Parliament – Page 5 – John Vincent

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 21^st 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

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 6^th and 9^th 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/

Distraction

The Rwanda debate is an enormous distraction. I know there’s a hard core rump of Conservatives who will jump on the deterrent argument in a microsecond. It’s nonsense. For people who are willing to risk their lives to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world, the possibility of deportation isn’t going to make an ounce of difference.

No, this is mainly lawyers, talking lawyerly talk about what lawyers might do. Then getting wrapped around the axial about what their colleagues may or not think. Trying to fly the dark flag of nationalism higher than anyone on the green benches. All the time with their eyes on the headlines of tabloid newspapers[1]. No surprises, no innovation and chance of making a difference.

The bill in Parliament has little to do with the practical realities of the problems that the UK faces. There’s also the pernicious euro bashing opportunity that some of the more unscrupulous MPs are only too happy to exploit. There’s nothing more they like than to point fingers at others to avoid taking any responsibility for the current situation.

A week in Parliament gets wasted. This is not unfamiliar when governments have run their course. They wander around concerned about making a show. Troubled about opinion polls. Wondering how to hang on to their jobs. This is not a good season for practical problem solving.

Sitting in a local cafe drinking coffee isn’t the best way to judge the public mood at the moment but isn’t the worst either. So, I’ll paint a picture. An unrepresentative picture. Ironically, the picture comes from the old town hall in this town. A place that, no doubt was the seat of much local debate and discission in past decades. Now a coffee shop for a major brand. Where isn’t?

To my right a gentleman, who must have been at least in his 70s, sat in a comfortable chair head down engrossed in the Daily Mail. One of the few people with a daily newspaper in hand.

To my left young people sitting over their studies. Flicking between their workbooks and mobile phones. Consumed by their mate’s chat. Busy with something but who knows what.

In front, a group of female friends taking the time to meet. Exchanging stories of the week. Families, children, distant relatives, work, money, holidays, in fact all the topics of everyday life.

Where does the Rwanda debate sit with this random selection of coffee shop drinkers? In my estimation only with the man who may have caught the headlines. The only consolation prize for the Conservatives is that one man maybe likely to be a regular voter. Goes out in all weathers and marks his cross in a box.

Now, I hope I’m not maligning anyone. It’s mighty foolish to look at someone and say I know how they vote. Do that on the doorstep and be immediately surprised. Believe it or not I’ve known lifelong socialists who read The Sun newspaper for the sports stories. Or that’s what they’ve said.

The strategy of the Conservatives would seem to be to try and secure their core supporters having given up on the thought of winning a general election they still don’t what to lose too heavily.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-67989069

Call to account

Accountability. There’s a nice word. It’s kind of biblical. It’s one of those so-called golden rules. An account is about balance and fairness. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. A simple and straightforward notion.

I’d say that means that we expect ourselves to account for errors and misdeeds, and we are often our own greatest critics. In balance then we expect others to account for their errors and misdeeds.

Our society doesn’t have a police officer standing on every doorstep. That would be intolerable. What we call civilised behaviour requires each of us to be accountable for our action, to ourselves as much as to everyone else.

Listening to the story of the Post Office (PO), and its persecution of postmasters, it’s apparent that the innocent individuals first questioned themselves before they questioned the failing computer system that they had been forced to use.

Go back 20-years and Computer Weekly[1] was pointing out that the large-scale transition from a paper-based system to a computer system was going badly wrong. An accountable institution would have urgently investigated and fixed any problems, which are not unexpected in the introduction of a new system. In this case, cover-up and denial seems to have been the strategy. Then blaming the innocent and going to extreme measure to punish postmasters.

The PO did not do unto others as it would have them do unto it. The corporate blindness to injustice and its self-protection mechanisms were the worst of what an institution can be. Now, the appalling injustice is evident to everyone and it’s difficult to understand where accountability was in the past. By cruel imposition, accountability was distorted by the powerful.

I hate to say it but there’s a general lesson in what has happened at the PO. In the last 10-years there are numerous significant national failures where the strategy of blame and going to extreme avoidance measure has prevailed. The billions (£) wasted on personal protective equipment (PPE)[2] during the pandemic is only one case. The billions (£) wasted by Truss in a few days. Don’t start me on the billions (£) wasted on Brexit.

In our democracy the notion is that accountability comes through free and open elections. The argument goes: if you don’t like what they have done you can kick them out. If there is such a thing as natural justice, we might expect that to happen. I remain an idealist in a year of elections.

I sat down in Morrisons[3] yesterday morning. There was a copy of a national tabloid newspaper lying around. I picked it up to read it with my tea. The line it took, on the one hand, is to highlight the injustice of the PO scandal. On the other hand, it did its best to exonerate the current government and cast shadows over the opposition. Not much honest accountability. Conservatives, who have been in power for more that a decade, are swiftly trying to rebrand.

Golden rules are great but political expediency is much in play as we run up to a General Election. I hope that the public will see through rebrand underway. Let’s hope.

[1] https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Post-Office-Horizon-scandal-explained-everything-you-need-to-know

[2] https://www.transparency.org.uk/track-and-trace-uk-PPE-procurement-corruption-risk-VIP-lane

[3] https://groceries.morrisons.com/

Enough

I’m not a supporter of the Labour party leader but his call for change is surely one that is echoing through every street of the land. By the way, good choice for a location to make a national New Year speech[1]. And all the Conservatives could do in response is make populists claim that he’s a populist whilst doing nothing other than being populist. Populism eating itself. Populists accusing others of being populists. Admitting the flaws in what they do whilst trying to paint those flaws on others.

No, Prime Minister Sunak procrastination is not the way forward. He’s without core principles, hanging on to exploit whatever comes along. There’s zero authenticity only maximum opportunism.

Liberal Democrat party calls for a General Election are spot on. The reality is that we are destined to have a year’s worth of election campaigning ahead if the election date if not called for the spring.

Liberal Democrats “Tory Removal Service” may signal a love for publicity gimmicks but getting national attention when the media landscape is polarised is not a simple business.

Leader Ed Davey is showing that there is an alternative to the worn-out outdated political parties[2]. It’s a challenge to the British electorate. Do you want the stale ding-dong of national political debate to go on disappointing forever? We can do better. We can mend a political system that has been fundamentally broken for an age.

Rather than feathering the beds of supporters we need a government commitment to equality. Rather than short-termism we need a government that takes the long view. Rather than shunning our neighbours we need a government that embraces internationalism.

Yesterday’s resignation of Conservative MP Chris Skidmore[3] appears much like a rat leaving a sinking ship but it’s more important than that classic media interpretation of events.

Skidmore addressed the issue of short-termism head on. He’s resigning citing the on-going legislation to boost North Sea oil and gas drilling. Next week, the UK Parliament returns to consider an Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill. This Conservative Government’s move is a kick in the teeth to the country’s green credentials. He states, I can no longer stand by. The climate crisis that we face is too important to politicise or to ignore.

Promoting the production of new oil and gas sources is a backward move. Yes, we need energy security but that should be a driver to invest in electrification and reducing energy waste. There’s a list of policy moves that could return the UK to a position of leadership on climate change.

2024 is likely to see the current Conservative administration flaking like peeling paint as it slowly decays. We do not need opportunistic papering over the cracks. It would be so much better for the whole country if they stood aside – soon.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67880324

[2] https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/article/new-year-2024

[3] https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-chris-skidmore-to-stand-down-over-bill-that-promotes-production-of-new-oil-and-gas-13042746

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

Change needed

In so far as voting systems are concerned, it’s often been misleadingly said that Proportional Representation (PR) would result in endless back room deals and politics conducted behind the scenes. This is because different political parties would need to negotiate more often than they need to do so in a purely adversarial system. However, whether that political negotiation is in public or in private isn’t on the ballot.

Today, we have a perfect illustration of the downside of the current First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system in the UK. The results of the UK’s voting system are not a broad representation of the views of the voting public, rather it’s the representation of the factions of the dominant political party. That is dominant in terms of numbers of elected Members of Parliament (PMs).

Instead of negotiations going on between political parties with defined aims and objectives UK citizens have negotiations conducted behind the scenes in back rooms inside a political party.

Rather than tolerating more than one secret “star chamber” of MPs, we ought to be questioning these unstable undemocratic practices. The fragile coalitions within political parties, like the Conservative Party, are completely fragmented and hold wholly different views on important issues.

Surely, it would be much better if different party factions were honestly represented by the own political party. That would give the voting public a fair choice. That would make voting more meaningful. Today, under FPTP the voting public have no idea what they will get. Don’t doubt that statement just recall what has happened in the UK since 2010. The UK’s electoral system is broken. That’s why current opinion polling says that the level of trust in politicians is low and getting lower.

With PR difficult issues are openly discussed. Political parties exist to promote their philosophy. If they are liberal, they are liberal. If they are authoritarian, they are authoritarian. If they are progressive, they are progressive. If they are conservative, with a small “c”, they are conservative. If they are internationalist, they are internationalist. If they are nationalist, they are nationalist.

Today, for the two political parties often taking power in the UK their official names don’t mean a thing. It says little about what they will do when elected to a position of power.

In 2019, the Conservative Party were given a big majority of the seats in Parliament despite only winning 44% of the vote. Yet, MPs from fringe factions will stand-up pontificating about their representation of the people. Constantly, saying that the British people want this or that when such loud assertions are clearly untrue.

The UK’s FPTP system means that millions of public votes are wasted. Large numbers of people are denied a voice, and the make-up of Parliament does not reflect how people cast their votes. The UK’s electoral system is not fit for purpose.

Dangerous way to act

Why choose to make a deal with Rwanda the issue that breaks the UK Conservative party? It’s not the biggest issue facing the UK. It’s not the highest priority of voters if we take the opinion polls as an indicator. It’s only a totem for the far-right fringe. What we have is a sign of a stubborn disunity. Almost a fatalistic rush to collapse. An admission that there is only defeat over the horizon.

Clearly, the issue that should be addressed is to competently manage legal immigration. The numbers are orders of magnitude higher than those crossing the channel on small boats. Not only that but the backlog of unprocessed people dwarfs that which could be shipped to a third country.

A Government faces thousands of difficult policy choices every day. At this part of the electoral cycle, focusing down hard on one that is bound to cause disruption, dissent and disillusionment is politically foolish.

Let’s face it, to win a coming UK General Election progress must be shown on the two issues that are top of the concerns of voters. One: a cost-of-living crisis. Getting inflation under control. Two: fixing health and social care. Leading changes to health services and properly funding social care.

So, with the above in mind how is it best to react to the UK Government’s latest attempt to seal a deal with Rwanda. Through a legislative proposal there’s to be a definitive statement that Rwanda is a safe country. This is to be an unquestionable rule. Setting aside other existing laws.

What a dangerous way to act. Opening the door to this type of authoritarian legislative proposal opens the door to all sorts of acts that no one would want to see. Dictatorial nonsense. With the UK Conservative party’s current logic:

Why not a law that says that British rivers are clean. That would solve the problems of sewage discharge – not.

Why not a law that says that climate change is fixed. That would resolve global warming – not.

Why not a law that says that the tide must not come in. Dam – that one has been tried.

At the seashore, when King Canut[1] commanded the tide to stop, we all know the outcome. Since then, his name rather unfairly has become a byword for a delusional attempt to avoid the inevitable. When what he was attempting to do was to demonstrate the limits of his power.

It’s now more likely that my predictions of the date of the next General Election maybe driven by events. The limits of the power of a Prime Minister are most evident when those standing behind him slowly shrink away.

[1] https://www.royal.uk/canute-great-r-1016-1035

GE2024

Let me spectate. I’m no professional commentator, pollster or political pundit but do try to keep myself up to speed with the current affairs. The question in the mind of a lot of people is: when will the next UK General Election take place?

In these days before Christmas, it’s possible the Prime Minister (PM) doesn’t even know the answer to this question. It’s a balance of how strategic or opportunist he will be when it comes to making such big decisions. Most current predictions are that the Conservatives are destined to be defeated. The gap in the national opinion polls is substantial. That makes the decision of timing of an election one that could mark the end of the current PM’s term of office or elevation to Conservative saviour. Currently, political parties are desperately selecting candidates for each constituency. Something is afoot. Better stop there before I get tempted into a pun.

Let’s put aside any consideration of a winter vote. Arctic weather gloom hovers like cold mist. With the prospect of large heating bills upsetting most of the population there’s no politician who will want to accept the blame for that situation. Naturally, they will say that they are working at pace to tame inflation and overseas conflicts are the root of the pain.

The first step on the road ahead is next year’s springtime. Local elections are expected. Every year, they take place on the first Thursday in May. This is when a third, or less of the electorate put a cross in a box. At the same time London’s next mayor will be elected. So, 2nd May 2024 will be like a mini political barometer. Real votes in real ballot boxes are always a better indicator than sampling or sage views.

The European Parliament election is scheduled for 6th to 9th June 2024. You may think this European Union (EU) election has no bearing on the UK, but I beg to differ. If there’s a significant advance of right-wing political parties across Europe, then the impact will be felt in the UK.

The 2020 United States (US) presidential election was quite a show. In prospect, for the 2024 US presidential election is a gripping event despite the weak selection of candidates. That US national election is scheduled for Tuesday, 5^th November 2024. Guy Fawkes day[1] in the UK.

Let’s assume the Conservative party will want to hang on, not to the bitter end, but to get as much time elapsed after the pandemic shockwave, Partygate, mini budget madness and the cost-of-living crisis as they can. We are still reeling from the post-Brexit political earthquakes that have trashed confidence and the economy. Will the cost of government be political exile? That all said, people have shifted a long way since last year. The big question is: who do you trust?

The UK’s Labour party opposition should be confident and smiling. However, the opposition probably feels aggrieved having to wait so long for others to fail before getting an opportunity to win a general election. What doesn’t help is that the electorate are now pessimistic about any sustained recovery. Sadly, the public mood is beset with quite a sense of decline-ism.

Traditionally, in the UK, September is party conference season. That leaves October open for an election. But as noted above there’s a news media attention getting clash between what’s happening in the UK and US. Since significant geopolitical tensions are going to be raging throughout 2024, I think that topic may not be an influencing factor on the UK election date question.

Rolling the dice as late as October 2024 has several advantages for the incumbents. If there’s good summertime news, say inflation reduced and a modicum of economic growth the government will claim a great success. The struggle between democracy or autocracy around the globe could give a UK PM a platform on which to make one or two grand gestures. Also, with nearly a year to go, the opportunity for the opposition parties to trip-up increases.

When polls ask is Britain a better place to live than it was ten years ago or a worse place to live than ten years ago the pointer points at worse. It’s hard to imagine this will not impact voter intentions.

#ukpolitics #ukpolitics #politics #generalelection

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/the-gunpowder-plot-of-1605/overview/people-behind-the-plot/guy-fawkes-/

Ineptitude

Yesterday’s announcement went like this: “The government will also increase the minimum income required for British citizens and those settled in the UK who want their family members to join them.” This Conservative view, that families are a burdening the State persists like a stubborn stain.

The Universal Declaration of Human Right says: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Clearly, by the measures announced, in the case of this UK Government the family is not a fundamental group unit of society. In fact, family members based overseas will be required to separate in the event of a person accepting a low income in the UK. That low income in the UK maybe relatively large when compared with what is available in their home country.

I guess this is fine for lawmakers when considering the level of a Minister or Member of Parliament’s salary and benefits. There’s no impediment that will impact their lives in this respect regardless of the nationality of their partner and children.

What I’m wondering is: what will be the case if a British pensioner, living in a European country, who wishes to return with a partner or children who don’t have British passports? If the increased threshold of £38,700 applies, then that will effectively ban them from returning unless they have a generous pension. It may be the case that they have worked on overseas and accumulated a non-UK pension, but this would be irrelevant if the deciding factors is a UK earnings threshold.

I don’t think there’s much disagreement that those who wish to move to the UK should be able to support themselves. The UK minimum wage is set at £21,673.60 for a 40-hour week. So, is the UK Government saying that no one can support themselves on the UK minimum wage?

Ministers have been quick to deny any responsibility for the chaotic state of the immigration system in the UK. Instead, they pretend that they are adapting to changing circumstances. The fact that they are 100% responsible for the current circumstances is brushed aside.

Having persisted for years with one set of flawed notions Ministers now announce another set of ill-thought-out proposals. The Brexit slogan of Take Back Control did not envisage giving control to a cabal of incompetence. In stark reality, that is what has happened.

The knee jerk reactions and ever shifting sand of the last decade need to come to an end. The British people should not be denied a General Election. More months of more chaos and ineptitude are incredibly damaging.

POST: U-turn. Minimum income requirement will not be increased as much as originally announced. A new threshold will be applied from the spring. A policy designed to exclude people from entry to the UK has been watered down for practical reasons.