Month: August 2019

Apocalypse, maybe sooner than we think. Has it come to this?

manseljames1 Comment


They say we get the government we deserve, not the government we need. Looking round the world right now we seem to have an infection of either populist or totalitarian leaders most of whom we would not dream of employing even in the lowliest of capacities.


I list just a few of the candidates for my prize of the lousiest world leaders, they are:

  1. President Trump of the United States.
  2. President Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe.
  3. President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil.
  4. President Putin of Russia.
  5. Supreme leader of Iran Ali Khamenei.
  6. President Assad of Syria
  7. President Xi of China
  8. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
  9. President Erdogan of Turkey
    10.Deputy Prime Minister of Italy Matteo Salvini.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. But here are some of valid the descriptions that apply. You decide which matches who best:


Racist, Murderer, Assassin, Locking away of hundreds of thousands of citizens in concentration camps/corrective gulags, Arbitrary locking up of those you don’t like, Locking out desperate refugees, Mass murder of civilians, Corruption on a massive scale, Liar, Burner of the world’s greatest asset, Clown, etc., etc..


What do these correlations mean? Do millions really want to be governed by these assorted megalomaniacs?


If the answer is yes, then Apocalypse can’t be far away.

Welsh independence, crazier than Brexit!

manseljames1 Comment

In my blog entitled Lurching toward the destruction of the Union, I noted that both Scotland and Wales depend on Central Government at Westminster for substantial funding to sustain the national standard of living.  The distribution of these funds is as per Barnett formula which, for whatever reason, favours Scotland above Wales.  I deliberately did not delve into thing Northern Irish since that whole scene including the backstop are essentially incomprehensible.

I repeat the main premise of my argument that:

 1 Both Scotland £133.0 Bn and Wales £61.5 Bn do not earn GDP anywhere near that of the UK which is the sixth biggest in the World. It is certainly much lower in Wales and is drastically lower than the South East of England including London.  Wales has 23% of its population living in poverty.  Average wages in most of Wales excluding the three conurbations of Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham are less than £20,000 per annum.

2 Wales has a net fiscal deficit of £9.1 Bn. This is the key issue and I have yet to hear a reasoned response, or proposal to solve this gap, from any of the nationalist independent parties.

3 Currently all the devolved regions of the UK depend on hand outs from central government at Westminster, thus enjoying their existing standards of living. This distribution was entirely dependent on the Barnett formula but this has been adjusted over time in the favour of Scotland and Northern Ireland and to the detriment of Wales.

4 Without the wealth of metropolitan England, Wales (and the other devolved entities) would be substantially poorer.

5 Handouts to the poorer parts of the UK by the EU are of course funded by the UK’s net contribution to the EU.  The EU were always net gainers from UK membership.

What is it then, that the independence movement of Wales want?  The labour Government that has ruled Wales on devolved matters for 20 years has overseen a gradual decline in the Welsh economy compared with the rest of the UK. What Wales is known for, apart from certain sporting excellence, is fragmented industry with 99% of businesses described as ‘small’. Indeed the Labour Assembly Government is known best for what it has not done – like cancelled the vital M4 relief road.  Kicking the can down the road is the key talent of the Welsh assembly, with neither government nor opposition showing any leadership or innovative intent.

Does Plaid Cymru want complete separation? Or more devolved power over taxation? Trading affairs (being free to join or leave trading-blocks outside the British Isles)? Lawn and Order? How would the independent nations handle defence? Immigration? Do they fully recognise that independence will make Wales, perhaps, by 15% poorer, at best!

If devolution is taken further should the devolved governments or assemblies have representatives in Central UK government?

If Wales and Scotland become devolved or closer to independence then surely the English Assembly cannot be far away.  Would an English Assembly carry more clout with Central ‘Federal Westminster Government’ than the nationalist entities? After all the majority of income will still be from South East England.

Do they want to become individual nations in a federation of the British Isles?

The great affection for Scottish and Welsh cultures is a marvellous thing and to be cherished.  Certainly, most would agree, that this truly the business of provincial government. 

It can be contended that this up surge in nationalism is more driven by cultural influence than economic reality.  No doubt, central government, as it now is, is overly focussed on the GDP generating regions (who could not excuse them?).  One could not argue, that the Scots and the Welsh have a point as they strive to affirm their tribal identity.  However it is an enormous and disproportional step to leap toward independence from The Union of the United Kingdom.

Devolution has let the cat out of the bag.  Devolution for the West Country, the North East and North West seem just aspirations too. Where do you stop?

Love your tribe, love your nation, but love our union as well.   

The vacuum that no one wants to fill.

manseljamesLeave a comment

We find it hard to do nothing.  Even just sitting and doing nothing is difficult.  There is something in us that makes us want to get up and do something.  However, when we get older, then doing nothing, can become the order of the day.  ‘Nothing’ can become your all day and night companion.  Loneliness, is the consequence of ‘nothing’ stalking your life, day in, day out. Loneliness is a modern scourge of the mobile family-less modern senior citizen.

For those who are younger, it is difficult to comprehend this state of limbo, when the intolerance of sitting still is overtaken by the black void of ‘nothing’. When we are overtaken by a hopeless belief that we are not able to do anything, other than sit and stare.  This becomes a way of life for many.

Of course, the absence of drive or aspiration in deprived societies,is the collective envelope of nothing.  Nothing to do, nothing to aspire to do, nothing to learn, and nothing to see. 

In our modern materialist community, we turn our collective backs on those who have lost the fear of doing nothing.  They are almost universally seen as lazy or hopeless.  Swathes of de-industrialised Britain have whole communities where nothing pervades their days.  Sometimes, if motivation is absent, then the only thing to do is, anything! Even if it is destructive or socially distressing.

We talk of political will, of spreading enterprise, encouraging innovation, fiddling taxes up or down, supporting the welfare of the poorest and balancing the books.  Yet there is little here that combats these swathes of ‘nothing’.  Education is clearly crucial but not necessarily in the traditional sense. Social and individual aspiration is at the core of all successful people whether old folk or young kids.  It seems to me that creating a positive antidote to the ‘nothing’ that pervades so much of our society is lacking.

This is not a soft option, a nice socialist ideal, no, it must become a central plank of any compassionate society.   It must mean the spreading the net to capture all that wasted talent of the young and the elderly, in the voluntary as well as the commercial sector.

Instead of a community where the elderly sits alone with that enemy ‘Nothing’, or young people are going out to do mindless damage, we must fashion a community where instilling aspiration is the key, A key, that is an imperative we learn to turn.

Who will change their mind?

manseljamesLeave a comment

Changing your mind, implies you may have been wrong in the first place.

 It may mean that certain issues have come to light, and that these have changes the premise of the original proposition.  This is easier for technical or situational issues.  This is the easiest to do, but even in these situations, people often hang on to old hypothesis or ideas despite the new proven facts.

Changing your mind may be the result of; ‘well, if she/he says so, it must be right/wrong,’.  Clearly most of us accept the influence of individuals or institutions dear to our hearts.   Needless to say such influencers can be good, e.g. Martin Luther King, or bad, Hitler.  Nevertheless there are influencers in the world who do change massive human beliefs such as Xi of China. Comfort comes to individuals in belonging to the tribe, ‘If the tribe accepts, it’s OK for me.’  These are very hard circumstances in which to voice an alternative view.

 Changing your mind, to most of us, implies a weakness, and to admit that weakness is difficult. Is it a weakness or a strength to have the ability to re-assess our ideas, which may be well entrenched, or even have deep seated cultural attachments.

Change, namely adopting a new mind-set, is something that individually and collectively does not sit comfortably or naturally with any of us.  Nurture it seems very much outweighs nature.  The idea of social mobility, if seen in this context, is much easier to promulgate than practise.

In the UK we are being asked to make our mind up about leaving the European Union where we have been members for over 40years.  The ideas, which are being tested have been found to be exceedingly complicated.  Dominant ideas, include the hardest tribal fixed idea is, that being British is good and all that this entails, (World wars which Britain won, Royalty, unwritten constitution, mother of parliaments, freedom of the press, etc., etc..) Most of all the loss of sovereignty.  This dominant idea transcends political loyalty.  All sectors of the UK community espouse these ideas.  They are being asked to revert to a Great Britain which has been and to a lesser extent still is, a substantial influencer in global trade and policy.

The alternative idea is the European collective moving execrably to a federal Europe.  A beacon for peace, a massive trading block and a highly sophisticated political machine than can be a major influence in world politics.  Freedom of movement and unification of financial rules and fiscal unity will surely come. Ultimately the wealth of the EU will be shared thru’ enterprise and innovation throughout the territories as national economies are integrated.

Both visions have their points but each is dominated still be the echoes of the world wars. Germany and France lost, Great Britain won.  So what? You might say, but these are the dominant ideas behind the ‘remainers’ and the ‘leavers’.   You could postulate that as the younger generation grows so will the history of GB fade, you could argue for either dominant idea, but because of the political ineptitude of David Cameron, we have to make our mind up now.

The people voted narrowly to leave, Parliament (a mix of eccentrics with their own set of ideas) has been unable to accommodate the EU’s demands for separation. We now find ourselves back in the battle for, leaving without a deal, a review of the original vote, or a plebiscite to approve a leaving agreement terms.

In this morass of complex ideas, it seems that the voters have lost their faith in any of the political parties.  

There is no conclusion here, only oversimplification on one side, and a mixed and incoherent babble from the other.  It is likely but not certain that the majority will side with the simplest idea, because that is the one we can all understand, and maybe some will change their minds, even in desperation. c

88% can’t be wrong – can they?

manseljamesLeave a comment
88% can’t be wrong, can they?

A recent survey showed that whilst it is a close run thing on Brexit choices, a huge majority in the UK have lost faith in Parliament and those who sit there as members.

This exemplifies the move toward populism and self centred materialism. It is though an inescapable dilemma. Who knows best? Our elected representatives, or the collective ‘me’.

Dangerous times, me thinks, Trump and now Johnson flouting constitutional precedents and making wild and vulgar promises they cannot hope to even pretend to keep. Shabby, is a good word that comes to mind.

How shabby are we, us, me? Should we put our trust in our elected representatives?

With the chaos we now face, should we listen a bit harder to those with whom, we have to date, disagreed?

Good politics, I used to believe, included the art of compromise. If we are not careful, we shall be plunged into a world of bombast and populism where he who shouts loudest will be ‘The Man’.

How to build a bridge betwee Parliament and the people remains the issue of today and everyday. Both sides need to listen to each other, only then, will we be able to return to respect for good governance and respect for constitutional precedent.

In the next ten weeks the UK, we will have to decide.

The UK union – are we lurching toward its destruction?

manseljamesLeave a comment

Over the last twenty years, the United Kingdom has undergone a programme of constitutional reform embedded in membership of the European Union (EU). Devolved legislatures and governments have been established in different forms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The decision, following the referendum of June 2016, to leave the European Union has major repercussions on the internal constitution of the United Kingdom (UK) and its relationship with the Republic of Ireland. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU but have also expressed a preference for remaining in the United Kingdom; now they cannot have both. Control of competences coming back from the EU is contested between the UK and devolved governments. The lack of rules in the largely unwritten constitution means that there are no clear ways of resolving the resulting conflicts. The United Kingdom has become the site of a real-time experiment in constitutional change, in conditions of uncertainty.

Before we analyse the demands of the Sots and the Welsh let’s first take a cool look at the matters of economic fact. 

1 Both Scotland and Wales do not earn GDP anywhere near that of the UK which is the sixth biggest in the World. It is certainly much lower in Scotland and lower again in Wales and both are drastically lower than the South East of England including London. 

2 Currently all the devolved regions of the UK depend on hand outs from central government at Westminster, thus enjoying their existing standards of living. This distribution was entirely dependent on the Barnett formula but this has been fiddled with and now both Scotland and Northern Ireland get a better deal than Wales.

3 Without the wealth of metropolitan England both Scotland and Wales would be substantially poorer.

4 Handouts to the poorer parts of the UK by the EU were of course funded by the UK’s net contribution to the EU.  The EU were always net gainers from UK membership.

What is it then, that the independence movements of each country want?  Do they want complete separation, or more devolved power over taxation? Trading affairs (being free to loin or leave trading-blocks outside the British Isles) ? Lawn and Order? H ow would the independent nations handle defence? Immigration? Do they fully recognise that independence will make Wales, perhaps, by 15% poorer, at best and Scotland perhaps 10% worse off in GDPHI? 

If devolution is taken further should the devolved governments or assemblies have representatives in Central UK government?

If Wales and Scotland become devolved or closer to independence then surely the English Assembly cannot be far away.  Would an English Assembly carry more clout with Central Government than the nationalist entities?

Do they want to become individual nations in a federation of the British Iles?

The great affection for Scottish and Welsh cultures is a marvellous thing and to be cherished.  Certainly, most would agree, that this truly the business of provincial government. 

It can be contended that this up surge in nationalism is more driven by cultural influence than economic reality.  No doubt, central government, as it now is, is overly focused on the GDP generating regions (who could not excuse them?).  One could not argue, that the Scots and the Welsh have a point as they strive to affirm their tribal identity.  However it is an enormous and disproportional step to leap toward independence from The Union of the United Kingdom.

Devolution has let the cat out of the bag.  Devolution for the West Country, the North East and North West seem just aspirations too. Where do you stop?

Love your tribe, love your nation, but love our union as well.   

  • I have studiously avoided reference to Northern Ireland.

Politics and Wealth – Are liberal democracies failing?

manseljamesLeave a comment

Liberal democracies in many ways still defer to the eighteenth century ideas in the context of well-regulated and unsophisticated markets.  Central Banks still operate believing that the aggregate of the output of self-interest produce, produces an overall ‘good’ result. The “Pareto-optimal”, a state where no one can be better off without making someone else worse off.

This assumption of economic balance, does not take into account market failures, and global external issues such as global warming, plus the influences of personalities that can tilt the outcomes in their favour. The old ideas about the division of labour, do prophesy the concept of globalisation. We see global enterprise expanding and integrating markets thus increasing productivity and competitive advantage.

What these economists like Adam Smith did not consider is how that massive wealth is distributed.  At the same time there are massive failures, much bigger than Smith envisioned.  To some extent this can be seen in the rationalisation of the motor car industry today.  There is no way here the Pareto principle works.

We, as individuals, make social choices and create market economies, so the pound/dollar effectively equals votes.  Those with most purchasing power have the most power and have more influence on social and economic developments. (e.g. The NRA in the US) Governments in social democracies are also meant to be social choices, and voting is distributed equally, regardless of wealth.  Democratic institutions should be the balance against economic power.

However in both the United States and the United Kingdom, we see political power built on either plain unencumbered wealth; (donations to campaigns in the US), or the (elite coterie of influence in the UK). In both these cases the influence of the ballot box is heavily in line with economic strength.  Now the counterbalance of democracy is severely weakened.

This devaluing of “my vote” and the undoubted rise of inequality has led to massive frustration in political outcomes and led to the abandoning of the establishment in favour of the unorthodox populists.

There lies on the horizon alternative ideas in the place of Liberal democracy.  It is idea that, if the great and the good are unencumbered by elections then they can deliver decisions that advance the social good.  With few or no checks and balances however corruption is never far away. Lack of public accountability seems a fatal flaw.

That liberal democracies have to change, is a no-brainer, the radical socialist agenda seems never to work, so the future continues to swerve to the materialist right. 

How to correct or change this social, political, and economic direction simultaneously seems hugely demanding.  We must resist so-called benign dictatorships and extreme populists, come what may! ��)

Innocent till proven guilty – a dilemma!

manseljamesLeave a comment

The recent spate of publicity about paedophile activity has once more raised the issue of ‘guilt by rumour and newspaper headlines’.  The issue is exaggerated by the fact that ‘celebrity’ headlines attract greater scrutiny than that the ordinary citizen would experience.  We have to ask the questions, Is this fair? Do such events enshrine the principles of ‘equal before the law’ and ‘innocent till proved guilty’?

The police, in this recent and well publicised case, must review if they would have been so dramatically diligent had the suspects not been celebrities.  They may have felt that not to pursue the case would have shown deference to the celebrities involved. This is not to excuse them from incompetence. Again would non celebrities have received such a rigorous investigation costing over two million pounds?

These two principles of our British justice are the very basis of our free society, but there of course is the other one ‘Freedom of speech’ which again is a huge corner stone of our constitution.

The statutory authorities, not only but including the police, have choices and challenges, but first among responses, must be to respect the two principles of equality and innocence until proven otherwise.  This surely demands a protocol where there are clearly defined codes of practice which will encompass public awareness during the warrant stage, pre-arrest, post arrest and trial. ( strictly private, very private, anonymity, public awareness)

However, we have the free press burrowing into all things communal, and so should it be.  If only to keep the statutory authorities on the straight and narrow.  The definition of ‘in the public interest’ is where the two factors clash. It is very sad that the Leveson enquiry was never allowed to run its course and that the press (for understandable reasons) did not embrace the idea of an independent press complaints authority or come to a progressive alignment.

Nevertheless, recent events have proved that we need a continuous review of our treatment of those under the law.  This is ever changing, with the influence of social media increasing by the day.  Guarding against frivolous accusations, false information, malicious and mendacious actions from whatever source need to be sieved through the prism of our great constitutional rights; equality under the law and innocent till proven guilty. ffffffffffff