Boris, Boris, Boris…

This evening just after the Hyde Park beacon was lit Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, delivered a rallying cry to a crowd of 60,000 Olympic revellers.

He spoke for about a minute. Roughly 270 words. By the end of his first sentence hundreds were calling out for him. By the end of his speech they were all chanting in unison the name of a Conservative politician.

This is not America. We don’t do this. I doubt we’ve ever done this. We don’t lose control when listening to a politician. Do we?

Consumate use of epiplexis, tricolon thrown in with epistrophe encompassed in an act of pathos rarely seen convincingly delivered by a political speaker. It worked.

‘Heineken Boris’ is often touted as being one of the most popular politicians in the country. After last night what few doubters remained are now hushed into silence. Lessons can be learned from his character: he is cunning, deliciously charming and flatteringly bumbling. He mirrors one loveable characteristic of Englishness. A statesman can’t be like everyone. So there’s no choice but to be like a popular stereotype. If we find the others, and find politicians who embody populist elements of the national stereotype, then the Party and the Commons generally can expect a renaissance in the way electors engage in the system.

We don’t need them to vote, that will come later. We need them to care enough to pay attention when a politician speaks. Pay attention enough to rationalise, criticise and hold them to account. Pay enough attention to make the politician better.

Boris is a representation of the direct power and influence that politicians used to have over a constituency. The Mayor of London’s activities hark back to a time when statesmen were revered for their wisdom and their celebrity in equal measure – and both were important. Being a Roman consul was a dream forged on the honourable ambition to have your death mask in the atrium of your descendents homes. Being a politician was, at one time, a mark of honour and the exact opposite of something to be ashamed of.

Hundreds of MPs dedicate their lives to public service. It doesn’t matter whether they had a career toiling in a political office or forged their interests in the heat of industry. A career path pursued with a passion to do good with the power to genuinely make a difference is, and always will be, something special. And it can be popular again.

Boris reminded us of that today. Grab him, bottle him and sell him to the masses. ‘Heineken Boris’ and his ilk may be just the tonic the nation needs to wake up from its apparently apathetic slumber.
____________________________________________________

“I’ve never seen anything like this in all my life. The excitement has grown so much I think the Geiger counter of Olympomania is going to go zoink off the scale. People are coming from around the world and they’re seeing us and they’re seeing the greatest city on earth, aren’t they? And there are some people who are coming from around the world who don’t yet know about all the preparations we’ve done to get London ready in the last seven years. I hear there’s a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we’re ready. He wants to know whether we’re ready. Are we ready? Are we ready? Yes we are. The venues are ready. The stadium is ready. The aquatic centre is ready. The velodrome is ready. The security is ready. The police are ready. The transport system is ready. And our team GB athletes are ready aren’t they? Team GB is ready. They’re going to win more gold, silver and bronze medals than you’d need to bail out Greece and Spain together. Let me ask you in conclusion: can we, final question, can we put on the greatest Olympic games that has ever been held in any city? Can we? Are we worried about the weather? We’re not worried about the weather. Can we beat France? Yes we can! Can we beat Australia? Yes we can! Can we beat Germany? I think we can too. Thank you very much everybody, have a wonderful London 2012. Thank you for all your support.”

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, 26^th July 2012

Written for Platform Ten

Striking during the Olympics – the reason we need for trade union reform

8,000 torchbearers. Over 7.7 million tickets sold. Over 10,000 athletes from 205 countries. 21,000 journalists camped out in London. A total investment of £24 billion in the Games, area regeneration and legacy.

The media has been hyping London 2012 ever since the torch touched our shores – each bearer has been profiled and praised, stunts orchestrated and column inches filled. All to galvanise the nation into supporting one of the greatest sporting events of all time.

So when the Public and Commercial Services Union decide to force all their members across the Home Office to down tools for 24 hours on 26^th July you’d have hoped they had a majority of their members supporting it.

Only they haven’t. The PCS has freely admitted that 57.2 per cent of those who voted backed strike action – the turnout was 20 per cent. In reality of the 16,000 balloted members, just 3,200 voted, of whom strike action was supported by a mere 1,800 workers.

Mark Serwotka, union doge, says the reason for the strike is that the government is making 8,500 job cuts in the Home Office and reducing staffing levels by 22 per cent at the Border Agency – in itself not an unreasonable subject to take issue with. But PCS members make up around 5,000 of the 8,000 Border Force staff affected; if they don’t want to strike then why is the PCS effectively forcing them to?

Politically Serwotka couldn’t have picked a worse time for this. The national narrative is one sick of Trade Unions demanding this and refusing that. Rather than attempting to be seen as a constructive force for workers rights, unions are now perceived to be organisations intent on throwing their toys out of the pram at the most inconvenient of times with little to no mandate on which to base the tantrum on. A series of actions that even the traditionally sympathetic Labour Party has denounced.

Unions are honourably designed to fight for the special interests of their membership. But with their own supporters deigning not to vote, the question must be asked: if you can’t arouse the interest of your own special interest group, then your position must be at best flawed and, at worst, plain wrong.

The mood surrounding the Games is palpable. Those still left in the country are undeniable in favour of the 30^th Olympiad. National pride harnessed by the Jubilee, encouraged by the World Cup and maintained by Wimbledon is still fresh in our collective mind. The PCS choosing to jeopardise our enjoyment will turn the country, along with the political classes, away from supporting the activities of the toxic unions.

This is not just about a delayed commute. This is potentially a cause for international embarrassment, and the British people won’t stand for it.

That’s why if ever there was a time for the Coalition to seriously look at introducing tougher union laws, then that time is now. Ensuring that minority views can’t hold the country to ransom may never be a more timely and popular policy area to invest in.

Public opinion is undoubtedly onside. The PCS, RMT and other union members are consistently failing to participate en masse in their own ballots. Anything that jeopardises symbolic British-ness is automatically made a pariah. Now is the time to assess the feasibility of legislating to ensure that half of eligible union voters have to approve a strike for it to go ahead.

With suggestions already floating around that minimum turnout for strike action should be set at 40 per cent, arguments about the turnout for general elections are summarily thrown into the ring. But there is a flaw in the argument. Balloting for strike action requires an individual turning up to voice their displeasure and voting to stop work. Just like the AV referendum, union members are being asked a specific question that requires a majority decision for it to have validity. Elections, on the other hand, are intentionally more positive, designed so that the electorate picks the best option for them personally. One disenfranchises, the other empowers.

We are told that ‘decisions are made by those who show up’. If that’s true, then why are we letting unions bully their membership into forgetting just how important that small idea is?

Written for Platform Ten

Symbolism essential when hunting banking baddies

News reaches us today that Barclays chairman Marcus Agius has resigned following his involvement in the Libor lending rate scandal. Welcome news? Certainly. Something that will restore confidence in British banking? Not likely.

Since 2008 the public narrative around the banking crisis has barely left the headlines. Each day more filth is discovered, more authority abused and more trust destroyed. Manipulating the impression of risk for lending across London is yet another in a string of high-profile cases damaging the reputation of bankers everywhere.

Agius leaving will satiate the baying crowd for a time, and rightly so. Like a villain in a pantomime, we all want to see those that cause injustice getting their just deserts. And that goes for Bob Diamond as well it seems. A poll currently open on The Guardian site asks whether ‘Bob Diamond should resign after Barclays admits manipulating interest rates’ to which over 93% of respondents have voted ‘Yes – the top man should carry the can.’

A recent Which? poll found that four in five of us want bankers prosecuted over law-breaking with just one in five thinking that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) effectively regulates the banks.

When the Treasury effectively puts Diamond on trial later this week all cameras will be turned to the interrogators. Will they be too lenient? Will they ask the right questions? Where is the noose? 

Pundits are betting that Diamond wont be losing his job anytime soon, so is this merely a symbolic demonstration that Parliament is acting in line with the wishes of the populace? With two-thirds of people believing that the measures taken by the government to reform the banking sector are not in the public’s interest that may not be such a bad idea.

In truth the Government is reforming the regulatory system from top to bottom with a bill currently going through Parliament that abolishes the FSA and creates a tough new Financial Conduct Authority. Its job will be to focus specifically on market abuse and protecting consumers – if that’s not Parliament acting in the public interest then I don’t know what is.

Bob Diamond and the whole Barclays management team have very serious questions to answer so it’s right that the Treasury Select Committee is dragging him in to account for his actions. But we shouldn’t downplay the symbolism at work here. Fred Goodwin losing a knighthood, Agius leaving Barclays and Diamond on trial are symbolic acts attempting to stop the poison of doubt infecting the confidence in the markets and that of the British public in the banking sector.

That’s no bad thing, but it’s not what’ll bring banking reform to Britain. Parliament will do that in time, and the sooner we realise that the better.

Written for PlatformTen.