We Don't Think Much of Yours

The World is Amazed at the Lack of Choice Being Offered to Electors in the UK

News broadcasters in the Americas, Europe and Asia are united when it comes to one thing about the forthcoming UK elections: nowhere else in the western democratic world, is the electorate being offered a choice between such similar parties in terms of policy. This is all the more remarkable in the case of the UK, because three, not two, major parties are contesting the election.

In last years’ US elections the population had a genuine choice between Obama’s Democrats and the Republicans, in terms of foreign, economic and social policy. In contrast, the UK parties are desperately trying to give the appearance that they have something setting them apart from each other, but in the total absence of this, the glare of public attention has had only one place to fall, that has been perhaps inevitably on the personalities of the politicians themselves. “Oh, he’s such a good speaker” people said of Clegg after the first debate. Well, if running a country was about speaking well on TV I’d vote for Jack Nicholson. Instead, I want to know who’d have the guts to take Putin behind the bicycle sheds and deck him one if need be. Alas, the campaign is more presidential than ever, yet without a degree of charisma between them.

And boy oh boy, are these really the grand finalists in ‘Who Wants to Lead the UK 2010’? Brown-just admit that you hate the job and can’t figure out why on earth you were so desperate to get it for all those years. Does he have a reflection in the mirror? CaMoron, you’re so lacking in substance you must weigh less than a feather. Somebody weigh him just to prove I’m wrong. Nick whatsisname, you tried to make out you were the man to upset the establishment, that was until it become clear to anyone reading your biography in wikipedia that you’re very much part of it and have been since your days as a £23,000-a-year student at the select Westminster Boys’ School. Oh dear.

I’ve never been able to understand why a population such as the British, who are so well informed about politics (I’m not the only one who says it, we’re renowned for it the world over) are willing to accept such poor quality politicians. Brits moan about this and that, saying that the war in Iraq was unjust because undertaken as a result of a group of Saudis attacking the World Trade Centre in 2001, and that the war in Afghanistan was unjust as undertaken following of attacks on the London underground by British Moslems in 2005. I respect the opinions of people on both sides of public opinion regarding these wars, but other events lead me to believe that as a population the Brits are remarkably, yes remarkably naive when it comes to judging their politicians.

Let me explain. The Brits like to think that they’re tough on their politicians, expecting high standards of ethical behaviour. “We’d never let our politicians get away with corruption, like they can in southern Europe or south America” they say, quoting Joseph de Maistre, who famously stated in 1811 that in a democracy people end up with the government that they deserve. I have an alternative view. I actually feel like the UK is a kind of paradise for politicians, where they can get away with things that politicians cannot get away with elsewhere. I should probably back up such a claim, so here goes.

For many years, politicians in the UK have had to declare donations to their campaigns or personal payments received. “There you are” say the Brits, “It’s all above board now”. But is it? Why do the politicians receive the money in the first place from these individuals like Lord Ashcroft or multinational companies? “Oh, it’s because these companies and wealthy people support the party’s policy plans” say our naïve Brits. Oh, right. And I was thinking that maybe the businessman and multinationals said to the politicians “Look Browny, if you promise me to enact that new law in the next Queen’s speech, I’ll give you £1 million towards the campaign”. But of course things don’t work like that in UK politics, only in southern Europe and South America. In the UK, wealthy businesses say to the major parties “Look chaps, fair play. Here’s £1 million for your campaign. Then after you win, if our interests conflict with what you believe to be right for the country, go ahead and do what you think is right. No hard feelings. Just see the £1 million as a gift towards justice, freedom and democracy”.

Of course, the reality is that donators exact a VERY high price for their contributions and govern the policies of the next government. I remember 13 years ago watching Lord Branson at Tony Blair’s victory party. “It’s time for a change” he said. Last week I saw him on TV saying that the UK Government should pay him money as damages for having closed UK airspace due to safety fears following the volcanic eruption in Iceland. Now, he’s after millions and who does he want to pay? Not Gordon Brown, but YOU. The money for Lord Branson (he needs a few bob after all) will come out of funds for hospitals, schools, kit for soldiers in Afghanistan or just be added onto the already crippling debts the Brits are building up for their much loved grandchildren.

The second mistake that UK citizens make is that they still believe that the politicians run the UK. If there was any doubt about where the real power lies in Britain, the rescue packages set up for the banks in the wake of the Lehman Brothers crisis showed that it is they, the banks that call the tune. Already they are making giant profits again, thanks to the money provided by Mr & Mrs Average in the UK, the taxpayers who propped them up. Business runs the world and politicians are their puppets. The only reason that big business and the politicians themselves don’t come out with it and tell us straight is that it doesn’t sound very democratic, and might start people asking if we do actually live in a democracy in which we’re all equal under the law or not. We couldn’t have that, so let’s continue giving the plebs the idea that the politicians are in charge, OK?

The third mistake that UK citizens make is that they pay their taxes. Just think. Why does this taboo exist in the UK about paying taxes? Everyone rounds on ‘cheats’ who don’t pay, without thinking for a moment: Who does this belief system benefit most of all? The fact is that most money that the public contribute in recent years has been spent on:

1) Wars in Asia.
2) Saving a right load of Bankers.
3) Paying pensions, which is a noble and generous activity when we consider that the people making the tax contribution will almost certainly never live to see a government pension of any real value in 30 or 40 years time.
4) Building up one of the largest debts of any country in the world which will be left as a present for your grandchildren to pay.

If British people launched a tax strike, maybe government would think again about how they spend all the money that they receive. But that won’t happen.

Finally, the Brits have a relationship with their leaders like the Jews with the Mesiah. They’re always waiting for the savior to come. They make near deities of their leaders. Most people are still fed up with Blair because he turned out to be human after all. What a cheek! We thought he was going to be out savior! Instead, the Brits should be angry with themselves for having placed him on a pedestal.

Will the Brits learn? I’m not sure and the smart money’s against it. Why? Because as someone said in 1811, “People end up with……”

Photos from the Andes

Easter in Mendoza and the Andes

"Mendoza...." our Argentinian friends had told us, "...es hermosa. Es la ciudad mas limpia en todo el pais!" So we decided to go there and see if it really was this: a beautiful city and the cleanest in the whole of the country.

Hermosa, meaning beautiful, is quite a strong adjective in Spanish, also used to describe., amongst other things, beautiful women. Therefore, I was expecting another city to rank alongside the lovely ones that I've been fortunate enough to visit in my travels, such as Bath in the UK, Venice in Italy, Salzburg in Austria and Munich in Germany. Even my Lonely Planet guide book sung the city's praises, saying it was one of the most beautiful in the whole of Latin America.

So we set off on a two-hour internal flight towards the 'ciudad hermosa'. The landscape below had been transformed by agriculture into a kind of grid, and our trip carried us first two up, and then eight across on the giant gameboard that is the Argentinian 'interior', a term which corresponds with the Australian term 'outback' and the Devonian term 'middle of bloody nowhere'.

Soon the landscape was looking more and more parched and we caught a glimpse of the Andes rising behind the city and landed in Mendoza. Would it match up to its billing?

The answer soon became clear. As we left the airport in our hire car, we noticed that the roads had massive potholes and no signs whatsoever, making it easy to damage the car or get completely lost. Ahhh, hermosa thought I. Not since I was in Munich have I seen such lovely, well maintained and logically organised streets.

Next of all, our trip into the delightful city carried us past twin shanty towns, favelas, on either side of the road, surrounded by open air rubbish dumps on which children scavenged for something that they could later sell. Ahhh, hermosa. Not since I visited Bath have I seen such a architecture.

Then, when we'd found our hotel we decided to go out for a stroll. The city centre had a river running through it, which was running more or less dry, which unfortunately was not the case for the open sewers by the side of the road. How it made me remember the Danube in Vienna.Bloody Hermosa.

Finally, after finishing our meals we were sitting down outside a restaurant drinking a beer when local children came up to us, not begging for money, but asking us if they could have the scraps of food that we'd left on our plates. We happily gave them our food. Judging by the look of the poor kids they hadn't eaten or washed in days. It was yet another one of those 'hermosa' moments, demonstrating the unqualified success of the Argentinian government's welfare problem.

Fortunately, we knew better than to trust lonely planet and had arranged to drive up to the border with Chile to see Aconcagua, the highest mountain in the world outside of the Himelayas. The 200km drive from Mendoza was phenomenal, the mountains gradually growing in size and multiplying their shades of pink, red and grey as we headed up to 3000 metres in altitude. Here Daniela started to feel a bit of altitude sickness, so we explored the plateau and took some great photos. We visited the 'Puente de los Incas' where minerals contained in thermal hot water create multi-coloured rock formations. The surrounding colours were wonderful, as was the wind, which seemed to be talking to you, telling stories of far-off places. Here, a lungful of air was so pure that it almost made you drunk. A sign on the roadside said that we were 1,222kms from Buenos Aires, and only 150kms from Santiago, Chile.

This experience, us alone with the landscape, the whispering wind and sheer vastness of the Andes was, without doubt, hermosa.

Could Mountain Building Be the Solution to Climate Change?

Those Scientists who actually acknowledge that climate change is, at least partly, a result of human activity have, over recent years, split into two different camps when it comes to how the problem should be addressed. The first group consists of those who believe that a large-scale change in human behaviour is necessary, for example through individuals reducing their carbon footprint, governments utilising renewable energy resources and increased levels of recycling. The second group is comprised of scientists who believe that large-scale changes in human behaviour are difficult to bring about, and who instead focus their attention on developing technological solutions to global warming, whilst accepting that humans will continue polluting, creating more and more rubbish and carbon as countries such as China and India industrialise.



This group of scientists has already produced numerous, hard-to-believe ideas for future macro-engineering projects, such as massive machines which could capture carbon in the atmosphere and bury it underground, or even giant mirrors which could be positioned in space between the earth and the sun and used to reflect some of the solar rays away from planet earth.



Support for this approach has gained ground in recent years. Indeed, the recent Copenhagen conference underlined just how difficult it will be to produce reductions in emissions in a world in which economic growth is seen as highly desirable and 200 countries at different stages of development and with different interests find it impossible to agree a common position towards the care of our biosphere. Maybe, just maybe we should give up once and for all on trying to modify peoples behaviour by creating armies of environmentally aware recyclers and instead look to technology for the solution.



Why has nothing yet been done to implement any of these macro-engineering projects? Well, the major problem has been the large costs involved, which in a period of global economic crisis has rendered their implementation impossible.



However, the good news is that a solution is at hand and that it comes from the most unlikely of sources: pre-Colombian South American technology!



Let me explain. In western Argentina, in the dry, desert-like foothills of the Andes, lies the city of Mendoza. It was founded two thousand years ago by the Incas. In the 19th century scientists were fascinated as to how the Incas could have created a city in such a dry, hostile environment. They discovered that as long ago as 500 A.D,, the Incas had already constructed a network of canals to carry water from the peaks of the Andes, towering over 5,000 metres above the city, down into the desert below. These channels meant that in the areas surrounding the city, where less than 5 inches on rain falls each year, agriculture thrives, producing high quality olive oil and vineyards stretching to the horizon which produce some of the most sought-after wines in the world. In short, the irrigation channels built by the Incas produced a land of milk and honey where otherwise there would have been a desert.



Scientists with the Argentinean government climate change action unit, having heard about the work of the ancient Incas, starting speculating. “We thought”, says Abril Pez, head scientist of the group, “that if we could construct similar, man-made peaks in dry, desert regions, that these peaks would attract rain and snow, as the Andes do above Mendoza, and that specially designed channels could carry the precipitation down to ground level, to produce high-quality conditions for agriculture”.



The group discovered that the major problem would be finding materials which could be used to construct such artificial peaks, which would need to reach at least 5,000 metres in height. “We thought long and hard” continues Abril, “before hitting on the solution. Mankind today produces so much rubbish that the landfill sites are overflowing. We just don't know where to put all the rubbish that we produce. We will use this rubbish, which previously went into landfill sites choking our towns and cities, to construct man-made mountains in desert and semi-desert areas where agriculture or cities need more precipitation, such as in Australia, the western USA, the Sahel zone in Africa and the Middle East. Engineers will build irrigation channels into these constructions and hey presto, ice, snow and rain falling onto the peaks will flow down into the deserts below, making them bloom”.



Pez’s group has already received funding from the Government’s of Western Australia and California to continue their research, and they are conducting research into suitable locations to commence building before 2020.



Buenos Aires, 1st April 2010, 8.57 am