The United States, a country born out of conflict, with a people whose founders displaced and destroyed the indigenous population. A country which for more than half its existence embraced slavery, the legacy of which still runs deep in its national politics and psyche; a country which regards the bearing of arms as a right so precious and fundamental to the meaning of itself that it has witnessed nearly half a dozen of its leaders either killed or seriously wounded by gunfire. A country so powerful that it can, if it so wishes, fight two wars on the scale of the Second World War simultaneously, and yet was brought to its knees by its inability to win the Vietnam War. A country whose politics is still in many ways defined by its own civil war, a country whose politics is awash with money and special interests. Little surprise, therefore, that the distinguished author and journalist Nick Bryant can publish a book called The Forever War – America’s Unending Conflict with Itself. This comes hard on the heels of Bryant’s previous work, When America Stopped Being Great, itself a book worth reading. 

Nick Bryant made his name as a formidable BBC foreign correspondent. With a History degree from Cambridge and a doctorate in American History from Oxford, he could equally as well have built a career as a very successful academic. And it is this fusion of journalistic elan and academic rigour in his writing that makes his books so very readable. The Forever War is a splendid addition to the Bryant canon. For a long time based in the United States, both in New York and in Washington DC, Bryant brings a close understanding and familiarity with the United States and its way of being. He has now retreated to Australia, but he still ranges, knowledgeably and compellingly, across the breadth of American life.

It is tempting to compare the British parliamentary system with the United States democratic setup. Cicero once wrote that the best form of government is one where power is split three ways, that is essentially between some form of monarchy and two balancing but contrasting and partnering political powerbases, like the House of Commons and the House of Lords or the House of Representatives and the Senate. In Britain, this system has developed over a great deal of time, and is deeply embedded in the DNA of the country, so that although our processes have been tested in recent times, our system has in the end proven itself to be more robust than the political tumult that has passed through it. In the United States, where the system was established more sharply than in Britain, the system has relied on a degree of cooperation to work between the elected head of state and the two houses of Congress than its British counterpart. In recent times, that has proven more problematic for the United States’ system of democracy than it has for the British one. And although it has so far staggered on, it will be interesting to see if it is able to survive, intact, a second Trump presidency if that is what is to come to pass. 

Who seriously, looking at today’s United States Supreme Court and its rulings, would want to see politically appointed judges sitting in our courts or politically aligned judges elected to their office. Political neutrality clearly serves the system in Britain better than politically orientated judges do in the US.

When leaving the office after two successful terms as President, President Eisenhower famously warned of the power and influence of the military industrial complex. He said that the power of this complex was previously unknown in the American experience. As an extraordinarily distinguished general, Eisenhower knew what he was talking about. Today that military industrial complex has grown significantly since Eisenhower’s day, and could reasonably be argued to be the fourth pillar of American institutional life. And it is notable that, unlike their British counterparts, senior military officers swear allegiance to the Constitution of the country, not to the person who is the Head of State. 

In many ways, the United States has never been a country at ease with itself. It has always been one of questing and thrusting, of adventure, of buccaneering enterprise, of win or fail. That is the essence of the United States, right from its very earliest days. But the question must be that if a nation cannot settle down and find ways of living together, of finding common purpose, of sharing a national endeavour that is more than just cheering a flag, then surely a country has no actual soul at all. What Nick Bryant essentially chronicles here again is the quest for the answer to a simple question: can the United States ever find peace in its national identity, or is it forever condemned to being fundamentally unhappy and ill at ease?

The Forever War: America’s Unending Conflict with Itself – the history behind Trump and JD Vance By Nick Bryant, Bloomsbury Continuum, £25.00.

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

The 2024 general election has certainly been scrappy. It is a consequential election campaign that has seen all too few of the great issues contested and has principally revolved around an all too narrow debate on the enervating issue of how much our taxes will go up by and how fast that will happen. This has not been a vintage campaign even though the outcome will, one way or the other, be historic.

Only two people are in contention to be the next Prime Minister and how each of them behaves, whether they find themselves the victor or the loser, will determine the tone in their respective parties and the country for years to come.

In 1979, Jim Callaghan congratulated Margaret Thatcher on her victory noting that, although he disagreed with her politics, hers was a considerable personal victory. She reciprocated by thanking him for his long public service.

In 1997, John Major congratulated Tony Blair on his victory and then departed for an afternoon’s cricket at the Oval. The first words the new Prime Minister uttered on the steps of No, 10, before he had even gone through the famous black door, were to thank the outgoing Prime Minister for his service.

When it came to Tony Blair’s time to depart the scene his successor, Gordon Brown, could not bring himself to say anything pleasant about his predecessor. Nor could he find it in himself to wish his successor, David Cameron, well. Brown entered and left Downing Street with a public gracelessness that served public discourse ill. Indeed, it fell to David Cameron in the Commons after Blair’s final Prime Minister’s Questions to lead all MPs in a standing ovation for the departing Prime Minister.

These things matter. Politeness, grace in defeat, and magnanimity in victory matter. Whatever the results may be over the next few hours, we will all look to see if both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak can, in the end, muster the strength of character to treat each other with decency and respect at the moment of ultimate victory and loss.

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

In very recent times, Christ Church’s fame for being the home of Charles Dodgson of Alice in Wonderland, has been somewhat superseded by its apparent inability to get on well with its former dean, Martyn Percy. In actual fact, “The House”, as the college is commonly referred to, has a long and distinguished history, both inside the university itself and as a place where the cathedral for the Diocese of Oxford is housed. Originally established by Cardinal Wolsey and appropriated by King Henry VIII, Christ Church has enjoyed a significance and prominence in national affairs as a result of its enduring legacy of proximity to government.

History in the House is a remarkable book, charting the history of a succession of highly intelligent and independently-minded historians, all based at this one college. Davenport-Hines outlines the times in which they lived and worked, and the development of their thought and teaching. Along the way, we are reminded that no age is without its fashionable ideas, that yesterday’s commonly accepted creed all-too-often decays into tomorrow’s outrageously outdated and unacceptable opinion. 

Throughout the narrative, however, Davenport-Hines reminds us of the vital importance of the exchange of ideas – the need for people to be able to converse openly and debate different points of view, different opinions, different approaches – as a way of expanding understanding and knowledge. This is particularly important, as illustrated here in the teaching of history, as it applies to the development of political thought and approach.

Until relatively recently, The House and other comparable institutions were largely composed of old men from relatively similar social backgrounds, tied together by a shared intellectual bond and ability. It can easily be argued that such an environment can slide into thinking of itself as an irreplaceable elite, harbouring the arrogant conviction that its dilution by people of different genders and backgrounds has lowered the general level of academic robustness. 

While Davenport-Hines comes moderately close to suggesting this, he pulls back in the end. Instead, he makes the fundamentally important point that – in an age when everybody thinks their view is of equal importance, personal expression is all the vogue, and any sense of deference to greater learning or ability, let alone authority, is regarded as some absurd notion from a bygone age – we must not lose the ability to engage at the highest levels of learning and intellectual rigour in discussion, learning and debate. 

He quotes the Polish poet and Poet Laureate, Wisława Szymborska:

“Those who knew

What was going on here

Must make way

For those who know little.

And less than little.

And finally as little as nothing.”

Or, to put it another way, if in the end we lose that sense of historical learning and understanding that has so fundamentally informed our political debate throughout our history, then as a nation we are truly lost indeed. 

As Davenport-Hines ends this well-written and worthwhile book, one can only recall lines from Laurence Binyon’s poem, ‘The Burning of the Leaves’:

“Let them go to the fire, with never a look behind.

The world that was ours is a world that is ours no more.” 

My view is that our bit of the world that is Britain, is worth learning about, and worth fighting for.

History in the House: Some Remarkable Dons and the Teaching of Politics, Character and Statecraft by Richard Davenport-Hines is published by William Collins (£26)

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

This elegant and fluent new biography by the Conservative politician Damian Collins, Rivals in the Storm: How Lloyd George Seized Power, won the war and lost his government sets out Lloyd George’s life and his times, his period in office and his eventual downfall. It is often said that all political careers end in failure and that is of course true. If you seek the heights of elected office, a noble and worthy ambition at any time for any responsible citizen, and if you succeed, then your time will inevitably pass at some point.

Lloyd George ruthlessly displaced the leader of his own Liberal Party, H. H. Asquith, to seize the premiership but the moment was propitious. Asquith had been a lacklustre war leader lacking the determination and ruthlessness necessary to fight all-out war in a new mechanised age that was increasingly changing the nature of warfare itself. If Asquith represented the very last of that elegant educated romantic notion of the high summer of the Edwardian era, then Lloyd George by contrast was an admirable example of the new self-made, non-university type of person who was increasingly representing the changing face of industrial and urban Britain. 

Lloyd George revolutionised the way government itself was run. Hitherto, it had been a loose coalition of senior figures gathering to discuss the day’s events and in a vaguely haphazard way, to determine some policy to pursue. By introducing the first Cabinet secretary and the Cabinet secretariat, initially called the War Cabinet, under the very able and distinguished leadership of the former royal marine officer Sir Maurice Hankey, Lloyd George brought to the centre of government a degree of rigour and structure that had never previously existed. The success of this innovation, indeed the necessity of this innovation, can be seen by the fact that the role of Cabinet Secretary, although varying from Prime Minister to Prime Minister in what the exact nature of the duties involved may be, has remained a central figure to the system of governing Britain. As indeed has the Cabinet Office itself which has grown into being the single most powerful department of state, a characterisation it would energetically refute but nevertheless is the fact, for within it sits not only the administrative hub of Britain, but the coordination of the secret and security services that form the heart of the British state. 

It may be the Treasury that attracts and wallows self-confidently in the reputation of being the most powerful government department, but to those who know where power really sits in Whitehall, the Cabinet Office is without question the place any politician who is more interested in power than profile is anxious to reach. Lloyd George therefore not only re-galvanised Britain’s fighting spirit when he seized the premiership in 1916, thereby saving the nation from defeat in the war, but he also left a permanent and historical change in the way his successors exercised power in office. 

This is the second book Damian Collins has produced and his equally elegant book on Philip Sassoon is also well worth reading. Indeed in many ways the two books are companion pieces as there is much overlapping material. Collins, until the recent prorogation of parliament for the general election, was the Member of Parliament for Folkestone and Hythe, the area that covers Port Lympne, one of the two country homes of Philip Sasson. Indeed Lloyd George spent much time at the gloriously fashioned and sumptuous country house. Collins has spent time, not just in Westminster but around Whitehall, and displays a deft touch when describing political shenanigans and goings on. It is all too rare these days to find a politician who can do more than rattle off a shallow, op-ed piece for a newspaper, or a wearying social media post, and Collins sits in that great tradition of author/scholar/Members of Parliament. 

I can only hope that he has other books in the pipeline. In the meantime, be assured this is a great read and a beautiful evocation of an age of elegance, high policy and low intrigue in a political world where Britain’s views and actions mattered to many people, at home and around the world.

Rivals in the Storm: How Lloyd George seized power, won the war and lost his government by Damian Collins (Bloomsbury, 368pp; £25).

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

Against a backdrop of shouting and blaring music from beyond the Downing Street gates, Sunak calmly explained what he had done so far as Chancellor and Prime Minister and what he hoped, if re-elected, he would do in the years ahead. Soaked to the skin he turned on his heel and went back inside – one hopes for a hot drink and some dry clothes.

Only a few hours earlier at Prime Minister’s Questions, he had repeated his by now familiar mantra when challenged about the timing of the looming general election that it would take place sometime in the second half of the year. Few gave his answer a second thought. This despite the fact that serious rumours had started to circulate about the possibility of a calling of an election around tea time of the previous day.

Political groupthink is a very powerful force at Westminster. There are all sorts of issues and positions that seem settled and immovable right up to the moment they are shifted then everyone leaps on board and claims it was obvious really all along.

So the professional pundits and political observers were wrong-footed. They will not easily forgive the Prime Minister for making them look foolish. In the age of mass social media communication, that matters much less than it once might have done.

There are two Westminster groups however that were perfectly on point about a July election. For anyone listening closely to Labour, it was clear that they had identified early July as a distinct possibility for an election and were prepared for such an eventuality. The other group was the Conservative Campaign Headquarters. For anyone listening carefully to their senior figures, they too were gearing up for a July contest. In neither case was this just routine preparation.

The glory of a general election is that we, the electorate, have the chance to change our minds about what we want and we are not bound to be consistent from one election to another. It is up to the politicians to make their case and not take the electorate for granted. It is our privilege and responsibility to chose.

Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister in the most arduous of circumstances. He has grappled valiantly in the nineteen months he has held the Premiership with a very difficult inheritance and an abundance of predecessors who were, apart from David Cameron, not disposed to be either helpful or supportive. The Conservative party in the country understands and sympathises with the Prime Minister perhaps in a way the Parliamentary party, which in this Parliament alone has worked its way through no less than three Prime Ministers, has frequently failed to do.

In truth, an autumn election was never an attractive option. September’s party conferences held the prospect of a successful confident Labour week contrasting with a fractious week of Conservative angsting and arguing. That would have been no basis to launch a campaign. The argument that something might turn up or Keir Starmer would somehow stumble or whatever straw might be clutched was always an argument for delay and dither over realism and reality. The country was obviously becoming increasingly impatient with all the speculation.

So Sunak has grasped the nettle. That shows character and courage. He goes to the country as a relatively fresh Prime Ministerial face yet with experience of holding two of the great offices of state: Prime Minister and Chancellor. He is able to say: “I have made a start but I need your support to push on with what needs to be done”. Unlike James Callaghan, Gordon Brown and, in 1997, John Major, Rishi Sunak has rightly opted not to drag the country up to the electoral wire. This provides an insight into his priorities: it shows he has decided to put his country first. Country first is the right call for any Prime Minister.

In Robert Harris’s great series on the legendary political philosopher and politician, Cicero, he has the great statesman saying something along the lines of, in politics, when you find yourself in a corner, start a fight. You may not know where you will end up but you need to make things move. Twenty points behind Rishi Sunak is certainly in a corner. Instead of waiting, and being ground down, and pushed around, and being at the beck and call of events the Prime Minister has opted to start a fight. This too shows something of the character of the person asking for our support.

There is one other thing to bear in mind. Were Sunak to lose but only by a relatively slim margin, there is every reason to think he will opt to stay on and fight it out through the next Parliament and the following general election. That, after all, was the normal practice of British political leaders until quite recent times. This new habit of political leaders zooming up the ladder, into office, then pushing off as soon as they lose is as unwelcome as it is unhelpful to the fostering of talent, experience and consistency. So Sunak may well, rightly, have his eye not just on this general election, but the one after that too. One way or another, Rishi Sunak may well be just getting into his stride and is right to have called this election when he did.

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

Robert Hardman has firmly established himself as the most authoritative of the current crop of Royal chroniclers. He has done this by building a good degree of trust with his subjects without, quite, falling into a level of obsequiousness that would invite mockery. It is however a fine line Hardman is treading. He is not quite the self-appointed “Gold Nib in Waiting” but neither do we expect any staggering intrusive revelation or exposé. If that was his business he would not achieve the level of access he does. Instead what we are treated to is a gentle but persistent pulling back of the curtains. He does not shy away from tackling the more sensitive issues, but neither does he question the purpose of the institution of Monarchy or its fundamental approach to its business. Hardman sets out to describe what is actually going on and he does this well.

There is much here that will be familiar to those who watched his recent BBC documentary on the year he spent with the King. It was interesting there and it is interesting here. There is much detail too on the Coronation and how it compared with the last one. Indeed there is perhaps too much detail about the last Coronation, comparisons with which feel almost pointless because it was such a long time ago. Some of the anecdotes from those closest to the King and Queen border on the “’cor it’s all amazing” variety and do not really add very much to the general picture. The Queen’s sister telling us she thinks the Queen is a good thing is an example of the banality those on Royal watching duty can sometimes slip into when recording insider views.

The comments from the Princess Royal on the other hand are particularly interesting. The more so because she is not prone to giving personal insights to journalists on her thoughts about her family or the institution. More of that and less of the other for future documentaries and books would be most welcome.

There is, as always with such accounts, much on the anxieties surrounding the transition from Elizabeth II to Charles III, what to do with the Dukes of York and Sussex, how to be different and yet provide continuity, how to support causes without provoking controversy. All this is well-worn and familiar territory.

The stuff about the smoothness of transition, so long a cause of angst and worry to Charles and his team, proved in the event a complete non-issue. Charles and Camilla have long been well-established, comfortable and familiar figures to the nation. This fact seems to have escaped the notice of Royal officials. Their assumption of the leading role seems as natural as it was inevitable.

The Queen has approached her new duties with a lightness of touch and a sureness of foot that has done the Monarchy proud and gives great pleasure to all those she comes into contact with.

We are all very familiar with the presence of the King in our nation’s life, his cares and concerns. He is an avuncular, warm and gentle figure. His occasional irascibility simply shows he’s human like the rest of us. Camilla clearly continues to enchant him and helps him shoulder his responsibilities. The nation as well as the King owes her a debt of gratitude.

Hardman brings into sharp relief the sheer scale of the business side of the operation. This aspect of Monarchy is a relatively new development. The scale of the charities, the number of properties, the financial complexity of managing all the land, houses and investments is a huge undertaking in and of itself. This is something that will require considerable further thought if it is not to overwhelm the institution itself. An advisor quoted as saying no more properties are needed clearly has the right instinct.

There must be a huge temptation to always be doing rather than just being. To create new charities and prizes rather than just stick to visits and ribbon cutting. The global reach of the institution must be very seductive, the immense convening power almost head-spinning. The institution needs to be business-like but must not turn itself into a business. Service not commerce is the purpose of Monarchy.

Too readily perhaps in the book Hardman accepts some of the whinges and gripes and accepted wisdom that hangs over the Monarchy like a fog. Its international aspects, for example, matter less than its domestic ones.

It is revealing, according to Hardman, that the Prince of Wales will not unduly mind if he is not automatically taken on as Head of the Commonwealth when his time comes. If this is correct Prince William is wise to not mind. It is sad to hear that the new Prince and Princess of Wales will not be using Llwynywermod, the house in Carmarthenshire the King bought and restored when Prince of Wales.

We are reminded here that it is often those who join the family – Philip, Camilla, Kate, for example – who bring it a much-needed energy and breath of fresh air. Much as Elizabeth Bowes Lyons did a generation before. Such joiners, not brought up to the incredible pressure and scrutiny, need to be looked after well. To their credit, both Charles and William seem to do just that with Camilla and Kate.

Once again Robert Hardman has delivered a most readable and interesting book. He has served his King well and his reading public proud. Long may he write for us.

Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story. by Robert Hardman, Pan Macmillan, 2024, £22

Predictably the naysayers and critics came out in force. How can a person with three homes be credible on this topic? He is being too political. Homelessness will never be ended. What does he know about homelessness? Well quite a lot actually but do not let William’s long term interest in the issue get in the way of a good criticism.

Any action he takes to do anything, support anyone, or try to provide help of any kind will always leave him open to the charge that he is too privileged to be taken seriously. It is not fair but inevitable that he will face these brickbats. This, however, is a serious and worthwhile initiative by the Prince and should be welcomed on its own merits. Homelessness is an area he has devoted much thought to and taken a personal and practical interest over many years.

When the King first established the Prince’s Trust in 1976 he faced similar criticism for meddling and interfering. As a former Prince’s Trust Mentor myself I have seen at first hand the value and importance of the work that is done. Forty-seven years on who now could reasonably say the King was wrong to establish the Trust?

Over the years I have volunteered with several charities, including with Emmaus and the Salvation Army, to help alleviate the impact of homelessness. It can happen to anyone, often through no fault of their own, frequently because of illness. Homelessness and mental health issues often go hand-in-hand. A surprising number of former military people are to be found homeless. I have encountered people of all ages, professional people, skilled workers, the young desperate and exploited, as well as the occasional ‘gentleman of the road’ who by choice lives outdoors – but they are to be found only occasionally. When I first went to work as an MP’s Research Assistant I met Mr Lane, formerly of the RAF, who would each day when Parliament was sitting would make his way from his home on the streets to sit and often sleep in Central Lobby. He would use the lavatories to clean-up and would often be brought drinks and food by MPs and Parliamentary staff. When the Commons rose for the night Mr Lane would return to the streets. Central Lobby was as much his home as anywhere else.

Homelessness is a difficult issue to tackle. Its causes frequently complicated. Prince William is right however to put it front and centre of public debate and of his early work as Prince of Wales. He must wave off the critics and press on with this important project.

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

The numbers of troops are so great and the parade so long that when it was fully formed up it stretched from Westminster Abbey to the head of the Mall at Admiralty Arch. As it was assembling I walked the length of it. Representatives from every regiment and branch of service, every rank from private to Air Chief Marshall, were on parade. One line was composed of the ‘Chiefs’, the heads of Armed Forces led by the Chief of the Defence Staff himself, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. Like the others they stood quietly waiting for the off. Presiding over it all with his customary authority was the Garrison Sergeant Major London District Vern Stokes. A giant of a man the GSM has the responsibility for making it all go perfectly. There may be people who carry greater rank on these occasions but no-one wields more authority.

Rehearsals and practice have been going on elsewhere ahead of Coronation Day. In Buckingham and Lambeth Palaces and at Westminster Abbey, practice and preparation have been the orders of the day. Everyone wants to play their part well and that is how it should be because we are not only ceremonially crowning and anointing our Sovereign we are also celebrating our nation and its wider relationships.

The convening power of Monarchy is well established and formidable. In this age of social media, twenty-four hour rolling news, political feather-weights, and mass self pre-occupation on an epic scale, it is a welcome and healthy reminder that the national and ancient ritual of crowning our Monarch can still draw us together as a country, and draw in many more across the world.

Magnificent as the ceremony inside Westminster Abbey and along the parade route will be, we need not be dewy eyed or warm under the collar about the events of the day. The Coronation rightly prompts us to think and reflect about what is happening and why, and what does it say about us as country and our institutions – and it is important that we do.

Much as senior Royal officials try to pretend otherwise, the Sovereign is as much a political as they are a ceremonial figure. It is an unhealthy fiction Buckingham Palace has tried to promote in recent years. Two recent examples give the lie to their position. One is the late Queen’s role in the Scottish independent referendum campaign. The other, very recent, is the revelation by Anthony Seldon in his new book, that the late Queen discretely acted to guide then Prime Minister Boris Johnson through the Brexit deadlock. The Sovereign is a political figure and plays a role in the political life of the country, in private as well as in public, and it is for that reason that we all have a right to know what sort of person our Monarch is. Senior courtiers would serve their Sovereign better if they cottoned on to the fact that they fool no-one but themselves with a contrary fiction.

There is no rule, regulation or law that says we have to have this day of Coronation. Rather it is a custom and practice that has grown up. Primarily in times past to gather the powerful peers and nobles of the land (the same thing until quite recent times) in as impressive a place as possible, then as now Westminster Abbey, to overawe them and make them swear loyalty. 

This Coronation sees a substantial change. Now peers and nobles are not automatically powerful and so, for the first time, most have not been invited to attend. Neither have most Members of Parliament, which probably says something significant about the Monarch’s view of them. In their place, there will be a large number of ordinary people who have earned recognition for their community service. Peers and politicians have been displaced by the people. This is one of the revolutionary innovations of this Coronation worth noting. Out of the House of Lords and now out of the Coronation the old Peers have gone and they will not return. Parliamentarians did not even hold a traditional Coronation Banquet in Westminster Hall. Instead there was an afternoon reception.

The Coronation service itself will be both familiar yet different. Most notable is the much expanded role of Catholic prelates and their more numerous presence. Coronation itself is an ancient Catholic ceremony that somehow managed to survive the Reformation. The Archbishop of Canterbury may, rightly, have updated the language of the service but the constituent parts of it remain unchanged. Other faith leaders will have a more prominent role in proceedings than they have ever had before. Britain continues to change and its national celebrations and ceremonies change to reflect that fact. Other countries may do revolution, but here we do evolution and there is no better example of this than the Coronation itself.

The greatest threat to the Monarchy comes not from without but from within. The antics of the Dukes of York and Sussex overshadowed the final years of both Prince Philip and the late Queen. The danger was that they would overshadow the start to the new reign. It is to the credit of the King and Queen that they have not done so. The perceived lavishness of the lifestyle is another problem. Monarchy is a vast and highly commercial business. It needs to be careful not to become commercialised. It is not just about slimming down the number of Royals on the payroll, a problem the King is well aware of, but the huge financial sprawl of an institution already perceived to be privileged.

New occupants of the throne Charles and Camilla may be but they are of course familiar and well known figures to us all. As Princess Anne so appositely put it about her brother “He has after all been practising [for the role] for some time.” He may have a short temper with ink pens but frankly who cares? He is an interesting and interested figure, thoughtful and considerate. He may mind and care about things too much, but that is surely better than having someone who does not care at all. The Queen champions worthwhile causes that otherwise might not receive much support and when interviewed always cuts an amusing and articulate figure. They are obviously happy and well matched and that spills over into a warmer Monarchy.

The nation’s deal with its Sovereign is a hard headed and practical one. You give us a good service and keep the Constitution on an even keel and we are happy to support you and enjoy the bits and bobs that go with Monarchy. Defining and delivering what is good service and where the even keel of the Constitution takes continuous and careful work. Britain is an uncertain place. Its union under pressure, its economy challenged, and with its politics struggling to find a sure footing. The Coronation has come at just the right time to remind us there is a Greater Britain and longer history and a finer history than those issues and people who just happen to be pre-occupying us today.

God save the King and Queen

May they long reign over us.

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

So far this has not assuaged those who are disappointed by the news that Parliamentary not Coronation robes are to be worn by those, relatively few, Parliamentarians who are entitled to wear any sort of robe who have actually been invited. Far fewer nobles and many more less 

encrusted subjects have been invited to attend which, surely, is a sensible evolution to the composition of an ancient ceremony intended to cement a Monarch’s place on the throne. 

It is a reminder too that in the age of global and direct communication, the support of the aristocracy and even elected Members of Parliament is not as important as once it was. The Sovereign has direct connection to the public nowadays and it is on that support the institution is ultimately reliant for its continued existence. Monarchy thinks in decades and centuries and the Coronation arrangements are reflecting this fact. Aristocrats carry little clout and MPs, to adapt a phrase, are here today and gone tomorrow. We, the public, are a constant. The Coronation will be spectacular.

With less than three weeks to go to polling day the local election campaign is in full swing with thousands of candidates fighting today for their vision of tomorrow. Members of Parliament, mindful that a General Election is not far away, are out in force supporting their colleagues. Although few MPs would admit it, many have a conflict of feeling about councillor colleagues. For an MP it is often a help to be able to campaign against a local council run by opposition councillors. It is much harder to have to defend unpopular local decisions made by party colleagues over which you have no direct control but which you will be expected to support. On the other hand, a good local council team can be a huge encouragement and provide invaluable support come General Election time.

Thirteen years into government with four Prime Ministers having been and gone, little of any real meaning in the results will be able to be read into popular views of Rishi Sunak and his government. A General Election may be nearing but it is still too early to tell with any certainty what voters settled views are on the Prime Minister and his administration. The Chancellor maybe confident that ‘Britain is back’ but there remains a huge amount of very hard work to fire up all the cylinders of the British economy. The Prime Minister knows this. It is worth noting however that the polling gap between Conservative and Labour, though still significant, is certainly beginning to narrow. The Prime Minister, like the King, is playing it long.

Rishi Sunak is not the only leader with his eyes on a national poll. President Biden’s visit to the north and south of Ireland last week was good evidence of this. He spent hours in the north and days in the south. Obviously the visit had more to do with gingering up the Irish vote in the United States ahead of his announcement that he will seek a second term in the White House and less to do with shoring up the political settlement in the north. Joe Biden is the canniest of politicians who even in his eighties is more effective a politician than most people half his age. Sunak, who probably understands US politics better than most British politicians knows this. We can be confident that despite some extraordinary press coverage of the visit US/UK relations are in a good place.

Political relations between England and Scotland however are in need of some serious work by Westminster politicians. Keir Starmer is right to put winning a good number of Scottish seats at the next General Election at the top of his priority list. Scotland cannot afford to become in effect a one-party state. Neither can any party who wants to credibly govern the United Kingdom and hold the Union willingly together simply rely on an English majority. The Conservatives ‘red wall’ strategy must not be allowed to become an electoral cul-de-sac for the party. 

Policies to attract votes and win seats across the United Kingdom need to be in the manifestos of all serious national parties. 

The Coronation is a United Kingdom event and it would be a good thing if it ushered in a new era of pan-United Kingdom thinking in our national politics.

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

In recent days both Chancellor Scholz of Germany and President Biden of the United States have tried to make calming and reassuring noises about the banking sector. It is never a good sign for a sector when senior politicians feel they have to make reassuring noises about it.

President Biden insists that the issues affecting banks in the US are different to the ones affecting the sector in Europe. He may be right. He may not be. There is no reason to be confident he really knows, and confidence is the key. Chancellor Scholz was radiating everything but confidence when he tried to talk up Deutsche Bank’s prospects over the weekend.

Having successfully brokered the deal that saved the UK branch of the California tech bank SVB, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has observed a studious silence on the increasingly dark cloud hanging over the banks. As a former banker himself, however, the seriousness of another banking crisis will not have eluded him. There is very little sympathy for the banks and voters would not take well having to stand surety for the sector once again. London’s, and therefore the UK’s, reliance on the finance sector leaves the domestic economy especially vulnerable to such concern.

Michael Gove’s comments over the weekend that the UK economy has suffered material harm as a result of both the pandemic and the war in Ukraine is a frank admission of the challenge facing the economy. Gove is among the most able and fluent politicians of his generation. He will know too, though unwilling to say it, that Brexit has taken a toll too on Britain’s economy. The OBR estimates the economy is 4% smaller than it would have been had Britain remained a member of the European Union. Brexit is a fact but politics being what it is, no senior politician or major political party is willing to discuss the toll being outside of the world’s biggest market is taking on the economy. It is the fact that dares not speak its name. Britain’s current political debate is therefore taking place in a sort of Alice in Wonderland state of denial about what is really going on with the economy and the policy initiatives needed to reverse the damage. The current policy consensus across Westminster that taxes need to continue to increase, public spending needs to continue to grow, and that government borrowing at current levels is sustainable while the economy shrinks is obviously a direction the country needs to be moved away from as quickly as possible.

At some point the political habit of asking what we voters want and then serving it up to us is going to have to give way to our political masters setting out the challenges and the opportunities we face, outlining their policies of how to address them and then seek to persuade us to support them. It’s an old fashioned approach to politics of course, and one President Macron is struggling with over in France as he seeks to persuade the French of the need to work a year or two longer before they receive their pension. But in the end pandering needs to give way to principle, the pollster needs to take a seat behind principle, and British politics needs to return to being a clash of competing ideas and to stop being a contest about who can coin the snappiest soundbite.

Such a change in practice and habit will take political leadership of a high order. The House of Commons Library, an invaluable source of independent political and policy research, has published a fascinating paper on election statistics for every election from 1918-2022. It charts the changing face of those we send to Parliament to represent us. Among its many findings several facts stand out. The number of working class people we elect has reduced to zero. The number of professional people, barristers, teachers, and the like, elected has decreased over time, while the number of people with political experience or close connection has increased dramatically. The political parties are now moving at pace to select their candidates for the next General Election. It is already apparent that the number of people being selected for all parties as candidates who have served or are serving as local councillors is significant. Serving as a local councillor is a fine and important thing to do, but it is in no way a qualification for service at Westminster. Being an MP and being a councillor are quite different roles. Neither is it healthy for local residents to have a representative who has at least one eye focussed on “moving up”. We need many more people with a broad and varied experience of life in Parliament and far fewer “professional politicians”. Maybe then we would have the people with the confidence and wisdom to escape reliance on the triangulators and lead us with the ambition and confidence we need?

The Coronation, just six weeks away, offers a rare opportunity to reset the national narrative. It will be a splendid occasion. We will not see pomp and pageantry on the scale of 1953. What we will see is the solemn service of Coronation and the accompanying celebrations suited for our own time. Who will be the national leader who frames the moment, seizes the national conversation and sets the path for the new reign?

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

Ten years ago this week Justin Welby was enthroned at Canterbury Cathedral as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury. Ten turbulent years for the Church of England over which he presides, and ten turbulent years for the Archbishop personally.

During this decade we have learnt about him personally, the circumstances of his childhood, his parentage, his family life. We have learnt about some of the pain he and his wife, Caroline, have experienced as parents, along with the huge joy they share with their children. The Archbishop and Mrs Welby often work and travel together, supporting each other in his ministry, and sharing their faith in the open and informal manner in which they feel the most comfortable.

While much focus has been on the more difficult parts of the Archbishop’s life, less attention has been paid to his wider family, which on his mother’s side, is extremely grand indeed. To most of us, being educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, would be a rare experience. To be an Archbishop, rarer still. However, as far as the Archbishop’s wider family is concerned, stuffed as it is with imperial governors, public school headmasters, peers of the realm, deans of cathedrals and bishops, his being the Archbishop of Canterbury is not necessarily an exceptional achievement. There can be little doubt that his background and upbringing has given him a rare breadth of experience.

Before priestly ministry he spent some time in business and following ordination he has enjoyed a relatively swift rise to the top. The Church he inherited from his brilliant, beloved but frequently not well understood predecessor, Rowan Williams, was firmly established on a downward trajectory in terms of practising members and serious attention paid to its views. This was not Williams’ fault but nothing he was able to do arrested the sense of inevitable decline. To this challenge Welby was clearly ready to respond with energy and purpose.

Much criticism and lampooning goes with being the Archbishop of Canterbury. To survive you have to have a very thick skin, a very resilient nature, and a forgiving heart. It is apparent that sometimes the criticism demoralises the Archbishop and this has, as he has spoken about, affected his health in various ways. If resilience is witnessed in the ability to carry on despite the suffering endured then Welby is resilient. He is certainly personally brave.

The Church of England over which the Archbishop presides bears little to the church I grew up in. No longer united by a commonly used prayer book, splintered into self-identifying “traditions”, fractured by who will accept whose ministry, a pick your own approach to which Bishop you are willing to recognise as a Bishop – leaving Bishops as more beacons of division than points of unity, a deeply entrenched and bitter row about who should and should not be able to marry in a church, and a sense of an increasingly desperate fight for survival. The Church of England is no longer one Church with an approach to and a relationship with the nation but a series of churches each fighting for a chunk of the market in a sort of Darwinian approach to ministry which sees frequent demands from parish clergy for regular updates of events delivered and numbers in the pews. The successful are rewarded with strong backing. The weak are allowed to wither away. Many fine parish priests do much needed and unsung good work, but too few are appreciated in the way they should be.

In 2001, Douglas Hurd, the former Foreign Secretary, conducted a review of the See of Canterbury, the Archbishop’s diocese. Among many recommendations he suggested that Archbishops of Canterbury should focus on their leadership role in the Anglican Communion and let the number two Archbishop, the Archbishop of York focus on the domestic church across England. This Rowan Williams, and then Justin Welby have proceeded to do. Indeed Archbishop Justin places much emphasis on this part of his job and devoted much time to it. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the Anglican Communion might be (the subject for another time) it must surely be time to revisit this emphasis. With the numbers attending church across England continuing to decline – there is no compelling independent evidence to suggest there is growth overall in the numbers attending church – it must surely be right for the country’s senior Christian leader to devote much more of their time and energy to addressing the mission at home?

Like all positions of very senior public responsibility being Archbishop of Canterbury must at times be lonely, frustrating and wearing. Church of England clergy and Bishops are not renowned for always being kind and thoughtful to or about each other let alone their Archbishop. Whilst the church does a huge amount of good work in communities across the land much of its senior leadership is increasingly defensive, taking questions as challenge, comment as criticism, lacking the intellectual confidence to debate ideas, and finding much of modern communications too uncomfortable to engage with with ease. The priest Giles Fraser, who has perhaps enjoyed more than his fair-share of forgiveness and patience from his fellow clergy, marked the Archbishop’s decade in office with an article demonstrating that it is easier to criticise than praise the Archbishop.

Even the Archbishop’s own bit of the church, the HTB-ers, for whom he has done much and from whom he might have expected considerable public support have often been notable for their silence when the Archbishop could have done with a public word of support and encouragement. From Bishop Graham Tomlin, whom the Archbishop has done so much to personally promote and who he has just installed at Lambeth Palace in a specially created role, came a less than supportive tweet (since deleted) criticising the timing of the debate on marriage in the General Synod. The Archbishop might have hoped for more? For a part of the church which bangs on about the importance of leadership they might reflect that real leadership is not something you talk about it is something you do by standing up and being counted. Talk alone is cheap.

The Archbishop’s establishment of the Centre for Cultural Witness, run by Graham Tomlin, based at Lambeth Palace is perhaps the most telling commentary of all on the last ten years. On its own website it says: “Our aim is to make Christian faith better understood in public…” In that half a sentence you have perhaps the most damning verdict on the effectiveness of the Church of England’s leadership in recent times and its persistent refusal, common to so much of the evangelical approach that the Archbishop adopts and which he favours, is to refuse to speak to the unique insight and appeal of the institution that he himself heads. Maybe it is for this reason that he does not often attract consistent and reliable support from other parts of the church for his initiatives and projects. It will be for history to judge, and it is not a criticism of what he has done as Archbishop, but there can be little doubt that the entrenchment of institutionalised division in the Church of England is greater today than at any time since the Elizabethan Settlement. How the church can work in this way going forward is going to be one of its great tests.

Even in this era of social media and fast-paced news cycles the Church moves, as befits an ancient organisation, in its deliberations and practices at a very different pace to the rest of society. On his immediate ‘to-do’ list the Archbishop has the rare responsibility of a Coronation to preside over. For much else however the dynamics and trajectory of the rest of his time in office have been set. Views will vary passionately about the success of Justin Welby’s policies, initiatives and actions as Archbishop. His judgements will be scrutinised and debated. The successes and failures of his determination to put so much effort into certain things will not be apparent for, maybe, years to come.

In the BBC documentary Vatican The Hidden World, Cardinal Angelo Comastri talks about the pressures on then Pope Benedict. He quotes a priest of the Italian church saying: “There will come a time when leadership almost resembles a crucifixion.” Ten years on, Justin Welby still exudes energy, warmth and a very human approach to being Archbishop. He continues to faithfully and prayerfully do his best in what is without question one of the most difficult jobs in the country.

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

Two interesting things to note did emerge very clearly from the Chancellor’s statement. Firstly, both main parties agree that government should tax us more and spend more of our money on the things they think we like and need. The suggestions that government should spend less, do fewer things and that we should all pay less tax and be allowed to keep more of our own money to spend in ways we choose is very much out of fashion at Westminster. These things go in cycles but at some point some bright spark will (re)discover thinking in this area, but not yet and probably only after some huge financial crisis forces us to. Like last time.

Secondly, there is agreement that some doctors are now so rich and their pension pots so large that they need to be given a special tax cut to persuade them to keep on working. The only difference between the Chancellor and his shadow, Rachel Reeves, is that he thinks this special treatment should be extended to all of us. The Shadow Chancellor thinks only doctors should enjoy this special taxpayer subsidised perk. It is narrow ground on which to pick a fight but that is where they have both chosen to stand their ground.

The Budget however was overshadowed by the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank. President Biden ensured it was bailed out in the US. The UK bit of the bank was bought by HSBC in a very smooth deal overseen by the Prime Minister, Chancellor and their officials. Indeed so smooth was their management of the issue that it is possible many people hardly noticed the failure of a bank of which most of us had never heard, unless of course you watch the stock-market where share price falls reflected a growing sense of nervousness. This nervousness has only increased this last weekend as we watch what is going on with Credit Suisse. Spring may be on its way but there are chill winds blowing through the corridors of Whitehall power at the possibility of another banking crisis.

It is, though, the corridors of Westminster where most eyes will be fixed this week. The former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is due for a good grilling in front of a senior committee of his fellow Parliamentarians about his conduct in office. The former Premier we are told has been working hard with his legal team, his aides have been briefing the newspapers. Boris, we read, has been spending hours practising his lines for the grand inquisition. As always to do with things Boris an enormous amount of heat is being generated, whether any illumination materialises we will have to wait and see, but as everything to do with him is it will be well worth watching. (Wednesday, 2pm. Live.)

While Sunak successfully steadies the Conservative Party and Keir Starmer keeps a steady hand on the tiller of the Labour Party it is in Edinburgh we see the crumbling of a once mighty political edifice. Truth be told no political system thrives when one party stays in office too long. No political party stays healthy, energetic and attentive to the electorate if it just goes on unchallenged and this, now, is what the SNP is suffering from, from being too long effectively challenged and holding office. When you stop and think about it, what organisation, business, let alone a political party should ever permit two people who are married to one another to hold the top two positions in the organisation as Nicola Sturgeon and her husband, Peter Murrell, have done. It is obviously not wise, but such lack of wisdom often comes when a politician is in office too long. It is not the SNP’s fault that they keep winning elections of course. That is the failure of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties to offer compelling alternatives. Sorting out these failures ought to be a priority for these parties’ national leaders. Doing what is needed to recover in Scotland would do the Conservative and Labour parties in particular a power of good nationally. As it is, SNP fatigue is likely to see an improvement in Labour’s share of the Scottish vote. The SNP’s vulnerability however ought to be seen as a huge opportunity for Conservative strategists. The Red Wall focus is a political cul-de-sac for the Conservatives, who need to focus on a broad national appeal and move away from a regionalised focus.

It is the banks, however, that will dominate this week. Politicians know the public appetite for another round of bank bailouts is pretty low. If the bankers cannot learn to run their banks without regularly crashing them into the ground then some huge and comprehensive overhaul of how they do their business will be necessary. It is going to be a long week at Westminster and in the City as everyone nervously waits to see if we are going to tumble into another banking crisis.

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

This may be the political reality for the government just now but at some point the balance of Britain’s spending, borrowing, and taxing is going to have to be addressed. Follow the Money by Paul Johnson is a superb look at how we spend our money, where we spend it and just how much we waste. It should be compulsory reading for every taxpayer and every voter. There is much that the British state does well and many of us rely on it for certain things. There are though incredible examples of where politics shoves out common-sense and wise action. The need for effective reforming budgets is fast coming, but not this week because the backdrop to this budget is anything but quiet.

Last week a small tech focussed bank in the United States failed. Yesterday, Sunday, at 7.30am the Chancellor had to issue an emergency statement outlining the measures he is taking to support those in Britain affected by the collapse. This morning everyone is anxiously watching market reaction. A banking crisis leading to a collapse in market confidence is not what we need. It is a reminder however that no matter how high we try to pull up the drawbridge to our island we are all profoundly and directly affected by what’s going on elsewhere in the world.

At home things are no less febrile. The Prime Minister has firmly staked his future on stopping the boats trafficking illegal migrants to our shores. To that end he has taken measures to thoroughly, he hopes, address the issue. Through Parliament he will push some tough and controversial legislation. Alongside that he went to Paris to negotiate a new deal, costing us half a billion pounds, with the French. There is strong support for the need to stop the illegal arrivals but the methods, and language employed by some, has provoked a feisty debate. It’s a debate No 10 may or may not want to promote but have it it certainly will.

This then led to the Gary Lineker row. Lineker posted a tweet the BBC decided it did not like. This led to him not appearing to present his football show and a hugely reduced amount of football coverage over the weekend. I have to confess to Reaction readers that I do not like football and do not watch programmes that report on football. It is therefore a relief to find less of it on the television. Nevertheless there are many who do like these things and Lineker’s absence from the screen has led to a huge row. This row, as these sorts of rows often are, is not really just about Lineker’s tweet – he’s been tweeting for a while now regularly attracting attention for his comments – as much as it is about how the BBC is run and who runs it. That’s a big topic and not one for here just now. Suffice to say the Prime Minister has enough on his plate just now without a leadership crisis at the BBC erupting.

Whilst the nation and its media were focussing on the BBC, which however you look at it is not a first class problem, actually important and much less reported events were going on elsewhere, but have potentially huge impact for us. The President of China secured for himself an unprecedented third term in office. The mutiny in certain parts of the Israeli army and the huge protests that are going on. Saudis and Arabia and Iran agreeing to restore relations in talks hosted by China. The Indian government’s approach to the media. The next steps in the AUKUS agreement. To name but a few. There is a lot going on and much of it affects or will affect us directly. A few days ago hardly any of us knew this American bank that has gone bust existed. Now the Chancellor is being forced to issue dawn statements on a Sunday morning and hoping against hope the markets stay calm on the following day. We must guard against an insularity in our national debate which distracts from those things that really matter and focuses on those things that actually do not matter very much at all.

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

The Prime Minister, reasonably, might feel that he is in the process of writing his party’s future but the last few days have shown how difficult it is for someone who arrives in No 10 mid-term to shift the focus from the past to the future. It is not a surprise then, with less than two years to go until the next General Election, to see Conservative politicians and their favoured Westminster-based think-tanks start publishing their thoughts about “the future of Conservatism”. So far there is a startling lack of originality or fresh thinking.

“People are not dominated by material things,” Winston Churchill said, “but by ideas, for which they are willing to give their life’s work.” Conservatism, at its best, is not a set of dogmas or doctrines but an idea. It is a hope. It captures and enables the best of people’s aspirations and the country’s ambition. The themes are familiar and enduring – freedom, liberty, efficient and effective running of vital public services, a respect for but not subservience to institutions, a willingness to put the country’s interests ahead of constituency concerns, a determination to manage the nation’s finances responsibly, to ensure our Armed Forces are kept in good order, a desire to nurture individual and community cohesion and enterprise, and to be a party for and of the whole country – Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland as well as England. With a record of a long period in government voters will be thinking about how the Conservatives have done in these respects and listening carefully to what it is saying about the future.

Levelling up is a catchy slogan but has it been delivered in a way that those who need it most can feel it? Localism is a worthy and correct ambition but do we feel we have better local government than we did? More fundamentally the standard election question, “are you better off than you were when they started?” is the one everyone will be asking themselves and reflecting on.

For Conservatism to successfully and constructively chart its next phase it is going to have to reflect hard on some of its recent thinking and move on from the slogans of fallen leaders. This new thinking should revolve around five themes:

–        A confidence to talk about and develop plans that lead to lower personal and business  taxation, to deliver reform to vital state services to improve higher standards and improved value for money.

–        To develop policies and ambition that can appeal across and to the whole country and not just parts of England, seductive as that has proven to be in recent times.

–        To be confident and comfortable about working with organisations and institutions at national and local level, and to implement well thought out and explained reform where necessary.

–        That levelling up, increased productivity, a more cohesive society, and increasing innovation and enterprise can only be achieved through the endless and determined drive to improve education and training. Teachers and tutors need better training, pay, and respect. Schools and colleges need better and continuous investment. We need to stop treating our universities as wealth generators but as temples of learning, growth and preparation.

–        To make the future a confident, comfortable and appealing place to go to with the Conservative Party – if you care about the economy, your future, the environment, and above all your country.

The future of Conservatism must resist the temptation to stoke up the so-called culture wars and become the forgers of a stronger sense of national community. The country is changing. It always has and it always will. It is unsettling now, as it has always been, and it’s up to a successful Conservative future to explain how this never ending process can be managed well. A successful Conservative future will have to involve a compelling appeal to people’s best hopes and ambitions and to reject the politics of a Trumpian fanning of fears and stoking division.

The next phase of the future of Conservatism must see a return to truly national politics. It needs to be the politics where the partnership of Britain’s constituent nations becomes once again the strength of the Conservative prospectus at a General Election.

Group think is incredibly powerful at Westminster and across Whitehall. If you disagree with the prevailing wisdom you are often ignored or thought not quite au fait with the realities. Think Winston Churchill warning about the threat of Germany for years before the Second World War. Think Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph suggesting the country could be run differently to the way it had been, under both major political parties, for the preceding forty years. A successful future for Conservatism requires starting from first principles and demands new and original thinking.

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

This week one of the oldest and most enduring issues of British politics, the political settlement in Northern Ireland – never an issue that remains quiet for very long, is the latest in a series of career-defining issues to demand the attention of the occupant of No 10. This time round the province’s future is firmly set in the context of Britain’s departure from the European Union and Rishi Sunak is the latest prime minister who has to stake his political future on finding a settlement.

Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly in the referendum to remain in the European Union and so, like Scotland, was taken out of membership against the wish of the majority of its citizens. The deal Boris Johnson negotiated and which Parliament approved drew a border between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain for the first time since the island of Ireland was partitioned. It was a significant moment in the history of these islands. The more so because it was the Conservative and Unionist government which imposed the border – something previously unimaginable and a significant indicator of just how far and quickly the politics of Brexit has changed the fundamental politics of the Conservative Party. Northern Ireland’s local politics has been fundamentally shifting too, with Sinn Fein now topping the poll for the Assembly. Polling in the Irish Republic consistently indicates that the party is on course to be the largest in the Dail. Soon it could be the dominant political party on both sides of the border. If this happens it will most likely have further consequences for the politics of Ireland.

 Rishi Sunak inherited an unstable and unsustainable settlement for Northern Ireland and he has set himself the honourable, necessary and difficult task of finding a viable settlement. This week he will unveil his plan and bring to bear all the political capital he has to push it through Parliament and try to restore a functioning Northern Ireland Executive. The stakes for him and his government could not be higher. Rumblings of discontent in the party have been rolling around since his plans first began to circulate over a week ago. Some of the discontent has less to do with what the Prime Minister is proposing specifically as to do with his premiership generally. 

He knows he can pass whatever he is proposing in this area through the Commons because Starmer has already promised Labour support – even though he, like the rest of us, has not seen in detail what the Prime Minister is proposing. This, though, would be a pyrrhic if necessary political victory for the PM. For Sunak needs to win this vote well and with Conservative votes to show that he commands his Parliamentary Party and to generate some much needed political momentum for his government. Britain does not need another fatally damaged prime minister. Northern Ireland needs the better settlement the Prime Minister is working hard to deliver and the Prime Minister needs the political success such a settlement would bring. Failure would be bad for Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister and the whole country.

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

The General Synod, in effect the Church of England’s Parliament, is holding the first of its two annual meetings at its national headquarters in Westminster. It has a packed week of business, debates, meetings and votes. Its 483 members – its size has not reduced in proportion to the shrinking numbers actually attending church – represents every faction and grouping. It is as political a body as you will find in any organisation, with all the attendant wrangling and division that you would expect. 

This week only one item on the agenda will attract national attention, and that is the Synod’s debate on the Bishop’s plans to sustain the ban on gay marriage but introduce new blessings for same sex couples in churches. All sides in this acrimonious debate seemed more or less united in criticising the proposals. Some clerics have gone further and threatened ongoing disruption of day-to-day church life unless their view prevails. The debate preceding Synod has been a deeply unattractive and debilitating spectacle, a good example of how just because the Church should be about God’s business, does not mean some of its members feel the need to conduct themselves in a Godly manner. In reality, the modern Church of England is not one church but a collection of different churches choosing which bishop to attach themselves to, what liturgy (type of service) they use, and what interpretation of the Bible they think is right. 

Though this debate will dominate the headlines the church generates over the next few days, the more existential issue facing it remains the continuing collapse in numbers of people attending its services, and the even more worrying fact revealed recently that basic knowledge of Christianity among young people is in free fall. Given the Church of England runs a huge number of schools across the country you have to wonder what on earth they are doing in terms of teaching the basics. 

The Archbishop, who himself comes from the evangelical wing of the church, is now facing a serious revolt from those whom he would have regarded as his closest friends. He has done much to promote his part of the church at the expense of other parts and in the process has earned himself few friends in the wider church, friends who might have come to his aid at this time of difficulty. He has also, wrongly, prioritised his inherited role as the senior figure in the Anglican Communion over his more important job as head of the Church of England. Leading him to the inelegant position of publicly supporting same-sex blessings but refusing to conduct any himself in case it upsets parts of the Communion overseas. 

He has said he will stick to this position even if it means the Church of England itself is dis-established because of its refusal to respond to national issues. This is a serious miscalculation. The Church of England is a reformed church and over time has changed its views on such fundamental issues as the number and nature of the sacraments, divorce and re-marriage, the nature of who can be a priest, among other things. The church is more likely to change its Archbishop than it is to willingly surrender its role in national life.

Over the road in the real Parliament the Prime Minister is facing a twin assault on his authority and policies by his two immediate predecessors. Over the weekend he added to the turbulence surrounding his administration by letting it be known that, under certain circumstances, he would be prepared to withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights. Like the Archbishop, Sunak presides over a party disunited in what it believes and how it should be running its affairs. Like the Archbishop, Sunak inherited a whole range of issues that were going to reach boiling point during his time in charge. Yet unlike the Archbishop, Sunak has to face each and every day a bunch of people who could push him out of office if their discontent becomes uncontrollable. 

So far the Prime Minister has done well in trying to assert some sort of control over the programme and conduct of his government and the nation’s affairs. For the Archbishop, low pew numbers represent continuing sadness at the church’s failure to effectively engage. For the Prime Minister, low polling numbers represent a very real threat to his future in office. The upcoming Budget will not, cannot, be the silver bullet that solves all his problems but it is a vital opportunity to reset the terms of engagement.

This week, then, will be a great trial for both Primate and Premier and its outcome will have a significant impact for both on the rest of their time in their respective jobs.

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

For six years I was a national newspaper Lobby Correspondent, one of those privileged journalists accredited to Parliament to report on politics from inside Parliament. This was during the early years of Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ government. Blair took media handling very seriously and employed the tough and experienced Alistair Campbell to deal with us. It is a joy to read Alistair’s tweets now on government openness because I do not remember him being so keen on it back then. I know what it’s like to try and dig out or stand a story up in the face of determined resistance by No 10 or a senior politician.

I have also been a Parliamentary candidate. I have spent time trying to persuade people to vote for me. Time trying to convince local (thankfully I was not important enough to attract national attention) journalists to write good things about me. Sometimes I succeeded, but more often than not during that time as a candidate I opened the papers to find disobliging coverage. That feeling of being misrepresented, of being hunted, is a very powerful one.

Having experience therefore being a working Westminster journalist and also an aspirant MP, I always have a certain sympathy for both sides in any dispute between the two. The fact is that both politicians and journalists have important jobs to do. A politician’s job is to set out a platform for governing and try and persuade us to support them. A journalists job is to set out each day to find out what’s going on, and report on the politician. It might sound all a bit simplistic but sometimes the basics can become obscured. The two jobs are often in conflict and that’s the way it is meant to be. Neither side should become bogged down in attacking the role of the other – it’s narcissism of the highest order. The relationship is symbiotic and each side needs to remember it.

There’s much nonsense talk about whether it is 1992 or 1995. Forget that. That’s just nostalgia. If senior members of the government were serious about understanding how John Major pulled off the remarkable 1992 General Election they would consult him directly, but they will not because they know only too well his view on their performance. The much better lesson for Rishi Sunak to take is one from Tony Blair. Even after Alastair Campbell departed Downing Street, Blair’s government carried on just as smoothly as it had done before because Blair understood that one thing above all else is the key to dominating a government: momentum. A general election victory gives a Prime Minister momentum. The delivery of a successful event or policy can give a Prime Minister momentum. Momentum is built by an endless stream of initiatives, activity, events, the Prime Minister being in constant dialogue with the country. The quiet, efficient delivery of government is certainly desirable, but the Prime Minister needs to deliver that and the sense of momentum that will carry him and his government on to success.

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

The atomisation of Christian understanding and teaching does much to undermine the message of forgiveness and love that sits at the heart of the faith. The stubbornness and self-regard that underpins this splintering is the antithesis of the fundamental teaching of the Gospels and praying for unity is the very least Christians can do this week.

Division of course is not the sole preserve of Christianity. We see it all around us – in our communities, fractured families, the distribution of financial reward, between nations, trading and political blocs, and cultures. Division here at home in the politics of England, Scotland and Wales pulling at the unity of the country itself. Economically, the division we have established between ourselves and our nearest and largest trading partners on the continent is still playing itself out. 

In our politics, the division caused by the EU referendum still remains an open sore. Disagreement on the big issues of the day and a healthy debate is a good thing for a strong democracy such as the one we enjoy in Britain but the polarising and destructive politics of the United States, the world’s most powerful democracy, stands as a warning to us all about how a noble ambition can turn rotten. Democracy needs nurturing and tending. To thrive, it needs some unity about agreed fundamentals and limits.

Since 1997 we have seen a determined drive by successive governments to devolve political power and responsibility. First to the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom, and more recently across England with the introduction of elected Police and Crime Commissioners and Mayors. We have seen a proliferation in the number of politicians, with no reform, rationalisation or reduction in existing elected officials and tiers of local government. With all this extra cost and competition for election, is it possible for us to detect improvements in the provision of our local services, or are we just asked to choose people to serve an ever increasing number of taxpayer funded jobs? Sometimes it is difficult to tell.

In his book, Behind The Oval Office, Bill Clinton’s pollster and election strategist, Dick Morris, explains how he pioneered the method of triangulation with great success. That is picking the point between opposing sides and claiming the political ground in between. It was not a principled approach to politics but for Clinton and his political disciple, Tony Blair, it was very effective at winning elections. More recently we have seen the rise of “wedge politics”. This is the practice of maximising your own vote by dividing groups and communities. It is a technique to drive people apart. It is a deliberate strategy.

All countries and their institutions are complex coalitions of aligned interests and hopes. Without an obvious and immediate external danger, it is always more difficult for a politician to draw people together to support them than it is to divide people by inventing or exaggerating some threat. We have serious challenges with the economy, our public services, and the ongoing war in Ukraine to contend with. There is no doubt about it. 

The biggest political threat we face, however, does not come from without but from within – the growing political separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The relative political weakness of Westminster’s two big political parties stems in large part from their continued failure to win Westminster parliamentary seats in Scotland. This failure has had a profoundly unbalancing effect on the nature of our national politics. It is not currently the topic of fashionable Westminster debate – which remains resolutely parochial and England-focussed – but the political reuniting of the United Kingdom ought to be a priority for both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer alike. In the meantime we can only pray for such unity.

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

Last week both the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, and the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, sought to set the terms of political engagement for the year ahead. Both delivered serious and substantial speeches and given recent political events that have swept through and over the Conservative and Labour parties, for many this is a disorientating, if welcome, experience. We are all having to readjust to a politics based on policy and ideas rather than personality and antics. This is good news for the country given the challenges we are facing. The nation’s news editors, however, have had no need to despair for into the void has swiftly stepped the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, whose thoughts and views have more than amply provided startling headlines and endless copy and comment.

The Duke clearly feels much hurt and anger. It’s a reasonable guess to think that what he has said has also caused much hurt and anger. Distressingly for all concerned there is more than enough of both to go around, but so far nothing we have seen or heard suggests that for the King and for the Monarchy this amounts to anything more than a hurtful and distressing period for the Royal Family. It is a saga that is likely to keep rolling up to the Coronation in May, some five months away, with a will they/won’t they attend theme providing the recurring undercurrent. Over the many hundreds of years this family has kept a good grip on the throne, however, they have weathered much worse and there can be little doubt that, in the end, they will do so again now. For the rest of us we are but weary bystanders. Yet for Messrs Sunak and Starmer, the situation presents several serious pitfalls.

For a start, royal dramas dominate headlines and news cycles. They consume the oxygen of media attention and divert attention away from Westminster. The Prime Minister is seeking to stamp his authority not only on his party at Westminster but to generate some momentum in attracting positive attention for his policy agenda. He cannot afford to lose a day of public attention to what he is doing. Keir Starmer is trying to solidify his grip on his poll lead and establish the thought in our minds that his victory at the next General Election is both desirable as well as inevitable. He too cannot afford to lose a day of our attention to other things, diverting though they might well be.

A key, if very discrete, part of a Prime Minister’s job is to be the Monarch’s principal advisor and when necessary public defender. Any ongoing threat to the stability of the Monarchy must be a concern to a Prime Minister, and the person who seeks the job. It’s not just public attention that is sucked away from the serious business of the country but the private time of the Prime Minister, who can ill afford to be diverted from his principal duties.

It is difficult to see how the Duke and Duchess can achieve any, let alone all, of what they say they want by publishing books and giving interviews. What they can do is significantly contribute to diverting attention away from the serious business of the country and the important political debates we need to settle the next phase of the future of the country. It is difficult to think many will be very sympathetic if they continue their public campaign on issues which plainly should be addressed and resolved in private.

The world has changed a great deal since then and many of our everyday experiences now bear little resemblance to what they were then. Today if the Wi-Fi goes down, or Elon Musk does something to Twitter, or from poolside the Duke and Duchess of Sussex issue yet another rumble of discontent, it’s a headline for a twenty-four hour news cycle often short of a serious event to cover. Yet somehow that familiar line from the popular carol seems to sum up the prevailing mood.

There is no doubt that, as 2022 moves towards its close, a post-covid Brexited Britain is a weary grumbling place. So far, Brexit has not yet unleashed a huge hitherto constrained force of dynamic commercial and economic energy. Neither has it led so far to a star shell burst of artistic or literary outpouring. Two years of pandemic laid waste to the economy and put much of everyday life on hold. It is extraordinary to think this is the first normal Christmas for three years. 

On top of this we now have the challenges of a huge financial reckoning. A judgement by the markets on the political handling of the economy and an economic response by each one of us about how and where we spend depending on our circumstance and confidence. 

That many public sector workers feel the need to express their discontent by strikes is, perhaps, as unsurprising as it is unwelcome to the rest of us. When people feel ignored, underpaid and overworked they are likely to resort to the only means they are left with, the withdrawal of their labour, but it is a 20thC response to a 21stC problem. It is always the young, vulnerable and the elderly who suffer the greatest when vital public services are disrupted. You defeat a government at the ballot box not on a picket line. Striking is not the way forward.

For both the government and the opposition, the strikes present opportunities as well as challenges. Neither Rishi Sunak nor Kier Starmer can afford to give in to all the strikers demands. No Prime Minister or would be Prime Minister can afford to ignore the example of Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan. There can only be one government and one head of it. So bending a knee to trade union bosses would be politically disastrous for either of them.

For the Prime Minister, who radiates reasonableness as much as mulled wine conjures up the smell of the festive season, he can probably already see a way through. Make an offer of pay in line with the independent bodies recommendations, be willing to talk, but don’t budge an inch. Let the unions disrupt Christmas and annoy everyone. Some strikers will, indeed have, settled. Others will. Then see where we are in the new year. It must be odds on that the strikes will, given time, fizzle out. The fundamental challenge of what to do with some key public services, especially the NHS, will remain acute. Real reform is necessary and urgent.

For Keir Starmer, it is a fine line he has to walk. He needs every vote he can attract. He needs every point in his enormous polling lead to build up that necessary sense of momentum and confidence in victory. The boundary changes and Lib Dem activity (they may be out of sight but they are there working away) mean the way seats might fall remains more uncertain than the headline numbers suggest. Starmer also knows that, while Sunak might not be mounting a Barnum & Bailey show like his two immediate predecessors, he is the most disciplined and focussed occupant of No 10 we have had since 2010.

Next year we will see the splendid and moving spectacle of the coronation. It will be a powerful reminder of the strength and history of our islands. Of the many ups and downs we have faced together. With this new start, and the death of Prince Philip and now the Queen, both symbolic passings of that great wartime generation, it is perhaps time, with similar respect and reverence, to lay to rest one other great sentiment as we formally start the new reign. That is Winston Churchill’s idea that our finest hour was in 1940. On 18 June, 1940, just a month after becoming Prime Minister, he said: “If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.”

It is not to disrespect or detract from what Churchill said to suggest we need our best days and our finest hours ahead of us. We need to aim for greater achievements and successes and to build on the work and sacrifice of those who have gone before, not to be simply content with wallowing in reflected glory.

For a Britain in need of political and economic rebuilding this then should be the vision: that we – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – are stronger pulling together than allowing ourselves to be pulled apart, that outside the EU we will have the confidence to rebuild our relationship with our European neighbours while trading around the world, that we can reform and refresh our schools, health and civil services in ways that inspire confidence, that we can respect each other whilst strengthening the bonds of our society. In other words we can look forward to a new series of finest hours as we bring new energy to the continual task of improving our country. Let 2023 be the start of a new “finest hour”.

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