The Owl and the Pussycat: a Conspiracy Theory

 The Owl and the Pussycat: a Conspiracy Theory.

(Original publication 18 Nov 2007)

As with all stories, even the nonsensical ones, there is invariably an element of truth just visible beneath the veneer of lies, half truths and deliberate contradictions. The poem written by Edward Lear is such a case. It seems to be pure fantasy at first glance, however, one only has to peel back the obvious literal nonsense to discover a tale most sinister and fiendishly disguised as a mere children’s poem. Let us start this investigation with a closer look at the main characters of this tale, namely an owl and a cat.

‘The Owl and the Pussycat went to sea
In a beautiful pea-green boat,’

It is, of course, most unlikely that one would see such an alliance between a raptor and carnivorous feline, leading anyone to the conclusion that there is already an attempt to sell us a line from the very start; or is it the first tantalising clue to a completely different story? The closer I examined the poem the more I became convinced that this was so. My conclusions were astounding. Everyone believed that he spent many years loafing around Europe and making his way by selling the odd painting. I wonder if, in 1846, Queen Victoria would have consented for Lear to give her drawing lessons, had she known that in Lear’s secret life he became a very successful jewel thief.

In his poem ‘The Owl and the Pussycat’ (first published in 1867) Lear portrays himself, rather arrogantly I thought, as the owl. Owls are often portrayed as ‘wise’ and yet in the real world there is no shred of evidence that a bird of prey that stays up all night, has eyes as big as a junkie high on magic mushrooms and a genetic defect that means it lacks a rectal function in the appropriate physical place, possesses any modicum of wisdom greater than other birds. The collective noun for owls is ‘a Parliament’. Perhaps for many of us, does is it seem that the allusion towards the wisdom of owls is something our politicians would have us believe in order to write policies and manifestos about as sensible as Lear’s poetry? Did Lear see himself to be wise, nay clever, and thus portray himself as the brains behind a felonious operation? Then again, perhaps the inference to ‘Lear the owl’ may simply refer to his antisocial activities occurring at night, when most normal and law abiding citizens were tucked up safely in their beds. It is tempting to want Lear to be seen as boasting his cleverness, however, without substantive evidence we may never know the truth of it.

Clever Lear may well have been, if what I have uncovered is in anyway representative of the truth. So is it perhaps a slip on Lear’s part that by considering him to be a criminal with intent to mock us, as he does by declaring his illegal doings through a poem, he actually names his fellow accomplice as well as the nature of his crimes? Or is this just another mark of the man’s genius?

‘The Owl and the Pussycat’. Is this a cryptic declaration of Edward Lear the Owl and his fellow cat-burglar? Is it possible that the appellations were nothing but a metaphor for a master criminal and his somewhat spectral partner; for nothing in Lear’s history is there to be found a reference to a companion or partnership of this nature? In other words, was Lear working alone? Is the Pussycat real or is the cat just a shaggy dog story? I had to get to the truth of the matter or the real story would have eluded me. I had discovered evidence of Lear’s jovial attitude to wit. But to woo – I mean to who – did Lear proffer the appellation of pussy cat?

‘They took some honey, and plenty of money,
Wrapped up in a five pound note.’

A possible answer comes from the line in the poem that goes: ‘They took some honey and plenty of money…’ The most obvious observation is that neither Owls nor cats eat honey. So why would they take honey and nothing else on a journey? It is certainly true that neither cats nor birds eat honey; or is it?

The Tui of New Zealand is one of the 182 species of honeyeater birds in the world. It is the only bird, however, that early Europeans dubbed as the ‘Parsons bird’ because two white feathers at the Tui’s throat reminded them of a vicars collar. Perhaps it is no consequence then that the honey referred to in Lear’s poem was a small clue to his partner in crime. If Lear was a master criminal perhaps his accomplice, the pussycat was actually a cat burglar who during the day was a respectable man of the cloth. Even more tempting is to believe that his accomplice, in God’s calling or not, was literally a man by the name of ‘Parsons’! 

Now, it seems most unlikely that Lear and Parsons really did take honey on a ‘job’. Much research has been undertaken to see if honey could be used for reasons other than medicinal ones but thus far has met with little success. We do know that Lear was asthmatic and also suffered with bronchitis but would it seem preposterous to take medicinal provisions like honey unless, of course, the plan was not to return home for some time, which may well have been the case. Some connection was discovered between the clergy and the use of beeswax for candles. It might be possible that what was rigged to look like an innocent jar of honey turned out to be a lantern? It would certainly be a useful piece of equipment where the darkness of night protected valuables as much as a hidden wall safe or a locked door. Both possibilities were food for thought but no light was shed on which was the more accurate. 

A rather more tricky question related to why our would-be criminals needed to take a five-pound-note. This is a comparatively small amount in today’s money, but back in the mid 19^th century it might have been worth around 150 times as much. The comparative figure here may not be entirely accurate due to the impossible number of factors one might employ to arrive at such a conclusion of fiscal parity between timelines, however, it would seem clear that five pounds was a large sum of money back in the 1850s. Now if Lear had the means to put his hands on so much money there would be two things one could infer immediately: The first is that it was a compulsory requirement to their plans, most likely someone had demanded a bribe. We may consider the possibility of this as Lear and Parsons did not take ‘the value of’ five pounds. Lear states clearly that it was a note, hence there was only one person from whom they needed to buy silence. The second inference is that whatever they were about to steal was worth a lot more than the bribe.

Indeed it could be conjectured further that taking ‘plenty of money’ along with the aforementioned fiver, but alluding only to the other money’s presence rather than its worth was because it was merely a contingency fund should they find themselves in need of paid assistance and/or other minor bribes or paid passage / accommodation. On the other hand it might be that they were unsure exactly how much money they had ‘taken’. Is this line in the poem a blatant confession to Lear and Parson’s criminal activities even before ‘the big one’?

Even if this were not the case, it is fairly evident that if one were to take the most expensive of coins at the time, the English guinea, one would be lucky to wrap more than ten guineas successfully into a five-pound-note. So at a guess, ‘lots of money’ at the most could have been ten guineas; which is eleven pounds in old money (£1650 in today’s money). It was a lot of money, for sure, but hardly enough for two people to live for ‘a year and a day’ and to survive comfortably without replenishing their funds.

The money they took with them could not have been for the ‘pea-green boat’ …or could it? As the boat features in the first line of the poem it seems to imply that the boat was already acquired and that the said money was for something else. On the other hand, the journey by boat is a statement completely separate to the second line of the poem. If read with a certain inflection it could be made to sound as if the taking of money was a part of how they were now able to afford a journey in a pea-green boat and the five pounds was either payment for the boat or payment for passage on it.

Assuming that the money and the boat were separate issues, the chances are that the recipient of such a large bribe as five pounds would be someone like a night watchman working on a ship, who would quite happily take a ‘tap’ on the head for turning a blind eye. This is certainly among the more reasonable of possibilities. It would be a more fanciful notion to think, for example, that Lear intended to bribe a Yeoman, steal the Crown Jewels and escape by way of an inconspicuous river boat. However, as Lear said that ‘The Owl and the Pussycat went to sea…’ right from the start it suggests that a ship would be a more likely target.

‘The Owl looked up to the stars above,
And sang to a small guitar,
"O lovely Pussy! O Pussy, my love,
What a beautiful Pussy you are, you are, you are,
What a beautiful Pussy you are."’

Part of their haul appeared to be a musical instrument. Consider the playful song that both Lear and Parsons sing whilst making their nautical getaway. No doubt, the guitar was a chance find and it seems unlikely that either of them really knew how to play it. The guitar, it is believed, originated in Spain around the 1600’s. This small piece of knowledge may seem irrelevant but the mere presence of a guitar suggests that the ship from which they stole was either Spanish, or it was a ship that had recently been involved in ‘liberating’ Spanish plunder from the Caribbean (a bit late in his time frame perhaps but who knows what treasure was yet to be discovered from that era).

‘Pussy said to the Owl "You elegant fowl, 
How charmingly sweet you sing.
O let us be married, too long we have tarried;
But what shall we do for a ring?"’

Anyway, the guitar. Lear and Parsons are singing silly songs to each other about love; ‘O lovely Pussy! [Parsons?] O Pussy my love, what a beautiful Pussy you are, you are…’ …and so on. This behaviour certainly seems typical of Lear, hence belief in a moment of levity with a friend that is behaviour reflected so often in his lyrical poems and a penchant for nonsense is not without merit. Consequently, and without wishing to add yet more animals to my analysis, this banter of mock love between Owl and Cat would seem to indicate Lear and Parsons just ‘horsing around’. An interesting find in the exchange, however, is the mention of the absence in their haul of a ring. Clearly the treasure they had ‘acquired’ consisted of gem stones but not necessarily of jewellery.

‘They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the Bong-tree grows,’

Where they sailed to remains a bit of a mystery but strong evidence within the poem points unerringly towards the New World. There is, of course, no such thing as a ‘bong tree’. However, an anagram of ‘Bong tree grows’ is ‘Brown egg store’. My investigations into anything to do with a brown egg store led me to New England were there is a tremendous industry devoted to brown eggs; hence it is known as the ‘brown egg state’. OK its not ‘store’ but it was the closest I could find and the more I pursued this path, however, tenuous, the more interesting it became.

‘And there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood
With a ring at the end of his nose, his nose, his nose,
With a ring at the end of his nose.’

Wherever they went, it is clear that their business was not a wedding but a union of sorts; a meeting one might conclude. Their arrangement with the ‘Piggy-wig’ is a dead giveaway. I mean look at the leap of faith Lear would have us take. One minute they are sailing across a great distance and with no explanation whatsoever they are suddenly in a forest with a pig. It makes no sense at all. The pig, one assumes, is domesticated and also has the capacity to speak Owl and Cat. Furthermore, the ring in its nose appears to be an attachment that the pig has the power to give away for the princely sum of one shilling; probably about a week’s wages in those days.

‘"Dear Pig, are you willing to sell for one shilling your ring?"
 Said the Piggy, "I will"’

Naturally it would be foolish to believe that pigs have good commercial skills. By and large they are generally unfussy animals liable to eat anything and everything you throw at them. Furthermore, as clean as they might be, they tend to live in squalor. For a smart animal the pig appears to lack even half decent standards. No, Mr Piggy-wig was not a real pig. A greedy person perhaps, who wanted to sell a token for more money than his important, but rather small, part was worth but not a real species of the porcine persuasion. Mr Piggy-wig could be none other than a contact for a meeting with the only other main character in Lear’s poem, the Turkey.

‘So they took it away, and were married next day
By the Turkey who lives on the hill.’

…Turkish to be more precise. Lear and Parsons arranged to see the Turk on the following day, and the ring was proof of who they were. Clearly they must have known about this arrangement before setting foot on foreign soil, as is alluded to in their celebratory songs.

The available evidence that Lear and Parsons found themselves in New England is quite astounding. It was amazingly easy to find the Turk, and with that small piece of information the rest of our incredible tale simply fell into place. A certain Jacob Whitman lived in a house around 1750. with the carving of a Turk on the porch. Even in the year 2007 the ‘Turks Head Building’ now sits on that very site; at the intersection of Westminster and Weybosset Streets. Even now there are rumours about the history of Turks Head and of secret societies featuring among its more fanciful tales. Could it be that a relative of Mr Whitman, still resident in the same house, was the fence who profited greatly from his transaction with Lear and Parsons?

‘They dined on mince, and slices of quince,
Which they ate with a runcible spoon.’

It is true that the link between the country of Turkey and the fruit ‘Quince’ is an intriguing one but it can be proved that anyone fishing for evidence along this line will find it to be a red herring. The poem states that Lear and Parsons (and most likely ‘The Turk’) dined on mince and quince. Although quince, an apple of sorts and native in part to the northern region of Turkey, does suggest that our investigations should perhaps deviate from the New England discoveries and seek alternative hypothesise a little in the Mediterranean, the fruit does grow in other countries. Was I right to stay in New England or was it still possible that Lear and Parsons only sailed to Turkey? The conclusion I arrived at was that Turkey was an unlikely destination simply because the country was in decline at the time, whereas the United States was a growing concern and offered more by way of opportunity. No. Turkey was not their intended destination. So was quince available in New England? 

Indeed it was. In fact quince was introduced to New England as early as 1629, although nowadays the growing of quince as a fruit has long been upstaged by the apple. In truth it seems from internet searches in the 21^st century that Rhode Island is known as ‘apple country’.

And if the Turks Head and the quince were not enough, yet another intriguing clue connects our jewellery thieves to Rhode Island. It is claimed that the founder of the American jewellery industry was started, I am led to believe, by Nehemiah and Seril Dodge in around 1824. And where did they start this industry? That’s right, in the very same Rhode Island district of ‘Providence’ where the Turks Head Building also resides. Gemstones would certainly have been welcome at a time when gold was being discovered in great quantities.

So there it is, right in front of us all this time. Edward Lear was a master jewel thief. He and an accomplice, a cat-burglar named Parsons, bribed a ship’s night watchman to look the other way whilst they made off with a fortune in jewels. They sought passage to the New World, arriving in New England where they made arrangements to see, most likely, a relative of Jacob Whitman to act as a go between to flog a fortune in uncut gemstones for a rather large quantity of gold.

No doubt there will be many people who will disbelieve the evidence placed here before them. And yet one might step back a moment and wonder why it seems easier to accept Lear’s poem for all the nonsense that it is at face value. Maybe it was simply the case that Lear experimented with hallucinogenic drugs and with wide eyed amazement found a strange momentary attachment to next door’s pussycat while he considered flying off the roof of his house. Then again it would seem a more than plausible story, that if two men successfully negotiated ill gotten gains for an absolute fortune in gold, one can appreciate the description at the end of his poem where… 

‘And hand in hand on the edge of the sand,

They danced by the light of the moon, the moon, the moon.

They danced by the light of the moon.’

End

Numerology 2024

 The year of 2024, for those who follow this calendar, is a Universal 8 Year (2+0+2=4 = 8). I have always maintained that how the number 8 is made up is important, as it specifies what components are use to arrive at number 8.

But let’s start with the number 8 itself, revered by the Chinese as a lucky number because it pertains to material wealth and luck. However, within the Tarot is pertains to hard work and structure, and in astrology it is Saturn, the planet attributed by many as one of limitations and restrictions. All of the above are true in some way. Anyone who works hard and structures their life will no doubt attain goals and benefit from their effort. And so it is that the number 8 predicts that the harder one works the luckier they become. It is the number of the material, which directly opposes the spiritual, principled, intangible year of 2023.

To understand what the material 8 will manifest, we have to consider the numbers 2 (x2) 0 and 4. In my experience, when you get two of the same number in a year, there is division based on that number. We are experiencing the change from the one thousands (ending 1999) to the two thousands, seeing the patriarchal dominance of the number 1 becoming challenged by the matriarchal number 2. The emphasis on relationships applies not only from one person to another but also to trade, business the expression of values and the way in which we relate to others and even ourselves. As a single number 2, the presentation can be the most positive first step towards a truly equitable society, where one appreciates the values of the other and understands the benefits of working together.

The presence of the second number 2 suggests the workings of diverse value systems. There are already great divides between political ideals, not only in the US and the UK but around the world. This has become particularly more prominent as we hit the 2020s, the most obvious being the US Presidential election that remains a raw and open wound even up to the 2024 Presidential election. The UK Conservative Government has gone through three Conservative Prime Ministers as ideals and values are challenged. The party has become factionalised and with Labour no better.

The divisions are repeated in national conflicts with war in Russia / Ukraine, Israel / Palestine, civil war in Sudan and proxy wars all over the Middle East. Which set of values will win out? You can be certain that until people start learning to work together, relationships will continue to fracture even as far ahead as 2029.

The zero must also be taken into account. It is either a potential for anything to happen or a potential for nothing to happen at all. Both routes can have positive or negative consequences. With the combination of 20, for example (and especially as we have to understand how to use the energies of this combination for the next 76 years) it can either mean ‘you must accept my values / ideals’ or ‘we must find a set of values / ideals we can both agree on’. The former option is often the default in most conflicts in today’s world.

In 2023 we saw the rise in recognition of transgender people, where individuals feel that they are wrongly divided; a man in a woman’s body and vice versa. This has encouraged division particularly for biologically born women who feel that their gender identity is somehow being undermined by the insertion of transgender rights and by transgender women who consider themselves to be no less female. The divisive nature of two lots of number 2 in a Universal year is clear in this one emerging change to our societal norms.

Finally we come to the number 4; the annual counter for the years. Where number 3 was the year for expression in 2023, number 4 this year is for systems and organisation. Israel Palestine needs a two-state solution. Political elections have become distrusting and the system has to change: in the UK it would be to press for proportional representation and in both UK and US the system needs to take the money, corporations and lobby groups out of politics. The political system was set up for representatives of the people; not banks, weapons, junk food and corporate destruction. Climate change demands a move away from fossil fuel but no real systems are in place to make it happen quick enough. Wherever there is war or discord, the solution starts with the number 2 properties of diplomacy, discussion and dialogue. Only then can a proper and long lasting foundation (4) be built through the pains taking labour of hard work, perseverance and structure (8)

The astrological chart for the Winter Solstice (Sun at 0º Capricorn), the seeds of what will be grown through 2024, has Pluto at the anoretic degree of 29 Capricorn. Saturn already awaits Pluto’s arrival into Aquarius (promising yet more structural decay) while sitting midpoint to the Sun Moon trine. Moon conjuncts Jupiter promising the potential for peace but Venus also opposes Uranus, which indicates opposing ideals leading to uncertain progress. Mars squares Neptune, expressing concerns over wasted effort. Some issues appear unresolvable within the current zeitgeist, so the best that might be hoped for is smaller steps and smaller goals towards a rapprochement. And any progress is better than none, particularly as the foundations of a lasting peace is only as strong as the willingness of apposing sides to agree on common values and principles.

2024 may also be the year of the con. Beware the get rich quick schemes and ‘new systems’, especially where your investment commits you to risk a lot of your hard earned money. The number 4 promises that there are no short cuts, so don’t be fooled by the glamour of a charismatic promiser of easy money.

Have a safe and progressive 2024.

Shane Ward is the author of Numerology: Making It Work For You

I found it!

 I found it! After more than 20 years of searching it suddenly appeared on a search engine. This is a personal blog that I just wanted to share for the sheer joy of solving a years old mystery.

You know when you get the answer you are looking for but only if you ask the question in the right way. I had tried this a hundred times or more to find a piece of music that my mother said was her favourite piece of all time but the clues were too generic to help.

First, the piece of music was called 'Concerto' in the film; That hardly narrowed it down. Secondly, the music came from the film 'Phantom of The Opera' of which there are many and now that it is also a musical made searching that way almost impossible.

So today, on a whim, I decided to try one more time and entered the question, 'phantom of the opera film with music called concerto'. I rationalised that 'phantom of the opera film' eliminated the musicals. I also thought that rather than searching through thousands of pointless concertos, if I said, 'with music called concerto', it might just link the two together and give me the film that had eluded me for decades.

And, to my surprise, up it came. Phantom of The Opera 1943 starring Nelson Eddy, Susanna Foster and one of my mothers favourite Hollywood crushes, Claud Rains.

Eagerly I searched the You tube archives to hear the music and there it was with the title "The Lullaby of The Bells" by Edward Ward (no relation that I know of).

I then sourced both the piano music and the DVD as if they were a treasure that laid buried until disturbed by my persistent picking away at the search engine that only wants to sell you things.

Not knowing had bugged me for years. I wanted to play it on piano for my mother but I regret she died before I could discover the music. So it might be posthumous but I will learn to play it.

Happy New Year? Well, not really is it?

 Happy New Year? Well, not really is it?

New Year’s Eve, 2022 was among the most uneventful for me, as I spent the evening watching TV and looking after my wife; who was recovering from a medical procedure. I didn’t mind this, of course. It was far more important to me to look after my partner’s needs and well being than to pretend to enjoy the artificial party atmosphere of the collective excitement at being able to begin anew just because the calendar date has changed.

Not that I was at any time eager to spend vast sums of money to be squashed into a pokey venue with a bunch of ultra-enthusiastic people and be charged extortionate prices for entry and drinks while being assaulted audibly by ear-splittingly-loud music. This type of New Year’s Eve is the commercial attempt to squeeze out the last few pennies from a public eager to believe the hype and to believe that overnight, the failures of the past can be wiped clean and the whole game of life reset.

No. Not this year for me. This year I had the chance to truly reflect on what New Year meant for me; and I have to emphasise that this was not an analysis but more of a broader observation on the whole concept. Specifically I separated the true (to me anyway) meaning of New Year in opposition to the consumer hyped myth.

My wife, as I said before, had undergone a hospital procedure on 30th December. She was going to need a few days to recover, as the general anaesthetic alone can make one feel despondent. She was never going to be in a celebratory mood and it would take beyond New Year’s Eve to get back to her normal self. In other words there was going to be no reset; although there is never a reset. You cannot undo the day before, the week before or any part of the previous year. You cannot undo the successes or failures. You cannot undo the birth of a new life or the death of a loved one. You cannot undo what is done, as if it never happened. But you have a choice to make things better. You have a choice to make more effort. You have a choice to do things differently. You have a choice to do all of these things every day but for some, New Year’s Eve is the chance to upgrade your mindset simply because a number in the calendar changed.

We do similar mini upgrades on our birth day, which is probably no more individual and personal than New Year’s Eve but does not carry with it the hopes and desires of the collective. Hope is the default setting that politicians try to sell but this is a myth designed to keep people passive and dependent on other people to change things for the many. ‘Effort’ would be a much more productive mindset and more likely to lead to the objectives of one’s hopes and wishes.

Back to New Year’s Eve, a time of year when the world, at least the world that follows the Julian calendar, come together to observe the death of the old year and celebrate the birth of a new one. In 2022 we also saw the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the ascension to the throne of King Charles III. The Monarchy continues without pause, for which death is merely a passing of the baton. This passing happens all the time but maybe not so publicly. There is no reset to this change but we have to readjust our life to fill the gaps made by those who have moved on.

In Numerology, the change from 2022, a 6-year, to 2023, a 7-year, will be frustrating to many. The number 7 reflects the striving towards perfection but the camps will be divided between those who believe things should stay as they are (perfect for them) and those who believe change is necessary (not perfect for them). In other words there is likely to be an entrenchment of thought and the need to understand why others think differently? This is a year that is necessary to understand ‘why’? Why is there such a divide? Yes, we all understand our own view but analysis demands that we try to understand the opposing view. 2023 will be a year to decide if we are to mend a bridge or burn it, for which there will be consequences either way for the next year or two.

Some people, and I daresay that extraverts will agree, will consider the party party approach to New Year is a cathartic way to purge one’s self of all previous negative thoughts and start the New Year afresh with hope and optimism; or as in many cases, ringing eardrums and a hangover. Introverts commonly find the whole thing a bit of an ordeal and look forward to the clock chiming 12, lots of handshaking and wishing everyone happy new year and then finding the quickest way home. It won’t surprise you to know that I belong to the latter category. My wife tells me I carry the humbug attitude well beyond Christmas but I find many positives to presenting as a grumpy old git; a portrayal that does not appear to work on my grandchildren, as they can see right through the pretence.

I went to bed before 2023, as I dare say that many others did too. ‘Time’ does not need someone to watch over it; it is a human construct. There are millions of mechanical counters that will continue to keep time while we sleep. The past will not suddenly disappear as the year ends but we are kept so busy following the societal patterns of the year that it almost comes as second nature that we only look to the future when everyone else does. The Roman God, Janus, from which the month of January got its name, had two heads; one looking back and the other looking ahead. The transition of past to future is as constant as time and can be considered at any time of year.

But there is nothing wrong with everyone thinking ahead at the same time. And maybe it can also be a positive energy for the collective unconscious. However, it reminds me of a great cartoon on the internet where the speaker asks ‘Who wants change?’ and everyone raises their hand. He then says, ;Who wants to change?’ and all hands remain down. So as everyone hopes for their individual future, it makes me wonder how that future will emerge if there is no change by anyone from the present?

New Year’s resolutions, a common feature of looking ahead, should really be rebranded as a New Year plan. Rather than concentrate on giving up something like smoking or losing weight, we should be looking at making positive and realistic changes to ourselves of which health - including our mental health - is a bi-product. It is no surprise that would-be ex smokers and weight losers resolutions collapse in less than a month because there was no real plan and no consideration of mindset. The New Year ‘resolve’ has been hijacked with consumerist ‘flummery’ for the benefit of directing you to your next shopping experience. Immediately after boxing day you will see advertisements for holidays and Easter eggs appear in supermarkets. It is a never ending conveyor belt of distraction.

It used to be that in the days when there were candles to light the dark days of winter, people had time to sit, consider and plan the next agricultural year: what to grow? what to leave fallow? what to store? These were things that could only be accomplished at certain times of the year. Some plants needed stratification to grow (like garlic for example). Others needed warmer soil to germinate. The seasons dictated when the work could be done but planning was essential.

So to those who wish for a Happy New Year, there is a choice to be made. Do you make it happen or just hope that others will do it for you? The phrase itself is a great sound bite but impractical. No one is happy for the whole year. Much of 2023 is likely to be filled with a mixed bag of emotions, of which happiness is invariably a fleeting moment. It might be more accurate to amend the statement to one that is achievable and more sincere; I wish you may find happiness in 2023.

Shane Ward is the author of:

 “Stop Smoking: Diary of a Quitter”. It is a real time diary that also  considers your mindset before and after you quit and some essential conditions in planning to quit.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stop-Smoking-Quitter-Shane-Ward/dp/B0BJV2KNYF/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

  “Numerology: Making it Work for You”. A fun book that now only gives you an introduction to numerology but also the chance to make it work for you after only two chapters. From the information given you can extrapolate 279 different character types with just a 30 second calculation.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Numerology-Marking-Work-Shane-Ward/dp/B0BJTJ7G8B/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Kindle editions also available.                                               

Is it time for a National Social Care Service?

 I started this blog to help myself make sense of the rather messy situation that has resulted in what will be a long global recession but concentrating on the UK as an anchor (globally would be too broad with too many local factors). In particular I wanted to focus on the reason why social care is consistently kicked into the long grass, when not addressing it will create more problems than it solves. It seems we need a modern Aneurin Bevan to strike boldly for social care as he did with the National Health Service.

The answer to solving the social care crisis in 2023 is hard because one has to look simply at our ability to pay for it. On the other hand, we are paying for it now through the consequences of not paying for it - and the knock on effect threatens to engulf the whole country by clogging up the works.

To understand where we are now, it is essential to consider the ‘how we got where we are’, which necessarily involves looking at the problem from the top down. However, as will be mentioned, the problem is that there has been too much weight on looking at the problem from the top down. A good analogy might be viewing a beautiful Rolls Royce from the top, not noticing four flat tyres and no petrol in the tank but can’t see how to make it go.

The economic state of the UK, indeed the world as we head towards a global recession in 2023, is like the Gordian knot reputedly cut through by Alexander The Great. Endless tinkering for the sake of profit and a piece of the economic pie, has focused successive governments on money and business, without which there could be no economy. But where we are now demonstrates that disregard to the mechanics that contribute to money and the economy is just as catastrophic.

The sub prime mortgage crash of 2008 resulted in a global meltdown that threatened to bring down the banks; and indeed managed one or two. This was a money crisis. It prompted the central banks to reduce interest rates to zero (to encourage borrowing) and to inject new money into system (Quantitative Easing) to keep the banks running and to lend this money to generate investment. Instead the banks and big corporations used the money to buy their own shares that artificially boosted their value.  Over the years there were several rounds of QE that only resulted in big business bloating their share prices and making shareholders richer. The tax payer bailed out the banks and the banks (and corporations) helped themselves.

Then the world got sideswiped by the Coronavirus pandemic, lasting two years and shutting down much of the economy. Those people who were deemed as ‘essential workers’ carried on working while everyone else was told to stay at home. Top of the essential pile were hospital staff, followed by retail, refuse collectors, cleaners, carers and postal workers, to name but some. Every Thursday, during the height of the pandemic we emerged from our houses to clap the efforts of those who had to keep working despite the risks. These were the people who it was deemed imperative to keep the country going. Not on this list were all the things involving money and business, a stark lesson in what must be in place to allow money and business to grow.

I write this blog in November 2022, where in the aftermath of the coronavirus, there followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the result of which caused a sudden increase in the cost of oil products (including gas, petrol, diesel kerosene etc). This was in tandem with the clogging up of the worlds trade supply caused by countries closing borders during the virus. Shipping containers were not moving and in short supply and the price shot up fifteen-fold.

When an economy overheats, causing inflation, the banks raise interest rates to encourage people to borrow and spend less. When the economy shrinks, causing deflation, the banks reduce interest rates to encourage people to borrow and spend more. The 2022 problem was not caused by overspending but did generate inflation due to a supply shortage.

The rising cost of energy and fuel to drive cars, also caused a knock on increase in the cost of food and other consumer goods, resulting in an inflation that prompted the bank to raise interest rates, which in turn added more misery to mortgage owners (See Liz Truss) who now had to pay not only for the additional fuel and energy costs but more for the money they borrowed when borrowing was cheap.

When you look at what essential elements in the cost of living has gone up, it does not make sense for the banks to make it even more expensive. You cannot stop buying energy, fuel or food. Like the essential workers in the pandemic, they are the foundations of basic survival. However, inflation makes everything more expensive and to stop it getting out of hand, people must spend less; and this will have a dreadful knock on effect. We are likely to see many businesses fail because demand has to come down. Yes, we can reduce our energy consumption by being careful but the cost is now so high there are many who can afford little else. Mortgage increases further leech away the ability to consume non essential products. This all leads to higher unemployment and a further erosion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that is essential to economic growth.

For the UK, it is fortunate that we only had reliance on around 4% of gas supply from Russia but the cost of not buying gas from Russia has increased the demand by reducing the supply. The other suppliers decided not to increase their supply in order to cream record profits off the back of higher prices. So the world is held hostage where the price for oil and gas is set internationally. Electricity is linked artificially to oil, which in my mind is not in favour of the push to buy electric cars or domestic air heating systems.

So we have a supply crisis that has caused inflation, which threatens to throw millions of households into poverty. You can also expect a rise in crime, where legitimate alternatives to earn money to make ends meet is strangled.

After the 2008 economic crisis, the UK government decided on a period of austerity measures that limited the pay increases of many public sector workers, a position that the employees have never recovered from and while they reluctantly went along with the narrative, now find themselves significantly worse off. There are stories of nurses who work full time and then have to go to a food bank to feed their children. We know we are in a cost of living crisis when people working full time and not claiming any welfare benefits, are having to go to food banks to make ends meet.

So at the time of writing this, we are in the middle of strikes over pay and conditions from nurses, Royal Mail, university lecturers, teachers, civil servants, railways, own-brand factory workers and the Amazon warehouse workers; the list is by no means exhaustive. Suffice it to say that we are not far short of a general strike in the UK.

To get to why we are where we are, instead of looking at economic growth through profit and productivity, we have to look at economic growth through facilitation. Ironically employers now find that they have a workforce supply problem; one I would argue of their own making (small and medium sized businesses I would argue are the exception and who are just as much a victim of the behaviour of large and corporate companies as we are).

This week Sir Kier Starmer told the CBI that the UK has to ‘wean itself off’ foreign workers. In other words, employers have to stop using cheap labour from abroad. Further irony appears to be that inflation has made the UK unattractive to workers from places like Poland where the exchange rate of pound sterling to the Polish zloty is no longer favourable. The globalism experiment, in my opinion, has highlighted the understandable attraction for employers to have goods manufactured by the cheapest route but leaves skill shortages and creates unemployment in the country it wants to sell to. Now that the UK has left the EU and free movement of people is curtailed, there are fewer foreign workers who will accept jobs at the low pay end. What is left is a yawning gap of unfilled jobs because they do not pay enough and the ‘living wage’ is evidently not a living wage.

There are a herd of elephants in this room that no one wants to address that are the main causes of poverty, which stems mostly from the actual cost of living for an individual. The nurse in a caring vocational profession who has to go to a food bank is dedicated to a profession that saves lives. There is no such dedication to an office cleaner or factory worker or bus driver (another list not exhaustive) who cannot see any reward to the job they do and if there is no monetary reward or compensation for actually doing the job, what is the point?

Another elephant is the extortionate cost of agency staff in hospitals. Nurses often become agency workers because it pays better. There are approximately 44,000 job vacancies for nurses in the NHS, which tells you a lot about why nurses have chosen to strike for the first time in the history of the NHS. Andy Burnham (Mayor of Greater Manchester and a former Health Secretary under Labour, noted that paying the nurses instead of agencies would pay for itself.

But the conditions for hospital nurses are equally as stressful. Hospitals are running to capacity and ambulances are held for hours outside the Accident and Emergency Department, not because there are not enough beds but because the hospital cannot discharge patients who are well but need social care intervention.

Simply put, there is not enough social care. Why? because the care staff are low paid and undervalued, the care homes are becoming more expensive to run, the social workers are stressed out and in short supply to be able to facilitate discharges and mental health is the poor relation and the first casualty in any economic cutting exercise. These are some of the flat tyres holding up the Rolls Royce.

Ambulances backing up due to bed blocking is like a canary in a coal mine. Digging a little deeper we can see that there are many people who would like to go to work and fill these jobs but many are waiting for hospital appointments that they can’t get because there are no free beds in hospital due to bed blocking due to lack of social care; you can see the domino effect.

Another layer, is mental health for whatever reason. People discharged from mental health to the community lack the necessary support to keep them mentally well. Lots of mental health crisis ties up the police, hospital and social work, all of which would be obviated with the right level of mental health support and give these essential employees the freedom to do their job rather than fire fighting.

Child Care should also be mentioned as another elephant that generates a barrier to work, along with an army of unpaid carers who have little or no support.

The UK government is currently trying to solve the problem from the top down and yet the long term need is to solve the problem from the bottom up. In every business it is obvious that you must have a firm foundation on which to build a successful enterprise. And yet some businesses are happy to cream profit from the top for their shareholders while shaving the bottom from their employees - and then wonder why they can’t fill those job vacancies?

I have long tried to establish how the Government, doesn’t matter which party, works out how the minimum wage (now laughing called the living wage) is formulated? They are clearly afraid that if we saw the formula, we would see the obvious flaws. What the formula clearly does not do is include things like the cost of housing rent, rates, energy and food; if they did there would be no need for food banks as much as there is now and people could afford to eat and heat. If the Government wants a truly productive work force, they have to make sure to pay attention to people’s health and well being before in order to facilitate economic growth.

Here’s a thought. Some time ago the budget for hospital procedures was given to GPs. Is there an argument to give the social care budget to the NHS? Whatever the case, the Government needs to find the money to finally give this elephant the attention it deserves. We need something that allows the NHS to function in the way it was meant to. Do we need a minister for Social Care to do what Aneurin Bevan did for health?