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.

Was Sir Keir Starmer being honest about Labour dealing with homelessness and rough sleeping in Brighton and Hove?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 28th February 2024)

Tent outside Brighton Station (photo credit: The Argus)

Last week The Argus reported that a large four-person tent had been put up outside Brighton Station. The homelessness campaigner, Daniel Harris, was quoted as saying that the council cannot promote Brighton as a business and investment hub “while the first thing people see when they get here is a tent.”  He correctly points to the daily safety risks facing homeless people especially those in tents. As someone who has worked in homelessness services for over thirty years, I was also quoted in the article as saying: “(Tents) are not safe for people living in them or those working to help them. If someone has an emergency inside a tent, it can’t be seen.”

The answer, of course, is the provision of housing with the right support. But as Daniel points out, “limited housing options” in Brighton means it is difficult for people to escape rough sleeping. He says that what is needed is a strategic approach which “involves building more council homes, council-owned emergency accommodation to modern standards ensuring safety, and relocating those without genuine local ties where feasible and safe to so.”

The City Council was alerted to the presence of the tent on Monday of last week and it was gone by the weekend. The Chair of the council’s housing committee, Councillor Gill Williams, said: “Our street homeless outreach service always works with tent dwellers to help them find accommodation. Our primary concern is … the welfare of people living in them. We have a welfare first approach and offer help if those in tents are homeless, and always take action to remove encampments as soon as these circumstances and due legal process allow.”

When the leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, on a visit to Sussex last week, was asked by The Argus what a Labour government would do to tackle the homelessness crisis in Brighton, he said that given Labour has formed the administration locally, it was now in a position to help people get off the streets. He said: “I do think in Brighton, in particular, before we took over the council they didn’t put the support in place to deal with this. Luckily, we are now in a position to now turn this around. And that means providing not just a roof but also the support that people need.”

I was shocked by this disingenuous and misleading statement from the Labour leader. Under the previous Green administration, the one area where there was excellent collaboration and joint-working between the Greens and Labour, was on housing, homelessness and rough sleeping. Credit for this should go to the former Green councillors David Gibson and Siriol Hugh-Jones, and their Labour opposite number, Gill Williams. This joint approach often enjoyed all-party support including from the Conservative Mary Mears. But the council’s efforts were frustrated by the government’s squeeze on local government finances. Nevertheless, under successive Conservative, Labour and Green administrations, the council has continued to fund accommodation for over 700 people who have been, or might otherwise be, sleeping rough. In its budget agreed last week, the Labour administration is not investing anything extra into homelessness prevention. In fact, funding to help people move away from Brighton is under threat. 

For Keir Starmer to have made such a misleading assertion suggests that he was either badly informed or being dishonest. Perhaps he should set the record straight and give credit to the Greens where credit is due rather than make this cheap and dishonest bid for votes. 

A question that Sir Keir Starmer must answer is: will a Labour government provide the resources to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping by funding the necessary accommodation and the support homeless people need to get people off the streets, address underlying issues, and to help them into employment?  I fear that with Labour’s self-imposed spending restrictions, tackling rough sleeping and homelessness will not receive the priority it did under the Blair government when the Rough Sleepers Initiative saw a massive fall in the number of people sleeping rough. 

And critically, will Labour invest in the building of council houses, in their hundreds of thousands? Without this, the UK’s housing crisis will only get worse.

Given Sir Keir’s assertion that the Labour administration is now in a position to turn the homelessness problem around, let us hold the City Council to account by seeing whether it is providing enough accommodation for homeless people and also the support they need to move away from homelessness and into employment. Sir Keir says you are in a position to do so. Now let’s see you do it.

Has Labour sabotaged its own campaigns in Brighton Pavilion and in East Worthing & Shoreham?

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

Following the King’s Speech, there is speculation now as to when the general election will be called. Three dates have been suggested: May, the early autumn, or December 2024. The election must be held by January 2025.

My guess is that Rishi Sunak will go for late September or early October. An April poll would be too early for any Budget giveaway to have any effect. December would mean very dark evenings, although a low turnout might benefit the Conservatives. The reason I believe it will be September or October is because any tax cut or give-away bonanza in the spring Budget will have had time to settle in.  However, any such election gimmick will probably be too little and too late for this walking-dead Conservative government.

In Brighton and Hove, the early autumn date would mean that students will not have returned in time to register to vote, something that would seriously disadvantage the Greens in Brighton Pavilion who rely on a large student turnout.

Previously, I have forecast that Labour would win seven seats in Sussex (including taking Brighton Pavilion from the Greens). I have predicted the same number of seats for the Conservatives with the Liberal Democrats winning two. This forecast is now being compromised by the inexplicable actions of the Labour Party which appears to be doing its utmost not to win in East Worthing and Shoreham, and in Brighton Pavilion.

In the Worthing seat, not a single local candidate has been shortlisted. The party has denied party members the options of selecting as their candidate either of two respected Labour councillors, Cat Arnold and Carl Walker, such a shortsighted decision. Labour has performed phenomenally well to gain control of the Borough Council, yet the party seems not to want to build on its success in this constituency. Meanwhile, in Worthing West, the Labour leader of the council, Dr Becky Cooper, has been shortlisted. The party would be foolish not to select her as its candidate as she stands far-and-away the best chance of being elected.

Labour has never won either Worthing seat but the migration of families from Brighton has changed the demographics, just as happened previously in Hove and Portslade, once the safest-of-safe Conservative seats, now solidly Labour.

The Green Party’s Siân Berry who has hit the ground running in Brighton Pavilion

Meanwhile, in Brighton Pavilion, the Greens selected Siân Berry several months ago. She has hit the ground running and her name recognition is increasing. Labour, on the other hand, is dragging its feet. Originally the selection was due to take place in September. Two contenders, Eddie Izzard and Tom Gray, have already announced that they are seeking the nomination. Even if the selection was to take place now, the problem for Labour is it would run into the Christmas period and its candidate, whoever that might be, will have lost three months of invaluable campaigning time. Instead, they will have to wait until the new year, in the depths of winter, before launching their campaign. This would be less of a problem if the election is in September or October but might prove to be a fatal error if Sunak goes for May 2nd or 9th.

There is still no word from the leader of the Council, Bella Sankey: will she be seeking the nomination? The timing of the decision by Caroline Lucas to stand down has not helped Bella. As a relatively new councillor, and having been leader for just over six months, it might appear that Bella is being opportunist by becoming the candidate and subsequently MP, jumping from one opportunity to the next to get into Parliament. 

But if she doesn’t put herself forward now, which would be a shame, the opportunity to become an MP in the City she loves will have passed. By 2029, whoever is elected in 2024, be it Siân Berry or one of the other less-than-convincing Labour contenders, will have established themselves as the sitting MP and they will be hard, if not impossible, to shift. By 2029, Bella won’t be the exciting new kid on the block but she will be burdened by the failings of her administration, a fate that inevitably befalls every leader of the Council.

And by 2029, Labour will not be enjoying the bumper lead it currently has in the polls, thanks to the ever-increasing shambles of a government being led by Rishi Sunak. Rather, a sense of sheer disappointment and bewildered incomprehension will have set in as the Starmer government fails to provide the improvements and the housing that the country needs, unlike the Blair government which on the domestic front in 1997 things really did get better. 

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.

Bernie Jordan: Conservative, Labour, Great Escaper

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 16th August 2023)

It would have been easy to miss Bernie and Irene as they did their shopping in the Co-op Food Hall on a Saturday morning. In the late 1990’s I saw them quite regularly and would chat with them.  He knew that I had been a Labour councillor and worked for Brighton Housing Trust. I suspected he didn’t approve of either. He was, however, always very friendly.

Irene and Bernie Jordan during his year as Mayor of Hove

Other shoppers would have had no idea that this old man, with his dear wife on his arm, had a few years earlier been the Conservative Leader of Hove Borough Council. Bernie Jordan served as a councillor for 34 years and was Mayor of Hove in 1995/96. After Brighton and Hove came together as a unitary authority in 1997, he served one further term, standing down in 1999.

Afterwards, at an age when most people would be looking for a quiet life, Bernie was to make headlines again, not once but three more times.

The first occasion was in 2000 when, on the eve of its Conference in Brighton, he joined the Labour Party. He was one of the very last individuals I would have expected to join Labour. But perhaps the Labour Party of Tony Blair was not too much of a transition for him. He was photographed with Blair in the conference hotel and it made headline news.

A former Hove Labour councillor, Andy Richards, wrote to The Argus at the time: “(Bernie) was not known for his criticism of Tory policies and may best be remembered for assisting in the Tories’ attempt to privatise the management of council housing in Hove – a policy thankfully reversed by the incoming Labour administration in 1995.  Bernie’s defection may, as Ivor Caplin says, be a sign of how Labour is broadening its appeal. Even Tories can now join!”

That might have been it for Bernie. As Irene grew more frail, she moved into a care home to be joined later by Bernie himself. My mother-in-law, Molly Calder, was in the same home around that time. My wife Jean would see Bernie when she visited. He wasn’t yet a resident himself but visited Irene daily. They remained devoted to each other.

But Bernie wasn’t finished. When he turned 17 in 1941, he joined the Royal Navy as an electrician.   He survived the deadly Arctic Convoys taking supplies to Russia, and in the North Atlantic. Among the medals awarded to him was the Atlantic Star.  In June 1944, shortly before his 20th birthday, he took part in the D-Day landings on the beaches of Normandy. Those of us who have never been under relentless enemy bombardment cannot even begin to appreciate the noise, the smell, the terror of those landings.

June 2014 saw the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Old comrades gathered on the beaches of Normandy for what was likely to be the last such gathering of veterans. Bernie Jordan was determined to be there to honour his fallen comrades. Efforts to get him a ticket for this memorial event were, for some reason, not successful. So, defying the care home management and concealing his medals under his raincoat, he made his own way to France and proudly took his place at the remembrance service sitting no more than 100 metres away from The Queen and countless other heads of state.

Notwithstanding the consternation caused by his sudden disappearance from the care home, his return to Hove led the television news, and Bernie appeared smiling and waving on the front page of almost every daily newspaper. He told the press: “I expect I will be in some trouble. But it was worth it … I loved every minute. I’d do it again tomorrow!”

Following his ‘great escape’, he became an Honorary Alderman of Brighton and Hove. The mayor at the time, Brian Fitch (who sadly passed away recently) said of Bernie that “his recent exploits delighted the media, entertained the general public, worried his friends at (the care home) and completely bemused his family. It’s his mix of self-effacing bravery and humour, wisdom and warmth, experience and perspective that prompted me to nominate Bernie as honorary alderman.”

Bernie died six months later, in January 2015. His beloved wife of 68 years, Irene, passed away just 24 hours later, devoted to each other to the very end.

But that is not the end of Bernie and Irene’s story. Bernie’s determined return to the beaches of Normandy has now been immortalised on film. The Great Escaper is due to be released in the autumn. It stars Michael Caine as Bernie and the late Glenda Jackson as Irene. It was Jackson’s last film role.

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.

How many more U-turns can we expect from Sir Keir Starmer?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 26th July 2023)

Labour’s failure to win the Uxbridge by-election has been blamed on ULEZ – the Ultra Low Emission Zone, a charge based on vehicles and emissions designed to reduce pollution. Now Sir Keir Starmer is backtracking on his commitment to this environment-friendly policy. U-turns by Starmer are nothing new since he became Labour leader.

Sir Keir Starmer (right) and Sir Tony Blair

When standing for the leadership, Starmer made a range of commitments.  All wannabe Shadow Ministers fell over themselves to endorse this new dawn for Labour. It wasn’t the policies that had cost Labour the 2019 election, they said, it was the former leader, Jeremy Corbyn. 

In the leadership election he called Corby his “friend” and would continue his friend’s work. He has now blocked Corbyn from standing for Labour at the next election because of his stance on anti-semitism within the party, something that apparently did not bother Starmer when he was in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and was hoping to become a Cabinet member under Corbyn.

Top of Starmer’s list of commitments, the first nine words of his leadership pledges, were: “Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners.”  That commitment has gone and Starmer is now committed to lowering taxation.

He promised to nationalise (or, in his words, to bring into “common ownership”) rail, mail, energy and water.  With the timing of a genius, just when such a policy would be almost universally popular, he jettisoned the plan to bring into public ownership the big six energy companies.

In the leadership election, he pledged to end the private sector’s involvement in the NHS. He specifically said he would “end outsourcing”.  A year ago he said that a Labour government would  “likely have to continue with” some private provision in health services. 

Having said in his leadership campaign that he would “work shoulder to shoulder” with trade unions, he has sacked his shadow rail minister, Sam Terry for publicly supporting striking rail workers.

Sir Keir’s commitment to abolish university tuition fees (a central plank of Corbyn’s platform, one on which Starmer was elected to parliament in 2019, and one that he repeated when standing to succeed his friend), has also gone.  He now says that a Labour government will look at lowering graduate monthly repayments, that the party is “likely to move on from (the abolition of tuition fees) commitment.”

Last week we had the latest U-turn: the dropping of the commitment to abolish the Conservative’s cap on Child Benefit to be payable for just two children.  This policy was described as ‘vile’ and ‘pernicious’ by countless front benchers. Starmer previously described the cap as ‘inhuman’. According to the Guardian, one Labour frontbencher said that even if the policy was popular with focus groups, it was “toxic, morally wrong and doesn’t work”.

Patrick Maguire, the Red Box Editor at The Times who is usually well-informed on these matters, reported that not one member of the Shadows Cabinet spoke out against Starmer’s latest U-turn at a recent meeting where it was discussed.  Pat McFadden, Lisa Nandy and Jonathan Ashworth (the same Ashworth who last month described the cap as ‘heinous’) are reported as having spoken in support of Starmer’s change of heart at last week’s Shadow Cabinet meeting.

Part of Labour’s problem is the increasingly authoritarian, tough-guy imagine being cultivated by Starmer.  He tolerates no dissent.  He sees himself as a modern-day Tony Blair. Even though, like Blair, he has a Conservative Party in total shambles, Sir Keir has neither the personality nor the personal popularity to be a new Blair. (For the record I didn’t like Blair but can acknowledge his abilities and popularity prior to Iraq).

Starmer and Rachel Reeves repeat the mantra that they will not make any commitments that can’t be paid for.  It’s hardly the stuff to inspire.  In defending Starmer’s U-turn, Lucy Powell said on ITV News: “There just, frankly, is no money left (sic).”  

But Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, said this claim is “laughable”. “This is an absurd way of talking about policymaking. Talking about there being no money left is the economics of the kindergarten.”

Portes said: “The idea we do not have money to spend around £1bn to help hundreds of thousands of kids living in deprivation … is ridiculous and no serious economist would support that, regardless of ideology.”

There is money. There is always money to fight wars. Labour is just prioritising lower taxes for the very rich over Child Benefit for the very poor.

Donald Trump’s State Visit: Let’s not forget this part of Theresa May’s legacy

The Queen looks delighted to be hosting President Donald J. Trump

Donald Trump arrived in the UK four years ago today on a State Visit. He was just the third US President to have been given the enormous honour of a State Visit. It is to the eternal shame of Theresa May that she agreed to it.  The Evening Standard’s headline that evening was: “Duck, here comes Donald”.

State Visits are costly affairs, and some of the worlds worst leaders have been honoured. These have included the tyrant Nicolae Ceaușescu (invited by Prime Minister James Callaghan), the war criminal Vladimir Putin (Tony Blair – takes one to know one), and the crook and polygamist Jacob Zuma (Gordon Brown).

A footnote on the Ceaușescu visit: he was stripped of his honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath just the day before his execution when the Order of the Star of the Socialist Republic of Romania, bestowed upon the Queen, was also returned.

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.

Had David Cameron not been so gutless in the face of the alcohol lobby, thousands of lives could have been saved

There is a fascinating blog on the British Medical Journal by Ian Hamilton: Alcohol related deaths are on the rise, but we remain a nation in denial. Hamilton writes:

“From January to September 2020, 5460 people lost their lives to this substance, an increase of 16.4% on the same period the year before. Although this covers the start of the pandemic, most of these deaths would have been triggered by years of excess drinking as three quarters were due to liver disease rather than acute poisoning”.

It is worth reading the post in full.

This increase in deaths is as tragic as it has been predictable. Health experts have been warning for years about the increasing number of people dying from alcohol-related illnesses. Liver specialists in hospitals have reported patients being admitted for acute liver disease in their twenties and thirties, something rarely seen 26 years ago.

The easing of licensing laws made this all the more achievable and affordable. By contrast, New Labour had the foresight to restrict access to tobacco products, especially for young people and, as a consequence, tobacco-related harm has reduced. 

Why do politicians not learn positive lessons from the sale of cigarettes and apply it to alcohol? There are even politicians who wish to decriminalise some (all?) drugs, thereby making them more accessible with the inevitable consequence of increased use, harm and deaths.

I had some cause for optimism when David Cameron became Prime Minister since he promised to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol (something that has proved successful in Scotland). 

He promised that a minimum price per unit of alcohol would be introduced in England alongside plans to ban the sale of multi-buy discount deals, and that he would be making “no excuses” for clamping down on the country’s drink problem but admitted minimum pricing would not be “universally popular”.

It is worth reading exactly what he was saying because he was absolutely right: 

“Binge drinking isn’t some fringe issue, it accounts for half of all alcohol consumed in this country. The crime and violence it causes drains resources in our hospitals, generates mayhem on our streets and spreads fear in our communities.

 

“My message is simple. We can’t go on like this. We have to tackle the scourge of violence caused by binge drinking. And we have to do it now.”

 

He said the Government would tackle the problem “from every angle”, and that there would be a

“real effort to get to grips with the root cause of the problem. That means coming down hard on cheap alcohol. When beer is cheaper than water, it’s just too easy for people to get drunk on cheap alcohol at home before they even set foot in the pub.”

He said he had plans to make it illegal for shops to sell alcohol for less than a set price per unit, and that is the minimum unit price was set at 40p it could mean 50,000 fewer crimes each year and 900 fewer alcohol-related deaths per year by the end of the decade.

So what did David Cameron do? A year later, in 2013, he abandoned his plan and cheap alcohol is as freely available today as it has ever been. Ministers’ only reference to alcohol during the Covid pandemic was, according to Ian Hamilton, to keep off-licences open, placing them in the same category as pharmacies by deeming them to be “essential retailers”.   

I wonder how many of those 5,460 lives lost between January and September 2020 could have been saved – 900 per annum by the end of the decade by his own estimation – had David Cameron not been so gutless in the face of the alcohol lob