EU Referendum


Brexit: politics in the pub


28/07/2016




I had the interesting experience of attending a session of Politics in the Pub yesterday evening. It's a good concept, and was at a good venue and well enough organised – a shame about the public address system which didn't work, but these things happen.

The subject which brought me there was "Brexit: what next for Bradford & Beyond?", a commendable mix of the local, national and international. It should have given the panel plenty of scope for a wide-ranging discussion about the forthcoming negotiations, and how they would affect the city.

In the panel of four, we had Cllr Susan Hinchcliffe, leader of Bradford Council & the ruling Labour group, Cllr Simon Cooke, leader of Bradford's Conservative group and Emma Pentelow, a local businesswoman described a financial advisor. The other was from a human rights charity. I didn't catch his name.

Logically, if we were to have a sensible and useful discussion, we needed someone to tell us in a little detail what the state of play was, what choices were on offer for Brexit, and how they might affect us nationally and locally. It would then have been helpful if we'd been given some advice about how the people of Bradford might influence the debate and make their concerns heard.

But instead of discussion on such issues, we got dribble. It became very clear, very quickly, that the four panellists were badly briefed, largely ignorant of the issues and had nothing useful or interesting to add to the debate. And, as the evening wore on, it became clear that there were many in the audience who were better informed than the panel, and had a better grip of the issues.

No one expected any great, penetrating wisdom from the panel, but a basic level of competence and appreciation of the issue was expected. It was not there.

In a sense, this was a microcosm of the national debate, where the "élites" are ill-informed and many in the population are far more knowledgeable than they are, but simply do not get a hearing. Yet still, to this date, the talking heads do not realise or acknowledge their inadequacies, yet feel free to inflict themselves on their fellow man.

It has been much rehearsed on this blog that people should take an interest in politics. Essentially, we argue, this is a matter of self preservation. Either you take an interest in politics or it will take an interest in you.

And here we have in the referendum result and event which, in its own way, is as profound as the fall of the Berlin Wall, with an impact that has the potential to wreck the economy, or open the way to an economic renaissance. People are concerned, and they came to be informed. Despite that, we had local politicians and commentators who could not be bothered to acquaint themselves with the basics and treated their audience (of about 50) with contempt.

I believe that, before leaving, I may have made some of my views known. I do resent having my time wasted but, even more, I rail against the discourtesy of public figures who do not give audiences the respect they deserve. I was a pity, incidentally, about Cllr Cooke. He's an intelligent and perceptive man and writes a good blog. But on this Wednesday evening, he didn't deliver.

Probably, the audience was too deferential, although I certainly started seeing signs of discontent from about halfway into the two-hour session. But it was only towards the end, after those two hours of dribble, that we got an intervention from a member of the audience, making point about the timing of the Article 50 notification, which added a degree of detail to the proceedings which so far had been missing.

When politicians wake up and look around them, therefore, and wonder why they are regarded with contempt, it is to meetings such as these – the many thousands like them – that they should look. There are the few instances where the public come face-to-face with their elected representatives, and the other "élites", and realise they have feet of clay.

The inherent good nature and the politeness of English audiences probably spares the politicians from the public humiliation that they deserve, and doubtless there were people at the meeting who might have felt my interventions ill-judged. But it also the case that far too many people are too easily pleased, and set the bar far too low in their expectations of politicians' performance.

To express public dissatisfaction at the poor performance of politicians, however, it the nearest thing we get to imposing a form of quality control. In Bradford, the proverbial donkey could become the Labour leader – and in this case seems to have done so. But if politicians, from both sides of the divide, feed rubbish to their audiences in public meetings, they should be told in no uncertain terms – no matter who they are.

And to that extent, Bradford Politics in the Pub did us a favour yesterday. It exposed a lazy, ill-informed and basically contemptible performance to public scrutiny. And those responsible for it did not pass the test.