Are the ‘lanyard class' the new enemy?
Globalisation, liberalism, neoliberalism, managerialism, internationalism, multiculturalism, human resources, wokeness, identity politics, progressivism, EDI, DEI, corporatism, proceduralism, elitism, environmentalism, transnationalism: there are a lot of things that voters are said to be protesting against. But now there's a new buzzword going round. What voters are really annoyed about is the
'lanyard class'.
Lord (Maurice) Glasman came up with the phrase. I visit him in the House of Lords (wearing my parliamentary lanyard, of course) to ask him what he means. 'The lanyard came into my head about 18 months ago as the symbol of the progressives,' he says. 'It was more of a poetic idea: 'The Lanyard'. I wrote a couple of poems that will never be published on the lanyard as a symbol for something horrible that I was trying to decipher.'
Glasman is the founder of Blue Labour, a culturally conservative faction of the Labour movement that is appreciated by several in No. 10 – and across the Atlantic (he was the only Labour figure to be invited to Donald Trump's inauguration). Glasman first mentioned lanyards in an interview with the Observer last month and then expanded on it in an address at the Policy Exchange thinktank. I was in the audience, and several people repeated the phrase 'lanyard class' back to him during the questions. Earlier this month, Janice Turner wrote in the Times that the strength of Reform could be attributed to a rebellion against the lanyard class: The officious, rules-obsessed professional cadre who set the tone in corporate HR and run the public sector.'
If you look at archive footage from the 1980s, the lanyard barely seems to exist.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
28 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
We ask the Apprentice Boys of Derry what they stand for
For some, it is a celebration of culture history and identity for others, it is a display of bigotry and sectarianism better left in the past. The Apprentice Boys of Derry held their biggest Scottish parade of the year in Larkhall with more than 50 associated clubs, each with a band, taking to the streets, with many more following or watching from the side. READ NEXT:Rachel Reeves says Labour will end use of hotels for asylum seekers The Glasgow Times was invited by the organisation to come along and speak to its leaders to find out what it is all about. Larkhall's streets were decked out in red, white and blue for the day with Union flags hanging from lampposts, windows and in gardens along the route. Late morning in Birkenshaw Park, the parade was assembling, with groups from Glasgow, Lanarkshire and beyond. Men are meeting and greeting, shaking hands, dressed in suits and crimson collarettes, carrying white gloves and bowler hats. (Image: Colin Mearns) The flutes and drums were starting to be heard from the bands, the same bands that accompany Orange Order parades. (Image: Colin Mearns) READ NEXT:Rise in suspected drug deaths in Glasgow so far this year David Hoey, general secretary of the Associated Clubs of the Apprentice Boys of Derry, was in demand, being introduced to members from around Scotland. (Image: Colin Mearns) We asked him what the purpose of the organisation is, which has 52 branch clubs in Scotland and many in Glasgow, and what the parade is all about. He answered that it is 'principally, a historical, commemorative organisation.' He said: 'The organisation has as its main purpose to celebrate the siege of Derry and the brave 13, but particularly the two big events are: the shutting of the gates, which is usually December when the Gates of Londonderry were closed against the forces of King James and then the relief of Derry when the city was finally relieved after 105 day siege in August.' 'That,' he said, 'is the primary purpose'. Not everyone, however, can join and commemorate this historic event. Mr Hoey explains: 'The criteria for membership is male and Protestant.' 'In terms of local areas, people would have to know each other and be invited, or apply and they would have to be known. 'But other than that, there's no particular criteria.' The male-only element, he said, is a support network, a place for men to come together and help one another. Mr Hoey said: 'It's a good place to meet. I keep telling people when they ask about it being male, it's the biggest men's shed organisation available because men get together, they meet. 'We're getting a remarkable number of young members into the organisation now and I think they're in where they can get people they can learn from. He added: 'They can learn skills. You have to run an organisation, you get positions on committee. You organise some of the events, and you get some of the young people involved. 'So, it's very much people coming together to try and organise and to help each other.' (Image: Colin Mearns) As well as organising parades, he said branch clubs rea active in the community and fundraise for their benevolent fund. Asked what they do when not on parade, Mr Hoey joked they are "organising the next one". He added: "There's a lot of activity, but everything is really geared to the big days. "There's occasionally a church service, but it's predominantly for those two big days." The events from 1689 being celebrated, he said, are still relevant today. (Image: Colin Mearns) (Image: Colin Mearns) Mr Hoey said: 'I think it's largely identity and place, so it gives people a sense of belonging. 'There are a lot of the characteristics of those who were besieged, I think form the identity of the Protestant loyalist culture, if you like. 'And that's what people identify, the determination, the resilience, the preparedness to basically stick it out, but also to create dialogue, to try and change things as well. 'And we're very, very keen that we work outside.' The other exclusive criteria, the Protestant only rule, has led to claims of sectarianism and accusations of being anti-catholic. Mr Hoey said such claims are rooted in ignorance and said he and his organisation is willing to have dialogue to prevent any flashpoints at parades. (Image: Colin Mearns) The Larkhall parade passed with no incident but in Glasgow, there have been protests, particularly around passing a specific Roman Catholic church, and previously in Northern Ireland, there was well well-documented, high-profile, sustained and violent confrontation. Mr Hoey said: 'I think the biggest opposition comes from the people who are most ignorant of what it's all about and imagine some offence or imagine that it's against them. 'It's really not. It's for us.' On the anti-catholic accusation, he added: 'People who want to say that don't want the parades to happen and they're basically throwing or projecting sectarianism onto the parades, but they have no basis for saying that. 'This is a culture. It is on parade. It's not trying to offend anybody. It's simply walking down a very long street and being out and saying we are the association. 'We are remembering a very important part of British history and that is what the day is about. 'It's not about others or offending or anything else. It's about the identity of those people and saying this is us, we're out here having a good day with our brothers, with our friends, with our families watching.' He used the example of Northern Ireland to illustrate how communities can work together. Mr Hoey said: 'The association, 25 years ago, was the first to engage outside of itself, you know, to go to go into the Parades Commission, to work with the local community, to work with the business community because we had a really bad time with violent opposition in Londonderry and there was no violence back. 'Our approach was to engage, and I know here in Scotland the SAC (Scottish Amalgamated Committee) has been working closely with the Centre for Good Relations, again to try and open up avenues of dialogue. 'People say 'the other' but there are lots of communities in Scotland now.' They are, he said, willing to 'work in formal channels' and 'open up' as far as possible. He added, however, there are always people who just don't want you there, and it's very hard to talk to people who simply are impractically opposed and don't want to talk.' The approach in Northern Ireland, he said, took a long time but has worked but he said it is an ongoing process. He added: "We have kept working ever since because you can never stop on that process. Stopping is the worst thing you could do.' He said the willingness to engage must be a two-way process, adding: "You can do your best to reach out. But you know you hold out your hand, but if. Someone doesn't. Want to shake it's not our job to make them.'
Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
The Herald Scotland
37 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
The BBC is helping Reform - and has become a danger to democracy
You might not know it - as the national broadcaster, the source of most information for most of Britain has singularly failed to report it - but the BBC has drawn up plans to win over Reform voters. It's strange how the BBC, a channel of staggering narcissism which never misses a chance to talk about itself, isn't saying much about the leaking of minutes from a meeting of its Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee. Read more The story was broken by the Byline Times, one of Britain's 'new media' outlets that's increasingly proving to be an excellent source of investigative journalism. BBC Director-General Tim Davie and other senior figures like 'News CEO' Deborah Turness want to reshape the broadcaster to appeal to Reform voters. They believe BBC news and drama is causing 'low trust issues' among the radical right. Turness discussed altering 'story selection' and 'other types of output, such as drama' to win Reform hearts and minds The committee includes former GB News executive Robbie Gibb, appointed to the BBC board by Boris Johnson. Emily Maitlis once called him an 'active agent of the Conservative Party'. Minutes stated that bosses 'recognised the importance of local BBC teams in the plan, given their closeness to audiences'. So keep an eye on how BBC Scotland behaves from now on. Here's the bottom line: the BBC should not seek to appeal to anyone. It should report the news with complete objectivity, impartiality, and political neutrality. The words 'without fear or favour' should be tattooed on the heart of every BBC employee, especially the cosseted, overpaid establishment mandarins who run the organisation. We pay their wages. The BBC should represent Britain in its entirety, not favoured special interest groups. However, this courting of Reform proves impartiality to be a lie. It doesn't matter if Marxists or Nazis like a particular story. It's irrelevant whether coverage makes liberals happy or conservatives sad, or vice versa. No consideration should ever be paid to whether drama is perceived as progressive or reactionary. What matters is that news is reported accurately and fairly, analysis is balanced, and drama has cultural merit and entertains. By attempting to woo Reform, the BBC alienates everyone else. Worse, the BBC reinforces the grievances levelled against it. Scotland's Yes movement has accused the BBC of bias for years. Now independence supporters can continue to do so but with ammunition to back up their allegations. How can the BBC pretend to report news honestly, or reflect British politics and culture fairly, when it has been caught out cosying up to Nigel Farage? BBC Director-General Tim Davie with former Conservative PM David Cameron (Image: free) The BBC slits its own throat. And many of its enemies will gleefully watch the blood spill. Specifically, Farage. He has consistently attacked the BBC. Indeed, he uses his own platform - the disgracefully biased GB News - to do so. With delicious irony, Farage previously accused the BBC of being a 'political actor'. Well, now the broadcaster appears to be acting politically for its nemesis. Farage threatened to boycott the BBC, and claimed editors used 'story selection' to bash Reform. If Farage ever takes power he'll gut the BBC in an afternoon. In truth, the BBC deserves all it gets. It made Farage's career, endlessly platforming him, giving him far higher exposure than other comparative politicians. If you think there's any fairness to BBC coverage ask yourself how much you see the LibDems on air compared to Reform. Then look at the two parties and their parliamentary representation. Reform has five MPs, the LibDems 72. Indeed, the Greens have four. Do the Greens get four-fifths of the time devoted to Reform? Do they hell. Only last month, Davie, the director-general, was sounding off about the 'crisis of trust' in Britain. He grandly claimed the BBC would play a leading role in reversing the decline and help combat division. The BBC would create a future where 'trusted information strengthens democracy'. Davie, though, is doing everything he can to deepen division, damage democracy and foment distrust in journalism at a time when society needs good, honest reporting more than ever. When he said 'reform' was needed, it now appears Davie meant with a capital R. Currently, Reform is causing chaos in councils the party won at the English local elections. Will that be reported under the new pro-Reform BBC guidelines? I'm afraid we now need to ask ourselves whether the BBC will tip the next election for Reform. Davie should go, along with the entire BBC board. They disgrace journalism, and are not impartial or balanced. Read more The notion of politicising drama is disgusting. Artists exist to create and enrich our lives, not do the bidding of tawdry media executives in hock to the hard-right. In Britain, trust is at rock bottom. New findings released yesterday from the National Centre for Social Research found that just 19% of us believe the current system of governing Britain works. Only 12% trust governments to put country before party. As long as I've been alive, the BBC was billed as the last redoubt for fairness and balance. Over the last decade, that claim has well and truly undergone an acid bath. Now, the mask is off. The BBC has shown us what it really is, and we need to take notice. Globally, the rise of the hard-right has caused many to lose their minds - from commentators and business leaders, to political parties and academics. In Britain, the BBC hasn't just suffered a nervous breakdown, it has completely surrendered its principles of fairness. It's now more a danger to our democracy than a line of defence. Neil Mackay is the Herald's Writer-at-Large. He's a multi-award winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics
