Main Edition
US
FR
(Credit: Alberto Pezzali - WPA Pool/Getty)
I wonder if Labour’s governing generalissimos, Morgan McSweeney and Pat McFadden, watched much Christmas telly this year. They might have recognised the strong manly relationship at the heart of Gone Fishing on Christmas Eve. Or shed a tear watching the community spirit infusing Gavin & Stacey: The Finale. But I’m not sure they will have caught the one with the most important lesson about modern life and government today. No, not Die Hard: Tiddler.
In this adaptation of Julia Donaldson’s children’s book, an imaginative little fish is saved by the “tall tales” he makes up to keep him out of trouble. “I was lost, I was scared, but a story led me home again,” he declares. Donaldson describes her story as a celebration of childhood imagination, which encourages kids to lose themselves in their dreams. Yet it strikes me that there’s something deeper going on. Donaldson has written a modern fable of sorts. Across the West, we are more than a little lost. The stories we once told are no longer believed and those we need to tell new ones have lost their power of imagination.
The central conceit of much political analysis today is that there is something called “populism” which tells tall tales to gullible voters in order to win power. Opposing the populists, in this telling, are the “centrists” who deal in facts and figures. We might call this the Alastair Campbell account of modern politics. The irony of this view, though, is that it has become the very thing it thinks it opposes: a comforting but ultimately hollow fantasy.
In one sense, it is possible to understand 2024 as the year the hollowness of this centrist fantasy became so obvious voters couldn’t take it seriously any longer. In France, the story of Emmanuel Macron’s Jupiterian competence is no longer believable even for those who want it to be true. In Germany, meanwhile, the idea that Olaf Scholz could possibly lead a Zeitenwende looks just as ridiculous, as he clings to power desperately casting his opponents as warmongers. In the United States, meanwhile, the extraordinary reality is that Donald Trump cut the more substantive figure in their presidential election than his opponent by having actual policies. Has there ever been a more vacuous candidate in modern presidential history than Kamala Harris? Is anyone today able to say what she actually stood for other than her own ambition and the interests of the Democratic Party?
Here in Britain, meanwhile, the hollowness of our order is exposed by the simple fact that it is simply no longer believable that we are a well-governed country. The deterioration of living standards and public services are too obvious for anyone to be able to make this case with any degree of sincerity. However we define the status quo, it is surely failing. The last time there was a similar breakdown of the legitimacy in our governing order came in the Seventies when a series of crises exposed its failings. For Starmer and his government, the great fear is that the turning point in this story — the 1979 of our own era — was not the election in July, but the one yet to come.
Part of our current dilemma lies in the fact that our world no longer bears witness to the wisdom of the old solutions. On economic questions, for example, the idea of free trade in the era of Chinese industrial power looks increasingly sado-masochistic, especially when shackled to our drive towards Net Zero. There is real panic today in Whitehall at the prospect of imminent industrial collapse which risks fracturing the entire governing consensus around our decarbonising commitment — much as the post-Brexit immigration boom under Boris Johnson similarly robbed the Conservative Party of its legitimacy on that subject.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeExcellent essay. I only take exception to the notion that Starmer is trying to defend the old order. Starmer, and his many compatriots across the globe, have abandoned pragmatism that used to define western liberal democracy, and traded it in for ideological adherence to blindingly obvious irrational policies.
Exactly. Just how did all of the alleged “centrists” go dangerously stupid all at once?
Because they collectively fell for their own lies.
You can argue that people live by the stories or narratives they believe. There are archetypes which are categories of observed patterns of individual behaviour and egregores which arise from the collective thoughts and emotions of a distinct group of individuals.
But archetypes and egregores are abstract, not concrete things. Abstracts are mutable and free to change but people still hang on to the the old narratives as they were once useful fictions.
If you are being charitable then Starmer is just one of the politicians that are hanging on grimly to how the world once worked.
Because Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour all accepted the Blairite consensus: transfer of power from Parliament to quangos and supranational bodies such as the EU, de-industrialisation and dependence on financial services, mass immigration, US policy in the Middle East balanced by privileging the Muslim population in the UK, open trade.
“Excellent essay”?….I have to disagree. Talk about fairytales! In this telling, Right ist populism is juxtaposed with “moral” (but currently failing) Leftism. Leftism has never been moral…. just self -servingly sentimental. For huge numbers ‘on the right’ a moral crusade is precisely what they do want! And the Left is bogged down in “facts and figures”…. Really?
Starmer doesn’t know what he is doing or the scale of the challenge he faces. He is a public servant but not a statesman and he will never be one.
Also, “…embracing his power in a way that indicates a new and far more cynical Western zeitgeist”
What can be more cynical than Blair, Cameron and Johnson, unless you believe telling people the truth and implementing your manifesto commitments is cynical
It is, and always has been, all about immigration. Fancy writers tell fancy stories (which as a fancy reader, I enjoy) but they miss the point. Mass immigration is not like any other policy in that it cannot be undone. Once you have changed the population of your country, it is changed irrevocably. Everyone knows this. That is why the public hate it. And that is the reason for Brexit, Donald Trump, Meloni, Le Pen, the AFD, the fall (death) of the Tories and the rise of Reform. It will cause the fall (death) of Labour in due course and quite possibly, the premiership of Nigel Farage. And if he can’t deliver very low immigration, then he will go too.
In a nutshell.
Exactly, mass immigration is terminal for any country or culture. I went into London yesterday for the first time in a while. I realised I was a ghost both figuratively and literally the world I knew no longer existed and that I no longer existed for the new people who lived there now.
Example of the Tories should be a warning to anyone who tries to pretend to be populist but then brings in mass immigration under the guise that we are only letting in ‘high skilled’ immigrants. It’s a con, and voters will act accordingly. Trump should get Musk, Ramaswamy and H1 enthusiasts back on a leash.
Well…… I can’t disagree with you in relation to today, where this immigration is the product of misuse of the original intention of Asylum – post war idealism – see also UN etc. But the US was built on immigration, though with people with ambitions to go through terrible danger and hardships to build something new for their communities and families, who all adopted the American culture.
what we are suffering now in Europe (not qualified to comment on US), is an immigration into a utterly failed Blairite (that man has a great deal to be held account for) ideology of multiculturalism, which in effect is the clear future of British culture being dominated by elements of alien and hostile culture – viz boys names last year – rather than ambitious newcomers striving to better their lives as part of British culture.
impossible to reverse I fear.
There is a world of difference between a country that has absorbed small groups of persecuted Immigrants from time to time -and a country with foreign millions trying to get into it.
There is nothing that cannot be reversed if the will is there
I disagree with that because it’s not immigration itself that is the problem but the lack of control over the process that is. As a US citizen, I want the process to work to allow people from all over the world to come to our country. Instead, we have an unmitigated flow of people who have no regard for law or process jumping the line. Their history, their capabilities and their ability to care for themselves are complete unknowns. That’s the problem.
That’s a very interesting article, imo.
The author’s allusion to the TV show “Yellowstone” resonated with me.
As the author notes, ultimately the show is about a rancher fighting for what’s his, and the sacrifices, and moral compromises, he makes along the way. The underlying premise, that to fight for what’s yours is justified, is never questioned.
The show is not, however, without its nods to progressivism. One of the rancher’s sons loves a Native American woman, and there are several scenes that serve no other purpose than to allow her to deliver a lecture based on progressive sentiments (I won’t call it progressive morality). In one scene, the story literally stops while the young woman delivers a clunky rebuke to a white, male college student for his purported insensitivity toward native Americans. The sudden rift in the narrative flow is jarring, and the fact we’re now listening to an ideological lecture is unavoidable.
But after the obligatory progressive diatribe, the story continues as if nothing has happened. I wonder if that scene tells us much about the fate of progressivism?
Perhaps we’ve reached the stage when even Hollywood can tacitly acknowledge the performative, insubstantial nature of progressivism, and the ultimate primacy of reality and the competition of life.
I’m enjoying Yellowstone as well, and I wouldn’t describe the John Dutton character as an anti-hero. He is portrayed as being strongly moral in his personal relations; and he is not preserving the ranch for personal gain. He was offered an enormous sum, many times the land value, to sell it to the airport developers. His decision is to prefer to maintain the wilderness of Montana rather than developing it into condos for Californians.
Kayce’s wife, Monica is certainly the least likeable character in the whole show. A po-faced moralist, never happier than when she’s whinging about something not being fair. Worthy of Starmer himself.
As alluded to above, it seems almost deliberate to cast her as so unlikeable. The other native Americans portrayed are gritty realists, who might bemoan their fate, but are not averse to resorting to any means necessary to get their way.
British (and worldwide) consensus is built out if an anti-scientific claptrap consensus. This makes delusions like net zero, which will never work in any positive sense, possible. And then there’s immigration. And censorship. And law enforcement. All disasters built on bs.
This consensus highlights just how poor most people’s knowledge of basic Science has become.
Not only that, but they don’t even understand what Science is, a mode of enquiry. It requires Informed Discussion and an accumulating body of knowledge that is at a low (or is it high) enough level, like Ohm’s Law, that is beyond the reaches of Politics, and other emotional ideologies.
This knowledge would trash any notion of ‘The Science’ being credible. Pronouncements, handed down by transient interested parties, devoid of any STEM knowledge, and with a political agenda, are worthless, if only because informed discussion with the ignorant is a fruitless task.
Yet another great article from Tom McTague. Back in the day, Tony Blair’s spin machine used to bang on about “Progress”. Somehow they were able to reify this utterly vacuous term to make it their very own narrative. This con worked, in terms of allowing Blair to win three general elections in a row. But, that kind of spin ain’t gonna hack it today. Only zombie institutions like the BBC and the UK civil service still believe in it.
Blair just bought his success on the never-never. Starmer will try that, but there is so much less to hock. The leftist narrative which has been thrust upon us all is obviously such garbage, and that Starmerism is so blatantly authoritarian and repressive that finally Leftism will be driven back to the evil shadows from whence it came.
Hooray
“Zombie institutions”
I like it!
Interesting point.
I think Progressivism is the great evil of our time, having totally replaced [Enligtenment] Liberalism across the west. The left have be completely subsumed by this new movement, and the right see it’s flaws but often misdiagnose them, saying that “Liberalism has gone too far” etc.
There are certainly contradictions and excesses arising from Liberalism, but Liberalism is not what we are living with. Liberalism in the developed world has given way to Progressivism, and it would be helpful if more people could recognise that this is a totally different philosophy.
The problem with making “progress” into guiding moral philosophy is that it has no limiting principle. You’ll just keep going — all the way to the gates of Hell — if nobody stops you.
So, under Liberalism the goal would be a liberal principle, perhaps free speech, and there is a clear end point when you have achieved such a clearly defined goal (perhaps by making a law to protect speech)… and then you can stop.
Progressivism lacks any limiting principle — the GOAL of progressivism is “progress” …forward motion. To keep going.
Push on the door for gay marriage > achieve that. Should we stop, and celebrate this? NO > we should keep going, keep kicking new doors down because we have to keep moving forward! *Progress* is the goal.
Any philosophy or idea that lacks a limiting principle will become destructive, especially when moralised in the manner that modern progressivism has been. It lurches us all forward, demanding more and more action, but toward goals we have not all agreed on, and that are not being guided by fixed principles. The sense of motion and action is seductive, but the moral emptiness of the ideology is dangerous.
Essentially, progressivism is a destructive philosophy from the outset because the guiding principle is defined as an action rather than a principle or moral ideal. Blair was indeed the King of this ideology of style > substance; motion > moral aims.
Good observation. Reminiscent of that old phrase from the left: “Hasta la Victoria Siempre”. The same leftists have just rebranded it as progressive.
That is exactly what I think, but you have expressed it much better than I could have done!!
So Starmer is playing by the rules is he? Which ones would that be: following lockdown rules? Being able to count how many people are in a row with you? Accepting gifts from donors and not declaring them correctly? Lying to get elected leader of the Labour Party and then the country. Sorry, but if you think Starmer follows any rules then you are very much mistaken. He sees rules as something to be bent and ignored as he chooses.
Yes, his behaviour is not what anyone apart from this writer would claim represents ‘decency’.
Living in a Rules Based World doesn’t mean you have to live by them, if you are one of the chosen few. 🙂
Very well said. Nobody is buying what the globalist blob is selling, but they have nothing else to sell and don’t even seem to be able to come up with a new sales pitch. A failure of imagination indeed. Unless someone comes up with something new, unapologetic nationalists like Trump and Farage will shape the future. Smart people like Musk and Ramaswamy have already noticed which way the wind is blowing and gotten on the winning side of history. The number of these sudden populists will continue to grow as more and more of the wealthy and powerful conclude they have little to gain by keeping a sinking ship afloat and much to lose if the hammer of nationalism falls unexpectedly and they lose their assets on the wrong side of an international conflict overnight. The world is waking up from the dream of global unity and getting back to business as usual. Bout time.
At the moment, and for the last couple of decades, there’s been a move to globalism (free markets, free movement of labour) driven by business/the right and supported by centrists/left because they believe it brings wealth, and opposing free movement is somehow evil. And at first it does bring wealth, until you find out that ‘economic efficiencies’ are just you getting less money in your wages, your countries wealth has evaporated and only the debt remains.
I’m honestly not sure the global growth neoliberalism has provided us in the West since the 80s has been anything other than racking up debt. Though I suspect ‘populists’ like Trump and Farage only get part of that story, at least that is more than most politicians do.
Good article, though not having seen Yellowstone that part passed me by.
If Musk can reduce US Government spending by $2,000,000,000,000 a YEAR then that will make a big hole in their debt!
Let’s hope he can and export that here!
Yes, but it is an if. Why was Trump trying to get the debt ceiling abolished? I didn’t really care to follow that particular charade in any depth, but it is not obvious to me that someone who wanted the debt ceiling abolished will be cutting spending.
Plus, it is not just Govt debt that has been accumulated.
‘The decency of the old order’??
What was decent about printing trillions of £ and $ and pumping it into asset prices in order to buy graduate class votes whilst simultaneously destroying blue collar communities with open border policies and the hollowing out of the country’s industrial base?
Historians will see the Clinton-Blair project for what it actually was: the most brutal episode of class war since the time of the robber barons.
i don’t agree with this at all. There is nothing immoral about regarding Net Zero as an utterly wrongheaded policy which will cause enormous damage and achieve nothing worthwhile; or about rejecting the policy of ceding the Chagos Islands to a country which has never had sovereignty over them in a way which damages national security and goes against the expressed wishes of the Chagossians themselves. The comments of the EU official about the World turning into Game of Thrones just show how the EU regards nation states.
The only rationality I can see behind Net Zero is wind farms acting as an emergency energy stop gap if gas was unavailable due to disrupted supply chains. Of course, as an emergency power source it would be limited in its scope, providing energy only to essential services. That of course if the wind is blowing.
Yes, it’s back to front! 🙂
Started ok then is all over the place.
“Defend the decency of the old order”? Well that hasn’t been evident at all.
What is evident is that the majority of the population know that politicians are liars, that they haven’t a clue how to put things right, that they will benefit themselves and that they carry out the orders of others, not the people who elected them.
The disconnect of the rulers from the ruled is now massive and obvious. At least “the old order” had the political nous to understand when it had gone too far…not any of this lot.
” On economic questions, for example, the idea of free trade in the era of Chinese industrial power looks increasingly sado-masochistic”
Definitely true. If the effects weren’t so sad it would be funny how supposedly free traders ended up being the useful idiots of an actual Communist regime.
Ironic that free traders like to pose as anti-Communists when Karl Marx favoured laissez-faire to the extent it destroyed borders, national differences and particularities.
Britain created the doctrine of free trade in an era when Britain was the industrial powerhouse China is today … and had the navy to assist in the conversion of apostates to the True Faith.
Exactly. When Britain was industrialising it did so with the Navigation Acts and Royal Navy massively protecting British trade and industry. When Manchester Liberalism became fashionable Britain was already an advanced power, and Manchester Liberalism declined as newly resurgent protectionist powers like the United States and Germany rose.
I’ll vote for anyone who gives a plausible impression of intending to govern, in a highly partisan way, with the interests of the U.K. as their sole driving principle. I haven’t had the opportunity to do so since I’ve been old enough to vote.
It’s not difficult to see where our political classes have gone wrong.
They forgot who they serve. In our case, the British people. They want to save the world. In fact everyone outside of the British electorate.
Every now and then we see glimpses of what drives them. With Starmer it was his preference for Davos over Westminster.
The dirty and mundane world of UK politics doesn’t interest these people. They want to save the downtrodden of the world. Not fix the potholes on the A41. Moral superiority is their passion.
I have no problem with people being wanting to make a show of their moral virtue. I just think being an MP has more to do with looking after your constituents and not saving the people of some far flung conflict or crisis.
We are where we are because politicians here and all over the west are confused. And in their confusion they have led us all into a quagmire. It might take an imperfect leader with ideas that seem improbable, even brutal to help guide ourselves out.
“McSweeney and McFadden need a new story. It can be tall or otherwise, but it can no longer be as hollow as the one we have lost faith in, otherwise we will not find our way back.”
So….our best hope is that Labour turn into Reform UK?
If only I could think of a more plausible course of events.
It doesn’t seem to enter the author’s mind that many people simply don’t believe in global warming catastrophism. If you start from that point then all of the incredibly destructive policies designed to ‘fight’ it are just self induced wounds. I understand that parts of Europe are having an electrical pricing crisis because there is not enough wind – and like total fools you shut down your nuclear power plants and replaced them with windmills. You don’t have to be a populist to be upset with colossal stupidity like that.
The importance of storytelling and having a narrative that moves people emotionally is something I bang on about endlessly.
In terms of politics, I know the narrative you are aiming for is one on which you can hang actual, practical policies on – the underlying principles and arc that gets you through a period of government.
But in a bigger sense, I honestly don’t know what is wrong with the national story you already have. British history is just so fascinating and rich – you’ve just had any pride in it beaten out of you by miserable technocrats and “progressives” that want to tell you the most depressing story imaginable in any given situation.
I think it’s time for a return to British pride, being confident in the incredible story that Britain already and not being afraid to tell it. And expressing to incomers that if they want to be a part of it, then learn and accept the basic plot. If you can’t identify with it or don’t want to be a part of moving the story forward – off you go.
This approach can be more or less copy-pasted onto most Western countries.
Whilst I agree that the ‘centrist fantasy’ can no longer hold in many ways, i’m not sure I agree with your reasoning of people going against it. With reference to France, Macron has tried to increase the French retirement age to something more in line with the rest of the first world to help fix France’s addictive reliance on budget deficits, ongoing since the early 70’s. Of course, this is intolerable to the public at large.
There is much excited talk of a return to Thatcherite policies and this golden era, you reference 1979 above. Annual spending on the NHS under Thatcher was 4.5% of GDP vs 10% today and there were no triple lock pensions. UK pensions were dire. You could also call Thatcher’s cost cutting exercise in the mining communities a similar exercise to what needs to happen today to the welfare system. So let’s see how the public at large react to the ‘populist reality’ when those sorts of corrective measures need to be put in place to achieve their populist fantasies. I doubt they will be quite so popular.
Whilst there is undoubtedly a centrist fantasy of sorts, there is also a voting population fantasy of being able to have low taxes and low state intervention whilst retaining current NHS spending, current pension triple lock levels and government bailouts which everyone also seems to think are their god given rights. Much like the French have their own ‘fantasy expectations’, maybe a large part of the problem lies with the population’s fantasies, not just those of the ‘centrist government’, whether its Tory or Labour.
Getting rid of the triple lock might be quite popular aside from with its recipients.
In the last week or so I’ve had to explain to two generally well-educted Gen Z what a state pension was. They had no idea what it was or how you got one. It wasn’t a case of them believing there will be no money left when they retire, they just didn’t know it existed.
“What voters want, it seems, is for someone to protect their inheritance; their prosperity; their country; their land.”
And we’ve got a govt that will do none of those things for the next four years. If you love your country Vote Reform whenever you can.
A very typical Unherd article. Lots of waffle. Subtle slandering of the Right. Apologist for the Left. Starmer’s government is noble. Really?
UK is a far left experiment. That is the reality and a lived one for you all.
There is no ‘back’ to get back to. There is only the future and that will be dog eats dog and those who have betrayed us will pay a heavy price.
As always Tim, beautifully written. As is often the case, I feel the thinking is a bit muddled.
People do not need a better story from their politicians, they need better policies, simple. Contrary to what you write, simply having all the figures on the spreadsheet moving in the right direction would absolutely be enough for Starmer to be considered a legitimate option.
Furthermore, even though you have watched and been moved be Yellowstone, many haven’t. For the average American Republican voter there hasn’t been a successful challenge to the foundational myth of America, they are voting for and supporting Trump out of patriotism and hope for a better standard of living in their country. They still love their founding fathers and their constitution, the only thing they hate are their corrupt vacuous modern politicians and overlords.
Good piece.
But there is no position that Labour can take now that can ever be believed.
They have had four years under Starmer to get ready, the last two of which in the certain knowledge that they would be in power this year. What they have done is what they have got. Their one go.
After this it will be all about reacting to appalled global markets, reacting to recession, reacting to factory closures, reacting to power shortages.
They are lost and hopeless, and these are their ” best” people, the adults we were told would restore order. They believed their own fantasies, appointed a joke figure as Foreign Secretary and a Walter Mitty character as chancellor.
The PM himself is pitifully out of his depth, only looking comfortable when he is abroad, getting a pat on the back from someone. Most leaders end up doing this after a few years, he was at it after a few weeks.
This story does not bode well for those like Starmer who are seeking to defend the decency of the old order. In this world, little is to be gained by giving away sovereignty in the Indian Ocean or sticking to your climate commitments. What voters want, it seems, is for someone to protect their inheritance; their prosperity; their country; their land. Of all the characters in British politics, the one who clings closest to the Yellowstone version of morality is, of course, Farage. The point about Net Zero, for him, is not who is to blame for climate change, but who is going to defend British prosperity.
Absolute tosh!
1. ‘Starmer seeking to defend the old order!’
2.’Sticking to climate commitments’, and, ‘the point about net zero for him, (Farage), is not who is to blame for climate change’.
Point 1 is laughable and point 2 is that my understanding of ‘climate change’ is that it has been happening since the world began and us puny little humans can do diddly squat about it.
How can the writer state with a straight face, ‘what people want, IT SEEMS, is someone to protect their inheritance; their prosperity; their country; their land’. Too right we do!
There is no Climate Emergency, hence no panic required, nor NET Zero policies!
The problem lies not just with the political classes of all and any stripe who have been bankrupt both morally as well in terms of any competent world vision for decades. No, its the fact that the power vacuum left by our politicians has slowly been filled by an equally incompetent Whitehall civil service plus their affiliates throughout the land in local government, innumerable quangos, academia and of course the mammoth NHS. These organisations are self serving power structures whose dominant aim is their own survival while maximising their pension and many other privileges and like the worst kind of tic they are bleeding our nation dry as we head for perdition. No “populist” such as Farage is capable of taking them down without some form of army outside of our democracy behind them.
Politicians are stuck with decades of trying to bribe voters with terrible policies. There’s no great way out of this as the voters got fat and soft.
“Yet, in a more profound way, it is actually offering a vision propounded by the Left, which long ago rejected the idea of a noble America born in liberty seeking an ever-more-perfect union. Instead, America was cast — correctly in many ways — as a slave republic which came into existence through violent colonisation“
.
A few days ago I read this:
“Even today, political discourse in Britain evades ethnicity for a focus on race in a way unusual outside America, where it stems from an almost uniquely stratified slave economy, overlaid on a settler colonial society deriving from genocide” (© Aris Roussinos)
.
You are doomed, gentlemen. You are pathetic nonentities, incapable of defending your women and your children from the most insignificant aggressor. All your envy of MAGA Americans is evident in these quotes from cowardly men-by-balls-only
Noble but contemptible indeed……. I cannot help being invested in the parallel between the required story and that of he who most closely represents the Beowulf of the recent American triumph : Trump. ; who has inter alia destroyed the same false religions that also must be vanquished by our very own Beowulf to unite our kingdom ;
MacPhersonry – NCHI hit list
BLaMic – DEI, sick lame and lazy welcomed
Multicountry – sharia for all
Translie – denial of sex
BBC – antisemitism
Asylumgee – whatever floats your boat
Drax – trees across the seas
WindEVil – candle power
Tiddler is a meandering and shapeless mess that valorises lying, confusing it with imagination and creativity. The denouement, such as it is, demonstrates an inability to grasp how plots work. Rather than suffering for his lies, Tiddler is saved by them, because he belongs to a community addicted to sentimental lies rather than reality (contrast the tale of the boy who cried wolf). But rather than this achieving any real resolution, the rest of the kids still view him with scorn. Only his dim friend still likes his stories, with the teacher authority figure simpering impotently, and we are left stuck in the status quo ante, with no forward movement at all.
In short: it’s an inane story, badly told. In fact, not really a story at all, just a random assemblage of bits. And in each of its parts it is an almost perfect analogy for the dishonest, unpopular self-serving centrists and their lies, the sentimentality of the British media and those addicted to it, and the stasis and division we are trapped in.
If Julia Donaldson has created a story for small children that is also an analogy for ‘the dishonest, unpopular self-serving centrists and their lies, the sentimentality of the British media and those addicted to it, and the stasis and division we are trapped in’, I’d suggest she might be a substantially better writer than you are giving her credit for.
I’m not saying it was intentional. It’s a poorly-written anti-story.
Well it’s not her best for sure, but it is intended for children aged about 5. Are you expecting the story to end with Tiddler coated in batter and eaten with chips and mushy peas?
There are any number of ways to write engaging stories for under fives that charm, provide satisfying plots and don’t inculcate cynicism. And Julie Donaldson is a very talented author, certainly talented enough to do it.
It’s Hobbes versus Rosseau, it always has been and always will be.
And Rosseau was a tool.
The faces of those who like Rosseau should rubbed in the dirt of this sociopath’s personal life. But I suspect they will only lick their lips, believing that “geniuses” shіt by roses.
Is there any other country in the world where the media spreads lies to conform with political Ideology as UK does?
It goes to the heart of UK’s decline.
Most of the West, especially Germany and Australia.
The question presupposes Labour are on Britain’s side. The evidence shows that the Labour top team are on the side of whoever buys things for them. Their default position is anti British virtue signalling – while squirrelling away their loot personally.
You cannot write stories in an atomised world. You need to reinstate some landscape (boundaries), characters (defined population), back story (historical context), and plot (synthesised policies) amongst other elements.
The idea that an authoritarian government which espouses broader application of NCHIs, blocked the Academic Freedom Act, and clearly wishes to shuffle in blasphemy laws can achieve this is nonsense. Fortunately we have a natural storyteller in parliament – it may be a fairytale, but it is a story and since the teller has no track record in office to defend, it has its own appeal.
Unherd (stupid magazine) you are on a hiding to nothing trying to defend the Left in today’s times.
Albeit it is quite funny for us readers watching you do it.
“There is real panic today in Whitehall at the prospect of imminent industrial collapse which risks fracturing the entire governing consensus around our decarbonising commitment”
Who actually gives a toss about the decarbonising commitment that was after all sneaked through Parliament.
What do we want “Recarbonization”
When do we want it “Now”
I think that the appeal of programmes such as Yellowstone shows us that people are finally realising that the State and its institutions have no moral legitimacy. It used to be the case that we would look up these institutions and the people running them, but does anyone now?
Unfortunately all the public have seen is corruption and moral decay, whether it’s the slopy shoulders of Welby shielding paedophiles or Starmer and his crew happily taking cheap bribes “within the rules”, and the less said about the BBC the better. Even the medical profession has lost all trust after its enthusiastic acceptance of dubious government diktats during COVID.
Against this backdrop the strong moral code of John Dutton appeals. He knows what is right and wrong, and doesn’t need anyone to tell him. This is distinct from purely “following rules” beloved of the Starmers of this world. As is evidenced on TV and real life, rules can always be changed. Right and wrong can’t.
…the idea of free trade in the era of Chinese industrial power looks increasingly sado-masochistic…
Interestingly, Adam Smith argued against free trade with mercantilist powers.
“populism” which tells tall tales to gullible voters
At last someone has tried to explain what they mean by populism, which is generally used simply as an easy pejorative. This definition (perhaps a rather grand word for TM’s brief description) covers almost all politicians. They have always told tall tales of prosperity, happiness and freedom, and perhaps worst of all about world peace; and they all use facts and figures (by which they mean cherry-picked statistics) to support their tall tales.
So… once again I ask, what do these writers really mean when they use the term?
Enough already. Another essay based on analysis of TV shows and other ‘narratives’. BA Humanities fodder nothing more. B+
“…the idea of free trade in the era of Chinese industrial power looks increasingly sado-masochistic…”
My admittedly childishly simplistic idea of free trade has always been: free trade only with free nations. And for me, the simplest practical definition is free and fair elections. If an individual populace then picks a government that advocates, I dunno, lawful cannibalism, that’s fine, it’s their choice. The consequence for me means: don’t trade with China or Russia, but also don’t trade with Saudi, UAE, et al, and a host of sub saharan countries, and of course many others. The progressive fantasy is and always has been, that you can bribe or bomb other nations into something better – and you can’t. Let different nations get there for themselves if they can, meanwhile don’t trade with them (buy or sell) or make trading punitively expensive, and just leave them to it.
It disgusts me that Unherd is a political tool.
Might is right has ,of course ,always been the real principle behind politics and governance but the stories are important nevertheless. He’s absolutely right that the old story of liberalism (based on judeo Christian mythology) is not working anymore and we desperately need a new one. In the meantime we’re just resorting back to cynicism without tempering it with a wholesome narrative.
He’s absolutely right that the old story of liberalism (based on Judeo Christian mythology) is not working anymore
.
The fact that society has abandoned it does not mean that it does not work. Rather, it means that society has become stupid and is trying to screw a round screw into a square hole.
Not sure if stupidity is a useful category. I think it’s just the technological and geopolitical landscape has changed and we’ve got to adapt our story again as we’ve always done or die out
We ourselves are unlikely to die out, but in the hands of these “surgeons” – without a doubt.
.
P.S. Can you explain to me what the word “story” means in your comment? I have some difficulties with modern English.
2024 is not 1979 (which I remember). Britain’s decline has gone too far. Recovery at this point isn’t likely.
“Much has been said about Yellowstone’s distinctly conservative vision of America.”
The usual foolish acceptance of the Left’s deeply corrupt premises about the United States. Nothing produced by Hollywood carries a “conservative vision for America,” but Progressivism’s completely untruthful characterization of conservatism.
I see Farage as a bit like the green party, essentially saying easy things to get votes but they don’t add up.
Whilst reducing immigration has to be done, it has got to be in conjunction with increasing the employment rates of the native population – something Reform don’t have a plan for and increasing productivity.
Cutting net-immigration down to 0 overnight will likely increase labour costs to the point that we’ll get serious inflation, you won’t be able find a carer for your old, shops will be open less ie not Sunday, you can kiss goodbye to speedy same day or hour delivery – not that that is bad. We’ll probably have to increase to state pension age to 72 to compensate.
As for ditching efforts to reduce methane and carbon output, that will warm the earth causing a migration movement to the north of the world.
As for ditching foreign aid – the development of many poorer countries to be developed like china and india sent the birth rate nearer 2. It has not happened yet in parts of Africa meaning that a high birth rate continues in grow populations there. Combine that with increasing temperatures in the tropics means a huge potential for immigration
Therefore ‘net-zero’ and ‘foreign aid’ are both necessary to reduce the potential of immigration yet fantasy farage & co hasn’t seen that.
Therefore the only point of voting reform for me reform is a gesture as they don’t have a joined up plan.
That argument does not stand up.
It is untrue that the UK “needs” net immigration. 300,ooo leave every year. So thats more than enough immigrants for Carers NHS etc without any increase in population.
And immigrants cost a lot . Far far more than the tax they pay.
Unfortunately you appear to subscribe to the ‘story’ that man-made CO² is driving temperature change. This ‘fact’ is far from established. That narrative is defended vociferously by those with vested interests, but it simply isn’t proven.
What is your area expertise on this? I can’t go with the idea that the whole world got it wrong.
Net zero is and always has been a political project, supported by cherry picked science, and wishful thinking around the capabilities of renewables. So much money to be made from it, there is fraud everywhere. Believe it if you will, but many of us, science and engineering in work, prefer to question everything, rather than believe everything we are told. Too many useful idi-ots in support of it and simplistic explanations for it to be the whole story..
Every body, whether solid, liquid or gaseous, including the Earth, emits electromagnetic radiation. The wavelengths of radiation emitted depend upon the temperature of the body. As a relatively cool body, the Earth emits only long-wave heat radiation in the infrared range.
The radiation emitted by one body can be reflected or absorbed by other bodies.
It is primarily the molecules of the trace or greenhouse gases that absorb the long-wave radiation and ultimately emit it again in all directions as heat radiation. They thus trap part of the heat in the lower atmosphere.
https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-6/the-polar-regions-as-components-of-the-global-climate-system/why-it-is-so-cold-in-the-polar-regions/the-earths-heat-and-radiation-balance/
A change in the amount of greenhouse gases, provided the amount is not already past that at which the maximum amount of heat radiation is absorbed, therefore changes the temperature of the lower atmosphere.
This is all very basic physics and is very much established.
And if you want to go to the trouble of using sub- and superscripts, the 2 in carbon dioxide should be a subscript. But I’m sure you know that given that you know the above is not proven…
Even if I did believe the global warming narrative, nothing we do on this tiny island will have any effect on temperatures in the tropics, which, as far as I know are the same as they’ve always been. Development and wealth has led to increased migration, not global warming.
Every country has to do something.
Most of the additional heat goes to the poles, so no, probably there is little we can do to affect temperatures in the tropics.
Farage already has the support of those opposed to climate change measures and who prioritize anti immigration measures, Reform is probably near its peak of support.
Polling indicates large majorities putting net zero and preventing climate change at, or near, the top of their list of political priorities. Similarly most voters see the value of continued immigration, wanting only to see it better controlled. Reforms ” one in one out” proposal has little appeal.
The ” liberal” majority is spread between four ( or six, if you include the SNP and Plaid Cymru) but remains a majority