Waiting for the vaccine

 I really, really can't wait to get back out to pubs and restaurants and theatres and cinemas and gigs, to go on holiday and be able to travel places on a whim.

I can't wait until I can get the vaccine but, more importantly, I can't wait until we can ALL get the vaccine.

Because that's how it works. It's about herd immunity, raising the resistance against the infection to a high enough level that the virus can no longer spread and survive.

And that's probably in excess of 90% of the population that needs to be protected.

There are people who simply can't take the vaccine - mostly if they're immunocompromised through diseases or other treatments (for example, many chemotherapies for cancer absolutely fucks your immune system so you simply can't take vaccinations) - so it's all the more important for the rest of us to accept the vaccine as soon as it becomes available.

And I am sick of hearing about the "risk" of taking the vaccine; it is incredibly low, all forms of available vaccine are thoroughly tested and been demonstrated beyond doubt to be safe.

Completely, 100% free from any risk? No. Nothing it, but it is a matter of weighing relative risks. When seatbelts were first introduced some of the major car companies argued that they would prevent people escaping a trapped vehicle and cause more danger - something that has been shown to be absolutely complete nonsense. It *could* happen, but wearing a seatbelt is far, far, far more likely to save your life than endanger it - which is why wearing one is mandatory.

And with vaccines it isn't just about protecting yourself; it's about protecting everyone else - the people on cancer meds who can't take the vaccine, or the few people who have allergies to it, or our elderly relatives with severe health issues and weakened systems who the virus is way more likely to kill.

Oh, and while I guess I have to accept people's personal autonomy if they choose not to vaccinate - although I cannot respect the decision - I think anyone who encourages others to do so is deplorable.

Book review: Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth: Rethinking the economy

 While I say that as well as fiction I read non-fiction, really I typically only read popular science, ancient history and some travel. One area that I never expected to be reading is the wannabe science of economics - but, as with politics, you might not take an interest in economics but it will take an interest in you.

There have been a slew of popular progressive economics books in recent years - from examinations of our broken system like John Lanchester’s Whoops! and Grace Blakely’s Stolen, to those that are more focused on looking at how we build better systems (The Spirit Level and Utopia for Realists), to the more hardcore economic theory (I swear I’ll get round to reading Thomas Piketty and Yanis Varoufakis!), and Kate Raworth’s book may be the best I’ve read at both outlining the problems and offering potential solutions in clear, straight-forward language.

It is an idea she has been presenting and working on for almost a decade. While her degree is in economics she was disenchanted by the blinkered, systematised thinking that shackles the discipline (as she points out early on, and again at the end of the book, while other social sciences seek out an encourage different ways of thinking, economists are taught that certain core principles are not to be questioned - no, more than that; they are indoctrinated into the mindset that there are no other ways of thinking.)

The idea of the doughnut is simply this: the hole in the middle is the lack of human dignity - insufficient food, water, shelter, healthcare, education. Those basics that we should allow to all people as a right.

The outer circle is the limit to which we can live with the finite resources of minerals, energy, food production, clean air, clean water.

The doughnut, therefore, is the space between those, where we as a species, as a culture, can provide a decent standard of living for every individual for the long term, without threatening the environment that we rely on for our survival.

It seems like almost too simple an idea - and an even simpler diagram, however she begins by pointing out how important visual signifiers are to us - the iconic map of the London Underground, Copernicus’ illustration of the heliocentric universe - the rising curve of progress and Paul Samualson’s simplistic Circular Flow diagram, picturing the economy as a closed loop that is taught in Econ 101 to this day. Raworth references sharing the ‘doughnut’ diagram with activists who respond effusively stating “YES! That is EXACTLY what I’ve been trying to say!”

And if that was all this book was, it would be no more than an interesting idea. I am sure there are many who are happy to scoff exactly so without engaging, but Raworth both delves into the history of and problems with economic theory, and outlines ideas - both conceptual and real-world ideas actually being implemented - for how we can, and must, do things differently.

She points out how so many of the great economic theorists of the past are selectively understood - Samuelson knew his diagram was a simplification ad absurdum, of use as only the most broad idea for non-specialists; when Simon Kuznets came up with GDP as a measure of productivity, he specifically warned that it was necessarily a narrow measure that should not be used as a benchmark to gauge progress; back to John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith (I always find it remarkable that most people who quote Smith appear completely ignorant of the half of his work in which he talks about social responsibility and warns against the dangers of subverting everything to the acquisition of wealth).

She thoroughly dismantles the consensus idea of economics that growth is the Ultimate Good (quoting a respected economist whom she doesn’t name, when asked why perpetual growth is possible simply responds “Because it has to be!”) to a more thorough debunking of some of the assumptions and models that underpin a pseudoscience that has come to dominate both public policy and public consciousness to a degree that neither the public nor policy makers feel they can question it.

On top of this, the author outlines the generalities of what we need from a new economics and gives examples that work in the real world, along with concepts that should be used in general. 

But this is not a utopian exercise; Raworth makes sure to state that change will be far from easy, and requires some extremely difficult choices. Nonetheless, the tenor of the book is ultimately hopeful, pointing out possible routes out of consumption-driven catastrophe to a future that is not only survivable and sustainable but equitable and regenerative, where we are not merely ameliorating the damage we do to our life support system but actively improving it.

I mostly consumed this via the audiobook, while dipping into the ebook - hence the sparsity of notes. I feel I need to go back for a closer read, to fully embed the ideas. I should do the same for some other books - the ones mentioned at the start of the review. For all the economics is a pseudoscience, it may be the most important factor in how we cope with the coming decades, impacting on everything from our jobs to the welfare state to climate change and alleviating mass extinctions, to production of food and energy and technology.

A must read, and must act on.

Book review: Irreplaceable by Julian Hoffman: Are we the bad guys?

Starting as dusk gathers on Brighton pier and the evening strollers are transfixed by a murmuration of starlings, Julian Hoffman takes us around the world showing us how human activity is ravaging the wonders of nature that both nourish our sense of wonder and are vital to our health and wellbeing as part of a thriving ecosystem. It is not a happy book. The awe that Hoffman superbly captures at the beauty of the natural world only underlines what we are destroying by our wilful blindness and our obsession with economic growth and measuring everything with a short-term monetary value. From a previously unknown species of spider in an abandoned English quarry to the magnificent Balkan lynx and the few scraps of tallgrass prairie in the American midwest, we are pushing out irreplaceable biodiversity with roads and shopping malls and monocultured crops. 

The author makes it clear he is not merely arguing for preservation for nature for its own sake, but because it is vital to human health and survival in the short, medium and long term. In one chapter he writes about an established set of allotments in London that not only provides food for locals but an area of green growth teeming with life, and an area of abandoned "waste ground" in Glasgow that nearby residents have turned into a park and nature reserve. Both are under threat from development and he begins by telling us "Of the following two places, one will be saved, the other destroyed." 

He does show us successes, and how small groups of determined people can fight and even sometimes win against the encroachment - as well as the above, there is some success on those tallgrass prairies, a patch of ancient woodland not five miles from where I write this (which, along with mention of other Sheffield woods in which I played as a child and have visited regularly since really brought home the value, as if that personal connection were needed), the former British Army testing site that, due to the danger of left-over munitions has remained undeveloped and become a remarkably vibrant and important habitat. The rejection of a new motorway that would destroy much of the Gwent Levels on the South Wales coast. 

However, despite this, I was left feeling bleak at the prospects. Yes, I am a depressive and currently managing a particularly low patch which may feed into my pessimism, but these patches seem so fragile, so vulnerable, so at odds with the economic forces that see everything as a resource to be exploited. In his final chapter he points out how many pieces of good fortune were needed to ensure that we still have a few slivers of the Cambridgeshire Fens that are undeveloped, and when we see that a drug for cattle is approved in Europe despite evidence that it is responsible for almost eradicating vultures when used in India, or that - despite a law and specific court orders making mining small islands in Indonesia completely illegal, this is openly ignored and corporations land heavy equipment to strip the vegetation and topsoil to scour the minerals beneath, causing run-off that buries and poisons the most valuable reefs on the planet, I find it difficult to hold out hope of change. 

I have known since I was young that talk of "destroying the Earth" is pure hubris. We are a blip on this planet and, whatever we do, it will continue and repopulate itself with new organisms, new diversity. We are here now, for this moment, and have a choice of how to treat our home and the creatures we share it with, a choice for the legacy we leave our children and grand children and great grand children. 

Still, as the cartoon says, for a brief glorious moment we had great shareholder value. 

Increasingly, I think I'm on the side of the David Morse character in 12 Monkeys.

Book Review: Stolen by Grace Blakely; a devastating review of a devastating economics

Blakely delivers a scathing, thorough and very readable account of why the move to 'financialisation' - that is, a vast portion of economic growth has moved to the finance sector rather than the manufacturing or service. As she puts it; the majority of wealth is in the hands of those who make their money from the money they have, rather than those who work for a living. Decades of regulation encouraging this behaviour, along with the selling off of public services and the financialisaton of public life has lead directly to the crash of 2007, austerity and the continuing economic uncertainty that has seen the driving down of wages in real terms.



Over each section Blakely lays out the history of how we got here with clarity - the Bretton Woods accord, the post war consensus, and the breaking of this with financial deregulation in the 70s and 80s - and the complete red in tooth and claw free for all since the end of the cold war. I've seen a few negative reviews where it has been said that the author "doesn't understand economics" which is patently untrue; she has a very through grasp of economic theory, and recognises that it is far from being the clear-cut science that many pretend, that it relies on assumptions in prejudices and and understanding that humans are not the 'rational actors' portrayed by classical economics.



Blakely very much wears her own bias on her sleeve - as well as lambasting right -wing economics she calls for socialist policies - but also criticises Keynes and Piketty where she feels they deserve it, while drawing on their good ideas.



After all this, however, I confess I struggled with the final chapter, on how we fix the situation. Partly, the author loses some of the readability in laying out her vision for the future; suddenly there is less verve and clarity, and it begins to read more like an academic paper. The other problem, though, is that she doesn't shy away from how huge a change needs to be made; it's not just the relatively minor legislation that a government can enact, but root and branch change not just on the level of that undertaken by the post-war Atlee government, but the far greater changes they proposed but were forced to back down from. Blakely also recognises that the forces of international capital would fight these changes before, during and after they were enacted. Frankly, the scale and difficulty of the changes she suggests are beyond daunting, but that doesn’t detract from their veracity.



Grace Blakely has given a vital critique of what many call late-stage capitalism, pointing out just how destructive it is, in so many ways, as well as a potential way forward, This book should be on every radical reading list, beside Naomi Klein and Barbara Ehrenreich and Rutger Bregman - and, if you’re wanting more optimism, The Spirit Level and The Optimist’s Guide to the Future.


( first published at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48201027-stolen )

An open letter to Jeremy Corbyn

Dear Mr Corbyn




I have always been a socialist, and have almost always voted Labour ( the exceptions being voting tactically in an area Labour could not win, and in some local elections ), but I only became a Labour party member to support your candidacy. I, along with so many others, saw you as someone who would return Labour to its correct place, to fight for a fairer society and for the majority of British people who have not been represented in politics in recent decades, and in your promise to return to being a party led by the will of its members.




And you have fought for these things. You have shown Labour to be a strong, radical, socialist alternative. You have withstood attacks from the right wing of your own party and the constant denigration by the British media, and I have been proud to be one of your supporters. However, your recent comment on Brexit is not only a failure of your party membership, but a betrayal of us.




The vast majority of the Labour membership - 86% of us - are in favour of a referendum on details of the withdrawal agreement and that one of the options should be to remain in the EU. Many have been pinning our hopes to end this self immolation on Labour, so to be told by the leader that Brexit would still go ahead under a Labour victory in a snap general election is the most shocking betrayal.




Mr Corbyn, one of your greatest features is the strength of your convictions, and I understand that the history of the British left has not alway been easy with the EU - seeing it, not always wrongly, as a neo-liberal capitalist mission. This has been, and is, one aspect of the whole, but it is at tension with others; human rights, social progress, regulation of the excesses of corporate power. The EU comprises the most progressive nations on the planet as members - Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany - or close associates, such as Norway. All these countries and more are far to the left of where the UK has been for decade, and should be models we emulate, so to pretend the club of which they are members and, indeed, run is some capitalist conspiracy is ludicrous. The EU is project is an active entity, shaped by and shaping the members and a socialist-lead UK should be part of that.




There is the argument that Labour represents many areas that voted Leave, so is beholden to its constituents. On the face of it this is a sound argument - we are an representative democracy whose politicians are elected to conduct the will of the people. However, leaders must also lead. It is often a fine balance - to serve but also educate and inform. In this instance, this is nothing but an excuse and rank cowardice. It is clear that, not only were the British people misled and lied to, but that there is no possible outcome of leaving the EU that does not render vast swathes of the country much, much worse off - and those working-class, under-privileged, poor communities that so often voted leave will be and are being hit hardest of all. It is the duty of those who represent these communities - as so many of the Labour MPs are doing - to talk honestly to their electors about the position in which we find ourselves and what the immediate decisions for our future, and that of our children and grandchildren.




Brexit is the most immediate threat to this country’s well being and prosperity. Mr Corbyn, as leader of the opposition, as leader of the party that should represent those most at risk, you should about face on your attitude. For the members of your party and for the good of your country, you should - you MUST - state that you will fight Brexit until there is no other choice. How can 86% of your own party support you otherwise?

A belated political awakening

I’ve never been someone who goes to political meetings much less speaks at them or takes part in political activism. I’ve always considered myself a socialist and an internationalist, but I’ve kept my activity to voting in elections and discussions, online or in person. I’ve assumed that the march of history is in the right direction and trusted in this progress.




Frankly, I’ve been a lazy bastard. The progress of history has only been in the right direction when people have worked for it, and there are always forces of conservatism that want to halt and reverse this progress. This evening I took the mic at a Left Against Brexit meeting and said so.




In the run-up to the referendum I was complacent. I couldn’t believe that people could possibly back the likes of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, could possibly believe the transparent lies blazoned across the sides of busses, and vote against what was clearly against their best interests. In my runs and walks around Sheffield the Remain posters I’d seen in windows had far outnumbered those that called for Leave.




I thought that it was enough to just vote, and the result was like a punch in the gut. I don’t think I’d felt such pain from an election result since John Major’s victory, when we had felt so certain of a Labour win, and I had never felt so estranged from my fellow citizens.




The past two years have been hard. It has felt as though we have lost our country, which is somewhat ironic. It has felt as though so much of the progress we were making has been lost. Corbyn’s election as Labour leader on the back of the Momentum surge, pulling the party back to where it should be, representing this country’s working people and poor and disenfranchised rather than being soe Tory-light pretending that market forces and public private partnerships can improve things, has begun to feel hollow. The Labour leadership’s position of not fighting against Brexit, and Corbyn’s own disinterest in leading on this particular issue have been galling.




So I have become someone who attends political events and speaks at them when I have something to say. I have vowed and signed up to take part in activism to shape the world into how I think it should be for the benefit of the many. I dearly hope it is not too late to stop the utter disaster that any form of Brexit will surely be - that I have not left it too late to help. And, even if I can’t if the worst no-deal barely-better-than-Armageddon Brexit - or if we reverse this insanity and pull back from the brink - there will be more fighting to do.




Lazy bastards of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your sense of desperate helplessness.

Book review: Gnomon by Nick Harkaway: Catabasis for Democracy, with Shark

I'll admit up front that Harkaway's debut, The Gone-Away World, is one of my favourite books and his subsequent novels aren't too shabby either, but his fourth is quite remarkable. It is set partially in a near-future Britain run by the System, a data network that both organises the citizenry into an active direct democracy and keeps their lives efficient and safe. Data privacy is a thing of the past; you can query someone's identity and life by direct access to the System and Harkaway skillfully shows how this affects social mores.




This set up, of course, immediately makes the hairs of discomfort prickle on the napes of our necks; whether liberal or conservative or whatever mix, such phrases as "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", "Those who give up liberty for safety, deserve neither" and "Panopticon" cannot help but spring to mind, thought the author does an excellent job of being even-handed in his presentation of the view.




The book starts with a death of a subject in interrogation by the Witness, the security arm of the System. This is presented as a unique occurrence, and immediately taken seriously and handed to the talented and driven Inspector Mielikki Neith. The manner of the interrogation is disturbing and reinforces fears about the ubiquitously invasive arm of the state, but this is leavened over time by the seriousness with which this event is treated and, well, by the fact that the System seems to work, and seems to be benevolent and effective.




I had said the book is set partially here. We soon are introduced to narratives which seem entirely unrelated - centred around a brilliant Greek mathematician who, following personal tragedy, has turned his skills to the stock market; the former lover of the 4th/5th century Bishop Augustine of Hippo, herself a philosopher and alchemist; and a talented Ethiopian artist who (barely) escaped his country for England in the political chaos following the fall of Haile Selassie.




Each thread is superbly written, capturing the differing voices and setting and moods. The writing contains a density of allusion and meaning and texture - yet with a lightness of touch - that immediately brought to mind Umberto Eco or Neal Stephenson at his more focused, and Paul Auster. It seems clear that these stories cannot be divergent and Harkaway indeed begins to weaves threads between them, though some of the clues turn out to be fish that, at the least, seem to be scarlet in certain light.




In weaving the threads together we are treated to an exploration of liberty versus safety and convenience, public transparency and the dangers of the malicious hacking of the democratic process (I cannot possibly imagine where that last idea came from...) but, as well as the clues to the central mystery, the nested narratives also show real human stories of tragedy and love and loss and betrayal and reconciliation and hope. There are also some beautiful metaphors about books, and the power of good ideas and arguments to succeed by literally changing the person who hears them.




This novel is a tour-de-force, brilliant and important and a bloody fantastic read. It could be argued that, toward the end, Harkaway explains things a little too clearly and leaves less ambiguity than Eco or Auster would, but this is, I think, due to the wider audience for whom he is writing; frankly, this book already asks a great deal of the reader and such ambiguities on top of that are not to the taste of a lot of people. However, this book deserves plaudits and huge sales and awards scifi and literary alike. It will stay with me for a long time and I am sure that, when i re-read it, I will find layers I missed this time around.




A word on format. I read this on my Kindle, partly as the 700 page paperback appears to be printed in 8-point font (yes, the info page says 11.5-point, but I suspect that to be the System gaslighting me) and found this all the more useful as I could immediately check unfamiliar words and references. If you are reading a hard copy and don't have a thorough knowledge of Greek mythology, I suggest keeping close to wikipedia.



( originally published on goodreads https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2059658585?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1 )

Book Review: Gods, Monsters and the Lucky Peach by Kelly Robson: Eco-punk, time-travel, business & politics

A wonderfully fresh, inventive, lively and thoughtful read.




We are at some point in the future where humanity seems to be rebuilding itself following various disasters, largely ecological one of our on making. I say "seem to be" because Robson never states this, just has the characters allude to things in their history - or, rather, things in their present that hint at the history. This naturalism is one of the things I loves about the writing, the way the ordinary interplay of the characters builds a vision of the world for us. Which works, at least in part, as the characters are so well drawn.




The two main characters are Minh, an old-guard ecological systems designer who moves around on six tentacled prostheses instead of her 'natural' legs and is of the generation who have gone through the hardships of trying to recolonise the surface after decades of subterranean life and Kiki, a young, ambitious engineer who initially idolises the older woman.




One of the conflicts of the book is that the banks, who had made money through investing in recolonisation and the surface habitats (and seem to hold everyone in massive debt; an ongoing theme is how all the characters just seem to accept crippling levels of ongoing debt as part of existence, a comment on student debt in the US and elsewhere I assume) are turning their focus to the lucrative business of time travel.




Minh and Kiki are part of a team hired to travel back to the Tigris basin, around 2000 BC, to take environmental samples to bring back to the present. There is conversation that this real work of time travel is being minimised due to pressure to take tourists (critique of the distorting effect of commerce on pure science), but i was never quite sure what the end-game of the mission was. I had thought it was to find hardy specimens to help restore the ravaged planet, but there was later reference to changing history.




I loved the layout of the book, each chapter beginning with a short segment from the viewpoint of the king and priestess of the small civilisation of the Tigris as they begin to see changes brought on by the technology of the visitors - the new stars of communications satellites, for example - followed by the building of the main tale.




Very much worth a read, and I look forward to more from Kelly Robson

Book review: A Murder of Quality by John le Carre: Smiley goes Sherlock

This is an odd entry in the works of le Carre, chronicling the later life of George Smiley. Following the events of Call for the Dead Smiley, no longer with the service, is living a quiet life in London. He is contacted by an old colleague about the a letter she has received from the wife of one of the masters at a venerable Public School (that is, a very old, expensive and exclusive private school) in Dorset, in which she states the fear that her husband is intending to kill her. Smiley calls another master there, the brother of one of his late friends, to find that this woman has indeed been murdered, so travels down to hand the letter over to local detectives and becomes embroiled in the investigation.



So, this is George Smiley as a free agent, outside the Circus. It seems that le Carre may have been toying with setting his character up as a detective - more Father Brown than Sherlock Holmes, although there is something Holmesian in the way the plot unfolds, with Smiley's vast, if ponderous, intellect processing all the details and building a picture nobody else can see. There is also something of Agatha Christie about the layers of upper-class English manners and class distinctions, in this book those stratifications are precisely the point rather than being, as with Christie, simply the medium on which the puzzle of the plot is hung.



It is clear from early on that this is a blistering attack on the British class system and the snobbish, restrictive forms, rules and structures that protect those at the top - something the author confirms in both the original afterword and a new one, added to this edition in 2010.



In this, le Carre also acknowledges the book's shortcomings as a thriller (although, by modern terms, I would not class it as a thriller at all, but a mystery) and this is indeed true, perhaps largely as it comes between his excellent debut and The Spy Who Came In from the Cold, which may be the finest spy thriller ever written. The novel is very old-fashioned, some of the supporting cast are fairly flat sketches, and some of the attitudes - especially those toward women - are very much of their time (although that balanced against some very progressive notions) but he already shows his eye for detail and ability to infuse a scene with colour and meaning (even if most of colours are the shades of grey of post-war Britain) and, despite the flaws, this gripped me enough to read in three sittings.



Now, I am very much looking forward re-reading The Spy Who Came In from the Cold.

Does how you spend your money matter?

Every pound or euro or dollar we spend is a vote on how we want the world around us to be.


This is not, of course, my original thought but it is one that requires regular restatement  against the constant counter narrative that is simply seen as normal.


It is easy to buy from Amazon. We all do it; it is easy and fast and cheap, so why not? Well, just think about what money is, and where it goes. Amazon are cheap partly due to the economies of scale and low overheads, but more so because of the power that they wield in the marketplace.. For instance, with books the standard agreement is that they sell at a 60% discount, and the publisher does not allow other retailers to undercut that price. Of course, that cut doesn't come from Amazon's profits, but from those of the publishers and authors, which is largely the reason that the average UK-based writer makes around £11, 000 per year from their work.


So the vast amount of your spend with Amazon goes to the company, not to those who produce the products it sells - and, of course, we all know how little Amazon pays in tax or staff wages.


Big chain stores are a little better. While they generally have a similar profile in terms of passing costs on to producers (see the various reports on how the major supermarket chains screw over farmers) , and often in paying taxes, but at least they provide jobs in the community in which they are based.


Best of all is the old mantra: buy local, as much as is possible. Spending £100 in a chain store mostly goes to the overpaid CEO (by definition, executives are grossly overpaid in the modern economy, with few exceptions) and shareholders, but £100 at a local hardware shop goes to the family that own it buying food and supplies, ideally in other local shops, strengthening the local economy in a virtuous circle. Maybe paying local craftspeople, or for repairs from local tradespeople.


Sometimes these decisions are fairly easy. I'm lucky enough to live in a city with many, many fantastic small - often family-run - restaurants, cafes, takeaways and sandwich shops, so I've not been to a chain eatery in years. I made the choice not to - but, let's face it, the places I frequent serve far better food than KFC or Nando's or Zizzi, and are often cheaper. If you're going to a local butcher or greengrocer, you're probably paying more than you would at Tesco or Aldi, but the quality is probably higher. But many of the groceries - the dry goods, the cleaning products, the toilet paper - are almost certainly going to be a damned sight more expensive at your local corner shop, and they'll have a poorer selection. And you might not even have the choice.


These and many other factors make it easier to shop online or at big supermarkets. While the greengrocer and butcher are closed by 6 pm (if you're lucky) the supermarket is likely open until at least 10, and the internet never shuts. But it is worth making the effort, rather than slipping into the most convenient way of doing things, because it's better for everyone in the long term. And it isn't all or nothing. I've fallen back to doing most of my shopping at one supermarket or other (Aldi is just so cheap and convenient...), mostly through working hours and a lack of planning. But I haven't given up.


So, if you're going for coffee look around from the Costa and find that little independent place around the corner, which is probably cosier and friendlier - and definitely has better coffee. Seek out that local Italian restaurant and get that warm welcome feeling when they recognise you on your second visit. And maybe, on the Saturday drive to the supermarket see if you can drop by some local shops or the town market and enrich your shopping experience.