Category: Democracy

Energy Policy

Saint Augustine’s early life was not what we associate with a saint. As a young man he prayed “Lord, make me chaste (pure) – but not yet!” Just now that’s the way, I fear, we are thinking of the environment. Global, national, or local. It’s total human but it needs to be fully recognised for its downside. Yes, we would like to do more to restore our environment and fight climate change but we’d rather it happened tomorrow. Tomorrow, tomorrow.

The instinctive urge to put-off decisions for what appears to be an easier life now rattles down through history. The lesson we might learn is that this approach is generally a bad way of going about thing if long-term success is the aim. Civilizations have ended because they failed to change.

This blinkered approach could be called political expediency. It’s at the core of what has become political populism[1]. The drive to persuade an electorate by retreating from commitments and heralding jam today. This fits our social media saturated public debate to the tee. I want it, and I want it now. The future will look after itself.

It’s a sad philosophy. I say that because the premises is that we may as well live well today because we have no control over what happens next. In populist terms, that’s put down to an imaginary conspiring elite that will inevitably win regardless of what you do. Truly nonsense.

That might have been true in the stone age but its far from true in the 21st Century. In reality, and on average, individual citizens have more choice than they have ever had. I say “on average” because there’s a billion people in the world who still live on the breadline.

Anyway, my point is that putting-off environmental measure is foolish. I’m reacting to a Conservative Energy Minister, has said that the UK government will “max out” remaining reserves of North Sea oil and gas[2]. I’s almost as if the Minister thinks this has no impact. That’s other than short-term political gain amongst climate sceptics and right-wing newspaper owners.

If the target for Net Zero is – yes but not yet – there’s virtually no hope of achieving the goal. Events being what they are there will never be a perfect time to stop using fossil fuels. I’m in agreement that the rundown of fossil fuel use should be graduated. However, putting off real change doesn’t make change easier. In fact, it makes change harder.

In the run-up to a UK General Election the possibilities for policies of self-harm are all too evident. A Conservative Government desperate to cling on to power will wriggle and produce contorted justifications for delay. It’s a basic instinct.

I’m not saying that we should all become zealous exponent of hairshirt policies. What is desperate is that we don’t become side-tracked from practical measures that can be practically taken. Taken now.

Work as though everything depended on you, and the choices you make. That needs to be true of Government Ministers as much as every one of us[3].

[1] https://www.thoughtco.com/populism-definition-and-examples-4121051

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/407b834e-a503-4de9-acab-fcf88d76dbb3

[3] Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you. Saint Augustine

Thumbs down to British Conservatives

It has been a morning when one thing is certain. Real votes, in real ballot boxes give an indication that British opinion polls are not so far off reality. Conservatives got a pounding when voters expressed their preferences. The only thing to hold back the tide was in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, where the local issue was squarely London’s plans to expand its Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)[1]. 

The Liberal Democrats won in Somerset and Frome by a huge majority. The Labour Party won Selby and Ainsty with a significant swing. Prime Minister (PM) Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives are soundly on the back foot.

These seats in the House of Commons (HoCs) became vacant as Members of Parliament (MPs) stood down. In these cases, these by-elections have taken place before a soon coming General Elections (GE). Traditionally, that means there’s an element of protest in by-election results that is often more locally focused than in a GE. However, as Tip O’Neill, a former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, was quoted as saying “all politics is local”[2].

The UK Parliament’s HoCs doesn’t sit again until September, but it will have 3 new MPs when it does.

The British economy is underperforming, its health service is struggling, and the cost of living is punishing a lot of people. So, there’s plenty of work for a government to do, even if they seem to have run out of ideas, momentum, and talent.

In terms of the bigger picture there’s a sign that green issues can present politicians with a double-edged sword. On the one hand voters genuinely want to see progress towards greater sustainability and on the other hand they don’t want measures forced on them that make them poorer. Here’s a challenge to all the political parties.

Now, former London Mayor and PM Boris Johnson has gone back to scribbling for the tabloid newspapers and his political style is heading for the dustbin. British Conservatives are floundering with a national identity crisis. Although the Labour Party should be pushing at an open door, there’re plenty of obstacles that remain in their way. For the Liberal Democrats the news is universally good. They have reestablished themselves in their West Country heartlands.

We are only halfway through 2023. It’s been more than a year since MP, and former Conservative Government Minister Nadine Dorries has spoken in the UK Parliament. She did say she would step down but, so far, when this will happen remains a complete mystery[3]. Being an MP should be a full-time job and not just a badge of status. The people of Mid-Bedfordshire deserve better. So, we await her next move on this subject.

[1] https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local#:~:text=The%20phrase%20%22all%20politics%20is,he%20did%20not%20originate%20it.

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-65998062

Not again!

Why do we have so many inept and poorly qualified Government Ministers

To be a Government Minister you should have some kind of relevant qualification, or at least ability. Surely? Maybe you are competent in public administration or good at media presentation. In this case the man fronting a UK Conservative Government’s new policy looks, and sounds like a big floundering fish out of water.

Asked the simplest of questions. The very simplest of questions. Those that even the most elementary speaker would have practiced before exposing themselves, this Minister, of Education no less, performed like a partisan chump. Announcing a headline grabbing policy to stop ‘Rip-Off’ university degrees[1] this Member of Parliament went on Good Morning Britain totally ill-prepared[2]. The result was extremely embarrassing.

Why do we have so many inept and poorly qualified Government Ministers? What was totally obvious from the start was that this policy is being introduced without any idea of how it’s going to be implemented. No sense of real life.

Mr Halfron hadn’t given any thought what-so-ever to how to present his virgin education policy. Media interviewers are entitled to ask for illustrations and examples. The public watching, and listening will certainly what to know – what does this policy really mean? Who will be impacted?

Limiting the number of students that can go to university sounds like a profoundly unconservative policy to me. Surely, it’s for young people to make their own choices past the age of 18. If there are “poor” university courses in Britain, then that is a matter for a rigorous system of quality control. It should not be for dogmatically eliminating course subjects. Yet again, a weak Prime Minister and Education Secretary are pandering to a tabloid media agenda.

15 months after graduation there are likely to be many people who are going to be exceptionally successful in later life. To take an example, creative writing may not land a big job, but the spark of imagination and a deal of luck can produce authors who go on the have phenomenal global success.

The problem, Mr Halfron, in Britain is not what you study but the inequities of our society. What is the objective worth of a Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) degree from a Russel group university[3]? Noting that the mistakes made by so qualified Ministers are rarely accounted. Billion are lost to the national economy every year by poor decisions, incompetence, and ideological nonsense. Dare I mention the saga of the other PPE, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). 

What a massive contrast to what’s just happened in the US. The Biden administration has announced a multibillion relief scheme for student loans. The US Education Department says their new plan will help more than 800,000 borrowers[4]. What an effective way of helping past students stand on their own two feet in tough economic times.

POST: And again today. Even when good news is posted the Minister sent on the media round performs no better than a rusty Austin Allegro with an empty tank.

[1] https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/rip-off-degrees/

[2] https://youtu.be/vHOwmZQa37s

[3] https://russellgroup.ac.uk/about/our-universities/

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/14/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-income-driven/

Church & Law

It’s always struck me as a bit strange. Yes, there’s a historic context to this situation. But that can be said of a myriad of legacy rules that we have long since put to one side. Today, there will be a general debate in the Westminster Hall[1]. The topic of the debate is: “Bishops in the House of Lords”. The question being should they be?

The way our system of governance is set up is that bishops have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Now, you can do a double take, if you like. It means that the senior people, representing one religion, have an automatic right to legislate in the UK. There are few countries in the world where religious leaders sit in the legislature. One of them is Iran, for example.

It’s not just one or two representatives. 26 bishops of the Church of England, selected by the church, sit in the House of Lords as a matter of right.

For many democratic countries a separation of church and state is written into their constitutions. The reasons for this are again historic. Conflicts, disputes, and persecutions of the past drove the framers of “modern” constitutions to ensure that religious bodies did not have exclusive influence over national laws.

I believe that one religion, namely the Church of England shouldn’t be allowed to appoint bishops into the House of Lords. In a 21st century democratic country we should take account of the variety of faiths in the country[2]. Each member of the legislature will bring their own faith to their work. So, faith is represented. Giving significant privileges to one faith is unjust.

Putting religious leaders in situations of public conflict with directly elected politicians creates its own problems. You could say that would be the same inside or outside of the legislature but it’s not. The singular privileges afforded to one religion, above all others, to table amendments to legislation is powerful. It’s far more than to speak out in public.

The Church of England is known as “the established church” because of this place in the establishment. It can be argued that this position limits the courses of action it may take. It constrains people of faith to fit an establishment model of behaviour.

I’m expressing these views fully aware of the good that Church of England members can do. The objections to bishops in the House of Lords are based on discrimination, unjust privilege, and unfairness not objection to the good that they can do.

The Church of England should not appoint bishops into the House of Lords. 

[1] https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal44066

[2] https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/6-april/news/uk/bishops-should-not-sit-as-of-right-in-the-lords-commission-argues

Bad Smell

Where is the accountability?

My desk, that’s the one in the early 1990s, faced towards the London Gatwick airport approach. It was a good reminder of the business we were in at the time. Seeing aircraft land and take-off about 500 m from the sheet glass windows of our office block was the daily background. Being in a rugged hermetically sealed building aircraft noise wasn’t a great concern.

Little more than 300m from the building and looking in the same direction was, and still is, the Gatwick sewage works. Its structures were low rise, so it was often hidden behind the greenery. Every so often, a strong wind would blow from the northeast. When it did a distinct odor filled the air. Yes, you guessed it. The sweet smell of the sewerage works would permeate the air conditioning.

This odor was at its most notable in the metrological conditions called an inversion[1]. In fact, given the seasonal frequency of these weather conditions it could be said that Gatwick wasn’t the most sensible place to build a major airport. These occasional pongs were a bit of a joke. Along with the occasional smells of unburnt aviation fuel it was just life at the airport. Lingering odors didn’t stay for long. A day at most and the wind would change direction back to where it normally came from – the south west.

Airports and sewage works are not a good combination for the health of rivers and streams. Long ago, when Gatwick airport was built the tributaries of the River Mole[2] were diverted. The part of that river, the Gatwick stream going north to south, at the end of the runway, is an unattractive V-shaped gully. Not nice for nature at all. There was a track that ran parallel with the river. In the summer, I’d walk that track at a lunchtime as it was a way of getting to the airport’s south terminal.

In the news, Thames Water are being fined for dumping raw sewage in the River Mole[3]. The consequences of the UK’s water regulator[4] taking a relatively hands-off approach to managing water companies, since privatisation in the late 1980s, has come home to roost.

I must admit, I’m not the least bit surprised. So far, the dance of those who shrug their shoulders astonishing. Ministers, regulators, company chiefs are all pointing fingers at each other.

The sequence of events is mind blowing when looked at over several decades[5]. Chief executives attracting massive salaries. Companies being loaded up with debt. Generous payouts to shareholders. Investments in infrastructure not keeping pace.

Ofwat, the regulator talks with incredible complacency. Such weak regulators are no more than a piggy in the middle as the powerful forces of unethical commercial behaviour and disinterested government oversight combine. As millions of families struggle with the cost of living this kind of failure is intolerable. Where is the accountability?

[1] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/temperature/temperature-inversion

[2] https://www.southeastriverstrust.org/river-mole/

[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/thames-water-sewage-spill-gatwick-airport-b2368707.html

[4] https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/

[5] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66103356.amp

Dog Days

It’s only when I looked this up that I realised how apt it was. Summer is upon us. Today, it’s not so hot, in-fact it’s been raining. Welcome rain. My garden looks fresher for it. These are the days of summer heat in southern England. They are known as “dog days”. It’s the period between early July and early September. These summer days can be delightful, but they can be uncomfortable, a source of fatigue and a time of unexpected thunderstorms. What I learned was that the term “dog days” comes from the appearance in the sky of the dog star, known as Sirius[1]. 

We are getting into the dog days of summer in terms of parliamentary time too. The House of Commons recess dates for this session of the UK Parliament are that it rises on 20 July 2023 and returns on 4 Sept 2023. That would be a useful time for the current Conservative Government consider calling a General Election. I can hear their death rattle so I suspect they will not.

Last evening, I caught a debate on the Parliamentary TV channel. The main business was the second reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. It’s a truly hopeless and appallingly badly drafted legislative proposal[2]. That’s when the thought of “dog days” came into my mind. The term has more than one meaning. My thought here was that we have truly entered a period of stagnation in common sense The current Conservative Government is tabling dreadfully ill thought-out and unsafe proposals that suppresses free-speech and will become a charter for lawyers to paw over for years.

The timing of this Parliamentary debate, given what is happening in Israeli-occupied West Bank, is terrible. A wise government minister would have pulled it.

It never has been ethical policy for a government minister, to supress democratic discussion. This bill would gag local government and other public bodies[3]. It’s poorly drafted text that will have a detrimental impact at domestic and international level.

The summer can bring drought. What we have here is a drought of political imagination, a cavalcade of populist babble that concentrates power and an unethical embarrassment. I remember the days when throughout the country people and democratically elected public bodies opposed apartheid. This bill, had it been in place at that time, would have outlawed such opposition.

A well drafted law that addresses the issues associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement might have been welcomed. A political consensus should have been sought. What has been tabled by this fading Government is sweeping yet vague powers that go way beyond addressing the one issue of BDS and Israel. It’s a direct attack on free speech and democratic government. This tired and worn-out Conservative Government needs to stand down before it does more damage.

#unethical

[1] https://www.history.com/news/why-are-they-called-the-dog-days-of-summer

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66086671

[3] https://www.local.gov.uk/parliament/briefings-and-responses/economic-activity-public-bodies-overseas-matters-second-reading

Why do politics?

One reason has a long history. It’s basically, sitting on your hands, complaining about others, and doing nothing means that you are likely to be managed or governed by people of poor ability. Stepping-up and trying to change a situation at least puts to bed that passive abdication. Now, you might fail but that failure is no disgrace, if your intent is honest. At least you have had a go.  

Another somewhat more appealing reason is to know someone who has done some good. Achieved something worthwhile. To have a mentor, or admiration for a person who has made the best of what they have and made a real difference to their community, it’s optimistic, it’s positive.

Let’s not be too cynical, there are good politicians. If there wasn’t we would be in an even bigger mess than we are now. Let’s face it, the people who become politicians, in a democracy, have the undesirable flaws and admirable qualities that most of society exhibits.

For me, this starts with reading “Penhaligon”, Annette Penhaligon book[1] about her husband, David Penhaligon. There’s a story to tell. A West Country MP who fought tirelessly for his constituents.

Then, naturally, there’s the Member of Parliament (MP) who is responsible for me first taking-up community political activism. He was newly elected and fresh faced at the time. The MP for Yeovil in Somerset from June 1983 to May 2001, namely Paddy Ashdown.

I was living in Cheltenham in Gloucestershire when Ashdown came to a public meeting at the Pittville Pump Room[2]. He spoke fluently about becoming an MP and some of the ridiculous idiosyncratic nonsense of Parliament. His message was that British politics is time-consuming and frustrating but if you want to bring about change – get involved.

So, in Cheltenham I first started stuffing leaflets through letterboxes and knocking on doors. About, 40-years have gone by since that encounter with the MP for Yeovil.

This weekend, I got my walking boots on. I visited parts of the Somerset town of Frome that I’d never seen before. A wide range of different streets, each with a different history. From restored historic buildings to new housing estates there’s a surprising variety of different lifestyles in a small town.

That’s one of the spinoffs of political activism. I get to visit and explore places that I’d otherwise never get to know. It’s a good way of broadening the mind. With social media’s influence it’s all too easy to get locked into simple stereotypes, artificial divisions, and primitive arguments. Forget that nonsense. Real streets with real people are much more interesting and much more varied.

Yes, you will meet people that are disagreeable but believe me, they are the minority. If you don’t want dumb politicians, and ideas thrusts upon us that don’t represent us then get out and be active. Every little can count.

[1] https://www.waterstones.com/book/penhaligon/annette-penhaligon/9780747506164

[2] https://cheltenhamtownhall.org.uk/visit-us/pittville-pump-room/

Three Decades

There are a couple of events that have reverberated over the last three decades.

1993 started with Bill Clinton taking his place as the 42nd President of the United States. So, you might say change was in the wind in that year.

History doesn’t repeat but there are changes that give the impression of a pattern. In 30-years, our daily lives have transformed dramatically. Technology has accelerated to a point where there isn’t much that it doesn’t touch.

Subscribing to the notion that there are cycles that rise and fall over the decades there are similarities between now and then. There are plenty of opposites too.

Early in 1993, the Bank of England lowered interest rates to 6%. This was the lowest rate available since 1978. Now, we have bank interest rates heading in the other direction and heading for 6%. The biggest political issue in that year was unemployment. Today, the situation has flipped. There are recruiters who can’t find the people the British economy needs.  

What’s analogous is that the Conservative Government of the day was in deep trouble. There seemed to be a future Labour Government in the waiting room. The Conservative Prime Minister (PM) of the time, John Major was unpopular, and the polls showed the public mood was gloomy.

Strangely, there was slight indications that the economic situation was gradually improving. The end of the 1990s recession was becoming real. The conservatives must have felt heartened by the US Presidential election campaign theme declaring it’s “The economy, stupid[1].”

On the ground the daggers were out for John Major. Parliamentary byelections in Newbury and Christchurch were resoundingly won by the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative government did not benefit in popularity from the economy coming out of recession. Then inflation was coming down. It hit 1.3% in May 1993. Consider that with what is happening with the inflation rate that is hanging around now.

There are a couple of events that have reverberated over the last three decades.

One was the formation of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Support for leaving the European Union (EU) was taking a shape and form that would lead to political change. It didn’t seem like it at the time. There was an element of the movement that was purely protest coming from cantankerous and disgruntled Conservatives.

The other was John Major’s disastrous “Back to Basics” campaign. If ever a British political campaign was misjudged that, was it. The campaign exposed an unpopular and split political party to ridicule and gave cartoonists and satirists a huge boost.

The current Conservative PM, Rishi Sunak hasn’t quite made that error – yet. However, his simple shopping list approach is creating a hostage to fortune. The direction of travel has similarities to 1993. Will Rishi Sunak survive the coming General Election?

The jury is out on that one. I’d like to say – no. The economy may soon slide into recession but it maybe underlying unpopularity that is the greater deciding factor.

[1] A phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992.

Yawn

Even seasoned presenter Fiona Bruce looked as if she was embarrassed. She certainly struggled to hold together a programme that was as dull and predicable as it was lacking in either appeal or entertainment. I persisted in watching the evening’s debate on the small screen, in the hope that some light would be shed on where we are now, and how we got here. Seven long years on from the Brexit vote, the people who wanted it to happen were ask – how’s it going?

I wondered if it was a schedulers sense of humour that one media channel was showing the classic movie: The Magnificent Seven (1960). 

Question Time[1] was once a flag ship political programme for the BBC. Last night, it got to a new low. The venue for the debate was in Clacton-on-Sea[2], a small English town on the east Essex coastline.

The Question Time audience was selected from people who voted to Leave in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) back in 2016. Making it usual, this parliamentary constituency voted nearly 70 per cent in favour of Brexit.

To sum up, it was the sort of conversation you might have with a disappointed grump on a scruffy park bench, on a rainy day: “The world’s going to hell in a handbasket. It’s those b***** politicians, you know.” That meaning an aggressive stance towards anyone who disagreed with their opinion.

One or two in the audience were brave enough to reflect and reconsider their past position. There’s a discomfort in publicly coming out as a doubter. Hats off to those brave few.

Amongst the panellists, one fitted the above description, one continued their religious devotion to Brexit, two sat on the fence and one attempted to look ahead at what may happen next to the UK. I can well imagine why no government spokesperson was willing to step-up and address this event.

It’s a peculiar situation for part of the country to be in. Those who desperately wanted a “Hard Brexit[3] got a Hard Brexit and are immensely dissatisfied with a Hard Brexit. They want an even harder Brexit. Chances are that would make everything worse. Chances are that they would then demand an even harder Brexit. Chances are that spiral of insanity would continue.

The stance of the Labour Party shadow cabinet minister on the panel was unfortunate. However, the tightrope they are walking, in the run-up to a General Election is a shaky one. I’ll bet that both Labour and Conservatives parties will be desperate not to talk about Brexit over the coming year.

The world of British politics and the media will likely skirt around the elephant in the room as much as they can. Nearly everyone knows Brexit has been a disaster but few wish to face it head-on.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001n3px

[2] https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/18207250.clacton-residents-mark-brexit-day-wild-celebrations/

[3] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-hard-brexit/

Momentous Vote

Will a line be drawn under the shenanigans of the last few years?

Number 3 on the BBC News list? This was not a vote in the Conservative Party it was a vote in the mother of Parliaments. It was a vote that put the likelihood of Boris Johnson making a political comeback at extremely improbable. Yet, it was number 3 on BBC News. Well, I guess it was considered by the newsroom as a minority interests subject at 10 pm in the evening.  

A House of Commons (HoCs) vote took place on the findings of the Committee on Privileges[1]. Not a great title but that committee thoroughly undertook the job of addressing the vexed question of a Prime Minister lying to Parliament. That means lying to us all. 

19 June 2023 should go down in British history. There was no civil war. The statue of Cromwell outside parliament remained unmoved. Parliament deftly asserted its right to take a view on the behaviours of a former member. Not just any former member but a former Prime Minister (PM). A PM being held in contempt of Parliament is not an everyday event.

The current PM staying away was a show of poor pollical antenna. Images of a vacuum in leadership will haunt him here on in. While another former PM endorsed the report and thanked the committee for their work. Several cabinet members did the same. The leader of the house acted with a solemn certitude that she is becoming known for.

For Conservative Members of Parliament, it was a sad and difficult duty. Each member was given the chance to make up their own minds about the report.

Upholding the truth matters. Both the Parliament’s HoCs and the Committee on Privileges set themselves on the path to restore public confidence in democracy.

Questions as to why Boris Johnson was ever elevated to the position of PM in the first place were not answered. Some members spoke with anger in their voice. It’s the case that magnificent oratory was missing from many contributions, but the heartfelt reflection of constituents’ rage was sincere.

To succeed, in the British political system a PM must have an effective working relationship with Parliament. They don’t need to like each other but a degree of respect is essential.

Parliament may look weak in that there’s limited meaningful sanctions that it can impose on a past member. A member who jumps before they are pushed appears to get off. However, the impact of the events of 19 June 2023 means that Boris Johnson will practice only with a media bully pulpit.

What remains for us to find out over the next few years is how that will play out[2]. Will a line be drawn under the shenanigans of the last few years?

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65953605

[2] https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-vote-sunak-privileges-committee-report-on-lied-to-parliament-12593360