ARE NATIONAL POLITICS REALLY RELEVANT TO COUNCIL ELECTIONS?
What have local council elections, many being due in early May, got to do with national politics and vice versa? It appears to be universal media political theory that voters will repay their local representatives with the vengeance they wish to render to MPs, Ministers and party leaders, and that in the past has been the case it seems. Local collection of refuse, road maintenance, council tax and other local services issues are stuff of local concerns in which Parliament has little interest if any as they are simply not matters of State. It seems bizarre that a local councillor who is performing well should lose a seat because at the head of his party Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer has committed a misdemeanour or failed to develop or implement a grand policy at the national level. Are voters incapable of distinguishing council policies from national events? Surely what matters are a councillor’s understanding of and commitment to improve and meet local life and needs? Is it not self-inflicted wounds to reject the people who serve local needs best in order to punish parliamentarians?
MISOGYNY – ANOTHER WORD ABUSED TO CONFUSE
A most banal and almost puerile article in The Mail on Sunday about Angela Rayner, Deputy leader of the Labour party, crossing and uncrossing her legs at the despatch box in the House of Commons seems to have captured the salivating and lurid imaginations of news broadcasters and other journalists. The allegation by a male MP it seems was that this is a technique she used to distract Boris Johnson. Was it not just a stupid nothingness? Yet more than ten days later it still features in news commentary over and over in the media “sleaze” box.
However, perhaps its main relevance is that it is another illustration of how anything remotely derogatory or negative about women is branded as misogyny, the hatred of women. This term should be used sparingly and used when behaviour truly is born out of hatred. Most of the stupid and derogatory words and actions aimed at diminishing or which might offend women are perhaps nothing to do with hating them. Could they perhaps more likely be down to the ineptitude, insecurity, pomposity or childishness of men who, rather than hating women, cannot cope with their greater abilities, or female success, or with relationships with women; and so those men choose to denigrate others rather than improve themselves. Ignoring the allegation that Angela Rayner herself started this story, it is quite likely, in the case of this slur, the MP’s intention was more about dislike of her and her politics than a general hatred of women.
And most recently a male MP has been seen looking at pornography on his phone while in the House of Commons? It seems disrespectful of his office and the place, and of his female colleagues if he was not shielding his screen from them, which is an unknown; but the moral outrage being expressed is out of balance, with some crying misogyny. If the pornography is of a type in the criminal category, that would be one thing, but the “level” of pornography has not been described. The MP, Neil Parish, has resigned with an apology for stupidity. His wife evidently does not think he is a misogynist. Assuming nothing more sinister, is this any worse really than a person using working time to look at comedy entertainment, or play a game or browse for fashion items, for example, on their phone? It may be wrong to use a phone for non-work services but is that not also commonplace? The MP’s behaviour has been called “misogynistic” by some. Are now all people who look at pornography misogynistic? How does that work? Society as a whole has by no means demonised pornography and many would not see it as immoral provided it does not involve or lead to evil behaviours such as paedophilia. These episodes illustrate how the desire to pigeon-hole behaviour with a “brand” name, in this case “misogyny” to get more serious attention can distort and mislead.
KEEPING CLIMATE CHANGE FRONT OF MIND
The issue of climate change needs real regular public attention, more than partygate or beergate, as it is about the possible demise of the entire planet or a significant part of it and the destruction of millions of lives. And yet it receives only intermittent news coverage and the level of official sustained institutional campaigning to elevate its importance to the top of agendas is derisory across the world. It is to the credit of “Extinction Rebellion” that they endeavour to remind the world of this importance. Sadly, their wider political agenda to dismantle current society, and to protest by seriously disrupting the lives of ordinary people via illegal acts, detracts from the message, arguably doing more harm than good; Impeding supplies of petrol in the Southeast of England was a massive negative for them. More threatened disruption through the Summer is unlikely to serve the cause of persuading people into using less carbon-based fuel.
A licence for a new coke mine in the UK is under consideration. There is a climate change objection naturally, but it is irrational as it fails to contextualise the use of carbon fuel in this case. The coke concerned is needed in the manufacture of steel in the UK. If not mined here, it will have to be imported say from China. This is not for a fossil fuelled power station. Similarly, obtaining more gas from the North Sea or by fracking cannot simply be ruled out as gas will be needed for some time, while the UK transitions to sustainable alternatives, and if not produced locally will have to be imported: the issue of energy security has never been more important. These initiatives are not necessarily at odds with the UK’s net zero target.
It is far more worrying how little coverage was given to the recent reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by other scientists. While the Glasgow summit may have kept alive the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C by 2100, that assumed Governments making the necessary commitments to reduce emissions, which has not been happening. It appears on present policies that warming could be close to 2C or 2.5C which apparently means catastrophe for swathes of the world. The world needs constant reminders that the clock is ticking and perhaps more effective education campaigns than the mess created by Extinction Rebellion.
THE NHS HAS ENOUGH BEDS, BUT TOO MANY ARE FILLED WITH HEALTHY PEOPLE
Newspaper reports around 18 April referred to Chris Hopson, the Chief Executive of NHS Providers, warning that some 25,000 beds were occupied by people who are not in need of medical treatment. His only real solution was that more funding is needed. A headline in the Daily Telegraph read “Bed-blockers outnumber Covid patients”. Why are the bed-blockers there? Because they have nowhere else to go, presumably where they will be safe. Those 25,000 NHS beds are out of a total of about 88,000 beds being occupied in April, a huge proportion. How often is it stated that hospitals have no beds available? But there are well over 130,000 NHS beds. Clearly something needs to be done to drastically reduce the number of “well” people in hospital, and perhaps the solution exists around social care in care homes or at home. But when Chief Executives of the NHS or NHS quangos identify a problem, how rare it is that they propose solutions other than needing more money. The issue of people being kept in hospital due to lack of alternatives has been around for decades. Is it not the job of medical experts, those who manage health care in this country, presumably at the top of the NHS and related quangos, to publish doable plans within their budgets to solve rather than moan about problems?
The police and the NHS are public services. In both cases delivery of those services is primarily entrusted to senior management. When the police are perceived to fall short, a heavy focus falls on Police Commissioners and Senior Officers generally. Cressida Dick was fired as head of the Met because of the Met’s failings. Why are NHS executives not held to account for NHS failings?
