For many of us the world has never felt a more unsafe place, due to President Trump’s casual destruction of the rules-based international order and the resulting fall out. From his initial executive orders, to his Ukraine/Zelensky debacle, from his absurd claims to Canada and Greenland to his massive tariffs, we barely have time to recover from one salvo before he lobs another grenade in. And we’re still only eight weeks into his administration so God only knows what further damage he can wreak over the next few years. If he lasts that long. His suspicion of other power blocs which could pose a threat to dependency on the US, threatening its perceived supremacy, is evidenced by his latest crazy statement (clearly perturbed at seeing Europe take serious action to reduce that dependency) being that the EU was only set up to ‘screw the US’. Another recent stunt in the wake of the dramatic fall in Tesla share price and ticking both lies and corruption boxes was using the White House as a backdrop to a Tesla promotion, accompanied by a diatribe about people ‘illegally’ boycotting ‘Elon’s baby’ and what a ‘great jarb’ Elon was doing.
On the subject of boycotting American goods, it was cheering to learn how widespread this campaign now is: Trudeau had made it very clear that Canada was not going to be cowed or spooked by Trump’s threats and incoming Mark Carney is following suit. ‘A growing international move to boycott the US is spreading from Scandinavia to Canada to the UK and beyond as consumers turn against US goods.While Canada and Mexico have been at the frontline of Trump’s trade war, the boycott movement is visible far beyond countries whose economies have been targeted.A lot of what we are seeing is coming about organically, people putting stuff on TikTok. People are so furious, and this is about taking back power’. That last point is key because we feel impotent in the face of Trump’s actions when it seems no individual or organisation can stop him. But will the media be reminding us that this boycott also needs to include Starbucks, McDonalds and all the other American junk food venues?
But lest we imagine we’re all on the same page re Trump and his disastrous regime, we’re reminded of fans including Boris Johnson (no surprise there) who are still attempting to straddle two horses. ‘Some of the president’s Tory fans seem to find the grim reality of the president’s actions invigorating rather than terrifying… To Johnson’s way of thinking, detailed in numerous Daily Mail columns, it is Trump-doubters who are always the ridiculous, panicking, hysterical, whingeing headless chickens… With all the usual caveats, it is striking, sometimes uncanny, how often tributes to Trump by his UK supporters have echoed rhetoric in praise of an earlier political disruptor with territorial ambitions….. Lord Rothermere (erstwhile Daily Mail proprietor) would assure readers disconcerted by the public shrieking that the private Hitler was “a perfect gentleman”, who “brings to Europe the blessed prospect of peace”.
So how do Tory Trump idols navigate this reality check conundrum without losing face? Not, of course, by admitting that their judgement had been seriously faulty, but by emulating linguistic Houdini Boris Johnson. ‘Step by step, they should advance from simple Trump idolator to the role of senior Trump interpreter. Supposing Trump comes up with something like (to Zelenskyy) “you should never have started it”, requires a Johnson, fluent in Trumpspeak, to translate: “Trump’s statements are not intended to be historically accurate but to shock Europeans into action.” A cowardly and dangerous cop-out but this is where hubris leads them. Sooner or later these idolisers, including Truss, Rees-Mogg, Braverman and Jenkyns will be faced with such incontrovertible evidence of Trump’s malign conduct that they will no longer be able to reconcile their two positions.
What I find totally appalling is that so much political, media and personal time and energy are being stolen in trying to figure out what this orange narcissist thinks and means besides speculating about what he could try on next. The latest stunt is a massive tariff on European wines… unless the EU cancel their own tariffs. Trump hasn’t got anything intelligent to offer, no careful consideration or nuanced thinking: all he’s got are bullying and threats. In social media posts he manages to combine outright fibs, threats and childishness, repeating the lie about why the EU was formed and accusing the bloc of putting ‘a nasty 50% on (US) whisky’ before threatening a 200% tax (in capitals) on European wines, ‘which will be great for the wine and champagne business in the US’. Quite apart from the fact that he can’t call US sparkling wine ‘champagne’, a description restricted to that particular area of France, US wines are expensive here anyway so consumers aren’t likely to make a beeline for them and, the way things are going, many Americans are sufficiently disgusted with their own president’s actions to boycott them.
Nor does Trump doesn’t seem to get that his tariffs will harm his domestic producers. ‘Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again… and it’s happening. And it will happen rather quickly. There’ll be a little disturbance but we’re ok with that. It won’t be much (!)’. What’s especially worrying, no doubt brushed off by Trump and his acolytes, is China saying if the US wants war, they are ready for ‘any type of war’. His comment about US wines and ‘champagnes’ carries more significance, however, when we learn that Eric Trump has a winery, which boasts a wine called Presidential Reserve at $245 a throw. Trump’s paranoid thinking, which pushes him into ill-advised areas, is clear to see: ‘The US doesn’t have Free Trade. We have “Stupid Trade.” The Entire World is RIPPING US OFF!!!.’ Jonathan Freedland suggests that Trump’s approach results from being surrounded by sycophants unable to challenge him and being ‘drunk on fake news…. Addicted to Fox News and outlets even more extreme, the president finds support and justification for actions disastrous to Americans and the world’. Zelensky was quite right to say Trump is living in a ‘disinformation bubble’, one that’s having the reverse effect from the one he planned, that is, investors spooked, share prices plummeting, ‘orders on hold, workers without work, less money in everyone’s pocket’.
Meanwhile, Trump seems surprised by Putin’s response to the latest ceasefire discussions: yet again we see the impulsive, naive and dimwitted bully just expecting everything to fall into place at his say so – no grasp whatsoever of negotiation. And no doubt he’ll have plenty to say today to detract from the European collaboration.
The intense focus on Trump and his antics could cause some to take their eyes off the ball elsewhere (eg the dire situations in Sudan and Gaza, and alarming unrest in Serbia) and there’s plenty going on here, of course. We knew that substantial job reductions were proposed for NHS England but Thursday’s surprise announcement was that it will be scrapped altogether in order to tackle bureaucracy and duplication of effort. Not before time, this job creation outfit (over 13k staff there) being a by-product of the Tory Lansley ‘reforms’ which fragmented the NHS even further, reducing transparency and accountability. Commentator Steve Richards said: ‘An excellent speech this morning from K Starmer..recognising the waste and lack of accountability arising from the vast numbers of ‘arms length’ bodies.. began in the 1980s and intensified after 1997/2010…NHS England a vivid example…who was in charge…the Health Secretary and their vast department or head of NHS England and their staff? During the Covid press conferences the Health Sec never appeared with head of NHS England because powers were so blurred and duplicated. Right call to abolish it’. An NHS employee said: ‘I know all too well as a nurse how NHS England wastes so much money on unnecessary items and management staff who have endless unproductive meetings and often act as a barrier for projects that could make real change. Keir Starmer is doing a lot of good getting rid of NHS England’.
At times like this quite a few media interviewees will bend over backwards to suggest they knew this was coming when, actually, they’ve been blindsided. Leading health think tanks are said to opine that while they can appreciate the case for this abolition, patients may not see much benefit. Unions have reacted more strongly, Unison saying it has been ‘shambolic’.
Said The King’s Fund: ‘The most important question is how will the abolition of NHS England make it easier for people to get a GP appointment, shorten waits for planned care and improve people’s health? That hasn’t yet been set out – ministers will need to explain how the prize will be worth the price’. On top of this ICBs (Integrated Care Boards, the organizations which commission and organize local health care services) have been asked to make savings of 50%. Altogether this could mean 30,000 jobs to be lost in the health sector.
‘Sir Jim Mackey, NHS England’s incoming new chief executive, has also ordered the 220 NHS trusts that provide care across England to cut the number of people working in corporate services, such as HR, finance and communications. That could lead to thousands more officials losing their jobs, insiders say….. He outlined the NHS’s need to undertake budget cuts on a huge scale as part of a “reset” of the service’s finances to help it avoid overspending by the £6.6bn in 2025-26 that initial estimates said was likely’.
Needless to say, such far reaching cuts have caused extreme consternation within the NHS and commentariat, too, some suggesting that job losses on this scale will undermine the policy objectives Labour came into office with. The words ‘terrifying’ and ‘disastrous’ have been used but in some quarters at least NHS England is regarded is a ‘bloated quango’ way overdue for overhaul, a cosy bolt hole for some wanting to escape frontline service delivery. NHS commentator Matthew Taylor (the one the BBC keeps platforming) said: ‘As well as leading to thousands of redundancies, the danger is that the scale of change and insecurity will distract organisations from the daunting task of achieving recovery and reform in the context of an unprecedented financial squeeze’. Keep our NHS Public opines that the abolition, while good in some respects, is a bit of a cover up for extended privatisation of services, the alleged agenda of Streeting and his appointees from the Blair/Brown era. It will certainly take time for this upheaval to shake down, with shockwaves felt in numerous quarters.
Although the precise proposals haven’t been published yet, there’s been no shortage of speculation as to where the benefits cuts axe will fall, the media being accused by some of whipping up fear and alarm. There’s widespread agreement that the benefits bill is unsustainable – 3.3m people in Britain are on incapacity benefit, 700k more than four years ago. Of these, 2.5m are claiming the highest rate (which doesn’t require the individual to seek work), up from 1.8m in 2018. The Times quoted £65bn as the total of all health-related benefits, estimated to rise to £100bn by 2030. It’s no surprise that the debate is quite polarized: some politicians and commentators lambasting ‘benefits scroungers’ (though apparently in some places as many as one in four of working age are in receipt of benefits) and others condemning cuts as cruel and counterproductive. Radio 4’s Moral Maze focused on this issue last week (Is there a moral case for cutting welfare?), its host unfortunately reinforcing the stigmatization of claimants by stating in his introduction that ‘more than 3,000 a day go on the sick’. Numerous commentators have said that rather than cut welfare payments, the government should (as per its manifesto) impose a wealth tax, but there are no signs of this happening.
It’s shocking, though, that 63,000 young people between 216 and 24 moved straight from education to long term sickness benefits. As ever the situation won’t be black and white, but full of grey areas, with a failure in some quarters to acknowledge the effects of Covid and long NHS waiting lists. The system itself has been criticized for being too rigid to respond to today’s conditions and the lack of safety net is a key issue: many are scared to start a job in case they find they can’t continue with it, so stay on benefits to feel safer. There needs to be a safety net for those whose job doesn’t work out for whatever reason, so that they don’t lose total access to benefits but with sufficient incentive to persevere with the job for a reasonable period of time.
It’s frustrating to hear so many in the media (including Lord Blunkett on the Today podcast) say how important work is for young people and how many lives are being wasted by their being parked on benefits, yet not recommending how the situation could be remedied. A substantial number of claims are for mental health issues, but although it’s well known (despite what some politicians try to sell us) that the process of getting PIP (Personal Independence Payment) is very hard, the criteria need to be different for mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions than physical conditions. More could work if they received appropriate support from the NHS and from employers but how many employers are prepared to provide it? One respondent to Radio 4’s Any Answers more or less said it wasn’t fair them being paid the same when they’re only producing half the work, leading to ‘people getting upset with each other’. An autistic young man interviewed recently said he had to leave his job because he was ‘overwhelmed’: it sounds as if no one at his workplace had considered his situation and attempted to make the appropriate adjustments.
All this reminds me of the under acknowledged issue of whether we regard disability as an individual matter or a collective one, where the whole of society is reckoned to be responsible for those needing support.
Besides lengthy waiting lists the ill-advised removal of counsellors from GP practices in 2006 in favour of a wholesale shift to short-term CBT delivered in other settings has led to the many who need relational therapy not getting it unless they seek private help. Apart from the cost (a single session costing over £80 in some cases) there’s still no statutory regulation of counselling and therapy in this country and many struggle to find a suitable practitioner, the number of complaints to professional bodies rising. (As a retired therapist I know that the training is of very variable quality, with numbers of ‘qualified’ counsellors having taken a poor training in the first place then, in order to recoup their expenses, setting themselves up in private practice long before they’re ready. And that’s not even counting those who undertake this work when they’re totally unsuitable for it in the first place). We need much more NHS mental health support but from qualified and experienced practitioners (and yes, this costs money but at least won’t lead to false economies) whereas it’s all too common to recruit the insufficiently trained, including in Job Centres, too. It seems to me the greatest need at present is to establish a more efficient yet compassionate system for distinguishing genuine need (some will never be able to work) from those who could work if given the right support.
A final thought on this: is it a reflection of the cosy bubble media folk and politicians occupy that they seem baffled by so many young people suffering from anxiety and depression? The fact that very restricted lives were enforced during Covid just at the time most would be deeply involved in study and social life, plus the very uncertain world we’re living in, with poor economic prospects for many including the impossibility of ever being able to afford their own property, work opportunities falling way short of expectations, especially for graduates, not to mention global existential concerns – the combination of these factors makes it surely no surprise.
I might not be the only one thinking the media have devoted much too much time to the Reform UK row at the expense of other important issues. One that seems to have gone under the radar somewhat is that of corruption within the House of Lords. At a time when the government is considering reform of the upper chamber (not a minute too soon, some may say, given the number of Tory cronies in there for no other reason than having supported Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak) a Guardian project found, shockingly, that nearly 100 peers were paid to give political advice by commercial companies, amid concerns that their activities are not being properly regulated. In order to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure probity, the House of Lords rules ban members from contacting ministers, officials, MPs or other peers on behalf of paying clients, including connecting or introducing those clients to members of the government. It’s clear these rules are being flouted and, as I keep banging on about, since the law breaking Johnson regime it’s clear that parliamentary rules need to be clear and, crucially, enforceable.
The project’s investigators mounted a sting operation to test adherence to the rules by posing as property developers who wanted to convert high street department stores into a mixture of flats and shops, and who wanted to have their voice heard in government. They approached eleven peers already thought to be engaged in activities contrary to the rules, inviting them to join an advisory board in order to ‘better understand the political landscape and make the introductions both within government and the opposition’. Although this should already have been a red flag, ‘six peers did not respond or declined the offer. Two others responded but did not meet; one of them said they were unsure as they would have to check whether making such introductions was within the rules. The other would only attend if their lawyer was present’! Of three who agreed to meet ‘the developers’, two said they could not lobby (so why meet them in the first place?!) but the third, who fell for the sting, was Lord Dannatt. This would have been a surprise and disappointment to quite a few because this Tory top army man (former Chief of the General Staff), comes across as solid and is always being platformed by the media, for example for views on the Gaza and Ukraine crises.
I hadn’t known that since becoming a peer, Dannatt had been ‘a director and adviser to a series of companies and he has recently been employed by a lobbying business to advise the Armenian government on how to develop warmer relations with Britain’. So he has form in terms of operating at the edge of the rules or clearly breaching them. What’s surely astonishing is that not only was he also caught in a sting ten years ago but while falling for another, he told the ‘developers ’I have to keep myself scrupulously above board to make sure that what I’m doing is declared and is well above board and not below board’. He was secretly filmed making quite extensive undertakings as to what he could do to help them, including making introductions within the government, getting to know the best placed minister and the ‘right people’ in the Lords and ‘rubbing shoulders’ with them, etc. Even more extraordinary, Dannatt maintained that he had not broken rules and that he had always acted on his personal honour. It seems the Lords watchdog is now investigating him following the Guardian’s revelations, but since he was cleared of wrongdoing on the previous occasion is it not likely that he will be cleared again? What’s the point of rules if those breaching them are regularly exonerated? A clear case of cowardly whitewash.
Finally, an interesting and positive piece of news which could have implications for environmental projects here. A dam project in the Czech Republic which had been stalled for seven years was apparently completed in an unexpected way. £1m was saved by putting eight beavers to work on the wetlands restoration project, the beavers felling trees and creating ponds in a matter of days. There seems to be a lot of controversy around beavers, farmers and environmentalists often at odds about them, but on this occasion it seems to have paid off!
Politics and mental health - the missing link? 
Extremely well written. I completely agree
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike