Espensive manoeuvring

 In 2016 the television actress Tracy Brabin was elected as Labour MP for Batley and Spen, the constituency in which I live. (It has now been re-drawn to  become Spen Valley.).  In 2022 M/s Brabin decided she would rather be, or the Labour Party thought she had the best chance of winning the election for, the Mayor West Yorkshire.  

She did win, so resigned as our MP and was replaced after a by-election by another Labour MP, Kim Leadbeater.

The average public cost of a parliamentary by-election is just short of a quarter of a million ponds. (£228, 000 -  it varies with the number of candidates, as a large part of the cost is the Freepost to which each candidate is entitled.)  

 I thought at the time that the Labour party should have born  the public cost of this by-election. 

There was no need for it other than the internal manoeuvrings  of the Labour party.  It arose only becasue the Labour Party felt that Miss Brabin had the best chance of winning, or she preferred the job and she was prepared to break the promises she had made to the electorate of Batley and Spen if she got it.

 This argument applies to the creation of a vacancy in the Makerfield constituency  in order to give Andy Burnham an opportunity to re-enter parliament and challenge Sir Keir Starmer for his job.  

There is no need for it other than that sections of the Labour party think it would be to their advantage.  

So they should pay the public cost.

 Much more expensively, should Mr Burnham win the Makerfield seat he will have to resign as mayor of Manchester and the by-election to replace him is estimated to cost the public purse almost five million pounds (£5 000 000 - it's a very large electorate.)

I'm sure these manoeuvrings feed the public's distrust of our apolitical system.   Politicians  abuse it for what we see as their "games."  It's not just the cost, but the fact that the actors as so willing to break the promisees of devoted service they have made to their previous constituents in order to further their careers.

 And the manoeuvrings are not  always successful.

Way back in 1964 the Labour Party under Huddersfield's own Harold Wilson won the general election (with a narrow majority of four.) But their shadow foreign secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker, failed to win his seat of Smethwick after a bitter and racist Tory campaign. 

Gordon Walker was a senior Labour figure who had been expected to become foreign secretary. A "vacancy" was created  for him a a safe constituency, Leyton, by transferring the Labour winner to the Lords.

PGW fought the by-election - and lost.

The electorate didn't like being manipulated.

 Things may not have changed. 

 

How to be a better Prime Minister

 

As I start writing this (11h15 on Thursday 14^th May) no Labour MP has yet triggered a leadership contest.  Whether they do or don’t, here is some advice to Sir Keir Starmer or whoever replaces him.

Look at the careers of the five previous prime-ministers: Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, and Sunak.  They have each been crashing failures and ousted in ignominy.

 One if the reasons why is they have tried to do too much, be centre stage, and made the job an impossible one beyond the resources of one person.  (The possible exception is Johnson, who thought he didn’t need to do much, just be centre stage.)

So if there were an international crisis, there was the PM, seen to be jetting off to wherever,(we have  foreign secretary for that); a medical crisis, there’s the PM in a white coat, (we have a health secretary for that); an industrial crisis, there’s the PM adorned in hard hat and high-viz jacket (we have an industry  secretary for that); some natural tragedy, there’s the PM  dripping sympathy and assurances that the thoughts  and prayers of the nation are with the victims,(we have a royal family for that, and they do it very well.)

Let us go back to the drawing-board, in this case the Construction.

Ours is not a presidential system, but a cabinet system.  The prime minister  is not exactly the boss, but the “first among equals” (the clue is in the title). His/her job is to prioritise, encourage, cajole, warn  and , when necessary, replace his/her  colleagues.

Then set back and let them get on with the job. If they succeed they get the glory and the government gets the credit.

Certainly that seems to have been the case  in my childhood. 

The minister  who enabled me and my cohort to have a free secondary education was R A Butler.  He wasn’t even in the government when his famous 1944 Education Act was implemented.

Nye Bevan created the National Health Service which has cared for our bodies (and some minds) ever since, and is regarded by many as the Labour Party’s greatest achievement.

Manny Shinwell steered us through the infamous cold spell and resulting  energy and transport crisis of the winter of 1946/7.  ( Hardy any houses had central eating or double glazing and most were heated by one central coal fire, but coal was hard to get. You boomer and generations x, y z and whatnot, nor present day politicians, haven’t a clue what real austerity is.)

The great foreign secretary Ernest Bevin  secured us in the Atlantic Alliance and, for better or worse,  ensured we had our own atomic bomb so that he did not “go naked into the conference chamber."

 I can’t recall what Hugh Gaitskell did to come to our notice, but he was famous enough to feature in a parody Good King Wenceslaus (When old Gaitskell came  in sight, Gathering winter fu – u-  el!).

 Oh yes, and there was a prime minister.  He was Mr Attlee, quiet and self-effacing.  Later he wrote his own epitaph:

Few thought he was even a starter,

There were those who thought themselves smarter, 

But he ended P.M.

C.H. and O.M.

And an earl and a knight of the garter.

 

So, Sir Keir if you survive, and if not whoever succeeds you, please don’t rush around trying to look powerful: set priorities, sit back, pull strings and let your colleagues  bloom.

Are we now a nasty nation?

 Way back in 2002 Conservative politician Theresa May warned hge Tories  that they should be careful not to  be seen as "the nasty party,"  

Sadly , eleven years later, as Home Secretary, she was the one to hire lorries to tour areas of high immigration with posters threatening people who might not be legally here to "Go Home of Face Arrest." 

 Under May the  Home Office deliberately tied to create a Hostile Environment. "  It was officially  intended to deter those whose legal presence might be questionable, but in practice tends to create hostility towards and uncertainty within all those communities who "look a bit different."

And last Thursday 7th May 2026 the acceptability of this policy was confirmed by just about half those who took part in the election.

The combined support for  the Conservatives, who have moved even further to the right under Kemi Badenoch, and Nigel Farage's Reform party, was 47%.  This is massive compared with the raggle-taggle support of the Labour Party (15%) and the Liberal Democrats and Greens each with 14%.

The right wing massive superiority will not go unnoticed by the whichever Tory leader survives to the next general election, and the triumphant Nigel Farage.

Yet are we really so nasty as a nation?  What has happened to our much-vaunted virtues of  tolerance and belief in fair play, not to mention our Judaeo-Christian heritage? 

 The division in British  politics were ably described in an article by  Andy Beckett in the Guardian on the day before the election:

“On one side are millions of left-leaning Britons whose economic prospects are worsening, whose anxieties about climate change are rising, whose horror at Israeli and the US’s  wars is absolute, and whose alienation  from  the compromises of conventional Labour politics is deep. . . . . .

 . . . .another [is] a coalition of interests, including the right wing media, the right of Labour, the Tory party, corporate lobbyists, defenders of Israel and the Anglo-American “special relationship”, and supposedly realistic centrists from the pages of the Financial Times to the deep-state recesses of Whitehall. Protecting the status quo against the disruptive plans of the left has been one of this  loose and adaptable establishment’s  main priorities for decades, arguably for centuries.  And it has rarely been defeated in this struggle.”

One can quibble about the details (I don‘t believe all “progressive’s” economic prospects are worsening.  Some of us are very comfortably situated) but the gist, especially the summary of the forces of the establishment, has the ring of truth. 

 That right-wing coalition is now led by a charlatan whose greatest gift is persuasive communication by appealing to our lowest instincts.  He is also good a gaining financial support from those interested in maintaining their own positions financial advantage.  Not all of them may love in this country

 Form where did all the money to finance Reform's incredibly successful campaign come? 

Whether Sir Keir Starmer survives as Prime Minister or not,the Labour Government with its massive  parliamentary majority should waste no time in imposing the strictest possible rules for donations to and the financing of political parties.

 The rich and unaccountable should not be allowed to use their money to poison the electorate.

 I am reluctant to accept that we are really a nasty people - but we are easily led astray.  

The World we're in

 

“. . . .a world suffering from ‘global warming and environmental degradation,  multiple conflicts, rising military budgets,  disregard for international law and international humanitarian law, disruptions to trade, erosion of democratic governance and technological developments that are met with excitement and fear.’ ”

This quotation from a speech by Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Brazil’s ambassador to the UK, forms the opening of a full page article by the Guardian’s  diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour in last Saturday’s paper.

It seems to be a pretty god description of the world we’re in.

Wintour’s article is headlined “Hope emerges from chaos.”

It wold be foolish to expect the situation  Ambassador  Patriota depicts to influence how the UK’s citizens cast their votes on Thursday.  Perhaps it shouldn’t. 

Many retiring and aspiring councillors and Senedd and Scottish parliamentary candidates would like their electorates to vote according to the skill with which they have or are likely to organise the functions for which their councils and devolved administrations  are actually responsible for. 

However this is a forlorn hope, largely because the UK’s governance is so highly centralised that the councils and devolved administrations have little real independence and are increasingly at the beck and call of Westminster and Whitehall to carry out their masters’ wishes.

 So these local elections are inevitably a verdict  on the performance of the  present central government and an indication (however unreliable) of who might form the next one,

 Therefore  we need to think which of the now five seriously contending parties are likely to be in the best position to deal intelligently with the scenario Patriota describes.

On the basis of their present performances, probably none of the above.

 Wintour’s argument is that the post-Cold War era of US leadership has clearly failed, that we cannot expect it to adopt a more virtuous path once Trump’s wings are clipped by Democrat congressional victories in November, and  a Democrat president restores "normal service" in 2029.  

 The era of American  dominance is over. 

The sane future therefore lies in a coalition of middle-ranking powers:  Germany, France, Brazil , Australia , Canada, and others, dedicated to liberal democracy and prepared to work together in a reformed United Nations reflecting present-day realities.

The UK should be part of this.

(Wintour doesn’t say this, but I would prefer the UK to abandon the pretence of playing a “leading” role: just be a willing and effective partner.  That would be far more productive and less embarrassing than the past eighty years of playing Robin to America’s Batmen)

This will require both vision and optimism.

No single party has these, but in my view a combination of Liberals, Greens,  the less hide-bound ranks of Labour  and One-nation Tories (if there are any left) could achieve them.  Tactical voters should vote for which ever of these is the most likely to win on Thursday.

This could give a signal to the parties as to the policies they should be nurturing for our General Election  in 2029 (or sooner.)

Further reflections (while my internet access is limited)

 

More reflections while still off-line.

 

Peter Mandelson

This afternoon (written Monday 20^th April) Sir Keir Starmer  is to explain to the House of Commons he   Government’s mis-handling of the appointment of Lord (I think he’s still a lord) Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the US. 

Somewhere  in Bagehot’s famous account of the British Constitution he writes, in justification of the Monarchy, that the people “love a marriage more than a ministry.”  That is probably still true today. 

What is certainly true is that the British media much refer to titillate the public, and therefore promote their profits or viability, with a minor scandal  rather than furnish details of serious issues. 

Yes, it was probably a mistake to make Mandelson our ambassador (though the appointment was widely praised at the time,) but it is not all that important in the wider scheme of things, where people are being frightened , driven from their homes, maimed and killed, some of them with the connivance of our government, the atmosphere is being further polluted by the explosion of  bombs, and the cost of that is being provided by reductions in help  to feed people on the verge of starvation.

 

BBC

Last week the  BBC announced it is to reduce its staff by a tenth.  This is stupid. 

After the threat of nuclear war, which has now risen closer to the surface than at any time since the Cuban Crisis of 1962 (when those in charge turned out to be adult) the second greatest danger to liberal civilisation is disinformation.

Last week I caught a snatch of a Radio 4 programme which claimed that those  attempting to undermine liberal democracy do so by reducing trust in the established sources of information.  They (the Tech Bros?) are being very successful, especially via social media and by taking over the ownership of the established sources. 

 

The BBC with all its faults remains to most trusted source of information in the UK and probably the rest of the world.  As hedge funds  and possibly the Russians and Chinese aim to extend their empires it is ludicrous  to contemplate reducing the BBC’s effectiveness.  Its resources, staff and language services should be increased in order to save civilisation as we thought we knew it.

 

President Trump.

Following from the above, Mr Trump’s pronouncement on current situations, in speeches and on social media, clearly bear no relationship to reality but merely express what he wold like to be happening  rather than what is actually happening. 

I’m reminded of the final speech of Koko, the  Lord High Executioner, in the G&S Opera “The Mikado.” Koko Explains why he hasn’t actually executed the heir to the throne, though he claimed he had “with most affecting particulars.”

Viz;

“It’s like this: When your Majesty says, ‘Let a thing be done,’ it’s as good as done – practically it is done - because your majesty’s will is law.  Your Majesty says, ‘Kill a gentleman’ and a gentleman is told off to be killed.  Consequently, that gentleman is as good as dead, - practically he is dead – and if he is dead, why not say so ?”

 

Unfortunately Trump is not a character in a comic opera, but in charge of the mightiest military force and the largest treasury in the world.  We can only hope and pray that the we survive long enough for the American electorate to put the brakes on him in November.

 

Leo XIV

On which three cheers for the Pope, who in the words of our Prayer Book “continues all such good works ( or words, perhaps) as are set before him,” by saying the thigs our politicians seem freighted to say.