Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, 5 November 2025

Thanks, Tofiq

I had a bad day yesterday. It rained incessantly, so much so that I decided to skip my usual visit to Tesco where, lacking any shopping needs, I would have bought my newspaper and had a coffee whilst reading it. As soon as I saw the rain I knew that, come the evening, I would get no satellite signal to enable me to watch Arsenal in the Champions League. Meaning I had to get the match on my phone and cast it to the TV - keeping myself away from other notification channels so that I wouldn't know when a goal was scored before it appeared on my - delayed by a minute or so because wifi streaming is behind the live action - screen.

I do realise this is very much a first-world bad day.

Then there's chess. I'm in the middle of a game against my son and I don't know what my plan is. Or I have too many plans and can't stick to one. Chess is like boxing, in two ways. The first is the Mike Tyson way: "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". So I can't get too aggressive or that'll happen when I'm least expecting it. Which leaves me with the other option: rope-a-dope, made famous by Muhammad Ali. It’s a tactic where a fighter leans back on the ropes, covers up, and lets the opponent punch themselves out. The idea is to absorb or deflect blows, conserve your own energy, and then strike back once the other guy’s exhausted. Ali used it brilliantly against George Foreman in the 1974 “Rumble in the Jungle.” Foreman threw himself into endless power shots while Ali just soaked it up and talked to him — “Is that all you got?” — until Foreman was spent. Then Ali knocked him out.

That's what I'm hoping Dan will try.

Anyway, I'm back on track today, in my usual post-shower routine: shop, drink coffee, read paper, catch up on my chess games, do chess puzzles (which doesn't seem to improve me), solve (hopefully) the Times Quick Cryptic crossword, solve puzzles on the New York Times Games app - Wordle (got it in 4 today), Connections (got it with just one error) and Strands (always successful but try to do it without hints).

That takes me to about noon.

Which is when I get to thinking about whether I have any inspiration to write a blog post. And today I want to tell you about Tofiq Bahramov.

Tofiq changed history. Every English man or woman knows that our crowning glory was winning the World Cup in 1966. Which happened because Tofiq made an error. He was a retired footballer and a qualified referee from Azerbaijan (then in the Soviet Union) who was the linesman in the Final, when England played West Germany. He ruled that Geoff Hurst's infamous shot had crossed the line and was therefore a goal. But it actually hadn't, as shown in modern replay analysis.

Today, Tofiq is remembered by Azerbaijan's national stadium being the Tofiq Bahramov Republican Stadium in his honour.

If you think that our country is in a sad, sorry state today with widespread gloom and despair, just imagine how much worse it could have been if Tofiq had got his decision right 😧😧😧

Not such a bad day after all.

Friday, 31 October 2025

Floating budgets

It seems to have become common practice for the Treasury to "leak" possible budget measures to see what reactions ensue - from economists, political parties, the media, lobbying groups - without necessarily intending to include them in the budget.

It started with George Osbourne. He leaked the pasty tax proposal; cue high street (and Cornish) anger, leading to a much milder form in the actual budget of 2012. Ditto a "caravan tax", which enraged Conservative voters and their MPs and never appeared in the budget. In an earlier budget the department floated information about child benefit and welfare cuts; the responses enabled him to decide which, and to what extent, measures were finally enacted. The practice has continued through Philip Hammond, Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt.

Now Rachel Reeves is at it. In recent weeks we've heard about freezing tax thresholds, property and wealth taxes, breaching manifesto promises and pension entitlements.

This is no way to run a government. In the old days (cue 1970s sound track) the concept of budget purdah prevailed - no knowledge of budget proposals outside a small government circle and definitely no discussing of, publishing of or even hinting at them before budget day. MPs of all parties were not "in the know". The rationale was to protect markets from insider knowledge, respect Parliament’s primacy and to avoid confusion and pre-emptive lobbying. In other words, grown up government rather than schoolboy politics. Gordon Brown was the last to adhere to the traditional secrecy, allegedly to the nth degree.

The old ways feel better, don't you think?

Thursday, 30 October 2025

Shabs and Streets

This is not a post about football. Just thought I'd get that in before I lose half my audience. It's also not about chess. However, I have to start with a reference to a chess-playing footballer, otherwise you wouldn't understand the title. 

Eberichi Eze is a top class footballer who plays for England's best team - Arsenal - in the Premier League. He is also a competition-winning chess player. And his friends call him "Ebs".

Now you get it - the title refers to Shabana Mahmood and Wes Streeting. Get it?

Why am I talking about them? Because, in my opinion, the survival of the Labour Party as an electoral force may well depend on them. It's hard to know how Cabinet Ministers are performing; it's a complex job and most of the work they do is in the background but they are most often judged by their public performances. My (completely uninformed) instinct is that the Prime Minister has actually got the best people into these two key Cabinet posts. Solve the NHS and the Home Office/immigration problems and the rest is fluff. No-one cares about Gaza, Ukraine, football regulators, fiscal rules and the like when they vote. Get me a GP appointment, rapid cancer tests, shorter waiting lists, stop the boats, process asylum seekers quickly and fairly and....we'll vote for you. And just maybe the workforce will become more productive.

You might argue that economic issues like taxation levels and the price of food will carry huge weight but it just feels there's no quick fix; the economy will take longer than five years to get back on track. The same is probably true of housing: you almost certainly can't get enough houses built to meet the target of 1.5 million. Welfare entitlements/benefits is such a fraught issue that the politics vs economics will thwart real progress.

Then there's defence spending. No-one seriously believes the Russians are going to invade the UK (or that, if they did, their management of the country would be any worse than what we already have), so a target of spending 5% of GDP on nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, drones and the like just seems to "working people" like a colossal waste of money which could better be spent on more urgent things.

I'm not saying the economy doesn't matter. I'm not saying security doesn't matter. I'm not saying you shouldn't at least try to solve the problems with housing and benefits. It's just that people matter and their lives are constrained by so many negatives at the moment that a few simple (I'm not saying easy) NHS and immigration solutions could make the world of difference to how the country feels. And if they feel better, there's at least a chance they'll vote for you.

So, Shabs and Streets, I'm with you. See it, say it, sort it.

Wednesday, 29 October 2025

You can't blame Brexit

Rachel Reeves recently "outed" Brexit. At an investment summit in Birmingham she said “The Office for Budget Responsibility do the forecasts for the economy. When we left the European Union, or when we voted to leave, they made an estimate about the impact that would have. What they’ve done this summer is go back to all of their forecasts and look at what actually happened compared to what they forecast. What that shows – and what they will set out – is that the economy has been weaker and productivity has been weaker than they forecast, despite the fact that they forecast that the economy would be weaker because of leaving the EU."

So are you saying there's nothing we can do about it? That Brexit has made us worse off and we just have to suck it up?

That's dishonest. If you say - and believe - that a Brexit Britain is intrinsically poorer than a not-Brexit Britain, isn't the logical thing to do something about that? Isn't it possible that proposing reuniting with the EU, or some aspect of that such as re-joining the Customs Union, could completely change the prospects of a left of centre government/coalition defeating the forces of the right at the next election? Could Labour really be bold enough to say "it hasn't worked so we need to reverse the referendum decision" as the central plank of their 2029 election campaign? I recently posted about rolling referendums or at least some clarity on repeat referendums but I'm not proposing a referendum. My proposal would be that a single issue "unBrexit" election would have exactly the same decisive effect as the 2019 Brexit election: a sea change.

I'm not saying any of that would be easy and I'm not saying that I believe it is the right thing to do. I'm just saying that political thought at the moment in the UK is dominated by the populist agenda and there is no counter-insurgency. The "centre ground" has become muddied by the belief that you have to fight populism on its own turf; maybe switching to a proactive, visionary approach could be more effective.

Could it work? Would the EU even want us back? Who knows. But it would be a clear differentiator which voters could understand as a positive vision for the future of the country. It could be a "dead cat" moment [no offence to cats] which distracts voters from the "mess" they think the country is in. Politically for Labour, it would establish clear water between them and Reform/Tory and would go some way towards negating pressure from the LibDems/Greens/nationalists ("we are the only de-Brexit party who can actually make it happen").

Does Labour even have a Boris figure who could make it happen? Not sure. Suggestions?

Saturday, 11 October 2025

Wednesday, 8 October 2025

I'm a Progressive Activist

The pollster More in Common has produced a new segmentation of the British public, "based on extended research into Britons' core beliefs, their values and behaviours". The seven segments are:

  • progressive activists
  • incrementalist left
  • established liberals
  • sceptical scrollers
  • rooted patriots
  • traditional conservatives
  • dissenting disruptors
Based on an initially flimsy understanding of what these mean, I'd say that I am naturally either a sceptical scroller or a dissenting disruptor. Given that the sequence looks as though it is fundamentally left through the centre to right, I think I'll go for being a sceptical scroller.

moreincommon.org.uk helpfully provides a detailed description for each category and, even more helpfully, a "Which segment are you? Take the quiz" button. So I did.

There are 21 questions; it took me 13 minutes. Started with a really tricky one:
I went for option 1. I hope they're not all this hard.

Turns out, as the title says, I'm a Progressive Activist - "A highly engaged and progressive group, uncompromising on the issues they care about and striving for global social justice".

Key words
Idealistic, radical, uncompromising, political, woke.

What they worry about
Global issues such as the war in Gaza or climate change, inequality in Britain, the power of billionaires, the rise of Reform UK, the rise of Donald Trump, Brexit, affordable housing, racial justice.

Where you might find them
In university campuses and cities; in Labour and Green Party meetings; on Bluesky; in flatshares or living with their parents; in third sector workplaces; in constituencies such as Hackney South and Shoreditch, Edinburgh South and Bristol Central.

How they get their news
High engagement with the news: from notifications from multiple news apps (likely The Guardian and the BBC), independent digital news outlets such as Novara, directly from political commentators on social media, from podcasts such as The News Agents or Pod Save the UK.

You can read a full description of me and the other PAs here.

Honestly, this is completely wrong about me. Which means (a) I'm too stupid to understand the questions or (b) their model is completely flawed and verges on clickbait. I believe the biggest defect is that they conflate feeling strongly about something with being emotionally and practically active about it. Believing in one of two strongly worded options (because you can't stomach the other) is not the same as caring about it. I'm the sucker that does online quizzes but despises their tendency to put people into boxes.

Looking at the details of the other segments, I think I actually fit Established Liberal more than anything but "less empathetic to those who are struggling" means it's a No. I have no natural home in their segmentation.

I suspect my reservations won't encourage my readers to try the questions but you could just treat it as a bit of fun. Do what I did - instinctive reaction first then do the quiz and post your answers in the Comments.

Tuesday, 30 September 2025

A fine margin in Switzerland

The freedom-loving, anti-interference Swiss recently held a referendum on digital ID 'cards'. This followed a law passed in December enabling such an e-ID scheme providing a digital alternative to paper passports and driving licences. There had been an earlier referendum in 2021 where the plan was defeated soundly with 64% voting against, apparently largely because it was to be run by a private company. This time around the proposal was for it to be state-run and was approved by the huge majority of 50.4 to 49.6 percent.

There's a lot for our UK government to learn from this as it seems to be moving towards some kind of our own e-ID facility. I've written about this before and referred to the Estonia exemplar, which seems to be the gold standard that everyone aspires to.

I'm instinctively in favour of something along the Estonian line but the government, whilst not proposing a referendum (heaven forbid the unwashed masses should decide this), needs to be able to take public opinion with it.

From a Times leader on Saturday:

This popular understanding of liberty, including the right not to be aggravated by the peremptory demands of petty officialdom, has long set Britain apart from what many saw as an overbearing “papers please!” culture elsewhere in Europe. It dogged, and eventually defeated, Tony Blair’s efforts to bring back ID cards — Gordon Brown shelved the scheme when he took office in 2007, on grounds of cost, feasibility and civil liberty concerns. And when the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition came to power, the scheme was scrapped....Mr Starmer's proposed "Brit card" will include details such as name, date of birth, residency status and a photograph...although it will not be a panacea for illegal immigration, it might well prove one useful element of a solution.

The national security/immigration/right to work card must be a tempting one to play but I believe this would be a mistake. Far better to explain the (Estonia-like) benefits of easy access to government services and to remind us of how much personal data we already give freely to big tech companies anyway.

It would be nice to think this kind of proposal could be something that could be agreed to along non-partisan lines but I fear the rabid right and zealous left (i.e all the opposition parties) will be too tribal for that to happen.

Monday, 29 September 2025

Should they take the hit on the manifesto?

If Rachel Reeves needs to raise taxes in order to stabilise the economy and prevent public service cuts, is it worth breaking a manifesto promise? Given there are still virtually four years before the latest possible date of the next general election (15th August 2029), could the Government have sufficient time to weather the inevitable political storm? If the ensuing time led to a spectacular improvement in the economy? If it provided more money in people's pockets? If mortgage rates were lower? If the small boats were stopped and net immigration minimised? If they succeeded in hitting their house build target? If NHS waiting lists came down dramatically?

That's a lot of Ifs. Even so, my question stands.

I don't know enough about economics to judge what is the country's economic situation and, if it's bad, how best to remedy that. But it's pretty clear that, all things being equal, raising taxes - even income tax and/or VAT - is what you would do if you hadn't made that manifesto commitment. And if you weren't prepared to cut public services.

So it's not an economic decision, it's a political one.

But the Government has a majority of 165.

ChatGPT, answering my question "are there examples of governments reneging on manifesto commitments?" started with the absurd line that "Manifestos are more marketing documents than binding contracts" [good luck to any government that tries to argue that]. Notably, the Liberal Democrats took 14 years to recover after going back on "scrap university tuition fees" but that was arguably a different situation - they were the minor partners in a coalition. Nevertheless it's a problem in any first past the post election system that in order to get elected you have to promise things which are economically illiterate. I wonder whether there was a better way of smooching the manifesto words to give the intention without making a commitment. But that probably wouldn't stand up in an adversarial election campaign.

I do think there are arguments about "harsh global conditions" (as Reeves has been reported saying today) that slightly eases the pain, and she has to be prepared to detail the exact consequences of those conditions - so many billions due to US tariffs, so many to increasing defence spending as a result of Russian aggression, so many to the rising global costs of borrowing - in the upcoming budget. And there is a "strong government in the national interest" argument to be made, particularly to your rebellious backbenchers.

In addition to the LibDems fiasco, there has been a surprising number of instances of governments breaking manifesto commitments. In 1992, John Major’s government had pledged not to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. In power, they slapped 8% VAT on it. They then lost the 1997 election to a Labour landslide. That Labour government promised not to introduce top-up university tuition fees but legislated to more or less break that. Their majority was halved at the next election. The Conservative 2019 manifesto promised no new taxes and no rise in National Insurance, subsequently increased NI and then in 2024 lost to another Labour landslide.

So the auguries are not great. Even so...

This is probably about leadership. There is no way you could expect your Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the hit herself; the Prime Minister would have to stand firm alongside the Chancellor - we're in it together. That goes for the Cabinet too.

Sir Kier Starmer has proved himself to be a good leader on the international stage but, at the slightest sign of political pressure from his own side, he has been unable to bring himself to face down rebellions, with disastrous economic consequences. His first speech after becoming Prime Minister included the phrase “We’ve changed the Labour Party, returned it to service — and that is how we will govern, country first, party second.” So far it could be said that hasn't been true.

I think it's time for bold. assertive leadership. Reiterate the "country first" pledge, support the Chancellor's "harsh global conditions" context, face down Badenoch at PMQs when she challenges about broken promises with "what would you do?" and tell the media you will stand together with Reeves 100%. And no fudging, no weasel words: tell it straight - "we are breaking our manifesto promise because....."

Time to step up and show us what you're made of.

Friday, 26 September 2025

Sport and Politics

I've always been of the opinion that politics should not intrude in sport. I hate the playing of national anthems; in the 1960s "God Save The Queen" was played after the last film of the day. Everyone stood up. Except me, I'm off to catch the last bus home. It's often said that sport is something which brings people - and perhaps nations - together. Although it has also been said that sport is war by other means. Or something. I profoundly disagree with Russian sportspeople and teams not being allowed to compete in international events. These players are not their political rulers, they should not be penalised for the sins of their masters. I know they can compete if they don't say they're Russian, claim to be against Russian aggression and don't expect their national anthem to be played but I think it's pathetic and demeaning.

I grew up in an era when Boycotting the Olympic Games was almost a sport in itself. It started in Melbourne in 1956 (I was 12), where eight nations refused to take part: Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland protested against the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon protested the Suez Crisis (involving Israel, UK, France) and the People's Republic of China (PRC) protested against Taiwan (Republic of China) being allowed to compete. A boycott trifecta.

The most bonkers boycott of all time (BOAT) was the 1964 Winter Olympics in Switzerland, which North Korea boycotted over a dispute about how East and West Germany were being represented. Those two nations competed as a United Germany team and North Korea thought the same should apply to them and South Korea. Despite the fact that they were still technically at war, which I imagine the South Koreans pointed out.

In 1976 The New Zealand All Blacks rugby team toured apartheid period South Africa, the International Olympic Committee refused to ban them and 30 African nations didn't turn up. This was the beginning of the mass boycott movement, as 60 nations, lead by the USA, boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In return the Soviets, together with 13 other Warsaw Pact countries, boycotted the following Olympics in Los Angeles.

In 1998 North Korea (by now serial boycotters) skipped the Summer Olympics in Japan because they hadn't been allowed to co-host. An odd group comprising Cuba, Ethiopia and Nicaragua joined them.

Since then nothing. The art of boycott has been lost.

Thursday, 25 September 2025

Tests for oldies - in short

There's a government plan to impose eye tests for driving licence renewals for the over 70s. Seems reasonable. My current licence expires in January 2026 and I think I'm required to renew every three years, although the present law is that I self-assess as being able to read a numberplate at 20 meters, with some other criteria like peripheral vision.

But maybe there are other aspects of citizenship on which us oldies should be required to prove mastery.

Brain tests for voting:

1. If you don't read, or watch, the news on a daily basis, you don't get to vote. Also if you spend more than 20 minutes a day on Twitter, TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat. Actually, come to think of it, maybe that isn't just for pensioners.

2. Memory test - can you remember the names of the last two Prime Ministers?

3. Politics 101 test (multiple choice): Who elects the Mayor of London? Is it (a) people living in London or (b) the Muslim Brotherhood?

4. Economic literacy test (multiple choice): If the government prints twice as much money, but the amount of goods and services in the economy stays the same, what will most likely happen to prices? Is it (a) they go up (b) they stay the same (c) they go down or (d) No-one knows?

Tuesday, 23 September 2025

I'm getting on a train...

...to Tallinn. Or at least thinking about it.

It's a hell of a long way. Fortunately, The Man in Seat 61 is on hand to help plan the journey.













As you can see, we'll (I say 'we' because at my advanced age I think I need a companion) have to take a long, but potentially exciting, route from Western Europe to the East then on to the Baltics. Here's a summary of my travel arrangements:

  • Days 1 & 2, travel from London to Warsaw by train. Via Brussels and possibly Berlin
  • Stay overnight in Warsaw.  "The Polonia Palace Hotel is excellent"
  • Day 3, travel from Warsaw to Vilnius by train. This involves a change in Mockava in Lithuania, takes about 12 hours and costs €25
  • Stay overnight in Vilnius.  "The inexpensive Stay Vilnius hotel is a 6-minute walk from the station". That's my kind of walk
  • Day 4, travel from Vilnius to Tallinn by train, through Riga and changing in Valga. Another 10 hours
Sounds pretty straightforward, yes?

Of course, I could just get a direct flight from Stansted on Ryanair but where's the romance in that?

Nigel, why do you want to go to Estonia? I hear you say.

It's all about digital ID. When Tony Blair's government proposed compulsory ID cards back in the day, I was vehemently opposed to it. I thought it an intrusion on privacy, prone to forgery, Big Brother encroachment, generally illiberal. They didn't come in because the following coalition government ditched the proposals. But there is now talk of digital ID and it's possible my (and the public's) view has changed. Of course digital is intrinsically different to a paper version; we already have a myriad of digital identifications on our phones and we willingly give our details to the likes of Google and Apple. The government is moving towards a gov.uk wallet app for smartphones, able to contain driving licances, passports, birth certificates, Universal Credit accounts and the like. I don't think the intention is to make it compulsory but you can imagine that's the direction of travel. In time it might become a requirement for employment checks and immigration status. The Data (Use and Access) Act has already established the Office for Digital Identity and Attributes (OfDIA), which aims to ensure that digital identities are secure, trusted, and widely accepted across various sectors.

I'm sure there will be concerns about privacy and data security but I suppose you have to trust the government machine will sort this out. 

An oft-quoted exemplar is Estonia, where the digital ID card  is more or less mandatory and over 99% of government services accept them - for banking, taxes, voting, healthcare, signing documents, registering companies for example

What we don't know is how it works for the Estonian on the street, how happy they are about it, what are the pros and cons. Hence my desire to get on the train and go meet them.

Or - I could just check some of the liberty/human rights country comparisons.

Freedom House gives Estonia a global freedom score of 96/100, breaking that down as: Political Rights 39/40 and Civil Liberties 57/60. Estonia is very good on most measures of human rights and freedoms. It’s among the best in Europe on civil liberties, political rights, press & internet freedom, education, and quality of life on Freedom House's metrics.

So it's reasonable to suggest that the imposition of digital ID cards has not infringed the freedoms and rights of its citizens. Maybe we shouldn't be scared of them (the ID cards, not the Estonians).

I'd still like to see for myself. I'll check the train times.

Friday, 12 September 2025

Span of control

Vytautas Andrius Graičiūnas was a Lithuanian American management theorist who published a classic study Relationship in Organization in 1933. He mathematically proved that a manager should not have more than four to five subordinates. He posited a formula which showed the number of relationships a manager can deal with, for a given number of reporting subordinates. Those relationships include (a) one-to-one, i.e. manager/subordinate (b) cross relationships subordinate/subordinate and (c) group relationships, e.g. manager/subordinate/subordinate. For 5 subordinates, it's 100; for 6, 222; for 7, 490. Don't worry about the numbers, just realise that the more people you have reporting to you, your ability to effectively manage them diminishes exponentially.

Management theory calls this the "span of control" and is used in the military for command and control functions and also in large commercial organisations.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has a cabinet of 25 or 26 (I couldn't quite figure it out exactly). There are duplications in terms of departments, for instance Baroness Chapman is Minister of State (Development) in the Foreign Office, so presumably reports to the Foreign Secretary rather than direct to the Prime Minister. There are still around 20 departments of state.

So the Prime Minister of the day has a bumper number of people formally reporting to him/her.

There's maybe an argument that a more structured way would enable their job to their job better. It can be argued - as it was by ChatGPT in our...chat - that the PM, as primus inter pares, allows greater autonomy to secretaries of state, but this manifests itself as a problem which is that, once a week, the PM has to answer for everything in government publicly in Prime Minster's Questions in the House of Commons. And is expected to know...everything.

There's another problem, which is relevant to the recent months - in fact arguably ever since the current government came to power. In comparable countries, foreign affairs and world diplomacy are carried out by the Head of State, usually President, leaving the PM to focus on domestic affairs - see France (not a great exemplar of effective government at the moment, I accept). This has been a major problem for Keir Starmer, facing significant global instability and an erratic US President.

So it's no surprise that Starmer is floundering. You'd have thought an experienced manager like him, who had a staff of over 7,000 when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, would be able to use that experience, but I imagine that was a better structured organisation and his job had a single, highly focussed mission. Government is different: not just about continuing an existing functionality; it's often about juggling, and deciding between, a set of bad options. Different problems, maybe requiring leaders with different characteristics.

I'm not saying Starmer is doing as well as anyone could; he's clearly not on top of things and there are serious questions about his judgement, e.g. Sue Gray.

I just think there must be better ways of doing things; we ask too much of our politicians.

Monday, 25 August 2025

How long between referenda?

We in the UK don't have much of a tradition of referendums, and we don't have a written constitution, so to the question of "should the Scots have another independence referendum?" or "should we re-run Brexit?", our politicians simply shrug and carry on as usual.

But is that really good enough? Both of those examples proved to be marginal decisions and circumstances change. But equally you can't just change your mind as a nation every few years; that would make long-term policy making impossible.

In the absence of a written constitution, our Great British Tradition of Keep Buggering On comes into play: kick the ball into the long grass (for the uninitiated, this is something Donald Trump does to his opponents at golf): too difficult, file it under Virtually Impossible and focus on more urgent matters. But perhaps the biggest problem in British politics is short term thinking.

If my main complaint about the above two referendums is the narrow victory margin, it seems logical that I can't justify a re-run if the margins remain narrow, even if in the other direction.

The biggest problems with both issues is that they were driven by fanatical ideology; maybe we shouldn't allow fanaticism to define our future.

My solution to this problem is:

  • set a future date for a repeat of each referendum, perhaps 25 years hence (how's that for long grass?)
  • subject to certain criteria being met, those criteria being measures of support in the relevant electorate for the poll; for instance in Scotland a 75% majority in the Scottish parliament for a party whose manifesto for the election for that parliament specifically included an independence commitment. Similarly, if parties with a specific manifesto commitment to rejoin the European Union were to, between them, get 75% of the seats (or perhaps 75% of the votes) in a UK General Election
  • Once a referendum has been thus initiated and completed, whatever the outcome, the clock would be reset for a further 25 years
  • These rules to be set in stone in a law, with a provision that the law would require a 75% majority vote in both Houses of Parliament to overturn it
What do you think, dear readers? Would you like a constitutional convention to consider these proposals? To plan effectively for the long-term future? Or would you prefer us to Keep Buggering On?

Wednesday, 20 August 2025

Proper interviews

I’ve become a fan of Amol Rajan’s interviews on his YouTube channel “I’m Amol Rajan”. Recently he interviewed Kemi Badenoch and before that John Major. His first question to Sir John Major was why he agreed to the interview when he rarely did so. The answer was that most TV interviews are short form and inevitably lead to sound bites rather than considered debate. In contrast, Rajan offers a one hour, thoughtful examination of past, present and future.

I like Rajan’s style. He doesn’t indulge in hectoring; his approach is genuinely to allow his interviewees the opportunity to inform the audience and he doesn’t treat them as adversaries. That isn’t to say he ducks difficult questions, just that he doesn’t treat such questions as attempts to trip them up. After Baadenoch dissed her old school as displaying "the soft bigotry of low expectations", he quoted the school principal as denying this; Badenoch responded with, "I don't know who that person is." Although she comes across as thoughtful and likeable much of the time, this dismissal came across as patronising. Her self-description as "culturally Christian" feels shallow.

He gives the feeling of actually liking his victims and relished spending an hour with them. His response to Badenoch's saying she snitched on a fellow 15 year old pupil at school for cheating (he got expelled) was "No wonder you were so unpopular, you sound really annoying", the kind of thing you'd say to a good friend, knowing they won't take offence. Does she do herself any favours in this interview? Not really; she's more like a think tank researcher than a politician. There was not much on policy, because she is still in the learning/thinking stage: "You can give easy answers if you haven't thought it all through. I do the thinking and what people are going to get with new leadership under me is thoughtful Conservatism, not knee-jerk analysis.” So more Keith Joseph than Margaret Thatcher, Anthony Giddens than Tony Blair, Steve Hilton than David Cameron, and who ever heard of them? If Kemi Badenoch is not careful, her innate caution will be swamped by her party's desire for - above all else - winning elections. And there is indeed a sense of vulnerability: "I'm somebody who people have always tried to write off, and I have always succeeded and I believe I can do that with the Conservative party".

John Major, in contrast, has no pressure on him; he's been there, done it, he is free to speak to truth. He comes over as despairing about modern British politics; about Brexit in particular of course but the standard of public discourse and of political debate too. He dismisses a question about Boris Johnson and "partygate" as completely unworthy of his attention. On the Conservative government's Rwanda policy: “I thought it was un-Conservative, un-British, if one dare say in a secular society, un-Christian, and unconscionable and I thought that this is really not the way to treat people. We used to transport people, nearly three hundred years ago, from our country. Felons, who at least have had a trial … I don’t think transportation — for that is what it is — is a policy suitable for the 21st century.” Brexit was “the most divisive thing in our party in my lifetime...Britain has become “weaker, poorer,” isolated from European alliances and diminished on the world stage."

Rajan finishes his interviews with some quickfire questions:

What time do you wake up in the morning? KB: 5.45 (weirdly precise) JM: Around 5.30–6.00am

What time do you go to bed? KB: midnight JM: Usually around 10.30–11.00pm

Greatest achievement in politics (so far)? KB: "getting the postmasters' convictions overturned" JM:  “I think the peace in Northern Ireland is the thing I would most like to be remembered for … though it was not mine alone, it was the work of many hands.”

How would you like to be remembered? JM: fondly

What would you still like to achieve? JM: "I think I’d like to live long enough to see my country at ease with itself"

What's your guilty pleasure? KB: taking my shoes off. JM: lemon drop martinis (to Amol Rajan's confession that he doesn't know what that is, JM: “Then your life needs to be enhanced”)

What makes a good leader? KB: "Honesty, grit, determination, conviction" JM: “You need to carry people with you — the country, your colleagues, sometimes even your opponents. If you can’t, you don’t really have leadership, you just have noise.”

Making a comparison between the Conservative party's (and the country's) past leader and the new, as yet unproven, manifestation, might be unfair. Kemi Badenoch is at the beginning of her journey and I'm sure the ever-courteous Sir John Major might have some helpful advice on how best to succeed in her goals; does she yet have the experience and wisdom to seek it out?

I look forward to more of these ever-courteous encounters.

Thursday, 17 July 2025

Old enough to join the Army

Should 16 and 17 year olds be given the vote? "no taxation without representation", a phrase dating from the American Revolution, is part of a compelling argument. Angela Raynor in the Times makes the case that 16 year olds can work and pay taxes, serve their country in the military, vote in elections for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and it's their futures that are most effected by the decisions of today's and tomorrow's politicians. It's hard to find anything to disagree with, although there will be some opposition parties who will resist it.

But, before I sign off for a week or so to take a bit of a vacation, I'd like to raise a question which I haven't seen anyone articulate: should there be a maximum age at which you are allowed to vote?

If you are a pensioner living on a state pension and (I think I'm correct) not paying tax on that, perhaps "no taxation without representation" works in reverse, i.e. no representation without taxation. Of course, these are people who have paid taxes throughout their lives and have earned some entitlements as a result, but isn't that a false equivalence? You've voted whilst you paid your taxes but now that you don't, should you cease doing so?

There will be those who say that we (I'm a pensioner, although I pay tax on my teacher's pension) have a wealth of life experience and are better able to decide the future of our country than a bunch of schoolkids with no such life experience. I find this (a) patronising (b) ignores the core argument that the future is theirs to decide on and (c) it's the oldies' votes that have given us Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Brexit and an unsustainable triple lock on pensions whilst making it harder for young people to get onto the housing ladder by forcing them to pay for their university education.

The government is fond of "one in, one out" schemes so here's my proposal. Allow those of pensionable age to voluntarily opt out of voting on the basis of "pairing" with a 16yo, provided the latter is obliged to vote by law. One out, one in. The future belongs to the young. Count me in.

Anyway, that'll be it for at least 11 days while I travel to visit families and spoil my grandkids. Just thought I'd exit stage left with a bit of controversy.

Tuesday, 8 July 2025

There's something in the water in Cambridgeshire

South Cambridgeshire District Council launched a trial in January 2023, giving its staff the option of working a four day week with full pay whilst maintaining 100% productivity.

So how did that go? Brilliant, say the staff. Quelle surprise.

Of course, there have been studies. Lots of them, by universities. The council claims £400,000 p.a. savings and is proposing to make the policy permanent at a meeting this month.

You can have as many studies as you want but surely common sense suggests this is nonsense? If you can work hard for 4 days, why not work as hard on the 5th day and radically improve output? If you can get all your work done in 4 days, why not do it in 3? Or do a couple of 24 hour shifts and take the rest of the week off? What if all these employees work extra hard for 4 days a week for a couple of months then revert to their previous productivity rate, still enjoying Free Fridays and going fishing?

This is gloriously mad.

Thursday, 3 July 2025

The working class believed that the Labour Party was on their side

I derived the title of this essay from a quote by Lord (Maurice) Glasman, a guru of Blue Labour. The quote came in an interview with Tom Newton Dunn for the Times: “The working class believed for over a hundred years that the Labour Party was fundamentally on their side. And now they think we’re not”. 

But this is not initially about Glasman; it’s about JD Vance. Vance was apparently aware of Blue Labour - I’m not sure how - and sent a copy of his Hillbilly Elegy memoir to Glasman asking, according to the article, “whether he thought America’s Democratic Party could be rebuilt in the same light as Blue Labour.”** Subsequently Glasman became the only Labour politician to be invited to Trump's inauguration, at the personal invite of Vance. This peaked my interest; I’ve always been interested in political thinkers and particularly in radicals, of all colours. I have to admit I’d not been aware of Blue Labour and, until the last seven months, of Vance. I often feel my blog relies too much on flippancy and perhaps that should be balanced by serious thought. So I made a plan.

Step 1: read Vance’s book. So I did. Written in 2016 (when he was 31) it's a very moving account of his childhood and early adulthood in Kentucky - part of America's "Rust Belt": the deindustrialised MidWest/South. He uses the term hillbilly throughout the book almost as a badge of pride; they are his people. His upbringing was just about the most chaotic you could imagine. Dysfunctional mother, absent father, a succession of father figures of varying reliability, a maternal grandmother who, though steadfast and loving, was in Vance’s own words a gun-toting “lunatic” meant that he had zero stability and a developing bafflement as to how adults were supposed to behave.

The statistics tell you that kids like me face a grim future—that if they’re lucky, they’ll manage to avoid welfare; and if they’re unlucky, they’ll die of a heroin overdose, as happened to dozens in my small hometown just last year. I was one of those kids with a grim future. I almost failed out of high school. I nearly gave in to the deep anger and resentment harbored by everyone around me. Today people look at me, at my job and my Ivy League credentials, and assume that I’m some sort of genius, that only a truly extraordinary person could have made it to where I am today. With all due respect to those people, I think that theory is a load of bullshit. Whatever talents I have, I almost squandered until a handful of loving people rescued me. That is the real story of my life, and that is why I wrote this book.

It’s a torrid tale of fear - that he’d be left alone; that he'd amount to nothing; that he'd never get out of the nightmare.

He was saved, first by his sister Lindsay, five years older but more often than not the "only adult in the room", and then by the Marines: "From Middletown’s world of small expectations to the constant chaos of our home, life had taught me that I had no control. Mamaw and Papaw [beloved hillbilly maternal grandparents] had saved me from succumbing entirely to that notion, and the Marine Corps broke new ground. If I had learned helplessness at home, the Marines were teaching learned willfulness."

After the Marines came two years of college at Ohio State and then Yale Law School where he met future wife Usha ("my Yale spirit guide"). Called to the bar, marriage, fatherhood. Welcome to the world, but never forgetting:

I may be white, but I do not identify with the WASPs of the Northeast. Instead, I identify with the millions of working-class white Americans of Scots-Irish descent who have no college degree. To these folks, poverty is the family tradition—their ancestors were day laborers in the Southern slave economy, sharecroppers after that, coal miners after that, and machinists and millworkers during more recent times. Americans call them hillbillies, rednecks, or white trash. I call them neighbors, friends, and family.

In 2018, Vance added an Afterword to the book, giving us a clue to how his political awareness developed.

I tried to lay my cards explicitly on the table in one of the later chapters of the book: I am a conservative, one who doubts that the 1960s approach to welfare has made it easier for our country’s poor children to achieve their dreams. But those of us on the Right are deluding ourselves if we fail to acknowledge that it did accomplish something else: it prevented a lot of suffering, and made it possible for people like Mamaw to access food and medicine when they were too poor, too old, or too sick to buy it themselves. This ain’t nothing. To me, the fundamental question of our domestic politics over the next generation is how to continue to protect our society’s less fortunate while simultaneously enabling advancement and mobility for everyone.

I've usually argued that my own party has to abandon the dogmas of the 1990s and actually offer something of substance to working- and middle-class Americans. And despite all of my reservations about Donald Trump (I ended up voting third party), there were parts of his candidacy that really spoke to me: from his disdain for the “elites” and criticism of foreign policy blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan to his recognition that the Republican Party had done too little for its increasingly working- and middle-class base.

After graduating from Yale he practised corporate law, worked as a Senate aide and became a venture capitalist, a Senator in 2023, Vice-President in 2025. Not exactly a normal life path for a hillbilly but, despite some critics, I see no reason in this book to doubt his genuineness.

Step 2: check out bluelabour.org. I did that too, but it's hard to see through the flummery. 

About

Blue Labour is a force within the Labour Party committed to the politics of the common good. Our socialism is both radical and conservative. It is a politics about the work we do, the people we love, and the places to which we belong. 

Our starting point is the democratic renewal of our country. Blue Labour’s goal is a democratic self-governing society built upon the participation of its citizens in the exercise of power and its accountability. 

Our politics is a challenge to the liberal consensus of the capitalist order, but it does not belong to the revolutionary left. Its inheritance is the labour tradition.

It's hard to argue about any of this because it's just vacuous phraseology. Or maybe I'm too stupid to understand. Newton Dunn describes this as "economically left-wing and socially on the right". Maybe he should write their copy. Moving on:

Blue Labour began as a challenge to the liberal consensus of the capitalist order. Democracy was becoming an oligarchy with the liberal left in control of culture and the liberal right in control of the economy. 

Both Labour and the Conservatives shared a liberal contractual view of society. Instead of mutual loyalties binding human beings into families, groups and nations, Labour saw the individual and the state, the Conservatives saw the individual and the market. Neither spoke about the families and neighbourhoods we are born into, nor about our cultural and religious inheritances. Both overlooked the most basic bonds that hold individuals together in a society. 

In the 2019 general election the liberal consensus was broken. We are entering a new political era. However both parties are products of the liberal settlement. They remain substantially unchanged and so unprepared for the challenges ahead. 

The Blue in Blue Labour expresses our disenchantment with the progressive politics of the last few decades. Things do not always get better. Human life is dependent upon forces greater than our own selves. There will never be an end to human pain and suffering, but it can be made less. Politics is about hope and great achievements, but it is also about failure and tragedy.

This sounds awfully like Reform's (and MAGA's) nostalgic rhetoric. Anti-globalism, anti-statism, anti-growth, lots of antis. Glasman claims "I didn't realise the importance of 'again' in Make America Great Again until I went to Trump's inauguration".

I tried hard to find a policy outline for Blue Labour on their truly awful website. The nearest I could come to is this (forgive the lack of brevity):

Labour must rebuild our national economy. 

1.     Britain must reverse decades of deindustrialisation, to rebuild working-class communities and secure our national security in a new era of global uncertainty. There can be no rearmament without reindustrialisation, and no reindustrialisation without cheap energy. We need cheap, clean energy to bring down industrial energy prices, industrial policy to support industries of critical national importance, and regional policy to ensure all of Britain benefits.  

2.     Austerity was a disaster that hollowed out our state capacity and left communities abandoned. Years of historically low interest rates were wasted by Tory governments who refused to invest in the future and we are now paying the price. We should scrap the fiscal rules, in which economic sense and democratic politics are subordinate to faulty OBR forecasts, and invest in infrastructure and the public realm.

3.     Successive governments have sold off our public services and national assets and utilities, leaving us vulnerable and dependent on others. Privatisation has all too often led to extraction, mismanagement and waste. We should reconsider public ownership for public services like rail, utilities like water, and critical industries like steel.

4.     Buying an ordinary family house has become a struggle for even those on good salaries, excluding many young people from adulthood and parenthood. We have not built nearly enough houses, while immigration has radically increased demand. Government must enable more housebuilding, with the explicit objective of reducing house prices and rent as a proportion of incomes.

5.     Our tax system needs reform to reflect new realities, including that most value is tied up in land and assets rather than income. We should consider taxes on assets, and updating council tax bands to ensure it no longer disproportionately hits those in poorer parts of the country. 

Labour must restore the integrity of the sovereign nation. 

1.     Immigration is not a distraction or a culture war issue; it is the most fundamental of political questions, a cause of social fragmentation, and the basis of our broken political economy. We should drastically reduce immigration, reducing low-skill immigration by significantly raising salary thresholds; closing the corrupt student visa mill system; and ending the exploitation of the asylum system, if necessary prioritising domestic democratic politics over the rule of international lawyers. 

2.     Crime and antisocial behaviour are contributing to a sense that public order is breaking down, with working-class communities usually the victims. We must restore the trust and authority of our police force, clarifying its increasingly blurred mission, so that it can focus on the small number of repeat offenders who are responsible for the vast majority of crime. 

3.     We are proud of our multiracial democracy and we utterly reject divisive identity politics, which undermines the bonds of solidarity between those of different sexes, races and nationalities. We should legislate to root out DEI in hiring practices, sentencing decisions, and wherever else we find it in our public bodies.

Labour must restore the integrity of the state.

1.     The government does not run this country. We have handed over too much control to unaccountable QUANGOs and increasingly powerful courts with the power to block government policy. We should return decision-making to parliament, limiting the endlessly expanding power of judicial review and reforming or closing QUANGOs which make decisions which properly belong to the realm of democratic politics.

2.     The British state is bigger but less effective than ever. The prime minister is right that the civil service is sclerotic and needs reform, but we also need to end the scam of consultants ripping off the government and wasting huge sums of public money. We should restore state capacity by reforming our civil service and ending the corporate commissioning and consultancy racket. 

Labour’s covenant begins with these three political tasks. Their achievement will define the government’s ‘decade of renewal’ and shape the future of the country.

In amongst the generalisations there are probably some ideas that are worth considering but the biggest problem that isn't answered is "what then?" We get rid of half the civil service, net zero, immigration, the ECHR, fiscal rules; and what's left? Of course I recognise that we live in an era of disaffection, of low or no faith in governments and the signs are that those lead voters (or perhaps insurrectionists) to put their trust in those promising simplistic solutions. Unless I am misunderstanding Blue Labour I can't take this seriously.

I'm going to give the final word to JD Vance:

To return to the issue that motivated me to write this book, doing better requires that we acknowledge the role of culture. As the liberal senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued, “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society.” I agree, and my view that there will never be a purely government-based solution to the problems I write about has remained largely unchanged since Hillbilly Elegy came out. That said, I’m hardly a policy skeptic, and I think there is much more our governments could do to address these problems. Better policy requires better politics, however, and like many people, I find new reasons each day to wonder whether our politics are remotely up to the challenge. [and to repeat] To me, the fundamental question of our domestic politics over the next generation is how to continue to protect our society’s less fortunate while simultaneously enabling advancement and mobility for everyone.

Thankyou for taking the time to read my ramblings. I don't pretend to have solutions to the world's problems but am always willing to hear and read the views of others, of all persuasions.

** Glasman replied that the "ever more woke" Democrats were a lost cause.

Thursday, 26 June 2025

Article 5

President Trump said yesterday that the key component of the NATO treaty - Article 5 - "depends on your definition...there's numerous definitions of Article 5, right?"

This of course is heresy to Western politicians and media, who have always assumed that the definition is clear that "an attack on one of us will be met by all the rest coming to our defence militarily". I recently listened to a podcast produced by Deborah Haynes for Sky News called The Wargame. There are five episodes and the scenario of an attack by Russia on the UK is acted out by a number of recently active politicians - Ben Wallace as Prime Minister, Jack Straw as Foreign Secretary, Amber Rudd as Home Secretary, Jim Murphy as Chancellor and others - and military experts. They meet in one room and a group representing Russia in other. Action takes place in real time.

The scenario starts with an attack on the Murmansk naval base in Northern Russia, probably by Chechen rebels but perhaps even by the Russians themselves. Russia of course accuses the Brits of doing it and threatens reprisals. And so on. Once Russian ships fire missiles at us, we naturally assume article 5 will be evoked and the Americans, French, Germans will weigh in with their planes, ships and special forces. But no. The American President calls on both sides to stop their "aggressive" actions. Eventually the Norwegians and Poles offer some kind of air support. And that's it.

I'm not going to bore you with anything more about the podcast except to say that it has (political?) agendas which become apparent:

  • The UK's military is woefully weak
  • Article 5 isn't worth the paper it's written on
To be fair, Haynes says right from the start that the situation has a 1% chance of actually happening. So we can take it with a pinch of salt, or we can consider the "truth" it exposes.

Let's have a look at the actual text of Article 5:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

So it's "each of them...will assist...by taking...such action as it deems necessary". Not a very solid commitment. I suppose it comes down to trust. In previous US presidential incarnations there was an implicit confidence in Europe's reliance on the Americans to come to our rescue. I'm not sure there's any such confidence in the future after Trump's two terms are over; even a Democrat president might well think differently about Europe than we might imagine.

Then there's "in Europe or North America". So Iran's attack on a US base in Qatar doesn't count, nor would an attack on our aircraft carrier if it's in the Pacific, off the coast of Taiwan.

It makes you wonder whether Trump is right; it's all in the interpretation.

Wednesday, 25 June 2025

Shut up or suck up

How to deal with the 47th President of the United States? It's a problem national leaders have grappled with for six months now. It's gone from fawning (Starmer, Alexander Stubb) through mature assertion (Macron, Carney) to bemusement (Ramaphosa, "death, death, death") and belligerence (Zelensky, "you're gambling with World War III...it's going to be great television"). It doesn't appear to make any difference. Starmer's cringeworthy production of a letter from the King out of his pocket like a magician got us a tariff reduction to 10%. Here's how the others did:

Finland: 10% (no letter, no king)
France: 10% (no letter, definitely no king)
Canada: 25% (no letter, same king, no state visit)
South Africa: 35% (poor Cyril)
Ukraine: 10% (no letter, no punishment)

Today we saw the übermensch of cringe, Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte laying down the red carpet and prostrating (castrating?) himself on it in front of President God with this extraordinarily obsequious message:

Mr President, dear Donald,

Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no-one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.

You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening. It was not easy but we've got them all signed onto 5 percent!

Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world. You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.

Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.

Safe travels and see you at His Majesty's dinner!

- Mark Rutte

Ugh. Pass me the sick bucket. He gets paid €317,000 a year tax free for this bag of wind.

Sunday, 22 June 2025

Supermajorities

23. That's the size of the majority as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (also known as the "Assisted Dying Bill") passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Voted For: 314, Against:291, Didn't Vote: probably around 37 once you exclude the Speaker and the 7 Sinn Fein members.

I do wonder whether such a narrow victory (less than 4%) is sufficient to endorse a highly contentious change to life in the UK. I always thought that the Brexit referendum, as a constitutional issue, should have required some kind of supermajority in order to pass. Typically in constitutional matters of all kinds - the constitution of your local tennis club, for example - something like a two-thirds majority is required to succeed. It's a protection against short term changes in people's opinions, unexpected consequences and even voter persuasion/manipulation. The Assisted Dying Bill is not a constitutional issue, it doesn't change the way our country is run but it fundamentally affects an aspect of our way of life, of our culture, maybe our understanding of our humanity. Most of all, once the change is made it's extremely difficult to reverse even if the consequences prove to be perverse (as some would say of Brexit).

I have always been ambivalent about this Bill, mostly because I cannot separate my own feelings on it (which I genuinely can't anticipate) from the "greater good" arguments which seem to emphasise the benefits for perhaps small numbers of people. It's the thought that I simply don't know how this will work in practice that would have me vote against it were I an MP. That isn't to say I'm against all change; I'm happy to see fundamental (in the sense that it is almost certainly irreversible) change if there is a huge proportion of informed opinion (and therefore, in Parliament, votes) in favour.

Most of what our elected representatives vote on is transactional: increase this tax now, we can change it later if fiscal circumstances change or a new government is voted in. A majority of 1 is OK. But generational change is different and in my opinion requires much greater support. Not 100%, that's not realistic and open to manipulation but some kind of supermajority that guarantees near-permanent approval, near-certainty that this is the right thing to do and future generations of MPs will almost certainly not seek to revoke it.

There are different kinds of supermajority definitions including combinations of minimum turnout, overall majorities of those eligible to vote (this Bill would have required 326 to pass on that measure), two-thirds or three-quarter majorities. In a UK-wide referendum, for example, it would be reasonable to require the majority consent of each of the four nations for fundamental change. Ask the SNP! I don't think our politicians give sufficient consideration to the mechanics of our (unwritten) constitution. It feel like "winging it" is a British tradition that we cherish.

I just don't think 23 is enough to wing it.