U turns are good for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facing north

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

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

People who live in villages crying wolf

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

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

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

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

Long time absent

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

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

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

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

 Alan 8th June 2025