Palestine Action is just the Reform Party

 At the end of the 19th century Theodore Herzl promoted Zionism, that Jewish people should return to Palestine to escape anit-semitism. Recall that the idea of the return is based on the expulsion of jews from Israel by the colonial power, Romans, in the first century of the christian era. 

In 1917 Chaim Weizmann, then a chemist in Manchester persuaded Arthur Balfour to make his declaration. Weimann was a jewish refugee from Byelorussia who believed in Zionism and became the first president of the state of Israel, partly in return for his contribution to the british war effort, see below.

 There had been migration from eastern Europe under  Ottoman rule but possible under 100,000 but after the end of the first world war jews, mainly from Europe began to move to the by now UK controlled Palestine. In these cases they came as refugees fleeing what they saw as being places where they were victimised and dicriminated against. 

However they often came with support bought land and farms and developed communities both kibbutz and small settlements, some of which grew quite dramatically, Tel Aviv. As the numbers grew, especially under the mandate granted to the UK to rule Palestine the majority population, mainly Muslim resented the refugees. After all Palestine was for the Palestinians, just like England is for the English. 

Whilst many Palestinians got on with the newcomers, did business with them, some began to campaign and persuaded the mandate authorities to try to control the immigration of jews into Palestine. This is the same attitude we see from Reform and their supporters. Palestine Action are just the heirs to the campaigns against Jewish immigration with the same philosophy as their modern counterparts in Britain represented by Reform. It is interesting that so many on the left joyfully march under this banner.

 

 

  This come from https://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/05/12/140508_israel_weizmann_feature.shtml

Cordite and conkers

Cordite - used in the manufacture of ammunition and artillery – was in short supply and Britain needed to produce its own. For that, a chemical called acetone was required.

Arthur Balfour, Prime Minister (1902-05)

When supply routes were cut, Lloyd George, as Minister of Munitions, turned to Dr Weizmann after learning of a development which could aid the war effort.

Working in Manchester, Weizmann had discovered a fermentation process to produce large volumes of acetone from maize.

When supplies of maize ran short, it was even supplemented with horse chestnuts – or conkers – avidly collected by British schoolchildren!

Balfour declaration

Lloyd George’s gratitude was evident and led directly to British approval for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people - the state of Israel.

UK Zionists (c) M'cr Jewish Museum

Certainly, Weizmann’s scientific assistance brought him into close contact with British leaders, including the then Prime Minister and later Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour - whose constituency coincidentally lay in Manchester.

Then, on 2 November 1917, soon after Britain's acquisition of Palestine in the First World War, came the statement the Manchester Zionists had been waiting for: the Balfour Declaration.

Dr Weizmann who’d been waiting patiently outside for news outside the cabinet office in Downing Street was, of course, delighted. He celebrated into the night, apparently joining fellow Zionists in a Chassidic dance at a Chelsea restaurant!

 

  

An open letter to my MP, Clive Lewis

 Dear Clive,

Whilst looking down the list of MP's who voted against the government on the Welfare Bill I was not surprised to see your name on the list. As time has gone on since you were first chosen as the candidate for Norwich South and elected to parliament you have somehow become more and more irrelevant. It seems that you have drifted into taking positions which are more to do with posturing than with having any real effect.Perhaps I should have realised this early on when I attended an event shortly after your selection when you gave a speech which you devoted to attacking the Blair government. At no point did you offer any praise for the good things that goveenment had achieved. This is even more curious given your recent support for the Winter Fuel Payments and programme started during that governmet. Surely one role of Labour MPs is to promote the good things that the Labout party and government are promoting. Recent examples are the changes to employment law, banning  no fault evictions, VAT on private echools. All good actions which MPs should be crowing about on whatever platforms they choose to use.

What the Labour government appears to have lacked is any imagination and careful planning for the legislation they hope to bring forward. Perhaps this stems from the Corbyn era which was more concerned with infighting and taking left-wing positions than thinking seriously about long-term issues. Details of the  actual legislation required and how to handle the inevitable media uproar do not seem to have been thought through.  

There have been two issues which have led to much soul searching amongst Labour MPs and Labour supporters. Both have the difficulty of taking away something people have and have come to see as a right. (Note this phenomenon occurred with both non-dom status and exemptions from inheritance tax for farmers.) The first has been the Winter Fuel Payment which needed to be reduced. The sensible way would have been to admit that it is just an increase in the state pension. Once you have done that it becomes much easier to deal with. To preserve the fiction that this is to do with winter fuel costs, make the extra payable in three instalments paid during the months of December, January and February. Make it more generous by giving it to all state pensioners whether they share accomodaton or not.  In current terms make it £75 for each month. Since some people receive their pensions weekly and some might get 4 payments in that three months, the extra payment would be paid in the first payment in those months. Finally, how to pay for this? As this would be part of the state pension, it would automatically be eligible for income tax. 

The other controversion decision is the continuing argument about personal independent payments and the rising cost of in work benefits. One way to alleviate some of these problems might involve doing more to encourage employers to employ people with some levels of disability. This especially true for small companies who would find it difficult to cope with people who cannot come into work reliably. Having an employee who every so often has to have three or four days off work, especially at short notice can be difficult. It also puts the other employees in a difficult position who may end up carrying a further burden during those periods. There can also be added costs for the employer in both sickeness pay and overtime payments to cover for the lost time. One solution might be to cover those costs for employees who have acknowledged health issues. Perhaps any cost savings caused by cuts could be used for this and thus get those less severely handicapped back into work.   This would need to be carefully monitored by the DWP.

U turns are good for you!

 For many years it has always seemd odd that people are praised for being single-minded and not being willing to admit to being wromg! Did Maggie Thatcher start this trend with her saying "This lady is not for turning". If she actually said that, I must admit that I have not checked. An interesting example was the recent statement by Paul Johnson, just retiring as head of the thinktank Institute for Fiscal Studies, who praised George Osborne for being single minded. I see no credit in being single-minded when the person is wrong. That is incerdibly dangerouswhen the individual has power. The opposite can also be dangerous as in Donald J Trump who has no mindedness at all.

As a mathematician being single minded can be helpful if the thing you are single minded about is true and you succeed. I have written two papers which showed that something that seemed clear was false. And once it is false it is false. Whilst some have become famous for their devotion to  one problem, famously Fermat's Last Theorem, Andrew Wiles, many have spent a lot of time and failed and probably and they have been forgotten.

What I fail to understand is that is seen as wrong to change or adapt a policy when it is not working. The implication that every policy will work out exactly as has been predicted is living in an unrealistic world. There is need to make plans and to base those plans are what one haopes is both a realistic analysis of the situation and a model of how things will turn out. Both of these are like;y to be wrong, hopefully only in minor ways, but the need to be flexible is essential. Why is this to be seen as failure rather than trying to get things right. 

Take a recent change of policy by the governement concerning grooming gangs. It would appear that the recent report, commisioned by the Labour government brought up issues that neirher Casey nor Starmer were fully aware of. Sensibly Starmer and the government have accepted and are going to implement the proposals made by the report they have commissioned. This might not have been needed if the recommendations previous reports had been acted on.

The only people who never makes mistakes are those who never do anything. This leads to the daft situation when those who do nothing and therefore make no mistakes are rewarded rather than rewrding those who get things right but make some mistakes. I was thinking about this when I was head of a mathematics and we were condifering who to make offers to. Departments were judged by how many students failed. Rationally one way to reduce failures is to only admit those who one thinks are 100% likely to pass. This has the disadvatage of meaning a significant group of students who would do welkl gat rejected. Another solution is to make the exams so easy that every student passes. I assume that the thinking behind the judgement is that deciding who will do well is reliable, anyone who believes such judgemnts is sadly mistaken.

Let us be proud of politiciams who have the ability to recgnise when things need to be changed and have the courage to make the changes. 

Facing north

 We moved into a flat nearly two years ago. One thing that was concerning was that it faced north. In the UK that seemed worrying as you rarely get the sun, especially in winter. But we thought that with global warming it might be a benefit, Had not thought it would be happening so soon. 

Over the last few days the flat has been at a consistent 24C which is very comfortable, no air conditioning needed so no power being used. The one problem is traffic noise when the balcony windows are open. Motor bikes are a serious problem. Our falt overlloks one of the main routes out of the city centre, one way out. Motor bikes are a special problem, they seem to love making as much noise as possible, is it part of the fun!

People who live in villages crying wolf

For many years I have lived in central Norwich. I also know poeple who live in nice quiet villages who like the peace and quiet and environment of their lives. However most of them work in Norwich and drive to work polluting my environment, this does not seem to ditress them. 

The recent arguments about pylons carrying electricity from offshore windfarms seems to have exacerbated their sense of privilege. They want me to pay to protect their view, they call it their environment. The question they do not either pose nor answer is why should I. Is there a quid pro quo for city centre inhabitants subsidising the views of those who dwell in rural areas? Will they stop driving their internal combustion vehicles through our cities? Are they willing to pay the price of only allowing electric powered vehicles through urban areas?

The answer would appear to be no to these questions, the right of people to drive their cars wherever they want seems to be important irrespective of others. For many people their lives might be difficult without being able to drive everywhere but surely that is the price that has to be paid for rural living. There are those who need to live in rural areas for work but very few, farms employ very few poeple now. Most of the poeple who live in rural arears work in the city. 

So what we have are people camapigning to protect their view whilst damaging other people health. Driving fossil fueled vehicles through our streets creates pollution that damages peoples health, I would suggest more serious than putting up pylons. There is serious argument for only allowing electric vehicles in urban areas in the medium term, say by 2035.  This would lead to significant improvemnts in health for many in urban areas, especially hgtos eliving near busy roads. Note that many of those will be the least wealthy.

Long time absent

 Not sure anyone ever read anything I wrote but just thought so much is going on that perhaps I should put my thoughts down before they are gone. Sometimes verything I read makes me feel frustrated, there is such a lack of thought in so much discussion. Perhaps discussion is the wrong word to choose so much discussion seems merely to be two people making statements but no attempt to engage with what the other person is saying.  A bad habit I developed was to call people stupid when they said things which  clearly seemed wrong. But perhaps it is the failure to think it is peoples unwillingness to think pass the first thought. 

An example might clarify what I am trying to say. Governments are fond of trying to change peoples or companies behaviour by taxation. The second question should always be how will the tax be avoided or exploited! Never have I noticed this being discussed but it should be considered as part of the intial thinking.

There has been much discussion of the cuts in the winter fuel payments, let me be clear this was the correct decision. essentially it was increasing the state pension by £300. If you pay your fuel bill monthly the payment can be the same each month so there is no increase in the winter so should I bve paid the £300 in 12 monthly instalments. The policy was badly introduced but also it was a all ore nothing cut. There was no attempt to reduce the amount as the income went up, if you received pension tex credit you got the payment otherwise you did not. If you had £10 more that the linit you lost £300. Such sharp divisions lead to situations which are clearly seen as unfiar.

A similar situation applies to carers allowance, earn £1 more than the limit then you lose all you carers allowance. The system could just reduce the allowance by the amount you earn, or perhspas even 50% so taht the system would not be so draconian. This is just a simple idae which would make the system much more fair and reduce the ridiculous situation where being paid £1 too much can lead to having to repay large sumhs of manet

 Alan 8th June 2025 

     

Democracy as mob rule

   It is sad to see "democracy" being abused by many sides in the political debate. Perhaps it is me being naive but democracy to me only functions efficeints as a means of changing those in power not as a method of making complex decisions. It then becomes arule by the majority, or if you prefer, the mob.
  If I remember once before I blogged on this but it is early in the morning and too tired to check. Democracy, in the form od a simple majority made Northern Ireland a mess because the Protestants always won. Some stability and fairness only came in with a power-sharing agreement.  
  There are two situations now where "democracy" is being used to justify a particular course of action. The first is Brexit where people are arguing we have to accept the majority vote. We had exactly the same vote 40 odd years ago. but that was obviously not binding, although a much bigger support for staying in then. So why is this vote binding? There is an argument that there was a simple and clear choice but there was not. Nobody knows what the consequences of leaving are and nobody knows how hard it will be to reverse the decision. In one sense coming out is easy, we can just say get stuffed to Europe and spend the next 10 years negotiating various deals though as far as trade goes we would revert to basic WTO rules. As  to many other things who knows and in some cases who cares. Probably on any one issue very few but for those few it could be life changing.But a more serious complication is what happens if in 5 years there is a majority who want to go back in! Will we have to start entry negotiations again, will we have yet another referendum. Would UKIP have accepted the decision if is had gone the other way, 16 million vote to leavse and 17 million to stay? Of  course not they would have resolved to fight on and would have found another pretext to campaign again. The only honourable thing to do is to fight for another referendum before we finally leave.
  Next we come to the Labour Party and the claims that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be challenged because he won a clear majority in the election for leader. He has been leader for over 6 months and clearly many people who have to work with him in parliament feel he has failed. Does that mean that they have to support him despite this just because he was elected? If Britain had elected Roy Hodgson as manager of the England football team would it be wrong to have called for him to go just because he had been elected. If the vote of no confidence had been 110-100 there might be an argument for  him staying but to have managed to alienate some many Labour MP's shows disastrous leadership qulities and suggest to me that he would be a disastrous Prime Minister. Whether members of the Labour Party like it or not, I am a member, MP's see much more of him than we do and it would be unwise not to liten to them. I used to work in a University where heads of departments were elected by the faculty in that department. On the whole it worked well because those voting knew the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates at first hand, They did away with it because the system removed power from the Vice-Chancellor, sometimes they voted for someone the VC didn't approve, though the two most notorious examples were very successful heads.
 Democracy should never be used to justify mob rule or a claim to legitmacy that doesn't exist.

Funding political parties

 There is a row going on about the funding of political parties in the UK. Can I make a simple suggestion, political parties my only except donations from individuals. Further only individuals who are on the register of electors in the UK can make such donations.

 Firms and businesses do not have democratic rights and thus should not be allowed to interfere with the democratic process.