uk-politics – Page 2 – John Vincent

The Value of Public Service

In praise of public life[1]. That sound like such a strange sentence to utter about this last week. It’s been local election week. First Thursday in May is traditionally the day of elections in the UK.

It’s good to say that a political life is a positive. I’d say most councillors elected in this crop are motivated by the simple idea of public service. Yes, a lot of them will have completely different understanding as to what that means but there’s a general desire to make life better.

Naturally, there are the exceptions. That is those people who are ideologues, intent on imposing their views on people regardless of rational belief or any basic understanding of how the world works. Yes, I am talking about the blip that is the current results for the Reform Party. Blip it is. Like it or not, the turnout for local elections is sadly unimpressive.

Party politics is in jeopardy. I’ve nothing to object to politicians who take an independent line. It’s often those individuals who cross boundaries and unravel roadblocks to stop a stasis descending over a political assembly. A council chamber full of sheep helps no one.

To command popular support a practical political party must be a board church. We have a common expectation that decision-making forums be made up of our peer group. It’s embedded in the jury system. If decision-making in the public realm becomes so disconnected from everyday life, then respect is lost. However, if ever changing newspaper headlines drive governance – well, you get my point.

I say, conventional Party politics is in jeopardy because popularism is distorting the playing field. If a political Party becomes a rabble-rousing creature that sits on the backs of the electorate, then no good will come of it. That’s especially true when issues pursued are nothing much to do with the remit of a Council.

My prediction is that the new Reform councillors will soon get locked into lots of noisy arguments over issues that bypass the things that need to be done in each locality. No fixing potholes or planting trees when meaningless debates about “woke” can be had. No improving recycling achievements or properly funding care provisions. No building affordable housing or cleaning up waterways.

For political leaders and parties to regain respect and support there needs to be less communication about the possible ways and means and more about what’s been done. Populism takes over when people become fed-up with endless jam tomorrow arguments. The cycle of empty promises feeds the demigods.

My advice. Even if it’s just one pothole is fixed – tell people.

[1] Book Title – In Praise of Public Life : the Honor and Purpose of Political Science

Finding Balance

Regulation can be a contentious issue. That’s an understatement. A spectrum of views extends from the complete libertarian to the past soviet model. Citizens shouldn’t be encumbered by any restrictions to the State has the right to dictate every aspect of life. Clearly, there are immense downsides to either of these extremes. Luckily, although not everyone will agree, the set of political choices available in the UK covers the wide range from the far-right to the far-left. These labels are deficient when it comes to the detail. Often these two camps are similar in their authoritarian ways and means.

Rejecting the extremes, being a liberal, means finding a balance. That means a minimal number of rules and regulations to achieve the prosperity, safety and security goals that most people happily support.

A pendulum swings in the British political cycle. Never quite sure what the cycle time is on this one. What’s for sure is that our society’s tendency is to go from urges to tighten-up rules and regulations to impulses to eliminate or relax them with gusto. Often, the aim is to tweak or protect economic stability or tweak or promote economic growth. After the banking crisis of 2008 it was the first of these, now it’s the second.

Brexit is a strange oddity. Although, great claims were made for the loosening of the ties that bind us, the reality has been much onshoring of past rules and regulation. The forces of continuity have some good arguments.

It’s reported that Prime Minister Starmer is considering dynamically aligning UK regulations with EU regulations, as if that’s not happening pragmatically and piecemeal already. OK, this is not consistent across every sector of the economy. It’s a mixed bag. Politicians banging the drum but not doing much.

Let’s say the financial services market goes a different way from the technology sector. One has a history as long as your arm the other is being made-up as we speak. Clearly, there are risks in both deregulation and overregulation. Thus, I get back to that notion of finding a balance.

To hardened Brexiters EU and UK rules constrain. To their supporters they enable, facilitate and transform.

Now, what’s difficult to discern is where do Starmer and Reeves stand?

A direction of travel, to encourage investment in the UK, has been touted. That implies alignment rules. Investors rightly seek the largest market on offer. Like it or not, the UK is not the US, or even the EU when it comes to the size of its economy. Maybe, it’s taken Brexit to realise that we align as a matter of common interest. Mutual benefit.

Most of our safety and security goals are not subjects of intense competition. If you fly internationally, why would it make sense to compete on safety or security? The general expectation is that common high levels of safety and security are desirable.

As the weather improves so we are heading towards a year of the Labour Party in power. There’s disappointment and concern about the timidity of their actions. The word “reset” is banded about. A ridiculous word. Press the reset button to restore a past condition. No, choices need to be made. Closer alignment and partnership with the EU are the rational choices.

The UK’s Path Back to the EU

It’s great to see a debate in the UK Parliament[1]. Monday, 24 March saw a debate on the UK joining the European Union (EU). A public electronic petition[2] called for this debate. UK MPs get the opportunity to speak openly of their experiences of the outcomes of Brexit. There’s little that is positive and an ocean of negative.

Lucky for them, at the end of the debate, MPs are not called to vote on the issues raised in this petition. Nevertheless, there’s enormous merit in putting the facts in the public domain.

The 2016 Brexit vote was an unpatriotic act of self-harm, but it is history. Gradually, bit by bit, every part of British society is coming to the realisation that we need to do differently in the future. One day, I have no doubt that the UK will join the EU. The “will of the people” is not static. It is incredibly arrogant of Brexit supporters to say that it is static.

Besides, the inevitability of change means that new ways of cooperating will be found because it is in the best interest of all the parties. The UK is a liberal free-trading country that believes in the rule of law.

In the debate, Government Ministers can take what is being said and rethink. It is no threat to democracy to consider a rethink. In fact, for democracy to be stuck in a deep rut – now, that would be dangerous.

Today, Brexit has been a wonderful generator of piles of meaningless paperwork. It’s destroyed businesses and ruined lives. The enormous damage that has been caused is clear. Sadly, the people who cause that damage are not inclined to take any accountability for the mess.

In the debate, a shadow minister digs-up the grumpy past. It is shameful that the Conservative Party has nothing useful to say on this important issue. It is like listening to a bad recording of an old set of lies and proven nonsense. In speaking, this politician displayed no interest what-so-ever in improving the position of the country.

With all the talk of “growth” being so important to our future, it is difficult to understand a reluctance to address the festering wound that has been caused by Brexit. We can only be more secure and prosperous if we work more closely with our nearest neighbours.

The Labour Party leans on its election manifesto of last July. It’s an awkward act of sitting on the fence and sticking their head in the sand. Now, that paints a picture.

So called, “ruthless pragmatism” is a peculiar Government policy position. It can mean 101 things to 101 different people in 101 different places. Citing “global headwinds” to excuse obvious failings is no excuse for sustaining a burnt-out Brexit winding on like a runaway train. It would be wiser to question everything as the wholly new circumstances dictate.

2025 is dramatically different from 2015. When I first returned to the UK from Germany. The tectonic plates of global affairs have shifted. The Atlantic is wider. The Channel is narrower.

Oceanus Britannicus should be no barrier to trade and cooperation.

[1] https://youtu.be/yJdFBSAvAhU

[2] https://petition.parliament.uk/

A Key Political Agenda?

Whatever you might think, I think Keir Starmer is turning out to be a better conservative Prime Minister (PM) than most have been in the last couple of decades. On his list of things to do is reforming this, and reforming that, and making bullish statements on the world stage. Agreed that there’s the usual amount of crafted BS. Compromise and dealing with reality, not the world as one might wish it to be, are as they ever are in politics.

He’s in the business of stealing the clothes of the official opposition. Across the chamber they panic. Yes, further along the benches, the howling menace continues to howl. Fighting amongst themselves this week. Questioning their leader is not allowed. However, it’s surprising how high they stand in opinion polls, even if this is meaningless at this point in the electoral cycle.

The normal opposition now comes from the Liberal Democrats and a small number of unhappy Labour Members of Parliament.

This week I was amused to read of the concerns about Quangos[1]. That takes me back. I remember writing a motion for a conference on that subject back in the early 1990s. At that time there was questioning of why there was so many Quangos.

As a country we seem to go through waves. They go like this.

For a while national politicians take the view that day-to-day operational decisions of a sector should be made by dedicated professionals and at arm’s length. This has the advantage of getting politicians out of the complex detail, avoiding blame when things go wrong, a degree of continuity and setting their minds to the higher calling of top-level budgets and policy.

Then, if sector hasn’t performed as well as desired, the Quango at the heart of the storm is set ripe for taking apart. Thus, day-to-day operational decisions go back to “accountable” politicians, surely to do better. This has the advantage of reigniting the pace of change, a chance to be radical, securitising lower-level budgets and the satisfaction of blaming the past system.

I think you can tell which part of the wave that has hit now.

A point of reference here is, as so often is the case, Yes Minister. There’s a story line where the civil service pack the Minister’s red box with so much information and decisions to be made that he’s completely overwhelmed. Initially, he’s keen to have information on everything. Then the realisation that path leads to madness slowly dawns.

Now, it’s not clear what type of civil service, and associated Quangos, the PM thinks work best. It’s not strange to say I don’t like what I’ve got. It’s better to have an idea what it is that you want. A reform agenda in name is a headline grabber. It’s not a substitute to having a plan.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405840

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

Rethinking the House of Lords: Toward a Balanced and Democratic Approach

Good to hear that there’s a prospect of House of Lords reform in next week’s Kings speech. Change is on the agenda.

It’s astonishing that “hereditary” is a valid qualification for the job as a legislator. I’ve nothing against the individuals involved. Especially those who try to do the best they can. Put all that to one side, there’s a huge gulf between what’s normal in normal life and what’s normal in the Place of Westminster. It’s time to consider merit as more important than who your parents were.

The removal of hereditary peers should be just a first step. One of the most egregious unfairnesses is that way the HoL gets topped-up with political cronies a regular basis. We’ve institutionalised political tribalism in the second chamber. Ennobling people for dubious reasons has become a habit of Prime Ministers. Making contributions to political Party funds should not be a ticket to the HoLs.

There’s the religious element too. Whereas there’s a lot to be said for a level or moral guidance to be given to Peers there’s little justification for them to have votes in the HoL. I’m not denying the important part region plays in many people’s lives. What I am saying is that the laws that affect every citizen shouldn’t be shaped by a small cohort of clerics. Two countries have religious clerics in places of legislative power, and they are UK and Iran. That doesn’t sit well with me, and no doubt most people.

One change maybe controversial given that it smacks of discrimination and that is the setting of an age threshold. If Peers are given a compulsory retirement at the age of 80, it may meet an objective of getting the overall number of Peers down. What disconcerting is the implication that beyond the age of 80 a Peer’s potential contribution is less valuable.

I don’t agree that the compulsory retirement age for the HoL should be set at the state pension age. For some people age does mark a dimming of their intellect but for others they can be as sharp as a pin. The only easy option is a fixed threshold, but it should be a temporary measure.

Ideally, the size of the HoL should be fixed. Ideally, the size of both chambers should be similar. Not just because that number line-up but because the political weight should be set closer to a balance. I do assume in this formula that every Peer is a working Peer.

It’s been pointed out that in its current state the HoL makes it the second largest political chamber in the world. It’s reached ridiculous proportions for a country of our size.

Modest changes can only be a start. There’s the real need for permanent restructuring. Parliament’s second chamber must be replaced with a democratic upper house. One model would be an elected upper house with two members elected per UK region based on current/proposed metro mayoral regions or former regions used for electing MEPs.

Even the chamber’s name must go. It’s not good that we have legislators lording over us. Those sitting on the red benches are not superior beings. They are privileged. One would hope for them to be humble given that great privilege. Afterall they should be there to serve us. To serve the country.

Rapid

Such a rapid change. In days we go from one governmental regium to another. The government of the UK has changed. It’s now dramatically different from what it was only a couple of days ago. It’s not overstating the case to say dramatic. On a relatively modest percentage of the overall national vote the Labour Party has been handed all the leavers of power.

The UK’s main electoral system is not proportional. It tends to exaggerate and distort performance. Lifting those who do well in the national vote numbers but suppressing those who are supported by smaller overall percentages. Interestingly, the Liberal Democrats, who have always been in favour of a proportional representation electoral system, have an approximate match between the number of seats won and the number of votes cast across the country.

Sticking with the positives, this rapid change does mean policy resets are possible. One significant example is the immediate scrapping of the policy mess that the previous government had got itself into over immigration.

Accepting a fresh start has a upside. However, the difficulty that can present itself is the challenge to continuity. Lots of new faces with new responsibilities. Lots of people learning the ropes. One answer to that challenge is to say that the civil service provides a seamless continuity. The mandarins in Whitehall guide the ship of State through the transition. Not only that but many of the people coming into power have been preparing for this opportunity for a long time.

The difficulty is that the mismatch between the national percentages of the General Election vote and the number of Westminster seats held is there for all to see. It’s a stark indicator of the reality of people’s wishes verses the outcome of a process.

I was a counting agent standing in a sports hall until the early morning totting-up an estimate of the vote for a political party. Pen in hand watching officers carefully unfold paper ballots. In a world of smart phones and tablets there’s something very retro about looking at piles of black and white paper for hours.

One aspect of First Past The Post (FPTP) is the theoretical simplicity of the counting process. Naturally, it’s far from simple. One cross, in one box is well within the capability of every kind of voter. However, it’s crude in terms of what it says about the voter’s views. It forces everyone to make stark choices. There’s no accommodation of preference. Say, you are a person who’s essentially conservative or socialist but can’t stand that Party in its current form, you are forced to leap to vote, if you vote at all, for a political candidate that may not be your natural choice.

So, society ought to ask itself, do we value the result of the electoral process most? Or do we value the expression of the individual preference the most? There’s an inevitability to the answer to that question, if the horizon set is a long one. Where so much of what we now do is addressed by algorithms designed to distil our individual preferences how can we stick with a paper based last century electoral system that ignores preference?

Change will come one day. The difficulty is that if the UK’s FPTP electoral system offers no incentive to the winning Party to change it, so we will be bound to stick with it. Well, at least for the next few years.

Runaway

Real votes in real ballot boxes are the best way to get an indication of where we are in these unsettling times. OK, I admit that the voter turnout for local elections doesn’t match that of a General Election (GE) in the UK, by a long way. However, what you can say is that those who are motivated to vote in local elections are certainly going to make the effort to vote in a GE.

So, the voting trend that has been observed over the last year, at least, continues. The Labour Party is gaining ground. The Conservative Party is sinking rapidly. The Liberal Democrats and Greens are making measured progress. Independents are gaining. Nationalists are treading water. The newcomer, the Reform Party is growing rapidly from a petite base.

If you have any association with, or supportive opinion of the Conservative Party this must be an extremely unsettling time. Yes, a lot can change in the next few months but the political party in power in the UK is steaming towards an iceberg at high speed. It’s the modern-day Titanic of the British political scene. It’s quite sinkable. It’s members running in different directions.

Often vigorously supported by “conservatives” is the British First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system for GEs. As is self-evident from any inspection of its history, FPTP punishes harshly small political parties or political parties whose national support dips below a certain point. Probably for the first time in decades the British Conservative Party looks as if its heading for that fine line whereby it’s devastated by the results of a national election. The political dynamics are different in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. That said, the general trend of decline of the modern Conservative Party is national.

Brexit is a failed past experiment. The Banking crisis of 20-years ago, COVID-19 and so called “woke” don’t cut it as excuses. That’s pure desperation. Agreed, that no one predicted how conflict and war would be such a pressing concern.

It’s an opinion, but I’ll express it anyway, that the public are swept by a mood of discontent. They are soundly fed-up with the British Conservative Party. There’s little, if anything, that can be done about the trend set by this public mood. It’s an abstract concept, the “public mood” and not so easy to quantify or qualify. It’s the sort of thing that we only know by its symptoms.

The tone of language used to describe the Prime Minister (PM) and his Cabinet is one sign. It’s as much to say – who the hell would want his job unless they were barking mad? Putting on a brave face when the trend is set.

Moving away from the Titanic analogy to that of a runaway train[1], the image in my mind is that of a steam train driver frantically pulling every leaver that can be found but nothing changes. The train is going to crash.

T’was in the year of 24. On that old Westminster line. When the wind was blowing shrill. The polls closed. And the party would not hold. And Number 10 came racing down the hill.

I’ll bet someone can do better than me with that children’s favourite.

POST: Here’s why I made that reference from the 1960s-70s. Ed Stewpot Stewart’s Junior Choice ( 1OOO Tracks For Kidz Of The 60’s n 70’s ) – playlist by ANDREW HARRY BRIGGS | Spotify and Ed Stewart’s Junior Choice – playlist by Shaun Russell | Spotify

[1]Michael Holliday ‘The Runaway Train’ 1956 78 rpm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNgpzF9N3_M

Responsibility

What do I have in common with former Prime Minister Liz Truss. Well, not much, I hope. Only I will stop myself from jumping on the band waggon and rubbishing the entirety of what she has to say. It’s astonishing to think that she was once a fully paid-up Liberal Democrat member. Her exit to the dark side is the stuff of decades past pulp fiction.

Truss’s published plans are clearly as mad a bag of frogs. Damming and disbanding anything and everything that you personally don’t like is a page out of the Trump playbook. Oh yes, there’s a community of enraged folks who will not read the detail and pied piper like follow the music. That will sell a tiny number of books before they pile-up in the high street charity shops of the country. Even they might flinch at stocking her castoffs in print. 10p would be too much.

Now, comes the; ah but. If I go back to the mid-1990s, I was writing about the proliferation of QANGOS[1]. Being a local Councillor at the time I felt a great deal of irritation in finding that so much government policy was focused on taking power away from elected local government and giving it to appointed bodies with no local accountability.

The Liberal Democrat approach has long been that power should be decentralised from central to regional and local government. A great deal of what we have seen in the last three decades has been exactly the opposite. Devolution in Scotland and Wales being the exception. Although, that didn’t make much difference when Brexit came along.

Giving specific powers to executive agencies is not the problem. You might think I’d say it was. No, the problem is the relationships between elected bodies and those who act as its agents. Once a democratically elected body has determined a course of action there’s benefit in having expert agencies, given clear terms of reference and a job to implement specific policies.

Politicians, generally make lossy managers. This is where the Truss / Trump doctrine, that politicians should control or manage everything as being extremely foolish. Centralisation does help when unified action is needed but for the most part keeping all decision making in-house degrades administration and enables it to become detached from reality.

Politicians are great critics. Their skills are best used to scrutinises activities at a high level. To exercise oversight and provide feedback derived from real life experiences (The Post Office scandal being an exception to this general assertion).

The former Prime Minister who holds the record for being the shortest in office had to take responsibility for her actions. In that most peculiar way, UK democracy worked. No well, but at least corrective action was taken in reaction to a calamitous situation.

Take back control in my mind means returning powers to regional and local government. Where QANGOS are necessarily then make sure they are kept under effective scrutiny. A lot of what I have said here is better said in a policy paper from 2007[2]. We know what to do but rarely do we do it.

[1] In the UK, the term QUANGO addresses “arm’s-length” government bodies, including “non-departmental public bodies” (NDPBs), non-ministerial government departments, and some executive agencies.

[2] https://www.libdemnewswire.com/files/2016/02/77.-Green-and-Prosperous-Communities-Local-Regeneration-for-the-21st-Century.pdf