The King and Country Debate was a debate on 9 February 1933 at the Oxford Union Society. The motion presented, “This House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country”, passed with 275 votes for the motion and 153 against it.

1933 was the year that Hitler came to power and I’d guess that six or seven years later many of the 275 who voted for the motion joined up voluntarily. Context is everything!

I recently responded to an article in The Times by Melanie Philips which hailed Britain’s “historic strengths as a nation.” Philips was peddling bombastic nonsense, at least to me, proving the rightness of Doctor Johnson’s “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” I said “Let’s list a few “strengths” from our history – some still current”:

* A leading slaving nation for 200 years

* Obsession with extending the Empire wider still and wider

* Warmongering pursuit of power

* Destruction of the lives of First Nations peoples

* Inventor of Concentration camps

* An Industrial Revolution based on exploitation of the poor

* Without London the poorest country in Europe

* Inability to create modern and efficient transportation systems

* Destruction of a once substantial manufacturing sector

* A public service emphasis on profit not the population’s needs

* Murderous suppression of those whose territory they usurped

* Preposterous arrogant belief that the “English are Best”

* Male dominated society without womens’ rights for centuries

* Unelected Head of State and upper House of Parliament

* Institutionalised historic racism and colour and religious prejudice

* Huge gaps between the aristocratic rich and the downtrodden peasantry

* Contempt for international institutions and transnational cooperation

* Failure to deal with famine from Ireland to Bengal

* Criminalisation of the sexual preferences of 10% of the population

* Obsession with faux-patriotism and flag waving

* Complete and ongoing failures of political leadership

We are in “Hitler was kind to dogs” territory here. Is Britain the best of the worst or the worst of the best? I don’t compare, in the main, by making international comparisons (except the point about being the poorest country in Europe if you exclude London. Which is pretty shocking).

I received many compliments from readers and friends about my gloomy list. But the usual suspects went predictably into faux-patriotism mode. Didn’t I know that Britain abolished slavery for example? Well yes, I know my Wilberforce. But defending 200 years of slavery by boasting that we were the first to abolish it is pretty weak ! Then apparently we didn’t invent Concentration camps, and lots of countries had empires, and we weren’t the worst imperialists. Etcetera ad infinitum.

Nations do advance over time and yes Britain is more liberal and equal today than it was before the social legislation and change of the 20th century. But there is much to criticise – my point being there always was. In the main we are a fairer and more tolerant society than in the past. And we’ve stopped enslaving people and children don’t work on looms or in chimneys any more. We’ve stopped hanging people and persecuting gays.

In short our past was pretty disgraceful and our present is better. But there’s a long way to go and faux-patriotism and defending the indefensible doesn’t help.

Farage’s 60th birthday with with Tory Andrea Jenkins and Reform’s Aaron Banks. And Liz Truss in the background glancing over. Then there was this a while back:

Tim Montgomerie long-standing conservative commentator recently tweeted “The most successful conservative politician since Mrs T. Happy 60th Nigel_Farage and thank you for your friendship” Something’s up !

It’s not too big a leap to see a Banks/Farage/Tory Right deal. Banks agrees to stand Reform down at the General Election in return for Farage ousting Sunak as Tory leader. Far fetched ? Not really. Ian Dale another Hardish Right Conservative hailed Farage as the most important conservative politician years ago when Farage was UKIP and David Cameron Tory Leader.

We are in “Nothing to lose “ territory here. Sunak cannot win an election and the Conservative Party could be decimated. A punt with Farage would make ideological sense for the ERG (including Rees-Mogg and Truss). He has public appeal especially in the Red Wall seats. And there’s a transatlantic link as well. Remember this?

If Donald Trump can win the Presidency this year then Nigel Farage could be Prime Minister. You think I’m joking? Sadly not.

I didn’t like it when critics started calling Israel an “Apartheid state” and I don’t like the accusations of “genocide” either. South Africa’s racial discrimination was uniquely venal and using the word “Apartheid” for other places takes away from that. And whilst some Israeli government statements are unquestionably racist about Palestinians I think on balance that the actions of the Israeli government cannot be termed genocidal, but it’s certainly close.

But are we dealing with reasonable people who just have a grievance if we institute dialogue with and between Hamas and Israel? I don’t think we are in either case. And, tragically, there’s nothing new about the situation. The problem is that it goes back to 1948 and, arguably, well before that. Land was confiscated and a state created some of which, today, with land acquired in wars and not returned in peace, but settled.

Israel’s actions for decades can be described as being the seeking of and gaining of Lebensraum. This word should send a chill through the blood of Jewish people anywhere, including in Israel. Because if one state gains room another state, or people, loses it. There’s a zero sum.

And Hamas and their powerful backers are at the core fighting about the loss of land – in short about losing their land to a huge scale pogrom – an irony that should make Israelis pause for thought. But Netanyahu has made it clear that his goal is fully to incorporate Gaza into Israel. And then…? The Israeli Prime Minister’s “New Middle Easr” doesn’t imclude Palestine. Negotiate your way out of that!

There’s no such thing as a typical English constituency, but Rochdale certainly isn’t one. Eighteen constituencies across the UK have a higher Muslim population than Rochdale (24%) but it is clearly a crucial element in the voters’ dynamic. George Galloway knew this and saw his chance. But extrapolating from the freak circumstances which gave us this result is wrong. Labour won’t make the same mistake again.

It was the coincidence of Time (when Muslims are being killed in Gaza) and Place (a constituency that is among our most Islamic) along with the foolish remarks of Labour’s candidate which caused this upset. It happens at both ends of the political moral continuum. Remember Martin Bell in his white suit beating Neil Hamilton?

That Muslims are the most protesting against the flattening of Gaza and the pogrom against its people is hardly surprising – in Rochdale, elsewhere in Britain and around the world. To categorise it as “Mob Rule” was as offensive as it was wrong. 

Ethnic minorities should be represented in Parliament a fact that for obvious reasons our Prime Minister should acknowledge. But Sunak comes across as more Winchester and Oxford than British Asian. He’s very distanced by his elitist class from his co-religionists in Leicester or Brent or Harrow. 

The electors of Rochdale had a terrible choice. It was a protest vote and we should listen not condemn. 

Other than as symbolism the truth is that it really doesn’t matter who wins the London Mayoral election. And it’s not just in London that it doesn’t matter. If Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson can each win two elections and do a “job” for eight years there’s surely something wrong with the job – and there is.

The elected Mayors are faux-democracy. Do we blame the Birmingham Mayor for the economic catastrophe in England’s second city? We shouldn’t. He had little or no freedom to act on the matter. To run something above all you need tax-raising powers. The Mayors don’t have them.

If you believe in subsidiarity – the taking of political decisions at the lowest practical level – the Mayors don’t do that. Yes there is the London Assembly, a largely impotent talking shop. By comparison with its nominal predecessors the LCC and the GLC it’s powerless and the Mayor with it.

Margaret Thatcher knew what she was doing when she abolished the GLC. She took power to where she thought it should be, with central government. Subsequently, for show, we’ve elected a Mayor in London and elsewhere and it’s made not a jot of difference to the quality of our governance. It’s a sham.

Lord Sikka, “Why is the Conservative government so relaxed about off shore tax avoidance?”

Baroness Vere, “The government is not relaxed about off shore tax avoidance.. All tax avoidance does need to be stamped out”

For 150 years Britain was driven by (largely) unchallenged Nationalism and its bedfellow Imperialism. We went it alone because we had the power and resources to do so. Military setbacks (Boer War for example) were rare and turned into victories. The Dunkirk spirit didn’t just happens after Dunkirk. Then the Great War happened and it gradually dawned on us in the trenches that we weren’t all powerful after all. We nearly lost that war and were rescued by our cousins from across the pond.

Those cousins assumed the world power role as Britain began gradually to decline. We had neither the military power nor the economic resources to challenge the rise of Hitler so chose Appeasement instead. When the inevitable happened and another war broke out we were alone and bravely the Few won the Battle of Britain. After that it was the big beasts of America and Russia fighting alongside us that preserved democracy – ironically we have Stalin to thank for us not descending into totalitarianism!

After WW2 we finally shed Empire – though the Land of Hope and Glory mindset hung around. The conspiracy theories are essentially a reaction to Britain’s decline. We have to blame someone. The EU (hence Brexit). Immigrants. Non religionists (hence antisemitism and Islamophobia). Not of course the heroes of Dunkirk and the Falklands. Put out more flags.

“The number of recorded antisemitic incidents across the country rose by 147 per cent in 2023, which itself was a record high.” The Times.

With a few exceptions distinguished members of Britains Jewish communities have been silent on Netanyahu’s war. It’s almost as if to be Jewish means you have to support whatever the Israeli government does. And that is surely a cause of antisemitism in all too many cases.

We may not like it but it’s a fact. These instances of antisemitism are mostly a direct response to Israel’s attacks on the people of Gaza. The conflation of “Israel” and “Jewish people” is inaccurate and ignorant, but it’s understandable, though shocking, why people do it. It’s not helped by Britain’s Jewish commentators almost to a man or woman failing to condemn Israel’s actions.

That Netanyahu was right to respond strongly to the Hamas attack on 7th October should not be in doubt. But the launch of all out war on the people of the West Bank is another matter. This prompted many people around the world to protest – a perfectly understandable and uncontentious thing to do. Except when to be anti the actions of the Israeli government (reasonable) turns itself into antisemitism (obscenely wrong).

With a few exceptions distinguished members of Britains Jewish communities have been silent on Netanyahu’s war. It’s almost as if to be Jewish means you have to support whatever the Israeli government does. And that is surely a cause of antisemitism in all too many cases.

I came across a delightfully elitist quote from the great Oscar Wilde today:“By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community,” he wrote.

Oscar was talking about journalism and you can see what he meant. Reportage has a role in journalism – telling us what is happening and what the great unwashed is thinking. And if you back that with “consumer research” you can give the research a statistical credibility. “Seventy percent of the population supports the Monarchy” – that sort of thing.

Wilde references education and ignorance suggesting that the opinions of those with a deficiency of the former and plenty of the latter we (regrettably) have to take note of. Or at least least “keep in touch” with.

Politicians do it all the time ‘The people support what we are doing” a populist politician will say to justify some illiberal policy. This reduces every issue to a pseudo referendum. Manifestos become less a statement of what is right and more a response to collective opinion whether right or not.

As Bismarck put it politics is the “art of the possible” – a matter of pragmatism, instead of idealism. The EU Referendum was a classic example of this. Those who understood the subject were overwhelmingly pro Europe. The higher the level of education a voter had the more likely they were to vote “Remain”. The converse of this, Wilde’s uneducated and ignorant, was also true.

Reducing political complexity by presenting the voter with a simple binary choice is a technique as old as the hills. At its most venal it descends into prejudice and blame throwing. This Nazi poster denigrates the WW2 allies implying that it was Jews who were behind them:

And yet the obscenity of Nazi ideology did not teach us to be more careful. This poster from Farage and the “Leave” campaign was only half a step removed from Goebbels:

One of the variants of Conservatism being peddled at the moments is “National Conservatism”, another is ‘Popular Conservatism”. They are both unashamedly populist movements in the tradition of hard Right parties of the past like the National Front and UKIP.

In the upcoming Elections in the United States and here we can expect Trump (if it’s him) and Sunak punting a “reductio ab absurdum” message full of faux-patriotism and blame calling. We’ve been there before. A political campaign based on nationalism and populist xenophobia is no doubt being carefully planned in Tufton Street and CCHQ.

NATO was established when half of post war Europe was under Soviet domination, including much of Eastern Germany. To protect the west from Soviet threat Europeans needed America. And it was in America’s interest peacefully to protect us. But times have changed.

Former Soviet dominated countries are now free. And Europe is economically united, a symbol of its cultural and historic common heritage. And European integration, the practical manifestation of a common bond and outlook, means that approaching a half of a billion people are meaningfully European citizens.

Cultural and Economic units such as the EU/EFTA also need to defend themselves. The case for a European Defence Force is overwhelming. It would be politically logical and accountable (to member States via the EU Parliament). There would be no reason why a Europe taking responsibility democratically for its own defence couldn’t negotiate mutually beneficial military alliances with other countries with which it has a common interest , especially former NATO partners like the United States and Canada and Britain.