-
AAPL
213.43 (+0.29%)
-
BARC-LN
1205.7 (-1.46%)
-
NKE
94.05 (+0.39%)
-
CVX
152.67 (-1.00%)
-
CRM
230.27 (-2.34%)
-
INTC
30.5 (-0.87%)
-
DIS
100.16 (-0.67%)
-
DOW
55.79 (-0.82%)
Amsterdam shows the limits of liberalism
Whenever Jews are killed or beaten, on 7 October or last night in Amsterdam, well-meaning sorts solemnly intone that this latest outrage must be a ‘wake-up call’ about the threat of anti-Semitism.
Ah, the Wake-Up Call. Much vaunted, long awaited, never heard. There have been no shortage of wake-up calls. Off the top of my head, there has been 7 October, Neve Yaakov, Monsey, the 2019 New York attacks, Poway, Jersey City, Pittsburgh, the stabbing intifada, Hypercache, Kehilat Yaakov, Merkaz HaRav, and the second intifada. That list isn’t remotely comprehensive and doesn’t stretch back further than 2000. Amsterdam will be condemned – though by no means universally – but it will not change anything. When it comes to anti-Semitism, the West’s wake-up calls all go to straight to voicemail.
Why? A number of reasons. One we prefer not to dwell on is that rather a lot of people are relaxed about Jews being bloodied. Keen, if anything. For a while there, and certainly in the generation or two that followed the Holocaust, such people had to smuggle their prejudices out in the guise of ‘anti-Zionism’. Outside of ultra-Orthodox communities, declarations of anti-Zionism once came only from the far-left and the far-right, from Sovietists and skinheads, but hatred of Israel and marshalling this hatred to justify anti-Semitism is now a mainstream centre-left position. Well, of course, it’s a bad business when Muslims attack Jews in France or Germany or Sweden but you have to remember those settlements and checkpoints and the like.
But by far the most compelling reason is that taking the wake-up call means facing up to some unpleasant truths. Chief among them is the realisation that although multiculturalism is a central tenet of liberalism, liberalism is not a central tenet of multiculturalism. The more that Europe continues to import its population from countries where anti-Semitism is endemic, the more anti-Semitic Europe’s population will become. The same applies to maltreatment of women, homophobia, sectarianism, censorship and communalism. Liberals, of which I am one, have deluded themselves that mass immigration is a story only of cultural enrichment, bringing valued skills, exotic cuisines, innovative music, colourful fashions and new languages. Many immigrants do enrich the West but others come bearing the customs and beliefs that shaped the societies they were desperate to leave. The challenge lies in maximising the former while minimising the latter. That is impossible unless we take the ‘mass’ out of mass migration.
Another unpleasant truth is that, having prated for so long that ‘diversity is our strength’, we find that we are not strong enough to manage diversity. A common theme in reporting on the Amsterdam pogrom is the failure of the Dutch police to act swiftly, or at all, to racist gangs marauding through the streets of their capital city on the lookout for Jews to pummel. Police forces sometimes struggle to contain violent incidents, but it’s hard not to recall the claim from the Dutch Jewish Police Network, made just one month ago, that ‘there are colleagues who no longer want to protect Jewish targets or events’. Whatever caused Amsterdam police to fail so miserably, it echoes police failings in this country, where we have seen the Met slow to act on extremist chants on London marches, where teachers must go into hiding for showing students drawings of the Prophet Mohammed, and where officers sit by as a mother pleads for her autistic son who scuffed a copy of the Qur’an. Across liberal Europe, populations are losing confidence in the reliability, neutrality and effectiveness of the police, and many other institutions besides.
Especially distasteful to liberal palates is the thought of conceding, even implicitly, that The Bad People might have been right all along. Geert Wilders called last night’s scenes ‘a Jew hunt in the streets of Amsterdam’ and says the Netherlands has become ‘the Gaza of Europe’. When he first emerged as figurehead of the Dutch nationalist right, Wilders could be dismissed as a rabble-rouser who made political capital from fear and suspicion of Muslims. Yet until fairly recently, the Dutch state seemed almost determined to give Wilders a point, studiously ignoring the worst aspects of multiculturalism when it wasn’t pandering to them. Whenever I hand-wring about the far-right exploiting one outrage or another, a conservative friend of mine says: ‘Perhaps your lot could stop trying to make them right.’ I want him to be wrong about that, but he’s not. Liberals would sooner a thousand Amsterdams than concede any failing that has been exploited by the far-right, as though keeping the wrong policy despite the consequences is proof of their progressive machismo. Let liberal societies burn to own the fash.
The West is too deep in its civilisational nap to hear the wake-up calls. When organised anti-Semitic thuggery returns to the streets of Amsterdam, we prefer to tell ourselves that it’s just ‘clashes’ between football supporters, or that Israeli fans who reportedly tore down Palestinian flags or sang anti-Arab chants provoked the violence. Note that offensive words, which we always say do not excuse violence, now excuse violence. Note that attacking a minority or nationality because of the actions of some of their number, which we always decry as racism and xenophobia, are no longer racism an xenophobia. With what timorous ease we drop our principles to show our enemies that our hands are up.
A liberalism quietly arranging its own funeral is a liberalism I want nothing to do with. The liberalism I want to belong to is a strong, confident, clear-eyed, hard-headed liberalism that knows liberal societies are delicate creations that must be guarded from all enemies, and not just the enemies we are comfortable acknowledging. A liberalism that stops trying to make the far-right right and instead confronts its own failings, changes course, and gives people of all races and religions confidence that they can live in safe, free and orderly societies under liberalism. When liberals fail to wake up, they awaken something ugly. Amsterdam may horrify us, but it will inspire others. Our response may help us avoid unpleasant questions, but it will send some to look for answers elsewhere.
Labour must learn from Kamala Harris’s transgender muddle
Donald Trump’s remarkable election victory has been rightly attributed to the long shadow of inflation combined with mass illegal immigration across the southern border. While these factors dominated the national swing, an under-discussed element of the Republican campaign was the relentless targeting of voters in swing states with paid advertising linking Kamala Harris to radical trans ideology. Why was this – and what lessons should be drawn for Labour in the UK?
The ads were simple. Their tagline: ‘Kamala Harris is for they/them. President Trump is for you.’
The ads were simple. Their tagline: ‘Kamala Harris is for they/them. President Trump is for you.’ They showed clips of her, from 2019, pledging her support for sex-change operations for prisoners. Others referenced Democrats supporting the right of trans-identifying males to play in women’s sport.
It’s been reported that the Republicans spent at least $17 million (£13 million) on these ads – some estimates say much more – which aired over 30,000 times, including in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada. Analysis by Future Forward suggested that one such ad shifted voters 2.7 percentage points towards Trump.
Polling has indicated that almost 70 per cent of Americans think transgender athletes should only be able to play in competitive leagues that match their sex at birth. The Republican Party was simply more in touch with public sentiment than the Democrats on this issue.
The ads captured the core Republican campaign message that a Harris presidency would be dominated by activists pushing identity politics, with no regard for the concerns of working American people. This narrative fed into the broader Republican critique that Democrats’ priorities involve promoting activist causes such as defunding the police, denigrating American history, and promoting radical trans ideology and critical race theory in schools.
In the recent UK General Election, Keir Starmer tipped his hat to the idea that radical trans ideology is not popular with the public. Rowing back on earlier statements, he acknowledged that women do not have penises. The Labour manifesto contained a pledge to honour the Cass Review – albeit sitting awkwardly alongside another pledge for a ‘trans-inclusive’ ban on conversion therapy.
Since the election, however, Labour has been in a holding pattern. Ministers, such as Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, have retained – for now – a number of key Conservative safeguards. These include a ban on prescribing puberty blockers to children and interim guidance on Keeping Children Safe in Education – published in the wake of Policy Exchange’s report, Asleep at the Wheel – which emphasised the need to respect the findings of the Cass Review.
They have not, however, gone further. In this, they are largely duplicating the initial behaviour of the Conservative government after 2019, which, with a small number of exceptions, sought to avoid speaking about trans issues. Just as the Tories did, however, Labour will soon learn that doing nothing is not an option.
Radical gender ideology is already deeply embedded in the public and private sector, as previous Policy Exchange reports, such as The Case of the Royal Free, have revealed. Grassroots women’s sports continue to allow male participation in the name of ‘trans inclusion’. Too many schools and hospitals are promoting gender self-ID and other contested notions as fact. In the face of ministerial silence, the activists will advance further – as demonstrated by Cambridge University, which just weeks ago voted to rejoin Stonewall’s controversial Diversity Champions scheme.
The political lesson of the US election is that it is not enough for a party of the left to refrain from championing these unpopular causes. Harris made a valiant attempt to pivot her campaign messaging to the centre, but it was not sufficient. In the eyes of voters, the long-term association of the Democrats and their outriders with activist causes could not be shaken.
What does this mean for Labour? If they are to distance themselves from the radical minority on this, they will need to take on the activists on their own side. In the US, Harris never properly clarified whether she did, in fact, plan to offer sex change surgeries to inmates – despite reported advice from Bill Clinton to do so.
In contrast, Labour needs to actively repudiate the policies of Stonewall and others – and follow it up with concrete actions to root these ideologies out of the services that should be serving the public.
A public row with Stonewall and their Labour MP outriders would do Starmer no harm at all
They will need to table a bill making the current puberty blockers ban permanent (so far, they’ve extended it twice through emergency legislation). While Wes Streeting has demonstrated staunch commitment to the safeguarding of children, Labour’s high command will need to take decisive action against those of their MPs who oppose the evidence-backed ban. They must also implement the draft guidance on gender-questioning children – without watering it down – to prevent schools socially transitioning children behind their parents’ backs, and ensure that contested ideologies are not being taught as fact.
Tony Blair tore up Clause 4. David Cameron picked a fight with his own backbenchers on grammar schools. Starmer himself, famously, kicked his own predecessor out of the party to demonstrate that the Labour party would no longer tolerate anti-semitism.
A public row with Stonewall and their Labour MP outriders on trans ideology would do Starmer no harm at all, particularly if it is followed up by genuine action to protect children and the sex-based rights of women and girls. The alternative is to leave open a political vulnerability that he can be confident his opponents will exploit.
Lara Brown is a Senior Research Fellow in Policy Exchange’s Culture and Identity Unit
Why do so many private school students get extra time in exams?
Are independent schools gaming the system to give a disproportionate advantage to their pupils in exams? That’s one possible inference from a new data release from Ofqual (the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation) on access arrangements for school exams. The release sheds light on adjustments designed so that students with disabilities aren’t disadvantaged in assessments. This might include, for example, papers in braille for a blind student or allowing a student with dyslexia to use a word processor.
Giving a pupil 25 per cent extra time to complete an exam is the most common adjustment schools can provide. The reasons commonly provided for the adjustment included English being a second language, physical disabilities that affect writing speed, and mental health issues.
The number of pupils receiving extra time in exams is increasing at a record rate. Almost a third of pupils are now eligible for extra time compared with a fifth just five years ago. But the jump is most prevalent in independent schools where two-in-five students now qualify for extra time.
Digging through the published data shows how widespread giving pupils extra time has become. The data for 2021 exams isn’t included, but since 2020 exams were cancelled at the last minute due to lockdown, the number of applications wouldn’t have varied much.
Several highlights stand out – not least that, this year, three in ten pupils received extra time for exams. The proportion has climbed significantly over the past few years, likely due to the increase in diagnoses for conditions like ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and dyslexia.
But the most intriguing point is how many students at independent schools get extra time. There’s no data on whether certain conditions are more prevalent in independent schools, which would help explain this trend. However, the Department for Education releases some data on the number of pupils with a special educational need (SEN) at all schools – conditions that might entitle a pupil to extra time, giving some idea of the variation between schools.
In the most recent release, 17.3 per cent of pupils in independent schools had SEN, compared with 12.9 per cent in the state sector. A third higher, yes, but not nearly enough to explain the significant gap in extra time allowances, which is closer to 60 per cent.
So what’s going on? We don’t have enough data to fully understand, but there are several possible explanations. Are independent schools simply better at ‘working the system’ to secure every advantage for their students – a service parents might well expect? Or is there something in the state system’s approach to SEN that means need is less readily recognised? In the state sector, childhood adversity – often linked to conditions like ADHD – may also be more prevalent, with fewer resources available to support these students.
Perhaps it’s a combination of all these factors: a complex entanglement of pressures, expectations, and systemic differences. With VAT soon to be added to independent school fees, such schools may become even less accessible to families scraping together fees to secure extra support for their children’s educational needs. Ofqual’s data raises a crucial question: is the rise in exam accommodations a reflection of genuine need, or does it reveal a growing divide in how different sectors understand and apply support? Either way, the implications go beyond just exams, reaching to the heart of educational equality.
Scotland must push for higher defence spending
And so it seems that Scotland’s most prolific hotelier will return to the White House. Donald Trump has staged a political comeback that has torn up the normal rules of politics and sent shockwaves around the world. There are a great many reasons to be aghast at Trump’s return, but as he prepares to take up the Oval Office in just a few weeks, there is precious little time to get emotional. This is a time for hard-headedness.
Understanding the importance of the Scotland-US relationship, Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney has written to the president-elect and offered his congratulations. Bristle at this though some might, it was the right thing to do. The US is an important market for Scotland and maintaining good relations is in our national interest. Knowing that things could be about to get rocky – the First Minister has already voiced concern over the impact of potential trade tariffs on Scottish jobs – John Swinney is not about to rock the boat any more than it already has been. When we consider that Trump’s last tariff package cost the Scottish whisky industry around £600 million in under two years, this is the correct approach.
Rachel Reeves should already be assembling a top-level team of MoD and Treasury officials to spend a minimum 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence in fairly short order.
Although those outraged at the FM for congratulating president-elect Trump list all of his criminal pursuits and demagogic tendencies as reasons why Bute House should have said nothing, none of this alters the fact that he will be America’s 47th Commander-in-Chief. The Scottish government has to navigate this in a mature and sober fashion – which is why John Swinney is right to decline any invitation to participate in an emotional spasm as some appear to want him to do so. The First Minister is Scotland’s head of government, not a social worker or online personality.
And, as Swinney’s ministry considers the implications of the new administration in DC, he should do so in the context of world events. The return of Trump means Europe’s leaders must come to terms with the fact that they need to take more responsibility for defence. Gone are the days when the American backstop can be fully relied upon – meaning budgets, national security strategies and defence doctrines will need to be rewritten in capitals across our continent, including in London. Chancellor Rachel Reeves should already be assembling a top-level team of Ministry of Defence and Treasury officials to spend a minimum 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence in fairly short order.
A meeting of European leaders in Budapest this week will be seen as the start of a long overdue period of rearmament. It has now dawned on leaders that our security can no longer be anchored in American largesse or the whims of swing voters in Pennsylvania. This is a turning point – or at least it should be.
As in Europe, so in Edinburgh. Although defence is a reserved area of policy, the Scottish government cannot stand still as the world changes around it. John Swinney should convene a meeting of Scotland’s defence industry and university leaders, with a view to supporting them as key enablers of European defence and economic growth. Industry has long been crying out for greater political support when it comes to skills, recruitment, research and development – and these are competencies that lie with Edinburgh, not London.
In 2022, Scotland’s domestic defence sector added £3.2bn to the Scottish economy. The industry employs over 33,000 Scots, including 1,500 apprentices. If the First Minister is serious about his ambition to create the best possible environment for investment, then he needs a strategy to engage with an industry that has huge growth potential. But the value of the industry isn’t just economic, it is crucial to the wider defence picture in the UK, Europe and Ukraine.
Whilst what is currently unfolding in Gaza is an outrage, we cannot base our defence industrial strategy on one conflict in which the UK has minimal influence.
Supporting the industry is the sensible thing to do but that won’t stop the inevitable howls from Scotland’s peacenik and pacifist classes who the government should have the confidence to ignore for the simple reason that they are wrong. Whilst what is currently unfolding in Gaza is an outrage, we cannot base our defence industrial strategy on one conflict in which the UK has minimal influence. In this new era of competition between security and insecurity, voters understand what side we should be on.
Public polling shows that the current era of geopolitical anxiety has ushered in a favourable environment for an increase in defence spending and although defence couldn’t be described as a top priority for the public, they do understand its importance. Polling from 2022 shows that 73 per cent of Scots support Nato, a level of support that few other institutions enjoy.
Backing our domestic defence sector isn’t something the SNP has always found so awkward. Indeed, it’s worth remembering that one Nicola Sturgeon gained the nickname ‘nippy sweetie’ from the legendary Govan shipyard worker, Jamie Webster, when she joined him in a long campaign to save shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde.
The awkwardness that the party has towards industry today must now end. European security is something the SNP is supposed to believe in and in today’s world of war there’s no place for half-heartedness, freeloading or juvenile politics. Getting behind the 33,000 Scottish men and women who play their part in keeping us safe is good for Scotland, good for Ukraine and good for Europe. Backing our industry is an act of European solidarity and domestic national interest. It is also the right response to the capricious White House that awaits us all in 10 weeks’ time.
What Iain Duncan Smith gets right about freedom
One of Kemi Badenoch’s much-touted strengths is that she cares about British culture, society and our country’s values. She is renowned for her war on woke ideology, speaking out against multiculturalist dogma and identity politics. And in her appraisal of community cohesion and society at large, she shares an outlook with a predecessor as Conservative party leader, Iain Duncan Smith.
Iain Duncan Smith was on Radio 4 this morning, speaking about the perils of our liberal laws on gambling, and the relationship they have had with the dramatic increase in gambling addiction ever since Labour relaxed laws on gambling advertising in 2005. His radio appearance comes a day after the Gambling Commission said that the number of young people with a gambling problem has doubled in a year.
His has been a long-standing campaign. In September, as co-chair of a cross-party parliamentary group examining gambling harms, Duncan Smith told a House of Commons summit of a survey by Survation showing that most people support gambling bans all together. While he didn’t endorse such a move, Duncan Smith did say that ‘politicians need to find their way towards the public on this.’
His stance here puts him in obvious, direct conflict with the libertarian wing of his party, those who believe in the sacrosanctity of the market and the unfettered freedom of the individual. But Duncan Smith is not an absolutist. On this issue he displays pragmatism, a quality that is the very essence of conservatism. He has recognised a problem in society, a problem worsened by a government policy – introduced, admittedly, before the ubiquity of smartphones had been foreseen. And gambling is a problem now, one that hits the working class hardest, for those lured by the dream of an easy fix to chronic financial worries.
If he is no libertarian, nor should Duncan Smith be mistaken for a centrist, ‘one-nation’ Tory. His longstanding, vociferous opposition to the European Union forever put him at odds with the likes of Kenneth Clarke when he was party leader. His EU-scepticism was entirely consistent with his antipathy towards technocratic rule, protectionism and statist solutions in the economic sphere, and the adverse consequences they have on ordinary people in the long term. As he wrote on his blog three years ago, in regards to the UK’s failure to fully implement Brexit, and quoting a World Bank statement on how countries open to international trade grow faster and provide higher income, Duncan Smith concluded: ‘free trade has done more to reduce poverty than all the socialist plans for state control have ever done.’
Duncan Smith is no large-government ‘one-nation’ Tory, nor one who perceives everything through the prism of money or the absolute freedom of markets. He is not only in closer alignment with Kemi Badenoch, but even more so with the middle-class types and working-classes who shifted to Reform in the general election. These are people who care about their culture and society as well as their income, and much more than GNP statistics.
Short-termism has been the bane of British politics for decades
These are the types who don’t worship the state or the market. They also have a pragmatic approach. They are in favour of the market when it is fair and works for them as employees or employers. They become hostile to capitalism when it runs rampant, when globalisation and multinational corporation overreach puts them out of a job – as has been the perception and indeed reality in the north of England and America’s Rust Belt. But they are equally wary of undue state interference and it dipping ever-deeper into their own pockets, as is the case with a recent Budget that has caused so much alarm and distress.
Iain Duncan Smith’s perseverance in addressing the issue of problem gambling, and the devastation it has wrought on working-class communities and families, also demonstrates a capacity for thinking in the long term. Short-termism has been the bane of British politics for decades. Tony Blair showed it in his approach to immigration, opening the borders in 2004, something that he thought would benefit big business with cheaper labour, but two decades later have made immigration one of the biggest concerns for the working class. Short-termism lives on in 2024, with this Labour government’s capitulation on state-sector pay to avoid strikes today, causing alarm bells to ring in regards to a rise in inflation tomorrow.
Easing access to gambling was another short-term measure, designed to boost the fortunes of bookmakers and casinos back then, with catastrophic consequences for the working class seen right now. The Quiet Man is astute and bold enough to grasp this. The new Tory leader could do worse than bring to nearer to the fore this old one.
Susie Wiles and the rise of the Floridian right
‘Susie Wiles is a great choice for President Trump’s chief of staff,’ said Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida and the man Donald Trump so humiliated in 2016.
Uh oh. Bush’s approval of the second Trump administration’s first major appointment instantly rang alarm bells in some quarters of the new American right.
Wiles, who ran Trump’s campaign with Chris LaCivita, is seen by some Trumpist insiders as a suspiciously old-fashioned operative, in hock to the moneyed interests who used to run the Republican party. Over the summer, we heard whispers of clashes between Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s most doggedly loyal aide, and Wiles and LaCivita over funding.
Wiles once wrote that her specialty is making ‘order out of chaos’
But Wiles is not some secret agent for NeverTrumpism. She worked on the Trump campaign in 2016, for starters, and she has been quietly instrumental in his revival over the last four years. Her elevation signals that Team Trump now wants to head towards a more harmonious Republican future. It also suggests that the future of America is all about Florida, baby.
Florida is, increasingly, the centre of the Republican party’s gravity, and not just because the Donald’s club in Mar-a-Lago is the Trumpian equivalent of the Palace of Versailles.
Not so long ago, the state was a key battleground in American elections. Barack Obama won there narrowly in 2008 and by a whisker in 2012. Yet the advent of Trumpism has turned the Sunshine State into a Republican stronghold. On Tuesday, Trump triumphed in Florida with a sizeable 13 per cent majority.
Wiles, a mild-mannered Episcopalian whose manners and politics are more moderate than some in Trump’s sphere, has been a key figure in this transformation. A longtime Floridian operative – hence Jeb’s backing – she understands the state’s power dynamics as well as anyone.
She was a key player in rise of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, but then fell out with Team Ron after becoming embroiled in a complicated power struggle involving Casey, the governor’s wife. The DeSantis family felt that Wiles, with her support for Trump, was getting in the way of their ever greater ambitions. So they pushed her out.
Thst ended badly for DeSantis and well for Donald Trump, as Wiles and her network helped Don destroy Ron in the Republican primaries and then take back the White House.
Wiles once wrote that her specialty is making ‘order out of chaos’. That presumably makes her invaluable to Trump, whose instinctive and transactional approach often creates havoc. Moreover, in her understanding of Florida, Wiles has a unique insight into the coming reality of American politics.
Florida has a reputation for being a bit of a tropical backwater. ‘I like Florida,’ said the great American comedian George Carlin. ‘Everything is in the 80s. The temperatures, the ages and the IQ’s.’
But Florida has been thriving in recent years, thanks to an influx of capital and aspirational people escaping the suffocating progressive politics of California and other Democrat-run states.
Moreover, with its mixed population of rich and poor, whites, Latinos and African-Americans, plus an expanding number of senior-citizen retirees, Florida strikes demographic experts as the bellwether American state.
As Philip Bump, author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America, put it, Florida is ‘the state that looks most like most like what we’d expect the United States to look like in 2060.’ By basking in Sunshine State, in other words, Team Trump’s new coalition has the potential to thrive for decades to come.
Why did so many Christians vote for Trump?
It’s hard to know what to say about Donald Trump. Well, maybe it’s easy enough if you’re a fan, or if you are an opponent who’s very sure that the liberal case just needs to be reiterated more forcefully. But for the rest of us it’s difficult. It’s a special sort of difficulty, a difficulty of tone.
As a liberal Christian, my main response is to be aghast that most Christians voted for him – the ratio was almost two-to-one. Why don’t these people have more respect for liberal democracy, and common decency, I am tempted to ask. Why don’t they have more fear of crude bullying and authoritarianism?
The Democrats do not understand that politics retains its old religious dimension
But I am aware that this response is tone-deaf. Finger-wagging earnestness feels inadequate, indeed positively unhelpful.
The evangelicals hail Trump as a new Cyrus. They refer to the Persian king who liberated the Jews by smashing their Babylonian oppressors – he wasn’t a holy leader, but God used him in a crucial way. Obviously most liberal Christians scoff at this use of the Bible and note that it could be used to condone any sort of tyrant, if one happens to benefit from his tyranny.
But on one level we should take it seriously. The fact is that Trump’s punkish energy, his ability to throw liberal political culture sky-high, is attractive to most Christians. And we should ponder that attraction carefully instead of just condemning it.
Why do so many Christians dislike political liberalism so much? So much that they are willing to risk endorsing a sort of cartoon baddie? (He reminds me of Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazard.) Perhaps because it makes them feel irrelevant. But also because they smell idolatry in the liberal ethos.
Though I can’t condone a vote for Trump, I slightly sympathise with their dislike of the alternative. Though I’m a pretty robust believer in liberal values, I find its American party-political expression unattractive.
Like most Brits I was wowed by Obama. But I gradually sensed that he was a sunset, not a dawn. He was a throwback to the vibes of the sixties – a cross between Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He somehow tapped in to that old-style big-vision liberalism, with a big liberal Christian element. What was not to like? But there was no wider movement: the average Democrat didn’t understand the need for this broad liberal style, with its religious aura. A more partisan secular liberalism took over.
I’m in dire danger of sounding sexist now, but this narrower liberalism defined Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris. I know that Michelle Obama was never a candidate, but her presence on various stages has been a big part of the Democrat brand. For me she embodies identity politics – this might be unfair, for she has doubtless tried to offer the same sort of broadly liberal vision that her husband did, but that’s how it is. And I’m guessing a lot of American men felt the same way.
My point is that I can see why the average Christian might vote for Trump: out of irritation with the liberal political elite. There was a smug triumphalism in the campaigning of the Hollywood stars and pop stars. Secular liberalism seemed to be presenting itself as the true religion. If I was exposed to this I’d be tempted to vote for theocracy, just to wipe the expensive smiles off their famous faces.
The people in charge of the Democrats are doubtless very brainy in a policy-wonk Moneyball sort of way. But on a deeper level they are clearly rather thick. They do not understand that politics retains its old religious dimension. They do not understand that America’s core ideology is not secular liberalism, but Christian-based secular liberalism. And if you forget or disrespect the first part of that, you drift into an idolatrous over-valuation of certain secular causes, and identity politics. And provoke reaction.
So let’s hope that liberal America does some intelligent soul-searching at last – which means drawing on its liberal Christian roots.
BBC under fire over Amsterdam attack coverage
Football fans are known to get a little rowdy after a game, but the horror that broke out after the Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax game on Thursday night was an entirely different matter. As Jonathan Sacerdoti wrote for the Spectator today, hundreds of Jews were hunted and beaten by mobs after the game while videos of the violence quickly spread across social media, leaving users horrified at the Amsterdam attacks. Yet for some rather peculiar reason, mainstream broadcasters were not quite as fast to report on the matter as one might have expected – with the Beeb in particular notably slow to the news, with readers taking to Twitter to blast both the delay to the public service broadcaster’s reporting and the language used to describe the attacks. Good heavens…
Last night, social media users slammed the Beeb for what seemed like ‘complete radio silence’ on the matter, while the broadcaster was criticised over its reporting of ‘rude, anti-Palestinian slogans’ in Amsterdam. When the news outlet finally decided to report on the attacks taking place on Jewish people, Twitter users raged at its description of ‘clashes in Amsterdam’. One person tweeted that the BBC ‘couldn’t refer to what had happened as “antisemitic riots” without the disclaimer that this was Israel’s description of events’.
Then this morning, a blog post appeared on the broadcaster’s website which looked to some Twitter users as though the Beeb was trying to lay some of the blame for the attacks on Israeli football fans. In the post entitled ‘Some Maccabi fans “looking for a fight”, witness tells BBC’, the author writes, on interviewing one individual, that:
I’ve spoken to a fan who went to the match last night, who reports seeing Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters on the Amsterdam metro ‘going up and down the carriages three or four times looking for a fight’. Conor Dalton tells me: ‘I felt worried. Everyone was going into the city so everyone knew what was going to happen.’ He adds that he is ‘shocked by the portrayal’ of the incident in the media, adding that the attacks were ‘completely provoked’ and Palestinian flags were ‘torn down the night before’.
‘Nothing to see here,’ one Twitter poster fumed. ‘Just BBC News trying to victim blame the Israeli fans who were attacked last night in Amsterdam.’ Another raged: ‘Jews are attacked on the streets of Amsterdam. So who does the BBC blame? Jews!’ One writer took to the social media app to lament:
I very rarely pick up on BBC News criticism but I do not understand why it was necessary to append the words ‘officials say’ to the headline about the Amsterdam football attacks. Why suggest doubt about the attacks? This is beneath you, BBC.
The BBC’s live blog has received criticism for noting: ‘Before the match, there was trouble between Maccabi fans and pro-Palestinian protestors.’ It also highlighted as a main bullet point that: ‘Maccabi supporters attacked a taxi and set a Palestinian flag on fire. There are also reports of supporters chanting racist slogans about Arabs.’ However none of the other main bullets actively condemned the attacks on Israeli fans. How very curious…
For its part, a BBC spokesperson told Mr S:
A single short post on a live page which has been running for several hours cannot and does not represent the entirety of BBC coverage on the subject. The live page, which has been headlining throughout on Israeli fans being attacked, includes detailed reports of these incidents, with some posts based on single-source testimony, for example one from a Maccabi fan who describes being attacked. The BBC’s job is to report this story impartially, taking in all the context and testimony – this includes looking at user-generated content to build a full picture of how the events unfolded.
Meanwhile another reader simply took to the platform to write about the BBC: ‘I have truly lost all faith in your veracity as an unbiased news outlet.’ Oh dear. The Beeb lost half a million licence fee payers over the last year – how many more will desert it now?
Labour appoints Chagos chief to run national security
In an uncertain age, who do you want keeping the nation safe? How about the guy who just bartered away the Chagos Islands? Yes, that’s right, fresh from his Mauritian shenanigans, Jonathan Powell has today been announced as the new National Security Adviser in No.10. A former career diplomat, he famously served as Tony Blair’s Chief of Staff throughout his ten years in Downing Street. And now, after a stint in banking and endless summitry around the world, he is back to help out a flailing Labour government once more.
Powell’s appointment is not without controversy. As well as the Chagos farrago, he was a sometimes divisive figure in the Good Friday peace talks. He replaces Tim Barrow, a civil service ‘lifer’, in the role, having been a special adviser when last he served in government. Labour hasn’t always been such a fan of appointing apparatchiks to the role of National Security Adviser. Flashback to what Nick Thomas-Symonds said when such a prospect was being mooted for David Frost back in 2021:
We are in the midst of an unprecedented international crisis. It is highly unusual for the government to have proceeded in this manner, seeming to rush through a political appointment to a critically important role that needs to provide impartial expert advice. There are a number of vital questions that must be answered, such as what criteria were used to select a candidate, and what process was followed when the appointment was made.”
One for Kemi to copy and paste perhaps?
Oxford Chancellor race in new transparency row
It’s the election drama obsessing much of Westminster. No, not Donald v Kamala but rather the race to be Chancellor of the University of Oxford. The ten-month slug-fest began back in February when incumbent Chris Patten announced his intention to retire after 20 years. An early attempt to vet candidates by committee was blocked after claims of a ‘stitch up’, with 38 names eventually going forward to the first ballot. Sadly Imran Khan didn’t make the cut…
On Monday, the final five for the second ballot were named: peers William Hague, Peter Mandelson and Jan Royall alongside ex-MP Dominic Grieve and Elish Angiolini, who led the Everard inquiry. Yet four days on after that result, there is still no word about when the breakdown of votes will be announced. Mr S has repeatedly asked the University of Oxford but, alas, there has been no reply.
The silence has prompted great disquiet among many in the Oxford community. One graduate who voted in the first round grumbled to Mr S ‘It’s fundamental to a democratic process that one publishes the results of the ballot’ adding ‘it is quite important to help rank ones’ preferences.’ Neil O’Brien MP, the shadow education minister, told The Spectator: ‘This seems like a very strange thing. You would think that in a democratic election being able to find the results is pretty crucial.’
One of the eliminated candidates, Matthew Firth, has taken to Facebook to complain. He says that he has received an email from university authorities claiming that:
We will not be releasing any information on rankings or vote share on the first round at this point so as not to influence the second round of the election.
Frith adds that he is yet to hear from the Vice Chancellor’s Office about the lack of democratic transaprency. Steerpike understands that members of Oxford’s Council are also unhappy at being ‘kept in the dark’. So much for all that enlightenment promised to students eh?
It’s hard not to feel sorry for Prince William
For all his wealth and privilege, it is hard to imagine wanting to be Prince William. Not only was he irrevocably changed by his mother’s tragic death when he was aged 15, but the past year alone has seen his wife and father diagnosed with cancer. His ongoing estrangement from his embarrassing younger brother continues despite the two of them having been in the same room together on at least one occasion. Added to this, an invasive and embarrassing journalistic investigation into his and his father’s landholdings over the weekend has contributed to a sense that the royals exist on an entirely separate plain to the rest of us.
With all this in mind, it was unsurprising that, in an unusually candid interview, William described this as ‘the hardest year in his life’ and said that ‘it’s been dreadful…trying to get through everything else and keep everything on track has been really difficult’. He talked of his pride in his wife and father and their determination to keep things going as best they can – the King’s demanding back-to-work schedule took place while he is still undergoing treatment for cancer. Nevertheless, he was not diminishing the stress that he felt when he confessed that ‘from a personal family point of view, it’s been brutal’.
With all due respect to the Queen’s memory, the events of this year have been considerably worse
William made his remarks while attending the Earthshot awards in Cape Town. It was in South Africa that his grandmother made her famous speech on her 21st birthday when she pledged that ‘my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong’.
While William made no comment as emollient or affecting as that, any royal knows that they are treading on the legacy of other family members whenever and wherever they make a public statement. Indeed, it is impossible not to recall the late Queen’s remarks in November 1992 that the year had been an ‘annus horribilis’ for her, thanks to the fire at Windsor Castle, three of her children’s marriages ending and the embarrassing publication of private conversations between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles. Yet, with all due respect to her memory, the events of this year have been considerably worse: foedissimum annum, perhaps.
Still, there are comforting prospects too. The Earthshot awards – William’s equivalent of Harry’s Invictus Games – began with a performance of ‘Circle of Life’ from The Lion King. The prince then commented ‘I don’t know about everyone else, but hearing the Lion King gets me quite emotional’. Perhaps there is something in the storyline that resonates with him, about a carefree young lion cub who is forced to grow up and take responsibility in difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, the Lion King’s devilish villain, the wicked Uncle Scar, can hardly be compared to William’s buffoonish Uncle Andrew, who has recently been given his financial independence by his sick-of-it-all elder brother.
Given that William’s estrangement from Prince Harry shows no signs of coming to an end, perhaps the beleaguered prince may have cracked a wry smile at recent reports that President Trump – no fan of Harry, believing him to have disrespected his grandmother, who Trump idolised – may choose to look into the Duke of Sussex’s revelations of recreational drug use in Spare. This would most likely reignite the row over his visa and eligibility to stay in America. Harry, expelled from Montecito and returned to his homeland in disgrace? It’s enough to put a smile on anyone’s face.
Trump’s tariff plans don’t have to spell bad news for Britain
On the face of it, Donald Trump’s threat to impose general import tariffs of 10 to 20 per cent on all goods – and much higher levies on those from China – is bad news for Britain, the US and the world. That protectionism makes us poorer is a lesson which seems to have to be re-learned every generation.
The last time America was forced to learn the hard way was when George W Bush tried to protect the US steel industry with punitive tariffs on imports of steel in 2002. A US government review later concluded that the tariffs had cost 200,000 jobs in US by increasing the prices of raw materials for manufacturers – which was more than the 190,000 people employed in the entire US steel industry at the time.
Keir Starmer’s government should lose no time in pressing to reopen trade negotiations
But do we really need to be quite so worried, and see it as a return to the 1930s when governments attempted to get themselves out of the Great Depression by shutting out imports? Perhaps not.
Firstly, we know Trump’s methods well by now. His modus operandi is to make grand threats – and then surprise people by being a lot more accommodating than they imagined. His first term of office began in the same way, with him declaring a trade war with China and threatening to levy punitive tariffs on the rest of the world by saying ‘trade wars are easy to win’. Yet by the time of the G7 summit in 2018 he was asking fellow leaders ‘why not go to zero tariffs?’.
He pulled the US out of the Trans Pacific Partnership – an embryonic free trade area – and threatened to pull the US out of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada and Mexico. Yet in 2018 he proposed, and signed, the USMCA – the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement – which replaced NAFTA on broadly similar terms.
To judge Trump by his actions rather than some of his words, he is far more inclined towards free trade than is Joe Biden, who gave us the Inflation Reduction Act. This is a protectionist device dressed up as a climate initiative and given a name so dishonest it is on a level with the German ‘Democratic’ Republic. It is designed for one purpose: to keep foreign-made green stuff out of the US.
Secondly, a general tariff of 10 per cent would not necessarily be a disaster for trade with the US anyway. Punitive tariffs – such as those of 100 per cent or even more – kill off trade. But at 10 per cent a tariff is just another tax, and one which in many cases could be absorbed. We are, after all, used to paying 20 per cent VAT on most goods. If the US and its trading partners all imposed 10 per cent import tariffs on each other and used the revenue to cut corporation tax – or spending taxes like VAT – it would not necessarily be a bad thing. It would provide a modest incentive for consumers to buy products from their own country but would hardly plunge the world into a dark age.
Thirdly, Trump has indicated in the past that he is inclined to treat Britain favourably. Had he survived in office after 2020 it is very likely that we would be now have a trade deal with the US – allowing UK companies to sell goods and services there on much better terms than EU companies, and providing a tangible benefit from Brexit.
Keir Starmer’s government should lose no time in pressing to reopen negotiations. Never mind about the rude remarks ministers have previously made about Trump – as Pat McFadden pointed out yesterday, if the President-elect went in for long-term grudges he would never have picked JD Vance as his running mate. People who have called Trump a fascist in the past are in good company.
But to negotiate a free trade deal – or at least a more favourable trading relationship – with the US will require the government to risk upsetting British farmers even more than they are already upset by the changes to inheritance tax. We are not going to get better trade terms with the US unless we are prepared to open up our agricultural markets more and stop the nonsense like pretending chlorine-washed chicken is a threat to health: we already happily eat chlorine-washed salad. Reinstating a more generous inheritance tax deal for genuine farmers might be a way of managing their objections.
It might also require something which many Labour figures will consider unpalatable. But why not appoint Nigel Farage as Britain’s ambassador to the US? Not only is Farage inclined towards free trade – contrary to his popular reputation as a Little Englander – there is no one in Britain who has a more influential relationship with Trump. Starmer should take a deep breath and seize the initiative. Britain could well come out of the Trump presidency rather well.
What does a Trump victory mean for Prince Harry?
Dear oh dear. Donald Trump’s presidential victory has not thrilled everyone – and, Mr S suspects, least of all Prince Harry. The president-elect has suggested the royal could be, er, deported from the States.
The suggestion came after the publication of Harry’s book Spare, in which the prince claimed he once dabbled with drugs like cocaine, cannabis and magic mushrooms. Under US law, a visa can be rejected if the person making the application has taken drugs – and Trump has suggested that Harry should not receive ‘special privileges’ if he was found to have lied on his visa form. During a visit to Scotland in August, Trump’s son Eric called Harry and Meghan ‘spoiled apples’ while one insider told the Mail that that the Sussexes were making ‘desperate’ efforts to return to the UK. How curious. And, to add insult to injury, last month an American think-tank even tried to reopen a court case with the Department for Homeland Security to disclose Harry’s immigration records.
Harry’s wife has hardly made things easier for the royals. As an actress, Meghan described the now president-elect as ‘divisive’ and a ‘misogynist’. While filming Suits in Toronto, she also said she would prefer to stay in Canada rather than return to the States with Trump as President. Not that that promise lasted long…
So will the Montecito royals return to the UK now The Donald is set to take power? Mr S isn’t so sure. Perhaps Portugal will be their country of choice – they have already bought a new holiday home there, not too far from one belonging to Harry’s royal cousin Princess Eugenie. ‘There’s a certain protection that many public figures feel [in the area],’ the head of the local tourism board remarked about the potential move, ‘as their personal lives won’t be scrutinised as much as in other places.’ Not that this would be a selling point for media-loving Meghan, eh?
How does Starmer solve a problem like Farage?
Who is the biggest winner in the UK from Donald Trump’s victory across the pond? The answer may be Nigel Farage. While Labour ministers have so far rejected the Reform party leader’s offer to act as an intermediary, the MP for Clacton can boast to have a direct line to the so-called leader of the free world. This means that like it or not, the Prime Minister may end up discovering what Trump thinks about various issues from Farage interviews rather than the diplomatic service.
Trump’s victory is adding to Labour’s nerves
However, there is another perhaps bigger problem Farage poses to Starmer – and it’s an electoral one. Today, the Reform party leader is in Newport for the party’s Welsh conference. It’s part of the party’s efforts to build power bases across the country – in this case the Senedd. The party believes it can take voters from Labour across Wales – in part aided by job losses that can be linked to the net zero agenda, such as the closure of blast furnaces in South Wales.
As I reported earlier this year, while Reform initially took voters from the Tories and aided Labour’s path to a large majority, the party now believes it can cause Starmer electoral pain. Reform finished second in 98 constituencies, of which 89 are now held by Labour. Farage is looking to make gains in Wales and Scotland and to be the main challenger to Labour in the Red Wall seats of the Midlands and northern England. ‘That’s where we’ll be fighting Labour and of course we’re going to measure our success next year in the county elections,’ he told me earlier this year.
Notably, Trump’s victory is adding to Labour’s nerves – it points to the danger of Starmer failing to listen and respond to voter concerns on immigration and the economy. As one Labour MP puts it: ‘We cannot be distracted by bullsh–. It’s all about jobs and borders.’ That’s the lesson Labour MPs worried about Reform hope Starmer and his team will take from this week’s election result.
Hear more on Coffee House Shots, The Spectator’s daily politics podcast:
Two bets at Wincanton
The unusually dry autumn means it makes sense to favour horses with a preference for good ground when it comes to the racing at Wincanton and Aintree tomorrow. Field sizes continue to be smaller than usual because many trainers do not want to risk injuring their charges on quick ground at the start of the season.
ALL THE GLORY is a likeable sort who will get her favoured conditions when she makes her seasonal debut in the BetMGM Richard Barber Memorial Mares’ Handicap Hurdle at Wincanton (1.45 p.m.).
She was impressive when she destroyed a decent 17-runner field at Newbury in March and, although her three subsequent runs were moderate, she may by then have paid the price for her busy season. Tomorrow’s trip of just over 2 miles and 5 furlongs should be perfect for her.
All The Glory is trained by the father and son team of Jonjo and A.J. O’Neill and the latter said of their seven-year-old mare in a recent Racing Post stable tour that ‘she seems fresh and well again and we’re happy to go to war with her’. In an open 14-runner race, back her each way at 8-1 with either bet365 or William Hill, both paying four places.
The other race at Wincanton tomorrow that, despite the quick conditions, has attracted a fairly competitive field is the 63rd Badger Beer Handicap Chase (3.30 p.m.), which is run over a distance of 3 miles 1 furlong.
Trainer Anthony Honeyball fielded three of the 11 runners a year ago and won the race with Blackjack Magic. Another of his runners, FORWARD PLAN, was back in sixth that day beaten almost 25 lengths by his stable mate before he (Forward Plan) went on to win decent handicap chases at Doncaster and Kempton.
Honeyball again runs three of his horses tomorrow in an attempt to win the race for a second year running and, once again, Forward Plan is one of his trio. The worry for punters is that Forward Plan will again need the race on his seasonal debut.
However, this consistent gelding could be overpriced in this 10-runner field. Back him at 9-1 with either SkyBet or Betfred, both offering four places, rather than at a point higher with other bookmakers offering a place less.
The race that I am most looking forward to tomorrow is the BoyleSports Grand Sefton Handicap Chase at Aintree (2.40 p.m.), which is run over 2 miles 5 furlongs on the Grand National course. I have already put up two horses in this contest and I am pleased to see both are taking their chances tomorrow at much shorter odds than when I tipped them.
Percussion and Frero Banbou were second and third respectively in this race a year ago on heavy ground but neither should be inconvenienced by the much quicker surface tomorrow. In a 13-runner field, there are plenty of dangers perhaps headed by Olly Murphy’s improving gelding, Sure Touch, if he takes to these distinctive brush fences.
I am also going to put up a ante-post bet in the Betfair Chase at Haydock on November 23. Eighteen runners have been entered in this Grade 1 contest but, especially if ground conditions stay quick, I strongly suspect that less than half of those will actually run in two weeks’ time.
Dan Skelton’s Grey Dawning heads the market at a top priced 2-1 but those odds look skinny for a horse that would have to concede plenty of weight to several rivals if this were a handicap. I would much rather be on Lucinda Russell’s AHOY SENOR particularly as he is not ground dependent and he has this race as his early-season target.
I am aware that his jumping is sometimes less than perfect but he is a talented horse at his best and his trainer was making all the right noises about him in her Racing Post stable tour last month. His comeback run at Aintree last month was also full of promise so back Ahoy Senor each way at 6-1 three places with SkyBet, Paddy Power or Betfair.
Next week I will turn my attention, with an abundance of enthusiasm, to Cheltenham’s wonderful three-day November meeting.
Pending:
1 point each way All The Glory at 8-1 in the Mares’ Handicap Hurdle, paying 1/5th odds, 4 places.
1 point each way Frero Banbou at 14-1 in the Grand Sefton, paying 1/4 odds, 4 places.
1 point each way Percussion at 12-1 in the Grand Sefton, paying 1/4 odds, 4 places.
1 point each way Forward Plan at 9-1 in the Badger Beer Handicap Chase, paying 1/5th odds, 4 places.
1 point each way Go Dante at 9-1 in the Greatwood Hurdle, paying 1/4 odds, 4 places.
1 point each way Ahoy Senor at 6-1 in the Betfair Chase, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places.
Last weekend – 2 points
2 points win Saint Segal at 4-1in the Byrne Group Handicap Chase. Unplaced. – 2 points.
2 points win Thunder Rock at 9-2 in the bet365 Hurdle. Non runner. Stake returned.
2024-5 jump season running total: – 6 points.
2024 flat season: + 41.4 points on all tips.
2023-4 jump season: + 42.01 points on all tips.
2023 flat season: – 48.22 points on all tips.
2022-3 jump season: + 54.3 points on all tips.
My gambling record for the past nine years: I have made a profit in 16 of the past 18 seasons to recommended bets. To a 1 point level stake over this period, the overall profit of has been 558.4 points. All bets are either 1 point each way or 2 points win (a ‘point’ is your chosen regular stake).
Could Kevin Rudd’s Trump tweets cost him his career?
If British Labour ministers and officials find dealing with President Donald Trump 2.0 a formidable challenge, their Australian Labor cousins may find the task of working with a president with an elephantine memory for slights even more daunting. As ministers – including Foreign Secretary David Lammy – are rediscovering to their chagrin, you can delete embarrassing social media posts, but they never disappear. That’s something that may cost former Australian prime minister, and now Australia’s ambassador to the United States, Kevin Rudd, his diplomatic career.
Rudd has been posted to Washington for the best part of two years as current Labor prime minister Anthony Albanese’s envoy to the Biden administration. While some in Australia have suggested the endlessly attention-seeking Rudd was appointed to keep him out of Australia and away from meddling in domestic politics, he’s generally recognised as a diligent, even hyperactive, ambassador, working assiduously to cultivate relationships with the administration and both sides of the US congress.
Rudd risks a similar career fate as Darroch’s, but with no consolation prize such as a peerage
Most recently, and with his government’s blessing, the Mandarin-speaking sinologist has taken time out to promote his new book on Xi Jinping and his Chinese Communist party regime, which has been well-received in American foreign policy circles. Indeed, Rudd’s expertise as a China expert with excellent connections in the Middle Kingdom – and a former prime minister’s bulging contact book – makes him an invaluable source of advice to his host government as well as his own.
Unfortunately for Rudd, however, he has long been a prolific user of Twitter/X, and his posted character assessments of Donald Trump were brutally frank. Through Trump’s first term, Rudd, then a private citizen working with an American think tank, was not shy in coming forward about Trump, his character, and his politics.
Rudd freely labelled Trump ‘a traitor to the West’ and ‘a problem for the world’. His most vicious tweet, however, came in June 2020 when he wrote:
Trump is the most destructive president in history. He drags America and democracy through the mud. He thrives on fomenting, not healing, division. He abuses Christianity, church and bible to justify violence. All aided and abetted by [Rupert] Murdoch’s FoxNews network in America which feeds this.
When interviewing candidate Trump for GB News earlier this year, Nigel Farage put examples of such Rudd tweets to the now President-elect. Trump was contemptuous. ‘He won’t be there long if that’s the case’, Trump told Farage. ‘I don’t know much about him, I heard he was a little bit nasty’.
But, in an insult guaranteed to wound Rudd’s huge self-regard to the quick, Trump added, ‘I hear he’s not the brightest bulb. If he’s at all hostile, he won’t be there long.’
Ambassador Rudd issued a statement that he made the tweets as a then think tanker and political commentator, and that he was now deleting them ‘out of respect for the office of President of the United States, and following the election of President Trump’.
Rudd has always had the political hide of a rhinoceros. While Australia’s conservative opposition hasn’t called for Rudd’s resignation, his sudden Uriah Heep turn surprised nobody and even opposition leader Peter Dutton could see the amusing side. ‘He’ll be buying red ties and Maga hats to ingratiate himself with the Trump campaign’ he quipped.
But that won’t be easy. The co-chair of the Republican National Committee and Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, last week echoed what the President-elect said of Rudd in March, telling Sky News Australia that ‘I do think it would be nice to have a person who appreciates all Donald Trump has gone through to want to serve our country at this moment…maybe we would want to choose someone else’.
That choice is neither hers, nor her father-in-law’s, but that of the Australian prime minister – who himself has been outed for a 2016 tweet saying Trump ‘scared the shit out of him’, although it didn’t stop Albanese being one of the first world leaders to talk to the President-elect.
But Rudd will be acutely aware of the unhappy experience of former British ambassador to Washington Sir Kim Darroch, whose less than flattering cabled assessments to London of the then president and his administration were leaked in 2019. Trump denounced Darroch, who in various cables had used words like ‘inept’, insecure’ and ‘incompetent’, but never used such an explosive epithet like ‘traitor’, as Rudd did publicly.
An insulted Trump tweeted, in retaliation, that Darroch was a ‘pompous fool’ and that he would ‘no longer deal with him’. Darroch’s position instantly was untenable, and Theresa May – who Trump also criticised – found herself in an invidious position. Not long after, Darroch left Washington but was rewarded with a peerage by May in her resignation honours.
Rudd risks a similar career fate as Darroch’s, but with no consolation prize such as a peerage. As former prime minister, Rudd should have known better than to tweet his personal opinions when he did. But to leave them on the record until now, while representing his country as its ambassador, was a huge lapse of diplomatic tact and political judgment that can only offend an incoming president whose skin is notoriously thin.
It won’t be easy for Rudd to get out this self-inflicted diplomatic embarrassment. But, if he manages to pull it off, David Lammy and other members of the Starmer cabinet whose Trump social media skeletons have emerged from the closet should look and learn.
Amsterdam has failed its Jews
Last night in Amsterdam, a scene unfolded that should send shockwaves across Europe: hundreds of Jews were hunted and beaten by mobs following a football match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax. Whether a spontaneous flare-up or organised assault, terrified fans were forced to jump into the city’s canals to escape violence. At least ten were injured, and three remain missing. As Israel dispatched emergency flights to evacuate its citizens, one must ask: how long until this happens in London or elsewhere in the UK?
The Netherlands must confront this issue immediately, not only for the safety of its Jewish residents and visitors but for the stability of its own society. The embassy of Israel in the US wrote that the attackers ‘proudly shared their violent acts on social media’. Who does that remind you of? The world has already witnessed this grotesque display from Hamas and Palestinian terrorists on 7 October. Now, in Amsterdam, we see echoes of the same perverse pride in brutality.
The question isn’t whether what happened in Amsterdam could happen in London. It is when
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called the attacks ‘a planned and organised pogrom’. The violence erupted as Jews in Europe were about to mark the 86th anniversary of Kristallnacht – a chilling historical irony highlighted by Deborah Lipstadt, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. She rightly noted that this incident occurred ‘two days before the grim anniversary of Reichspogromnacht in 1938’, when Nazi-sanctioned pogroms swept the German Reich. Now, in 2024, are we seeing the spectre of such hate rear its head in Europe once more?
While the reaction from Israeli government figures to the violence in Amsterdam has been intense, it’s worth noting that incidents involving attacks on football fans are not uncommon during European matches. Violence, especially at high-stakes games, has been seen before involving British and other European supporters. However, while these confrontations can be brutal, the targeted nature of the attacks on Jewish fans, coupled with the accompanying anti-Semitic rhetoric, distinguishes this incident from typical football-related violence and heightens its significance.
For those who say this is an isolated incident, look closer. The UK’s police forces have themselves admitted to inadequately handling the anti-Israel marches that swept through our streets. These protests, rife with anti-Semitic chants and rhetoric, were allowed to escalate unchecked under both Conservative and Labour governments. This failure isn’t just an oversight – it is a warning that we are dangerously close to allowing the same mob violence to happen here. Keir Starmer should take note: violence is not always carried out by ‘far-right’ perpetrators against pure and innocent immigrants. It is an affliction that can originate from any extremist ideology. While racist attacks against immigrants are rightly dealt with swiftly, a different standard appears to be applied when Jews are the targets.
Consider the infamous chants calling to ‘globalise the intifada’. What does that mean if not exporting violent, anti-Jewish sentiments into our own countries? The fact that such rhetoric is tolerated, even protected under the guise of free speech, speaks volumes about the selective indignation of our governments and law enforcement. This is not theoretical. When calls for ‘jihad’ were heard in London, the response from the police was not arrest but a feeble attempt at theological discourse, debating the meaning of jihad rather than addressing its real-world implications. What happened in Amsterdam is the logical conclusion of allowing such things to go unchecked.
Gideon Sa’ar, Israel’s Foreign Minister, confirmed he was in contact with Dutch authorities, but local Jewish voices also reported that the police presence was insufficient, leaving Maccabi fans vulnerable once they left the stadium. Journalist Raz Amir captured the outrage of one fan who, injured and bloody at Amsterdam airport, said, ‘The Dutch police sold us so that the Arabs would lynch us.’ This echoes Eli Beer, president of United Hatzalah, who stated, ‘This is happening in the heart of Europe, and it’s only the beginning.’
Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s national security minister, issued a stark warning: today’s victims are Israelis, but ‘tomorrow it will be you Europeans’. His words may sound dramatic, but they hold an uncomfortable truth. Amsterdam’s failure to protect Jews isn’t just a failing of one city – it’s an indictment of Europe’s collective will to defend its Jewish communities against rising extremism.
In the UK, our leaders must recognise that their responses to similar threats have been weak and inconsistent. The shadow of Amsterdam looms large over British society, a stark reminder that we must act decisively against all forms of racist violence. If we continue to apply double standards, excusing anti-Jewish rhetoric while condemning other forms of hate, we will find ourselves facing our own crisis sooner than we think.
The question isn’t whether what happened in Amsterdam could happen in London. It is when. And when it does, will we be prepared, or will we be issuing statements of shock and horror as we scramble to catch up? Jews won’t be singing ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’ and ‘Imagine’. Many will be too busy leaving. The time for decisive action is now, before the warnings turn into reality.
Jewish football fans are not safe in Europe
Israeli football fans were attacked in Amsterdam on Thursday evening and three supporters are listed as missing this morning. It is reported that the assailants yelled ‘Free Palestine’ as they kicked and punched the Jewish supporters.
According to the Israeli foreign ministry, a group of masked men, some of whom were draped in Palestine flags, ambushed the Israelis after their Europa League match against Ajax. A dozen supporters were injured and three are still unaccounted for on Friday morning.
The fear in France is that next Thursday won’t be so passive when the Israeli team are in town
The Times of Israel reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has despatched two planes to Amsterdam to bring back the Israeli supporters who made the trip to Holland. A statement from Netanyahu’s office urged the Dutch authorities ‘to act decisively and swiftly against the rioters, and to ensure the wellbeing of our citizens’. It is claimed that the ambush was well-organised and eye witnesses said some of the attackers spoke Arabic.
Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, described the attack as ‘a pogrom’, and the Dutch MP Geert Wilders posted a message on social media, saying: ‘Looks like a Jew hunt in the streets of Amsterdam…Ashamed that this can happen in the Netherlands.’
The attack in Amsterdam came a day after supporters of Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) unveiled a giant banner emblazoned with the words ‘Free Palestine’ before their side’s Champions League match against Atletico Madrid. Alongside the words was the image of what appeared to be a Hamas fighter, his face masked by a keffiyeh.
Also on the banner, which measured 50 metres by 20 metres, was a tank, a child wrapped in a Lebanon flag and a controversial map of the region. Underneath was the message ‘War on the pitch but peace in the world’. During the match, another banner was unfurled on which was written ‘Does a child’s life in Gaza mean less than another?’
Yonathan Arfi, the president of the Representative Council of the French Jewish institutions, described the banner as ‘scandalous’, adding: ‘A map where the state of Israel no longer exists [and] a masked Palestinian fighter. This is not a message of peace but a call to hatred’.
The banner was also condemned by France’s Interior Minister, Bruno Retailleau, who called it ‘unacceptable’. He has summoned the heads of the French football federation and the director general of the Qatari-owned PSG for an explanation. Describing the banner as being of a ‘political nature’, a government spokesman said that ‘given its size, its installation cannot have escaped the club’s vigilance’.
Retailleau has said he will wait to hear what PSG have to say about the banner before deciding whether to take the matter further. He refused to rule out punishing the club.
But while the French government consider the banner was a political gesture, European football’s governing body do not. UEFA, which has a ban on ‘provocative’ or ‘insulting’ political messages in stadiums, issued a statement on Thursday, stating that ‘there will … be no disciplinary case because the banner that was unfurled cannot be in this case considered provocative or insulting.’
In September this year, UEFA banned Barcelona from selling tickets to fans for one Champions League match after fans displayed a banner with the words ‘Flick Heil’; it was meant as a tribute to their new German coach, Hansi Flick. In imposing the ban, UEFA said Barcelona had been guilty of ‘racism and/or other discriminatory conduct’.
The PSG banner was unfurled at what is known as the Auteuil Kop end of the stadium. The Auteuil Kop supporters tend to come from the immigrant suburbs of Paris, and there is no love lost between them and the PSG fans who frequent the other end of the stadium, known as the Boulogne Kop, some of whom have affiliations with the far-right. In 2010, violence erupted between the two sets of supporters, resulting in the death of a fan.
The violence in Amsterdam and the provocation in PSG will further trouble the French authorities as they prepare to host Israel in an international fixture next Thursday. The match will take place at the Stade de France, in the notoriously volatile Seine-Saint-Denis district. Chaos and disorder erupted at this venue in May 2022 during the Champions League final between Liverpool and Real Madrid. The interior minister at the time, Gerald Darmanin, tried to pin the blame on English fans, but the police reports and the TV pictures revealed a different demographic was to blame.
Last week, around 25 pro-Palestine supporters stormed the offices of the French Football Federation in central Paris to protest against the visit of the Israel team. It was a relatively passive demonstration, but the fear in France is that next Thursday won’t be so passive when the Israeli team are in town.
Earlier this month, Bruno Retailleau confirmed that the match would go ahead, contrary to the Belgians who in September moved their match against Israel to Hungary to avoid any trouble. Nonetheless, said Retailleau, he admitted that it would be necessary to ‘adapt the security arrangements because there will be risks’.
These arrangements will dounbtless be tightened after events in Amsterdam. Shortly after Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, President Emmanuel Macron declared that ‘we are all French, we must not import this conflict’. Unfortunately, many people in France, and elsewhere across Europe, don’t share that view. They have imported the conflict and it is the continent’s Jews who are suffering.
Trump’s triumph has infuriated the Spanish left
‘Everybody’s lost but me,’ mutters a teenage Indiana Jones emerging from a cave in the middle of the desert to find that the boy scouts with whom he arrived have now disappeared without trace. Spain’s left-wing prime minister might be excused for thinking much the same. Relentlessly upbeat about the benefits of immigration, Pedro Sánchez now finds himself more or less alone in the European Union. And just when he was hoping that fellow progressive Kamala Harris would win the US election, he finds instead that he’s going to have to contend with Donald Trump.
‘We will work on our strategic bilateral relations and a strong transatlantic partnership,’ Sánchez said, presumably between gritted teeth, in his message of congratulation. It was left to his deputy prime minister Yolanda Díaz to say what he couldn’t: ‘Trump’s victory is bad news for everyone who understands politics as the means to improve lives rather than poison them with hate and misinformation.’
For some, Trump’s victory shows how ineffective the fight against fascism has been
And it’s not just the politicians. I haven’t seen the centre-left El País, one of Spain’s leading national dailies and the progressive newspaper of record, in such paroxysms of fury since Britain had the temerity to vote for Brexit. Trump is going to hand power to a cohort of ‘paranoid racists’ thundered the editorial. ‘Trump has won by promoting vengeance, rancour, lies, hatred, insult and confrontation,’ railed one columnist. ‘The most powerful country in the world has just voted in the most capricious, false, unpredictable and amoral character ever to appear on the political stage of an advanced democracy,’ wailed another. For others, the victory of this ‘racist buffoon’ was a victory ‘for the beast that lies inside us all’.
It seems that for Spain’s self-styled progressives Trump’s latest victory is all part of ‘the rapid advance of extremism in the Western world… The first major warning was Brexit in 2016, followed by Trump’s victory the same year, and then …. Meloni in Italy, Wilders in the Netherlands … Bolsonaro in Brazil and Milei in Argentina.’ Trump’s victory confirms ‘the exultation of xenophobia and the erosion of democracy’.
But explaining Trump’s victory is much trickier than denouncing it. Trump won, ventured one El País columnist, because he appealed to the ignorant and the poorly educated who believed his talk of ‘a swarm of uncontrolled immigrants made up of criminals, rapists, and murderers who eat decent citizens’ pets’. Or perhaps Harris lost for the same reason that Hillary Clinton did: because the country is not yet ready to elect a woman. La Sexta, a left-leaning free-to-air television channel, announced that it all goes to show that ‘lies win elections’. (It doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone that rational voters might simply have compared Trump’s previous administration with these last four years of Democrat presidency and decided that on balance they preferred the former.)
For Spain’s left-wingers, the ‘nightmare’ into which the world will now be plunged does however have some upsides. One member of Sánchez’s government is reported to have suggested that another Trump administration will finally bring home to people the real and powerful dangers of a far-right government. Another insisted that Trump’s victory will ‘be a spur to the progressive world to do better’. Above all, government sources declared, ‘It’s time for Europe to move towards full political union. Europe needs to be strengthened, and Trump’s victory will spur us on to that end’.
But some politicians didn’t need to hunt for silver linings. Reacting with undisguised joy, Santiago Abascal, the leader of Vox, Spain’s most right-wing party, highlighted ‘the importance of the Hispanic vote in this victory for the free world’ and announced that ‘now is the hour of patriots. Now is the hour of freedom’.
But at the opposite end of the political spectrum, for Podemos, the party which is currently making its continued support for Sánchez conditional on the severance of ‘commercial and diplomatic relations with the genocidal state of Israel’, Trump’s victory shows how ineffective the fight against fascism has been. On that theme, the day before the election, under a photograph of Trump with his arm aloft, apparently in Nazi salute, El País ran an article comparing Trump’s views to those of the Nazis.
‘Nazis,’ says the grown-up Indiana Jones, peering into a room full of Hitler’s henchmen, ‘I hate these guys.’
Kamala Harris and the death of the celebrity endorsement
Poor old Bruce Springsteen. The legendary rocker bet the farm on an endorsement of Kamala Harris and may well have alienated about half his audience as a result. The ‘Boss’ who had built his career on empathising with the hard-grafting, blue-collar, Bud-swilling ‘deplorables’ with his anthems of white working-class alienation, recorded a folksy recommendation from the counter of a (real or staged – who knows?) diner. ‘Freedom, social justice, equal opportunity, the right to love who you want’ are on the ballot, pleaded Springsteen, adding that Trump’s ‘disdain for the constitution’ should disqualify him from office.
Harrison Ford followed suit in two ads run just before polling day. The Star Wars actor summoned the force to warn us of ‘the other guy’ (Trump’s name doesn’t sully his speech) ‘…embracing dictators and tyrants around the world’. ‘For goodness sake, don’t do this again’, pleaded Ford, advice that he might have been better taking himself when he was mulling over whether to make that fifth Indiana Jones film.
At best such endorsements seem to have had a negligible effect and at worst may even have hurt Kamala’s chances
A tearful Jennifer Lopez outraged at a comedian’s (not Trump’s) joke about her beloved Puerto Rico (she was born in New York) emoted about how ‘we should be emotional. We should be upset. We should be scared and outraged. We should – our pain matters. We matter. You matter. Your voice and your vote matters’. Lady Gaga who implored us to ‘vote like your life depends on it, or your children’s lives depend on it, because they do’ in 2020 was prominent again this time performing in swing state rallies for the Democrat candidate.
Then, of course, there was Oprah Winfrey, who seems to exists on her own super-terrestrial plane of celebrity these days, a sort of deity who appears now and again in outfits not of this world, to make vital interventions and save us all from our human follies. Oprah swooped to Kamala’s aid a couple of times, most recently to warn Americans that if Trump wins ‘it is entirely possible that we will not have the opportunity to ever cast a ballot again’. (How so? – not explained)
The list goes on and on and is glittering and impressively multi-generational: Di Caprio, Clooney, Billie Eilish, Lizzo, Eminem, Beyonce, Usher, Pink, Olivia Rodrigo, and Madonna all weighed in for Kamala. And most importantly of all perhaps, the holy grail of celebrity imprimatur was secured last month with the ‘perfect and powerful…exquisite…flawless’ (according to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnel) written endorsement of stadium galactico and ‘childless cat lady’ (her words) Taylor Swift.
Kamala had so much celebrity glitter thrown over her that she seemed to exist inside a kind of just shuffled glittery snow globe. A whole posse of top billing female actresses (Roberts, Witherspoon, Cher) moved by her defence of ‘female reproductive freedom’ (also known as abortion) flanked their heroine like outriders on her righteous progress to the White House. Meanwhile, Trump had Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan.
It was extreme, but it is in the tradition of US politics. Celebrity endorsements have been a part of political campaigning in the US at least as far back as the 1920s when the singer Al Jolson endorsed Warren Harding but became much more important in the age of television. Frank Sinatra’s serenading of JFK with the Democrat theme song ‘High Hopes’ was a famous example. Since then, there have been some weird match ups, like Elvis appearing to back Nixon, Muhammad Ali supporting Ronald Reagan or Chuck Norris endorsing George W Bush.
But has there ever been any evidence that this hobnobbing has worked? Maybe, a little, but the calculations are difficult. Oprah Winfrey is credited with boosting Barack Obama’s chances in the Democratic primary of 2007/8 against Hilary Clinton, helping him win over 1 million votes (the so-called ‘Oprah effect’). And Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris is believed to have led to 400,000 engagements with the US government voter registration website.
But it is difficult to gauge how many of those Swiftie clicks led to actual registrations or votes, and impossible to know how many voters were influenced the other way – perhaps irritated enough by a smug celebrity’s arrogant or hectoring appeal to push them to vote for his or her opponent (what you might call the Eddie Izzard effect). A recent UK example of a failed celeb intervention is David Tennant’s trashing of Kemi Badenoch, which doesn’t seem to have done the new Tory leader any harm at all.
The US election suggests it may be time to call time on celebrity endorsements. At best they seem to have had a negligible effect and at worst may even have hurt Kamala’s chances. The assumption that people are dumb enough to be swayed by the recommendations of the super-rich and famous, whose everyday concerns (the colour of their new Lamborghini perhaps, or choice of suite at the Four Seasons) are beyond the most fantastical imaginings of the vast majority of their fans, seems increasingly implausible. For many it may be just a case of ‘who cares?’
This may come as highly unpleasant news to those celebs, who have to face to up to, not just a Trump presidency, but the awful realisation that they are neither as important, or as loved, as they think they are. Poor things.
To paraphrase JK Rowling’s perfect riposte to David Tennant: our thoughts and prayers are with the showbiz elite at this difficult time.