Lots of good advice here for anyone interviewing politicians for academic work. It reminds me of a student whose interviewee (a Labour grandee) began by ordering *two* bottles of wine - one each - "to get things started". The student never could remember what they'd talked about.
I've had some great experiences interviewing politicians. Jim Sillars introduced me to the Tunnocks bar. Gyles Brandreth jumped the security cordon and showed me around the National Liberal Club, while a retired peer had spent the morning baking and wanted feedback on her work.
Betty Boothroyd began our interview by asking: "Are you sure I was involved in this? I can't remember a thing about it. The name is Boothroyd: B-o-o-t-h..." before giving me 40 minutes of absolute gold.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If anyone thinks this is a good faith proposal, designed to secure democratic consent for changes to public monuments, let's look at what Robert Jenrick said four months ago about the procedures he is about to impose. [THREAD]
2. In a speech last September, Jenrick complained that "the planning system is broken". Only "1% of people" had "the esoteric knowledge to navigate [its] arcane and protracted world", shutting out those "who don’t have the time to contribute to the lengthy and archaic process".
3. If campaigners make it through that process (which Jenrick himself calls "as inconsistent as it is slow") more barriers lie ahead. "I will not hesitate to use my powers as Secretary of State" to enforce the view, to "be set out in law", that statues should "almost always" stay
There are important differences between Trump and Johnson, but I'm wary of the idea that Johnson is "liberal" and Trump "authoritarian". I fear this overstates Johnson's "liberalism", and risks missing the warning lights that should now be flashing across British politics. THREAD
2. It's true that Johnson has a "libertarian" streak: he dislikes rules, taxes, "red tape", "do-gooders" and the "nanny state". But so does Trump. Indeed, Trump goes much further on this, presenting masks, lockdowns, gun control, taxes & environmentalism as a danger to "freedom".
3. Johnson is not morally conservative, but nor is Trump. Neither much cares what people do in private, & neither sets much store by "conservative" moral norms on truth, fidelity or sexual continence. (Tories used to call this "licence", not "liberalism", but it's common to both)
Quiz question: of which prime minister was it said, "the P.M. never moves until he is forced, and then it is usually too late"?
Answer: H.H. Asquith in World War One. It's a parallel that tells us something, I think, about Boris Johnson's current predicament.
Asquith was a lifelong Liberal - the last man to lead a wholly Liberal govt - but found himself dismantling the liberal state in the face of total war. Conscription, press censorship, unprecedented restrictions on personal freedom: all went against the politics he believed in.
Johnson lacks Asquith's intellectual depth, but faces a similar problem. The pandemic is shredding his whole approach to politics: the mockery of the "nanny state", the nose-thumbing at authority, the contempt for rules, and dislike of "do-gooders" who try to tell you what to do.
Like @ProfTimBale, I'll be standing down shortly as Co-Director of the @MileEndInst. It's been one of the best parts of my job in recent years, so thanks to the brilliant @ProfTimBale & @sofiacusano and to everyone who took part in our events. A few lockdown highlights follow...
Our "Future of British Democracy" series explored reform of the Civil Service, the future of the House of Lords, "Corruption and the British State", and reform of Judicial Review. All our webinars are freely available on our YouTube channel.
The big story in Parliament today really isn't which of three bad options the Opposition parties will choose. It is the absolute travesty of parliamentary democracy that is about to play out: a microcosm of the shattering effect Brexit has had on our constitution. [THREAD]
MPs are being asked to shovel through, in a single day, a bill that was published yesterday, implementing a treaty agreed six days ago, which comes into force tomorrow night. The European Communities Act 1972 was debated in Parliament for 300 hours. Today's bill will get about 5.
MPs will have at most four minutes to speak on a trade agreement covering more than 1,200 pages. Few will have had time to read it anyway, and their votes will mostly be cast by the Whips. The entire charade will be over shortly after lunch.
It is right to ask *why* industries like fishing have declined. The problem is the blithe assumption that the answer must always be "because of the EU". The problems facing the UK fishing industry long predate EU membership, and will not be magically solved by Brexit. [THREAD]
1. Fishing had been declining for much of the twentieth century. The number of UK fishermen more than halved in mid-century: from nearly 48,000 in 1938 to 21,000 in 1970. By 1970 - the year *before* the UK signed the Treaty of Accession - fishing made up less than 0.1% of UK GDP.
2. That decline had many causes. A century of over-fishing had left stocks dangerously depleted. Younger generations were moving out, in search of safer and better-paid work inland. And the "Cod Wars" with Iceland (1958-76) triggered the collapse of the Atlantic trawler fleet.