Wednesday, 16 July 2025

Things I didn't know #5

Did you know the national anthem of the Netherlands is an acrostic? There are 15 verses, so don't tune in if they reach the World Cup final.

Taking the first letter of each verse in turn, you get Willem Van Nassov, an old spelling of William of Nassau, which is not in the Bahamas in this case but refers to - as we Brits would say - William of Orange. Nassau is where William was born in Germany.

The English translation of the first verse:

William of Nassau, am I, of German blood;
True to the fatherland, I remain till death.
A prince of Orange, I am, free and fearless.
The King of Spain I have always honoured.

When he was 11, William inherited the Principality of Orange so presumably it's the Low Countries to which "fatherland" refers rather than Germany. The bit about Spain is a bit disingenuous, since he led a Dutch revolt against the Spanish, starting in 1568 and lasting for eighty years until ending with the Treaty of Westphalia (no, I don't know where that is). Sadly William didn't last many of those years. He, a Protestant, was shot dead by a "Catholic zealot" (according to ChatGPT) in 1584, who earned himself a bounty of 25,000 crowns from Philip II of Spain.

So William was a polyglot but a hero to the modern day Dutch. Good job we don't have any foreign blood in our own UK royal family🤣

Monday, 14 July 2025

Got stuck in a lift

It's a classic pub conversation: who would/wouldn't you like to be stuck in a lift with? I've had my share of stuck lifts in my long life - who hasn't? - but I can't for the life of me recall any of my lift sharers. I was thinking this question the other day when I was watching Prime Minister's Questions and in particular trying to get to the bottom of who Kier Starmer is, what are his values and what is he for?

If I'm stuck in that lift with him, I'd have to try and come up with a question which requires a meaningful answer; I'm not prepared to accept some kind of recitation of the government's litany of brilliant initiatives, I need to know what he believes in. I actually think I wouldn't be able to get an answer, because he wouldn't regard me as an ordinary bloke but more likely someone trying to trick him. So it wouldn't be long before we resorted to the one subject he feels safe with: the Arsenal. We can mutually indulge our hopes and expectations for the coming season but I suspect that, if I ask whether we should sign the Brazilian Rodrygo from Real Madrid, he'd retreat into diplomatic mode: would he risk upsetting the Brazilians if he didn't think he was good enough for the Gunners (which is my view); or the Spanish if he thought Real Madrid were a fading force and so he'd be better off at the Emirates Stadium (ditto)? I think there'd be enough commonality though to while away an hour or two.

My mind drifted to Rishi Sunak. He has on a number of occasions claimed to support Southampton, the town of his birth and the club most recently relegated with one of the lowest points totals ever. Question #1: will you still go and watch them when they're in a lower league? Yep, I'm trying to trick him. But not so much as to ask him to name Southampton's leading goalscorer of all time; I'm not a bully. So I'd move on to chess. I recall he wanted everyone to learn chess to A Level and every school to have a Maths club. Or was it the other way round? Anyway, I'd want to know if he actually plays himself - I imagine he wouldn't have mentioned it if he didn't - and what's his rating? What's his username on chess.com and shall we play a game to while away the time? The (Evening?) Standard wrote in 2023 that Sunak is "also a keen player" after reporting that Rachel Reeves challenged him to a game. I've been unable to find any response from him, which frankly seems rude.

Which leads me to Reeves. We know she plays chess but, given she was a decent junior chess player (the case for "champion" is disputed), it's likely she's above my level. Even so, if the lift has wifi, I'd definitely challenge her to an online match. Although I'd probably let her win because..you know... I wouldn't want to upset her. I'm not sure we would have much else to talk about. I'd tell her to Keep Buggering On, Churchillian style. She's reported to be a supporter of Leeds United; her constituency is Leeds West And Pudsey, so that sounds a bit...convenient. Let's see if we see her in the crowd on match days now that they're back in the Premier League and on TV. 

I'd be quite entertained by Boris Johnson. I'm a proponent of infrastructure boosterism, always thought his idea for an airport by the Thames Estuary had a lot going for it. If he promised to get my St Austell to Istanbul railway built, I'd vote for him. Unlike the others, I don't think he'd regard me with suspicion and I suspect he wouldn't require much prompting to talk about whatever I asked of him. I might ask him to explain the rugby union offside law - he's definitely not a soccer man - but I'd probably be no clearer after he'd rambled his answer. Which I suspect would be "who cares? If the ball comes out of the scrum, I'm ready to pick it up and run with it". Really Boris, you still think that's possible? Stranger things.....

Who'd be your choice in the lift?

Sunday, 13 July 2025

Things I didn't know #4

The name Australia was given to the Southern continent by Captain Matthew Flinders, whose remains were among those of about 50,000 people exhumed from St James's cemetery next to Euston Station and reburied in Brookwood in Surrey. To make room for the London terminus of the UK's High Speed 2 railway. Which may never be built. Should've stayed in Oz.

Flinders was the first to circumnavigate Australia. He is of course memorialised there: there's the Flinders Range, Flinders Island in the Bass Strait, Station and Street in Melbourne, the University in Adelaide, the Flinders Chase National Park on Kangaroo Island and many statues.

One of the most well-known (although not by me until now) statues is actually in Euston Station, erected in 2014 (the bicentenary of Flinders' death) and is of Flinders and his cat Trim. ChatGPT tells me Trim is "beloved by many Australians", although of the many Australians I have met over there (including my elder son, his wife and her family) not one has ever mentioned this cat. You can check out much more about Trim here:


This picture of the Euston statue is from an interesting website London Remembers:


Trim is nowhere to be seen but is probably snuggled up to the sleeping traveller. This from the Mitchell Library in Sydney will have to suffice for you cat-lovers:


Saturday, 12 July 2025

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous

A brief paragraph in today's Times. Craig Williams, Rishi Sunak's PPS when in government, has been charged with offences under the Gambling Act 2005, one of which involved the alleged placing of a £100 bet on the date of the next election three days before Sunak announced the date.

All very straightforward, you'd imagine. Justice in action. He did not enter a plea at the Crown Court hearing yesterday so he has been sent for trial.

But here's the kicker.

The 52 word "report" ended with the final sentence: "His trial has been set for January 2028". What? Three years' time? I'm not one of those constantly harping on about Britain being broken but what does this say about the justice system? Is Williams playing the system by not entering a plea and hoping it will all go away? Or is he now a victim of a system which, even if he is eventually found innocent of the charges, will trash his reputation and ruin his life for 3 years?

This is beyond ridiculous.

Friday, 11 July 2025

Things I didn't know #3

The Lewis chessmen. Never heard of them until now. 78 12th century (chess is a very old game played at the top level by the very young) pieces, 67 of which are in the British Museum, the remainder in the National Museum of Scotland (which I'd also never heard of).


They (at least some of them) are going on their travels as part of a cultural loan exchange between the British Museum and the French, which will see the Bayeux Tapestry come the other way.

The chessmen are made of walrus ivory and whale tooth, probably made in Norway and found on the island of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides in 1831. The Hebrides were part of Norway - Viking invaders -
 [from the Bayeux Tapestry]

from the 9th century until 1266 when King Alexander III of Scotland paid Norway 4,000 marks and 400 marks p.a. for sovereignty in the Treaty of Perth. The annual fee was supposed to last forever but it has apparently been forgotten about - perhaps Scotland didn't have any marks left after a while.

There's obviously an argument that we should be lending the chessmen to the National Museum of Norway rather than the French.

Thursday, 10 July 2025

Banknotes

Apparently the Bank of England is inviting us to nominate our suggestions for who should appear on the face of the new £5, £10, £20 and £50 banknotes. Despite the fact that no-one carries actual paper money any more. I know, they're made of plastic now, not paper.

For reference the current notes show:

£5 – Winston Churchill

£10 – Jane Austen

£20 – J.M.W. Turner

£50 – Alan Turing

Not sure there is some kind of value assertion here, perhaps that Turing (a genius) has been 5 times more consequential than Jane Austen (anyone could have written her stuff, even an infinite number of monkeys). I feel there should be, so my contributions are value-added:

£5 - Andre Arshavin scoring 4 goals for Arsenal in one match against Liverpool. Of course he's Russian so that might be controversial. Especially with Liverpool fans

£10 - Maradona scoring a beautiful winner for Argentina against England in the World Cup quarter final in Mexico in 1986. Of course it should actually have been just an equaliser because his first goal was scored with his hand. For me Maradona was the GOAT but the Hand of God might not appeal to the Bank of England.

£20 - Geoff Hurst scoring a hat-trick to win the World Cup for England in 1966. No brainer.

£50 - Ray Kennedy scoring the winner at Tottenham's White Hart Lane ground in 1971, winning the League title for Arsenal in so doing. I was there. We went on to win the League/FA Cup double.

I've just checked out the eligibility rules (probably should have done that first):

  1. They must be dead so no Arshavin or Hurst
  2. Don't have to be British or even born in Britain all the above OK
  3. Must have made a lasting, positive impact on British society in some way sorry Diego
  4. Real person not fictional
  5. Not divisive, politically explosive or otherwise controversial Diego strike #2
So some revision is required. The Banknote Character Advisory Committee has recently decided on six themes: notable historical figures, nature, architecture and landmarks, arts/culture/sport, noteworthy milestones, and innovation. I think this means our selections must be themed within one of these. Seems I've gone for either arts/culture/sport or noteworthy milestones, so I have to choose which and then revise within that. Here I go:

£5 - Arnold Schoenberg’s first twelve-tone composition: “Suite for Piano, Op. 25”, written between 1921 and 1923.

£10 - Elvis Presley, first worldwide famous rock n roll star, hugely influencing the development of 20th century popular music

£20 - Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque, founders of cubism am I allowed two faces?

£50 I was going to stick with Ray Kennedy but that would probably be seen as divisive by my Tottenham readers (and the Committee) so I've gone for Emma Lazarus: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...” [The New Colossus] on the Statue of Liberty.

None of these are British but I've followed the rules. It's pretty disappointing (although obviously not for him) that Geoff Hurst is still alive. His time will surely come, I don't doubt. I probably should check to see if any of these have previously been used but I'll leave that to the Committee.

I very much look forward to readers' suggestions. No Boaty McBoatface please.

Wednesday, 9 July 2025

Things I didn’t know #2

Perhaps my favourite tv series, maybe even the GOAT tv series: The West Wing. Lead character: Josiah Edward “Jed” Bartlet. What I didn’t know is that there was a real life Josiah Bartlett, who was one of 56 people who signed the American Declaration of Independence. I know, the spellings of the surname are different but this surely can’t have been coincidence. I think that the fact both came from New Hampshire endorses my view that Aaron Sorkin's character was based on the 18th century Governor of that state.

In my ignorance of American political history, if you'd asked me how many people signed that Declaration in 1776, I'd have guessed at somewhere between 4 and 10, knowing (guessing?) the names of perhaps a couple.

The TV show also taught me about the 25th Amendment. Bartlet (the fictional one, as you'll have observed no double t) invoked it when his daughter was kidnapped by terrorists and he decides he is too emotionally compromised to make rationally correct decisions on the situation. He steps down temporarily but there is no Vice President (next in line) at the time because he resigned after a sex scandal, so the next-next in line Speaker of the House Allen Walken, a Republican (Bartlet was a Democrat) became Acting President. Things don't go well and there is inevitable conflict between Walken and Bartlet's Cabinet, leading to them seriously consider invoking another of the 25th Amendment's clauses and deposing him. Of course, it's drama: Zoey is rescued, Jed returns, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and America's constitution is safe.

The actual 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967, four years after Kennedy's assassination meant that VP Lyndon Johnson became President, in accordance with the Constitution, but there was no Vice President for the remainder of Johnson's term.

If this all seems arcane, it was invoked by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush when they had medical procedures which involved anesthesia. 

Tuesday, 8 July 2025

There's something in the water in Cambridgeshire

South Cambridgeshire District Council launched a trial in January 2023, giving its staff the option of working a four day week with full pay whilst maintaining 100% productivity.

So how did that go? Brilliant, say the staff. Quelle surprise.

Of course, there have been studies. Lots of them, by universities. The council claims £400,000 p.a. savings and is proposing to make the policy permanent at a meeting this month.

You can have as many studies as you want but surely common sense suggests this is nonsense? If you can work hard for 4 days, why not work as hard on the 5th day and radically improve output? If you can get all your work done in 4 days, why not do it in 3? Or do a couple of 24 hour shifts and take the rest of the week off? What if all these employees work extra hard for 4 days a week for a couple of months then revert to their previous productivity rate, still enjoying Free Fridays and going fishing?

This is gloriously mad.

Monday, 7 July 2025

Have we been had?

I wrote recently about The Salt Path. I titled the piece A Triumph of Defiance. But it appears I should have called it A Triumph of Storytelling.

There was an article in yesterday's Observer newspaper:

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-salt-path-whats-in-the-book-and-what-the-observer-has-found

...which reported an investigation by journalist Chloe Hadjimatheou into the backstory which is the basis for the book written by "Raynor Winn" about her and her husband Moth's reasons for walking the Cornwall Coast Path - losing their home and all their money which had been invested in a friend's failed financial scheme. The Observer alleges first that the couple's real names are Sally and Tim Walker, also that Sally Walker was arrested after being accused of stealing tens of thousands of pounds from her employer, leading to complicated loan and surety dealings and eventual loss of their house. The "evidence" presented by the paper is based on testimony from a Ros Hemmings, whose husband owned the business from which Sally was alleged to have embezzled money. Today's Times, reporting the story, asserts that "the Hemmings' family solicitor recalled that Winn [Walker] was arrested and interviewed by police", so it's not just a single source.

Documents are shown which indicate they, at the time, owned a house in south west France; they were not homeless. I watched a video on the Observer's YouTube channel:

https://youtu.be/UY2ivdm9obY?si=cqtRSJ57yptF-FFa

It shows what looks like a falling down, roofless barn. There is no way in which this rundown building could be used as a home in its present state so I don't think that discredits the book's "homeless" assertion.

The report also quotes unnamed neurologists casting doubt on Moth's condition. I discard this as though it's solid evidence, since any reporter worth their salt can find medical experts to support their story, perhaps discarding the views of those that don't. The Times writes that "the couple declined to share their medical records with the Observer".

What to make of all this? Were we misled? That seems indisputable, given the false names and substantially changed backstory. I'm not sure the Observer has much else that stands up and their story has a bit of a stench of tabloid tendencies to knock down successful people (I'm assuming Winn and Moth, after three bestselling books with another to come, are now able to live comfortably; maybe even get the barn renovated). The video is titled The Salt Path lies: how a blockbuster book and film were spun from lies, deceit and desperation, which honestly sounds a bit tabloid-y.  Would the book have become a bestseller - or even got published - if they had been honest about their backstory? Could they have simply said "our story is based on fact but we have not wanted to name people whom we were connected to"? The problem is that, once even a small deceit is uncovered, it's impossible to think back on the tale of the 600 mile walk itself without thinking that maybe lots of little details have been embellished, or even invented.

I've been left with a deep sadness. I enjoyed the book, thought it was a wonderful story, but now this throws everything into doubt. And I feel hoodwinked and gullible. I usually think I have a decent bullshit detector but it failed me here so perhaps, like Ros Hemmings and her late husband, I've been taken for a ride this time.


Sunday, 6 July 2025

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

...chess gender issues re-surface. Sunday Times writer Dominic Lawson (2000-rated chess player, ex-president of the English Chess Federation, son of 1980s Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel and, as far as I know, no relation to any of my readers) shows he's an avid reader of my blog.

Regular readers will recall I posted about women in chess. I think Dominic clearly read it, because today he wrote about the very issues I raised: participation of women in chess, top women players not reaching men's levels, quoting Hou Yifan as exemplar but also as a sceptic of women's lack of capability to sustain the physical demands of chess, etc etc. His column's starting point was a 17yo German who recently won the national girls' under-18 tournament: Nora Heidermann was born a boy but self-identifies as a girl.

So just when I thought I'd put the male/female chess issue to bed by suggesting that women-only tournaments were holding back the development of the top women players, a new dimension raises its ugly head. Lawson takes the opposite view to mine, quoting the example of Scrabble, where 85% of recreational players are women but the upper tiers are dominated by men [so?]. The authority he quotes is Carole Hooven's T: The Story of Testosterone in which she concludes that "men are more disposed to the intense and passionate obsessiveness, shutting out all external activities and interests required to become the world's best over the 64 squares".

Or, as he quotes chess Grandmaster Hein Donner: "What is going on in their heads is narcissistic self-gratification with a minimum of objective reality, a wordless snuffling and scrabbling around in a bottomless pit". Yep, that us boys.

I'll be snuffling in my bottomless pit again tomorrow. Happy Sunday.

Saturday, 5 July 2025

Things I didn't know #1

Did you know there is a World Avocado Organisation? Its Chairman responded to the All England Club's decision to replace avocados with crushed English peas on its menus: "Avocados are too often made a scapegoat in the conversation around food sustainability...the avocado has a smaller 'water footprint' than nuts, olive oil and beef". I read this while eating a breakfast of avocados on sourdough with poached eggs and chorizo. Shout out to Tesco cafƩ.

I asked ChatGPT to calculate how many avocados - i.e. Zac Bard's members - there are in the world at any given time and it came up with a "guesstimate" of 3.3 billion. That's one avocado for every 2.5 people on earth. Of course it's a floating population; the average lifespan of an avocado is probably.......enough, Nigel!

The important point is whether other fruits have similar organisations. World Tomato Organisation - Nope. World Pea Organisation - also No. You'd imagine lots of Noes. But:

International Banana Association - yes
World Apple and Pear Association - sure
International Cherry Symposium - yep

Also mangoes and blueberries.

Who knew?

Perhaps more importantly, what exactly is the sustainability issue? Should I eschew avos and switch to mushy peas? Ugh.

Friday, 4 July 2025

OBBBA

Everyone needs an acronym. It's Independence Day in the USA and President Trump will get to sign his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) today. He certainly has an eye for the spectacular and the historic. It's certainly Big, weighing in at over 1,000 pages. Beautiful? That's in the eye of the beholder. As for Bill and Act: well it can't be both. A Bill is a proposal and, when it's signed into law, it becomes an Act. It can't be both at the same time. But no-one ever accused Trump of accuracy or precision.

But is OBBBA really an acronym? I always thought acronyms have to be pronounceable as a word and that, for most of us, doesn't fit the Bill (sic). However, if it is frequently used in the written word it's possible colloquially. After all, Americans do odd things with our Big, Beautiful English Language.

One of the most effective political acronyms recently used is MAGA. It's basically the shorthand for Trump's whole election campaign; he didn't need anything else - just shout MAGA, MAGA, MAGA and wear the baseball cap and you win an election. And then continue to use it when you govern, because it defines everything you do.

We Brits are a more restrained lot but I do think our political parties could do with a bit of acronymic oomph. I asked ChatGPT for suggestions and the results were pretty variable in quality. Its most amusing was PRIDE – Protect, Reform, Invest, Defend, Empower for the Conservatives. Can you imagine Rees-Mogg going for that word? Best suggestion was REAL – Reclaim, Empower, Act, Liberate - for Reform. I can actually see Farage et al getting the faithful to shout REAL, REAL, REAL at an election rally. And it fits neatly onto a baseball cap. I asked ChatGPT to draw that for me but after a good few minutes it was clear that I'd broken it. Frozen.

Any suggestions from readers for GOAT acronyms?

Thursday, 3 July 2025

The working class believed that the Labour Party was on their side

I derived the title of this essay from a quote by Lord (Maurice) Glasman, a guru of Blue Labour. The quote came in an interview with Tom Newton Dunn for the Times: “The working class believed for over a hundred years that the Labour Party was fundamentally on their side. And now they think we’re not”. 

But this is not initially about Glasman; it’s about JD Vance. Vance was apparently aware of Blue Labour - I’m not sure how - and sent a copy of his Hillbilly Elegy memoir to Glasman asking, according to the article, “whether he thought America’s Democratic Party could be rebuilt in the same light as Blue Labour.”** Subsequently Glasman became the only Labour politician to be invited to Trump's inauguration, at the personal invite of Vance. This peaked my interest; I’ve always been interested in political thinkers and particularly in radicals, of all colours. I have to admit I’d not been aware of Blue Labour and, until the last seven months, of Vance. I often feel my blog relies too much on flippancy and perhaps that should be balanced by serious thought. So I made a plan.

Step 1: read Vance’s book. So I did. Written in 2016 (when he was 31) it's a very moving account of his childhood and early adulthood in Kentucky - part of America's "Rust Belt": the deindustrialised MidWest/South. He uses the term hillbilly throughout the book almost as a badge of pride; they are his people. His upbringing was just about the most chaotic you could imagine. Dysfunctional mother, absent father, a succession of father figures of varying reliability, a maternal grandmother who, though steadfast and loving, was in Vance’s own words a gun-toting “lunatic” meant that he had zero stability and a developing bafflement as to how adults were supposed to behave.

The statistics tell you that kids like me face a grim future—that if they’re lucky, they’ll manage to avoid welfare; and if they’re unlucky, they’ll die of a heroin overdose, as happened to dozens in my small hometown just last year. I was one of those kids with a grim future. I almost failed out of high school. I nearly gave in to the deep anger and resentment harbored by everyone around me. Today people look at me, at my job and my Ivy League credentials, and assume that I’m some sort of genius, that only a truly extraordinary person could have made it to where I am today. With all due respect to those people, I think that theory is a load of bullshit. Whatever talents I have, I almost squandered until a handful of loving people rescued me. That is the real story of my life, and that is why I wrote this book.

It’s a torrid tale of fear - that he’d be left alone; that he'd amount to nothing; that he'd never get out of the nightmare.

He was saved, first by his sister Lindsay, five years older but more often than not the "only adult in the room", and then by the Marines: "From Middletown’s world of small expectations to the constant chaos of our home, life had taught me that I had no control. Mamaw and Papaw [beloved hillbilly maternal grandparents] had saved me from succumbing entirely to that notion, and the Marine Corps broke new ground. If I had learned helplessness at home, the Marines were teaching learned willfulness."

After the Marines came two years of college at Ohio State and then Yale Law School where he met future wife Usha ("my Yale spirit guide"). Called to the bar, marriage, fatherhood. Welcome to the world, but never forgetting:

I may be white, but I do not identify with the WASPs of the Northeast. Instead, I identify with the millions of working-class white Americans of Scots-Irish descent who have no college degree. To these folks, poverty is the family tradition—their ancestors were day laborers in the Southern slave economy, sharecroppers after that, coal miners after that, and machinists and millworkers during more recent times. Americans call them hillbillies, rednecks, or white trash. I call them neighbors, friends, and family.

In 2018, Vance added an Afterword to the book, giving us a clue to how his political awareness developed.

I tried to lay my cards explicitly on the table in one of the later chapters of the book: I am a conservative, one who doubts that the 1960s approach to welfare has made it easier for our country’s poor children to achieve their dreams. But those of us on the Right are deluding ourselves if we fail to acknowledge that it did accomplish something else: it prevented a lot of suffering, and made it possible for people like Mamaw to access food and medicine when they were too poor, too old, or too sick to buy it themselves. This ain’t nothing. To me, the fundamental question of our domestic politics over the next generation is how to continue to protect our society’s less fortunate while simultaneously enabling advancement and mobility for everyone.

I've usually argued that my own party has to abandon the dogmas of the 1990s and actually offer something of substance to working- and middle-class Americans. And despite all of my reservations about Donald Trump (I ended up voting third party), there were parts of his candidacy that really spoke to me: from his disdain for the “elites” and criticism of foreign policy blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan to his recognition that the Republican Party had done too little for its increasingly working- and middle-class base.

After graduating from Yale he practised corporate law, worked as a Senate aide and became a venture capitalist, a Senator in 2023, Vice-President in 2025. Not exactly a normal life path for a hillbilly but, despite some critics, I see no reason in this book to doubt his genuineness.

Step 2: check out bluelabour.org. I did that too, but it's hard to see through the flummery. 

About

Blue Labour is a force within the Labour Party committed to the politics of the common good. Our socialism is both radical and conservative. It is a politics about the work we do, the people we love, and the places to which we belong. 

Our starting point is the democratic renewal of our country. Blue Labour’s goal is a democratic self-governing society built upon the participation of its citizens in the exercise of power and its accountability. 

Our politics is a challenge to the liberal consensus of the capitalist order, but it does not belong to the revolutionary left. Its inheritance is the labour tradition.

It's hard to argue about any of this because it's just vacuous phraseology. Or maybe I'm too stupid to understand. Newton Dunn describes this as "economically left-wing and socially on the right". Maybe he should write their copy. Moving on:

Blue Labour began as a challenge to the liberal consensus of the capitalist order. Democracy was becoming an oligarchy with the liberal left in control of culture and the liberal right in control of the economy. 

Both Labour and the Conservatives shared a liberal contractual view of society. Instead of mutual loyalties binding human beings into families, groups and nations, Labour saw the individual and the state, the Conservatives saw the individual and the market. Neither spoke about the families and neighbourhoods we are born into, nor about our cultural and religious inheritances. Both overlooked the most basic bonds that hold individuals together in a society. 

In the 2019 general election the liberal consensus was broken. We are entering a new political era. However both parties are products of the liberal settlement. They remain substantially unchanged and so unprepared for the challenges ahead. 

The Blue in Blue Labour expresses our disenchantment with the progressive politics of the last few decades. Things do not always get better. Human life is dependent upon forces greater than our own selves. There will never be an end to human pain and suffering, but it can be made less. Politics is about hope and great achievements, but it is also about failure and tragedy.

This sounds awfully like Reform's (and MAGA's) nostalgic rhetoric. Anti-globalism, anti-statism, anti-growth, lots of antis. Glasman claims "I didn't realise the importance of 'again' in Make America Great Again until I went to Trump's inauguration".

I tried hard to find a policy outline for Blue Labour on their truly awful website. The nearest I could come to is this (forgive the lack of brevity):

Labour must rebuild our national economy. 

1.     Britain must reverse decades of deindustrialisation, to rebuild working-class communities and secure our national security in a new era of global uncertainty. There can be no rearmament without reindustrialisation, and no reindustrialisation without cheap energy. We need cheap, clean energy to bring down industrial energy prices, industrial policy to support industries of critical national importance, and regional policy to ensure all of Britain benefits.  

2.     Austerity was a disaster that hollowed out our state capacity and left communities abandoned. Years of historically low interest rates were wasted by Tory governments who refused to invest in the future and we are now paying the price. We should scrap the fiscal rules, in which economic sense and democratic politics are subordinate to faulty OBR forecasts, and invest in infrastructure and the public realm.

3.     Successive governments have sold off our public services and national assets and utilities, leaving us vulnerable and dependent on others. Privatisation has all too often led to extraction, mismanagement and waste. We should reconsider public ownership for public services like rail, utilities like water, and critical industries like steel.

4.     Buying an ordinary family house has become a struggle for even those on good salaries, excluding many young people from adulthood and parenthood. We have not built nearly enough houses, while immigration has radically increased demand. Government must enable more housebuilding, with the explicit objective of reducing house prices and rent as a proportion of incomes.

5.     Our tax system needs reform to reflect new realities, including that most value is tied up in land and assets rather than income. We should consider taxes on assets, and updating council tax bands to ensure it no longer disproportionately hits those in poorer parts of the country. 

Labour must restore the integrity of the sovereign nation. 

1.     Immigration is not a distraction or a culture war issue; it is the most fundamental of political questions, a cause of social fragmentation, and the basis of our broken political economy. We should drastically reduce immigration, reducing low-skill immigration by significantly raising salary thresholds; closing the corrupt student visa mill system; and ending the exploitation of the asylum system, if necessary prioritising domestic democratic politics over the rule of international lawyers. 

2.     Crime and antisocial behaviour are contributing to a sense that public order is breaking down, with working-class communities usually the victims. We must restore the trust and authority of our police force, clarifying its increasingly blurred mission, so that it can focus on the small number of repeat offenders who are responsible for the vast majority of crime. 

3.     We are proud of our multiracial democracy and we utterly reject divisive identity politics, which undermines the bonds of solidarity between those of different sexes, races and nationalities. We should legislate to root out DEI in hiring practices, sentencing decisions, and wherever else we find it in our public bodies.

Labour must restore the integrity of the state.

1.     The government does not run this country. We have handed over too much control to unaccountable QUANGOs and increasingly powerful courts with the power to block government policy. We should return decision-making to parliament, limiting the endlessly expanding power of judicial review and reforming or closing QUANGOs which make decisions which properly belong to the realm of democratic politics.

2.     The British state is bigger but less effective than ever. The prime minister is right that the civil service is sclerotic and needs reform, but we also need to end the scam of consultants ripping off the government and wasting huge sums of public money. We should restore state capacity by reforming our civil service and ending the corporate commissioning and consultancy racket. 

Labour’s covenant begins with these three political tasks. Their achievement will define the government’s ‘decade of renewal’ and shape the future of the country.

In amongst the generalisations there are probably some ideas that are worth considering but the biggest problem that isn't answered is "what then?" We get rid of half the civil service, net zero, immigration, the ECHR, fiscal rules; and what's left? Of course I recognise that we live in an era of disaffection, of low or no faith in governments and the signs are that those lead voters (or perhaps insurrectionists) to put their trust in those promising simplistic solutions. Unless I am misunderstanding Blue Labour I can't take this seriously.

I'm going to give the final word to JD Vance:

To return to the issue that motivated me to write this book, doing better requires that we acknowledge the role of culture. As the liberal senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued, “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society.” I agree, and my view that there will never be a purely government-based solution to the problems I write about has remained largely unchanged since Hillbilly Elegy came out. That said, I’m hardly a policy skeptic, and I think there is much more our governments could do to address these problems. Better policy requires better politics, however, and like many people, I find new reasons each day to wonder whether our politics are remotely up to the challenge. [and to repeat] To me, the fundamental question of our domestic politics over the next generation is how to continue to protect our society’s less fortunate while simultaneously enabling advancement and mobility for everyone.

Thankyou for taking the time to read my ramblings. I don't pretend to have solutions to the world's problems but am always willing to hear and read the views of others, of all persuasions.

** Glasman replied that the "ever more woke" Democrats were a lost cause.