What Sort of Society?

What Sort of Society?

My late friend (and erstwhile school colleague) Howard Elcock published a book in 1982 with the title What Sort of Society? Economic and Social Policy in Modern Britain [1]. It was a collection of chapters contributed by himself and fellow members of the School of Government, at Newcastle Politechnic. It is an excellent title, framing  a question that every voter in the country should pose for themselves. A good first step towards improving our 'quality of life' would be to identify our objective; our ideal state.  

Plato thought it was obvious that the ideal society would be ruled by an an educated and enlightened aristocracy; but then he was himself an aristocrat. He probably thought also that 4 slaves per household were necessary for comfortable living.

Three of my four grandparents were Scottish and my first 9 years were spent in Edinburgh, during and after the Second World War. I think my ideal would be a united, one-class, population where only small differences in wealth exist, and where everyone shares common goals. I can see that this social unity arises naturally where there is a common enemy, be that the climate, or competitive neighbouring states.  Given the natural disparities in ability, a uniform society of this sort requires (of its citizens) strong discipline, guidance, and education. Such a model seems to have evolved in Scandinavia; and it might suit Scotland better than it would suit England. (I can also see that it might be a little dull.)

For island dwellers in a mild climate, such as we have in southern England, there seems to have evolved a paternalistic 'Merry England' social structure with an aproximately ten-to-one ratio of 'workers' to 'gentry' [2]. The 'gentry' owned most of the land, and employed the non-gentry or rented them land to farm. They also provided such charity as was needed. Until the 1832 Reform Bill only the (male) gentry had the vote.  This resembles Plato's ideal except that the slaves are waged, not owned. After a pandemic (such as the 'Black Death'), wages might rise dangerously for a period, but the high breeding rate of the workers restores an equilibrium. This system must have proved satisfactory for both high and low, as it was stable for a thousand years. 

The rôle of religion in this 'Merry England' model should not be underestimated. A two-fold rôle. The concept of an after-life encouraged charity from the well-off, and seemed to justify the patience of those born into the working class [3]. There might have been cynicism in the highest ranks of the clergy, but the average aristocrat seems to have been a sincere believer; witness Robert-the-Bruce (King of Scotland) who wanted his heart taken to the holy land after he died. (Perhaps the dwindling interest in religion correlates with the crumbling of conservative England.)

Two world wars, education, and the invention of machines have, between them, essentially eliminated the concept of 'servants';  and, progressively, the concept of  'manual workers' also. Only immigration provides us today with our health service, hospitality industry, bus and taxi drivers, and our summer fruit-pickers and vegetable harvesters. 

There may be lessons to be learned from the giant, ex-communist, one-party states of China and Russia. Unfortunately, I have too little knowedge of the means by which either Russia or China achives its stability. We see the figure-head Presidents (Xi or Putin). But what structures lie beneath: cabinets, civil servants, secret-police, army, courts and judges? How is power exercised, and stability achieved. It seems that a steadily improving standard of living will produce a contented citizenry. But how is that engineered?

We like to believe that our more democratic society is 'better', more 'grown-up'. We believe we are more free, and we cherish that freedom. But should we? And are we? Perhaps there is too much freedom? Freedom to exploit?  If I were to nominate a problem that needs fixing in the capitalist world, I would point to the widening gap between the very-rich and the rest of society as the main (fixable) problem. We seem to have evolved a system in which we voluntarily pour more and more money into the hands of frivolous playboys, who use it to shoot rockets to the moon.

☜☜☜☜☜ O ☞☞☞☞☞

Footnotes

[1] Elcock, Howard (ed.) "What Sort of Society? Economic and Social Policy in Modern Britain" (1982) Martin Robertson, Oxford.

[2]  Wikipedia suggests that less than 5% of the population had a vote before the 1832 Reform Act. Only the males had the vote, but their wives would share the status of 'Gentry', hence my suggestion that 10% of the population be 'gentry'. It would be interesting to know if something like the Norman Conquest was required to set up an elite class in the first place – to ensure a sensible initial distribution of capital, and a suitable legal system. The evidence is that some people force their way into the aristocracy by virtue of their ability and character-type (intelligent, competitive, robust/ruthless). Doubtless they will find their way to the top of whatever social system exists to order society.

[3] "As Sir Roger de Coverley is landlord to the whole congregation, he keeps them in very good order, and will suffer nobody to sleep in church besides himself". Joseph Addison (1711) in The Spectator. 

Rise and Fall of Christianity

  The Rise and Fall of Christianity

I think there is some truth in claiming that the great success of Christianity, the feature that allowed it to become the world's 'biggest', most populous, religion, was by promising 'Life after Death'. (A feature it shares with Islam, the 'second biggest religion'.) The idea that something, (the soul or core or essence) could survive death seems to be basic to the human psyche and was well known in the Middle East long before Jesus.  It seems certain that the idea of bodily survival after death was not the message that Jesus was trying to teach. Indeed, he explicitly scoffed at it (Matthew, 22:23 ).  But the idea proved enormously popular and, over the centuries, the idea of bodily survival was grafted onto the teaching of Jesus, and has brought many hopeful converts to Christianity. 

Did the initial disciples of Jesus, by emphasising the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus, perpetrate a scam? Or were they honestly describing their experience? How can we ever know? But by 325 CE, when the bishops met at Nicaea, politics rather than theology or historical truth seem to have dominated the discussion. For the Nicene Creed quite explicitly promises the resurrection of the dead. And that formula became even more explicit in the next two centuries. [See below 'Several different Christian Creeds']

Does 'Christianity' (by which I mean, not the explicit teachings of Jesus, but the more-or-less unified teaching of the Christian bishops from 325 A.D. to the present day) deliver any sort of 'Life after Death'? Yes, if you are inspired by the belief. No, if you cannot so believe. We see that many could in the past, a number still can today, but many now cannot believe. 

By distinguishing between the teaching of Jesus and that of the Christian bishops I have effectively opened up the question -- was Jesus a Christian? I mean, could he have subscribed to the Nicene or any other 'Christian' creed on the question of Life after Death; does the explicitly quoted teaching of Jesus promise anything like that which Christian Bishops have promised in his name? Furthermore, we may ask whether the explicit teachings of Jesus (such as we have them) do better at delivering on their promises?

Jesus is reported to have said that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matth. 22:32).  He is also reported as saying that the idea of meeting up with your spouse after death shows a misconception of Heaven; "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. " (Matth. 22:29 ).  Heaven is (he suggested) more like when a king prepares a wedding feast for his son, and repeatedly sends out invitations, but the invitees do not come (Matth. 22:2-6).   So he sends out invitations to all and any (Matth. 22: 9).  They come, but those that come to the party in the wrong frame of mind get nothing out of it. (Matth. 22: 12).

Was not Jesus saying something like: God is for the living, and Heaven is for the living, not for the dead. That we are invited to join him, in Heaven; so should we not attend? And if we accept the invitation, and go to the party, it surely behoves us to attend in the right frame of mind; count our blessings and feel glad to be there. 

I feel the same way. I feel that to love creation with all one's heart, and with all one's mind (Matth. 22:37), and to love and treat our neighbours as we treat ourself (Matth. 22:39), creates a better world, an acceptable world, a world in which to be glad, in which to be grateful, and for which to wear festive clothes.  Even if plenty problems remain. 

In that sense I find that the teachings of Jesus deliver. By contrast, the doctrinaire Christian churches are dying, precisely because they are still paying 'lip-service' to the creeds of the fourth to sixth centuries A.D. The doctrinally 'Christian' churches, built upon a lie, are slain by the self-same lie.

The part that dies and the part that lives on.

To get anywhere in discussing the question of Life-after-Death, it is essential to be quite clear about the concepts of material reality and ideal thought. Material things in the real world have mass, and can be observed simultaneously by several observers; ideas conceived in a human brain do not have mass and are experienced by only one brain.  (A similar thought in a different brain is a different thought.) But an idea can be written down, captured in words, and spoken to another brain.  (The term 'Spirit' is undefined; it is therefore ambiguous, and is therefore avoided here.) It is also essential to seek the truth, and embrace it. There is no room here for deliberate ambiguity and obfuscation. I would hate to offer a reward while hoping that someone might misunderstand me and accept, even if their mistaken hope gave them pleasure, or relief; yet I think that is the parlous position of many Christian and Muslim priests.  

Human life, as far as I understand it, requires a flow of oxygen to the heart, and to the brain; without that oxygen, life and thought are impossible. Life is incompatible with death, with the absence of oxygen, or indeed the absence of a body (heart, brain, etc.)

I attended a Quaker funeral at Whitley Bay Crematorium in 2008. One Quaker read a poem of Betty Walters about a leaf, containing the consoling idea that it, the leaf (but, similarly, the poet), might be reabsorbed back into 'God'. So I refrained from reading the poem by Francis Thompson that I had brought along which makes a similar but slightly different point – that birth implies death; and death implies birth; 

"....

Till skies be fugitives,

Till time, the hidden root of change, updries,

Are birth and death inseparable on earth.

For they are twain yet one, and Death is Birth."

Instead, I found myself developing a thought I had started earlier in the day – that there are two parts to a person: a part that dies and a part that does not. What we love about a person is not so much the physical reality; a kilogram of cardiac muscle, or mushy liver. That, of course, is the part that dies. What we love is the husband, father, grandfather, the bread-winner, the musician, the student, a smile, an anecdote; in fact more the idea of a person than the reality of a person. And that is the part that does not die, but lingers in the memories of the still-living. So, in effect, I have reached the conclusion that, to our emotions, a person (alive or dead) is more important as an 'idea' than as a 'thing'.

I am not able to believe in Life Everlasting 'in the flesh', so I get no comfort from the Christian promise. But I do find some value in the undeniable fact that ideas about the good points of bygone people linger in the minds of the living; and will linger for a generation in most cases, and for two or more millennia in outstanding cases. In thus lingering, these memories support us in our endeavour 'to find heaven on earth'. 

That much I do believe.

Several different Christian Creeds:

 (https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43801/creeds.pdf )

[1] Nicene Creed, CE 325 ("We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come".)

[2] Apostle's creed, c. CE 500, Wikipedia ("I believe in .... the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.")

[3] Athanasian creed, c. CE 500, Wikipedia ("

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42.  and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.")

Rhetoric

 In a Democracy we must study Rhetoric

    What if we really are in the 'End Days'? Not, perhaps, the dramatically choreographed 'End Days' of the the Book of Revelations, with the 'Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse', and the 'Beast'. But an end of the sustained steady rise in health, wealth, leisure, and size of the human population; an end of the 'Good Times'.   

    For such it has been all my 84 years of life. And, from what I have read, I could say the same for the whole of the twentieth century. Some lucky few saw a disappearance of comfort and privilege in the early part of the 20th century, but the majority of Europeans will have seen an enormous improvement (in health, social care, longer holidays, opportunities for education and travel.) I have been lucky all the days of my life, from the little bottles of free milk in my school-days, to the free education for seven years at the best universities in the country, to the free bus-travel in my retirement. My children enjoyed free education from age 5 to 19,  but had to pay (c. £6,000 - 9,790 per year) for university tuition. Where I had a means-tested grant to cover living expenses, my children had to get that from their parents.  I bought my first house at the age of twenty nine, selling it 2 years later for three times as much.

    But there are signs that this run of good luck is ending.  Our electorate and our 'news-media' have asked six successive governments to restore the steady increase in 'well-bing' that we enjoyed in the twentieth century (Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Starmer). All have failed! It could be that we are lazy, or tired, or not motivated, or uncertain of the future.

    (I remember now being told by a Finnish doctor that is it not alcohol that an alcoholic craves, but a steady increase in blood-alcohol level.) 

    I think we need our leaders to make some new plans for us, create new goals.

 ☞☞☞☞☞ O ☜☜☜☜☜

    In my teens I read Plato's shorter Socratic dialogues and was dazzled. I loved his routing of the Rhetoricians. But, for fairness, I found and bought a second-hand copy of Archbishop Whately's 'Elements of Rhetoric' (1828)[2] which argued that persuasive argumentation required good logic. However, at that age I sided with the idealistic Socrates rather than the pragmatic Whately, and regarded rhetoricians as deliberate deceivers. Socrates famously argued that rhetoric was a dishonourable substitute for philosophy, a prostitute science, studying and teaching the art of subverting the proper science of good government. 

    A few years ago an erudite and well-researched book[1] came into my hands which makes the argument that, in a democracy, the art of Rhetoric matters. From the Greece of Pericles  to the Rome of Cicero, (i.e. roughly from 450 BC to 50 BC)[3], the art of Rhetoric was regarded as an important area of study; crucial to the process of government and the administration of justice.  

    This book by Rob Goodman [1] argues that, in our tottering democracies, it is vital that we study and understand the importance of persuasion in modern politics. 

    Unfortunately, Goodman's book does not practice what it preaches; it reads like a Ph.D. thesis. He summarizes all the writings of Cicero, Burke, Macaulay, and Schmitt on the skills of the orator. But I have got nothing out of it. Nothing except the following single question.

    Take the four contemporary politicians: Trump, Farage, Biden and Starmer. Do we think that we, the public as a whole, are unduly swayed by the first two? 

REFERENCES    

[1] 'Words on Fire' (2022) Rob Goodman, Cambridge University Press.

[2] Richard Whately (1787–1863), an English academic and Archbishop of Dublin, authored the highly influential Elements of Rhetoric (1828). 

[3] Pericles (c. 495–429 BC) to Cicero (106 – 43 BC)

Keeping Cool

 Keeping Cool

    We, in the UK, have just lived through the three hottest June days ever, each day hotter than the day before. No doubt many people, like me, will have finally woken to the reality of 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming'. Good!

    Of course we, in the UK, shall have to adapt step by step to meet these realities, learning from warmer countries. There is talk of fitting 'Air-Conditioning' in schools and old-people's homes, and that will doubtless be needed. But I hope we look also at passive means of keeping cool: external shutters, awnings, insulation, trees, work-schedules, siestas, and all the features that have for centuries made life tolerable in the tropics. In the longer term we could look at the design of houses and villages in countries where these temperatures have been familiar for centuries.  

    While admitting the needs of schools and old-peoples-homes, I am horrified at the thought of thousands of people rushing off to buy fans and portable cooling units without learning the protocols; for these things themselves all need power and generate more heat. (And more CO2, still!)

    For the next few years I think I shall be able to survive in comfort without air-conditioning. When a hot day is forecast, I go round the house tilting the blinds and curtains to block out direct sunlight.  As soon as the outside air-temperature rises above the inside air-temperature (usually about 24ºC), I go round the house shutting (or nearly shutting) all doors and windows, and I keep them shut until, in the evening, the cooling outside air feels pleasant. I then throw open the windows, French windows, and doors to cool the house during the night. (I would need to think of something else if the night-time temperature remained above 25º. Fortunately, that has not happened yet.) 

    I see around me that many people are new to air-conditioning technology and need educating about the etiquette. Some places are ridiculously cold. Some people seem to think they can use their air-conditioner to cool down the whole town!  Mid-afternoon on the 24th June, I made my way from my dentist down to the bus terminus, choosing, for once, to walk through the air-conditioned shopping arcade rather than taking the fresh-air 'canal-side' route. I found that the automatic doors had been jacked open by the janitor staff. I expostulated to the first janitor I met. 
    "Which doors?", he asked.
    "Those out to the street!", I wooffed, for I still had a wad of gauze clenched between my teeth. "Why are they open?"

    "To let in the air", he replied, as though I was the dumb one. I gave up and walked on down the hall to the information desk, noticing that all the other doors to the outside were likewise open. Again an uncomprehending shrug. On the point of giving up, I turned back and tried a parting shot.
    "It is like leaving the fridge-door open! You pump all that heat out and it comes rushing back in!
    "I see what you mean", he conceded. (But weeks later the doors are still jacked open on hot days.)

    My grand-daughter told me that her school class room was set at 22ºC, which shocked me. I remember learning some decades ago that the authorities in California, faced with a shortage of electricity in summer, declared that no thermostat should be set lower that 78ºF (25.5ºC) if the house is occupied. (Or 85°F if the house is unoccupied.) I know that I can manage sedentary work perfectly well at 25ºC.

Classical vs Modern Monetary Theory

Classical vs Modern Monetary Theory

I am intrigued that both Classical Monetary Theory (CMT) and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) have a way of explaining how macroeconomics works, yet both think the other theory is wrong, while their own theory is right.  

I think it is generally agreed that it is bad to let a sovereign currency inflate, i.e. devalue. It is tantamount to stealing from anyone who holds cash in that currency. It is embarrassing and to be avoided. But deflation is also to be avoided. It seems there is an international consensus that a currency should inflate, but only by a steady 2% per annum. 

CMT believes that a thrifty, well run country should not run a deficit but should raise in taxation as much money as its government spends.  If there is a deficit, CMT believes that printing money, or simply writing it into existence, causes inflation –– at least, in the absence of growth in the economy.  For it believes that the value of a currency is a simple but inexorable function of the total quantity of 'Goods' divided by the total quantity of 'Money'.  The preferred CMT response to a deficit is to borrow on the international bond market. But the CMT economists warn that too much borrowing will 'spook' the markets and interest rates will go up. The country will find itself stretched over a barrel as more and more of our tax goes straight off to pay interest on our National Debt. Were inflation to occur, the Bank of England would raise interest rates, which inhibits the economy. That would curb spending by the poorer (indebted) citizens while cushioning (or even rewarding) the better-off lenders.

MMT believes that deficits are vital if the economy is to grow, as it is the only way that money (currency) can enter the private sector. MMT holds that taxes are not required to "pay for government", for there is no reason why the money cannot be created (by a sovereign government; provided that it does not cause inflation). If there is idle capacity in the economy, printing money should stimulate the economy. If the economy is at full employment and surplus money is still chasing goods and services there will be inflation. The MMT answer to inflation is to raise taxes (rather than interest rates). This takes money off those that have it (rather than those that do not have it). Taxes can have other beneficial effects besides reducing demand for goods; it can reduce inequality, and it can reduce e.g. smoking or carbon dioxide emission.

Where CMT thinks that the value of a currency is set by the ratio of the total quantity of 'Money' (defined narrowly, or broadly?) to the total quantity of 'Goods', it could be argued that prices are set much more locally, by people who know neither the total quantity of 'Money', nor of 'Goods'; prices even respond to 'expectations'. Look at the way BP's profits soared when the Iranians closed the Strait of Hormuz. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two theories is in the different ways in which they propose to handle inflation. Though both schools aim to reduce the local availability of money, the CMT school would raise interest rates, inhibiting business and penalising the indebted, while the MMT school would raise taxes. 

Employment Bank

Employment Bank    

     I am encouraged to hear that Alan 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 Alan 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 come into a different category; 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/

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

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

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.

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)

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. 

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 traces of these distinctions. "I (nom.) speak"; "He told 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 maybe encourages the error). No one says "Me did it." All say "I did it". Once again, temporarily think of the sentence without the companions. Then restore them: "I and my friends..."; or, if that is too egoistical, reverse the order: "My friends and I did it."

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 

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