“At the time it was often remarked he was one of only two politicians in the country who could stop traffic and would have cheering crowds wherever he went – the other being Nigel Farage”
During the 2008 London Mayoral election campaign my local paper, The Croydon Advertiser, asked a series of questions of then-Mayor Ken Livingston and Conservative candidate Boris Johnson about issues in the borough. Ken’s answers were as I recall perfectly adequate, but Boris’ I remember thinking at the time were written as if he had been a lifelong resident and his heart would always be in the town. Eight years later reading Zac Goldsmith’s answers to a similar set of questions, I thought he came over as if he had never been to the borough, had no intention of ever visiting, and the best we could hope for was he might mention the place to his staff in passing. Why am I writing about this? Well, it was clear Boris knew how to get a crowd onboard. Also, with Croydon being one of those outer London boroughs, a Conservative Mayoral candidate needs to pile on the votes to have any hope of winning. In stark contrast to the next Tory candidate, he or his team knew this interview mattered.
By the time Boris left office as Mayor, he had returned to parliament and was the leading light of the Vote Leave campaign. At the time it was often remarked he was one of only two politicians in the country who could stop traffic and would have cheering crowds wherever he went – the other being Nigel Farage. He delivered, at least in part, Brexit. The man who broke the Red Wall to win a stonking majority in the end simply ran out of steam.
“A policy started no doubt with the best intentions, stole our freedom, crushed our economy, set a precedent which future governments may reuse, was implemented by this megalomaniac who partied while the locked-down people suffered”
What will be Johnson’s legacy? My personal view is I believe him to be the worst Prime Minister in British history. Johnson was the man who placed in a form of house arrest sixty-seven million healthy people based on a computer model. The evidence from Sweden, and across the United States where similar states had radically different lockdown policies shows his withdrawal of our freedom didn’t save any lives. Indeed, the economic calamity, social impact and changes to our lifestyles may well be responsible for the ongoing increase in excess deaths. A policy started no doubt with the best intentions, stole our freedom, crushed our economy, set a precedent which future governments may reuse, was implemented by this megalomaniac who partied while the locked-down people suffered. However, I am aware, all too many were willing to accept lockdowns. So how do I believe he will be more generally viewed?
Boris campaigned in 2019 to “Get Brexit Done”. In that election he not only saw off the threat of Corbyn, but he also cemented a new Conservative coalition that broke the Red Wall and enabled us to retain our nations democratic traditions by delivering Brexit. It’s worth thinking through a counterfactual on delivering Brexit. Boris was handed Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement. He had two choices, make the best of that, or scrap it and try to get a more complete Brexit deal through a Remain voting parliament. With new parties being formed to stop Brexit, the Supreme Court and the House of Commons Speaker doing all they could to block the will of the people, Boris had little choice but to plough on with the deal he had. Once he had won that eighty-seat majority on a manifesto that included that deal, he had little choice but to deliver it. The Remain crowd arguably lost because they would accept no compromise. Their attempts to stop any form of Brexit meant we had to, at least for Great Britain, fully leave. Boris making the best of the cards he had been dealt, with help from the Brexit Party standing down candidates, took the only practical steps available to get us out of the European Union.
“The children of the middle classes are increasingly voting Labour following their university educations, the Tories need working class voters to stay focused on cultural rather than economic issues”
In winning that majority, Boris oversaw the completion of a journey that had been taking place for some years. Working class voters, who had traditionally voted Labour, moved from voting on predominantly economic grounds to more cultural and specifically patriotic grounds. Many of these voters had moved to the Conservatives, via voting UKIP or Brexit Party. With the Brexit Party stood down and UKIP imploded, Boris’ Conservatives rather than Brexit-betraying Labour became their natural home. At the time of writing, voting for the next leader is about to get underway. Whoever wins needs to retain that coalition of suburban and country middle class, and patriotic working-class voters for the Conservatives to win the next election. The children of the middle classes are increasingly voting Labour following their university educations, the Tories need working class voters to stay focused on cultural rather than economic issues. To secure this the next Prime Minister should act on the following:
Immediately ease the cost-of-living crisis by suspending or better still removing Net Zero targets and reducing environmental obligations and VAT on energy bills.
Get the economy going, by cutting taxes, speeding up the opening of free ports and opening fracking sites.
Stop the cross-channel traffic of illegal immigration. No government can claim competence when it can’t even defend our sea border.
Take a stand for free speech. Most areas of the culture war are a minefield, the Conservatives don’t want to be seen as the nasty party, but they can take a stand for free speech. In doing this they can pitch themselves as standing up for the little guy against the social media giants of Silicon Valley, which will resonate with direct speaking working class voters and older voters who grew up proud we were part of the free world.
Failure to act to retain the new coalition will not only see the Conservatives leave office at the next election it will destroy what little is left of Johnson’s legacy.
This article originally appeared in the Blacklist Press, Free Speech bulletin 18th July 2022.
“actions towards the green economy are for nought; not just while the tragedy of the commons and eminent domain remain, but while monetary policy remains in favour of secular inflation”
Many people are growing concerned about pollution and its growing effects on our environment and quality of life. So much so it seems, that politicians are now taking nuclear power much more seriously than previously.
We’ve seen a greater push towards solar and wind power, as alternative and more renewable means of providing energy for national and global economies.
Despite this, actions towards the green economy are for nought; not just while the tragedy of the commons and eminent domain remain, but while monetary policy remains in favour of secular inflation.
Secular inflation is a term used to describe a state of affairs, where the policy of the monetary authorities; in the UK’s case the Bank of England, is to have a prolonged or gradual increase in prices via inflation targeting. The current target of the Bank of England sits at 2%, so the BoE aims to increase the money supply (MS) over the quantity demanded (MD) during each period to meet their price index targets of an increase by 2%.
This excess expansion of MS, leads to a decrease in the purchasing power of the pound, meaning that money is not as valuable as it was in the previous period, nor is it as valuable as that of the base year. The base year, also known as year 1, is the starting point for measuring changes in the price level and purchasing power of money. It is derived as being equal to 1.00. If the purchasing power of the pound decreases by 50%, then the price index in year 2 will be marked as 1.50; similarly if the purchasing power increases by 50% it is marked as 0.50. (For more simple calculations shown later below, a comparison will be made between the price index of 2021 to 2020, rather than the base year).
From a secular inflation perspective, the value of money for one year holds an “expiration date” in the next year.
This policy effect on environmental quality and progress can be examined using the Kurznets Curve.
The Kurznets Curve measures environmental quality by per capita income.
“as we become richer, we place a higher value on the environment and are more able to maintain it”
The curve shows that as economies begin to develop, environmental quality worsens, because new activities are being enacted which impact the environment, but there is not enough monetary productivity to incentivise the maintenance of the environment. As per capita income increases, the cost of maintenance or seeking renewable alternatives, in proportion to income allows for a cleaner environment becomes a desired activity; as we become richer, we place a higher value on the environment and are more able to maintain it. This is shown by the location of low income; denominated as LYand HY in relation to their relationship to the x and y axis.
The problem is that the Kurznets Curve measures nominal income, rather than real income. Nominal income refers to the total quantity of current money (10 £50 notes = £500), whereas real income refers to the actual purchasing power of that £500. This real money balance is calculated as:
Where m is the real money balance, M is the nominal and P is the price index.
The current CPI 9.1, so the real value of the £500 is, so by comparing the price index of June 2021 (111.3), to June 2022 (121.8)
Meaning £500 M (nominal) from 2021 is worth £456.89 (£457 rounded) in m (real) in 2022.
We can also calculate the real level of income by denoting y as real income, and by dividing Y (the nominal level of income) by the price index P:
Suppose average per capita income is £30,000. According to the curve measuring nominal income, a per capita income of £30,000 should see us shifting to the right of the curve. However, adjusting to the real level of income via P we obtain:
This means that Y £30,000 level of income from 2021, is worth y £27413.79 (27414 rounded) level of income in 2022.
The trend of reduced real value can be shown further. Treating 2008 as the base year and looking towards the receding purchasing power of the pound, it can be observed how the pound has reduced in value over time:
This means that Y £30,000 level of income from 2021, is worth y £27413.79 (27414 rounded) level of income in 2022.
The trend of reduced real value can be shown further. Treating 2008 as the base year and looking towards the receding purchasing power of the pound, it can be observed how the pound has reduced in value over time:
Above we see a time plot of the real value of the pound from the period 2008 to 2022. The plot starts at the base year and looks at the value of the pound (measured in pence) for each year in comparison to the previous year. For example a nominal money balance of 100p in 2013 is worth 97.15 in real money balance terms, compared to nominal 100p in 2014, which is worth 98.10 in real balance terms.
We can also observe the contraction in real money balances as a comparison to the base year and further compare it to the year by year data:
In the graph the blue line represents the real value (m) of 100p on a year by year comparison (the real value of 100p in 2009 compared to the real value of 100p in 2010 etc), whereas the red line represents the onwards reduction in the real value of 100p compared to the previous years real value, from the point of the base year.
To give an example of this, in the period 08/09, the real value of 100p compared to the base year was 93.84, whereas in 09/10, the real value of that 93.84 in the next year was 92.02.
“The largest fall in real value occurred after the financial costs of the covid lockdown, where the real value of £30,000 in 2022 is £27,413.79”
A similar phenomenon can be observed with regards to wages. Supposing the median nominal income is £30,000, we can see the change in the real value of the median income over the period from 2008 to 2022:
Here we see the real value of income from 2009 to 2022, where 2008 is treated as the base year. During the aftermath of the 2008 financial crises, we see the real value of £30,000 drop from £29,480.97 in 2009 to £28,778.14 in 2011. The largest fall in real value occurred after the financial costs of the covid lockdown, where the real value of £30,000 in 2022 is £27,413.79.
Translated back to the Kurznets Curve then, it can show the following:
By adjusting nominal to real, we see that the slope of the curve rises and overall shifts further to the right. Meaning that adjusted to real money balances, renewal of the environment becomes a lot less affordable for the average person. As time moves on with a policy of secular inflation in place, the value of the £30,000 wage decreases, and people need to acquire higher nominal balances each year in order to reach previous levels of real income; ad infinitum.
This means that we are always a step behind (or according to the CPI, 9.1 steps behind) when it comes to environmental quality. This leads to one of the many costs of inflation; protection.
When people expect inflation to rise or to be constant, they spend resources to protect the value of their assets from the effects of inflation. This is in the form of personal finances, investing in precious metals such as gold or silver, or seeking advice from accountants.
While this type of activity is rational to the person(s) looking to protect themselves, it is also wasteful compared to the value that could’ve been satisfied had there been no inflation to begin with. This further adds to slowing down the process of per capita incomes moving to the right of the curve, because the loss of purchasing power for financial capital, diverts resources to “wasteful” endeavours.
Our current policy of price stability by injecting excess money into the economy, as an attempt to avoid deflating prices, provides us with the very effects that slow the Kurznets Curves process; a rise in output prices which detract from falls in unit production costs.
If we want to take environmental degradation, and improving the environments quality seriously, then it is important to address secular inflation and abandoning the policy of inflation targeting, in favour of a productivity norm to allow for growth deflation, financial stability and a reduction in unit production costs to spur on reduced output costs.
We talk about Boris Johnson’s downfall and the Tory Leadership Race. We are then joined by Tam Laird, the leader of the Scottish Libertarian Party, to discuss Nicola Sturgeon’s demands for a second Scottish Independence referendum. Finally, we chat with Tam about his background and the Scottish Libertarian Party.
The TPA are coming to Purley on the 30th July for the latest leg of the Town Hall Rich List Roadshow.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance, was launched in 2004 to speak for ordinary taxpayers fed up with government waste, increasing taxation, and a lack of transparency in all levels of government.
Following years of waste at Croydon Council and the de facto bankrupting of the borough, they are coming to Purley on the 30th July for the latest leg of the Town Hall Rich List Roadshow.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance have held several street stalls in Croydon prior to the issuing of a Section 114 notice and Croydon declaring de facto bankruptcy, these have focused on executive pay. Their review of Councillors’ allowances highlighted the premium rates councillors received compared to nearby colleagues, and the town has too often featured on their Blog.. The taxpayers and service recipients of Croydon would all be better off if the council had listened when the TPA all too frequently highlighted our town.
Now, with assistance from the Croydon Constitutionalists, they will be asking local residents whether they thought Croydon’s former Chief Executive Jo Negrini was worth her £613,895, 2020-21 remuneration package.
Locals will have the opportunity to have their say, by using ping pong balls to cast their votes. Croydon Council’s political make-up has changed, but with many tough years ahead this is an opportunity for people to say if they want to retain the council’s remuneration habits of the past.
The street stall will be open Saturday 30 July, 10:30 am – 1pm, outside 911 Brighton Rd, Purley CR8 2BP.
If you would like more information about this topic, please contact Michael Swadling at [email protected].
“led by principal Remainers Theresa May/Gavin Barwell, who gave away all our negotiating power to their friends in the EU, so we would have Brexit in name only”
For me the EU Brexit Referendum in 2016 changed the whole UK political dialogue and media background. The divisions/animosity between Brexiteers and Remainers were much greater, deeper, than the traditional Left/Right political differences experienced before 2016. There was a real hatred, lack of respect that was made even worse when a Remain Parliament, a Remain Establishment, a Remain Civil Service and a Remain media so obviously tried to block the democratic will of the EU Referendum majority by blocking/delaying Brexit so sneakily and dishonestly – led by principal Remainers Theresa May/Gavin Barwell, who gave away all our negotiating power to their friends in the EU, so we would have Brexit in name only.
Fortunately for Brexiteers (and the UK) real local democracy returned to the UK from the undemocratic EU via a true Brexit, thanks to Mr Brexit – PM Boris Johnson. He swept to power in 2019 on a Brexit vote and sealed the fate of the Remainers and we left the EU. Remainers/Rejoiners went underground to regroup in the face of a Brexit PM with a whopping 80 seat majority. They soon realised that their only hope was to attack and unseat Mr Brexit himself – Boris Johnson, and so began a concerted, co-ordinated attack on the man himself – it was their only hope in the short term. For Labour too it was a possibly quicker route back to power after the Corbyn disaster years.
“If there is a slow news day, our febrile, out of control, unaccountable, left wing, UK Remain “gotcha” media will now invent stories by always taking the worst line on any issue/comment”
Unfortunately, at the same time the background UK political/media landscape had now changed radically, and this helped the Remainers a lot. Since 2016 the UK press/media have gorged themselves on a Referendum, leadership elections, General Elections in UK and USA and the battle with the EU over the Brexit treaty. Virtually everything is now breaking news. If there is a slow news day, our febrile, out of control, unaccountable, left wing, UK Remain “gotcha” media will now invent stories by always taking the worst line on any issue/comment that could possibly be interpreted two ways. They do this just to invent stories and fill in breaking news gaps. The only news items now not in breaking news appears to be the weather.
The febrile “gotcha” UK media now also encourages the UK opposition party (Labour) to campaign for re-election the day after they lose an election. In the old days there would be a break for 2/3 years before electioneering began in Year 3/4 of a Parliamentary term. The UK media desperate for breaking news will give the opposition limitless media coverage – especially if they reflect the editor’s political views too, as so clearly happens with the leftie BBC.
Everyone in politics is now forensically investigated to see if there any skeletons in their cupboards, like smoking a joint when a student etc. Watch this inevitably happen with the new Conservative leader/PM. Every policy statement will be forensically analysed, criticised, exaggerated. The UK in my view is now virtually ungovernable because of our febrile unaccountable “gotcha” UK media. No one person can be on top of his/her brief all the time and EVERYONE makes mistakes. Should Sir Kier Starmer or anyone else get into power they will face the ferocious UK breaking news media and will be found out too on many occasions, depending on the bias of that particular media outlet.
“Boris achieved much – Brexit, full employment, best vaccination programme, social care reform, fastest exit and growth from Covid and history will treat him better when measured against his successors”
Thus, we now live in a world where you are not allowed a single mistake by the media/public. Plus, politically motivated civil servants (Remainers, Cummings etc) will now routinely leak anything detrimental to a political opponent or party. Any innocent off the cuff remark/joke in a meeting will be exaggerated and leaked to the media. In addition, political leaders around the world are expected to predict the most unimaginable, unique, unforeseen new problems. Who could have foreseen Covid, European war, subsequent raw materials and cost of living crisis etc?
Boris achieved much – Brexit, full employment, best vaccination programme, social care reform, fastest exit and growth from Covid and history will treat him better when measured against his successors in this new Putin/energy/food/raw materials crisis world we now live in. Yes, he made mistakes when working exhausted 365 days a year with an unrelenting 24/7 schedule but it will be interesting to see how a more Remain friendly leader/party in government is treated by the febrile, Remain, left wing media/establishment.
Do you want a solid leader who generally makes the right calls but occasionally tells the odd porky or do you want a clueless, boring, politician like Starmer with no apparent policies and who will try to get us back into the EU? Or a Blair that takes us into an illegal war killing thousands? Maybe Boris wasn’t so bad after all? His planned removal has certainly improved Labour’s chances at the next General Election and Remainers/Rejoiners will have a new spring in their step now that Mr Brexit has been deliberately hunted down by Remainer MPs, Remainer Civil Servants, the establishment and the insatiable “gotcha” media.”
“the UK public are increasingly switching away from traditional news providers like the BBC, Sky, Channel 4 etc and either switching to new, more measured, channels like GB News or Times Radio”
Because the febrile UK media are now inventing so many “breaking news” (fake) stories to fill gaps on quiet news days, the UK public are increasingly switching away from traditional news providers like the BBC, Sky, Channel 4 etc and either switching to new, more measured, channels like GB News or Times Radio, or are simply switching off from the BBC for example. Over 2 million BBC Licence holders have not renewed their licences in the last year. A just repayment of years of BBC left wing, Remain, EU bias.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance, was launched in 2004 to speak for ordinary taxpayers fed up with government waste, increasing taxation, and a lack of transparency in all levels of government.
Following years of waste at Croydon Council and the de facto bankrupting of the borough, they are coming to Purley on the 30th July for the latest leg of the Town Hall Rich List Roadshow.
With assistance from the Croydon Constitutionalists, they will be asking local residents whether they thought Croydon’s former Chief Executive Jo Negrini was worth her £613,895, 2020-21 remuneration package.
Locals will have the opportunity to have their say, by using ping pong balls to cast their votes. Croydon Council has changed, but with many tough years ahead this is an opportunity for people to say if they want to retain the council’s remuneration habits of the past.
Come and join us, to help the people of Purley send a message to the council.
We hope to see you Saturday 30 July, 10:30 am – 1pm. In Purley, outside Andrews Estate Agents 909-911 Brighton Rd, Purley CR8 2BP.
Lorena Serantes is a political scientist from Spain, whose blog covers a range of interviews with people engaged in politics in the UK. She has interviewed Mike Swadling of this parish, and candidates for political parties across the spectrum of UK politics. We spoke with Lorena about what’s driven this project, what she’s discovered and her views on politics in the UK and Spain.
Lorena thanks for your time.
“I had low expectations because here in Spain politicians don’t respond emails, and I thought it would be the same for UK MPs. It turned out I sent like six emails in one week and I received five responses”
Can you firstly introduce yourself to our readers and ask what made you undertake interviewing pollical candidates from across the UK?
I am a young political scientist who was born in the wrong place. I grew up with the wish of becoming a lawyer or a judge, but two years before starting my degree studies I decided Law was not for me. My second option was to study something that had to do with politics because I got involved in a local electoral campaign. A political party reached out to me in order to ask me if I would like to be part of the candidacy list locally and I agreed. I was 18 years old and was learning about the Spanish political system and how parties worked, so it was exciting for me to take part in that campaign as my ideological background was beginning to “flourish”. That party has changed a lot, I think even more than myself, but I have to admit if they were to call me now I wouldn’t say yes. During my university years we had many subjects where they made us read American and British politics’ related papers, I knew more about the USA, however, reading about the UK became far more interesting as the years passed. When I had to write my final dissertation it was clear to me that I needed to analyse something that had to do with the UK and the party system. Parties and political theory are my favourite areas of study within the main Political Science discipline. Therefore, I analysed the UKIP’s political discourse and the theoretical debates around considering it a far right party or not, using the software MAXQDA, which I had never used before.
The idea of interviewing UK politicians didn’t come from my own will at first, it was an idea my Master’s final project tutor came up with when I was finishing the writing part. He told me: “Why don’t you try to talk with an MP from the SNP?” (I was analysing Scottish nationalism after Brexit) and my answer was: “I’m gonna try”. I had low expectations because here in Spain politicians don’t respond emails, and I thought it would be the same for UK MPs. It turned out I sent like six emails in one week and I received five responses. It was exciting because I spoke with Alyn Smith, the MP for Stirling, and then with a few more MPs from the Conservatives, Labour, the SNP and Sinn Féin. I received many replies from MPs who were very busy and politely told me they couldn’t participate but the experience was fantastic. You don’t get that from Spanish politicians, I know it first hand. After that, British politics has been my main interest and I try to follow everything that happens there: I followed the Tiverton & Honiton and Wakefield by-elections, partygate and beergate, the factionalism within the Conservatives and Labour, etc. I have my opinions, my views like everyone else but when it comes to analysing the political events that happen in your country I keep those thoughts away. I have interviewed communist candidates and very right-wing politicians, conservatives, liberals, socialists, nationalists… I like to get myself into those ideals and think like a conservative or a socialist, or whatever, depending on the people I’m talking with, because something that I always keep in mind is respect. I’m not a Brexiteer but if I’m interviewing someone who is and whose main campaign is to break all ties with the EU, then I respect that and ask him as if I were a Brexit supporter. That’s the job of political scientists. I’m not a journalist so I’m not trying to get people angry. If I could help with a campaign I would do it regardless of the party.
I keep on dreaming about moving to the UK at some point, because that’s what I want to do in the future if I can afford it, but I was brought up in a working class family and I’m disabled, so we struggle to get by. I think better times will come. I hope your country is waiting for me because I’ll go there as soon as I can. While I’m still here I’ll be supporting Wales, Scotland and England in the World Cup 😉
“it’s hard to listen to the whole “song” again and again, but candidates who have a vision of their own and talk about local issues or policies they would support in their area, those are the ones I enjoy listening to”
What’s been the hardest part of interviewing candidates and what’s surprised you about the process?
There are candidates who like to speak about their campaigns and what they want to do, those are the local champions who get into politics with excitement and you can tell that by simply looking at them while they’re telling you this or that, and then you find people who don’t have a political program, they are just there to repeat what the leader of their party says. I already know what Starmer is saying, I don’t need a local candidate reading me the UK-wide Labour Party manifesto. This is just an example, you find that in Labour, the Conservatives, the Greens… Those interviews are boring and it’s hard to listen to the whole “song” again and again, but candidates who have a vision of their own and talk about local issues or policies they would support in their area, those are the ones I enjoy listening to. If I don’t know a place they’re talking about I search it, that way I end up learning more about the geography of the UK. I know where most of the counties are situated, but I’m a mess with cities’ locations.
What interviews have you enjoyed the most and what interview stands out the most?
I enjoyed them all, don’t think I can choose because they’re all special, I guess my favourite interviews are the ones with candidates that got elected. I know this will sound ridiculous but when the results were being declared and names of people I had talked to were coming out as “ELECTED” I felt a bit proud, like I had been part of the campaign. I celebrated some of the results and congratulated many of the candidates. Local politics in Spain is something very boring, you don’t even know who’s running in your municipality and the campaigns are horrible. The candidates almost always call the national party leaders to visit their area, but nothing else happens. I have lost all interest in Spanish politics, but the UK is a bit different, at least it still has some emotion and the feeling I got during the interviews was that local communities are really important for the British people. I loved the campaign and I’m sure I would have done many more interviews if I had been there.
“I met a few Corbynite candidates and others who were more centrist but didn’t like Starmer. His weakness is his own party, he doesn’t have the support of many local branches across Britain. The Conservatives are more intelligent and successful at hiding their internal disagreements”
What party’s or parts of UK politics have you found most interesting or surprising?
The Conservatives are an interesting party, they have liberal-conservatives, social-conservatives, nationalists, remainers, brexiteers… It’s a party that knows how to deliver good messages, and I think it has great politicians who are a bit overshadowed by Boris Johnson and his doings. I like Theresa May, Tobias Ellwood, Sir Ken Clarke was also a good one, and from the young ones I would say Kemi Badenoch is also really good. Dominic Raab is my favourite Conservative politician, and I know by saying this I put myself at risk of being laughed at. His discourse is not always the best but he speaks clearly and his calm voice gives me a sense of seriousness that I can’t find in other ministers like Gove or Rees-Mogg. The local Conservative candidates tried to go absolutely local in this campaign, and it was a very good move as partygate and the pre-rebellion situation in the party weren’t helping. They knew it was going to be a hard night for them in many places, but Labour’s strategy to “send a message to Boris” didn’t work quite well. Labour was an interesting party before Starmer, and no one within the party can stand him: some say he’s too stiff, some want the party to move to the left (as it should be)… They are in a complicated moment, because they know the Tories are doing very bad but instead of people shifting from blue to red, it’s Conservative voters who are not showing up to vote. Wakefield has shown us that Labour is winning thanks to abstention, is that enough to secure a government in the next general election? That’s the question.
I also loved how the LibDems and the Greens grew in Scotland, which is a different scenario because of the Yes-No dynamic within parties. I remember one candidate I talked to who was running for a pro-independence party while saying further steps into devolution would suit Scotland better than independence. The Scottish Greens are becoming the alternative to the SNP and step by step they will need to clarify whether they want to stay in a comfortable position going hand in hand with the nationalists or begin to draw their own path. I like their local candidates, they’re close to the people and green policies are going to be the future. I don’t like the social liberal current the Greens have in England and Wales, we’ll see how they handle it.
I was surprised to see true socialist candidates within Labour, I think it is no longer the party of the working class and that puts these people between a rock and a hard place, you know, they have to ask voters to elect a Labour councillor and at the same time they need to promise things that go against their leadership’s desires. I met a few Corbynite candidates and others who were more centrist but didn’t like Starmer. His weakness is his own party, he doesn’t have the support of many local branches across Britain. The Conservatives are more intelligent and successful at hiding their internal disagreements.
“we are not patriotic because being so means complying with a Post-Francoist idea of Spain that only benefits the same families”
How do UK and Spanish politics compare, what are the big differences you see?
Everything is different. You have the FPTP system (the STV in Scotland), we have the D’Hondt system. You have single candidates for a ward, we have lists. You can run as an independent, we can’t. Parties in Spain, be it from the right or the left, are still contaminated by some elements from Franco’s dictatorship doctrines. He created this concept of National-Catholicism which was a mixture between ultranationalism and Christian fundamentalism, and you can see that within the main parties. To give you an example, when a regionalist or minor party wants to pass a bill to condemn Francoism and recognise its victims’ right to truth and justice, the two major parties vote against it. During 2014-2016 Spain went through a fragmentation of the political spectrum, which isn’t likely to happen in the UK. Right-wing and left-wing parties were founded, as alternatives to the two-party system. It turns out, Podemos and VOX are the same. VOX is openly Francoist, Podemos is no longer a “revolutionary” party, but a platform for new social democratic elites to jump on board. The debates have lost its sense after the Catalan nationalist parties have shut up to let the Spanish government carry on as if nothing had happened. No one is talking about Catalonia anymore. What I like about British politics is that parties are not cults where you have to agree with the leadership, or you get expelled. That happens here. The first time I watched a parliamentary session it was very weird to look at Conservative MPs yelling at other Conservative MPs. It surprised me to see members of the cabinet apologising for doing something wrong. Even if it’s just a way to pretend they care, I’ve never seen that happening here. The thing that annoys me the most about Spanish politics is the fact you must belong to a political party to stand for election, even in your municipality! Independent politicians don’t have a say.
Spain is a centralised country. The system of Autonomies is a mess, it was done to prevent the Basques and Catalans from seeking independence and to create that image of a united Spain, which doesn’t exist. Galician people have to comply with the wishes of second-homes’ owners from Madrid, an elite that comes here to spend holidays and that still think they can do whatever they want. It happens in Wales and Cornwall, so that’s a thing we share. England has their own national team. Wales has another one and so on. Spain silences every part of the country that doesn’t want centralisation. If you ask for a little bit of autonomy, you’re a radical far left terrorist. Conservative MPs would be called that in Spain by some parties, others would call them fascists. I often say devolution works better despite having less powers transferred that those of the Autonomies in Spain: you are happy being British and even Scottish and Welsh nationalists don’t want to leave the Union because of identitarianism, but because of a different conception of democracy; we are not patriotic because being so means complying with a Post-Francoist idea of Spain that only benefits the same families. Spain lives in the past, and I’m not talking about conservatism. Politics in the UK also has many issues that constantly change from time to time. Brexit wasn’t even a word in the 1990s, Scottish nationalism is quite young, things change. The reason I’m tired of Spanish politics is because there’s no debate anymore. Some years ago there was a parliamentary discussion about how an MP had called another one a “terrorist”, the level has come to those types of debates. The left-wing in Spain is useless, in fact my theory is that it doesn’t exist a single left-wing party. There are really good individuals within the main parties, like Margallo (PP) or Pérez Tapias (PSOE) but they stay in the background. There are a few parties that deserve international attention: like Canarian Coalition, the CUP or the coalition between the PP and the Navarrese People’s Union, which is called Navarra Suma.
You don’t have those in the UK. As for types of parties we’ve never seen here, I would say something like the English Democrats, the Scottish Greens or the exctinct Independent Labour Party. Those are “national phenomenons”.
Do you have any predictions for the next few years in UK politics?
Well, I’m not an expert but I think really interesting events are coming: a general election in which many MPs will lose their seats, a Scottish independence referendum in 2023 (at least that’s Sturgeon’s plan), and the fights within the main parties. Johnson is completely lost, he should resign if he wants his party not to suffer a “bloodiness” of Tory seats. This is not an opinion, it’s a fact. Starmer will face many problems due to what I said before, locally he doesn’t have a strong support. He’s the worst Labour politician I’ve seen. We’ll see what happens.
What’s next for your interviews and blog?
I’ll probably wait until the general election to publish more interviews. My intention is to do the same I did during the local election campaign. I’ll try to get as many as I can. Labour will be able to gain many seats they lost in 2019, so I’m going to try to concentrate my interviews in the two major parties. I would like to be a moderator in an online hustings, that way I could compare all the perspectives. That would be nice, but if it can’t be done, I’ll keep on publishing interviews the same way.
My tuppenceworth is back, on Tuesday 2nd August 2022 at the South Croydon Conservative Club.
You are the star!
This is your opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you and give your tuppenceworth. Each speaker will have up to 3 minutes to speak about an issue dear to their heart, followed by a short Q&A.
The first half of the evening we invite speakers to speak on the topic: “How do we ensure there is never another lockdown?” In the second half we are open to any topic, but we do ask all speeches are non-partisan and remind you the laws of slander still apply!
Come prepared or do off the cuff, this is your opportunity to exercise some free speech.
If you do have notes, we can publish to increase the reach of your ideas as we have done previously.
If you would like to speak, please register by emailing [email protected]. 7pm for drinks and sharp 7:30pm start, Tuesday 2nd August 2022.
Image U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Wikimedia.
By: Mike Swadling
“The World Population Review list the Best Countries To Live in 2022 as Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Hong Kong, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, and Denmark. 5 of them are like the United Kingdom, parliamentary constitutional monarchies”
The Jubilee proved a great opportunity for local neighbourhoods to come together in street parties, for local communities to decorate town centres and hold festivals, and for the nation to celebrate as a whole. This was an almost unique opportunity for a nation like the United Kingdom, that doesn’t otherwise have a national day of celebration, and being formed by 4 component nations, doesn’t have many natural ways to bring our United Kingdom together except in honour of our Monarch.
The World Population Review list the Best Countries To Live in 2022 as Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Hong Kong, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, and Denmark. 5 of them are like the United Kingdom, parliamentary constitutional monarchies. The 20 Happiest Countries In The World In 2022 according to Forbes includes 10 parliamentary constitutional monarchies. Looking at regions, Japan (monarchy) is arguably the best country to live in its region, Malaysia and Thailand (monarchies) are probably preferable to Myanmar, Vietnam, or Indonesia. The Bahamas (monarchy) is perhaps the best of the Caribbean islands states to live in, and Belize (monarchy) the best country on the mainland of Central America. Are you starting to see a pattern forming? There are 208 countries in the world, just 13% (27) are parliamentary constitutional monarchies, yet they are overrepresented on every list of countries where you would want to live.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. No matter how illogical monarchies, are they clearly work. The parliamentary Brexit wars of 2016-2019, confirmed to me the hereditary House of Lords and Judicial functions of the House of Lords worked better than what we have today. For all its faults and failings the undemocratic house, full of hereditary peers, frankly worked quite well. Under it we extended the franchise for men and gave women the vote. Passed multiple Factory Acts improving working conditions, pursued laissez-faire economic policies whilst legalising trade unions, had agricultural and industrial revolutions, and built and started giving up, an empire. We won two world wars against Germany, and arguably two more against France. It wasn’t democratic but it was a system that, albeit sometimes rather slowly, worked.
“Yes, in a democracy we the people are the politicians’ real boss, but they only get feedback at election time. Needing to explain themselves to the Queen once a week is a good opportunity to experience some humility”
The best argument for a monarchy is often said to be President Thatcher and President Blair, one or both of these options will appal most people. Despite both winning multiple elections, neither can be argued to be unifying figures. But more than a rebuff to an unpopular president, the monarchy provides several practical benefits.
They ensure even the most powerful politician has a boss. Yes, in a democracy we the people are the politicians’ real boss, but they only get feedback at election time. Needing to explain themselves to the Queen once a week is a good opportunity to experience some humility.
They are the embodiment of the nation as a person. The nation is a fairly amorphous concept, but one that can come together and be represented under one figure.
Being apolitical, and it is critical they remain apolitical, they become a blank canvas for us to all paint our own ideas and views on. We can all be satisfied we are fairly represented in our establishment by a royal family who’s views we can believe are as similar or not as we like to our own.
For a democracy to work we need opposing views, for a nation to work, we need some unity. Most of the content on Netflix and Disney wants to impose some political views on me, woke corporations abound, and sports are full of political gesturing. The more places in life we can find without a political slogan the better, royalty gives us that.
But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the 54 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, countries that choose to belong to a body headed by the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom. The soft power the monarchy provides is a huge boost to British interests, economic, cultural, and political. Is the system perfect? No. Is it democratic? No. Is it even logical? Not at all. Does it work? A resounding Yes!
