Reflections on Cultural relativism

The original idea for this post turned into a bit of an essay so I’ve decided to split it into two. This first one covers my experience learning about cultural relativism. The next covers cultural relativism as applied to asset management (i.e. my day job).

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realised the value in combining my experiences rather than trying to keep parts of my life totally separate.

Sometimes this is described as “bringing our whole selves to everything that we do” in contrast to “wearing different hats” for the different roles we play in life.

I wouldn’t say it’s better to be all one or the other- but instead I’m trying to have the right balance that works for me, and helps me to deliver at my best.

In this regard - something I spend a lot of time thinking about in my role as a charity director at The Watford African Caribbean Association, is culture.

TL;DR

• Ethnocentrism, the idea that one’s own culture is superior, stems from ignorance.

• Cultural Relativism helps us understand that there is no “universal” standard for right or wrong.

• We can still seek to define right from wrong, but we should avoid assuming that something is wrong because it is different.

• A more inclusive understanding of culture leads to better outcomes for everyone.

Cultural Ethnocentrism

The Watford African Caribbean Association is all about creating a positive impact in Watford and the surrounding areas whilst celebrating our African and Caribbean heritage.

Unfortunately, this means we occasionally run into people who object to the celebration of our heritage. The attitude is generally summarised as ‘if you’re in Britain then you should assimilate entirely to British values’.

Although the typical person holding these views wouldn’t likely describe it as such, this is known as ethnocentrism: the idea that one’s own culture is superior.

Generally this originates in ignorance of the many positive (and sometimes superior) aspects of other cultures, born from institutional and social biases (it’s normal to know the more about your own immediate “tribe” than that of others who are further away).

But also relevant is a phenomenon that has been described as the epistemology of ignorance (from “The Racial Contract” by Charles W. Mills) : the idea that rather than viewing ignorance simply as a passive absence of knowledge, ignorance can be an active, often intentional, aspect of society that shapes power dynamics, social structures, and systems of oppression of some groups or empowerment of other groups.

When certain information is intentionally obscured, de-emphasised, or denied, we create cultural blind spots that reinforce dominant perspectives and maintain social inequalities.

Mills wrote about ignorance in the context of race, but the mechanism described has philisophical similarities to feminism and the idea of the patriarchy, and is generally useful in understanding how we, as humans, structure ourselves, our ideas, our customs, and our social behaviours.

Think about the biases in how we teach history in the UK - my experience was mostly kings and queens and then world wars 1 and 2, a bit of the falklands war, and that was pretty much it. I understand most people will have (or had) a similar experience.

It’s extremely rare to see much more than a quick mention of the British Empire (good or bad), or the transatlantic slave trade, or how Jesus was not in fact a white man from Oxford but was actually a Jewish man from the Middle East, or for that matter how the bulk of mathematical theory originated in Ancient Egypt, Ancient India, Ancient Greece, and Ancient China. The list could go on- but the point is - we choose what we teach our children (who become the adults in society) and those choices will impact how rounded or biased our society is towards different cultures.

Cultural Relativism

The answer to ethnocentrism is cultural relativism. The principle in anthropology and sociology that a person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person’s own culture, rather than judged by the criteria of another culture.

Cultural relativism emphasises that there is no “universal” standard for right or wrong; rather, each culture’s norms and values are viewed as products of its unique history, environment, and social circumstances.

This is not to say that we should blindly accept someone else’s actions because of their cultural heritage.

For example, I would absolutely insist that Female Genital Mutilation is barbaric and wrong regardless of any cultural or social factors that might lead to FGM.

The point is, when we come to form our opinions/laws we should do so with the full perspective of behaviors and customs in the full cultural context.

Put simply, we can still say something is wrong. But we should not just dismiss something as wrong because it is different.

Practices that may seem unusual or objectionable in one society may hold significant meaning and function in another, and thus should be understood in those terms to gain a balanced perspective.

Celebrating Diversity of Culture

I’d actually go further- when we incorporate other cultures into our own, we can end up with something much better for everyone.

I mentioned the empire earlier, there was an awful lot of bad stuff that happened under the umbrella of “the British Empire”. However a lot of good happen as well.

My existence is down to the post war British Nationality Act 1948 which gave people from colonies the right to live and work in Britain. People in the Caribbean were invited to the UK to help rebuild post-war Britain, which is how it came to be that my father moved from Barbados to England. The Windrush generation experienced hardships and faced prejudices- but they also joined the local populace, made connections, fell in love, and produced children (like me, hurrah!).

Likewise we could consider food - how many fantastic foods are a fusion of cuisines, from flavour combinations and inspirations all the way to dishes entirely invented to cater to different tastes and preferences (looking at you Korma).

Or how about music- where modern music is almost entirely permutations and combinations of influences from music from all around the world.

I could go on - I’m not going to attempt to describe all culture ever. I think the point is that cultural relativism goes both ways, the good and the bad. We should not combat the ethnocentric narrative exclusively with contrarianism. When you live in a society- it’s likely that within that society there will be a certain amount of bias towards the prevailing culture. It’s not a helpful response to blindly attack the dominant culture. If two wrongs don’t make a right then two biases don’t make balance.

Balance comes from destroying ignorance - by learning and celebrating our diversity of cultures and trying to find the best combinations for a given situation.

Cultural relativism in asset management

Obviously cultural differences exist in infrastructure organisations (and in all businesses), both locally to a given organisation as well as when comparing organisations in different countries and regions.

That was going to be the subject of this post but given the length I’ll split that out into its own post.

Thanks!

Thanks for reading! As always, if you enjoyed this, the best compliment you could give me would be to share this with someone else who might enjoy it. If you’d like to be notified of future posts, please do join my mailing list here and I’ll drop you an email. I won’t use your details for any other purpose and I promise not to spam you with content.

To address climate change, political mandates need to get less political

(Quick note - while this is slightly political, I’m trying not to make it about individual politicians or political parties. For the avoidance of doubt, all views are my own).

TLDR

• Climate change is real, caused by humans, and this is bad.

• The ULEZ (on balance) is good.

• Political wrangling is making it harder to form a coherent strategy on the scale required to address climate change.

Short story long…

(views are my own!)

The climate is still changing and it’s still because of human activity

While it’s difficult to point at a specific event as evidence for a trend in something as massively complex as the earth’s climate, the current out of control wildfires do make for a dramatic and very visual representation of global warming.

A firefighter walks next to rising flames as a wildfire burns near the village of Vati, on the island of Rhodes, Greece, July 25, 2023. REUTERS/Nicolas Economou

The scientific consensus strongly supports the idea that human activities, especially the emission of greenhouse gases, are the primary drivers of modern climate change. You don’t need to take that statement at face value - there are heaps of studies and climate models that have all come to the same conclusion:

The IPCC

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is an authoritative international body that assesses scientific research related to climate change. Their assessment reports are based on extensive research conducted by thousands of scientists worldwide. These reports consistently show that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are the primary drivers of global warming and climate change. The latest IPCC reports and supporting information are available on their website.

The CMIP

The CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) is a collaborative effort among climate modeling centers worldwide to improve and compare climate models. The CMIP models have been used extensively to study climate change and its potential impacts. While CMIP models encompass a range of scenarios, the majority of them demonstrate that human activities significantly influence the observed climate change. The CMIP and their model data is accessible through the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) website.

NASA

NASA's Global Climate Change centre provide comprehensive information on climate change, including the role of human activities. NASA's scientists have contributed significantly to understanding climate change through satellite observations, data analysis, and climate modeling. On their website, you can find various articles, reports, and visualizations that support the conclusion that climate change is largely caused by human activities.

Point being, climate change is real and human made greenhouse gases are the cause.

Was the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election a referendum on the ULEZ?

So in the context of the planet being on fire, we come to the recent Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election results, where it’s been widely reported that the election became a referendum on the expansion of the ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ), which is an environmental policy of the current Elected Mayor of London.

This seems to have raised the idea that pushing back against action to tackle climate change is somehow a vote winner.

The assumption being that if the by-election was a referendum on ULEZ, then ULEZ lost. But did it?

In reality elections are messy and complicated- and while I’m sure some people were swayed by the ULEZ issue - most voters have multiple, often contradictory reasons to vote one way or another. Beware anyone offering single issues: it’s the economy complicated stupid.

Either way, the outcome from the election has been lots of political analysis and questioning about whether the public will vote for environmental initiatives like ULEZ. I’ve heard it positioned as: most people want to stop climate change but most people don’t want to accept any inconveniences to do so.

This is obviously nonsense and pretty insulting to the public.

The majority of people accept that climate change is happening. Most people are capable of understanding the concept. Most (two thirds in recent polling) people agree we need to take more action.

And I really don’t think people are so short sighted that they’re unprepared to be inconvenienced. I think we as a society- and especially our political leaders - have failed to articulate a coherent strategy that people can buy into.

A single consideration like ULEZ can be a hard sell in isolation. But ULEZ in the context of everything else would be palatable.

I’ve written before in support of the ULEZ and while it’s not perfect it is on balance a good initiative.

The ULEZ as part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

So in that context, I’d highly recommend reading the Mayors transport strategy.

(Note: I didn’t have anything to do with writing it but have been involved in helping to implement bits of it through my day job.)

I won’t comment on the strategy directly (aforementioned day job). However I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that because it needs to be a political document as much as an actual practical strategy there some compromises in it that require interpretation.

I mean - That’s baked in. An elected mayor’s transport strategy is going to be linked to the elected mayor’s democratic mandate.

The Political and Strategic context of the ULEZ

The impact of the mayor’s transport strategy being political is that TfL’s funding is also political.

So in that context, we should consider the current settlement between the DfT and TfL, which intends for London to be the biggest city in the world without a public subsidy for its public transport network:

“…TfL will … fund day-to-day operations through our normal revenue sources…”

How TfL is Funded

In my view this is quite a cynical political play by our government- to underfund London’s transport infrastructure, force the Mayor to raise local funding through things like the ULEZ, then attack the Mayor for implementing the ULEZ in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election. Presumably this will continue in the coming mayoral elections.

I guess the most charitable interpretation would be that the government genuinely feels that there isn’t enough money at a national level to fund regional transport, and that this should be funded by the users locally. If this is the case, it’s a pretty flawed concept. It’s well known that better public transport is better for the environment and better for the local economy encouraging investment and worker mobility. When we make it easier for people to get from where they live to where the jobs are and it’s easier for companies to find workers. Cars are inefficient and low capacity compared to buses and trains.

Let’s be clear, the conspiratorial styled reporting that the ULEZ is about TfL raising funds, is true. TfL have to raise revenue and the ULEZ is a way of generating revenue. There’s actually a pretty strong argument that, if funds have to be raised, then raising them from road vehicles is worth it to subsidise public transport which is more energy efficient, more economically efficient and better for the environment.

Again being clear, if the ULEZ is generating money then that does by design mean less money in the pockets of people. I find it disingenuous when arguments are made that X group won’t be impacted, or that it’s fair because of Y accommodation. Money is changing hands and that will have an economic impact. And while it is quite easy for someone driving a modern ULEZ compliant car  to down play the effort of navigating the system to replace a noncompliant vehicle- it should not be forgotten that the people most likely to be driving a non compliant people are also the least likely to be able to navigate the system. I grinds my gears how quick people can be to judge others we know nothing about. There’s a whole other world that people live within right under our noses. Households of Multiple Occupation: literally multiple whole families living in houses originally built for one. People working multiple minimum wage jobs to put food on the table. These people are the most likely to be effected and most likely to struggle work out what to do about it. I digress…

Another huge problem with the ULEZ charges is that the charges aren’t being fully offset by discounts to more environmentally friendly alternatives.

Needing to be self funded, TfL are now making tough decisions about which services it can afford, and what services need to be reduced, how they can make the limited funding go further and how they can increase revenues.

Inevitably this means that TfL investment in environmental initiatives is going constrained. There are always financial constraints- however it would seem the current constraints on London are significantly harsher than any equivalent sized city in the western world.

Unhelpful Politics

For me, one thing that is very frustrating about all of this is the lack of coordination with national strategy or policy. Climate change is such a big of a threat to humanity, we need an aligned approach from national strategy through to local implementation. We don’t have time to be messing around here.

One of the most consistent arguments made by the engineering community is to separate short term politics from long term transport strategy. Given we’re staring down the barrel of climate change we need meaningful actual policy, objectives, strategies and plans.

The big challenge for London / south east will always be getting political organisations lined up.

An example of misalignment local to where I live

Consider the (now indefinitely postponed) metropolitan line Watford extension, which for a relatively modest investment would have significantly improved connectivity (more people closer to public transport options) and functional resilience (alternative journeys in case of closure of one of the lines). It would objectively be the best thing for the people of Watford and for the people of London.

Despite it mostly being funded by the public, the flow of money got mashed up within different authorities (National, County, Borough, London) who couldn’t get aligned on who should fund what and by how much.

The three main UK political parties were represented and when the project collapsed they all blamed each other.

It is easy to blame individual politicians for failing to prioritise the scheme - however each authority’s internal incentives ultimately caused them to make the decisions they did. The answer is to provide unifying incentives external to each authority, but aligned to a common strategy. Again - we need a coherent strategy to respond to climate change. We need leadership and vision.

One of the central ideas we’ve been pushing at The Centre for Asset Studies has been about alignment. One of our first papers we published discussed a proposed plan for northern infrastructure investment to create a single urban centre with sufficient economic gravity to rebalance the UK economy.

While that proposal is an interesting line of thought, a plan that grand would depend on a lot of people getting behind it. Big improvements are possible: there are countless feats of engineering that demonstrate this is the case. But for any of that to happen we need clear leadership and vision.

Thanks for reading

Appreciate this post was a bit longer than usual, and skated around some political issues.

If you enjoyed reading this one (or didn’t), please let me know. Always keen for feedback!

And as ever, if you did enjoy it, the best compliment you could give me would be to share it with someone who you think would like it!
Lastly - if you haven’t already subscribed, please do so here to get occasional updates on posts or publications.

Reflecting on my time as a Political Party Diversity and Inclusion Officer

I recently left my position as the Diversity and Inclusion Officer for a local political party where I live. I had a lot of fun, met some amazing people, and learnt lots about diversity, inclusion, and local politics. 

I was also able to create a positive impact in the party and my local community. Now it feels like a good time for me to move on to new challenges, and for someone with fresh ideas, fresh thinking and fresh energy to move things forward.

I will still remain an activist in the party, and I am really excited about the party’s future.

Three things I learnt from the role:

TL;DR (1) People are different. (2) Diversity and Inclusion pledges are good. (3) People should get involved in local politics. 

Short story long…

(1) We all have certain privileges and certain disadvantages in life.

It is useful to put conscious effort into empathising with others to try to understand their experience, and to understand how those experiences can shape who they are, and how they present themselves. Notably:

• The most outwardly happy people might be feeling low.

• Those projecting confidence might feel insecure.

• The dour can be friendly and witty.

• People who are quiet are often passionate about their beliefs.

The point being - different people are different (obviously). It is foolish to behave as if people are the same. 

One practical consideration from this, is that the things that make some people feel safe and comfortable, will not work for others. If we design workshops, meetings, socials, or activities to be the same way every time, then we will make some people feel very comfortable every time and others excluded.

(2) Pledges are useful

After extensive engagement with the party Membership and Officers, I helped create the party’s Diversity and Inclusion Pledge. This pledge is shared with new members and prospective candidates to represent the party.

You can read the full pledge here:

I am fully aware that nice pledges, policies and platitudes by themselves don’t create change. However, a good pledge, endorsed by the party leadership, can have a positive impact.

The engagement around the ideas of diversity and inclusion pulled us together as an executive team. It was useful to be reminded of the core values and wider purpose of why we turn up to volunteer for the party. The pledge also triggered conversations within our membership, motivated action, and gave license for people to start to create tangible change.

A pledge doesn’t “solve” diversity and inclusion but it is a pretty decent step on the journey.

(3)“Politics” is loaded with preconceptions and distrust. It shouldn’t be.

It’s sad, but the most common response to me sharing that I volunteer in local politics is “oh that sort of thing isn’t for me”. 

And I might also note that the people who are most likely to respond with “me too” or “where do I sign up” are typically middle aged heterosexual cisgender white men. CLEARLY there is nothing wrong with those people participating. But it is noteworthy that the demographics of people who are typically politically active do not match the demographics of the people they would seek to represent.

This demographic mismatch is important, because the mismatch between people and politicians, results in our social and economic system being designed from limited perspectives. To give a very clear example of this- up until recently women’s sanitary products were taxed as “luxury items”. I don’t suppose this was a deliberate or malicious decision - it was just that the historically male dominated parliament simply did not experience or even see the issue. It has only been since parliament has become more balanced, and following a concerted campaign of over two decades that the tampon tax will be scrapped. BBC News article on scrapping of the tampon tax.

Why is political participation is so low? Well at a national level, corruption and cronyism are endemic. I don’t want to go into negative ramble - instead I highly recommend checking out the Good Law Project for details about ongoing corruption and how to fight it - goodlawproject.com

But having said that- local politics is actually pretty good. Every politician I’ve worked with has genuinely wanted to make a positive difference. Even my interactions with politicians from other parties has generally been positive. And more importantly, there are many charity and community groups engaged in making our community a better place to live. And although most local charities don’t class themselves as political, they by necessity work with local government to coordinate and support each other.

I guess what I’m saying, is that while our individual abilities to make an impact at a national level are limited, and that reading national press is isolating and disempowering, I would highly recommend that anyone and everyone should get involved in local community groups - like political parties, charities or other groups - because it both connecting and empowering. It makes our communities better and also enriches our lived experience.

P.S.

If you enjoyed this article, the best compliment you could give me would be to share it with someone else who might like it.

P.P.S

You can also subscribe to my blog here -

Diversity and Inclusion Pledge for the Watford Liberal Democrats

After extensive engagement with the Watford Liberal Democrat Membership and Party Officers, I helped create the party’s Diversity and Inclusion Pledge.

This pledge is shared with new members and all prospective candidates to represent the party. It is aligned with the party constitution and is built from core Liberal Democrat values.

---

The full pledge is as follows:

Diversity & Inclusion Pledge

Diversity and Inclusivity are at the heart of what we do in the Watford Liberal Democrats.

I believe in the constitution of the Liberal Democrats. Specifically, I believe in building and safeguarding a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

To the best of my endeavours I commit to championing the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, and I acknowledge and respect individuals right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full.

All humans have equal value regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion, age or any other attribute.

I believe that we should all be free to love and enter into consensual relationships with anyone we choose regardless of gender or sexuality.

I value the uniqueness of individuals: although we are all different, we all have equal value as human beings.

I believe that humans are better when we work together, I will seek to bring together, and represent, all members of the community in which I live.

I will engage with, and actively listen to, all those who will be affected by decisions made through the functioning of the local party, and any of my roles in any levels of government.

I believe that our local party is at its best when we enable all our members, activists, and volunteers to be at their best.

I believe that having all our members included and active maximises the productivity of the party, brings in new and different ideas, and most importantly, enriches our shared human experience.

I pledge to champion diversity and inclusivity through my role in the Watford Liberal Democrats and any elected position.

Responding to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report

I recently drafted the Watford Liberal Democrat Statement on the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report.

It’s sad that it still needs to be said that racism is bad, racism exists, and it is the moral duty of those with power to take action to end racism.

The Government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities missed the opportunity to make a clear, bold statement on the state of race equality in this country, to expose the real issues and to make recommendations that would address them in a decisive and comprehensive manner.

Racism in the UK in 2021

The evidence and impact of racism in the UK is overwhelming - ethnic minority communities are at a disadvantage in almost all sectors of society:

In education, the difference in attainment between white working-class children and black Caribbean (British) heritage children is negligible. However, after leaving school, white working-class children are significantly more likely to be taken on into work and will likely earn more while in work.

Black Caribbean and mixed-race students are three times more likely to be expelled from school, when found to have committed similar offences to white students.

In healthcare, black women in the UK have a mortality rate which is five times higher than the UK average and have an infant mortality rate which is twice that of the UK average.

In the justice system, black men are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched. Young black people (under 16s) are more likely to be given a criminal record for the same crimes as white children.

Also overlooked are the disproportionate impacts of Covid on black communities, and the hostile environment which deported the Windrush generation who came to our country to help us rebuild after the war.

This is especially significant to me, as I am a child of the Windrush Generation. My father was born in Barbados when it was still a British colony. He moved to the UK and served our country as a Commando in the British Armed Forces. The hostile environment – where the government instructed it’s agents to assume that people exactly like my father aren’t British unless they can prove it through a convoluted and extensive process – is outrageous and should be considered a national embarrassment.

All Lives Matter

This report has echoes of the expression that because “All Lives Matter” we don’t need to say that “Black Lives Matter”. Do all lives matter? Yes. Clearly. 100%. As a Liberal Democrat I absolutely believe in equality.

The problem is not the principle that all lives matter. The problem is that we don’t treat all lives as if they mattered equally. The sad truth is that black lives in the UK are not treated as if they have equal worth. And therein lies the problem with the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report – it refuses to acknowledge the lived reality for many people in the UK.

Whilst some of recommendations made in the report are helpful, they fall far short of what could have been achieved.

While I am deeply disappointed in our government, I am not surprised given that our Prime Minster literally called Black People “piccaninnies with watermelon smiles”.

It’s sad that it needs to be repeated: racism is bad, racism exists, and it is the duty of those with power to take action to end racism.

Watford Black History Month 2020 Pub Quiz

Stream our family friendly, Watford Black History Month quiz below. See how many questions you can answer!

I was proud to support Watford Black History Month 2020. As well as co-hosting this quiz with Clive Saunders OBE, I also helped coordinate events and look after the website.

We will remember them.

Today is Remembrance Sunday- an anniversary used to remember all the people who have died in wars. 

Remembrance Day (also known as Armistice Day) will be held on 11 November and marks the day WW1 ended, at 11am on the 11th day of the 11th month, in 1918.

These days are an important part of our shared cultural heritage. The human cost of wars has been felt in every city, town, and village in the UK. 

Every year we remember and honour those who have sacrificed themselves to secure and protect our freedom.

In addition to remembering those lives lost to war, I have donated towards, and helped Lib Dem Councilor’s and activists in Watford put up poppies in north Watford, for 3 main reasons:

1. War exists

2. War is bad

3. We should try to avoid war

War exists

The poppies are part of Remembrance Day: a memorial day observed in the UK and across the Commonwealth to remember the members of their armed forces who have died in the line of duty.

The first remembrance days were held in the shadow of the Great War where as many as 8.5 million soldiers and 13 million civilians died.

In subsequent wars commonwealth servicemen and servicewomen continue to serve, continued to be injured and continue to die.

You may have heard the phrase “we will remember them”. That is what it is all about.

For me, remembrance is absolutely not a celebration of war, and it not about whether specific wars are just or unjust. It is simply about taking time to honour and respect the memories of all those lost.

It is an uncomfortable reminder, that war exists, and while it’s easy to be comfortable in our day to day existence, we should never be complacent.

War is bad

To me it’s quite uncontroversial to state that war is bad. 

I can accept that wars of self defence can be justified and, let’s be clear, fighting the nazi’s was absolutely righteous and a moral necessity.

But as a fundamental position, the hurt and suffering, the economic and social damage, and the trauma, from any war is bad.

After the 1950’s Korean War (in which over 100,000 British troops served) an expression became popular in the USA: “Freedom is not free”. 

There is a cost to liberty, and while we will all individually determine whether the costs are worth paying, the cost itself is bad.

We should try to avoid war

Essentially, If we want to live in peace we must work towards peace.

To quote from President John F. Kennedy’s Strategy for Peace

“Let us focus ... on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned.”

Avoiding war does not require naive unilateral action, but a sustained political effort to find compromises and agreements for mutual benefit.

We owe it to the memory of those before us to avoid making the same mistakes that led to the wars in which they gave so much.

At a time of global tensions between super powers, of climate change, urbanisation, water scarcity, and rising sea levels, the risk of war will continue to grow if we do not actively try to avoid it.

It is paramount that seek out the humanity in others. We must lean into the world through international institutions. We must prioritise shared cultural understanding and the exchange of ideas.

To give the final word back to President Kennedy:

“For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.”

Lockdown Locals

As we enter a second lockdown, I’m worried that local businesses will be hit hard by the reduced footfall. 2020 has been a brutal year with many challenges for many people. sometimes we might feel powerless, thrown about by the avalanche of news and generally rubbish events unfolding.

But we are not powerless. When we come together, humans can achive great things. And one great thing we can all do is support local businesses.

I’ve started a list of businesses local to where I live, who offer a collection service or delivery, with ordering online or by phone.

This list is not exhastive and will need to be continually updated as things change. If you live in north watford, please do share this list with anyone who might find it useful!

The latest government advice on coronavirus can be found at gov.uk/coronavirus.

The North Watford focus Facebook page (which I help moderate) can be found at facebook.com/NorthWatfordFocus.

I’m a local resident and a political activist, trying to make North Watford an even better place to live. If you’re interested, my Facebook page can be found at facebook.com/libdemjoe, and my blog can be found here.

We should be proud that UK foreign aid helped eradicate wild polio in Africa

At a time when the UK’s role in the world is changing and Boris Johnson is trying to minimise UK foreign aid, characterising it a 'cashpoint' in the sky some good news might have slipped past you unnoticed: Wild Polio has been eradicated from the continent of Africa, and UK foreign aid was critical to achieving this long standing humanitarian objective.

I think this news is an important reminder of the massively positive role that the UK has in the world.

We often spend time feeling guilty and critical of our colonial history. We feel under attack. And when we are under attack a very human reaction is to be defensive and to retreat. “If we’re so bad we’re going to retreat into isolationism then”.

But that would be wrong. Britain is one of the richest countries in the world and one of the most powerful. And that wealth and power came from Britain’s relationship with the rest of the world. No man is an island? No island is an island. We are connected to the rest of the world. So the question is not “do we have a relationship?”, but “what kind of relationship do we want to have?”.

Britain is full of kind and generous people: the overwhelming majority of citizens would like the world to be a better place. And that’s why we should be loudly celebrating the UK’s role in the fight against polio, now that Africa has been declared free from wild polio by the independent body, ‘The Africa Regional Certification Commission’.

Support from the UK has helped 220 million children across 47 countries in Africa. That is a big deal.

Polio usually affects children under five, sometimes leading to irreversible paralysis. Death can occur when breathing muscles are affected. Twenty-five years ago thousands of children in Africa were paralysed by the virus.

The disease is now only found in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The UK is one of the top donors to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), which has vaccinated millions of children against polio in the world’s poorest countries. As a result of their work more than 18 million people are able to walk who would otherwise have been paralysed by the virus.

At a time of historic change, where Britain is faced with an opportunity to decide who we want to be in the world, it is vital that we celebrate the good our country has done so that those who represent us in parliament know that we value the successes of UK aid.

I’ve written to my local MP, and I would encourage you to write to your MP to help share and promote the good news:

Dear xxx

I wanted to share my delight in hearing the news that, with considerable UK support, Africa has recently been declared free from wild polio.

This is exactly the kind of initiative that I support, and I am proud of our government’s decision to provide aid for this cause. UK Foreign aid is important and something we should continue to fund.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wild-polio-wiped-out-in-africa-with-uk-aid-support

Maximum National Maximum Trust

Celebrate our shared collective heritage and support those willing to have difficult conversations about our history by joining the national trust today!

nationaltrust.org.uk/join-us

The national trust is a fantastic organisation, and quite unique in the world being the biggest conservation charity in Europe and one of the biggest in the world.

They look after the UK’s coastline, historic sites, countryside and green spaces, ensuring everyone benefits.

On 23rd August the national trust marked the UNESCO day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition, by taking a closer look at the places they care for with direct or indirect links to slavery, including objects made from materials obtained by forced labour.

It was factual, respectful and exactly the kind of conversations we should be having. I didn’t find the thread to be judgemental but just an honest consideration of some of the darker aspects of our history.

You can read the full thread on twitter and the supporting statement on their website.

Regretfully some people were upset about this and have subsequently threatened to cancel their national trust membership.

I’m not going to focus on the mostly ignorant and occasionally hateful responses, but what I would say is this:

If you want to encourage honest and frank reflections about our nation’s links to slavery and colonialism by the national trust, then join up and write to them to let them know why. Or if membership isn’t your bag, just get in touch with the national trust to let them know you appreciate their efforts.

To remember the words of Martin Luther King, Jr:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that”

Be the love. Show your support for the National Trust today!

Why I'm backing Layla

I’m backing Layla Moran to be the next leader of the Liberal Democrats - here’s why.

Empathy

Our character is built by our lived experience. As a BAME, LGBT+, woman, Layla has had experiences that help her truly empathise with others. Layla is already an inspiration to many in our party- and as leader she would have a platform to inspire many across the country.

Competence

Having had a successful career before entering parliament, Layla has real world skills that are useful in her role as an MP and will be useful as the party leader.

Intelligence

Having studied at Imperial, Brunel and UCL it is clear that Layla is highly intelligent. Frankly, there are lots of intelligent people. What makes Layla exceptional is her combination of academic intelligence with emotional intelligence.

Even in a crowded room, when Layla talks to you, it feels personal. We need a charismatic leader that will connect with the public, a new Cleggmania for 2020 (Laylageddon anyone?).

Values

Layla is a true liberal social democrat. While I, personally, often find myself to the right of the party - we need a leader that is able to bridge both our economic liberals and our social democrats. Layla is that leader.

To find out more about Layla Moran MP, her campaign to become Leader of the Liberal Democrats, and to join her campaign go to:

votelayla.org

If All Lives Mattered it wouldn’t be controversial to state that Black Lives Matter

Black lives matter and all lives matter are not mutually exclusive statements. If you genuinely believe that all lives matter then you should support the movement to end racism and treat black lives as equal to white lives.

If you disagree with the statement that black lives matter you’re denying that racism exists. The sad truth is that we currently live in a world where black lives don’t seem to matter as much as white lives.

The whole point of black lives matter is to draw attention to the discrimination and disparities faced by people of colour, to bring everyone in society together, so that together we can fight for a reality where all lives do matter equally.

Photo Credit: Reddit u/Primuri • Jun 5, 2020

Why brilliant MPs fail on national issues (in small parties)

This article focuses on the LibDems but the fundamental concepts apply to UK politics generally.

On the 6th January 2020 Daisy Cooper assumed office as a Member of Parliament for St Albans after more than a decade of local campaigning. A huge victory for the party and shows how years of determined effort can pay off.

In the coming days, MP Daisy Cooper will bring a bill to the House of Commons to “End the use of prison for women, except for the most serious and violent crimes.”

Despite being a bill by the Lib Dems- it is obviously discriminatory and illiberal: men and women should be treated equally before the law. That’s liberalism 101.

This bill, which is currently being promoted by the central party, is sure to fail. (Hopefully without a great deal of press attention). Parliamentary arithmetic is against it, and fundamentally it’s a bad bill which the government will see no reason in adopting (to steal the credit).

More importantly - party members are appalled that their party could be advocating an illiberal change to the justice system. This may well have scuppered Daisy’s chances of winning the LibDem leadership contest.

So, how did such a genuinely brilliant local MP get it so wrong on a national policy issue?

The big issue is that the skills to become an MP are different to the thought leadership required to translate liberal social democracy into a political force.

Local politics is about local issues, and MPs represent a local constituency.

Rightly or wrongly, the truth is that a prospective parliamentary candidate’s policy on bin collections will have more impact than their policy on, as in this case, sentencing guidelines for the justice system.

The LibDems are a smaller party that has to win every vote and is funded by members (rather than unions or a few wealthy individuals). 

With the big think tanks, and political institutions focusing on the big party’s (that are most likely to form a government), smaller partys have a much harder job of doing both local politics and national politics at the same time.

To be blunt - Daisy wasn’t elected for her policy positions on justice- she was elected as a representative of St Albans.

How do we stop local MPs failing on national issues?

Well for a start, MPs are individuals who the public have chosen. The answer isn’t to stop them pursuing bad ideas but to flood them with good ideas. (With Mark Pack’s election as libdem party president I‘m hopeful that the next wave of ideas will be focused on winning votes rather than having interesting but niche fringe debates).

We can examine the rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP): Scottish Nationalism is a single issue, with a simple message, that everyone in the SNP can rally behind. This makes it easier for local activists and politicians to work on local issues on the ground, yet tune into national policy when needed.

How do we “fix” the small party problem for the LibDems?

In simple terms - the party has to get bigger.

In the same way that the party is funded by its members, policy development is going to need to come from its members as well.

More members who are more engaged and active will lead to more, and better thought out, policy.

All party members have a role in this - in being friendly and welcoming. And also in trying to include new members as much as possible.

If you’re not yet a member of the Lib Dems, you can find a local party to get involved with here and join the party here.

If you are a member and/or an activist, mark pack (party president) runs a newswire here.

If you want to know the recent Lib Dem policy positions, the 2019 manifesto is here.

If you have specific ideas about policy development, get in touch with me here and I will do my best to help connect you to the right person or group.

Lastly (but not leastly) if you want to volunteer generally for the libdems, you can get in touch with the central party here.

Labour spin on the NHS

I saw the above misinformation floating around on Facebook and felt compelled to respond…

What’s with that headline? I thought the Lib Dems were pro NHS?

Put simply: Labour spin doctors are trying to portray the Lib Dem’s as enablers of Tory privatisation of the NHS. This is Labour treating the NHS as a political football. And while the Labour position is clearly BS (as I’ll go on to explain below), in fairness to Labour, this is just politicians doing politics. The Lib Dems want to capitalise on their simple pro remain position vs Labour‘s unclear Brexit mess. 

And likewise Labour want to distract from their internal split over Brexit by focusing attention on a simple anti-privatisation of the NHS message. Even more so if they can attack the Lib Dems who are currently polling in second place (behind the conservatives and ahead of labour and the Brexit party. [2]

So what actually just happened?

Basically Labour want to repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 which devolved funding from large centralised NHS Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities to more local Clinical Commissioning Groups (run by GPs).

The act in itself is not about “privatising the NHS” but about moving decision making around spending NHS money closer to the front line staff and their patients.

The act does not provide for any parts of the NHS to be sold off or privatised and actually preserves the commitment for NHS services to be free at the point of use.

Furthermore, the service tendering processes were made more rigorous in the new structure- making private sector involvement more transparent and more efficient [1].

It is really important to emphasise here- the Lib Dem position has been really clear for a very long time on this: the Lib Dems want to raise taxes to provide more money for the NHS, to expand mental health services, and are committed to ensuring the NHS remains free at the point of use.

So did the Lib Dem’s vote for this bill in 2012?

Yes - one of the core Lib Dem values is community. Lib Dems believe that Humans are better when they work together and that local people should have a say in things that effect them.

To repeat - the act is not about privatisation, but about localism.

The current Labour leadership’s default position is that of left wing socialism. They think that, as a rule, private enterprise is bad, people can’t be trusted, and more central government is good. To be reductionist: ‘the government should control every aspect of your life’.

To be fair to Labour, they believe that the act could make privatisation easier in future, so they want to repeal it. To be fair to reality- the Original Act has not ended a publicly funded and administered NHS.

So why don’t the Lib Dems want to repeal the act?

Aside from the ideological differences between Labour wanting a central government controlled NHS and the Lib Dems wanting locally controlled services, repealing the act would have required a massive reorganisation of the NHS. 

This would have resulted in a monumentally expensive exercise without a clear goal. The repeal proposal wouldn’t have given any direction or plan, and so the changes required would have had to be worked out and delivered by NHS managers who, to be honest, aren’t exactly sat around with nothing better to be doing.

But then, the repeal proposal wasn’t expected to pass, it was purely political for the purposes of trying to create negative PR for the Lib Dems, who are in the process of overtaking Labour to become the second most popular party in the UK (after the Conservatives) [2].

A much better proposal would have been to table a new bill to guarantee that NHS services will always remain free at the point of use. Within this, there would be room for a sensible conversation about the amount of privatisation that is acceptable [1]. Rather than point scoring, I’d much rather the parties were working together. Regretfully in the context of a Tory hard Brexit, a labour soft Brexit and Lib Dem remain, I can’t see much chance of the parties working together for a long long while. Sorry to end on a bummer!

Notes

[1] To be very clear- to remove all private business from the provision of healthcare in the UK we would need to have a global socialist revolution, where governments take over all the things, like; all manufacturing of pharmaceuticals; all production of non pharmaceutical medical products like bandages, bed sheets, cleaning products and prosthetics etc; all food production and nutritional supplement production for patients; all logistics and distribution for moving items around; providing the enormous upfront capital investment for drugs research, development, testing and approvals process etc etc. 

At some point the NHS has to interact with private businesses. Even if Labour had the mandate to nationalise all the things in the UK, the rest of the world would need to do the same. The question is not should private companies have anything to do with healthcare. The question is to what extent and within which regulatory framework should private companies interact with the NHS. 

The labour position is wilfully nieve and cynical to try to win votes by misrepresenting truth. The Lib Dem position is nuanced and complex making it difficult to explain to voters. Still, both positions are better than the Tory’s who are just straight up lying about the NHS (big red bus anyone?).

[2] lots of opinion and voting intention polls have shown the Lib Dems to have overtaken or come close to overtaking Labour. It’s been well known for decades that when voters pick policies they prefer, without knowing the party, the majority pick Lib Dem.

Quite literally the majority of the population would vote Lib Dem: https://youtu.be/d5455K_PzA8. 

Recent opinion poll article:

 https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/liberal-democrats/news/106641/lib-dems-leapfrog-labour-second-place-after

Parliamentary Arithmetic

This post goes into the numbers behind the current parliamentary arithmetic, and why Jeremy Corbyn is unable to lead a government of National Unity. (As of the 8th of October 2019).

Context

Parliament, and the majority of the population, are opposed to a no deal Brexit. 

Boris Johnson, our current Prime Minister, unelected and with no popular mandate, has stated repeatedly that he will crash the UK out of the European Union with no deal if the EU doesn’t accept his terms for the UK leaving the European Union.

Many people have found it strange then, that Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, has yet to organise itself to throw out Boris Johnson as prime minister, in order to request a negotiating extension such that a general election can be held.

While a general election might hit produce a majority for any specific option, it will at least produce a prime minister with a legitimate mandate to negotiate with the EU.

Government Of National Unity

The idea of a Government of National Unity is that Parliament agrees to vote out the current prime minister, install a temporary leader and dissolve itself in order to hold new elections. In this instance, the Government of National Unity would also need to negotiate a Brexit extension with the European Union so that there is enough time to hold fresh elections without the UK crashing out of the European Union.

The biggest stumbling block to this action, is finding agreement from enough Members of Parliament to support the vote of no confidence in the existing government and Prime Minister.

Taken individually, there is a majority in Parliament against no deal. But as a group, things are not so clear.

Main problem being that Labour are currently insisting that Jeremy Corbyn should be the temporary Prime Minister to take over from Boris Johnson. Conservative MPs would be needed to support the Government of National Unity, and the Conservatives don’t trust, and won’t vote for, Jeremy Corbyn.

Hence it comes down to Parliamentary arithmetic - how many MPs are in each group?

I’m writing this post In response to the repeated false claims by labour that the Lib Dems are responsible for this mess. As you will see below, it is not the fault of the Lib Dem’s that the majority of MPs won’t support Jeremy Corbyn.

The Parliamentary Arithmetic

So- we’re trying to find a majority of MPs to support a Government of National Unity (GNU).

The Liberal Democrats:

Led by Jo Swinson, have stated that they will support a Government of National Unity, but won’t support Jeremy Corbyn unless it’s clear that he could win a majority in the house. The Lib Dems currently favour a neutral MP stepping forward to act as temporary prime minister who would be able to lead a Government of National Unity. Lib Dems = 19 votes.

Those who will vote against a Jeremy Corbyn Government of National Unity:

It’s likely that the current Conservative party will vote against a GNU without exception = 287 votes

The DUP have indicated that they will vote against a GNU = 10 votes.

Led by Anna Soubry, including Chris Leslie and Mike Gapes, The Independent Group for Change have been very clear that Jeremy Corbyn is unacceptable to them = 5 votes.

2 independent MPs, John Woodcock and Gavin Shucker, both are ex labour and both hugely strong critics of Jeremy Corbyn = 2 votes.

Charlie Elphicke, conservative MP for Dover (currently a suspended over sexual assault allegations but in practice follows the tory whip) = 1 vote.

Frank Field, quit the labour party over anti-semitism claims also has voted with the government on brexit = 1 vote.

Ivan Lewis, suspended from the labour party over sexual harrasment allegations but since quit over antisemitism claims and issues about Jeremy Corybn = 1 vote.

Ian Austin, quit the Labour party over Jeremy Corbyn and anti semitism. Used his speech in the emergency debate to criticise Jeremy Corbyn = 1 vote.

Sylvia Hermon, Independent in Northern Ireland, has been consistently clear she will “never vote for a government lead by Jeremy Corbyn” = 1 vote.

Kate Hoey and John Mann from the labour party who have consistently supported a hard Brexit and would very likely vote against = 2 votes.

Stephen Lloyd, ex lib dem MP who quit the party to vote for brexit = 1 vote.

Total = 312 against.

MPs who will abstain:

Sinn Fein who abstain from Parliament = 7 abstentions.

1 Speaker and 3 deputy speakers don’t vote (usually) = 4 abstentions.

Jared O'Mare, labour MP suspended over sexual harassment allegations and hasn't voted in parliament for nearly a year = 1 abstention.

Mike Hill, ex labour MP suspended over sexual harassment allegations, represents a strong leave constituency but has been highly critical of Jeremy Corbyn = 1 abstention.

The 23 tory ‘rebels’ who have mostly had the whip removed for voting to block no deal (or subsequently left due to falling out with Boris, like Anne Milton). May vote with the conservatives against, but certainly wouldn’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn = 23 abstentions.

Kelvin Hopkins, ex labour MP suspended over sexual harassment allegations, strongly pro brexit but strongly pro Jeremy Corbyn = 1 abstention.

Total = 37 abstentions

Those who will vote for a Jeremy Corbyn Government of National Unity:

Labour MPs, minus those mentioned above and ignoring any Brexit driven defections = 242 votes

The SNP have stated that they will vote in favour = 35 votes

Plaid Cymrae have stated that they will vote in favour = 4 votes

Green Party have stated that they will vote in favour = 1 vote

Chris Williamson, independent supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and against no deal = 1 vote.

Total = 283

Totals

A vote for a Jeremy Corbyn Government of National Unity currently loses by 28 votes.

With support from the Lib Dems this would still lose by 9 votes.

it is clear that, for a Government of National Unity to form and successfully form prevent a no deal Brexit, a neutral MP will need to step forward to be a caretaker Prime Minister.

How long will it take to end Brexit?

On the 23rd of June 2016, the “United Kingdom European Union membership referendum” took place to ask the electorate if the country should remain a member of, or leave the European Union.

Well, it’s over 3 years later and we still haven’t left.

However you voted in the Referendum, it’s likely that you’re sick of Brexit. You want an end to this nonsense, and so do I.

I’m sure, like me, you’d rather we were focused on using the might of UK engineering excellence to tackle the climate emergency (among other things).

So how do we make it stop?

I’ve created a diagram that explores the consequences of the 3 main options at this point looking at how long will it will take to return to some kind of normality.

References:

[1] https://fullfact.org/europe/brexit-timeline/

[2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/how-long-do-trade-deals-take-after-brexit/

[3] https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-free-trade-deals-has-eu-done/

Download:

This diagram is also available as a PDF - feel free to download and share!

Book Review of “HIRED six months undercover in low-wage Britain” by James Bloodworth

Main take away: it’s grim working low-wage jobs.

I would argue that, objectively speaking, average living standards overall have continued to improve. Yet, this book is a helpful reminder that real people don’t live in averages. To the individual, improvements to healthcare are irrelevant if you’re physically healthy but working 80 hours a week to meet basic needs like food, water, a place to sleep.

I’ve always agreed with the statement that “money can’t make you happy, but poverty can make you sad”. From this book it would be fair to add, “a good work environment can’t make you happy, but a bad work environment can make you sad”.

One of the striking themes of all of the jobs explored is that seemingly simple, and inexpensive changes would make working environments much better. This book explores the cutting edge, where corporate process and the bottom line run up against basic human needs.

Overall, the author seems understandably bitter and I don’t really agree with his politics. But this book is well worth a read. If you’re in the target audience (observer reading middle class) this book will help you get some understanding of what it’s like for the less fortunate in the UK.

Hired by James Bloodworth was Published by Atlantic Books on the 7 February 2019, ISBN: 9781786490162 This book was recommended to me by my good friend David Weston.

Boris, Brexit, and the Lib Dem surge

TL;DR

Boris will win the Conservative party leadership election becoming the next prime minister, Britain will crash out of the European Union, the Liberal Democrats will win the next general election.

Trajectory Boris

The Conservative party is the party of the privileged: it is 97% white, 71% male, and dominated by the wealthy.

These Conservative party members think of Boris Johnson like a plucky, amusing uncle. They think he’s a bit of a fool, mostly harmless and most importantly definitively British. They will inevitably vote for Boris to be the next Prime Minister.

Boris will, with the verbosity of Russel Brand and the tactfulness of Trump, fail to make any progress negotiating with the other members of the European Union.

At this point, Boris will either 1) deliberately crash Britain out of the European Union on October 31st with no deal or 2) default blunder towards a Theresa Trap of perpetual negotiation.

To be clear- towards perpetual negotiation doesn’t mean that the deadlines will actually be kicked down the road. While Boris and fans enjoy evoking images of a spam-from-a-can eating blitz defying Britain, no one actually wants to eat spam. And the European Union, viewing Boris as a posh shabby Trump, are feeling as defiant of Britain as they are the USA, and are tired of distractions from their own internal politics.

Either way, Boris leads us in the same direction. Britain is likely to plunge off a no deal Brexit cliff. The 85% of Conservative party members who now support a no deal Brexit will be pleased. The Etonian old boys will make a killing, having bet against the pound.

And as we fall off this cliff, most of us will look up to see crony-capitalist vultures paragliding into the sunset. International firms (stuffed with “patriotic” Brexit supporting Brits) will move in to buy out British industry on the cheap. A great ‘offshoring’ of wealth and assets into international tax havens. And as we fall, some of us will be momentarily distracted by one of Boris’s attention seeking stunts - like getting stuck in a zip line. It will be hilarious- good old uncle Boris.

It’s not all doom and gloom

Roughly 25% of British people favour a no deal Brexit. Many of those people are also disillusioned with politics, preferring antiestablishment, man-of-the-people ex-investment bankers (like Nigel Farage). Even with disproportionate constituency boundaries (favouring the conservatives in the countryside) 25% of the electorate does not make a government.

The majority of British businesses are small and medium enterprises. These small employers also employ the majority of people. These should be natural Conservative supporters - self made entrepreneurs who like their markets to be free and fair.

And so when the Conservatives so blatantly betray the interests of these businesses, whilst the Brexit party draws populists from the right, Conservative support will simply melt away.

Our antiquated first past the post, winner takes all, electoral system favours broad church party’s with breadth of appeal. With the Conservatives pandering to a smaller and smaller base of supporters, moderate voters will look for a new home.

This is in the context of a Labour Party that has gone full left wing mob-mentum. While Conservatives talk of lowering taxes for rich baby boomers is unpopular- Labour’s talk of tax hikes and re-nationalisation is about as popular as magic grandpa’s Lenin hat.

Time is ripe for a moderate, sensible party. A party for the many AND the few.

A party of liberals who are socially democratic. A party of Pro Europeans, economic liberals, those who want capitalism with a heart, a party that takes the environment seriously and values humanities future.

I am of course talking about the Liberal Democrats.

And things are looking up. The Lib Dem’s are well organised and practiced in campaigning with a huge number of supporters.

People are quite rightly tired of having to vote against one party to keep out the other. More and more people are voting for what they believe in. Voting for Liberty, Equality and Community.

It’s looking more and more likely that the hard work and positive campaigning of the Lib Dem’s is paying off.

So while it is extremely likely that we’re about to plunge off a Brexit cliff - we might just be able to reach out and grab a tree branch on the way down.

The great thing about living in a democracy is that people are free to change their minds. And the thing is in life, is that everything seems certain until it isn’t.

Before the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union it seemed a certainty that Britain would remain a liberal socially democratic nation with a leading role in the European Union. That was certain until it wasn’t.

And the UKs departure, international isolation and harsh split with its closest trading partners will be inevitable, until it isn’t.