Politics: the little things
By Richard North - June 1, 2026
If I suddenly go missing for a day, it can mean one of two things – either I’m dead or I’m at an airshow. Yesterday, it was the Midlands Air Festival, held in the grounds of Ragley Hall, near Alcester in Warwickshire.
Designed by “Capability” Brown, the stunningly beautiful grounds provided a dramatic backdrop for a superb day’s flying, not least the spirited performance of the now “vintage” RAF search and rescue Sea King (pictured). With the near perfect weather conditions, it made a welcome break from the daily grind.
The only downside was the distance from Bradford, but the 2½ hour journey with Pete gave us the opportunity for a lengthy chat about things of mutual concern, and in particular the state of British politics, which fuels much of our writing on our respective blogs and (more Pete than I), our posts on X.
Pete’s view is that much of the political discourse in this country – and especially the online right – is overly influenced by US politics, thus reflecting the priorities and interests of US commentators, which in many cases are very different from real-world preoccupations of the British public.
So heavily influenced is the online right – bleeding into the Reform UK and the Restore Britain agendas – that the more prominent pundits are struggling to maintain contact with the realities of British politics, creating a near-unbridgeable distance between them and ordinary voters.
In my view, the distance is measured not only in terms of what the online right obsesses about, but also by the “little issues” that they ignore. One of the most important of these “invisible” issues is the progressive collapse of the administrative state, where government agencies (and especially local authorities) increasingly fail to enforce the rules that mark us out as a developed state.
Returning home yesterday evening after a blissful period where I had absolutely no exposure to the British media, one of my first jobs (after calming down an extremely pissed-off parrot) was to trawl through that media as part of the preparation for today’s post.
I must say that the dismal crop of items did not overwhelm me with enthusiasm, or drive me to the keyboard, itching to pour out my thoughts onto the screen, but I did happen upon a piece in the Guardian headed “‘Labour have lost their way’: voters in Makerfield say it’s time for a change”, with the sub-head telling us that: “Andy Burnham and the Reform candidate lead the polls, but issues such as flooding and the state of the high street are main concerns locally”.
At first sight, this would seem to endorse my view that people on the ground – real people – are more concerned with the small things than they are the “big issues” of the day. And, to an extent, it does but not completely so.
The most pertinent issues in Makerfield, we are told, are largely environmental ones. On New Year’s Day 2025, for instance, flooding hit several areas of the constituency, with residents forced out of their homes for months. In Bickershaw, towards the east of the constituency, villagers have endured a huge 25,000-tonne dump of illegal waste. And public transport is an issue – with no Metrolink tram service, it can take an hour to reach Manchester city centre on trains and buses.
Yet, says the Guardian, “even in the areas most affected by flooding, Reform voters are not put off by the party’s climate policies, which include scrapping net zero and ending all renewable energy subsidies”.
That the local flooding is caused by climate change is, of course, one of those Guardian fever dreams, which tends to confirm that the left has no more closer touch with reality than the right.
But it is an unnamed pensioner living in Bickershaw Lane who shows the better grasp of reality. She has been flooded twice and tells the paper: “you can’t even imagine” how difficult the experience was. She and her husband were forced out of their house for eight months and it has since plummeted in value.
This lady claims to be “leaning towards voting Reform”, saying that Labour has “taken it for granted” for too long. Much to the paper’s disappointment, she says she is not put off by Reform’s climate policies, adding: “This particular thing is not climate change, this is flooding. There are so many new properties being built in this area”.
Possibly, if she felt that Labour was intent on revising policies to prevent so many new houses being built on flood plains, with picturesque names such as “Riverside Meadows”, and was leaning on the Environment Agency to ensure that rivers were kept clear and properly dredged, then this might potentially affect her vote.
But since the Labour Party is the embodiment of hypocrisy, subscribing to the climate change mythology yet doing nothing to mitigate its supposed effects – such as flooding – this lady can be forgiven the view that Labour “taken it (the constituency) for granted” for too long.
Similar cynicism is expressed by Stefan Bilski, a roofer by trade, living in the village of Abram, close to Bickershaw. His house was also seriously flooded twice – last year, and in 2015. But, he says: “I don’t think Labour have done enough [about flooding]”.
Again, if the party were seriously considering effective mitigation, the electoral calculus might change. As it is, Bilski is “probably” voting for Reform. His vote has been swayed by the fact, in his view, “Labour aren’t doing enough to stop all the illegal migrants coming in”.
He adds: “My name’s Bilski, so my grandad was a migrant, but he came over in the war and worked down Bolton colliery”. But, he says, “He didn’t come asking for benefits”.
This is a mix of big and “little” issues – both play their part and, arguably, a positive note on either could affect Bilski’s voting intentions. When neither issue is being dealt with to his satisfaction, though, that has the potential to alter the balance and drive Bilski into the arms of Reform.
This would seem to underline yet refine my point. The “big issues” such as immigration cannot be ignored if a political party aspires to win an election, but neither can the “little issues”. It may well be the interplay between to two which decides the vote.
Without saying as much, the Guardian seems to agree. “It is these two issues – immigration and disenchantment with Labour – that are driving voters to Reform more than any other”, it says.
Interestingly, news stories about the views of the Reform’s candidate, Robert Kenyon, appear not to have discouraged voters. In past online posts, he has said “I’m sexist, sorry but I am”, suggested women had abortions so they could “shag anyone they want” and described gay people as “poofs”.
The limited effect of the candidate in shaping the vote is what I rather suspected, and partially endorsed by Stephanie Doohan, who lives in the constituency. She has a Reform flag flying from a pole outside her house.
A former railway worker and trade unionist, she says she is backing the party because she wants “change” and Kenyon is “a local lad”. She dismisses criticism of his online activity, saying: “That’s his opinion, we’ve all got opinions. I can disagree with him, but it’s his policies I’m looking at”.
What matters to her, she says, is whether a candidate will deliver for the area. “Andy Burnham is not going to do anything”, she declares. “He’s using it as a stepping stone to become prime minister. He doesn’t care about Makerfield”.
Another expression of the importance of the “little things” comes from Eilieen Orrell, a former railway worker and trade unionist who voted Labour at the last general election,
For Orrell, the decline of the high street has become symbolic of a wider sense that the area has been neglected. “When I was growing up, there were shoe shops, a Woolworths, a hardware shop – everything you could find was on the high street”, she says. “Now, she adds, “there’s nothing” – gesturing towards a parade of vape shops and barbers.
This lady is planning to vote for Restore Britain, saying she has spent the past three years following Rupert Lowe. “I just like the fact that he brings up other things apart from migrants”, she says.
Once again, we see the counterpoint between the “big” and the “little”, the balance driving the vote. Politicians (and pundits) neglect either at their peril.
