Death of the veranda

A post that looks back to the glory days of the veranda and questions its demise.

Do you have a veranda – the roofed platform built level with the ground floor along the outside of a house? Whatever happened to them? Why have UK architects and builders discarded verandas?

Looking at the new estates of private houses one answer is clear. Tightly packed with mean front gardens that serve no recreational or privacy purpose, housing schemes seem predicated on maximising developers’ profits rather than addressing social or aesthetic values. Verandas – an elegant sheltered space for morning coffee, to spend a rainy afternoon or as a retreat in the late afternoon – are no more. In their place, at best, we find the ‘conservatory’ – a structure that seems neither to conserve nor refresh.

Verandas, getting their name from the Spanish ‘baranda’ or ‘barandilla’, offer more than shade from the sun or shelter from the rain. Whilst these may have been their principal purposes in India, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Australia and the southern states of the USA, verandas provide a place for contemplation and reflection. It is from the veranda that you may watch the sun rise, or the long afternoon shadows that fall across the garden. It is the veranda that is visited by early summer swallows, provide shelter for hedgehogs and from which we may spy a roe deer as it leaves the shelter of woodland.

Perhaps I am being too romantic about the role and purpose of the veranda? Have I absorbed too much of Daphne Du Maurier’s Rebecca – Manderley must have had a veranda, mustn’t it? Maybe, like the balcony or the orangery it is just a lost breath from the past that has no place in our hectic modern lives?

Advertisements that may appear below this post are placed by the platform, not the writer. They are neither endorsed nor monetarised.

*

*

*

*

The answer lies in the soil

A post examining human evolution and mycology – are we more than the fruiting bodies of fungi?

‘Fungi connect all living things in essential relational webs; without them, entire ecosystems would collapse’, reports writer and ecologist Doug Bierend. He explains, whilst body mass is mostly human generated, only 43% of our cells are human (the large cells). The rest are bacteria, fungi and microbes. For each 360 of our genes only one is human – the rest belong to other resident organisms.

Professors Ruth Ley and Taichi A. Suzuki observe that our gut bacteria has a long history. It accompanied the migration of our species from Africa, continuing to evolve with humans as we travelled and changed diet. Published in Salon on 30 September 2022, they report experiments showing that like genes, our gut microbes pass from one generation to the next. Given the amount of bacteria migrating through our bodies, male bacteria too is also transported to our children.

Endophytic fungi, microscopically visible as threads, are woven in and among the cells of plants– in their roots, stems, leaves, flowers, fruits. According to the biologist Merlin Sheldrake, their function is clear – to metabolise nutrients or to dissuade foraging, essentially acting as adopted organs to their host: and to receive photosynthesised energy compounds in return.

This view is a ‘top-down’ one. It assumes that evolution is a process concerning the perfection of species, from colonising primitive micro-organism to sophisticated mammal – the host. But what if humans are in fact part of the evolution of mycelium or bacteria? Did they colonise us, or are we indeed part of their process of evolution? In short, has our human form been developed by microbes to help disseminate and perpetuate their never-ending existence? Are we their genetic vehicles – simply an evolutionary ‘mobile carbon-banking asset’ for the bacteria that inhabit us??

One thing is certain – there is a vast number of connections and similarities between humans and the bacteria of which we comprise. Apart from genetic markers showing our common genesis, it is now known that the bacteria resident in our gut communicates information to our central processor, the brain. In turn, our brain responds to their messages and instruction. It is not that our brain (or whatever we consider to be ‘our consciousness’) is making decisions, but it is simply processing the data that it is given.

On a visual level, our brain bears distinct similarities to the slime mold fungus P. polycephalum, a single cell plasmodium. Experiments have shown that this fungus can take choices and make life-changing decisions. In 2000, biologist Toshiyuki Nakagaki reported an interesting experiment in Nature magazine, titled ‘Maze-solving by an amoeboid organism’. Given a food reward of oats this acellular organism identified the fastest route through an assortment of complex mazes. Other researchers found that the fungus also had memory. Although a single-celled organism, P. polycephalum operates as a network, exhibiting collective behavior. Each part of the slime mold is operating independently and sharing information with its neighboring sections, with no centralised processing. “I guess the analogy would be neurons in a brain,” biologist Chris Reid of Macquarie University says, “you have this one brain that’s composed of lots of neurons – it’s the same for the slime mold.”

Of course it is not known what other processes (if any) are carried out by the fungus, for nobody yet knows how information is propagated and shared within or without it. For example, might it feel joy or regret? However, like us, it certainly responds to outside stimuli and makes choices based upon its analysis of them. Incentives produce oscillation in the fungus, just as desires produce action in humans.

Chemical messages and reactions in living organisms appear to be triggered by electrical stimuli, in particular, changes in voltage. Most plants and even some mammals use these to communicate or navigate. Most humans appear to have retained minimal conscious sensitivity to these stimuli. However, some individuals claiming higher levels of perceptual sensitivity report that they recognise the events, even if they do not understand the cause. ESP, healers, dowsers, dancers and especially lovers acknowledge the presence of energy, its differential and its transmission.

Perhaps our human preoccupation with ‘self’ may be misguided? Might it be possible that we are just programmed by our bacteria, and our fate – both in life and death – lies in their hands and not ours?

Advertisements appearing below this post are placed by the platform not the writer. They are neither endorsed nor monetarised.

*

*

*

*

House of Lords reform – Starmer, Brown or none?

A post about the role of the House of Lords and the prospect of reform.

Brendan O’Neill, editor of ‘Spiked Online’, described the House of Lords as a “bloated ridiculous anti-democratic chamber“, and said that he believes it votes against things the general public want. His comments in 2020 triggered a post from me (here).

Today, Keir Starmer announced the Labour Party’s plans for constitutional reform, to include abolishing the Lords as currently constituted and to replace it with another elected chamber. This has led me to revisit the topic and to ask, ‘is an unelected House of Lords necessary, functional, and effective; or is it simply composed of unaccountable creatures of patronage, outdated and in need of reform?’

At the time of writing (December 2022), in contrast to membership of the House of Commons which comprises 650 members, absolute membership of the House of Lords is huge at 812 – with 774 members eligible this year, including 26 bishops and up to 91 hereditary peers. Merely 28% are women, and the average age of all is 71 years. Most members are political appointments, although a minority have been nominated because of social distinction. The presence of some members, including that of Baroness Mone of Mayfair, is controversial to say the least.

In its 2018 paper, the LSE based group Democratic Audit identified what they considered to be the requirements and functions of a second parliamentary chamber. I have summarised these below for convenience:

• Those who may approve, amend or reject legislation should be elected by voters, elected by the elected chamber, or appointed by a fully accountable government.
• No-one should sit in a second chamber by virtue of birth, wealth, or donating money or services to politicians.
• Serving in the second chamber may confer distinction, but should not involve an ‘honours’ system.
• Appointments to the chamber should be vetted for representative diversity by a regulatory body that may also remove those who breach legal or ethical standards.

And it should:

• Act as a constitutional policy check by identifying legislative changes that breach democratic principles.
• Help with legislative drafting, scrutiny and amendment.
• Increase the range of access to government.
• Re-balance geographical representation.
• Widen the range of expertise amongst legislators.
• Provide a mechanism to encourage ‘emeritus’ politicians to stay in public life.
• Offer a measure of policy continuity for the future.

Reform of the House of Lords is certainly possible within the lifetime of a new Parliament. Following legislative change in 2009, by October 2012 twelve justices of the Supreme Court took over the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, making it, amongst other appellate functions, a constitutional court. Members of that court are vetted and appointed by an independent selection commission of senior ad hoc judges and members of the Appointments Commission for England and Wales.

The question remains, whilst we are willing to submit to an elected House of Commons, how do we feel about unelected, on occasions untalented political cronies being appointed to a second sovereign body sitting exclusively in London? The task of helping to formulate Labour’s policy on constitutional reform was outsourced to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. We await his report, the content of which has been kept quite secret.

Is the time is now right for change. Should the House of Lords be abolished and not replaced? Perhaps it could be reformed? Maybe we should learn from the historic process when we divested the House of Lords of its judicial function; and return to the template from ‘Democratic Audit’ on what to achieve in a reformed second chamber?

Whilst an advert may appear at the foot, this blog is neither monetarised, nor endorsing any product

*

*

*

In mitigation for Lady Susan Hussey

A post about the recent drama involving the Palace, questions and ‘kindness’.

A 61 year old domestic violence activist at Sistah Space and experienced social media protagonist, born Marlene Headley but now adopting the name Ngozi Fulani, is invited to a private reception at Buckingham Palace.

She has a history. It seems that in March 2021 she accused the King and Queen Camilla of domestic violence towards Meghan Markle, tweeting ‘I can’t stay silent about this. I admire Meghan for speaking out. According to clear definition, it seems Meghan is a clear survivor of DV from her in-laws’.

At the function she finds herself speaking with an 83 year old honorary household assistant old enough to be her mother, a woman who spent sixty years caring for the Queen. The elderly lady is there to help greet guests and engage them in conversation. Ineptly, she asks the activist where she is from. The activist, dressed with Afro-Caribbean styling prevaricates. Almost certainly she understands that the question relates to her ancestry. As Chris Rose wrote today, ‘being completely honest, if I met Ngozi Fulani I would be intrigued to ask her about her ancestry, mainly because she has gone the extra mile to make it noticeable.’

Rather than helping and correcting her questioner, the activist responds with unhelpful monosyllables, claiming to memorise the conversation which she broadcasts as a tweet at her earliest opportunity.

Those that know me will attest to my denunciation of prejudice and commitment to egality. It follows that this post is not intended to condone, justify or defend an approach attributed to the late Queen’s former Lady in Waiting.

It is, however, intended to add a perspective currently absent – the prism of ‘kindness’.

BBC Royal correspondent Sean Coughlan reported, ‘This began as an awkward private conversation but soon became a big public embarrassment for the Royal Family.’ No, Sean, it did not! It simply demonstrates ordinary every-day conflict that arises either from misunderstanding or malevolence.

My questions are these:

• Why did Ms Fulani choose to obstruct the conversation with this elderly retainer rather than to re-direct it?
• Why did she memorise and broadcast it on social media?
• What was Ms Fulani’s real motive for attending the reception? Was it to promote her cause against domestic violence, against racism, to make a point, or to pick a fight?
• Why did she not simply respond with kindness and grace?

If, for a moment, we focus on the intention rather than the form, it seems that Lady Susan Hussey meant no harm and was no doubt horrified by the perception of her questions. To make this story a racial battleground is, in my book, a massive injustice to truth and tolerance.

Advertisements appearing below this post are placed by the platform, not the writer. They are neither endorsed nor monetarised.

*

*

*