Europe Fails Yet Again

This was the European Union’s big moment. Finally after years of diplomatic wrangling, backroom deals and “No” votes from its citizens, the EU behemoth achieved what it always does. It pushed through a treaty that nobody really wanted but the leaders and the Eurocrats decided we all needed.

I write this as someone who spent an unhealthy amount of time at European summits, including the longest in history – at Nice. I would love to see the EU come up with treaties where they actually had the confidence to consult its 300 million citizens and listen to their decisions.

Leaving that aside for a moment, the idea of a “president” of Europe and a “foreign minister” was one of the most sensible parts of the Lisbon Treaty.  If the European Union wants to have a voice on the world stage as it always says it deserves then it needs to be taken seriously.

As US secretary of state Henry Kissinger famously said: “Whom do I call when I want to call Europe?

This was supposed to provide the answer.

In an age of personality driven politics and a 24-hour global media that requires a face to represent the organisation at international level and to be there when CNN or the BBC or Al Jazeera wants to hear from Europe there is someone to go to.

Yet tonight the EU failed to live up to this opportunity to choose the best “president” and best “foreign minister” for its people.

The combined egos of Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy have blocked the right choices.

Europe has plenty of talented politicians who have either proved they could do the job or have the potential to live up to the role. Tony Blair may be too much of an international statesman and brilliant communicator for Sarko/Merk and former Latvia president Vaira Vike-Freiberga would have been a formidable force who would have proved that eastern Europe is firmly part of the EU and a force to be reckoned with.

For the foreign policy job, Europe could have picked Chris Patten, former Swedish PM Carl Bildt and former Italian premier Massimo D’Alema.
So who did the Franco-German stitch up appoint to the two top jobs in the EU?

Well they have plenty in common. Neither has ever been elected at a national level. Neither has the experience to do the job. Neither has the charisma or credibility to be taken seriously on the world stage. Neither has any name recognition, barely within their home countries.
Herman van Rompuy, the new EU president was appointed as prime minister of Belgium less than a year ago. He has zero charisma, international experience or credibility.

Baroness Cathy Ashton, who I have dealt with in the past when she was a junior minister, has only been an EU commissioner for about a year, and was even suggested as too inexperienced to replace Peter Mandelson in the EU trade post when she was appointed by the Gordon Brown. In an interview this evening Cathy Ashton claimed her experience of other walks of life, and not foreign affairs, made her qualified for the biggest diplomatic job in the continent of Europe.
When there’s a crisis who is Hu Jintao, Barack Obama or Vladmir Putin going to call? Herman van Rompuy? No. Merkel, Sarkozy and Brown.
Just what they wanted. The status quo.

When there’s a crisis who is Secretary Hillary Clinton or UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon going to call? Cathy Ashton. No. Miliband, Guido Westerwelle and Bernard Kouchner.

Just what they wanted. The status quo.

This time last year America elected an outstanding president promising change.

This year Europe has appointed a low key bureaucrat who will guarantee that nothing changes. Note that when you are next frustrated with Europe – nothing changes.

London To Brighton Veteran Car Run 2009

I got up early on Sunday morning and I think what I filmed speaks for itself. 

Consider The Poppy

So I’ve been called a ‘twit’ and accused of getting my “online knickers in a twist” for expressing disapproval of Adam Crozier, the Chief Executive of Royal Mail, who yesterday appeared on the Andrew Marr show to talk about the postal strikes.

I wasn’t making a political point, or expressing disapproval of his interview, though he seemed weak and evasive to me given it was his first interview on the situation for weeks. I was merely pointing out the fact Crozier wasn’t wearing a Remembrance poppy.

This year’s Poppy Appeal was launched on 22nd October. The British Legion says people can wear poppies at any time – all year round if they like – but it considers the appropriate time to be during “Remembrancetide”, the period from the appeal’s launch (22nd October this year) until Remembrance Sunday (second Sunday in November, which this year is the 8th).

The BBC, meanwhile, has no specific policy on poppy-wearing, saying it is “a personal decision”. Andrew Marr, for example, had made a personal decision to wear a poppy.

But should it be a “personal decision” if you are the Chief Executive of Royal Mail? In World War One, 85,000 postal workers fought in France and Flanders and the other theatres of war. 8,500 of them died. So shouldn’t Mr Crozier, as a figurehead of Royal Mail, respect the sacrifice of people from the government-owned organisation he leads by wearing a poppy?

I happened to be on Twitter at the time of the Marr programme, before going out canvassing, so I tweeted this:

Royal Mail’s Adam Crozier is not wearing a poppy on Marr. Bad form.

I did a quick search to find out how many postal workers died in the World War One and tweeted this:

Royal Mail’s Adam Crozier not wearing a poppy on Marr. 85000 General Post Office staff fought in the WW1 alone and 8500 lost their lives.

I returned from canvassing later to find this response from a Lambeth resident called @Jason_Cobb.

@CllrMarkBennett Poppy or no-poppy - Not about “bad form” but personal sentiment. The wearing of a poppy is not a PR move.

Had I suggested it was anything to do with PR? No. I expressed my view for the reasons set out above. So I tweeted back thus:

@Jason_Cobb How DARE you suggest I think it’s anything to do with PR. Personal sentiment irrelevant. 8500 people from org he leads died.

Twitter’s140 characters is sometimes not enough to be able to express a point, so I added:

@Jason_Cobb And consider the sacrifice of people who died in war to allow you the freedom of ‘personal sentiment’. Or was theirs a PR move?

To which @Jason_Cobb responded:

@CllrMarkBennett And how *dare* you interpret my tweet in the immature way you did. Twitter is great in context. This aint one of ‘em.

So it’s immature to clarify my point?

I actually quite like Jason Cobb’s general outlook on life and have no desire to fall out with him. People like Mr Cobb often say they want politicians to say what they think, want politicians to engage with new media, and then get all upset or have a spasm of high-mindedness when we express a view they don’t like, or we dare to answer back. 

Having lectured me for immaturity, Mr Cobb has since blogged calling me a ‘twit’ and said I responded to him with a “misguided and failed misinterpretation” of what he said. Consider the trio of negatives in that statement – it would appear to me that a misinterpretation that is failed and misguided is actually a successful interpretation. Ah, the English language.

He goes on to say, with all the condescension he can muster:

 “Twitter is great at many things – context ‘aint one of them … the wonderful shiny new frontiers of 2.0 can trip up any in-experienced local politician that thinks a throwaway 140 character message is going to help them get elected next time round.”

Inexperienced doesn’t need to be hyphenated, but I’ll overlook that because his chosen adjective is not accurate anyway. He might know this if he took the trouble to find out, rather than make specious assumptions. Does he seriously think I am hoping Twitter will help me get elected? The answer to that is: I was out canvassing three times over the weekend, not sitting at a computer.

What is this context he’s talking about? I explained the context, I expressed my view. He expressed his, I chose to respond defending my view. Perhaps he could explain what he means by context. But wait, he then goes on to say:

“Of course there’s a danger of falling into the trap of thinking that all of these online missives are actually of any relevance. They’re not. They’re simply the modern interweb manifestation of rotten eggs being thrown at the people who deserve them the most.”

Ah, there we have it. All politicians deserve the rotten egg treatment.  That must be his context! How refreshingly original.

Moir Is Less

I’ve been out leafleting in my ward and meeting constituents for much of the day, so I’ve come home to Twittergeddon over the Jan Moir article appearing in the Daily Mail today promoting a vile innuendo about the death of the singer-actor Stephen Gately, a gay man whose untimely end is something the Mail can’t comprehend as a human tragedy. Moir has presented it instead as a tragedy of morals, a tragedy of celebrity life and a tragedy of being gay. What a callous and stupid woman.

I’ve read the article (online, observing the changes of headline and the removal of advertising) and Moir’s puppety statement (Paul Dacre pulls her strings) in which she says:

“In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”

Arrogantly put, Miss Moir. (I’d say Ms Moir but the Mail doesn’t approve of that kind of political-correctness-gone-mad, and I read on her website that she lives with her boyfriend so she’s probably not married. Hang on – presumably the Mail doesn’t approve of that kind of thing either. Note to Mr Dacre: One of your lady columnists appears to be living in sin, sin I tell you. Please explain).

Whether the Mail likes it or not, the internet does exist and has a valuable purpose – the democratisation of news and information. The debate has moved from the newsprint pages to allow people an immediate ability to agree and disagree on the issues of the day, via Twitter for example. Gone are the days where a debate would meander along for a few days on the letters page, and that is all to the good. The debate moves faster and stronger now and can no longer be controlled by editorial barons like Mr Dacre. You and your paper are not what you were, Mr D, and it’s my sincere hope you will both become less and less with every day and month.

Miss Moir affects shock that anyone could have thought her article had “ homophobic and bigoted undertones”. Of course not. They were overtones, typical Daily Mail homophobic and bigoted overtones, clear as a clanging bell. Just read the last line of the whole article: “The ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.” 

The post-mortem on Stephen Gately has shown death by natural causes. Gately’s mother has spoken of a hereditary heart condition (Moir seems to suggest that the poor woman is kidding herself) that was probably the cause of his death aged 33. Not enough to satisfy Miss Moir. She suggests there was a rushed post mortem, perhaps a cover-up. 

She then goes on to state, with all the confidence of one who knows the damage they want to inflict: “Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages.”

 

Actually, for the information of Miss Moir and those of her opinion, it’s not tolerance LGBT activists call for. ‘Tolerance’ suggests LGBT people are yours to patronise from above. ‘Understanding’ suggests we are somehow socially deficient, at a permanent disadvantage as human beings.

 

We want equality and equal rights as human beings and citizens. Same-sex relationships are every bit as valid as heterosexual marriages, and heterosexual relationships in general.

 

Moir goes out of her way to take a sour potshot at the ‘happy ever after myth’ of civil partnerships. Are ‘heterosexual marriages’ 100% successful? Perhaps she doesn’t know that, as she is not married to the man she lives with. But she doesn’t tell Mail readers that. Oh no. 

 

I doubt the many, many complaints that have gone to the Press Complaints Commission will get very far, but they have been worthwhile  - as with Twitter – as an expression of public contempt for poison pen journalism like Miss Moir’s.

 

She also makes a living, when she isn’t a paid extremist for the Mail, as a restaurant critic.  She’d better watch out from now on for any gay waiters. I’ve known several over the years and if people aggravate them … well … who knows what might end up in the soup? 

Betty Blue

Yesterday brought the news that one of the Labour councillors for Brixton Hill, Betty Evans-Jacas, had defected to the Conservatives. Lambeth Tories have made a squeaky fanfare of this, with a statement that only showed, if anything, that Betty would say anything to get into the Conservative group, which numbers 6 (and now, obviously, 7). 

Betty allegedly said: “After years of agonising over the failure of the leadership of the Labour Party in Lambeth to listen to the residents, faith organisations, and business of Brixton Hill and Lambeth as a whole, I have decided to become a member of the Conservative Party under David Cameron.  I believe that under his leadership, I will be able to fulfil all of my duties as a Brixton Hill ward councillor.”

Twaddle. If there is any borough in London that listens, at length, to its residents, faith groups and businesses, it is Labour Lambeth. I know this because I am a Cabinet Member and I see how hard Labour councillors work to keep in touch with the views of residents. 

I suspect that Betty is actually speaking about herself – her demands for extra allowances were not listened to because they were immoral, particularly given her reputation as an absentee in Brixton Hill. Leader of the Council Steve Reed explains here. Missing surgeries is hardly a good example of listening.

When she was ill, as she was, seriously – to the extent that the Lib Dem ghouls were leafleting in expectation of a by-election – her Labour colleagues covered for her. When she was not ill, her Labour colleagues found themselves covering for her. She has been a gross disappointment, and she has lost many more friends in the Labour Party than she will ever gain in the Conservative Party, particularly when they realise the baggage of financial embarrassment she brings with her. It will be a dead end for her and a dilemma for the Conservatives.

It’s ludicrous to think, as she appears to, that David Cameron will somehow enable Betty to ‘fulfil all [her] duties as a Brixton Hill councillor’. She has shown no inclination to fulfil those duties as a councillor of any party, which is why she was replaced at a selection meeting last week.

She has been judged shrewdly by her Town Hall peers, Labour Group, over the years since 2006, and at every group election she has failed to be elected for every council post she has stood for – all of which have involved allowances. Now this grasping would-be politician has failed the people who voted for her in Brixton Hill. She should be ashamed.

Labour Group is not ashamed to be rid of her. Her valueless, shifting political mind suits the Tories.

Daily Mail Dale Fail

It’s always interesting to observe the off-balance reaction of Conservatives when they are attacked by their own side, particularly around issues of sexuality. But on this occasion, I have some sympathy and respect, and I don’t think the reaction is at all off-balance. It’s the attack that’s way off-balance, and it’s no surprise to see it emanating from that bastion of all that’s putrid and poisonous, the Daily Mail.

Tory blogger and political publisher Iain Dale has blogged about a diary story in the Daily Mail which, on the face of it, draws sneering attention to the fact he is a gay man seeking to enter elected politics.  The Ephraim Hardcastle diary has this to say:

“Overtly gay Tory blogger Iain Dale has reached the final stage of parliamentary selection for Bracknell, telling PinkNews: ‘I hope any PinkNews readers who live in Bracknell will come to the open primary on October 17 to select their new candidate. You don’t even have to be a Conservative to attend.’

“Isn’t it charming how homosexuals rally like-minded chaps to their cause?”

Dale has written to the editor, Paul Dacre (see p 721 of Alastair Campbell’s diaries to read about my brush with Dacre). He has also made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. Dale rightly complains about being described as “overtly gay”. What does overtly gay mean? militant? flamboyant? predatory? dangerous? camp as Christmas?

Dale says on his blog “I’m afraid I have had it with the Daily Mail and their particular brand of hate”.

Well said, though I would have to agree with his pessimistic view that he’s unlikely to get anywhere with Dacre or the PCC. Dacre after all, as well as editing the Mail, is Chair of the Editor’s Code of Practice Committee, which ‘reviews and revises the voluntary code of standards overseen by the Press Complaints Commission’. When he was elevated to that giddy height, he said “I am a passionate supporter of the principle of self-regulation, Press Freedom and a Code which reflects both the concerns of newspapers and needs of the public which it serves.”

Or in other words, he believes that papers should be able to print whatever suits their agenda. Fair enough for papers to have an agenda, but in this case, the Dale diary story is typical of the Mail’s “brand of hate”. The subtext is: here is a homosexual with the effrontery to want to stand for Parliament, he’s obviously trying to get others of his sort to infiltrate the selection process in Bracknell, let’s try and ‘queer’ the pitch, guffaw, guffaw. 

The Mail should be ashamed but of course it won’t be. When I was a press officer, of the Labour persuasion, I regularly had to deal with Mail hacks who seemed to have long ago crossed the line of fair reporting to glory in inflicting misery and damage on people in politics. I was the defender, so to make my job more difficult and theirs easier, they would call at times that would make it all but impossible to sort out and present the facts – late at night, last thing on a Friday afternoon, twenty minutes before the paper went to bed, you get the picture. Even when the facts were presented to the sneering voice on the other end of the phone, they rarely appeared intact in the story, or an inaccurate story appeared despite having been doggedly knocked down for not being accurate or not a story at all. 

I don’t share Iain Dale’s political views but he has a right to them. He also has a right to be respected as a person of experience and character who wants to serve people as an elected politician. His sexuality should not be imposed by others as the issue that defines his candidacy, it should be his values and his policies. 

I was born very near Bracknell and know it well. Obviously I would like to see Labour winning there, but that doesn’t stop me wishing Iain Dale good luck in the open primary, particularly if unfair obstacles are being set up for him, as seems the case. I hope none of his fellow candidates in the primary are engaging in smear tactics. Primaries are a positive attempt to break away from the backstabbing and backroom dealing that only contributes to cynicism about politics, so it would be depressing to see such behaviour creeping in. It should be for the people of Bracknell to make their decision in the primary and then their choice in the general election, not narrow-minded Daily Mail journalists.

Let’s Ignore The Village Idiot

President Jimmy Carter was right when he linked some of the now infamous “teabaggers” (caution: this word has more than one meaning) and the at times undignified town hall meetings over the summer to overt racism under a very thin guise of anti-government fervour.

Carter’s intervention may not have suited Barack Obama, as he has always sought to defuse race as part of the policy debate on many issues, although he has addressed the continued racial divide in America very eloquently on many occasions. The 44th president does not want healthcare to become tied up with race because it is not about that and it would prove an unwanted and potentially destructive distraction.

As Obama put it on the David Letterman show, he was black before he was elected to the Oval Office. The American people voted for him by a democratic majority.

The fact remains that Carter, the 39th president, was hitting a far more powerful note that transcends the issue of healthcare and goes to the heart of what the so-called “religious right” is all about.

Much of the “religious right” hails from the South of the United States. But it is motivated by more than religion. There are plenty of deeply religious people, the late Ted Kennedy being one of them, who are the antithesis of the “religious right”.

The truth is the “religious right” is a political group galvanised by powerful evangelical leaders and appealed to by Republican politicians desperate to grasp this base in the way that Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush did so successfully. Let’s not forget Reagan was divorced and George Bush had led a far from exemplary life. So it’s not just about religion. 

The “religious right” is a conservative movement but it is more than that. It’s made up of many groups, mainly in the South, who have an inherent distrust of government, are not well-educated or well-informed, are often religious zealots and frankly represent the old-style Southern Democrats who deserted Lyndon Johnson after civil rights legislation and found their political messiah in Ronald Reagan.

This group does have inherently racist elements. That is not going away any time soon. In the land of the free, they have a right to be heard, to be broadcast and not to be censored (assuming they are not inciting hatred, which many have) yet they should not be allowed to dictate events however loudly they shout. This is a group that has been created in many ways by politicians who mobilise this vote but then invariably act against their economic interests. Republican politicians will give them crumbs in the form of anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia comments or legislative promises but all too often let them down more than the Democrats do.

The “teabaggers” moan about excessive government spending, but it was George W. Bush who almost broke the bank by going to war in Iraq alone and having to bailout the banks he failed to regulate. These are the failings of Bush, not the new president.

This group is incoherent in their arguments, angry that politicians (mainly Republicans, although rarely acknowledged) have let them down in their eyes and yes, often racist. Republicans will continue to court them but the rest of America and its media need to get some perspective.

As former evangelical and former lifelong Republican Frank Schaffer puts it: 

“You don’t work to move them off this position, you move past them. Look, a village cannot reorganise village life to suit the village idiot. We have to understand that we have a village idiot in this country, it’s called fundamental Christianity.”

Operation Stillwater: Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour In Brixton

 

Brixton Tube

With my Lambeth community safety hat on, I’m pleased to see a new partnership operation (Met police and Labour council) getting underway to reduce anti-social behaviour in central Brixton. 

To explain, I’ll quote the joint press release which has been sent out: “Operation Stillwater will be used to reduce unacceptable behaviour including urinating in public, indecent exposure, taking or selling drugs, bad language, and loud music. The operation builds upon the work carried out by the Brixton town centre police following the arrest of a number of crack dealers in Coldharbour Lane and the subsequent introduction of a dispersal zone in May, 2009. 

“The operation will begin with an information campaign during which leaflets will be distributed, setting out what the community has identified as unacceptable behaviour during consultation meetings. This will be followed by a period of enforcement, when powers under Section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 will be used to direct people away from the area who are engaged in anti-social behaviour.” 

This operation is one of a number aimed at tackling anti-social behaviour across Lambeth. In this case, we are ready and determined to use our powers to make Brixton a safer place. Our aim is to protect the law-abiding majority of residents and visitors who find antisocial behaviour – of any kind – unacceptable. My message to wrongdoers is simple – don’t degrade yourselves, and don’t degrade our borough.

Beware Bromley and the Tory termites

Consider, if you will, the Tories as termites. These much misunderstood insects live in loose, decentralised (though hierarchical) communities and use what is called ’swarm intelligence’ to get their way. There are  the workers, soldiers and reproductive termites (they would be the activists, councillors, golf club bores, Tory backbenchers, that sort of thing), the semi-mature nymphs (misguided students, parliamentary researchers, Conservative Future, etc), and of course a handful of egg-laying queens (the Leadership). 

As with termites, the Tories are, as Wikipedia puts it, “very weak and fragile insects. They can be easily overpowered by ants and other predators when exposed. To avoid these perils termites cover their tracks with tubing made of faeces, plant matter, and soil.”

That happened last week with the hastily disowned commentary on the NHS by Daniel Hannan MEP, a politician David Cameron was happy to see re-elected to the European Parliament but who was last week described by Dave as “eccentric”.

Dave had better be careful with his treatment of Hannan, for it seems the MEP is very popular with the Tory worker and soldier termites, the ones who carry the torch of unrestrained Thatcherism. Some of them (Hannan, Tebbit, others) don’t see a need to temper their views for Cameroonian public consumption. But most of them are keeping their heads down and hoping that if they win the next election, they will again be able to step on the faces and chances of the people they don’t want to be part of British society. 

And that’s the interesting thing about what happened today in the London Borough of Bromley. The workers and soldiers, who are really the ones to watch and listen to in any community, had their say – in this case on using public money to subsidise private school fees for those parents who may have lost their jobs. It was not what the Leadership wanted to be heard outside the termite mound. So the workers and soldiers were thrust into a u-turn and then silenced.  

Early in the day, with gathering interest in the Bromley Tory proposals from the Evening Standard et al, Gillian Pearson, the director of Bromley’s children and young people’s services, thought she was saying the right thing on behalf of her borough’s political leadership by uttering the following:

“We are at the early exploration stage in considering this issue as part of our overall annual review of school places and school organisation. As with any proposal of this type, we will give full consideration to all the key factors which would include the educational case, the need in terms of place planning, the associated costs, the legal framework and other local authority practice.”

That failed to calm things down, so no doubt a message was sent from higher up the termite mound to urge Bromley’s chief termite, Cllr Stephen Carr, to say: “I would like to make it perfectly clear that Bromley Council has no plans to introduce such a scheme, but quite rightly, as a result of a question put at a full council meeting at the end of June, officers felt duty bound to consider this, as is good practice. As I have already stated, there is no suggestion that this will be pursued.”

But it seems the Tories in Bromley (and maybe elsewhere) have not given up on the idea. Cllr Neil Reddin, on his blog, states that: ”As a Conservative Bromley Councillor, I can see merit in this idea. None of this is official Bromley Council policy at present – at this point, we are just looking at the legal niceties and practicalities.

Cllr Reddin goes on to say that his “friend and colleague Cllr. Ernest Noad, cabinet member for Children and Young people, has said, ‘The idea is that we might be able to earmark money to keep a child in a private school. At the end of the day what matters is that each child gets a good education,’ Quite right.”

Reddin lays into teaching unions for being “sanctimonious” in criticising the idea that public money could be used for private school fees. Sanctimonius to defend state education and not allow funding for it poured into private schools? I think not. Reddin ends his blog post by saying: “All that though, is not half as “immoral” – indeed, dare I say it, “socially unjust” – as parents having to pay twice for education, once through their taxes and again to an independent school, as well as leaving a place open in the state sector for another child.”

There you have it. The real vibe from the termite mound. The real Tory vibe Cameron doesn’t want you to hear, as he tries to cover his party’s tracks yet again.

Trust me, I’m a politician?

Polling station

Standards for England, the ethics watchdog for 80,000 local councillors, has done a survey of attitudes to local councillors, MPs and politicians in general.

The findings will not make comfortable reading for many MPs and parliamentary candidates in the wake of the Commons expenses scandal.

The survey of 1,735 adults was conducted in June, after the local and European elections,and finds trust towards local politicians rating higher than towards MPs. Standards for England Chief Executive, Glenys Stacey, has said: “It is pleasing … to see that trust in local politicians held up favourably compared to people’s views about national politicians.”

But looking at the figures, it appears 1% of those surveyed feel MPs ‘always’ tell the truth, compared to 2% for councillors. Hardly a dramatic leap in trust. 

More positive (for councillors, that is) is the result for politicians ‘never or rarely’ telling the truth. While nearly a third (29%) of those surveyed felt that MPs are verbally dishonest, a fifth (20%) felt the same way about councillors.

The same questions were asked in 2007, when the results were 20% for MPs and 18% for councillors. So both groups have seen an increase in mistrust in the past 2 years. 

What is interesting is the decline in the number of ‘don’t knows’ for each category, suggesting that not only has confidence in politicians been dented generally, but perceptions of politicians have been galvanised – there are fewer people without an opinion, positive or negative.

As I said in a recent Guardian article written with my friend and Labour colleague Chuka Umunna, PPC for Streatham, voters’ trust in what should be an open and honest vocation needs to rebuilt. No amount of legislation or codes of conduct will achieve that. It is for politicians to earn trust through personal demonstration of honesty and hard work, looking to our behaviour and that of our parties to correct what has caused the electorate to lose confidence.

Is regaining trust in politics and politicians an impossible task? Perhaps, for some. The voters should give their verdict on them.

To others I would say it will not be short work. Reflect on the words of Dr Samuel Johnson (a frequent visitor to Streatham, by the way).

Johnson said: “Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance.”