Category: Democracy

Brexit Documentary Review

Firstly, a reaction to the BBC documentary that’s telling the story of Brexit. They called it “Brexit: A Very British Civil War[1].” A corny title that plays on titles “A Very British Scandal,” the drama about Liberal MP Jeremy Thorpe and “A Very Royal Scandal.”

The “Civil War” analogy is out of place. Ten seconds of reading about any real civil war would have sunk that illusion. The events of 2016 were more a battle for the future. Battles continue to rage as the advocates of Brexit have merely changed their colours and rebranded.

Yes, I agree. The stage was set by the choice that voters took in 2015. In fact, if blame must be allocated then its as much the fault of liberal minds as it it’s the reactionary forces that pounded away at their ambition. The political idiocy of promising a national referendum in a country that rarely, if ever, has referendums was a critical folly. The UK is not Switzerland. UK voters have no idea what it’s like to be that sort of federal democracy.

David Cameron won a majority and his hand were tied. He did have choices, but he plodded along with all the imagination of a dull public-school boy in fear of rejection by his peers. Cameron didn’t see the bus that was about to hit him. Having been pounding away for decades the rag tag but monied pushers of a referendum wasted no time in campaigning. Cameron wasted every opportunity.

Aside from the story that the BBC chose to document is the image of a modern European country run by a strange herd of mostly Tory men, living a privileged life. It’s a searing display of a political crisis made by a few for the interests of a few.

I know it is said by both left and right in UK politics, but what more does anyone need to convince themselves that there’s a chasm between the people in Westminster and the people of the nation. Demographic trends were likely to shape the outcome of a national referendum. It proved to be so in the numbers. An older age group favouring Leave and a younger one favouring Remian. Populism had taken root in the Leave campaign.

The dim-witted organisers of the Remain campaign ran a campaign as if they were changing the name of a chocolate bar with diminishing sales. As if they were stereotypical comic depressed bowler hatted businessmen from the 1950s, Cameron’s crew ignored the analysis and lumbered on. He took a politically suicidal path.

The likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove dithered with only their own political ambitions tugging at them to eventually decide as to which way to go. Again, my reflection amounted to – what a bizarre way to run a country. Especially one with the history and traditions of the UK.

I understand the notion that Cameron may have seen this political path as a way of resolving a self-evident Tory split once and for all. Ironically, the outcome is a Tory split the like of which couldn’t have been imagined ten years ago.

Deciding whether to back Leave or Remain wasn’t the real question. Capturing the future political agenda was the aim. 2016’s national referendum was not a war; it was a battle. The battle continues.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002xhvj

Shaping Our Digital Landscape

Waking up in the morning I look out of the window. A street scene. A well-maintained road. Houses and the greenery of their gardens. Parked cars and flowering shrubs. I hear muted traffic noise from the main road. Birds and the wind rustling through the tall trees.

I didn’t make these or ask them to be there, but I did choose to live on this residential street. In everyday experience there’s a million and one aspects of life that I take for granted. These surroundings have evolved, or should I say developed. Flicking back the calendar, there was a transformational moment. There was a time before this built environment when this area was open fields, hedges, and trees. A rustic farmed landscape.

Systematically, a local authority gave permission for the development of this residential area back in the 1950s. Generally, what they delivered has passed the test of time. The infrastructure works. Notwithstanding the propensity to dig-up the pavements and roads when it doesn’t.

In taking our surroundings for granted there’s not much thought given to the transformational moment that produced this tranquil scene of urban peacefulness. Yet, it was key to what happened for the next 70 years.

Like it or not, a paper based bureaucratic process involving and engaging the councilman and councilwoman of the town and motivated private builders produced this urban setting. Public and private interests working together.

Compare and contrast how our society is making the digital environment that we now inhabit. I could say that it’s not making it at all but rather letting it happen. As an illustration of how strange the transformation impacting us all, I got an e-mail with this intriguing line:

This is an operational email required for your ABC account to function properly and cannot be unsubscribed from.

Here’s an interesting digital imposition in my inbox. I don’t want this ABC account. I thought I’d deleted it. Yet, it’s provider politely tells me that such emails can’t be unsubscribed. I assume they think that’s to my benefit in some mysterious way.

[I won’t get sniffy about west coast Americans ending a sentence with a preposition.]

Where are my elected representatives when it comes to the regulation of the construction of our digital environment? Do the ones in my municipal, regional, or national government have any say over what happens in this fast-moving environment?

I won’t throw my hands up in horror as if there’s no one. I’m aware that there are national politicians who take an interest in the development of the digital world. Debates rage after the fact. An event occurs and an element of society’s digital transformation becomes topic for conversation. It’s all highly reactive. Our sleeping sentinels wake up when the media points out a catastrophe or some pivotal moment of transformation.

Theres little attempt for, systematically, an authority to give permission for a development or even to assert that right on our behalf. We live in a democracy where elected politicians are either asleep at the wheel or too timid to lock horns with the global digital giants.

The question I have is what kind of society will be built under these conditions?

Political Downfall

I’m not sure. Transparency is a good thing. Well, generally that’s the cases. Shedding a light on the dark places leads to better understanding. So, they say. That’s conventional thinking. The assumption being that the public prefer raw trust to a fabricated sort of truth.

The utterings of Peter Benjamin Mandelson are now going to fill more newspaper column inches than the great fire of London. It doesn’t take much looking around to realise that Mandelson has become public enemy number one. And for the British right-wing media cohort, is the Achilles heal of the current UK Labour Prime Minister. Retrospectively seen as the stupidest decision the man in power has made to date.

In bold letters the words “nightmare” and “bombshell” are already out there. Next, we can expect “Armageddon” and talk of nails in coffins. This is where the cynic in me clicks. What a lovely political opportunity to relentlessly attack, knowing that there’s always another twist or turn to add at any convenient moment.

In mathematics, the Mandelbrot set acts like News of Mandelson[1] and does not diverge. It’s complex but repetitive. I expect the thousands of pages of correspondence dumped on the public will take that path. Complex but repetitive. Sadly too, the juicy bits, like criticism of the administration in Washington DC may be redacted.

There’re immortal themes in the story of political downfall. As if the plot of Star Wars were brought to life. A dark lord strides confidently across a stage set for his demise.

In what I’ve written above, make no mistake. This is not an argument for sweeping stuff under the carpet. None whatsoever. In this modern media age, we must get used to the drop of more than 1,000 pages. If nothing else, it gives good investigative journalists a lot of work to do.

The thing is, I wonder what we will learn that may turn out to be really useful in future. I mean, surly the point of these exercises in public transparency are to ensure that corrective action is taken to avoid the same mistakes being made again. That maybe where the problem is centred. We’ve gone from the ludicrous times of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss and yet I wonder if learning from mistakes is in our DNA. If learning from real mistakes was intrinsic, then no one would be contemplating voting UK Reform.

Yet, if they are to be believed, that extreme UK political party has a high opinion poll rating. Our love of words like “catastrophe” and “apocalypse” are so great they seem to trump common sense. It’s as if a major hole has appeared in the heads of a potential electorate. The simplistic, flat, two-dimensional, world of UK Reform gets its appeal from people not wanting to engage with stubborn complexity. Those who utter simple solutions, even if they are obviously wrong, get the press attention. From here to infinity by way of nonsense.

Back to Mandelson. He got jobs that others strive for without hope of getting. His confident personality, guile and cunning got him places. There’s the lesson. All that glitters is not gold. Much as people might want to believe in political magic it’s extremely rare. Ten to the minus nine at least.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/27/peter-mandelson-questions-vetting-clearance-mitigations

Forgiveness: A Double-Edged Sword

The basic Sunday school Christian idea of forgiveness is fine and dandy. It’s a cornerstone of the social soup that is modern Britian. Although we like a good dose of retribution when it suites us, the core belief that we maybe forgiven as much as others might forgive us still pervades.

The above is a cultural aspect of life as our more primitive side has a tendency not to forgive. Especially when talking about people we don’t know or, for that matter, people we do know who do something deeply offensive, like betrayal.

Christianity is transactional about this subject. You must forgive if you want to be forgiven. That is practical in sustaining a cohesive society. If we wander around carrying grudges and consumed with anger all day long, then this will not end well. Here I find a crux of a problem. Although it may be admirable to forgive, if that charitable act melts away anger, then it can melt away the motivation to do something, like fix a problem.

So, how to respond to someone in public life who says unacceptable and harmful things five years ago but is now said to be a different person. Reformed. Incidentally, this said by a third party that the person concerned is a different person. Whatever that means.

Let me quote thinker Thomas Aquinas in that “evil may be found in anger, when, to wit, one is angry, more or less than right reason demands. But if one is angry in accordance with right reason, one’s anger is deserving of praise[1]”

He really does throw the whole conundrum back at us. Since my “right reason” and your “right reason” may be completely different. My anger is my problem. That said, my anger may be shared by many people. So, who is the arbiter of society’s righteous anger?

In Britain, this is a matter where the four estates play their part. People who make laws, people that carry them out, and those who judge. With the “fourth estate” being the fickle and flighty news media. I could say those who report to the public, or pile on their opinions. This formula doesn’t add clarity. Each of the estates can, and do, take different views. The question is then, which is the most powerful arbiter? The most influential.

Here the equation has changed. Whereas a sizeable section of the news media of my childhood undertook their work with a sense of social responsibility, this section is now under attack.

The term “social media” has been coined for the newcomers but in a way there’s no such thing. The digital world we call social media is not the least bit interested in sustaining a cohesive society. In fact, quite the reverse. Conflict, anger, controversy, and division are sources of income potential. Not a small income either. And on a global scale.

Normally, forgiveness does not come easy. It does require a period of reflection. What’s happening in the social media world is not so much forgiveness as forgetfulness. Delete an account, stir-up a new sense of outrage, move on at the speed of lightning. No need for forgiveness because people have forgotten the last reason for anger and moved on to a new source of anger. Thomas Aquinas never had to ponder over that one.

[1] Summa Theologiae II-II:158:1.

A New Era of Disruption

Where is it all going? Now, there’s a question to ask. Through the media pages there’s the signals of unprecedented change. It’s not as if we are sailing through smooth air, on a clam Sunday afternoon. No, it’s turbulence all the way.

Disruptors are getting the headlines. They don’t have to be clever. They don’t have to be honest. I’m expecting a headline along the lines of: “Everything you knew about spiders is wrong. They are from Alpha Centauri”. It’s only a matter of time. 4.3 light-years away is nothing, after all. Elon Musk will be there at the drop of a hat. Technology permitting.

My prediction maybe a bit off the wall but it’s to illustrate the point of media frenzy that is absorbing the public space of the moment. Much as we might see ourselves as a sophisticated species where a forum is a place of philosophical debate. Where thinkers and politicians test their theories in an open public space. We have the front page of the likes of the Daily Mail instead. Stories about reality shows gone wrong trump concerns about real reality.

It’s a new age. That said, it’s always a new age. In the world of politics and governance we have been here before. To an extent. Type the letters “SDP” into a popular search engine and it’s likely to come up with the Social Democratic Party (SDP). It’s a defunked political party. Or is that just my search engine? In 1981, a spin-off of the Labour Party, the “Gang of Four” showed great promise. Suddenly a step change in the UK’s political terrain seemed possible. A small group of seasoned politicians started to articulate a set of policies that people appeared to like.

To cut it short, that political experiment was absorbed and didn’t lead to the radical change of the landscape that was expected. Over the last 35 years the ideas spoken of by the SDP have not gone away but they have been absorbed and diluted. This does lead me to wonder if the schism between conservatives, those on the right-wing of UK politics, will not eventually melt away. The great big sponge of institutional lethargy will swallow up the dissenters. Loud disruptors on the make will merge with the elephantine traditions of past generations.

What I now think is that such thinking is dangerous. It’s all to do with the rapid nature of change. It’s to do with historic analogies becoming less relevant. It’s to do with an unparalleled speed of interconnection, interaction and interdependency. The landscape has changed.

The media is so important because we need stories to make sense of the world. Our place in the world and possible future is shaped by the results of a mass of interconnection, interaction and interdependency. Dare I say – No man is an island.

Usually when we experience a disruption to a commonly accepted narrative there’s a push back. An innate caution resides in us all. It maybe primitive. A tribal instinct.

This is where the digital world has changed our experiences. For all time. If every day (every hour) there’s a minor disruption, say a story about UFOs, the ground on which we stand starts to shift. Our shared sense-making starts to question and before we know it the fringe belief becomes common place.

Traditional institutions will confront disruptive change with opinion polls, spreadsheets, detailed analysis and studies. Interestingly, enabled and enhanced by digital technology. However, they are like the fire truck that turns up after the house has burned down.

Brexit was proof to me that a step-change can be driven by manipulating information. A political rupture can be advanced. A collapse of trust can be engineered. Now, that is frightening.

Reflections on 30 Years as a UK Parliamentary Candidate

Politics in the UK is as volatile as ever it’s been. Although, that’s maybe overstating the situation. It doesn’t take much to revisit past years to remember that dramatic moments occur more often that we might think. A constant media frenzy is not so uncommon.

My experience of standing as a UK Parliamentary Candidate in a General Election goes back to 1997. Now, that was a dramatic year in the life of the UK. It was part of the ding-dong of the passing of political power between two major political parties. And the change was one that the whole country felt was coming. However, the Labour landslide result was a surprise.

My hopes of success in the constituency of Epsom and Ewell were somewhat ambitious. At that time in the county of Surrey, it was truly an era when a donkey could stand for election wearing a blue rosette and it would get elected. Having established myself in that part of Surrey, I had a second go at Epsom and Ewell in 2001. My main opponents had changed but the lay of the land wasn’t so different. The shoe-in Conservative candidate wrapped themselves in the Union Jack flag and worshiped Margaret Thatcher[1]. That’s all they needed to do.

My next outing as a UK Parliamentary Candidate was in 2010. That’s quite a gap. In those years my professional career was moving fast so the time for politics was limited. I arrived in Crawley in West Sussex, without any possibility of winning and becoming a Member of Parliament (MP). On the upside, I did know the town and a lot of the issues that impacted the place. In this town the competition was part of that ding-dong of the passing of political power between two major political parties. The result swung from Labour to Conservative.

My next outing as a General Election candidate was in the constituency of Runnymede & Weybridge in Surrey in 2015. It was the second one with a tangible aviation connection[2]. This time, I was up against a government minister. A chancellor. However, it was politics of the same long standing Surrey County kind. The most interesting public meeting on this occasion was the one held at the Royal Holloway[3]. Like irritating nits, the university’s Labour students made themselves evident.

I went back to Runnymede & Weybridge in 2017. Same location but a different flavour of election campaign. Brexit had thrown poison on the campaign trail. One well attended public meeting at Strode’s[4] I shared a platform with another Conservative man who was to become chancellor. A highly unsuccessful one.

You would think that I’d have got the message by now. Surrey has been a baston of Conservative support for decades. Even centuries. Shifting that position was to require decades of effort.

In 2019, for the first time, I stood for a national election in the place where I lived. The small town of Reigate in Surrey needed to change. I wanted to bring about that change. Again, the reversion of the local electorate to patterns of voting passed down the years was not going to be shifted. They re-elected an MP that subsequently they must have regreted doing so.

I mentioned Margaret Thatcher. Her influence was certainly hovering over my next outing. Grantham and Bourne saw me on the ballot paper in 2024. Entering the lion’s den turned out to be much more pleasant than I’d anticipated. Getting to know Stamford[5] was a pure delight. Sadly, my election results were the worst I’ve delivered so far. No regrets. It’s only by doing these things that I’ve accumulate some unique experiences.

What’s it like to be a parliamentary candidate? For all the ups and downs of these 30-years it’s an opportunity to be cherished. Fine, I’ve not changed the world. I’ll not be sitting in the Palace of Westminster. Those campaigning efforts have been forgotten by most people.  

Let’s go back to Epsom and Ewell. Imagine the smile on my face when at the last General Election, the Liberal Democrat candidate won.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/margaret-thatcher

[2] https://www.brooklandsmuseum.com/

[3] https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/

[4] https://www.strodes.ac.uk/

[5] https://www.visitlincolnshire.com/destinations/stamford/

Unity and Conflict

New news? Party sources say x% believed there should be a different leader. So said a notable political correspondent under the banner “Labour leaders try to restore morale.” The article went on to say: “…arguing that the party must pull itself together and “steer a straight course” if it wanted to win the next general election.”

“But Mr Kinnock, facing mounting criticism, has chosen a different forum to launch his fightback after an unhappy three weeks that has seen the Conservatives take a 12 percent lead in the polls.”

Party politics can be a terribly cruel sport. That’s not new in all of history. This quoted article, from the 1980s has a kind of resonance with what’s happening now. The roles are different as Labour was trying to find a way of ousting the Conservative Party from power. It took them until 1997 to find a formula that worked. There’s no doubt that Kinnock did the groundwork that made the electoral success of New Labour possible. Reading my newspaper cutting, it wasn’t exactly a pleasant time.

Is this what’s happening to the Labour Party now? Sir Keir Starmer did the groundwork to win power. But Mr Starmer, facing mounting criticism, has chosen to continue his fightback after an unhappy few weeks that has seen the others prosper from his numerous shortcomings.

What next? Is it for the next Party leader, and thus Prime Minister, to make effective use of the power that remains? The threat is no longer the past enemy, the Conservative Party. Now, Reform UK are giving the impression of being the greater opposition come the next general election.

Why are we so distressed at squabbling within an important political party? This has been an almost permanent feature of British politics.

A combination of at least two fixed elements makes conflict inevitable with Parties. As well as between Parties. One is the adversarial style of British politics. Two is the primitive First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system.

Both elements assume that two of the largest political Parties will forcefully lock horns. To maintain their preeminent positions, as the largest, they must encompass a lot of people who simply do not agree with each other. There’s as much politics within the politics as there is in the real world. Leadership is as much about maintaining a degree of unity as it is governing the country.

With decades of accumulated experience, it might be reasonable to think that the established political Parties would have this one nailed. Surprisingly, that never seems to be the case.

The advice in the 1980s was: “His closest friends believe that the only way forward is to try to turn the situation around by going on the offensive against …………….” The target for an offensive here has changed but the idea is a classic one.

Will we be seeing Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer mount an all-out offensive against UK Reform? Thus, keeping his colleagues from plotting and scheming. I wonder. Certainly, this will make for an interesting month ahead.

Celebrating Local Democracy

Thursday, a day named after a hammer-wielding Norse thunder God. That’s a good day on which to hold elections. And so, it is in the UK. A tradition, the origins of which I don’t know. One thing I can imagine is that it’s a day of the week when there remains time left over to count votes and deal with disputes before the weekend hits. Not a bad choice to make given that the first days of the week can be put aside for preparations.

I’m accustomed to local authorities who start the formal count of votes as soon as the polls close. This can be done where the electorate is of a manageable size. Polls usually close at ten in the evening. Ballot boxes are then transported to the count, often housed in a large sports hall or civil building of some kind.

If I go back as far as the late 1980s, I remember evenings spent in the Town Hall in Cheltenham[1]. The election count was a grand civic affair. Lots of, what I thought at the time, as unnecessary pomp and ceremony. Now, I think that wasn’t such a bad idea. A celebration of a cornerstone of our democracy. This event even stretched to a late-night announcement made on the balcony of the Town Hall to an assembly of people standing outside in the cold.

[To be allowed into the premises where an election count is held, the presiding officer[2] must accept you as a candidate or formal counting agent. The local press often get access too.]

There’s a couple of purposes in this short article.

One, please take time to say something good about your local council. I know council officers put an immense amount of effort in making sure that elections run smoothly. It’s incredibly easy to take this dedicated work for granted. Ensuring a complete and up-to-date electoral register, getting out poll cards, running polling stations and a count doesn’t happen by magic.

Yes, I know you can cynically say that people are paid to do this work. The reality is that running elections effectively, efficiently and with integrity calls for commitments above and beyond the normal the workday. As a counting agent, I’ve stood opposite bleary eyed counters sitting there well past midnight, after a fiery recount. This vital work requires concentration and fortitude.

Next, I’d like to raise glass to the candidates. Those people who put themselves forward for election, most of which will not be elected. They will be quickly forgotten, however much effort they put into their campaigns. In a small number of cases, people are elected unopposed but that’s a small number of cases.

In vibrant communities up and down the length of the land, the political parties will field candidates. Typically, these volunteers will stand for the Labour Party, Reform UK, Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Conservative and Unionist Party. In places there will be independent candidates and those organised under other banners, like resident associations.

At a local level these candidates are not professional politicians. Some may aspire to have a political career, but the majority are trying to make a difference in their community. To make our democracy work, everyone depends on someone stepping forward. Having a go. This isn’t always to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, but it can be.Demands can be high, in time and effort, as lot of local authorities live in turbulent situations.

[1] https://cheltenhamtownhall.org.uk/

[2] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

Local Elections: Challenges and Opportunities

Listening to the leader of the opposition in the UK is like listening to a paddle boat[1] rider whose getting swept out to sea. Paddling ever faster, piling on the rhetoric, with no idea how to get back to the shore. It’s probably a big plastic duck with flaky paint and no safety certificate.

Equating talking tough with talking faster doesn’t cut it. Using the word “plan” without having one is aiming for deep trouble. Doubling down on past errors of judgement isn’t the least bit convincing. Drawing intendable distinctions, as if in front of a judge, impresses few listeners.

May’s elections coming around the corner. These are predominantly local elections. So, when Party leaders bypass the hardy perennials, like the state of the potholes in the roads, and veer off into international politics it’s clear they haven’t much to say. Local authorities provide a substantial number of vital services and so there’s plenty of subjects to address, if they would be minded to do so.

Here we are in a state of play that has a real air of novelly about it. The two tribes that have dominated politics in this country are struggling in the doldrums. Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are floundering. Tarnished by a lengthy list of past mistakes. Their current leaders unable to project a vision for the future.

Here we have no council elections this year. Either elections are held once every four-years or a proportion of a local authority are up for election every year. There’s merit in both schemes.

In the first case there can be a more dramatic change of leadership as a whole council changes in one go. That can give the winners a clear mandate to meet a particular promise. On the downside, one emotive campaign issue can dominate, even if it’s small relative to the impact of a new four-year administration.

In the second case there’s a more gradual change of political complexion of a local council. More chance of continuity of actions and polices. Also, the local electorate get in the habit of expressing a view and an election every year at the same time. On the downside this can put more power in the hands of the council officers than the elected councillors.

Overall, I prefer annual local elections in May, despite the cost associated with their running. It’s a better way of engaging the community rather than a build-up to a bigger event. It’s also easier to find candidates who are willing and able to stand for election and likely to see through a full-term in office.

This week is a week for political scientist to chew over something other than opinion polls. Real ballots, in real ballot boxes are so much more real. Professor John Curtice will be on every media outlet. We will see if the predication of the steady decline of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party come about.

I expect that result will be the one that people are talking about at the end of the week. In my view there will be a distribution of votes across the choices that are on the ballot. This will not mean greater clarity or definition of where we are heading as a country. As a liberal, I can’t complin if there’s a great diversity of views expressed.

What I can say it that we will need a better electoral system that copes with a multiple Party array of choices. Electoral reform[2] is likely to become a necessity.

[1] https://swanpedalboats.com/ducks/

[2] https://electoral-reform.org.uk/

The Power of Words

Two hundred and fifty years.  It’s good to see and hear that we still have decent speech writers and a monarch able to deliver an address with immense style and a fair degree of humour. This week, King Charles III delivered an important address to a joint session of the United States Congress. It’s a wonderful reminder that the spoken word can be powerful.

Now, I’m not saying that these good efforts will change much in respect of world affairs. In fact, my view was that the King may have chosen a better time to make the trip across the Atlantic. Nevertheless, what is, is. If nothing else the perspective the King offered is one that looks over the whole of the experience of relations between the UK and US. Not focusing on the aggressively tribal and divided polices of the moment. Perspective is so important.

The reference to the history about the British burning down the White House, in a raid on Washington, was one I knew. It was part of a story I learned when visiting Baltimore years ago. Walking around Fort McHenry[1] and thinking what it must have been like when the battle raged. 1814 was a turbulent year.

The forging of independence was ferocious. It wasn’t actions that passed quickly or in one simple sweep. If I remember rightly, events were such that they could have gone either way. There were plenty of Americans who questioned the fight as much as there were those dedicated to it.

Here’s where I’m going. One of the factors that shifted the ground was not the cannon and the riffle. Although war did much to determine the outcome. In the end, it was too costly for the British to continue and the Americans were unrelenting and well organised. To fight and win, motivation is at the heart of the matter. There’s got to be compelling reason to commit all the energies needed. To take on all the inevitable risks and suffer the losses.

This is where the name Thomas Paine comes up. Described as an English-born American. He certainly was English, and thus British. He was a writer. Not a warrior or a politician or even a wealthy man. A simple object. A pamphlet stirred the emotions in a way that fired revolution.

He’s best described as a radical. What that means is a person with the ability to light a fire. To take people on a journey from one place to another. That’s frequently met with discomfort, prevarication and grudging reluctance. There’s every reason in the world not to upset the apple cart or to be content with the status-quo. A true radical will not accept this condition. They are not the easiest of people to live with and often come to a sticky end.

There are two things at play in this story of “modern” history. One is the power of the writer and the other is the medium itself, the pamphlet. Both are required for a storm to brew. Both need to be in tune with their times. This is not merely a story of history. Before and after, Paine there were writers and pamphlets but none that resonated so effectively at a critical moment. Thus, words gave momentum to change that stuck.

Today, there seems to be a surfeit of thinkers and writers. The problem is that none of them seem to be sufficiently in tune with the core of our society. The other problem is the medium for dissemination. New pamphlets exist in digital form. Social media is the river that carries the day’s espials, chronicles and visionary tracts.

In 2026, can someone capture what we want, write it down and draw a crowd around it? I think they can. Where are they?

[And it doesn’t have to be more than 90 pages long.]

[1] https://www.nps.gov/fomc/index.htm