Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Theresa May’

The EU is the idealists’ nirvana. That’s why Brexit is visceral, instinctive and for some Leavers hard to explain, whereas many Remainers are simply addicted to the EU and will do whatever it takes to keep things the same

September 18, 2018 Leave a comment

Wolf Sheep ClothingIts not often that I find myself laughing about anything to do with Brexit. A no-deal, or rather the position from which negotiations should have started is where we should actually be. Yet over two years later, Theresa May’s Government is still pretending that the UK can be independent whilst maintaining the functions of a member state.

I laughed this morning, when I heard that a high profile Remainer had branded Leavers as idealists, knowing full well that nothing could be further from the truth.

When people who should know better are busy calling people names, they do after all often betray the way that they really see themselves, deep down and at a level our conscious world is all too happy for us to miss.

The European Union has, is and will continue to be the idealists nirvana, both strategically and functionally until the day that it ceases to exist.

The EU’s history is much better documented than the behaviour of most Politicians and Opinionators would have us think.

A little reading would soon uncover the true origins and chronology of the European Project. Its original, its evolving and its often self-interest-laden aims. And how like the work of all quixotic idealists, the central tenet upon which the whole thing is built, is the pathway to complete control, cleverly camouflaged as a way to maintain peace, prosperity, a sense of belonging and of course gold-laden career opportunities for politicians who have forgotten where they came from.

The European Commission’s cultural mindset is that it understands the function of the world, all businesses and people within it, better than the people and businesses which are functioning within.

This is best demonstrated by the endless train of regulation that nobody in the UK actually asked for. Rules and standards that often make little sense, but make life increasingly expensive, politically correct and devoid of humanity in relationships because some rule created by a bureaucrat with a great idea in another Country has been introduced instructing us how people they will never meet should interact in between.

The European Union not only works, but its influence in every part of life fervently accepted, because we are trusting and assume that ideal measures introduced to manage anything can only ever be a good thing.

They are not.

Since we joined the Common Market, an earlier stage of the United States of Europe’s life-cycle, life for us all in the UK has began to become unrecognisable, with behaviour, morals and values smashed in pursuit of nothing more than the idealist EU’s dream.

That the British People, and a majority of them at that, have recognised that there is an alternative truth and within it a better way to exist and prioritise the people, businesses and communities that we care for is not idealist.

It is being real and knowing that we have already for too long been on a destructive legislative pathway which without immediate change will soon control even more of our lives and the way that we think.

And all those MP’s and Establishment idealists who are singing to the EU’s tune during these so-called negotiations, instead of carrying out the process which the Electorate instructed should be aware of just one thing.

The EU is reliant upon the principle that when you finally begin to wake up from aiding and abetting what is in reality a foreign power to win, the EU’s measures of control will have progressed simply too far for any rebellion against it to be even mildly fruitful, should any one of you then be brave enough to even begin.

image thanks to unknown

A General Election by New Year just became a lot more likely and it’s time for May to accept that the battles ahead are no longer hers to win

September 14, 2018 Leave a comment

VOTE 18Emily Thornberry’s announcement that Labour will oppose Theresa May’s Chequers Policy today should really come as little surprise.

In fact, it’s not in the least bit unexpected.

Labour’s recent mantra has after all been based on nothing more than attempting to force a General Election as quickly as it is possible to do.

As a lapsed Tory, disenfranchised by the current interpretation of conservatism emanating from No.10, I gain no pleasure from the prospect that Theresa May could prove to be the last Tory Prime Minister before anything remotely recognisable as an attempt at government for all in the UK is painfully left behind.

Yet that is exactly the fate that surely awaits us all, if some form of sense and reason doesn’t land in Downing Street very soon.

The reality must be accepted at Cabinet level that the charade which is Chequers is not only dead in the Channel, but that the dying embers of credible politics in the UK now require a Conservative leader who can win a working majority against what should otherwise be an unelectable opposition which should only ever be capable of having pipe dreams about being in government.

Today, Corbyn’s left is gaining confidence with dangerously quixotic policies that are now looming as large as the void in leadership which has left us all ineptly exposed against EU negotiators, whilst conjuring up the Chequers plan to remain.

But in Downing Street, the penny hasn’t dropped.

Emboldened by the phoney zone of safety in which the 2017 General Election result left the Prime Minister seemingly unexposed, May’s misplaced confidence in her position and influence could all-too-easily lead her to call a General Election under immense pressure, rather than  stepping aside before the watershed vote is taken on the final Brexit plan.

We should be under no illusion that this quickly approaching vote is almost certainly now set to yield the result that could immediately lead to the opportunity which Labour currently craves so badly.

A Conservative, as passionate about Leaving the EU as they are about bringing all sides together as we go forward must be allowed to take the helm of this Government before it is too late.

The change must happen now.

The likelihood of a vote on the final pre-Brexit Day position being won by any Conservative Government with the Parliamentary Seats they hold today and the current make-up of Leave and Remain supporting MP’s amongst their number would at any time be all but impossible.

It won’t matter if it’s ‘Chequers’ or something prepared by the ERG that MP’s are called to vote on. There is simply too much self interest in Parliament to allow the right decision to be made and deliver upon the democratic instruction which was given by a majority of voters on behalf of us all.

Forced or voluntarily called, a General Election is now likely to be the only way to deliver the Brexit that the Electorate require.

It is now up to May to decide if she wants to help a Conservative Government see the result of the real peoples vote through.

The problem with the plan for Brexit, is that Brexit has become all about having a plan

When Prime Minister Winston Churchill arrived in Downing Street in May 1940, he didn’t have a plan or a date in mind for the War to end in 1945. He just knew what he had to achieve, and took the initiative to lead.

Right now, Brexit has effectively fallen on its arse. Not because the instruction given by the Electorate on 23rd June 2016 wasn’t clear. It was.

Brexit seems to be going nowhere because almost everyone has become obsessed by the ‘plan’ that will get us ‘there’.

Having a plan in itself isn’t a problem. Having plans is pretty normal. But when you allow yourself to become paralysed and glued to the spot, just because there isn’t a plan in place which appears to suit your purpose, there is little wonder that everything soon begins to resemble one giant mess.

Plans, or creating plans for any aim or desired outcome is a very deceptive process. Having an ‘agreed’ plan gives a false sense of security, built on the complacent view that everything will then work like clockwork and turn out as good as you could possibly hope.

In practice, or perhaps I should say the real world, plans rarely work out as anticipated, particularly when it comes to Government or running anything which involves the input or influence of more than one person.

Roll that idea out into a negotiated peace with the European Union, its advisors, negotiators, commissioners and 27 Nation States in between and we can begin to get a very real idea about how hard agreeing a plan which will suit all of them – and don’t forget us – would actually be.

The elephant in the room with all of this process of working up and then waiting for the EU to agree a plan, is and always has been that it is completely unnecessary.

The result of the European Referendum was a clear instruction. An instruction to Parliament and our MPs to take every step necessary to facilitate and then implement the specific action of rescinding, and therefore leaving Membership of the EU.

That instruction wasn’t advisory. It wasn’t just a view. The Electorate’s instruction was not a request for MP’s to go away and spend two years arguing over what the word ‘leave’ actually means and dream up excuse after excuse to excuse themselves from doing that which they have been told to do.

It certainly wasn’t an invitation to delay, divide and destroy a legitimate democratic process by creating the pretence that you don’t need to be in or out, but can hover happily somewhere in between. You can’t.

Even attempting to create a comprehensive or exhaustive plan to undertake such a complicated process as returning full sovereignty, law making and responsibility for our own trade, was always going to be impossible to achieve. But that is no reason to fall into the trap of thinking that without a plan, Brexit or rather leaving the European Union is something that we should not or disingenuously then have an excuse not  to do.

In 1940, Churchill had no plan for winning World War 2. Yet one way or another, dealing with each and every battle, set back, resource issue and foreign affairs nightmare as it came, he achieved for him his aim and for us as a Country, much more besides. As our leader, he just took each and every step, looked each and every day in the eye and didn’t accept defeat as an option which was on the table, let alone a choice which was his alone to decide.

It didn’t take one big plan to win that War. It took a whole series of many smaller plans to do what adds up to being the same.

It’s simply the case that hindsight has allowed the story to fit together snugly when the words of history overlook the mistakes, blunders and blind alleyways that lurked continuously in between his appointment and our Victory.

What the delivery of such a giant task did take however, was leadership. And when we look at the way that we are being led into Brexit today, compared to Churchill’s take on being ruled from Europe from 1940 to 1945, there remains an almost universal gulf sitting in between.

image thanks to Wikipedia

What the Carillion collapse tells us about the unspoken truths governing public sector contracts

January 18, 2018 Leave a comment

Carillion

Carillion is the big news this week, and is likely to remain on the media radar for some time, given the impact that the collapse of a Company of this size is almost certain to have on commercial relationships that are now an integral part of the public sector.

Moments like this are important for reasons which go way beyond the impact that Monday’s announcement is already having on jobs and the potential closures of many small businesses.

It is providing one of those very rare opportunities to glance inside the incestuous workings of contract delivery on behalf of government and gain an invaluable insight into why private interests working at any level within the public sector is in clear conflict with very ideals of what public service delivery is fundamentally about.

Regrettably, the clear focus of the media and political classes has already fallen upon the question and avoidance of blame. Yet if they were to begin to look just a little further and be open with what have for too long been the unpalatable truths, there would be just the merest hope that questions such as whether there can be a future for the NHS when it remains in a perpetual state of financial crisis could perhaps be genuinely answered.

So why are contracts going to private companies outside the public sector?

The best place to begin thinking about the contracting or privatisation problem is to look at why private business is really even involved in the delivery of government services of any kind, when government exists to operate for, on behalf of and for the benefit of only the public.

Man can only ever have one true master after all, and if money is the true motivator, then public service will at best become an oversight – the unwelcome relative left trailing way behind.

Whilst it may feel counter-intuitive to believe or accept it for many of us, the ‘privatisation solution’ has been in the main part created by Conservative governments in response to the consequences of policies created typically by Labour in order to enhance the rights, working conditions and influence of public sector employees.

Positive discrimination and rights, enhanced working conditions, gold-plated pensions and union indulgence within public sector organisations all cost an ever evolving sum of money in an increasing number of different ways, which usually create even more roles and dilute responsibility further and further still.

The cost of employing people within the public sector on conditions which exceed those of the private sector outside – even when salaries appear to be less, has simply made the delivery of services too expensive for government itself to provide.

Against this backdrop, all areas of he public sector have had to go in search of more cost effective ways to deliver services, and have had to do so in ways which also meet the rigorous requirements of providing services and employing staff as a government based organisations.

This has made the ‘marketplace’ fertile for the entry of private contractors who don’t have the same considerations as these former public sector based service providers.

When you consider that private contractors are providing arguably the same level of service, just without the same levels of bureaucracy – whilst making what in some cases is an outrageous level of profit besides, you can soon begin to see that something is inherently wrong with the way that the government system is now designed.

So how does public sector contracting by private contractors become a problem?

Business loves a contract. Contracts give surety. Contracts themselves can be used as a solid-gold guarantee – and particularly so when they are agreed and signed with government. This gives business confidence which can be misplaced, misused, abused and is almost certain to breed a feeling of complacency.

After completing what should be a rigorous ‘tender process’ – the company will sign a contract with the government organisation which agrees what, when and how the ‘contractor’ will provide a service, whether that just be 1 person to sweep a street or 32 bin lorries to collect your rubbish every fortnight for 5 years. On signing this contract, the company will know exactly what it will be paid, know what it will in turn have to spend, will have worked out its costs and borrowing, should have kept back a little for a rainy day and then know what it will make in profit – from which it will pay bonuses to staff and dividends to shareholders after it has paid any tax requirement.

Good managers know that some things change during the lifetime of a contract – such as fuel prices going up, which would be a real concern for a bus service provider or a private ambulance services. But contractual devices or clauses that allow for some variation in charges are usually built in to any contract to allow for this.

As such, genuinely unforeseen events or those which could not have been predicted by anyone within the contracting company itself are very rare to find.

What government contracts don’t allow for however, are lack of knowledge or understanding of the service delivery area on the part of those designing and agreeing a contract. They don’t make allowance for unmitigated trust on the part of either party. They certainly don’t consider the potential greed or indeed malpractice of a contractor or its decision making staff, which cannot be planned for or predictably defined even within the scope of a government contract process.

When a contractor has only a single contract, transparency is bizarrely much clearer and for the management, much more important and kept clearly in mind.

But when you have many more and perhaps and ever increasing number of contracts, the potential for complacency and overconfidence can lead to otherwise unrealistic opportunities, which in more focused circumstances would have been denied.

It may be as simple as paying senior executives massive, over-inflated salaries. But it has the potential to be much much more in terms of investment, questionable projects and big payouts for shareholders when little in terms of adequate checks and balances has allowed an adequate safety blanket to be retained from payouts and quietly put aside.

The overriding problem with a company which has grown to the size, reach and responsibility of Carillion is there is so much in terms of questionable financial activity that it has the ability to very easily hide.

The responsibility for contract design and management doesn’t just fall on contractors themselves however.

In the background to all this and within the protectionist culture in which contemporary public sector commissioning is currently enshrined, purchasing officers simply don’t have the motivation or willingness to do their jobs as effectively as they should. When the money you are allocating isn’t yours, public service and best value isn’t always the overriding priority. Sometimes it’s all about doing anything which proves to be easier, and who gets what doesn’t always work out exactly as it should.

Whether its building maintenance, bin collections, public transport, prison management, forensic services or interim and temporary staff services that contractors provide, contractors are all making unnecessary profit at the ultimate cost to us as taxpayers.

So what can be done to solve the problem and when will anything happen?

What has been outlined here provides little more than a simple snapshot of a very big and complex problem, which those in power are through their actions are continuing to deny.

For these problems to be addressed, it would first be necessary for politicians to accept that the whole system of government delivery is broken, riddled with management focused upon self interest, making decisions based on theoretical premise, and that there are simply too many people operating within the system who are ultimately being allowed to take us all for a ride.

The ‘too big to fail’ mindset has now permeated through political thinking to a level where contracts are being awarded despite very clear warning signals which would tell even very junior civil service staff that something is not right.

This is no longer a question of let’s bail them out so that they don’t fail like Labour did with the Banks in 2008; this is all about awarding contracts because there is a view that they never will.

Solving this problem is far from simple. It is not just about political thinking. It’s about getting the market’s to think differently. But just as much, it’s about getting employees to see their roles differently; to accept that they have a part to play too.

In simple terms, the free for all has to stop.

This bonanza based on self-interest is no longer sustainable.

The perpetuation of the lie that government genuinely works selflessly for everyone has got to be stopped.

No business can perform effectively on the basis that it prioritises the working conditions and needs of its staff before the priorities upon which it was created to deliver. Yet this is how liberalism and rights culture has manifested itself within all parts of government and the public sector.

Not only has the NHS become hamstrung by lack of staff and inefficiency, it is being cut up by the cost of the staff it hires through contracts – thereby being destroyed by the supposed solution itself; by the very respite that additional money is supposed to provide.

Meanwhile local government has its own substantive bogeyman too, finding itself tied up in knots by the cost of the local government pension scheme – the destination of the better part of our council tax, in many of the Boroughs, Cities and Districts where most of us reside.

Then there are the PFI contracts upon which the last Labour Government so heavily relied. A coarse, deceptive instrument designed to hide public spending, whilst fire hosing cash at private contractors over 30 year terms. Just another financial time bomb legacy like the raid on pension funds by Gordon Brown which we overlook daily on the basis that out of sight is very much out of our minds.

The power rests with government to change all of this, if only they would try.

Regrettably, the will doesn’t even exist to even begin doing so today, even if the Government could begin doing so – something that a hung parliament which could last until 2022 will simply deny.

With a good chance that the next Government will be based upon or built around a militant form of Labour, the chances are that politicians will only continue to try and hide the truth thereafter, because action which doesn’t just look responsible is not a pathway to which they are inclined.

As Jeremy Corbyn made clear in his questioning of Theresa May at Wednesday’s PMQ’s, the answer is just to do everything to return everyone to employment in government jobs. No doubt based upon further borrowing, which to those who don’t understand business or economics is a perceived as a policy which when sold looks bullet proof.

images thanks to independent.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, wiltshiretimes.co.uk

Young people and rural voters could all be kept happy with solutions to the Foxhunting debate that are already hiding in plain sight

December 25, 2017 Leave a comment

images (5)Like Brexit, Hunting has become an emotive subject which is safest left far away from discussion with people we know little about.

Few of us consciously acknowledge why this really is, and the elements of a solution which has the potential to be one supported by all have become hidden by the polarisation of ideas. The inevitable isolation of facts which follows is seen as an unacceptable compromise for each party as they become ever reluctant to recognise validity in any idea which extends beyond the scope and value set of their own.

The biggest elephant in the room for Hunting, is that no matter what supporters or those against this pastime tell us, the debate has long since been anything to do with either the activities or survival of a fox. Yet the actions of both groups in the debate present a story which is very different. If a resolution that works for all is genuinely to be found, each side and the politicians in between them will have to accept that both sides will have to be far more practical in the way they manage the pathways of their respective idealistic ground.

With the various truths presented as fact by some and interpreted as myth by others, the objective reality of this ‘sport’ is that it has very little to do with being competitive and everything to do with a highly social and lifestyle movement, which to its own detriment has become obsessive about a perceived right to hunt our indigenous wild-dog.

The world has moved on. Very few of us believe that the most efficient way to control any kind of mammalian pest, is to become hierarchically attired, mount a very expensive and well-kept horse and then charge around what is left of the open countryside with forty or more others doing exactly the same. Trundling alongside a pack of perhaps a hundred English Foxhounds who are never as happy as when they are simply out for a very long run.

In the years since the implementation of the ‘hunting ban’ under the tenure of the last Labour Government, Hunts around the Country have been doing surprisingly well without any genuine need to reverse the purpose of the Legislation. Hunt protesters and saboteurs would beg to differ, as foxes can often be disturbed and find themselves at the mercy of a brutal, but nonetheless non-intentional act, and it is at this point that we should perhaps all be minded of the propensity of accidents and the fact that many, many more foxes are likely to be killed on the roads during hunting season, than those uncovered accidentally by any hunt which should happen to gallop past.

Open discussion regarding the experience of death for any human or animal concludes quickly for any rational person, as soon as the presence of any deliberate cause or intent is removed. Like it or not, we cannot control that which cannot be controlled, and seeking to prevent any form of accident would easily bring into question just about everything that we do.

Those against hunting – even in its current form should remember this well and be ever mindful of the progressive leap which has already been achieved. There now needs to be an acceptance that this fieldsport is nothing like what it once was and that any form of resentment based upon perception alone, whilst dressed up as a legitimate debate will help no one.

Hunts and the hunt lobby itself would likewise do well to recognise and accept that killing foxes at any costs by applying the law in its most literal sense is a self-defeating act. Using devices such as large birds of prey to kill foxes they have uncovered, gives the true lie to an unnecessary intention and mindset which itself continues to fuel the antagonistic fervour and physical-activist approach of those against whom they have in some cases become violently opposed.

Hunting in its current form and in the way it really should now evolve, is not just the preserve of the wealthy and the one percent which many now love to hate. It is a lifestyle enjoyed by people from all backgrounds and we are as likely to see a plumber, builder or chef taking part as a rider, as we would a landowner or a London banker out for a day from their country home.

It is time that we recognised that Hunting is not about foxes and can be enjoyed by anyone. The Hunts need to stop attempting to play the rules and accept the spirit of the hunting ban in the manner in which it was implemented. The anti-hunt lobby should accept and recognise that they themselves have no legitimate right to police the activities of any hunt, and that holding a set of different ideas to someone else doesn’t mean that we have no choice but to physically collide.

The Hunting Act desperately needs intelligent and considered reform. There is nothing to be gained from it simply being overturned. The direct and related steps that a government seeking to deliver a revised act that would appropriately consider the rights, welfare and respect for the genuine rule of law for all – including the fox itself, could however include:-

Making it illegal to:

  • Intentionally and/or proactively pursue a fox as, for or as part of a social gathering, either directly with dogs or indirectly with alternative measures such as firearms or birds of prey.
  • Intentionally and/or proactively interfere with the activities of any hunt, its members, supporters or guests so convened as a social gathering

Recognising that:

  • Genuine intent is everything. That accidents do occur and no hunt, officer, member, guest or supporter thereof should ever be held liable for the result of any fox or other mammal being uncovered by a group of hounds during the course of a social hunt

Reviewing the role of the RSPCA:

  • Either restructuring the Governance structure of the Charity’s ‘Council’ to ensure that appointments are democratic and reflective of the impartial and non-political nature of the responsibilities with which the RSPCA has been entrusted
  • Or removing the responsibility and prosecutorial role of the RSPCA altogether, perhaps passing them to local authorities where democratic transparency and professional impartiality would be easier to monitor and define

With the current political environment having made hunting feel almost impossible to discuss, it is little wonder that our embattled Prime Minister is looking to secure votes by being perceived to be considering switching sides. The irony of such a choice is that divisive as Foxhunting may be, the very best solution will be making the effort and winning the arguments which will deliver a less than perfect, but nonetheless beneficial win for all.

Odd as it may seem to many of today’s political class, solutions which work for all of us are always possible, whenever there is a genuine willingness to talk.

 

image thanks to businessinsider.com

 

 

 

‘Out means out’ is the clear message that would give certainty to the Brexit Process

August 4, 2017 1 comment

Unspoken words illustrated by actions, almost always speak more loudly than the words which accompany them. The approach which has been taken by Theresa May’s Government towards Brexit is certainly no different.

Management of expectation should be fluent practice for the politicians who have reached the heights of having a seat at the top table in the land. So it would be reasonable to conclude that the jumping off point for the Brexit Negotiations provides us with an accurate picture of the priorities of the Government for delivering our exit process.

Begin-with-the-end-in-mind.

It is of no great surprise that many people are concerned, given that Brexit looks like an unholy mess. One which is playing into the hands of ardent Remainers such as Vince Cable, given that the whole approach to the process has been in many ways portrayed as being about doing the minimum necessary to qualify the UK as no longer being an EU Member.

The current approach could more accurately be framed as over-promising with the quiet or unintended expectation that they will ‘be given no choice’ but to under deliver. The alternative would be the more robust and arguably honest approach of being clear from the start with us all by stating that we are now going to be completely out of European Union Membership once the Article 50 Notice Period is complete, and that anything we gain in our interests thereafter will be a benefit.

What could then accurately be called an under-promise leading to what anyone who sees our true relationship with our European Partners will know will be a significant lessening of expectations in terms of what the Government will then assuredly over-deliver.

While more than a year may now have passed since the EU Referendum with Negotiations in Brussels now appearing to be underway, it is far from too late to adopt this approach.

Yes, giving this level of clarity to the overall message would draw criticism from Remainers who continue to be convinced that they can influence the Negotiation Process to a degree where Brexit would occur in name only. But it would also provide a distinct level of certainty within what for us all will remain a fluid situation for a long time to come, where stepping off now with the worst case scenario providing a basis for our negotiating position going forward being a far more productive place to begin.

To continue managing the public perception of the Brexit process in the way that it is, the Government appears to be either attempting to be all things to all people – which even when well intended is unlikely to work; or is playing the rather dangerous game of planning for the UK to remain technically tied to Membership of the European Union via a relationship which the majority of British people do not want.

Yes, there are very big interests with equally big voices making very loud predictions of doom and gloom, openly threatening to leave the UK if their needs aren’t prioritised.

A perfectly sensible question in response would be to ask them why they are here anyway if the European Market is that much more important than our own.

The reality however, is that these self-serving overtures are really nothing more than a plea to a political class to keep everything which works profitably for those interests basically the very same.

These businesses have had influence and power over Government for a very long time due to the role that money is seen to play in just about everything. Yet in terms of Brexit, Money has now come into direct conflict with democracy and the will of the People. Nobody should be in any doubt about the interests which will benefit most if the UK should in any way now Remain.

The message is clear. Things can never be the same as they were before 23rd June 2016. Obstructive as these other interests may be, they also deserve to receive a clear message from the Government about the direction of travel, so that they can work with their own worst case scenarios. Scenarios which you can be assured will prove to be a lot better when we have formally left the EU, than they would willingly have us all suppose now.

The damage being done daily with the current lacklustre approach in terms of the relationship between Westminster all British People – who have an evolving distrust of the establishment, has the potential to be far reaching, particularly if the Negotiation Process should ultimately result in an avoidable fudge.

Whilst no British voter has knowingly endorsed the process of ‘ever closer union’ which successive British Governments undertook to create an increasingly closer and subservient political union with the EU, it would be utterly foolish for political strategists to believe that they can somehow delay or prevent the distinct and clinical reversal of that unsanctioned action, when the democratic instruction given by the Referendum Vote was very clear.

Of course, any ardent Remainer reading these words can and will pick holes in an argument like this by using their own view of Brexit and the Referendum itself to justify alternative reasoning. Democracy does after all only work for some when they are getting the results that they themselves want.

As a supporter of leaving the European Union from a time long before it ever became politically fashionable to be so, I can nonetheless say that I did not feel comfortable with the polarity delivered by the Referendum Campaign. Yet it has become ridiculous that a follow-up debate about ‘what Brexit will look like’ should then have been allowed to develop by the establishment and then framed as an optional change which can come in a choice of shades, wrapped up as either a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit.

Accepting that we are leaving – as most Political Parties now at least indicate that they do, would sound much more sincere, convincing and less like they were paying mere lip service to this inevitable change if all were to adopt a more definite tone such as ‘out means out’, rather than ‘Brexit means Brexit’. One which not only makes clear but endorses the otherwise universally held understanding that you cannot remain attached and at the same time be genuinely separate or no longer a part of something – as the British Electorate have commanded that we must now be.

In my last blog, I discussed the reality and impact of ideas or ideologies in politics rather than management according to all the facts. Brexit has regrettably come to fall under the same umbrella of ideas. It should be clear that our perspective of the process and creation of policy right at this moment in time and how things will actually work when we arrive at March 2019 will not then be the same as now or at any point thereafter.

The only certainty is that we are leaving and that is why it would be far more productive to talk in terms of the relationship that the UK then aims to have with the EU as being an aspiration, instead of a fixed relationship that we the or they in some way have the power to guarantee.

Acceptance that all sides of UK Politics have something to bring to this debate is essential and must replace the virtue signalling and disingenuous assumption of moral authority adopted by some, who fail to understand the expectations of everyone with views and feelings from outside their own bubbles. Especially so, as they refuse to work with those who do or have an alternative view to their own.

Just as if we were destined to travel to the top of a hill, it would be generally accepted as inevitable that there would be a climb involved in getting there. There may of course be different routes, choices of gradients or even helicopter rides to assist us to ascend. But one way or the other, we know that we will have to have reached the top of the hill itself before we ourselves know and everyone else will fully accept that we have got there.

In terms of our exit from European Union, complete UK Sovereignty is the top of that hill.

Regaining the power for our Westminster Parliament to determine all rules, laws and the obligations under which we live and operate as a Nation must be the red line above which nothing is acceptable in terms of influence from any other European Nation, combination thereof or indeed any foreign power.

To allow this key component of honouring its obligation the British Electorate to appear in some way negotiable – depending upon whether we can secure ‘agreement’ over certain things such as access to the Free Market, the need for a ‘Customs Union’ or the method under which we ‘can’ allow people to move across our Borders – The Government has perhaps unwittingly embarked upon a game of high stakes chess with the sanctity of the democratic relationship between it and the People.

To the Government, to the Opposition and to the other Political Parties with seats in Westminster beyond, it is the agenda of the British people which must be prioritised, first and foremost before any of their own, or indeed the very specific and self-serving interests which all too often support and therefore have influence over them.

All the Government really needs to do is change, make clear and evangelise the core message to one which reflects ‘out means out’ and then the support and understanding of how we can all work with and benefit from Brexit will soon begin to appear.

Whilst the siren calls of public figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury may suggest that the devil is in the detail, the real challenge for those across Government is to now genuinely commit to the journey. They will then find that the seemingly impossible level of technicalities to consider as part of the Brexit process will be much simpler to decide – even within the significant volumes that they will come.

Keeping it real has become the key ingredient of electoral success and Capitalism vs Socialism is a battle which no longer has meaning

Capitalism vs Socialism 2

If you keep an eye on enough of the different news and commentary outlets, it will have been easy to pick up that one of the latest themes amongst those supporting the Government and Conservative Party, is to talk up the righteousness and benefits of Capitalism in comparison to the Socialist agenda of the Labour Party and the wider ‘progressive’ left, which we can be assured will be making the same arguments somewhere completely in reverse.

The backdrop of a General Election Result which has wrecked the confidence of a Party that thought it was safely assured of probably more than a decade in power has indeed set many injured cats amongst the electoral pigeons. On the other hand, it has also elevated the levels of chutzpah employed across the Left to a level which simply defies the true dynamic of their electoral return, in a race decided by factors which sit way beyond the control or influence of either of the political ideologies that either the Tories or Labour would like us to believe they pin their hats on.

What people were quietly thinking to themselves as they entered the Polling Booths across the UK on the 8th of June will long be debated. But you can rest assured that for most it will not have been either the manifestation of Marxist policies or the benefits from implementing the works of Hayek or Freidman.

No. The ideas that will have meant most to those voters who really made the difference to the fortunes of Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will have been far more aligned with imagining the difference that one Party in power vs the other could make in Pounds and Pence to them on an individual level, rather than upon some high powered economic idea which all of the political parties seem destined to believe will get us all ‘there’.

Whilst it would be a lot less painful to be able to confine these ‘isms’ to being no more than the ideological myths that they perhaps should be – being the ideas and musings of a few ‘great thinkers’ that they actually are, the horrid reality is that the Twentieth Century saw misguided politicians and activists implement nearly all, with benefits to all but the relative few being very hard to find, whether those concerned have become substantially wealthy or alternatively live the life of a despot or their ‘chosen few’ within non-democratic regimes like North Korea as a result.

In itself, the travesty of one set of politicians romanticising over socialism when it has been tried, tested and demonstrated to be the flawed ideal for any wider population that it actually is, whilst another set continue to believe that markets ruled by money will consciously cater for every not-for-profit need of the wider population upon which its rapidly growing financial wealth is almost certainly now farmed, is simply too significant an injustice to put into words.

Yet the bright young things, the think tanks and the party leaderships of all political persuasions remain fixated on the idea that clever, confusing and complicated ideas can always win, never accounting for the reality that ideas are themselves developed on perspectives, which when created looking upon a destination from the benefit of distance are never the same once we have completed the journey to get there.

Socialism, Capitalism and the forms in which they are delivered are all based upon subjective but nonetheless real truths. Truths which are themselves prerequisite in order for any follower or exponent to believe in or more likely identify with in terms of their own life experience, in order for an ‘ism’ to become a ‘movement’ of any kind.

But these specific or myopic truths are far from all encompassing. They do not make allowance for the nuances of change and they certainly do not make account for the rules of (mis)interpretation, which for the roll out of any idea through the process of transformation to their practical form or policy, present a very real and all too often realised form of serious danger.

In uncertain times like those in which we live, the smallest self-serving truth shared between many through the process of group-think can be enough to eclipse the many others which should for us all have far more meaning, and it is here that any ideological fights between right, left and anywhere in-between should really be seen in their true perspective as the journey and outcome that they ultimately are and guarantee to be.

Socialism can only succeed by forcing the masses to behave as if they are all the same, whilst Capitalism relies on allowing the few to believe that they are fundamentally different.

Objectively, neither philosophy or pathway is genuinely truthful and both are for those ‘selling’ them as self-serving in purpose as the other.

The void created by the long absence of original thought in British politics over a number of decades and through Governments constituted by politicians of all sides does not need to be filled by ideas drawn from text books and the bookshelves of old.

Yes, history needs to be fully regarded for ALL of the lessons that it can teach us, and amongst this, the thoughts of the economic ‘giants’ should be gleaned for the value from each and every perspective, whilst we maintain a healthy regard for the fact that in the case of all these widely lauded ideas, individual perspective is exactly what they are.

What all of the political parties can no longer escape – should they genuinely wish to ensure their long-term-electability, is that the war of ideologies has long since been lost. The electorate may indulge ideas when to them there is no possibility of personal cost, but will always look for the policies which are going to make a positive impact upon their own experience of life in the ‘right now’.

Whether it was the European Referendum or the General Election in June of this year, ‘keeping it real’ – whether policy is perceived to be good or bad – has become the key ingredient of contemporary electoral success.

Capitalism can only work for all if it becomes responsible and reflective of consequence, whilst the Socialist ideas which are genuinely on the side of right can only do real good for all if there is an acceptance that idealism has to be kept in practical check and be considerate with the ideas, hopes and fears of each and every individual too.

%d bloggers like this: