Assorted Maxims

 

Today is my birthday, a traditional time for reflection.  Here are a number of maxims on how we conduct our lives (and politics) which I find of interest.

1.     1. This is from a talk by a humanist which I I heard on the radio some years ago.  I can’t remember the speaker’s name or the title of the broadcast.  It can’t have been “Thought for the Day” as humanists weren’t allowed on that and maybe still aren’t.

 

Beyond our physical needs for safety, warmth, shelter, drink and food everyone has three psychological needs:

-        that someone cares what happens to them (usually a partner, parent, offspring, relation or friend);

-        that someone or something benefits from their having lived;

-        that they pay their way.

I believe all three, and especially the third, to be true.  I think no-one actually enjoys being a “sponger” or passenger.” Some, forced into that position (benefits scroungers?) may  try to save face by pretending to boast about it, but would really like a job with a decent income and the ability to “pay their whack.”

 

2.     2. The Religion of Usefulness.

-        Happiness is the only good;

-        The time to be happy is now;

-        The place to be happy is here;

-        The way to be happy is to make others happy.

                                                 Robert G Ingersoll, 1833-1899.

I believe this was once displayed on London busses under the heading “There is no God”  (Ingersoll was a well-known American agnostic)  but I feel that agnosticism or atheism are not a necessary conditions for the statements to have value. Though essentially selfish they are rather more positive than the worst interpretation of religions: put up meekly with the inconveniences of this life in the hope of a better one in the next (or oblivion.)

 

3.     3. The Church (-es, and Synagogues, Temples, Mosques, Chapels and whatever. . .)

-        My attachment to Catholicism  ows much more to a sense that it is a good  guide to this life  rather than to any conviction that it is a passport to the next.  Edward Stourton, BBC presenter, 1957- 2026, quoted in a recent obituary in the Guardian.

 

I feel very much the same about my attachment to the C of E, and especially to its ceremonies, liturgy and music.  I suspect it applies to most if not all the major religions.  At best, religions exist to promote “the good life.” At worst they are used as tool by governments and bigots to control the lives of others. We must strive for the former and fight against the latter.  Maybe that’s the search of the “via media.”

4.    4. Taxation

The poor and middle pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the very rich pay lawyers and the billionaires pay politicians/political parties.

George Monbiot, The Guardian, St George’s Day, 2026.

I’ve long believed we should adopt a different terminology about taxation, drop the description “burden of taxation ” and adopt “the privilege of paying  taxes.”  That’s not as daft as it sounds.  Many working men, my father included, where very proud when their pay packet (as they were then) reached the level when they "qualified” (another term deliberate chosen) for income tax.  If that’s a step too far, let’s talk about taxation as our  “subscription “ for membership of an ordered educated and secure and cultured society.  Accountants who advertise their services for “tax efficiency” (ie maximum avoidance) should be scorned, tax evaders boycotted and their directors  sentenced to lengthy community service   

5.     5. Political Canvassing

-        Understand that “feelings” don’t care about your facts.                   Matthew D’Ancona, Prospect Magazine, September, 2023.

A tough one, this.  We need to reverse the concept that “Media Studies” are some sort of Micky Mouse degree, and teach them from the infant class upwards.  From the very earliest ages children should be taught to distinguish between fact, opinion, blatant distortions and propaganda, as I believe is already done in Finland.

Funding Political Parties

 

 

The shine on Andy Burnham’s reputation as a progressive willing to co-operate with other parties to transform our politics in the UK continues to become more tarnished.  His latest U-turn is to shy away from his proposal that  limits should be placed on the amounts individuals can contribute to their preferred political parties.

 For years it has been a  commonplace  that political office in the US, including the Presidency, is “up for sale.”  Advertising and other expenditure on campaigns at all levels in the US far exceeds anything contemplated in the UK.  But we are moving in that direction.

Expenditure on  general  election campaigns has been very disproportionate since the war, with the Tories , funded by big business, at the top, followed by Labour, funded largely by the trade Unions, and the Liberals and (and now the Greens) trailing at the bottom, now outspent by Reform. (Who or what funds them?)  

 The situation is rapidly worsening, with rich individuals, not all of them resident in this country  deliberately trying to influence our  politics. 

In this situation I find the limit per individual of £5,000 formerly proposed by Mr Burnham, absurdly high, even if its meant to be for a lifetime rather than per year. (I don’t know which.) I would suggest a limit of £500 per year per  individual or corporate entity to be far more appropriate.  That would still leave the parties unduly beholden  the “comfortably off” rather than those struggling to make ends meet.

Be that as it may, the situation is urgent and limits of some sort should be introduced to restrict the sale of political influence in the UK now, before the next general election.

Years ago a professor whose name escapes me proposed in the now defunct “Liberal News” the following method of financing our political parties.

 1.     Parliament would decide at regular intervals the total amount necessary  periodically for the funding of our democracy.

2.    2. This amount would then be divided by the total number of people on the electoral registers. Let’s say, for simplicity’s sake, that it is £20.

3.    3. Vouchers for  £20 would then be issued periodically  to all eligible voters. 

4.    4. The vouchers could only be cashed by a registered political party.

It was expected that the system would operate in this way:

1.     1. Party members and political nerds would promptly send their voucher to the HQ of their favoured party.

2.      2. Party canvassers would be incentivised to knock on doors and try to persuade the voucher holders of the merits of the party and hand over the voucher to send to their HQ (or ask the voter to do it themselves, having provided the address.) The alienated would be free to thrwo the voucher away if they wished.

 3.    3. Other financial contributions to political parties would either be strictly limited or forbidden.

Such a system would  encourage a closer examination of the policies of the parties  on a regular basis rather than the present concentration of sloganising at election time.

 Above all, it would be fairer.

I’ve mentioned before that my very first lecturer in what as then called “British Constitution “ at A level, a Mr Chekanovski (that spelling may be incorrect: it was a long time ago) cited “the British tradition of fair play” as one of the pillars of our system. 

 Come on Mr Burnham - fair play!

Blunders for Mr Burnham to Avoid

 

Andy Burnham has successfully changed the mood music of our politics to inject a soupçon of  confidence and even optimism, but there are various potential stumbling-blocks  which could dent if not destroy his and our hopes.

 

Top of the list in my view is:

North Sea Oil

Rumour has it that he is “minded” to authorise more drilling in the North Sea Oil Field.  Anything which provides jobs (and the elusive “growth) is always a temptation for Labour politicians (the clue is in the name) but he should resist it - even the device  of attaching new drilling  to an existing licence.  

If sinking islands in the Pacific  and melting ice in the Arctic are too far away to convince us that climate change is real and highly dangerous, surely wildfires in our favourite holiday spots in France and Spain, not to mention on our own doorstep, should be sufficient to convince him  not to give way to the profit-greedy  lobbying of the oil giants.

Devolution to Mayors.

Enhancing the powers  (including tax-raising?) of local government is a Liberal principle greatly to be encouraged, but to concentrate those powers to an individual, powerful and possibly charismatic personality is hugely undemocratic.  Powerful personalities  with the “guts, grit and determination” to sort things out has been  the mantra of authoritarian regimes throughout history..  We need our local leaders  to be responsible and answerable to  locally elected representatives, responsive to local opinion.

That means local councils and councillors - boring I know, but likely to be more effective.

Trident

Mr Burnham has expressed more enthusiasm for Trident than I think is healthy.  It is hugely expensive, detracts from military expenditure which would be more useful (boots on the ground for peace-keeping and rescue purposes after natural disasters.)  If we must have a nuclear deterrent than something more modest, jointly with the France  (or pooled with the EU) and deliverable without US permission would be preferable.

Migrants in Small Boats

Mr Burnham had a ”photo-opportunity” in Dover over the weekend to highlight this issue, so he has already made this mistake.  He wishes to show that he takes this “problem” very very  seriously.  But it isn’t a problem and it isn’t serious.  Irregular migration via small boats is a small fraction of an immigration total that is falling rapidly and would almost disappear if there were legal viable routs for the people  who want to come here.

  Mr Burnham’s visit merely draws attention to what the Right Wing love to use to divide us.  They must be delighted.  Sir Keir Starmer's gaffe with “island of strangers" should have alerted Burnham to the futility of a “me too” in this delicate area.

 

Early prisoner Release.

Clearly Mr Burnham has not read my previous post in which it is suggested that Prime Ministers should not try to appear to have  a finger in every pie.  Early prisoner release is a “lose- lose” situation, the result of years and years of sending too many people to prison, and well before the misguided fourteen years of austerity (to which  Labour’s Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling subscribed) failing to provide the buildings to house them.

The current crisis should have been left to the Home Secretary to sort out as best she could and receive the deserved opprobrium.