Morning Call: pick of the comment

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Once again, a nation walks through fire to give the west its "democracy" (Independent)

Robert Fisk discusses the Iraqi election, saying that democracy doesn't seem to work for countries occupied by western troops. This election is likely to enshrine the very sectarianism that flourished under Saddam Hussein.

2. The two faces of Iraq (Times)

The Times leader is more optimistic, saying that although the elections in Iraq were marred by violence, it suggests a brighter future that millions of Iraqis risked their lives to register a vote.

3. Cuts rhetoric won't boost Labour hopes (Guardian)

"Why have swingeing cuts been so widely accepted as necessary?" asks Madeleine Bunting. This is territory long colonised by Thatcherite Tories, and would draw blood among women and the low-paid.

4. Forget the prophets of doom -- I'm proud to be a baby boomer (Daily Telegraph)

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, takes issue with the argument of David Willetts's book The Pinch. Johnson maintains that the world is a happier place thanks to his generation, and that the next will look after itself.

5. How banks can help the world's poor (Financial Times)

We need to stop separating investment decisions from philanthropic giving, says Alexander Friedman. Bringing together the building and giving away of wealth will bring about a huge increase in capital flowing to the social sector.

6. Lib Dems should refuse a coalition (Guardian)

The Liberal Democrats are getting boxed in to vagueness about what they would do in a hung parliament, says Jackie Ashley. They should be bold, and say they will back the party with an economic plan closest to their own.

7. The pound will rise as the euro heads south (Times)

Political uncertainty is holding back sterling, says Bill Emmott. But it is certain that the eurozone has a rough time ahead, making the prospects of a British recovery look stronger.

8. Why the euro will continue to weaken (Financial Times)

Wolfgang Münchau agrees that there is trouble in store for the euro -- we have always known a monetary union cannot exist without political union in the long run, but perhaps the long run has arrived sooner than expected.

9. Icelanders deserve our empathy, not bullying (Independent)

The Icelandic people object to the punitive terms of their repayment of £3.4bn to the UK and the Netherlands, rather than the repayment itself. The Independent's leading article says we need a fair settlement that reflects Icelanders' ability to repay.

10. The painful limits of localism (Guardian)

Julian Glover argues that the Tories have taken an important step towards designating the dividing line between national and local. As Labour's high-speed rail proposals show, this is essential.

Sign up now to CommentPlus for the pick of the day's opinion, comment and analysis in your inbox at 8am.

Getty
Show Hide image

What I learnt when my wife and I went to Brexit: the Musical

This week in the media, from laughing as the world order crumbles to what Tristram Hunt got wrong – and Leicester’s big fall.

As my wife and I watched Brexit: the Musical, performed in a tiny theatre above a pub in London’s Little Venice, I thought of the American novelist Lionel Shriver’s comment on Donald Trump’s inauguration: “A sense of humour is going to get us through better than indignation.” It is an entertaining, engaging and amusing show, which makes the point that none of the main actors in the Brexit drama – whether supporters of Leave or Remain – achieved quite what they had intended. The biggest laugh went to the actor playing Boris Johnson (James Sanderson), the wannabe Tory leader who blew his chance. The mere appearance of an overweight man of dishevelled appearance with a mop of blond hair is enough to have the audience rolling in the aisles.

The lesson we should take from Brexit and from Trump’s election is that politicians of all shades, including those who claim to be non-political insurgents, have zero control of events, whether we are talking about immigration, economic growth or the Middle East. We need to tweak Yeats’s lines: the best may lack all conviction but the worst are full not so much of passionate intensity – who knows what Trump or Johnson really believe? – as bumbling incompetence. The sun will still rise in the morning (as
Barack Obama observed when Trump’s win became evident), and multi­national capital will still rule the world. Meanwhile, we may as well enjoy the show.

 

Danger of Donald

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t deny the risks of having incompetents in charge. The biggest concerns Trump’s geopolitical strategy, or rather his lack of one. Great power relations since 1945 have been based on mutual understanding of what each country wants to achieve, of its red lines and national ambitions. The scariest moments come when one leader miscalculates how another will react. Of all figures in recent history, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, with his flamboyant manner and erratic temperament, was probably the most similar to Trump. In 1962, he thought President Kennedy, inexperienced and idealistic, would tolerate Soviet missiles in Cuba. He was wrong and the world only narrowly avoided nuclear war.

How would Trump respond to a Russian invasion of the Baltic states? Will he recognise Taiwan as an independent country? Will he scrap Obama’s deal with Iran and support a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear ambitions? Nobody knows, probably not even Trump. He seems to think that keeping your options open and your adversaries guessing leads to “great deals”. That may work in business, in which the worst that can happen is that one of your companies goes bankrupt – an outcome of which Americans take a relaxed view. In international relations, the stakes are higher.

 

Right job, wrong time

I rather like Tristram Hunt, who started contributing to the New Statesman during my editorship. He may be the son of a life peer and a protégé of Peter Mandelson, but he is an all-too-rare example of a politician with a hinterland, having written a biography of Engels and a study of the English Civil War and presented successful TV documentaries. In a parallel universe, he could have made an inspirational Labour leader,
a more thoughtful and trustworthy version of Tony Blair.

No doubt, having resigned his Stoke-on-Trent Central seat, he will make a success of his new job as director of the Victoria and Albert Museum. If nothing else, he will learn a little about the arts of management and leadership. But isn’t this the wrong way round? Wouldn’t it be better if people first ran museums or other cultural and public institutions and then carried such experience into parliament and government?

 

Pointless palace

When the Palace of Westminster was largely destroyed by fire in 1834, thousands gathered to enjoy the spectacle. Thomas Carlyle noted that the crowd “whew’d and whistled when the breeze came as if to encourage it” and that “a man sorry I did not anywhere see”.

Now, with MPs reportedly refusing to move out to allow vital renovation work from 2023, we can expect a repeat performance. Given the unpopularity of politicians, public enthusiasm may be even greater than it was two centuries ago. Yet what is going through MPs’ minds is anyone’s guess. Since Theresa May refuses them a vote on Brexit, prefers the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House as the location to deliver her most important speech to date and intends to amend or replace Brussels-originated laws with ministerial orders under “Henry VIII powers”, perhaps they have concluded that there’s no longer much point to the place.

 

As good as it gets

What a difference a year makes. In January 2016, supporters of Leicester City, my home-town team, were beginning to contemplate the unthinkable: that they could win football’s Premier League. Now, five places off the bottom, they contemplate the equally unthinkable idea of relegation.

With the exception of one player, N’Golo Kanté (now at Chelsea), the team is identical to last season’s. So how can this be? The sophisticated, mathematical answer is “regression to the mean”. In a league where money, wages and performance are usually linked rigidly, a team that does much better than you’d predict one season is likely to do much worse the next. I’d suggest something else, though. For those who won last season’s title against such overwhelming odds, life can never be as good again. Anything short of winning the Champions League (in which Leicester have so far flourished) would seem an anti­climax. In the same way, the England cricket team that won the Ashes in 2005 – after the Australians had dominated for 16 years – fell apart almost as soon as its Trafalgar Square parade was over. Beating other international teams wouldn’t have delivered the same adrenalin surge.

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era