Interview with Non-existent Government Advisor

Blogger: Occasionally this blog welcomes guest experts to discus the matters of the day. Today we welcome Professor Dave Dump. Professor Dump is widely respected as a leading expert on political theory and is much sought-after as a government political advisor. He is a newspaper columnist, podcaster, influencer and broadcaster. Professor Dump, welcome.

Professor: I'm not an influencer. I have some influence. There's a difference

Blogger: Professor Dump, we wanted to talk to you about Chancellor Rachel Reeve's screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments.

Professor: Yes.

Blogger: Yes what?

Professor: Yes, you can talk to me.

Blogger: I see. It's going to be like that is it?

Professor: Yes.

Blogger: So, what do you make of the U-turn.

Professor: It wasn't.

Blogger: It wasn't?

Professor: That's what I said.

Blogger: What do you think of the government's decision to change the threshold for winter fuel payments so that pensioners with an income of less than £35,000 receive it?

Professor: See, that wasn't so bad was it? First piece of political advice is to make sure you are not accidentally accepting the premise of a question when you answer it. It was not a screeching U-turn. It was a tweak. It was genius.

Blogger: Genius?

Professor: Indeed. For several reasons but chiefly because for the whole of its first year the government has had a big row, on its own terms, about an area of policy it is determined to get right. Furthermore it has been accused by the blue-top newspapers of moving too far to the right and so it can satisfy them by moving left. Genius.

Blogger: So, if the government are not portraying it as a screeching U-turn, what is it?

Professor: Very good question...

Blogger: Isn't that what people say when they need time to think?

Professor: No, that's 'I'm very glad you asked me that'. Thank you for giving me double time to think. What the government spokesperson will say in those circumstances is 'To be clear...' they inherited a mess and had to move really quickly to calm the markets before setting out on the agenda their huge majority - oops, I mean the public's overwhelming mandate - had given them.

Blogger: Isn't that just a fudge for 'We got it wrong'?

Professor: Anyone embarking on a project wants three things. High quality, speedy completion and cheap price.

Blogger: And...?

Professor: You can only ever have two. Which two do you want?

Blogger: So, to use your illustration, which two did the government choose?

Professor: None of them, but nobody noticed. They opted to make such a catastrophically stupid decision that everyone piled in and got distracted from all the other things they set about in their first year. Then, in apparent response to criticism but actually as a cunning plan, they moved the threshold up but probably a bit too far. It's a clever move to give it to almost everyone and then claim it back in taxation from those who exceed the threshold. If they make pensioners wealthier in the next three years then they can move it back down again, a little, in their penultimate budget. It would be good to keep opposition eyes on this, minor, problem and make it sound big. Many pensioners felt awkward getting a winter fuel allowance.

Blogger: Wow. You could make black sound white.

Professor: No problem. Have you seen the Nigerian national football team's away kit?

Blogger: That's irrelevant isn't it?

Professor: Oh yes. But broadcasters on live interviews hate silence and no-one will notice that quickly.

Blogger: So is there a political master-plan?

Professor: I believe so. It will be long-term and costly. People are talking about leaving the Labour Party one year after a landslide election victory that promised to make a difference in five years. Not only do people want high-quality, cheap and speedy; they will moan about whichever one they don't get even if they knew that would be the case from the beginning. Currently Labour is happy for people to say they're leaving because that is meaningless after 20% of a Parliament. They are hoping, and it's tough because long-term infrastructure projects take more than five years, but they are hoping that enough looks better for them to get re-elected. Also, what you would do if you were stupid and what you would do if your were a genius pretending to be stupid are the same thing.

Some of the big infrastructure projects will be well underway and any opposition will have to say if they will cancel them. If they cancel them they will leave trouble for the country's financial credibility. If they agree to keep them the people will consider it worth trying for the same lot again because they thought of the ideas in the first place.

They've gone for expensive and high quality.

Blogger: What could possibly go wrong?

Professor: Events, dear boy, events. Brexit was always proper stoopid not tactically deliberately stupid, but it was a bit unlucky to have to implement it during a plague and a war. What was stupid is that no-one realised, or said, that it was absolutely reliant on everything else staying the same, to have any chance of working. Nothing ever stays the same. This has been genius politics so far, and has dealt with the first crisis (riots) very well. It is handling the US crisis reasonably well. There will be a crisis that no-one has thought of yet. Then we'll see.

Blogger: Thank you very much Professor Dump. More guest interviewees when we can think of them.

Seems Odd To Me

Some years ago I went on a Proclamation Trust preaching conference. My theology has moved on since then but I carry with me a couple of tips about the art of preaching which have stayed with me.

One of them was to look at a passage and ask 'What seems odd to me?' It's a great question. It is appropriate to ask it for yourself as you go deeper into a passage you probably know well, but also on behalf of those to whom you are preaching. Can you imagine what will seem odd to those who don't know the passage well?

I got back in touch with this idea recently as we looked at the passage in Luke where Jesus, in his home synagogue, read from Isaiah. This seemed odd. Luke says Jesus found the passage where it says this:

‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’

The footnote says this is from Isaiah 61:1-2.

Turn to Isaiah 61:1-2 though and you read:

'The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,'

So, there's a difference. Isaiah's prisoners have become Luke's blind. We'll deal with that in a minute. But the first thing that people would have noticed is that Isaiah's vengeance has disappeared. The people, expecting their favourite prophet's familiar words, find them edited, stopping short of the good bit. Who decided to do that? Editors? Jesus? Luke?

And why change the blind reference? Couple of possibilities. Firstly, a commentator, Motyer, tells us that the word translated 'release from darkness' in Isaiah is a word usually used to describe letting light in (opening a window, or opening your eyes in the morning). Of course prisoners, kept in darkness in dungeons, might find their captivity blinding. Their release also, perhaps? Secondly the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the third to first centuries BCE, chose to change the word prisoners to blind.

What did Jesus read? A scroll? Yes. A scroll without verse and chapter numbers? Yes again. A scroll of the Septuagint which conflated several verses of Isaiah and missed some out? Seems so.

Did Jesus actually read it? Good question. Could it be that this passage has little historicity and Luke is using it to make a point about Jesus' mission? That sounds more reasonable. Mark and Matthew's versions don't have the Isaiah reference.

Could Jesus read? Most scholars think he could and the Bible shows signs of his being educated, but it is not a universally held opinion. He certainly left no books from his own hand.

The more I read my Bible the odder it gets to me. I hear the sound of axes being ground. I find the word of the Lord (that which God initially said) inaccessible and the Bible, for all its truth and beauty, a work of theology which is the best we can do for the word of the Lord round here today. It already includes interpretation.

It will be more helpful for us if we accept it is polemical, interpretive and, whilst it is a historical document and source, certainly not history as we know it.

The final nail in the coffin of my theological conservatism was banged in by Iranian writer, historian and theologian Reza Aslan 'Zealot - The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazarath' (Westbourne Press 2013). He led me to write this. I am grateful.

Hairstyles and Attitudes

I had a hair cut in Stratford yesterday (thanks Indi, fine work as usual). This alerted TCMT that I would be in the vicinity of Lakeland, a shop where she used to work and which purveys several products which we never knew we needed until we got them but now can't live without. She gave me a list. I asked for a translation. It's not a fault it's a feature. TCMT2 will cross her Ts.

And so it came to pass that I entered the shop, having arrived fifteen minutes early for my haircut, calculating that I had enough time to buy the three listed things first.

I am familiar with the layout of Lakeland and claimed the kettle descaler bags and medium sized rubber gloves within seconds. The lens-cleaning wipes were harder to track down and, although it feels like an admission of defeat, I approached the counter and asked for help. A woman of about sixty, five foot three, bobbed grey hair and large glasses pointed to the boxes three feet from my right hand. I felt an idiot but TCMT later told me that they kept them on the counter because they are a best-seller.

Hold the description of the assistant in your head. It will be important later.

Lakeland try and have sales staff that match the customer demographic. If you imagine you are selling to a sixty year old woman you won't go far wrong. I'm sure they enjoy the men who come in and see it as a badge of honour to find the stuff like a treasure hunt rather than seek help. Maybe they run a sweepstake on how long it will be before we ask.

One customer profile is a grey haired, not-unattractive woman who gives off vibes of Baroness or Mrs Something-in-the-City. This woman is used to having staff and knows how to treat them. She will never search in the store for that might suggest an interest in the stock. No, she will walk through the door, adjust her dress for the new environment, and announce her presence by shouting 'clingfilm' or some such product. She will then wait for someone to jump. They'd better.

Apparently it is worth being nice to such people who may, on a whim, choose to buy air-fryers for all their family for Christmas.

Back to my story. Satisfied that I had all the products on my list and had correctly identified any necessary deals (two for one, buy one get one free and an email every day for life) I went back to the counter and brandished my purchases. There are normally questions about loyalty here but TCMT has the Lakeland card so I said no. I was spending about £15.

'If you get the app today you get 10% off' said the kindly woman. (Ten minutes to hair appointment now.) I succumbed.

I scanned a QR code (how rock and roll am I) and went through the process. It was surprisingly easy and I reached the last stage when a message proclaimed 'Your new card will appear here - it may take a few minutes.' (Seven minutes to hair appointment.)

I read the sentence back to the assistant who looked at me as if I was the sort of person who read things aloud in shops. I went on to explain that I needed to be next door in five minutes and could I proceed without the discount. Another gormless look.

A voice from behind me said 'Are you ready now?' I turned round. Sure enough the assistant who had been serving me had wandered off to do some other task while she waited for me and had been replaced behind the counter by another woman who was clearly different but would have matched the same description precisely. Neither may have been sixty. As you can gather I don't pay much attention. I'd been drinking with a friend for an hour once when he cracked and asked if I was going to ask him about his black eye. At that point I noticed it.

Wrongs righted with a 'What am I like' and assistant A returned and my new loyalty card appeared on my phone screen. I made some comment about being glad to get the discount when assistant B told me that it only applied to purchases over £30. I didn't speak but managed to incarnate all the disappointments of my current life (medical, financial, West Brom's run of results) into a single look and assistant A folded. I got the discount. I paid the bill. I arrived at my hair appointment on the dot.

Somehow the whole process reminded me of the church at Failand which, when I arrived in the team in 2006 had fifteen members average age 75. When I left sixteen years later having observed or taken several funerals for the congregation it had fifteen members average age 75. It was as if there was a deal that every 65 year old in the village had to join the church when an 85 year old died. 'Come on Mavis, your turn now.' It worked. Also, they paid their parish share. Or maybe the baroness paid all of it.

If you fit the description, apply for a job at Lakeland. It may be your turn. Today we discovered we had run out of Moth Off, or whatever it is called now. I may need to go back.

Come to think of it the second one may not have had glasses.  

Other Presences

I have sorted out the sidebar mess that included links to all sorts of places I could no longer be found. I have now summarised the four main places under one banner 'Other Presences'. Not sure how much longer I'll be on Twitter/X but still there for now.

Learning Things Too Late

I should have known that. People who are genuinely honest with themselves will say this more often than they put up a fight to defend their ignorance. It is an attitude that takes joy in discovery. I commend it. Here are two things I learned too late in my ministerial career.

Hearing Lady Hale on Desert Island Discs reminded me of her most splendid piece of teaching. In dealing with the massive matter of whether it had been against the law to prorogue Parliament she read a verdict which broke this complexity down to four simple questions:

1. Is this a matter on which we are able to rule?

2. What is the relevant law?

3. Has it been broken?

4. What should be the remedy.

For the last few years I have adapted and applied this to almost every meeting I have been responsible for when setting an agenda and leading a discussion to a conclusion:

1. Is this anything to do with us?

2. What are the parameters of our discussion?

3. What do we need to put right or improve?

4. What needs to happen now?

The second is like, namely this. I met a wise old priest who taught me to avoid the self-importance that comes with assuming that when someone shares something with you it is down to you, and you alone, to deal with it.

Given that pastoral problems normally lead to talking he used to reply, when confronted with such, by saying something along the lines of, 'That must be really difficult for you. Do you have someone you can talk to about it?' On many occasions the answer turned out to be 'yes' at which point he would pray for the relationship and commend it with thanks.

In effect he was praising the sharer for the good judgement they had made so far. This also sorted out the folk only he could help.

I tried it a few times. It worked and was well received.

Anonymity

What started me thinking was this. An anonymous blogger and Twitter/X poster known as The Church Mouse (@thechurchmouse ) posted a thread about the process to elect a new Bishop of Coventry. Using publicly available documents he (we know Mouse is male but that's all) suggested that one parish had been less than clear in getting two people with similar divisive views (vicar and PCC member) onto the 14 member Vacancy in See Committee.

A friend replied 'Oh the irony ... an anonymous mouse complaining people aren't being open and transparent.'

I felt a bit busted. Then cross. Then thoughtful.

There is a strong tradition of anonymity in public writing. The commenter and I are both Christians and have given our lives to public ministry based on a book that is less than clear about its sources and authorship in many cases.

Newspaper leader writers do not give their names to their pieces. It is not that they are a secret but that the view in a leader is that of the paper not the person.

I read along piece about the history of anonymity in early 20th century writing:

Anon is Not Dead: Towards a History of Anonymous Authorship in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain

Reasons for choosing anonymity included those we have discussed as well as a desire to avoid fame and a lack of need for remuneration. It emphasises the long history of anonymity and pseudonymity.

There was a tradition of the preface to Crockford's Clerical Directory being written anonymously but in 1987 a furore arose over that year's long essay. John Habgood, then Archbishop of York, took very public umbrage to the piece and, unusually, this led to a media frenzy to discover who had written it. Afraid of being discovered the author, Gareth Bennet, took his own life. Coincidentally, one of the matters of which he was critical was the working of the Crown Appointments Commission.

Recently The Secret Barrister and The Secret Footballer, to name but two, have been able to give inside information on their professions whilst staying anonymous.

On the one hand this allows them to be kept safe. Or keep their jobs. On the other it looks like they are hiding something.

In my years in ministry I never allowed an anonymous letter to change my mind or views, but I did dwell on and review the things they wrote about when I received them.

There is an easy, lazy response available in rhetoric, often used in courts where juries don't understand the methodology and also in political debate. It goes like this:

Court
Barrister: You are an expert?
Expert: I have these qualifications...
Barrister: Wasn't your opinion found wanting in the case of...
Expert: I have been used on many occasions and found helpful
Barrister: Answer yes or no please...

The idea of the expert being wrong has been put in the jury's head with the expert seeming reluctant to admit it.


Politics
Candidate 1: As Winston Churchill so rightly said...
Candidate 2: I don't think you are in the same league as Winston Churchill

It doesn't matter what the quote is. The idea of the candidate comparing themselves as an equal to a great and respected orator has been put in the audience's head.

So I have a problem with arguing with the anonymity but not the substance. It feels a bit like a gnat has been strained and a camel swallowed. On the other hand we have to trust Mouse when he says 'I’m not standing for election and making important decisions...' without evidence, apart from ten years plus of his, relatively consistent, views.

There's the rub. A one off anonymous tweet is hard to assess. Axes are probably being ground. But a long-running, obviously informed anonymous commentator seeking clarity. I get that. If you want to ignore everything Mouse says because you think he's a coward or hypocrite that is your prerogative. But I don't think it's wise.

It is hard not to engage with press interest in a leaked document even if you think it shouldn't have been leaked. Mouse is not a whistle-blower although he has singled out an individual from a position of anonymity (I've chosen not to because the individual is a friend, albeit one I have often disagreed with).

There is a long and glorious history of anonymous writing in this country. Long may it continue.

Faith After Doubt

Faith After Doubt

Brian McLaren

A longer book review on the way. This book has been really important for me. It may be equally helpful for others on similar journeys.

I came to faith through the ministry of a church youth group in suburban Birmingham in the early 1970s. I didn't know anything about the range of style within the Church of England at first. Soon I understood that it was a Conservative Evangelical church.

That youth group was run by a talented and tireless curate called Don. On the 'divisive' issues of the day he was not extremely conservative. He was a huge supporter of women's ministry and ordination, and forgiving on divorce and remarriage. That said I regularly heard sermons that promoted creationism over evolution.

Fast forward a few years and I'm married, have a son and am pursuing the possibility of ordination. That journey came as a surprise to me and is another story. I headed off to St John's College in Nottingham and a degree in theology.

I wasn't a great student but I was fascinated. Getting to grips with theological reading for the first time in my life I was also angry. Why had I been a member of churches for ten years and no one had so much as hinted at this sort of thing? The very idea that the Bible contained a range of material, not all of it history, started to help me make sense of things. Others who had the same experience struggled with their faith. But a reasonable summary of my years since then has been a desire to make sure people were not as uneducated as I. But how to do that?

As McLaren himself says, '...the better the job that colleges do in actually training their student to be responsible theologians, the more out of sync those future pastors will be with churches that hire them to maintain the status quo.'

It has not been a matter of asserting things that would start a fight. It has been a matter of patiently and gently suggesting things such as:

• Genesis 1-11 is not history
• In the Gospels some words are put on Jesus' lips by the writers
• Some biblical teaching is limited by the culture of its day
• Substitutionary atonement is a model, not the model

For the last 25 years Brian McLaren has been a companion on this journey, although we have never met. His trilogy of books about the sorts of things I have listed above, and his journey in conservative churches, were helpful. (1)

Since then, along the way, he has been true to his original aim of helping us to discover how a new kind of Christian leads to a new way of being church.

Which brings us to this - Faith after Doubt. It's sub-titled 'Why your beliefs stopped working and what to do about it'.

There have been many fine attempts over the years to categorise stages of faith. Fowlers six are the best known. All seem to suggest that the arrival at sage-like dotage just before your death bed is the ideal.

Here are McLaren's stages:

1. Simplicity

Epitomised by a desire to divide the world into yes or no, good or bad, in or out. Likes to belong to a church with clear black and white rules about ethics and doctrine. All that is required of a member is unquestioning loyalty.

Me 1971-76

2. Complexity

Here the question is 'How can I be successful?' Things are no longer known and knowable but learned and doable. Moving away from authority figures as soon as you discover they have flaws. Maybe start looking for a church community more like you. Exchange the joy of being right for the joy of being effective.

Many members of the faith community never get beyond this stage.

Me 1976 - 1996

3. Perplexity

Those who do not want to settle down in stages 1 or 2 often leave. For those who don't 'Come join a community of people who don't know what they believe any more but want to talk about it' is not an easy recruit. Plus the leaders have no answers or certainties. Many ministry students experience this in their first term of theological education. And having built something wonderful as we moved from stage 1 to stage 2 we find ourselves knocking it down again. Members of this group often have humility (I don't know the answer) and courage (Let's journey into the unknown together and see where it leads). Not moral relativism but challenging incomplete morality.

I got here quickly (hold the humility) and spent 1981-96 crossing over. I since have been here for about thirty years. The reason Faith After Doubt is so good is that it encouraged me to go on with the journey

Me 1981-2023

4. Harmony

Many members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) laugh at the slowness with which western Christians get to this point. It is the stage at which one sees love as the driving force steering us through 1-3. It is the point at which we accept, rather than reject, all the disparate bits and pieces of messy life which have got us here. The new music is of appreciation, empathy and wonder. McLaren adds love. No wonder being present in stage four can feel like being lost for words, or maybe lost in wonder, love and praise as the hymn puts it.(2)

I once got in a big dispute by arguing that all change comes from dissatisfaction. I stand by that although the discussion was passionate. I don't think I can persuade you to change your mind until you are dissatisfied with the status quo. And conversely I must value the doubt I developed about my stages 1-3 faith for without the doubt I wouldn't have reached here. Reached where? Well, reached the start of the journey, a journey most people never discover and few have the privilege of joining.

Me, now.

If you're ready, read this book.

(1) A New Kind of Christian (2001)
The Story We Find Ourselves In (2003)
The Last Word and the Word After That (2005)

(2) Love Divine, All Loves Excelling

Smart Stuff

We have a Google home-hub. You activate it by saying 'Hey Google'. Walking into the kitchen first thing, if you say 'Hey Google, Good Morning' it says 'Good Morning', tells you the time, the weather and then a joke. A terrible joke. Followed by the latest BBC News.

A coupe of years ago we relocated. Google still opened with 'The weather in Bristol is...' I responded with 'What's the weather in Evesham today?' Then Google told me. I carried on for a few days, wondering how long it would be before Google learned to change its ways. It didn't.

So I asked the hub to reset its home to Evesham but got 'I'm sorry, that can't be done on this device. Here's a joke etc...'

I persevered with this request for a few days then gave up. My lover purchased it and set it up so I can't access the account.

Here's the thing. Smart devices learn, right? So now we have this dialogue every morning:

Me: Hey Google Good Morning

Home-Hub: Good Morning. The weather in Bristol is cloudy with a high of 19 degrees. I'm sorry that can't be done on this device. Here's a joke to start your day...'

So, I've learned not to ask but Google has learned to tell me the answer anyway. I've started telling Google to do things which certainly can't be done on that device. This has been going on for over a year.

Maybe I'll ask the other smart devices for help. Siri, Alexa and Hello ID (yes, I can talk to my car but can't set the weather dial for Evesham). I need your help. If all else fails I'll check-in with the dishwasher. She's out at the moment.

Things Got Better

Writing in the i last Monday Isabel Hardman reflected 'This time next week, Keir Starmer ... agenda under way and the first cabinet meeting looming.'

One of the advantages of saving newspapers to read later is the ability to test their columnist's ability at short-term prophecy. So, by Monday lunchtime (yesterday) the cabinet had been appointed (Friday), the first cabinet meeting had taken place (early Saturday) and, having done an encouraging thank-you video to the Civil Service, Keir was back from a tour of the Home Nations and had posed with the new Labour intake for a formal picture before heading off to Washington for a NATO summit and a bilateral with Biden.

The Defence Secretary had been to Ukraine, The Foreign Secretary was in Poland (I think, he moves fast), planning regulation for onshore wind had been eased and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was setting out her housing plan. Her direct and simple answer to a provocative question was refreshing:

Reporter: So you are relying on the private sector to build all these new homes?
Chancellor: Of course. The Government doesn't build houses.

In 1997 Blair's New Labour had a big trick up their sleeve which they had not leaked. After five yearsof interest rates being used as a political football they gave the power to set them over to the Bank of England. It was a huge, symbolic move and remains one of their great achievements.

If you haven't got any big reveals an alternative is to demonstrate speed, command and control. Starmer seems a different man when in charge. It's probably why he's been put in charge of things all his life. He has begun with the enthusiasm of someone who has hated opposition and wants to get as far away from it as possible.

I'm a realist. The new government might eventually disappoint me, do things with which I disagree and maybe fail to deal with a crisis as well as they should.

But it's been an impressive start.

Things Can Only Get 44

It is nice to see how many people come round to the idea of a better voting system once the old one delivers a massive result they do not like.

One of the preconditions of the Conservative Liberal coalition in 2010 was a referendum on a better voting system. We got it and one David Cameron led the campaign not to change. First Past The Post (FPTP), he argued, gave strong government. I think he forgot we were in a coalition at the time but he won anyway.

Nowadays it seems like the people have become savvy and vote tactically. Since it is not currently possible to express a preference in a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system the voters tend to vote for whoever will defeat their least favourite option. So last night the Conservatives were trounced. Labour gained because they were usually best-placed to beat them.

In my own constituency of Redditch Labour won by 600 because Reform took 8000 and many Greens and Libs voted tactically (I guess).

I imagine Greens and Lib Dems, if allowed, would transfer their votes to each other and then Labour. Would the Conservatives have taken most of the Reform second picks? Probably not all of them. Enough? We don’t know. Say the Reform votes split 75/25 to the Tories. New result under STV becomes:

Conservative 20,408
Labour 21,202

I haven’t reallocated the 765 votes won by the Workers’ Party of Britain but basically Redditch is close under all systems.

Quick rough calculation on back of envelope. Proportional representation would give a national result of:

Labour 250
Conservative 175
Reform 100
Lib Dem 75
Green 50

A Labour/Lib Dem/Green coalition would be the likely government with a majority of 50-100 (remember there are independents and nationalist parties too).

These have been my election musings. Today I am happy and hopeful. Thanks for reading

Things Can Only Get 43

Remember, even if you are currently popping the champagne, that the new government will disappoint you. No government ever does all the things one person wants.

In the eponymous film Bruce Almighty, Bruce, standing in for God, was so bothered by all the prayers he had to deal with that he had them converted to emails and answered ‘Yes to all’. Consequently the following week’s lottery first prize was shared between thousands of people who all won a few cents.

A good government does the utilitarian thing of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This means that some will be disappointed. And the mugging victims won’t believe it if the crime figures are down.

If, as seems likely, we have a Labour Government tomorrow, we need to give them a moment or two before being disappointed.

Things Can Only Get 42

Crazy left field idea warning.

People are easily influenced in a crowd. If you ask a question of 20 people such as ‘What is 9 x 7’ and rig the room so 19 of the 20 say the answer is 57, the 20th person will usually bow to the pressure and also give the wrong answer.

So if you hold a referendum on a big issue some ‘big hitters’, such as the Russians, become hugely influential.

But what if people don’t get to talk to each other? The wisdom of crowds theory says that if you ask a question and people have not consulted with each other, or been influenced, then an average of all the responses will be close to the truth.

How might this work? Well, suppose it be put in the gift of a Prime Minister, after three year’s in office, to hold a blind referendum? Three questions can be put to the voting public in an advisory referendum, to test feeling.

The voting public would not see the questions until arriving at the ballot box. Obviously it would be hard to avoid all leaks and equally hard to stop parties briefing out the answers to all possible questions. Maybe it could be done electronically? In an internet age it is amazing we still have polling booths. Questions should have yes/no/don’t know choices only.

So, in 2027:

Would you favour commencing conversations about rejoining the EU?

Would you wish to take the railways back into public ownership?

Should wearing black and gold in public be a sectionable offence? (Oh come on. Allow me one joke.)

The ‘flavour’ of the answers would help a government to understand more about the future reaction to things they wanted to do.

Things Can Only Get 41

Statistics about economic growth and GDP are banded around a lot. Most of us find it hard to instantly identify truth and lies. I was helped recently by a pundit who pointed out that GDP is a measure of economic activity. If you spend an hour working and make enough money to go to a prostitute or buy drugs that is economic activity. If you spend the hour doing your neighbour’s garden for nowt, it isn’t.

In the midst of all this a piece by Jonty Bloom in The New European caught my eye. He pointed out that the IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) reports that the UK has been bottom of the G7 for economic investment for 24 of the last 30 years.

The only way to get the money for investment is borrowing or tax increases. If we decide we cannot afford them we fall further behind and become less likely to afford them. As an example of this short-termism, the cancelling of HS2, when we were well on the way, makes it harder for us to eventually do it. Governments will always be tempted to take the money now rather than let a future government get the advantage.

The IPPR want to be able to report on necessary investment by making benchmarks. These, at the beginning of the life of a government, would establish the amount of investment necessary to meet the government’s stated goals. They could then be challenged and questioned against them. If investment spending was slashed the consequences for long-term goals would be made clear.

This, sadly, is not the sort of conversation we have during election campaigns. It should be.

Things Can Only Get 40

I wonder who is writing the Tory’s attack ads. Just in the last couple of days I’ve noticed two which, it seems to me, have completely bombed.

The first involved insulting Angela Rayner on the back of a really sweet picture of her with Gordon Brown. The right wing press seems to have decided that we should hate Rayner but we are not responding as they expect. Maybe people like the idea that someone from her background could rise to be an MP and, possibly, Deputy Prime Minister.

The second was a response to Sir Keir Starmer suggesting that he would stop work at 6.00 p.m. on a Friday to spend time with his family. The attack suggested that he should never stop work whereas I think people would applaud someone who gave time to his children in the middle of a busy life. I had a busy job once but prioritised family life between late afternoon and early evening so we could eat together. And I took a day off every week without fail. There was also a system in place for getting hold of me in an emergency.

Many ordinary people are both aspirational and family-focussed. We don’t like that being attacked.

Things Can Only Get 39

There is occasionally a time, not as often as all that, when I vote based on the record of the government rather than the manifesto promises made. This is one of those times. ‘Judge me on my record’ say many politicians.

Well here’s the thing. The mount-up of misjudgements over the last 14 years has been extensive:

• Unnecessary austerity when record low interest rates demanded investment.

• Unnecessary Brexit referendum which ‘most people’ were not looking for.

• Mishandled Brexit negotiations. How hard would it have been to say ‘No Brexit is better than a bad Brexit’ rather than ‘No deal is better than a bad deal’.

• Covid panic and poor leadership only calmed by our medical officers and vaccine researchers.

• Lies.

• Partygate (I haven’t made much of it but I felt this incredibly personally).

• Trussonomics.

• Reduction of overseas aid budget.

• Shit in the rivers

• Lack of compassion towards the alien and the stranger.

• Reduction of UK influence in Europe and around the world.

That why am I voting Labour this election.

Things Can Only Get 38

I’ve been a couple of years in my current home. I’m living in a village for the first time in my life. Here in East Worcestershire, part of the old Wychavon Constituency, the Tories didn’t have to do much except show up in order to win. This has changed.

I think the Council elections last year gave the Conservatives a hint that there was worry. The Tory candidate visited our house. His opening gambit was that he was a remainer and the follow up that he didn’t support Boris Johnson. He still won.

For this General Election I find myself in Redditch. Election material has called it ‘Redditch and the Villages’ or ‘Redditch County’. Labour and Conservative have door-knocked.

What has come through the letterbox has been fascinating. We’ve had glossy communications from Conservative, Labour, Green and Reform. Rachel Maclean, current Tory MP for Redditch has bombarded us. Three leaflets, one personal letter and a doorstep visit. We’ve also heard from Labour and Lib Dem about our previous constituency. Their databases are out of date.

The Reform candidate is a mystery to us. Name only. No picture. No biography and a message about immigration and nothing else. A vote for her helps Labour. 

So does a vote for the Lid Dems.

Amidst all the communication from Ms McLean was this sentence ‘l share your frustration that the Conservatives didn’t do more when they had the chance.’ Not we. They. She does not seem to understand how to apologise and take personal responsibility. 

In the past Redditch has voted the same way as the country. The change of boundaries has given it more blue rural types so it may be closer than usual.

The Green candidate is a current Redditch Councillor. He means well but a vote for him helps the Conservatives. I'd probably put him first if we had single transferable voting. We need a few more Green MPs.

Things Can Only Get 37

Yesterday I commented on the question the man, we now know as Robert Blackstock, asked the UK Prime Ministerial candidates ‘Are you two the best that we can do?’

How the USA needed that question yesterday. There are over 300 million people in the USA yet the debate between Biden and Trump was between a convicted felon, business failure with a history of inappropriate behaviour towards women and a doddery elder-statesman clearly, yes clearly, loitering on the edge of dementia. Neither could possibly be considered appropriate candidates. I have no idea what will be done. Trump isn’t backing off so I guess the ball is in the court of the Democratic Party. Obama came through late so there is hope.

Back in the land where our two main candidates have no criminal records and are still of sound mind we should be grateful. Either would be a shoe-in as President of the United States although, due to the weird make up of US politics, both would probably be standing as Democrats.

I gather that the Reform candidate who suggested asylum-seekers’ small boats should be used as target practice by the army was engaged in ‘typical chaps-down-the-pub talk’. He’d align well with the Republicans.

Until tomorrow.

Things Can Only Get 36

I don’t know if you watched last night’s leader debate or if you got details from extracts, clips or the main news programmes. You will have seen a feisty debate but with neither man landing a killer blow. Quick feedback was that it ended 50/50.

What caught my attention was the question ‘Are you two the best that we can do?’ It was asked by a self-professing Conservative voter who, I would guess, misses the fleshpots of Boris. Felt rude.

Standing for high office is a demanding gig. I am impressed by anyone who has the stamina to campaign for several weeks. My Conservative candidate visited today. No-one came ahead to see if I wanted a chat. Just her and one colleague. They asked politely if I would vote for them. I said we would not. Hard work. Probably dispiriting. Leaving me they wished me a good rest of the day and I confess I offered them the opposite sentiment.

But I am glad we are still clinging, just about, to the possibility that you can be PM without being extrovert, charismatic and a professional entertainer. Government is a serious business. Hard work is acceptable enough without there being a particular way you have to do the job.

The greatest gift this election might give us is a period of time during which politics is dull and not especially newsworthy. Hope so. It will give the new government a little space in which to work.

Things Can Only Get 35

People have made their mind up. The wisdom of crowds is a strange thing. If the crowd get to talk to each other, influence each other, they can make a daft decision. But if you ask a crowd a question and don’t let them compare notes the average of their answers will be close to the truth (see the ‘guess the weight of the pig’ problem).

In 2010 people had made their mind up not to give Labour five more years but hadn’t completely fallen in love with Cameron. A coalition government with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats followed.

In 2015 people were still not completely convinced about Cameron but they had decided there was no point voting Lib Dem if you ended up getting Conservative so the Lib Dem vote collapsed and Cameron got a small majority.

Cameron resigned over Brexit and his successor, Teresa May went to the country for support in 2017. The country, in its wisdom, had no idea who was best equipped to get us out of the mess Brexit had put us in and voted her slim majority away.

By 2019 the wisdom of the crowd was to be utterly fed up of three years of Brexit conversation and gave May’s successor a large majority to get Brexit done, however bad the deal.

Sir John Curtice, the polling guru, says that he has had more limelight than usual this election because the campaign is more or less over. The election has not led the morning news on a number of occasions and polls are being examined in forensic detail to see if there is anything interesting hiding. There isn’t. People have made up their minds and are not, it appears, going to shift.

What made their minds up? Partygate and Trussonomics. These are the things that people mention when asked what has caused them to withdraw support from the Tories.

The wisdom of the crowd is to shut up all opposition voices for five years and let an unopposed government have some space to fix er, everything. They'll need it

The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki was published by Doubleday in 2004 and discusses the guess the weight of the pig problem.

Things Can Only Get 34

In 1981, with England in an almost impossible position in a Test Match, some astute Aussie cricketers noticed that the odds against England winning were surprisingly generous. The Australians expected to win, and tried to, but took a punt on the unexpected. If England somehow managed to avoid an innings defeat, set a target and bowl them out for very little, at least they would have a consolation. They placed the bet. Cue one Ian Botham, a decent spell of bowling by Bob Willis and the bet was won as the test was lost.

Was that dodgy?

Betting on losing a seat you desperately want to win—dodgy?

Betting on the date of the election when you have inside information—dodgy?

Betting on the pound falling during the run up to the UK vote to leave the EU—dodgy?

It’s a trick question for me because I actually think all betting is dodgy and hate its ubiquity in modern society. But if you must do it, where do you draw the line?

Things Can Only Get 33

Many people think politics to be really easy. More wish it was. In a recent debate candidates were asked a series of yes/no questions. But some of them were not really yes/no.

One such, in a recent debate, was ‘Will you in the future consider rejoining the European Union?’ Angela Rayner said ‘no’. But I think it impossible to say ‘no’ for all future conceivable circumstances. The answer ‘don’t know’ was not an option and people hate it anyway. Complete silence was the only answer.

Politics is complex and nuanced. It is why I am not a member of any political party. I am a pragmatist or at least want to be banging my head against the right wall. ‘Relevant martyrdom’ was what the late Tom Smail called that. So I would refuse to accept the premise of the question far more often than I gave a straight answer, would often say ‘It depends what you mean by’ and consequently would be hugely unpopular.

Graphs rarely go up or down in a straight line. Looked at in detail various trade, manufacturing and employment figures are a series of small peaks and troughs from which a trend can be observed. It allows one party, looking at the trend, to say ‘Crime is up’ and another, looking at a trough after a peak, to say ‘Crime is down’. Both are looking at the same figures. Both are, technically, right.

But forensic analysis looks at trends, not peaks and troughs on the journey, and Starmer is good at it. Sunak got in a mess about this the other day when he said hospital waiting lists were down. They were down recently but the trend (as Starmer pointed out with a good grasp of figures) remained up. Sunak was forced to say ‘They are down from when they were higher’ which was correct, but sounded petty.
In international negotiations you sometimes have to give in order to get. The Brexit negotiations had to absolutely shaft our farmers but specialised parts manufacturers got a good deal. Complex, see.

Facebook used to have as a choice on the state of your relationship ‘It’s complicated’. Politics is complicated. If you can manage to be unselfish please vote for the party that will bring the most benefit to the most people for the most time. It may not be simple to work out because politics isn't easy.

Things Can Only Get 32

Two things I have spoken about at length over the years and mentioned in these daily articles:

• Statistics are more important than individual stories. What ’people are saying on the doorstep’ is meaningless. You cannot use vox pops (small numbers) to contradict polls and stats (big numbers).

• Labour governments always have a heart for the poorest but do not get elected if they say they have.

Today I will tell you my third pillar of wisdom. Politics is about who dies.

We don’t emphasise this enough. Sometimes political decisions seem to be at such a distance from casualties on the ground that complacency can set in. But crowded A and E departments with patients on trolleys in corridors have caused some excess deaths recently. As have tooth infections, mouldy houses, gang related knife crime to name but however many that was.

A massive generalisation—health issues that happen to you before the age of seventy are a matter of environment. Health issues after age seventy are down to genetics. Where did I get it? It is a working assumption used by one of our devolved parliaments and an insider told me.

When you make youth workers redundant, food more expensive, homes harder to heat, rents unaffordable, water polluted and lengthen hospital waiting lists it is the poorest who suffer. It’s a change in environment. You have chosen to allow more poor people to die. The wealthier can buy their way out of trouble, or their money helps them avoid the mess.

People standing for office should have to answer a very basic question. Who dies when?

Further pillars may be available.

Things Can Only Get 31

People who read my stuff regularly will know I love numbers. I am not a mathematician but I am a bit of a statto.

Generally people are not that interested. But because statistics can be a bit counter-intuitive most people should not use them without training.

If you think stats are intuitive then run along and Google the ‘car goat game’, or the ‘green taxi blue taxi’ problem. And yes, I can tell you how long a piece of string is and why buses come in threes.

It is pretty clear that, barring something unlikely happening, we will soon have a Labour Government. We might also have more Green MPs than ever before, some Reform MPs and Lib Dem support back up to Cleggmania levels.

The number that has remained most static over the last few months is the Labour lead. Almost nothing in the campaign has changed things. It is said that some undecided former Conservatives might have returned to the fold but the calamitous Tory campaign has put them off.

Tonight everyone has turned on Farage so that will see his popularity increase amongst the people who do that sort of thing.

Key number. Twelve more days.

Things Can Only Get 30

I have returned from holiday to many pieces of election material. I used to live in Nigel Huddleston MP’s Wychavon constituency, which is pretty safely blue. However I am now in Redditch County, a boundary change that has added more potential Tory votes to a town that swings with the wind of electoral change.

My Conservative candidate, Rachel Maclean, has been MP for the old constituency of Redditch. In distancing herself from her party she says ‘I share your frustration that the Conservatives didn’t do more when they had the chance.’ They? They? How very dare she. I have never before seen an election leaflet that uses failures as sub-headings:

Bringing down the cost of living

Stopping the boats

Improved roads and pot holes

She asks if I want to give a London lawyer a blank cheque. I have seen what her lot do with blank cheques so if that is the choice (which, of course, it isn't) then yes.

Incidentally I’ve noticed a tendency for Tories to demean the idea of a Labour landslide because that ‘will give them freedom to do what the hell they like’. Mates, in this country a majority of 1 gives you that. It is bonkers. But the hilarious thing is that this comment is premised on an incoming Labour Government behaving as appallingly as the outgoing lot. It won’t. There may be one or two dodgy characters but I expect they will be shown the door pretty quickly with Starmer in charge. He has public service and probity in his blood.

Vote Labour if you can. Vote tactically in places where Tories out can be achieved with a different vote. 

Things Can Only Get 29

Yesterday was a crazy day for the pollsters. Some outliers had the Tories down to 53 seats and Lib Dems only three off becoming the official opposition. That would mean, as my friend Malcolm Edge put it, the government benches being occupied on a shift system. Or they could abandon the pairing system. Then no opposition MP could ever have a day off. Cruel but funny.

Another poll had Reform up to 24%. This would come close to making Farage Leader of the Opposition. Has anyone with no experience of the Commons ever been in this position?

Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt to lose worse than currently predicted, the Tories brought out an election ad suggesting you should not bet on Labour. At the same time their Head of Campaigns took leave of absence amidst, if I’ve understood this, accusations of illegal betting on the election date (by his wife). Wouldn’t bet on him coming back.

Back at the polls, Redfield and Wilton asked people who they would prefer to be the opposition. Can’t remember ever seeing that question before. 31% of 2019 Conservative voters, it turns out, would prefer Reform to be the Opposition.

As I type this the music track in the background is Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush singing ‘Don’t Give Up’. Actually a cover version. What is happening at the moment is so odd I wonder if it is a cover version of the real election.

Two more weeks. Don´t give up.

Things Can Only Get 28

A book that would be hilarious if it wasn’t so important is Andy Borowitz’s ‘Profiles in Ignorance - How America’s Politicians Got Dumb and Dumber’ (2022). You will recall most of the instances mentioned if you are over 60 but to see them all written down, in a row, is quite frightening.

What is especially interesting is his characterisation of the three stages in the history of stupid politicians:

1. Ridicule - we laugh at the stupid (e.g. Reagan and Quayle) so dumb politicians have to pretend to be smart
2. Acceptance - we accept leadership by the stupid (e.g. Dubya) so dumb politicians are free to seem dumb
3. Celebration - we compete at the stupid level to remove nuance and complexity (e.g. Trump) so smart politicians must pretend to be dumb

We, the voters, are also stupid. Some more so than others. As I said yesterday some votes will lead to you getting the outcome you least want, yet people still don’t change.

One of the worst reasons for changing of all, although many are doing it, is called ‘backing the winners’. With polls showing a seemingly unshakeable Labour lead some of the tabloid press who normally back the Tories will call their readers to back Labour. They want to be associated with the winners. And some of us will do the same.

Equally human is this. When asked how they voted in 2019, the polls show nothing like a Tory majority of 90. We want to back winners and we won’t admit it if we backed a poor government, even to a pollster who guarantees anonymity

Things Can Only Get 27

Thanks to Rishi and Mrs S for today’s image - trying to understand sheep. Insert your own punchline. Do the Tories want any votes? Someone once had pity on a crowd because they were like sheep without a shepherd but that level of compassion is not working for me and the Tories right now.

But in an election you do not have to tell anyone how you voted or what criteria you used in choosing. Maybe you don’t like men, gays, blacks, gammon, tall people, gingers, ex army. It’s up to you.

What the democratic movement hopes is that this level of stupid ‘What, vote for anyone in those shoes?’ evens itself out. Probably does.

There has always been the protest vote. Typically this is cast against the party in power but not for the main opposition. Or you could spoil your vote. Or stay at home.

Strange thing this election is that polls suggest 4-6 million of you will vote for Reform. Who may get 3 seats. And your protest (presumably that the Tories have gone soft and central) will lead you to give a landslide to Labour, the party you least want in power. I don’t believe Reform voters are the sorts of people who might want to think about that. But they should.

There, that was almost compassionate.

Things Can Only Get 26

In a liberal democracy the purpose of taxation is to pool the resources of the many to pay for essential things which no one person could, or would, subsidise. It differs from insurance where the premiums of the many pay for the misfortunes of the few. In insurance you only benefit if you suffer a loss. From taxation everybody benefits.

In the earliest forms of such democracy the big two uses of taxation were defence and justice (including policing). Education and health were relatively late additions. Support of the arts came earlier but this highlights the sort of people who were making the rules.

Now, here’s an interesting experiment that gets conducted fairly regularly. Ask people if they are paying too much tax and they usually agree. Then, ask people in turn whether there should be more or less tax paid on each area of public life separately and, apart from subsidy of the arts, most folk want more spending. The business of government can be summarised as convincing the people that you are investing more in everything from a diminishing pot.

Of course where Thatcher was wrong is that a country is not like a household where the books always have to balance. It is wise to borrow to invest. There is a magic money tree. Austerity, when interest rates were at a record low, was the second stupidest thing the Tories did 2010-2024.

Now, to use yesterday’s concluding question, how much tax you wanna pay?

(I recommend Ian Dunt’s ‘How To Be a Liberal’ from 2020 on this)

Things Can Only Get 25

Step back with me. No, further. Stand with me on the moon and look over. It is one planet we see. Boats and planes criss-crossing. People around what we call the world talking, to make life easier for both.

We have to focus in quite sharply to find the places where talking stopped and fighting started.

In most centres of population we see crowds managing not to bump into each other. Muttering apologies when stepping out of line. Strangers eating together and tipping their waiter.

We need to do this to remind ourselves. Most people are not bad and try to be good.

Seen from space a lot of UK policy details don’t matter. If something very big came past the Moon we would do well for all countries to be on the same side (although I have seen ‘Arrival’).

Now, how much tax you wanna pay?

Things Can Only Get 24

The longest 45 minutes of my life was in 2015, interviewing a UKIP candidate to be MP for North Somerset, in front of an audience. Her very existence meant we could not have a panel interview as Dr Liam Fox would not sit on a panel with her. So we agreed that, on two successive Sunday afternoons, I would put questions, submitted by the audience, to each of the four candidates in turn.

Mrs UKIP was third of four. She owned up to me before the event, that she knew nothing. She wasn’t far wrong. There were no audience questions apart from one which was a set-up for her only rehearsed answer. Question after question I invented about local issues and national issues were greeted with platitudes or silence. By the end, her front-row fan-club desperately whispering answers to her, we had established that she thought our payments to the EU could be better used and she had told me how her party would use them several times over.

I have been asked to be a ‘paper candidate’ myself, once, for the SDP in Nottingham Council elections mid 1980s. I knew enough to say no. But soon it looks like Reform will be getting between 4 and 6 million votes for candidates who have no clue about anything. And you can’t get a political brain overnight.

I still have nightmares about that 45 minutes in Nailsea Methodist Church. The interview that followed with Dr Smooth was a joy by comparison. It wasn’t my job to probe but to read out audience questions and refer the answer to them. Afterwards he was kind enough to tell me I wasn’t as difficult as Jeremy Paxman. It took three months to get the picture of me shaking hands with him off his web-site. He’s now Sir Liam for services to, presumably, being sacked a lot. Hope he loses, but not to Reform. If we had transferable votes he wouldn’t be last.

Things Can Only Get 23

There are several botanical gardens in Funchal. The best one is Monte Palace Tropical Garden and is most fun if accessed by the cable car. There is a second, shorter cable car journey from there to the simpler Municipal Gardens. The funny thing is that the main cable car ticket office will admit nothing of the existence of the second one. You cannot buy a discounted ticket for both.

I thought about this as I wondered where my daily political writing was going to go today. Once a landslide victory has been won by one party it is tempting to completely ignore the existence of the other main party. It might take them two or three electoral cycles to claw their way back so why bother?

But here’s a thing. We will probably have a centre-left government. A good question would be to look at issues which can be taken out of party politics. What things do we not need to argue about? Is there a way of cleaning up rivers and beaches, for instance, to which no one object? What did the centre-right want to be doing?

I know the outgoing government (surely they’re toast now?) had little to commend them. So it’s a good time to establish a principle. The new government should thank the old government for its service and see if there is anything they were trying to do which can still be delivered. Otherwise we will never develop a long-term vision about anything.

Both gardens and both cable cars and back make a fine day trip. And once you´ve bought a ticket you wont change your mind, easily.