Fossilized kisses?

 We are all familiar now with the concept of dominant virus variants. It seems that the contemporary variants of the herpes simplex virus, the cause of cold sores, that are dominant in Europe share a common ancestor. Scientists in the Cambridge Infectious Diseases research centre studied ancient DNA from 3,000 archaeological sites and found evidence of herpes simplex in four specimens. The oldest was an iron age man buried in the Ural mountains. Two other cases were found in a woman in her 30s or 40s and a man in his late teens or early 20s found at sites in Cambridge. The fourth was a man buried on the banks of the Rhine, whose damaged teeth suggest that he was fond of smoking a clay pipe.

 According to the report I read in yesterday's Guardian, the scientists were able to trace the origins of the virus to 4,500 years ago in the Bronze Age. This coincides with mass migrations from the steppe grasslands of Eurasia to Europe. The Cambridge scientists, not content with this plausible explanation, suggest that a new human behaviour may help to account for the spread of the virus: kissing. Apparently, the earlies known reference to kissing is a Bronze Age manuscript from South Asia. 

 I am not quite sure that the absence of earlier evidence for kissing proves that it originated at that time, but it's an interesting idea. Did some other behaviour precede kissing, rubbing noses perhaps, some form of caressing, perhaps something a little rougher such as a hearty slap on the face? Once, reading a dictionary of a southern African language published by Macmillan, I came across a verb defined as "removing an object from the eye with one's tongue" (I assume the tongue and eye belonged to distinct individuals). Perhaps some such loving act spread the virus rather than kissing.

Whatever, the truth, Dr. Charlotte Houldcroft, one of the Cambridge researchers, told the paper "Kissing is one of those behaviours that doesn't fossilise well." That's an archaeological axiom with which I heartily agree.

Happy kissing, or some alternative behaviour.

These pigeons can’t come home to roost

 

For some 120 years pigeon fanciers in the UK have held long distance races starting in France, Spain or some other European country, but the complicated logistics imposed by Brexit may signal the end of this traditional pastime. Since the UK left the EU pigeon owners must register with the UK’s Department for Rural Affairs. Their pigeon lofts must be inspected annually by a vet and the clubs of which they are members must complete export health paperwork.  A vet has to certify the birds at the point of departure in mainland Europe and at registration points along the course of the race. The bureaucracy and costs involved have made races uneconomic. A club in Leeds that usually holds six or seven races a year plans none this year.

 

This sad little tale is but one example of the many ways in which Brexit has inflicted considerable cultural, educational, and social damage on the UK. The economic consequences are proving equally harmful. The Conservatives declare themselves to be the party of low taxes and low regulation. Yet Brexit has entangled our trade with our largest market in complex, onerous and costly bureaucracy and regulation, and new taxes. The website of my former employer, Thames & Hudson, proclaims two years after Brexit “EU shipping is temporarily suspended.” Sales to individual consumers, like the pigeons, are too costly. This is true of many small and medium sized export businesses: shipping to the EU has become so expensive that businesses either abandon exports or set up distribution centres in an EU nation.

 

You might think that the consequences of a radical rupture of the UK’s relationships with dozens of countries on our continent would merit sober reflection and analysis as to whether in practice this has proved to be a wise decision, and how to address any negative consequences. However, if you were a candidate in the process to choose the next leader of the Conservative Party and therefore our next Prime minister, you would avoid any comments about Brexit that were not entirely positive, regardless of the evidence. To do otherwise would be terminal for your career. Nor would you talk about Brexit if you were a senior figure in the Labour Party. And if you subscribe to the newspapers with the largest circulation, you will find little or no analysis of the negatives of Brexit. Rather our political class seems determined to ensure that the consequences of Brexit, like the pigeons, will not come home to roost.

 

My country has been ruled since 2010 by the Conservative and Unionist Party (from 2010-2015 in coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party and since then in sole control of the government). The Conservative Party likes to think of itself as the party of law and order, prudent economic management and competence, defending the country from the menace of socialism. However, since 2015 there have been three (soon four) Conservative Prime Ministers, which would seem to indicate that something has not gone quite right and that the party is not very adept at choosing leaders.

 

The first to be dethroned was David Cameron, who called a referendum about Brexit in 2016, ran a complacent (very much his style) campaign to remain in the EU and lost. He had underestimated the extent to which a determined (some might say fanatical) Brexit had become a majority in his party. His successor was Teresa May, an uncharismatic, earnest character who had a substantial record in ministerial office as a Home Secretary who built her reputation on hostility to immigrants. She endeavoured to solve the fundamental conundrum of Brexit: how to carry out a political project whose consequences are essentially damaging, without incurring damage, or at least as little as possible. Her problem was that this involved an agreement with the EU that was insufficiently aggressive for the Brexiters, who had formed a clique known as the Brexit Research Group. She could not win their support, and of course the opposition parties also rejected her attempts to resolve the conundrum. Furthermore, she made a disastrous calculation to call a general election on the question of concluding Brexit, but proved to be a spectacularly incompetent campaigner. She committed the cardinal sin of losing her majority in Parliament in an election that she did not need to call. Moreover, she was betrayed by Boris Johnson (who had earlier betrayed David Cameron). She was forced to resign and replaced by Johnson, who in turn has been forced to resign.

 

Now, a reasonable observer might conclude that a party that has recommended a Prime Minister to the country three times on average every 2.3 years, and then itself announce that it has no confidence in the Prime Ministers that it chose, may not be as prudent and competent as it proclaims itself to be. Especially, after the disastrous tenure of Boris Johnson.

 

That observer might also reflect on some of the consequences of Conservative rule since 2010. These include:

·      An increase in child poverty and in poverty in general.

·      A transfer of wealth from wage earners to asset owners.

·      A decline in the real value of waged employment.

·      A radical reduction of the real value of financial support for the unemployed, sick and disabled.

·      An increase in the provision by charities and other NGOs of foodbanks, a reflection of increased poverty and hunger.

·      An unusually low state pension compared to most other European countries.

·      A reduction in the real value of spending on health, already low by European standards.

 

Leaving to one side, the Johnson regime’s (not merely Johnson himself) use of lies, unlawful acts, breaches of an international treaty that Johnson himself signed and declared to be a political marvel, and the stoking of division, this most recent Conservative administration has undermined some of our most cherished freedoms:

·      An untrammelled freedom to vote: for the first time in the history of British democracy, voters will be required to produce photo ID. This change was made to “protect our democracy” despite the lack of evidence of any threat to democracy in the absence of photo ID. The intent of this measure is to deter those who vote for opposition parties from casting their vote.

·      Ending the independence of the Electoral Commission by giving a government minister the powers to set its objectives.

·      Restrictions on the right of protest.

·      The undermining of the BBC for being insufficiently pro-Brexit and because its programming does not “reflect the views of the British people.” The BBC is not a state broadcaster and is not obliged to adhere to a particular political line, but the government funds it and can thus intimidate the BBC. More supine coverage of government policies and actions is already apparent.

·      Selling to the private sector the only other national public broadcaster (Channel 4), which frequently challenges the government line (of any government) with no requirement that the public broadcasting element of its programming is sustained.

·      Judicial reforms to reduce the ability of citizens to challenge government actions and policies, including a new British Human Rights Act to remove some of the protections provided by the European Convention of Human Rights and restricting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

·      An intolerance of dissent, attacking those who disagree with the government as remoaners/remainiacs (for refusing to believe that Brexit = Nirvana), or as ‘woke”.

·      The government regulation of free speech in universities. A government agency can now fine universities if it deems that free speech has been restricted.

·      A punitive sentence for a new crime of damaging public statues, prompted by a single incident of the removal by protesters of a statue of a former slave owner in Bristol. This incident was the consequence of very local conditions and circumstances, not a general trend, but the government exploited the incident to create fear of “rewriting our history”.

·      The appointment of figures ideologically aligned to the Johnson regime to the boards of museums and other cultural bodies and the denial of appointments to individuals who espoused ideas and approaches not approved by the government.

·      The abuse of independent processes to appoint people to government agencies contrary to regulations and traditional norms of public governance.

 

The removal of Johnson has not made our democracy safe.

What’s in a name?

 

The latest scandal in our governing (sic: “governing” comes very close to being a misnomer) Conservative Party involves the Deputy Chief Whip, one Chris Pincher. Mr Pincher was appointed to his post despite having resigned in 2017 from a similar position because he made unwanted sexual advances to a colleague. The Whips’ office is responsible for maintaining party discipline. Any MP who has a complaint (for example of being sexually molested by a colleague) registers the complaint with the Whips’ office. One might think therefore that anybody appointed as a Whip would have demonstrably high standards of conduct and probity. But not in the government of Prime Minister Johnson.

 

Mr Pincher has fallen from grace because on Thursday evening he became very drunk at the Carlton Club (the Conservatives’ private members club in St. James’s). He resigned that evening because he had, in his words, “embarrassed himself.” It seems that his embarrassment involved sexually touching two men. My newspaper this morning quoted a “Downing Street source” dismissing the matter as being “on the level of somebody’s bum being pinched,” as if pinching another person’s bum is acceptable behaviour (I would not be surprised if it were in 10 Downing Street). I wonder if this source considered that the person (s)he was defending is the appropriately names Mr Pincher. The political of Mr Bum Pincher will probably soon be over.