Tag: Politics

Reform

It’s not a name that represents their reality. Although, a couple of the political polices they have on their books do mean significant restructuring. Proportional representation being one of those policies. They are a British political party that wants to continue the destructive arguments that brought about Brexit. Created in 2021 the Reform Party are the rump of the Brexit Party.

For poll watchers they are stripping voters away from the Conservative Party. In fact, their aim is to replace the mainstream Conservative Party. Unashamidly populist and right-wing, Reform is sending shivers down the spine of the centrist Conservatives. More libertarian than liberal, abolishing and leaving institutions is more their meat and potato pie.

It’s not at all unusual for such populist political parties to point at everyone else as a problem and assert that simple solutions can be magicked up in an instant. Reform is going for those issues that greatly trouble unhappy “conservative” voters. Taxes, immigration, green initiatives, mainstream media, and that nebulous topic “woke”. Failures in Parliament, at the Home Office and in the NHS are targets too. It’s the sort of stuff that gives a type of British voter a sugar rush.

There’s a deliberate attempt to follow in the footsteps of Donald Trump in the US. The dynamics of politics are different in the UK but there’s an appetite for harking back to a mythical era when Great Britain was great and how that could be recreated.

If the Reform Party does nothing else, it’s tipping the existing Conservative Party to go ever more to the right of politics. This, to some extent, explains the ridiculous obsession with current Rwanda legislation that’s as likely to work as a square wheel.

One prediction can be made with confidence is that the coming Geneal Election is not going to be much like the one in 2019. What on earth would happen if well-known personalities like Boris Johnson backed the Reform Party who knows where we would go next. To me this is horribly like Germany in the 1930s. Taking a hard line on immigration is one thing but calling for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights is a slippery slope.

Politics with a noisy and truculent style has its place. Jam tomorrow and promoting “easy” solutions to complex problems are not new. Red-faced shouting and finger pointing has been around since Roman times. It’s the way a lot of people feel when things do not go well. Trouble is that putting people in power who tout this style always ends in bad consequences and disillusionment. It’s guaranteed.

Reform is polling in double digits. However, with the UK’s traditional First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system this means very little. Reform may influence the conservative climate of opinion only. Revolution is not in the air – yet. What niggles me a bit is that Brexit caught many people on the hop when it happened. Its legacy has been wholly negative. The question arises, are we in for another round of shooting ourselves in the foot? I hope not.

Yesterday’s man

Let’s say extreme things. Don’t think of the consequences. That’s on the playlist of this generation of right-wing activists. They are so afraid of being ignored that they push the limits on every opportunity. Say something outrageous and nine times out of ten the media will run the story. Stand devoutly against anything that can be considered normal, progressive, or socially responsible and whoopee it’s headline news.

I don’t feel inclined to name the chiefs of this art because that merely plays into their agenda. There’s a well-known but failed Brexit campaigner, there’s a well-known but failed former Prime Minister, and there’s a well-known but failed chair of a major pollical party. The common factor here becomes all too obvious. These folk are an epidemy of what my secondary school teachers used to call – empty barrels.

So, addressing the recent hokum, the current mayor of London is no angel. Have we ever had one that was? Pictures of one of his predecessors swinging from an overhead cable wrapped in a Union Jack flag have become a legendary funny story. Plans for the floral bridge across the river, he wanted to spend millions of public monies on ended in the dustbin[1]. Rightly so.

Today, the man in that office seems to reveal in meeting his opponents head-on. However, on Brexit and the environment he has been a voice of reason. Should he take a harder line on anti-war protests in the city? That’s easier to talk about than it is to do. His opponents know that fact.

Whipping up anger and division isn’t a zero-cost sum. The defence that will be used is that loud mouthed pundits are just saying what others think. That’s a shallow defence. It’s no defence at all to say, let’s all leap off a cliff together following the most foolish amongst us.

If everyone said every thought that ever came into their head’s civilisation would fall part quite quickly. We have the luxury of large brains to filter our most of our alien and downright stupid thoughts. That filter is clearly not working in the case of some Members of Parliament.

What’s over the horizon is a good opportunity for the Reform Party (ex-Brexit Party) to sweep-up. There are clearly a lot of conservatives who badge themselves Conservatives who are not conservatives at all. Better they find a place what suites them rather than harbouring any false idea that they might become mainstream in the 21st Century.

Going back to the worst of the 1970s is not an appealing idea. A modern empowered version of sitcom character Alf Garnett[2] is a scary thought.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/17/absurd-vanity-project-for-our-age-boris-johnson-garden-bridge

[2] https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/june/till-death-us-do-part/

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

Look ahead

Much as I support the UK Government’s position on hormone injected beef, the exit from negotiations on trade have wide implications. Maintaining the regulations that ban the use of hormones in beef is a good move for farmers and consumers.

However, for cheese exports the collapse of talks is tragic. Zero to 200% is one hell of a tariff jump. The UK will be in a worse position with respect to trade than it was pre-referendum. That’s with a strong ally, namely Canada[1]. Brexit has made us worse-off.

Yet, the Brexit supporters that remain, still herald Brexit as a wonder. Logic plays no part in their thinking. It’s easy to respond in an angry way to this self-inflicted blindness. It does no good. The stubborn streak in those who have dug a big hole is a thick one. And the hole is getting ever bigger.

Clearly, there’s no urgency on the part of Canada[2]. On the UK side the urgency is much greater. The need to stimulate growth to bring about a recovery in the British economy is much needed. Sadly, the legacy of a decision made in 2016 has made created a weak negotiating position.

For a long time, the UK has been given a soft landing due to transitional arrangements. Now, these arrangements are drying up. Far from the propaganda of the Brexiters, trade deals are not easy.

The problem is a reference back to the past is like crying over spilt milk[3]. How to go forward when the relationship between different States has been significantly changed is no simple matter. The situation is not irrecoverable but the avenues that can be explored are limited.

So, I caution of a never-ending lament. Brexit will need to be rectified. The means to do it are tortuous and may take a long time. The means to undo the mistakes of the past may face opposition from many quarters. One of the predictions for the European elections, this year, are that there will be a swing to the political right. Several right-wing political parties across Europe are on the ascendancy.

Instinctively these right leaning political parties are likely to less internationalist and more focused on immediate domestic concerns. So, third parties, like the UK, may not be high on Europe’s future agenda. On the UK side the major political parties have gone quite on Europe. There’s plenty of campaigning on international issues, like climate change and military conflict but little on enhanced working together.

There are many national news stories where solutions are best arrived at by greater communication, cooperation, and coordination. This year, so far, the signs are that these three “c” are going to take a back seat. Ironic, isn’t it. Facing greater international challenges than for decades, States choose to look inward. This myopia will continue until leaders speak positively of the future. Vision is needed.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/canada-britain-pausing-free-trade-agreement-talks-2024-01-25/

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-uk-trade-cheese-1.7094817

[3] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cry-over-spilt-milk

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

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

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