Keir Starmer – Holden Forth

The Holdenforth General Election Manifesto

“Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to to seek to find and not to yield”
Ulysses by Lord Tennyson

In November, 2024 the USA will experience democracy in action. The two candidates for the presidency are both around the 80 mark – and Holdenforth hopes that President Biden and ex-President Trump will heed the exhortations of Ulysses/Tennyson during the campaign.

The UK general election will be held in a few days’ time. It will be something of a sideshow in the global context but there we are. Holdenforth is a self-confessed peevish petulant octogenarian – older than the two candidates in the USA election.

Holdenforth disagrees with almost everyone about almost everything. Readers have been warned.

We contend that we have in the main a sound track record of getting it right on the main issues of our time – but, like Mandy Rice-Davies in a different context, we would say that, wouldn’t we.

This may well be last UK general election in which I will be able to cast a vote – should I wish to do so. The Grim Reaper has been in touch to ask for an early meeting.

UK voters in the election have already received copies of the manifestos of our competitors and, like Holdenforth, will have been disappointed about what they have read.

“The Trotskyites in Liverpool hate Capitalism. They hate Imperialism. But most of all they hate each other.”
Alexei Sayle

Thus the Trots in Liverpool.

Thus – the Tories today.

The Tories have an unfortunate record of unmatched ineptitude combined with a startling degree of mutual loathing.

They have ignored the advice of Dennis Healy – when you are in a hole – stop digging.

Sadly – for them – they contrive to dig a deeper and deeper pit with each passing day

The Labour Party led by Sir Keir Starmer.

Some critics suspect/allege that Sir Keir, following his anticipated landslide win, will give priority to bringing in constitutional changes that would strengthen his position and that of his party in parliament.

Holdenforth harbours no such suspicions. Our view of Sir Keir is that he is a frail feeble shadow of one of his predecessors, Clement Attlee.

Starmer is adept in just one area – he masquerades as a man of the left who clings tenaciously to the tiny strip of no-man’s land in the centre.

The Lib Dems led by Sir Ed Davie.

Sir Ed has urged voters to wake up and smell the coffee. This display of oratorical skills will cause consternation in some places but we suspect that Sir Ed will need to more flesh on the creaking bones of the Lib Dem crusade to make an impact.

Reform – see later notes

A word on the Holdenforth manifesto

Unlike some of those close to Mr Sunak — (Stop Press – for “some” read “many” ) – his announcement that the election would take place on July 4 caught us by surprise and we were unprepared.

We will do our best to ensure that readers will be clear on what we would actually DO were we to find ourselves in power. On the debit side our manifesto will lack the meticulous scholarship that is such a notable feature of the Holdenforth blog.

It has been compiled at high speed.

Enough froth – let us press on.

We will start at the top

Holdenforth has been dismayed as the PR machine at the disposal of the Monarchy has worked tirelessly and, it has to be conceded, highly effectively to restore the respectability of the institution. We had assumed in our naivety that the squalid conduct of Prince Charles and of his former mistress would present too formidable a series of obstacles to a restoration of the respectability that was such an enduring feature of the reign of his mother.

How wrong we were!

We were and we remain uneasy that the unorthodox route to the throne by Camilla was one of the more audacious usurping of the crown in our 1000-year turbulent history. (A pedantic editor writes – she hasn’t usurped the crown because she is the wife of the monarch rather than the monarch.)

Yet again Holdenforth has to acknowledge the truism that the people have short memories.

In an earlier Holdenforth blog we asked about what, if anything, Princess Diana and Leon Trotsky had in common.

We thought that both of them had been air brushed out of history by very effective manipulation of PR machines by their respective detractors.

Foreign Affairs

The Farage intervention on Ukraine.

Holdenforth is very happy to endorse the views of Mr Farage on this issue. Indeed we have made the same argument that he made in his recent interview with Nick Robinson in previous blogs.

Holdenforth would immediately reverse the position of THE WEST in this conflict.

On a positive note we would urge the warring parties to end the war and to negotiate a peace settlement.

Gaza

“When you have them by the balls – their hearts and minds will follow”
USA policy

Holdenforth would seek an immediate end to the ongoing daily murder of Palestinians in Gaza and apply whatever international pressure was required on Israel and on the Jewish Diaspora to achieve this aim.

Defence – Prospects for WW3

“Round about 1890 England had become sick of peace, retrenchment and reform; the craving for violence which recurs after every long period of peace was beginning to be felt”
From “Progress of a Biographer” by Hugh Kingsmill

“Perhaps when the next war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history – a jingo with a bullet hole in him”
George Orwell war diary

Holdenforth has no wish to see anyone with a bullet hole in him/her.

We are anxious and apprehensive about the current pervasive preference for international violence in many quarters,

Thus far this preference has been limited to providing the means for others to fight and die by supplying a dubious mixture of weapons and funds.

Holdenforth would urge the various warring factions to go easy on the bombast and to implement the advice of Winston Churchill that jaw jaw is better than war war.

Immigration

The political struggle between the House of Lords and the House of Commons on the Rwanda policy of HMG has been brought to a conclusion of sorts with the Lords accepting the supremacy of the lower house.

During the debate the numbers being quoted suggest that the demand for sanctuary in the UK is considerably greater than the ability of those in charge in Rwanda to cope.

What will the outcome be?

Holdenforth would like to suggest a rethink of the core issues.

Everyone – and that includes you and Holdenforth – will understandably constantly seek to achieve a better life for themselves and their families. So – how do nations and groups of nations reconcile the claims and wishes of the home population with the claims of their would be neighbours? Completely open borders or effective controls effectively managed?

Holdenforth believes that the latter option will minimise the damage to long term social stability.

If this view is accepted then the next question to answer is – how can illegal immigration be curtailed.

Holdenforth accepts that all of us will seek to improve their lives – So :

Remove the features that attract so many to take whatever action open to them to cross the channel.
Apply effective international pressure to those countries responsible for driving out their own people.

“Says Labour about the migrant crisis -” the first thing to do is deal with the back log

No, it isn’t. If the bath tub is overflowing the first thing to do is to turn off the taps, not try to empty it”

Did Mr Bradshaw of Cowbridge have a point in his letter to the Daily Mail?

Home affairs

“The privatisation of near monopolies is about as irrelevant as (and sometimes worse than) were the Labour Party’s proposals for further nationalisation in the 1970s and early 1980s”
From A Life at the Centre by Roy Jenkins

Fortified by this clear policy statement from Roy Jenkins – The Holdenforth manifesto urges the prompt return to the public sector of near monopoly businesses privatised under Thatcher.

These include the UK Rail Sector and the UK water sector.

We should add that private enterprise is our preferred business model where there is demonstrable competition.

Tata and the future of Port Talbot.

Time was when Holdenforth could speak with some awareness on this subject – up to 2014.

Not now.

However we have to say that we were confused when we watched a recent very public confrontation between TUC leaders together with the MP for Aberavon on the one hand and two very senior managers from Tata Steel on the other hand.

We were not sure what part, if any, was played by Mr Sunak as he sought to strike a balance between the votes of the steelworkers and the votes of the zero sector on the other.

In the nineteen eighties Holdenforth managed an Electric Arc Furnace for long enough to grasp that the head count to make steel via the EAF was substantially less than that required to operate the Blast Furnace route.

A modest proposal put forward by Holdenforth

We start by conceding that our experience in this area is out of date. In the unlikely event that we were to be consulted on the matter we would seek to persuade the main stakeholders to invite someone respected by both sides to spell out the most sensible technical way to proceed from where we are to where we need to be.

The future of the NHS

In my role as an aged blogger who has had considerable experience of the NHS from the inside – I have two observations to make on this once rightly revered institution.

“The language of priorities is the religion of socialism”

Quote from Nye Bevan

Martha’s Rule requires that patients unhappy with an initial diagnosis can demand a second opinion.

Holdenforth suggests that before this rule comes into force – provision be made for ALL patients to be entitled to a first opinion.

Currently the barriers in place to limit access to this initial appointment verge on the insurmountable.

Holdenforth has noted that there is a powerful medical lobby opposed to the idea of assisted dying.

We are strongly in favour of enabling those wishing to make an early exit from this vale of tears should be allowed to do so.

On a possibly sour note we suggest that a significant number of those in the medical profession are already arranging assisted dying for many whether those involved want this outcome or not.

In making this point we have in mind many of those currently masquerading as managers in the NHS and certainly not medics at the sharp end of the profession.

Where do we stand on the contentious issue of the sub section of the LGBT sector referred to Transgender group?

Holdenforth has said it before (in pretty much every blog – ed.) and we may well say it again.

“If my aunt had bollocks she would be my uncle but she didn’t and she wasn’t” – what could be clearer?

It may well be that there are those who wish that that they had been dealt a different hand by nature but many of us – possibly most of us wish that nature had been more generous in its gifts.

In muted tones – Holdenforth begs the LGBT sector to do as much as they wish of whatever it they do and rather less bawling in the streets about it.

Consider the consequences if the practice of publicly flaunting sexual preferences were to become universal.

The streets would be continuously blocked.

What about the old folk?

A word of warning to old timers.

Holdenforth has some experience of the stresses that are imposed on octogenarians who rashly allow themselves to be burdened with responsibility for caring for themselves and for their spouses on a 24/7 basis.

My advice to the aged – do NOT agree to this formidable burden.

A modest proposal:- Holdenforth gathers that there are in our midst many thousands of octogenarians who – for a variety of reasons – are unable to access the required level of support from the caring sector.

We also gather that there are in our midst many thousands from the portly sector who struggle to lose weight by time honoured means and resort to surgery to achieve trimmer figures.

Holdenforth can confirm from personal experience that if those from the portly sector were to provide for the needs of old timers in need of care on a 24/7 basis the pounds surplus to requirements would be shed in a few weeks – a win-win outcome.

Right now Holdenforth resembles Winston Smith, the hero of Orwell’s novel,1984, after his harsh treatment by the State enforcer, O’Brien.

Brexit

Were we to win power – our first job on day 1 would be to apply to the EU to be re-admitted.

Gambling

“The whore and gambler, by the State
Licenc’d , build that nations Fate….
The Winner’s Shout, the Loser’s curse,
Dance before dead England’s Hearse”
Auguries of Innocence — William Blake —

For obvious reasons there are many more curses from the losers than joyful shouts from the few lucky winners.

The recent revelations about the flutters made by some/many of those in Mr Sunak’s inner circle have not impressed the public. It is usually agreeable to have a bet on a rigged contest but on this occasion the bets have gone spectacularly awry.

For obvious reasons there are many more curses from the losers than joyful shouts from the few lucky winners.

The desire to gamble is all pervasive. The plague of betting shops across the nation is worrying.

Can anything be done to curb this passion?

Holdenforth urges the tightest possible controls on those that currently exploit this anti-social activity.

How about a few micro manifesto items?

Duration of public enquiries, independent or otherwise – a maximum duration of 3 months

Automated telephone exchanges – to be replaced by human beings so as to reduce one of the most irritating features of modern (appalling) communications

“A Yes-Man’s duty is to attend conferences and say “Yes”. A Nodder’s, as the name implies, is to nod.
From “The Nodder” by P.G.Wodehouse

To bring in PR would be to opt for a tsunami of Yes Men and Nodders being foisted onto the democratic payroll.

Holdenforth say no to this innovation.

* “The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers”
The extreme view of Dick the Butcher
Henry the Sixth -Part 2 .

Holdenforth is not clear as to why Dick the Butcher was against the lawyers but we note the growing prosperity of the legal profession as the UK increasingly resorts to litigation to resolve – or at least to clarify – the issues arising from the avalanche of contentious legislation.

We beseech who ever forms the next Government to simply legal procedures

We have by no means run out of ideas but we have run of energy and time.

We urge our readers to exercise that most valuable of democratic benefits – the right to vote.

Notes by the Editor

It should be observed that Holdenforth’s manifesto, while wide ranging and perhaps somewhat radical in nature, stands little chance of being implemented wholesale due to the absence of Holdenforth on any of the ballot papers, and brings to mind the old joke of the rabbi praying every day in the synagogue to win the lottery, until finally an exasperated God booms out “Lionel: meet me halfway. Buy a bloody ticket!”

Secondly, while Holdenforth is right about the increasingly pervasive nature of the gambling industry, following the money rather than the pollsters tends to give a better indication of likely outcomes at election time. As things stand, the odds at the assorted bookmakers suggest that Labour will win around 440 seats, the Conservatives around 90 and the Liberal Democrats 60 or so, implying a Labour majority over all other parties of around 230 or so. It will be interesting to see how close to the mark these figures are come July 5^th.

As I Please

We ended our last blog with a comment somewhere between a threat and a promise.

We had hoped to get all our discontents off our chest while there was still time. Sadly Holdenforth/aka John Holden, a grizzling, grousing, griping grumbling aged malcontent finds that he disagrees with almost everyone about almost everything and inevitably we have more to say.

Let’s get on with it.

We had included in our previous blog our views on the thought and work of George Orwell. However our editor – who has the last word – could not find room for him. (That’s because you were going off-topic – Ed.)

We have made clear our admiration for the writings of George Orwell in previous blogs.

For now – a couple of extracts which illustrate the clarity of his thinking.

“Political language has to consist of euphemism, question begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets; this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers… “
From his essay -Politics and the English language –1946

“One can remain quite untouched by Axis propaganda if one follows a simple rule which never fails. This is to compare what the Axis powers say what they will do with what they are actually doing”

Orwell applies his rule to the Japanese in February, 1942, ie just after the attack on Pearl Harbour and makes his case very convincingly. Holdenforth suspects that the rule could be applied to most totalitarian regimes with the proviso that the more effective the propaganda performance the more valid will be the rule.

In our time there is no shortage of extremely effective propaganda machines.

To illustrate the point the Israelis rightly and raucously highlight that Hamas is a terrorist organisation but they are quite reticent on the terrorist organisation that brought Israel to power, namely Irgun.

Next at 10

Who might be the next occupant of No 10 Downing St after Mr Sunak walks the plank? We gather that there is no shortage of possible candidates and no shortage of punters prepared to put their money where their mouths are.

As of now the following odds are available:

Starmer 1/6

Cleverly 12/1

Badenoch 16/1

Dowden 20/1

Cameron, Mordaunt, Braverman 25/1

Farage, Johnson 33/1

Holdenforth was startled at the generous odds quoted for Farage and Johnson but what do we know?

We had assumed that the form shown by this pair in recent years would have led to much shorter odds but this is not the view of the free market. Odds of 1/6 are about as near to a one-horse race as you can get. The gambling market has more or less installed Sir Keir Starmer in Number 10.

Place your bets at 1/6?

One closing point on the contest for No 10. We would not wish to be seen to be endorsing the gambling epidemic sweeping the country.

“The whore and gambler by the State

Licens’d , build that Nation’s fate ….

The Winners shout, the Losers curse,

Dance before dead England’s curse”
Auguries of Innocence by William Blake

Well put, Mr Blake

Aged Ps

One issue to note – before I forget.

“And so, from hour to hour we ripe and ripe,

And then from hour to hour, we rot and rot:

And thereby hangs a tale”
From As You Like it. Shakespeare

Holdenforth is currently struggling to cope with the problems posed by acting as a carer on a 24/7 basis for two octogenarians – namely himself and his wife.

He himself is well past the watershed and into the rotting phase.

Holdenforth urges octogenarians faced with the prospect of this ordeal to take steps to opt out of the challenge posed by providing for care for themselves and their octogenarian spouse.

A word on that bastion of British Democracy – The House of Lords.

“That’s your glorious British navy, says the citizen, that bosses the earth. The fellows that never will be slaves, with the only hereditary chamber on the face of God’s earth ….”

The fiery republican expatiating on the humbug underlying the British House of Lords in the Dublin pub in 1904: From “Ulysses” by James Joyce

The struggle to curb the powers of the House of Lords is a long-standing one and a not particularly effective one. Holdenforth has covered this weakness in our democratic arrangements elsewhere.

For now – just the gist of our suggested reform

A solution to this long-standing thorny problem has now been identified. This solution would require no changes to the responsibilities and functions of the House of Lords. In particular the essential function of the Lords, namely that of keeping an eye on the rascals in the other place and blowing the whistle on them as required would remain as now.

The key issue to be resolved is this. On what basis should we determine who shall sit in the Lords?. The answer in this modest proposal is that membership would be sold to those who can afford it. Members of the upper house would be required to pay both a substantial down payment (or, in modern parlance, up front money), and a substantial annual membership thereafter. What could be simpler?

To get the debate under way Holdenforth suggests that the membership of the House of Lords be set at 500 to give a rough parity with the Commons. Members of the new upper house would pay an initial membership fee of £10M, and an annual fee of £2M thereafter. This plan would bring in £5Billion to get the show under way, and an annual contribution to the coffers of the nation of £1Billion. That is a lot of schools and hospitals.

The arguments in support of this novel mercenary approach are formidable. In no special order they are:

1. The arrangement would be very economical. Our revising legislators and watchdogs would pay us, indeed would pay us handsomely, instead of the other way round. I need scarcely say that no expenses of any kind would be paid. Plutocrats enquiring about of expenses would instantly disqualify themselves from membership.

2. At a stroke we solve the difficulties both of an appointed house and of an elected house by simply discarding both approaches.

3. We also solve the vexed problem of party influence and party patronage. Those with the funds to apply for membership and then retain membership tend to be outside the party system because they have been too busy piling up riches.

4. The independence of our new body from party strife would in itself ensure high public esteem. Our new upper house would also benefit from the fact that both houses of parliament currently combine over manning and with grotesquely excessive remuneration, both classic hallmarks of the time honoured practice of looting the public purse. The definition of politics by Ambrose Pierce as the conduct of public affairs for private advantage is arguably more true in our time than in any earlier era. We hasten to point out that Pierce was using the word “affairs” in its older and more seemly sense, although some of our current crop of politicians might wish that their affairs in the more recent sense of the word had been rather more private.

5. Most successful applicants would in the main have track records of high achievement in that most important of activities, namely the acquiring of wealth.

6. The new body would be a shining example of a Public/Private Partnership. It would in fact be a PPP in excelsis, the highest attainable pinnacle of the dream of New Labour.

7. A much-needed gusto would be injected into the body politic. Moneyed men tend to be sharp and vigorous. This vigour would get round one telling criticism of the current upper house, which is that on a busy day it resembles an old folks home and, on a quiet day, a morgue.

And another thing – we nearly forgot to mention Lord Cameron.

The transfer of Cameron from oblivion to the Foreign Office and to The House of Lords startled even your hardened blogger.

For us it represented a transition from the – shall we say respectable – corridors of Oxford University to the darker corridors of the Arthur Daley business school. It was a squalid act even by the abysmal standard of this drowning administration.

We predict and hope that this change in title and job will end in tears.

Has anybody here seen Kelly – Kelly from the polluted waters of the UK?

Holdenforth was disconcerted to gather that Dame Ruth Kelly had recently been appointed to the Chair of UK Water. This body comprises members from the various members of the Regional Bodies which manage our national water supplies.

These companies have recently attracted significant opprobrium for arguing that our water supplies were wet, and that bills will rise significantly if consumers insist that the product should be potable, and that sewer discharges into rivers and the sea are free of human waste.

Holdenforth notes that the appointment of Dame Kelly is typical of our national decline. An appropriate ending to a political career noted for its mediocrity and occasional lapses from the straight and narrow in her management of her parliamentary expenses.

A pot pourri of issues that disconcert Holdenforth:

In no special order.

Cookies: As we wander through the internet we are frequently asked if we agree to cookies? What the flipping heck are cookies? Are they safe to tick?

Waiting time on phones: what measures are in place to impose penalties on those responsible for inflicting severe frustration on aged suckers as we wait – with diminishing patience – for someone to pick up the phone?

Related to the above – what can be done to speed up the hunting down of those suspected of scamming the funds of the aged and the vulnerable – and, especially, of both? Holdenforth gathers that that scammers can and do enjoy the fruits of their sharp practices within minutes of arranging the required transfers. Misappropriated cash can be spent on the other side of the world faster than the time taken to write this sentence. Just a thought – consider a temporary return to the Judge Jeffreys’ era. Those found guilty of a capital crime by a jury of their peers to be taken next door and promptly hanged.

Down with procrastination. Holdenforth calls on the great British public to put pressure on the authorities to make languid inquiries such as those presided over by Sir John Chilcot and Lady Hallett to be replaced by a policy beloved by Sir Winston Churchill – Action this day.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Some old timers may recall Parkinson’s first law – “work expands to fill the time available for its completion.” It is time that this recipe for the lining of legal pockets was repealed.

Studio guests to pad out debates on the media about issues of current concern. Holdenforth would like to put in place measures to alert the public about flaws and gaps in the CVs of guests. The names of The Hamiltons – Neil and Christine Hamilton – keen on cash , Dennis McShane, and Andrew Marr spring to mind. Who would be on your list?

Whatever – we were glad to get those gripes off our chests.

An agreeable if confusing topic for our next blog – the pros and cons of cash.

Pro cash – Farage – Lord Cameron – The Hamiltons
Wary of cash – bankers

How do we reconcile these conflicting purposes

Where do you stand?

Sadly we are now out of time and energy.

In our next blog – an update on the Post Office Scandal

As I Please

Holdenforth had planned to use this blog to complete a trilogy in we examined the gaps between what our politicians had achieved as opposed to what to they intended to achieve.

Our first two efforts – on Rishi Sunak and on Keir Starmer – were relatively straightforward to write.

Thus – in the case of Mr Sunak the gap was so wide that all we had to do was to paraphrase extracts from the avalanche of abuse hurled at our hopeless PM – note – no plagiarism – we will leave that to Rachel Reeves.

However even old-world cynics like Holdenforth could not have foreseen the bile that poured out of Suella Braverman following the curt verbal P45 call from Mr S.

And we certainly did not see coming the restoration of Mr Cameron – rapidly elevated to Lord Cameron – as a key feature of the reshuffle changes following the Braverman exit stage right.

More on the Cameron /Lazarus development later in the blog

What about Sir Keir Starmer?

Rather more stability here. We noted in our previous blog that Sir Keir had just one policy – to secure the keys to Number 10 in the next election. He and his supporters have exercised sufficient control within the Labour Party to minimise any boat rocking from dissenters. He quickly and effectively showed them who was in charge. The minor hiccup that arose within the Labour party as the number of civilians killed in Gaza rose on a daily basis was quickly suppressed.

Holdenforth had originally planned – in the interests of fair play, to examine where the Liberal Democrats stood on the issue of policy and achievements.

We threw in the towel here. Quite simply no material to work with on either policy or achievement.

Instead we opted for a stroll down memory lane – Holdenforth decided instead to look back at the performance of Lloyd George – the last Liberal leader of any significance.

Here are the views of his contemporaries.

“Put the two men together in any circumstances of equality and the one would eat the other”
From “Great Contemporaries” by Winston Churchill.

Churchill was comparing Lloyd George with Lord Curzon and found the talents of the former considerably greater than those of the latter.

“To see the British Prime Minister (Lloyd George) watching the company with six or seven senses not available to ordinary men, judging character, motive and sub-conscious impulse, perceiving what each was thinking and even what each was going to say next, and compounding with telepathic instinct the argument or appeal best suited to the vanity, weakness, or self-interest of his immediate auditor was to realise that the poor President (Wilson of the USA) would be playing blind man’s bluff”
From Keynes’ essay on the Council of Four in Paris, 1919

The sardonic comments of a formidable intellect.

“The great English (sic) demagogue had set out solely to exert the greatest possible effect on the mass of his listeners… Regarded from this standpoint the speeches of this Englishman (sic) were the most wonderful performance for they testified to a positively amazing knowledge of the soul of the broad masses of the people …”
The comments of Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf on the speeches of Lloyd George.

It is worth noting that the eventual downfall of Lloyd George as Prime Minister was engineered by one of our more self-effacing prime Ministers, Stanley Baldwin.

A word on Brexit

The Brexit debate rumbles on. Very few now seek to argue that the UK should rejoin the EU.

The Labour MP for Torfaen (and the MP for Holdenforth) Nick Thomas-Simmonds , has been handed the mosr formidable challenge of all in the Starmer shadow cabinet, that of reaching new arrangements with the EU short of full membership.

Mr Thomas – Simmonds has our full support in this Herculean assignment.

For all practical purposes – the UK is out of and will remain out of the EU for the next few years.

For Holdenforth that leaves a little unfinished business. Prior to the referendum in 2016 we had a modest wager with a rambling colleague about the outcome. We hoped fervently for a Remain outlook – but we lost our preference and our wager. We hope to settle up before the Grim Reaper calls.

The COVID-19 Inquiry

As I write the enquiry into the effectiveness of the handling of the Covid Pandemic by HMG is getting into its stride.

Holdenforth is uneasy about the value of this enquiry and about the contribution it will make, if any, to the effectiveness of the management of future epidemics.

We have been advised that it is inevitable that at some point in the future a different but related version of the original pesky parasite will emerge to pose problems.

Will we be ready?

Thus far the Hallett inquiry seems to have provided a platform for disgruntled politicians and their SPADs to settle old scores – and, sadly but predictably some are doing thus that.

The proceedings take me back more than 60 years when I was voicing my adverse criticisms about the performance of colleagues to a senior manager.

His reply has stayed with me: “They are all useless buggers except thee and me and when I’m on my own – you’re a useless bugger”

Remind you of a contemporary soap opera masquerading as a serious exercise?

The rule of lawyers

“Britain being run by rule of lawyers”
Headline in the Daily Mail – Sept 9, 2023

In the article beneath the headline Martin Beckford, Daily Mail policy editor, narrowed down the criticism to human rights lawyers and judges.

“MPs DO have a legal means of breaking the stranglehold human rights lawyers have on our democracy. So why won’t they use it?”
Headline above an article by Dr Arnheim, Daily Mail, Sept 14, 2023

Holdenforth is bemused by these attacks on human rights lawyers who were simply carrying out their professional tasks. Well done you legal eagles – doing well by doing good.

It would help if politicians were to specify what is and what is not legal in clear language.

Monarchical matters

In an earlier blog we asked about what, if anything, Princess Diana and Leon Trotsky had in common.

We thought that both of them had been air brushed out of history by very effective manipulation of PR machines by their respective detractors.

We are uneasy that the unorthodox route to the throne by Camilla might be thought of by some as one of the more audacious usurpings of the crown in our 1,000 year turbulent history.

We are also distinctly uneasy about the suggestion that Charles III may be allowed to pontificate on the policy of HMG.

The elevation of plain Mr Cameron to Lord Cameron in the twinkling of an eye.

“On his first introduction to these little fellows it had seemed to Ambrose that they had touched the lowest possible level to which Humanity can descend. It now became apparent that there hitherto unimagined depths which it was in their power to plumb”
The sombre thoughts of Ambrose Mulliner about his two schoolboy charges.

Holdenforth has similar views about David Cameron

The transfer of Cameron from oblivion to the Foreign Office and to The House of Lords startled even your hardened blogger.

We predict and hope that this change in title and job will end in tears.

A few closing one liners.

Boss at scandal-hit university saw pay surge by £186k

The boss in question, Alice Gast at Imperial College London, somehow managed to secure an increase in her reward package despite presiding over a shambles.

Her unkind critics tend to forget that the looting of the public purse can be arduous and time consuming.

“Wilko unions demand inquiry into stricken chain”
Daily Mail headline Nov 4, 2023

Unions representing sacked workers have picked up that “£77m in dividends was dished out to the owners and shareholders of the retailer in the decade before its collapse”.

Holdenforth doubts if the requested inquiry will ever get off the ground.

The Post Office scandal.

Holdenforth gathers that the consequences of this most appalling of scandals are slowly but surely closing in on the perpetrators.

We fervently hope that those responsible – Vennells ? Crozier / – will answer for their actions.

Holdenforth urges the great British public to put pressure on the authorities to make languid inquiries such as that presided over by Sir John Chilcot to be replaced by a policy beloved by Sir Winston Churchill – Action this day.

Some old timers will recall Parkinson’s first law – “work expands to fill the time available for its completion.”

It is time that this recipe for the lining of legal pockets was repealed.

Holdenforth had hoped to get all his discontents off his chest while there is still time. Sadly Holdenforth/aka John Holden , a grizzling, grousing, griping grumbling aged malcontent who finds that he disagrees with almost everyone about almost everything still has more to say.

Watch this space

Holdenforth aka John Holden

Labour Party Prospects and the Middle East Conflict

In our previous blog we pointed out some discrepancies between the performance of the Sunak administration and the claims made by Mr Sunak at his party conference.

We pointed out what we thought were significant gaps between claims and performance.

The voters in the bye elections in Mid Beds and Tamworth seemed to share our view. Both formerly rock solid Tory seats were lost to the Labour Party.

The antics of Crispin Blunt have hammered another nail into the Tory coffin.

These losses cannot have strengthened the position of Mr Sunak as he seeks to persuade various countries in the Middle East to maintain support for Israel.

Holdenforth had planned, in the interests of fairness, to carry out a similar check on the Labour Party as it prepares for the next general election.

This has turned out to be a difficult assignment.

Why so?

It appears to us that the key core central policy of the Labour Party in the current political climate is to obtain the keys of No 10 – all other considerations have been jettisoned to secure this objective.

The approach of the Labour Party appears to have been based on the tactics used by the boxer, Mohamed Ali – “I will float like a butterfly and sting like a bee”.

This approach will be greatly assisted by the fact that its Tory opponent is already on the canvas and out for the count.

Are there any weaknesses in the Starmer policy?

A few. Here goes.

The unanimity across the UK in support of Israel is starting to fray at the edges as Palestinian voices within the Labour Party appear to be growing louder. My guess is that Starmer will argue that this is a tribute to the diverse spread of opinion in the UK, a state of affairs long championed by the Labour Party.

In some areas of the UK – notably in the devolved parts – policies are being introduced which have not been welcomed even in the devolved areas. In my devolved area, Wales, one policy has been met with a mixture of derision and disobedience – that of the 20mph speed limit. Holdenforth aka John Holden is quite relaxed on this issue. The only journey currently in our plans is from home to the local crematorium – we are sure that the hearse driver will be happy to comply with the 20 mph limit.

In some Labour controlled local authorities, those in charge tried to introduce a policy of allowing employees to work – a doubtfully accurate term in this context – a four-day week whilst retaining their five-day rewards packages. The Labour Party apparatchiks have nipped this loony left nonsense in the bud.

A spot of plagiarism. Eagle eyed readers have spotted a few infringements by Rachel Reeves of the time-honoured guidelines regarding plagiarism. Her apologists will plausibly argue that RR was in such a hurry to get so many things done in the twin causes of Starmerism and Feminism that one or two errors crept in. Holdenforth fully accepts that these errors fade into complete insignificance when contrasted with the lamentable failures of Mr Sunak and his administration.

Abuse of parliamentary privilege. Nigel Farage has rightly complained that Sir Chris Bryant lied in the Commons alleging under the protection of parliamentary privilege that he, Farage, had been paid by The Russians for services rendered. Labour could be on shaky ground here. Holdenforth understands that Bryant has episodes on his CV would not look good when the inquisitive media trawl the files in search of material to dredge up. People in glass houses should not throw stones, especially when serving on committees set up to scrutinise standards in public life.

The transgender issue. Holdenforth understands that there are influential voices in the Labour Party that are raucous in support of those seeking to argue for choice in the delicate matter of gender. This contentious issue continues to feature in the media and the debate continues to generate more heat than light. The Holdenforth stance – based on a Keep it Simple approach – has been consistent from the outset: “If my aunt had bollocks, she would be my uncle but she doesn’t and she isn’t”. We suggest a quick and simple test to establish who is what – those with balls are male. What they would like to be is a different matter – most of us would like to have been dealt a better hand by mother nature but that is a different matter. We would also point out that a core tenet of American Foreign Policy is-”When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow“ – but we are drifting from our theme.

Summary so far – game, set and match to Starmer.

What are the silent majority thinking?

A persuasive voice has been heard lately suggesting that the two big parties ignore at their peril those who hold opinions out of step with the proclaimed views of the big two.

They pose the question -What are the people REALLY thinking?

Matthew Goodwin has secured a platform to answer this question by the simple time-honoured technique of sampling. His findings might – just might – provide uncomfortable reading for the movers and shakers.

A number of issues have emerged under this heading.

They include:

Immigration
Gender
Care arrangements for the elderly
Net zero policies
Anti motorist policies

The silent majority are all too ready to answer questions on these matters. It could be that the perceived gap between leaders and led will attract the interest of embryo politicians who believe that they have identified a gap in the market for power.

There is still time for those avid for influence to seize the moment.

IF substantial numbers of voters dislike the polices of both parties, how can they express their views.

Watch this space.

So: might Starmer be in some difficulties as election day looms?

Senior managers employed by HMRC are said to be clear on the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion – and to be adept on cracking down on tax evasion.

Holdenforth suspects that the formidable Laura Kuensberg will pin down Starmer on the distinction between policy avoidance and policy evasion.

She will home in on Starmer should he attempt to duck and weave on policy evasion.

“It’s a perfectly straightforward question Sir Keir. Please give viewers a clear answer.”

How does Holdenforth intend to vote?

I will vote Labour. My local MP is a jewel in the rather battered crown of the UK Labour Party.

I give you – Nick Thomas Symonds.

Middle Eastern Matters

Where does Holdenforth stand on the most worrying issue of today – the conflict between Israel and Palestine – or, or many refer to it – the conflict between Israel and Hamas?

As I write the media – official and social – are replete with details of the atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists in Israel.

For its part Israel has vowed to inflict retribution on those responsible.

Holdenforth opted to glance back at the origins of the conflict.

The Balfour Declaration issued in November, 1917

In Year 2 of the first world war – 1915 – Lloyd George, in his capacity as Minister of Munitions, was concerned about the acute shortage of explosives.

He contacted Professor Weizmann, an accomplished chemist, to explain the problem to him and to seek his help. Professor Weizmann quickly solved the problem and his achievement was a most important contribution to the British war effort.

Lloyd George asked him how he, Lloyd George, might reward Weizmann for his work.

To quote Lloyd George – “Weizmann explained his aspirations as to the repatriation of the Jews to the sacred land they had made famous. When I became Prime Minister – in December, 1916, I talked the matter over with Mr Balfour – the outcome was the famous Balfour declaration in 1917.”

This declaration read:-

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

During the next 28 years the collective mind of the Jewish Diaspora was understandably pre-occupied with the murderous activities of Hitler in pursuit of his final solution of the Jewish problem.

The Years 1945 to 1948 in Palestine

In post war Palestine the British Government attempted to maintain peace between Jewish immigrants and existing Palestinian communities. This was not an easy task and the UK sought to relinquish the mandate.

One feature of this phase was the emergence of Irgun, a Zionist group roughly equivalent to Hamas in Gaza today.

In the years from the end of WW2 to 1948 Irgun proved to be masters in using terror to secure their aims. Given the scale and severity of the terror the British Government of Mr Atlee wished to be relieved of the mandate.

The Irgun Group wrote the textbook for terrorism that has been imitated around the world to this day.

It is ironic that the “terror” tactics employed by Hamas are taken out of the Irgun textbook.

One terrorist activity of Irgun was to place a bomb in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in the summer of 1946.This hotel housed the British Secretariat and Army HQ and almost 100 people were killed.

The public comments of senior British politicians about this appalling act of terrorism could serve as a template for the terms used to describe Hamas today.

The universal hostile references in the UK – including the comments of the then Prime Minister, Mr Attlee, to the terrorist activities of Irgun can be accessed on the internet.

The State of Israel was established in the summer of 1948.

Post 1948

Events in Palestine since 1948 have seen years of the steady expansion of Israel at the expense of Palestine and others.

Israel continues to occupy and even extend illegal settlements, a point noted in the last 48 hours by Mr Guterres, the Secretary General of the UN despite the opposition of the United Nations.

“All the devouring and insatiate Monsters imagined since imagination could record itself are fused in the one realisation, Guillotine. And yet there is not in France, with its rich variety of soil and climate, a blade, a leaf, a root, a sprig, a pepper corn which will grow to maturity under conditions more certain than those that have produced this horror. Crush humanity out of shape once more and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again and it will surely the same fruit according to its kind.”
From “ A Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens

In the above extract Dickens was making the simple point that the horrors of the French Revolution arose from the suppression of the people by the ruling class in previous years.

Thus the French Revolution
Thus the emergence of Hamas

The terms and conditions of the Balfour declaration have drifted a little down the years away from Palestinian claims and in favour of Jewish claims.

Lloyd George was rather too ready to cede land that was not the property of the UK to dispose of.

“All Propaganda is Lies”
George Orwell

Holdenforth goes along with Orwell on this view but it would be interesting to see the details of Palestinians killed as against the number of Israelis killed in the various conflicts in and around Israel since 1948.

Our suspicion is that fatalities on the Palestinian side significantly outnumber those on the Israeli side.

What might happen next?

“It is now by now a commonplace of history that Bevin (Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government from 1945 to 1950), brought the State of Israel into being very much as Lord North and George the 3^rd founded the United States.
From “The Power of Ideas by Isaiah Berlin.

Two shaky assertions from a normally calm and lucid eminent historian.

It is not easy to predict a civilised lasting settlement to this frightening conflict, the origins of which go back into the mists of time.

For our part we hope for the best but we fear the worst.

Notes by the Editor

While Holdenforth has sought to focus on the origins of the conflict (which others might argue dates back to 733BC when King Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria turfed the Jews out of Samaria), Holdenforth’s editor would like to address two pertinent contemporary questions.

Firstly, why now? And secondly, what is Hamas’ endgame? It strikes me that an October 11 article by Joe Macaron neatly encapsulated the multiple answers to the first question, namely that, firstly, additional land-grabs by settlers in the West Bank, encouraged by Netanyahu’s far-right government; secondly, the recent normalisation of Arab-Israeli relationships, and in particular the détente between Tel Aviv and Riyadh; and, critically, greater warmth between Hamas and Iran. While the first point will be used by Hamas as justification for its action, the second and third points are perhaps more salient here. Given that Hamas’ raison d’etre is the annihilation of Israel (and, it can be argued given the wording of its founding charter, of all Jews), Middle Eastern stability involving that state is anathema.

This leads us to the answer to the second question. In performing the most devastating massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Hamas would have clearly understood what the consequences would have been to Palestinians living in Gaza: its objective was to provoke a regional conflagration, destabilise the fragile tolerance between Israel and its neighbours (and, post-Netanyahu, scotch the potential of a viable two-state solution coming about) and, as a corollary, inflame intra-nation conflicts between Jews and Muslims elsewhere in the world. This much has been recognised by the Biden administration (and, it must be said, by several other Western governments including those of Germany and the UK), which have in public smothered Israel in love while privately seeking, somehow, to stop the dreadful situation spiralling out of control. Hence the measured calls for pauses in conflict rather than ceasefires, which Israel will (a) never agree to given that, they argue, it will provide an opportunity for Hamas to regroup and rearm and (b) may exacerbate a siege mentality and lead it to proceed with even more terrible effect, making that regional conflict far more likely. Let me repeat: no matter how many letters Miriam Margoyles and Michael Rosen sign, calling for a ceasefire, it will make not one positive contribution to the outcome, although it might give them a warm feeling inside.

Meanwhile, we also have that third answer to Question One tied up in all this. Behind Hamas, Hezbollah and an assortment of other disparate Shia militant organisations lurks the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing them with funding of the order of $700 million per annum. While it was not behind the October 7 attacks (or even knew about their precise timing), then it certainly contributed to Hamas’ capabilities, both directly (it has transferred artillery rockets to Palestinian groups) and indirectly, via finances and expertise. Iran shares Hamas’ goal of destabilising Arab-Israeli relations, and Iran is more than happy to enable proxies to achieve that goal.

Like Holdenforth, we fear for the worst in this.

As I Please

Not for the first time Holdenforth finds itself in some difficulties in writing a coherent blog in the current political climate. The usual plethora of difficulties have been exacerbated by the exodus of our politicians from the Westminster bubble. Their appearances on London based media platforms have been replaced by appearances on a variety of platforms – UK holiday resorts – overseas resorts – working from home — wherever.

So be it.

Holdenforth has not shirked challenges in the past and we will not do so as we move cautiously into an uncertain future.

Bankers

It seems to us that Nigel Farage is at the top of his game here. He has succeeded in focusing his searchlight on several high profile figures in the banking sector, and one by one they have departed the scene, sadder, but wiser bankers.

Where does Holdenforth stand on this one?

The following letter was published in The Daily Mail on July 27.

“I was both startled and delighted at the news of the departure of Alison Rose overnight. I gathered that Ms Rose had been interviewed by her fellow board members at NatWest in the early hours of this morning, that she had been handed the black spot and subsequently given an invitation to walk the plank, an invitation that she was unable to refuse.

Her departure will enable the senior managers of the NatWest Group to get back to what they are good at – the careful adjustment of interest charged on loans to borrowers and the significantly lower interest paid out to ostensibly respectable savers.

John Holden

A worry here for us at Holdenforth. Might we at some early date be debanked for our impertinence? Watch this space.

Holdenforth has long entertained doubts about the probity of the senior management in the financial sector. Indeed let us go further and refer to the greed of this group.

Extract from “A Cushy Number” by John Holden – 2003

“I note that bankers are now under fire because they refuse to lend to the SMES, ie the small and medium sized companies. In vain do the bankers protest that many of the projects brought to them for financial support have all the plausibility of the projects described in Swift’s “Voyage to Laputa”.

Picture the scene:- you are a banker and have been asked to lend money to a small company to help him to grow his business. Your choices are:

1. Lend him the money with all the attendant risks.

2. Give the money to yourself as a performance based bonus, a course of action which is both risk free and far more agreeable.

How long would it take you to decide?

Holdenforth accepts that our views might be perceived as cynical. For our part we see them as realistic.

One complication in the current turmoil in this sector is the extent to which third parties are taking the opportunity to have a go at the main players.

How about this?

“Breathtaking arrogance of the serial failure who epitomises so much of what’s wrong with the British Establishment.”
Headline above a piece by Stephen Pollard in the Daily Mail.

This tirade of Mr Pollard was directed at Sir Howard Davies, the chairman of NatWest Group. Pollard did not limit his attack on the noble knight to the to the current situation but took the opportunity to look at the performance of Mr Davies from the time of his arrival on the scene as a member of the great and the good – and to find it wanting in all areas.

Holdenforth relished every word of the Pollard article. We have for many years had our doubts about what exactly the great and the good contribute to the creation of wealth as they thread their way from one agreeable company board to another.

The flexi Starmer stance

“And time for a hundred indecisions,

And for a hundred visions and revisions,

Before the taking of a toast and tea.“

TS Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

Some peevish critics are suggesting that Sir Keir Starmer is too ready to abandon previously held – and stated – policies that might – just might – prove unpopular with the voters. They go on to suggest that the only consistent policy held by Sir Keir is that he has an overwhelming desire to become our next Prime Minister, and that to achieve this objective, policies will jettisoned as required.

Holdenforth has been puzzled by the lively controversy about the definition of a woman – we note that the various participants get quite worked up about matters that have long ago ceased to be our concern and we have sensibly avoided commenting on the matter one way or the other.

However we do recall that many years ago a problem arose as to the extent of the femininity of a lady shot putter from Russia. It was felt by some that the heavy beard and bollocks of the athlete in question were sufficient to raise doubts as to the appropriateness of her participation.

HS2

“Seth, what’s the Imperial bank of Azania?”

The Emperor looked embarrassed–

“ Well actually it’s not quite a bank at all. it’s a little thing I did myself”

He showed Basil a dozen shelves stacked with what might have been packets of writing paper

“What is that?”

“Just under three million pounds” said the Emperor proudly …. He pressed a bundle of fivers into Basil’s hand
From “Black Mischief” by Evelyn Waugh

“The folly of printing money”
Headline above a piece by Alex Brummer, Daily Mail, July 21

Life imitating art?

Holdenforth has noted that there is considerable debate across the land about the pros and cons of mega projects – past, present and prospective – financed from public funds and usually for perceived political advantage.

One such project is HS2 which is said to have soaked up taxpayers’ money on a lavish scale.

As I write the betting is that the HS2 project will be pushed to the back of the back burner whilst those responsible for the fiasco will lie low for a while.

Holdenforth has in several blogs noted that the senior management of the rail sector should have been less pre-occupied in looting the assets under their control and more concerned with ensuring that points and signals were properly maintained and that there were enough rail employees to provide sensible cover.

Alas the lure of lucre was too strong and the long suffering public that wished to travel by rail had to put up with the pitiful excuse for a service that was on offer.

Holdenforth remembers another fiasco in the catalogue of mega failures: here is another quote from “A Cushy Number” (2003)

“It might help to clarify the situation if I touch on a political issue which briefly attained prominence a few years ago. I refer to the growth of Regional Development Agencies which were set up on the backs of the Regional Assemblies beloved and ardently promoted by New Labour in general, and by Mr John Prescott, now ennobled as Lord Prescott, in particular.

“Prescott has been a remarkable phenomenon, truly a politician of our time. He alone of the current generation of politicians could never be accused of mendacity simply because the very word implies some awareness, however limited, of the gap between what is said and what is known. Mr Prescott has never been known to be burdened with such knowledge. His mangling of the English language reflects the chaos of his mind. He is like a re-incarnation of the late great Stanley Unwin. Those fortunate enough to be old enough to remember Mr Unwin will know exactly what I mean. It is difficult to explain to the younger generation the wonderful inventiveness of Mr Unwin in the use of words. He was rather like James Joyce in Finnegan’s Wake mode re-incarnated as variety artist.

“To return to Regional Assemblies. Mr Prescott was presumably allowed to attempt to set up these dubious additions to the democratic catalogue in order to minimise the damage he might do if engaged in more serious matters. It was a damage limitation exercise by Mr Blair.

“The idea of Regional Assemblies was that they would provide a suitable facade of democracy in action whilst ensuring that effective political control remains where it has always resided, that is in Whitehall and Downing Street. The Regional Assemblies, once established, would immediately set up development agencies to do what little work there was to be done.

“One of the earliest to be set up was the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) which was charged with the task of promoting the economic prosperity of the principality. The traditional Welsh industries of coal and latterly steel were shrinking rapidly. The WDA was active in persuading major global companies such as Sony, Panasonic and Bosch to set up large scale factories in Wales. These enterprises have now likewise run their course.

“The last in this series proved to be a source of splendid entertainment in Wales. In 1997 the Korean Company, LG promised to set up a huge electronics company in Newport. Six thousand jobs were to be created and the launch was attended by a beaming John Major ( he smiled occasionally in those days – before the revelations of Edwina Currie gave him food for melancholy thought). In the publicity photos he was flanked by William Hague radiating confidence in his capacity as Secretary of State for Wales, and likewise unaware of the trials and tribulations awaiting him.

“To no one’s surprise the project bit the dust, and a large sum of public money, estimated by informed sources to be not unadjacent to £250M went missing. Various emissaries of the WDA attempted to recover some of the missing millions and the same informed sources estimate that with luck they may recover sufficient to pay the cost of their travels to Korea!”

A further extract from “A Cushy Number”:

“So – no more reliance on our old a and declining industries. No more reliance on foreigners to bail us out. The future prosperity in the UK will be achieved and assured by the dynamic growth of the SME sector.

“What on earth is the SME sector, I hear you ask? The acronym stands for the Small to Medium size enterprise, and this sector is to provide the basis for the future growth and expansion of the UK economy. A future generation of entrepreneurs will, by their energy and imagination, bring the UK into the promised land of prosperity for all.

“The ranks of mini businessmen will not be left to struggle alone and friendless as they build their businesses (or fail to do so as the case may be). The Regional Development Agencies have determined that they are to be supported, and much thought and work has gone into deciding how this might best be achieved.

“The outcome, predictably, has been a deluge of documentation from the Agencies setting out chapter and verse of the support arrangements. The documents to announce the new approach made great play of the shibboleths of the nineties, with lots of IT, lots of internet, lots of training in all its many varieties, lots of references to flexibility, lifetime learning, a nod towards equal opportunities, and, key roles for the for the Business schools of the Universities. HMG has said :- – let there be created a vast bureaucratic apparatus to make all this happen, and lo, it was created, and, predictably it, the bureaucratic apparatus, grew rapidly. The whole shaky edifice has been based on the growth of the Small to Medium (size) Enterprise sector. The idea was that the vast bureaucracy will, possibly by sheer weight of numbers, transform the previously sluggish performance of the SME sector.

“Do you get the picture? Budding UK Entrepreneurs will be motivated, educated, trained, supported, guided, coached, assisted and inspired by the new Assemblies and by their appointed army of apparatchiks to transform the UK economy. All the leading commentators and pundits are united on this one point if on no other: – the economic fate of Britain is in the hands of the SME sector. Sceptics like me will cautiously note that the support most required by your average entrepreneur is to be left alone to develop and manage his business. If he is to receive help from the public, then cash is best, the more the better. It is after all cash which is his key motivator in the first place.

“This view is anathema to business advisors. They see fledgling entrepreneurs as their bread, butter, and lots of jam. Moreover jam today and jam tomorrow. The fledgling entrepreneurs (hereinafter referred to as the F.Es) are to found, flushed out and then given the full treatment so as to ensure that the advisors can exploit them to the full. The budding Henry Fords, James Dysons, and Richard Bransons will be allowed no peace to get on with it. Our embryo business men might argue that they have better things to do than to attend conferences, run by people who have either never run a business or whose businesses evidently do not require their undivided attention or whose businesses have failed, on how to run a business.

“I don’t think I was the only person in Britain who marvelled at the Alice in Wonderland pattern of events. A swelling hoard of advisers, a swelling hoard of bureaucrats, countless business schools, all on the public payroll, all charged with the core task of aiding and abetting the fledgling entrepreneurs to get out there and make it happen. The question my fellow doubters and I are asking is the rather obvious one – if this vast array of bureaucrats are such dab hands at business, why are they not setting up and running businesses rather than advising. To paraphrase Shaw: those that can run businesses do run businesses. Those that can’t are paid by the state to advise them. This last sentence needs to be clarified. States have no money of their own. The politicians take money off some of us, give some of it back to others (there may be some overlap here) and, as always, keep a little back for themselves

“Where does the entrepreneur come in all this? His role is twofold. First of all he has to provide jobs in the SME sector by growing his business. Second and much more importantly he has to provide cushy numbers for the army of entrepreneurial advisers (surely an oxymoron) who will be, indeed who have been, appointed to tell him how to succeed in business. The relationship between the two groups can be compared to that which exists between donkeys and owners. I take it that everyone is quite clear on which is which? Thus new bureaucracies, called into being to discharge a task for they are eminently unsuited, have got the prevailing wind firmly in their sails. They are away, off into the wild blue yonder, doing well by doing something or other.”

Help the Aged

We at Holdenforth have noted the anxiety about the bleak prospects facing old timers in both the short term and in the longer term. The problem is said to be a shortage of carers prepared, as the job title suggests, to minister to this swelling group.

Holdenforth has to declare an interest at this point – both my wife and I are octogenarians with the bodily and mental frailties that go with old age.

Let Shakespeare set the scene.

“Last scene of all

That ends this strange eventful history,

Is second childishness, and mere oblivion,

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything”

From “As You like it.”

A bit on the gloomy side

May Day message to Holdenforth Readers

“Today is the first of May, a great holiday for our two nations ….”

“We have a great holiday. How things are with you over there it is less easy to say,”
Conversation between the German General Krebs, who had visited the Russian General Chuikov under a white flag to try to arrange a cease fire in Berlin on May the first, 1945.

Holdenforth is unsure as to what might be appropriate to include in a May Day message.

Is the practice usually confined to Lefty regimes or does Wall Street send out a May Day message?

Holdenforth diffidently suggests that a joint message from THE WEST and Putin as a preamble to get peace talks about how to end the war in Ukraine would be a positive step.

Enough musings – let us just get on with it.

In our previous blog we expressed our concerns about what was happening in and around The Monarchy.

“By one of those graceful and emollient acts for which the governing class is justly famed, Mr Chamberlain was slipped inconspicuously from the political scene and Mr Churchill was unanimously elected leader of the Tory Party…”
Aneurin Bevan – October, 1940

In particular we noted the way in which Princess Diana has been air brushed out and Camilla has been quietly edged up the cast of the monarchical soap opera – with the aid of a very effective palace PR machine.

Will this belated promotion of Camilla be approved by the public or possibly – by some – seen as a nail in the coffin of the monarchy?

Holdenforth is firmly in the latter camp.

Another historical parallel now suggests itself to us.

Back in 1953 – when Queen Elizabeth II was crowned – the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, then aged 80, was under pressure to stand down and make way for Mr. Eden.

Eden had served a long apprenticeship under Churchill and was thirsting to replace his aging Prime Minister.

Prince Charles had served a much longer apprenticeship and has been likewise anxious to demonstrate what he could accomplish in the top job.

The punchline is that Eden quickly made a complete bollocks of the job and was given the heave ho in the aftermath of Suez.

Holdenforth suspects that the elevation of Prince Charles to King Charles will have a similarly sad ending.

We shall see.

Holdenforth has been and remains disconcerted and confused by the reluctant emergence into the spotlight of a new species of espionage practitioner – the schoolboy.

Like you we remain anxious to know more about who knew what and when.

We gather that the speculators are galloping from studio to studio to expatiate on whether the leaks are a plus for Putin, a zero for Zelensky, a black eye for Biden or what?

No use me saying – Watch this space . I have no more idea than you do about what will emerge from the newly released contents of this ultra modern version of the lamp of Aladin.

One other point before we move on.

Holdenforth was impressed by the way that President Biden stuck firmly to the main purpose of his visit to Ireland – to get the huge Irish vote in the USA onside.

“All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”

Matthew 26,52

The word is that Sir Keir Starmer has decided that the time is right to take the gloves off in his toe to toe contest with Mr Sunak.

Holdenforth has doubts about the wisdom of this tactic of descending below the gutter into the sewer.

It is unwise for two reasons.

The contest degenerates into an unseemly propaganda exchange between the two parties – and Holdenforth notes that Mr Sunak controls a most effective propaganda machine.

The tactic will provoke a ferocious response – indeed has already triggered a ferocious response. Sir Kier will soon grasp that he has stirred a hornets’ nest – and Holdenforth assumes that mission statement of the irate Hornets will be – “if that is the way that he wants it then that is way he can have it.“ As I write trained Tory metaphorical hit persons with nothing else to do are poring over any and every aspect of the career of Sir Keir with the remit – dig up the dirt and put it in the headlines.

Doesn’t Sir Keir have enough problems within his own party, such as:

The need to clarify the vexing question of “why can’t a woman be more like a man?
The need to choose his words and more importantly his policy about the tsunami of strikes in the public sector?

So – the advice of Holdenforth to Starmer is to cool it.

And one last point – on this topic – Was Sir Keir wise to tick the elevation of Tom Watson to the Lords?

Holdenforth says no, it wasn’t.

What has Holdenforth got against Tom Watson?

Few if any would dispute the contention that there is no more appalling crime than the physical and sexual abuse of children.

There is one other offence which comes close to matching this odious activity – to accuse an innocent person of the offence with no plausible evidence.

The final repellent feature of the actions of Tom Watson is that they were made under the protective cloak of parliamentary privilege.

Where does Holdenforth stand on woking?

Holdenforth will edge gingerly into the rumpus in this sector.

Correct us if we are wrong but we understand that wokers specialise in reading classical texts in search of passages which might offend modern sensitive readers and that text alterers are a sub species of the wokers.

Still with me?

We were motivated to join the fray by the following headline and report in the Daily Mail.

“Now Jeeves and Wooster suffer woke rewrites”

Daily Mail headline April 17

As per the Mail, “PG Wodehouse’s Jeeves and Wooster books have been rewritten to remove “unacceptable” prose as the comic novelist becomes the latest author to fall foul of so called sensitivity readers – ……… in the present edition we have sought to edit minimally words that we regard as unacceptable to present day readers.“

We at Holdenforth were outraged when we read this drivel.

We urge HMG to pass a law to protect the treasures on English Literature from these yahoos. This vandalism should be made a most serious criminal offence.

Holdenforth would add that we are affronted, irritated, and pissed off – whoops – sorry about that last one – by the drivel available on a 24/7 basis from the 900 or so TV channels available to us.

The thought occurs to me – what might sensitivity readers make of the following:

“The old dog seeing the tin was empty starts mousing around by Joe and me. I’d train him by kindness, so I would, if he was my dog. Give him a rousing fine kick now and again where it wouldn’t blind him.”
Ulysses by James Joyce

“If Dann’s dane, Ann’s dirty, if he’s plane she’s purty, with her auburnt streams, and her coy cajoleries, and her dabblin dolleries, for to rouse his rudder up, or to drench his dreams.”
Finnegans Wake also by James Joyce.

As far as the latter text is concerned it is doubtful if anyone would pick up any changes made to assuage the anxieties of the delicate readers.

Come to that – would Joyce himself notice?

A word about the planned name change of the Brecon Beacons.

I doubt if the planned name change triggered much excitement or interest outside Wales but let me, John Holden, declare an interest – I am a life member of the Brecon Beacons Park Society (BBPS). I gather that the BBPS is currently metamorphosing into “Friends of The Brecon Beacons” and I had gathered that my life membership would be equally valid under the change of title.

Will this also apply under the new title – Bannau Brycheniog?

I should mention that, as an octogenarian, I checked to confirm that I was still breathing – and I am – in order to justify my continuing life membership.

Prior to the latest name change I had not noticed that the front page of the excellent BBPS magazine, The Beacon, was in Welsh as well as in English, as indeed was my copy of The Beacons’ Way, published in 2005.

“How can I convey to the reader .. any just impression of this extraordinary figure of our time, this syren, this goat footed bard, this half human visitor to our age from the hag ridden magic and enchanted woods of Celtic antiquity?
Maynard Keynes writing about Lloyd George in 1919.

Just a thought:

Why not rename the National Park “Cader Arthur – Arthur’s Seat?” The mists of myth and legend swirl around it.

The origins of the war in the Ukraine

The conflict in the Ukraine has now been underway for just over a year. Holdenforth has nothing to say about the conduct of the war but we would like to add a few points about the origins of the war, and in particular about its portrayal in the West as a conflict between THE WEST and Putin.

“Crimea: The war that would not boil”
Title of an essay by AJP Taylor about the war between Russia and the combined forces of France and Britain which started in 1854 .

“The Crimean War was the cold war in an earlier phase. Two world systems, mutually uncomprehending, lurched against each other, each convinced of its defensive good faith . Both sides shrank from the head-on collision which would have produced a war to remake the world… “
Extract from the above essay.

Sounds familiar?

Let us fast forward to the current war in The Crimea with especial reference to events in The Crimea.

The origins of the current war

Following the launch of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941 the forces of the USSR were pushed back and back by German forces to Stalingrad in late 1942. The tide was then reversed and between January 1943 and May 1945 the German forces were driven out of the USSR and back to Berlin by Red Army.

Germany surrendered unconditionally to the allies (USA and the UK in the west and the USSR in the east in May, 1945).

The main features of Operation Barbarossa were:

The appalling losses on both sides in the battles between the two opposing armies.
The even more appalling systematic murder of the “inferior“ people by the SS forces operating behind the advancing Wehrmacht and later alongside the retreating Wehrmacht as they initially advanced into the USSR and – after Stalingrad – as they retreated back to Berlin.

It has been estimated that this mass murder of innocent civilians caused as many deaths as those caused on the battlefield. These murders would have been carried out on all those “inferior” people being defended by USSR forces – and these would have included Ukrainians, Belarussians, and of course, Russians.

The murdered millions are in no position to comment on what happened to them but it is probable that those that survived can recall what happened and who was responsible.

These memories may be a factor in later Russian leaders being determined that the events occurring between June, 1941 to May 1945 would never be repeated.

“By far the most grievous suffering among the warring states in WW2 was borne by the Soviet Union which lost at least 7 million men in battle and a further 7 million civilians, most of the latter died as a result of deprivation , reprisal and forced labour.”
From-”The Second World War“ By John Keegan

Also carried out during this 4 year period was what was probably the most appalling crime of all during WW2., possibly the most appalling crime in history, the targeted murder of some 6m Jews murdered because they were Jewish.

Israel and the Jewish Diaspora were understandably resolved to ensure that these crimes would never be repeated.

Just one point to make here – had the Red Army not prevailed inside and outside Stalingrad – would the parents of Mr Zelensky have survived the consequences of the Final Solution policy?

Notes on the politics of the current war

Mr Zelensky is a most accomplished practitioner of the art of Public Relations. He likes to portray the Ukraine conflict as a conflict between civilisation and barbarism. Is there an element of selective indignation here given the shaky record of Israel in its treatment of its Arab neighbours?

Holdenforth is uneasy about the zeal with which Zelensky urges his supporters in THE WEST to join the conflict partly by bankrolling it and partly by supplying enough weapons and munitions to drive Russia out of every bit of what was the Ukraine Republic prior to break up of the USSR.

Holdenforth has already spelled out its aversion to Boris (Horace) Johnson.

We find it ironic that those two masters of PR -Johnson and Zelensky – should be the most strident in demanding the rush to war be intensified.

Thus – Johnson – the master of mendacity.

Zelensky – former stand up comedian catapulted into the top job in the Ukraine.

A worrying alliance for those seeking solutions – minimum damage solutions – compromise solutions which recognise Russian concerns about the geography and history of the Crimea.

We would go further – we suggest that there has been nothing to compare with this epidemic of jingoism since the outbreak of WW1.

Holdenforth sees the main stakeholder in THE WEST as being the USA.

The two key elements in the Foreign Policy of the USA can be simply stated.

“Never give a sucker an even break”
“When you have got them by the balls – their hearts and minds will follow”

Both are admirably direct but both are difficult to reconcile with the 7^th beatitude –

“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God”
Matthew 5,9

A word about the contribution of Sir Keir Starmer and The Labour Party to the conflict

Holdenforth was -and remains – very unhappy about the enthusiasm with which Starmer visited the Ukraine and threw the full support of his party to the cause of THE WEST

“Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of respectability to pure wind.”
From “Politics and the English Language by Holdenforth‘s hero, George Orwell

And a comment which seems to Holdenforth to be appropriate to describe the recent attempts by Sir Keir to woo the UK electorate back to the Labour Party:

“It ( a report submitted to him by one of managers) made me feel like I’ve eaten a large helping of jelly soufflé. I‘m full of an overwhelming feeling of f*** all”
Bob Scholey – at the time of his pugnacious abrasive remark was a regional manager in the recently nationalised British Steel Corp, later to be appointed its Chairman.

For Holdenforth both comments capture the flavour of the Starmer contributions to recent political debates.

Just one final point – we at Holdenforth are mindful that we are a tiny part of a tiny minority – are we in danger of disagreeing with almost everybody about almost everything and we are somewhat lonely in our disputatious redoubt.

Who do we like?

Let’s hear it for the late great Roy Jenkins.

Notes by the Editor

Firstly, an apology for the lateness in this particular blog’s arrival. This was due, not because we disagree with its sentiments (although we do, and more of that anon), but because we had a second encounter with COVID, and subsequently there were a few rather interesting series on Amazon that we wanted to catch up with.

Secondly, the article itself. We outlined our previous objections to the broad thrust of Holdenforth’s argument in a response to a previous blog, observing that its central tenet (that Ukraine should return to its former existence as a Russian vassal state) does not go down well with the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens, who are, after all, the main interested parties here. (We would also gently point out that the term “the Ukraine” rather than “Ukraine” is the way that the Russians referred to it during the Soviet era: latterly, its use has largely been limited to those who feel it should remain a Russian province.)

With regards to Holdenforth’s comment that “had the Red Army not prevailed inside and outside Stalingrad – would the parents of Mr Zelensky have survived the consequences of the Final Solution policy?”, we could suggest an alternative, say “If Stalin hadn’t implemented collectivisation would more than three million Ukrainians – perhaps as many as five million – have died of starvation in the 1930s?” (Or indeed, if, in 1940, Hitler hadn’t said, “I’m bored with Operation Sealion, let’s invade Russia”?)

If one were looking to historical parallels to Zelensky’s (entirely reasonable) requests for additional weaponry, Roosevelt’s Lend Lease policy, passed in early 1941 after Churchill had urged the President for help late in 1940, might come close. Then, as now, the US was not fighting a proxy war: indeed, as Roy Jenkins himself says in his biography of Churchill, even after the Placentia Bay meeting in August 1941 (which resulted in the Atlantic Charter), “it would be quite wrong to think of [the Placentia Bay meetings] as days of ineluctable steps in this direction.” It is true that at that time the US was more overtly isolationist, as enshrined in the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s. However, US policy prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine had certainly been based around withdrawal from theatres of conflict (Afghanistan) or expressing muted disapproval (when Russia annexed the Crimea). The US is not the puppet-master in Ukraine, no more than it was in Europe in early 1941.

The decline and fall of Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson has gone – or is on the point of going.

Long may his replacement as our Prime Minister stay in post – or not, as the case may be.

As we write – the contest to succeed him is underway with the outcome to be announced to an apathetic country on September 5^th.

Holdenforth is unable to summon up any enthusiasm for this most unedifying struggle. We noted that Nigel Farage has said that the least worst outcome would be a victory for Liz Truss – not exactly a ringing endorsement of M/s Truss.

What does Holdenforth have to say on the regime change under way in the UK and on the squalid bickering masquerading as a splendid example of democracy in action? Recent and current events in the UK are demonstrating to those countries not committed to THE WEST in the war in the Ukraine how civilised countries arrange regime change.

“Lest any of you ever forget what I’ve done for Britain”
Headline in the Mail On Sunday above extracts from BOJO’s final speech – for the time being – to Parliament. July 24

The extracts summarised what BOJO considered to be the main achievements of his government from his arrival in Number 10 to date.

Let us consider them.

1. Brexit – achieved.

Holdenforth’s view: In the long and disgraceful catalogue of policy failures under BOJO – this was the most disgraceful of all. The attempts of Brexiteers to portray Brexit as a success merely serve to rub salt in the national wounds. Nigel Farage has and continues to be prominent in this rewriting of history. His frenetic campaigning on the issue makes the Wokers appear reasonable in their re-interpretation of history.

Holdenforth has had its say at great length in recent years on the betrayal of the UK by the Brexiteers.

For now – let us just list the main guilty politicians.

Boris Johnson
David Cameron
Theresa May
Nigel Farage
Jeremy Corbyn

The track records of the first four are well known and require no excoriating further comment.

The inclusion of Corbyn may raise a few eyebrows. The gravamen against Corbyn is quite simple – he simply opted out of deciding and campaigning on the crucial issue of leave or stay and instead planned to sub contract out the decision to the voters – an abject shirking of responsibility.

2. Immigration. Johnson’s claim that the UK is making progress in this admittedly difficult area is impossible to sustain.

Holdenforth argues that it would help if it were to be made clear that those coming to the UK in small boats across the channel are departing from France, a country where there is no threat of persecution. Those in this category had achieved their wholly understandable goal of fleeing from persecution when they entered the EU.

From that point on they become economic migrants – again for understandable but for rather less convincing reasons.

3. The Pandemic. BOJO is justified in claiming that there were notable successes in the management of the problems posed by the CV19 virus and notably for the commendably prompt production and distribution of an effective vaccine.

4. Climate change. The record of the BOJO government on this vexed issue is shaky. Holdenforth accepts that the case to minimise the emission of the gases which are the main agents of global warming has been made – and made very effectively.

On the debit side Holdenforth believes that the straightforward job of spelling out how we get from where we are to where we need to be has been bungled.

It would help if the need for global cooperation was accepted and acted upon.

5. Afghanistan. BOJO absurdly claims that the task of ensuring that those with legitimate and wholly understandable wishes to leave Afghanistan was successfully accomplished.

Holdenforth suggests that this claim be reviewed by the hundreds of thousands of would-be escapees abandoned to the none too tender mercies of the Taliban.

Would they endorse the BOJO claim?

6. Ukraine. BOJO argued from the very first appearance of storm clouds in the Ukraine that it was a clear responsibility of freedom loving democratic countries to throw their collective weight – THE WEST – on the side of The Ukraine against the war mongering Mr Putin.

Holdenforth has argued elsewhere that the actions of HMG under BOJO in and around the Ukraine have been a classic example of the enduring policy of the Tory party to engage in aggression abroad as a cover for corruption at home.

Were Holdenforth to be in Putin’s shoes we would be uneasy about the thrust by THE WEST to extend the frontiers of NATO to the north, east and south of Ukraine.

However, we also take the view that the quickest way to put an end to the slaughter triggered by the war and the appalling forced departure of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians from their homes would be a negotiated permanent peace .

It is worth noting that the two main players in the conflict are Russia and the USA. Mr Zelensky is a most accomplished PR operator but little more.

Holdenforth on the race to succeed BOJO

Holdenforth is mystified by the speed with all the original contenders hastened to jettison policies that they had been responsible for implementing. As I write, the number of contenders has been reduced to two. Voting papers will shortly be sent out to paid up members of the Tory party to decide who is to be our next Prime Minister.

This is called democracy – as practiced by the Tory party.

Sir Keir Starmer and The Labour Opposition

Might the Labour party under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer provide comfort and hope for the future when the bawling brawling Ms Truss moves into Number 10 .

Well – only up to a point.

In no special order:

Holdenforth is NOT impressed by Sir Keir’s slogan of “Growth Growth Growth”. We would refer Sir Keir to the speech made by Harold Wilson in 1963 to the Labour Party Conference in Scarborough.

The newly elected party leader spoke about the need for deploying the white heat of technology as a vehicle to reverse the sluggish performance of the Tories in the previous 12 years.

On a personal note – I was in the hall for the speech and it was very well received.

The balance between the public and private sector. It appears that Sir Keir is anxious about The Labour Party being saddled with the label of being the party committed to costly ineffective public ownership and as being too close to bolshie public sector unions currently busy preparing plans to disrupt the rail sector, the airports and sea ports and so on and so forth.

Holdenforth refers Sir Keir to the policies given the seal of approval by Roy Jenkins – not a closet Bolshie -at the end of his autobiography.

The gist of his argument is that the privatisation of the monopoly utilities by the Thatcher government was as absurd as the demands of some in the Labour Party for the nationalisation of sectors of the economy that were subject to competitive pressure.

Holdenforth commends these policies to Sir Keir.

Holdenforth also commends to Sir Keir the need to curb the greed of many senior managers in the Public Sector trained in the Arthur Daley Business school.

Just look at what is going on currently in the publicly owned water sector. For that matter look at what has been going on in the privatised rail sector since the sector was privatised – an abysmal performance by senior managers too busy lining their pockets to concern themselves with trivia like ensuring that points and signals work properly and that enough staff are employed to drive the trains listed in the timetables.

One final concern – for today – about Sir Keir. Holdenforth was not impressed by the approach to Brexit announced by Sir Keir. He announced that “we accept Brexit but will resume discussions to arrange an orderly relationship on better terms.“ Holdenforth suspects that this approach was not and will not be received with enthusiasm by the responsible officials and politicians in the EU.

Is that it until Sept 5?

Not quite – Holdenforth will use the silly season – or as some would have it – the lull during the next 5 weeks as Tory Voters elect Ms Truss as our next PM – to reflect on and report on in our blog on some of the issues of rather greater importance to the voters across the UK.

History Repeats Itself – first as tragedy then as farce

Some scholars believe that the tragedy in the blog title refers to Napoleon Bonaparte and the farce refers to his descendent Louis Napoleon. Other scholars disagree. So be it. The quote suits our purpose today and we will use it to develop our narrative.

It was announced – at around 9 am on July 7 – that Boris Johnson had resigned as Prime Minister.

Where does Holdenforth stand on the Johnson premiership, on his ejection from office and on its consequences?

Here goes.

“A story has no beginning or end; arbitrarily one chooses that moment of experience from which to look back or from which to look ahead”
From “The End of the Affair” by Graham Greene

A few points to get our blog under way.

The tragedy was the appalling decision taken by the UK to leave the EU.

The farce was and is the belated recognition by the British people that Brexit had been a big mistake.

Holdenforth readers will know that we have opposed Brexit from the start of the referendum and we remain committed partisan Remainers.

Our policy going forward is that the UK should seek to rejoin the EU on the same terms as those enjoyed by all the other EU member states; the UK to adopt this policy as penitents seeking to atone for our national misdemeanours.

The tragedy which is the story of this blog started in 2015 in the run up to the 2015 General Election. The Tory party manifesto included a commitment to hold an in/out referendum on UK membership of the EU by the end of 2017, a commitment lightly given but one which was to have serious consequences for the UK, for the Tory party and for David Cameron, and to a lesser extent for Europe.

The events of the next few years with regard to Brexit are too well known despite being bitterly disputed.

Briefly:

It has been asserted with some justification that Cameron was anxious to avert the perceived threat posed by Nigel Farage to recruit Tory voters from the right of the Tory party to his UKIP party. The outcome of the 2015 election was a win that allowed David Cameron to enter Number 10 with an adequate working majority, a more agreeable arrangement than the awkward coalition with the Lib Dems that had been in office since 2010. The downside of the win was the commitment to hold a referendum on our EU membership, a commitment that was to dominate UK and European politics to this day.

The referendum campaign was fought – how shall we say – with commendable vigour and unseemly mendacity. Notable figures in the remain campaign included Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne. Notable figures in the leave campaign included Mr Farage and – yes – Mr Johnson. Critics of Johnson have alleged that the only criterion in his choice of supporting leave or remain was a careful assessment of which decision would best suit his political prospects, the one consistent policy throughout his career.

The referendum was held in June 2016 and the outcome was to leave 52 %, to remain – 48%, a narrow but convincing vote to leave.

What happened then?

Cameron resigned as Prime Minister within hours of the outcome being announced. His resignation triggered a forerunner of the process to select a new Tory leader – and Prime Minister – which is underway as I write. The outcome on that occasion was that Mrs May emerged as leader after her main rival, Mrs Leadsom made some ill-advised comments about fertility.

Mrs May emerged from her successful leadership campaign with many massive challenges which included:

Being Prime Minister
Being leader of the Tory party
Implementing the UK democratic decision to leave the EU

It all proved too much for Mrs May. Her decision to call a General Election in April 2017, was not wise as the outcome wiped out the comfortable Tory majority won by Cameron and she was reduced to bribing this group and that group in order to stay in post.

The top officials in the EU understandably proved obdurate to her attempt to reach a deal, a posse of persecutors was formed and she was handed the black spot.

She resigned in July 2019 and she delivered her resignation speech brimming with tears and resentment and thirsting for vengeance.

Her resignation triggered yet another forerunner of the process to select a new Tory leader – and Prime Minister.

Mr Johnson convincingly defeated Mr Hunt to become leader of the Tory party and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He immediately proved to be an adroit producer of crisp slogans to deal with the various crises that he faced. His –“Let’s get Brexit done” proved to be a sure fire winner – and Brexit was done. He showed shrewd judgement in calling a snap election for December 13, 2019, an election in which the Tories secured a majority over all other parties of 80.

As BOJO surveyed the scene from Number 10 at the end of 2019 – he was Lord of all he surveyed, the dissenters within his own party routed and the Labour Party leaders nowhere to be seen.

What happened then?

Sadly, what happened then was the arrival of the Coronavirus, a microbe which created havoc everywhere. Politicians around the world grappled as best they could with the problems posed by the pandemic and, in the main, the performance of HMG was reasonable – but only up to a point.

Sadly no sooner was coronavirus thought – with good reason – to be under control than another storm cloud appeared in the spring of 2022.

Holdenforth has previously covered the background to the invasion by Russia of the Ukraine.

For now – a brief summary of what happened and why.

Over the years Russia had expressed concern at what it perceived as a determined attempt by the West to encircle Russia militarily
Central to this perception was the plan to extend the military control exercised by the west from the eastern border of Poland to the eastern border of the Ukraine, a move which if successful would extend NATO control to the east of Moscow, a significant shift in the balance of power.
Russia was not impressed by this plan and was understandably anxious about its implications.
Accordingly Mr Putin resorted to a military operation – not to be confused with an invasion – to combat the plan.
From the outset Mr Johnson was an enthusiastic supporter of President Zelensky – truly Comrades in Arms, with the one leading the fight on the ground and Mr Johnson contributing arms and raucous support from the terraces.
Holdenforth argued that a cease fire in the destructive war with its appalling death rate and casualty rate and displacement rate was the clear responsibility of the key players in the conflict, namely Russia and the USA.
The WEST saw and sees the war as a heroic defence of freedom and democracy.
Mr Putin sees the war as a reasonable response to stop the encirclement by NATO of Russia.

Holdenforth is rather more concerned to stop the war than to take part in the PR exercises conducted by both sides, but:

So far as the contribution of Mr Johnson is concerned – we see it as an example of the warning given by Churchill more than a century ago when he noted that “ this is what the Tory party offers you – corruption at home and aggression to cover it abroad”

Where does our tragedy end and our farce begin?

In our view it is getting clearer by the day that the case for Brexit was built on shit and quicksand as argued by the Remainers and this is now becoming clear to some of the Leavers.

Serious problems have arisen with regard to the arrangements in Northern Ireland, and with regard to the legality of transferring illegal immigrants to Rwanda to be processed – an unfortunate euphemism. The mutual antagonisms between the UK and the countries in the EU are not helpful and are unlikely to ease.

In short, the Brexit tragedy is far from over.

“Out of timber so crooked as that from which man is made nothing entirely straight can be built”
Immanuel Kant

The farce phase got under way when our Prime Minister for whatever reasons decided that the rules which he had personally imposed on the nation did not apply himself and his closest political associates. It was unfortunate that the reporting of his breaches of his own rules coincided with a series of revelations about his poor judgement with regard to the Owen Patterson affair and others and predictably led to a draining away of his support. The last few months tell a story of confusion, chaos, incompetence and evasion which delighted his many enemies and exasperated those colleagues deputed to appear in public and endeavour to exonerate him.

A steady feed of accusations of being economical with the truth from across the political spectrum , including and most damaging of all from within his own parliamentary party.

We will not loiter on Johnson’s final days as PM in his bunker. Enough already. Another black spot handed out.

Now – the bit that you have been waiting for – Holdenforth on Boris Johnson

No time to beat about the bush.

Holdenforth has noted that most of the political obituaries hastily composed about BOJO following the issuing of a red card by his colleagues have had something to say by way of praise.

Great is the truth and mighty above all things
Esdras iv, 41

Holdenforth has noted that all the current candidates for the leadership of the Tory party have committed themselves to telling the truth, a practice not always followed by members of the previous administration, and especially not by its leader. Holdenforth, inspired by these noble protestations, will stick to the truth as he perceives it in his comments about Mr Johnson.

Quite simply Johnson has been a disaster from the time of his initial entry into UK political circles to the time of his enforced exit from the national scene on July 7.

Brexit :His supporters – a diminishing breed, continue to claim against all the evidence, that Brexit was a success. Oh no it wasn’t. It was and is and will continue to be a disaster until Brexit is reversed.

His ardent support for Zelensky and for the expansion of NATO. A cynical Holdenforth sees this as a pairing of two accomplished PR practioners rather than a partnership of two world leaders seeking to bring tranquillity to a troubled area.

Overall, a consistent persistent record of mendacity and sharp practice

For Holdenforth, BOJO will go down in history as our worst ever PM, an award for which there is considerable competition.

He has poisoned the political climate and the havoc he created will take a generation to rectify.

General Peckem boasted that “My most precious abilities are mainly administrative ones. I have a happy facility for getting different people to agree”. His rival, Colonel Cargill, dissented – “he has a happy facility for getting different people to agree what a prick he is.”
Catch 22 by Joseph Heller

“Undoubtedly when politicians … have been long on the on the stage, their fellow countrymen have a pretty shrewd idea of their quality and value. About new people, suddenly lifted by the press or the caucus or both to national prominence, the average man… May easily be misled and is rightly distrustful. That is why our electorate like to be governed by well-known personalities or even by well-known names. They like to act upon an impression of a man gathered shall we say across a quarter of a century. They feel that on such a survey taking the rough with the smooth they can form a clear like or dislike, a definite agreement or opposition.”
From Great Contemporaries by WS Churchill 1937

“Not even a household name in his own household”
A wounding comment from David Mellor

As I write – on July 12 – a dozen or so Tory Party hopefuls in the upcoming election to choose a Tory party leader, and rather more significantly, a new Prime Minister – are dashing from interview to interview to parade their virtues and to gloss over aspects of their CV that may cause concerns to the members of the Parliamentary Tory who will whittle down the hopefuls to the two who will then face the ordeal of the final stage of the process. For this final stage the electorate will comprise all paid-up party members.

The public will have noted already that the various media interviews have taken on an acerbic tone and candidates will require very thick skins to endure the coming ordeals. Holdenforth confidently predicts that as the bright light of publicity gets to work – some dark secrets will emerge – and we are not talking here about convictions for speeding or parking on double yellow lines.

Just 24 hours ago, the 1922 committee chaired by Graham Brady met to finalise the rules for the contest.

Mr Brady, a commendably calm and persuasive man, was anxious to limit the duration of the election procedure, and accordingly announced a threshold of 20 declared supporters to enter the first round of the contest.

This is a time when the would-be Prime Ministers find out who their friends are.

The next 10 days will be fascinating.

At this early stage just one point concerns Holdenforth. Most of the candidates have shown strong support for a policy to cut taxes. Commendable as an aim but shaky as a policy because all the candidates are reticent about where cuts in public expenditure are to be made to facilitate the tax cuts.

Holdenforth was relieved to learn that Ben – Bulldog Drummond -Wallace – will not be standing. Given his bellicose approach we feared that if he had got the top job that orders for PPC would have been cancelled and replaced with orders for tin helmets and Anderson shelters.

Yet more gloom from Holdenforth.

We were not impressed by the policy on Brexit as announced recently by Sir Keir Starmer. Insofar as we were able to discern any sense from his speech he appeared to be saying that HMG under his leadership would not seek to rejoin the EU but would seek further concessions from the EU to make Brexit more palatable for UK.

I am not sure how the EU would respond to this policy and can speak only for Holdenforth.

We would refer Sir Keir to the arrangements that prevail in the EU and if any stage the UK wished to rejoin then apply and we will consider your application.

Holdenforth would also add that the UK had wasted enough of the valuable time of EU in recent years.

There is a future blog in the Holdenforth pipeline -how The UK Labour Party got its Brexit policy badly wrong.

Here the Tragedy was the decision by Mr Corbyn to refer the policy on Brexit to party members – a bad idea at the time and one which appears in retrospect to be even worse.

The Labour Party has a long and distinguished history of facing difficult issues head on – think Ernie Bevin’s demolition of George Lansbury, think Hugh Gaitskell on nuclear weapons, think Neil Kinnock on the disruptive impact on the party of the Militant Tendency group.

How to finish this delicate blog?

Holdenforth has been startled at the readiness of some well-known political figures who left the national scene under clouds of real or perceived opprobrium to emerge from the shadows and expatiate on this or that aspect of the current boisterous debate in media interviews.

Holdenforth readers will have their own favourites but we noted that Lembit Opik, The Hamiltons – Neil and Christine, Norman Lamont, Dennis McShane, David Mellor and Edwina Currie have not been backward in coming forward.

Loose ends: Notes from an aged blogger

“Life’s night begins: let him never come back to us!
There would be doubt, hesitation and pain,
Forced praise on our part- the glimmer of twilight,
Never glad confident morning again.”
From “The Lost Leader” by Robert Browning

“Corruption at home, Aggression to cover it abroad… That is the policy which the Tory party offers you”
Winston Churchill writing in 1906 – and at that time a Liberal MP

As I write, an uncertain future seems to be in store for BOJO.

Thus – on the debit side for BOJO – the length of the queue of ex colleagues lining up to denounce him resembles a scene from just about any of the UK airports.

Oliver Dowden, Jesse Norman, David Davis (the Brutus of the detractors), all of the surviving former leaders of the Tory Party, all these and many more tour the broadcasting studios and/or fill the columns of the papers and/or fill the bewildering variety of social media outlets to announce, more in sorrow than anger, that his time is up.

On the credit side for BOJO – he has just completed a packed globe-trotting PR programme starting in Rwanda, moving on to the gathering of the G7 leaders and finishing with a bellicose contribution to the NATO summit. It appears to this outsider that NATO will not rest until the odious Putin empire has been put to the sword. The NATO brass hats have never had it so good. No need to stiffen their resolve – it has never faltered.

One consequence of Johnson’s crowded international odyssey has been that he has avoided having to face his critics in the Commons.

The most recent session of PMQT held on June 29 (and by coincidence the 82^nd birthday of Holdenforth) was a relatively good-tempered affair with Mr Raab and M/s Rayner deputising for their respective leaders. All very entertaining but remote from the formidable catalogue of problems facing the UK.

As Holdenforth surveys the bewildering complexity of the political life of the BOJO, we will opt for the safe option of recommending a few policy options that may prolong if not actually save his premiership.

BOJO does not deserve our help but someone else will soon be making the same points – so here goes.

The Tiverton By – Election.

The outcome here in the epicentre of the Tory party was a disaster for the Tory Party in general and for BOJO in particular. Pundits from across the political spectrum are advising BOJO what to do to avoid similar upsets in the future (and some of these suggestions could be quite costly – cut taxes – that sort of thing). Mr Sunak has enough problems without having to fork out yet more money from public funds, however worthy the cause.

Holdenforth has a simpler and cheaper remedy. Send out an email to all Tory MPs instructing them NOT to watch pornography during parliamentary debates. The offence of the disgraced previous MP, Mr Parish – no longer of this parish – was perceived as more reprehensible because it was done in works’ time and as such was disapproved of by management.

The Wakefield by election.

Wakefield had long been safe Labour territory but had fallen to the Tories in the “Red Wall” campaign.

Sadly, it turned out that the successful Red Wall Tory victor had been rather less than transparent about his past indiscretions, and some voters don’t take kindly to such unseemly behaviour.

A simple measure to avoid similar upsets in the future would be to ensure that effective screening was in place to filter out those – how to put this – known to the police and others in authority for having CVs with questionable sexual histories.

A party which is incapable of ensuring that dubious candidates are not selected to contest elections does not inspire confidence that it can detect and deter the minority of terrorists amongst the thousands of asylum seekers wishing to settle in the UK .

Dear oh dear oh dear.

The ink was barely dry on the above words when I looked at the huge headline on the front page of my Daily Mail . It read:

“Top Tory resigns after groping two men”

The story underneath the banner headline reported that a Tory Whip, Mr Chris Pincher, had got into a tired and emotional state in the Carlton Club, an establishment frequented by Tory grandees. Emboldened by his excess intake of alcohol he had, as noted by the headline, groped two men.

Holdenforth was about to suggest to Tory Party managers, that this incident, following hard on Tiverton and Wakefield by elections, highlighted the need for the party to get a grip. Sadly, ‘grip’ may not be the most appropriate word in the context of the firm hold used by Matt Hancock on his on the lower half of his female advisor.

For now, Holdenforth will move on before we get bogged down.

A suggestion to Sir Keir Starmer.

Sir Keir is under pressure from the usual suspects to denounce the ongoing strikes by the various unions with members in the UK Rail Sector and this pressure poses a tricky problem for Sir Keir.

Denounce the strikers and he will alienate many of his supporters in and out of Parliament
Support the strikers and the Daily Mail will have him bang to rights for preventing the public -including many earning less than the railway employees – from getting to work.

Holdenforth would like to make a contribution to this controversial discussion.

The decision by the Tories under Thatcher to privatise the nationalised utilities was as absurd as the attempts by some in the Labour party to nationalise more and more parts of the private sector.

Many of the problems in the UK Rail Sector are directly attributable to the abysmal performance of the senior management of the sector.

Holdenforth contends that to allow any private group to own a monopoly enterprise is a recipe for trouble – and trouble was what followed in all the privatised monopolies.

We will stay with the rail sector for the moment.

Rail passengers grew weary of the interminable catalogue of failures across the sector, failures which in every case stemmed from a combination of managerial ineptitude and managerial greed.

Holdenforth suggests an improvement plan for the sector along the following lines.

Have a clear out of the more useless of the senior managers of the sector – no shortage of candidates.
Recruit and train new managers who grasp the need to for effective points and signalling equipment and sufficient back up to ensure that trains are never cancelled because of a lack of drivers.
Managers seeking capital investment from public funds for new projects to be told in no uncertain terms that project costs and project completion dates will – repeat WILL be achieved. If not the managers responsible for the failure to be out on their ears.
The Daily Mail and other likeminded papers have made great play of the existence of what are termed “Spanish Practices”, a generic term used to describe working practices more appropriate to a leisure centre rather than to a productive organisation. What, if anything, did the senior managers in the sector do to curb these costly practices? I suspect that they did nothing – these graduates of the Arthur Daley Business School would have been far too busy ensuring that the bonus element of their inflated pay was well protected.
One final point – cancel all these preposterous bonus arrangements. A much simpler and more effective arrangement to be that underperforming managers are handed a P45. Those performing well will get to keep their jobs.

A more general word of advice for Sir Keir – our comments on the performance of senior managers in the rail sector do not amount to a ringing endorsement of this group.

The same criticisms can be made about many of the top managers in the UK public sector.

“Polluting water firms splash £9M on bosses”
Headline in the Mail on Sunday, July 3

Below the headline wasa delightful photo of Liv Garfield, the boss of Severn Trent Water, paid £3.9million last year.

All that is required of the job holder is to collect rain – no supply chain problem here – clean it up and send it to consumers. The public would also a more effective effort to clean up the subsequent discharges into sewers and rivers and the sea.

This story makes my point most effectively.

Any other candidates to be put under the microscope? Since you ask – most of the senior managers in the privatised utilities and in the public sector generally.

University Vice Chancellors
Senior managers in the NHS
Senior managers in our Town halls – gosh yes
Senior managers in the energy sector
Senior managers in the BBC – this group comes with a strong flavour of Mr Pecksniff

A final plea from Holdenforth here – from time to time a dispute arises in the sector – bullying, discrimination, whatever.

Holdenforth would like to see these disputes – typically interminably protracted – resolved quickly and not in the languid fashion adopted by the late Sir John Chilcot.

Holdenforth is a little perturbed by the growth in the demand for the services of lawyers as legal problems, real or imagined, emerge from issues such as who has the authority to decide on the legality of the policy adopted by HMG about refugees and the legality of the measures adopted by HMG to resolve the impasse in Northern Ireland.

Furrowed brows in Westminster – but joy unbounded in the plush offices of our legal eagles.

“The executors… called in a lawyer to study the wording of the will and to give an opinion… The lawyer opined that the wording of the will permitted them to publish what they wished and I suppose they were entitled to rely on his expertise, but they knew perfectly well that by tea time on the same day they could have assembled 40 lawyers to give an entirely contrary view and by lunch the day after another 50 to back up the first opinion and indeed before the weekend another 77 who would unanimously say that on the one hand they could publish and on the other hand it was plain that they could not.”

From “Dead men talk no sense” by Bernard Levin. Mr Levin was writing about the legal pros and cons of the stipulations in the will of Philip Larkin but his acerbic comments about the elasticity of the legal profession holds good in any context.

Holdenforth covered this point in our previous blog when we noted that new legal graduates were reported as being paid up to £150,000 per annum.

However, we were thrown slightly off course by the more recent report that poverty stricken lawyers on a mere £10,000 were manning picket lines suitably clad in the livery of their calling, in their case tattered wigs.

What is going on here? No one is better placed than Sir Keir Starmer to review on the situation and then to advise the nation on his findings.

Over to you Sir Keir.

Re: The Somme

Holdenforth was somewhat disappointed at the lack of any recognition of one of the most tragic days in the history of the United Kingdom.

“ The events of July 1, 1916… bore out the conclusions of the British Higher Command and amply justified the tactical method employed”
Colonel Boraston writing about the first day of the battle of the Somme.

“It needs some hardihood for Colonel Boraston to write the above report” noted Winston Churchill.

Writing about the events of July 1, 1916, the historian AJP Taylor wrote that “The attack was a total failure. The barrage did not obliterate the Germans. Their machine guns knocked the British over in rows: 19,000 killed, 57,000 casualties sustained – the greatest loss in a single day ever suffered by a British army and the greatest suffered by any army in the first world war.”

Holdenforth mentions this anniversary for three reasons

The anniversary of the first day of the battle of the Somme deserves to have a much more important place in our calendar given the appalling scale of the slaughter.

Secondly, and to put it at its kindest – the record of the British Military High Command from 1914 onwards has been – how shall we say – somewhat shaky. The German High Command’s view of its British counterparts was that it comprised “lions led by donkeys”, while The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, was very unimpressed by the collective performance of the Top Military Brass hats. In WW2 Churchill had to make quite a lot of changes at the top before he identified and appointed his top military team, a team that had his full confidence to achieve the desired results.

Thirdly, General Sir Patrick Sanders, the Chief of the General Staff, has said on the ongoing conflict in the Ukraine that “Britain is facing its 1937 moment and must be ready to fight and win to ward off the threat from Russia. Holdenforth hopes fervently that the military grasp of the General is sharper than his historical grasp.

We are alarmed at the bellicose tone adopted by recent appointments to senior jobs in HM Forces. We diffidently note that that the anticipated opponent in a war between The WEST and Putin has at his disposal weapons rather more formidable than those deployed by our enemies in earlier confrontations and God Knows they were destructive enough.

Pride and Joy

Holdenforth noticed that there had been rallies across the country to mark the 50^th anniversary of the first Gay Rights Demonstration in the UK held in 1972.

For those not familiar with the history of what happened, there is a notable Pontypool connection.

Roy Jenkins, Home Secretary at the time that the Sexual Offences Bill – which freed homosexuals over the age of 21 from the rigours of the criminal law – was passed in 1967, was born and brought up in Pontypool and his father had been MP for Pontypool until his death in 1946.
The MP who piloted the bill through the Commons was Leo Abse, the MP for Pontypool.

It could be argued that these two politicians were jointly and overwhelmingly responsible for the bill’s passage.

Leo Abse confused some interested observers of his actions by being as vehemently opposed to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy bill as he was in favour of the Sexual Offences bill.

Meanwhile, Holdenforth is a little puzzled at the readiness of the LGBT community publicly to parade their sexual proclivities and at the lack of enthusiasm for similar public display on the part of heterosexuals, the latter presumably being much the larger group.

On the plus side we live in a free society, and we are all at liberty to express our views in whatever way we choose.

We could go on – and on – and on – but we have said enough to establish our platform as that of a grumpy grizzling griping grouchy old timer and furthermore a liability on the national balance sheet.

But – we have had our say and urge our readers to watch this space as events unfold.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: