Who should pay for a University Education?

On September 5th the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society debated the motion “University Education should be free for all UK citizens”.

Mike Swadling opposed the motion, and below is his speech delivered to the society.  As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well proposed and drew out some great views from the audience.

University Education should be free for all UK citizens.

Now I might be able to dramatically shorten tonight’s debate for us all.  I’m tempted to say, ‘I agree’, I agree, University Education should be free for all UK citizens. 

  • I agree teachers shouldn’t be paid.
  • I agree scholarly books should be written by authors for free.
  • I agree canteen staff must give their time freely and be forced to provide the food for the students at no cost.
  • And if the university doesn’t have the facilities it needs, we must pressgang builders, plumbers, electricians, and anyone else we need to build them, to work, no excuses, at no cost!

Or is that not what you meant?

If you agree with this motion, you must surely agree that anyone upon becoming a qualified lecturer must be conscripted into the profession as some sort of indentured servant, compelled to work for free.

Or do you not agree with that?

“What we’re really talking about here is having someone else pay for it”

Does anyone of you who worked in education, or frankly anywhere, believe you should have worked for free?  Education is important do you think people should be forced to give up their time, effort, or property for nothing in the name of education.  Of course, you don’t, of course no one thinks teachers should work for free, and of course no one agrees with this motion.  No one thinks Education is free, or even should be free.  What we’re really talking about here is having someone else pay for it.

University Education of course used to be free for pupils in this country.  Before 1998 students would go to university at no cost, some would even receive a grant.  But then of course university used to cater to about 30% of the population, prior to 98, and as little as 15% in 1990.  We now have over 50% going to university. 

It’s easy to provide a service for free at the point of use if it’s used by so few people.  As university education grew in the 90s and 00’s of course the costs grew, and these costs needed to be funded.  This left the choice of should they be funded by the user of the service who receives the lion share of the benefit or funded by the wider community.  To put it bluntly should the cleaner, dustman or Amazon delivery driver pay for the university education of the children of the well to do families who’s houses they service.

“it is more than the amount almost half of the people in this country earn.  Only then do you start to repay your loan”

Now let’s consider for a moment what paying for a university education in this country really means.  Students are loaned the funds for their course, which costs £9,250 per annum.  Repayments to the Plan 2 student loan kick in only when a graduate earns over £27,295 which incidentally puts them in the top half of 20 something income earners, and 53rd percentile of all earners

This is not a massively high income, but it is more than the amount almost half of the people in this country earn.  Only then do you start to repay your loan.  Student loans are also written off after 30 years.

General taxation already massively subsidises university education in this country.  Our debt to GDP ratio is 100.5% the highest level for over 60 years, going back to when we were still paying for the second world war.  This motion asks that we increase it further still, not to improve services, not to incentivise economic growth, not to benefit those who most need it but instead to the benefit of those who have the brightest future and can most afford to pay their way.

“In 2012 only 13% of Free School Meal pupils went to University, today, after all the increases in fees that number is over 20%”

Now it’s not uncommon that people say student loans have put people off higher education, but let’s look at what’s really happened.  In 2012 only 13% of Free School Meal pupils went to University, today, after all the increases in fees that number is over 20%.  For those eligible for Free School Meals the rate is up to 29%.  There is also a huge diversity of pupils going into higher education with 63.5% of Black pupils progressing, 67.8% of Asian and 83.8% of Chinese pupils. 

“Fewer opportunities will exist, and they will go to those middle class families with the sharpest elbows”

If we were to make university free to the student, and affordable to the taxpayer we would once again have to cap the number of students at a low number.  Who would lose out?  Who would be those not able to make the grade.  We know, as the evidence from the past shows, it is the working class and the most disadvantaged who will miss out.   Fewer opportunities will exist, and they will go to those middle class families with the sharpest elbows.  Free University education may feel good but, will in reality deny opportunities to those who most need it and worse will be a regressive tax added onto the bills of those who don’t even receive the benefits of the service.

Now none of this is to say how we provide, and fund university today is ideal.  There is lots that can be improved with our current system.  Whilst the increase in the numbers going to university is a good thing.  The drive to make almost every career accessible only via a degree denies opportunities to millions and means all too often square peg students are driven into round hole jobs. 

Surely the wide range of basic care, cleaning, feeding, bedside manner, stock supplies, customer service, and practical skills needed by nurses are often not best taught at a university.  These are practical skills, best taught I and many who have written on the subject believe via on-the-job training.  No doubt there are skills nurses need that are rightly taught in a classroom.  But these can be taught as nurses develop in their career, should they want to take on these extra duties and roles.  Since making nursing a degree entry career we have seen reported drops in bedside manner and ward cleanliness.  Of course we have, why would it come as a surprise to anyone that someone who has trained to become a highly qualified nurse is reluctant to undertake menial tasks.  It may be entirely appropriate for some to enter nursing via a degree, and that route should be available, but why have we chosen to deny nursing as a career path to people who are not academically gifted?  Yes, I want a nurse to know how to make an injection, but I care more about their basic care skills than their A Level or GCSE results.

Whilst technically you do not need a degree to become a Police Officer, you do either need a degree or to undertake the completion of the ‘Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship’ which is described as a professional degree-level apprenticeship.  Or in layman’s terms a degree.  In 2020 official figure show police failed to solve a single burglary in half of neighbourhoods, and three quarters of all burglaries remain unsolved. 

Of the 30,265 Police Officers in the Met Police in 2021, 22,753 failed to make a single arrest.  We used to recruit many of our police from armed forces, we used to value police with local knowledge.  Now we have degree educated police more interested in policing Facebook and Twitter than the streets. 

“let’s value Police with the skills of a thief-taker more highly than their ability to recite Latin, list the causes of the Franco Prussian war or tell you about their gender studies degree”

In June the National Police Chiefs’ Council confirmed that police will now attend the scene of every home burglary.  How was this ever not the case?  You must have gone to university to think something so stupid as not attending every burglary was ever acceptable.  Yes, have a route into the police for graduates, but let’s also have a route in for people who can handle a rough situation, who know their community, who can deal with people.  Let’s once again let’s value Police with the skills of a thief-taker more highly than their ability to recite Latin, list the causes of the Franco Prussian war or tell you about their gender studies degree.  We can reduce the number of students, which would allow greater subsidy for university and other forms of education by removing the requirement for degrees for many careers.

There are other ways we can improve universities in this country.  The Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman used to list the Four Different Ways To Spend Money.  These were:

  • You can spend your own money on yourself – in which case you are careful what you spend and what you spend it on.
  • You can spend your own money on someone else – much like a present.  You are careful about how much you spend but maybe don’t worry as much about what you buy.
  • You can spend somebody else’s money on yourself – like being on expenses.  You are careful to get good things for the money. But you’re not very worried about the price.
  • Finally, you can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else – you neither care about the cost or the value. 

Funding a free university education for all is rather like the last of those choices.  Someone, somewhere in Whitehall takes someone else’s (the taxpayers’) money and provides a service to someone else (the student).  Whilst imperfect the current system does mean via a deferred payment, students will pick the best education for them, and presumably seek the best value for money with the degree they undertake.  Indeed, the increasing use of apprenticeships and stabilisation of student numbers suggest many are choosing these as the best value route for themselves.

“No doubt the years at university are a great time for many, and a great life experience.  But that is no reason to expect others to pay for it”

Now I do want to briefly address the reason some people believe a University Education should be free and widely available.  This is that, some believe, it to be some sort of rite of passage.  No doubt the years at university are a great time for many, and a great life experience.  But that is no reason to expect others to pay for it.  Although I could be persuaded on this.  I, myself am away on holiday soon, and I hope it will be a great trip.  It has certainly cost the earth.  If anyone of you here is committed to the idea that we should all help fund other’s opportunities to learn and grow, I am in no way adverse to taking your money to help fund my trip.  Please just deposit funds here at the front, during the interval. 

If a University Education were to be free for all UK citizens, what limits would be imposed?  Could for instance anyone go to university?  Would you need a minimum qualification?  Could you study any subject?  Would you be able to keep doing new courses?  I mean, why ever work if you can just stay at Uni?

If the answer to any of these is no, who chooses?  Or are we saying the motion is really “A University Education of my specification, should be free for all UK citizens.”?  If you impose a minimum level of qualifications once again you tax, then disadvantage, those who can least afford it and you punish the neuro divergent.  Free university education would require the willingness of hardworking taxpayers to fund increasingly obscure courses for 30-year-olds who are reluctant to leave academia.  Imposing limits, means you create a university system for the few funded by the many.

“If people want degrees and then follow these career paths, fine, good for them, but let’s not burden everyone with the costs”

We already have a problem of what’s known as elite overproduction, a condition which describes a society which is producing too many potential elite members relative to its ability to absorb them.  Research suggests 36 per cent of graduates are overqualified for the jobs they currently hold. 3 per cent of post office clerks had a degree in 1992, compared to 30 per cent now, in a job that really hasn’t changed much in that time.  In 1992, 3 percent of bar staff, and 2 per cent of security guards had degrees, now those numbers are 19 and 24 per cent respectively.  There is nothing wrong with having a degree and working in any of these careers.  But are you really saying society needs to pay for degree quality bar staff, rather than say putting them onto an apprenticeship or giving them other on the job training.  If people want degrees and then follow these career paths, fine, good for them, but let’s not burden everyone with the costs.

A paid for education does create opportunities to encourage people into qualifications which we as a nation want or need.  We could for instance direct students through subsidies that would, I believe, have widespread support.  As a nation we don’t educate enough doctors, let’s do that, let’s make the qualifications high to get onto the course, but reduce the costs to encourage more to join.  We don’t have enough engineers, or more generally enough people learning STEM subjects, so let’s subsidise them.  These are hard subjects that provide great jobs.  We don’t need to make the education free, but we could make it cheaper than more popular subjects that provide less societal benefit. 

“the necessary restriction needed to fund a so-called free education imposes a tax on all for the benefit of a small often already privileged minority”

The motion is that a ‘University Education should be free for all UK citizens’.  No one here believes this, we know an education is not free.  The motion proposes someone else pays for the education.  As we have discussed someone else paying for someone else’s’ education can lead to some perverse outcomes.  But mostly the necessary restriction needed to fund a so-called free education imposes a tax on all for the benefit of a small often already privileged minority.  The reduction will reduce opportunities for those who most need them. 

Let’s make education pay, make it good value, and make it available to all who benefit the most, which is why I ask you to oppose this motion.

Summary

I’ve already spoken about how fees for UK Universities, haven’t stopped UK students from all backgrounds studying here.  But let’s look at international students.  They pay on average £22,000 per annum to attend a UK university.  The number of international students rose from 450,000 in 2016 to over 600,000 today.  The top 10 list of countries sending students to the UK includes, China, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Malaysia, France, Italy, and Spain.  All of which have a lower GDP per capita than the UK.  Don’t tell me student fees put people off studying in UK Universities or make universities only a place for the rich.  It may feel like that’s the case, but it simply isn’t born out by the facts. 

“It won’t be the pupils of private schools missing out when there are fewer university places, they will know how to still get into their academy of choice”

If people from all over the world think that paying £66k for 3-year UK degree is the right choice for them, why shouldn’t our students continue to pay £27k rather than move that cost onto others.  Taxpayers already fund Higher Education in this country to the tune of £4.5 billion, moving more burden to taxpayers will mean we need to constrain costs and restrict supply.  It won’t be the pupils of private schools missing out when there are fewer university places, they will know how to still get into their academy of choice.  It will mean, fewer places for pupils from the bog-standard comprehensives, and from the families not used to sending their children off to Uni.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  I would ask you to support the best outcomes, rather than the best intentions and oppose this motion.

To find out more about the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society visit their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/CoulsdonPurleyDebatingSociety/ or email them at [email protected].

Businesses and Service Providers are using technology to thwart contact and impose control of our lives

On January 10th the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society debated the motion “Businesses and Service Providers are using technology to thwart contact and impose control of our lives”.

Maureen Levy proposed the debate, and below is her speech delivered to the society.  As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well opposed and drew out some great views from the audience.

“I am sure many of you remember when people could, to a great extent, make their own individual decisions on the direction of their lives and what to say and think and whom to deal with?”

Although the debate is entitled Businesses and Service Providers are using technology to thwart contact and impose control of our lives insidious control is much greater than just through business and service providers.  I am afraid it goes much wider than this and, although some may say this is a conspiracy theory, governments and worldwide organisations are as guilty – if not more so – than businesses and service providers, unfortunately accepted as fact by many.  One such example is underlined by Germany’s proposal to change presumption of innocent into presumption of guilt. The gradual withdrawal of the use of cash to digital. Our ’masters’ have become much less recognisable and rule by consent is being eroded.

I am sure many of you remember when people could, to a great extent, make their own individual decisions on the direction of their lives and what to say and think and whom to deal with? There were certainly a number of constraints back then but nowhere near the insidious restrictions and limitations there are now so that one is forced into taking a route chosen by others and the use of technology to impose control. Our manufacturing base has gone and slipped quietly away to be owned abroad which must have been with the connivance – or stupidity – of our government.

Back then there was no internet, mobile phones and other electronic methods of control such as social media and data harvesting of an individuals’ details to be used to control our lives. Once The World Wide Web, emails, social media, data harvesting and such like were invented and implemented, we were lost. Unscrupulous, people, organisations and governments find more and more ways to manipulate our lives and give power to those in control to keep citizens under increasingly constant surveillance and control their lives.

Customer service is often no more or on the way out. If self-service tills, credit card and mobile phone payments were not used and encouraged by those who use such tills and such like manufacturers would not be encouraged to install more and more such tills and the gradually disappearance and reduction of serviced tills and the use of cash and picking up more information on everyone on the way.

“Going cashless is one of the first steps to total digital control. Businesses, services and government – Bank of England – can stop you from using your money to buy certain goods”

Going cashless is one of the first steps to total digital control. Businesses, services and government – Bank of England – can stop you from using your money to buy certain goods; Your accounts can be programmed to complete control over you personally and over your finances.

  • not allowing purchase of sugar drinks, burgers, meat and such like; 
  • Not allowing purchase of goods from certain countries
  • On what you can watch on TV
  • Where you can go (see Oxford and Cambridge diktats)
  • What transport you can use
  • Websites you can visit and so on.

Going cashless should be everybody’s concern.

Customers are acting how governments and companies chose. manipulating/coercing the population into compliance / acceptance of Government, business and service providers in readiness for what is to come. We must resist and at least use staffed tills

Through these methods, Big brother is indeed watching you and is indeed obtaining more and more control over our lives. George Orwell was right with his dystopian vision in his books and were a forecast of what is happening in the here and now.  The thought police are interfering, intruding, prying, snooping, meddling in everyday lives and it will get worse.  They are inhibiting, hindering and obstructing your daily movements, thoughts and actions. The concept of freedom and individualism will be abolished under the pretext of protecting you and you will be told ‘we will make your decision for you’.  The norms of the past are being deliberately eroded and the deliberate twisting of reality. It is altering the known structure of society.

“businesses and such like have conveniently – or deliberately – forgotten they serve the public and not the other way around.”

The culture is shifting and governments, businesses and such like have conveniently – or deliberately – forgotten they serve the public and not the other way around.  There has been a significant change in the structure of society. The insidious altering of the perception of things which have become ideologically offensive to a few, often to just a very small organised minority view, are taken up as fact and imposed by those in control who are afraid of upsetting the politically correct brigade. Imposed upon the majority who do not hold such, often bizarre views of the world.  It appears these kind of views are often taught and disseminated through our school and infect our young.  I am afraid, we are, to a great extent allowing them to do so and sleep walking to another type of slavery.

There is attack on Christian faith and the English Language. Brighton University banning the word Christmas.

Men and women being redefined.

Allowance of very small minorities to dictate policy and take control of thought – very like Napoleon in Animal Farm!

Cambridge dictionary redefining what a woman is and it is not a female woman.

Disabling the capacity for critical thought. They decide what should be preserved. What removed or altered or falsified. Abbreviated jargon to text speak which is becoming ingrained in our children. An invigilator found a student writing her English Literature exam paper in text speak. When pointed out, the girl hadn’t even realised what she was doing it has become so ingrained.  The student asked for extra time to re-write but was denied.

The constraints on individualism and the one size fits all to group think.

  • Constraining of freedom of speech
  • Constraining the freedom of the press
  • Constraining the freedom of assembly
  • Constraining thought
  • Constraining the right to withdraw one’s labour

Social bonds are being broken down. Destabilising the family units and undermining love and pity and family ties. Cutting people away from their family roots to being of little or no importance. Encouraging conflict of interest between old and young.

“We saw the need for grieving with the pageant and outpouring of grief at the Queen’s funeral and laying in state, much of it from ‘ordinary people’.  Why should such outpouring and relieving of grief be reserved or retained just for the rich?”

One example of this is the current push to send family members – often presented in adverts as the useless old – away to be cremated when they die with no members of the family or friends being present. Just throw them on the rubbish dump with no ceremony to remember their lives. Just forget they lived.  The ashes are returned for people to celebrate the dead persons lives’ as they want’, if at all. (If they are actually the persons ashes!!)  We saw the need for grieving with the pageant and outpouring of grief at the Queen’s funeral and laying in state, much of it from ‘ordinary people’.  Why should such outpouring and relieving of grief be reserved or retained just for the rich? Erosion of the rights of the poor.

In this time of increasing costs and expenses Do any of you remember the Soylent Green film about the special ingredients that go into the making of the peoples’ dietary staple because real food costs so much that no one can afford it, the government provides the people with a synthetic substitute biscuit, supposedly made from plankton. –  a synthetic substitute Soylent Green which is actually made from the bodies of dead humans. Something to think about.!!

‘Someone’ – we know not who – makes a decision of what the official line is and proceeds to shut down any different view with a false view of the world so we do not know what is true and what is not. We will make your decision for you. There is loss of independence and independent thought.

“The asking of what you are spending your money on. How long will it remain your money?  We should try to keep cash and our physical High Streets.”

Choice is being take away. Bank branches are closing and people are being directed to use on-line banking as with other businesses, services and government departments. The asking of what you are spending your money on. How long will it remain your money?  We should try to keep cash and our physical High Streets.

The current drive to stop people eating meat or of farmers being encouraged to stop animals farming to plantbased production. Liberals in charge of the systems.

Control proposals – such as

  • Oxford proposal of dividing driving zones and with residents only allowed to drive outside of the defined zone a certain number of times a year or having fines imposed.
  • Canterbury’s ‘Local Plan to 2045’, proposes splitting the city into 5 districts, with drivers unable to cross between districts by private car – even if they live there. Those who break the rules will face fines enforced by number-plate recognition cameras and won’t be able to make simple journeys around the City
  • Or Islington restriction of heating and hot water to a few hours a day.  
  • The gallop to the Green agenda and net zero does not take into consideration – or care – on the collateral damage to poorer people.

All these plans are part of the Net Zero 2030 Agenda.

It is not about saving the planet – which is undeliverable in the way proposed – but about control – and profits for some.

Smart Meters and ability to monitor usage and times of usage and Electric current shut off is possible. Encouragement to install Smart Meters with £100 off if use less between certain hours – which, of course, cannot be done without the ability for monitoring – which, of course,  it is claimed cannot happen. Smart and electric cars, Smart Phones, Smart Cities credit cards, paying by Smart mobile phones, all ways of knowing where you are and what you are doing all with the ability to monitor and control. They are even developing Smart Socks which can detect neurological and other illnesses which will be passed to Doctors and Insurance Companies for their use and manipulation and not likely to be to the benefit of the person.  Notice the word SMART is used to insidiously imply people are smart to use.  No-one wants to be considered stupid, do they?  

Digital currency and discouraging the use of cash. All presented as safety and convenience but actually about tracking and surveillance. Remember the Canadian Government stopped the bank accounts of the truckers who would not listen to the diktats and direction of the government and refused to follow the controls of Covid inoculations.

Speaking of Covid restrictions – where were the Human Rights lobbies then and the deafening silence.  If they spoke up they were shut down or not reported.

“All this means YOU are paying for the phone call and someone – usually the company or government department – are reaping the profit through pay back contracts with the telephone companies.”

Have you noticed that the use of the telephone to companies and government department and the time taken, often half an hour or more – messages letting you know that you can use on-line systems and the button pushing before you can get to a human assistance if at all – often taking 5 minutes in itself. All this means YOU are paying for the phone call and someone – usually the company or government department – are reaping the profit through pay back contracts with the telephone companies.

Few face to face meeting where you can read the body language of those in the room.  Where you can only see a few of those taking part and only allowed to speak should the ‘controller’ of the meeting allow. Zoom meetings introduced with claims to protect you during covid lockdown.  Have you noticed how many organisations continue to only zoom meetings now the danger has passed?

Self-appointment does not make it lawful. The curtailing of the freedoms of law-abiding people is not lawful. It is not about health. It is not about saving the planet. It is justifying unreasonable emergency measures and an inexcusable fraud. Covid Lockdown was based on guess work and not science.   It is now emerging that Pfizer mislead the public. The scientist who did not agree were shut down.  Several scientific studies have emerged that call into question the safety and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines, raising alarm bells about the potential harm they may have caused and their ability to prevent infection and transmission. It was, and is, Control.

We are slowly and acceleratingly losing our freedoms.  Propaganda through the Main media disbursing misinformation and suppressing news which does not fit into their and controllers’ version of reality. Destroying the fundamentals of the glue of society. Particularly the traditional family. Of mum and dad bringing up their own children. We are becoming the swallower of slogans and propaganda. Vague rumors taken as fact

It is all designed to teach us to obey.  All institutions are being infiltrated. Money making scheme for the usual suspects.

We should not accept this. They are playing us for fools. We need to protect our own identities as much as we can. We should say ‘No’ and ignore as much as we can.

It’s all interconnected. Largely by design. The ultimate aim is digital, social and financial control through: Central Banking Digital Currencies and as many ways as they can find.

Like all inventions, one has to attempt to make sure they do not end up controlling you.

I believe the genie is out of the bottle or another Pandora’s box has been opened and there is no way of putting it back in.

“Covid Lockdown was based on guess work and not science.  The scientist who did not agree on the need for mass inoculation and lockdown were shut down”

Summation

Self-appointment does not make it lawful. The curtailing of the freedoms of law-abiding people is not lawful – but what do they care, they have the upper hand and are well on the way to complete control. It is not about health. It is not about saving the planet. It is justifying unreasonable emergency measures and an inexcusable fraud. Covid Lockdown was based on guess work and not science.  The scientist who did not agree on the need for mass inoculation and lockdown were shut down.

Climate lockdowns will be disguised as ’15 minute cities’ coming to a city near you and about control and extortion. Note how easily the word Lockdown slipped into our everyday conversations! Our government is fully signed up to Net Zero 2030 Policy. There will be digital ID, programmable credit score Control of money, food, movement and all services with central bank digital currency. It’s all interconnected. Largely by design. The ultimate aim is digital, social and financial control.

In fact, an open-air prison to most. Of course, a very rosy picture will be presented to the public

We are slowly and acceleratingly losing our freedoms.  Propaganda through the Main media disbursing misinformation and suppressing news which does not fit into their and controllers’ version of reality and narrative. Destroying the fundamentals of the glue of society. Particularly the traditional family. Of mum and dad bringing up their own children. We are becoming the swallower of slogans and propaganda. Vague rumors taken as fact

It is all designed to teach us to obey.  All institutions are being infiltrated. Money making scheme for the usual suspects.

We should say ‘No’ and ignore as much as we can. One has to attempt/try to resist as much as possible to make sure they do not end up controlling you through: –

  • Thought police
  • Changing things which had become ideologically offensive to those in control.
  • They decide what should be preserved. What removed or altered or falsified.
  • Faking of photographs – Instagram.
  • Swallowers of slogan and propaganda
  • Constraining freedom of speech
  • Constraining the freedom of the press
  • Constraining freedom of assembly
  • Constraining thought
  • Constraining the right to withdraw one’s labour
  • Ridicule
  • Destruction of words and language getting smaller with the aim of narrowing the range of thought with fewer words and expressions.
  • Insidiously pushing its way into our everyday lives and overpowering and erosion of our individuality.
  • Internet purchases with more and more individual shops being closed down so that physical choice and movement is restricted.
  • Cutting off channels of communication

The genie is out of the bottle or another Pandora’s box has been opened and there is no way of putting it back in.

“I stopped DD the and replaced with a Standing Order of the amount I wanted to pay.”

Service problems

Bank closure – Coulsdon did have 6 banks and 3 Building Societies. Now it has none even though residents and RA’s asked at least one was left. 

Gas and Electric company I used transferred/sold to another company.  I had happily paid by direct debit for at least 20/30 years.  If I went into credit, they happily automatically paid credit back to my bank account.  I was not informed of the transfer until a year after this had taken place.  Once officially told the new company wrote and told me they had increased each of my DD payments by over 100%.  Told them to put back whilst also increasing to amount paid (but not 100%).  Told them not to do again.  Had to argue for re-payment of credit which had accrued as a result of their increase of DD to over £400. By the time I argued on repayment and reduction of DD this had gone to more than £550. Their accounts department rejected request for repayment.  I stopped DD the and replaced with a Standing Order of the amount I wanted to pay.

It is time for the West to stand up to Putin and kick Russia out of Ukraine.

Picture: Every Night for Ukraine 022 Russian Embassy Finland.  Author: rajatonvimma /// VJ Group Random Doctors

On June 7th the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society debated the motion “It is time for the West to stand up to Putin and kick Russia out of Ukraine”.

Mike Swadling proposed the debate, and below is his speech delivered to the society.  As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well opposed and drew out some great views from the audience.

“It is time for the West to stand up to Putin and kick Russia out of Ukraine”

What does this mean?

Of course, in many ways this is already government policy.  Standing up to Putin is exactly what we are doing by supporting front line states, supplying the Ukrainian government, and restricting the operation of Russia’s economy.   So in many ways it means doing exactly what we are doing today.

What it doesn’t need to mean, nor should it, is a direct armed intervention in the Ukraine with NATO forces acting directly against Russia or Russian troops. It would be unwise in the extreme to directly attack another nuclear power, unless you had already set out clearly that their actions were a line that could not be crossed.

“In a line about misjudging a military interaction with a nuclear Soviet Union as it was at the time, the good news was you only had 4 minutes to regret your mistake”

I am reminded of a line from a book I read many years ago during the Cold War, called “Nuclear War, What’s in it for you?”  In a line about misjudging a military interaction with a nuclear Soviet Union as it was at the time, the good news was you only had 4 minutes to regret your mistake.

What we are talking about here is standing up to a bully, an oppressor, and a calculated man who is in his mind making a logical choice to invade the Ukraine, and will if not stopped, go further.  Therefore, we need to stop him and push him back.  It’s worth pondering for a while, where we are at, and how we got to this position?

I’m not entirely sure why the global community has decided national borders matter more than anything else. The fact is we do care about borders, but I’d like to consider for a moment if it is the right or moral choice? 

Nations continue to trade with China as they intern millions of Uyghurs. Allegations of slave Labour and Genocide haven’t led to sanctions against leading members of the Chinese Communist Party, business leaders or the Chinese media. 

Statista the market and consumer data company lists Egypt at the top of the list of worst countries for human rights and rule of law as of 2021, and Amnesty International says “Authorities targeted human rights defenders, opposition politicians and other activists through unlawful summons, coercive questioning, extrajudicial probation measures, criminal investigations, unfair prosecutions and inclusion on a “list of terrorists”, yet we have no sanctions against them.

Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Amnesty reported the following on Russia: “Torture and other ill-treatment in places of detention remained endemic and prosecutions of perpetrators rare. Enforced disappearances were reported in Chechnya. The authorities failed to address domestic violence. LGBTI people continued to face discrimination”, yet none of this led to sanctions. 

“What makes Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine so dangerous is the very calculated and to his mind logical nature of it.  I want to dismiss any ideas that Putin’s invasion was the act of a mad man”

The things we choose to care about, or more to the point the things we don’t choose to care about, often baffles me, but that doesn’t mean the national borders don’t matter, in fact from the reactions we see all around us we know they clearly do, and we should be profoundly concerned by the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.  What makes Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine so dangerous is the very calculated and to his mind logical nature of it.  I want to dismiss any ideas that Putin’s invasion was the act of a mad man. 

It may not have worked out well, but that is in part because of the decisive action we have taken to support the Ukrainians.  It is worth remembering when the invasion started, no one expected the Ukrainians to last out long or avoid an inevitable defeat. 

Why do I say the invasion was calculated and logical?  Well if I may, can I ask you to cask your minds back to history lessons of Alfred the Great and his sons and grandsons who united the English people, pulling together the Angles and Saxon tribes who had by that time formed into a common people on this island.  Imagine if say the Eastern Anglo tribe of East Anglia, had for some reason stayed separate. 

They had through invasion and forced separation formed a slightly different grouping of English people, with a different but recognisable language.  We had united for some hundreds of years but had just 30 years ago again separated.  Might it be logical to some that we again unite as one people, one country.

Now I’m not suggesting for one moment this is right.  All I am saying is might it seem to some uniting an English people who had been separated at a weak point in the tides of history is a reasonable thing to do.  Well this is in imperfect analogy for the Ukraine and Russia.  Their history does bear similarities. 

The Kiev Rus, the first Russians, are a recognised group from the 800s AD.  The Mongol Horde split the Kiev and Muscovite Russians.  Ukrainians then variously formed parts of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austrian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, before Catherine the Great united the Russian People, in the Russian Empire. 

By then of course these Kiev Rus, or Ukrainians were a separate people, and Ukrainian nationalism flourished in the 19th Century.  This nationalism led in part to Starlin’s murder of an estimated 4 million Ukrainians in the famines of the 1930s.  The nations finally split again in 1991 with the break-up of the Soviet Union.  Despite this, many in Russia and more than a few in the Ukraine see the ‘Rus’ both Kiev and Muscovite as one people.

Now all this talk of Mongol Hordes and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealths, may seem from a different era, but maybe if we again look closer to home, where we still have disputes between Protestant and Catholic football teams in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and to a lesser extent Liverpool.  We still live with the threat that the situation in Northern Ireland may become bloody again, Scotland may well vote to leave the Union.  Ireland did join and leave the union, but often people still talk of Cromwell.  Scotland joined the union and people talk of Robert the Bruce and William Wallace.  Wales, especially in Welsh speaking, Plaid Cymru voting, North Wales is separate from England because 1600 years ago our Anglo-Saxon ancestors moved to these islands.

“we have these divisions in a modern tolerant democracy like Britain.  A nation with largely one language, that built an Empire and with it the modern world.  Yet we still hark back into long history’s, Russia and the Ukraine have never really had any of our benefits, it’s no surprise history casts a long shadow there”

My point is we have these divisions in a modern tolerant democracy like Britain.  A nation with largely one language, that built an Empire and with it the modern world.  Yet we still hark back into long history’s, Russia and the Ukraine have never really had any of our benefits, it’s no surprise history casts a long shadow there.

Russia already has Belarus as a de facto vassal state.  With a 1,400 mile border, disputed territory, some of the best ports of the Black Sea, and the opportunity to ensure no foreign troops can be on the Great European Plain for a few hundred extra miles away from Moscow.  It was not the act of a mad man for Putin to invade the Ukraine.  It was from his position in Moscow quite logical.  It’s this logic that means we have to stand up to Putin, and kick Russia out of Ukraine. 

Over 20% of Kazakhstan’s population are native Russian speakers, NATO members Latvia and Estonia both have about 30% of their population as native Russian speakers. Of course these overall numbers hide regions that are majority Russian.  We know Russia has played fast and loose with Georgian independence, and threats are currently being made to Finland and Sweden.  Russia is a bully and history teaches us we must stand up to bullies.

If Mussolini had been stood up to before the invasion of Abyssinia, or Hitler in the Rhineland, Sudentonland, or Austria, the history of Europe could be very much less bloody.  Many believe the withdrawal of the ice patrol ship HMS Endurance from the Falkland Islands convinced the Argentinians to go to war. 

NATO has kept the peace in western Europe for 70 years, because bullies only understand one thing, strength, and only through strength can we ensure Putin goes no further.  How do we show that strength, how do we stand up to Putin?

So far, what I am going to imperfectly call the ‘west’, has reacted with surprising unity.  While we haven’t been able to fully wean ourselves off Russian gas, and no country was going to impoverish itself deliberately overnight, progress has none the less been made.  We have imposed meaningful sanctions against Russia as a nation and punished the plutocrats that enable the Putin regime. 

Britain as the leading military power in Europe has shown we can support the Ukraine, and the nation states on the frontline.  Whilst I won’t pretend to be a military expert the ability for relatively small arms to disrupt a large invading force must be a concern to all military powers.  Cheap domestic drones have become a feature in this war that will surely challenge future acts of aggression. 

“Weapons like the NLAW anti-tank missiles, we have been suppling will be better for being seen in battlefield conditions.  No one wants a war, but if one is happening, your military intelligence should make use of it”

Indeed this alone is a reason for our involvement in standing up to Putin.  A military only remains strong if it is engaged in or is close to the latest military actions.  No one wants to send troops to war, but we do want a military we can trust the readiness off.  British expertise is being used, and knowledge is being gained through our providing assistance.  Weapons like the NLAW anti-tank missiles, we have been suppling will be better for being seen in battlefield conditions.  No one wants a war, but if one is happening, your military intelligence should make use of it.  Incidentally we can reflect after the Jubilee weekend, it’s been reported Ukrainian soldiers shout “God save the Queen!” when using the NLAW against the Russians. 

Naval warfare has changed as ships have been seen to be more vulnerable to land-based missile attack, something that will affect activities in the Taiwan Strait for years to come.

The coming together of the Ukrainian people and their successful defence of their country sets them clearly apart as a nation from Russia.  In the medium to long term a humiliated nuclear Russia would be a concern for all, and once confined to their borders, we should look to re-engage Russia in the international community, but for now our security needs are best met by ensuring the integrity of an independent Ukraine.

There are a few areas of concern from our reaction to the war.  On the more absurd end we have seen sanctions against individual sports men and women, the refusal to play Tchaikovsky by the Cardiff Philharmonic Orchestra, and the banning of Russian media. 

“We could now be watching Putin’s propagandists having to explain the failing of the paper bear Russian army, instead by banning them, we have protected them from their own shortcomings”

Chemical Ali was a propaganda boon to the coalition during the Iraq war, Lord Haw-Haw if anything, stiffened resolve against Germany.  We could now be watching Putin’s propagandists having to explain the failing of the paper bear Russian army, instead by banning them, we have protected them from their own shortcomings.

Perhaps my biggest concern from the invasion of Ukraine has been the willingness of India to work with Russia to secure energy supplies.  With 1.36 billion people, India is by far the largest democracy in the world, and this should be celebrated.  Both to handle Putin and with the looming global threat of the Chinese Communist Party, making sure India is on the side of the good guys, on the side of the liberal democracies, is good for one billion souls and good for the globe. 

What are our next steps?  Some actions we already appear to be taking, we need to align states with NATO and other tenants of the western military alliance as ultimately security only comes through strong defence.  Winston Churchill once said “Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety, and variety alone”,we need to exploit domestic supplies of energy and encourage other countries to diversify their supplies of energy and other key commodities.

We should be forming an alliance of democracies with not just India but all countries who are set on a democratic path and open to the peaceful transition of government. The emerging global power of China and with it the Chinese Communist Party, and the regional threat of nations like Russian and Iran, is best stopped by democratic nations working together.And we need to continue to supply better and more sophisticated weapons to the Ukrainian regium.  We need to ensure the Black Sea Fleet cannot operate with impunity in the Black Sea, that Russian tanks are proven ineffective, and that Russian soldiers no longer care for the fight.  

Over 20% of Russians are from non-Russia ethnic groups, over half don’t call themselves Christian.  We should be using our considerable media skills as a nation to agitate these populations against Putin, creating problems in his own backyard. 

As we did in the Cold War, we need a range of actions, outspending, out propagandising, and out thinking our enemy.  In the 1980s, the western alliance’s actions, led to Perestroika and Glasnost in the USSR, making sure the cost of pursuing this war is greater than any benefit they could gain from winning it, can led to a newfound peace with Russia.

“Destabilising Georgia in 2008, annexation of the Crimea in 2014, further destabilising the Ukraine, involvement in Syria supporting the chemical weapon using Bashar al-Assad, and now the invasion of the Ukraine in 2022. 

Putin is using Salami tactics”

Summary

In April the UK government announced a new package of £100 million of military aid, building on the £350 million of military aid and around £400m of economic and humanitarian support that the UK has already provided.  This included additional Javelin anti-tank systems, Starstreak air defence systems, ballistic helmets, body armour and night vision goggles.  We are already standing up to Putin, we are already working to kick Russia out of Ukraine.

In the episode called ‘Grand Design’ of the Yes Prime Minister TV Series, the government’s chief scientific adviser tells Prime Minister Jim Hacker:

“Why should the Russians annex the whole of Europe? They can’t even control Afghanistan.

No, if they try anything, it will be salami tactics.

– Salami tactics? – Slice by slice.

One small piece at a time.”

Destabilising Georgia in 2008, annexation of the Crimea in 2014, further destabilising the Ukraine, involvement in Syria supporting the chemical weapon using Bashar al-Assad, and now the invasion of the Ukraine in 2022. 

Putin is using Salami tactics, we need to show him this time he has sliced off more than he can chew.

To find out more about the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society visit their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/CoulsdonPurleyDebatingSociety/ or email them at [email protected].

A large part of this speech first appeared in the Blacklist Press, Free Speech bulletin on 9th May 2022.

Lockdown did more harm than good

On October 5th the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society debated the motion “Lockdown does/did more harm than good”.

Mike Swadling proposed the debate, and below is his speech delivered to the society.  As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well opposed and drew out some great views from the audience.

‘Lockdown does/did more harm than good’ – Proposing the motion

Lockdown, all of the lockdowns, were a challenging time for all of us, I’m sure.  As we thankfully move out of them, we need to be careful not to look back with rose-tinted glasses, for the price of lockdown is a cost we now are all forced to bear. 

“We had a shared sacrifice through lockdown, we don’t like to think that was in vain, but we must avoid what economist call the ‘sunk cost fallacy’.”

What surprised you most about your lockdown?

What did you do / stop doing that surprised you?  I would like to tell you about the great skill I learnt, or hobby I engaged in, but for me and this may sound a little odd, it was that I used aftershave more.  Now to avoid confusion this was not eau de toilette, perfume, or eau de Cologne.  This was cheap aftershave. 

Going into an office since I was a teenager I would shave ever day, or at worst every other day.  In lockdown, suddenly shaving a was much less common event and I needed some cheap aftershave to somewhat painfully help my face recover after a weekly shave.

I don’t doubt you have better surprise experiences from lockdown, but whatever they are, we should avoid confusing the revelation from adversity with a positive experience.  We didn’t see our friends and families for a long time. Many lost their jobs, and their businesses in lockdown, many lost hope. 

We had a shared sacrifice through lockdown, we don’t like to think that was in vain, but we must avoid what economist call the ‘sunk cost fallacy’.  This being our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.

And Lockdowns costs, way outstripped Lockdowns benefits.

I want to for a moment separate lockdown from the pandemic and endemic problem of Covid.  Many people lost their lives to this terrible virus.  But the virus is quite separate from the actions we take to manage or deal with it.

We have seen around the globe a mixture of measures to handle Covid.  Some countries have in effect locked Covid out of their land, this has worked for Australia and until recently New Zealand, some have staid in almost permanent lockdowns, some taken a very limited response like Sweden, and some like the UK, US and Switzerland with more federal systems have adopted different approaches across their countries. 

All of these counties took different approaches, to fight the same virus.  I will argue we should have taken a very different approach to fight lockdowns, and that Lockdown did more harm than good.

The idea of a Lockdown was such an anathema.  Government ministers telling you how long you were allowed out of your home, and police forces flying drones to check who is visiting beauty spots. The burden must lie with on those in favor of lockdowns to prove they had an invaluable and undeniable contribution to make in fighting covid. 

If the last 18 months have taught us anything it’s that lockdowns didn’t stop the virus, didn’t control the virus, but did cause untold damage to our society.

For lockdowns to be justified they must in my opinion pass the following 3 tests:

  1. That comparted to the society being free, a lockdown stops or slows the spread of the virus in the community and saves lives.
  2. That the impact of the lockdown is sufficiently mild on the economy, and general functioning of society, that the ongoing costs as still outweighed by the original benefit.
  3. That in the free society the benefits of lockdown is so significant that it justifies a transfer of our freedom to government, and that the government proves it has the moral authority to exercise control over out lives.

I will demonstrate lockdowns have failed all 3.

Did “comparted to the society being free, a lockdown stop or slow the spread of the virus in the community and save lives”?

The original plan for dealing with a virus was messaging to increase hygiene, some voluntary social distancing, and protecting the most vulnerable until heard immunity had built up to protect them naturally.  Indeed you will remember that we originally ‘locked-down’ for just 3 weeks to ‘bend the curve’, to protect the NHS.  This would flatten the peak number needing medical treatment for Covid, and ensure hospitals didn’t run out of capacity.  It was never expected that the total number who would need hospitalization, or who would die would significantly change as a result of lockdown.

We have now had 18 month of those ‘3 weeks’ and we can compare those countries who followed their original plans more closely with those who undertook severe lockdowns.  The comparison suggests frankly as a result of lockdowns, not much changed.

Now I am going to talk about deaths.  Death has so far proved to be 100% unavoidable.  People will die, and will die at a higher rate when a new virus is doing the rounds.  An individuals death is tragic, but for policy purposes, we need to look at which policy saw the least deaths, and ideally the least years of a fulfilled life lost.

“What does all this data tell us, frankly not a lot.  Which does show, that whatever the ingredient was that lead to a higher or lower death rates from Covid, it certainly wasn’t lockdown”

The Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker, collects systematic information on policy measures that governments have taken to tackle COVID-19. The different policy responses are tracked since January 2020, cover more than 180 countries and are coded into 23 indicators, such as school closures, travel restrictions, and vaccination policy.  They rank countries on how strict their lockdown policy was from 0 to 100, with 100 being the strictest.

The UK sits at 80 out of 100, France at 88, Spain 82 and Italy 69.  Germany comes in at just 64 and all the Scandinavian countries are in the 60s, with Sweden the lowest at 65.  How does this compare to the Covid death rate?

At over 2000 per million, the UK and Italy had the most death, with France and Spain not far behind.  Germany and Sweden had similar numbers of deaths at about 1300 and 1450 per million respectively, and limited lockdown Norway and Finland we’re bottom with both less than 200 deaths per million.

Incidentally Bosnia at the high rate of 90 in severity of lockdown and Hungry at a lenient 66, were the two countries in with the highest death rates from Covid in Europe.  Iceland with the least lockdown, ranked at just 50 out of 100, and had the least deaths per million, with just 33 deaths in total.

What does all this data tell us, frankly not a lot.  Which does show, that whatever the ingredient was that lead to a higher or lower death rates from Covid, it certainly wasn’t lockdown.

If you don’t believe the data from Europe or have some reason to dismiss it.  Let’s look at the US, a society, where different legal jurisdictions are more comparable.

It’s been widely reported the New York and California have had serve lockdowns, and generally high compliance rates among the population, yet they come in 5th and 33rd among the 50 states for death rates.

Texas at 20th and Florida ranked 9th by death rate, have had some of the least restrictive and shortest lockdowns.  Arkansas 10th, Iowa 25th, Nebraska 42nd, North Dakota 23rd, South Dakota 12th, Utah 45th, and Wyoming 35th, by rates of deaths, are the only states that did not issue stay at home orders in early 2020.

The very scattered nature of death rates shows once again that whatever the ingredient was that lead to higher or lower death rates from Covid, it certainly wasn’t lockdown.

In the first lockdown rates were falling before the lockdown was brought in, in the autumn rates continued to rise as lockdown came in and death rates peaked in the middle of the winter lockdown.  As we have opened up society we’ve not seen any increase in death rates as pubs, stadiums, theater’s opened and schools returned.

There is simply no evidence that ‘comparted to our society being free, lockdowns stopped or slowed the spread of the virus in the community or saved lives’.

Now to address the second test. 

Was the impact of the lockdown sufficiently mild on the economy, and general functioning of society, that the ongoing costs are still outweighed by the original benefit?

Now I believe I have demonstrated there was no benefit from the original lockdown, but even if you believe there was, does it outweigh lockdowns undeniable costs? 

I have said this before to this grand society, but it bears repeating.  The Great Frost of 1709 was the coldest European winter during the past 500 years.  It caused widespread crop failure and economic devastation.  2020 was the worst economic contraction since 1709.  Let’s just put that into some perspective.

In the intervening years we have faced, Jacobite revolution, a global 7 Year war with Louis XV’s France, fought in and lost the Americas, seen off Napoleon, fought two World Wars against Germany, seen massive economic changes with agricultural and industrial revolutions, introduced and repealed The Corn Laws, seen global economic depression in the 1930’s, formed a Union with and given independence to Ireland.  Gained and lost the world’s largest ever Empire,  Yet none of these created as big a fall in GDP as we faced last year. 

To remind you, Lockdown caused more damage than the Luftwaffe.

“Put simply the richer a country is the longer people live.  We have in one year for no good reason, destroyed more wealth in the UK, than any other year for the past 300.  How can that not have serious ramifications?”

The UK has an average life expectancy of 81, Uganda 63.  Canada is 82, Chad 54.  France 82, Fiji 67.  Germans with their love for beer and bratwurst, outlive Gambians by 19 years. 

Having spent some time working in Belgium, a country of endless rain.  I know it’s almost not possible to eat a meal there without a large helping of potatoes, yet even they live 20 more years on average than the people of tropical Burkina Faso.  Singaporeans, live on average 11 more years than neighboring Malaysians.

What separates these countries?  One word, wealth.

Put simply the richer a country is the longer people live.  We have in one year for no good reason, destroyed more wealth in the UK, than any other year for the past 300.  How can that not have serious ramifications?

“during the year to July 31st, Barnardo’s saw a 36% increase in the number of children referred for foster care. We know the NHS saw a 28% rise in children being referred to mental health services in late 2020”

But it’s not just an economic cost, it’s a societal one. 

  • We know for instance that during the year to July 31st, Barnardo’s saw a 36% increase in the number of children referred for foster care.
  • We know the NHS saw a 28% rise in children being referred to mental health services in late 2020.
  • We know the number of children in need of urgent or emergency care, rose by 18%, compared with 2019.
  • We know in the decade preceding the pandemic, the mean IQ score for children aged between 3 months and 3 years of age hovered around 100, but for children born during the pandemic that number tumbled to 78.
  • We are taught to socialize puppies but for a year we didn’t socialize baby children, who were at basically no risk from Covid.
  • We know as of June, there were 10,000 fewer patients in England starting treatment for breast cancer, than in the year before.  Either we believe breast cancer has disappeared or this will have long term consequences to their health.
  • We know rates of depression in early 2021 were more than double those observed before lockdown.
  • We know studies of school pupils show a consistent impact of the first lockdown with pupils making around 2 months less progress than similar pupils in previous years.

We saw people die alone in care homes, and hospitals.  We have given out two years of frankly guessed GCSE and A Level results.  We have supply chain problems globally and we have printed money like it’s confetti and inflation is once again rearing its ugly head. 

All of this was for lockdowns, that we can see when compared to the countries that didn’t lockdown,  made not a blind bit of difference to the spread of the virus.  Do the ‘ongoing costs, outweigh any original benefit’.  Absolutely not. The third and final test I passionately believe is the most important. 

In the free society are the benefits of lockdown so significant that they justify a transfer of our freedom to government, and does the government prove it has the moral authority to exercise control over out lives?’

If I may again repeat my words from a previous debate.  The income tax was first introduced in the Napoleonic Wars as a temporary measure and is still with us today.  Blanket restrictions were applied to pub opening times during World War One, and left largely unchanged until 1988 and rationing stayed in place for 9 years after the end of the second world war.

“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program” to quote Milton Friedman.

Since 1215 with Magna Carta, through the 1689 Bill of Rights, to universal suffrage, freedoms have been hard won.  Those in power always want more, and by necessity will sacrifice your liberty to take it.  Any didn’t they just do that.

Lockdown broke articles 3, 5, 13, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 27, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

This is not a partisan point, as our supposed opposition parties were just as enthusiastic about granting politicians, civil servants, medical chiefs and the police ever more power over our lives.

Did the governing class justify this power grab?  Let’s look at a few cases.

  • Prof Neil Ferguson who’s alarmist and thoroughly disproven predictions sparked the first locked had to resign when it was reported that a woman he was said to be in a relationship with visited his home in lockdown.
  • At the time, then Health Secretary Matt Hancock, yes that Matt Hancock said it was that it was “just not possible” for Prof Ferguson to continue advising the government.
  • Matt Hancock of course was having a secret affair with his closest aide whilst couples, if living in separate households were not allowed to meet under rules his department was responsible for.  In his hypocritical case, ‘Hands. Face. Space’, were both health instructions and almost unbelievably a seductive technique!
  • The Welsh Tory leader resigned after he was seen drinking in the Senedd during a pub alcohol ban in Wales.
  • Scotland’s chief medical officer resigned after making two trips to her second home during their lockdown.
  • And of course Dominic Cummings drove 264 miles, and popped to Barnard Castle, whilst the rest of us were in lockdown.

Rules for thee and not for me, has been the mantra of those in power.

“Of course not everyone was unmasked, the staff, the people serving them, those not privileged to move in these lofty circus, needed to retain their muzzles when serving the great and good”

We saw earlier this year staged photos of world leaders in masks during the G7 Summit in Cornwall, next to photos of them all unmasked enjoying normal conversations.  Of course not everyone was unmasked, the staff, the people serving them, those not privileged to move in these lofty circus, needed to retain their muzzles when serving the great and good.

We saw the same at Wimbledon in the Royal Box, where only staff need to were a face covering, and again recently at the Met Gala in New York. 

Rules for thee and not for me, shows the moral bankruptcy of those who govern us, and show how ‘the government has proved it does not have the moral authority to exercise control over our lives’.

“The vaccines have protected many and saved a lot of lives, but in a free society people must be free to choose if they want them.  They must be free from the coercion of vaccine passports”

Freedoms are returning, lockdowns have in large part lifted.  But we must be ever vigilant.  The vaccines have protected many and saved a lot of lives, but in a free society people must be free to choose if they want them.  They must be free from the coercion of vaccine passports. 

We must free from the zero covid strategy being implemented in much of Australia which is seeing in, Melbourne of all cities Police use rubber bullets on people protesting lockdowns and coerced vaccination.

Lockdowns didn’t work, they did more hard than good, their harm is sadly enduring.  As frustrating as it is to know we wasted a good year in lockdown, we must acknowledge that due to their immense harm lockdowns must not be allowed to happen again.

Summary

I set 3 tests for Lockdown                

  1. That comparted to the society being free, a lockdown stops or slows the spread of the virus in the community and saves lives.
  2. That the impact of the lockdown is sufficiently mild on the economy, and general functioning of society, that the ongoing costs as still outweighed by the original benefit.
  3. That in the free society the benefits of lockdown is so significant that it justifies a transfer of our freedom to government, and that the government proves it has the moral authority to exercise control over out lives.

When we compare countries, who took different measures, lockdowns in no way demonstrate they worked stem the spread of Covid.

We know the impact of lockdown on the economy, on society, on children’s education, and on all our health in the long term.  In no case will it be good.

We have lost freedoms, that are proving slow to return.  The government and those more broadly in power have not demonstrated they are fit to govern, and take our freedoms.

Lockdown did more harm than good, and I urge you to support the motion.

Image from https://pixabay.com/illustrations/soil-health-mask-protection-corona-5935148/

To find out more about the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society visit their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/CoulsdonPurleyDebatingSociety/ or email them at [email protected].

Debating Society speech – Why it will take more than a year to get back to normal

On December 1st the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society debated the motion “This time next year life will be back to normal”

Mike Swadling opposed the debate, and below is his speech delivered to the society via Zoom.  As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well proposed and drew out some great views from the audience.

“This time next year life will be back to normal” – Opposing motion

What a year we have had, and expect to have for a good few months to come.  We have lost too many people, lost too many freedoms, and will continue to suffer from the economic consequences and health care losses of lockdown.

Meanwhile new ways of living have become part of our new normal.  Many people who had never held a conference call or video conference, now do so daily.  Millions have worked from home all year.

The knock at the door of an Amazon delivery is now a familiar sound, and if you’re lucky enough to get a slot, we have become used to home deliveries for our food shopping.

Now much, as I would like it to be so, I don’t believe this time next year, life will be back to the old normal.  Nor do I believe, we will be living fundamentally changed lives, but the way we live has seen a step change, and will continue to evolve.

“let me offer some hope, the pandemic levels of death ended in June, when death rates thankfully returned to the 5 year normal.  Life with Covid became endemic.  Predictions of a second waves of deaths have proved thankfully untrue”

First let me offer some hope, the pandemic levels of death ended in June, when death rates thankfully returned to the 5 year normal.  Life with Covid became endemic.  Predictions of a second waves of deaths have proved thankfully untrue, even as cases have risen.  Treatments are getting better, the NHS was not overwhelmed at the peak, and won’t be now.  We also have the prospect of a multitude of vaccines to build up further immunity in the population.  We can look forward to the future, where the true threat of Covid 19, is seen as no more serious than threat of a normal seasonal flu.

But the absence of Covid deaths does not mean an immediate return to a year ago.  For instance let us look locally for examples of how things are changing.

Most of us have gone a year without visiting a department store.  Debenhams in Croydon has closed, John Lewis, a flagship store for the new Westfield development, has closed its Purley Way outlet.  Arcadia, which includes Topshop, Burton and Dorothy Perkins, based out in Valley Park is reported to be on the brink of collapse.  The Westfield shopping centre unlikely to happen before the first lockdown, is now almost impossible to believe.

With retail on the life support from furlough schemes, it’s hard to imagine the Whitgift centre ever truly reviving.  No doubt we will see something new in our town centre, but online shopping has ensured it won’t be the kind of all-encompassing retail centre, we have seen for all our lives.

Aside from retail, Croydon has been for many years a major office centre.  These offices have now largely stood empty since March.  Offices that cost millions to run are now being run from peoples spare rooms, dining tables or sofas.  Why would a business want their staff to return, to reincur those costs?

Now I don’t believe the world of work will fundamentally change so much we will never be back in the office.  Distant relations work in part because we have built up trust and connections from having physically meet.

But I wouldn’t overplay that fact, I like many now work with teams all over the globe, I have never meet the people I work with in the US, Malaysia, or Italy, yet we get on, we laugh and joke, and importantly we get the job done.

People are sociable, it would be handy to meet-up with my local colleagues from time to time.  Frankly it would be good to get out of my house.  I’ve not seen much evidence you can fully train people to do a job remotely.  Some office jobs require a higher degree of physical interaction, and of course away from offices there is a whole world of world that requires a physical presence.

But what does this mean for Croydon?

Well my prediction, and hardly an original one, is that we will move from a world where many work from home 1-2 days a week, to a world where people go into the office say 1-4 days per month.  Offices will have less desks and more meeting rooms and breakout spaces.  I firmly suspect enterprising coffee shops will be adding ‘work pods’ you can hire to get together with a few co-workers.

What happens to the plethora of office blocks in central Croydon?  Their use, can only reduce.  What will we need?  80% of what we have today?  50% maybe, or even just 20%?  I don’t know, but I do know the twin engines of our town and indeed our city of Offices and Retail have both fundamentally changed.

Now what to do with all these office blocks?  We are already building a large number of housing blocks in Croydon.  Many people have concerns about this making Croydon a dormitory town, and that these homes are not suitable for families.

With people traveling to work less and working from home more, needing space in their homes, and dare I say it, maybe even a garden, these home are not suitable for todays’ let alone tomorrows living requirements.

With a need for housing people will no doubt be cramped into converted office blocks, even with the problems that will bring.

This does however offer one possible future for the Whitgift Centre.  Conversion to a much needed central park for those living in the new high rises around it.

Our town will not be the same this time next year, although I’m sure things will feel far better than today, they will be far from normal.

From the local changes let us look at some national changes.  Great Frost of 1709 was the coldest European winter during the past 500 years.  It caused widespread crop failure and economic devastation.  We are now facing the worst economic failure since then.  Let’s just put that into some perspective.

In the intervening years we have faced Jacobite revolution, a global 7 Year war with Louis XV’s France, fought in and lost the Americas, seen off Napoleon, fought two World Wars against Germany, seen massive economic changes with agricultural and industrial revolutions, introduced and repealed The Corn Laws, seen global economic depression in the 1930’s, formed a Union with and given independence to Ireland.  Gained and lost the world’s largest ever Empire,  Yet none of these lead to the economic crisis we now face.

To put it simply, Lockdown has caused more damage than the Luftwaffe.

The Office of Budget Responsibility forecasts the economy will shrink by 11.3% this year, and we will borrow £394bn the equivalent of 19% of GDP.  We are in a hole, and with new tougher Tiers in place, we have just ordered new digging equipment.

We don’t know how bad unemployment will be, how many shops will shut down, how much the transport industry will contract, or how little of the hospitality sector will remain after furlough ends, and economic realities kick in, but we do know it will be devastating.

Recovery from an economic shock this size won’t come quick.

The income tax was first introduced in the Napoleonic Wars as a temporary measure and is still with us today.  Blanket restrictions were applied to pub opening times during World War One, and left largely unchanged until 1988.  Rationing stayed in place for 9 years after the end of the second world war, and we didn’t pay off our war debts until 2006.

This economic shock is bigger than any of them.  It will take far, far longer than a year to get us out of this hole.

“Pre-lockdown a 1000 people a day were diagnosed with Cancer.  That has largely stopped for the last 9 months….The consequences a year from now, of the shutting down of large parts of our health service don’t bear contemplation”

We also see health consequences.  Pre-lockdown a 1000 people a day were diagnosed with Cancer.  That has largely stopped for the last 9 months.  Many minor operations have been postponed and will become major operations.  The consequences a year from now, of the shutting down of large parts of our health service don’t bear contemplation.  On top of that the coming unemployment and lost prosperity, is a health crisis of its own.

Worse than all this I believe, and likely to have far longer consequences, is our loss of freedom.

I hope you all agree, Everyone has following the rights

  • The right to liberty
  • To not be subjected to arbitrary interference with privacy or home
  • freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state
  • freedom of religion; ….either alone or in community with others and in public or private
  • freedom of opinion and expression
  • freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
  • the right to work, and to free choice of employment
  • to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts

What I have read to you there are extracts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Articles 3, 5, 13, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 27, of which, are being broken right now by our government.  This is not a partisan point, as our opposition parties are arguably even more enthusiastic about the Covid Laws

Since 1215 with Magna Carta, through the 1689 Bill of Rights, to universal suffrage, freedoms have been hard won.  Those in power always want more, and by necessity will sacrifice your liberty to take it.

“If you believe these freedoms, all these freedoms, will be back with us, and life will return to normal in a year from now, I have a bridge to sell you.  Only under the current law I’m not allowed to trade”

If you believe these freedoms, all these freedoms, will be back with us, and life will return to normal in a year from now, I have a bridge to sell you.  Only under the current law I’m not allowed to trade, you’re not allowed out to see the bridge, and shaking hands on a deal will see us both severely fined.

Some genies have escaped their bottle, and won’t be put back.  The economy will take many years to come back, the NHS will be dealing with the health consequences of this year for much of the next decade and who knows, when we will simply be allowed to do what we used to think of as normal interactions.

Life won’t return to normal by this time next year, but we should do our damnedest to make it as normal as possible.

“We have no right to protest, the churches are closed, drones were following hill walkers and police ask you to report those breaking the rules, and government literally banned couples who live in separate houses from meeting up”

Summing up

It has become something of a cliché to say George Orwell’s 1984, was meant as a warning of a dystopian future not a how to guide for government.

In the book criticism of the state is forbidden, there is no organised religion, you are under constant surveillance, and intimate relationships are strictly controlled.

We have no right to protest, the churches are closed, drones were following hill walkers and police ask you to report those breaking the rules, and government literally banned couples who live in separate houses from meeting up.

These will be temporary measures, just like we’re still in last March’s 3 week lockdown, to flatten the curve.

A year from now we will be in the midst of a very real economic crisis.  Many shops, pubs and restaurants will be boarded up.  Hotels will be closed, tourist attractions behind shutters.  We will have empty offices being converted into the troubled high-rises of the future, and we likely see a massive reduction of choice of public transport.  Things will not be normal.

The human spirt will however prevail.  The economy will bounce back.  We will push to regain our lost rights, or much like we are seeing in this lockdown, many will just ignore those in authority.  Life will return to normal but it will be a struggle and one that sadly will take us well beyond next year.

Image: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/virus-covid-science-covid19-4937553/

Article in January 2021 CR5 Magazine https://cr5.co.uk

Debating Society speech – The Global Warming Scare

On February 2nd the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society debated the motion “Implementing green policies to combat global warming is imperative to save the Earth”

Mike Swadling opposed the debate, and below is his speech delivered to the society in Coulsdon.  As always at this excellent society the debate was good natured, well proposed and drew out great comments from the audience.

“Implementing green policies to combat global warming is imperative to save the Earth” – Opposing motion

In 1970 Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken”

“At least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” The Stanford University Professor Paul Ehrlich declared in the April 1970.

In January 1970, Life Magazine reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions:

  • In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution
  • by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half”

In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.” – anyone else have their heating on today?

In 2008, ABC News predicted that New York City would be under water by June 2015. (1)(2) – Nope didn’t happen

Planet Earth might quote Mark Twain in saying “Rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated”

The Premise

I thank the Chair and the members for getting the title right in calling it global warming.  Let’s dispense with the nonsense called “climate change”.

The climate changes.  Yes we know that.  Global temperature is not fixed, we know we had ice ages, we know we have had warming periods.

I believe the premise here is the following:

  • The globe is warming
  • The warming is man-made – if this isn’t as a result of human influenced greenhouse gas emissions, then the currently prescribed actions are meaningless.
  • And finally that the warming will be catastrophic – there is little point in taking action if the impact is only two more weeks of summer and not much else (3)

To believe that last two premises you have to believe in the predictions of the people who told us food would run out in the 1980s and that New York City is currently underwater.

Now I’m not convinced we ran out of food or you can swim to the top floor of the Empire State Building.

It’s important to look at these in detail, as our civilisation, all of this abundance you see around you, that has allowed billions of people to move from calorie insecurity to having commodity goods, in our lifetimes is feed by fuel, mostly fossil fuels.

It is our civilizations manna from heaven.  It is a manna showing no end.  We have more oil reserves than all the oil we have ever used, with new technology opening up even further access to fuel. (4)

If you have a proven, working, source of fuel that reduces pollution great let’s use it.

If you are saying we need to change the basis of our modern civilisation and put at risk the food supply chains for billions of people, you better be dammed sure of your predictions.

Getting Warmer

The first premise on which all others are built is that the world is getting warmer.

  • Warmer since when?
  • Warmer compared to what?

11,000 years ago sitting here would have been cold, very cold.  We wouldn’t be under ice, but Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the North of England all would be.

We would be linked by Ice to Norway and Denmark, and by Land to France. (5)

Are we warmer than then – yes.  But perhaps we would all agree that’s a good thing.

As I’m sure many of you are aware much of our cultural view of white Christmases comes from Charles Dickens stories rather than our actual memories.

Only 11 times in London in the last 60 years has snow fallen on Christmas day. (6) (7)

Of course this was not always so.

The River Thames held its first frost fair in 1608 and the last was in 1814.  These took place during the Little Ice Age lasting from about 1300 to about 1850. (39)

Clearly we have warmed since then.  The Little Ice Age started without man made input and ended before any serious global industrialisation.

It’s almost as if temperatures change without a man mad cause.  Incidentally the Coldest Christmas day on record since 1659 was in 2010. – so much for global warming.

But what if I was to pick other dates, different dates to measure warming.  What might conclude?

The English wine market is once again growing, centred in the South East and South West.

Of course the Romans grew grapes and made wine at Hadrian’s Wall, not something we could do today without artificial heaters. (8)

Later tax records show the Britons extensively grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century. (9)

Compared to then we are colder not warming.

The later growing took place in the Medieval Warm Period lasting from around 950 to  1250 AD. (10)

The warming during this period saw the Vikings break out of Scandinavia concur much of Europe and even grow barley in Greenland. (11)

The same warming in the east produced more rain, and grass for the grazing animals that Genghis Khan’s Mongolian horseman rode and feed off.

This abundance allowed his descendants conquer much of Eurasia. (12)

The Medieval Warm Period was not caused by car journeys, aircraft, coal fuelled power stations or even ‘trial by fire’ used by Saxons.
The climate changes it often has little to do with man.

Compared to then we are colder not warming.

Once again I ask.

  • Warmer since when?
  • Warmer compared to what?

When was this ideal period of warmth.  Who is to judge this.

Why are the starting dates that prove the climate scientist clams we are warming any more valid than the start dates I have used?

After all these are the same climate scientists that told us. (13) (14)

  • In 2002 that Britain would suffer a “famine” within 10 years.
  • And that in 2009 we had “eight years to save the planet”

The Scientists

We are often told Climate Change is Settled Science.  Yet Science is knowledge that is testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable. (15) (16)

And it’s that falsifiable that really matters here.  Science cannot by definition ever be settled.

If a claim can’t be falsified it’s a matter of faith, of religion, of ideology, but never ever Science.

We often here the claim 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming.  But who are these scientists?

It’s really not clear, where the figure comes from.

One source of support for this is from the University of Illinoi.  A survey which over 3000 scientists responded to, selected a subset of just 77 who said they agreed that ‘global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing fact”. (17) (18)

Is this the basis on which to change the modern world economy? On the say of just 77 carefully selected opinions?

Should we give up the industrialisation that dragged our ancestors out of poverty and is still giving the first real hope of a good life to billions in the developing world, on this basis?

Another often made claim is that “2,500 scientists of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

Except of course it’s simply not true.

The number is based on the number of scientist reviewers of all of the IPCC reports.  Only 600 were involved in the report with this statement and proposals. (19)

It’s not even clear that the 600 all agreed with the outcome of the report.

Whilst on the subject of the IPCC, their 2001 report featured the Hockey Stick graph.  This showed broadly flat temperatures with a sharp upturn.  The graph was used to prove the need for urgent change.

The now discredited and dropped hockey stick graph ignored the medieval warming period and little ice age as if they simple didn’t happen. (20)

We could all show the bank manager a graph of our increasing bank balance if we ignored all our out goings

These scientists simply ignored the facts to make their argument.

To believe in the projections of these scientists you have to believe the Thames Ice fairs didn’t exist and all evidence of farming in Greenland was simply made up.

 Are we warming?

I was in Sydney the first two weeks of December.  From a view point in the Blue Mountains I could see half a dozen fires over a fifty square area.

It’s tragic, the loss of humans fighting the fires, and animals is something I am sure we all agree is terrible.

But is it anything to do with global warming?

A 1642 expedition saw smoke drifting over the coast of Tasmania and noted blackened trunks and baked earth in the forests.

In 1770, Captain Cook’s crew saw autumn fires in the bush burning on most days of the voyage.

Many of these fires were deliberately set by Aborigines across Australia.

Fire-stick farming was used to producing lusher grass to fatten kangaroos, they also burned fire breaks as a precaution against bushfire. (21)

Australia suffered major bush fire outbreaks in 1851, 1898, 1925, and 1938.

These occurred before the massive industrialisation in India and China and before any of the supposed trends for man-made global warming.

Yes this year’s fires are tragic.  Worse than many remember.

But the causes are complex, environmentalists have stopped the clearing of land near residential areas and stopped selective burning to create fire breaks.

And of course we have Arsonists.  New South Wales Police reported 716 of this year’s fires did not occur naturally. (22) (23)

After the hurricane seasons of 2010, 11, and 12 the second and joint third most active years on record, we were told due to global warming hurricanes would become common place.

Except of course in 2013 we had the fewest hurricanes since 1930.  The number of storms have been fairly low and stable ever since.

Around here we on occasion have some flooding.

When a story of flooding in the UK hits the news, we hear the familiar cry of climate change.

Yet despite heavy and consistent rain this winter we have thankfully had little flooding.  We see the here and now, we often forget the past was often as bad s.

Much as when Devon and Somerset flooded in 2013 largely because it appears we stopped dredging local water ways.  Natural disasters can have a man-made component.  But let’s not confuse that with a systemic problem.

Odd natural events happen, they make compelling stories, but they are not a reason to change the world.

If the impact of global warming is hard to find it’s worth asking, are we even warming?

Even if we ignore the need for an answer to the question “compared to when” and that’s a massive issue to ignore, are we warming right now?

“Between the start of 1997 and the end of 2014, average global surface temperature stalled.  This 18-year period is known as the global warming pause” (24)

Recently the Met Office concluded the last decade was the second hottest in the past 100 years in the UK, slightly behind 2000 to 2009. – So err I make that we are cooling decade on decade. (25)

The official NASA global temperature data shows from February 2016 to February 2018 “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius”. The biggest two-year drop in the past century. (26)

Contrary to predictions polar bear numbers have never been higher rising 30% since 2005.

CO2 is now at about 412 ppm, or 0.041%.  This plant food is helping the earth become greener.

Despite the supposedly dangerous level of CO2 of 1 part per 2400.  Life has never been better. (27)

  • Infant mortality has never been lower.
  • Life expectancy never higher.
  • Poverty never lower.
  • An estimated 3.2 billion people, or 42 percent of the total world population, are now in the global middle class.  Many of them enjoying today in countries we used to consider third world a better standard of living than some of us grew up with.

Don’t believe the doom mongers.  The world is doing just great.  It’s not clear if it’s warming, it is clear the scientists predictions are wrong.

Why so wrong?

Why are the scientists and their political bedfellows getting the predictions so wrong?

Scientist is never settled and not about consensus, but scientists are people.  They naturally want to be part of the majority.  They want to conform.

For many years around the middle of the last century many scientists wouldn’t support the Big Bang theory even as more and more evidence with experiment substantiated it.

Science had for some time believed in the steady state theory of the universe.  This is had always existed.  Many Scientists didn’t want to believe in the idea of a beginning to the universe because it opened the possibility of a beginner or a god, something that the then modern science was against.

Yet the evidence was there.  Scientists understandably being people weren’t following the evidence but rather the sticking to the ruleset they had been brought up in. (28)

Scientists now, are driven by grants and agendas to support global warming.  When your economic self-interest is driven by a viewpoint it becomes easier to follow that viewpoint.

Between 1989 and 2009 the US Federal Government funded to the tune of $1.6 billion and year climate studies. (29)  Clearly no one was expected to find no change to keep the money coming in.

I am not suggesting corruption in these cases, more I am simply noting it is much easier for your research to find the required answer when paying your mortgage depends on it.

Where there was clear corruption however was with the 2009 Climategate scandal.  Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, showed a number of scientists collaborating to manipulate data.

This manipulation included:

  • Changing data to show a 156 year warming trend in New Zealand that simply hadn’t happen.
  • Eliminating 75% of the world’s temperature stations from new data with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude locations. (30)

There are a number of possible reasons politicians push the climate change agenda.

The Chinese like it because we hamper western industry whilst they continue to build a new coal fuelled power station every other week.

Many of our politicians like that all solutions to global warming require more taxes, and power for the politicians, and less rights for the people to make choices in their own lives.

They also like the new jobs it creates and the power they have to disperse them.

Croydon Council recently announced it has a appointed a lead for their Climate Crisis Commission.  They can’t collect the bins on time, planning is a joke but the council can appoint people to a Climate Commission. (31)

Some like Al Gore I suspect do it simply for the money.  Why else would you preach climate catastrophe and rising sea levels whilst spending $8,8million on an ocean front villa with six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms. (32)

You either believe the oceans are rising or you buy a beach property, surely not both.

It’s not so clear why so many celebrities and indeed some of our own royalty are so keen to push green policies.  My own view is they simply don’t like the plebs spoiling the holiday destinations.

I would not normally be some unkind in assigning motive, but I can simply find no other reason to understand how you can fly by private jet to a climate change camp where you then deliver a speech about the environment while barefoot, as Prince Harry did last year. (33)

Why else would Emma Thompson fly the 5,400 miles from LA to London to support the Extinction Rebellion protests? (34)

Can I ask your indulgence for a show of hands on who has flown in the past year….

Multi-Millionaires Al, Harry and Emma, want to stop you doing that. 

And they are so determined that they won’t stop buying mansions or jetting around the globe, until they have stopped you having your annual fortnight in the sun!

What to do?

We all want to live in a good environment, we want to improve the world around us.  The best way to do that is to simply let people get rich.

Poor nations and peoples care little for the environment, survival rightly takes precedence.

As nations like us move to the post industrial age, and we value experiences more that things, we use less carbon.

Our carbon output per person has gone down for 6 years, this has little to do with direct green policies, and much to do with technology improvements. (35)

New Zealand is planting a billion tress, partly because they can afford to. (36)

The amount of land used to produce food for the every growing population is stable, and in the west reducing, with some being returned to the wild.  New science, actual science not computer models has made this possible. (37)

We didn’t face starvation, our cities are still above water, and you are still at risk of polar bear attack in the icy north pole.

We are warmer than two centuries ago, but colder than when Genghis threaten much of the globe.  The biggest threat many face today is in a massively reduced standard of living following the policies preached to us by the rich and powerful.

Life is good, and getting better.

GDP per capita in Africa has increased in real terms by 60% since the year 2000, by 50% in Latin America, and doubled in Asia.

That’s a real terms increase in prosperity.  Why would you want to change that?

Why would we want to put at risk the abundance we have based only on the predictions and fear of those so often proved wrong?

Summary

The world is doing well, people’s lives which were through all of human history an immense struggle are improving, all over the globe.

Let’s not throw that all away for fanciful and consistently wrong computer models.

Nigel Lawson sums up the situation well.

‘The fact remains that the most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, there has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme weather events.  And, as a happy coda, these studies also show that, thanks to scientific and material progress, there has been a massive reduction, worldwide, in deaths from extreme weather events.’

In some ways worse that the economic impact of the global warming scare is the impact to the mental health of the next generation of adults.

According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists there is now a condition called eco-anxiety.

Talk of a ‘climate crisis’ has led to an upsurge in young people reporting feelings of anxiety, helplessness and guilt. (38)

This Christmas Channel 4 screened a special edition of Gogglebox with children watching claims by Extinction Rebellion that ‘scientists say we have only 11 years to act’.

One child counted on her fingers how many years she had left to live and worked out that, the world could end when she was just 19.

One mother described how her daughters had asked what the point was in taking their GCSEs if they weren’t even going to be here a few years later.

We are all old enough to know to ignore Prince Charles when he says the world is ending in just 11 years, someone who is 11 years old is not.

Incident the Prince said that the world was ending in 11 years, over 11 years ago.

Children are easily influenced.  Especially once teenagers they like little more than to tell their parents how wrong they and their whole generation is.

Telling children the world will end before they get to be adults is immoral, it damages their mental health and has been proved time and time again patently false.

Naturally want to be part of something big, we like to think our influence on the world around us is greater than it really it.

The world is just fine, humanity is doing great.

Keep the bureaucrats out the way and the natural inventiveness of mankind will ensure things keep getting better.

Leave well alone and lets enjoy the great world we live in.

References:

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Debating Society: A small income tax increase is justified to fund social care

The Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society planned to hold two debates in September but ran out of time on the night.  One was planned on “A small income tax increase is justified to fund social care”.

The text below was originally written by Mike Swadling as a speech to be delivered to a live audience for the purpose of a debating society.  Join them for their next debate on Monday 4th November, where the subject will be “It is unrealistic nowadays to have an unarmed police force”.

Other details from debate club nights can be found in CR5 Magazine.

“To use the dreadful term many people are bed blocking what is say a £500 a day bed, because a roughly £500 a month social care package can’t be provided”

Yes pay more

We are at the start of a 25 year period of peak age.  The demographics mean for a generation we will have older people, often needing more care and fewer working age people to pay for it.  This will eventually ease away, but this a challenge facing us now.

I suspect I am not alone in having seen a loved one in hospital, not able to leave for a lack of social care.  To use the dreadful term many people are bed blocking what is say a £500 a day bed, because a roughly £500 a month social care package can’t be provided.

This doesn’t make sense for the patients’ mental or physical health, their family’s needs, costs to the NHS and taxpayers, or the needs of the person requiring that ‘blocked bed’.

That extra funding is needed few would doubt.  The question is how do you provide it?

Laffer Curve

Let me try a little thought experiment with you.

Which do you think would raise more revenue for the government?

An income tax rate of 100% or 0%?

(Answer: both the same £0 why would anyone work to pay 100% tax)

Ok which rate do you think would raise more money for the government?

An income tax rate of 99% or 1%?

(Answer: 1% why would anyone work to pay 99% tax, we all work at a tax rate of more than 1% tax)

An income tax rate of 75% or 25%?

(Answer: 25% why would anyone work to pay 75% tax)

This demonstrates higher tax rates do not necessarily mean higher tax takes.

Known as the Laffer curve after the Economist Arthur Laffer.  It predicts somewhere between 25% and 33% is the point where government income is maximised.

The disincentives in tax, do not outweigh the extra income from higher rates.

Broadly in income tax people are prepared to say two for me, and one for you.  But no more.

“the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never higher that 37.5% of GDP.  Mostly these fluctuations are around the periods of recessions as the economy rapidly changes.  Higher tax rates don’t increase tax revenue.  People simply refuse to pay it”

Tax

On the UKs average income of about £30,000.

  • you pay about £6,000 in tax and national insurance
  • you are usually be responsible for let’s say half the average £1600 council tax
  • about £200 in car tax
  • you pay about another £200 in air tax for your holiday
  • and close to many of our hearts, 52p on a pint and about £3.5 on a £7 bottle of wine.

It’s not hard to see about a third of our income going in tax.

Total government tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is about 36%, whereas spending is about 37%.

Since the 1970s tax receipts have never exceed 38% of GDP, mostly that have hovered around 35%

  • In this time we have had governments of Labour, Conservative, LibLab Pacts, Conservative Liberal coalitions, the UUP prop up James Callahan, and the DUP prop up Theresa May.
  • In that time basic rate income has been as high as 35% and as low as 20%.
  • The top rate has been as high as    83%    and as low as 40%.
  • It’s not just income tax.  Corporation tax has been as high as 52% and as low as 28%

Yet the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never higher that 37.5% of GDP.

Mostly these fluctuations are around the periods of recessions as the economy rapidly changes.

Higher tax rates don’t increase tax revenue.  People simply refuse to pay it.

They work less, more of off books, on in the case of the most highly skilled, simply move and work elsewhere to avoid overly burdensome tax rates.

High tax rates kill economic growth.

Savings

If you want to spend more on social care, find an existing poor use of money and reallocate it. You can also reduce the costs of providing the care itself. If I could ask your indulgence with a few suggestions:

  • Merge responsibilities and budgets of the NHS and Social Service.
  • As a result local managers can decide if the best service is provided by funding acute care or stopping bed blocking.
  • As I have said I firmly believe many £500 a day beds are being filled for lack of a £500 a month care package.
  • More money is pouring into the NHS.  You might not think it’s enough, but every year spending increases.  Form 3.7% of GDP in 1970 to 7.1% now, the trend is relentlessly up.
  • Rather than focus on building more and better hospitals for a National Hospital Service, let’s focus on a National Health Service.
  • Let’s see if there are more efficient ways to spend that money, that get better overall outcomes.
  • Let’s get creative.  Some people require a huge amount of care, but lots of fairly active able pensioners and others require a little bit of social care.  At the same time we have problems caring for special needs adults and children and a high cost of nursery care.
  • Let’s look at facilities where we can bring old and young together for both their benefits, and reduce the cost of staffing in the process.
  • Experiments like those carried out by the ExtraCare Charitable Trust or St Monica Trust show such operations reduce depression and improve general health in the elderly whilst increasing maturity and language skills in the young.
  • From 2013 all new Nurses need degrees.  Why?  Does it really require two years in college and 3 in University to empty a bed pan?
  • Are straight A’s needed to provide a good bedside manor?
  • Are these perhaps skills better learnt by doing, rather than by reading a book or sitting in a lecture theatre?
  • Some functions performed by nurses may need additional qualifications but clearly not all.  There is anecdotal evidence that Nurses with degrees are less focused on being a patient’s friend, providing basic comfort or even a clean environment and more on only the work requiring graduate studies.
  • A mixed ward with graduate, on the job highly trained, and new less skilled nurses providing basic care, will be cheaper, and frankly might be better at providing the full spectrum of care needed for patients.

Achieving the same level of care at a cheaper rate per a patient, means more care can be provided, or more money for life saving drugs, or simply a lower charge for those families paying for care.

Summing up

As I have said I think we do need to put more funding into social care.  But an income tax increase is simply the wrong way to provide it.

It may sound good, but it won’t do good. In fact it could have the opposite effect.

If you want more money to spend on social care, re balance government spending and make this a priority.

Vote against this motion, don’t reduce tax take and leave those most in need paying for a nice sounding, but wrong doing proposition.

Photo by The original uploader was Blakwolf at Italian Wikipedia. – Transferred from it.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY 2.5

Debating Society: Priti Patel is right: it’s time to bring back the death penalty

The Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society held a debate in early September on the subject of “Priti Patel is right: it’s time to bring back the death penalty”.  To be fair the Home Secretary had walked back that statement, but it was a good opportunity to discuss capital punishment.

The text below was originally written by Mike Swadling as a speech delivered to a live audience for the purpose of a debating society.  Join them for their next debate on Monday 4th November, where the subject will be “It is unrealistic nowadays to have an unarmed police force”.

Other details from debate club nights can be found in CR5 Magazine.

Eye4eye

Deuteronomy speaks of an eye for an eye.  But the principle predates the Old Testament and is first seen in Babylonian law.  It is also seen in pre-Christian Anglo Saxon law.

Partly thanks to Ghandi people perceive this to be a retaliation rather than a reasonable punishment.  The principle of an eye of an eye, started as a way to ensure punishment was measured and appropriate.

Goods taken would be return, and an injury would see a similar injury endured.

A death would be punishable by a death, not the wiping out of a family or clan, that was in ancient times, all too common.

That the punishment is proportional, in most societies was, and maybe still is a massive leap forward.

Indeed that fairness is engrained in most of us.

  • If someone pick pockets from us, we don’t expect them to be battered or bruised (we might), but we expect some financial punishment or maybe some community service.
  • If they break into our homes we expect some loss of freedom, some extensive community service or a short custodial sentence.
  • If they attack us we expect a long punishing custodial sentence.

Therefore, I ask, who are we, if someone losses their life, to judge that the injury to them, should not be have a fair retribution?

I would like to emphasis here if someone loses their life, they not the friends and family are the primary wronged party. 

Yes other feel the loss, but the real loss is the person whose life was cut short.

Why should they not be entitled to the same retribution from the law as any of us who suffered a lesser crime?

Wrong thinking

We often hear that because we have murders in places that have a death penalty it does work as a deterrent.  It does, and I will come onto that.

But this idea that a punishment, any punishment deters all action, is something that we would apply in no other realm.

Who has ever heard:

  • “If we just bring in a punishment for theft no one will ever steal anything”?
  • “If we punish speeding, no one will speed”?
  • “No one will evades tax, now we have fine for it”?

Indeed many here will have brought up children, I am sure we have all cared for some at some point.

We all know from this that once you set a boundary, no child ever breaks it.

Hold on is that not your experience?

Punishments do deter but don’t stop.  Different punishments deter in different times and places in different ways.  For instance different levels of crime and punishment may happen in different states in the US.

One with capital punishment may have more murders than one without, because, simply they are different places.  In the developed world, most murders occur in cities.

In Australia the outback of the Northern Territory has some of the highest murder rates in the world.  Why?  Its remote, really remote, it’s the place criminals go to hide.  It turns out they are still criminals, they commit murders.  It’s a different place and simply, should be, no more be compared to Sydney, than the hill country of Texas is with the South Side of Chicago.

“Punishments work, and punishments deter crime.  Today we are losing about an extra 330 people year than when we have capital punishment”

It works

Beyond the inherent fairness of capital punishment, Priti Patel is right.  It is time to bring back the death penalty, because it works.

I agree with Nancy Reagan when she said:

“I believe that more people would be alive today if there were a death penalty.”

Or to quote President George W Bush:

“I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives”

I want to do a little thought experiment with you.

  • Let’s say a new law in the UK meant murder would be punishable by death if committed on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday, but not if commitment on any other day of the week.
  • Hands up if you think that would result on fewer murders, and keep in mind by its very nature, murder requires some premeditation.  On a Monday, Wednesday or Friday than other days of the week?
  • Of course it would hitmen, wronged lovers, gang members and maybe even some psychopaths would change the day they choose to commit murders, if this was the law.

In the UK we had capital punishment until it was abolished in 1965.  Murders, are measured in rate per 100,000 people.

In Britain thanks to new ideas like Bobbies on the beat and new technology like fingerprints the murder rate started falling in roughly mid-1800s until the mid-1960s.

Thankfully murder is so low, that year or year rates fluctuate but trends can be seen.

We have more detailed statistics from 1900 where the decade saw a murder rate of 0.96 per 100,000.  This fell gradually to 0.75 for the 1930, the era of the great depression.  The rate rose slightly during and just after the war, but come 1959 it was down to 0.59 per 100,000.

In 1965 the rate was at 0.68, 1966, 0.76, 1974, 1.06.

What changed?  What made the British suddenly so much more murderous? 

Could it be?  The death penalty was abolished in 1965 and had basically all but stopped being used a few years earlier?

Punishments work, and punishments deter crime.  The reversal in this loss of innocent lives didn’t stop there.  By 1987 the murder rate was up at 1.19, by 1999, 1.45, by 2002 over 2 per 100,000 were murdered.

Based on today’s population every extra 1 person per 100,000 is an extra 660 needless deaths per year.  The 2010s thankfully the murder rate lower, but was still just below 1 per 100,000, or about 300 extra deaths over the 1960s rate, and it has of course come up again to 1.22 for 2016 the last year figures are available for.

The rate went down from 2003 to about 2016, why?  My speculation would be The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 which toughened sentences for murder and rules on life imprisonment.

Punishments work, and punishments deter crime.  Today we are losing about an extra 330 people year than when we have capital punishment.

“If all 100% of them turned out to be innocent the deterrent effect of capital punishment would still save on average 30 times as many innocent lives a year”

What about the innocent?

But what about the innocent and the miscarriages of justice?  It’s a good question.  There will be irreversible miscarriages of justice.  Fact it will happen, but I put I to you, do you want to do good or do you want to feel good?

I want to do good.  I want to choose the route that results in the least deaths, not the route that makes me feel most cleansed.  We are losing approximately an extra 330 people per year than when we had capital punishment.  We will lose some innocent convicted people, but with capital punishment we would be doing good and saving more innocent lives.

The risk to innocent life’s being taken by the state is real.  But so is the risk to innocent lives being taken in murder.  Between 1735 and 1799 we executed about 7400 people.  But that was then.

It reduced to 762 between 1900 and 1964.  If all 100% of them turned out to be innocent the deterrent effect of capital punishment would still save on average 30 times as many innocent lives a year.

I ask again, do you want to feel good or actually do good?

But most won’t be innocent.  Indeed various studies in the US estimate that between 2.3 and 5% of all prisoners are innocent.  In the UK, reviews prompted by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have resulted in one pardon and three exonerations for people that were executed between 1950 and 1953 during which period we executed 68 people.

Again about 5%.  With modern DNA evidence I would expect this rate to fall.  But the deterrent effect would still be in place.

People will spend years, and even sometimes say anything to avoid capital punishment.  People will feel sympathy for them.

It doesn’t mean they deserve it.

Priti Patel is right: It’s time to bring back the death penalty.

It will save lives.  It will help abate the rising tide of knife crime we see on our streets.

It will give justice to those poor souls who had their lives untimely taken and for all its difficulties it is simply the right thing to do.

Photo by andy dolman, CC BY-SA 2.0 Link

Debating Society “Women have become ridiculously militant”

On the 1st July the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society hosted a debate on the question ‘Women have become ridiculously militant.

In true debating society style, who spoke either to propose or oppose the motion was open for all members to volunteer.  Croydon Constitutionalist Mike Swadling argued against the motion.

Mikes’ argument was that women should be angry that they are treated as one group, not the individuals they are.  That women’s rights are being removed by the transgender movement, taking away the chance to compete at sports, and privacy to get changed away from men.  Finally if female activists are happy with their lot here, they really should stand up for women across the globe. The text of Mikes’ speech is below.

Introduction

Thank-you to tonight’s chair, to an un-militant Angela for proposing the motion, and to you all, for attending.

It may seem odd that I as a man, am in effect saying, women are not militant enough.  However I am confident I know, a sure-fire way to make a group of women more militant.  Clearly all that would be needed is for me, a man, to stand up here and tell you what to do!

What is this grouping that encompasses all women?  100 years after the franchise was awarded to women over 30, why are 51% of the population seen as a monolithic block?  Most would think it absurd if anyone assumed that two men thought the same, and shared the same concerns just because we were men.  Why do people think it’s true of women?

We have a Minister for Women, as if you can all be represented by one government department.  If you search ‘Women’s Issues’ on the internet a whole host of pressure groups, the UN, NGOs and Governmental agencies come up.  All assuming you all, all 51% of you, face the same challenges, share the same beliefs, and feel the same way.  That’ mad. 

I’ve rarely meet any woman who thinks the same thing for long (sorry I couldn’t resist that).  Finding two men or women in lockstep is rare the idea we can treat every women on earth the same is crazy.  Incidentally if you search ‘Men’s Issues’ online, you mainly get links to a series of rather sarcastic newspaper articles.  None assume all men are the same.

One measurable area for categorising the sexes is voting.  Women vote 8% more on average for Democrats than Republicans in the US, that’s a lot, but still only 54 to 46.  Hardly all women in lockstep. 

In the UK General Election of 2017.  The female vote went 43% both to Conservative and Labour.  In France the gender gap had about 4% more women voting for Macron than men.  Men were more likely to vote for the female candidate Le Pen.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_French_presidential_election

In Italy’s 2018 General Election, the Centre Left and Five Star votes we’re evenly split between men and women.  The Centre Right coalition.  The latest incarnation of the group set-up by that well known feminist, Silvio Berlusconi.  Had a quarter of a percent lead in women’s votes over men.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Italian_general_election

The differences of opinion within a gender are far, far greater than the differences of opinion between genders.  Does anyone here think a women in Coulsdon, and a woman in Cairo share more in common, than any random woman and man in either plan?  I think it’s insulting to you individuality to think of women as one group.

I aim to persuade you tonight, that the fact the government, the media, many social commentators, and far too many men ignore the diversity womanhood.  This dismissal of your individual essence is wrong. It is in fact so wrong, it could make you angry.  I believe it should make you angry and militant as hell.

Feminism

How does the assumption, that all women think the same, play across these supposed women’s issues.

Let’s look at Feminism.  You might think women could be classed together as feminists?  Except of course, a 2018 YouGov poll, found that only 34% of women in the UK said they were a feminist.   This number ranges between 8% and 40% across Europe.  Among Millennials the number was less than 20%.

Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47006912

The Pew Research Centre showed in the US, men and women have a similar weighting of importance on issues from the Economy, Health Care, Education, Social Security, and for that matter Foreign Policy.

Reference: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/28/a-closer-look-at-the-gender-gap-in-presidential-voting/ft_16-07-28_gendergap_420px/

Significant gender gaps only came in for the Environment, Trade Policy and this being the US Abortion.

Abortion

That brings me onto the issue above all others that is seen as a woman’s issue, abortion.  A hugely divisive issue, I am generally keen to avoid. However, it is an issue that is spoken about as if all women as on one side.  Of course this is not the case.

A YouGov poll in 2013 shown 80% of UK women said life began at ‘some time before birth’, with 53 per cent saying that ‘life begins at conception’.  Across recent polls, women are more in favour of restrictions around abortion access than men.

Reference: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/on-abortion-most-women-agree-with-jeremy-hunt/?sfns=mo

In the US 31% of Women, nearly a third, want Roe v Wade, the judgment that made abortion a constitutional right, overturned.

Reference: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/poll-finding/kff-poll-public-opinion-and-knowledge-on-reproductive-health-policy/

My point here again is that no one should attempt to speak for all women.  Any woman’s individuality should never be subsumed into global grouping that simply doesn’t exist.

Working

Women’s rights, to trade their labour, as freely as men,   has long been fought for.  Again it is often assumed, all women want to work and be successful in careers.  I’m sure we have all known women who are happy being full time mothers.  And indeed women conflicted between working and spending time with their children.  That’s not to say we don’t also all know many women successful in their careers.  The point is all women are different in what they want.

Looking at how many women work across the globe, it’s clear the feminist assumption that all women want to work is just plain wrong.  I expect differences between the developing a developed world.  Differences between religions and regions.

But what’s not clear to me is why Belgium, France and Japan all at around 50% of women working are so different from Canada, Sweden and Singapore at around 60% or Iceland at over 70%. 

Reference: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS?end=2018&start=2018&view=map

These are all rich countries.  None are especially religious, they are all democracies, where women enjoy significant choice and freedom.  Why are they so different?

It’s almost as if women are different and not all aligned.  As feminist campaigners and others who presume to speak for you all, assume all women to be.

Get militant – Sport

Now having made the case that all women are not a clear cut group.   I’m going to ask for some leeway from the society and share some issues I believe should of concern to all women.  In fact they should be of concern to us all, male and female.

Most of us will remember the London 2012 Olympics and the night when Jessica Ennis won the heptathlon Gold.  I don’t remember Virginia Wade winning Wimbledon in 1977,   but I do know that was a great moment for British Sport.  I do remember Dame Kelly Holmes two golds in Athens, Tessa Sanderson’s Gold in Los Angeles and Sharron Davies’ Silver in Moscow.  These were all amazing nights for sport.  For British sport, and women’s sport.

At the end of the last football season, Pep Guardiola the Manchester City manager,   said his team would not be the first side to win an English domestic treble should they beat Watford in the FA Cup final.  Because “the women have done it”, referring to the Arsenal Ladies team who won the domestic treble, in 2006-07.

It’s a fair comparison, however we shouldn’t compare men and women directly in sport.  Biological men with average extra height, weight and strength outperform women at almost every sport.

To give you an idea of the difference.  The last Olympic women’s 100 meter winner ran 10.49 seconds.  The men’s, 9.58 seconds.  You have to go back to 1928 before todays, women’s Gold Medallist would beat the men’s Gold Medallist.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_at_the_Olympics

Andy Murray has a fairly leisurely top serve speed in Men’s tennis at 141mph.

Serena Williams one of the fastest female servers, at 128mph.  Places her basically nowhere on the men’s rankings for speed of service.

Reference: https://tenniscompanion.org/fastest-tennis-serves/

Olympic records in weightlifting are surprisingly closer.  The competition is split into weight categories, but even here only the very heaviest category of women overtakes the lowest category of men.  The strongest men by comparison lift half as much again as the strongest women.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting

I say this to make the simple point, men’s and women’s bodies are different.

To have a level playing field in adult sport.  Men must complete against men, and Women against women.  Recently this is changing.

In February it was reported that a Connecticut high school transgender athlete transitioning to female, won the 55-meter dash……. Setting a new girl’s state record.  Another transgender athlete, placed second in the race.

Reference: https://metrovoicenews.com/is-it-fair-transgender-athletes-and-high-school-sports/

CeCe Telfer, won the women’s 400 metre hurdle national title,   in the US in May.  Previously he finished just 10th at the regional Northeast Championships back in 2016.  Now she’s the national champion.

Olympic Silver medal winner Sharron Davies calls for a chromosome split saying “If we are not careful then in 10 years all the records in men’s sport will be held by men and all the records in women’s sport will be held by women who carry a Y chromosome”. 

As former Tennis champion Martina Navratilova said “A man can decide to be female, win everything in sight and then reverse his decision.”

I hasten to add if any of the women here feel they would like to show that their advanced Kung Fu skills can beat a man, especially this one, I am sure you are right.

I would like to point out I am referring to top athletes not the average man in the street, and I make these points only to aid the debate.

But the point is.  Women deserve a chance to compete at sport.  Girls deserved a chance to compete and win, not be held back by the boys.  They deserve a fair shout.  I want my nieces to have, a chance to win a race, swim and come first, hit the ball further than the other girls.  Not simply to always come second to bigger and stronger boys.

How can you not be angry?  How can you not be militant at these opportunities being taken away from your daughters, sisters, nieces, granddaughters?

Changing rooms

I think it is fair to say many women feel “uncomfortable” seeing men “parading around naked” in front of them.  A gender-neutral “changing village” was created as part of a £10m refurbishment at Bath Sports and Leisure Centre.

To quote one user: “For some women this is extremely uncomfortable. It’s a safety issue. Women are far more likely to be sexually assaulted in unisex facilities.”  “Not everybody with their toddler would like to be confronted by men with everything out.”

Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-46862566

It is not unreasonable for women to feel safe in changing rooms.  Why the drive to unisex facilities?  I suspect the vast majority of men don’t want them either.  Having spent a couple of hundred years giving women more and more freedom from men over their bodies.  Why aren’t women getting angry when it’s taken away from you?

Arranged Marriage

If you’re happy with your lot here.  You might not be so happy with the treatment of women further afield.  Still today 55% of the marriages in the world are arranged.

That’s not necessarily wrong.  There are many successful arrange marriages.
Divorce rates in this country suggest choice isn’t always a great selection method.  But what is more worrying, is that in an arranged marriage, the man is usually 4.5 years older than the woman.  That gaps not that much, it is higher than most couples I know, but not outrageous.  As always an average hides the extremes at the edges.  For instance 48% of the girls who are involved in an arranged marriage in South Asia are under 18.  In Niger 26%.of the girls are less than 15.  In Afghanistan 80% of the marriages are considered forced, as opposed to just arranged.

Reference: https://brandongaille.com/25-shocking-arranged-marriages-statistics/

Is this not enough to make you angry.  Is this not something all people but especially women should be fighting to change?

Education

Education is one of the best ways to fight these injustices.  Especially female education and empowerment.  The gender parity index measures the ratio of the female to male literacy of 15 to 24 year olds.

Of the 167 countries they have data for, most have parity in literacy rates between the genders.  Indeed Jamaica, Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Zimbabwe have significantly greater female than male, literacy rates.  However 22% of countries have significantly greater male than female literacy rates.  With Afghanistan, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Liberia, and Mali having male literacy rates at almost twice that of women.

How can this be right, as a school governor in Croydon for many years, I have never once seen boys outperform girls,   in the English grading in any of the schools I have worked with.  Yet these countries have boys twice as literate and girls.  This isn’t the 1920’s, this is education received in the 21st Century.  These are girls today that are not taught at the same rate as boys.

Why aren’t those who call themselves feminists more militant, more radical, and calling for more change on this?

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

How to get militant.

On the one hand, the media, politicians, and campaign groups, often claim to speak on behalf of ‘all women.  A group that simply doesn’t exist.  Yet at the same time they are falling to act,   where women as a group are not treated fairly.

Maybe we should take a leaf out of the history books.  100 years ago Suffragettes were chaining themselves to railings, and refusing to pay taxes and fines.  In a Reign of Terror, in 1913 there were 250 arson or other destruction attacks in just six-months.  Window-breaking, post-box burning and telegraph cable breaking, were common.

In ancient Rome protestors for women’s rights employed methods, from public demonstrations, to providing financial support, and even to acts of mass poisoning.

Reference: https://brewminate.com/nevertheless-they-persisted-womens-demonstrations-in-ancient-rome/ 

What do we have today – A Facebook post.  A Selfie.  Maybe a tweet!

You and all of our daughters deserve the chance to play at, and to compete and win at sports.  You all deserve privacy in the changing rooms, and across the globe.  All women deserve the chance to choose their partners, and gain the fundamental literacy skills, needed to make real choices in their lives.

I am angry, these young women aren’t getting a fair start.

I hope you are too. 

  • Take action, write to a paper, or politician. 
  • Join a campaign group
  • Join a protest
  • Run for office

But mostly become ridiculously militant, about it.

Summing Up

Women today have every reason to be militant.  Not as a group, but as individuals.  I don’t think of my female colleagues, friends and family members as one group.  I am genuinely annoyed many in the elite both male and female think you are.  I hope you feel the same.

The women I meet are not shrinking violets.  They hold great jobs, are the lynchpin of busy families, often care for elderly relatives and in the case of my older sisters are still quite capable of bossing around their ‘kid’ brother.

The last thing they need is media and ‘women’s’ lobby groups telling them how to live their lives.  Fight back, fight back like hell, I ask you.

If this isn’t enough, the rights women have fought for, for over a hundred years are being eroded, in the name of progress.  Without denying how anyone feels, you, your daughters and granddaughters deserve the chance, to complete at sports and get changed in private. 

I grew up watching a strong female Prime Minister, pitted against women supporting striking miners and women camping at Greenham Common.  I saw Mother Teresa being criticised for her support for Indira Gandhi and I saw Annie Lennox and Aretha Franklin sing, Sisters Are Doin’ It for Themselves.

Where now are these women striking out, standing strong, and Acting in defiance?

Across the globe your sisters are being denied basic literacy, denied the right to choose their partner and sometimes even denied the right to show their face in public.

If those aren’t good reasons to get out and get militant I don’t know what are.

‘Today’s media are destroying democracy’

On the 4th February the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society hosted a debate on the question ‘Today’s media are destroying democracy?’

In true debating society style, who proposed or opposed was decided by the toss of a coin.  Croydon Constitutionalist Mike Swadling argued in favour of the motion.

Mikes’ argument centred on the Medias inability to represent all fairly, and that this led directly to a coarsening of our politics and a corrosion of our democracy.

Those of us with unfashionable ideas, both on the left and right of politics and all too often shut out by today’s media.  The text of Mikes’ speech is below.

Introduction

Firstly thank-you to the Chair, to Richard for offering to oppose the motion and to all for attending tonight. 

Today’s media are destroying democracy?

I intend to make the argument to you tonight that the Medias inability to represent all fairly and let a multitude of ideas have voice, has directly led to many seeking alternative often more extreme voices.

It has led to a lack of belief in any facts, because only some face challenge, and it has led directly to a coarsening of our politics and a corrosion of our democracy.

Ironically at one time the mass murderer Chairman Mao was more willing to “Let a hundred flowers blossom” than many are in todays forth estate.

Proposal

I need to add some definition around the terms in tonight’s debate title.

If I may take democracy first, democracy is defined as “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state”.  This definition really doesn’t go far enough.  After all the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea holds elections for the Supreme People’s Assembly.

All seats, in what has been called the biggest prison camp in the world North Korea, are of course won by the Communists.  A democracy that matters needs more than a vote.  It needs to be a Liberal democracy.  Where rights of the individual are enshrined in law.  It needs to be a place where “elections have consequence” and are not simply ignored by those already in power.

Its needs a demos, a people who can get on with their daily lives, and live in a community, regardless of the side they were on in the last or for a future vote.  A demos who choose to be together no matter their politics.

The Media are, “the main means of mass communication regarded collectively”.  This is simply a means.  A means isn’t capable of destroying or building anything.  It needs further definition, so for this debate I will be referencing the Mainstream media.

This being conventional newspapers, television, and Radio.  Organisations that are typically dedicated to journalism and where they acknowledge bias claim to separate comment from news.

These conventional sources are destroying using its dictionary definition of “to ruin emotionally or spiritually”, the belief we have in our fourth estate, and our trust that our views, whatever they may be will get a fair hearing from that mainstream media.

This lack of trusts between elections leads to a lack of trust in elections.

Ignoring

The Medias failure to represent all fairly as I have said has led to a growing set of news sources each targeted at only small communities.

In driving away so many the Mainstream media has destroyed faith in a collective set of news or facts that lay at the foundations of our democracy.  This destruction doesn’t physically stop us voting, it doesn’t stop elections happening and it wouldn’t stop rights being enshrined in law.

However this destruction of credibility and faith does stop people believing in the outcome of a votes and in our democratic institutions.  That outcome is undermined for instance by the constant questioning of the motives of why people voted a certain way.  Failing to accept that maybe good people can differ.

It is also undermined when an underreported view, party or person from outside the mainstream set of ideas suddenly wins.  We have recently examples of this with, Syriza in Greece, Five Star and Lega in Italy, Trump in US, Brexit in UK, and close results for the Freedom Party in Austria, Independence vote in Scotland, AFD in Germany, and Front National in France.

All and to be clear all results at best unexpected and often completely missed by the mainstream media.  These votes created a shock to the democratic system and came as a shock to many individuals.  Yet these instances are clearly failings of the Media to understand and report what many are feeling.

Too many in a media are openly disparaging of any views outside of the ‘acceptable’ set.  Often referred to at the Overton window, also known as the window of discourse.  These are the only publically tolerated ideas.  Mainstream media reporting sits inside this window, even if the ideas outside hold considerable popularity.  They only seriously report other views once elections have happened or where electoral law forces them.

This has not always been the case.  In the 80s our media would report both Arthur Scargill and Margaret Thatcher.  Norman Tebbit and Tony Benn would feature in print and on screen.  Indeed both the TUC and CBI conferences would be broadcast at times of mass redundancies, strikes and sadly often violent clashes.  Despite a rather silly attempt to ban their actual voices members of Sinn Féin IRA were reported as they fought a war against our state.

Alas no more.  The media would not consider giving prominence to such forthright advocates, for fear their views may offend.

And therein lies the problem.  If your views are not covered in the mainstream in the period between elections, and large blocks of votes are constantly disparaged, why should anyone have faith in the democratic process?

Undermining

When supposedly radical, yet often popular ideas aren’t being ignored they are being undermined.  How is this being done?

In a News at Six report in 2015, Laura Kuenssberg said she had asked Jeremy Corbyn the following:

“If he were the resident here at Number 10 whether or not he would be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack”.

His answer was surprising:

“I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive”

This exchange was highlighted to embarrass Corbyn and the Labour party, to make his views seem odd and outside the mainstream.  After all who wouldn’t expect an armed response to a Paris style attack that had killed many??

Now regardless of what you think of Jeremy Corbyn, love of loath, I hope we can all agree the exchange should be reported accurately.  Except of course the actual question Kuenssberg had asked during the interview was:

“If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people – police or military – to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?”

No mention of Paris style account.  No allowance for the nuance needed when talking about a general policy, as opposed to a distinct event.

Source BBC

This is not a one off.  In 2017 the BBCs Nick Robinson tweeted during the election campaign that:

“No-one should be surprised that Jeremy Corbyn is running v the ‘Establishment’ & is long on passion & short on details. Story of his life,”

Now you may agree or disagree with that sentiment, but this is from one of the leading correspondents from an organisation legally obliged to be neutral commenting during an election campaign.

I am sure most Labour members and many voters do not feel Corbyn is ‘short on detail’ and a neutral BBC reporter should not be offering this opinion.

Source RT

Jeremy Corbyn has been constantly undermined;

  • we were told he was about to lose power up to the 2017 election;
  • we were told he would lose massively in the 2017 election;
  • we are now told he is nowhere on Brexit.

At a time when the Conservatives are tearing themselves apart, Corbyn has stood back and as Oppositions should do, oppose.  In doing this he has kept his party together, despite significant fault lines, you could say he has played a bit of a political blinder.

Of course this is not reported, as Corbyn politics sit outside the medias acceptable window of ideas.

International

These days many of us receive some of our news from across the globe and global events affect us all.

In the United States, the Centre for Responsive Politics found that 65% of journalist’s political financial contributions went to Democrats in the 2010 election cycle.  MSNBC found that 87%, gave to Democrats or liberal causes.

The Media Research Centre found that 94 percent of donors affiliated with five major news outlets also contributed to Democrats between 2008 and 2016.

Source Ballotpedia

In 2016, not a single member of the White House press corps was a registered Republican.  Whilst more than a quarter were registered Democrats and of course 86% percent said they expect Clinton to win the election.

Source Free Beacon

How did that pan out?

In the two party US system none supported one of the parties.  These are a range of journalist’s from papers, radio and TV, none of whom supported the winning party for the Presidency and the party that at the time held the Senate, the House and the majority of Governorships.

Would you say this is a media that is likely to be trusted by a majority of voters?

It’s not just the US in 2013, the Ozzies BBC, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, journalists were surveyed;

  • 41% would vote Green;
  • 32% Labor;
  • and just 14.7% for the Liberal/Nationalist Coalition.

Source ABC

At the next Australian general election the Coalition received 45% of the vote, and the Greens just 8.6 percent.  This is a media wildly out of step with the people.

Balance

If the reporters themselves are unbalanced from the populace maybe the reporting isn’t’, maybe those they invite on are more fairly balance?

A great bellwether is the BBCs Question Time, a show meant to have a panel representing all our political views.

As of September 2017 in the 42 Question Time shows there had been since the EU referendum, Remain panellists have outnumbered Leavers by 137-72.

Leavers have only outnumbered Remainers in 3 episodes whilst, Remainers dominated in 36.

Given the majority of the country backed Leave is this right?

Source Guido Fawkes

In all these examples I would ask again that you put aside your own views and instead focus on does this lack of balance foster trust in our media as a place we can democratically come together.

It’s not that the programme is biased per se.  In the 2014-15 season it had 195 guest appearances.  The left wing New Statesman judged these guest to be 53 for the right, 24 for the centre, and 58 for the left.

But over a similar period the SNP had only been on the Question Time panel six times in a year, in contrast to the LibDems who had been booked for 22 appearances when they were the third biggest Westminster party.

UKIP appeared on just one in four programmes, during a period they won the European elections, were trending between 10 to 20% in the polls and gain 4 million votes in a general election.

Source The National

Indeed in the same period just 5 guest came from the Green party and Respect combined.

It cannot seriously be said that this lack of coverage of parties outside the Medias allowable set of ideas truly represents the views of licence fee payers?

Question Time has non-political guests.  During this time they had 38 Journalists, 10 Celebrities, 3 from Business, a Trade unionist, 3 Academics, 2 Religious guest, 2 Campaigners and 1 overseas guest.

Source The New Statesman

How do these numbers represent the:

  • 6.23 million Trade union members in the country?
  • 6 million regular churchgoers?
  • 15 million people who volunteer regularly
  • 4.8 million Self-employed, and 25 million private sector employees?

The broadest definition, gives all of these groups combined just 8 of 60 neutral guests, yet we have 38 journalists and 10 celebrities on the panels.

This is a media class talking to and representing a media class, and not talking to or representing you and me.  Thereby failing to perform the democratic function of the fourth estate.

The media excludes so many, because in spending so much time talking to themselves, they develop a group think and their reporting falls into a pre-defined narrative.

Most weekends in London some thousands of people are marching for campaigns they believe in.  Whether the protests be from Kurds, Tamils, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Environmentalists, Tommy Robinson supporters, Socialist Workers, Trade Unionists or many large faith celebrations.  These often large marches get no mainstream media coverage.

Indeed this weekend I notices Croydon North MP Steve Reed had posted pictures from a General and Municipal Workers Union rally.  Desperate for content for this speech I searched the internet for news on the rally.  Despite decent attendance, and a reasonably senior opposition MP attending.  I simply couldn’t find any.  No one bothered to report it.

They simply do not fit their narrative.  Somehow rallies and even when thousands are marching are not as significant as a Tweet or Instagram post fellow member of the media.

Even locally we see a poor reporting of politics in Croydon.  Now whilst I would clearly like to thank the wonderful dedicated journalists who have reported the press releases I have sent them.  All too often the local papers will simply report the latest press release from the council and little else.

Their narrative does not extend to the non-partisan but often political activities of local residents associations, the large number of Socialist events emanating from Ruskin House, the press releases of opposition councillors or minor parties in the borough.

Indeed during the referendum only the sadly now defunct Croydon Citizen reported on either sides activities, nothing from the Croydon Advertiser or Croydon Guardian about large local dynamic local campaigns.

During that period I was interviewed by German, French, Korean, and Danish TV, Radio and Papers.  Not once was I interviewed by someone from the mainstream Croydon press.

A photoshoot at a new venue with the sitting MP is possibly more newsworthy than the many local campaigns that drive democracy.  Should this mean the other local campaigns should be excluded from all coverage?

Left or Right is an outdated way of viewing media bias it is now whether you are inside out outside their groupthink.

I started by saying I intended to make the argument to you that the Medias inability to represent all fairly and let a multitude of ideas have voice, has directly led to many seeking alternative often more extreme voices. 

We see that many people receive their news via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media sources.  Momentum, Brietbart, The Canary, Al Jazeera, and Russia Today have for many replaced traditional media where, although our opinions may differ we coalesce around a basic set of events, news source and ideas needed for a functioning democracy.

The lack of us ever coming together enables us to more readily attack each other’s motives and attack each other as individuals rather than simply questioning each other ideas.

Not feeling represented between elections makes us less likely to participate in and trust in elections. 

By this means the media are destroying our democracy.

Summing up

I have been making the argument that if you sit outside the Medias acceptable narrative you are at first ignored then undermined.  This leads to an alienation that undermines our democracy.

In the US they dismissed the chances of Trump winning, now attack anyone who supports him.  No matter the truth or age of those involved.

You may have seen reports in the last couple of weeks of the standoff between students from Covington Catholic High School and Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memoria in Washington.  I want to share this from CNN

“Videos of the confrontation show a smiling young man in a red Make America Great Again hat standing directly in front of the man, who was playing a drum and chanting.

“Nathan Phillips, an elder with the Omaha tribe, said the confrontation felt like “hate unbridled.” In the moment, he said he was scared for his safety and the safety of those with him.”

Except this simply did not happen.  The entire report is and was at the time a provable lie.  If Mr Phillips was scared, why then did he walk directly into the group of students who were simply waiting for a bus?

CNN and other news agencies including the BBC and Sky News here knew this, they had the extended video that shows what I have just described.

Of course they had a native, a set of acceptable ideas.  Their narrative was MAGA hat bad, Christian’s bad, Native Americans good.  Facts at no point were allowed to get in the way of this prejudiced view.

Incidentally I am not mentioning the name of the 16 year old involved, because I am simply unlike the mainstream media not attacking someone who is innocent and legally not an adult.  Those so called reporters that did should be thoroughly ashamed.

Source CNN

You can understand why Donald Trump often refers to CNN as ‘fake news’.  How much faith in CNN and the mainstream media do 63 million Trump voters or 70 million US Catholics attack now have?

Over here perhaps the most egregious example of the media narrative at play in the past year has been in the treatment of Jordan Peterson.

His book 12 rules for life is a UK Amazon Best Seller.  Shows here were sold out and he is an internet sensation.  In short he is popular, very popular.

But his beliefs in traditional values sit outside the mainstream media narrative.

His interviews on BBCs Hardtalk, The Today Programme and famously on Channel 4 with Cathy Newman’s showed the worst the media has to offer.

They hectored him;

  • accused him of being angry, he was calm;
  • accused him of being sexist, no evidence was given;
  • accused him of saying things he has never said.

In the course of the interview Cathy Newman asked:

  • ‘What gives you the right to say that?’ – a question that shouldn’t be asked in a free country.
  • ‘I think I take issue with (that)’ – why is a journalist who role is to ask questions, taking issue, especially on a TV channel legally bound to be neutral?

He’s popular, very popular.  His is most popular with younger men and women who are struggling with fitting in.  Has the Mainstream media helped bring them in or deliberately pushed them out?

This is a media that won’t accept you if you don’t confirm to their views.  They try to ignore ideas outside their agenda and then if they can’t ignore the ideas, attack those that support them.  This alienates large portions of our society, often the majority, and undermines our democracy as we lack a common narrative of events.

I will finish by quoting Douglas Murray the Spectator columnist on the Cathy Newman interview.  This nicely summarises so much wrong with the media.

“If yesterday’s interview is anything to go by, all she has is attitudes. And lazy attitudes at that.

That isn’t news. It isn’t even interviewing. It is grandstanding.

This nation’s broadcasters should feel ashamed.”

Source The Spectator