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.
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.
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?