The night before last, I got myself to bed by just about 10.00pm and then watched the news in bed which has become quite a common pattern over the years. Then I started to watch ‘Question Time’ broadcast on Thursday evenings and which I have watched sporadically. I stopped watching this programme for quite a long time as during the Brexit and other election campaigns, it became a showcase for raucous and generally uninformed opinions on the right of politics which always seemed to deny voice and space to alternative views (the producer of the programme may have had a hand in this) But last night’s programme was completely different although I slept through the first half of it. It came from Bishops Stortford in Hertfordshire which is similar in size to Bromsgrove but may be 15% larger. But then they had a discussion on whether AI (Artificial Intelligence) would transform the UK economy and the topic was very well argued out by the panel members The came a discussion on the local building that was going around Bishop’s Stortford and at this point, I pricked up my ears and became wide awake. A question from the audience was whether the extraordinary amount of building going on around Bishop’s Stortford without a corresponding increase in transport infrastructure, schools, doctors’ surgeries and the like was sustainable. Now it could have been that Bromsgrove was being described at this point as the problems seemed identical and one audience member expressed the view that the town might be the first in the country to become gridlocked as the inevitable consequences of building new houses without the transport and concomitant social infrastructure – a view I have often stated myself about Bromsgrove. What was remarkable was that that the views of the Labour and the Conservative panel members were practically identical with each and they burbled on about developments elsewhere in the UK where transport and other infrastructure had been provided (eventually) but this did not address the local situation at all. The programme chair Fiona Bruce said that they heard similar arguments wherever they went in the country and the same argument could be replicated many times over. The root of the problem is that political machine is geared towards the building of ‘houses’ rather than ‘communities’ because greater population brings increased population and spending power (as well as rateable value) within an area. But spending on transport and local infrastructure has to be provided by the public sector which has been starved of funds for decades and struggles to provide the local services for which is has a statutory obligation with most local funds swallowed up with support for children, the homeless and the elderly. I intend to watch the full repeated programme on the BBC’s iPlayer and pay it my full attention because what I thought was a very local problem is evidently a national one and governments of every political complexion find they cannot fund the required social infrastructure as ‘the money is not available’ In our travels around Spain, my wife and I used to find the opposite of this problem – in their efforts to build ‘comunidades’ (local communities) the local authorities had laid down the infrastructure in the form of roads and ‘locales’ (small, local shops) but the builders building the houses had gone bust leaving half built houses and unfinished developments in many places.
This morning, I got a text from my University of Birmingham friend who I sometimes meet on Sunday mornings but cannot make it this weekend. So, we decided to meet today in my favourite ‘Friday morning’ cafe where I was happy to hand over the wheelie bin numbers I had managed to buy on his behalf. After he had left us, I got into conversation with the cafe proprietor who also runs a therapy business on the side. I think she has some contacts ‘in the trade’ as it were who I think may be very useful people to me and friends to patronise in the future so she was going to send some text messages on my behalf. These days, I always prefer to go on personal recommendation of this is possible. I then made a couple of purchases on the High Street before I returned home and regaled myself with half a can of soup. I knew that I still had the weekly shop to do because this was rather knocked out of place by the funeral I attended yesterday This week there were one or two items knew I could get in Aldi but not in Lidl so I reverted back to my previous shopping store for one week. By the time I got home and unpacked the shopping, it was getting pretty late so I made myself a ‘fish on bread’ type meal which I do when it is getting late and/or I am running short of time.
The night tonight looks pretty dire on the TV so I shall carry on reading my book on ‘The Grieving Brain’ which arrived the other day but I am only up to chapter 2 so far. Then I shall probably do some catchup on good BBC programmes (including Question Time some of which I may have missed) I have looked at the international news and today Trump and the Ukrainian leader are due to have their 3rd meeting -in the Oval office. The first was in February and was a disaster for Zelenskyy as first J D Vance, the American Vice President and then Trump himself tried to tear him to shreds and to humiliate him. But the second meeting after the meeting of the European leaders made Trump appear much more conciliatory but no one knows how this third 3rd meeting will pan out. Zelenskyy is trying to persuade Trump to allow him to have some Tomahawk cruise missiles to use (or threaten to use) against Putin but whether Trump will go this far is a very open question. If Ukraine is allowed use of the Tomahawk missile system, then bases deep within Russia (eg those that manufacture thousands of drones) could be attacked directly as the range of the Tomahawk is much more substantial. Modern conventional variants have a range of 995 miles (1,600km) and they fly low to the ground at a speed of 550 miles an hour. If the American president does allow Ukraine to have these more modern weapons, then certainly the balance of the war will change but the calculation must be that rather than brining Russia to heel, as it were, that the war actually escalates in intensity.