Tag: Parliament

Small Boats

Are there really hundred million people coming to Britain? Or is this a desperate scare tactic adopted by a Conservative Minister who has run out of workable ideas? It’s certainly the sort of tabloid headline that a lot of conservative supporters like to read. As we saw in the US, with former President Trump’s rhetoric on building a wall these themes stir-up negative emotions and prejudice. It’s a way of dividing people.

Xenophobia is defined as a fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign. With nearly 8 billion people on Earth[1] the potential for this destructive fear to be exploited has never been greater. Here, the Conservative Party is increasingly dominated by xenophobia and demagoguery, whatever a change of leadership may be trying to cover-up.

Will Parliamentary debate save us from the worst instincts highlighted in the Government’s latest proposals on small boat crossings? That’s a big question when the ruling political party has such a large parliamentary majority. Debate is likly to be heated and lacking objectivity.

Pushing the boundaries of international law can cause reputational damage, even if these rum proposals are defeated. However, what concerns most commentators is the high likelihood that the proposed measure will not work. They are merely a more extreme version of past failed policies.

One of the poorest political arguments is to criticise an opponent for reasoned opposition. It goes like this: here’s my policy and by opposing, it without providing your policy, you automatically make my policy a good one. It’s like planning to build a dangerously rickety bridge, likely to fail, and pointing to those who criticise the project as a reason why it’s a good to project.

When spelt out, like this it’s clear how curiously subversive this shoddy bombast can be. However, one of the basic party-political instincts, to seek headlines and publicity, has overridden common sense in this case. In the Government’s case, legislating regardless of the consequences, is an act of political desperation. Sadly, that’s where we are in this pre-election period.

NOTE: In June 2022, the UK had a prison population of roughly 89,520 people. The detention facilities needed to enable the Government’s small boats policy would need to be in the region of 40,000 people. Yet, there’s no published plan for a significant expansion of detention facilities. 

[1] https://www.census.gov/popclock/world

App folly

Isabel Oakeshott is interviewed. We are no wiser. The ins and outs of the story of Conservative Government Ministers during the COVID pandemic lockdowns is a story that will be written a thousand times. Hectares of the social media landscape will repeat every embarrassing blunder and poorly thought-out assertion. These ins and outs need to be dissected but it’s not work for those tying to improve their mental health.

People who have had some exposure to British politics often love “Yes Minister”, the BBC series that overflowed with wit, twists and turns. It lifted the lid on the stumbling workings of Whitehall and the political class. At the time the series was made there were no mobile phones in every pocket and paper was still king. Civil servants carried bundles of files down endless corridors. This wood panelled and stuffy environment was a commonplace image.

Opening a file really meant getting a folder and putting numerous memos and reports in it. Staking it high with the record of decision-making for future generations of historians to dissect.

In the 1970s, the speed of communication was mitigated by the medium. When it came to paper trails, that was a relatively human speed. Typed up memos were rarely dashed off without a thought. Documents were released with an official stamp and multiple signatories.

Fast forward to the 2020s. Office desks appear totally different from the past, that is if one exists at all. Mobiles have concentrated super-fast digital communication tools into the palm of a hand.

That said, official and unofficial communication channels continue to play their part in the corridors of power. What is shocking, in the current news stories is just how much the unofficial communication channels seem to dominate.

Afterall, we are not taking about a release of official Government emails. It’s worth asking; why are Government Ministers using WhatsApp[1] so much? It’s a widely available commercial messaging application owned by the US company Meta.

Is the machinery of political governance getting so lax in the UK that we are behold unto a messaging mobile App over which we have no control what-so-ever? 

Globally, WhatsApp may have over 2 billion users but that’s no guarantee of its integrity. The system does get hacked. Ministers using unofficial communication channels as if they were totally within their control are foolish, unethical, and naïve, to say the least.

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

Every little helps

When drawing comparisons with parts of the UK, it’s responsible to say that the town I live in, Reigate[1] in Surrey is relatively affluent. However, much debt people may be carrying, the amount purchasers are prepared to pay for houses in this town is way above the national average.

Past associations between affluence and the habit of voting Conservative in local and national elections is well established. That said, for a good half of the population in Reigate there’s no love of what the Conservatives have done over the last 12 years. In fact, I would wager that a good number of former Conservative supporters are well and truly fed-up with the never-ending deception and incompetence of that political party.

Yesterday morning, just for a short while, in the chilly air a few local people gathered on a street corner to protest. Their concerns included polluted rivers, climate crisis, cost of living crisis, real incomes falling, idiotic Government rhetoric, corrupt politics, a damaging Brexit, and the suppression of the right to protest. The public response was overwhelmingly positive. Drivers tooted their horns in support, people waved and stopped to chat.

As is perfectly reasonable, there were a small number of passers-by who disagreed with the group’s banners and posters. Most often this was a shaking of the head or a traditional English gesticulation, but in addition one or two words were voiced. That’s the heart of the matter. It mystifies me how some people can be happy with the current predicament in Britain.

The most distressing words uttered were: “What’s the choice?”

There are several ways to interpret this negative shout-out. One: it could be a cry of genuine desperation.  Two: it could be a deep reticence accepting a bad situation and a loss of hope. Three: it could be a stubborn Conservative who’d be happy regardless of the situation.

This is what those who want to see change happen have got to get to grips with this year. To bring real change about there needs to be a big collection of people who openly welcome change. That does mean embracing those who are still sitting on the fence.

It means seriously building confidence that today’s troubles can be beaten. As can be seen from this small group’s posters the list of troubles is long, so this is no simple task. Hope for the future means overturning incompetent incumbents and giving a chance to competent fresh faces. It means having honest and practical solutions ready to go. It means having a vision. 

Rebuilding Britain’s liberal democracy is the vital and urgent mission.

[1] https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/whats-on/family-kids-news/surrey-commuter-town-surrounded-countryside-26293505

Truss

Stating the obvious about former Prime Minister Truss, and an attempt at a political makeover[1] does merit effort. There are some people unwise enough to wish to cover up a colossal failure. The facts are clear. Absurdly irresponsible economic and political policies plunged the UK into a crisis. The corrective action taken to recover from that situation cost the UK greatly both in monetary and reputational terms.

The approach taken by the right-leaning Conservative Truss cohort destroyed growth rather than drove growth. The people who announced last year’s mini budget are not “blameless.”

Let’s acknowledge that there will aways be some reckless believers in the approach taken at the launch of the Truss premiership. It’s better that they be heard. It’s better that their foolishness is exposed before it can be acted upon. It’s better that they remain a minority.  

Britain’s shortest-serving Prime Minister can be used as a textbook example of how not to govern.

There’s a search going on to address long-standing economic issues. It requires cool heads and clam reflection. Diatribes rent with dogma are useless and dangerous. Borrowing huge amounts to cut taxes is the sort of act that would have Margret Thatcher turning in her grave[2].

Reputationally the Conservative Party is in the sink. Their party chairman is out. Their deputy PM is hanging on by a thread. Members of Parliament are agitated and flailing around. It’s like the last days of John Major’s premiership.

It must be said that much British economic and political pain could have been avoided. I objected strongly to Brexit. It happened but it did not need to have happened in such a way as to create a massive downside. The loss of trade and good relations with our nearest neighbours has set the country back decades. It’s like we dug a big hole and willingly jumped into it. Our neighbours looked on mystified as to why we choose to jump into such a deep dark hole.

The one thing this current incarnation of the Conservative Party is good at is shooting itself in the foot and taking us all to a place where we don’t want to go.

POST: From a purly poltical standpoint it maybe good that Truss features in the media on a regular basis. liz truss – Politics | JOE.co.uk

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-64533422

[2] https://theconversation.com/why-liz-truss-is-no-margaret-thatcher-when-it-comes-to-the-economy-190816

3-years on

Today, the weakest arguments are being used to sustain Brexit. Still the advocates of Brexit call for deregulation, slashing taxes but more Government borrowing. The Truss formula, despite its disastrous effect remains popular amongst Brexit supporters.

Britain, having left the EU Customs Union and Single Market, has agreed roll-over trade deals with some countries. However, there has been no huge boost to trade as Brexit advocates claimed there would be after the 2016 vote. Brexit negotiations drag on and on. It’s perpetual motion. Maybe there’s a fix to the Northern Ireland difficulties. Maybe not.

If you are inclined, you can always blame everything on the Government’s pandemic response. As politicians are apt to do, there are quite a few avenues open to excuse away the negative impact of Brexit.

The lies told during the UK referendum campaign of 2016 will not go away.

On the 3-year anniversary of leaving the EU, pollsters have been out and about to gauge public opinion. It seems that apart from some parliamentary constituencies in Lincolnshire, others show a majority think Brexit wasn’t a good idea. 54% say Britain was wrong to leave the EU[1][2].

We don’t not know exactly when the next UK General Election will be, but political parties are gearing up for the fight to come. Because of the dreadful First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system the UK’s opposition parties have a hill to climb in the race for Westminster. Again, referencing the current polls, even with that hill to climb there’s a high likelihood that change is on the way.

The end of this Brexit Government will not come soon enough. Look at the state the country is in. The longer this Conservative party remains in power the more damage will be done.

NOTE: The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union on 31 January 2020. Based on the Withdrawal Agreement that had been ratified by both the EU and the UK, a transitional period during which EU law continued to apply in the United Kingdom ended on 31 December 2020.

POST: Ardent Brexit supporters are saying: we have to give it more time. Judging our economic position after 3-years isn’t enough to draw conclusions. This is like saying that having made a bad investment, it’s best to stick with the bad investment. Some people may agree with this type of argument. I say it’s foolish. The Brexit referendum has done damage. It will only be repaired by reversing a destructive and much regretted decision.

[1] https://unherd.com/2023/01/introducing-unherd-britain-2023/

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-regrets-map-uk-b2272117.html

Faltering Flattening

There are so many aspects of “Levelling Up” which are vulnerable to harsh criticism that it’s surprising that the Conservative Government sticks to this spending project. “Levelling Up” was a project started by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but it has been carried on by successive UK Governments.

The Government’s project is a political project. It’s a slogan. Maybe that should be no surprise.

One explanation for the project’s continuation can be found in Brexit. Whereas the regions of the UK received funds from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) matched by UK Government funds that source of funding was lost upon EU exit.

Redistribution is not new. A drive to improve social and economic conditions is popular, in principle. Creating more opportunities for areas suffering hardship makes sense. That said, this centralised distribution project is flawed in multiple ways.

For a start, any vox pop will show that no one really knows what it means. Some say that “Levelling Up” is when the Government spends in deprived or “left behind” areas.

Even this is doggy territory. There are without doubt areas of deprivation that need assistance. We need to ask, is a beauty contest run by Ministers the best way of lifting those areas out of their disadvantaged condition? Talk of “left behind” areas after decades of the stigmatisation of certain parts of the UK is hardly a positive way of regeneration.

I think the “Levelling Up” agenda has continued in its current form because of the oil tanker effect. That is the propensity of big spending initiatives to roll on regardless because they are difficult to stop. With little time to run to the next General Election (GE) inventing and implementing something new and more effective is just too politically risky.

This second round of funding, worth more than £2 billion, sounds like a lot of money but set in the context of annual UK Government spending of over £1000 billion[1] that doesn’t seem so much. Given that local government spending has been so heavily curtailed in recent years it is reasonable to say that this “Levelling Up” funding is a poor attempt at a replacement.

When central government picks projects to fund on this basis, it’s saying that it knows better than local government. Or is it that it knows how to win votes better than local government?

[1] In 2020/21 the government of the United Kingdom had a total managed expenditure of over 1053.3 billion British, an increase of over a 100 billion pounds when compared with 2018/19. Statista

Poor law making

If you thought the Truss era was an aberration, and that the UK’s Conservative Party had learned a lesson, then please think again. Wheels set in motion by the ideologue Jacob Rees-Mogg MP are still spinning.

The Retained European Union Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is trundling its way through the UK Parliament. The Government Bill will next be prepared for its 3rd reading in the House of Commons[1]. The Conservative Government has brought forward this Bill to revoke, reform or revise all the remaining law in the UK that was formerly derived from the UK’s membership of the EU. This turns on its head the normal approach to changing UK legislation. Revocation is automatic unless there’s an intervention by a Minister.

UK civil aviation depends on several thousand pages of legislation derived from EU law[2]. Much of this law was created with considerable contributions from the UK. There’s hardly any if any advocates for automatic revocation of current aviation legislation. Even the thought of this action sends a shiver down the spin of aviation professionals. Generations of them have worked to harmonise rules and regulations to ensure that this most international of industries works efficiently.

Unless amended, the Government’s EU Retained Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill[3] could turn out to be an absolute disaster. Even those who have an irrational wish to eliminate any and every past, present, or future link to Europe must come up with a practical alternative and do this in an incredibly short time. Without a consistent, stable, and effective framework civil aviation in the UK will grind to a halt. Again, even those who have an unsound need to change for change’s sake will be hitting a vital industry hard, as it is only just getting back on its feet after the COVID pandemic and now setting out to meet tough environmental standards.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when this poor Bill reaches the House of Lords. Once again, the country will be relying on the upper house to add some common sense to this draft law.  

POST 1: The 3rd reading debate makes it clear that the Government is unsure which laws are covered by the Bill. If the Ministers responsible for this legislation do not themselves know its extent, how can anyone expect civil servants working on this legislation to know the full extent of change? A most strange state of affairs Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Third si – Hansard – UK Parliament

POST 2: Retained EU law lays down rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations in the UK Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations (recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (legislation.gov.uk)

POST 3: Retained EU Law Bill is being debated in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February.

[1] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3340

[2] https://www.eiag.org.uk/paper/future-retained-eu-law/

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-retained-eu-law-revocation-and-reform-bill-2022

Stonehouse

Let’s put aside the history for a moment. The 3-part TV drama based on the story of John Stonehouse MP has been dam good entertainment[1]. No need to recount every step in the story. It’s the sort of sequence of events that, had it been written as fiction would have been rejected as too bizarre and not printable. Here life really is stranger than fiction.

He was a rising star of the Parliamentary Labour Party in the early 1970s. He took a very unexpected turn in life’s series of multiple choices. Any explanation he gave seemed comic and a little bit sad. It’s clear why he had to be brought to justice. That said, Stonehouse is far from the first, or last parliamentarian to tell whopping great big lies and somehow expect to be believed.

Watching this story unfold in an era before instant communications, a camera on every mobile phone and streets covered with CCTVs makes me think this must be almost impossible for younger people to get. I may be wrong, but now the scenario would be even more hopeless than it was in 1974. Although, the twist now might be that various media can be convincingly faked.

The actor Matthew Macfadyen does a wonderful portrayal of foolhardiness and haplessness. He’s captured a blank expression that accompanied Stonehouse telling tales riddled with preposterous nonsense. True or not, this is dam good entertainment.

The spouses of parliamentarians have a lot to put-up with in normal times, let alone crazy excursions into fantasies and a partner’s moral bankruptcy. It leaves me wondering why they do it.

I know there’s a strong compulsion to keep-up appearances, or at least there was in the 1970s. There’re many popular British comedies based on the abhorrence of embarrassment and inclination to do almost anything to keep-up appearances[2]. It’s a 20th Century cultural theme.

The fantasy of starting a new life is a strong one too. That’s probably been sustained down the decades much more than aspirations based on social class. The mirror we put up to ourselves called Television regularly screens such programmes as: a place in the sun[3].

The true story of John Stonehouse MP is a complex one. Reading about the times it’s difficult to have much sympathy for him or the choices he makes. Those choices do appear extremely self-centred. Even with a generous interpretation.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13005652/

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

[3] https://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-place-in-the-sun

More Maths?

More maths? Like so many headlines. It depends what’s intended. This call is not new by any means. It has been repeatedly recognised by Governments, that STEM subjects are of vital importance to the future. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and maths.

Between the ages of 16 and 18, a lot of young people drop maths or anything that looks like maths. Understanding that fact is far more important than any dictate from a Prime Minister.

Let’s list some reasons why forcing this is not so easy as a headline might suggest.

Teaching: Mandating more maths without backing it up with the teachers able, enthusiastic, and trained in the subject will likely generate a negative impact.

Bandwidth: for the average student there’s a finite amount of work they will eagerly take on during a pivotal time of their lives. Developing their talents, whatever they are, is surely a priority.

Relevance: a key part of providing more practical maths teaching is convincing students of its immense usefulness in later life. Understanding how maths is used is as important as learning it.

Technology: Digitisation advances rapidly. Maths teaching must take on-board. For example, it’s important to be aware of what’s happening more than knowing every nut and bolt of an algorithm.

All the above are challenges that can be met given adequate resources and a plan. What we get from the PM’s speech is muddle. Numeracy and maths are not the same. I’ve known people who can do remarkable mental calculations on the spot but who would run for the hills if faced with a quadratic equation or a bell curve.

Yes, statistics do underpin a number of activities in everyday life. However, even when you understand their workings the capacity to make bad choices is more in the judgment than in the calculation.

STEM education is a package. It’s part of everything we do in a complex society. There aren’t many occupations that are not touched by the need to know something about the underlying working of our devices, means and methods.

In the past those supporting the humanities may have spoken-up objecting to an overemphasis on STEM subjects. Now, what artist, writer, musician, historian, or geographer does not use technology in their everyday lives? I’d say more maths but done right. Make it practical.

POST: Prime Minister sets ambition of maths to 18 in speech – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Crisis in Health

It’s difficult to think of a more inappropriate person to be Secretary of State for Health and Social Care[1]. He has all the bedside manner of Dracula. Prime Minister (PM) Rishi Sunak re-installed him in that vital Government post. So far, he’s achieved nothing but distress and mismanagement[2].

I shouldn’t joke. The seriousness of the situation in the National Health Service (NHS) isn’t a joking matter. Winter is testing the service to breaking point. Both the statistics and the experience of patients are not acceptable by any reasonable measure.

What’s intolerable is the general Ministerial response. Hard-line rhetoric about not budging on negotiations is callous. Dismissing every call for support by rattling-off lists of figures about Government spending is no help at all. Trying to redirect attention away from the things that need fixing. The shabby politics of avoidance is not what’s needed.

As a personal note, I find the situation indicative of broader failures too. My one term as a Surrey Country Councillor, between 1993 and 1997 is more history than anything else. The problem is that it’s not. I remember papers coming to full council meetings with a title that is pertinent and recognisable today. The subject being “bed blocking[3]”.

That’s 30-years ago, our institutions struggled with making the transition between hospital care and social care. It was clear that there was going to be a growing problem. The demographics pointed to a rising aging population. There was no ambiguity about the facts.

Ministers have come and gone. Quite rapidly over the last year. Each with the responsibility for NHS service delivery, performance, and social care policy. Some like incoherent gad flies, some who span like windmills in a storm, some like patrician overseers but none with the managerial skills needed to address the challenge that stares them in the face.

Most local authorities are dealing with cuts to their budgets, financial constraints and the cost of living demands we all confront. In some cases, they are tittering on the brink of bankruptcy[4]. Many local authorities have been forced to reduce their funding of social care at a time of rising demand. 

It’s mad that, after all this time, we have still not come up with an integrated health service. Pitching the NHS and local authorities against each other for funding is absolutely ludicrous. It’s costing lives.

Today, we must recover from a crisis. Tomorrow, real change must be implemented to prevent a future crisis. It isn’t as if we don’t know what to do!  

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/people/stephen-barclay

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-strikes-barclay-cooper-libdems-b2244466.html

[3] https://fullfact.org/health/bed-blocking-what-it-and-it-paralysing-nhs/

[4] https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/what-it-means-for-kent-residents-if-kcc-goes-bust-277075/