Category: Democracy

Looking back

Yesterday, was a day for reflection. Sue and I attended the celebration of the life a former colleague and a friend who passed away recently.

Mostly, I was reflecting on the events of the 1990s. To me, that’s not so long ago. To the calendar that’s 30-years ago. Not an original thought but it was a moment when I was reminded that time passes remarkably quickly. Those years have raced by. In that time the country’s fortunes has gone backwards as much as forwards.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood, to me Susan Thomas, was a Surrey County Councillor at the time that I also held that position in Reigate. I had one term of office from May 1993 to May 1997. Those years were special, and I don’t mean just to me. For one, the County Council was No Overall Control (NOC)[1] for the first, and only time in its history. During that 4-year period there was two Conservative budgets and two Liberal Democrat budgets. Susan was Chair of the full Council during the Liberal Democrat led period.

Susan was a parliamentary candidate in Mole Valley in the 1983 and 1987 General Elections. That’s when one of Thatcher’s Ministers Kenneth Baker held the seat for the Conservatives. A decade before I had my first outing as a parliamentary candidate in Surrey.

In the years up to 1997, the Liberal Democrats underwent a period of growth under the leadership of Paddy Ashdown. It was a time when change was happening. There was a strong wish to sweep away the stale remains of Thatcher’s legacy.

Lots of memories flooded back of sitting in meeting rooms in Kingston-on-Thames playing my part as a junior councillor. Although, that was before the executive system created a gulf between local government councillors. There may have been a mixture of long-standing and new members but each had an equal voice when it came to voting.

I sat in meetings were Susan put her experience to good use. As a large political group of 29 members it wasn’t a given that we would all go in the same direction. As has often been said, getting agreement could be like herding cats.

Susan was a strong supporter of our role in Europe. On that subject we agreed without question.

After the ceremony at the crematorium in Chichester there was a gathering at a pavilion in a park in the city. It was an opportunity to chat about those decades’ past reflections. One or two local campaign leaflets from the were displayed on a table with photos from the 1980s and 90s. This was before the internet dominated every aspect of campaigning. Simple printed paper with a message was the main way people with something to say said it. Party style and branding has moved on but the method remains.

A conversation with a lad who wasn’t born at the time that I’m recalling brought me back to 2023. Over sandwiches and nibbles we both discovered an affection for the city of Bristol. The city where Sue and I first met. It was good to hear that down the generations our political concerns of the moment were not so different. We agreed that change was in the wind and about time too.

There’s hope that the next generation that ventures into political activism will be driven by the same liberal instincts that united Susan and me. Just as in the years running up to 1997, the sense that change is on the way is growing. The failures of a long list of Conservative Prime Ministers, Brexit and the current air of sleeze can not be glossed over and forgotten. Change is on the way. Let’s hope that proves to be true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrey_County_Council

Scandals

Political scandals are as much part of British life as bread and butter pudding. Yet, we, you, me and the cat and the dog always seem shocked when the next one arrives. As if standing at a isolated bus stop never expecting a bus to turn-up and to our great surprise it does.

It might be failing to disclose or declare large sums of money changing hands. It might a succession of sex scandals. It might be misleading statements, or down-right lies. It might be cover-ups and blatant hypocrisy. It might be abuse or bulling. It might be leaking secrets or dirty tricks to undermine colleagues. It might be …………and the list goes on.

There seems to be no limit to the inventiveness of Members of Parliament (MPs). Is there a defence? It’s true that leading a public life does expose a person to more scrutiny than you or me. There are occasions when unprincipled adversaries can take advantage of this exposed situation.

Reputational damage spreads like wildfire even if the source of the damage is untrue. A bad news story gets media headline that are never retracted. However, you would think that, knowing all the above, that a person in the public spotlight would not entertain thoughtlessness or foolishness, in so much as they can avoid it.

Ever since the Watergate scandal in the US, nearly every occurrence now has the appendage “gate” shoved on the front of it. We’ve become a bit German in making-up new composite words. A pub quiz master could ask; can you identify this gate or that gate? Now, there’s a set of specialist question for a Mastermind contestant.

I can imagine a Monopoly board especially made for Conservative MPs. Although, Labour, Scottish Nationalists and Liberal Democrat MPs star in the lists too but less often. They even play the Get out of Jail Free card, now and then. Some MPs have almost got away with major misdemeanours but at the last moment party support collapses or the winds of fate turn sharply against them.

That leads me to wonder how many get away by the seat of their paints. Or they live with the knowledge that their party Whips office has a file marked – open only is X misbehaves.

It’s time to clean-up politics. Trouble is that I’ve heard that slogan before. It plays well for a while and then harsh reality breaks through, and the house of cards starts to fall. I remember the Back-to-Basics campaign announced in 1993 by British Prime Minister John Major at the Conservative Party conference. I’ll be he wishes he’d not gone down that road so ardently.

Like it or not, this is in our hands. The electorate. Time and time again we have General Elections where we, me included, vote in people who are not best suited to protecting the public interests, representing us or advancing our crumbling constitution.

The ballot is a powerful thing. Sadly, all too often it’s the political commotion in the few weeks before a ballot that determines the outcome. If only it was possible to take a more considered long-term perspective and stick with it. Granted, not a new phenomenon. The Greeks and Romans knew about the fragility of the public mood. Our inclination to make a choice for this day rather than the months and years ahead, or even decades ahead.

Maybe, 2024 will be different. My glass is half full outlook.

Swing

The results are in. They are exceptional in the true sense of the word. The Labour Party pushed aside two large Conservative Party majorities[1]. The momentum for change is gathering pace. It’s not slowing. Those motivated to go out and vote on Thursday sent a strong message.

The Labour Party candidate was victorious in Mid Bedfordshire despite all three major British political parties putting up a fight. Only a tiny minority are going to miss the former Conservative MP Nadine Dorries. At least for the next year, or so the constituents of Mid Bedfordshire will have some form of representation in Parliament.

Overturning massive electoral majorities doesn’t happen every day. The Conservatives were sitting on a majority of more than 24,000 and now it’s all gone. It’s true that the voter turnout in a byelection doesn’t match that of a UK General Election but in the face of such a massive swing this is immaterial. Even making the case that defending parties are often on the back foot doesn’t make much difference.

Having been on the doorstep in Mid Bedfordshire my impression is that the mood was for change. Immediate change. The electorate is smart when it comes to making choices. In this case they have chosen those they perceive as most likely to deliver what they want.

Commentators have described this as a “political earthquake” for the Conservatives. The references to May 1997 are flooding out of media outlets. How can they not? Similar percussors were evident in the years leading up to Tony Blair’s victory over the then Conservative Prime Minister John Major. 

Are we heading for a UK General Election in 2024 that mimics the results of May 1997? A simple reading of public opinion does point in that direction, at the moment.

With a year to go, and all that may bring, it would be hubris to assume that a General Election result can be predicted. In 1964, Labour politician Harold Wilson famously said: a week is a long time in politics. That’s as true now as it ever was. In fact, volatility is a mark of our age.

Despite the wisdom of caution, with the legacy that the Conservatives have accumulated, it would be remarkable in the absolute extreme if they did engineer a sustained recovery in the next year.  

It’s an American saying, and with some argument over its attribution – politicians, like diapers, should be changed regularly. The meaning is clear. There are times when change is the imperative. The exact nature of the change is not as important as the fact that change takes place.

That’s where we are. There’s a hunger to put the dreadful political mess of the last decade behind us. To aim for higher goals. To look ahead with ambition and optimism.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67126173

Voting

We could call them Thursday boxes. In the UK byelections take place on a Thursday. Ballot boxes and polling stations are open for the full day. This Thursday there are two important parliamentary byelections taking place in England. Both seats have been occupied by Conservative politicians and by the end of the day that may no longer be the case.

Named after the Norse god of Thunder, Thor, our Thursday is a good day to make changes. There’s the next working day to absorb the implications of any change. Then there’s the coming Monday to make a new start. The UK has stuck with Thursday as election day, with few exceptions.

One theory is that Thursday was often a market day in the towns of England. Thus, people would be gathered in town squares where polling stations could be located. This gave election candidates an opportunity to meet and treat the electorate on their way to cast their votes. Remember the voting franchise was for land and property owners over much of British history.

Fridays have been paydays. So, the voter may have been more absorbed in shopping, socialising and winding-up the working week than listening to campaigning politicians. Making a Friday visit to a polling booth a low priority. This is more the case after the passing of the Great Reform Act[1].

Now, it may be advantageous to move voting day to weekends to maximise the number of people who would be free to vote in-person. However, you could say that we have a 24-hour society and postal voting is popular, so the day of the week is no longer a big deal. It maybe the case that on-line voting will eventually take the place of the traditional in-person marking a cross on a paper ballot. That would open-up the opportunity to have a similar scheme to postal voting and open-up the ballot to more than one day.

Going back to the past, Sundays would have been reserved for religious services. That’s more political than one might first imagine. The Church of England vicar imploring parishioners to be good might also look down at the landed gentry in the front row and recommends voting in a particular way. Naturally, in a Methodist chapel, or other non-conformist chapel, down the road another congregation might be given different heavenly advice.

Has Thursday been adopted to minimise the influence of the Church or the public house? The reason for the choice of Thursday has been lost in the mists of time. That doesn’t matter so much given that there’s still some good reasons to continue the tradition.

Personally, I hope that in-person voting at a polling station will always be part of the British electoral system. However much the world around us is being digitised so that we interface with colourful Apps and websites there’s nothing quite like putting a cross in a box with a pencil.

The trail of evidence it provides and the pure satisfaction of the physical act of marking a paper must be preserved. It a ritual that emphasises the importance of voting. Even for those who choose to deface their voting papers this is an important democratic process.

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/reformact1832/

Button down

More as a matter of amusement than anything else, I’ll write about something that I’m entirely unqualified to raise. It’s the sartorial styles of the Conservatives as they huddle in Manchester this week. Pictures of prominent people or would be prominent people are scattered around the media and it’s impossible not to have a response. My main point of reference is the standard press shots of the MPs who have planned to stand up to speak. Standing up in public is not something to be done in one’s underwear.

Business casual hasn’t got to the Conservative Party Conference. Even business casual is now a bit of a blast from the past[1]. More suited to an industrial estate office complex in Slough than the real world. Wearing clothes that are more “modern and casual” has by-passed Manchester’s gathering of politicians. Shirts are all buttoned down.

The Conservative men’s recipe remains a strict and traditional. Even Moss Bross[2] have stepped into the 2020s. The Conservative have not. They are buttoned up and best seen against a grey background. Male politicians assembled in Manchester exhibit a dress code that is country club or what was once known as, when we had them in Britain, bank manager like. A regiment of blue ties are tightened to the neckline. Stiff collars look like they came straight out of the packet.

So much of what we see is the typecasted stereotype. No wonder a great mass of people are put off ever standing for election. It’s a good question to ask? Should British politicians look like standard politicians, and long lines of past politicians?

It’s true appearance can shape attitudes. However, my thought on the subject is that politicians shouldn’t look that much different from the population they serve. Afterall, if I turn up on your doorstep as if I was dressed to go to a funeral you might only give me the directions to the local cemetery. Strict and traditional apparel doesn’t help break down barriers. Nothing signals remoteness better than expensive dress shoes and a sharp button-down shirt. 

So many years ago, it seems like another century, it was in-fact, I did do the Colour Me Beautiful training[3] at a party conference. I only have favourable memories of that brief experience. It was fun. Somewhere in a draw, I still have the colour patch that was given away as part of the course. The message is that confidence can flow from dressing in tune with who you are.

It does matter what politicians look like. I know that sounds superficial. Like it or not, what we see, as first impressions can make a huge impact on subsequent reactions. This is not a fixed phenomenon. Gradually, understated casual appearances have become the new code. Smart attire can be put together to form an individual style. More politicians should do just that.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jd68z

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

[3] https://www.colourmebeautiful.co.uk/training-academy

Showboating

Thinking that the pressure of global migration will go away if we build a high enough wall, physically or legally, is foolish and doesn’t work.

We have a Minister called Braveman in the UK. Currently the Home Secretary. She has a particular set of views which can accurately be described as of the right of politics. Given recent speeches it may be more accurate to say that she holds views that are of those of far-right political parties.

At a time when the UK Home Office is performing badly, she chooses to spend her time in ways that contribute little to solving problems. Her diagnosis is flawed. At the same time her desire to parade in front of cameras is insatiable. Upstaging her colleagues and showboating are roles that she plays with apparent ease. All this while the Home Office flounders.

In part Braveman’s flawed thinking comes from an overly legalistic grandstanding[1]. Yes, UK Members of Parliament are legislators, but Government Ministers should be leaders and administrators too. The UK Home Office’s challenges can not be addressed by law making alone, or even grandstanding about law making. Fine, policy can be important. In the current predicament timely action and implementation are far more important.

Building walls, forging barriers, imprisoning immigrants are appealing options to hard core isolationism, nationalists, and xenophobes. A long history of experience shows that their impacts are temporary, at best, and the worst extremes are soon entertained. North Korea has policies of that nature. History records the devastation caused by aggressive nationalists’ policies in the 1930s.

Saying that words written in the 1950s are no more relevant is a puny argument. She does not say that the Magna Carta is irrelevant or that the US Constitution is out of date. Braveman picks and chooses likes and dislikes to fit her nasty narrative[2].

At home, the cartoon of the ostrich with its head in the sand applies. Thinking that the pressure of global migration will go away if we build a high enough wall, physically or legally, is foolish and doesn’t work. Demonising those who are in peril is downright criminal.

Yes, immigration must be regulated. National borders must be controlled. A nations administration must be well managed. All of these are vital areas where immediate focus is needed. All of these seem to be ignored by Braveman.

Posturing in front of media hungry think tanks is futile. It’s for show. It’s a Trump like approach to the UK’s challenges and will bring only continued failure. Braveman has ambitions to be a party leader. That frightening prospect hangs in the air like a bad smell. Now, her unfortunate colleagues struggle and fidget when trying to defend her showboating. Let’s hope her time in office is short. 

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66930930

[2] https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-hits-back-at-sir-elton-john-criticism-of-speech-as-she-brushes-off-claims-she-is-aiming-for-tory-leadership-12971087

HS2 – again

Travelled on the Elizabeth Line yesterday. It was an expensive project to build. Tunnelling under London and erecting new stations was a costly business. It was called “Crossrail”. Approval was given in 2007 and construction started in 2009[1]. In 2022, one-sixth of the UK’s total rail journeys took place on the Elizabeth Line. The billions spent were a major investment in the future. Over £18 billion in fact. It was a national demonstration that huge civil engineering projects can be undertaken and mastered[2].

As a passenger the Elizabeth Line is a pleasure to use. It’s clean, speedy, and simple to use. Comparing it to the older London Tube lines is like comparing a Tesla with a Ford Anglia[3]. Sadly, a great deal of our national rail infrastructure is trapped in the Ford Anglia era.

So, what of HS2[4]? The wibbling and wobbling that has plagued the project is sucking the energy out of the resolve needed to see through an even bigger undertaking than Crossrail. Some people argue that the billions needed for HS2 could be better spent on other projects. However, the portfolio of transport projects that are suggested as alternatives never seem to materialise.

Talk of cancellations feed the political turbulence over infrastructure investments. The impression this presents goes way beyond the shores of this country. There’s no Global Britain on show here. It’s more signals of dither and lack of determination that are publicly on display. Instability and the short-term outlook is the motif of the current generation of politicians.

If there are superior and smarter alternatives to HS2 they should have come up during the planning phase of the project. What we know about vast engineering projects is that chopping and changing them midstream adds massively to costs. It also diminishes the usefulness of the outcome.

Britain needs a backbone. A rail backbone and a political backbone. The spending on HS2 is large but that spending is in country. It’s jobs and investment onshore for the benefit of the whole country, not just the Southeast of England.

The last few years have seen that banner “levelling up” heralded by Conservative politicians. This slogan will be as nothing if HS2 is wound down or constricted. The signal will be loudly heard that all that talk of levelling up the regions of Britain was shadow boxing.

In the long-term improved connectivity across the country will be a great asset. The Victorians knew a thing or two about engineering great projects. Their legacy should give us resolve.

POST: Still it is good to see the rest of the world getting on with High Speed Rail High-speed Archives – International Railway Journal (railjournal.com)

[1] https://www.timeout.com/london/news/the-new-elizabeth-line-your-crossrail-questions-answered-052322

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/13/elizabeth-line-crossrail-opening-london

[3] https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/104979/ford-anglia-105e-and-123e-buying-guide-and-review-1959-1968

[4] https://www.hs2.org.uk/

Get Back

The big picture story is that Europe needs unity more and more to face the future.

Today, a National Rejoin March takes place in London. This march takes place when it’s all to evident that Brexit has been an abject failure. Having the bravery to admit that Brexit is a failure remains challenging. UK political leaders are shying away from admitting the reality of our common situation.

Thousands of those who support the UK being a European Union (EU) member are gathering in the capital. It’s time to ensure a message gets sent that re-joining the EU is a popular and gaining momentum. Members of Parliament (MPs) may not be in Parliament on the weekend, but the message sent by those on the city’s streets is strong and clear.

It’s true that this is a frustrating experience. I’ve been on many organised London marches. They are characterised by their camaraderie, positivity, and great spirit. Marching makes a difference to the people who march and it’s also makes a wider impact. Media coverage may be sparce. What they do see and hear is a sense of solidarity and unity.

Sadly, there are no apparent results flowing from this national campaign, so far. The UK’s out of touch political parties are trying to look the other way. Today, the fearful nature of the bland mixture of our political leaders is immensely disappointing. They scurry around like little brown rats. Looking busy but terrified of stepping outside their comfort zone.

Tinkering with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson will deliver only more disappointment. Papering over that public disappointment, we can rely on a part of the tabloid media spinning threatening stories. The artificial culture wars raging between the political right and left have little to do with reality. This noisy nonsense plunders the opportunity to make life better for the vast majority. It’s a side show.

The big picture story is that Europe needs unity more and more to face the future. If it’s climate change, war, immigration, or economic troubles sustainable solutions cannot be found in isolation. Our region of the world is so interconnected and interdependent that events in one part of Europe inevitably affect others. Brexit does not work.

Future generations will look back on this era as being a regressive one. Opportunities lost and difficulties increased by a lack of political bravery. A lack of direction. A lack of leadership. This will be overcome in time, but that change will not come soon enough.

POST: Reporting on the event Pro-EU supporters march for Britain to rejoin the European Union (france24.com)

Views

Journalists do a vital job. See, I’ve said it. It’s true. Now, I get on to the “but”. Afterall, what’s the point in writing unless there’s a point to make. I’m talking about the factual reporting rather than the more fanciful material.

I notice this frequently. It’s on the radio, its in the newspapers, it’s on TV. Basically, we have more and more journalists talking to journalists, particularly in the political domain. My purely subjective impression is not science, even if I’m sure it could be backed up by numbers.

Commentary is good and good commentary is even better. Understanding the complexities of our mixed-up multifaceted society needs some help. There’s always the difficulty of having so much information that none of us can see the wood for the trees. Careful and thoughtful analysis helps.

So, I’m not having a downer on journalists. It’s just, I get annoyed when there’s a parade of interviews that are nothing more than journalists asking other journalists questions. There’s that image of a snake eating its tail. The more that News comes from one place, to be analysed by one group of people and then to be scrutinised by the same, the more the mouth and the tail met.

When I’m in the car, soaking up time in a traffic jam on the M25, I listen to LBC[1]. Although this radio station has its interminable monologues from its presenters, at least the phone in format means that some of the public get aired. However, cranky, and unfathomable their views it’s always good to hear what people have to say.

I’ve been doing some doorstepping. Canvasing people. It’s a great way to get to know what people are thinking. Not everyone wants to talk. That aside, there’s always plenty that do. From that experience a fascinating range of opinions comes to the fore. A swirling range of views.

Don’t get the wrong impression. Not everyone is seething with anger about the state of the world. A few are that’s for sure. There’s still plenty of hopeful folk who are engaged in their communities constantly trying to make the best of things. Knowing a little of the good and bad of a community’s experiences is a great insight. It’s far more interesting than pitching one media columnist against another.

Perhaps the format of the BBC’s Question Time[2] ought to be completely changed. Have an audience full of journalists and politicians and a panel made up of the public. There could be a postcode lottery to pick members of the public to sit on the panel.

It’s might not be easy to put together. It’s said public speaking is a top fear of most people. Finding people who would take up the offer who would genuinely embrace it and not go too much off the wall, would be challenging. I’m not calling for a revival of what Jerry Springer was famed for.

[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001qxgz

Get Back

It’s painful to watch. Frightening. Seeing them take over London. Yes, I did hide behind the sofa when the Cybermen[1] came on. But then again, I was only around 6 or 7-years old. They converted humans to their kind by removing emotions and personalities. Scary stuff. The sort of evil creatures that nightmares are made of. With bodies made of cybernetic parts they seemed undefeatable but like so many great science fiction stories they had weaknesses, and the Doctor knew them. My early Dr Who knew exactly what to do.

In this case it’s not fiction that I’m writing about. Just the same it was painful to watch. Frightening. Seeing them take over London and the whole country. We had years of this scary drama. In fact, its still going on around us now. Laura Kuenssberg’s State of Chaos[2] has been a true horror story. This week I caught the Part 2. I don’t think I can take another Part.

History is being penned quickly in our media age. Watching the story of how our political system was smashed-up by a bunch of marauding, well, I don’t know what to call them. Is there a collective term for careless, egotistic, idiotic, manic, obsessive, power-hungry politicians? A term one can use in polite company, that is.

Since 2016, and to a lesser degree just before, the march of Conservative politicians has been to the tune with a dangerous beat. Smash-up the norms, disregard sound advice and steam ahead with blind arrogance. Much of this is epitomised by the character of Boris Johnson, but there are so many other in the cast strange and obsessive people.

Kuenssberg must tread a fine line because getting caught up in the finger pointing polarisation of the politicians is perilous. In her time as BBC Political Editor, it must have been like walking across Niagara on a tightrope every day.

The State of Chaos is giving us a new perspective on the Conservative Party’s on-going civil war. It seems the situation was even worse than we had been led to believe. This documentary is a treasure-trove of extraordinary material that is only a sample of what happened.

I’d say we all agree. It doesn’t matter which side of the Brexit argument that you stand or stood. Utter chaos has transpired in the reign of the last 5 Conservative Prime Ministers. Interviewees can point fingers at each other, all the same the word chaos applies.

In the coming months the lessons from this fearful period need to be learned. A new normal need to be established. We need to get back[3] what we have lost. Get back a sense of responsibility. Get back a reputation for competence. Get back ambition for the future.

[1] Dr Who. The Cybermen first appear in the serial The Tenth Planet in 1966, set in 1986.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001qgww/laura-kuenssberg-state-of-chaos

[3] I must be channelling The Beatles.