Elections – Page 8 – John Vincent

Blind alley

It only takes a few seconds of listening to the UK Government’s spokesperson Sarah Dines MP this morning to realise that the Conservative approach to a serious subject is peppered with one thing. It’s desperation and fear of losing the coming General Election. At every chance an interviewer will stand, such Conservative MPs take the opportunity to dam their opposition rather than answer questions addressing their responsibilities.

I get my news and current affairs top-up every morning via BBC Radio 4. I guess that’s becoming a rarer and rare phenomenon. Yes, as a radio dinosaur, I still have faith in the power of a well-constructed and probing radio interview. Sadly, an interviewer’s best efforts to get to the core of a subject are often thwarted by repetitious political soundbites.

“With respect” is a pernicious way of diverting a conversation away from questions that are embarrassing and hard to answer. That horrid amalgam of lawyerly pomposity and public relations training puts me off my breakfast.

It’s clear the Rwanda saga is purely political. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Sarah Dines struggled to make a coherent argument. Let’s be quite honest. Threatening to ship immigrants off to Africa is not going to stop immigration.

Stopping the “pull factor” is not going to work by such measures. Those prepared to accept high risks to their lives, in precarious situations will not be put-off by administrative and bureaucratic shuffling in the UK Home Office. For those who have been at the mercy of murderous criminals, as they have made their way into Europe, they are not going to be put off by a lawyerly Minister preaching on morning radio.

This makes headlines in tabloid newspapers and maybe that’s its sole aim. The flaccid excuses given by Conservatives using bad law to make bad decisions for bad political reasons is wasting resources and lives.

Whatever the image makers would like us to see, those who vigorously supported Boris Johnson and Liz Truss as Conservative leaders are still running the country. The 2019 intake of Conservative MPs is jittering and prepared to spout any nonsense to cling on to their seats.

The British people deserve so much better.

Try again

One of the benefits of democracy is captured in the ideals that underpin it. The fact that an average citizen should be able to influence the society they live in is a big plus. There are plenty of regimes in the world where this benefit is not available. Power is secured and held by a dictatorial few.

So, here we are in “western” societies at a difficult point in history. Those ideals, that get people to go out an put a cross in a box or put their names forward for election are being challenged. Having done the latter many times, I feel confident in speaking on this subject.

Although each one of us has the freedom to stand for election. To put our point of view forward. To speak freely about our beliefs, and notions as to how the world should work. That is, with the caveat on free speech being the expectation that shouting “fire” in a crowded space, when there’s no fire will be punished. We seem to be stuck in a tide of populism dominated by unusually wealthy people. By a tiny group.

This is not a rant about wealth. It’s more an observation that despite all our freedoms, our societies still pick people who have exceptional privileges and monstrous egos. In the UK and US, both those in power and those seeking power are often people who do not share the lived experiences of the majority or a “real” understanding of how life is lived in our diverse communities.

The migration of politics into the realms of soap opera is disturbing. If we look to leaders as a source of amusement, entertainment and sometime fear the outcome is likely to be very bad. Putting a clown in charge of the steering wheel and brakes only works in a circus arena.

We need to reignite the ideals of democracy. To make sure that despite the loud voices permeating the daily news, and talking over each other, a single citizen’s views will be heard. It’s troubling when authorities and administration, politically or bureaucratically motivated, ride rough shod over citizens and communities. This morning, I heard the foolish technocratic notion that all that needs to be done is to better explain. That is not to better take account of or honour the view of citizens and communities but just to explain more. To talk more as a parent telling a child about what’s good for them and what’s not.

Populism succeeds by creating turmoil and by constantly pointing the finger of blame at others. Liberals will not find an answer to this sordid mess by acting and talking as technocrats.

With all the communication tools available to us in 2023, we ought to be able to make sure that no one is left behind. To make sure that genuine concerns, at the grass roots are heard as powerfully as the loud cries of the self-serving demigods. If we haven’t succeeded in this simple aim, we need to try again, and again, and again.

Over the Horizon

Reading Anne Corbett’s article on the Horizon Europe research programme[1], I’m struck by the one step forward and then one step backward walk that the UK is taking. The politics of the moment leaves a UK Prime Minister (PM) dancing on a knife edge. Afraid to fall to the right or to the left of his own party. Having been part of an extremely destructive period in British politics, Rishi Sunak is attempting to re-brand the Conservatives with a colour of nationalism that’s designed to be anything to everybody and as variable as the wind.

From the start of the year, Rishi Sunak has made five promises[2] on economy, health, and immigration. The one on the economy is steeped in blandness. This is presumably to claim success regardless of the situation in the run-up to the next UK General Election. If a PM, of any political party, didn’t want to grow the economy, create better paid jobs and opportunity across the country there would be something distinctly wrong. A wish is fine but what about actions?

I have to say that it’s good to see a UK PM that’s 20-years younger than I am. Particularly when the US is playing out a game of geriatric musical chairs. Russia being plagued with the politics of generations past. China’s building global influence. And to top it all the Earth feeling the impact of climate change like never before.

This why I have such difficulty in understanding Sunak’s attitude to working with our nearest neighbours and closest allies. We have more common interests now than we did in the 1970s when the UK first joined our local trading block. I’m sure the zealots can’t see this fact but undoing the last 40-years is not a good way to forge a future. We can do so much better.

Culham is known for its Centre for Fusion Energy[3]. Its work is collaborative. It needs to be, given the huge costs of working in the field of fusion energy. That’s the way the Sun generates its energy. Here’s an example of the UK being a focal point for European fusion research. Post Brexit, like the problems other research institutions have faced, some researchers returned to continental Europe.

The idiocy of de-Europeanisation serves no one. It’s a residual of discredited political thinking. A Government doesn’t need to advocate re-joining the European Union (EU) but they do need a whole new positive approach to working together with European countries and institutions. Research is at the core of our common interests.

[1] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/07/28/will-the-uk-find-its-way-back-to-horizon/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64166469

[3] https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/

ULEZ

Londoners in all Boroughs need clearer air to breathe

Oh yes. London has an air quality problem. It’s not the only city by any means. My recent trip to Cologne left me in no doubt that cities must address this problem. It’s an insidious hazard. It’s not so – in your face – as noise or water pollution. We’ve this human capacity to normalise bad things. Much to our detriment. Air quality becomes most evident when you move from a place of bad air quality to a place of good air quality. Then the difference becomes acutely noticeable.

Last weekend, I was in the West Country. Way down the A303. The difference is quite striking.

Last evening, I was traveling on the Tube to get to the Albert Hall. The difference is quite striking.

Whatever you may think about the implementation of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in London, there’s a need to do something drastic.

Expanding ULEZ across all London Boroughs from 29 August 2023 is getting a lot of political attention. No doubt some of this is whipped up purely to punish the Labour Mayor. However, the dilemma is clear. Penalising a lot of people who are not directly feeling the discomfort of poor air quality is inevitably going to cause a stink.

Now, we shouldn’t get disproportionately agitated. That fact is that poor air quality is killing people is not in question. The fact that a small fraction of vehicle owners will be made to pay is not in question[1]. The balancing act between reliving an unacceptable situation of harm and causing minimal economic pain is a tricky one. It would be a tricky one for whoever was in power.

My view is that measure that force people to change their vehicles should be accompanied with a practical scheme to compensate them for significant financial losses. Or that the emissions thresholds set should take account of the natural turn-over of vehicles that takes place in normal years. The political controversy of the moment is much because of the speed of change and its coincidence with a cost-of-living crisis that is very real.

Londoners in all Boroughs need clearer air to breathe. But London doesn’t sit in isolation. Afterall the Borough boundaries do not track urban boundaries. Parts of adjoining areas are equally urbanised, and the air doesn’t know about administrative boundaries. The M25 motorway doesn’t do much for air quality, that’s for sure. So, hearing of the London Mayor doing battle with adjoining areas is a bit sad. Solutions need to be negotiated with all impacted parties regardless of the politics.

By the way, I’m not impressed with communications from Transport for London. I clicked on an e-mail sent to me on the above subject and this came up: “This link has expired. Please contact the sender of the email for more information.” Thanks a lot.

[1] More than 4 out of 5 vehicles meet emissions standards, but if you use a petrol vehicle over 16 years old, or a diesel vehicle over 6 years old, you need to check it.

Energy Policy

Saint Augustine’s early life was not what we associate with a saint. As a young man he prayed “Lord, make me chaste (pure) – but not yet!” Just now that’s the way, I fear, we are thinking of the environment. Global, national, or local. It’s total human but it needs to be fully recognised for its downside. Yes, we would like to do more to restore our environment and fight climate change but we’d rather it happened tomorrow. Tomorrow, tomorrow.

The instinctive urge to put-off decisions for what appears to be an easier life now rattles down through history. The lesson we might learn is that this approach is generally a bad way of going about thing if long-term success is the aim. Civilizations have ended because they failed to change.

This blinkered approach could be called political expediency. It’s at the core of what has become political populism[1]. The drive to persuade an electorate by retreating from commitments and heralding jam today. This fits our social media saturated public debate to the tee. I want it, and I want it now. The future will look after itself.

It’s a sad philosophy. I say that because the premises is that we may as well live well today because we have no control over what happens next. In populist terms, that’s put down to an imaginary conspiring elite that will inevitably win regardless of what you do. Truly nonsense.

That might have been true in the stone age but its far from true in the 21^st Century. In reality, and on average, individual citizens have more choice than they have ever had. I say “on average” because there’s a billion people in the world who still live on the breadline.

Anyway, my point is that putting-off environmental measure is foolish. I’m reacting to a Conservative Energy Minister, has said that the UK government will “max out” remaining reserves of North Sea oil and gas[2]. I’s almost as if the Minister thinks this has no impact. That’s other than short-term political gain amongst climate sceptics and right-wing newspaper owners.

If the target for Net Zero is – yes but not yet – there’s virtually no hope of achieving the goal. Events being what they are there will never be a perfect time to stop using fossil fuels. I’m in agreement that the rundown of fossil fuel use should be graduated. However, putting off real change doesn’t make change easier. In fact, it makes change harder.

In the run-up to a UK General Election the possibilities for policies of self-harm are all too evident. A Conservative Government desperate to cling on to power will wriggle and produce contorted justifications for delay. It’s a basic instinct.

I’m not saying that we should all become zealous exponent of hairshirt policies. What is desperate is that we don’t become side-tracked from practical measures that can be practically taken. Taken now.

Work as though everything depended on you, and the choices you make. That needs to be true of Government Ministers as much as every one of us[3].

[1] https://www.thoughtco.com/populism-definition-and-examples-4121051

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/407b834e-a503-4de9-acab-fcf88d76dbb3

[3] Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you. Saint Augustine

Dog Days

It’s only when I looked this up that I realised how apt it was. Summer is upon us. Today, it’s not so hot, in-fact it’s been raining. Welcome rain. My garden looks fresher for it. These are the days of summer heat in southern England. They are known as “dog days”. It’s the period between early July and early September. These summer days can be delightful, but they can be uncomfortable, a source of fatigue and a time of unexpected thunderstorms. What I learned was that the term “dog days” comes from the appearance in the sky of the dog star, known as Sirius[1].

We are getting into the dog days of summer in terms of parliamentary time too. The House of Commons recess dates for this session of the UK Parliament are that it rises on 20 July 2023 and returns on 4 Sept 2023. That would be a useful time for the current Conservative Government consider calling a General Election. I can hear their death rattle so I suspect they will not.

Last evening, I caught a debate on the Parliamentary TV channel. The main business was the second reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. It’s a truly hopeless and appallingly badly drafted legislative proposal[2]. That’s when the thought of “dog days” came into my mind. The term has more than one meaning. My thought here was that we have truly entered a period of stagnation in common sense The current Conservative Government is tabling dreadfully ill thought-out and unsafe proposals that suppresses free-speech and will become a charter for lawyers to paw over for years.

The timing of this Parliamentary debate, given what is happening in Israeli-occupied West Bank, is terrible. A wise government minister would have pulled it.

It never has been ethical policy for a government minister, to supress democratic discussion. This bill would gag local government and other public bodies[3]. It’s poorly drafted text that will have a detrimental impact at domestic and international level.

The summer can bring drought. What we have here is a drought of political imagination, a cavalcade of populist babble that concentrates power and an unethical embarrassment. I remember the days when throughout the country people and democratically elected public bodies opposed apartheid. This bill, had it been in place at that time, would have outlawed such opposition.

A well drafted law that addresses the issues associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement might have been welcomed. A political consensus should have been sought. What has been tabled by this fading Government is sweeping yet vague powers that go way beyond addressing the one issue of BDS and Israel. It’s a direct attack on free speech and democratic government. This tired and worn-out Conservative Government needs to stand down before it does more damage.

#unethical

[1] https://www.history.com/news/why-are-they-called-the-dog-days-of-summer

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66086671

[3] https://www.local.gov.uk/parliament/briefings-and-responses/economic-activity-public-bodies-overseas-matters-second-reading

Why do politics?

One reason has a long history. It’s basically, sitting on your hands, complaining about others, and doing nothing means that you are likely to be managed or governed by people of poor ability. Stepping-up and trying to change a situation at least puts to bed that passive abdication. Now, you might fail but that failure is no disgrace, if your intent is honest. At least you have had a go.

Another somewhat more appealing reason is to know someone who has done some good. Achieved something worthwhile. To have a mentor, or admiration for a person who has made the best of what they have and made a real difference to their community, it’s optimistic, it’s positive.

Let’s not be too cynical, there are good politicians. If there wasn’t we would be in an even bigger mess than we are now. Let’s face it, the people who become politicians, in a democracy, have the undesirable flaws and admirable qualities that most of society exhibits.

For me, this starts with reading “Penhaligon”, Annette Penhaligon book[1] about her husband, David Penhaligon. There’s a story to tell. A West Country MP who fought tirelessly for his constituents.

Then, naturally, there’s the Member of Parliament (MP) who is responsible for me first taking-up community political activism. He was newly elected and fresh faced at the time. The MP for Yeovil in Somerset from June 1983 to May 2001, namely Paddy Ashdown.

I was living in Cheltenham in Gloucestershire when Ashdown came to a public meeting at the Pittville Pump Room[2]. He spoke fluently about becoming an MP and some of the ridiculous idiosyncratic nonsense of Parliament. His message was that British politics is time-consuming and frustrating but if you want to bring about change – get involved.

So, in Cheltenham I first started stuffing leaflets through letterboxes and knocking on doors. About, 40-years have gone by since that encounter with the MP for Yeovil.

This weekend, I got my walking boots on. I visited parts of the Somerset town of Frome that I’d never seen before. A wide range of different streets, each with a different history. From restored historic buildings to new housing estates there’s a surprising variety of different lifestyles in a small town.

That’s one of the spinoffs of political activism. I get to visit and explore places that I’d otherwise never get to know. It’s a good way of broadening the mind. With social media’s influence it’s all too easy to get locked into simple stereotypes, artificial divisions, and primitive arguments. Forget that nonsense. Real streets with real people are much more interesting and much more varied.

Yes, you will meet people that are disagreeable but believe me, they are the minority. If you don’t want dumb politicians, and ideas thrusts upon us that don’t represent us then get out and be active. Every little can count.

[1] https://www.waterstones.com/book/penhaligon/annette-penhaligon/9780747506164

[2] https://cheltenhamtownhall.org.uk/visit-us/pittville-pump-room/

Three Decades

There are a couple of events that have reverberated over the last three decades.

1993 started with Bill Clinton taking his place as the 42nd President of the United States. So, you might say change was in the wind in that year.

History doesn’t repeat but there are changes that give the impression of a pattern. In 30-years, our daily lives have transformed dramatically. Technology has accelerated to a point where there isn’t much that it doesn’t touch.

Subscribing to the notion that there are cycles that rise and fall over the decades there are similarities between now and then. There are plenty of opposites too.

Early in 1993, the Bank of England lowered interest rates to 6%. This was the lowest rate available since 1978. Now, we have bank interest rates heading in the other direction and heading for 6%. The biggest political issue in that year was unemployment. Today, the situation has flipped. There are recruiters who can’t find the people the British economy needs.

What’s analogous is that the Conservative Government of the day was in deep trouble. There seemed to be a future Labour Government in the waiting room. The Conservative Prime Minister (PM) of the time, John Major was unpopular, and the polls showed the public mood was gloomy.

Strangely, there was slight indications that the economic situation was gradually improving. The end of the 1990s recession was becoming real. The conservatives must have felt heartened by the US Presidential election campaign theme declaring it’s “The economy, stupid[1].”

On the ground the daggers were out for John Major. Parliamentary byelections in Newbury and Christchurch were resoundingly won by the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative government did not benefit in popularity from the economy coming out of recession. Then inflation was coming down. It hit 1.3% in May 1993. Consider that with what is happening with the inflation rate that is hanging around now.

There are a couple of events that have reverberated over the last three decades.

One was the formation of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Support for leaving the European Union (EU) was taking a shape and form that would lead to political change. It didn’t seem like it at the time. There was an element of the movement that was purely protest coming from cantankerous and disgruntled Conservatives.

The other was John Major’s disastrous “Back to Basics” campaign. If ever a British political campaign was misjudged that, was it. The campaign exposed an unpopular and split political party to ridicule and gave cartoonists and satirists a huge boost.

The current Conservative PM, Rishi Sunak hasn’t quite made that error – yet. However, his simple shopping list approach is creating a hostage to fortune. The direction of travel has similarities to 1993. Will Rishi Sunak survive the coming General Election?

The jury is out on that one. I’d like to say – no. The economy may soon slide into recession but it maybe underlying unpopularity that is the greater deciding factor.

[1] A phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992.

Yawn

Even seasoned presenter Fiona Bruce looked as if she was embarrassed. She certainly struggled to hold together a programme that was as dull and predicable as it was lacking in either appeal or entertainment. I persisted in watching the evening’s debate on the small screen, in the hope that some light would be shed on where we are now, and how we got here. Seven long years on from the Brexit vote, the people who wanted it to happen were ask – how’s it going?

I wondered if it was a schedulers sense of humour that one media channel was showing the classic movie: The Magnificent Seven (1960).

Question Time[1] was once a flag ship political programme for the BBC. Last night, it got to a new low. The venue for the debate was in Clacton-on-Sea[2], a small English town on the east Essex coastline.

The Question Time audience was selected from people who voted to Leave in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) back in 2016. Making it usual, this parliamentary constituency voted nearly 70 per cent in favour of Brexit.

To sum up, it was the sort of conversation you might have with a disappointed grump on a scruffy park bench, on a rainy day: “The world’s going to hell in a handbasket. It’s those b***** politicians, you know.” That meaning an aggressive stance towards anyone who disagreed with their opinion.

One or two in the audience were brave enough to reflect and reconsider their past position. There’s a discomfort in publicly coming out as a doubter. Hats off to those brave few.

Amongst the panellists, one fitted the above description, one continued their religious devotion to Brexit, two sat on the fence and one attempted to look ahead at what may happen next to the UK. I can well imagine why no government spokesperson was willing to step-up and address this event.

It’s a peculiar situation for part of the country to be in. Those who desperately wanted a “Hard Brexit[3] got a Hard Brexit and are immensely dissatisfied with a Hard Brexit. They want an even harder Brexit. Chances are that would make everything worse. Chances are that they would then demand an even harder Brexit. Chances are that spiral of insanity would continue.

The stance of the Labour Party shadow cabinet minister on the panel was unfortunate. However, the tightrope they are walking, in the run-up to a General Election is a shaky one. I’ll bet that both Labour and Conservatives parties will be desperate not to talk about Brexit over the coming year.

The world of British politics and the media will likely skirt around the elephant in the room as much as they can. Nearly everyone knows Brexit has been a disaster but few wish to face it head-on.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001n3px

[2] https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/18207250.clacton-residents-mark-brexit-day-wild-celebrations/

[3] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-hard-brexit/

Momentous Vote

Will a line be drawn under the shenanigans of the last few years?

Number 3 on the BBC News list? This was not a vote in the Conservative Party it was a vote in the mother of Parliaments. It was a vote that put the likelihood of Boris Johnson making a political comeback at extremely improbable. Yet, it was number 3 on BBC News. Well, I guess it was considered by the newsroom as a minority interests subject at 10 pm in the evening.

A House of Commons (HoCs) vote took place on the findings of the Committee on Privileges[1]. Not a great title but that committee thoroughly undertook the job of addressing the vexed question of a Prime Minister lying to Parliament. That means lying to us all.

19 June 2023 should go down in British history. There was no civil war. The statue of Cromwell outside parliament remained unmoved. Parliament deftly asserted its right to take a view on the behaviours of a former member. Not just any former member but a former Prime Minister (PM). A PM being held in contempt of Parliament is not an everyday event.

The current PM staying away was a show of poor pollical antenna. Images of a vacuum in leadership will haunt him here on in. While another former PM endorsed the report and thanked the committee for their work. Several cabinet members did the same. The leader of the house acted with a solemn certitude that she is becoming known for.

For Conservative Members of Parliament, it was a sad and difficult duty. Each member was given the chance to make up their own minds about the report.

Upholding the truth matters. Both the Parliament’s HoCs and the Committee on Privileges set themselves on the path to restore public confidence in democracy.

Questions as to why Boris Johnson was ever elevated to the position of PM in the first place were not answered. Some members spoke with anger in their voice. It’s the case that magnificent oratory was missing from many contributions, but the heartfelt reflection of constituents’ rage was sincere.

To succeed, in the British political system a PM must have an effective working relationship with Parliament. They don’t need to like each other but a degree of respect is essential.

Parliament may look weak in that there’s limited meaningful sanctions that it can impose on a past member. A member who jumps before they are pushed appears to get off. However, the impact of the events of 19 June 2023 means that Boris Johnson will practice only with a media bully pulpit.

What remains for us to find out over the next few years is how that will play out[2]. Will a line be drawn under the shenanigans of the last few years?

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65953605

[2] https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-vote-sunak-privileges-committee-report-on-lied-to-parliament-12593360