I spent quite a lot of time yesterday wondering what it would take to really transform the current UK political agenda. The antics of those few politicians who appear to be still at work in the UK coloured my thinking.
Andy Burnham played to the far-right agenda by making a video above the White Cliffs of Dover in which he suggested that he will control the UK borders. In the process, he did two things. Firstly, he proved that, like all his many recent predecessors, he will make claims on this issue which he must know he cannot deliver upon. Secondly, he acknowledged that Nigel Farage is his major political opponent when, at the same time, in the eyes of the reasonable voter and rational political analyst, it would seem that Farage's star appeal is fading rapidly.
As Farage himself appeared to admit yesterday, he was in discussion with Richard Tice and Reform about a return to frontline politics at the time that he received the donation of £5 million from an offshore-based cryptocurrency financier that he did not then declare to the parliamentary authorities, seemingly in violation of the rules laid down for anyone winning an election, who is then required to declare funding political received in the 12 months prior to becoming an MP.
Richard Tice then confirmed that he was also subject to a parliamentary standards complaint, which is now under investigation.
Farage sought to distract attention from these issues by launching a new immigration policy on behalf of Reform, which he entitled Operation Fortress: Stopping the Invasion. The claim made in the proposals is that the Royal Navy can intercept all boats seeking to cross the Channel and forcibly return those in them to France, in the process requiring that British troops enter French territorial waters and then land uninvited on French soil, which are acts not permitted under international or maritime law, although Farage claims otherwise. I suspect he just does not care. Publicity and distraction are his only goals: facts would appear to be of little value.
Meanwhile, politicians were ignoring the real threat to the UK, which comes from climate change, failing crops, failing water supplies, food shortages, serious threats to animal welfare, the risk of financial crisis flowing from these issues as I discuss in this morning's video, and any number of other issues which will really impact the wellbeing of the people of this country.
The fiasco of modern British politics is, therefore, continuing, with the far right seeking to turn it into a pantomime in which anything but relevant issues are discussed, with the deliberate intention of undermining the value of democracy itself. Just to reinforce this impression, a spat also developed between Farage and Rupert Lowe of the Restore Party, whose main aim is to make Farage look like a moderate.
And it should be noted that the Tories selected a candidate to stand for office in local council elections in Somerset who has previously described himself as a “nationalist, fascist, theorist and supporter of white rights” and who has also been the publisher of an online site that some think has promoted far-right views.
The difficulty is that despite all this, Reform got 21% of the first-preference votes in the Greater Manchester mayoral election, with the Tories on 7% and Restore on 9%, giving these far-right parties more than a third of the electoral base in total. We could take comfort from that and think that this means they are not a threat, but, as we all know, in an electoral system as flawed as that used in UK parliamentary elections, 35% or more of the vote is more than enough to win seats, especially as it is now clear that people are becoming quite used to the idea of tactical voting.
The madness of our politics is, then, very real. People are being conned into thinking that migration is a threat when, in the grand scheme of the issues we face, it is anything but that. And whilst a great many people will accuse all politicians of having their noses in the trough, they somehow seem to think that Nigel Farage, who in this context has the biggest nose of all, is exempt from criticism on this issue.
To return to my opening question, then, what is it that will really transform our politics so that it achieves the three goals of being representative of majority opinion, relevant in terms of the discussions it promotes, and realistic as to the promises it makes, when at present it appears to achieve none of these goals?
At present, I have no answer to those questions. Labour is refusing to discuss proportional representation. Politicians are persistently gaslighting us, which is the theme of this morning's infographic, and as for the promotion of realistic promises, what we get instead are discussions of fiscal rules, balanced budgets and the denial of possibilities when they actually exist.
If there is one thing that we have to accept if we are to ultimately make progress, it is that our democracy is, at present, in a very poor place and that, so far, very few of our politicians appear to have the resolve, let alone the ability, to achieve those three goals of making it representative, relevant and realistic. Given the scale of the issues we actually face, that is deeply worrying.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Climate change has never been more visible than in 2026. We’ve had serious flooding in the winter, heat waves since May and drought and wildfires. Yet central government is on about immigration and fiscal rules. I’m not hearing anything about support for our farmers, adaptations to schools and hospitals to cope with higher temperatures etc. Central government has never felt more out of touch with reality. If our farmers can’t grow food what will we eat? And if our children can’t learn and patients get ill because their hospitals are too hot, how can we live as normal?
I will continue to vote Green, but whilst their message has never felt more relevant, they are struggling to be heard above this obsessive focus on the boats.
Burnt ham would have been better standing next to a (simulated) cube of water 140 metres on a side (i.e. 140 x 140 x 140). That is the amount of DRINKING water the UK water companies lose every day due to leaks. He could have then said: “The water companies have 6 months to reduce this by one third – at their own cost or we will nationalise. Ofwat will have an oversight board of 12 people, selected from the electoral register & supported by a crack team of lawyers and economists, that ensure that Ofwat ensures this happens”…….same with energy etc. Burnt-ham need to set the agenda – or fart-rage & co will do it for him & – he will lose.
You certenly do not need economists, you need engineers and project engineers.
Might the following be factors in our “Shamocratic” forms of government?
1) State mass education (some 93% of the population) which teaches dulling, unquestioning passivity and avoidance of analytical, spectrum thinking
2) A mainstream media which effectively supports right-wing politics/policies to maintain extractive Neo-liberal policies and divert the attention of an avoidably gullible electorate
3) A dearth/lack of “front line” journalists who really investigate beneath the ruling power groups’ preferred facades
4) A B. B. C which fails in its duties as a national/national interest broadcaster concerning news and its derivatives
5) The mainstream media having a determined, if unstated, policy of presenting news/“news” as entertainment and manipulation instead of objectively and incisively
6) A lack of national, regional and local governmental and voting structures which are functionally, reasonably democratic
P. S. Might the incisive attributes of the articles produced by you and your team endorse the above criticisms of the M. S. M?
The lack of representativeness is a feature rather than a bug of “representative” electoral democracies, particularly when one takes account of the fact that the nature and identity of those representatives can be heavily influenced by those owning capital (through lobbying, media, corruption, etc).
Others have written about non-electoral democracy, such as policy making by citizens’ assemblies selected by sortition. Guerrero’s book “Lottocracy” pretty much covers the bases, with van Reybrouck’s “Against Elections: the Case for Democracy” similar but more succinct. I like this video of a talk by Bouricius https://youtu.be/rqWWCzbcttc?si=CKfiavP8WZjg359l
I think this is part of the answer you seek, but am under no illusion that it will be easily or quickly achieved, particularly owing to the interests that would be activated against it.
Our democracy is, indeed in a poor state. First past the post is a terrible system known to distort the vote and lead to a confrontational two party system. But it is hard to get agreement on how to change it.
In 2011 there was a UK referendum on the alternative vote system. This was roundly rejected by a 2:1 margin, on a 42% turnout. Whilst the alternative vote system is far from perfect it would have been an improvement, which is why I voted in favour. However, it was rejected, and we must respect that decision, else how can we call for improvements to democracy?
There are many types of electoral systems including many types of proportional representation and the difficulty is getting agreement on which one to use. 🙁
The 2011 referendum was poorly explained to the electorate in my view and yes, these matters are very worrying indeed. Even my partner could not believe how much airtime Farage was getting on BBC’s PM the other day – the BBC is infiltrated with Reform supporters.
But then again why not, these BBC employees are part of our society. I work with intelligent and decent human beings who think that giving money to Ukraine to support their fight with Russia is wrong and that money – because we are ‘short’ apparently – should be spent at home as well as all this testicular material about immigration and ‘stop the boats’. So, the media and politicians have got the populace well trained in how to slit their own throats – gas lighting as Richard puts it.
Have things got really bad enough for a tipping point yet? No, I’m afraid not – whilst we watch Europe burning on TV and our mobile phone feeds we can still afford to feel stuff is happening to someone else. But make no mistake we are well on our way. Neo-liberalism has reduced many of us to a state of child like innocence.
All we can do is (1) continue to analyse and journal what is happening in our time but more importantly (2) focus on what could be done instead and lay down and bequeath some foundations for change? Noting ruefully that history is long and human life is short of course.
At the end of the day people have been told. They have just not listened. But also in mitigation they have been and continue to be lied to – at scale.
“being representative of majority opinion, relevant in terms of the discussions it promotes, and realistic as to the promises it makes, when at present it appears to achieve none of these goals? At present, I have no answer to those questions.”<p>
The BBC and billionaire press still seem to be so dominant and setting the agenda – despite social media <p>
The dark money flooding the political system – on which it is now utterly dependent – should be removed, but no sign the politicians benefitting from it will do anything to get money out of the system <p>
It does seem desperate – when the world is burning and BP making more £billions – BBC still pushing ‘migration’ ( about 6 special programmes or series over last couple of months, ) and an obsession with drilling in the North Sea.<p>
Apparently only a crisis will shock the system out of its present state – but that could bring fascism<p>
Its a bit like living in a dream world<p>
Something that might change the course of politics is this Your day without power
Unfortunately, this is increasingly likely to happen. But it might mean that politicians and the populace start to realise how reliant we have become on very fragile things.
When I lived in Norfolk it was not uncommon.
We can lose power for a day quite easily in rural Devon. I keep candles and a wood burning stove ready. Mobile signal tends to go also as it can’t cope with the demands put on it when WiFi is down etc.
The article to which you linked is not bad. Far too much blame assigned to renewables. The problem is a failure to store when there are surpluses (“markets will solve that” – sadly they won’t) and to design/plan an energy system with both high levels of renewables coupled to storage (of various sorts). Battery storage with the right inverter software can do blackstart (i.e. it can internally generate the 50hz frequency and deliver synthetic inertia).
I noticed that article’s complete lack of reference to storage/batteries, both for domestic and grid use.
6 years ago I insisted on 8.4kWh of battery storage, to go with new solar panels, and I have an internal separate EPS socket, designed to look after the fridge/freezer, and Wifi, digital house phone and charging of mobile (plus a gas camping stove for basic cooking and several hundred litres of stored rainwater). Battery farms can, I understand, help with grid smoothing, and are very quick to respond – but Mike Parr is the expert on that and other forms of energy storage. They also help deal with windless days and night-time darkness. But we haven’t built many.
We seem to insist on electing ostriches to government – as soon as they get to Westminster, they stuff their heads into sand-filled buckets.
Might reflect core/periphary, urban/rural national/local split, longer to filter through to centralised/unresponsive Westminster. Also yesterday a paper ‘diagnosing four decades of political choices behind Britain’s economic decline, and setting out a costed path to reversing it’ was published by…Restore(?!)
I will take a look at that…
If Burnham is “playing to the far right agenda”
I find myself wondering what % of the population have to think something before it goes from being extremist (far left / far right) to more mainstream?
The numbers supporting better migration control indicate it is at worst a centre right agenda, and Burnham as a left leaning politician making such statements suggest it might also be mainstream centre issue left too.
What do you mean, and why?
you said “playing to the far right” agenda.
doesnt “far right” imply some sort of small minority viewpoint at one end of the bell curve.
But Burnham saying it is clearly not to get far right votes, as he’s a left wing politician
What classifies it as “far right”?
Hence my questions: what % of the population have to think something before it goes from being extremist (far left / far right) to more mainstream?
Burnham is a neoliberal centre right politician. The idea that he is on the left – using the historical Labour Praty as an indicator of being so, is laughable.
Who defines “far right”? Anyone who can read about the characteristics of it. They are not hard to find. Reform, Restore and many in the Tories are.
What proportion are far right? Around a third. Any sane person should worry about that.
Sunday bike ride with Austrian economist. I told him of various conversations I had some years ago with a CDU politician from one of the Lander. I knew her well – plenty of meals etc with her & her family. I discovered that +/- mostly in agreement with the CDU – not on all points obvs – but they were, even at that time (late 1990s/early 2000s) somewhat to the left of e.g. Labour. Austrian economist nodding in agreement. The political labels “left & right” in the context of mainland Europe & its political parties have no meaning in terms of the UK. Furthermore many people (& my companion is highly political) in the EU no longer understand the UK & its politics. Burnt-ham & LINO fits into the ultra-ordo-liberal right wing wrt to the CDU/CSU. God knows where the tories and fart-rage sit.
Much to agree with
NO, Lincoln something does not become “centre” just because 35% of the population support it. “Far right” is NOT synonymous with “small minority”. It simply means we have got to a place where 35% of the UK voting electorate support FAR right policies, and that should genuinely scare us. It scares me silly.
I have no illusions – the danger of fascism and far-right populism is BECAUSE it is popular enough to win elections in our current failed democracy. Kemi Badenoch and Shabana Mahmood have smelled the far right coffee, and are grinding and roasting far right coffee bean rhetoric for far right votes (“I can deport non-whites faster than you can”).
In Hitler’s last contested pan-German general election, he won on an 88.7% turnout with Hitler getting 43.9% of the popular vote. That was the time of Kristallnacht – Stormtroopers smashing and looting Jewish business premises and beating opposing politicians up in the streets – a bit like modern Belfast. The election took place 6 days after the Reichstag fire. I presume we would still class Hitler and his Stormtroopers as “far right” or maybe we might even be allowed to call them fascists, despite them getting such a high popular vote?
Starmer won his huge majority in 2024 on a 59.7% turnout with 33.7% of the popular vote – more or less the same % (give or take 1%) of the popular vote as Corbyn LOST with, in 2019.
If it quacks like a Nazi..
Thank you
Our political system as is, does not reward analysis, planning, or serving the public good with positive change. It rewards corruption, short-termism, and wealthy donors. Client journalism and algorithms facilitate this.
Politicians serve the status quo, but will make minimal adjustments to their plans, if faced with an unavoidable real (or manufactured) crisis.
Examples of unavoidable crises:
– Starmer being hopelessly unpopular (replaced with acceptable housetrained clone – you can hardly see the join).
– Heatwaves, Wildfires, Droughts, Wars started by corrupt incompetents, Food & other shortages – response – dig out hi-viz jacket & hard hat. Send minister out to visit, cabinet level if possible. Announce something (preferably something already funded) – minimise the crisis with high profile, low cost, short-termism. Find an expendable scapegoat, preferably foreign or poor. Create a diversion. Make noticing the problem a criminal offence.
Manufactured crises: small boats, FIFA, Trump, prisoner early-release, corruption, racism or antisemitism in any party other than Labour – these divert attention from REAL problems that you don’t have plans to solve.
We ARE making progress in informing an angry public about the important issues. But it is much harder to get effective responses out of our current crop of politicians so that real change happens.
Which depressingly, makes violent, rather than democratic change, more likely. But that’s okay because it gives an excuse for a (“temporary”) repressive authoritarian clampdown.
I’d ĺove to know how many MPs “get it”, but choose to sit on their hands and pocket the loot.
We will win in the end.
I am sure we will.
I am hoping to be here to see it.
@Richard Murphy
Burnham is centre left by most evaluations. He self identifies as a Socialist
If 33% agree, it’s not far right, it is mainstream. It might be also centre left if its supported by self identified socialists?
Susan George (1934-2026), formerly of the Transnational Institute (TNI), argued that good policy ideas are not enough over 10 years ago, based on her decades of advocacy for the disadvantaged: “No amount of human suffering, in and of itself, is going to cause policy to change.. It is a huge mistake to forget that there really are forces out there, adversaries out there who have no intention of allowing anyone to do anything that might conflict with their interests. Those blocking change are the extremely rich, the transnational corporations, the financial markets and politicians governing mostly on their behalf… We have to understand that to do anything concrete we must deal with those adversaries”.
I met Susan – and she was inspiring – and she was right on this.
If wealth contributes significantly to power in our “shamocracy”, migh the Gini coefficient be an effective, if indirect, indicator/measure of the reality of our changing democracy?
In 1979 our Gini Coefficient was 24% and rose to 37% in 2024/25, presumably with the effects of Neoliberalism/Austerity.
Gini is a poor measure. Palma is better but others are available