Category: Media

Reflecting on a Decade Post-Brexit: Lessons Learned

The clock has clicked. The pages of the calendar have flipped. Crises have been and gone. And in the UK’s political turmoil continues to exasperate one and all. A decade has passed since UK voters backed a proposal to leave the European Union (EU). The surprise result of the 23 June 2016 vote and the tiny majority for change still haunt the whole country.

Voters were told this and that would not happen, prosperity and a lowering of the cost-of-living were just around the corner. We now know that lie after lie piled-up. The mouths of the advocates of the vote to leave spouted pure undiluted nonsense. Yet, the noisy ones show no remorse or shame.

The pace of change can be overwhelming. Over the last decade the world has moved on with increasing speed. It’s self-evident that the 21st Century is becoming an era of accelerating change. Sadly, in adopting the worst kind of Brexit transition the UK has become a lesser influence. A spectator in the world that has changed dramatically.

The first 10-year anniversary of the Brexit referendum is a time to take stock. To be mystified in reflection of the maddening goings on of the years past. I will not repeat pages and pages of analysis that others have provided. A simple conclusion is evident. The nation is poorer by a substantial amount.

I’m not in favour of endless navel gazing. We are where we are and it’s not a good place to be. What must be plotted in a way forward that increase prosperity, builds resilience and unseats defeatism. Political polarisation and the slide to appease the far-right is proving to be disastrous. The warnings of history should be heeded.

The future of the UK-EU relationship has the potential to be better one than ever before. At least we now know that there was good sound reasoning behind our past membership of the EU. Facing global challenges together is a far better way to face the future. Rapidly advancing technology, social upheaval and geopolitical shocks are not going away. The means by which we collectively respond to these challenges will be critical.

This is not a time to relitigate the Brexit referendum. Let the past be the past. We have learned from that past. It’s far better to ask what a better future looks like. Europe has common challenges. It’s an interconnected, interactive and interdependent region. We share a common cultural heritage.

Discussions over the future will never abate. But there’s a need of it to be put on solid and sound reasoning. Not by equating independence with isolation. Weve found that doesn’t work.

The UK and EU must forge a new closer relationship. It’s a win-win scenario.

Brexit Documentary Review

Firstly, a reaction to the BBC documentary that’s telling the story of Brexit. They called it “Brexit: A Very British Civil War[1].” A corny title that plays on titles “A Very British Scandal,” the drama about Liberal MP Jeremy Thorpe and “A Very Royal Scandal.”

The “Civil War” analogy is out of place. Ten seconds of reading about any real civil war would have sunk that illusion. The events of 2016 were more a battle for the future. Battles continue to rage as the advocates of Brexit have merely changed their colours and rebranded.

Yes, I agree. The stage was set by the choice that voters took in 2015. In fact, if blame must be allocated then its as much the fault of liberal minds as it it’s the reactionary forces that pounded away at their ambition. The political idiocy of promising a national referendum in a country that rarely, if ever, has referendums was a critical folly. The UK is not Switzerland. UK voters have no idea what it’s like to be that sort of federal democracy.

David Cameron won a majority and his hand were tied. He did have choices, but he plodded along with all the imagination of a dull public-school boy in fear of rejection by his peers. Cameron didn’t see the bus that was about to hit him. Having been pounding away for decades the rag tag but monied pushers of a referendum wasted no time in campaigning. Cameron wasted every opportunity.

Aside from the story that the BBC chose to document is the image of a modern European country run by a strange herd of mostly Tory men, living a privileged life. It’s a searing display of a political crisis made by a few for the interests of a few.

I know it is said by both left and right in UK politics, but what more does anyone need to convince themselves that there’s a chasm between the people in Westminster and the people of the nation. Demographic trends were likely to shape the outcome of a national referendum. It proved to be so in the numbers. An older age group favouring Leave and a younger one favouring Remian. Populism had taken root in the Leave campaign.

The dim-witted organisers of the Remain campaign ran a campaign as if they were changing the name of a chocolate bar with diminishing sales. As if they were stereotypical comic depressed bowler hatted businessmen from the 1950s, Cameron’s crew ignored the analysis and lumbered on. He took a politically suicidal path.

The likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove dithered with only their own political ambitions tugging at them to eventually decide as to which way to go. Again, my reflection amounted to – what a bizarre way to run a country. Especially one with the history and traditions of the UK.

I understand the notion that Cameron may have seen this political path as a way of resolving a self-evident Tory split once and for all. Ironically, the outcome is a Tory split the like of which couldn’t have been imagined ten years ago.

Deciding whether to back Leave or Remain wasn’t the real question. Capturing the future political agenda was the aim. 2016’s national referendum was not a war; it was a battle. The battle continues.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002xhvj

Lessons from Operational Events

For an aviation industry that takes pride in learning lessons from experience and taking timely corrective action, a series of operational events is surprising to say the least.

Today’s large aircraft do look much the same. The tricycle undercarriage has become universal. A set of steerable wheels at the front and a heavy set of landing gear, each side, to the rear. When parked, a nose gear collapse or inadvertent retraction on a large aircraft is not catastrophic. The aircraft can be recovered, inspected, and repaired. This undesirable event can be dangerous for anyone in the vicinity. It has the potential to be fatal. Fortunately, so far, there has been no fatalities.

For an aircraft operator such an event at an airport gate is a massive expense. Putting an in-service aircraft out of action for a considerable time.

To date, several damaging nose gear collapse (and alike) events have occurred to large aircraft[1]. Detailed analysis of these events exists and corrective actions are proposed.

One conclusion is to say that this is about people not following procedures. That is the instruction is to put a pin in one place but instead it gets put in the wrong place. So, this dramatic unintended event is written up as a maintenance error. It’s an outcome that no one intended. That’s fine. There’s no doubt that an error was made. Accepting that an error occurred is not a reason to blame. That is if there are no signs of negligence.

The trouble is the simple question – how easy was it to make that error?

Then we get into that grey area of the gap between aircraft design and operations. In a design office it may be reasonably assumed that a procedure will be followed in an almost robotic manner. No need for the people in operations to think beyond taking the same action day-after-day. This would surely become widespread practice.

As we know the actual environment of aircraft operations can be more demanding than the original equipment manufactures might imagine. Pressure to turn around an aircraft can be high, working conditions can be poor and fatigue can play a part.

There are lines of communication between the aircraft design and operations organisations, and such difficulties are regularly discussed.

Faced with an event categorised as maintenance error then what next? Redesign the aircraft? Change a procedure or require more training? Those are three of the options, there are more.

This is where the possible discussion gets reactive. Now, it would be extremely costly to redesign an aircraft for the sake of an event that is rare or for which the consequences are minor. It is possible to put numbers on each of these. The rarity, the cost, and the impact.

Modifying or rewriting a procedure, on the other hand, can be less costly and it may be quite sufficient as a corrective action. That said, any procedure that can be written can be subject to error. In fact, the original procedure may have been straightforward and well thought out.

Then there is the fall-back position. Give the people in aircraft operations more training. The assumption being that more training means less errors. It is a crude assumption because this is not a linear relationship. So many other factors come into play.

Discussions surround the above possibilities can become protracted. There’s a call for more analysis and more data. There’s the proposal for a study to be conducted. Once in that loop a year can go by as if it was a month.

There’s always the argument that highlights dozens of aircraft operators haven’t had this event occur and therefore the finger is pointed at those who have. This argument gets an outing, but it is foolish. It’s like saying – I haven’t had an accident yet, and therefore I’m safe. Foolish.

There are a lot of detailed discussions and a million and one opinions. Taking the big picture, this is a problem that is solvable[2]. What is surprising is the reoccurrence of the problem.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-special-bulletin-g-zbjb-inadvertent-nose-landing-gear-retraction-during-pre-flight-maintenance

[2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/12/2019-26734/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

Remembering Anthony Head in Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Is it as far back as early 1997? It’s hard to get my head around that fact. Buffy the Vampire Slayer goes back that far. I must admit that, when it first came out, I wasn’t aware of this enduring off-beat American TV series. I came to watch it later when its reputation started to rise. People started to say: have you seen?

We were in the age when video tape was thought to be advanced technology in the home. Dial up internet consumed time and energy even to do the basics. Phones had wires. On reflection that period, just before the millennium, was a significant one both culturally and in terms of emerging technology.

Vampire stories are nothing new. Ideas have been cycled and recycled ever since the printed word was placed in the hands of avid fiction readers. What’s refreshing about the Buffy saga is that it did venture onto new ground. The idea of a “Hellmouth” opening under an ordinary California school mixed-up lots of crazy notions about what the forces of darkness might do in a sunny community. As a plot device for a series of stories, having a dangerous and mysterious “portal ” is a clever idea.

What’s incredibly smart about the stories is the role of the “Watcher” whose job it was to train and educate Buffy as she faces relentless evil challenges. The character Giles steers her through volumes of supernatural history and helps investigates new perils.

Perfect as the Watcher was actor Anthony Head. He added an authority and stability to what could have become a stream of silliness. He fitted the juxtaposition of a normal, even slightly boring, schoolteacher with a wizard like seriousness of a mature elder. His Englishness added to the contrast between the 1990s and a world of timeless monsters.

With his passing, I’d like to remember Anthony Head as the actor who gave the Buffy series a wide appeal and stopped it becoming no more than a wacky teenage romp. It’s a series that is eminently watchable. The passing of nearly 30-years hasn’t diminished its sense of youthful drama and pure entertainment value.

There’s a list of categories that can describe this TV series. Horror, supernatural, comedy, rites of passage, and even romance. It’s that peculiar mix that makes it so iconic. There’s a 100% focus on the key characters without the inevitable virtual reality stuff that would make it now.

I don’t think it would be possible to remake Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It was of its era. Thanks to those who played their parts so well. It’s watchable anytime. Thank you Anthony Head. 

Note: ITV X have the series to stream:

https://www.itv.com/watch/buffy-the-vampire-slayer/10a5896

Political Downfall

I’m not sure. Transparency is a good thing. Well, generally that’s the cases. Shedding a light on the dark places leads to better understanding. So, they say. That’s conventional thinking. The assumption being that the public prefer raw trust to a fabricated sort of truth.

The utterings of Peter Benjamin Mandelson are now going to fill more newspaper column inches than the great fire of London. It doesn’t take much looking around to realise that Mandelson has become public enemy number one. And for the British right-wing media cohort, is the Achilles heal of the current UK Labour Prime Minister. Retrospectively seen as the stupidest decision the man in power has made to date.

In bold letters the words “nightmare” and “bombshell” are already out there. Next, we can expect “Armageddon” and talk of nails in coffins. This is where the cynic in me clicks. What a lovely political opportunity to relentlessly attack, knowing that there’s always another twist or turn to add at any convenient moment.

In mathematics, the Mandelbrot set acts like News of Mandelson[1] and does not diverge. It’s complex but repetitive. I expect the thousands of pages of correspondence dumped on the public will take that path. Complex but repetitive. Sadly too, the juicy bits, like criticism of the administration in Washington DC may be redacted.

There’re immortal themes in the story of political downfall. As if the plot of Star Wars were brought to life. A dark lord strides confidently across a stage set for his demise.

In what I’ve written above, make no mistake. This is not an argument for sweeping stuff under the carpet. None whatsoever. In this modern media age, we must get used to the drop of more than 1,000 pages. If nothing else, it gives good investigative journalists a lot of work to do.

The thing is, I wonder what we will learn that may turn out to be really useful in future. I mean, surly the point of these exercises in public transparency are to ensure that corrective action is taken to avoid the same mistakes being made again. That maybe where the problem is centred. We’ve gone from the ludicrous times of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss and yet I wonder if learning from mistakes is in our DNA. If learning from real mistakes was intrinsic, then no one would be contemplating voting UK Reform.

Yet, if they are to be believed, that extreme UK political party has a high opinion poll rating. Our love of words like “catastrophe” and “apocalypse” are so great they seem to trump common sense. It’s as if a major hole has appeared in the heads of a potential electorate. The simplistic, flat, two-dimensional, world of UK Reform gets its appeal from people not wanting to engage with stubborn complexity. Those who utter simple solutions, even if they are obviously wrong, get the press attention. From here to infinity by way of nonsense.

Back to Mandelson. He got jobs that others strive for without hope of getting. His confident personality, guile and cunning got him places. There’s the lesson. All that glitters is not gold. Much as people might want to believe in political magic it’s extremely rare. Ten to the minus nine at least.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/27/peter-mandelson-questions-vetting-clearance-mitigations

Forgiveness: A Double-Edged Sword

The basic Sunday school Christian idea of forgiveness is fine and dandy. It’s a cornerstone of the social soup that is modern Britian. Although we like a good dose of retribution when it suites us, the core belief that we maybe forgiven as much as others might forgive us still pervades.

The above is a cultural aspect of life as our more primitive side has a tendency not to forgive. Especially when talking about people we don’t know or, for that matter, people we do know who do something deeply offensive, like betrayal.

Christianity is transactional about this subject. You must forgive if you want to be forgiven. That is practical in sustaining a cohesive society. If we wander around carrying grudges and consumed with anger all day long, then this will not end well. Here I find a crux of a problem. Although it may be admirable to forgive, if that charitable act melts away anger, then it can melt away the motivation to do something, like fix a problem.

So, how to respond to someone in public life who says unacceptable and harmful things five years ago but is now said to be a different person. Reformed. Incidentally, this said by a third party that the person concerned is a different person. Whatever that means.

Let me quote thinker Thomas Aquinas in that “evil may be found in anger, when, to wit, one is angry, more or less than right reason demands. But if one is angry in accordance with right reason, one’s anger is deserving of praise[1]”

He really does throw the whole conundrum back at us. Since my “right reason” and your “right reason” may be completely different. My anger is my problem. That said, my anger may be shared by many people. So, who is the arbiter of society’s righteous anger?

In Britain, this is a matter where the four estates play their part. People who make laws, people that carry them out, and those who judge. With the “fourth estate” being the fickle and flighty news media. I could say those who report to the public, or pile on their opinions. This formula doesn’t add clarity. Each of the estates can, and do, take different views. The question is then, which is the most powerful arbiter? The most influential.

Here the equation has changed. Whereas a sizeable section of the news media of my childhood undertook their work with a sense of social responsibility, this section is now under attack.

The term “social media” has been coined for the newcomers but in a way there’s no such thing. The digital world we call social media is not the least bit interested in sustaining a cohesive society. In fact, quite the reverse. Conflict, anger, controversy, and division are sources of income potential. Not a small income either. And on a global scale.

Normally, forgiveness does not come easy. It does require a period of reflection. What’s happening in the social media world is not so much forgiveness as forgetfulness. Delete an account, stir-up a new sense of outrage, move on at the speed of lightning. No need for forgiveness because people have forgotten the last reason for anger and moved on to a new source of anger. Thomas Aquinas never had to ponder over that one.

[1] Summa Theologiae II-II:158:1.

A New Era of Disruption

Where is it all going? Now, there’s a question to ask. Through the media pages there’s the signals of unprecedented change. It’s not as if we are sailing through smooth air, on a clam Sunday afternoon. No, it’s turbulence all the way.

Disruptors are getting the headlines. They don’t have to be clever. They don’t have to be honest. I’m expecting a headline along the lines of: “Everything you knew about spiders is wrong. They are from Alpha Centauri”. It’s only a matter of time. 4.3 light-years away is nothing, after all. Elon Musk will be there at the drop of a hat. Technology permitting.

My prediction maybe a bit off the wall but it’s to illustrate the point of media frenzy that is absorbing the public space of the moment. Much as we might see ourselves as a sophisticated species where a forum is a place of philosophical debate. Where thinkers and politicians test their theories in an open public space. We have the front page of the likes of the Daily Mail instead. Stories about reality shows gone wrong trump concerns about real reality.

It’s a new age. That said, it’s always a new age. In the world of politics and governance we have been here before. To an extent. Type the letters “SDP” into a popular search engine and it’s likely to come up with the Social Democratic Party (SDP). It’s a defunked political party. Or is that just my search engine? In 1981, a spin-off of the Labour Party, the “Gang of Four” showed great promise. Suddenly a step change in the UK’s political terrain seemed possible. A small group of seasoned politicians started to articulate a set of policies that people appeared to like.

To cut it short, that political experiment was absorbed and didn’t lead to the radical change of the landscape that was expected. Over the last 35 years the ideas spoken of by the SDP have not gone away but they have been absorbed and diluted. This does lead me to wonder if the schism between conservatives, those on the right-wing of UK politics, will not eventually melt away. The great big sponge of institutional lethargy will swallow up the dissenters. Loud disruptors on the make will merge with the elephantine traditions of past generations.

What I now think is that such thinking is dangerous. It’s all to do with the rapid nature of change. It’s to do with historic analogies becoming less relevant. It’s to do with an unparalleled speed of interconnection, interaction and interdependency. The landscape has changed.

The media is so important because we need stories to make sense of the world. Our place in the world and possible future is shaped by the results of a mass of interconnection, interaction and interdependency. Dare I say – No man is an island.

Usually when we experience a disruption to a commonly accepted narrative there’s a push back. An innate caution resides in us all. It maybe primitive. A tribal instinct.

This is where the digital world has changed our experiences. For all time. If every day (every hour) there’s a minor disruption, say a story about UFOs, the ground on which we stand starts to shift. Our shared sense-making starts to question and before we know it the fringe belief becomes common place.

Traditional institutions will confront disruptive change with opinion polls, spreadsheets, detailed analysis and studies. Interestingly, enabled and enhanced by digital technology. However, they are like the fire truck that turns up after the house has burned down.

Brexit was proof to me that a step-change can be driven by manipulating information. A political rupture can be advanced. A collapse of trust can be engineered. Now, that is frightening.

Unity and Conflict

New news? Party sources say x% believed there should be a different leader. So said a notable political correspondent under the banner “Labour leaders try to restore morale.” The article went on to say: “…arguing that the party must pull itself together and “steer a straight course” if it wanted to win the next general election.”

“But Mr Kinnock, facing mounting criticism, has chosen a different forum to launch his fightback after an unhappy three weeks that has seen the Conservatives take a 12 percent lead in the polls.”

Party politics can be a terribly cruel sport. That’s not new in all of history. This quoted article, from the 1980s has a kind of resonance with what’s happening now. The roles are different as Labour was trying to find a way of ousting the Conservative Party from power. It took them until 1997 to find a formula that worked. There’s no doubt that Kinnock did the groundwork that made the electoral success of New Labour possible. Reading my newspaper cutting, it wasn’t exactly a pleasant time.

Is this what’s happening to the Labour Party now? Sir Keir Starmer did the groundwork to win power. But Mr Starmer, facing mounting criticism, has chosen to continue his fightback after an unhappy few weeks that has seen the others prosper from his numerous shortcomings.

What next? Is it for the next Party leader, and thus Prime Minister, to make effective use of the power that remains? The threat is no longer the past enemy, the Conservative Party. Now, Reform UK are giving the impression of being the greater opposition come the next general election.

Why are we so distressed at squabbling within an important political party? This has been an almost permanent feature of British politics.

A combination of at least two fixed elements makes conflict inevitable with Parties. As well as between Parties. One is the adversarial style of British politics. Two is the primitive First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system.

Both elements assume that two of the largest political Parties will forcefully lock horns. To maintain their preeminent positions, as the largest, they must encompass a lot of people who simply do not agree with each other. There’s as much politics within the politics as there is in the real world. Leadership is as much about maintaining a degree of unity as it is governing the country.

With decades of accumulated experience, it might be reasonable to think that the established political Parties would have this one nailed. Surprisingly, that never seems to be the case.

The advice in the 1980s was: “His closest friends believe that the only way forward is to try to turn the situation around by going on the offensive against …………….” The target for an offensive here has changed but the idea is a classic one.

Will we be seeing Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer mount an all-out offensive against UK Reform? Thus, keeping his colleagues from plotting and scheming. I wonder. Certainly, this will make for an interesting month ahead.

Celebrating Local Democracy

Thursday, a day named after a hammer-wielding Norse thunder God. That’s a good day on which to hold elections. And so, it is in the UK. A tradition, the origins of which I don’t know. One thing I can imagine is that it’s a day of the week when there remains time left over to count votes and deal with disputes before the weekend hits. Not a bad choice to make given that the first days of the week can be put aside for preparations.

I’m accustomed to local authorities who start the formal count of votes as soon as the polls close. This can be done where the electorate is of a manageable size. Polls usually close at ten in the evening. Ballot boxes are then transported to the count, often housed in a large sports hall or civil building of some kind.

If I go back as far as the late 1980s, I remember evenings spent in the Town Hall in Cheltenham[1]. The election count was a grand civic affair. Lots of, what I thought at the time, as unnecessary pomp and ceremony. Now, I think that wasn’t such a bad idea. A celebration of a cornerstone of our democracy. This event even stretched to a late-night announcement made on the balcony of the Town Hall to an assembly of people standing outside in the cold.

[To be allowed into the premises where an election count is held, the presiding officer[2] must accept you as a candidate or formal counting agent. The local press often get access too.]

There’s a couple of purposes in this short article.

One, please take time to say something good about your local council. I know council officers put an immense amount of effort in making sure that elections run smoothly. It’s incredibly easy to take this dedicated work for granted. Ensuring a complete and up-to-date electoral register, getting out poll cards, running polling stations and a count doesn’t happen by magic.

Yes, I know you can cynically say that people are paid to do this work. The reality is that running elections effectively, efficiently and with integrity calls for commitments above and beyond the normal the workday. As a counting agent, I’ve stood opposite bleary eyed counters sitting there well past midnight, after a fiery recount. This vital work requires concentration and fortitude.

Next, I’d like to raise glass to the candidates. Those people who put themselves forward for election, most of which will not be elected. They will be quickly forgotten, however much effort they put into their campaigns. In a small number of cases, people are elected unopposed but that’s a small number of cases.

In vibrant communities up and down the length of the land, the political parties will field candidates. Typically, these volunteers will stand for the Labour Party, Reform UK, Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Conservative and Unionist Party. In places there will be independent candidates and those organised under other banners, like resident associations.

At a local level these candidates are not professional politicians. Some may aspire to have a political career, but the majority are trying to make a difference in their community. To make our democracy work, everyone depends on someone stepping forward. Having a go. This isn’t always to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, but it can be.Demands can be high, in time and effort, as lot of local authorities live in turbulent situations.

[1] https://cheltenhamtownhall.org.uk/

[2] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

Local Elections: Challenges and Opportunities

Listening to the leader of the opposition in the UK is like listening to a paddle boat[1] rider whose getting swept out to sea. Paddling ever faster, piling on the rhetoric, with no idea how to get back to the shore. It’s probably a big plastic duck with flaky paint and no safety certificate.

Equating talking tough with talking faster doesn’t cut it. Using the word “plan” without having one is aiming for deep trouble. Doubling down on past errors of judgement isn’t the least bit convincing. Drawing intendable distinctions, as if in front of a judge, impresses few listeners.

May’s elections coming around the corner. These are predominantly local elections. So, when Party leaders bypass the hardy perennials, like the state of the potholes in the roads, and veer off into international politics it’s clear they haven’t much to say. Local authorities provide a substantial number of vital services and so there’s plenty of subjects to address, if they would be minded to do so.

Here we are in a state of play that has a real air of novelly about it. The two tribes that have dominated politics in this country are struggling in the doldrums. Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are floundering. Tarnished by a lengthy list of past mistakes. Their current leaders unable to project a vision for the future.

Here we have no council elections this year. Either elections are held once every four-years or a proportion of a local authority are up for election every year. There’s merit in both schemes.

In the first case there can be a more dramatic change of leadership as a whole council changes in one go. That can give the winners a clear mandate to meet a particular promise. On the downside, one emotive campaign issue can dominate, even if it’s small relative to the impact of a new four-year administration.

In the second case there’s a more gradual change of political complexion of a local council. More chance of continuity of actions and polices. Also, the local electorate get in the habit of expressing a view and an election every year at the same time. On the downside this can put more power in the hands of the council officers than the elected councillors.

Overall, I prefer annual local elections in May, despite the cost associated with their running. It’s a better way of engaging the community rather than a build-up to a bigger event. It’s also easier to find candidates who are willing and able to stand for election and likely to see through a full-term in office.

This week is a week for political scientist to chew over something other than opinion polls. Real ballots, in real ballot boxes are so much more real. Professor John Curtice will be on every media outlet. We will see if the predication of the steady decline of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party come about.

I expect that result will be the one that people are talking about at the end of the week. In my view there will be a distribution of votes across the choices that are on the ballot. This will not mean greater clarity or definition of where we are heading as a country. As a liberal, I can’t complin if there’s a great diversity of views expressed.

What I can say it that we will need a better electoral system that copes with a multiple Party array of choices. Electoral reform[2] is likely to become a necessity.

[1] https://swanpedalboats.com/ducks/

[2] https://electoral-reform.org.uk/