What an interesting start to the new Senedd term!

The selection of the First Minister is usually a formality, being at the bequest of the largest party when they have a working majority. But on this occasion it has become anything but a formality.

Let me start my analysis by stating that what I’m about to say is my reading of events based, in no small measure, on conversations that I have had today with 4 AMs from 3 different parties. So what happened?

Firstly, it appears that Plaid Cymru suggested to Labour that the selection of First Minister be postponed while inter-party talks were undertaken to work out the working relationships in the new Senedd. I am not at all surprised that Labour saw little point in this as they were always going to work on the assumption that they were going to form a minority government with Carwyn Jones at its head.

It was equally unsurprising that Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, who both aspire to leading the government of Wales one day, would jump on this as the arrogance of Welsh Labour exercising their sense of entitlement to govern in Wales, irrespective of what sort of mandate they are given from the electorate.

Having had talks with Labour rebutted, Plaid Cymru decide to stand Leanne Wood against Carwyn Jones in the First Minister selection process. From what I can gather this has never happened before. The Labour minority governments of Rhodri Morgan saw him selected unopposed, or when in coalition, saw him selected as first minister with a coalition partner as Deputy (LD Mike German in 2000 and PC Ieuan Wyn Jones in 2007) thrashed out in the coalition agreement negotiations. PC’s move seems to have been a response to Labour dismissing any discussion of a possible working relationship. I think this was very ill-advised on PC’s part. I said earlier in the week that they should stay well clear of a coalition with Labour and focus on being an effective opposition force, with a possible confidence and supply arrangement over matters of policy that PC would want to support. I think they will be regretting this strategy as the implications of what has emerged from it sink in.

As soon as they resolved to stand Leanne against Carwyn, they notified the other parties of their intent. This is a far as it went – and I am very confident that this is the fact of the matter. It was, however, a clear invitation for the other opposition parties to give Carwyn a bloody nose at the start of the new term. But it provided an opportunity for them to wound PC into the bargain. And with UKipper familiarity with the dark arts of politics in particular, it was an opportunity too good to miss. They thrive on chaos.

Leanne Wood, and all her PC colleagues, had taken very opportunity possible during the election campaign to stress that they would not work with either the Conservatives or UKip. What happened today was not PC so much working with them, but it was a opportunity to be seen to back Leanne in way that would have no adverse consequences for them , but would effectively tar and feather PC for being seen to even associate with and talk to them.

Initially, I was pretty disgusted that Kirsty Williams, the lone Lib Dem, chose to support Carwyn. It smacked of supporting the establishment party yet again. However, I now think she has done everybody a favour. Had she backed Leanne, Leanne’s bluff would have been well and truly called and she would have become  First Minister without a snowball’s chance in hell of actually being able to form a government. It would have been a complete farce. Why so?

Firstly, attempting to form a coalition of all the opposition would be completely untenable as well as political suicide of the most absurd kind. It would be even more unforgivable than the LD coalition with the Tories in Westminster. I suspect at least two thirds of the membership would resign immediately. Secondly, not only have Labour already effectively ruled it out, but a coalition with Labour would also not go down well with the PC members. Relationships between the parties, especially in Cardiff, and especially after ‘cheap-date-gate’ are at an all time low, and set to drop even lower after this episode. Again PC would likely haemorrhage members and support if they went down this route. It is all nonsensical.

So what happens next?

I presume they try again, next week I am guessing. If it is not resolved with 28 days, Welsh Secretary, Alun Cairns (if not forced to resign over his bloated election spending), will have the option of dissolving the Assembly and calling another election. This would certainly be an interesting prospect.

If PC decide to put Leanne up against Carwyn again, I expect the Tories and UKip to do as they did this time. This would give Kirsty an interesting casting vote scenario. Would she be tempted to call Leanne’s bluff, perhaps in a deal that saw her offered her a ministerial position? Would Labour then feel forced into some form of coalition with PC? They may not want to risk another election so soon having seen so many supposed safe seats become marginals now last week’s election.

I hope this is not what happens. I cannot see it ending well for anybody. It is a political stunt that is danger of back-firing badly on PC, but what has been done cannot be undone. I would like to see PC take a step back and re-assess what is the best way forward from here. Carwyn has had his bloody nose; let’s move on. I am assuming that it was never the intention for PC to try and force their way into government, with or without Leanne as first minister. It may have been the intention to try and force a new election and capitalise on the Rhondda result and host of near misses. However, given that mud sticks, the ‘working with UKip and Tories at the first opportunity’ mud would remain far to fresh and sticky for that to really stand any chance of working.

The best way forward is for them to do what they probably should have done in the first place. That is, do not stand Leanne against Carwyn but abstain from the vote for First Minister if there is a contest. A minority Labour government with Carwyn at the helm is a recipe for continued mediocrity, which may not be the best thing for the welsh public, but does allow other parties and PC and the LD in particular some leverage on policy making irrespective of formal agreements. It is the best way to maintain the Party’s identity – which this episode is sadly in danger of seriously tarnishing and blurring – and given a spell of effective opposition, is the best way of building support come the next election.

And so nothing will change once again.

LABOUR – get away with it. Labour lose around 50,000 votes and drop from 42% of the vote to 35% of the vote and yet still have a workable minority government position. On the basis of a 45% turnout, that means we all have to suffer another 5 years of Welsh Labour’s Blairite red tory complacency on the back of just 19%, less than one in five, of the electorate voting for them. If that doesn’t highlight just how far away we are from any form of truly proportional representation we are still, I don’t know what would. It seems that they were saved by the fact that the FPTP constituency element saw them lose votes everywhere, yet with big majorities for the most part, they were still safe as houses with just a few exceptions.
Of course, losing Leighton Andrews so spectacularly was a big blow. His Assembly career has been a bit chequered. His surplus places policies and school banding crap tarnished his time in charge of education – contributing nothing but anxiety and doing nothing to address Wales dismal performance in PISA comparisons. He oversaw an alarming decline in performance in all core subject areas.And yet this appalling legacy probably didn’t do for him as much as his pathetic “cheap date” quip against Plaid Cymru in the last session of the Senedd before it was dissolved for this election. Boy, did Leanne Woods capitalise on that in her constituency (even if the reaction in the Senedd, blocking the Health Bill, was poorly judged). His belligerency may be missed by some, but as a potential leadership challenger, I doubt if even Carwyn will be too gutted he is history.

PLAID CYMRU – the bare minimum necessary progress made. Leanne Wood’s trouncing of Leighton Andrews was a ringing personal endorsement of Leanne on her home patch. Leighton Andrew’s contribution to his own downfall aside, it showed how Leanne is capable of connecting with people and persuading people when they get to know her. That her good TV debate performances were not enough to spread the ‘Leanne effect’ far and wide (a la Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland) tells me that this is not the format she should be relying on.
This map is hugely telling. That blob of yellow surrounded by red is Leanne’s Rhondda seat right in the very heart of Labour’s South Wales heartland. It should be seen as the first domino to fall. For Plaid Cymru to ever sweep to government (like the SNP in Scotland) they have to connect with Labour voters. Some of the neighbouring seats saw decent PC progress (Pontypridd and Aberavon, both +5% and second place; +9% in Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney and a spectacular +31% and a very close second in Blaenau Gwent.) Add to this a whole raft of other second places, some much closer than others, and there are plenty of places for Leanne to spend increasing amounts of time, not too far from home, where she needs to sprinkle her magic dust.
They also still have issues with their messaging. It was clear from a whole raft of messaging boards and from comments made in response to things like the political compass indicating that Plaid Cymru should be their party, that the language issue remains a barrier. I know that this is controversial, but it is also incontrovertible. Just a glance through the names off their candidates highlights their their over-riding Welshness . Leanne Wood is the least welsh name among them! So another priority for them has to be in addressing greater diversity in their candidates (even their only openly gay AM is called Price!) and finding ways to ensure that the vast majority of Labour voters, especially those of relatively low educational attainment, feel perfectly comfortable voting Plaid Cymru despite having no welsh and/or no desire to learn or embrace the language. That this is a message that will be resented and resisted by many members will simply prove my point.
Overall then, very disappointing, but with enough encouragement to foster the belief that major advances are tantalisingly close still. They need to resist any deals with Labour, continue to press the ecosocialist agenda that is way forward for developing a Welsh economy and Welsh society that succeed and stand strong in the face of neoliberal assaults from Westminster, Brussels and, indeed, Cardiff Bay while Carwyn and his Red Tory crew remain in charge.

Ouch!

CONSERVATIVES – On the one hand it always good to see Tories take a kicking, but that they lose 3 seats to the ultra-Tories of UKIP is not really any good to anybody. However, it was still good to see them drop below Plaid Cymru’s contingent into third place overall. It means that we Leanne does at least become the leader of the opposition in every sense.

Private Eye, April 1997

UKIP – I’ve little more to say than WTF!!!! It just goes to show how you can fool some of the people much of the time. The worst thing about their ‘success’ is that with their awful track record of attendance at any institution they get elected to, partly because they have no friends and nobody is interested in listening to them anyway, it hands Labour a working majority to all intents and purposes. Hamilton and Reckless will quickly get bored and I’ll be surprised if any other than those living locally are seen much at all. It will be interesting to see how all those egos get on together. Gill better keep watching his back methinks.

LIB DEMS – Woeful. Sad. Good people lost. The end.

GREENS – I told you so. If you are ready to listen, you know where to find me. Stick the fivers you owe me in the party kitty – it must be desperately bare by now.

And so it goes on. The Senedd should become a bit more lively, with a few loud and brash characters added to the mix (try to calm down a bit now, Neil McAvoy) and nothing having an easy ride through, but the Welsh people have had their say. They haven’t changed enough and so they can’t expect any real change.

Perhaps another 5 years of mediocrity will shake them from their stupor.

A timely tale from close to home.

Today saw a special meeting of Bridgend CBC’s Planning Committee to discuss the mess (both figuratively and literally) that is the former Margam/Parc Slip opencast site, just outside Bridgend.

Oggy Bloggy Ogwr covers the saga well, but things are coming to something of a head. The two relevant councils , BCBC and NPTCBC, have long since given up on seeing Celtic Energy restore the site fully, as was a condition of their planning consents, in no small part because of Caerphilly-based Celtic Energy pulling that classic capitalist con trick of transferring ownership of the sites to a transferred ownership of the opencast sites to a British Virgin Islands registered subsidiaries, namely Oak Regeneration, Pine Regeneration, Beech Regeneration and Ash Regeneration, none of which appear to have the assets required for restoration. Five senior executives at Celtic Energy walked away with benefits worth more than £10m… according to George Monbiot.

Oak Regeneration (etc.) have proven typically slippery customers. With inadequate assets to do the work, they tried ‘twisting the arms’ of planners to grant them more opencast licences (towards Pencoed I believe) to pay for the work. Both councils fanned about, not attempting to enforce conditions straight after mining stopped and giving Oak encouragement to squirm further. This squirming eventually led to attempted fraud charges being levelled and then dropped for lack of evidence, but the overall picture remained much the same – the company only had £8m to its name to do work expected to cost £157m.

Thus we have something of an impasse. Any attempt to enforce compliance on Oak Regeneration will bankrupt it and under the Tory-inspired planning system, the corporate bosses walk away scot-free, while our Councils and Wales Government are left to pick up the pieces and do the work from public money.

Plaid Cymru AM, Bethan Jenkins, has been at the forefront of attempts to raise this issue in the Senedd. Labour minister, Carl Sargeant has been just as evasive and ‘careful’ in his language over this issue as he has over fracking – i.e. uninspiring and untrustworthy. Carwyn Jones has had notably little to say – even though it impacts on his constituency.

So where do we find ourselves today?

The most pressing issue regards the 600 by 400 metre water-filled hole, up to 108 metres deep in places.

Parc Slip lake

Oggy cites a report on the dangers this feature presents which includes this chilling scenario:

“It predicts within 2 hours of a breach, 1.75 million cubic metres of water would flow into the River Kenfig, resulting in floods – between 2 metres (6’6”) and 4 metres (13′) deep in some areas – downstream at the Crown Road area of Kenfig Hill, North Cornelly and the Kenfig Industrial Estate which would be, in the report’s own words, “potentially catastrophic and life threatening”.

The only plan on the table from Celtic/Oak involves using an overflow channel to slowly drain this lake into the River Kenfig. It is just about the only option within Oak’s manipulated budget. But having seen the water in Ffos-y-fran this week, that is a scary enough proposition within costly monitoring and remedying of water quality going into a river that flows into the Kenfig National Nature Reserve!!

The interesting development this week, again echoing the fracking issue, is that apparently a request has been made for the application(s) to be “called-in”. That means a full public inquiry could be held, while the incoming Welsh Government minister (please, please, not Sergeant!) with responsibility for planning would decide the application themselves.

It is to be hoped that the next Wales Bill will devolve sufficient autonomy to Wales Government to allow them to address this wilful dodging of responsibility. Only when directors are held personally liable for the decisions they take on behalf of their corporations are we going to see these appalling attitudes change.

As fellow local blogger, Oggy Bloggy Ogwr has virtually invited my observations on the coming elections in Bridgend and Ogmore, I guess it would be rude not to do so.

Oggy has no declared party affiliations, but is essentially a good ecosocialist according to he his published political compass positioning, but a remarkably balanced and unbiased commentator on the local and Wales-wide political scene. I am, of course rather more partisan (although Oggy sounds like he is unaware that I quit the green Party a year ago now), making no bones of my distaste for Tories of all colours (red Tory-light, blue Tory-regular, purple Tory-ultra).

Having said this, I really cannot disagree with anything Oggy has said in terms of predicting the forthcoming polls in Bridgend and Ogmore constituencies.

It is pretty obvious to everybody that these two constituencies remain shoe-ins for Welsh Labour. It would take upsets of Leicester City proportions for any other result to happen. However, knowing a lot of the candidates as I do I would like to make a few observations.

With Conservatives and UKIP running second and third in the last election, it could indeed be plausible for a pact between them to run Carwyn close enough to give him at least mild indigestion. But that presupposes that UKip voters (if not their candidates) have more affinity with Blue Tories than Red ones. Carwyn diminished majority will be on the back of (struggling not to stick an insulting adjective in here) Labour voters switching to Ukip. It would have been nice to see a bit co-operation between the relatively left parties of the Lib Dems , PC and Greens in Bridgend working together to try and at least relegate UKIP to 4th place, but that won’t happen, and it will actually be a quite interesting scrap among the minor places to see if the Lib Dem meltdown is reflected in Bridgend or whether Plaid Cymru can get the ‘best of the rest’ tag off them. The Greens so at least have a solid local candidate this time around, but sadly the last I heard was that the local party had folded, or rather merged with NPT Green Party.

As for Ogmore, it is a similar story, but with Plaid Cymru in good shape to hld onto 2nd place with a good local candidate, Tim Thomas, who I know well, and am happy to endorse. The Greens really shouldn’t have been wasting deposits on either Bridgend or Ogmore, but their candidate in Ogmore is the wonderful Laurie Brophy. He a charming ma of advancing years, but he was arguably the fittest member of Bridgend Green Party throughout my time with it. Awkwardly, I would still rather ecosocialist-inclined voters opt for supporting Plaid Cymru, just to try and ensure Tim isn’t ambushed by a UKIp surge, should it emerge.

So there you have. Very uninspiring elections, with depressingly predictable outcomes. The real interest on Thursday will be elsewhere. I am hoping for a big surge towards Plaid Cymru. There has been some evidence of them picking up some momemntum, but we will have to see if it amounts to serious progress. It won’t manifest itself in the constituency votes in Bridgend and Ogmore, but I is especailly vital that Plaid Cymru gets your top-up list vote everywhere (bar perhaps Mid Wales, where Alice Hooker-Stroud is lead candidate and perhaps a better prospect than the Pc alternatiove there).

I was thrilled and proud to take part in the biggest occupation (between 300 and 400 people) of a UK mining operation, that effectively closed down the opencast mining operations for around 12 hours today. It was the first of a series of protests around the world, moving to Germany next week, before moving across at least 4 other continents.

For those wanting to understand more about why it is time to end coal production, check out the Coal Action Network.

Ffos-y-Fran, near Merthyr Tydfil, was selected for the UK protest, as it is the UK’s biggest opencast site, one of the biggest in Europe. It’s pernicious effects on the local environment, local residents and their health has seen locals battling the company responsible, Miller Argent, every step of the way. Their United Valleys Action Group (UVAG)has also successfully organised opposition to another opencast operation nearby at Nant Llesg. This has seen Caerphilly CBC turn down the planning application in an historic decision last year.

The action was planned, co-ordinated and executed brilliantly by the truly inspiring Reclaim the Power team.I saw Reclaim the Power take their first mass action at Balcombe in 2013, but this is the first time I have gotten directly involved in their direct action. To say I have been impressed would be an understatement. Most of the organisers and facilitators are under 30, educated, articulate, passionate people with all the right values. The attention to detail ensures inclusivity, democracy through consensus, health and safety, and quality in everything from food provision (via the awesome Veggies “…probably the best vegan catering outfit on the planet”) to the music (e.g. the brilliant Seize The Day), even down to good local beer in the bar.

The mass trespass proceeded without any real opposition from the mine owners. Mining was suspended and both Police and private security just maintained a watching brief. There was a bit of tension when the local chief inspector briefly attempted to address us and ‘lay the law’ down, but he was simply drowned out and ignored and he pretty much gave it up as a bad job. There was never a whiff of aggression from anybody and even though those more agile than me clambered all over the big machines, everyone was very careful to do no damage, and in fact, with conscious efforts to clear not just our own litter, but to clear flytipping and other rubbish from across the common, I am confident that the whole area will be left cleaner and tidier than when we arrived. Full marks, once again, to Reclaim The Power for actually having that as a stated objective.

I’ll finish with a selection of links to media coverage of the weekend – which at the end of the day is the main purpose of such direct action – to put the issues before the public gaze and to raise awareness of the issues.

• BBC News
• ITV News
• The Guardian
• WalesOnline
• The Ecologist
• South Wales Argus
• Caerphilly Observer
• Premier.
• Energy Voice
• RTP flickr album

Why ‘nonsense on stilts’?

BENTHAM – quite  a character!

The phrase was coined by one of my great philosophical heroes, Jeremy Bentham. Living from the mid 18th century and well into the 19th century, Bentham defined as the “fundamental axiom” of his philosophy the principle that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”. He became a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts. He called for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty, and the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children. He has also become known in recent years as an early advocate of animal rights. Though strongly in favour of the extension of individual legal rights, he opposed the idea of natural law and natural rights, calling them “nonsense upon stilts“.

His influence has therefore been a profound one and I don’t feel that the political left give him enough credit for that influence. He does, however, continue to influence philosophical thought today, and this is why Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy at the City University of New York, chose “Nonsense on Stilts” for the title of his book examining the ambiguity surrounding science today. It looks at how science is conducted , how it it is disseminated, how it is interpreted and what it means to our society, in this age of rampant capitalism and social media. The book is very accessible and should be a read by everybody with a genuine interest in understanding the world we live in. David Shenk, acclaimed author of the book/film “The Forgetting: Understanding Alzheimer’s“, describes the book thus:

“This is such an important book and a great read. It is not an overstatement to say that our future survival may depend on the public’s ability to distinguish between science and pseudo-science. With patience, precision, and humour, Massimo Pigliucci charts a careful course for all scientists and communicators to follow”.

Why am I writing about this today?

Someone that I have come to know quite well and hugely respect through the anti-fracking movement turns out to be an anti-vaxxer. That huge respect is therefore being severely challenged and I am hugely saddened by this. I am struggling to come to terms with the reality that hugely intelligent, passionate campaigners, inspirational and influential personalities can be so right on some things and yet so wrong on others.

Before anyone starts accusing me of having the arrogance to assert that I am never wrong, or the like, this would be to miss the point entirely. I have not done the research to establish the scientific truth of anything. I know nothing other than what my own senses and intellect have told me and I have come to realise, with ever greater frequency, just how fallible both those things are. What I do have is a half-decent grounding in science and philosophy. With the tools these have provided me, it allows me to discern sense from nonsense; the credible from the incredible; the reasonable from the unreasonable.

This is not always an easy thing to do, and there are many issues where I remain unconvinced one way or the other, either because the science itself remains inconclusive, or more likely because I simply cannot get my head around what the science is telling me. However, in the tradition of philosophers like David Hume, Thomas Paine and Jeremy Bentham, I do believe we have a moral duty to do our best to distinguish sense from nonsense. As Pigliucci points out, however, this can be a difficult task that is patently beyond many people. It requires an understanding of the nature and limits of science, of logical fallacies, of the psychology of belief, and even (perhaps especially) an understanding of how politics and sociology impact on all this.

I am often accused of being closed-minded and intolerant. This reflects flaws in my personality rather than the truth of my disposition. My mind is always open to sound evidence. I have changed my position on many issues in the light of newly revealed evidence. I do not change my mind just because forceful personalities encourage me to do so. As a professional teacher, I have always been tolerant with people willing to learn. I am also very tolerant of ignorance that is the result of circumstances beyond a person’s ability to control or do anything about. On this basis I can respect most people who hold all manner of religious beliefs, as I understand how indoctrination of the young works and how hard it can be to break free from its controlling influence on your mind and your daily life. It was a difficult journey for me to make myself, being brought up in the Roman Catholic church. I am, however, increasingly intolerant of the mindful ignorance in those that have the intellect and education to do better than be conned into anti-scientific crusades. The get out clause there is the word ‘conned’, as this is what they have been. Pigliucci’s book does a fine job of explaining how this comes about.

A good starting point is Karl Popper’s famous “demarcation problem”. The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and conscience, including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs. The debate continues after over a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method. Essentially, Popper believes that fields like psychoanalysis and sociology are unscientific because they are “unfalsifiable”, while true sciences, like physics and chemistry, are never absolutely proven because they are always open to the possibility that new evidence will falsify them. It is often categorised as either ‘hard science’ or ‘soft science’. The latter may well use the scientific method, but the nature of the subject matter and the evidence involved results in the demarcation problem. This does not mean soft science is not science, but just that they have additional problems in terms of their degree of certainty (which, remember, is never 100% for any science).

Another issue is that of quasi-science – i.e. ‘almost science’, if you like. On the one hand, it happens around the fringes of the acknowledged ‘hard’ sciences like physics. When physicists start philosophising about things beyond their ability to currently apply the scientific method to, such as multiverses and the multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, often based on little more than mathematical modelling, then we begin to see “the potential mathematical elegance being far removed, or even alien to, physical reality” (Lawrence Krauss ‘Hiding in the Mirror‘).

Quasi-science is not the same as pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms. Pseudoscience is often characterised by the things listed to the left. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. It is, either innocently or corruptly, the product of faulty thinking. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterisation.

As Pigliucci concedes, everyone has the right to be irrational, but rampant irrationality is, at best, highly wasteful, and at worst, highly destructive and harmful. Pigliucci takes particular look at the following areas of pseudoscience:

1. AIDS denialism in Africa
2. Astrology
3. UFOs
4. The paranormal

The list of pseudoscientific topics is mind-bogglingly extensive . Most are harmless. Some are almost certainly beneficial to some extent (things don’t have to be scientific to be beneficial – some people even derive benefits from religion after all).

Pigliucci then goes on to discuss the role the media plays in advancing pseudoscience and assorted bunk. Newspapers, television and social media lap it all up (although, surprisingly, he overlooks social media, which I think has a hell of a lot to answer for in terms of giving bunk traction with intelligent people). He follows this up with the role of ‘think tanks’ and ‘public intellectuals’- much beloved of the media to give all sorts of bunk a veneer of supposed credibility. This is not to say all think tanks and public intellectuals are corrupt or heretics. But we all have our favourites that we take to be reliable and therefore rarely question. For me, I much love Noam Chomsky and Carl Sagan, along with the work of Compass and the New Economics Foundation, but on the other hand, Newt Gingrich, David Starkey, the Centre for Social Justice and Adam Smith Institute can all go to hell. But therein lies the problem. One person’s intellectualism is another person’s spindoctorism! (Pigliucci’s prosaic term, not mine).

In dealing with the interplay between science and politics, the classic example simply has to be global warming. Most reading this will not need me to go into this topic, there simply is no scientific debate on the realities of global warming – merely some minor debate over rates of change and extrapolating the complexities of the causal factors. Dissenters use pseudoscience and blatant corruption to give the illusion of a debate as this suits the interests of corporate paymasters.

Some absurd bunk serves nobody’s interests, yet can be so passionately subscribed to that it raises questions of where we should draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable to society as a whole. The example that Pigliucci focuses on is the battleground between evolution theory and intelligent design theory that ended up in American courtrooms to ascertain their relative merits on the science curriculum of american schools! I have dealt with issues of christian fundamentalist schooling elsewhere. Current Conservative education policy opens up the prospect of us having to fight similar battles here, although currently creationism is not allowed to be taught as part of the science curriculum (in theory at least).

This resurgence in ‘Dark Ages’ mentality links in with the section of Pigliucci’s book that looks the history of scientific thought from the Egyptians and Babylonians. For me, it was the Socratics of Greece, and Lucretius in particular, that demonstrated just how lost humanity, in Europe at least, became after the fall of the Roman Empire with all its great applied science/technological achievements. While acknowledging that medieval times were not entirely without their achievements – ironically enough especially in Islamic countries – the role of the christian church in undermining rational thought and consigning much science to the status of heresy cannot be ignored. Indeed, another prompt to this article is witnessing another friend of mine ‘finding’ religion and openly professing biblical fundamentalism of the creationist and ‘flat earth’ variety. It is bewildering and sad to witness in an otherwise intelligent, creative and articulate person. That may come across as patronising, but only to those that think such views are acceptable. I find that attitude far more patronising. As an educationalist, the peddling of nonsense can never be acceptable and we owe it to all involved to be steadfast in challenging it.

There are, of course, legitimate questions as to whether we have grown to trust science too much. Pigliucci examines this in detail. I think the bottom line here is that good scientists never trust that they have the final definitive answer. In many cases there can often be more than one correct answer, for a start. Furthermore having scientifically correct answers is not the same as having the best solution to a problem. This is one reason for ongoing friction between scientists and philosophers on some issues. The problem is among people that do not fully appreciate the scope and limitations of science. Nonetheless, science remains by far the most effective way of gaining knowledge (and power, as Francis Bacon famously pointed out) over the natural world and improving the human condition. This is why we simply have to rein in the extreme versions of science criticism that have developed over the last few decades.

Thus the question that we now need to pose is whether we have come to trust science too little. Pigliucci tackles this issue by focussing on the impact of postmodernist scepticism. He focuses in particular on people like Paul Feyerabend, who he cites as “the quintessential example of what goes wrong when science and the humanities collide”. In essence he demonstrates how Feyerabend deliberately created controversy by stating outrageous things that he didn’t really believe for the express purpose of selling some books. Controversy, per se, is an important element in any form of intellectual discourse, and I agree with Pigliuccis that we ought to respect people who have the guts to to say what they think regardless of how popular their positions may be, irrespective of whether they turn out to right or wrong, but spouting things that are are demonstrably untrue for personal gain is an intellectual travesty and pernicious fraud.

For me, it saddens me to see people being taken in by these charlatans. In the left wing circles that I tend to spend a lot of time, I see a lot of people rightfully mistrustful of “Big Pharma” and the distortion of science by corporate interests. However, this seems to have a created a propensity to be taken in, all too easily, by the quackery of what I now call “Little Pharma” peddling all manner of supposedly naturalistic approaches and remedies. It appeals to Earth loving souls, pagans and avowed hippies in particular. Kindly, gentle souls with their hearts very much in the right places; it can be a painful experience trying to point out how it is they are being conned and fleeced in much the same way as big pharma cons and fleeces governments and health professionals, but with even less hope of successful outcomes.

So taking a look a the anti-vaxxers in particular, examination of a typical Facebook thread – one that has appeared on my timeline just this week for example – is illuminating. It starts with the eye catching headline:

Studies Prove Without Doubt That Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier Than Their Vaccinated Peers

taken from the ‘Circle of Docs’ website – a chiroprac website (chiropractice being an ‘alternative’ therapy to the somewhat more rigorous and sound ‘osteopathy’, but neither of which have any expertise in vaccines). The study that supposedly proves without doubt that unvaccinated children are healthier than their vaccinated peers consisted of a study in New Zealand that was merely a questionnaire survey of 245 families, with a total of 495 children – 226 vaccinated, 269 unvaccinated. Its conclusion:
“While this was a very limited study, particularly in terms of the numbers of unvaccinated children that were involved and the range of chronic conditions investigated, it provides solid scientific evidence in support of considerable anecdotal evidence that unvaccinated children are healthier that their vaccinated peers.”

If it is not clear to anyone reading this that this is a million miles away from proving anything “without doubt”, or that indeed these findings are absolutely riddled with doubt, then you may as well stop reading now.

After a bit of ding-donging from mothers wrestling with what they perceive to be a difficult decision, we come across a very telling contribution that says: “I just thought I’d share I never vaccinated [daughter] when she was little. Before we went to India last year I had a couple of precautionary vaccinations given to Her. She was almost 9 at the time. She was then and remains one of the healthiest children I have ever met.” I guess there is nothing like hedging your bets! I could not resist: “I am curious as to why you thought it was a wise precaution to have vaccinations before going to India, but not while in this country. Is it, perhaps because virtually everybody in this country has been vaccinated and largely elimianated the threats whereas the lack of a comprehensive vaccination programme in India means that the threats are much greater?“ No response from this mum as yet!

Having been accused of being patronising and intolerant, I simply posted a quick barrage of articles highlighting the resurgence of many diseases in response to the undermining of vaccination programmes by people opting out. This was met by the another resort to supposed authority in the form of Kelly Brogan, MD. She describes herself as ‘a holistic women’s health psychiatrist’. Mind games very much to the fore and, of course, she has books for sale with all the answers and you can even have your own personal consultation in her Madison Avenue office suite – for a price of course! ($1000 for the initial hour, then $450 per 40 minute follow up appointment). Nice work if you can get it. And it appears that a bit of brazen tenacity and a lack of a conscience is all that is needed. She is neatly dissected here, and the discussion thread at the end makes interesting reading too.

Even when more credible experts are brought in by the anti-vaxxers, there are problems. The Facebook thread follows up Brogan with a reference to an acknowledged expert in HPV vaccines, namely Dr Diane Harper, under the headline “Chief HPV Scientist Admits Vaccines Are A Deadly Scam”. Which scientific journal was breaking this news? It was YourNewsWire.com, who make a speciality out of running with conspiracy stories.  However, a little digging reveals the extent of the mis-reporting going on here. The concerns raised were not over vaccines in general, but Gardisil in particular. And the concerns were not that Gardasil is ineffective, not that it’s dangerous, but that its benefits might be oversold, which is not an unreasonable concern in this capitalist world of ours. Indeed Harper is quoted as saying: “I remain a vaccine supporter; and am grateful that GSK and Merck have developed the vaccines”.

Of course Kelly Brogan is just one of a wide array of charlatans preying on the vulnerable and gullible. Pigliucci offers a guide for helping discern a real expert from a phoney. He presents Alvin Goldman’s five point checklist which can be summarised as follows:

1. Examine the merits and quality of the arguments presented (being especially alert for logical fallacies and non-sequiturs I would suggest)
2. Look for evidence of agreement from other experts (who pass the same analysis of their credentials as an expert – charlatans endorsing other charlatans is not uncommon)
3. Look for some independent evidence that the expert is an acknowledged expert (sound qualifications and peer-reviewed papers in their fields of expertise)
4. Look for potential biases and vested interests at work that may undermine credibility (political and religious biases; corporate connections, products they market etc.)
5. Ideally a proven track record in their field – which may be hard on young prodigies, but their time will come.

On this basis, Pigliucci demolishes Deepak Chopra, supposed expert in ‘quantum mysticism’, and Michael Behe, supposed expert on ‘intelligent design’. George Monbiot nominates Christopher Booker as the ‘patron saint of charlatans’ for his efforts in undermining asbestos science and climate change denialism. I expect we can all offer up our ‘favourites’. Con artists can often be viewed as loveable rogues for their audacity and charm – but they all leave trails of victims in their wake, and many of the issues I have alluded to here have the potential for deadly consequences on a large scale.

Flat earthers can be pitied and/or ridiculed for there are few if any consequences to their stupidity. What is the worst that can happen, even if they are proved right? A crash in demand for round the world flights and cruises is about as far as I can imagine.

Climate change denialists have probably already condemned us to a future full of catastrophic consequences. It remains just a question of how soon and how severe the worst of consequences hits us. Related conspiracy theories, like chemtrails, leave me with some unanswered questions, but I remain very sceptical that there is anything going on a global scale as some would have us believe.

GMO crops is an interesting one. I remain in the anti-camp despite firmly believing the technology offers great scope to advancement, but I simply don’t trust the people an corporations involved to do the science rigorously enough to mitigate the potential risks.

At the end of the day, we all have to make our own judgements on what we believe to be true on all manner of issues. A belief in the rigorous application of the scientific method as the best way we have of getting as close as possible to the truth. The challenge before us is how to ensure that this is properly understood by in a world full of mischief, deceit and ignorance.

And if all else fails …..

P.S. The anti-vaxxers have a new focal point for their campaign in the form of a film called Vaxxed, which opened in New York three weeks ago, featuring the work of the discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield – barred by by the GMC and now to be found making a very comfortable living in America.

Review of film by an autism parent: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/04/02/movie-review-vaxxed/

An interesting approach to presenting the case against Dr Andrew Wakefield can be found here (screenshot below): http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html

In both cases read the discussion threads that follow the main content.

Organised by: Cynnal Cymru, Wildlife Trusts Wales, Hub Cymru Africa, Wales Environment Link, Christian Aid Wales, Tearfund, Love Zimbabwe, WWF Cymru, Renewable UK Cymru, Stop Climate Chaos Cymru, NUS Wales, Sub-Saharan Advisory Panel, Welsh Centre for International Affairs, Sustainable Places Research Institute: Cardiff University, Wales Council for Voluntary Action, National Federation of Women’s Institutes – Wales, Size of Wales, Fair Trade Wales, Disability in Wales and Africa, Friends of the Earth Cymru, NUS Wales, and Cardiff University People and Planet student society.

The hustings, chaired by veteran political broadcaster Glyn Mathias, aimed to address some of the biggest long-term global issues affecting the lives of people in Wales and around the world and how the different political parties propose to address these if they were to form the next Welsh Government.

The hustings brought together representatives from the main political parties in Wales to discuss, in particular, how their party would work towards developing their vision for the implementation of the Future Generations Act in Wales.

Representatives attending:

William Powell – Welsh Liberal Democrats
Alice Hooker-Stroud – Wales Green Party
Llyr Gruffydd – Plaid Cymru
Anna McMorrin – Welsh Labour

Ross England – Welsh Conservatives
UKIP did not respond to the invitation

With the focus very much on the Future Generations Act and its implementation, this was a key hustings event from the perspective of Frack Free Wales and Egnio Cymru. My main objective was to seek out the candidates views on these group’s main objectives and try to gain their signatures for their ongoing petitions to Welsh Government. In summary:

BAN ON FRACKING IN WALES

• William Powell – LD – unequivocal support and signed the petition
• Alice Hooker-Stroud – GP – unequivocal support and signed the petition
• Llyr Gruffydd – PC – unequivocal support and signed the petition
• Ross England – Con – not in his constituency!! Refused to sign the petition
• Anna McMorrin – Lab – ‘isn’t our moratorium great?’ Refused to sign the petition

MOVING TOWARDS 100% RENEWABLES

• William Powell – LD – yes in principle – reservations over large onshore wind farms – signed the petition
• Alice Hooker-Stroud – GP – unequivocal support, including for large scale projects, and signed the petition
• Llyr Gruffydd – PC – unequivocal support and signed the petition
• Ross England – Con – yes to more renewables if cost effective and part of a mix that includes fossil fuels etc. Refused to sign the petition.
• Anna McMorrin – Lab – yes to community renewables in particular, BUT refused to sign the petition.

I’ll cover a few points in more detail below, but the basic divisions were consistent and clear:
To the left, we had Plaid Cymru, Greens and Lib Dems all largely singing from the same song sheets, but with subtle differences in emphasis, as we would all expect and indeed hope. Most importantly of all, they were all singing the songs we want and need to be hearing, if there is to be any substance to the potential for change embodied in the Future Generations Act.
To the right we also had remarkable harmony, but in terms of shallow, meaningless pap. Both Tory and Labour candidates were happy to mutter greenwash platitudes, and cite achievements that are anything but when scrutinised, but when pushed to put their names to the meaningful change embodied in our petitions, they had nothing to say but a point blank refusal.

I have to make special mention of Llyr Gruffydd’s performance. I cannot ever recall a politician saying exactly what I wanted to say, and even in very similar manner to the way I would have wished to deliver it. It was almost as if he was my mouthpiece. He completely demolished the Labour pretence that there is a moratorium on fracking in Wales . He also demolished Labour claims to have done anything meaningful to support Community Energy to date, despite McMorrin citing it as a glorious achievement of the Labour administration. Even on other issues, he took my own position regarding the M4 relief road; that something has to be done, but that the Black Route is incompatible with the essence of the Future Generations Act, but that the Blue Route could be an acceptable compromise. When I first encountered Llyr, probably about 5 years ago he did not convince me that he could handle the Sustainable Communities, Energy and Food portfolio he was given. He has consistently grown into the role and clearly worked hard to improve his understanding and knowledge base. This in turn has made him a much more relaxed and assured performer. He helps to allay my fears (a little) that Plaid Cymru do not have enough talent to form a competent government.

I also have to make a special mention of Alice Hooker-Stroud’s performance. I have to say that the more I see of her, the more impressed I become. She has the calm assurance of someone who actually understands what she is talking about (ain’t that a refreshing change after the PB years?!). She does however have a rather academic, almost school ma’am manner, that is fine with a educated audience but unlikely to engage the disaffected. I have no hesitation in saying that she would make an excellent Assembly Member. There is a small chance that all the stars may align and let her squeak in. That would be real bonus for all concerned. Sadly, the Greens have not done enough on a consistent enough basis to make it happen this time around. As good an AM that I think she could be, I don’t think she has what it takes to be the effective leader that the Greens in Wales desperately need in order to become an election force. Until they sort out their priorities for the use of their limited time and financial resources, they will continue to fritter both away on vanity projects that impress too few, rather than doing the hard graft needed to win elections.

Enough of personalities, to conclude, here are a few collected soundbites from the evening that give a little food for thought:

• RE says Tories voted against the Future Generations Act in part because they were concerned local authorities were being given extra responsibilities without the extra funding to enable them. (Hmm…… whose fault is that then, Ross?)
• Both AM and LG highlighted the important role that the Future Generations Commissioner will have in helping implement the Act. The first Commissioner took up her role on 1st February this year. What do we know about Sophie Howe? There appears to be a distinct lack of environmental strength in her background, which does not augur well, but she is also a former Labour councillor and Deputy Police Commissioner (for Labour), and seeing FoTEC’s response to her appointment as possibly ‘compromising’ the role, is not a good start!
• There was general consent that the survival of the Welsh steel industry was important, if for no other reason that steel has a crucial part to play in just about all major infrastructure projects, be if renewable energy generators, or railway lines. Attitudes towards protectionist tariffs however took typical party lines.
• The best idea that came from RE for the Tories (and therefore I doubt it is their actual policy!) is a proposed annual review of progress with carbon emissions to monitor and hopefully ensure the desirable direction of travel with these.
• AHS made a slightly unusual (in the sense of not a typical Green position) case for big scale renewable projects, citing figures I did not quite get about logarithmic efficiency gains.
• WP raised legitimate concerns over TAN8 guidance on renewable energy projects and its inadequacies. A review and rewriting of TANs (Technical Advice Notes) is something that LG also supported. The lack of any TAN appropriate for fracking activity will not be a problem, of course, if we get it banned.

So, for what it’s worth, my marks out of 10 for the candidates before us at this hustings:

1. Llyr Gruffydd – PC 9/10
2. Alice Hooker-Stroud – GP 7/10
3. William Powell – LD 5/10
4. Ross England – Con 4/10
5. Anna McMorrin – Lab 3/10
6. DNS – UKIP 0/10

Most will be aware of my long involvement with the fight against fracking and my involvement with Frack Free Wales. I am pleased to report on my growing involvement with a new and growing campaign that focuses on the other side of the energy coin. If fracking is the downside or tails, an energy self-sufficient Wales using 100% renewable sources is the upside or heads. Egnio Cymru is a campaign focussed on achieving this within 20 years.

The Egnio vision is laid out here and the roadmap to achieving is being laid out here. The website is still being written and prepared, but I am not the only one involved who is currently focussing on the more immediate priority of engaging with the politicians in the run up to the 2016 Welsh Government Elections, and will do so over the next few weeks.

In this respect, we have a “Fr-action Plan” that tackle both sides of the coin over the coming weeks – and which you can all contribute as well! If you look at the fr-action pack section you will see the three-pronged approach laid:

• Digital Eco Warrior section for those able to help out from home
• Street Teams section – for those, either independently or through linking up with others, able to spend a little time in High Streets and the like
• Elections Hustings section – for those able to get to any of the elections hustings events going on all over the place in the next few weeks.

The packs contain advice on what you can do to help us ensure that our twin goals of a Frack Free Wales and safe, secure, dependable energy future are achieved, or underway to being achieved by the next Welsh Government.

Personally, I will be focussing on hustings and other opportunities to directly petition as many candidates as possible. I will post regular reports on the main hustings I get to, and we will collate candidate responses in time to help everyone make a properly informed choice by election day. Watch this space!

In fact I’ve been to my first big set-piece hosting at Cardiff University this evening – focussing on the Future Generations Act. It was high quality event and there is a fair bit to report on – I’ll try and do just that tomorrow.

By unhappy coincidence, quite a few people that I have been acquainted with in various ways have died recently.
I would not have witnessed any of this had I acted upon suicidal thoughts I was having myself, about 12 months ago.

I wrote a chapter on death in my book, The Asylum of the Universe, a good few years ago. The book was published 5 years ago and the Death chapter was one of the first I wrote – probably 3 or 4 years before that. I have felt inclined to revisit it recently.

The one major difference is that I no longer hold onto the belief that life is worth clinging to, no matter what. More than anything, I think this represents me making a transition from middle-age comfort towards older decrepitude and a growing realisation that very old age has little to offer, especially the way the world continues to shape up. I therefore offer this chapter I wrote 8-10 years ago, unedited, in this context, but for no real reason. If it opens up any useful discussion anywhere, then that will be a bonus.

DEATH

I overheard my wife chatting on the phone to her sister the other day. She was updating her on my father-in-law who has had a serious stroke recently. Last year he had his second kidney removed due to cancer. He has also had three heart attacks. She also mentioned my in-laws’ cat in the same conversation. It is 18 years old – around 90 in cat years, I am reliably informed. It seems to suffer some form of dementia. It will stand leaning against walls for ages. It walks into things. It is a nothing but skin and bones. You can stand on its tail and it doesn’t notice! The thing is, I wasn’t sure whether they were talking about the man or the cat when I heard my wife say that he probably cannot have too long left; that he has no real quality of life; that death will be a blessed relief. Hmmm!

It doesn’t really matter who they were talking about, does it? A blessed relief!! To whom would dying be any sort of relief? I struggle to conceive of a relieved corpse, so the relief must be that of the people relieved of the duty of care for the now-deceased. This is one of the main arguments for euthanasia, if I am not mistaken. And as for real quality of life, how much of that is there when you’re dead? It is the same line of argument that says, “Better dead than red”. Bollocks is it!

I do, of course, understand that people can decide that they have had enough and choose to terminate their own lives. These people fall in to two main categories: the religious and/or spiritual who wish to hasten their migration to the ‘other side’ for many reasons, including that curiously compelling concept called ‘martyrdom’; and the suicidally depressed whose mental state inflates their perception of life’s problems to the exclusion of life’s joys. The former choose to deny the finality of death, while the latter, if not also in this group, see the empty void, the nothingness, as preferable to the continued negative experiences that are swamping them at the time. It essentially boils down to a fear of living being greater than the fear of dying.

Although I fear death, in the sense that I would prefer to live forever than be non-existent, there can be absolutely nothing to fear in being dead. Epicurus, as so often, explained it well (centuries before Jesus):

It is religion that engenders fear of being dead – as it generally invokes concepts of judgement. We rarely feel comfortable being judged, but when the verdict of the judge is perceived to have eternal consequences, it is no wonder believers are nervous about it!

I find the concept of martyring oneself for a cause an interesting one. Belief in an afterlife must certainly make it a lot easier option to face up to. As I lack such beliefs myself, I tend to feel a sense of pity for these poor misguided fools who make the ultimate sacrifice in the hope of supposedly bettering the lives of other believers while securing themselves a place in paradise. But hang on minute. Where is the sacrifice in taking a short cut to heaven?

This is the religious con trick, currently so beloved of Muslim fundamentalists, but utilised by many religions throughout history. Making such a sacrifice out of a selfless sense of love for others is far more impressive I would suggest. I could accept the oblivion of death in order to perpetuate the lives of my kids, as they are my only stake in the future beyond my own existence. I cannot imagine sacrificing my life for anyone else.

Empirical evidence for life after death tends to focus on observations from ‘near death’ experiences. Research has revealed a fair degree of common features reported from people in these  circumstances. These include seeing bright lights, sensation of levitation, feelings of serenity or, alternatively, fear and out-of-body sensations and visions. Research has also uncovered, however, a range of scientific explanations that include hormone releases, residual effects of psychedelic drugs, and ‘reflexes’ in the sensory autonomic system, lucid dreaming and psychopathological symptoms.

So what forms of ‘life after death’ are on offer to those that are prepared to buy into various religious ‘deals’?

• Christians and Muslims are particularly keen on heavenly paradises for the worthy and eternal suffering in hell for those that do not make the cut.

• Christians have had cute notions of sprouting wings and metamorphosing into angels, if you are lucky enough to go to heaven, or sprouting horns and, possibly, a wicked sense of humour if you go to hell.

• Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Wiccans have a fine range of reincarnation options on offer.

• Ancient Egyptians had a special offer, whereby if you subjected your corpse to mummification you could get to ride with the Sun. Sounds exciting!

• Zoroastrians get to spend three days with either a beautiful maiden (if you are good) or an ugly hag (if you are bad), before descending to a mildly unpleasant sort of hell. I am not sure if the women get exactly the same deal or what!

• Ancient Greeks and Romans had access to an underworld populated by the dead, but which could be visited and returned from in certain circumstances.

• The Vikings had Valhalla – a heaven available only to those that died heroically in battle. A cool army recruitment tool, don’t you think?

• The Jews have ummed and ahhed a bit. Death as a form of limbo before resurrection has been popular, as has re-incarnation. Kabbalists and the Orthodox Jews are still quite keen on this.

• Mormons have three degrees of ‘heavenly glory’ available: CELESTIAL – the ‘gold standard’ heaven where you get to actually sit with God; TERRESTRIAL – ‘silver’ heaven, which is another dimension somewhere here on Earth for honourable people that failed to embrace God; and TELESTIAL – more like the wooden spoon than ‘bronze’; it is like a holding pen for sinners and deniers of God, and they will be the last in the queue for resurrection.

The devious, as well as the deluded, can manipulate people who buy into these brands of nonsense to the point where they will opt for martyrdom – invariably for political ends. There is no denying the impact that martyrdom can have as a political gesture. I am not sure that Jesus qualifies as a martyr, but his death has certainly had an impact on the world.

The same is certainly true of some lesser-known martyrs. Emily Davison was the suffragette who died under the feet of the King’s horse at the 1913 Derby. In her autobiography, Emmeline Pankhurst wrote:

“Emily Davison clung to her conviction that one great tragedy, the deliberate throwing into the breach of a human life, would put an end to the intolerable torture of women.”

I am not sure she managed anything quite this ambitious, but between them Emily and Emmeline certainly changed the lives of women quite dramatically for the better. It does however prove that it is the dramatic that grabs the attention and forces people to take notice. Check out this image for example:

You may, possibly, recognise it as the image from the eponymous album by Rage Against the Machine. When I first saw it on this album cover, I simply had to find out what was going on. The guy is just sitting upright, perfectly still and in control as he burns to death!!

Hòa Thượng Thích Quảng Đức, was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself to death at a busy Saigon road intersection on 11 June 1963. Thích Quảng Đức was protesting against the persecution of Buddhists by South Vietnam’s Ngô Đình Diệm administration. Photos of his self-immolation were circulated widely across the world and brought attention to the policies of the Diệm regime. Malcolm Browne won a Pulitzer Prize for this iconic photo of the monk’s death, as did David Halberstam for his written account. Thích Quảng Đức’s act increased international pressure on Diệm and led him to announce reforms with the intention of mollifying the imm Buddhists. This self-immolation is widely seen as the turning point of the  Vietnamese Buddhist crisis which led to the change in regime.

The difficulty I have with such gestures is that for every instance that hits the headlines and that leads to change, there are countless other examples of martyrdom in vain – because nobody noticed or nobody cared. Dozens of other Buddhist monks incinerated themselves and achieved very little. It was Malcolm Browne’s photo that had the impact, not the act per se. The 9/11 Twin Towers attack had plenty of coverage, but any claims to martyrdom disappear under the blanketing act of mass murder. And as yet, it is hard to discern anything resembling progress for anyone from these acts. So, all in all, I will stick with the conclusion that martyrdom is for the thoroughly misguided and gullible.

Another group that has been in the forefront of public debate in recent times is the terminally ill, especially those suffering debilitating disabilities that need assistance in exercising the option of suicide. Typically, countries that treat their citizens like mature intelligent adults (e.g. Switzerland) have civilised policies that allow people to ‘pass away’ discreetly and with dignity. Equally typically, nanny states (e.g. the U.K.) feel the need to protect their citizens from themselves and evil people who might be a bit too keen to shuffle them off this mortal coil. Obviously, there needs to be safeguards, but unlike the Swiss, the British cannot be arsed to put them in place, so it is simpler and cheaper to simply deny the option.

This suits me just fine, as I am committed to the idea that any level of suffering and indignity is better than being dead. But unlike those with religious ‘righteousness’ informing their ability to judge for other people, I am happy to let sane intelligent adults come to their own decisions.

Death is, of course one of life’s great inevitabilities. Most of us don’t like thinking about it, but of course we do. We don’t like talking about it, but we probably should. Living with my wife has taught me on numerous occasions that talking things through, although difficult, invariably brings greater clarity and makes things easier.

For this reason I have a lot of respect for people facing up to life threatening illnesses, and other potentially deadly situations, that are prepared to open up and share their experiences. Roy Castle was inspirational, and it is the only worthwhile thing that I am aware Jade Goody ever did, sad to say. The artificial celebrity created for the conspicuously talentless and intellectually challenged Jade, allowed her the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution as she shared her trials and tribulations battling cancer with the nation. It was a sad reflection on the society in which we now live that some sick people saw fit to revel in her despair. There was even a website that invited people to guess the precise moment she would take her last breath.

Such sick attitudes only serve to reveal just how casual many people are about death. There is something about the whole notion of death that engenders all manner of strangely contorted attitudes. What should we make of anti-abortionists who murder medics who perform abortions, for example? One idiot of a judge in Kansas has declared that he will consider a voluntary manslaughter or “necessity” defence for psycho Scott Roeder who readily admits to the killing of an abortion practitioner. It would probably mean just a five-year sentence for Roeder and open season on abortionists in Kansas at least.

How we view death, especially other peoples’, is a matter of  perspective. To me, my life is of the utmost importance. To my nearest and dearest, my death may cause some transitory consequences and maybe a little grief. To the rest of the world it will be of no real consequence at all.

Death is, after all, an everyday mundane event. According to the World Health Organisation, there are about 154,000 deaths per day worldwide (over 100 per minute). We probably cry over less than one of these per decade. In terms of geological timescales, if we compare the history of planet earth to a 24-hour clock, the whole of humanity has existed for less than the last second – leave alone my own pathetic lifespan of a few decades. So, on the one hand, my life is the most precious and important thing; while on the other hand it is utterly inconsequential. To quote Tim Minchin, yet again, ‘I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant bit of carbon’.

Those of a religious bent will tend to deny the finality of death and concoct notions of some sort of afterlife as a consolation. Their shows of grief at death reveal their true beliefs. If their belief were profound, surely death would be an event to celebrate or even a cause of envy.

As already mentioned, there is nothing to fear in death, as the Epicurean thinkers and teachers pointed out a few centuries before Jesus perpetuated an old tradition of peddling false hopes of an afterlife. The most eloquent Epicurean writer was undoubtedly Lucretius. His epic poem On the Nature of Things is unsurpassed in its beautiful exposition of the simple truths of the world we live in.

Considering he wrote it around 60 B.C.E., the quality of the scientific observation and deduction are also remarkable. Lucretius described the body and soul as being atomically constituted, like everything else in the universe, and therefore, like everything else, both body and soul will  disintegrate and disperse after death. He argues that our mental development tracks that of our body through infancy, maturity and senility, such that we should expect the breakdown of our mental faculties as our body begins to fall apart. He concluded that there could thus be no life after death, no reincarnation, and no punishment in Hades/Hell. He found the notion of a benevolent creator utter nonsense; as such a creator would surely have ensured that his creations would be everlasting. On top of this, he recognised that the world is hostile to human existence, in the same way that all living creatures have ongoing battles for survival. He describes (mockingly I suggest) newborn babies tears on emerging into this worldas admirably prescient considering all the troubles that lie ahead for it.

It is as if they know they have arrived in the asylum of the universe!

Live while you love!

I read a bit of research recently that suggested that depression, mental illness and emotional stress are very common among libertarian political activists. As I am enduring bit of a slump again, and I tend to turn to reading and writing to help me regain some persecutive, I am going to have a bit of a closer look at this phenomenon.

As I think about the people I have met through campaigning and activism over the years, I can certainly recognise a loose correlation between those that are more committed to their activism and mental health issues of one kind or another, broadly ranging from depressive disorders to delusional complexes. Sometimes the activist community is very supportive and helpful. On other occasions it can feel alienating and harmful.

If I offer any advice at all, it is purely based on my own experiences and learning (often the the hard way). My first bit of advice is therefore not to consider anything read in blogs as a substitute for professional medical advice. That I would not have said this 10 years ago is, in part at least, because I have found that the understanding of mental health problems among GPs, in particular (as most people’s entry point into the medical support system), is hugely better than it once was – while recognising that there is a bit of a lottery in just how competent (in this regard) your particular GP may be. I do, however, think that it is highly likely that at least one GP in any practice is likely to be good in this respect, so it may be worth asking to see whoever is regarded as strong with mental health issues in a practice, rather than, perhaps, seeing your usual GP if you suspect that they are not so hot on mental health issues. I remain very critical of certain aspects of mental health treatment, especially an over-reliance on medications (while acknowledging that they usually have a part to play in managing some conditions), but if you are suffering from severe depression or considering harming yourself, then there really is a need to speak to someone straight away.

Living with depression is not easy. All too often mental health issues are overlooked and/or ignored – by everyone from the sufferer themselves, by people around us (that don’t understand what is going on), through to workplaces and wider society. Sufferers are too seen seen as weak or overreacting. Beside the personal sense of alienation that often goes with mental illness, the institutions of capitalist society offer sufferers very little control over their treatment. Typically, mental health treatment is fragmented and commodified, complete with hierarchies to negotiate, elements of coercion and the pressures of budgets, profits and bureaucracy.

Mental health facilities in schools (for both staff and pupils) are woefully lacking (although some recent attempts to introduce mindfulness to the curriculum and INSET programmes is to be welcomed). There’s generally no problem ringing in sick at work with physical ailments, but very few employers have any provision for for mental health leave. In my experience, short-term absences for mental health issues are regarded as highly suspicious – if you are going to be off with mental health problems, then at least make if a full-scale meltdown and have three months off!

In this context, it really ought to be a given that the class struggle community, in particular, should take issues of mental health seriously. It should be discussed and there ought to networks where sufferers can turn when they need support. This happens informally at best, but given the high incidence of sufferers as already pointed out, there is usually someone nearby that can at least offer genuine empathy. It is important for sufferers to realise that they are by no means alone. Talk to someone. They will understand and often be able to point you in the direction of further help. Don’t forget that the very essence of class politics is all about solidarity and helping each other.

I would always encourage people to try to find someone in person if you can, and I am far from alone with that advice. Telephone helplines, medical ones and the Samaritans in particular, can be valuable too. But be careful about relying on online forums and web advice. Self-diagnosis is full of pitfalls. Self-help after professional diagnosis and initial guidance is fine – and the way I have learned to cope.

As blokes in particular, we often resist reaching out and/or talking about ‘girly’ things like feelings and emotions. We need to recognise that these are symptoms of the divisive culture and false identities imposed on us by a ruthless and uncaring capitalist system. Whether we suffer from depression or not, as social animals, we all need to discuss our feelings and emotions. It not only helps us as individuals, but strengthens us a movement when we develop a healthy culture of discussion and support.

Part of the reason we get involved in politics is because we want to make the world a better place. That means most activists are happy to support comrades in need of a bit of emotional support. There are not enough of us to allow comrades to fall by the wayside. Sharing a sense of solidarity and common purpose makes comrades potentially solid pillars of support. We get great satisfaction from looking out for each other, as if we cannot look after our own, how could we ever expect to extend similar values to a wider society?

Being realistic also means recognising that being involved in politics can bring more stress than enjoyment. We therefore also need to recognise that we, ourselves and every comrade, need to be able to take a step back from time to time. A few months off from any given group or project can help recharge the batteries, gain fresh perspective and help avoid things getting in ruts and stagnating. Similarly, we must all be wary of over-extending ourselves or expecting too much from others. It is never about people pulling their weight – it is about being comfortable with what you are contributing and being grateful for everybody else’s contribution, no matter how great or small. It is not good anarchist or socialist practice to have one person carrying too much responsibility within a group – and not conducive to good mental health either.

Be realistic about how much time you dedicate to a project and be open with others when you need help. If you are not getting the assistance you need, speak to others involved, let them know and give opportunity for others to step up. Ultimately, do not feel the burden is on you to make things work.

Despite our commitment to the cause, it’s always important to have other interests, preferably without any overtly political dimension. I would say that it is also important to maintain those friendships with people that do not share your political perspectives and involvement. This is achieved in no small part by avoiding political discussions and judgements. If nothing else, it will help maintain some broader perspective in your life. Hobbies and sports are great ways of keeping body and mind healthy – which again will benefit your political activities as well. We all need a break from contemplating the ills of global capitalism, lest it overwhelm us.

In essence, it boils down to being good, kind and respectful to each other. But sadly, far too often that proves beyond us. I read an interesting short essay recently entitled: Be Good to Your Comrdaes: Why Being a Prick is Counterrevolutionary. It made the point, that any of us familiar with party politics in particular will recognise, that political activism tends to attract a bunch of egotistical pricks, at least disproportionately. Many of the nicest people I know are leftie political activists that are caring altruistic, generous and giving. But I can also real off a list of people that are harsh, condescending and sometimes downright bullies. Politics shares a tendency with religion for people to take entrenched positions, even over small matters with people supposedly on the ‘same side’. When we have our own ideas and beliefs attacked, we tend to lash out in defence of our position, even if it is an untenable one.

Many of us have developed very thick skins over the years, but that can make us prone to using words or tones that can hurt our thinner skinned comrades. When we become so full of bitterness about the state of the world around us, we can tend to take out on those around us, even when those nearest, ought to be our dearest allies.

What happens, of course, is that people quit. It also make people reluctant to get involved. I quit the Green Party and I am reluctant join Plaid Cymru. Anarchist groups seem to have a better handle on this sort of nonsense, perhaps because it truly part of the core values of everyone therein. Party politics is inherently competitive and confrontational.

Even anarchist groups will attract their share of strident revolutionaries who can overstep the mark. Whatever the organisation, however, if has to be recognised that interpersonal meanness will always be counteractive to the greater cause. It sabotages the change, the revolution, that we want to see. When people act like pricks, they end up driving people away. Nobody wants to share the company of people that make them feel like crap. If they are not driven away completely, they can be tipped into a downward depressive cycle, lose their self-confidence and withdraw. They stop sharing their ideas or volunteering for activities. Meanness and bullying causes our numbers to be fewer and our remaining comrades to be less effective. This has to be intolerable for a group whose ultimate raison d’être has to be persuading the majority of the population to our way of thinking. If we think we can achieve this by humiliation and intimidation, or by ostracising critics, we may as well go straight to taking up arms and ‘persuading’ people at the end of a rifle.

We need to be comfortable with expressing criticism and disagreement. This is the only way we truly change minds. Being forthright should not prevent us from remaining friendly and respectful. It requires collective responsibility to deal with individual transgressors. Various tools can be used to structure debates, and training in effective chairing is worth considering. One suggestion that I have rarely seen implemented is that someone is assigned the task of monitoring the level of respect in meetings (a kind of behaviour referee if you like), someone other than the chair. Some sort of ‘three strikes‘ rule can then be implemented. But hey – it is down to each group and organisation to find some arrangement that works for them – so long as that is what they do.

The bottom line is that if someone’s pattern of intimidating or humiliating others doesn’t stop after ongoing intervention, then this person has to go – expelled or at least suspended – because whatever assets they bring to the group, they will be doing more harm than good.

To conclude – the number one thing we can all do to advance the causes we hold so dear is to value our comrades and be good to each other. In terms of looking after each other’s mental health, let’s pledge to stop giving our comrades yet another reason to be depressed!

(Draws heavily on an anonymous booklet entitled Class Struggle and Mental Health, published by Freedom Press, 2015)