Tag: uk-politics

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/

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.

Relationship with the EU

Monday, Monday[1]. It’s a wonderful 60s song. Harmonies and mood are perfect. I wonder if the harmonies and mood will be perfect for the Prime Minister (PM) on Monday. Already the Sunday Press are setting the stage for Monday’s performance.

Reset, recalibration, reheat, rekindle, re-whatever. It’s a moment when relations between the UK and the European Union (EU) can make realistic progress[2]. In world full of uncertainty (could be a song in that one), for once the direction of travel is a constructive and positive.

I think the word “deal” is getting overplayed. Indications are that there’s no fundamental shift from Brexit meaning Brexit, as one former PM liked to say. In fact, the current PM is being highly cautious in the light of his Party’s reading of the latest opinion polls. For no sane reason I can think of, the swivel-eyed loons of the far-right are making hay.

It’s astonishing me how dim-witted the Conservative Party is in objecting to something when they don’t even know, for sure, what it is. Mind-blowing. And the rum cult of Reform Party doing the same with extra bile. What a load of prehistoric fruit loops.

Brexit supporters are spreading misinformation, again. Saying that UK has no influence. It’s true, the UK doesn’t have votes in the European Council or Parliament, but significant influence can be exercised on standards, and regulatory guidance, nevertheless. A better “deal” can bring much greater influence. Absolutely vital in the digital world, and for the UK, a country with a services-based economy.

Brexit has cost the UK dearly. The UK Treasury would have billions more in its coffers if the 2016 referendum had never taken place. The standard of living of every person in the UK is lower because of Brexit bungling. Ideally, that great mistake is an event to be written up for the history books and then forgotten.

On top of the above, uncharacteristic moves in the US, with Trump tariffs there’s nasty hit at the UK’s future prosperity. There couldn’t be a better time to repair relationships with the UK’s nearest neighbours. The countries with which we share most of our long history.

Even for those on the political right, practically, the EU is never going away, so until the day the UK rejoins the block, it’s wise to have the best possible relationship in all matters. Goods, services and people need to connect as a case of mutual benefit.

It’s time for hope. An optimistic tone should be set. A smile. Let’s hope we are singing Monday, Monday so good to me, Monday morning was all I hoped it would be. Naturally, that there be no crying, come Monday evening.

[1] https://genius.com/The-mamas-and-the-papas-monday-monday-lyrics

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-eu-reset-trade-deal-starmer-b2752285.html

Myths vs. Reality

We live in a world of contradictions. What am I thanking about? The current febrile immigration debate has all the hallmarks of magical thinking. Here we are surrounded by water, living in an economically active favourable part of the world and yet public concern is directed at “others”.

I’ve no problem with the current British Government berating the past Government for not fixing a problem. It’s normal for a governing party in the first couple of years of their term of office to point the finger of blame. It’s easy. Painting a picture of past failure makes the road ahead clearer. It’s easier to start from a point of low expectations.

However, it seems it’s not the resurgence of the Conservative Party that the Labour Party are concerned about. Today, such a prospect would be like the reincarnation of a squirrel that had been run-over by a 42-ton truck driven by the electorate.

The announcement of the day is setting an ambition to squeeze immigration. Recent local elections have shown that this banner flies well with those who vote in local elections. Because the opinion polls give bizarre indications too, the questionable assumption is that if a General Election was called by an irrational Prime Minister there’d be a surge in far right-wing voting.

We have new kids on the block. They are not at all new even if the have a new name. It’s an Orwellian name. Because an ultra-conservative party isn’t in the business of newness as much as they are stirring up ancient antagonism.

Anyway, the Reform Party are the current snake oil salesman selling their easy solutions to difficult problems. They were once named; Referendum, UKIP and Brexit Party. All proponents of magical thinking and with a poor track record.

The story goes like this. Stop overseas immigration and make the hordes of economically inactive people of Britan take-up the vacancies that would result. When Reform voters hear this narrative, they don’t think it applies to them. They believe there’s a mythical group of lazy people who need to be forced back to work and off overly generous State benefits.

In this public debate it’s as well to look at the numbers[1]. Reform voters are predominantly of 50-years and older and the economically inactive are predominantly 50-years and over[2]. Thus, I say, we live in a world of contradictions.

COVID did see a large number of people take, or be forced into early retirement. Those who have experienced a lifetime of their terms and conditions of employment being degraded took the opportunity to do something else. Often that included voluntary work or caring roles. Reform have concocted plans to pressure people back into conventional employment. These plans are uncosted and not cheap. Lots of government funded incentives and training, for example. In the real world, funding must come from somewhere. That’s likely to be from the privatisation of health services and cancelled benefits. In this scenario don’t expect to get a state pension until well past 70 years

[1] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07119/SN07119.pdf

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2023/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2023

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