Alphabet soup

With Iraq, the USA decided that regime change was required and then employed a process of false reverse logic to prove that the country posed a massive threat. Victory was declared about ten minutes into the match. There was no realisation of what might happen to the country, the assumption being that the concept of parliamentary democracy would descend like divine unction. Huge oil revenues and other booty was available. Allies were threatened and cajoled into joining the war.

With the exception of the last of these, that seems to be exactly what’s happening again. As the old adage goes, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Regarding the last point, at least Starmer seems to be trying to remember what happened before. Trump’s reaction is odd, on the one hand saying that the UK is wet and feeble for not supporting the crusade and on the other saying he doesn’t need us anyway. Dealing with him must be like coping with a spoilt child on a sugar rush.

Iran and Iraq share a common border and positions next to each other in an alphabetical list of countries. If American foreign policy really is working from the dictionary, who might be next?

Before Iran come Indonesia and India, places that even Trump might baulk at trying to subdue. After Iraq come two more promising candidates: Ireland, a large chunk of whose original population now lives in the USA, so perhaps Trump might regard it as American anyway; and Israel. Now, that would be a policy reversal. Rule nothing out, however…

• Mandel with care

Starmer has other problems as well. In a recent Commons exchange, Starmer ducked questions about whether he asked “Lord” Mandelson about his precise relationship with Epstein. I’m reminded of when (I think) William Hague was asked about fourteen times whether he’d established Lord Ashcroft’s non-dom status, the then Tory leader responding each time with a casuistical evasiveness that would have done credit to a Jesuit priest.

It is amazing how long this is all dragging on for. You really do wonder whether a frank “I really screwed up” would not have moved the whole thing on and unsettled his enemies. Politicians deal in evasion, half-truths and careful qualifications. A dispute like this could, between politicians, rumble on for months. When the subject of these debates is an arch-politician who sets new standards for descriptions like “slippery”, the whole thing becomes much worse.

What might irritate the PM, and is certainly irritating some of his party, is that the exchange is diverting him from his “number-one priority”. The trouble is, as Private Eye 1671 points on p7, Starmer seems uncertain what his number-one priority is. Since June 2024, this has variously been wealth creation, community safety, illegal migration, the case of Alaa Abd El-Fatah, the cost of living and protecting British lives.

• Nasty surprises

Another thing that’s repeating itself is our realisation that we are reliant on energy from a small number of places and that neither price nor even supply can be guaranteed. This has been brought home to us in a number of shocks dating back to the first oil crisis in the 1970s and more recently when Putin invaded Ukraine. Despite this, and a number of promises to make us more self-sufficient, the percentage of everything we import has actually increased from 40% to 44% in the last two years. 

Obviously a major shift in how our energy is produced or from where it’s sourced isn’t simple but it’s disappointing to learn that progress seems to be going backwards. However, on talking to someone who’s far more expert than me in the world of renewable energy, the current government is putting a lot of effort and money into energy transition and the equally important matter of making existing buildings more efficient, such as the £15bn warm homes scheme. Perhaps, therefore, this is another of Starmer’s many “number-one priorities” – and a very welcome one.

Another might be ensuring that new properties are built properly from the start rather than requiring expensive retro-fits. With 300,000 net new homes a year hoped for (though probably not achieved) it’s important that planning policy matches these aspirations. This requires, as well as robust policies, robust enforcement; which in turn means more money for planning departments. 

If all these things don’t continue to happen, or if the next election produces a disaster in the form of a government that like the USA’s is going to throw all these policies into reverse, then we’ll continue to get nasty surprises.

• Beavergate

The decision of the Bank of England to replace images of people with those of animals on banknotes has produced howls of protest. One of the reasons was that this would lead to less divisive choices. Seems not…

For Farage, the problem was quite simple: it was just another example of “woke” madness. The idea was “loony” and “absolutely crackers.” It’s not possible to say much about this outrage apart from how predictable it was and how lazy the language he used.

For the Conservatives, still struggling to out-Farage Farage at every opportunity, the situation was even more serious: removing Churchill from banknotes is “erasing our history” according to Kemi Badenoch.

This is really dangerous drivel.

Erasing history is what happened in the USSR, Nazi Germany, under the Khmer Rouge and against the Kurds, amongst many other attempts at historical genocide. For an apparently intelligent person to so fundamentally misuse a term like this makes me seriously worry about everything else she says. As I do already, to be honest.

Ed Davy of the Lib Dems said “I can’t think of a worse time to do this with a war waging in Europe.” What’s that got to do with it? Will retaining Churchill on our banknotes help keep Putin at bay?

We only have four bank notes, one of which (the £50) is hardly ever used. This doesn’t allow for the sufficient inclusiveness which we now demand. Back in the day, it was easy: just pick four famous and dead men. Now one needs men, women, people of intermediate gender, people of colour, people of different religions or no religion, disabled people – there aren’t enough notes to go round. Animals seemed far safer.

Again, the Bank misjudged this one. It probably had, say, robins, deer, hedgehogs and trout ear-marked for inclusion. That didn’t work, the RSPCA is suggesting pigeons, rats and gulls to be included in the designs.

What a can of worms; what a wasps’ nest. Well, add them to the list too…

My vote would be for fictional characters. The divine Maggie Smith as the horrible Jean Brodie on the fivers, George Cole’s Arthur Daly from Minder on the tenners, Helen Mirren as Victoria in The Long Good Friday – a sort of religious theme there, which might placate the traditionalists, though not if they’ve seen the film – and either Alec Guinness as George Smiley or Ian McKellen as Gandalf – in fact, both of them – on the fifties. That neatly summarises five aspects of our national life – subversion, greed, glamour, self-deprecation and a belief in magic.

What’s not to like there? Send in your suggestions to brian@pennypost.org.uk if you disagree (as you might).

As for animals, I’d nominate our very photogenic ginger cat Simba, one of our chickens, the kingfisher on the river that I see for about half a second every four years and which always makes me gasp when I do and…well, a beaver. Why not? They’ve been re-introduced recently and are, aside from humans, the only animal I’m aware of that has a compunction to re-design its environment. Also, they really annoy Farage, which makes me like them even more.

• Parking

I’m quite happy with the digital-by-default world in which we now live. However, about five per cent of the UK’s population are, according to Ofcom, not online at all, and eight per cent are not confident with using the web. Before the pandemic, these figures would have been much higher.

About ten years ago, I remember asking someone in the area if she got Penny Post. “Oh, yes,” she said. I read it every week. Obviously,” she added, “I don’t click on any of the links.”

Really? Why not? This was, I suggested, bit like having an advent calendar but not opening any of the windows, or buying a paper and reading only the headlines.

“Well…I mean, you know…”

That was all I could get from her. The objection was self-evidently obvious. There was a door into a world of random horror and intrusion that would be opened by clicking on even one link which could never thereafter be closed.

It’s true that unsolicited emails tell you that unless you click their link your electricity will be cut off or your kidneys will be removed by remote control. I like to think that our weekly newsletters, full of links (many to our own site) are better than that. Still, I got her concern. It was a new world and a new way of communicating that had suddenly swamped us and she wasn’t ready for it.

The pandemic did a massive favour to web companies like Zoom. They also fast-tracked our necessary acceptance of this new reality in the way that no government or corporate exhortations ever could. Disasters are often the harbingers of beneficial change. Female suffrage and the welfare state directly followed from the two world wars. Whether online activity is a similarly unmixed blessing is open to doubt. However, it is extraordinarily convenient for both the senders and the 95 percent of the population who’re able to receive it.

Why, you might ask, is “parking” the heading of this section? The reason is because if you want to park in a car park, particularly a council-owned one, you usually need a fucking app to make the payment. Never mind digital-by-default: this is smartphone-by default.

I know most of us have them: but is it wise to give in to this and say that, without one, you’re second-class?

Cash: no. Card: no. Apps: yes please – except, as I’ve seen more than once at The Wharf in Newbury, the app doesn’t work or there’s no signal and there’s a group of people huddled round the machines wanting to get to see Jack and the Beanstalk at the Corn Exchange and fretting that they can’t pay and that they will come back to find their car crushed or hit with a £60 fine, or both.

Slough Council is one that, proudly it seems, is moving its parking arrangements to app-only. This costs 20p extra as a “convenience fee’. Convenient for whom? The BBC article quotes the Council as admitting that about 22% of people preferred card or cash payment. This seems a reasonable minority. I can understand cash being a pain to deal with: cards, less so. Of course, Slough is flat broke because of, it is alleged, years of financial incompetence: so allowances have to be made.

I don’t want to worry about the hassles of downloading an app every time I need to park my car. The image of the frustrated theatre-goers at The Wharf is hard to shake off, as are my own experiences of finding the whole business too complicated. As a result of the similar app-creep that’s taking place there, I don’t go to Newbury as much as I used to to buy stuff that I can’t get in Hungerford or Lambourn (where parking is more human). Instead, I increasingly go online. Sorry, Newbury’s economy, but it’s your fault.

• And finally…

• To return to Private Eye 1671, the UK seems happy to send some Octopus drones to PotUS, if he’ll accept them as a sacrifice, for the war against the Great Satan in Iran. Trouble is, the Eye suggests, that although made in the the UK, these are actually Ukranian drones – not a great start to a joint venture by raiding a partner’s stock to satisfy a different objective.

• Penny and I considered the idea of home-schooling our sons for about four minutes. About 111,000 children’s parents felt otherwise in 2024-25. Despite one positive local example, I remain worried about it, partly because of the lack of social interaction and also because of the danger of children being indoctrinated with particular belief codes, generally of a religious nature. This article in The Week takes a wider look at the issue.

• Artificial intelligence is a vexed issue at present. For many, the fear is that they’re going to be out of a job: however, another possibility is that better analytical or diagnostic results might result in an increase in demand for the services that are now using it, ranging from marketing to medicine that might as a result provide better outcomes.

• After the longest VAR check in the sport’s history, Morocco (previously the runners-up) have been awarded the 2026 Africa Cup of Nations at the expense of Senegal, whose players walked off when their opponents were awarded a (very soft) last-kick penalty. It now seems that this sanction is in the federation’s rule book, which makes one wonder why it too two months to find it. Senegal has refused to take the matter on this chin. Still a bit of extra time to be played on this one.

• Well, I’m not normally right in my football predictions but I was spot-on when I suggested last week that only Liverpool and Arsenal of the six English sides would make it to the Champions League quarter-finals. Bayern, Barca, Real and PSG all look like formidable opponents. I still think that one of these will win, defeating one of the remaining English clubs in the final.

Across the area

• A small, good thing

It’s now widely accepted than humans’ impact on the natural world of which we’re a part has been disastrous. The better news, however, is that there are a number of small, good things that we can all do to help mitigate this. Planting bee-friendly flowers and cutting holes in close fencing for hedgehogs are two examples.

Another animal that needs our help is the swift. These remarkable birds traditionally nest – the only time when they aren’t airborne – in eaves and small cavities in buildings. Modern construction methods and home improvements have, however, reduced these. A solution is to add swift boxes or (for new builds) swift bricks. This was a proposal that Councillor David Marsh made at the most recent meeting of the Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee on 17 March.

Perhaps the motion could be accused of being too detailed in respect of retro-fitting existing WBC buildings, including with audio lures to attract breeding pairs. They also need to be mounted quite high up on buildings, requiring at least a tall ladder and someone else to hold it. Perhaps it could better be regarded as an aspiration – where possible, WBC might have said, if suitable boxes could be bought at a reasonable price and if work were being done 5m up anyway then these would be added to council-owned buildings. That would probably have satisfied the proposer.

The project was, however, dismissed out of hand on financial grounds. Apparently swift boxes can cost up to £140. I just went online and that is indeed the exact price of a three-berth deluxe swift box from the RSPB (perhaps suggesting where this figure came from). However, I also immediately found eight other options, none over £25.

In fact, it probably wouldn’t be necessary to pay for them at all. There are now lots of men’s sheds and similar springing up, all of which would be able and probably also willing to construct boxes. It would be an ideal project for local schools to get involved with. Councils are looking for ways to engage with the community and encourage co-operative ventures. This would have provided one.

As regards the requirement that half of new homes had bricks installed, the report offered a number of reasons as to why this would be problematic although admitted that this was the direction that planning policy, including the draft NPPF, was moving in. However, WBC seems reluctant to set its own policy in anticipation of this, even though other councils in England have done so and it’s now mandatory across Scotland. I understand that the Council will have a word with other authorities about this before deciding further, perhaps to reassure itself that this implementation hasn’t resulted in civil unrest in protest at this leftist wokery or a raft of developer bankruptcies.

More mysterious was why a new matter came before Scrutiny at all. I thought this body looked at existing projects – and there are enough of those – rather than discussing new ones. How can you scrutinise something that doesn’t yet exist? There used to be three advisory groups for the environment, transport and planning but these were abolished a year or so ago. This used to be the place where matters relating to these were discussed and considered recommendations made which were then, hopefully, acted upon by the executive member. Shame they don’t exist any more. We therefore seem to be waiting for government to set our policies for us rather than seeing that there are small, good things that we can encourage ourselves.

• Another solar farm near Grazeley

Seeing the words “solar farm” and “Grazeley” in the same article, as I recently did, made me think of WBC’s project: on which more below. The recently announced scheme, however, is a private one. It’s currently at pre-application stage but the proposers, One Planet, have uploaded some documents and are inviting comments on the project which will, if completed as currently envisaged, produce enough energy for 17,000 homes. Click here for more information. 

Going back to WBC’s scheme, this has not (contrary to what you may have read elsewhere) been canned. The portfolio holder told me on 19 March that the project’s business case is being reviewed, partly because of changes to the long-term energy-price forecast and partly because of the rise in interest rates. The capital provision of about £18m is still in the budget, carried forward from last year. Two obstacles, the connection arrangements and the planning permission, have been sorted, An announcement is expected before the end of April.

This project was originally conceived back in 2020 when the expansion of the DEPZ made the land at Grazeley unsuitable for the mega-development that had been planned there (which also led to the NE Thatcham sites being allocated for additional housing to help plug the gap). The site therefore became available for uses other than housing and, WBC having recently declared a climate emergency, the solar farm idea was born. Six years seems like a long time – indeed, it is a long time. It’s true there’s been a pandemic, several wars and several savage bouts of inflation since then: however these, coupled with the ever-growing need to decarbonise the grid, surely have made this even more of a no-brainer than it was then.

WBC could be accused of an excess of caution. However, one only has to look at Thurrock to see what can disasters can ensue if an investment in a solar project is jumped into without adequate thought. Think too long, however, and the circumstances change again, requiring the review to be re-started. This is a forty-year project so there’s no way we can predict what all the circumstances will be or mitigate all the risks.

WBC’s caution is probably also due to Whitehall watching closely: the government is effectively funding the project in the short term through exceptional financial support or a PWLB loan and it doesn’t want to end up with another Thurrock-style disaster on its hands. 

Hopefully, WBC can get this due diligence completed and crack on as soon as possible. The circumstances that gave rise to the idea six years ago apply more than ever. Moreover, if this isn’t built, and quite soon, there’s no chance of WBC hitting its 2030 decarbonisation target.

Finally, it’s important to remember that solar farms are temporary and require no demolition or site clearance. At the end of the project the panels can be removed and the land returned to its previous use (probably in an improved condition) to an extent impossible with a development involving foundations and hardstanding.

Given that, one wonders whether the planning system, which generally deals with permanent structures that often require mitigation, is a suitable method for deciding solar farms. This can easily add a year onto the process. Given that we badly need them and that they leave no permanent footprint, might some more rapid system be more appropriate, with a pre-disposition in favour?

• The case for Ridgeway

As mentioned last week, West Berkshire (WBC), the Vale and South Oxfordshire have put out statements making the case for the proposed amalgamation of the three authorities as a new Ridgeway unitary (single-tier) authority. This is in response to the government’s local government reorganisation which (rightly) wants to abolish the two-tier system that currently prevails in Oxfordshire, though not in Berkshire.

WBC, although already a unitary, has got involved in this process because it sees this union as being in its best interests (other views exist). It would also satisfy another government objective, that all unitary authorities have a population of at least about 500,000. WBC is currently about 170,000 and the three together (assuming the current boundaries are retained) would be about 470,000.

There are currently three proposals: the two-unitary with the above-mentioned Ridgeway and the rest of the Oxfordshire councils combining to form a second unitary; the three-unitary, which is as this but with an enlarged Oxford City Council remaining separate; and a single unitary council for the whole of Oxfordshire, which would leave WBC unchanged. The first is favoured by all the districts except Oxford City and WBC; the second by Oxford City; and the third by Oxfordshire CC.

The above-mentioned statement looks at how certain key services would be changed and provided (or, as the municipal language puts it, reimagined and delivered). The assumption that runs through all of these is that Ridgeway would small enough to be responsive but large enough to be efficient.

Other views exist and yours may be one of them. Whatever your opinion, have your say in this government consultation by 26 March.

• Rubbish and recycling

As mentioned last week, West Berkshire Council says that it is “celebrating some of its best recycling results ever, following the move to three weekly black bin collections back in September 2025.” There are suggestions that there’s a connection between these two things: comparing the most recent reporting period (I presume Q4 of 2025, the first one following the change) with the same period in 2024, black-bin waste has fallen by 15%, dry recycling has increased by 6% and food-waste recycling by 22%. All of these are the desired direction of travel.

Fly-tipping does not appear to have increased either although a clearer picture will need to await Defra’s confirmation. Better still, the service “is expected to exceed its £150,000 savings target. While final figures are still being confirmed, savings for 2025/26 are estimated to be around £280,000 after implementation costs and expected to rise to approximately £488,000 in 2026/27.”

These claims were examined at the Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee on 17 March (item 6). I haven’t had the time to watch more than a few bits from the recording but it does indeed seem that the changes are producing the hoped-for results. There were suggestions that some people were not getting the help they needed if they requested more collections but this may be that their circumstances didn’t meet the threshold WBC has set for discretionary help. You can find more information about all aspects of WBC’s waste and recycling, including what extra help is available, by clicking here. 

• Council tax

Yes, it’s bill o’clock again when probably the largest invoice most people will receive in a typical year comes through the letterbox with an ominous “thud”.

“We’re currently experiencing a high number of calls regarding Council Tax bills,” a statement from WBC said. “Our team is working hard to answer everyone as quickly as possible.

To save time, you may find it quicker and easier to use our online services where you can check your Council Tax account, set up or view direct debits, access helpful information and guidance – and much more.”

• News from your local councils