logo
These are ‘uncertain' times? Get a grip, this isn't 1939

These are ‘uncertain' times? Get a grip, this isn't 1939

Yahoo24-04-2025

'The times, they are a-changing,' sang Bob Dylan in 1964. Now the times would be 'scary' or 'difficult' or 'uncertain'. Everyone says so. This week we had the controller of the Proms opining, 'The world's a scary place at the moment, and there's an awful lot of change going on around us.' Then the head of the Royal Horticultural Society went on Gardeners's World to say, 'We live in difficult times'. Sir Keir Starmer addressed the various celebrities, pork pies and fish and chip paper assembled for St George's Day at Number 10 with 'We're living through a time of uncertainty'.
This is an increasingly inane and almost always meaningless sentiment. There is a reason nobody has ever said we live in 'certain times'. The notion that we inhabit an era uniquely different or scary says nothing about the times themselves and a great deal about us. It suggests our culture is increasingly individualistic and ignorant (though there's nothing unusual about that either). But we all want to feel special, right?
It's perfectly normal to be frightened of uncertainty, but that's part of the human condition. It's another to assume that you are living in a Boschean nightmare specific to your existence, when you in fact live in a relatively peaceful, relatively stable, relatively prosperous nation. The word relatively is having to work pretty hard, I admit, accepting that there are a great many things wrong with Britain and great many reasons to be worried about the future. Plus ça change.
This navel gazing feels particularly silly and useless when even the merest historical context is applied to the notions of 'uncertain' or 'difficult'. As the Australian opener Keith Miller used to say when asked about facing hostile fast bowling: 'Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not.'
As we prepare to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE day, it's tempting to think about ideas such as resilience in the face of suffering after six years of war or what genuine existential uncertainty meant back when we faced a global conflagration in 1939. I don't think it's helpful to use the bravery of the war generation to somehow expose the fecklessness of modernity, but I have always adhered to the idea that history should be a guide not just to how you feel about the world you live in, but about how you judge your own existence.
On its most basic level, if you think your life is tough, we have just seen the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Belsen-Bergen. It may seem absurd or grotesque to compare that hell to anything we see today, but even a token knowledge of that story is enough to recalibrate your sense of your own era or reconsider how fortunate you might be.
Covid, as a recent example of something unforeseen, was the closest most of us have come to societal breakdown in our lifetimes. It was deadly, frightening and unsettling. But in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't that unusual. Four generations ago, British people were being bombed in their own cities. Then they faced four decades of fear about nuclear annihilation, at times lurching into genuine terror. Britain endured a terrorist threat from Irish Republicans for 30 years long before Islamic jihadists ever blighted out streets.
Perhaps the people of Ukraine would have a different take on the idea of 'difficult times' that could help us understand our own anxieties more clearly. Three years into being attacked by Russia, they must feel on the brink of constant collapse. But for Ukraine, biblical levels of suffering are nothing novel. Between the early 1930s and the end of the Second World War, Ukraine is the heart of the 'Bloodlands', as outlined with horrible clarity in the book of that name by historian Timothy Snyder. He takes the modern reader into an inferno of man-made famine, mass cannibalism, years of executions and deportation by the Soviet regime, followed by another wave of death and displacement at the hands of the Nazis, involving the planned starvation of its cities and prisoners of war as well as the waves of death squads piling Jews into mass graves. The deaths of many millions of Ukrainians, it should be noted, all came before the mechanised murder of the Holocaust. Ukraine is just one example among thousands from which we could draw in an attempt to get a firmer grip on what constitutes 'scary times.'
For those of a certain age there were the sunlit uplands of the late 1990s when the British economy grew, British culture became international again, Northern Ireland was getting close to peace and the Cold War was over. But waiting around the corner was 9/11, a whole series of new wars and then the banking crisis, from which we still have not recovered. The point is, even in 1997 there was Mad Cow Disease at home and conflicts still raged around the globe. It all depends where you are standing at any given moment.
Accepting uncertainty as inevitable can make a person more ready to react and evolve. Instead we are clinging to this narrative that 'now' is somehow different. That is a debilitating habit because it means surrendering our agency to cope. And it's why so many people now need emotional support peacocks, sleep under weighted blankets and wallow in comfort TV programmes with the words 'The Great British' in the title. It reminds me of when the boy playing a young Woody Allen in Annie Hall says, 'The universe is expanding and some day it will break apart and that will be the end of everything'. His mother tells the doctor he's stopped doing his homework, and the boy says, 'What's the point?'. Perhaps we all need to get up from under our duvets.
The loss of historical knowledge and perspective has made its mark in a culture of self-obsession and the fetishisation of anxiety. As ever these days, any discussion about fears about the future is always trumped by the threat of AI. If the computers take over, the idea of living in difficult and uncertain times will take on a whole other dimension. Sadly, Bob Dylan probably won't be around to write a song about it.
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Diane Abbott is pushing the Left's biggest myth about immigration
Diane Abbott is pushing the Left's biggest myth about immigration

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Diane Abbott is pushing the Left's biggest myth about immigration

The Labour Left were always bound to loathe Sir Keir Starmer's recent speech about the downsides of mass immigration. All the same, one of their objections to it strikes me as somewhat peculiar. At a rally on Saturday, the veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott thundered that Sir Keir's speech was 'nonsense' – because, as she stoutly reminded her audience, 'immigrants built this land'. Stirring stuff. I can see only one small problem. It's not strictly true, is it? Clearly Ms Abbott disagrees. Indeed, she proudly declared that her own parents 'helped to build this country'. As she herself acknowledged, though, they only arrived here from Jamaica in the 1950s. What precisely does Ms Abbott think Britain looked like, before her parents' ship pulled in? A barren, primitive, uncivilised wilderness, whose humble natives dwelt in bushes and subsisted on nettles and raw shrew? Did her parents look around, sigh, and then patiently set about erecting St Paul's Cathedral and Blenheim Palace? I'm not convinced that they did. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that most of this country was built a fair bit earlier, largely by people who were born in it. This is because, until quite recently, only a very small percentage of the population was born abroad. Between 1951 and 2001, the average annual net immigration figure was 7,800. In 2023, by contrast, it was 906,000. It doesn't take a mathematician of Ms Abbott's stature to recognise that this is quite a sharp increase. Still, I don't mean to pick on her. She's far from alone. In recent years, any number of Left-wing politicians and pundits have taken to pushing the line that 'immigrants built Britain'. On last week's edition of the BBC's Question Time, for example, the retired trade union leader Mark Serwotka informed viewers that Britain is only 'the great country it is because of centuries of immigration'. From the Left's point of view, I suppose I can see this tactic's advantages. Any time a voter dares suggest that net immigration of almost a million a year is a touch on the high side, and possibly not entirely sustainable in the longer term, shut them up by telling them that a) it's always been like this, and b) they should be grateful. The risk, though, is that some voters might feel a tiny bit insulted. Because the claim that 'immigrants built Britain' implies that the natives were so ignorant, lazy and useless, they achieved nothing until their superiors arrived from abroad to lift them out of savagery. Come to think of it, I'm reasonably sure that the Left used to have a word for that type of attitude. It was 'colonialism'. 'Way of the World' is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines while aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 6am every Tuesday and Saturday 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.

Hong Kong leader says national security scrutiny of restaurants is necessary
Hong Kong leader says national security scrutiny of restaurants is necessary

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Hong Kong leader says national security scrutiny of restaurants is necessary

HONG KONG (Reuters) -Hong Kong will toughen screening of catering premises for potential violations of national security, which civil servants should accord top priority in deciding on licence approvals, the city's leader said on Tuesday. Critics see the move as targeting the territory's many businesses, including cafes and restaurants, that have displayed posters, symbols or images expressing solidarity with its embattled pro-democracy movement. Such businesses, widely called the "yellow economic circle", have faced growing pressure from authorities, such as tax inspectors, at a time when they are reeling from a broader economic and retail downturn. "Food and environmental hygiene officers ... should place national security as the most important consideration and make appropriate assessments," John Lee told reporters. He called the move "appropriate and necessary", saying all civil servants were expected to rate security as the highest priority under the national security law. The city's food and hygiene department would follow the law in considering new licences and renewing existing ones, he added. In recent years, authorities in the Asian financial hub have made use of sweeping national security laws imposed after mass anti-government protests in 2019 to systematically crack down on many of its liberal pockets. In May, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department sent letters to thousands of food and entertainment premises, obliging them to accept new terms related to national security. In one document seen by Reuters, the government told business owners to ensure no activity in which they were engaged or involved in "may constitute or cause the occurrence of an offence endangering national security". The former British colony's crackdown on dissent, from arresting democratic activists to shuttering liberal media and civil society groups, has drawn criticism from countries such as Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States.

No more ‘peace dividend'
No more ‘peace dividend'

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

No more ‘peace dividend'

One consequence of spending more on benefits is that there is less to spend elsewhere, notably on defence. The so-called 'peace dividend' that Western governments splurged after the end of the Cold War has left us vulnerable to a resurgence of precisely the sort of international tensions we are seeing now. Money that in the past would have bolstered armed forces now goes on social programmes that political leaders are unprepared to unwind because so many voters are dependent on them. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, was in London for talks with Sir Keir Starmer yesterday as part of a tour of capitals designed to get member states to commit to spending much more on defence. In a speech at the Chatham House think-tank, he called for a 'quantum leap' in collective security just to maintain deterrence. 'Our militaries need thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation and medical support,' he said. At the weekend, Russia deployed an estimated 500 missiles and drones in attacks on Ukraine, partly in response to Kyiv's extraordinary coup in destroying Russian bombers based in Siberia last week. The huge amounts of ordnance involved are indicative of the scale of modern warfare. Mr Rutte wants Nato members to commit about 5 per cent of national wealth to defence, though without saying by when. Yet Sir Keir could only reaffirm his Government's ambition to increase spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP, rising to 3 per cent in the next parliament if circumstances allow. But they will do so only if he can get to grips with spending in other areas. 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.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store