The Nasty Twenties

 

Some decades are characterised  by a name.  The last  of the nineteenth century was “the Naughty Nineties,”  though by current standards I suspect they were very straight-laced.  The second decade of the twentieth Century was the “roaring Twenties” when people enjoyed the relief of the end of the First World War.  I suspect most of the “roaring” was done by the better better-off. 

There followed the “Swinging Sixties.”  I lived though these.  There wasn’t much swinging in my life-style, but  I do recollect a tremendous amount of optimism and hope.  We really thought we could  “Build the New Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land” as the then deputy leader of the Labour Party, Mr George Brown, put it at an election rally I attended in Cleckheaton.

If the present decade gets a name it will surely be the “Nasty Twenties.”  Day after day the news is peppered with small-minded sniping, much of it directed at people of other cultures, particularly those coming across the Channel in boats (despite the fact that they represent only 7% of the total number of  migrants, most of whom we desperately need.)

Tory Robert Jenrick complains that while filming in part of  Birmingham he couldn’t see another white face.  Another Tory, Katie Lam, suggests that | lot of migrants already here perfectly legally  may have to be sent “home” in order to preserve a “mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.”  A Reform MP, Sarah Pochin, complains of being driven mad when she sees “adverts full of black people, full of Asian people.”  Maybe  this, at the very least “dog whistle,” racism, is legitimised by Sir Keir Starmer’s having  expressed fears of our becoming an “island of strangers” (though he has retracted the statement.)  Justice Minister David Lammy refers to a recent migrant accidentally released too early from prison as “Vile”.  He’s certainly no gentleman, but . . . “Vile?”

It’s not just racism.  After fourteen years of Conservative rule of which he was part and  in which the justice system, along with the rest of the public realm was allowed to deteriorate, the above mentions Mr Jenrick has  the audacity to blame Mr Lammy, barely two months in the job, for the “incompetence” (more probably over-stretched resources) which led to the prisoner’s release.    

The right misses no opportunity to expose and exaggerate the tiniest slip that the government and its members make. The latest is  a concerted attack, probably confected by ex-Prime Minister Johnson and his cronies, on the BBC for the improper conflation of Mr Trump’s speech  to his followers as they marched towards Congress to try to prevent the declaration  of the Election of Joe Biden as President in January 2021.

 What Trump actually said early in the speech  was. ““We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women”.  The bit about “fighting like hell” came towards the end.  None of this alters the fact that Trump played every trick in the book in his attempt to coerce  judges and returning officers to declare results invalid, and is now dong his best to rig the coming mid-term elections.

In the UK the Right has the money to control most of the media and can make sure its prejudices are well aired.  The BBC attempts a balance.  Most of us on the “Left” believe it gives more exposure than is deserved to the Right (consider climate change, the excessive appearances of Farage ). So if both ends of the spectrum feel affronted , the BBC is probably getting it right

The BBC, the jewel among  the world’s communicators,  should not be cowed.  I dearly hope Starmer and Co have the courage to defend it to the hilt.  But I’m not optimistic.

Nic Aubury’s 4-line poem in this week’s “The New Word” sums up our decade:

Poppy Zealots

Ironically, they do appear

Quite broadly to support

The views against  which those that we’re

Remembering once fought.

Why the Labour government flounders

 

1.     1. Although they have  a massive majority in parliament,  Labour received only 34% of the votes in the 2024 election.  Given the low turnout, this means that  only about 25% of those entitled to vote supported them, (and many of those will have given their support for what Labour isn’t – the disgraced Conservative party - than what it is.) Thus our government lacks the confidence of the electorate, and this may explain why it seems to lack confidence in itself.

2.    2. A succession of minor “indiscretions” were revealed soon after Labour  took office - from freebies for suits and designer spectacles to a failure to pay the appropriate tax on a property  purchase.* These were relatively minor compared to the excesses of such as Boris Johnson and Lady Mone, but helped to confirm the more cyclical members of the already disillusioned electorate in their view that “They’re all at it; in it for themselves; all the same." So “No change there then.”

3.   3.  Although the party promised “change” they are effectively continuing the policies of the past, based on the transparent fallacy that the UK can enjoy Scandinavian  levels of public realm and services without funding them properly – that is, with adequate levels of taxation. Thus we are experiencing “the mixture as before,” albeit probably more honestly, though not as to date more efficiently.

4.    4. The government (and Sir Keir Starmer  in particular?) seems “tin eared” and have clearly not sufficiently thought through the consequences and likely reaction to some of their policies (eg the abrupt cut in  Pensioners’ Winter Fuel Allowance without a “taper” for the second level of those most struggling; inheritance tax on land to catch tax-evaders   without an “active farmer” clause or “grandfather clause;"  the appearance of partiality towards the government of Israel whilst using a parliamentary procedural artifice  to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group; meeting Reform’s anti-immigration rhetoric half-way by expressing  fears of our becoming an “island of strangers.”

5.    5. There is also an alarming list of things that a Labour Government is simply not expected to do:  continuance of the vindictive “two child” benefit cap; reductions to disabled people’s allowances; further cuts to the Overseas Aid budget; deliberately making life more difficult for immigrants (not least the overseas students who contribute so splendidly to our university coffers and international reputation.)

6.    6. The government is constrained by the “no increases in key taxes” promise they felt  necessary to win the election.  They have, however, allowed at least two opportunities to abandon the promise to pass:  – the £20bm black hole they “discovered” in  the public finances, and the virtual withdrawal  of the US from guaranteeing the defence of Europe. Either or both could have been used to justify a change of policy.

7.    7. The Labour Government has to realise that the overwhelming majority of the media is against them and will exploit every error (as it has done very successfully so far), that rich resources, some of them foreign-owned, are being used to facilitate this, and if they muddle along in the current fashion for the next four years  things are going to get worse rather than better. A dramatic change is needed (and a change of Prime Minister will be far from sufficient.)

8.    8.  Almost exactly a year ago (4^th November, 2024) this blog, under the title The Vision Thing, commented that, given its low level of support, the Labour Party could have honestly recognised  the situation and offered the Liberal Democrats, Greens and such Nationalists as were interested, membership of a Coalition which would have had majority support.  These could, together, (preferably over two parliamentary terms) tackle the root and branch reforms which our country desperately need, probably after taking guidance from a series of Citizens' Assemblies to consider :

·       Voting reform

·       Parliamentary reform

·       Devolution to the nations, regions and localities

·       Fair and effective taxation

·       The housing market

·       The media

·       A realistic defence commitment

·       Company law

·       A constitution

·       Our place in the modern world.

 We’ve already wasted a year.

P.S. (added 30th October) And now, overnight, revelations about Rachel Reeves's lack of a license to let her property.  Are they all completely gormloss?

United Nations Day, 24th October

 

Emblem of the United Nations

The flag of the United Nations consists of the white emblem on the sky blue background. The emblem depicts a azimuthal equidistant projection of the world map, centred on the North Pole, with the globe being orientated to the International Date Line. The projection of the map extends to 60 degrees south latitude, and includes five concentric circles. The map is inscribed in a wreath consisting of crossed conventionalized branches of the olive tree.^[1][2]

The size of the emblem on the flag is one half the width of the flag itself. The flag proportions of the aspect ratio of the flag height to its width, are equal 2:3, 3:5 or to the same proportions as the national flag of any country in which the UN flag is flown.^[2] White and blue are the official colours of the United Nations. The light blue background colour code is Pantone Matching System 2925. It approximates sky blue.^[3]

The olive branches are a symbol for peace, and the world map represents all the people and the countries of the world.^[2]

 

^{The above is "lifted" from Wikipedia  without permission, but I don't suppose they'll mind.}

 ^{A pity we don't see a few of these flying  in our downtrodden estates.}

 ^{A pity there no mentions, or none that I've spotted, of this important ideal in or on any of the media.} 

Aspects of Maccabi Tel Aviv v Villa Park (Birmingham)

 

The current controversy  as to whether the Maccabi fans should be allowed to attend this football match raises some interesting questions about the way Britain is governed, and perhaps some (not very) unconscious  British attitudes.

Firstly, there are perfectly competent and accountable bodies “on the ground” – West Midlands Police, Birmingham Council, representatives of Aston Villa - who have together made a reasoned decision.  Some people may think it is the wrong one, but that’s what the local “authorities” think is best for the local people. 

Why does the central government feel the need to over-rule them?  We see this time and time again, particularly in relation to planning, housing and miniscule tax-raising powers.  Britain is one of the most over-centralised developed countries and this one of the major reasons why our democracy functions so badly.

Secondly, given that even a former Archbishop of Canterbury has conceded that football is more than a matter of life and death, if the right of visitors to attend this match is an issue of national importance, why does the Prime Minister himself need to intervene (along with other national party  leaders, including, to our shame, Sir Ed Davey)  We have a Home Secretary, responsible for Law and Order, we have  a Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, there’s also a Secretary of State for Local Government. Why not leave it to them to sort the matter out?  If they can’t what are they for?

 In the previous post I have singled out Clement Attlee as the most successful post-war prime minister.  Chief among his gifts was the ability to act as chairman and arbiter, but them to let his ministers get on with the job, and, if successful, take the credit.   Hence we all acknowledge his vey  effective Foreign Secretary, the wonderful Ernest Bevin, and the glorious  founder of the NHS, Aneurin Bevan.  Whizzing around the world taking part in President Trump’s show-pieces, affecting to coordinate Europe’s response to the invasion Ukraine, popping home occasionally to discipline recalcitrant  members of his party, stirring-up inter-racial anxiety and then retracting -  it is almost impossible for him to “keep his eye on the ball.”  Hence the gaffes.

 

Finally, the  local officials claim that the reason for banning the Maccabi fans from the match is one of public safety: they do, after all, have well documented reputation for hooliganism and racism.   Others suspect, however, that there is an Anti-Semitic undercurrent to the ban.  But if there are any grounds for such a view, they raise the question of  why the match is takin place at all.  After all, Russian teams are banned from taking part in international sporting events in protest against their country’s invasion of Ukraine.  So why is there no equivalent ban on Israeli teams  in protest against their country’s bombardment of Gaza?  Why the one and not the other?