As the bloodshed continues unabated in Ukraine and Gaza, the latest escalation in the Middle East crisis has the power to unleash unprecedented global shockwaves. I won’t be only one who finds it frankly terrifying that, thanks to Trump, Putin and Netanyahu wrecking the rules-based international order so no organization (eg the UN) any longer has any clout, there’s only one individual who can stop Netanyahu in his reckless, genocidal strategy. Trump – himself an erratic narcissist not fit public office – who initially told us he will decide within a fortnight whether he will order US forces to attack Iran, did the deed after two days (‘awesome and righteous might of the United States).This, after having sworn he wouldn’t take the US into foreign wars. I suspect that if there was a 24 hour media blackout on Trump he would make up his mind PDQ about anything he keeps the world guessing about, but meanwhile he loves the attention, politicians and journalists hanging on his every word and spending hours of broadcast time and column inches in speculating what he may do and how, what it signifies and how we should react. But while Trump and his supporters feel triumphant after this latest intervention, fears continue that Iran could blockade the Straits of Hormuz, which could have a much more devastating effect than weapons.
Global insecurity was already running high – terrible for our mental wellbeing – but now our feeling of safety will be under much more threat, matched with our impotence to do anything about it. An X user said: ‘Honestly, I’m so tired of everyone tippy-toeing around him. Next time he threatens to nuke Iran or invade Greenland or annex Canada the appropriate response should be ‘Go on then’. If we can’t see by now that the emperor is walking around butt naked, we never will’. The media collude with the ‘Emperor’ by constantly platforming Republicans and others who continue to take him seriously. It’s all a massive pretence when you consider the poverty of his schtick, eg ‘No one knows what I wanna do…. But I can tell you, Iran’s in a lotta trouble’. Yet we see him wreaking huge damage in so many areas of life.
Meanwhile Iran won’t negotiate until Israel stops attacking them, resulting in a bit of a chicken and egg situation but again it comes back to the international order wrecking: on nuclear capacity Iran clearly no longer feels the need to hold back when they observe the conduct of their adversaries. As an X user tweeted: ‘Please can an interviewer/reporter ask why it’s fine for Israel to have a nuclear weapon – as is widely believed but never mentioned – but it isn’t fine for Iran to have one. And don’t let the interviewee shut that question down’. Having consistently supported Israel our government has again gone down the same path by deciding to proscribe Palestine Action (which aims to ‘take direct action against Israeli weapons factories in Britain, in solidarity with the Palestinian people’) following its break in and damage at the Brize Norton air base. This isn’t to commend their action but you’d have thought that politicians and media (both no doubt embarrassed by MOD’s poor security, too) would realize that many people in this country feel impotent, their voices not listened to regarding the terrible situation in Gaza. For years now there have been pro-Palestinian marches and petitions which have had zero impact on our government’s policy direction, so it’s hardly surprising that some see direction action as the only way to go. Important to recognize, also, that numerous Israelis disagree with what’s being done in their name.
Needless to say, the head of Palestine Action has condemned this decision, but a related question surelyis if it will soon be illegal to belong to PA, will authorities then round up those known to be activists and investigate their tech to identify members to target as well? What are the consequences of being a member of such an organization?
Standing aside from the flurry of the immediate to focus on the bigger picture, at least some commentators are realizing (why not more?) that we in Europe should stop dancing attendance on Trump, challenge him and develop non-US alliances. Commentator Nathalie Tocci says that the Middle East crisis has shown that we must go forward without the US but Europe has no idea how. ‘If Europe was not so in hock to Washington, it would sanction Israel over Gaza and condemn its unilateral attack on Iran… Tragically, EU governments were just beginning to turn the page after a year and a half of complicity with the Israeli government’s war crimes in Gaza. Donald Trump’s obscene plans for a Gaza “riviera” and “humanitarian” initiatives that breach humanitarian principles were creating distance with the US, and European governments were starting to craft their own course…. However, Israel’s military attack on Iran and the US’s ambiguous yet evident support for this belligerence have upended Europe’s shift towards greater autonomy and moral clarity…. When Trump launched a direct negotiation with Iran, Europe was sidelined, excluded from any mediation process. Now, with Israel’s military assault on Iran, we have failed to position ourselves with the necessary clarity… The risk is that Europe will also now block its own route to a more morally principled approach to the horrors in Gaza…’
Let’s hope this doesn’t come to pass. This is an article well worth reading.
Besides the Defence Review, Spending Review, the Winter Fuel Allowance and benefits changes, the most debated topics this week have been the decision to hold a public inquiry on grooming gangs and the Assisted Dying Bill, which passed in the Commons on Friday with a reduced majority of 23. A sickening factor common to both has been the sheer amount of misinformation put about by those determined to influence others’ viewpoints in order to score political points or defend their own interests. Those who only listen to mainstream media are vulnerable to the relentless right wing bias, constantly and disproportionately platforming Reform people though that ‘party’ (actually a company) only has 5 MPs. Also by giving Conservatives a fairly easy ride via a cosy chat while grilling and constantly interrupting government representatives. Reform and the Conservatives (the latter doing nothing about grooming gangs while in office and not acting on recommendations of previous inquiries) both now have the brass neck to accuse the PM of resisting and dithering when both Baroness Casey and Professor Jay had both agreed to a review prior to deciding what course of action there should be. On receiving the advice that a full inquiry would be in the public interest, the PM and colleagues immediately agreed. A good example of this persistent Labour bashing strategy is the constant use by media and Tory MPs of ‘U-turn’, when neither the WFA nor the grooming gang decision justifies use of this cynical terminology.
‘She (Casey) was tasked with examining data not available to the initial national inquiry led by Alexis Jay, and to look into the ethnicity and demographics of abusers and victims, as well as “the cultural and societal drivers for this type of offending, including among different ethnic groups”. Starmer said on Saturday that Casey’s “position when she started the audit was that there was not a real need for a national inquiry”, but that she had changed her mind after reviewing the evidence. In parallel to Casey’s review, the government asked Tom Crowther KC, who led an investigation in Telford, to help devise a model for a series of similar investigations in five towns where girls were abused, including Oldham.’
You’d never know this, though, if you’d listened to the increasingly desperate Conservative leader and her deputy (Kemi Badenoch and Chris Philp), who ranted about this on X and during interviews for days. The worst aspect of Badenoch’s stance, though, is her cynical posturing with grooming gang victims, who by now might have seen through her faux empathy. Opportunism at its worst and well dissected in the Guardian. ‘Not a hint of apology for any failings for which she and previous Conservative governments might have made. The victims and survivors were just collateral damage in her fight with Labour. If Kemi is capable of self-reflection she keeps her findings to herself. She is thoroughly old school with her emotions. Never explain. Just keep going. Then things began to unravel a little as a Sky reporter observed that the cover-ups had been going on for years, during most of which the Conservatives had been in power. So maybe some kind of apology was in order….No. She wasn’t sorry for anything. None of this had been anything to do with her. Even though she had once been minister for children. “Apologies are easy,” she snapped, though not for her’. The pitiful thing is that whenever the PM makes a major decision, she continues to suggest that these were due to her own intervention when in fact she has not factored in his deliberations one iota.
The Assisted Dying Bill will now go to the House of Lords, which traditionally does not oppose legislation passed in the Commons but where some peers are determined to press for some amendments. The Bill certainly represents a historic change (terminally ill people in England and Wales with 6 months or less to live are to be given the right to an assisted death after approval from two doctors and a panel including a psychiatrist, social worker and senior lawyer), so that people no longer have to endure a prolonged and agonizing death, as so many campaigners have seen with their loved ones. As so many have said: ‘Why should anyone else have the right to decide when and how I should die?’ Some of the medics opposing the Bill have used emotive and dishonest arguments, in my view, eg the irresponsible one who suggested ‘it’ll turn doctors into killers’ and I wonder if some are angry that, for the first time, the patient and not the doctor will be the decision maker, thus depriving some of their sense of omnipotence. What’s worse and yet further proof of the need for statutory press regulation is a headline to an article in Saturday’s Telegraph (no surprise there) by the Catholic commentator Tim Stanley – ‘The state has been given the power to kill’ – and implying that MPs are not up to the job of dealing with such a topic.
A doctor MP interviewed on Radio 4 politely demolished key arguments of the antis, saying this Bill had had more scrutiny than a ‘regular’ Bill (it’s not inferior for being a Private Member’s Bill), hours of debate have been held on it, and although some medical organizations had declared themselves anti eg the Royal College of Psychiatrists, plenty of members were for the Bill. Another made the key point that (despite the cynical whipping up of alarm by some) the Bill is nothing to do with disabled people and the possibility of ‘mission creep’ is exaggerated and unfair. Yet another opined that rather than being less of a safeguard, the decision to have a panel of experts including a lawyer and social worker rather than (as formerly) a high court judge, was more appropriate.
A key point has been made by the Bill’s opponents, however. ‘The bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England, said it would be a service introduced amid multiple risks to the most vulnerable, including serious shortfalls in social and palliative care.“It does not prevent terminally ill people who perceive themselves to be a burden to their families and friends from choosing assisted dying. And it would mean that we became a society where the state fully funds a service for terminally ill people to end their own lives but shockingly only funds around one-third of palliative care.” Some have sought to establish a polarity between palliative care and assisted dying but it’s not either/or: both should exist and at least it’s encouraging and right that the Health Secretary has been charged with reporting back on the state of palliative care. It’s disgraceful that hospices only get 18% of their funding from the NHS and have to find the rest from charitable donations. Also remaining is concern about coercion and whether the current safeguards are sufficient to ensure that this hasn’t been a factor in the individual’s decision.
Surely the initiator of this Bill, Kim Leadbeater, is to be congratulated but ever since the legislation started its passage she’s had to endure some vile abuse. She pointed out that this issue was first raised in Parliament in 1936. If it hadn’t got through this time it would have been another long time before it could be reconsidered and polls have shown significant public support for these measures. Leadbeater said: ‘I am relieved and overjoyed by the historic vote on assisted dying in England and Wales in the House of Commons today. The road has been long and hard, and I am very aware that many others have been on that journey since long before I even became an MP…While taking this bill through its Commons stages, I felt the burden of their anguish and that of those who are courageously and respectfully asking that their own death should be a good one, at a time of their choosing. It was for them that I and my colleagues took so much time and trouble to ensure that we put before parliament legislation that was fit for purpose while protecting everybody, but especially the most vulnerable in society, from any risk of coercion or pressure.’
Two questions about process linger in my mind: what’s the balance between MPs voting ‘according to their conscience’ and reflecting voters’ wishes since they’re elected to represent us, and which peers will actually do the work in the Lords? We can well imagine that many of the crony peers gladly accept the status and daily allowance paid for Lords attendance but how many of them actually contribute to the legislative process?
The mainstream media are increasingly being accused of disproportionately platforming Nigel Farage and other Reform UK representatives when they only have five MPs and the smaller parties like the Lib Dems and Greens feature far less frequently in interviews and political panels. There’s some serious gaslighting going on: for weeks they kept telling us on social media ‘Britain Needs Reform’ and now it’s ‘Britain Wants Reform’.Nigel Farage and the others portray themselves as on the side of the working man when they’re billionaires and the other day (it is striking how many votes he’s missed in the Commons) Farage was parading at Ascot when he should have been in Parliament. As widely predicted Farage is rarely in Clacton and has not made himself available to constituents. We’re very aware of the collapse of international world order but Boris Johnson and his government were responsible for the collapse of rules here. These days, it seems, if there are rules for parliamentary conduct they’re not enforced. Surely, for example, there should be a minimum amount of time that an MP shows up to Westminster and is active in his or her constituency and their presence should be compulsory for key debates unless there’s a very good reason why they can’t attend. Since we can’t trust the media to do it, just as well the Lib Dems set up a Reform Watch project after the last election – but I’ve seen no news on how that’s going.
Speaking of Ascot, this has been another predictable lever for the collusive media talking up the royals (focusing on their dress, of course) in an attempt to convince you that these people have any real function in the 21st century. During the last week there’s been a series of unnecessary and expensive events associated with the royals including the Trooping of the Colour, the Order of the Garter, Ascot and most recently Prince William’s birthday, during which he pledged (like his father before him but there was no change) that he’d do the monarchy differently. The extent of mindless sycophancy from the mainstream media has to be seen and heard to be believed (but it makes sense when you realize how much royal hanger on livings depend upon this symbiotic relationship) and one MP (someone who doesn’t know what public service means) even tweeted: ‘Wishing His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales a very happy birthday. His sense of duty, quiet determination, and deep commitment to public service embody the very best of our national life. We are fortunate to have his leadership and dedication to our country’.
Finally, on a lighter point (though it won’t be ‘light’ to those involved), on the subject of what goes up must come down doesn’t apply to all statues at least. Many might just walk past these without noticing them but as was evident in the Edward Colston statue episode in Bristol and with others ever since, these objects have immense cultural significance. It was interesting to learn that not one but two statues of Melania Trump have been destroyed in her home town, making pretty clear what those locals think of her. There had been a wooden statue near her home town (Sevnica, Slovenia) but this was burned down. Recently a bronze replacement was chopped off at the ankles and taken away. In contrast, Russia, which had seen decades of former dictators’ statues taken down, is now experiencing a turnaround. Around 105 new monuments to Stalin have appeared across Russia since Putin took power, the latest in a central Moscow metro station, apparently a reiteration of a 1950 work called The People’s Gratitude to the Leader and Commander. If they don’t already exist how long before multiple statues of Putin appear in Russia and Russian occupied parts of Ukraine?
Politics and mental health - the missing link? 