Tag: News

Protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food

Food security matters. Much like energy security matters. Much like access to basic commodities. There are fundamental matters of supply that must not be ignored. International trade is a two-way street. But it must be a two-way street on the level. It’s possible to imagine a set of scales where there’s a balance between both sides. Maintaining that balance is a dynamic business.

It’s easy to understand how aggrieved farmers in Europe feel if they are subject to unfair competition. It’s the same in the UK. If say, meat comes into the UK, produced at a lower standard than domestic produced meat, and that undercuts farmers prices, that’s unfair and unwise.

News doesn’t just concern agriculture. Over the last weeks discussion about the UK’s ability to produce basic commodities, like steel, has occupied minds. Imports maybe cheaper. The trouble is that countries jeopardise domestic security and merely offload environmental concerns by increasing dependency on others beyond certain points. A sensible balance must be struck.

Political, marked trade imbalances are a nightmare. British farmers may not be so overtly militant as some on continental Europe, but they have a strong interest in influencing what laws say. Bandwagon jumping politicians from the far-right and far-left are taking advantage of the discontent that exists. None of these empty barrels have answers. That doesn’t stop them making a lot of noise.

Post-COVID, in all sorts of industries, there’s been, and still is, significant supply chain problems. For example, the price of farm machinery has gone through the roof. Although general inflation appears to be slowly coming down the hike that has happened, has happened. It’s bedded in.

Looking at the gap between input prices and outputs shows an unhealthy situation[1]. Producers have been squeezed. Their margins have been squeezed. It’s certainly not a good time to be a milk producer[2]. Even with optimism for the longer-term, today’s bills still need to be paid.

In the UK, there’s an often written about concern surrounding the power of the established major supermarkets[3]. These are almost monopolistic in their position in the marketplace. On the walls of their food warehouses pictures of smiling farmers and clean, shiny tractors are all the rage.

Because so much food goes through the doors of the supermarkets, if farmers want to protest, they are probably a better target than the UK Government. Alternatively, British farmers may need to work to reduce the influence of the middlemen. Going direct to the customer may not be for everyone but more could be done.

In a General Election year, it unlikely that politicians will pick a fight with British farmers. Their ears may prick-up for a short while. That’s a good time to make the case for domestic production.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agricultural-price-indices/agricultural-price-indices-united-kingdom-november-2023

[2] https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/dairy-producers-braced-for-an-uncertain-future-nfu-survey-reveals/

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/280208/grocery-market-share-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

Bland & Blue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hero to Zero

How to go hero to zero in 30 seconds. I hired a large van for a week. From a company that had done a good job for me in the past. I had a lot of confidence in their offer. Fine their location had changed. Once the company was in Redhill in Surrey. The office was easy walking distance from my house. Now, they have an office in the small town of Dorking. So, it’s a short train ride away.

The Surrey towns of Reigate and Dorking are separated by about 8 miles. They both sit under the North Downs. The main A25 road links the two towns and probably has done for centuries. Without delays that’s about 20 minutes door to door. Normally.

Moving house is one of the most stressful events in life. That’s what we are currently about. It’s a move further West. It’s a move to take us away from the dreadful mess that the M25 motorway has become in the last couple of decades. From 3 lanes to 4 lanes, it’s got worse not better. Why do we think we can build our way out of traffic jams?

So, for the last week I’ve been driving a large van backwards and forwards from Reigate to Newbury. The hired van was everything I needed. Only about 7000 miles on the clock and plenty of space. If I had one niggle it was the need for a reversing camera. Beepers are just not enough.

The rental company, named after a famous starship, that went where no man has gone before, was topping my hero list. What I needed when I needed it and at a good price. With only a minor inconvenience when picking-up and dropping-off. Or, so I though.

Named storms are popular this year. Driving through one of them is no fun. Traffic slows and the inevitable bump or blown down tree holds everyone up. Nothing moves the way it does on a sunny day. It’s times like these when planning can be more guess work than science. Whatever a satnav calculates.

In my wisdom I thought – let’s try a cross country route home. Get off the habit of using the M4 and M25 motorways. Programmed the satnav and away I went. Leaving Newbury lunchtime thinking that getting the van back to the rental company by 5pm would be no sweat.

My route took me from Newbury to Basingstoke and then to the M3 motorway. Then towards London and coming off the motorway to take the Blackwater valley route to the Hogs Back. Those references are for Surrey residents because they will know what I’m talking about. Trundling along the Hogs Back I then hit the main A3 into Guildford. Now, my logic went like this. I’ll avoid the Wisley junction reconstruction or permanent hold-up by taking the main A25 all the way back to Reigate. So, I did. All going well until I reached the closure of that main road[1]. At that point I was committed to getting back to Reigate to unload my packing boxes. Can’t carry them on the train.

When road closures happen in Surrey, at rush hour the mess is insane. The diversion I took up over the North Downs and back down again onto the A217 road was miserably slow. What’s worse is that I knew I had to turn around and go back to Dorking to return the rental van. The clock was ticking. 

Anyway, enduring the tedious frustration of doing a short journey, by miles, over a long time wore away at my generally cheerful disposition. Thus, I was glad to get back to the rental company office in Dorking only about 20 minutes late, after 5pm.

I was committed to leaving the van and taking the train home. That trading estate rental office closes at 5pm. A dark and empty parking space was free, but nowhere could I see anywhere to drop the van’s keys? It seems inconceivable to me that an international rental company would not have a key drop. I searched the plot. There was nowhere. All there was an unhelpful notice on the door of the company’s office. So, I locked the van, kept the keys, and walked to the train station. Idea being to return the keys as soon as the office reopened next morning. Seemed logical.

Next morning, I got up early and set off for Dorking. Sadly, the closure of the A25 was still an on-going problem. All the rush hour traffic had the same issue to contend with on their way to work. This is why I’m happy to be leaving Surrey. A short journey turns into a tedious trek at the drop of a hat. The county’s roads are unable to cope with the levels of traffic. But, as planned I get to the Dorking office of the rental company at 8am when the office opened. Enterprise were still in my hero category as the van was inspected and the mileage typed into a company handheld device. I would have given them 10 out of 10. Job done.

In the warm, in the rental office, just as I thought the paperwork had been done – hold on a moment it’s charging you an extra day for a late return. Computers do these sorts of things. They have no awareness of the world other than the numbers they crunch. Unthinking beasts.

I’ll have a word with my manager. Those were the words spoken. Me being me, I though that’ll be no problem given the effort I’ve made to return the keys. Let’s face it if there was a drop box last night they would be doing exactly as they are now. Van returned in 100% condition and keys in hand.

Then to my surprise the office manager, who insisted on using my first name, says no we are going to have to change you for an extra day. In 30 seconds, Enterprise went from being my number one van rental choice to a huge bottomless zero. I argued the logic of my position and the unforeseen local conditions that prevailed. I outlined the best efforts that I’d made.

Then I got the most galling response – it’s company policy. I suggested that the office manager might use a little judgement or digression in this case. I hit nothing but a stone wall. The computer says so. The charge is the charge. No deviation possible. It’s astonishing that an office manager can’t make a reasonable judgement. If that’s Enterprise company policy I don’t want that kind of service. Other companies are available.

What didn’t help either was the prospect of the return journey in my car knowing that the main Reigate Road was closed. As per my prediction the short journey home again was awful.

Hero to zero – Enterprise. Hero to zero in 30-seconds. My future business will go elsewhere.

POST: This quote from the Enterprise website is meaningless. “We understand that things don’t always go to plan so, if you are running a few minutes late we won’t charge you for an extra day, we give you a grace period of up to 29 minutes to cover unforeseen delays“.

Part 2.

Change is always welcome. The above rental made me think twice about using the services of Enterprise. In my new town, they have a much more easy to get to office. It’s a 20 minute walk from the house. So, I ate my pride and booked a big van for a couple of days. The job was much the same as before. It’s all part of a house move that is lasting far too long.

Here I am renting from Enterprise Rent-A-Car once more. This time I’ll drop the label “zero”. From picking up the van to dropping it off everything worked as it should. My large commercial van took a heavy book case and a king sized bed from Reigate to Newbury without a hitch.

[1] https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/live-a25-traffic-updates-after-28495765

Democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Votes count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global

Our everyday life is built on an assumption of freedom of navigation. It’s not always easy to relate to this reality but there it is. Goods move around the globe. I illustrated this uncomfortable fact the other day by saying let’s just sit down and look around. Observe the room.

Sitting in my living room. How many items came to us by ship? Over the ocean. All the electronic goods for sure. The furniture? Some yes and some no. The carpet, maybe not. The curtains, the material for sure. Books? Some yes and some no. Radiators? Surely, made in the UK. However, even the items that were manufactured in the UK needed materials that were imported. Strip away all the imported goods and materials and there’s not much left. The cupboard would be bare.

Now, look at what I’m wearing. My clothes all got here by container ship. I’m not wearing up market attire only everyday wear. Down to my underwear it’s imported. If I did an inventory of my wardrobe there’s not much that was made here.

Take the cup of tea in my hand. Well, the cup might be domestically manufactured but the tea doesn’t grow here. True the milk in my tea is well and truly English. No sugar. I never take sugar.

My point is clear. The days when everything in an Englishman’s home was manufactured in the England have long gone. That day was a long time ago. Almost a pre-industrial period. Our imperial past was such that imported goods have always been a huge part of everyday life.

Today’s automatic assumption of the freedom of navigation stems from post-war settlements. Agreements and institutions flourished in the post-war period. They created and reinforced conventions that assured freedoms of navigation by air and sea. Something we all too easily take for granted. Almost totally ignore.

Since Reagan and Thatcher, it would be hard to find an international management school that didn’t emphasis the benefits liberalised markets and global supply chains.

Post-war the world went from a period when freedom of navigation that was secured by air forces and gunboats to a period when it was secured by agreement and mutual interest. Obviously, the subject is not entire so simple since conflict has always been occurring somewhere on the globe.

National sovereignty remains at the core of the agreements that exist. There is no such thing as world government and international law can be brittle to say the least. Amongst those who benefit from it, there’s a strong interest in upholding and protecting freedom of navigation. Those acts that disrupt or challenge freedom of navigation will always meet a response.

So, this week’s developments to protect international shipping routes through the Red Sea should come as no surprise. It’s a different matter as to whether they are right or wrong. Or whether the military action that has been taken will work.

Our western tendency to expect a rational response to a rational action maybe flawed. However, the aggressor in this case has interests that may not make any sense to us.

Comment

Custom and practice are as important as the rules and regulations that are part of our lives. Now and then, someone is criticized for applying the letter of the law without care for the spirit of the law. The same is true for custom and practice. Whereby, acting outside past norms can trigger a backlash.

Because, in free countries we believe in a free press, the rules and regulations that imping on what should and should not be said about events are always hard fought over. The banner of the “public interest” is touted as overriding. It may or may not be, but there’s an argument to be had.

In the aviation safety profession, I’ve grown up with an instinctively “need to know” disposition. I’ve shaken it off, mostly but there are signs that the attitude persists. This instinct can run counter to the transparency and openness that most people expect to see.

Why talk about the way major events are talked about?

A case in point is the recent runway collision in Tokyo. There’s much already written about the newsworthy aspects of the event, so I’ll desist from adding much more. There’s a lot of speculation too.

Graphs can be drawn of the media attention given to such tragic events against time. It’s typical that from moments after a major aviation accident until a few days after most initial facts are known there’s a huge surge in activity. This used to be described as newspaper column inches.

Today, wide ranging speculation is inevitable. It can be highly literate, and, on the other side of the coin, it can be badly informed, and now and then damaging.

In over three decades, I’ve been dealing with aviation accidents and incidents there has been notable changes in media and communications. For one, the universality of the INTERNET is now unquestionable. For another, the deference offered to authorities has diminished markedly. For yet another, the speed of with which images can travel around the globe is astonishing.

Most aviation professionals are tempered by caution. Aware of the techical complexities that can arise in aviation accident scenarios. What can seem in the heat of the moment to be an obvious cause and effect, after detailed analysis turns out to be wrong, or only a partial picture.

So, should aviation professionals be scathing about the enormous growth in commentary and public speculation? Especially when some of it is wild and or even outrageous on social media. No. I don’t think so. Like it or not this is our digital world. The freedom it affords to throw-up any opinion or theory can only be tempered a bit. The hope is always that the pure dross fades away when a reputable authority challenges it.

That then puts a responsibility on someone, with professional knowledge to challenge ill-founded speculation. Or, at least, to ensure that the major media outlets have reliable sources of trustworthy information. I don’t think aviation professionals should remain silent concerning speculation. That may have been the strategy decades ago. It no longer works. The greatest degree of transparency and openness, based on verifiable facts, should be the aim.

Comment?

Privilege

How we choose the people who make our laws. That matters. Or at least it should matter.

We are persuaded to think that UK General Elections solve this by putting a ballot in the hands of every eligible voter. Those national elections are called at the behest of the party in power, so there’s an element of choosing the playing field. Also, levels of voter engagement depend a greatly on the current affairs of the moment.

The song goes: “why should we be ballot with the ballot in our hands”[1]. That’s to say that elections should matter in the determination of what happens next. History shows that this is not quite what it seems. The song is a nice sentiment when the ballot makes a real difference. However, for a great number of positions of power and influence there’s no such thing as a ballot.

Basically, the British Prime Minister (PM) has powers that Julius Caesar would have coveted. Elements of the British political system remains feudal. Conferral of honours is part of the power package. There’s no argument that being PM is a demanding job but that shouldn’t be an automatic trigger to bestow gongs and seats on the red benches of Parliament.

The Liz Truss resignation honours list is an abomination.

An affection for honours is much more of a Conservative addiction than any other. It fits so well with a view that statesman come from an elite branch of British society. The over representation of the famous public schools of the country is one indicator. People with certain backgrounds are grossly overrepresented in Parliament. More recently professional political manipulators and bag carriers have been favoured.

Contribution to the political life of the country is code for having helped a particular political party or politician to get where they want to go. To the average citizen there’s little or no relationship between bestowed influential honours and the general public good.

Any appointments process benefits from being accountable and transparent. In this case there isn’t much of either. Publication of a list after the event doesn’t count.

There should be some interest in maintaining public confidence in the system. Well, that’s an assumption I’m making but the evidence shows that there isn’t much interest. Confidentiality surrounds the appointments process. That gives licence to speculation, conspiracy theories and unusual people unexpectedly popping up on lists.

Parliament’s House of Lords is no longer construction exclusively from the landed gentry, but lot of appointees owe allegiance to the status-quo. That status-quo being inherently conservative.

This is a time when people are pulling together plans for the next year. Restructuring ought to be near the top of the priorities. Respecting the merit of meritocracy has some legs. Overriding all, currently, is restoring public confidence in the political system. To not do so will result in troubles ahead. Big troubles.

[1] https://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Politics/papers/2005/McLean%20Nou%20Beggars3%20050617.pdf