Tower of Song

Posted on August 18, 2025 by Stephen Shellard

This essay on song writing is also available as a video podcast on YouTube or can be listened to as an audio podcast or download an MP3 file. I have no plans to podcast regularly, though I do have one other podcast idea. I just need a little time to put it together.

Over many years, I have written songs. None of these songs have been hits or even attained minor celebrity.   And yet I have accumulated a collection of pieces which  have been received well enough within a variety of informal settings. Mostly I have sung them as a floor singer at folk clubs.  In his 1988 album, I’m Your Man Leonard Cohen, reflected on his own place in the hierarchy of contemporary song:

I said to Hank Williams, ”How lonely does it get?”

Hank Williams hasn’t answered yet

But I hear him coughing all night long

Oh, a hundred floors above me

In the Tower of Song

Though there can be art in songwriting, a great deal can also be accomplished by the exercise of more prosaic skills and if your object is to entertain first yourself and then, just maybe, a few friends, my advice would be, have a go. You too may be able  to find your place in the Tower of song.

In primary school I remember being invited, when I was about nine or ten, to write a poem. A poem in my mind was something that rhymed, and for whatever reason this task was something I felt confident I might be able to accomplish. My memory is that whatever I wrote on that occasion met with the teacher’s approval, but perhaps more importantly, also impressed my class mates. I am not quite sure where my confidence came from, but I think I knew instinctively not to always go for the most obvious rhyme and then there was also the question of phrasing and an awareness that a modification of phrasing might work better.  I continued to write poems from time to time, mostly directed at the school magazine.  

This writing of verse was never to mature into anything that might properly be called  “poetry” but as I became mildly obsessed with the popular song of the era in which I was coming of age and started to learn – after a fashion – to play the guitar, the idea of writing songs was never far from my mind. Yet I knew, somehow, that this was a greater challenge than getting a poem in the school magazine. The standard set by my heroes was high. Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Leonard Cohen, Van Morrison: the fact that there was something going on in the work of these artists that was  beyond my grasp did not stop me from having a go, but fortunately, of that early work, nothing remains. 

The world of popular song in the 1960s was dominated by young men, yet one of the first songs I learnt was Universal Soldier, written by Buffy St Marie. In 1971 Carol King emerged into a solo career from the obscurity of 1960s Tin Pan Alley where she had been turning out hits with her then husband, Gerry Goffin. And then of course there was the peerless Joni Mitchell who properly came to my attention with the release of Blue in 1971. So women could be  songwriters too, as has become increasingly apparent.

Looking back, I think my initial stumbling block was a desire to write  songs without first having any ideas which might form the backbone of a lyric.  Unlike Paul McCartney, I couldn’t rely on a great melody to carry me forward. McCartney woke up one morning with a tune in his head to which he initially sang “Scrambled  Eggs.”   This was to become Yesterday with a melody which somewhere or other I heard compared to “anything Schubert ever wrote.” 

My songs were always lyric led and my guess is that that is the case for many of the songwriters I admired, in particular Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan. Certainly in his early songwriting Dylan sat at a typewriter to compose. The accompaniment was a secondary consideration. With Joni Mitchell I just couldn’t say what her method might have been, perhaps some coevolution of music and words. Van Morrison I imagine evolving a song as if out of a chrysalis composed of  sounds and words. But who knows. The point really is that song writing methods rely very much on the strengths, weaknesses and particular abilities of the individual. 

Elton John  worked with Bernie Taupin from whom he  received lyrics in the post which he turned into Tumbleweed Connection, an album which I reverenced in the years before Elton veered off in a direction with which I felt a lesser connection.  

But there is more to it even than that. I recall listening to a Youtube interview with Bob Dylan. He was asked about the origins of the  songs he was writing in the 1960s, I am assuming in particular the period of Bringing it All Back Home,  Highway 61 Revisited, and Blonde on Blonde.  One does not necessarily expect Dylan to offer straightforward answers to such questions  but his response was, I think, revealing. I paraphrase: “I don’t know where those songs came from.”  

Dylan doesn’t say it but he hints at something mystical going on in his compositional style. Perhaps, given the times, a few drugs may have been involved, though I don’t really believe drugs or alcohol are a wise accompaniment to creativity even if F. Scott Fitzgerald did succeed in writing his masterpiece The Great Gatsby in a state of inebriation. 

I think it may have been in the first volume of his autobiography Chronicles (published 2004 – the world is still waiting for the second volume) that Dylan recalls going to see Buddy Holly on January 31st 1959.  In one telling of the story Dylan was in the front row of the concert. He recalled: “I was 3 feet away from him  and he looked at me.”   Dylan seems to hint that something like the spirit of popular song was passed in this encounter directly into his stewardship. Adding  to the potency of this myth is that, less than a week later, 3rd February 1959, Holly was killed in a plane crash along with Ritchie Valens and “The Big Bopper” JP Richardson – “the day the music died” as Don McLean was to put it in his song American Pie.  

Well you can believe that Dylan myth if you want to but I am more persuaded by the fact that Dylan’s  love for  American popular song, in all of its forms, is deep and his knowledge of it, encyclopaedic. Anyone who listened to Dylan on his Theme Time Radio show which aired from 2006 to 2009 will be aware of this. Much of his creativity comes from an ability to synthesise and blend all of this raw material with his own distinct, indeed mercurial view of the world. 

We can’t all be Bob Dylan but there is a lesson of  openness to musical genres that we can all learn something  from. 

There can be no doubt however that Dylan relies on a level of instinctiveness in his writing, and may even be wary of overworking his material. In May 2008 Mark Lawson interviewed Leonard Cohen for the BBC Radio 4 Arts programme, Front Row. I believe it was during the course of this interview (not currently available on BBC iplayer) that Cohen told a story of meeting up  for   lunch with Dylan when they both happened  to be playing in Paris. Over their meal Dylan spoke of his admiration for Cohen’s song Hallelujah, which at that time was not particularly well known or fully formed.  In return Cohen said how much he liked the Dylan song I and I. Dylan expressed an interest in how long  it had taken Cohen to write Hallelujah. It is a song which in fact Cohen had worked on over an extended period  and for  which he had written many  verses, unable to decide on a finished version. It was only with the help of editing from John Cale – formerly of the Velvet Underground – who had presumably heard Cohen perform an earlier iteration of the song – that the version which was to become so well known was laid down.  

Having provided his answer to Dylan’s question, Cohen then asked in return  how long it had taken Dylan to write I and I.  “Five minutes” was the reply. 

Was this an entirely honest answer?  Who knows, but the point really is that instinct, inspiration and impulse all have their place in writing a song, but in general, and for most of us who aspire to the craft, work is also required. And then there can also be the problem of knowing when the deed is done.

In my own case I don’t generally set out to write a song, rather I am struck by an idea which I can see could be turned into a song. For me narrative is important and this is expressed in two distinct ways, the first being a matter of considering a range of perspectives on the chosen theme. 

In the late 1970s I spent an evening with some friends and a story was told about  a social occasion where the host had introduced the novelty, at that time, of a games consul. I thought that that story could make a song.

I was visiting with some friends

The atmosphere was kind of lame

Until the host jumped up and said

Lets get out the electronic games.

I began to think of other contexts in which electronic games might be introduced:

Out at a party

People shuffling round

Just then somebody cried out

And I knew what they had found

The atmosphere was suddenly electric 

As we fought for control

And everyone was queuing up 

For some of that electronic soul. 

You get the idea I am sure. The song wrote itself on the basis of the original idea. Six four line verses tumbled out. I played it for a few people and though no one said anything as encouraging as “That’s  a hit” it was a source of amusement and once or twice people have even requested that I play it. I couldn’t really ask for more. 

At the time I wrote electronic games I believed, for a very brief period, that I had cracked this song writing business and might be able more or less to write songs to order but that was about as close as I ever got to Dylan in the 60s and soon enough I had to accept that for me, patience was necessary; I had to wait for the lightning to strike. 

This said my brief period of creative fertility had its roots in something that was for me a songwriting breakthrough, namely punk rock. Not that I ever wrote anything with the recognisable rawness of a Sex Pistols or a Clash song, but I saw the importance of a simple and direct approach. Punk rock opened a space in my mind for a song writing method which allowed humour and irony to find their place alongside the song’s central idea. 

But what was my song writing method?  Before I digress on that topic I should mention the second type of narrative which can structure a song, put simply, a story. When I moved to Dumfries in the 1980’s I started getting up to play as a floor singer at the local folk club in the warm up for the main act. Whilst the songs I brought with me, mostly in what I now think of as an Indiefolk style, I began to realise that a longer form song which told a story might go down well in this context. That was the origin of a song called Dog Man which I wrote after giving a young hitch-hiker a lift from Cumnock in Ayrshire down to Dumfries. My passenger told me his life story in that journey; how he had left school at 16, gone through a training scheme, ended up unemployed and then found his way into the dodgy but fascinating world of greyhound racing. When I dropped him off I could hardly get home fast enough to write out what he had told me. It felt as if I was transcribing his words which without a great deal of reworking were to form the text of the song. 

When my father died I was only fourteen

A bricklayer’s all he’d ever been

And I always said I would play the same part

But when the time came I could not get a start.

The original version of that  song had eleven four line verses, including much detail of how races could be fixed and how the Dog Man could manipulate the betting odds in his favour. With the passing of time, a little like John Cale and Hallelujah I slimmed the song down to a more audience friendly eight verses, but in the context of Dumfries folk club  my sense was that the full version  was warmly received as a bold attempt at a song in the style of  a traditional ballad.

For me a critical device in the writing of a song is the use of rhyme, and the greatest pitfall is to reach for the most obvious rhyme on the assumption that inspiration has offered you it as a gift. Most of us know that if our opening line ends in the word “moon” we should probably not be coming up with a following line which ends in the word “June.”  I am not going to say that it couldn’t be made to work, for all the words in the two lines have their part to play, but the important thing is to consider other possible rhymes and ways in which they might be woven into the idea behind the song you are writing. This prompts consideration of a range of possibilities and the use of ingenuity to find ways of making a rhyme fit which did not initially seem to have a place. From this process something fresh can arise, perhaps humorous or ironic but above all, original. 

For most of my song writing experience I would just work through the alphabet to consider the possibilities of rhyme and half rhyme which might serve.  More recently I have discovered Rhymzone, a web site in which you enter a word and are immediately presented with a list of rhymes and near rhymes. If you can’t make one of these work there is always the possibility of reframing line A to offer a different rhyming opportunity in line B and this too can open up ideas in the song which were not part of its original inspiration. 

When the lyric is complete, the challenge of creating a tune to which it may be sung remains. My approach to this is pretty basic and generally involves starting with a simple chord sequence in a major or a minor key depending on the mood of the song. If I am pleased with the lyrics, singing it at even this vestigial stage can be  pleasing and this probably helps with the evolution  of a melody, the introduction of additional chords or experimentation with 7ths or major 7ths can be done by trial and error. In my experience there is likely to be some evolution of the accompaniment in the coming week or so which may continue beyond an initial performance of the song to whatever audience may be willing and available. 

 Lily Allen tells an amusing story of how, when she went into the studio to record her debut single Smile, the producer at one point said: “That song needs a middle eight.” Lily responded: “What’s a middle eight?” The matter was explained to her, she withdrew from the studio and in a few minutes returned with a break based on a series of “la las.” The song was duly recorded and went on to be a  huge hit. 

I mention the story as it makes the point that what may be considered a finished song can still go through many stages of development, in particular if accomplished musicians become involved and add layers of arrangement to the  original which can, on occasion,  transform it from something relatively bland to a spectacular hit. Would we remember Gerry Raferty’s Baker Street or Hazel O’Conner’s Will You, were it not for the magic of the saxophone solos which were inserted into the arrangement of each?

The acid test  is when your song is first shared with others. Here   caution is advisable. Friends are often polite in their response but may also be  dismissive or even caustic. They cannot see what you think is so good about the song. They can see what you cannot – it’s flaws. You have put them on the spot. They’re just being honest. 

In these circumstances you must be your own critic, neither swayed by bland encouragement or harsh judgement. Sit on the song for a while and give yourself the chance to stand apart from your very personal engagement with its genesis. Maybe at that point you will see the changes that need to be made, or perhaps that the song is not quite the masterpiece you felt it to be at the outset. However, if you continue to like the song yourself, that alone is  important and should not be dismissed as a measure of its quality. 

Song writing partnerships offer evidence that the contribution of friends can be in alignment or complimentary in ways that are mutually supportive of the end results with that needed balance of criticism and mutual support.  Lennon-McCartney, Jagger-Richards, or a somewhat undercelebrated favourite partnership of my own, Walter Becker and Donald Fagen of Steely Dan have all produced remarkable bodies of work. If you are part of a band there must be a fair chance that a creative rapport can be established, probably one which shares out song writing  responsibilities between the complimentary talents of the ensemble.  

If you are working on your own, however, you must strike a balance between believing in your ability and critical self reflection. It’s an easy one to get wrong and it is unlikely that every song you write will be a good one. I notice that Alan McClure  who has been appointed Scotland’s Scriever for 2025, is an advocate of song writing  workshops.  That may indeed be a way into the craft for many though I feel sure that even in such a context that it is the writer  who  can both believe in and critique their own work who will produce the best work.

If song writing  workshops become more common I feel sure that the quality [I meant quantity, really!] of what is produced will improve[increase!], but so, in a world of already short attention spans will the competition to be heard and appreciated. lt is worth reflecting on artists who have contributed perhaps only a single song which has spread beyond the tight circle of their acolytes. I think of Dave Goulder’s The January Man, recorded by many artists including Christy Moore and Martin Carthy.  I was privileged to hear Dave Goulder sing the  song when he was the guest artist at Dumfries Folk Club. He did a set of well crafted songs but the January Man is the onlMick West, who recorded it in 1997 has called it: “A beautiful piece of poetry married to a wonderful tune.”  It is the dream of every journeyman songwriter, that a piece of their work should be taken up and more widely appreciated in this way. But in the end, if all you achieve is to please yourself and a few friends at an informal sing song, that  too can be a reward. 

This video was written, presented and produced by me, Stephen Shellard. Just learning the trade really. All of the songs I have written, including the two referenced in the talk are availableon my Youtube channel, Singing from the Floor, available at www.youtube.com/@Carruchan  If you do like any of the songs please give them a thumbs up as it may help others find their way there. 

Youtube channel, Singing from the Floor 

www.youtube.com/@Carruchan

Songs referenced

Songs referenced in this video

Posted in Misc | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Curse of Small Political Parties

Posted on August 16, 2025 by Stephen Shellard

How Fringe Factions Fuel Dysfunction in Israel and Beyond

[1,097 words, 6 minutes read time]

 When Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th 2023, they massacred 1,195 people, 736 Israeli civilians (including 38 children), 79 foreign nationals, and 379 members of the security forces. While Israel had every right to defend itself, the scale and nature of its military response in Gaza have been disproportionate and reckless, amounting to war crimes on an industrial scale. A panel of experts in international law convened by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court states that: “Based on the material it has reviewed… there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant (Israeli Minister of Defence, 2022-24) made essential contributions to the common plan to use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and commit other acts of violence against the civilian population.” [1]

While Benjamin Netanyahu and his  Likud party carry primary responsibility for these actions  it is equally clear that the opportunism of small Jewish fundamentalist parties has exacerbated  the situation and has made a uniquely malign contribution to the catastrophe. 

At the outset of the Israeli election in November 2022, Likud won 34 seats. Its coalition government was enabled by three other factions. These were:

  • Shas,  which favours orthodox religious practice and  holds 11 seats.
  • The Religious Zionist Party, with 14 seats
  • United Torah Judaism (UTJ) with 7 seats  [2] [3]

 Such  parties rely on religious text to determine their key policy positions and have little interest in pragmatism other than as a means of obtaining their own narrow objectives. 

The coalition gave Benjamin Netanyahu 64 seats in a 120 seat parliament. There have been various fallings out in the meantime and following the Hamas terrorist attack, the formation of a war cabinet which includes Benny Ganz, former Israeli Defence Force Chief of Staff.  Critically, however, Ben-Gvir (leader of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party) and Bezalel Smotrich (leader of the Religious Zionism party),  indicated   they would withdraw  from the government if there was to be a ceasefire at this stage.  Their withdrawal—along with their factions—would collapse the government. Netanyahu, prioritizing political survival over moderation, empowered these factions—granting them unprecedented influence over security and settlement policies.

Inflexible ideological or religious thinking and a narrow agenda, even a single issue agenda, are liable to be characteristic of small political parties. Of course there are exceptions, small parties  with genuine potential to grow their electoral base and an authentic commitment to good governance. But many small parties will always remain on the fringe, their eccentric character obvious to most citizens.   

With multiple small parties democratic politics slides, sooner or later, into dysfunction. Coalition building becomes increasingly difficult and time consuming. Larger parties concede to the eccentricities of smaller parties. Smaller parties  use their unwarranted power to collapse the system in favour of their own interests rather than accepting  compromise  to protect the national interest. The electorate becomes weary of the whole fiasco and blames politicians rather than the system.

In most countries where the legislature is elected by a proportional system, measures are in place to manage this problem, with minimum vote thresholds for a party to be awarded seats. 

Elsewhere in this blog I propose a system which actually fixes at five the number of parties that can sit in the legislature. No restriction on the number of parties standing for election is required.  The electorate determines the make up of the five party parliament by means of a transferable vote.  

The dangers of small, extremist parties holding disproportionate power are not unique to Israel. In the UK, a fragmented political landscape raises similar concerns. In a recent edition of the Rest of Politics podcast Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart  were  contemplating the possibility following the next General Election,, by some quirk of the electoral outcome, of either Nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn,  becoming the next UK Prime Minister.  As Campbell commented:  “We are on the point of becoming a European Multi Party democracy in a First Past the Post System.”  [4]

He’s not wrong. Indeed I would put it a little more strongly than that. We are on the cusp of a new level of dysfunction in UK politics. Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultan are launching a new party “to take on the rich and powerful.” [5]  This seems laudable, but why not join the Greens who seem broadly to share this same objective?  The likely outcome of this  exceptionalism will be vote splitting, creating opportunity for Reform to come through the middle and take seats. And by the way, part of the current dysfunction in our electoral politics is the significant under-representation of Reform. This distortion fuels public disillusionment, as  just over 4 million votes for Reform translate into negligible parliamentary power.

Regionally based parties, with a limited interest in a national perspective, add a further dimension to the quagmire. The DUP saw the chance to extract their pound of flesh from Teresa May’s government during the post Brexit hiatus. Often overlooked  in this particular fiasco was the negative contribution of Sinn Fein, who by virtue of their abstentionist  policy, utterly failed to represent their EU friendly constituency in the way Brexit was handled. But do Sinn Fein care if the UK Government screws up?  All they are really interested in is Irish Unity – another project, by the way, for which I have some sympathy. Like Israel’s fringe parties, regional factions like the DUP and Sinn Féin exploit their leverage—not to govern, but to extract concessions or sabotage the system outright. 

Then, of course, there is the rise of Scottish and Welsh Nationalism. Separatist parties have a legitimate case to make, but their role in the UK Parliament is inevitably subversive. They have no interest in a successful UK Government and direct all their energies into undermining those parties who are attempting to make it work. 

If the Labour government truly wants to prevent the kind of dysfunction seen in Israel—or the looming chaos of an unrepresentative Farage or Corbyn premiership—electoral reform should be at the top of their agenda. It may seem a low priority amid economic crises—but delaying it only entrenches dysfunction.

Endnotes and References

[1] ICC Report of Report of the Panel of Experts in International Law 

[2] Israel’s Anti-liberal Coalition   

[3] Wikipedia  Thirty-seventh government of Israel 

[4]  The Rest is Politics 437. Question Time: Farage vs Corbyn: The UK’s Next Prime Minister?  

[5] BBC New  Corbyn launches new party to ‘take on rich and powerful’   

[6] Carruchan Blog Post Sunlit uplands: a vision for the renewal of electoral and party politics 

Posted in Brexit, Comment, Electoral Reform | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Finding a Way Through

Posted on June 11, 2025 by Stephen Shellard

Basic Income, Artificial Intelligence and Reimagining Immigration

Universal Basic Income (UBI) – that is to say provision of a living allowance for all citizens regardless of their employment status – is an idea that has interested me for many years. Indeed in October 2017 I had a brief email conversation with BBC and Financial Times journalist Tim Harford on the subject.  He told me that he was a fan of the idea himself but cautioned: “It’s not easy to make the sums add up.”  He referred me to an article by John Kay, a journalist with the Financial Times. I read it carefully and was left feeling thoroughly disheartened. Essentially John Kay offered an impenetrable case suggesting UBI would be impossibly expensive to implement. I could see no way to push back against what he said. 

Expense is the obvious objection to UBI, yet logic suggests that if the goal is not wealth redistribution but maintaining current incomes through tax-and-payment adjustments, the net cost could be neutral—aside from transitional bureaucracy.

I can accept that transitioning from the current system of benefits and means tests to a system of UBI would be fiendishly complicated. I don’t see Rachael Reeves buying into the idea anytime soon. And yet there are reasons why even so fiscally cautious a person as Rachael Reeves might be persuaded that the time is coming soon when a basic income for all citizens will  be not just desirable, but necessary. 

The AI Jobs Crisis

The most obvious consideration is the coming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution. A Government Report, published in 2021 – ancient history so far as AI development is concerned – suggested that  “7% of jobs were at high risk of being automated in the next 5 years, rising to 30% after 20 years.”   The research “also reported that many jobs would be created through AI-related productivity and economic growth (and) concludes that the most plausible assumption is that the long-term impact of AI on employment levels in the UK (will be) broadly neutral, but that the potential impact is unclear.”

This conclusion carries a hint of wishful thinking. AI offers increases in productivity that have eluded us in recent years.  AI-driven productivity gains will reshape the economy. While some jobs vanish, new ones may emerge—but not necessarily at the same scale or skill level. The real risk is structural unemployment outpacing retraining efforts.

China is already trialling driverless lorries. A driverless lorry is probably a safer proposition than an overworked individual who may fall asleep on the job. For a human at the wheel of a UK lorry the maximum driving time per day is 9 hours, not to mention a range of other requirements to allow for ingestion of food, excretion, rest and recreation – oh yes, and weekends and holidays. The economic benefit of ditching human drivers is obvious. Yes, there will be resistance to change, but the inevitable outcome will be fewer jobs. 

The impact of driverless vehicles alone will be massive. Driverless taxis are already being used in some parts of the United States. 

Increased productivity will initially result in an expanding economy, but new businesses and expansion of existing businesses will inevitably base their investment on increasingly  effective use of AI and the longer term promises an economy in which there will be  a plentiful supply of what people need produced by a workforce pared to the absolute minimum. 

There is an economic catch in this apparently virtuous cycle.  Unemployment—the byproduct of AI-driven efficiency—could trigger a recession unless we bolster the spending power of displaced workers.

There is both a dystopian  and a utopian vision as regards the way in which this future will unfold. Perhaps some of these obsolescent individuals will retrain to provide a much needed boost to those areas of service and care which can less easily be handed over to  AI. That would be a positive outcome.  It is also possible that lorry drivers cast on the AI scrapheap, having lost the dignity of traversing the country at the wheel of a supertanker or some other articulated behemoth, will find the transition to a new life a difficult one. I imagine however that many will make every effort to  reinvent themselves for employment or self-employment. But the stark reality is there may be no job waiting for them.

A basic income would expand options for this growing pool of unemployed individuals. UBI makes it more possible to imagine individuals starting micro businesses, developing latent artistic, musical and craft abilities, volunteering, gardening, self-educating; the possibilities are endless.  All of such activity has the potential to strengthen the wider economy and enrich our culture. 

But for this to become a reality there would have to be a greater acceptance that society no longer requires every citizen to be formally employed at every stage of their adult life in the production of needed goods and services.  

It is worth pointing out that UBI, in addition to its obvious benefit for those not in employment, would also  mediate the power relationship between those in low paid employment and their employers. An employee would more easily be able to walk away from a working situation where they are being poorly treated or they could insist on better pay if the work is unpleasant or demanding. UBI, on the one hand, is a subsidy to employers. Indeed in some circumstances interesting work and generous working conditions may be enough to keep an individual in employment where the employer does not have the means to offer generous pay.  

Immigration Reimagined

UBI could also recalibrate immigration policy. By restricting it to citizens (after, say, a 10-year residency), we might deter some migrants while ensuring those who come contribute meaningfully before accessing benefits.

Determination and a willingness to accept some difficulties would be required but these are qualities  immigrants exhibit on a daily basis.   Registration, being an essential step in beginning the journey to citizenship and stability, would be encouraged. Equally, the charge coming from some quarters of our political culture, that migrants are getting preferment in various ways, would be immediately quashed.  

Undoubtedly the implementation of UBI on this basis would give prospective migrants pause for thought. One might expect a consequent decline in the number of new arrivals, but those coming could be made welcome. It is also obvious that migrants with qualifications would be less discouraged by the citizenship qualification period, for they might hope to earn at a higher level from the outset. 

Personally I have some concerns about attempting to attract highly qualified migrants who, by rights, should probably be serving the needs of the people in the country in which they had gained their training. For the moment that seems a minor concern which might be addressed by other measures such as increases to the foreign aid budget.

Support Networks

At present, typically, immigrants who arrive unbidden and under the radar in the UK  rely for support on a network of relatives and friends. Such networks are  strengthened by community ethnic and religious affiliations. These protections, however, fall well short of a guarantee against exploitation and hardships of various kinds. 

Under the UBI citizenship qualification that I suggest, registered migrants would quite possibly be even more vulnerable to dropping through their informal networks of support and protection. The state would have an obligation to provide a safety net. Registered migrants could have access to a range of services, which might include health insurance, hostel accommodation and food kitchens. It would also make sense to offer training in language and other skills which might be of immediate use. There could be an environmental task force offering day work – both to citizens and migrants – in need of ready cash. 

War, famine, political instability, tyranny, climate change.   

I cannot leave this discussion without asking an obvious, indeed rhetorical, question. Why do so many people face the huge challenge of leaving the country of their birth, making a perilous journey across foreign countries and dangerous seas to seek employment in a country which is often unwelcoming, even hostile to their arrival?

The answers are familiar to anyone paying attention: war, famine, political instability, tyranny, and climate change. 

Anything which contributes to the alleviation of these challenges would reduce flows of migrants into Europe and North America. Hitherto, that has been one of the objectives of foreign aid budgets.  Policies advancing net zero also address migration, since climate-induced disasters—floods, droughts—force people to flee.

The US Government, at the bidding of Donald Trump, has just dismantled USAID and all such aid initiatives in the UK and elsewhere are under threat from the populist right of our politics.  There is a short sighted clamour, energised by the politically unscrupulous, to  cut or abandon foreign aid and policies intended to take us towards net zero. 

Into the vacuum, which this parochial thinking has opened up, China is building influence through its Belt and Road initiative. In so doing, they are focussed on securing their own interests and are content to leave Europe and the US to flounder in the squalor of their fractious divisions. 

John Kay may be correct in his estimation that UBI would be impossibly expensive to implement. Perhaps, on the other hand, its time has come. I would say to Rachael Reeves and indeed,  Keir Starmer – should they be  listening –   the way forward would be a minefield of fiscal constraints and political resistance.  But leadership demands courage, not just caution.

Endnotes

1] A couple of articles by John Kay on Basic Income https://www.intereconomics.eu/author/john-kay.html 

3]  China launches fleet of self-driving trucks | BBC 

4] Robotaxis: Driverless cars arriving in US cities

5] Belt and Road Initiative 

Posted in Comment, Economics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Reporter

Posted on April 25, 2025 by Stephen Shellard

A lament for a small town newspaper

Not long after publishing my memoir, Remembered Fragments, I thought it might be an idea to contact the Newry Reporter in order to draw this momentous event to their attention. After all, at various points, the Newry Reporter made an appearance in episodes I recalled in the book. The slightly portentous style of its journalism in the late 1960s, particularly where sport was concerned, had made something of an impression on my young mind. I found a telephone number for the paper and rang up.  I was answered by someone who described himself as the editor. 

I formed the impression of a young man, possibly in his early 30s, sitting back in one of those wheeled chairs that tip satisfyingly with the occupant when they lean back.   That’s what I imagined this young man was  doing when he received my call; leaning back, enjoying a break from his computer screen, perhaps even with his feet up on the desk, ankles crossed. 

“How can I help you?”  he enquired.

I summarised the nature of the book and told him that I’d sent a copy to Colum Sands.  He had emailed me to say he was enjoying it. The young man seemed to have heard of Colum Sands, and did not disagree with my assertion that Colum was a local person of some cultural significance. However, my offer of a free copy of Remembered Fragments for review purposes met with obvious disdain. 

On reflection, my approach was naive.  I had imagined myself phoning into a busy office. Perhaps that was the case, but having examined the current business model of the Reporter I have some doubts about this image and imagine the editor was, as likely as not, all on his lonesome.  

The Reporter is no longer published in a print edition, but continues to exist as part of a consortium of local papers each with their content entirely online. Many column inches are filled with shared stories of national or even international significance.

In the case of the Newry Reporter, the banner title so familiar to me still exists with its gothic lettering framing the little motif of St. Patrick sitting between the two yew trees on the strand, which were to give Newry its name. Apart from this handsome banner, there is no similarity between the online paper as it is today and the paper I remember. The new business model relies heavily, it would seem, on copy submitted by members of the public.   I daresay the editor himself engages with the larger local stories when they emerge.  

When he had finished my book Colum Sands was good enough to send me a review. I submitted this to the Reporter. They published it. I’m very grateful for that, despite the fact that the presentation of the review is, for me, somewhat marred by the presence of multiple advertisements and a standard layout which hints that I might myself have written this favourable review. 

But in other respects, what could be wrong with a local news platform filled with just such unpaid contributions. Indeed, that may be the only way in which “the local” in local papers can continue to exist.

Perhaps the Newry Reporter always relied on some element of voluntary journalism. Were the reports on the Carnbane League and multiple other sporting events which were documented in the paper, really the work of professional journalists? It is hard to imagine a payroll that extensive. Nevertheless, the Reporter, as I remember it, was an institution deeply embedded in the lives of Newry people. It united all the disparate elements of local life: sport, music, drama, education, the visual arts, commerce, criminal behaviour, marriages, births, deaths. The paper, so far as I could see, navigated matters of religion and politics without becoming entangled in any of the divisions which marred the world in which I grew up. 

The Newry Reporter had been founded in 1867 by James Burn. However in 1915 it was acquired by Edward Hodgett, and the Hodgett family were to be the proprietors until  January 11th 2023 when its locally based production became unviable and it was sold to National World, a company with its head office in Leeds. 

As a boy scout in Newry, I had some knowledge of the Hodgett  family.  Noel Hodgett, or “Frosty”, the name by which everyone in the scouts knew him, had an enduring connection with the First Newry troop. Frosty, along with his brothers Max and Richard, was a director of Edward Hodgett Ltd, the company, founded by their father, that owned the Newry Reporter

I always understood that Frosty had a connection with the paper though was never clear what precisely his role was in the weekly appearance of the Newry Reporter in our household. He did not strike me as a journalist, a purveyor of the written word, but nor for that matter did he seem in the least like a small town Rupert Murdoch. 

At the time I became a scout, Frosty had withdrawn from weekly attendance at meetings, but nevertheless I remember him coming on annual camps. We delighted in his reputation, a jovial figure, his good humour beaming from many of the photographs recording those great adventures. 

From stories I heard about Frosty I came to believe that he was more than just good humour. There was evidence that he had a benign understanding of the many concerning stages through which adolescent boys develop on their way to a state which might pass as maturity. He was as interested in the miscreants as much as those destined to become Queen’s Scouts. 

To what extent these rich human qualities were shared by the other directors of Edward Hodgett Ltd, or influenced  production  of the Reporter, would be hard for me to say, but what is  clear is that Frosty was a newspaper proprietor with much more than just a commercial interest in the community which he served.

Can National World match this level of commitment to the many small communities to which it now provides an online news service? The Newry Reporter’s shift from print to a shared online platform reflects a wider trend. Studies show that as local papers are absorbed by conglomerates, their original character often fades, replaced by homogenized content and community-submitted copy—a far cry from the deeply rooted journalism of Frosty Hodgett’s era.  

It is, however, too early to judge the matter. We are on a journey where the provision of news is concerned and it could be that the esteem in which local print media were once held in so many communities may in time be matched by the online output of National World and their like. In 2022, the Hussman School of Journalism and Media compiled a report which includes the following call to action. 

Making certain that no community is disenfranchised because its residents lack access to critical information is the journalistic challenge of the 21st century. The burden for accomplishing this mission is not only on journalists, but also on community activists, philanthropists, owners of news organizations and government officials to make sure newsrooms have the resources they need to enfranchise everyone.

Endnotes

Home Page – The Newry Reporter  

Review of Remembered Fragments in the Newry Reporter

Review on YourWorld.Net  This is the same review by Colum Sands minus advertisements but also without the historic Newry Reporter Banner.

News Deserts and Ghost Newspapers: Will Local News Survive?  A paper which documents the decline in local media in the US, argues the importance of local media for a vibrant local democracy, and suggests possible ways of reinventing local news. 

Website – Colum Sands

Posted in Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Publishing’s Age of Change

Posted on March 12, 2025 by Stephen Shellard

Kirkcudbright Book Week, Selkirk Arms

9th March 2025

Is it truly impossible for aspiring writers to break into the publishing industry? At this, the penultimate event in Kirkcudbright Book Week 2025, the panel of experts seemed to think so.

The programme information referred to the “rapid change” which the  world of  publishing is undergoing, “providing authors, readers, publishers and bookshops with unprecedented opportunities and challenges.” I looked forward to a wide ranging conversation. Yet though I enjoyed the discussion,  from the point of view of aspirant writers, what I heard was mostly a counsel of despair. It is nearly impossible to get a publisher, we were told. Fiction does not sell, said Ian Spring of Rymour Books, though non-fiction can sell, for example books about the Scottish mountains. This was stark realism in spades.

There was very little analysis of the sub genres of non-fiction – biography, memoir, travel, history philosophy and so on. According to Gerry Hassan, writing on popular music is enjoying something of a golden age and may be treated as an exception. To self publish, on the other hand, is to accept that you will only ever be read by friends and family. One member  of the audience did claim to have sold four hundred copies of a self published book. There was general assent from the panel that that was a pretty impressive outcome. Nevertheless, said panel member, Anstey Spraggan, you can tell, often by just reading the first line of a book, whether it is a work of self publication or has gone through the rigours of editing on which a proper publisher will insist. 

The comment of the panel on the difficulties of finding a publisher is something on which I have a personal story to tell. Indeed, having attempted unsuccessfully to get a publisher for my memoir, Remembered Fragments, I have some sense of just how competitive the world of publishing is. 

My book was written during the pandemic when, we can be sure, many similar projects were being worked out. The central narrative was my coming of age in Newry, Northern Ireland, with my earliest memories from the late 1950s through the 1960s when the Troubles were just beginning to kick off.

For whatever reason I had settled on the idea that Belfast’s Blackstaff Press would love what I had to say. On consulting their website it became clear that they were not taking any further submissions for that year, as they were already overloaded. When I checked up in January of the following year, the message had been updated to say that  Blackstaff would only be accepting submissions in April and May, and that a maximum of 30,000 words should be submitted.  I waited patiently and submitted my 30,000 words  and in due course was turned down. I received no comment on the quality of the work. 

The panel at the Selkirk Arms in Kirkcudbright was clearly representative of  a fairly traditional model of publishing for fiction and non-fiction books. There was a general assumption that, unlike myself, would-be writers are intent on a career as an author. If you are in that category, then get yourself an agent who will act as an intermediary between you and potential publishers. So far as I can tell this system of agents as intermediaries continues to work well for many established writers. The main challenge for new writers is the increasing number of people out there who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they have a  book in them, perhaps even a future as a writer. This inevitably makes the  problem of getting the attention of a publisher more difficult.  

Publishers in general take the view that they are already skimming the cream and that  great writing will inevitably find its way to the top. There is of course a market for celebrity biographies, cookbooks, and the like.  For the rest, there is self publishing in its various forms. The possible merits of this option were not really explored  other than as a refuge for the desperate. The panel warned us in particular against the blandishments of those who will take money in exchange for proofreading and typographical services. I’d say that was sound advice.

But even if we restrict our idea of publishing to the written word, the age of change has had impacts well beyond the bastion of mainstream traditional publishing. For those with an impulse to blog on whatever  subject takes their fancy, a world of opportunity has opened up with the internet. My own efforts as a  blogger  have had limited reach, but I follow a couple of local blogs which I think are well written and of significant interest and which clearly have a substantial audience. Increasingly even professional writers are using Substack and similar platforms to cut out the middlemen and get paid directly by their readers. 

Panelist Ian Spring, made it clear that poetry can sell, though this is usually reliant on energetic promotion by the poet. In Dumfries and Galloway, and I am sure elsewhere, the writing of poetry is supported by workshops which offer an apprenticeship of sorts and undoubtedly  a first level of quality control. Southlight Magazine is a secondary filter on the local literary scene offering a forum to new writers of poetry and indeed of short stories. Southlight provides opportunities to read at the Magazine’s launch events.  Small publishers such as Drunk Muse Press deserve honourable mention having brought some of the fine poetry which is being written in obscure corners to a wider audience.  

While small specialist publishers have long existed, they have been made more viable by the computing technology used to prepare work for publication which, combined with modern methods of printing, would appear to make short print runs an affordable proposition. Since poets never expect to become best sellers, this model of publishing works well for them.  

When question time came I was keen to ask the panel how they thought Artificial Intelligence might affect the publishing industry. The question was understood more as being concerned with the threat posed by AI rather than the opportunities which it might offer. I was advised that asking Chat GPT or Deep Seek for comment on drafts for my blog, as I do, was “feeding the beast” … well the word “beast” wasn’t used, but that was the implication.  

It  does seem possible that Artificial Intelligence may begin to replace writers in a range of circumstances and that is indeed an alarming thought. Yet at the current stage of its development, AI has the capability to assist writers in shaping their work, just as a friend or editor will assist us by making corrections and suggestions – for example that chapter 3 is a pointless and self indulgent digression which should be cut out entirely; and so on. Used in this way, we control the AI and get it to do what we want. If you don’t like what it says, by all means, plough your own furrow.  

Ian Spring pointed out that the publishing industry is already shaping the work of writers, moving it towards what will be more digestible, more saleable. At the more extreme end of this “management,” publishing may already be doing the very thing that we fear most from AI, crushing creativity and promoting a product which is shaped entirely by the demands of the market.   

Where creative writing is concerned, the  end point impact of Artificial Intelligence is indeed hard to predict. AI can, in its current incarnation, rattle off poems to order, no doubt,  making some attempt at the style of T.S.Elliot, or W.B.Yeats, if required. Yet I don’t see a serious threat to the writing of poetry from this quarter. Perhaps AI will independently produce work to feed a public appetite for crime, romantic or science fiction. Much of the publication in these genres already betrays a strong element of formula in its construction. That, possibly dark day, of ubiquitous AI created content has not yet arrived. In the meantime we will probably do better if we take control of AI and exploit its obvious potential as a researcher, an editor and a critic of our work.

Many of the audience for this event, I suspect,  had attended with some hope of gaining advice on how to gain a foothold for their own work in the world of publishing.  Well not James Robertson, who was present mostly because he was the main attraction in the following event, though his contribution to the discussion was welcome, so far as I was concerned. 

I felt particularly for the  lady who had turned up with a complete manuscript in her bag. It was, she declared, the work of a deceased aunt. She had discovered it gathering dust in an attic and, having read it, was sufficiently impressed to believe it was deserving of a wider audience. The panel listened to her story politely, and made some encouraging noises. The phrase “friends and family” may have figured yet again, but no one rushed forward to claim the document for their own press.

I imagine this was a handwritten manuscript. My advice to that lady would be, type it up, or pay to have it typed up if you can afford to do so.  Feed the manuscript into ChatGPT or Deep Seek asking for advice on spelling, grammar, readability and structure. Work through the advice and make whatever corrections and changes you yourself feel are appropriate.  

This will be quite a job of work, which would usually be undertaken by the author. Indeed the process brings to mind a recent cartoon  in the Guardian by Tom Gault on Finishing a Book. This makes it clear how an author is obliged to revise and rework at every stage of their engagement with an agent and a publisher. 

If, as I eventually did, you use Amazon Print on Demand for publication of your book,  Amazon will assist you with cover and book design. However, don’t expect this necessarily to do justice to your aunt’s work. If you are prepared to pay money, employ someone to assist you with the design and typography. I might approach a local artist, even for advice on this subject. In my own case, I paid my nephew Joe, who works in graphic design in London. That was the most expensive part of my own project, but I think well worth it. 

Once you’ve got a copy of the book in your hands, think about a launch event. Invite all your friends, acquaintances, family, members of the local book club, indeed anyone who seems remotely interested. Print enough copies to sell to the number you believe will be likely to attend. Better too few than too many. You can always take orders. You definitely don’t want  to be tripping over boxes of unsold books for years to come.  At the event you should tell the story of how you found the book, came to believe in its worth, and explain the process by which you published it. Offer a short reading.

This done, write a press release summarising the story of the book’s publication as you have told it at the launch event. Send the press release to local and national newspapers and television. They’ll love your story and the book will maybe even sell a few copies on Amazon. Don’t expect the book to be reviewed but, just possibly, word of mouth will spread and you will have an extraordinary success on your hands. 

But that’s not likely. In a previous post on the subject of blogging I quoted writer Hamilton Nolan who said: “most books sell shockingly few copies…You  should not write a book to get rich or famous. That won’t happen.”  He then goes on very powerfully to explain why this should not put  a writer off. I think what he has to say might equally be applied to the project of publishing your aunt’s legacy. 

I wish you luck and am confident that your finished book will for you be an important achievement whether it sells or not.

Endnotes

Chair: Rosie Ilett, writer, editor and co-director of the Kirkcudbright Fringe Festival.

Panel:  Publisher Ian Spring, the founder of Rymour Books, Elizabeth Parsons, of Kirkcudbright Book Shop Gallovidian, and authors Anstey Spraggan and Gerry Hassan. 

Drunk Muse Press

Southlight Magazine

A New Year’s Wish for the Blogisphere  in which the quote from Hamilton Nolan appears in full.

Blogs I read and would recommend!  

Remembered Fragments Available on Amazon as a paperback or ebook.

Note – text edited in response to comment on the use of the word “cherry picking,” now removed.

Posted in Books, Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Did I Say That?…Next Question!

Posted on March 2, 2025 by Stephen Shellard

Arguments for Defence and Foreign Aid Spending in a Volatile World. 

[2130 words]

I’ve spent a good part of my life arguing in favour of defusing conflict by means of unilateral disarmament and negotiation.  I now find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of accepting that the United Kingdom, together with its European allies  should  be spending more money on arms. I don’t really need to explain the reasons for my personal turnaround  to anyone who has been awake in the last week or so.  A few key words will suffice.  Vladimir Putin.  Ukraine. Donald Trump. 

The moral challenge of this shift in my thinking has been compounded by Keir Starmer’s announcement that in order for the UK to increase its defence spending the foreign aid budget will be cut by a comparable sum.  This trade-off will appeal to a certain constituency which considers any money spent in favour of the poor and downtrodden overseas to be equivalent to pouring it down the drain. Generally this view is based on the notion that foreign aid is in large part siphoned off by  corrupt officials in those parts of the world which are the intended destination for the funds with little of it ever reaching the people who are truly in need. 

I dare say there is some truth in this picture. Not every foreign aid programme has produced a benign outcome.  The matter deserves study. However, relentless hostility towards foreign aid is clearly a  politically motivated distortion intended to please a populist constituency.  It is a distortion which disregards the many documented achievements of foreign aid in famine relief, eradication of disease and the provision of tools and skills which have enabled people to rebuild lives shattered by the whole gamut of natural disasters.  

Regardless, this hostility to aid is a perspective which utterly fails to understand the way in which a sovereign currency functions.  Any funds in sterling directed by the UK towards foreign aid can only have value so long as they may ultimately be redeemed in the UK economy.  If this was not possible the aid would be no better than monopoly money. 

Foreign aid in sterling will in part be converted to local currencies in order to purchase goods and services in the context of immediate need. However, this  conversion  is a balanced  transaction in which the equivalent sum in sterling enters the money markets. It does not simply evaporate but in fact continues to be traded. It passes into another financial realm where it may be sold to people wanting to travel to the UK or purchase goods in the UK market. Investors and speculators also have a part to play, buying and selling sterling on the international money markets. 

Even if those funds pass through corrupt hands and are invested in poorly run projects, they are in effect an extension of the UK economy.  Looked at in this way, foreign aid delivered in pounds sterling, may be seen as an expansion of UK economic activity into other territories and domains. Unfortunately, on our balance sheet, this is counted as a deficit rather than a  credit. 

Naturally one  hopes that money given as aid is spent wisely on projects which may stabilise a crisis situation and result in the restoration of a sustainable local economy. The benefits of this outcome are obvious not just to the community which has been given help. Successful foreign aid projects are one of the more humanly decent ways of reducing the flow of migration into Europe and the United States, a phenomenon which is clearly causing  much of our current cultural and political turmoil. 

I do see a possible flaw in this economic argument in favour of foreign aid. In order to maintain the existing foreign aid budget, whilst also increasing our defence spending, we may be obliged to increase our national debt. In the absence of tax rises this could require cutbacks  to service delivery within the United Kingdom, unless the economy grows sufficiently to make this unnecessary. That would indeed be a perverse outcome. However, I am going to suggest that we don’t actually need to borrow money to both  increase defence spending whilst maintaining our foreign aid budget. 

So far as foreign aid is concerned, if we look at this expenditure as an extraterritorial extension of the UK economy then it becomes possible to consider it as an investment rather than a deficit. So long as the  demand which results from the aid budget does not compete for scarce UK resources, then the impact will be a modest stimulus to the domestic economy. It is quite possible that prices for domestic consumers might even come down given increased levels of production of some goods and services and consequent efficiencies.  

Clearly foreign aid should not expand to the point  where it undermines the domestic economy, but it is safe to say there is plenty of head room in this respect. Indeed there is a case to be made, at the very least, for restoring aid to levels which were sustained during the tenure  of the previous government. 

While foreign aid is an important tool in building good international relations, the current geopolitical climate also demands a reassessment of defence spending. Historical precedents, such as the US economy during World War II, offer valuable insights. 

The US economy grew fat on the back of weapons manufacture during the Second World War. It was, at that point, an economy in recovery. It did not have a huge surplus to spend on arms manufacture. Funding was in fact supported by the sale of war bonds to the American public and increased taxation. 

Whilst the logic of these funding measures is obvious, it is not at all clear that they were a necessary part of this massive direction of US resources into the armaments industry. Only a few years previously, with the US economy in a much more dire situation, the US Government had decoupled the price of the dollar from the price of gold. This, together with other measures, “enabled the Federal Reserve to increase the amount of money in circulation to the level the economy needed.”  This increase in the money supply was the foundation of Roosevelt’s New Deal spending. 

The process of the New Deal lays bare the reality that, if a government in command of a sovereign currency deems certain works to be vital then, it has the power simply to add funds to the bank accounts of companies and individuals who contract to carry out those works. Assuming the necessary resources are available within the jurisdiction of the government, It is not necessary to borrow money or increase taxation to achieve this objective. Such a view is rooted in Keynesian economic theory but supported also by Modern Monetary Theory as expounded, for example, by Professor Stephanie Kelton. 

The US could have increased the money supply in World War Two to facilitate rearmament. Indeed, if that had been its policy, it would not have been necessary to pay the interest on the war bonds which were sold to raise money. In other words, the same objective could have been attained more cheaply. 

Undeniably, funding rearmament through direct payments carries risks. Overuse or poorly judged application of such a policy could lead to inflation. If spending, for example, is targeted at or results in demand for resources which are in short supply, the price of those resources will rise and that may be a problem for the economy.  Central banks have a role in managing such inflation by controlling interest rates but, in the case of any economic policy, there are judgments to be made.  There will be opportunities to use the money supply to activate resources of labour and raw materials which are readily available or under used.  Owing to the dominance of conservative economic thinking in recent times, such opportunities have been under exploited. 

Though left leaning, the UK Labour Government languishes under this baleful economic constraint. It has, with greater reason, rejected the idea of issuing bonds in order to raise  money for defence spending. This would increase an already worrying debt burden. The obvious option of increasing taxation has repeatedly been ruled out, though there are signs that a tax on the wealthy might be popular. Shockingly, the shoddy decision has been made to raid the aid budget for the purpose.  As a result, Annaliese Dodds, International development minister, has felt it necessary to resign from the UK Cabinet. 

The United States is a clear leader in the field of high tech armament production. It is possible the UK will use its increased defence budget to purchase these cutting edge weapons. That option certainly would require increased borrowing or taxation. Alternatively, the Government might direct funds towards our home grown armaments industry without increasing either debt or taxation. 

Rory Stewart has pointed out that  arms purchases from the US is increasingly compromised by the terms on which contracts  are agreed.  In the case of the most advanced military aircraft, the US demands that all  surveillance gathered by these aircraft remains the property of the CIA. The US is also, understandably, secretive about the manufacture of their most advanced armaments. They retain control over supply of  spare parts and other backup and training and have already shown some signs of not treating these as matters of priority. 

With the US becoming less dependable as a defence ally, relying on them for the supply of weapons is looking increasingly unwise. Added to this, as Rory Stewart has also pointed out, the way in which the Ukraine war has been fought raises many questions about the type of weapons we would need to develop. Drone warfare has become very important in the Ukraine war, for both sides in the conflict. 

The lesson may be that the UK, together with its European allies, should coordinate investment in their existing arms industries in order to develop the technology, expertise and weapons most appropriate to the threat posed by Russia. Such investment would have the obvious advantage of  being a stimulus to the UK and European Economies. This should be an encouragement to defence spending,  whichever of the funding options available may be chosen to make it happen. 

As I write, President Zelensky has been ejected from the White House after being set upon by President Trump, an encounter provoked by Trump’s attack dog Vice President, JD Vance. This squalid piece of bullying took place in a press conference which was  intended to herald the signing of a deal, a deal which promised that it might offer a  foundation for a peace agreement.  This prospect of peace now appears to be in tatters.

It seems improbable that the United Kingdom and Europe will, even with good intentions, be able  to plug the  armaments deficit which threatens as an immediate consequence of the capitulation of the Trump administration to Vladimir Putin. Nevertheless, it seems imperative that, in order to defend Ukraine and the other vulnerable European countries such as Poland and the Baltic States, the effort is made to do so. And whatever the scale of this challenge, we should continue to consider our foreign aid commitments as a complementary and potentially sound investment in both global stability and economic growth. It’s either that or submit to the hydra-headed monster that has emerged in the form of Donald Trump, JD Vance, Vladimir Putin,Viktor Orbán and other lesser bullies that are propagating in their wake.  

Endnotes

Modern Monetary Theory  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory 

Full Fact – UK and NATO Defence Spending  Explained   In 2024 the UK spent just 2.33% of its GDP on defence, whereas the United States spent 3.38% of its much larger GDP. Only two European countries currently spend  at a higher level on defence than the United States.  They are Poland, on 4.12%, and Estonia on 3.42%. Not far behind them are Latvia and Lithuania. Their desire to protect themselves from an escalation of Russia’s current aggression is clear.

Our World in Data  Foreign Aid

Roosevelt’s New Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal   The dollar was allowed to float freely on foreign exchange markets with no guaranteed price in gold. With the passage of the Gold Reserve Act in 1934, the nominal price of gold was changed from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. These measures enabled the Federal Reserve to increase the amount of money in circulation to the level the economy needed. 

Anneliese Dodds resigns over Keir Starmer’s decision to cut aid budget

The Rest is Politics  Question Time: How Will Europe Defend Itself  Also worth listening to is the following “special” episode, a post match analysis of the Oval Office showdown with President Zelensky. 

With thanks to Florian Seriex/Action Against Hunger for the featured image, cropped from the original on Flikr.

Posted in Comment, Economics, Misc | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Indebted

Posted on February 16, 2025 by Stephen Shellard

Why and How the UK Can and Should Invest Now in Grid-Upgrade and Solar Power

The national debt is a perpetual and festering sore in any discussion of our economy. The more we borrow, the heavier the millstone we pass on to future generations. Yet, without taking on more debt, we find ourselves trapped in an austerity riven with inequality—a situation that seems unjustifiable in a world where a small number enjoy improbable riches. Some economists argue that taxing the rich is not only a just measure but would stimulate growth. The idea, however, has not gained enough traction with the public in recent times. There is a lingering fear, stirred up by segments of the conservative media,  that punishing the rich would  risk stifling the very individuals who drive economic growth.  

Economics can seem like a strange blend of superstition, alchemy, astrology, and religion.  Consider the financial crash of 2008. Only a handful of economists saw the tidal wave coming. Even Gordon Brown, who is credited with orchestrating the rescue package, admits to mistakes in the lead-up to the crisis. Given his expertise, it’s reasonable to assume he understood the risks posed by the financial products flooding the market. While they made many wealthy, they contributed little in the way of meaningful goods or services for ordinary consumers. I suspect Gordon knew a crash was inevitable—he just didn’t know when it would arrive and hoped it wouldn’t happen on his watch. But it did.

Since the financial crash of 2008, our economy has grown at a slower pace, while national debt has increased significantly. Is this debt burden really  a necessary evil, or a symptom of deeper failures of vision and economic policy?

Dharshini David, the BBC’s Chief Economics Correspondent, hosted a very penetrating radio programme summarising The Story Behind National Debt. She interviewed a series of luminaries, beginning with Sir Robert Stheeman, former Chief Executive of the UK Debt Management Office. It has been his job to organise the auctions which sell  government bonds—also known as gilts—that are used to provide the finance which makes up our national debt. 

Apart from explaining these technicalities, Sir Robert had a number of striking things to say about the inscrutable character of government debt.  Just to begin with: it is “utterly different  to every other kind of debt.”  It is “all about credibility.” It’s not just about the numbers. In the context of Covid, huge sums were borrowed—but he said, “That was relatively easily absorbed…the market was willing to give the Government of the day the benefit of the doubt.”  In this statement the role of “the market” i.e. primary and secondary traders in bonds, can be seen as crucial. If the markets don’t like what is happening that spells trouble for the government. At a later point in the programme Sir Robert says he doesn’t know whether we are approaching the limits of debt—“Nobody does!”  He goes on to say that he does not think increasing debt is sustainable and concludes: “Something may have to give.”

I’d like to focus for a moment on the importance of credibility. What Sir Robert is saying is that if government debt is used to finance investment that is in the clear and immediate interest of an economy then investors will recognise this. They will see their investment as secure. Sale of bonds to finance the investment may be possible on the back of a credible plan, one which will clearly lead  to increased growth and productivity. 

Thinking about the current situation of the UK for a moment, it is clear that some infrastructure investments have been bedevilled by delays and cost overruns. Inevitably, this has undermined their credibility. HS2 was one such infrastructure black hole. There are signs that a third runway for Heathrow could be another. It will take years to complete, is likely to meet with consistent opposition and to cost vastly more than was first supposed. 

Perhaps that is an unnecessarily gloomy projection but the point in this case is that the bond markets will almost certainly be influenced by that gloomy view of the matter. The Labour Government has been attempting to mitigate this problem in the case of new nuclear power installations. A range of measures has been introduced to facilitate the construction of Small Modular Reactors. Given the nature of the technology it is hard not to see a few pitfalls along the road to completion.  

While large-scale infrastructure projects like HS2 face challenges, smaller, more innovative investments—such as solar energy—offer immediate returns and greater credibility. One of the panelists on a recent addition of Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Greg Jackson, CEO of Octopus Energy, spoke admiringly about the way China  completely turned around the air quality of its big cities with the introduction of electric vehicles. 59% of cars on the streets are now electric. This has been made possible because China  is surging ahead with the installation of solar panels. In 2023 alone, explained Greg Jackson, they “added more solar energy than the entire installed capacity of the United States.” 

I might not have thought installation of solar panels was an obvious route to go down in the UK. It is the installation of wind turbines which has most captured  public attention but there have been obstacles to development at every turn.  Tom Heap, however, in his book Land Smart: How to Give People and Nature the Space to Thrive makes it clear that there is huge and immediately available potential for roll out of solar in the UK. Many of the ideas he suggests are innovative, but they are far from untried. Exploitation of warehouse roofing, building solar panels over car parks, floating solar on reservoirs, and so on.  

Solar panel technology already exists and is coming down in price. In the examples Tom Heap suggests, space is already available and installation unlikely to prove controversial. The principal obstacles are complicating factors of ownership relative to the spaces concerned and also the need to upgrade our electricity grid to make it compatible with   developing renewable capacity. 

An increase in the pace of solar installation and improvements to our electricity grid could begin immediately. Further development can happen incrementally, and as logistical problems are solved, with increasing rapidity. The contribution to bringing down energy costs and insulating our economy from the vagaries of imported oil and gas are undeniable. The clear potential of such investment to lower UK production costs and to make output more efficient is what would provide the necessary confidence for investors to purchase government bonds to cover the costs. But I have a different  suggestion. 

There is another way to raise finance for a project which is so manifestly in the interest of the United Kingdom. The Government could use quantitative easing—a process where the central bank purchases assets to inject money into the economy—effectively creating new money. 

The importance of this capability is greatly under discussed, because it is inclined to seem like a kind of dangerous trick which may be played by a government. Certainly, quantitative easing has the potential to be inflationary and if done for frivolous purposes is dangerous.     Even talking about quantitative easing is liable to undermine confidence. However that fear of QE is at least in part promoted by economists who believe that deregulation of markets is the solution to all problems. 

By “frivolous”  use of QE I mean, for example, spending on day to day expenses, such as, f  giving nurses a decent pay rise – obviously very tempting. To do so in a time of economic stringency is going to undermine the aforementioned confidence of investors and so the international markets would not treat the pound well. Its value would fall, and less money would flow into the UK economy—bad news all round.

However, if quantitative easing is used for investment in needed infrastructure then this has the potential to build confidence.  Upgrading our electricity grid and building more renewable generation will obviously secure the energy resource in the UK, make it less vulnerable to international fluctuations in the oil price etc. The outcome will be to make the UK a place in which investors can invest more confidently. 

This strategy of injecting money into the economy was first suggested by John Maynard Keynes.  It was he who laid the theoretical foundation for President Roosevelt’s New Deal.  This investment lifted the US out of the economic slump of the 1930s by organising and providing funds for the building of “useful works such as government buildings, airports, hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, and dams.”  

Keynes‘ legacy has taken something of a beating since his death soon after the 1944 Bretton Woods conference. Bretton Woods was profoundly  influential in establishing the economic world order and US dominance in it, following the war. Keynes did not entirely get his way at Bretton Woods but his opponents fought back in any case and growing belief in an unregulated free market as the solution to all problems established a dominance beginning in the 1980s. Keynesian principles saw a resurgence after the 2008 financial crash, as governments turned to stimulus spending to revive their economies. This did not prevent  austerity policies and a desire to cut taxes  dominating UK Government policy while the Conservative Party held power.   

Yet there are economists out there who continue to insist that a government with control over a sovereign currency, such as the United Kingdom, can do more in the interests of its citizens than cut taxes and expenditure in order to stimulate growth. Professor Stephanie Kelton makes a powerful case for a different approach in her book The Deficit Myth.  She  was a senior economic adviser to Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. Another strong voice proclaiming the unused potential of our currency is economist Ann Pettifor who explains in her book The Production of Money,  “how to break the power of bankers” and has explicitly made the case for a Green New Deal. Whilst these ideas remain controversial, the Keynesian fundamentals have a strong track record which could be particularly well fitted to the needs of the present moment.

As I write these words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the United Kingdom, Rachel Reeves is coming under pressure for alleged misdemeanours relating to her previous career. It is suggested that she has exaggerated in her CV the amount of time she spent working at the Bank of England. My concern however is that she spent too long working there and has become possessed by its orthodoxies.  I have no serious doubts about her integrity or ability to do her job. She seems to me to be both formidably capable, well-intentioned and, above all, possessed of unshakeable self-belief. However we are at a moment  when the need for  decisive and immediate investment in our renewable energy infrastructure is an obvious way to reinvigorate our economy.  

If our Chancellor is unwilling to act, she should step aside. The choice is clear: invest now or burden future generations. The tools—debt or QE—are available, but the political will must match the urgency of the moment.

Endnotes

Guardian 2010 – The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss

BBC News 2011 Gordon Brown Admits Mistake 

Wikipedia Roosevelt’s New Deal 

Gov.UK Government rips up rules to fire-up nuclear power

Tom Heap Land Smart: How to Give People and Nature the Space to Thrive

BBC News 14 February 2025 What we’ve learned about Rachel Reeves’s expenses – and the Labour response

Stephanie Kelton The Deficit Myth

Ann Pettifor The Production of Money: How to Break the Power of the Bankers

Posted in Comment, Economics, Environmental | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

On Street Fighters, Gladiators and Philosophers

Posted on February 9, 2025 by Stephen Shellard

When I first heard news of the spat on Elon Musk’s X between US Vice President JD Vance and former Tory politician, Rory Stewart it brought to mind the Sunday school classes  I reluctantly attended over sixty years ago. JD Vance, a practising Roman Catholic, has been attempting to justify his alliance with Donald Trump’s America First agenda, particularly its hostility toward migrants and its cancellation of overseas aid programmes.

My Sunday School teacher for that half hour each week, Tommy Caldwell, was a small and earnest man, but I was a poor pupil. One  detail of his instruction, however,  has remained with me: his insistence that the church of which we were members was ‘catholic’ in the universal sense. That seemed odd, for in Northern Ireland when one spoke of “the Catholic Church” one was referring to the Roman Catholic church, and I assumed that the word ‘catholic’ was reserved for that purpose. But no, insisted Tommy. Our church, the Church of Ireland was a catholic church. Tommy may perhaps have explained that the word catholic comes from the Greek and means “universal”, “world-wide” or “all inclusive.” The message is a simple one: a catholic church is open to every person, without exception. 

JD Vance’s argument is a simple one: Charity begins—and, it would seem, ends—at home. He has, apparently, drawn on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas to build a theological case in support of his position.

 It is an idea that clearly has much appeal to those who prefer not to see the problems of people elsewhere in the world as their business. The increasing flow of migration from poorer to richer countries has heightened suspicion of philanthropy. This, in turn, has fueled the rise of right-wing populism and nationalism.

But how then can JD Vance square this with the idea of a catholic church based on  the principle that none are excluded and all should be made welcome?  Indeed, consistent with the principle of inclusion is the missionary idea, shared in general by Christian churches, that it is a duty to spread biblical teaching throughout the world. Perhaps JD Vance would not argue with this obligation, but would insist that spreading the word of God is quite distinct from an obligation to be charitable beyond the national boundary. Splitting hairs, I think.

In the pre Christian era, the Roman Empire showed neither missionary zeal nor charity in its conquest of the world. In general it permitted the different subject tribal groups within the boundaries of the empire to follow the religious practices which had defined them prior to conquest; it was a policy which, in general, made for stability. As in the case of all empires prior to the Romans, conquest was concerned principally with the enrichment of the imperial elite. In the case of the Romans this was achieved by means of their military prowess and ability to build a sophisticated infrastructure of roads and settlements sufficient to sustain their empire. Those who resisted were taken as slaves, used as fodder for gladiatorial contests, or crucified. The notion that those living in and working for the interests of the Roman Empire should all be raised up as equal citizens was completely absent. It was very much a “Rome First” approach to the government of the Empire. Perhaps this is the vision JD Vance has for America, presumably absent the fodder for gladiatorial contests and the crucifixions.

Christians, however, were exceptional  in being systematically persecuted by Rome. Only when Constantine became emperor from AD306 to 337, and converted to Christianity, did things begin to change. Critical to these changes was the universalist character of the Christian religion, a foundation of which was the revolutionary notion that all members of the faith were equal before God, regardless of their tribal, ethnic, or cultural antecedents. The same idea was to become integral to Islam when it emerged in the 7th century CE, and so it too became a world religion.

The historian Tom Holland presents a strong case that Christianity is a foundation stone of western liberal enlightenment thinking. He is clear that this is true even where those ideas are expressed in a secular context. And so, in his poem ‘A Man’s A Man For A’ That,’ Robert Burns expresses an idea that would have been inconceivable before the Christian era.

For a’ that, an’ a’ that, 

   It’s coming yet for a’ that, 

That Man to Man, the world o’er, 

   Shall brothers be for a’ that.

And when Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,  in the Communist Manifesto say, Workers of the world unite!  they too are inheritors of an idea that first came to fruition in the teaching of Jesus Christ. Variations of this theme persist in modern politics and appear across the political spectrum.

However, the Roman Catholic church was to become the first truly international expression of these ideas and in so doing, developed an institutional character and theology designed to protect and extend  its influence. Such a vast enterprise was inevitably susceptible to corruption, as is evidenced by the rebellion of Martin Luther and the emergence of the Protestant churches. 

I notice that, in discussing his disagreement with JD Vance on BBC Radio, Rory Stewart cites the parable of The Good Samaritan as evidence that Christianity challenges its adherents to look beyond tribal allegiances when considering their obligations.”

The story is told by Jesus in response to a challenging question from a Rabbi, an expert in Jewish law. He asks: “And who is my neighbour?”

Anyone brought up in the Christian faith will be familiar with the narrative, but others may not or, like myself, not have paid the story much attention for many years. Here’s a quick summary. 

A traveller is robbed, beaten and left for dead at the side of a road. It is implicit in the telling of the story that the victim of this crime is  Jewish, as was Jesus and the Rabbi who asked the challenging question. 

A Jewish priest passes by but avoids the man, as does a Levite, a member of a tribe within the larger Jewish family. Eventually a Samaritan arrives at the scene.  Samaritans and Jews were generally antagonistic toward each other, but this individual binds up the wounds of the injured man, takes him to an Inn and provides money so that he can be cared for as he recovers. At the conclusion of the story, Jesus asks:

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

The Samaritan makes no attempt at a deal in his philanthropic transaction. He does not ask the injured man, in exchange for help, to be anything other than what he is. There is no suggestion in the parable that one should not help family and friends who are in need. That is a natural and proper thing to do and in general something  that comes easily. 

The point really is that humans have the capacity to transcend the condition of their animal and tribal nature and to empathise with others who are different or not known to them personally. Christ makes it clear that this is a  challenge to which we should all rise.  His concluding words bear repetition:  “Go and do likewise.”

In arguing what seems a contrary position JD Vance, someone with a record of high academic achievement, resorts to an ad hominem attack on Rory Stewart, suggesting that he has a low IQ. It’s rather as if Vance instinctively realises he  may do better in a street fight, all snapping and snarling, than in a civilised theological discussion. Perhaps he might prefer to think of himself in more gladiatorial terms, as a man trained to fight in an arena with other men, or animals. 

The online commentary on the spat seems to relish the fight more than engage with the argument. It reminds me of the playground of my youth where, on the odd occasion when a fight would break out, a tight circle would immediately gather round to witness the spectacle. 

I’ve listened to Rory Stewart in discussion with others on a number of occasions and he is quite capable of becoming tetchy with his interlocutor.  On this occasion he is maintaining a more characteristic equilibrium.  JD Vance, however, has fully aligned himself with the presidency of Donald Trump, a man who has no interest in civility and has built his career on such ad hominem attacks. But here’s the thing: Trump’s enablers do not represent America. The coalition which holds him in power will come apart.  

But not just yet. Until then, the spectacle continues.

End Notes

Rory Stewart interviewed on BBC about his argument with JD Vance  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0knl0zy 

Parable of the Good Samaritan, explained on Wikipedia. 


Tom Holland, Dominion, The Making of the Western Mind  It is a book I have yet to read. I am familiar with Tom Holland’s thoughts on the subject mostly through following the podcast he hosts with Dominic Sandbrook, The Rest is History

Posted in Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Most Beautiful Words

Posted on February 4, 2025 by Stephen Shellard
Comic Strip Superhero
You’re fired!

I have occasionally listened to radio discussions in which poets have let slip their partiality for a particular word, usually arising from some resonant quality, something mellifluous in the sound or sounds of which it is composed. I find myself unmoved by such talk. For me it is the way words come together that matters.  

Donald Trump’s favourite word, it seems, is “tariff.”  I can’t imagine the 47th President of the United States having much time for the aforementioned poets and I am guessing the appeal of the word for him is something more akin to, “big stick,” which is to say, something with which he can threaten and intimidate those who he wishes to bully. 

The consensus amongst economists is that the imposition of tariffs by the United States will be an act of self-harm and will have the immediate impact of driving up prices in a manner which seems destined to hurt most of all the very people whose votes returned Trump to the White House. 

It’s just possible that Donald Trump, purported author of The Art of the Deal — ghostwritten, it is generally accepted, by Tony Schwarz — may have some tricks up his sleeve. Certainly his tariffs have been accompanied by demands. I notice for example that he has accused the Mexican government of being in league with the drug cartels which are rife in that country and are flooding narcotics into the lucrative market of the US. The implication is that Trump will lift the tariffs once this “alliance” has been broken. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has responded robustly:  We categorically reject the White House’s slanderous claim that the Mexico government has alliances with criminal organisations, as well as any attempt to intervene in our territory … If there is anywhere that such an alliance in fact exists, it is in the United States gun factories that sell high-powered weapons to these criminal groups.  

The Canadian Government also seems particularly up for the fight, no doubt energised by Trump’s threat to swallow them up—along with Greenland and any other territory of strategic or commercial interest to the US. There is no doubt, however, that the US does have some real big sticks in its arsenal and so I will make no predictions regarding how this may all play out. 

Trump, though, may not be entirely wrong in believing that the problem which underlies his strategy — the trade deficit with China — is at the root of many American woes. Outsourcing the production of  goods to places where Labour costs are cheap has killed off  productive capacity across the US leaving many communities in a limbo of low wages and precarious employment. 

The imposition of tariffs on imported goods might, in time, regenerate US productive capacity. This strategy alone is unlikely to make America great again, but it might at least make it a little more resilient and self reliant. 

But Trumpian tariffs are fraught with risk, for even if industry does return in time to the rust belt it will be under new terms which exploit artificial intelligence to keep the labour component of production to the barest minimum. And in the hiatus, the US economy will flag, and even rich folk will feel the pain—not perhaps in their day-to-day consumption, but certainly in the all-important bottom line of their businesses.

The global economy operates on an obvious imbalance: sweatshops and cheap labour in one part of the world supply low-cost consumer goods to far wealthier nations elsewhere. Yet this has been the mechanism by which China has raised its economy.  Their endgame is obvious: that Chinese citizens ultimately should be as prosperous, if not more prosperous, than those in the free world of Europe, Australia and  North America. A trade war may stall their progress towards this objective but a command economy such as China has many more strategies to fend off economic turbulence than the one-trick pony of a deregulated free market. 

There is a vogue in the current era for politically themed musicals, for example, Clinton: The Musical is a satirical exploration of the life and presidency of Bill Clinton, and unsurprisingly contains “adult themes.”  It remains to be seen whether some latter-day Stephen Sondheim ever comes up with a script for “Trump: The Musical,” and, if so, whether it will be presented under the banner of tragedy or farce. My money, currently, is riding on the latter. Just as likely, though, is that, in the wake of his presidency, Trump will, in similar manner to Art of the Deal, “author” a script and, regardless of the wreckage he leaves behind him, add his own story to the great compendium of comic book superheroes. That, perhaps, is the only fitting place for his legacy to rest.

Endnotes

Fury in Mexico over Trump’s ‘slanderous’ claim of cartel links

With thanks to ChatGPT for providing the comic strip images, to which I have added a few comic strip words. My instruction to ChatGPT was to provide some comic strip panels showing Donald Trump as a superhero. This it declined to do owing to “restrictions on creating images of public figures in specific roles.” It has been pointed out to me that the superhero image it eventually generated looks a little more like Boris Johnson than Donald Trump, but I think the theme of the strip fits quite well in either case and the more generic image works fine.

The most beautiful word …The only single word that has ever become slightly obsessional for me is Stephen Sondheim’s “Maria” [from West Side Story, music by Bernstein] which, very occasionally and despite my better judgement, I find myself trying to sing. Maria, Say it loud and there’s music playing Say it soft and it’s almost like praying Maria, I just can’t stop saying, Maria. Sadly I just don’t have the operatic chops to do it justice.

Posted in Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Inauguration Blues …

Posted on January 23, 2025 by Stephen Shellard

I  was not paying a great deal of attention as President Donald J Trump went through the ceremony of his inauguration. Clearly, it was a great day for Trump’s admirers and the 1,500 felons he pardoned for their complicity in the January 6th insurrection. Naturally, for those on the left of the political spectrum it was a somewhat dispiriting spectacle to witness the triumphalist prodigality of the inauguration.  Suddenly, the very foundations of democracy seem  to be crumbling. The world looks on either in horror or bemused fascination. 

I noticed on Facebook some very forthright comment on the line up of tech billionaires present at the inauguration.  Key words in this angry litany were “nazis,” “fascists,” “scum” and “totalitarian.” Perhaps the moment has  come  to retire to some remote place and live out a quiet life?

And yet, for all its disquieting character, this was not the Nuremberg Rally, a vast and highly disciplined choreography of stentorian speeches, banners, swastikas and jackboots. By contrast, there was a sense of an uneasy set of alliances.  Trump, looking as though he’d just cheated his way to another win at golf; beside him, Melania who, by all accounts, would rather be home in Trump Tower. Adjacent in the front row, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, a bit bewildered in the snapshot I saw, next to  Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, a distinctly uneasy presence, and  Google’s Sundar Pichai, seemingly relaxed, but more interested in his phone than the proceedings. Inevitably, there too was Elon Musk engaging not with his tech peers but also, with his phone. Photographs appear to show him giving a Nazi salute at one point, but that certainly wasn’t part of any choreography, though we should perhaps be watching for further evidence of these Dr Strangelove tics.

The presence at the inauguration of these figures all linked with technologies that, not so long ago, were thought to be the key to a brighter and more democratic future, is disconcerting. Now it seems the tech behemoths are aligning themselves with the political leadership of a clown and stranger to the truth. It is not hard to see self interest in this positioning consistent with the notion that tech oligarchs believe themselves above regulation. They see in Trump a licence to do whatever they like so long as they play nice with Donald. 

It’s early days for that move to the country however, and the very tools created by those tech oligarchs may yet play out in ways that they do not anticipate. It’s true these tools are being abused and misused by some of the darker forces at loose in the  world. Yet of one thing we can be certain, those tech tools are here to stay and will remain a potential threat to those in power. Elon Musk posting to his followers on X does not spin out, week by week, like a latter-day Charles Dickens, a  tale full of complexity, intrigue  and richness of character. He is in fact a purveyor of half truths and innuendo which sooner or later will have to contend with the realities of Trump world as it unravels. His followers will lose faith in him and become bored.

 I don’t believe that the vast majority of people who support Donald Trump are anything other than decent. Their understanding of the Trump presidency will evolve as it proceeds. We are at the very zenith of the Trump phenomenon. Conversations will develop across myriad subnetworks and the apparent homogeneity of the Trump base will gradually be revealed as complicated and conflicted. In many cases they will quickly become tired of their favourite. People, in particular younger people, will start to shift politically and culturally. 

Such shifts take time to gestate. The evidence of change may not be visible at every turn but there will be a tipping point, perhaps triggered by events which dramatically undercut the faith of those who believe in Trump. It could be an economic crisis, or climate catastrophe, or the fallout from an untidy free market driven transition to an economy powered by AI. In four years time, Donald Trump’s presidency will be at an end and a great deal then will depend on the unpredictable “events” that have spun out in the interim. After all, his previous Presidency ran into the sand and there is no reason to suppose that some similar fate does not await him this time around. 

My judgements on matters of cultural shifts may have been skewed by the story of former Texas Governor, George Wallace. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Wallace was a staunch opponent of racial desegregation, a leading figure in resisting change to the Jim Crow laws. In 1972 an attempt was made on his life and he was shot four times. As a consequence he was confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. However he was later to recant his opposition to desegregation.

I first really paid attention to Wallace’s story when I listened to an edition of Alistair Cooke’s weekly BBC Radio broadcast, Letter from America.  In this broadcast Cooke recalled an interview with Wallace in which he was invited to reflect on his change of heart.  In a gentle imitation of Wallace’s southern drawl Cooke intoned the response: “Times change. People move on. I was wrong.”  I did not write it down but, over the intervening years, this resonant declaration has repeatedly surfaced in my consciousness and perhaps this is one reason why, like Sam Cooke, I say: “A Change is Gonna Come.”

You don’t have to believe in my theory of a gestating counter-revolution within the very demographic that brought Trump to  power but I suspect that believing in the essential decency of that demographic will make that transformation just a little more likely.  

Endnotes

Sam Cook  A Change Is Gonna Come

George Wallace – I have been unable to find a source for Wallace’s words exactly as I render them, but Wikipedia does record hims as saying “I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over.” My own version maybe a Chinese whisper, but it is what I remember.

Posted in Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment