Politics – Page 2 – John Vincent

Understanding Primary and Secondary Legislation in the UK

Clear again is the conservative politician’s propensity to trade on ignorance. Remember the slogan of the big red bus of the Brexit campaign. All the abject nonsense that was said and written in 2016. It would be extremely charitable to call these intentional inaccuracies. There’s a three-letter word that sums them up. In theory, Parliament has rules. In practice, those rules are abused. That is until miscreants are exposed. Those politicians that misled the House of Commons over parties in Downing Street during the COVID pandemic shouldn’t be forgotten.

It’s a simple question. How many people know the difference between primary and secondary legislation? As far as I know these aspects of the UK’s method of making laws is not taught in schools. I think it’s vital that people of all ages get the opportunity to explore how their democracy works. Including its inherent peculiarities.

[Here’s a national event, later in the year, which can help. It’s free and already possible to plan for UK Parliament Week in November 2026[1].]

Back to the difference between primary and secondary legislation? A tabloid newspaper editor may see that question and fall about laughing. On the basis that the subject is not widely understood, instead of explaining, they may choose to write any drivel that serves their agenda. Day after day this sleight of hand provides bold headlines and support for misleading political campaigns. Then, if the truth pops its head above the parapet cries of Fake News ripple through the right-wing media.

By the way, the sad fact about this common distortion is an erosion of trust[2]. It’s no wonder that Parliament can be seen as remote from real-life. It’s regular inhabitants a strange breed of people who go native as soon as the walk through its hallowed doors.

During the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) it expanded. In certain specific technical areas, its “competence” grew. Member States agreed to give it new roles and responsibilities. As an example, before aviation legislation was harmonised in Europe, national legislation had to be amended to accommodate every major change that developed. In the UK, both primary and secondary legislation were applied. They are now. That consists of a UK Air Navigation Act and an Order[3]. The Act being the primary legislation and the Order being the secondary legislation. These two rules are not new as they have been part of the UK’s national aviation landscape for decades.

Above here I’ve kicked at the UK’s tabloid media. Well, they are merely doing what they have always done. There’s something in morbid consistency. What’s more disturbing are the lines being taken by a national media that might be expected to be objective. Read this short article and the predisposition shines through, and this is the BBC[4].

Sir Keir Starmer is planning a law which will mean that the UK government can adopt EU single market rules, without a normal parliamentary vote.

One, it’s the personalisation. This is the government of the day and not an individual. Two, it’s the incorrect use of the word “normal.” As I’ve stated, secondary legislation is perfectly normal. In fact, the UK’s normal regulatory structures depend upon it being in place and up-to-date.

[1] https://www.ukparliamentweek.org/en/sign-up

[2] https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/full_fact_report_121021.pdf

[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937jkvp3w8o

Lost Opportunities

It’s kind of odd. The wacky folk who still argue that the Brexit referendum was a good thing. For one or two well-heeled people that might be the case. It’s not the case for the overwhelming majority of British people. Maybe one issue is that it’s so difficult to get across the idea of lost opportunity. Benefits foregone because of choosing poorly.

It’s as if an ardent walker is faced with two paths. One is covered in glitter and hung with shiny streamers for the first mile only. The other is much the same as the path already traversed but it gets wide and smother after a couple of miles. One has minstrels singing patriotic and sentimental songs at its gateway. The other path has a well-meaning professor babbling on about solidarity, peace and progress. It’s the guidebook recommendation.

The destination of the first one is to circle around to get back where the walker started meantime having exhausted a lot of their provisions. For the second path there’s a whole new set of possibilities, yet unwritten. Companions are supportive and share their stories. Everyone is richer, both commercially and culturally.

The facts are that Brexit has made us poorer. In every way. It’s a pathway to nowhere, as we have found. After a decade it’s truly painful to tot-up the lost opportunities of the Brexit era. The financial numbers are huge but it’s not just about numbers. Now, the main issue is security. Developing a strong independent European defence against the global turmoil that’s ensuing.

Never a group to roll back and say – yes, you were right all along – those so deep in the Brexit ditch are pumping out propaganda much as they did in 2016. Cherished British food stuffs will need to be named using words last heard in a chemistry class. Hordes of criminal invaders will overrun our cities. They ask us to listen to apologists for climate change deniers.

Brexit is a deep fake. It’s not going to get any better. It’s going to get worse. Even if we wait 50-years, it’s not going to get any better. Certain right-wing commentators implore us to wait. To burden the generations that follow with perpetual decline.

One result of the current turmoil that is raging around the globe is the recognition that struck people with wisdom after the second world war. We have the capacity to choose between order and disorder. Anarchy has a massive cost. International rules are incredibly difficult to establish and maintain but it’s best that we try.

I know those who will counter this argument will count out the number of times the world’s institutions have failed since the late 1940s. However, that’s no-good an argument in of itself. Imagine getting to 2040. Going full circle in a century and arriving at a dystopian world of chaos where imperial racketeers terrorise billions of people. I think we can do a lot better than that if we are prepared to work for the common good.

There’s a few of words to cherish – the common good.

Why King Charles Should Delay US Visit

I’m doing that Keynesian double-take. The facts change, so what do I do? I change my mind. That’s what I’ve done in respect of the current situation on the other side of the Atlantic. Shear pig-headed stubbornness is in fashion in high places. That prideful assertion that says nothing I do or say can be wrong. Well, I’m not going to fall into that foolish trap.

Should the UK’s Head of State pay an official visit to the United States (US). The answer must be “yes” at an appropriate time and place. I listed a respectable number of reasons why the UK and the US are linked by history and a whole lot more. However, I’ve put a caveat on the view presented. At an appropriate time and place, is a way of saying that there should be conditions.

As it stands, the King’s planned visit to the US this year should be called off. The conditions are not right for a successful visit. The US -UK special relationship has a past, it may have a future but at the present there’s a big problem.

In this anniversary year of American independence, I had argued that it was good to celebrate a long-standing relationship. However, just at this moment, the US and UK are in quite separate places. It maybe the case that the citizenry in both countries is thinking similar things. What’s clear is that the leadership of both countries are not on the same page.

If the non-partisan opinion polls are to be relied upon, the citizenry in both countries have a highly negative view of the decision to enter a war in the Middle East. Putting the UK’s Head of State in a position where an appearance can be manipulated to indicate support for the instigation of war in the Middle East is not a good place to be.

It’s right to acknowledge the facts. There is a war in Europe which is of greater concern to most British people. That situation needs to be resolved. Engaging in a war of choice in the Middle East is not in the best interests of people in the UK, or Europe. It’s happening and the daily news gets worse and worse.

From what I gleam, and what little I know, King Charles is doing well at upholding the dignity and integrity of the British Monarchy. Not so easy a task when blessed with a wayward brother and long-standing family splits. The King is faced with small protests in the UK given his brother’s past associations and the blind eye that was turned to his brother’s behaviour.

I’m a British republican in nature but continue to have respect for our peculiar constitutional settlement. Yes, we could do better but that’s an argument for another time. Imagine how much distaste a substantial number of the British people will feel if our King is seen to align himself closely with an unpopular American President. Not good optics, as they say.

My points are made without thought of political bandwagon hopping as favoured by lots of UK Members of Parliament (MPs). That just doubles-up the complexity of making the right long-term decision on this difficult real time issue of international relations.

It’s clear to me that, in his second term, the legacy that President Trump will hand down to the next generation, is and will be a horrid and tragic mess. We’d better start looking further ahead at how the 2030s[1] can be made a better decade. Historian will look as aghast at the late 2020s. The political volatility of the current situation is such that predictions become even more difficult. Power drains away when politicians ignore the people – let’s see how that goes.

Post 1: I agree with David David Dimbleby labels King’s visit to US ‘an embarrassment’

Post 2: Now there’s no doubt in my mind that the King should not visit the US at this time Iran war latest: Trump issues expletive-laden threat to Iran demanding Strait of Hormuz be opened – BBC News

[1] Trump’s term of office: 20th January 2029.

The Ever-Evolving Debate in the UK

It’s astonishing to me. On this site, I’ve been scribbling away for nearly a decade. My first item was posted at the end of April 2016. It was mostly in reaction to the national referendum that had been called on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union (EU).

I’d returned to the United Kingdom (UK) after 11-years living in German. In Cologne. As you might expect my reaction to this peculiar referendum was one of bemusement and shock. Had my home country gone completely off its trolly whilst I’d been focused on other matters?

We now know that it was sheer nativity (and a degree of vanity) that brought about this unfortunate situation. One of our privileged public schools educated Prime Ministers (PMs) took it upon himself to deal with an irritating divide in his political party. He was aided and abetted by a former leader of the UK’s most pro-European liberal political party (Nick Clegg). Go figure that one. At the time, Tim Farron was the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Sadly, capable fellow that he is, he had about as much political influence as a flag in the wind.

The campaign to remain as an EU member should have had all the campaign advantages. Lack of planning and imagination on the part of David William Donald Cameron, and those who surrounded him, meant that advantage melted away.

Reading my past words, it seems that I’d hit the nail on the head with this short line.

Migration is the biggest issue for some people when it comes to the EU referendum vote.

Cameron and Co majored on the economics. A number crunchers paradise but shamefully remote from the people who mattered – the British voters.

I’ll stick with the theme of peculiarity. Guess what, after Brexit, now a decade on, that short line is still top dog. What that tells me is that those on the right wing of politics in the UK will never ever be satisfied. To the point of building an impenetrable wall all the way around the country (rather than a path[1]). To shun anyone who they can label as a foreigner.

Those who profit from inequality and polarisation will never ever stop this push to ever most extreme positions. They have been frighteningly successful in that the political centre in the UK has moved gradually to the right. Gravelly, the cost to the average citizen has been high.

After a decade of reflection, the nation needs to get away from building walls and pilling on layers of domestic bureaucracy. The vision of the UK as a big gated community with arbitrary partisan government controls is a dumb one.

It’s fine to say that in early 2016 none of us could have foreseen COVID-19 or Russia’s foolish drive to war. We couldn’t have even foreseen President Trump’s second term in the US, although there are commentators who had that one called.

There’s a long list of predictions about Brexit that have come true – most of us are poorer.

Ironically, global matters are having more impact than ever. The need for regional and global cooperation is self-evident. Building stable institutions to serve that purpose remains of paramount importance.

[1] https://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/en_GB/trails/england-coast-path/

Uncertain Times

What do you do when faced with abusive and disruptive behaviour? For the most part, it’s common to have an emotional response and an idealistic one. That’s not the way situations play out, in reality. We do not live in a world of superheroes where a baddy is reformed and order is restored. Well, not always.

World affairs are full of tragic circumstances. Full of volatility too. One moment paise goes to a friend and the next minute insults are thrown like confetti. There’s a rhythm to this backwards and forwards stream of words. It’s plagued with inconsistency and simple error.

Let’s say a disruptive colleague is ranting and raving about the rights and wrongs of the day’s news. It’s great to say – just tell him to take a walk. Clam down and engage brain. In the idea situation there’s some form of accountability. All actions have a consequence.

Here we are. There’s a crisis on the doorstep. A war is raging and it’s only just begun. Setting light an oil rich part of the globe has ramifications everywhere.

Putting aside the fact that history has given us plenty of warnings about situations like this one. Continuing to be dependent upon sources of fossil fuel is not sustainable. However, we look at it, eventually this elixir of the modern world will run out. In the meantime, the foolishness of increasing the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is proven.

Here in Europe, a clear divide is growing. Historically, fair trade, the rule of law and common defence goals have marked out the relationship between Europe and the US. In international institutions the two have a long record of supporting each other. Common interests run through the thread of affairs like the words in a stick of rock[1].

Donald Trump’s second term as President of the US is proving to be a massive test to that long thread. Interests are diverging. Diverging not between the people of Europe and the US but between their political leaders.

So, let’s remember that political leaders are like fireflies. They go through several stages during their careers. The last one is most often marked by failure. One witty guy said that the adage that political careers end in failure needs to be changed. In fact, all political careers end in the publication of memoirs. Often saying – I was right all the time. With Trump it’s as if he (or his ghost writer) is writing his memoirs as he goes.

It’s abundantly clear, for the next couple of years, Europe and the US are going to travel different paths. As ever, the UK must choose or end up straddling a wide gulf. With Europe the tenants of fair trade, the rule of law and common defence goals still stand.

One day, in the not-too-distant future, I will be a septuagenarian. I hope that the passing of years has enabled me to accrue some wisdom. I’m determined not to succumb to disruptive and unruly incoherence. Even if I do, I hope that I’m not in a position of power that encourages those around be to become sycophantic.

Democratic processes do have a way of punishing political failure. They need to kick-in.

[1] https://brightonbitesback.com/a-history-of-brighton-rock-candy/

Importance of UK-US State visits

I agree with him on numerous issues. In this case I think he’s wrong. Not only that but he’s making himself look just like the ambulance chasing willow-the-wisps Badenoch and Farage.

This morning, Ed Davey’s argument is that the planned United Kingdom (UK) State visit to the United States (US) should be cancelled. That’s withdrawing from the meeting between the King and the President. By the way, Ed Davey is the leader of the Liberal Democrat political party in the UK.

I don’t buy the argument that King Charles meeting President Trump will be a public embarrassment. Let’s put aside any thought of my personal feeling towards either man. It’s not a case of who they are as much as it is what they represent. They have met before as Head of State for the UK and US. So, it’s not as if the situation is a complete unknown.

A few points to make on the subject.

One point concerns the role of Head of State. It’s inevitable that through the course of their work they will from time to time be embarrassed. Reflecting on Queen Elizabeth’s reign, she dined with some notable unpleasant leaders not as a matter of personal choice but as a matter of duty. In many ways, it’s part and parcel of being a Head of State.

Two. This year is like no other. The US marks 250-years of independence. It would be incredible if one of the parties involved, the UK, chose to ignore this pivotal event. The current US President is inclined to hype but here’s an event that needs no hype. It’s one of the most significant dates in global history. The US Declaration of Independence is of monumental importance.

Three. Regardless of the personalities involved, the UK and US share democratic values. Fine, with different interpretations of what that means. Fundamentally, despite differences, there’s common ground which will, I hope, always be there regardless of who has the top job. Our international partnership is an inseparable bond, yes, with its inevitable ups and downs.

Four. There’s a fair chance that these Heads of State will not only talk to each other but may listen to each other. That dialogue has the potential to do some good in the world. It’s a dialogue that needn’t be trapped by everyday political struggles and tensions. To me, it’s fascinating to speculate on topics like global environmental concerns, where the two individuals clearly have an entirely different perspective.

To be topical. The last 250-years record a great deal of involvement of the UK and US is the affairs of the Middle East. Whether this has been wise, or not, is a different matter.

In the 1950s, both countries kicked off the oil industry in that part of the world. Both have had a hand in what has developed since. Our economies are tied to oil as a result. That legacy is not easy to walk away from even if change is inevitable.

Dysfunctional Culture of UK Politics

It’s as true today as it’s aways been. Well, that sound like a famous bread avert. The phrase “as good today as it’s always been,” was used for years by one notable bread maker in the UK. A memorable slogan that painted a picture of tradition and continuity.

What I’d like to do is to take the word “good” out of the equation. I’m not talking about our daily bread. Or the need to meld tradition with a modern industrial reality. However, there is an enduring appeal when it comes to selling ideas. A linking with some mythical golden age.

Paddy Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader whose memory is not entirely lost in the mists of time, was not a fan of the Westminster culture[1]. That’s the political culture that pervades the British Parliament and its environs.

He shared the view of many British people that Westminster is grossly “out-of-touch” with life as it’s lived across the nation. Our democratic institutions often alienated people. Not by intention but just by being what they are and acting the way they do. The core of British politician’s concerns come across as detached and insular. More tied up in big egos, infighting, and inflated pompousness. Protecting their own interests.

Now, I know the insipid excuse is to say – surely, politicians are like that throughout the world. Aren’t we lucky to have such ancient and noble traditions. A heritage that others admire.

Paddy knew what he was talking about having been a Member of Parliament (MP) a long time. I first met him in the 1980s, when he was a young idealistic newly elected MP. He was the guest speaker at an evening event in Cheltenham. Full of ambition and vitality.

This week, neither of the two largest political parties in the UK covered themselves with glory. Quite the opposite in fact. It was not pleasant to see or hear.

Labour became a stuck record. Vacillating and dithering. Increasingly then sound like their predecessors. It’s a kind of Westminster conditioning. A bland mediocrity that seeps out of the gothic towers of Parliament. Supporters of Labour twist and turn with despair.

The Conservatives are in more trouble for a whole host of reasons. Not least their past performance. What we are witnessing is a peculiar dance by their leader. It involved constantly looking over her shoulder and spinning around at the same time.

Whether we like it or not the problem is our problem. With our institutions becoming ever more dysfunctional over a period of decades the door is open to extremist forces. The more we pretend that Westminster is working the more voters look elsewhere.

The British media are no help in this respect. Instead of shining a light on a dysfunctional culture they race to be part of it. Getting excited at every crash and upset. Every scandal and broken promise. Building careers in the same way as the politicians they report on.

There’s no easy answer. First, it’s important to recognise the problem.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ashdown-says-outoftouch-westminster-alienates-voters-disillusionment-could-lead-to-extremism-liberal-democrat-leader-warns-1493502.html

Manchester

Crunching numbers after a British by-election is rather like taking one racehorse win and saying that all races will be won by that horse in future. There’s one or two who get hysterical. A test of public opinion, in one spot on the globe, is a good indicator. It’s not an absolute pointer to every future event.

How can I possibly disagree with Sir John Curtice[1] this morning on the BBC. He’s that human hardy perennial of domestic election analysis. Number one guru that the media runs to. A track record for an on the money sum-up.

In essence, the British electorate wishes to support candidates who can articulate their concerns. No prevarication, all manner of obfuscation or jam tomorrow speeches. Preferably tailored to the location where they stand.

Sir John is thinking like this John. In moments, as per yesterday in Manchester[2], clarity matters. True, that in a by-election it’s easier to do for a candidate who carries little political baggage. A fresh set of well-presented phrases and a new broom. A relatable individual.

Not for one moment do I believe that the Green Party will surge forward so powerfully as to become a national leader. What may happen is that, with the fragmentation of the British political landscape, the Greens will play a bigger part than they have in the past.

And you know what? As a liberal, I’m fine with that shift. Balance is so important if positive change is to happen. Representation means just that – representation. If the Greens say the exact opposite to the Reform Party, which mostly they do, then they will occupy the two ends of the classical normal distribution – the bell curve.

Perhaps, I need to be careful with this basic analysis. My presumption is that most people are not highly involved in everything party political. That on the typical doorstep often the key task is not to engage in detailed debate but to remind people that there is an election taking place. That the tie to traditional voting patterns continues to weaken.

The last one on my list is perhaps the biggest. Gone are the huge factories and industrial heartland that provided the Labour Party with their core support. Gone are the dependents of the shire country manor houses that provided the Conservative Party with their core support.

In 2028 or 2029[3] the make-up of the British electorate will have changed markedly. Seems obvious to say – doesn’t it, but politicians love to fight the last war not the next one. The political landscape will have shifted. Traditional voting patterns will have further disolved. There will be no let-up in the dynamic nature of public discourse. A small number of big issues will dominate the campaigns of the parties able to make an impact.

Clarity will matter. Distinctiveness will matter. Relatability will matter.

In the background, a bucket load of past performance and costed polices will be chewed over by professional commentators. That will not be the deciding factor. At the end of this decade there’s a break away coming. Busting out of past patterns. Setting new horizons.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygpdjq9jjo

[2] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/

[3] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/our-work/topics/parliament-and-constitution/general-elections

Empowering Youth: Voting Rights at 16 Years Old

There’s good reason to be cautious. Explanations about what should or should not happen to young people are so often made by people who have long forgotten what it was like to be young. It’s a while ago, I’m talking about 30-years ago. Sitting as a Country Councillor listening to other Councillors pontificating about education policy in a way that bore no relation to the reality of the time. That’s way before mobile phones and social media took hold of our lives.

It was something to behold, when listening to erudite people who were then at the age I am now, recollecting their youth as a way of justifying a point of view about education policy. It was worse than that, in that those privileged Councillors were often the products of a private education. Talking about growing up with a nanny, prep-school and a notable public school as a background didn’t inform discussion about how much public money to spend school repairs.

Debate moves with time, only that the tone of debate doesn’t always move on. In one case it’s whether the voting age should be lowered to 16 years old or the that a ban on social media should be enforced until 16 years old.

Here’s my two-pennyworth. The range of maturity of those of the age of about 16 years or so is large. Naturally, there’s a mighty steep learning curve where individuals find their feet. Some are more rebellious than others and that attribute maybe a passing phase or a deep part of their character.

It’s the age where it’s possible to start in the world of work. To start an apprenticeship. To get a National Insurance number. To pay taxes. Going with – no taxation without representation – to me that justifies a young person having a say in what happens in their society. In other words, getting to vote.

Even if their opinions and political views are developing and there’s much experience to gain, it’s likely that those who are savvy enough to make the next steps in education or work should have that right. If they start with the habit of voting, there’s a better chance that they will continue.

It’s possible for a 16-year-old to vote in some local Scottish and Welsh elections. Today, they cannot vote in UK Parliamentary elections. That needs to change.

Numerous right-wing commentators state their objection citing the word – maturity. That fact of the matter is that they clearly haven’t ever done any doorstep campaigning. That’s canvasing for a candidate during an election. Frequently, the job is merely to remind people that there is an election taking place. It’s not to enter debate about the pros and cons of a candidate, their party or their policies. Let’s just say, without being too disrespectful, that a great many 16-year-olds are far more aware, energetic and informed than the average citizen.

Also, I don’t understand what right-wing commentators fear. There’s likely to be a significant number of younger people who will take their point of view. Much as I might find that case disagreeable there’s a huge panoply of reasons for voting. It’s not a static factor.

At 16 years old in the UK, a person can legally leave school. Then they should have a say.

Political Landscape

One of the motivators in politics is that prospect of the shining city on the hill. The ability of an able politician to articulate a vision of a future where aspirations are met, harmony pervades the land and the world becomes a better place for all. Naturally, this expression has religious originals. That interweaving of religion and politics is hardly new. It’s us. It’s us humans who give form to our desire to see our communities thrive and adversity overcome.

However, this ability to project hope isn’t the only tool in the politician’s toolbox. The other side of the coin is fear. Sadly, this gets used just as much as in rhetorical flurries and backroom decisions making. As the week has passed so there’s been a fair amount of both.

I like to think that, of the two, hope transcends. It is not an even coin. Our in-built propensity to strive regardless of the barriers and failures along the way, that’s powerful.

What am I saying? It’s that loosing sight of the shining city on the hill and getting stuck in the weeds of everyday gloom and despondency, that’s the monster problem.

Scandals will come and go. It’s a national preoccupation. That’s not to say that such each and every one deserves significant attention. In the most recent one, involving the UK Prime Minister (PM) and a prominent former Labour politician, there’s clearly much work to do.

It seems to me that the whole process of making appointments to significant national posts needs a thorough review. The discretionary powers that a PM has are a key part of the job, but that exercise of power without sufficient scrutiny has led to dangerous errors being made.

Thus, we have a serious man who espoused a brilliant future, at the last UK General Election, only to deliver more of the same. True, the current PM hasn’t yet plummeted the depths of the Johnson or Truss era. A wave of relief sounded across the nation when those two Conservative politicians were effectively banished.

Righteousness is not something that sits well with a cynic. And our daily News loves to adopt a cynical tone. Every journalist must have a streak of it running through them like a stick of rock. On the positive side, in many ways when political scrutiny fails it’s the News media that we depend up. Maybe to shine a light on the less than shiny city on the hill.

At this moment in early 2026 there’s good reason to be concerned. Now, at the dispatch box in the House of Commons we have two gladiators who want to make mincemeat of the opponent but are each covered in a disagreeable mess. Both as a legacy of incidents that their Party has had a hand in. It’s easy to say – twas ever so. Only that’s not good enough in 2026.

It’s as if both Party leaders have wadded through a muddy smelly swamp to meet face to face. To meet covered in mud, slime and weeds that they have dragged with them. Not an attractive sight. Neither in a position to project the prospect of a shining city on the hill. Credibility is low with both parties. These are strange times.

[What might happen if more than 45 Conservative MPs jump to the Reform Party? Crossing the house could become an avalanche breakdown. Will we see the Liberal Democrats as His Majesty’s official Opposition? That would surely put the cat amongst the pigeons.].