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.

Amongst today’s politicians, there isn’t a single one who is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Nelson Mandela

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 29th November 2023)

Next Tuesday is the tenth anniversary of the death of Nelson Mandela. Today he is one of the most recognisable people on the planet, even a decade after his death.  Yet in the sixties and early seventies, Mandela had become invisible in South Africa and throughout the world.

He had been in prison since 1963 and for most of that time his image was banned in South Africa. In fact, displaying any image of Mandela carried a prison sentence. He could not be quoted in public and for the majority of white South Africans, he was out of sight and out of mind. For the first seventeen years of his incarceration he was held in a prison on Robben Island, six miles off the coast of Cape Town. 

When growing up in Cape Town, I had no particular view of Mandela.  I had heard his name but knew little, if anything, about him.  When my friends and I cycled to Cape Town Docks, we were aware of the high security berth where the ‘terrorists’ were taken from the mainland to Robben Island, and that Mandela was one of them.  That area now forms part of the Waterfront, a mecca for tourists and rich South Africans alike.

From my bedroom window I could see Robben Island in the distance out to sea. But it wasn’t until I arrived in England that I first saw a photograph of Mandela – an old black and white photo taken many years before. Today I have on my wall a large ANC election poster from 1994, dominated by the warm, smiling face of Mandela who we had been told in the bad old days of apartheid, wanted to drive all white people into the sea. Archbishop Desmond Tutu used to quip: “How can we drive you into the sea when you don’t even allow us on to the beaches?” Under apartheid the best beaches were reserved for white people only.

In the nineteen sixties, seventies and eighties, few would have predicted that a peaceful transition would be achieved, from apartheid to democracy, nor that a single individual, long out of public view, serving a life sentence for acts of terrorism, would be the catalyst for this monumental change. Many people tend to forget that Mandela did, indeed, lead the arm struggle, and was responsible for planting bombs. Margaret Thatcher is alleged to have described Mandela as “that grubby little terrorist”. But, as they say, one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another person’s freedom fighter.

The world now rightly regards him one of the greatest figures of the modern era, and pays homage to him for his dignity, his courage, and his willingness to forgive. Yet it is worth remembering he had his shortcomings, and today’s corrupt ANC government is also part of his legacy.

A true monument to Mandela, himself without an ounce of corruption, is to build on the legacy of the Rainbow Nation, by routing out the corruption that is endemic throughout the new ruling class in South Africa, and which is holding back the cause of fairness and freedom.

We need the likes of Nelson Mandela today in many parts of the world, not least in Israel and Palestine, someone who can reach across historic divides, of painful, violent histories, who can be a catalyst for peace.

In spite of the above, I have always been uncomfortable at how people have co-opted the image of Mandela to demonstrate their own virtues. It was always easy for progressives in the U.K. to oppose the abomination of apartheid from six thousand miles away, yet turn a blind eye to injustice and oppression closer to home. 

When Mandela addressed a combined session of the British Parliament, there was not a single dissenting voice amongst the MPs and Lords present. They basked in being in his presence.  Yet many had not lifted a finger in his support when it did not suit their interests and prejudices. Today, too, many of our leaders fail to deal with the injustices in our own society, like homelessness, poverty and violence. They might say the right thing, but words (unlike under apartheid) come cheap. The Conservatives have destroyed much of the welfare state, while a likely Labour government will fail to act because they want to be seen as being fiscally responsible. 

If political leaders in this country had a tiny fraction of the courage and determination of Nelson Mandela, then great things could be achieved. But amongst them there isn’t a single one who is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as him.

The terrible cycle of violence upon violence, killings upon killings continues in Israel and Gaza

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 18th October 2023)

The appalling terrorist attacks on men, women and children in southern Israel a week last Saturday, followed by the unfolding humanitarian crisis, and the killing of men, women and children in northern Gaza, almost defy words.

But there are words. ‘Terrorism’ is just one, a word that the BBC shamefully refuses to use when describing the attacks and murders on 7th October. The Israeli military have now been ordered by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to flatten Gaza City, at a terrible human cost. 

And so the terrible cycle continues: violence upon violence, killings upon killings. 

Opposing flags from counter demonstrations in Brighton in 2014

The trauma and grief of those impacted by the killings and the loss of loved ones, Israeli and Palestinian alike, is heartbreaking. A dead child is a dead child whether they are Israeli or Palestinian. The grief and trauma of mourning family members should unite both Israeli and Palestinian.  

I witnessed firsthand such trauma back in 1978 when living in Grahamstown in South Africa. Amongst others with whom I shared accommodation was a young white man from what was then called Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. He was studying at the local university.  His entire family had been killed in an ambush in the so-called ‘bush war’. During university holidays he would return home to do a tour with the Rhodesian army.

Each evening he would come into our lounge to watch the television news from the apartheid-controlled South African Broadcasting Corporation. A standard item was always the situation in Rhodesia. There would be reference to the number of ‘terrorists’ killed that day. He would invariably say, with a face hardened by loss: “Not enough of the bastards.”

He and I had opposing views on the liberation struggle in his homeland. In this case, one person’s terrorist was another person’s freedom fighter. Yet both sides in that conflict, as in every conflict, committed atrocities. Nevertheless, I rejoiced when black-majority rule was achieved in what became Zimbabwe. And now I grieve as much for how corruption has destroyed that country along with the hopes and aspirations of its people. So, too, in the country of my birth, South Africa, where once again a noble liberation struggle, led by one of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century, Nelson Mandela, brought about majority rule before corruption and incompetence destroyed the people’s hopes and aspirations.

Margaret Thatcher is reported to have referred to Mandela as “that grubby little terrorist.” Yes, he led the armed struggle which was responsible for acts of terrorism that led to civilian deaths, but today he is seen, quite rightly, as a freedom fighter and a great liberator. He won the Nobel Peace Prize alongside his apartheid-era opponent, FW de Klerk.

Similarly in Northern Ireland, there were terrorists and there were those opposing them, depending on one’s outlook, and there were occupiers and the occupied. The cycle of sectarian killings seemed unstoppable. The government banned the sound of the voices of those representing Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA. We had the ludicrous situation where actors lip-synced the words of people like Gerry Adams.

I was heavily criticised, along with three other Labour councillors, when we invited Gerry Adams to visit Brighton following the Grand Hotel bombing. Such was the hypocrisy of the time that while we were in the eye of a storm, Julian Amery, when the then Conservative MP for Brighton Pavilion, met the leaders of the IRA for talks, he received no criticism at all.

But can the ceaseless cycle of killings in Israel and Palestine come to an end? Who had foreseen the end of the bush war in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the peaceful transition to democracy in South Africa, or the end to the so-called Troubles in Northern Ireland? But they happened. The outcomes may not be the Utopia we had hoped to see. Compromise on all sides was required. And yes, peace settlements are often fragile and flawed, but the cycle of killings has largely ended.

It is in the interests of ordinary people of Israel and Palestine that some form of peace settlement must be negotiated. What I wonder is: who are the leaders who are big enough to come to the negotiating table?  Leaders on all sides, or internationally, are certainly showing few signs of wanting to stop the violence. I’m not suggesting an equivalence of blame and culpability for recent atrocities and events, but if the starting point is apportioning blame and culpability for the overall conflict, the chances of peace will be as far away as ever.

Whatever happens, as with my former Rhodesian housemate, the grief, trauma, bitterness and anger of ordinary people will remain as real as ever.

Labour and the Greens should have known better than to allow Ed Miliband and Caroline Lucas anywhere near Russell Brand

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 27th September 2023)

Many years ago when I was working for BHT Sussex, we were approached by a prominent public figure with the offer of a generous donation. The individual was trying to rehabilitate his reputation following a public scandal and was, apparently, offering public donations to a range of charities. Because of our distaste for his prior actions (which were not illegal) and because of the reputational damage that we felt we would have experienced had the donation been accepted, we declined it even though the money would have been very helpful.

As a result of that and other experiences, I was always wary of going down the celebrity route for fundraising. One never knew what skeletons were in closets and many charities have been damaged by the fall from grace of one of their celebrity supporters. Just think of those charities who unknowingly, in some cases knowingly, worked with serial sex offenders like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris.

Political parties are equally culpable when aligned with characters whose personal lives and public pronouncements have left much to be desired. The Conservatives shamefully allowed Kenny Everett to make wholly inappropriate ‘jokes’ about bombing Russia and kicking away Michael Foot’s walking stick. Savile was close to Margaret Thatcher and was knighted by her.

In the United States the Clintons and Barack Obama were close to the serial sex offender, Harvey Weinstein. Questions have been asked as to why they were so blind – some suggest wilfully blind – to his true character for so long. Was it his generous support for their election campaigns? Bill Clinton was further damaged by his association with another serial sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Prince Andrew’s reputation, too, is in tatters because of his relationship with Epstein and his inept and ludicrous attempt to justify this friendship.

In the last couple of weeks some politicians must be feeling very uncomfortable about their association with Russell Brand.  Ed Miliband, for example, then leader of the Labour Party, went out of his way to be interviewed by Brand in the run up to the 2015 general election.

Even Caroline Lucas looked delighted in a video on Brand’s social media channel to be endorsed by before the 2015 election.  She looked less comfortable during the preceding interview as Brand invaded her personal space.

By then there were rumours about Brand. A few days after Brand met with Miliband and Lucas, his ex-partner, Jordan Martin, described Brand as a misogynist who had abused her. But even before that, Brand was well-known for his tasteless humour and sexual conduct. For example, in 2008 he made that infamous and totally abusive prank call to Andrew Sachs (Manuel in Fawlty Towers) saying that he had had sex with his granddaughter.  Brand was sacked by the BBC afterwards. 

Both Labour and the Greens should have known better than to allow Ed Miliband and Caroline Lucas anywhere near Brand. I don’t believe for a moment that Caroline would have gone within a hundred miles of Brand had she been aware of these latest allegations, but her party doesn’t have a great reputation when it comes to confronting sexual offenders amongst its ranks. Look at its inaction over Green Party member, David Challenor, who was allowed to act as an election agent, not once but twice, even though the Party knew he had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and sexually abusing a 10-year old. He was subsequently convicted and jailed for 22 years.

Others who should have known better, had promoted Brand over the years, these same years when he had been open in his television and stage ‘acts’ about his abuse and humiliation of women for his personal gratification. In a 2007 radio interview with Savile, Brand said he wanted to meet him and offered to bring along his female assistant, naked. 

But still he was promoted becoming the guest editor of an edition of the New Statesman and, for a number of years, a columnist for The Guardian. George Monbiot, a darling of the British left, nominated Brand as his “hero of the year” in 2014, saying “Brand’s openness about his flaws makes him a good leader, and allows those who admire him to be good followers.”

Maya Angelou said: “When people show you who they are, believe them.” 

One wonders what it is about ‘celebrities’ like Russell Brand that allows principled politicians like Miliband, Lucas and Monbiot to associate themselves with his ilk. While it gives them a momentary boost amongst a certain cohort, it diminishes their politics in the long term. They would have been well-advised to keep their distance and not become “good followers”.

(Note: The final paragraph was omitted from the version that appeared in The Argus)

By tomorrow night the people will have spoken in the local elections

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 3rd May 2023)

“The people have spoken,” is a common statement from politicians after an election whether they have just won or lost. One unsuccessful American politician completed the saying: “I just wish they hadn’t spoken so darn loudly.”

The local elections are tomorrow and while it is a day when we elect our new representatives, it also marks the end of the terms of office for many.  A large number of councillors in Brighton and Hove have decided not to seek re-election, while others will be defeated and will hear just how loudly the people can speak.

Being voted out of office is not all bad. I can speak from personal experience. I lost my seat on Brighton Borough Council in the 1987 election shortly before Margaret Thatcher was elected for a third term. At that time there were elections in Brighton every year with a third of the council up for re-election – a much healthier state of affairs as it kept councillors on their toes. There was a swing against Labour in every area in Brighton except one, my seat, where I secured a small favourable swing compared to the result in 1986 when we had also lost. I lost my seat to a Conservative, the formidable Edna Preece-Smith who was one of the best known characters and community activists in the area.

With hindsight, losing my seat was one of the best things that could have happened to me. Councillors tend to get drawn into an unhealthy universe where every parochial matter within the council and their political group becomes a matter of ultimate importance. They think that everyone will have the same fascination with the most irrelevant minutiae. The dynamics of one’s political group and of the council can become all-consuming. 

I have written before about a condition called ‘councilloritis’, a phrase coined by an old friend Chris Stanley, which impacts on ordinary, decent people when they are elected as councillors. They develop a sense of their own self-importance and become delusional about the relative importance of things and of themselves. 

By 1987 I had a real bad case of councilloritis.  So losing my seat was very good for me. I had been Labour’s Chief Whip, chaired a couple of minor committees, and was Vice Chair of Planning. Having been involved at such an intense level within the Labour Group and consulted on all the important issues of the day, I was now irrelevant.  After the people had spoken, I heard absolutely nothing from my former colleagues other than a formal ‘thank you’ for the contribution I had made. No councillor, other than my future wife, Jean Calder (who had been elected as a councillor on the day I lost my seat), asked how I was doing. I was even blanked by councillors who just a few weeks earlier would have courted me in case I could help them with the next move in their glorious careers.

So losing my seat gave me a healthy dose of reality and a sense of values that were important, values that I had, in part, forsaken. Jean is one of the very few councillors I have known who seems to have had a natural immunity to councilloritis. 

Losing my seat also came at a good time professionally. It enabled me to apply, successfully, for my first management position at Brighton Housing Trust, a more fulfilling role than being a councillor.

Tomorrow some people whose lives and identity evolve around being a councillor will lose it all. The have little ‘hinterland’. I have seen some people left bereft and rudderless for months, if not years, after being voted out. They can end up becoming bitter and angry.

But spare a thought for those who have served the city and their local communities as councillors. It is a role that often goes without thanks, and councillors can be on the receiving end of criticism (some justified), and even abuse.

But serving one’s community is a huge honour, and one is in a privileged position to shape the future of the city.

I would like to acknowledge the service of Mary Mears whose time as a councillor has been cut short through illness. She was a councillor for over twenty years and had been its leader. Mary was Deputy Mayor for two years. But for Covid, she would have become Mayor in 2021, marking the completion of a remarkable journey, from working on a fruit and veg stall in the Open Market to becoming the First Citizen of the City. Ill-health meant that this honour and recognition was cruelly snatched from her.

I would like to thank all councillors who have served us over the last four years, particularly those who are standing down and those who will taste defeat. Your service is greatly appreciated.

The BBC was well and truly played by the government over Gary Lineker

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

I can’t help but think that there is more than enough hypocrisy doing the rounds following a tweet regarding immigration from the former footballer and BBC television sports presenter, Gary Lineker. 

Last Wednesday Lineker tweeted: “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”

There are any number of issues arising out of this, but I will focus on just three – the use of language, BBC hypocrisy, and the role of government.

Lineker is absolutely correct in saying that the language “… is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” Home Secretary Suella Braverman, has used the word ‘invasion’ to make a party-political point. For example, in Parliament (31st October 2022), she said: “The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion on our southern coast and which is not.”

The word ‘invasion’ was used in 1930s Germany to describe immigration. Just three examples: September 1933, Goebbels referred to the entry of foreign workers into Germany as an “invasion” that would lead to the displacement of German workers; September 1935, Hitler referred to the entry of foreigners into Germany as an “invasion”; and January 1939, Hitler referred to Germany as “facing an invasion” of Jews.

The BBC’s decision to get Lineker to ‘step back’ from presenting Match of the Day last Saturday was a massive own goal which the Director General, Tim Davie, must be bitterly regretting. He has been well and truly played by the government whereas he should have ensured that the BBC remained impartial on this matter. In this he has failed the BBC and his future must, as a result, be questioned.

The BBC has for many years allowed freelancers, like Lineker, to express controversial views. Back in the days of Margaret Thatcher, one of the BBC’s star performers, Kenny Everett, appeared at a Tory Party conference and said: “Let’s bomb Russia – let’s kick Michael Foot’s stick away!”  Michael Foot was at the time the Leader of the Labour Party. 

Jimmy Saville

Serial paedophile and a favourite of Thatcher, Jimmy Saville, was photographed wearing a ‘Vote Conservative’ t-shirt. Both he and Everett were allowed to continue on the BBC without hindrance.

Jeremy Clarkson, who presented the BBC’s Top Gear programme, said that striking public sector workers should be shot dead “in front of their families”. He continued to present Top Gear for a further five years.

Lord Sugar, tweeted in 2019: “I seriously back @BorisJohnson to be the new PM. The public like him and he will have a good chance of winning the general election in 2021 if not before. Anyone who can stop @jeremycorbyn from becoming PM has my backing.” He continues to present The Apprentice on BBC1.

In responding to a complaint about a tweet from politics presenter, Andrew Neil, the BBC Complaints unit defended him, saying: “Andrew is a freelancer and his Twitter account is a personal one – the BBC is not responsible for its content. … When carrying out his responsibilities for the BBC, he always adheres to the same rules of impartiality as all other presenters.” Lineker is a freelancer, and his Twitter account is a personal one.

The only people benefiting from the BBC management’s impartiality are members of the government. This controversy is lifted directly from the Conservative’s playbook. The issue of small boats is a serious political issue that needs calm, thoughtful consideration. The use of the word ‘invasion’ is disgraceful.

The Conservatives have always needed an ‘enemy’ to divide the public. Thatcher’s initial political survival was provided by ‘the enemy with out’, Argentinian General Galtieri when his  forces invaded the Falkland Islands. 

Then came ‘the enemy within’, the miners, followed by any and all trade unionists. Then came European Commissioners and anything European. The Justices of the Supreme Court were next, followed now by the European Court of Justice.

The charity sector has been a regular target of Conservative ministers. Charity chief executives have, for many years, been told not to engage in politics, usually after the negative impact on beneficiaries of ill-thought-through government policies had been exposed. 

The disgraced minister, Brooks Newmark, told charity chief executives that they should “stick to their knitting”. With hindsight, he wished he had taken up knitting rather than sending naked pictures of himself to someone he thought was a young, female Party worker but who turned out to be a journalist who, like Mr Newmark, was a middle aged man.

We need a calm, serious discussion on migration, on asylum, and on how Britain can be the compassionate, welcoming country it claims to be, without dog-whistle politics.

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!

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.

Andrew Bowden: a politician of great ability and charm

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

In the early 1980s there were increasing calls for sanctions against apartheid South Africa. These were resisted by the newly-elected US President, Ronald Reagan, and by Margaret Thatcher (who allegedly had described Nelson Mandela as a ‘grubby little terrorist’).

As the local organiser of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, I was asked to do a BBC radio debate on sanctions against South Africa with the Member of Parliament for Brighton Kemptown, Andrew Bowden.  Having not been in the country long, I had never met a Conservative politician and, in my naivety, I had assumed he would be a rabid right-winger. 

Sir Andrew Bowden (Photo: The Argus)

When we met at the local studio, then in Marlborough Place, Mr Bowden was charm personified. He sympathised with me for having had to leave South Africa to avoid conscription, and at such a young age.  He said that we had to do whatever we could to end apartheid. The only thing we disagreed on, he said, was the means for doing so. He said that sanctions would mostly harm black people and that he was in favour of “jaw-jaw rather than war-war.” 

I disagreed with his view. The African National Congress and eminent figures like Desmond Tutu (later to become the Archbishop of Cape Town) were calling for sanctions.

Just before we went on air, Mr Bowden said to the presenter that he had recently read in the House of Commons’ Library that this particular programme had audience figures of around 200,000 people. Having been wrong-footed by his charm, I now visualised a mass gathering of 200,000. 

When later I listened to a replay of the debate, Mr Bowden came across as calm, measured and sincere as he spoke quite intimately to the presenter, whereas I came across as hectoring, dogmatic and speechifying, trying to address an audience of 200,000. It was one of my most important lessons in working with the media and for that I am grateful to Andrew Bowden.

I got to know Andrew many years later. He is, genuinely, a charming man and was a very able politician who won over many working-class Labour voters in East Brighton, particularly when he was opposed by arrogant, middle-class academic Labour candidates. He was a regular at Whitehawk Football Club, and ate fish and chips at the same local chippy in Whitehawk for many years.

Like any good Member of Parliament, Andrew nurtured his constituency, making himself available to take up issues on behalf of his residents and maintaining a very high profile. When the national political mood might have turned the political tide against him, his substantial personal vote helped to see off various challenges. He was, perhaps, helped by the contrast that could be drawn when comparing him to his fellow Conservative MP, Julian Amery, who represented Brighton Pavilion.

Mr Avery could not have been more different. He was rarely seen in the constituency prompting a letter to The Argus asking whether he was, in fact, dead as he hadn’t been seen since the previous general election. As a prominent member of the right-wing Monday Club, Mr Amery was a vocal supporter of the apartheid regime and the white-minority government in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). 

This earned Mr Amery the title of ‘Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion and Johannesburg South’. (More recently, Jacob Rees-Mogg is sometimes referred to as the Member for the Seventeenth Century).

Mr Bowden represented Brighton Kemptown from 1970, when he defeated Labour’s Dennis Hobden, until 1997 when he lost the seat to Des Turner. Even Andrew Bowden was unable to survive the political landslide that took Tony Blair into Downing Street.

Mr Bowden acted as vice president of the League Against Cruel Sports and through this he became close friends with the former Vicar of Brighton, Canon Dominic Walker (who later became Bishop of Monmouth). Dominic was president of the Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals, and together they participated in a demonstration against live animal exportation.

After leaving Parliament, Sir Andrew (having been knighted in 1994) took up another activity – poker. In 2006 he told The Independent newspaper: “I am a reasonably gifted amateur but that is the best I would say. My political experience has certainly helped. 

“I did 10 years on the Council of Europe as well as 27 years in Parliament, and when you’re trying to get amendments through or get your point across it is very useful to watch the people around the table for their reactions and body language. Those skills translate very well to the poker table.”

I recently saw Sir Andrew at an event at Brighton Town Hall to mark the retirement from The Argus of Adam Trimingham. Now in his 93rd year, Sir Andrew has various physical health challenges, but the intellect and his abundant charm remains unaffected.

Pele and Mohammed Ali: Are there any other sporting icons of this calibre?

The passing of the footballing great, Pele, has made me think of others who have transcended nations, generations and their chosen field, and are held in huge affection long after they ran, jumped, threw, kicked or hit a ball. In sport, Pele was one. Mohammed Ali another (even though he made his name from hitting other people!). 

In politics over the last hundred years I can again think of just two: Gandhi and Mandela.  Other than Mohammed Ali, the others are recognised by a single name. Usain Bolt might make it in a decade or two.  But now I am struggling and risk getting myself into trouble as everyone I have mentioned so far is male.

Until the last decade or so, women’s sport had been marginalised by the media regardless of the fantastic skills, dedication and entertainment individual women and women’s teams have displayed. In recent years another Brazilian number 10, Marta, has wowed football crowds, as has the dynamic American, Megan Rapinoe. But neither is yet a household name across the world, and the adulation they currently experience is yet to endure for 30 years after their retirement. An exception is, possibly, Martina Navratilova, also recognised by just her first name, who is as popular today, if not more so, than when she played. 

In politics there have been some iconic women, but I struggle to think of any who enjoy admiration and affection internationally now that they have retired or died.  Thatcher (another one recognised by her surname only) changed society and, in her own way, parts of the world.  But she remains a divisive figure, a figure for affection and hate in equal measures.  Perhaps The Queen fits the criteria, but I am hesitant to include someone who was born to greatness, fame and wealth, notwithstanding her obvious personal qualities and the longevity of her service.

Who do you think meets the criteria of having transcended nations, generations and their chosen field, and are continue to be held in huge affection?  I would be very interested to know.