Tag: News

Ideologies and Education

Listening to a new Labour Education Minister say, for all intents and purposes, that Gove[1] caused young people classed as NEETs (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) isn’t what might be called objective thinking.

Education and training in the UK have long been a victim of the classical political ding-dong. Right leaning politicians support elitism (masquerading as aspiration). Left leaning politicians support egalitarianism (within class hierarchies). Both claim to celebrate achievement, merit and social mobility. I say “claim” because the outcomes of their polices are often so different from their utterings.

It’s not too difficult to understand why. Historic social prejudices run deep. They remain embedded in our institutions. Public and private. Comedians Cleese, Barker and Corbett star in a BBC sketch of 66 years ago[2] that sums-up stubborn in-grained British attitudes. As a 66-year-old this doesn’t sit well with me.

Although the public are gradually freeing themselves from an addiction to political creeds, the current cohort of elected members and the media moguls still perpetuate a dated world of stereotypes. From Classical Greece to now, the phrase “everything changes, but nothing changes” still has its place.

Here’s a view that might be different. On a day when examination results are published, much of what has been said this morning is about education pushing young people out into the world. Like products coming off the end of a production line. Ready to be integrated into society. Both from political right and left this is horribly mechanistic.

If something isn’t working, it’s the fault of the implementation of policies, processes and procedures dreamed up by past Ministers.

What about looking at the subject from the other end of the telescope. Our society isn’t going away. Whatever the successes or failures, in 66-years from now, that’s 2092, people will be writing articles about education and training. The good and bad.

Within the lives of this generation of young people the rivers of change will flow ever faster. Instead of pushing young people out into the world, let’s imagine the factors that will pull them into different life outcomes. What will success or failure look like in their time between leaving school and retirement. Assuming such a condition as retirement continues to exist.

[This is where Gove got it mighty wrong. Retro education policies born of imperial public-school thinking contained no vision of the future.]

To thrive in let’s say, the period between 2026 and 2066, adaptability and resilience will surely be needed. Attitude comes into the equation too. A “can do” mentality will be an asset. There’s no need to downplay achievement, merit and social mobility. More a need to supress the pigeonholes and categories that hold people back. The forces that demotivate.

Our classical two faced political ding-dong does a lot of harm.

[1]UK Education Secretary (2010–2014): Led reforms, including the expansion of the academies and changes in what’s taught in schools.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00hhrwl

Political Farce: Clacton’s By-Election

Solar eclipse, Perseid meteor shower and planets in alignment happening at the same time, it could be an omen. Well, maybe not. A by-election has just taken place in an English seaside town. Not exactly a ripple in the fabric of space-time.

A Member of Parliament (MP) who was under an intense spotlight for alleged misbehaviours, decided to step-down from the Parliamentary seat he had won at the last General Election. Then he decided to stand for re-election in a by-election that was called after his resignation.

Yes, political acts like this could go on at infinitum. It’s like that classic picture of a snake eating its own tail. In the event, the larger political parties in the UK looked at this strange situation and concluded that standing a candidate in this by-election would only add to the media show that the former MP probably wished to promote.

Now, you could say that this choice of standing aside was potentially disrespectful to the electorate in this English constituency. There’s a case for that political argument, if it wasn’t for the primary cause of the by-election in the first place.

The political complexion of this seaside Parliamentary constituency is well known. It sits in an area where the British political right often does exceedingly well. The underlying reasons for this fact are strange to me. Years of voting for right-wing candidates never seems to improve the lot of the constituents of that part of the world. But vote that way they do.

Anyway, whatever the tactical political play the cards fell the way that the former MP wanted. Grumbling about the “establishment” political parties shunning him is not a new platform, even if the results of the byelection give him an opportunity to say so.

There’re several takeaways from this strange episode.

One. Imagine doing this and still claiming to be a potentially good manager the economy. The cost of putting on a by-election of choice is not trivial. Local authority bank accounts are not briming with surplus cash.

Two. Disrespect for the electorate cuts both ways. Having a job, giving up a job, and then taking up the same job again is doing nothing to improve life of people in that part of the country. In fact, lot of people all over Britain may now have a less than favourable view.

Three. The “new” MP remains in jeopardy. The House of Commons Standards Committee investigation continues, and so another byelection is a real prospect. If the outcome of the investigation is suspension for ten or more sitting days, a recall is triggered.

Four. The Reform Party has lost even more of its reputation and spent much money campaigning against a man who wears a bin on his head. Add to that, Binface will have secured his reputation as the number one alternative (comic) candidate in future elections.

Five. The argument that this episode was a stunt aimed at distracting people from other matters will not die because of the results of the by-election. Yes, a humiliating electoral defeat was avoided only next time the process may not be so simple.

Clacton’s by-election day will get written-up in the book that nerdy electoral fanatics keep on a dusty shelf. A political tactic of delaying what some people say is inevitably has a point but it’s immensely wasteful and does nothing whatsoever to address most people’s cost-of-living concerns of the moment.

Britain Needs a Written Constitution

Who cares? That’s what a lot of people might say. I mean look at our everyday problems. A cost-of-living crisis, crumbling infrastructure, conflicts in the world, turbulence of identity politics and a host of live issue that would take the whole page to list.

Lord Sumption, a crusty establishment lawyer debates with Baroness Chakrabarti, a lefty advocate and lawyer. Both capable and seasoned debaters with respectably different backgrounds. Listening to one I might say; that’s a sound reasoning. Listening to the other I might say; exceptionally good point. Thus, I my view remains the same whatever their debate.

So, for a brief few minutes this morning the subject of a written British constitution hit the airwaves. I can’t break the habit of listening to the Today programme on the BBC Radio 4.

Firstly, to explain. The UK, and its parliamentary way of doing business, is unlike our cousins across the other side of the Atlantic. They are now celebrating a nation’s coming into being, 250 years ago. The foundation stone and a launch into nationhood was a written constitution.

We have done thing differently in the UK. It’s not so easy to trace our constitution back to a moment of birth. Naturally, I will cite one document that has influenced both nations. The Magna Carta’s importance[1] is recognised across the globe. Not only by its influence on modern constitutions but what it says about the rule of law.

[Last year, was the 800th anniversary of the sealing of one version of the Magna Carta].

As an infant a school trip we made was to Runnymede. My teachers clearly wanted to plant an idea in our heads long before we would have any appreciation of what it meant.

[That primary school trip included a visit to the Rufus Stone[2]. A place where I wandered off and got lost in the New Forest but that’s a story for another time].

What I’d say to both Sumption and Chakrabarti is that the subject you debate is fundamentally important. However, it’s easy to get hung up on the word – constitution. As if there’s only two models of such a key construct. To put it basically, one we make it up as we go along and the other, we write rules on tablets of stone.

An argument for leaving things well alone is the flexibility that the traditional make it up as we go along approach can offer. Parliament being sovereign, without question. Even when it’s foolish and unrepresentative. To counter this supremacy of the executive is the dangers of fragility and vulnerability that can be exploited by an errant leader, despot or tyrant.

An argument for change, one I favour, is that our medieval system holds the country back and its not as if we don’t recognise the importance of solemn written commitments. Every Act of Parliament is as such. In fact, Acts can be enabling. So, why can’t a written constitution be an enabling document. It doesn’t have to be overly constraining or practically unamendable.

The problem lies not with agreements in favour of a written constitution; it’s more a problem of how on earth can British society take up this challenge when its mind is on so many day-to-day trials and tribulations. It’s a modern dilemma.

We have a partially broken system that’s unsuited to the coming decades, but we don’t know how to fix it. To fix it, everyone needs to engage.

[1] https://www.magnacartatrust.org/home

[2] https://new-forest-national-park.com/the-rufus-stone/

Digital Age Dilemma

There was a time when most of the political parties in the UK would object to mass surveillance and the State having a watchful eye on every one of its citizens. The influence of the Magna Carta, that 800-year-old document, was a keystone of thinking in this country. Although it was aimed at the privileged when first placed in front of a Monarch, it embraced the idea of liberty. It so upset the establishment that a Pope denounced it.

Ideas endure and those contained in the Magna Carta went on to inspire the framers of the constitutions and legislation in many countries. It doesn’t sound so strange in modern times that a person should be able to go about their lives without an overbearing State impinging on their liberty. Well, at least in theory.

I remember the intense debates that took place in the mid-1990s. The subject being the introduction of identity cards in the UK. Technical arguments were made of how such a measure would simplify lives in the coming digital age. Those agreements paid little attention to the erosion of fundamental rights that the centralising personal data on citizens would bring.

What’s happened now, through a process of stealth, is that people have given away vast qualities of data to international commercial entities without batting an eyelid. The legal device that has been used is a contract that few people ever read. The End User License Agreement (EULA). This detailed fine print addresses data collection and aims to protect software providers from liability.

I suspect that Conservative politicians have observed how little attention people are paying to the erosion of their rights that they feel emboldened to abandon any commitments to liberty. For some time now the Conservative mantra of has been to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is based on a gamble that most people will not have read the document. It’s a bit like the snatch and grab that the typical EULA has become.

Now, the Conservative Party has doubled down on a shift to the right of politics by inviting the prospect of mass surveillance. There’s a reasonable argument for the police to excurse powers to delve into the digital world when investigating crime. In fact, how can they not do so. However, this should be done so when there’s reasonable basis for doing so. Not everyone is a suspect of criminal activity. The law of the land still upholds the idea that guilt must be proven.

Computational tools are getting ever more powerful. I could joke that the number of articles on AI would reach to the Moon and back, but I wouldn’t be far wrong. One of the powerful software tools that’s accumulating uses is that of digital facial recognition. We’ve advanced from the days of inky fingerprints, although such prints are still valuable identifiers.

Where do we have a problem with liberty? The framers of many longstanding constitutions didn’t have to think to hard about what liberty meant in a world devoid of digital cameras. Now, any citizen’s image is going to be caught hundreds of times through the day. Maybe thousands of times. That instant image can be present on storage devices across the globe.

Who owns that image of me or you? Can it be used by anyone? Tricky questions given phones, traffic cameras, doorbells and home and business security cameras are subject to EULAs. On a superficial basis, requiring police forces to extract digital images and run them through a national database can sound like a good crime fighting idea.

The problem is where is the line drawn? Mass surveillance? Where everyone is an immediate suspect until proven not guilty? Not guilty by virtue of the calculation of an algorithm. Widespread digital camera coverage does put this in prospect. Images stored all over the world. Do we need to reframe the Magna Carta for the AI age? Now, there’s a thought.

Nostalgia vs. Innovation

My generation, and those a bit older than me, are inclined to shrug shoulders and, in a war wearied way, lament the passing of a great era. It’s not merely nostalgia. Although there’s a degree of selective memory in what we choose to remember as good.

This week, at the BBC Proms, I sat down in the bar at the interval and was joined by a friendly couple and another. We all had the grey hairs that qualified us as Prommers[1]. It soon became clear that the older gentlemen was a music buff who had been going to the BBC Proms since the 1960s. I’ve been going since 2018. Still an innocent bystander learning the Promming ways.  

The intensity of my companion’s conversation was fascinating. Firstly, it was to comment, unfavourably, on the contemporary music that’s a hallmark of recent concerts. I liked it. I’d say it was a winsome winding through a wood accompanied by crickets playing soft percussion. Not so much adventurous as intriguing music for the Albert Hall. The view from the sofa was that these new musical fillers were a waste of time. There was a time when entire concerts were avant-garde and challenging. About the 1970s/80s, or thereabouts.

Let’s reflect. I think what the BBC is now going through is what a whole British generation is going through. An existential crisis. Not so much stop the world I want to get off, as a howl of irritation. Another sign is the annoying advert where the BBC heralds itself as a national treasure. Using the Monty Python line – what have the Romans ever done for us?[2]

The winds of change can be cruel. That’s not new. However, we’ve had a couple of decades coming to the realisation that some traditional ways of doing things are not going to nicely evolve into a recognisable future state. Incremental change has its benefits. Trouble is that it puts off the day when something more substantial needs to be done.

On two specific British cultural assets – music and comedy, we can’t afford to hang onto repetitive formats and a dependency on the likes and dislikes of an aging population.

Ghastly mush like, Mrs. Brown’s Boys is a blight on our televisions. Although it was an important part of my youth, endless repeats of Top of the Pops belong in a museum. If the BBC takes the road that only mines the past or tickles one section of the country, its fate is sealed.

Take Monty Python as an example. When first proposed it looked foolish, hopeless and niche. What’s the betting that there are creative people out there now who are being told to go away. The plethora of MBAs in media decision making roles shudder at taking risks.

Yes, there is a future for the BBC. Thing is it needs an immense kick up the backside in the fashion of Bishop Brennan. https://youtu.be/7PyI9q9AX1A?t=1335

[1] https://www.royalalberthall.com/visit/bbc-proms-faqs

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes/?item=qt0471953

Call for Action and Change

When I hear promising ideas, I instinctively say to myself – don’t be negative. Try and see the plus side of these proposals. Afterall the proposer is doing their best to solve a problem. I hope. Same with the recognition of a problem, even if solutions are nowhere to be seen. Just saying it or writing it out is an acceptance that something needs doing. Action needs to be taken. As is often said, every journey begins with the first step.

It ‘s easy to be cynical when so many first steps have been taken before. Well-meaning, and not so well-meaning, individuals have stood at lecterns saying what needs to be done. So, tackling the troubling situation of social care in the UK is a great ambition for a Prime Minister to have. A good task to set before a new Cabinet. Where they will go with it, no one knows, at the moment. Making a commitment, in public, is a good place to start.

That’s not what I’m going to write about this morning. There’s a ghastly term that has entered discussions of recent. I say ghastly because it’s a faceless product of statistical analysis. Carved out of a pile of numbers it proports to describe a whole group of young people as if there were a homogonous lump.

The term is NEET. It makes me cringe every time I hear it. Meaning – the number of 16 to 24-year-olds not in Employment, Education, or Training. A moral panic sets in when people say this is “a lost generation”. It’s as if a million young people had wandered off into oblivion. Makes me think of the 1960s/70s and the moral panic that set in as young people – turned-on, tuned-in and dropped-out. The counterculture slogan of those decades. Like so many situations the truth is a lot more complex. It usually is. Here’s a number of factors that undoubtably come into play.

Yes, that hardy perennial, the decline of “real” apprenticeships. The low value society still puts on training craft and manual skills of a practical nature. Despite the nice words of successive politicians. I’ve yet to see a Minister’s daughter start aircraft maintenance training.

Penny pinching that’s turned local colleges into factories. Pile them high and get them through the door fast. An attitude to young people that’s driven by key performance indicators.

The pernicious side of social media. Past generations may have had their excesses but didn’t have this inescapable attention draining impact on mental health. It’s unrelenting.

Role models are hard to come by unless they are family members. Many potential opportunities appear unobtainable. The media often portrays a future wrapped in glamour and littered with overnight success. Perhaps, Andy Warhol was right.

Lack of orientating to dramatic changes in the future working environment. Pushed by Conservative Minister Gove and alike, education has taken a retro path in emphasising academia and rote learning. Exams as the pinnacle. The wrong path.

The “new” Labour Government must address all of these and more if they want to shift the dial. On this score, I’ll say a word about a past opponent of mine. We were both local Councillors at the same time. In 2017, as Minister of State for Skills and Apprenticeships, Conservative Anne Milton at least tried to shift the dial on this subject. Then that menace Boris Johnson came along, and Brexit took the whole country backwards at a very rapid pace.

I look with optimism. However, the “new” Labour Government is a bit like the “old” Labour Government. Ministers carved out of an Oxbridge tradition. Happy to talk about their illustrious working-class origins but a million miles from real word experience of leaving school at 16 years old and getting a paying job. Supporting themselves through training.

Transforming lives will require focus on multiple issues, as I’ve illustrated, and it would be nice to see actions take precedent over nice speeches. Wittering on about the value of apprenticeships isn’t enough.

POST: Technical pathways for 14-year-olds could build on UTC model

The Evolution of Aviation Safety: A Historical Overview

A quick tour of the history of aviation safety. In a couple of minutes.

As powered aircraft took to the skies it quickly became apparent that, of all the means of transport, aviation was less forgiving than others. Moving at speed in four dimensions, with the necessity to take-off and land safely, has inherent risks. By no means does this mean that flying is an dangerous activity. What it does necessitate is an exercise of sound engineering, preparation, and proficiency. When these are missing, and in cases of misfortune, accidents and serious incidents happen.

In the days between the world wars, aviation moved from the military and a circus-like amusement to a viable means of public transport. Progressively, more passengers had the opportunity to experience the wonders of flight.

Today, it’s not the early days of flight I want to focus on, but we do owe the engineers and aviators of that time a great debt. Much was learned as aeronautics matured. Since the end of the second world war the production, promotion and application of standards has embedded what had been learned. This has established the way that international civil aviation works.

One simple expression of the stages we’ve been through is Prof Patrick Hudson’s[1] model. This model describes five distinct levels of cultural maturity. The steps are pathological, reactive, calculative, proactive and generative.

This model sits alongside steps in the development of technology that have been a hallmark of aviation. Different categorisations exist. AIRBUS[2] has one that’s easily understood in terms of generations of civil aircraft.

First are the “classics” of the 1950s and 60s. Next, the second generation starts down the road of more electronics. More safety critical systems. Third generation starts flying in the early 1980s when automation becomes the norm (early fly-by-wire, glass cockpits, flight management systems). The fourth generation introduces safety systems, which address the major causes of fatal accidents, namely Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) and Loss Of Control In-Flight (LOC-I). That’s the early 1990s. When I made that move from industry (design and production) to an aviation safety regulator.

Now, I’d say we are well into fifth generation aircraft, with composite structures and integrated modular avionics. In fact, we are well into speculation about what the sixth generation may look like. Machine learning, single pilot operations, hybrid powerplants, aircraft as a node on a network.

Because aviation is a learning industry, and a conservative one, the expectation is of progressive improvement in maturity throughout the aviation system and innovative technology applied to enhance safety.

This is not to say that the potential for error, missteps and recklessness don’t exist. They do. I expect continuity in a way that takes full advantage of advanced methods without scarifying the legacy of an astonishing good global aviation safety achievement.

Later, to cover a lot of ground in a short time, I’m going to condense all the above into three distinct categories. But before that, I’ll talk about the present and a vision of the future.

POST: UK Farnborough Air Show on Thursday 23rd July 2026. Time: 13:00-13:15 BST. Location:  Hall 3 Stage. Session title Where Next for Aviation Safety?

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753507000227?via%3Dihub

[2] https://d10x.airbus.com/generation-of-jets/

Will Andy Burnham Lead a New Era?

It’s not so unbelievable. With the volatility of politics in the 2020s, that a leadership role flips from one person to the next in the blink of an eye. The man tipped to run the country has won one constituency in his hometown. Now, lots of people envisage him in the biggest of jobs, sweeping aside the wows of recent years.

One view of this change is that the decades of past allegiances, that we almost took for granted, have now dissolved. The way we view others in our society has become far more complex.

British comedy is littered with these stereotypes. Comic strip characters. Property owning, upper middle class, broadsheet newspaper reader equates to a Conservative. Open toed saddle, tweed jacket owning teacher who goes on improving camping holidays, a Liberal. Football supporting, factory worker, from a generation of factory workers almost certainly a Labour supporter with Socialist friends. At the margines, long retired colonel who inherited a large countryside mansion and estate may even be a Fascist. These animated cartoon images persist. What’s different is that there are dwindling numbers of them in society at large.

Initialled AB, Andy Burnham, comes to us as a smiling face. Down with the people in a way Sir Keir Starmer found incredibly hard. AB has charm and a warm accent that suggest a relaxed demeaner. He talks with enough wriggle room for a wide swath of people to think that he’s on their side. A good skill to have to be successful in politics. As it is, what he stands for when push comes to shove isn’t so easy to discern.

In know the spelling is different but it’s out there in social media land. The fictional Birnam Wood, a forest near Dunsinane Hill in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. A place of prediction.

[That was one of the texts our teachers chose for us in my school days. Maybe they imagined troubled times ahead. Or wanted to warn us of power’s potential corrupting effect].

Three witches appeared to assure Macbeth that he was a winner. Only seemingly impossible events would defeat him. The message was critic. Bit like the Oracle of Delphi in the ancient Greek world. Nothing like recycling a good idea.

The British media’s prophecy is that Burnham will quickly step into the job of UK Prime Minister and restart the Labour Government with fresh vigour and new imagination. Not to mention better public communication. The constituency who thinks he’s a potential saviour is much bigger than the consistency who thinks he’s a devil in the making.

Will ambition and power’s potential corrupting effect take a hand. Or will the man with the name: “King of the North” have accumulated the knowledge and experience needed to shape history to the country’s benefit. A good sprinkle of luck will no doubt be needed too.

Despite what has passed in our post-Brexit land. UK PM’s coming and going, will Burnham be a force for good? I wouldn’t say past performance is any predictor at all. Making the buses run on time in Greater Manchester is a far cry from being a political party leader and UK PM.

I, as do so many, wish him a fair wind. Let’s hope he and his team can get to grips with the need to adapt, change and even be disruptive where it’s warranted. I hope he will not shy away from big decisions or be cowed by either his own side or the perfidious British right-wing 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