Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

There is a question in the wind: should MPs be allowed to have another job at the same time? And who is going to decide the answer to that? You've got it - the MPs themselves! What do you think they will decide? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

If the major supermarkets got together to agree the selling prices of their goods, that would be a cartel and would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If all the local plumbers colluded to set rates, we wouldn't allow it; we'd find someone else to do the job.

MPs already have two jobs: as constituency MPs and as legislators. It has long been my view that these functions should be separated. There is no reason why someone who listens to their constituents and helps to solve their problems should be a representative of a political party. It's a non partisan role. We should elect these people solely to perform that function; they should be independent of party and should have the constitutional right to meet Government Ministers to represent the views, issue and problems of the people of their areas. Being elected as a legislator, on the other hand, would follow the current practice. But we wouldn't need so many of them; just enough to populate Ministerial offices and their opposition counterparts, together with the membership of select committees. Given that the resulting fewer people involved - say 250 instead of the current 650 - would all be busy doing their legislative work, it would be legitimate to ban them taking second jobs.

One of the arguments about MPs (basic salary: £81,932 p.a.) having a second job is that some of those, for instance qualified doctors spending some time each week helping out the understaffed NHS, are more worthy than the obviously freeloading consultants, barristers and the like. I say No! If you want to be a doctor, be one and don't become an MP. One or the other. This is the 21st century, people!

If you say "only certain types of second jobs" or "yes but limited in some way" you create loopholes which will inevitably be used.

Another argument is that doing outside work makes you more rounded, better informed and more effective members of our political community. What, like the current lot? Yeah, that's working well.

"Lots of professional people wouldn't want to become MPs if they couldn't continue in their professions". Good riddance then.

So if MPs are too personally involved to be able to honestly vote on the question of second jobs, who should decide? We should. I'd go for a quick, binding referendum: "Should MPs have second jobs? Yes or No". If the answer is Yes, a supplementary referendum to determine the limits would be held and the results would be binding. We would need a Parliamentary Bill to:

• Make the outcomes of such referendums binding
• Allow supplementary referendums, dependent on the outcome of a primary referendum
• Issue all households with a Referendum Voting Machine so that they could be held almost instantaneously

Cloud cuckoo land? In the USA, lots of states have referendums and various other instruments for citizens to decide on important issues. If we want to do it, we can do so. Get on with it!

So it's Albania

I posted five months ago about the Government's thinking on offshore asylum processing centres. In June it was Rwanda that was being suggested. That didn't work and nor did many of the alternative locations the government has explored. Now, according to today's Times, it's Albania.

Tirana, the capital of Albania, is about 1,500 miles from London. Quite why a country with a population of just under 3 million would want to welcome some 200,000 refugees and asylum seekers is beyond me. I suppose it's down to money; presumably we would pay Albania some kind of fee as well as building the facilities and paying the costs. It's clearly more expensive to do so than housing them in the UK. Political virtue-signalling: "we promised we'd get rid of these people and that's what we're doing".

This is currently not legal but the Nationality and Borders Bill is nearing the end of its progress through the House of Commons before moving to the Lords. The Guardian reports "In an amendment tabled on Tuesday, [David] Davis is calling on MPs to remove the clause in the bill that allows asylum seekers to be removed offshore during processing." The Government has a majority of 80 - 360 obedient Conservative MPs (well 359 if you exclude David Davis) - so that's not going to happen.

When I started blogging I said my content would be trivial and non-political. That's changed a bit, as I discover things which make me angry.

This is Better

I bought a new phone. The old one - really old, i.e. about 4 years - produced truly awful photographs and I felt I was not giving my readers a good service in that respect. So I spent a few hundred pounds on a Samsung Galaxy S20 FE - just for you! Hope you're grateful.

I thought I'd better go out and give the new phone, and its multiple cameras, a bit of a run. Here are some of the results. I started in my Puzzle Room.

Went outdoors to my garden.

To Pentewan, a small village not far from me. Ranging from wide angle to telephoto:

 

Thence to Charlestown  Harbour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Finally, as a reward, tea and cake.

The phone has a variety of camera modes.This is panorama: 

Other modes will require a great deal of patience of my part to figure out how to use them. And on your part, to see the results.

I'm very much a point and click guy. My previous phone was a simple phone for ... a simple man. My new model is a clever phone with a clever camera for ... a not so clever point and clicker.

Can you please stop making post-credits scenes?

We've all seen them; the nerds who stay seated, eyes glued to the cinema screen, while the closing credits roll. While the smart guys - us - get out pronto to get to the front of the taxi queue. 

Occasionally, though, we get caught out. It happened to me last night as I switched off (this was on TV not at the cinema) at the end of a very unsatisfying Wonder Woman 84 - not a patch on the original. I rarely read reviews of films before watching them; I don't want to be influenced by critics whose motivations are very different from mine. But I often read them afterwards. To see what others thought and occasionally, usually in spy movies, to figure out what on earth just happened.

That's how I found out that Wonder Woman 84 has a post-credits scene. If I had been in the cinema I'd have completely missed the opportunity to view the scene but I just re-viewed the film from where I had switched off and there it was. And frankly a scene of no consequence whatsoever (which actually sums up the movie anyway). Unlike the most meaningful case I encountered: the final episode of the excellent TV series Sharp Objects. Oops - I missed the reveal of the "what happened?" answer. I had just thought that not being absolutely certain of the who and how of the killing was a good ending, leaving the viewer to figure out their own solution.

Post-credits scenes were common to all seasons of Westworld but I can't think of another TV series example. It happens with a lot of Marvel movies but mostly they are teasers for the sequels.

It's my belief that it's the Moviemakers Union of Plumbers, Property Masters, Editors, Technicians and Set Decorators (MUPPETS) who insist on their members being named in the credits, as part of their contracts. Coincidentally The Muppet Movie of 1979 was one the earliest examples of a post-credits scene, when Animal

yells "Go home" at the audience.

I don't like it. I'm gonna have to train myself to watch the closing credits of everything now. Please stop!

How to win an election

The Conservative party in the UK has a single purpose: to gain, and hold on to, power. Without power, the party cannot pursue its fundamental ideologies: small government, sound national finances, free market economics and the like. The only other UK political party that comes anywhere close in terms of the ruthless lust for power are the Scottish Nationalists, whose almost single issue ideology means they need power in order to create the circumstances in which Scotland can secede from the United Kingdom.

In order to gain and regain power, the Conservatives play what they believe to be their strong cards: law and order provides a safe society, strong security provides a safe country, control of public finances and critically "don't rock the boat with risky projects". Most of all, they elect a leader who can win elections. Deviate from those tried and tested parameters and they lose elections. Check out the titles of recent Conservative party manifestos:

2017 Theresa May: "Forward, Together: Our Plan for a Stronger Britain and a Prosperous Future". WIN

2015 David Cameron: "Strong Leadership. A Clear Economic Plan. A Brighter, More Secure Future." WIN

2006 Michael Howard: "Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?" LOSS [Is this the worst political slogan ever?]

2001 William Hague: "Time for Common Sense". LOSS

(I'm ignoring "Get Brexit Done" in 2019, as a special case)

In 2019, the party elected Boris Johnson as leader - the candidate who could win an election - over Jeremy Hunt - the candidate who would probably have created and led a more effective government. (Again, Brexit was a strong issue which can't be ignored).

And so to the Labour Party. How to return to power? Rather than wait for the current government to implode, Labour needs a plan; one which:

• represents its ideologies
• plays their strong cards
• acknowledges the fundamental requirements of any government
• envisages a leader who can win an election.

The closest Labour has come to winning an election recently was in 2017 when Jeremy Corbyn, with his "For the Many, Not the Few" manifesto, almost toppled Theresa May. That manifesto met probably just two of the above requirements.

Labour's ideologies are based on fairness: the redistribution of wealth, opportunity for all, government using its economic power to serve the disadvantaged, internationalism.

Their strong cards include vigorous public services, the limitations of unfettered capitalism, empathy with the disadvantaged and vulnerable.

Labour is traditionally characterised as being weak on law and order, strong national and international security and economic competence. These are areas which need to be addressed. Ruthlessness would dictate that the shadow ministers for these areas need to be the best thinkers, reformers and performers. Politicians who can drive policy and can consistently defeat and deride their opposite numbers in the Cabinet. Let's see who we have here:

• shadow home secretary (shadowing Home Secretary Priti Patel): Nick Thomas-Symonds. No offence Nick, but you are too invisible. Patel is one of the Government's worst ministers, she should have been sacked over bullying civil servants, her immigration policies are repulsive and ineffectual and you need to be out there with humane and workable policies and challenging her every step of the way. No holds barred.
• shadow foreign secretary (shadowing Foreign Secretary LIz Truss, who has only been in post for a few weeks so it's not really possible to judge her yet): Lisa Nandy, whose background in women's and children's issues closely matches that of Truss; both of them seem ill suited to the roles they have been given. Maybe foreign affairs, post Brexit, is not the big brief it used to be. 
• shadow defence secretary (shadowing Defence Secretary Ben Wallace): John Healey. Wallace is a military man with service in Northern Ireland, Germany, Cyprus and Central America. Healey is a career politician with stints in finance, local government and housing. No offence John but this is a mis-match
• shadow chancellor (shadowing Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak): Rachel Reeves has a strong background in finance and is a strong performer in public and the House of Commons. She gets out and about, meeting people and promoting her ideas on the green economy and high street regeneration. She gives as good as she gets at the dispatch box. A square peg in a square hole.

As for an electable and trusted  leader, it's not clear yet - in my opinion - whether Keir Starmer satisfies those requirements. He is still the "not Corbyn" leader, with a large part of the party relieved to be rid of the uncertainties of the previous incumbent. This selection of key shadow cabinet posts suggests to me that Starmer wants his "team" to be nice. I'm not sure of the team thing - I'd go for strong individual performers who feel empowered by the leader to develop strong policies, promote them and challenge their opponents - and in politics "nice" gets you nowhere, frankly.

Starmer's main "attack dog" is Angela Rayner. I'm an unashamed admirer of her. She speaks to "the people" and her back story resonates with those people. An authentic politician, she clearly isn't in the Starmer mould and I'm disappointed he doesn't appear to value her. Is she best utilised as a roving rottweiler, spearing the Prime Minister and his party on corruption? For the moment, she probably does that better than anyone but I think there's a case for giving her a heavyweight shadow ministerial brief such as opposing Priti Patel. Now I'd pay for a ringside seat to that. But please, Sir Keir, don't sideline her and don't hope she'll go away. You have a weak and inexperienced team and she is a big asset.

If Rayner were moved to shadow home secretary, I'd go for Emily Thornberry as the "roving attack dog". She's wasted and invisible at International Trade and she has no experience in that.

There is much to be done to get Labour into a shape to present as a government in waiting. I believe the biggest problem is visibility. All opposition parties suffer from this but somehow the players need to make their voices heard. Do they really believe in themselves? Starmer, of course, has to do without experienced Labour politicians who have "retired" to Mayoralties (Sadiq Khan, Andy Burnham) and Select Committee Chairs (Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn).

I've said nothing about policy. I have views on that and they will perhaps appear in due course. Meanwhile, Starmer is an inexperienced leader with an inexperienced team, they need to learn quickly. Let's hope there won't be a snap election before 2024.

Fixed-term Parliaments

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA) was enacted after the General Election of 2010, which resulted in a hung parliament. As part of the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the purpose of the Act was a short-term one: to prevent either coalition party causing a snap election at a time of its choosing. Under the FTPA the next general election is automatically scheduled for the first Thursday in May of the fifth year after the previous general election—or the fourth year if the date of the previous election was before the first Thursday in May.

The first election called under the Act was that of 2015. In 2019, because the Conservative government of the day could not get its Brexit Bill through the House of Commons, they introduced the Early Parliamentary General Election Bill, to take advantage of one of the exceptions provided for in the FTPA, whereby an election can take place subject to the approval of two-thirds of MPs. In a moment of egregious hubris and stupidity, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn directed his MPs to vote for the Bill ("bring it on!"), the election resulting in an overall majority of 80 for the Conservative party and the subsequent passing into law of Brexit.

The new government then proposed to repeal the FTPA ("job done; let's get back to the PM doing whatever he wants"); the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill was introduced in December 2020 and a joint Commons-Lords Committee established to consider its provisions. After the Committee reported, the Bill - renamed as Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (DACOP) - was given its first reading on 12 May this year and completed all stages through the House of Commons on 13 September, being given a third reading by 312 votes to 55.

The second reading debate is scheduled for 24 November (SOON - diarise this) in the House of Lords. It's clear that this legislation will be enacted so: does it matter?

The Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Scottish Nationalists were those who voted against the DACOP. I suppose that's understandable: they will never (at least for a while) be in a position to benefit from the restoration of the power of the Prime Minister of the day to request a prorogation from the Monarch. It is clearly in the interest of the two largest parties, who expect to be competing for forming a government, to be able to call an election when they seem best placed to win it. The Labour Party manifesto of 2019 promised to repeal the FTPA on the grounds that it had "stifled democracy and propped up weak governments". They however inexplicably abstained this time round, clearly uncertain whether they supported democracy or not.

At present the FTPA is still in place and the next general election is due on 2 May 2024. Given the present government's travails, it may actually not happen until then - the DACOP still includes the "maximum five year" term limit.

Should we care about this? I guess for some of my readers a return to the old arrangement might seem more likely to result in a "get rid of Boris" moment but it might actually turn out to be the opposite; be careful what you wish for. I'm not sure that Prime Ministers are always smart enough to judge the moment to call an election. Remember Gordon Brown in 2008? Missing the opportunity after taking over from Tony Blair, he "bottled" it. The Guardian called it "the biggest unforced political error in the history of New Labour."

I turned to Wikipedia for an assessment of how the biggest democracies of the world handled the issue of fixed term parliaments. The most common appear to be fixed or maximum terms with provisions for extreme circumstances such as a deadlock between two chambers, e.g. the House of Representatives and Senate in Australia. The three "absolute", i.e. non-negotiable, fixed term parliaments are in the US, Europe and Norway. In Australia, actually, the Senate has the "fixed except for deadlock" provision but the House of Representatives has only a maximum term. There are so many weird variations that I would need a few years of constant [and sponsored] travel round the world to get you the information you need in order to judge the pros and cons of each different system.

If you don't see Boris or Geoffrey Cox in the House of Commons for the next few months, that's probably what they're doing.