Society

In the church of St Lawrence Jewry, in London in March 1978, an invited guest set out the following analysis -

"Freedom will destroy itself if it is not exercised within some sort of moral framework, some body of shared beliefs.....It appears to me that there are two very general and seemingly conflicting ideas about society which come down to us from the New Testament. There is that great Christian doctrine that we are all members one of another, .....from this we learn our inter-dependence, and the great truth that we do not achieve happiness or salvation in isolation from each other but as members of society,   That is one of the great Christian truths which has influenced our political thinking; but there is also another, that we are all responsible moral beings with a choice between good and evil, .......You might almost  say that the whole of political wisdom consists in getting these two ideas in the right relationship to each other."

The speaker was Margaret Thatcher. Why then is this passage ignored, and why have  her critics  seized on another of her observations, when she wrote that  Society " is made up of individuals and communities. If individuals were discouraged and communities disorientated by the state stepping in to take decisions which should properly be made by people, families and neighbourhoods then society's problems would grow not diminish" - a passage which resulted in the accusation that  she  believed that there was no such thing as Society. And after all, only individuals can take decisions, even when the decisions are concerned with the interests of  Society

One reason for ignoring her other observations on society is that her critics have no knowledge of it. But more fundamentally they do not like the fact that she was moving the political balance away from the first of her two apparently conflicting ideas and towards the second, to release individual responsibility and encourage initiative.  There is no doubt that the post war consensus had cramped the freedom of the individual to create, and to act  freely, and that she was right to correct the balance.

 In the document "Who is my neighbour" issued by the House of Bishops for the General Election of 2015,  paragraph 59 remarks that " We are most human when we know ourselves to be dependent on others. That is something we first learn in families ....[and] they flourish best when there are networks of friendship, neighbourliness and mutual support around them."   Mrs Thatcher's views almost exactly. But the paragraph continues " Our society celebrates the autonomy of individuals but does too little to acknowledge that dependency on others is what makes human beings social creatures" -   This may be the case, but one sees here and in other paragraphs in the document that distrust of the second of Mrs Thatcher's ideas.  There is no distinction between  restoring individual responsibility  and selfishness. .  " Everything is what it is" said the philosopher Bishop Butler " and not another thing."

Note.  The lack of understanding in the House of Bishops is also demonstrated  by the statement in paragraph 36, that Mrs Thatcher believed in unregulated markets. In fact the regulation of the activities of financial institutions was vastly increased over her period as Prime Minister. It is this sort of  uninformed and simply incorrect superficiality that makes one despair of any kind of moral leadership  from the Church. Do the Bishops ever read anything to do with the subjects on which they so freely comment? 

A catastrophe, but a character and an event

"Sir, there is no awarding of a precedence as between a louse and a flea"   -  Dr Johnson

It is possible to discuss Stalin rationally, but not Hitler. This  restricts  the analysis of one of the most important men in history, and certainly the most important man of the 20th century, without whom there would have been no World War II in the West, no holocaust, and Stalin's empire would not have imposed itself on Central Europe for forty years. We can take refuge in the remark of Thomas Mann, that the man was  "a catastrophe, but that is no reason why we should not find him interesting, as a character and as an event"

The discussion of Hitler is indeed difficult. In a recent year a commentator remarked that Hitler was a master of public relations - of course he was, that is how he came to power - and of putting on tremendous spectacles ; and as our ambassador Neville Henderson commented, even the  staging of the Russian ballet in its great years before 1914 was surpassed by Hitler's shows at Nuremberg. Yet this comment caused outrage and a demand for its withdrawal

Another example of the way in which Hitler's activities cannot be rationally discussed was revealed when David Bowie commented on the film of the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, a film by Leni Riefenstahl which was a remarkable  achievement as a film as well as of propaganda. Having watched the film  it is said 15 times Bowie commented

"Hitler was one of the first great rock stars"   And "He was no politician, he was a great media artist...The world will never see anything  like that again. He made the entire country a stage show. "

An expert view of the greatest interest. But Bowie was attacked for calling Hitler a star.

One problem is linguistic. In words such as "genius" or "great" or "star" there is not only a description of the (high) level of achievement but also an implied approval. If one takes out the approval element by adding "-minus"  one can say that Hitler was in his public appearances  very definitely a star-minus, and he possessed  political skills at the level of  genius-minus. But what we experience  at present is  the lowering of the voice, as if one was entering on  a forbidden topic, or a room dedicated to evil. This is not sensible and a greater service would be done to those who suffered from the actions of this evil man if he were analysed objectively

And what about Stalin? Within his territories he murdered millions, including the peasants who were forcibly deprived  of their land and killed in the imposition of collective farming upon them. And Stalin set up a regime of terror  with torture and deportation to camps so cold that the dogs froze if they stopped moving  -  a terror which applied to everyone, not just one race,  with more people in the gulags at his death than at  the initial height of his terror in the 1930s.

And there is also Mao -

 And his red guards - 

And Pol Pot....... I met a lady in Cambodia whose deadly calm was the result of having her husband and little boy cut to pieces in front of her.
Look again at Dr Johnson's comment at the head of this entry, Do not attempt a ranking, but discuss all of them including Hitler in an objective and informed way.

With what little wisdom.........

" Do you not know, my son, with what little wisdom  the world is governed"  So said Oxenstierna, the great Swedish minister of the 17th century, of whom Cardinal Mazarin ( no mean statesman himself) said, that if the statesmen of Europe were in a ship together, they would not hesitate to hand the helm to Oxenstierna.

 So many of the confusions in modern life follow from the inability of  almost everyone to look at the roots of the problems They discuss the events as appear before their eyes,  and do not ask why the  events are as they have become., And this is true of  many intelligent people in the media.





Bloody Sunday

The administrative and moral fault of the British army and the British government was small  - and such fault as there was should have been addressed. The significant fault was rather with the IRA which,  by trying to establish no-go areas which the British were bound to resist, caused a confrontation at which some soldiers lost their nerve. This was just what the British wished to avoid and which the IRA was trying to engineer. Who went to bed that night full of happy satisfaction? And yet for years it is the British who have the blame.

MPs expenses

This "scandal" was the result of the views of the electorate over the years that MPs salaries should not be put up -  best  not at all, or anyway by very little. So over decades MPs were told to use their expense accounts  in a flexible way.  And when they did and it came out the media ( although they briefly mentioned that point) moved in with serious criticisms and everyone understood that the MPs were fiddling their expenses. There were a few claims based on falsehoods, but most followed the flexible approach and duck houses should have been perfectly acceptable. This fault lay with the population generally for taking the constraining view to start with,  and with the media for reporting the matter in a corrupt way

Coal and steel industries vanishing

During the UK/EU campaign it was reported, as an example of those areas of the country that  had lost out in economical development in recent years, that 50 or 60 years ago there was a vibrant social  and economic life in South Wales, with an integrated working class community and culture. And now it has collapsed, much of it  has disappeared,  with sad consequences.  But one has to ask why this social and economic community was there 50 or 60 years ago. The basis was the coal and steel industries which should have declined years before. These were industries nationalised by the Attlee government ( to the considerable benefit of the coal owners etc). They should have declined over time, which would have been far less destructive, far more likely to enable a transfer of employment to more modern industries, and far less of a drag on Britain as a whole. But  they were kept alive by the idea that they were good in themselves, and  that they should  be subsidised to keep them alive, Also in these old industries the trade unions resisted change - as exemplified in extreme form by Arthur Scargill and the miners strike which aimed to keep open pits however unprofitable and used violence to support their view.. If Mrs Thatcher had met a Labour Party and a trade union movement looking to work with government in winding down these out of date structures things would have been less traumatic and maybe rather positive,  even with the wrong starting point. But the post war consensus which was bankrupting the country was too strong for a mild approach

Remain/Leave

There were more voters committed to Remain  than there were voters committed to Leave. The Leave vote was pushed to a majority by the protest vote of those who had not benefited from the economic developments of recent years, and felt it and resented it. So they voted against the elite, who supported Remain, and we got a foolish and dangerous result to the referendum. This revolt against the elite is world wide - anyway in the Western world  ( look at Mr Trump)  -  but it is exacerbated in this country by the constant attacks by the media on anyone in the so called Establishment, and especially MPs. The Today programme commented some time ago, in the person of Mr Humphrys, that his job was to get politicians to say things that they did not mean to say. This was to assume as a given that MPs are corrupt, whereas it is the position of the questioners that is corrupt, even though they no doubt think that they are doing a good job  -   as this is  also no doubt true of those that write for Private Eye, which takes a violently negative view of anyone they comment on.  Thus it is not only the Leave press that caused the Leave vote to rise - it was also the fault of the Remain press ( and other parties) which by their constant nagging and unblalanced commentaries  reinforced the anti-elite view

The Internet - a new Pandora's Box

One cannot take a very positive view of the future of the world, starting now, and the main reason is the development of electronic technology - the mobile phone and the world wide web, and all the developments in these areas which will continue to accelerate. And everyone everywhere wants to be connected - look how Cubans pressurise to join in, how mobile phones are washing across India......soon everyone will be on net and for practical purposes the global reach is already achieved
Very wonderful as an aid to our personal lives and a tremendous assistance to economic growth and civilised working conditions. But there are two vast and terrible consequences.

First.  Anyone anywhere can now be a terrorist. An individual can be part of a religious movement, or of a group of discontents, or indeed just a loner.

Just such individuals killed in Australia and in Canada, and the question was asked, how such violence could occur in such peaceful countries. The question was inappropriate. The violence resulted from contacts with the world wide web, not from the host countries, and the contacts can now spread into the most remote areas on earth.  And as for the Islamic or other groups, they are enabled to organise electronically in complex ways, ever more violent, and ever more difficult to track down in advance. We are in any case the children of the forest, and evolution has given us a desire to belong, to identify with a group, with a mission.

How fulfilling,  and how difficult to stop more and more deluded people around the world from learning bloody instructions.

Secondly. There are still many poor countries in the world which,  whether because of a low level of economic  activity or because of despotic or foolish regimes, offer no hope to those living there. No education, no provision for health,  no careers. This was true for centuries, but now they know. One young man, warned that he might drown in his attempt to get from North Africa to Italy, replied that it did not matter if he lost his life, as at home it was not worth living. There are  enormous numbers of these potential or indeed actual immigrants and they will continue to pursue a better life, even if those fleeing from direct violence are accommodated in one way or another, which is anyway in practice impossible in view of the numbers involved.

The world wide web has opened a Pandora's box of misery and violence and, as in the original box, only Hope remains.

Frederic the Great ( II )

Frederic is called the Great as a result of his tremendous skill in warfare.As Napoleon said of Frederic's victory at Leuthen -

"The battle of Leuthen was a masterpiece. This battle alone would be sufficient to make Frederic immortal among the greatest field commanders in history"

[Frederic and his staff before the battle]

And one could add Frederic's extraordinary resolve and persistence,  despite some  battles which were lost  and  even though all the European powers   ( apart from England) were massed against him for seven years. As Macaulay wrote when peace was at last signed -

"Frederic yielded nothing.  The whole Continent in arms had failed to tear
Silesia from his iron grasp.

The war was over. Frederic was safe. His fame was beyond the reach of envy"

    Sans Souci




Yet his greatness lay in other areas of life also. He built Sans Souci - a house of extraordinary genius, where he entertained Voltaire....and where, to my great delight, the principal room in the centre of the line of apartments is the dining room, somewhat lushly portrayed by Adolph von Metzel in the nineteenth century. The rooms for visitors and for musical performances were in the line to the left as one looks at the palace.  The king especially played and composed for the flute, and Mozart commented that his compositions were such as to have serious content.

The King's rooms are in the line to the right, and when I visited Sans Souci I was struck by the fact that the two first rooms on the King's  side were of a different style, and looked as though they had been done over by an expensive but conventional interior decorator. In fact they were redecorated by Frederic's successor, Frederic William II. But the chair in which Frederic died is still there.

"I suppose that you have assisted many men into the next world" he remarked to the doctor

"Yes, but not as many as Your Majesty and with far less glory " was the reply.

As Frederic said, " My people say what they like, and I do what I like."

In the most recent and commendable biography of Frederic Professor Tim Blanning of Cambridge opens for us aspects of Frederic's life previously only guessed at ( though Blanning could have recognised Frederic's military ability to a greater extent). Frederic was gay,and apart from the professor's detailed analysis I take as evidence a poem which was written by the King, ostensibly
to demonstrate the ability of  North Germans to show true passion, which Frederic's Italian friend Count Algarotti had denied.. Ostensibly. But no one reading this poem can doubt Frederic's true sensuality and his erotic attraction to Algoratti . I give some of the verses here, as translated (  from the  original of course in French) by Giles MacDonogh:

From Konigsberg to Monsieur Algoratti, Swan of Padua

La Jouissance

This night,vigorous desire in full measure,
Algoratti wallowed in a sea of pleasure,
A body not even a Praxitiles fashions
Redoubled his senses and imbued his passions
Everything that speaks to eyes and touches hearts
Was found in the fond object that inflamed his parts
Transported by love and trembling with excitement.......


Our fortunate lovers, transported high above
Know only themselves in the fury of love:
Kissing, enjoying, feeling, sighing and dying
Reviving, kissing, then back to pleasure flying.
And in Knindos' grove, breathless and worn out
Was these lovers' happy destiny, without doubt.
But all joy is finite; in the morning ends the bout.



Read that, and look at Algoratti's face 



And the face of the young Frederic

All the elements were there........

All the elements  to expalin the support for Leave were there in the run up to the referendum. . See the entries in my blog in each case

The entry   "Tensions in the European Union."

Mr Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council of Ministers, sets out very clearly how the elite of Europe have left many electorates behind in pursuing the European idea. And the growing distrust of the elite on these grounds  (but the refugee crisis also played a large part ) has led to the growth of anti-EU votes in many countries, Brexit has brought this fact to the fore.

The entry  "Jefferson and harmony, and immigration "

At the same time the elite in the United Kingdom have specifically encouraged the acceptance of more refugees,  ignoring the fact that it is not their streets but the poorer streets of the country which see their culture  threatened.

The entry   "Who will vote for Remain and who for Leave"

The result of these considerations ( but see below)  is shown in this survey -  an  overwhelming support by the less well educated  - and therefore less affluent -  for quitting the EU. It is noticeable also from this survey that the other group supporting Leave is the section of the population that is aging, As one of my correspondents in Germany has said, these two groups have nothing to lose.

The entry  " Most politicians are the same  -  but some are dangerously not"
                   [ Scroll down ]

People generally in all countries distrust politicians and all the elite. As a result the advice from nearly all expert opinion to vote Remain had if anything a contrary effect. This foolish attitude is the result of an apparent  transfer of responsibility - the problems facing the United Kingdom and many countries have no solutions, they can only be managed, and they run on  and on and on. The politicians are blamed for not delivering - but they cannot deliver, and it is not their fault.. Intelligent people who pay attention to the problems can see that, but many cannot. So even without the specific distrust of the elite on the grounds of EU ambition or immigration the referendum was an opportunity to register a protest against the world and against the elite who were ignoring them.

Conclusion

The majority for Leave was achieved by  a protest vote. Protest votes can be useful in many contexts in reminding our leaders of the views of ordinary people. - but not in a vote which has dramatic consequences . If the result had been decisive one could have said that there was a genuine view in favour of Leave as well as a protest. But as it is with such a narrow result the protest element can only be regarded as an invalid contribution to the victory of Leave. It is essential that the House of Commons uses its constitutional powers ( the referendum is not binding) to upset the referendum's conclusion. If the Commons were to use the vast majority it has for Remain to over ride the referendum result there would be cries of dissent. A second referendum would mostly avoid that reaction and might be the most democratic way to proceed. Staying with the results of the first referendum is on the other hand a corruption of democracy.

Jefferson and harmony, and immigration

When President Kennedy entertained the American winners of Nobel prizes  at the White House, he remarked that there had never been such a brilliant assembly in the room  since Thomas Jefferson dined  alone. Jefferson was indeed a brilliant polymath, as one can see from the house he built., and  in his first Inaugural Address he set out his views on human society, a society ( one can add) based over the years on the arrival of immigrants from many countries.

"Let us, then, fellow citizens,unite with one heart and one.mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things"

High flown language, suitable to an Inauguration Address, but true. True for high intellects and people of adequate substance,  for whom such harmony and affection are most usually in their own hands. But for those more constrained let us look at the way immigration can affect a society,  in an analysis by Professor Putman of Northwestern University

" Increases in ethnic diversity lead to collapses of civic health. Trust amongst neighbours declines, as does voting, charitable giving and volunteering........As community cohesion weakens, moral norms change. What would have been unacceptable behaviour in a more homogenous national community becomes tolerable when a formerly ascendant group seems itself at risk from aggressive new claims by new competitors"

The aspirations declared  as so central by Jefferson are also there in lives in the poorer streets and in  the less upwardly mobile. The advent of people of other kinds and cultures  makes it difficult to unite with one heart and one mind as Jefferson recommends. And if such people have not yet arrived in every street those living there can imagine what will happen if they do.

The so sadly late Jo Cox MP in her  splendid Maiden Speech painted a picture of multiculturism that has worked. So it can. But the problems need to be understood and overcome.  I am not impressed when Bishops and Barristers and Actors preach that the Government should be humane and welcome more and more immigrants. One could say that they will benefit with better servants and waiters and barmen. That will assist their pursuit  of Jefferson's harmony and affection in their lives, but they should not preach without considering the need to pursue harmony and affection for all of us.

Tensions in the European Union - but a clear steer on how to vote

Donald Tusk, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the European Union, is a Pole. The Poles, in my  direct experience, were very anxious to embrace every aspect of the EU as soon as possible after the collapse of communism, demonstrating a clear fear of a expansionist Russia. I thought in those years that they had overlooked a change in history, but they have been proved right. And Mr Tusk is right about other things as well

At the European Business Summit,  and at the event marking the 40th anniversary of the European People's Party (EPP),  he said -

"There is no worse prospect for the European economy than the omen of a triumph of anti-liberal and Eurosceptic political forces, whether of left or right.We must and can avoid this scenario. The condition is to depart from utopian dreams and move on to practical activities, such as for instance reinforcing the EU's external borders or consistently completing the Banking Union.   Forcing lyrical and in fact naive Euro-enthusiastic visions of total integration, regardless of the obvious good will of their proponents, is not a suitable answer to our problems. Firstly because it is simply not possible, and secondly because - paradoxically - promoting them only leads to the strengthening of Eurosceptic moods, not only in the UK. As one of the key players of European integration Hubert Vedrine recently said    'You see governments and parties all over jumping up and down asking for  "more Europe, more Europe'- and Vedrine added -  'If you want people to massively reject Europe, just keep on [jumping] ' " [European Business Summit]

" ,,,,It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia imposing its own values on the external world.  Obsessed by the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people did not share our Euro-enthusiasm....And increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe.The spectre of a break up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation does not seem to me the best answer to it. We need to understand the historical moment " [EPP]

 It is difficult to disagree with Mr Tusk.. Had those in leadership positions taken care to take practical steps, and to listen to their electorates, Europe would have progressed, more slowly,  but more practically, and in a popular way. Yet still there are those who are desperate to cling to the "Idea of Europe". A year or so ago the Ambassador of Greece ( Greece ! ) to the United Kingdom  said twice in a short speech that " the EU had been a success " There seems to be a reluctance on behalf of the pro-Europe people to admit in particular that the Euro has been a disaster - perhaps the main example of political excitement overriding simple economic truths.  This heightened discussion by Mr Tusk and others has been accelerated by the possibility of Brexit. The forces against the EU are surging in most European countries ( close run thing in Austria),  represented by parties whose policies in other areas are sometimes dangerous, and they have been encouraged by developments in the UK . The tensions are severe, and break up is discussed

 As regards the UK the intellectual and moral positions on the Brexit side are even less attractive than the attitudes I criticise above. It is a tragedy that David Cameron called the referendum - I suppose to settle the matter once and for all. There are only a  few voters (  not including myself) who are able to balance all the complex factors. As Clement Attlee said, referendums are for dictators and demagogues - and  for the latter look at Boris Johnson  ( and in the US context Donald Trump ).It is a confusion to say that letting the people judge is democracy, since democratic structures should place decisions in the hands of those competent to make those decisions, which the electorate is not in most cases.  Decisions should be taken  in parliament, where the MPs are informed of every dimension of the problem ( including the views of their constituents). An  overwhelming majority of MPs are for Remain. That should decide the votes of the electorate

Who will vote for Remain and who for Leave?

This Survey, carried out by Populus, is significant.  Note the heavy support ( large enough to be free of special bias) for Remain from the more educated and the similar support for Leave from the less educated. It is relevant to note also that it is  the young people - who will be most affected by the decision of the referendum -  who are supporting Remain.

Clement Attlee. Labour Prime Minster 1945 to 1951, held that referendums were the devices of dictators and demagogues. (DD)

The Survey

To better understand the differing nature of support for Remain and Leave, we’ve created the Remain Index and the Leave Index.

These compare propensity to vote for Remain and Leave against the national average. In the analysis below, an Index score of 100 is average, showing the group is no more or less likely than average to vote for that side. Scores above 100 indicate a greater level of support, and scores below 100 a lower than average level of support. All analysis is based on more than 8,000 interviews, conducted both online and by telephone, that informed our investigation into the differences between phone and online polling for the UK’s EU membership referendum.

The analysis suggests the Remain and Leave campaigns are appealing to very different voters and that the country is sharply divided on Brexit.

The Remain Index

The strongest supporters for Remain are those in still in full time education. Students are more than 50% more likely than the average voter to back Remain. Relatedly, those aged 18-24 are the 2nd strongest supports of Remain.

Indeed, Remain over-indexes for support across all younger age groups and amongst all university educated groups. Those educated to a higher university degree level are around a third more likely to support Remain than average, with those educated to degree level about a fifth more likely than average to back the UK’s membership of the EU. Like their younger counterparts, those aged 25 – 34 and aged 35 – 44 also disproportionately back Remain.

Geographically, it is Scotland and London that show the strongest support for Remain. Scotland’s Remain Index is 123, while London’s is 115. Those who have travelled abroad in recent years also tend to back the UK remaining in the EU.

Demographically, socio-economic groups AB and C1 both lean towards supporting Britain’s membership of the EU. These groups, broadly speaking, represent Britain’s middle class, professionals, and administrative workers.

The Remain Index reveals the portrait of the strongest supporters of Stronger In: younger voters, those university educated or still studying, in professional roles, and living in London or Scotland.

Politically, the Remain Index delivers few surprises. Remain support is more likely to be drawn from Labour, Liberal Democrat, and SNP voters. Conservative voters are less likely to support Remain and UKIP voters, of course, significantly under-index on support for Remain.

Do not ask for an apology......

The pressure in so many discussions for those alive today to apologise for decisions and actions executed before they were born is  highly undesirable, and for several  reasons. The fact that no one can be responsible for  the actions of those now departed this life is not the most significant reason

First, where does one stop? If the Christian west should apologise fot the Crusades, should the Islamic world apologise for the explosion of Islam out of Arabia after the death of the Prophet, which led to the seizure of  the Holy Land ( and North Africa,  and Spain for seven hundred years) ?  But secondly, and more fundamentally, to apologise for the past is to impose our current values on situations different and often remote from today's world, and to crystalise  judgments ( including the acceptance of blame) which might be,  and very often are,  simply wrong on the historical evidence

As regards values, some years ago a very sweet lady broadcast the fact that she was travelling to Australia to meet the descendants of those who had killed her great grandfather, a Christian missionary, She would apologise for his attempts to impose Western values on them, and they would apologise for killing him. The fallacy of this analysis is apparent - he was taking to Australia the greatest good news in the world, and they were defending their land - advisedly so,  in view of what happened afterwards.  This lady's analysis was intellectually and I think morally corrupt but it is clear that sweetness and light would follow her visit.

As regards blame, if  I remember correctly.Pope John Paul II, when surveying the history of the Church's actions against the Jews over  the centuries, did not apologise but said that what had happened on so many occasions was reason for great sorrow - and this seems a possible way through the problem. Moreover, even apart from the question of blame, an apology often crystalises a supposed solution which is in fact wrong, or at least only partial. There was nothing that England could have done  about the Irish Famine, to prevent the failure  of the potato crop in two successive years, and to bring food in any quantity to Ireland  in the years of the "Hungry Forties" in England itself, and at a time when reserves of food could not be accessed as they can today. But the apology by Tony Blair no doubt contributed to a relaxation of tension and to an extent dissolved resentment on behalf of many of the Irish.  In many cases an apology can have beneficial effects, even if from a corrupt base.

It would be best if no one wanted to ask for an apology for a distant  action. Both parties should rise above these contortions and deal with the matter at a detached and reflective level. But I appreciate that human nature will not in many cases be able to overcome what is after all a very human desire.

The right of succession still affects us

Elizabeth II at ninety represents succession in a constitutional monarchy ( though see my entry on the Republic of the Untied Kingdom) but we have lost the sense that ancestry provides a validation of a succession to power. That sense existed for centuries. To take a very clear example, the throne of Poland was for a time subject to election ( though of course from a small list of candidates ). One such King sent an embassy to Elizabeth I with a message which the Queen did not like at all, and in a powerful retort she argued that the Polish King, being merely elected, lacked the authority of birth

It may be thought that we have left all that behind, but there are examples of how the accidents of birth in ruling monarchies in the past still have very large effects today

Katherine of Aragon, the first wife of Henry VIII had several sons . But they  died almost at once. Had one lived Henry would not have wanted to divorce Katherine in order to have a son, and would not have had to break with Rome in order to achieve that divorce ( marriage declared invalid 1533). He might of course have  been tempted by the riches of the Church which after the break with Rome he seized and gave to his favourites ( as indeed did several of the German princes who followed Luther ). But maybe not.. After all, Henry had written a refutation of Luther's position which led the Pope to award Henry the title "Defender of the Faith" , still held by our monarchs. And, in particular, we should never have heard of Elizabeth I and never have seen the establishment of her amazing compromise between catholic ceremony and protestant theology which remains the Church of England to this day

Frederick the Great of Prussia ( see also my entry) was born in 1712 as the third son of his father King Frederick William. Had one of his two elder brothers not died before he was born,  Frederic would not have become king  And although no doubt providing his brother with excellent generalship, without Frederic  in charge Prussia under a more ordinary man might well not have proceeded  to seize Silesia from the Habsburgs and establish Prussia as a great power. This would have happened in due course anyway,  but the tempo of history would have been different, with large consequences for the interplay of countries and events, such as the timing and structure of a united Germany

And, as a final example, the most dramatic of all, the Emperor Frederick III of Germany came to power  in 1888, but died that year, the same year as his father, of cancer of the throat. He was married to Queen Victoria's daughter ( also Victoria)  and had views far more liberal than those of his son who in the same year inherited as William II ( the Kaiser). How far the German constitution would have been changed under Frederick for the democratic  better is a matter for speculation, as these constitutional matters have their own momentum, but the cards would have been played in a different order.  And in addition, one thing Frederick was highly unlikely to have done was to build a fleet against England, which his son did, making sure that in any war England would be against Germany, and winding up the European tension. These developments would have ensured that the tempo of European history would have been different at the beginning of the 20th century from the tempo actually experienced.. With a different tempo there could well have been a war, as national rivalries were very strong,  but with a different timing the  unusual sequences of events that enabled Lenin  to seize power in Russia, and Hitler in Germany, could hardly .have occurred.  No doubt other tragedies would have been seen, but  two most terrible and evil men would not have found their moments

Royal Opera Night - Coronation 1953

This reception at the Royal Opera House preceded  the first performance of  the opera Gloriana by Benjamin Britten, as part of the events surrounding the Coronation  of Elizabeth II.  This draws attention to certain features of  interest.

One can gather from the atmosphere portrayed that there  was still an assumption and an acceptance of the United  Kingdom as a great power, or anyway a great player in  the world. It was true that India and several other   countries had achieved independence by 1953, but the  first African colony left the Empire only in the late 1950s, and it was around the same future date that  Germany    was to overtake the UK in economic terms. The feel  of the event in this film is remarkable as reflecting this  atmosphere

Nevertheless, the choice of this opera was a significant and indeed a foolish mistake, as was reflected in the reaction at the time. This has nothing to do with the quality of the opera as a work of art. After many years it can stand on its own quality. That the music was not easy  for some to penetrate at the time was a contributory factor but one which would have been less important if the subject matter had been appropriate

Britain had by 1953 suffered decades of hardship and misery. First the years before the Second World War had seen  a tremendous economic crisis following the 1929 Wall Street crash, Then there was the war with all its death and destruction. We were victorious, but the aftermath of the war scarcely gave us any reward as our position in the world - despite the points above - declined sharply, economically and imperially

But then a new queen came to the throne, and the economic position saw something of an improvement.. A new Elizabethan age seemed to dawn and we could look forward to better days. An opera looking back to the reign of Elizabeth I would provide exactly the right subject, covering as it did a threat from a great military power, Spain and the Armada then, Adolf Hitler and the Blitz now........and in both cases an emergence into victory and peace. 

But Britten showed the first Elizabeth in her last days, surrounded by difficulties and facing death. How completely inappropriate and badly judged - just what was NOT needed and in no way reflecting the national mood.One can faintly understand Britten writing thus, in view of his pacifism and therefore his presumed dislike of triumphalism, though it showed a very cramped judgement.  But the fault rested with those who approved, indeed planned,this opera..Lord Harewood was a prime mover and in Kobbe he defends it on musical grounds, but also by belittling the views of "grandees and courtiers".  Others have claimed that in looking forward to more problematic days Britten was more realistic than the audience. In one sense perhaps so, but not in the sense of what was required at the time, especially as a directly relevant subject was clearly available in the defeat of the Armada

Clement Attlee, Prime Minister

Margaret Thatcher said of Attlee that he was all substance and no show, and certainly his calm and detached personality, together with his firm determination, marks him out as a man very suited to be Prime Minister. And he had a talented cabinet.  It is a pity that one has to add that the policies of his government, from 1945 to 1951, were disastrous, establishing the post war consensus that dramatically accelerated the country's decline and led to something close to bankruptcy in the 1970s.

This is not usually a recognised conclusion, as a result, I suppose, of the general tendency to see aims as important rather that the consequences of  government policies. Attlee and his colleagues set out to look after the classes that had been so poor and so unpowerful, but the result of their actions was to hit those sections of society as much as others.

Most frequently the National Health Service is mentioned, but this argument is upset by the fact that a  "Comprehensive National Health Service" was in the Conservative Manifesto in 1945 so would have happened anyway. It was an idea whose time had come. Let us rather look at the main elements of Labour's economic policies in those years, rigorously enforced and disastrous in their consequences

Labour nationalised a whole raft of industries, creating national monopolies which had all the faults of any monopolies.But that was not the worst consequence. These were old industries,  - coal, steel,.  etc - due for decline or needing rationalisation.  Nationalisation kept them going for years when they should have faded or changed -   indeed one could with little exaggeration say that the true beneficiaries of the nationalisation of say coal were the coal owners, who would otherwise have had to bear the burden of the decline.....and anyway the decline would then have taken place over years, with far less pain than their eventual sharp demise,  And in those years they sucked in subsidy after subsidy, using funds better spent elsewhere and employing people better employed elsewhere. The whole system made worse by the pressure from the trade unions to resist change.

Indeed the power of the trade unions was a bane of many governments for many years after the war  ("Get your tanks off my lawn" said Harold Wilson), not only for the influences just mentioned but also in that there was a significant Marxist element in their thinking, leading to a distrust of the market economy which was soon to flourish in Germany. These people illogically  wanted growth and economic success but didn't like profits.

In addition, taxes were sharply raised. It was perhaps not surprising that in an attempt to raise the standard of living of the working class the socialists of that time ( and regrettably of today) saw that raising money from the rich  to pay for better conditions for the poor was justified. But these things are not a zero sum game - by encouraging initiative and investment one raises more wealth for social spending. Tax at 83% on earned income and 98% on "unearned " income led to a denial of  entrepreneurial investment and a clamp on growth.  One feels also that social justice, as perceived by  socialists, was the central aim.......even though the people they were trying to help would have been better off with taxes at half those levels.


And what about Beveridge? He wrote "The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility........The insured persons should not feel that income for idleness, however caused, can come from a bottomless purse"  And much more of the same. No doubt these limitations on welfare were rather unrealistic, but they were anyway ignored by the Labour government which vastly increased spending in these social directions without taking care not to overspend,  whilst at the same time curbing the growth of the economy.

All in all a disaster.  It took Margaret Thatcher to rectify the situation and so engrained were the faults that her policies had to be tough, so that she became vastly unpopular as a result. Tony Blair got the message ( she regarded his conversion as her greatest achievement), and it is a second reason for regretting the Iraq war that his reputation also in economics was clouded, with the result that socialist ideas have revived today in the stupidities of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party

Not Mrs Thatcher's Big Bang

It is assumed by many that the Big Bang in the City of London in 1986 was instigated by Mrs Thatcher and  that it deregulated the banks. Some believe that it led directly to the financial crisis of 2007/8. None of these assumptions is true

It was the Labour government ( that left office in 1979) that referred certain City practices to the Restrictive Practices Court. These practices were

1. Stockbrohers could sell or buy shares and bonds to and from the public but at fixed rates of commission and were not allowed to make markets

2. Stockjobbers could make markets in shares and bonds but were not allowed to deal with the public

3.  Brokers and jobbers were not allowed to take in foreign and other capital

When the Tories came into government in 1979 they could hardly - whatever their view on the substance of the matter - withdraw this case at a time when they were attacking restrictive practices in trade unions.

There was then a period of consultation. This was not just reactionaries resisting change, Many believed that there was a lot to be said for the traditional system, including the Bank of England which had the task of raising large sums for governments and of managing the resulting market in government debt. But eventually the Bank and the other parties agreed.. These practices were abolished and the result was much the same as it would have been if the case had gone to the court and the City had lost. And the changes were not initiated by Mrs Thatcher

Note that although the word " deregulation" was ( and is)  used of this change it was not concerned with the supervision of the behaviour of financial institutions.  The banks were not involved in the practices which were abolished.  Banks were throughout regulated by the Bank of England  until regulation was switched to the Financial Services Authority by Gordon Brown, with unfortunate consequences  in 2007/8 -  see my entry on The Financial Crisis  - Solved  in this blog

Nevertheless, in the government bill which was then brought forward to establish the new systems, there was a certain amount of new regulation, and over Mrs Thatcher's period of office the rules governing the behaviour of financial institutions were vastly increased. These rules - which  were further elaborated later - can now  be regarded as cumbersome and  have by some  been adversely compared with the more gentlemanly policing of the past  (the eyebrows of the Governor of the Bank of England, raised to express doubts).  Now we are ruled by rows of computers containing vast legal documents. But the change was inevitable, first  because of the growth in suspicion of self regulation, and secondly because of the changes in the character of financial institutions after Big Bang.

The removal of the three practices  listed above  led to the creation in London of large general banks providing many services as a result of the acquisition of brokers and jobbers by banks from many countries. These banks enabled London to maintain and improve  its position in the world as a financial centre, paralleled only by New York, and to the great benefit of the United Kingdom.

  

Of course there were other influences aside from Big Bang - globalisation, the IT revolution, the development of complex derivative instruments.   And if the new financial world is less gentlemanly than in the past that is true of many aspects of life today, including the fact that it is probably politically incorrect to say "gentlemanly"

Most politicians are the same - but some are dangerously not

A defector from the Tories to UKIP has said that the voters feel that all the established politicians are the same, and that they do not deliver. He was right, but should have added that they cannot deliver. The problems facing this country - and indeed the world  - are not capable of solutions.......it is only that they have to be managed as efficiently as possible.  As a result the electorate is presented daily with a constant series of difficulties, the impact of which is exacerbated by the media's concentration on bad news, the probing of good news for weaknesses and the over - dramatising of events.

As regards the economy, no one knows what are the solutions to economic problems on a theoretical level to more than a limited extent -  one result of which is that many commentators will select the theories that fit their social preferences. Discussions on this level are therefore a waste of time. But practical experience since the Second War has supplied evidence that certain ways of proceeding work and others to not.This evidence points to the success of careful management of the market economy ( see my entry on The Financial Crisis - Solved) . And  this entails unpopular policies, such as keeping government spending under control

The demands on the National Health Service can never be met, as we get older, and more medicines and techniques are developed. So  there are always complaints, and  any attempt to rationalise the existing set-up is met with foolish accusations that the NHS is under attack

As for the benefits budget, it is in practice certain that much is wasted on claims in marginal cases. But attempts to cut out the waste are met by shouts of horror that the weakest are being attacked. The various charities are disgracefully irresponsible in these discussions, as they always bring forward the most severe cases as being under review. If I were a minister I would ask the main charities and pressure groups to propose cuts in their budgets of 20% - after all they are the experts. If they refused I could conclude that they were not worth listening to

And who can solve the questions of immigration? Hundreds of thousands of non-EU citizens have arrived in this country in recent years and far fewer have left. David Cameron's 20 000 asylum seekers should not be judged without these others. They all have to be fitted in. And millions and millions are out there,  desperate for tragic or for economic reasons to get in. This is another problem that will run for ever.which no one can solve. ( See my entry on A real Pandora's Box)

In such an environment one has to choose politicians who can handle these difficulties and crises best. The relevant  candidates are the traditional parties - Tories, Social Democrats, and New Labour ( which threw over socialism).  But because they cannot deliver there is an attraction in those who claim to be able to provide solutions - such as Mr Corbyn, a throw back to failed philosophies, and relying on  party activists, who from whichever party should never have more than marginal influence. And in the US we can see the same foolishness in the support for Trump.

Join the established parties and ridicule  the deluded followers of Corbyn

Frederick the Great ( I )

Frederick's character was extraordinary, even more remarkable perhaps than his military and other talents. He maintained his self restraint and firm judgement  throughout his several wars, despite defeats as well as victories, and when the whole  burden of the State and the wars rested with him alone. So his upbringing is of central interest, and indeed many studies have examined the years before his marriage (when he might be regarded as having to an extent settled down,  even though it was a marriage of convenience).  But despite a number of enquiries not one of the experts in this area of history that I have contacted has noted any link to his Great Uncle, the Margrave Christian Ludwig of Brandenburg (1677 - 1734)

Christian Ludwig's name is familiar to music lovers as the man to whom Bach sent in 1723 the music we know as the Brandenburg Concertos. The two had met in Berlin  during a visit by Bach, and perhaps when later sending the Concertos Bach hoped for a job in Berlin. But the Margrave  was a younger son and  not a ruling prince. The revenues of Prussia where in the hands of his nephew, King Frederick William I,  Frederick's father.  Christian Ludwig maintained a small orchestra, it is thought without the necessary range of instrumental players to perform the Concertos. But my point is that from 1712 when Frederick was born,  until his marriage in 1733, and during the years when he was in adolescent revolt against his father the King, Christian Ludwig was around, not dying till 1734.

Were they in contact? Frederick was intensely musical - he played  and  later wrote for the flute, and his compositions were said by Mozart to have content. He had a small musical band. But this and his other cultural activities were not appreciated by his father Frederick William, who preferred building up his army (which Frederick would later make use of) and smoking with his cronies.  It seems impossible that the two musical enthusiasts - Frederick and his Great Uncle - did not meet and discuss the things that Frederick could not discuss with his father, or the Court, who were careful of the King's wrath. And Frederick could discuss music with his band only as a Prince. With Christian Ludwig he could talk freely to someone of his own rank, who could be a mentor, and a kind of confessor. Indeed what a release for him if it happened  -  this is a factor very relevant to the development  of Frederick's  character. And if it did not happen why not? Did the King prevent it?

The Kingdom of America

It is surprising that the Founding Fathers, breaking away form the British semi-constitutional monarchy, should have put together a constitution for America which follows the plan of a medieval and non-constitutional monarchy, albeit an elective monarchy.

The King (the President) sits in his palace (the White House) surrounded by his court.....he chooses  them, so that within the Administration his power is very great and in a sense absolute.

But he is constrained by the great territorial Earls and Lords ( the Senate)....he has to take account of their power when he frames and executes policies

And he cannot ignore the more widespread views of the population at large led by the lesser lords  ( the House of Representatives)

Nor can he ignore the Church (the Supreme Court) which examines ancient  and authoritative scripts to see how far they are relevant today

This seems to me an inefficient way to run a country. The President is too powerful in the Administration........in a real cabinet, he would have colleagues with  power bases of their own so the evolution of policy would not be centered in one mind. On the other hand the President is not powerful enough in the system as a whole, because of the role of Congress. But Congress is separated from government, and any tendency in the Senate or the House to see the path to good governance is constrained by too frequent re-elections. As for the Supreme Court,  if the terms of a constitution written in the 18th Century are confirmed, one has to ask why such a ancient text can be useful today,  whereas if the Court updates the Constitution then  it - the Court - becomes a part of the governmental structure - as it clearly is - created in a peculiar way

It needs a political genius of the highest order as President to run this system, who is also right minded in his or her aims. Franklin D Roosevelt was such a man, and one can only be astonished at the skill he showed in the New Deal,  and in the war both before and after Pearl Harbour. But a constitution should not depend on the emergence of a political genius of that order, especially as the President is elected by the public at large, who cannot know how the talents and minds of the candidates are balanced. I do not think that Frau Merkel or Mrs Thatcher would have won in a presidential type election. But some candidates appealing to the simplistic prejudices of the electorate can garner votes, as with Mr Corbyn in Britain or Mr Trump in the States

Too late, of course,  to do anything about this now, especially as US citizens are trained from birth to see the Constitution as the best possible instrument. I was however once at a dinner in Washington  with several Americans who without any prompting from me suddenly agreed about cabinet government as above. I felt an almost physical shock

Vegans - choose the possible

I would like to propose a political but positive point to vegans. You have no hope of persuading more than a tiny minority to give up eating meat, and as nations such as China become richer the people eat more meat. But the methods by which animals are prepared for eating are in many and perhaps most cases horrible. They are often raised in terrible conditions (pigs spending all their lives trapped in a narrow cage) and killed in  ways at which we can only shudder.

 It is also the case that many if not most people (even meat eaters)  are in principle animal lovers and enhanced campaigns against the methods of raising and killing animals would have the effect of  changing things for the better,  though the campaigns would have to be determined and continuous. Indeed there have been some successes in this direction......in the cases of how chickens are kept, and in the production of veal. This is the way forward, and to argue against eating meat in principle will weaken the impact - those that eat meat will dismiss the whole matter as the views of a minority of special pleaders

I would add that it is only vegans and vegetarians who can legitimately campaign against traditional fox hunting. The cruelty to the fox is marginal to the cruelty involved in fattening and killing animals for food. And as for the moral fault in killing animals for pleasure, one has to say that any campaigner against hunting who takes pleasure in eating meat without considering how it is brought to the table is even more morally at fault