Sunak v Starmer - yet more mediocrity

 

 

The woefulness of our own leaders’ debate pales into insignificance compared with the calamity enacted overnight in the US.  Nevertheless, here are some impressions.

Judged as a debate I felt Sunak was the overwhelming victor.  He was confident, assured, nimble and relentless as he hammered way with or without relevance on his two themes of Labours’ tax plans and Starmer’s deviousness. 

His great advantage is that he is not constrained but any adherence to the truth (In this area a humble imitation of Trump in the US and Farage at home).  To be fair, his repeated accusations that Starmer is “not straight” have some veracity.  I haven’t kept a complete record of Starmer’s policies when he campaigned for the Labour leadership, but I understand that quite a lot of them have been ditched – he is, sadly, not quite the Corbyn look-alike that he appeared at the time.

Starmer throughout looked on the back foot – worried and hesitant in making his responses.  He is hampered by a desire to keep as near as possible to the truth (or so I like to believe – he does seem a decent man rather than an opportunist, especially when compared to the like of Johnson and,Truss, though admittedly these are low bars) and a reluctance to give too much away about Labour’s policies. 

As a non-sports person I hesitate to use a football analogy, but he gives every impression of being like a team that is three goals ahead so spends the rest of the match concentrating on defence rather than further scoring glories.

The depths of the debate were, for me, the responses to a question from a young person as to what they could offer  to persuade her to remain in the country rather than emigrate.  Both leaders answered that they’d try to make it easier for her to buy a house.

No mention of creating a fair and confident society playing its full part in elimination world poverty, working hard to avoid globe heating, safeguarding minorities, providing a safe haven for asylum seekers, upholding justice and fairness at home and abroad, rehabilitating prisoners, caring for the disadvantage, providing fulfilling work and leisure opportunities,  with a spanking education system promoting art, literature, music and joy.

 Just ”shopping and . . .er. . . house ownership.” No “vision thing” at all

More "What's sauce for the goose. . . ."

 

I’m now back from my walking holiday based on Arnside, on Morecambe Bay.  On one glorious day we crossed the Bay and eventually walked into Grange over Sands, which was festooned with a riot of golden diamonds urging support for the wonderful Tim Farron.  There was no sign of any political activity whatsoever in Arnside. I was told that they had formerly been in Tim’s constituency but the Boundary Commission review had now “lumped them with Morecambe.”   The people I asked didn’t seem very pleased about it.

I am a great admirer of Tim.  He is warm, funny, a great communicator and Liberal to the core.  Unfortunately, it was difficult for him to carry out his functions as Leader because of the media’s biased and prurient obsession with his views on homosexuality and abortion No amount of explanation that these were “matters of conscience,” and that all parties recognise that such matters are outside the realm of the Party Whip could deviate them from their line. Presumably SEX in any form sells more papers and attracts more viewers and listeners than discussions serious politics.  Poor Tim’s ability to promote our party’s policies were hampered by the media’s constant probing as to whether or not he thought this that and the other aspect of private behaviour was “a sin.”

Tim’s opposite number as Tory leader at the time as Theresa May.  She is the daughter of a C of E vicar, and rarely a Monday passed without a picture up her and her lawfully-wedded husband either going into or coming out of Church appearing on the front pages. 

If her father was a conscientious vicar he wold have recited the Magnificat daily. Perhaps his daughter joined him from time to time, or sang it at a weekly Evensong.   Yet no reporter, or radio or TV interlocutor ever, to my knowledge asked her what her take was on “putting down the mighty from their seats” and “exalting e the humble and meek;” or  on “filling the hungry with good things” and “sending the rich empty away.”

Yet, these are not matters of private conscience but are basic to public policy. 

“Putting down the mighty from their seats” is about the exercise and distribution of power. “Exalting the humble and meek” exemplifies the Leveller’s view that “the poorest He hath a right to live as the richest He,” which has been part of the UK’s political philosophy since the 17^th century,  (and which today includes “Shes” as well as “Hes,” not forgetting refugees and asylum seekers.”)

 “Filling the hungry with good things” may be over-optimistic, but any government should attempt to ensure a basic minimum standard of living for all its citizens, including those who have recklessly had more than two children,  And as for “sending the rich empty away,” well, “empty” might be a bit on the cruel side, but at least we could and should confiscate the top end of their obscene wealth with some swingeing taxes.

Another example of the bias of the media (the Guardian included) is that Sir Ed Davey is one of 17 “Post Office ministers” who were allegedly in charge of it during the sub-postmaster/mistress scandal, but he is the only one who is commonly identified as such when reported on other matters.  However, he seems to be having a successful, if not exactly dignified, campaign

Sir Ed apart, the campaign so far, as reported,must surely be one of the most trivial, biased and irrelevant in our history.  It is hard to believe that we are one of the most mature and highly educated democracies in the world.  Measures to attempt to achieve a more responsible and less biased media should be high on the list of priorities for the next government.

The manifestos

 

 

I shall be away on holiday all next week (hiking, based on Arnside in the southern Lake District) so shall spend all Friday worrying about what I have/haven’t packed (it is predicted to be wet rather than sunny), so won’t have much chance to absorb whatever is in  the Labour manifesto. However I suspect it will be pretty much “the mixture as before:”  economic policy hemmed in by  parameters set by the Tories, restrained hostility towards immigrants, timidity towards Europe and no change in the political system which is demonstrably inefficient but  which they think will give them their turn at power (on average one in every three.)

The Conservative manifesto is a disgrace to a country nurtured on 15+ centuries of Judaeo-Christian teaching and the Enlightenment: an appeal to the lowest instincts of  greed and nationalism.  Shame on them.

Neither the Greens nor the Liberal Democrats are likely to form the next government so I think it would be more sensible if they would say what they will “press for” if they can influence or share in the government, rather than what they will “do.”

The Green manifesto has some glimmers of responsibility and hope. Following their priority of preserving the planet they wish to expand and repair the NHS and will impose a wealth tax to pay for it, also, remove VAT from community activities, put a limit of 20% on the maximum ownership of the media and introduce a digital Bill of Rights

 I know I am prejudiced, but I genuinely feel our Liberal Democrat manifesto is the most honest  and attractive.  It is, as far as I know the only one which promises to restore our international reputation and shoulder our international responsibility by restoring the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GDP.  I hope this will be top of the list of things we are able to “press for.”  

 We will  also abandon the cruel and probably illegal scheme to deport refugees and asylum seeker who arrived by “illegal” to Rwanda, and provide some legal means of getting here. 

On poverty we will end the two-child limit, improve the carers’ allowance and offer a partial solution to the care problem by providing free “In home “ care.”  We will try to reach “Net Zero” in 2045, five years earlier than the Tories or Labour aim and try to tackle the courts backlog (though I’m not clear how, nor how we obtain an extra 8 000 GPs, who take ten years to become fully trained.)  

 We want the voting age to be lowered to 16, (something on which  I am not keen,) but – wait for it - we would REJOIN THE SINGLE MARKET and (eventually) the EU itself.

 Tory Cabinet Minster Grant Shapps has pleaded today that we should not give Labour a “super-majority”.  Quite right too.  We shall do better than “the mixture as before” if Liberal Democrats and Greens have enough MPs to share in, or at least influence, the coming government.