Heil to the Chief?

Over in the US of A,  the Trumptastic shenanigans continue. Amongst the lowlights so far for me has been the sight of an overly energetic Elon Musk excitedly making what looked very much like a Nazi salute to a crowd of Trump supporters at an inauguration event. The gesture, which Musk made a number of times, was identified as a Nazi salute by both the Israeli press and far right antisemitic white supremacists, two groups which are not otherwise often in agreement

Musk’s fanboys have tried to claim that it was no such thing, merely a clumsy attempt to hail (or should that be heil?) his supporters in the crowd and give them his heart. However, there are videos on the internet of white supremacists making the exact same gesture Musk did, hand on heart and then arm extended in a Nazi salute. Those Nazis were very clear what Musk meant.

Musk could drown a bag full of newborn kittens and useful idiots would make excuses for him. Musk must be either a Nazi sympathiser or a moron, although there’s considerable overlap between the two. The denials might have more credibility if Musk was noted for his commitment to fighting racism and bigotry: for his commitment to real freedom of speech and opinion, not just that which agrees with him. But this is a man who habitually platforms extreme right racist conspiracy theories, supports far right parties across Europe and who altered Twitter’s algorithms to boost racist and far right content. Was the gesture a Nazi salute? If the jackboot fits.....wear it. Musk is engaged in an explicit and concerted effort to project the most extreme far-right political groups across Western democracy into power and he particularly loves the German far right. According to Musk and the media, it was all just our lying leftist eyes. We didn’t see him do a Nazi salute. It was a “controversial and awkward gesture” that “sparked debate”. And pigs fly, Elon, pigs fly.

At the inauguration itself, multi-billionaire tech oligarchs got front row seats while Trump’s ordinary supporters were literally locked out in the cold. Some metaphors need no further explanation.

Trump himself issued a torrent of presidential executive orders lifted straight from the far right Project 2025 playbook, which he had denied having anything to do with prior to his election victory. One order was to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America, something Trump doesn’t actually have the power to do as it is not an internal body of water entirely within the USA. The rest of the world doesn’t need to go along with Trump’s grandiose fantasy. Instead we should call it the Gulf Between Trump’s Lies and The Truth. 

Other orders include withdrawing the USA from the Paris Climate Accords and the World Health Organisation, mass deportations of undocumented migrants, the reclassification of thousands of federal employees as political appointees, meaning civil servants can be fired and replaced by Trump loyalists. There were the expected attacks on the trans community and orders to rip up measures aimed at tackling structural racism. Women’s reproductive rights are next in the firing line. The US government website reproductiverights.gov went offline on the evening of the inauguration, the site contained information on access to abortion and reproductive health care and a Know-Your-Rights patient fact sheet. Search results for abortion have been scrubbed from the federal Department of Health and Human Services website.

It’s not just women and minorities who should be afraid, the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers are now in charge of the White House. Efforts to combat the climate emergency just took a huge step backwards. Trump effectively declared war on Panama by insisting that the USA will seize the Panama Canal.

No one had 'America declares war on Denmark and Canada' on their 2025 bingo cards, but that’s where we are now. While Trump has spoken of using economic force in order to pressurise Canadians into agreeing to annexation by the USA, he has not ruled out using the military to gain control of the Panama Canal and Greenland. It’s quite possible that one reason Trump wants to annex Canada is because the combined area of Canada and the USA is 7,651,842 sq miles, which would make it the largest country in the world, much bigger than Russia with its 6,601,670 sq miles. Control of Greenland would add a further 836,330 sq miles to Trump’s fiefdom for a total of 8,488,172 sq miles, 1,886,502 sq miles larger than Russia. That would appeal to Trump’s addled brain and his egoistical desire to always be the biggest. His would definitely be bigger than Putin's.

Trump also pardoned the January 6th rioters, including those convicted of violent offences. Apparently it’s OK to attack the police as long as you’re a far right conspiracy theorist. He has signalled that those who carry out politically motivated violence on his behalf will face no penalty. It’s going to be a rough four years and Trump and his team have only just got started on their transformation of America into a far right oligarchy.

The world is now an even more uncertain place than it already was. Trump has said he is not confident of the ceasefire in Gaza holding – absolutely no one is – and added that Gaza needs to be rebuilt “in a different way.” He did not elaborate but given that he is surrounded by advisors who support the Israeli far right, that “different way” is unlikely to be one which is beneficial to the Palestinians. Trump has previously spoken about the great ‘beachfront real estate’ Gaza offers. It is unlikely he sees a place for Palestinians in his redeveloped Gaza, other than as a labour force with minimal rights employed doing the most menial jobs.

What goes for Trump goes double for Elon Musk, a man whose mental stability must now be called into question. Whether or not Musk’s gesture was, in fact, a Nazi salute, there is no question that Musk has a habit of using his obscene wealth to promote fascists and racists. He spreads racist conspiracy theories and misinformation and is quite prepared to meddle in the affairs of other countries in order to bring down democratically elected governments. The question is "how long will he be tolerated by Trump?". And how long do we have to wait to see one of Starmer's acolytes doing a brown-nose job on him, in the same vein as Mandy's nauseating sycophancy over Trump?

British Prime MInisters: A succession of failures?

Oh, how we snigger when other countries elect heads of government who we think are not up to the task. The resurrection of Trump is a good example of this, of course. Implicit in this glee is a rather hubristic, some would say xenophobic, view that we do it better than anyone else and we only elect politicians who are fit for purpose. Dream on, British voters, dream on. 

Let’s go back to last Remembrance Sunday and the usual procession of our present and past Prime Ministers. And what a bunch they are. It was Enoch Powell who said "All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics". Here we have the living proof.

We, like many countries, have not been blessed with great Prime Ministers or leaders. Ones that put the country and we, its people, first, ahead of party politics and personal wishes. In fact, in my lifetime, apart from Clement Attlee, it is difficult to think of anyone else who comes up trumps. Winston Churchill during the war time years? However, he showed his true colours in 1945 and was unceremoniously dumped. But that was just before my time.

Turning back to the Notorious Nine in the photo above, although I’m leaving the present incumbent out of the discussion, all that is left of them are their shadows which hang across the country like Dracula’s cloak. Collectively, an unkind assessment would be of a self obsessed bunch of wrecking balls who would all have had their heads cut off in Tudor times. Lest we forget, just look at some of the sh** that they rained down on us. And, yes, I know this is a very partial view.

Tony Blair (1997–2007)

1. Involvement in the Iraq War – Blair’s decision to support the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 remains one of the most divisive actions in recent British history, criticized for destabilising the Middle East, leading to loss of life, and damaging trust in government.
2. Expansion of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) – Blair’s Labour government heavily promoted PFIs to fund public projects, which critics argue saddled public services, particularly the NHS, with enormous long-term debt and poor-value contracts.
3. Mass Surveillance and Erosion of Civil Liberties – Blair’s government introduced several measures, such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which broadened the government’s ability to monitor citizens and was widely seen as an infringement on civil liberties.
4. Increase in Tuition Fees – In 2004, Blair’s government introduced tuition fees for universities, initially capped at £3,000 a year, making higher education less accessible and burdening students with debt.
5. Encouragement of Mass Immigration – Blair’s policies led to a significant increase in immigration, which many argue put pressure on public services and infrastructure, contributing to social tensions. Immigrants were seen as a cheaper option to fill the gaps in employment and enable greater exploitation by employers.

Gordon Brown (2007–2010)

1. Financial Deregulation – As Chancellor and later PM, Brown promoted ‘light-touch’ regulation of the financial sector, which some blame for exacerbating the 2008 financial crisis due to risky practices by banks.
2. Gold Sales – Brown sold nearly 400 tonnes of the UK’s gold reserves at historically low prices between 1999 and 2002, a decision often criticised as it led to a considerable financial loss as gold prices later soared.
3. Failure to Address the Housing Bubble – Brown’s tenure saw a significant housing price increase, which fuelled the bubble that would later contribute to financial instability and make home ownership increasingly unaffordable.
4. Mismanagement of Public Spending – Brown’s increase in public spending without adequate reforms is seen by critics as unsustainable, creating a deficit that contributed to austerity under subsequent governments.
5. Lack of Response to Bank Bonuses – During the financial crisis, Brown’s government bailed out banks but was criticised for not placing restrictions on bonuses for bankers, leading to public resentment towards bankers perceived as responsible for the crisis.

David Cameron (2010–2016)

1. Austerity Measures – Cameron’s government introduced sweeping austerity policies, leading to severe cuts to public services and welfare, which are widely criticised for increasing poverty and social inequality.
2. Brexit Referendum – Cameron’s decision to call a referendum on EU membership without a clear contingency plan led to years of political and economic uncertainty, especially after the public voted to leave the EU. The country has never recovered.
3. NHS Reforms – The 2012 Health and Social Care Act restructured the NHS to introduce more market-driven elements, which critics argue led to fragmentation, inefficiency, and an increase in waiting times and privatisation concerns.
4. Failure to Address the Housing Crisis – Cameron’s policies did little to address the chronic lack of affordable housing, with schemes like Help to Buy often criticised for pushing prices up and benefitting property developers.
5. Cuts to Local Government Funding – Cameron’s government drastically reduced funding to local councils, resulting in reduced services and increased strain on communities, especially in poorer regions.

Theresa May (2016–2019)

1. Mismanagement of Brexit Negotiations – May’s handling of Brexit negotiations was widely criticised as ineffective, resulting in repeated rejections of her proposed withdrawal agreement and political stalemate.
2. Windrush Scandal – As Home Secretary, May’s “hostile environment” policy led to the wrongful detention, deportation, and denial of rights to Windrush generation citizens, causing significant public outrage.
3. Increased Pressure on the NHS – Under May’s tenure, austerity continued to strain the NHS, leading to shortages in staff, longer wait times, and increased privatisation of services.
4. Inability to Unite Her Party – May struggled to balance the various factions within her party over Brexit, weakening her leadership and contributing to ongoing political divisions within the Conservative Party.
5. Lack of Action on Social Care Reform – Despite initially proposing reforms, May was criticised for not addressing the mounting social care crisis, leaving vulnerable people and the elderly without adequate support.

Boris Johnson (2019–2022)

1. Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic – Johnson’s delayed lockdowns and controversial decisions during the pandemic are seen by critics as leading to unnecessary loss of life, economic impact, and public confusion.
2. Brexit Implementation – Johnson’s approach to Brexit, especially the Northern Ireland Protocol, created trade friction and political instability, particularly affecting Northern Ireland and the UK’s relationship with the EU.
3. ‘Partygate’ Scandal – Johnson faced backlash for gatherings at  Downing Street during COVID-19 lockdowns, undermining public trust in government at a critical time.
4. Economic Mismanagement – Johnson’s government was criticised for high levels of public spending during the pandemic without clear accountability, contributing to inflation and rising public debt.
5. Push for Culture Wars – Johnson’s administration was accused of promoting divisive “culture war” issues, which some argue detracted from addressing critical issues like economic hardship and environmental policy.

Liz Truss (2022)

1. Mini-Budget and Market Fallout – Truss’s mini-budget included unfunded tax cuts, which triggered financial market chaos, devaluation of the pound, and a spike in borrowing costs.
2. Destabilising Pension Funds – The mini-budget’s impact led to a near-crisis for pension funds, as interest rate volatility forced them to sell assets, leading to broader financial risk concerns.
3. Alienation of International Investors – Truss’s economic policies led to a loss of confidence among global investors, raising questions about the UK’s economic stability and reputation.
4. Cuts to Public Services – To counterbalance tax cuts, Truss proposed significant cuts to public spending, which would have further strained already underfunded public services.
5. Short-lived Leadership Turmoil – Her brief tenure was marked by internal party turmoil, deepening Conservative Party divisions, and reducing government effectiveness.

Rishi Sunak (2022–2024)

1. Cost of Living Crisis Response – Critics argue that Sunak’s measures have fallen short in addressing the cost of living crisis, with limited support for struggling families amid inflation and rising energy costs.
2. Backtracking on Climate Commitments – Sunak’s government has been criticised for weakening environmental policies, which undermines the UK’s climate commitments and reduces momentum on sustainable energy.
3. Continued NHS and Public Sector Strain – The NHS remains under significant strain, with Sunak accused of underfunding and insufficient staffing support amidst record wait times and strike actions.
4. Inability to Control Inflation – Inflation and rising interest rates have led to a mortgage crisis for many homeowners, with Sunak’s response criticised for being reactive rather than preventive.
5. Push for Controversial Migration Policies – Sunak’s approach to migration, including the Rwanda asylum plan, has been divisive, drawing both human rights criticisms and legal challenges.

All of them have underachieved but, maybe, that's the nature of politics. Over-promise and under-deliver. And then scarper off with loads of loot and honours. Let's reserve judgement on Keir Starmer and how he will eventually feature in the Pantheon of Mediocrity. We deserve better than what we get but, as we collectively fail to engage seriously in politics, we probably get what we deserve. But, sniggering aside, we probably do better than most, although, self-evidently it's not a very high bar to jump over.

A Summer job on Bedwas and Machen Urban District Council

A photograph can have the ability to stop time. Take this one posted on a local Facebook page recently. Just one look and I'm taken back more than 50 years. 

It takes me back to 1965 and 1966 when I had a summer student job with the erstwhile Bedwas and Machen Urban District Council. I think there was 4 or 5 of us employed over June to August and we filled in wherever there was a need. Not where we had the skills, because we had none, but where there was a need for some muscle.

One such task was collecting the bins. It was exactly like the photo. Open topped lorry with sliding doors and galvanised metal bins. No plastic bins in those days and no separation for recycling - all rubbish went to landfill. Actually, that's not completely true - in lots of households, newspapers were recycled. Either as toilet paper (Yes, really), or for lighting the coal fires that everyone had.

There were rules about what could and could not go in the bins. For example, no soil or garden waste and no hot ashes. But these restrictions were more honoured in the breach than in the observation. Quite often, the bins could not be lifted by two of us, let alone just one. The ingenuity some people showed in disguising forbidden items was amazing. In a few instances, refused to take the offending bin as we just could not lift it on the lorry. As far as ashes were concerned, it was not unusual to pick up a bin that was still hot or inadvertently tip a pile of hidden ashes into the lorry and cause a local fire. Buckets of water were kept handy as a contingency. I quite enjoyed my times on the bins as the regulars were fun to work with and, typically, it was 'job and finish', meaning that we got off work as soon as the day's round was completed.

We lay curbs and paving slabs, dug road drains and sewers: we even dug a few graves (had the embarrassment once of mismeasuring the width of one and the coffin could not be lowered to the bottom, resulting in a delayed burial while we made the grave a little wider. Not our finest hour. And we got a well deserved bollocking from Mr Noel, the foreman). 

I think of all the areas I worked in whilst on the Council, my favourite were the times I worked with the stone mason, Dick (Richard) Maddocks. Building stone walls was a joy, even if digging out foundations and mixing concrete was back-breaking. And it was never less than a pleasure to work with Dick. He was a skilled worker and a socialist of considerable conviction. He had spent some time in the USA in the 1930s as an itinerant craftsman and was a very amusing raconteur. We had many discussions ("nothing is too good for the working man" was a favourite phrase of his) and he helped shape my political beliefs. I helped him build a bus shelter in Machen over several weeks. I'm proud to say that it's still there and functioning after all these years. Somewhere at the back are my initials in one of the cement joints.

Happy days that taught me a few skills that have come in useful as and when necessary. Not the least of which was how to pace myself when doing a long physical task. All that for a weekly wage of around £8 a week, delivered in cash in a brown paper envelope every Friday lunchtime.

At last, a ceasefire

A ceasefire has been agreed although it remains to be seen how long it will last - and I'm certainly not daft enough to take any bets on this. I'm suspending my celebrations until I see how it works out. Notwithstanding that, we must not forget that many people are still going to be sleeping in leaky tents. A ceasefire will not mean a return to normality for them, but it will mean we can send better tents and warmer blankets, and we can get the sick and wounded out of Gaza for treatment. It means hospital patients won’t have the fear their doctors are going to be shot by snipers and their ward is going to be struck by a missile. These are not unreasonable things to wish for, are they? That sick people can be allowed to recover in peace? That even well people don’t need to worry the end could come at any moment? I just want these people to be safe and well.  It’s so sad that we live in a world where even the most basic of wants and needs is often too much to ask. It says a lot about societies that we allow so many bad things to happen.

Societies are weird because they are composed of people who are mostly wonderful, but as a collective can behave in cruel and bewildering ways. It’s not just Israel that needs to learn lessons from this genocide, it’s us too. Say what you like about how most of us westerners oppose the genocide, the fact is that we live in societies that make this sort of violence and cruelty inevitable. And I’m tired of it. I’m really tired.  

I'm tired of feeling an obligation to speak out against the war crimes my government is supporting in my name. I'm tired of feeling a responsibility for human suffering. I just want to live in a world where I don’t need to constantly fight my own leaders and we can all focus on kindness and unity and be what we are meant to be: communities. We aren’t supposed to be fighting like this.

My wish now is that we use all of this pain and suffering to wake us up. If empathy won’t be enough to wake us up, what about selfishness? What about the knowledge that if we don’t change, we could very well be screwed in the future. I don’t want to be living (or dying) in the next Gaza, do you?

The focus now should be on rebuilding and healing. And the Palestinians need to heal more than we can ever appreciate. Their land has been turned into a cratered moonscape with mountain ranges composed of rubble. So many souls have been lost under that rubble, but so many more are above the rubble, still determined to live, determined to hold onto their land, no matter what. That’s the thing about being indigenous, the land means something to you and you will do everything to hold onto it. You don’t destroy land that you know is yours and you don’t flee at the first sign of trouble: colonisers do that.

The Palestinian people will rebuild their lives, however slow and painful that process is. I remember seeing a video where Palestinians had joined up their tents and little girls turned those tents into beautiful areas adorned with plants and scattered flower petals. It was both desperately sad and inspiring. It was a sign that these people can never be beaten, that they can find joy anywhere, that they will turn even the moon craters and rubble mountains into something beautiful. That their olive trees will be replanted and new flowers will grow and even if they have to spend a lifetime in tents, they will make the best of it. They are not waiting for Israel’s permission to exist. They have lives to live now. 

When we look to Gaza, we should look with shame but also with hope. We should understand that if the Palestinian people can rise again, if they can show the passion and resilience needed to rebuild their society, we surely can fix ours. 

The truth is out there but so are the lies

Facebook’s recent announcement that they’re going to quit fact-checking popular posts on their site is yet more evidence of the move towards/degeneration into a post-truth media environment. Some might try to claim that it doesn’t matter that much anyway because "Facebook is a dying platform with an aging user base" and, yes, that's true to a point. But it’s still the world’s biggest social media platform with over 2 billion daily active users, which is more than YouTube, and three times as many as the wreckage Elon Musk has made of Twitter/X. So, it’s really concerning that the world’s biggest social media site is washing its hands of responsibility and essentially telling political liars that they’re now free to whip up hate on its platform. Fact-checking is difficult. It’s much more complicated to produce content that’s well researched and evidence-based than to just write whatever you want regardless of the truth. And it’s even more complicated to try to differentiate between reliable and deceptive content when people are uploading literally millions of posts per hour to your site. However the answer to such complications isn’t just to give up and let liars pollute political discourse with dangerous misinformation because it’s too complicated and expensive to take responsibility. That’s the same pathetically sickening approach taken by the private water companies, pumping billions of litres of raw sewage into our rivers and coastal waters because it’s easier and more profitable to release it into the environment than to invest in the infrastructure required to treat it. Allowing misinformation to spread unchecked isn’t just bad because it erodes the boundaries between truth and lies, it’s also dangerous. The summer riots in England last year were fuelled by a barrage of social media lies that sought to pin the blame on Muslims and immigrants for the Southport killings. Lies that were deliberately amplified on the toxic mess Elon Musk has turned Twitter into. Musk and other high-profile accounts on his site deliberately exacerbated the riots by amplifying lies about the Southport killings and the sentencing of rioters, and in recent weeks Musk has been busy trying to further destabilise British politics by amplifying hundreds of posts attacking the government, misrepresenting the meaning of parliamentary legislation, and slamming the British justice system. Facebook itself has been implicated in the spread of hate-mongering lies, from their role in amplifying the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar to their decision to continue allowing the Britain First hate mob to spread lies and glorify extreme-right terrorism on Facebook for years. Those of us who care about honesty and decency in public discourse are well aware that the problem goes a lot deeper than social media too. Consider the constant barrage of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extreme-right politics that is GB News. It masquerades as a "news" channel, but it’s actually just the propaganda plaything of a handful of extreme-right billionaires who are happy to spend tens of millions per year on their project to debase and destabilise British political debate. There are other examples too. Scottish independence supporters will remember the BBC’s campaign of misinformation during the 2014 Independence referendum; human rights supporters will be all too aware of the British media’s slavish adherence to Israeli propaganda narratives over their brutal genocide in Gaza; and traditional Labour Party supporters will never forget the extraordinary campaign of lies and misinformation aimed at Jeremy Corbyn during his leadership of the party (Czech spy, Putin crony, dancing at the cenotaph, supporting terrorism, plotting a second Holocaust …etc, etc). If broadcasters and traditional media can’t be trusted, and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter can’t be trusted, who can we turn to? Certainly not the Labour government. Sadly, Keir Starmer is not without form. By his own actions, he's shown that he lied his way into the Labour leadership with a load of pledges, policies, and promises that he never intended to keep. Trusting a liar like Starmer to sort out the scourge of online political lies would be just as absurd as expecting Boris Johnson to do a good job of maintaining standards in public life. It’s a dispiriting thing to admit, but we’re basically on our own. Social media companies are either washing their hands of responsibility (like Facebook) or deliberately amplifying the lies (like Twitter); standards in broadcasting and traditional media are so low that biased propaganda and outright lies are the norm. The problem, of course, is that many people simply don’t have the time, inclination, or critical thinking skills to separate the lies from the truth for themselves, and those of us who do seem to be in a dwindling minority. There are things we can do to support the truth and combat the lies, but unfortunately these actions are just drops in the ocean compared to the £billions that powerful people are prepared to spend on creating, propagating, and amplifying extreme-right politics, dangerous conspiracy theories, and outright lies. Here are a few for consideration: 1. Consider what are your most trusted sources of political commentary and support them, either through small donations, or by sharing their work. 2. Avoid sharing online misinformation, even if it’s to critique it, because as far as social media algorithms are concerned "a share is a share". Even if you’re sharing it to say how awful and dishonest it is, you’re still amplifying it. If you do insist on critiquing misinformation, use screenshots, don’t create even more links to the sources of the misinformation. 3. "Don't feed the trolls". Sometimes it's very tempting to respond to something outrageous. More often than not, it's pointless and achieves absolutely nothing. Maintain your equanimity and rise above it. 3. Use the block button to eliminate the sources of political lies from your online environments. From our Facebook/Twitter feeds to Google Chrome’s suggested links, there’s a constant effort to force feed us the output of extreme-right agitators and disreputable sources like GB News. 4. Don’t vote for political liars. 5. Consider diversifying your online environments by trying out new platforms (Substack and Bluesky seem to be 'rising stars') and try to spend time in the places where you’re fed less extreme-right bullshit and lies. 6. From a scientific, journalistic perspective, my advice is: ‘read the original sources of information’. Yes, it takes time and effort but we live in times where you have to go searching for the truth. 7. The days of altruism are gone and everything is transactional.To quote another old adage ‘follow the money’. Who is paying? Why are they paying? What are they hoping to gain? 8. Unsubscribe. I left Twitter/X as soon as Musk took over and I'm slowly disengaging myself from Facebook. I'm not yet ready to quit Facebook entirely but I'm having a severe prune of the sites I follow. But one day, I will flick the 'off' switch.