Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, is not everybody’s cup of tea. Unpopular in his previous role as Justice Secretary and an arch-Brexiteer, his profile often seems to confirm the worst prejudices towards a right-wing Tory.

Yet I beg to disagree. Actually, he is a solid cabinet minister. He is supportive of the unprecedented challenges Theresa May faces and refuses to leak cabinet discussions unlike his flakier Brexit colleagues who, in any other circumstances, would have been fired by now.

And, as a bit of a transport geek, he has also finally found his raison d’etre as Transport Secretary. He is rather good at it.

Let me explain why. Chris Grayling is committed to ‘public transport’ but also its privatisation, believing it is the best way to deliver a superior service. However, on trains, he certainly wouldn’t have started from here as he brings the East Coast Main Line back under government control.

He would have combined track infrastructure and service providers on a regional basis so the one cannot blame the other. On franchise bidding, he understands the dangers of going with the highest bidder and would not have necessarily done so. But he also doesn’t rule out the same bidders coming back with smarter proposals. Pragmatism is everything.

He is committed to investment in transport as long as it is accountable to the taxpayer. Take HS2 for example. He is frustrated that this was positioned as a vanity speed project. Despite its cost it is about much needed new capacity, not speed, and if it had been positioned in this way, there would not be the opposition there is now.

In other areas of transport, whether you like Heathrow expansion or not, a decision had to be taken and he took it.  And he is cooperating with the EU on a new plan for sharing the skies post Brexit. Incidentally, on air travel issues, he successfully repatriated hundreds of thousands of stranded Monarch passengers when the airline went bust at little or no cost to the affected individuals.  His road policies also mostly involve sensitive by-passes to meet local needs.

On the debate of public versus privatisation of rail, those who advocate long term public ownership rarely refer to the chaos of the old British Rail and its shoddy, unaccountable services. In France, Macron is heading in the opposite direction. Does anybody really believe a Labour government, made up of the current front bench, could run a proverbial whelk stall, let alone a railway network? How would transport investment priorities stack up with all the other spending promises Labour have made?

Transport is hamstrung by a shortage of funds like many other infrastructure projects. Rail privatisation in particular has been wrongly executed which has exacerbated the challenges of delivering a service ‘fit for purpose’. The current Transport Secretary is trying to avoid the buffers and put things right. It will take time and there will be no thanks at the end of it. Worth pointing out though.

 

I am confused. I loathe much of the world’s current political discourse led by the likes of Trump, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, to name but a few, but are these quasi demagogues more effective than reasonable leaders?

Xi, who is now ‘President for Life’, is busily rooting out corruption, building the economy and the prerequisite military, accompanied by a few new islands in the South China Sea. Putin invaded Crimea, takes out troublesome opponents, plays social media beautifully to wrong foot his overseas enemies and is heading to become Russia’s longest serving leader since Stalin. Erdogan is assuming an executive presidency of unprecedented power in modern day Turkey. Thousands of political opponents are jailed but the infrastructure and, with it, the wealth and the middle class in Turkey are currently expanding rapidly.

And Trump…Well what can we say? A record breaking tax reduction, peace with North Korea (?). Will tearing up the Iran nuclear settlement now also bring Iran to heel? Umm…

Reasonable leaders, of course, do get more things done. It just takes time and in an age of populism, people are particularly impatient. Perhaps more importantly such leaders provide a framework for the rule of law and a level of public discourse that civilises human interaction, ultimately benefitting all of us but particularly the poorest in societies.

In contrast, let’s just look at the evidence behind the bold actions of some of those unreasonable leaders. Putin is impoverishing his nation. Russian economic growth fell for three years in a row to 2017 and is permanently weak. Displays of military might hide an ailing country, shorn of any economic and democratic progress. It is no longer a super power in any sense. Xi and Erdogan, like Putin, free from even peer group accountability, are storing up ‘cult of personality issues’ which could potentially and ultimately overwhelm any economic success.

As for Trump, he lies, cheats and corrodes public discourse. The deficit is expanding rapidly due to those tax cuts. He withdraws America from much of the world stage leaving it to others, turns his back on global warming and stirs tensions in the Middle East. He is shrinking his country, not making it great.

Reasonable leaders such as Obama, Merkel, Macron and indeed most leading politicians in the democratic West have achieved much. They understand/understood the complexities of their roles and the long term consequences of bowing too far to short term populism. They are held to account and are a civilising influence in public life, with all the long term benefits that brings.

It is soft power that counts in the end. Reasonable leaders do get things done and done well. It just takes time. Unreasonable leaders can get things done and done quickly but often with terrible longer term consequences. Of course, they will have left the stage by then.

Yesterday’s local elections essentially confirmed the national opinion polls. Conservatives holding steady, gaining from a collapse in UKIP (surely wholly dead in the water now as the Tories have assumed their mantle), Labour just behind and the Liberal Democrats, as puzzling as ever, making little headway.

But the big issue is why Labour didn’t trounce the Tories. In the face of chaotic Brexit negotiations and some howling own goals such as Windrush they should have done. The reasons are several:

• Fear of the left-wing extremism of Labour has got through to a good proportion of the electorate
• Failing to offer a credible alternative to the Conservatives on Brexit
• Internal scandals, most notably anti-Semitism, which simply loops back to the perception of the extreme nature of today’s Labour Party

At the heart of all this is Corbyn, supported by a talentless front bench. He refuses to be bold on Europe and there is still a sense he feels the EU is a capitalist conspiracy. He fails to skewer the Tories in Parliament when they are sometimes hopeless. He has failed to tackle convincingly the extremism of his supporters (just read their twitter feeds) and the vile anti-Semitism that lurks in some corners of his Party. This is probably why the Tories regained Barnet alone.

Labour do not offer a convincing alternative to the Tories under Corbyn, many of whom would prefer one as an incentive to up their game. Had someone of Blair’s Opposition calibre been leader Labour would now be 20-30% ahead.

Even if they stay committed to a purer form of socialism it is time for Labour to recalibrate themselves without Corbyn. They need a sharper, more nimble leader dealing with the points above who, in the process, could at least lure one or two of the more able backbench MPs back into the fold.

Of course, except in helping to buy Theresa May time, these elections are a poor guide to the future. The pitfalls of Brexit lie threateningly ahead and the void in centre ground politics remains.

The Windrush scandal may be the final straw. It is not the unfolding story of Home Office excess in itself which leads you to reach this conclusion but the overall anti-immigration narrative emanating from a Tory government for too long.

Fearful of the threat from UKIP, immigration scare stories fed the Brexit debate, poisoned public discourse and have led to where we are today – a meaner, more inward looking country too often driven by the lowest common denominator. Many Tory Brexiteers are responsible for this. Enthused by a genuinely liberal interpretation of the ‘take back control’ agenda they allied, however inadvertently, with a darker narrative. Cameron gambled recklessly with his referendum, playing fast and loose with the country’s future for Party advantage. He failed. What an epitaph…

How did the Tory Party get here? The origins started with Margaret Thatcher who made the Party ideological. This approach freed it from the complacent, cliquey Tory Left and was arguably beneficial to the country for many years, but has potentially sowed the seeds for its own destruction.

Consensus in the Tory Party is now a dirty word. Leaving the EU completely is consequently its new Corn Laws. The Party is too full of careerists, accused of pursuing the agenda of its ever diminishing right-wing membership for advancement, free from the desire for any real statesmanship. John Major and Michael Heseltine are today derided by their own so-called colleagues. Unthinkable in an earlier age.

The current leader and Prime Minister is deeply unimaginative and frankly not as up to the job as hoped. High expectations have been dashed. She was meant to be moderate and has turned out to be passively extreme. The writings about her political advisers and their outrageous treatment of colleagues in her early PM days simply confirm this.

Speaking to a leading Conservative supporting commentator recently he sadly admitted he would never join the Tory Party today but can’t leave after 40 years of tribalism. Many know how he feels!

The Tories get away with it currently because of the sheer awfulness of the Opposition. For that reason alone, Theresa May will probably survive. When will Labour supporters wake up to this? Politics is simply debased by, at best, the sheer mediocrity on offer from both sides, most of the greatness of the major parties vanquished.

The future? Not the Tory Party as it is except by default – supposedly driven by the rumoured 70k membership, average age 72. Nor extremist Labour. Is a takeover of the ineffectual Liberal Democrats or a new party (watch ‘Renew’ in the local elections in Wandsworth) the answer? Or, ever hopeful, a brave new Tory leader who will rescue the Party and broader political discourse from the abyss?

Man’s inhumanity to man constantly bewilders most of us but you don’t need to be an animal rights fanatic to believe the extent of cruelty to defenceless animals comes a close second in measuring the progress of human civilisation.

The mistreatment of animals is all around us but particularly in second and third world countries. Much of it also involves endangered species which is particularly depressing.

On the upside, education and protection initiatives are also everywhere. Having just returned from a trip to Thailand, if you find yourself there I would strongly recommend a visit to the Wildlife Friends Foundations Thailand (www.wfft.org). Set up by Edwin Wiek in 2001, it campaigns against all forms of animal abuse including illegal pet trades rife in Asia. It rescues and rehabilitates captive wild animals, provides veterinary assistance, widespread education initiatives and looks to repopulate animals in forest areas where they are already extinct or endangered. They currently look after some 600 animals from elephants to bears, gibbons to even a rogue crocodile!

But here is why it has to exist. Elephants are beaten into submission for tourist ride purposes with scars all over their bodies and spines bent under the weight of carrying tourists who are too heavy for them. Bears are drained of their bile with paws being cut off to make bear paw soup. Gibbons, Macaques and other monkeys are drugged to make them suitable for ‘cute’ tourist photos before they are killed or abandoned as they get too large and aggressive for easy captivity. The list of mistreatments and the reasons why are endless and that is before the erosion of their natural habitats is addressed.

We all have a responsibility to protect the environment and the animals that live alongside us. Human beings are incredibly powerful and therefore potentially destructive to even the most majestic beasts. Dealing with animal cruelty is about legislation, tackling corruption, cross-border policing, education and providing safe places for animals to recover from the actions of ignorant humans. This is an issue refreshingly not about Brexit or party politics. Everyone one of us can do our bit even if it is not on the scale of Edwin Wiek and we should do so.

 

Answer: when Britain is ‘negotiating’ with the EU.

If the leading figures in the Brexit campaign had any conscience (Cambridge Analytica?), they would be filled with remorse. With this latest transition agreement, ‘take back control’ has morphed into ‘same control, no input’. In initial negotiations, the UK wanted no exit payments, held out on EU citizens’ rights, demanded no freedom of movement or ECJ jurisdiction; more recently we wanted our fisheries policy immediately freed from the EU. Oh, and the transition period, a post referendum invention in the first place, needed to be flexible in case we weren’t ready. All this was ignored.

These are just a few items and you could go on. The one major concession is that we can start pursuing our own trade deals before the end of the transition period. Wow. I look forward to reading about the heroic actions of our Trade Secretary, Liam Fox. He, who loves all things American and free trade – yet accuses businessmen of spending too much time on the golf course – will be discussing trade agreements with the protectionist, golf loving President Trump…

Crucially, in the area of financial services, the EU is not committing to ‘equivalency’ from a regulatory perspective, which would have created a free market. The attraction of Frankfurt and Paris biting into this most lucrative of sectors is simply too great for much compromise at this stage. Then, of course, there is Northern Ireland.

Let’s be clear. A deal will eventually be done. But at what expense? What we know is that the terms will be nowhere near the promises made during the campaign to leave the EU.

In some senses that doesn’t matter. The aim of Brexiteers is to achieve sovereignty at any price, even though this is a complete fiction in a globalised world. The economic and social damage to the UK will be slow but cumulative. Boiling frogs come to mind. No wonder the young are angry but they have no monopoly over this emotion!

There is a small hope of initiatives developing to reverse the referendum, or stay within the customs union/single market before the transition period is concluded; but the price paid has to be more visible than it will seem then.

The course is set and unless the consequences are immediately disastrous or there is a long-shot, fundamental realignment of British politics, we leave the EU fully on 31 December 2020. Every promise made by those who wanted to Leave will then be carefully weighed and measured for future political combat. Those leading figures in the Brexit campaign had better be prepared.

 

In China, Russia and the US, populist male leaders with too much testosterone dominate the political landscape with potentially dire consequences. Russia under Putin rots from within (and now seemingly from Salisbury…), China under the new ‘president for life’ Xi aims for world hegemony whilst the US under Trump, with much macho swagger, is unintentionally eviscerated. Never has a stable world order for decades looked so threatened.

Then in Europe populist leaders are triumphing to various extents in Italy, Austria, Hungary and Poland to name but a few countries. Extremists are on the march and clinging on to Merkel and Macron feels like a thin line of defence. The UK sits on the side-lines with its own populist obsession of Brexit. It is starting to look somewhat benign…

Why are we at this point? Commitment to democracy, even in those countries who practice it, is in decline. A recent article in The Times makes grim reading. A fifth of Spanish and Greek citizens apparently believe representative democracy is a bad way of governing, 40% of British millennials no longer think democracy vital and only 30% of American millennials believe it is ‘essential’ to live in a democracy. Trusting the younger generation seems a bit precarious…

Democracy is often taken for granted and its perceived benefits are increasingly doubted. Over-promising, under-achieving politicians, greedy voters and cultural wars fuelled by excessive immigration and disparities in wealth created by globalisation, are the cause. Yet in many respects people have never had it so good.

The solutions? Brave politicians telling it as it is, engagement with younger voters, enforcing the rule of law vigorously in Europe (a key role for the EU here), understanding the cultural impact of high levels of immigration without calling everybody racists and standing up to Xi and Putin in particular on the world stage.

Phew! A huge ask, the detail of which cannot be addressed in a blog. But if we lose our determination to defend democratic principles through open, honest debate and leadership, the strong (mostly) men will win and we will all regret the consequences. Of course, by then, it will be too late even for the young.

The Labour Party has played a blinder in now supporting ‘a’ customs union solution for leaving the EU. Pro Remain campaigners have railed in frustration as Corbyn dragged his feet on this issue or the option of staying within the Single Market. They feared he saw the EU as a capitalist conspiracy and never really wanted to be a member in the first place.

They are probably right but pressure within the Party, combined more importantly with the raw politics of causing the Tories maximum damage, has won out. Perfectly timed, the Tories yet again find themselves in disarray and Thursday’s Chequers meeting to thrash out an agreed stance all looks a long time ago.

Of course, this manoeuvre by Labour was easily predictable but flat-footed Tories torn between their extremities are powerless to swerve out of its way. It is a bit rich for them to respond by saying Labour ‘are playing with our country’s future’!

So what happens now? The EU may of course reject Labour’s proposal immediately on a take it or leave it basis – no bespoke deals – but that would be bad politics from a divide and rule perspective.

There will be a vote in the Commons on remaining within a customs union in the next couple of months, probably April. The scenarios are endless. Labour must back a cross-party motion to get enough Tories on board to defeat the Government. Even Sinn Fein may take up their seats in Parliament to ensure this defeat.

Theresa May could of course make it a Confidence vote; but she should be careful. So disgusted are moderate Tories at the willingness of their right-wing colleagues to abandon the Good Friday Agreement (all related to ensuring a frictionless Irish border between North and South, resolved only by a customs union) that they may let the Government fall.

The Tories’ obsession with Europe has been their Achilles heel for decades, worthy of the great historical debates of the 19th Century. Perhaps they can only prosper in Opposition with a new generation of leaders who do not have to define themselves by their stance on Europe. How did we get here? Ask the European Research Group led by Rees-Mogg… but a few disastrous years of a Labour Government may have to be the price paid for a long term, credible Conservative Party, to emerge.

Oh dear, where have they gone? Representing most of what is sensible in centre, centre left politics, the Liberal Democrats were meant to surge as standard bearers of voters appalled by Brexit and the Tories’ hard line stance on how we depart. But they have flat lined in opinion polls at 7-8%. Why?

Three reasons. First, and foremost, in a polarised world, their weak tone simply doesn’t resonate with voters. Generally anyone interested in politics is angry; angry we are leaving the EU, angry about the compromises being made on the terms of our departure, angry about cuts. The Liberal Democrats simply bore for Britain, and not in a good way.

Second, Vince Cable doesn’t have the energy or charisma to shape debates and none of the other MPs are making any impact either. His leadership also comes hard on the heels of a previous leader with bizarre religious conflicts surrounding homosexuality. You couldn’t write the script about such confusion in such a small political space…

Third, they have lost their PMQ slot, compounding a sense of irrelevance and are losing airtime generally on programmes such as BBC’s Question Time where they often don’t appear, replaced, outrageously, by the Nigel Farage’s of this world (32 slots and counting), and even intentional comedians.

The 2010-15 period for many represented the perfect blend of Conservatism tempered by the Liberal Democrats; fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and pro-European leadership. They were heady days for moderate Tories if not for Liberal Democrat voters who felt betrayed on issues such as tuition fees. So here is an idea for you…

If the current Conservative government supported allegedly by a mere 70,000 Tory Party members continues to inflict damage on the country’s future, why don’t moderate Tories take over and re-brand the Liberal Democrats? They could strengthen its economic stance on government expenditure a la Nick Clegg and David Laws whilst pursuing a pro-EU, social liberal agenda. It would save the high risk option of setting up a new party and meet the demands of the vast majority of centrist voters. Potentially highly attractive to disenfranchised, moderate Labour MPs and their supporters too…

Umm…just a thought…just a thought…

The view through the window doesn’t look good. There are no votes in prisons and the conditions in which prisoners are held is deteriorating. And yet, our justice system and the way we treat offenders, often hidden from public view, is a crucial reflection of how civilised a society we are. And even for those who don’t care, better prisons mean less re-offending and genuine cost savings.

So where are we today? The prison estate is crumbling as real cuts bite to the bone. Add this to the list which includes social care, policing and local authority services generally. The pressures on prisons are exacerbated by rising numbers of prisoners, partly driven by the roundup of sexual offenders, harsher sentencing, so called ‘legal highs’ and falling prison officers.

A few facts from the Prison Reform Trust make startling reading. 68% of prisons are overcrowded with 21,000 prisoners still sharing cells for up to 23 hours a day. We have the highest imprisonment rate in Western Europe with 66,000 jailed in the year to June 2017. Yet 71% had committed a non-violent offence and 47% were sentenced to serve six months or less. Nearly 49% of adults are reconvicted within one year of release with an estimated cost to the economy of between £9.5-13 billion annually. Prison officers have fallen 23% in the last seven years whilst the prison population has risen. Assaults on staff across Britain’s 140 prisons rose by 143% in the last 4 years.

The latest report from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales (and the people who fill this role are no soft touch) highlighted that the percentage of male prisoners held in good or reasonably good conditions has fallen from 78% to 49%. One could go on…

The solution partly lies in new prisons. They are being built but will have no impact on overcrowding until 2022 and, at the current rate of incarceration, a new programme will be needed from 2026. More prison officers are also required (a rapid recruitment drive is on after a realisation the fall in numbers has been disastrous but there is much further to go).

But what we really need to do is jail less people and of course review all those prisoners on shameful indeterminate sentences. Community sentencing is more effective than short prison terms at reducing reoffending, yet its use has nearly halved in the last decade. More of the former please.

Sorting out our jails and sentencing generally strengthens our society and at the same time actually saves money over the longer term. Of all the problems facing this country, this issue actually has identifiable solutions which can be implemented by even this current crop of politicians.