Tag: Politics

Lowering the Voting Age

The line-up of predicable grumpiness is no more than might be expected. For once the UK’s Government has decided to bite the bullet and make a long overdue change. It’s time to bring the voting age down to 16-years old. This is a policy that has long been advocated by Liberal Democrats. Wisely so. Like it or not, we have a stubborn geriocracy in Britan. Political influence is top heavy. An agenda dominated by issues toping the polls with older voters.

Yes, we did see changes, a year ago with the last General Election. More younger candidates winning. However, the average age of a Member of Parliament[1] floats around 50-years. This average age hasn’t changed much over decades.

Studies on what motivates candidates to stand for election often point to community engagement and activism being part of their lives. It’s only when, in mid-life, opportunities present themselves and support can be marshalled that they stand for election.

And the retirement community of the House of Lords is solely built on the notion that age brings wisdom. Sadly, so often this does not ring true. Ten minutes watching the Parliamentary channel is a good way to see a range of speakers from erudite to senile. From expert to confused. From informed to delusionary. On occasion a few sleeping on the comfortable red leather benches.

When the elderly hold so much political power it’s difficult enough to get 18-year-olds to take an interest in voting. This is not an argument for the status-quo. Far from it.

Those in the age group 16 to 18 years are interested in society and the direction it’s taking. Youth activism hasn’t entirely perished in the world of tick-boxing education. Loading students up with enormous loans, with learning establishments seeing them as revenue generators, and deaf ears to their concerns has done a lot to supress youth engagement in elections.

There’s a lot to be said for “no taxation without representation”. Young people do work. They do pay taxes. They should have a stake in how those taxes are spent.

What’s not to be presumed is that a new youth vote will automatically lean to the left of politics. It’s easy to make that sloppy assumption. It may arise because the prominent youth activist who get media exposure are those campaigning on environmental and social issues. That does not say much about the majority who may choose to go to a polling station.

I think the larger number of young voters, despite the media stereotypes, will likely vote the way of their parents and friends. Having been nurtured in a particular way this is not so surprising. The lazy stereotypes of riotous youths biting the hand that feeds them is only true of a few, it’s not the majority. It’s belonging to dusty Woodstock documentaries.

It’s for the political parties to up their game and campaign with young people in mind. Even with the best of efforts election turn-out is still likely to be low. At least the message is that the next generation matter. If these modest changes are blocked because older people fear the next generation that is a very sad reflection of our society. Surely, it’s better to have younger people invested in their communities. 

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/

The Greasy Pole

I think we should be indebted to the writers of “Yes Minister.” And the brilliance of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne, and Derek Fowlds[1]. No mobile phones, lap-tops or tablets, wood panelled offices, a Minister with all the backbone of a jellyfish and the cunning and mountainous pomposity of Oxbridge’s best.

It’s the ultimate lesson for aspiring British politicians. Fresh faced, with ambition and desire to make a difference they are confronted with the custom and practice of centuries. A bureaucratic minefield that tops anything Brussels can produce.

At first, it’s easy to see Jim Hacker as naive to the point of merely being indulged by the civil service. He learns fast, as a good parliamentarian should always do. Fun being seeing him turn the tables on the Whitehall establishment. Often at the expense of hysterically awkward moments and sporadic cynical manoeuvrings.

Last night, I watched “The greasy pole”[2]. Without a doubt this episode remains 100% relevant. It first went out in 1981. The story’s themes are universal.

A proposed industrial development offers secure jobs and potential prosperity. It comes with a hitch. Activism and noisy protests aimed against the project. Industry and the civil service want the factory to get built. The Right Honourable James Hacker sits on the fence. Blows hot and cold but realises that his political career pivots around sinking the project. The Minister wins out in the end much to the discomfort of the department officials.

It would be easy to write the entire plot in terms of 2025’s political difficulties. This morning’s News ran a story that wasn’t so far off the plot of “The greasy pole.”

A new Labour government minister tells of publishing a report that favours a point of view he wishes to get across. He continually mentions the name of the author of the report. Mimicking Jim Hacker as he makes sure everyone knows the report’s author, just in case he’s made a mistake.

Although, with the complete ridiculousness of the past British Conservative governments it may have been said that satire is dead. No, it certainly isn’t. Here it was playing out on the BBC on my kitchen radio at breakfast time.

This is the stubborn reality. In Britain we have a new absurdly named political party called “Reform.” They are flying high in the opinion polls because some people think the word has a political meaning. However, if these would be politicians were to gain a position of power, would they conduct long-needed reforms? Well, given the competence of the people involved and given the historic clashes between elected officials and civil servants the answer is most certainly – no.

It seems to me that new Labour government ministers are slowly getting the hang of the job. One year in they are still a bit wet behind the ears. Gradually, they are climbing the greasy pole. At any moment, because of the nature of the job, down they can come, and they know it.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b006xtc3/yes-minister

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751819/

Tariff Turbulence

Tariffs are back in the daily News again. In fact, they never went away it’s just that more attention getting events have been happening. Tariffs were something specialist trade negotiators talked about before this year started. Now, the word is commonplace.

The simple assumption is always made that everyone knows what the word means. Apparently, the origins of the word are Arabic[1]. Linked to information. Now, it’s a fee that someone must pay. The important bit being “must”. In this context it’s about the import and export of goods. The relations between countries.

A presumption made by politicians, who like these bureaucratic instruments, is that they can help protect a nation’s domestic industry from competition from other countries. Thus, tipping the balance away from investments made abroad to those made at home. This chimes with nationalistic instincts.

If only it were as simple. Globalisation is a reality. Kicking against it has its attractive points, if it weren’t for the overall benefits that it has delivered in recent decades. Much of the technology we take for granted is available at low prices because of where and how it’s manufactured.

One advice given out by banks is to avoid knee-jerk reactions. In other words, the ups and downs and on and offs of changing tariff regimes may seem to demand an immediate response. However, it could be wiser to ride out the turbulence of these early months of 2025. To sit back and let the dust settle.

Politically driven efforts to disrupt global trade are likely to impact both importer and exporter. It doesn’t take more than a few minutes walking around a large warehouse store to see goods originating from all over the world. That is quality goods that are offered for sale at astonishingly low prices. It astounds me that I can easily buy a perfectly good basic kitchen microwave for £50.

I hate to say it, but I don’t think there’s anyway whatsoever that a domestic manufacturer could compete with that electrical product’s price and quality even if there was a 100% tariff placed on its import. The story vacuum cleaners is one of designs emanating from Britain but being made in Asia. Globalisation is a reality.

I will make at least one concession. That’s the environmental one. Shipping vast qualities of raw materials and goods around the globe has a real cost. An environmental cost. So, it would be wise, at least, to investigate if domestic production is a viable prospect before automatically assuming an import is better. This is a matter for both industry and public policy.

Not only this point but for some critical products, say steel and semiconductors, there should be a domestic capability even if it’s only aimed at meeting a fraction of the potential demand. Strategic needs are not trivial.

Are tariffs a good way to shift the global balance sheet? To me the answer depends on adopting either a short-term or long-term perspective. Certainly, in the later tariffs are a foolish measure. My recollections come from the history of subsidised industries in the 1970s and the poor products that resulted. It a sorry saga of designed decline. One quick look at the story of the British Leyland Motor Company (BLMC) is a good lesson.

I know for a liberal I sound Thatcherite but competition brings better outcomes than protectionism. That generally depends on a level playing field. Yes, tariffs are a form domestic protectionism and that’s much like a permanent subsidy. Trouble is that permanence is never permanent.

Trump maybe a part-time socialist. If not by word then by action. For the time being the tariff humbug will continue to command attention. In the longer term – I think not. Relearning what has been learnt in the past.

[1] https://blog.collinsdictionary.com/language-lovers/the-fascinating-journey-of-the-word-tariff/

Challenges to Liberty

We live in interesting times. Conflict and turbulence, shifting political loyalties, and rapid technology advances. What a mix.

I don’t want to say – twas ever so. That’s a resignation. To say that challenges and tragedies are of exceptional magnitude in any one era. Since forecasting is such a fragile art, better or worse maybe just around the corner.

What’s unique is our societal expectations. Whereas a serf in a feudal country had little hope of a better life. Today, our higher expectations come from generations of struggle having improved the circumstance of the individual and our communities. Improvements in standards of living, economic, social, environmental, are maintained by an adherence to the “rule of law”. However, imperfect that might be.

The basic stuff still matters. English liberties, in great part, stem from the Magna Carta of 1215[1]. It may have not been immediately successful, as Monarchs and Popes quickly tried to kill it. What’s amazing is that its core content has echoed down the centuries.

Democratic societies have taken on rights, human rights, in their simplest essence. Each of us expects a day in court. A means to defend ourselves from the exercise of arbitrary power.

Yes, for hundreds of years English Monarchs continued to assert what they claimed to be God given powers. Until that came to a head. Literally so. The English Civil War set the rights of the citizen against the arbitrary power of a King.

Where I am now there are signs of that past conflict. In fact, I can see one of from my kitchen window. Surrounded by trees, on the brow of a hill, overlooking a fast-flowing river, is the remains of a castle. Most of Donnington Castle[2] was destroyed but the gate house tower remains. The winning side, Parliament ordered its destruction.

You can understand why I get nervous when politicians assert that they are on a mission from God. Centuries of conflict have bought a citizen’s protections from arbitrary power. To see it return under the guise of personal ambition and careless action is sad.

Yes, there are lots of undemocratic places in the world where this does not apply. Even so, with all its imperfections, English liberty did spread far and wide. It made its way across the Atlantic Ocean. Constitutional practices maybe different but common law prevails.

I hope democratic societies will emerge stronger from this turbulent period. Shifting sand is everywhere. Values are being assailed. Nevertheless, there’s every good reason to believe that a strengthening of our society is possible. A progressive vision offers so much more than a backside into a dark past.

[1] https://www.magnacartatrust.org/

[2] https://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=89

Evolution Politics

Wake up John. The herald of today was there in the late 1990s. There was me fascinated by the possibilities of the INTERNET. Buzzing modem squeaking down a phone line. With such peculiarities as Y2K behind us the new century provided broadband access to everyone. Almost everyone. Eventually, being off grid became a sales tag for remote rural settings.

Meanwhile, good old-fashioned popular entertainment media was desperately trying to make itself relevant to the new era. Proliferation of reruns were not enough. Stale formats dwindled. In that maelstrom, reality television was born. Technology shaped what became possible. It was a horror to me but then again, I was just out of touch.

Big Brother is a strange beast. Watching joe average or minor celebrities make complete fools of themselves for big bucks – how could that work? It did, bigtime. Undeniably scoring with the public. It spawned lots of similar shows bombarding us with unscripted chat seen through the tight lens of an edited television show.

Not quite like throwing Christians to the lions, familiar to Romans, but a social experiment open to participants combative as much as caring behaviour. Watching relatable and unrelatable volunteers try their best to seem nice or nasty as they thought appealing.

25-years on, now British politics begins to resemble reality television. That creation provided a pathway through our screens to capture our attention. To make names out of relatively unknowns. Or to revive careers waning.

I said “begins to resemble” without realising that I’m being a dinosaur. It’s here. A politician can’t anymore stand on a soap box and pontificate about the world. The grand ark of a well written speech is destined for the dustbin. Every presentation needs to be framed as if they are in the jungle (I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here![1]).

Reality shows are becoming a training ground for political personalities. Forget the serious need to do an apprenticeship. That one has been hijacked too. The basic grind of administration and casework can be bypassed if the candidate is a good enough showman or woman.

Going back to the 1990s, I think a lot of us were naive about the coming technologies. There was an imagining of the information superhighway[2] as a great educator. A positive liberator. A forum for better communication. Making it easier for people to have a real dialogue with the elected officials. Thus, solving problems, cutting down bureaucracy and engaging communities.  

Of course it is those things. The naivety came with the blindness to the huge entertainment possibilities. How reality and make-believe can get intermingled. How dominant personalities would capture the cameras like Hollywood stars.

With that fuzziness between reality and make-believe storytelling takes on a new importance. That’s what political managers have discovered in abundance. Medium and message have always been closely linked. Now, a would-be star or demigod must take that ever more seriously to win.

[1] https://www.itv.com/imacelebrity

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/videos/czv20818q2no

Protecting Green Spaces

Listening to a Labour Minister use the word “streamlining” I reached for the off switch. My morning radio was bubbling away with a spokesperson justifying changes that remined me of that moment when the Earth was about to be demolished in the HHGTTG. I could imagine him saying; houses must be built because houses must be built.

Labour have been in power for less then a year but more and more they sound like the people they displaced. My thought was, with these recent land planning proposals, what’s the difference between what the Conservatives did and what Labour is doing now?

Let’s go back in time. One of the most dreadful planning changes of the past was the selling-off of school playing fields[1]. Green space, often surrounded by dwellings were erased. Countrywide, bricks, concrete and tarmac were prioritised over green spaces, local sports and nature. Not much to guess as to why the national is not as healthy as it should be.

It’s not new to say – what we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m in favour of building more affordable houses where they are needed. It’s eminently reasonable to provide support for small and medium sized housebuilders. There are spaces that can take more dwellings provided the associated infrastructure comes along too.

By law, let’s not tip the balance in a way makes us all poorer. Our natural environment has taken one hell of a bashing in my lifetime. One of the indicators is the bug count. If I travelled any distance in the summer, in the early 1980s, in my bright red Sunbeam Imp, it wouldn’t be long before I’d need to stop to clean the windscreen of dead bugs. Today, drive as far as you like through the English countryside and there’s no such problem to address.

Labour’s Minister doing the morning rounds, spoke from a prepared script. Everything is above board. Government consulted on the proposals. Houses must be built because houses must be built. Consultations are fine. However, doing it and ignoring what people are saying is tantamount to manipulative deception.

Concreting over nature is not the way to go. Especially for small pockets of green spaces that still bring nature into cities, towns and villages. Infill and the eradication of small green spaces is just as bad as the momentous school playing field mistakes. It’s a one way trip. Watering down measures designed to protect nature is not the way to go.

Pushing forward with an aggressive approach to building foregoes long-term benefits for short-term political gain and blinkered treasury wishes. With the lessons learned over decades, priority to protecting our natural environment should not be sacrificed[2]. The Labour Government’s Planning & Infrastructure Bill needs amendment. Let’s hope that happens.

[1] https://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-08-17/how-previous-governments-compare-on-selling-off-playing-fields/

[2] https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/planning-bill-breaks-labours-nature-promises-say-wildlife-trusts-and-rspb

Peaceful Border

It’s superfluous to say so. Canada is not the US, and the US is not Canada.

It quickly becomes clear. I’ve been fortunate to visit places east-west and north south. Although not the far snowbound North. The two countries do share geography. Rocky Mountains stretch across the North America. From British Columbia to New Mexico. The Great Plains span North America. A stark contrast to the mountains, as a huge expanse. In the East, the rolling landscape of the Appalachian Mountains runs from Newfoundland to Alabama.

It’s not the same with social and economic geography or history. A profound difference has been forged by Canada’s citizens over a couple of hundred years.

If we look back to the late 17th and early 18th centuries the new world was a hugely different place than it is now. Britain, France, Spain, and their allies were fighting over vast territories. European conflicts translated into competition and trade wars. Eventually, America colonialist brought about a revolution, so there would be no need for royalty, aristocracy, or an imposed church. Rejecting their British masters, even if they did keep their system of laws.

At the start of the 19th century, the US did invade Canada with a couple of conflicts. So, the idea that the US may wish to annex a part, or all of Canada is not entirely new. I’m going to have to read up on the Battle of Stoney Creek of 1813. It seems a namesake of mine played a pivotal role in preventing the US from taking Canada[1]. No relation – I’m (almost) sure. Irish heritage.

My assumption is that US President Trump is doing what he has done times before. Mark out an extreme position from which then to shape future negotiations. That’s not so mad as it might appear. It’s not nice when considering the cordial relationships that have characterised so much of the recent past. Kicking at the sides of an ally.

Stretching over thousands of kilometres (or miles if you prefer), the boarder between the US and Canada is one of the most peaceful in the world. To reignite conflicts of a couple of hundred years ago is not a wise option. I’m sure Canada could call upon a great deal of support if the worst-case scenario were to prevail.

Mutuality may not be fashionable. It needs to be made fashionable, again. The notion of a win-win scenario where both parties benefit, it’s real, it’s not mythical. Both US and Canada are sovereign. It’s best for the world that it stays that way.

[1] https://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/vincent_john_7E.html

The Legacy of Paine

Reading a little of Thomas Paine’s rantings about the inequities of monarchy, it’s clear why he is remembered as a key part of the story of American Independence.

It’s not surprising that he viewed the British institutions of the 17th Century as arbitrary and tyrannical. An Englishman fervently attacking his country of birth. Pointing out every flaw and deficiency in respect of the condition of the common man.

He was a revolutionary provocateur and a provocateur of revolutions. His widely read pamphlets, the social media postings of the day, stimulated the American Revolution. A cry for freedom and escape from everything he thought rotten in Europe. America being a potential beacon of hope. Denouncing the English aristocracy sealed his fate. Now, he known as a founding American. So, where are we after 250 years[1]?

Europe to a great extent, slowly but surely, followed the American experiment. The power of privilege, the monarch, the aristocracy diminished, and the common man, and eventually woman too, asserted their rights through the ballot box.

Britain, although there are committed republicans, hasn’t thrown off the monarchy. It’s adapted its role in such a way that it retains popular public support. Europe has many “bicycling” monarchs who hold colourful ceremonial roles mostly as a celebration of traditions.

Are the roles of the continents reversing? Are the American States drifting towards a new monarchy? That concentration of arbitrary power and privilege in one place. It’s a situation for political philosophers to ponder.

Take recent utterings in the News that are wholly wrong. The European Union (EU) is in part, so that Europeans can be more like Americans. That’s not a popular thing to say so I’d better step with care. Although, much as changed in the post-war world, federalism isn’t coming to Europe any time soon.

The EU solves the historic diplomatic problem of asking – I want to call Europe. Who do I call? Recent generations in both continents have benefited tremendously from the constructive and positive dialogue across the Atlantic.

Back to my question. Are the roles of the continents reversing? Imagine Europe as the premier global bastion of freedom, democracy and liberty. A renaissance of enlightenment, of free speech and human rights. Perhaps it is already.

Sadly, it would be wrong of me to record this as fact. With the rise of populism and right-wing fantasists, we would do well to go back and read Thomas Paine. Although, that’s not an entirely a clear-cut line to take. Paine was very much in favour of small government and self-reliance. Traditional Republican themes. I’ll take his revulsion at tyranny.

[1] The Bicentennial culminated on Sunday, July 4, 1976, with the 200th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

Two Centuries

The News can be overwhelming. It’s a constant barrage of terrible calamities, inadequacies, and past failures. I guess, that’s the manner of the daily News cycle. Put out a positive press release and watch it get ignored. Report of catastrophes and every media outlet copies the stories.

It’s as well to remember that within a week a new round of headlines displaces what was there before. It’s as well to step back. Perspective is an interesting phenomenon. It condenses the past, so that we see the major events more clearly. The nitty gritty of the everyday often fades and only the significant happenings remain.

Let’s dabble in the macro and not the micro. What’s the big picture? It’s time to do a simple comparison. Take the first 25-years of the 20th Century and compare with the first 25-years of the 21st Century. Certainly, at the end of this year a complete summing-up could be done.

For now, I’ll do a random sweep across those two generations separated by a century.

Let’s think. There were no powered aeroplanes in 1900[1]. Few had an inkling that a world war was on the way. We were just figuring out what an Atom might be. Even the motor car was mostly for wealthy folk. The railways were king.

In 2000, I remember the optimistic fireworks and the controversy over the millennium dome. The forgotten panic of Y2K now seems strange. The World Wide Web[2] was getting traction amongst geeks. Mobile phones were gaining ground. Few saw the attack of 9/11 coming.

Being a child of the last century it’s easier to appreciate the changes. Let’s face it, today’s 25-year-olds had history lessons about subject that many people lived through. Although, there are a growing number of centenarians, most of them were in inkling in the parents’ eyes or babies pre-1925. Thus, we need to relay on the writers of history.

Here’s a proposition that warrants testing. Compared with the first 25-years of the 20th Century nothing much has happened in the first 25-years of the 21st Century. I know any division in time is an arbitrary matter. The Earth spinning on its axis cares little for human affairs. 24 hours in a day come and go whatever we do. That said, my proposition above does run contrary to the way people may feel about time passing. If indeed it does pass.

In both periods we might measure significance by the impact events have on people. There’s a propensity to say that world wars top the list in any account. That may well be fair. However, if we look at the growth in global population and the general improvements in human health despite that fact, then this is the greatest point to note.

When I say, nothing much has happened between 2000 and 2025, by comparison, it’s more to do with the pivotal moments that led to the creation of the technologies that we all now take for granted. Mastering the elements of science has made the biggest difference.

I’d say, in the public and social field, of politics, philosophy and economics[3] and we are as perhaps foolish as we have ever been. Convince me otherwise.

[1] https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/powered-aircraft/

[2] https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving/Overview.html

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain

Revisiting Brexit: Lessons

In life partnership is key. Most of us have no desire to live as a hermit. The dull confines of a hermitage are best left to a small few. That extends to communities as well. It’s rare for societies to live in isolation and avoiding relationships with others. People come together when they share values. So, it has been in Europe in the post-war era.

Relative to the astronomical losses that the whole UK accumulated because of Brexit, the gains of the latest European Union (EU) – UK deal are modest. The positive take, from Monday, is the direction of travel. Cool heads have prevailed, and a new deal of mutual benefit to both parties has been agreed. There’s more detail to follow as might be expected.

Unsurprisingly, those who failed miserably over the last decade are now carping bitterly[1]. Remember Johnson, who as UK Prime Minister (PM) had a large parliamentary majority that he threw away. His incompetent administration sealed an extremely bad deal.

The years following the 2016 referendum have been wasted years. Tedious nonsense about Brexit benefits have echoed through those years without anything good arising. Brexit “freedoms” are a metaphor for acting foolishly and without any relation to prevailing facts.

Last July, the British electorate said “no” to the parade of Conservative Party catastrophes[2]. The UK decided to go in a different direction. It was the Labour Party that toped the poll. Lib Dems and Greens doing well too. Since the General Election, and since the beginning of the year, the ebb and flow of global events has been truly turbulent. In historic terms, when UK PM Harold Macmillan was asked what the biggest challenge for a statesperson was, he replied: “Events, dear boy, events”[3]. Seems he was right.

Starmer is a fascinating character. Not the characteristic statement of a lifelong liberal, like me. The tool makers son, who schooled in Reigate, to become a top lawyer, climbed the slippery pole of pollical life, to become PM. Along the way he’s done what’s most typical of successful British politicians. That is, he’s changed his mind and allegiances along the way. Going from Labour Party leader to PM in 4-years is quite an achievement.

I don’t have to agree with the PM. In fact, as far as his priorities in government, I don’t agree with the PM a lot. Although, I’ve personalised these words, I wish to take due care. I speak only of him as PM. I’ve never met him. So, let’s focus on his role.

An EU-UK Brexit “reset” was inevitable. If it didn’t happen now, it would have happened eventually. Why would both global trading partners persist with a lose-lose situation? Dealing with serious national issues is a PM’s job. It’s not to avoid or obfuscate. Here Starmer is praiseworthy. Instead of struggling on as if nothing could be done, he’s acted.

What I dislike is the mindless bile that emerges in the conservative Press and in dark corners of social media. Swilling around with ever more hostile adjectives, it’s as if all sense has been lost by part of society. By all means express unhappiness if the cherished beliefs of Brexit are being contested. Everyone has a right to criticise. Please do it in a civilised manner.

What’s foolish is the leader of the Conservative Party who has jumped on the pessimist’s bandwagon. Why do they persist in talking Britain down? Gloomy and unattractive it’s no wonder their poll ratings are plunging. Instead of speaking on Europe, with eloquent and knowledgeable thoughtfulness, we get a diatribe of prejudice and backward thinking. Sad indeed.

[1] Read the Daily Telegraph, The Mail or Express. Newspapers in name only.

[2] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10009/CBP-10009.pdf

[3] Harold Macmillan’s time as PM (1957-1963) was marked by major events, including the Suez Crisis.