Skip to content

Toggle service links
Skip to main content

Personal Blogs

OU blog

Personal Blogs

Leon Spence

Hands up if you think Dame Andrea Jenkyns has ever read 1984?

Monday 11 August 2025 at 14:40
Visible to anyone in the world

Earlier today Reform UK Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, took part in a press conference for her party under the banner 'Women for Reform'. As you might expect it wasn't the most intellectually stimulating of press confereres - I don't think I'm Reform's target audience - but I did raise my head when Dame Andrea said the following:

"We have lived through decades when institutions, police and some politicians have turned a blind eye to the grooming of our children, and we've seen a rise in domestic abuse. Ladies and gentlemen there's no wonder that both men and women are turning to Reform, they need hope that this 1984 Orwellian nightmare, where the thought police are monitoring our every social media post yet letting off paedophiles, want this to end."

The reason that Dame Andrea's comment piqued my interest is this week, for the very first time, I have been reading Orwell's outstanding work of political commentary / dystopian science fiction in preparation for this year's Open University module.

It piqued my attention because like a great many others I have talked in the past about 'Big Brother', 'Orwellian' or 'thought-police', without ever reading the book. They are words and phrases that have worked their way into our vocabulary without the need for understanding them, or appreciating Orwell's warning.

So, as Dame Andrea was talking one thought kept popping into my head. I wonder if she has ever actually read 1984? My guess is that she hasn't.

So, having read 1984 only this week, and having loved it (save for having the least sympathetic protaganist ever) let me say this.

As far as I know our government, for all its faults, is not in the business of changing history.

Our government is one of law and order - arguably too many laws and too many orders - but isn't that the opposite to the party portrayed in 1984, where there was only 1 crime? That of thought?

But let me agree with Dame Andrea, and I'm sure having read 1984 herself she will see the irony, that it is no surprise that men and women are turning to Reform, because I'm sure Chapter III of Goldstein's manual will be at the forefront of her mind:

"They (the High) are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High."

Could there be a better description of the strategy being undertaken by Reform UK at the minute? Could we be living through an Orwellian nightmare?

In his Times essay this week Fraser Nelson writes "Journalism is anchored to facts: no one pays to read junk. And almost no one pays for social media. It’s a device selling people’s attention to advertisers, with algorithms designed to engage (or enrage), to keep you hooked. Yet most Brits now use social media as a news source."

It strikes me that in what many may argue is becoming a post truth world this is the most disconcerting and Orwellian aspect of our modern political sphere.

Many, including a great many of Reform UK's target audience, are not going to the news for impactis facts to consider, but rather are going to the news to reaffirm and reinforce their existing beliefs.

Once you realise that then you realise you are not too far away from Orwell's most disturbing prophecy "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future"

When Reform UK (or, for that matter, any party) are able to shape facts as they choose to then they are not too far away from shaping our past and our future into a truly dystopian Orwellian nightmare.

In invoking Orwell Dame Andrea should ensure she is conisdering his whole vision, I'm not at all certain any Reform UK politician would be rushing to use the imagery of Orwellian nightmares if they were to do so.

Tags: Dame Andrea Jenkyns, Reform UK, 1984, George Orwell, Politics
Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Leon Spence

Processing thousands of pieces of casework is not the job of an MP

Thursday 7 August 2025 at 21:42
Visible to anyone in the world

It’s a common refrain amongst political commentators that the current generation of MPs are the worst that we have ever had.

It’s common, but it’s not necessarily true, and it is a view that is given about every class of parliamentarians at some point after every election.

As I’ve previously said the truth is more complex, for every serious, top-class politician there are plenty of back benchers who do an admirable job but, realistically, unless they show immoral amounts of loyalty will never be worthy of junior ministerial office on merit alone.

What is, I think, undoubtedly true is that in a social media age many MPs have forgotten their primary aim, that of being a legislator.

Especially with a new government that has been in opposition for 14 years there is a huge legislative programme to be enacted. An MP’s primary job, indeed some might say their only job, is to scrutinise and shape that legislation. To offer support to government (or to hold it to account), to table amendments, to work on bill committees, and, even to table their own private member’s bills or 10 minute rule bills.

An MP’s job is to legislate.

And it should be a full time job.

Instead the sort of post below has become all too commonplace.


 

Now, genuinely, this isn’t a criticism of Oliver Ryan MP. I am sure he is a hard working, diligent constituency MP. Rather it is a comment on the culture of casework.

It is simply impossible, in the case of Mr Ryan, that all of those 7,500 cases that he mentions relate to casework that can reasonably assist him in improving legislation. Impossible.

There will be cases where constituents are unhappy with the legitimately made decisions of their local council. It’s not an MP’s job to challenge those legitimately made decisions, but potentially the job of local, democratically elected councillors.

Similarly, there will be cases where the constituent could and should have sought legal advice from a solicitor or Citizen’s Advice Bureau, once again not the job of an MP.

Or, as is often the case, it can be to resolve a neighbour dispute or dissatisfaction with a builder.

Too often, an MP is used as either a signpost or an arbitrator. And clearly, this is not their job, contributing to the creation of legislation is.

When working in Westminster I heard about a Member of Parliament who was conscious about the size of their majority and the need to mollify constituents taking on every piece of meaningless casework, when one day they asked a staffer to liaise with the constituency office of a long standing parliamentary big beast in a neighbouring constituency about taking on a piece of casework.

The long serving secretary who worked for that big beast told the enquiring staffer in no uncertain terms that ‘absolutely not’, they would not be taking on the casework. It was not the MP’s job to take on all and sundry, but only the work that assisted him in doing the job he was paid to do: writing and improving law.

If you think about it, MPs have an important job that should not to be diluted with other work which, whilst being important to the constituent, nevertheless really is of no consequence to what being a Member of Parliament is all about.

Of course, imagine an MP telling all of the above to a constituent who has legitimately been issued with a council tax summons, and that they should make representations to their councillor. Imagine the constituent, inevitably, taking to social media with cries that the MP doesn’t care. Imagine the MP in a marginal seat worrying about their mortgage and being out of a job next time there is an election.

Imagine all of those things and you can see why Mr Ryan, and countless others, talk about the casework loads they and their office process.

But it really isn’t their job.

We don’t go into a supermarket and ask the checkout assistant to rustle up tea for us, rightly they would say no, and we wouldn’t expect it. Rustling up tea isn’t their job.

If we understand the role of supermarket staff and accept it, we should be doing exactly the same with such an important job as being a legislator.

Tags: Politics, casework, Oliver Ryan MP
Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Leon Spence

Political leadership is about knowing when to speak, and when to remain silent

Tuesday 5 August 2025 at 10:27
Visible to anyone in the world

With parliament in recess we are now well into the silly season of politicians, usually back bench or of the regionally elected variety, saying ever more outlandish things in order, in the old days to get a few column inches of press, and now to get a few clicks and likes to raise their profile or boost their chances with an increasingly distracted and fractious electorate.

When, I am certain, he would rather be getting away for a few well-deserved days rest, yesterday The Times parliamentary sketch writer Tom Peck was sent to the latest Reform UK press conference focussing on crime where he recounts “Capturing the attention of the British public in the month of August is one of the easiest heists out there. You just have to say something, anything, and, for want of an alternative, people will listen.”

During the press conference one such principled defector to the newly electorally popular party spoke about the “dark heart of wokeness” needing to be cut out of modern policing.

Elsewhere the usual Conservative suspects, terrified of losing their seats to Nigel Farage’s nascent behemoth take every opportunity to call for the suspension of human rights law and the usual senseless nonsense of deploying the ‘full force of the British State, including the military’ to prevent small boats landing on our shores.

It is, of course, supremely ironic, that most of these politicians usually seek to claim the mantle of Margaret Thatcher without ever beginning to comprehend that true leadership, particularly hers, comes from knowing when to remain silent. Our totemic politicians always understood that the power of their words came from knowing when to use them, but just as importantly when not to.

It was said of President Charles de Gaulle that “All those who have achieved something valuable and lasting have been silent and solitary people.”, perhaps a twentieth century interpretation of Plato’s observation of “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound”?

Many of us decry the standard of contemporary politicians as being ‘the worst ever’, but it begs the question whether they are or not?

Charles de Gaulle | Biography, World War II, & Facts | Britannica

And the answer, probably, is that they are not but throughout history the standard of most politicians has been overwhelmingly poor. Then General de Gaulle described the politicians of the Fourth Republic as “vinegar pissers and polis-petits-chiens (well-bred little puppy dogs )” before going on to say “I despise them beyond words. I don’t detest them. One cannot detest nothingness.”

The truth is that for every true leader: the de Gaulles, Attlees, Thatchers and Churchills there are countless thousands of Temu versions competing for space without ever understanding their inadequacies compared to the real thing.

It is notable, of course, that politicians only begin to understand the importance of silence when they are no longer concerned with the trivialities of elecability. Speaking truth to power can only ever come when truth isn’t dependent on appeasing fickle voters. Rare interventions by the likes of Lord Cameron, Baroness May or Gordon Brown carry significant weight because they are relative rarity.

File:David Cameron Official Portrait 2023.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Now, over a year since leaving office, and presumably with no elections left to fight, the stock of Rishi Sunak rises significantly precisely because he doesn’t find the need to intervene in silly season stories.

Can any of us really doubt that his understanding of the importance of silence will, eventually, lead to a legacy that far outweighs the constant twitterings of his two immediate predecessors?

It is a truism that we get the politicians that we deserve, sadly it is far rarer to get the statesmen that we need.

 
 
 
 
Tags: History, French History, Politics, President de Gaulle, Lord Cameron
Permalink Add your comment
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 36839