Category: Democracy

Financial Pressures and Local Government Restructuring

It was a long time ago, but I remember the travails of local government reorganisation. A massive amount of councillor and officer time was consumed. Endless discussions going backwards and forwards. Loads of heat but little light.

I had my one term as a Surrey County Councillor between 1993 and 1997. Now, that is 30-years back. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since. That said, the issues are still hanging in the air. The outcome of that Conservative attempt at local government reorganisation was no change for the one million people in Surrey. That meant one large County Council and eleven smaller Boroughs and Districts. Not forgetting several Town and Parish Councils.

Having moved, my concern is now local government reorganisation in Berkshire. The situation here is that the two-tier structure of local government has already been swept away. We pay our council tax to one unitary local authority.

Here we are in a different time and place. Labour’s first six months in government behind us. A new era. All smiles to begin. Sadly, the write-ups of the last six-months are less than flattering[1]. It would be reasonable to think that during a period of opposition in Parliament. Those 14-years. The prospective future government would have put in place policies and plans that would have been “oven ready,” to use a term an unsuccessful past Prime Minister would use.

Just as it was 30-years ago, English local government is facing huge financial pressures. Residents are struggling to access good services. Local issues, like potholes, planning, special educational needs and social care are as intractable as they always have been.

So, is this the time to bring out local government reorganisation again? Regardless of what I think, it’s clear that Jim McMahon MP, Minister of State (Minister for Local Government and English Devolution) has local government reorganisation on his agenda[2].

From what I hear, existing county Boroughs and Districts are going to become history. Small unitary authorities had better watch out too. Council leaders are being asked to find ways of building scale. That means no English local authority smaller than a population of half a million.

Will this turn around performance? Economies of scale may have some benefits. The problem that strikes me is the notion that “local”, meaning a natural community, is generally much less than 500,000 people. Especially in rural areas.

The Government White Paper that sets out these plans is called “English Devolution”. An interesting use of that nice word. In the circumstances that the new Minister imagines it could be that local government becomes more and more an implementing arm of central government. No more or less. To some extent this is already the cases, but localism and community are not completely extinguished. The tension continues to be one between governance being top-down or bottom-up driven.

The Labour government might imagine this “silver bullet” will harmonise, sanitise and make local services run like clockwork. I wonder if it will.

[1] https://inews.co.uk/news/messy-muddled-starmer-struggles-worse-rebellion-3444812

[2] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/event/government-2025-conference

Political Challenges: A 2025 Outlook

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s dive to an incredibly low level of popularity is notable. In fact, it’s a bit more than that. It’s record breaking.

A commonly held view seems to be that we elected the Labour Party government in July as the least bad choice. The Tory years had got so utterly terrible that even their devoted supporters bulked at giving them yet another term in office. Combine that with an inexplicable inability to frame a simple story about what Labour stands for and the problem is less surprising.

Keir Starmer is no fool. He’s an intelligent and experienced politician. He’s taken the hard knocks. He’s climbed the slippery pole. But, and there’s a but, something doesn’t jell.

I my humble opinion, the ingredients missing or in excess are categorised like so.

Charisma. It’s so much easier if leader has that indefinable quality. I remember this of Paddy Ashdown. One: you know when they are in the room. No question. People look. Two: they never lack inspiring ideas. Even if they could be off-the-wall. Three: what they say makes an impact.

Eloquence: That ability to coin words and phrases that resonate with lots of everyday people (not just supporters). To speak persuasively, in a way that says we are going on a great journey together. Scripted or not, fluency that appears natural and unforced. Lightness of touch.

Managerialism: Everyone expects confident, capable, competent governance (although we rarely get it). However, we don’t want to see it live on the mainstage, all the time. That phrase about political policy and making sausages is a good one. Lots of people like sausages but few like to know how they are made.

Now, the question I have is: are the “local difficulties” of present fixable?

2025 is going to be a roller coaster of a year. We have washed away any residual millennial mysticism that hit the world in 2000. A whole generation has slipped by. Babies born as London’s Millennium dome was both viewed both with amazement and distain, have jobs that didn’t exist as the fireworks went off.

The so called “smart” phone, and tablets have carved a way into our lives that’s deep and unmovable. Even if the next leap in technology will surely leave them as obsolete.

So, what’s the narrative for 2025 – 2050? Will we sink into the quicksand of nostalgia or herald a new era full of promise? I don’t know. I’ll just keep topping up my glass to ensure it’s half full.

Risks of Pruning Government

Everybody likes a good analogy. I don’t know if this one qualifies. We communicate by saying this thing is like this other thing. The first one being easier to understand than the one second. It’s a basic part of storytelling.

Who understands how government and its institutions grow? I’ve no doubt there are huge textbooks full of detailed analysis and complicated theories. Sitting on dusty library shelves. Written by knowledgeable and venerable academics.

I’m coming from a background that’s more practical. One of having mixed with and worked in bureaucratic structures built to serve a public good. Bureaucracies that have both traditional administrative and technical elements.

Here goes. Government, or rather the administrations, institutions and services are like a large oak tree. It’s kind of human pyramid in the sense that there’s a top and bottom. An upside-down tree minus the roots.

Oak trees are long lived. They have branches that are substantial so that they can carry a heavy load and suffer the battering of the wind and rain. Out on the furthest limbs they are young, spindly and vulnerable.

Today’s media is full of stories of what might come. There’s a new year in prospect. Across the Atlantic a new President is about to take-up office. Speculation is rife. One part of that speculation concerns the future of the large administration that is the federal state.

The Presidents favourite billionaire has ideas to take a chainsaw to the tree of administration. Generally speaking, a chainsaw isn’t the best tool for the job, but it certainly is scary. Maybe that’s the point. Keeping a huge, embedded administration on its toes.

My point, and I have one, which is more than I can say for Rory Stewart, a former minister, talking on the BBC this morning. My point is that pruning a tree requires the pruner to be competent. That’s having the attitude, skill and experience needed to make a good job of it.

Lopping off limbs of a working administration with the sole aim of saving money isn’t such a sound idea. Each branch has a purpose. It’s as well to have a comprehensive understanding of what that purpose is before the pruning starts. From that understanding can come a sound reason to prune.

Ideally, pruning should be good for the tree and good for everyone who depends upon it. Weak branches that suck-up energy even though their days are numbered should become firewood. Fledgling young branches that are heading out to explore new territory may need encouragement and support.

So, it is with government. There’s a lot of truth in Parkinson’s Law[1]. He knew a thing or two about bureaucracies. The clever bit is finding out where this phenomenon has taken off. Where the tree has grown way out of balance.

Will Musk be competent in pruning? Who knows. One thing is for sure. The potential for loping off a branch that is vital to health, wealth and happiness is all too real. Let’s watch and see.

[1] the law – “Work expands to fill the available time”

Level Playing Field

The back-office work of campaigning does take advantage of a lot of volunteering. That’s my experience. Giving time and energy for free and seeking to advance a worthwhile cause.

It would be nice if all political parties in this country where wholly supported by a membership that is both engaged in activities and willing to put their hands in their pockets, now and then. The reality is that, of all the eligible voters in this country, only a small fraction of them is committed enough to be a member of a recognised political party.

Even with a strong membership and a well-motivated bunch of volunteers, life is hard going unless there is a reasonable sized war chest to support campaigning work.

Come election time the range and breadth of communications that is necessary to be a competitive candidate is considerable. Thus, it is no surprise that history can turn on who has the most resources. That doesn’t always work but without a spending capacity rivals have most of the advantages.

Politicians seek the patronage of the wealthy as a pathway to power. We can remain pure and get engaged in arguments both ethical and moral as to the impact of patronage. Or we can accept that it is inevitable and ensure that strict rules exist to create a reasonably level playing field for all candidates. Since we can no more stop influence from flowing from one person to another than we can freeze gravity then a democratic society cannot must not have woolly rules on these matters.

Talk now is about financial donations that originate from abroad. That is when a wealthy person wishes to funnel money into a political party in a country other than the one of their citizenship. No prizes for guessing who or what this is about.

Now, I could say only UK citizens should be allowed to donate to UK political parties or organisations. Foreigners should be banned from involvement in national democratic processes. Trouble is that this subject is not so cut and dry as it might first seem.

Those with dual citizenships may wish to contribute and participate. That sounds reasonable. Those with notable family ties may wish to contribute and participate. Certainly, there are reasonable cases to consider. What’s interesting here is the legitimacy of the interest and that it is of a “friendly” nature.

I’d like to go back to the mater of the level playing field. If a candidate meets the criteria set down for a given election, then the battle should be over achievements, ideas and policies and not over the size of bank balances. Financial donors should not be able to exert undue influence by throwing money at a campaign. That’s where there is a strong need for strict financial limits on donations or any form of beneficial contribution that comes from abroad.

POST: One subject that Australian’s are looking at:

Eight things you need to know about the Government’s plan to change Australian elections

Revitalising Manufacturing

Yes, it’s good to have good trading relations with other countries. With a degree of pragmatism – as many as possible. Naturally, there are lines drawn in cases where countries share little of the UK’s values or are dictator run aggressors. Counting the hundreds of sovereign countries there are around the globe, a majority are friendly and mostly interested in mutual wellbeing.

However, post-2016[1] we are still living in strange times in the UK. In the same breath as some people talk of sovereignty and surrender, they say an extremely wealthy man in the US can solve all the UK’s problems. This nonsense defies any kind of logic.

There’s a peculiar celebration of the UK joining the Asia-Pacific Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) bloc. As if we didn’t have a huge trading block on our immediate doorstep. Joining one that offers a tiny gain overtime whilst leaving the other has cost a massive economic hit. The one thousands of miles away is significantly culturally different but the one next door is one where we share a common history.

I learn that there’s no point even thinking that logic has any influence on a Brexit supporter. Non whatsoever. Their view of the world comes from some lost imperial age.

Sadly, Brexit talk is only mumbled in darkened corners. That whopping great elephant in the room continues to get ignored. Even the UK’s new Labour Government is carrying on as if there were the former Conservative bunglers. There’s some woolly talk of reconciliation. There’s a lot of right-wing scaremongering. Practically, not a lot is changing.

In real terms, both UK exports and imports of goods are lower than in 2016, having shrunk by 1% and 2%, respectively[2]. Which is crazy given the new economic horizons. Especially in the switch to the need for more environmentally responsible goods. We should be modernising and strengthening UK design and manufacturing. Not just a bit but putting a rocket under both. Half hearted nice words by minor Ministers don’t cut it.

International trade fantasies will not build a stronger domestic economy and that illusive positive growth that’s often talked about in political speeches. With the coming of highly advanced computing, like artificial intelligence, countries with predominantly service based economies are gong to struggle. Basic service orientated jobs are going to get more automated. Like the traditional factories Henry Ford would have recognised, office complexes are hollowing out.

At least the new Labour Government isn’t pushing wholesale reopening coal mines or returning to a dependency on North Sea oil rigs. That said, I’m unsure what their attitude and policy is to rock fracking and imported gas supplies.

To make real economic progress we (UK) must make Brexit history. With our colleagues in Europe, we can be an innovation powerhouse. Making home grown products for the world markets of the future. Not languishing in a tepid imperial past or tugging at the shirt tails of some mega weird pugilist.

[1] UK referendum result: Of those who voted, 51.89% voted to leave the EU (Leave), and 48.11% voted to remain a member of the EU (Remain).

[2] https://personal.lse.ac.uk/sampsont/BrexitUKTrade.pdf

John Gray’s Critique

If a dose of despondency is your Sunday morning tipple, I recommend BBC Radio 4’s “A Point of View[1]”. I often catch it as an alternative to listening to the driving rain bashing against the window as I wake-up on a Sunday morning.

What I dislike the most about John Gray’s analysis is that it dismisses all the hard-working people who daily strive to make the world a better place. I know, you are asking who John Gray is and what does he know? Well, he’s a British philosopher and author of a pile of serious books. He dabbles in political thinking and doom mongering.

On Sundays in the past, I relied heavily on Will Self creating an air of depressed inevitability that all the bad things about humans will eventually overcome us. A dower British journalist and political commentator who always seems to see the dark cloud instead of the silver lining.

Despite the grim tales of these speakers, they often have, lost in their rhetoric, a smidgen of wisdom. This morning John Gray argues that we need a new response to the growth of the right-wing charlatans who are rapidly climbing the greasy pole of national political life.

Naturally, a lot of us thought that’s what the UK General Election last July was all about. A reoccupation of the centre ground of British politics by the Labour Party. A renewed liberal democratic political consensus would emerge and save us all. Strangely, it doesn’t seem to be working out that way. Although, it might be a bit harsh to judge after only a few months.

Last night, I watched the second episode of the BBC’s period drama Wolf Hall[2]. My God, it’s good entertainment. A little heavy in places. Sharp and brilliantly executed. That last word being the key one. Tudor history is a reminder of how vicious political manoeuvring can be. Having a master, a King, who is determined to make the world turn around him and no one else.

So, should I agree with the likes of John Gray? That a darkness slithers around in human hearts. That we’d better be prepared, shake-off the status-quo and look for new ways to head-off the marketing men’s populist politics. Voiced by bombastic demigods and radical twerps.

He’s right in the sense that today’s politics is behind the curve. British political parties were forged in a different age. Largely, baring the virtues they espouse, they are outdated. Sure, fairness, liberty, and equality have not fallen out of fashion. But maybe the language surrounding them belongs in the 19th and 20th centuries.

One thing is for sure, Willo the Wisps, like Kemi Badenoch offer nothing new. Reform is just a cover for the populist worst of human nature. Yes, we do need someone to break new ground in British politics.

Oh, for a more cheerful Sunday morning.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00254hz

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002473m/wolf-hall

Labour’s IHT Policy: A Threat to Family Farms?

Labour is driving down a road it’s driven before. It’s a shame when the two biggest political parties in Britain are so captured by their past that they can no more look forward than a duck can master arithmetic.

Post Second World War the country was broke. Rising taxes were inevitable to pay down debt. The British State was far more directly involved in everyday economic decisions than it is now.

Inheritance Tax (IHT) got its status as a loathed tax partially because of the necessary actions of the post-1945 Government. At that time, “estate duty” was increased to 80%. This generated increase tax revenue but led to the breakup of large country estates up and down Britain. Ironically, the breakup of country estates created an opportunity for some tenant farmers. As the estates were sold off in lots so tenants could become owners, if they could raise the finance.

So, you might say farmers paying IHT at 20% isn’t so bad by comparison. The amount of generated increase tax revenue isn’t much. With one hand the Government is subsidising farmers and with the other hand it’s taking a cut of their lifetime acquired assets.

Another side of the coin is the cost-of-living crisis. Certainly, winter heating costs have been a matter of great concern for a lot of people. Food too is an absolutely essential expense. Hence, the growth of food banks in every part of the country. This shouldn’t be accepted as the norm.

All of this is happening at a time when the nation’s supermarkets are making healthy profits. Keeping cheap food on the shelves with, in some cases, the philosophy of sell it cheap and pile it high. Industrialised and highly processed food coming in at the lowest prices to the customer. At the other end of the supply chain, forcing down farm gate prices.

You would think that getting national food production, the job done by farmers, right would be an imperative for Government. You would think that a regular dialogue with farmers might be quite important. Wouldn’t you?

The problem with Labour’s 20% IHT and the threshold of 1 million is that it’s not going to have much impact of those who own large country estates to avoid other taxes, like CGT. It’s not going to have much impact on large corporate agricultural enterprises. It may not even have much overall impact on land prices. Afterall, they don’t make it anymore.

But it’s going to clobber small and medium sized enterprises, very often family farms. It will clobber far more than the Treasury’s last-minute calculations say[1]. The reason is clear. The profitability of family farming has been dire over recent years. Add a new tax bill and selling-up will be the most attractive option for many potential next generation farmers.

Then the question must be asked what’s it all about? What are the values underpinning this policy? There I go back to the start. Does Labour perceive these working people as “rich”. Their logic may go, why shouldn’t the rich pay more after the Conservative Government that they supported has made such a mess of the country? One way of seeing where we are.

Trouble is that they have aimed at the wrong target.

[1] https://www.channel4.com/news/how-many-farmers-will-have-to-pay-inheritance-tax

UK Farmers’ Unrest: Budget Shock and Political Implications

Yesterday, central London was full of British farmers. Far more than was anticipated. It’s a countryside revolt. Or at least the seed corn of unrest. It needs to be addressed quickly.

The UK Government Budget sprung an unexpected shock on farmers. Newly elected, everyone expected them to try to correct the spending mess left by their predecessors. However, few expected them to make-up last minute figures to do something they said they wouldn’t do.

Lots of family farmers could be singing the classic Beatles song “Yesterday”. Troubles seemed so far away before the general election. Now, they seem here to stay.

Like androids, and the Tories before them, Labour Members of Parliament (MPs) are trotting out lines prepared for them by their masters. The political excuse trotted out robotically is that the theoretical threshold for taxation is £3 million and not £1 million as everyone is saying. Therefore, they say, fewer farm businesses will be impacted by their new death tax.

When something goes wrong in Government one of the best strategies is to address the facts immediately, apologies for any error, take the temporary hit and move on quickly. Stonewalling and wibbling is an extremely poor approach.

For a start, many farmers will not be able to take-up the tax reliefs Labour MPs are talking about. Farming is a hazardous profession. Sadly, unexpected deaths are not unusual. If such an event occurs this could then result in compounded tragedy, that is the death of a family business too.

Farmers are pointing out that significantly wealthy people will still use land purchase to avoid tax. They will have complex and detailed tax planning services at their fingertips.

Agricultural land values have increased dramatically in recent decades. Yes, there is an issue to be addressed with respect to land value. Housing development land is an astronomical price. It’s one of the drivers that is making house prices unaffordable for many people.

Labour needs to recognise that it’s not food producers who are driving these negative phenomena. It’s not small and medium sized family farms who are the problem makers.

Not only is this new inheritance tax very poor politics by Labour, but it’s also not going to crack the problem that they might wisely wish to crack. I’d say, think again. At least consult.

New Form of Monarchy in 2024?

An observation. There’s something strange going on across the Atlantic. You see, I have found inspiration in the story of America’s revolutionary struggle. The writings of Thomas Paine stirring up a radical movement. The strong desire to be independent of the rule of Kings and Queens. There’s a lot to be said for freeing a nation from imperial tyranny.

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 is a bold statement. Rejecting the royal authority of George III to set a new nation on an independent path. It proved to be a dynamic and prosperous democratic path. One that people across the world looked on with admiration.

It’s true that the United States has had its own dynasties. Powerful families and influential individuals that have shaped its history. However, since its independence, none of them have ruled as a monarch. None have wheeled massive power without checks and balances.

Yet here we are in 2024, and a form of pseudo monarch stands ready to take the reigns of power. Sure, democracy has played its part in putting one man in control. That, in of itself, is not unknown in the history books. The question to ask is when does a Republic tip over and become something quite different from what it has been?

I hope my observations are an exaggeration. It’s all to easy to see the News that commentators want us to see. I’ve often found that it’s most difficult to see things as they actual are as opposed to how they are shaped by personal beliefs and fleeting desires. Objectivity isn’t so easy.

This much can be said, the next four years are going to be turbulent ones. There’s a certainty in that conclusion. Even with the Atlantic in the way, just as the Jetstream brings us changeable weather, so unsettling waves of transformation will hit our shores.

The latest commentary coming from supporters of the new Trump regium in the US is one of polarisation. It’s the traditional stick-up. Choose between us and them. Our populous island off the shore of continental Europe must be squeezed into a choice between the US and the EU.

This monosyllabic way of framing a debate gets swallowed by the media. Overall, it’s nonsense. There’s no way that both will not be important for as far over the horizon as anyone can see. Both are going through periods of disruption. For once, domestically, the UK seems relatively stable. That’s putting aside the past damage done by Brexit and a Conservative government that fell into total disrepair. Yes, the UK can plot its path knowing that some internal consistency can be expected.

Everything I’ve written here is overshadowed by issues of global concern. Overshadowed being the sad reality. Climate change will not wait for the dust to settle from ardent disruptors. The planet’s atmosphere knows nothing of the exploits of prominent personalities. We desperately need to rediscover common interests and act on common concerns.

Ethics of Medication

I don’t know about you but the whole idea of medicating people to increase the prosperity of society has a terrible echo of the worst kind of politics. Now, if we change the “p” word to protection of society, a policy of medication might make some reasonable sense. The COVID pandemic taught use that individual freedoms are not absolute. We know that allowing people to spread infection, whenever their personal beliefs, can kill other people. Reckless actions did exposed people to danger. Big name politicians did some dam stupid stuff just because they wanted to side with those who believed irrational, unscientific nonsense.

A UK Labour Health Minister saying that obese people would benefit from a jab so that they can get back to work makes me feel uneasy. It’s one thing to recognise that society has a problem with obesity but it’s entity another for the States to impose medication on specific groups of citizens. Expensive new medication that that.

I know it can be argued that the cost of obesity to the National Health Service (NHS) is high so there’s no zero cost answer. Having hammered down smoking deaths over decades of work it’s now obesity that’s the great societal challenge. The line between personal freedoms and social demands can be a fuzzy one.

The jab in question may have become fashionable as a weight loss aid[1]. That doesn’t justify a UK Minister, with all the power of the State, suggesting that overweight people be put on a regime of injections. And if they say “no” to the regime then be penalised in some vague manner.

It’s known that these new weight loss drugs have side effects. No everyone can take them without consequences. These drugs should only be used under medical supervision. That said, many people do take them without recourse to advice from a doctor.

To the Minister I say, don’t ague about the cost to the economy of obese people. Please ague for helping people to make weight management work for them as individuals. Obese people are not one amorphous mass of idle slobs who sit on the sofa all day. The Daily Mail characterisation of bludgeoning swarms of people burdening society with their indolent ways may chime with populists and the emerging Conservative Party. It’s no way for a Labour Minister to address a live challenge. 

National proposals to give unemployed obese people a jab to get them back to work has a ghastly ring to it. Yes, it’s not saying we (society) should send them down the salt mines but when the economic argument is the top one it does dehumanise the target audience.

Weight loss jabs may continue to have potential befits for many people. Let’s say that we are talking about health benefits, so that individuals can play their role in our society, whatever that role might be. State officials who attempt bring shame on people living with obesity, that’s just plain nasty.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981044pgvyo