Thoughts from a moonlit night

Lying back in a hot tub under the stars produces a moment of contemplation which our forefathers would recognise. True, they would not have had the benefit of the surrounding hot water unless they were taking advantage of Nature's bounty by luxuriating in a mineral spring emerging from far below in the earth's crust, but the view of the heavens would be as recognisable as it is to the modern wild sleeper, lying back in the open air, admiring the heavens sparkling above.

Our ancestors were not slow to see patterns in the stars. They saw the shapes of their heroes and characters from their myths and legends in the apparently random arrangement of the tiny points of light. Thus they passed on to future generations the names of Orion, Cassiopeia, Perseus, Pegasus and the Great Bear, long after the heroes themselves had ceased to have relevance to the watchers. An occasional shooting star no doubt added texture to their stories in the same way that a passing space station, satellite or distant airplane adds romance to a modern watcher.

It would not have taken them long to have taken comfort and reassurance from the warming sun by day and the stars by night, both symbols of the predictability and continuity of existence. Perhaps uncomprehending, they would have recorded the lengthening and shortening of days, the gentle rotation of the stars each night and the longer phases of the heavens as certain shapes or constellations rose and fell at different times of the year. If the Seven Sisters were appearing or disappearing then it was time to plant or to harvest. Thus the days and years could be measured.

They also told stories about the warming sun which made trees and crops grow, as the power which gave life to all things. The colours of dawn gave way to the heat of the day and, in  turn, these faded into the myriad hues and dying light of the end of the day as the gentle stars emerged to begin their nightly vigil. This was obviously a powerful character on his chariot, driving the sun through the sky by day and resting at night. 

But what of the moon? Why did our ancestors not tell stories about the moon and its changing shape? 

The sun and stars were, in many ways, explicable. One was a large ball of light, the other tiny points of twinkle, but what was the moon? She - for she is usually referred to in legend as having a feminine form in contrast to the masculine sun - changed her shape each month, waxing and waning, disappearing completely and reappearing. How could a source of light do such a thing? How did they understand the changes and why did they not create some narrative to explain it?

And what did our ancestors make of the marks on the face of the moon? There are stories about the beauty and serenity of the moon, her gentleness as she passes across the heavens, but these do not mention or attempt to explain her changing shape. The main stories we have inherited are those which tell of the Man in the Moon for it takes little imagination to see the vague marks of a face upon the shape of a full moon, or of a Mr Punch-like nose and mouth on a waxing or waning crescent.

The crescent shape is romantic and convenient for Hollywood starlets to sit on as they are lowered to the stage below, usually clad in a long white dress and crooning some melodious number, or for Peter Pan to settle on when he needed a rest from his frantic flying but these are modern images and do no more than emphasise the connection between the moon and serenity.

Why did they not do better than werewolves? Why is there no narrative of a young maiden who grows and renews herself each month, perhaps fading as her love fades or as the life blood drains from her body, only to be renewed, like Sleeping Beauty or the dying swan, by the kiss of her lover? It could so easily be linked to the tradition that one should not view the new moon through glass.

When did our ancestors realise that the moon was not changing shape as it waxed and waned? Today, we understand that, of all these objects, the moon and the planets are unique in not having their own sources of light. A Greek called Anaxagoras suggested that the phases of the moon might be caused by sunlight and was promptly put into prison for his temerity. Such was ever the fate of visionaries and scientists. Pythagoras, apparently agreed with him. It was not until the European renaissance that Leonardo da Vinci revived the idea and we eventually incorporated the reality into our thinking.

Can we still see the shadow of the full disc on a dark clear night or is this our imagination? Was this what inspired Anaxogoras?

A cloud crosses the sky and the face of the moon is temporarily obscured, her soft white light diluted ... the pumps turn off and it is time to go back indoors. Farewell dear moon, farewell. Travel safely on your nightly path across the heavens. I wave to those remnants of our civilisation you carry with you, tiny pimples on serene face.

What an unholy mess!

The anniversary of the Brexit vote has passed with confusion on both sides. No one seems inclined to 'celebrate' for there is little to celebrate.

The vote divided the country into two almost equal camps who have continued to bicker for 12 months with plenty of heat but no light. The government has expected us to be satisfied with empty soundbites: 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'No deal is better than a bad deal' (a general principle that does not stand up to any analysis, especially given the option of not leaving Europe).  

A couple of months ago Theresa May told us that 'the country is united but Westminster is not' we would therefore have a general election. The result simply highlighted how wrong she had been. Her rhetoric did not got through to the voters (especially as she studiously avoided meeting any); the polls were as misguided as ever; Jeremy Corbyn was not 'unelectable'. The country is now as divided as ever and Westminster is more evenly balanced than it was before.

She actually had the nerve to announce after the election that 'nothing has changed' and that she would be 'getting on with the job' (repeated several times for the hard of hearing). How crass could she be? How ignorant of the message coming out of the balance of votes: that we were not all her greatest fans. She does not have the confidence of the country.

She stumbles on - because we all know that only the Tories are allowed to rule the country - with a divided Party, a divided Parliament and a divided country, while David Davis postures about 'negotiating' when he has actually had one day of talking about the cost of divorce: from a position of considerable weakness.

Of course, the outcome of the election is being interpreted in ways that bear no relation to the question on the ballot paper, just as happened with the referendum.

The referendum asked a single question: should we leave the EU. The answer was interpreted as meaning that we wanted to control migration, get rid of regulation, have freedom to do trade deals, give the NHS more money, and take back sovereignty (for whom; the people? the country? parliament? the Tory party?).  It is ironic that the one explicit thing on offer - more money for the NHS - was withdrawn by the 'winning' side within 48 hours of the vote.

Theresa May then added that we had also voted to leave the Single Market and Customs Union: something that some Brexiteers had specifically said, before the vote, we would not be doing.

The same post-event interpretation happened with the general election. We are now told that we have just voted to 'reject Theresa May's Hard Brexit'. Welcome though this is, I don't remember reading that on the ballot paper. All I saw was a list of names. Is this conclusion the result of some backroom number crunching on who might and might not support her if it came to a vote?

Theresa May takes comfort from the fact that 'over 80% of people voted for a party which supported Brexit'. This is simply more spin. That was not the question on the general election ballot paper. Many voters, on both sides, will have held their noses and voted for the manifestos in the round rather than the different approaches to Brexit, especially as neither major party gave us any detail on what they propose.

What both these votes included was a common cry of protest from the dispossessed, from those who had suffered under austerity. And yes, I am probably falling into exactly the same trap as those commentators who interpreted the results. Both votes were demands for change: an end to austerity.

The Tory front bench refuses, or is incapable, of understanding this as they carry on with 'business as usual' as though they had not just been given a bloody nose by the electorate. 'Nothing has changed' repeated Theresa May in case we had not heard it the first time.

For once, I agree with arch-Brexiteer Gisella Stuart when she said that the 'vacuous' referendum should never have been called. Her argument, amongst others, was that there was no one around to be accountable for the result. No one had been prepared to take ownership of all those vague promises.

At least with the election, we will know who to blame when it all goes horribly wrong. The slimmed down Queen's Speech - hardly long enough for one year's worth of work let alone two, said Jeremy Corbyn - mercifully left out some of the nastier Tory policies but was still pathetic for the first year of a government which is meant to be lasting for five. A fat chance, in my view.

There is talk of having another general election in two years' time to put the Brexit deal to the public. This will simply compound the problem. You cannot bury a question like that in with a whole raft of other policy measures and expect a clear answer. Not unless you are a spin doctor, determined to interpret any result to suit your agenda.

The Tory front bench is hardly a beacon of sanity. As one commentator pointed out, 'We now have a climate change sceptic in charge of environment, a man who hates Europe in charge of Brexit, an NHS enemy in charge of health and a PM who hates human contact (Did I mention that we have a justice secretary with an appalling voting record on LGBT rights)'. They don't often write headlines like that.

The list gets worse, not least with a Chancellor that the PM wanted to sack now throwing his weight around and (thankfully) insisting that economics should be the main consideration in the Brexit negotiations.

Andrea Leadsom demonstrated her grasp of the message from the election when she said that broadcasters (ie the BBC) 'should be a bit patriotic' and suggesting that the country needed to come together. Which bit of democracy does she not understand? Is she suggesting that people should give up their strongly-held views to support her? Why? Has she not understood that the British people do not like being told what to do, or preached at?

Before long, it will finally dawn on people that the referendum promises are undeliverable. Being British, we will not be brave enough to declare the truth and face the consequences. That might look like 'failure'. Mayhem will never allow that. Instead we will cobble up some ghastly compromise with a little bit of everything and the worst of all worlds to show that 'we have delivered what the nation wanted'.

Because of the deep political divide we are now hearing suggestions, including from the Archbishop of Canterbury, of a possible cross-party commission on Brexit. Very sensible in terms of building bridges but I would have expected a better understanding of human nature from him.

In our adversarial system of party politics, the Labour Party has no incentive to help Theresa May achieve a successful Brexit. Napoleon's adage about never interfering with your enemy while he is destroying himself, comes to mind. If Jeremy Corbyn helped out then who would take the praise? And he would have to share the blame if the process, of which he did not have control, did not work out 'brilliantly'. Neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn behave like team players.

Why would anyone work with the leader of a party they did not believe in? If there is to be joint working on Brexit then the Commission will have to be headed by someone different. Neither May nor Corbyn would be acceptable to voters on the other side.

Is it a surprise that, with a lame duck Prime Minister, no one is putting themselves forward from within the Tory party as a possible substitute. 'Boris' says someone. 'Amber' says another. 'Phil for a maximum of two years', says a third. Who would want the poisoned chalice?

We still don't know what Brexit might mean in practice as the government has been so secretive. How can we come together Andrea?

All of which shows democracy at its worst: blunt, ill-informed, open to abuse.

So how do we actually get out of the bind in which we find ourselves? A new Tory leader before the Autumn perhaps? A statesman honest and brave enough to call out Brexit for what it is? A degree of honesty and openness about the nightmare of Brexit, any flavour of which, both sides agree, is going to cause real pain in the short to medium term ... a Macron perhaps. A person without significant baggage who can cut through traditional two-party loyalties and unite people. Someone prepared to put a range of practical and achievable Brexit options to the public, to allow a real, informed debate before decision, before triggering Article 50.

No chance. This is Britain. We are the experts at democracy. The Tories rule and the rest of you do as you are told.

How different it might have been with proportional representation and years of experience of consensus-building as used by those perfidious Europeans with their weak, unstable governments. 'That jeering sound is Europe laughing at Britain' as Andrew Rawnsley's article puts it.

One thing is certain: no one wants another general election just now, no matter how much we need it. I can understand why no one wants to risk making our current woes even worse.

Selecting our MPs

If ever one needed evidence of the nonsense of a First Past The Post voting system then the omni-shambles of the 2017 general election result is it. We have a hung parliament.

You can spin it any which way:

• The Tories have the largest number of seats but do not have a majority. That means they won.
• The Tories received the largest proportion of the popular vote (42%). That means they won (even though it is below 50% and the majority did not vote Tory)
• The Prime Minister gambled her slim majority on her personal approval ratings and the siren voices which told her that she would win a landslide - and failed. But she is staying because continuity is needed
• She ran a disastrous campaign and is morally wounded while Labour put on the largest gains and won the moral victory, so they should be in power
• The Tories are attempting to patch up a coalition of sorts with the DUP, while everyone else holds their noses at the DUP's policies. This shows 'strong leadership' and continuity in action

We are all for coalitions, confidence and supply arrangements or whatever. But with the DUP? The nice irony is that Jeremy Corbyn was criticised in the right wing press for having been soft on terrorists and now we have a right wing PM cosying up to former terrorists to survive.

I guess they did not even think of the Lib Dems this time, fearing a bloody nose.
 
A look at the Cornwall results shows the inequity of our voting system. There are six constituencies, all of which started, and ended up, in Tory hands. The Tories received 49% of the votes (36% of the electorate) and received 100% of the seats.

Labour got 26% of the popular vote and the Lib Dems 24% (making 50% against the Tories) and received nothing: no representation, no voice, no influence. Nothing.

Is this fair, decent or honest?

People argue that 'this is how it has always been done' and this is 'the best way for a strong government' but is it really the right answer in the C20? It is good to see the LSE agreeing with us that the current system is no longer fit for purpose. Why, even David Dimbleby hinted his support during the election broadcast.

The purpose of an election is to gauge the will of the people and allow the majority view to prevail. During campaigning, the one question we were asked on the street was 'What is the tactical vote to get the Tories out?' One website suggested Labour for our constituency, another suggested the Lib Dems.

Is this really how we ought to be managing our elections in the C20: by relying on tactical voting informed by websites (which may have had agendas of their own)? Why cannot we state what we really want, at least as a starting point, and go from there?

If I want to vote Green but would be prepared to settle for Labour, or, if pushed, the Lib Dems, but absolutely not Tory, then how can I express this view? If I wanted to vote UKIP but, if pushed, would prefer the Tory candidate then how can I express this?

The two main ways of managing Proportional Representation are the Single Transferable Vote (STV) - as used in the EU and London Mayoral elections, and in many other countries; and the Party List approach.

Had we had STV then Cornwall would now be enjoying 2 Tory MPs (North and South East), 3 Labour (St Austell & Newquay, Truro & Falmouth and Camborne & Redruth) and 1 Lib Dem (St Ives). A much fairer split if marginally too generous to Labour (thanks to a close call in St Austell & Newquay).

The Party List approach would have allocated the six seats 3 Tory (North, South East and St Austell & Newquay), 2 for Labour and 1 for the Lib Dems: a very much fairer split of the views of the county.

The Party List is attractive to the large parties but is more difficult to manage and risks divorcing MPs from their constituencies and so the STV system seems much the best.

Proportional Representation has to happen, if only to avoid the disenfranchised continuing to believe (rightly) that their views are being ignored. Only vested interests keep it in place and they are not serving their real masters: the people.

Had we had STV, we would have taken Thursday's result in our stride. The Tories might well still be in power but at least they would have had to talk to others - and not just the DUP - before indulging in their wildest fantasies again. But that would prick their belief that they have a divine right to rule.

It is time we stopped believing that there are only two parties that matter and followed other countries by trying to reflect the views of everyone, not just half of them. It would certainly feel more democratic.

In case I am accused of living in La la Land, I shall deal with some of the other benefits and disadvantages in a later post.

Rethinking democracy

After any terrorist disaster it is conventional to say that we must not let others 'undermine democracy'. But it is worth reminding ourselves what this democracy looks like in practice.

Democracy is meant to be about running the country for the benefit of its inhabitants - avoiding the inevitable questions as to how we define these - through a system of votes. It encourages mature debate instead of violence and allows involvement by the people.

As citizens, we are allowed a vote - one person one vote - every five years (ish) to elect an MP who then represents our interests. They, or rather their party, puts together a ragbag of ideas in a Manifesto which consists of a variety of things we detest - such as allowing fox hunting - alongside things we like - such as cutting taxes. We have to take the rough with the smooth, holding our nose over the things we detest or don't understand, and emphasising to our consciences the things with which we agree.

The MPs then get on with the job of running the country, implementing the Manifesto and taking as little notice of us as they feel they can get away with, unless the media - acting as our self-appointed agents - decide to stir up dissent.

Gosh! That sounds exciting and involving. No wonder countries around the world are keen to become democracies.

As we have seen over the last twelve months, it does not always work smoothly.

You do not have to look much further than the unnecessary, appalling, ill-thought through and divisive referendum in the UK which was characterised by blatant lies and half truths. Because it cost a lot of money and despite what we were told at the time, it has been accepted as valid. Just over half of those who voted (27% of the total population) voted to leave the EU. Just under half voted to stay. So the Leavers won.

That is called 'doing what the majority want'. How could we have believed a result based on such incoherent 'facts'?

Neither side had offered a plan of any sort - and the vast majority of the pre-vote promises of the 'winning' side have already been denied as having been 'illustrative' without any acceptance that this might in any way invalidate the result.

We were told that the referendum result was, as much as anything, a cry of protest from the voters at the 'whole system'. Strange: if they did not like the system, why had they voted in a Tory government only the year before?

The referendum was followed by the 'democratic' election of Donald Trump in the USA. His vile campaign was surrounded by lies and emotion which steam-rollered any mature debate. And yet people voted him in (or, if we believe the conspiracy theorists, the Russians fiddled the IT systems so that he won).

It is the era of the 'strong' leader - almost the antithesis of real democracy. President Erdogan of Turkey seized the opportunity to hold a referendum on giving him extra powers, thus initiating the fragmentation of the secular democracy created by Attaturk. He seems headed on a path which will turn him into a tin-pot dictator; no doubt as 'President for Life'. Kim Jong-Un would be proud of him.

They are all following the route of Vladimir Putin who knows a thing or two about manipulating the press, locking up rivals and muzzling free speech. Our own new Prime Minister seems to be following suit, arguing that any opposition or questioning is unacceptable.

David Cameron's resignation after the referendum left a vacancy for a new Prime Minister. All the senior figures of the Leave side were so tarnished by the lies that no one could countenance them as leader. Theresa May swallowed her pride, crossed the floor to Leave and simultaneously fulfilled her very obvious ambition to be the big boss.

We, the people, were given no say in the choice of the new leader matter. Why should we? The Tories were simply re-arranging their deckchairs. They believe it is their 'natural destiny' to rule, after all.

Other 'Remain MPs' followed her lead, turned their coats and have been proclaiming their loyalty to Brexit like born-again Christians, often in the teeth of the declared wishes of their constituencies. So much for principled politics.

Having said she would not call an election, Theresa May changed her mind, spurned the Fixed Term Parliament Act, to suit her own agenda - and that of her party - showing that her grasp on fair dealing was as fragile as the other quasi-dictators.

The resulting general election is now being fought as a presidential election with letters from Theresa saying 'Vote XX, my candidate'. No Theresa, an MP is actually 'our' candidate.

She billed it as the Brexit election and yet there has been almost no mention of Brexit by the various parties, mainly because the Tories have refused to discuss their 'strategy'. Perish the thought that we might actually know what we are voting for. All we are allowed to vote on, in her view, is who might lead the negotiations.

Why do I get the strong impression that the Tories do not actually have a plan, any more than Leave had a plan before the referendum?

To make matters worse, the Tory strategy, guided by the malign Wizard of Aus, seems to consist of five elements:

• A series of mind-numbingly dull and vacuous sound bites of which 'strong and stable' outscores most others
• Very personal attacks on Jeremy Corbyn
• Putting words into others' mouths to reinforce the personal attacks
• Avoidance of questions from any genuine voter, or interviews on television or radio
• Malicious, unmediated messaging on social media

The first four are the stuff of most political campaigns but the last is a nasty trend, especially when combined with the tactic of putting words into others' mouths.

All this subverts democracy in a way which the Bolsheviks and Nazis would recognise. Both won power through the ballot box and then changed the rules to suit.

Despite arrogant Anglo-Saxon beliefs, democracy is not a book of rules. It is a fragile flower which requires hard work and nurture. It requires honesty and involves trust: trust which is now sadly lacking as MPs are revealed to have some very human frailties.

Ah, we are told, the UK has the 'mother of parliaments' and invented parliamentary democracy. So it must be the best. Yes, but that was a few hundred years ago. Things have changed since then. Others have found some improvements which may be worth considering.

The last big change was the Great Reform Act of 1867. Yes, we have 'given' women the vote and a few other niceties since then but the basic model has not changed. Did I just write that? 'The basic model has not changed much' in 150 years?

In 1867, there was no mass communication. News of events in London would take days to reach all parts of the kingdom. Polling did not exist. Telephones did not exist although Twitter-length messages could be sent by telegram.

MPs had to be delegates. They were elected to represent the views of their constituents in a general way, not issue by issue for there was no way to keep closely in touch with them. They were trusted to make up their own minds and do the best for their voters. Few, probably, were able to spend each weekend in their constituencies, talking and listening.

This same model has served us since then. But today we live in a world of instant mass communications, surrounded by social media in all its forms, of polling, of broadcast media, of 24 hour news.

Could it be that the systems of the mid C19 might no longer be suitable in the C21? I surely cannot be suggesting that some improvements might be possible? No, the UK never likes such things. Sir Humphrey would never approve.

And what about the rise in unmediated social media and its love of spreading fake news? Or the domination of the media by a few very biased individuals? Or the opportunities offered by instant communications?

As the opportunities for communication have increased, so have the powers of the party whips. It is unthinkable for a modern MP not to obey his or her whip: certainly if they want to have any sort of career within the party. Parties have become monolithic, inspiring devoted and unswerving loyalty in the teeth of reason, rational analysis or truth. Spin doctors have become past-masters at dealing with inconvenient truths that occasionally rear their heads.

As the referendum has shown, we live in an age when the majority sees itself as having a divine right to rule: the thuggish tyranny of the majority. 'You lost, get over it'.

Many of us struggle to remember when our vote last counted in an election. We simply shrug our shoulders and wear t-shirts emblazoned 'Don't blame me I voted XX'.

The winners argue that a majority gives them a 'strong government' which can get things done: and never mind the views of anyone else.

This is not what democracy is supposed to be about. Yes, the will of the majority should prevail but it should take into account the views of the minorities. It should be tested in debate and discussion. It is not meant to be a licence to overrule all opposition for five years.

A brief nod to Tony Blair who, on coming into office with the largest majoirty Labour had ever seen, involved his predecessor, John Major, in completing the Good Friday Agreement in N Ireland. He also allowed Michael Heseltine to continue to work on the Millennium Dome with which he had been associated. It was an attempt to be inclusive whatever others' political views.

What makes things worse is that the majority is not actually a majority. Parties and MPs are elected by ever-smaller proportions of the voting public often representing a distinct minority of the popular vote.

In the 2015 election the Tories received 60% of the English seats with 41% of the votes; Labour 39% with 32%. So the top two parties received 99% of the English seats with 73% of the popular vote. And we call that democracy? No, it is a legalised duopoly.

Both parties like the present system as it gives them a 'strong' government and squeezes out alternative voices. No one wants dissenting voices do they? The newspapers referred to Theresa May's opponents as saboteurs. This is the language of tyranny. If you are not with us you must be against us and must be eradicated, marginalised, re-educated.

Such tyranny cannot be good for democracy or for our country.

Churchill's famous quote that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others is only the start of the story. He never said that there was only one way of doing democracy.

The tragedy is that there is neither an appetite for change nor a consideration that might be a better way. No party in power is ever going to propose something which might in any way weaken its hold on the reign of power.

This is the first of a series of posts looking at some areas where there is obvious room for improvement in our democratic processes. One day, I hope we have a leader strong enough and 'democratic' enough both to recognise the need and to make changes.

Then we might have a democracy worth defending.

Building walls

The general election is ten days away and our thoughts are focused on matters political but a recent piece on the BBC website caught the eye, and one sentence in particular:

'The authorities here are constructing a new ideology - a mixture of nationalism and patriotism, conservatism and loyalty to the state.'

Which authorities? Which country? It could so easily be any one as it deftly and succinctly sums up the way in which people are raising barriers all round the world.

Nationalism, patriotism, conservatism and loyalty to the state would be old hat in China. It certainly describes Trump's America and is coming to define the UK, egged on by the voices of the Right. Add in religion to either of these and you could also be talking about Erdogan's Turkey.

It is in fact a reference to Russia. The article referred to the arrival of a religious relic which was stimulating much devotion, even by Putin himself, once a KGB operative charged with rooting out the cancer of religion. How politicians sway, and rarely in the right direction.

'The authorities here are constructing a new ideology - a mixture of nationalism and patriotism, conservatism and loyalty to the state.'

It sounds like a return to Tsarist days.

The world's problems - whether climate change, the impact of globalisation and robotics, peak oil, shortage of raw materials, population growth, extremism, terrorism or famine - are global problems and require global solutions with people working together.

How can we be so blind as to build walls around ourselves and think we can keep the plagues at bay?

Killing enthusiasm

Turning away, momentarily, from the strong and stable blather of the General Election, I tripped over this Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar (SPaG) test paper. This was given to Year 6 (aged 10 - 11) children in 2016.

This year group is no longer tested in creative writing: it is too difficult to mark as there are no 'rights' and 'wrongs'.

A test of grammar was probably introduced because of one of those generalised cocktail party conversations to the effect that 'children no longer know how to speak properly' or 'no one can write a proper sentence any more'.

As an apostrophe (and occasional grammar) pedant, I have some sympathy but before we get all high and mighty, just have a look at the test paper. Turn to page 28 and work backwards, asking yourself honestly how many you can confidently get right. And no, I am not going to tell you the answers.

Lynn Truss has much to answer for but can you think of a better way of making English Language the Most Boring Subject at School?

Which would you rather have: perfect grammar as approved by the Ministry or Jane Austen's wonderful prose complete with its myriad 'spelling errors'?

Election news ...

The news that there is to be a General Election on 8 June fills us with mixed emotions ranging from fear to terror.

It is clearly the era of the 'strong leader'. Putin is everyone's pin-up with Xi Jinping close behind. Trump has learned from both, as has Erdogan. It is much easier to rule by decree in a one party state but the lack of accountability, the lack of checks and balances, the lack of questioning shows it has nothing to do with democracy. It is the tyranny of the majority.

Now Theresa seeks to follow their examples. All hail President May!

The only consolation for those of who take a long vision, is that all previous examples of 'strong leaders' have eventually drifted back to more balanced, considered forms of democracy but not before many, many people have been hurt economically, socially and in worse ways. It is little consolation that history judges 'strong' leaders harshly.

PM to take over as archbishop?

Politicians usually make a mess of things when they try to 'do religion' which is why Tony Blair, himself a practising christian, very sensibly avoided such things. Sadly our present leader has not learned the lesson and her Easter message was the usual mix of platitudes and rubbish as she sought to play the archbishop's role.

She sees a 'coming together' after Brexit. No, Theresa, there is no coming together. We are implacably opposed to it as ever and no amount of posturing by you will make it any different. It might help if you did something to 'bring us together' but that is simply not in your nature, it seems.

It was understandable that you wanted to talk about Easter after the idiotic fuss about the National Trust/Cadburys Easter egg hunt: grab any message to to take people's eyes off the really important things of life but do your homework next time. The campaign did use the 'E' word.

But avoid religion if you can.

By talking about 'Christian values' you not only play the nostalgia card but hack off a large proportion of the nation who either follow some other religion or have no faith in a god: unsurprising given the way some of his followers are behaving at the moment.

The other reason to avoid religion is that you are likely to get a sermon in return. Can I remind you that Christianity is meant to be about caring for the poor, meek and least well off in society; about bringing people together not pushing them apart; about persuasion not coercion. It was the rich man who had difficulty getting into heaven, I recall.

Indeed, the main message of Christianity seems to be about loving one's neighbour as oneself, not shutting them out in the cold. If anything, it is about being open, tolerant and united. And not the 'united' that stifles dissent.

Unless, of course, you prefer the other version of Christianity in which the poor are happy with their downtrodden lot because their reward will be in heaven.

The downwards path

Much has happened since I last posted anything here. Little of it of any encouragement at all.

Both Houses of Parliament have cravenly caved in to the bullying by the whips and given our PM the right to do just about anything she likes with Brexit. She alone can decide whether 'the deal' we manage to negotiate - if any - will be 'the best deal' and can implement it without any parliamentary scrutiny or agreement by voters.

Others have pointed out the absurdity that every other country in Europe will have the right to vote on the deal but we, the people most affected by it, will not. He ho for democracy.

We have triggered Article 50 without, apparently, there being any plan in place for right up to the wire David Davis was mumbling and prevaricating to the Parliamentary Select Committee, admitting that his Department had not done any work on a whole range of issues.

The Article 50 letter - a distinctly poor piece of drafting - contained veiled threats which went straight up the noses of the other  Members of the EU and caused our government to 'clarify' things which is usually a synonym for 'tactical retreat'.

The view from the rest of the world was a combination of shock and disappointment. A correspondent in the the Washington Post put his finger on the Britain's delusions of empire.

Then we had 'Gibraltar-gate' and Lord Howard got out his rusty sabre to threaten Spain with an invasion.

At a more detailed level, we have seen Davis et al, 'clarifying' a whole range of issues including, apparently, that migration will not be stopped. Health workers: a special case. Coffee shop baristas: a special case. Highly skilled scientists: a special case. Students: let's take them out of the reckoning.

I seem to remember David Davis saying at the despatch box that we would have 'exactly the same trade deal' as before. It now seems he did not mean 'exactly' the same deal as before. He meant that the deal would be even better.

What he did not say is what that deal would be or how one would judge whether it was 'exactly the same', 'the same' or worse. Any one of them would of course be 'much better' because DD would say that it was and the PM would then activate it with her sweeping powers. Hey ho for democracy or logic. Never let facts get in the way of a good spin.

Meanwhile, we have seen a whole string of former ministers saying that things have gone too far. Lord Heseltine, freed from his role in the party is now peeing into the tent as hard as he can. Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, John Major, Lord Patten - an alliance that on could only dream about - is united in its opposition. Sadly the numbskulls simply respond with lines like 'yesterday's men'. Playing the man and not the ball as usual.

Chris Patten's piece in The World Economic Forum was particularly good.

A bunch of Leavers tried the same when they took exception to the gloomy conclusions of the Select Committee report and simply walked out. In a response in the New Statesman, Pat MacFadden took them to task and suggested that they should face up to the arguments and not simply walk out.

All of this was well summed up in an article on the Citizen of Nowhere blog which asked Are you angry yet? This concluded that:

• We’re not going to gain sovereignty, we’re going to lose it (the government's own paper was honest to admit that we have always had sovereignty even if it has not felt like it) 
• We’re not going to reduce immigration
• We’re not going to get better trade arrangements than we already have
• We’re not going to save the money we send to the EU
• We are going to lose a lot of money and a lot of jobs
• We may break up the UK

All of which begs the age-old question: then why are we leaving the EU? Oh yes, because we voted for it.

Why?

Letter to my MP

I have been silent since before Christmas, overwhelmed by the sheer horror of a Trump presidency, and the rhetoric, attitudes and lies that supported it.

Our own government has been no better and has stumbled from pillar to post until finally, backed into a corner, our Prime Minister gave us some idea of how she - not her government note - wanted the negotiations to go. Having said she did not want to give away her negotiating position she promptly did so, showing the weakness of her hand.

Then we had the Trump/May visit when our PM walked along hand in hand with a man she had only just met: a serial philanderer and well-known sexual denigrator of women. Had a junior member of staff done the same in business they would have expected to be disciplined but no doubt there is a different rule for the rich and powerful.

A wave of protest has echoed around the world after Trump's inauguration - if that is not 'alternative facts' - and people have written in protest at the idea of welcoming him to the UK for a state visit.

Others of us felt that a line had been crossed and needed to express themselves more fully. Here is a copy of the letter I have sent to my MP who I previously regarded as something of a business friend/acquaintance.

To Sarah Newton MP for Truro and Falmouth
Dear Sarah

It is with great sadness that I have to write to you but enough is enough and I need to let you know where I stand on the key issues of the day. In what follows you will see a number of underlying themes:

• That this government is failing to lead the country effectively, is taking no practical steps to bring together a deeply divided country, and is not setting set out a vision for the future
• That this government is being dictatorial in its approach and is attempting to circumvent and ignore parliament for which it will be held accountable
• That the whole Brexit process is so flawed that it should be halted immediately and that you should vote against triggering Article 50

The vote in June split the country and a new government with a new Prime Minister emerged. Taking over at a time of crisis, the government has stumbled as it has sought to establish its policies, none of which have been tested with the public. It was inevitable that there would be a hesitant start but progress has been poor. We have had to endure a series of damp squib announcements of an increasingly objectionable nature, playing to a populist gallery, many of which have often been withdrawn shortly afterwards.

Our Prime Minister has talked about helping the ‘just about managing’ and encouraged us all to ‘come together’. Good talk and yet her government has done nothing, in all those announcements, to walk the walk. On the contrary, its announcements have seemed to bear down on precisely those about whom it professes to care.

On the major issue of Brexit, there has been no attempt to reach out to the 48% who voted to remain in Europe, let alone to those who did not vote at all and very little has been done to prevent the wave of racist and thuggish behaviour that has seemingly been sanctioned by the vote.

Nothing has been done to reassure our friends from the EU who are living here quite legally that they are not about to be deported. Instead they have been told they are ‘bargaining chips’ in a future negotiation.

And nothing has been done to reign in the quite despicable media who have stoked much of this hatred.

The biggest mistake of all has been the contempt for parliament. We have heard much about ‘democracy’ in recent months and everyone has become a barrack-room expert on the subject but history reminds us that governments that ignore parliament come to grief; usually with shattering consequences.

The referendum vote presaged the biggest shake-up of the UK for years and yet, since the vote, this government has attempted to shut down any discussion of what the future might look like. When it became clear that the leaders of the Leave Campaign had absolutely no coherent plan for our future after the vote, this government made no attempt to start a national conversation or debate in parliament as to what the vote actually meant in practice.

We were simply told that there was a deadline of the end of March: a purely arbitrary timescale. Eventually, after 5 months of silence and after much pressure, the people have been allowed to hear what the Prime Minister is thinking - in a speech lead by the word ‘I’ and not ‘we’ – a mere two months before the arrival of that deadline. There allowed no opportunity for mature reflection and discussion. Although that speech offered some involvement of parliament in the process, it was clear that the decision of the House would be forced through by three-line whip and would not be respected if it failed to support the government.  That is the way of tyranny.

It is hard to conceive of a more misguided and less open method of decision-making and this government will be judged by it.

We should be openly discussing the future of the country: whether it is really wise to prioritise control of immigration over economic stability. Whether there really is a future – beyond the wildest fantasies of some of the protagonists – as a Singapore on Speed: a description which is laughable for anyone who knows anything about the two countries. What the actual costs are going to be and how it is going to affect the man in the street. What the impact on the massive national debt might be and on the consequences for public services: yes, some of us still believe in them and do not wish to see them sold off to Jack-the-lads and foreign investors.

In short, in the absence of any plan from the Brexiters, the government had a golden opportunity to re-open the debate of options for the future of this country in a responsible, business-like and consultative way. This might have brought people together. This might have encouraged those derided experts to examine and comment on a variety of models. This could have shown just how inconsistent were the promises made by the Brexiters. It might have resulted in a compromise which could have commanded general acceptance.

But no: we were presented with silence and platitudes. People have talked about empowerment and yet the government has ignored the wishes of pockets of the country who voted to Remain and appears deaf to the views of the constituent assemblies. Take back control indeed!

Parliament is now facing a vote on triggering Article 50. I think you have four possible approaches:

The first is to recognise your responsibility as an MP to vote with your conscience. This is Walter Bagehot’s long-standing principle which has not yet been formally overturned even in an age of mass communications and opinion polls.

You were an avowed Remainer during the campaign and I therefore give you the benefit of the doubt that that is where your heart lies. I shall not insult you by digging out your own statements on why it is the right thing to do.

If your conscience still supports remaining then I would ask you to consider whether you believe that what is proposed is actually in the country’s best interest. Is it economically sound? Is it thought through? Has it been properly costed? Have the consequences been clearly explained to the public: and not just on the side of a bus, through Twitter, on the Andrew Marr show or in a speech at Lancaster House? Is it for the best for the maximum number of people without being the tyranny of a vocal minority?

Or you could consider what the voters in your own constituency voted for. They voted to Remain. I do not need to rehearse the arguments as to why Cornwall should have favoured remaining: Cornwall Council’s letter the week after the vote asking for confirmation that it would receive as much money after Brexit as it had received from the EU said it all. You have every right to vote as your constituents did and to argue against triggering Article 50.

Or you could join the legion of barrack-room democrats and say that ‘the country voted to leave so we should leave’. To do so would be to spit in the face of the 48% and the many who did not vote whose views you cannot know. As is now pretty universally acknowledged, the previous government completely messed up the nature of the referendum. It did not require a super-majority and disenfranchised groups in a quite arbitrary manner, over-confident at the likely outcome.

What seems so incredible is that no one has had the honesty or guts to stand up and say this publicly. Two wrongs do not make a right as we were all taught in the nursery.

Another, and fundamental reason for treating the result with great caution is the appalling nature of the pre-vote conversation. There was no meaningful manifesto by Brexiters who made a series of conflicting and contradictory promises. It is no good saying ‘people are grown up enough to know that politicians don’t mean what they say when they are after your vote’. That is simply immoral. The rowing back on the promise of £350m per week on the NHS and inclusion in the Single Market are cases in point.

We know the vote was emotional. We also know it was built on lies. That is why it is the responsibility of government to regard it as advisory, as originally intended, and re-start the conversation with a fuller picture. The way to do this is to vote to delay the triggering of Article 50.

We considered impeaching Tony Blair for taking us to war in Iraq on the basis of a pack of lies. Are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that we are not about to leave the EU based on a similar pack of lies?

Your last option would be simply to follow the instructions of the party whips. This will make you complicit in the tyranny and is precisely the behaviour that brings Westminster into contempt.

So, where does this take us?

I, like others, have been appalled to see our Prime Minister cosying up to repressive regimes in an attempt to build bridges with potential trading partners. To think that we are in danger of rejecting the neighbours who are a mere 20 miles away from us in favour of regimes like Turkey which appears to be becoming more authoritarian and whose candidature to the EU was major issue for Brexiters during the campaign; or Australia, a country we love but which is rather more carbon miles away than could possibly be sensible; or Saudi Arabia who barely seem to believe that women exist as equal citizens. And as for holding hands with the most divisive president of the USA ever, who is intent on prioritising ‘America First’, actively pursuing discriminatory policies, preventing the entry of people from countries he does not like on distinctly dubious grounds, and advocating the break up the EU: the mind boggles. And inviting President Trump for a state visit puts HM the Queen in an impossible position. Is she supposed to hold hands too?
It is hard not to be stunned by the naivety and delusional nature of the thinking.

Has parliament had a say in any of this? No. Despite the promises that ‘Parliament will have an important role in making sure we find the best way forward’ (David Jones MP).

And that brings me full circle to the purpose of this letter.

Enough is enough. I can no longer countenance support for this government in any form. It has already made us a laughing stock around the world. It is betraying the core British values of mature reason, debate and fair dealing. It is riding roughshod over the fragile flower of democracy. In collusion with the media, it is attempting to browbeat the judiciary. It is enabling a repressive narrative of discrimination on the basis of religion, race and nationality. It is openly seeking to circumvent proper debate in both houses of parliament; and it is gulling the people by not allowing an open, reasoned and informed debate or telling them the likely economic and social impact of the decision to leave the EU.

A criminal found guilty in a trial is given leave to appeal so that there can be a second check on the evidence. Some of the people may have spoken in June last year but it seems that there is to be no chance for appeal or rational informed debate on what is surely going to be the most important decision this country will take this century.  The current Brexit proposals are tantamount to summary execution without appeal: by being thrown off a cliff.

What this government, and that of the USA do not understand is that making Britain or America ‘great’ again does not mean making them the most physically or economically strong: neither of which is actually possible. Nor does it mean a return to some imagined glory days of the past: which is not possible given globalisation and the nature of our changed economies. Being ‘great’ again means being respected for our calm, mature, rational, human, open-mindedness and willingness to engage; for our respect for parliamentary democracy and not the voice of the rabble: for our soft power not our hard. The governments of both countries are hell bent on what they see as ‘greatness’ and I see as narrow, selfish, nationalism in precisely the opposite direction: a route to ‘littleness’.

I hope when you and I meet again we will be able to discuss some of these issues rationally but please be aware that if you vote for triggering Article 50 in March, I shall be working as hard as I can both to bring down the current administration and to unseat you as our MP at the next election.

I hope you vote with your conscience against triggering Article 50 at the end of March so that you and I can at least claim to be on the side of reason, not of the mob and not of dictatorship.

Best wishes