Category: Politics

Meet two of my online friends

They are both unusual people, have rather special ways of looking at the world, and comment from opposite sides of the war in Ukraine.

Yaroslava (Yara) is Ukrainian, she lives in Kyiv with her son and her cat; she writes and photographs what she sees around her and posts news and thoughts. Konstantin is Russian, but left in 2022 and now lives in Uzbekistan; he gives 30-minute live YouTubes about life and events in Russia followed by open discussions online, and he runs a breakfast club for Ukrainians and Russians in Tashkent.

I’m exaggerating when I say they are my friends. I exchange messages with Yara occasionally and follow her on Twitter, but I’ve never had a reply from Konstantin. But to me they feel like friends. They are both unusual people, have rather special ways of looking at the world, and comment from opposite sides of the war in Ukraine. I think they would agree with one another on many things, both oppose the invasion and the war, and both feel compelled to communicate these things to the world.

I’d like to introduce you to them.

Yara

The two best places to look for Yara are on BuyMeACoffee and on Twitter. Click through and read some of her posts. Yara is artistic and expresses herself poetically, what comes through most clearly are her heart and her feelings in the moment. She writes about the war (of course) and she uses imagined dialogues quite often. On Twitter she sometimes tells us how she is feeling, shares photos (most of them very, very good) and makes delightful short videos as she walks around Kyiv. Yara is proud of her city, and rightly so.

Konstantin

Find Konstantin on YouTube (Inside Russia), I recommend his daily live videos. He thinks things through very thoroughly before starting a session, and usually he sets out his points carefully and convincingly. Sometimes his emotions show through a little of course, but logical thinking, business experience, and planning ahead are his strengths. He has a relaxed pace in his livestreams and this can make him seem slow to develop an argument, but it also make it easier to follow the underlying logic.

Summary

Yara and Konstantin are two very different people. What they have in common is that through no choice of their own they have been deeply affected by the war – as have their friends, families and neighbours.

Both have had their working lives interrupted, and both have embarked on new and perhaps unexpected projects. Both are worth listening to if you want to better understand this terrible conflict and how it’s disrupting life on both sides.

I’ll say no more about them, they will both speak for themselves.

Nova Khakovka

Under the appalling circumstances of the breach of the Nova Khakovka dam a few days ago, I can’t publish this post without mentioning it. But words fail me. There are none that fit. ‘Tragic’ barely scratches the surface. And if it was a deliberate act, ‘evil’ and ‘heinous’ are utterly inadequate.

Yara and Konstantin have both responded to the breach in their different ways and I’m sure they will mention it again as the details and the terrible after-effects become clearer. The world will not forget this event. If it was due to poor maintenance or improper management (this seems rather unlikely but is conceivable) then Russia must take responsibility because they invaded Ukraine, captured the dam, and were in control at the time of failure. If it was deliberately breached following a political or military order to do so, that is even worse and the world will not forgive those responsible. In time there will be clarity on the cause of the dam failure, currently there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence pointing to a deliberate act on the part of Russia.

Quick note on AGI

Following my recent post on AGI dangers (AGI – Hopeful and less hopeful news) I want to draw attention to a Guardian podcast that I think everyone should listen to.

The podcast discusses whether it may be possible to develop AGI without causing an existential threat to humanity. This is a hugely important issue, we all need to be informed and we should all have an opinion.

Blast from the past… 5

Do things when you can. Don’t wait, don’t hesitate, who knows what tomorrow might bring…

< Previous | Index | Next >

Notes from bygone years – A load of Aprils

A year ago

I didn’t post an article in April 2022, but Donna and I visited Weston-super-Mare and I spotted this fruit and vegetable shop in one of the back streets. There were strawberries here, but they’re not in season; there were pineapples but those don’t grow in the UK; there were pears that should be ready to pick in September or October. Almost nothing in this shop was grown locally. Why?

A traditional greengrocer’s shop

It’s lovely to have choices like this, but they come at a cost to the environment that we usually overlook. The solution lies in my pocket and yours; we should try to buy locally produced fruit and vegetables that are within a few weeks of being in season.

<Mar 2022 – May 2022>

Two years ago

No blog posts in April 2021 either, but on 4th April the weather was warm and bright and we enjoyed eating outside for the first time in 2021.

Eating outside on 4th April
Three days later!

But oh my word, look at the same table just three days later. Snow! The moral of this little story is plain, do things while you can. Don’t wait, don’t hesitate, who knows what tomorrow might bring…

<Mar 2021 – May 2021>

Five years ago

In April 2018 I had a bit of a rant about rescuing Britain from the dreadful mess it seemed to be in. I grumbled about the effects of Brexit, about poverty, the underfunded health service, an underfunded education system, the need for food-banks, the excessive cost of homes.

Read the article. Let me know if you think things have improved in the last five years.

<Mar 2021 – May 2021>

Ten years ago
A child leading? – Image from Wikimedia

In April 2013 I wrote about ‘Men, women and children‘. The topic really was leadership, and I stand by all I wrote at that time.

Can men lead in church? How about women, are they allowed to lead? And what about children? Perhaps it depends who you ask, there are different opinions and different traditions.

Read my post from ten years ago and let me know what your views are.

<Mar 2013 – May 2013>

Fifteen years ago
The ‘Sagrada Familia’

There was no article in April 2008. However, we had a holiday in Catalonia and visited Barcelona where we took a look at the famous Sagrada Familia with its amazing ‘biological’ shapes. What an astonishing place it it!

To learn more about this wonderful feat of design and engineering by the architect Antoni Gaudi, read the Wikipedia article.

<Mar 2013 – May 2008>

Twenty years ago

In April 2003, I wrote about a meeting at home. Father spoke to us about leadership, coincidentally I drew on what I’d learned in this meeting when I wrote the article mentioned in the ‘Ten years ago’ section above!

A firm foundation

We are weak, like freshly poured concrete; but Jesus is patient and knows we will become strong enough for the task he’s given us.

Twenty-five years ago

In April 1998, Donna and I were on our way home from our honeymoon in Florida, and I began a new job at Unilever’s Colworth Laboratory north of Bedford.

Thirty years ago

In April 1995 my first wife, Judy, was recovering from failed chemotherapy for bowel cancer metastases. Clearly this was not a great situation, but she was fitter than she had been since before her operation to remove the primary tumour. We began meeting again at home with friends in Yatton, near Bristol, where we lived. These were by far the best meetings with friends in Jesus’ presence that any of us had ever experienced. Awesome and hard to describe adequately.

Erm… I can’t count! That was not thirty years ago, it was twenty-eight years ago! Ah well, I’ll let it stand.

Thirty years ago

I’ll try again! In April 1993 Judy and I were living in Yatton with our daughters, and my Mum and Dad visited us on 15th. We drove into Bristol and looked around the covered market and The Galleries shopping centre.

< Previous | Index | Next >

Thoughts on UK general elections

Imagine what might happen if we abolished general elections altogether. I invite you to consider the idea of 20% of parliamentary seats coming up for re-election annually, or perhaps 10% every six months.

No system of elections lasts for all time. As society and government change, so too must the system by which members of parliament (MPs) are chosen. There have been many changes over the years, women’s suffrage for example for a large, notable change; alterations to constituency boundaries as an example of minor changes that take place at intervals as thought necessary. And there’s been talk for decades now about proportional representation (PR) of one kind or another. It’s good to talk things over, good to remain open to change.

The House of Commons in division, 2012 – From Wikimedia

There must be a clear reason for any change. Change for change’s sake would be irrational and a waste of resources; change is costly so should come often enough, but not too often. A good place to start thinking about this is to identify issues with the current system and imagine some ways of addressing them. The next step would be to consider the cost effectiveness and drawbacks of those possible approaches.

In this short essay I’d like to think through an alternative to general elections. One disadvantage of a general election is that it may result in no significant change if the existing party and prime minister return to power, or it may cause a huge sea-change of policy and a completely new cabinet when party and prime minister are defeated and a whole, new government comes to power. A by-election, on the other hand, rarely defeats a government, though it may usefully influence policy by making public opinion clearer.

A better approach

Is there some way we could reduce the sometimes damaging flip-flop of U-turn changes of government on the one hand, and the tired persistence of stale policies on the other, while at the same time increasing the effectiveness of public opinion? Yes, I believe there is. It’s been staring us in the face for decades. It’s an idea that deserves attention and some public debate, and now would be as good a time as any to take an initial look.

Just suppose

Imagine what might happen if we abolished general elections altogether. I invite you to consider the idea of 20% of parliamentary seats coming up for re-election annually, or perhaps 10% every six months. MPs would continue to serve a term of five years, as they do at the moment. This would provide local stability in which constituents could become familiar with their local MP just as at present. But it would also provide strong (and useful) public feedback to a sitting government in terms of popularity of policies and personalities.

I favour the 10% every six months approach, or even 5% every three months. It would be a bit like 65 (or 32) by-elections at regular intervals. The period chosen could be still finer at 11 seats per month or, say, 1 or 2 per week. These choices should be debated along with the principle of shifting from the current system to a new method. A system like this could work with or without PR, of course. Personally I favour some form of PR, but it might be wise to keep the debates and the decisions separate from one another, not least to reduce the complexity of any proposed change and to enable a more focussed approach in debate and in any votes taken, either in parliament or by the electorate. There would be many details to be thought through.

Are there any parliaments or similar bodies around the world where a proportion of the seats come up for re-election at intervals? I’m not aware of any, but a system similar to the one I propose here is used for some local authority elections in Britain where a half or one third of the councillors are re-elected each time. So we do have some experience to inform us on how elections of this kind perform and, perhaps, how voter behaviour might change in such a system.

Moving towards a new system

What steps are required and how might this idea be taken forward?

Clearly, there would need to be a good deal of debate first. What would be the best choice of frequency at which a proportion of seats should be re-elected? How might we choose the seats? What advantages and disadvantages might we foresee for the new system, and how would it compare with the current arrangement of General Elections every five years?

My suggestion, already mentioned, would be to go for small changes at frequent intervals. This would involve more modest and less disruptive changes at Cabinet level for example, with just a few members of the cabinet facing an election each time. Sixty-five seats would be up for re-election every six months, or thirty-two every three months. Frequent elections would provide finer-grained but less disruptive changes in Parliament. Voters would be able to apply only gentle pressure to a governing party, but it would be pressure reapplied quite often. The government of the day would need to ensure voters remained content with their policies.

Seats for re-election could be chosen randomly or in some other way that would be easy to decide (but not favour a particular political party or region). So in one tranche, thirty-two seats would be re-elected and six months later a further thirty-two. Five years later the same tranches would come up once again.

Once all the ideas and issues had been carefully considered, recommendations could be made and a bill written and presented for debate. Like any other bill this would need approval from the Commons and the Lords.

How to make the change from the current system of General Elections to the new arrangement would also need a good deal of thought and debate. Many seats would have to come up for re-election earlier or later than normal. It might be possible for an intial batch of seats to be re-elected after four and a half years and another batch after five and a half with the bulk remaining at five years. Then at a later General Election these seats could shift by a further six months and two more tranches brought in so that gradually, General Elections would become smaller and smaller as a larger proportion of seats shifted to the new system.

Initial steps

I think I’ve gone into enough detail for the time being. I’d like to see a wider debate on this with plenty of thoughts and opinions from others. I’ll do what I can to get that started. Meanwhile, if you’d like to comment on this article please do; I’d love to hear what you think.

See also:

A coffee mug from Israel

Shalom is not just peace as in absence of war, quietness, or a chance to think. It means much more than that.

Back in 2007, Donna and I visited Israel. The day we arrived it rained torrentially and our plane had to circle while water was removed from the runway at Tel Aviv airport. But the weather quickly improved and we had a very interesting trip. Much of it I still remember vividly, and the notes I made and the photos I took fill in much more detail.

While we were there, we bought a coffee mug at a tourist site. We still have it, and I enjoy using it now and then. The vivid colours remind me of the bright sunshine and friendly people we met, the colours of items in the market in Jerusalem, the colours of the clothes of the people in the streets.

This mug is special, it carries the word ‘Shalom’ in Hebrew and in English, it means ‘peace’. How I wish for peace in 2023 in Ukraine and around the world. Shalom is not just peace as in absence of war, quietness, or a chance to think. It means much more than that. It means joy, completeness, health in body, mind, and spirit. It means prosperity and a fragrant life.

(I was prompted to write this by Yaroslava Antipina, perhaps to use on her Twitter feed or her blog. Please click the links and leave her some kind thoughts. Thanks!)

War in Ukraine – War in Europe

Despite repeated assurances that no invasion was planned, Russian forces crossed the border into Ukraine on 24th February 2022. As the tanks and support vehicles rolled towards Kyiv, paratroops were dropped to take the city’s Hostomel Airport.

On 24th February, 2022, Russian forces moved into Ukraine, despite Russia’s repeated assurances that they had no such intention. That moment represented a step change in Russian relations, not just with Ukraine, but with the rest of Europe and the entire world. The tanks, personnel carriers, and self-propelled howitzers rolled across the border from Russia and from Belarus, much as the German tanks had rolled across Eastern Poland and into the Soviet Union 80 years earlier.

Informed opinion among Western military and government thinkers was that Ukrainian forces would buckle, the government would fall within a few days, President Zelensky would be captured or would flee, and a new, puppet regime would be set up by the Russians. There would be almost no resistance, defeat would be swift and complete. Everyone was wrong-footed, Ukraine resisted, Zelensky stayed in Kyiv, and the Russian invasion stalled. And here we are ten months after the invasion, and Ukraine’s army has the upper hand having forced three or four major Russian retreats (it depends how you count them).

Map of Ukraine before the 2022 Russian invasion (From Wikimedia)
Why did Russia invade?

Logical, reasonable thinking always begins with unbiased observation; but there’s an inbuilt human tendency to instead begin with our own opinions which may or may not be biased, and then to look for things that will back those up. There are plenty of examples all around us: for example the tobacco industry in the 1970’s and 80’s had the opinion that smoking provided them with solid profits and was not harmful to health and looked for ways to argue against any evidence for harm. That’s just human nature.

And that’s exactly how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began. The Russian government began with assumed opinions about history and about NATO intending to harm Russia. Next, serious attempts to justify these positions were made: Russia was the origin of Ukraine which was therefore no more than a Russian region along with the Baltic states and some other parts of the old Soviet Union; NATO was not a defensive organisation but had expansive territorial ambitions, the West wanted to destroy Russia.

On the basis of these assumptions political arguments were made by Vladimir Putin and his supporters, that bringing Ukraine back into line would return territory that had always been Russian, would expose Ukraine’s military weakness, prevent NATO expansion, be welcomed by the majority of Ukrainian citizens, and be tacitly accepted by a weak-minded West. And on that basis, after building up forces along the Ukrainian borders with Russia and with Belarus, the ‘Special Military Operation’ began. Mr Putin’s miscalculations were exposed very quickly. Ukrainian citizens did not support Russia; the Ukrainian forces were much stronger than expected; the West including the EU and USA supported Ukraine in practical ways and applied sanctions; Sweden and Finland were alarmed and applied to join NATO.

Stages of the war

Despite repeated assurances that no invasion was planned, Russian forces crossed the border into Ukraine on 24th February 2022. As the tanks and support vehicles rolled towards Kyiv, paratroops were dropped to take the city’s Hostomel Airport. The plan was to capture the city quickly, arrest President Zelensky, install a puppet regime, and then mop up the remnants of the fleeing Ukrainian forces. But that didn’t work out well for the Russians.

The paratroops were defeated at the airport and the city of Kyiv did not fall. The armoured columns and their support vehicles and troops were badly mauled by the Ukrainians and were forced to retreat north across the border and east as far as Kharkiv, and something of a stalemate resulted in the north. In the south, Russian forces fanned out from Crimea and took the coastline of the Sea of Azov, capturing Kherson. Ukrainian forces were able to stop the Russian advance before the cities of Mykolaev and Zaporizhzhia. In the east, Russia expanded their hold on Luhansk and eastern Donetsk, and captured the city of Mariupol.

For some time there was a stalemate in terms of territory, with relentless Russian shelling of settlements along the line of control. During this period the Ukrainian forces grew stronger with aid and materiel from the West, particularly the USA but also the UK and other European and some non-European powers. At the same time Russia was weakened by a heavy toll on both troops and equipment.

As a result of astute leadership and good use of Western precision armaments, Ukraine became strong enough to push the Russians back, initially in the north, and then also in the south where Russian forces had to retreat from Kherson. This seems to be a development that is still ongoing as we approach the beginning of 2023. There are signs that Ukraine is growing stronger while Russia continues to grow weaker. It’s likely that we’ll see further Ukrainian military successes and Russian forces holding less and less territory. What is harder to predict is how the Russian government, armed forces, and population will react as these failures become more and more clear for all to see.

An analysis to consider

Here’s a video of Michael McFaul speaking at Stanford University. He is familiar with government figures including presidents Putin, Zelensky, and Biden; he understands their thinking; he presents a shrewd and well considered analysis of the situation – one that is well worth watching. I’m not going to write anything here in the way of conclusions; far better to settle back and listen to McFaul’s thoughts and ponder his arguments and conclusions for yourself. His address therefore forms the conclusion to my article.

The truth is the truth

Unexpected results are always disappointing and sometimes very harmful

Let’s talk about truth.

Truth is like the stars in the sky above, sometimes cloudy skies hide the stars from view, but we know they’re still there. And when the clouds move away we see them clearly again, they remain the same, the constellations are still recognisable. It’s possible to navigate by the stars, they are dependable and reliable.

Truth is reliable too; when we navigate according to the truth our decisions and choices will produce the expected results. If we are fed untruth, our choices will produce unexpected results. And unexpected results are always disappointing and sometimes very harmful – to us and to others.

In this world we are surrounded by a great deal of untruth. It puzzles me that so many people assume that misinformation will result in good choices. We see it everywhere – in politics, in business, in warfare, in daily life. Let’s look at a few examples:

  • Russia’s war in Ukraine – From the very beginning truth has been discarded. Russian leaders have deliberately ‘adjusted’ history, results of battles, and their motives. Perhaps they believe their own claims! So many decisions on goals, strategy and tactics have been based on untruth and the disastrous results are plain to see.
  • Brexit – From the very beginning truth has been discarded. British leaders have deliberately ‘adjusted’ history, results of policy changes, and their intentions. Perhaps they believe their own claims! So many decisions on goals, legal positions and rule changes have been based on untruth and the disastrous results are plain to see.
  • Anti-vaccination campaigns – From the very beginning truth has been discarded. Campaigners have deliberately ‘adjusted’ the science, results of trials, and their fears. Perhaps they believe their own claims! So many decisions on messages, responses to other views and serious dangers have been based on untruth and the disastrous results are plain to see.
  • Climate change denial – From the very beginning truth has been discarded. Deniers have deliberately ‘adjusted’ evidence, results of scientific study, and their arguments. Perhaps they believe their own claims! So many decisions on arguments, scientific reasoning and inferences have been based on untruth and the disastrous results are plain to see.

Do you see a pattern here? You may disagree with me strongly on any or all of my assertions above, but the plain fact remains that if you fail to see the truth about something, deliberately or not, and you base your actions on the flimsy foundations of error, lies, or misinformation (your own or from others), you will fail. Sooner or later bad choices will result in bad outcomes. They always do.

Claiming something to be true when it’s false will never, in the long term, work in your favour or in mine.

Truth matters. Let’s value it, search it out, base our choices on it, and benefit from the best outcomes available to us.

Down, or down and out?

It’s a ship that will continue to take on water and is likely to founder and disappear for ever

I rarely make any political comment here on JHM, largely because I don’t want to annoy or alienate a significant fraction of my readers. This blog is about other aspects of life.

But sometimes events demand some sort of response. This is such a time.

The Conservative party is in a state of confusion right now. The parliamentary party is clearly rejecting Boris Johnson as leader and Prime Minister, and the electorate is hugely critical of the party (recent byelection results illustrate that).

I believe two things need to happen as soon as possible.

First, the party must find a way to remove Johnson from his leadership position in the next few days or weeks, and they must elect a new leader and form a new cabinet and all the government machinery that goes along with that. So much is self-evident.

Secondly, they must call a general election as soon as possible.

They will need to do that because giving senior cabinet positions to people who supported Johnnson’s leadership for such a long time, knowing that he was – well, let’s say ‘a bit dodgy’ – is not going to pass muster with the general public. And it’s hard to see how a new government can be formed without including a significant number of tainted heavyweights.

Johnson has tarred himself with his own brush, but in the process he’s managed to splash quite a few of those around him with black marks. Not that they didn’t object to his behaviour, but that they supported him as Prime Minister for such a long time. I understand the difficulty, nobody wants to be the first to climb, suicidally, out of the trenches.

Somebody wrote recently that the sinking ship has abandoned the rat. Very witty, but it’s still a sinking ship. It’s a ship that will continue to take on water and is likely to founder and disappear for ever.

We need a new government, whether Conservative or otherwise. The electorate needs an opportunity to replace any MP they regard as tainted and untrustworthy. Two years is too long for a seriously damaged party to continue in power. Only a general election as soon as possible can remove the remaining spots and streaks of tar.

Most, including the crew, agree that we need a new captain, but we also need a new ship.

Climate change – What can I do?

By showering less often I’m cutting my water use to less than half, and turning down the flow rate reduces water use by about half again.

I’ve just watched the latest ‘Just have a think’ video from Dave Borlace. I really enjoy his videos – they are well produced, clear, uncompromising, polite, thorough … well, you get the idea. The latest one asks what we can do individually to help reduce the pace of climate change, and he describes a survey that shows most people are just waiting for someone else to do something about it.

That rings true!

Here’s the video, watch it, then scroll on down and read my personal take on, ‘What can I do?’ I believe we can have a large impact – if we all pull together.

What can I do?

I’m going to share one idea with you, something I’ve been doing for a long time now, and something I’m finding quite easy that also makes a big difference. Just remember though, this one idea is just an example. Maybe you can think of something in your own life that you could change that would also have a useful impact.

I used to shower every day, after all it takes less time, water and energy than having a bath and that has to be a good thing, right? Well, yes.

But for a number of years now, I’ve made a point of showering once every two or three days, turning down the water flow, turning down the temperature, and also minimising my use of shower gel. I still enjoy my showers, the temperature’s warm enough to be pleasant, I’m not advocating cold showers!

So how does this help?

Much more than you might think. By showering less often I’m cutting my water use to less than half, and turning down the flow rate reduces water use by about half again. So I’m using only 25% as much overall. Turning down the temperature a little combined with the reduced water use reduces the heating energy required to perhaps just 20%. I only use shower gel under my arms and around the more personal parts of my body, cutting consumption by 50% or maybe a bit more. Combined with showering less often my use of shower gel is therefore down to 20 or 25% overall.

Bear in mind that shower gel takes energy to manufacture as do the plastic bottles that it comes in, as does disposing of the empties. Add in the energy cost of producing and supplying water, and of removing and treating the waste water, and it all begins to add up.

I hope this illustrates the energy savings that can be achieved by one, small change in one person’s lifestyle. And there are other benefits too. For example, my skin microbiome is probably more healthy for the reduced frequency and coverage of shower gel. If we all did this, and thought of other ways to reduce our individual energy use, we could make a huge difference.

Don’t just leave it to others. Work out what you can do – and make a difference!

See also

A political post?

What are your hopes, what are your needs, and what can you contribute?

You won’t often see me post on political topics. This is not the first time I’ve done so, but it’s been something of a rarity.

Today I feel compelled to share a Liberal Democrat story, a short video presented by their new party leader, Ed Davey. Take a look and think about the people he talks to and the reasons he visited them.

You can read the article, or you can just watch the video below.

So – what are your hopes, what are your needs, and what can you contribute? How can you co-operate with friends and neighbours, meet needs, calm nerves, comfort hurting people? And, whatever your politics, how can you influence your chosen party to listen, hear, understand, and promote fairness, kindness, and the common good?