Category Archives: ramblings

personal, ramblings

How Long?

As of about 3 o’clock this afternoon, Noreen and I have been married for 37 years! Eeeeekk!
That’s 10 years more than we haven’t been married!
I can’t decide whether if feels like forever or feels like for never. It just is; it’s like an old shoe that is so comfortable you don’t know you’re wearing it. Although like all shoes you get a stone in it occasionally — indeed, contrary to the usual tenet, marriage is a bed of roses: it looks pretty but has thorns too!
Back in 1979 we were still coming out of the hippie-ness of the 60s and 70s, and we were still students at heart — we still are! So we did the wedding our way, slightly eccentrically. There wasn’t a lot of money around — the country was crawling its way out of recession, we didn’t have any spare money, neither did Noreen’s mother, nor my parents. So we did it all ourselves, made it all up as we went along, did our own thing, very simply, and still had a good time.
We were married at St Peter’s, Acton Green; at the north end of Chiswick where it merges into Acton. We had been living there for about 4 months, and going to church, so it seemed sensible to get married there. St Peter’s was Anglo-Catholic, and sufficiently high church that it even satisfied our RC friends.
We lived just 400 yards from the church, so we walked to church, from our flat. No, cars; what’s the point when it is less than a 5 minute walk? My best man was my friend Victor, from my post-grad days, who was old enough to be my father. Noreen had three “maids of honour” all her own age — friends from school and university — and all four had made their own frocks. Noreen was given away by another university friend, her mother did the flowers and one of my aunts made a cake.

w22

The reception was in the church hall next door and the vicar (who was later unfrocked!) made us a present of his fees. So the only think we had to pay lots of good money for was the caterer and the wine. And a few days away in Salisbury.
Total, a few hundred pounds. All in contrast to weddings, even then, which were costing thousands. And worse today when tens of thousands get spent.
Ah and like today, it was a lovely, bright, sunny, warm day.
Every year on our anniversary, Noreen and I look at each other and ask “How have we done it?”. We still don’t know! But I did wonder today, to Noreen, whether we might manage another 37 years. Now that would be something as we’d both be over 100!

current affairs, ramblings

Banking on the Mattress

So a couple of weeks ago the Bank of England reduced interest rates lower than ever to 0.25%.
They hope this is going to stimulate the economy. It isn’t. At least, as Mary Dejevsky pointed out in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago ever-lower interest rates have failed; so why should they work now?
Anyone with a mortgage has never had it so good. They are paying peanuts in interest. Meanwhile those of us who paid off our mortgagees years ago and are now the much vilified savers are being shafted — savings interest is struggling to match inflation.
The banks seem to have forgotten that people like me, the savers, are an essential part of their business. Without our money coming in, they don’t have money to lend. They need us, just as they need the pension funds etc.
But all the banks have ever done is shaft my generation. When we started our mortgage in 1981 we were paying 14.5% interest on it; within six months that was 17.5%. And we were being encouraged to save for our retirement — which we did as much as we could. That was barely sustainable; and totally unsustainable compared with today’s rates. We were being priced out. No wonder the bubble burst and people ended up in negative equity and the banking sector with a merry-go-round of toxic debt.
Having saved, against the odds, we are now being shafted for having done so by not getting a decent return on our investments. We’d almost be as well off with our investments in the Bank of Mattress. And we’re supposed to feel happy about this; go out and spend our money; make the economy grow and recover.
Sorry but why the f*** should I? That money you want me to spend has to support me for maybe another 20 (or more) years. If you aren’t going to give me a decent return on investing it, then I’m going to hold onto it for dear life and milk as much as I can from all of it.
On the same day as Mary Dejevsky’s piece, Simon Jenkins wrote (also in the Guardian):

Want to avoid recession? Then shower UK households with cash.
Just give people the money. Give them cash, dole it out, increase benefits, slash VAT, hand it to those most likely to spend it: the poor. Put £1,000 into every debit account. Whatever you do, don’t give it to banks. They will just hoard it or use it to boost house prices.
Britain is suffering from a classic liquidity trap. There is insufficient demand. Yet all the Bank of England [has done is] wring its hands, blame Brexit and go on digging the same old holes.
They are labelled lower interest rates, quantitative easing and more cash for banks. Those policies have been in place for some seven years. They have failed … Not one commentator … thought cutting interest rates to 0.25% would make any difference to the threat of recession.

And again …

In the present climate, there is not the slightest risk of inflation — the traditional hazard of monetary expansion: £1,000 “printed” and moved from the Bank into every household account would still cost less (at £30bn) than Hinkley Point or HS2 … There could be vouchers, scrappage schemes, Christmas bonuses and, horror of horrors, cash for the undeserving poor. Why not try it? All else has failed.

Yes, and out of the change from cancelling HS2 you could probably give every university student a decent maintenance grant and/or scrap student fees!
It’s a novel idea. Raising saving rates would be another. For indeed all else has failed.
It’s time for a new and different approach.
It might even be a vote-catcher!

medical, ramblings, science

Piloerection

Piloerection — more commonly known as goosebumps …
We all get goosebumps.
But I have recemtly found out two things about this common phenomenon — one is general and the other seemingly specific to me.


Firstly piloerection (hairs standing up) is interesting because it is a demonstration of evolution not happening. We are all familiar with the cat with its fur fluffed out and tail bushed, usually when confronted with an aggressor. We’re all also familiar with the robin, or pigeon, fluffed up in the winter against the cold. Both these are the original uses of what we still have as goosebumps.
The way this works is that the tiny muscles around the hair follicles (or equivalent for feathers) react to cold or to adrenalin (produced in response to fear, or excitement). In contracting these tiny muscles pull the hair into a more erect state and cause the little bumps around the hair follicle. Humans have lost (most of) their fur, but we’ve not lost the response mechanisms to cold or which stimulate production of adrenalin. So we still get goosebumps, although they apparently confer no advantage on us. There is no cost, the reactions aren’t deleterious, so there has been no evolutionary pressure to remove the reaction. This is one of a number of traits which (some of) us exhibit and which are evolutionary remnants; others include our tails, widom teeth and appendix.
Like everyone I get goosebumps, and the tingling sensation of the skin that usually goes along with them. And, also like most, this is strongest on the forearms. But what I’ve noticed recently is that this is more marked on the right side of my body than the left. Sometimes it is only on my right side. Sometimes both sides but the right predominates. Whether it has always been like this I don’t know, but I think it probably has. I find this strange and I can neither find, nor conjure up, a satisfactory explanation. Does anyone have any clues?

current affairs, ramblings

Astute or Stupid?

So Theresa May is now Prime Minister. And one of her first decisions must have taken quite a lot of balls to pull off.
She has named Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary.


I’m not sure if this is a very stupid, or a very astute, move.
If Boris continues to be a complete clown, regularly tactless and a loose cannon, it could well turn out to be a very stupid move. In such circumstances would you want him dealing with Russia, or China, or Iraq? Or “owning” MI6 or the Diplomatic Corps?
On the other hand there is an argument that if you have a trouble-maker or a loose cannon, you keep them out of mischief by giving them a big job. One where they have to do some work, to behave, to think, to be tactful and diplomatic. And a job where they are close to you, where you can keep them on a short leash and keep a beady eye on what they’re doing. If that’s how this works out it is a very astute move.
But even better than this, it could be Boris’s comeuppance. Maybe someone has finally been able to call his bluff. Because as Foreign Secretary he is going to have to be involved in the Brexit negotiations. And he’ll have to be dealing with his counterparts in Europe, who know full well he is the clown who largely got us into this almighty mess. He could get a very rough ride, especially if he starts being the pillock we know he can be. He might just finally have had his balls nailed to the mast.
I would like to think this is a very astute move by Mistress May. If it is, and if she carries on in this vein, we should expect quite a few more egos having their balls broken. And that could be quite a good thing.
Interesting times we live in!

personal, ramblings

Good Deed

It isn’t often that one gets the chance to a really good deed for the day, and dig someone else out of the midden. And what’s more someone you don’t know, and will likely never meet again.
On Saturday morning I was in central London and stopped for a coffee in the Brunswick Centre. On leaving the Centre I was stopping to get some cash from the machine outside the small Sainsbury’s store. As I approached it a large, foreign-looking, middle-aged man walked away and into the Sainsbury’s store … leaving the cash machine beeping at nobody.
As I approached I could see that he’d left his money in the mouth of the machine! Duh!


Luckily there was no-one else much in the immediate vicinity. Arriving within seconds at the machine I removed the money, folded it and held onto it. I considered running after the man, but figured this would be pointless given my crocked knees, especially as he was unlikely to disappear from the store in the minute it would take me to get money for myself. So I did just that.
I then wandered into the Sainsbury’s store, easily located the man, who was quite distinctive, and handed him his notes. Needless to say he was profusely grateful.
I’ve no idea how much money was involved as I didn’t count it; it looked like about £50. I could have had a nice little bonus at someone else’s expense. But I didn’t.
However I did get something back. The satisfaction of saving some guy’s embarrassment. Oh and a £25 win on Saturday evening’s National Lottery.
It isn’t that often one gets to do a significantly good deed for a random stranger. But it feels good when you do.

current affairs, ramblings, thoughts

More Brexit Thoughts

1 Comment

A few more (random-ish) thoughts on the machinations behind all the mess of Brexit.

  1. First of all let’s be clear where I’m coming from. At this point I do not care about whether the referendum result is right or not. While I would prefer to remain in the EU, the dice have been thrown and we are where we are. My interest now is a (forensic) understanding of what can, should and will happen especially from a legal and constitutional perspective. I am not an expert in this; I rely on those who are, which is why I have been (and will continue to) try to represent the position as objectively as possible based on the reports available to me. I am trying to avoid speculation and wishful thinking.
  2. Contrary to my previous understanding, legal opinion seems divided as to whether the executive (ie. ministers) can serve notice under TEU Article 50, or whether to do so would require the active advance agreement of parliament via an Act. It all seems to boil down to how you view the use and the reach of prerogative powers by the executive.
    Head of Legal argues that the executive have the prerogative powers. Constitutional lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC and perhaps our top expert public lawyer David Pannick QC [paywall] disagree.
  3. Pace many politicians and commentators, we appear to be in a very weak bargaining position on the exit deal. It seems to me that the EU hold all the chips, bar one.
    The only chip we hold is the timing of the starting gun.
    The EU hold all the other chips.

    • They can (as they have said they will) decline to enter into informal pre-negotiations.
    • They can continue to arm-twist the UK into issuing a notification under Article 50, although as Jack of Kent and others have pointed out they cannot do anything at law to force this to happen.
    • The EU are in a position to dictate the terms of the deal. What we want is irrelevant; it is all about what they’re prepared to offer; they can say “this is the deal, like it or lump it” because if we don’t agree then exit happens automatically anyway even without a deal. Moreover they have no reason to be overly benevolent towards the UK – apart from securing their own trade position (which they can do by offering membership of the EEA at great cost to us) they have no need to be benevolent.
    • Notice too that the formal exit negotiating period (two years or whatever it turns out to be) allows only for negotiating the exit deal (ie. transition arrangements). It says nothing about what deals might be done on the post-exit arrangements, for example by offering the UK membership of EEA. And the EU have said that the exit deal negotiations are unlikely to include anything on post-exit trade deals which would have to be agreed separately post-exit.
    • Once Article 50 has been invoked there appears to be no way to cancel the process; everyone seems to agree that once triggered we must and will cease to be an EU member. Of course we could then apply to rejoin, but what draconian terms might we be offered?
    • And once we’re out, all bets are off. We have to negotiate completely new deals on just about everything and again from a relatively weak bargaining position.
  4. Do we need to trigger Article 50 or can we leave some other way? Essentially, no, Article 50 is the only accessible exit procedure. Again see Head of Legal.
  5. There seems to be growing opinion that neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland (both of whom voted to remain in the EU) can block the UK from leaving if Westminster is determined to do so. This is nicely summarised over at Legal Business.
  6. Legal Business also has an interesting discussion about the duty of an MP being to vote with his/her conscience rather than trying to reflect the whimsy of their constituents’ desires. The conclusion is that the constitutional principle upon which our parliamentary democracy is based is that MPs betray their constituents if they vote against their consciences (they are representatives not mandated delegates) — which is in turn based on this wonderful passage from Edmund Burke’s speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774:

    It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion …
    To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience, these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

    However, again, not everyone agrees with this stance with many of the opinion that an MP is required to reflect the majority wishes of his/her constituents.

More snippets when there is anything useful. This one could run and run!

current affairs, ramblings, thoughts

I want my country back

I want my country back
This is the constant refrain of the collection of spivs and barrow-boys who are hectoring us to vote to leave the EU.
And which of us wouldn’t agree?
I certainly would like my country back. But not the country of the “good old days” — formerly known as “these trying times” — as so well hammed up by AA Gill in last weekend’s Sunday Times [no link to the original as it’s paywalled, but the text has been posted on Facebook].
What I want is a country of sanity.
A country without gratuitous violence and sexual abuse.
A country where we all treat everyone as an equal …
… and other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
A country which is not run by self-serving, sleazy, megalomaniacs.
A country where there is a right to privacy, but also transparent & honest government …
… a right to free education up to and including university first degree level …
… a right to properly funded, excellent healthcare, free at the point of use, for all.
A society without corporate greed and unnecessary obsolescence.
A country which cares more for the environment than it does for corporate profit.
A country without a “me, me, me” “now, now, now” culture of instant gratification and ever mounting personal debt.
A country where sexuality, nudity and “soft drug” use are normalised, not marginalised and criminalised.
A country where (like Bhutan) Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product as the measure of success.
I don’t care about the golden days of the Hovis bread adverts, when all men wore hats and ties, beer was 2p a pint, and we all lived in hovels with a privvy at the bottom of the yard. I’m not asking for them to return. And I’m not asking for Utopia.
I’m quite content to take a modern society with modern conveniences. I just believe we have the balance completely wrong.
And it is this lack of balance which is basically screwing us.
Unfortunately we are not going to even think about this, let alone get anywhere near it, with the present set of political lizards, whether they’re in parliament & local government or whether they’re journalists, commentators or other media hangers-on. There are just too many entrenched attitudes and vested interests. Turkeys vote neither for Christmas nor Thanksgiving.
We aren’t going to get it either by voting to leave the EU or remain in the EU. In this sense the EU referendum is as pointless and meaningless as it is tedious and divisive.
No, the only way we are going to achieve this is by a complete paradigm shift. A paradigm shift that happens to the whole country, not just a few intelligent idiots like me. It has to be a vision of the majority. A vision which the majority can find a way to implement in our governance structures. A vision which we, the people, can make stick.
I don’t know how we do this. I don’t even know how we start to do this. I really don’t.
But I do know that this is what we desperately need.