Why are politicians good at speaking but less good at thinking?

At the moment in both USA and UK politics we have two leaders arguing the what rather than the how. In other words, they focus their arguments on what they are going to achieve rather than how they are going to achieve it. It’s so simple, it is not easy to suppose a reason. Perhaps it is that the how of things, the best course of action, is complex whereas the what, is simple. Perhaps it is cunning or at worst, deceipt.

For example, today the United Kingdom House of Commons will vote on how the conservative party are proposing to leave European Union. I say ‘the conservative party’ but even many conservatives do not agree with the terms of withdrawal being proposed. In complex situations where there is compromise and negotiations to overcome, there are often several directions to follow, all of which achieve a similar objective. In this case it is to withdrawal from the European Union. However the Prime Minister, who is renowned for being secretive and poor at communication, has only one ‘deal’. As a demonstration of her ‘iron will’, or stubbornness as others would see it, she is arguing that the only democratic course for those who believe in the British system of government, is to support her how. There is no plan B, or how B. By either lazy thinking on her part of a political modus operandi that forces others to support her for the wrong reason, plan B is to crash. Fear of a ‘hard Brexit’ is not the right reason to approve her proposed how to leave Europe. That is doubtful politics ethically, and likely to back fire. It is a good example of how some politicians prefer to argue about objectives, rather than examine in fine detail, how to get there.

Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, exactly the same process is being exploited by Mr. Trump to get his own way. His what is to keep ‘unwanted immigrants’ out of America. To justify the ‘unwanted’ part of this aim is to categorise them as ‘bad people’ and to associate them with drug dealing and criminality.

Having painted such a clear picture that even the most slow of Americans can cotton onto, he then moves onto the how – the solution. This is where clear and objective thinking starts. A high school student faced with the same problem would ask for the facts and figures, interview those from all sides affected by the problem, examine and assess acceptable solutions to similar situations in other countries, poll locally for the preferred solutions by different interest groups and then do the same process in political circles to gain support and justify costs with benefits.

I expect neither Mrs May nor Mr Trump have been through this or a similar process. Their civil servants may have done, since they are experienced in the process of governing, but the politicians? Mr Trump has boasted how he makes decisions using his ‘instinct’. I expect a gambler or failed businessman is familiar with this type of decision making. But the objective is not to make a decision, it is to enable the right decision to be made in the interests of the greatest number of tax paying patriots in the present and the future.

Mr T. believes that ‘good fences make good neighbours’ as Robert Frost put it. That familiar metaphor is not analogous to the problem of international migration. Your next door neighbour is not breaking down your garden fence in fear of his or her life and planning to stay in your prize flower bed for the unforeseeable future.

He believes that walls keep people and drugs out. The ‘devil’ as always is in the detail or the how of the solution of a wall. His security advisers say that the wall should be see-through so that people in proximity of the wall on the other side can be closely monitored. This is standard advice and, for instance, why bus stops favour glass screens in their construction. However, those wishing to prevent drugs being passed across the border using plastic pipes pushed through the gaps to slide through drugs; they will be pleased to have a wall made of vertical steel girders with gaps. Even high security prisons, have problems with drugs coming into gaols and breaching the wall is one method used.

When Mr Trumps opposition refuse to pay for a border wall on the grounds that is not the best solution, Mr T plays his trump card; the one we have all seen before.

‘Why do you not want American citizens to be safe?’

Magicians use this. It is called distraction and in political debate, it works as well. If one party is arguing about the detail of things, methods, factual arguments, informed advice and debate etc. etc. the other party just sits up and says something not about the how, but about the what.

‘Oh, so you are in favour of illegal immigrants murdering and stealing and bringing drugs into our country.’

‘Oh, so you are in favour of ignoring the will of the British people and the process of democracy and you want the country to crash and all the negative consequences?’

Listen carefully and watch their practised skills in deception.

The answer to this question, has to consider what education is for. If that is ‘preparation for life’ then is a traditional academic education a good preparation?

Reading and writing and arithmetic have long been recognised as essential skills for life, (although in the future this may be replaced by proficiency with AI interaction with robots!)

After these three basic skills, which can be taught in primary school, what next? Is it necessary and appropriate for modern life, to teach ‘traditional’ subjects such as history, geography, mathematics, languages?

Personally, I think these subjects do not fit with the aim of preparing young people for life. I remember a day in secondary school, when our maths teacher showed us how to fill in a cheque. That was nothing to do with maths but was useful later. Thanks Geoff, for going off curiculum.

Here is my wish list for subjects in secondary education.

Creativity

The Principles of Design and Engineering

DIY for houses, cars, bicycles, clothing, decoration, crafts.

Food Preparation and Diet

Health and Reproduction

Emotional Intelligence

Thinking Skills

Spirituality

Social Interaction

Art and Performing Arts; appreciation and production

Physical Sciences Life

Computer Interaction

Political Science

Travel

No doubt you could add to this list and explore interesting areas where subjects overlap. The important goal is to ‘prepare for life’, not memorise answers or copy what the previous generation is randomly passing on.

The course of a life, in this century in particular, is almost impossible to predict. Previous generations may have had something to pass on, but that is increasingly, no longer true, simply because it will not be relevant. The best that can be done is to hand over life skill tools. These will or might, empower a young adult to survive or thrive, depending on how well they listen!

For example, a course on travel might last just six months. In it a young person will be able to consider objectively;

Choosing a destination

Monetary security

Travel objectives such as new language skills, culture, enjoyment, respecting cultural diversity and sharing.

Travel necessities and packing

Risk assessment and safety

World Politics

Health and Diet

Planet Earth – fauna, flaura, geomorphology, etc.

Recording and Broadcasting

Ethics

Diversity

Ecology, Conservation and Planetary threats

With these skills and many more learnt through necessity through encounters whilst travelling, a young person can explore as much of the world as they are able and wish to.

This is ‘geography’.

When I studied architecture at University for seven years, I entered by first office job at the bottom of the ladder. My office skills were minimal and accordingly, so was my pay.

I had to learn everything that my expensive university courses had omitted. By encountering these office skills and management of building sites, chairing meetings, taking minutes, money management, dealing with clients, problem solving and much more, I was learning on the job. Even after ten years, when I had become proficient, I lacked the knowledge of how to set up in partnership, obtaining a business loan and professional indemnity insurance, seeking clients and self promotion. As a consequence of this, the oversupply of architects by Universities and the roller coaster of boom and bust characteristic of the building industry, I switched to a salaried career in the public sector with a good pension.

I therefore consider myself in a good position to advise young people to be very careful about their prospects to survive or thrive in life. I would add that I am not against young people becoming academics. I just think that this minority should be given this opportunity at University by self selection to specialise in any subject they wish.

The situation is in my view that secondary education establishments are offering a preparation for life. There are many inhibitors doing this, such as the cultural ‘norms’ which produce such concepts as the national curiculum and examinations. To use the well known metaphor – they are handing out fish instead of fishing rods. Even more disempowering than this, is that students are being lead to believe they will automatically thrive in life clutching certificates of academic excellence.

As a result of this (and no doubt other factors such as empowerment in the family, social media, self esteem issues and more), young people are setting off in life being barely able to survive on their own. Perhaps adults living at home, as is common in Europe today, are not only finding it hard to rent a room somewhere else.

I believe that particularly in the UK, there is a dependency culture where the state is relied upon as a benign benefactor, able to intervene when all else fails.

Factor in the endemic ‘dumbed down’ content of media and news, homelessness, mental health issues, drug dependency, unhappiness at work – and it is clear society is in a mess.

The question has to be persistently asked, is the present education system preparing young people for life?

The UK Automobile Association president, Edmund King, made comment recently that ‘driving like a snail can be as dangerous as driving like a cheetah’.

He gives as an example drivers using the middle lane of a motorway who drive ‘far below the speed limit’.

I would comment on this that the problem is principally using the middle lane of a motorway to drive on, rather than driving below the speed limit. If the driver were on the inside lane I expect this would not be a problem to other drivers.

The difficulty with these comments from Mr King is that they are muddled and vague. The first I have just commented on and the second is obvious. Is it possible to drive a car at the speed of a snail? I think you would burn out your clutch on the first hill. Less pedantically, describing speeds using animal metaphors shows thinking skills more appropriate to children’s stories. All cars have meters to show the speed of the car and all roads have speed limits. It is not difficult then to discuss speeds rationally instead of emotionally.

He also gives an example of cars going slowly in the acceleration lane leading into a motorway. ‘I was in a queue of five cars joining the M3 recently when the lead driver was driving at approximately 25mph. It was incredibly dangerous.’

It is worrying if we are all being asked to consider the personal driving experiences of another who is trying to prove a point by a single example. In this case it is not possible to talk to the driver of the lead vehicle to ask what he or she was thinking. The reasons are not justifications but may explain behaviour. Mr King will know that in some European countries, the traffic in the joining lane has to give way to traffic on the motorway, by law. Perhaps the lead driver did not understand the UK highway code? If this were the case then surely having been a member of the European Community for forty years, the UK government or influential motoring organisations should have done more to standardise driving laws? Mr King appears to have reacted like a Mr Toad instead of a Mr Owl.

Mr King will be aware of an impactive advertising campaign in the UK which brought home the fact very strongly that a driver at 40mph is going to kill a child pedestrian and a driver at 30mph no kill a child.

Interestingly the advertisement used exact speeds rather than animal analogies, presumably because understanding the killing power of a motor vehicle at different measurable speeds is important.

Hyundai commissioned a poll of 2000 UK drivers in 2018 where they found that the seventh most common reason for a driver swearing is ‘someone driving to slowly in front of you.’ Interestingly the highly emotional state of the driver is given implied credibility. Personally I would question whether they need some driving skills re-education rather than be given as an example of ‘normality’ in a poll. However the answer includes a level of vagueness that nullifies any point it might make. What is ‘someone driving too slowly’?

In most cases in my driving experience in the UK and Europe is that ‘driving too slowly’ is expressed by a driver who wishes to exceed the legal speed limit but is being prevented from doing so. This would be a more useful investigation for Hyundai. Personally I could prove this within five minutes of starting any journey by driving at the maximum legal speed limit and having the ability to speak to the driver being frustrated behind.

These drivers are the tailgater, a careless driving manner more worthy investigation than one driving just under the legal speed limit.

The problem we am really describing is one of ’emotional thinking’ rather than ‘rational thinking’. Would passengers in an aircraft for instance prefer a pilot who swears at other planes on the runway and in the air, who criticises them publically for flying in the manner of slow or fast birds?

Personally I’d rather be piloted by the rational, cool, calm, sober pilot who explains the reason for any delay and wishes us a pleasant continuing journey as we leave the plane.

As well as being an advocate of the safety benefits of driving under the legal speed limit (sorry you cheetahs out there I said it again!) there is another benefit.

I have known many advanced drivers and when I ask them what is the most important consideration they have when driving their private cars they reply, ‘fuel economy’. In the USA the maximum speed is 56mph for just this reason. If vehicles were travelling at 70mph they would be using one third more fuel.

If you told the average driver that they can reduce their fuel costs by this amount, I expect they would be interested. That is until they realise that they would have to allow more time for their journey and time for them is more precious than handing over a living planet to their grandchildren. This is the only reason other than ignorance that I can think of when I am overtaken by a large black 4×4 SUV on a motorway that must be using under 20 mpg. I drive a six gear diesel estate and regularly obtain 56 mpg on mixed urban and motorway journeys. This green conscience in me I have had for most of my life.

Another angle on slow driving is the concept of an ‘average speed’. Studies of congestion on motorways have identified slowing traffic down as a way to ease congestion and make journeys safer and quicker. Although counter intuitive, when a journey is examined as a whole, it will reveal a pattern of ‘rush to wait’. Cars rush away from traffic lights in cities even when they can see that they will have to stop at the next set. Drivers on country roads will overtake the car in front at the first opportunity, even though there may be a tractor or herd of cows around the next bend.

Finally, another aspect of advance slow driving skills is not prejudging a vehicle’s speed. If following a bus travelling at the maximum legal speed, it is not necessary to overtake it, even though ‘it’s a bus!’ It is the nature of buses to stop regularly so keeping a distance behind to enable a safe overtake when it stops, is simple. Passing at a slow speed is obligatory since we know passengers step out of buses and may wish to cross the road straight away, appearing suddenly from behind the large bus. The same goes for lorries and vans. The advanced slow driver will find out what speed these vehicles are doing or likely to be doing at the next hill, before making an unnecessary overtake. Such vehicles have limited views immediately behind, so tail gating will not only create a dangerous queue of cars, but for yourself when the lorry or van stops unexpectedly.

In summary, I would not criticise other road users unless I have interviewed them and found out what on earth is going through their heads. Expect them to be mad as hares and you won’t be surprised, pull back let them be silly and continue your journey.

At slower speeds you are less likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists. There is no argument to driver faster and start swearing at others.

Look at the maximum speed limit for the road you are driving on and match the speed of your vehicle to it when it is safe to do so. Ignore those with money to pay fines, don’t mind loosing their licence and are willing to risk killing children, queuing up behind you.

Ease your foot off the accelerator and brake to maintain the maximum average and legal speed. This will reduce the length of time you have to allow for your journey, the cost of fuel and reduce emissions proportionately.

And finally, if it’s a lorry it might not need to overtake it. If it’s a snail, you will.

A cartoon shows a man and his wife at home. The wife has just returned from a shopping trip and is heavily laden with bags. The husband looks astonished as his wife explains;

The advertising made me do it!

Taking responsibility for one’s actions has been an important pillar of self respect for hundred’s of years. It is what we teach our children.

At it’s most extreme we hear the defence in war crime trials that;

I was only following orders.

Or in the air plane high jacking where the captain has a handgun pressed to his ear and is told;

If you do not do as I say, everyone will die and it will be you fault.

This game of ‘passing the buck’ is at best shallow and at worst highly manipulative, criminal and immoral.

So it is interesting that in today’s democracies, there appear instances of public figures abdicating responsibility in the same way, either to avoid blame or to gain advantage or both.

At present, so called Teresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is telling parliament that if they do not agree to her negotiated withdrawal agreement with the EU, Brexit will crash into a brick wall and it will not be her fault, but theirs.

More morally, she could have spent one year finding the views of the British people, another year finding out what the majority in parliament wanted and a month telling Europe what deal Britain will accept, based on her findings. Instead, two Brexit secretaries have resigned, civil servants have worked in the background up towards the Prime Ministers’ notional ‘red lines’. In the end TM negotiated what she thought was good for everyone without asking in detail, what they wanted. When it all fails miserably and the country is severely damaged, she will not be able to be voted out as she won her recent vote of ‘no confidence’. More importantly, the blame for the damage will be on those who did not do as she told them to do, and TM will abdicate any responsibility. Only logicians will see what she has been doing.

At the same time in history we have an American president, Donald Trump, who is holding a fully licensed, semi automatic assault rifle to the heads of each member of Congress.

If you don’t do what I want (give me five billion dollars to build a wall with Mexico) I will allow government funding to expire.

Correctly, Congress is standing firm. They do not like being blackmailed and certainly do not want to cover up a lie Trump made to the people.

I am going to build a wall with Mexico (cheer) and I am going to get the government of Mexico to pay for it.

Perhaps not many Americans have noticed his slight of hand or as he would say, lie? Perhaps not many mind manipulative politics to put it politely. Whatever it is, it is not democracy and more akin to Nazi and Soviet methods of persuasion.

This at a time when the infrastructure of the USA is crumbling; that is roads, bridges, railways, public buildings…the money could go where the American people will see it being spent. America First.

And you have to wonder which millennium Mr. Trump is living in to have faith in a project that the Ancient Chinese and Romans employed. Hadrian’s wall, (separating Roman Britain and the Picts in the north) was more a political barrier than a physical barrier because archaeologists find evidence of Picts living peacefully on both sides of the wall.

Ironically, both examples of today’s bully politics result from one perceived problem, immigration. Fitting the correct solution to the perceived problem in the UK and the USA, would have been more effective, moral, cheaper and democratic.

On both sides of the Atlantic we see politicians fumbling for solutions. TM’s will not work, DT’s will not work and they are being told so. But if you result to threats to obtain what you want, you have to clear some moral high ground for when it all goes wrong. Interestingly they both are using the ploy of switching responsibility onto the good guy for their bad plans of action.

I put the hamster in the microwave because you won’t take me to the zoo and you said you would, Mummy!

Have we voted for the leaders we deserve or have we elected three year olds into office?

A love story

Christmas day, nothing on the telly as usual, then I notice BBC 4 has Swan Lake. I amuse myself until eight o’clock, miss the deep and meaningful introduction as I raid the fridge and settle down just as the overture starts.

I enjoy a lot of jumping around, the sets and costumes and it’s not until the third act that a thought occurs to me. What is this all about?

The progress on stage is so seemingly slow that I have a mo to pick up my tablet and Google for a plot summary and the names of the characters. I realise that all this information is sat on the laps of the live audience in their programmes and is missing for folks at home! Anyway, it’s a fairly simple plot and I finally get what all the miming has been about (how about ballet with speech and singing!)

If you don’t know the plot then have a read on line as I don’t have space here.

Sometime in the night I wake up and run the plot through my mind again. It’s a fairy story, right? That means it’s about as real and as useful as fairies are in the twenty first century, right? Well wrong.

I realise that the story is considerably more profound than even the twenty quid programme lets on.

There is a lake full of white fluffy swans, about twenty four of them as far as I could see on the telly but they did keep moving around a lot so it could have been twenty eight. Anyway the lake represents the world (round world, round lake – please keep up) and the souls who have been turned into swans are us…that is humans, spending our short lives going around in circles and basically asleep. Only Odette is able to become human again in the night time. (Just like me waking up in the night and being profound). She represents the two states of being alive and being dead. She is dead when she is alive (an enchanted swan) and alive at night (a human soul in the spirit world).

The prince is unimpressed by the marriage proposals of the best beauties Russia has to offer because he is himself enchanted by the beauty of the Queen of the swan population, Odette.

Confusion and evil arise in the shape of the Von Rothbart who is keen for his own daughter, Odile, to be the object of Prince’s love. To achieve this he cunningly uses magic to make Odile appear as Odette. His only mistake is to give the baddy a black swan cossy and the goody a white swan cossy, just so the audience can see what is going on.

Here Prince Siegfried is exploring his own consciousness, which consists of his feminine Self, as well as the male. Since men usually have this repressed (darkened- black) in themselves, their inner journey is to bring light their own femininity. The black turns to white, good triumphs over evil ( in moral terms ) and the prince becomes a King.

In the final act the prince expresses his love for Odette and she forgives him for making what was a simple mistake. He has had to learn discrimination and wisdom to show his Kingly understanding of truth. The evil Von Rothbart and imposter Odile are returned to their true bird like (or reptilian ) forms representing the humans who live their lives on automatic pilot.

By returning to the lake and expressing his love for Odette, Siegfried pops the spell like a balloon. They both jump into the lake (something the less inspired may have been waiting for since the interval) and from their ascend into heaven. This represents the process of human spiritual evolution as attributed to great prophets but is accessible even to humble folks like us. At the point of ‘individuation’ or becoming a complete human being, the physical world (the lake) is no longer needed as a learning environment for the soul.

Well, there is my cranky interpretation of a wonderful story. Should something like this be in the programme? Do we really need to know about hidden meanings? Certainly not. These stories were developed and retold because they illumine the human mind without interpretation, just in the telling. In our modern times, thousands of people sit through what is on the face of things a load of nonsense (a fairy story) and go away thinking they know a lot better than the people of the past who used to believe that sort of thing. But they (and particularly children whose minds are more open to symbolism) will have been enchanted  by the whole thing.

That makes them members of the flock of enchanted swans swimming in circles on the lake of life. But fret ye not. Someday your prince will come and take you away, because that is what princes do.

 

Here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into,

Poor Oliver Hardy was curiously loyal to Stan Laurel given the chaos of their on-screen lives which Olly blamed entirely on Stan.

So you might add the same epithet to UK politics. As much as I dislike being ‘wise after the event’ I will indulge in this somewhat, because I said it before the event.

Firstly, you don’t agree to something before you know what it is you are agreeing to. There is an Aesop Fable about this human weakness where a pig is purchased whilst it is still hidden in a bag.

Any vote on whether to stay in or leave the European Union should have included the previously negotiated terms of such a deal. It’s like putting a label on the box.

Because this did not take place, the two sides were able to invent what would and what would not happen after Brexit. So whatever result the general populace wanted, such as uncontrolled immigration, could be promised to be solved by Brexit. The Home Office have had eight years to control immigration and only now are proposing a strategy to control it. And the fact all along, was that four out of five immigrants to the UK are not from the European Union.

Thirdly, there was the problem of the Northern Ireland border with Eire. The older politicians in the house of Commons will have lived through the so called ‘troubles’. They might have warned the younger inexperienced politicians that any attempt to replace border controls would be social and political suicide for Northern Ireland. Because of this alone, the referendum should have never been promised, until a solution to Ireland was obvious. This would have included the option of uniting Ireland. This is not an impossible outcome in the future now that the south is becoming more liberal and the majority in the north want to remain in Europe.

So what happened? How did politicians ignore the false promises, agree to something without knowing what was being proposed and before solving the Irish land border’s vulnerability?

Could it have been that the conservative party had a problem within itself that it needed to confront or face losing power? It has been the case for decades that European sceptics within the party were at odds constantly with those who believed the UK is more prosperous within Europe?

Is this in-fighting really the tail that was wagging the dog?

You would like to think that politicians act in the interest of the Nation first and their own party’s second. That is what they tell us but it is conceivable that this has not been so. Brexit was called by Cameron to force a direction, one way or the other. Confirmation of this is that the rules of the referendum permitted an infinitely narrow margin in the result. The rules did not require a sixty percent or two thirds majority, as they could have done.

Someone decided that the voting should be; whoever gets over fifty percent wins. That decision anticipated that there was no consensus within the party and to force change, a majority of one vote over millions, would be deemed representative of the people and logically no one could disagree.

In my view British politics has been brought to an all time low by the current set of politicians on both sides of the house. The only MP I have heard talk sense is Caroline Lucas – the Green Party MP. ‘Good on yer, Caroline’. Don’t forget that the voice of one person can decide the future of a nation, at least in the current nonsensical version of so called democracy.

Whoever can point out the elephant in the room and stop the nation accepting a ‘no deal’ will be a hero.

(acknowledging the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band who used the same title)

A news team is set up in the front garden of the Prime Minister’s private home; a mid-terraced house in Richmond.

Well Prime Minister, this is a surprise. I don’t think any of us were expecting a garden party quite so soon, if at all!

Ye of little faith…

Well, you hadn’t really involved any of us in what you were thinking or negotiating or if you were drilling for details…

I don’t give away my plans…

Not even amongst friends?

I called a general election and I told the cabinet what I had decided at Chequers but both turned out to be a mistakes. I should have remained silent.

Like a stealth submarine?

Yes, exactly like that.

But can’t you see how worrying that can be? Would you like a vol-au-vent?

I gave plenty of reassurance to the British public and industry. I seem to remember saying ad museum, ‘I am getting a ‘good deal’ for Britain.’

Bit of a slip of the tongue that…

I’ll have a salmon one thanks. What slip of the tongue?

Well didn’t you mean the United Kingdom?

Pedantry will do no favours in your journalistic career young lady. I have the DUCK party, or whatever they are called, on my side. With them I have a complete majority.

(faces camera) Well, talking of sides, I guess we are all here today to admire the work you have done on your shared rainwater downpipe.

Yes, I have painted it pink.

Yes, but only one half.

…because pink is an optimistic colour and symbolises a rosy future for Britain and her allies in this war.

War?

Sorry, wrong auto-cue. I mean just Britain…that is…the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. Is that right?

So from your point of view standing here in your front garden, you can see just a pink downpipe?

Correct. Have you finished your questions now, because I prefer talking with someone who doesn’t ask questions?

I was going to ask Prime Minister, why you didn’t also paint the other half of the downpipe. It’s a kind of…grey.

I can’t see that. I honestly only want to get the best downpipe and that is what I sincerely believe I have achieved. I can’t understand why anyone should think differently.

Well I have spoke with Mr Singh, your neighbour, and he tells me he doesn’t like your pink colour and he wishes you had never decided to paint it.

Mr Singh? So that’s his name. I always wondered. No, in answer to his views, I don’t think he is in a position to say what I should and shouldn’t do with my half of the drainpipe. He can’t see from his front garden what I can see from my front garden.

Did you try to negotiate?

I offered to paint it all pink but he refused.

Did you offer to do nothing?

I asked all the May family about this and they voted to paint the blessed thing. I voted not to paint it but I have to go with the majority.

Even though you gave the cat the casting vote?

Animals have feelings…

So on a whim you have chosen to change a situation that was working perfectly into one where there is division and uncertainty.

Yes, because the alternative is unthinkable?

The alternative of doing nothing and keeping it as it was?

No, no…that is far too risky. I mean the alternative is to remove the downpipe and allow all kind of damage to not only my house, but this Mr. Singh’s house. I think that is a bad outcome for both houses.

Could you not have just left it alone?

I have ruled out asking the family again. I have ruled out a lot of things. This is what the cat voted for and in a democracy, ‘ the winner takes it all’. Ooh! I feel like dancing all of a sudden?

Do you think you have much longer as prime minister?

Of course I do. Who else is going to run my house? I like to form an idea and carry it through to the end. Whether it works or not I should get a Peerage for being strong. That is why I shall continue to say I like my pink half of the drain pipe. Pink is not only a good happy colour but it’s a nice colour and I am going to keep it, whatever other people say.

And if one takes a few paces this way….to the boundary between the two houses, you can see that it really does look quite ridiculous from here. Can you see there is another view point…?

Yes, I wonder?

So can see the problem how other’s see it?

No, no, young lady, I wonder if I chose the right shade of pink? In this light it looks a bit, Salmon.

Who is in Charge?

When it comes to trying to work out the rules of life, you might expect religions to help. But I have just given up on reading a book (called Home Deus by Yuval Noah Harari) in which the author dismisses religions on the grounds that they teach fatalism.

It is true that many adherents to various religions believe in ‘Divine Judgment’ or ‘the will of God’. You know which religions I refer to.

And yet I would argue that this belief is due to, at best a neglectful misunderstanding of scripture and, at worst a willful misunderstanding of scripture. Because, if you are the type of person who likes to sit on the sidelines and watch the football match rather than play football, this is a view that fits your attitude to life. The car will not start in the morning as you leave for work, because ‘God has willed it’, not because you neglect your car. Or on a larger scale, the sea opens and the Israelite s escape the Egyptian army, because God has the power of miracles.

To me, this view of life denies one’s own power and responsibility. It has given permission for the ‘blame culture’ of today.

This ‘blame culture’ view, also means that an individual does not have to take responsibility for their actions. At it most extreme manifestation it gives permission for the horror committed by terrorists in the name of God. Even disciplined armies fight wars with ‘God on our side’. The fact that both sides claim this right is a contradiction ignored, perhaps because it would make war and sacrifice a nonsense, such as in the first World War.

I have to wonder what are the priests and those who preach within religions thinking? Perhaps two hundred years ago the ‘fire and brimstone’ and ‘you will go to hell’ threats were of a time when understanding in the sciences, arts and humanities, was not as sophisticated as today. Which implies that the ‘you don’t have to take responsibility because God is in charge’, philosophy is still preached. Even when people ask why good people are murdered or run over by a bus, (how could a benign God have allowed this to happen?) the priests reply is an empty echo of  the dogma they learned in the seminary.

In between the philosophical positions of ‘the will of God’ and ‘the freewill of man’ is a belief in ‘fate’.

I once asked a work colleague, whose daughter was born severely disabled and whose plight was the centre of a charity, how he handled such a situation. His reply was two words; ‘shit happens’. Whether this referred to his daughter or to his family life or both was unclear but what was clear was a ‘fatalistic’ view.

In this philosophy, no person or external power is to blame for anything. It’s a way of life explored by the dice man in the novel of the same name. The dice man sets out to make all his important decisions by throwing a die. Whatever the result, good or bad, moral or immoral, he did it. But fatalists walk with the same crutches as those who attribute causes and consequences to Divine influence. The crutches of ‘nothing to do with me.’

The more realistic answer, in my view, is the opposite. Everything that happens is ‘to do with me’. We have been given free will and as a result are in charge and fully responsible for our actions. I believe this because I am able and willing to take responsibility for my actions and able to learn from my mistakes. In my view this is the only way (and the gift to humanity) to learn and eliminate the karma with which we are born.

In this way my thinking is different from those religions that preach of a hell awaiting sinners. I think we are already in hell because that is what the world is to many, even or especially today. Heaven is not a place for eternal retirement playing x to the power n rounds of golf. Heaven is here on earth in every moment of time, when we use our freewill to see it.

Free will is a wonderful gift when used wisely. In it’s most powerful manifestation it gives human beings the power of miracles. Jim cured himself of cancer and Joy refused to get on the plane that would later crash. These are not people being crushed by a vengeful God or an indifferent fate; they are the autonomous creations of God.

Everything is up for negotiation in life, even when and how we are going to die. That is how the Zen Masters of the past have predicted the exact time and day of their death and written to their pupils informing them.

Time to get a grip.