War! What Is It Good For?

Corey Robin recently made the point that "Despite the differences in personnel between the Bush and the Trump administrations, the parallels between the war in Iraq and the war in Iran are pretty straightforward." Central to this similarity was the way in which "a small group of influencers—neocons in Bush’s case, the Israelis in Trump’s case—make the argument for war on two logically incompatible grounds: a) the enemy regime is poised to be so militarily powerful that if the US waits any longer, the enemy will be able to land a devastating blow against it; b) destroying the enemy regime militarily will be staggeringly easy." Fear at the advance of a rival has been a common cause of war since Thucydides spoke of the "growth in power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Sparta", while naked opportunism has never gone out of fashion. But the combination of the two is particularly characteristic of empires engaged in peripheral but asymmetric rivalry.

Once the nineteenth century "great powers" moved beyond the phase of unapologetic incursion and expansion, which globally came to an end with the Treaty of Versailles and the redistribution of German and Turkish possessions, and notwithstanding the temporary revival of territorial aggrandisement by Fascist Italy in Africa and Nazi Germany in Europe, colonial wars were essentially defensive: the "policing" operations and resistance to liberation movements that marked the interwar years and then the 30 years between the end of World War Two and the fall of Saigon. Intervention in Korea and Vietnam were both sold as necessary to prevent communist advance elsewhere (what became known as the Domino Theory), but also as wars that could be contained - an opportunity to strike a decisive blow without risking escalation - because the Soviet Union made it plain it wouldn't put its troops on the front-line in the first and China did likewise in the second.

One reason for presenting these conflicts as discrete reactions to local provocation was to avoid identifying the links and similarities, as Robin has done, other than the convenient link of a communist masterplan for world domination. In other words, to avoid admitting that these were essentially imperial wars of choice "over there" in which the trigger was not a communist plot (the liberation movements were typically nationalist, with communist parties coming to the fore as a result of a Cold War paradigm being imposed by the US), or some barbarian recidivism (the British stance in Kenya, for example), but usually an attempt by the hegemon (global or regional) to force the geopolitical map into a preferred shape or simply to remind the "natives" who's boss. The history of British and American dealings with Iran since the 1953 coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh is a textbook example.

The claim that the Iran War has been a strategic defeat for the US and Israel should be treated with scepticism, and that's before considering that the war may well not be over as Israel continues to pound Lebanon and Iran continues to restrict access to the Strait of Hormuz in response. The claim is independent of the state of the conflict and stems from the belief that Trump and Netanyahu have failed in their aims and left Iran stronger. Up until literally the day before the ceasefire was announced, these same commentators were claiming that the US did not have any clear war aims, so in what sense has it failed to achieve them? If the actual aim was to (once more) trash a Middle Eastern country, pour encourager les autres, then arguably it's mission accomplished, once again.

Likewise, Israel got cover for its incursions into, and possible continued occupation of, Southern Lebanon. For all the noise made by the Israeli opposition, Netanyahu has not diverged from mainstream policy, whether couched in terms of "mowing the lawn" or Eretz Israel. Israel does not want regime change in Iran as this would jeopardise their own position vis-a-vis Lebanon and Gaza. Tehran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas has always been primarily opportunistic, but so too has Israel's demonisation of both groups (and willingness to covertly strengthen them at times) and the supposed malevolent influence of Iran. The fears of the Israeli opposition centre on the idea that Netanyahu is jeopardising the relationship with the US by alienating the national security establishment in Washington (always more important than Trump, who will be gone ere long). They're less bothered about alienating European leaders, which is why the latter have suddenly been emboldened to criticise Israel's bombardment of Lebanon (in the expectation that Trump will rein Netanyahu in).

The idea that Iran is stronger now because it controls the Strait and will exact a lucrative toll (supposedly worth 20% of its current GDP, according to analysts at J P Morgan) ignores that the waterway is evenly divided with Oman, which presumably isn't about to block its half of it or even charge a toll (as that would monumentally piss off its neighbours in the Gulf). And the idea that the world has suddenly woken up to the vulnerability of the Strait is preposterous. Not only did the 2021 blockage of the Suez Canal bring home the sensitivity of the global economy to the interruption of such strategic sea lanes, but the specific criticality of the Strait of Hormuz was already proven back in the 1980s during the Tanker War episode of the wider Iraq-Iran War. The progress of the war to date has shown that the Gulf states are capable of defending themselves against Iran, short of an unlikely seaborne invasion, and the US fleet will continue to patrol the Gulf, even if the chances of an amphibious landing on Iranian territory remain remote.

The reports of how this particular casus belli sausage was made, notably the New York Times article by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, place great emphasis on Netanyahu's ability to sway Trump. The idea that various people have a hold on the US President, whether through Putin's kompromat or Netanyahu's Svengali-like persuasive powers (an old antisemitic trope, it should be noted), ignores that his decison-making process is often peremptory and even arbitrary. As the article makes clear, Trump wasn't particularly interested in the idea of a popular uprising in Iran and regime change, which were based on optimistic claims by the Israelis that few in Washington thought credible. What attracted the US President was killing Iran's Supreme Leader (whose title must be a provocation to Trump's vanity) and destroying the Iranian military almost at a whim. In other words, it was the spectacle of hegemonic power unrestrained by morality - we can kill anyone we like and no one can stand up to us - that proved decisive.

Since the fall of Saigon in 1975, America's military doctrine has been not only to over-match all possible rivals but to use overwhelming force when conflict occurs. It is the spectacular use of that force that has driven strategy, rather than any attempt to bring about genuine regime change, let alone democratisation, hence the decision not to invade Iraq after the shock and awe of the First Gulf War, and the abject failure of "nation-building" after the Second Gulf War. As Jean Baudrillard noted in 1991, this isn't war but a masquerade: a performance of war that amounts to an atrocity. Since then, the US has conducted atrocities, in this sense of spectacular expressions of destruction and killing power, across the Middle East, from Iraq to Afghanistan, and its approach has enabled similar atrocities by Israel (in Gaza and Lebanon) and the Gulf states (via proxies in Syria and now Sudan). The assassination of foreign leaders is at one with the bombing of schools and hospitals. The violence is an end in itself, not the means to any geopolitical reordering.

The Habermas Machine

The death of the German public intellectual Jurgen Habermas at the age of 96 provides a useful starting point to consider the current developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI). I referred to him as a public intellectual, rather than a philosopher or a sociologist, because his political role - and I do literally mean his performance of a role - is the bulk of his legacy. In the future, few outside of academia will read his works, such as The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere or The Theory of Communicative Action, but his ideas about democratic discourse, suitably vulgarised, will survive in the memory of his liberal admirers. This memory was summarised by the Guardian's editorial that marked his death in two statements: first, "that our nature as linguistic beings puts reason and the search for consensus at the core of who we are"; and second, that Habermas's "concept of the public sphere, where rational debate can take place and disagreements be brokered, implied pluralism, civility and inclusion." 

The first statement is little more than obeisance to the just-so story of the Enlightenment, which ignores the realities of power and the irreconcilable interests of class in favour of an essentialist abstraction: Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along?" In particular, it sidelines the key criticism of instrumental reason advanced by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in The Dialectic of Enlightenment, which was the intellectual context of Habermas's emergence in the postwar era as a junior member of the Frankfurt School before he struck out on his own. The second statement ignores the structural constraints on the public sphere that make a mockery of such terms as pluralism, civility and inclusion. An object example would be the closing down of debate on Gaza in Germany, which Habermas himself contributed to by co-signing a statement by established academics in November 2023 that Israel's response to the October 7th attack was "justified".

Being on the wrong side of history is an occupational hazard for any public intellectual, but in Habermas's case losing the public argument became a distinguishing feature. As Peter Verovšek put it: "While it is certainly true that Habermas was accorded a certain respect as the éminence grise of the German public sphere, this recognition is more visible in the vehemence with which he was attacked than in the agreement his interventions found. ... Habermas never lost his commitment to democracy — to the idea that he could only present arguments, leaving his fellow citizens the communicative agency to decide what they thought and what they wanted to do, even if their decisions would often go against him". What this highlights for me is the extent to which Habermas was engaged (perhaps unwittingly) in a performance, like the court jester whose lèse-majesté is indulged but ultimately ignored.

In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Habermas argued that there was a fundamental shift in the 18th century from a "representational" culture centred on the court, where power was imposed through ritual and splendour, to a "public" culture centred on dialogue, criticism and consensus in multiple, more modest and disparate arenas, from coffee houses to Masonic lodges, which arose as a result of capitalism. There are two points to make about this. First, that the historical reality was less clear cut, the simple disjuncture of Habermas's tale ignoring the epistemological traditions of scholasticism and the Rennaisance as well as the persistence (and even recrudescence under Fascism) of overpowering ritual and splendour. And second, that the public sphere birthed by capitalism was just as much of a performance of power, a point noted not only by Adorno and Horkheimer but by later theorists such as Michel Foucault. The quadrille may have replaced the minuet, but they were both dances.

So what has all this got to do with AI? One claim is that AI may help achieve consensus in the realm of politics by mediating discourse: a theory tested by Google DeepMind's so-called Habermas Machine. Large language models (LLMs) are built on discourse in the form of written statements. These may be assertions (discourse is not limited to dialogue), or they may be commentary on other statements: disputations, counter-arguments, critique. These statements may or may not have a truth value. Though the appetite for more training data has meant that more and more of what is fed into the machine is low-grade, and increasingly the recycled slop of AI itself, the original intent was to privilege academic and technical literature on the grounds that this would be more reliably truthful. This meant absorbing the academic (even scholastic) paradigms inherent in the data: exegesis, citation, disputation. This preference isn't novel in digital technology. Google's Page Rank is a paradigmatic application of peer review, after all. 

The result is that AI's determination to be authoritative leads it to "generate detailed “reports”, including names and dates, references and sources – the kind of material that suggests deep research and understanding, but may in fact be hallucinated or nonexistent." AI aims to be plausible by mimicing the forms and tropes of academic and scientific publication. Given all that we know about the institutional biases of academia, the prevalence of hoaxes and the crisis of replicability, is it any wonder that AI generates bullshit? AI's determination isn't a product of the data but of the programming. It has become fashionable to talk of LLMs as inscrutable, which leads to the anthropomorphism of "consciousness", but the reality is that they are curated and operate within quite strict boundaries. AI is problematic because of the biases inherent in the training data but also because of the trainers' own biases encoded into the guardrails - e.g. the pre-emptive interventions intended to stop it going full Mecha-Hitler - and the micro-decisions of thousands of human data "cleaners". 

The American blogger Noah Smith recently claimed that "AI is a force for moderation. If I'm a Republican, and I talk to AI, I'm talking to something that was trained on data from both Republicans and Democrats. So the AI is more likely to pull me towards the center." The assumption that LLMs are big enough to avoid bias, like the idea of an equidistant "center", ignores the role of selection (both in the sense of what gets published and what is absorbed into the model) and misunderstands that there are real differences in political language. While to outside observers the Democrats and Republicans look like two wings of the same party, as Gore Vidal once memorably noted, they employ distinct vocabularies and rhetorical forms. The Democrats also want to bomb Iran and provide more money and arms to Israel, they just deplore the vulgarity of Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth. 

In simple terms, conservatives tend to be more assertive while centrists place a higher value on civility. Each can be considered a strategy of domination, arguably echoing Habermas's distinction between the representational (imposed) and the public (consensual). In other words, Republican and Democrat data (written statements that reflect their ideological positions) are not necessarily the same, not just in their differences of vocabulary ("liberty" and "wealth" versus "society" and "investment" etc) but in the force and style of their arguments (confidently normative versus cautiously empirical, for example). Consequently, there is no good reason to believe that AI will avoid bias in its interpretation. It depends on what it has come to value through training and what parameters it has been given by its all-too-human programmers. 

We also have to bear in mind that AI is backward-looking, just as the academic and scientific milieux it relies on are. It privileges established knowledge (which may be wrong), which means it is inevitably conservative: there can be no paradigm shift, let alone a singularity. It lacks the imagination that distinguishes genuine human intelligence. In Habermas's lifeworld, knowledge is advanced by research and the gathering of more data, ultimately through the continuing growth of the global population - i.e. by the reproduction of human intelligence and the renewed experience of the world. The problem for AI, which has been brewing for some years and cannot be offset by "more compute", is that the quality of fresh data has plummeted because we've already used all the good stuff. Its attempts to originate knowledge, to create novel data by inference, too often result in hallucinations that strive for the credibility of form, not of substance. 

Habermas fulfilled a necessary role for postwar Germany, advocating and personally exemplifying a theory of participatory democracy while the Ordoliberal establishment secured market liberalism from democratic challenge. At the crucial juncture of 1968, he turned against the socialist student movement. Thereafter, for all his denunciations of the right in the Historikerstreit (historians' dispute) and his later criticisms of the EU's shortcomings, he functioned as the tame conscience of German liberalism. Just as Habermas lapsed into irrelevance, so AI will become ever more conservative as it strives for authoritativeness (borrowing the name of an eminent German thinker without his permission being an example of this) and as the economic incentives encourage a dumbing-down for safety's sake (being sued for consequential damages is a bigger worry than being sued for copyright breaches). Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) will remain as much of a Utopian ideal, just out of reach, as a public sphere where pluralism, civility and inclusion reign. 

Caste Away

The British politico-media caste has taken leave of its collective senses. The uproar over the banning of Maccabi Tel Aviv away fans at Villa Park is notable not for the ridiculous arguments or patently false claims being made by those who want the ban over-turned, but by their shared assumption that they can get away with shitehawking the British public on a truly epic scale. It is a display of power that acts as a litmus test to identify those who identify with power. This free-for-all was triggered not by the ban itself but by the reaction of various rent-a-gob MPs, such as the Tory Nigel Huddleston who immediately interpreted the ban as a refusal to "guarantee the safety of Jewish people on our streets and in our sports grounds". This competitive anti-anti-semitism quickly escalated all the way to the Prime Minister, who as a football fan should really have known better. Keir Starmer's response - "We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets" - effectively gave permission to the entirety of the caste to junk any attempt at factual analysis in favour of hyperventilating about the state of modern Britian with a blatant subtext that we've bowed to Muslims for too long, hence the demonisation of Ayoub Khan as terrorism-adjacent and demands for Zarah Zultana to be deported.

It seems otiose to point out that the inflaming of community tensions here is the direct result of the caste's behaviour, not the decision of the local council's Safety Advisory Group or the preferences of the West Midlands Police. The irony is that the reasonable fear of away fans running riot has transmogrified into a belief that Jews aren't safe on our streets precisely because the politico-media caste have been allowed to run riot. While there have been some sensible responses among sports journalists - pointing out that away fan bans are neither unusual nor unprecedented in the case of Maccabi Tel Aviv - it was notable that those whose career seems to have been a long drawn-out bleat about how much they despise the game of football were at the forefront of opposition to the ban, possibly because it allowed them to ride their other hobby horses about the pernicious left. Consider Barney Ronay's take in the Guardian, which was essentially a sneering dismissal of Ayoub Khan and Zack Polanksi (incidental reference to hypnosis and tits all present and correct) for what he saw as their hypocrisy in claiming that Birmingham is not a "no-go area".

In today's Observer, Philip Collins - standing in for Andrew Rawnsley as resident Blairite opinion-monger - takes a predictably more lofty view of the whole matter, seeing it in terms of Keir Starmer's continuing struggle to convince the country that he is the best person to be Prime Minister. Collins tries to position Starmer as the "quiet and reasonable" point of calm at the centre of the storm, hence he throws brickbats at both critics on the left and on the right. Like Ronay, Collins believes "there is every chance of a fight", noting Tommy Robinson parading around in a Maccabi shirt and asking who's up for it, but believes this simply requires robust policing. At no point does he stop to wonder whether the Prime Minister finding himself on the same side as a convicted football hooligan over the question of the ban might be cause for concern. Instead he claims "this drama is a parable of the conundrum facing Keir Starmer as a political figure. Caught between two factions who do not want to talk to one another, let alone be reconciled, he does not naturally assume the tone of assertive certainty that is the demand of the moment." His nostalgia for Blair's muscular centrism is palpable.

More absurdly, Collins sees Starmer as a victim of intolerance: "On one side stand the outraged on the left wing facing the outraged on the right wing. And there stands the prime minister in the middle, forced to play a game he would rather referee, no doubt shaking his head at the stupidity of it all." This image is hard to reconcile with Starmer's own words where he equated an operational decision by the West Midlands Police with tolerance for "antisemitism on our streets", thereby inflaming the situation and giving carte blanche to the rest of the politico-media caste to lose their shit. In reality, Collins, like the the rest of the Blairite hardcore, has little regard for Starmer, hence he introduces his column with faint praise: "A dispute involving football and the application of the law sounds as if it were designed to bring the best out of the prime minister. These are his private and his public passions. But the question of whether or not the supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv should be permitted to travel to Birmingham to watch their club’s game against Aston Villa on 6 November also shows that the prime minister, struggling to stay calm and reasonable, might never escape the verdict that he is a man out of time."

One explanation for the general turn to hysteria by the caste is the recognition that the impending budget may prove a decisive moment for this administration: the last chance to set a coherent course for the next few years and crystallise in the electorate's hive-mind what this government is for. The major consequence of a bad reception may not be a setback to the personal ambitions of the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, but a whispering campaign against Starmer. His over-reaction to the Maccabi ban suggests a man who knows he is on borrowed time and is flailing around to reassert his authority (that snub by Trump in Sharm El-Sheikh obviously hurt). It might appear an odd hill to die on, but Starmer reached high office through his reputation as a public philosemite as much as a europhile, and with the latter an embarrassment now, a "dispute involving football and the application of the law" may, as Collins surmised, have looked like an open goal. It may also have looked like an opportunity to eclipse the Home Secretary, who should really be leading on this matter.

The problem that instinctive authoritarians face is that the moment you fail to impose your authority you can quickly find it dribbling away. Donald Trump may always chicken out (TACO), but he gets away with it, first because he is shameless in rewriting failure as success, and second because he enjoys continuing support among the right-leaning media for his policies (though that may not last). Starmer, in contrast, has already lost the public and is clearly on the cusp of losing the media. His refusal to define "Starmerism" means there is no natural constituency for him in the PLP; the 2024 landslide intake and the current state of the polls means there are many MPs who believe he is leading them to unemployment; and the doubts about the competence and nous of the Number 10 operation continue despite repeated reshuffles and reboots. All this raises the stakes and means that Starmer cannot now climb down over the Maccabi ban. The hysteria of the caste is a clear message that the Prime Minister must dance to their tune or face humiliation.

Society of the Lanyard

The latest round of the national ID debate had hardly got underway before pundits and commentators were hurling insults. Particularly amusing was the sight of Lewis Goodall being community-noted on X for insulting X users' poor grasp of the subject while being married to an employee of the Tony Blair Institute. Leaving aside his consdescending tone and alledgedly offensive wife, Goodall did make one useful point, though without perhaps fully understanding it, when he accused the debate of being "insular", pointing out that other countries have had ID cards for years with little issue. This is correct, but it misses that the government, and lobbyists like the TBI, are also reluctant to actually examine the use of such schemes in other countries. One obvious reason is that they do not provide evidence for many of the beneficial claims that are habitually made. For example, we know that national IDs will not deter asylum-seekers because those camped out around Calais have already passed through multiple countries with ID regimes which didn't deter them either. Likewise, none of the countries that insist on IDs for employment have managed to do away with the shadow economy.

Deterrence is a common theme across arguments in favour of national IDs: it will deter illegal immigration, it will deter illegal employment, it will deter benefit fraud. But this is no more convincing than the deterrent argument used to justify any criminal law. Making something a crime does not stop it happening, it just clarifies the consequences. The more positive argument for a national ID, that it will improve citizens' access to public services, is nowadays more likely come with citations about how easy it is to report a collision to your car insurer in Poland using the national ID app. I'm pretty sure Poland doesn't have nationalised car insurance, more's the pity, so this is stretching the definition of public services. In other words, the boundary between a digital citizen and a digital consumer has already been erased. Across the EU, national ID schemes have been captured by commercial interests over the last twenty years, which is why they have moved online. Being able to access your bank account securely with your national ID is a greater benefit for the bank than it is for you. 

A typically-breathless report in the Guardian on the subject states that "Estonia claims e-ID saves citizens about five days a year of pre-digital administrative hassle." In other words, it was the digitalisation that reduced the admin overhead, not the national ID. Nobody in the UK is currently spending five days a year routinely negotiating public services online, and obviously the introduction of an ID scheme will not reduce the amount of time you spend sitting in a hospital waiting room or queueing for a bus. One argument you don't hear from the Tony Blair Institute, or anybody else for that matter, is that a national ID scheme will increase the take-up of benefits, by identifying people who are eligible but currently don't claim. It's estimated that UK benefit fraud (some of which is actually just DWP error) amounts to over £6 billion a year while unclaimed benefits are almost four times that at £23 billion. The intersection of national IDs and benefits is always about "efficient allocation", "better targeting" and the prevention of fraud.

The UK's feudal legacy is not to be found in the monarchy or Morris Men - both largely invented traditions of the modern era - but in its parcellised approach to public services, which is reflected in the multiple and not always overlapping identification schemes from NHS numbers to driving licences used to organise it. That may seem strange given that cars are obviously a modern invention and the NHS dates from only 1948, but the point is that the state in its broadest form has always been more fragmentary and blinkered than either its advocates or critics have allowed, and the roots of its disaggregation go a long way back. The welfare state may have offered an embrace from cradle to grave, but it was never the same arms doing the embracing over time, while the dystopian nightmare of an intrusive state ignored the reality of administrative disconnection (the totalitarian fears of Geroge Orwell originated from his experiences in the very exclusive and parcellised environs of Eton and the BBC).

The worry that a national ID scheme would lead to Larry Ellison or Peter Thiel controlling our personal data is a classic case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Partly because of the parcellised nature of personal identification in the UK, they have already scooped up many of our demographic assets with minimal democratic oversight and zero public agreement. For them, the promise of a national ID is the ability to exploit the linkages between the datasets that they already control: the primary key to all the mysteries, if I may be permitted a techno-literate joke. But whether that will lead to greater insight is moot. It's easy enough to sell the state on the vision of making the population ever more legible, but the experience of Big Data has proved underwhelming, particularly in the area of public administration. The fundmental problem is one of triviality: that there isn't much to be learned by extending a particular NHS patient's record to include their driving licence. Even in aggregate, there is unlikely to be a statistically significant correlation between being entitled to ride a motorbike and suffering from shingles.

If the government wanted to implement a national ID card on the cheap it could simply issue everyone who doesn't have one with a driving licence. In these cases the card would simply have blanks on the reverse - i.e. you wouldn't be licensed to drive anything. In many countries, such as the USA, a driving licence is the standard form of (non-compulsory) ID and in the UK plenty of teenagers already use a provisional licence for proof of age in pubs and clubs. But this pragmatic approach, infomed by international practice, isn't what the likes of Lewis Goodall are seeking when they criticise British insularity. Their vision is of a common online identity whose utility to the state is almost incidental to its utility to business. And what particularly attracts journalists who face derision on social media is the prospect of doing away with online anonymity altogether. As they gather at the Labour Party Annual Conference in Liverpool to fret about Starmer's lack of vision, what they see when they look around the conference hall is actually their own vision: a society of the lanyard.

Linehan's Law

When Graham Linehan was detained by the police at Heathrow Airport recently it generated some predictable warnings about the chilling effect of hate-speech laws on the exercise of free speech, which was ironic given the amount of media coverage then given to his tweets and his defence of them. The event was also marked by his supporters' hyperbolic claims, such as JK Rowling describing the UK as a "totalitarian state." The fact you can make the claim without consequence suggests the opposite. Now that the dust has settled, it's worth going back to the incident and reviewing Linehan's reaction to the police officers: "You know what this country looks like from America? I am going to sue you into the ground, I am going to sue you into the ground. Fucking bastards, how dare you. I won’t fucking calm down." What stands out here is not just his sense of entitlement (I'm surprised he didn't say "Do you know who I am") but his insistence that what matters is how this looks from the US, where he has now apparently relocated permanently.

The significance of that perspective becomes apparent when we consider the reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the American rightwing provocateur. This led British politicians, including the Prime Minister, to decry political violence and offer condolences, despite Kirk being a nobody on this side of the pond. Insofar as Kirk had a British audience it would be a subset of the far right groups that coalesced on Saturday for the "Unite the Kingdom" march in London organised by Tommy Robinson and graced by a video-call from Elon Musk who called for the overthrow of the government. This predictably led to violence directed at both anti-Fascist counter-protestors and the police. For Robinson's supporters, violence is a form of expression. They believe that they have a God-given right to get bevvied-up and chuck bottles at other people. Again, what we're dealing with here is a monstrous sense of entitlement. The flags that have been such a feature of the summer in England aren't symbols of inclusive patriotism but of exclusive ownership: this is ours; keep out.

Linehan was in the UK to defend himself in court against a charge of harrassment arising from another set of abusive tweets he had sent. In a prepared statement, he described himself as a "journalist", presumably not because he's actually doing journalism in any normally-accepted sense of the word, but because he imagines that journalists have a special dispensation that allows them to circumvent the laws on hate-speech. When you look at British newspapers, you can understand why he might have thought that. Alison Pearson's crusade in the Daily Telegraph to have Lucy Connolly, a self-confessed criminal racist, recognised as a political prisoner is a recent example of how mainstream conservatism in Britain has now imported the American right's instrumental contempt for the law. Two-tier justice is real, but it's an aspiration rather than a criticism, and one still best captured in Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

The undercurrent of a number of recent "political" cases has been the idea that the law should recognise and reinforce particular hierarchies, such as the superiority of biological women and the inferiority of trans women. This has even led to inverting class hierarchies. For example, in the Sandy Peggie case it is the traditionally subordinate nurse who is deemed to have superior rights to the doctor because of her biology, thus justifying her impertinence. This highlights that the right are instrumental in their defence of established hierarchies, just as they are selective in their observance of the law. The division between the far-right in the streets and in electoral politics reflects not simply a sociological gulf - former football hooligans versus former Conservative Party activists - but a strategic division of political labour based on the prioritisation of different hierarchies. On the street, the dominant hierarchy is race, with religion as a proxy. In the media, the dominant hierarchy is class. For all the focus on immigration, Reform's programme is fundamentally Thatcherite, and for all their vocal anti-racism, liberal commentators cannot hide their contempt for the street. 

The problem with this race/class dichotomy is not that it creates a fatal tension between Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage - the far-right has always melded the street and the legislature - but that it is destabilising of mainstream conservatism, for which political violence must remain a monopoly of the state. Just as middle-aged "lads" imagine that being draped in an England flag means that rucking with the police is patriotism, so the traditional hierarchies that conservatives defend can quickly be compromised when other hierarchies come to the fore. The incident of an almost parodically articulate young middle class man being chased by working class louts, forced to seek refuge at a refugee processing centre, is an example of how events can spin out of control. Lucy Connolly saw asylum-seekers as inferior to herself and thus their lives of little value. Alison Pearson's framing of her as a politcial prisoner is an attempt not only to obscure this bigotry but to re-establish the authority of the upper middle class to define our politics for fear that rage against the "liberal elites" might wash over the rest of the establishment. You can punch down but not up.

No British government is going to curtail immigration, or commence deportations, to the extent that would satisfy the far-right. As a result, the cross-party strategy appears to be to indulge and hopefully contain racist protest. This goes beyond legtimising "concerns" to turning a blind eye to low-level violence and intimidation. Starmer's eventual condemnation of Saturday's aggro as a defence of the flag was telling. Holding a sign saying "I support Palestine Action" will get you arrested. Shouting "paedo" at anyone who supports refugees won't. The political issue of the moment is the collapse of the Conservative Party under pressure from both the far-right (which it vainly apes) and a Labour government keen to occupy the Tories' traditional centre-right space. This rightward shift has been enabled by the political cartel's refusal to accept the left as legitimate, which has evolved from the false charge of antisemitism to a more sweeping criticism of leftists as "groomers" and "traitors": language no longer limited to the fringe but regularly deployed by the press and increasingly directed at the most conservative Labour government in history. This is a direct import from the US where the bogies of "antifa" and the "radical left" are routinely conflated with establishment Democrats.

Predictably, British centrist commentators responding to the Kirk assassination have been quick to insist that political violence is a problem equally on the right and the left, despite the obvious disproportion between the two. Some have even gone so far as to devote the majority of their attention to the perceived incivility of the left, seeing it as the ultimate cause of rightwing violence, which dangerously echoes the position of Donald Trump and others in the US. What this reaction makes clear is that centrists are also motivated above all else by the preservation of traditional hierarchies: civility is not about your manners but about your authority. But just as the hierarchy of class can be undermined by the hierarchy of race, so the hierarchy of liberal virtue can be swept away in the mistaken belief that dumping the European Convention on Human Rights, in favour of an American-style protection of hitherto illegal forms of hate-speech, is an advance for all of us, rather than just a victory for a minority of angry, middle-aged bigots.

Liberal Preferences

Chris Dillow, building on a post by David Allen Green, notes that UK politics is in crisis because "destabilizing forces have strengthened and stabilizing ones have weakened." What he means by this is that the tendency to rein in the extremes is no longer instinctive among the main parties (obviously stamping on herbivorous lefties is another matter). He gives a good example in the relative treatment of Enoch Powell after his Rivers of Blood speech (sacked by party leader Ted Heath) and Robert Jenrick after thoughtlessly hobnobbing with Fascist activists (not a hint of disciplinary action from Kemi Badenoch). Instead of negative feedback, we get positive feedback as bigotry is mainstreamed, urban myths are cast as legitimate concerns, and someone who incited racial hatred and advocated burning people to death is hailed as a political prisoner. Elsewhere, economic illiteracy is promoted by both politicians and the media because they believe the electorate is ignorant and can only be appealed to through crass simplifications such as the nation's "maxed-out credit card".

As Chris explains, "All I'm doing here is spelling out a few mechanisms in support of David Allen Green's recent attack on the complacent idea that 'unpleasant situations will resolve themselves' and that balance will be restored. For this to happen, there must be negative, stabilizing, feedback mechanisms. But our political-media class has weakened these, preferring to pander to racism. I'm not surprised that so many in this class choose barbarism over socialism. What is surprising is that they choose barbarism even over liberal democracy." So why do they make that latter choice? One place to seek an answer is the house journal of British liberalism, The Guardian. I would argue that its most typical columnist is John Harris, who can be characterised as a liberal pessimist in that he regularly chides "progressives" for not doing enough to resist racism or improve public services, but whose only solution is vapid symbolism and otherwise cultivating your garden. There are others who are more optimistic (Polly Toynbee) and more pessimistic (Rafael Behr), but Harris is representative because he tends to sway between those poles, like a depressed ruminant who spots a buttercup.

He certainly wasn't an advocate of Labour's shift to a more genuinely progressive politics under Jeremy Corbyn, though his attempts to parse the upswell of enthusiasm that gave rise to it between 2015 and 2019 are interesting precisely because of his need to welcome that progressive intent while dismissing the left as a viable vehicle for it. Thus during the leadership contest in 2015 he welcomed that Corbyn offered clarity, but by the time the 2017 general election came into view, he was dismissing a Corbyn-led Labour Party as deeply irrelevant. Immediately after the unexpectedly positive result for Labour, Corbyn was apparently chiming with the times. By 2019 Harris was fully on board with the hunt for antisemites, insisting that Labour's only hope was to ditch its fringe views and toxic culture, and even adopt his favoured panacea of localism for good measure (nothing fringe about that). Viewed rapidly like a flip book, what we see is a liberal, keen to avoid the charge of being an out-of-touch curmudgeon, frightened by the prospect of a government promising mild social democracy.

In his latest contribution to the discourse, Harris claims that while the far-right protests outside hotels housing asylum-seekers have been damp squibs, progressive forces are "so dumbfounded and confused by what is happening that they seem almost completely unable to respond". What he fails to acknowledge is that the left is not silent, it is merely marginalised by the media (the larger counter-demonstrations have been barely reported, and when they do appear in the Guardian it's as likely to be an opportunity for tone-policing). The real culprit here is the Labour government, which has provided rhetorical cover for street-level racism while simultaneously curtailing the rights of protest by anti-racists. And it is the media that explains how protests with minimal support on the street beyond the old Fascist right can dominate politics. Indeed, if you're looking for a "new right" you should start with the increasing derangement of newspaper columnists like Allison Pearson and Melanie Phillips, not with the latest neo-Nazi groupuscule to emerge from under a rock.

Harris's prescription in the face of an increasingly Fascist press, and a complacently centrist TV insisting on impartiality between truth and lies, is nostalgia, and specifically the symbolic power of Rock Against Racism. What he doesn't appreciate is that RAR and the Anti-Nazi League reflected a wider revolt against the political establishment in the late-70s and early-80s that notably roiled the Labour Party. What Harris wants is the free concerts, not Tony Benn bidding for the Deputy Leadership or Ken Livingstone defying the Thatcher government. His claim that "The prominence of Palestine flags at this year’s festivals proves that music’s radical edges have not been completely blunted" is an admission that he sees this radicalism (of the music note, not the people) as purely symbolic, otherwise he might wonder whether there was any connection between opposing genocidal racism abroad and defending migrants at home.

Chris Dillow's model of stablisation through negative feedback depends on authority. When Ted Heath sacked Enoch Powell he not only had the authority of his position as Conservative Party Leader, he was also the representative of an establishment that still commanded popular respect, despite the downward trend since the Suez crisis, not least because of its eventual resistance to Nazism (Heath himself had opposed appeasement in the 1930s). The establishment has lost a lot more respect since the 1980s, due to the secular failure of its preferred economic policies, the decay of the public realm, and because of specific scandals of trust, from Iraq to MPs' expenses. As the establishment's man, Keir Starmer has clearly failed in his goal of restoring the authority and gravitas of government after a decade and a half of disastrous Tory rule. Yet his political strategy, to occupy the centre-right of politics and marginalise both the far-right and the left, remains unchanged, largely because the Conservative Party has fallen apart in the face of Reform's rise, leaving the ground clear to Labour. He has the field, but the battle may already be lost.

Starmer's problem is that his centre-right offer acts as positive feedback to Reform, which encourages right-leaning voters to go for the full-fat version, while it alienates both centrists and soi disant progressives like John Harris because it fails to reflect their self-image as rational and virtuous. Who can provide the negative feedback to arrest the rightward drift of politics in such an environment? Harris may posture about that drift, but he has played his own part in it. Consider this classic of the legitimate concerns genre from a couple of weeks ago: "Just to be clear, the grim scenes that have materialised at those hotels are the signs not just of far-right activism and provocation, but broken policy. No one should underestimate how much the grooming gangs scandal has given many people a deep fear about the safety of women and girls, not least in places that have long felt ignored and neglected". The roots of the grooming scandal lay in the habitual contempt shown by the police and social services to working-class girls, not in the shortcomings of asylum policy.

The problem then is that liberals are not defending liberal democracy and are happy to accept the right's framing of social ills. One way of explaining this is to note that centrists, the largest component of the British politico-media class, aren't actually liberals, neither in the broader sense of defenders of civil liberties against authoritarianism, nor in the narrower sense of advocates of free markets (their's is a capitalism of managed markets and corporate graft). That broader sense is still prevalent in British society, but it has no real political articulation at present, and its more vigorous proponents regularly find themselves marginalised as extremists by the media and even criminalised by the state. At this point we have to ask if the UK is actually a liberal democracy in any meaningful sense. The classic definitions of the term usually focus on the mechanics: fair elections, an independent judiciary, the separation of powers etc. But the acid test is arguably equal protection under the law. This is, for example, why Israel cannot be considered a liberal democracy. 

In the UK we have not gone so far as to pass a basic law that guarantees superior rights for certain groups, and thus inferior rights for others, but that may well be on the cards should Reform get into government and withdraw us from the European Convention on Human Rights (both the government and media are already assessing Farage's mass-deportation promise in terms of achieavability rather than morality or civil rights). But this won't be a sudden lurch away from liberal democracy. The current government's unwillingness to secure the rights of trans people, and its proscription of Palestine Action on the flimsiest of pretexts, are clear indicators of the direction of travel. And before that, we can see a common thread of contempt for those who resist the politico-media consensus running backwards through the Labour antisemitism nonsense, via Brexit and the dismissal of the Iraq War protests, all the way to Thatcherism. British centrists chose barbarism over liberal democracy a long time ago.

Uncomfortable Truths

The British state is no stranger to formally recording ethnicity, from census-taking to the analysis of healthcare outcomes, but the purpose has typically been to make minorities legible in the context of trying to avoid negative discrimination, or at least trying to satisfy the critics of institutional racism. Parallel to this has been the tacit prejudice of officials: the police's discriminatory use of stop-and-search against Black youth, the DWP's disproportionate sanctioning of ethnic minority claimants. What we have not seen for many years is government policy directed towards formal monitoring on the basis that ethnicity and religion are causal factors in the formation of criminals rather than the characteristics of victims of crime or discrimination, though you could argue that the Prevent programme went there in all but name in using "Islamic radicalisation" as a proxy for the institutional suspicion of Asians, Arabs and Muslim converts. 

The "audit" of child sexual exploitation (CSE) cases undertaken by Louise Casey at the government's behest has "criticised a continued failure to gather robust data at a national level" on ethnicity, but also tells us that offenders in three police areas were "disproportionately likely to be Asian men", while further suggesting that "Ignoring the issues, not examining and exposing them to the light, allows the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities." That last point is a case of using the traditional justification for monitoring, the need to prevent harm being done to a whole community, to justify a prejudice about that same community.

Casey's claim that it is "not racist to examine the ethnicity of the offenders" is a distraction. The charge isn't that it is racist but that it is irrelevant. After all, what would the outcome be if we discovered a national correlation? Would we conclude that it was the product of "cultural or social" factors, as Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, all but suggested in her brief to Casey, or might we ask whether the correlation was spurious but indicative of something more relevant. For example, the higher rate of drug-deaths in Scotland, compared to England and Wales, certainly correlates with cultural and social factors, but this has not led to the demonisation of Scottish society or suggestions there is something awry in its culture. That's because the significant correlation is with deindustrialisation and deprivation, not sectarian football rivalry or a fondness for shortbread. 

If a correlation with culture and social factors is established in respect of grooming gangs - and let's not be under any illusions that this is the only acceptable outcome for many, not only on the far right but in the respectable centre of politics too - what consequential actions might the government take? Will all men of Pakistani heritage be expected to get DBS certificates? And perhaps wear them pinned prominently to their jackets.

We know that crime correlates with opportunity. This is why police officers are disproportionately more likely to be convicted of corruption in a public office, or small business people of VAT fraud. If an ethnic minority is disproportionately represented in the night-time economy of fast food outlets and taxis, then the attraction that these hold for vulnerable youngsters will inevitably create opportunities for abuse. But nobody is suggesting that those parts of the economy need to be more closely regulated or policed. This stands in contrast with the response to institutionalised child sexual exploitation in children's homes and borstals. As the facts steadily came to light over the decades, there was a concerted effort to enact controls and safeguards. The ripples of this interventionist approach continue down to today, with scandals and chastening reform affecting such august bodies as the BBC and the Church of England: the very heart of the British establishment. That this initiative has slowly shifted focus shift away from the disciplinary state of the 1970s to the contemporary agencies of social authority is no accident. 

The political opportunity afforded by CSE is in the realm of hegemony, the chance to define the sacred and the profane and thus define new boundaries between the good people and the bad, hence the Conservative and Reform parties have sought both to advance a racist narrative - the threat to "white British women" - and to pin the blame on the failures of a liberal elite. There are obvious overlaps with the "I don't recognise this country anymore" crowd of proud bigots, but also with those Labour politicians, such as Cooper and Starmer, who appear to imagine that ceding the essence of the racist argument - that these "strangers" are a threat to national identity and cohesion - and pandering to "legitimate concerns" will allow them to channel public opinion towards their own brand of authoritarian mangerialism. 

The term "uncomfortable truths" is a rhetorical advance on "legitimate concerns" in that it suggests ichoate fears have been replaced by incontrovertible facts, but there's really no practical difference in use. Whereas the older term sought justification the more en vogue one appeals to subjectivity. The result is an ironic detournement of the language attributed to "snowflakes" - "I'm not comfortable with that" - in the cause of confrontation. It isn't the people who use the term who are expected to be uncomfortable, after all.

Casey's claim that the ethnicity of perpetrators is "shied away from" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The simplest explanation for why ethnicity was not systematically recorded in respect of child sexual exploitation cases is that it wasn't deemed relevant, not because police officers were scared of upsetting local communities that they otherwise barely tolerated, or because grizzled council officials were excessively "woke". This doesn't mean they were oblivious, but that they treated ethnicity informally as an explanatory factor: "What do you expect from these people?", much as they assumed the (usually) working-class girls entrapped by these gangs were "slappers" or "teenage prostitutes". They now have a green light to formalise their prejudices. Having turned that light on, it is both disingenuous and hypocritical of Casey to subsequently claim that we shouldn't over-interpret the "data", and for Labour politicians to claim that the Tories are trying to "politicise the scandal". 

One thing that the government appears to have given little thought to is how far the monitoring of ethnicity is likely to spread in the criminal justice system, which could indicate naivety but is perhaps more likely to indicate comfort with its maximum employment. For example, I suspect we're going to see pushback against the long campaign to restrain stop-and-search in London. If the data on ethnicity shows that men of Jamaican heritage are disproportionately involved in drug-peddling then the Metropolitan Police will argue they have reason to target Black kids in South London for frisking. Just don't expect a report any time soon confronting the uncomfortable truth that white ex-public schoolboys are disproportionately involved in City fraud and suggesting that Eton and Harrow have questions to answer. But just as ethnic and religious monitoring was originally about making under-served and peripheral communities legible to the state, in the ostensible service of integration and equity, so this latest turn will also keep a narrow focus on those groups deemed to be outside of the nation, or at least semi-detached and potentially disloyal. To be monitored has never been a privilege.

It's the Only Language They Understand.

If you want to shrink the prison population, reducing the tariff for murderers in exchange for the modern equivalent of the leg-iron (a "tag"), or chemically castrating a small number of sex offenders, will make little difference. Yet this recourse to the almost Medieval is the predictable focus of the media, and thus politicians, when the obvious short-term solution to over-crowding is a general amnesty for non-serious crimes. Outside of newspaper columns, there is no dispute that the reason British gaols are full is that we send too many people to them for often trivial reasons, not because we haven't built enough of them. It is standard to bemoan the failure of the prison system to rehabilitate, but while this can be fairly attributed to overcrowding and insuffcient resources, it is also the case that many people reading reports that prisoners spend 23 hours a day locked up will respond with "good". In other words, even if resources were infinite, it's unlikely we would prioritise rehabilitation over punishment. 

The government's current sentencing review, which was headed by David Gauke, the former Conservative Justice Secretary, is typical in reiterating this priority even as it admits the spiteful dynamic: "The purposes of sentencing, as set out in legislation, are punishment, reduction of crime, reparation, rehabilitation and public protection. The Review’s Part 1 report History and Trends in Sentencing found that over the last two decades, sentencing has focused disproportionately on punishment with a view from politicians and the media that 'the only form of punishment that counts is imprisonment.'" The response of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners was similar in its view: "The deprivation of liberty by imprisonment is a powerful tool, and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are clear it must be used to punish, and keep the public safe from, the most serious offenders. However, we support greater use of community supervision for those convicted of lower level crimes because the evidence shows short custodial sentences do little to rehabilitate repeat offenders". 

What we're witnessing in the latest floating of alternatives to prison is neither pragmatism nor idealism but a determination to maintain punishment at the apex of the hierarchy of purpose for the justice system. Convicts must suffer, hence even the mild inconveniences of tagging and curfews are preferred to the socially useful contributions and reparations of community orders that the press routinely deride as "soft". But the instinctive liberal response - that we should issue fewer custodial sentences, that prison conditions should be more humane and that we should properly support rehabilitation - has its own flaws, not least that it obscures the nature of the prison and the role it plays in society. For this reason, a decision to avoid the use of prison can potentially lead to worse outcomes. A famous example of chemical castration as an alternative to porridge was Alan Turing whose subsequent suicide eventually led to an apology by the last Labour government. No doubt Shabana Mahmood, the current Justice Secretary, is aware of the history, but she has a feral press to placate so it's (chemically, and with consent) "cut their goolies off". It's the only language they understand.

Prisons are the product of another age, specifically the Victorian era of high industrialism and the consequent reduction of labour to standardised units, as explored by social historians such as Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish. Their mix of the modern (surveillance and regimentation) and the anti-modern (a regime predating all that nonsense about human rights) remains a virtue for many. The reason prisons are antiquated in their operation as much as their fabric is because as a society we don't want to let go of that Victorian regime. We find modern prisons, with their functioning toilets and air-conditioning, irritating because there isn't visible suffering beyond the boredom of incarceration. Insofar as there has historically been an aversion to the use of prison it has been wholly on the basis of class (nicely satirised in Kind Hearts and Coronets), hence the reluctance to jail whitecollar criminals or the preference to send them to "open prisons" if a custodial sentence was unavoidable. 

As some point, there will be a dissolution of the prisons as dramatic as the dissolution of the monateries. Prisons are costly and ineffective, in terms of punishment as much as rehabilitation, as indicated by the high levels of recidivism. There will still be a need for the incarceration of "dangerous criminals" for public safety, but that definition will inevitably elide with that of the "criminally insane" or the "terrorist", whom society is happy to consider as categorically different, not least in their obscurity (the old idea of the oubliette). For the vast majority of crimes we will inevitably drop custodial sentences. The problem is that we will do that by normalising the idea of punishment within society rather than apart from it. Like the leper colonies and madhouses of the late Medieval period, the first purpose of the recognisably modern prisons that emerged in the Age of Enlightenment was quarantine, a principle taken to the extreme of preventing any intercourse between prisoners themselves, or even allowing the prisoner to see his gaolers, as in Jeremy Bentham's famous Panopticon.

We have already shifted the idea of reparation out of the prison system into society with community orders and ritual apologies to victims. The next step will be to shift punishment out as well. It isn't a coincidence that there have been a number of high profile cases of prison staff being prosecuted for having sexual relationships with prisoners in recent years. The subtext is the evaporation of boundaries: the very antithesis of Bentham's regime. That these incidents are often explained as the result of a crisis within the prison service (low morale, poor vetting, inadequate training) is illustrative of the belief that prisons are no longer fit for purpose: that the system is breaking down. But the more telling feature of this trend (the prominence of reporting rather than incidence) is the sense of the outside world breaching the prison wall, whether in the form of drugs and mobile phones smuggled in by drones or the sexual opportunism of warders. It is in this context that we should see the government's plans. Chemical castration is a punishment enacted within society. Tagging and curfews likewise. Punishment is moving out of the quarantine of prison and into society at large, and once that happens the need for forbidding walls diminishes.

The reason the prison population has grown is because the high threshold for custodial sentences has fallen over time. The threshold was obviously very low in the 18th and 19th centuries, as prison became an industry in itself and a key component of industrial society, but it rose over the course of the 20th century, due to "reform", reaching a peak in the 1970s as part of the sociological turn in which institutionalisation was seen as failure. It then fell once more, as politicians under pressure from the reactionary press decided that sending more people to gaol was a reasonable compensation for not reintroducing the death penalty. Tony Blair's mantra "Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime" was an early sally into social punishment, blurring the boundaries between society and its criminal element, the most famous example of this being ASBOs: a device that recognised a social ill but simultaneously insisted that redress should be social as well, so placing both crime and punishment beyond the penal system.

The danger is that the threshold will remain low but be transferred across to punishment in society. In other words, you could easily find yourself serving a non-custodial sentence for an offence that 50 years ago wouldn't have resulted in more than a caution. We could see a lot more people tagged and curfewed. Not just a handful of murderers who have served half their sentence but youth done for smoking weed or the poor for shoplifting (whitecollar criminals will once more tend to be spared the worst). The choice that faces us as a society is whether the priority of the justice system is punishment or restitution (i.e. the rehabilitation of offenders and the reparation, where possible, of victims). The discussion of alternatives to prison is being carefully curated to emphasise that punishment remains the priority. The full development of a prison industrial complex run by private companies like Sodexo has been ruled out on the grounds of cost and incompetence, but the privatisation of punishment in society, managed by the likes of Serco, continues apace, and despite the same failings. 

War Actually

To mistake Keir Starmer for Hugh Grant in Love Actually once may be regarded as a failure of imagination; to do so a second time looks like a pathological delusion. The determination by the Guardian to cast Starmer's supplication before Donald Trump in Washington this week in the most positive terms was shared across the media spectrum. Ahead of the meeting there was much talk of the need for Starmer to "seize the opportunity"; afterwards, loud praise for his success in "walking the tightrope" and coming away with as much as could be expected. In fact, Starmer got nothing of substance. Neither, for that matter, did Emmanuel Macron, indicating that the once more popular entente cordiale, mooted as the foundation of the new European security order, is not something that even registers in American calculations. Both meetings were reported almost exlusively in terms of Trump's casual asides, his words parsed for significance like the utterances of an oracle. Maybe Putin will accept European peacekeepers in Ukraine; maybe the UK will not be hit by the same tariffs as the EU. In reality, Trump was merely toying with his interlocuters, a point made clear when he defied them to call him a liar by claiming that he'd never described Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a dictator.

Civility in politics is not just an instrument for circumscribing the legitimate. It also functions as a polite fiction that obscures the reality of naked power. Trump isn't a mad emperor who has been conned into walking around with no clothes on. Rather he is the naked depiction of American imperial might: demanding obeisance from allies and treasure from the weak. He is a performer who loves giving a performance and demands to be the centre of attention. In contrast, Starmer is lauded by his biographer for not being a performer, but Tom Baldwin fails to understand that the PM is highly performative, in the proper sense of that word, it's just that his promises are rarely kept. The British political establishment understands Trump to this extent, which is why the invitation for a state visit made in the name of King Charles was an important trinket, even though it highlights the limited options available in any future trade negotiations. Maybe we can avoid all that chlorinated chicken by offering to make Trump the Earl of Troon. Today will presumably see the President of Ukraine sign the terms of surrender. The question now appears to be whether the presence of American corporate staff in and around the countries mines will be sufficient to constitute a de facto US security guarantee. We are firmly into clutching at straws territory.

There was never any real doubt that the endgame for Ukraine would be dismemberment. Russia lacks the materiel sufficient to defeat and conquer the entire country, and had little interest in absorbing a hostile population beyond the Russian-speaking eastern oblasts. Ukraine in contrast lacks the manpower sufficient to push the Russians out of the occupied territories and has quietly accepted for some time that Crimea is never going to return to the fold. The only question was how much of the country could it hang on to and that in turn meant how much could it securitise through Western finance. The US hasn't fundamentally changed its policy under Trump, he has merely made the reality explicit. The military support was always a financial loan, not a donation, which meant that the US had an interest in the preservation of most of Ukraine as a debtor. Likewise, the salience now of those mineral deposits is less in their market value than the fact that a lot of them lie in the east, which means that the US has a vested interest in Ukraine recovering as much territory as possible from Russia. Of course, the other possibility is that Russia will keep the territories but allow American corporations access to them, which would incidentally mean an end to sanctions. It's just business.

From Washington's perspective, the angst of European countries over the end of the fiction of NATO is no more than a sideshow to its geopolitical pivot to Asia and its determination to quieten down both Ukraine and the Middle East. The desperation of British politicians and journalists to conjure up an Anglo-French nuclear foundation for a new European security alliance is a sideshow to that sideshow. With Trump's economic focus on tariffs against the EU and China, not to mention Canada and Mexico, the UK is merely an afterhought in terms of trade. In short, the UK simply doesn't matter on the world stage at the moment, despite the attempts by the political parties to talk up the significance of Diego Garcia. This was captured inadvertantly by the Newsnight journalist Nicholas Watt who claimed, ahead of this week's meeting, that "Labour figures" were hailing it as Starmer's "Falklands moment", which is obviously absurd as a parallel but does highlight the desperation to define this aimless administration. The consensus seems to be that "wartime leader", or perhaps this generation's Ernest Bevin, is as good as it's going to get, which shows how divorced from reality our politico-media caste is. Predictably, Watt reported the aftermath of the meeting in terms of an "ecstatic" Downing Street despite admitting that it had won precisely nothing in return for its "unprecedented" offer of a state visit.

Inasmuch as the Falklands War has a lesson for us today, it is in the manner that America's partisan support for the UK over Argentina during that conflict led to disillusion among Latin American countries where many, even in government, still clung to the myth of the US as an anti-colonialist power. The parallel today is with the growing disillusion of European nations about America's geopolitical interests. Again, the reality has always been privately acknowledged: America first in trade isn't a novelty, it will never impose a two-state solution on Israel (which is why that fiction can be supported in Europe) and its priorities now lie around the Pacific. The problem is accommodating this publicly in a political culture still wedded to Atlanticism and comfortable in its return to Russophobia. The reconfiguration of trade has been underway for over a decade now following the end of high globalisation and it's clear that of the major trading blocs it is the EU that will benefit least from the new order. Attempts to position the EU (or more bathetically the UK) between the US and China have come to naught, essentially because the US refuses to see Europe as a peer rather than as a collection of client states.

As in Ukraine, there is a recognition that Europe must provide greater security in the Middle East as the US disengages, but there is no willingness to countenance a fundamental change in policy that might destabilise the current balance of regional powers (Iran is to be contained, and Saudi Arabia and Israel indulged). With Washington openly subscribing to the idea of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, Europe must construct some other moral basis for its public stance of unstinting Zionism, hence Germany's adoption of Israel's security as a staatsraison has become generalised in a European intolerance of all things Palestinian. It would be easy to dismiss the common political drift to the right in the EU as the result of the failures of the traditional cartel parties to "get a grip" on immigration, but this would be to miss the undercurrent of resentment towards the US for having created the "immigration crisis" through its actions in the Middle East and North Africa. There is a sense among the European political establishment of having to clean up America's mess, and that dates from long before Donald Trump's first term in office. This is why being lectured by J D Vance, the US Vice-President, over free speech and the failure of governments to respond to popular concerns about immigration, is particularly galling. 

In the UK, where Atlanticism remains strong and cleaning up after America has long been instinctive, the chief irritation this week is that the cost of rearmament will be paid for by cutting foreign aid. Former Head of the Army Richard Dannatt outlines the conventional view: "diplomacy, development and defence are not competing priorities – they are complementary". But this is a framing that quietly excludes the role of trade, not least in weaponry. Aid money has a tendency to partially return as arms deals, so this may just be a case of cutting out the middle man. Now ensconced in the House of Lords, Dannatt can be blunt: the government "may well have to break its own fiscal rules and either raise taxes or increase borrowing. We may all have to share in the cost of doing the right thing." Obviously the Chancellor has no intention of raising borrowing, so you might wonder who that "all" is and how exactly the cost will be shared. Robert Shrimsley in the Financial Times helpfully notes that foreign aid must be cut to justify tax rises on working people, and that funds should also be freed-up through a "culling" of NHS officials and tougher welfare rules. In other words, higher taxes on incomes, not wealth, and no let up in austerity camouflaged as reform. Starmer's "triumph" is likely to prove as evanescent as all the previous attempts to gve this government a sense of purpose once those realities hit home.

Musk and the Cartel

The era of the political cartel, which broadly coincides with the neoliberal ascendancy, has been marked by both a rigid ideological conformity ("There is no alternative") and by a promiscuity in the exchange of policy positions. Ostensibly social-democratic parties adopting austerity and market discipline may be the most obvious example of this tendency, but we've also seen centrist parties adopt rightwing obsessions around multiculturalism and trans rights while rightwing parties reliant on wealthy donors have claimed to be the true "workers' party". Some of this is simple opportunism, but it also reflects a steady erosion in the transmission mechanisms of voter representation. With party members having less say in policy formation - a fact that coexists quite comfortably with a growing saying in leadership elections - and mass membership giving way to a hardcore of loyalists for whom policy is a second order consideration, party leaders have found it easier to flex their platforms. They have also found it convenient to rely on think-tanks for policy ideas. That these ideas are often contradictory and lack consistency is not an issue: they're in the business of selling products to meet short-term needs.

The result has been a growing disillusion among the wider electorate, reflected in falling turnout and low confidence ratings. The current Labour government's lack of popular support owes less to the traditional cynicism of "They're all the same" and a lot more to the feeling that they don't actually stand for anything. This makes Labour paradoxically predictable (they'll change nothing) and unpredictable (what promise will they renege on next?) It also makes it easier for "policy entrepreneurs" to disrupt the political field by offering the appearance of certainty, so long as they are willing to operate within the boundaries of the cartel (Nigel Farage is a member of the club, Jeremy Corbyn is not). Much of the increasingly common platform to be found on the centre-right, and which they have adopted in competition with the far-right, is made up of bold promises that could not possibly be fulfilled, such as the change to the ethnic composition of the nation. Unless you are prepared to go full Israel, there is no way to satisfy the expectations of racist and bigoted voters, which are about their neighbours (or some mythical London) rather than asylum seekers in small boats. 

A current example of this is the leader of the UK Conservative Party demanding a public inquiry into the "rape gangs scandal", despite there having already been multiple public inquiries that occured while the Tories were in government and whose recommendations they then largely ignored. This amnesia reflects more than political chutzpah. It highlights that policy adoptions are nowadays meaningless in opposition - something many Labour Party supporters are now ruefully realising - and should certainly not be taken as a guide to future action. They serve rather to position particular politicians relative to the perceived preferences of the party membership. A perfect example of this was Robert Jenrick, whom Kemi Badenoch defeated in the last Conservative Party leadership contest and who is now Shadow Justice Secretary, upping the ante by claiming that the "scandal" reflected the failure of integration and that multiculturalism had corrupted the rule of law. It's obviously nonsense, but more importantly it does not offer any kind of realistic solution, just bile. As such, it is very much in the tradition of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of blood" speech. That Jenrick has not been sacked tells you how far we have come since 1968.

In time-honoured fashion, the BBC has decided that the best way to address this unedifying sight is to ask Nigel Farage for his opinion. This is not simply a case of rightwing bias but a consequence of the structural imperatives that arise from the ideological flexibility of the cartel allied to his own talent at giving the media what it wants: unevidenced assertions, radical rhetoric not backed by substantive policy, and carefully calibrated outrage. The "Stop the boats" meme is a good example of the way that ideas first floated by the far-right (recall Katie Hopkins comments about "cockroaches") can spread horizontally across the political spectrum, even as the focus changes ("We are going to treat people smugglers like terrorists", according to Keir Starmer). This happens because there is only a weak countervailing vertical transmission from party members. Farage is attuned to this reality, hence his own party has little internal democracy and is run as a de facto private business. His BBC interlocuters, like Laura Kuennsberg, are also attuned to the need to defend their status within the politico-media class: peer pressure matters more than public opinion.

The recent intervention of Elon Musk into British politics has been fascinating less for the obvious ignorance he has displayed (hardly surprising if you get your understanding of the world from X's algorithms) than for the confusion it has sown among the UK's politico-media caste. At the level of government, this reflects the simple realities of the US-UK power dynamic. Just as Labour politicians like David Lammy, who once derided Trump as a "a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath", now seek to kiss his hem as President, so they and others will accord Musk respect so long as he is seen as a favourite of the White House. Indeed, they will actively jostle to become his domestic agent. But Musk's intervention also highlights the weakness of contemporary political parties, notably the inability of the membership to enforce an even vaguely consistent line on the leadership, and the relative power that the media (whether old or new) has in framing public discourse. There are exceptions to this - e.g. the organic protests over Palestine that both the parties and the media have done their best to suppress - but in general public discourse has become coarser and more stupid as the cartel has flourished.

The tussle on the right between the Conservatives and Reform looks like an internal party contest over a declining (and passive) membership, but the importance of members has been over-stated. Shorn of their role in policy formation and with their ties to wider civic society attenuated by the decline of trade unions and volunteer organisations, party members these days are little more than occasional canvassers. And that is a trend that suits all parts of the cartel, as the pushback against Labour under Corbyn, and the subsequent membership decline under Starmer, clearly demonstrates. The fragmentation of the media since the 1980s has allowed politicians to rely more on direct contact with voters rather than indirect contact through members. A lot of the hesitancy over Musk arises from the fact that he is now a more effective conduit than Lord Rothermere, despite the steep decline of UK accounts on X. Where rightwing newspapers used to set the agenda of the BBC and ITV, it is now more likely to be social media, and particularly an outrageous tweet by Musk himself. This reflects the reality of American empire but it also reflects the decline of party democracy.