Any politicians who says “There is no magic money tree” is treating the electorate as children and idiots. And now Rachel Reeves is acting like a latterday snake oil saleswoman.

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 3rd April 2024)

Whenever politicians say “There is no magic money tree”, they are treating the electorate as children and idiots. And all who use this pathetic, empty phrase should forfeit the right to be regarded as serious politicians because it closes down legitimate debate on their political priorities.

The politician who most famously used the phrase was Theresa May in 2017 when attacking Jeremy Corbyn. It has subsequently been used by Rishi Sunak and, most recently, by Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner. Labour is also prone to say that the Conservatives have “maxed out the government’s credit card”, an equally stupid concept. The government does not have a credit card and government finances are not the same as those of a household, itself another simplistic and wrong concept favoured by politicians. Proof of this is that there is always money to fight wars.

The household comparison dates back to Margaret Thatcher who, as far back as the 1979 general election campaign, said: “Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country”. Running a home and running the country are not the same, but what an inspired election slogan! 

There is nothing wrong with a country borrowing for investment, even at times of financial instability. What is not right is to borrow to fund tax cuts or day-to-day spending, at least in the long term. I can think of many occasions when nations, in the wake of economic turmoil, have borrowed to fund huge public investment.  One example, in the wake of the 1929 financial crash, was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ that promoted economic recovery and put Americans back to work through Federal activism. New Federal agencies controlled agricultural production, stabilised wages and prices, and created a vast public works programme for unemployed people. 

The post-war Labour government, at a time of huge debt, made massive investment in creating the NHS, expansion of state education, the building of council housing, and so on. There was a bipartisan approach, not least in housing. During the 1950s, Churchill’s Conservative government delivered new council housing at a rate not seen before or since. Investment in public housing through subsidising the cost of building new homes pays for itself over the years, with lower rents and less public subsidy to help people meet overblown rents. The economics of investment in housing is actually very simple. Investment in bricks and mortar retains value, whereas rent subsidies do not. This bipartisan approach was broken by Margaret Thatcher who began the dismantling of the social housing sector through the politically popular but economically disastrous Right to Buy programme. 

A new bipartisan consensus in favour of financial austerity has been created following the election of the Cameron government in 2010, and Labour front benchers have meekly performed lemming impersonations by following the Conservatives (and until 2015, the Lib Dems) over the austerity cliff. Historians will look back at this era with astonishment – that the major parties were so economically short-sighted and inept that the wellbeing of the nation was sacrificed in the pursuit of power.

If, as expected, Labour forms the next government, it will have voluntarily tied its own hands by adopting Conservatives financial rules. Labour supporters are not enthused by the wooden and lacklustre Sir Keir Starmer – “Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest, the Human Bollard” as Boris Johnson called him. They are destined to be as disappointed by the failure of Labour in government as they have been appalled by the Conservative’s demolition derby antics. 

Following the 2007-08 global financial crisis, the country needed investment but got austerity. When the country needed “strong and stable Leadership” as promised by Theresa May, we had a succession of circus clowns prime ministers unable and unwilling to invest in public services or to control the privatised monopolies. Successive Conservatives promised growth but had absolutely no idea how to achieve it. Now Rachel Reeves, acting like a latterday snake oil saleswoman, promises growth but rules out investment (not least in housing), promoting a valueless and fraudulent remedy that is destined to fail.

Labour will win the forthcoming general election, not because the electorate has any high hopes that “things can only get better” (to quote the 1997 Blairite strap line) but because voters are sick to the back teeth of the chaos of Conservative ‘rule’. And when Labour inevitably fails in government, it will be responsible for a massive swing to the right, by-passing a Conservative Party in mortal decline, to Reform UK and, even more worryingly, to parties on the extreme right.

Are the Conservatives on course to lose all seats in Sussex?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 25th October 2023)

The King accepts the resignation of Liz Truss and asks Rishi Sunak to form a government

Today is the anniversary of Rishi Sunak becoming Prime Minister. Earlier in the day, the outgoing PM, Liz Truss, had been to the Palace to see the new King, just 49 days after she had flown to Balmoral where the late Queen had invited her to form a new government. Following years of tradition, the King asked Sunak, who had been elected the leader of the Conservative Party the previous day, to take over.

The Conservatives are well-versed in forming governments. After all, they have had five prime ministers in just seven years. Sunak has lasted longer than Truss, but how much longer will he survive? There are already rumours that members of the Conservative Party are submitting letters to the Chair of their backbench committee calling for a vote of no confidence in him. 

It would be understandable if a combination of their lead in the polls, and last Thursday’s two by-election results in Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth led Labour activists, MPs and the party’s leadership to believe that a Labour victory in the general election is now nailed on. They are probably right. However, the Labour leadership has had political-Botox that makes outward-showing signs of confidence impossible.

The Conservatives have dismissed the by-election results, saying that it is almost inevitable that sitting governments lose by-elections, and that there is still a year until the general election. Anything can happen between now and then.

But make no mistake, these by-election results were sensational even though Tamworth was a Labour seat until going Conservative in 2010. Mid Bedfordshire was the more remarkable result, overturning a Conservative majority of almost 25,000.

It is unlikely that Labour will hold Mid Bedfordshire come the general election. Worryingly for Labour, there was no groundswell of support for the Labour candidate. In fact, the Labour vote went down by 156 from the 2019 election. The Conservatives point to the low turnout, saying that it was their voters who just didn’t turn out and that there was no enthusiasm for Labour and its lacklustre leader, Sir Keir Starmer. A modest increase in turnout by Conservative voters next year will see it returning to its traditional blue.

Meanwhile, election-guru, Professor Sir John Curtis, points out that a failure to get your vote out is indicative of your party’s malaise. And that is certainly true for the Conservatives. Which Tory party activist in their right mind can feel any enthusiasm for the bumblings and fumblings of the current government. Like a wonky shopping trolley, they lurch from one crisis to another. 

Some in the current government make former minister Chris Grayling look vaguely competent. It was Grayling who destroyed the probation service, created chaos in the prison system, and awarded ferry contracts to a company with no ferries, a company that operates out of a harbour that cannot accommodate … ferries. Anyone would have thought Grayling was once in charge of the high-speed train initiative, HS2, that has gone over-budget by billions of Pounds and which the government is now curtailing. Wait a minute, Failing Grayling was once in charge of that, too.

The Covid enquiry is showing that we had a prime minister (Boris Johnson) who was initially disengaged. As Churchill said of the Americans, Johnson could always be relied on to do the right thing … once he had exhausted all other possibilities. He locked down too late, and unlocked too soon. He ridiculed Starmer saying that the Leader of the Opposition had wanted to cancel Christmas while he, as Prime Minister, wanted restrictions to be lifted. Yet only a few days later he had to do just what Starmer had called for. All this time he was loyally supported by his poodle Chancellor, Rishi Sunak.

And in the last week or so we learned through the enquiry that Sunak, as Chancellor, launched the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ initiative in spite of misgivings by the government’s leading scientific advisers including Professor Dame Angela McLean who dubbed him ‘Dr Death the Chancellor’. 

For just a bit of fun, Election Maps U.K. applied the Tamworth result across the country. If the swing and result there were to be applied to every constituency, Labour would have a majority of 424 seats with 537 MPs, the Lib Dem’s 46, the Conservatives 29 and others 19. On this basis the Conservatives would win no seats whatsoever in Sussex. That won’t happen, of course, but Sunak will have to pull one giant rabbit out of his magicians hat to avoid a humiliating defeat next year.

Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest Starmer defied expectations with a competent, engaging and inspiring speech. But Labour’s home ownership obsession disappoints

Over the last couple of years I have been critical of Sir Keir Starmer, not just for the absence of policy and his ultra-caution, but because of his lack of personality. I’ve said he is boring.  In fact, I have gone further.  In April I wrote that “Starmer is probably the most boring and uninspiring politician of my lifetime”.  I continued: “He teaches those parts of boredom that other politicians do not reach.”

This was too much for a mutual friend, Andrew Wealls (a former Conservative councillor in Hove) who reprimanded me: “Keir has been a close friend of mine for around 40 years. I’m fairly confident you’ve never met him, otherwise you wouldn’t repeat so frequently such disparaging remarks about him. As you know Keir and I differ politically, so feel free to criticise his politics! But repeatedly calling him boring doesn’t elevate the debate.”

Andrew was right.  I haven’t ever met Sir Keir Starmer, so I don’t know what he is like in private. However, as a commentator who is non-aligned (although left of centre) I just say how I find him. Others I speak to are less generous than me, even though they are Labour Party members and want him to be the next prime minister. 

I did laugh when Boris Johnson described Starmer as “old Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest, the human bollard.” It was actually very funny.

But today I wish to recant.  Having heard his speech at the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool, I have to say it was one of the most competent, engaging and inspiring speeches from a Labour Leader for quite some while, and perfect in the run-up to a general election.

He will have enthused his troops and will send them on their way with renewed vigour and enthusiasm. There certainly wasn’t any evidence of the old Crasharooney Snoozefest.

If this was the first major test in the long election campaign, Sir Keir passed with flying colours.

There remain a number of questions over his policies, not least the welcome commitment to build 300,000 homes per year.  1.5 million homes in the first term of a Labour government would be great. But they need to be the right sort of homes.  This is where I will take the advice of Andrew Wealls to criticise policies because Labour is priding itself on becoming the party of home ownership.  A commitment to home ownership is the recycling of failed Conservative policies.  At least Angela Rayner said that Labour will give local authorities and housing associations “stability for the long-term, so they have the confidence and security to invest in affordable, social and council housing stock.”

But Sir Keir said today that the party would “bulldoze through” a planning system that was “an obstacle to the aspirations of millions, now and in the future, who deserve the security of home ownership”, and Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “It is now beyond doubt: it is Labour that is the party of homeownership.”

What we really need is more of the Angela Raynor approach, with 300,000 council houses each year.  That is the real need.  Without that we will not begin to address the housing affordability crisis.  Home ownership won’t do that.  We also need the investment in council housing. Without it, Labour’s housing ambitions are bound to fail and that will fail the country.

The Labour Party could learn lessons from the 2016 Trump campaign

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 13th September 2023)

The recent sight of European Union flags being handed out and waved at the Last Night of the Proms was a reminder, if any was needed, that many ‘Remain’ voters have not got over the Referendum result. They were incredulous that ‘Leave’ even had any chance of success, and are still in traumatised by the result.

My advice to them is to get over it and learn lessons. The referendum wasn’t the only shock. The liberal left didn’t think for a moment that Trump could become President in 2016, nor that the charlatan Boris Johnson could become Prime Minister, let alone winning a handsome majority and capturing the ‘Red Wall’ working class north. And now complacency is setting in about the 2024 general election.

Labour will more than likely win and its lacklustre, inconsistent, U-Turning leader, Sir Keir Starmer, will become prime minister. Yes, it is more than likely but it is definitely no certainty.

Labour activists, especially in areas like Brighton and Hove where the party is riding high following the local election results, is confident that it will win all three seats. I have written before that this will depend on its choice of candidate in Brighton Pavilion. Choose well, perhaps selecting Council leader Bella Sankey, and the odds will definitely be in Labour’s favour. Choose badly, perhaps a non-local candidate, and one advantage over the Greens will be lost allowing Siân Berry a realistic chance of holding Caroline Lucas’ seat.

Labour nationally is doing a great job in dampening expectations and sucking any semblance of enthusiasm from its campaign. I squirm with embarrassment and shout at the television every time a Stepford Frontbencher is asked what Labour will do in government. They are all on message in critiquing the latest government fiasco – they have been given ample opportunities to hone their attacks.  But they lose credibility and support every time they reply with their hollowed-out, lifeless eyes and robotic answers about needing to see what the economic circumstances will be once in government. 

Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump and Steve Bannon

The Rishi Sunak shine – that he isn’t Theresa May, Boris Johnson or Liz Truss – has worn off. But don’t be fooled that there isn’t someone in the wings waiting to do a Trump. Trump’s main strategist in the run up to polling day in 2016 was Steve Bannon who has said that one of Trump’s advantages over Hillary Clinton was that he spoke in a voice that did not sound political. … Clinton spoke like the trained politician she was, that her tempo was overly practiced, and even when telling the truth, he said, she sounded like she was lying to you.

That’s exactly how I feel about many Labour frontbenchers. Perhaps those of us who identify as being on the left of British politics should be grateful that the right isn’t led by someone with the seductive brass of Johnson, the mischievous anti-politician rhetoric of Nigel Farage, and the personal appeal of Georgia Malone.

A problem for the left is that its electoral base is well-established, feeding off formulaic touchstones like the NHS, education, and LGBT and other minority rights. But that support, as we saw in 2019, is soft, with Red Wall voters flocking to Johnson’s populist appeal about getting Brexit done and getting control of our borders. Many of these voters will not return to Labour not least because the party has no credible, convincing alternatives on these and other issues that people are concerned about.

Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said that “there’s not a single hidden Hillary voter in the entire country. They’re all out and about.”  She coined the phrase “the hidden Trump voter”.  Labour has traditionally relied on what proved to be the hidden Johnson voters, ignoring their communities, turning a blind-eye to poorly performing NHS Trusts and corrupt Labour councils. They took these voters for granted, focusing instead on the politics and sensitivities of the metropolitan elites in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Brighton. 

But perhaps the worst aspect of the approach by Labour is that it doesn’t offer the hope that Blair provided in 1997 that “things can only get better.” We all know that the country is in a mess and that the economy is up a certain creek without a paddle. But by sticking to Conservative tax plans and spending restrictions, it looks as if the Labour elite is comfortable with managing the further decline of public services as long as they are in office. But without offering hope or convincing answers about what they will do, they might not make it into government.

Labour should win the next general election in spite, not because, of Sir Keir Starmer

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 12th July 2023 under the heading: ‘This is why Peter Kyle should be the Labour leader’)

Last week many of us learned a new word: ‘oracy’. Sir Keir Starmer was lecturing us at his latest yawn-a-thon on the latest of his five ‘missions’, education. Writing in the Times, he wrote that ‘an inability to articulate your thoughts fluently is a key barrier to getting on and thriving in life.’ This brings us on to ‘oracy’.

According to Wikipedia, the word ‘oracy’ was coined by Andrew Wilkinson, a British educator, in the 1960s, the purpose of which was to draw attention to the neglect of oral skills in education.

Using a word like ‘oracy’ was not a great start by Sir Keir. He chose a word that few of us use in daily repartee, and a concept that confused.  It has caused more than a little sniggering in the classroom. (“You three at the back make a fine pair”, as my Afrikaans teacher, Mr Douglas, used to say).

Oracy is not the same as ‘oratory’ which is the art of speaking in public eloquently or effectively. Sir Keir might be eloquent. He was, after all, a barrister. But as for speaking effectively …? His mission to improve education is worthy but to do so by promoting ‘oracy’, was as inspiring as watching paint dry or, perhaps, a stage of the Tour de France with no breakaways and no category 4 climbs.

Sir Keir wasn’t helped by one of the Young Labour acolytes standing behind him who visibly yawned during the Great Leader’s speech. A lesson in oracy for Sir Keir, and an early night for Young Labour members.

He also let himself down, and possibly also a member of his team, Bridget Phillipson, by referring to her as the ‘current shadow education secretary’. Does she lack the necessary oracy to get on and thrive in his shadow cabinet? She is, after all, northern.

Perhaps Phillipson doesn’t meet the required quotient of references to ‘Keir’ in answers to every question. Here’s a made-up example. Interviewer: “What do you think about this issue?”. Interviewee:  “Keir has made it very clear that he believes in A, B and C.” It is embarrassing when adult politicians refer to Dad in every answer. A danger for Labour remains that Starmer might not,  personally, be as popular as Rishi Sunak come the election, yet Sir Keir persists with a presidential style of leadership, referring, for example in his ‘Oracy’ speech to “my Labour government.”

Labour continues to ride high in the polls and even the most staunch Conservative supporters are accepting that it is all over for Sunak (who will soon be able to spend more time with his huge wealth).  But Labour’s current popularity is as much to do with the parade of incompetent leaders who the Tories have inflicted on the country: Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and now Sunak.

At least Sunak used to come across as a charming, warm man. I used to think that I wouldn’t mind having a coffee with him (we are both teetotal).  But now he has resorted to the Johnson / Trump approach of meaningless three-word policies (“Get Brexit done”; “Take back control”; “Build the Wall; and “Make America Great”). Sunak’s version includes “Stop the Boats” but still they come in record numbers.

Sunak now has a perma-rictus smile as his government haplessly lurches from one crisis to another, incapable and unwilling to tackle the problem in hand. Where have I seen such a smile before? Yes, Sir Keir has one just the same.

I wish politicians would speak ‘human’. I recently heard a long interview on Times Radio with Peter Kyle, the MP for Hove and Portslade. Now here is someone who does talk human. He is genuinely a warm and charming person. He has a quality shared with Tony Benn – when you speak to him he isn’t looking over your shoulder for someone more important.

In the interview with him on Times Radio, he spoke about his childhood, dyslexia, and returning to school as an adult. His story is inspirational. And while many parts of his storytelling may be well-rehearsed, it is, nevertheless, authentic, compelling and sincere. He doesn’t have to do what Marx said (Groucho Marx on this occasion): “Sincerity is the key to success. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

Now if Labour had someone like Peter Kyle as its leader, then not only would the party be well ahead of the Conservatives, its Leader would be miles ahead of Sunak rather than being marginally more popular (or as a recent MORI poll had it, marginally less unpopular).

Labour will almost certainly win the next election and Sir Keir will consequentially become Prime Minister. But how long will it be before it becomes all-too-apparent that the Starmer Policy Cupboard is bare, and all he has to offer is oracy and his own rictus smile?

Who will succeed Caroline Lucas as MP for Brighton Pavilion?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 14th June 2023)

Caroline Lucas has, deservedly, received fulsome praise following her decision to stand down at the next election as the Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion. She enjoys huge respect across the political spectrum and her departure will be a loss for Brighton and Hove. She will, no doubt, continue to make her mark on public debate and policy as she, as Tony Benn said when he stood down from Parliament, spends “more time devoted to politics and more freedom to do so.”

For thirteen years Caroline has been the lone standard bearer for her party in the Commons. She has twice been the Green Party’s Leader as well as being the most dedicated constituency MP.

The strengths and stature of Caroline, the Greens’ greatest asset, could now become its biggest problem. Who do they have in their ranks who can live up to her qualities. By all comparisons, whoever is chosen to stand for Brighton Pavilion, will be a poor imitation of the real thing, and likely to lose the seat.

Of course the Greens will say that they have an abundance of talent and that there are many capable, keen and available to succeed Caroline. They would say that, wouldn’t they?  The Greens locally have been blessed with a generous abundance of mediocracy, and nationwide they will be looking for talent in the shallow end of U.K. politics.

Should the Greens try to parachute someone in from outside, unless it is someone of extraordinary abilities and a well-known name, they will surely lose. And, anyway, which celebrity candidate would consider for a moment a four or five-year sentence in solitary confinement in that prison known as the House of Commons?

Had Caroline stood for re-election, she would have been re-elected albeit with a much reduced majority (as I said in this column a few weeks back). The reduced majority would be caused, in part, by the inevitable swing to Labour (notwithstanding its lacklustre and increasingly authoritarian leader, Sir Keir Starmer). There is also the Greens’ track record while in office in Brighton and Hove as well as in Scotland, and their alienation of large numbers of women and male sympathisers over their lack of support for single-sex facilities for women.

I cannot see how the Greens can hope to hold onto the seat at the general election. Attention then turns to who the Labour candidate will be. One name that has been mentioned is that of the new Leader of the Council, Bella Sankey. But Caroline’s decision to stand down at this forthcoming election has come too soon for Cllr Sankey. There is a view, which I have previously expressed and which is shared by some in the Labour Group on the City Council, that Bella must see though the commitment she has made to the people of Brighton and Hove by serving as leader for the full four-years of this administration.

There are those, new to electoral politics who, flushed by the success of having been elected for the first time, immediately stand for leadership positions and then, before being tested, seek a parliamentary seat. Notwithstanding this, I have been very impressed by Bella Sankey’s first few weeks as Leader of the Council. She has communicated well, not made unnecessary changes designed merely to consolidate her control, and has brought forward talent from both old and new councillors. In time, she will make an excellent MP, even a Minister, but the vacancy in Brighton Pavilion has come one election cycle too soon.

Another possibility to be Labour’s candidate is Nancy Platts who must be one of the unluckiest politicians of our age – standing unsuccessfully in Brighton Pavilion against Caroline Lucas in 2010, then narrowly losing out in Brighton Kemptown in 2015, before losing the leadership on the Council following the implosion of the Labour Group through no fault of her own. It would be fitting and proper if she was to become the next MP for Brighton Pavilion. 

Nancy is well-liked, has a good reputation and would make a first rate MP. However, she is probably unacceptable to Supreme Leader Starmer because of her close association with Jeremy Corbyn when he was Labour’s leader and she was his trade union liaison officer. Labour’s Achilles Heal could be the sacrifice of talent in the pursuit of ‘purity’. Nancy could be a case in point.

As for the Conservatives, hell will freeze over before they, once again, win Brighton Pavilion. Perhaps they could put up a name, a big name. It would have to be a very big name capable of defying all electoral odds.  Who knows, following his petulant resignation last Friday as the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, one Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, might soon be looking for a return to the Commons.

From a tiny acorn to a mighty oak – the political origins of Sir Michael Fabricant

There was a time in Brighton when there was something called a Conservative safe seat. How things have changed. In the 1983 local elections, the safest four Conservative seats were Rottingdean, Withdean, Patcham and Woodingdean wards. Regency ward, after Rottingdean and Withdean, was the third least likely seat to go Labour. The Liberals (as they were then known) were the challenges.

Yet two years later, Labour won a by-election for a seat on Brighton Borough Council and two weeks later, the County Council seat. The Labour candidate in that by-election was a shy and retiring type, notwithstanding him being 6 foot six inches tall and a South African. He was certainly not cut-out for electoral politics and the discipline required by an increasingly authoritarian Labour Party. He became a poll tax rebel and fell out of favour with the Kinnock regime. An attempt to expel him from the Labour Party failed so he resigned annyway and disappeared into happy political oblivion only to re-emerge years later writing this blog and the Wednesday column in the Brighton Argus!

But what is much more interesting is what happened to the Conservative candidate in the County Council election? He was comfortably beaten by Labour’s Sarah Cullen who secured a majority that I could just dream about.

He is an interesting character who you might just have come across. He was born in Rottingdean and brought up in Brighton. His father, Isaac Fabricant, was the rabbi of the Brighton and Hove Synagogue in Middle Street.  He attended Brighton Secondary Technical School and the Brighton, Hove and Sussex Grammar School, now better known as BHASVIC (Brighton, Hove & Sussex Sixth Form College).

A few years later, in 1992, he was elected to Parliament. He appeared on Celebrity First Dates in 2017 and yesterday (9th June 2023) was appointed as a Knight Batchelor in Boris Johnson’s Resignation Honours. Let’s hear it for Sir Michael Fabricant.

Will Labour once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 12th April 2023)

With Labour so far ahead in the polls, some people think it is now a dead certainty that Sir Keir Starmer will become prime minister after the 2024 General Election. The implosion of the Scottish National Party provides an opportunity for Labour to regain some of its lost seats north of the border, thereby making a Labour majority all the more likely.

But what could possibly go wrong? The Conservative prime minister in the late 1950s, Harold Macmillan, said: “Events, dear boy, events.”  And the old English proverb reminds us that “there’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip.”

Labour will be very successful in the forthcoming local elections. How could they not with a governing party that has demonstrated such dishonesty and incompetence over the last few years. But the general election is still eighteen months away.

I see three things that might trip up the Labour bandwagon. The first is making basic errors due to overconfidence.  Over this last week Labour’s attack ads against Rishi Sunak were truly appalling. What was the Labour Party thinking? They went from having the moral high ground to swimming in the sewer.  Their social media post was roundly condemned. Even the likes of Kevin Maguire, cheerleader extraordinaire in the Daily Mirror, tweeted “…take this down, @UKLabour. Gutter politics.”

Listening to party representatives on radio and television was excruciating as they defend the advert that they clearly feel uneasy about. The Party then doubled-down by releasing further ads, although none in such poor taste as the one that claimed that Rishi Sunak doesn’t believe that “adults convicted of sexually assaulting children” should go to prison. There is so much on which to attack the government’s appalling record without making up smears like this cheap slur.

It has given licence to the Conservatives, not that they need it, to attack Sir Keir Starmer’s record when he was Director of Public Prosecutions. In this week’s Sunday Times, a Conservative spokesperson said: “Since Sir Keir Starmer left the sentencing council, the average sentence for rape has increased to nearly ten years’ imprisonment, compared to eight years in 2010.  Rapists also spend more of their sentence in prison now because the government ended automatic halfway release for serious sexual and violent offenders. Of course, being a human rights barrister, Sir Keir voted against this change.” Expect more of the same.

While that might be a selective account of Starmer’s role regarding sentencing, Labour cannot now complain if the Conservatives make up more vile allegations against him.  Remember when Boris Johnson said that Starmer had spent more time prosecuting journalists and “failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile” for child sex abuse when Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service. 

The reality is that Starmer had no involvement in decision-making regarding Savile, nor has Sunak been involved in sentencing policy since 2010 given that he only became an MP in 2015, joined the cabinet in 2019, and has been prime minister for just a few months. Both Johnson’s and Labour’s allegations demean political discourse.

Labour would be well advised to follow the edict of Michelle Obama who said that “when they go low, we go high”. Labour seems to have confused going high with descending into the gutter.

The second mistake Labour could make would be to misjudge the mood of the country. I can’t imagine a Labour leader snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in quite the same spectacular fashion as Neil Kinnock did in 1992, immortalised by his triumphalism at the dreadful Sheffield rally. “Oh yeh” he kept repeating from the stage to his adoring acolytes, imagining himself to be a rockstar. “Oh no” came the response from the electorate together with a crushing defeat.

Labour is unlikely to make such a mistake again, but it might take for granted anti-Tory opinion polls as endorsement for its bland brand of politics. When it comes to deciding how to vote, people will look for a vision, something that Labour, and Starmer in particular, currently fails to convey.  

That leads on to the third thing that could derail Labour.  If the next general election is fought on a presidential basis, Rishi Sunak against Keir Starmer, Labour is likely to come unstuck. When it comes to comparisons between Starmer and Sunak, Sunak is the more attractive personality. Labour activists might not like this but Starmer is probably most boring and uninspiring politician of my lifetime. He reaches those parts of boredom that other politicians do not reach. He makes the very grey John Major resemble his father, Tom Major-Ball, who was a British music hall and circus entertainer.

Victory is there for the taking, but Labour must covey a positive vision and please withdraw and apologise for those appalling attack ads.

BBC local radio and local newspapers are essential for our democracy

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 15th February 2023)

For generations the BBC rightly enjoyed a reputation for being one of the finest broadcasters in the world. At local, national and international levels the Beeb was singled out for unbiased and objective reporting, for cutting edge drama and humour, and for its community reporting.

For those abroad, in captivity or living under repressive regimes, the BBC World Service has been a lifeline, and during the war ‘This is London” was a conduit for coded messages for resistance in Nazi-occupied countries.

But in recent times the BBC has lost its way. It has failed to respond effectively to alternative means for consuming broadcast output, such as streaming services, and consumers have a much broader range of content to choose from. When I first arrived in the U.K. in 1979 there were just three television channels, and certainly not 24-hour output from a hundred or more channels, let alone streaming services.

The iPlayer is great, allowing the viewer to watch what they want, and when to watch it. The ITV Hub, by contrast, is dreadful.

But the content on the BBC has been plagued by poor strategic commissioning decisions. In a foolhardy attempt to attract a younger audience, the BBC has ‘let go’ some familiar faces, replacing them with those with ‘youth appeal’. The result has seem a haemorrhaging of viewers and the young audience that the BBC seeks is not responding. They consume different media and not on BBC channels.

Take A Question of Sport. Viewing figures have dropped to 850,000 for the most recent season, the second since Top Gear’s Paddy McGuinness was brought in to replace the lovely Sue Barker. At its lowest point, a mere 730,000 viewers tuned into the sport panel show on 19th August, 2022, compared to four to five million when 66-year-old Barker was its host. 

The show has become an embarrassment and I have watched it just twice since McGuinness has taken over. On each occasion I switched channels after about five minutes. The humour is forced and not funny. I am not alone in abandoning what was once a popular BBC staple.

The mantra that BBC News is free and fair does not stand up to scrutiny. While it is not overtly state-controlled, it is run by those who share an education and outlook of many of our political leaders – private school and Oxbridge education. It is interesting that many of its best journalists and presenters have abandoned Auntie and are now to be found on channels such as Times Radio that, in spite of being owned by Murdoch, has more varied politics than the BBC itself.

The decline in BBC interviewing standards owes a lot to Jeremy Paxman who said that his approach to interviews was, in words he attributed to Times foreign correspondent, Louis Heren, “Why is this lying bastard lying to me.” If that is the basis of an interview, no wonder they have become so unsatisfactory. 

Of course politicians have equal liability for this decline.  Margaret Thatcher, as prime minister, was prepared to be interviewed for an hour on primetime television, answering every question thrown at her. Boris Johnson, by contrast, hid in a fridge to avoid questions from journalists. 

The BBC doesn’t always recognise the jewel it has in local radio. We are very lucky to have BBC Sussex locally. But the Corporation is shifting investment away from broadcasting to digital content. Overall the changes will result in the loss of around 48 jobs in local radio, including at BBC Sussex.  It wants more programme sharing between stations, thereby undermining what is so special about local radio – it is local.

I was always saddened that we lost BBC Radio Brighton (although I didn’t mind when it covered matters from as far afield as Hove).

The Chair of Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sports Committee, Julian Knight MP, expressed a view shared by many when he spoke at the end of 2022: “The planned cuts to programming have provoked genuine disquiet in communities up and down the country, where BBC local radio stations play a key role in providing local information that is increasingly unavailable elsewhere. 

“As a public service broadcaster, the BBC must always have an eye on its duty to offer a distinct service and the Committee will be questioning corporation bosses to make sure they have properly thought through the implications of moving towards a more regional model and concentrating on digital services. 

“Any changes must be in the best interests of listeners and licence payers.”

How can the loss of local content or a reduction in local accountability of our local political leaders, be in our best interest?

Local radio and local newspapers, such as The Argus, are essential for local communities and, for all their limitations, we would miss them if they weren’t here.

Are the Conservatives the Nasty Party and the Dodgy Party?

Rishi Sunak is said to have been so furious with Nadhim Zahawi that he had no hesitation in sacking him as the Chairman of the Conservative Party after the PM’s Ethics Advisor, Sir Laurie Magnus, wrote to Sunak on Sunday morning saying that Zahawi’s conduct had been “a serious failure to meet ministerial standards.”

The failure included Zahawi being less than forthcoming about ‘forgetting’ to pay tax totalling millions of Pounds and laving to pay a penalty to HMRC of over £1 million.  Sir Laurie said that there had been multiple occasions for Zahawi to declare the penalty paid and that there had been delays in correcting his misleading public statements. 

Even when he was sacked Zahawi blamed the media, something he had done when legitimate and, as it turned out to be, justifiable questions had been asked. There are also reports that he threatened the journalist who originally asked these questions.

Zahawi appears to have thought, like Boris Johnson before him, that it was alright to mislead the public and that the rules did not apply to him. 

There are now questions for Rishi Sunak. Did he dig deeply enough when he was first alerted to the allegations against Zahawi? Remember, at Prime Minister’s Questions on 18th January, Sunak responded to a question on Zahawi by saying that Zahawi had “already addressed this matter in full”.

Oh, no, he hadn’t Prime Minister. Which begs the question: Is the Rishi Sunak certain that his other Cabinet members have made full and frank discloses about their tax affairs, of outside interests, and other matters that are or might be seen to be conflicts of interests. Or has he just taken them at their word, as he did with the disgraced Zahawi.

This, and other occasions when it appeared that Conservative Ministers behaved as though the rules didn’t apply to them, leaves a nasty smell.

Optics in politics is almost as important as policy and competence. And when a negative impression is created, it can be very hard to turn public opinion back in your favour.

The mini-budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng created the optic of economic incompetence and bias towards the very rich. The optic that those earning over £1 million a year would have been better off by tens of thousand of Pounds, and talks of cuts in benefits for the very poorest, re-established the Conservatives as the Nasty Party.

The argument had been lost and the optic of political and economic incompetence had been created. The markets lost confidence, and the opinion polls predicted a wipe-out of Conservatives at the next general election. Truss and Kwarteng were gone within days. 

Having just rid themselves and the country of Boris Johnson, the Conservatives had unleashed on us Laurel and Hardy. What incredible poor judges of character, competence and common sense the Conservatives had become. Even Theresa May’s laughable ‘Strong and Stable’ government looked credible in the face of this shower.

And now they have given us Rishi Sunak who promised he would lead with “integrity, professionalism and accountability” in an attempt to contrast himself with his predecessors. Sacking a Minister with the benefit of hindsight doesn’t meet his standard when it was obvious to most observers that Zahawi had hardly dealt with his tax affairs with integrity, professionalism and accountability. 

Sunak can no doubt see the damaging political optics created by bullying allegations against some Ministers and the non-payment of millions in income tax by his once close political ally. Nasty Party and Dodgy Party.

Other parties delight in the shambles we have experienced. Labour continues to be buoyed by its poll lead, but poll leads come and go (although there has been something exceptional about this one). 

Some Labour activists credit Sir Keir Starmer for this resurgence. The reality is that, such has been the chaos caused by the Conservatives in recent years, today even a wooden and uninspiring leader of Labour would enjoy a very healthy poll lead. Incredibly, Labour has found in Starmer the most wooden and uninspiring leader. 

One commentator has said that all Starmer needs to do to become Prime Minister is stay alive. Hillary Clinton was well ahead in the polls and was facing a candidate with strange hair, an orange complexion, and little credibility as a serious politician. We were so excited that the USA was to have its first woman President.

People facing real hardship because of the cost-of-living crisis will be looking to Labour to offer hope that things will get better. But merely presenting your party as not being the Conservatives is not enough. 

Starmer continues to row back from the progressive policies that helped him win the Labour leadership. He needs to offer a vision of hope, backed up by a real plan.