Love architecture? Visit Vienna

When asked how his production of Goodnight Vienna was going down with audiences in Huddersfield, Noel Coward is reputed to have replied ‘about as well as Goodnight Huddersfield would be going down with audiences in Vienna.’ 

I cannot vouch for Huddersfield’s cultural riches but there has never been a better time to visit Austria’s ‘City of Dreams and Music’. Over the past couple of years, many of Vienna’s most important buildings have undergone a thorough clean in preparation for the 150th anniversary of the World’s Fair. The sprucing up has certainly paid off; buildings once shrouded in layers of soot now gleam sugar white against the clear summer sky. 

Mired by setbacks, the 1873 fair was one of the biggest of its kind and cost a whopping £23.4 million to stage. After weeks of unrelenting rain, the Danube burst its banks, deluging the exhibition ground days before the grand opening. Meanwhile, an epidemic of cholera swept through the city just as the stock exchange crashed. Despite a shaky start, the fair attracted around seven million visitors to the city’s Prater Park where 26,000 exhibitors from countries as diverse as China and the USA came to show off their wares.  

Visitors could look at silk kimonos from China and decorative jewellery from the Middle East, held in decorative pavilions built in the vernacular of each country. It was here that Europeans had their first taste of cocktails, a US invention that caused quite a stir at the time.  

As well as celebrating the best of Austro-Hungarian industry and culture, the fair also commemorated Franz Joseph I’s 25th year as emperor. Sadly, the magnificent centrepiece, a rotunda designed by Scottish engineer John Scott Russell, was destroyed by fire in 1937. Today, only one of the original pavilions remains along with the handsome ferris wheel made famous by Orson Welles in his film The Third Man. Queues for what was once Europe’s highest big wheel are lengthy but worth it for the views. 

Despite being a financial disaster, the World’s Fair kick-started a major renovation project that saw the old city restored to its former glory. Some citizens still mourn the demolition of the original city wall, but a ring of handsome mansions built for local aristocrats has more than compensated for the loss. The only remnants of the fortress are visible from the foyer of The Imperial Hotel.  

Although many fine 17th and 18th century buildings were destroyed during the war, the 12th century Romanesque St Stephan’s Cathedral was saved, despite considerable damage inflicted to the roof. While the old city continues to be the main attraction, head to the east bank of the Wisła River and you’ll discover a mishmash of fine contemporary architecture in a brand new district just off Prater Park. The late Zaha Hadid’s new library looks like a gift from outer space and has become a popular hangout for younger crowds. The use of natural materials gives each building an organic feel and, unlike so much contemporary architecture, the jutting walls and angular roofs are on a pleasingly human scale, encouraging visitors to linger. Two-hour guided tours can be organised through the University of Economics and Business. Other walking tours of the city include insights into Vienna’s changing architecture, from Baroque to Gothic Revival.  

All over town, there are events and exhibitions celebrating the anniversary of the World’s Fair. At the magnificent Museum of Applied Arts, you can gaze upon vast crystal glass chandeliers, decorative mirrors and intricate tableware by renowned 200-year-old glass manufacturer J. & L. Lobmeyr, who were major exhibitors at the original fair. At the ‘1873 Vienna World’s Fair Revisited’ exhibition, there are artefacts from Egypt and Japan, two countries heralded for their exoticism by organisers of the 1873 extravaganza. Back in Prater Park, the Panorama Vienna will provide visually spectacular shows held within a beautifully designed 32-metre rotunda. The first show will open in September and will feature a 360-degree panorama of Rome as it would have looked in 312. For history buffs, this year also sees the reopening of the Wien Museum after several years of remodelling and expansion.

The Vienna Water Festival celebrates the first arrival of crystal clear spring water, channelled directly into the city from the nearby Alps back in 1873. The pristine supply continues to run through every tap in town so no need to bother with expensive bottled water when eating out – indeed because of the tap water’s superior taste and quality, waiters will try to dissuade you from ordering the bottled water. This October sees the official opening of the high spring pipeline and the unveiling of a decorative anniversary fountain in the handsome Sonnwendviertel region. Designed by Gelatin, an internationally renowned group of Austrian artists, the fountain will sit at the heart of one of the most spectacular urban development projects in the city.

Vienna’s architectural wonders have always been a joy to behold but with this year’s celebrations, there’s a sense of renewed pride.

Humza Yousaf looks to the EU and Ireland for citizenship inspiration

Burgundy passports, dual citizenship and rejoining the EU were a few of the items at the top of Humza Yousaf’s fifth independence paper, published earlier today. The First Minister’s latest independence document in the ‘Building a New Scotland’ series outlines the Scottish government’s proposals for citizenship in an ‘open, inclusive’ and independent Scotland. 

Holding a finger up to the UK government over post-Brexit changes, Yousaf’s paper describes how Scottish passports would be a ‘right’ available to Scottish citizens from day one of independence. In imitation of the old-style EU passports these would be burgundy in colour, not blue, and would follow EU regulations – despite the fact an independent Scotland would not automatically become a European Union member on breaking away from Britain.

As far as citizenship is concerned, the Irish model is Yousaf’s guide. This would mean that even if you were not born nor a resident in Scotland but one of your parents was a citizen of the country, you would be automatically entitled to citizenship yourself. In fact, the criteria for becoming a Scottish citizen is relatively broad-ranging. If you’re an adult who has spent 10 years living in Scotland previously, you’re in too.

Living up to its ‘inclusive’ credentials, Yousaf’s proposals also take into account those British citizens that may find themselves in an independent Scotland but who do not want to receive Scottish citizenship. There will be an ‘opt out’ option available, primarily targeted at those people eligible to be a Scottish citizen but who are from a country that will not allow dual citizenship. The Scottish government has stated that it would be keen to ‘engage’ with these countries to discuss ‘removing barriers to dual nations acquiring Scottish citizenship if they wished it’. The SNP have also considered those unionists who may not be quite as enthusiastic about the prospect of Scottish citizenship. ‘Some people may not want [it],’ Yousaf told reporters today. ‘I would hope it would be a minority.’

Yousaf has also suggested a new visa category be created within the immigration system to help people from other countries ‘who have an enduring connection to Scotland’ to go and work there more easily. This route – which would be open to people from any country who have lived in Scotland for five years or who have family (a parent or grandparent) who are Scottish citizens – would pave the way for ‘settlement and naturalisation as a Scottish citizen’ in the future too. 

A rather significant proportion of Yousaf’s proposal is taken up with discussion of the EU. After becoming independent – the paper states this as though it is a dead certainty – the Scottish government would ‘seek to rejoin the EU as soon as possible’. In 2016, only 38 per cent of Scots voted to leave the European Union, and it appears that the SNP government is basing the democratic will of the country off of this vote, given it has no apparent plans to hold another referendum on this. There is a little irony that this white paper refers to the fact Scots ‘voted overwhelmingly’ to stay in the EU in 2016, the government happy to respect the outcome of this referendum in Scotland – yet it doesn’t apply quite the same mindset to the 2014 Indyref result.

There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be able to rejoin the EU as a member state, but the Scottish government’s proposal seems insistent that some kind of pre-Brexit, European Scotland – with the overseas benefits that would bring, for example the removal of the 90-day visit limit in the Schengen region – is possible. At the very least, Yousaf’s plan argues that Scottish citizens would have access to the Common Travel Area, allowing free movement in the rest of the UK and Ireland.

While the document evidences that the Scottish government is becoming a little more focused on substance than simply spouting confusing independence strategies, the nostalgia of purple passport coverings hasn’t quite managed to quell fears that independence remains a fatal distraction for the government in a time of national crisis. Labour constitution spokesperson Neil Bibby, who has pointed to the rising costs of living and NHS chaos: ‘As always,’ he said, ‘the SNP-Green government is distracted by its constitutional obsession. Humza Yousaf is completely out of touch with Scotland’s priorities.’ 

Why is the UK so indulgent of Scottish separatism?

Scottish nationalists can sometimes be heard to say the United Kingdom is not a normal country. As evidence, they point to the unelected head of state, absence of a codified constitution and what they see as the dominance of one nation over other, smaller nations within the state. This analysis only underscores the very cultural overlap the SNP tries to downplay — for in their splendid ignorance of the political character of much of the democratic world they echo uncannily those London and university town progressives who delude themselves that the UK’s immigration debate is an insular outlier in an open and tolerant Europe. 

The UK is an outlier, all right, but not in the sense Scottish nationalists have in mind. Take the current spat between the UK government and Holyrood over the Scottish government’s use of public money to pursue and promote independence. This includes assigning civil servants to research and prepare pro-independence planning and propaganda, using official meetings with representatives of foreign governments to promote the break-up of the UK and appointing a minister for independence. Simon Case, head of the UK civil service, is currently investigating the matter and expected to issue new guidance to Holyrood civil servants. (It is no great secret that some opposition and civil society figures have concerns about the political independence of Scottish government civil servants under the SNP.)

This is where the UK is not a normal country. It is not normal that a public body in a sovereign state is allowed to use its offices to plot secession from that state. It is not normal, regardless of whether that body is called a government or has a parliament attached to it. It is not normal, even if the political party controlling that government is explicitly secessionist or makes its intentions clear in an election manifesto. It is not normal, no matter how shriekingly the secessionists demand this right or how many columnists warn central government that its failure to concede the point would be Not A Good Look. It is not normal, in sum, for a sovereign state to facilitate and finance a process intended to separate it from part of its territory. 

The Scottish government maintains that it is lawful for ministers to instruct civil servants to undertake activities related to independence. I’m not a lawyer and have no idea whether that’s true, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Maybe one day Scotland will free itself from the absurd cult of Donald Dewar, the ‘founding father’ of devolution, and then we’ll be able to admit just how many hostages to nationalist fortune lie in his arrogant and foolhardy Scotland Act. 

Wherever the law stands in the UK, it’s worth recording where it stands elsewhere. In the Civil War case Texas v. White, the US Supreme Court ruled that when a state or territory becomes part of the United States it has ‘entered into an indissoluble relation’ and cannot secede ‘except through revolution, or through consent of the states’. In 2017, the German Federal Constitutional Court rejected a legal challenge from Bavarian nationalists trying to secure a referendum on independence. The court stated: ‘There is no room under the constitution for individual states to attempt to secede. This violates the constitutional order.’ The United States and Germany are not alone. A 2019 study found that 82 per cent of countries worldwide have indivisibility clauses in their constitutions either forbidding or erecting hurdles to secession. 

The UK is abnormal in being so politically indulgent of secessionism. Not only did it respond to autonomist sentiment by devolving a wide array of powers to a Scottish legislature in 1999, the UK parliament allowed that legislature to hold a referendum on independence and, when secession was rejected at the ballot box, devolved even more powers as a sort of constitutional consolation prize. Contrary to the prating of process-worshipping political scientists (I’m talking about you, UCL Constitution Unit) and London-brained think tanks (that’s you, Institute for Government), the UK is not wanting for decentralisation when it comes to Scotland. Westminster has already delegated so much political authority to Holyrood that it’s hard to think what more is left to hand over, though I’m confident Gordon Brown will come up with something. 

The conversation in Scotland — ‘debate’ would be overselling it — mostly takes place within nationalist and hyper-devolutionist parameters. More powers is the answer to most problems, including problems that stem from the last bout of ‘more powers’ tinkering. Westminster undermines the Union by not doing enough for Scotland and by interfering too much, and it undermines devolution by upholding the terms of the settlement and by not altering its terms to please the Holyrood clamour factory. Ministers despair of this situation but, much as I understand their frustration, it’s not terribly easy to sympathise. Not only were Labour and the Tories co-culprits in the establishment, expansion and entrenchment of devolution, neither indicates the necessary appetite or, plainly, the guts for the sort of devolution reform necessary to make the policy consistent with the political interests of the United Kingdom. Since 2016, a peculiar mindset among the UK’s governing class has come to see any number of political developments in apocalyptic terms while regarding the break-up of the country itself as a mundane policy question. UK ministers, parliamentarians and civil servants have, to paraphrase Robert Frost, become too broadminded to take their own side in a quarrel. 

Since 2007, and until recent difficulties, the SNP has gone electorally from strength to strength in Scotland. The party’s prospering is a testament to the health of British democracy. Not bad for a rainy fascist island. But Scottish nationalism does not require quite as much help from the British state as it currently enjoys. If ministers do plan to limit the use of Holyrood-assigned civil servants to advance independence, all well and good, but what a pitiful vision for the constitutional future of the UK. For more than a decade now, the SNP has been using UK institutions to push secession from the UK, and now Whitehall might — might — issue a civil service directive about it. The Scottish government, for all its policy failings, has boundless self-belief. The UK government should try acquiring some of that. 

The UN’s climate alarmism has gone too far

UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres has declared that ‘the era of global warming has ended, the era of global boiling has arrived’. As if that were not enough, Guterres declared that ‘the air is unbreathable, the heat is unbearable’.

Something is raging out of control but it isn’t the temperature: last week’s famous ‘heat domes’ have subsided, with only a few patches of southern Europe over 30ºC this afternoon. It is hyperbole over the climate.

What does Guterres – who appeared to be breathing normally as he delivered his speech – hope to achieve by using language that tries to make out that life on Earth is no longer sustainable?

We are in an arms race of extreme language, with everyone falling over each other to outdo each other. The world falls in on anyone who seeks to pooh-pooh the narrative around global warming – climate scepticism was one of the reasons Coutts cited for closing Nigel Farage’s bank account – yet no one ever seems to get into trouble for exaggeration.

Just as with Covid, there is a price to be paid for scaring people. For the past week, we have been shown footage of holidaymakers fleeing from fires on Rhodes, the impression given that the island has become permanently uninhabitable. Yet, as the island’s deputy mayor said today, actually only one hotel has been burned down. As it attempts to recover from the fire, Rhodes’s tourist industry has been greatly harmed, certainly for this season and possibly well beyond. Despite the apocalyptic language, as I wrote here the other day, wildfires are not on the rise globally, in spite of hotter and drier conditions in some places.

There is a wider point: if you are going to tell people they are effectively doomed, and a depressing number of children and young people appear to believe this. A 2021 poll by the University of Bath of 10,000 16 to 25-year-olds around the world found that 56 per cent of them agreed with the statement that humanity is doomed. What, then, is the incentive to do anything about it? You might as well sit in a deckchair and listen to the band rather than seek a place in a lifeboat. That is the attitude that Guterres and his like are breeding.

Three years ago, I wrote a satirical novel, The Denial, in which a future government kept renaming the Department of Climate Change so that it became, in turn, the Department of Climate Crisis, the Department of Climate Emergency, the Department of Climate Cataclysm, Department for the Climate Apocalypse, and the Department of the Climate Armageddon. (It also, incidentally, saw a character debanked for his views on climate change). Guterres has brought that hysterical world a little bit closer.

Why the CEO of Coutts had to go

In the end, the only real surprise was that it took so long. The chief executive of NatWest, Dame Alison Rose, had already been forced to step down after it became clear she had leaked confidential information about Nigel Farage’s personal financial affairs to the BBC. The board has been under sustained pressure all week. And now the man at the very heart of the scandal, Peter Flavel, the CEO of Coutts, has stepped down as well.

That was surely the right decision. A private bank only exists to be discreet and to provide exceptional service. It was clear that under Falvel, Coutts had long since stopped doing that. If the bank is to have any future there is a lot of repair work to be done – and Flavel was hardly the man to lead that. 

After Rose’s hasty middle-of-the-night departure, it was clear that more heads would roll at NatWest. It was of course completely unacceptable for the head of a major bank to brief journalists about the private affairs of a client. And yet that was only one element of the story. It was just as unacceptable for the bank to be compiling dossiers on the political views of its clients, especially when the dossier in question was a muddled, poorly written jumble of half-truths scraped together from Google and Twitter. After all, Coutts is meant to be an elite private bank, catering to a handful of entrepreneurs and the mega-rich and providing high levels of service. It is the financial equivalent of staying in a five star hotel. Everything it meant to be taken care of, with maximum discretion, high levels of professionalism and, if you are lucky, even a modicum of charm. On any one of those measures, it clearly failed. 

Indeed, it is hard to see why anyone would want to bank with it right now. A politically motivated group of compliance staff will be constantly monitoring everything you do to check whether it meets their own priggish standards. At any moment, they might terminate your account. And when they do, they may even trash you in the press to make themselves look good. Added on to their outrageous fees, it is not a very attractive proposition.

In reality, there is a massive task ahead for Coutts. Private banking is a crowded industry, with lots of excellent players. For anyone who has three or four million to invest there are lots of different options; after all, banks have always liked very rich people, and are more than happy to look after them. True, Coutts had one of the best brand names in the business, as a banker to royalty and the aristocracy for generations. But in the space of just a few weeks, it has comprehensively trashed its reputation. Flavel’s departure is a welcome start – but whoever takes over has a lot to fix. 

My Sinéad O’Connor story

It must have been late 1993. She was at the height of her fame and I was in the earliest days of my journalism career. I was working for a small press agency in Clerkenwell whose stock in trade was day work for newspapers: court cases, press conferences and particularly door knocks and door steps. As a rookie, I did an awful lot of these.

Away from work I was in my twenties in London and had quite the party lifestyle – clubbing every weekend. The club of choice was Subterranea in Ladbroke Grove and I’d go most Saturday nights. But on this occasion, I was the rota reporter on the following Sunday, due in at 9 a.m., so when midnight came around I made moves to go home to bed. My companion, however, would hear nothing of this and he cooked up a slightly ridiculous and elaborate plan to keep me out all night.

He worked for a national tabloid and the plan was that he would ask my agency to do a fictitious job for him which would allow me to stay in bed all morning. It seemed like a great idea at midnight but when I came to ring my news editor at 8 a.m. and enact it, suddenly it didn’t. I had had barely two hours sleep and the hangover hadn’t even started. So to make the plan more convincing before calling my editor, I had a flip through the Sunday papers to find a story I could pretend I’d been asked to follow up. Which brings us back to Sinéad. She was a newspaper staple in those days and there was a page lead in one tabloid about something she’d supposedly said or done, a nothingy forgettable story. But it suited me perfectly as she lived just around the corner from the sofa I was lying on in Notting Hill Gate.

So I went to her flat and knocked on her door. And she answered. And we went through this contrived exchange in which I asked her if she had anything to say about this pointless story and she very politely confirmed what I’d expected, which was that she hadn’t. So, with my cover story now established, I went back to bed on that sofa. I got up again at a more civilised hour, around noon, and then we went to the pub for a hair of the dog. This led to another and then another. Then we went for a long liquid lunch – those were the days when you needed to make a Sunday lunch three or four hours until the pubs reopened in the evening.

By 7 p.m., I was bladdered. We were staggering between the Walmer Castle and the Portobello Star when, coming in the other direction, was Sinéad O’Connor. She clocked me as the person who’d bothered her hours earlier and then realised the state I was in. And she started laughing, properly laughing. And then I started laughing.

I never saw her again, but after that I always liked her.

* I should point out that I learned my lesson that day. I abandoned this kind of unprofessional behaviour and have been a model of journalistic diligence and reliability ever since, obviously.

SNP civil war spreads to Holyrood

Troublemaking isn’t confined these days to the SNP’s Westminster group. It seems that nationalists north of the border have got the bug for insurrection too. Fergus Ewing, SNP MSP for Inverness and Nairn, has revealed that there is a ‘toxic atmosphere amongst the SNP group in Holyrood’ and that he doesn’t think the Nats stand a chance of winning another indyref just now thanks to the party’s ‘extremist’ policies. The son of late nationalist legend Winnie Ewing told the Holyrood Sources podcast that things are not all hunky dory in Edinburgh: 

The atmosphere in Holyrood is not particularly happy now within the SNP group. There’s many people in the cabinet and the leadership that haven’t uttered a word to me or vice versa for well over a year.

Ewing hinted too at his contempt for one group of politicians in particular:

The most serious thing that Humza should do, in my opinion, is to detach himself from this dalliance with the Greens… and win back the trust and confidence of people whose votes we used to get in rural and highland Scotland.

Steerpike isn’t entirely surprised at Ewing’s revelations. The MSP has made a name for himself as a ‘rebel’ backbencher, staging a series of fiery interventions this year alone. Mr S would remind readers that this is the man who, in parliament, physically ripped up proposals (backed by, you guessed it, those pesky Greens) that would result in ‘catastrophic’ fishing bans for coastal Scotland. In his latest attack on his own party, Ewing branded the SNP government’s delays to dualling one of Scotland’s most dangerous roads a ‘betrayal to the Highlands’. 

And the veteran nationalist upset the apple cart last month after he voted in favour of a no confidence motion in Scottish government minister and Green co-leader Lorna Slater. Slater’s deposit return scheme was described by Ewing as ‘fatally and irremediably flawed’. ‘The minister with responsibility for the scheme,’ he wrote after the vote, ‘does not enjoy the confidence of business.’ Ouch. 

Does Ewing wish things were more amicable in Holyrood? ‘Frankly, I don’t give a damn,’ he snapped on the pod. ‘I’m not there for a social club.’ You don’t half show it, Fergus. Surprisingly, Yousaf appears to be keeping the peace for once, telling journalists today that he will not be suspending Ewing for his rather, er, scathing remarks…

The Scottish parliament is enjoying its summer recess, but Ewing is certainly not taking a break from criticising his failing party. ‘My job, frankly, is to exert maximum possible pressure on everybody,’ he thundered. ‘Whether they’re in my party or any other party is of no consequence to me.’ 

Will there be more nationalist nastiness to come? Watch this space… 

Farage claims another scalp as Coutts boss quits

Two down, one to go. Following the humiliating midnight departure of NatWest chief Alison Rose, Peter Flavel is the next banking boss to fall on his sword. Flavel, the chief executive of Coutts since 2016, this lunchtime announced his immediate departure from the luxury bank as it grapples with the fall out of the Nigel Farage scandal. Flavel said:

In the handling of Mr Farage’s case we have fallen below the bank’s high standards of personal service. As CEO of Coutts it is right that I bear ultimate responsibility for this, which is why I am stepping down.

Mohammad Kamal Syed, the head of Coutts’ asset management team, will step into the role of interim CEO of Coutts. Paul Thwaite, who was appointed as NatWest Group CEO yesterday after Rose stepped down, said:

I have agreed with Peter Flavel that he will step down as Coutts CEO and CEO of our Wealth Businesses by mutual consent with immediate effect. Whilst I will be personally sorry to lose Peter as a colleague, I believe this is the right decision for Coutts and the wider Group.

Farage himself has already welcomed the decision, saying:

It was only a matter of time before Peter Flavel, Coutts CEO, stood down. The ultimate responsibility for the dossier de-banking me for my political views lies with him. I even wrote to Mr Flavel twice before going public and didn’t receive an acknowledgment.

Earlier this week, Farage declared on GB News that ‘NatWest CEO Dame Alison Rose, NatWest Group chairman Howard Davies and Coutts CEO Peter Flavel have all failed. Frankly, they should all go.’

Rose and Flavel have now gone. Will Davies be next?

The Guardian issues awkward Seamus Heaney correction

The Irish poet Seamus Heaney had a brilliant way with words, so you would almost certainly want his thoughts on the passing of the Irish singer Sinead O’Connor, who died this week.

Perhaps that’s why the Guardian decided to quote the poet paying tribute in their obituary for the singer yesterday. The paper wrote, ‘Seamus Heaney, the renowned Irish poet, tweeted: “A great Irish poet and singer left us today. She was beautiful, courageous and wore her heart on her sleeve.’”

A lovely tribute indeed. But with only one problem: Heaney died a decade ago in 2013, and certainly didn’t tweet about Sinead O’Connor yesterday.

So what happened? Did the Guardian decide to pull out an ouija board to communicate with the long-dead poet, rather than doing the normal job of quoting living musicians and critics? Or could poetry lovers perhaps dream of a Heaney resurrection?

Unfortunately not. Instead, it turns out the paper had been quoting a fan account, rather than the actual poet. All of which is quite impressive considering that Heaney was perhaps Ireland’s most famous cultural export in the last 50 years.

Eventually the paper caught on, and belatedly issued the following correction:

‘This article was amended on 26 July 2023. Owing to an editing error, an earlier version included a tribute to Sinéad O’Connor from a Twitter fan account dedicated to Seamus Heaney, who died in 2013.’

Heaney once said that the ‘the gift of writing is to be self-forgetful’. Mr S is glad to see the Guardian following his advice so well…

Meghan, Harry and the truth about sexist adverts

Do Harry and Meghan need rescuing from their Montecito mansion? Being part of the royal family and living among California’s elite makes for a rarefied existence. But it appears that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex lack all access to the newspapers, films, television shows or websites that could provide clues about life beyond the perimeter fence. For surely only social isolation can explain their latest focus on pushing advertisers to ‘break the gender binary’.

Harry and Meghan have thrown their support behind Equimundo, a charity that ‘works to promote gender equality’. Its newly-released ‘State of the World’s Fathers’ report calls on the media to ‘portray men and boys as caring and competent’ and, more specifically, to show ‘men doing cooking and cleaning and women doing tasks like mowing the lawn or fixing the sink’. Equimundo also wants better representation of ‘diverse family formations, including LGBTQIA+ parents and non-nuclear families’.

Equimundo might have a slick website but those in charge are clearly stuck in the 1950s. They appear to imagine a world where the only contribution fathers make to housework is occasionally washing the car while mums, on the other hand, rarely leave the kitchen. What’s more, the charity’s researchers assume we live like this because it’s what we see on screen. In this ‘monkey see, monkey do’ world, us ignoramuses task women with household chores because that’s what adverts tell us to do.

The Equimundo researchers clearly missed the recent adverts from cosmetics company Maybelline featuring bearded men experimenting with lipstick. They didn’t see the #MeToo-inspired Gillette campaign which aimed to sell razors by urging men to behave better. Or Nike’s sports bra advertisements featuring transgender Dylan Mulvaney.

They also evidently didn’t see the RAF recruitment adverts that show women ready for combat. Or the Dove deodorant campaigns promoting female body positivity. Or the Twix advert featuring a boy in a dress. In fact, they seem to have slept through pretty much every single advert produced in the past decade which focuses on challenging sexism and promoting diversity as much as selling a product.

Indeed, the UK’s Advertising Standards Agency outright banned adverts with stereotypes ‘that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence’ in 2019, effectively ruling out any commercials that might show men and women engaged in gender-stereotypical activities. This heavy-handed interference was unnecessary. Advertising agencies were already tripping over themselves to prove their woke credentials.

The emphasis on diversity means we are far more likely to see multiracial or same sex couples on screen than in real life. It can seem as if the only role for straight white men in today’s adverts is to have their toxic masculinity corrected through the purchase of the right brand of razor or deodorant.

Just this week we learnt that five of Britain’s biggest advertising companies are members of a network set up by activists from Stop Funding Hate, a campaign group that orchestrates boycotts of media outlets including the Sun, the Express, the Mail and GB News. Its newly-launched ‘Conscious Advertising Network’ aims to break the ‘economic link’ between advertising and ‘harmful content’. This means that adverts will preach gender equality but only on approved sites, in order to defund – and ultimately censor – outlets deemed politically unacceptable. 

Tell copywriters that ‘you have to see it to be it’ and you get mini-despots who think it falls to them to override democracy and re-programme society. The upshot is that at least one creative consultancy has warned that advertisers risk losing touch with consumers and being perceived as telling audiences ‘how to think’. Research for the Pull Agency, conducted in 2022, found that 60 per cent of those asked did not feel ‘well represented’ in adverts. 

Yet the researchers at Equimundo – and, it seems, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – seem utterly oblivious to all of this. In a statement released on their Archewell website, Harry and Meghan say they are ‘proud to have supported this report, as well as Equimundo’s continued work to promote gender equality around the globe’. They go on to express concern about the ‘deeply ingrained social norms’ that discourage men from becoming more involved in caregiving.

Why argue for gender stereotype-subverting adverts when they are already so deeply entrenched within our media landscape that there is a growing consumer backlash? Perhaps Meghan is seeking a return to her glory days. When she was 11-years old, the precocious future Duchess wrote a letter to Proctor and Gamble to complain about a sexist washing-up liquid advert. She has dined out on the anecdote ever since.

Or perhaps Harry and Meghan really do live in a Montecito bubble of old school sexism. After all, Meghan’s current status comes primarily through marriage and motherhood. If she wasn’t Harry’s wife, few would care what she thinks about gender equality or any other issue. If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex want to tackle sexism, they should stop focusing on adverts and look closer to home.

John Howard is right about British colonialism in Australia

Almost sixteen years after he lost office and his own parliamentary seat, former Australian Liberal prime minister John Howard is still an influential political figure. Idolised by the right and demonised by the left, when Howard speaks, Australians still take notice.

When Howard spoke to the Australian newspaper to mark his 84th birthday this week, he told home truths as he sees them, in his trademark plain language style. The focus of Howard’s interview was the Australian Labor government’s drive to change the nation’s constitution to give Aborigines a race-based ‘Voice to parliament’.

This would be a representative body of Aborigines, elected by Aborigines, to ‘advise’ the parliament and executive government on legislative and policy matters that may affect their communities. Changing the Australian constitution requires a referendum carried by a majority of four of the six states, as well as a majority of voters.

This required double majority ensures there have been very few changes to the constitution in the 123 years of its existence. One of them, however, was a 1967 proposal to recognise Aborigines by empowering the federal government to legislate for their needs. It was carried overwhelmingly by all states and 91 per cent of the compulsory vote.

The Voice – as it’s universally called in Australia – was the product of a declaration known as the ‘Uluru (Ayers Rock) Statement from the Heart’, a reform manifesto created by a convention of Aboriginal leaders and activists. The noble aim of the declaration was to improve Australia’s ability as a nation to redress intractable and disgraceful social, health and economic disadvantages suffered by far too many of the three per cent of Australians claiming Aboriginal heritage. It is generally supported by mainstream Australians.

Committed to by current prime minister Anthony Albanese on the night of his 2022 election, the referendum on the Voice has, however, been a bitterly divisive issue ever since. Those in favour argue that it is an essential prerequisite to redressing Aboriginal disadvantage and disempowerment, is what Aboriginal leaders have been asking for, and simply is ‘the right thing to do’.

Those against assert that while it is well-intentioned, the Voice will favour one racial group above all others, will not guarantee practical outcomes benefiting Aboriginal communities. They argue that, in the absence of detail, it will give a very small proportion of Australians potential vetoes over wide swathes of legislation and public policy, and could leave government decisions tied up in the courts if the Voice’s advice isn’t followed.

As for the referendum itself, Albanese has been badly spooked by Australia’s 1999 republic referendum, which failed due to a split amongst republicans over the model of government presented. As such, he has campaigned hard for the Voice as constitutional ‘recognition’ of Aborigines (as if 1967 never happened) while avoiding, at all costs, questions about what the Voice will look like and how it will work.

For Albanese, and pro-Voice activists, this vacuum of detail is proving fatal. Opinion polls indicate that Voice support is sliding from overwhelming majorities a year ago to the point where the referendum would now be lost both in the public and state votes.

Voters are increasingly following what former Labor prime minister Paul Keating once said of a Liberal proposal for an Australian VAT: ‘If you don’t understand it, don’t vote for it’. But that reasonable position is scorned by many pro-Voice activists, who not only have poured invective and vitriol on prominent opponents, but haven’t hesitated to imply that anyone who votes against the Voice is racist.

Enter John Howard. Speaking to the Australian, Howard characterised the race-based Voice debate as divisive, bitter and, above all, avoidable. ‘Shouldn’t we just be sitting down talking to each other?’, he asked. ‘Not about the Voice, not about reparations, not about treaties, but just talking about how to lift up Aboriginal people, and put them in the mainstream of the community, finding out ways of doing it. It’s going to be hard. It’s going to take a long time. It’s going to be less successful than we would like. But why are we doing this to ourselves?’

Howard went still further and addressed an elephant in the post-Black Lives Matter room: Britain’s colonisation of Australia almost 250 years ago. In Australia, as in some other former British colonies, activists are urging reparations for past injustices against native peoples. While his comments were denounced by his critics, including the BBC in its negative reporting of them and of Howard’s prime ministerial record on Aboriginal issues, Howard simply stated historical reality.

‘I’m totally ­opposed to (reparations). You have to understand that in the 17th, 18th century, colonisation of the land mass of Australia was next to inevitable,’ Howard said.

‘And I do hold the view that the luckiest thing that happened to this country was being colonised by the British. Not that they were perfect by any means, but they were infinitely more successful and beneficent colonisers than other European countries.’

Howard is right in so much that Australia could never have avoided the expansionist sweep of the Age of Empires. Both royalist and Napoleonic France sent expeditions to Australia in the wake of James Cook’s discovery of its east coast in 1770. In Europe’s imperialist 19th century scramble for colonies, had Britain not settled Australia, France or another less liberal continental power would have.

There is, however, no denying the death, disease and dispossession experienced by the first Australians due to British colonisation. But there was never such systematic and government-sanctioned exploitation, enslavement and destruction of native peoples as, for example, Belgium’s Leopold II inflicted on the native peoples of the Congo.

As Howard and another former Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott have pointed out, Australia’s British inheritance – especially constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, an independent judiciary, and the common law – has been a huge factor in modern Australia becoming the stable, prosperous, and successfully diverse society it is. It’s something the near-unanimous outcome of the 1967 Aboriginal recognition referendum highlighted powerfully.

Howard’s intervention in the referendum debate won’t necessarily change minds, but he said what needed saying. It is becoming clear that, unlike 1967, the Voice referendum will be lost or won only narrowly, missing out on the overwhelming majority for either side that is essential for national cohesion.

Whoever wins, the result will be an Australia deeply divided. The popular goodwill towards Aboriginal Australians risks being dangerously eroded, and so much positive work done over decades to alleviate and overcome Aboriginal disadvantage to ‘close the gap’ is in grave danger of being undone.

As Howard asks, if this is the price, is this Voice truly worth it?

Watch: Mitch McConnell freezes at podium

Congress could never be accused of working well at the best of times. But yesterday Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, appeared to be the literal embodiment of political gridlock when he froze mid-sentence during a news conference. The 81-year-old abruptly stopped speaking during the weekly Republican leadership media session before being led away by colleagues.

The longtime Kentucky Senator fell silent and stared straight ahead for about 20 seconds, as colleagues nervously enquired as to his health. ‘You OK, Mitch?’ asked Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, an ex-orthopaedic surgeon. ‘Anything else you want to say or should I escort you back to your office?’ he added. After sitting down in his office for several minutes, McConnell later returned to the press conference and continued to answer questions from the media.

Asked about what happened, McConnell merely said he was ‘fine’, with an aide later briefing the press that he had merely felt ‘light-headed.’ Mr S doubts that’s the last we’ll hear of this…

Netanyahu’s judicial reforms are not the end of Israeli democracy

Watching Israel tear itself apart this week has been like seeing your best friend embarrass himself at a party. The world has looked on while the Netanyahu government, in hock to a small cabal of religious chauvinists, pushed through the first stage of its judicial reform agenda, sparking the biggest street protests the country has ever seen. Whatever happened to the start-up nation?

Last night and this morning was the Jewish fast of Tisha B’Av, which commemorates the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the subsequent exile from Israel. To mark it, firebrand minister Itamar Ben-Gvir visited the Western Wall to the sound of messianic songs before provocatively ascending Temple Mount, the place where tensions are highest. He has described the passing of the legislation this week as the ‘salad course’ before the main meal, which if served in its entirety, would profoundly change the face of the country.

Around the world, Jews have looked on in horror. Netanyahu, who is facing corruption charges, has been reduced to relying on fringe extremists to prop up his coalition government (supporters of proportional representation take heed).

First on the agenda has been taming the power of the Supreme Court, which acts as the sole check on the parliament, the Knesset, since the Israeli system is unicameral and has no equivalent of the House of Lords or Senate. Netanyahu’s allies have been planning to pass a new law to protect a prime minister from criminal charges for as long as he remains in office. It doesn’t look good.

Yet the right-wing has a point. The government has no ability to control the appointment of Supreme Court judges, and they tend to be drawn from a pool of liberal, Ashkenazi elites. This regularly sets the court on a collision course with the government; right-wingers have long believed, not without evidence, that its activities are politically motivated.

Over the years, judges have repeatedly blocked legislation to retroactively legalise West Bank settlements, curtail military obligations upon the strictly Orthodox, and place African asylum seekers in detention centres pending deportation. It is the equivalent of British courts preventing the government from enacting its Rwanda plans or pushing through Brexit, only in Britain, judges are not entitled to overrule parliament.

Some of the Israeli court’s interventions have used a ‘reasonableness’ principle, meaning that it was empowered to strike out moves that it perceived as ‘unreasonable’. It was this mechanism that was overturned by the government this week.

It is difficult to imagine that the leaders of any country would be overjoyed at seeing their policy agenda thwarted on such a subjective basis by unelected judges that slant to the left. Yet the fact that extremists are powering the drive for reform, together with the cloud of – as yet unproven – charges hanging over the head of the prime minister, gives the whole operation a nasty smell. 

For those on my side of the argument, the game used to be simple. Defend the Jewish state against the rampant Israelophobia that infects so many elements of society, from social media to the BBC. Now, however, the country’s dirty laundry is out in the open, and we are called upon to voice our criticism louder than ever before. This feels more than a little uncomfortable.

The discomfort comes not because we are blind to Israel’s faults, but because those shouting loudest about the country’s descent into chaos are often doing so in bad faith. To commentators in the grip of Israelophobia, this is the fulfilment of their bigoted assumptions: Israel’s stable, liberal democracy and support of women and minorities never sat happily against their bigotry. Now they can accuse it of sliding into autocracy, they are at peace. After all, these are Jews we’re talking about.

So while those of us who love the country and the western, liberal values it represents wring our hands, others rub theirs together. The last thing we want to do is stand beside them. As Howard Jacobson wrote in a recent essay, the fact that the ambitions of Zionism, to ‘avert imminent catastrophe, to rejuvenate a too long confused and slumbering faith, to chart a course between aggressive assimilation and timorous isolationism, to live in peace with neighbours, have not yet, in all instances, achieved their goals’, leads to a deep disappointment. 

But, he adds, ‘don’t let the disappointments of now distort the ambitions of then. Just because iniquity appears sometimes to be its fruit does not mean that Zionism was iniquitous in its planting’. When dreams fail to match reality, we weep; but there are those who do not weep, but rather gloat and agitate and attack. They are among those who wanted to see the dream blighted in the first place.

For this reason, it is important to cut through the hysteria. Without at all downplaying the grave situation in the Holy Land, this is not the end of Israeli democracy. Even if the entire agenda of the current government is implemented – which I for one pray does not occur – the country would still be the most open and democratic in the Middle East. The catastrophising comes from the Israeli left, which was marching against Netanyahu long before the current crisis, amplified by those Israelophobes around the world who have latched onto the chaos with the particular glee of wish-fulfillment.

Setting aside the unpleasant characters influencing the government, Israel’s political system does need reform. In the absence of both a written constitution and a second parliamentary chamber, unelected judges have gradually assumed more and more power, beginning with its activist president Aharon Barak in the nineties. Memories of the Brexit wars of 2016, when judges blocked Theresa May’s attempts to trigger Article 50, show the populist fury that is evoked when judges frustrate the ‘will of the people’. The can has been kicked down the road since 1948. 

There is, however, a profound lesson in all this. Over the last two thousand years, Jews have been both hated as the Christ-killers and elevated as the Chosen People. Christianity made the Jewish homeland the Holy Land, the Jewish city the Holy City, and a Jewish prophet the Son of God. This has been the foundation of western civilisation and culture, with Jews both held to higher standards and derided, seen as a toxic blend of Übermenschen and Untermenschen, often with blood-soaked results. It is not difficult to see how Israelophobia, the latest form of antisemitism, fits into all this.

In truth, however, the Jews have always been a people like any other, and their country is a normal country: exceptional in many ways, flawed in many others, but a product of frail humanity, like the rest of the world. The current political crisis gripping the Jewish state is deeply disturbing, but it does not mean the end of democracy, and it does not mean that Israel is evil, any more than Britain’s turbulent political history did. It means that it is simply a real place. Not an idealised vision. 

As the Zionist icon Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote in 1911: ‘We are a people as all other peoples; we do not have any intention to be better than the rest. As one of the first conditions of equality we demand the right to have our own villains, exactly as other people have them.’ Given the villains in Israel today, these words ring truer today than ever. But – take heart! – they are vastly outnumbered by the decent majority. Take the bigotry out of the picture and the hysteria fades as well.

Israelophobia: The newest version of the oldest hatred, by Jake Wallis Simons (Constable, £12.99), is out in September and can be pre-ordered now

Why the SNP lost its supporters — and how it can win them back again

Since 2011, the SNP has undergone a meteoric rise from underdog to Scotland’s natural party of government. It’s a transformation I helped design, through innovating the digital strategy of the party. However eight years of Nicola Sturgeon’s rule has fostered an era of indolence and self-deception over policy and independence. As Humza Yousaf embarks on his ‘summer of independence’ campaign (which started in Dundee this past weekend), it becomes ever more important to reflect on the stagnation of support for independence.

Instead of good governance and progress towards independence, it appears some SNP politicians have relished the trappings of power more than in serving the electorate who put them there. In the final years of Sturgeon’s time in office, the party was transfixed by divisive ‘woke’ politics, not least her disastrous gender bill reforms. But, for her critics, the warnings signs about Sturgeon’s political nous were there much earlier. Despite Brexit (which only 38 per cent of Scots voted for), Boris Johnson and serial Westminster sleaze, Nicola Sturgeon succeeded mostly in splitting the independence movement, undermining faith in the party and leaving the nation bickering over fundamental realities. What is a woman, eh?

In fact, ideological bandwidth narrowed sharply under Sturgeon. Detractors were sidelined while a legion of loyal coteries occupied every nook of the party’s apparatus, resistant to change or self-critique. The SNP presented itself as the sole ‘owner’ of independence but in reality the party lacked strategy. Instead, it was paralysed by timidity and inertia and all the while exploiting loyalists’ fidelity for electoral gain.

The weekend just gone is not the first time this year that Yousaf has gathered crowds in Dundee to talk about independence. Attendees at the recent ‘independence convention’ held in the city witnessed a terrific speech by the First Minister. Had his referendum plan been as clear as his slick delivery, voters could have left more confident in Scotland’s prospects for self-determination. 

It wasn’t just the vagueness of Yousaf’s plan that left nationalist voters confused. The SNP’s decision not to involve the Yes movement, to not even acknowledge that there exist many non-members who can still progress the cause, has isolated disillusioned indy supporters who no longer feel at home in the SNP. 

Indeed, I was taken aback by the hostility directed towards me from former SNP colleagues, many of whom I helped into office. Perhaps my involvement in establishing the pro-independence Alba Party upset them – or maybe the animosity was because I advise Ash Regan MSP, who significantly changed the direction of the party’s leadership contest (and by seeking transparency and clarity, she has, as a result, been labelled a disruptor by many). But whatever bugbears some in the party may have, it is imperative that the SNP must broaden its church once more before these tactical contortions permanently warp Scotland’s independence prospects.

Westminster doesn’t make things easy: its constitutional obstinacy requires creativity to work around it, but Yousaf’s insistence to cling on to a continuity agenda – which is what this new proposal is, no matter how it has been described by the party – hints at a leadership bereft of new ideas with the short-sighted end-goal of simply retaining seats. In fact, the main source of radical thought in the Scottish government comes, concerningly, from the Scottish Greens. This partnership has seen the Scottish government imposing policies at odds with both public opinion and views held by a number of SNP politicians, let alone the party membership. To continue to allow the Greens so much power will only continue to undermine the Scottish National Party, and further fracture the independence movement.

The UK government will always wield the card of chaos in resisting constitutional change. Its tactical warnings can, however, serve as useful reminders: transition requires meticulous planning. The Scottish government needs to commence essential preparations now, to install public confidence in the nation’s readiness – even in the face of today’s news that Westminster is planning to ‘sanction’ the SNP government for spending money on independence. Nationalist voters should be presented with an established permanent mechanism that presents a ballot box victory as a demand for independence negotiations to begin. 

And the SNP must renew its purpose while sincerely embracing the wider Yes movement: it is vital the party liberates itself from partisan rancour and constitutional fatalism. The party faithful will not wait indefinitely, and nor should they. The SNP’s modus operandi of internal avoidance and external scapegoating must be eliminated in favour of reconciliation and collaboration with pro-independence allies.

It isn’t true either that the party is completely unaware of the problems that face it. Angus MacNeil’s decision to leave the Westminster SNP group over the unseriousness of the party’s stance on independence spotlights the malaise. SNP ‘rebel’ Fergus Ewing voted for the no confidence motion in circular economy minister and Scottish Green co-leader Lorna Slater – a bold move that hinted at the dissatisfaction of some SNP politicians with the levels of power awarded to the Greens. Ash Regan has called for the inclusion of other pro-independence groups in independence discussions. It’ll come as no surprise that I believe she’s right: no one holds the deed to Scotland’s future except the people of Scotland and independence demands broad appeal, transcending factional and party loyalties. While Yousaf’s independence convention in Dundee was a step in the right direction, a formal cross party convention should be established in order to democratise the independence movement. 

With independence support marooned around 50 per cent, no one can afford complacency. To break the logjam, partisan egos must be sacrificed for the greater good: wounds must heal and efforts redoubled. Snarky nonsense poisoning public discourse (not irregularly coming from pro-independence politicians) only fosters public division when unity is paramount. While there remains uncertainty over process, what is clear is that independence will never be delivered via grievance, slander or victimhood.

Scotland’s destiny requires a clear vision that can dissolve, not exacerbate, doubt and fear. The SNP would do well to remember that voters yearn for clarity on how their lives would improve in an independent Scotland, not finger-pointing between or within political parties. This is simple. The First Minister shouldn’t feel any loyalty to the systems of continuity that have caused the SNP to become unstuck.

If Yousaf is to achieve any success by his ‘summer of independence’ campaign, to reel disillusioned independence voters back in, he must first start by bridging the gap between the SNP and the wider Yes movement. Forget breaking up the UK – if nationalist politicians can’t swallow their pride and overcome divisions among themselves, the independence movement risks falling apart – at least until a new generation of leaders emerges to replace those too obstinate to adapt.

The damage of Covid lockdowns is only now becoming apparent

There are still those, like Matt Hancock, who think that lockdowns were an unalloyed good – who, indeed, believe that in a future pandemic we must lock down harder and faster. But for the rest of us, the appalling toll of Covid lockdowns continues to become apparent. 

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) reveals today that the number of people who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness has grown by 400,000 to 2.5 million since 2019. More than half of these people – 1,350,000 – report depression and anxiety as either the primary or secondary cause of their absence from the workplace. 

The pandemic has left us with virtually zero economic growth, much of which is blamed on high inflation and rising interest rates. But an important underlying cause too often goes without comment: a sharp rise in economic inactivity. 

We cannot grow richer as a country if ever more people are unproductive. Yet the figures for economic inactivity tend to get smothered by the more frequently-reported unemployment statistics. Since the 1990s, these have been based on answers to the Labour Force Survey (an ONS questionnaire) and do not include people on long-term sickness benefits.

Meanwhile, the Centre for Social Justice has published its latest termly tracker of school absence for the autumn term of 2022, showing that school attendance has not even nearly recovered from repeated lockdowns. It reveals that 1.7 million pupils – 24 per cent of the total – missed more than 10 per cent of their lessons. Meanwhile 125,000 pupils missed more than half their lessons. This latter figure has more than doubled since before the pandemic; by contrast it was 60,000 in the same term of 2019.      

The implications of all this for society are still fully to be felt. There is a long-established link between school absence and the descent into crime. The rise in school absences suggests that there could be an extra 9,000 young offenders, 2,000 of them violent criminals, by 2027.      

Yet where is the outrage over these figures? The scandal of school absences hardly shows up in the news agenda. Disgracefully, the whole issue of missed education was pushed aside by artificially inflated exam grades in 2020 and 2021, when GCSE and A level results were based on teachers’ predictions for their pupils, not on actual exam results. On paper we have a generation which looks extremely well-educated – yet which in reality has huge gaps in its education.

The government’s considered pandemic plan prior to Covid 19 was not to close schools. But, come March 2020, advisers and ministers panicked, dumped the plan and imposed lockdown, closing schools for months on end. We will be living with the consequences for a very long time.

Why do we forget Britain’s role in the Korean War?

Today marks the 70th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice. Sadly, in the British media it will be forgotten that Great Britain and its Commonwealth forces, roughly some 104,000 troops in total, were America’s junior partner in the United Nations force that took on the defence of South Korea.

The United Nations’ call to arms was made possible by the absence of a veto from the Soviet Union (which had temporarily walked out of the UN assembly because of its refusal to recognize the People’s Republic of China). It became necessary after Kim Il Sung, the revolutionary founder and leader of the communist Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and grandfather of the country’s current leader Kim Jung Un, invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.

In terms of British military lives lost, the Korean War accounted for 1,129 deaths, making it the third most costly since the second world war. Only the Malayan Emergency (1,442 deaths) and ‘the Troubles’ in Northern Ireland (1,441 deaths) brought more British military casualties. The British Army’s losses were, apart from Turkey with 720 deaths, second only to those of the United States’ 33,629 military deaths and were twice as high as any of the thirteen other countries that joined the United Nations force in Korea. 

To put it in context, more British troops died in Korea than in the conflicts of the Falklands War (237) the Gulf War (45), Balkans War (72), Afghan War (457) and Iraq War (178) combined. In addition, Commonwealth forces suffered heavy losses: Korean War deaths included 339 Australians, 516 Canadians, 45 New Zealanders and 37 South Africans. Other countries’ contingents, including Turkey, France, Greece, Columbia, Netherlands, Thailand, Belgium and the Philippines, lost 1,733 soldiers. The media inattention to the Korean War is even more surprising because, unlike the Malayan Emergency, it was not an insurgency but a significant Cold War superpower conflict which cost the lives of an estimated 1.5 million civilians and 927,000 combatants.

Nevertheless the start of the war did pique the interest of the British intelligentsia. Malcom Muggeridge, the Manchester Guardian journalist who did much to publicise the horrors of the mass starvation caused by Soviet collectivisation, was on holiday in Monte Carlo when the war broke out and rushed back to the UK in panic. In his diary he wrote that people were ‘frenziedly following the Korean news’. Similarly, the novelist Graham Greene reported that people were transfixed about ‘whether the war is on or off in Korea’. No doubt many feared that this would be the start of a third world war.

Soon however, a war-weary British public slouched into general apathy. The Korean War became known as ‘the Forgotten War’. As William Swarbrick of 20th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, recalled:

When I came home after being away for 12 months there was no home coming party. When I met friends and they said that they hadn’t seen me for a while, I told them I had been to Korea. They usually asked where it was in the world. I don’t think that many people knew about the Korean War….

Of course, all wars get forgotten but some get forgotten more than others. In the case of the Korean War, one wonders why? It was not as if there were no pulsating events or larger than life characters involved. On the communist side, key decision makers included Stalin, Mao and the chief instigator of the war Kim Il Sung, who had managed to persuade his superpower backers to come to his aid.

On South Korea’s side, the UN forces were commanded by the narcissistic monomaniac, American General Douglas MacAthur. President Harry Truman hooked him out of Tokyo, where he was was working on the post-war reconstruction of Japan in his position as the supreme commander of the Allied powers.

In a flanking naval landing manoeuvre at the Battle of Inchon, MacArthur broke out of the North’s containment of UN forces at Pusan and put Kim Il Sung’s army to flight. It was the one unquestionably brilliant victory of an otherwise questionable military career. Not surprisingly given his character, MacArthur overplayed his hand. He was sacked in spectacular fashion by President Harry Truman for trying to expand the war to China by taking his forces, against explicit orders, up to the Yalu River which delineated the Korean border with China.

On 1 November 1950, a patrol of the 8th US Cavalry reported being under attack from unidentified troops. Seemingly without notice, waves of Chinese troops wearing padded cotton tunics had appeared out of the mists. MacArthur had foolishly ignored the warning given by Mao’s foreign minister Zhou Enlai that if the UN crossed the 38th parallel, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would attack.

As ever, it was a war of misunderstandings. During Mao’s visit to Moscow in December 1949, Stalin told him that the Americans were too afraid to fight another war. In fact, the US response was instantaneous. ‘By God I’m going to let them have it,’ President Truman stormed when he learnt of Kim Il Sung’s invasion of the South. After losing China to communism in 1949, a failure for which he was being blamed by a Republican-controlled Congress, Truman had no option but to combat what was seen as a further global expansion of Soviet influence.

Misunderstandings even took place among the UN allies. At the Battle of Imjin River, English Brigadier Tom Brodie of the Gloucester regiment was part of a 12-mile front held by the 29th British Independent Brigade. When he told his American commander that ‘Things are a bit sticky, sir,’ his classic English understatement led to the Gloucesters being unsupported and stranded on Hill 235.

Led by Cornishman Colonel James Carne, the surviving Gloucesters defied three whole Chinese divisions comprising 27,000 troops and were credited preventing the fall of Seoul to the communists. For his part in the legendary episode, Carne was awarded a Victoria Cross, as was Lt. Philip Curtis of the Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry, albeit posthumously.

A British film of this heroic action, A Hill in Korea (1956) is as forgotten as the war itself; a pity since it gave early screen credits to later film stars such as Stanley Baker, Robert Shaw and Michael Caine, himself a Korean War veteran. Caine, a national service infantryman in the 1st Fusiliers would later recall the horrific nature of the war:

Thousands of Chinese advancing toward our positions, led by troops of demonic trumpet players. The artillery opened up but they still came on, marching toward our machine guns and certain death.

Caine, a communist sympathiser before the war, Caine became a determined anti-communist afterwards.

The thin British cultural residue of the Korean war compares unfavourably with America and indeed China. America has the iconic black comedy series M*A*S*H about a US Army medical unit. There is also the brilliant John Frankenheimer cold war thriller The Manchurian Candidate (1962), which plays on the fact that captured American and British troops were brainwashed by the Chinese.

Meanwhile Xi Jin Ping’s China has recently used the Korean War to plug Chinese nationalism. The film The Battle of Lake Changjin (2021), the costliest production in Chinese history, celebrates an epic Chinese victory won at appalling cost as the PLA drove the Americans back from the Yalu River.

To western historians, this episode of the war is known as the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. It was a valiantly fought retreat. Though when an American war reporter asked 1st Marines Major General O.P. Smith whether his surrounded forces were retreating, he supposedly replied, ‘Retreat, Hell…we’re just attacking in another direction.’ Fought in windchill temperatures of -70^o C, the Battle of Chosin Reservoir has been described as the coldest battle in history.

Despite its memorable personalities and epic battles, there will be no VE Day or VJ Day type celebrations on Thursday. Labour party amnesia on the subject is understandable: the Korean War, which was endorsed by Prime Minister Clement Attlee, eventually split the party. There were concerns not only that a rising defence budget would impinge on welfare spending but also that participation in the war would be perceived as imperialistic. Some on the left, of course, were pro-communist.

When Sir Winston Churchill returned to power in 1951, he twisted the knife. In defending himself against charges of warmongering in his statements to the US Congress, Churchill responded, ‘We have only followed and conformed to the policy for which the late government were responsible.’ Aneurin (Nye) Bevan and 56 other Labour MPs voted against rearmament. It was the first major Labour-Conservative split on foreign policy since the ending of World War II. Nye Bevan’s resignation from the Labour party in 1951 hobbled it for a decade.

That the BBC will not be celebrating the armistice on Thursday will therefore come as no surprise. Instead, the corporation’s ‘wokerati’ will celebrate a historical cause much closer to their hearts: a BBC 2 documentary called David Harewood on Blackface.

The fact is that the Korean War does not, as Dr. Grace Huxford, lecturer in modern history at Bristol University and author of The Korean War in Britain (2018), points out, fit neatly into the historical narrative of Britain’s post-war reconstruction. For the left in particular, the building of a welfare state and the creation of the National Health Service are the issues that count in post-war British history.

Dr Huxford also notes that the Korean War highlights ‘Britain’s increasing redundancy on the world stage’. This may explain why the Korean War and its British casualties are as much orphaned on the political right as on the left. A perusal of the website of the Conservative MP for Gloucester, Richard Graham, gives no indication that he will be celebrating the heroic actions of the ‘Glorious Gloucesters’ on Thursday’s Korean War Armistice Day anniversary. Neither do there appear to be any plans for celebrations by the British government, our defence minister, Ben Wallace, or the embassy in Seoul.

By contrast, according to the North Korean Central News Agency, both China and Russia are sending senior delegations to Pyongyang. The Russian delegation will be led by defence minister Sergei Shoigu in a ‘congratulatory visit’ for what is falsely described as North Korea’s victory in the ‘Grand Fatherland Liberation War’.

Today’s anniversary is a celebration by the communist superpower allies, which only serves to underline Britain’s shameful neglect of its participation in the Korean War. Britain’s Korean War dead and their families deserve better.

Football fans’ loyalty no longer lies with clubs, but players

The world’s top footballers now have a bigger following than the clubs they play for. Fans are beginning to support superstar players as they move around from club to club rather than sticking with a team – and this threatens the very foundations of the sport.

Streaming and social media are largely to blame. After Pelé signed for the New York Cosmos in the mid-1970s, only 40,000 US football enthusiasts would flock to the old Giants’ stadium. Earlier this month when Lionel Messi joined Inter Miami in Florida, the club’s co-owner David Beckham claimed that Messi’s unveiling had 3.5 billion views online. Such a feat was unthinkable only a couple of years ago and it means that players like Messi develop into megastars with their own gravitational pull.

The growth of international broadcasting and the social media boom means more and more fans can follow their heroes from breakfast to training, matchday to holiday, and ultimately, club to club. Old loyalties are being challenged as younger fans experience the game in a completely new way.

It’s unrealistic to expect these star-struck fans to choose a team over a player. Around 12 million football lovers in South Korea, nearly a quarter of the population, have picked Tottenham. They have no particular attachment to north London or the 140-year-old club that calls it home. But the country’s biggest celebrity, Heung-Min Son, scores goals there. When Tottenham matches are broadcast in South Korea, there’s an icon above the scorecard to show whether he is playing or not. One of Tottenham’s players, Eric Dier, was vilified on Korean social media after he was caught on camera arguing with Son. These fans are loyal to their compatriot, not the club. If Son is transferred, they’ll follow him without a backward look at Tottenham.

You can’t blame the players. They’re professionals and will move when they’re sold, uprooting their families’ lives. What’s changed is that they take droves of fans with them. In 2018, when Cristiano Ronaldo swapped Real Madrid for Juventus, the Italian club sold $60 million worth of shirts in 24 hours, more than half the amount that they’d sold in the entire previous season. Ronaldo is the most followed person on Instagram and recently overtook a Kardashian to become the highest-paid on the platform. Around 600 million people refresh their feeds every day to get an insight into his life, some 100 million more than his rival Messi, who’s the second most followed. Ronaldo’s branding is just as important as his footballing prowess.

For his most recent transfer in January, Ronaldo went to the Saudi Arabian team Al-Nassr. Few people had ever heard of the club, yet it still sold $50 million worth of kits in two days. Al-Nassr put Ronaldo straight to work. Within two weeks he fronted a Riyadh All-Star XI against Messi’s then club, Paris Saint-Germain. Some critics questioned why an exhibition match was being played during an intense mid-season. Ronaldo and Messi’s fans didn’t seem to care. Millions watched the world’s two best footballers go head to head. The fact that the fixture had nothing at stake didn’t matter. Fans wanted to see the players, not the teams.

But this comes at a cost. Football has had a century or more of club support built around local communities, with loyalty often passed down from father to son. If we lose this inherited loyalty, we lose the joy and despair that come with following a team through thick and thin, through decades of failure as well as glory.

Back in America, the football league can’t wait to put Messi in its all-star team. The execs are eyeing up a rematch between Messi and Riyadh’s Ronaldo. This time the fixture will have two made-up teams playing a match that doesn’t matter. Many see it as the Harlem Globetrottification of football.

It’s no wonder really that such players have been co-opted into the ranks of American stardom. At Messi’s debut in Miami, US sporting royalty turned up to see him score a last-minute winner. American football’s Tom Brady, tennis’s Serena Williams and basketball’s LeBron James cheered him on. LeBron, by the way, is his sport’s most popular player by some margin – and in the National Basketball Association (NBA) too, more than a quarter of fans are more loyal to a player than their club. Two in five would prefer their favourite star to be crowned ‘Most Valued Player’ than their team to win the NBA championship. These attitudes have slowly defanged the leagues and weakened traditional club rivalries in American sports. Devotion to a team – which for centuries has been a (largely) peaceful way of channelling our tendency towards tribalism – is disappearing.

It’s the younger supporters who are most susceptible. The European Club Association found that of the people who followed football ‘for the player’, the majority were aged between 13 and 35. It explains why in England almost half of 16- to 24-year-olds support at least two teams and a third follow three or more. And with so much money being used to build the Saudi league, the number of star players leaving Europe will only accelerate.

Paris Saint-Germain have just accepted a £260 million bid from another Riyadh-based club, Al Hilal, for their ace striker Kylian Mbappé. His new club have reportedly offered him a world-record salary of £605 million. However, the Saudis know they’ll be buying a large chunk of Mbappé’s hundreds of millions of social media followers too. What will become of the clubs who lose their stars this way? It’s hard not to feel the game will lose some of its beauty when the clubs lose their appeal.

Relief Rally put the Ascot heartbreak behind her at Newbury

‘God it’s hot,’ said a Newbury waitress escaping into the lift from rain-soaked crowds jostling in the bars last Saturday. ‘Yes,’ I agreed. ‘It’s steaming.’ ‘Oh no,’ she replied. ‘That’s just the ladies waiting for Tom Jones,’ and the veteran Welsh warbler was indeed scheduled to be the after-racing entertainment.

People go racing for different reasons and for punters one significant clue on Weatherby’s Super Sprint Day was the presence of trainer William Haggas. An invariably courteous interviewee when he is on the premises, the Newmarket maestro is by his own admission not one of those trainers who see jolly slap-up lunches at the races as part of the package they offer. He would rather be at home most times plotting future opportunities for his four-legged clients.

His day began well with Al Aasy winning the ten-furlong Listed Steventon Stakes in the hands of Jim Crowley. The Shadwell-owned six-year-old had earned a reputation for not relishing a battle, which explained why he was allowed to start at 100-30 but he was always going easily and quickened nicely in the final furlong. Said his jockey afterwards: ‘Well, we’ve all been called names sometimes, haven’t we?’ His candid trainer agreed of Al Aasy: ‘Physically he’s been a battle and mentally he’s not straightforward.’ But he added: ‘That’s very satisfying for everyone. They badgered me to run him over a mile and a quarter. I wouldn’t but I finally succumbed.’ What was worth noting was William’s observation that Al Aasy still didn’t look right in his skin but ‘he is coming’. Expect him to be back winning Group races soon.

The worst moment this year for Haggas and his stable jockey Tom Marquand came in the Queen Mary Stakes at Royal Ascot when Relief Rally was beaten a nose by the American filly Crimson Advocate. As her trainer says: ‘She was in front a stride before the line and in front again a stride after but not on the line.’ With a super-quick filly who cost only 58,000 guineas as a yearling it did not take him long to target the Weatherby’s Super Sprint, a race he had won twice before with Superstar Leo and Jargelle. The race that carries £250,000 in prize money has special entry conditions. Instead of conventional handicapping on past performance, weights are allocated so that each horse running carries 1lb less for every £5,000 less than £65,000. With a penalty for wins at Windsor and Salisbury, Relief Rally carried 9st 0lb in Saturday’s race but such was her trainer’s evident confidence that she still seemed a reasonable bet as an even-money favourite in a field of 20, seven of them from the Hannon yard which has sent out 11 previous winners of the speciality event. The Hannon-trained Dapperling made the running but when Tom Marquand brought Relief Rally with a run up the near side, she powered away to win by three lengths. Afterwards Tom declared: ‘My heart was broken at Ascot but it’s been glued back together a bit after that. Winning the Supersprint is a big deal and this filly won’t now be remembered for what happened at Ascot, which is great.’ Her trainer is now aiming her for the Lowther Stakes at York – ‘We need to make her a Stakes winner and then we can enjoy her’ – and the end-of-season sprint in Paris, the Prix de l’Abbaye. If she runs there she is likely to be weighted too low for Tom to be able to make it but Mrs Marquand – one Hollie Doyle – might make an ideal substitute.

Trainers are there to find the best opportunities for their horses but there is a certain irony in that the first two home in this year’s Weatherby’s Super came from the multi-horsepower yards of Haggas and Hannon. The race is framed to give some comparatively cheaper horses – and by implication the smaller-scale yards and less rich owners who patronise them – the chance of a good payday. Relief Rally, however, is owned by Simon Munir and Isaac Souede, largely renowned until now for their high-class chasers and hurdlers, the second-placed Dapperling by large-scale owners Jim and Fitri Hay. Divide their assets by the number you first thought of and the four popular owners would almost certainly still pass the qualifying mark for an account at Coutts, their politics permitting.

One handler not at Newbury to see the success of one of his most consistent charges was Michael Dods, the Darlington-based trainer of Commanche Falls and a number of other top sprinters. Three furlongs out in the bet365 Hackwood Stakes, jockey Connor Beasley wasn’t feeling comfortable and had little room for manoeuvre, but when he went for a gap Commanche Falls responded and put his head down to bring the pair an 11th sprinting success together. When I asked him about the trainer’s absence, part-owner Doug Graham replied: ‘Commanche Falls has won us two Stewards’ Cups, a Listed Race in Ireland and now a Group Three, and Michael hasn’t been there for any of them. We’re happy for him to stay away!’

The beauty of a serious Burgundy

It was the English summer at its most perverse. We were drinking Pimm’s while hoping against hope for better news from Old Trafford. As the clock ticked and the rain was unrelenting, one of our number emitted a groan which seemed to start from his boot soles. ‘Why can’t there be a bit of global warming in Manchester?’

The girls were growing restive. ‘I can just about put up with you lot discussing cricket, but not if it’s an excuse to talk about the weather’ was one eloquent complaint. A fair comment, so we changed the subject, while keeping a surreptitious weather eye on Manchester. All unavailing. The caravan of tension now moves on to the Oval. How much more can the human nervous system endure?

The conversation moved on to Anthony Powell. To general surprise, I confessed that he was one of my unreadables, along with Moby-Dick – never got beyond Nantucket – Daniel Deronda and Tristram Shandy, whose ‘jokes’ require a 300-yard run-up. I agreed that the world Powell describes is fascinating, but for me he fails to evoke it. This is no Chips Channon: by Proust, but out of Galsworthy.

Then again, de gustibus. The Anthony Powell Society has produced a little volume containing short pieces about wine. In one extract, Powell complained about a Royal Academy dinner at which the main speaker was Laurie Lee. By the sound of it, he had enjoyed far too extensive a repast to make a good speech. Powell was ready to be unimpressed; ‘Writer whose whimsical autobiographical novels I have found utterly unreadable.’ As regards Cider With Rosie, I concur, but for me As I Walked Out One Midsummer Morning is worth the whole of the Powell oeuvre.

The historical pieces in Anthony Powell on Wine are readable: the extracts from his Journals less so – the prose is covered in a thin film of dust. I remember declining to review them because I had no wish to inflict pain on the old Pooh-Bah and could not have gone further than the faintest of faint praise. One extract reprinted here reads: ‘We got back in time for tea, which was satisfactory.’ That is more than can be said for the editorial decision to reprint such banality. 

Anyway, the washed-out cricket was followed by a treat which washed away the taste of frustration. I have mentioned a rich and secretive Californian friend whom I once steered in the direction of a cellarful of serious Burgundy. He decided that it was time to visit London and inspect his trophies, including a 2002 Chambertin-Clos de Bèze from Armand Rousseau. Though he has no intention of selling any of the treasures, he was delighted with the way they had appreciated in value. Now it was time to check the taste.

When I last drank it, for the first time, I concluded that it was one of the finest wines I had ever drunk, and that the House of Rousseau lived up to its reputation as probably the greatest Burgundian producer of the present era. There was no reason to change one syllable of that verdict.

When my pal first ventured into Burgundy, he did not know much about wine and was surprised to learn that a 20-year-old bottle could be regarded as a promising youngster. I reassured him that his prizes were still approaching their prime, and would remain there for years. I did offer to make regular tasting inspections to check that all was well in the vinous nursery – the favours one does for friends – but he declared that this would be unnecessary. He planned to be in town more regularly. 

We drank other bottles which would be rated excellent in any other company. But that Clos de Bèze deserves to stand on its own: a very high place in my all-time wine XI.

How to increase your home’s value – with a sandwich

It is a tenet of neo-liberal economics that there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is obvious baloney. There are free lunches everywhere. The problem is that those free lunches are no longer served to people doing useful work. They are instead handed out to the owners of a few favoured asset classes through untaxed gains. We have created far more tax breaks for rent-seeking than for productive work… and then we wonder why Britain has a productivity crisis.

I must admit I enjoy a few free lunches myself – literally. I own a small crash-pad in Deal, in what was until recently the undiscovered paradise that is East Kent (suggested slogan: ‘The friendliness of northern England, the climate of northern France’). Every time I arrive, I set off down the high street and splurge on food from several of its many fine delicatessens: heritage tomatoes (£4), olive focaccia bread (£4.95), small-batch coffee (£6.50), that kind of thing. My wife, who has a narrower conception of home economics than I do, will then ask: ‘How much did that all cost?’ And I reply: ‘Nothing at all. In fact I’m probably up on the deal.’

By splashing out on expensive foodstuffs, I help ensure the proliferation of desirable retail outlets in the town. Desirable not only to me but to visitors from London. You see, joining me in the queue for the olive focaccia are two vapid tossers from Fulham visiting for the weekend. And the next day one of them is going to say: ‘Gosh, Jonty, you can buy sourdough here for more than £5 a loaf. I suddenly feel safe. Let’s buy a house here.’ They visit the estate agent next to the place selling hand-crafted orzo, and that’s when my plan pays off.

Cost of lunch – £35. Increase in value of our property – £100. Result – happiness. Indeed my support of mildly overpriced artisan retailers has been so successful that in 2013 the Telegraph named Deal its ‘High Street of the Year’. The only problem is that this increase in my wealth comes at the price of endlessly shifting money from the productive economy to the extractive economy. But it’s the property owner not the bread maker who gets the tax break.

Why is this? My theory is that, since the death of Bernard de Mandeville in 1733, all economists, and by extension everyone in the Treasury and the Bank of England, are by temperament either frugal (they disproportionately enjoy saving) or else are tightwads (they experience disproportionate pain in spending). Adam Smith was a genius, yes, but let’s not forget he lived with his mum. (These are scientific categories: in 2008, the economic psychologist George Loewenstein calculated that about 24 per cent of the population were skinflints – people who find the pain of parting with money so great that they underspend.) Skinflints find it much easier than spendthrifts to attach a spurious moral virtue to their behaviour, resulting in an absurd bias towards encouraging accumulation not consumption.

Why are there no tax breaks for spending as well as saving? We have Pigovian taxes on forms of consumption deemed to be bad: booze, fags, increasingly cars and flights. Yet there are no Mandevillian tax breaks on consumption which brings positive externalities. Under a future Sutherland regime, for instance, there would be no duty paid on beer drunk in a pub. That is because, by drinking in a pub, you are supporting an institution which benefits everyone around you, which by drinking a can of beer at home you are not. After leaving the EU, we are free to do this kind of thing. It’s the man making the focaccia who needs a break, not the person who owns the house next door. Taxing property gains and supporting food makers? Who would do such a thing? Um, Singapore.