Tobacco bans in NZ and the UK.

In October, UK PM Rishi Sunak announced that he would follow New Zealand’s policy of gradually lifting the age at which people can buy tobacco. This would mean anyone born after 2009 would never be legally allowed to purchase tobacco. Last week, the new centre-right National Party-lead government in New Zealand announced it would be repealing this policy.

Two centre-right governments in English-speaking nations, both clients of Crosby Textor, yet opposite responses to tobacco regulation. The incoming NZ Health Minister Dr Shane Reti expressed concerns about a black market in tobacco sales if the ban was to be implemented. Reti also used the straw man argument that the tobacco ban was a factor driving recent ram rads of shops in New Zealand.

Worst of all, a key motivation for repealing the 2021 NZ tobacco legislation is to fund tax cuts. Before the election, it was clear that the National Party’s tax policy was unrealistic, just as Liz Truss’s tax cuts were in the UK. So the new government’s answer, remove restrictions on tobacco sales and use the revenue to fund tax cuts rather than funding the health system that tobacco tax revenue should be used for.

The decision in 2021 to introduce the smoking ban was a courageous one. Smoking causes many deaths each year and places a strain on the country’s health system. Smoking is addictive and we should do all we can to discourage young people from taking up this habit. This being said, putting a total ban on tobacco sales of people born after 2009 is well-meaning, but would likely have unintended and profoundly negative consequences.

There is a considerable body of evidence showing that prohibition does not work. Attempts at banning the sale of alcohol in the USA famously resulted in black market moonshine being sold. Attempts to stop the sale of narcotics in the so-called war on drugs have been a resounding failure. While it still may not be a popular view, the evidence shows that banning substances rarely stops consumption. Worse, it drives manufacturing and sales underground giving criminal gangs a great source of income and power.

The weird thing about the NZ ban is that in 2020 there was a real possibility that marijuana would be legalised. Run in parallel with the 2020 general election, the referendum on legalising marijuana was held. The result was 48.4 % in favour of legalising and 50.7 against it. In a country where studies have found that 80% of the population have tried pot, the level of cognitive dissonance of many voters is astounding.

Further, during the election campaign in 2020, Jacinda Ardern refused to state whether she supported legalising marijuana, despite earlier admitting she had tried the substance before. The concern from NZ Labour strategists was that Jacinda coming out in favour of legalising would be used against them by the opposition. As it happened, Labour won with a huge majority and the referendum was narrowly lost.

Jacinda Ardern had earlier stated her personal support for the legalisation and party members have voted at conferences in favour of policy remits calling for the same. Jacinda and other Labour frontbenchers could have openly stated their support for legalisation and still comfortably won the 2020 election. That they did not was an uncharacteristic failure of leadership by Jacinda Ardern and her team. This may have contributed to NZ still having drug laws that are disproportionately used against Maori and Pacifica populations and completely fail to stop the widespread use of marijuana.

That being said, it should not need the Prime Minister saying she supported legalisation for the referendum to succeed. The evidence from both NZ and overseas should have been enough.

All the arguments for legalising marijuana apply to tobacco as well. As a nonsmoker, I would be delighted if everyone stopped smoking. But I realise there will always be some who choose to. There will be black markets in tobacco, especially when other countries do not legislate for similar bans so people will be smuggling tobacco into the country. Further, while the state should encourage people to make good health choices and drive behaviours, banning tobacco is a bridge too far.

It might seem strange that a center-left Labour Party member would take this position. But it is a position based on evidence. Yes regulate the sale, add taxes, and limit where these products can be sold, which was also part of the 2021 NZ legislation. But prohibition of tobacco, like alcohol or marijuana will not work and will result in negative and unintended consequences.

It is unclear whether Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government will be successful in implementing a similar tobacco ban to that which NZ has just repealed. While there will be support across the political aisle for stronger restrictions, it is difficult to see how banning sales to people born after 2009 would work. Given how readily available hard drugs such as cocaine, MDMA and ketamine are on the streets of London, one has to be sceptical about the UK’s ability to successfully ban tobacco.

Instead of looking to the criminal justice system to tackle a health problem, we need policies that support people with addictions. Yes control the sale, and heavily regulate the strength and quality of what is being sold. But history has shown time and again that just banning things does not fix the problem.

Rishi Sunak’s grubby deal with Suella Braverman

One has to really feel for those trying to write political satire these days. How can a satirist be more ridiculous than many of our political leaders they wish to lampoon? Case in point, yesterday’s “resignation letter” from sacked former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.

Just to recap. From July to September, the UK effectively had a caretaker government while the Tory Party conducted its internal leadership race. The top two candidates were Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. Despite Sunak winning the support of more MPs, Truss won 57.4% of the party membership vote and became Prime Minister. It was a disaster.

In just 49 days as PM, Truss destroyed the myth that the Conservative Party is good at managing the economy. On 25 October 2022, Truss was forced to resign. The Conservatives were desperate not to go through another leadership ballot. Worse, there were fears Truss’s disgraced predecessor may stage a comeback. By this stage, the Tories were 30% behind in the polls.

Sunak became Prime Minister, despite losing the membership vote by being the only candidate. He did this by doing deals with the likes of Suella Braverman, who had been forced to resign as Home Secretary days earlier for breaching cabinet rules, and Dominic Raab who faced bullying accusations at the time and later was forced to resign.

Sunak did not need to do these grubby deals to stitch up support. In October 2022, Rishi Sunak was the only credible option. He did not need to do deals with people like Braverman and he would be in a much stronger position now if he had not.

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court that the Government’s Rwanda asylum policy is unlawful is the icing on the cake. Braverman is right in a sense, the government has wasted a year and an Act of Parliament on the Rwanda policy. But she is also completely wrong about the ECHR and the HRA. Instead, the UK government should have found a solution to the asylum crisis that complied with Human Rights legislation and international obligations. The response to the boat people crisis has been a failure by this government. Caused in no small part by deals done by Rishi Sunak to shore up support from the right of the Conservative Party.

For the political satirist, it is hard to come up with a more ridiculous situation. It would be all very funny were it not real, which instead is just frustrating and depressing.

NZ Election: National’s Tax Policy

A year ago this month, the Liz Truss/Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget destroyed once and for all the myth that the Tories are better at managing the economy. The New Zealand National Party could not even wait until they were in government to prove the same applies to them.

National, the main centre-right party in NZ politics have released a policy which economists claim does not add up. National argues their proposed foreign buyer’s tax will raise $2.9 billion. However, analysis from three independent economists does not back this claim. Instead, they estimate a $2.1 billion shortfall over a four-year period.

National are under increasing pressure to explain how they will fund their other tax cut policies. The foreign buyer tax policy was supposed to explain the shortfall. National has not released the fully costed workings of their policy and instead has fallen back on sound bites and slogans.

Like in the UK a year ago, there are real fears that cutting taxes during a cost of living crisis will drive up inflation. Further, if the so-called foreign buyer tax will not cover the shortfall, the only other option is severe spending cuts on public services or heavy borrowing. Or both.

National has raised considerably more money than Labour in the lead-up to this election. Much of this is from business. Many in the business sector were unhappy with the strict lockdowns during the pandemic, especially in 2021. Many of them believe the myth that the centre-right is better at managing the economy, so are supporting the National Party. More than a few of National’s business backers must now be questioning their investment in a party whose numbers simply do not add up.

In an interview with the NZ Herald, Opposition Finance Spokesperson and National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis, on seeing the alternative costings said it was “hardly surprising to have different economists disagreeing about things. National is confident in our figures. They have been independently assessed by Castalia economic advisors.”

Yet the full Castalia assessment has not been released. While the economists may have each produced their own different assessment of her party’s policy, they all agree National have grossly overestimated the revenue this new tax would raise.

If current polling is to be believed, in one month Willis will be the NZ Finance Minister and her party running the country. Given she and National are yet to produce more than opposition slogans and policies that do not add up, this is concerning.

Even the ACT Party, who are historically to the right of National, have now said they will be dialling back their tax cut policies due to the current economic situation in New Zealand. This is not entirely surprising. In the first term of the Thatcher Government, which started the New Right economic reforms in the UK, there were no tax cuts due to the high level of inflation in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By contrast, The NZ National Party, do not even understand their own economic theories. Their analysis seems to be little more than tax cuts = good, government spending = bad.

Willis and National said one way their numbers will add up is by cutting waste. They recently highlighted a story where a senior public servant was given a $40,000 farewell party. This is clearly unacceptable, and the official concerned was rightly made to pay this money back. But putting this in context, the total NZ health budget for 2022-23 was $14.9 billion. A handful of cases of waste, ordering fewer paperclips and turning off office heating at weekends will still just be a drop in the ocean.

At the time of writing, National are the favourites in this election. What is increasingly clear is they are not ready to govern. And increasingly, economists, even those sympathetic to centre-right politics are publically saying as much. Anyone who still thinks a National-led government will improve New Zealand’s economic situation need only look at the evidence. Like the UK Conservatives under Truss, they simply are not up to the task.

Jeremy Corbyn was not fit to be Prime Minister. But is Starmer?

It is said that there is a thin line between bravery and stupidity. Posting a link to my blog post which said that Jeremy Corbyn was not fit to be Prime Minister, to the ‘Labour London Left’ WhatsApp group. I will leave it to the reader to decide which one that was.

The full quote is below:

The 2017 election proved there was significant support for social democratic policies (eg national care service, public ownership of rail, electricity, water etc, and funding public services properly). But weak leadership on Brexit, failure to respond properly on antisemitism and now his appalling position on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine have shown Corbyn was not fit to be Prime Minister. But nor was Boris Johnson, as the Privileges Committee have confirmed.
https://nickkelly.blog/2023/07/09/decoding-the-doorstep-insights-from-canvassing-uxbridge-and-south-ruislip/

Jeremy Corbyn was and still is not fit to be Prime Minister. I say that as someone who took time off work to actively campaign for Labour in 2019. I also say this as a Labour member who supported the 2017 and (with some criticisms) the 2019 Labour manifesto policies, many of which would not have been there had Corbyn not won the 2015 UK Labour leadership race.

My ‘Why Labour Lost’ series of posts published after UK Labour’s 2019 election defeat (see links below) outlined the many and varied reasons for this result. Not all of it was Corbyn’s fault, nor indeed his faction Momentum. But they made serious errors and at times simply stupid calls.

More recently, Corbyn’s position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the last 16 months has shown that he lacks political judgment.

Shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I wrote the following of leftists who were opposed to giving military aid to help the Ukrainian resistance:

On the left, many are still influenced by the analysis of Lenin during the First World War and just before the 1917 Russian Revolution that in an inter-imperialist conflict socialists should be standing up to their own ruling class. During the First World War, there were strong arguments for working people not to align with the Tsar in Russia or other imperialist leaders in that conflict. It is dangerous to simply apply this idea to the current conflict without understanding that the context is different. There is a strong argument that people should be holding their own government or ‘ruling class’ to account during any situation like this. Ultimately, the decision to invade Ukraine was Russia’s, but there is still a question of what the governments and in particular NATO members could have done to help prevent this and what they can do now. Sadly, some on the left and drawn both bizarre and quite dangerous conclusions based on the premise that their role is to stick it to their own ruling class. Bizarrely, some socialists still mistake Russia to be some sort of socialist/anti-imperialist power, thinking that there is some residue influence of the 1917 revolution.
https://nickkelly.blog/2022/05/03/the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-an-act-of-aggression/

Corbyn’s position of opposing military intervention and instead trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement is at best naive and at worst giving tacit support to the Russian Government and Vladimir Putin.

Back in 2003 when I was active in opposing the invasion of Iraq, one of our key slogans in Peace Action Wellington was “peace with justice and self-determination”. Any “peace settlement” with Russia right now would involve at the very least, ceding territory taken by Russia in 2014 and probably some of the ground taken in 2022. This ‘peace’ would not involve any justice or self-determination.

What Jeremy Corbyn, the Stop the War coalition and others taking this position are doing is not progressive, left or indeed socialist. It is supporting imperialist expansion. Further, and this should be self-evident, if NATO and Western governments fail to stop the Russian invasion, this will not serve the interests of working people. That this distorted world political view still infects sections of the left is astounding. That Corbyn subscribes to it, frankly discredits him as a serious political operator.

But I can understand why people on the Labour left would not like this assessment. Even more so at a time when various left groups and individuals such as director Ken Loach have been kicked out of Labour.

And there are serious questions about Labour’s current direction. Labour, whilst winning the Selby and Ainsty by-election, narrowly lost the Uxbridge and South Ruislip byelection. Whilst most attribute this to the Labour Mayor of London extending the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to outer London, this was not the only reason. On the doorstep, Starmer’s Labour Party may not have been as polarising, but nor were people excited by it. In fact, many were unclear about what it stood for. Labour improved its percentage of the vote in Uxbridge and South Ruislip significantly, but it still failed to make it across the line. This should be a cautionary tale ahead of next year’s General Election.

In my blog post earlier this year on whether UK Labour can finally win, I argued that the left needs to accept that the 2019 election was a devastating loss, in no small part the result of poor decisions by Corbyn and his team. Equally, his opponents in the party have still failed to seriously reflect on why Corbyn was able to easily beat them both in 2015 and when they tried to remove him in 2016.

The 2017 Manifesto included policies such as renationalising rail and water companies. It opposed austerity and called for decent funding for the NHS, a national care service, a properly-funded national education service and stronger employment law that strengthens collective bargaining. These are mainstream social democratic policies in many other European countries.

Why did it take a member of the hard left Socialist Campaign Group becoming the leader of Labour for it to put forward a mainstream social democratic manifesto, rather than an over-triangulated, incoherent and frankly visionless positions it too often had prior to Corbyn? In a country where life expectancy is stalling, younger people are economically worse off than their parents, where over a million people are waiting for social housing and incomes have been falling for years, there is a real mood for change. Not just a change of government, but of policy. This does not mean a sudden lurch left, but a serious and costed programme that prioritises the needs of the many, not just the few.

In the UK Labour Party, people are divided into binary factional groupings of Corbynistas or Blairites. Loyalty to leaders and personalities over policy is not limited to Labour or UK politics. But it is frustrating nonetheless.

UK Labour is on course to win the next general election, whenever that may be. Its long-term success in government will, as I have argued previously, require the different factions of Labour to work together. The left need to accept that the Corbyn project failed, and move on. The right needs to accept that voices to the left of Third Way centrism have a legitimate and important place both in Labour and in political life.

Below are the links to my ‘Why UK Labour’ lost blog posts:

Why UK Labour Lost? Part 1: Historical Context

Why UK Labour lost? Part 2: UK Labour’s strange loyalty to First Past the Post

Why UK Labour lost? Part 3: Its Brexit Innit

Why UK Labour lost? Part 4: Oooo Jeremy Corbyn

Why UK Labour lost? Part 5: Antisemitism

Why UK Labour lost? Part 6: New Labour and Blairism

Why UK Labour lost? Part 7: Momentum and the Corbynistas

Why UK Labour lost? Part 8: what it takes to win?

Why UK Labour lost? Part 9: What the party needs to do now.

Decoding the Doorstep: Insights from Canvassing Uxbridge and South Ruislip

I spent the last UK General Election canvassing in Uxbridge, trying to unseat the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson. In the 25 years I’ve been politically active, this was the second most depressing canvassing session I had been to.* It was the middle of winter, the weather was awful, and it was obvious the votes were not going Labour’s way.

Last weekend I returned to Uxbridge for the first time since December 2019. The not-so-illustrious political career of Boris Johnson has ended in failure and disgrace. Johnson resigned as an MP at the conclusion of the Privileges Committee investigation. The Committee’s report found that Boris Johnson broke the COVID-19 rules, the ones his own government had set, and had misled Parliament when questioned about this.

Had Johnson not resigned, he would have been suspended from the House for 90 days. In the UK, MPs can be recalled by voters when suspended. If 10% of voters in the suspended MP’s constituency sign a recall petition a by-election must take place. Had Boris Johnson not resigned, he almost certainly would have faced a by-election. In these circumstances, he would likely have lost.

So Boris Johnson made one of the few honourable decisions of his life and resigned from parliament (though even then poo poo-ed the privileges committee report and denied fault).

Last weekend I was out in Uxbridge canvassing for Danny Beale, Labour’s candidate in the by-election. Labour last won Uxbridge in 1966, and before that 1945. The Ruislip part of the constituency has never been held by Labour. But the demographics in the area are changing and despite a blip in 2019, overall the Tory vote has been gradually falling in the area for some time.

Above: Labour’s Uxbridge and Ruislip candidate Danny Beale

In politics, much is made of doorstep conversations. It is seen as the ultimate litmus test for how well a party, leader or set of policies are performing. Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn have often claimed that on the doorstep he was not popular. Certainly, my experience in 2019 was that Corbyn and the political project he came to represent was polarising. I found many were supportive of core Labour policy, but did not trust the party or its leadership.

The 2017 election proved there was significant support for social democratic policies (eg national care service, public ownership of rail, electricity, water etc, and funding public services properly). But weak leadership on Brexit, failure to respond properly on antisemitism and now his appalling position on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine have shown Corbyn was not fit to be Prime Minister. But nor was Boris Johnson, as the Privileges Committee have confirmed.

So what is the message on the doorstep now? When you go out you only get a small sample across a dozen or so streets. Much like opinion polling, the ‘mood on the doorstep’ is not an exact science, but gives you a general sense of the mood. Compared to 2019, overall the number saying they will vote for Labour is higher now, but only modestly.

The Conservatives won Uxbridge and South Ruislip by a majority of 7,210 in 2019. The thing that is likely to swing this Constituency to Labour on Thursday 20 July, may not be a huge swing to Labour, but former Tory voters staying at home or protest voting. On the doorstep, the anger from voters was palpable. Not all of this anger was directed at the Conservatives, but I and others had quite a few conservation with people who had previously voted Tory but would not be in the by-election.

The head-wind for Danny Beale is not coming from parliament but from the Greater London Authority (GLA). Labour’s London Mayor Sadiq Khan has decided to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone out to all boroughs of London. This means owners of older vehicles will now pay a daily charge of £12.50.

London’s air pollution is bad and research by Imperial College London in 2019 found that it contributed 4000 premature deaths a year. Unfortunately, it is London residents who cannot afford electric vehicles who pay the price. In outer London suburbs like Uxbridge and Ruislip, car ownership is higher as public transport is generally not as frequent.

Danny Beale has called for the ULEZ expansion to be delayed, saying the cost of living crisis is the wrong time to implement this. He has also called for a better scrappage scheme to help people replace older vehicles. Unlike in other parts of the country, the Government have not helped Greater London implement a proper scrappage scheme, no doubt to put pressure on Sadiq Khan.

Did this issue come up on the doorstep? The very first door I knocked on this was their key concern. Others also mentioned it, usually in the wider context of the cost of living, and were as critical of the Government as they were of the London Mayor. But it was clear that ULEZ was a barrier to people voting Labour.

From this session and the feedback I’ve got from others who’ve canvassed, Labour can certainly win Uxbridge and Ruislip. But it will be close. The challenge will be for Sadiq Khan in next year’s London Mayoral elections. Decisions such as extending ULEZ, or increasing rail fares have been a result of the Government not supporting London. But many now blame the Mayor and the Labour London Authority Members. The Conservatives believe this will give them an advantage. The message I got on the doorstep was that anger at ULEZ did not automatically equate to voting Tory, especially given their recent track record in government.

There are two other byelections being held on 20 July: Somerton and From, and Selby and Ainsty. There is also the likelihood of a byelection in disgraced MP Chris Pincher’s constituency, and Nadine Dorries’s constituency of Mid Bedfordshire. Polls suggest that in each of these byelections, the Conservatives will struggle. Each has its own dynamic, with the Lib Dems being the serious challenger in Somerton and From, whereas in Selby and Ainsty a Labour victory is now looking likely.

Canvassing Uxbridge and Ruislip, the insight I get from canvassing is that Labour have a real chance, but should not be complacent. Support for the Conservative and Unionist Party is collapsing, but this is turning to cynicism and rage rather than enthusiastic support for a Labour Government next year.

There is a possibility that in 18 months’ time, UK Labour are in Government, but have lost the London Mayoralty. This is not inevitable, but for Sadiq Khan to win a 3rd term as Mayor, he will need to balance lowering emissions and environmental targets with helping Londoners survive the cost of living crisis. This could well turn out to be a tough campaign, which I hope does not give me a new “worst canvassing session.”

*The worst canvassing session I went on was the 2014 New Zealand General election. I was canvassing in the Wellington Ohariu electorate. It was early spring, and the rain was heavy in typical Wellington fashion. It took me hours to dry off. NZ Labour got 25% in that election, its worst result in a century. Labour did fail to win the Ohariu seat that time, though picked it up three years later when Jacinda Ardern won the 2017 election for Labour.

Previous Posts about my involvement with Labour and political campaigns. Plus other relevant posts:

Why the Labour Party

Why the Tories won the UK election

Why Labour Lost? Part 9: What the Party needs to do now?

What the recent elections tell us about British society

Tory Sleaze – sequels are often a disappointment

Can Rishi Sunak save the Conservative Government?

UK Labour – can they finally beat the Tories?

The Future of the Monarchy

On Saturday, the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla will take place. The last coronation of Queen Elizabeth II took place on 2 June 1953 and was one of only five such events in the 20th century.

The Coronation is certainly a historic event, but what is its relevance to the modern world?

In a 21st-century democracy, is it really still appropriate for someone to inherit the role of head of state, purely based on their bloodline? Does it make sense for this same person, not only to be head of state of the United Kingdom but also of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu?

In November 2021, Barbados became a republic cutting ties with the British Monarchy, though still remaining a member of the Commonwealth. Barbados was a British colony until 1966, and becoming a republic has been viewed as an important step in self-government and breaking with that nation’s colonial past.

Similar moves are likely in Jamaica, with that country now planning to hold a referendum on the issue in 2024. Polls in Jamaica show a significant majority wanting the country to become a republic. Painful historic links to British Imperialism and the transatlantic slave trade are still major issues for people in Jamaica. Becoming a republic will help break this link.

Australia will likely hold a referendum on the issue in the next few years, though this will happen after the referendum on indigenous representation in parliament. Australia last held a referendum on becoming a republic in 1999. At this time the choice was between remaining a constitutional monarchy or becoming a republic where parliament appointed a president. Polls indicated at the time and since that were voters given the option of electing a president, support for becoming a republic would have been much higher.

Whilst a majority still support the monarchy in the UK, increasingly people do not view it as important. A recent British Social Attitudes study conducted recently shows the number of people who say the monarchy is “very important” has fallen to 29%, from 38% in 2022. Also, 45% of respondents said the monarch should now be abolished. Further, a report in the Telegraph recently said that 75% of people aged 18-24 do not care very much about the coronation, and 69% of 25-49 year-olds say the same. Even those aged over 65, the demographic most supportive of the monarchy, are not terribly interested with 53% saying they do not care very much.

With support for the monarchy being lackluster at best in the UK, and declining support in the other 14 nations where the British monarch is the head of state, does the monarchy really have a future?

Those who campaign in favor of the institution tend to use strawman arguments. These include the stability of constitutional democracies, though given recent events in British politics this argument now gets used far less. Another is that the monarchy is somehow cheaper than becoming a republic. When one takes into account the upkeep of royal palaces, the cost of coronations, and royal tours it is not clear how they come to this conclusion.

The argument that always comes up is the comparison with the United States. In recent years monarchists have used Trump as evidence for why we need a monarchy. Firstly, this assumes the United States is the only form of republic possible, ignoring the many other working examples of republics with strong working democracies. Secondly, the Trump bogeyman conveniently ignores the premiership of Johnson and Truss in the UK, or Scott Morrison in Australia, for which the monarchy provided no helpful check or balance.

Support for the monarchy is largely based on sentimentality. Democracies are not enhanced by feudal relics performing old-fashioned ceremonies and living in castles. These quaint traditions and displays are all rather nice, and for the most part fairly benign and harmless in themselves. But to pretend that they are in any way relevant to the modern world is absurd.

The links to colonialism and British imperialism are certainly not so benign, and have relevance today. The slave trade has directly contributed to racial inequalities that exist today. In New Zealand, the government is still resolving historical grievances from when ‘The Crown’ stole land and resources from Maori. There are similar histories in Australia and Canada. Becoming a republic does not put an end to these historical injustices. But sentimentality toward the institutions responsible is illogical and ignorant.

Few would argue that abolishing the monarch or other debates about the future of this institution are a priority at this time. Having come through a pandemic and now a cost-of-living crisis coupled with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there are more pressing issues to address. At the same time, it is little surprise that interest in the coronation is low.

In all likelihood, we will now see the monarchy face a slow but steady decline. The priority must now be on strengthening democratic institutions to face the challenges of the future, not the idealisation of feudal relics.

Labour’s Manifesto: Replacing the House of Lords, Devolution and Electoral Reform

The United Kingdom will have a general election at some point before January 2025, most likely in May or June 2024. Work has already begun on manifestos for the next election. With the precarious state of the UK economy, the likelihood of big spending promises is unlikely. Though public services have faced over a decade of austerity and the public is suffering a cost of living crisis, demands on the exchequer will be significant.

Where the next election will potentially be quite interesting and possibly see long-lasting changes is constitutional reform. Britain does not have a written constitution and instead has various written and unwritten arrangements. Recent events in British politics have highlighted the issues with this. In August 2022 Hannah White from Prospect Magazine made the following observation regarding Boris Johnson’s time in office:

The most important lesson that Johnson’s three years as prime minister have taught us is how uniquely vulnerable this type of constitution may be to concerted manipulation by a determined populist leader with a large Commons majority and a calculated agenda.
What Boris Johnson taught us about the UK constitution – Prospect Magazine

There is growing recognition of the need for constitutional and political reform in the UK after the last decade. While the 2011 referendum in the UK saw a general lack of interest in the topic of electoral reform, there has since been increased awareness of how the current system produced distorted results with parliament not being truly representative. This, along with general dissatisfaction with politics creates an opportunity for public debate about the future of democracy and the UK Constitution.

At the time of writing, Labour enjoys a significant lead in opinion polls, though in some polls this is starting to narrow slightly. The next UK election is Labour’s to lose, which given the result of the 2019 election is an incredible turnaround. If elected, it has an opportunity to usher in a new modern era of British democracy improving representation and trust in politics.

Signs are that the Party is thinking along these lines. In late 2022, the Party published a paper by the Commission on the UK’s Future, chaired by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This paper made various recommendations including:

Greater devolution of political power in England
Enchrenching in a new constitutional framework the Sewel Convention, which protects existing devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an Assembly of Nations and Regions

This paper is helpful in it starts an important debate about the future of political arrangements. Its strongest arguments are in favour of greater devolution in England, with the report highlighting the fact that the UK government is much more centralised than most others in Europe. It argues that current geographical inequalities in England are largely the result of this centralisation.

The current government’s Levelling-up agenda is also aimed at addressing regional inequalities, and included in its proposed reforms is greater devolution to local authorities. Both with the Conservative Government’s reform package and Labour’s proposals, there is still a lack of detail as to how this devolution will occur. Devolution to local government would require a significant funding boost, as current devolution to local authorities has been hamstrung by austerity and local authorities lacking resources. Establishing a regional government, similar to those in Germany, would be a logical way of ensuring regional decision-making, but would the public support the creation of another layer of government in England?

What the report proposes for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are fine, but they avoid a bigger issue.

Northern Ireland is covered by the Belfast Agreement, now 25 years old. This agreement includes the provision for a border poll should the people of the Island of Ireland with it. Were a border poll to be held today, it is not entirely clear how this would go. But whatever the outcome, there would be a continued need for power-sharing, compromise and diplomacy given the history there.

The Commission on the UK’s Future report describes the union of nations as voluntary. Yet, the November 2022 Supreme Court judgement on the matter ruled that another independence referendum in Scotland could only happen with Westminsters’ consent. Regardless of one’s views on this issue, or indeed the recent issues with the SNP after Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation, if a union is voluntary then there must be some mechanism to leave. Even if the mechanism is a high threshold, such as 50% of eligible voters signing a petition calling for a referendum. That may not sound much, but getting 50% of eligible voters to do this would be a herculean task.

The blunt reality is, Labour’s opposition to Scottish Independence appears to be more motivated by a fear of losing crucial Scottish seats, as historically at least Labour did well up there. This may be very unfair, as many in Scottish Labour undoubtedly genuinely support staying in the union. But there is no denying that this impression has contributed to many former Labour supporters moving to the SNP since 2007.

Whilst the current strife in the SNP may change this, it would be incredibly naive to think that support for Scottish Independence will now completely collapse and the issue will go away. The argument that the people of Scotland already voted on this in 2014 holds little water given one of the key issues in that referendum was EU membership. The offer to the people of Scotland in 2014 was very different to the reality today.

Improve devolution and entrench the Sewel Convention by all means, but there still needs to be a mechanism by which the Scottish people can leave the United Kingdom if they so wish. This principle must apply to people living in other nations of the UK as well.

It is somewhat strange that a report that primarily focuses on the need for greater devolution in the UK includes a recommendation to abolish the House of Lords, yet when asked in the media, Gordon Brown said reform of the House of Commons (electoral reform) was out of scope. Either the report should just focus on devolution, which was by far the stronger section in the report, or it needs to include proposals for reform of both houses of parliament in Westminster.

In one of my posts following the 2019 election, I made the case for electoral reform, and in particular the need for UK Labour to sharpen its thinking in this area. Suffice it to say, three years on, having seen the results of a government that won 43% of the votes gaining 56% of seats in parliament, my view has not changed. What has changed, is that there is now far stronger support both within the UK Labour membership and more broadly for some sort of electoral reform.

In terms of the Lords, I declare my interest having worked on Piko contracts for two members of the Lords. My views of the Lords, and of the reform proposals are my own, not those of Piko’s clients.

The House of Lords is in need of some reform. At present, there are over 800 members, whereas the Commons only has 650 MPs. Whilst quite a few of its members have been appointed due to their expert knowledge and make important and meaningful contributions, the level of patronage, especially with Boris Johnson’s appointments, is simply unacceptable.

The Commission on the UK’s Future acknowledged the quality of committee reports from the Lords. I would add to this the valuable contribution of pre and post-legislative scrutiny, many of the amendments tabled at the committee stage of bills in the Lords and the overall quality of debate. This is due to the expertise and experience of many current Peers.

Any reform of the House of Lords should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Any reforms should protect what does work about the current House of Lords. One of the sad things about the current set-up is that many of the Lord’s reports get ignored by the government and get little attention in the media.

There is a strong case for a smaller, elected upper chamber. Having an unelected chamber means in reality its authority is reduced in the eyes of many. The Salisbury convention means it will not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. During this term of parliament, the government have put forward legislation that attempted to breach international law and in some cases its own human rights legislation. An elected chamber might have been in a stronger position to push back.

Yet many of the unelected members today are not aligned to a party, and are there due to their expertise and experience. Any reform should consider how this pool of talent can still be utilised in any future structure, potentially through creating another role for current Lords with specific experience that parliament needs.

The proposal in the UK Future report is to replace the House of Lords with a democratic chamber representative of the nations and regions of the UK. Whilst this proposal is clearly to link it to the wider theme of devolution and empowering regions, its description of the new upper chamber sounds a lot like the current House of Commons. Given the poor performance of the Commons in recent years, this is hardly inspiring.

In reality, greater devolution, electoral reform and reform of the House of Lords and House of Commons need strong public buy-in. Slipping a few sentences into a party manifesto is simply not enough. Any manifesto commitment would need to be for something that furthers this important discussion, maybe a Commission on the UK’s constitutional and democratic future. But from there, any changes would need a direct mandate from the voters.

In New Zealand, electoral reform happened after two referenda, and a similar process would be needed in the UK. Unfortunately, post-Brexit, there is now a real fear of referenda as that experience was divisive, with many feeling the level of misinformation resulted in a bad decision. Britain’s political establishment must get over this, as ultimately referendums are the best tool to test public support of crucial constitutional or moral issues. The issues raised in the UK’s Future paper certainly fall into this category.

Were a Labour Government elected next year, its primary focus would be on the economy, just as it is for the current government. Constitutional reform would take time and a significant level of public engagement so that whatever ultimately was implemented, would work and have greater public support that the current arrangements. It would be very easy for this to be put in the too hard basket. Yet when public confidence in the institutions of government has fallen significantly in recent years, it would be a mistake not to take action in this area.

Gender recognition: woke-ism or human rights?

In late January, just days after the Government in Westminster blocked Scotland’s Gender Recognition Bill, the UK media widely reported the story of Isla Bryson the Trans woman being sent to a women’s prison in Scotland. Bryson was convicted of raping two women when she identified as a man.

Quickly, Bryson became the dominant narrative surrounding the Gender Recognition debate.

The sexual violence committed by this individual was horrendous. Further, it is understandable that many were concerned that she was sent to a women’s prison given this violence.

Isla Bryson does not represent the entire Trans community. This statement is not controversial and should be self-evident. Yet the reporting and debate surrounding this case and the broader issue of gender recognition in the UK illustrate that this is not well understood. Or, certain people in power, with willing allies in the media, are happy to frame the story in this way for their own political interest.

This is not just a story about Scottish devolution. Whilst this controversy will have contributed to Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation as First Minister, this is not the key issue. This is not just about an ongoing culture war in western society, specifically gender and so-called identity politics, though this is clearly part of the story. This is about something far more critical.

This debate is about every teenager, anywhere in the world, questioning their gender and sexual identity. This is about the person who after years of suffering, at some point in their lives decides they wish to identify as having a gender identity different to that of their birth.

This debate is about the awful statistics published in a Stonewall report in 2017 showing that:

● 92% of trans young people have thought about taking their own life;
● 84% of trans young people have self-harmed; and
● 45% of trans young people have tried to take their own life.
Stonewall School Report 2017

Recent moves to allow the trans community more rights and recognition have been met with opposition. Some of it is nothing more than prejudice and fear. But there is also an important debate to be had about gender and feminism, a debate which to date has been polarising and gets easily dismissed as a ‘culture war’.

TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is a term used to describe Germaine Greer, J K Rowling or other feminists who are critical of self-ID and other policies which allow people born as males to identify as women. Some of the comments made by these individuals and other TERF feminists have lacked compassion towards the trans community and understandably caused outrage. Some of the responses to these TERF’s has at times also been harsh.

We live in a world where people are socially conditioned to live and act in certain ways due to the gender of their birth. There are biological differences between men and women, yet society places considerable expectations on the role one must play in life based on this. For example, the idea historically that women were homemakers or were more suited to nurturing. Men my contrast are expected to show strength, not show emotions and be the “breadwinner” for the family.

Historically, and still today other societies have viewed gender differently to western society. For example, matriarchal societies continue to exist in parts of the world. In Samoa, the Fa’afafine non-binary or third gender has traditionally been part of their culture.

In our society, we have for centuries lived as a patriarchal, male-dominated culture. It is only just over a century ago that women were given the vote. Within the last half-century that same-sex relationships were decriminalised, and same-sex marriages were legally recognised. While there has been social change, we cannot pretend that old conservative attitudes towards gender and sexuality do not still dominate much of society. It should be no surprise that attempts to change gender recognition laws will be met with resistance.

We also need to understand where some of this opposition comes from. Whilst for many, opposition to trans rights is from a place or fear or lack of understanding. But there are also many who fear what many happen if someone born as a male, can identify as a women, and enter women-only safe spaces.

Figures from Rape Crisis show that one in four women have experienced rape or sexual assault in their life. Women are disproportionately more likely to be victims of domestic violence and homicide. The vast majority of these crimes are committed by men towards women. It is in this context that some fear men being able to identify as women, and why the Isla Bryson case, resulting in such a strong public backlash.

Of course, many of the horrendous statistics on rape and assault of women are as bad and often worse for the trans community. Where are the safe spaces for the trans community? Why should only someone who is a women by birth have access to things like women’s toilets?

The argument goes that the experience of someone born a women is not the same as that of someone who is trans. Except, not all people born women, or men, have the same experience living as that gender. The problem is, our society still has quite a rigid gender binary structure. Over the last century, this has been challenged and moved to an extent but is still largely intact.

It is easy to dismiss this discussion and debate as liberal wokism. For conservatives, both big C and small c, this all feels like a distraction about a small minority. The tendency is to either ignore the debate or use it to divide political opponents, as recently occurred in Scotland.

From a human rights perspective, we should be aiming to build a society where people are not forced to live within strict gender identities, determined by their sex at birth. Should someone wish to change their gender, they should be supported and made to feel safe and loved.

At the same time we cannot ignore voices who fear unintended consequences of reforms. Trans women competing in women sport or men identifying as women potentially committing crimes against women. These issues are not straight forward. The root of the problem is that our structures remain still very binary in terms of gender, and changing this is not easy. Creating safe spaces for people who are non-binary would certainly help, be it in sport or creating safe spaces.

At present, this debate continues to polarise and quickly inflame, with little really improving. For the 14 year old current questioning their gender identity, this debate must add to their stress and confusion considerably. It is for them, and anyone else struggling with their gender identity, that we must now try to move this debate onto human rights.

Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation and Scottish Independence.

The resignation of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon today took many by surprise. Her leadership of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Scotland since 2014 has seen support for her party, and the cause of independence, increase significantly. Whilst recent controversies have dented her support, were an election held tomorrow the SNP would be re-elected to Holyrood and would win the most Scottish Seats in a Westminster election.

Much like the recent resignation of Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, Sturgeon’s resignation comes after many years of hate and vitriol from political opponents. This was alluded to in her resignation announcement:

The First Minister is never off duty, particularly in this day and age. There is virtually no privacy. Even ordinary stuff that most people take for granted, like going for a coffee with friends or for a walk on your own becomes very difficult. And the nature and form of modern political discourse means that there is a much greater intensity – dare I say it? – brutality to life as a politician than in years gone by. All in all, and actually for a long time without being apparent, it takes its toll on you and on those around you. And if that is true in the best of times, it has been more so in recent years. Leading this country through the Covid pandemic is by far the toughest thing I’ve done. It may well be the toughest thing I ever do. I certainly hope so. Now by no stretch of the imagination was my job the hardest in the country during that time. But the weight of responsibility was immense, and it’s only very recently, I think, that I’ve started to comprehend, let alone process, the physical and mental impact of it on me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-64650792

In recent weeks, Sturgeon suffered political setbacks, which may have led to this decision today.

The first of these was the Supreme Court ruling in late November 2022 that a second referendum on Scottish Independence cannot be held, unless Westminster agrees to it. Controversially, Sturgeon’s response to this decision was that the next general election should be treated as a defacto referendum, something that SNP supporters are quite split on.

The second was the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. This Bill reduced the legal age someone could apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. It also removed the need for a medical diagnosis and evidence of having lived for two years in their acquired gender. The response of the Conservative Government in Westminster was to make an order under the Scotland Act 1998 preventing this Bill from proceeding to Royal Ascent.

This was shortly followed by the controversy of a Transgender woman in Scotland who had been convicted of double rape being assessed for a women’s prison. Whilst this was an isolated incident that was quickly addressed by the authorities, it was quickly used as a weapon to attack Sturgeon’s “woke agenda”.

The English press, and in particular the Tory Press, has run a concerted campaign of attacking Sturgeon and the SNP for years. Pro Conservative newspaper The Telegraph have predicted doom for the Scottish Independence movement many times. For example, former SNP leader Alex Salmond formed Alba and has even gone as far as to describe Scotland as a “failed state” under Sturgeon’s leadership.

Despite investigations of breaching the Ministerial Code, which Sturgeon was cleared of, many in the media talked up her imminent political demise prior to the 2021 Holyrood elections. Others claimed that if the SNP did not win an outright majority, it showed there was not really support for independence in Scotland. That the SNP and Scottish Greens, who also support independence, did gain a majority in the 2021 Scottish election is conveniently downplayed by much of the media, especially in England.

My previous post asked whether political leadership mattered. Nicola Sturgeon as SNP leader has been a strong advocate for independence, and this will undoubtedly have contributed to increased support for this cause.

Like all leaders, she will be remembered most of all for how she responded to events. Sturgeon was an outspoken critic when the British Government struggled to get a Brexit deal through the Commons, regularly reminding the world that Scotland had voted to remain in the EU. During the coronvirus pandemic, Sturgeon was viewed by many as a strong and competent leader, in stark contrast to the incompetent actions of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Government. And in 2022, when the Truss/Kwarteng Mini Budget did enormous harm to the economy, Sturgeon was characteristically forthright in her condemnation.

While Sturgeon’s strong leadership and vision have helped build support for Scottish Independence, the Conservative and Unionist Party’s arrogance and self-serving incompetence in government have greatly aided her in this. Under the Tories, many Scots have become convinced they would be better off leaving the United Kingdom.

Polls show varying levels of support for independence. Overall, support for independence is higher than in the 2014 referendum. Further, the SNP continue to dominate Scottish politics, and a new leader is unlikely to change this. Those who believe Sturgeon’s departure spells the end for the independence movement will likely soon be disappointed.

The great man of history theory – does leadership matter?

Shortly after I started as a bus driver at Go Wellington as a Bus Driver I recall overhearing drivers talking about the company changing shifts to reduce drivers’ overtime pay. One driver, a former bank teller believed the problem was the union leadership. In his view what the Tramways Union needed was “a smartly dressed lawyer in a suit and with a good haircut to come and sort everything out.” Instead of this, the drivers ended up with me as their union president, no suits but I did eventually get a haircut. More importantly, what drivers got was a democratic union where drivers stood together and improved their pay and conditions.

The Great man of history theory is nothing new and has been quite seriously rebuffed by historians for many years. In Leo Tolstoy‘s War and Peace he firmly rejected the “great man” (and when he wrote this in the 1860s, it was men who were being written about), a theory claiming that in fact, they are only “history’s slaves.”

Yet, much of history is still written about and from the perspective of our leaders. In politics, it is a truism that leadership is of paramount importance, yet few can really define what ‘leadership’ really is. The common features tend to be personal strength, decision-making powers, bringing together and managing a team, the ability to communicate, and in effect being the human embodiment of a political ideal or movement. More cynically, money, good looks, fame, and various superficial qualities also help.

It is certainly true that the performance of a party leader can decide an election result, and this is understandable as they are in a position of responsibility where they must exercise judgment. The risk though is that the personal qualities or weaknesses are given greater emphasis and boring detail like tax policy is reduced to who came up with the best slogan or soundbite.

This issue is not a new one. Whilst it is currently vogue to blame all the world’s ills on social media, the reduction of politics down to a popularity contest of leaders predates Twitter. It has probably always been a feature of politics and certainly something that has constantly been a feature of democracies. Leaders with deep voices for example have tended to perform better, as physiologically we find them more authoritative.

The problem is, once we understand that to be a successful leader it helps to have certain qualities and mannerisms, those with ambition quickly start to act the part. Building a personal brand based on characteristics common among successful leaders has become the tried and trued playbook of many ambitious upcoming politicians, business leaders, and others aiming for positions of power. Maybe this is just smart and anyone who is ambitious needs to learn these unwritten rules? But when many believe politics and civil society is in decline, should we not think more critically about leadership?

There can be very little doubt about the importance leadership has played in recent politics. My recent post about Rishi Sunak and the state of the British Conservative Party outlines, the challenges facing the UK Government today make it very difficult for the Tories to win the next election. Whilst Rishi Sunak certainly has some of the qualities of a successful leader, he is simply too constrained by the situation he faces to really lift support for the Conservative Party now, though this may change. Likewise in New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern’s meteoric rise to power in 2017 and global popularity shortly after, dissipated throughout 2022 as the current economic crisis hit.

To paraphrase Harold MacMillan, what shapes the course of political history is “events dear boy, events”. Having certain qualities can get one into leadership positions, but ultimately one’s time in power is judged by how one responds to events. And more often than not, leaders only have limited control of these or their own legacy.