Tuesday, 22 July 2025

The Nuclear Option

 

Growing demand for electricity means that generating capacity is moving up the priority list at a rate of knots. It’s not just about electric vehicles – although they represent a growing burden on the UK’s electricity capacity – but also about server farms to power rapidly-expanding artificial intelligence (AI) applications and the increased digitalisation of longer, larger and more globe-spanning supply chains.

Oh, and don’t forget straightforward IT. Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites may be powered by the Sun but the mobile phones, laptops and entertainment channels it serves have to rely on Earthbound electrical sources.


But the biggest increase in demand will come from EVs. Currently, around 40% of all the UK’s imports of oil go to power transportation, from small cars to CrossCountry diesel trailway trains and taking in heavy goods vehicles along the way.



Image: Tesla Model Y upgrade concept

The Sun is shining - but can it shine hard enough?

Sunsave Energy, quoting the Climate Change Committee, claims that electricity consumption in the UK increase by 50% by 2035, driven by EVs and the replacement of gas, oil and coal-burning heating systems with heat pumps.[1]

Sunsave Energy has skin in the game: it is a supplier of solar panels and its proposal to meet this soaring demand is, unsurprisingly, based on far wider deployment of solar panels, along with heat pumps and battery storage. Be that as it may, it is very much on the money when it points out that the last time the UK saw demand for electricity rise by 50%, in the post-War years, it took 17 years - and generating capacity was built to meet and exceed that rising demand. We now have 10 years.

The UK’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero forecasts something similar and it has a touching faith in the ability of renewables to meet this soaring demand. It forecasts that renewable generation will exceed 300TeraWatts (TWh) by 2033 – and will then fall.

What will replace it? According to its chart on page 24 of its 2023 Report[2]: Net imports and Natural Gas.

Yes, you read that correctly: Natural Gas. Not only will it not be phased out, gas-powered generation will bottom out in 2030, at approximately 40TWh and will then start to rise, a little. Nuclear will bottom out at 45TWh in 2029 and then increase, from 2035, reaching 55-60TWH by 2040.


No wonder Ed Milliband is keen to pave the countryside – and lakes – with solar panels. The race is on and the government’s faith in the ability of renewables to not only fill the gap left by coal, oil and natural gas but to effectively double the capacity they had in 2023 would be quite touching, were it not for extremely serious real-world implications.



Photo: Ed Milliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero

An economy without sufficient power to run its commercial activities, let alone schools, hospitals and homes, will not function.  

Very few people – of those who remember the reality, anyway – want to go back to coal-fired electricity generation, although Lee Anderson MP (Reform) had a point when he said it is madness to import energy – and finished manufactured goods – from across the world when there are energy sources in abundance in and around the UK.

No escape from Reality

The reality is that an energy crunch is looming  and is doing so at a rate of knots. It is also a reality that carbon-producing energy generation is unacceptable. It would probably be more than acceptable if lights started going out but we are not yet at that point. Not quite and it could be avoided if action is taken now.

I mean: now. No delays, no prevarication, no committees of enquiry: now.

The most certain way of delivering a low-carbon/Net Zero future is by means of the mighty atom.

Nuclear power remains a significant global energy source. Around 440 reactors, in 32 countries worldwide, provide over 10% of the world's electricity. Around 50 new large reactors under construction and many more planned, primarily in Asia.

Other countries seem to be embracing nuclear and delivering powerful new reactors. Why is the UK struggling?

Public opinion. There was a sustained campaign against nuclear power in the UK and Germany, in particular, for years before the Fukushima earthquake and subsequent nuclear power plant disaster. 


Fukushima was nowhere near as dangerous as Chernobyl but it gave the world a big fright. Germany shut down all its nuclear power plants; the Green Party seemed to have won. The UK didn’t shut down power plants – indeed, it extended the life of some – but plans for future new plants were put on hold, then shelved, for a lost, mourned decade.


Image: A blast from the past

The prospect of being hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully and the establishment and Government - both elected and permanent – seem to be waking up to the reality that the road the can was being kicked down has turned out to be a cul-de-sac. Nuclear is back on the menu but feet are still being dragged, feasibility studies are still the order of the day and the hope still seems to be that, Micawber-like, ‘something will turn up’.

No, it won't. Not unless we make it.

There are several nuclear opportunities, which I will lay out in the next instalment.

Saturday, 12 July 2025

LIVING IN THE MATERIAL WORLD: The Energy Crunch

 The highway from Dubai International Airport to the Emirate of Ras al-Khaimah (RAK) passes a desalination plant near the border with Sharjah, which is already large and is in the process of being extended. The immediate and obvious product is fresh water; the need for it is visible every mile of the journey, with new offices, homes, hotels, leisure facilities and commercial buildings reaching into the sky in every direction. But it has a very useful byproduct: Sodium Chloride salt, which is the basis of chemical industries across the world and has the potential to be a key raw material in energy storage – of which more anon.

I was there to attend an International Workshop on Advanced Materials (IWAM) at the Movenpick Resort Hotel on the recently-created Marjan Island.

RAK is not blessed with the hydrocarbon deposits of its larger and better-known neighbours. The Emirate’s ruler, His Highness Sheik Saud Bin Saqr Al Qasami (pictured left, greeting me on the steps of the Palace), is keen that it should develop as a place for business and manufacturing, and as a centre of excellence for technology.



Energy management

The modern world runs on energy, whether generated by fossil fuels or by other means. The biggest challenge for the most widely adopted alternative power sources – wind and solar – is that they don’t work when the air is still and the sun isn’t shining. On the other hand, when the wind is blowing strongly and the sun shines brightly, they can produce more power than can be used, leaving loads of useful power to go to waste.

Management of energy is becoming more and more important. Four speakers at the Workshop addressed the subject of batteries for energy storage.

Lithium-ion (Li-ion) technology is familiar and is at commercial scale but there is no getting away from the fact that it uses materials that are expensive and increasingly hard to find, in commercial quantities. There are also question marks about other metals used in Li-ion batteries – cobalt, in particular. As well as being expensive and relatively rare, working conditions in cobalt mines have attracted negative publicity. Two of the speakers – Pieremanuele Canepa, of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at the National University of Singapore, and Rafaele J Clement, of the Materials Department at University of California, Santa Barbara – gave presentations on the potential for Sodium-ion (Na-ion) batteries, of which more in a moment.

Li-ion: Second Life is a two-edged sword

“Lithium is a rare earth element but it is everywhere – it’s even found in seawater,” Gerbrand Ceder, Samsung distinguished Professor in Engineering at the National Academy of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley he said. “Concentrated deposits were first discovered in South America; we’re now moving on to the less concentrated.”


He focused on the use of Nickel and Cobalt, the other two main components of current generation of Li-ion batteries. As the use of electricity grows and the need for storage capacity increases with it, to TeraWatt hour (TWh) levels of need, the existing Li-ion industry will face a serious challenge to scale up to meet demand with the existing use of Nickel (Ni) and Cobalt (Co) in cathodes. A new and emerging technology uses disordered rocksalt cathodes (DRX), which can be synthesised with any metal – thus reducing or even eliminating dependence on Ni and Co.

“The industry has talked about recycling Li-ion batteries but we now know that a 10-year-old battery still has 80% capacity. They are too valuable to shred; the challenge is to make more of the valuable Li-ion,” he explained.

DRX technology means that Titanium (Ti) and Manganese (Mn), which are cheaper and more plentiful than Ni and Co, can be used in their stead. The industry has been striving to reduce disorder but it is that very characteristic that makes Ti and Mn cathodes work. It also reduces oxygen release.

While the Li-on industry has struggled to sustain its rapid rate growth, Prof Ceder believes that situation will be temporary – but that the world will never have enough Cobalt and Nickel mining, which is already huge, would have to triple in size to meet projected demand – and Indonesia, one of the countries currently sourcing NI, is restricting exports. “A lot of these countries want to keep their raw metals and build upgrading capabilities themselves,” he observed.

DRX technology was discovered in 2014. Li-ion technology has been around since 1991 and is established at commercial scale. Industry has resistance to change and would probably prefer the established, reliable sources but reliability won’t go on for ever. The scale of demand by 2040 is such that industrial minds are very likely to be concentrated and more efficient production of alternatives will be developed quite quickly – although DRX-cathode batteries may not appear in cars; they may be more useful in other applications. Watch this space.

Energy management: introducing Na-ion

While renewable energy generation sources, such as wind and solar power, are gaining share seemingly by leaps and bounds, their problem is that they don’t work when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining – a particular issue in higher latitudes, such as in the UK. At other times, the wind (for example) can blow rather hard; so hard, in fact, that turbines have to be switched off and disconnected from the Grid, to stop it being overloaded. If the industry is not to follow the destructive route of building fossil fuel surge capacity, its challenge is to design and deliver a system that can be scaled up and enable excess production to be harvested and stored, for use when wind and sun are not available.

Ministers and others in power (I’m thinking of Ed Milliband): please note. Fossil fuel surge capacity is destructive and expensive. How do you think we got to the situation where the UK’s energy costs twice as much as the European average?

Li-ion batteries use material in too short supply to provide storage management solutions at the necessary Grid-level scale. The emerging storage technology, which shows a lot of promise, uses Sodium ion (Na-ion), rather than Lithium. It is found in the oceans and every large body of water across the world. The salt deposits in Cheshire and Teesside were one of the reasons why the Romans invaded Britain, in AD55 – nearly 2000 years ago – and remain the basis of the UK chemical industry today. Desalination plants, such as those found in the UAE, make salt as a by-product. Find a means of producing Na-ion batteries at scale and the management challenge may be solved.

“Sodium is more abundant and more widespread than Lithium – but the ions are bigger. This means that Na-ion battery cells will be lower voltage and also heavier than Li-ion,” said Dr Raphaele J Clement, Assistant Professor, Materials Department, University of California, Santa Barbara. They are also currently made using an energy-intensive ball milling process. Despite those downsides, Earth-abundant elements and materials are required because demand for transition metals is forecast to reach around seven million tonnes a year by 2060. Li-ion on its own cannot supply power generation and energy storage for 60 million vehicles a year.

“Na-ion batteries won’t be suitable for cars because they need lightness. They don’t have the same energy density as Li-ion but they offer possibilities for renewable energy management,” she said. Large Na-ion plants, on the beach near offshore wind farms, could store excess energy generated at off-peak and extra windy times, and harvest solar energy during the day for use at night. Heavier weight and lower energy density would be less of a handicap with large, stationary units.

“There are two main aspects,” said Dr Pieremanuele Canepa, Assistant Professor, Materials Science and Engineering, National University of Singapore. “One is definitely grid applications. Think in terms of micro grids, supplementing the grid, or even balancing the grid, with balanced integrators. Imagine you have a sudden surge of current and you need to deliver then the battery can kick in right away.” There are, currently, no demonstration or commercial plants currently in existence but Prof Canepa said there are three or four companies around the world that are investing in research and development – one of them in the UK.


Faradion (https://faradion.co.uk/; https://x.com/faradion_uk) based in Sheffield, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of India’s Reliance Industries, so it has realistic backing. Faradion delivered and installed a battery pack to a trial site in the Yarra Valley, New South Wales, Australia, and a company called AceOn was awarded a £1 million grant by Innovate UK to accelerate development work on its mobile solar energy storage unit, which uses Faradion Na-ion batteries in its projects in sub-Saharan Africa.

They still have a role even in transport, as they are lighter and more energy-dense than lead-acid. Furthermore, the demand for renewable energy even just from transport means that the UK will require around 40% more generating capacity by 2040. While it won’t all come from renewables – as the Establishment finally seems to be realising – a fair chunk will, so there is going to be a big need for efficient storage and management solutions.

Larger-scale applications, including strategic transport such as ships and trains as well as energy management at grid level, are most obviously suitable for Na-ion solutions. But China battery manufacturer CATL, which supplies Tesla, has announced that it is moving into Na-ion battery production and JAC Motors, another Chinese automotive company, has produced a car called the Hua Xianzi (Flower Fairy), a compact vehicle fitted with a 25kwH Na-ion battery from HiNa Battery Technologies, that can travel up to 250 km on a single charge.

Na-ion might not be ideal for everyday transport but it is not completely excluded. The car may renew its role as the Machine That Changed the World, for a second century.

Solar power: the source of the future?

PV (photovoltaic) applications are forecast to provide up to 50% of energy by 2060. The gap to there may seem large at the moment but the use of materials like Germanium in solar pv panels reduces what is called the ‘bandgap’; this means that connectivity within the solar cell is improved, meaning less wastage.

Professor Andrew B Holmes, Melbourne Laureate Professor Emeritus, University of Melbourne, Australia, is an expert on Thin Film Organic and Perovskite Solar Cells. Perovskites are materials with a particular crystal structure that was first discovered in Tsarist Russia in 1839, in a mineral called Perovskite. Their two positively charged ions (A and B) are of different sizes; the third ion (X) is negatively charged and bonds to both the positives. Perovskite solar cells include a hybrid organic-inorganic material, usually lead or tin halide-based, in the light-harvesting layer. Perovskite materials are cheap to produce and simple to manufacture, which has obvious attractions to any country or organisation seeking low-cost energy generation. The latest developments including improved stability and advances in efficiencies of over 20%, in laboratory conditions.

iwam-rakcam.com

 

Friday, 11 July 2025

A letter to a young friend

 Not very long ago I said something in a private setting, in the company of people I know pretty well, that caused a bit of a stir. It was intended as a satirical – or, at least, disparaging – reference to officials in authority, in government (elected and permanent) who look down their noses at the occupants of distant lands and their failures to raise themselves above dependency.

Unfortunately, my remark was not recognised as satirical, sarcastic or disparaging and led to a bit of frostiness. I gave it some consideration and now share more widely some thoughts triggered by that exchange.

Corporate greenwashing

In the course of my writing activities, especially about globe-spanning supply chains, I am in contact with people in countries in many other parts of the world. Sometimes, readers have picked up a sense of my discomfort with global realities; not all the articles have managed to retain that air of dispassionate, balanced reportage that I strive for!

I have often spoken with companies, countries and individuals that are on the receiving end of detritus from the West (& elsewhere – the West does not have a monopoly on misbehaviour). I speak to organisations, both commercial and charitable. They grind their teeth in frustrated fury at the attitude from Western agencies, NGOs, government representatives and corporations, which dump ‘solutions’ that may play well back home but are worse than window-dressing. They are denied agency by globalisation and neocolonialism, its slightly older first cousin.

Well-meaning solutions can make things worse

In East Africa, it is common for agencies to “roll up in convoys of 4 by 4s”, impose a dam, or reservoir, or packing plant, etc, without consulting any of the locals, have a few photoshoots with local bigwigs and besuited politicians no-one has ever seen before & will not see again, then buzz off, having failed to teach anyone how to run the dam or attached turbine, provide a power source for the packing plant, or whatever.

They come back a few years later, express surprise at the state of the infrastructure and contempt for the locals who have let it get to this stage, maybe arrange another loan (with politicians – not the community) for repairs and drive off in their convoy of 4x4s again. The local community is, of course, liable to repay the loan through taxes. And not all the money gets to whatever project it may be, as luxury houses and expansive estates readily testify.

Window dressing rather than real help

These operatives, often from high-profile organisations and NGOs, deny agency and are viewed with exasperated contempt by people associated with other, leaner charities like Cafod and Caritas – & very few others – who work on the ground to develop and build long-term solutions, including education, health, low-energy cooking, water, etc, etc. Not glamorous but vital.

West  Africa’s problem with the dumping of electrical goods that are supposedly being recycled has been chronicled so often that it’s a surprise that more people aren’t aware. In parts of East Africa, as well as SE Asia, it’s dumping of plastics – supposedly sent for recycling - which allow the appropriate CSR (corporate social responsibility) boxes to be ticked and the reassuring shades of green graphic to be printed in the Annual Report.

There is corruption, we know; politicians and senior trade/aid delegates fly in, unveil a plaque, engage in a photo opportunity and sign a trade agreement for recycling. The dumpers never check actual capacity; the companies that come in behind them to ship their rubbish don’t, either. The CSR box is ticked; the graphic is signed off – and agency is denied.

The rivers get blocked. The foreign press might do an expose; politicians and aid/trade officials express patronising concern and ‘what more can you expect/what can you do with these people?’. Rarely out loud, in public, but ‘in private’, among ‘friends’ or ‘off the record’. Agency is denied because, for all the talk about development, agency is denied because they don’t think they are worthy of it or up to it. An attitude one hoped had died out half a century ago.

Behind the veil

Some initiatives – that many young people are fond of – are somewhat disappointing behind the scenes. Coffee is an example. A sustained campaign has led to farmers being paid a fair price for their coffee beans – or at least a much better price – than previously. European tariff barriers against coffee beans, among other agricultural produce, have been pretty much eliminated; there is free trade! Fair trade! Look at their smiling faces!

In coffee beans. Raw material.

Exclusion from real wealth creation

Tariff barriers against added-value products, such as roasting of coffee beans, grinding coffee and the freeze-drying of instant coffees all remain insurmountably high. The added value activities that would actually lift the economic performance of developing countries are, in practice, barred. There’s not much point buying “fair trade” anything (a range of initiatives have similar titles and I am not singling out any particular one), if you really want to make a difference; those activities look kinder and fairer but they support the status quo. The price of raw material is the least part of the finished product. The added value is reserved to advanced economies.

I don’t bother to buy coffee with the ‘right label’; I buy Nescafe Alta Rica, because I like the taste. It is processed in the UK or near-Europe, as is Costa – whose roasting and processing plant in Kent I welcome, because it provides jobs in an area that needs them, but I am aware of the other side of the coin.

The foreign press doesn’t often do exposes about that kind of thing, beyond lauding the supposed ‘good guys’ for paying the farmers more – but they do feed the ‘what can you expect/what can you do’ position.

The hypocrisy of Big Aid

This is not limited to the West and the UK is far from being the worst offender in the West. If you are unaware, check out what China is doing with its Belt And Road strategy. It has taken a leaf out of the Western aid model, including US. It talks about ‘aid’ to foreign countries, which ordinary folk would think of as donations, gifts and the like. When we are asked to give aid, we don’t generally expect the money back (except via Lend With Care, which has a particular purpose, goes direct to people to use and the money for which can be endlessly recycled).

Not so with Big Aid. Much of that is in the form of loans, either conventional or sovereign Bonds – what we call Gilts, in the UK.

The loans are typically for big infrastructure projects – and come with strings. The biggest are that the loans are from developed countries’ banks AND the major works have to be done by US, UK, French, German, Italian, etc, contractors. Local content is pretty low, if it is actually above zero. Appropriate local skills, non-existent before the project, remain so afterwards, when the foreign corporations have completed the project and then leave. The dam, reservoir, power station, whatever, is impossible to maintain – they don’t have the skills – and they fall quite quickly into disrepair. Not the loan, though: that still has to be repaid.

This behaviour is described in some detail in The Corporation, by Joel Bakan (https://amzn.eu/d/8RLQAPp - also available as a documentary movie). He used to work in this field. I also recommend The Silent Takeover, by Noreena Hertz (The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy), who used to work for the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, in St Petersburg – the one in Russia, not the one in Florida.

New World Order, same old system

What China does is lend countries money for their new airports, transport infrastructure, power stations or whatever, itself – it doesn’t use foreign banks, no matter how much they knock at the door. They have the same strings, though: Chinese companies to do the work, with Chinese managerial and executive staff; local labour is employed in low-skilled, manual activities. Chinese staff are housed in compounds that, paradoxically, often include such things as cricket clubs established by the British.

When the countries inevitably default on the loans, there is no refinancing; China repossesses the asset and thereafter charges the country for its use. It’s a not particularly novel and traditionally onerous form of neocolonialism.

Keeping Africa in line

Talking of neocolonialism, check out the CFA Franc – Western CFA Franc or Central Africa CFA Franc. It doesn’t matter which; they are currencies on fixed exchange rates, fully interchangeable and tied to the French Franc. They seem to have the same objective – or do in practice: to keep former colonies in the role of suppliers of low-cost raw materials, whose economies are subject to French economic needs and diktats. Until very recently – 2020 – countries that are part of the CFA Franc zone were required to deposit 50% of their foreign currency reserves with the French Treasury.

There is now a new currency, called the Eco. It was intended to be a regional currency for West Africa but has been essentially co-opted – some would say ‘kidnapped’ – to perform the same function as the CFA Franc. It is pegged to the Euro and ‘freely exchangeable’ with it.

These countries have no control over their own currencies. Countries who need to devalue cannot do so. Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa, is blocked from joining the Eco because it will not accept the conditions.

Why the dinghies are setting sail

The contempt and corrupt attitude towards these countries is not only enraging, it leads directly to the migration crisis we are seeing across the Mediterranean Sea and ultimately washing up on our shores, via dinghies across the Channel. I wrote over a quarter of a century ago, in The Manufacturer, that we (the West) should invest in growing the economies of developing countries, especially Africa, or the time would come when their population would come to us, to demand their share.

The innocence of youth…

My young friend took me to task for a scathing satire of the attitude of the establishment, across the West and developed nations. I was surprised that they misunderstood.

…and, of course, the EU

They snorted when I mentioned that the fisheries was one reason why I voted and supported Leave. Others included: antidemocratic governance, very much along the lines advocated by Oswald Mosley, the unreconstructed Nazi-sympathising genuine fascist; the erosion of people’s power, the inevitable gravitational pull of the Paris-Bonn-London triangle for investment, and the restriction on targeted economic stimulus, including local purchasing for public sector needs. All of which came to pass, and more.

And now, even after Brexit, we have the Attorney General seeking to impose EU-style judicial authoritarianism on the UK. I’m against that, too.

I’ll mention an article I wrote a few years ago that went into some detail about how the Common Fisheries Policy developed and how damaging it has been. Yes, I welcome the reduction in quota for the EU fishing fleets, and increase for the UK’s.

I would like to see a lower increase in quota for the UK, as the whole fishing catch should be reduced – but one thing at a time; the whole is gradually being reduced and annual discussions should keep them heading the right way. [update: it looks like we have lost even that]

The acid test this year will be where the Dutch and Belgian supertrawlers go to gouge out the seascape.

On treasures, lost and found

My article on the subject: Fishing: The Great Betrayal - Briefings For Britain.

Sadly, my article on the downsides of globalisation – including the spectre of mass migration of the poor – published in 1998 and in which I coined the term ‘turbocapitalism’, does not seem to be available any more.

I was genuinely hurt that it even occurred to my young friend thought of these issues as somehow right-wing. When I was their age, opposition to the EU, for example, was definitely a left-wing cause. Organisations like War on Want and Third World First saw through the early days of Greenwashing and long-haired, bearded ‘capitalism with a groovy face’ to the realities of neocolonialism and exploitation.

I may be disgusted by Labour’s lurch to antisemitism and bourgeois callousness, have little or no time for the feel-good window dressing of comfortable Green Party leaders and do not see the State as the solution to all ills* but I have not abandoned my principles and become a rabid right-winger. But I will admit that I am not as optimistic as I once was. Protest is not the answer, either; the establishment can easily contain protest, as Noreena Hertz pointed out, nearly 20 years ago, and as we generally found out when two million people on the streets of London failed to stop the invasion of Iraq.

“The game is not to win; it is to prevent others from doing so.”

*Regarding the state. I recently read ‘The Long Shot’, by Kate Bingham. It is hard going to begin with but well worth it. I have been speaking to people on the sales end of public sector procurement for many years and I know how inefficient it is. What I did not know is how much of a game some (too many) senior public sector officials seem to regard it as – and the game is not to win; it is to prevent others from doing so. The realisation explains a lot.

I recommend it. The first third is establishing the scene and is full of how wonderful are the people she selected and how eminent in their fields – but she does know her stuff and, once she gets going, it is revelatory, both as to what can be done and how things that should be celebrated as utter, undiluted triumphs, such as the Ventilator Challenge and the Vaccine Centre in Oxford, are belittled, sidelined, frustrated and finally, in the case of the Oxford centre, sold off, to the detriment of the country more widely.

BTW: I initially thought Kate Bingham was a ‘chumocracy’ appointment, like the hapless Dido Harding; I recognised by August 2020 that I was wrong. That she was immensely capable and was making incredible headway.

Kate Bingham believes that part of the solution is to have intelligent women, with experience and qualifications in STEM subjects, in decision-making positions.

That’s my young friend. Despite their callow years (and surprising lack of perception in this case) I have enormous confidence and hope in them to make a difference.

A shocking suggestion for the young and talented: if you can’t make a difference in government, elected or permanent, then maybe join Kate Bingham in venture capitalism, which is where the Government turned to when it really needed something done.

I hope it isn’t too late to make a difference.

The social contract is under threat.

 

In his seminal “Foundation” series, science fiction writer (and proper scientist) Isaac Asimov portrayed a thrusting, entrepreneurial society – the Foundation – that became stifled by bureaucracy. A sclerotic legalism took over, which found it ever so convenient to prosecute and victimise enemies, dissidents, opponents and, finally, those who merely disagreed, denying them employment, social and financial services and, ultimately, means of earning a living. All in the cause of  ‘order! System!’

Russian writer Yevgeny Zemyatin’s book, “We”, published shortly after the Russian Revolution, imagines a society constantly under surveillance, with all activities – including sexual activity – under the control of the State, which is also in the process of building a giant spaceship that will bring other planets and societies under the self-proclaimed benevolent rule of the Benefactor. The spirit-crushing conformity is threatened towards the end of the book, with a series of apparently unrelated incidents leading to a revolution. The people simply get exasperated.

Obviously - couldn’t happen here. Although the revelations about the Attorney General’s attempt to extend unaccountable legalistic power over the civil service and government ministers might suggest that such repression is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Paul Embery recently warned, in a Substack article, of the dangers of “vigilantism and mob justice”, if due process is not followed by the legal authorities, including both police and the judiciary. His warning is not unplaced.

We in the UK have a dual contract in place, a societal or social contract, under which “we, the people” delegate law enforcement and administration of justice to the police, judiciary and powers-that-be and, in return, agree to refrain from lynch mobs, vigilantism, clan-based feudalism and tit-for-tat vengeance. The expectation is that dispassionate individuals, authorities and bodies, those who are not connected to, involved with or victims of criminal behaviour, will take a dispassionate view and enforce and administer justice without fear, favour, partiality or prejudice. 

If that confidence is undermined then there is a very serious danger that the system will be seen as failing. 

If the belief becomes widespread that the system is no longer neutral and cannot be relied upon to enforce the law - effectively, community standards, if you like - then resort to vigilantism will become more common - and, God help us, accepted. 

"Two tier justice" is extremely dangerous. There are people now in jail who shouldn't be (eg, Lucy Connolly) and there are people walking free who should be awaiting His Majesty's pleasure. Not unrelated is carte blanche being given to antisemitism on the streets, plus the formal introduction of thought crime - the criminalisation of silent prayer. 

We're walking a razor and I think we're on the wrong side of it. 

Thursday, 23 November 2023

 

This Sunday, November 26, I shall be joining the march against antisemitism. Here’s why.

 








Photo credit: AntisemitismUK


The past is a foreign country; I did things differently, there.

Back in the 1970s, I marched with many others of my own age -and older - against the National Front, British National Party and its fellow travellers and confronted them at Speakers’ Corner, Red Lion Square, Luton and anywhere else I had the misfortune to encounter them, from railway station cafes to scapegoating mobs. I have the rattled teeth and occasionally aching ribs to remember them by, 50 years later.

Family and career kept me away from active involvement for much of the 1980s but I still supported the Anti-Apartheid Movement, Amnesty and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, any way I could. Financially was the default position.

In 2003 I marched, along with my family and millions of others against the ill-considered and disastrous invasion of Iraq – to no avail, as it turned out. The consequences of the destabilisation of the Middle East some of us foresaw and warned about continue their baleful progress today.

In the aftermath of the Twin Towers attack, I – along with others – went out of my way to reassure Arabs, Turks, Middle Easterners generally and Muslims more widely that they were not held in any way responsible for the barbarity of 9/11. Something as simple as having a meal in the local Turkish or Bangladeshi restaurant, the smallest expression of solidarity, could bring a smile and relaxation of shoulders. Not the biggest deal but I like to think that every little helped, as the saying goes.

Here We Go Again

I was aware of the involvement of the ‘usual suspects’ trying to hijack the genuine outrage and antipathy towards the UK government for its commitment to the Iraq invasion – the Socialist Worker Party and its popular front organisations are all too familiar, tread the same path and usually to the same conclusion: opportunism, fracturing and obscurity until the next thing comes along.

Whipping Boys and Blurred Lines

It never occurred to me to blame people who may have some vague connection countries or groups thousands of miles away, for the policies and behaviour of governments and/or groups like IS/Daesh or whatever. Those policies and actions are not their responsibility.

The line between ‘anti Zionism’ and outright antisemitism has long been a problem for the Left – especially the Far Left, in the Socialist Worker Party/popular front/fellow traveller orbit. It is blurred at the best of times and opportunists have used the blurring as a fig leaf behind which to hide what must now be recognised as the re-emergence of the oldest prejudice.

Eventually, I had to recognise that the blurred line had definitely been crossed. ‘Anti Zionism’ had become nothing but an alternative word for antisemitism, somehow more acceptable in polite society. The Labour Party’s problem with it meant that I could not support it in 2017 and 2019, no matter what I felt about alternatives. I finally accepted that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign had gone further than I could be comfortable with, cancelled the direct debit and said so, publicly.

Do I now support the settlements and often brutal regime Israel has imposed on Judea and Samaria? No, of course not – and I know that many Israeli citizens don’t, either.

Be that as it may, the actions of a government thousands of miles away are not the responsibility of people in the UK, whatever their religion or ethnicity.

The Veil is Torn

The barbarous attack on Israeli kibbutzes and a music festival in the Negev Desert seem to have, paradoxically, released a cork and allowed antisemitic hatred to somehow become acceptable. We have seen weeks of what should be regarded as highly intimidatory gatherings and demonstrations, many of which have repeated wickedly antisemitic slogans - such as Khayabar al yahoud, calling for the slaughter of Jews, through ‘Hitler was right’ to ‘From the River to the Sea’ – and seen physical attacks on Jewish people, their organisations and institutions.

Back to the 1930s - the wrong way

I cut my political teeth on stories about Cable Street and the East End’s resistance to the real fascists, the Mosleyites and British Nazis, who marched with the deliberate intention to intimidate, back in the 1930s. In the past the Socialist Worker Party would, from time to time, organise marches against employment with the slogan ‘no return to the Thirties’. What we are seeing now most definitely is a return to the Thirties – the ugliest aspect of it; the rife antisemitism that became fashionable in some circles, that characterised fascist parties in the UK and across Europe.

Jewish people in the UK should not have to cower behind locked doors and closed curtains. They should not be frightened to attend their synagogues. They should not be scared to go to work, take a taxi or Underground train, or send their children to school.

The racism and antisemitism that has been let loose upon the streets of the UK – and its airwaves and media – is poisonous and shameful.

Girding My Loins

My past is behind me but I like to think I still, ultimately, stand in the same place: for our common humanity and against prejudice and bigotry. For the emancipation of ordinary people and against the violent, aggressive mob.

We are not like this. I sincerely hope not, anyway. This old warhorse will be stirring himself and turning his ears to the sound of battle, one more time. I will be marching in London this coming Sunday in solidarity with my fellow citizens. David Baddiel’s book is called ‘Jews Don’t Count’. I hope we can show that they do and that the British people’s essential decency will, once again, face down this filth.

Friday, 26 January 2018

Baubles, Bangles and the Mile High Club - Pope Francis stumbles (but still isn't as bad as some claim)

[edited 13 April 2018]

Baubles, Bangles, and the Mile High Club

January 2018: I think we can all agree that it has been a difficult month for the Holy Father, and for the Faithful. And while – as usual – much of the hostility and opprobrium is unfair, some of the responsibility definitely stops with him.

Ploughing her own furrow

Lilliane Ploumen, Dutch MP
---photo source: Dutch Parliament--- 
The first was the ‘Plouwen affair’. A Dutch politician, renowned for her promotion of abortion – to the extent that she spearheaded a drive to raise around $400 million for funding of agencies that actively promote ‘reproductive healthcare’ (international NGO-speak for abortion) – was apparently awarded the honour of Knight of the Order of St Gregory. She appeared on Dutch television shortly before Christmas 2017, presenting the medal to the camera and boasting about it, claiming that she was presented with it in recognition of her ‘pro-choice’ services.

For those who have been invested into the Order of St Gregory after a lifetime of service, often in defence of the unborn, this must have come as a very bitter and hard to swallow pill.

The truth is rather more prosaic, although probably not much less hurtful to legitimate recipients.

Entertainment, politics and connections in high places

There have been other (shall we say) ‘uncomfortable’ recipients of the Order in the past: Jimmy Savile, for one. Shortly after he died, he was revealed to have been a serial and wholesale sexual abuser all his working life. He was nominated for and invested in the Order by Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster. You don’t get any higher or more reputable in the Catholic Church in England and Wales than that.

It has been claimed that people ‘didn’t know’ about Savile’s abuse. Well, the people who were abused certainly did. Those who tried to complain were ignored and/or told to be quiet about it. Staff at the two hospitals with which Savile was most associated – “Jimmy’s” (St James, Leeds) and Stoke Mandeville – also seemed to know about it but complaints never got anywhere. One of the few occasions when I encountered him in person was when he was visiting a home for learning-disabled children in Swansea, S Wales. There was something odd about that visit for someone so publicity-obsessed: it was never widely reported. In my own experience, there were whispers in corners and the subject was changed when that visit was mentioned or his name was brought up.

Personally, I thought he was a creep. There was something deeply unpleasant about him.

Even within the BBC, people in authority knew – or, at least, were deeply suspicious. Sir Roger Jones – a former chairman of Children In Need - said he had been uncomfortable about allowing Savile to have any association with the charity and beefed up its child protection measures to protect itself.

Savile was implicated in goings-on in Haute la Garenne children’s home in Jersey and in the notorious Bryn Estyn children’s home in North Wales, which was exposed as a honeypot for paedophiles and pederasts long before Savile received his Order of St Gregory knighthood – or even his UK knighthood.

There was a failure in due diligence, in the Vatican and in the UK Home Office. A desire to see no evil. He courted the Establishment – including PM Margaret Thatcher and the Royal Family – and they seemed to accept him, like some kind of licensed outsider, a court jester, maybe. When the Establishment is on your side, the opinions of the ‘little people’ no longer matter.

The same the whole world over…

How are those who missed the signs, turned a blind eye or actively covered up treated when the truth emerges? It would appear that, usually, they are promoted. Helen Bowden, who was Head of News and took part in the decision in December 2011 to drop an exposé about Savile that was to be shown on Panorama, was made head of Head of Radio. Peter Rippon, the editor of the programme when the exposé was dropped, was made head of the BBC Online Archive.

The two reporters who compiled the report fared less well. Meirion Jones, a former Panorama producer, is now a freelance. Not the worst job in the world but not a senior BBC job, either.  Liz MacKean, who worked on the Savile story with Jones, left the BBC in April 2014 after 23 years. She has said she felt she no longer had a future there.

So it goes.

Cardinal Hume is dead, God rest his soul. Everyone who knew him personally remarked on what a ‘good man’ he seemed to be. Sometimes, people are too good to recognise evil in others.

The ‘Sun’ king

Rupert Murdoch, Publisher
(Source: Daily Telegraph)
The other recipient of this award who sticks out like a sore thumb for lack of what one would immediately think of as ‘suitability’ – when one looks at the list of hard working Catenians, Knights of St Columba, third-level Order members and so on, anyway – is Rupert Murdoch. It’s hard to think of anyone else who has done more to undermine principled journalism, cheapen women and make sexual exploitation in the name of ‘entertainment’ more mainstream than the Dirty Digger.

He was announced as a Knight of the Order of St Gregory in 1997 and invested in a ceremony presided over by Cardinal Mahony in January 1998 at a ceremony in Los Angeles.

Cardinal Hume made a serious error of judgement with Savile, and so did those in the Holy See who are tasked the checking suitability of candidates for such honours – if there is anyone who is thus charged. But money. Money…

Savile raised a lot of money for Stoke Mandeville Hospital and or other charities – most of which gave him access to potential prey. Murdoch donated large sums of money - $millions, allegedly – to the Los Angeles Archdiocesan Education Fund.

The Order of St Gregory is supposed to be given to people of "unblemished character," including non-Catholics, who have "promoted the interests of society, the Catholic Church, and the Holy See”.

Publishing for commercial gain pictures of nude and semi-nude young women, while whipping up self-righteous fury at opposing politicians who also exploit young women, is one thing. Sexual abuse of minors – of anyone vulnerable and impressionable – is another but, to be fair, Murdoch and Savile did not receive their awards for this, and no-one – least of all the men themselves – suggests they did. And I have yet to hear anyone leap to the defence of either and claim they were of ‘unblemished character’.

Rigid definition

But Ms Plouwen goes beyond suggestion, to claim that she received the award for her work promoting abortion, claiming that the Vatican under Pope Francis is ‘less rigid’ about these things.

She wasn’t given it in the same way as Savile and Murdoch: openly and in public ceremony. Hers was part of an ‘exchange of gifts’ to mark the occasion of a diplomatic visit to the Vatican. Such things are far from unknown but, like exchanges of pennants at the start of important international football matches, they are usually mere trinkets, baubles of no worth to anyone but the recipients.

Giving Ms Plouwen a medal denoting membership of an established and (generally) reputable organisation, as part of a goody bag, was a mistake, one that I sincerely hope can be made good. At the very least, it should be made public, from the Papal press office, that the gift conferred no honour or implication of it. Even better would be to publicly ask for it to be returned, as a regrettable mistake has been made.

I fear we may wait a while for that; self-important bureaucracies are not very good at admitting mistakes.

Bishop Barros

While the Plouwen affair cannot be laid at the Pope’s door with total conviction (my belief is that it was a bureaucratic cock-up), the appointment of Bishop Barros is a different matter.

Pope Francis made the appointment himself and knows the bishop personally. The accusations of coverup of sexual abuse involving one Father Fernando Karadima are not new and were widely known when Bp Barros was originally appointed, in 2015. The Pope was, reportedly, advised against the appointment at the time because of accusations of coverup against Barros. He (and a colleague, Bp Valanzuela) have vigorously denied accusations that they witnessed abuse and colluded in cover up. In the bishop’s defence, no evidence has been presented and the testimony against him does not seem to stand up to rigorous examination. [Edit, April 13 2018: Evidence has now been presented and the Pope has issued a lengthy and detailed apology, to the victims and to those he accused of 'calumny']  It also seems to be the case that, despite the fact that the seminary where the abuse occurred being a busy place, with lots of comings and goings, and which produced 40 priests and 5 bishops, it is only those who became bishops who have been accused of coverup; apparently, everyone else was unaware.

There is furious and deep-seated factionalism in the Church in Chile and disagreements like this can be the visible manifestation of political battles being fought out behind the scenes – sometimes quite viciously.

Be that as it may.

The Pope believed Bp Barros and, despite the firestorm and the media’s delight in anything with a whiff of clerical misconduct, he went ahead and appointed him Bishop of Orsono, in 2015. As he had previously been bishop of the Armed Forces this was technically a transfer, not a new appointment.

At the time, it was reported that the allegations relating to Karadima made the appointment “potentially disastrous” and likely to cause trouble in the future.

How right they were.

All that was one thing. The real misstep during the Pope’s recent tour of S America was his public use of the word ‘calumny’ when describing the accusations. He is technically correct; in the absence of evidence against Bishop Barros, then the accusations do represent a grave calumny. However, the nuances of what he actually said will never take precedence over a juicy headline. “Pope accuses victims”; “Pope clashes with abuse survivors”; “Pope Francis sparks outrage”; Pope Francis angers Chile” – really, not a very good picture at all. [edit, April 13 2018: The Pope has apologised for use of the description of the accusations as 'calumny']

It’s hard to know what to recommend. The only thing that will satisfy those who object to Barros is his resignation – but we know that will be seized upon as evidence of guilt. Besides, this beleaguered Pope is very loyal to those he considers friends and will not do anything that could be perceived as betrayal of them. He believes Barros and will stick with him unless and until evidence emerges to contradict his claims of innocence.

It would be better, with hindsight, if the Pope had not moved Barros to Orsono – but then; his enemies and opponents would have found some other stick to beat him with.

Sticks and stones…and words can hurt as well

The real misstep was in seeming to attack the survivors of abuse. We know that he personally feels for and is totally on the side of victims, but he has not been very sure-footed in dealing with the issue, and with perpetrators. His actions have not matched his excellent words.

Does this make him the ‘worst Pope ever’ as some have claimed? Heck, no. In this particular respect, he’s not even the worst this century. Pope St John Paul II was a wonderful Supreme Pontiff but he had a blind spot when it came to accusations of sexual abuse; he appears to have believed that they were baseless calumnies. His experience of the use of such accusations against the clergy by the Nazi and Communist regimes of his youth and before his Pontificate seem to have led him to this belief.
  
Pope St John Paul II with Mother Theresa
(source: cna)
He would not allow bishops accused of coverups to be moved and, apparently, would not listen to the accusations. It took the election of Pope Benedict – who, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had seen the evidence – for decisive action to be taken.











Pope John Paul I
at one of very few audiences he was able to conduct
before his untimely death.

[An aside: Pope St John Paul II’s reign did not start all that well, when it came to senior appointments. He confirmed Paul Marcinkus as head of the Vatican Bank and even promoted him to Archbishop. He was already being accused of, at the very least, keeping unsavoury company at the time St JPII was elected – and his predecessor, Pope John Paul I. Marcinkus was subsequently deeply tarnished by the P2 Masonic Lodge scandal and the murder of Roberto Calvi, former head of the Banco Amrosiano. 


Roberto Calvi,
former head of Banco Ambrosiano,
pictured before his body was found hanging
from Blackfriars Bridge, London



Archbishop Paul Marcinkus
former head of the Vatican Bank















St JPII also confirmed Cardinal Cody in his position in the Chicago diocese, when he was already the subject of Federal investigation involving misuse of funds, and his relationship with his long-time secretary was an ‘open secret’ and the cause of scandal. She had property holdings that were impossible to have afforded on the basis of her salary and declared financial assets. She also had a son, whose parentage was a matter of debate. 


Cardinal John Cody,
former Archbishop of Chicago
During Cody’s tenure of Chicago, at least $1 million went missing. While he was Treasurer of the US National Council of Catholic Bishops, more than $4 million was unaccounted for in a single year. It was revealed in 1981 that Cody was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation and several indictments. He and his office refused to hand over subpoenaed documents and to respond to investigators’ questions. (See this retrospective from 2003, written at the time Cardinal Law's tenure as Archbishop of Boston was very much in the news.) 

Needless to say, there is also evidence of coverup of child abuse. It would have been more remarkable if there had not been. 

There were also scandals and rumours around Cardinal Tomas O’Fiaich in Ireland and it was claimed that Pope John Paul I was not going to appoint him Bishop of Armagh. Then there was the Bishop of Galway, who – Ireland found out in 1992 – had fathered a child in 1974. 

Etc, etc.

Can you imagine the firestorm if that had been happening today? Notwithstanding Pope St JPII’s charisma and positive characteristics, and they are many?

It’s paradoxical that the one who actually went in to clean up the culture of cover-up and toleration of abuse – Pope Benedict XVI – is the one who seems to have got most stick for it.

Pope Francis is not actually an exception when it comes to missteps; that was Pope Benedict. Pope Francis does seem to attract more in the way of open, venomous and hostile attacks, however.]

Mile High Club

And then there was the in-flight wedding of two airline stewards who had been looking after the Pope’s party during his tour of Chile and Peru. The outrage expressed in some quarters could lead you to think he had done something completely outside Church teaching. There have been claims that the flurry of discussion between Canon lawyers amounts to ‘causing scandal’.

Did he do wrong? Was he rewriting Church law?

No, and no. The suggestion has been made that the Pope did not have the canonical wherewithal to convalidate the marriage of the two flight attendants. He is the Supreme Pontiff, so that argument is seriously bizarre.

Anyone who has actually read Amoris Laetitia should not have been deeply surprised. Civil marriage, ‘living in sin’ and less formal domestic arrangements, and skipping Church wedding ceremonies, are identified as a major problem in the ‘emerging economies’, in South America and Africa especially, but cohabiting is widely practised in the ‘developed world’ as well.

Not sure about that? It’s very clearly laid out, in paragraphs 292-296, with attention being drawn particularly to paragraph 294:

“The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by or contingent situations.” [Relatio Finalis 2015, 71] in such cases, respect also can be shown for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love. We know that there is “a continual increase in the number of those who, after having lived together for a long period, request the celebration of marriage in Church…In some countries, de facto unions are very numerous, not only because of a rejection of values concerning family and matrimony, but primarily because celebrating a marriage is considered too expensive in the social circumstances. As a result, material poverty drives people into these de facto unions.” [Relatio Synodi 2014, 42]. Whatever the case, “all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel. These couples need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly.” [Relatio Synodi 2014, 43]. That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel.

It looks pretty clear that it was on that basis that the Pope blessed and convalidated the existing civil marriage of the two flight attendants. Nor was it done on a whim, on either side. The couple were originally scheduled to be married in Church on February 27, 2010. Early in the morning of that day, Chile was struck by an earthquake that measured 8.8 on the Richter scale – that was truly massive. Over 500 people lost their lives; buildings and commerce were damaged as far away as Japan; two leading insurance companies (Swiss Re and Munich Re) estimated that the quake would cost the insurance market between $4 and $7 bn; the cost to the Chilean economy was estimated at  and the anything between $15 and $30 bn by the UN Environment Program.

In the middle of this catastrophe was the (comparatively small) disaster of the church in which the two flight attendants were to be married being completely destroyed. All their preparations lay, quite literally, in ruins.

They were able to get civilly married some time later and they now have two children. This was not a casual relationship endowed with a Las Vegas-style ‘Elvis’ wedding. The possibility that the Pope could bless their wedding was first mentioned by the wife in an interview in El Mercurio, a Chilean newspaper, that was published on December 19 – a month before the actual event. The Pope himself revealed that the husband spoke to him about the possibility of having their marriage blessed on a flight on January 17, the day before the event, a flight on which the wife was not working. The Pope reports that he undertook a degree of examination – as they had previously scheduled a Church wedding, it appears they had already gone through preparation.

“I questioned them a bit and their answers were clear, it was for life, and they told me they had done the pre-marriage course,” the Pope told reporters. “They were aware that they were in an irregular situation…they were prepared, and if the priest says they are prepared and I decided that they were prepared … the sacraments are for the people. All the conditions were there, that is clear,” he said. So, “why not do it today,” otherwise they could have put it off for another 10 years. [acknowledgement to Catholic Herald]


The ‘Mile High Marriage’ has been described as a ‘stunt’. Well, it was probably designed to attract publicity and as an illustration in practice of what has already been said in Amoris Laetitia. Maybe an unusual demonstration of Church teaching in action but a demonstration of it nonetheless.

Destruction or salvation?

Pope Francis has attracted a lot of opprobrium from a number of quarters, including members of the Church hierarchy and from those who appear to believe that they know at least as much as the Church hierarchy – probably, better. The more he reaches out in mercy, the more he seems to enrage them. While he is far from the first Pope to be attacked, even from within, he is probably the first to have encountered quite such an outbreak of bile, venom and apparent hatred from Social Media.

The Gospels are not short of occasions when Jesus went against the practice and mores of the time. I have mentioned the passage from John about the Woman at the Well; His own disciples appear to have muttered about that. The ‘woman caught in adultery’ (John 8:1-11) is another famous example, which includes the statement ‘neither do I condemn you’ but also the exhortation: ‘go, and sin no more’. The tale begins with the Pharisees clearly trying to catch him out in breaking the Law: he has cured cripples and lepers in the name of God, and even done so on a Sunday!

Jesus’ compassionate and merciful actions shocked the prominent and righteous people of the time, even including his own followers. It appears that the belief that salvation and places in Heaven were only for the pre-qualified and essentially perfect already was widespread back then; it seems to be the case now as well. Jesus made clear, repeatedly, that he was after the one lost sheep that had strayed, much as he cared for the 99 that were safe. Luke 9:54-55 is worth remembering: "Lord, do You want us to call fire down from Heaven to destroy them [even as Elijah did]?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them. And He said:

"You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
-->