Manners maketh the man

A quarter of a century ago I had the privilege of representing a small part of what is now North East Lincolnshire on what was then Humberside County Council. The council was split down the middle with the Conservatives having just one more member than had Labour. This meant that we four Liberal members had a lot of power for it gave us the casting vote on every decision the council took.

About half way through our four year term of office a former member of the British Intelligence Service published a memoir containing a great deal of information that was in breach of the British official secrets act. The book – Spycatcher – was published in Australia and its sale in the UK was banned as was publication of extracts in any British newspaper. It became a cause celebre, seen by some as another example of an unpopular government’s contempt for the people.

Behaviour unworthy of men with power

A fellow member of our group obtained a copy and all four of us made an ostentatious display of passing the book between us and commenting on it during a debate in the council chamber. We saw this as an act of bravado, demonstrating our contempt for censorship and of the acts of governments of both other parties over a number of years that were exposed in the book. Looking back it seems a rather adolescent thing to have done: certainly not worthy of mature men – half of us over 45 – entrusted with the power to make decisions affecting the lives of over 800,000 citizens.

On Saturday last, 22^nd September 2012, the Irish Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, was observed apparently indulging in similar behaviour. As a member of a delegation from the Christian Democrat International political grouping he was attending an audience with the Pope. An Italian website has posted one minute and twenty seconds of footage showing him fiddling with his cell phone and failing to notice when everyone else stood to applaud.

Justified anger about clerical abuse

Mr. Kenny has made no secret of his anger at the Church’s response to decades of clerical abuse in Ireland and elsewhere. That anger is shared by many Irish people but Ireland remains a largely devout catholic country in which the Church plays an important part in people’s lives. Many still attend Mass daily; visits to sacred places such as Medugorje, Knock and Lourdes as well as Rome are undertaken by large numbers of Irish citizens.

Mr. Kenny has been granted the honour of representing these people on the world stage and it was in that capacity that he was present in Rome on Saturday. To date we have no way of knowing whether his behaviour was, like my own described above, a deliberate act of contempt or just the kind of ill-mannered inattention that the former primary school teacher would surely never tolerate in the classroom.

Phone etiquette

If the former then, like me, he was guilty of a childish act unworthy of a national leader. It would have been better, surely, to have declined the invitation. If the latter it was nothing less than sheer bad manners. It may be difficult to imagine the Pope reacting like Richard Griffiths to such behaviour but nor is it easy to believe that the Toiseach is unaware of basic etiquette.

No need to apologise or resign for speaking the truth

Big’ot, n.  One who holds irrespective of reason, & attaches disproportionate weight to, some creed or view. Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1950.

My dictionary may, like me, be a little on the decrepit side of old but I would contend that the definition above accurately describes someone who opposes gay marriage. So why is Nick Clegg afraid to use it? The fact that he – or, more accurately, “someone in his office” – considered doing so apparently offended some Tory back-benchers.

I haveblogged about this subject previously, prompted by a series of news items. Once again the Nick Clegg story coincides with remarks by an Irish judge that have resulted in calls for that person to resign. Those making the call believe that Irish Travellers will be unable to receive a fair trial from this judge because he remarked that some people from the defendant's ethnic background were like “Neanderthal men abiding by the 'laws of the jungle'".

It would seem that the judge’s view is shared by a significant number of ordinary Irish citizens. In the town where I live there was held today a funeral mass for a Traveller lady. The wake last night was attended by a large contingent of her relatives – she is reputed to have 86 grand-children – and local publicans closed their bars for fear of the mayhem they expected to occur should large numbers of young Traveller men be granted admission.

A judge will have seen people of that ilk being brought before the courts for riotous behaviour and will base his comments on that experience. This does not mean that he will mete out punishment to Travellers that is in any way disproportionate to that meted out to non-Traveller perpetrators of similar crimes.

To return to the Nick Clegg story, my previous blog about free speech which included particular reference to the subject of gay marriage produced an interesting discussion via the Facebook message service with Will Faulkener who presents a dailycurrent affairs discussion programme on my local radio station. In the course of that discussion he described an interview with an openly gay woman councillor who argued against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage not blessed with children is inferior.

I would contend that such a view fits precisely the definition of bigot quoted above. Are elderly people who marry, often to great media delight, in an “inferior” relationship on account of their inability to bear children? And what about those heterosexual married couples who either cannot, or choose not to, have children? Are they to be regarded as not properly married? Surely only by those who have little or no regard for reason.

Freedom to Speak, not to Hurt

• In the USA the boss of a fast food chain tells a religious broadcaster that he is opposed to gay marriage and the authorities in some districts threaten to ban his outlets from setting up in their town. The governor of the man’s home state declares Aug 1^st to be a day of solidarity with the fast food chain boss. (The net is full of reaction to this debate, I linked to a New York Times article believing it to be a more trustworthy source than some of the other publications that appeared when I Googled “Chic-fil-a”)
• In Ireland a judge calls Social Security “a Polish charity”. Later the judge apologises citing the “context” as her excuse.
• In South Africa the government takes steps to suppress news of atrocities committed by, mostly young, Blacks on their white neighbours.
• In a televised discussion in the UK a black Tory MP tells a black churchman that his intolerance of gay marriage is equivalent to others’ intolerance of black immigrants. (This was featured on BBC Newsnight 2nd August 2002, I am unable to provide a link)

What do these four stories – and no doubt there are others that I could have cited – tell us about the right to free speech and the treatment of minorities in the world today?

It was, I think, Voltaire who famously said “I disagree profoundly with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Or words to that effect). Freedom of speech, the right to express an opinion however bizarre, is one of those “inalienable rights” guaranteed by the US constitution though not necessarily so well protected by laws elsewhere.

Duties accompany rights

But along with rights come duties and it is the duty of all those exercising the right to voice their opinion in public to consider the effect of their words on those who might hear them. It is also, it seems to me, necessary for the speaker to be able to defend his or her remarks with rational argument citing evidence. When the Irish judge was unable to do that she was right to apologise, recognising that the remark was hurtful to many hard working Polish people in Ireland.

I would like to know the basis upon which those who oppose gay marriage hold such an irrational opinion. How are they, or anyone else, harmed by the availability of such a ceremony? The rational answer must be that neither they nor anyone else is harmed by gay marriage. On the other hand, to oppose the idea is hurtful to those who wish to publicly declare their love for each other before their god and in the presence of a congregation of co-religionists.

Does that mean it is right to seek to prevent a person holding such irrational beliefs from setting up a business in my town? No, of course it doesn’t. Should defending his/her right to express that opinion extend to having a day set aside in his/her honour? Not unless you want to draw attention to unfounded opinions that are hurtful to some of your fellow citizens.

Is opposition to gay marriage equivalent to racism? Is it a “hate crime”?

We have come a long way in my lifetime

Before I attempt to answer those questions it is worthwhile taking a short trip back in time. Not so long ago it was considered perfectly rational to make the assumption that black people are inferior to white people. In parts of the USA as well as in South Africa it was against the law for blacks and whites to mix socially, let alone marry each other. This was the case less than 30 years ago in South Africa and little more than 50 years ago in the USA.

Go back another 20 years, to the time of my birth, and you would have no trouble finding people who thought it perfectly rational to argue that the world’s problems could all be laid at the door of Jews and that the solution was … you know the rest.

Within the same time frame it was illegal in many parts of the world for two men to have sexual relations. Indeed, there are still parts of the world where this is the case.

These days we, in the developed world at least, consider ourselves to be more enlightened; we understand that behaviour that takes place in private between consenting adults harms no-one else and is, therefore, not to be frowned upon by the law. We understand and accept that people of all races are equally capable of being clever or stupid, saintly or evil.

Engage the brain before opening your mouth

So incitement to, or the actual infliction of, violence against people because of their skin colour or their sexuality is inexcusable and the right to freely express such a view is, I believe, correctly prevented by the laws of most civilised societies. The same goes for expressions of hate towards particular religions, including those whose influence on the governments of some nations is so strong that those governments outlaw the practice of homosexuality. In such cases it is right to condemn the government and to argue rationally against the outdated religious teachings that are cited by the leaders of those religions. But to incite violence or to make hate filled statements is unhelpful and ought to be against the law.

So, hold whatever opinion you like but please think carefully about the consequences – the effect on potential hearers – before expressing them in public. And don’t use beliefs that you can’t back with rational argument to try to change the law of your homeland.

Motherhood, Apple Pie and Some Food for Thought

I listened to the Chairman of Fine Gael which, as the largest party in the Irish Parliament, is the senior partner in the governing coalition, talking to Will Faulkner on Midlands Today this morning (18th May 2012). (The programme is re-broadcast at midnight BST tonight, that's 17:00 PDT). Charlie Flanagan also happens to be one of my local TDs (Members of Parliament; in the Irish electoral system each constituency has more than one representative). “Growth is like motherhood and apple pie,” he said, “everyone thinks it is a good thing.”

And I suppose he is not far wrong. Most people do think that growth is a good thing. But, as I argued in my previous post, there are many who disagree. I ended that piece with a promise to explore some of the ways in which it could be possible to provide for all our needs without destroying the planet in the process. But first I want to add some more food for thought for those, like Deputy Flanagan, who still need to be convinced.

I was thinking about the idea that water might be the next big source of conflict in certain parts of the world and it occurred to me that we in Northern Europe import significant quantities of fruit and other agricultural produce from such areas, notably the Mediterranean region. That produce is made up principally of water. So, whilst it is true that fruit juices are concentrated before being transported thousands of miles, it is also the case that a lot of fuel is used transferring water from a part of the world that can ill afford to lose it to one where it is relatively abundant.

Population decline is inevitable

I tried to find statistics for the quantities involved and was unable to do so. The closest I came to it was in a study carried out a few years ago by the UK conservation charity WWF. This looked into the whole question of the effect of British food imports on the planet’s most vulnerable environments. What is clear from my reading of this report is that the issue is far more complex than I had supposed. And, for me, the most startling fact to emerge was this: there is a vital resource that we all take for granted, far more so than we do water, that is disappearing at an alarming rate. That resource is soil!

Allow me to quote: world-wide, soils under agricultural management are eroding 10 to 100 times faster than they are being formed meaning that agriculture is unsustainable over relatively short historical time frames – 100 to 1,000 years. This simple constraint on the lifespan of agricultural soils explains reasonably well the pattern of the rise and decline of historical civilisations. … [worldwide we are losing] 5-10 million ha of arable land each year. Much of this soil is removed from agricultural land and ‘entombed’ in deposits that cannot be used for productive purposes. For the UK food economy, erosion of soils in the Mediterranean used for fruit and vegetable production is particularly significant.

Our diet is destroying the environment

The report also has a lot to say about the original question of water usage, generally confirming my suspicions. Here are some more quotations:

The Mediterranean Basin comprising the land draining into the Mediterranean Sea … includes some of the most intensively farmed land in the world such as the Rhone valley in France, the valley of the River Po in Italy, and the Nile Valley that supplies vegetables to the UK. It includes much of the Spanish fruit and vegetable production areas, and the Middle East, including Israel. The UK is a major and growing consumer of the relevant crops – vegetables, fruit, wine and olives.

Water is the key constraint to production ... Water demand in the Mediterranean countries doubled between 1950 and 2000, and irrigated agriculture accounts for 65% of water consumed (Nostrum 2006). The irrigated area doubled between 1960 and 2000 … with the biggest increases in absolute terms in Spain and Turkey. The food exporters to the UK are Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. Morocco is in more recent years the focus of significant investment in intensive agricultural production, including for the UK market. This has caused extensive and irreversible environmental degradation.

There is much more but the above should be enough to illustrate the problem. Although the report focuses on the UK’s food economy, Ireland’s pattern of consumption of similar produce is comparable to that of the UK’s, only lacking in significance by virtue of its relatively small size. In simple terms, we cannot carry on like this without further irreparable damage to the planet, notwithstanding the over-arching issue of climate change.

If Growth is the Answer ...

... you are probably asking the wrong question.

The political debate in Ireland, in the UK and, indeed, throughout the world is polarised between those who argue for so called austerity now - in order to stabilise budgets and support growth later - and those, mostly on the left, who argue that austerity is making things worse and we need growth now. No-one from the mainstream is prepared to face up to the possibility that growth has reached its limits; that maybe growth is the problem, not the solution.

There is however a growing number of people who argue not only that there are limits to growth but that we have reached them and that we need to find new definitions of prosperity that involve measuring the quality of life rather than material possessions. The idea has been around since at least the early 1970's. Those old enough will be able to remember the crisis in oil supply that occurred at that time. In Britain in 1973 and '74 the government introduced measures that included phased power cuts and businesses forced to operate for only three days each week. Some people began to wonder what would happen when the oil ran out altogether.

But new sources of supply were discovered and developed and the world fell back into its normal state of complacency. Governments continued to pursue growth as the means of ensuring ever increasing standards of living for their electors. Soon the developing nations began a game of catch-up which meant that their annual rate of growth was 2-3 times that of developed countries. In one of the books referred to in Tom Schueneman's piece, to which I provided a link above, its author points out that the price of crude oil peaked shortly before the economic crash of 2008. He suggests that the crash was as much a consequence of that spike in oil price as of the excessive borrowing that had accompanied it.

Four years on and growth is beginning to return in some of the advanced nations. And the oil price is once again increasing rapidly, the most visible evidence of this being the prices at the filling stations here in Ireland and in the UK. Meanwhile oil producers are developing increasingly costly and difficult ways of reclaiming the precious liquid from deep beneath the oceans, from shale and by fracking. Oil may be a long way still from running out but its price makes it economically viable to, as it were, scrape the bottom of the planet's barrel.

Oil is not the only problem

And it is not just the supply of oil that is reaching its limit. Demand for other important raw materials is, again as in the 1970s, ensuring that their prices too are increasing and new and more difficult sources of supply are being exploited, sometimes with potentially disastrous environmental consequences.

Perhaps the most worrying of all these pressures on resources is that on water supplies. We are fortunate here in Ireland to be blessed with an abundance of water. Some of it is arguably in the wrong place. There is anger in some quarters at plans to extract water from the Shannon and store it in a new reservoir in the Midlands to ensure security of supply for Dublin and its environs. That is a tiny scheme when considered alongside several gigantic water management schemes being undertaken in China.

There are those that believe that the wars that have plagued the Middle East throughout the half century of my adult life are bound to intensify in the future driven, not by a desire to control the oil supply so much as the need for access to the waters of the Jordan, Nile and Euphrates.

You will notice that, in identifying these dangers attaching to the continued pursuit of economic growth I have not mentioned climate change. The burning of fossil fuels that accompanies all our economic activity is changing our climate in ways the consequences of which are unpredictable. Droughts, storms and floods are part of it, so is the possibility of crop failure in parts of the world where food production is already on a knife edge.

Is there room for hope?

I argued in my second post of this series that austerity as experienced in Europe today would be viewed as luxury living by those who experienced the economic conditions that followed World War 2. Europe came out of that period with a programme of reconstruction that ensured two decades of near full employment.

Since the 1970s there have been varying levels of unemployment throughout the continent. It fell during the boom years, roughly 1997 to 2007, but even through that exceptional decade there remained a core of families for whom unemployment was the norm. Since 2008 unemployment has increased dramatically, at its worst in those places like Greece, Spain and Ireland, where the greatest debts accrued during those years. The fundamental question that needs to be faced is how to provide work for those millions without generating economic growth.

If all this sounds doom laden - and it is - I remain optimistic about the future, believing that humankind has the intelligence and the sense to adapt and respond to these unprecedented challenges. Sure, it will be painful for some, life is like that. But there are reasons to hope and I shall look at some of them in future posts.

 

Losing Friends to Cancer

Maggie was the first. I met her in February 1981. I was working for a UK company that manufactured synthetic fibres. There was at the time something called The Multi-Fibre Agreement, an international trade deal that restricted the ability of developing nations to export cheap fibres into Europe. It was due for renegotiation and employees of the company were naturally worried about the possible impact on their jobs. Several of us wrote to our MPs seeking support for a deal that would protect our company's position in international markets.

In a footnote to his reply the MP for Cleethorpes mentioned a meeting taking place to protest about the re-development of the old swimming pool as a modern leisure centre. I decided to go to the meeting and find out what it was all about. Although the Conservative MP had called the meeting none of the Conservative councillors bothered to attend. All 5 members of the minority Liberal Party group did attend. Their leader did his best to explain the thinking behind the scheme and to allay some of the concerns being expressed by those whose homes were close to the site of the planned development.

I had wanted to join the Liberal Party for some time and took the chance to button-hole one of the councillors after the meeting. A tall lady with dark hair and a friendly manner she introduced herself as Maggie Smith and invited me to join her and most of the others at the Liberal Club in the town. There I met her husband Brian and Norman, the leader of the group, who had so impressed me with the clarity of his explanations at the meeting.

Political Activity

Over the next ten years we all became close friends as well as party colleagues. Maggie acted as agent at the 1983 general election. As a member of her team I saw how hard she worked - I had already seen the extraordinary amount of effort she expended on behalf of the people she represented in a ward that consisted of a mixture of private and social housing. In 1987 our roles were reversed; I was agent, drawing heavily on her experience. By then I was also a Councillor at both County and District levels.

Throughout this period we socialised, usually at the Liberal Club where all of us also worked as volunteer bar persons as well as mucking in when the Club moved premises and a great deal of building alterations and decorating was required. We went on two or three holidays to Germany together where we were entertained by members of the FDP (German Liberals) in Cleethorpes' twin town of Konigswinter.

By 1991 changes in my career path necessitated a move away from Cleethorpes but we remained in touch. A large group, including Maggie, Brian, Norman and his wife, paid a surprise visit to our new home to celebrate my 50th birthday. It was not so long after that we had a phone call to say that Maggie was in hospital in Lincoln.

Cancer Took Them

We visited her there and were shocked to see her condition. Barely able to breathe, let alone speak, she kept apologising - for not being able to entertain us I suppose.  Within days she was gone and we were joining the hundreds who attended her funeral. It was there that Maggie's sister-in-law told us that Maggie had been in pain for many months but had refused to see her doctor, perhaps in fear of the diagnosis - who knows. By the time she did it was too late; the disease had taken hold and would not be denied.

If Maggie was the first friend to be taken by cancer she was not the first in our circle. Ann was barely in her thirties. The daughter of another of the Liberal Party circle in Cleethorpes she had already lost her father to the disease and her mother had, thankfully, recovered from breast cancer. Her husband was a teacher at my son's school but soon after we got to know them they moved to Norfolk. The form of breast cancer that attacked Ann must have been much more aggressive than that suffered by her mother for she died at a tragically young age.

A few years after Maggie's death we heard that Norman was undergoing treatment for bowel cancer. He recovered, or so we thought. The last time we saw him he was full of enthusiasm for the latest plans for development of a neglected part of the sea-front, something that he had been struggling to achieve for many years. Now, it seemed, there was hope that something positive was going to happen. He showed us the plans and explained how it would be a great boost to Cleethorpes' ability to attract visitors.

The remission did not last long enough for him to see the plans brought to fruition; he was dead within weeks of that last visit. I could go on with this list; Norman's sister, several family members who I won't name and ending with a lady from Portlaoise who I knew from her work with Tidy Towns and whose death a week ago prompted this reminiscence.

Support is Vital

I think I have said enough to make clear why I try to do what little I can for cancer charities. It is a horrible disease and, whilst survival rates are improving all the time, it seems that one in every two men and one in every three women will develop cancer at some point in their lives. The work of those who support patients and their families in places like the Cuisle Centre in Portlaoise as well as researchers developing new treatments is vital if premature and painful deaths like Maggie's are to be prevented in future.

The Myth of Fair Taxes

Opposition to taxes is universal. That statement looks like a truism - something so obvious that it does not need to be said. And yet there are exceptions. Few object to the things that our taxes pay for, unless it is the high salaries and expenses of those charged with the task of administering them. And lately in Ireland and in the UK there is plenty of clamour from those who see the solution to their own supposedly high taxes as the imposition of even higher taxes on others.

This is usually expressed as a move toward greater fairness. So, for example, many in Ireland would like to see the introduction of a third tier of income tax, taxing marginal income above, say, €150k at 50% instead of 41%. Meanwhile, in the UK, the run up to the 2012 budget saw a debate about whether the 50% rate already in force there should be reduced.

The other suggestion that is being made in certain quarters is the imposition of a "wealth tax"; a one off charge on the assets of the richest one or two percent of the population.

Whilst I can sympathise with the anger that lies behind such arguments I have serious doubts about the practical effects of such measures were they to be introduced.

50% Income Tax doesn't work

Consider, first, the 50% income tax band: those eligible to pay tax at that rate already have a marginal rate of 41% in Ireland. If they spend most of the remaining 59% they will pay 23% VAT on their purchases. With less to spend they will pay less in VAT so the €90 increase in tax on every €1000 of income has to be offset against a reduction of €21 in potential VAT income due to the reduced spending. The net gain to the exchequer is therefore only 90-21=69 or 6.9%.

It is also important to look at the kinds of things such individuals are likely to spend their money on. Someone on a tight personal budget will inevitably make the bulk of their purchases in British or German owned chain stores on goods imported from the Far East. Those with cash to spare are more likely to spend that spare cash on high-end Irish made artisan products or imported luxury goods that earn high margins for their Irish importers. Reduce the amount they have to spend in this way and you damage Irish businesses and put Irish jobs at risk.

Wealth Tax - the best way to export the nation's wealth?

I turn now to the idea of a wealth tax. It is my understanding that the wealth that is being talked about here is not cash lying idle in some vault. It is tied up in property, in race horses, in various valuable artefacts and, mostly, in businesses. In order to liberate cash to pay a wealth tax it would be necessary for the wealthy person to sell some of those assets. A forced sale would, of course, not realise the full value of the asset sold. And who except another wealthy person would have the means to make such a purchase? And as the only Irish people with the means to make such a purchase would be seeking to sell some of his or her own assets the only serious buyers would be foreigners; Arabian sheiks and Russian oligarchs spring to mind.

The impact on jobs would perhaps not be great; the assets and the jobs they represent would still be there but now under foreign ownership. The government would have the cash to spend but the overall wealth of the nation would have been reduced and a significant part of it transferred overseas, something that not even those on the extreme left want to see. All this, of course, assumes that the wealthy would readily succumb to the imposition of such a tax without taking avoiding action such as moving themselves and their assets overseas.

The plain fact is that the only way to reduce tax is to reduce the size of the public sector. We can all point to waste and ways in which the public services could be made more efficient. But, just as we object to paying taxes we don't like it when one person's efficiency saving leads to the removal of a perk from which we have benefitted. You may say that a particular road improvement is a waste of money; I might be grateful for the opportunity to get from one place to another more quickly and in greater safety.

In reality there is a limit to what can be achieved through increasing efficiency and reducing waste. And the most effective way of bringing those savings about is to tighten budgets and leave it to the people at the sharp end to seek and to implement the necessary changes. And isn't that precisely what Fine Gael/Labour are trying to do and what everyone seems to object to almost as much as they object to taxes?