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.

The Return of David Cameron to Sunak’s Government of the Walking Dead

When in trouble, to whom does a Conservative prime minister turn? An old Etonian and Oxford graduate, of course. Enter right, the Rt Hon Lord Cameron, previously David Cameron, the new Foreign Secretary.

There are two issues: is it acceptable to have a Foreign Secretary who is a member of the House of Lords, and is it right to have Cameron himself?

As for Cameron, he said his biggest regret is Brexit. “Chaos, mayhem, despondency: my work here is done” might well have been his message as he stood down as Prime Minister in 2016. He failed to take responsibility of his handiwork. He just walked away having created the greatest crisis in recent memory.

Is there anyone more despised from both left and right? Remainers blame him for calling the referendum. Leavers despise him for campaigning against Leave and for not seeing through the will of the people.  From my perspective, he was the architect, along with George Osborne, of the most vicious programme of austerity, for undermining the NHS and the welfare state, and for his reckless foreign policy, such as the west’s intervention in Libya. 

He remains an arch Remainer. How can he hope to enjoy the confidence of even his own backbenchers.  Recently he criticised Sunak for abandoning HS2 (one of Cameron’s vanity projects).  His appointment is just another indication of the walking dead nature of the Sunak government.

Can and should a member of the Lords be Foreign Secretary? I am relaxed on this. In fact there might be some merit in having our Foreign Secretary who is not being distracted by constituency work and having to campaign to hold his or her seat at elections. Their focus, especially at a time like this, should be totally on the international situation.

But how can a Lord be held accountable by the House of Commons? Current rules don’t allow it. I am pleased that the Speaker has asked for advice on this. The rules that currently forbid it can and must be changed. If the Commons is too stuck up its own sense of its own historical precedence that it cannot make a minor operational change to allow the Foreign Secretary to appear before it, then the House itself will be to blame.

A Foreign Secretary in the Lords? Not a problem. It’s been done before in recent times (Lord Carrington). David Cameron? Oh my goodness!

Today’s increase in alcohol duty is welcomed but David Cameron’s failure to act will have caused unnecessary deaths

Today a new alcohol duty system and an increase in alcohol duty has been introduced.  This is very welcomed news.  From today alcohol duty is based on the strength of drinks.  Duty (tax) has been increased in line with inflation.

An increase in alcohol duty is recommended by the World Health Authority and, according to the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, is one of the most effective ways to reduce alcohol harm, mitigate pressure on the NHS and improve the economy.

Dr Katherine Severi, the Chief Executive of the Institute of Alcohol Studies said that cuts and freezes to alcohol duty has cost the public purse over £8 billion over the past ten years.  She said: “With alcohol deaths at their highest level on record, now is more important than ever to focus on improving health by tackling cheap alcohol.  It is high time the alcohol industry started paying its way towards the cost of alcohol harm.”

I wrote a column for the Brighton Argus in 2017 in which I quoted the Foundation for Liver Research which had found that there had been a 17% increase in liver-related hospital admissions since 2010/11, and that alcohol-related liver disease was accounting for 60% of all liver disease and 84% of liver-related deaths.

I have long advocated for a minimum unit cost of 50p. It would save 3,393 lives a year and reduce alcohol-related problems by £9.7 billion a year  (2017 estimates).

David Cameron, when he first became prime minister, said that he supported a minimum unit price only to do a U-turn when lobbied by the alcohol industry.

Today’s increase in alcohol duty is welcomed but David Cameron’s failure to act will have caused unnecessary deaths

I have always regarded Tony Blair’s legacy as being Iraq which cost hundreds of thousand lives.  One of Cameron’s enduring legacies is the increase in alcohol-related deaths.

Why the Green Party’s Sian Berry is almost certainly not going to hold Brighton Pavilion at the next general election

Sian Berry

---

A number of Green activists and members have challenged what I said in my Argus column this week regarding the selection of Sian Berry as the candidate who will try to defend Caroline Lucas’s seat at the next election. In response to my observation that Labour must be welcoming the choice of a candidate from London, one who is very committed to the two elected positions she holds as a local Camden councillor and as a London Assembly Member, they have pointed out that Caroline was, herself, from outside Brighton (notwithstanding she was already an elected representative for our area in the European Parliament and was already known locally).

I write this as someone who has voted for Caroline in three of the last four elections and advocated tactical voting for her in 2010 in my now demised Brighton Politics Blog.

The situation in the run-up to the next general election could not be more different from the conditions that this existed in the run-up to the 2010 election when Caroline was first elected.

In 2010, Labour was flagging in the polls, it looked tired in government, and there was an appetite for change. Gordon Brown appeared indecisive and worn out. By contrast, David Cameron looked fresh and full of ideas. Today Labour is riding high in the polls, notwithstanding its lacklustre leader, Sir Keir Starmer. In 2010, the Greens locally were in the ascendancy, primed to take control of Brighton and Hove City Council at the 2011 local elections.

When Caroline first won the seat in 2010, it was with a small majority of just 1,252 over Labour’s Nancy Platts. Over the course of the next three elections, as her profile, reputation and personal vote grew, she saw her majorities increase in each election: 7,967 in 2015; 14,699 in 2017; and 19,940 in 2019. In many cases, people voted for Caroline in spite of her being the Green Party candidate. Take 2015. The Greens lost their control of the Council to Labour, but Caroline saw her majority increase by more than 600%.

Going into the next election, the Greens will have lost its star performer who is being replaced by an outsider. Labour is well-ahead in the polls. The Conservatives are doomed. There is once again an appetite for change nationally but, this time, from the Conservatives to, frankly, anyone who isn’t a Conservative. The Greens are coming off an electoral hiding in the local elections in Brighton and Hove. There is nothing to suggest that they are doing anything to recover from this cataclysmic result.

The Greens poor record on defending single-sex facilities, and Sian Berry’s uncompromising personal views on this, has alienated some people who would otherwise have been natural Green supporters.

There are two factors in Labour’s control that might just give the Greens an inkling of hope. The first is the choice of the Labour candidate. The Party has been slow off the mark in selecting its candidate, surprising really as Brighton Pavilion is one of its key targets, not least to rid itself of these upstarts, as party activists see the Greens. It needs to select a sensible, local candidate. Choose badly and it might let the Greens back in.

The second factor is the performance of the Great Leader, Sir Keir Starmer. His U-turns and general uninspiring manner could yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. My column in next Wednesday’s Brighton Argus will look at Labour’s dismal national leadership.

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?

The Royal Mail: unreliable, overpriced and getting even more expensive

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 8th March 2023)

The day before the Coronation of King Charles III on May 6th, the price of a first class stamp is set to increase by 15p to £1.10, while second class stamps will rise by 7p to 75p.

£1.10 to post a letter! It would be one thing if the postal system hadn’t become totally inefficient, a shadow of its former self. At home we sometimes go days without a delivery and then we get fifteen items in one go. 

The selling off of the Royal Mail was said to be the one privatisation that not even Margaret Thatcher dared to do. But the Postal Services Act 2011, introduced by the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition, allowed a majority of the shares in Royal Mail to be floated on the London Stock Exchange in 2013. 

The initial share price was set at 330p but it rose 38% on the very first day of trading. The sell-off had clearly been undervalued. Six months later, the share price was up 58%, and peaked 87% higher than the initial share price.

The Lib Dem, Vince Cable, who was the Business Secretary responsible for the privatisation, defended the low sale price, and said at the House of Commons Business Committee in late April 2014: “We don’t apologise for it and we don’t regret it.”

Cable was rewarded by being appointed a Knight Batchelor in David Cameron’s 2015 Dissolution Honours for ‘political and public service’.  

The Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Select Committee reported in July 2014 “that the Government met its objectives in terms of delivering a privatised Royal Mail … However, it is not clear whether value for money was achieved and whether Ministers obtained the appropriate return to the taxpayer … it appears that the taxpayer has missed out on significant value.”

Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers’ Union, didn’t pull his punches: “The BIS select committee’s damning report … shows the extent of the government’s incompetence in the privatisation of Royal Mail.”

Having failed the taxpayers so abysmally, George Osborne sold the government’s remaining shares in 2015, ending 499 years of state ownership. 

So what do we have today as a result of the Conservative / Lib Dem privatisation of the Royal Mail? A run-down, underperforming privatised service that over-charges and under-performs.

But it wasn’t always so. Back in the 1980s, when I was a councillor, I received a call from a constituent early one morning regarding an issue in her street. I immediately wrote to the relevant council department, and on my way to work at 7.45am, popped a copy of the letter in the post to my constituent.  It was delivered just before 12 noon that same day.

In those days we had several collections each day, a local sorting office in North Road, and two, yes, two, deliveries daily.

Royal Mail was a public service that we could be proud of and on which we could rely.

I worked for a few years on the Christmas post at the North Street sorting office, some nights sorting letters, sometimes parcels. I particularly enjoyed sorting parcels, standing in the middle of a large metal frame with post bags hanging down, each bag a designated destination. Some bags were beyond reach so I was able to practice my precision throwing, an exercise that taught me that marking something ‘Fragile’ afforded the parcel little protection.

The legacy of widespread privatisation has left us with polluted rivers and coasts, railways that are expensive and incapable of keeping to a basic timetable, and energy companies profiteering while people freeze, to mention but a few. 

Some people have become uber-rich thanks to privatisation. Perhaps Sir Vincent Cable’s knighthood should have been for services to the rich. The privatisation of the Royal Mail was but one example of the enabling role that the Liberal Democrats played in facilitating the dismantling of the welfare state.

It reminds me of the joke about a man who, during the Coalition government of 2010 to 2015, went into the Lib Dem bookshop and asked for a copy of the party’s 2010 manifesto. “I’m sorry,” he was told, “we’ve sold out.” “I know that,” the customer replied, “but could I have a copy of the manifesto?”

So we now face stamps costing £1.10. This will contribute to a further undermining of the U.K. postal system, allowing the institutional owners to further profiteer by selling off properties like the North Street sorting office, citing a further decline in demand.

But if you think our postal system is poor, try the South African post. Last November I posted a Christmas card to my brother, Simon, and his family in Cape Town. It arrived on 8th February. I assured Simon that it wasn’t a case of inefficient postal systems.  Rather, my 2023 Christmas Card had arrived ten months early!

My Political Predictions for 2023: The Return of Joker Johnson?

(This item first appeared in my Argus column on 4th January 2023)

Had I been writing this column a year ago, I could not have come close to predicting the year we have had: three prime ministers, and four chancellors. The passing of The Queen was not a surprise although it would have been unseemly to have predicted it.

I would have predicted a rather mundane year in politics. The previous few years had seen turmoil following the Brexit vote, the resignation of David Cameron, the promise of ‘strong and stable’ government by the ever-increasingly weak and feeble Theresa May, and the elevation of Joker Johnson to the office of prime minister. His 80 seat majority at the election in December 2019 should have ensured a period of relative calm and even stable government for the next five years.

Harold MacMillan, when asked by a journalist to identify the greatest challenge to his administration, sagely replied: “Events, my dear boy, events.” Had Johnson been asked what he saw as his greatest challenge, he might have waffled about learning from the conspiracy led by Gaius Cassius, Decimus and Brutus in 44 BC, before ruffling his hair and referencing the Ides of March.

What Johnson might have identified was ‘events’ and his tendency to self-implode. The event was the onset of Covid-19. While his remaining cheerleaders continue to say he got all the big decisions right, he did so (to paraphrase Churchill’s view of the Americans) having exhausted all the other possibilities. Through his delays and lack of focus, especially in the early months, many more people died than might have had we had a serious prime minister.

Boris Johnson’s greatest weakness was, and remains, Boris Johnson. As Prime Minister his ability to self-implode could no longer be covered up by his self-deprecating humour, his outright denials and his shameless lying.

He rapidly became such a liability that his own party, including so-called Red Wall MPs who owed their election to the Clown at Number 10, turned on him. His humiliating downfall was as rapid as his ascension to the top job.

His parting words at his last Prime Minister’s Questions was: “Hasta la vista, baby.” Oh, how everyone laughed. The joker to the end, baby. But it wasn’t Arnold Schwarzenegger‘s Terminator 2 reference to ‘baby’ that we should note. It was what went before: Hasta la vista / See you later.

Johnson still has unfinished business. He has had a lifelong ambition to be prime minister, and to lose it, as he sees it, so unfairly and so prematurely, means that a return should not be written off. The fact that he seriously contemplated another run for the top job when Liz Truss resigned, shows the depth of his arrogance, even his delusion. 

So what will happen in 2023. The Conservatives are on course for a Poll Tax-scale defeat in May’s local elections. Parliamentary by-elections, even in the safest Conservative-held seats, will be lost. Rishi Sunak, who was chosen by the Conservative faithful because he isn’t Liz Truss and he isn’t Boris Johnson, will find his party divided against him. I predict that he will be gone by the end of 2023 or early 2024, to be replaced in the run-up to the general election by one Boris Johnson. Hasta la vista, baby, as he said.

And in the United States, don’t bet against the return of the other Blonde Bombshell, Donald J Trump. I wonder what odds you could get that in 2024 there will be, once again, a Prime Minister Johnson and a President Trump. What a nightmare scenario.

Locally, I predict that Labour will form the administration in Brighton and Hove following this May’s local elections. I would even suggest that the party will have an overall majority, even if it does have to rely on the casting vote of the Mayor-elect, Jackie O’Quinn.

It has happened before, in 1986, when another Jackie, Jackie Lythell, became the Mayor of the old Brighton Borough Council when Labour had overall control of the Council thanks to her casting vote. 

The scale of Labour’s win in the recent Wish Ward by-election defied most people’s expectations. While by-elections are not reliable pointers to what happens in normal elections, there were some worrying indicators for both the Conservatives and the Greens. Wish is a ward which has had two very active, high profile and respected Conservative councillors, but their candidate was well-and-truly hammered by Labour who polled double their votes. 

At any other point in the last twelve years, the Greens might have challenged for this seat, but they came a distant third. Some Green supporters may have ‘lent’ their votes to Labour, but such is its dominance in the polls, Labour will be looking to pick up many more votes, and seats, from the hapless Green administration in the city, and thereby gain control of the Council.

The candidate for the Tory Party leadership that Labour must most fear

I imagine that after last night’s Conservative Party leadership debate, Conservative members must be split into two groups. The first are those who are tribal within the tribe, asking themselves which candidate ticks the most boxes of narrow Conservative agendas, regardless of how this might play with the general public. 

The fact that only one candidate, Tom Tugendhat, without using weasel words, said that Boris Johnson was dishonest. The failure of the others to do so should disqualify all of them from becoming prime minister if they have such poor judgement of character or being so disingenuous. Other than the foolish four, the world, their brother, their sister, mother and father, even their dog, know that Johnson has been dishonest for much of his adult life.

And then there was the absence of anything coherent or meaningful about the cost-of-living crisis, about housing, about many other matters that impact on ordinary people. This should be great news for the Labour Party if Labour was able to present itself as anything but dull, dull, dull.

The second group are those looking for a clean break from the recent past. But they are likely to be disappointed for the reasons set out above. This group, wishing for a Conservative victory at the next election, must be so relieved that a desk sergeant in Durham decided that Sir Kier Starmer was not to be fined and, therefore, has not had to resign. The Labour leader, having modelled himself as being straightforward and honest, upholding the law and regulations, a polar opposite to Johnson, has lost his purpose.  Against most of the five leadership contenders, he looks grey and boring because for the simple reason that he is grey and boring.

It is a shame that Kemi Badenoch and Tugendhat are unlikely to make it through to the final two, a shame for the simple reason that they are more interesting than the others. (Yes, even Tugendhat. Has it been mentioned that he was once in the army …?). Can you imagine if Liz Truss was to prevail and, in a couple of years time, was in an election debate with Starmer? It would be dull upon dull, the ultimate no-score draw where the three members of the public who continue watching the debate longer than the opening exchanges, agree that the best performance was by anyone who wasn’t in the debate.

After last night, Penny Mordaunt has gone from being top of the poll of young Conservatives to second bottom. Her flip-flopping on the trans issue will have alienated both sides of this debate – those who liked her for her pro-self-identification position and those who thinking she has merely bought a day-return ticket to the opposite view. She looked stiff and was, frankly, along with Truss, the least impressive performer on the night.

That leaves Rishi Sunak, Labour’s best hope when it comes to the next election. Sunak was largely untroubled during the debate other than by his pathetic answer about Johnson’s honesty and the challenge from Tugendhat that he was only increasing National Insurance because the “the boss” had told him to. As David Cameron said of Gordon Brown: “Weak, weak, weak”. 

Sunak is the opposite of being the unity candidate in this race. Half the party will loathe him because of the national insurance rise, half the party will loathe him because he betrayed Johnson. As for the third half …. such are the divisions within the Conservative Party! This is why Sunak is Labour’s best hope.

The line being spun this morning is that Badenoch will be an excellent candidate in the 2028 election, that it is too early for her.  This makes me think that she might just edge her way forward to become the second of the two candidates who go before the Tory Party membership, along with Sunak. And who knows what might happen then. A Badenoch prime minister must be the nightmare scenario for Labour.

Brighton and Hove can be the most close-minded and intolerant of places

(This item was first published on 22nd June 2022 in my ‘Brighton and Beyond’ column in the Brighton Argus)

Two years ago today (22nd June 2020) there was a brief letter in The Times from someone called Alan Hawkes: “Sir, There were several articles in Saturday’s comment section (June 20) with which I profoundly disagreed. Keep up the good work”.

In this age, when merely questioning perceived orthodoxy can result in people losing their jobs, being no platformed and being ‘cancelled’, the sentiment in Alan Hawkes’ letter was most refreshing.

Brighton and Hove, in spite of its reputation for tolerance and inclusivity, can be the most close-minded and intolerant of places, where people are hesitant to say what they actually believe for fear of being ‘cancelled’.

Bari Weiss was, for a short while, a columnist on the New York Times but resigned because of the growth of the ‘cancel-culture’ of a growing number of journalists and others working for that paper. In her resignation letter she wrote: “A new consensus has emerged . . . that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

During the European referendum there was next to nobody on the left in Brighton who would admit that they were going to vote Leave. I was amongst the ‘next to nobody’. What shocked me was the reaction I received when I mentioned to friends and colleagues that I was merely considering a Leave vote. The self-righteous indignation was shocking. Just a couple of people asked me why, but generally I was met with reactions ranging from mild surprise to a few people refusing to talk to me about it.  

“How does it feel getting into bed with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farrage?” I was asked. “About the same as getting into bed with David Cameron and George Osborn,” was my reply, adding, “but that isn’t a constructive political argument.”

I was actually undecided about how to vote right up to the day of the referendum. I could have gone either way. I had long been persuaded by Tony Benn’s argument that the European Union was un-democratic and anti-socialist.  I would go further. I think the European Union, as an institution, is anti-democratic, corrupt and anti-socialist. 

I am an internationalist and believe in the importance of international institutions. If I believed that the EU could be reformed I would have voted Remain. But the Treaty of Lisbon makes that almost impossible.

I didn’t vote ‘Brexit’, nor do I wish to be associated with the xenophobia of Farrage or the incompetence of those who failed so miserably in negotiating Britain’s exit. I never believed the lies about the “oven-ready agreement”, no border in the Irish Sea, £350 million a week for the NHS, or that trade deals would be the easiest thing to agree. 

By contrast, Project Fear and other claims of Remain, along with an almost delusional belief in all things EU, were equally unconvincing, and are one reason why Labour lost in 2019, and may continue to lose support in former rock-solid Labour areas of the north.

Sometimes when I have mentioned that I voted Leave others have confided in me that they, too, had voted Leave but didn’t want others to know, such is the fear of being ostracised by the Brighton version of Bari Weiss’s ‘enlightened few’.

The period we are living through is characterised, in Brighton as much as anywhere, by intolerance, specifically an intolerance of original thinking and dissenting views. The ‘enlightened few’ need to realise that the silent majority isn’t listening and, if they are, they are being alienated by the uncompromising certainty of the enlightened few about all things.

The age of Twitter has contributed to a new level of intolerance. It is so easy to retweet what you agree with, follow those who reinforce what you think, and block anyone whose views do not conform with your version of the truth.

This is the opposite of Thought Leadership in which you share your best understanding and welcoming views that challenge and develop your thinking. I have, on occasions, blogged on one day and, following feedback, changed my mind in a post the next day. The worst that can happen from robust debate is that you improve your thinking.

Political debate today is so poor and subject to the absence of Thought Leadership where whatever the Leader says is regarded by acolytes as the undisputed truth, no matter how obvious it is that the Prime Minister is lying or the Leader of the Opposition is going back on his word. All this is now being ‘costed in’ to political fallout. How utterly depressing, and it makes for a poorer democracy.

Meanwhile, to everyone who fundamentally disagrees with some of what I write … keep up the good work.

Brighton is in danger of getting a reputation for being a closed-minded, intolerant city

A year ago today (22nd June 2020) there was this letter in The Times from someone called Alan Hawkes: “Sir, There were several articles in Saturday’s comment section (June 20) with which I profoundly disagreed. Keep up the good work”.

In this age when merely questioning perceived orthodoxy can result in people losing their jobs, being no platformed and being ‘cancelled’, the sentiment in Alan Hawkes’ letter is most refreshing.

Brighton and Hove, in spite of its reputation for tolerance and inclusivity, can be the most close-minded and intolerant of places where people are hesitant to say what they actually believe for fear of being ‘silenced’. 

Bari Weiss was for a short while a columnist on the New York Times but resigned because of the growth of ‘cancel-culture’ of a growing number of journalists and others working for that paper. In her resignation letter she wrote: “A new consensus has emerged . . . that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

During the European referendum there was next to nobody on the left in Brighton who would admit that they were going to vote Leave. I was amongst the ‘next to nobody’. What shocked me was the reaction I received when I mentioned to friends and colleagues that I was merely considering a Leave vote. The self-righteous indignation was shocking. One or two asked me why, but generally I was met with reactions ranging from mild surprise to a few people refusing to talk to me about it.  “How does it feel getting into bed with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farrage?” I was asked. “About as distasteful as you getting into bed with David Cameron and George Osborn,” was my reply, adding, “but that isn’t a valid political argument.”

I was actually undecided about how to vote right up to the day of the referendum. I could have gone either way. I had long been persuaded by Tony Benn’s argument that the European Union was un-democratic and anti-socialist.  I would go further. I think the European Union as an institution is anti-democratic, corrupt and anti-socialist. I am an internationalist and believe in the importance of international institutions. If I believed that the EU could be reformed I would have voted Remain. But the Treaty of Lisbon makes that impossible.

I didn’t vote ‘Brexit’, nor do I wish to be associated with the xenophobia of Farrage or the incompetence of those who failed so miserably in negotiating Britain’s exit. I never believed the lies about the “oven-ready agreement”, £350 million a week for the NHS, or that trade deals would be the easiest thing to agree. By contrast, Project Fear and other claims of Remain, along with an almost delusional belief in all things EU were equally unconvincing, and are one reason why Labour lost, and will continue to lose, in former rock-solid Labour areas of the north.

Sometimes when I have mentioned that I voted Leave others have confided in me that they, too, had voted Leave but didn’t want others to know, such is the fear of being ostracised by the Brighton version of Bari Weiss’s ‘enlightened few’.

The period we are living through is characterised, in Brighton as much as anywhere, by intolerance, specifically an intolerance of original thinking and dissenting views. The ‘enlightened few’ need to realise that the silent majority isn’t listening and, if they are, are being alienated by your unreasonable certainty about all things.

Happy Alan Hawkes Day!