Elections – Page 9 – John Vincent

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

Charm

It’s a curious question. What part does “charm” play in life? Does the charming man or woman get the job and the dull or grumpy but competent person fail? Do charming people get more done, or are they more inclined to laziness?

Like most assertions or questions, it’s as well to start with some definitions. If we put aside nuclear physics and jewellery the definition of “charm” could be said to be the power or value of delighting, attracting, or fascinating other people. It’s an intrinsic human characteristic but I’m sure it can be learned by those who start of with basic abilities.

One of my favour fictional characters, from the 1960s has this in bucket loads. Personified in the TV series The Saint[1], Simon Templar played by Roger Moore exuded charm. In this exhibition of charm, it’s more than an external attractiveness. It’s also a moral and ethical code.

Perhaps it’s not just charm that I’m discussing. When I asked the question of a supporter, what do you see in Boris Johnson? The answer came back – charisma. It’s a power to stand above the crowd and exert influence over people. Here’s another fuzzy characteristic. Everyone recognises charisma exists but may choose to describe it differently in different people.

The reality seems to be that charm and charisma may be combined but they have little to do with moral and ethical behaviour. However, the general perception is that there’s “good” in these characteristics. Is this obvious, and thus not warranting much further thought? Or is it, that because this seems obvious, that in the hands of the “ungodly,” as The Saint would say, these characteristics can feed unfairness, injustice, or corruption?

What I mean is that “bad” charming or charismatic people are allowed to get away with misdemeans and occasionally down right criminality without the accountability that would punish others. We can add to the equation the current social media explosion. Most platforms are a gift to the self-publicist. They can be a shop window and a soap box for the adoration of charming or charismatic people, good or bad.

Maybe instead of Twitter’s blue tick there ought to be an emoji of the devil or an angel. No – that would be worse than nothing at all. In the end we do depend on authors, journalists and investigators looking behind the masks that prominent personalities keep up. What I can say is that, if there are contemporary Robin Hoods that prevents the “ungodly” from succeeding, they may need help. It’s not so easy to stay one step ahead.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055701/

Fake/Real?

So, why might artificial intelligence (AI) be so dangerous in a free society?

Democracy depends upon information being available to voters. Ideally, this would be legal, decent, and honest information. All too often the letter of the law may be followed whilst shaping a message to maximise its appeal to potential supporters. Is it honest to leave out chunks of embarrassing information for the one nugget that makes a politician look good? We make our own judgement on that one. We make a judgement assuming that outright lying is a rare case.

During key elections news can travel fast and seemingly small events can be telescoped into major debacles. I’m reminded of the remark made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown[1] when he thought the media’s microphones were dead. In 2010, when an aide asked: What did she say? Gordon Brown was candid in his reply. It’s an occasion when the honest thoughts of a PM on the campaign trail popped into the public domain and livened up that election coverage considerably.

What’s concerning about AI[2] is that, in the hands of a “bad actor,” such events could be faked[3] extremely convincingly. Since the fast pace of election campaigning leaves never enough time for in-depth technical investigations there’s a chance that fake events can sway people before they are uncovered. The time between occurrence and discovery need only be a few days. Deep fakes are moving from amateur student pranks to the tools of propagandists.

Misinformation happens now, you might say. Well, yes it does, and we do need people to fact-check claims and counter claims on a regular basis. However, we still depend on simple techniques, like a reporter or member of the public asking a question. It’s rather a basic in format.

This leaves the door open for AI to be used to produce compelling fakes. Sometimes, all it needs is to inject or eliminate one word from a recording or live event. The accuracy and speed of complex algorithms to provide seamless continuity is new. It can be said that we are a cynical lot. For all the protest of fakery that a politician may make after an exposure there will be a plenty of people who will not accept any subsequent debunking.

My example is but a simple one. There’s a whole plethora of possibilities when convincing fake pictures, audio and videos are only a couple of keyboard stokes away.

Regulatory intervention by lawmakers may not be easy but it does need some attention. In terms of printed media, that is election leaflets there are strict rules. Same with party political broadcasts.

Being realistic about the risks posed by technology is not to shut it down altogether. No, let’s accept that it will become part of our lives. At the same time, using that technology for corrupt purposes obviously needs to be stamped on. Regulatory intervention is a useful way of addressing heightened risks. Some of our 19^th century assumptions about democracy need a shake-up.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bigotgate-gordon-brown-anniversary-gillian-duffy-transcript-full-read-1957274.html

[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/tech/sam-altman-openai-congress/index.html

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/technology/artificial-intelligence-training-deepfake.html

Turbulence

Brexit “outrage” as The Express newspaper put it. Headlines like this are signs of shear desperation. It seems every time something goes wrong, which it regularly does, the call comes out from Brexit supporters – it must be Remainers or the House of Commons or Lords or civil servants or large corporations or lefty liberals thwarting the great Brexit plan. Noting, of course, that there never was a plan in the first place.

“Take Back Control” has become the hollowest political slogan in British history. Rather than dimming the light of fervent Brexit advocates these repeated setbacks just pump them up. This kind of thinking is both sad and dangerous. It has a deep flavour of paranoia.

This month, shocks from the Conservative Party’s council election meltdown are another trigger for the political right to agitate. Shouting: bring back Boris Johnson is unsurprising. The dreamy magical thinking is that because he delivered a big parliamentary majority in 2019, somehow, he, and he alone, can do the same in 2024. Other conservatives are positioning themselves for the next run at being Prime Minister.

I’m not one to totally dismiss the Johnson proposition. Naturally, it would be calamitous and beyond reason but that has not been an impenetrable barrier since 2016. Brexit, as a happening, delights in causing chaos. There’re political thinkers who invite chaos and disruption to free potentially creative energies. They’re not a bit concerned about the impact of that approach on the average person.

Brexit continues to hobble aviation in UK. A large percentage of the people who worked in UK aviation, before the COVID pandemic, were EU nationals. A lot have gone. Now, it’s often the case that when EU nationals apply for jobs in the UK, the aviation industry must turn them down[1].

The legislative proposal to remove retained EU laws has created yet more uncertainty for UK’s aviation sector. The threat remains regardless that it may be in the process of being watered down. Debates in the House of Lords focused on democratic scrutiny of the process where significant changes are planned[2]. Ministers continue to wish to use arbitrary powers to make changes. There’s ambition in the policies advanced while, at the same time, there’s a wish to look all ways at once.

For a lot of aviation topics, the UK has stated it will continue to use European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) rules and guidance. Although, this is eminently sensible in an international setting it does suggest that Brexit benefits, if they exist at all, have been greatly overstated.

Given the tabloid media jitters seen in recent headlines, it’s perfectly clear that Brexit is a million miles from being “done”. A bad idea remains a bad idea, however it’s dressed up.

Expect turbulence right up to the next General Election. Change is not assured. People will have to campaign hard to make it happen. In comment on the change of the crown, “The country is in a waiting room” said historian Simon Schama.

[1] One major airline – We have had to turn down a huge number [8,000] of EU nationals because of Brexit. Another has blamed the British government’s post-Brexit immigration constraints on the labour market for fuelling staff shortages.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65605035

Winds of Change

At the start of a new Carolean Era. Wow, I’ve been wanting to say that for some time. Yes, it’s a new era in this country. In Britain, we mark the passing of history by reference to the monarch of the time. Georgian, Edwardian, Victorian, Elizabethan and so on, it’s a tag to place a period in history. They are often associated with national accomplishments, culture and styles that were fashionable.

It’s a blustery wet day in London and King Charles III is being crowned sovereign. Apparently, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II had to contend with wet weather too. At the age of 73, King Charles became the oldest person to accede to the British throne. I’d say in 2023, we can no longer say that 73 is old. There are numerous Heads of State across the globe who can top that easily.

We don’t do this designation act with politicians, but we do use a shorthand for their time in power with a reference to their approach to the job or an iconic slogan or two. Thatcherism, Blairism, the white heat of technology or you have never had it so good, or things can only get better.

What’s great about the beginning of the Carolean Era is the signals of political change. Hopefully we will no longer need to hold our head in our hands in astonishment at the utter folly enacted by our elected representatives. Well, maybe less so as we run up to a General Election.

This week’s local elections in England are an awakening. Voters have decided – enough is enough. There are a more than a thousand less Conservative Party councillors in the country. This is democracy at work. I’ll quote Dick Nolan, who wrote in The San Francisco Examiner in 1966: “Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason.”

The Conservative Party has performed so badly over the last decade they deserve to be put out of power for the next decade. Now, extrapolating from this week’s political earthquake to the result of the next General Election is a doggy business. That said, the trend seems set and the expectation is that a political change is inevitable.

Although, I feel secure in saying this there’s always at least one catalyst that can upset this prediction dramatically. For this I’ll go back to Mrs Thatcher. What would the politics of Britain look like if the Falklands War of 1982 had not occurred? This short international conflict transformed the climate of the day and, no doubt the Prime Minister. However, people might think of the successes and failures of that time the result was the strengthening of her premiership.

Local elections recent held the Conservative Party to account in one way. The bigger story will be written over the next 18 months or so. Mayism was chaotic. Borisism was a total disaster. Trussism was insane. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s time in office maybe as that of John Major. The boy with his finger in the dam awaiting a flood of change. Let’s see what the country looks like after a weekend of pomp but also of reflection.

Crown

It’s a difficult time to be a British republican. A couple of reactions to mention of an alternative to having a monarchy is – don’t be a spoil sport or the alternative would be worse.

The national celebrations coming up are not the problem in my mind. Nothing at all wrong with having a big nationwide event in May. Especially given the grim time the hospitality industry has just been through and the natural inclination to celebrate springtime.

Sadly, I have to say that the British republican movement, such as it is, is throwing away the opportunity to pose the questions on the good and bad of having a prominent monarchy in a modern country. “Not My King” is a ridiculous campaign slogan[1]. I believe we’d be better off as a republic but that belief lives with the pragmatic acceptance that there will be a King and he will be the Head of State. Pretending that is not so doesn’t help win the case for change.

Generally, I think there’s an ambivalence[2] about the whole subject amongst the British public. That is however much the BBC talks-up the whole coronation. Nobody much is complaining about having an extra Bank Holiday. Nevertheless, a widely held view is that Charles III will be on probation as a King. If the British monarchy continues to be embroiled in controversy and exist primarily as source of a tabloid headlines, then it will continue to decline as a symbol of the national and last no longer than a decade. The feeling that a monarchy interested in survival should have skipped a generation is a strong one. Their past survival has been mostly because of relative modernisation and not wallowing in ancient rituals.

According to polls, public support for the monarchy is age dependent. This maybe because of the claimed propensity for people to become more conservative, with a small “c”, with age. On the other hand, this is a new age. We have never had the global information revolution that is shaking the foundations of society in the way it is now.

I’m a supporter of British republicanism because we are citizens and not subjects. Although, I do recognise that the different status of people can be of dreadful intricacy given our history.

In Britain, some aspects of our unwritten constitution are “too easy” to change because of a passive Head of State. Conversely, some aspects of our unwritten constitution are “too hard” to change because of being constrained by custom, tradition, and the power of veto by those with inherited influence.

Ironically, post-Brexit, British republicanism is more allied to maintaining sovereignty than our crumbling[3] existing system of governance. That is as much about the sovereignty of the individual citizen as it is of our society or the State. Republicanism has always been about liberty. A few passages from Tom Paine (1737–1809) are enough evidence in that respect.

Good luck to His Majesty King Charles III. He’ll need it.

POST: Not me or, no relation in so far as I know: John Vincent (historian) is a British historian and professor emeritus of modern history at the University of Bristol. He is known for his works on political history, especially the 19th and 20th centuries, and for his controversial views on democracy and monarchy.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/27/notmyking-billboard-campaign-launched-by-anti-monarchy-activists

[2] https://natcen.ac.uk/news/british-social-attitudes-monarchy

[3] The last six years have illustrated the weakness of the current settlement.