I'm bullish about Britain. You should be too
There's been too much doom in our politics of late. Too much fatalism about our future.
So, why then, am I bullish about Britain? My confidence isn't due to a lack of awareness or complacency about our present malaise. I see it, like so many Telegraph readers, and it pains and motivates me.
The record high taxes, government spending, and debt interest payments. The highest industrial energy costs in the world. The 7 million people on the NHS waiting list. Or one in five students actually earning less for having gone to university. That's not to mention the record shoplifting and court backlogs, broken borders and the endemic, so-called 'petty' lawbreaking.
Our present malaise is explicable. In recent decades, those in charge have traded out the fair, decent and efficient instincts of the British people as the guiding force behind our policy for their own supposed 'rationality.'
All too often they disparage public opinion as 'populism', choosing instead to work against the grain of sentiment of the British people. At times our political and bureaucratic class would even say one thing in public to placate the public, but do another in practice.
We're confronted with manifestations of this madness on a daily basis. A foreign terrorist's right to stay here trumps the public's right to walk safe streets. We won't drill in the North Sea and instead we will import oil and gas from Norway – who drill from the exact same sea. We'll trade a car made in Sunderland, for one made in China. We're for free speech, but Islam should get its own blasphemy law. We must give-away the strategically important Chagos Islands to Mauritius to preserve our reputation at international law conferences.
Those are the results of the so-called rationality of those in charge of our country. It's a joke – and the joke is on us.
But – and this is the crucial thing – we're not a patient who's ill and the doctors can't understand why. We're not a patient whose treatment requires the invention of some complex new drug. We are poorly, but the medicine we need is clear.
Most of our challenges stem from a relatively small number of very big things we are getting wrong which are compounding each other. If we start to get them right – like we have for so much of our history – we can turn things around.
We have built homes and infrastructure quickly and cheaply before. We have harnessed cheap and reliable energy to power forward British industry before. We have operated a lean and efficient state before which attracted the very best and took pride in our country. Before the turn of this century we mostly had sensible, controlled migration. The answers have not changed: we have proved before they are possible and within reach.
The times are changing. The old order is collapsing – and its architects like Tony Blair are yesterday's men and women. Keir Starmer doubled down on our failed consensus, tinkering here and there, and his political honeymoon has ended faster than ever. After a wasted year he is in office, but increasingly not in power. The public's patience has snapped and they will no longer tolerate politicians and parties that fail to act on the frustrations voters feel.
We live in a political interregnum, the period of stasis between two orders. What follows is often reinvigorating as latent, suppressed creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation suddenly flowers and lifts the whole nation. In the words of George Orwell, 'nothing ever stands still. We must add to our heritage, or lose it. We must grow greater or grow less. We must go forward or backward.' We have no choice but to advance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
44 minutes ago
- Times
Migrants face restrictions on social housing
A new immigration clampdown will limit access to social housing to people with strong, long-term connections to Ireland, and emergency homeless accommodation will also be restricted. Under plans due to go to cabinet in the next fortnight, social housing applicants must be lawfully and habitually resident in Ireland, meaning they must have close ties with the state, have been living in Ireland for some time and intend to stay for the foreseeable future. The government first floated the suggestions in a proposed law early last year, but later dropped the plans. It is understood that, after extensive legal advice in recent months, the measures are back on the table. The rules could spark controversy because they are likely to lead to an increase in non-Irish nationals being excluded from housing and homeless lists. Ministers will be told that the law is needed to eliminate 'ambiguity' over existing rules for non-Irish nationals who want to apply for social housing at a time of intense public and political scrutiny over housing waiting lists. Alongside the new rules, ministers are also due to approve plans to introduce similar eligibility criteria for access to homeless accommodation. This will mean that local authorities will not be required to assess households for homeless supports unless they are legally and habitually resident in the state. Local authorities currently do not have a legal basis to refuse accommodation based on legal or habitual residence. • Ministerial row stalls use of empty offices to house asylum seekers The issue of immigration and its effect on the homeless figures was previously raised by Simon Harris, the tanaiste, in an interview with The Sunday Times. At the time, the Fine Gael leader said: 'People understand the fact that homelessness numbers are heavily impacted by the fact we are seeing many people seek protection in our country, seek asylum in our country and many people come from abroad hoping to have a new future in Ireland and immigration. It has many, many pluses, but it has had a challenge there.' The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission previously raised concerns about any move to change social housing eligibility, saying it could have a 'discriminatory and disproportionate impact on ethnic minority communities, and on the most vulnerable groups in our society'. It added that applying the new habitual residence condition to social housing assistance was likely to result in criticism of Ireland by human rights monitoring bodies. Under further changes due to be signed off, there will be an independent appeals mechanism for people who feel they have been unfairly excluded from social housing eligibility. Changes to the criteria for getting homeless accommodation will be made by way of an amendment to the Housing Act 1988, which sets out what assistance can be offered by local authorities in terms of homelessness. It comes after homeless figures again reached another record high. Figures released last week by the Department of Housing show that 15,747 people were living in emergency accommodation in May, an increase of 167 people on those recorded as homeless in April. The total includes 4,844 children. At present, asylum seekers are not entitled to housing support or emergency beds. However, if an asylum seeker is granted leave to remain and has nowhere to stay, and potentially leaves direct provision, they will show up on official homeless figures. The homeless figures for May show that 3,031 adults in emergency accommodation, or 28 per cent of the overall adults, were not citizens of the European Economic Area. Separately, it has emerged that the planned delivery of almost 3,000 social homes has been delayed over value-for-money concerns. The homes were due to be built in Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare and Sligo by a consortium under the public-private partnership model. The Department of Housing said this weekend the decision 'reflects a careful consideration of the costs and taxpayer funding'.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Starmer says he was 'heavily focused' on world affairs before U-turn on welfare bill
Sir Keir Starmer has said he was "heavily focused" on world affairs before he was forced to U-turn on his welfare bill after rebellion by MPs. In a piece in The Sunday Times, Sir Keir said he was occupied with the G7 and NATO summits and the escalating tensions in the Middle East for much of the past two weeks. His "full attention really bore down" on the welfare bill on Thursday, he added. It comes after the government was forced to U-turn on plans to cut sickness and disability benefits after significant rebellion by Labour MPs earlier this week. The government has since offered concessions ahead of a vote in the Commons on Tuesday, including exempting existing Personal Independence Payment claimants (PIP) from the stricter new criteria, while the universal credit health top-up will only be cut and frozen for new applications. Sir Keir defended the U-turn by saying: "Getting it right is more important than ploughing on with a package which doesn't necessarily achieve the desired outcome." He said all the decisions were his and that "I take ownership of them". There have been reports that rebel MPs blamed Sir Keir's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney for the government's approach. Sir Keir said: "My rule of leadership is, when things go well you get the plaudits; when things don't go well you carry the can. "I take responsibility for all the decisions made by this government. I do not talk about staff and I'd much prefer it if everybody else didn't." 1:30 Sir Keir said on Saturday that fixing the UK's welfare system is a "moral imperative". Speaking at Welsh Labour's annual conference in Llandudno, North Wales, Sir Keir said: "Everyone agrees that our welfare system is broken, failing people every day. "Fixing it is a moral imperative, but we need to do it in a Labour way, conference, and we will."
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Anas Sarwar and Keir Starmer have taken another hit to any credibility
For the recently wedded, the first anniversary is known as the paper one. So-called, apparently, because the relationship of the couple is still fragile and delicate territory and is also a blank page representing how they are just beginning their life story together. Or maybe underscoring the need for a government to remember the all-important relationship with its own troops. However, you dress it up, the very late-night concessions wrung out of a beleaguered Work and Pensions Secretary last Thursday night count as the third government U-turn in the last month. Thatcher once famously told her conference: 'You turn if you want to, the Lady's not for turning.' As they say; compare and contrast. READ MORE: 'Completely unprecedented': BBC cuts live feed for Kneecap Glastonbury performance In the past 48 hours, the narrative has been swiftly rewritten as the bill being strengthened, and the Government only changing its mind having listened – however belatedly – to its own backbenchers. The latter, of course, had already been listening to some very alarmed disabled voters and unpaid carers, liable to lose some £4k of urgently needed funds. Turns out that what the PM dismissed as 'noises off' when he was at the G7 was more of a howl of anguish from a wheen of Labour MPs who had listened to their constituents more assiduously than their own cabinet had listened to them. What can't be mended by this late-night about-turn is the anguish of many PIP recipients who have been through the mental wringer as minister after minister intoned that the bill would not be amended. There's a very instructive passage in the book Get In, which recounts how Starmer was selected as Labour's likely leader and, if all went to plan, the PM in waiting: '[Morgan] McSweeney and his acolytes saw themselves as insurgents … as long as Starmer's private office was functional, they could control the party's politics themselves, without interference from small-minded Westminster villagers.' The book also details Starmer's contempt for, and refusal to play by, the normal political rules. Which may just explain why Labour's high command, and its leader, remained tone-deaf to the scale of the rebellion until five minutes to midnight. It also explains why Starmer first appointed Sue Gray as his chief of staff, believing that she could plug the gaps in the rest of the staff's political nous. Then she too was defenestrated. McSweeney took the post instead which is a high-profile insider's role when the going is good, less so when the solid matter hits the fan. As he found out when he and Sir Keir tried to stem the rising tide of rebellion. Even deploying high-profile colleagues to ring around the erstwhile faithful failed to persuade them to take their names off the so-called wrecking amendment. They longed for more of what Bush Senior once called 'the vision thing' and less growth through guns. (Image: Rafik Wahba on Unsplash) There's always spare cash for shiny new weaponry, many thought, but less for the poor, vulnerable or disabled. This was not why people had voted for Labour. (Not at all incidentally, the 12 new F-35A planes – which can carry tactical nuclear weapons – will come in at £80 million each, or just under £1 billion all told. Other defence contracts will be just shy of £60bn in the next calendar year.) Not really the sort of price tag which usually attracts 'noises off'. The other thing to note about the purchase of the planes is that they're entirely contingent on the USA giving the go-ahead for their use – a bit like Trident which some people persist in calling our 'independent' nuclear deterrent. The other day I heard Pat McFadden, the Scot who has sat for a Wolverhampton seat for the past 20 years, talk of America being a 'reliable ally'. Really? Would that be the country with a president as predictable as a Scottish weather vane? The chap with the shortest attention span of any adult political leader? Allegedly the G7 timetable was hugely truncated to stop the Trump person getting too bored and maybe even again leaving early! It was once observed of Scottish golfing great Sandy Lyle that the longest thing he had ever read was a left-to-right putt. Bit like the perennially (and expensively) golfing bod in the White House. Maybe flying back early from the Canadian summit gave him time for a quick nine holes before popping into his security meeting. Typically, he then claimed credit for solving all conflicts everywhere, his Iranian adventure certainly ensuring that attention was diverted from the carnage in Gaza. Despite the ill-named Humanitarian Foundation he set up with his pal 'Bibi' having led to the murder of countless civilians whose 'crime' was being so desperate for food that they approached the aid stations, where many were gunned down. Trump's reaction to all of this was to toss the Foundation another $30m, although the operation had been roundly condemned by everyone who actually understood, after many years of experience, how to distribute aid without casualties. Inevitably, the fallout from the latest UK Government's capitulation has had an impact on the politics in our own backyard. Although there were the signatures of no fewer than 12 Scottish Labour MPs on the amendment, Anas Sarwar chose to back his ultimate boss. No change there, then. Wonder how he felt on Friday morning when the commitment to reform welfare and the pre-existing bill met the Head Office's shredding machine. If you want people to stop referring to Scottish Labour as a branch office, then it's essential to stop behaving like a branch manager. Sarwar may have to eat some humble pie this coming week, but his are flesh wounds compared to the ugly gash in the PM's credibility. Sir Keir was much given to mocking what he called the 'sticking plaster' policies of the government he so handsomely defeated a torrid 12 months ago. It will take more than a temporary plaster to heal this particular wound, I'm guessing. And what of his Chancellor? Her legendary fiscal rules are apparently self-imposed; a naked bid to convince the marketplace that she was a serious chancellor with a serious agenda and would not cave in to external pressure. That too will lack credibility when she checks her spreadsheets and finds an ever-larger, blacker hole than the one she inherited. She and Keir will doubtless argue that the humongous hike in defence expenditure was an essential response to the dangerous times in which we all now live. If that response includes tax rises and these are not aimed at those with obscenely broad shoulders, she may find herself pointed at the shredder too. There is a well-trained army of lawyers and accountants whose day job is to allow the very wealthy to stay that way by stashing their cash in a variety of offshore hidey-holes. Every government promises to clamp down on this mammoth tax fraud and no government, to my knowledge, has made the smallest dent in it. When Denis Healey was chancellor, he got pelters for suggesting he would 'squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak'. Mind you, the same gent once observed: 'Being chancellor is not a woman's job. There's a difference between the sexes, and people who don't know that don't know what people are like with their clothes off.' I'm sure he didn't repeat that in the hearing of the redoubtable Edna Healey, his missus. Then again, having a woman ruling the roost at number 11 probably depends on the woman.
