Bold Nottingham

No doubt local opposition will rally around their local hero...

Are they bold, or are they brave, or are they stupid to try to introduce this?

Asking people to pay for parking in work is maybe not so controversial as it once was. A lot of people already have to do that. I know civil servants who have to pay at their own workplace because the buildings are all owned by the PFI partner of the government department. So to them, this isn’t very new.

This is one of those tricky political decisions. It’s bound to be a local issue at the next elections. There will be much talk of how councillors have betrayed the local area. There will be much ink spilled and much wailing and moaning about further taxes on the poor, downtrodden motorist – especially if the trial proves to be successful.

But, to me, this should be a much broader issue. It says it all that powers that were given to local councils in 2000 are only now being put into action. Typical of this government which has always been big on the headlines but not quite so brave when it comes to implementing them. It seems they planned this one all along so that local councils would take the rap. Let them take the risk, in the same way as they let Ken Livingstone take on the vested interests when he introduced the congestion charge.

This is the kind of thing that we are going to have to do if we’re serious about tackling the issues of congestion and climate change. The real terms cost of motoring simply must rise to an extent that public transport is a genuine alternative. This would be one small piece in that jigsaw. After all, you normally pay to park at a retail shopping centre. What’s the difference with driving to work? It’s generally not your land that you wish to place one tonne of metal and electronics on – so what right do you have to do so?

Yet all of this is obscuring the real issue. The one that I threatened to return to a long time ago about national road pricing. Because that is, actually, the best solution. Best in terms of fairness, in cost, in revenue raised, in tackling the environment impact of road use: the one that will even deal with that often cited problem of “what about rural drivers with no public transport?”

I still want to write a more considered post on this at a later date setting out my full thoughts. But, in the meantime, I am pleased to see at least one council is prepared to take on the business interests that are, unfortunately, going to stand in the way of every effort to try to deal with the horrendous congestion that is choking our towns and cities.

Maybe this gentle step in the right direction is a sign that some politicians at least are prepared to take unpopular decisions – because, let’s face it, what self-interested, rational road user will welcome this? – but ones that are necessary for dealing with some of the problems this country faces.

The Wit of Geoff Hoon

"Don't like that one? I'll tell you another one. A man walks into a bar..."

Fear not, loyal readers. This post is not actually about Geoff Hoon. Or, indeed, any attempts to be funny by the man himself.

No. It’s actually a brief reflection on his presence as representative of the government on last Thursday’s edition of Question Time.

And yes, I know I’m a bit late with this. But, such is the beauty of the BBC iPlayer. I’ve been busy all week, and I finally got a chance to see the last episode of the series – which was a slightly better affair than usual thanks to a very decent panel including Shirley Williams – who is always on the money, and George Galloway, who is always great value for money no matter whether you agree with him or not.

Anyway… my point is a fairly simple one. The Question Time audiences are much maligned, and perhaps not a true reflection of the country (after all, only viewers of the programme are likely to volunteer for the audience, and viewers of the programme are likely to be more politically-minded than the average citizen) – but if they are a good representation of one thing, it is very likely to be they do reflect the dwindling percentage of those who actually bother turning out to vote.

I understand the researchers always try their best to balance the audience to make it as fair as possible to all parties, but this relies upon audience applicants declaring their political loyalties correctly. Trusting people, in other words, which is very difficult where politics is concerned – since it’s widely known that party officials and activists are routinely advised to engage with such media: in the same way that most letters about politics in a local paper are from local party members or their connections.

With that context in mind, it would be wise to consider the response of the audience to almost every defence Hoon made of government policy very carefully.

In summary, Hoon’s responses were not merely met with the derision worthy of the man. No. If that were the case it would be reasonable to assume that the country is not very happy with the government right now. That would be understandable. But no…

In fact, most of Hoon’s replies were actually met with laughter. A knowing giggle of incredulity that the man really was trying to justify the unjustifiable, from the defenestration of Ian Gibson MP to the government’s response to swine flu. And, I admit, I too joined in with an amused smirk. It seems like the done thing as far as this government is concerned.

That reaction, above all, is the most shocking. That a government can be treated with so much disdain that we are amused by what they’re trying to do to recuse themselves from such a dire economic and political situation. Perhaps it, too, is a laugh of pity. Or even of sympathy at their predicament.

OK, maybe that’s pushing it a bit far.

But if anything tells me this government is a rotting corpse, it is the dismissive humour in which we treat them: as if the whole thing is just one big joke, and we’re waiting for the punchline…

Lib Demmery

I managed to obtain the template version of a Lib Dem Focus that they use on our training days. Interesting stuff, don't you think?

Yesterday I chipped in with my Local Lib Dem Focus “Team”.

A team comprising three people, one of which is me.

This is Lib Dem local politics at its finest. Pavement politics. Dog shit. Broken streetlights. Potholes. You name it, we’ve whinged about it.

And, apparently, it works.

Well, it seems to. And though I don’t think we invented pavement politics, it is often attributed to us. And, naturally, much copied.

Using it, customising each leaflet for the different parts of the ward, we have managed to gain a toehold in an area which once had three Tory councillors. It now has two, and we have the third. We hope we can turn the whole area yellow in the next few years. Between the three of us. Oh, and maybe a handful of other older people who deliver maybe five leaflets in their street. Bless ’em.

It is such a disingenuous business though. Not necessarily because of the obvious things, like the much heralded bar charts, but because of their very nature. They talk incessantly about local issues that have no bearing whatsoever on people’s principles. Is the issue of whether the proposed new Sainsbury’s is going to have a petrol filling station attached all that important really when there are people dying in Afghanistan?

The answer… yes. Yes, it does matter.

It is astonishing just how well received a local rag, no more than two sides of A4, which purports to be addressing extremely parochial issues, can be. The electorate – and we’re talking about the very specific group that vote in local council elections, i.e. pensioners – seem to enjoy seeing someone fighting for them.

But while we pretend that it’s all about bus stops and flytipping, meanwhile we, of course, have an agenda. We want power not purely for selfless reasons. Who does? We want it so we can influence the agenda and direct budget priorities towards the kind of things that make us tick.

Yet does any of that feature on those Focus leaflets slipped through the letterbox on yet another wet summer afternoon?

Not a chance.

And yet that is actually what politics is all about. When you talk to any of us, the politicos of this world, we all want to achieve something. But in order to do so, it is somewhat necessary to adjust ourselves slightly to get ahead in the world. You can do very little as a councillors, but you can do a damn sight more than you can on the fringes, sniping in letters to the local newspapers (if they still exist, of course).

But underneath it all runs something else. We treat it as a game, with aims, objectives, strategies. An opposition to seek out and destroy, often by any means necessary. Hence the dirty tricks that arise from time to time. And, as everyone knows, all games have winners and losers.

Oddly enough, us Lib Dems seem to be on the losing side more often than not.

We must be masochists at heart.

That – in a fairly long nutshell – is what it means to be a Lib Dem at the coal face.

Bloody Students Again

Urgh. What are this lot so happy about? Their degrees are likely to be bloody useless. Like mine.

… was the first thing I thought when I began to muse about the topic of today’s blogpost, but with the issue of universities still burbling in the background while “success” in Afghanistan is widely celebrated, I thought it was still worthy of some further comment. But I won’t be making a habit of it, I promise.

Yes: in the past couple of days there have been a stream of stories about what’s going to happen to university tuition fees: culminating in this one from the Sunday Times which suggests that both Labour and the Conservatives are preparing the ground for significant rises.

Then, as if to hammer home the point today, Lord Mandelson came out (no, not like that) and all but told us that tuition fees are definitely going to rise by tacking on the usual caveat of helping the lower classes achieve degrees too.

What I find curious about all of this is, first of all, why now? A partial answer is that there is a review coming up required by the legislation that introduced student top-up fees. But that is not for many months and is, ostensibly, independent. The conclusion: it’s very clear that the debate is being framed in preparation for this review to basically say that only one answer is appropriate: fees must be allowed to rise.

Which is exactly why so many of us were implacably opposed to tuition fees in the first place, that they would be the thin end of the wedge that sees us moving closer to the American system of a financial market between the universities – where the poor don’t bother going at all, the lucky working class have to go to the cheapest (and worst) universities, while the elite continue to dominate at the top, which feeds into the continuing class divide. Typical Britain, one might say. That’s not to say things were perfect before tuition fees were introduced – they weren’t – but it’s clear to me that we’re going in completely the wrong direction.

My second point of curiosity regarding this current debate is also answered somewhat by the financial crisis. After all, as I pointed out a few days ago, it seems Mandy has chosen to lead the way by starting the cutbacks process already. Testing the water, if you will, against an easy, low turnout, target who are lost to the Labour Party for a generation anyway. Well, did you really think the cutbacks would have started by abolishing the pensioners winter fuel payment? No, of course not. Spending cuts are going to focus substantially on those who don’t matter electorally – and that’s entirely the youth’s fault for not voting.

Thirdly, and on a partisan point that I just can’t resist making – if Labour continue to ignore students, and the Conservatives choose to follow them down the same path, then the Lib Dems will remain the party of students for years to come. Today’s activists become tomorrow’s councillors and MPs – and the Lib Dems aren’t doing too badly in certain parts of the country out of all this.

If the Lib Dems continue to play this one carefully, talking about what is fair even when the chips are down and the economy is turning against you – as we did on the Gurkhas issue – we may continue to carve ourselves a neat little niche that could be very productive come election time.

Ahh. The refreshing aroma of principled politics!

Boring Norwich North

The depressing image of the future of British Politics. Young. Fashionable. Smooth. Give me old warhorses like Dennis Skinner and Sir Peter Tapsell any day!

It has taken me some days to find anything interesting to comment on from the Norwich North by-election. But that won’t stop me trying…

The reason being quite simple: it was blindingly obvious that the Tories were going to win. So my right call – and they don’t come along too often so you’ll excuse my celebration – a whole month ago was entirely vindicated.

In many respects, these are the worst by-elections of all. They aren’t exciting or relevant because the result is a certainty – and yet they should be the complete opposite given the fact that the governing party have just lost a key seat on a huge swing. If a by-election were held in a government stronghold, which they win as easily as falling off a log, that would be equally dull. But at least then we’d understand why it got so little attention.

Instead, this one is frustrating. Indeed, in the run up to it there was so little coverage that we might have been forgiven for thinking there was no more need for politics in this country.

It was a simple result with a simple explanation. Tory voters came out to vote; Labour voters all found something else to do in droves.

Now, this has led to much comment. After all, the newly minted Tory MP received less votes as an absolute figure compared with the 2005 General Election. Consequently, elections “expert” Professor John Curtice assures us that the result should give David Cameron “a moment’s pause”.

Here’s my reasoning why it shouldn’t do anything of the sort.

Elections are about winning by any means possible. If you lose votes, but your opposition loses even more, and you come out on top, then you have done what needs to be done.

The argument goes that these Labour voters will return when the General Election comes around. It’s always been the same. For some reason, it is damn near impossible to get Labour voters out of bed when the government of the country is not at stake. We see it every time, local, European and by-elections; they’re just lazy bastards.

If the argument is true, then Labour should reclaim Norwich North at the next General Election. After all, they got 21,097 votes last time, 7,506 more than Chloe Smith received and won.

But I don’t think it is true any more. Some Labour voters will indeed return. The rest are, I believe, lost for good. The middle classes have already moved to the Tories. The working classes will never vote Tory: but they will sit on their hands or vote elsewhere (BNP?) as a protest. They have had it with Labour. They’ve always been prepared to overlook the middle-of-the-road tendencies required to win power, viewing it as a necessary evil to schmooze with the City and big business.

But the recession, the credit crunch, and the MPs expenses scandal have changed all of that. They no longer identify with the Labour Party in the way they did. They have – finally – woken up and realised that, in those immortal words, “they’re all at it”.

In other words, their behaviour has no excuse, and they’ve been caught with their hands on the till – and all these events taken together have been the straw that’s broken the camel’s back.

The absence of Labour voters almost gives Cameron a majority without him even doing anything. When you add in the middle class switchers, the next election is such a shoo-in that we might as well forgo the election process and hand Cameron the keys to Number 10 now.

Norwich North wasn’t particularly groundbreaking. But, in the same way Wirral South was for Tony Blair in February 1997, it was just another sign that the inevitable was drawing ever nearer…

And So It Begins

But more time for drinking with less money surely equals more Lidl Finkbrau? Bloody students...

With the news that Business, Innovation and Skills Department (including Universities, but without telling everyone Universities are included) is slashing £65m off budgets for next year, it’s pretty clear that you don’t need a Budget to economise.

And the even more telling part of this story? The fact that it is Lord Mandelson’s very own department that is wielding the axe.

I’ve no doubt we’re going to see more and more stories of this nature as the months go by. Perhaps even slipped out over the summer while they hope no one’s watching. It’s possible that this could lead to yet another death by a thousand cuts to the government. More likely though, they’re hoping that people aren’t likely to notice a little cut here, a little cut there, and particularly if they are not in areas that are going to hit the headlines.

Rather that than in next year’s budget issuing huge climb downs over growth forecasts (cos that one’s not looking too good either, Alistair) – literally weeks before a General Election – and being forced to drastically cut departmental budgets because they were a little too optimistic compared with last year. Either that or increase borrowing still further: surely suicidal in the run up to Voting Day as it would play right into the Tories hands.

But it is surely a sign that the government has accepted that overall expenditure must come down in cash terms, not just in real terms.

Or is it? After all, they only yesterday told us that they have £1bn to spend on electrifying railway tracks. An idea I support; and one that fits properly into Keynesian economic theory (infrastructure investment) – but I can’t help but feel that this is what should have been done instead of useless VAT cuts.

Or perhaps this all hints at another strategy. Could the election actually be called before the next budget? Labour, knowing defeat is inevitable, may decide it’s better to make the Tories be the ones who take the potentially unpopular decisions of cutting budgets and raising taxes. Because, make no doubt about it, taxes will have to go up somewhere. Reducing spending simply won’t be enough if we’re to service this mountain of debt we’re building up.

That strategy, perhaps seeing an election in March, may be the one that hopes for a Tory victory, a very small one in a hung Parliament, and then hoping they fail to deliver, leading to a second General Election within the year – one which could see Labour returned to power.

All a little far fetched, maybe. But you never know what Mandy’s up to. And all this on top of previous news freezing student loans, he’s clearly picked this fight with the Universities because he thinks it’s one he can win…

All we need now is for Gordon Brown to emerge telling us that spending won’t be cut, that white is black and night is day and David Cameron is a jolly nice chap, really.

Don’t Get Mad, Get Even

My reform proposal would involve this building and an exhumation of the dismembered corpse of Guido Fawkes. And a bottle of gin.

Or failing that, just get angry.

Today’s cryptic post opening is a reference to Mr Nick Clegg.

Recently, we looked into his behaviour with a certain sense of admiration, and a definite sense of respect that he seems to be up to something, and getting lots of positive media coverage in the process.

Well – today’s instalment of the Clegg Files is in the Daily Telegraph, where he is quoted discussing how the eventual passage of the act which is supposed to clean up politics is little more than a damp squib. Or in his words “inspid”.

I’ve yet to decide whether the way the Lib Dems have handled this issue has been good or bad. For a start, I think they’ve played a very dangerous game of raising expectations. From the outset they have been trying to hit the hardest with it – and trying to make a great deal out of their reformist credentials: accusing other parties of jumping on the bandwagon. Fair enough.

But, in a sense, the expectations of major reform were always going to be dashed. Because no reform ever lives up to expectations. Except maybe devolution: the one truly revolutionary reform of the British constitution in recent decades that has delivered.

The problem is that it was always obvious MPs were not going to vote for something that created not just a rod for their own back but a cat-o’-nine-tails. Nick Clegg must surely have known this: which makes me think his strategy was to pretend he had faith Parliament could reform itself, and then use its inevitable failure as yet another example of how the whole system is rotten to the core and needs reforming.

Because, after all, have we not just witnessed the same thing over constitutional reform? When Gordon Brown suddenly piped up with a lot of ideas, including completing Lords reform, maybe even changing the electoral system – it was in fact a masterstroke. Have any of these ideas surfaced since? Are they going to?

No. It was yet another fantastic piece of spin making it look like you’re a Real Reformer while at the same time planning nothing of the sort. And once the media circus has moved on, the whole thing is quietly ditched. Just like what Blair did with the Jenkins report into electoral reform.

So what is a Clegg to do? He’s obviously ratcheting up the anger over this issue, but he can’t ride that wave for ten more months. I’m sensing that though the public are still angry about the expenses scandals, they have now reached a phase where there’s little more to be said or done. The damage has already happened: and no more political capital can be made from it. There are very few votes left to change sides.

Unless Clegg is planning to continue building up a picture of the Rotten Parliament, and a rotten democracy, with a serious plan to tear the whole thing down and start again, he may well be wise to think carefully about what he’s doing. He doesn’t want to be undermining Parliament purely for the sake of it. What would be the point in trying to make yourself the architect of anti-politics if you aren’t proposing the serious changes necessary?

It’s difficult for the Lib Dems to get noticed at the best of times. But if he wants to look sincere on this, now is the time to switch to a genuinely radical plan for reform. An elected constituent assembly, perhaps.

Anything less would be perceived as tinkering at the edges of a system that has manifestly failed to reform itself.

We should play no further part in such a silly game.

Dear Generation X…

Let The Good Times Roll!

Thanks for your postcard from Spain! Glad you made it there safely. Where is the cruise off to next? I look forward to your next missive from the Carribean!

Just thought I’d let you know how things are back at your place. Don’t worry, I have been feeding the cat, but she doesn’t really like the Tesco Value cat food that I’ve been buying. What the hell do you feed it on?!

Anyway – I hope this doesn’t come as too much of a shock to you but I thought I’d admit that I’m looking to find somewhere else to live. It’s been great lodging with you and all that, but I feel I need some space of my own.

The only problem is that my search isn’t going so well. I can’t find anywhere decent to live on a reasonable budget. I know this must be totally alien to you. After all, you’re all sorted with the huge amount of equity you’ve got in your house (yes, even after 15% house price falls!). Oh, and that tiny mortgage which is currently at historically low interest rates. No need even to fix it because interest rates won’t be going anywhere any time soon!

But when I go into the bank I get told I need to raise a 20% deposit. On a £100,000 house (not many of those around in most parts of the country) – that’s just not feasible. And it’s so hard to save up for a deposit because of how much rent I have to give you. Yes, I know it’s all inclusive (apart from food, I can just about afford that!) – but I was wondering if there’d be any chance you could reduce it to give me some breathing space to put some money aside?

I just need to get away. After all, you know what they say about renting: it’s dead money. If only I could get a mortgage then it might actually work out better for me – the mortgage payments would actually be lower than what I’m paying you!

But these banks are such tight bastards. I think they forget that we own most of them, and those we don’t have us to thank for rescuing their sorry arses from the destruction of capitalism as we know it (and now they can go back to rewarding each other handsomely for swindling the taxpayer of its cash without any give on their side!). I know you had to delay the start of your cruised because of that little problem with the Icelandic banks, but at least Alistair Darling got your money back!

The other problem is the jobs market. Maybe I’d be able to get a lower deposit on a mortgage if I was earning more. But you know times are hard right now. Oh, wait a minute, you don’t.

Still, at least my student debt can only rise by the rate of inflation. I got the statement the other day: I owe them £20,000 and haven’t yet paid a penny of it back. Maybe I never will. Just as well that doesn’t show up on my credit check, eh! But I guess this is what happens when you graduate in the middle of a recession. Great timing on my part, I’m sure you’ll agree! Still – you didn’t have to pay tuition fees, so what do you know! Thanks for pulling up the ladder!

Yes, I know you didn’t think Tony Blair would do that either. But we didn’t think he’d do a lot of things. Still, it wasn’t just you that voted for him; he did con the whole nation after all (well, some of the nation, anyway). Yes, even I was happy when he got elected, but I was only young at the time. Young and naive. Maybe you should have known better?

Better go. The post’s just arrived. There seems to be a few letters for you. One of them is from the Premium Bonds. Another £50 win again?

They say the sun shines on the righteous.

Looking forward to your election as Supreme Pontiff. That Benedict bloke will have nothing on you!

See you soon,

Generation Y

The Lucky Few (Hundred Thousand?)

Ain't Democracy Appealing?

As we all know, the next election will probably not be decided by you or me.

That’s because for the vast majority of us, we live in a constituency that is almost certain to deliver the same result as it always has done.

In my case, it will be Labour. It has been Labour for some time… though – and this almost blows my argument apart before I even start – it was once a Tory seat.

But what gets me back on track is that the change was down to demographics, as the fortunate middle class or the working class who succeeded moved out, leaving behind the classic Labour voter.

Demographics is always the most tedious of electoral explanations. It basically means people have moved. Or favourable things have happened in the birth or migration rates for certain populations. Hardly a principled sign that people have thought carefully about the alternatives presented to them and made a positive choice for one party over another…

Anyway – these safe seats mean that any election bypasses most of us by. Some of us may be fortunate enough to experience the clamour of a by-election. But, again, they are the lucky few.

Ferdinand Mount, a name I’d rather forgot from my politics degree, estimated that there are around 800,000 people in the marginal seats across the UK who decide which party gets elected to power. Hardly a sign of a burgeoning, flourishing democracy.

The rest of us have to be content with our vote merely showing up in the popular vote figures as Jeremy Vine dances in front of the new laser-powered swingometer. And, as the Americans will tell you, the national popular vote doesn’t really count for much.

In some ways, all of this rather shines a revealing light on the pointlessness of democracy. Rational choice theory would suggest that for the average, rational, self-interested Joe or Joeina, the costs of voting far outweigh the benefits. The chances of being the one who casts the decisive vote in an election are as close to zero as they possibly can be. Results are rarely tied, or go one either way, so there’s no incentive for a voter to think “If I hadn’t voted… X would have won”.

And yet most of us still vote. And not just the lucky 800,000. I will still be there casting my ballot, no matter how futile the whole operation. No matter how obvious it is that the useless Labour clown will win.

Part of the problem is, of course, the electoral system. First Past The Post gives us all of these safe seats in the first place. Genuine electoral reform – using the Single Transferable Vote – would give us a chance to make some progress. It would give more of the people the chance to influence the result, rather than simply focusing on the narrow whims of the elite band who matter in the marginal seats: seats which do not reflect the full diversity of Britain today.

But even with that, genuine democratic choice will still remain the preserve of the few. After all, the necessary evil of the party system, and the nature of our Westminster-centric democracy are two of the greatest barriers which keep people out of the loop.

And then there will always remain the stubborn, and growing, ranks of the non-voter. Those who just don’t care either way but will moan all the same.

All of this adds up to a rather unsatisfactory outcome. Democracy is our best bet, in spite of all its flaws, all its failings, and the willingness of the people who live under it to become apathetic and unappreciative of the benefits it brings.

Democracy: the least-worst option.

Hardly inspiring.

Poll Patrol

British Politics Explained via the medium of Microsoft Paint

After a bit of a lull at the start of this month, the past few days has seen the release of a number of opinion polls, all of which have been faithfully recorded on the ever delightful Political Betting.

But as always around these parts, we like to pretend we’re smart and clever by, not only talking about ourselves in the plural, or sometimes even the third-person, but by applying the data through Excel spreadsheets and formulae that mean little but sound very good indeed. In fact, any formula that looks like this: {=MIN(IF($C$3:$C$32=”Populus”,$E$3:$E$32))} and has to be entered by typing in Ctrl+Shift+Return when one is finished can only be a good thing.

And so, with these new polls we have finally been able to calibrate our latest figure for the Monster’s Poll. It looks a bit like this

• Conservative: 39% (-1)
• Lib Dems: 25% (N/C)
• Labour: 18% (N/C)

At the moment, I believe these figures are ridiculous. We are at the mercy of our methodology, which is currently being afflicted by polls prior to the Euro elections which recorded extreme lows for Labour and the reverse for the Lib Dems. It will take time for these outliers to work out of the system, but when they do we’ll start to get a more interesting picture.

In the meantime, it may be more instructive to look at the polls using medians. They are:

• Conservative: 39% (-1)
• Labour: 25% (N/C)
• Lib Dems: 18% (N/C)

That looks a little closer to the mark. Basically, what we’re looking at is a solid position right now, much as I mused about last time. And every day that passes without any change in these underlying facts is another day closer to an election.

Another day closer to a crushing defeat for Labour.

More recent polls are suggesting that the total for “Others” – which had been running high in the run up to the Euro Elections – is starting to unwind, to the benefit of all parties. Perhaps a sign that trust is starting to return? No, I don’t think so either. More likely, as the election draws nearer, people again try to take politics a little more seriously, realising that it is no longer “safe” to protest vote.

Because we Brits (or do I mean English?) don’t ‘alf enjoy voting for a government at General Elections and then using every other possible opportunity we get, local or European, to vote against them in any way we can. In the run up to Labour’s victory in 1997, Labour made gains across the country in local council elections. Then, as soon as they were elected in 1997, it’s been downhill ever since, culminating in their nadir on the 4th of June.

Well, that is until their next nadir.

In summary: a dull month, with ceaseless showers heading in from the right.