North Stoke Life

At a recent farm open day, a farmer was explaining how he reduces the need for pesticides. He said: “Our method nurtures both the good and the bad, to bring it all back into balance.” I do not suppose this man thinks of himself as a holy man. Perhaps he does not yet realise that, in his own way, he is one. He was describing the relationship between the predators and prey that live among the crops. His method is not simply to destroy every beetle, wasp or other creature that appears troublesome. It is to preserve the whole living system and allow its natural relationships to reassert themselves. Remove the predators and the crop-destroying pests multiply unchecked. Eradicate the pests completely and the predators lose their food and disappear. By sustaining both, the farmer restores a balance that protects the crop without relying entirely upon artificial chemicals. Is this not the wisdom of a holy man? The etymology of the term holy means: to heal. A healer. Can his kind of words be us...

At a farm open day recently, the farmer was telling us about their method for mitigating the use of pesticides. He said: "our method nurtures both the good and the bad, to bring it all into back balance" I don't think this man is a holy man. Or, I do not think he yet realises that he is  a holy man. He meant that they take care equally of both the predators and the prey which live among the farms growing food. They do not just kill all the annoying beetles and wasps. They look after everything equally because in the end, everything has utility. The reason being that if they kill all the predators, their food destroying prey will not survive. Likewise, if they kill all the food destroying prey, the predators will not survive. And this balancing act is how they can maintain the growth without artificial chemicals. I tried, as usual uselessly, to point out this was an astonishing holy prayer for both him directly and others listening. To no avail.  Suffice to say that the ho...

Piddington Roars has performed superbly in attracting national media attention. Yet the nation remains sceptical and it is national opinion that ultimately gives political leaders permission to act. It's unfair to say that Piddington voted for this when only around 30% of the constituency supported the party responsible. Nonetheless, the public’s scepticism has a legitimate cause. Piddington Roars has made the serious risks of the asylum centre clear. But its campaign still rests on the claim that the asylum centre is in the wrong location and cannot operate safely or successfully there.  This may be true, but it avoids the deeper question. If the centre is wrong for Piddington because of the risks it presents, where would it be right? Why should another town or village be expected to accept those same risks? The hidden position appears to be that many campaigners are not merely against this particular location. They are latently opposed to the pro immigration and asylum policy tha...

Executive Summary The following is drawn from conversations with farmers in this constituency during the early stages of the campaign. I am trying to understand the political outlook of its deeply rural communities, which account for roughly half the electorate. These voters are not always treated as having interests equal to those of people in towns and cities. That needs to change. Their connection to farming, the land and inherited responsibilities often gives them a particularly strong concern for continuity: what they will pass on, whether their children can remain, and what condition the country will be in when they do. City and town electors do not tend to be as grounded as this and we can all learn from it.  Most of what follows is therefore field observation rather than my own opinion. It reflects what some members of the rural community have told me; it should not be taken as the unanimous view of that community. I conclude with my own analysis of a deeper national proble...

People often ask what to do about the many competing and imaginary existential threats. If left unattended, the neurosis embedded in the question itself tends to develop into a collective psychosis. Even a proud autonomous individual can be quickly sucked into victimhood if they are not constantly on guard and will remain blissfully unaware of it. The net effect will be to take sides in one tribe or another and become unable to exit. Smart people believe it is only mentally ill people, who are mentally ill.  Nothing. They are imaginary. My recommendation is for you to look in the mirror and observe how you are causing all the problems you complain about. If you can fix these things, you will have done well and need do no more.  But this is far too big an ask for the majority of people in each tribe. It would mean 'questioning your god' - the tribal narrative obedient people follow. And this would mean being sent into exile. So it's only for the hero.  These imaginary exis...