Skipper

I've often used a quotation by 'The Duke of Cambridge without really knowing who he was. Quotation? ‘The time for change is when it can be no longer resisted’ Useful quote for someone teaching/writing history or politics as you might imagine. So I was led to look the guy up when I discovered Prince William is to known henceforward by the same name. And I came up with the well upholstered gent you see on your left.

Apart from being bald and in the military, William seems to have little in common with his German forebear. This little extract from the Wikipedia profile gives a taste of the man plus a version of his famous quotation:

The Duke of Cambridge served as commander-in-chief for 39 years.[3] Although he was deeply concerned about the welfare of soldiers, he earned a reputation for being resistant to doctrinal change and for making promotions based upon an officer's social standing, rather than his merit. Under his command, the British Army became a moribund and stagnant institution, lagging far behind its continental counterparts. In the late 19th century, whereas 50 per cent of all military literature was written in Germany and 25 per cent in France, just one per cent came from Britain. It is said that he rebuked one of his more intelligent subordinates with the words: "Brains? I don't believe in brains! You haven't any, I know, Sir!" He was equally forthright on his reluctance to adopt change: "There is a time for everything, and the time for change is when you can no longer help it."

One sincerely hopes the present prince does not emulate his ancestor but there is one aspect which might worry Kate and interest the tabs: the portly duke fathered more than one illegitimate child and had a penchant for mistresses. I wonder if confering this particular title was such a good precedent to follow...?

Sorry to have neglected blogging for last few days but have been in Cork on a short holiday visiting an old university friend, Noel. I think it would be fair to say that, unlike USA, Ireland is not on tenterhooks of anticipation regarding the royal wedding. Our newspapers and other media seem to have done their usual lose control thing and become totally obsessed with even the smallest item- who has been invited, who snubbed, what Dave will wear and should he, as well as acres of newsprint on the gorgeous commoner and the hugely handsome and all round gorgeous William.

Evidence of dissenting views have been limited to the letters pages for the most psrt, with carping criticism about extravagance during these straightened times. Yet, as I understand it from one point of view, the gilded spectacle is supposed to be functional. It is supposed to uplift our feelings, raise our jaded morale, and make us proud to be British. So very odd then to find The Economist's heavyweight columnist, Bagehot, sounding a critical note, pointing out that:

opinion polls [are] saying that barely a half of the British are interested in the wedding, and only a third are certain to watch it on television. Councils report a north-south divide in applications to hold street parties—and far fewer overall than when Prince William’s parents wed in 1981.

Bagehot suggests we are all wiser about royal weddings, their suspect compatibility and limited longevities. Bagehot suggests the royal couple will thrive if they manage to be the kind of 'unicorn or mythical beast' who is to some extent, like the Queen removed from the real world. If they appear to join their own real world they will be seen to be among:

what remains of the landed upper classes: a life of moors and deer-stalking, of summers under Scottish rain, dogs and horses, the church, the armed forces, the same few boarding schools and the right sort of nightclubs. That is more perilous territory: the British, in the main, dislike such people.

At present Bagehot thinks William is closer to 'royal unicorn' mode and suggests he should avoid any contact with the toxic British class system or any of that 'nonsense':

Give the British a reason to resent each other, and they will seize it with gusto. Prince William’s mother used the royal family’s fustiness as a weapon in her war against them; that marital fight ruined lives. By the time of its tragic ending, the British public were left queasy, cynical and divided. Miss Middleton may well be a fine person, but if her life’s journey pinpoints Prince William’s place in society too closely, she could end up harming him. Class shows up Britain at its worst. For the sake of the country, but also as an act of kindness, pension the royals off. Time for compassionate republicanism: it might be the best wedding present the young couple could have.

James Forsyth in The Spectator writes an interesting piece in the current issue. He points out that the party best placed in the referendum is Labour with the message: 'if you don't like the coalition, vote for us'. He thinks a 600 seat gain in local elections would be a good result though argues that local elections are of scant concern to the other two parties; itr is the referendum which has taken on 'immense importance'. Forsyth insists that if the 'yes' vote wins:

'Cameron's relationship with the Conservative partry would be damaged beyond repair He could be the man who failed to beat Gordon Brown, conceded a referendum on electoral reform to the liberal Democrats and then lost it. The party would soon start casting around for an alternative champion.'

Last year, says Forsyth, the plan was to remain above the fray- Dave was relaxed about the result. but Tories are panicking, thinking AV would consign them to the margins of political life and Cameron, reacting to the pressure has made winning the 'no' vote his top priority: Central Office says 'it is all about AV'.

As for Clegg, if he loses, as seems likely at time of writing, his plans are to head back to Brussels as a commissioner in 2014.

I note Paddy Ashdown has a rant against George Osborne in yesterday's Observer. Osborne has claimed that the fact that the Electoral Reform Society has backed the 'Yes' campaign 'stinks' as that body stands to make money out of a voting change. Yes campaigners claim this is nonsense as ERS does not envisage any use of voting machines under AV and is only one of six companies manufacturing ballot papers for a possible AV election. Ashdown condemns this smear as symptomatic of the 'old politics' he hopes AV will help to remove. Some hope.

Such an explosion of ire from the good captain would not cause such concern were it not for an article by the highly respected Economist columnist Bagehot, which accuses both sides in the debate of staging 'a mud-pie fight of spurious, partisan claims and counter-claims.' Both sides have eschewed patient explanation 'plumping for cartoonish exaggeration' instead.

Bagehot concludes:

"The Yes and No camps bellow and roar about the marvellous or horrible consequences of AV....Nobody dares predict a result: the opinion polls are close and turnout risks being very low, especially in London where no other elections are being held on May 5th. One question has already been answered, however. Offered a chance to engage seriously with voters, Britain’s political leaders rejected it. It seems that distrust between electors and the elected runs both ways."

Expect much more of this as 5th May approaches. I am giving a talk on the AV debate 3rd May in the Liverpool Hope University Creative Centre at 7.0pm but you can read my briefing here.

A Briefing on the AV Referendum 5th May 2011.

Professor Bill Jones, University of Liverpool Hope

‘The time for change is when it can be no longer resisted’? Duke Cambridge

Why has the Referendum been called?
The vote originates with the agreement to form the Coalition government in May 2010 in the wake of an election which denied any party an overall majority. Labour had already floated the idea of a referendum on the Alternative Vote as bait for Lib Dem voters’ support but following the inconclusive election result, any Labour-Lib-Dem collaboration would have left a gap which could only be made into a majority by unreliable smaller parties like the nationalists. So Nick Clegg’s party looked to the Conservatives to whose 305 seats, their added number of 57 made a very workable majority- assuming they could agree a deal.

Voting Reform: Like their predecessors the Liberal Party, the Lib Democrats railed against a voting system which gave scant reward to a party with thin national support; in 1983 the Liberal-Social Democrat Alliance won 26% of the vote but barely 4% of the seats. Reform of the voting system was therefore the Holy Grail sought by the third party and Cameron was forced to equal Labour’s offer to tempt Nick Clegg to enter the Conservative embrace. For Liberal Democrats, winning the AV referendum is a very big deal. For over half of Labour MPs however, and probably an equal number of Conservative ones, First Past the Post(FPTP) is still their preferred choice. The debate between the ‘No’ and the ‘Yes’ campaigns will escalate until 5th may when the vote will resolve it- at least for the time being. This briefing outlines the arguments for and against FPTP and the mooted Alternative Vote (AV).

The Two Systems
First past the Post (FPTP): employs a simple plurality: the candidate receiving the most votes- made by an X alongside the candidate’s name on the ballot paper- wins.

Alternative Vote (AV) entails use of numbers to list preferences among candidates. Any candidate polling over 50% first choices is elected. If no candidate gets 50% then lowest scoring one is eliminated and their second preferences are distributed as if they were ‘first’ choices. This continues until someone crosses the 50% line.

FPTP Ballot Paper:





AV Ballot Paper:


The ‘Yes’ Case

First Past the Post System Considered

A System for a Bygone Age?

‘March of Democracy’ Argument: A thousand years ago Britain was ruled by and
absolute monarch who controlled the making, implementation and interpretation of
the law. An embryonic parliament gradually acquired influence and power until it
challenged and overthrew the monarchy in the 17th century Civil War, after which
parliament exercised the upper hand over a fading monarchy. In 1832 came the Great
Reform Act, its preamble stating its objective was to ‘take effectual measures for
correcting the diverse abuses that have long prevailed in the choice of members to
serve in the Commons House of Parliament.’. The Act made voting less corrupt and
the right to vote was extended gradually until all citizens over 21 became owners of
the vote, including women after 1928. Some argue that this historic advance of
democracy still has some way to go, given the shortcomings of our present voting
system, and that further reform is necessary. The Guardian newspaper, champion of
left of centre opinion has argued that the conditions which made FPTP
democratically appropriate, have now passed.

“When every voter was either Labour or Conservative, the first-past
the-post (FPTP) system of election caused few serious injustices. With only two main parties to choose from, and with most loyalties seemingly immutable, a swing in the national mood was easily – and reasonably fairly – replicated on the opposing benches of the House of Commons. For most of the 19th century, and for several decades in the middle of the 20th, British politics was a two-horse race. If the Tories were up, Labour was down. If Labour soared, the Tories sank. Those times are over. Those circumstances no longer exist. The old Britain has fragmented and its politics have fragmented with it. Voting is more shaped by things like education, gender, age, ethnicity and cultural identity, and less by class and locality alone.” (Guardian editorial 4th April 2011)

Focus of both systems: while AV is focuses on fairness within a constituency, FPTP is concerned with overall fairness and effectiveness for the UK as a whole.

Critique of FPTP according to the ‘Yes’ campaign:
i) FPTP enables candidates to be elected on a minority-less than 50%- of the votes. Two thirds of MPs were elected in this way in May 2010, arguably ‘wasting’ the votes of each majority and rubbishing the notion of FPTP’s supposed glory: the ‘constituency-MP link’.
ii) It doesn’t eliminate coalition governments: as numbers of smaller parties grow in number and size big parties cannot gain overall majorities. Coalitions are now much more likely even under FPTP because smaller parties now regularly win around 85 seats and to govern alone a party is much less likely to win the required landslide. .
iii) FPTP means smaller parties gain only a few seats e.g. the SDP-Alliance won 26% votes in 1983 but only 4% of the seats. This means large numbers of voters who support, say, Greens, do not have MPs in the legislature, a highly undemocratic outcome.
iv) Under FPTP barely 1% of the electorate in a handful of marginal contests, decide who forms the government, while millions of voters in safe seats see their votes count for nothing. This means this small number of voters exercise disproportionate power and influence.
v) FPTP has made half seats in UK ‘safe seats for life’ unlikely to change hands.
vi) FPTP doesn’t necessarily ‘kick out’ unpopular governments; only one government with a working majority has been so dealt with in the last 100 years.
vii) It is not necessarily a barrier against extremism as BNP councillors have been elected all over the UK.

AV’s Alleged Advantages
i) Would ensure elected candidate represented the majority view of voters.
ii) Under AV every vote of every voter counts in a contest, even in safe seats.
iii) Because other preferences can be crucial candidates are obliged to reach out to other voters.
iv) However, voters do not have to list preferences for all candidates.
v) Because of the above, candidates are less likely to engage in negative campaigning.
vi) Because voters can actually vote for their second preferences, tactical voting is pre-empted.
vii) AV would not assist extremist parties as they rarely attract 2nd preferences and their small numbers of 1st choices would not win them seats.
viii) As evidence of vi) above, the BNP oppose AV.
ix) Under AV parties ‘will not be able to ignore a large number of people that they ignore at the moment’ (John Denham, Labour MP)
x) AV will encourage a convergence of views; as Denham argues further, parties: ‘will need to appeal beyond their base, politicians will be forced to look for consensus, to be more open-minded, less tribal, not so slavishly loyal to party whips.’
xi) AV does not give some voters two votes, as argued by No2AV and even Douglas Hurd. Lib Dem Jo Swinson put it his way: ‘If I ask you to buy me a mars bar but a mars is not available and I suggest you buy a Twix instead, I will not receive two bars of chocolate. A transferred vote is not a multiple vote.’
xii) AV would not cost an extra £250m as claimed by No2AV. Pencils on ballot paper would be the system not expensive voting machines from Australia.
xiii) Listing preferences is not complex; Irish voters have no difficulty in understanding their much more complex Single Transferable Vote (STV) system.
xiv) It is not an ‘alien’ system: ‘AV offers an incremental, moderate improvement and that is a terribly British way of reforming our constitution.’ ( Andrew Rawnsley, Observer, 3rd April 2011.
xv) This is the system used in clubs and societies all over the country as well as the Speaker and chairs of Select committees..
xvi) Political parties also use it widely, including the Conservative party which elected David Cameron in this way. If his election had been run via FPTP then David Davis, receiving 31% of the first vote, would now be leader and presumably prime minister!

The ‘No’ to AV Case
Alleged strengths of FPTP
i) FPTP creates strong government with coalitions uncommon.
ii) It is clearly based on ‘one person one vote’.
iii) It is simple both to understand and implement.
iv) It makes it very difficult for extremist parties to succeed.
v) It is the most widely used system in world-50 countries, including USA, Canada and India, use it.

Critique of AV according to No2AV
i) By contrast to v) above, only three countries use AV: Australia (and only for its House of Representatives), Fiji and Papua New Guinea.
ii) AV will cost an additional £250m- money which could be better spent on public services.
iii) AV is complex to understand.
iv) AV is not proportional as many people insist in believing.
v) AV is unfair in that the candidate who comes second can go on to win.
vi) AV will lead to more hung parliaments with their attendant backroom deals between politicians and not involving voters.
vii) Most voters in Australia do not list any preferences meaning that many MPs win without 50% of the votes. Rallings and Thrasher say, ‘more than 4 out of ten MPs would still be elected with the endorsement of less than half the voters.’
viii) AV would not reduce the nearly 300 ‘safe seats’ where MPs have more than 50% of the vote.
ix) AV won’t stop elections being won by swing voters in a few constituencies.
x) Silly to say votes ‘wasted’ when one’s candidate is defeated; taking part in an election always carries such a risk.
xi) AV would, if anything, accentuate ‘tactical voting’ in that 2nd and 3rd preferences would be wooed.
xii) AV would not end negative campaigning


Celebrity Backing
As in USA celebrity backing for a cause is influential. So far celebs are as follows:

For AV include: Colin Firth, Joanna Lumley, John Cleese, Helena Bonham Carter,
Stephen Fry, Billy Bragg, Edddie Izzard, Tony Robinson, Richard Wilson, Art Malik,
Kris Akabussi

Against AV and for FPTP include: Peter Stringfellow, Julian Fellowes, Darren Gough, David Gower, Tony Hadley, Michael Howard, Margaret Beckett, John Prescott

‘Winning’ if first- ‘losing’ if anything else? Several more sporting celebrities oppose AV as they think, as Cameron has argued, it denies victory to the ‘winner’, i.e. the person gaining the most 1st choices. A letter to The Times(15/4/11) denied a ‘race’ was the appropriate metaphor for an election; rather, ‘more accurately the electorate should be seen as an outsize selection panel given the task of appointing someone to work for all of us’.

Political Aspects
Oddly, this is the referendum few really want. Liberal Democrats ideally want a form of Proportional Representation, like STV or AV Plus as recommended by the 1998 Jenkins Commission or as installed for the devolved UK assemblies. Nick Clegg called it, before the election, ‘a baby step in the right direction’ and also a ‘miserable little compromise’. Conservatives oppose it as they fear a near permanent alliance between Labour and the closer soul-mates, the Lib Dems, which might lock them out of power indefinitely. Labour too fear the loss of a system whereby their power had always been gained; conservatives traditionalists on the one hand and left-wingers on the other who hope one day to capture the party and lead it in a radical direction. Some, like Austin Mitchell and David Owen, advise a vote against AV on the grounds it will delay achievement of the ‘real’ objective of proper PR.

Professsor Vernon Bogdanor in The Guardian, 12h April, however, pointed out that
even if passed and implemented, AV would ‘make little difference in most general elections’. David Sanders at Essex University ran a simulation suggesting that in May 2010 AV would have resulted only in 32 extra seats for the Liberal Democrats: 22 at the expense of the Conservatives and 10 from Labour. This is not to say that the outcome of the referendum will not have far reaching consequences Lord Rees-Mogg wrote that the Conservatives are under the most pressure on the referendum: they vcan accept council losses but ‘AV would be forever.

Andrew Rawnsley tended to agree in The Observer, 10th April:

“The outcome of the referendum on voting reform is potentially explosive for one of them whichever way it goes. A No vote will cause tremors under Nick Clegg. A Yes vote will see members of his own party accusing Mr Cameron of making a catastrophic mistake when he conceded the referendum in the first place. My guess is that a win for AV will cause more trouble for Mr Cameron than defeat would mean for Mr Clegg.”

Voting in the referendum will definitely be a worthwhile activity for people who care about their governance. At present the polls are not giving clear indications as both camps have had periods in the lead. The Times’ recent Populus poll showed a drop in ‘yes’ voters from 41% in February to 33% first week April. But on 16th April The Guardian declared the ’Nos’ to be in front.

Bill Jones April 2011

I note Paddy Ashdown has a rant against George Osborne in today's Observer. Osborne has claimed that the fact that the Electoral Reform Society has backed the 'Yes' campaign 'stinks' as that body stands to make money out of a voting change. Yes campaigners claim this is nonsense as ERS does not envisage any use of voting machines under AV and is only one of six companies manufacturing ballot papers for a possible AV election. Ashdown condemns this smear as symptomatic of the 'old politics' he hopes AV will help to remove. Some hope.

Such an explosion of ire from the good captain would not cause such concern were it not for an article by the highly respected Economist columnist Bagehot, which accuses both sides in the debate of staging 'a mud-pie fight of spurious, partisan claims and counter-claims.' Both sides have eschewed patient explanation 'plumping for cartoonish exaggeration' instead.

Bagehot concludes:

"The Yes and No camps bellow and roar about the marvellous or horrible consequences of AV....Nobody dares predict a result: the opinion polls are close and turnout risks being very low, especially in London where no other elections are being held on May 5th. One question has already been answered, however. Offered a chance to engage seriously with voters, Britain’s political leaders rejected it. It seems that distrust between electors and the elected runs both ways."

Expect much more of this as 5th May approaches. I am giving a talk on the AV debate 3rd May in the Liverpool Hope University Creative Centre at 7.0pm but you can rad my briefing here.

Am off to Donegal this morning courtesy of Michael ('Extra Charges') O'Leary's airline.

My daughter's house is actually visible in the picture on the left but you'd need a digital magnifying glass to see it. My grand-daughters have promised to teach me to know my way around my new 'smart phone', though I hope they are better teachers than I am a learner in this area.

The Coalition has come a long way since May last year but I suspect is not in quite the place its progenitors might have hoped when they exchanged rings in Number Ten's garden. I thought John Sergeant spoke for the whole nation on Any Questions today on the topic of the NHS when he described the policy as a 'complete mess'. He pointed out that Cameron had promised to 'ring fence' NHS spending and not to undertake any major restructuring. However a series of 4% annual savings are being imposed together with the most ambitious structural reform since 1948. Moreover, the NHS currently enjoys its highest ever satisfaction ratings so nobody really knows what the real critique is which justifies such gratuitous turbulence and harm. 'No wonder the policy has not won support' said the BBC man to storms of applause.

Kenneth Clarke has now now criticised Cameron for usurping his Health secretary's role as leader of the NHS reform package and it has been noted that Cameron is gaining a reputation for 'abandoning' ministers with difficult policies and briefing against them when they struggle. Clarke's own opposition to Cameron's plan to jail anyone caught in possession of a knife; Caroline Spelman's disastrous forest sales is another; and Lady Warsi's contention in January that Islamophobia had 'passed the dining-table test' of acceptability.

In her piece today Polly Toynbee notes that:

After the "budget for growth", Ipsos Mori's poll shows attitudes shifting: 45% say Osborne is not doing a good job, only 36% satisfied. Labour is catching up on who has the best economic polices, at 28% compared with the Tories' 31%. Balls level-pegs as best chancellor at 36% to Osborne's 35%. Few think the private sector will make up for public job losses. Few think "we're all in this together", with 71% saying the poorest are hardest hit. A majority now think such deep cuts are too high a price for paying off the deficit – 48% to 41%, while 70% say the cuts are too fast. This is a rapid turnaround.

I've just been listening to Andrew Lansley getting done over by Eddie Mair on Radio 4's 'PM'. He sounded rattled and unconvincing. The centre-piece of the Health Secretary's NHS reforms comprise gathering GPs into 'consortia' to dispose of some £80bn of taxpayer's money to pay for patient treatment. Lansley is well known as a health specialist and an assiduous student of its many strengths ad weaknesses. Unfortunately, six months of 'consultation' have not made the pill any easier to swallow and battalions of health interests have lined up against him, not to mention his boss and deputy boss.

So far, these forces include: the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of GPs, the BMA, the Liberal Democrat Party at its spring conference and a majority of voters. Cameron and Clegg are not included in that list as direct opponents but we know neither are best pleased with Andy's stewardship of his portfolio to date and have taken over its advocacy. Humiliating enough for Eddie Mair to ask him if he was considering resignation, a suggestion he, unsurprisingly, rejected.

But decades of studying British politics has taught me that when the weasel words 'failures of presentation rather than policy' are brought into play, it means governments have got it wrong and don't know quite what to do. Lib Dem MPs want to see a wider selection of interests on the GP commissioning committees, though I think the most urgent requirement must be to pilot these radical, untested reforms in different parts of the country.


It also worries me greatly that:

i) Lansley, in opposition earned £134 an hour from a firm of food advertisers.

ii) Lansley in opposition was receiving substantial sums from John Nash, chairman of Care UK and founder of Sovereign Capital a private equity company which owns a number of private healthcare companies. The sort of companies, in fact, which are standing to benefit from the very reforms Lansley is seeking to introduce. Such a conflict of interest is quite flagrant and shameful, revealing once again the canard that apparent Tory concern for the NHS is merely a front for plans to subvert it into private sector gain.

A few weeks ago I was unsure whether to vote for AV or not. One of my commenters, Hughes Views, suggested a win for AV would postpone indefinitely any chance of PR, the real objective of voting reformers like he and I. I've been thinking about it ever since but after reading the Observer editorial yesterday I decided support even for this 'miserable little compromise' as Clegg dismissively described it, is preferable to sticking with the useless FPTP system. Andrew Rawnsley's piece was also persuasive I found.

he key element in the editorial for me was the following line:

'The fact that change is modest is no case for the status quo.'

I accept that a small change could 'close down' the issue for years and the necessary change to PR delayed indefinitely. But our system can change at a truly glacial rate- look at the House of Lords for example, still substantially unreformed despite a century old consensus that it should be.

The arguments for and against are complex but the concluding section of the editorial is convincing enough for me:

'Coalitions are here to stay even under the current system. A hung parliament was elected because neither of the two biggest parties commanded enough support to be trusted alone in government. The idea that they should seek remedy for that decline by propping up a system that helps them cheat is lazy and arrogant.

AV is not perfect. No system captures the will of the people with photographic realism. The goal is a fair approximate, and FPTP fails utterly. It distorts, obstructs, obscures and perverts voter choices. It causes tens of thousands of votes to be wasted; it forces people to endorse candidates they don't like, just to punish ones they like even less.

AV will not solve all of the problems of British democracy. It will not undo the harm of the expenses scandal, nor provoke a renaissance of civic participation. It is only a reform. It promises one thing: by taking account of multiple preferences, it would elect a parliament that more accurately describes the political complexion of the nation. That is a start.

The lady on the left is none other than Christine Janes, nee Truman, who was a major sports star when I was a slim and reasonably athletic 20-30 year old. In 1959 she won the French championship, was runner up in the US in the same year and at Wimbledon in 1961. She is now 70, So what? Well, according to a behavioural psychologist she is the 'happiest person in the UK. Shortly we'll all be tested by a similar set of government sponsored questions to gauge how delighted we are with life... or not. So the state of the this former sports star's inner psyche is kind of significant.

It also chimes in with the article in the ST last Sunday on biologist Professor Lewis Wolpert's book claiming that that older people tend to be happier than younger ones. This is counter intuitive to someone like me who looks back on earlier years with nostalgic affection and wishes he could play cricket and table tennis as I once did and sprint around a playing field like a young puppy. But such memories are misleading it would seem. A US National Academy of Sciences' survey of 341,000 people begs to differ. This survey shows that while teenagers and early twenty types are reasonably happy, their level of happiness plunges until early middle age.

However, from mid to late forties onwards happiness levels begin to improve and don't stop improving until the remarkable age of 85. Says Wolpert:

'From their mid forties onwards, people tend to become ever more cheerful and optimistic, perhaps reaching a maximum in their late seventies or eighties.'

Mind you, there are important conditions required. Older people have to be healthy, financially comfortable and have good relationships. Christine Janes clearly meets all three requirements but the down side is that quite a lot of others in our tottering financial conditions might not. Yet having just had another birthday, and, as one tends to when over 40, contemplated my mortality, I find it delightfully reassuring that, given the maintenance of health and finance things can only get better. Though, Professor John Bond of Newcastle University surely expresses the essential truth of growing old:

'In the34 end it's your friends and family that count most.'