by

Farage’s populism, the remaking of politics and the tough choice – and tremendous opportunity – for the Liberal Democrats

Tonight, we find out the results of the European Elections. Here in the UK, they will not be pretty.

Whilst we lumbered towards polling day, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party enduring daily humiliation on the national media as they alienated more and more of their base vote, Lewis Goodall spent time observing the phenomenon that is Nigel Farage and his political reincarnation as leader of the Brexit Party.

Goodall filmed his experiences, from the party’s inaugural rally and throughout the campaign, for Sky News. It makes for chilling viewing and reveals just how much our politics has changed, despite the fact that our two principal protagonists have not. He revisited his arguments in this piece for the Guardian:

Brexit now isn’t even his principal concern, its failure the mere embodiment of a wider malaise. Instead, the collapse of the Brexit process is proof of his new analysis: that British democracy does not work and does not even exist. Worse, that every organ of the state and political life, be it the parties, the media, the courts – parliamentary democracy itself – are malign and work against the interests of “the people”. Never before have we had a major political force that operates with that basic reflex.

I think he is right. This is a new politics and we ignore it at our peril.


“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

This Farage is angrier. His politics is darker.

He is conscious he has been a figure of ridicule and now he wants vengeance.

It is not a single decision around Brexit that is motivating him, but the destruction of our current politics and, along with it, the institutions that ensure a functioning liberal democracy in which debate and reflection and consideration predominate. He is aided by the catastrophic failure of the two main parties to use our democratic institutions to deal with the consequences of the 2016 referendum.

Those of us who know Farage to be a liar, who call out his hypocrisy, his abuse of public funds and his complicity in the breaking of electoral law, simply reinforce his victimhood narrative of betrayal.

We would say that, wouldn’t we? After all, aren’t we are part of the establishment that has failed to deliver Brexit and that has betrayed democracy?

Think about the origins of this new politics.

The 2016 referendum forced a binary choice on people. It demanded people pick a side. What was not properly understood at the time by Remain, yet exploited brilliantly by Leave, was how that choice could serve as a summary of political grievance. Neither group is homogeneous and yet that experience has created a more durable identity than traditional party loyalties.


“A man who is used to acting in one way never changes; he must come to ruin when the times, in changing, no longer are in harmony with his ways.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

On reflection, this should come as no surprise to us.

Our institutions of representative democracy are designed for iterative decision-making. For compromise. They are not designed to service the implementation of an advisory referendum as some bastardised version of direct democracy.

In 2015, David Cameron’s Conservative Party traded a long history of mastering the politics of pragmatism for short-term fixes to appease its own internal Euro-theological insurgency. As a consequence, it now risks schism, unable to contain its once-broad church in a single political entity.

The Labour Party has a similarly potentially catastrophic faultline, between Brexit-inclined socialists and pragmatic, internationalist social democrats, both claiming the heritage of a rich and diverse Labour movement as their own.

The divisions in both parties have been driven by their respective leaderships attempting to address the results of the 2016 referendum, conscious that Leave ‘won’, and terrified of alienating those Leave supporters for whom their new identity is a better shorthand for their politics than their traditional party loyalties. Our existing party duopoly is proving unable to adapt on its own terms to the brutality of this new politics of identity and, simultaneously, maintain a steady political course using the traditional levers of democracy.

Amid this collapse in confidence and the resultant vacuum of leadership, the Brexit Party has arrived.

In six short weeks, it has capitalised on the inertia of the main political parties, advancing an identity politics that is powerful enough to attract support despite the myriad accusations that, if true, should be more damning of the political hypocrisy of Farage and friends than even of Boris or McDonnell.

Do not think this is just luck or happenstance. It is a deliberate play to capture the political mainstream.

Think about Sam Holloway’s brilliant investigation of the Brexit Party’s candidates on Medium. Or think about Byline’s forensic examination of Farage’s PayPal finances, even before considering the friendly £450,000 bung from Aaron Banks.

Surely anyone alarmed at the state of our democracy would run a mile from such charlatans. And yet, those who see their political identity wrapped up in Brexit, and specifically the ‘betrayal’ of Leave, can subordinate any such critical reflection to enthusiasm for an entity that encapsulates their identity in a new political force that is single-minded and invigorated with ruthless organisation, money and American-style campaign techniques.

Remainers complain about Farage’s airtime. I know I have. In truth, though, he has been on the battlefield, whereas May and Corbyn left it. Remain voices are fragmented and spread across smaller parties and locked inside – but apart from the leadership of – the Conservatives and Labour. His rallies, his talk of flags, of betrayal, all fuelling a betrayal myth and a sense of victimhood that gives permission to his supporters to shout ‘traitor’, should terrify us with its implications. He is marrying an old narrative to new techniques taken from Trump and Italy’s Five Star Movement.

And we should not be surprised that politics is now so much about identity.

So many of the causes we, as liberals, have championed have been based on self-expression, on providing space for people – rightly – to be who they wish, love who they wish, and act how they wish. That has provided space for others who feel their own identity threatened to congregate behind those who, in the end, are crooks, liars and hypocrites looking for a political opportunity to exploit. They have been offered a more appealing story, one that resonates with their sense of identity, and whilst we might hate it, that story is succeeding where ours is failing.

Crucially, the narrative Farage is creating is based on negatives that need not be proved and cannot be disproved: he is not justifying what has been done, he is pointing out what hasn’t and turning that into a simple and powerful political message.

Where does this culture war between two political identities lead?

It could lead to the replacement of the Conservative Party by Farage’s Brexit Party, or its fundamental remoulding in its image. Neither are edifying prospects. The Conservative leadership candidates seem almost wholly seized of the need to tack towards the winds on which Farage sails, pitching themselves according to their preferred constituency of interest, but not challenging the course. What will that leave them to say to their Remain voters, who are inevitably younger and politically agile?

For Labour, in some ways the situation is worse.

Deputy Leader Tom Watson fears a wipe out if they cannot agree on a People’s Vote. But this is no longer about process or, ultimately, even Brexit. It is about what Brexit represents, for our nation’s future, our children’s prospects, and the kind of politics we want to characterise our country. It is not just their failure to commit to a People’s Vote that risks consigning Labour to the sidelines, and ultimately to history, it is Labour’s failure to commit to Remain, to continue to deny that this is a very different political battle, where its protagonists cannot rely on the weight of historical forces, but must harness the energy and anger of now.

So, there has to be a strong chance that one side in this culture war will be represented by either the Brexit Party or a Conservative Party that eventually adapts in an isolationist, nationalistic direction to survive. At the same time, Labour, obsessed with process, and riven by conflicts over ideological purity versus pragmatic politics, its factions determined to prove they are the genuine torchbearer of the Labour movement even at the risk of even greater disconnect with a tired and angry electorate, could find itself increasingly distrusted, irrelevant and incapable of representing the other.

Naturally, both Labour and the Conservatives will take their lessons from tonight’s results.

McDonnell began expectation management on Sophie Ridge this morning, acknowledging they were going to take a drubbing but that their approach was the right one, of appealing to both sides. That is to misunderstand the unpleasant dynamic of this political battle. It is a conflict between two different world views. One must prevail before healing and reconciliation can begin. To pretend it is not there is to patronise and disrespect an electorate that cares so much about it that voters are prepared to abandon long-held political identities to give voice to their view.

The Conservatives, similarly, have been managing expectations, talking up the possibility of being wiped out in these elections. Theresa May having failed to introduce the politics of compromise to a charged and binary debate, the Tories are now embroiled in a leadership contest which will see them tugged further and further to the right, desperate not to cede the mantle of Union Jack patriotism and the language of national self-determination to the cyan arrows of the Brexit Party.


“All courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it’s impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively. Make mistakes of ambition and not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do bold things, not the strength to suffer.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Whatever the results prove to be, Liberal Democrats – and our new leader, whoever that is – face a very difficult choice.

Our politics eschews the dangerous fundamentalism of identity, whilst at the same time respecting the individual and the role of community. We want to see a coming together, just at a point when our politics has been framed as its most divisive. We prefer the rational politics of discussion, negotiation and compromise to a language that uses the metaphors of conflict.

Despite my own instincts, I am coming around to the view that we need to accept this new framing and not fight it, not in the short term. Instead, if Labour and the Conservatives are so paralysed by their inability to manage the complex competing interests within, the Liberal Democrats must articulate the counter narrative in a simple way, whatever the devastating effect on the traditional structure of our party politics.

The fact that our historic bases of support have been destroyed is possibly – and ironically – our greatest asset. We cannot rest on our laurels. They are being remade, in the local elections and the European elections, in a fundamentally different way – not geographic, not rural or urban, but amongst those who see Remain as a better expression of their political values. Where there is latent support, in parts of the country that retain a historic loyalty, it should bolster our reinvention, not define it.

Corbyn’s analysis of Brexit is wrong. In a speech before the European Elections he said:

“Some people seem to look at the issue the wrong way round – they seem to think the first question is leave or remain, as if that is an end in itself. I think they’re wrong. The first question is what kind of society do we want to be?”

 People are not stupid. They have already asked themselves that question.

They have listened to politicians of all parties and they have chosen the box that most accurately summarises their political identity. The Conservative and Labour leaderships have accepted the result of the 2016 referendum unquestioningly. They have seen Brexit (whatever that is) as a political destiny that must be fulfilled whatever the cost, whatever the challenge. Then, in their failure to make clear offers to the 94% who have adopted the labels of Leave and Remain, they have reaffirmed those labels as more reliable political identities.  

Of course, some have since reconsidered and feel they were lied to, or that the conduct since has been disrespectful to the result, so they have moved from one box into the other. But those boxes are there and remain strong – and perhaps even stronger than the way in which people previously shorthanded their politics.

Corbyn’s mistake is to believe he can simply disregard the choices people have made and appeal above their heads in a way that enables him to ignore the deep divisions in his own party and hope to move the agenda on. He cannot. Because in doing so, he is not listening to and respecting the views of people who are defining themselves by labels that represent fundamentally different outlooks on the sort of country and world they wish to live in.

If the Liberal Democrats want to break open those boxes, as our fundamental philosophical values dictate, if we want to bring our country together, to return to a more rational and liberal public discourse, we need to put ourselves in a position to drive that change.

That means not fighting the next General Election as if it is the previous one, as we sometimes do. It means not re-fighting the 2016 referendum. And it means not fighting the General Election we would like to fight, on a platform of complex, positive messages that seek compromise and healing, if that does not address the way voters see themselves.

It means fighting the next election for the election it is almost certain to be, on the appalling battlefield of binary identity politics. It means completing our transformation into being the ruthless opposition to Farage and becoming the point of congregation for all those whose values are best summarised by the identity of Remain. It means looking to the same techniques as those adopted by the Five Star Movement and even Trump, at least in terms of how to propagate a message and organise to win, if not content.

In doing so, it means working within a political framework that reinforces binary politics. A House of Commons that services a government and opposition, not a fragmentation on either side. A media that, schooled in such parliamentary politics, struggles with anything more complicated than a discussion between ‘for’ and ‘against’ without resorting to crass and inadequate vox pops.

‘Bollocks to Brexit’ is an encouraging start.

Some have decried it as vulgar, a contribution to the coarsening of our politics. However, it is everything that statement stands for that matters. Its adoption by people who would not normally use such language, but who fear a world that is positive, internationalist, respects and protects the institutions of liberal democracy, is determined to combat climate change, is intergenerationally fair, and thrives on technological innovation and small-scale entrepreneurship rather than corporate behemoths, is under serious threat.

Our challenge will be ensuring that, in leading with such a sharp edge, the messaging head does not become detached from the body of values behind. We should never resort to the lies of Farage. We should also show a measure of respect for the supporters of our opponents that we can expect not to be returned.

However, it also means prosecuting the case on behalf of those millions of people who believe in a positive, open future for Britain without apology or equivocation, confidently, and knowing that the only way to rebuild our political system is to use this moment to own it and subvert it.

We need to harness the anger and fear of Remain to drive a positive vision of the United Kingdom, that tells an exciting story about who we are. A story that, ironically, is more in touch with our historic values than anything offered by Farage and that might just signpost a way to a kinder, gentler politics.

by

Beautiful #Cornwall

Cornwall has long been my bolt hole from the world, where I come to switch off. I find myself back here for the second time in a week, spending this glorious Easter weekend with family.

One of my favourite pastimes here is walking the coast. There is a particular stretch I must have walked a hundred times over the years, between Portreath and Godrevy. Since my family moved to Illogan, I have turned it into a round walk, from the top of Park Bottom, through Tehidy Woods to the coast, past Hell’s Mouth and on to Godrevy Point, then back to Portreath.

I’ve yet to to do the full round walk on this trip, and might not, but I have made the trip to Godrevy and Hell’s Mouth a couple of times. Here are some photos from my walks over the last couple of weeks, including the seals basking on the beach. I’ve also thrown in a few of Holywell Bay that I only discovered, shamefully, last week.

Cornwall has also inspired a lot of writing, too. This is a piece from a few years ago that was inspired by a walk very similar to those I have enjoyed these past weeks.

A Cornish Walk

They sold ale here long ago, 

To miners and travellers,

This ancient kiddleywink

Maintaining a vigil over

The crossroad hedges.

I take a winding lane past

A slope of straggle-eared

Wheat, through a dark

Cathedral tunnel of oak,

Beech and elm, past the

Mining way where weary

Cousin Jacks once walked,

Dreaming of New World

Lives an ocean’s sail away.

On, then, down Green Lane,

Where golden corn meets

Blue water meets bluer sky,

To the cliffs that loom

Above the sand and rocks

That story-boarded my

Childhood adventures of

Wreckers and pirates,

And above the tunnels from

Caves to twisty cottages

Cradled in the granite.

On to the moor, high

Above the beaches

Where revenue men

Fought smugglers for kegs

Of rum and gin, and crates

Of tea and tobacco from

Magical lands, where shaggy

Ponies chew the grass and

Watch those passing by

With lazy curiosity.

Further on, sheep, beyond

The dips and climbs that

Drain lungs and legs

And test the heart, 

Smile furtively, before

Shuffling slowly cross the 

Meadow, a late August’s

Morning sun beating down

On wool-laden backs.

And by the crumbling path’s

Edge, a scent of low tide,

Of salt-crusted grass and

Fresh sea breezes, lifts

Me out of my thoughts

And causes me to smile:

Pleasure in such simplicity.

By the roadside Café  I

Pause, tea and frozen

Orange to slake a thirst, and

I think back on the years

I have walked these paths,

The company kept from 

Time to time, though,

Ruefully, I acknowledge,

More often alone than not.

And as I strike out on the

Final miles, I pass the vicious

Maw where once a foundered

Trawler’s bell tolled its haunting

Requiem for those that

Drowned one stormy night,

But, where rust and waves

Have silenced even that

Lonely memorial, all that

Remains are the memories

Of those of us that knew.

Through fields of cattle and

Over stiles, and on and on,

I climb the final headland

Until a gleaming jewel, 

The island lighthouse, presents

My exhausted journey’s end. 

Satisfied, I make my rest and

Wonder: why this walk, year

After year? Why this stretch

Of coast above all others?

Why the peace from so much

Toil? Is it just the promise of

The sea’s refreshing churn?

No matter why, I smile, and

Close my eyes to dream a while.

by

If the Remain parties won’t collaborate, Remainers will have to work around them to send a clear message on #Brexit

The growing clamour for Remain parties to work together to maximise the number of Remain MEPs elected in any European elections is almost too late. The Greens and The Independent Group, preparing to stand candidates as Change UK – The Independent Group, have already rejected approaches from the Liberal Democrats for such an alliance.

Why is cooperation so important?

Voting in the European elections is conducted under the D’Hondt system. If you are looking for a good primer on how it works, the European Parliament’s Liaison Office in the United Kingdom has one here.

It is a broadly proportionate system, but it is not truly proportionate. It favours broad coalitions of small parties at the expense of small parties standing as single entities.

I have no idea why the Greens and Change UK have rejected working together. Perhaps it is out of a cynical determination to preserve party identity or perhaps it is because they don’t understand that this election doesn’t confer the benefits of a preferential voting system like the Single Transferable Vote, where every vote really does count.

In the end, it doesn’t matter.

The Electoral Commission deadlines for establishing a formal electoral arrangement have passed. The Greens and Change UK are refusing to cooperate informally to maximise the number of Remain MEPs elected.

Pause here for a moment to think about the sudden and meteoric rise of the Brexit Party.

The reason they are in such an electorally strong position is that they can treat any European election as a further referendum. They have their message in their branding. They have a capable, populist leader who has achieved success in previous European elections. And, as is apparent from recent polls, they are basically an electoral coalition. They are harvesting disaffected Tories, embarrassed former UKIPers, probably some Labour #Lexiters, and even those on the left, like George Galloway.

So, what is the answer for Remainers?

Well, if sending a message on Brexit is truly the priority for Remainers, and if they can stomach electing Remain MEPs above their traditional party loyalties, one option would be for Remain voters to ruthlessly game D’Hondt and go around the bickering parties.

When you go to the polling station, you will be given the opportunity to place one ‘X’ next to the party you want to win. You do not get to vote for the individual parties’ candidates (the only candidates you can vote for are independents without party affiliation). You do not get to offer a preference. You cannot put more than one ‘X’, even if, for example, you want to support both Change UK and the Greens, as you will spoil your ballot paper.

Your ballot paper will look something like this:

The only way to maximise the number of Remain MEPs is to ensure that Remainers vote for the strongest Remain party in each region – and only that party – to avoid splitting the vote and ending up in situation where, potentially, none get elected.

So how could we do this?

  1. Decide who the Remain parties are. My view is that Remainers should abandon Labour. They are negotiating to facilitate a disastrous Tory Brexit. Despite Labour’s Remain membership, leading spokespeople like Barry Gardiner insist they are not a party of remaining in the EU. If this election is about sending a message, Remainers must be ruthless in designating Remain parties, in just the same way that Leavers are ruthlessly abandoning the Tories for the Brexit Party. Unless Labour takes a pro-Remain position, and offers unequivocal support for a further referendum, Remainers should not put their ‘X’ by Labour. That means we are looking – in England – at the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Change UK, who are working with Renew. (I accept others will make the case to include Labour and perhaps Labour is included in regions where clear Remain Labour candidates top the lists, strengthening the case for facilitating candidate sign-ups to a Remain banner – see below.)
  2. Create an authoritative Remain banner that candidates from these parties can sign up to. We can’t rely on organisations like the People’s Vote campaign or Best for Britain to do this, as they will be restricted on how they can campaign in any European elections. But it needs to become an authoritative stamp of Remain credentials. This should be a clear commitment to a People’s Vote and campaigning to remain in the EU.
  3. Provide an easy and visual way, via a website, that shows two things: a.) who the Remain parties and candidates are in each region; and b.) how those parties are polling in each region. The latter polling point is crucial. It needs to aggregate and interpret the very best and most recent regional polling data to give the clearest view as to which party is leading in each European Election region. When it comes to election day, the party at the head of the Remain queue in each region is the one that Remainers should vote for, whichever party it is. You abandon your party loyalties, hold your nose and vote Remain.
  4. Create a mechanism on the website for individuals to vote match, so they can find solidarity with someone in a different region who is voting for someone they wouldn’t ordinarily (e.g. a Green voter voting for a Lib Dem) and a way to say why. This doesn’t have the same effect as tactical vote-matching in a First Past the Post election, but is about creating a sense of movement, of solidarity across party lines to deliver the message.

This is only one idea. It is fraught with complications.

Can Remainers organise quickly and effectively enough? Can they get a single, authoritative banner together that will encourage candidates to sign-up and drive competition amongst the parties to push up their campaigning and polling and become the lead party in a region? Will Remainers really abandon their party loyalties and vote for parties they may resent over issues like Coalition?

But the truth is, in the absence of parties working together to establish lead Remain parties in each region, Remainers need creative solutions to force an outcome on them and present a serious, UK-wide Remain challenge to the Brexit Party’s simple, hard-hitting Leave position.

And quick.

by

Shami Chakrabarti was once a fierce defender of the people – now she’s just the chief protector of Brexit | The Independent

Questioned on a people’s vote on Radio 4, she sounded weak and evasive, unable to address the chasm between her Labour members’ support for a people’s vote and her leader’s resistance to it

This article was written for The Independent and first appeared on Thursday 4 April 2019.

by

A cliff-side Secret Garden in magical #Cornwall

This past Tuesday, along with assorted family, I had the privilege of seeing The Secret Garden at the Minack Theatre.

For those who don’t know it, the Minack (from the Cornish meynek meaning ‘rocky place’) must be one of the most dramatic performance venues in the United Kingdom, perhaps the world. Built on a rocky outcrop at Porthcurno, the theatre sits on top of granite cliffs with a sweeping view of the Atlantic, its stage open to the elements. Constructed rock by rock by Rowena Cade and her gardener to accommodate local village players, the theatre’s first performance was The Tempest in 1932.

I realised the last time I had been was 1995, to see The Questors perform Denise Deegan’s Daisy Pulls It Off. On that occasion, we sat there with black bin bags on our head eating a huge Spanish omelette made by our friend Victor, who spoke very little English. Quite what he made of these barely audible schoolgirls pranking each other in the rain, we never found out, but it was surely a very English summer experience.

By contrast, this visit was in stunning sunshine, the kind of April day that teases with the possibility of long hot summer days to come. The site has been considerably developed over the last couple of decades, with a little complex of shops and a cafe. If they were there twenty-four years ago, I certainly don’t recall them.

Jessica Swale’s adaptation of the Frances Hodgson Burnett classic is a superbly paced and good-humoured romp, the energy of the cast, young and old, matched by wonderful, inventive puppetry. Although manipulated by humans, the animals, particularly the fox, are beguiling and the movements uncannily lifelike.

This was the first performance. The younger cast members divide into two teams, Foxglove and Bluebell, for different shows and it was Foxglove for the premiere. Perhaps the standout performance for me was Alina Hulse, whose portrayal of Martha, one of the nurses, was simply superb. She had all the assured presence of an actor twice her age – learning after the show that she was just twelve (my sister, who is an artist and also involved in Cornish theatre knew a number of the cast and the puppet makers). Credit, too, to Juliet Colclough (Mary Lennox), Roisin Bermingham (Dickon) and Harry Ladd-Carr (Colin Craven), for drawing us into the magic of The Secret Garden.

Seeing shows like this takes me back to the 1980s and Basildon’s Towngate Theatre and the shows we did with the English National Opera and the Basildon Youth Theatre.

Perhaps I should have stuck with acting.

by

Celebrating art and gaming – #Overwatch #cosplay

My guilty pleasure is Overwatch, the fast-paced shooter in which you take control of a hero with a range of abilities and work with your five teammates to secure an objective. In the process, you defeat an enemy team drawn from the same hero pool.

The game has been so successful that it has become professionalised, with the worldwide Overwatch League providing a focus for those players who have turned gaming into a career. Others, like Jayne and Emongg, make livings as coaches and streamers on platforms such YouTube and Twitch, showing off their prowess and advising the rest of us how to improve. They have loyal followings of tens of thousands.

What makes it exciting, is that the medium allows playing fans to engage directly with people they come to admire. Last night, two of my regular hunting crew, Xgod and Lokajosvea, one in Denmark and one in Sweden, were coached by Jayne, from Canada, watched by me, in the UK. For them, it was like an actor and Star Wars fan getting to rehearse with Mark Hamill or Harrison Ford.

Games like this inspire all sorts of creativity, from memes to animations to fan fiction. One expression of such inventiveness is cosplay, with France winning the most recent official Overwatch Cosplay Battle.

My attention though was caught by Irina Meier and Team Russia, the winner of the Community Favourite. They built a full mech suit for D.Va, the hero that I main when we play competitively, that Irina could climb inside.

There are some truly brilliant creatives associated with the gaming industry. The inventiveness and sheer artistic talent of all those involved is worth taking time to appreciate.

by

The public, @BBCPolitics and #Brexit – a simple prescription for more informed coverage

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.

by

Inspiration from the #FridaysForFuture #ClimateStrike #youthstrike4climate

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

by

Time for honesty in the #Brexit debate: no deal Brexit, revocation or a #PeoplesVote

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.

by

Truth and lies in public life

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.