Category: Elections

Review: The Autobiography of a Cad at Watermill Theatre

I’ve not done it. I’m always tempted. When I see Boris Johnson’s latest book on the shelf, to turn it around. Anything to discourage the good people of this parish from reading it. The picture of his smiling mug on the front of the book is a horrible reminder of the Brexit years. We’re still in them, and I dearly wish we weren’t.

A wasted decade. What for, I ask? It hits me that this is England. A society that is liberal to the core is obsessed with class. We don’t so much have a class system of the Edwardian era but what we have divides people almost as much. Every day the media trades on stereotypes borne of this embedded class perspective. Having lived in another country for over a decade, I can see it perhaps more than most.

We do joke about it. The pages of the satirical magazine Private Eye would have nothing to write about if “class” was truly a thing of the past. Today’s Parliament remains way overrepresented by a certain class of individual. Usually male.

Last night, I went to see “The Autobiography of a Cad.[1]” This is a story of an Edwardian. You might first think that there’s no relation to any politician of our time. It’s a about a man who has one true love – himself. It’s about how, even events as calamitous as WWI, offer him an opportunity to advantage himself usually at the cost of others.

The toff in question is fictitious. The play is a satirical comedy. It’s a highly entertaining evenings romp through the life of a rampaging chancer. Trust, truth and rules are as nothing in the face of his need to get what he wants. A faithful product of English public schools.

The cad is hazardous to anyone in his orbit. He has no idea of the havoc left in his wake. Ensuring others get the blame for his misdemeanours occupies much of his time. You are left wondering if this is instinctive or learnt this at Eton and Oxford.

Edward Percival Fox-Ingleby claims the title of political titan in his own made-up world. Comedy comes from his efforts to create a story of a colossus.

The play starts as it finishes. Fox-Ingleby standing at a lectern in the rain. Now where have we seen that before?

Watching this, with the intimacy of the Watermill theatre, I was in admiration for the three actors on stage. Galloping at the speed they were, throwing props around and transitioning from year to year was astonishing. I’d recommend this play. Best take a cushion. It’s a long romp.

[1] https://www.watermill.org.uk/events/the-autobiography-of-a-cad

Navigating Political Extremes

There’re arguments that can be made for stability. There’re arguments that can be made for disruption. I don’t think it matters if you are a socialist, centrist, conservative, liberal, oligarch or demigod. The virtue of one over the other is a temporary state of affairs. If this were not the case it would be unlikely that civilization, such as it is, would have ever got this far in its development.

Now, I have discounted the untenable. That is that stability becomes stasis. A moribund inability to do anything, totally regardless. It’s also the case for disruption so catastrophic that that we truly are in an end-of-the-world scenario.

“This too shall pass” has a long history. The temporary nature of everything is encapsulated in those four words. Or as Judas Priest put it “You’ve Got Another Thing Comin”. A thumping beat and screaming chords make great driving music. Put this on a Sony Walkman in the 1980s and the batteries would be flat in minutes.

Am I saying that Biden was stasis and Trump is catastrophic? Maybe. What is it in our minds that mean we flip from one extreme to another? These are question that erudite columnists are wrestling with as they chew over what’s happened with no idea of what’s to come.

In the British system of governance moderation wells up from centuries of tradition and custom and practice. As we are seeing it hardly matters who is in power, history runs so deep that it shapes every move. I never thought I’d have a good word to say for being a country that does NOT having a written constitution. Today, I’m rethinking how it can be advantageous to make things up as we go along.

Writing down sets of rules can be helpful in guiding decision making. Underlying this is the assumption that there’s some continuity and that those rules have a kind of universality. That’s mighty difficult to do given the passage of time.

The problem with writing down sets of rules is that they create something to be circumvented. Let’s use a river plunging over rapids as an analogy. If there is a forceful enough flow of water, it will go around or over any rocks in its way. Strident political forces, ranging from the crude to the cunning, have little difficulty in circumventing established custom and practice. What’s often called the “liberal media” may be horrified even as the river tumbles downhill with increasing speed. Predicting the future with a past perspective doesn’t work.

“This too shall pass” is a motif to hang onto. Just as the river eventually leaves the rapids so we might experience a steadier period ahead.

Look out for extremes. Milking my analogy as far as I can, changing everything, all at once, and relentlessly, is a proven route to disaster. Institutions, accepted norms and the fabric of society getting smashed up on the rapids, forever and a day is the definition of disaster.

Discontent with Conservatives

Those who stuck with the Conservatives at the last UK General Election must be regretting it. After their appalling record in government there are still 121 Conservative Party members of Parliament (MPs). This is the lowest number in the history of the Conservative Party. Parliamentary consistencies, like Reigate[1] and Staines[2], places where I have lived, have little, or no effective representation as the new year gets into its stride.

For what worth they are at this time in the electoral cycle, the Conservative Party and Reform Party (or company) are scrambling around trying to salvage any influence they can get. Both parties are no longer supported by their signed-up membership preferring major donors to pay the bills instead.

Frankly, we have no idea of their real membership numbers[3]. Political party membership hasn’t exactly been booming across the board. What’s clear is that the residual Conservative Party and Reform people are fishing in the same pond.

Last night, I happened to catch part of a Conservative political broadcast on the BBC. The general theme was politicians have let you down. This was said by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch in a non-specific way to avoid saying Conservative politicians have let you down.

I did begin to wonder if she wouldn’t have done better by hosting a daytime cooking show from her immaculate kitchen. Now, I want to know if her mug had coffee or tea in it or was it just and empty prop? It seems to me every time Conservative rebrand, we see a different shade of blue being presented in the media. They are lucky that so many shades of blue are possible.

In the News too is Nigel Farage’s cold shouldering in the US. He may no longer be the far-right’s political great hope for the future. Reform may have to look elsewhere for its champion.

The 650 MPs that were elected by you and me to the House of Commons, at the 4 July 2024 UK General Election are likely to get a full-term. I’d guess that the new government can live with being relatively unpopular for at least a couple of years. After that they had better start showing that life has got better, public services work otherwise they will be a one hit wonder.

For political watchers its going to be fascinating to see how the pseudo-war on the right of politics will pan out in the UK. Will they combine? Having lived through the SDP–Liberal Alliance back in the 1980s, I know how hard it can be to restructure and reorientate in the British context.

There’s a lot of spinning of the wheels. Interim pain and uncomfortable partnering. The certainty being that not everyone will be happy or contented. Some notable people will go off in a huff. Eggs will get broken.

Or are we in a new era media where all that’s needed is tons of fakery and magical thinking. Plush marketing and dramatic assertions backed up by absolutely nothing.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001442

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001505

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq62qv3486qo

Political Challenges: A 2025 Outlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Level Playing Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Gray’s Critique

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, for a more cheerful Sunday morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trouble is that they have aimed at the wrong target.

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

UK Farmers’ Unrest: Budget Shock and Political Implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignoring Climate Change?

In a way, I’m not immune from a little hypocrisy. Petrol prices go up and I’m not going to jump for joy. Prices go down. I’m not suddenly thinking that’s just going to encourage more consumption. No, I’m looking at the pound in my pocket. It will cost me less to fill up the tank.

There was a whole swath of apocalyptic tales of the world in the 1970s. The “oil crisis” of 1973 should have been a warning. Humanity might have taken the opportunity to look at the trends related to oil and gas consumption. There might have been a more sustained reaction.

Instead, alternative lifestyles, renewable energy projects and energy conservation were thought of as quaint novelties or scientific curiosities that would never really catch on. The political addiction to short-termism overrode consideration of substantial change. Increased exploration led to new sources of oil and gas being found.

Today, we should know better. The fight against climate change has a decade of talk behind it. Humanity knows that the link exists between burning hydrocarbon and a changing global climate. We are ignorant no more. Now, I almost wish I hadn’t written that last sentence.

Across the pond there’s a powerful nation. One that influences the behaviour of 100s of other nations. The US is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. However, until the last few weeks it had recognised that maybe that isn’t a good formula for the future.

Back to that dollar in the pocket. Despite the US being a powerful nation many its people didn’t feel that way. All politics is local. When filling up with gas gets more expensive people do not jump for joy. In fact, there’s that human tendance to romanticise the past and remember when everything was cheaper. Life was easier. Can’t we go back?

It’s being reported that US President elect Trump’s choice for energy secretary is going to be like turning the clocks back. Prospect is that the fight against climate change is going to get a back seat. At least for the next 4-years.

Does this spell global disaster? Well, it certainly is a great big lost opportunity. Just like here in the UK, Brexit ignited the tendance to romanticise the past. It looks as if the same phenomena have taken root in the US. Burning more and more hydrocarbons is like a sugar rush. A boom to begin then followed by exhaustion. I expect after this presidential term the results will be one of regret. Just like Brexit. A wonderment – why on earth did we do that?

Still, there’s an opportunity for other countries to race ahead with advanced and alternative technologies to reduce energy dependency. It’s hard to think and act long-term. I’m confident it can be done. If it’s done successfully the prize will be great.

New Form of Monarchy in 2024?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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