The decline and fall of Great Britain
The truly unnerving thing about the fall of Rome (yes, I'm going there again, sorry) was that most Romans probably didn't notice it had happened. The final western emperor was formally deposed on 4 September 476 – but everyone, including the bloke who'd deposed him, assumed the place was just being run from Constantinople now, and it took a couple more centuries of sackings, plague and things breaking and not being fixed before anyone decided the empire had actually ended long ago. To those who'd lived through it, the story was more one of decline than fall.
Things breaking and not being fixed – the sneaking suspicion that things might just keep getting worse – has been a theme of British life of late. In too many towns, boarded up shopfronts predominate; shops and restaurants that closed during Covid and never reopened, or did reopen, but as low-value and slightly suspect operations like vape shops or nail bars. A general air of scuzziness has crept in, as councils make their final metamorphosis from the once proud local corporations that built this country, to struggling and underfunded social care funding bodies with an occasional sideline in bins. Meanwhile, social media is awash with stories of police ignoring petty crimes, and immediately marking inquiries as closed, as if there's no value in investigating and nothing to be done. (When someone is caught expressing support for Palestine, at least, Kent police are on it.)
Even in London, which for all its problems remains far richer than the country it governs, commentators whine about graffiti on tube trains, station lifts out of use due to unspecified motor faults, the year it'll take to replace just four escalators at Cutty Sark station. Such criticisms are heard most often from the right-wingers who seek to demonise the city and its liberal Muslim mayor alike – but they resonate nonetheless, because they're not entirely wrong. It does feel absurd that a city that just a few years ago was New York's only plausible challenger for the title of 'capital of the world' now can't find the parts to fix a bloody lift.
Consider the sorry saga of Hammersmith Bridge, which connects two districts of plush west London. In the 1820s, the bridge took just three years to build; in the 1880s, just five to replace after a boat smacked into it. Now, it's been closed to motor traffic for six years and counting – the cars may not matter; the buses surely do – and no one has offered a timetable for when that might change. Everyone is waiting on someone else to pay.
I could keep banging on about both the sense of decline and the apparent inability of our government to arrest it – I've not even mentioned, say, the looming collapse of the university sector, taking a bunch of regional economies with it, or the 20-year failure to even think about social care. But I want to devote the rest of my wordcount instead to the psychic cost of all this.
For quite a while this country was blessed with a sense of, for want of a better word, progress. Many lived hard lives; for certain people in certain places, things could get worse as well as better. But if you look at the state of the nation as a whole at any point in the 19th or 20th century, you could generally rely on things having improved visibly over the previous, say, 20 years.
That no longer seems to hold true. We're not significantly richer than we were in 2005, but the cost of living is significantly higher, and the cost of having somewhere to live higher still. Worse, a lot of basic state functions are in remission. We no longer trust that the police will come when called, or you can see a doctor when sick. And we have a prime minister who doesn't recognise that anything has broken. Perhaps the idea of progress was an aberration. For much of history, even the bits that didn't have Rome to look back on, the golden age was assumed to lay behind, not ahead, of the present.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
But that sense that things would get better made a whole load of otherwise near impossible things plausible. You could redistribute resources, because the size of the pie was growing. You could ask people to make sacrifices, because tomorrow would be better than today. How do you do that when too many people don't have enough, and no longer trust their sacrifice will even help? How can you have progressive politics without any sense of progress?
Tomorrow is not looking better than today. Thanks to a combination of demographics and economics, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, there are excellent reasons to imagine it might actually be worse. At least when the Tories were in office, we had the day that they'd lose to look forward to. Now the only plausible change in the offing is Nigel bloody Farage. The emperor isn't coming to save us. He may yet be the one to cut the aqueducts.
[See also: Gaza will radicalise a generation]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
16 minutes ago
- The National
Reclaiming everyday power matters more than starting a new party
We were talking, of course, about Labour, the deepening void in British politics, about a country where public services are crumbling, where opposition feels hollow, and where the political space once occupied by hope seems to have disappeared. It's not a cynical question. And it deserves more than a cynical answer. So I gave it some thought. And to be honest, I surprised myself. Because even though I agree with the premise – that Labour no longer offers a political home for many – I didn't feel excited. I didn't feel much at all. And that feeling stayed with me. Not because I'm disengaged from politics, but because I've been trying to make sense of what a new party could be for. What it could meaningfully offer in the current landscape, not ideologically, but structurally. READ MORE: 'Wake up, America!': Alan Cumming hits out at Donald Trump over trans attacks When the news broke of a new initiative involving Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, my reaction wasn't negative. But it wasn't hopeful either. Oh. There's a new party in town. That's it. There's a contradiction here. It's possible to agree that a political alternative is needed and still not feel particularly moved when one arrives. And the more I think about that contradiction, the more it seems revealing, not of the new party's flaws, but of a deeper problem in political life. Because the real question may no longer be: Do we need a new party? It might be: What can people do? And more crucially: What do people feel they can do? At this point, any honest reckoning has to contend with a widespread sense of powerlessness. Not apathy. Not disinterest. But the quiet despair that comes from not knowing where to begin, or what could possibly make a difference. That's why Hilary Wainwright's recent piece in Red Pepper magazine felt so relieving to read. She writes about the left's 'fatal attraction to shortcuts' – the belief that if the right party, with the right leader and the right policies, comes along, transformation will follow. But as she reminds readers, this logic has a long track record of disappointment. From Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party to Respect to Left Unity, new parties have emerged with high hopes, only to fade without leaving a lasting political infrastructure behind. Wainwright doesn't argue against new formations. But she insists that the work must begin elsewhere: in the slow, patient construction of popular democratic power. In local initiatives, people's assemblies, and independent councillors building relationships of accountability not with a party headquarters, but with their neighbours. That kind of politics isn't a shortcut. It's a long, sometimes frustrating path, but it might be the only one capable of lasting. That perspective helped clarify my own. A new party isn't irrelevant. But in a context where people no longer believe their actions matter, where politics has become something external, alien, remote … it can't be the first step. READ MORE: Here's why John Swinney should ask Keir Starmer for a Section 30 now I've started to realise there may be a thread running through much of what I've been writing in this newspaper over the past few years. Whether I've been looking at childcare, housing, or the slow degradation of the NHS, I keep circling the same question: How do people reclaim a sense of power over their lives – real, collective, material? What connects so many of these crises is the deep belief that nothing we do will change them. And that belief, I think, is one of neoliberalism's greatest successes. Neoliberalism has often been described as a decades-long experiment in outsourcing. Services, care, governance: all handed over to markets, contractors, consultants. But it also outsourced something deeper – the sense of shared political responsibility. The message was that someone else, an expert, an algorithm, a market force, would take care of it. And we citizens, would be seen, first and foremost, as consumers. And gradually, that logic seeped into our idea of politics itself. Politics, too, came to feel like something best left to professionals. Not a shared, daily practice of negotiation and solidarity, but a technical domain of experts and spokespeople. People didn't give up on politics. They were taught it wasn't theirs to do. And that teaching was reinforced everywhere; in the design of services, in political narratives, in the retreat of collective spaces. We learned to see politics as something external; something you observe or vote in (a choice to be made, a bit like a marketplace actually), not something you build or change. You can see this disempowerment very starkly in housing. Rents rise, quality falls, and entire developments go up that ordinary people will never live in. Homes become assets. What was once a public good becomes a private commodity. And the experience of trying to access housing, like trying to find childcare, or dental care, or mental health support, becomes a kind of battle: exhausting, bureaucratic, humiliating. That's disempowerment. Not as a vague feeling, but as a daily reality: paying more for worse, navigating systems that no longer serve, feeling that no matter how hard you try, it's always slipping further out of reach. And over time, that doesn't just impact housing or health, it shapes how people see the world. It hollows out belief. It makes politics feel like something that happens elsewhere, in a different language, for other people. READ MORE: Tall Ships celebration attracts more than 400,000 visitors as event comes to a close Some of the most meaningful political acts I've observed recently haven't taken place in formal spaces at all. They've unfolded in nurseries, where parents start questioning fee hikes and demand accountability. In blocks of flats, where neighbours create mutual aid systems. In conversations between mothers about birth trauma in overstretched NHS wards. These are not isolated complaints. This is the work of building collective understanding, and sometimes, action. This is where politics lives – not in manifestos, but in people's attempts to name what's happening to them, and to resist it, even in small, fragile ways. That's where power can start to grow again. And if a political party is to matter, it will have to come from that, not speak down to it, or try to replace it. Emancipation, autonomy, sovereignty; these are not abstract goals. They are needs, expressed through the daily grind of trying to live with dignity in a system that often treats people as expendable. A new political project must respond to that hunger, not with slogans or personalities, but with structures that allow people to act together and be heard. That is what Wainwright means, I think, when she says there are no shortcuts. And it's what I mean when I say: a party can't do it all. A political party can support. It can amplify. It can defend. But it cannot substitute for the deeper, harder, slower work of rebuilding the very idea that politics belongs to us. So when someone asks: 'Do we need a new party?' I no longer rush to answer. I want to ask: What's already happening? Who's organising? Where do people still feel they have a voice? Because maybe the real work is there – not in founding something new, but in noticing what already exists, and helping it grow.
Rhyl Journal
3 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
British man convicted of trying to spy for Russian intelligence service
Howard Phillips, 65, from Harlow, Essex, intended to help two apparent Russian agents called 'Sasha' and 'Dima', including by passing on personal information about former defence secretary Sir Grant Shapps, helping with travel logistics and booking hotels. But 'Dima' and 'Sasha' were in fact undercover British intelligence officers, Winchester Crown Court previously heard. A jury found Phillips guilty of assisting a foreign intelligence service under the National Security Act on Tuesday, following a two-week trial at the same court. The jury reached a unanimous verdict after four hours and four minutes of deliberations. Phillips, wearing a dark suit and tie, silently shook his head in the dock as the verdict was given. Prosecutors said Phillips intended to assist Russian agents from the end of 2023 until May last year. Phillips offered to pass on Sir Grant's contact details as well as the location where he kept his private plane in order to 'facilitate the Russians in listening on British defence plans', the trial heard. He was heard telling the men he wanted to work for Russia in exchange for financial independence from the UK. The defendant's ex-wife, Amanda Phillips, told the court during the trial that he 'would dream about being like James Bond', and that he watched films to do with MI5 and MI6 as he was 'infatuated with it'. Mrs Phillips told the court she was aware the defendant had applied for a job at the UK Border Force in October 2023, which prosecutors said was part of his bid to assist Russia's intelligence service. Phillips previously claimed he had contacted the Russian embassy in early 2024 in a bid to track and expose Russian agents to assist Israel. He told jurors he ascertained 'from the onset' that 'Dima' and 'Shasha' were 'definitely not Russian' and were undercover individuals, but that he carried on 'playing a role' around these agents in order to 'test the waters'. Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb remanded Phillips in custody and adjourned sentencing to the 'earliest available date' in the autumn. The judge said she wanted a full pre-sentence report on the defendant ahead of sentencing as the conviction was for a 'relatively new' offence. Addressing the jurors, she said: 'Thank you very much for the important work that you have done on this very important case. 'We are trying, as a system, to get to the right answers in these situations.' Officers from the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command arrested Phillips in central London on May 16 last year, after he travelled to the capital for a meeting with the two apparent Russian agents. Detective Chief Superintendent Helen Flanagan said: 'Phillips was unemployed and his primary motivation for wanting to become a spy for the Russian Intelligence Service was financial reward. 'His conviction should act as stark warning to anyone who thinks that carrying out illegal activity on behalf of a foreign state is an attractive or easy way to earn money. 'The reality is that we take this kind of activity extremely seriously. 'Those involved will be identified, investigated and, like Phillips, will face extremely serious consequences when they are convicted. 'This case is also another successful use of the National Security Act to prosecute someone who was attempting to undermine the security of the UK and we will continue to use these powers available to us to help keep the public safe.' Bethan David, head of the Crown Prosecution Service's counter terrorism division, said: 'This conviction sends a clear message to anyone considering spying for or assisting Russia. 'Howard Phillips clearly outlined the services he was willing to provide for a hostile state. From gaining employment within the civil service and applying for security clearance, to providing the personal details of the Secretary of State for Defence – Phillips was brazen in his pursuit for financial gain and unbothered about the potential detriment to his own country. 'It is a criminal offence to assist a foreign intelligence service, regardless of your motive or whether or not you succeed. 'We will always seek to prosecute anyone who poses a threat to the UK.'
Daily Mirror
5 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Families of Air India crash victims are sent the WRONG bodies in glaring blunder
Funeral plans were abandoned after one family of a British victim were told their coffin contained the body of an unknown passenger, rather than their loved one Bereaved families of victims of the Air India crash have been sent the wrong bodies, it has emerged. The remains of some of the deceased were wrongly identified before being flown home to the UK, an error which has caused further distress to grieving families. Relatives of one victim had to abandon funeral plans after being informed that their coffin contained the body of an unknown passenger rather than their family member, it is reported. And the "commingled" remnants of more than one person killed in the crash were mistakenly placed in the same casket in another shocking blunder. They had to be separated before the internment could go ahead last weekend, according to reports today. Of the 261 people who died when Air India flight 171 lost power and crashed, seconds after leaving Ahmedabad for London Gatwick, 52 were returning Britons. Two instances of mistaken identity have so far come to light, but there are fears that more such errors could have been made, leaving families under a shadow of uncertainty. The scandal reportedly came to light when Inner West London coroner Dr Fiona Wilcox sought to verify the repatriated Britons' identities by matching their DNA with samples provided by the families. Reacting to her discovery, aviation lawyer James Healy-Pratt, who represents many of the British families, said: "I've been sitting down in the homes of these lovely British families over the last month, and the first thing they want is their loved ones back... But some of them have got the wrong remains and they are clearly distraught over this. It has been going on for a couple of weeks (and) I think these families deserve an explanation." Keir Starmer is expected to address the issue with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi during his state visit to the UK next week. The UK government has told the media, though, the families are experiencing an "extremely distressing time". Mr Healy-Pratt, also fighting for compensation in the courts following the the catastrophe, told the Daily Mail: "Family X have no-one to bury because it was the wrong person in their casket. And if isn't their relative, the question is, who is it in that coffin? Presumably it's another passenger and their relatives have been given the wrong remains. The coroner also has a problem because she has an unidentified person in her jurisdiction." Inquests into 12 deaths were opened and adjourned on July 10 by Dr Wilcox. Approached by the Mail, Dr Wilcox said it would be inappropriate for her to comment on the scandal. But it is understood complex work is now being done to try to establish the precise chain of events in the recovery and identification process, beginning when the bodies were pulled from the jet's smouldering wreckage and ending when they reached Britain. A government spokesperson said: "Formal identification of bodies is a matter for the Indian authorities. We understand that this is an extremely distressing time for the families, and our thoughts remain with them."
