Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Poetry collections

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In the years since publishing Fragments and Reflections, I have self-published two further collections of poetry: Nooks and Dark Corners and Sunsets and Long Shadows. Find them on Amazon or – if you want to support independent writing and publishing – Lulu.

Sea Mist

This mist makes ghosts of the drifting days,
Shrouding hill and cliff and cove with pale indifference;
On the shoreline, faint shadows gather in small worlds,
Framed by blank horizons and a white line of surf,
Just apparent in this strange eradication.
Somewhere, above and beyond the levelling murk,
A vain sun blazes at the creaking sea,
Taunting it with windborne lies of endless sunshine.

I made the mistake of tuning in to the Daily Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire today. Ranting presenter Tim Ireland was ‘interviewing’ Rachel Reeves MP and Andrea Jenkyns MP. And as always, the BBC can’t cover Brexit without going to a Leave-voting area, where it indulges in a series of vox pops with middle-aged and elderly white voters ranting about how Brexit should have been sorted ages ago.

In the following ‘debate’, Ireland made that most crass and lazy of statements, which has come to characterise the faux-exasperated style of the patronising pundit: ‘Are you two not hearing what we are hearing on the streets all the time, people are saying “Why don’t they just get on with it?”?’ Of course this is delivered in a manner intended to convey to the viewer that Ireland is of course a presenter of tremendous insight, in tune with the great British public.

Funny how the BBC never seems as concerned with those who voted Remain, or those who weren’t allowed to vote because they were too young and who will be affected longest. Sure, they will get coverage in occasional dedicated features, but the vox pops that litter our screens daily are inarguably heavily Leave-biased.

Both the vox pops and this style of presenting has become a lazy formula for the BBC’s political commentary on Brexit. The only voters that matter for vox pops are outraged Leave voters, whose views are heard sympathetically and then simply echoed subsequently in the studio as if they contain some unchallengeable truth that politicians should address.

Worse, in the subsequent discussion, Jenkyns was allowed to simply make ridiculous arguments by assertion that went unchallenged around polling, about being a ‘democrat’ (implying anyone who disagreed with her wasn’t) etc.

This is what the BBC passes off as political coverage. No debate. No scrutiny of those views. and it treats the public as idiots just as much as any politician from Leave or Remain with hectoring views.

So here are some ideas.

  1. Abandon the vox pops. They teach us nothing, just provide fodder for a lazy caricature of our politics that doesn’t show us anything about what the country is thinking.
  2. Instead, treat the public like grown ups who can make a substantiated argument. When they talk about how things should have been done years ago, challenge them on what they say, ask how it should have been done, take them to task on what they think the answer is. Don’t simply provide a platform for unsubstantiated bollocks. We have Twitter for that.
  3. Subject both sides of the argument to the same level of scrutiny and double-down on any one drawing false equivalences in their arguments, whichever side they are on.
  4. Challenge politicians to produce the evidence for their arguments. If they cite polling, ask them to state what polling that is. If they make crass statements on democracy, call them out.

If the BBC did this, it might begin to have a hope of fulfilling its remit as a public service broadcaster when it comes to the Brexit debate.

My mornings now involve a beautiful commute between Leeds and York. I choose the country back roads over the A64. I like the chance to listen to the best hour of Radio 4’s Today programme and reflect on the politics of the day. (And yes, I appreciate the irony of that first sentence in the context of what follows.)

For as long as I can remember now, it has been a depressing catalogue of various Brexit catastrophes that have shone a spotlight on the inability of our political processes to even organise to take decisions, let alone take them. This morning, though, there were two brief and truly inspirational interviews.

Schoolgirls Lilly Platt (10), from the Netherlands, and Jean Hinchliffe (15), from Australia, both of whom are active organisers of the school strike for climate, demonstrated a level of articulate argument and intelligence that should embarrass our politicians. Along with Greta Thunberg (16), who has inspired school strikes around the globe, and who just yesterday was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for her campaigning on climate change, these are young people who have run out of patience with adult failure.

It is easy enough for patronising adults to respond by saying they are jeopardising their futures and should be in lessons. It is easy enough to fret about health and safety (a little ironic in a country where we are doing little to tackle an epidemic of knife crime and have a fondness for an era of British ‘greatness’ when we sent children up the chimneys that part-created this crisis). Their response contains a faultless logic: what future is there if we let inaction on climate destroy the planet?

Here in the UK, Anna Taylor (17) is one of the organisers. She and others, including Greta Thunberg, have restated their reasons for striking in the Guardian. Read it. It is a powerful, powerful piece.

This is not a campaign built around some well-worked theory of change, carefully disseminated and followed after development with well-paid PR companies and strategic consultants. These children speak plainly and bluntly, with passion, and without pulling their punches. It is becoming a global scream of desperation from young people around the world who give a shit and who are mostly not allowed to vote for change. They are seeing politicians of an older generation squander their future, who are either patronisingly patting them on the head, telling them it will be okay, or wringing their hands and agreeing earnestly whilst doing nothing.

And for those who are not paying attention, it is striking how the majority of the organisers are young women.

As Thunberg told the billionaires in Davos:

“I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.”

Her video is worth watching.

Today will be the largest climate strike to date. Greta, Anna, Jean and Lilly you are quite inspirational. Keep going. Keep screaming at us until we actually do something.

You can follow some of these young campaigners here:

@GretaThunberg

@AnnaUKSCN

@jean_hinchcliffe

After the dishonesty of the referendum campaign, the simplistic boasts of the negotiations about how easy securing Britain’s future would be, and the humiliating chaos of parliamentary proceedings on the Withdrawal Agreement, it is no wonder that the public and our businesses are in such despair at politicians.

Our politics has failed. There is a piece to be written about the way in which Brexit has highlighted and increased pressure on the failure of our democracy and its institutions, but this is not it.

At the time of writing there are just 400 hours until we are due to exit the European Union. If our politicians manage Thatcher levels of sleep – which are probably not the most useful preparation for what must be done over the next 16 days – that leaves just 333 hours in which to do the work. Those that see theological evils in the European Union can be reassured that we can’t even do the ‘Number of the Beast’ properly.

Politicians have dressed their failure with all sorts of unicorn promises about better deals (the ERG and Labour), blame for not getting behind the Prime Minister (Remainers, the ERG and the DUP), and consistent can-kicking (everyone). Each of these groups is flailing around and screaming louder and louder as the ratchet of the clock tightens and the scale of the political problems in taking a decision – any decision – becomes clear. Daniel Finkelstein’s article in the Times today demonstrates the political calculations for just the Conservative Party underlying decisions which should be about the national interest in this mess. Similar calculations apply to Labour and in different ways to all parties.

These challenges will form a fascinating and complicated Venn diagram for future students of political science to study. However, there is no time left for that pontification now. Having proved unsurprisingly so comprehensively incapable of translating a binary, advisory referendum into a complex and lasting solution that commands political support, and having destroyed public trust in our politics in the process, MPs have a very small window in which they can show leadership and re-establish any measure of trust.

Today’s Order Paper is depressing. The Prime Minister’s politically confusing motion states the legal reality of what happens if no deal occurs. The response of the senior, cross-party group of MPs, who cannot agree on a way forward, is to kick the can down the road yet again, tabling an amendment that simply takes no deal off the table and ignores that legal reality. And tomorrow the Commons will vote on a motion for an extension and almost certainly do so without agreeing on a way forward that offers clarity to the public or Brussels. Even now, MPs are pretending to the public that we can secure an extension to continue this torturous farce by simply passing a motion in the House of Commons.

It is time for MPs to be honest about the options – and there are only three that make any sense, the Prime Minister’s deal having been rejected by Parliament so completely on two occasions:

  1. A hard Brexit with no deal;
  2. A revocation of Article 50 and remaining;
  3. A further referendum on the terms of the Prime Minister’s deal or remaining.

It is no good Labour’s lamentable front bench wittering on about another deal. It is no good ERGers bombastically proclaiming there are better ways to negotiate Brexit.

Brussels has been clear: there is no room for further negotiation. None at all. The talking is done.

There is also no transition without a deal.

And there is no extension without a credible and decisive way forward.

Politicians have sold the public varying visions of Britain’s future on the basis of gross oversimplification, to protect their own political interests. They must now grasp the nettle of the consequences of their untruths, and show the public they understand the clear choices they face, however difficult they are to make.

Yes, it will be politically painful. Yes, it might have destructive consequences for our political institutions – our parliament, our electoral system, and our failing ‘broad church’ political parties – but that is the price politicians must pay for their comprehensive failure.

 And that might just be a good thing.

If a week is a long time in politics, 27 years has left our political landscape unrecognisable.

 In October 1992, four men were put on trial for obtaining export licenses by deception. They were alleged to have pretended that components intended for military use were actually being exported for civilian purposes. Their trial collapsed just a few weeks later when Alan Clark, a minister in the Department of Trade and Industry at the time of the alleged offence, admitted the government had known the intended purpose all along. Clark’s infamous description of his behaviour during the Supergun affair reworked a phrase that was coined during the Spycatcher trial: ‘economical with the truth’ became ‘economical with the actualité’.

What was government’s reaction? It established the Scott Inquiry, under Lord Justice Scott, which resulted in the publication in 1996 of the Scott Report, one of the most exhaustive examinations of the functioning of government ever.

I remember its publication well.

15 February 1996 was a Thursday. The excitement in Westminster was feverish. I had been working in Westminster for just six weeks. Sittings then had not been reformed and Thursday was a day of full government business, commencing with departmental questions at 2.30 pm and statements at 3.30 pm, business continuing until 10 pm. Prime Minister’s Questions was still a twice-weekly affair, with 15 minutes allocated at 3 pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

As a junior researcher, I was pressed into action by the Whips’ Office I would later head, running down the stairs to the Vote Office to collect one of the huge boxes that contained all 1806 pages of the multi-volume report. Whilst ministers had eight days to prepare themselves for publication, the Opposition were given just two hours, under intense scrutiny. Publication was accompanied by a press pack giving choice quotes and positive spin, mitigating the worst of its impact.

Days of intense speculation led up to the next moment of parliamentary ‘high noon’ on February 26. The debate saw one of the finest parliamentary performances ever, from Robin Cook. This is a line with particular contemporary resonance:

The Government are fond of lecturing the rest of the nation on its need to accept responsibility. Parents are held responsible for actions; teachers are held responsible for the performance of their pupils; local councillors are held legally and financially responsible; yet, when it comes to themselves, suddenly, not a single Minister can be found to accept responsibility for what went wrong.

HC Deb 26 February 1996, 272, col. 604

John Major made the vote on a motion for the adjournment a matter of confidence in his government. He won on a knife-edge vote, by 320 votes to 319, my first moment of parliamentary drama.

The Conservative Party declared the report a victory as it exonerated ministers of the most serious charge of a cover-up that could have seen innocent men go to jail. 

So why return to a report that was written, published and debated before the youngest member of the House of Commons was born and which many regard as a failure?

I was prompted by a tweet from Anne Applebaum about Esther McVey, who has repeated a notorious  tweet regarding the EU and the Lisbon Treaty, long since debunked. Applebaum stated: ‘There are just no consequences for lying anymore, for anyone.’

She is right. Lying has become the new normal at every level of our democracy.

The Scott Report highlighted three areas of immense concern, lost in the jubilant spinning of the government:

  • The use of secondary legislation not properly scrutinised;
  • Lack of ministerial accountability;
  • Government withholding information necessary for proper decisions.

This quote summarises it neatly:

The main objectives of governments are the implementation of their policies and the discomfiture of opposition; they do not submit with enthusiasm to the restraints of accountability … governments are little disposed to volunteer information that may expose them to criticism … The enforcement of accountability depends largely on the ability of Parliament to prise information from governments which are inclined to be defensively secretive where they are most vulnerable to challenge.

The experience of the Scott Inquiry reminds us how little – in some regards – the experience of government has changed:

  • Ministers misleading the public;
  • Ministers misleading Parliament;
  • Ministers selectively quoting from reports to shore up a deceitful narrative;
  • Ministers withholding information that would undermine their position on the grounds of national interest;
  • Parliamentarians unable to scrutinise the executive as information is withheld;
  • The national interest subordinated to the interests of the governing party;
  • Government refusing substantive votes in favour of the meaningless.

But there are differences between then and now, particularly in terms of the responsibility taken by ministers and the Prime Minister for their collective actions – a responsibility that even back then the Scott Report found wanting in the ordinary processes of government.

In the 1990s, the Prime Minister was so concerned by the allegations of deception levelled against his own government that he established a judicial inquiry. Such was its seriousness that the sitting Prime Minister and his predecessor Margaret Thatcher gave evidence. Following publication of the report, and despite the inadequacy of the parliamentary motion, the government of the day accepted that its future would be decided by the result of that single vote.

In summary, a single instance of the government misleading the country and Parliament on a discrete area of policy was regarded as so significant as to require a three-year process that led to a report and a single parliamentary moment that all sides accepted was pivotal to the government’s entire future.

Today, everything that was true of government conduct highlighted by the Scott Report is also true today – but so much worse:

  • Ministers obfuscate and lie to Parliament with abandon;
  • Former ministers circulate misinformation to the public without a second thought;
  • Information is brazenly withheld from Parliament without even the pretence of national interest, precisely when parliamentarians are debating decisions that will affect the national interest for decades to come;
  • Parliamentary votes are disregarded and given little weight unless they support the government narrative;
  • Secondary legislation is being used on an industrial scale, with little if any meaningful scrutiny;
  • Factional party interests playing out shamelessly, with warring factions of the government and opposition seeking positional advantage;
  • Any honourable sense of ministerial responsibility for decision-making is abandoned.

Satisfying the unparliamentary monster that is ‘the will of the people’ has led politicians to give themselves permission to lie to voters and Parliament in order to shore up a narrative that is demonstrably untrue on pretty much every conceivable metric. In doing so, they have wrecked the proprieties that ensure functional parliamentary democracy, removing any sense of the constitutional markers by which such momentous decisions can be navigated. Perhaps the most shocking sign of how desensitised we have become to this lack of constitutional propriety is that a quick Google could replace any of the links above with a multitude of alternatives.

When you realise this is how a government acts when it has no majority, it makes you wonder about the level of contempt it would show for Parliament if it could get its own way on everything. If Brexit risks a catastrophe for our economic future, what it has done to the architecture of our democracy is even worse.

I can only imagine the speech Robin Cook would have made.

Cecil_the_lion_in__3388298b (1)In March last year, in a post entitled Arrogance and Armalites: the cruel folly of the trophy hunters, I commented on the ‘greedy, vainglorious men’ who kill some of nature’s most spectacular creatures simply because they want trophies for their dining room walls. I wrote about the Emperor and the Monarch, both deer, both killed for their antlers and so someone, somewhere, can say ‘I did that’.

The most recent example has been flying around the world on social media and in various news reports. As always, in this Internet age of digital Chinese whispers, the story changes depending which site you visit, which flash you see on a Facebook wall, which Twitter-linked story. What isn’t in doubt is that Dr Walter James Palmer, a Minnesota dentist, who is also an international big game hunter, shot and killed the most famous creature in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park: Cecil, a lion whose curiosity about people, and apparent enjoyment of their company, almost certainly played a part in his killing.

According to BBC reports, the poachers tried to remove a GPS collar that was being used to track Cecil’s movements. He was found, headless and skinned. Wounded with a crossbow bolt. Chased for forty hours. Finished with a gun.

A pathetic end to a magnificent animal that held iconic status for those who championed the cause of conservation in Zimbabwe.

Dr Palmer has done this before. The Telegraph has photographs of his previous kills:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Our understanding of the feline brain is even more limited than our understanding of dogs. Cats – small and large – are notoriously aloof. However, in terms of brain structure, they have managed to establish some interesting facts:

Within the cerebral cortex — the brain region responsible for information processing, problem-solving and perception, among other things — cats have 300 million neurons, compared with dogs’ 160 million neurons.

In recent years, various studies have begun to show just how intelligent dogs are. For instance, canines can sort objects into categories (evidence of abstract thought) and work out what people are thinking, to a degree, an ability called theory of mind.

However, there’s a significant lack of studies on feline cognition, which may have to do with the difficulty in working with cats.

That suggests that if a theory of mind can be constructed for a dog, something similar should be possible with a cat. If only they would show an interest in being around us. In being close to people.

Like Cecil.

Just as with the Emperor and the Monarch, Cecil’s fear and pain – such as it manifests in a lion (and I am well aware of the dangers of anthropomorphising) – must have been horrific. Did he drag himself through the dirt in his final hours? Did his lungs fill with blood? Did he feel his muscles weaken? Did he have a sense of safety ahead, of escape, ancient instincts propelling him forward?

Palmer is everything that most Zimbabweans aren’t. He is white, privileged and rich. He can afford to travel the world killing beautiful creatures for whatever reason motivates him: the adrenaline rush, the bragging rights, the head on his wall. He can use his wealth to leverage the greed of local poachers to identify potential trophy kills.

And Palmer is now facing a backlash. He has closed his practice. He has taken down his Facebook page. He apparently regrets the killing. One wonders, however, if he would have reached that conclusion if the worldwide public reaction hadn’t been so angry?

Humanity’s capacity for rationalising such cruel inanity is extraordinary. In 2009 the New York Times carried a report of another of Palmer’s kills. This was a tule elk. Palmer killed it with a bow and arrow. A representative of the Pope and Young Club, which describes itself as ‘one of North America’s leading bowhunting and conservation organizations’, offered the following comment:

“Of course, it is a personal achievement to harvest any big-game animal with a bow and arrow,” said Glen Hisey, the curator of the Pope and Young records program. “It is a way of honoring that animal for all time.”

Really? Establishing honour for all time requires killing?

In an era when we are discovering the pentaquark, when we are landing cameras on comets, when we are talking about planned missions to Mars, why do some men (and it is usually men) still believe they need to prove something about themselves by killing creatures who have the potential to be far more magnificent – and significant – alive? What I assume is Palmer’s antiquated sense of what is heroic is not romantic. It is not justifiable as being the last vestiges of a world glorified by Hemingway, some heroic struggle of man against beast. Just as Hemingway is our past, so is the era in which men and women cooed and ahhed at animal parts nailed to a wall. The reaction of his local community is testimony to that.

Some will accuse me of anthropomorphising, of indulging in a trite sentimentality, and say that I should ‘man up’ and not be so soft. However, it is not anthropomorphising to point out the scientific and economic impact such hunting has. Short term game from poaching and trophy hunting will translate into significant impacts on tourism if populations collapse and emblematic creatures are killed. In diminishing populations, trophy kills are yet another way of making it harder to understand the creatures we share this world with. Just as Pope and Young claim a kill immortalises an animal, so, too, can the scientific record.

Palmer is an example of the cowardice of the privileged. Having taken his kill, he is not prepared to face his own people and justify it. He returns home and, instead of being welcomed as the conquering hero, he is vilified. He doesn’t respond by putting in public appearances, explaining his motivation. Instead he hides behind a PR company and takes down his Facebook page. Hunted through the digital wilderness he is spared the physicality of the distress he inflicted on Cecil. I suspect, though, that he – and his family – will be shocked and mentally distressed at the reaction around the world.

Perversely, Palmer may have advanced the cause of those of use who oppose trophy hunting like no-one else in recent years.

The Liberal Democrat MEP Catherine Bearder has tabled a question to the European Commission calling for a ban on the importation of trophies. She has a petition running calling to reinforce that. You can sign it here.

There is clearly a very visceral public reaction to Palmer. I can’t condone the more hateful comments directed at Palmer. I have no desire to sink to his level. However, I do hope that the tide of emotion that the killing of Cecil the lion has created translates into more than a moment’s outburst. However welcome and enlightened the reaction has been, it needs to become something more substantive.

I described trophy hunting previously as exemplifying ignorance and pointless cruelty. Palmer’s actions reinforce that sentiment. Trophy hunting needs to be outlawed.

The world is poorer for the killing of Cecil.

Capture

I’ve always wanted to be in awe of the London Underground, with its complex network of services and its myriad stations that take in incredibly varied landscapes. From the ‘little boxes’ suburbia of Upminster, to the east end of West Ham, with its rejuvenated twin in Stratford, to the eerie Bladerunner majesty of Docklands and Canary Wharf, to the lush countryside of Amersham, the lines of the London Underground go to astonishingly different places.

Frankly, though, the customer experience (I don’t dare suggest we are passengers) is appalling. A single example from a single day:

I made a visit to Amersham to see family on Friday. On the way home,  I timed my journey to take a train selected specifically because it was going all the way to Aldgate. No sooner had it departed then the driver announced it would terminate at Harrow on the Hill as there was an issue at Baker Street. We were told we should board the Baker Street train at Harrow and terminate at Baker Street, picking up another train to Aldgate. We duly did so, trooping across the platform to an empty train (of course, that makes more sense than the one we are on continuing its journey). No sooner had that departed then the driver announced it would terminate at Wembley Park. We were advised to cross to the Jubilee Line (fine for those of us who could alter our routes and go south, but what about everyone else?). As we pulled in there was an empty Jubilee Line train waiting on the southbound platform. As soon as the doors open on our terminated Metropolitan Line train, the Jubilee Line train pulled out, before we could board. It left empty.

What kind of Kafka-esque service is this? Or is it run by people who really don’t give a stuff about providing a joined up service to those who pay for it? If that is my story, from a single journey, on a single day, what are the stories like of the tens of millions of other travellers through the year?

For me it was a minor inconvenience. Irritating, but I know my way around London and the Underground. For the old, the infirm, the visitor, this level of service is embarrassing and appalling.

Arbitrary changes of destination mid-journey. Unexplained halts for minutes on end. A lack of air-conditioning on many lines, with travellers becoming ill, hitting emergency buttons and so throwing travel into chaos. Appalling packing of commuters in sweltering conditions. Platform roulette, not knowing which train is leaving first.  Bored staff who resent being asked questions about destinations. No help with heavy luggage. Only now a grudging acceptance of running some lines through the night.

In any other business where we are told we are ‘customers’ we wouldn’t stand for it. If we went to the cinema and they made us change screen three times, without explanation, and the third time put us in on a totally different film, part way through, I can’t imagine any of us sitting idly by. We would be – rightly – angry that the film was not what we paid for and not up to scratch and we would seek compensation – often willingly given by cinemas keen to maintain their reputation. Yet when it comes to the tube, we simply take the crap that’s dished out as part and parcel of the package – even though the ticket can cost more than going to the cinema! We buy the tickets in advance of travelling, on the basis that they tell us that we will be able to use certain services at certain times to reach certain destinations. Yet there appears to be no mechanism to hold them to account when it doesn’t work according to the ‘offer’. We are told we are customers, but don’t behave like them – and we aren’t treated like them. Perhaps that is because we know the language is a con and that, deep down, we realise we are still passengers.

Don’t get me wrong. The London Underground is a remarkable feat of engineering. It is still an incredible mover of people. But we shouldn’t let that blind us to its embarrassing deficiencies or make us feel guilty for challenging a level of service which should not be acceptable in a rich, world-leading city like London in the twenty-first century.

%d bloggers like this: