My best day trip ever – and a poem about flying

 

(Neil Lock, 30 November 2022)

(Note: The image comes from Wikimedia. As far as I can work out, it is free from copyright, and its creator Alf van Beem has waived any requirement for attribution. Thanks, Alf.)

The week-end before last, I took a day trip. A trip which many people would find totally insane, and some would say damaged the environment. But it was the best day trip of my life.

I’ve always loved flying in planes, since my first experience way back in 1968. I’ve been on almost 350 flights since then, and (despite many delays, some scary landings, and a few bumpy rides verging on the sick-making) enjoyed them all. But one part of any flight, for me, stands out as the most enjoyable by far; take off. I strap myself in to the max. I love the anticipation as the engines get noisy. I love the back-in-the-seat moment; I feel I’m going for a ride. I love the comfy pressure back into my seat. I love riding faster and faster and faster along the ground. I love the speed buzz as buildings disappear behind me. I love being tipped back and lifted into the air. I love a steep climb. And if the take off ride bumps and bounces a bit, I love it even more.

I confess that, many times, when flying on leisure trips I have taken indirect routings when there was a direct one available. Sometimes I have justified this to myself by arguments like “the departure time is more convenient.” But more often, I thought: “it’s not much more expensive, so I’ll get two take off rides for the price of one.”

I also value comfort very highly. Leather seats, in particular. Every car I have had since 1982 has had leather seats. When flying around Europe, I have always preferred leather seat airlines like Lufthansa, Swiss or British Airways to those like Air France or KLM, who have been slow to offer leather seats to economy passengers. I once even flew (for an extremely cheap fare) from London to Amsterdam via Hamburg, for this very reason. As it happened, I missed the connection at Hamburg due to no fault of my own. So, they had to re-route me via Frankfurt, and I got three leather seat take off rides for the price of one!

Everyone has his or her particular turn-ons. Taking off in a plane is one of mine. And an innocent one, if you ask me; though deep green environmentalists, of course, would disagree. But, until this recent week-end, I had never taken a plane trip just for the ride.

Now, I have never been a great worrier about my personal future. Che sera sera, is one of my mottoes. But I’m 69 now, and I’m becoming aware that my remaining time on this planet is limited. Also, that my resources are starting to run out, both physical and financial. (But not mental!). And that I still have much work to do to promote, in my own inimitable way, the individual liberty of all human beings.

I decided, a few months ago, that despite my declining financial position, it would be stupid to stint myself. If I can enjoy a good experience, which could help to bolster my liberty work, then I should go ahead and do it. Within a reasonable budget, of course. So, when I discovered that British Airways were offering day trips at very cheap prices by today’s standards, I went to find one. And I came up with: Heathrow to Aberdeen day return for £92!

Seat selection was extra. But it only cost me £5 each way to secure my window seats as near as possible to the very back of the plane. (But never in the rearmost row; they often don’t recline, and sometimes don’t have windows.) Why do I choose these seats? Because they leave the ground last, so give the best speed buzz! Also, because not many people want to sit right at the back of the plane, so you’re far more likely to have an empty seat next to you. Moreover, I enjoy the inside-cabin view from the back of the plane when everyone is strapped in and we taxi out for take off. A calm, comfortable scene, in which a long, thin ocean of dark blue leather is punctuated by heads gently bobbing up and down.

I bought the ticket mostly for the ride. But also, because every time you fly, you’re hoisting your middle finger in the air to the greenies! And you can argue: The seat was going there anyway, so why shouldn’t I sit in it? Fun for me, and good for British Airways too.

But I went further. I decided to make a week-end of the trip. Now, I’m a Premier Inn fan, having spent more than a year of my life staying in their hotels, and even having bought one of their Hypnos beds for my home. So, I booked two nights in my favourite airport hotel, and a return ticket on the RailAir coach (leather seats, of course) to Heathrow from Guildford.

The coach on the way out was 20 minutes late, but otherwise the trip was uneventful. And I noted in my little A6 book: “This is the comfiest bus I’ve ever ridden in.”

I’ve done the journey this way to the Heathrow hotel many times before. The last stretch to the hotel can be done either by “hotel hoppa” bus, or by (expensive) taxi. But the hotel bus system at Heathrow has recently been gutted. There used to be a two or three an hour service all day and evening. But now, there are gaps in the schedule during the day, and only one bus an hour in the evening. Useless for arriving travellers – the taxi drivers must be loving it. (It also doesn’t seem to serve the re-opened Terminal 4 at all!) In this case, the scheduled bus didn’t turn up, so I shared a taxi with a lady going to another hotel on the same route.

Arriving at the hotel, I soon set out to walk to my favourite Heathrow pub, “The Three Magpies.” It’s about 25 minutes, straight along the A4 and close to the North runway. In the pub, I had a great conversation with one of the chefs on his break and a new (3 days into the job) barmaid from Kenya. Then I walked to the White Hart in Harlington, the best eatery in the area. I had had excellent experiences there before, but this particular evening was not one of them.

So, to my day trip. This, I think, is the time for my alter ego, the “Darn-Poor Rhymer,” to take over.

I began this poem in November 2007, after a nasty experience with a security goon at Gatwick Airport. I decided to contrast that with the pleasures of flying. It has taken me 15 years to get these words to this point. And during those years, the pleasure I get from flying has only increased. So, you can find in it echoes of the Beatles, Cliff Richard and Rodgers and Hammerstein. And little remains in the poem of the bad experience that sparked it.

Ride the sky

I love to take a seat inside

A flying bus, and go for a ride.

Strap in, sit back, ride fast, and fly;

Ride the take off, ride the sky.

A long, thin tube, with seats. And, if you dare

To take one, you’ll be launched into the air!

And then, as if by prestidigitation,

You’ll be transported to your destination.

Rushing to get to the airport,

Queuing for check in and bag drop,

Being harassed by “security,”

Waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

But I’m in my seat now. A bit firm,

But it’s leather. I like leather.

And there’s carpet under my feet.

I feel safe in my comfy seat.

In a few minutes, I’m going to fly;

Back in the seat, up in the air!

I’ve got a ticket to ride the sky;

A ticket to ride, and I don’t care.

With a tall wall of leather in front of me,

It’s like the back seat of a big comfy taxi.

But this big taxi’s a flying bus;

We’re going for a sky ride, all of us!

I look round at my fellow passengers,

Relaxing in seats like mine.

Different races, different faces,

Different thoughts, but one in common:

We’re all going for a ride together,   

We’re all going to sit back and fly.

Pressed back into comfy seats of leather,

We’ll ride the take off and we’ll ride the sky!

As we push back from the terminal,

My seatmate looks a bit apprehensive.

I think: My friend, put all your fears aside;

Sit back, relax, you’re going for a ride!

Now through my window I see

Another flying bus move on to the runway.

I can see the heads of the passengers,

I wonder where they’re going.

I hear the roar of engines,

And all the heads go back together.

I envy the passengers seated inside,

That looks like an exhilarating ride!

Soon, we’re on the runway,

Another minute, it gets noisy.

The machine rolls slowly forward;

Then suddenly, it’s our turn to ride.

I’m pressed firmly, comfortably back in my seat;

The ride goes faster, and faster, and faster,

Till I get a buzz from the speed, and still it goes faster.

I love take off; it’s the best passive experience in life.

This one’s a boisterous take off ride,

Up and down, and side to side,

As faster and faster the airport goes by;

I love the take off ride into the sky!

We bounce and sway for thirty seconds,

Then the machine stands on its tail;

And lying back, climbing steeply, we fly

Into the big blue boundless sky.

Oh, what a beautiful feeling,

Oh, what a beautiful day!

My fellow riders are smiling,

Happy that we’re on our way.

We’re all happy, babe and dude,

In the back seats of this flying tube.

That launch was on the bumpy side,

But we all enjoyed the ride!

Even those who before were scared

Now seem relaxed, and glad they dared

To take a leather seat inside

A flying bus, and go for a ride.

Not every sky ride is the same;

Some are delightful, some are tame,

Some may make you feel a bit sick.

What will we get? Treat or trick?

We’re soon up among the clouds;

For a while, the ride is bumpy.

I feel a little bit queasy, but not much.

As we climb above the clouds, the sun comes out.

Soon we’re high above the ground.

I can see for miles.

The Earth is moving beneath me,

Seemingly slowly.

I can see the mountains and the valleys,

The sea and the ships, the coasts and the cities.

I can see the windmills, too.

It’s all beautiful, except the windmills.

The ride becomes less smooth. It jolts and sways

As it takes us back down towards Earth.

It’s a turbulent ride down through the clouds,

A little bit scary, but not much.

We make a couple of sharp turns,

Then we’re coming in for landing.

A big bump, then some air time,

Another bump, and a sudden slowdown.

And I muse, with pleasant anticipation,

On my next take off acceleration.

We’ll bounce and sway along the ground,

Then we’ll fly near the speed of sound!

I love to take a seat inside

A flying bus, and go for a ride.

Strap in, sit back, ride fast, and fly;

Ride the take off, ride the sky.

This is Neil Lock speaking again. Did you notice that the total number of words in the poem, including the title, is 737?

But it was in Airbus A320s that I flew from London Heathrow to Aberdeen Dyce and back. I expected that this trip might well be the last time I would be able to afford to fly, so I was quite keyed up. I compared the experience with my very first flight, Dan Air from Gatwick to Venice in 1968. Far more formalities now, but far slicker processes. And far comfier seats!

On the way up, it was an almost full flight, but I had an empty seat next to me. £5 well spent! The seat was soft leather, but not very wide. The flight was almost metronomic; left on time to the minute, arrived on time to the minute.

I traced the flight experience, as it unfolded, against my poem. It mostly checked out. This time, we weren’t close enough to the runway for me to see heads go back; but I did see two flights all but jump out from the starting gate. One an Air France 319, the other a BA flight three places ahead of us in the queue. Those lucky passengers were surely going for a ride!

When it came, our take off was routine. But it bumped and bounced enough to give some fun too. And the climb was really steep. It was sunny up there, but too much cloud to see anything below.

The flight was smooth until coming in to Aberdeen. Then we enjoyed what must have been a late or over-speed landing. The slowdown was the fastest in my almost 350 plane rides.

Dyce airport isn’t the greatest place in the world. I took a quick look outside, but it was raining. I contemplated hiring a taxi for a tour, but I had less than two hours available, and had brought some work (reviewing a friend’s latest novel). So, I stayed in the terminal.

When I got into a different 320 for the return trip, I saw that my seat selection had been perfect! A fairly full plane, but no-one else in my row, or the rearmost row behind. I could hear the cabin crew’s chat, and could have joined in if I’d felt like it. But the seat was BA’s best ever. Wider than the seat I’d enjoyed on the way up; and the squab, seat back and headrest were all beautifully soft. It was like having the back seat of a limo all to myself. The best economy class airline seat I’ve ever sat in, without doubt. Not much leg room, but that doesn’t worry someone of my (lack of) height. Then my mind strayed to my business trips in Qantas first class in the 1980s, and I thought: No, this seat is comfier than those. It’s leather.

And then came the take off ride. I felt acutely aware that this might well be my last take off. Now, I’ve enjoyed some truly great take off rides in my life. Including one from Odessa, Ukraine, generally regarded as the bumpiest runway in the world that takes commercial jets. Unwary passengers, who failed to strap in tight enough, were almost bounced out of their seats! I also enjoyed a 15 second short runway take off from Bandung, Indonesia. Dyce has quite a short runway, so I hoped our pilot would give us a really good ride on the take off.

The pilot must have caught my mood. He gave us a sports car ride. We were pressed right back into our seats. The ride was rapid from the start. We swayed from side to side as we rode faster and faster. I loved every moment of it! The combination of exhilarating motion and soft, comfy leather seat made it one of the best take off rides of my life. Probably top 5.

As soon as we left the ground, we hit a pocket of bumpy air. But they were the kind of short, fast bumps that are fun, not scary or sick-making. I enjoyed the bumps, too. And all the way, my flight continued to be a sports car ride in the back seat of a limo. I just sat back and enjoyed it. And we arrived at Heathrow 15 minutes early.

I had already decided to take a taxi from Terminal 5 to the hotel, stuff the cost. My luck held; my TX4 had leather seats!

After a pleasant evening and an excellent night’s sleep, I embarked on the final leg of my journey, the RailAir bus back to Guildford. It was as comfortable as on the first journey. But alas, the bus broke down en route. I was stranded for an hour, waiting for the next one. Which was a lot less comfortable. And very slow, due to traffic.

But I cherish my memories of this week-end, and of my best day trip ever.

 

Some thoughts on the Reform Party UK’s latest policy proposals

 

The Reform Party UK has recently issued a new version of its policy proposals. As a hard-core libertarian whose philosophy has in it more than a streak of anarchism, I am utterly opposed to the political state, and to its moral privileges, its taxes, its bad laws, its cronyism and its wars. And I am very uncomfortable with the whole idea of politics, with the “social contract” I am (falsely) supposed to have agreed to, with the sham called “democracy,” and with all the mainstream political parties. I don’t think that a governance of good people needs any policies at all. It just delivers peace and justice, and lets people get on with their lives.

That said, the Reform party seems to be the only one which offers any chance of ever standing up against the evil establishment we are currently ruled by. So, it was on the principle of “any port in a storm” that I took the natural route into the Reform party from the Brexit party. In turn, I only joined the Brexit party because I saw getting away from EU directives and from the ECJ as a sine qua non for restoring any kind of freedom, justice or prosperity in the islands called Britain.

I confess that I have been disappointed with the lack of impact the Reform party seems to have had in the last year. Indeed, I was ready to cancel my membership of the party when it came up for renewal recently. But as it happened, when the renewal date arrived, Liz Truss had just been kicked out; so, I decided to give Reform one more year.

The new policy document can be found here: [[1]]. This updates a policy proposal document originally issued in May 2021, to which I responded a few months later. I decided it would be a good idea if I was rather quicker in my response this time!

As the first time, I will put quotes from the document in “italics inside quotes.” My own thoughts will be in normal font and informal style.

To begin at the end…

I’ll start with what to me is the highlight of the new proposals. It comes from right at the end of the document, page 27. Titled “An Honest Debate on Climate Change,” it makes three key points, and it makes them in a way that even a skeptical, nit-picking old curmudgeon like me can be reasonably comfortable with. “It is important to be able to debate and discuss issues such as climate change, rather than face the smears and cancellation threats that spread throughout public life.” “Humans have had an impact on this global warming, though scientists disagree as to how much.” And: “Those who think that getting to Net Zero will stop climate change are in fact just denying reality.” It also gives a few factual examples of good news on the climate front, which should give pause for thought for some.

As one who has been fighting for the skeptical side on this issue (and related ones) for 15 years now, I consider this to be a watershed. At last, a political party in this country seems willing to question the alarmist orthodoxy, which has held sway within the UK political class for the three decades since the Rio “Earth Summit,” and more. And to demand a free, open and honest debate on the issue seems to me to be a decent opening gambit in the chess game, which we must win in order to save human civilization from the green “blob.”

But we need far more than just a free and open debate on this issue. We need to bring the truth about all the manipulations, that have been carried out over this issue by successive governments, out into the open. From encouraging, funding and accepting bad science, to perverting the precautionary principle, to making it impossible to do proper cost-benefit analyses, to whitewashing Climategate, and many more. And we need to feed these truths into the consciousness of the general public.

The document

My next comment, though, is a brickbat. The new proposal document is very poorly formatted. I can’t read it on screen at all, the font is simply too small. Even when I print it out, full size, the font is still too small to read easily. This is a huge step backwards from the May 2021 version.

Introduction

Much of the document is either the same as, or slightly modified from, the 2021 version. Some of the comments I made back then are no longer relevant, either because circumstances have changed, or because the party has moved in a good direction in the meantime. My original set of comments can still be found at [[2]].

Cover: “Let’s Make Britain Great.” I, personally, find this slogan a turn-off. It’s like Trump’s MAGA. It isn’t “Britain” that I want to see become “great.” It certainly isn’t the British state, which is altogether far too “great” already! What must become great are the freedoms, and the standard and quality of life, for all the good people of the islands called Britain.

Page 2. “Leaving the undemocratic EU was just the beginning.” Yes. But we need a plan for repealing all the bad laws we are still saddled with as a result of having been in the EU.

Page 2. “People’s eyes have been opened as to the benefits of being an independent sovereign UK.” As I said last time round, not yet, they haven’t. Getting away from the constant torrent of EU directives, and from the ECJ, was a key step, without which no reforms in the right direction can ever be possible. But as yet, those reforms haven’t even started. And none of the mainstream parties are planning to do anything but establishment “business as usual.” Oh, and trying to force us back into the EU by the back door.

Page 2. “Reform Our Economy:” I note that last year’s pledge to make a low tax economy has been removed! But it has been replaced by “lower taxes” as the first policy bullet on the cover page.

Page 2. Talks of Nett Zero almost in the same breath as air pollution. This may worry many of the more clued-up people, since carbon dioxide is not in any way a pollutant! It is hugely beneficial to plants, and so to animals (including us) and the environment. And any supposed damage it may (or may not!) cause through global warming must be discounted against these benefits.

Page 2. “We would also nationalize 50% of key utility companies to stop consumers being ripped off with the other 50% being owned by British pension funds for British pensioners.” This is a very radical idea, and to me a worrying one. I can see that the market failure we are suffering at the moment (entirely due to the actions of political governments!) is bad enough to demand an extreme response. And certainly, the shareholders and managers of the companies that are ripping us off deserve to be taken down several pegs. But nationalization increases the power of the state – a very bad thing in itself. And it would give a subsequent political government, not favourable to freedom or prosperity, a handy weapon with which to destroy both. I think this is a very risky chess move. I’d be more comfortable with something like requiring all shareholders in these companies, who are not legal British residents, to sell their shares to legal British residents.

Page 2. “Reform is essential to our voting system so it is fairer and more representative...” My last year’s comment, that the problem goes far deeper than the voting system, and lies at the roots of the sham “democracy” we suffer under, still stands. But I did have one off-the-wall idea for a change that might improve the voting system. What if, rather than just voting for one single candidate, voters could choose, if they wish, to up-vote or down-vote each of the candidates on the ballot? Rather like up-thumbing or down-thumbing comments on a blog. If it did nothing else, this would lay bare the depth of the disdain that many people have for politicians. I reckon most of today’s MPs would end up with a negative tally!

Freedom is Precious

Page 5. “We will campaign relentlessly to protect our civil liberties and freedom of speech. We must be able to debate, test and challenge different views, consensus thinking, scientific theories and the establishment approach in a respectful way.” Amen! Though it’s extremely hard to feel any respect for those that have treated you without respect. But we need to be able to do these things in all media, and most of all on-line. As the UN declaration of human rights puts it (Article 19), we have a right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Emergency Recovery Plan

I have been through the separate “Emergency Recovery Plan” document, and will include a few thoughts about towards the end of this document. For now, here are my thoughts on this section in the main document.

Page 7. “Reform UK will also oppose the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) and all attempts to turn Britain into a cashless society.” Absolutely right. Cash is vital to preserve the privacy of all our transactions, however small.

Page 8. “Scrap VAT on energy bills.” Yes. “Scrap environmental levies.” Yes. “Lower fuel duty by 20p a litre.” Yes. Also scrap the “taxes on taxes” element. “Lower VAT from 20% to 18%.” Or more, if possible. “Tax the renewable energy industry the full amount of the circa 8 billion in subsidies they currently receive under old contracts; they claim it is cheaper than other energy forms, so they no longer need taxpayer support.” Heh, heh, heh; hoist by their own advertising! Go for it.

Page 9. I’m no expert on the detail, but “quantitative easing” is, and has always been, a total fraud. By its design, it was always going to end in tears. The heads should roll of all those that have been involved in this scam.

Low Tax, Simple Tax

Page 10. I agree with virtually everything here. Except that, as I said last year, the idea of an on-line sales tax needs a lot of thought. And that, while the document does mention IR35 as something to be got rid of, it seems that the party wants only to get rid of the extra burdens imposed in 2017, not to scrap IR35 entirely. So, the Reform party does not want to go any further on this than Kwasi Kwarteng was trying to go? Very disappointing for one who has been, over more than 20 years, a victim of this career-ruining scam.

Page 10. “Scrap the bloated vanity project HS2…” Totally agree. But this made me aware that the document doesn’t make any mention of the party’s transport policies in general. Personally, I think that rail transport has been given far too much priority in recent decades, and that should change. Particularly given the recent behaviour of the rail unions. I think that we need another Dr Beeching, and more investment in airport expansions and in roads. Also, we ought to reverse the enormous bias there has been, and still is, for public transport and against private transport.

Reform Our Public Sector

Not much to say here, beyond what I said last time.

Reform Our Public Services: Health

Page 14. The voucher scheme is interesting, but the choice must always lie with the patient. I am one of those who has by luck found a very good doctor, so if the matter isn’t urgent, I’d rather wait three weeks to see my doctor rather than three days to see someone else.

Page 14. In last year’s version, there was a proposal to abolish politically imposed hospital targets that go against clinical priorities. Also, one to re-open nursing and midwifery without a degree requirement. What happened to these?

Reform Our Public Services: Education

Nothing to say here beyond what I said last time.

Reform Our Public Services: (Policing and Courts)

Only one thing to add; it needs to be made clear that any reforms to courts and the justice system must not under any circumstances diminish the quality of justice they deliver.

Reform Our Defence Strategy

Page 17. “Reform is needed to ensure more efficient joined up thinking and decision making, especially with regard to procurement of equipment.” Yes, but applies to other areas of government too.

Reform Our Institutions

Page 18. “A properly representative second House is needed.” As I said last year, the real need is not so much for a reformed second chamber, but for a quality control system to be applied to government, and to candidates for election. As to the latter, I’d like to see psychological testing undertaken, to ensure that no candidate for office has any more psychopathic tendencies than the median of the population. If they can’t pass this test, how can they possibly ever “represent” the ordinary people, as they are supposed to?

However, I’ll explore the idea of an elected second chamber a little bit more. How would you stop it becoming corrupted like the first one has? One off-the-wall suggestion is, only let people stand if they are not currently a member of a political party, have never been an officer of a political party or NGO, and have never had any position of significant power in government. Previously elected members, and current peers at the first election, would be exempt from the last rule, but to retain their positions they would have to be re-elected.

In any case, the second chamber should have strong veto powers, but no legislative power except to propose amendments to bills it is reviewing. It should also be able to order a judicial review, or in extreme circumstances a royal commission.

P.18. “Proportional representation is essential.” But it isn’t the be-all and end-all. Some very bad politicians (including Hitler) have been elected under PR systems.

Reform Wasteful Government Spending

I say again what I said last year. Cut out all government functions that fail to be a nett benefit to the people who paid for them. And merely reducing the “foreign aid” payment is not going nearly far enough.

Reform Border Control and Immigration

Page 20. “Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats.” This is an area in which I find the party’s policies to be both callous and politically naïve. In contrast, I am reminded of the transition Nigel Farage engineered from UKIP to the Brexit party. By leaving the nasty far-right holding the empty shell of UKIP, he managed to make the Brexit party attractive to a far wider range of people than UKIP had been. That led to many people like me, who supported Brexit but were not migration “hawks,” joining and voting for the Brexit party. With positive results.

Let’s remember that the main reason so many people are making such a dangerous journey in boats is that there are no facilities to process UK asylum applications while the individuals concerned are still in France. There has been a lot of talk about making this possible, but still no action as far as I know. The Reform party appears to be going full-on with an attitude of “zero tolerance towards illegal immigration.” This seems very heartless, particularly since, ultimately, the decision on whether an individual asylum seeker or potential immigrant is “legal” or “illegal” often boils down merely to the whims of a particular bureaucrat. This attitude may be red meat to the far-right voter, but it will lose the support of people like me, who look at individuals as individuals. I suspect policies like these will alienate far more (and more capable) people than they bring in to the party or as voters.

Let’s also remember that the major problem with immigration is not the “illegal” people in boats. Their numbers are dwarfed by the “legal” ones who have been arriving in very large and increasing numbers since about 1994; more than 200,000 of them in 2019. To the point that, in my area, borough planners are expecting a population increase of around 20% over the course of 20 years. This represents a major demographic and cultural change.

The motives for successive governments not merely allowing, but actually encouraging such a vast volume of immigration are dubious. I used to think that it came mainly from a desire to get in more young people, to provide a tax base for the future and so to kick the “aging population” problem a few years down the road. But having become more and more cynical about government intentions, I am now not so sure. Could it be, I muse, that such a large and sustained volume of immigration may represent a deliberate effort to marginalize our indigenous cultures? After all, England was the birthplace of the Enlightenment, and the cradle of the Industrial Revolution. And the Scots weren’t so far behind. The Welsh and the Northern Irish, too, did their bit for the Industrial Revolution.

While I, and I like to think many or even most Reform party people, consider the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution as huge positives, the current establishment seems to have set itself firmly against both of them. That, I feel, is a far bigger issue than a few thousand people arriving in boats, because it strikes at the heart of what government is supposed to be for, and most of all in a so-called “democracy.”

Page 20. “Leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).” No, definitely not. The ECHR and the European Court of Human Rights are the one and only aspect of the European project that, relatively speaking, has stayed true to the goals that were originally set for it. Of course, the Convention isn’t perfect. Personally, I think it is far too weak. It should be strengthened and made wider in scope, and a lot of the caveats taken away.

The Tory “Bill of Rights Bill” currently in parliament, according to the Law Society, would “damage the rule of law and make it harder for people to protect their rights.” Looking at their list of what the bill contains (https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/human-rights/human-rights-act-reforms), that criticism appears sound. The Tory bill will take away many if not most of the protections of the ECHR, without adding any new protections at all, and seemingly without even providing a list of rights, that could play the part of their touted “British Bill of Rights.” Yet the Reform Party wants to go even further than the Tories on this! A party which claims to “campaign relentlessly to protect our civil liberties and freedom of speech”, then turns round and says it will leave the ECHR, cannot possibly be credible to any thinking person!

Reform Our Energy policies

Page 22. “We all want cleaner air.” I re-iterate what I said last year. Green policies on air pollution never seem to have a finishing line; and they don’t take cost-effectiveness, or loss of freedoms, into account. I would simply have said, “we all want air that is clean enough,” and left it at that. Once the air is clean enough, we don’t need to spend any more on going further.

Page 22. “The Conservatives, encouraged by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, over the last 12 years have been grossly negligent.” I think this is far too kind. I don’t think they have been either negligent or foolish; I think that destroying Western industrial civilization, and forcing us all down into poverty, are both parts of their strategy.

Page 22. “Cheap energy is the foundation to allow manufacturing to thrive and grow.” And not just manufacturing! Affordable energy is the foundation of all of Western civilization.

Page 23. “They need the insurance backup of gas generating capacity, which adds significantly to costs due to duplication.” Absolutely. People like me have been banging on about this for years, and no-one has taken even a milligram of notice up to now. Well done!

Page 23. “The Reform UK plan works as follows.” I am always reluctant to countenance any government meddling at all with the economy. But given the circumstances, I can’t think of a better way to fix the problems. That the onus is put on the energy suppliers, and most of all on the “green energy” freaks, is exactly fair, and may in time prove rather amusing.

Page 24. “We must be self reliant.” Absolutely. If the capacity to become self-reliant is there, not trying to do that amounts to self-harm (or worse) on a grand scale. I can agree with all the policies stated.

Page 25. I already commented on the UK ownership issue. Otherwise, fine by me.

Emergency Recovery Plan

A few comments on the separate “Emergency Recovery Plan” document: [[3]].

Page 2 – Gravest economic crisis since end of WW2. Couldn’t agree more.

Page 3 – The “classic socialist measures” they are using will make the problem worse, not better. And they know it.

Page 4 – “Levelling up by drilling down.” Now, there’s a far better slogan that “let’s make Britain great.” (Oh, but fracking usually drills horizontally, not down!)

Page 4 – I’d add “Simplify the tax system.” And remove obstacles (such as IR35) that deny people access to the market.

Page 6 – “Only solution is to grow the cake not to complicate, spend, regulate and tax it.” Yes, but you’re preaching to the converted here. The establishment have other ideas.

Page 8 – “UK has a range of strategic advantages.” It would be good to list some of them.

Page 9 – The plot of tax as a proportion of GDP looks good. It would be nice to see also a plot of GDP growth, to provide evidence that lower taxes lead to increasing GDP.

Page 10 – Yes, the public sector needs to be greatly scaled down, and its non-productive activities eliminated. My vision is that the “public sector” ought to be reduced to only core functions of government – which I see as courts and associated services, police and emergency services, military defence, some degree of co-ordination of infrastructure development (but not that development itself), maintenance of infrastructure at the local level, and necessary diplomacy. As well as a function we don’t have today, but ought to – strict quality control to ensure that everything government does is a nett benefit to the people who pay for it.

Pages 11-12- I can’t disagree with anything here, provided the numbers add up. Also applies to pages 14-15.

Page 13 – “The government’s tax and spend plan reduces the cake, does not address the inflation crisis and makes families more dependent on government handouts and subsidies.” Of course! Making people more and more dependent on the state is part of the establishment’s grand plan.

Emergency Energy Plan

I’ve also had a quick look at this: [[4]]. I’ll only give here those comments which aren’t reflected in what I have said already.

Page 3 – The “Strategic Errors” section is very damning. Particularly the first four.

Page 4 – At first sight, the “Renewables Made Electricity Expensive” graph looks quite damning too. But I decided to check by going back to the “official” government data. I got that from Table 3.4.1 Prices of fuels purchased by non-domestic consumers in the United Kingdom (excluding the Climate Change Levy) (Annual) [[5]] and from the Electricity Generated tab, Wind and Solar row in [[6]].

It doesn’t show quite the same numbers as the graph in the report, but I produced the following set of three graphs which, I think, show pretty well what has been going on. The first is the equivalent of the graph in the report, but using the “official” figures.

The second graph shows a good correlation over the period 2013-2021, and the third correlates well from 2010-2020, except perhaps for 2015-6.

Pages 7-8 – “No medium-term supply plan.” The cynic in me is coming to think that the omission has been entirely deliberate on the Tories’ part. And on the part of Labour and the Lib Dems, too.

Page 9 – “Energy market no longer fit for purpose.” Spot on. And all as a result of political manipulations by successive governments.

Page 18 – The caveats about interconnector availability on the right-hand side are important. That gas still needs to be from 42% to 55% of total generation capability shows the futility of the entire renewables scheme. Greenies don’t understand numbers!

Other things that are missing

I already noted that the document doesn’t outline any transport proposals. But there is also no mention of halting dealings with the internationalist establishment, such as the World Economic Forum. Or of preventing a repeat of what Tories, Labour and Coalition have all done to us, by their signing us up to globalist programs of the United Nations, including the “nett zero” agenda and the UN’s “sustainable development goals,” without allowing us any chance to object. There is also no mention of the 2030 ban on petrol and diesel cars, which a recent CEBR report has shown has a huge excess of costs over benefits, even if you use the government’s own methodology (which is very strongly biased in favour of green policies). Such neglect of the views and the needs of the ordinary people is inexcusable in any government, and most of all in one that claims to be democratic.

To sum up

The new policies are a mixed bag. The proverbial “curate’s egg” comes to mind.

I am pleased that the party seems to be coming round to sensible views on the energy crisis and on the “climate change” fraud. This represents considerable progress since last year.

While I don’t claim to be an economics expert, the party’s economic policies seem to be broadly sane. Less bad than any of the other parties, anyway.

The commitment to protect civil liberties and freedom of speech is welcome, but I think it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Opposition to central bank digital currencies, and a commitment to preserve cash, are also welcome; though the proof of those particular puddings is still to come.

The party seems to think that the benefits of Brexit are already showing up, but I don’t see any evidence for that. I also think the party has missed an opportunity to map out a route for repeal of, and recovery from the effects of, all the bad laws we have been saddled with by the EU over the years. That is when the benefits of Brexit will really become apparent.

There are a number of areas in which I think the party should be publishing policies, but they have not. Notably missing are transport policies. Also missing is halting the co-operation with the international and globalist establishment, such as the WEF and the UN, which is currently being done against the interests of, and at great expense to, the people. Unexit ought to be even more of a priority than Brexit was.

I am concerned about the policy of nationalizing the utility companies, though I do see the need for strong action.

I am very concerned about the callous, heartless “zero-tolerance” attitude the party is taking to “illegal” immigration. I am concerned that this may cause many people, who might otherwise have supported Reform UK, to reject the party as right-wing nutcases. I think it would be far better to focus on the issues of how and why large-scale immigration has been, and still is being encouraged, despite the negative effects on our indigenous cultures.

And I consider the proposal to leave the ECHR to be plain wrong. This would be even worse for the people than what the Tories are currently doing with their “Bill of Rights” bill, which includes no Bill of Rights. To me, the Reform party has a serious credibility problem if it tries to claim at one level that it supports human rights and freedoms, yet at another level wants to take away the entire legal framework for upholding them.

Verdict: The party Must Do Better if it is to retain me, and people like me, beyond this time next year.

---

[[1]] https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/124/attachments/original/1668962190/Reform-is-Essential-Nov2022.pdf

[[2]] https://libertarianism.uk/2021/09/22/some-thoughts-for-the-reform-party-uk/

[[3]] https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/27/attachments/original/1655061791/Reform_UK_-_Emergency_Recovery_Plan_June_22.pdf?1655061791

[[4]] https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/19/attachments/original/1661361866/Reform-5-Year-Energy-Plan.pdf?1661361866

[[5]] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/gas-and-electricity-prices-in-the-non-domestic-sector

[[6]]Dataset https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1095838/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2022_dataset.xlsx

Response to “Review of Net Zero: Call for evidence”

I sent the following response earlier today to a UK government consultation on the proposed review of the "Nett Zero" policy.

* * *

To: netzeroreview@beis.gov.uk

Dear Sirs,

Response to “Review of Net Zero: Call for evidence”

I have been studying the science, history and politics of the green agenda, and particularly the “global warming” or “climate change” issue, for around 15 years. Therefore, I felt impelled to respond to this consultation. I have a degree in mathematics from Cambridge.

You say that the review is to concentrate on ensuring that “delivering the net zero target does not place undue burdens on businesses or consumers.” But this cannot be divorced from the more fundamental question of whether or not the nett zero target is desirable, or even necessary. Which, in turn, depends critically on the question of how the costs and benefits of trying to implement such a target compare with each other.

You also say: “We are supplementing this with a broad call for evidence, giving the general public, businesses and other organisations a chance to share their views on the whole economy transition.” My view is that any such “transition” is unnecessary as there are no significant benefits to it for the ordinary people of the UK, and would be highly destructive to prosperity and quality of life. For example, many people would lose their mobility entirely, as the ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars prices them out of the market for personal transport.

Notwithstanding the politicians’ rhetoric of “no rowing back” on green commitments they have made, any review worth the name on this issue ought to consider seriously, and to evaluate, all options. Including suspension of the nett zero program pending a full and rigorous cost-benefit analysis, or even outright cancellation of the entire program.

As submissions to your consultation, I am attaching copies of four .pdf files:

1.     respcon-200731.pdf. This was my 56-page submission to your July 2020 consultation on “De-carbonizing Transport.” It gives a good summary of my position on green issues. I think it fair to say that my response, and the responses of others like me, to that “consultation” were totally ignored. I very much hope that does not happen again with this one.

2.     giroglb.pdf. My somewhat acerbic comments (written in January 2021) on the government’s November 2020 “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution.” You can also find this article on-line at https://libertarianism.uk/2021/01/24/green-industrial-revolution-or-great-leap-backward/.

3.     adgb.pdf. A follow-up article to the previous one, giving a potted history of the “global warming” or “climate change” agenda from an evidence-based point of view. This includes some comments on the UK government’s purported “cost-benefit analysis,” published in 2019, of nett zero as a whole. You can also find the article on-line at https://libertarianism.uk/2021/01/31/a-dark-green-background/.

4.     A very recent report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr), which analyses the costs and benefits of the 2030 ban on sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles on the UK, which resulted from the “consultation” I referred to above. You can down-load this report via https://fairfueluk.com/CEBR-2030-BAN/.

The take-home message of the Cebr report is that the government should: “undertake their own rigorous analysis so that the full extent of net impacts can be more fully explored. The findings of this report strongly suggest that a similar government led analysis would come to a similar conclusion; that the benefits to UK households of implementing the fossil fuel vehicle sale bans are far outweighed by the costs.”

On page 26, they give the benefit divided by cost ratio of the 2030 bans, relative to a baseline scenario in which there are no bans, as 0.19. That means that the costs of the bans to ordinary people in the UK, as calculated using the government’s own cost-benefit methodology, will be more than five times the benefits from the carbon dioxide and pollution emissions that they save.

On page 28, they consider an alternative scenario, in which the benefits of curbing CO₂ emissions are calculated, not using UK government methodology, but instead using the US government’s published value of the “social cost of carbon” per ton of CO₂ emissions, which is less than a fifth of the UK government’s number. This estimate is produced using William Nordhaus’s DICE integrated assessment model, and seems to me much more believable than the UK number. (Though, if you use Richard Tol’s FUND model rather than DICE, which aims to assess benefits resulting from increased carbon dioxide, such as better plant growth, as well as the associated costs, you may reach an even lower social cost estimate.)

Cebr do not re-calculate the benefit versus cost ratio for this scenario, but doing the same calculation with their revised figures as they did on page 26, I come up with a benefit over cost ratio of 0.0644. That means that if you accept the US social cost figure, more than 93% of the money spent will be completely wasted, and less than 7% of it will generate any benefits. Even if you discount the “new vehicles” component of the costs, the benefit divided by cost ratio is still only 0.129. That’s not a good deal for the people of the UK, is it?

And this Cebr report addresses only one component of nett zero, the petrol and diesel vehicle ban. I wonder if any objective and rigorous cost-benefit analysis along these lines has been done for the other parts of the “ten point plan?” Or, indeed, on the risks of de-stabilizing the UK electrical power grid, of supply chain difficulties for materials like lithium, or of new technologies that are necessary to that plan not being ready when they are needed?

I take the view that government is and must always be, as John Locke told us, for the public good. That the public good is as Locke defined it: “the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be provided for.” And that government power, as he put it: “hath no end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects.” Therefore, I would suggest that the government ought to institute, as a very high priority, objective and rigorous cost-benefit and risks assessments on the entire nett zero project. To be carried out by, as the UN Declaration of Human Rights puts it, “an independent and impartial tribunal” with appropriate expertise.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Lock

 

COVID-19: As the panic finally starts to subside in Europe, what lessons have we learned?

I confess that I haven’t been looking too hard at the COVID situation in the last few months. Despite dire cries from the usual suspects like “you’d better get jabbed (again) now,” the UK has been bumbling along at a relatively low rate of new cases for more than six months. But hearing that there had been a recent surge in new cases in Austria and Germany in particular, I thought I would take one more cut at the data for my core 14 European countries.

Country Ratings

As part of a recent re-working, I have updated the values of two country ratings I use (UN human development index and Freedom House rating) for all countries to the 2021 figures. Here are the graphs of those ratings:

It's worth noting that many Freedom House ratings world-wide have gone down substantially during the period of the COVID epidemic. The UK is one example. It is my view that that rating should have been marked down by a lot more than it has been!

I have also imported corrected population and population density figures from Our World in Data. (The UK population, for example, was previously being shown as above 68 million, whereas now it shows at about 67.3 million, a more believable figure). Here are the populations and densities:

Timeliness of the data

I initially took the data for this exercise from Our World in Data and the Blavatnik School of Government on October 12^th, 2022. That data ran up to October 11^th. It did not show as clear a picture as I had hoped of whether the latest wave of the epidemic was finally subsiding in the region or not. I therefore took the data again on October 21^st, after all the countries had provided at least a week of further data. This data runs up to Thursday October 20^th.

One difficulty in analyzing the data at this stage in the epidemic is that, in contrast to earlier, not every country is now reporting data every day, or anything like it. My first task, therefore, was to develop some new bar charts to give a picture of how timely the data is from each country. Here is this chart for new cases:

Ireland, the UK, Sweden and Switzerland are now all reporting new cases on a weekly cycle. Belgium and the Netherlands are reporting twice weekly. Spain was reporting twice weekly up to early October, but recently seems to have dropped into a weekly cycle. Luxembourg’s reporting cycle is irregular, but they seem to be reporting three to five times each week. Denmark, France, Germany and Portugal are all reporting on weekdays only. Austria and Italy are still reporting every single day. There seems to be a roughly even divide between those countries still reporting new cases at least every other day, and those taking a more relaxed attitude to their statistics.

Cases

Here are the spaghetti graph and bar chart for the total cases per million:

The large wiggles in the data from several countries in recent months, I found a bit unexpected. Austria has now overtaken Denmark at the top of the cases per million league, with 60% of the population having been diagnosed as cases. And Germany has moved from being last by a long way back in March to a mid-table position today.

This does, of course, beg the question of just how good the historical case count data is for each country. In Italy, Sweden and the UK at least, it seems clear that a lot of COVID cases in the early part of the epidemic were missed (including my own), because there were no tests available for those who weren’t ill enough to need hospitalization. And this may well apply to Belgium, Ireland, and Spain as well.

Here is the same data looked at in terms of new daily cases per million:

The top four, at least, have seen in recent weeks a strong increase in new cases. These would appear to be due to a spread of new omicron sub-variants, notably BA.4.6. But all these countries seem now to be getting “over the hump” of new cases.

Weekly case growth percentages currently are as follows. For comparison, the October 11^th graph is shown immediately after:

As the spaghetti graph shows, and the difference between the weekly case growths confirms, most of the countries have now passed the peak of the latest wave of new cases, which presumably has been caused by omicron variant BA.4.6. The Spanish and Portuguese data do look a little bit odd (maybe the reports from a week or so ago were understated?) But none of those weekly case growth percentages in the top chart looks too concerning.

Public Information Campaigns

Each country has kept up a “public information” campaign throughout the epidemic. For most of the time, this has been continuous and co-ordinated fear propaganda (100% on the “stringency” scale). But recently, two of the countries (the UK and Switzerland) have downgraded the status to “urging caution,” and Sweden has stopped its campaign altogether. They obviously don’t feel COVID is a big threat any more:

Italy also had downgraded its campaign to “urging caution,” but has now ramped it up again.

Lockdowns

Here is the bar chart of how recently lockdown status has been provided by each country:

This seems to show two interconnected things. One, that reporting of lockdown status can be quite slow. Two, that lockdown levels in many of the countries have been stable for some time.

Here is the spaghetti graph of lockdown stringencies, which shows that with the notable exception of Austria, most have been on a downward trend for many months:

The current lockdown stringencies are as follows:

Sweden is now all the way down to zero stringency. Maybe the reason they aren’t bothering to report stringency data any more is that they think their lockdowns are over for good!

And here are the average lockdown stringencies (counted day by day) over the course of the whole epidemic:

Here is the same data expressed in terms of my “harshness” metric, which assesses the subjective nastiness of lockdown mandates, including face masks, to the people under them:

Austria is now locked down far harder than the rest, having been the slowest to unlock of all these countries. Its mandates are: Schools: Some closed (Regional), Workplaces: Some closed, Gatherings: Up to 101-1000, Face covering: Required in some places. Italy has been steadily reducing lockdowns over the last several months, but still has: Workplaces: Some closed, Face covering: Required in some places.

Belgium has had only one mandate, since late May: Face covering: Required in some places. Though it is still recommending closure of workplaces. Germany has had the same mandate since the middle of June, as has Spain since late August. And Denmark, having had no face covering mandate since late March, re-imposed “required in some places” on 20^th August, then scrapped it again on 17^th September. The remaining countries have no COVID mandates at all, of any kind.

Here are the current levels of face mask rules:

50% represents “required in some places” and 25% “recommended.”

Hospitalizations

Here’s the timeliness bar chart for COVID hospital occupancies:

All the countries have reported on hospital occupancy at some point within the last 2 weeks, except for Germany, which has never provided this data, and Sweden which has not provided any hospital occupancy data since March. I have, therefore, removed these two countries from the chart of percentage of available hospital beds occupied by COVID patients:

The UK and France, two of the countries now seemingly among the most relaxed about lockdowns, lead. But as their new cases are now going down, there is little cause for alarm.

Here is the spaghetti graph of hospital occupancies by COVID patients over time, and the bar chart of weekly hospital occupancy growth:

COVID hospitalization levels in France and Austria, at least, were closing in on values as high as they have been since omicron first arrived in late 2021. But Austria has now passed its peak of hospital occupancy, and many of the other countries seem to be close to levelling out. Again, I have removed Germany and Sweden from the hospital occupancy growth chart.

Intensive Care Units

Here’s the timeliness bar chart for ICUs:

Sweden, again, has not seen fit to supply any data since March. And the UK has not supplied any since late May. Both, presumably, feel that ICU capacity for COVID patients is unlikely to be a problem again, however oversubscribed it was early in the epidemic. So, I have taken these two countries out of the list of ICU occupancies with COVID patients:

Even in France, these numbers are tiny compared with their values at the 2020 peak of the epidemic, or even around the new year of 2022. As is shown by the spaghetti graph of ICU occupancy:

This shows a generally declining trend over the course of almost a year. Nevertheless, there has been an upturn in ICU occupancy by COVID patients in recent weeks, particularly in Germany, Austria and France. And this upturn has happened, albeit far more slowly, in the other countries as well. Again, since in most countries new cases are now starting to drop, and hospital occupancy to level out, there should be no great cause for concern.

Deaths

Here’s the timeliness chart for reports of COVID deaths:

Mostly, the countries which report cases weekly are also reporting deaths weekly. The UK has been an exception, as in the October 11^th data it reported zero figures for almost the whole of the previous three weeks. At the moment, the UK appears to be providing a total of COVID deaths for the month so far, then assigning them to individual days later.

Here are the total deaths per million spaghetti graph and bar chart:

It looks as if the UK has completely re-calculated its deaths-from-COVID figures throughout the course of the epidemic, and they are now higher than any of the other countries in the group. The two big peaks of COVID deaths have been adjusted upwards; something which is not shown by other data sources such as Worldometers. Nor, even, by the UK government’s own dashboard, which is showing raw figures of 977 deaths per day at the first peak in April 2020 and 1,179 at the second in January 2021, as against 1,461 and 1,490 in the feed from Our World in Data! These are very significant adjustments, which seem to have been made some time between mid-August and mid-September 2022. This may help to explain why the UK is now often reporting zeroes for recent days; perhaps they are taking extra time and precautions to make sure that they get the data right in the end? But it’s still odd that even the UK government’s own dashboard doesn’t show these adjustments.

Here's the spaghetti graph of daily deaths per million:

The apparent bumps at the end are caused by the vagaries of reporting in Sweden and the UK. Otherwise, there’s what looks like good news here; the daily numbers of deaths in all or most of these countries have been tending downwards for many months. So perhaps the latest wave isn’t any more lethal than its predecessors, despite increasing hospitalizations in some countries?

Another way to look at the COVID deaths data is by cumulative deaths per case:

The UK and Spain are the two worst on this metric, by some way. In the UK, that may have something to do with being relatively good at counting COVID deaths (since the recent changes), but not so strong on counting COVID cases. But even so, the numbers say something not nice about the NHS and its Spanish equivalent. Denmark and the Netherlands are at the opposite end of the scale.

Another way to cross-check the deaths figures is to show excess mortality. But different countries report excess mortality data at widely differing rates:

Except for Ireland, they all report on the same day of the week! But it looks as if the non-Catholic countries, except Sweden, try to report excess mortality for each week within a month or so. But data for the Catholic countries and Sweden may be out of date by longer. Italy seems to have particular difficulty providing up-to-date excess mortality figures.

Here are the spaghetti graph and bar chart of the average of excess mortalities (relative to the base period of 2015-2019) throughout the epidemic:

That looks to me as if excess mortalities in the region troughed in early 2021, presumably because COVID had picked off during 2020 a significant number of those who might have been described as “low hanging fruit.” Since then, if anything, the trend in excess mortality until very recently has been upwards, except for a sudden drop around New Year 2022. This is a bit odd, considering that deaths explicitly attributed to COVID have been generally falling over the course of 2022. The wild fluctuations seen in Luxembourg (brown line) are due to its small population relative to the other countries.

There have also been some unexpectedly large recent peaks in excess mortality in particular countries. Spain reached a peak of 45% towards the end of July 2022, Portugal reached 42% and Italy 34%. There were small peaks of COVID-attributed deaths at that time in all these countries, but nowhere near large enough to account for all or even most of the excess.

Moreover, the UK’s excess mortality rate has been above 10% almost continuously since June 2022, even though deaths directly attributed to COVID have been falling since the middle of July. Ireland shows a somewhat similar pattern since April, as did Austria prior to August. And German excess mortality has been increasing through most of 2022, even though COVID deaths have stayed roughly constant. All this suggests that trying to tie up excess mortalities with COVID statistics is a tough task!

Some lessons learned

Now for some lessons learned over the course of the epidemic. Here are scatter-plots of the 14 countries’ performances in terms of cases and deaths, against the UN’s Human Development Index, the Freedom House index and population density. 14 is only a small sample, of course. It would be interesting to see what the corresponding plot for the whole of Europe shows.

Cases per million

That’s quite a significant trend; each extra point on the human development index is reflected in a drop in the trend line of almost 1% in the proportion of the population who become cases.

The Freedom House index seems to have far less effect on the cases per million than the UN rating does.

Population density does seem to have some effect of raising cases per million in the core of Europe, but the effect is small. Low population density is certainly not a guarantor of low cases per million.

Deaths per million

This, again, is a significant trend. Each extra point in HDI rating “saves” about 125 deaths per million.

The effect of the Freedom House rating on deaths per million seems to be much more significant than on cases per million. Each extra percentage point on the Freedom House rating “saves” about 115 deaths per million from COVID. Freedom saves lives, at about the same rate as “human development” in the UN’s terms does.

And the bottom five in freedom (including the UK) are all in the highest seven in deaths per million. Could this, perhaps, be because the freer the country, the better is the level of trust between the people and the government, in both directions?

There seems to be almost no relation between deaths per million and population density. Suggesting that it doesn’t much matter how quickly the damn thing gets to you; the end result will depend only on what happens after you catch it.

Cumulative deaths per case

The spread of the trend line between the lowest and the highest corresponds to about 0.47% to 0.63% in cumulative deaths per case, or a ratio of about 1.34 to 1.

The Freedom House rating has a stronger negative correlation with cumulative deaths per case than the UN rating does. The spread between lowest and highest is from 0.40% to 0.64%, a ratio of 1.6 to 1.

Average lockdown stringency and harshness

Each point of HDI rating tends to lower the average lockdown stringency by almost 1%, and the harshness by more than 1.5%. The harshness value on the trend line decreases over the whole range from 46% to 32%, a ratio of 1.44 to 1.

The average lockdown stringency drops by a little over 1% for each point increase in Freedom House rating, so this has slightly more effect on stringency than the UN rating. The effect of the Freedom House rating on the harshness is more spectacular, dropping by more than 2% per point of rating, and from 46% to 26% (a ratio of 1.77 to 1) over the whole range.

Which just goes to say, that the freer a country, the less prone the government will be to lock down except when absolutely necessary. The Swedish approach has been right all along. If anyone deserves a half decent freedom rating, it’s our friends the Swedes!

To sum up

·       Some of the countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, UK) have cut their reporting of new cases down to a single weekly figure. Do they think COVID isn’t a big deal any more?

·       The UK and Switzerland have cut down the level of their COVID public information campaigns, and Sweden has stopped its campaign altogether. Do they think the epidemic is all but over?

·       The recent spurts in new cases have been greatly reduced over the last week or so in almost all the countries in the region. Without any increases in lockdowns.

·       The UK has completely re-written its COVID deaths data, and the numbers are now much higher than previously. Oddly, these numbers are not yet on the government dashboard!

·       Attempting to tie up trends in COVID deaths with trends in excess mortality gives mixed results, with some countries’ excess mortalities being higher than you might have expected.

·       The UN’s Human Development Index correlates negatively (and significantly) with cases per million, deaths per million and cumulative deaths per case.

·       The Freedom House index has far less effect on cases per million than the UN HDI does, but there is a significant negative correlation on deaths per million and cumulative deaths per case.

·       The bottom five of the 14 countries in Freedom House rating (including the UK) are all in the top seven in deaths per million. Freedom saves lives!

·       Population density seems to have a small positive correlation with cases per million, but almost no correlation with deaths per million.

·       Both the UN HDI and the Freedom House rating correlate negatively with both average lockdown stringency and harshness. The Freedom House rating has far more effect than the UN HDI, and both ratings have more effect on the subjectively based harshness measure than on the Blavatnik stringency.

·       The Swedish approach to lockdowns has been right all along. Well done to them. The Dutch have also done well.

·       The epidemic isn’t over quite yet in the core of Europe. But absent another nasty variant (unlikely, I think, given that no such thing has appeared since omicron took over as the dominant variant around the end of 2021), there doesn’t seem to be any remaining cause for alarm.