Elections – John Vincent

Dysfunctional Culture of UK Politics

It’s as true today as it’s aways been. Well, that sound like a famous bread avert. The phrase “as good today as it’s always been,” was used for years by one notable bread maker in the UK. A memorable slogan that painted a picture of tradition and continuity.

What I’d like to do is to take the word “good” out of the equation. I’m not talking about our daily bread. Or the need to meld tradition with a modern industrial reality. However, there is an enduring appeal when it comes to selling ideas. A linking with some mythical golden age.

Paddy Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader whose memory is not entirely lost in the mists of time, was not a fan of the Westminster culture[1]. That’s the political culture that pervades the British Parliament and its environs.

He shared the view of many British people that Westminster is grossly “out-of-touch” with life as it’s lived across the nation. Our democratic institutions often alienated people. Not by intention but just by being what they are and acting the way they do. The core of British politician’s concerns come across as detached and insular. More tied up in big egos, infighting, and inflated pompousness. Protecting their own interests.

Now, I know the insipid excuse is to say – surely, politicians are like that throughout the world. Aren’t we lucky to have such ancient and noble traditions. A heritage that others admire.

Paddy knew what he was talking about having been a Member of Parliament (MP) a long time. I first met him in the 1980s, when he was a young idealistic newly elected MP. He was the guest speaker at an evening event in Cheltenham. Full of ambition and vitality.

This week, neither of the two largest political parties in the UK covered themselves with glory. Quite the opposite in fact. It was not pleasant to see or hear.

Labour became a stuck record. Vacillating and dithering. Increasingly then sound like their predecessors. It’s a kind of Westminster conditioning. A bland mediocrity that seeps out of the gothic towers of Parliament. Supporters of Labour twist and turn with despair.

The Conservatives are in more trouble for a whole host of reasons. Not least their past performance. What we are witnessing is a peculiar dance by their leader. It involved constantly looking over her shoulder and spinning around at the same time.

Whether we like it or not the problem is our problem. With our institutions becoming ever more dysfunctional over a period of decades the door is open to extremist forces. The more we pretend that Westminster is working the more voters look elsewhere.

The British media are no help in this respect. Instead of shining a light on a dysfunctional culture they race to be part of it. Getting excited at every crash and upset. Every scandal and broken promise. Building careers in the same way as the politicians they report on.

There’s no easy answer. First, it’s important to recognise the problem.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ashdown-says-outoftouch-westminster-alienates-voters-disillusionment-could-lead-to-extremism-liberal-democrat-leader-warns-1493502.html

Manchester

Crunching numbers after a British by-election is rather like taking one racehorse win and saying that all races will be won by that horse in future. There’s one or two who get hysterical. A test of public opinion, in one spot on the globe, is a good indicator. It’s not an absolute pointer to every future event.

How can I possibly disagree with Sir John Curtice[1] this morning on the BBC. He’s that human hardy perennial of domestic election analysis. Number one guru that the media runs to. A track record for an on the money sum-up.

In essence, the British electorate wishes to support candidates who can articulate their concerns. No prevarication, all manner of obfuscation or jam tomorrow speeches. Preferably tailored to the location where they stand.

Sir John is thinking like this John. In moments, as per yesterday in Manchester[2], clarity matters. True, that in a by-election it’s easier to do for a candidate who carries little political baggage. A fresh set of well-presented phrases and a new broom. A relatable individual.

Not for one moment do I believe that the Green Party will surge forward so powerfully as to become a national leader. What may happen is that, with the fragmentation of the British political landscape, the Greens will play a bigger part than they have in the past.

And you know what? As a liberal, I’m fine with that shift. Balance is so important if positive change is to happen. Representation means just that – representation. If the Greens say the exact opposite to the Reform Party, which mostly they do, then they will occupy the two ends of the classical normal distribution – the bell curve.

Perhaps, I need to be careful with this basic analysis. My presumption is that most people are not highly involved in everything party political. That on the typical doorstep often the key task is not to engage in detailed debate but to remind people that there is an election taking place. That the tie to traditional voting patterns continues to weaken.

The last one on my list is perhaps the biggest. Gone are the huge factories and industrial heartland that provided the Labour Party with their core support. Gone are the dependents of the shire country manor houses that provided the Conservative Party with their core support.

In 2028 or 2029[3] the make-up of the British electorate will have changed markedly. Seems obvious to say – doesn’t it, but politicians love to fight the last war not the next one. The political landscape will have shifted. Traditional voting patterns will have further disolved. There will be no let-up in the dynamic nature of public discourse. A small number of big issues will dominate the campaigns of the parties able to make an impact.

Clarity will matter. Distinctiveness will matter. Relatability will matter.

In the background, a bucket load of past performance and costed polices will be chewed over by professional commentators. That will not be the deciding factor. At the end of this decade there’s a break away coming. Busting out of past patterns. Setting new horizons.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygpdjq9jjo

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

[3] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/our-work/topics/parliament-and-constitution/general-elections

Political Landscape

One of the motivators in politics is that prospect of the shining city on the hill. The ability of an able politician to articulate a vision of a future where aspirations are met, harmony pervades the land and the world becomes a better place for all. Naturally, this expression has religious originals. That interweaving of religion and politics is hardly new. It’s us. It’s us humans who give form to our desire to see our communities thrive and adversity overcome.

However, this ability to project hope isn’t the only tool in the politician’s toolbox. The other side of the coin is fear. Sadly, this gets used just as much as in rhetorical flurries and backroom decisions making. As the week has passed so there’s been a fair amount of both.

I like to think that, of the two, hope transcends. It is not an even coin. Our in-built propensity to strive regardless of the barriers and failures along the way, that’s powerful.

What am I saying? It’s that loosing sight of the shining city on the hill and getting stuck in the weeds of everyday gloom and despondency, that’s the monster problem.

Scandals will come and go. It’s a national preoccupation. That’s not to say that such each and every one deserves significant attention. In the most recent one, involving the UK Prime Minister (PM) and a prominent former Labour politician, there’s clearly much work to do.

It seems to me that the whole process of making appointments to significant national posts needs a thorough review. The discretionary powers that a PM has are a key part of the job, but that exercise of power without sufficient scrutiny has led to dangerous errors being made.

Thus, we have a serious man who espoused a brilliant future, at the last UK General Election, only to deliver more of the same. True, the current PM hasn’t yet plummeted the depths of the Johnson or Truss era. A wave of relief sounded across the nation when those two Conservative politicians were effectively banished.

Righteousness is not something that sits well with a cynic. And our daily News loves to adopt a cynical tone. Every journalist must have a streak of it running through them like a stick of rock. On the positive side, in many ways when political scrutiny fails it’s the News media that we depend up. Maybe to shine a light on the less than shiny city on the hill.

At this moment in early 2026 there’s good reason to be concerned. Now, at the dispatch box in the House of Commons we have two gladiators who want to make mincemeat of the opponent but are each covered in a disagreeable mess. Both as a legacy of incidents that their Party has had a hand in. It’s easy to say – twas ever so. Only that’s not good enough in 2026.

It’s as if both Party leaders have wadded through a muddy smelly swamp to meet face to face. To meet covered in mud, slime and weeds that they have dragged with them. Not an attractive sight. Neither in a position to project the prospect of a shining city on the hill. Credibility is low with both parties. These are strange times.

[What might happen if more than 45 Conservative MPs jump to the Reform Party? Crossing the house could become an avalanche breakdown. Will we see the Liberal Democrats as His Majesty’s official Opposition? That would surely put the cat amongst the pigeons.].

Should Parliament Relocate?

I wouldn’t for one moment propose that the palace of Westminster be demolished. It’s an iconic landmark. No, my point is that the building is entirely ill-suited to be a 21^st century parliament building. What served well in the Victorian period now restraints and stultifies its occupants.

Across the great river Thames is another iconic building, London’s Country Hall. That’s no longer an important seat of local government. Throughout the country there are hundreds of former Town Halls, now put to other uses. Lots of listed buildings that are rightly preserved as part of our unique British heritage.

I’m reacting to the News story about the cost of repairs to the Houses of Parliament. Possibly six-decades of work at the cost of tens of billions of pounds. Parliamentarians, who may never see the work finished, will need to decide on different potential courses of action.

Let’s be clear. Six-decades ahead takes us to the year 2086. Those at school now will, they hope, be retired as the final lick of paint is applied. Not only that but who on earth can realistically predict the final cost to the taxpayer of such a never-ending project?

This brings home what real long-term planning is all about. Do we adopt a myopic vision based on sentimentality and stick with the existing palace of Westminster or take a different approach.

Buildings, their structure and form, do shape the way we behave. What would be the point of celebrated architecture if such was irrelevant to the human experience. This has been understood in both Germany and Australia.

British architect Norman Foster’s reconstruction of the Reichstag in Berlin[1], finished in 1999, transformed a 19th-century building into a modern, transparent seat of democracy.

The architecture of Parliament House[2] in Canberra is well worth a tour. To be able to walk over the hill, and on top of the building is a profound statement that suites Australians so well.

My view is that an ambitious nation would look at the next sixty years as an opportunity to forge an identity suited to the future not the past.

So, British Parliamentarians move out of Westminster and look for another solution.

The great River Thames is part of our national story in a way that other rivers are not. The River Severn may be longer, not by a lot, but it doesn’t have the navigation that made the Thames and the city of London so pivotal in our national story. What other locations on the River Thames would fit the bill? Likely more central but remaining well connected. My suggestion might shock some people and create an instant rejection.

Our national story is one of roads, rivers, canals and railways. Moving inland along the path of the River Thames, a fast efficient railway service leads to a large town, not yet a city. The ruins of Reading Abbey, founded by King Henry I in 1121 “for the salvation of my soul,” reminds me that a sense of continuity has its place. That’s apt. For the salvation of the souls of our elected representatives, why not choose Reading.

I’m not saying the famous Reading Gaol[3] could be repurposed. Anyway, it’s been sold. But there are numerous sites in that town where a new parliament building would shine a beacon of hope.

[1] https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/reichstag-new-german-parliament

[2] https://www.aph.gov.au/Visit_Parliament

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Reading_Gaol

A Dark Legacy

Controversy is bubbling away like a broken pressure cooker suck on a high gas flame. I’m just writing about the words spoken in Parliament, yesterday. The case of the British “prince of darkness” is one for the textbooks. This man, who acquired the title “prince of darkness[1]” long ago, is Peter Mandelson. Now, formerly a Labour Party member, he’s slithered through political life, in the UK and Europe, dragging controversy everywhere he’s been.

Honestly, I don’t want to write about this politician. A casebook study of a follower of Niccolò Machiavelli’s brutal manual for would-be leaders. Being a “prince” in this century, and the last, seems to bring out the very worst in those who are given the title. It’s fine for fiction to be dotted with so called “evil genius” characters but in real life these are people best avoided.

At the heart of the recent News is not just a betrayal. It’s the habits and lives of powerful people acting in a way that assumes an immunity from any accountability. Evidence that greedy people collude behind closed doors to line their own pockets. That morals go out of the window.

I continue to believe that most politicians in the UK Parliament are motivated to make the world a better place. They go to Westminster to try to make a difference. To fulfil that adage to: “Try and leave this world a little better than you found it.”

I make this assertion not in a naive way. Afterall, I’ve stood for election more than a few times. Quite a lot, in fact. Over several decades. Sadly, never with any great amount of success. Often meeting people on the same journey. Most of those people I met are putting themselves forward to right some wrong or use their expertise for the public good and make a difference.

At the heart of the recent News is a moral vacuum too. This vulgar belief that ingratiating oneself with unethical wealthy individuals has no consequence. Instead of protecting the public interest and exposing corruption, a considerable number of influential men have chosen to either turn a blind eye or adopt disgraceful practices.

On first meeting, I admit that it’s not always possible to know of the evils that another person may have committed. What’s shocking now is the distinct lack of curiosity that seems to have been exhibited by many prominent people. That’s the generous (Christian) interpretation.

The exhibition of misogyny revealed in the information that has been released in the US is disgusting. It’s way beyond that simple expression. If we are to move forward as a society these behaviours must be eradicated. To leave this world a little better than we found it, change must not just be a word that’s sprinkled into public speeches. Behavioural change must materialise.

Yes, we all have a responsibility in this respect. No looking the other way or pretending that unacceptable behaviours are not happening. Call them out. Especially those with a public voice.

[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/prince-of-darkness/

Lessons from Nature

I once said to Kwasi Kwarteng[1] that peak Boris Johnson passed during the early part of his terms as London mayor. Naturally, predicably he didn’t agree with me. This was in the Parliamentary constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge in 2017. I was the Liberal Democrat candidate standing against former Conservative Minister Philip Hammond. The public event we were attending was in Egham in Surrey.

Wow. A hell lot of water has passed under the bridge since that time. It’s like looking back at medieval history and trying to find a thread that links with the here and now. Governments have been and gone, careers have flourished and collapsed, Trump has been and gone and then returned and as was predicted Brexit has turned out to be a disaster.

Here’s a thought. It has always astonished me that we have a common fallacy. If a shelf regarding person who makes a lot of noise was once, even for a fleeting time, good at one job, they will be good at a loosely similar job. What a load of nonsense. So, it has turned out to be.

I’ve been watching the BBC’s series Kingdom[2]. About the animal kingdom. I know that the filming of such a spectacular series takes an enormous amount of dedication and effort. We get the pleasure of watching a well edited set of stories about leopards, hyena, wild dogs, and lions.

It’s tough out there to survive the seasons in the imposing Zambian landscape. We get to see the shifting of power between animal families and from generation to generation. It’s raw nature doing what it does and what it has been doing since the dawn of time. In what appears a paradise, nature is cruel. Rivals quickly exploit weakness. It’s going a bit far to draw a direct link between the rivals in the wild and the rivals in our parliamentary democracy. That said, there are lessons nature can teach us.

One is that top dogs don’t stay top dogs forever. They get their moment in the sun and then it passes. The fight to make a claim on a territory is perpetual. Yes, the cycles of the season have their impact and luck, good or bad, plays its part.

Two, is that a bad move remains a bad move. Ignoring crocodiles is never a good move. Wandering about without the protection of the pack is a high-risk strategy. Backing off, and fighting another day, is the best way to deal with a bigger, meaner, and hungrier opponent.

Where am I going with talk of these two different worlds? Human nature and animal nature.

It’s my reaction to seeing the scribblings of a former Prime Minister wibbling on about how dangerous it would be to reverse Brexit. Boris Johnson, that man whose star faded a long time ago, is writing for tabloid newspapers. He’s writing exactly what anyone would expect to see from those who will not learn from experience.

A bad move remains a bad move. Now, nearly ten years on, a bad decision remains a bad decision. Write what you like, it’s impossible to transform a failed project into a kind of utopia. What’s worse is to try and scare people by writing that we must tolerate failure because we once adopted a failed project is ludicrous. It’s irresponsible. It’s mad.

[1] UK Chancellor of the Exchequer from September to October 2022 under PM Liz Truss.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002hdgh

Engaging the 70%

A little analysis goes a long way. When that analysis chimes with what I observe, then all the better. Not that just because I agree with something that it therefore makes it beyond question. No, what’s satisfying here is to see that overlap on the Venn diagram of thoughts.

In an entirely off the cuff remark I said that if the major, and not so major, UK political parties all go off hunting for the votes of about 30% of the population, then there’s a huge opportunity for someone to address the 70%.

The UK political conference season is in full swing. Four political parties have completed their annual get together. Spent time agonising over their next moves. Damming and praising in equal measure both of rising and falling stars. Trying to avoid the media instinct to go for the live on-air gotcha moment. Being seen when the spotlight is turned on.

Back to my 70 / 30 relationship. This one strikes a bell for me having been a fan of the Pareto principle. That’s often called the 80 /20 rule.

For example, a lot of work may need to be done but it’s often only about 20% of that work that makes a difference, in certain situations. I could campaign over a wide area, without focus, and find that most of my effort had been wasted. Identifying the most fruitful areas to campaign, namely the 20%, might just as likely result in a win but with a greatly reduced effort.

National opinion polls can be deceptive. However, in the absence of real elections they are what people turn to get an indication of what’s going on – now. Today’s opinion polls have politicians spooked[1]. What the meaning of the Reform Party hovering at 30% is an open question.

Is it just like the days of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1980s? A strong move for change that resulted in a flash in the pan. Well, it did open the door for Tony Blair and Co, years later.

Back to my 70 / 30 relationship. Labour, Conservatives and Reform all see this 30% voting intention. It hardly matters if it’s real. They are attracted to it like a moth to a lamp. There’re both data and a perception of who the 30% might be. Suddenly their importance is magnified out of all proportion. Phrase like “hard working people” are banded around. Classifications are sought to move away from past stereotypes like “white van man.”

I read Ben Ansell’s article[2]. I think he’s right. An enormous number of political campaigners fit into what can be called the Professional Managerial Class (PMC). Lots of people aspire to be of the PMC or think they are when they are not. Why do the two biggest political parties, Labour and Conservatives appear to dislike their activists and members so much?

Back to my 70 / 30 relationship. There is an enormous opportunity here for the Liberal Democrats. Not so much the Greens or nationalists. Just by speaking to the 70%. Just by addressing the issue that concern the 70%. Just signing up the 70%.

Not so much the vital few, more the vital many. Parliament could be a very different place in four years’ time.

[1] https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

[2] https://substack.com/@benansell

Unpacking Trust and Suspicion

Tickling the natural suspicion that a politician may say one thing but mean another, is not new. There’s a languid propensity to think the worst of people in power by those who don’t have that power. I wouldn’t argue with that tendency, if that tendency doesn’t become an absolute cover all. There are good people in power, trying to do their best, often against climate set by rogues, troublemakers and opinionated clowns. [A quick summary of the Tory years from 2010].

Natural suspicion is as much a part of the liberal creed as any part. Questions deserve answers because we don’t give politicians a blank cheque after an election. Putting a robust question about past promises and declarations is fair game. Running away is not an option.

However, it’s difficult to defend the blatant distortions that get played out in the daily media. I’m no fan of the UK’s Labour Prime Minister (PM). I don’t think he’s a rogue or troublemaker or dishonest. He’s portrayed as such by his enemies. That’s no surprise. What’s highly disagreeable are blatant distortions of what a person says in all good faith. Populist media outlets that act as propaganda pamphlets do this frequently.

I may say that the declared policies of a right-wing political party are stupid or dangerous or ignorant. What that says is the words used by a spokesperson of that party fit that bill. It does NOT say that that the people who support, even fleeting support, that party are all stupid or dangerous or ignorant.

Reasons for supporting for X or Y or even Z are multifarious and less stable than for past generations. The assumption that most people of a particular “class” will fit into traditional voting patterns is history. That era has passed.

The word “fleeting” is ever more relevant. Often a spokesperson will indeed say something that is merely flying a kite or designed to stir-up controversy. Whereas if they found themselves in power their whole tune would likely change. Reality would bite. Haven’t we seen and heard that before? I may say; do we never learn?

A study rhetoric is as ancient a study as any. Feelings and impressions are as likely to influence us as facts and figures. Performative gestures and colourful language obscure dry reasoning almost always. This basic lesson had to be relearned because of Brexit. There the established facts were clearly against the UK leaving the EU, but it happened anyway. Lots of people regret what happened in 2016. Sadly, such damaging acts are difficult to reverse.

Earthquakes happen because pressure builds up and then there’s a dramatic release. That happens regardless. Events can be quite anarchic and destructive. I guess the trick is to sense that pressure and ensure it doesn’t build up or is redirected. That’s an area where the current PM hasn’t shown a great deal of competence. I wonder if he will learn and adapt.

Composition of the House of Lords

Composition of the House of Lords (HoLs) is a subject whereby a length thesis could be written every week. Our UK Parliament comprises of two houses of widely different nature.

Whenever and wherever there’s a public institution that depends upon appointments made by individuals with a vested interest, there’s problems afoot. A couple of minutes looking at what politician Boris Johnson[1] did while he was Prime Minister (PM) is enough to discredit the whole appointment system. Conservatives have had a habit of thinking of the HoLs as their own private thiefdom.

Please don’t believe I’m damming all the members of the “upper” house of Parliament. There are numerous honourable and capable members, dedicated to public service, who use their time to ensure their expertise is applied to the scrutiny of legislation. The scrutiny of legislation is vital. It’s even more vital because the “lower” house of Parliament, The Commons, does such a poor job holding the Government of the day to account.

If I look at the total votes cast and seats for each political party as a result of last year’s UK General Election[2]. Yes, it was only just over a year ago. Then the political parties with the most votes cast for them do have a claim for proportionate opportunities to recommend new members for the HoLs.

Trouble is that UK General Elections (GE) can come along like buses. There are years of turbulence when the electorate are consulted in quick succession. So, the idea that the composition of the HoLs should reflect the last result of a GE, that’s for the birds. An MPs term of office is that time between GEs. A member of the HoLs sits for much longer, a lifetime.

Should the HoLs reflect proportionally the composition of The Commons? Well, this one too would merely copy the turbulence of electoral fickleness to both parts of the Houses of Parliament. Not a good recipe for long-term stability and decent governance.

Please don’t believe, because of the above, I’m saying that electing the HoLs is a bad proposal. Quite the opposite. It’s that electing the HoCs and HoLs at the same time for the same term of office isn’t a good idea.

For the time being we have an important public institution that depends upon appointments. That quiet exercise of favouritism and gerrymandering is a legacy that resists reform. Will one enlightened day turkeys vote for Christmas? Better not hold our breath.

[1] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/new-life-peerages-in-2023-boris-johnsons-resignation-list/

[2] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10009/CBP-10009.pdf

Do MPs Need Multiple Jobs?

It’s a question that has been raised time and time again. Is a Member of Parliament’s job a full-time job? What I mean is should an elected parliamentarian have more than one job? Do they need it?

Say, a journalist, presenter, documentary maker, official of a political party or union, company director or even a doctor.

There’s a repetitious ding-dong argument that goes on along the lines of – look at this example of great achievement and they were both occupied doing numerous jobs at the same time. Equally there’s the argument – look at this talented person who crashed and burned as a result over commitment and lack of attention to detail. Case by case examples can be found.

Sadly, a case built on individual examples of achievement, or the reverse doesn’t move things forward much. It’s a sort of selective sampling to prove a point. Fame and notoriety play a part too. When a hero, genius, guru or an influencer complex exists rules get bent. Mythical qualities can be ascribed to the subject of attention.

It’s true that some individuals have a capacity for work that goes way beyond the norm. An intellect that shines bright. A refreshing originality or perspective that changes the game.

Now, I’m a down-to-earth straightforward liberal. It’s does matter if you are a King or a Queen, an Olympic athlete or a massive titan of industry or a brilliant orator we are basically all the same. We see the sun rise and we see it set (weather dependent). We walk the same Earth. We are as likely to experience mental or physical challenges in life as any other human.

Back to my question. Is a Member of Parliament’s job a full-time job?

I’d start with the ways and means MPs get elected. It’s rare, if ever, that an individual is so well known that they step into a parliamentary seat with no affiliation, preparation, finance or support. Those people who provide such essential back-up have expectations. Expectations that the candidate, if elected, will dedicate their full-time efforts to their new role when in office. Not too much to ask, methinks.

Given that you and I have finite time and energy, playing multiple roles inevitably dilutes the time and energy available for any one role. Super humans haven’t been invented – yet. Whatever the myths. If a British MPs job is genuinely full-time then where does the extra time and energy come from to do another job?

By saying that an MPs job is not full-time, hasn’t the local electorate been sold a pup. I’m sure that when votes are cast in each constituency an expectation is set-up that a candidate will do a decent job if elected. A moral commitment is made as good as any binding contract.

I agree, that polarising this argument to the extreme isn’t helpful. MPs must manage their time and energy between home and work as most people do. I guess, what’s important is the prioritising of parliamentary duties to the degree they deserve. In other words not taking on equally demanding jobs at the same time.

Some of the cynicism towards British politics, that exists today, stems from MPs abusing their duty by prioritising income and / or notoriety in some other public facing role. Making being a Westminster MP merely a way of achieving other personal goals.

It’s not easy to make hard and fast rules for the above situations. A moral imperative should prevail. Sadly, it doesn’t aways go that way.