either the IRA and other terrorist organisations were super-efficient (from their perspective) or the security forces have become much more effective at foiling attacks. The latter is unlikely, given that the major bombing was not foreseen, in fact quite the opposite. The remaining conclusion is that 'al-Qaeda' is not very effective. I hope, not for selfish reasons, that I am right. I hope even more that the UK and other governments do not continue to carry out policies like attacking Iraq which have as a by-product the strengthening of terrorist resolve and increased recruitment. We should indeed not give in to terrorists, but neither should we fuel their purpose by stupid policies and actions.

July 19th 2005

   The RIIA report which says quite reasonably that the backing for the war aginst Iraq had raised the risk of terrorist attack and boosted terrorist recruitment was simply stating the obvious. The response of the UK government is remarkable. Jack Straw appears to see the report as providing excuses for terrorism and cites attacks on countries not connected with the war on Iraq to try to prove the point that any country is at risk - the implication being that the risk is equal and indescriminate. Unfortunately he cites the recent attack in Turkey which is a purely Turkish matter to do with Kurdish independence.

John Reid portrays terrorists as 'bullies' and bullies are to be resisted: in the realm of bullying the UK has a dismal imperial track record, the baton for which has passed to the US.

There are reasons for terrorism, Mr Straw, which we would do well to examine. Accepting that there are reasons does not condone or support the actions of terrorists. Accepting that attacking Iraq has increased the risk of terrorism does not, by itself, mean that the attack was wrong - there are many other, more important reasons why it was wrong. Indeed, I would argue that if increasing the risk of terrorism were the only reason for not attacking Iraq and that there had been other very good reasons for so doing, than I would have supported the war. When is this government going to be honest and say 'Yes, attacking Iraq has increased the risk. It is part of the price that we believe is worth paying'.

At least then there would be honest debate.

July 18th 2005

   I have not written about the London bombings, mainly because of lack of time. It is a tragedy for all those affected and no words on this site can assuage their pain. I am amazed by the commentators' surprise that 'home-grown' suicide bombers are active. It has been clear that this was only a matter of time: it is easier to 'activate' local recruits than ship them in, risking detection at the point of entry, as indeed happened with one of the 9/11 bombers. I am sure that the security forces were aware of this, but as usual the politicians treat us like mushrooms. But I am surprised by the commentators. The sad reality is that there are people all over the world whose hatred of the West leads them to violence, but it is no good just dismissing them as 'evil', 'anti-democratic' etc. However painful it is to contemplate, there are reasons for such hatred and some of those reasons lie in the West itself. I do not believe it is a war of ideologies as Tony Blair says it is, of democracy against theocracy. I see terrorism as built on resentment. Resentment at the occupation of their countries, at the economic exploitation of their resources, at the relative enrichment of the West at their expense etc. None of this justifies terrorism, but if we in the West concentrated on how we contribute to it, it will start to diminish as the feelings that fuel it reduce.

Relationship are not improved by looking at the other's faults, however grievous, pretending that we are 'better', they are improved by looking at our own faults.

July 14th 2005

   Forcing a Guantanamo detainee to wear a bra, threatening him with a dog, forcing him to wear a leash, being told he was homosexual and forcing him to dance with a man: all this was not torture and was safe, secure and humane. So concludes a military report to the Senate. The general in charge of Guantanamo at the time considered it not to violate US law or policy. Thus are the standards of the leader of the free world. Some senators would go further: James Inhofe said "It makes me wonder if we're really getting the most out of these detainees" in the context that the interrogations might not be coercive enough.

July 4th 2005

   It is ironic that Tony Blair is in Singapore promoting the UK Olpympic bid. In the same week as he will be trying to persuade other nations to cancel debt, give more aid, incur the cost of slowing down climate change etc, there he is preparing to spend billions of pounds sterling on, what? A UK ego trip, the opening ceremony of which could save thousands of lives. No Olympic games makes money - there is even doubt about the so-called profitable Los Angeles games and even if there was a genuine profit, it remains the single exception. Tony Blair was caught in another little lie too in saying that everyone in the UK is behind London's bid. Well, this UK citizen/subject isn't, for one. But we are used to Tony Blair being economical with the truth. It's a habit.

   I have been asked and am happy to agree to pass on notification of Different Religions Week 2005, July 15th -22nd. The web site can be found at Different Religions Week 2005 . A good idea. Think about it.

   It was salutary to hear the Tanzanian Minister for the Environment say categorically that aid for Africa is less important than action on climate change. He is clear that pollution of wells by the rise in sea water, recurrent droughts/floods are a major threat. G8 leaders take note.

July 3rd 2005

   Before the election, under repeated questioning by Jeremy Paxman, Tony Blair said it was not possible to put any estimate, no matter how broad, on the number of unauthorised immigrants in the UK. Now, with the election safely out of the way, the Home Office provides a figure of 430,000. The government yet again treats the electorate with contempt. Are we going to accept being treated with contempt? If we are, we have only ourselves to blame as more and more power is taken into central government, when Tony Blair sees that he can say anything and do anything and no-one questions it.

July 1st 2005

   It is the beginning of the end for democratic government in the UK. I am serious. The announcement of a one kilometre exclusion zone around the House of Parliament, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005, banning protests even by one person, no matter how peaceful, signifies the retreat of our rulers from their people into the equivalent of a bunker. History tells us what happens to regimes that isolate themselves from the people. They collapse or are overthrown. Yesterday I heard two UK politicians, Members of Parliament, one a Labour MP, referring to the legislation passed and planned by the UK government to be on the way to a police state. They are right. We are in a parlous situation when MPs start referring to Britain as a police state.

One of the myths that persist in the UK, when thinking of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia etc, is that 'it could never happen here.' Well it is happening here, right now. The mechanisms whereby a government could exercise arbitrary and total control over its citizens are being put into place. The order creating the exclusion zone around Westminster did not need approval from Parliament, did not need a debate. All the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, had to do was sign an order under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Simple.

The order was made on June 8th 2005 and came into force today, July 1st 2005. All Charles Clarke had to do was sign it and deposit a copy in Parliament, so that our elected representatives know what the executive is doing. They know, but cannot affect, amend, reject it. There appears therefore no reason why Charles Clarke should not issue similar orders covering any other area in Britain: military establishments, public buildings, ministerial homes, in fact any area at all.

Remember too that you can be imprisoned in your own home, for ever, by this government if they think you are connected with terrorism, without disclosing any evidence to support their claim. ID cards, as proposed by the UK government, go far beyond the requirement to prove identity, and mean that the government, as well as many other organisations, will be able to track your every move. The satellite tracking system proposed for all cars in the UK will also enable your rulers to track your every move as you travel.

We need to wake up, quickly. I have to assume that, if there were protests, major protests, just outside this exclusion zone, Charles Clarke could and probably would, sign another order extending the zone. We need to say 'No' to all this. We need to say it loudly, repeatedly and continue to say it until these pieces of legislation are repealed. If not, then democratic dialogue is dead and when democratic dialogue is dead, the only other alternative, apart from giving in, is revolution.

Back

June 2005

June 29th 2005

   "After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy. We will defend our freedom.Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

"There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists."George Bush, June 28th 2005.

Before the US invaded Iraq there were few terrorists there. Saddam Hussein and Osam bin Laden were enemies. As many people forecast before the war on Iraq, that attack would increase terrorist activity. George Bush has in the past admittted there is no link between Iraq and September 11th, yet he continues to peddle this lie.

It is clear to all the world, including George Bush: the war in Iraq has increased terrorism. The terrorists he is "hunting down" are those of his own making. The deaths of all those Iraqis, Americans and other nationalities are on his hands, because of the decisions he took. American action in Iraq is not safeguarding America, it is endangering America. Does he really think that the American presence in Iraq is somehow pinning down terrorism in Iraq? Terrorists will strike anywhere, anywhere they see a chance. The way to defend America is in America, not occupying foreign countries. It is action inside America that is protecting America, the action in Iraq which is putting America at greater risk. Terrorism in Iraq may be 'defeated' but you can be sure that the actions there will merely make the resentment stronger, increase the number of terrorists who will take their murderous work elsewhere. One place they will try to take their murderous trade is the US. Iraq only strengthens their resolve, provides another pretext.

June 27th 2005

   If it is possible to make a wrong decision when the question is a no-brainer, then you can rely on our miserable Prime Minister Tony Blair to get it wrong and for the most miserable of reasons. Failed asylum seekers from Zimbabwe will still be sent back to that anarchic country where everyone is at the whim of an unpredictable (to say the least) leader because "If we engage in a generalised moratorium, our fear is that we would literally be back in the situation we were two or three years ago where people were hammering us for not getting the asylum system under control." In other words, Tony Blair is living proof of Voltaire's dictum: 'from time to time the British find it desirable to shoot an admiral “pour encourager les autres”' So some Zimbabweans will be deported and put at risk in order to 'encourage' other people to resist the temptation to flee to this country. People may die rather than Tony Blair risk his precious little policy being undermined. Miserable, mean-spirited, lacking any sense of compassion or even common sense.

   ID cards. Tony Blair said that "There are good reasons for doing this now, because of the change to technology, the fact that we will have to pay for biometric passports and the ID card part of it is a very small additional cost." Guess which country is behind the requirement for a biometric passport? Yep, you got it in one: the U S of A. Except the US keeps putting back its requirement for foreign governments to provide their citizens with biometric passports. The deadline was originally October 26th 2004, then it became October 26th 2005. Of course we know that what the US wants, Tony provides. Never mind that it's a blatant lie that ID cards are a sort of inconsequential add-on (rather like the lie that the EU constitution was a tidying up exercise). Never mind that passports and ID cards serve different purposes. Never mind that we choose to have a passport to go abroad, we will have no option but to buy an ID card. Never mind that the ID proposals will enable our movements to be tracked and accessed by all sorts of organisation, both public and private. ID cards are fine in principle, the government's police-state proposals are not. There is much to say and much to protest about on this issue and we all need to get informed quickly.

June 22nd 2005

   The UK government is making efforts to reduce road traffic into cities, especially at peak times. There is a significant shift to using the more environmentally friendly rail network. How do the rail operating companies respond to this increase in business/profit? By suggesting that they might increase fares to reduce the demand at peak times. This does not fit either common sense or the prevailing economic culture of unfettered private enterprise. I suspect it is a ploy to get public funds for increasing rail capacity, which is in fact the only sensible course of action. If so, the government should respond with the appropriate funds and with the appropriate level of public control according to the public investment. In this way the UK might just start to build a halfway decent public transport system. Squeezing the working population by concurrently increasing the costs of using the roads and railways is just laughable - except in the crazy world which is British politics it could and probably will happen.

June 19th 2005

   Following the acrimonious slanging match in Brussels, Tony Blair is said to be determined to press ahead with his plans to 'reform' the EU with the intention of making it more competitive in the face of globalisation. If he presses ahead in the same way that he pressed ahead with the war against Iraq, with scant regard for truth and against the wishes of the people, then he will leave another negative legacy behind him. There are many in Europe who perceive the pursuit of economic 'progress' with a good deal of alarm. What good is being competitive if all that happens is that the monetary fruits are harvested by large-scale business and a few individuals? Meanwhile the majority work longer and longer hours in fear of losing their jobs. If this is Tony Blair's vision of Europe - and it is the predictable outcome of participating further in the madness of globalisation - then I for one want no part of it. I look rather for a Europe which takes care of its citizens, strives to help the undeveloped nations, takes measures to reduce climate change, forgoes violent ways of resolving differences. That is the sort of vision for Europe I subscribe to, would want to share in bringing about. It is a vision that appears to be totally absent from No 10 Downing Street.

June 15th 2005

   Commenting on the current EU 'crisis', Jack Straw indicated that he was only interested in looking after Britain's interest and in measures which safeguarded economic growth. This is another example of the government not having joined up thinking. The UK government says it is concerned about climate change. Economic growth leads to climate change. What the world needs is economic stability and a redistribution of wealth. The concept is not so radical. Many people, through compassion, give some of their wealth to charity etc. I am not suggesting enforced giving, but if the politicians shifted the weight of the message from 'improving' the lot of their own citizens to the need for holding back growth in what is often inessential material goods then the culture might start to shift. It is already shifting to some degree, but the politicians could hasten it somewhat. The West cannot keep gorging itself on luxuries and time is short.

June 12th 2005

   There is much praise for the putative deal over debt relief and there is no doubt that something is better than nothing. The bigger problem remains and is set to be perpetuated under the proposed terms. This is the insistence upon opening up the developing nations' economies still further. This is grotesque, obscene and hypocritical whilst Europe and the US spends so much money - far more than the aid budget - on subsidising its economic activities. Such subsidies should go, and soon. I hope there will be sufficient public pressure from within the West and outside it to shame the politicians into this. Public pressure is becoming more effective. It is a hopeful sign in a world - in economic, political and environmental terms - with much to be gloomy about.

June 8th 2005

   "We need to know more about it,it's a lot easier to solve when you know more about it." So says George Bush about global warming. The ordinary citizen knows far less about global warming than do politicians, who have access to a vast amount of data. The ordinary citizen knows enough about global warming to understand the threat and the sort of consequences we are facing. So what more does George Bush need to know? Will he be convinced when the nation of Bangladesh disappears as the oceans rise, or will he still need to know more? Meanwhile, his spokespeople are still talking about the threat to American jobs. The phrase 'fiddling while Rome burns' comes to mind. Never mind the rest of the world, let us keep our jobs, continue to run our 4X4s, etc etc.

I may be mis-remembering the exact figure, but I believe I heard on the news that there are ?8? million mobile camera phones in the UK. This was alongside items on aid to Africa and global warming. It exemplifies how we have our priorities wrong. We consume precious energy developing and using the latest consumer technology whilst not only not helping poorer nations, but also not being able to take care of the poor and sick in our own society.

There was another interesting statistic on the news about aid. Norway gives around double in aid of the UK and around six times that of the US in percentage of its GDP. Let us shame our politicians into following suit and let us also applaud Norway which is quietly fulfilling - one of the very few countries I suspect - the UN targets for aid giving.

One further point on aid. George Bush again: "Nobody wants to give money to a country that is corrupt, where leaders take money and put it in their pocket. We're really not interested in supporting a government that doesn't have open economies and open markets. We expect there to be a, you know, reciprocation." We know what 'open economies and open market' means: open to US exploitation, which lead to the debt in the first place. What part of 'giving' does George Bush not understand? Does he give birthday presents with conditions attached?

June 6th 2005

   We have seen George Bush dismissing plans for alleviating poverty in the developing world. Gordon Brown is right to push for more effective action to relieve (Western-induced) debt. If the US continues to refuse, the EU or the UK itself should go ahead anyway. Anything is better than nothing. There is no excuse for behaving like spoiled prima donnas, insisting on doing it your way. The world deserves better. Do what you can to support the pressure on the G8.

Back

May 2005

May 30th 2005

   If it is true that the French were against the EU constitution because they dislike the 'Anglo-Saxon' approach to free market economics and are concerned to protect their social welfare systems, then the 'No' vote may be good for Europe. If a few developed nations can hold out to some extent against unfettered capitalism then it may be that the tide may turn before too much further damage is caused to the world's infrastructure and way of life. The planet cannot take much more of capitalism's depredations and the developing nations in particular cannot survive globalisation much longer. Time is short.

May 22nd 2005

   Having seen a young fox in the garden today, having had a semi-resident fox in the garden and reading the reports of alleged cruel trapping of so-called vermin, reminds me of my dislike of the term 'vermin' and the whole idea of killing wildlife. There is no such thing as 'vermin', only creatures whose lifestyles are inconvenient to us. Seeing examples of legal traps around pheasant pens makes me angry: beautiful wild creatures are killed in order to raise other beautiful wild creatures to be killed in their turn for 'sport'.

I am no sentimental townie: my father raised hens and suffered the ravages of foxes. Nevertheless, 'vermin' is a human construct, a selfish construct. The planet is not just for our benefit/pleasure. Foxes and other creatures that do not neatly fit in with our way of life are entitled to be here as well. Violence of any kind can only be carried out when the 'other' - be it person, animal, bird or any other creature - is not seen as a living being but as an object. I believe that most people seeing that young fox - just a yard or so away and which looked sharply at me before moving quietly away - could not have killed it in cold blood.

May 21st 2005

   There can be no excuses for the pictures of Saddam Hussein and for once the US appears not to be at fault. Whatever his faults and crimes, Saddam Hussein is entitled to privacy and humane treatment. This is so for everyone but unfortunately is not provided in the various camps and prisons around the world. There are plenty of abuses of human rights across the world: none of them can be justified. But as the self-proclaimed guardians of democracy, the West, including the West's media as well as the politicians, has the responsibility to set standards. These standards have been dangerously eroded during the reigns of Bush and Blair.

   Sadness and shame are what I feel when I hear the British government defending the continuation of the UK rebate from the European Union. Britain is one of the wealthiest nations in the EU. I am ashamed to belong to a nation of spongers. That is what we are if we continue to hang on to this unjustifiable rebate.

May 18th 2005

   Tony Blair said he had listened and learned. Another lie, or, to be charitable, another example of self-deceit. I see that not only is he pushing ahead with ID cards but there will be another raft of anti-terrorism measures. The government appears to be suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder on this issue. It is rumoured that there will be measures to criminalise condoning or glorifying acts of terrorism. How on earth can this be defined? We know there is a clear difference between expressing understanding of why people resort to terror (and in retrospect, with the safety of hindsight, some such are applauded as freedom fighters) and condoning such acts, but how the legal system could adjudicate in this is difficult to see. It not only demands looking at the words, but at the intention, which is very difficult to evaluate. Remember Cherie Blair's comments on the Palestinians? It could be that the new legislation would make such comments a criminal offence.

May 14th 2005

   Patricia Hewitt announces that the government is to spend £3bn over the next five years to purchase operations from the private health sector. Let's put that another way. A so-called Labour government has announced that it is to invest £3bn in the private health care sector. I know it's a rather simplistic thought, but maybe that £3bn could have been invested in the NHS? She also announced that NHS hospitals will be closed if they fail to attract enough patients. Sounds like a bit of a pincer movement: investing in non-NHS facilities and closing NHS facilities if demand falls for their services.

Another dimension to this is of course the word 'elective' that gets slipped into these announcements. What this means is that non-NHS hospitals get to select (because patients can choose their 'elective' surgery) the types of procedures to offer. This may be on the basis of the odds of success - the statistics look good, and/or those that require relatively inexpensive facilities - in other words, those that offer the highest profit at least risk. Meanwhile the NHS has to soldier on with all those nasty, messy, risky, expensive procedures which it is charged with providing. You can be sure that the resulting statistics will show how efficient the private health care system is and the better recovery rates, lower death rates etc. The logical conclusion that will be drawn from this unfair comparison? Private health care is 'better', let's have more of it.

It reminds me of the same arguments that were used to justify competition with the then Post Office, which conveniently forgot the unavoidable costs of fulfilling the statutory duty of delivering mail to sparsely-populated areas and then critisising the Post Office for being uncompetitive. There are two ideological positions: some services e.g. water, health power etc should be provided by the state as basic human rights or to fulfill what is seen as the direct responsibility of the state; or the provision of services, all services, are best done by the private sector operating under market forces. Either position - with appropriate legal safeguards - is sustainable. A mixture of state and private provision is not, unless the standards by which are judged are explicitly different and seen to be fair. The position of the present government is fundamentally unfair and dishonest but there's nothing new in that.

May 11th 2005

   George Bush's praise of Georgia and open support for other former Soviet states, together with the US disapproval of separatist regions within Georgia raises an interesting question. Under what circumstances is it reasonable and legitimate for a region to secede from its current ruler? Simply to say, as is implied by the US stance, that it's OK if the regime is not democratic, not OK if the state is a democracy, is not good enough and in any case is not consistently applied. Factors such as language, culture, history and geography are significant too. If we take the case of the Kurds, who want a separate Kurdistan, we find that virtually all the factors are on their side. They have been persecuted by their Iraqi rulers, persecuted by their Turkish rulers (who have bombed 'their' Kurds and may well be still doing so), culture, history etc are on their side. Yet the US shows little inclination to support their cause. The answer, everyone 'knows' (suspects) is political self-interest. It has nothing to do with upholding democratic values.

The situation in all these cases - Basques, Irish, Kurds, Darfur etc etc is complex. There are no easy formulae to resolve them, but political self interest on the part of any state with the power to enforce its will on another region is the worst reason for facilitating or resisting change.

May 6th 2005

   The US military hierarchy get away without charge in the Abu Ghraib case, leaving Lynndie England as the scapegoat. The US military get away with the killing of Nicola Calipari in Iraq. Now the US military get away with killing an Iraqi lying on the ground in a mosque. No wonder the US will not sign up to the International Criminal Court. The last case is perhaps the most - I was going to write shocking, but what is shocking is that we are not shocked by the US stance - blatant flouting of any natural justice. How any country that has any pretence to be civilised can claim that shooting someone who is lying on the ground, no weapon in sight, is a legitimate act of self defence and within the rules of engagement is beyond me. It simply means that US soldiers can kill anyone they deem a threat without any evidence to that effect.

It seems that the US believes it can kill anyone in Iraq as it chooses, that any Iraq in the wrong place at the wrong time is a legitimate target. May we be spared American 'justice', American 'values', the American way of waging war. I hope that many Americans are working away behind the scenes to change the political climate in the US so that the next American administration reverses the evils inherent in the Bush political philosophy. We know that Bush does not represent the majority of Americans. May his minority shrink.

   On an associated issue I note that Bush has removed the restrictions on developing wilderness areas for activities such as mining, logging etc. Narrow commercial and economic interests, measured in monetary terms, yet again are judged more highly against the literally priceless assets of wilderness. Wilderness is part of the human spirit as much as any religion or spiritual belief. It is an extremely scarce resource that once encroached upon can never be re-instated. To willfully reduce it is barbarism, but barbarism is what we are used to in the present US administration.

May 4th 2005

   What is missing from the UK election is compassion. There is little or no mention of the world's poor, little or no mention of plans to provide the infrastructure/resources to help the poor, sick and needy, even in the UK. What is being put over in the context of health and education is the spurious notion of choice, addressing only the already literate/numerate/relatively affluent voter. There is a huge cultural legacy from the malign Thatcher years of market economics where the demand is that everyone has to compete: the assumption is that everyone is capable of competing. We know this is not the case, yet it is so difficult - even for politicians who care - to declare policies aimed at relieving need. This is partly because it demands telling those who have resources/assets that some assets will be removed to those who are without. Yet those people who 'have' are voters and the parties 'need' these votes. So self-interest reigns and compassion withers. If this is a by-product of democracy then democracy is to this extent failing, but I believe it is a cultural issue: competition implies hanging on to what has been 'won'. Competition inevitably creates 'losers' and those losers are despised (fear that we could be in their place?), hence the notion of 'failed states'.

Yet we know that unfettered competition, that we now have in globalisation, is inhuman. Our inner sense/voice tells us what is wrong. We therefore have a responsibility to lead the debate, to tell the politicians that we will not vote for or support self-interest. If enough of us speak to this truth we will change the culture and we will bring compassion back into our societies. We will reclaim some of our humanity. Never doubt that we have this power.

May 1st 2005

   May 1st in a rural area of Southern England. The birds are singing, building nests, foraging in the garden. For how much longer? I am not an avid birdwatcher in fact, but even I have noticed that the once common bullfinch is hardly ever seen. Yellowhammers were regularly seen when driving in the country: I cannot remember the last time I saw one. Recently, I heard an Argentinian farmer explaining what happened when GM crops were introduced. The whole area is just one uniform crop and because of the wholesale use of pesticide and herbicide - to which the GM crop of course is immune - nothing else lives. No birds, no insects, no animals, no plants apart from the crop. Is this the world we want to live in? The conventional answer is that GM enables us to grow more food for the undeveloped world. The truth is somewhat different. GM anables chemical companies to sell more expensive seed, sell more herbicides and pesticides and make yet more money by making it impossible for farmers to preserve seed from year to year. It ensures that farmers in the less developed world can no longer grow food for the local population, but only for export to the West. GM companies are not in business to feed the world's poor, they are, perfectly reasonably, in business to make money. It is up to governments to decide what is in the interests of their nations and the world. It is up to us to tell the governments what sort of world we want to live. I want a world in which the poor eat and the birds sing. It is perfectly possible if enough people demand it.

Back

April 2005

April 28th 2005

   There is a clear parallel between the path taken by the Attorney General towards the final advice to the Cabinet about the legality of the war on Iraq and the path taken from intelligence reports to the government's '45 minute' dossier. This is not surprising as the same politician was involved: Tony Blair. Both processes went from advice/information hedged about with doubts and caveats to absolute statements. It illustrates the simplistic, black and white thinking of the Prime Minister. We know from the Iraq debacle and other ill-chosen actions how dangerous such black and white thinking is.

I noted the other day that Ken Livingstone, in a vain attempt to support Tony Blair, said that Blair still thought that WMD would be found in Iraq as late as Autumn 2004!. If this is so, Tony Blair is remarkably slow on the uptake, not a good trait for a Prime Minister. The media make much of Tony Blair's 'loss of credibility': this is just coded language for 'loss of respect'. Assuming Labour win the election I expect him to go quite soon, before the party starts actively to get rid of him.

   There has been much satisfaction and self-righteousness around Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, with mention of complying with UN resolutions etc. The usual double standards apply. Let us look at a few comparisons.

Syria has occupied Lebanon for 30 years; Israel has occupied Palestine for over 50 years.

Syria is pressured to comply with UN resolutions; Israel is not.

Syria has tortured Lebanese people, but not herded them into refugee camps, not bulldozed their homes, not built Syrian settlements on Lebanese soil, indeed was not founded by taking land from Lebanon; Israel was founded by taking Palestinian land by force ( the international community merely rubber-stamped the success of Jewish* terrorism), drove people into refugee camps, built settlements in territory that even Israel, officially at least, regards as Palestinian, kills Palestinians (and other countries nationals) with impunity, annexes more Palestinian land continuously etc etc.

Syria entered Lebanon as a result of the chaos in Lebanon. Israel has a large responsibility in creating that chaos.

If Lebanon now descends into chaos again, who will take the responsibility? You can be sure it will not be the Western powers.

* Just in case anyone sees this as 'anti-semitism', the terrorists who drove the Palestinians out were Jewish, as Israel did not then exist. My quarrel is with the actions of Israel since her formation: the oppression carried out by one state against people denied even statehood. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state is incidental to the fundamental wrongs being perpetuated. I always use 'Israel/Israeli', except on such occasions as above, as Jews are neither better nor worse as a group of people than any other group of people.

April 22nd 2005

   Postal fraud in the UK election? First hand experience. Voting cards for myself and my wife came in the same envelope. My wife decided that as she may be away she would apply for a postal vote. She rang a local number and got an answer machine. She left a message relating to her vote. The next day she received a postal application form for not only herself but myself too. Think of the implications for a house with several people, some of whom have recently moved out, or are away. Don't tell me the system is not open to abuse.

April 19th 2005

   There was news item yesterday in which all three parties appeared to refer to the NHS in market terms, all are talking about 'choice' and there appeared to be agreement that hospitals which are not 'chosen' sufficiently frequently by patients (consumers?) might well be closed. What a nonsense. On what basis can a patient choose a hospital? Why throw away valuable investment in the NHS structure because for some spurious reasons a hospital, for a period of time, is not sufficiently full to cover its costs. This whole approach is a charade, a farce, but a farce that is costing people's health and lives. If there is to be an NHS free at the point of provision, then it is the government's responsibility to provide adequate and equal facilities across the country. As far as measuring each hospital's effectiveness, there are any number of ways this can be done, ways which overwhelmingly need to be developed with the health professionals. I have worked in the NHS: I have seen how primary waiting lists have been artificially reduced only to leave people waiting on a secondary waiting list which is not within the government target scheme. This whole debate is fraudulent.

April 18th 2005

   Did you notice the line-up at the Labour Party's manifesto? At one time, the major Cabinet members would have been Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor, Home Secretary. This time Jack Straw was sitting at the back with the other less exalted ministers. Does this mean that that foreign policy is less important to Tony Blair than, say Education, or Health? Or does it mean that foreign policy is the fiefdom of Tony Blair and Jack Straw is a mere apparatchick, carrying out orders. I think the latter is the case.

April 15th 2005

   The conviction of one person of planning terrorist attacks appears to have unleashed a storm of assertions along the lines of "See, we told you there was a terrorist threat, now do do you believe us?" The answer to that is contained in the saying 'One swallow does not make a Summer'. Yes, the threat may as serious as the security forces and politicians assert (both groups have a vested interest in scaremongering) but it hardly proves the case. I heard also the wish expressed that it should be made 'easier' to convict suspected terrorists. The mind boggles at this. This is a country in which you can be detained indefinitely on suspicion. 'Easier' convictions are irrelevant in New Labour's brave new world of detention without trial, where courts have been made surplus to requirements. Why bother passing laws to eliminate juries (those quaint people who sometimes have minds of their own) when you have already eliminated the courts themselves?

April 14th 2005

   I am presently reading Margaret Legum's book 'It doesn't have to be like this', published by Wild Goose Publications. In it are many thoughts that I have held intuitively about globalisation, here presented by an economist with supporting data. It may well spark further writings on this site, but in the meantime I would encourage anyone who has doubts about the global economy to get hold of a copy. If nothing else it will stimulate thought.

April 11th 2005

   The Conservatives appear to be proposing that asylum seekers will be taken from the United Nations and that their applications will be processed abroad. The UN has contradicted that it is running a pilot scheme and the UNHCR is also unhappy with Conservative proposals. So how do the Conservative propose to take refugees 'from the United Nations' if the UN is not part of the process? And if, as Michael Howard has said, no refugees will be allowed in who reach this country without prior approval, then it seems that the Conservatives are just shutting up shop on refugees.

April 7th 2005

   We can draw some conclusions from yet another press-organised breach of security, that of a reporter driving a van with a parcel marked 'bomb' into Windsor Castle. It is this: if it so easy for reporters to do these things then it must be easy for terrorists to do so too, but they don't/haven't. So how real is this so-called terrorist threat? Either the dire threats about terrorism are wrong or we are facing a threat from remarkably incompetent terrorists, or ones who need tabloid newspapers to show them what they could do. My conclusion is that the terrorist threat, whilst no doubt real, is up there with WMD in terms of being spun into something it is not. These not so harmless pranks provide some evidence to that effect. It goes without saying that our security processes are less than adequate.

April 5th 2005

   We in the UK were rather smug and condescending when viewing the last two US elections, with threats of lawsuits, hanging chads etc etc. Well, we are not so smug now with a judge condemning the elections in two wards in Birmingham as a result of blatant vote stealing and alteration. The government has known about this since 2001, yet in its usual complacency and arrogance has continued to advance a system that the judge calls "hopelessly insecure". The judge also said "To assert that ’the systems already in place to deal with the allegations of electoral fraud are clearly working’ [quoting the government] indicates a state not simply of complacency but of denial. The systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated." So we will go into the general election with such a system that "would disgrace a banana republic". What price lawsuits in seats where the vote is close? So, sorry for all the thoughts about American elections.

April 4th 2005

   Contrary to the US stance that it has no imperial ambitions, but very much consistent with the view that Iran is part of the so-called 'axis of evil', there are plans to increase the number of US bases in Afhghanistan, virtually to encircle Iran. Senator John McCain talked of 'permanent' US bases in Afghanistan. How long before US bombs rain down on Iran? How long before they rain down on Syria? How long before the world wakes up and finds a way to halt this warmongering?

Back

March 2005

March 31st 2005

   Whilst the world is expected to rejoice at the 'progress' made and congratulate Israel on the decision to pull out of the Gaza strip, just take a look at a report on the Gaza strip by an Israeli human rights organisation, B'TSELEM. The report's title, One Big Prison, says it all. There will be no economic freedom for residents of the Gaza strip, no freedom of movement, no ability to trade. In short, no freedom, just the continuing imprisonment of the last fifty years. The report can be found at B'tselem . I urge you to read it.

March 15th 2005

   The contrast between the fevered calls from the US for Syria to pull out of Lebanon after just fifteen years of 'occupation' during which Lebanon has seen a gradual return to normality and the deafening silence from the US in relation to Israel pulling out of Palestine after over fifty years of occupation and an ever increasing reduction in living conditions, not to mention all the IDF killings could not be more marked. Double standards yet again.

The assassination of former President Hariri and the consequent risks of the de-stabilisation of Lebanon has all the hallmarks of the CIA. It is difficult to see a motive for Syria to have carried it out and the US threats against Hizbollah and the 'popular' demonstrations in the streets both before and after the resignation of the Lebanese government remind one of de-stabilisation missions in the past. Forgive my cynicism, but it all flows so speedily and vehemently that I doubt the spontaneity of the response. Is Lebanon about to become the latest casualty of American meddling?

March 12th 2005

   A sad day for the UK in terms of all the basic principles of justice, the rule of law, the fundamental principles upon which civilisation rests. Anyone living in the UK can now be deprived of his or her liberty having not committed any crime, on suspicion from unknown sources of being associated with people who might be associated with possible terrorist activities in the future. There will be no charges brought and the person will not even know of what he is suspected. It seems like a pretty complete abandonment of civil liberties and the rule of law to me.

I am deeply, deeply ashamed of my country.

March 8th 2005

   There is the danger amidst the horse-trading going on about the control orders that a 'solution' will be agreed by all parties that appears to be fair and democratic because a judge will be involved in the process. Even if a judge is involved at the start, during the time the control order is in place and at its end there will be no fair legal process. Let us be clear what is being proposed: that a person who, on the basis of 'intelligence' information from an unspecified source, is considered to be 'on the balance of probability' associated with terrorism. Not thought guilty of any particular act or acts. Not necessarily planning to carry out any act. Insufficient evidence is available to bring charges. On this basis a judge will hear what evidence there is which is prejudicial to the person. The judge will not hear any evidence from the person, indeed the person will not even know of what he is being suspected. The 'balance of probabilities' will be enough to persuade a judge to deprive the person of freedoms e.g. indefinite house arrest rather than the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement normally applied. This is not justice. It throws away key principles that have underpinned the legal system in the UK for centuries. Those principles are the very ones for which people battled, died and are still battling for and dying, here and elswhere. Thrown carelessly away.

   On the subject of dying for our freedoms, our liberties, our values, it is assumed that the armed forces are expected to do this. Is it fair to expect them to carry that burden alone? This is what is implicit in the control orders. 'Innocent civilians' cannot be put at risk, so to protect them, we throw away those freedoms. Are not our armed forces equally innocent? Why should not the population at large take its share in preserving those freedoms? By insisting on the proper process of law, innocent people may indeed die. Is not that risk the contribution the populace at large makes to the preservation of our values?

Back

February 2005

February 24th 2005

   "there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack" says Tony Blair. Yet another statement that he cannot fulfill. No-one, ever, can be 'free' from terrorist attack, whatever measures are taken. It is promising the impossible. It is the deceitfullness that we have come to expect from this Government. There is no civil liberty, there is no civilised society, under a law which gives a politician the power to detain a person without warning, without the cause being known and without the matter ever being brought into a recognised legal process, by which is meant a chance for both accused and accuser to state their respective cases in front of one or more judges. If this law passes in its present form, the UK will be a society in which Hitler and Stalin would have felt at home. The Soviet Union is indeed a case in point: the residents of the Soviet Union were relatively free from terrorism and crime. That's what police states 'deliver', but what they don't provide is freedom.

I choose freedom over and above security. I choose to face reality: that life is not risk-free, would be the poorer for being risk-free. So I risk my life on the roads, I risk being mugged in the street, I accept the infinitely smaller risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack. Tony Blair would do well to read Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."

Tony Blair seems fundamentally incapable of being honest with his electorate. The unpalatable truth is that September 11th and other atrocities are the price we have to pay to maintain our hard-won freedoms. The tragedy is that the actions which should be being carried out which would reduce the risk and the cost - addressing the root causes of terrorism which are well-known - are not only not being carried out, other actions, such as the invasion of Iraq, threats to Syria, Iran, North Korea etc are being undertaken which increase the risks of terrorism.

February 22nd 2005

   Some extracts from President Bush's speech which was intended as a concilitiary, bridge-building exercise:

"We must see in every person the right and the capacity to live in freedom."

"We must act wisely and deliberately in the face of complex challenges."

"Arab states must end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, stop their support for extremist education, and establish normal relations with Israel. Palestinian leaders must confront and dismantle terrorist groups, fight corruption, encourage free enterprise, and rest true authority with the people."

"Israel must freeze settlement activity"

"Governments must choose to fight corruption, abandon old habits of control, protect the rights of conscience and the rights of minorities. Governments must invest in the health and education of their people, and take responsibility for solving problems instead of simply blaming others. Citizens must choose to hold their governments accountable."

"our ideals must be firm and they must be clear. We must expect higher standards from our friends and partners in the Middle East"

"We must be on the side of democratic reformers, we must encourage democratic movements, and support democratic transitions in practical ways."

"the Syrian regime must take stronger action to stop those who support violence and subversion in Iraq, and must end its support for terrorist groups seeking to destroy the hope of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, Syria must also end its occupation of Lebanon."

"we must make clear to the Iraqi people that the world is also with them"

"the Iranian regime must end its support for terrorism, and must not develop nuclear weapons."

"We must support new democracies, and so members of our alliance must continue to reach out to Georgia"

"the Russian government must renew a commitment to democracy and the rule of law"

"We must always remind Russia, however, that our alliance stands for a free press"

"we must also work to renew the values that make freedom possible"

"We must reject anti-Semitism from any source, and we must condemn violence such as we have witnessed in the Netherlands. All our nations must work to integrate minorities into the mainstream of society, and to teach the value of tolerance to each new generation."

"We must raise our sights to the wider world"

"we must reward progress and improve lives."

He's fond of that little four letter word, isn't he? 28 times in a 30 minute speech. Once a minute.

February 18th 2005

   The coming into force of the Kyoto agreement is welcome, even if insufficient. No matter that the US has not signed. The rest of the world will act alone, until enough Americans are shamed enough to make their government ashamed. Then the US will join the rest. The leader will follow. The leader will be led.

February 17th 2005

   There is a disturbing trend, certainly in the UK and US, to pre-empt any investigation and label individuals or groups guilty of crimes or terrorist acts. Thus, the UK Government states that the IRA carried out the Northern Bank raid. Thus the US blames Syria for the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. We have known about Belmarsh and Guantanamo Bay for years, but they are not the exceptions they appeared to be. The so-called defenders of a free and democratic way of life increasingly by-pass any process of investigation and process of law. Is this the sort of society we want to live in, where McCarthyism is becoming the rule?

February 9th 2005

   "America stands ready to work with Europe on our common agenda, and Europe must stand ready to work with America", so said Condoleezza Rice in Paris yesterday, in what was supposed to be a 'charm offensive' and a 'bridge-building' exercise. Alas, the attitude of the US Administration leaks out in the language, in that little "must". The approach is as usual: we will work with other nations so long as they do as they are told. Would it have been too difficult to have said: "America stands ready to work with Europe on our common agenda, and we would like Europe to stand ready to work with America"? Is that so hard? The answer appears to be 'Yes, it is too hard'; it is not what the dominating nation is prepared to say, asking does not figure on George Bush's radar, only telling. Not a good start to the 'diplomatic' approach.

February 6th 2005

   Thanks to the Observer, we know a little more about how the Guantanamo detainees were rounded up and what 'evidence' Martin Mubanga's wrongful detention - for nearly three years - hinged upon: a mistake in intelligence on the part of Britain's MI6. Now Britain's intelligence services may do a very good job in difficult circumstances, but they are human and make mistakes. Martin Mubanga's case provides overwhelming proof that everyone, for any alleged crime, has to have recourse to independent courts and judiciary.

At other times it would be inconceivable that the UK would continue with their plans to detain UK residents indefinitely without trial and without them knowing the charges or evidence. Alas, it is all too likely that this Government will press ahead, putting their trust in the services which brought us the '45 minute' claim and the general WMD fiasco. Justice and common sense demands a better solution to reducing the risk of terrorist attacks taking place.

It is ironic that it was Pentagon lawyers who picked up the paucity of the evidence. It is nice to see that there are some in the US still interested in justice in a climate in which the Administration patently is not.

February 3rd 2005

   It is heartening that Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and some Labour MPs are opposing the plans to detain UK residents indefinitely without trial. It may be a forlorn hope, but this time, maybe sufficient Labour MPs will have the backbone to stand up to the Government. If they do they will be doing democracy a service.

Back

January 2005

January 27th 2005

   We now have the prospect that anyone resident in the UK can be imprisoned in their homes - possibly until they die - on the basis of information supplied by the 'security services' to the Home Secretary, information that will not be shared with the prisoner and without any form of trial. Until we know what the words 'judicial review' mean they are, literally, meaningless. Welcome to the second bulwark of freedom after the US, which rounds up people from all over the world and throws them into Guantanamo Bay, again without any process of law.

We are being led back into the Dark Ages, a climate of fear, superstition, modern (sic) day witch hunts. We are being led into this uncivilised world not by terrorists, not by terrorist actions, but by craven politicians, politicians who do not have the wits, the courage, the integrity, to say to the terrorists and their own populations: "We believe in our way of life. We value our freedoms and are not going to give them up under threat, or as a response to terrorist actions and loss of life. The rule of law, the basic principles of justice, are not going to be thrown away like some discarded sweet wrapper. Yes, people may die as a result, but the responsibility for their deaths lies with the terrorists. Because we believe in this, for our societies, we are willing to pay whatever price in order to sustain these standards. Terrorism will not prevail but it will be defeated or contained in ways of our choosing, consistent with a way of life that we hold dear." The responsibility for our freedom - the word so loved by George Bush that he wants to impose it on the world whilst denying it at home - rests with our politicians and with ourselves. If the politicians will not protect us, we must protect ourselves, by combatting this legislation in any way we can.

This legislation will be driven by a Government and security services that were responsible, between them, for the Iraqi WMD fiasco. In other words, either the security services were incompetent and/or the Government were deceitful. Why should we trust either? Moreover, law which depends on 'sensible' or 'discretionary' application is bad law. Law has to be crystal clear. Justice is indivisible, absolute. It may not always be achievable, but it should always be strived for, not thrown away, compromised, through undifferentiated fear.

One personal note. The phrase "we must protect ourselves, by combatting this legislation in any way we can" in the earlier paragraph could be interpreted by our security services as threatening illegal, if not terrorist action. We know from a Government Minister, Hazel Blears, that the legislation will cover such groups as animal rights activists. The implications for me of these outrageous proposals go beyond the theoretical. My freedom, your freedom, will be at the mercy of the words of a faceless civil servant and the political motives of a Home Secretary.

January 25th 2005

   Michael Howard's repeated combining of asylum seekers with economic migrants is unfortunate and shameful. Any country is entitled to control - encourage, restrict, ban - economic migrants into the country. No civilised country should set limits on how many asylum seekers should be admitted as no-one can forecast in any one year what circumstances may force people to flee their country and providing refuge is a simple act of compassion, which as the fourth largest economy in the world the UK can well afford. Let us also look at some facts: In 2003 in the UK, the latest year I can find Government statistics for, there were 695,500 births, 612,000 deaths, a net increase of 83,500. There were 513,000 incoming migrants, 362,000 outgoing migrants, a net increase of 151,000. If, as Michael Howard says, this represents a town (city?) the size of Peterborough, then the net rise in births over deaths equals a town half the size of Peterborough. Is Michael Howard half as concerned about this as net migration? There's no evidence for this. I do not hear any politician expressing concern about the problems our birth rate are causing. Take your pick, Michael, humbug, political opportunism or racism.

January 21st 2005

   "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice." George Bush, US President, 20/1/05. On the same day, Vice-president Dick Cheney threatens Iran, mentioning the possibility that Israel may attack Iran without condemning this. Is it any wonder that this US Administration is distrusted. Is it any wonder that the Arab world sees the US as not neutral in the Middle East.

"Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom" George Bush, US President, 20/1/05. Presumably he means that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are now free. Has he tried asking them?

Freedom is not the simplistic black and white concept that the US President peddles. There is no freedom in having no security, little food, even less electrical power, inadequate clean water. The freedom to have a say in the political process is only one aspect. Freedom from the multiple aspects of poverty is another and the US has a lamentable record on this, in its own country as well as in the world at large.

January 20th 2005

   Tony Blair tried, as usual, to make political capital out of the allegations of abuse of Iraqi civilians by saying that the difference between a tyranny (presumably referring to Saddam Hussein's Iraq) and a democracy (presumably meaning the UK) is that people are held accountable in a democracy. Alas, as usual, he gets it wrong. In Saddam Hussein's Iraq people at the level of the British soldiers currently being tried were held only too accountable. Iraqi laws were ruthlessly enforced. Equally, Tony Blair could not possibly mean to compare the leaders of tyrannies and democracies at a time when he is not being held to account for killing thousands of Iraqi civilians in an illegal war whilst the same Saddam Hussein is being held to account for his misdeeds.

January 16th 2005

   Last week Israelis killed nine Palestinians in the occupied territories, following which Palestinians killed six Israelis on the border between Israel and what should be a Palestinian state. Ariel Sharon immediately suspends all contacts with the Palestinians, calling for the as yet to be inaugurated Palestinian leader to eliminate terrorism as a precursor to any talks. Ariel Sharon knows full well that this aim cannot be met, by anyone, in the short term. He knows also that the way to eliminate terrorism is to bypass it as to react to every single act of terror is to magnify its power. He knows this well, coming from a terrorist background and having more innocent blood on his hands than anyone else. The latest flimsy excuse not to talk, or even to entertain the possibility of talks shows yet again that Israel under Ariel Sharon is not interested in peace, merely conquest and occupation.

January 13th 2005

   For once, a welcome announcement from a Home Secretary, as Charles Clarke says the current law regarding householder's rights against burglars is sufficient. The argument for a new law (surely David Blunkett would have leaped at the chance of yet more legislation) rested on ease of definition: 'reasonable force' as at present versus 'grossly disproportionate' which was proposed. I know which definition would have provided lawyers with more work and therefore money. We see in the international sphere how bitterly the words 'proportionate' and 'disproportionate' are disputed. We have only to see the divide between those who regard Israel's use of force in Palestine as proportionate and therefore legitimate and those who disagree. Equally Iraq, Chechnya etc etc. The law is OK as it is.

   The Liberal Democrats are far too kind to Tony Blair in saying he is embarrassed by the final admissiom that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Tony Blair appears to be incapable of embarrassment, however wrong he might be. He is right, even when he is wrong. What a legacy to leave behind him.

   Geoff 'Buff' Hoon performed his lamentable puppet act again the other day, repeatedly refusing to answer the question, in relation to sending more troops to Iraq for the elections, about what Plan B might be if the elections failed. When ultimately pressed to say if there was a Plan B, he claimed not to understand the question. Furthermore he went on to deny that there was any rift of any kind between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. This is the person who has the ultimate (under the Prime Minister) responsibility for our armed forces.

January 7th 2005

   Whilst it is laudable for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to set out plans for improving the plight of the millions of people who live in poverty - and I am all for a fairer world - these plans hide a deception. The deception is the implication that the developing world can be helped to have a way of life closer to that of the developed world whilst the developed world continues to enjoy its present way of life. This is not possible. The damage to the planet caused by the developed world's present way of life is already grave. Adding to that damage by for example increasing carbon emissions from the developing world simply hastens the demise of Bangladesh, more hurricanes etc. No, the politicians have to honest for a change and admit that their plans to alleviate poverty and preserve the planet - both of which I support - have to be achieved at the cost of lowering the West's standard of living in terms of environmental damage. It is a price we must and should pay.

January 6th 2005

   It was unfortunate that Colin Powell expressed the view that the 'Muslim world' might revise its opinion of the US as a result of the aid being provided to the tsunami victims. Unfortunate because it is counter-productive: it implies that the US is giving aid in order to gain friends and respect. I do not think that is the case, even though it may be an accidental by-product. There is an old saying 'Virtue is its own reward'. Genuine giving demands no thanks, no gift in return. Millions of peple have given in that spirit. It is hoped that countries do so in the same spirit.

January 1st 2005

   What goes on in the head does not necessarily or easily get translated into words entered on to the keyboard, but some words there will be. It is not a coincidence at the conscious level that informs a shift in emphasis in this site at the beginning of a new year. It is more like the shift when the sun breaks through: the sun was already there, the meteorological conditions formed to cause the clouds to thin and then to part. We experience it as sudden, but it is the culmination of a process over time and that process continues, the sun is hidden again and reappears again - the same, but also different. The shift is towards the basis of politics and economics, the underlying principles of justice, oppression. Underneath is purpose - what life is about - and purpose is informed by what can be termed spirituality.

Not religion, which is a codified, partial description of something, not the thing itself, although the thing itself can be experienced within organised religion. The word spirituality can be off-putting for some, the alternative word of purpose might be more acceptable for those people. Philosophy is another alternative word. What are our economic and political systems for? What are we here for, as individuals? Are these two compatible? To the extent they are not, what can we change? What are the enemies of what we are here for? Who are the friends of our purpose?

Any thoughts, any 'answers' are at best transient as life continually changes and therefore the thoughts and answers must change also, but at present, on January 1st 2005, this person's thoughts are with the dying earth. A planet whose lifespan is measured in billions of years in terms of supporting life will have this life span cut dramatically short if humanity continues to plunder it as we are doing.

If we accept this premise, then what are our answers to the questions about economic and political purposes, our individual purposes and to the enemies, friends and what might change questions?

Our individual answers, the actions that follow as a result, our ways of life, all will affect the lifespan of our planet. We really are either part of the problem or part of the solution. We are not mere spectators.