Category: Elections

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.

Desperate Politics

I’ll be generous and say that I don’t think Jenrick knows what he is doing. I’m taking about the Conservative British politician Robert Jenrick[1] who is, or has been by the time this gets out, the Shadow Lord Chancellor. Desperately ambitious politicians do all sorts of foolish things to get a headline. With the Conservatives in the doldrums the word desperate is truly applicable.

When looking at his published CV it’s reasonable to think that he might know something, at least the basics. At least some history. Yes, he’s just another well to do lawyer with an Oxbridge education but that’s so typical of Conservative British politicians. At least, he had some kind of working life before taking on parliamentary politics. Today, in Westminster he’s still a Johnny-come-lately having been first elected as a Member of Parliament in 2014.

Jenrick embraced social media to the extent that the right-wing of politics see him as a sort of top-ranking pinstriped influencer. Even if his amateur video antics look like an humourless Benny Hill dressed in a business suit and tie.

Today, he’s crossed a line. Stirring up hate at a time when problems need solutions not mindless rhetoric, is despicable. To say that “British women and girls[2]” are unsafe because of small boats is offensive propaganda designed to drive political debate into ever more nasty territory.

Yes, we have been here before in Britain. Conservative politician, Enoch Powell’s fiery “rivers of blood[3]” speech did a lot of harm, but it got him in the text books. Some do believe that the heart of the Conservative Party is English Nationalism. Wrapped up in the red and white flag of St George as an exclusive club of aggressive narrow-minded men and their followers.

I’ll be generous and say that’s not the conventional Conservative Party. At times of its greatest success, and let’s face it, that political party has been highly successful in winning elections, it’s been a broad church. A diverse party that has encompassed a wide range from woolly liberals to traditional imperialists.

If Jenrick thinks that jumping on bandwagons and stirring up hatred is the way to go he’s foolish. We are not in the 1930s, or even the 1960s, this is a new age and a challenging one at that. Social media was supposed to be a great educator and liberator. In some ways it is but within its walls are pits of despair and stinking wells of polarisation and Xenophobia.

Addressing the public disillusionment that exists by pointing the finger at one group or other as being the root of all our problems is totally mindless. It only seeks to elevate the profile of minor demigods and snake oil salesman (conmen).

Inflammatory speeches get headlines; there’s no doubt about that sad fact. For a moment eyes turn to the speaker, but history turns away from them. In comparison with the 21st century challenges the country faces the so called “small boats” are a small one. Real solutions to real problems are needed not hideous grandstanding.

POST: Xenophobia is the fear or dislike of anything that is perceived as being foreign or strange

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/people/robert-jenrick

[2][2] https://www.gbnews.com/news/robert-jenrick-britains-women-girls-endangered-migrant-crisis

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/enoch-powell-rivers-blood-legacy-wolverhampton

Lowering the Voting Age

The line-up of predicable grumpiness is no more than might be expected. For once the UK’s Government has decided to bite the bullet and make a long overdue change. It’s time to bring the voting age down to 16-years old. This is a policy that has long been advocated by Liberal Democrats. Wisely so. Like it or not, we have a stubborn geriocracy in Britan. Political influence is top heavy. An agenda dominated by issues toping the polls with older voters.

Yes, we did see changes, a year ago with the last General Election. More younger candidates winning. However, the average age of a Member of Parliament[1] floats around 50-years. This average age hasn’t changed much over decades.

Studies on what motivates candidates to stand for election often point to community engagement and activism being part of their lives. It’s only when, in mid-life, opportunities present themselves and support can be marshalled that they stand for election.

And the retirement community of the House of Lords is solely built on the notion that age brings wisdom. Sadly, so often this does not ring true. Ten minutes watching the Parliamentary channel is a good way to see a range of speakers from erudite to senile. From expert to confused. From informed to delusionary. On occasion a few sleeping on the comfortable red leather benches.

When the elderly hold so much political power it’s difficult enough to get 18-year-olds to take an interest in voting. This is not an argument for the status-quo. Far from it.

Those in the age group 16 to 18 years are interested in society and the direction it’s taking. Youth activism hasn’t entirely perished in the world of tick-boxing education. Loading students up with enormous loans, with learning establishments seeing them as revenue generators, and deaf ears to their concerns has done a lot to supress youth engagement in elections.

There’s a lot to be said for “no taxation without representation”. Young people do work. They do pay taxes. They should have a stake in how those taxes are spent.

What’s not to be presumed is that a new youth vote will automatically lean to the left of politics. It’s easy to make that sloppy assumption. It may arise because the prominent youth activist who get media exposure are those campaigning on environmental and social issues. That does not say much about the majority who may choose to go to a polling station.

I think the larger number of young voters, despite the media stereotypes, will likely vote the way of their parents and friends. Having been nurtured in a particular way this is not so surprising. The lazy stereotypes of riotous youths biting the hand that feeds them is only true of a few, it’s not the majority. It’s belonging to dusty Woodstock documentaries.

It’s for the political parties to up their game and campaign with young people in mind. Even with the best of efforts election turn-out is still likely to be low. At least the message is that the next generation matter. If these modest changes are blocked because older people fear the next generation that is a very sad reflection of our society. Surely, it’s better to have younger people invested in their communities. 

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/

The Greasy Pole

I think we should be indebted to the writers of “Yes Minister.” And the brilliance of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne, and Derek Fowlds[1]. No mobile phones, lap-tops or tablets, wood panelled offices, a Minister with all the backbone of a jellyfish and the cunning and mountainous pomposity of Oxbridge’s best.

It’s the ultimate lesson for aspiring British politicians. Fresh faced, with ambition and desire to make a difference they are confronted with the custom and practice of centuries. A bureaucratic minefield that tops anything Brussels can produce.

At first, it’s easy to see Jim Hacker as naive to the point of merely being indulged by the civil service. He learns fast, as a good parliamentarian should always do. Fun being seeing him turn the tables on the Whitehall establishment. Often at the expense of hysterically awkward moments and sporadic cynical manoeuvrings.

Last night, I watched “The greasy pole”[2]. Without a doubt this episode remains 100% relevant. It first went out in 1981. The story’s themes are universal.

A proposed industrial development offers secure jobs and potential prosperity. It comes with a hitch. Activism and noisy protests aimed against the project. Industry and the civil service want the factory to get built. The Right Honourable James Hacker sits on the fence. Blows hot and cold but realises that his political career pivots around sinking the project. The Minister wins out in the end much to the discomfort of the department officials.

It would be easy to write the entire plot in terms of 2025’s political difficulties. This morning’s News ran a story that wasn’t so far off the plot of “The greasy pole.”

A new Labour government minister tells of publishing a report that favours a point of view he wishes to get across. He continually mentions the name of the author of the report. Mimicking Jim Hacker as he makes sure everyone knows the report’s author, just in case he’s made a mistake.

Although, with the complete ridiculousness of the past British Conservative governments it may have been said that satire is dead. No, it certainly isn’t. Here it was playing out on the BBC on my kitchen radio at breakfast time.

This is the stubborn reality. In Britain we have a new absurdly named political party called “Reform.” They are flying high in the opinion polls because some people think the word has a political meaning. However, if these would be politicians were to gain a position of power, would they conduct long-needed reforms? Well, given the competence of the people involved and given the historic clashes between elected officials and civil servants the answer is most certainly – no.

It seems to me that new Labour government ministers are slowly getting the hang of the job. One year in they are still a bit wet behind the ears. Gradually, they are climbing the greasy pole. At any moment, because of the nature of the job, down they can come, and they know it.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b006xtc3/yes-minister

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751819/

Evolution Politics

Wake up John. The herald of today was there in the late 1990s. There was me fascinated by the possibilities of the INTERNET. Buzzing modem squeaking down a phone line. With such peculiarities as Y2K behind us the new century provided broadband access to everyone. Almost everyone. Eventually, being off grid became a sales tag for remote rural settings.

Meanwhile, good old-fashioned popular entertainment media was desperately trying to make itself relevant to the new era. Proliferation of reruns were not enough. Stale formats dwindled. In that maelstrom, reality television was born. Technology shaped what became possible. It was a horror to me but then again, I was just out of touch.

Big Brother is a strange beast. Watching joe average or minor celebrities make complete fools of themselves for big bucks – how could that work? It did, bigtime. Undeniably scoring with the public. It spawned lots of similar shows bombarding us with unscripted chat seen through the tight lens of an edited television show.

Not quite like throwing Christians to the lions, familiar to Romans, but a social experiment open to participants combative as much as caring behaviour. Watching relatable and unrelatable volunteers try their best to seem nice or nasty as they thought appealing.

25-years on, now British politics begins to resemble reality television. That creation provided a pathway through our screens to capture our attention. To make names out of relatively unknowns. Or to revive careers waning.

I said “begins to resemble” without realising that I’m being a dinosaur. It’s here. A politician can’t anymore stand on a soap box and pontificate about the world. The grand ark of a well written speech is destined for the dustbin. Every presentation needs to be framed as if they are in the jungle (I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here![1]).

Reality shows are becoming a training ground for political personalities. Forget the serious need to do an apprenticeship. That one has been hijacked too. The basic grind of administration and casework can be bypassed if the candidate is a good enough showman or woman.

Going back to the 1990s, I think a lot of us were naive about the coming technologies. There was an imagining of the information superhighway[2] as a great educator. A positive liberator. A forum for better communication. Making it easier for people to have a real dialogue with the elected officials. Thus, solving problems, cutting down bureaucracy and engaging communities.  

Of course it is those things. The naivety came with the blindness to the huge entertainment possibilities. How reality and make-believe can get intermingled. How dominant personalities would capture the cameras like Hollywood stars.

With that fuzziness between reality and make-believe storytelling takes on a new importance. That’s what political managers have discovered in abundance. Medium and message have always been closely linked. Now, a would-be star or demigod must take that ever more seriously to win.

[1] https://www.itv.com/imacelebrity

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/videos/czv20818q2no

The Legacy of Paine

Reading a little of Thomas Paine’s rantings about the inequities of monarchy, it’s clear why he is remembered as a key part of the story of American Independence.

It’s not surprising that he viewed the British institutions of the 17th Century as arbitrary and tyrannical. An Englishman fervently attacking his country of birth. Pointing out every flaw and deficiency in respect of the condition of the common man.

He was a revolutionary provocateur and a provocateur of revolutions. His widely read pamphlets, the social media postings of the day, stimulated the American Revolution. A cry for freedom and escape from everything he thought rotten in Europe. America being a potential beacon of hope. Denouncing the English aristocracy sealed his fate. Now, he known as a founding American. So, where are we after 250 years[1]?

Europe to a great extent, slowly but surely, followed the American experiment. The power of privilege, the monarch, the aristocracy diminished, and the common man, and eventually woman too, asserted their rights through the ballot box.

Britain, although there are committed republicans, hasn’t thrown off the monarchy. It’s adapted its role in such a way that it retains popular public support. Europe has many “bicycling” monarchs who hold colourful ceremonial roles mostly as a celebration of traditions.

Are the roles of the continents reversing? Are the American States drifting towards a new monarchy? That concentration of arbitrary power and privilege in one place. It’s a situation for political philosophers to ponder.

Take recent utterings in the News that are wholly wrong. The European Union (EU) is in part, so that Europeans can be more like Americans. That’s not a popular thing to say so I’d better step with care. Although, much as changed in the post-war world, federalism isn’t coming to Europe any time soon.

The EU solves the historic diplomatic problem of asking – I want to call Europe. Who do I call? Recent generations in both continents have benefited tremendously from the constructive and positive dialogue across the Atlantic.

Back to my question. Are the roles of the continents reversing? Imagine Europe as the premier global bastion of freedom, democracy and liberty. A renaissance of enlightenment, of free speech and human rights. Perhaps it is already.

Sadly, it would be wrong of me to record this as fact. With the rise of populism and right-wing fantasists, we would do well to go back and read Thomas Paine. Although, that’s not an entirely a clear-cut line to take. Paine was very much in favour of small government and self-reliance. Traditional Republican themes. I’ll take his revulsion at tyranny.

[1] The Bicentennial culminated on Sunday, July 4, 1976, with the 200th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

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.