The Boris Factor: 1

I'm currently reading Boris Johnson's book The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History. This hovered on my list for a little while, and then the author was made Foreign Secretary. I'm a great believer that how a person writes, and what they write about, tells you much about them. John Major's memoirs, for instance, as well as his later writing about cricket and music hall--two subjects he successfully enthused me about, at least a little--reveal him to be a much warmer and wittier character than the media painted him. Margaret Thatcher, meanwhile, writes just as perfunctorily as her apparently humourless and mechanistic image suggested; Tony Blair's memoirs were as ghastly as I'd feared, but Chris Patten's significantly better. 

I recall Johnson's biography of Churchill being reviewed, fairly neutrally, on Radio 4 some time ago, and one of the panellists remarked: "thank goodness we have Boris Johnson to cast some light on this little-known figure from British history."

Well, it turns out that Boris Johnson's biography casts light not just on Churchill, but on Johnson.

Exhibit A.

"Rab Butler might have been Prime Minister. In 1940, he was a junior minister, and a strong supporter of appeasement. Here is what he had to say about the ascent of Churchill:
"'The good clean tradition of English politics has been sold to the greatest adventurer of modern political history,' he was heard to say. 'Surrendering to Winston and his rabble was a disaster and an unnecessary one', mortgaging the future of our country to a 'half-breed American whose main support was that of inefficient but talkative people of a similar type.'"

May: Might she not?

Step 1. Restate how precious the United Kingdom is to you.
Step 2. State clearly that you wish to reach a common UK negotiating position before activating Article 50.
Step 3. Open negotiations on UK negotiating position.
Step 4. Refuse to budge on the principle that Brexit means Brexit.
Step 5. Act surprised when SNP rise to hysteria about the prospect of Brexit and announce a second referendum on independence is imminent.
Step 6. Save the Union by trumping second #indyref with second #EUref, in which the key question is: is Brexit worth the cost of splitting the UK once and for all?

Enough already with the US-style paranoia, Corbynistas

After a frosty response to a few of my anguished posts after the EU referendum, the last thing I want to do is tell anybody engaged in political discussion to shut up. So yes, I've titled this post "enough already" but that doesn't mean "stop talking".

That disclaimer out of the way, the thing that's pushed me to post this is this story, about the ongoing wrangling over the level of support for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader. I noticed a comment on a Facebook post about it which referred to "the MSM". Only by reading the responses - which all seemed to be familiar with the term - did I realise that this means "mainstream media". And suddenly, dismay hits:

1. "Mainstream" is one word. Ugh.
2. The term "mainstream media" is one I associate with the cries of Trump supporters in the US, the headbanging right who exist somewhere in a twilight zone of paranoia and alienation. In this weird world, the vague feeling that "something's not right"--based on something that could be justifiable alienation, could be personal psychopathology, could be political expediency--entitles you to bypass completely all critical analysis, and instead cleave to the conviction that the media are all liars and none should be believed, or that what matters is what you believe to be true...these are the prime ingredients of what is increasingly called 'post-factual politics'.
3. And then you look at the way the Corbyn debate is going--was that a Corbyn rally? Isn't that crowds celebrating Liverpool's last European Cup win? Why is this not on the 10 o'clock news?--and it's just depressing that the tone is so concerned with "how my cause is being represented by the media" and not really on the issues.

I'm a bit fed up of being told that the mainstream media isn't reporting Corbyn rallies. I've been open minded about Corbyn--I was warmer to him than many, I think, at the start of his leadership--but as I grow increasingly cool, I'm totally aware that he has a very large support base and that lots of people are flocking to support him. No, it's not headline news--I don't think it should be--but the news stories are there, the buzz on social media is there, and ultimately: I don't really know what Corbyn thinks, or even what his supporters think, because all I see is "don't believe the lies!"

It seems to me that the left in the UK is losing its attention on facts and debate and opposition, and has instead pitched its tent in that twilight zone of outrage and suspicion that has hosted the US right for so long. Am I suggesting that Corbynistas are as lunatic as Trump supporters? No. I'm worried that a segment of British political thought which is usually a bit less hysterical has decided to go where the right so often makes its home. Theresa May has stamped her authority on her party for the moment, but these are the Tories. It won't last. Eventually the lunacy will start again. And if the left hasn't recovered some sense of purpose, there will be an even smaller proportion of those in British political life who still put moderation, sensibility and rationality above selfish outrage.

Cameron's misstep

At yesterday's Prime Minister's Questions, David Cameron expressed
some reasonable disgust at a Facebook page called 'Raoul Moat: You
Legend', on which people have been expressing sympathy with Moat and
criticising the police. Bad move, Cameron.

Then it turned out that No 10 had commissioned a junior official to
'get in touch' with Facebook to express the government's disgust at
the page. Terrible move.

Why? Moat's murders, his vendetta and his flight from the police
cannot, of course, be condoned in any measure - although there will be
things that may explain them at least in part, and shouldn't be
ignored. In one respect Cameron was on reasonably safe-looking ground
when he slammed the pro-Moat comments on the page.

But this little episode - the worthy PMQs rant and the subsequent
phone call to Facebook (or perhaps it was a tweet) is a bad moment for
the Government. Why? Well, I've been reasonably pleased with the
Coalition so far, if not in all policy matters then at least in its
more commonsensical approach than Labour. Ken Clarke's line on
prisons, for instance, or Theresa May on 28-day detention have been
refreshingly sensible-liberal. That's been one of the best things
since the Coalition deal was struck: the volume of government has been
turned down.

Labour, for all its social transformation and progressive policies,
couldn't resist falling back on hectoring, interfering, and just
talking. The end result was a government that crowded out independent
thought by constantly jabbering, not just about government business
but about anything and everything, legitimately. It's what people
bemoan as "the nanny state".

And that's what Cameron's move sounds like to me. The government just
commenting on whatever it's asked about, needing to find a solution or
- very New Labourlike - have a policy position, a line that can be
loudly and publicly toed in order to "align" with the public mood,
regardless of the moral right or practical ability of the government
to intervene. In this case, the liberal line ought to be that Facebook
users can post what they like about whomever they wish, as long as
they're not inciting hatred or violence. This page is deeply
distasteful, but it's not (at least as I write this) falling foul of
the law. And Facebook have rightly stuck up for the right of these
thoughtless and angry people to express their views.

When the prime minister of the day starts expressing an opinion about
this sort of thing, it's government as a brand, not as a government.
What now? What are we suppposed to think about the government after
this? That they're jolly nice chaps because they had an ineffectual
moan at Facebook about something I also disagree about? Alas, no. Even
I, a Coalition sympathiser, was reminded of something much less
pleasant: the Chinese government having a go at that other ubiquitous
internet giant, Google.

Yes, I know that this Moat thing is small fry in comparison to the
Chinese all-out assault on Google. But up to now the Coalition has
been pretty much on the side of the angels - this is just an unhappy
sign that the spirit of New Labour and its infamous Grid has not yet
been laid to rest.

Weak headline alert

Why do you do it, BBC? Who laughs? And it's not a totally frivolous story, either (in which respect it's notably unlike the annual parade of Strictly Come Dancing stories), but one with community and environmental angles which is not served by lazy, unfunny puns deserving less of a respected news site than of the point-and-laugh mirth of @badjournalism. 

Stop it. Please, stop it.

A win for democracy?

I have to admit, I didn't see this one coming. Bizarrely, the exit poll (which assumed uniform swings across the country; something we didn't see at all) gave a much better indication of the final seat distribution that all the opinion polls did.

But who won? Well maybe, just maybe, we (the electorate) did.

An obvious statement first: it seems we, as a nation, did not want to adopt wholesale the policies of any single party. There were lots of warning about what would happen in these circumstances, but at least at the moment, the answer seems to be that politicians will behave in a mature, grown-up way. This may come as a shock to some people.

The people in the most awkward position when the result became clear were the Liberal Democrats. Things didn't go very well for them in terms of results: they lost seats (although their vote share rise). But, they hold the balance of power. They have continually said that whoeever got the most seats and the most votes had the right to govern, but the Tories have little in common in many areas with the Lib Dems, making it hard for the two to work together. On the other hand, they could back up a Labour attempt to govern, but as Labour lost on both seats and votes this would probably be seen both as undemocratic, and as a confirmation of the Tory warning "Vote Clegg, get Brown."

But, full credit to Clegg, he stuck to his guns and said that, in his opinion, the Tories have the right to try to govern. Brown "respected" that decision, but made his pitch to the Lib Dems. And all eyes were on David Cameron. Would he try to make a coalition with the Lib Dems? Is it even possible given the differences between the parties? In fact, this is a bit of a dry-run for PR, cynics could argue (maybe justly) that PR would fail simply because Labour and the Lib Dems are too similar, so would always join arguing that people voted for "progressive left" policies, leaving the Tories out in the cold.

Fortunately, Cameron made a speech which showed that those statements that politicians need to "grow up" were far too patronising. He acknowledged the differences they have with the Lib Dems, highlighted some areas on which he would not compromise (none of which were the Lib Dem "headline" policies), highlighted some areas on which they would compromise (including some Lib Dem headlines) and skirted around some of the areas (like when to cut) where clearly there is room to manoeuvre. Surely this is the whole point of consensus politics? This is how PR should work if we switch to it. It opens the possibility that two fairly different parties can respond to the will of the electorate by compromise and consensus to produce a legislative agenda which reflects the will of the electorate rather than the will of the biggest party (with <50% of the votes).

In short, if things pan out as they are looking like doing, democracy won.

----------

Disclaimer: I am no political expert and I'm over tired, and these are early days, so I may end up issuing a post in a few days saying how awful everything is and why can't a coalition form!

On other notes: why are the BBC still putting "BREAKING NEWS" above the line "No party has overall majority." It's BROKEN news, it broke hours ago!

Also, before the election the Tories issued many warnings about the dangers of a Hung Parliament. Now they've got to reassure the City that a coalition Government can bring stability and does not endager the recovery after all.

The General Election: Abandon logic, all ye who enter here?

I'm increasingly puzzled by a feature of the election leaflets which are being fed through my letterbox with increasing urgency. My local constituency, Watford, is held by the unremarkable junior Justice Minister, Claire Ward, but there were only 1,941 votes between her and the third-placed candidate, Tory Ali Miraj, in 2005, with the Liberal Democrats coming in second. So Watford is a three-way marginal, no question about it.

Yet every time I get a leaflet the parties seem to spend a great deal of space exhorting me to remember that "It's a straight fight between this party and that party - the other party is out."

Now, I understand that PR value of avoiding a split in the vote, but isn't anybody on their teams checking that what they are saying makes any sense before they post these leaflets out?

It's one thing to say "if you vote X, you may split the vote and Y will get in, so vote for Z", but I am sorry to see our three main candidates stuffing their literature with such illogical  non-sequiturs as "Because the Conservatives have only four out of forty local council seats, they can't win the Watford parliamentary constituency" and "Only by electing Richard Harrington can you make sure David Cameron forms a government on 7 May".

Listen up: your electorate is not stupid. Just tell us what you want us to do and let us agree or disagree with you.

What's wrong with "If you don't want Claire Ward to get in, vote for Sal Brinton"? Or "Polls show we're ahead - but we need every vote we can get, so please stick with the
Conservatives"? Aren't these messages both simple, and not stupid?

No wonder people get confused about politics. Even our candidates are telling voters that the result of the last county council election have some bearing on the outcome of the general election. Either they believe these untrue things, which is bad, or they are simply choosing
to treat their voters like idiots, which could be worse.