Spain lost today

Spain lost today

The Spanish state lost tonight. The scenes of Spanish policemen fighting with civilians in Catalonia when they tried to vote in the referendum were unsettling to see. I have no strong views on the case for independence of Catalonia, I have no dog in this fight. However,  it is always right that people have the right to express their views. Even if the Spanish state is intent on ignoring the results and calling the ballot unlawful they still have no right to stop people expressing their views.

It is ironic that, all the polling evidence, suggested that the majority of the Catalan public did not wish independence and that the Spanish state would have probably won a referendum had they supported and participated in it. Now, the satisfaction with the Spanish state is likely to be very seriously damaged and the drive for Independence is likely to be significantly strengthened ; you do not make yourself popular by attacking your own citizens with truncheons and rubber bullets.

Another group whose popularity should suffer a decline is the other heads of the EU countries. They have been noticeable by their silence. A handful of nationalist and separatist politicians from other EU countries have spoken in favour of Catalan’s independence, but the heads of the EU have been silent while one of its member states has seen civil strife with its army fighting with its populace. When a core democratic right has been threatened it seems the EU is willing to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear if it is for the sake of further European ‘Unity‘.

This has been a shameful day for Spain and Europe but it may be one of the first steps to start to break up these over-large, undemocratic institutions in which we live.

 

 


via Daily Prompt: Popular

Advertisements

Cof a llithr, lluniau a geidw

Cof a llithr, lluniau a geidw

Mae ‘na llawer o sefyllfaoedd pan mae hi’n addas i gwyno – am y tywydd, sut dy dîm wedi chwarae, am y cynlluniau llywodraeth, achos dy wraig mynnu edrych ar “Strictly”, llawer o resymau. Ond mae yna  un adeg  pan nid yn addas yn cwyno, sef ar ôl dderbyn anrheg. Does ‘na ddim ots os ti’n derbyn sanau tartan,  tei porffor ,neu CD Richard Clayderman – jyst gwenu a dywedwch “diolch”. Mae’n groes i’r drefn i gwyno.

Liz-Phipps-Soeiro_avatar_1448028924-70x70.jpg

Felly, roedd hi’n drist pan y llyfrgellydd ysgol hwn  (Liz Phipps Soeiro) wedi gwrthod anrheg gan Melania Trump (Nifer o lyfrau Dr Seuss). Mi wnaeth Liz yn weld cyfle am dipyn bach o “virtue signalling” ac yn sgwennu llythyr sbengllyd i Melania i ddweud “Ni fyddwn ni’n cymryd eich llyfrau” oherwydd  “Dr Seuss yn ystrydebol ac yn hiliol”.

Roedd Liz yn anghwrtais a di-foes. Mi ddylai hi wedi derbyn y llyfrau ar gyfer ei disgyblion – dyna ei swydd. Hefyd, ddylai hi ddim defnyddio ei swydd hi  i wneud datganiadau gwleidyddol. Pe bai’n eisiau ymosod Donald Trump dylai  hi ddim ymosod Melania. (Mae Melania wedi priodi’r hen groesan, mae ganddi ddigon o drafferth beth bynnag!) Ond, uwchlaw bob peth roedd hi’n dwp iawn.

Meddalodd hi “Dr Seuss ydy hen ffasiynol a dylanwad drwg i blant”. Ond, roedd hi’n dweud celwyddau. Yn anffodus, roedd hi wedi anghofioam hen llun yn ei albwm.  Mewn ychydig awr ar ôl wneud ei chyhoeddiad wnaeth rhywun ffeindio a chyhoeddi llun ohoni hi – yn y llun roedd Liz gwisgwyd fel y ‘Cat in the Hat. Roedd hi wedi trefnu a chymryd rhan parti pen-blwydd (gyda brecwast Wyau gwyrdd a ham) i ddathlu’r bywyd Dr Seuss. Roedd hyn parti i ddathlu’r cymorth bod Dr Seuss wedi rhoi’r plant a’u haddysg, trwy annog plant i ddarllen. Yn amlwg wnaeth hi ddim wedi credu Dr Seuss roedd dylanwad niweidiol dim ond ychydig of flynyddoed cyn.

Screen-Shot-2017-09-29-at-3.27.23-PM.png

Roedd Liz wedi dechrau’r diwrnod fel arwr ond daeth i ben y diwrnod fel twmffat.  Cofiwch a byddwch yn ofalus, yr rhyngrwyd byth yn anghofio.

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves

Some coincidences are pleasing, a happy twist of fate. They can be a pleasant caprice which brightens your day , for example, the happy coincidence of meeting a friend you had been thinking about when in the town. Or it could be the pleasure of seeing the coincidence of the numbers of your date of birth being present in the winning national lottery ticket. The coincidence of  having actually bought a ticket with those numbers on the same day as they won would be a very happy coincidence ! Yes, it can be great fun to watch the stars align and imagining that the hidden logic of the world has been revealed.

However, more commonly coincidences are a pain in the neck. It seems every time I need any specific power tool for a job; the drill, the plane, the router, anything – by coincidence that is exactly the tool I lent out last week, or which I lost, or which broke. It is uncanny, and it does suggest, that if there is an underlying power guiding my life it has a mischievous sense of humour and enjoys annoying me.

But over the last months my interest in coincidences has taken a more serious turn. I am not concerned about being irked by minor twists of fate but of the  perfect storm  which is developing. We  have seen the coincidence of an election where the most inappropriate Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, more lacklustre than Michael Foot, found himself with the luck of facing the most misguided of Conservative Party campaigns – running a campaign based entirely on personality but using the charisma-free Theresa May.

Next we can reasonably expect the coincidence of Brexit and the election of Jeremy Corbyn. The greatest challenge Britain’s economy is going to face in a lifetime could coincide with Britain having a government most hostile to economic growth – They are already planning for a run on the pound!

I suppose coincidences are matters of luck and perhaps we don’t deserve such bad luck as this, and if it is not luck then perhaps we can do something about it in time.

Fingers and toes crossed

 


In defence of the floating voter.

In defence of the floating voter.

I have become aware that sometime during the last decade I have become a ‘floating voter‘. Prior to this I had always identified myself with one or other of the main parties, either Labour or the S.N.P., and cast my vote loyally for their local candidates. I was aware that floating voters were always looked on with a degree of derision; as poor fellows lacking any political philosophy and being politically un-engaged. The quote below, by Ann Coulter the right-of-centre political commentator pretty much sums up the common impression.

Swing voters are more appropriately known as the ‘idiot voters’ because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you’re either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster.

However, despite this statement being witty , is it accurate and reasonable ? Taking first the idea that floating, or swing, voters do not have a political philosophy; is this really likely to be the case ? If one has a well developed sense of political principles then it is quite unlikely that these will line up neatly with those of a single political party. While my desire for people to have the ability to determine their future might tally nicely with the SNP’s plans for and independence referendum but not with the Labour Party’s opposition. My internationalism may find favour with those pursuing worldwide class solidarity in the Labour Party but would jar with the nationalism of the SNP. My recognition of the importance of freedom of speech might be welcomed in the Conservative Party but cause consternation to those in left leaning parties who place greater emphasis on the dangers of “hate speech”. However, if I have well developed opinions I am going to have to drop some of these and compromise if I want to be a loyal party voter (though I suppose I could establish my own party !). If I have political principles I am going to have to weigh these up against the offerings of the political parties at any given time, as priorities and situations change, and decide which party looks the best recipient of my vote at that time. In short, if I am principled I’d be better being a floating voter.

I remember when I was active in political campaigning how little respect the parties had for their loyal voter. Their votes were “in the bag”, all that we needed to do was “get the vote out, in some of our more certain constituencies we’d joke that we could put a red, or yellow, rosette on a dog and it would win handsomely. In essence we knew that these votes were loyalty votes, unthinking votes, knee jerk votes that we didn’t have to work for as they were not forged out of discussion or principle but because “I’ve always been Labour/SNP”  or they were voting “like my father and his father before him”.Even when parties acted against their best interests (Labour has neglected the fate of the white working class, the SNP has ignored the best interests of the youth in Scotland, and the Conservatives are ignoring the economic havoc they are about unleash on the business community) the loyal voters keep coming back. Like store loyalty cards, even though you can get a better deal elsewhere, it coaxes you back to the same old fare.

Secondly there is the idea of intelligence, that floating voters are in someway a bit more dumb than those who have made up their mind. For the reasons above this is unlikely, but there is a further reason. The world constantly changes, the challenges we face differ, and our priorities need to change to match this. Intelligence comprises recognising change and adapting to it, changing our responses and dealing with it. It is stupidity to continue to try the same approach no matter what the problem. The old adage that when you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail  comes to mind. Consider the problem facing loyal Labour voters, their conference has just jubilantly proposed harsh measures which will  undoubtedly worry large businesses (they know this because they have started to plan for a run on the pound should they win). Now this is quiet understandable in the light of their general principles but, with Brexit just around the corner when everyone’s main priority will be to maintain business in the UK and try and avoid its flight to Europe, the smart labour voter might recognise priorities have changed (at least temporarily) and feel that they need to put their vote elsewhere – it would be the intelligent thing to do.

Indeed, being a floating voter requires more intelligence and more involvement. Voting on party lines means you are leaving the decisions to others, you are abrogating your democratic duty to consider the arguments and make a choice. It is more work being a floating voter but you can feel better knowing that your vote was actually a considered one and is more likely to have had an effect on the outcome (Floating votes are disproportionately important in election results). Our system with its reliance on political parties damages our democracy.  The tendency of political parties to try and develop these “loyal voters” has lead to increasing pork-barrel politics with the right trying to expand its power by promising tax relief or advantage to its crony capitalist friends, or the left promising increased benefits in the welfare state to bribe its followers to keep in line. All of this concentrates political power and influence into a small number of hands, it reduces the choices we are given and influence of our opinions, and it weakens the flexibility and efficacy of our subsequent government.

 

The limits of tolerance

The limits of tolerance

There has been much talk over recent weeks about the potential threats to our tolerant society and concern about the possible threats from growing fascist groups. However, much of this has been both wrong and counter-productive.

It has been wrong as there has been no real growth in neo-nazi numbers, no true rise in racist beliefs and generally we are a more mixed society which doesn’t have real concerns that its people come from any various backgrounds. Our past history, often dreadful on account of its racist biases and bigoted attitudes, has not been undone but there has been general steady progress. What modern society considers appropriate and acceptable behaviour now is greatly different to a generation ago. To imagine that a few dregs, washed out from under stones, indicates we are heading back to the 30’s is puerile and wrong. It is also counter-productive for the simple reason that it magnifies the effect that this small group of odious people. They have made a mark much bigger than they could ever have hoped for on their own, and this is largely due to the work of the, so called, “Antifa“.

But Antifa have not just acted as the publicists for these loathsome groups they have also advanced the very cause that they purport to oppose. The best way to counter odious ideas is to demonstrate that they are wrong, to make those undecided aware that those ideas are erroneous and to make the convinced aware that most people do not share their opinion and find them despicable.  The chubby young man below now knows this and also knows he is a figure of ridicule. The likelihood of him being a successful recruiting agent for his views have been destroyed by the expression of counter opinion.

599329463d1d1.image In the UK it is arguable that the thing which stopped the National Front (a local extreme right racist and fascist party) which had been gaining popularity in elections (local and national) was the appearance of their leader, Nick Griffin, on the BBC’s “Question Time“. When he, and his party, were exposed to scrutiny and tackled in debate their bubble burst and they faded away from significance in UK politics. Defending and promoting free speech is the best safeguard against fascism.

Karl Popper, in “The Open Society and Its Enemies was aware of the “paradox of tolerance“. He knew that” We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant”  recognising the great dangers that can sometimes exist in a tolerant society :-

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant

He was clearly aware that there were lines that could not be crossed in a tolerant society if we wished to keep it tolerant. That line was the refusal or denouncing of argument – the blockage of free speech – and the use of violence (fists or pistols) to answer arguments. Antifa’s actions cross these lines, they do not permit other groups to state their ideas and use violence to suppress their expression, they strike at the core of our tolerant society. They also do this so inexpertly that they give ammunition and succour to the enemies of the open society. When Antifa attacks groups simply because they are on the right, not because they are fascist (as happened in Boston for example), they give strength to their enemies who can claim moral superiority and they also alienate their natural supporters (such as Noam Chomsky ).

These activists really should think about their actions. If you find yourself dressed in a black-shirt, in a militaristic gang, waving banners, and making threats of violence in order to intimidate your political opponents  and silence their arguments then you are not part of the solution – you are the problem, the fascist is staring back at you from the mirror.

antifa-berlin.jpg

 

Listen up folk !

Listen up folk !

Listen up folk ! Zog our tribal leader has kept us safe from harm these last months. he has protected us from wild animals who wanted to devour us. He has protected us from other tribes who wanted to kill us. He even protected us from ourselves when he lead us away from mistakes and disasters we would have made. Let us give our young women and food to the great Zog so he continues to protect us.

Listen up folk ! Our King Albert has kept us, his loyal subjects, safe for another year. He has protected us from King Zog who surely wished to invade and kill us. He has wisely guided us and avoided many a disaster that would otherwise certainly occurred without his wise council.  Without King Albert the barbarians at the gate would surely have entered our lands; killing our men, raping our women, and butchering our babies. So let us give thanks as we give our labour and produce to our monarch and prepare for another year.

Listen up folk ! The church has again saved us;  not just our bodies but also our souls. Our priests have guided us well in ensuring we do not fall prey to heathens at the gate. We know the pagans sit and wait for the chance to kill us and take our women and children. The warn us and protect us from the work of witches and demons. Thanks also to the clergy who, through their wise advice, have kept our souls safe. They warned us of our sins and saved us from eternal damnation and the pains of hell’s fire. So let us arrange a tithe to give a portion of our wealth to the Church so it may protect us for another year.

Listen up folk ! The government has lead us safely through another year. Without them no roads would have been built, no one would have cared for the poor, our children would have been uneducated and ignorant and doctors would not have attended to our sick. Without our ruling class we would have descended into savagery killing and raping our fellow citizens. So let us feel pride when we pay our taxes as we are protecting ourselves for another year.


Check who is taking your possessions, check who holds the power. This will let you know who is your enemy.


 

In Loco Parentis – the terrifying tale of Charlie Gard

In Loco Parentis – the terrifying tale of Charlie Gard

As a doctor I have found the unfolding tragedy befalling Charlie Gard and his family extremely upsetting to follow.  This poor boy and his family are butterflies being crushed on a wheel to press home a legal point, they are unfortunates being punished having committed no crime.

Let us firstly be clear what this case is not about. Despite protestations to the contrary this case is not about the best interests of Charlie Gard. The best interests of the child (1)  are clearly important and made paramount both in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (2) and in British Law with the Children Act of 1989 (3) . It is clear that all the parties involved in this debate are acting because they have the best interests of Charlie at heart. The doctors and hospital feel that they, by virtue of their knowledge, know what is best to do. His parents, through love and affection, also believe that they can see the best plan and hope for their son. Both are acting in the best interests of Charlie, this is not the problem. The problem is who decides what exactly are Charlie’s  best interests.

It has always been the case that the parents of the child decide what is in the best interest of the child. This is as it should be as it reflects the natural law and ensures that the people most attached to the child’s interest are those who act as the child’s guardian. There are very few circumstances when this can be changed and they depend upon proving that the parent is being either negligent or malevolent. Neither of these factors are in play here and, if anything, the parents have taken extraordinary steps to secure chances for their child, well over and above what many parents would have been able to do.

It is interesting that, at the 24th hour, Great Ormond Street Hospital has made an application to court to revise its plans (4) possibly starting to realise that the parents’ opinion may have been closer to Charlie’s best interests, than had their own opinion been. So in this difficult calculus of what is the best plan of action it appears that Charlie’s parents may have been the better judge all along.

While these arguments over the ‘best interests’ may mean that the parent disagrees with the medical team it does not mean that the parent can compel a doctor to do something they feel is inappropriate or wrong. But again this is not the case in this situation. Charlie’s parents have never asked GOSH or the NHS to undertake treatments they do no agree with. They have gathered together sufficient resources to enable Charlie to receive this treatment by doctors who believe it is, worth a trial, in the child’s interests. This should have been the end of the dispute. Charlie and his parents should have used their money to go and try this last ditch attempt, to catch this glimmer of hope.

GOSH and its staff, however, stopped this. Their court battle stopped the treatment and refused the parents the ability to move their child. In their paternalism they not only refused to help but also stopped anyone else helping. The thousands of people who collected money to help Charlie were thwarted by this as well as Charlie’s parents and the other hospitals and doctors who wanted to help.

I am a very old-fashioned doctor and I don’t fear paternalism per se. A desire to act like a father, is a a desire to be benevolent, guiding, helpful and wise. In itself not a bad thing. It becomes bad when it belittles another party and reduces their agency. When doctors worked in a professional relationship with their patients, the doctor’s paternalism would drive them to seek the best for their patient and was usually leavened by respect for the patient’s autonomy. This combination could be valuable when there were difficult scenarios – when the future was unpredictable and  the efficacy of plans of action difficult to assess. Much of the placebo effect of medical intervention depends on this aspect of the relationship and large parts of the benefit of of healthcare comes from this caring, guiding, advisory aspect of medical care.

There was always one very good safeguard against this paternalism becoming intrusive or  belittling, when the relationship was between doctor and patient, the patient could always terminate the relationship. If they felt that the doctor’s approach was wrong they had no need to continue to use them. This was a way to safeguard the patient and also a way in which the doctor would know that they had overstepped the boundaries and they could learn where paternalism started to erode patient autonomy. But in the NHS this is difficult. The patient can’t change their doctor without a great deal of difficulty. If they change they will probably be labelled a “difficult patient” which might mar relations with their next medical practitioner.

In addition, under the NHS the patient is no longer the employer of the doctor in the UK. The most important relationship for the doctor is the one with his employer – the state, the NHS – not the the patient directly. It is the state who pays his wages, sets his targets and assesses his performance and we know “he who pays the piper calls the tune“. In this scenario paternalism is largely unchecked and can be very dangerous. Paternalism, appearing kindly and wise, can mask actions that are not in an individual patient’s best interest. Rationing and refusal of therapy is hidden as medical advice and choices are withdrawn from the patient. Doctors often find, when working in the NHS, that their attempts to maintain professional standards and a focus on their relationship with the patient can cause them difficulties. They are made to feel as if they are being disruptive when they call for what is appropriate for the patient. They can be told they are jeopardising the budgets, failing to be a team player by not following the organisation’s line, and generally made to feel awkward if they behave in a manner that was formed by their vocation and training.

In this case paternalism seems to be being employed to sweeten a bitter pill. The state wants to end Charlie Gard’s life before all options that are available have been tried. Despite having seen parents act heroically and selflessly for their child, without an ounce of malice, they would prefer Charlie died rather than allowing the parents to try all they can do. But rather than admit this we are told that they are the wise and kindly people who know what they are doing, we are awkward and unruly children causing a fuss.

Well thank God for the fuss that Charlie’s parents have made;  it may not save Charlie but they will have opened the eyes of many people and might save future families from the horror that they have had to endure. They truly are a heroic family who deserve our support (5)

 

 

 

 


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_interests

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child

[3] https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/518/51807.htm

[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/07/hope-charlie-gard-great-ormond-street-seeks-explore-new-evidence/

[5] http://www.charliesfight.org/