Porter’s Pensées

Well, the Report is out at last, and by all accounts it isn’t at all the ‘whitewash’ that cynics were predicting. It really lays into Blair, confirming what I and the majority of historians and commentators had been saying almost from the start of the Iraq war. Two initial comments:

First. It didn’t require ‘hindsight’ to foretell what would be the war’s result and aftermath. That’s what Blair repeatedly claims. In fact Chilcot shows that experts in the fields of intelligence and Middle Eastern studies – and he could have added the history of imperialism – were warning him and Bush of the dangers at the time, pretty accurately. Blair chose to allow his own ‘instincts’ to override them. I imagine he’d go along with Michael Gove on this: ‘people in this country have had enough of experts’. On the contrary, in 2003 they (we) could have prevented a calamity.

Second. Blair’s sincerity is probably beyond question when he claims – ad nauseam, including in his uncomfortable press conference this afternoon – that he went to war because he thought it was ‘the right thing to do’. But that didn’t prevent the war’s being a disaster. What should be criticised here is not his motives, but his judgment. He doesn’t understand this; thinks that if he can square his motives with his ‘God’ then everything’s OK. But it’s not. One of the main themes in my British Imperial. What the Empire Wasn’t (2016) is that maleficent effects don’t need to be malevolently meant. ‘Harm can be done with the best of intentions’ (p.185). You don’t need to prove Blair was bad in order to believe he was wrong. Whether this affects the question of whether or not he should be charged as a ‘war criminal’ is a moot point. Do motives count?

The Labour leadership contest is a dreadful mess. It would be comic if it weren’t so vital, and tragic for those of us ordinary voters who are crying out for an effective Opposition to take advantage of the Conservatives’ own present disarray, and to bring them to book; not only for the Referendum fiasco but also for almost everything else that they have done in office. And primarily for their pursuit of the interconnected and now largely discredited ideologies of neoliberalism, globalisation and austerity.

It ought to be easy. Those policies are deeply unpopular now, and have never been tested in a truly representative general election. (I don’t imagine I need to replicate my old arguments against the UK’s present voting system: see https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/first-past-the-post/). If Labour had a generally accepted leader, it could probably force another election within a few months, even under the terms of the new more rigid ‘Fixed Term Parliament Act’; and – by means of some clever arrangements with, for example, the Lib Dems and the Greens to counterbalance the iniquities of the ‘First Past the Post system – see off UKIP, so long as it promised not to welsh on the verdict of the referendum; and bring in a Left-leaning government that would more accurately reflect the ‘popular will’. Then it could make a start of dismantling austerity, reviving (neo-) Keynesianism, putting the NHS back on its financial feet (with higher taxes), building more affordable homes, reforming the voting system, bringing the tax-dodgers to book (that would help pay for the NHS), and not invading anyone; which are all causes, as I understand it, that are close to Jeremy Corbyn’s heart.

‘Ay; but there’s the rub’. Corbyn isn’t the ‘generally accepted’ Labour leader. For myself, I don’t quite see why not. I voted for him as leader, in company with 60+% of the Labour membership, and have observed him quite closely (mainly on the BBC Parliament channel) in the country and in the House of Commons since. He promised a new style of politics, and he delivered on that: principled, polite, probing when it came to Prime Minister’s Question Time, and intelligent, in his contributions to the Referendum debate, for example, which were more frequent and substantial than is now being claimed – but only because the media didn’t pick them up – and which I found far more convincing as arguments than the lies and exaggerations peddled by the Tories who fronted the debate on both sides. This was immensely refreshing; a rational politics for the first time. Corbyn has also been effective in many ways, forcing government U-turns on, for example, the ‘bedroom tax’, Trade Unions, Housing, Tex Credit changes, and a dozen other policies, which isn’t bad for a minority leader; campaigning energetically for young people to register before the Referendum; winning – insofar as this is up to the leader – all the intervening bye-elections, most of them with increased majorities; consistently opposing the Iraq War (Leader or not, he must lead the debate on Chilcot), and still apparently attracting new members to the party in numbers the Conservatives can only dream of. Really, what has gone wrong?

His two great enemies, of course, have been the Press – overwhelmingly right-wing, mendacious, and with a corporate self-interest in Tory success; and the majority of his Parliamentary party, for reasons that probably include their relatively right-wing (Blairite) views, memories of his serial ‘disloyalty’ on the backbenches, a snobbish disdain for his old-fashioned Leftish demeanour (and clothes), a general feeling that he isn’t ‘one of them’ – the political establishment, the Westminster ‘bubble’, or whatever; and possibly personal experience of his conduct, at closer quarters than I’ve been vouchsafed, in the House of Commons. I’ve never even met him, so I suppose I can’t argue against that. Beyond this, however, his parliamentary colleagues seem to be convinced that, whatever his virtues, he ‘can’t win’ a General Election for Labour: on what grounds I’m not sure, unless it’s simply what they read in the papers (even the Guardian is pretty sneery towards him), and hear from the commentariat (like the sniffy Laura Kuenssberg) on TV. I was rather hoping he could, and that given time his brand of politics could be as appealing to other people as it is to me. Apparently not.

But it’s the papers that set the agenda and the tone of our politics, and are part of the reality, therefore, that we have to work within, or against. And – you never know – they might be right on the ‘electability’ thing – they’re the ‘experts’, after all; or that might turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. So I’m genuinely conflicted. I’m still a Corbynite, almost a Corbyn clone, in fact: old, a Londoner originally, grey-bearded, sloppily dressed, having fought the same causes as he did in my youth – CND, anti-apartheid, anti-imperialism, pro-trade union – and agreeing with his stated opinions almost 100%. But I have to agree that he’s not a ‘Leader’ in the mould that seems to be required these days – charismatic, forceful, a bit like Hitler; to his great credit, I think, but it will take time for him to persuade the larger electorate of the virtues of his kind of ‘leadership’ by comparison with what it has been taught to expect. Unless – and this is the big unknown here – the ‘social media’ can somehow compensate for the old media’s prejudices, and deliver over to us the young of the country, who are undoubtedly more pro-Corbyn, as well as having been predominantly for ‘Remain’.

And in the meantime the Left has work to do. Whoever wins the upcoming Tory leadership race – at the time of writing it’s between an illiberal authoritarian, an opinionated free-market zealot and war-monger (according to Kenneth Clark), and an ex-banker who wants to be another Thatcher (two of them women: is that a comfort?) – it won’t be good for the social justice, stability, equality and peace that most of us crave. (It’s a comfort, but only a small one, that the Old Etonians are out of it, at last. For now.) Short of electoral reform, which obviously won’t come in time, all our hopes lie in an effective Labour Party, hopefully as part of a broader Left alliance. If there’s another members’ election, I’ll probably vote for Corbyn again, but won’t really mind too much if someone more conventionally Leader-like wins it, so long as he or she (a) preserves the essentials of Jeremy’s ‘new politics’ – I wouldn’t be against that as a compromise; and (b) beats the Tories, when the next General Election comes along. That’s the most important thing. Otherwise we’re well and truly fucked. So get your fingers out, Labour MPs.

Yesterday’s ‘art’ commemoration in Britain of the centenary of the first day of the battle of the Somme was intensely moving: men dressed in authentic World War battledress walking around cities, sitting at stations as if ready to embark for the Front, sadly, silently, each with a card to give out with the name of one of the fallen on it, and all kept secret until then – like ghosts suddenly risen from the dead. (https://becausewearehere.co.uk) A brilliant and totally apt memorialisation; so different from the usual militaristic shenanigans.

I also noticed that on TV news and documentary programmes nothing was made of the ‘patriotism’ of the original men, which of course hardly existed after the first few weeks. Soldiers stuck to their duties, in situations of the utmost squalor and peril, not because of any loyalty to their country, but because of their comradeship with the ‘pals’ who were suffering alongside them. They didn’t want to let them down. It was the same at Gallipoli, another slaughterhouse, about which I published a review article recently. (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/bernard-porter/who-was-the-enemy.)

All of which must be annoying to Michael Gove, who when he was Minister of Education lambasted what he called the ‘Blackadder myth’ of the War, which he attributed to ‘left-wing academics’, who resile from the idea of ‘patriotism’ in order to undermine the patriotism of the present generation. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10548303/Michael-Gove-criticises-Blackadder-myths-about-First-World-War.html). I’m sorry, Govey, but that’s the ‘expert’ view, and not only among ‘Left-wingers’. But then you don’t believe in ‘experts’, do you?

What it does undermine, and why Right-wing ministers so resist it, is the authority and judgment of the governments which led these brave soldiers into this hell, and have continued to do so thereafter. Chilcot should corroborate this for a later war.

In the meantime, pictures of these ‘ghosts’ reduced me to tears. The time is now past, of course, for anger. But not in the case of Blair’s and Bush’s war.

I hope that this will be my final post on the referendum – though not necessarily on its repercussions. Anyone bored by the subject, or by my droning on about it, can skip it. Make yourself a cup of tea, and prepare for the next exciting political events bearing down on us: the Chilcot Report on Wednesday, then the party leadership elections, a possible general election, all kinds of literal horrors going on abroad, thanks (partly) to Tony Blair, and who knows what more in the days and weeks to come? Personally I wish the times were less exciting. But what else can you expect with global capitalism in its death throes?!

*

On the referendum, I feel there’s one thing we should be clear about. Brexit wasn’t altogether their fault: ‘their’ of course referring to those who voted ‘Out’, or even their clownish and mendacious leaders. I’ve already indicated that Cameron was at least as much to blame, certainly tactically – agreeing to a 50-50 referendum on a single issue at a time when the electorate was feeling particularly bolshie about just about everything (see https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/is-it-really-about-the-eu/); and then by the negative and scary way he conducted the ‘Remain’ side of the debate, even though much of the ‘scare’ stuff has turned out to be true. And then of course there’s our awful press. (That goes without saying.)

But the EU itself, or whoever runs it, is not altogether blameless. My own major gripes with it are, firstly, over the neo-liberalism that has taken it over in recent years, which of course is responsible for our immigration ‘problem’ (‘free movement’); and secondly its imperialistic propensities, which are also quite recent, and which I’ve written about before: (https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/eumperialism/). I have other problems with it too. The Euro is one – poor Greece! – but we’re not yet part of that. Indeed, if it hadn’t been for other considerations I might well have voted ‘Out’ on the 23rd. So I don’t blame anyone who did; or at least, without knowing what their particular motives were.

Nonetheless I admire some aspects of the European Union. On a personal, selfish level I like the way it enables me to travel unhindered between my two homes, in England and Sweden, and to enjoy Swedish healthcare, as Kajsa can enjoy the NHS. On a more airy-fairy level I like the friendship that it seems to have encouraged between peoples of different countries and cultures, and particularly among the young – who of course predominantly voted ‘In’. (Even if I’d not had my own views I think I would have deferred to theirs, on the grounds that the result of the vote will affect them for longer than us oldies.) I still think we could have built on that. I’m also very much in favour of Europe’s labour legislation, which I don’t think we would have adopted without it; and of the European Court of Human Rights, which has proved itself more liberal in general than our own courts. I’m quite happy being overruled by it. Lastly, I was aware that even if you don’t like a situation you’ve got yourself into, extricating yourself from it is not necessarily the answer. You can have become so entangled with it that the result is almost bound to be complex and painful: as it’s turning out to be. I don’t think the Brexiteers took enough account of that.

On top of that, however, there was a tactical reason why I opposed Brexit at this time, arising out of the political situation in Britain. The problem, as I saw it, was that the leading Brexiteers had totally different objections to the EU from mine, being – as they were – Tories, and so opposed on principle to both of the material aspects of the Union I most valued: labour legislation and human rights. Gove and Farage are both ‘small government’ men, as is probably Boris Johnson, if one can be sure about what he thinks at any one time. Like most other people during the campaign I assumed that if Brexit won, the outcome would be a new government headed by Boris and Gove, which had to be worse, I thought, for the causes I valued. In the event it hasn’t turned out like that; but Theresa May is not exactly a reassuring alternative, as the leading Conservative authoritarian. (See https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/the-snoopers-charter/.) Frying pans and fires came to mind. So the prospect was not an inviting one. Another reason I came to oppose Brexit even more strongly was the xenophobia and racism it seemed to be stirring up as the campaign went on; and the way it was obviously demeaning us, as a nation, in foreign eyes. In my last post I mentioned how humiliated I feel in Sweden. I imagine most ‘Out’ voters didn’t think of that; or if they did, like Nigel Farage, made a virtue of it.

Better than this, I thought, would be to stay inside the Union, and try to reform it from within. What I should like ideally, and what I always hoped for the EU, is that it could shelter us, in a way a weak national government could never do, from the anti-social effects of globalisation. It’s the latter which is the root cause of most of our present troubles, after all, not ‘Europe’, whose main fault has been the way it has played along with global capitalism. The idea of using the EU as a brake on the capitalist behemoth is of course much mocked by cynics, and I certainly wouldn’t put any money on it myself; but there are two prospective circumstances which might make it a possibility. One is the world-wide reaction against neo-liberalism that began after the last ‘Great Recession’, and shows little sign of waning yet, which might – just might – change the whole economic discourse over the next several years, which would surely make fundamental alternatives to the present economic status quo just possible. Another, related to this, is the rise of left-wing anti-austerity political parties within the European Union that a British Labour government – certainly under Corbyn, if he’s still there – could co-operate with in order to achieve a new order. That would be worth fighting for, if only to prevent the most likely alternative, which is presaged by the rise of Right-wing, neo-Fascist parties in Europe. Of course, the rest of Europe might achieve this – continental socialism – on its own. There are signs of deep unrest all over, much of it dredged up to the surface perhaps by our Brexit crisis, which could be channelled Leftwards rather than to the neo-Fascist and racist Right. If so, however, it would be sad if Britain could not be part of it.

Those were my thoughts during the campaign. I did waver at one moment, acknowledging the force of the anti-EU argument – I mentioned this in one of my posts – but as the campaign went on I was strengthened in my leaning to the ‘Remain’ side by the frankly silly personalities leading the opposition to it, and by the blatant lies they came out with; which a law professor recently castigated as so ‘criminal’ as possibly to nullify the result (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-michael-dougan-leave-campaign-latest-a7115316.html). Then there was the hatred, xenophobia and – in one case, murder – which accompanied that awful debate, and the racist attacks that have followed it, for which Farage and the UKIP wing of Brexit must bear some of the responsibility; all of which confirmed my – by now – strong resolution to stick to the ‘Remain’ side. I’m sure now I was right, but can’t blame anyone who leant the other way, in view of the clear imperfections of the EU, and the propaganda that was fed to them. However, as I wrote last time, as a sporting nation we have to stick with the result. After all, it was only a game, wasn’t it, Boris?

I suppose a socialist Europe is unlikely in the near future. It reminds me – though this doesn’t have much relevance to our present situation – of a solution that George Bernard Shaw proposed a century ago to the great problem of Britain’s Empire – whether it should be formally dissolved, which the anti-imperialist Shaw thought would only leave its constituent parts more vulnerable to economic imperialism, or what today is called ‘globalisation’; or alternatively, as he thought, transformed into a truly socialist ‘commonwealth’. Quite frankly, if that had been practicable I think it might have been better for everyone, including the ex-colonies for whom ‘independence’ – or ‘Empexit’ – has not always been an undiluted boon. But of course it was highly unlikely, in the face of colonial nationalism; just as it may be in the case of today’s European Empire, with narrow-minded nationalists like Farage – and le Pen in France, and Åkesson in Sweden, and many others – around.

*

So, bye-bye Brexit. Wheel on Chilcot, and another kind of ‘imperialism’ – going then under the name of ‘liberal interventionism’ – which I probably know more about, and have written about in books.

I’m obviously not one of Nigel Farage’s ‘ordinary, decent people’, because I voted to Remain. I don’t mind not being ‘ordinary’ – I don’t think anybody is, and regard Farage’s use of the word as patronising – but I resent the implication that I’m not decent. To cap that, I’m unlikely to get into Michael Gove’s good books, regarding myself as I do as an ‘expert’. He notoriously despises ‘expertise’. (And he a former Minister of Education! No wonder the teachers hated him.) Again, more people are experts, at one thing or another, than Gove might think. Most of the Brexiteers, for example, and a good many of the Tory Remainers, are expert liars. My own expertise – in modern British history – might not seem very useful; but it has helped me to see through Gove’s own gross errors when it comes to the versions of history he pedals, often in order to back up his political prejudices. (See bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/michael-gove/.)

So you can see why I’m personally out of love with the Brexit leaders, and the mess they’ve dumped my country in; which is almost exactly what Gove’s ‘experts’, of course, predicted. Thank God that Boris certainly, and Gove probably, have reaped their nemeses (is that the plural? And can you ‘reap’ a nemesis?); though it would have been good – in a schadenfreude kind of way – to have watched them stay on and try to put Humpty back together again. And I fear Theresa May – who wants us to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, no less – almost as much. (See https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/the-snoopers-charter/.)

Perhaps I need to get over the idiot Nigel; but it’s difficult when he keeps coming out with ever more idiocies, embarrassing my country, and therefore by association me, before the world. The icing on the cake was when he accused most MEPs of never having done a ‘proper job in their lives’, when it turned out that all those sitting nearest to him in the chamber as he said it had had far more worthwhile jobs than he. One was a heart surgeon. (See http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/30/the-story-behind-facepalm-man-at-farages-never-done-a-days-work-speech-5975734/.) Farage’s last job had been as a commodity broker.

I’ll be returning to the Continent again soon, acutely embarrassed by this man, who is universally scorned and vilified there, except among neo-Fascists, and who has done our national reputation, therefore, irreparable harm. Doesn’t he care about this, as a self-styled ‘patriot’? Or does he regard every criticism from a European as a mark of honour? ‘Nobody likes us and we don’t care’, as Millwall FC fans yell at football matches; the sign of the hooligan in every area of life.

I can see myself being continually quizzed by my Swedish friends on how ‘we’ could have let this happen, as I was on my last trip, even before the vote (they thought the debate was bad enough: see https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/the-stupidest-nation-on-earth/); and having therefore to put on a permanently humble and apologetic air. Actually they all know me better than to think I could have been an Outer, which means that their attitude to me will be one of pity, which is hard for a survivor of a once great Empire (if you know my books you’ll recognise the irony there) to stomach. I’m hoping that they’ll welcome my intention to apply for Swedish citizenship (below), thus establishing my credentials as an Inner, and not one of the 52%. But I’ll never be able to get over the national shame.

I’m sure that Farageists will dismiss this kind of criticism as simply confirming their view of Leftist intellectuals as being a race apart, out of touch with ‘real’ or ‘genuine’ working people, and even ‘smirking’ at them, as I was accused of doing in a comment on one of my posts here. (https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/fuck-what-have-we-done/#comments.) Of course I would never do that. I know how much we ‘ordinary’ people are being misled and exploited by our own ‘elites’. (You think Nigel is an ‘ordinary bloke’ because he likes a pint of beer?) Anti-intellectualism has been a powerful force on the Right of politics everywhere recently, in the USA especially – see Thomas Frank, What’s the matter with Kansas? (2004), and Trump, of course, today – but now increasingly in the UK. It is ultimately highly dangerous, if it prevents one from using critical reason to examine prejudice and myth. It can create a climate, as it has in America, where good arguments are dismissed because they’re rational, as though reason itself were the enemy. That way lies…. well, I won’t risk invoking ‘Godwin’s Law’ again (https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/the-hitler-card/); but you know what I mean.

This really is a terrible tragedy, and all the more so because it seems it can’t be reversed. It was a crazy thing to do: for an unpopular government at a time of great social unrest to propose a 50:50 referendum on a single issue which very few people (including me) knew much about, but which would crucially affect the rest of their lives. That was compounded by the now acknowledged mendacity of the propaganda on both sides, but mainly the Brexiteers’. One good thing about the referendum and its aftermath is that it has taught us much more about the EU; but by now it’s too late. We’re British, and invented ‘team games’, one basic rule of which is that you can’t change the rules retrospectively if the ‘wrong’ side wins, or even if the winning team can be shown to have cheated. So we have to live with it. I can go and live in Sweden. My children have the right to Irish passports, through their mother. But most of the rest of Farage’s ‘ordinary’ people have no such option. They’ll just have to live with it.

Apparently Boris’s next literary effort is going to be a biography of Shakespeare – as if there weren’t enough of them, by real ‘experts’, already. His own political career would make a good plot for a typically Shakespearean tragedy: hubris leading to nemesis. Unfortunately he’s brought his whole nation down with him, just as King Lear did. I can imagine him in later life, musing with his own Cordelia, if he has one. (I know he has daughters; I just don’t know if either of them is as sweet and honest as Cordelia.)

I’ll kneel down,

And ask of thee forgiveness: so we’ll live,

And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh

At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues

Talk of court news; and we’ll talk with them too,

Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out;

And take upon’s the mystery of things,

As if we were God’s spies: and we’ll wear out,

In a wall’d prison, packs and sects of great ones,

That ebb and flow by the moon.

It conjures up a pretty, if pathetic picture. ‘Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out’: politics as a courtly game; which is maybe how it’s taught at Eton. But it will be no comfort to the rest of us.

I’m sure Shakespeare could make much of Gove and Farage too. Probably not as two of his Fools, though the name fits; Shakespeare’s Fools are generally too wise.

I’m seriously thinking of emigrating to an EU country. I might even claim to be a political refugee (from Tory oppression in England). There are plenty of continental countries which will apparently welcome us Remainers in, with guarantees of ‘pubs, marmite and social awkwardness’ to ease the cultural transition: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/europeans-invite-brits-to-relocate-promising-pubs-marmite-and-social-awkwardness. – I find that very touching. We hardly deserve it.

For me, of course, the obvious choice is Sweden, where I already have residency rights. Apparently I’m not alone here. Applications for Swedish citizenship from Brits have gone up 500% since Brexit: http://www.thelocal.se/20160628/citizenship-applications-up-500-for-brits-in-sweden. I’ve looked up the relevant official page on the internet, and the requirements don’t seem to be all that high:

“To become a Swedish citizen you must:

• be able to prove your identity
• have reached the age of 18
• have a permanent residence permit, a right of residence or residence card in Sweden
• have fulfilled the requirements for period of residence (lived in Sweden for a specified period)
• have conducted yourself well in Sweden.”

Well: those don’t seem to be too daunting. I think I’ve conducted myself pretty well in Sweden, haven’t I, Kajsa, apart from that time when I knocked my glass of beer over everyone in a pub near Kulturhuset? They don’t even demand that I learn Swedish. Or shoot an elk, or build a sommarhus with my own bare hands.

Easy-peasy. I think I’ll go for it. (Dual citizenship, of course, in case Sweden is taken over by those awful Sweden Democrats – the equivalent of our UKIP – and Britain comes to its senses one day. Two bolt-holes are better than one.)

Of course I haven’t read the small print. There may be other conditions listed there which would make it more difficult for me. I’m over 18, certainly, but quite a bit over, with various infirmities which might make me an increasing burden on the health system there. I can currently support myself from my UK pension, but with the pound plummeting that might not last very long. And they might have noticed a number of articles I’ve written – some on this website – criticizing their legal procedures (vis-a-vis Assange). On the other hand, politically I’m as Swedish as the Swedes, and much more so than most of my compatriots. And also a feminist. I know that’s important.

The only question of principle is whether it is really honourable to take flight. Shostakovitch and Prokofiev were faced with the same dilemma in Soviet Russia, with the latter being widely criticised for choosing to flee to the US. Shouldn’t I stay at home, helping to man the barricades against the insurgent Faragists, instead of enjoying a life of ease scoffing sill and grossly expensive beer in a metre of snow in Stockholm? Where’s my patriotism? Wouldn’t it be more loyal of me to suffer more years of English food and rain in the cause of my country? Rather than turning tail and copping out of my responsibilities, like Boris did yesterday.

But I would miss the steak and kidney puds. And proper fish and chips (battered, not breaded, greasy chips, and mushy peas). And the bread-and-butter puddings. And of course the cricket. And my family and friends – though they can always come over to stay: if Sweden doesn’t ban them in revenge for Brexit. And – yes – the rain.

I’ll let you know how it turns out.

We’re going down the plug-hole. This is the end of ‘Great Britain’, literally (the ‘Great’ of course refers to the union of the four kingdoms, one of which might leave soon to re-join the EU), and of the sort of tolerant England that I was always, despite my doubts and frustrations, fond of and loyal to. Our political parties are engaged in childish scrapping while huge existential dangers loom on the horizon: global neo-liberal tyranny, irrationalist religious terrorism, neo-fascism, and possibly (though I’m personally less afeared of this) the familiar ‘Russian bear’. The dogs of anarchy have been released. Yet all we in Britain have to stand against them is a rickety political system that simply can’t cope.

I’ve been pinning my hopes up to now on New-New Labour (Corbyn’s). But that seems to have come a cropper with the PLP and the sneering press. Folk are talking about the end of Labour as a party. If that’s so, we must look to the future. If Labour is finished that must leave room for a new left-leaning, pro-Europe, anti-austerity, anti-racist, pro-welfare, anti-big business, green, non-elite party  – New-New-New Labour? – that can make a convincing case that it’s outside the ‘Westminster bubble’. (That’s important.) Either that, or a coalition of smaller parties, each of which focuses on one or other of these causes. That should appeal to a wide constituency, including all Labour voters, Lib Dems, Greens, Scots, old-fashioned paternalistic Tories and even (I would say) at least half the Ukippers: the ones who scapegoat Europe because they haven’t had the chance to vote their real enemies out. Its greatest draw would be that it would express the kind of direct democracy that the EU referendum was supposed to appeal to, but without such disastrous results.

There are presently two main obstacles to this. The first is our electoral system, which militates against new parties gaining any effective leverage until they’ve become old parties, and so prevents public opinion’s being accurately reflected and expressed in all its changeable variety. (The present composition of the House of Commons is a blatant example.) The answer to that, of course, is some form of PR. The second is the lack of a charismatic leader to spearhead this new party or coalition, and inspire people to flock to it. Boris is charismatic but no leader. Jeremy (in my view) is a great, innovative leader, but apparently not charismatic enough. What we need is a left of centre Churchill. I can’t see where he or she is coming from: can you?

*

PS (later the same day). Breaking news. Boris has withdrawn from the contest for new PM. One consolation to be drawn from this whole mess has been that those who caused it would have to clear it up. But Boris just walks away. What a shit.

The referendum result has shown up huge and possibly fatal flaws in our political system and culture. This is not just a Remainer’s sour grapes; I’ve written about it before. (https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/first-past-the-post/; https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/the-demonization-of-politics/) The referendum is billed as uniquely democratic, and to be respected for that reason. So, no challenges or re-runs. But that’s to see it out of political and historical context.

What made the referendum uniquely democratic was that its result truly and proportionately reflected the will of the people (those who voted, anyway). But this was in a political system that doesn’t normally reflect the views of the populace; producing extraordinary results like the last general election’s, for example, where only 35% of the votes produced a government with an overall majority of seats in Parliament, but hated by most people. This of course gave rise to widespread discontent in the country, and a general alienation from politics, on the grounds that voting ‘makes no difference’.

Then along came the referendum: a very rare occasion where it was felt that voting could make a difference. Hence the high turn-out. But hence also the fact that when people came to cast their votes, they used them to as an outlet for all the frustrations that had been built up in them for so long by the political system they had had to endure. This was the first time they could really ‘get at’ the government and the rest of the political ‘establishment’. I’m sure many of them voted on the European issue too, and not just as a scapegoat for their sufferings under ‘austerity’. But I’m equally sure that if we had had a fairer electoral system in the first place – and a fairer press, but that’s another question – people’s grievances generally wouldn’t have needed to be funnelled into this single issue, as I think they were. And nor would the campaign have been so nasty and racist, which is another symptom of the general frustration and anger pent up by our present political system and culture.

Maybe the result would have been the same. Sadly, we’ll never know. But in any case the underlying problem with our so-called ‘democracy’ will remain, to continue to poison our national life – now as an off-shore island – for decades to come. We’re seeing it in the leadership contests in both the Conservative and Labour parties today. Just imagine the situation if you had proportional representation, and the proliferation of viable parties that this allows. Dissidents in both parties could join or form other groups, which – unhampered by first-past-the-post – would have as fair a chance of being represented in the Commons as the parties they had quarrelled with. It’s a no-brainer. All governments would need to be coalitions, of course, but coalitions that truly reflected the popular voice. (The argument against this used to be that first-past-the-post produced more political stability. Oh yes? Look around.) And people would not need to channel their built-up frustration on many matters against just one of them, because that was the only one they were allowed to have their say on.

To get a decent political culture in Britain will need some fundamental reforms. The electoral system is one area; the press is another. (I see from today’s paper, incidentally, that Murdoch is backing Trump. Of course. Another immoral capitalist.) And the public schools, obviously. A model that reformers might look to is Sweden, whose electoral system is much fairer (I’d miss having my ‘own’ MP, but there are ways around that: see my previous post), and whose press – even the tabloids – is basically honest and restrained. They’re also a more equal, happier and more prosperous people than us. But I can’t see that happening in Britain. Our main political parties do so well out of the present system, and our press barons are too powerful. It will require a revolution. And we don’t ‘do’ revolutions, do we?

Alternatively… Can’t we ask the Vikings to come back? Last time it didn’t work out very well, for us at any rate; but I believe the Scandinavians have grown out of the raping and pillaging, and become quite civilised. Quite honestly, if they wanted to come and re-colonise us now, I wouldn’t object. Now we’re out of the EU (almost), we’re ripe for the picking. I’d welcome a flotilla of longships sailing up the Humber, their crews singing fierce Abba war songs, offering the natives meat-balls, and waving their self-assembly flat-pack swords. They could do an awful lot of good for us. I’m rather against imperialism in general; but in this case…

The British Empire had no definite beginning. It just sort of emerged out of the gloom. Nor did it have a definite end – until yesterday. Up until then, writing books about the history of the Empire (which is what I do), I had always found it difficult to know where to stop. There are several dates that can be picked for the beginning of the end, of course: either of the two world wars, Indian independence, Suez, the retrocession of Hong Kong, even, before any of these events, my own favourite: the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902). But still there remained traces of the Empire all over: far-flung British populations, the Falklands, island tax havens, the English language, deprecating views of ‘coloured’ peoples that may have been inherited from colonial times, and so on. But when could we say it was all finally over? That’s no clearer than its exact starting date. In cases like this all we can do is to pick a symbolic event; and England (pop. 53 million) 1, Iceland (pop. 330,000) 2, in Stade de Nice on Monday 27 June 2016, coming on top of ‘Brexit’ just three days earlier, seems to me as good a choice as any.

It’s a good symbol because, as everyone knows, it was the Brits who invented football, and then exported it to the world under the cover of their ‘informal’ empire: that is, the empire of their world-wide trade. It’s also apt because our defeat was at the hands of the Vikings (essentially), who have been a pain in our arses for over a thousand years: invading, raping, pillaging and colonising us in the 9^th-11^th centuries; conquering us (disguised as Frenchmen) in 1066; the great au pair invasion of the 1960s, undermining our morals; and making us struggle with their flat-pack furniture.

Brexit, however, is a more substantial terminal point. Of course we haven’t had a (significant) empire for ages; but we’ve still been ‘Great Britain’. The ‘Great’, of course, isn’t any kind of boast, but simply indicates that Britain is more than just England: for my Swedish friends, stor rather than stark. It consists of four separate nations. With Scotland about to hive off to rejoin Europe, and similar noises coming from Wales and Northern Ireland, we in England may not be able to claim that title any more. That must mark the end. From imperial Britain to Little England. Iceland 2, England 1.

I’ve replaced Saturday’s ‘Fuck, What have we done?’ post with a longer and better one. There’s also a shorter version, with a more polite heading, on the LRB Blog (http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/06/27/bernard-porter/historic-failure/).

The other thing I feared (https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/corbyns-fault/) is now happening. Corbyn is being blamed for not getting out the Labour vote. With his shadow cabinet resigning in shoals, it really doesn’t look as though he can last long. I’m deeply saddened by this. Corbyn is the only Labour leader for years that I’ve felt I could identify with. It may be partly that he looks a bit like me – old, grey-bearded, sloppily dressed – but it’s mainly because of his political principles, most of which (not all) I share, and his transparent honesty, which may not be as rare as we think among politicians but probably is among those who reach the top. I’ve also admired his ‘performances’ at Prime Minister’s Question Time in the Commons. I like his ‘new style’ of political leadership: less of the Führerprinzip that Thatcher brought in. And I thought his many speeches on behalf of the ‘Remain’ campaign were excellent: more measured, rational, honest and therefore persuasive than most Tory Brexiters’ and Remainers’; though it was difficult sometimes to find them, with the media largely ignoring him. This was a great part of his problem. People got the impression he wasn’t pulling his weight, but only because the BBC, ITV and even the ‘quality’ press hardly gave him any coverage. When they did, it was only to sneer – even the Guardian. Corbyn represents ‘rational man’; who was nowhere near as newsworthy as Boris the clown and Nigel the idiot, and as the soap opera melodramatics on the ‘Blue’ side of politics. As Tony Blair learned to his political advantage, but to our existential peril, it’s the press barons that run this country. Jeremy didn’t stand a chance.

I shall always bear a grudge against the media for this, and against those Labour MPs who are presently seeking to bring him down. For the moment, however, we need to deal with realities, one of which is this media bias, until we achieve power, and can do something about it. For my part, I wasn’t at all impressed with any of the other candidates in the last Labour leadership election, but have been since then with Hilary Benn. It’s his sacking by Corbyn, of course, following his telling the latter that he no longer had confidence in him, that has triggered today’s shadow cabinet revolt. I disagree with him on some issues, including that one; but on the other hand his speeches are both rational and impressive oratorically, he has ministerial experience, and he must have some of his father’s DNA still lurking there. (That doesn’t always follow. Look at the deplorable Kinnock fils.) He would go down well on all parts of the Labour benches, and hopefully among ordinary Labour members too. I understand that he has expressed no interest in leading the party, but if so I hope he can be persuaded otherwise. He’s the only one that would stay the hand holding my letter of resignation from the party, when Jeremy is sacrificed to the Gods of (what used to be) Fleet Street and Broadcasting House.

PS. Or Yvette Cooper.