Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Government

  • ‘Politics on the edge’

    A memoir of Rory Stewart’s time as an MP and minister

    December 2023

    Politics on the Edge: a memoir from within* is the title of a book by Rory Stewart who was an MP and a minister during the time of David Cameron and Theresa May’s premierships. He stood against Boris Johnson in the leadership election and left politics soon after. 

    It is a well written book and unlike many political memoirs which can descend into self-justification, it is an honest view of the political system, parliament and life as a minister. He does not shy away from his own failings and it is sufficiently revealing to make you realise he was at times a trifle naïve in his views and ways of doing things. He does describe however, a system of government which has many grievous failings and which fundamentally is incapable of providing the leadership which we desperately need as a nation. 

    Early on in the book he describes the process of becoming an MP which can involve years of applying for seats, sitting on local councils or just being a member of the party doing ordinary stuff like delivering leaflets door to door. You have to be liked by the local selection committee which essentially means agreeing with their points of view. There is little interest he writes in whether the candidate has ability in formulating policy, management skills or understanding great issues of state, more how he or she seems to fit in with the local party and understanding the needs of the – mostly elderly – members of the local party. It is a matter we have discussed in our Democracy Cafés, since a local MP once elected, can find themselves as a minister, or even secretary of state, of some department or other yet be possessed of next to no relevant experience of being in charge of a large organisation. Not only that, but they are unlikely to have any relevant knowledge of the department itself and further, may only be there for a year or at most two after which they are either sacked or moved on somewhere else. Since many MPs now go from University to a think tank or into the party apparatus and never doing a ‘real’ job, it is unsurprising that chronic failure is the norm and the only wonder is that it isn’t worse than it is.

    Life as a minister is if anything worse. The civil service would like a minister just to be the spokesman for the department and to speak in parliament when necessary. With echoes of Yes Minister, there is considerable resistance to a minister who want to make changes to the established policies. The chapters on his time as ‘prisons minister’ are particularly enlightening not to say shocking. The system is in crisis. An ever mounting prison population, cells built in Victorian times for one man, now with two, rampant infestation and diminished staff numbers after the Cameron/Osborne cuts means it is a system which is brutalising its inhabitants and failing to rehabilitate those leaving at the end of their sentences. His attempts to effect change are largely unsuccessful.

    On the subject of prisons he discusses the problems of a minister trying to change how something is done. The civil service doctrine is that ministers are about policy formation and getting funds from the Treasury: they should not concern themselves about delivery i.e. the how. But in many areas of our political life the how is the crucial issue. Whether you are talking about schools, health, transport or indeed the prison estate, how policy is actually carried out is extremely important. Having a wonderful set of policies and a chunk of Treasury cash is useless if the system is inefficient, morale is low, or management weak or almost non-existent. The system is almost designed to prevent a minister altering it. 

    Another topic we have frequently discussed is the role of the media. Attempts to get their interest in serious topics and to discuss change are usually frustrated by a focus on trivia, personalities and catchy headlines. He often refers sneeringly I feel to the Guardian which does cover items in depth from time to time, but as a Conservative I suspect he is swept up with criticisms of the party as a whole. He has little time for the Telegraph either referring to one debate where the journalist chose to talk about what people were wearing. 

    His challenge for the leadership essentially as a ‘stop Boris’ candidate is interesting on many levels. It does reveal his naivety as I say, thinking that people would be interested in policy and how things could be changed. He did not seem to understand that the hundred thousand or so Home Counties members who were doing the choosing are not interested in prison reform for example many believing they are holiday camps already. Neither were they interested in the effects of Brexit, only wanting it to be ‘done’ safe in the belief that trade deals with the rest of the world would follow easily.  We discovered this week that there is no chance of a trade deal with the USA [and it is interesting that the papers who sold people this lie made little or no mention of this serious failure which will have damaging effects on our economy]. 

    Johnson with his collection of misleading statements, false promises and downright lies was popular and won the vote easily. We now know the consequences. He and the other candidates, all promised lower taxes, a perennial favourite ploy of politicians. It seems to be the ultimate fantasy and in the various programmes during the leadership race, it was a favourite question of the TV hosts ‘are you going to put up taxes?’ To answer ‘yes’ was an immediate death sentence for a candidate: indeed there would be little point in standing in the first place. The combination of the fantasy belief of being better off with lower taxes egged on by the print media and infantile TV hosts means any kind of serious discussion of this topic is out of bounds. To debate how much tax and who should pay what is never discussed. The billions that disappear to tax havens is also a no-go topic. Since this is at least £30bn a year and probably double that since HMRC has given up on a number of scams, it is a major issue that never sees the light of day. It could possibly be that the people at the top of our media empires have curious tax arrangements themselves and don’t want that particular light to be switched on. So much easier to pillory a benefit scrounger who could never afford to mount a libel action. 

    There seems to be a disconnect between the services we are getting – or not getting like almost a complete absence now of NHS dentists – and low taxes seems to be beyond the understanding of many. The unsafe schools with Raac concrete roofs will not now be repaired until after the election sometime in 2026. Could this be a cynical ploy to land the Labour government (one assumes) with a multi-billion bill while going into the election with the promise of tax cuts? Surely not. 

    As the sleeve note says ‘Stewart learned first-hand how profoundly hollow and inadequate our democracy and government had become. Cronyism, ignorance and sheer incompetence ran rampant.’ 

    It is a book worth reading along with others on our political system today. Both illuminating and depressing the worry is that there seems no sign of a movement for change. At the next election we will have the same dysfunctional set of wannabe MPs, telling us what they are going to do but without raising any taxes to do it (correction: the non-dom tax proposal by Labour which will raise next to nothing). Our local MPs will be re-elected with few problems. The broken system will trundle on as it is today with a different set of characters at the wheel, except locally.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Jonathan Cape 2023

  • Democracy Café

    Report of the Democracy Café which took place on October 14th, 2023

    It was good to welcome several old friends back to the café and a new member as well. The meeting took place exactly a week after the incursion into Israel by Hamas terrorists with a huge death toll among Israelis civilians. Israel retaliated by bombing Gaza and troops are massing on the northern border ahead of an expected invasion. The use of the word ‘terrorist’ in the above sentence is itself a matter of dispute.

    The first topic we chose was: to what extent are our opinions about the conflict influenced by the media reporting of it? Everything we know about the recent actions is as a result of what we have seen on TV, read in the papers or seen on social media of one kind or another. The point was made that everything we see and hear is affected by the media which was often afflicted by mis- or disinformation. The main TV stations (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are governed by impartiality rules and make great efforts to reflect all sides of a conflict. It has to be noted that not everyone was impressed by this and were not convinced that there was adequate balance in the reporting. Social media on the other hand was not subject to the same rules and were often the source of various conspiracy theories or disinformation. Some thought the coverage by al Jazeera was superior. There was a problem with paywalls: to read what different papers said meant paying to see the content which made commercial sense but did cut people off from accessing a more diverse range of views.

    The BBC in particular had come in for criticism by some politicians (Grant Shapps MP was mentioned) and by GB News for declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe Hamas people who invaded Israel. Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation in the UK and the BBC has used the word particularly in reported speech. In similar fashion, the lack of condemnation was also mentioned as a criticism. The BBC say the word ‘terrorist’ is loaded and they are reluctant to use it. The point was made that people in Gaza might say that the bombing of their communities is an act of terror (because they have been terrorised). I think the point made by several is that the word is highly charged and it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line.

    The BBC was defended by some however and they said that great efforts have been made to be fair in a volatile and fast changing situation. Someone pointed to the interview by Clive Myrie of a Hamas spokesman they thought was was good.

    Several spoke of the history of the conflict going back to the League of Nations and the mandate given to the British to keep the peace in Palestine after the Great War and the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. One speaker had been there in the Army during this latter period so it was interesting to hear of his first hand experience of these historical events. It was suggested that the animosity between Arabs and Jews was centuries old, others pointed out that during the time of the Islamic conquest, Christians, Jews and others continued with their lives as long as they paid their taxes. There were no pogroms. On the other hand it was suggested that the Jews were treated badly in Yemen. One thing was clear however and that was the Palestinians had received a ‘rotten deal’ as they put it following the events of ’48, what they refer to as the naqba (disaster). It was the rapid increase in the number of Jewish settlers after the war which added to the problems.

    Some media commentators had compared Hamas to ISIS and although there were some similarities, they were not motivated by the same things. It was suggested that some think tanks were a better source of information and Chatham House was mentioned.

    It was accepted that there was a lot of history but the fact remains the modern day situation in Gaza was a pressing issue for the two million or so living there. It had been pointed out earlier that Evan Davies on the PM programme on Radio 4 was reluctant to accept the phrase ‘open prison’ to describe conditions there. It was not to excuse their terrible actions but what are they to do? The world had a responsibility to ensure it did not go on and on. It was shocking that in the 21st century, we are witnessing these terrible events.

    There was general agreement that the uncritical and unbalanced support by the US, UK and French governments was to be deplored and offering to provide military support particularly so.

    It was a good debate particularly so in view of the emotive nature of what has taken place in the past week. It was clear that people recognised the historical factors which led to the current conflict. It is probably fair to say that some thought there was bias in the reporting while others thought that the mainstream media had sought, as best they could, to be balanced.

    The second topic was a complete contrast and was a discussion based on what single thing would you change in respect of our government? The proposer noted the preponderance of public school boys (mostly) in our government and civil service. Although only 7% went to these schools, they occupied by some estimates, 40% of key government positions. Eton school had a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons. Another issue was the high level of investments such people had. What was lacking among them was much in the way of ‘ordinary’ experience whether of employment or life in general. Not allowing the product of private schools into government was not agreed as this would disenfranchise large numbers of people. However banning the paying for education was proposed as happens in several other countries.

    The role of the City of London was mentioned along with the need to bring it fully into the United Kingdom.

    House of Lords came in for some predictable criticism. While the need for a second chamber was recognised, the presence of hereditary peers and the huge numbers of peers was criticised. A better method was proposed involving selecting people based on a representational basis. We might have noted the manner of their appointment and ‘cash for honours’ is often highly questionable. The word ‘bloated’ was used to describe the second chamber.

    The issue of how MPs are selected was brought up. A small panel of local party members choose the candidate sometimes from an approved short-list provided by central office. These people, if elected and if their party formed the government, might find themselves a minister of some kind having never managed or run anything before. Was it any wonder we had government mismanagement on a vast scale? Added to which was the rapid turnover of ministers some of whom only lasted a year or so in post. This brought up the question how did you find ‘decent’ MPs (meaning capable and with appropriate experience) in the first place and more women? It was pointed out that the LibDems did not select their candidates this way and held public meetings to do so.

    It was also pointed out that once a MP became a minister it seemed to reduce his or her ability to act as a representative which is why they were elected in the first place. Writing to the Salisbury MP for example would often elicit the response that as he was a minister he was not at liberty to intervene (in another department). It was a kind of circular nonsense: you elect someone to represent the constituency but they become a minister and thus stop being able to.

    Strong views were expressed about MPs having second jobs: representing their constituents which is what they were elected and paid to do and that should be a full-time occupation, not spending time on a second job.

    There was discussion about the actual shape of the Commons with two sides facing each other rather than a semi-circular arrangement seen in many other chambers around the world – Scotland and Wales for example. It invited exchanges which were little more than shouting matches which put off many people. Someone said they could not bear to watch prime minister’s questions for this reason.

    The voting system itself came in for criticism. A constituency like Salisbury for example is never likely to be other than Conservative despite the presence of many who were not Conservative supporters: they were effectively and permanently disenfranchised. This was an issue supported by Make Votes Matter in Salisbury.

    Other points included do we need a written constitution?

    We did not come to a ‘single thing’ as the question asked perhaps representing the fact that the system was so broken at so many points that no single thing would be enough to fix it.

    The next meeting is on Saturday 11th November, starting at 10.00 in the Library.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Information Anxiety, (1989), Richard Saul Wurman

    Chums: How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK (2023), Simon Kuper

    Why we Get the Wrong Politicians (2019), Isabel Hardman

    Not mentioned but relevant: The Palestine-Israel Conflict (2015), Dan Cohen-Sherbok & Dawoud el-Alami. The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and Resistance in Palestine (2018), Bernard Regan.

  • Democracy Café, March

    March 2023

    This was the first meeting in our new home at the Library. It turned out to be a good location with no distracting noise and of course it is central.

    The first topic was almost a forgone conclusion: namely, Gary Lineker who was the subject of a major row. Gary is the presenter of the BBC’s Match of the Day and following the announcement of the latest bill by the government to deter refugees travelling by boat across the Channel, declaring them automatically illegal, had tweeted “An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” This had prompted his suspension from the programme and as the other presenters decided not to appear meaning the programme would have to be aired without a presenter at all.

    A large number of points were made in what turned out to be an interesting debate. The first point was that he was freelance and not a BBC employee. As a sports presenter, he should be free to express his political views as a matter of free speech. If he had tweeted his support for the government’s proposals, what someone wondered, would have been the reaction?

    The view was expressed that celebrities from other realms of work should not be allowed to express their political views (this did not receive much support).

    The BBC’s view was even though he isn’t a political commentator, he has an enormous following and is thus influential.

    An important point was made that this whole row had acted as a distraction to the real issue namely the immigration and asylum system itself and the failure of government policy to tackle this issue adequately. Was the bill merely theatre someone wondered? The government knew it wouldn’t work it was suggested but just wanted to show that they were trying to do something knowing it had little chance of becoming law. Someone who had met the local Conservative MP in the past few days reported he did not think his party to be in power after the election which might support this view. Greg Dyke, former DG of the BBC, was quoted as saying in an interview that he thought the BBC was mistaken as it gave the perception they had bowed to government pressure.

    A feature of the debate – and a key element of Lineker’s tweet – was the issue of free speech. It was noted that Lineker did not use the word ‘Nazi’ that some commentators and politicians had accused him of. Was the range of recent bills inhibiting protest and limiting access to judicial review, together with attacks on the BBC in general and Lineker in particular, signs of growing authoritarianism a la Germany in the ’30s? Was the reported decision, also by the BBC, not to broadcast the final episode of the forthcoming Attenborough series because of a fear of a right-wing backlash, a further example of a creeping curtailment of free speech?

    It was noted that over the past few weeks, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and Lee Anderson, all currently serving as Conservative MPs, had been given their own shows on GB News. They will be free to air their views every week yet there has not been an outcry about their appointments or conflicts of interest. We were also reminded of the scandal surrounding the appointment of Richard Sharp as chair of the BBC following his substantial contribution to the Conservative party and his failure to declare to the selection board his role in securing a major loan for Boris Johnson, prime minister at the time, who subsequently appointed him.

    The debate moved on to the issue of impartiality and was true impartiality ever possible anyway? There is a legal case at present where the views of Fox News presenters appeared to different from those aired during the Trump era. This aspect of the debate arose around the question of ‘balance’ which sat alongside ‘impartiality’ at the core of the problem. Climate was an example where the BBC balanced reporting of climate change by inviting speakers who did not accept global warming to debate with scientists who did. This resulted in a false balance since the ‘deniers’ had little science to support their views. After a prolonged outcry, this no longer happens. On the other hand, employees of local government, government departments and agencies are not allowed to engage in political activity or air their views on these matters in public.

    Linked to this was the failure by broadcasters to ask who was funding some of the people they interviewed. Some contributors were funded by fossil fuel interests which was not declared to the listening or viewing public.

    Hard to sum up but there was a feeling that it was important for commentators to be free to air their views. There was a simmering sense that with the foreign ownership of our media and with hostility towards the BBC (and we might have added Channel 4) we were at risk of losing key elements of free speech and a slow drift towards a one party state was not impossible. The first thing the BBC should do someone suggested is not follow what the government says.

    In the second half we attempted to tackle the question who runs Britain? You cannot say we lack ambition.

    The first theory out of the blocks was it was all rooted in money. The City and other interests were focused on this aspect. It was money which gave you power someone said. Second was the influence of public schools and their desire to maintain their influence in society and, it was claimed ‘to keep at all costs, the socialists out [of power]’. They devoted great efforts to maintain their role in society.

    The media was mentioned on the basis of ‘who controls the media controls the message’. Whether that is so true today with such a diversity of platforms is to be questioned. We were then introduced to the Beckhard and Gleicher’s change formula – which is probably the first time a formula has been introduced into our proceedings – and that is (D x V) + FS > C where D is dissatisfaction, V is vision and FS, first steps. Latterly, the C component has been replaced by R representing resistance to change. If the first set of factors is greater than the second, change might happen. To note is that if any of the left hand terms are zero, there will be no change.

    Corporations were another source of power and the multi-national ones in particular. Not all were venal it was pointed out and some did want to improve the lot of their fellow man.

    China was mentioned and the role of Deng Xiaoping who, following the death of Mao, told the Chinese to ‘go out and make money’. This led a discussion of the seemingly impregnable one party states like former East Germany and Romania which, despite having formidable security apparatuses, collapsed quickly following modest protests. Would China be like that despite their highly sophisticated surveillance system? Their swift change of course on Covid lockdown in the face of protest was noted. However, the failure of the Arab spring demonstrated that not all protests and uprisings led to happy results – look at Egypt.

    One of the paradoxes of politics today in relation to who runs the country, was the fundamental belief of the current government in less government following the neoliberal agenda. They believed in freedom and the ebb and flow of markets to decide matters, not government interventions. Well that was the theory.

    Two debates which circled freedom of speech and good government. The first focused on a specific incident and a tweet by Gary Lineker, the second on the more general issue of where the power lies in our country. The support Lineker received, while we were debating this issue, and resulting in the disruption of the BBC’s sports coverage, perhaps demonstrated that power can often be illusory and hard to control.

    Peter Curbishley

    Book mentioned: Another Now, Yanis Varoufakis, 2020, Vintage

    Of relevance:

    Who Governs Britain? Anthony King, 2015, Pelican

    Posh Boys: how the English public schools run Britain, Robert Verkaik, 2018, One World