Bad hair week

Boris Johnson won the Conservative leadership by posing as the candidate who could deliver Brexit and win an election.

He did not reveal, however, that he was calculating to purge the party of dissenters, despising its pluralist history, reinventing it as something anti-conservative and risking its destruction in the process.

In a few disastrous days he has engineered the loss of the Tories’ majority in the Commons and surrendered control of the legislative agenda to opposition MPs.

His discomfort in parliament on Wednesday this week was palpable, although he tried to mask it with the usual repertoire of excruciating bluster and childish gesticulation.

He used four-letter words and transgressed Parliamentary protocols and then, in one awkward peroration, declared: “Britain needs sensible, moderate, progressive Conservative government.”

Even by Johnson’s questionable standards it was a moment of exquisite hypocrisy, identifying precisely the Conservative tradition that his agenda and methods seem certain to extinguish.

It seems there is a new acceptance amongst those in high political office - including Johnson and his raft of ideologically focused MPs - that bare-faced lying is okay if it supports your political ideology or personal ambitions.

The sight of Jacob Rees-Mogg Esquire, leader of the house, prostrating himself on the benches was not helpful either, signalling utter contempt to Parliament, the country and Her Majesty the Queen. By design or otherwise it was symbolic in every way.

In all this, the media are absolutely gagging for an election - you can hear the orgasmic 'bring it on' ecstasy in the voices of specialist political commentators, as objective analysis is thrown to the wind.

The main opposition parties led by Jeremy Corbyn and Joe Swinson are right to be suspect of the motives of Johnson and his creepy entourage in trying to engineer an election date before the end of October.

Rightly, it is now the opposition who should be setting the agenda and they need to hold their nerve in the face of unfounded rants and claims from Johnson.

The Prime Minister should stew in his own entrapment for a few more weeks. Let him wallow in his messy, minority government before scuttling off to Brussels to ask for an extension.

Alternatively, he could be brave and put everyone out their misery by revoking Article 50. Either way, an election can wait... for now.

Firm pulls plans to build on woodland

A footpath through Werry's Spinney.                                           Clive Simpson

A Bourne-based agricultural firm has this week withdrawn its plans to sell off woodland for self-build homes at the heart of the town’s Elsea Park estate.

An application lodged with South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) in May by Wherry & Sons Ltd for the construction of 10 self-build homes attracted a raft of local opposition.

SKDC received more than 300 objections from residents and organisations concerned about the effects on wildlife and local amenity in an area known as Wherry's Spinney.

This week (Monday, 22 July) the company issued a statement saying it had withdrawn its plans but declined to comment further on what the future of the Spinney might be.

Now people living on the estate have urged the firm to re-think its plans for the woodland which bisects a central section of Elsea Park and is designated in the council's local plan to 2036 as a site of 'Nature Conservation Interest'.

Local residents have asked Wherry & Sons to consider offering ownership or management of the Spinney to a local community trust or wildlife association.

"In this way it could be protected and managed for future generations," said Sam Doughty, a resident who helped spear-head a campaign against the development.

"This would be a lovely philanthropic gesture to the people of Elsea Park and Bourne," she added.

Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust was among those organisations which submitted objections to the development.

According to Mark Schofield,  the Trust's conservation officer, the Spinney constitutes "local distinctiveness and a sense of place".

"A self-build development would negatively affect the character and alter the access to woodland within the town," he said.

Mr Schofield added: "There are lots of examples of green spaces managed by the local community and this could be a great option for the site."

Ayla Smith, a resident who has walked her dog in the woodland for more than 30 years, told the Stamford Mercury that the Spinney is a haven for wildlife.

"This is an important wildlife corridor through the estate linking up surrounding SSIs (Sites of Scientific Interest) with Bourne's Well Head Park and the meadows," she said.

Last week SKDC placed an emergency Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on the entire Spinney for six months and said it was likely a permanent order would be confirmed.

Entrance to Wherry's Spinney.                                                    Clive Simpson

Plans for its part-sale and development were drawn up and submitted on behalf of Wherry & Sons by architect and building designer John Dickie, of John Dickie Associates, also based in Bourne.

 "At present the Spinney is 'unmanaged' and in need of a significant amount of work to bring it into a good usable condition - the proposals seek to provide a remedy for this," he stated.

James Wherry, a director and main shareholder of the Bourne-based agricultural firm, said: "We are an international trading company dealing in dry pulses - we are not land speculators or developers.

"This piece of land has been a 'dead asset' on our books for many years and if we can realise an asset gain for our shareholders we are obliged to try to do this."

In 2018 the company had a turnover of £17.4 million, an increase of almost £2 million on the previous year. It has around 16 employees and its listed assets are valued at over £6 million.

The land now known as Wherry's Spinney was originally purchased from British Rail by the company's founder Alderman William Wherry shortly after the town's railway line was closed.

The family business has a long association with Bourne dating back to the mid-1800 when Edward Wherry, the proprietor of Edenham village store, first purchased premises in North Street, Bourne.

His relative William Wherry is credited in the late 1800s as being among the first in the country to recognise the need in the food processing industry for a complete dried pea trading operation.

Article as written and submitted to Stamford Mercury by Clive Simpson on 22 July 2019.

Beware the wolf of Brexit

When I interviewed Secret Millionaire Mike Greene five years ago for a local business magazine article he vowed he would never become involved in politics.

He came into the public spotlight after appearing on the Channel 4 reality TV show and now the former Conservative party supporter is standing in this week’s Peterborough by-election for the insurgent Brexit Party.

How things have changed for the international business entrepreneur and angel investor, director of companies, trade associations, charities, marketing and retail organisations.

And how, one wonders, given his business and charity commitments will he find time to be an effective MP, should he be elected?

“My view of politics is that it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government will still get in,” he quipped as we chatted across a large farmhouse table at his family home north of Peterborough in the heart of the South Lincolnshire Fens.

His background and outspoken comments - recorded in my interview in 2014 but not used in the magazine article - make it all the more surprising that he is standing as an MP for any political party, let alone one without a declared manifesto.

“The reality is they're all as bad as each other - they promise stuff that they don't deliver on, they all become a bit flim-flam,” he said. [Not quite sure what "flim-flam" means but think it's definitely a negative]

“I don't get involved in politics partly because I find it really, really hard to respect the moral compass and consistency of the people in charge.
   
“I've worked enough with analysis to know that I could make numbers mean almost anything. But there's a point at which the facts just aren't relevant to a lot of people.

“I think we're in a very weak political world and I don't really believe that any of the parties do what the individuals in the party really believe.

“They're playing games. It's like monopoly and they're playing with people and they're not connecting to it.

“So I have very strong political beliefs but I try to stay out of it. Quite frankly I don't think I could ever be a good politician because I can't tow a party line.”

This Thursday’s by-election in Peterborough is set to be one of the most intriguing in recent memory. In the 2017 general election, the constituency saw a knife-edge duel between Labour and the Conservatives. In last month’s European poll, 38 percent of those who voted in the city backed the Brexit party.

Of course the voter turnout will be much larger in a high-profile by-election and, whilst both Labour and the Conservatives look set for a well-deserved trouncing, the Liberal Democrats may yet prove that there is hope for politics and our country.

The Liberal Democrat candidate for Peterborough is Beki Sellick, who lives in the city centre with her family not far from her daughter’s state school.

“I must call out Brexit for what it is,” says the local business owner and sustainability engineer.

“This time we must move on from our usual political colours and vote with our hearts, to embrace the strongest Remain candidate.
      
“However pleasantly Mike Greene and the Brexit Party present themselves, look beneath the chatty veneer and strip-off their smooth new suits and underneath is the wolf of Nigel Farage - dividing, demeaning and demonising," adds Beki.

Peterborough is my closest city - a place where I have worked, shopped, worshiped from and commuted to and from over many years. And if I lived there now my vote would definitely be in the Liberal Democrat box on Thursday.

Not only the has the city of Peterborough been warned but so has the country. We continue to tread and support the Brexit path - and the Brexit Party in particular - at our peril.

A life worth living

Occasionally in the rich tapestry of life we share together on planet Earth someone or something comes along to make a difference. One such person is the Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, who spoke eloquently and with conviction to the UK Parliament this week. Her urgent words on climate breakdown were fresh, sharp and precise - a prophetic call to action that we continue to ignore at our future peril. Regular readers of So Said the Lighthouse Keeper will know her concerns have a deep resonance with the writer and so they are reproduced here in full. Please read on - it is time to reflect, consider and act.

"My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 16 years old. I come from Sweden. And I speak on behalf of future generations.

I know many of you don’t want to listen to us – you say we are just children. But we’re only repeating the message of the united climate science.

Many of you appear concerned that we are wasting valuable lesson time, but I assure you we will go back to school the moment you start listening to science and give us a future. Is that really too much to ask?

In the year 2030 I will be 26 years old. My little sister Beata will be 23. Just like many of your own children or grandchildren. That is a great age, we have been told. When you have all of your life ahead of you. But I am not so sure it will be that great for us.

I was fortunate to be born in a time and place where everyone told us to dream big; I could become whatever I wanted to. I could live wherever I wanted to. People like me had everything we needed and more. Things our grandparents could not even dream of. We had everything we could ever wish for and yet now we may have nothing.

Now we probably don’t even have a future any more.

Because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit, and that you only live once.

You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard.

Is my microphone on? Can you hear me?

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it. That is unless in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of CO2 emissions by at least 50 percent.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale, inventions that are supposed to clear the atmosphere of astronomical amounts of carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, these calculations do not include unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas escaping from rapidly thawing arctic permafrost.

Nor do these scientific calculations include already locked-in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity – or climate justice – clearly stated throughout the Paris agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale.

We must also bear in mind that these are just calculations. Estimations. That means that these “points of no return” may occur a bit sooner or later than 2030. No one can know for sure. We can, however, be certain that they will occur approximately in these timeframes, because these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.

These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC. Nearly every single major national scientific body around the world unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC.

Did you hear what I just said? Is my English OK? Is the microphone on? Because I’m beginning to wonder.

During the last six months I have travelled around Europe for hundreds of hours in trains, electric cars and buses, repeating these life-changing words over and over again. But no one seems to be talking about it, and nothing has changed. In fact, the emissions are still rising.

When I have been travelling around to speak in different countries, I am always offered help to write about the specific climate policies in specific countries. But that is not really necessary. Because the basic problem is the same everywhere. And the basic problem is that basically nothing is being done to halt – or even slow – climate and ecological breakdown, despite all the beautiful words and promises.

The UK is, however, very special. Not only for its mind-blowing historical carbon debt, but also for its current, very creative, carbon accounting.

Since 1990 the UK has achieved a 37 percent reduction of its territorial CO2 emissions, according to the Global Carbon Project. And that does sound very impressive. But these numbers do not include emissions from aviation, shipping and those associated with imports and exports. If these numbers are included the reduction is around 10% since 1990 – or an an average of 0.4 percent a year, according to Tyndall Manchester.

And the main reason for this reduction is not a consequence of climate policies, but rather a 2001 EU directive on air quality that essentially forced the UK to close down its very old and extremely dirty coal power plants and replace them with less dirty gas power stations. And switching from one disastrous energy source to a slightly less disastrous one will of course result in a lowering of emissions.

But perhaps the most dangerous misconception about the climate crisis is that we have to “lower” our emissions. Because that is far from enough. Our emissions have to stop if we are to stay below 1.5-2C of warming. The “lowering of emissions” is of course necessary but it is only the beginning of a fast process that must lead to a stop within a couple of decades, or less. And by “stop” I mean net zero – and then quickly on to negative figures. That rules out most of today’s politics.

The fact that we are speaking of “lowering” instead of “stopping” emissions is perhaps the greatest force behind the continuing business as usual. The UK’s active current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels – for example, the UK shale gas fracking industry, the expansion of its North Sea oil and gas fields, the expansion of airports as well as the planning permission for a brand new coal mine – is beyond absurd.

This ongoing irresponsible behaviour will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind.

People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at.

Every time we make a decision we should ask ourselves; how will this decision affect that curve? We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth, but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases. We should no longer only ask: “Have we got enough money to go through with this?” but also: “Have we got enough of the carbon budget to spare to go through with this?” That should and must become the centre of our new currency.

Many people say that we don’t have any solutions to the climate crisis. And they are right. Because how could we? How do you “solve” the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced? How do you “solve” a war? How do you “solve” going to the moon for the first time? How do you “solve” inventing new inventions?

The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth.

“So, exactly how do we solve that?” you ask us – the schoolchildren striking for the climate.

And we say: “No one knows for sure. But we have to stop burning fossil fuels and restore nature and many other things that we may not have quite figured out yet.”

Then you say: “That’s not an answer!”

So we say: “We have to start treating the crisis like a crisis – and act even if we don’t have all the solutions.”

“That’s still not an answer,” you say.

Then we start talking about circular economy and rewilding nature and the need for a just transition. Then you don’t understand what we are talking about.

We say that all those solutions needed are not known to anyone and therefore we must unite behind the science and find them together along the way. But you do not listen to that. Because those answers are for solving a crisis that most of you don’t even fully understand. Or don’t want to understand.

You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.

Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.

Sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfil something, we can do anything. And I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable: we can still fix this. But the opportunity to do so will not last for long. We must start today. We have no more excuses.

We children are not sacrificing our education and our childhood for you to tell us what you consider is politically possible in the society that you have created. We have not taken to the streets for you to take selfies with us, and tell us that you really admire what we do.

We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

I hope my microphone was on. I hope you could all hear me."

In space as it is on Earth

Image: James Vaughan

IN ITS relatively short, six-decade history space exploration and its commercial applications have come to be perceived as cutting-edge, inspirational and a hugely beneficial pursuit for humankind in general.

But one of the biggest challenges faced today by the global space community and its new frontier entrepreneurs is arguably one of the least glamorous. How to deal with the increasing volume of space junk and debris orbiting Earth?

The dangers stacking up in Earth orbit are largely the result of the old “use it and throw it
away” mentality prevalent throughout the early decades of space exploration, although certainly not unique to the Space Age.

Take a look at the detritus created by a modern, technologically literate human society right across our 21st century planet and you will see that such a throwaway culture seems firmly embedded in the human psyche.

But given our ever-growing reliance on orbiting technology, ensuring the lifetime safety of flight for satellites and future astronauts is now more important than ever because, if left unchecked, the dangers posed by space debris will rise exponentially.

A cascading debris event - the spontaneous timing of which is wholly unpredictable by its nature - could have a devastating effect on the space infrastructure we have come to rely on so much.

Even as we transition from ‘old space’ to ‘NewSpace’ the preponderance of space debris shows little sign of abating. Despite some welcome initiatives, practical answers are still largely in their infancy.

So, if we want to maintain a rapidly evolving space programme that is both everyday and frontier, dealing with a problem of this magnitude can no longer be just an altruistic, desirable goal to be addressed “at some point in the future”. Space is too valuable for that.

Time is short but if we establish and adhere to basic guidelines, solutions are just about achievable. The space debris problem needs a two-pronged approach - cleaning up the junk we’ve already created and establishing international agreements to prevent it getting worse.

Our technological and commercial futures are at stake and the onus is on the whole space community to ensure the mess we’ve created on Earth isn’t replicated in orbit around our planet. Ultimately, safety in space is key for all operators and so far remedial actions are not being agreed or put in place anything like as quickly as they should be.

If it can’t be re-entered at the end of its useful life the ultimate goal for anything that goes into Earth orbit is to “retain, re-use and recycle”. But, of course, it is so often a question of commercial priorities - and looking after one’s own space junk doesn’t really pay.

The special series of articles on the following pages in this issue of ROOM is a welcome addition to the space debris debate. Each article addresses a different aspect and together they highlight the problems, challenges and some of the potential solutions.

Just as it is on Earth, now it is in space. And when it comes to anthropogenic space debris the question has to be asked: are we doing too little too late?

Foreword from the Spring 2019 edition of ROOM - The Space Journal

Time to revoke Article 50

Early morning Abu Dhabi.

I've been out of the country this week, not in Europe for a change but in Abu Dhabi for a global space conference. There are plenty of Brits around and, let me assure you, the view from here of our country in crisis due to a demented prime minister is no better.

I watched her rant yesterday, dressed up as a speech, courtesy of a Sky News feed in my hotel room TV. Has anyone ever learned anything from a speech by Theresa May? I think not. Sinister, dangerous and almost entirely counterproductive is how I would describe her latest effort.

MPs - whose votes she still needs - woke up today  angrier than ever at being blamed for the failings of this reckless, deluded PM who, unforgivably, has whipped up fury against parliament and is putting party before country yet again.

The core politics of May's public statement, ‘I, the Leader, defend my people against a rotten parliament' are divisive and sinister.

Despite her protestations to the contrary, the impasse in parliament is actually all of the prime minister’s own making. She never reached out to the 48 percent, or to other parties to create a Brexit compromise. And she set down red lines from the outset on which she has proved stubbornly intransigent.

During last night’s brief appearance couched as a ‘statement to the people’ we probably saw Theresa May at her worst. An authoritarian with no authority, trying to stir up the malcontents in the country - and to what end?

She is rightly being called a genuinely ‘bad person’ (in Trumpesque-speak) for that performance, and the most divisive leader imaginable in terrible circumstances. Her contempt for parliamentary democracy and crass populism apparently knows no bounds. It is profoundly anti-democratic to blame parliament for her mistakes and incompetence.

No surprise, therefore, that people across the rest of Europe, and in the wider world from where I view this sorry state of affairs, are beginning to look at the UK as a failed state.

To avoid catastrophic implosion as a nation we are sadly now left with few realistic possibilities or options. The most pragmatic being to revoke Article 50, grow up and put this whole sorry episode behind us.

Sign petition: Revoke Article 50

Brexit's climate of change

Photo: Clive Simpson

SO FAR this year our natural world has delivered any number of examples of what future anthropogenic climate change might bring - and even now, in late September, we have recently witnessed two record-breaking hurricanes wreaking havoc on different sides of the globe.
                                   
Extremes are the story of our weather reporting and forecasting these days, yet mainstream media hardly dares make the connection that we are living through the first, potentially deadly consequences of climate change.

Global warming knocks urgently at everyone’s door but in the UK we look inward, consumed by a delusion born of self-interest. This is Brexit - and the UK’s impending annexation from Europe is the political equivalent of climate change.

To mention both climate change and Brexit in the same sentence is an interesting dichotomy in itself because it is rare to draw comparisons between such disparate things as political ideologies and what might loosely be described as a ‘force of nature’. One could argue, of course, that each is a self-inflicted catastrophe that is wholly, or at least partly, avoidable.

Another singular conclusion relating to each also encapsulates the point. Namely, it seems likely that the end results of both are going to be far worse than anyone is properly admitting, and the effects unless we change course - globally in the case of climate change - will be felt not for just a few years but for generations.

For the UK, Brexit is a fundamentally flawed exercise. It was never really about what was good for the country but what served the self-interests of vocal and fanatical political factions. At every turn, it seeks, without reason or rational argument, to undermine the values on which this country was built.

“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,” cried King Solomon at the beginning of the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. History teaches us that it is vanity and individualism, as opposed to pursuing the greater or common good, that has mostly brought great countries to their knees and destroyed mighty civilisations.

We now know there was never to be a tangible Brexit dividend, and every day it seems clearer the country is being held ransom, not by scapegoat immigrants or even sound political thinking but by lies and untruths disguised as vacuous phrases and innocuous sound bites.

"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree," wrote Lewis Carrol in Alice in Wonderland. “Which road do I take?” she asked. “Where do you want to go?” was his response. “I don't know,” Alice answered. “Then,” said the cat, “it doesn't matter.”

But it does matter because without any kind of realistic, future-looking vision ‘the people perish’, to paraphrase a quotation from the book of Proverbs (29:18). 

The northern hemisphere heat extremes of summer 2018 maybe have already been largely forgotten as we go about our everyday business. We continue to ignore the big picture of climate change at our future peril. Likewise with Brexit.

Ultimately there is no third way and, despite the protestations of a prime minister and leader of the opposition both in dogmatic denial, the choice is simple - a hard, chaotic Brexit or remain a member of the EU.

Two years on from that awkward, ill-defined referendum we still wander indecisively, a country lost and disorientated in some crazy political paralysis. We do still have choices but time is running short.

As a people, a country, we can hold up the torch of enlightenment and hope - just as we once did. Or we can cower in the shadows, weakened by ignorance and fear, and retreat alone into the dark of night.

Over two long years, Theresa May and her government’s repeated attempts at 'negotiations' have utterly failed the nation. Her bid to offload responsibility to the EU is truly embarrassing, a vain effort to shift the blame for laying waste a country she purports to love.

Often in times of impasse, difficulty or strife we turn to literature for solace, advice or even prophetic wisdom. Maybe also to discover words of honesty and hope that politicians, so bound by their short-term profanity, are afraid to utter.

The great American poet Robert Frost might therefore be relied upon in this instance to sum things up nicely. My appropriately amended (with apologies) version of his poem ‘Fire and Ice’ somehow strikes a new resonance, covering as it does both natural and political boundaries in a few short lines:

“Some say our world will end in fire, some say ice. But from what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favour fire.

“But if I had to perish twice I think I know enough of hate to say that for destruction ‘Brexit’ is also great and will surely suffice."