• Impulsive

The Week suggests, quoting the FT, that Yoon’s move was an “act of desperation”, one of a “boxed-in” president who is “isolated and impulsive”. I thought there was only room for one impulsive president in that peninsula? The Guardian has suggested that Yoon is facing mounting calls to step down and “even his own aides have offered to resign en masse”.

One wonders what Donald Trump, or Kim III up north, will be thinking about this. South Korea going crazy, however briefly, is presumably what Kim would like as it gives him a good excuse to up the ante. As for the incoming PotUS, he might see it as another opportunity for a grand bit of deal-making in this tense part of the world. If so, it’s unlikely to be with Yoon as he might not survive the next six weeks. Another part of the world on a hair-trigger: as if there weren’t enough already.

• Impermanent

Michel Barnier was only appointed PM of France three months ago but already he’s toast as a result of an attempt to use special powers to push through a budget, which had already been distorted by a number of amendments. This puts him ahead of Liz Truss in the longevity stakes – but that’s not a particularly high bar to pass.  

On 4 December, a rather unholy alliance of left and right defeated his fiscal proposals by 331 votes. It seems that he’ll soon be joining President Yoon of Korea (see above) in the political retirement home.

The BBC’s Hugh Schofield suggests that “President Macron is expected to act fast to appoint a new man or woman to form a government – not least because US President-elect Donald Trump is due in Paris this weekend for the re-opening of Notre Dame cathedral, and Macron does not want the embarrassment of a non-existent government.”

You might think that the political impasse, which results in an alliance akin to that of the Greens and Reform UK bringing down the government, is a result of proportional representation in France. In fact, the country has something different from this in the form of a two-round system of voting. As Wikipedia explains…

“To be elected in the first round, a candidate is required to secure an absolute majority of votes cast, and also to secure votes equal to at least 25% of eligible voters in their constituency. Should none of the candidates satisfy these conditions, a second round of voting ensues. Most constituencies proceed to a second round election. Only first-round candidates with the support of at least 12.5% of eligible voters are allowed to participate, but if only one candidate meets that standard the two candidates with the highest number of votes in the first round may continue to the second round. In the second round, the candidate with a plurality [more votes than any other candidate but less than 50%] is elected.”

I hope that’s clear.

• Imperfect

The UK system can be summarised as “if you get the most votes, you win”. Neither system is perfect, any more than any proportional representation arrangement is. However the UK system seems the most clumsy and brutal, and the one most likely to play into the hands of the big parties. Even so, two recent elections (2010 and 2017) resulted in coalition or minority governments.

In France, as in the USA, the situation is complicated by having the President elected by a different voting system from the legislature which can, and often does, produce a situation where the political compositions of the executive and the legislature vary. This can make it hard for the President, or Parliament, to get their way. It can also lead to an impermanence in governments, certainly in Europe where there are more than just two parties. The average lifespan of an Italian government since 1945 has been 14 months. No bad thing, perhaps. Or is it?

In the UK, our head of state is hereditary and apolitical (much as Charles III would often wish to be otherwise), which avoids this tension. The leader of the biggest party is also the unchallenged political supremo and so can do more or less what they like. Which is the greater evil for a government, security or impermanence?

Germany’s coalition government has also collapsed and there will be fresh elections in February. With Putin still sabre-rattling to the east and the xenophobic Trump about to take office to the west, having the EU’s two major powers in a state of political turmoil is perhaps not ideal.

• Individualist

For governments, and the systems that elect them, the problem in the last 50 or so years has been an increasing drift towards an individualistic view of the world, rather than one constrained by particular political parties or the diktats of interest groups like the trade unions or religious organisations.

Time was when everyone fitted into one of a few boxes as regarded public opinion. For many centuries there was only one as regarded religion. Up until Thatcher’s time there was only one as regarded the consensus about the mixed economy. Up until the Sixties there was only one as regarded societal norms. All of that has exploded, and within most of our lifetimes.

The systems of electing our representatives has struggled to adapt. Where PR has been used, there’s a large number of parties existing in often very unstable coalitions. Where a mainly or exclusively two-party system has somehow survived, as in the UK and the USA, the parties have had to become so broad that they often seem unworthy of the names they bear. The British Labour Party is surely a case in point.

Some countries like China and Russia have taken a different path where nothing much can be challenged openly. Here the individualist tendency is restricted – with some success, it must be admitted – to the economic sphere. Make as much money as you like but don’t get mixed up in politics, or else. There have been plenty of casualties in both of these countries who’ve failed to heed this warning.

• Incumbent

The trouble is that, no matter how they’re elected, governments everywhere make the most baffling and perverse decisions. The decision to invade Iraq was made by the USA and the UK governments, both democratically elected. Russia, a tyranny, elected to invade Ukraine (twice).

You could say that these cases are not comparable. However, I have this horrible suspicion that at any time, any government is itching to display the maximum amount of power that it’s able to, merely to show everyone else that it can. Most of the leaders have a fairly short time as the incumbent and probably feel, having scrabbled to the top of the dung heap, they have to do something to prove that they’ve made it.

Many people seek power for the best of motives, others not. However, once arrived at the top, there’s little to choose between them when they find they have their hands on the levers of power. Why go to all that effort if you’re not going to pull them?

So, what is the alternative? Anarchy? Clearly not. Eternal referendums, like in Switzerland? It won’t work in most places. Benign dictatorship? Any examples of that you can think of? Trouble is, we’re all at heart murderous primates with a thesaurus and a smartphone. Plus, many of us have now broken free of the societal certainties of how we should behave. But we still have nuclear weapons, zombie knives and malware. Sorting all this out is the big challenge that governments have to face.

• Incredible

I’ve never watched Celebrity MasterChef and had no particular view about or interest in Gregg Wallace, but his “middle-class women of a certain age” rebuttal doesn’t seem to have done him any favours. He then apologised, as you have to; whereupon, as a consequence of this or not, further accusations have been made.

It’s not for me to say how fair these are. I’ve never met him and to my knowledge have never met anyone who has. Celebrity chefs are clearly an odd bunch, however. Both of the words  convey a sense of power and entitlement (much as does “celebrity DJs”). “Chef” describes someone who, despite paying lip-service to the idea of “a team performance”, is clearly the top cat.

As for the first, they’re a celebrity so have clearly been ordained by society. The public loves me for what I am, however creepy that might me. So – let’s go for it big time. Stop me if you dare.

When he wrote his strange retort a few days ago, was there no-one with a hand on his shoulder saying: “Gregg, old chap, this is going to make things worse”? Possibly not. He said that he had felt “very alone, under siege” when he had posted it. If true, it’s pretty sad.

I’ve had a few crises in my life, though none have been played out in public. During these, I made some very interesting discoveries about who my true friends were. In Gregg Wallace’s case, he seems by his own admission not to have any, or enough. Perhaps that was the result of the accusations.

Or, perhaps, it’s just a consequence of being a celebrity. That kind of makes you everything, and nothing: just another transient god to whom we offer praise and sacrifice. As soon as the magic starts to wear off, we’re gone. There are plenty of other temples…

• In-person (or not)

A reminder that the government is asking for our views on the subject of once again allowing councils to conduct meetings remotely, as briefly prevailed during the pandemic. I completed it recently and it took me about seven minutes and would have taken less time were I to have had less to say. The consultation closes on 19 December.

The thing that really pisses me off about the current restrictions on how meetings have to happen is that the government seems to think the archaic system that prevails at Westminster should apply to everyone else. The respective reactions to the pandemic – dither and over-complexity for the centre, focused response from the localities – showed that the central model is not one to follow. The introduction of the extra flexibility was a matter of necessity. Its removal was a matter of spite.

 • And finally…

• As well as Gregg Wallace (see above), Justin Welby the former CEO of the CofE, has failed to hit the right note in a valedictory speech. He told the House of Lords – memo to Mr Starmer: what the hell is he and the other bishops still doing there? – that “a head had had to roll after a review criticised failings in the handling of the scandal.” A few rather bleak jokes followed. All that expensive education and was this the best he could come up with?

• We hear a lot about the poor standards of infrastructure in schools and other public buildings in the UK: fair enough. However, spare a thought for Palestinian teacher Doha al-Attar from Rafah, who runs a class for children in a heavily damaged classroom in Khan Yunis, which to me looks more like a bomb site than anything else.

• I often have a bowl of porridge in the morning, but apparently that’s now junk food. I’m not sure if mine is “sugary” enough to qualify, but I don’t think so. Here’s the recipe: one volume of pure oats to two volumes of a mixture of water, whatever kind of milk any of you like and frozen fruit like raspberries, with a pinch of salt to wake it up. In the microwave on full power for three minutes; take it out and stir it; and back in for two more. Serve with apple syrup or half a teaspoonful of sugar and a dollop of plain unsweetened yogurt.

• The Guardian reports that “climate justice campaigners have condemned the US after the world’s largest historic greenhouse gas emitter argued against countries being legally obliged to combat the climate crisis.” This is only likely to get worse over the next four years. Hamish McCracken (you know who you are) will be delighted.

• Sorry to go on about football again but I do love it so. Looks like Man City has finally started winning again, though Liverpool seems too far ahead to be caught. Good luck to them. Anyone but Man City (this year) or Arsenal or Man Utd (any year) is good enough for me. Ideal, of course, would be for Brighton to do a Leicester, but that only happens once in 100 years. As for the Champions League, the thought of Bayern, Real, Man City and PSG all not qualifying for the knock-out rounds – as the table of the new format currently suggests is possible – is too good to be true. So, it probably won’t happen and I’ve just recited the names of the semi-finalists…

Across the area

• The main modifications

At its meeting on 28 November, West Berkshire Council (WBC)’s Full Council voted to move the local plan forward to its next stage, a public consultation into the main modifications to the local plan which have been requested, or demanded, by the Planning Inspector, as well as other supplementary documents. You can see the agenda and the documents by clicking here. The consultation will go live on 6 December and will run for eight weeks.

These are not easy documents for the layperson to understand. Aside from being technical and not exactly elegantly written, they also require quite a lot of cross-referencing and navigation through the various deletions. None the less, they’re important. Can you get any help in deciphering them?

If anyone has queries about the consultation, then they should contact the Planning Policy Team at planningpolicy@westberks.gov.uk or 01635 519 111. I can also suggest that the parish and town councils which which have been engaged in the discussions about these (such as Cold Ash, Thatcham, Bucklebury, Tilehurst, Pangbourne and Enborne), will have acquired a considerable amount of expertise. If you contact the respective bodies, the councillors will do their best to explain issues of local importance and to provide assistance in how any comments should be phrased.

Your local ward members (district councillors) should also be able to offer help and advice. You can see a full list of these here. Remember that some wards are represented by more than one member.

Please note that you should not exactly copy any form of words which someone else might have used in their response, as identical responses may be counted as one: changing even one word or phrase should suffice.

• Flood leaflets

I’ve recently seen some advance copies of leaflets which WBC is producing which provides information about which organisation is responsible for what kind of flooding problem and how you contact them. The list of those responsible also includes landowners (ie in some cases the person reading the leaflet) or riparian owners, which Flood Hub defines as “somebody who has either a main river or an ordinary watercourse, such as a stream or culvert, running through, beneath or adjacent to the boundary of their land”.

Riparian owners can include homeowners, local councils and local businesses. The knowledge they have of their responsibilities, and their willingness or financial ability to fix any problems, will vary from owner to owner.

The leaflet or something like it is something for which we and several local flood wardens have been pushing for some time. These should then be available through parish councils, and for downloading or distribution. Floods can happen quickly and time often doesn’t permit wading through various websites (even assuming the power is still on). As soon as these are available we’ll let you know where they can be obtained, online or in printed form.