GOING WITH THE FLOW

Fluid. Is it a liquid, is it something flowing or is it a matter of being adaptable? It is a word that is more appropriate to the thinking or our current political representatives than consistency or immutability. It is the antithesis of being steadfast to the party line.

 

Our current Secretary of State for Defence Grant Shapps is the epitome of the fluid politician. He has been Minister of State for Housing and Local Government (2yrs 3 months), Minister without portfolio  whilst Chairman of the Conservative party (2yrs 8 months), Minister of State for International Development (just over 6 months) Secretary of State for Transport (3yrs 2 months), Home Secretary (6 days), Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (4 months), Secretary of State for Energy security and Net Zero (7 months) and now secretary of State for Defence (24 days).  

 

He has moved about in the last 13 years like no one else. In the last year he had had four jobs as Secretary of State. He has served under Cameron, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. On many occasions he has been trotted out to defend absurd positions of the Conservative Party and he has managed to obfuscate his way through interview after interview with consummate ease to support whatever the current government wishes to justify. His fluidity and adaptability is without peer in the conservative party, which is why he is invariably put forward as the spokesperson, following clumsy and ridiculous pronouncements by the party leaders. He has come out time and again to put on a brave face, without any concomitant embarrassment one would normally associate with defending the indefensible.

 

During his latest interview he has boldly stated that one must be changeable in controlling public expenditure and keep in constant review any public undertaking instituted by the government. Fluidity is essential regardless of commitment to policy. He may not have stated that specifically, but that is in effect what he implied. There is much to be said for that view. Indeed one has seen it in operation within the leadership of the Labour Party as well as the Liberal Democrats.

 

It is never good policy to be so totally rigid as to not see the alternative available when obstacles crop up, as they invariably do with strict adherence to a position. The battering-ram politician is never capable of fluidity and the possibilities of alternative propositions. It is a matter of going with the flow. The likes of Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and others on the right of the party will never adjust.  They are constantly pushing and punching and assigning blame on others for the failure of their blows. The tragedy is that they sometimes succeed; however, with such density comes erosion, and the ravages of time will reduce them to rubble. One would hope that the next general election will do the necessary.

 

As to Grant Shapps he has always managed to flow with the go. He has 5 ‘O’ levels from Watford Grammar School for Boys and a Higher National Diploma from Manchester Polytechnic having completed a business and finance course. He started his working life as a photocopier sales rep, and from the age of 22, in 1990, he had a not too successful career in various business ventures. A short entry from Wikipedia state the following:

Shapps's use of the names Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox attracted media attention in 2012. He denied having used a pseudonym after entering parliament and, in 2014, threatened legal action against a constituent who had stated on Facebook that he had. In February 2015, he told LBC Radio: "I don't have a second job and have never had a second job while being an MP. End of story."

In March 2015, Shapps said he had made an error in his interview with LBC and was "mistaken over the dates" of his outside employment. He said he had "over-firmly denied" having a second job. David Cameron defended Shapps, saying he had made a mistake and it was time to "move on". In March 2015, Dean Archer, the constituent previously threatened with legal action by Shapps, threatened Shapps with legal action.

Please note the phrase “over-firmly denied”. Also note David Cameron’s use of “time to move on”, a phrase used by just about every conservative prime minister since the 2010 election, to cover embarrassing situations. As to over-firmly statements, they are the stock in trade of the politician used to adaptability and the non-denial denial. Sadly, Grant Shapps is not alone in this type of exchange, nor is his party the only party responsible for such rhetoric. It goes with the flow, and whether alone or not, Mr Shapps is extremely practiced in the art of fluidity.

Our current prime minister has spoken frequently of integrity, responsibility, and adherence to codes of conduct. He has clearly fallen short of that initial promise, but do not forget that everything is changeable, and adapting to circumstances, real or imagined, is the name of the game. If the Labour Party and the Liberal Democratic Party seek to dislodge the current government and remove as many of their representatives as possible, they are going to have to adapt their strategies to get around the first-past-the-post obstacles in any number of constituencies. They will also have to provide real meaning for the electorate to gain their vote and show a genuine interest in actual public service as opposed to mere political positions.