Den Howlett is an old friend of mine. Readers of this blog have a lot to thank him for. He was the accountant and tech specialist who persuaded me that I really should start blogging, way back in 2006. As I occasionally tell him, he's the person who changed my life by doing so.
For about a decade between then and now, Den was in the US, but then retired and came back here. We kept in touch. Last night, he posted this comment on the blog, picking up on one dimension of his life since his return:
@Richard – you know me well so take this as it reads.
As someone who hasn't been political for 50 years I became sufficiently concerned with what I saw that I joined the Labour Party and am now a branch secretary. The theory is that it's better to be inside the tent pissing out than the other way around.
What I can say is that what you see in the public domain is pretty much all there is to see. Some of ‘us' are asking the exact same questions many here, including your good self. Answers are thin on the ground and some of our leaders are borderline idiots, promoted well beyond their capabilities beyond those required to get elected. Trust me – I've met a handful.
What I have said many times is:
1 – Party comms are shambolic and whoever is in charge needs firing. Witness the Starmer/Gaza fiasco which IS affecting wards and constituencies.
2 – Labour needs experts and not the Big 4. It needs the expertise of those who have been IN the care/NHS systems.
3 – the Party's understanding of tech is appallingly poor and misguided. I could give some embarassing examples.
4 – Reeves is backing herself into a corner that will almost certainly torpedo her aspirations.
In short, Labour needs to get REAL experts who know WTAF they're doing or risk a one term meltdown with Reform charging through the middle in 2028-29.
Labour really should be listening to people like Den Howlett.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Very enlightening if only to confirm our worst fears.
I agree – a fine blog – but very disturbing & confirming what we have been saying/fearing. The comment on Tice, fills me with dread.
I have 4 books on a “Future UK”. Obvs: 1984. Then a “State of Denmark” – which has an ending that is both believable and terrifying. Trajectories by Julian Rathbone. This is by far the most likely and ends with a civil war kicking off and lastly Two Tribes. The latter two books feature a climate ravaged future and a highly disfunctional UK (in fact it has fallen apart).
Can’t help but feel we’re truly in Orwellian times not just “1984” but “Animal Farm” and a sort of inverse Orwell mockery where the more feeble minded animals aren’t chanting “Four legs good, two legs bad” but “Market fundamentalism good, government intervention bad!” Such can be the only interpretation of Starmer’s latest pronouncement which is about as feeble minded as they come!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/04/keir-starmer-labour-fiscal-rules-green-investment-targets
He and his supporters could never be accused of sweating the details about how democratic, economic and monetary processes work! In consequence the country now has kindergarten politics of the mindless chanting variety as a substitute.
“The Labour leader told an audience in Bristol on Thursday that he would not borrow £28bn to spend on green projects if it meant breaking a separate promise to reduce government debt as a proportion of economic output.”
I don’t think the climate change that is happening gives a sh-t about Starmer and Reeves fiscal rules.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2024/jan/05/uk-weather-storm-henk-rain-flooding-england-latest-news
Disruption across road and rail network in England and Wales, with hundreds of flood warnings in place.
What effect is this having on economic output? I bet it’s not good.
Just this morning I was reflecting on how back in 2017 there was genuine excitement and real hope that an incoming Labour Government would make this country a better place. Now, that notion is almost laughable. How sad!
Labour should be listening to people like you, and Den Howlett should not be in the labour party if that’s how he feels.
The labour party has lost 4 councils already because of their inability to stand up for the people they were elected to serve. It’s said best in this article in labourhub.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/12/17/leading-hastings-councillors-quit-labour-and-form-independent-group/
Ouch….
Most painfully, I do not regard it as coincidence that nearly all the local members who have been barred from running locally or nationally or who have been suspended or expelled from the party are black, brown or Jewish – and mostly women.
Mrs Jones,
I will be reporting you to your local branch for splittism, defeatsim, disloyalty and a couple of other ‘isms which I have not quite yet worked out but will do so in the fullness of time. Shame on you when you should be supporting the dear leader in his time of need. Honestly what is the party coming to.
Sarcasm will get you everywhere Mike
I rejoined the Labour Party/Momentum during the Corbyn years.
I was astounded by sclerotic and technophobic nature of the campaign apparatus of the LP (not Momentum which was new and full of younger and dynamic people).
When out knocking on doors the LP uses an ancient paper-based system “the boards” which was obsolete decades ago. I imagine it will be using this system in the next general election too. Other parties use apps, I believe.
I did wonder if it was intended deliberately to fail, in my darker moments, as part of the party seem not really to want to win power.
I left the instant Kid Starver was installed and haven’t regretted it at all.
Didn’t the labour party have to go back to the oldstyle method because of data breaches and a ransomware attack?
Well, that’s the official version. Not saying it was an inside job however, but certainly a convenient opportunity to take membership data offline for many months and thereby prevent ordinary members from organising against the rightwing coup.
I was a member then. Are you saying they lied to the membership about that?
One doesn’t need to have a particularly dark moment to appreciate that a significant part of the LP machine actually didn’t want to win an election if Corbyn/McDonnell were at the helm. They – and their co-conspirators in the media – would literally rather the LP lose the election and condemn the country to years of catastrophic Tory government than have the Corbyn team form the next government. Alas, that is exactly what happened. So I don’t for a minute believe that all the hand-wringing, for example, in the Guardian, over the last few years about the iniquities of the various Tory governments is anything more than crocodile tears. These people knew exactly what they were doing, and bear a heavy responsibility for the suffering that ensued for many people in this country.
Succinct, direct and insightful and as PSR says it confirms our fears.
Two observations on Den’s experience.
First, having said what he has, he won’t be tolerated as Branch Secretary or any other office holder for much longer. On the evidence we have dissent is not allowed in Starmer’s Labour, and in any case he gives himself away as too left-wing (i.e. what would once have been considered right of the centre).
Second, the type of consultant/consultancy the Labour Party is using (and is endemic in government and has been for decades now) are there for two related reasons: a. to make sure they are well positioned to continue in consultancy roles once Labour is in government; and, b. to influence policy thinking and development along lines that are likely to create more opportunities they can benefit from, whilst also being ideologically aligned with the values and beliefs of the consultancy (in most consultancies I’m aware of we can be fairly sure of what these are).
An additional advantage of relying on consultants rather than bringing in what Den refers to as ‘real’ experts is that consultants will almost always tell you what you want to hear – or what you’ve told them (perhaps in not so many words) you want to hear.
Anyone whose worked in an organisation where consultants have been brought in to ‘sort out’ organisational problems (be they human or technological) can vouch for this (hence the accuracy of the old adage about consultants borrowing your watch and then charging you to tell you the time).
This contrasts with experts who are frequently not so reliable at delivering the message that those in authority/power want to here (think of the recent COP event, the COVID inquiry, or indeed the ongoing discussion on this blog of what constitutes government debt).
Of course, there are always exceptions that prove the rule. I spent 20 years teaching masters students who worked across a wide range of organisations, large and small, government, public and private sector and many of them had or did work as some form of consultant, so I’m well aware of the pressure many consultants are subject to when it comes to findings and outcomes, or making recommendations.
And, finally, and as I noted above, those who hire consultants – or in the case of the Labour Party, are ‘loaned’ them, would have to be pretty dim to not realise what the quid pro qua is. In short, consultant – rather than experts – are there for a reason. Period.
Thanks, Ivan
It depends on what sort of consultants they are using and what they are using them for. Policy? Party organisation? Election planning? Communication (!)? I have been on both sides of several fences on this – not political parties though – and have seen and been both good and bad practice from both sides. There are also plenty of delinquent clients out there who don’t welcome – and therefore shelve – bad, or challenging news. Been on both sides of that as well.
The problem is wider. I have been struck by the sudden impact on the public of the Post Office scandal. This has been running for 20 years, and is not yet nearly over, still less fixed. Nobody has been brought to account. Nobody.
The scandal is also notable because not a single institution in Britain is entirely free from guilt, or endemic indifference to injustice on a near industrial, but certainly identifiably corporate scale. The Post Office failed on a catastrophic scale; the Government (Labour, Conservative and even LibDem), as the sole owner of the Post Office, which has Crown powers; the egregious failure of Parliament to tackle the problem in timely manner, or with sufficient focus on justice; the Media; the Law; all part of a list of utter wanton failures of the worst kind of widespread injustice and monstrous outrage, inflicted on ordinary innocent people that is not yet adequately addressed. The bland, insipid response of the Current postal service Minister, Kevin Hollinrake MP on the Nicky Campbell’s radio programme (BBC Radio 5) full of ‘takes time’, ‘due course’ and even ‘our job is to find out who is responsible’. Not Good Enough. Governments and Parliament have already failed; justice delayed is justice denied. It is already too late for those who have died. Fine for Hollinrake to allow the Enquiry to do its work; and to find who is responsible, and – I trust – prosecute them; but set these matters to one side. Fix the compensation now. This is the Government’s responsibility alone; it owns the Post Office (which acts with Crown authority – a lethal combination for people caught in a web of deceit or mismanagement). Only the Government can fix it. There is no hiding place now, and I trust we are not going to see years of further delay and obsfucation; because we have seen this Government deploy delay and obfuscation day and daily for thirteen years, on almost every subject under the sun.
What has struck me is the number of older conservative/Conservative minded people who have been deeply angered and shocked by the ITV drama (Mr Bates v. the Post Office) on the scandal. It has brought home to a very wide public the endemic inadequacy and basic, unforgivable rottenness of our institutions, in a way that media news simply fails to deliver, in its pastel-shaded monotony of bad news and mendacious propoganda; the real human impact of our appalling, decayed, indifferent and mendacious governing and corporate institutions in action at a level they fully understand. I think the impact on this constituency will leave its mark, one way or another. It is all utterly unforgivable.
To me it speaks to the corruption and systemic failure of our institutions. The drama usefully revealed a deep contrast between the underlying values and attitudes of the sub-postmasters/postmistresses, and the values of and attitudes of those in positions of power in Government of corporate institutions. The reason for that contrast, I submit, is the kind of people who are attracted to the corporate or government world; and who are allowed to succeed in either sphere. The problem is there.
The striking, and distinctive feature of Mr Bates in the drama at least (I am in no position to go further); is his complete independence of mind. It is his resilient and unflagging independence of mind that set him apart from everybody he dealt with, whether in government, the Post Office, the media, or the law. Such a person would typically never be allowed to thrive in a corporate or government setting. What such institutions crave is easily moulded clones, eagerly reflecting the mind-set that already exists in the institution. It is not an environment that has ideas, or is capable of deep reflection. I have observed this degraded characteristic of well established corporate institutions at least, only too often in life. It is a defining feature of the set. New corporate ventures that are the work of single entrepreneurs are often prey, rather to the inflated ego or hubris of the founder; or become the victims of corporate predators who then introduce the cloned executives and values of the established corporate institution.
I might have added that Mr Bates was distinguishable for his personal fortitude; but although fortitude may not be a predisposition natural to the corporate world, it is nevertheless provided by the institution’s inherent corporate fortitude, courtesy of the powers and resources it alreay possesses as an institution; in the Post Office’s case, the Crown.
Free thinking is the greatest danger to the corporate person/persona. That is one reason why it is so rare. It involves considerable risk.
I is interesting that the FT reports an IPPR report that now concludes that “The current approach to running public service organisations in Britain is based on a ‘fundamental flaw’ regarding ‘what motivates people and drives change'”. Who knew? Just about everyone not besotted by the neoliberal canon for the last forty years. The reporter, and the IPPR apparently blunders on: that the ideas of the New Policy Management credo that has been the centre of policy since the 1980s was “reward and punishment”, but “scientists, psychologists and behavioural economists” now think that motivation is actually unlocked by “competence (mastery), autonomy (choice) and relationships (connection)”.
Who knew? Just about everyone not besotted by the neoliberal canon for the last forty years. Why on earth would the IPPR, or indeed anyone with the least common sense rely on an economist to vouch for knowledge of human psychology, including human motivation? They have virtually no training in psychology, they have not the foggiest notion about how to apply it, and their papers are deeply ignorant of the subject. The economists should stick to their single party-trick; mathematical formula that work only in hypothetical worlds that don’t exist, never existed, and never will exist.
Remember IPPR is just another ‘think tank’ largely staffed by young people with no real world experience and qualified by a degree or two (maybe) in economics which was largely intended to indoctrinate them. Of course they’re shocked that the world does not work the way they were told, but it should not be news, and yet the FT treats it as such.
There’s a reason why education in our schools is very much based on rote learning. The last thing any government wants to do is to arm children with the skills to reason for themselves as they would inevitably come to the conclusion that the economic and political regime we work under is no longer fit for purpose and would demand change, starting with a much fairer distribution of access to the wealth of the planet and decisions being made for the good of all, rather than the relatively small rich and super rich.
Agreed
John Warren – everything you’ve said about the Post Office scandal is spot on (and its wider applicability to other public service institutions).
The Post Office scandal is a very serious miscarriage of justice watched over by incompetent politicians playing at being managers.
https://theconversation.com/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office-depicts-one-of-the-uks-worst-miscarriages-of-justice-heres-why-so-many-victims-didnt-speak-out-220513
The person I find most reprehensible in the post office scandal is Paula Vennells, the CEO, who was also an anglican priest at the time.
How on earth she can live with herself I do not know.
500k signatures already for her to be stripped of her CBE.
Suddenly the news media are reporting that prosecutions are being considered. Out of the blue. The power of drama; when it hits home.
The spineless have decided they have to act fast; because the British public have suddenly woken up to discover that if it can happen to sub-postmasters/sub-postmistresses – it could happen to anyone; it could happen to them, or theirs. And then they realised that all that lay between them and disaster was a Government and Parliament that was full of of passive, indifferent self-seekers who will only let them down; and a Law and Media that may fail them: just like that.
The reaction is not a Pauline conversion on the road to Damascus; it is pure self-preservation. This crew will sink back into the Stew of Indifference, from which they briefly emerge, just as soon as possible. they have far more important vested interests to serve.
Apparently fifty new victims have appeared from nowhere, after the TV series broadcast. Here is the problem. I think Kevin Hollinrake MP, the Minister for the Post Office, said yesterday (my recollection at least), that if anyone felt they had been a victim, to come forward. That is all very well – BUT:
No. No. No. This is a cop-out. The Post Office and Government, it’s owners; have had 20 years to investigate every single case of alleged fraud caused by the Horizon system. It is part of the public outrage that we now have politicians claiming it isincumbent on the victims, effectively to rescue themselves.
Go and find them ALL – you complete idiots!
These subpostmasters did not appear from nowhere. If you read the link to the conversation you will see that there are lots who do not want to be identified. Would you? Would you want all the people in your village who trusted you to now shun you as they do not know what or who to believe?
Jenw,
My point is that the government can find them by investigating the Post Office records (unless they have been destroyed – which is worse; but the Post Office must have complete records at least of who their sub-postmasters/mistresses are)/were. It should not rely on self-identification. The government can do this in confidence. They need not descend on the victims in an obvious way () HMRC is their agent, after all and can manage taxation in a confidential manner.
I wish to ensure the government fixes the problem; we have all had enough of fudges, failures and whitewashes. I have written to my MP, and attached my comments here, to make my position abundantly clear. Please note that even today, while the police are flapping around with tardy prosecutions – still not a word about fast compensation; which is ENTIRELY under the control of the government. More fudge and obfuscation; look over there, not here.
It has to stop. I suggest everyone writes to their MP; whether they do anything, you will make them nervous if they do nothing – rightly.
Jeremy Hunt MP had the audacity to say today (BBC Radio ‘today’) that he had an excellent local sub-postmaster in his West Surrey constituency, who was treated very badly. Hunt has been the MP for West Surrey since 2005, apparently; what has he done to right the appalling wrong, in the last eighteen years? Quite obviously not enough. Hunt – you are a failure.
He offered the usual runaround when challenged over Bates demand to act quickly and cut through the bureaucracy; the government has already spent £150m on this (they throw out what they hope looks like a big figure to the average person, without providing any evidence it was well directed or spent on the people who most needed help, or explains why it has stalled so badly; I doubt if he even knows). Then he says he is going to act quickly…. blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, yeah. Heard it all before. Over and over again.
Jenw,
My point is different. The Government and Post Office want the victims to come forward. This is the wrong way round. The Government and Post Office should have assiduously established the precise extent of their own egregious failure, in every single case; and the exact extent of the individual victim’s loss. It should be incumbent for the Government to approach the victims, and not wait for them to emerge.
There is no need for this to be public; it can be achieved with discretion and in confidence. HMRC is a Government institution; they have been handling personal tax matters confidentially for centuries. The government could therefore handle it readily enough if they wanted to; they have the expertise and discretion available. Why wouldn’t they do it? The advantages of delay and obfuscation. It happens every time there is a Government scandal that will cost a lot of money. The Treasury prevaricates because the priority is to minimise cost; not do the right thing.
One question not being asked is why it only happened with sub-postmasters but not crown offices who used the same system.
Could it be because the government does not want to investigate itself as owners of crown offices?
Apropos the education system. The creation of league tables, Key Stage testing and STEM focus, beloved of OFSTED ranking, determined that all schools devote interminable hours to rote learning. New Labour is as at fault as the Tories.
What disappeared? PE, arts, crafts, all doors to literacy and numeracy, and most pertinent to Alex Ferries comment, anything that developed Critical Thinking. We now, courtesy of diktat, have the situation where Geography is not supposed to refer to a climate crisis, Sociology to BLM or critical race theory or use any materials from sources critical of Capitalism (which rules out Marx, neo Marxists, a large number of feminists, etc). This is deliberate.
When teaching I constantly refer to the facts, and pose dilemmas for the students to investigate and debate, although many don’t like to as they have arrived at Post16 based on rote learning.
What is truly sad is that the younger teachers have been brought up in this system and see folks like me and my older colleagues as ‘dinosaurs’. They don’t understand politics, economics, the role of trade unions, indeed many are staggeringly ignorant of anything outside a narrow specialism.
I have said before that the Thatcher project, the neoliberals, the rich etc, have won. The vision of a better future for the UK collapsed when Starmer was elected.
Thank you
A great deal to agree with
So many undergraduates arrive at university unable to a) think b) explain themsleves in writing