The end of the post war boom

Throughout my time being active in politics, people have discussed the rise of Neo-Liberalism and the free market that occurred throughout much of the world from the late 1970s onwards. Yet few seem to really understand the reasons for this significant shift in economic policy at that time, which continues to shape our society today.

Those less familiar with the works of Karl Marx may not be familiar with the concept of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. One does not need to be a Marxist nor socialistically inclined to believe or understand this law of economics, which explains what has happened in the last half-century of economics. As Wikipedia explains:

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF) is a hypothesis in the crisis theory of political economy, according to which the rate of profit—the ratio of the profit to the amount of invested capital—decreases over time. This hypothesis gained additional prominence from its discussion by Karl Marx in Chapter 13 of Capital, Volume III,[1] but economists as diverse as Adam Smith,[2]John Stuart Mill,[3]David Ricardo[4] and Stanley Jevons[5] referred explicitly to the TRPF as an empirical phenomenon that demanded a further theoretical explanation, although they differed on the reasons why the TRPF should necessarily occur.[6]

The above graph shows the strong level of growth in Western Europe, North America, and Japan between 1945 and 1970. The economic decline that followed would result in the new right revolution of the 1980s and 1990s.

To simplify this concept in explaining what happened in the late twentieth century we simply need to understand that in response to the 1930s depression many nations and particularly developed nations invested in infrastructure to stimulate their economies and create employment. This was followed shortly by the Second World War where investment in industry was required. Then after the war, the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe, whilst similar investment and rebuilding occurred throughout the late 1940s. This period of investment in response to the depression and war created the post-war boom resulting in significant economic growth.

Keynesian economics whereby government policy and intervention in the economy and significant levels of government spending are required to stimulate the economy and prevent depressions. This theory dominated government policy in economically well-off nations from Great Depression until the mid-1970s, when the post-war boom came to an end. The thing Keynesian economics was meant to prevent happening, did happen. So in 1979, Margaret Thatcher came to power in the UK, and the following year Ronald Reagan in the US, and with them came a sea change in economic policies not just in their own countries but internationally.

The Neo-Liberal project essentially was to move away from state intervention and allow the invisible hand to do its dirty work. Privatisation of state infrastructure such as rail or power companies, reducing spending on public services and increased user pay charges, and generally reducing the size of the state to try and stimulate the private sector. Part of this also included reducing employment rights including laws protecting the right to collectively organise, ultimately resulting in reduced earnings for most people. As my series of blog posts about the trade union movement suggested, the job of those wishing to attack union rights was often made much easier by the fact that most union leaders and a poor understanding of economics or how to respond to the end of the post-war boom.

New Zealand was peculiar in its transition to Neo-Liberalism in that it was the Labour Government of 1984 to 1990 that first introduced and championed these right-wing economic policies. At the time the big political issue in New Zealand was the Nuclear Free movement which successfully stopped US Nuclear ships from visiting New Zealand. Whilst this was a worthy campaign, it is strange to think that a government selling off state assets (often for less than their market price) and putting thousands out of work managed to win support based on a Nuclear shipping policy when their economic decisions were hurting so many.

Neo-Liberalism and reducing the size and expenditure of the state were meant to stimulate the economy. For whatever short-term gains were made in the 1980s and 1990s, which generally only benefited the 1% wealthy elite, it soon became clear that the fundamental problems in the economy still remained. Unregulated or self-regulating markets resulted in terrible outcomes including the Pike River mining disaster in New Zealand, the Grenfell Tower fire in London, and the levee failures in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina all from lack of regulation and investment by the Government.

The 2008 crash ended the widely held belief that the market could correct itself or that wealth would trickle down. This crisis was due to a lack of financial regulation and was then made much worse by those countries who insisted on implementing austerity measures to restore public finances, instead of making the economic situation worse. Neo-Liberalism now is discredited and few governments either on the left or right really have an appetite for the types of policies Thatcher and Reagan promoted 40 years ago. As I will discuss in another blog post on Liz Truss’s brief time as Prime Minister, attempts to follow such a path now generally end in disaster very quickly.

After the fall of the Eastern Block Communist/Marxism ideology has been largely discredited. The end of the post-war boom saw an end to Keynesian economics and a shift to Neo-Liberalism, which is now also largely discredited. In 2021 economic policy is largely populist and a weird mix of Keynsian/Keynesian-lite interventionism with a sprinkling of laissez-faire rhetoric. So far in the 21st century, Capitalism has lacked any serious rivalry from any other theory or system. But capitalism has also run out of ideas. This is not just an abstract notion as the political upheavals in recent years stem from people feeling let down and angry by an economy that has not delivered. Yet, there is no clear alternative to the status quo. People were shocked in 2016 when the UK voted for Brexit and the US voted for Donald Trump as President. The increasingly polarised and challenging political world we live in can be blamed on many different factors. But at its core, I believe much of the trouble is caused by the lack of economic policy ideas that can address some of the great challenges we face.

We can learn much from mid-20th century Keynesian economics, but we also need to understand the limits of this theory and what caused the shift away from them from the late 1970s. Whilst the Neo-Liberal experiment also failed, we should also understand that bureaucratic and cumbersome regulation must have a purpose, and whilst state investment in public services can have real benefits we must be clear about what these actually are when this money is spent. Whilst I subscribed to socialist ideas in the past, it is clear that attempts to implement such a system to date have all ended in failure. However, we can still take Marx’s economic analysis (if not subscribing fully to his proposed remedy), specifically what he had to say about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Before we decide whether the current economic system can be reformed or needs to be completely replaced, we first need to improve the general understanding of how our economic system works.

Democracy is on the Ballot – watershed US midterms this week.

On Sunday 30 October, a watershed run-off election was held in Brazil where former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) narrowly defeated incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro 50.9% to 49.1%. There was a lot at stake in this election, not least the lungs of our planet, the Amazon forest. In the four years of Bosonaro’s presidency, more than 34,000 square km of the Amazon rainforest disappeared. The return of Lula to power in Brazil certainly will not fix everything, but another term of Bolsonaro would have been a devastating defeat in the fight against climate change.

On Tuesday 8 October, another critical election will take place, this time in the northern part of the Americas, the United States midterms where control of Congress and Senate will be determined, along with elections to State Legislatures and for State Governors.

Historically there are two common trends with mid-terms:

  1. Turnout is significantly lower than in presidential elections
  2. The party with control of the White House usually performs poorly

On point one, turnout has historically been lower for midterm elections. For example, in 2008 President Obama on a platform of hope won by a significant margin with a voter turnout of 57.1%. Two years later in the 2010 midterms, voter turnout was just 40.9% and the Republican Party took back control of Congress. This was at the height of the Tea Party movement pushing the Republican Party to the right. Much of Obama’s “hope” agenda was blocked by this newly energised rabid right-Republican Congress. Had everyone who came out to support Obama in 2008 once again returned to the polls 24 months later (and 22 months after his inauguration) he may well have achieved more.

But this is the second point, whichever party controls the White House, tends to do poorly in the mid-terms. The exception to this was President George W Bush in 2002, who the September 11 Terror attacks were able to keep control of both houses, a situation that continued until his second mid-terms in 2006. Most other Presidents, Regan, Bush Senior, Clinton and Trump all lost midterms to the other party.

President Biden “Make no mistake, democracy is on the ballot for all of us”

The US Constitution is designed so that the LegislativeExecutive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. Whilst there is much wrong with the US Constitution, the theory behind the separation of powers is a good one. The problem is, in a First Past the Post two Party system choices are limited. The temptation is to give whichever Party is not in control of the White House control of the Legislature as a check and balance. But what if that other Party ignored scientific advice during a pandemic causing death and misery to millions? What if this other Party is anti-democratic and refuses to accept it lost the previous election and encourages its supporters to turn to violence? What if, rather than being the ‘Grand Old Party’ of the Conservative American right, the Republican Party of 2022 has become a Party of deranged Trumpians where truth and evidence are out and hate-fuelled rhetoric is in vogue? Is allowing a party like this to control the legislative branch of government, either by voting for them or by staying at home really preventing “abuse of power”?

The Judicial branch of government should of course be separate from the Legislative and Executive branches, but is this really the case in the US? The decision in June 2022 to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision, which legalised abortion throughout the United States, was the result of Republican Presidents appointing socially conservative judges and Republication Legislatures doing their best to block Democrat Presidents from appointing liberal ones, as Republican Senators did in 2016. Despite the fact that a majority of Americans oppose the decision to overturn Roe V Wade, manipulation of the constitution by the Republican Party has meant the Supreme Court has a socially conservative majority which can be used to undermine abortion rights in the US.

It is easy to be dishearted by the US political system, indeed I have previously argued in relation to Gun Control the following:

The United States is further held back by a Constitution that is cumbersome and difficult to change. Trying to bring about any sort of serious change to allow Gun Control in the US, something that polls suggest a majority of Americans support, would require a change to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. How can the US Constitution be changed? It requires 2/3 support for a proposed constitutional amendment in both the Congress and Senate (see above about how these houses are NOT representative). On gaining this, it then needs to be approved by the legislature of 34 of the 50 US states and then ratified by 38 of the 50 states (again the smaller conservative states get a much greater say than larger ones). A full explanation of this can be seen here.

The US election – why sometimes voting for the lesser evil is right

In the above article I went on to mention Trump appointing anti-abortion Supreme Court Judges and that with the “country’s highest court is so clearly partisan, again a system protected by the constitution means one can have little confidence in this country’s justice system.”

Yet, as flawed and in desperate need of reform as the US political system is, it is still paramount that all eligible voters turn out to vote. The initial response from US voters to the Supreme Court decision appeared to be a backlash. In traditionally Republican voting states of Alaska and Kansas, Democrats made surprise gains. The coming mid-term elections could be an opportunity to send this message on a national level, but polls suggest there are several senate races which are tight and there is a projected national swing to Republicans. Of course, like all elections, there are many factors at play, but turnout will be a significant factor.

As already explained, mid-term elections generally go against sitting presidents. In the case of Biden, he faces low approval ratings due to the state of the economy, which is hurting incumbent governments globally and the lingering backlash from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Biden has a track record of being gaff-prone, often making silly comments and going off script. But in terms of delivery, in the last 22 months, the United States Government has done surprisingly well. Since January 2022, Democrats and the Biden Presidency have achieved the following

  • Rolled out the $1.9 trillion COVID relief deal, rolled out the COVID vaccine and got control of the virus unlike Biden’s inept predecessor
  • Got both Congress and Senate to approve the $1.2 trillion infrastructure package which drastically increased investment in the national network of bridges and roads, airports, public transport, national broadband internet, as well as waterways and energy systems.
  • Made serious commitments to stopping climate change and unlike his predecessor ordered all government agencies to immediately halt the financing of new international carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects, and instead work towards clean energy use.
  • Has reduced the US unemployment figure from 6.3% under Trump to 3.9% today.

The current cost of living crisis and high inflation are hurting the American people, and it is understandable that there is anger at the US Government and the political and economic system that has allowed this to happen. But allowing the Republican Party, in its current state to control the Legislative branch would be a terrible mistake.

Let’s be clear, we are not just talking about a typical centre-right political party, which let’s be honest tends to dominate in liberal democracies. Whilst the politics of serving the wealthy elites and opposing progressive reforms are distasteful enough, in 2022 the US Republican Party is an entirely different beast. Trump and his allies now control the Republican Party with many mid-term candidates now saying the 2020 election was “stolen” and dismissing the Congressional hearings into the January 6 insurrections as a “kangaroo court.”

Last week Nancy Pelosi’s husband was the victim of a violent attack, a symptom of the increasingly volatile mood in the United States. The intended target of the attack was Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, something that should be quite shocking to anyone who supports democracy. The response from the Republican Party was a mixture of silence, baseless conspiracy theories or in the case of Donald Trump Jr, mockery.

Earlier this week, Bolsonaro supporters took to the streets of Brazil refusing to accept the election result. Bolsonaro initially made no comment on the loss and has only grudgingly accepted that Lula will be the next President. This is straight out of the Trumpian playbook and is incredibly dangerous and divisive. In the US, given historical trends in US midterms and recent polling, it is likely that the Republican Party will make gains. Yet there are already signs that if results do not go their way, several Trump-aligned Republican candidates cannot commit to accepting the election result. There is no evidence that 2022 was stolen, in fact, quite the contrary it was in fact Trump who threatened the Governor of Georgia and demanded he finds him votes and made other false allegations about the 2020 election. These false claims resulted in the violence in Washington on Six January 2021, and it is appalling that Republicans have learnt nothing from this shameful episode. This alone should be reason enough to turn out and vote next Tuesday.

These are deeply troubling times and the stakes could not be much higher. Mid-term elections are a time to send a signal. In response to Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, Trump has described Putin’s actions as an “act of genius.” In light of this, what message does it send voting Trump-aligned Republicans in charge of Congress? Trump continues to deny he lost the 2020 election, or accept responsibility for his part in the violence on Capitol Hill on January 6 2021, should people who condone these actions be given a majority in the Senate? Given the recent decision to overturn Roe V Wade, should Republicans be allowed to control many state legislatures and block women’s right to choose?

At a campaign event last week President Biden said that in these mid-term elections “democracy is on the ballot”. This is absolutely true, and the outcome will be decided by those who show up to vote.

The politics of high inflation – can governments do anything?

Britons woke up to the news today that inflation in the UK has hit a 40 year high of 9%. Recent increases to power bills, fuel and groceries have in no small part driven this inflationary pressure and indications are that prices could increase further. The bank of England governor has called for wage restraint fearing that this could drive inflation even higher, though with the cost of living rising so quickly this call will likely fall on deaf ears. The recent losses in local body elections and lacklustre polling for Boris Johnson’s Conservatives is in part due to the rising cost of living. But is this all just a case of bad economic management by the Conservatives?

My usual reference point is comparing and contrasting the UK and New Zealand situations, having lived in both countries. New Zealand’s inflation rate is at a 30-year high hitting 6.9%. A friend in NZ recently asked if I could send petrol over from the UK as the cost had gone up too much over there, the joke soon fell flat when I told them how much a tank of petrol costs here in the UK. In New Zealand, the opposition has been quick to blame the Labour Government in New Zealand for this, at a time when support for the government is falling fast. Having won a record majority in 2020 for their handling of the pandemic, Ardern’s government now faces a backlash over coronavirus restrictions and is taking the blame for current economic challenges. Commentary in the New Zealand media also tends to focus on inflation as a domestic issue, as such much of the commentary is often wide of the mark.

The above Bloomberg graph shows the global inflation rates spiking upwards in 2022

In Australia, the country goes to the polls for their first federal election since the pandemic. Whilst polling numbers are still fairly close there is a real possibility the right of centre Liberal Coalition Government led by Scott Morrison may lose, in no small part due to inflation and the rising cost of living. Whilst there are plenty of good reasons to vote out the Coalition government, not the least their inaction on climate change, like in Britain and New Zealand, is the cost of living increase in Australia really down to the federal government?

In the US, President Biden and the Democrat controlled House and Senate are facing an uphill battle in the November midterms against a Republican Party now very much aligned to Trumpian politics. For the Biden administration there appear to be few options to control inflation in the short term. I have previously blogged about the limitations of the US political system and it is no surprise that many Americans yet again feel frustrated. However, it is clear that this is not a crisis limited to any single nation-state, what we are dealing with is a global inflation problem.

At the start of the pandemic, I wrote a blog post outlining how there would be long lasting economic ramifications of this crisis. This, along with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is driving inflation and causing economic uncertainty. This is particularly challenging for much of Europe where there is a high level of reliance on Russian Oil and Gas and moves to end this reliance will see short term price hikes and energy shortages.

Previously, I have written about the importance of global governance and how our current global governance institutions are not up to the challenges we face in the 21st century. The current crisis illustrates this more than ever. At the current time, we turn to the nation-state and in democratic countries we as voters can hold our leaders to account for what happens, including economic management. In reality, how much can Jacinda Ardern, Boris Johnson, Scott Morrison, Ursula von der Leyen or Joe Biden or any other world leader do? When finance Ministers do the national budget each year, many of the key economic factors are determined by external factors, not by their government’s decisions. Likewise, we can beat up the Bank of England, the Reserve Bank in New Zealand or other central banks for not controlling inflation within the targets they have been set, but they did not cause a global pandemic, invade Ukraine or control many of the key drivers of international inflation at that time.

This is not to let governments off the hook, as they still have the power to mitigate the effect of high inflation. Governments have the power to reduce or remove sales taxes, regulate pricing or support people on low incomes through benefits or policies that help lift wages. On the global stage, finance ministers when they attend the yearly Davos meeting, or leaders who attend the G20 meetings, need to be doing more to develop a global economic strategy that can protect against these sorts of shocks. Further, they need to create global governance institutions that can ensure a stable global economy that delivers for everyone, not just now but into the future. This is what we should be demanding of our governments.

Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s the big push was for globalisation, which in reality was a push for removing tariffs and international market liberalisation. The anti-globalisation movement of the time often took the position that this agenda weakened the nation-state and undermined democracy. The problem, which neither side really understood, is that in a world where we for a long time have depended on international trade but also on the movement of people, relying on national governments to resolve this will inevitably fail. Margaret Thatcher, in the introduction to her memoir The Downing Street Years, claimed the following:

An internationalism which seeks to supersede the nation-state, however, will founder quickly upon the reality that very few people are prepared to make genuine sacrifices for it

Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street years, page 11

Yes, in terms of consciousness people still hold nationalism and their own country in high regard. But where we increasingly see countries with governments of all different colours struggling to control the cost of living, at some point we must face the fact that an international response is required. People may not believe in current global governance institutions or be “prepared to make genuine sacrifices” for them. But they may do if these institutions were in fact giving people a better quality of life by controlling inflation and the cost of living. At the time of writing, this all seems somewhat academic, with there being little likelihood of an international response, other than some short term cooperation to control the immediate crisis without looking at the underlying long term problems. Yet it is clear that we will continue to face these economic challenges with tools that are ill-equipped to face the problems. Only a truly international response can create an economy that delivers for all.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine – an act of aggression

On February 24 2022 Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian military to invade Ukraine, a nation that declared independence from Russia on August 24 1991. This is not the first time in Ukraine’s 30 years of independence that the Russian Federation has attacked Ukraine, having annexed the Crimea region back in 2014. Vladimir Putin has made no secret of the fact that he believes Ukraine has been ruled by forces hostile to Russia. Whilst many were surprised by the Russian government’s decision to take this hostile action toward Ukraine, there were plenty of warning signs that this may happen.

It is not my view that war is inevitable, be it in the Ukraine, Palestine, Syria or elsewhere. However, there are often only small windows of opportunity where a lasting peace can be built or negotiated. In the case of Russia and Ukraine, there have been plenty of warning signs over the last 30 years and potentially different responses to these may have produced a different result. What-if-isms are of little comfort or help to those now forced to flee Ukraine or those who are now staying to defend their homeland against Russian invasion.

Residents remove their belongings from a destroyed building in Kyiv after it was hit by artillery shelling. [Felipe Dana/AP Photo]

Russia is the aggressor in this conflict. The targeting of civilians and shelling during a so-called Cease-Fire are acts committed by the Russian forces, and the US President is correct to call President Putin a ‘war criminal’. Those who justify or use moral equivocation by citing the presence of the far-right in Ukraine or that this was in response to NATO expansion miss the point. Yes, the far-right does have a presence in Ukraine and yes they also have joined the resistance to the current invasion. But the logic that this somehow justifies the Russian invasion is incredibly warped. For one, the war gives the far right in Ukraine space to recruit and win support by being part of the resistance. Secondly, if the correct response is for Russia to invade every European country that has an active far-right then very few nations are not at risk of invasion.

On the left, many are still influenced by the analysis of Lenin during the First World War and just before the 1917 Russian Revolution that in an inter-imperialist conflict socialists should be standing up to their own ruling class. During the First World War, there were strong arguments for working people not to align with the Tsar in Russia or other imperialist leaders in that conflict. It is dangerous to simply apply this idea to the current conflict without understanding that the context is different. There is a strong argument that people should be holding their own government or ‘ruling class’ to account during any situation like this. Ultimately, the decision to invade Ukraine was Russia’s, but there is still a question of what the governments and in particular NATO members could have done to help prevent this and what they can do now. Sadly, some on the left and drawn both bizarre and quite dangerous conclusions based on the premise that their role is to stick it to their own ruling class. Bizarrely, some socialists still mistake Russia to be some sort of socialist/anti-imperialist power, thinking that there is some residue influence of the 1917 revolution.

In my late teens, a became involved with radical left politics largely influenced by opposing the invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq. I began studying the history of US foreign policy in places like Chile in 1973 or Iran in 1953. In 2001, just before the attack on the Twin Towers in New York, Australian journalist John Pilger released a documentary called The New Rulers of the World, which clearly outlined the role played by the US in installing the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia. This in turn meant that country allowed western manufacturers to move production to that country where labour standards were very low and clothing and other items could be produced cheaply. Whilst Pilger has always been prone to being an evangelist for his cause and being a polarising figure, in the past, he has played an important role in highlighting the shortcomings of western governments. Pilger’s bizarre article written days before the Russian invasion is selective with which facts it includes and effectively paints President Putin and the Russian state as victims of Western propaganda. Pilger like many others on the left is so determined to expose their own ‘ruling class’ that they’ll downplay or ignore the countless human rights abuses committed by Russia under Putin’s leadership.

Many on the left, and some on the right or centre focussed their attention on NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a Cold War military alliance designed to stand up to the Soviet Union. After the end of the Cold War, there is a legitimate question as to whether this alliance should have continued. Many continued to be nervous about Russia, a nation that is resource-rich and historically has been very influential. It also does not have a strong history of democracy and instead has had a brutal history of state control both under Tsarism and later when it was the USSR. Certainly for the nations like Lithuania and Ukraine which were ruled by Russia for many years this nervousness is justified. Whether retaining the NATO alliance was the best way to counter this is a fair question. However, to say that the threat of Ukraine joining NATO provoked or even justified the Russian invasion is just wrong. Kier Starmer’s threat to withdraw the whip from any UK Labour MP who supported the Stop the War coalition who is calling for No NATO Expansion is an overreaction. That said, the optics of the coalition’s slogan are really bad. Whatever faults there are with NATO, it is Russia that has just invaded a sovereign country resulting in death, destruction and people being displaced. Trying to deflect from this is not a credible position at all.

The other argument put forward is moral equivalence, whereby people argue that the decision of the US and its allies to invade Iraq was just as bad so who are we to go criticising Russia. The decision to invade Iraq was wrong and few would still defend that action. That does not mean Britain or the US should not criticise Russia for what it is doing in Ukraine, if anything it places a greater responsibility on these governments to uphold human rights now. This is even more important when there is a real chance of forces more sympathetic to Russia taking power. Former US President Donald Trump continues to describe Vladimir Putin in glowing terms. Trump continues to exert considerable influence and control over the Republican Party, who currently stands a strong chance of gaining at least one house in the midterm elections later this year. In such a scenario there are no guarantees that the current pressure being applied to the Putin regime will hold up.

One of the problems has been the inconsistent approach to Russia since the end of the Soviet Union. The recent pressure for Roman Abramovich to sell Chelsea Football Club has brought to light some of the corrupt practices he and others used to make their fortune including the purchase of an oil company from the Russian government in a rigged auction in 1995. The UK allowed these characters to invest this ill-gotten gain into its economy, right up till earlier this year. When the current Russian regime attacked Chechnya in 1999, invaded Georgia in 2008, invaded Crimea and parts of Donbas in Ukraine in 2014 and engaged in a proxy war in Syria it was met with only mild responses including limited sanctions against Russia or mealy-mouthed speeches. Meanwhile, the city of London continued to be awash with ill-gotten money from Russia. That the current UK Prime Minister gave a peerage to Lord Lebedev, owner of two major UK newspapers and friend of Boris Johnson and other senior Conservatives despite security concerns being raised at the time indicates the level of influence Russian money now has in the UK.

Back when the Eastern block fell, the priority was to integrate them into global markets. This was of course at the end of the free market 80s where the naive view was that through economic liberalism democratic political reform would also occur. This maybe a generous view, for many, access to Russian markets and resources was an opportunity for profit. Whilst opportunistically making money from this new market, the political response was to leave NATO intact and treat Russia as a potential foe. Whilst trying to impose Western-style democracy into Russia rather than letting the people of that country decide on their own future would have been an error, to assume that a country with a history of little else than totalitarian regimes would be quick to embrace liberal democracy, free speech and human rights was foolish. What the best approach would have been in hindsight is still unclear, but it seems to profit from post-soviet Russia whilst at the same time treating it as a potential military and political threat has not led to a good outcome.

The invasion that began just over two months ago will have a profound impact on global politics for many years. The conflict is unlikely to end quickly and will take a toll on everyone involved. In the end, it will likely result in a military defeat for Russia and humiliation for Putin. This could mean a much more volatile situation in dealing with a state that has a permanent seat on the UN security council and has nuclear weapons. Much of Europe currently relies on Russia for oil and gas and moving away from this will cause considerable economic upheaval. And Ukraine will take years to recover from this invasion even once the conflict has ceased.

How is Boris Johnson still in Number 10?

I answer the question posed in the title by returning to what I wrote on my blog when Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson became Prime Minister in 2019:
Make no mistake, Boris Johnson has talent. He knows how to make a stirring speech and can tap into people’s hopes and fears as a politician My blog post written shortly after Johnson became UK Prime Minister
Now one might think being the Prime Ministers of the worlds fifth-largest economy requires a great deal more than this, and indeed it does. It requires a mixture of luck, animal cunning and being able to use both to maximum effect.
Above: Prime Minister Boris Johnson and former Chief Advisor Dominic Cummings
My last post in December outlined some of the issues the Conservative Government in the UK had been having in the latter half of 2021. Yet the position still seemed quite recoverable, indeed only a few months earlier, the former Red Wall constituency of Hartlepool had been won by the Conservatives. Local Elections in May 2021 also were very positive for the Tories. Things were bad by the end of 2021, very bad in fact, but it still did not seem fatal. 2022 was not the start of the year the government were hoping for. Despite repeated denials that there was party’s at 10 Downing Street during the lockdown, further evidence emerged that there were, including a photo showing the Prime Minister with staff sitting in the garden at 10 Downing Street having “a work meeting” where there was wine and cheese in May 2020, when social gatherings were illegal in the UK. This was at a time when people could not visit dying loved ones and the public were told not to socialise in this way. The investigation by Civil Servant Sue Gray found that there were “failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of Number 10 and the Cabinet Office” in allowing these events to occur, and then a number of these events are now being investigated by the Metropolitan Police. None of this was made better by the Prime Minister’s response that nobody had warned him that these parties were against the rules, rules that he had announced as Prime Minister in March 2020. Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major has said that Johnson broke the rules by holding these parties and believes he should resign. Others close to the Conservative Party including financial donors have also called on him to go. As Conservative polling takes a hit and MPs get increasingly restless, it is still a surprise to many that Johnson stays on. Indeed most other PM’s would have resigned by now. So why does Boris Johnson stay on and why do the Conservatives let him. For Johnson, he knows if he leaves office now, he’ll likely never return. Having only served in the role just over two and a half years and most of that time leading (badly) during a pandemic, he has to try and stay on. But why on earth do the Conservative Party let him? Because despite everything, including the quite serious long term damage to the reputation of the party and indeed of the United Kingdom, he is probably still their best chance of winning an election. Boris Johnson does not play by the normal political rules. Many claim Johnson uses the Trump playbook, and his election outcome in 2019 certainly benefited from Trump’s intervention which helped get the Brexit Party not to stand against the Conservatives in crucial leave voting constituencies, specifically the so-called Red-Wall. Yet Johnson plays by his own rules, which include fast and loose morals, including talk of beating up journalists. He has a level of confidence that has helped him get away with things other politicians simply would not. His clown reputation and building the brand “Boris”, the clown who got stuck on a zip wire at the 2012 London Olympics during his time as Mayor. Johnson won the London Mayoralty by seeing an opportunity, specifically that London voters were tired of Ken Livingston. Further, the clown reputation meant Johnson’s opponents underestimated him in not just one but two London Government elections. His ascent to the Conservative leadership was far from smooth, with his first attempt in 2016 being undermined by Michael Gove. His record as Foreign Secretary was also far from successful, especially regarding the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe issue. Yet his stance on Brexit, specifically undermining Theresa May’s attempts to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, paid off. He proved ruthless in his first few weeks as the leader, withdrawing the Tory whip from 21 MP Conservative MPs who would not back his Brexit plan, including his own brother. His decision to prorogue parliament when he could not get MPs to agree to a general election ultimately worked for him. Despite losing legal challenges to this prorogation, eventually, he got MPs to agree to an early election, winning the best result for the Conservative Party since 1983. His victory in 2019 was due to two things, tapping into the hopes and fears of those frustrated by attempts to thwart Brexit and a deeply divided opposition. His performances as an orator during this campaign were far from his best work, and despite arguable receiving fairly favourable press coverage during the campaign, felt the need to hide in a fridge to avoid doing a media interview days before the election. Those who in recent weeks, having previously supported Boris Johnson, now believe he is not fit to be prime minister seem to have only just worked out what he is really like when the signs have been there from the start. One of Johnson’s strengths throughout his career has been his ability to bring people in that can carry him. Dominic Cummings, loathsome as many may find him, was a driving force behind the Brexit campaign in 2016 and the 2019 Conservative election victory. There were of course plenty of others, including some who have been with him since he was mayor of London who has recently quit. The problem with being an advisor or a ‘back roomer’, is that ultimately the candidate will not always do what you wish they would. It is immensely frustrating to feel you are the brain behind the power, yet never to get credit, and worse to have your clever strategy ignored. The other issue Johnson faces is that despite his show of strength, for better or for worse, in getting Brexit done, he is not ideologically in step with much of the traditional Tory base. This in part explains his appeal to voters who traditionally have not voted Tory, certainly, this proved the case both in London and in the 2019 election. For many Conservatives, winning a strong majority and remaining in power was worth the compromise, even if it meant accepting a level of what the late Margaret Thatcher would have decried as corporatist policy. The recent decision to increase National Insurance has certainly tested the tolerance of many Conservatives who subscribe to the Thatcherite philosophy of low taxation and small government. As I have written earlier, social care has been a blight on the political landscape and one that neither Labour nor Conservative governments have adequately addressed. With demand for social care increasing, governments have been under pressure to increase funding. Both Blair’s New Labour and Cameron’s Conservative Governments lacked the political courage to increase taxes to pay for social care. Whilst there are strong arguments against the way the government have decided to increase taxes, specifically that rather than an across the board increase to National Insurance there were other options whereby the heaviest burden would have fallen on those best placed to contribute, nonetheless, an increase in taxation to pay for social care was inevitable. Any serious analysis of relying on the private sector and savings to address this need show this is not viable. Is it a coincidence that the announcement of the National Insurance increase in September 2021 happened just before the government and in particular Boris Johnson started having problems? It would be a mistake to think that the open civil war within the Conservatives under Theresa May was only about Brexit or that the 2019 election result put these to bed. It is quite clear that the stories of lockdown parties and other scandals have been disclosed by people within the government. Plenty of Tory MPs would be quite happy to see Johnson fall or to apply maximum pressure on him so he backs down on the National Insurance increase. Boris Johnson may not be a Thatcherite ideologically, but so far it does seem he is not for turning and understands that doing so would ultimately be more harmful. For small-government laissez-faire Tories, a leadership challenge may not serve them well. Were Johnson to go, the likely successor would be Rushi Sunak who talks free market but in practice has been one of the most interventionist Chancellors in modern times during the COVID-19 crisis. It is unlikely that Sunak as PM would reverse the National Insurance increase, given he has been its main advocate thus far. The rights favoured candidate, Liz Truss, is simply not credible. Boris Johnson remains Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He does so, for now, due to the lack of a strong viable alternative within the Conservatives. Despite everything, he is still the leader most likely to help the party regain support, despite him now being severely damaged. Some in the Conservatives may be thinking it best to leave him in place at a time when the cost of living is increasing significantly when the May Council elections will likely not be good for the Conservatives (the particular boroughs having elections this year are less favourable to the Tories, but a backlash to “party gate” will likely play a role) and the National Insurance increase. Better to find a new leader nearer to the election. But this is a risky strategy, as the Prime Minister has damaged not just his reputation, but that of the Conservatives and the government he leads. His attempts at statesmanship during the Ukraine crisis may have helped him a little, but his reputation on the global stage is also tarnished by what has happened at home. Boris Johnson, should not on balance still be Prime Minister and in the long term, the Conservatives risk being severely punished for not removing him. But despite everything, he remains in post and still, we cannot write him off.

Tory Sleaze – sequels are often a disappointment

The year was 1993 and the British Conservatives had been re-elected for a rare 4th term in office. The then Prime Minister John Major used his conference speech in Blackpool to announce his government’s Back to Basics campaign promoting family values and calling for a return to ‘old core values.’ This speech was soon subject to criticism and ridicule after a series of scandals that became known as Tory Sleaze. The most famous of these was the Cash for Questions scandal where it was alleged that two MPs were bribed to ask questions on behalf of Mohamed Al-Fayed the owner of Harrods. However, it was not just financial impropriety that rocked the Government, a series of sex scandals rocked that Government. In 1994 Conservative Eastleigh Stephen Milligan was found dead wearing only stockings and suspenders. Milligan’s death was blamed on Autoerotic asphyxiation whereby the practice of sexual self-stimulation while causing oneself to experience hypoxia. The other notorious example of Tory Sleaze at that time was Heritage Minister David Mellor after being caught having an affair with an actress.

Back in the 1990s when Tory Sleaze rocked John Major’s Government.

These financial and sex scandals in addition to internal divisions within the Conservative Party over Europe contributed to the party losing the 1997 general election and Tony Blair’s New Labour coming to power.

The current accusations of Tory sleaze began earlier this year with opposition party’s hoping that once again a Tory Government could be brought down through allegations of sleaze 25 years later. Owen Peterson, the former MP for North Shropshire was forced to resign after being found to have repeatedly lobbied the government on behalf of two companies that were paying him more than £100,000 a year. This was followed by revelations that MP Geoffrey Cox has continued to work as a lawyer and has earned more than £5.5m while continuing to work on his legal career since becoming the Tory MP for Torridge and West Devon in 2005. This was made worse by allegations that he did this legal work from his parliamentary office.

For most of 2021, the Tory’s have enjoyed a commanding lead in the polls as has Prime Minister Boris Johnson. In recent weeks these scandals have begun to hurt his polling numbers. This will likely get worse for him after today’s announcement that the refurbishment of the Prime Minister’s flat at 10 Downing Street broke electoral law. The Electoral Commissions today ruled that the Conservatives were negligent in failing to “fully report a donation of £67,801.72 from Huntswood Associates Limited in October 2020,” the proceeds of which were used for the flat renovations.

The accusations that a Christmas Party was held at 10 Downing Street in December 2020 at a time when COVID-19 restrictions made such gatherings illegal has probably been the most damaging to the Government. Whilst not proven, a clip has emerged of NO 10 officials joking about holding a lockdown Christmas Party. The Government’s handling of the pandemic in 2020 was a disgrace, and I have written about their terrible track record on this blog before. However, to date government has managed to remain ahead in the polls in no small part due to the weakness of the opposition in the last 18 months. The Government has become increasingly arrogant, with one Tory MP claiming that it was “really grim” living on a salary of £82,000 a year and justifying MPs working second jobs. A turning point in the Christmas Party scandal came when it was mentioned on I’m a Celebrity, get me out of here, which may have done more to hold the government to account than anything the opposition has said to date.

The attitude of the Government shows arrogance and contempt for the British public. But is it really sleaze? One can see why Labour, trying to win back some of the “swing” voters it gained in the 1990s might want to revisit the Tory Sleaze tagline. Aside from the fact that voters under 40 generally won’t recall what happened back then, it’s also a lazy attack line. The fact that journalists have also copied it without question shows the weakness of the fourth estate at this time. In fact, what is happening is the governing party have a strong sense of entitlement and do not believe they have to obey the same rules as everyone else.

The likes of Peter Mandelson may enjoy reliving their hay day with Tory Sleaze 2, but it fails to describe what is happening. In 2019 some of the poorest constituencies in the country, particularly in the North East of England, voted Tory for the first time in many years, believing their promises of delivering Brexit and the expected benefits of this. Further, many voters trusted the “one nation” rhetoric and believed the cliche that the Conservatives would govern for all. Many of these voters would have had family or loved ones in care homes during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic who were needlessly exposed to the virus due to lack of testing and PPE. Most would have been unable to celebrate Christmas with friends and family in 2020 due to coronavirus restrictions. Very few of these “red wall” voters who helped the Conservatives win in 2019 would earn anything like £82,000.

Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock may have lost his job after photos emerged of his kissing an aide and this was a breach of social distancing rules. But this pales in comparison to the taxpayer money wasted on a track and trace system that didn’t work or discharging patients from NHS hospitals to social care settings in March 2020 without doing COVID-19 test, causing thousands of preventable deaths. An unlawful Christmas Party at 10 Downing Street may well do lasting damage to Prime Minister Boris Johnsons tenure in office, but again this is minor compared with failing to act earlier to stop the spread of coronavirus in 2020 during both the first and second wave, and again now by only just implementing ‘Plan B’ enforcing mask-wearing and vaccinations passes in public spaces to stop the spread of the Omicron variant. Kissing aides and Christmas Party’s are the straw that broke the camels back for many voters, to win back their trust a there will need to be a change not only in the style of political leadership but also the substance.

In 1993 the Conservatives back to basics campaign backfired as it raised the moral bar by which its MPs were expected to live and inevitably many fell far short of this standard. By contrast, Boris Johnson never tried to place himself on a moral pedestal so talk of sleaze will not have the same impact. Voters in the UK are increasingly tired of this government, what they are looking for is a credible alternative whether from within the Conservatives or the Opposition. When Boris Johnson first became UK Prime Minister I wrote a blog post acknowledging his talents. The Prime Minister is a strong campaigner and even now could well go on to win the next election. This thing that will stop him winning is not sleaze and scandal, but a viable alternative.

The US withdraws from Afghanistan and the inevitable happened

The withdraw in August of US and allied troops from Afghanistan saw the return of the Taliban in control of that country. This sadly was always going to be the outcome once the US and its allies withdrew. I opposed the intervention in 2001 and have done so ever since precisely for this reason.

It brings me no pleasure at all that 19 year old me, dragged out of a New Zealand Labour Party Conference for yelling at then Prime Minister Helen Clark, still only a few months out of secondary school, with long flowing hair and an enormous amount of frustration and anger at the world was so completely right. That thousands died in a conflict that ultimately achieved very little is tragic, made so much worse than it was so obvious from the start that this was indeed the only likely outcome of sending troops into Afghanistan. There were many like me who opposed this war, yet we were not able to stop it from happening in 2001 or for the following two decades that it continued.

September 11 attacks - The attacks | Britannica
On 11 September 2001, the world was shocked by the terror attacks in New York. This in no way justified the 20-year conflict in Afghanistan.

US President Jo Biden has taken a hit to his approval rating since the withdrawal of US troops especially with the reporting of so many Afghani’s opposed to the Taliban unable to leave the country and the hectic scenes at the airport after the Taliban took control of the country. This is not a post trying to defend Jo Biden or his presidency, but if anyone actually believes that a) there was a way to withdraw from Afghanistan without the Taliban taking control and b) that a more orderly and humanitarian withdrawal of troops whereby any Afghani who wanted to leave could, then you were very sadly mistaken. It was in fact Biden’s predecessor Donald Trump who negotiated with the Taliban and began the process of withdrawing from the country. As I outlined in my 2018 blog on the former US President, the man may be many undesirable things, but he is no fool. Trump, and indeed his military advisors will have worked out that the incompetent and corrupt regime running Afghanistan would not last long once the US left the country and that any withdrawal would result in the Taliban making gains. Further, he no doubt also knew that when the withdrawal finally happened it would be a PR disaster, thus leaving it until his second term or for his successor to face the fallout.

I got the US into an unwinnable
20 year war, and now you morons are arguing whether it's
Trump's fault or
Biden's fault.

The problem with Afghanistan was from the start, the purpose of going there was flawed. When President George Bush Jr declared his War on Terror after the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001, the stated purpose was to find and capture Osama Bin Laden. It was on this premise that US troops were sent into Afghanistan in October 2001, based on intelligence that Bin Laden was running his terror network Al-Qaeda from that country. A decade later in 2011, during Barack Obama’s first term in office, that Bin Laden was captured and killed in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. It is not clear whether Bin Laden was still in Afghanistan at the time of the World Trade Centre attacks, but it seems for much of the decade after this until his capture, that he was living in Pakistan. Unlike Afghanistan, Pakistan is a state with nuclear weapons and where there is an extremely fragile peace with India and an ongoing border dispute in the Kashmir region. A potential conflict with Pakistan was not something the US were up for in 2001. Sending US troops into Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban after they refused to give up Bin Laden was a way of showing the World US military strength after the 11 September terror attacks. Despite the fact that the US had earlier supported the Mujahideen when opposing the Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1970s and 80s, in 2001 they were quite happy to show that they had overthrown a regime that denied women education, destroyed world heritage sites and was brutal and repressive to their population. However, like the Iraq war in 2003, the short term victory of toppling a regime is the easy bit, whereas trying to establish a new government and order as outside foreign power is much much harder. And Frankly, the US history of invading other nations and successfully creating functioning democracies is pretty poor.

In 2011 a friend of mine from university was visiting Wellington having lived overseas for a few years. She at that time was working in a humanitarian role in Afghanistan and had seen a fair bit of the country. I recall asking her what she thought would happen when the west withdrew from Afghanistan to which she quickly replied “it’s fucked.”

This view of my friend was widely held by people who’d been or knew anything about Afghanistan. It is therefore not surprising that Barak Obama, who in his first term had to oversee the withdrawal from Iraq, only to later have to face the rise of ISIS, was not surprisingly reluctant also withdraw from Afghanistan. At the time Obama’s Vice President Jo Biden supported withdrawing troops, having himself supported the invasion a decade earlier as a senator.

There are many who still try to defend the last twenty years of intervention in Afghanistan. Former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark, the same Prime Minister whose conference speech I interrupted in 2001 continues to defend the decision to go into Afghanistan claiming the western intervention in the country needed to be a “long term project”, akin to the commitment to the United States made after the Korean War, deploying 50,000 soldiers in the country for decades. Clark after serving as New Zealand Prime Minister went on to become the head of the United Nations Development Programme, described the present situation as “surreal and devastating.” The Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair also opposed Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan claiming it was “tragic, dangerous and unnecessary” and believed the US and its allies had an obligation to fight the Taliban. In both cases, the view seems to be that there needs to be a permanent military presence in the country to stop the Taliban. The question is, if that is the correct thing to do in Afghanistan, then it must also be the right thing to do in any nation where there is no democracy, women’s rights aren’t upheld and where there are brutal regimes in charge. By this logic, a great many other places would also require military presence, including nations currently considered allies to the US.

Those in power in 2001 no doubt wish to protect their legacy, rather than to reflect on the fact that the decision to go into Afghanistan was poorly thought through and was always going to end in failure. This sort of justification of military intervention has however has been the dominant thinking since the end of the Second World War, that the US and its allies have a right to intervene and interfere in other countries they do not know and attempt to change cultures they do not really understand. That doing this, in no small way contributed to the tragic events on 11 September 2001, only to do the same foolish thing again costing more lives and creating far greater instability is indeed “surreal and devastating.”

What has happened in Afghanistan has been “tragic, dangerous and unnecessary,” yet the unnecessary decision was not to withdraw but the earlier one to intervene in the first place.

British identity and The Second World War

All national identities are a construct that evolves and change over time. That the identity of Britain has evolved is in no way unique to this country. The concept of the national state or borders is a relatively recent concept in human history. Britain, as we know it today, is just over 300 years old with the 1707 Acts of Union where the Scottish and English Parliaments agreed to a merger. Ireland formally joined in 1801, through English conquest and rule over the much the Island of Ireland dated back to the Norman Invasion of 1169, then in 1922 much of Ireland became independent leaving just the six counties in the north. The Welsh have a much longer association with England, having been part of the Roman occupation and became part of the Kingdom of England under Henry VIII in the 16th century.

Of course, the national identities of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales are also constructs. The Kingdom of England was formed on 12 July 927AD emerging from various Anglo Saxon Kingdoms. The Kingdom of Scotland is slightly older being founded in 843AD, though the clan system dominated Scotland until the battle of Culloden in 1746. Wales was slightly later to form in 1056 having previously been divided into various kingdoms. Ireland, after 800 years of English/British dominance gained independence in all but six counties in 1922 and became a republic in 1949.

It is little surprise then given this history that questions over Scottish Independence and a United Ireland continue to simmer. But regardless, the United Kingdom or Britain has during its three centuries constructed a strong national identity. One of an empire that for a time dominated half the planet and “ruled the waves.” French revolutionary Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac claimed the British were a “nation of shop keepers” a quote commonly attributed to Napolean who famously used it as an insult while at war, in fact, has been taken as a point of pride by many Brits who see themselves as traders and entrepreneurs.

Like many nations, Britain defines itself by its conflict with other nations and powers. Modern British identity is cloaked in the language of the Blitz and constant references to Churchill and the Second World War are made. As one English friend commented to me recently “to hear them speak you’d think everyone in Britain over the age of 60 was actually at Normandy for the D-Day landings.” The British identity is that of the great power who in her ‘darkest hour’ stood up to fascism and ‘never surrendered.’ Like all narratives, this national identity based on Britians glorious role in the Second World War is subject to historiography and interpretation of evidence. For example, whilst the British sacrifice and effort during the war was formidable, had it not been for the Nazi’s decision to attack the Soviet Union and that nation’s ferocious defence the outcome of the war may have been very different (a historical fact many wished to downplay during the Cold War and after). Nor is much made of fact that fascism had many supporters in 1930s Britain, including by many at the top of British society. But one cannot dispute the war effort of the British and allies was pivotal in defeating Nazi Germany in the 1940s. Moreover, doing so came at enormous cost to Britain which faced years of rationing and rebuilding after the war.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, The COVID-19 pandemic has been the greatest challenge Britain faced since the Second World War. Very quickly the narrative has been one of war with a virus where stoicism is expected, and NHS medical staff have been clapped as ‘frontline heroes’ in this conflict with a virus. In this context, it is little surprise that Captain Tom a Second World War Army Officer rose to national prominence during the pandemic starting walking laps of his garden to raise money for the NHS Charities Together. Likewise, when Queen Elizabeth the second made a rare public address outside of her yearly speech at Christmas she talked of how she and her sister Margaret, like many other children during the Second World War were evacuated from London and at this time she and her sister recorded a message to provide comfort to children separated from their parents. She followed this by saying “once again, many of us will feel the painful sense of separation from loved ones, but now, as then, we know, deep down, that it is the right thing to do.” This emotive appeal to the spirit of wartime Britain from a member of The Greatest Generation and Britains longest-serving monarch was quite deliberate and important for establishing Britain at war narrative against the virus.

Captain Sir Tom Moore's family 'with him in hospital' as he battles  coronavirus - Wales Online
Captain Sir Tom Moore being Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II

Current British Prime Minister, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, is a great admirer of Churchill and in what John Kampfner of The Observer described as a “not so subtle attempt to draw a parallel between Johnson and Churchill,” Johnson authored The Churchill Factor where he says of Churchill “he alone saved our civilisation.” This inflated sense of national pride along with the ‘great man of history’ outlook gives us a great insight into the current British PM’s worldview. Churchill’s role in the Bengalis massacre or the botched Gallipoli landing is of course played down, as to be fair they are in most historical accounts of his life. With regards to Johnson’s own leadership to date, his government’s apparent support of herd immunity as the response to COVID-19 in early 2020 had much more in common with Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy in the 1930s than the Battle of Britain.

The Johnson view of Churchill and Britains place in history is not universally shared by all who live in Britain. Increasingly many are becoming aware that British imperialism, in particular the slave trade that Britain participated in for many years. When the Black live matter movement erupted in 2020 in response to the murder of George Floyd by Police in the US, this prompted protesters to pull down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in the English city of Bristol and throw it into the harbour. This divided people as many thought this was petty vandalism or an attempt to censor history. Others however could see the link between the slave trade of Britain’s past and how this has contributed to discrimination and injustice against black people in the US and the UK today. To celebrate Colston’s Philanthropic works in Bristol without acknowledging that he gained his wealth through slavery causing misery to so many is wrong.

What Bristol should erect in place of the toppled Colston statue | Art and  design | The Guardian
Edward Colston’s statue being lowered into Bristol’s harbour in 2020

The Bristol statue toppling was followed by protests outside parliament. Soon security were having to cover up the statue of Winston Churchill in parliament square for fear that his statue may be thrown into the Thames. These debates absolutely polarised public opinion as for many Churchill is the man who “saved civilisation” without whom we’d “all be speaking German”. Voted the “greatest Briton” in a 2002 BBC poll, for many his legacy is above question. To others, he represents a British establishment that profited from the empire at the expense of its colonies. For example, Churchill was on the wrong side of history during the Irish civil war for independence after the 1916 uprising, motivated by holding together the empire above all else.

Coming from New Zealand, one feels connected with this history, yet also like an outsider. In New Zealand, the narrative that has developed since the disaster at Gallipoli is that of the brave young men, ANZAC’s, from Australia and New Zealand who were sent to their death due to incompetent decisions by stuffy British generals. New Zealand history, since colonial times, is heavily connected to Britain and this continues to dominate this countries narrative about who it is in the world to this day. When New Zealand’s first Labour Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage declared war on Germany in 1939, technically a few hours before Britain due to time zone differences, he famously said of Britain “where she goes, we go.” It is slightly jarring these days to hear New Zealand’s celebrated first Labour Prime Minister being so deferential and subservient to Britain. By contrast, New Zealand current Labour Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has made political mileage by juxtaposing her government’s response to COVID-19 compared with that of Britain. In response to a journalist question, Jacinda said she was “not willing to risk a UK style ‘live with COVID’ policy.” In this way Jacinda connects with the ANZAC narrative of common sense kiwi’s (and Aussies sometimes) doing things better than those stuffy old Brits, which many white New Zealanders are descendants from.

Back in the UK, recent divisions over Brexit have challenged national unity. One bizarre event earlier this year to try and combat this was the song put out by the ‘One Britain, one nation’ campaign. Then Education Secretary Gavin Williams, who since has been sacked due to his poor performance in the role, tried to get every student in the UK to sing this song at school on 25 June. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told the media she thought it was a spoof, also that it showed the ignorance of politicians in Westminster as the 25th of the day Scottish students started their summer holidays.

The current push to unify and create a modern “British” identity is actually about “English” nationalism. Very little in the ‘One Nation’ rhetoric British politicians espouse, is about Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. Of the 66 million people who live in Britain, 55 million live in England. If you want to win a majority in the House of Commons, you need to win English voters primarily. At a time when nationalism dominates the world of politics, it is increasingly clear that what is cloaked as “British” is increasingly about the dominant nation in the United Kingdom. This English dominance is nothing new, however, in post Brexit Britain counter-narratives by nationalist groups in the other nations of the UK have gained far greater potency. During the 2019 general election, I commented on the increased support for Scottish independence since Brexit. I will explore this topic further in another post, but it is clear that the conflict over Scottish independence will continue to hover like a dark cloud over the British establishment.

The COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020 has changed peoples lives considerably. Whilst some hoped that facing a crisis on this scale may ease divisions caused by Brexit. This is clearly not the case. For those supportive of Brexit, the fact that the UK were quicker to roll out the vaccine than EU nations was seen as proof that leaving was the right thing to do, ignoring the fact that UK COVID-19 infections rates were considerably higher than most European nations at the start of 2021. Vaccine nationalism ignores the fact that the virus does not respect international borders and any long-term effective response must be a global one. This is a sentiment that was shared by former UK Prime Minister Theresa May who complained that the virus has been “treated as a national issue for countries to deal with alone” and that “the global impact of Covid-19, and our inability to forge a coherent international response to it, have raised new questions about the effectiveness of a system of cooperation through shared institutions.” May’s more outward-looking internationalist view of course represents a different strand of the British establishment and indeed of the British Conservative Party to that of the current Prime Minister and his ministers who use more inward-looking nationalism as a way of achieving short term electoral success. The long term consequences of this tension for the future of the British state will be fascinating to watch.

The British identity is one many still hold onto as a key part of who they are and their overall worldview. Increasingly though this identity is being challenged and interrogated by those who do not feel part of this dominant narrative and those who believe it would be better if the United Kingdon broke up. It is important to remember that all national identities are a construct built on a selective interpretation of historical events. National identities can and do change over time and it is clear that the identity of Brexit Britain is still being challenged and contested far more than it was even a decade ago.

But whatever the future holds for Britain, that narrative of Britain at War is likely to hold fast regardless of whether the union stays together or not. The “spirit of the Blitz” is etched deep into the psyche of the populace and will reliably cause an outpouring of national pride when mentioned. Increasingly though, many do now question this history and counter this narrative. Certainly, for Winston Churchill, his earlier canonisation as the patron saint of all things good in British politics, is now in doubt. And as the country tries to recover from Brexit division and COVID-19, constant references to Britain and WW2 may have diminishing returns for Boris Johnson and his allies in Government.

What the recent elections tell us about British society

In a nation that has suffered over 100,000 COVID-19 deaths, one maybe somewhat taken aback to see the latest YouGov Poll where The Conservative Party enjoy a 15% lead over the Labour Opposition. 17 months after the Conservatives won the 2019 General Election, it would be easy to conclude that the Government are still enjoying the support they gained during this campaign. The last year and a half have been anything but normal with a pandemic creating the greatest social and economic crisis in decades. As we are still living through this crisis, it is too soon to really understand what the long-term consequences of it will be. However, the recent elections in the UK do highlight some important trends and issues.

After the 2018 council elections in England I made the following observation in a blog post:

The downside to Party Political council elections is that the media interest is primarily what the impact of local council elections on national politics. This has included projections for how many seats each party would get in the House of Commons based on these results, despite the fact that not all councils were up for re-election. More importantly, while some will be voting on party lines, many others are likely to vote on local issues. Someones vote in council elections may not reflect how they would vote in a general election.

English Council Elections – 5 May 2018

It remains true that too much emphasis is made of how local election results may translate to voting intentions in a general election. Many people when they vote, are doing so based on the performance, or lack thereof, of their local councillors or mayors. However, many do use these elections as a chance to send a message based on the performance of party leaders nationally. And in 2021, the gains made by the Conservative Party, in particular Labour losing their majority on councils like Durham were part of a national trend.

Of course there were not just council elections being held on Thursday 6 May, but also the Scottish and Welsh assembly elections and the Hartlepool by-election.

Elections 2021: Guide to 'Super Thursday' as Britain heads to the polls -  LBC
Voting took place across the UK on Thursday 6 May 2021 for council elections, the Hartlepool by-election and the Scottish and Welsh Assembly elections.

Hartlepool saw the Conservatives win in a constituency Labour had held for 57 years. The official response from Starmer’s leadership team was that Labour were still suffering from the result in 2019 where the Party had lost its ‘Red Wall’ seats and implied that the fault lay with the previous leader Jeremy Corbyn. Labour held Hartlepool in both the 2017 and 2019 general elections, and in 2017 Labour’s majority actually increased. Two major factors at play in Hartlepool were a) voter turnout falling to 42% whereas in 2019 turnout was 57.9% and b) in 2019 the combined Conservative Party and Brexit Party votes were ahead of Labour meaning in 2021 much of that Brexit Party vote went Conservative.

Another problem for Labour, and one which highlights the current poor decisions being made by Labour’s current leadership was the decision to select former Stockton South MP Paul Williams, from a shortlist of one, as their candidate. Williams, a vocal Remainer, was an odd choice for a constituency where support for Brexit was high. Williams was also forced to apologise early on in the campaign for an inappropriate tweet sent a few years earlier. When running for Labour Leader Kier Starmer tweeted that Labour needed to be “more democratic” in the way it selected candidates and should end “impositions” from the national leadership. Yet Paul Williams was ‘imposed’ and voters responded accordingly.

The current success of the Conservative Party is certainly in part due to the vaccine roll out. Unlike the expensive Track and Trace system that did not deliver, the NHS have rolled out a successful COVID-19 vaccination programme which has significantly reduced transmission and hospitalisation of this virus. Added to this has been the British media gleefully highlighting the problems the EU have had rolling out the vaccine, confirming to those who voted Brexit in 2016 and/or the Tories in 2019 that getting out of the EU was the right thing to do. Despite the pandemic, the Government made a point of delivering the promise to “get Brexit done.” Whilst this has not helped political stability in Northern Ireland, it keeps a promise made in 2019 which plays well with a strong section of English voters.

The re-election of the Scottish Nationalist Party, despite the recent controversy over Alex Salmond, will have disappointed those opposed to Scottish Independence. Any thoughts that Scottish Labour’s new leader Anas Sarwar would improve the fortunes for the party that once dominated in Scotland were dashed with the party coming third and only holding marginal seats like Dumbarton due to tactical voting by Tory and Lib Dem voters to stop an independence candidate winning. The media, particularly in England, and the Westminster establishment make much of the claim that having failed to win an outright majority there is no mandate for another independence referendum. This says more about the ignorance of the political and media establishment within the London bubble than about Scottish nationalism. The proportional voting system Scotland uses makes a party getting an outright majority highly unlikely. That the SNP were one seat shy of this is impressive. Further, the Scottish Greens also ran on a pro independence platform meaning there is a pro independence majority in the Scottish Parliament. Independence is still far from certain in Scotland, but as I wrote after the 2019 general election the calls for independence have and will continue to get louder.

The results were not all bad for the opposition Labour Party on 6 May. Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham was elected with 67.3% of the vote to the Tories 19.6%. Andy ran on a progressive platform of improving buses and public transport in the city. He also has been given the nickname ‘King of the North’ after standing up to the Government in late 2020 calling for greater support for the region during the lockdown. In Wales, Labour was re-elected with their leader Mark Drakeford claiming the Welsh Governments response to COVID-19 helped them stay in power. In London Labour retained control of the Greater London Authority and Mayor Sadiq Khan was reelected. Khan’s majority was small than his 2016 result, with many voters dissatisfied with his handling of transport issues in the city.

The picture these results paint is one where the Conservatives won largely as it was their voters who had greater motivation to vote. Those satisfied with, or at least more forgiving of the Governments response to COVID-19, were more likely to go to the ballot box and vote Tory. The polling data shows the combined support of opposition parties to be greater than the Tories, but under a First Past the Post electoral system this helps the Tories. The current poll shows the Green Party, who currently has one MP in the House of Commons, enjoying 8% support. An increase in the Green vote to this sort of number will likely split the progressive vote in marginal constituencies and help the Tories. By contrast, the Conservatives no longer face serious competition on the right having mopped up the Brexit Party/UKIP support. Further, despite performing fairly poorly in Scotland and Wales, the Conservatives remain the dominant Party in England where the vast majority of UK voters live. As an English nationalist party, the Tories are able to motivate enough people in England to keep voting for them and keep them in power.

The COVID-19 pandemic was an opportunity for oppositions parties, in particular the Labour Party, to have made gains. Although a small-c conservative country, the governments handling of the crisis has upset many. Yet a combination of voter disengagement, and competition with the Greens and Lib Dems, has meant Labour continues to perform poorly, except in areas of the country where the party has local leaders who are prepared to step up. My next blog post will turn once again to the UK Labour Party to understand why 18 months after the 2019 election defeat the party is slipping backwards in terms of support nationally.

The European Super League – a proposal that has united Britain

People overseas often have preconceived ideas about British society. On moving to the UK I was told that in Britain people will try and place you based on your accent, the school you went to and your job. This does happen, especially in the south, as a way of identifying someone in terms of their class or status or even just to understand where one fits. However, there is one question, one identifier, which I believe takes precedence over all others, that is of course which football team do you support.

Being obsessed with sports is hardly something unique to the Brits, in fact, most nations have a few sports they avidly follow or excel at. But the British love affair with football goes well beyond a passion for this sport. The football team one supports is core to one’s identity and it says where you are from or what your family heritage is. It is the glue that binds communities across the land and as a nation brings people together. It is a critical part of peoples lives and the communities they live in.

It should come as no surprise then, that opposition to the proposed European Super League has been met with widespread condemnation. There are few issues where UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and former Labour Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn see eye to eye, yet this proposal has achieved just that. Rarer still to have the Second Heir to the Throne comment on such matters saying it would be “damaging.” Both the Lords and the Commons will likely debate the issue this week, and again opposition to this Super League will likely come from all sides.

The above Premier League sides have said they wish to join the new European Super League.

This second post in my blog series on what COVID-19 has taught us about British society was not initially going to start with a post about football. Yet this weeks news and the response to it illustrates how much football matters in this country and why to understand British culture and predisposition then football is the obvious place to start.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February 2020 former Conservative Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo was interviewed on Radio Four as part of a panel discussion, in which he argued that British society would not tolerate football matches being cancelled in response to the pandemic. On 13 March the Premier league was halted and did not resume for three months. There were fears that this would be the first British Football season not to be completed since the Second World War. In June the season did resume and Liverpool FC were able to win the league.

During the second and third lockdowns, Football continued to be played throughout Britain, though the teams played in empty stadiums where only a small few spectators were allowed in to watch the games live. Also as part of restrictions on pubs reopening, live screenings of matches were not allowed. Yet despite these restrictions and difficulties, football carried on from professional Premier League sides right through to local clubs. Continuing football has been an absolute lifeline for many during this very difficult year. My local pub has a Fantasy Football league which has run for a few years now. Being able to stay connected, analyse games, give cheeky banter to those who support Arsenal and generally share something as a community in these times has been so important.

The proposal to establish this European Super League is elitism and self-selection at its worst. Britain may not be known for being the most egalitarian of societies, but the magic of football is that even the crappiest low budget team still has a chance. When Leicester won the Premier League in 2016 their fans were absolutely elated and anyone who put money on them at the bookies suddenly was very rich. This was the true rags to riches small-town side taking on the big boys and winning story that people love. It is this that every fan of a struggling side wishes will happen to their team one day. This proposed league takes this magic away. It self selects historically strong and more importantly wealthy teams and creates their own league. Twelve European teams, including six Premier League sides, have signed up to this. Fans of these teams have spoken out against their clubs wanting to join this League, fearing that already expensive tickets to see matches will become completely unaffordable. Further that these few clubs, having made money through this league, will own all the best players and make it even harder for smaller clubs to compete.

The loss of spectators during the COVID-19 pandemic has hit many clubs hard financially. In terms of community clubs encouraging kids to get into football, a recent report claimed that 10% of grassroots clubs did not think they will survive the next 12 months due to lack of membership dues. Outside the Premier League, many local clubs have struggled to maintain their grounds or buy decent players for many years and the pandemic has only made this worse. Rich and poor clubs is nothing new and there is a reason that certain football teams have been more successful than others. In recent years this gap has widened.

Top tier football is big business and it involves big money. Manchester United Midfielder Marcus Rashford had a transfer value of £150 million in January 2021, for many clubs even if they sold their stadiums and all other assets could not afford this player. At the same time many of these big clubs show nothing but contempt for their loyal fans, charging them obscene amounts of money for tickets. Fans will get themselves thousands of pounds in debt to watch their team play both home and away games. Such is the loyalty of many football fans, they literally will spend all their savings to support their team whose players often are reluctant to sign shirts for their loyal follower after games.

Football culture in Britain is not always pretty. In 1985 English football clubs were banned from playing in Europe for five years after hooligans caused the deaths of 32 Juventus fans in Italy due to drunken and violent behaviour. More recently players have been subject to racist chants or abuse from fans from opposing teams, prompting the Show Racism the Red Card to be formed. One should not romanticise British football culture. Football holds a mirror to this society showing both the best and worst of British culture and social attitudes.

There are few things that stir the passion of Brits like football. And it seems in a country so deeply divided in recent years and having in the last 12 month gone through so much, this European Super League proposal has united people in a way that few other things can.