United Nations Day, 24th October

 Each year I try to write something  on what in my view should be one of the most important anniversaries: the founding of the United Nations.  Sadly  it now passes almost without notice.  

Rather than a group akin to "Raise the Flag" draping our lampposts with Union Jacks and St George's Crosses, and leaving them there to become tatty, it would be nice if our town halls and other civic buildings  flew  the UN's blue and white standard each year for a few days.  This  would be a useful reminder of the hopes o the survivors  of the tragic wars of the last century had for the future.  

We desperately need to revive some of that optimism if human life on our planet is to have any future at all.  Shamefully, there is no sign of any present day statesmen or stateswomen willing to "lift up their eyes to the hills" and give a lead. 

 

 Post Script (added Monday 26th October. I published the above post first thing on the moring of  24th October, before the paper was delivered.  Later in the weekend I attempted the  Sy crossword in the weekend magazine  section of the Guardian and was delighted to find not one bu two clues recognising the important anniversary.    

"United Nations Day" was the answer to 4/12/13 (down)  and Trigve Lie to 2 down15 across (the first secretary general.) It is significant that, although I was barely  adolescent  when he was in office (1946 -52) I knew the answer to that.  To my shame I will find it hard to name the present secretary general without first consulting Google ) 

For good measure  the crossword setter threw in The Hague as the answer to 17 across,( Dutch City, home to the International Criminal Court,) showing that  international  optimism was still alive in this century - it was founded in 2002.

So thank you, Guardian and Sy for a token attempt to keep hope alive. 

 I should be pleased to hear of any other sighting via the comments below 

The Burnham government: the shine dims.

 In the past few days the Government’s image had lost some of its shine.

First up is the decision to authorise the exploitation the Jackdaw natural gas field in the North Sea.  The question is: Does, or doesn’t, Mr Burnham’s government regard the damage to the planet by further fossil fuel exploitation  outweigh the alleged (in this case very short term) advantages.  I understand that the pros and cons are finely balanced, but Burnham has voted in favour of the short term.

As Guardian columnist Zoe  Williams writes (22 October): “… it matters: it destroys  our moral authority as a nation  and it extinguishes hope .”

On this very same topic  the junior energy minister Michael Shanks toured the early morning media studios to announce and justify the decision.  This provoked justifiable outrage from the Commons Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle – such announcement should be made first  to parliament.  That is our system. 

True,  this  government is not the first to ignore this convention,  presumably in order  to get the government’s point of view implanted before opponents have time to collect their wits.  But Mr Burnham promised a new style of politics.  Here is an indication  that, like so many of its recent predecessors, the government places slick presentation skills above democratic protocol.

In this very same week the Home Secretary is proposing  to extend the period immigrants must live here before they can apply for citizenship from the present five years to 15.  This is outrageous.  Is Mrs Mahmood vying with Theresa May to win the pize for creating the most hostile environment for those who came here in good faith and offer us so much.?

 If you’re unsure of what that “so much” comprises read Gaby Hinsliff’s article in today’s Guardian.

And finally, the  Chancellor of the Exchequer  John Healey is putting it about  that in next week’s Budget he hopes to release the energies of frustrated  entrepreneurs by “scrapping red tape! “

It is too early to say: “It might just as well be the Tories,” but we are travelling along that road.

"Private affluece and public squalor" rule OK?

 The centre-left pressure-group Compass has recently published an essay called "Liberalism Alive" by Dr Roz Savage, the Liberal Democrat MP for the South Cotswolds. Here is a brief extract:

For decades we have quietly equated prosperity with rising private consumption. Perhaps we have been measuring the wrong thing.

There are two ways to feel richer. One is to own more. The other is to live in a place where more wonderful things are available to everyone: beautiful parks, libraries open into the evening, reliable and affordable public transport, clean rivers, thriving high streets and public spaces where neighbours can connect with one another. That is the promise of private sufficiency and public luxury.

We do not all need enormous private gardens if every child can walk to a beautiful park. We do not all need several cars if public transport is genuinely reliable. We do not all need to purchase individually what we could enjoy together.

 The entire essay is worth reading, though it is rather long (32 pages - an hour well spent perhaps.)  You can find it here:

 https://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/liberalism-alive-a-liberal-vision-for-a-flourishing-britain/

 Of course, Dr  Savage  is saying nothing new.  The late great economist J K Galbraith  coined the phrase "private affluence and public squalor" in his  very popular book  "The Affluent Society" way back in 1958  (when I was 21 - oh happy days. I was finally allowed to vote.)  

But today's Conservative Party seems to have learned nothing in the succeeding decades.  Despite the plain evidence of their 14 years' neglect of the state sector through their mistaken adherence  to government "austerity" they still bang on and on at their Conference about tax cuts and a smaller state.

 Such  a policy might benefit the billionaires but  I suspect would not benefit the bulk of their own supporters.

I have experienced the peak of my own private affluence for many years now and I suspect the same is true of most Tory  supporters as well. 

 I cannot think of any additional private  acquisition, good or service, which I don't already posses or could have access to if I wanted,which would improve my quality of life.  

I can  keep my house warm, clean (with a little help)  and comfortable.  It is decorated to my taste with the bric a brac I have collected over the years, and the garden is tidy (again with a little help), I eat the food that I like and wash it down with the drinks I like, constrained only by the need to eat healthily, not put on weight,and remain reasonably sober.  I take the holidays I want, buy the books I like to read, wear the clothes I like and attend the plays and concerts I enjoy (though it would help to be able to hear them better.)

 Any improvements in the quality of my life would come only through better public services.

  In this area I admit I am pretty lucky.  The local health services respond reasonably  promptly and effectively to the modest needs I have encountered so far: ditto the NHS dental service.   The council is brilliant at emptying the bins and reminding me when and where to vote.

 However, the roads are so pitted with potholes and ill-fitting manholes that I have had to abandon riding my bicycle.  Swerving to avoid the uneven patches risks being knocked over by motorists, and bumping over them makes contact between my backside and the saddle uncomfortable beyond the call of duty.  So it's walk or take the car.

 Taking the car is not only environmentally unfriendly but also very time consuming becasue it is almost impossible to go anywhere at all without being held up by road works or a tail back becasue of the intensity  of the traffic.

We are blessed with a reasonably good bus service when it is fully operational but it is subject to frequent "cancellations."  It is always necessary to take the bus earlier than the most convenient just in case that one doesn't turn up, which wastes a lot of time.

 Although I live in a former industrial area we have plenty of open countryside in which to walk and jog. I jog round our country park (based on a former pit and its slag heap) most mornings.  The council is now in charge of it and doubtless does its best, but the paths and amenities become shabbier and shabbier as the years go by. 

 I obtain much of my news and most entertainment from the BBC, both radio and television,  and heartily wish they were able to concentrate on these activities instead of wasting my and their time on advertising their good works in order to drum  public support to convince the Government not to cut their funding. 

 I know these inconveniences don't amount to much and I feel very fortunate. But the fact remains that my quality of life, and that of most "comfortable" Britain, including Tory voters, probably the most comfortable) can only be improved by more public expenditure.  

I hope the chancellor  can find some way of squaring the circle to enable at least a start on this  when he announces the budget at the end of the month.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

purchase individually what we could enjoy together.

Spread it around

 Taxing inheritances. 

I understand the Tories are  about to discuss inheritance tax today

Many years ago I heard  a suggestion, I can’t remember from whom, but probably the Liberal Party, which  I found it very attractive. 

The proposal was that inheritance tax should be charged not on the estate leaving the bequest but on the recipients receiving the bequests (note the plurals.) The recipients would be able to inherit modest amounts tax free, but pay tax on big bonanza inheritances, or a multitude of modest ones.

Thus, if we define a “modest amount” as, say, £50 000 (though that’s beyond the dreams of avarice of many people) then an estate of, say £1 000 000, not all that unusual nowadays, given the price of houses, would not be taxed at all if the bequests were in 20 different bundles of £50 000, but would pay the current rate (40%?) if the whole million went to one lucky recipient.

This would go some way to reducing inequality in our society, and probably increase the level of happiness.  It would also probably encourage innovation, as potential entrepreneurs would have the wherewithal for start-ups.