5 things about this week (11 April 2019)

by Stephen Tall on April 11, 2019

Is this the way Brexit ends, not with a bang, but a whimper? Last night the EU27 agreed to the UK’s plaintive request for another extension to Article 50, deferring our departure for the second time, this time by six months, to 31 October.

Of course, it’s way too soon to say Brexit has ended. It’s still just about conceivable that the Conservative-Labour cross-party talks will throw up some compromise that can attract 320+ MPs. Nor is it impossible that we won’t still crash out.

But the big thing which happened was this: the EU once again decided not to force the issue. No ultimatum — pass the deal or prepare for no-deal — was delivered. Instead, the EU has gone out of its ways to leave the British with every available option still.

We can revoke, or legislate for a second referendum, or call a general election, or pass Theresa May’s deal, or take our no-deal chances. It’s our call. And if we don’t do any of those things in the next six months, chances are the EU will give us another breather.

I don’t think the EU is being daft. Far from. They must know that taking the pressure off (and also signalling preparedness to do so again in October) means there is even less chance of Theresa May’s deal passing; her hopes of it passing depended on there being an ultimate, crunch moment, when she could scare up a majority by forcing a Hobson’s choice on MPs of her deal or no-deal.

Instead, MPs now know there’s every likelihood of the EU allowing more road to kick the can down, so they can safely put off the day of reckoning in the hope that time will somehow resolve things. And every month, every successive election, we get further away from that June 2016 mandate, it loses its power to enthral MPs.

Will Brexit happen? Perhaps. It’s hard to put it stronger than that. Quite a whimper.

**

Speaking of Brexit, I spoke of Brexit — at last! — with my co-host Mark Pack on our latest Never Mind the Barcharts podcast. After six episodes of skirting round it, I was finally able to get a few things off my chest about my issues with the Lib Dem approach to Brexit…

That the party was the original champion of an in/out EU referendum — the very thing many Remainers lambast David Cameron for initiating — and yet has ever since refused to take responsibility for the outcome (after all, even a People’s Vote would need a Leave ‘deal’ to compete against).

There is something very Lib Dem about always proposing process solutions to knotty issues: a referendum here, a Royal Commission there, constitutional reform everywhere. When I was in local politics, a favourite trick to avoid coming down on side or the other of a contentious issue was to complain about the consultation process instead: it allowed you to take a strong line, without committing. I’m not saying process doesn’t matter: it absolutely does. The problems happen when it becomes your end, not your means.

Anyway, you can listen to Mark and me discuss Newport West, Brexit shenanigans, and the latest Lord Ashcroft polling on the gaps for new parties here:

**

The traditional news media by and large has not had a good Brexit. Not just the hard-right, tabloid press, like the Mail (‘Enemies of the people‘) and Telegraph (‘The Brexit mutineers‘). Broadcasters have also struggled, most particularly through their quest for balance leading to false equivalence (perhaps I’m jaded from hearing Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s utterances treated far more seriously by Radio 4’s Today Programme than they merit).

Stung by the criticism, some are now pushing back. An example went viral last weekend. It featured Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy interviewing Conservative Leaver, John Redwood — you can see a minute-long clip here. Mr Redwood makes the claim that “most of the public now actually supports no-deal”; Mr Guru-Murthy jumps in, “That’s just not true, there’s no evidence for that”.

Their exchange left me uneasy. The facts are the easy part: Mr Redwood is wrong. Polls sometimes show a plurality of voters preferring a no-deal Brexit (ie, it’s the most popular option); but to the best of my knowledge none suggests even a bare majority, let alone “most”, of the public supporting it.

But I had two problems with Channel 4’s approach. The first is that, while Mr Redwood’s claim was inaccurate, it’s not an outrageous lie: no-deal is a popular option, occasionally the most popular option with the public. (Whether those who prefer it fully understand the dire consequences is a moot point, not relevant here.) For sure, correct it. But this is not the hill I’d choose to die on.

Secondly, and more importantly, was the manner of Mr Guru-Murthy’s rebuttal: simply repeating “that’s not true” is not a good way to challenge an interviewee, as it leaves the audience none the wiser who’s right unless you are able to prove your case, live on air (which doesn’t happen here). Basically, we’re being asked to choose a side, but not on the basis of any evidence presented by either Messers Redwood or Guru-Murthy.

I don’t have an easy solution. Interviewees will sometimes exaggerate their case in a live interview, whether by design or accident (only they can say). Interviewers should be able to call them out on it, but won’t necessarily have the facts at their fingertips to be able to prove the interviewee wrong in real-time.

It’s a dilemma. My best suggestion would be for interviewers to challenge the assertion and ask for evidence; and then move on by saying “we’ll fact-check it later” and broadcast their conclusions.

**

RIP Bill Heine, the Headington shark’s auteur, one of the few indisputable landmarks east of Oxford’s Magdalen Bridge. It’s in my old council ward, though I met Bill more often at BBC Radio Oxford, where he was a much-loved and distinctive voice.

The Labour council at the time went to great pains in the mid-1980s to have the shark removed, but ultimately it was Michael Heseltine who ruled it could stay. You can read all about it on Stephanie Jenkins’ wonderful all-things-Headngton website.

Bill died of aggressive leukemia — you can read his final article for the Oxford Mail, published just a couple of days before his death, here.

Headington was (and, I expect, still is) replete with celebrities. Those I met in my door-knocking days included Peter Hitchens (very polite to me), sci-fi writer Brian Aldiss (“I’ll vote for you over the bloody socialists”), Claus Moser, Lady (Isaiah) Berlin (she wished me luck), David Marquand (once my boss), and Anne Diamond (met her kids, never her). I miss it.

**

I’m listening to Ian Dunt’s Brexit: What the Hell Happens Now?, an admirably clear-sighted analysis of all the problems the UK was likely to face during Article 50 negotiations — and has.

And if you’re not yet sick of Brexit, I’d also recommend The Times’s Red Box Politics Podcast, particularly these two episodes:
Could you have done Brexit better?, not least for its contributions from Chris Wilkins, Theresa May’s former speechwriter — including his point that Theresa May’s fate was sealed the moment she created Liam Fox’s department of international trade, which necessitated quitting the EU Customs Union, from which so many other problems flowed.
Brexit Tamed Live Part Two: The History, with Phillip Collins, Sarah Baxter, Daniel Finkelstein, Iain Martin and David Aaronovitch looking at the UK’s fractious history with the EU.

Finally, I’m really pleased David Olusoga’s fascinating A House Through Time is back on BBC2, this time focusing on the 200-year history of 5 Ravensworth Terrace, a Georgian townhouse on Tyneside. I snooped it on Rightmove and it’s clear the current owners have done an amazing job of renovating it.

**

“That’s not the right one, is it?” Milo learning early the disappointment of cover versions

View this post on Instagram

"That's not the right one, is it?" Milo learning early the disappointment of cover versions

A post shared by Stephen (@stephentall) on

5 things about this week (2 April 2019)

by Stephen Tall on April 2, 2019

Embed from Getty Images

Since I last wrote, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, has pre-announced her resignation to the Conservative parliamentary party in a last-ditch, desperate effort to win enough votes for Brexit deal. Ordinarily, that news alone would dominate the headlines.

But these are not normal times. Partly, because Theresa May has reneged so often on her promises that no-one quite believes this one either. And partly, of course, because it got lost in the ongoing Brexit maelstrom of a government drowning in front of our eyes.

Her demi-resignation was symbolic of her failed premiership. She committed to going once her deal was delivered, hoping that would persuade a critical mass of the ERG Euro-headbangers to switch.

In this, she was partially successful: “only” 34 Conservative MPs rebelled against her government, the fewest yet. But it did nothing to win over the DUP, who rightly suspect that her ultra-Brexiter successor would be quite happy to cut Northern Ireland loose of the UK if it secures them their longed-for Canada-plus free trade deal in the Euro-negotiations to follow. And it made voting for her deal even more toxic to Labour backbenchers, nervous both of the backlash of their members as well as the prospect of Boris Johnson as prime minister.

So, by appeasing the Euro-obsessives on her own side, she lost the chance to win over the persuadables on the other side. How very Theresa May.

Perhaps one day, when we are distanced enough from the disaster she has overseen, I’ll conjure up some sympathy for Theresa May’s position. After all, I remember how despised (not too strong a word) was John Major and his government in the mid-1990s; now they seem simpler, happier times.

But at the moment I can’t get past contempt for her actions. She has failed every step of the way: failed to ready the country for the tough choices any Brexit would have required; failed to reach out to Remain voters; failed to sort out a government position before triggering Article 50; failed to win over sympathetic European leaders; failed to understand the emptiness of her own no-deal “threat”; failed to win an election; failed to realise she’d need to compromise her (utterly unrealistic) red-lines; failed to communicate her deal; failed to get her cabinet or parliament on side; failed to realise you cannot bulldoze your way to acceptance; and, worst of all, failed to accept any responsibility for any of these failures.

So small wonder her deferred resignation barely registered: her’s is a record of failure, a promise of more.

(PS: I wrote this before her latest speak-from-the-podium-direct-to-the-people-like-a-demagogue act, apparently reaching out to Labour to deliver Brexit. My instant reaction, based on the PM’s record to date, is this is merely a ruse to spread the blame around, and that, in reality, she’s no more willing to compromise on her red-lines than before. I will be delighted to be proven wrong.)

**

Talking of failure, last night the House of Commons didn’t manage to pass a vote in favour of any alternative to Theresa May’s deal; though both Ken Clarke’s proposal of a Customs Union and Nick Boles’ long-touted Common Market 2.0 lost by narrow margins.

My insta-take on this (which I think still stands) is that this was (1) good news for no-deal Leavers, as Theresa May’s attempts to squeeze ERG refusniks will be much harder if they see there’s no soft Brexit deal capable of gaining a majority; (2) good news for revoke/People’s Vote Remainers, as these escape clauses may be the only ones capable of preventing no-deal come the 12 April deadline; and (3) bad news for any deal, as it’s hard to see any one capable of securing the support of 320+ MPs.

My Twitter timeline has been full of flak between/against the various opposition parties for failing to coalesce around one soft-Brexit alternative to Mrs May’s deal. While understandable in the heat of the moment, much of it seems unfair to me.

Labour has actually compromised a lot, whipping in favour of both Common Market 2.0 and a second referendum; so did the SNP. The Lib Dems and TIG, for (to my mind) totally rational reasons of self-preservation, refused to back any form of Brexit.

But, whatever your view of the merit of maintaining purity, the Remainer sniping is mis-directed. Even if the 22 MPs of the two fourth parties, Lib Dems and TIG / Change UK, had all voted for the alternatives, they were a long way short of that critical 320+ threshold. And, unless you think it can be viably reached, there is no sensible reason for them to commit potential electoral suicide in non-binding indicative votes.

No, responsibility for the mess we’re in does not lie with Parliament (for failing in a single week to arrive at a coherent, negotiable position), nor with the opposition parties (who — the clue’s in the name — do not have the numbers to defeat the government), but with the governing party and its leader.

The first rule of politics, LBJ famously said, is to be able to add up; and for two years, since losing her majority, Theresa May has ignored it. That is why we are where we are.

**

So who’s had a good Brexit, then? Looking at the green benches my list is a bit thin. Folk who’ve gone up in my estimation, who appear to have grasped the seriousness of the situation (even if their solutions may have been found wanting) and some of whom have put their careers on the line, include Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper, Nick Boles, Oliver Letwin, Ken Clarke and the TIGgers. [EDIT: I forgot Dominic Grieve!]

Some journalist-commentators, too, have contributed impressive analyses, too. I’m thinking The Guardian’s Rafael Behr and John Harris, The Times’s Rachel Sylvester, New Statesman’s Stephen Bush, Politico’s Jack Blanchard, FT’s David Allan Green, Politics.co.uk’s Ian Dunt, and the Telegraph’s Peter Foster. And from think-tank world British Future’s Sunder Katwala, Institute for Government’s Jill Rutter and UK and EU’s Anand Menon. (I’m sure I’ve missed many others — and am aware of the female imbalance.)

Brexit has also converted me to podcasts: the BBC’s Brexitcast has become my The Archers. And a particular shout-out to this Remainiacs’ episode featuring recusant Leaver Roland Smith, which is an incredibly personal, thoughtful, analytical dissection of what’s motivated the Euroscpetic cause since 1992’s Maastricht treaty, and why its believers have descended into this no-deal frenzy we now see before us.

**

One thing Brexit has revealed, as if it needed revealing, is the introversion of British politics: for the past six months, the Conservative party has been negotiating with itself, with occasional, ineffectual inputs from parliament.

Yet unless Theresa May’s deal does, somehow, squeeze through, the UK will be reliant on the goodwill of the EU if we are to avoid no-deal.

The working assumption of (many, not all) our politicians and media appears to be it’s up to us to decide what happens next, and that the EU is bound to agree to an extension once we’ve made up our minds what to tell them.

Well, maybe they will, but it’s within their gift and not all are in a generous mood, according to Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform:

The mood in Brussels is pessimistic. Most of those closely involved in the Brexit talks think the likeliest outcome is for the UK to leave without a deal. There is also tremendous frustration with what EU officials see as the incompetence, ignorance and irresponsibility of swaths of the British political class. Over the past three years much of the goodwill that people held towards the UK has evaporated.

The EU expects no deal because it does not trust British politicians not to screw up. There is not much faith that “indicative votes” among MPs will produce a coherent way forward. “We don’t see the transmission mechanism that forces the executive to bend to parliament’s will,” said one EU official. “We cannot negotiate with a parliament.”

They’re right: responsibility lies with the executive and its chief. Theresa May and her cabinet have a few days (maybe longer, if the EU agrees) to avoid the infamy of a no-deal Brexit. Will they — can they? — manage it?

**

I said in my first 5 things about this week blog that “having kids has utterly destroyed my interest in music”. This is true. My tastes are stuck in 1993-2010.

One of my all-time favourites, though, is Scott Walker, who died last week. I discovered him courtesy my lifelong love band, The Divine Comedy, whose creator Neil Hannon has sometimes been likened to him. I have fond memories of cranking up the stereo in my early 20s listening to what would undoubtedly be one of my desert island tracks, The Plague:

A fleeting work visit to Oxford resulted in me visiting the Bodleian’s revamped Weston Library (I spent three years raising money for it) and its latest exhibition Thinking 3D, “tell[ing] the story of the development of three-dimensional communication over the last 500 years”. Fascinating stuff.

PS: as ever when I get the chance to re-visit the city of dreaming spires, my hometown for 18 years, umbilical whiplash propelled me towards Blackwells bookshop:

View this post on Instagram

Ah the Norrington Room, this is where I'd choose to have a lock-in

A post shared by Stephen (@stephentall) on

5 things about this week (21 March 2019)

by Stephen Tall on March 21, 2019

Embed from Getty Images

Until last night, I was a supporter of Theresa May’s Brexit deal. As I wrote last week:

For all its many flaws, and it’s certainly a marked trade-down on our exceptionally good deal as an EU member, I think Theresa May’s deal is a workable way of honouring [the referendum] mandate. Sorrynotsorry.

Well, scrap that.

Her live TV address from the Number 10 podium, abdicating leadership and accusing MPs of letting her down, was cowardly, delusional idiocy. Even if you agree with her, as I formerly did (ish), that it’s “the very best deal negotiable”, it is quite clearly not the wisest strategy to try and win over the votes of wavering MPs by accusing them en masse of “indulgence” and of being willing to say only “what they do not want”.

It exemplified her complete absence of political judgement. Small wonder, Conservative chief whip Julian Lewis is apparently despairing of her, ‘openly admitting in the tea rooms that PM’s statement was “appalling”‘, according to ITV’s Paul Brand.

Even now, I hear some people expressing sympathy for Theresa May; that any Prime Minister would have found it impossible to deliver Brexit, that it’s inevitable she’s failed. But I simply don’t accept that. I’m in no doubt a different, better, braver PM could have successfully Brexited.

Michael Gove, for example, for all his many faults (and they are numerous), would, I feel sure, have had the political smarts to approach the task with some flexibility. He also, of course, would have had the credibility advantage of being a Brexiter, so could — Nixon-goes-to-China-style — have spent some of that capital negotiating an EEA-style interim agreement. It would have been achievable. It would also likely have brought our divided Remain/Leave country together somewhat.

Sure, she’s had a difficult task, arguably the hardest of any peacetime Prime Minister (though as she did the bare minimum during the referendum campaign to support Remain it’s not like she shares no responsibility for the outcome).

But she’s never once levelled with the public about the trade-offs; never once faced down the hardline ERG-ers in her ranks; never once offered an inspiring vision of life beyond Brexit to the 48%. Her deal deserves now to fall and her premiership with it.

**

So I ended up signing the ‘revoke Article 50’ petition — currently numbering 1.7 million signatures — even though I’m far from convinced revoking Article 50 is the answer. But anything that stiffens the resolve of MPs to take back control from this Prime Minister and do something constructive in what little time is left is better than nothing.

A futile gesture is better than no gesture (and a damn sight more useful than snarking about the uselessness of petitions on Twitter). After all, I marched against the Iraq war in 2003 not because I was a pacifist or even necessarily opposed to deposing Saddam Hussein, but because the case was unproven, the decision-making process flawed, overseen by a Prime Minister who was dissembling and increasingly out of his depth.

I’ve no idea what should now happen next with Brexit (let alone what will actually happen next). I’ve spent the last almost three years adjusting to living in a post-EU country. I wasn’t reconciled, but I was resigned to it.

Yes, I’d like us to stay in. But the breach of a democratic mandate troubles me, still more the inability of our political system to seem to even want to try to find a resolution.

And let’s not forget it was the Lib Dems which were the first mainstream party this century to campaign for an In/Out European referendum #soproud.

**

I accept this isn’t a fair grievance to hold against Theresa May, but still… her Brexit shenanigans this week have completely put me off my reading stride. Instead of, as I’d promised myself, weaning myself off Twitter, I’ve been scrolling ‘n refreshing like a news junkie to keep abreast of the breathless pace of her jaw-dropping infamy.

On the upside, I did as a result stumble across this terrific article by Fintan O’Toole, Are the English ready for self-government?

Aptitude for self-government is not what comes to mind when one looks in from the outside at the goings-on in Westminster last week, when, as Tom Peck so brilliantly put it in the London Independent, “the House of Commons was a Benny Hill chase on acid, running through a Salvador Dali painting in a spaceship on its way to infinity”.

Let’s just say that if Theresa May were the head of a newly liberated African colony in the 1950s, British conservatives would have been pointing, half-ruefully, half-gleefully, in her direction and saying “See? Told you so – they just weren’t ready to rule themselves. Needed at least another generation of tutelage by the Mother Country.” …

Brexit is a dead horse, a form of nationalist energy that started to decompose rapidly on June 24th, 2016, as soon as it entered the field of political reality. It can’t go anywhere. It can’t carry the British state to any promised land. It can only leave it where it has arrived, in a no-man’s land between vague patriotic fantasies and irritatingly persistent facts. But equally, because of the referendum result, the British state can’t get down off the dead horse and has to keep flogging it.

Do read it in full. It’s superb.

**

It was my birthday on Tuesday, so of course I got up at 5.40am to go and record the latest ‘Never Mind the Barcharts‘ podcast with Mark Pack, talking Lib Dem leadership (Vince, Jo, Layla, Ed etc) and conference, plus a bit of TIG — but not Brexit, never Brexit (Mark’s allergic) — so please listen here to show me it wasn’t all in vain:

**

I’ve been watching repeats of the BBC sitcom Outnumbered, which is still funny and rings a whole lot truer now than it did when I first watched it, pre-kids. Though (not to go all Millennial-watches-Friends on you) but I was also struck that it’s hard to imagine Hugh Dennis’s teacher-character, Pete — subject to a complaint of racism for saying to a “fat Turkish kid”, “You could do with Ramadan lasting all year round, couldn’t you, Kamal?” — being portrayed quite so sympathetically today as in 2007.

I’ve been reading… absolutely nothing. * See above, shakes fist at Theresa May *

**

PS: I have now attained wisdom…

View this post on Instagram

Reached the answer to "the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything". It's actually cake.

A post shared by Stephen (@stephentall) on

5 things about this week (14 March 2019)

by Stephen Tall on March 14, 2019

Embed from Getty Images

Even by Brexit’s crazy standards, that was a roller-coaster of a week. It started with Theresa May speeding to Strasbourg in a desperate attempt to maintain the fiction there had been genuine concessions from the European Union on the infamous backstop.

When that swiftly unravelled the following day, courtesy the baritone straight-talking of attorney-general Geoffrey Cox, her deal was crushed, the second meaningful vote losing by a 149 majority.

Then, on successive days, the House of Commons voted to oppose no-deal (without legislating to prevent it) and oppose a second referendum, before finally coming to an agreement to postpone Brexit Day; either by 3 months, if Mrs May’s deal passes at the third, fourth, fifth etc attempt; or by much longer, if it doesn’t.

So what happens next?

Logic dictates that next week’s third meaningful vote on the PM’s deal may well pass; or fail narrowly enough that it might pass the next time (with Theresa May, you just know there will always be a next time).

There are various hints and rumours that the DUP might be amenable to flipping their opposition. There is talk of splits among the Tories’ hardline ERG no-dealers. There is an assumption some Labour MPs will in the end move across as the only sure-fire way of preventing a disastrous no-deal outcome.

In short, despite the complete breakdown of her authority and credibility — with cabinet ministers breaking three-line whips with impunity — the surest bet looks still to be Theresa May landing her deal.

And yet… these are norm-defying times we live in. I’ve made the mistake in the last few years of projecting my assumption of rationality — Project Fear will prevail; Trump has no electoral college route to victory; Corbyn’s Labour will lose badly — only to be sucker-punched by reality. The orthodoxy that no-deal just can’t happen because someone, somewhere, will stop it is, I hope, true.

But I can’t help feeling no-deal’s likelihood is being underestimated by people like me who keep on expecting the old norms to magically reassert themselves.

**

It looks like the People’s Vote (aka second referendum) is dead: 334 MPs voted against, with just 85 in favour. Missing in action, of course, were the Labour party: 201 of its MPs abstained, though even if they’d all gone through the aye lobby it would still have been a sizeable defeat.

From Labour’s point of view, though, their brief dalliance with a People’s Vote has served its purpose. It stalled the momentum of The Independent Group, helping to persuade many wavering moderate Labour MPs not to defect. Now, not least thanks to deputy leader Tom Watson’s fledgling party-within-a-party social democratic parliamentary group, Labour feels safe to revert to its previous over-riding commitment to have Brexit implemented by the Conservatives and keep its hands clean. It’s been an wholly cynical manoeuvre which has worked a treat, practically Mandelsonian in its brazen execution.

For the record, I’m one of those Remainers who think the 2016 referendum mandate lasts until we leave, assuming a respectable deal can be obtained. For all its many flaws, and it’s certainly a marked trade-down on our exceptionally good deal as an EU member, I think Theresa May’s deal is a workable way of honouring that mandate. Sorrynotsorry.

**

Vince Cable has announced he’s to resign as Lib Dem leader. I’ve long been a fan of his, though it’s hard to claim he’s set the political world alight in his two-year stint. Still, the challenge to stand out is much harder these days, as the joint fourth largest party.

While, for good reason, I generally avoid making political predictions these days, I feel safe in stating the next party leader will be a woman, the two front-runners being Jo Swinson and Layla Moran. Jo was a government minister during the Coalition; Layla was first elected in 2017. We know their position on Brexit, but little else, yet, about their economic or public policy positions (that’s not a criticism, just a statement).

So, plenty for Mark Pack and me to get stuck into in our next Never Mind the Barcharts podcast, which should be out next Tuesday, 19 March (my birthday, and what could be nicer than getting up at 5.40 am to make it in time for our recording slot?). Over 2,000 listens to date, for which much thanks!

**

One of the issues I periodically bang on about here is the root causes of the gender pay gap — which isn’t, as is often supposed, because of evil companies illegally paying women less than men, but because caring responsibilities primarily fall on women; that we lack a culture of flexible working (bad for all parents, not just mums); and that we under-value highly feminised employment sectors.

So I was interested to read Adam Corlett’s recent analysis for the Resolution Foundation on ‘the gender parenting gap’ which, unsurprisingly, found it’s still a man’s world:

Concentrating on families with a child under five, 93 per cent of parents making some kind of employment sacrifice were female in 2018, down from 98 per cent in 1992-93. Conversely, men’s share of this employment hit has risen from around 2 per cent to 7 per cent. … If the overall trend of the last 26 years were to continue it would take until the 2220s to reach gender parity on this measure.

The reason?

… parental leave and pay are likely the most important policies for the gender parenting gap, with couples’ later decisions about the division of parenting and employment strongly affected by their child’s first year or two. When the law offers mothers six weeks of leave at 90 per cent of salary (uncapped), and 33 weeks on a low income, but only offers fathers two weeks (albeit with the option of using some of the mother’s weeks) on that insufficient income, we shouldn’t be surprised that there is a large gender gap in employment and early years parenting.

Adam’s proposal:

… perhaps we should look to our Nordic neighbours. In Iceland, mothers get three months of generously-paid leave, fathers get the same (also non-transferable, importantly), and couples get a further three months to share between them. Or Spain, where paid paternity leave is in the process of being increased to 16 weeks to reach gender parity. And we should also look to companies such as Aviva that have introduced the same paid leave policy for fathers as for mothers. Individual attitudes matter too, and social norms are perhaps harder to change than policy, but improving the gender balance of both government and corporate parental policy should be something that both men and women can get behind.

PS: I’m working a 90% contract in my current role so that I get alternate Fridays with my two pre-school children. I’m well aware, mind, I’m fortunate to have an employer willing to offer that flexibility (and that I can afford to make the choice).

**

This week I’ve been watching Ricky Gervais’s unexpectedly heart-warming After Life, which I binged in one evening. Even if you hated everything he’s done since The Office, I think you’ll fall a little bit in love with this. (If you didn’t like The Office or anything else he’s done since, feel free to give this a miss.)

I’ve begun reading Robert Saunders’ incredibly readable Yes to Europe!: The 1975 Referendum and Seventies Britain. With every page, it becomes clearer quite how appallingly poorly prepared was David Cameron’s 2016 effort by comparison.

And I’ve enjoyed viewing Don McCullin’s extraordinary photographic exhibition at the Tate, a vast trove spanning London’s pre-gentrified East End, graphic war-torn countries’ suffering, and intimate portraits of domestic poverty. It really is stunning.

**

They grow up so fast, don’t they?

View this post on Instagram

4 today!

A post shared by Stephen (@stephentall) on

5 things about this week (5 March 2019)

by Stephen Tall on March 5, 2019

We’ve all had a week off Brexit, courtesy the scuttle-diplomacy of Theresa May and her attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, who are both doing their best to look busy in the hope that their blatant attempts to run down the clock to 29th March can retain a mere shimmer of credibility. He has, reports say, given up the hope of persuading the EU to annul the Irish backstop by ensuring the UK can renege on its agreement whenever the fancy takes it (grrr, rotten foreigners, eh?!)… or not, if you believe his partial denial of those reports.

I sometimes struggle to recall I’m one of those Remainers who actually at least half-supports Theresa May’s deal, such has been the mess she’s made of selling it (afraid as she is, as every Tory leaders appears doomed to be, of her feral backbench Brexiters). Her’s is, I suspect, probably about the best that could be made of a bad job: a far, far worse deal than our current privileged Euro membership, but a bespokely realistic means to square the circle of respecting the referendum result while not tanking the British economy.

That I – a happily self-confessed centrist – thinks that probably spells trouble for the Prime Minister. Like many who thought Brexit, Trump and both Corbyn surges were all infinetisimally unlikley because, surely, common sense would kick in, I wonder if I’m continuing to under-estimate the chances of a no-deal Brexit happening. I keep on looking for straws in the wind — chatter of an ERG climbdown, the DUP sounding not impossibly unreasonable — and caught myself confidently tweeting the other day that her deal has >35% chance of passing based on nothing more than my gut instinct that surely, common sense will kick in. I mean, it has to, right? Right, guys?

**

Reacting to the creation of The Independent Group, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, says she “would rather die than join any other party”. It’s a statement best read as (1) metaphorical (I hope), and (2) her latest OTT pitch to succeed Jeremy Corbyn. But it does sum up rather neatly the tribalism of our party system.

To an extent, I understand it. Back in my most Lib Demmy days (when a councillor and editing LibDemVoice) I could be pretty partisan; maybe it’s a necessary pre-condition, if you’re going to (as I did) volunteer 20+ hours a week on top of your day-job, in order to justify such eccentric behaviour. Though I never went as far as making a legacy to the party — I’ve never had quite enough confidence the party’s beliefs and mine will always align — so I’m certainly not signing my life away to it.

But, for all my reservations about the party’s current breadth of vision (lack thereof) and strategic direction (ditto), and the occasional dottiness of its priorities, policies and processes, I do still believe that the country will be better for having more people support the Lib Dems and more Lib Dems elected to positions of responsibility.

So, when the email came through from my party asking if I’d be willing to be a candidate (again) in this year’s local elections, I knew I had to say yes. That’s, I reckon, a sensible level of commitment.

PS: Mark Pack and I discuss the new Independent Group — what we make of it and whether it’s a threat to the Lib Dems — in the latest episode of our podcast, now officially named Never Mind the Barcharts. Listen to it here.

**

[Please admire the following segue, I don’t just throw this stuff together y’know…] ‘Our aim is to pursue policies that are evidence-based, not led by ideology’ begins the second paragraph of The Independent Group’s statement of values. You might expect me — a fully signed-up evidence junkie — to cheer and I do.

But with two cautions.

First, there’s nearly always some evidence somewhere to justify pretty much any policy if you look hard enough. What matters, therefore, is (1) finding high-quality evidence, and (2) synthesising it to understand the consistent messages. That’s a lot easier in my area of semi-expertise, education, than it is in many other areas of public policy, where good evidence is thin on the ground.

Secondly, even when you have good evidence, ideology (or, to use a different, softer, term ‘values’) still matters. As I wrote here, in A liberal approach to evidence-based policy-making, if I wanted to boost voter turn-out at elections, simply following the evidence would lead me to recommend making voting compulsory; after all, in Australia turn-out is consistently over 90%. However, as I believe voting is a right, not an obligation, it’s not something I’d support.

Evidence is important, yes, absolutely, but don’t out-source your ideology to it.

**

Evidence works best when you’ve agreed a policy aim and you want to find out how to implement it in line with your values, effectively and cost-effectively. Let’s take a practical example, a bugbear of mine I’ve written about before — that universities are scandalously incurious about how best to spend the £800 million a year they currently plough into ‘widening participation’ schemes which aim to improve entry and reduce drop-out rates for students from under-represented and disadvantaged backgrounds:

Financial aid for students is undoubtedly a good thing. However, the evidence is clear that scholarships and bursaries do very little to address the biggest issue I think faces higher education: how can you get more young people from low-income backgrounds with the talent to succeed into university in the first place. Universities are focusing too much effort on (very expensive) financial aid in the name of widening participation when in reality it’s often a marketing/positioning exercise. British universities are appalling bad at evaluating the impact of their widening participation activities. If they’re serious about tackling the social divide they need to get a lot smarter and a lot more rigorous about finding out what actually works so they can invest their money effectively in widening participation strategies that truly make a difference.

Congratulations, then, to the Office for Students which, absent any leadership from the higher education sector itself, has stepped up to the plate. It will be funding a new, independent centre ‘providing evidence on the impact of different approaches to widening access and improving outcomes and progression for disadvantaged students’. Long overdue, but very welcome

**

I’ve been listening to Brit-ish, Afua Hirsch’s thoughtful and through-provoking reflection on growing up as a mixed-race person in Britain. She totally persuaded me that our education systems need to de-colonise the curriculum (or, more to the point, give an accurate and rounded account of this country’s people and its history which doesn’t erase/gloss the problematic bits). I was less persuaded by her arguments on cultural appropriation. I would have been interested in some international comparisons – eg, is our race problem peculiarly British, or could a similar book have been written called French-ish? But it’s well worth a read/listen, particular for its central thesis that progressives claiming “I don’t see colour” are part of the problem.

I’ve been reading Caroline Criado Perez’s essay in The Guardian, The deadly truth about a world built for men, excerpted from her new book, Invisible Women. Lots of everyday examples, from air-con to toilets in theatres to the size of phones, which exemplify how patriarchy unthinkingly discriminates against those born female (yes, it turns out — who knew? — biology matters!).

**

Usual quiet Sunday

A post shared by Stephen (@stephentall) on

5 things about this week (21 Feb 2019)

by Stephen Tall on February 21, 2019

This week saw the birth of the long-awaited new centrist party, The Independent Group. Who knows what’s going to happen?

My heart says I hope it thrives. At last, a handful of the grown-ups in our two main parties have had the courage of their convictions and done something constructive, positive. Just perhaps it will force a response from the Conservatives and Labour, a reversion to the sensible, moderate mainstream; a rejection of their current adherence to their controlling extremists, whether ERG or Momentum.

My heads says it’s bound to get squashed by our stultifying electoral system, which stifles at birth all insurgents (ironically, Ukip only prospered thanks to the proportional system of the Euro elections). That the initial excitement will give way to predictable squabbles about leadership and policy direction.

But, for just a few days, I’m going to suspend my analytical pessimism. There’ll be plenty of time for that. For now, I’m just enjoying the sight of 11 MPs once again happy in their own skins, liberated, feeling free to express the views and values they’ve always held without the cold disapproval of their rigid parties.

And what absolute stars Luciana Berger and Heidi Allen turned out to be. There’s long been a commentariat assumption any new party would need a famous name with gravitas to succeed. But maybe the opposite is true, and the pleasant surprise of calm, honest, down-to-earth decency is what will give TIG traction.

It’s been a long time since I’ve watched the news with any sense of cheerfulness. It was enough to persuade me to chuck them a tenner, to wish them well.

**

You only have to look at the decision of home secretary Sajid Javid to revoke the British citizenship of Shamima Begum, the Bethnal Green youngster groomed and radicalised by Islamic State, to see how low our current political leaders will stoop to grub for popularity.

As international law forbids a citizen from being made stateless, it’s highly likely Mr Javid’s decision will be overturned. But, from his point of view, it’s served its purpose: he can pose as the strong voice of common sense for the right-wing media, no matter that the tough-minded decision would be for this country to step up and take responsibility for one of our own, rather than attempt to shunt the problem onto another country.

As The Times’s Anthony Lloyd, who interviewed Shamima and reckons she would be an ideal candidate for a de-radicalisation programme, writes:

… if the home secretary were to make his decisions based upon security, then he would push for the prompt repatriation from Syria of every single British Isis member, including Kotey and Elsheikh. The current situation, whereby more than 900 foreign fighters and nearly 3,000 foreign family members from 49 countries are cooped up in camps alongside thousands of Syrian and Iraqi Isis members in one of the most unstable parts of the Middle East is unsustainable; a calamity waiting to happen.

Yet so far, in the week since Ms Begum’s story emerged, little evidence of reasoned, informed consideration and debate has appeared. We would do well to realise that victory against Isis will be measured in no small part by our ability to have the confidence in our own legal system and values in dealing with British citizens who joined the jihadists.

If our institutions and sense of worth cannot deal fairly and appropriately with a runaway schoolgirl from Bethnal Green, who may well be more deserving of rescue and rehabilitation than hatred and condemnation, then we will indeed have become a very little England.

**

Speaking of little England, here’s the obligatory Brexit paragraph… I don’t know to what extent the UK’s bonkers decision to leave the EU played a part in first Nissan’s decision to shift production of its X-Trail from Sunderland to Japan, or of Ford to to scale back engine production in Bridgend, or of British carmaker JLR to cut 4,500 jobs, or of tyremaker Michelin to close a factory in Dundee, or of German car-parts maker Schaeffler to close factories in Llanelli and Plymouth, or of Honda’s decision this week to shut its Swindon plant with the loss of up to 7,000 jobs… but, alongside the downturn in the Chinese economy, it’s fair to say it was in the mix.

This is the Brexit reality: a sharp and sustained economic decline which Leavers will shrug off, pretending either its unrelatedness or else reckoning that the short-term pain will be worth the long-term gain.

Remember: here’s the link to donate to The Independent Group.

**

I never much liked Martina Navratilova in the 1980s. I hope it was simply that I preferred underdogs and that’s a label that never really applied to one of the greatest female tennis players of all time. But, looking back, I was probably also influenced by the distaste some felt at the time for a no-nonsense independent woman who was an outspoken advocate of gay, lesbian and trans rights.

But I was nothing but impressed by her article in this week’s Sunday Times pointing out that allowing transwomen to compete against women in sports events is intrinsically unfair. It’s not just that I agree with her, but also the way she modelled her argument, noting that, after her initial comments a few months ago triggered a Twitter row, “I promised to keep quiet on the subject until I had properly researched it”:

Well, I’ve now done that and, if anything, my views have strengthened. To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organisation is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires. It’s insane and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.

She’s right and her bravery in speaking up (in spite of the inevitable wokelash) has prompted many other female athletes to make the same point, such as Paula Radcliffe: “If you are born and grow up male you cannot be allowed to compete in female sports simply because you ‘identify’ as female. It makes a mockery of the definitions of male and female sports categories.” Let’s hope this opens up the space for a long-overdue debate, minus the tedious slurs that those sticking up for single-sex spaces for women are ‘transphobes’.

**

This week I watched Netflix’s documentary, Fyre: the greatest party that never happened, about the catastrophic failure of a “luxury music experience on a posh private island” orchestrated by a compulsive liar called Billy McFarland, who seems to have taken The Wolf of Wall Street as an inspiration rather than a cautionary tale.

And this week, I resume my 9-day fortnights Yes, I’ve opted for a 90% contract at work at least until my eldest child starts school in September: time to enjoy with him every possible moment of his last few pre-school months.

View this post on Instagram

No need to ask "Did you enjoy nursery today?"

A post shared by Stephen (@stephentall) on

5 things about this week (15 Feb 2019)

by Stephen Tall on February 15, 2019

So we’re heading for a no-deal Brexit. That, at any rate, is the mood music this week from well-informed observers like ITV’s Robert Peston and Huffington Post’s Paul Waugh.

Waugh’s account is particularly eye-catching for its claim that Theresa May’s preference for a cliff-edge Brexit is motivated by the need to preserve Conservative party unity:

One source says: “She’s been told – ‘You need to understand prime minister, it’s very simple maths – the ERG [European Research Group] will fuck you, fuck the Conservative party and they will throw themselves over a cliff. Your Remainer colleagues will not’. It’s who’s got the biggest balls.”

Of course, it’s impossible to read a Brexit story now without wondering whether it’s been briefed as part of a strategy.

Is the hyping up of no-deal actually just a clever bluff by Number 10 to try and rouse Remainer Tory MPs (and pragmatic/Leaver Labour MPs) to get behind Theresa May’s deal? Or is it a double-bluff to try and convince no-deal Leaver Tories that the PM is actually on their side, after all, so to give her the benefit of the doubt if she comes back from Brussels with some more backstop reassurance? Or is it just indiscriminate bluff, with Theresa May desperately hoping that someone else will blink first before she eventually has to?

Who knows, it may even be entirely accurate. Perhaps Theresa May is convinced the best way to save the Tory party is to fix it to the no-deal mast. No-one can be sure.

‘A sphinx without a riddle,’ was Bismarck’s famous epigraph of Napoleon III; ‘from afar something, near at hand nothing’; ‘a great unfathomed incapacity.’

* I loved this cartoon, from The Economist’s KAL, when I first saw it. It seemed to sum up so much about the un-meeting of minds during the UK-EU Brexit negotiations (although in a sop to Brexiter grand-standing, the British plug is actually, genuinely superior).

**

Churchill: hero or villain? It’s a debate which spikes up on social media every few months or so, with predictably entrenched results. The performative woke left dusts off its version of history to decry his infamies. Meanwhile the brittle nationalist right cries foul at any attempt to besmirch this great Briton’s virtues. Attempts at nuanced reflection rarely prosper in this binary echo-chamber.

But, for me, this New Stateman piece by Simon Heffer – from 2015 – best captures the contradiction of Churchill, both hero and villain:

The myth keeps us from an honest interpretation of our history in the first half of the 20th century. The false and romanticised picture we have of him, created by his reputation from 1940-45, is a huge obstacle to true understanding. In one aspect of his life, when the man met the hour, he was as outstanding as anyone in British history has been. In all others he was just another politician on the make, firing out opinions at random in the hope that one, now and again, would hit the target. He had a bellicosity that in all circumstances other than 1940-45 could be intensely dangerous, and that had its downside even in the fight against Hitler.

**

I was a huge fan of Jeremy Hardy. One of the first Radio 4 comedies I remember laughing at was At Home with the Hardys (1987-90), and I loved listening to him, whether on his eponymous ‘Speaks to the Nation’ series or ‘I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue’ or ‘The News Quiz’. Yes, he was an unreconstructed lefty; but he was also self-aware, happily taking the piss out of his own views as well as his opponents’.

I remember once blatantly stealing one of his lines in my only ever stand-up (well, actually sit-down) comedy performance, at a university open mic event, when I took the easy gig of playing an old-school racist Tory, reminiscing about how “we turned the map of the world pink before homsexuality was even fashionable”.

I once asked Channel 4’s head of comedy why Jeremy didn’t have his own show: “some people are diminished by TV,” she said. And it’s true, as he himself admitted, that radio was the medium where he thrived.

I loved Hugo Rifkind’s tribute to him, especially this line: “… he also knew that a person’s political identity, however fierce, may just be their own formalisation of a broader morality on which others, with other politics, will agree.”

**

The third (final?) podcast – The As Yet Unnamed Political Podcast – from Mark Pack and me is now live. Topics we discuss in 30 minutes include universal basic income and (relatedly) self-styled radicalism, as well as the prospect of a new centre party.

And, crucially, if we do actually make it a regular thing, what we should call the podcast. My suggestions of ‘Stick it on a podcast’ (inspired by David Penhaligon), ‘Lib Dem Ear Trumpet’ and ‘Never Mind the Barcharts’ have all been pooh-poohed by Mark. However, we’re both resolved not to open it up to a public vote. That way, disaster lies.

PS: I cling to my Lib Dem membership, in spite of the best attempts of the party (this time in the person of Lynne Featherstone, someone for whom I’ve previously had huge respect) to make itself look ridiculous – this time by claiming that anyone still supporting the Equality Act 2010 cannot be a feminist and should just quit.

**

A fortnight’s bronchitis has at least had one compensation: I’m pretty much up-to-date with my TV backlog: Netflix’s Sex Education (quite remarkably good), as well ultimate “warm bath telly”: ITV’s Grantchester (new vicar shaping up pretty well) and Cold Feet (I remember watching the first episode in 1998), and BBC1’s Call the Midwife (no, still haven’t watched it without crying).

Now I just need to get the energy back to start reading books again…

 

View this post on Instagram

 

Novelty value

A post shared by Stephen (@stephentall) on

5 things about this week (31 Jan 2019)

by Stephen Tall on January 31, 2019

One of the reasons I wanted to resume blogging again was properly to capture my real-time thinking on issues. It’s good for the soul to be constantly reminded when you read yourself back quite how stupidly wrong you’re capable of being. (Though this technique doesn’t seem to work for Nick Timothy.)

Last week, I opened with the lines, ‘What is Theresa May playing at? A week on from the heaviest parliamentary defeat since ever, and still she’s clinging to her Brexit deal, her Plan A-thru-Z.’ Yet the logic of her position now seems both clear and justifiable.

True, she only scraped her Commons’ win this week by flipping her long-stated (and correct) position that the infamous backstop in the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement is non-negotiable. The EU is clearly not going to shift on this in any remotely significant way, and certainly not before the next meaningful parliamentary vote on 14 February. It’s quite likely, then, that she will lose again. But less badly than the first time, I’d expect.

In essence, Theresa May is winning the war of attrition to get her Brexit deal through. She may well have to ask the EU to extend Article 50 to give her more time; but, slowly but surely, her deal is emerging as the only option left on the table.

We know from this week’s Commons votes there’s insufficient support for a second referendum (let alone simply revoking Article 50). There still seems to be no real momentum behind a Norway-style EEA deal (small wonder: it is quite patently a worse “rule-taker not rule-maker” outcome than our current membership). Yet, the Commons has also shown it is against a ‘No deal’ – sure, it did so in as toothless a way as possible, but I still find it hard to imagine Theresa May wanting, or being allowed by her cabinet, to take us over the precipice.

Which leaves… Theresa May’s deal, faute de mieux. I’m still not quite sure how it gets across the finishing line, but it’s the only one with the legs to get there.

**

But of course that’s not the end of the story (even if what I’ve said above turns out to be accurate).

As Stephen Bush noted in 2017, the Nafta deal, signed in 1993, was still a defining issue in US politics in the 2016 presidential primaries and general election.

The arguments about Brexit aren’t going to disappear the day the Withdrawal Agreement takes effect. Some Leavers are going to continue to call Theresa May’s deal a cop-out; and if one of their number wins their party’s leadership contest the issue will remain live. Unreconciled Remainers are going to begin their push for the UK to rejoin the EU.

The battle may soon be over. The war’s only just begun.

And on that bombshell, let us speak no more of Brexit for the rest of this blog…

**

“Social mobility in the UK is so much worse than it used to be. If only we could be more like the highly-educated meritocratic Germans.”

Say this at a dinner party and you’ll probably get many nods of appreciation for your sagacity. But, it turns out, both sentences are pretty wide of the mark.

There’s a fascinating article at The Conversation by Erzsebet Bukodi, who, with John Goldthorpe, has examined extensive British birth cohort studies from which they conclude:

‘… social mobility in Britain is not in decline. Absolute rates of class mobility between generations have been stable at least over the period since World War II. Men and women today are just as likely to be found in different class positions to those of their parents as they were in the 1950s.’

And as for the Germans…

‘… Britain is one of a group of West-Nordic countries that show – comparatively – high fluidity within their class structures. One reason for this is that, in Britain, education is not class destiny to the same extent as it is in a country such as Germany.

‘In Germany, and several other Western-Central European countries, the educational system is highly stratified, with early selection for different types of school. Because there is then a tight link between formal educational qualifications and employment opportunities, educational inequalities are rather systematically translated into labour market inequalities. Where such “credentialism” prevails, education can in fact prove a barrier to, as much as a source of, social mobility.’

Can’t guarantee saying all this will go down as well at a dinner party, mind.

**

In our first pilot podcast — available to listen to here! — Mark Pack and I answered the question, ‘If you could get the government to think about one thing other than B*****, what would it be?’

I chose public transport on the grounds that it would do most to help improve productivity (while also improving people’s everyday lives). So I was interested to read this analysis in CityMetric:

‘Allowing 30 minutes of travel time using fixed infrastructure such as a tram gives Birmingham a population of about 1.7 million people, which is very close to its population as defined by the OECD of about 1.9 million. But at peak time Birmingham’s effective population is just 0.9m – less than half the population that the OECD use.

‘This is where things get very interesting. If we consider that Birmingham has a population of 1.9m, and we assume that agglomeration benefits should work in the UK to the same extent that they work in France, Birmingham has a 33 per cent productivity shortfall. This underperformance of the UK’s large cities is part of the productivity puzzle that UK economists have been desperately trying to solve.’

Well worth your time to read here.

And it does, I hope, back up my podcast argument that there are many less expensive ways than HS2 (or HS3/4) or Crossrail to boost the economy. But they’re also less sexy so get politicians less excited.

**

I’ve been watching Netflix’s Sex Education — and, somewhat to my surprise, loving it (I’m two episodes in). I watched it out of curiosity because work colleagues raved about it. It’s like a cross between The Breakfast Club, American Pie and The Inbetweeners, cleverly blurring it’s British/American identity: the cast speaks with British accents, including Gillian Anderson, but the setting is generic American college. There’s some unnecessary nudity — though I guess you probably wouldn’t watch it with your mum anyway — but it’s smart, sweet and very funny.

And I’ve been listening to Radio 4’s Front Row interview with Germaine Greer. She really is quite incapable of uttering an uninteresting sentence. A fascinating retrospective as she reaches her ninth decade.

And that’s it for another week. Apart for this:

View this post on Instagram

I was in charge of tea tonight and yes that is my son dunking his chips in his Shreddies just call social services now

A post shared by Stephen (@stephentall) on

Theresa May photo: Image by Jay Allen, Crown Copyright – used under Creative Commons

5 things about this week (23 Jan 2018)

by Stephen Tall on January 23, 2019

What is Theresa May playing at? A week on from the heaviest parliamentary defeat since ever, and still she’s clinging to her Brexit deal, her Plan A-thru-Z.

The reason, I guess, is clear. She would rather go down in history as the Prime Minister who brought the country to its knees (by allowing no deal) than the Conservative leader who split asunder her party (by blocking no deal).

There was a time, not that long ago, when I could conjure up some sympathy for Mrs May. She was the only grown up left standing in her party’s 2016 leadership contest. Even her reach for a hard Brexit, withdrawing from the single market to end free movement, I could initially understand given the desire of so many to ‘take back control’ of our borders.

But she has failed to acknowledge two realities. First, the significance of the Northern Ireland border with the EU which stymies a British exit from the Customs Union. And secondly, the significance of losing her majority at the 2017 election, which meant any deal would require an embrace across the Commons chamber given the implacable zealotry of her own party’s Brexit headbangers.

Ignoring both, Mrs May has created the current impasse. As a result, she is left with just one hope: that by kicking the can down the road long enough, one of the two obstacles she faces — either the headbangers or the EU — will jump out of her way. This seems massively to underestimate their respective persistence.

I suspect she knows that. But still she cannot bring herself to put country before party. It’s quite the political obituary she’s writing herself.

**

I finally got round to watching Channel 4’s Brexit: the Uncivil War, written by the splendid James Graham. It’s good fun and well worth a watch, but it also grated on me for three principal reasons:

1) while Benedict Cumberbatch is superb as Vote Leave’s combustible éminence grise, Dominic Cummings, the casting is also a bit easy. Yes, here’s the guy who played that psychopathic genius, Sherlock — DO YOU GET THE PARALLEL?? — as the geeky protagonist who (we’re more or less told) single-handedly wins the referendum by inserting the word ‘back’ in the middle of the campaign’s slogan, ‘take control’.

2) Cummings was, of course, a key character in Vote Leave’s success. But not as pivotal as the film made out (his boss Matthew Elliot was probably more influential). The play which made James Graham’s name, This House, set during the final groaning years of the minority Callaghan government, was an ensemble piece and all the better for it.

3) it also falls too hard for the half-conspiracy theory that Cummings’ recruitment of Cambridge Analytica and its dodgy Facebook ads were the difference between the two campaigns. We’ll never know for sure, but I can’t help feeling that three decades’ relentlessly negative media coverage of the EU from the right-wing press (ie, pretty much all of it) dutifully followed up by the broadcasters, was way more influential.

**

Can I be the last person to slate Russell Brand for his jaw-dropping shirking of the excruciating and mundane bits of fatherhood he doesn’t care for? Here’s what he told the Sunday Times’s Decca Aitkenhead:

I’m very, very focused on the mystical connotations of Mabel’s beauty and grace. Not so good on the nappies and making sure that they eat food. … Laura’s able to sustain and maintain domesticity in a way that’s astonishing. I didn’t have much experience of how to organise domesticity. … Laura does all of it. It turns out that she is extremely well versed in the nuances and complexities of child-rearing.

Because of course mothers are genetically programmed to change nappies and pack carrot sticks while, for fathers, such desiderata is the equivalent of learning Mandarin while skiing up a treacle-covered Everest.

Reading this new-age-woke-bloke-laziness I’m reminded of a Guardian article Helen Lewis once wrote, highlighting the default assumption that’s still only slowly changing that mothers are the home-makers: Yes, there is one great contribution men can make to feminism: pick up a mop.

**

I’ve gone done a second pilot podcast with Mark Pack, still titled the ‘As Yet Unnamed Political Podcast’ – you can listen to it here. We cover Paddy Ashdown, Lib Dem strategy, Tim Farron’s record, and overseas elections. But (almost) no Brexit because Mark wouldn’t let me. Next time (if there is a next time)…

**

It’s 25 years since BBC2 first broadcast The Day Today, one of the greatest satirical TV shows of all time. Which is all the excuse I need to post this clip – WAR! – which captured perfectly the symbiosis of amped-up media and failed political leadership a full quarter of a century before Brexit:

5 things about this week (10 January 2019)

by Stephen Tall on January 10, 2019

Embed from Getty Images

Let’s pick up where I left off, and see if I can make a proper go of it this time, eh?

**

78 days to Brexit and the paradox that is its simultaneously mind-numbingly boring and risk-takingly thrilling denouement. Throughout the autumn, barely a day seemed to pass without a ministerial resignation. Into 2019, and its government defeats which are all the rage (literally). Frankly, it’s all too much to process.

And not just for the public, I suspect. MPs, too, seem to be caught in the traffic-light daze of the enormity and complexity confronting them. Brexiters and Remainers alike are queuing up to reject Theresa May’s deal and the infamous ‘backstop’, without seemingly caring over-much if they could really do any better; at least in a way which both honours the referendum result and squares the circle of the Northern Ireland border.

James Kirkup, journalist-turned-think-tanker, has today written a thoughtful piece in The Times praising the Prime Minister’s deal:

In truth, the deal would leave Britain able to choose, though from a range of imperfect options. But that’s what Brexit means. Having rejected a first-class trade deal with our closest partners, we are left to choose between second-best alternatives. Most adults eventually accept that growing up means giving up on fairytales of perfection and instead choosing between least-bad options. Mrs May’s deal, backstop and all, is the least bad option open to Britain. MPs should vote for it.

Well worth a read in full (yes, it’s paywalled but you get two free articles a week for registering). Of course, it’s rationale is predicated on our politicians being able to look beyond their slogans and consider politics as the art of the possible. So a crushing Commons defeat for Theresa May still seems the most likely outcome of the big vote.

**

I’ve just returned from a couple of weeks’ holiday in Spain with my in-laws, celebrating New Year and its Fiesta de los Reyes. Brexit was, incidentally, barely mentioned on the news programmes; other European countries have their own domestic worries, and the UK’s hara-kiri simply baffles them.

I decided to take a break from Twitter, too, but obviously couldn’t completely stick to that. My occasional lapse did at least mean I didn’t miss out on this excellent article by the New Statesman’s Helen Lewis, which I’m highlighting for two reasons.

First, its subject – the toxic debate about gender self-ID – is one I’ve written about here before. Indeed, it was a big part of the motivation to re-start my blog because it felt a better medium than Twitter to highlight my deep concerns about the undermining of single-sex spaces for natal-born women.

Secondly, Helen Lewis is the writer who first got me interested in this subject (and identity politics more generally). She has written extensively and sympathetically about the need to improve rights and services for transgender people, while also highlighting the problems associated with self-ID. And as a result, has been regularly traduced as a ‘transphobe’ and ‘TERF‘ for the latter (with the former ignored).

Her article is gloriously angry, but also makes a very serious point about woke activism:

Supporting better funding for gender identity services doesn’t make you a radical activist. It just makes you someone who is destined to be disappointed by a Conservative government. Supporting self-ID, by contrast, in the face of all the evidence it might have unforeseen consequences for everything from prison populations to crime statistics to women’s participation in competitive sports – now, that makes you look right-on.

**

I’ve gone done a podcast. Well, everyone has these days. It’s “the classic ‘two dudes talking’ format” – to quote my co-presenter, Mark Pack – with the idea of filling the gap in the market for liberals chatting politics and stuff. You can have a listen here and let us know what you think…

**

Tonight we’ve submitted our online application for a primary school place for our soon-to-be-4 year-old. We’re lucky in Horsham; all the nearest six schools we visited (ie, within 2 miles) are Ofsted-rated ‘Good’ and do well in national tests. And no, that’s not the be-all-and-end-all, but still.

Indeed, precisely because they’re all clearly good schools, it made our decision a bit trickier. And, to be honest, us as parents a bit fussier. He loves music, is half-Spanish, extremely energetic — so our ideal is a school with instruments and mutlilingualism and plenty of outdoor space. Fingers crossed.

One school which was quickly ruled out was the one with the motto, ‘Be sensible and safe’. To be clear, I’m not advocating ‘stupid and dangerous’ as preferable for kids. But — not to go all new-age hippy — I would prioritise exploration and risk-taking (within a safe environment).

On which note, it’s well worth reading Jonathan Haidt and Pamela Paresky’s article in today’s Guardian, By mollycoddling our children, we’re fuelling mental illness in teenagers:

Children’s social and emotional abilities are as antifragile as their immune systems. If we overprotect kids and keep them “safe” from unpleasant social situations and negative emotions, we deprive them of the challenges and opportunities for skill-building they need to grow strong. Such children are likely to suffer more when exposed later to other unpleasant but ordinary life events, such as teasing and social exclusion.

… free play, in which kids work out their own rules of engagement, take small risks, and learn to master small dangers (such as having a snowball fight) turns out to be crucial for the development of adult social and even physical competence. …

How can we raise kids strong enough to handle the ordinary and extraordinary challenges of life? There’s a powerful piece of folk wisdom: prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child. As soon as you grasp the concept of antifragility, you understand why that folk saying is true.

**

Cultural corner… Having been away, I’ve only just caught up on BBC1’s latest Agatha Christie adaptation, The ABC Murders. I’m pretty open to re-interpretations of classics, but they should at least respect the canon. Yet Sarah Phelps’ version transformed Hercule Poirot from a deeply religious, retired Belgian policeman, whose patriotic integrity is part of his DNA into an atheistic ex-priest, who deceives his country and closest friends. However stylish the cinematography, the thing was badly done. Niall Gooch has written an excellent critique of it here.

But let me end on a positive. I read Stuart Turton’s The Seven Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle while on holiday and absolutely loved it. Described as Agatha Christie meets Groundhog Day (with a dollop of gothic horror) it is scintillatingly original, and especially impressive for a debut.

And that’s it – hopefully for another week, rather than another four months this time…

View this post on Instagram

Waited years for an in-focus shot of me casually throwing a child in the air. I finally have one. Thank you @flo_westbrook for this great pic (among many others)

A post shared by Stephen (@stephentall) on