Why so much media coverage of a party with 5 MPs - strange case of Reform UK?

The advance of Reform UK has been in no small part due to it's promotion in the British media. A party of just five MPs appears to dominate the political discourse. Compare the amount of media coverage of Reform UK to say the Green Party, with it's four MPs or the Independents with their five seats. Even the Liberal Democrats do not fair well in the comparison stakes, with their 72 seats. The new party launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zara Sultana has drawn quite a lot of coverage but these are early days. The spread of Reform UK is amazing to behold. They seem to hold an almost permanent pew on programs like the BBCs Question Time. Leader Nigel Farage has been on the program more than any other politician over the years. In the print media, Reform UK also seem increasingly to make the running. It was extraordinary recently to see respected financial journalist Hamish McRae taking Farage's opinion on the future of pensions as his departure point for an article in the I paper on the subject. Reform UK has ofcourse fanned the flames of the immigration debate, always involved in the discussions over the boats coming across the channel or protests outside asylum hotels. Editors claim that Reform UK are popular, likely to form the next government - if the polls are to be believed - so warrant the coverage. But the next election is four years away. Why was so much coverage, particularly on the BBC, given to the party launching its law and order policy back in July? It was presented, as though an election had been called not that one maybe four years hence. Reform UK are no doubt reaping the benefit of a tendency in recent years to predict rather than report what is going to happen in the news. The danger with such an approach is that the prediction becomes a reality. The failure of the Labour government to communicate it's own narrative is another factor. This has created a vacuum that Reform UK, with it's media savvy leader Farage is always willing to fill. The government often make things worse by appearing to run scared of Reform UK, seeming to want to ape their policies rather than reject and state their own. The editors would claim the coverage is legitimate, given Reform UKs polling. They represent the discontent of much of the population with mainstream parties. Organisations like the BBC would claim they have a duty to cover the new party, scrutinising what it is all about. True enough. This particular approach will be put to the test now that Reform UK are running a number of councils and mayoralities. If the electorate still want Reform UK, what can the media do,? Though, the US media would claim it scrutinised Donald Trump. He even had a first term, yet the electorate decided he should have a second term. A less righteous view is that much of the media like Reform UK because they are good box office. Farage always has a media friendly soundbite to offer. The party has a number of, to put it nicely, eccentrics, who will always entertain. This line of thought no doubt has a role for programs like Question Time, though, they would claim the scrutiny role. It is a difficult argument. Reform UK need to be covered and scrutinised. If the electorate then put them into power so be it. But there also needs to be care taken not to promote the new party, making Farage's ascent to Number 10 seem almost an inevitability. So a fine line has to be trod, otherwise mayhem beckons.

Civil liberties are under unprecedented attack

Civil liberties are under attack in the UK in a way that has never been seen in modern times. There is always a tension between citizens liberties and those who govern, going back through the centuries. These ancient rights, like free speech, right of assembly and trial by jury, go hand in hand with the functioning of a healthy democracy. As democracy falters, so those in power, feel insecure and the need to clamp down. A former chief constable said that the mantra, give me your liberties and I will provide security, has been the refrain of dictators down the ages. It is a threat that is never far away. In modern times the conflict in the north of Ireland provided ample proof of liberties being removed on the back of security. Then, Home Secretary Royal Jenkins first introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in the wake of IRA bombings in England. He introduced the measure in 1974, which allowed for seven days detention by the police, apologetically, declaring it a "temporary" and "draconian" measure. The PTA also allowed for proscribing (banning) terror organisations. There was a debate for renewal each year thereafter. Judge only Diplock Courts came in in the north of Ireland, where the right to silence was first removed. Restrictions on assembly took place. The PTA was,then, effectively used to harass the Irish community throughout the UK. Later, anti-terror legislation was used in similar fashion, against the Muslim community, during the so called war on terror. The scope of anti-terror laws extended over the years. A circular process also developed that saw rights removed under anti-terror law downloaded into the criminal law. The detention period under the PTA extended to 14, then 28 days. Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to get pre- charge detention extended to 90 days. But this was famously defeated in a backbench MP rebellion caused by a revolt in civil society. The threat to civil liberties though continued over these years. The creation of the control order regime, overseen through immigration courts, effectively at one point legitimising detention without trial for terror suspects. Individuals were effectively kept in detention, often not knowing what they were accused of. The ongoing erosion of civil liberties continued, with every atrocity being used as a reason to cut more liberties in the name of security. Come forward to the present day. Peaceful marches through London protesting about what has been going on in Gaza are vilified by successive home secretaries. None of Jenkins reticence, over restricting liberties, from his successor Stella Braverman , who in 2023 branded the protests in London to be "hate marches." The protests have been peaceful.The police have been put under pressure to meet right wing politicians constructs that they are not. Braverman accused them of bias. The police have been on a tightrope, which they have struggled to maintain. Freedom of speech and protest is under pressure. However, what the politicians would do well to heed is that when people have a justice based grievance, just making it more difficult to protest does not make the issue go away. It simply changes the form of protest. Returning to the north of Ireland, where it was the initial failure to respond to the demands of the civil rights protesters, that in part led to the violent conflict that followed. People's grievances found other forms, fuelled by a denial to respond to their demands, then a clampdown on their means to make those demands. Today, politicians who seek to demonise protest and restrict freedom of speech should learn the lessons of history. A strong , thriving democracy is one at ease with itself. Liberties, such as free speech, habeus corpus and right of assembly abound and are celebrated. They should not be removed on a whim. Confident leaders are comfortable and proud of these liberal, pluralist traditions. As the chief constable said it is the dictators, who promise security in exchange for liberties. We cannot sleepwalk down that path.

Next test for old and new political parties comes next year, with the local council elections

The next big test for the political parties comes next May with the local council elections. At present, things seem to be changing by the week in the political lexicon. The Labour government seems to be struggling, despite its huge majority. Many of its problems come from a failure to communicate what it is about and what it is doing. There is no clear narrative, yet many good things are going on. This vacuum is being filled by other parties. So, by contrast, there is a media fascination with Reform UK. It is hard to believe that this party has just five MPs. This contrasts with the Independents, who have the same number and the Greens with four. Arguably, Reform get more coverage than the Liberal Democrats, with it's 72 MPs. Much ofcourse is to do with Reforms continual high ratings in the opinion polls that indicate it could be the next government. But that election is still four years away. Some in the media claim they are providing scrutiny of Reform, whilst others just see Nigel Farage and his party as good box office, always ready with a catchy soundbite. Reform are certainly playing the system, announcing policies as if a general election is imminent. The electorate would, though, do well to look at what is going on in those areas, where Reform are now running things, as well as in America, where the chaos being created by Donald Trump's administration is a forerunner of what would be likely to happen here if Reform ever do become the national government. On the left, there is the emergence of the new party led by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and fellow MP Zara Sultana. The principles outlined, with emphasis on addressing poverty and inequality and opposing war are more in line with the original principals of the Labour Party. Indeed, the Labour Party should beware the threat it faces from the left, via the likes of the new party, the Greens and Liberal Democrats. All of these changes in the political landscape mean the upcoming local elections are likely to see some major power shifts in the political scene. In Redbridge Labour hold 54, seats, the Conservatives five with four Independents. Recent by-elections highlight the threat posed by the Independents, with Reform also likely to have more of a day this time. For my own part, I have decided that after eight years, I won't be standing for the Labour Party in Redbridge next May. But more on that in due course.

Fiona Phillips experience exposes lack of priority given to dementia

Funding for dementia remains very low in the UK, despite one in three people likely to fall victim to the terrible disease. Without wishing to create a hierarchy of suffering, for every pound spend on cancer research, just 31 p is spent on dementia. The subject has jumped up the news agenda recently, with the diagnosis of journalist and former GMTV host, Fiona Phillips, diagnosed with Alzheimers. Her partner, Martin Frizell, has spoken out poignantly about their situation. The non-recognition, shrinking away, wanting to go back to a time in her childhood. Listening to Frizell brought back many of the memories of my own father, when he had dementia. He would suddenly appear in the evening, ready to go home. Explaining this was his home didn't help. The home he was thinking about was the one he grew up in 80 odd years before in Goodmayes. Interestingly, Frizell tells how he has learnt to never disagree, just go along with the fiction. Dad was a strong personality - a former headmaster in Newham. But those strong instincts can make for difficult times, when dementia strikes. His belief he was right saw him get out of the house, not knowing where he was going. This resulted in us all out searching the town to find him. Anything could have happened. There were, though, glimpses of the old Dad, when he had coherent phases. These were precious moments, though sadly, not frequent. Dad died in 2008 but it sounds as though little has improved since then. Martin Frizell was spot on, when he said dementia is seen as an old persons disease. The attitude being that sufferers have had a good innings.. and all the other platitudes. Fiona Philipps is 63, not old, and there are many much younger with the disease. Frizell claimed little has advanced with Alzheimer's since it was first diagnosed in 1912. He is right. There is certainly no prioritisation of the disease, even as it claims more and more victims. If it were prioritised, with the requisite funding provided, then very real progress can be made. Frizell has contributed to a book with Fiona Phillips on what has happened. They make some very valid points. Let's hope those with the power to address dementia are listening. This is a growing problem for our society that needs urgent attention, not outdated views on ageing and the relative values of life.

Review of: The next crisis - what we think about the future by Danny Dorling

Publisher - Verso, £22 The Next Crisis presents a fascinating examination of what are perceived as the crises of our times. The author examines how these crises mean different things for different groups and how elites manipulate priorities. Professor Danny Dorling dives deep into the problems, then comes up with a surprisingly upbeat message of hope for the future. The different crises from cost of living, inequality and poverty to war, violence, healthcare and climate are examined in turn. Then, how they can move around according to the reality of different groups lives, what they fear and why. The Dorling mantra that most of the crises emanate in some way from inequalities in societies, causing poverty and division is central. So, a health crisis like COVID, was dealt with better by more equal countries like Finland. Equally climate and biodiversity crises will be better dealt with by more equal societies. Also, the more equal countries are the happier ones. Dorling looks at immigration, a subject manipulated by elites to stir fear and division. He explains how migrants coming to an area can galvanise economies, whilst their departure triggers unemployment. The danger for an ageing population, like the UK, is in not being able to attract the migrants required to run the economy - not being over run. The present hostile environment is not attracting migrants. Dorling recalls how at Oxford University last summer, post the racist anti-migrant riots, that he and his colleagues wondered whether some students would return for the autumn term. Throughout, there are reminders of the damage done to societies by the rich elites. It is they who damage the planet most, use private planes, private schools, build buy to let portfolios and pass on inherited wealth. Dorling puts the downgrade of climate and biodiversity crises in the ratings across the world as partly due to rich people being the main cause. The promotion of climate skepticism or denial over recent years has profited the rich. Among the answers is the need to reduce inequality and revive the idea of community and social solidarity. Dorling is hopeful for the future, though believes there could be major crises ahead, many not even yet contemplated. This latest book from Danny Dorling is a good read, a little dense at times, but offering a real insight to the problems of the world. It offers a great opportunity to learn more as to why we have the problems we have but also how priorities get manipulated for the benefit of rich elites. There is though a message of hope for the future in troubled times. An important read for those who want to understand better the world in which we live, as well as what might be coming next.

Cheap, efficient, public transport, as well as electrification, have a role to play in sustainable transport system

The growing number of electric powered, rather than petrol and diesel, vehicles on the road is generally viewed as a positive thing. There is government led drive to see all vehicles on the roads being non-fossil fuel consuming by 2035. At local government level, the infrastructure is being developed to provide for the expansion of the electric vehicle sector. Electric vehicles reduce carbon emissions, pollution and noise. What is not to like? But there are critics. They claim that a lot of carbon emissions are created in the manufacture of these vehicles. The batteries, with the mined elements, such as lithium, cobalt and nickel attract particular criticism. There is also the disposal of the batteries, when exhausted. To summarise, critics claim that given the carbon emission costs in manufacture, it will take a very long time to recoup these over the lifetime of the vehicle. No doubt there is some value in this criticism. However, as the technology develops, there should be efficiencies in production that ensure the short term damage done by these vehicles is limited. Also, charging networks need to be sourced with renewable energy. But it is wrong to see replacing petrol and diesel vehicles with electric ones as the panacea to save the planet. The electric car has a part to play but road vehicles generally need to be controlled. The number of cars and car journeys need to come down. This though can only happen if other forms of transport improve and become cheaper. Public transport across the country is not of sufficient standard or cheap enough to fill the void. Cheap, if not free, reliable public transport has a huge role in the future regarding how people get about. Public transport ofcourse needs to be run on renewable energy. The number of vehicles on the road would reduce substantially, if free reliable public transport was available to all. Road space could also be freed up if freight was largely moved from road to rail. In order to achieve such a modal shift in transport away from the car to public transport would involve a large investment in public transport and infrastructure. The tax system could also to be used to incentivise these more sustainable modes of travel. The future of transport in the UK should be made up of a mixture of electric vehicles, renewable energy powered infrastructure and free, efficient public transport. The present incremental approach will see more and more of the country go under concrete, with the ongoing predict and provide model operating. The present piecemeal approach creates ever greater friction between car drivers and everyone else. A more holistic approach is required, taking in all requirements to provide a sustainable, cheap system of travel for all.

Time to call a nature emergency

The world is undergoing a crisis of climate and biodiversity decline. The two things are inextricably linked, with the devastation of natural phenomena, like trees and peat bogs, increasing carbon emissions, which change the climate. Both biodiversity and climate need addressing in unison. Unfortunately, the two things often seem to have been treated as separate, with biodiversity very much the junior partner. Whilst human beings are the cause of much of the destruction creating climate change, their actions on biodiversity border on the suicidal. Some 54% of insects have disappeared between 2004 and 2023. Bees are under threat from insecticides used on the crops. Without these insects, it will be impossible to provide the food we all need to survive. Nearly one in six species in the UK are threatened with extinction. Some 19% of species have become extinct since the 1970s. The present populist rhetoric of some in government that seems to imagine it is bats and newts stopping housing developments rather than greedy profiteers, gaining from land banking, beggars belief. Nature is also vital to the mental and physical wellbeing of human beings. It has been humanities desire to dominate and destroy, rather than work with nature, that has brought the world to crisis point. Yet, despite these stark and alarming statistics, humanity seems content to sleep walk into oblivion. Political leadership is needed, not more denial. Now, is the time to call a nature emergency. A number of councils (28%) around the country have done just that. Locally, this would be something similar to the climate emergency that was passed by Redbridge Council in 2019. A nature emergency would include developing a nature emergency action plan, thereby, ensuring that nature recovery was embedded as a key part of plans and policies. It needs to become a fundamental part of the council DNA, not an add on. One specific would be to manage 30% of council land for nature recovery by 2030. More trees and wild areas. And, the adoption of initiatives like No Mo May. A number of local groups have put a petition on the council petitions site calling for a nature emergency. This enshrines the principles of what is required and can be found at: https://moderngov.redbridge.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=2088RPID=81311114&HPID=81311114. The petition and hopefully a motion, with a comprehensive plan, can be brought forward later in the year. There are positive things happening, like the grow zone areas, pollinator pathways, tree planting programs, restore nature pledge, days of community action and the promotion of community gardens. But much more is needed. It is time to put nature front and centre of the environmental emergency. The crisis in nature is on a par with that effecting the climate. It can no longer be treated as a secondary consideration, if the planet is to be saved for our children and children's children the whole crisis must be given priority.