Tag: Politics

Navigating Political Extremes

There’re arguments that can be made for stability. There’re arguments that can be made for disruption. I don’t think it matters if you are a socialist, centrist, conservative, liberal, oligarch or demigod. The virtue of one over the other is a temporary state of affairs. If this were not the case it would be unlikely that civilization, such as it is, would have ever got this far in its development.

Now, I have discounted the untenable. That is that stability becomes stasis. A moribund inability to do anything, totally regardless. It’s also the case for disruption so catastrophic that that we truly are in an end-of-the-world scenario.

“This too shall pass” has a long history. The temporary nature of everything is encapsulated in those four words. Or as Judas Priest put it “You’ve Got Another Thing Comin”. A thumping beat and screaming chords make great driving music. Put this on a Sony Walkman in the 1980s and the batteries would be flat in minutes.

Am I saying that Biden was stasis and Trump is catastrophic? Maybe. What is it in our minds that mean we flip from one extreme to another? These are question that erudite columnists are wrestling with as they chew over what’s happened with no idea of what’s to come.

In the British system of governance moderation wells up from centuries of tradition and custom and practice. As we are seeing it hardly matters who is in power, history runs so deep that it shapes every move. I never thought I’d have a good word to say for being a country that does NOT having a written constitution. Today, I’m rethinking how it can be advantageous to make things up as we go along.

Writing down sets of rules can be helpful in guiding decision making. Underlying this is the assumption that there’s some continuity and that those rules have a kind of universality. That’s mighty difficult to do given the passage of time.

The problem with writing down sets of rules is that they create something to be circumvented. Let’s use a river plunging over rapids as an analogy. If there is a forceful enough flow of water, it will go around or over any rocks in its way. Strident political forces, ranging from the crude to the cunning, have little difficulty in circumventing established custom and practice. What’s often called the “liberal media” may be horrified even as the river tumbles downhill with increasing speed. Predicting the future with a past perspective doesn’t work.

“This too shall pass” is a motif to hang onto. Just as the river eventually leaves the rapids so we might experience a steadier period ahead.

Look out for extremes. Milking my analogy as far as I can, changing everything, all at once, and relentlessly, is a proven route to disaster. Institutions, accepted norms and the fabric of society getting smashed up on the rapids, forever and a day is the definition of disaster.

Legacy, A Cautionary Tale

English is full of pithy phrases that echo through the pages of history. One of the greatest contributors to this phenomenon was Shakespeare. Lots of quips and quotes and snippets of wisdom come from his numerous plays (and other literary imitations).

The phrase or maximum that I have in mind is: “Beware of an old man in a hurry.” It’s not the only one on the same basic theme. My dad used to say that there’s “No fool like an old fool”. Honestly, as a child I had no idea what he was getting at. I guess it was to sum-up an observation of someone’s behaviour. It’s not a complementary saying.

There’re several ways of interpreting the “old man in a hurry” saying.

For one, and I’m just about to clock 65 years, the way the world seems is conditioned by the fact that one’s final moments are a lot closer than they were as an ambitious young man.

Another interpretation is that we might expect an older person, with more experience, will be guided to make better life decisions. However, in reality, the reverse is so often true.

I could go as far as to say that the “beware” part is to beware of imbedded prejudices and reduced peripheral vison that can come with age.

Doing a quick bit of research the source of this short English saying is not ancient wisdom from a Greek scholar or scribbling Roman sage. Not even a contemplative Medieval monk.

No, it’s a young British Conservative politician talking about an old Liberal. In fact, probably the most successful old Liberal that has ever graced Parliament. The one who left this county with the world’s biggest Empire. When he passed at 88 years, Britain was the most developed, most prosperous nation and biggest manufacturer the world had ever known. If we were ever to call to Make Britain Great Again, we’d call for an old Liberal. MBGA doesn’t exactly flow of the tongue. Anyway, GB (Great Britain) endures as a name.

The young British Conservative politician was Churchill’s father, Randolph, and the old Liberal was an energetic, fired-up Gladstone.

Can I now use “Beware of an old man in a hurry” as I reflect on the week’s News? Does President Trump see the world as a racing clock? Knowing that mortality looms. Knowing that any marks that are to be made need to be made – now. The “long-game” is for others to play.

When time is almost up the tendency to rashness can be understood. A lot depends on whether the subject of legacy looms large in the thinking of a leader. Through the millennia legacy has mattered a great deal to leaders.

Gladstone’s success was marred by the eventual destruction of the Party he led. He did transform government from a boys-club of privilege, at least in part, but the future of Ireland became his achillea heel. As a Liberal, he found building a powerful country didn’t mean granting privilege for politician’s and friends’ private businesses but ensuring that the working class were represented.

Trump’s haste, and lack of longer-sighted goals, appears real. Constitutions, democracy and the public good will endure. Mean-time hang on to your hats.

Pragmatism in British Politics

Pragmatism has long been a part of British life. Idealism too but to a lesser extent. That said, the shelves of literary works probably tip in the balance of idealism. There’s always an “insightful” quote to pull of the shelf and plonk into a speech or scribblings like this.

There’s a comfort in putting important decisions down to known facts and up-to-date realities. This way of working tends to favour short-term action based on weighing-up the here and now. What’s best for us where we stand at this moment? How much money have we got?

If you are an ardent socialist or committed liberal or dyed-in-the-wool right-winger, then pragmatism can make your flesh crawl. It leads to the question – what do you really believe in? Intellectual prowess is challenged by a call to make it up as we go along.

Pragmatism encourages hypocrisy. Now, that might be phrased as an uncomfortable negative. The truth is that no successful organisation has ever escaped a great deal of honest hypocrisy. Positions on even the most hard-fought issues do change. That’s not a negative. Just a couple of minutes surveying the history of the last half century, more than proves the case.

So, when I hear the UK Prime Minister (PM) talk of “ruthless pragmatism” I do wince a bit. It’s not that pragmatism per-se is an evil. No way. Mere survival in any political landscape and someone must react to the here and now in a way that doesn’t sink the ship.

PM Keir Starmer talking on Europe[1] is like listening to a rich Victorian woman having on extremely tight underwear. There’s no way she can loosen it in public. Her peers would disown her. When no one is looking an immense sense of relief can be gained in shedding the constraining garments. Behind closed doors the ridiculous restraints are shed.

Frankly, UK opposition to joining youth mobility schemes[2] in Europe is a stupid as stupid can get. I mean stupid times a billion. Now, some madcap idealists might be scared that British youth might, if taught early, be influenced in ways that would last throughout their lives. Such would be their indoctrination that eventual the push on the UK to join to European Union (EU) would be overwhelming.

There’s another word beginning with “p”. Take pragmatism and replace it with paranoia. The later seems to be fashionable just now. Forget the idealist approach where at least views tend to be based on a plausible creed. Paranoia is such that no previous experience is necessary. It’s all-over social media and more and more conventional media. Pragmatism is met with disbelief. So, is it wise for Keir Starmer to make that word a number one headliner?

A philosophical political pragmatism has been long practiced in the UK. I don’t see that stopping anytime soon. But what’s to be gained by headlining it? Not a lot I’d say. In fact, it gives ammunition to the light blue swivel-eyed loons[3].

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/keir-starmer-brexit-reset-europe-b2692118.html

[2] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/youth-mobility-schemes/

[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/swivelgate-david-cameron-goes-to-war-with-the-press-over-swiveleyed-loons-slur-8622277.html

Economic Growth in Post-Brexit UK: A Call to Action

I do remember when there was a British newspaper called The Daily Telegraph. It represented establishment views. Was rather stuffy and what you might expect a certain type of middle-class accountant or lawyer to be reading on their commute to work.

It has become a pamphlet for the alt-right, supporters of oligarchies and whacky think-tanks pumped full of money from climate change deniers and overseas sources.

The sort of right-thinking people who gifted us with Liz Truss as Prime Minister. I shouldn’t be so dismissive because as recent history has shown these daily publications still have influence.

Now, Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer is shouting growth, growth, growth from the rafters. Not that her cry is an entirely bad one, it’s just that she is saying this with mufflers on her ears.

The Chancellor is right that the most important issue of the moment is the economy. There are a lot of people pointing out that a quick way to improve the UK’s economic situation is to knock down the barriers we have erected with mainland Europe. Next door is a huge market for our products and services.

Labour was telling us to believe in Brexit and that they could make it work. Most people know that this was last year’s meaningless words spread about before an election. Polling now shows that most people favour closer ties with our neighbours[1].

In some senses there’s little change. People are more likely to see the Lib Dems as anti-Brexit and the Conservatives as pro-Brexit. They remain unsure about Labour’s position. So, when the call goes out from the Lib Dems for closer economic ties with the European Union (EU) a whole host of predicable nonsense is said and published in newspapers like The Daily Telegraph.

Labour’s dithering makes the possibility of growth, growth, growth seem as unreliable as their protestations of love for Brexit before last year’s election.

The direction of travel is mighty obvious. Brexit has failed. Corrective action is long overdue. Forward thinking politicians really need to step-up and fight for a prosperous and economically successful Europe. One that includes us.

Labour has this term of government to make its mark. If it doesn’t then the possibility of extreme political elements getting a foothold in the UK are significant. Dithering for 5-years will be the biggest mistake after that of 2016. Corrective action may have a political cost in the immediate short-term, but the long-term benefits are there for all to see.

[1] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/how-the-government-is-handling-the-issue-of-brexit-in-the-uk

Discontent with Conservatives

Those who stuck with the Conservatives at the last UK General Election must be regretting it. After their appalling record in government there are still 121 Conservative Party members of Parliament (MPs). This is the lowest number in the history of the Conservative Party. Parliamentary consistencies, like Reigate[1] and Staines[2], places where I have lived, have little, or no effective representation as the new year gets into its stride.

For what worth they are at this time in the electoral cycle, the Conservative Party and Reform Party (or company) are scrambling around trying to salvage any influence they can get. Both parties are no longer supported by their signed-up membership preferring major donors to pay the bills instead.

Frankly, we have no idea of their real membership numbers[3]. Political party membership hasn’t exactly been booming across the board. What’s clear is that the residual Conservative Party and Reform people are fishing in the same pond.

Last night, I happened to catch part of a Conservative political broadcast on the BBC. The general theme was politicians have let you down. This was said by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch in a non-specific way to avoid saying Conservative politicians have let you down.

I did begin to wonder if she wouldn’t have done better by hosting a daytime cooking show from her immaculate kitchen. Now, I want to know if her mug had coffee or tea in it or was it just and empty prop? It seems to me every time Conservative rebrand, we see a different shade of blue being presented in the media. They are lucky that so many shades of blue are possible.

In the News too is Nigel Farage’s cold shouldering in the US. He may no longer be the far-right’s political great hope for the future. Reform may have to look elsewhere for its champion.

The 650 MPs that were elected by you and me to the House of Commons, at the 4 July 2024 UK General Election are likely to get a full-term. I’d guess that the new government can live with being relatively unpopular for at least a couple of years. After that they had better start showing that life has got better, public services work otherwise they will be a one hit wonder.

For political watchers its going to be fascinating to see how the pseudo-war on the right of politics will pan out in the UK. Will they combine? Having lived through the SDP–Liberal Alliance back in the 1980s, I know how hard it can be to restructure and reorientate in the British context.

There’s a lot of spinning of the wheels. Interim pain and uncomfortable partnering. The certainty being that not everyone will be happy or contented. Some notable people will go off in a huff. Eggs will get broken.

Or are we in a new era media where all that’s needed is tons of fakery and magical thinking. Plush marketing and dramatic assertions backed up by absolutely nothing.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001442

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001505

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq62qv3486qo

Financial Pressures and Local Government Restructuring

It was a long time ago, but I remember the travails of local government reorganisation. A massive amount of councillor and officer time was consumed. Endless discussions going backwards and forwards. Loads of heat but little light.

I had my one term as a Surrey County Councillor between 1993 and 1997. Now, that is 30-years back. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since. That said, the issues are still hanging in the air. The outcome of that Conservative attempt at local government reorganisation was no change for the one million people in Surrey. That meant one large County Council and eleven smaller Boroughs and Districts. Not forgetting several Town and Parish Councils.

Having moved, my concern is now local government reorganisation in Berkshire. The situation here is that the two-tier structure of local government has already been swept away. We pay our council tax to one unitary local authority.

Here we are in a different time and place. Labour’s first six months in government behind us. A new era. All smiles to begin. Sadly, the write-ups of the last six-months are less than flattering[1]. It would be reasonable to think that during a period of opposition in Parliament. Those 14-years. The prospective future government would have put in place policies and plans that would have been “oven ready,” to use a term an unsuccessful past Prime Minister would use.

Just as it was 30-years ago, English local government is facing huge financial pressures. Residents are struggling to access good services. Local issues, like potholes, planning, special educational needs and social care are as intractable as they always have been.

So, is this the time to bring out local government reorganisation again? Regardless of what I think, it’s clear that Jim McMahon MP, Minister of State (Minister for Local Government and English Devolution) has local government reorganisation on his agenda[2].

From what I hear, existing county Boroughs and Districts are going to become history. Small unitary authorities had better watch out too. Council leaders are being asked to find ways of building scale. That means no English local authority smaller than a population of half a million.

Will this turn around performance? Economies of scale may have some benefits. The problem that strikes me is the notion that “local”, meaning a natural community, is generally much less than 500,000 people. Especially in rural areas.

The Government White Paper that sets out these plans is called “English Devolution”. An interesting use of that nice word. In the circumstances that the new Minister imagines it could be that local government becomes more and more an implementing arm of central government. No more or less. To some extent this is already the cases, but localism and community are not completely extinguished. The tension continues to be one between governance being top-down or bottom-up driven.

The Labour government might imagine this “silver bullet” will harmonise, sanitise and make local services run like clockwork. I wonder if it will.

[1] https://inews.co.uk/news/messy-muddled-starmer-struggles-worse-rebellion-3444812

[2] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/event/government-2025-conference

Navigating AI

In my travels, I’ve seen derelict towns. The reason they were built has passed into history. A frantic fever swept through an area like an unstoppable storm. It might have been precious metals that excited the original residents. Gold rushes feed the desire to get rich quick. It doesn’t take the greatest minds in the world to figure out why gold fever will always have an appeal. The onrush of people joining the throng keeps going until opportunities have collapsed.

Breakthrough technologies, or their potential, can be just like a gold rush. There’s no doubt that 2025 will be a year of such phenomena. Top of the list is Artificial Intelligence AI[1]. If you want to be a dedicated follower of fashion[2], then AI is the way to go. Thank you, The Kinks. Your lyrics are as apt now as they were in the 1960s.

Predications range from the best thing since sliced bread to the end of humanity. Somewhere along that line is realism. Trouble is that no one really likes realism. It can be somewhat dull.

I’ve always viewed advancing technologies as a two-edged sword. On the one hand there are incredible benefits to be reaped. On the other, costs can be relatively unpredictable and devastating. I say “relatively unpredictable” as there’s always the advantage of knowledge with hindsight. Lots of commentators love to practice that one.

In desperation to gain the economic benefits of AI the current utterances of the UK Government may seem a little unwise[3]. Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with wishing to build a significant domestic capacity in this area of technology. What’s concerning is to always talk of legislation and regulation as a burden. Particularly when such language comes from lawmakers.

The compulsion to free-up opportunity for a western style gold rush like scenario has a downside. That is all too evident in the historic records. Ministers in this new Labour Government remind me of Mr. Gove’s past mantra – we’ve had enough of experts. Rational dialogue gets sidelined.

Even now we have seen generative search engines produce summaries of complex information sources that are riddled with holes. This experience reminds me of past work cleaning up aviation accident databases. Removing all those 2-engined Boeing 747s and airport IDs with one letter transposed. Data by its nature isn’t always correct. The old saying, to err is human, is always applicable.

The concerning aspect of AI output is its believability. If error rates are very low, then we stop questioning results. It gets taken for granted that an answer to a question will be good and true. There we have a potential problem. What next. AI to check AI? Machines to check machines? There lies a deep rabbit hole.

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/01/08/1109188/whats-next-for-ai-in-2025/

[2] https://youtu.be/stMf0S3xth0

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/11/uk-can-be-ai-sweet-spot-starmers-tech-minister-on-regulation-musk-and-free-speech

Political Challenges: A 2025 Outlook

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s dive to an incredibly low level of popularity is notable. In fact, it’s a bit more than that. It’s record breaking.

A commonly held view seems to be that we elected the Labour Party government in July as the least bad choice. The Tory years had got so utterly terrible that even their devoted supporters bulked at giving them yet another term in office. Combine that with an inexplicable inability to frame a simple story about what Labour stands for and the problem is less surprising.

Keir Starmer is no fool. He’s an intelligent and experienced politician. He’s taken the hard knocks. He’s climbed the slippery pole. But, and there’s a but, something doesn’t jell.

I my humble opinion, the ingredients missing or in excess are categorised like so.

Charisma. It’s so much easier if leader has that indefinable quality. I remember this of Paddy Ashdown. One: you know when they are in the room. No question. People look. Two: they never lack inspiring ideas. Even if they could be off-the-wall. Three: what they say makes an impact.

Eloquence: That ability to coin words and phrases that resonate with lots of everyday people (not just supporters). To speak persuasively, in a way that says we are going on a great journey together. Scripted or not, fluency that appears natural and unforced. Lightness of touch.

Managerialism: Everyone expects confident, capable, competent governance (although we rarely get it). However, we don’t want to see it live on the mainstage, all the time. That phrase about political policy and making sausages is a good one. Lots of people like sausages but few like to know how they are made.

Now, the question I have is: are the “local difficulties” of present fixable?

2025 is going to be a roller coaster of a year. We have washed away any residual millennial mysticism that hit the world in 2000. A whole generation has slipped by. Babies born as London’s Millennium dome was both viewed both with amazement and distain, have jobs that didn’t exist as the fireworks went off.

The so called “smart” phone, and tablets have carved a way into our lives that’s deep and unmovable. Even if the next leap in technology will surely leave them as obsolete.

So, what’s the narrative for 2025 – 2050? Will we sink into the quicksand of nostalgia or herald a new era full of promise? I don’t know. I’ll just keep topping up my glass to ensure it’s half full.

Risks of Pruning Government

Everybody likes a good analogy. I don’t know if this one qualifies. We communicate by saying this thing is like this other thing. The first one being easier to understand than the one second. It’s a basic part of storytelling.

Who understands how government and its institutions grow? I’ve no doubt there are huge textbooks full of detailed analysis and complicated theories. Sitting on dusty library shelves. Written by knowledgeable and venerable academics.

I’m coming from a background that’s more practical. One of having mixed with and worked in bureaucratic structures built to serve a public good. Bureaucracies that have both traditional administrative and technical elements.

Here goes. Government, or rather the administrations, institutions and services are like a large oak tree. It’s kind of human pyramid in the sense that there’s a top and bottom. An upside-down tree minus the roots.

Oak trees are long lived. They have branches that are substantial so that they can carry a heavy load and suffer the battering of the wind and rain. Out on the furthest limbs they are young, spindly and vulnerable.

Today’s media is full of stories of what might come. There’s a new year in prospect. Across the Atlantic a new President is about to take-up office. Speculation is rife. One part of that speculation concerns the future of the large administration that is the federal state.

The Presidents favourite billionaire has ideas to take a chainsaw to the tree of administration. Generally speaking, a chainsaw isn’t the best tool for the job, but it certainly is scary. Maybe that’s the point. Keeping a huge, embedded administration on its toes.

My point, and I have one, which is more than I can say for Rory Stewart, a former minister, talking on the BBC this morning. My point is that pruning a tree requires the pruner to be competent. That’s having the attitude, skill and experience needed to make a good job of it.

Lopping off limbs of a working administration with the sole aim of saving money isn’t such a sound idea. Each branch has a purpose. It’s as well to have a comprehensive understanding of what that purpose is before the pruning starts. From that understanding can come a sound reason to prune.

Ideally, pruning should be good for the tree and good for everyone who depends upon it. Weak branches that suck-up energy even though their days are numbered should become firewood. Fledgling young branches that are heading out to explore new territory may need encouragement and support.

So, it is with government. There’s a lot of truth in Parkinson’s Law[1]. He knew a thing or two about bureaucracies. The clever bit is finding out where this phenomenon has taken off. Where the tree has grown way out of balance.

Will Musk be competent in pruning? Who knows. One thing is for sure. The potential for loping off a branch that is vital to health, wealth and happiness is all too real. Let’s watch and see.

[1] the law – “Work expands to fill the available time”

Level Playing Field

The back-office work of campaigning does take advantage of a lot of volunteering. That’s my experience. Giving time and energy for free and seeking to advance a worthwhile cause.

It would be nice if all political parties in this country where wholly supported by a membership that is both engaged in activities and willing to put their hands in their pockets, now and then. The reality is that, of all the eligible voters in this country, only a small fraction of them is committed enough to be a member of a recognised political party.

Even with a strong membership and a well-motivated bunch of volunteers, life is hard going unless there is a reasonable sized war chest to support campaigning work.

Come election time the range and breadth of communications that is necessary to be a competitive candidate is considerable. Thus, it is no surprise that history can turn on who has the most resources. That doesn’t always work but without a spending capacity rivals have most of the advantages.

Politicians seek the patronage of the wealthy as a pathway to power. We can remain pure and get engaged in arguments both ethical and moral as to the impact of patronage. Or we can accept that it is inevitable and ensure that strict rules exist to create a reasonably level playing field for all candidates. Since we can no more stop influence from flowing from one person to another than we can freeze gravity then a democratic society cannot must not have woolly rules on these matters.

Talk now is about financial donations that originate from abroad. That is when a wealthy person wishes to funnel money into a political party in a country other than the one of their citizenship. No prizes for guessing who or what this is about.

Now, I could say only UK citizens should be allowed to donate to UK political parties or organisations. Foreigners should be banned from involvement in national democratic processes. Trouble is that this subject is not so cut and dry as it might first seem.

Those with dual citizenships may wish to contribute and participate. That sounds reasonable. Those with notable family ties may wish to contribute and participate. Certainly, there are reasonable cases to consider. What’s interesting here is the legitimacy of the interest and that it is of a “friendly” nature.

I’d like to go back to the mater of the level playing field. If a candidate meets the criteria set down for a given election, then the battle should be over achievements, ideas and policies and not over the size of bank balances. Financial donors should not be able to exert undue influence by throwing money at a campaign. That’s where there is a strong need for strict financial limits on donations or any form of beneficial contribution that comes from abroad.

POST: One subject that Australian’s are looking at:

Eight things you need to know about the Government’s plan to change Australian elections