Labour leaders have an easier life, with one spectacular exception. In electoral terms, Tony Blair was easily the most successful leader his party has ever had. Yet they never warmed to him. There is indeed an analogy with the EU. In each case, there was transplant surgery. A large new organ was implanted in an old body politic. In both cases, there was an assumption that everything would settle down, and that the dosage of immuno-suppressant drugs could be steadily reduced. In neither case did that happen. The rejection mechanism was never overcome.

Today, Keir Starmer is trying to resurrect Blairism, even to the extent of trying to steal the patriotic card from the Tories. It appears that patriotism is the last refuge of a Labour Leader who does not have an economic policy.

Now Rishi Sunak is trying to break the cycle of victimhood and assassination. He is beset on all sides by the charge that he is not a proper Tory. What would his critics prefer? Perhaps the moral depth of Boris Johnson, the Kissingerian geopolitical sweep of Richard Tice or the intellect of Liz Truss? 

So why are we in a position that a serious grown-up Prime Minister is assailed by a mountebank coalition? There are two explanations. For one, Sunak is to blame; for the other, the fault lies with a large section of his party. 

Rishi Sunak is to blame for not telling us who he is: what he believes, what are the roots of his Britishness, why he is delighted that his family moved to this wonderful country. I suspect that he is waiting for calmer waters, so that he could make a major speech without being harassed by events. If so, that could be a long wait. Once the local elections are over, when every political journalist will be phoning Tory MPs to ask whether they have sent in their letters – and why have we not heard recently from Nadine Dorries? – Rishi Sunak should seize the moment.

His Whips might remind wavering colleagues that empty vessels make the most noise, and that loyalty was said to be the Tory party’s secret weapon. Too damned secret, in recent times. But the PM needs to let the trumpet sound and the rallying call echo. If that happened, he could only hope that enough of his “supporters” were prepared to listen: to remember what Toryism is, and is not. In the first place, both at home and abroad, Toryism is a creed based on tough-minded realism. That was never truer than of Margaret Thatcher. Anyone who thinks that Liz Truss could have been a second Margaret Thatcher should read the Lady’s own memoirs, and Charles Moore’s magnificent biography. Certainly, Thatcher sometimes allowed inspiring words to outrun caution, and she would never have admitted that politics was the art of the possible. But that was what she practised. In the battles she fought, she was much more Quintus Fabius Maximus – or indeed Bernard Law Montgomery – than George S Patton.

Matters were different after she was driven from office. In retirement, she was condemned to produce much more adrenalin than she could consume and the fine balance of judgment which she always displayed when in power began to desert her. But to understand Thatcherism, look at what she actually did. It was indeed an inspiringly radical record but her manifold successes were only possible because of her firm grasp of reality.

To put it mildly, that was not a principal theme of the Truss Premiership. The late Queen tried to give Her final Premier good advice: “pace yourself”. Truss was incapable of understanding it, let alone following it. Whether she thought she was helping to load up Santa’s reindeers or auditioning for Mary Poppins, there is a simple question. How did she ever reach No.10? Deep state, shallow woman.

In order to give himself the best – the only – task of winning, Rishi Sunak has to perform a minor rhetorical miracle. He must simultaneously persuade the British public that good times are ahead, but that we are living in a dangerous world. The latter is an obvious truth. The West has never seemed weaker and its enemies, never more emboldened. It is as if we were losing the battle for the Enlightenment. The loss of self-confidence among so many western elites is bewildering. Imperfect though it may be, people who ought to know better seem incapable of defending our civilisation – our values, our culture, sometimes even our belief in scientific truth.

This is where the current government could help. Sir Keir will try his best to distance himself from the woke-warriors, but what does he actually believe? Although he will say anything to win, even sensible things, why should we trust him? If the Tories campaigned on commonsense, diplomatic leadership and economic hope – they would be saying what they really believed. That might communicate itself to the electorate. Rishi Sunak and David Cameron are the most formidable leadership combination anywhere. It should not be impossible to persuade the voters, albeit reluctantly, to accept that.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

Before Iran’s attack on Israel over the weekend, there had been scepticism as to the regime’s intentions. Up to now, the Iranians had been restrained. There were suggestions that cautious counsels were prevailing in Tehran. If so, the Israeli attack on Iranian personnel in Damascus may have altered the calculations. But the immediate impact of recent events should enhance the reputation of Israel’s anti-missile defence capability. If only the Ukrainians could deploy Iron Dome. Equally, the successes against Iranian weaponry might ease the pressure on Netanyahu to respond with massive retaliation. Might – or perhaps not. A different outcome would certainly have made a general Middle Eastern conflagration more likely. Now? “Wait and see” sounds awfully wet, but that is where we are.

Niall Ferguson, a historian who has thought as deeply as anyone about the causes of war, reckons that we are only three or four geopolitical missteps away from a Third World War. Although one sees his point, it could be argued that he is being too alarmist. In the run-up to the First World War, there was certainly a lot of dry tinder around, almost as if awaiting a carelessly dropped match. Equally, the most recent European wars between major powers had been Bismarck’s three surgical-strike campaigns against Denmark, Austria and France. Limited objectives, limited time-scale, clear-cut result – and no risk that Europe would be left shattered: no guide, alas, to 1914. If the leaders running Europe in the summer of 1914 had known what the continent would look like two years later – let alone four years later – they might have stopped to pause.

So what is the tinder count now? First, what if the Ukrainian war ends favourably for Russia? Would Putin immediately look around for some low-hanging fruit, perhaps in the Baltics? Or would he turn his propaganda machine into declaring that Russia has won a great triumph: a second defeat of a fascist onslaught on the Russian homeland, and that, although more enemies were still there to be defeated, there was no immediate need for action.

There is another crucial question. How would the Russian populace react? Much Russian history has been a time of troubles. Mongols, Napoleon, Nazis, Stalin’s terrorists. There has often been someone hammering on the gates of Moscow. Body bags were part of the price everyone paid for being Russian. But for a few years, life improved. There was a currency which could be used to buy proper goods, not just watery cabbage and black bread, plus moves towards political freedom.

Now: freedom gone, hundreds of thousands of casualties, conscription – and economic conscription too. Will the average Russian just shrug his shoulders and declare that t’was ever thus? Or will the protest movement grow? God, those demonstrators are brave. Can they prevail? It is to be hoped that those in charge of the deep state will take time off from frustrating Liz Truss and work out what is happening in Moscow.

It is also to be hoped that those in charge of such matters have been stressing to the NATO states that it is time to gird up their loins. I remember a conference about forty years ago at which that ideological heroine Midge Decter asked the Europeans in the audience whether they wanted the Americans to stay. Being conservatives and other sensible persons. We of course said “yes”. “Well, you’re going to have to ask us real nice.” Most Europeans never did, and yet here the Yanks still are, at least until a Trump second term.

There is surely something infuriating about the way a lot of the European politicaI elite sneers and sniggers at the Americans, patronises them for their vulgarity – and then depends on them for defence. It is almost enough to lead one to support Trump.

As for war, the European mainland is tense, unstable and mostly ill-led. The dangers of a nuclear confrontation are real. But apropos reality, so is mutually assured destruction. Even if it is impossible to predict the outcome in Ukraine, all-out war seems unlikely. We are not back in 1914.

Equally, the Chinese must have been given pause for thought by events in Ukraine. Taiwan is mountainous – a bad country for tank warfare, much better for determined defenders. There are few ports suitable for amphibious landings, and there is a lot of sea to cross. If I were a Taiwanese strategist, I would be urging the leadership to acquire Iron Dome. Perhaps they already have.

So with the greatest of respect to Niall Ferguson – whose books are also very well written – we may still be a bit away from Armageddon, at least in Europe and the South China Sea. That said, this may not apply to Armageddon itself – Megiddo – which is in Israel. The next few days are going to be tense. Then again, what is new about that? “Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.” How can they ever be dampened down?

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

After the atrocities on October 7, the Israelis were justified in feeling rage and seeking revenge. For a brief period, the country was more united than it had ever been under Benjamin Netanyahu. Reservists who had announced, in a protest against Netanyahu’s judicial reforms, that they would not serve, dusted down uniforms and rushed to their depots. Moving stuff – but revenge is not enough and rage can often be a bad counsellor.

In the immediate aftermath of October 7, there was one immediate need: hard thought. How should Israel respond? How could it ensure that Hamas would suffer losses of men and materiel on a scale that would prevent it from mounting a similar operation in the foreseeable future?

As part of this process, there were three other areas in which hard thinking was vital. The first was the fate of the hostages. The thought of their sufferings chills the blood. But there is a difficulty. With Hamas, we are dealing with a brutal foe, which hates the West and despises our values. While we extol our way of life – which could be summarised as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – they only see hypocrisy and decadence. Sophisticated Islamic fundamentalists – and they do exist – would argue that If you value life as much as we do, you are in danger of becoming too soft to protect the lives you wish to defend. Thus it is with hostages. In that horrible Clintonised insincerity, we can feel their pain, but we cannot make them an overriding priority. If we did that, we would only encourage the taking of further hostages. In effect, a whole country would be in danger of being held hostage. 

The second area for tough-mindedness is proportionality. Two million people live in the Gaza Strip. It would be absurd to pretend that Israel could strike at Hamas without inflicting collateral damage, that bureaucratic euphemism which, inter alia, covers the deaths of women, children and aid workers. But every reasonable step should have been taken to minimise that damage. Nor is this a mere moral imperative. One Israeli war aim ought to have been to drive a wedge between Hamas and the rest of the Palestinians in Gaza, for obvious reasons. Instead, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced, have heard gunfire, have witnessed bombing and destruction and, in many cases, have witnessed killing and wounding, and heard of the death of friends and relations. For weeks, much of the population of Gaza has lived with hunger, privations of all kind, humiliation – and fear.

This is hardly likely to promote sweetness and light. But what effect will it have on the Palestinian attitudes? Some, no doubt, will want peace at any price. Forget life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They would settle for life, with enough to eat and no more bombing. Yet that is unlikely to be a majority view. If Israelis felt rage and sought revenge, so, one suspects, will many young Gaza-ites, and also Palestinians on the West Bank. The danger is that for every dead Hamas fighter, the organisation will find at least ten new recruits.

The Israelis ought to have tried to mitigate this by trying to turn their campaign into a surgical strike. There seems to have been little attempt to do this. That failure brings us to the third area, where clear thinking was vital. Hamas were obviously hoping to sabotage Israeli-Arab diplomacy, especially the Abraham Accords. The Hamas leadership almost certainly hoped that the Israelis would overreact in Gaza. If so, they will not have been disappointed.

So what happens next? As the Israelis are now moving troops out of Southern Gaza, it seems likely that the planned assault on Rafah has now been cancelled, or at least postponed sine die. That is just as well. The consequences of a meat-grinder invasion of Rafah would have included a virtually terminal breach between Israel and world opinion. Plenty of Netanyahu supporters might retort that they would not care, especially if the denunciations were coming from European countries steeped in anti-Semitism. But, as small children are taught, don’t care was made to care. Israel needs allies.

That brings us to the question of arms supplies. It is too good a phrase to write off as a cliche, especially as it refers to camels, appropriate for the Middle East. The killing of the seven aid workers really was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Palestinians will point to the lack of proportion. Over thirty thousand people are killed in Gaza and everyone is upset, six western aid workers perish and the world erupts. 

That may not be an entirely rational response but it is understandable. People have been growing more and more unhappy. In Britain, the deaths of those three excellent men had a dramatic impact. They were exactly the sort of chaps who make one proud to be British. Mourning naturally grew into anger.

But we too need to be careful. The aim should not be to feel good, by cancelling arms shipments and thinking what splendid moralists we are to have taken such a bold step. Instead, we ought to work out what might do some good. It is not clear that arms sales would have any effect. Unlike the US and Germany, Britain is not a big player when it comes to weapons supply to Israel.

In the short run, there are two desiderata. The first is a determined effort to revive the Abraham Accords. The second is the removal of Benjamin Netanyahu. He has forfeited the confidence of most of Israel’s friends abroad, and many of the best Israelis at home. Perhaps his fellow charismatic narcissist Boris Johnson would still back him. The two men deserve one another.

Yet there is a third goal, vastly more important than Israeli Prime Ministers or British weaponry. The only long-term answer is a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. How could this be achieved? I have no idea. It might seem self-indulgent to wish for the impossible, but in the longer run – which may not be that long – there is no other way of promoting peace and averting tragedy. We must find a way of turning the impossible into a possibility. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

Music, painting, sculpture, architecture, the scriptures: Christ’s Passion has inspired the highest outpourings of the human mind and spirit. Yet many believers, fully appreciative of great art, would insist that faith transcends aesthetics. I admire, respect and to an extent envy such faith. But I cannot share it. I cannot believe, and I would find a simple refutation after any concert or service, on a starlit night. The stars, stretching towards infinity, make it impossible to believe in a God who created humanity and made it His central preoccupation.

The greatest atheist of the twentieth century, Mr Prendergast in Decline and Fall, lost his faith because he could not understand why God had bothered to make the world. How much harder is it to understand why He created all the galaxies in endless space. For Christians, medieval cosmology made sense. So did the belief that the world was created in 4004 BC, by Archbishop Ussher‘s calculation. But once the cosmology was refuted, and with it, later on, the chronology, the Sea of Faith was bound to retreat. When the universe is so vast, how could anyone believe that we are at its centre?

I may find faith impossible. This does not mean that I find unbelief easy. Christianity offers meaning. And relief from the two awesome questions. If God exists, then in some respect the universe will make sense, and with it human life. But if there is no God, we are condemned to console ourselves with religious fantasies on a small planet, cast adrift amidst infinity, a concept which is almost impossible to grasp. If there is no God, then we are mere sentient animals, condemned to perish like all the other animals. Oh Death, where is thy sting? Waiting for us all, just round the corner. Christianity often inspires humans to rise above themselves, but time, that ever-rolling stream, can only be defied for a season. 

I do not enjoy these conclusions, especially as a Tory. Even if I cannot believe, I would hope that as many people as possible should do so. Religion can be an effective social cement. England would be better off if the Church of England was still the Tory party at prayer. So would the Tory party, and so certainly would the C of E. That said, two of the finest Tory intellects, David Hume and Michael Oakeshott, were both atheists, which was also almost certainly true of Thomas Hobbes, a more or less Tory. But all three were quietist by temperament. Stoicism and eupeptic pessimism came easily to them. Most humans are restless beings, who would benefit from the curb and discipline of faith. 

There is an obvious counter to that. What about the many wars of religion? There is an equally obvious rejoinder. Christianity offers a way, a truth, a life. But it does not promise to make men good. Original sin is still the best summary of the human condition. Christ may be risen: man has fallen. Christianity does the best it can with imperfect material. There is plenty of evidence for the proposition that if a man does not believe in God, he will believe in something worse.

So I envy my Christian friends with their more or less certainties: their stronger or weaker faith. Moreover, there is one point that they can make in their favour. During that first Easter in Jerusalem, something occurred. Christ arrived, with followers. He had assured them that His kingdom was not of this world. We can assume that a fair number did not believe Him. He knew that His route lay from Gethsemane to Calvary to Golgotha and only then to Glory. Many of his followers believed that He would chase out the Romans, deal with Herod, the Chief Priest and the other vichyites, freeing His nation and His people. Instead, He endured the Passion. In face of horror and death, how many followers despaired of their faith? It seems unlikely that Peter was the only denier: John, the only fugitive.

The Romans had scourged Him. mocked Him and killed HIm. On the morning afterwards, Pilate might well have thought that he would have no more trouble from that fellow and the scattered and demoralised rabble who now knew how Romans dealt with troublemakers. But a few hours later, a great religion was born. From a Stable in Bethlehem to a Cross in Jerusalem, something happened and is still happening. World without end? Christ is Risen, now and for ever? Even writing this has moved me from atheism to agnosticism. I suspect that I will continue to envy the faith which I cannot share.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

One supposes that the M25 did have to close for repairs at the weekend, and at least it was not a matter of “just stop oil” glueing themselves to the tarmac (that will no doubt be next weekend). But the whole business does reinforce the impression that in Britain, nothing works.

We should also feel sympathy for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, as decent a man as anyone in public life. Yet I have a grave announcement to make. There is an aspect to the PM’s character which has not hitherto been revealed, but which explains everything. After spilling the salt – and not throwing some over his shoulder – Mr Sunak will kick a black cat before walking under a ladder: all this on Friday the 13th. 

How else to account for his ill fortune? For once, I will swerve the obvious Yeats lines, but what about a bit of Shakespeare, which I hope is not too hackneyed: “When sorrows come, they come not single spies but in battalions.” Or perhaps it is time for the depths of gloom. Poor old Hopkins, truly a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief: “No worst, there is none.”  

Mind you, if Rishi Sunak were tempted to quote that, some of his own backbenchers might well reply: “No worst – Oh yes there is, and we are plotting it.” There have been learned attempts to anatomise the various supposed factions on the Tory benches. I find them all unconvincing: the position is much more fluid. But there are two factions, both drawn from Dad’s Army: we’re a’ doomed and don’t panic (Corporal Jones may have known how to deal with the Fuzzy-wussies, but not to bring calm to panickers). There is also a third group, which embraces the Dad’s Army crowd, and which persists in disregarding advice which David Steel gave to his fellow Liberals in the mid-Eighties: do not approach every problem with an open mouth. Yet there is also a large group, still the largest of them all, which has not despaired of the virtues of loyalty and which could be persuaded to show followership if Downing Street provided leadership.

Obviously, a large number of Tories have come to believe that the best to hope for now is damage limitation. But a surprising number still argue that six months really is a long time in politics and that without sounding too Micawberite, something could still turn up – especially the economy. Tory factionalism must not get in the way. Nick Macpherson sometime Head of the Treasury, thinks that good indicators lie ahead. Without claiming anything resembling His Lordship’s expertise, I think he might be right and that a most important indicator, albeit unquantifiable, is pointing in the right direction: animal spirits. That could of course go wrong, given how precarious the international situation remains, but it just might be that a corner has been turned.

As for the Tories’ version of animal spirits, there is a simple point. Even if you assume that damage limitation is the best outcome, you may as well try for victory. After all, a spirited campaign could make the difference between two hundred and eighty seats and one hundred and eighty. The most Eeyore-ish faction among the pessimists should surely see the point of building the largest possible platform for recovery. 

At the risk of repetition, there are three routes to such a campaign. The first is recent history. Keep reminding people why we are in such difficulties. Putin and especially Covid were monumental challenges and this government did not falter. The second is progress. Tough decisions were taken and as a result foundations have been laid. Recovery is in sight. Finally, in many parts of the country, there has already been a recovery. The continuing growth of the service sector, the equally strong growth among SMEs, the steady increase in the number of new promising high-tech companies: the next phase in the UK’s economic development is already underway.

In recent weeks, the media has paid more attention to a previous phase: coal-mining and forty years on from the miners’ strike. A lot of Lefties cannot conceal their nostalgic regrets: if only Arthur had won and Maggie had lost. It would be interesting to ask Angela Rayner what she thinks about that. Her proposals on industrial relations would repeal some Thatcherite reforms and make life easier for any future Arthur Scargill. It is surprising that the Tories have not done more to publicise Rayner’s plans. There is still plenty of time to ask the voters the question which will arise: “Do you think that this country needs more strikes?”  Apropos of Mr Scargill, there is an ironic aspect to his defeat. It means that today’s eco-crazies do not have to chant “Just stop coal.”

Returning to Rishi Sunak, he has shown one genuinely unexpected side to his character. He enjoys campaigning and is good at it. So he should get stuck in, focussing on the vital task. He has to make this country – his country – feel good about itself. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

A resplendent and gracious Princess. A wonderful wife and mother: a paladin of courage in adversity. We are so fortunate to have her. God Bless the Princess of Wales. There will be some carping, whining misery-gutted malcontents who cannot bear the Royal Family and its deep roots in public respect and affection. But the silent majority are rallying round, at home and abroad. Over the weekend, I ran into some Europeans. They were effusive on the subject: how lucky you Brits are to have your Monarchy. In reply, there was nothing to say – except profound, heartfelt agreement. God Bless them all.

This is, of course, far deeper than party politics. But one cannot help concluding that the UK is, au fond, a conservative country. Apropos Divine blessings – and national conservatism – what imbecile felt that it would be a good wheeze to tamper with the Cross of St George? Cry God for Harry, England and St George. Apologies to the other nations in the United Kingdom, but we – I speak as a Scot – have our own flags and banners, plus a full share in the Union Jack. That said, we could envy the English. Their flag is at least as beautiful as any in the world. So let the English enjoy that war banner, especially when they are playing the French.

There is a further point. In the 1966 football World Cup, the English went into battle under the Union Jack. In those days, I suspect that if anyone had asked a fan why they were not flaunting the Cross of St George, the answer would have been: “What’s that?”

So how did St George’s emblem move from the Church steeple to the white-van man’s bonnet? Was it in part a reaction to Scottish nationalism? Whatever the explanation, it appears to have been a genuine expression of popular culture, as opposed to some sociologist’s fantasy about the working class as a vanguard of socialist change. Needless to say, no sociologist ever appears to have taken any interest in the topic. No doubt the blatherskite who decided to tamper with this ancient and glorious symbol was sociologist-trained and thus too cloth-eared to expect the reaction that it would arouse. I trust that they have now learned some practical sociology.

Again, this goes beyond party politics. Keir Starmer found himself agreeing with Rishi Sunak. But one could conclude that the public reaction is one of small-c conservatism. The Conservative party needs to ponder all that, for it has not yet found a way of expressing its cultural allegiances and its disdain for wokery. Many Conservatives are reluctant to take the lead for fear that they would be accused of racism, sexism, disrespect for Diane Abbott, membership of the Garrick Club or some other unforgivable social atrocity.

There is also the hope that all this nonsense will surely pass, like the midsummer night’s dream, and that the realm of common sense will reassert itself. There have been some successes, such as the closure of the Tavistock Clinic, famous for destabilising adolescents who may start out with sexual anxiety – then the trick-cyclists get to work and real trouble follows. Equally, Justin Welby has drawn a line and announced that it is not a good idea for the Church to employ those charged with deconstructing white maleness. We can only hope that they are not redeployed into deconstructing Christianity – or perhaps all those posts have already been filled.

Even so, despite occasional exceptions, commonsense is on the defensive. In universities, museums, art galleries and ordinary workplaces, livelihoods are under threat, humorous exchanges that would have been commonplace even ten years ago are virtually prohibited, while the diversity Stasi run amok. Nobody wants this, except for HR types who could not get any other job. The dry tinder of revolt is waiting for the right leadership to light the flame. Rishi Sunak himself should take the lead with Kemi Badenoch as the obvious lieutenant. It could be one of the easier political battles to win.

It would also reinforce the principal economic front. Between now and the election, Keir Starmer will be claiming that Britain is broken: beset by economic woes, crumbling public services, inequalities et al. Asked what he proposes to do about these crises, there is no onrush of eloquence. In Jonathan Miller’s TV production of Alice in Wonderland, the Frog  Footman tells Alice: “I can do nothing for you. I cannot do nothing just at the moment, but I hope to do nothing as soon as possible.” Keir Starmer clearly thinks that he can emulate the Frog Footman: promise nothing, and rely on the mile-wide gap.

The PM has to counter this by asserting that Britain is not broken. There certainly have been problems but unlike Labour he is coming up with solutions. The corner is turning and we will cure other ailments by cancelling wokery. 

It may not be an easy battle to win. But it should not be an impossible offensive to launch.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

On anger, I suspect that one factor here is social media. These outlets deal largely in unhappiness, rage and insecurity. Judging by all previous ages, most people living in the advanced West lead safer lives than ever before while enjoying living standards that our forbears would have regarded as beyond the dreams of envy. But to those who choose to spend far too much of their lives in thrall to the internet, it does not feel that way. Instead of relaxing amidst the tranquil satisfactions of domestic life, the consumers of social media are made to feel as if they were under siege. 

For this, they blame the government, and not just the one which is currently in power, but government in general. The social contract is of course a historical fiction, but the idea of a social contract underlies any civilised society. Men make a Hobbesian bargain, forswearing the freedoms of barbarism in exchange for an ordered existence. This means, of course, that the rulers give the orders. Not all rulers have been benign. Throughout the twentieth century, for countless millions of people who deserved better, life was a cry of pain. Under an evil Leviathan, there was no escape from a life that could well be poor, nasty, brutish and short. From 1914, much of the world was enduring a second fall of man and that era only ended with the Cold War. Or rather, seemed to end.

Even so, and especially in the US, Britain and the most fortunate former colonies, prosperity and freedom under the rule of law were widely accessible. By 1990, there seemed every reason to suppose that political consumer satisfaction would spread. Far from it, and social media is only part of the explanation. Dissatisfaction is now endemic. In a social contract state, and especially in one where the rulers are elected, it might be assumed that even in bouts of grumbling, the voters would concede that those in power were wiser than the average citizen. How many people think that now about what proportion of those in office?

This could lead to unrest. If the governed cease to respect the lawmakers, why should they continue to obey the laws? Thrown back on that question, the Hobbesian would have a ready answer: fear. But in a modern society, we expect – indeed, we increasingly demand – more than that. We require those in authority to display what one might term patriotic competence which will enable them to think through the complex problems of governance and defend the public interest. Instead, partly inflamed by social media and partly by what they see around them, a large proportion of the populace has concluded that nothing works and that most politicians would not recognise an important priority if they came across it during a lockdown karaoke party in the Downing Street garden.

The loss of public trust will not easily be recovered. Democracy itself may not be under threat but a stable society depends on acquiescence in the rule of law and respect for well-rooted institutions. Despite the Lefties’ ill-concealed chagrin, that respect still applies to the Monarchy – but to little else. Many of His Majesty’s subjects are vexed and troubled. Whoever is in power, they will not be easy to govern.

This is not only a British problem. Who would have believed it, but on the European mainland, much the most successful leader is Signora Meloni, the former neo-fascist now evolving into a sensible conservative. As for America, it is more bitterly divided than at any point since the Civil War. Indeed, I have come across a fair few thoughtful Americans who fear that we might be headed for a second civil war. Surely not, but E Pluribus Unum? That seems a more and more distant aspiration. It is not going to come any closer because of Trump versus Biden – and what about Katie Britt? Is that really the best that the Republicans could come up with? Presumably she was supposed to be a contrast with Stumblin’ Joe. Well, she easily out-stumbled him. There is only one point in her favour. She is not senile, and unlikely to become so. To decline into senility, there has to be something to lose. in her case, it has gone already, or was never there.

Meanwhile, the West’s enemies look on and should find few reasons for discouragement. There is no sign of a will to power, and only a limited sign of a will to self-defence.

We need leadership, to inspire followership, to remind our public what great countries they inhabit – and to hope for the best. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

What does all this mean? The Tories can take comfort from volatility and further evidence that even if the voters are mightily brassed off, they have not signed up to Keir Starmer. Sir Keir could reply that, if a lot of voters feel let down, they are bound to heap most of the blame on the government. It may be a long way from visions or brave new dawns, but there might be electoral potency in: “May as well give the other lot a go. They couldn’t do worse than this.” Labour’s lead in the opinion polls suggests that this may indeed be working.

Could Rishi Sunak persuade them otherwise? If so, he ought to begin – by trying. Bazball may not seem as potent a cricketing strategy as it did a few weeks ago. After the excitement and the tsunami of boundaries, the Geoffrey Boycott school has got its breath back and is now denouncing the follies of impetuous youth. But on the political wicket, Rishball is still worth an outing. 

There is one point in the PM’s favour. People still do not know who he is. So out of curiosity, he is able to command a hearing, in a way that John Major was unable to do in 1995/96. Moreover, decent but wooden Sir Stumbler is no Tony Blair. The criticism of the current PM – and one hears it from a fair few Tories – is that although he may be a very able fellow, he is more at home with spreadsheets than with human beings.

It is of course an asset that few doubt his personal competence, but there has to be an extra dimension. Yet there is. We saw it on Friday outside Number 10. This is a man who cares about Britain, who values the opportunities it has given him and his family; who loves this country, and who is in public life to put something back. It should not be hard for him to make those points, because he believes them. They come from the head, but also from the heart. He simply needs to put his heart into it.

There is an obvious retort. What about Keir Starmer? Is he so very different? But there is a difference. Sir Keir finds it hard to say the words. After Labour’s heavy defeat at the Hartlepool by-election in 2021. When Keir Starmer considered standing down, Andrew Adonis gave his verdict on his leader: “[A] transitional figure – a nice man and a good human rights lawyer, but without political skills or antennae at the highest level.” Today, that assessment might raise a chuckle in the Starmer circle, but there is a simple explanation for this: Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. They have made him look good and may indeed have opened the way to Downing Street.

Yet the language is still uninspired, and there may be a reason. Tom Baldwin’s very recent biography of Sir Keir, though readable, raises more questions than it answers. After nearly 400 pages, we still do not know what the man believes. Though there are grounds for speculation: one suspects that he is much more of a socialist than he would find it safe to admit and that he is partly motivated by a social chip. He and Rachel Reeves have been working hard to woo the City, but one also suspects that she enjoys this more than he does. Anyone who feels it necessary to suppress many of his beliefs will find it hard to be eloquent.

When Rishi Sunak is roused, eloquence comes naturally to him and there is no need to suppress his beliefs. He ought to start by winning a few intellectual arguments, including with some of his own supporters, especially the Santa Claus tendency. These are characters who call for tax cuts now, irrespective of the fiscal position. The implication is that if Margaret Thatcher were prime minister, that is what she would do.

In the words of the late, great Bernard Ingham, that is bunkum and balderdash. She would never have countenanced unfunded tax cuts. Indeed, back in 1981 when we were in a fiscal crisis, and when taxes were increased by means of fiscal drag and failing to raise allowances, she wondered whether that would be enough and came close to raising tax rates. Fortunately, there will be none of that on Wednesday. Jeremy Hunt will be able to announce some judicious tax cuts. He should also explain why we are in difficulty. We had no sooner dealt with the mess inherited from Gordon Brown then along came Covid and Putin. This was the gravest crisis in peacetime history. It is hard to expect the public to applaud, but Hunt can try to persuade them that the government has neither flinched in the face of adversity nor agonised over the opinion polls. It merely did its duty.

There will be other criticisms, from the opposite political benches. How could the Chancellor even consider cutting taxes, Labour will say,  when every public service in this country is on the point of collapse? it is time to answer that, in a way that successive Tory administrations have consistently failed to do. Gentle reader, try an experiment on your acquaintances. Ask them how much the Government spends every year. Few of them will get it right. The true figure is over one trillion pounds a year, about £17,000 for every man woman or child in the country. You will find that disbelief is rapidly followed by outrage. With all that spending, why does so much go wrong? That is a fair criticism and Hunt is quick to acknowledge that there is far too much waste in the public sector.

This does not mean, as the Santa Claus-ites would have us believe, that spending cuts would immediately be used to pay for tax cuts. First, it takes time to identify waste. It is not as if there is a pot of gold under every civil servant’s desk. Waste should be dealt with, partly because it would encourage greater efficiency. More should also be done to restrict benefits to those who deserve them. But does anyone believe that we should spend less money on defence, education, health or the police? There are no easy answers.

Hunt should be able to defend his record. Equally, though the sunlit uplands are still some way off, there are distant vistas through the clouds. He will begin on the uphill task of convincing the voters that Labour cannot be trusted on the economy and that it should not be enough for his opponents to proclaim what they would not do. They could legitimately be accused of franchising their policy-making efforts to the focus groups. That is not sufficient for the government. 

Keir Starmer will also have to deal with one problem that his focus groups cannot solve. George Galloway was put on earth to make trouble. He has one asset which those who abhor him cannot fail to acknowledge. He is a powerful speaker – indeed an orator – at least as good as anyone else in the Commons. He will appeal to Labour’s id tendency: those who accept that they have to play down leftism, but sometimes hate themselves for doing so. The Starmerite superego will find it hard to crush every outbreak of Galloway-incited mayhem – while Sunak could afford to lessen restraints on the pleasure principle. He may now have learned how to fight.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

Then we had the Parliamentary degringolade. Not one person in 10,000 understands what actually happened and why. I doubt if one single person believes that the Commons emerged with credit. In the midst of serious events, the whole affair appeared as a childish squabble.

Not only has the Speaker been blamed, he clearly believes that he made an error of judgment and bitterly regrets doing so. But this should not lead to his resignation. Lindsay Hoyle is a good man. In the first place, he restored the dignity of the Office after two unsatisfactory Speakers. Although Michael Martin is a decent fellow, he was simply not bright enough to be Speaker. There was also the suspicion that he had not outgrown partisanship. 

As for Speaker Bercow, “unsatisfactory” is a gross understatement. His manifold failings do not include stupidity. They do include a complete lack of self-knowledge and an equally complete disrespect for the Speakership. It was as if, every time he entered the Chamber, he tried to work out a new way of demeaning it. In earlier times, there must have been Speakers who were as bad. If so, they will have passed out of the memory of men and obscurity now shelters them from ignominy. Those who observed him will remember Bercow.

From the first time that he processed into the Chamber, Speaker Hoyle brought back decency and dignity. Popular and respected, he reveres the House and is an old-fashioned Labour patriot, almost an extinct species, but not quite. (It is only unfortunate that he will not wear the wig.) Nor has there ever been a suggestion of partisanship – until now. The allegation has been made that the Speaker helped the Leader of the Opposition out of a hole.

At the risk of sounding naive, I do not believe it. Speaker Hoyle would not have acted like that and Keir Starmer would have known better than to ask him. There is another explanation. Lindsay Hoyle displayed the defects of his qualities. He was warned that Labour MPs who defied Muslim extremists might be in danger. A pacific soul, he could not bear the thought of grief-stricken widows and orphans. For what it is worth, I believe that he was wrong. We should not allow terrorist threats to amend Parliamentary procedure.

Since 1979, six MPs and one Peer have been murdered, alongside one MP’s wife. Airey Neave, Robert Bradford, Anthony Berry, Ian Gow, Jo Cox, David Amess, Lord Mountbatten, Roberta Wakeham. That is a roll of honour proclaiming part of the price of democracy. In the world we live in, they are unlikely to be the last names on the list. Although every reasonable security precaution should be taken, some risks must also be taken. Among other roles, the Palace of Westminster is part of the nation’s backbone. Its Parliamentarians should feel privileged to contribute to spinal fortitude.

Compassion moved Hoyle to make what some of us would regard as the wrong choice. That seems to be eminently forgivable. Moreover, no doubt inadvertently, he made the SNP look principled. It would be unfortunate if that were to slow their path on the route to decline yet if the Speaker were forced out, the Nats would claim the credit. That ought to be unthinkable. 

Apropos misjudgments, we come to Lee Anderson (No relation). Anderson is not a typical Tory spokesman, When he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Party, it was made clear that he would bring a fresh tone of voice. He could never be accused of sounding like a Wykehamist scholar. He was expected – indeed encouraged – to be a bit rough and ready.

So did he go too far? I would argue that it was the Whips who went too far by suspending him. After all, he is no longer a Party spokesman. Lee Anderson may have been guilty of clumsiness, but the words do not bear out the charge of racism or Islamophobia – merely of Sadiq-Khan-ophobia, a justified response.

Senior Party spokesmen, including the PM, should have contented themselves with saying that Lee will speak for himself, but that he surely did not intend to express racist or Islamophobic sentiments. Equally, in these troubled times, it behoves us all to weigh our words carefully. If that had happened, Labour’s best efforts would not have been enough to efface the controversies of the up-coming Rochdale by-election.

So, a bad week at home, and internationally, there could be worse to come. Things are not going well either in Ukraine or in Gaza. The Israelis have done more damage to Gaza than they have to Hamas. 

From the perspective of British politics, there is a vacuum. Most voters are fed up with snafu and want leadership. They know that a lot has gone wrong and they want to know who is going to put it right. As a result, there is a great deal of volatility. I still believe that Rishi Sunak has the qualities and could be the pilot that weathered the storm. But he has to get on with it.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

Equally, as Tories are quick to point out, this was much more than just a crossing of the floor from their party to Labour. You could argue that the real winner was – in Laura Kuessenberg’s term – the “sofa vote”. A lot of people just couldn’t be bothered. Even so, it is impossible to disagree with John Curtice’s conclusion. The Tories have an electoral mountain to climb. 

There is a simple reason for this. Vast numbers of people are fed up. They will run through a long shopping list of complaints, often finishing with “and another thing.”

One might define them as the “and another thing” vote.

Some of this is unfair. Between them, Covid and Putin cost the country at least £600 billion. That had inevitable consequences: inflation and increased taxes. But there has been a virulent outbreak of 20:20 hindsight. These days, it is hard to find anyone who admits that they were wholly in favour of lockdown. That is not what it felt like at the time. According to the polls, the British public seemed to have a dismaying enthusiasm for lockdown and tighter controls. Keir Starmer followed the polls, as he usually does. 

Moreover, in the early days of the epidemic, when Boris nearly died, there was barely suppressed panic in much of Whitehall and Westminster. Some experts thought that we might be facing an outbreak on the scale of Spanish flu. Mass death would overwhelm the health service and with it the economy, not to mention society. This was partly because of the Italians. 

If their crisis had started in Palermo or Naples, Northern Europeans would have found it easier to stay calm. “What d’you expect: the mafia will have stolen the drugs and the beds.'” But when the plague hit Bergamo, it was a different matter. In real terms, Bergamo is in Northern Europe. So when its hospitals were plunged into chaos, our officials were gravely worried. ‘What happens when this reaches Bootle or Birkenhead?’

It may not have been necessary to impose such a severe lockdown, or to furlough a large proportion of the economy. But it is easy to understand the government’s reasoning. Alas for the Government, a lot of the voters are not in an understanding mood. Indeed, they are ready to blame the entire political system. From the sub-postmasters to wokery in defence recruiting to the small boats, to the large boats that cannot go on station, there is a constant growling: “why is it that nothing works?”. Nor should we forget the Downing Street parties. Though they may have been trivial events, they reinforced an impression of insouciance and hypocrisy: one rule for us, a different rule for them – and why weren’t they concentrating at their desks, not BYOB-ing about in the No.10 garden?

Although there is a great deal of “a plague on both your houses” in all this, the Tories are bound to cop most of the blame. They are in office. As things stand, “time for a change” may not be repeated with much enthusiasm. Nor has it seemed easy to challenge.

Yet that is what the PM must do. He has got to say, as he did in Manchester, that he sees the need for change and will respond to it. Yes, his party has been in government, but pandemic and Putin between them made it hard for ministers to do more than respond to crisis. Now that the worst is over, there is scope for creativity. He should insist that he and his colleagues cannot wait.

In a similar vein, he might say something along the following lines. “It must be acknowledged that even before the recent crises, there was a widespread feeling that the public services were often failing to serve the public. There are plenty of able, conscientious, dedicated public servants but there have also been failures of ethos and leadership. We will undertake the long process of reform necessary to put that right.”

A short process is also needed. We must assume that Jeremy Hunt is preparing tax cuts. The danger is that he will be caught between two fires. Some of his own backbenchers will express disappointment that his cuts don’t go far enough, while Labour will say that, after trashing the economy and allowing the tax burden to rise, he is now coming out with some pathetic bribes which the country cannot afford and which will further undermine the public services.

In response, Hunt should get his retaliation in first. He ought to explain why the economy has been suffering – just like every other major European economy – and what we have done to put it right. As a result, we can now afford some judicious tax cuts, and under sensible stewardship there will be more to follow.

Apropos public expenditure, it is not quite too late for Hunt and Sunak to set out the facts. The government is spending around £1.2 trillion, which is around 45 percent of national income and around £17,000 for every person in this country. With all that expenditure, we ought to be able to afford enough hospitals, doctors, nurses, schools et al – perhaps even the odd warship that works.  The key is efficiency: galvanising the public realm so that it begins to work and to serve the public.

It is late in the electoral cycle for such a rhetorical initiative. But as a previous Tory leader once said, there is no alternative. If Rishi fights, he might lose. If he fails to fight, defeat is inevitable. 

Assuming he does fight, it should be easier to lead. Despite the grumblers and pessimists, there are still plenty of Tory MPs who would be ready to respond to leadership. That would also be a more enjoyable business than waiting for the end.

We also know that Sir Stumbler is the anti-inspirational candidate. His Deputy, Angela Rayner, would like to fill that gap. She is determined to make it easier for trade union leaders to call strikes. I think that she may possibly be misreading the public’s wishes. Are there really that many voters who think that the country needs more strikes?

As Rishi Sunak showed us last Monday on GB News, he enjoys campaigning and is good at it. A lot of viewers were surprised, so there is an obvious lesson. More surprises, please: more campaigning. It may all come to nothing. But at least the Tories’ opponents would know that they have been in a fight. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

This is “evil” in a jokey context, akin to scary, something to delight the children without making them afraid of a ghost under the bed. Then there is remote evil, the horrors emerging from primitive societies under brutal leadership: Lenin, Stalin, Mao: Tamburlaine with his mountains of skulls. In such cases, we appear to be at a safe and sanitised distance from our version of mankind. But we can come close: hideously close. For that, it is only necessary to see The Zone of Interest, the latest film about Auschwitz and the banality of evil. The Höss family are socially aspirant. They strive for status and for a comfortable house. They attain both, when the husband, Rudolf, becomes Commandant of Auschwitz, the bureaucrat of mass murder. This was truly the banality of evil.

After the war, Höss was interrogated by Colonel Gerald Draper who became a distinguished international lawyer. In dealing with their captives, the Colonel and his colleagues would decide what tactic to approach in order to extract the maximum information. In Höss’s case, Col Draper decided to be wholly matter of fact; no outrage, just the plain details of the desk-murderer’s daily routine. Even the courtesies were observed. The two men addressed each other as “Herr Commandant” and “Herr Colonel”.

It all worked. Thirty-five years later, recounting the story, Gerald Draper often spoke in German. The interrogation was more than etched in his memory. It was scorched into his memory: the season when he was on duty in Hell. Höss was happy to describe his travails, especially with Eichmann, his boss, who was constantly enraged by Höss’s failure to ensure that the empty trains were turned around fast enough.

There was one especially difficult moment (those reaching for the tissues might choose to skip the next few lines). A train arrived, with only children on board. They refused to disembark. Perhaps some good angel was trying to protect them. If so, it availed them naught. Höss sent on the SS. The children who survived were instantly herded off to death. But Höss had a problem. The SS’s efforts left traces: blood, brains et al. The Commandant ordered the cleaners to work double shifts, but even so, Eichmann was screaming at him down the phone. “How dare you send back a filthy train like that. It this happens again, I’ll have you in front of a people’s court.” Höss said that he had tried to ensure, successfully, that there were no more children’s-only trains. “Impossible man, Eichmann”, said the Commandant, as if looking for sympathy. He got a curt nod.

The sessions drew to an end. “We have agreed, Herr Commandant, that during your command, approximately one million, one hundred thousand people were killed at Auschwitz.” 

“Oh no, Herr Colonel: I make it one million and twenty thousand.” Both men consulted their notes. “Ah” said Höss. “I see what’s happening. You’re including that time in late ’43 when I was at a conference, and the period in early ’44 when I was on sick-leave. Of course, I was still in nominal command then, but not in day-to-day control. I think that this should be made clear.”

“It will be.”

“What will happen to me now, Herr Colonel?”

“Well, you might be called as a witness in the war crimes trials and then you yourself will be put on trial in Poland. I imagine that you will be hanged.” He was. But the Commandant had the final words. ‘Will my widow keep my pension rights?”

Truly the banality of evil: of utter, blackest, diabolic evil.

Another scene comes to mind; library film footage dating from the later Thirties, before the full Hellish instruments of Nazi-ism had been deployed. The Berlin Philharmonic are performing under Furtwangler’s baton: no greater conductor, no greater orchestra. They are playing the Eroica: that fugal section in the second movement. For what little my opinion is worth, it is the greatest passage in all orchestral music. The camera pans away from the podium, towards the former Imperial box, now the Fuhrer’s box. There is Hitler, in white tie. How could anyone listen to the Eroica and plan the Holocaust? The banality of evil was a necessary component, but the full hideous assault of evil upon civilisation and humanity defies comprehension. For much of our era, it is as if a Manichean conflict were in full apocalyptic terror, with no certainty that the good side would prevail.

The fate of children made me think of little Hind Rajab, the girl cut off in Gaza. In her last recorded words, she was frightened, afraid of the dark, and desperate to be rescued. In the next few days, half the world held its breath. If only, somehow, that child had survived. It was not to be. She too had gone into the dark.

I am not attempting a moral calculus, still less trying to draw parallels between events in Gaza and the Holocaust. But brooding on evil, on the hideousness of Hoes’s purposes and the banality of the way he ran his office and finally, on the death of a heart-rendingly sweet little girl – forces me towards two conclusions. The first is that the human race is highly inept at running its own affairs. Technology has out-run both morality and our powers of governance. If this continues, then Private Fraser from Dad’s Army may be right and we are indeed a’ doomed. 

Second, there has to be some attempt to fight back against evil, starting with Gaza. It should be possible to mobilise some international moral initiative. There must be a better way to end the suffering, the meat-grinding, the casual slaughters, the prospect of blood-letting without end.

There must be. Surely there must be. But is there? 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

In the event, he got as good a deal as was possible, Above all, the reference to an “all-Ireland economy” – which never figured in the Good Friday Agreement – was discarded. That cheered up the Unionists, who were even more pleased when Leo Varadkar signalled his unhappiness and deplored the current government’s pro-Union stance. Anything which upsets him will placate them, as it should.

There is a further aspect to all this which should also please Ulster Unionists. Almost all Tory MPs are staunch Unionists, as they ought to be. But the Labour benches include a sizeable Green wing: tricolour Green, that is. Keir Starmer has no wish to join them, nor to embroil himself in the NI protocol. Indeed, he has declared that if there were a border poll, he would be campaigning for the Union. Yet In Party management terms, life will be much easier for him now that a deal is done and power-sharing has returned. We can confidently assume that should Sir Keir become PM, he would have various ambitions, and might even reveal them to the voters. They would not include involvement in Ulster. As regards policy in that area, the Blair/Mandelson regime would return. Not that this is the limit of their ambitions.  

If we are indeed at a new beginning – though there have been a fair few of those over the years – it is worth some historical retrospect. In the Province, it usually is. There is an irony. Almost as soon as David Cameron became PM, Angela Merkel asked him to sort out Eire. Like the rest of Europe, the Irish were in the grip of a banking crisis. Their economy was in danger of collapsing. Would the UK please bail them out? Despite their own difficulties, Cameron and Osborne found their way to lending the Irish £7 billion. To be fair to the Irish, it was repaid. 

There is further justification for fairness to the Irish. They recovered much more rapidly than most observers had expected. Here, the Republic benefited from the harsh Puritanical aspects of Irish Catholicism. There was a widespread feeling that the country had been living too high on the hog and therefore deserved to suffer. Harshness brought a further benefit. This brought economic advantages. It meant that when the Irish Government was trying to entice foreign investors, especially from the US, there was the offer of an educated workforce. “The so-called Irish tiger economy and its successor were founded on corporal punishment.” Discuss. 

Punishment also featured in Anglo-Irish relations, for there was a period when no good deed went unpunished. After the Brexit referendum, the Euro-nomenklatura changed direction. Instead of helping Ireland, Dublin was encouraged to make life as difficult as possible for the Brits. This helped to sabotage Theresa May’s Premiership by ensuring that she could not get Brexit done.

Time has passed. Apart from some of the last of the Euhicans in the House of Lords, who still take every opportunity to lament Brexit, most Europeans realise that there are more important priorities than punishing Britain. The entire continent is beset by crises. There is indeed a case for flexibility and pragmatism on trade matters. We could all do with higher economic growth for many reasons, especially the need to finance higher defence spending now that ancestral voices are prophesying war.”‘Dreary steeples” fatigue could easily spread from London to Brussels. Varadkar will complain in vain.

History also brings us to the future of Unionism and a long-term culture shock. At the beginning of the last Century, Unionists had many allies in the rest of the Country. By the late Sixties, to their horror, Ulster Unionists discovered that this was no longer the case. Stone-faced men in bowler hats and Orange sashes filled the TV screens with cacophony and Seventeenth Century fulminations. In forty years, England had become a substantially post-religious and certainly post-Protestant society. That was less true of Scotland, but sectarian football conflicts did not assist Ulster’s cause. Nor did Ian Paisley, supreme among fulminators and cacophonists, one of the most prominent evil-doers in British public life.

On the other side, meanwhile, Irish Republicanism drew on a long tradition of sentimentalising homicide and terrorism. The devil had all the best tunes. So Ulster Unionists, who merely wanted to exercise their democratic right to remain British, found it hard to get a hearing. The resulting frustration exacerbated an Ulster Prod tendency to economise on charm.

Although Jeffrey Donaldson is a fine man and a good public servant, he is insufficiently appreciated on this side of St George’s Channel. It would help if Unionism would re-unite and recruit some mellifluous adjutants. But there is some comfort. According to sophisticated polling conducted by the Royal Irish Academy, Unionism would have a twenty per cent majority in any new Ulster border poll.

Apropos sophistication, we shall have to see how well the new Ulster administration performs. Let us hope that it performs better than its equivalents in Edinburgh and Cardiff. The Scottish socialist nationalist government has a terrible record, not least in education. We Scots used to pride ourselves on our educational system at all levels. That is no longer justified. Scotland has been slumping in all the educational league tables.

It must of course be recognised that the Stormont system is at least as much about community psychotherapy as it is about good governance. It would justify another mirabile dictu if it could achieve both. In one respect, all the patients will collaborate. They will all be convinced of the need for more money from Whitehall. A lot of that will now be on its way. So will the Ulster politicians use it wisely? Again, let us hope so – or at least some of it.  

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

Within a few days, those certainties hardened even further. Sir Simon Clarke is not a stupid man. After all, he was at Oxford, a competent University. Yet he is not nearly as bright as he thinks he is. In particular, he is lacking in political intelligence. In that regard, what brains he does possess have gone to his head.

At one stage, Sir Simon was Chief Secretary to the Treasury: in effect, promoted by Boris to be deputy Chancellor to Rishi Sunak. Although the current PM is always polite about his colleagues, I have heard it said that he did not think much of his second in command. If so, resentments may have festered.

Moreover, there is a bizarre explanation for the appointment. Sir Simon is about a foot taller than Mr Sunak. It is alleged that Boris was happy to use this as a means of belittling his potential rival. “Surely not”, readers will think. “Surely no Prime Minister would make such an important appointment on such frivolous grounds.” That is, of course, true, except that we are not considering “no Prime Minister”. We are dealing with Boris, of whom anything is possible.

Anyway, Sir Simon added to Rishi Sunak’s woes. I would not suggest for a moment that Simon Clarke and his shadowy associates are being paid by the Labour party. For a start, that would not be necessary. These supposed Tories will perform their sabotage free. 

Shortly after Sir Simon crossed the pons asinorum, the Test matches appeared to be unfolding as predicted. Then, suddenly, there was high drama. Two immensely exciting games ensued in which the apparently vanquished rallied, only for the expected winners to counter-attack, with the final outcome in doubt as to the end. What wonderful cricket.

The implications go even wider than two Test matches, however memorable. First, it may be that the West Indies are on the brink of a revival. They have had decades in the slough of despond, when the great era of the Seventies and Eighties receded from memory and some of the Windies’ performances were embarrassing. World cricket needs a strong West Indies side. Once again, we may now have one.

Second, bazball has strengthened cricket without compromising the traditional crafts and skills. For this, Ben Stokes is entitled to much credit. Although there were one or two difficulties early on, boys will be boys, and the roistering boy has matured into a world-class skipper, who will earn every honour that the game can bestow.

Third, that these great honours are the endowment of Test Cricket. There are lesser forms of the game, but Tests are summa cum laude. The other day I tried to explain to an American that a Test could last for five days and end in a draw. Not only that: the draw was sometimes the best result, athletically, aesthetically and morally (think of Gavaskar’s match in 1979). 

The bewildered Yank thought that this was an opportunity to patronise the limeys. “Not a bit of it” said I. “It’s just that you lot took your independence too early.”

Finally, cricket is a venerable game, which constantly renews itself. In so doing, it draws on physical strength, psychological toughness, grace, skill, subtlety, humour, beauty – and fear. Not every aspirant batsman might be wholly relieved to discover that the Windies are about to launch a new generation of ferocious quicks. 

Cricket also draws on tradition, and some of those traditions are now under attack, abetted by two contemporary British obsessions, race and class. In many a dressing room, there will occasionally be a player who feels overlooked. These days, if a non-British player decided that this was due to discrimination, the authorities would virtually have to prove their innocence. This does nothing to promote good race relations and colour-blind comradeship.

Then there is class. Eton and Harrow have played at Lord’s for almost two centuries. Chippy Lefties find that intolerable. Again, the authorities have been far too ready to succumb to the indignity of a grovelling preemptive cringe. 

The same is true of language. The BBC, often happy to abandon old-fashioned linguistic standards, now talks of “batters” not “batsmen.” The neologism is banal and ugly. “Batsman” would have satisfied all the great batsmen of the past, and just because male players continue to use the hallowed term, there is no reason why females should not play cricket. Nor need their bowlers be called bowlesses.

After an Ashes series which exhausted the supply of superlatives, a most promising West Indian revival and the rest of the tenterhooks series to come in India, it is to be hoped that those who run Test cricket will recover their nerve. They are in charge of the greatest of sports. Let them glory in that role. So: certainties can be overthrown. As far as Mr Sunak is concerned, that will require more than a few days’ cricketing bouleversement. Yet he still has time – just – to persuade enough of the electorate to reassess him.

For obvious reasons, Keir Starmer has decided to let events take their course. He will be hoping that there will be more Tory useful idiots to smooth his path. This could well work. But it is and will remain an uninspiring spectacle. If Sir Keir were a cricketing side, would anyone rush to watch him play? Keirball is hardly bazball. If he reaches into himself, tells us who he is, tells us what he believes, what Britain means to him and tells us where he hopes to take the country, Rishi Sunak could yet surprise us all. But he has to get on with it.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life     

That global axis of instability does not seem to include British electoral politics. The polls have barely fluctuated. Labour would appear to have a bankable lead. That said, so did Theresa May, when she called her election. The pollsters may be receiving a clear message, but can the voters be trusted not to change their minds?

A number of MPs to whom I have spoken say the same thing. “The country’s in a mess,” they will often be told. “None of you politicians seem to be any good. So we might as well give the other lot a go. After all, they couldn’t do any worse.” Sometimes, the voter on the doorstep makes an exception for the Member who is canvassing. Sometimes the voter is assured the MP is trying their best. The MP goes away wondering: “Do they really think that I’m doing a good job or do they simply have good manners?” It is a pretty depressing picture. One feels that the average conscientious MP deserves better, but so do the sovereign people.

The Tory party has been here before. From 1995 onwards, nothing appeared to be going right: the tumbrils were rolling inexorably towards the electoral guillotine. Above all, John Major never had any luck. it seemed as if anything that could go wrong would go wrong.  

Yet in 2024 there are two crucial differences which ought to prevent Tories from a final surrender to despair. First, Rishi Sunak can still get a hearing, which Poor John Major was denied. Second, we live in a dangerous world. This October/November, many voters might be asking themselves which is the less risky alternative. That is where David Cameron could help.

The new foreign secretary has already made a considerable impression on their Lordships, and not just because the Upper House feels gratified by the presence of a very senior minister. When he speaks, it is standing room only in the Chamber. There is effortless command and authority.

To all of that, there might seem to be an obvious problem. When Lord Cameron addresses the Lords, he is talking to an unelected audience and must be acutely aware that he is unelected himself.  But a retort along those lines might well have more wit than wisdom. On television, he is effective and reassuring, which does reach large numbers of voters. The contrast between the foreign secretary and the shadow one, David Lammy, must surely work to the Tories’ advantage. 

In October 1964, Labour defeated the Tories by 13 seats. Immediately afterwards, the Chinese exploded their first atom bomb, and Khrushchev fell. In that era, when we still regarded ourselves as a world power, important international events might still have influenced British voters. Some commentators wondered that if China/Khrushchev had happened a few days earlier, it might have brought about a Tory victory. We will never know the answer to that, but what about this October?

Let us suppose, as seems more than likely, that Israel/Palestine and Ukraine are still unresolved while other tensions are growing – and Donald Trump is about to win re-election. What effect would that have on the British electorate?

A number of people might simply want to hide under the bedclothes in the hope that if we ignored the rest of the world, it would ignore us. But I suspect that this might not commend wide agreement as a sensible approach. A foreign secretary who clearly commands widespread respect throughout the world could easily seem to be a vital national asset.

As the election approached, this would require careful handling. Attempts at electoral low blows might well be counter-productive. A statesman-like demeanour comes naturally to David Cameron and that should impress many voters. It would impress them even more if he could help to sort out immigration. There, the position is still unclear. 

Last week’s vote was a pause in the battle, not a resolution. Sunak and others are aware of the need to drive the issue off the headlines, sooner later than later. But it is still not clear how that could be achieved. 

If that did happen, the government could make every effort to focus the public mind on the economy. It ought to start that process by giving a coherent account of the last few years’ events. Forget Liz Truss’s dégringolade and concentrate on the two important five-letter words: Covid and Putin. Having inherited a world banking crisis, the Tories took the tough corrective measures necessary to stabilise the British economy. As a result, they can now make optimistic plans for the future, which will include tax cuts.

In all this, Rishi Sunak and his ministers should not be afraid of intellectual arguments. Most people are aware that these are serious times and they will not be impressed by politicians who talk down to them. Seriousness comes easily Sunak. Leavened with a bit of humour, he could sound much more persuasive – and indeed much more human – than Keir Starmer. 

It may of course be that much of the public has made up its mind. But it might also prove that this world is too uncertain to be certain of anything. So the Tories just have to keep fighting and hope. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life     

Yet there is a paradox. Although the Foreign Secretary made people feel better, his message was bleak. There was “naught for your comfort” (I am drawing on Chesterton, not Trevor Huddlestone). Not since 1940 has a British statesman – he has earned that accolade – given such a grim assessment of the international situation.

This is not to claim that his rhetoric reached Churchillian heights. But we will be lucky to avoid blood and tears.

Let us imagine how that could be averted. Start with Israel: Mr Netanyahu is unseated, a new government declares victory in Gaza, and the Abraham Accords are revived. It is generally agreed that progress must be made on a Palestinian state. Crown Prince MBS, Saudi’s de facto ruler, has ambitious plans for his country. Many members of the Saudi elite would privately admit to suffering from Palestine fatigue; if only that problem could be put on one side. 

The Houthis have proved themselves in combat with the Saudis and have evolved from being mere insurgents. Now, they control the former North Yemen. So where next? Do they want to make war on the US, who will not stint on bombing raids, or will they bank their prestige and get on with running their country?

What view will the Iranians take? Thus far, they have kept Hizbullah more or less on the leash and have been reluctant to risk all-out conflict with America. The Mullahs’ regime may not rest on a secure basis of popular consent and they have no desire to be overthrown.

Taking of fatigue, blood, tears and statesmanship, could we find a young Henry Kissinger to flit between the Middle East and the Ukraine? Apropos Moscow and Kyiv, is it not time for both sides to recognise that neither of them can win? What would be so wrong with a ceasefire which would gradually become a new frontier? There is one obvious objection to that. Moscow might conclude that it is possible to get away with invading another country. Yet is it likely that the Russians will feel that they have “got away with'” anything and that their losses have been justified? The butcher’s bill is already enormous. There must be those who are ready to switch off the meat grinder.

So it is possible to construct an optimistic scenario. But there is one slight difficulty: the total absence of any evidence whatsoever that any of the above has any purchase on reality.

The Ukrainians and Russians seem content to lock horns in intransigence. As for Netanyahu, may I apologise for another reference to Yeats? “The best lack all conviction/the worst are full of passionate intensity”. Most of the best people in Israel want a new PM, but how do they get rid of the present one? Equally, any incoming government, however well-intentioned, would find it desperately hard to deal with the settlements on the West Bank. The most extreme elements in Israeli society have altered facts on the ground in such a way as to make a Palestinian state almost impossible. Where is the scope for compromise? 

That will not distress Israel’s enemies. Again – sorry – more Yeats: “Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart.”  Hamas does not want to see a Palestine co-existing with Israel. They wish to destroy Israel and the butcher’s bill will not deter them. It is desperately hard to deal with stone-heated foes who are prepared to wade through unlimited quantities of blood.

That may also be true of the Houthis, a lot of whom are battle-hardened religious fanatics, who believe that they are tougher than us and can outlast our resolve. Look at Syria, they might say, and look at Obama’s red lines. Look at Kabul, that appalling scuttling humiliation. Condi Rice used to say that Afghanistan is where great powers go to die. The abandonment of Kabul was where a great power upped and left, and came perilously close to forfeiting its reputation for greatness.

The rulers of Iran may well have reached similar conclusions. It helps if you believe that God is on your side and that many of your fellow Shias are imbued with an ethos of martyrdom. The West is dealing with enemies whom it has difficulty in understanding. Far from sharing our assumptions, they despise them. Their contempt will not be diminished by the forthcoming Presidential election, which could well confront the Great Republic with a choice: craziness or senescence.

Contempt breeds anger. Rage breeds volunteers for suicide missions. On both sides of the Atlantic, the authorities are vigilant. The threat of terrorist outrages is ever-present. We can rely on our teams’ skill. We can only hope that they are also lucky.

David Cameron has everything he needs to be an outstanding Foreign Secretary, with one exception. Lord Cameron enjoys playing bridge. In this desperately important game which he is now playing, we could wish that his hand had more high cards. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life     

Chris Skidmore was a respectable junior minister and is apparently a competent popular historian. But he has now decided to put in for this year’s Nadine Dorries prize, awarded for shallowness, selfishness and narcissism.

The poor chap does appear to have a weakness. He has joined the cult of Greta Thunberg. Whereas the recent Dubai Summit was full of sensible people, who believe in using science to solve scientific problems and understand the need to keep the lights on, the economy moving and energy prices under control, Skidmore has succumbed to the extremists. His early deadline for net zero would simply mean net zero growth for the British economy.

His seat had been abolished by the boundary commissioners but he could probably have found another one. Perhaps he was bored with politics and realised that he would go no higher. There are obviously well-paid posts for platitudocrats: characters like Zac Goldsmith who fly around the world congratulating one another on their efforts to save the planet. Even so, Skidmore could have made a dignified departure. After all, he did owe his party a lot. But vanity trumped gratitude.

As well as sympathising with Lady Thatcher, Rishi Sunak ought to learn a lesson from Tony Blair: the importance of controlling the narrative. Governments are always in danger of being deluged in a tsunami of events. A Prime Minister has to find a way of rising above the stormy waters and focussing voters’ minds on his version of events.

The same is true of opposition leaders, and – unlike Tony Blair – Sir Stumbler is no natural. Indeed, he is more of a promising platitudocrat. There might be a use for a Starmer speech, but only if yawn power could be harvested as an energy source.

The PM began the new political term in campaigning mode and he enjoys stump politics much more than might be expected from a cerebral Wykehamist. He may also benefit from Sir Keir’s chosen strategy. 

The Labour leader is arguing that taxes are too high while growth is too low. Far from disagreeing, most Tories would not only concur, they would insist that those two weaknesses are related. You cannot grow the economy by increasing taxes. The tax burden had to increase because of Covid and Putin. It should now be reduced whenever possible – at all levels. 

So is Keir Starmer really stating that tax cuts should take priority over spending increases? Might he end up sounding like a re-heated Liz Truss? He would presumably reply that he should be able to afford higher public spending in the long-run because economic growth would lead to higher tax receipts. In the short-run, however, if he is serious about growth, tax cuts ought to come first.

As for growth, there should be another priority: judicious deregulation. But Angela Rayner, Sir Keir’s deputy, is in favour of injudicious re-regulation, in the form of strengthening the trade unions’ powers. Tony Blair was happy to leave the Thatcherite trade union legislation alone. Miss Rayner clearly believes that this country does not have enough strikes. Does her leader agree?

Keir Starmer may be assuming that because of the Tories’ weakness, he can take over as the advocate of free enterprise and free markets. But he will find that this involves an economic philosophy which he neither understands nor really approves of. Tories should be able to counter-attack.

Sunak is also taking a risk. He knows that the country wants change and that many voters have come to a simple conclusion: “Nothing works.”  His response: “I am the change. I’m the man who will make things work.”

From the leader of a Party which has been in office for almost fourteen years, that is breath-taking in its audacity. It could not possibly succeed – if Tony Blair were leading the Opposition. Back in John Major’s Calvary years, it did seem as if Labour could sleep-walk its way to power. To be fair to the then Mr Blair, he did far more than that. But Sir Keir? He is a natural narcolept, but it this enough? Will Labour sleep-walk and will the voters really yawn their way to the polling booths? I think that this is a far more open question than the current polls suggest.

It all depends on Rishi Sunak. Many voters growl that they are fed up with all politicians – “because they are all the same.” For better or for worse, that is palpably untrue of the current PM. 

“The men will always follow this officer, if only out of curiosity.” But curiosity is at least something. I suspect that a lot of voters do feel it about this novel figure. If so, he ought to exploit that by telling them who he is, what he believes and what his ambitions are for this country.

Looking forward to this embattled year, from the Black Sea to the Red Sea, from the Irish Sea to the South China Sea, from every ocean and every continent, there is only one conclusion. Now is no time to take anything for granted.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life     

The festive season offered some respite. In one household that I visited, the Memsahib forbade any discussion of the Middle East. One saw her point, yet the chaos will not go away. There were also the littlies. A very dear friend always accuses me of being a sentimental old git, and I see her point too. But without a strong dose of sentiment, the human condition can seem unendurable. Anyway, temporarily distracted by the presents under the tree and the impending visit of Santa Claus, the littlies were singing carols. Sentiment? Mine eyes smelt onions. 

“O little town of Bethlehem” featured. In Bethlehem this year, Christmas was cancelled, though the littlies there would have had a less bad time than in Gaza. “The hopes and fears of all the years.” Where are the hopes? Mr Netanyahu tells us that the fighting might go on for the whole of this year. In every chancery throughout the civilised world, that prospect will bring acute dismay. But what is to be done? 

I love visiting Israel. For a start, you are never more that fifty yards from a political argument and Israelis are happy to lay into each other – verbally, that is – despite the presence of foreigners. Out of tragedy, the Israelis have created a most impressive country. They have a vibrant and truculent democracy plus an equally truculent judiciary. They have made the desert bloom and their military/industrial complex has built up a formidable high-tech sector. This is a country which could be a light unto the nations, but for one difficulty, or rather seven million of them. What is to be done about the Palestinians?

We know what is needed. Israel should be a predominantly Jewish state within internationally recognised boundaries. While the Israelis would be able to rely on their alliance with America, the IDF would be easily able to deal with any external threat. The Palestinians, meanwhile, would have their state. Such a country, under a sensible government, should receive a lot of foreign aid. There ought also to be the opportunity for cautious cooperation with the Israelis, whose know-how could be of great assistance to the new Palestinian state. 

Yet how do we arrive there? 

It almost needs a miraculous benefaction but alas, Santa Claus does not exist. In the past, opportunities have been lost. Arafat sabotaged the Oslo Accords. Rabin, that tough general, might have been the statesman to keep a peace process alive, but he was assassinated. Sharon, an equally tough warrior, a bulldozer with a Ferrari engine, was converted to the cause of peace and then had a stroke. Instead, we have Benjamin Netanyahu. In Israel, most thoughtful Jews seem to abhor him. A view widely shared by intelligent Jews elsewhere. Yet he seems to have a grasp on Israeli politics; not a good argument for Israel’s form of proportional representation.

Meanwhile, as Rabin and Sharon passed from the scene while Netanyahu prevailed, the settlements grew: 700,000 incomers, almost all of them intransigent. A further repetition warning: species pseudo-differentiation. It helps soldiers to kill opponents if they are regarded as a sub-species. There is a lot of that on the West Bank now among civilians on both sides. It does not make the way straight for peace.

It is easy to understand why the Israelis wanted to inflict savage punishment on Hamas, in revenge for murder, rape and hostage-taking. But there is a problem. With Hamas, we are confronting an enemy which does not fear death and has no scruples in inflicting it. It is prepared to sacrifice its own militants and is delighted when the Israelis reduce Gaza to rubble with growing civilian casualties. Islamic terrorism is likely to prove hydra-headed. It is inevitable that a significant number of young Palestinian males will be radicalised. They too will seek revenge on those whom they have come to regard as a sub-species.

Hamas set out to sabotage the growing links between Israel and some Arab states. It was happy to drown the Abraham Accords in blood and it may well have succeeded. The longer the current conflict continues, the greater the likelihood that the whole region will be thrown into turmoil. The leaders of Hamas may well believe that their own losses are acceptable in pursuit of their strategic objectives, which are still in play. Who can be certain that they are wrong? Netanyahu seems happy to lock Israel into endless war. If not, what is his war aim and when will he be able to declare victory? In Vietnam, US commanders’ assessments of Viet Cong losses persuaded them that these were unsustainable. They were wrong. The Netanyahu strategy – if one can call it that – may be blundering into a similar mistake. 

There are at least two dreadful scenarios and I would be delighted to be reassured that they are impossible. The first is an eruption of the Israeli id. There are Israelis who insist that the Palestinians already have their state. It is called Jordan and they should all move to it. The wreckage of Jordan would be the Israeli fanatics’ version of “from the river to the sea.”

Then there is the risk from minaturisation and proliferation. As the century moves on, it will presumably become easier for terrorists to acquire and utilise a nuclear device. Again, I would be delighted if a nuclear physicist could assure me that this is nonsense. Yet – third repetition – as long as “Great hatred: little room” dominates the region, hideous consequences cannot be discounted. In a few years time, when a terrorist prepares to blow himself to paradise in a Tel Aviv bus queue, his death-waistcoat might not be equipped with a conventional explosive. There could be another Holocaust, in the Holy Land of Israel.

Has “peace on earth to all men of good will’ become war on earth where there are no men of good will? Let us hope not. Indeed, for those who believe in prayer, do give it a go. It cannot do any harm. 

There are two conclusions. The first is that when necessity is so manifest, a strategy for peace will emerge. The second is that the human race is simply not very good at managing its affairs. At present, the second has it. Fears are prevailing over hopes.

Let us hope that I am wrong. In that fervent hope, let us all wish for a Happy New Year.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life 

Apropos confidence, the tall poppy was giving a formidable performance at the Covid inquiry – more so, certainly, than Lady Hallett – until the PM came along. On a difficult wicket, he made Mr Keith seem a couple of yards slower. Rishi Sunak also ended the week with an impressive interview in the Spectator. He did not for one moment seem like a Leader oppressed by the weight of relentlessly gloomy opinion polls. This is a man with plenty of fight in him. That is his party’s sole hope of a successful counter-attack. 

He is certainly cool under fire. At midnight during the Tory party conference in Manchester, at a reception given by the Spectator, he could not have seemed calmer. No one would have guessed that twelve hours later, he would have to make a vitally important speech.

If that had been Margaret Thatcher, there would have been no visit to a reception. She would have been in her suite goring the speech-writers while insisting that this was the worst draft she had ever seen and would need to be entirely re-cast. Twelve hours later, exhausted secretaries would stumble into the press office, just in time to print out her text, which would of course be, as always, a triumph.

Sunak is altogether colder-blooded. Many leading prime ministers can be divided into two radically different personalities. There are the ones who have no difficulty in staying calm under pressure: Salisbury, Baldwin, Attlee, Cameron. Then there are those with a daemonic streak: Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill, Thatcher. These demiurges come into their own when it is a moment to reshape history. But they could be less effective when dealing with lesser challenges. At the time, I wrote that if Mrs Thatcher had been an airline pilot, the “fasten seatbelts” sign would never have been switched off. She and Lloyd George both lost office because their colleagues grew weary of constant crises.

So where does that leave Rishi Sunak? Some would conclude that he is a calm fellow but in highly un-calm circumstances. Though rationality comes easily to him, that may not be enough in these troubled times. The public needs emotion, uplift and leadership. They want to know where the country is going. Could he possibly be the man to tell them?

That is not – yet – impossible. While Rishi Sunak was chatting at the Speccie do, a breathtakingly audacious speech had been sent to print. You want change, he told the audience: so you should, so do I and I am the man to provide it.  The retort was obvious. How can you possibly convince us that you will offer change, when your party has been in government for thirteen years? Yet the retort to that was equally obvious. Look at me. Do I resemble a staid, traditional Tory? Surely you can see that I am offering something radically new. 

As soon as he arrived in No.10, some friends advised him to repudiate Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. One can see why he declined and anyway, his body language already projected the message. Rishi Sunak is different.

But just after that speech, everything did indeed change. Suddenly, British politics was swept off the front page. Textual analyses from Manchester gave way to Hamas, horror and hatred. For the indefinite future, we will remain in a world beset by bloodshed and danger.  Even so, it should be possible to project a domestic agenda.

This should have three main aspects. First, it should not be impossible to persuade the public that Covid and Putin were not the Tories’ fault. This was one of the most difficult periods in the whole of British domestic history and the government should be forthright in defending its record. Certainly, Labour had nothing better to offer.

Second, even before Covid, there was a lot wrong with Britain’s public services. Although many of our public servants are indeed public-spirited, a lot of the structures were defective. Change is indeed necessary, while all Keir Starmer has to offer is more of the same.

Third, Rishi Sunak must tell us what Britain has meant to him and his family. For him and them, it has been a land of opportunity and aspiration. That is why he went into politics: to spread that message and those opportunities.

In this, he should have the assistance of several colleagues, including Kemi Badenoch, another embodiment of aspiration who has a further asset. Thus far, the government has not done enough to combat wokery. Badenoch will do that superbly well and drive the woke-ists crazy. They will make more noise, offer even more targets and help to sell the Sunak government’s new version of Britishness. That includes tough controls on immigration. It may even be that last week’s Tory rebels did the government a good turn, by forcing it to clarify and harden its position.

The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed. The public wants change. Rishi Sunak intends to offer them precisely that. Could this possibly work? If Labour were led by Tony Blair, not a chance. But Keir Starmer is only the – very – small change for Tony Blair. Reverting to the question of arrogance versus confidence, Sir Keir cannot be accused of arrogance. But it may well be that he also lacks confidence, because he does not know what he himself now believes, and is waiting for the focus groups to guide his electoral calculations. That is no diet for hungry sheep.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life 

In 1906, for a range of reasons, the party appeared to have put itself on the wrong side of history. History had other ideas, abetted by war. In 1945, war – or rather, post-war reconstruction – worked against the Tories. “We are the masters now” said Hartley Shawcross, and back then many Tories feared that he was right. Instead, the Tories established themselves as the heralds of post-war prosperity, while Lord Shawcross himself began a political journey. An enthusiastic sailor, it led him, and his progeny, into a safe Tory harbour. 

There are conclusions to be drawn from this complex tale. First, the Tories should never put themselves on the wrong side of England and of history. This does not mean submitting to every passing fancy. “When it is not necessary to change” said the great Falkland, “it is necessary not to change.” There is a risk. The elegance of that aphorism can conceal its unrelenting intellectual difficulty. How can we establish when it is necessary to change? That is the Tories’ endless task and national duty.

Second, the Tories have undergone a benign evolution, which has assisted their fortunes, marching in step with the national interest. They have moved from Church and King to the Crown in Parliament, the bedrock of constitutional stability. Third, another benign evolution, they have transformed themselves from the days when they were an aristocratic faction to the present day, when they defend the interests of another bedrock, the British middle classes. Support for that splendid tribe is not an exclusionary creed: look at the current Tory front bench. But there is one creed which Tories should stand by, in all circumstances: aspiration.

Fourth, Tories must hang together, or they will hang separately. A colleague with whom you happen to disagree is not an Amalekite, to be smitten hip and thigh. “Damn your principles: stick to your party” may be too cynical for tender political ears but a party wishing to win or retain power must understand that politics is a team game, or it is nothing. For a start, voters tend to have an understandable prejudice. If you cannot agree among yourselves, they will say, why should we take you seriously? Politics is a team game or it is nothing.

“Loyalty is the Tories’ secret weapon” declared Rab Butler. In recent years, it is often been so secret as to be invisible. Equally, Tories would regard themselves as the sort of chaps who will be steady on parade. These days, Corporal Jones seems to have taken over: “Don’t panic”. They often do. In the 1980s, David Steel once advised his fellow Liberals not to approach every problem with an open mouth. Surely Tories would not need to be given such elementary advice? They often do.

There is a sort of excuse. The party has been afflicted by that grievance of grievances, Europe. One might have thought that the referendum would have settled the question. But the blood stream has not been purged of poison. Many of the Brexiteers have been bad winners, constantly looking out for Remainer plots. Partly because of the resulting instability, some Remainers have been emboldened to believe that after all, their defeat might not be final. There are not enough sensible middle-grounders to insist that everyone should now rally round, roll up their sleeves and make Brexit work.

There is further exacerbation, from the ECHR. This has its ironic aspects. We virtually invented the damned thing, as a means of helping war-shattered countries to rebuild their judicial systems. We did not need to rebuild ours. The Common Law had served us well for centuries. Although Lord Kilmuir, who played a crucial role in drafting the ECHR, was a federalist, this put him in a small minority among English lawyers, most of whom believed that although the ECHR might be all well and good for foreigners, it neither would nor should apply to us. 

No good deed goes unpunished. We helped to liberate the oppressed peoples of Europe, so that they might be able to enjoy freedom under the rule of law. We, who already possessed those freedoms, found that our ability to protect our liberties under our laws was under threat from foreign judges.

It is true that the latest judgment from the Supreme Court was based entirely on English law. But once a statute is drafted which deals with the Law Lords’ points, the true supreme court, the High Court of Parliament, ought to prevail. Eminent lawyers have argued that our judges ought to be satisfied. As for the ones in Strasbourg, our ministers seem bent on thwarting their attempts to interfere. So they should.

It is time to clarify the issues and assert the principles which ought to prevail. First, no illegal immigrants should be allowed to enter this country. Whether it be Rwanda, a barge or a disused army camp, there should be no possibility of moving beyond that and settling here: no route from a smuggler’s small boat to residence in the UK. Second, there can be no right of political asylum for those arriving from France, which is a safe country. Third, conventions on asylum which might have been sustainable in the immediate post-war years can no longer work given the chaos that engulfs much of the world, which is in no way mitigated by the ease of air travel. Fourth, the ECHR is at best an irrelevance and all too often a confounded nuisance. It would not be easy to dispense with it altogether: that would create problems with both the devolution arrangements for Scotland and the Belfast Agreement. But it should at least be defanged.

Finally, there is a good Ulster injunction which ought to be more widely heeded. “Catch yourself on” – ie, get a grip. The Tory party ought to catch itself on. It is perilously late in the day yet Sir Stumbler is hardly an inspiring figure. He may have got a grip: to what end? “You hate the Tories” he is saying, “and anyway, it is our turn to run the Government, but don’t worry: I won’t change much.” 

Will that be enough? If enough Tory MPs are determined to raise their rifles to their shoulders, form a circle, turn inwards and then open fire, it will indeed be enough. Yet if enough Tories stop panicking and rediscover the virtues of loyalty, then at least they will still be in the game. There was another character in Dad’s Army whose catchphrase, delivered with considerable relish, was: “We’re a’ doomed.” The Tory party is not yet doomed…not yet.   

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life

Yet they could not be more wrong. This will turn out to be a useful summit, because of its realism. 
From the outset, the organisers made it clear that fossil fuels will be needed for the indefinite future. Renewables: fine. More efficient use of energy: ditto. A threefold increase in nuclear power: admirable. But the oil-wells and the gas fields will stay in production.

The realism also came from the young. These were not the sort who would glue themselves to the tarmac to block the traffic in Whitehall. They were thirty-something scientifically literate financiers. They want to do good, while also making money.

Practitioners more often than theorists, they could have claimed to be acting in the best traditions of capitalism and the free market: summoning fresh supplies of creativity to deal with difficulties, while making money, much of which will eventually endow good causes. 

It is no accident that a lot of these characters are American. Old-European conservatives, always aware of limits, would regard a simple faith in progress as mere naivete. They never lose contact with pessimism: eupeptic pessimism certainly, but pessimism nonetheless.

The Yankees I met had been brought up on the unwritten item of their Bill of Rights: that this year shall be better than last year, and next year shall be better than this tear. Often, that does not work out, but whereas a European will be inclined to say: “what did you expect?” – the Yank will retort: try harder.
These youngish entrepreneurs all had interesting ideas. Nuclear fusion figured prominently. I pressed them for a date; I had been hearing about nuclear fusion for thirty years. But I was told not to worry: it is well on its way.

There was also great interest in water, including desalination. One chap claimed that he would shortly be able to market desalinated water at one dollar per one thousand litres. Abundant clean water would not only save lives. It could prevent conflicts over water supplies that could otherwise fuel the wars of the future.

Dubai itself is a remarkable city: H.G.Wells meets T.E.Lawrence. It is futurism as architecture. As such, it would horrify the English romantic Arabists: Lawrence, Gertrude Bell, Wilfred Thesiger et al. They admired the sons of the desert for their hardihood, their stoicism: their nobility. So who are these westernised creatures dressed by Savile Row while talking the language of Wall Street? 

The answer is that they are attractive, open-minded and able characters who know how to run a successful country. Granted, they had the help of oil wealth, but compare and contrast Nigeria or Venezuela. They too have huge potential, which they have hugely squandered.

We must also remember that the Arabian Peninsula has undergone immense changes over the past eighty years: more rapidly, arguably, than any other region in any period of history. So if the Saudis, say, pursue some policy which does not fit into the western playbook, we should remember what they have already achieved. Moreover, there is every sign that judicious modernisation is set to continue. MBS in Saudi and MBZ of the UAE are entitled to be regarded as statesmen.

There is another Prince who deserves far more respect than he normally receives. In the generality of the public mind, Monaco is usually thought of as a quaint Mediaeval survival merged with a Casino and a Grand Prix. But Prince Albert of Monaco is an impressive Monarch, highly regarded at the UN as an interlocutor valuable on climate change, water and related matters. 

The UN? I can sense lips curling in scepticism: frequently justified. But if that often infuriating organisation does survive – which it surely will – it is better that men like Prince Albert should guide its councils.

Not that all the promenti were wise. John Kerry is a decent old stick. Could a fellow from Massachusetts be described as a good ol’ boy? If so, he is. Apropos Massachusetts, he reminded us that he had been a senatorial colleague of Ted Kennedy’s. It is remarkable that his name can be mentioned in polite company. That said, the man who dodged a manslaughter rap over Chappaquiddick could at least claim that he tried to pollute a river, not an ocean.

On one platform, Senator Kerry appeared with Zac Goldsmith and Patricia Scotland, a Baron and a Baroness. After a bumbling opening worthy of President Biden, Mr Kerry settled down to some well-worn platitudes. As for the other two, those who believe that the Upper House includes some unworthy peers did look no further. Lord Goldsmith is charming, eager to please and shallow. His father Jimmy, who could not have been accused of charm or eagerness to please, did not believe in formal education. That shows.

As for Lady Scotland, she is easily the worst and least respected Secretary-General in the history of the Commonwealth. But these side-shows need not distract us from a serious conclusion. Although Dubai will not solve all of mankind’s problems, it will devote a godly amount of hard thinking in the direction of that uncommon quality, common sense. That more or less justifies the trouble and the travelling circus.  

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life