Category: Elections

Protest

Experience of protest can range from the exhilarating and heartwarming to the frightening and intimidating. There’s a huge range of different experiences. Here’s a few:

During our Brexit phase of rocky turbulence, I stood in High Streets and marched through the city. Everything on the part of the remain protestors I met was peaceful and good natured. That can’t be said of those who took a different view. I distinctly remember a couple of in-your-face moments when approached by emotional and irrational individuals who seemed only to want to shout aggressive slogans in as intimidating manner as possible.

Overall, I’ve been fortunate. Every time I stood as a parliamentary candidate, more than 6-times, I was part of public events where people freely assembled. One of the mainstays of a British election campaign is an open event at a school or college where people can see and talk with candidates in-person and up close. These public events are essential for a functioning democracy. Voters can ask questions and draw their own conclusions from the performance of candidates answering in a local setting about key issues.

My work gave me the privilege of traveling to different countries. In my time off, I’d often look around and get a sense of what was driving political debate in that part of the world.

I remember a couple of occasions when the pure innocence of being a tourist brought be in contact with situations that if I’d known at the time I would have surely avoided. There’s one moment when walking through a huge square in Rome when I suddenly became aware that there were an unusual number of paramilitary police around. I was walking through crowds in the Piazza del Popolo. I looked back from where I’d been and noticed big green water cannon pointing towards the people around me. Inadvertently, I’d strode into a gathering of far-right political protestors. Once I’d clocked what was happening, I was out of there like a shot. 

Today’s, discussion about the nature of protest is one that should be handled in a careful and considered manner. There are threats and dangers that lurk in free and open public settings, but the answer is not to shut them down. Maintaining a balance is vital.

I do not agree with the Just Stop Oil protestors that their cause justifies the exceptional measure of parking themselves outside the homes of elected or would be politicians. Now, that maybe different when considering their places of work but it’s a basic human right – the right to a family life without intimidation. The families of those who work in politics must not be fair game.

In our media saturated world there are more ways of making a strong point about an issue now than there ever has been. There are more opportunities for creative and imaginative peaceful protests, more outlets, and more coverage. Maybe that’s part of the problem. Saturation.

Assemblies of people have and always will be, since classical times, a manner by which collective views will be openly expressed. They can become disruptive. That requires a degree of restraint and management. However, tightening restriction to the point of elimination of uncomfortable and troublesome protest will only make the overall situation much worse.

Protest can be the release of a pressure cooker. They signal where we all need to pay attention. They may not solve problems, but they are part of the equation.

14-years

All political parties have factions.  If the aim is to corral all liberals, social democrats, conservatives, or socialists and keep them under one roof it’s always going to be a hard job. Even as we speculate about the shelf-life of the traditional political ideologies, they remain powerful.

Liberals can be particularly difficult in this respect. It has been said that getting liberals to go in one direction is like trying to herd cats.  However, that picture is a dubious one in times when great injustices must be addressed, or a good cause strongly fires campaigning spirits.

What’s fascinating is the decline and fall of “normal” conservatism. That mild mannered compromise between self-interest, traditional values and deference has slowly fallen apart. It could be because of its poor fit with modern society but it’s more likely to be because it has ripped itself apart from within. Factions have strengthened and the core beliefs that formerly bonded people together have fractured. Brexit may have been both symptom and cause.

There’s the case that populism has been radically amplified by modern media. A crescendo of views and all we hear and see is the peaks and troughs. Anything in the middle is drowned out.

So, the current Prime Minister’s (PM), let’s remember we’ve had a few, calls for unity. It’s a trumpet sounding in an anechoic chamber. Not likely to be heard, except by himself and those standing next to him. Their smiles are professional smiles. Their hopes are forlorn.

Analogies are fun. Another one came up this week as the Parliamentary byelection results appeared. The British electorate could be compared to a sea going super tanker. That is, being big and having so much momentum, changing direction takes a long time. Once that direction has set there’s not much that can be done in the short-term. That national super tanker maybe going slightly left of centre whatever happens. Of course, a crude analogy isn’t necessarily true. It’s more of a prediction of what might happen if pivotal events do not intervene. That’s easy to say. It’s less easy to anticipate such dramatic earthshaking events.

One thing I can feel confident about is that this is not a re-run of 2019. No way. Nor is it a re-run of 1997. A vital ingredient is missing. We have no charismatic political leaders. Vision is in short supply.

Facebook has a habit of throwing up pictures from the past. One it threw my way this week was of me standing in Crawley town looking every bit a parliamentary candidate. That was 2010. I looked at the image and thought – if only I’d had some inclining of what was to come in the next 14-years.

If only I’d anticipated how badly the coalition would turn out for liberalism. If only I’d anticipated what foolish gamblers Cameron and Clegg were in thinking a national referendum would silence the Europhobic hordes. If only the Labour Party hadn’t gone on a doomed left-wing romp. If only the reality of Johnson’s unfitness for office had sunk in earlier.

Looking back provides lessons. It doesn’t predict what will happen next. We all to often get hooked on linear projections based on where we stand now. Forecasting is as much a mystery as ever it has been. That said, I think doing the maths is better than looking at the tea leaves or seaweed. A narrative for the future could read – don’t think “that’ll never happen,” think change is natures way of keeping us on our toes.

Here’s a prophecy. This one has good and bad. Long talked about and feared by those who milk the status quo, Proportional Representation (PR) will be implemented for national elections in the UK in the next 14-years. The dated model of big tent political parties will crumble. Ballot papers in years to come will have something for everyone. So, what’s bad about that transformation? Populism will not die. It will just eke out an existence in many new forms.

QT

Over the years the BBCs Question Time (QT) debate programme[1] has played an important part in political discussions. It was a must watch for political activists and students at all levels. In fact, anyone interested in understanding the political views that permeate the country.

Unfortunately, the programme has declined to become a dull backwater for viewing if there’s nothing else on. The format is locked in to an awkward seeking of balance at the expense of an inquiry into the reasons and justifications for widely different views. There’s little in the way of vigorous cross-examination or investigation into the core values of the speakers.

I don’t want to blame the person who chairs the debate or the BBC for hanging on to the QT heritage. The programme has played an important part in the life of the country, in the past.

I don’t want to be one of those social media complainers for whom any deviation from the age of Robin Day is a blasphemy. Those black and white days are a wonderful snapshot of a long-lost era. The relationship between the public and their politicians has changes beyond recognition.

There’s no doubt that we have all become somewhat more superficial than may have been the case in the past. Politics has become something that is marketed to us as a commodity. It shouldn’t be that paper thin.

At its best such a debate programme gets to the fundamentals. If it merely tracks yesterday’s headlines the results are predicably shallow. Audience and panel members simply echo what we already know. What we’ve already heard elsewhere throughout the day.

What I want to know is more of the why and less of the what.

Say, a social liberal politician objects strongly to a dilution of human rights and a hard right leaning conservative welcomes such a dilution. We may already know that’s the positions they have adopted and campaigned on but are those positions of convenience or core beliefs?

Exploring what panel members really think and what they might really do is surly more interesting than allowing them to play to the audience, at home or in the room. I want an objective chair to put the panel members under pressure to uncover any deceptions. Deference born of an obsession with balance is as bad that born of class or impoverishment.

One of the parts of the format that seems unquestionable is the requirement to answer questions posed by members of the public. The audience is supposed to represent the members of the public not in the room. They rarely do. I’d much rather see a town square type format. That’s where the members of the public engaged are not so pre-selected or self-selecting. Walk out into a typical high street and randomly ask what question do you want answered? Do it live.

QT needs a major shakeup. It’s not quite dead. Its revitalisation is possible, but it needs to get off its current path.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t1q9

Housing

It was astonishing to listen to a Conservative Minister this morning. My diet of News and current affairs always starts with the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. Lee Rowley MP was everything you would expect from a former management consultant turned poltico.

Basically, the man is in denial. Everything is fine and all we need is one or two tweaks. Housing problems, only happen in Labour run areas. Everything is peaches and cream. Converting offices and shops into dwellings is perfectly fine. High prices for small cubes without windows – what’s the problem?

Then Mr Rowley wiggled around in his seat when asked outright: what’s the aim? How many houses will the latest proposal delivery? The answer was evasive. It’s not about numbers so the Minister said. Policies without a measure of success or failure are like sentences without meaning. This Minister couldn’t stand on the record of Ministers gone by, so he waffled.

The Minister for Housing is the person in the UK Government responsible for national housing policy. So, after 14 years in power we might expect us, the public, to be reaping the benefits of the seeds sown at the start of a term of Government. Nothing like that is remotely true. Initiative launched now are framed as if a unique and radical new approach is being taken to improve a dire record. Ignoring that the record is that of the current Government.

I don’t want to forgive the Minister, but he has only been in the job since November last. Chopping and changing Ministers is a habit of this Conservative Government. It’s almost like they hot desk, a few weeks here and then a few weeks there. Never enough to get much done.

UK housing, planning, and building is in a poor state. The demand far outstrips supply. Prices are ridiculous. Typically, the percentage of a young person’s income spent on accommodation is horrendous. Rents are high and first-time house buyers are finding it harder and harder. Tenancies are insecure and landlords are giving up.

Although, I remember having to endure high interest rates, at least housing was affordable in the mid-1980s. On a moderate income a mortgage could be secured for about 2 to 3 times annual income. My first brick built two up, two down, was a big step but it was affordable.

I believe this is going to be a General Election issue. Or it should be. It’s time for young people to come out and vote. It’s time for their voice to be heard. It’s time for a major shake-up in the way housing is provided in the UK. Policies enacted in recent years have punished those at the bottom of the ladder.

That’s my thought for the day. Change is vital.

POST: In his BBC radio programme, Tim Harford explains the statistics used in political debate and the News. The Minister above was comparing apples and pears, as is so often the case, when talking about the social housing that has been built[1]. Comparing the period before the Conservatives came to power with the period afterwards, using different metrics is a deception.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001w86h

Drive

Listening to talk radio passes the miles of spray as I thundered down the motorway in the heavy rain. Oddly, going West to East seems somehow to be “down” although that makes no sense at all. Today, the M4 looked at its least attractive.

Inherently, those who take the time to phone in to radio stations are a self-selecting group of people who have been themselves been selected by the station’s editors. Afterall, who wants a dull silence or an abusive incoherent rant? That’s what social media is for (smile).

I’m guilty as a listener of quick stereotyping. I’m human. Radio voices do give a hint of education and personality. Unfortunately, my irrational biases are not too different from a lot of people. That association of a middle English accent-less voice as being “intelligent” is so easy to make. Contrasted that person with a broad regional accent, God forbid, West Country, then it’s all to easy to think smock and pitchfork.

What I’m recalling is a man speaking in the poshest London accent one can imagine. The subject was flip flops (flippy floppy[1]) that opposition politicians are doing as they change their policies. Is it national News that circumstances change and policies change accordingly? Apparently, it is.

He was saying that he had intended to vote Labour in the forthcoming UK General Election because he wanted change. It’s time for a change. Now, recent announcements had put him off. The radio host asked him who he was going to vote for when the election finally came. His answer was not inspiring; the devil you know, he said. My reaction was one of destain. I wanted to shout at the radio; you mean after all the screw-ups this lot have made you would still want them back in power!

I thought how can an intelligent person, maybe that was a leap too far, stick with the devil you know, when you know that devil is so grossly incompetent? Their overall performance has been poor. It’s a mystery but is that’s a common view? Is the taste for change so weak?

That sort of spur of the minute instinctive reaction is quite legitimate. Afterall, it’s a secret ballot. So, if that’s the way a person feels then that’s the way they will go. Comfort blanket politics.

My problem is that the whole notion of accountability goes out of the window if people constantly stick with the “devil you know” regardless of what they have done. If choosing differently is always considered to be too risky then no one will ever know if things can get better (to paraphrase a slogan from a past election[2]).

There’s some political mendacity here too. If we go back to the 2016 referendum, it was decidedly risky to vote for Brexit. That didn’t stop tub thumping right-wing politicians from pushing the risky option. Now, those same right-wing politicians want to cling to power so they are advocating exactly the opposite. That’s to encourage the electorate to think that change is far too risky. I can image a new political slogan saying – Yes, we are awful but we say we are not so awful as all the others. Dick Emery[3] would be proud.

[1] https://youtu.be/CFNML_MGq-M

[2] https://youtu.be/V6QhAZckY8w

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/03/dick-emery-dies-archive-1983

Look ahead

Much as I support the UK Government’s position on hormone injected beef, the exit from negotiations on trade have wide implications. Maintaining the regulations that ban the use of hormones in beef is a good move for farmers and consumers.

However, for cheese exports the collapse of talks is tragic. Zero to 200% is one hell of a tariff jump. The UK will be in a worse position with respect to trade than it was pre-referendum. That’s with a strong ally, namely Canada[1]. Brexit has made us worse-off.

Yet, the Brexit supporters that remain, still herald Brexit as a wonder. Logic plays no part in their thinking. It’s easy to respond in an angry way to this self-inflicted blindness. It does no good. The stubborn streak in those who have dug a big hole is a thick one. And the hole is getting ever bigger.

Clearly, there’s no urgency on the part of Canada[2]. On the UK side the urgency is much greater. The need to stimulate growth to bring about a recovery in the British economy is much needed. Sadly, the legacy of a decision made in 2016 has made created a weak negotiating position.

For a long time, the UK has been given a soft landing due to transitional arrangements. Now, these arrangements are drying up. Far from the propaganda of the Brexiters, trade deals are not easy.

The problem is a reference back to the past is like crying over spilt milk[3]. How to go forward when the relationship between different States has been significantly changed is no simple matter. The situation is not irrecoverable but the avenues that can be explored are limited.

So, I caution of a never-ending lament. Brexit will need to be rectified. The means to do it are tortuous and may take a long time. The means to undo the mistakes of the past may face opposition from many quarters. One of the predictions for the European elections, this year, are that there will be a swing to the political right. Several right-wing political parties across Europe are on the ascendancy.

Instinctively these right leaning political parties are likely to less internationalist and more focused on immediate domestic concerns. So, third parties, like the UK, may not be high on Europe’s future agenda. On the UK side the major political parties have gone quite on Europe. There’s plenty of campaigning on international issues, like climate change and military conflict but little on enhanced working together.

There are many national news stories where solutions are best arrived at by greater communication, cooperation, and coordination. This year, so far, the signs are that these three “c” are going to take a back seat. Ironic, isn’t it. Facing greater international challenges than for decades, States choose to look inward. This myopia will continue until leaders speak positively of the future. Vision is needed.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/canada-britain-pausing-free-trade-agreement-talks-2024-01-25/

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-uk-trade-cheese-1.7094817

[3] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cry-over-spilt-milk

Bland & Blue

How do we get the politicians we do? There’s no originality in that monster question. If we look across the Atlantic the most political peculiar fight is going on. A couple of elder gentlemen running as fast as they are able. I have to say that with solemnity as I’m in my sixties. The United States (US) has a fight no one seems to want, brought about by an inability to plan successions.

In Britain, I look around and see a country full of capable and talented people and then compare them with the political choices in front of us. Big choices are going to be needed this year. The limited choice is as peculiar as any. It’s maddening.

This week, a full gloss blue leaflet popped through our letterbox. Now, I’ve no objection to people putting traditional political messages through the letterbox. One of my favourite sayings is from a long-gone Cornish politician of great merit. If you have something to say, put it on a piece of paper and stuff it through the letterbox. David Penhaligon[1] would make that a mantra. It was about community politics. It was about talking about the local issues that were of most concern to local people. Focusing on what matters.

Anyway, the folded A4 headshot that came through my door looked more like an advert for dentistry than a local political message. Gleaming smiles are fine. When they gleam so much and so wide, I’m reminded of the jailed politician in the second Paddington Bear movie[2]. More of the same and can I count on your vote? No meaningful substance.

The fictional Peruvian bear who travels to London in search of a home would have swiftly been sent to Rwanda by this mob. Paddington’s admirable and lovable qualities wouldn’t last ten minutes in real 21st century Britain.

I’m assuming this was a paid political leaflet distribution. The Post Office (PO) gave us two copies in two days. Along with some pizza adverts. This is not material carefully delivered by dedicated local party activists. No, it’s a commercial distribution. Remarkable when considering that Reigate’s constituency is a “safe seat”, where the past results for the Conservatives hardly need counting. Just measure the length of the ballot pile on the table.

These expensive colour leaflet distributions happen long before an election is called so that the costs don’t have to be counted in the election expenses of the candidate.

What’s surprising is that this shiny blue leaflet didn’t have a single potholes picture. That’s where the candidate or prospective candidate stands over a pothole and points. Implication being that they will solve that problem. No pictures of flood waters or the attendant sewage outfalls that have become fashionable on political leaflets. No pictures of traffic hazards or schools that need money spent on upkeep. No pictures of abandoned plans to improve local railway services. Just bland page fillers.

Nothing from other Parliamentary candidates – yet. Let’s hope they have something to say.

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddington_2

Democracy

It’s one thing to talk about elections in theory it’s another to talk about them in practice. Only one person knows when the next UK General Election will be held. It’s the privilege of one person to say so. Since the UK gave up on fixed terms, power rests with the Prime Minister.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 set a five-year interval between ordinary general elections[1]. The next UK General Election would have been scheduled to take place on 2 May 2024. Now, all of that has gone, within the life of a Parliament, it’s for one person to call a General Election at the time of their choosing. Imagine a race where one competing athlete gets to fire the starting gun. There’s no role for Parliament in deciding when a UK General Election will be held.

What we do know about this year is that there will be European Elections held between 6th and 9th June. I would say, mark the dates on your calendar. In fact, I will say mark the dates on your calendar, if you’re a European citizen living and working in the UK.

In this case citizens know when they will have the power to exercise their democratic right. They can plan accordingly. They can play a part in the process. They can weight-up the options.

Hundreds of millions of people in Europe can determine the nature of the next European Parliament. British citizens, because of Brexit will have no say in this huge application of democracy.

This is undoubtably a time when unity amongst European allies is of paramount importance. There are threats in numerous places around the globe. The need for close cooperation between the UK and EU is becoming ever more evident[2].

Foreign policy and defence interests have a great number of common threads that bind Europe together. Couple that with the uncertainty that exists in relation to future transatlantic links, then getting along better is an absolute necessity.

The naïve – go it alone – attitude of Brexiters has unravelled. A more pragmatic settlement is essential for mutual benefit as we move forward. Defence industrial collaboration is a must. It hardly needs to be questioned. Many of the large aerospace and defence enterprises that the UK military depends upon are established European companies. Collaboration is nothing new.

War in Ukraine came as an unexpected nightmare. This European conflict is likely to become ever more protracted. Much as the country might wish it was not so, there are limited ways in which the conflict can be resolved. Self-determination remains a core belief amongst western democracies. This must be backed up by force otherwise it becomes meaningless.

After Brexit, going forward the UK will have no say, and no veto, over how EU defence progresses. From here, it’s best that cooperation, collaboration, and influence go hand in hand.

[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06111/

[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-rishi-sunak-ukraine-war-europe-uk-inches-toward-eu-defense-projects/

Votes count

Sneaking past the national news this week was a change that is of more than a little significance.

For more than a decade, I did live outside these shores. All the time that I did, I continued to vote in local and national elections. At that time, I still had an address in the UK. What would have happened if I’d continued to live abroad, for more than 15-years, is that my right to vote would have been taken away. This so-called 15-year rule meant that millions of British citizens were excluded from voting.

During the referendum of 2016 a great number of British citizens living abroad were unable to vote for or against Brexit. At the time this was seen as a great injustice. This was especially true for those who maintained strong links with the UK.

Now, almost without anyone noticing, the UK is aligning itself with other major democracies in the world. The 15-year rule has been scrapped. Some people estimate that the change to the franchise could mean an additional 3 million British citizens will have the right to vote restored.

British citizens living abroad, who no longer have an address in the UK, can now register to vote in UK General Elections. Which is convenient given that one is imminent. Naturally, this still requires those who are eligible to know about the change and to register to vote.

Interestingly, it’s the Conservatives who promised to enact “Votes for Life” in three previous election manifestoes. It’s taken a long time but the reality of the extension of the franchise is now with us[1].

The ability to donate to political parties comes with these changes. Maybe that’s one reason that Conservatives were persuaded of the need to change voting rights for the British abroad.

There’s still a possible Brexit related uncertainty. Should they occur, each UK referendum has different voting rules. So, the general restoration of the franchise may not impact any future vote on the reversal of Brexit. That would be a matter for specific legislation.

Lifelong voting rights have both a plus and a minus. For most people who retain interests in the UK it’s a matter of natural justice. They may have UK pensions, pay taxes, or have family members that are directly affected by changes that British politicians can, and do make.

For those people who have completely severed ties with the UK it maybe argued that this restored right to vote is generous. However, there’s no obligation for those who have no interests in British governance to register to vote.

Given that the British abroad can all participate in national elections, it will be interesting to see if future UK governments take more interest in their situations.

Starting on 16 January 2024, if you are a British citizen living abroad, now is the time to act. Register to vote.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/voting-when-abroad

Distraction

The Rwanda debate is an enormous distraction. I know there’s a hard core rump of Conservatives who will jump on the deterrent argument in a microsecond. It’s nonsense. For people who are willing to risk their lives to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world, the possibility of deportation isn’t going to make an ounce of difference.

No, this is mainly lawyers, talking lawyerly talk about what lawyers might do. Then getting wrapped around the axial about what their colleagues may or not think. Trying to fly the dark flag of nationalism higher than anyone on the green benches. All the time with their eyes on the headlines of tabloid newspapers[1]. No surprises, no innovation and chance of making a difference.

The bill in Parliament has little to do with the practical realities of the problems that the UK faces. There’s also the pernicious euro bashing opportunity that some of the more unscrupulous MPs are only too happy to exploit. There’s nothing more they like than to point fingers at others to avoid taking any responsibility for the current situation.

A week in Parliament gets wasted. This is not unfamiliar when governments have run their course. They wander around concerned about making a show. Troubled about opinion polls. Wondering how to hang on to their jobs. This is not a good season for practical problem solving.

Sitting in a local cafe drinking coffee isn’t the best way to judge the public mood at the moment but isn’t the worst either. So, I’ll paint a picture. An unrepresentative picture. Ironically, the picture comes from the old town hall in this town. A place that, no doubt was the seat of much local debate and discission in past decades. Now a coffee shop for a major brand. Where isn’t?

To my right a gentleman, who must have been at least in his 70s, sat in a comfortable chair head down engrossed in the Daily Mail. One of the few people with a daily newspaper in hand.

To my left young people sitting over their studies. Flicking between their workbooks and mobile phones. Consumed by their mate’s chat. Busy with something but who knows what.

In front, a group of female friends taking the time to meet. Exchanging stories of the week. Families, children, distant relatives, work, money, holidays, in fact all the topics of everyday life.

Where does the Rwanda debate sit with this random selection of coffee shop drinkers? In my estimation only with the man who may have caught the headlines. The only consolation prize for the Conservatives is that one man maybe likely to be a regular voter. Goes out in all weathers and marks his cross in a box.

Now, I hope I’m not maligning anyone. It’s mighty foolish to look at someone and say I know how they vote. Do that on the doorstep and be immediately surprised. Believe it or not I’ve known lifelong socialists who read The Sun newspaper for the sports stories. Or that’s what they’ve said.

The strategy of the Conservatives would seem to be to try and secure their core supporters having given up on the thought of winning a general election they still don’t what to lose too heavily.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-67989069