June 2023

A small, but perfectly formed group, met in the Library on Saturday 10 June 2023 and two topics were voted for discussion. It was held after the fairly momentous day in national politics when Boris Johnson had stepped down as MP having received a draft of the privileges committee report which is apparently damming of his behaviour. His honours list was also published with various individuals of dubious merit being ennobled or honoured in some way including his hair dresser which might come as a surprise to those who assumed it was mown rather than cut.

The first topic asked whether Sir Keir Starmer risked throwing out the baby with the bathwater by seeking to appeal to the middle ground. One worry was the decision to deselect the sitting North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll for sharing a platform with Ken Loach the film maker who himself was expelled from the party for his associations with proscribed groups. This worried several people as it seems to be a sign of eliminating anyone who disagrees with the party line.

One theme, which was expressed at several moments during the debate was the lack of vision by the Labour party. Some also thought he (Sir Keir Starmer) was floundering and that he was not a good communicator. Others also wondered if the policies would in fact be put into practice if and when they formed a government. He lacked charisma and perhaps most seriously, did not give people a sense of hope.

Others disagreed most particularly with the idea he was floundering. It has to be recognised that the opposition has so much against it. If it spelt out policies too soon they would either be trashed or taken by the government, witness the windfall tax on the oil companies. There is a need to believe in him it was suggested. The difference between the two main parties was noted: the Conservatives for their loyalty (although that was somewhat doubtful at present) and the Labour party where there were often splits or major differences of policy and direction to be seen.

As ever, we moved on to discuss how the media treat the parties and it was noted that the announcement by Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, that the proposed £28bn spend on green infrastructure would not take place straightaway, was pounced on by nearly all of the media but by contrast, the multiple spending promises dropped by the Conservatives received much less prominence.

The reluctance of the party to take on the media in contrast to Prince Harry’s battle with the Mirror was commented on. There was a different media landscape now with very few young people buying or reading a newspaper. It was claimed that young people were more idealistic and perhaps the point here was that they were not attracted to the tabloid end of the market with its kiss and tell type stories. By contrast it was claimed that the new TV stations such as GB News with its fairly partisan approach was said to be popular with young people.

What a lot of the media coverage lacked was nuance. Few issues were black and white, right or wrong and yet coverage was often cast in an unnuanced way.

To be ‘left wing’ was something of an insult it was noted. A curious observation and poses the question why? It went with ‘woke’ and meant it was an easy insult to throw at someone or a party. Why this should be we didn’t explore and it might be a question for a future debate.

Can an honest politician survive today? Could someone who ‘told it how it was’ and what is needed to fix our economy, society generally, the need for higher taxes and perhaps a tax on property, could such a person ever be elected? Almost certainly not although Mick Lynch was mentioned (who is not actually a politician). Are all politicians doomed to tell lies to get elected and then attempt to do what they think needs to be done afterwards? Which sort of brought us back to Sir Keir – not the suggestion of lying – but the need to steer a careful course, not spell out policy positions too soon for fear of being attacked.

The second debate was quite different. This was the question Julian Assange has lost his appeal, should we be worried? This concerns the extended legal battle against extradition to the US which has been trying to get him to trial for a number of years. It came a day after Donald Trump was charged on 37 counts relating to removing top secret documents from the White House and leaving them lying around in various places in his house in Florida.

The first point was that this was about freedom of speech and the press and Assange has performed a public service by revealing some of the activities being carried out by our governments. He was doing his job as a journalist including revealing some of the appalling activities being perpetrated in Guantanamo Bay. It was not clear if his revelations had done any actual harm.

It was admitted that he was a strange personality and he had been accused of sexual assault in Sweden, charges now dropped. However, there was a principle at stake.

A different view was to ask ‘why are we seeking to override the law in America?’ Surely it was up to the Americans to decide his fate? But what about the Sacoolas case and Harry Dunn? She fled the UK claiming diplomatic immunity following the accidental death of Harry Dunn? The extradition treaty was very one-sided it was noted: the Americans can extradite from the UK but refuse to allow Americans to be sent here for trial. Sacoolas will not come to the UK to stand trial.

Could Assange receive a fair trial in the US? Anyone with knowledge of the American legal system would doubt that.

Governments want to curtail freedom of the press. Around the world, journalists are arrested, abducted or murdered.

However, governments were entitled to hold some secrets. However distasteful, our government engages in espionage with a view, partly at least, to protect our interests and to be aware of countries or other entities which might wish to do us harm. The problem was when this spilled over into unwarranted intrusion of private individuals, in short it was a matter of trust. People’s trust in our government was not high and many no longer had trust in the government not hide secrets we should know about. It was observed that we were supposed to be a society controlled by law but the problem was that the vast majority of us could not afford access to it because of the enormous cost. The quality and impartiality of the judiciary was also called in question.

This led to a discussion of the case of Carol Cadwalladr who had done sterling work in exposing vote rigging in connection with Aaron Bank’s alleged activities and his many meetings with Kremlin officials (which he denies). Outrage has been caused by a judge’s ruling in the latest appeal by Banks that she will have to pay some of his costs which will amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Her journalism has performed a public service yet by some esoteric legal reasoning she is made financially the poorer. Other media did not develop the story possibly because it exposed wrongdoing with the Brexit vote. She was insultingly referred to by Andrew Neil as ‘Carol Codswallop’ among other insults. The judges’ decision was yet another expensive blow to the freedom of the press and the free speech generally.

Final word: a fair trial for Julian Assange was ‘for the birds.’

Peter Curbishley