This young band openly loathe Britain. So why is Labour giving them our money?
You may be wondering why I'm wasting your time telling you about these nitwits. Don't worry, there is a reason. It's because the Government has just awarded them a big fat chunk of your money.
To be specific: it's a share of a £1.6 million grant from the Music Export Growth Scheme. Labour's Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, hailed all the grant's recipients, including Lambrini Girls, as 'the best of British culture'.
No doubt some taxpayers will be thinking: 'This young band openly loathe our country. So why should we be forced to fund them? In fact, come to think of it: why should we be forced to fund them even if they hadn't called our country racist and embarrassing? If they want money, how about they try earning it, by writing songs that lots of people would enjoy listening to, and playing gigs that lots of people would be willing to pay to see?'
All perfectly reasonable questions. Personally, though, I think there's a question that's even more important.
Which is: do the members of this band really have no idea how pathetically stale, clichéd and boring they are?
I mean, for pity's sake. This sort of routine isn't remotely fresh or original. The Sex Pistols were doing it half a century ago, with their songs trashing the monarchy and calling Britain a 'fascist regime'. And at least when the Pistols did it, it was bold and rebellious. Not any more. Nowadays, practically the entire ruling elite holds the exact same views as the Lambrini Girls. Let's face it: they all think Britain is racist and embarrassing and nothing to be proud of.
Parroting the consensus view of the current establishment, therefore, is not rebellious. Quite the opposite. It's rigidly conformist.
So, if Lambrini Girls really wanted to be shocking and outrageous, they'd say they were proud to be British. In fact, they'd say they were proud of the British Empire. They'd open every gig by performing an absolutely sincere cover of Rule, Britannia! – and end by singing God Save the King.
Not only that, they'd write songs with titles like Hooray for Israel, Women Don't Have Testicles, Perhaps Net Immigration of One Million People a Year is a Little on the High Side, and Deport Foreign Nonces Now No Matter What Excuses They Feed Some Gullible Lefty Judge. All those songs would horrify today's ruling class, and almost certainly get them banned from radio and TV. Which is, surely, the whole point of punk.
In fact, if by some miracle they were permitted to perform such songs on the BBC, it would probably be the biggest scandal in British broadcasting since the Sex Pistols taught some very naughty words to Bill Grundy.
Then again, if Lambrini Girls did write songs like that, Labour ministers might be a bit less keen to give them free money. So perhaps it pays to be conformist, after all.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Philip Cross: Why is youth unemployment so high? Government policies
Young people have borne the brunt of the recent deterioration in Canada's labour market. Youth unemployment usually runs at about twice the rate for adults, reflecting young workers' lower productivity and inexperience at searching for a job. But now it's nearly three times the rate for adults, which puts it at 'crisis levels' according to some commentators. The likely cause of this crisis? Government programs that have raised the minimum wage and sharply increased the supply of low-skilled foreign workers. The unemployment rate for those between 15 and 24 years of age shot up 5.4 percentage points from its recent low of 9.2 per cent in March 2023 to 14.6 per cent in July 2025. Over the same period unemployment for those 25 years and older rose just 1.3 points, from just 4.4 per cent to 5.7 per cent. The rise in their unemployment does not fully convey the deterioration of labour market conditions for young people, however. Disappearing job opportunities discouraged many from even looking for a job, which means they aren't counted as either in the labour force or unemployed. Moreover, in July a majority of those who did have jobs were in part-time, not full-time work, only the second month that's ever happened outside the 2020 COVID pandemic. Among those 15- to 24-year-olds, teenagers have been the biggest losers in the labour market lately. Their unemployment rate has nearly doubled over the past two years, from 11.9 per cent to 20.0 per cent, a level more typical of Europe's sclerotic labour market rather than North America's usually dynamic one. And, again, many teens have simply dropped out of the labour market, resulting in their participation rate falling from 52.0 to 46.5 per cent. Young people aged 20 to 24 have fared better, with the increase in their unemployment at about three percentage points over the past two years. And their labour force participation rate has remained stable near 78.0 per cent. Why has the labour market for youths, and especially teenagers, deteriorated so badly in recent years? Government policies that raised minimum wages while at the same time allowing a flood of low-skilled foreign workers into the country. Driven by the misguided slogan of providing a 'living wage,' most governments in Canada have raised the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour, double what it was in 2005 and with growth twice the rate of inflation. Many economists, including me in a 2021 paper published by the Fraser Institute, warned that such increases would be devastating for youths, and especially teenagers. Higher minimum wages support increased incomes for only the very small number of adults who are paid it — and if you are 40 years old and still earning the minimum wage, you should probably spend time reflecting on your career choice, your skill set or your motivation. Even as higher wages were pricing young people out of the job market, a surge in the number of low-skilled workers entering Canada meant supply was rising to take their place. Ottawa relaxed the rules governing low-skilled, temporary immigrant workers in 2023, triggering a flood of two million entrants since then. Recognizing it opened the floodgates too wide, the government last fall cut the number to be let in this year and next. And last week it announced it was reviewing its 2024 initiative to allow these temporary foreign workers an easier path to permanent residency. The combined impact of higher minimum wages and a rising supply of low-skilled immigrants has crippled job opportunities for youths, especially teens. When compelled to pay a minimum of $15 an hour or more, employers usually prefer hiring a highly-motivated and more mature immigrant worker over an inexperienced youth with no résumé. Philip Cross: Trump's conspiracy theory about 'rigged' U.S. jobs data doesn't add up Philip Cross: Buckley showed conservatism needs a moral foundation The sudden worsening of labour market outcomes for young people compounds their frustration at being shut out of Canada's prohibitively expensive housing market. It should not have surprised anyone that young Canadians, hoping to remedy the damage caused by government policies, were increasingly open to voting for Pierre Poilievre's Conservative party at the past election. Philip Cross is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jesse Kline: CUPE made dupes of us all with phoney 'unpaid work' claims
'Canada's biggest airline is hiding a secret,' warned a website campaigning on behalf of Air Canada flight attendants and their union during recent contract negotiations. 'Their cabin crew is being forced to work for free during the most critical moments of your flight experience.' Except it wasn't exactly true that they were being forced to work for nothing, and it was never a secret. In the end, it didn't matter that the Unfair Canada campaign wasn't being completely honest. What mattered was that the union's message — 'Tell Air Canada and the Carney government unpaid work is a true crime' — had its intended effect on Canadians and their elected officials. On Monday, before the labour dispute was resolved, Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu said that the flight attendants' claim that they were forced to work for free when planes weren't in the sky was 'deeply disturbing' and announced a probe into 'unpaid work in the airline sector.' If the inquiry finds the allegation to be well-founded, Hajdu pledged to introduce legislation to outlaw the practice. Whether the announcement was simply a means of placating the labour movement after Hajdu ordered the Canada Industrial Relations Board to force the flight attendants back to work, prompting allegations that the Liberals were siding with management, is an open question. It's very possible that the probe will be swept under the rug now that the airline is resuming operations. But should the government follow through on its promise, it will find that Air Canada's pay structure was the industry standard, and that the practice dates back around four decades. It only became an issue in 2022, when Delta Air Lines agreed to pay its cabin crews for boarding in a bid to prevent them from unionizing. In 2024, the union representing flight attendants at American Airlines lobbied hard for a similar pay structure and announced last August that it had reached an agreement to become 'the first unionized workgroup to lock in pay for boarding.' Workers at Alaska Airlines ratified a similar collective agreement in February. Given this trend, it's no surprise that the Unfair Canada campaign was launched late last year, months before the flight attendants' collective agreement was due to expire on March 31. By making it sound as though your friendly stewardesses were being treated no better than the children at a Bangladeshi garment factory, the union knew it had a winning public-relations strategy. It certainly helped that many press reports repeated the union's claims verbatim. To bolster its cause and increase political pressure, CUPE also commissioned a poll showing that the majority of Canadians sided with the flight attendants (59 per cent) over the company (12 per cent), and that 88 per cent think 'flight attendants should be paid for all work-related duties, not just time in motion.' Yet no one should be shocked that the public tended to support the people who serve them drinks and clean up their children's vomit over the company responsible for their cancelled flights and lost baggage. And some of the survey's findings were based on some fairly loaded questions. The one about compensation, for example, was setup as follows: 'Some people say that because boarding, deplaning, delays and safety checks are all part of a flight attendant's workday, they should be paid for that time. Others say flight attendants' pay should only start once the plane is moving, as is current practice. Which is closer to your own view?' It's little wonder that only 12 per cent of respondents chose the latter. But although these positions may have represented the views of the parties at the bargaining table, it's unlikely that too many Canadians were arguing in favour of unpaid labour at the dinner table. Nor does this question fully encapsulate how flight attendants were paid under the previous agreement. According to a press release issued by Air Canada at the start of the month, 'Time spent onboarding and similar tasks performed on the ground (are) captured within the formula pay defined by the collective agreement, which covers the duty period (commencing one hour prior to flight departure / ending 15 minutes after flight arrival). If the employee is requested to be on duty outside of these times or to perform service to passengers on the ground, the collective agreement provides for additional compensation.' The text of the agreement also says that, 'Where an employee is required to report for duty prior to or remain on duty following the termination of a duty period … s/he shall be paid at one-half of the hourly rate of pay.' Similar terms were offered when employees were required to 'provide meal, bar or beverage service to passengers on the ground.' Other parts of the agreement discuss hourly wages, which started at $25.13 for new hires and rose to $87.01 for some in-flight managers, along with meal allowances and incentives, such as discounted flights, pensions and health benefits. Being a stewardess is certainly not the most lucrative career, but painting them as destitute labourers forced to dumpster dive for food is a bit of a stretch. And although flight attendants can be forgiven for wanting a better deal, let's not pretend as though they didn't agree to the pay structure outlined in the last agreement, or the ones before that. The risk for flight attendants, however, is that if they get too greedy, many of their jobs could one day be automated, at least as soon as someone realizes that much of what they do could be replaced by a vending machine strapped to a Roomba and sent down the aisle to serve food and drinks. Heck, the service on some flights may even improve! Perhaps the solution is to allow them to accept tips. I'm fully aware that we're all sick of being asked to tip every time we reach for our credit cards, but I'd certainly be willing to chip in a few extra bucks if it meant someone would actually come when I press the flight attendant call button and stop giving me excuses about why they can't pour me a double gin and soda. Ultimately, the workers and management settled on a tentative deal that will reportedly guarantee at least an hour of ground pay at half their hourly rate for each flight, with a pay bump of five per cent per year. Which sounds fair enough. But such decisions should always be up to those who are being hired to perform a specific task and the people who are hiring them. Patty Hajdu and her Liberal colleagues should stay on their own runway. National Post jkline@
Boston Globe
38 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What might be lost in Trump's war against the Smithsonian and the nation's ugliest truth
President Trump's executive order in March threatened Smithsonian funding and accused it of "race-centered ideology." Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Advertisement Is this what might be lost by President Trump's escalating attacks on the Smithsonian Institution, reiterated just this week with a post that accused it of being too focused on 'how bad slavery was?' He didn't mention the Smithsonian's African American museum by name, but it is the most prominent keeper of the nation's ugliest and most difficult history. Advertisement It's too soon to tell, but it seems like a fair bet. Trump's post comes just one week after he announced a comprehensive review of the entire constellation of the Smithsonian. His He complained that museums across the country had similar priorities, unacceptable to him, and said in the same post that he would 'start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities.' How far he can reach into other institutions, such as the Museum of Fine Arts and the Metropolitan Museum in New York, the vast majority of which operate as private nonprofits with scant federal funding, remains to be seen. The Smithsonian is another story. Drawing more than 60 percent of its funding from the federal government makes it uniquely vulnerable to the administration in power. A unique governing structure — But if the last seven months have taught us anything, it is that the Trump administration isn't much for rules in pursuit of its ends. The only specific element of Trump's order itself liaison with the administration. Museum officials were also told to prepare for on-site inspections of all current exhibitions and displays. Within 120 days, all of its museums will have to revise any materials the administration deems unfit for its view of 'unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions' of American culture. Advertisement The intent seems plain. This is a presidential administration that made its cultural priorities clear from the outset, beginning on Trump's first day in office with Since then, its The Smithsonian's famous red-brick Arts and Industries Building on the National president's demands of the Smithsonian writ large are a shockwave for a vast, sprawling set of public institutions long at the forefront of American culture. The Smithsonian, a complex body of 21 museums (eight of which are under the immediate federal review), 14 research agencies, and one zoo, was founded with a $500,000 gift in 1829, when the British chemist and mineralogist James Smithson left his entire fortune to the country to build 'an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men' in the young nation's capitol. Advertisement The Smithsonian now describes itself as 'the world's largest museum, education, and research complex,' and it would be hard to find opinions to the contrary. Spanning every facet of science, history, and culture, the various Smithsonians are lined up on the National Mall in Washington, often two deep: From t The National Museum of African American History and Culture is one of seven flagship museums the Trump administration has targeted for review. Mark Schiefelbein/Associated Press Until the change in administration, the Smithsonian had been in an expansionist mode. The African American museum, an intricate architectural jewel designed by Adjaye and Associates, Site scouting and fund-raising for both museums is well underway, though their fates are far from assured. The Heritage Foundation, Advertisement The regressive attacks are anathema to institutions that have been at the fore of reimagining American culture as changing and dynamic in the 21st century. In 2004, the Smithsonian opened the National Museum of the American Indian, breaking off its Indigenous collections from its Natural History wing to better acknowledge Native American culture not as an anthropological pursuit, The Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian broke new ground in portraying Indigenous culture. LAWRENCE JACKSON The Smithsonian's African American museum did much the same a decade later, confronting perhaps the most visceral element of American culture. With dignity, humanity, and grace, it faced the legacy of enslavement with a bedrock of historical fact. It, too, pioneered a model. In Charleston, S.C., Advertisement This is what you have to hope a national museum does: set standards less encumbered by the occasional predilections of wealthy donors, more free to represent a fulsome view of a dynamic national culture forever in flux. And though the administration's intentions for the Smithsonians lack detail, it's this dynamic flux it appears most intent on quashing in favor of a neater, sanitized view. Even before the edicts of the past week, there have been signs the Smithsonian is beginning to buckle under the pressure. In July, Amy Sherald's "Trans Forming Liberty," 2024, on view at the Whitney Museum of American Art in April. Murray Whyte The executive order in March demanded, broadly, the Smithsonian do away with 'divisive narratives.' Other agencies offer a clue to what that might mean. In April, the National Park Service, on its web page for And what to make of the administration's unbound use of social media, where its Department of Homeland Security Coupled with i If that aesthetic flows into the Smithsonian complex, it would be an undoing of generations of scholarly progress. It would also be a decoupling of American culture from the institutions founded to celebrate it. However far it goes, the real work will go on in the Museums of Fine Arts, the Mets, and other nonprofits whose devotion to an evolving notion of America has, if anything, redoubled in the era of Trump. That will no doubt raise his ire and leave him grasping for ways to mete out punishment — revoking nonprofit status, The administration may well succeed in crippling beloved institutions in the Smithsonian sphere, but the result will be only to make them irrelevant and apart from a culture that will march forward without them. Murray Whyte can be reached at
