Category: Democracy

Pod

Will podcasts overtake broadcast radio? It’s a question that it had not occurred to me to ask until yesterday. I’ve not been a first adopter as far as listening to podcasts. There’s a routine of turning the radio on at a particular time of day to listen to news and current affairs. That daily routine or habit is born of a long tradition. The morning starts with the Today programme on BBC Radio 4.

Yes, I’m way behind the curve. Go into any large electrical shop, one wall of the warehouse will be filled with earpieces and headphones of every size and shape. The variety of choices is staggering. Sit on bus, train, or aeroplane and more than half the people around will be turned into a source of audio entertainment. Music and talk fight for our attention.

This is great for the streamers and downloaders but lossy for conversation. Sitting next to an interesting person on a long flight is a wonderful way of occupying a couple of hours. That opportunity is diminishing as people become absorbed in digital media. Even the smallest of phones has become a multipurpose entertainment system.

I have long been converted to digital media. FM radio is great for its universality but with less DAB[1] blind spots its life expectancy must be diminishing. Broadcast digital radio based on DAB is a global standard even though coverage is not universal. The digital avalanche is pushing aside any remaining analogue system that populate our lives. Ironically, as far as physical media ownership is concerned, vinyl and even cassettes are resurgent. On the airwaves it’s less likely there will be a romance for analogue radio.

Why have I reassessed the virtues of podcasts? Yesterday, I listened to The Rest Is Politics[2]. This podcast has a conversational style. It’s Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart talking about current affairs in the UK. Two people who have had their moment in the political sun but remain articulate and inquisitive. They have something to say and it’s engaging.

This is a bridge to podcasts from broadcast radio in that the material is up to date. The topics discussed are wrapped around the news. It’s refreshing too. The ability of the two to argue in a calm and collected manner is unusual in our time. So much of the presentation of news is calamitous and confrontational that this is shocking to say.

Maybe that’s the role of podcasts. Reflection and analysis can be better done in slow time. Broadcast radio news is crammed full of snippets of what’s happening. It would loose its edge if it drifted off into too much extended investigations or drawn-out interviews. So, what may seem like competition between two forms of readily accessible media should be viewed as complementary. Both can fulfil an appealing role in the digital media landscape.

[1] https://www.worlddab.org/

[2] https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-rest-is-politics/id1611374685

Change needed

In so far as voting systems are concerned, it’s often been misleadingly said that Proportional Representation (PR) would result in endless back room deals and politics conducted behind the scenes. This is because different political parties would need to negotiate more often than they need to do so in a purely adversarial system. However, whether that political negotiation is in public or in private isn’t on the ballot.

Today, we have a perfect illustration of the downside of the current First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system in the UK. The results of the UK’s voting system are not a broad representation of the views of the voting public, rather it’s the representation of the factions of the dominant political party. That is dominant in terms of numbers of elected Members of Parliament (PMs).

Instead of negotiations going on between political parties with defined aims and objectives UK citizens have negotiations conducted behind the scenes in back rooms inside a political party.

Rather than tolerating more than one secret “star chamber” of MPs, we ought to be questioning these unstable undemocratic practices. The fragile coalitions within political parties, like the Conservative Party, are completely fragmented and hold wholly different views on important issues.

Surely, it would be much better if different party factions were honestly represented by the own political party. That would give the voting public a fair choice. That would make voting more meaningful. Today, under FPTP the voting public have no idea what they will get. Don’t doubt that statement just recall what has happened in the UK since 2010. The UK’s electoral system is broken. That’s why current opinion polling says that the level of trust in politicians is low and getting lower.

With PR difficult issues are openly discussed. Political parties exist to promote their philosophy. If they are liberal, they are liberal. If they are authoritarian, they are authoritarian. If they are progressive, they are progressive. If they are conservative, with a small “c”, they are conservative. If they are internationalist, they are internationalist. If they are nationalist, they are nationalist.

Today, for the two political parties often taking power in the UK their official names don’t mean a thing. It says little about what they will do when elected to a position of power.

In 2019, the Conservative Party were given a big majority of the seats in Parliament despite only winning 44% of the vote. Yet, MPs from fringe factions will stand-up pontificating about their representation of the people. Constantly, saying that the British people want this or that when such loud assertions are clearly untrue.

The UK’s FPTP system means that millions of public votes are wasted. Large numbers of people are denied a voice, and the make-up of Parliament does not reflect how people cast their votes. The UK’s electoral system is not fit for purpose.

Good News

It’s good to see. Sad, in terms of so many lost years. Now, the UK has rejoined the Horizon Europe and Copernicus programmes with a new agreement with the EU.

The evidence is clear. Most people in the UK have recognised the mistake of Brexit. What public polling there is shows a strong trend going one way and one way for sure. A post-TCA Brexit poll of polls shows a stable rejection of Brexit. The British public worried about the economy, inflation, and the NHS. Brexit is a minority interest[1].

Even those who voted for Brexit, including the current Prime Minister (PM) have come to recognise that the UK needs a new set of agreements with the European Union (EU).

Announced back in September[2], a new customised deal opens the world’s largest research programme to UK scientists, researchers, and businesses. It could be seen as baby steps, but the direction of travel is towards much more collaboration with our closest friends and neighbours across Europe is on the cards[3].

This week, the UK was welcomed back to the Horizon research family. Starting from 1 January 2024, UK citizens will be able to participate in the EU’s research and innovation programme. This is a tremendous victory for common sense and a win-win outcome for global scientific advancement. British researchers and scientists will now be able to apply for grants and projects with certainty.

The UK joins Canada and New Zealand with an association agreement[4]. Other non-EU countries are also negotiating for an association to Horizon Europe. The current version of Horizon Europe began in 2021 and runs until 2027.

I’d written before about how the UK had shot itself in the foot by being so dogmatic about Brexit that it had severed links that it had no need to sever. One day we will look back on the post 2016 madness and wonder what it was all about. Historians and social scientist will write voluminous tones on every aspect of the subject. Textbooks will fill libraries. They will do so to warn of the mistakes that can be made by headline chasing Conservative politicians.

The economy continues to be seen as a most important issue for the country. Reconstructing a productive relationship with our European partners is an absolute must.

Let’s hope this move will reestablish some of the wonderful industrious links between universities across Europe and with other global partners. In the past UK researchers led a high percentage of projects. Life will be different as a non-EU country. Nevertheless, participation in the programme is a great boost. It’s not free but it is worth every penny or cent.

[1] https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-issues-index-september-2023

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-joins-horizon-europe-under-a-new-bespoke-deal

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-moment-for-scientists-researchers-and-businesses-as-uk-association-to-80-billion-horizon-research-programme-officially-sealed

[4] https://sciencebusiness.net/news/horizon-europe/uk-primed-rebuild-its-standing-eu-research-after-officially-joining-horizon

B. P.

A forensic dissection of the recent past is highlighting how major decisions are made in the corridors of power. It’s not nice to hear but it is good to hear. Transparency is a benefit of democracy. What we see is not pretty. There’s that saying about politics and making sausages being much the same. We desire results but are shocked if we study how sausages are made.

We easily get trapped in the noisy interchange between personalities. Newspaper headlines draw on our fascination of who said what and when. The more embarrassing the chatter the bolder the headline. The questions how and why are not given as much attention.

Even sampling a little of the reports of the compilation of evidence there’s a trend emerging. Much of this has to do with the way administrators, politicians, and scientist (practitioners and the theoretical) understand each other or don’t.

The classic divided between the Bachelor of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (BA) and the Bachelor of Sciences (BSc) is firmly embedded in our society. The divide between Oxbridge and the rest can look like a deep gorge. The divide between those who are instinctive hustlers and gamblers, and analytical reasoning calculators is uncomfortable.

Putting the above to one side, what shines through the submissions of the UK COVID inquiry is an embedded lag between events and a reaction to events. Knowledge with hindsight is wonderful. Time and time again after big events, files are taken down from a dusty shelf and on their pages is a register of risks. Within that the register is a discussion of risk of an event that has just become history. This week we heard a former Prime Minister almost admit that the COVID pandemic wasn’t taken as seriously as it should have been until it nearly killed him.

What does this say about our propensity to plan or take plans seriously? What does it say about becoming overcome or steamrollered by events? What can we do better to be prepared in future?

Lessons learned are fundamental to improving any way of working. It’s a feedback mechanism. Taking what can be derived from a crisis, catastrophe or momentous event and writing it down. Using that to make strong recommendations. Then tracking changes and moving forward to what should be a better prepared state. 

We know we don’t have to wait for bad events to happen before we prepare. Our human imagination provides us with an effective means of anticipation. Tragic in the case of COVID is the ignorance of warnings that previous events had provided. The lesson from SARS[1] were know.

Maybe this is the Cub Scout coming out in me. Yes, that was part of my early upbringing in the village of Somerset. The motto of the British Scout movement[2] has a lot going for it: “Be Prepared”. Much of what goes with that motto is anachronistic, but the essence is immensely valuable.

[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome#tab=tab_1

[2] https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2017/05/08/be-prepared-scout-motto-origin/

Dangerous way to act

Why choose to make a deal with Rwanda the issue that breaks the UK Conservative party? It’s not the biggest issue facing the UK. It’s not the highest priority of voters if we take the opinion polls as an indicator. It’s only a totem for the far-right fringe. What we have is a sign of a stubborn disunity. Almost a fatalistic rush to collapse. An admission that there is only defeat over the horizon.

Clearly, the issue that should be addressed is to competently manage legal immigration. The numbers are orders of magnitude higher than those crossing the channel on small boats. Not only that but the backlog of unprocessed people dwarfs that which could be shipped to a third country.

A Government faces thousands of difficult policy choices every day. At this part of the electoral cycle, focusing down hard on one that is bound to cause disruption, dissent and disillusionment is politically foolish.

Let’s face it, to win a coming UK General Election progress must be shown on the two issues that are top of the concerns of voters. One: a cost-of-living crisis. Getting inflation under control. Two: fixing health and social care. Leading changes to health services and properly funding social care.

So, with the above in mind how is it best to react to the UK Government’s latest attempt to seal a deal with Rwanda. Through a legislative proposal there’s to be a definitive statement that Rwanda is a safe country. This is to be an unquestionable rule. Setting aside other existing laws.

What a dangerous way to act. Opening the door to this type of authoritarian legislative proposal opens the door to all sorts of acts that no one would want to see. Dictatorial nonsense. With the UK Conservative party’s current logic:

Why not a law that says that British rivers are clean. That would solve the problems of sewage discharge – not.

Why not a law that says that climate change is fixed. That would resolve global warming – not.

Why not a law that says that the tide must not come in. Dam – that one has been tried.

At the seashore, when King Canut[1] commanded the tide to stop, we all know the outcome. Since then, his name rather unfairly has become a byword for a delusional attempt to avoid the inevitable. When what he was attempting to do was to demonstrate the limits of his power.

It’s now more likely that my predictions of the date of the next General Election maybe driven by events. The limits of the power of a Prime Minister are most evident when those standing behind him slowly shrink away.

[1] https://www.royal.uk/canute-great-r-1016-1035

GE2024

Let me spectate. I’m no professional commentator, pollster or political pundit but do try to keep myself up to speed with the current affairs. The question in the mind of a lot of people is: when will the next UK General Election take place?

In these days before Christmas, it’s possible the Prime Minister (PM) doesn’t even know the answer to this question. It’s a balance of how strategic or opportunist he will be when it comes to making such big decisions. Most current predictions are that the Conservatives are destined to be defeated. The gap in the national opinion polls is substantial. That makes the decision of timing of an election one that could mark the end of the current PM’s term of office or elevation to Conservative saviour. Currently, political parties are desperately selecting candidates for each constituency. Something is afoot. Better stop there before I get tempted into a pun.

Let’s put aside any consideration of a winter vote. Arctic weather gloom hovers like cold mist. With the prospect of large heating bills upsetting most of the population there’s no politician who will want to accept the blame for that situation. Naturally, they will say that they are working at pace to tame inflation and overseas conflicts are the root of the pain.

The first step on the road ahead is next year’s springtime. Local elections are expected. Every year, they take place on the first Thursday in May. This is when a third, or less of the electorate put a cross in a box. At the same time London’s next mayor will be elected. So, 2nd May 2024 will be like a mini political barometer. Real votes in real ballot boxes are always a better indicator than sampling or sage views.

The European Parliament election is scheduled for 6th to 9th June 2024. You may think this European Union (EU) election has no bearing on the UK, but I beg to differ. If there’s a significant advance of right-wing political parties across Europe, then the impact will be felt in the UK.

The 2020 United States (US) presidential election was quite a show. In prospect, for the 2024 US presidential election is a gripping event despite the weak selection of candidates. That US national election is scheduled for Tuesday, 5th November 2024. Guy Fawkes day[1] in the UK.

Let’s assume the Conservative party will want to hang on, not to the bitter end, but to get as much time elapsed after the pandemic shockwave, Partygate, mini budget madness and the cost-of-living crisis as they can. We are still reeling from the post-Brexit political earthquakes that have trashed confidence and the economy. Will the cost of government be political exile? That all said, people have shifted a long way since last year. The big question is: who do you trust?

The UK’s Labour party opposition should be confident and smiling. However, the opposition probably feels aggrieved having to wait so long for others to fail before getting an opportunity to win a general election. What doesn’t help is that the electorate are now pessimistic about any sustained recovery. Sadly, the public mood is beset with quite a sense of decline-ism.

Traditionally, in the UK, September is party conference season. That leaves October open for an election. But as noted above there’s a news media attention getting clash between what’s happening in the UK and US. Since significant geopolitical tensions are going to be raging throughout 2024, I think that topic may not be an influencing factor on the UK election date question.

Rolling the dice as late as October 2024 has several advantages for the incumbents. If there’s good summertime news, say inflation reduced and a modicum of economic growth the government will claim a great success. The struggle between democracy or autocracy around the globe could give a UK PM a platform on which to make one or two grand gestures. Also, with nearly a year to go, the opportunity for the opposition parties to trip-up increases.

When polls ask is Britain a better place to live than it was ten years ago or a worse place to live than ten years ago the pointer points at worse. It’s hard to imagine this will not impact voter intentions. 

#ukpolitics #ukpolitics #politics #generalelection

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/the-gunpowder-plot-of-1605/overview/people-behind-the-plot/guy-fawkes-/

Ineptitude

Yesterday’s announcement went like this: “The government will also increase the minimum income required for British citizens and those settled in the UK who want their family members to join them.” This Conservative view, that families are a burdening the State persists like a stubborn stain.

The Universal Declaration of Human Right says: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Clearly, by the measures announced, in the case of this UK Government the family is not a fundamental group unit of society. In fact, family members based overseas will be required to separate in the event of a person accepting a low income in the UK. That low income in the UK maybe relatively large when compared with what is available in their home country.

I guess this is fine for lawmakers when considering the level of a Minister or Member of Parliament’s salary and benefits. There’s no impediment that will impact their lives in this respect regardless of the nationality of their partner and children.

What I’m wondering is: what will be the case if a British pensioner, living in a European country, who wishes to return with a partner or children who don’t have British passports? If the increased threshold of £38,700 applies, then that will effectively ban them from returning unless they have a generous pension. It may be the case that they have worked on overseas and accumulated a non-UK pension, but this would be irrelevant if the deciding factors is a UK earnings threshold.

I don’t think there’s much disagreement that those who wish to move to the UK should be able to support themselves. The UK minimum wage is set at £21,673.60 for a 40-hour week. So, is the UK Government saying that no one can support themselves on the UK minimum wage?

Ministers have been quick to deny any responsibility for the chaotic state of the immigration system in the UK. Instead, they pretend that they are adapting to changing circumstances. The fact that they are 100% responsible for the current circumstances is brushed aside.

Having persisted for years with one set of flawed notions Ministers now announce another set of ill-thought-out proposals. The Brexit slogan of Take Back Control did not envisage giving control to a cabal of incompetence. In stark reality, that is what has happened.

The knee jerk reactions and ever shifting sand of the last decade need to come to an end. The British people should not be denied a General Election. More months of more chaos and ineptitude are incredibly damaging.

POST: U-turn. Minimum income requirement will not be increased as much as originally announced. A new threshold will be applied from the spring. A policy designed to exclude people from entry to the UK has been watered down for practical reasons.

Future

The road to fixing climate change is not an endless road. Today, our whole approach to climate change goes somewhat like this:

I’m not sure I’m convinced. Yeah, maybe we have a problem. We should do something. Definitely, but send me the plans, I’ll get to it, I’m busy. Time passes. What was it we should be doing? Oh yes, but that plan is for (insert a name) not me. I’m not contributing much to the problem. Anyway, there’s time between now and (insert a date).

So, we go on. There’s no doubt that there are changes needed to tackle climate change that are immensely difficult to do. Trouble is that by fixating on those difficult problems we talk ourselves out of doing the easier things. Let’s put simple actions like home insulation on the agenda again. Let’s loosen-up on our ridiculously restrictive policy on wind farms. Let’s invest in our national electrical grid to permit more connections to be made easier and quicker.

Yes, it’s advantageous for the PR companies employed by high carbon businesses to talk up difficulties and herald small gains as miracles. I mean, that’s what they are employed to do. On the other side we have PR companies employed by activists and campaigners who paint pictures of dire consequences and delinquent Governments.

I keep pointing out the dangers of populism and nationalism. The history of both is not a good one. They generally make most people poorer and a minority richer and more powerful. However, the tactics they use to gain popular appeal don’t seem to die off down the ages. A case in point is the story of Rome and Julius Caesar, as he crushed Roman democracy and seized power[1]. The chronicle is being well told on BBC 2. In the Britian, it’s often only their incompetence that halts the progress of Caesar like characters. Not mentioning any names.

To make change happen on climate change there needs to be a greater appeal to the populous. Expecting politicians to take a lead on the subject is nice in theory but wanton of hope. In our system of governance terms of office can be measured in days. Expecting neurotic politicians to step-up to a challenge that requires real long-term commitment is asking a bit much.

Campaigners will not give up on highlighting the challenges ahead. Periodically, politicians will pick-up on that campaigning fervour and try to jump on-board. However, as soon as a more immediate public concern comes along, they will jump-off.

I’m not saying that the cost-of-living crisis isn’t a number one priority. What I am saying is that a cost-of-living crisis is not an excuse to put climate policy on a dusty shelf for another few years. The road to fixing climate change is not an endless road.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0gjlmkv

D minus PM

In the second decade of the 21st century we should be surprised that a British Prime Minister should behave as if he lived in the 19th century. Common problems, future collaboration and an alliance of decades are too important to jeopardise. Relations between Britain and Greece are of great importance. Today’s spat is foolish.

There’s a joke going around the social media. It asks the question: Why are the pyramids in Egypt? The answer being: Because they were too heavy for the British to carry-off. In other words, if they were smaller, they would be in the British Museum. That light-hearted quip highlights an inherited problem. Although, the same line could have been written about many imperial European countries. It was the fashion. Here British country houses were not properly dressed unless they had a sprinkling of ancient Greek artefacts. Those artefacts were often taken by the powerful. That’s our history.

The Parthenon is not any old relic. Its image is as heavily identified with modern Greece as it was with ancient Greece. As a symbol of western civilisation, it’s unmatched. Its sculptures are high points of classical Greek art.

Once upon a time, the argument was made that the Parthenon Sculptures were better protected by British Museum than they would be elsewhere. During the turbulent periods before the birth of modern Greece that argument was probably a fair one. Greek indepenence, helped by a famous British poet, became the start of the modern European State.

Lord Byron’s early death, at 36, was grieved both in Britain and Greece. His remains were returned to Britain where he was laid to rest. It was respectful to return to the great man to the land of his origins.

In 2023, Britain and Greece are friendly nations. We benefit immensely from the excellent relationship between the peoples of both countries. Thus, I can fully understand the Greek Prime Minister “annoyance” at being snubbed while in the country. The British Prime Minister being to busy to see his counterpart.

Athena is an ancient Greek goddess connected with wisdom. The Parthenon is a temple on the Athenian Acropolis. Well, there doesn’t seem to be much wisdom in Number 10 Downing Street. If there was, then such disagreements as there are over the future of the Parthenon Sculptures, would never have created the situation, we have this morning. It’s sad.

Politicians have a duty to address problems and not to run away from them for minor reasons. It’s only through dialogue that a solution will be found to the conflicting claims made about the Parthenon Sculptures. The day they return to the city where they belong will be one of great joy.

Drift

There’s a problem. A big problem. Waking up to hear the Dutch situation, it’s not as if we should be surprised[1]. Hearing of the violence on the streets of Dublin. It’s shocking. Listening to right-wing politicians talk about the latest immigration figures. Distortion and twisting of the numbers are commonplace tactics. Fearmongering is the stock and trade of an unscrupulous bunch.

Although populist have delivered only failure in the last decade there’s something about them that sticks. They have ring fenced the arena of doom and gloom for their own ends. Whereas in the past, shining a light on the flaws and nonsense of certain people’s arguments was enough to consign them to the margins, now that doesn’t work so well. Misinformation goes mainstream.

The Brexit referendum was a lesson in 21st century campaigning. More facts don’t win the hearts and minds of the populous. Why liberal, like myself always major on rationality is a mystery. As the ancient Greeks might have put it “logos” has its place in the art of persuasion but it’s one of three. Credibility, or “ethos” matters greatly. But the one on the list that works, “pathos,” meaning persuasion based on emotion, is far the most effective.

I happened to catch a few minutes of The World at War[2] on one of the more obscure British televisions channels. The digital air is full of fringe channels. This epic 1970s series presents interviews with those who experienced WWII. Every time, I watch even a clip of the series a shiver runs down my spine. The times it documents are not long ago. It’s the modern world.

The evils that despots and extreme nationalism can do is unquestionable. The hard conviction that others are inferior and that they are a threat to the way of life of a nation has not perished. Politicians unwilling to accept accountability are keen to point fingers at those they can blame for promises broken. Blinkered minds fixate to blank out inconvenient facts.

The history books show that the drift towards mindlessness doesn’t always announce itself. Only retrospectively can a day when the atmosphere changed be highlighted. Then it can seem obvious. Being mindful of the impact that divisive speeches and campaign slogans can have is an absolute must. Language counts.

Migration will always be an issue. This age is one of high levels of mobility. Transport is affordable. It’s open to those seeking to escape discrimination or to ambitious for a better life. Shifting population made nations. America and Australasia are examples of people moving (or being moved).

What we don’t have is a workable way of wining hearts and minds. Yes, managing migration is a priority issue but not managing it as a crisis with negativity and warnings of catastrophe. The results of doom and gloom will be more doom and gloom. That just feeds far right-wing movements.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67512204

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071075/