25 May 2026

Employment Bank

Employment Bank    

     I am encouraged to hear that Lord Milburn is looking into ways to get teenagers into work [1]. It certainly sounds ridiculous to spend 25 times more money on keeping teenagers at home and idle, than on schemes to educate and employ them [2]. But such schemes, though laudable, would themselves be a waste of money if there were, ultimately, no suitable jobs. 

     I do hope that Lord Milburn and the government will consider the ideas of 

a "Job Bank" and "Employment Guarantee".  These ideas are straight out of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) course-work manual, and may be peremptorily and prematurely dismissed as heterodoxy by conventional economists, or dismissed as too socialistic, by politicians (who will know their electorates but may not understand economics). 

     As I understand it, the idea is that the government should shoulder the ultimate responsibility of finding worthwhile employment for its citizens, and not leave it entirely to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', or the ingenuity of the citizen. And we (society as a whole) should shoulder the duty for our own benefit, as we similarly provide a modicum of education, and healthcare; simply because we do not want to live amongst un-employed, un-educated and un-healthy people.

     (Higher education, and some medical interventions are another matter; they might have to remain the privilege of 'the few' that can afford and justify the expense.)

     I was impressed, as a teenager, at some Victorian building work in (I think) Oban (Argyll & Bute); some local landlord paid for the building of a wall, which has enhanced the town in a small way for more than a century. The scheme worked even without the involvement of government and civil-service. 

     The jobs offered by the "Job bank" need not be competitive, nor even 'value for money', because money, according to the MMT, is not a limiting factor; but the work should be worthwhile, involve a useful skill, and should confer worth on the worker, and thence self-worth. 

     Why the government? Well, if the government cannot think up such jobs, how can we expect sixteen-year-olds to think of such. 

     Furthermore, if it works in the Netherlands [3] why not here? We do not need to 'Reform The Benefit System', as that would take a generation, and another 1,000 civil servants. We just need to set up a "Job bank"; and re-route the dole-queue to their door.


References

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/23/uk-young-people-workplace-anxiety-alan-milburn

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrpx4p1z71o;

[3] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/39210798/taxpayers-spend-more-on-benefits-than-jobs/

22 May 2026

Guns or Benefits

 Warfare versus Welfare

        We are a disparate bunch, the British. Never mind that some people were born abroad. Even the 14th Lord Home, and the 14th Mr. Wilson had very different childhoods and expectations; though one succeeded the other as Prime Minister in 1964. 
    It is clear that many different priorities must co-exist in the country, even in the house of commons, even on one side of the house.  Thus, George Islay MacNeill Robertson, Baron Robertson of Port Ellen (who served as secretary general of NATO (1999 to 2003)), though a member of the Labour party, believes that our present government should spend more on re-arming the country and less on unemployment benefits. Other members of the same Labour party may feel that the two-child benefit-cap is cruel and inhumane; though our stance on 'benefits' as a whole is about average for OEDC [1].
    An idea came to me, thinking back nostalgically to my very early youth, to the days of National Saving Stamps (1916 - 1978) and War Loans (1914, & 1917). Perhaps we could be encouraged (or told) to pay 10% (or 20%) of our tax bill in the form of buying stamps, and offered the choice of either Welfare Stamps or Defence Stamps. Or even Arts Council stamps, or Public Library stamps. 
    And then, as I prepared to share this idea with you, I found that Sir Ed. Davy had already floated the idea of Defence Bonds on 25 Jan 2026 [2]. And the chancellor Rachel Reeves joined in on 19th April.[3] Excellent. I shall give the idea my little boost to help it on its way. 

References
[1]  Christopher Adam, İrem Güçeri, (2025) "The state of welfare and the future of the welfare state in Britain", Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 41, Issue 1, Spring 2025, Pages 2–11, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graf015
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5y7edg169o
[3] https://britbrief.co.uk/politics/westminster/reeves-eyes-war-bonds-to-fund-defence-avoid-benefit-cuts.html

13 May 2026

Recycling Film

 On the Recycling of Transparent Film

    The thin, crackly film on the top of some food packages which might be clear (as on top of a punnet of grapes), or opaque (as on a pot of cream), is often carefully labelled "do not recycle". What material is it? And what is the problem about recycling it at home? 

    There are many types of 'plastic' involved in food packaging but this field is dominated by four main types of material: PE = poly-ethylene, which comes in several high and low densities; PET = poly-ethylene-terephthalate; PP = poly-propylene; PVDC = poly-(vinyl-dichloride). There is considerable confusion on the 'web' as to what is used where, for the exact chemical determination is beyond the reach of most of us. I have tried to unravel the conflicting views. Thus [1] thinks the crackly, rustle-ly, film that 'lids' a grape punnet is PP, while [2] thinks it is PET. Reference [2] thinks PET stands for poly-ester while [3] thinks PET stands for poly-ethylene-terephthalate. Sainsbury's thinks that the 'lidding' film cannot be recycled with the plastic punnet and the plastic milk bottles, but OPRL [3] thinks it can go in the blue bin with glass, tin, aluminium and other plastic. Webprofab [4], comparing  PP with PET, says PP is translucent while PET is as clear as glass. Cling film (Saran Wrap in the USA) was originally a polymer of -( CH2 - CCl2)- called vinylidene chloride, though vinyl di-chloride would seem more logical. (Wikipedia is confusing about Saran Wrap and cling film; it is not made of PVC.)


    The PlasticPractical website [1] compares two materials, and suggests: 

"To tell polypropylene (PP) from polyethylene (PE), start by noting their texture and firmness. PP is stiffer and less flexible, while PE is softer and more pliable. Conduct a burn test; PP produces a blue flame with a sweet smell, whereas PE gives a yellow flame with a waxy odor. PP will sink in water due to its density, while PE often floats. Look for recycling symbols: PP has a #5, while PE features #1 or #2." [1]

 

    According to [2] there are three material to consider.

"Polypropylene (PP): The "Display King." Known for its crystal-clear transparency and high gloss. It is stiff, has excellent moisture resistance, and is widely used for snack wrappers and clear over-wraps where visual appeal is paramount.

"Polyethylene (PE): The "Workhorse." Available in Low-Density (LDPE) and High-Density (HDPE) variants. It is soft, stretchable, and has superior impact resistance. It is the go-to material for shopping bags, shrink wraps, and heavy-duty industrial sacks.

"Polyester (PET): The "Barrier Shield." PET offers high tensile strength and thermal stability. It provides excellent barriers against oxygen and scents, making it ideal for food packaging that requires a long shelf life or high-temperature resistance (like lidding films).

   

(Wikipedia clarifies. Poly-(ethylene-terephthalate) (PET), where the polymerising unit is -(C10H8O4)- , is a poly-ester, but only one of many. It is the same material a terylene™  and dacron™ . )

    Some of the issue are [A] melting temperature, [B] permeability to (a) oxygen, (b) water, or (c) food odours, [C], transparency, [D] flexibility. I think it is the first three issuse that affect the choice for lidding films, as they often show off the product and are glued in place using Hot Melt Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives (HMPSA). Some packaging tells us not to recycle the lidding film; some tells not to recycle it as home, but take it with PE "bags to a large supermarket". I think both are now out of date, as I found a seminar put on by Bostik [5] that offers to: 

    • Illustrate how resealable films containing Hot Melt Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives (HMPSA) are fully recycling compatible with existing polyolefin recycling streams and comply with recyclability guidelines of thermoformed PET trays.
    • Show that resealable films based on two distinct HMPSA technologies are rated similarly with regards to recycling in existing/future streams.


Conclusion  

    I have not learned what, in the view of some authorities, prevents lidding film from being recycled domestically. The materials used are very varied and are often multilayered. There is a confusing plethora of advice on this issue, coming not from the government but from the food and packaging industry, trying to be good ecologists. But I have concluded that with present-day (2026) technology, there is no longer a need to separate the lidding film from the tub or tray.   


References

[1] https://plasticpractical.com/plastic-identification-how-to-tell-polypropylene-from-polyethylene/

[2] https://www.newtopmachine.com/blog/industry-insights/pp-pe-pet-film-packaging-guide/

[3] https://oprl.org.uk/simpler-recycling/

[4] https://www.weprofab.com/pp-vs-pet/

[5] https://packagingeurope.com/rethink-resealable-lidding-film-recyclability/9621.article


11 May 2026

Prime Minister 2

Prime Minister 2

    I want to continue my theme of 29th April [1] titled 'Prime Minister'; so I have titled this post 'Prime Minister 2'. Twelve days ago Sir Keir Starmer was being badgered by the media over his handling of the Epstein/Mandelson affair; now it is the aftermath of the revolutionary, but inconclusive, election that is exciting the media (radio, TV, press). 

    On of my issues is a side swipe at the media; and in my case that means the BBC radio. It seems to me that, in an attempt to whip up interest, they over step the mark and instead of reporting on the news they become part of the news.

    Another issue was the loss of the idea of corporate responsibility. Why, I wonder, would it help the country if Wes Streeting replaced Keir Starmer? They should both be deep in the same quagmire; both putting their shoulders to the wheel to get the vehicle moving. 

    No one doubts that there is a great deal of frustration in the country about the way things are going. My own list of grumbles might include: our failure to curb Russia, USA, Israel, unemployment of school- and college-leavers, a rising benefits-budget, continued illegal immigration (albeit at a slower rate), collapsing health (and dental) services, cost of housing, cost of living, potholes. Sure! There is much that appears to be going wrong.

    But the idea that either Reform or the dispirited Conservative party could do better seems to me ludicrous. Admittedly, there is not much that the average citizen can do other than to cast a vote. As some of our comedians have said: the votes cast for Reform and the Greens are really anti-votes, against Conservative and Labour.

    There is a faint trace of rationality in the idea of lowering taxes in the hope of 'kick-starting the economy'. Equally rational, however, is to raise taxes to invest in infrastructure. We dither. We try both. We clearly need more than that level of leadership.

    I wish there were a coffee-house somewhere in London where one could go to see and eavesdrop on real grown-up experts talking about politics. Or go to Frankfurt, Paris, Milan; or Stockholm, Oslo and Copenhagen. I mean –– how are our continental colleagues coping with their own economies?

    Perhaps that 'coffee-house' is Twitter, or Bluesky.

05 May 2026

Hanta Virus

 Hanta Virus

    Hanta Virus came to me as a new disease, a new problem, a new phenomenon when I heard (on Sunday 3rd May 2026) of the outbreak on the Dutch cruise ship MV Hondius. It appear that the first death on board occurred on 11th April in mid Atlantic 11 days after leaving Argentina. The body was evacuated to St. Helena on 24th April and repatriated to Holland with the wife of the dead man; by today (5th May) the wife had also died. 
    But Hanta Virus is not all that new. Several people knew already that the Hollywood actor Gene Hackman and his wife probably both died of the virus in February 2025 [2]. And the US Department of Health has been tracking known cases of the pulmonary form of the disease (Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, HPS) since 1993 when there was a cluster of cases in the 'Four-Corners' area of the United States (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah). In the 30 years between 1993, when monitoring in the States began, and 2023, there were 890 cases of hantavirus disease reported. The fatality rate was the alarming 35% [3]. 
    But the Hanta Virus family of viruses seems to be a great deal older than that. They have been known to science since 1978 [4], and seem to have co-evolved with their rodent hosts over a period of many millions of years [5]. While showing considerable specificity for their host rodent, be it the deer mouse in the the mid-west United States, which carries a virus that focuses on the lungs, or the bank vole and the common rat both of which carry viruses that attack the kidney (causing Hemorrhagic Fever with Renal Syndrome, HFRS), we see from the outbreak on the cruise ship MV Hondius that the virus can occasionally jump host, to another rodent, or to humans [5].
    Structurally, viruses of the Hanta Virus family are small spheres with a single membrane coat covered in glycoprotein spikes through which the virion attaches to a target protein in host cell membranes, usually integrins, but not always. (Integrins are integral membrane proteins, present on the surface of all animal cells, always present as hetero-dimers, each typically having a small C-terminal domain inside the cell and a larger, glycosylated, outer N-terminal domain. They typically function both as physical attachment points and signal-transduction molecules.)
    The viral genome comprises three small pieces of single stranded RNA in negative orientation [6]. (In COVID the single-stranded RNA is in positive orientation.)

(Added 7th May 2026)
    The three pieces of ssRNA that constitute the genome are called large, medium and small or L, M, S.
Large, containing 6.8 – 12 kilobases (kb), codes for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. A recent paper in Nature [7] describes its structure in considerable detail and proposes a possible mode of action. 
Medium, containing between 3.6 and 3.7 kb, codes for the two glycoproteins, Gc and Gn, which, as hetero-dimers, form the coat, the spikes and the docking mechanism.
Small, 1.7 - 2.1 kb, when copied, produces a positive stranded messenger RNA that codes for the Nucleocapsid protein whose role is to coat the single negative strands of these three genomic segments [6].
    The symptomless 'incubation' period seems to be longish and variable; 1-2 week but exceptionally up to 8 weeks. This may be a feature of negative-single-stranded RNA viruses, and the complex process of activating the polymerase described by Durieux Trouilleton et al. [7]. 

I shall add to this article as I acquire more information. 

References:
[1] Guardian: Ashifa Kassam and agencies, Tue 5 May 2026 02.52 BST
[2] Ewan Somerville, BBC News, Published, 15 April 2025
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/about/index.html
[4] Edward C Holmes, Yong-Zhen Zhang, "The evolution and emergence of hantaviruses" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2014.12.007
[5] CDC – https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/about/index.html
[6] Hanta Virus – An Overview. March 23, 2022 by Sagar Aryal, PhD. https://microbenotes.com/hanta-virus/
[7] Durieux Trouilleton, Q., Barata-García, S., Arragain, B. et al. "Structures of active Hantaan virus polymerase uncover the mechanisms of Hantaviridae genome replication". Nat Commun 14, 2954 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38555-w

(Comments are welcome to Cawstein@gmail.com)

29 April 2026

Prime Minister

UK Prime Minister: An impossible job

I write this on 29th April 2026, at the end of two weeks of stressful chatter in our news media. The UK parliament was asked if it wanted to accuse the Prime Minister of 'lying to parliament'; a fatal accusation if they decided to make it? In the end they did not. I felt that we heard too much of this unfortunate kerfuffle; surely (I believed) there was more important news! 

It has been borne in on me, over the last few months, that the job of being Prime Minister in the UK has become well-nigh impossible. It is a case of job-inflation, which started (perhaps) with Margaret Thatcher, and was pushed forward by Tony Blair. Our prime minister was traditionally regarded as Primus inter pares (first among equals), not as the solitary decision-maker, which he has become. I think we do not want a President, a chief executive. Our prime minister should be merely the convenor and chairperson of the Cabinet. 

I do not think the BBC helped. Indeed, I think the BBC exacerbated the problem. Their interviewers puggled away, and worried the ministers; they stoked the blaze. (I expect some newspapers were as bad, but my only exposure to 'the media' has been the BBC, our quasi-independent-dependent broadcasting company!) I think the 'U-turn'-jeering could even be said to have caused errors, such as Sir Keir Starmer's peremptory sacking of Sir Oliver Robbins ('Ollie' Robbins to the media).

I do not think Keir Starmer should have sacked Oliver Robbins, though I understand his momentary anger. I understand that there were two errors involved: I doubt Keir Starmer was aware that Sir Oliver was, himself, not privy to the text of the vetting; but the latter could have explained, if not the content of the vetting, at least the process. 

In any case, I do not think Keir Starmer can have sacked Oliver Robbins, for I do not think he could sack him. I believe that Keir Starmer did not employ the civil servant; so it was not in his power to un-employ him. (See my point above, about job-inflation.) Many other people have made mistakes on the route to here. 

I think Sir Oliver Robbins should be re-instated. 

17 April 2026

Grammar: accusative case

  Grammar: Trouble with the Accusative Case.

  I am enjoying learning more about Miss Mary Bennet, the unfortunate third daughter of Mr. Bennet esquire of Longbourn in the county of Hertfordshire; unfortunate in inheriting neither her mother's beauty, nor her father's intelligence. We learn of her adventures in London after the death of her father, in a 'spin-off' novel by Janice Hadlow,  called "The Other Bennet Sister"; and a BBC drama series of the same name written by Sarah Quintrell.

Her misfortunes are compounded by a lamentable grasp of English grammar, in particular she fails, as does her older sister Jane, in the use of the Accusative Case. She ends the second 'Chapter' by remarking: "Father had found a way out, leaving Mother and I (sic) with nothing, except each other."  And yes, as I said, Jane is blighted with the same solecism. At the opening of the third chapter, Jane says "Mary, you must come and stay with Mr. Bingley and I (sic). ". The problem may go deeper, even involving Sarah Quintrell, Lindsay Salt and staff at the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation).

Poor Mary! At the first occurrence I winced. At the second, I leapt out of my chair, determined to do what I could to save all present and subsequent generations of young people from stumbling their way through this mine-field. 

Britain has clearly decided not to bother teaching grammar, so it does not help much if I refer to concepts like Nominative and Accusative Cases. (These concepts are so much clearer in Latin. The nominative case is used for subject nouns, the accusative case for object nouns. "The ball (nominative) hit the centre stump (accusative). In modern English there are only tiny trace of these distinctions. "I (nom.) speak"; "He spoke to me (acc.)."  But, that sort of instruction is lost on the modern youngsters. ) 

I have a much simpler way of teaching the correct usage; temporarily leave out your companion (Mrs. Bennet or Mr. Bingley in my examples). So, for Mary:
"Father had found a way out, leaving Mother and I (wrong ) with nothing, except each other.", becomes:
"Father had found a way out, leaving ... me with nothing, except ....".  So, after restoring the companion:
"Father had found a way out, leaving Mother and me (right) with nothing, except each other.",
(No one would dream of saying "....leaving I with nothing...." . It is the companion that interferes and misleads.) 

Similarly, for Jane:
"Mary, you must come and stay with Mr. Bingley and I (wrong). " becomes:
"Mary, you must come and stay with ........me  ". and eventually: 
"Mary, you must come and stay with Mr. Bingley and me (right). "
(No one would ever be tempted to say "Mary, you must come and stay with I" . It is the companion that misleads.) 

It is clear that the above error of 'Me-avoidance' comes from a fear of committing  the opposite, and even more common error of 'Me-insistence'; "Me and my friends did it". This error is of a completely different sort. Mary Bennet's error of 'Me-avoidance' is committed by people who are trying to be correct, and think they are succeeding; the 'Me-insisters' know they are wrong, but 'insist'  for that reason. It is a teenage thing and is spontaneously abandoned  when the perpetrators leave school. However, it is, once again, the companions that cloud the issue, while assonance encourages the error. 

08 April 2026

Tax and Spend 2

 Tax and Spend version 2

  

   Back in July 2016, I wrote a piece on this blog titled "Tax and Spend" [1]. I remarked at the surprising fact that neither the 'Deficit Spending' school of macroeconomists (Keynes, Klugman, Chick & Pettifor, etc.), nor the 'Austerity' school (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) seemed to be able to convince the other school. Each could see the power of their own argument but not that of the other school. The issue was left in the hands of the politicians,  who were ill equipped to understood either argument.    I could understand parts of each school, but hoped there was a simpler way of revealing the logic. I tried to build a simplified model of the national economy; crude but robust. It illuminated very clearly the so-called 'multiplier' whereby money injected into the system goes round and round, doing more good, to more people, than you might at first expect. I ended, not as a 'Deficit Spender' but a 'Tax and Spender'. 

     I have gone over the argument again, improving and correcting. Let me show you. 

     Imagine a country that neither imports nor exports, neither goods nor services. Suppose that, in a certain fiscal year, the aggregated income (AI) of its citizens is 1 trillion pounds sterling (AI=1,000B£). Imagine that every citizen pays income tax (IT) at a flat rate (ITR) of 20p in the pound on all income (ITR=0.2), saves (S) 18% of net income (S=0.18), and spends the remainder. 

     (To estimate the fraction saved I shall consider incomes of greater that £200,000 p.a. to be saved and not spent. Clearly these super-rich will spend a little; but, equally clearly, some of the merely-rich will save a little. HMRC figures for 2022/3 suggest that total national income was 1347 B£, while that earned by the super-rich (so saved in this model) was 244 B£. So 18.11% of the total. For convenience I count as saved 18% of net income.)

     (I note that approximately 1/3 of UK government revenue comes from VAT and that governments use VAT as a fine-grained  way of directing our spending patterns. (Thus, food is exempt, but ice-cream and crisps are VATed). I shall initially assume that 1/4 of the purchases are VAT-free, and that VAT is charged on 3/4 of the  purchases at a rate of 20% (VATR=0.2).)

     Both the VAT-free and the VATable 'spend' is spent in this notional country, so it forms the gross takings of some of the citizens. If spent on bread, part will buy flour and fuel for the baker, but part will constitute income for the baker. Suppose (initially) that, for every business (or for businesses in aggregate), half the gross taking is spent on raw material (RMr=0.5) and half constitute wages (W). (I.e. Wages/net income = Wr = 1-RMr).   

     Looking now at the income of the government we can see that it is the sum of the income-tax takings (ITT) , and the VAT takings (VATT). What will the government do with the Total Tax (TT)? It will spend a fraction on wages (FW), a fraction on benefits (FB), a fraction on infrastructure (FI) and will waste a fraction (FW). Let us, rather arbitrarily, set these as follows: FW=0.5; FB =0.33; FI=0.1; FW=0.07. Note, however, that benefits constitute the income of a fraction of the population. Also that infrastructure includes roads, schools, libraries, the army, etc., while a fraction of tax inevitably produces no benefit, and is essentially wasted. (I am told that 'Benefits' comprise  roughly 10% of GDP, while wages comprise c. 75% of the cost of  the NHS.)

     All these quantities (see Table 1) enter the model as constants but are initial values only, and the simulation can be re-run with different values. 







The Results Table (Table 2) is like a 'Bagatelle Board'. We put 1 T£ in at the top left. Some is spent by the citizenry and some is routed to the Treasury. At the end of 'round one' a sizeable fraction (c. 60%) of both tax money and private spending emerges as more income, so that part goes round again. And that again produces more income, repeatedly until the sums get too small to bother with. The final GDP is the sum of those repeats.    




     What we want to know is the final result, in terms of final GDP (fGDP), final saving (fS), final tax (fTT), final infrastructure (fI), final private spend (fPS), and final Waste (fW). (See Table 3.)














Conclusions

(1) The multiplier effect is striking; varying from 2  to 2.5. Seeding with a GDP of 1 trillion and ending with 2.0 – 2.5 trillion.

(2) A surprising result is that GDP increases 10% when taxes are raised from 20p to 30p in the pound. Presumably because government spending recycles more than private spending.

(3)  Infrastructure benefits by a striking 58% when taxes are raised from 20p to 30p in the pound. The government has 58% more money for roads, schools, army etc. 

(4)  The downside of raising taxes from 20p to 30p in the pound, is that the money for private spending is reduced, but only by some 13%. It need not fall at all for the poorer half of the population, if the tax system is suitably 'progressive'. Tax rises are difficult to sell to the public, but perhaps not impossible, if we clearly need, and want: better army, better roads, better schools, NHS, etc. 


References:

[1] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2016/07/tax-and-spend.html 



=============================

02 April 2026

Nature Notes

 Village Nature Notes

On my afternoon walk the other day, in the last week of March, I passed an old rabbit warren. The path is easy to follow at this season, for there are no nettles yet, and the numerous rabbit holes on either side of the path are clearly visible. As I approached one hole, with the sun over my shoulder I could see right into the hole, and there, barely a foot from the opening, was a half-grown baby rabbit, enjoying the sun. He would be safe enough from the many dogs that will pass that way. And ferrets are rare.

Seeing several brimstone butterflies and (today) a small tortoiseshell, reminded me that I had not seen 'Barry' for 6 months. For ten years, I used to see him regularly getting on or off the bus from town. His ashen pallor, his dejected carriage and expressionless face always giving me the impression of a person more dead than alive. Poor Barry. He believed he was doomed to die from a chronic disease of the lungs; yet he got about, and never seemed short of breath. He was agreeably slim and carried his weight easily. In fact, apart from his pallor and fatigue, he looked quite fit; until you saw his eyes, and felt the full impact of his apparent despair. 

For five years Barry never noticed me, never wasted a glance in my direction. Nor did I ever see him speak a word to anyone else. Then, one day, on the bus coming out of town, I saw Barry in animated conversation with a couple I did not recognise. I felt rebuked. It was clear that he could talk to people he knew, or people who interested him. I managed to catch his eye when we both got off the bus. Within a week we were on speaking terms, and soon after that we exchanged christian names. He told me that the small tortoiseshell butterfly was, this year, very rare in our corner of Northamptonshire. I mentioned that I had seen several brimstones. He told me the names of all the butterflies he had seen already that year; and he had seen a lot. He was fond of Bruckner, a composer I admitted I had not been drawn to, and there I let Barry down. But he told me the lengths and opus numbers of all his favourite Bruckner symphonies. 

With that wonderful memory for detail, I wondered what his job had been, eager to 'place' him relative to my own limited world; for he was not quite an academic, nor was he a professional. It turned out, and I would never have guessed, that he had made his living by buying and selling British porcelain. Again I was quickly out of my depth; I only knew two facts about early British porcelain, gleaned from living for five years among the china-clay pits of central Cornwall, so my part in the conversation was soon exhausted. But Barry was able to name, date, and place all the famous eighteenth century makers of British porcelain from Cookworthy to Spode, from Chelsea to Bristol to Worcester to Staffordshire. He could probably have told me every piece he had ever bought, or sold. We met frequently on the bus, would sit together and list butterflies to each other, or discuss the dates of the romantic composers; topics on which we were more evenly matched.  I went abroad at the end of September, and though I returned at Christmas I have not seen Barry since. 

I was standing in my dining room, recently, looking out over my small garden, enjoying the consciousness of having nothing pressing to do. I love my resident song birds; the blackbird that sings at dusk, the robin that sings whenever I go out into the garden. And I would include the wren and the dunnock who flit about in the ivy. Then a flash of speckled brown wings. A large  bird swooped over the hedge at its lowest point, crossed the lawn and disappeared. A glimpse, lasting less than a second. Too brief to identify a sparrow hawk, but I fear that is what it was, and that he might have snatched one of my cherished residents.

My voice, manner, or dress has a curious effect on some people. Yesterday, shortly after five pm, waiting at the retail park for the bus to town, a cheerful and chatty man came towards me across the road towing a wheelie shopper crammed full of polythene bags. Were those purchases, I wondered, or his worldly possessions?

"You have been shopping!" I offered. 

"Oh, that is our laundry," he replied. "Our washing machine is giving trouble". He grinned, revealing a complete absence of upper incisors. I could not think how he came to be with his laundry in the retail park for there was no laundromat there.  Apparently, his wife was shopping. 

He told me that he was a gardener – a conversational jump which I think he must have introduced, for I am inclined to stick to topic when conversing. Once we were onto gardening we stuck to it and chatted for half an hour. Was I a gardener? 

"Keen," I said, "but not gifted, for weeds and pests overwhelm my efforts. "

"Dandelions" he said. 

"Taraxacum officinale" I responded. 

"Thats right" he agreed, delightedly. "So you know the Latin!"

He lived at Byfield; had been head-gardener at Wardington Manor for 15 yearsl lovely garden. I was starting to tell him that I knew Lord Wardington, then corrected myself. One evening,  standing in the middle of the road, I had chatted awhile with farmer Brakespear about Lord and Lady Wardington. 

"Oh, I knew John Breakspear very well, lived in upper Wardington, opposite The Plough." 

And so we rattled on. The late bus arrived though his wife did not. "There is another bus in half an hour."  So we both got on, and continued our reminiscences. The bus dawdled down Middleton road in heavy traffic, till I had to jump off, desperate for a pee. 

        A good conversationalist, John Gardner. (He may have told me his name, and where he trained, but I have forgotten, so I have called him John, provisionally.)

 

25 March 2026

Triple-Lock is doomed

 The Triple-Lock has had its day.

    Some people [1] are gunning for the so-called Triple-Lock on the State Pension. The triple-lock, introduced in 2011, ensures that the basic statuary old-age pension rises each year by an amount that is the greatest of: (a) the CPI inflation, (b) average earnings growth, or (c) 2.5%. 

    I agree it must be revised. I have never understood how the third element found its way into the formula. Why should pensions rise when average wages did not? And yet, from the data in Table 1 of reference [1], the 2.5% rule was used to raise pensions faster than average wages in 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2021. Why should pensions rise in those years? There is no money with which to pay them. So, let us dispense with the 2.5%; and look at the double-lock

    One might argue that pensions will not go down in real terms if they are corrected for inflation, i.e. tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  And that protection might suffice. Yet, if the hoped for 'growth' of the economy were to occur repeatedly for a few years, wages could rise faster than inflation; i.e. could rise in real terms. And it might  be argued that, in fairness, pensioners should join in the fun. Generous fairness. And, though there are years in the quoted Table [1] in which average weekly wages rose more slowly than inflation, (e.g. in 2011, 2012, 2016, 2022, 2023), I think it is clear that, in the long term, average wages out-strip inflation, and indeed contain inflation (as that is a dominant element in driving wage rises). 

    At this stage we might accept either locking pensions to CPI or, more generously, locking them to average wages. But what we must not do is lock them to both whichever is the higher. It is perfectly possible for inflation to exceed wages one year and wages to catch up the next; and that repeatedly. With a double-lock, pensions could rise twice as fast as wages. 

    So, it has to be that we go for a single-lock, to average wages. The author of the cited paper [1], Heidi Karjalainen, points out that average wages tend to rise in jerks, and advocates using a "‘smoothed earnings link’, similar to the approach used in Australia."

    It is plain silly for a succession of governments from 2011 to the present Labour government to promise to retain the triple lock. It suggests that there are too few MPs in the House able to understand the simple train of thought outlined above.

References

[1]  Karjalainen, H. (2025). "What are the effects of the ‘triple lock’ and how could it be reformed?" Institute for Fiscal Studies. Available at: https://ifs.org.uk/articles/what-are-effects-triple-lock-and-how-could-it-be-reformed 

[2]  https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/october2025

21 March 2026

The Trump Fiasco

The Trump Fiasco

    There are many different ways in which Trump's war against Iran is lamentable. 

    1. It is not clear that there was sufficient cause. 

    Israel and the United States argued that Iran, with the declared aim of wiping Israel off the map, should not be allowed to build nuclear weapons. Most states in the United Nations would probably agree. Though it does seem arrogant and hypocritical for two Nuclear powers to declare that other powers should be denied such weapons. 

    Iran has always claimed that their objective was only to develop nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. They were in the process of negotiating. Foolishly, perhaps. Maybe there was a lack of good faith, certainly the Islamic Republic harboured much anger. The leadership might be divided on the issue of Nuclear weapons; after all, if Israel has them so why not Iran, a proud country with a history that stretches back to the origins of civilization. And they have a largely disaffected population, as their economy and quality of life has been ruined by decades of hostile sanctions. 

    2. The United States was not the appropriate enforcer. 

    The international community spent most of the previous century setting up a mechanism for handling exactly this sort of problem, namely the United Nations and the International Court. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an autonomous organization within the United Nations system, was set up in 1957 to supervise and monitor the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology. 

    3. The US team seem un-diplomatic, almost puerile in their approach. 

    It is not clear what the problem was in the negotiations. Why could the Iranians not be persuaded to prove their good faith? Were the IAEA or US negotiators as distastefully arrogant as the President of the USA, and his unspeakable Peter Hegseth, the self-styled 'US Secretary for War'?  Whichever other country has a secretary for 'war', as one of the foremost offices of the state!  Accusing the victims of US bombing of "cowering like rats, for that is what rats do."  Bragging  that "This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be." Uch!  And the puerile codename for this assault: "Operation Epic Fury." Adult Americans must cringe.

    Why did the United States go to war without the authority of Congress, if that is the constitutionally correct procedure? Did President Trump consult with the US ambassador to the Iranian Republic? It would seem not. That is to say, it would seem that Trump's team mis-judged the psychology of the Iranian regime and the willingness of Iranian people to revolt. 

    Trump spent a week or two from 15th January clustering weaponry and making threats, apparently hoping that the Iranian leadership would lose its nerve, or collapse. He was apparently oblivious of the fact that threatening to use force to settle disputes is as explicitly forbidden by the UN charter as the use of force [See my posts]. Apparently ignorant also of the high status accorded to martyrs in the mindset of Islamic ideologues.

    I suggest someone offers to restart negotiations; perhaps António Guterres as Secretary-General of the United Nations; or Emmanuel Macron, or Mark Carney. Perhaps Iran would forego nuclear weapons if Israel did the same. 

Links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text  
https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/01/trumps-actions-are-illegal.html
https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/03/united-nations-dissolved-and-reformed-i.html  
  



14 March 2026

United Nations: Dissolved

 United Nations: Dissolved and Reformed?

I observed on 3rd Jan 2026, [1] that the United States has flagrantly broken its committment to the Charter of the United Nations [2] articles 2.3 and 2.4;  I quote:

Article 2 paragraph 3.  All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Article 2 paragraph 4.  All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

So, of course, did the Russian Federation when it invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022. I concluded in January [1]:

"The answer has to be that they leave the Club, the consortium of civilised nations. Nobody can force the US; all we can do is isolate them, ignore them."

I supposed that one reason why no one can force the exclusion of the USA or Russia, following UN protocol, was 'the veto' (which first came into play in 1946, used by The Soviet Union, and used 29 time over the years by Great Britain). However, when I scoured the Charter for the word 'veto' I found only this:

Article 27

Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. (My emphasis.)

Note that there is no veto in the General Assembly, nor in the Security Council on procedural matters and matters concerning action under Chapter VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes"). That chapter requires that states shall "seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."). And must recuse themselves if they are party to the dispute. (See the excellent Wikipedia article on United Nations Security Council veto power [3])

Unfortunately there is no coercive powers in Chapter VI; those are covered in Chapter VII: "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression." Under that chapter, action requires the "concurring votes of the permanent members."

So, it turns out to be not just a question of: "Who will bell-the-cat?" Who will venture to tell the United State/Russian Federation to stop their bombing?  The Veto is a deliberate escape clause inserted by the five Great Powers of the time (1945) to protect their sovereignty and self interests.  As it turns out, the "Great Powers" are precisely those that most need to be curbed. What is to be done?

Before considering the drastic step of forming a new United Nations which explicitly excludes all powers from using the veto if they are party to a dispute (Britain's position in 1945), let us look at Chapter VII. Its Article 41 lists some non-violent but coercive measures, while its Article 42, considers the use of force.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

  Action of the Security under either Article 41 or 42  can (at present) be blocked by a negative vote from any one of the permanent members. (Absence or abstention is not regarded as a negative vote.)    

    Others have pointed out that the discussion of breaches of the Charter can not be vetoed. I think that would put some pressure on one of the Great Powers that had gone rogue. Bullies do not like to be thwarted, but they do not like thinking of themselves as "the baddies".

        And I think we have yet to see how much pressure can be applied by nations acting together under Article 41. Currently, that can be vetoed, but not if the Charter is amended.

References:
[1]  https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/01/trumps-actions-are-illegal.html
[2]  https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
[3]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power