Democracy – John Vincent

Young People in Britain

You know, I find this argument so utterly tedious. Economics can be boiled down to old people verses young people. Polarising policy debates and setting one generation against another.

The UK Reform Party are pushing a commitment to the triple lock on state pensions. Not because they believe British pensioners deserve a good deal. No, it’s populist bandwagon to lock in the vote of one generation. Knowing that there’s a higher likelihood of older people voting for them than younger people [According to opinion polls].

It’s true that there’s a madness that has overtaken the British mentality. However, it’s not new. The value of land and property far exceeds its utility. The marketplace has been one of ever forcing a finite commodity to a higher price. The owners and inheritors of land and property have gained whilst its has become harder for younger people to get a foothold.

There have been different times. I remember my father talking about the inter-war period. It was of his father’s time. Practically farmland could not be given away. Estates were broken up. Labour was short. Taboos were challenged. The dynamic of marketplace for changed.

However, in the post-war period, the last 70-years, the cost of a modest dwelling, as a ratio of average earnings, has rocketed. Ownership of land and property has become concentrated.

British humour addressed the situation in a famous TV sitcom. As said by the character Del boy over breakfast – this time next year, we’ll be millionaires. Only Fools and Horses captured the aspiration. Only that Del boy though it was second-hand cars that would lead to riches. Now, Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows that roughly 27% of people aged over 65, in Britain, live in households with a total wealth of exceeding one million.

So, what do we conclude? That this pot of wealth has been taken from young people in a transfer from one generation to another. No, that would be playing a sectarian political card worthy of an unprincipled populist. A foolish strategy too.

Deep within British culture there’s an attachment to assets. This particularly goes for commodities that are restricted in supply. Remember Del boy got his wish in the end. Antiques saving the day. Now, amongst most popular TV shows is the Antiques roadshow.

Maybe it’s a latent mistrust of bankers. The shady image of people who hoard money for the sake of hoarding money. In Britain, holding land and property are seen to be a stable assurance of long-term security. I’ve heard it said about land many times – they don’t make it anymore.

The tragic element here is not that young people finding it harder to become just like their parents. To harbour the same attitudes towards land and property. It’s more a question of society undervaluing their contribution to prosperity. Now, and in the future.

It’s pure idiocy to set one generation against another. It’s a mean political trick. What does need to change are the rungs on the ladder, especially at the early stages of life’s journey.

For example, the law in respect of student loans is dire, unjust and unsustainable. Making young people pay a higher marginal rate of tax, when early in their working lives is abysmal. The government penny pinching of education funding and thinning out of courses is short-sighted in the extreme. Apprenticeships must be substantial not hollowed out routes to poor rewards. The world of work [and leisure] is changing more rapidly than it ever has in the past. It’s imperative that society equips young people with the tools needed to navigate a complex and dynamic world. It’s not generous to make a priority of all aspects of education and training. It’s absolutely essential.

Spring Reflections: Communication

The season is one of mild rain and occasional storms. Seeds that have been lying dormant now get their chance to germinate. To enter the struggle for life as they compete with their surroundings. Leaves emerge, they twist and turn to channel the energy of the Sun. It’s Spring. A time for new beginnings. Longer days. Shorter nights.

UK Government Ministers are often their own worse enemies. These are smart people. Yes, I say that with no sense of irony. If they have fought their way up the greasy pole of a political career, they are not the numskulls that it’s soothing to think that they are. Well, there are naturally exceptions. God only knows why Liz Truss became Prime Minister of this great country.

Amongst the skills that are mandatory in the role of Minister, communications is surely one of them, if not the most important. Because if a Minister can’t communicate what they are doing the chances are that they will not be in a job for long. The cacophony of noise that pervades the everyday media will distort all but the clearest messages.

Let’s say there’s a 5-minute slot available on the national media to address a matter of public concern. There’s a massive pile of matters of public concern. It’s wise to stick to the ones that the individual has a modicum of knowledge about or at least has recently been briefed.

My instinct would be to us a tried and tested formula for public communications. It goes like this – tell them what you are going to say, tell them, and then tell them what you have told them. Doing this focused on one key point. Not wandering off onto tangential subjects and getting sidetracked. I know this is easier said than done. An interviewer, worth their salt, will want to extract as much new information as possible. They will be driven by the common journalist’s creed. The instinct that the greatest accolade is to get a “scoop.”

What happens, if this morning is anything to go by, is a jumble of slogans come out in an almost involuntary way. The speed of speaking increases as the clock ticks away the precious minutes. Then phases, probably implanted by civil servants, pops out of the conversation. Jargon terms like, implied wholesale element, third party intermediaries, or qualifying financially disadvantaged customers. These will mystify the listener unless they have already read chapter and verse of the subject the Minister is talking about.

As the interview progresses then Ministers become parodies of themselves. I’m sure they walk away from their media interviews with the voices inside their heads saying, I should have stuck to the script. Why didn’t I – keep it simple.

There’s a resort to catch phrases that seems irresistible too. It’s one thing to say that a government is working at pace but what on earth does that mean? The alternative would be to be sitting on one’s backside waiting for something to happen.

There’s also the pretence that an action is taking place immediately. Fixes are happening now. I think most listeners are mature enough to know that doing things takes time and resources. So, being evasive about an action that will take place in April next year, as opposed to now, sounds shabbily. Switching to a defensive mode is never a clever way to win over supporters.

It’s Spring. A time for new beginnings. It should be a time to elevate people’s spirits. The prospect of summer and the shaking off a dull dark winter is reason enough to be optimistic. Someone needs to tell government.

Understanding Primary and Secondary Legislation in the UK

Clear again is the conservative politician’s propensity to trade on ignorance. Remember the slogan of the big red bus of the Brexit campaign. All the abject nonsense that was said and written in 2016. It would be extremely charitable to call these intentional inaccuracies. There’s a three-letter word that sums them up. In theory, Parliament has rules. In practice, those rules are abused. That is until miscreants are exposed. Those politicians that misled the House of Commons over parties in Downing Street during the COVID pandemic shouldn’t be forgotten.

It’s a simple question. How many people know the difference between primary and secondary legislation? As far as I know these aspects of the UK’s method of making laws is not taught in schools. I think it’s vital that people of all ages get the opportunity to explore how their democracy works. Including its inherent peculiarities.

[Here’s a national event, later in the year, which can help. It’s free and already possible to plan for UK Parliament Week in November 2026[1].]

Back to the difference between primary and secondary legislation? A tabloid newspaper editor may see that question and fall about laughing. On the basis that the subject is not widely understood, instead of explaining, they may choose to write any drivel that serves their agenda. Day after day this sleight of hand provides bold headlines and support for misleading political campaigns. Then, if the truth pops its head above the parapet cries of Fake News ripple through the right-wing media.

By the way, the sad fact about this common distortion is an erosion of trust[2]. It’s no wonder that Parliament can be seen as remote from real-life. It’s regular inhabitants a strange breed of people who go native as soon as the walk through its hallowed doors.

During the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) it expanded. In certain specific technical areas, its “competence” grew. Member States agreed to give it new roles and responsibilities. As an example, before aviation legislation was harmonised in Europe, national legislation had to be amended to accommodate every major change that developed. In the UK, both primary and secondary legislation were applied. They are now. That consists of a UK Air Navigation Act and an Order[3]. The Act being the primary legislation and the Order being the secondary legislation. These two rules are not new as they have been part of the UK’s national aviation landscape for decades.

Above here I’ve kicked at the UK’s tabloid media. Well, they are merely doing what they have always done. There’s something in morbid consistency. What’s more disturbing are the lines being taken by a national media that might be expected to be objective. Read this short article and the predisposition shines through, and this is the BBC[4].

Sir Keir Starmer is planning a law which will mean that the UK government can adopt EU single market rules, without a normal parliamentary vote.

One, it’s the personalisation. This is the government of the day and not an individual. Two, it’s the incorrect use of the word “normal.” As I’ve stated, secondary legislation is perfectly normal. In fact, the UK’s normal regulatory structures depend upon it being in place and up-to-date.

[1] https://www.ukparliamentweek.org/en/sign-up

[2] https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/full_fact_report_121021.pdf

[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937jkvp3w8o

Lost Opportunities

It’s kind of odd. The wacky folk who still argue that the Brexit referendum was a good thing. For one or two well-heeled people that might be the case. It’s not the case for the overwhelming majority of British people. Maybe one issue is that it’s so difficult to get across the idea of lost opportunity. Benefits foregone because of choosing poorly.

It’s as if an ardent walker is faced with two paths. One is covered in glitter and hung with shiny streamers for the first mile only. The other is much the same as the path already traversed but it gets wide and smother after a couple of miles. One has minstrels singing patriotic and sentimental songs at its gateway. The other path has a well-meaning professor babbling on about solidarity, peace and progress. It’s the guidebook recommendation.

The destination of the first one is to circle around to get back where the walker started meantime having exhausted a lot of their provisions. For the second path there’s a whole new set of possibilities, yet unwritten. Companions are supportive and share their stories. Everyone is richer, both commercially and culturally.

The facts are that Brexit has made us poorer. In every way. It’s a pathway to nowhere, as we have found. After a decade it’s truly painful to tot-up the lost opportunities of the Brexit era. The financial numbers are huge but it’s not just about numbers. Now, the main issue is security. Developing a strong independent European defence against the global turmoil that’s ensuing.

Never a group to roll back and say – yes, you were right all along – those so deep in the Brexit ditch are pumping out propaganda much as they did in 2016. Cherished British food stuffs will need to be named using words last heard in a chemistry class. Hordes of criminal invaders will overrun our cities. They ask us to listen to apologists for climate change deniers.

Brexit is a deep fake. It’s not going to get any better. It’s going to get worse. Even if we wait 50-years, it’s not going to get any better. Certain right-wing commentators implore us to wait. To burden the generations that follow with perpetual decline.

One result of the current turmoil that is raging around the globe is the recognition that struck people with wisdom after the second world war. We have the capacity to choose between order and disorder. Anarchy has a massive cost. International rules are incredibly difficult to establish and maintain but it’s best that we try.

I know those who will counter this argument will count out the number of times the world’s institutions have failed since the late 1940s. However, that’s no-good an argument in of itself. Imagine getting to 2040. Going full circle in a century and arriving at a dystopian world of chaos where imperial racketeers terrorise billions of people. I think we can do a lot better than that if we are prepared to work for the common good.

There’s a few of words to cherish – the common good.

Why King Charles Should Delay US Visit

I’m doing that Keynesian double-take. The facts change, so what do I do? I change my mind. That’s what I’ve done in respect of the current situation on the other side of the Atlantic. Shear pig-headed stubbornness is in fashion in high places. That prideful assertion that says nothing I do or say can be wrong. Well, I’m not going to fall into that foolish trap.

Should the UK’s Head of State pay an official visit to the United States (US). The answer must be “yes” at an appropriate time and place. I listed a respectable number of reasons why the UK and the US are linked by history and a whole lot more. However, I’ve put a caveat on the view presented. At an appropriate time and place, is a way of saying that there should be conditions.

As it stands, the King’s planned visit to the US this year should be called off. The conditions are not right for a successful visit. The US -UK special relationship has a past, it may have a future but at the present there’s a big problem.

In this anniversary year of American independence, I had argued that it was good to celebrate a long-standing relationship. However, just at this moment, the US and UK are in quite separate places. It maybe the case that the citizenry in both countries is thinking similar things. What’s clear is that the leadership of both countries are not on the same page.

If the non-partisan opinion polls are to be relied upon, the citizenry in both countries have a highly negative view of the decision to enter a war in the Middle East. Putting the UK’s Head of State in a position where an appearance can be manipulated to indicate support for the instigation of war in the Middle East is not a good place to be.

It’s right to acknowledge the facts. There is a war in Europe which is of greater concern to most British people. That situation needs to be resolved. Engaging in a war of choice in the Middle East is not in the best interests of people in the UK, or Europe. It’s happening and the daily news gets worse and worse.

From what I gleam, and what little I know, King Charles is doing well at upholding the dignity and integrity of the British Monarchy. Not so easy a task when blessed with a wayward brother and long-standing family splits. The King is faced with small protests in the UK given his brother’s past associations and the blind eye that was turned to his brother’s behaviour.

I’m a British republican in nature but continue to have respect for our peculiar constitutional settlement. Yes, we could do better but that’s an argument for another time. Imagine how much distaste a substantial number of the British people will feel if our King is seen to align himself closely with an unpopular American President. Not good optics, as they say.

My points are made without thought of political bandwagon hopping as favoured by lots of UK Members of Parliament (MPs). That just doubles-up the complexity of making the right long-term decision on this difficult real time issue of international relations.

It’s clear to me that, in his second term, the legacy that President Trump will hand down to the next generation, is and will be a horrid and tragic mess. We’d better start looking further ahead at how the 2030s[1] can be made a better decade. Historian will look as aghast at the late 2020s. The political volatility of the current situation is such that predictions become even more difficult. Power drains away when politicians ignore the people – let’s see how that goes.

Post 1: I agree with David David Dimbleby labels King’s visit to US ‘an embarrassment’

Post 2: Now there’s no doubt in my mind that the King should not visit the US at this time Iran war latest: Trump issues expletive-laden threat to Iran demanding Strait of Hormuz be opened – BBC News

[1] Trump’s term of office: 20th January 2029.

The Ever-Evolving Debate in the UK

It’s astonishing to me. On this site, I’ve been scribbling away for nearly a decade. My first item was posted at the end of April 2016. It was mostly in reaction to the national referendum that had been called on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union (EU).

I’d returned to the United Kingdom (UK) after 11-years living in German. In Cologne. As you might expect my reaction to this peculiar referendum was one of bemusement and shock. Had my home country gone completely off its trolly whilst I’d been focused on other matters?

We now know that it was sheer nativity (and a degree of vanity) that brought about this unfortunate situation. One of our privileged public schools educated Prime Ministers (PMs) took it upon himself to deal with an irritating divide in his political party. He was aided and abetted by a former leader of the UK’s most pro-European liberal political party (Nick Clegg). Go figure that one. At the time, Tim Farron was the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Sadly, capable fellow that he is, he had about as much political influence as a flag in the wind.

The campaign to remain as an EU member should have had all the campaign advantages. Lack of planning and imagination on the part of David William Donald Cameron, and those who surrounded him, meant that advantage melted away.

Reading my past words, it seems that I’d hit the nail on the head with this short line.

Migration is the biggest issue for some people when it comes to the EU referendum vote.

Cameron and Co majored on the economics. A number crunchers paradise but shamefully remote from the people who mattered – the British voters.

I’ll stick with the theme of peculiarity. Guess what, after Brexit, now a decade on, that short line is still top dog. What that tells me is that those on the right wing of politics in the UK will never ever be satisfied. To the point of building an impenetrable wall all the way around the country (rather than a path[1]). To shun anyone who they can label as a foreigner.

Those who profit from inequality and polarisation will never ever stop this push to ever most extreme positions. They have been frighteningly successful in that the political centre in the UK has moved gradually to the right. Gravelly, the cost to the average citizen has been high.

After a decade of reflection, the nation needs to get away from building walls and pilling on layers of domestic bureaucracy. The vision of the UK as a big gated community with arbitrary partisan government controls is a dumb one.

It’s fine to say that in early 2016 none of us could have foreseen COVID-19 or Russia’s foolish drive to war. We couldn’t have even foreseen President Trump’s second term in the US, although there are commentators who had that one called.

There’s a long list of predictions about Brexit that have come true – most of us are poorer.

Ironically, global matters are having more impact than ever. The need for regional and global cooperation is self-evident. Building stable institutions to serve that purpose remains of paramount importance.

[1] https://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/en_GB/trails/england-coast-path/

Importance of UK-US State visits

I agree with him on numerous issues. In this case I think he’s wrong. Not only that but he’s making himself look just like the ambulance chasing willow-the-wisps Badenoch and Farage.

This morning, Ed Davey’s argument is that the planned United Kingdom (UK) State visit to the United States (US) should be cancelled. That’s withdrawing from the meeting between the King and the President. By the way, Ed Davey is the leader of the Liberal Democrat political party in the UK.

I don’t buy the argument that King Charles meeting President Trump will be a public embarrassment. Let’s put aside any thought of my personal feeling towards either man. It’s not a case of who they are as much as it is what they represent. They have met before as Head of State for the UK and US. So, it’s not as if the situation is a complete unknown.

A few points to make on the subject.

One point concerns the role of Head of State. It’s inevitable that through the course of their work they will from time to time be embarrassed. Reflecting on Queen Elizabeth’s reign, she dined with some notable unpleasant leaders not as a matter of personal choice but as a matter of duty. In many ways, it’s part and parcel of being a Head of State.

Two. This year is like no other. The US marks 250-years of independence. It would be incredible if one of the parties involved, the UK, chose to ignore this pivotal event. The current US President is inclined to hype but here’s an event that needs no hype. It’s one of the most significant dates in global history. The US Declaration of Independence is of monumental importance.

Three. Regardless of the personalities involved, the UK and US share democratic values. Fine, with different interpretations of what that means. Fundamentally, despite differences, there’s common ground which will, I hope, always be there regardless of who has the top job. Our international partnership is an inseparable bond, yes, with its inevitable ups and downs.

Four. There’s a fair chance that these Heads of State will not only talk to each other but may listen to each other. That dialogue has the potential to do some good in the world. It’s a dialogue that needn’t be trapped by everyday political struggles and tensions. To me, it’s fascinating to speculate on topics like global environmental concerns, where the two individuals clearly have an entirely different perspective.

To be topical. The last 250-years record a great deal of involvement of the UK and US is the affairs of the Middle East. Whether this has been wise, or not, is a different matter.

In the 1950s, both countries kicked off the oil industry in that part of the world. Both have had a hand in what has developed since. Our economies are tied to oil as a result. That legacy is not easy to walk away from even if change is inevitable.

Dysfunctional Culture of UK Politics

It’s as true today as it’s aways been. Well, that sound like a famous bread avert. The phrase “as good today as it’s always been,” was used for years by one notable bread maker in the UK. A memorable slogan that painted a picture of tradition and continuity.

What I’d like to do is to take the word “good” out of the equation. I’m not talking about our daily bread. Or the need to meld tradition with a modern industrial reality. However, there is an enduring appeal when it comes to selling ideas. A linking with some mythical golden age.

Paddy Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader whose memory is not entirely lost in the mists of time, was not a fan of the Westminster culture[1]. That’s the political culture that pervades the British Parliament and its environs.

He shared the view of many British people that Westminster is grossly “out-of-touch” with life as it’s lived across the nation. Our democratic institutions often alienated people. Not by intention but just by being what they are and acting the way they do. The core of British politician’s concerns come across as detached and insular. More tied up in big egos, infighting, and inflated pompousness. Protecting their own interests.

Now, I know the insipid excuse is to say – surely, politicians are like that throughout the world. Aren’t we lucky to have such ancient and noble traditions. A heritage that others admire.

Paddy knew what he was talking about having been a Member of Parliament (MP) a long time. I first met him in the 1980s, when he was a young idealistic newly elected MP. He was the guest speaker at an evening event in Cheltenham. Full of ambition and vitality.

This week, neither of the two largest political parties in the UK covered themselves with glory. Quite the opposite in fact. It was not pleasant to see or hear.

Labour became a stuck record. Vacillating and dithering. Increasingly then sound like their predecessors. It’s a kind of Westminster conditioning. A bland mediocrity that seeps out of the gothic towers of Parliament. Supporters of Labour twist and turn with despair.

The Conservatives are in more trouble for a whole host of reasons. Not least their past performance. What we are witnessing is a peculiar dance by their leader. It involved constantly looking over her shoulder and spinning around at the same time.

Whether we like it or not the problem is our problem. With our institutions becoming ever more dysfunctional over a period of decades the door is open to extremist forces. The more we pretend that Westminster is working the more voters look elsewhere.

The British media are no help in this respect. Instead of shining a light on a dysfunctional culture they race to be part of it. Getting excited at every crash and upset. Every scandal and broken promise. Building careers in the same way as the politicians they report on.

There’s no easy answer. First, it’s important to recognise the problem.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ashdown-says-outoftouch-westminster-alienates-voters-disillusionment-could-lead-to-extremism-liberal-democrat-leader-warns-1493502.html

Life in the 22nd Century

It’s not an original thought but science, and its advancement, is like a venerable oak tree. Roots spread over a large area, are not seen, but are critical to the health of the whole tree. Branches expand as the tree grows. Branches divide, some branches fade and others gain ever more strength. A tree that lives as long as a civilisation, ever changing.

I put this view forward only to admit that there are flaws with this way of thinking. For a start, in the past, a branch of science may have been pursued in a pure manner. Accumulating ever more knowledge on a specific subject. Now, the branches of science have become far more intertwined. Complexity is a given.

This makes a futurologist job harder. It’s no good to dream along straight lines. To see progressive development as the most likely direction. In the past, there was mileage in projecting forward along a clear line of thinking. Take for example the opening up of the atomic world. Futurologist in the 1950s imagined a world of limitless energy. Inexhaustible sources of electrical power that would be cheep and available to all. For good or ill, the age of plenty didn’t happen. That doesn’t reduce the importance of fundamental discoveries. It cautions us in extrapolating from a simple beginning to a fantastic new world.

What will life in the 22nd Century be like? I can say with certainty that I will not see the year 3000. Well, that is unless the cryogenics of science fiction stories soon becomes reality.

One approach is to look back 75 years. Compare and contrast. Then look forward 75 years. That is factoring in an acceleration in discoveries and the exploitation. And as I’ve alluded above not being shy of growing complexity.

This is again an approach to be taken with a fair degree of caution. Back in the 1950s there was talk of electronic brains, as the computer emerged as a viable and useful machine. What was imagined then is now quite different. That use of the word “brain” isn’t common parlance. Instead, the advent of so-called artificial intelligence is becoming everyday language.

Another set of cautionary factors are trying to guess the branches of the tree that will decay and fall. What seems promising based on current technology only to be bypassed by discovery and innovation. Here I’m thinking that the building of massive power-hungry data farms may be a technological cul-de-sac. Vulnerable and hugely expensive physical infrastructure that’s out of date the minute it’s switched on.

Each of us has a brain that weighs a lot less than a room full of cabinets of conventional electronics. Nature manages vast amounts of data without a power station in tow.

In the year 3000, I maintain we will have a rich and rewarding intellectual life. It will be different in form, although the things that amuse and entertain us may not be so different. The themes of a Greek play are still likely to be echoed in the stories of the next millennia.

Artificial intelligence will be a junk yard term. The whole of the world of data communication and processing will be hidden under layers of obscuration. It’s possible that a form of agent will be overseeing the mechanisms for providing the services we demand. The great challenge for democracies will be how to ensure that agent works for the public good. Not so easy.

Manchester

Crunching numbers after a British by-election is rather like taking one racehorse win and saying that all races will be won by that horse in future. There’s one or two who get hysterical. A test of public opinion, in one spot on the globe, is a good indicator. It’s not an absolute pointer to every future event.

How can I possibly disagree with Sir John Curtice[1] this morning on the BBC. He’s that human hardy perennial of domestic election analysis. Number one guru that the media runs to. A track record for an on the money sum-up.

In essence, the British electorate wishes to support candidates who can articulate their concerns. No prevarication, all manner of obfuscation or jam tomorrow speeches. Preferably tailored to the location where they stand.

Sir John is thinking like this John. In moments, as per yesterday in Manchester[2], clarity matters. True, that in a by-election it’s easier to do for a candidate who carries little political baggage. A fresh set of well-presented phrases and a new broom. A relatable individual.

Not for one moment do I believe that the Green Party will surge forward so powerfully as to become a national leader. What may happen is that, with the fragmentation of the British political landscape, the Greens will play a bigger part than they have in the past.

And you know what? As a liberal, I’m fine with that shift. Balance is so important if positive change is to happen. Representation means just that – representation. If the Greens say the exact opposite to the Reform Party, which mostly they do, then they will occupy the two ends of the classical normal distribution – the bell curve.

Perhaps, I need to be careful with this basic analysis. My presumption is that most people are not highly involved in everything party political. That on the typical doorstep often the key task is not to engage in detailed debate but to remind people that there is an election taking place. That the tie to traditional voting patterns continues to weaken.

The last one on my list is perhaps the biggest. Gone are the huge factories and industrial heartland that provided the Labour Party with their core support. Gone are the dependents of the shire country manor houses that provided the Conservative Party with their core support.

In 2028 or 2029[3] the make-up of the British electorate will have changed markedly. Seems obvious to say – doesn’t it, but politicians love to fight the last war not the next one. The political landscape will have shifted. Traditional voting patterns will have further disolved. There will be no let-up in the dynamic nature of public discourse. A small number of big issues will dominate the campaigns of the parties able to make an impact.

Clarity will matter. Distinctiveness will matter. Relatability will matter.

In the background, a bucket load of past performance and costed polices will be chewed over by professional commentators. That will not be the deciding factor. At the end of this decade there’s a break away coming. Busting out of past patterns. Setting new horizons.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygpdjq9jjo

[2] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/

[3] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/our-work/topics/parliament-and-constitution/general-elections