And now the end is near; And so I face the final curtain; My friend, I’ll say it clear; I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain…As we leave the EU, nobody can put it better than Frank Sinatra! It is madness.

So, in what may be the last Brexit blog of 2020…umm…what is the state of play as Britain departs the EU on Friday. Well, it all seems a little grim.

Let’s start with our overall relationship with the US. Our special relationship status generally, and Johnson’s unique bond with Trump in particular, was going to ensure the UK blossoms into a global trading power-house with a rapid UK/US trade deal. But, over Huawei, there are already severe disagreements as we plan to take, at least in part, their 5G technology. Both Republicans and Democrats are threatening to retaliate by stalling on any trading agreement. Then we have a row over the UK taxing US tech giants, with the US in return threatening tariffs on UK cars. And that is before we face pressure to accept US chlorinated chicken (banning it in Europe has led to vastly improved farming practices to reduce infection). An imminent trade deal, particularly one that has to be approved by Congress, is highly unlikely. Not a great start.

Elsewhere Australia has stated there will be no rapid trading agreement. Japan says it is happy to move fast but the deal will be worse than that negotiated with the EU because Japan feels it gave too much away!

On foreign policy, our reliance on Europe is evident. We were not informed in advance by the US of the assassination of the Iranian general, Soleimani, and sided with France and Germany in fearing its impact of creating further Middle East mayhem. On the Iranian nuclear deal, when Trump pulled out because it was negotiated by Obama (!), we again sided with Europe in keeping it alive. Only now are we weakly siding with Trump on a new deal he can support because ‘one won’t work without him’. We are nowhere on Syria, Libya and couldn’t even send ministerial representation to the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. A small player on the world stage getting smaller partly as a result of leaving the EU.

Then I read that in the North of England, even Sunderland’s car workers are now getting nervous about the implications of leaving the EU from a car manufacturing perspective. Tough. They were told. With harsh negotiations to start and end with the EU within 11 months there will be brutal clashes on fish and financial services as the FT outlined this week. But with the government not seeking alignment with Brussels in reaching trade agreements, manufacturing looks particularly vulnerable and it could all get very messy indeed. The EU are experts at running things to the wire and last-minute concessions on both sides may well lead to at least a phased UK/EU trade deal but it will be tight and a further drag on growth.

I get the source of populism; the overlooking of the North; the required investment there; frustration at the somewhat patronising metropolitan elites; the sense of being left behind by both globalisation and immigration, but populist solutions are no answer. Overseas, do Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro, Salvini, to name but a few, really care about the ordinary working person? No. Do their solutions spread wealth? No. Time will tell whether the anti-elitist Eton, Oxford educated Johnson, architect, or at least the face of Brexit, fits a different bracket. But leaving the EU means solutions to equality are harder to achieve, the UK becomes a less influential presence in the global community and true control over our own destiny is weakened. Like a boiling frog, by the time we realise its disastrous long-term consequences it will be too late.

The media is struggling against a largely disinterested public partly due to the pressures of the modern age. With a 24-hour news cycle and social media breathing down the necks of thoughtful journalism, political coverage has become increasingly short-term and, in some cases, hysterical, in a drive to attract attention.

You look at the political news output of organisations like the BBC and Sky News and the headlines are almost identical, fed by the formal output of political parties, government announcements and placed gossip. News gets posted for speed purposes and then the interpretation follows, with a desperate attempt at differentiation.

Differentiation comes in several forms. In General Elections, initiating coverage through televised debates, one on one interviews and regional roadshows; on an ongoing basis, more generally, it is through outlets such as Question Time, the Today programme and Sky News’ All Out Politics.

This is where the mistakes get made. First, the media assumes the public are interested in, and can be attracted by, political minutiae in much the same way journalists are. The public are not remotely as engaged. It does not imply ignorance but a focus on what ultimately matters as generalists. The media doesn’t often get this. It is the epitome of the ‘Westminster bubble’ and most minor politicians (and some senior ones), desperate for attention, are happy to play ball. In combination, when the public, on air, are door-stepped, particularly in the drive for ‘balance’, it is understandably not insightful viewing.

To create attention, set piece interviews with leading politicians are harsh and audience participation in live events, comprising members of the public often from a small minority of activists, are hostile. Some of the televised General Election debates were shockingly managed, for example, and changed nothing. The 2019 election was hardly a vintage year from a media perspective. Then we have celebrity panellists dragooned in to make on-going events more entertaining. It doesn’t work. Their contributions are often tedious and light weight.

This drive for differentiation goes on at the ultimate cost of tearing down the institutions of governance and the often well-meaning people who inhabit them. Only the really sophisticated, manipulative (or manipulated) politicians can successfully navigate this dubious approach to political coverage, breeding cynicism. Then we head full circle again. Media reporting of politics often feels like Ground Hog Day.

The end result is that political coverage is losing respect and senior politicians play on this to avoid scrutiny. And scrutiny has never been more important, with an unscrupulous Prime Minister sat on an enormous overall majority, facing no effective Opposition. The Government needs to be held to account on crucial issues such as how we leave the EU and constitutional reform in the coming year. But the Today programme is avoided, Question Time mostly ignored by senior politicians, the BBC intimidated and set piece interviews across channels reserved for soft touch moments. Eat your heart out Andrew Neil!

What can be done? There should be a better balance between short term coverage and that which is more thoughtful and analytical, free from the pressures of immediate, often pointless online content. Interviews should focus more on longer term issues rather than a gut reaction to the latest rumour or the need for a vacuous response to an unfolding incident, however much social media airwaves are buzzing. Politicians should be treated with more respect, and lured, rather than berated, into a studio. And journalists need to remember they are not the news themselves and be held to greater account. When newspapers are reviewed on 24-hour news channels, try analysing media coverage using non-journalists for example!

A fresh approach would gain traction over time and, in an age of populism, nothing can be more important. The media has a responsibility to question the impact of its political coverage, how it does it and what it says. Perhaps a good guide to improvement would be a growing measure of trust in the profession of journalism. Otherwise the media will be increasingly ignored by both politicians and the public, as is currently happening, and democracy will be much the poorer.

For those unsympathetic to the Alt. Right and supporting centre ground politics it won’t be a vintage year, but it will be a calmer one, at least from a UK perspective…

But first, how did this blog’s predictions for 2019 pan out. Well, not brilliant but not too bad either with more predictions right than wrong.

On British politics, the prediction was that Theresa May would just squeak her Withdrawal Agreement through parliament (not first-time round) but, as Leader, she would go earlier than expected as the Tories ran out of patience with her inability to communicate. There would be no GE until 2020. Oops. Mostly wrong by a few months but in a way her Withdrawal Agreement did pass but under Johnson.

Looking at the British Opposition, the next prediction was that Corbyn’s Labour Party would go nowhere, the LibDems would not succeed and, in an environment of such polarised politics, any new centre ground party would also fail. Correct.

Overseas, Trump probably wouldn’t get impeached, but even if he did, the process would make him stronger. A score draw.

In Europe, Merkel’s influence will wane, and Macron would regain his poise. Correct.

On economics, a steady year for global growth regardless of trade wars as China stabilises without any recessionary crisis. Correct.

So, six predictions right, three wrong and one score draw. To be honest, I would have taken those odds at the start of such a chaotic year!

So, to 2020. Here we go…

The Tories have no Opposition and will dominate British politics all year. Johnson is there for 10 years unless scandal or boredom get the better of him. The Tories will pursue a Northern, English nationalist agenda, moving to the Right. Labour’s best bet is Keir Starmer but that will not be enough, even if they are sensible enough to elect him. The LibDems will not recover and are politically dead. They had their chance and blew it. A new centrist Party will be planned but won’t be launched this year. It needs detailed planning and mass defections from Labour. There will be no second Scottish referendum. The SNP have peaked.

On Brexit, it will of course happen, but Johnson will partly sell out the Right of his Party to get a final trade deal. The only time he will appear to moderate his somewhat gung-ho political stance.

Overseas, Trump will survive the Senate, keep his job and win a second term. If the Democrats can’t find a credible enough candidate by now…they probably never will. I really, really hope I am wrong.

Elsewhere, the Cities across the Western world will continue to diverge politically, pursuing liberal policies versus conservative rural areas, who will still manage to pick their national leaders in most countries. A major crisis of democracy rooted in culture wars awaits us but not in 2020.

Economically, Europe will struggle but generally economic growth will tick along globally with no crises, even with more mayhem in the Middle East than usual. Certainly not from destabilising trade wars in a US election year. A bit dull really.

2020 will be unsurprising but generally bad for political moderates. Their fightback, postponed in 2019 through, at best, ineffectual strategy and tactics, better start this year.