Getty
Show Hide image

What does one read to cope with recent Earth-Shattering events?

As a dual US/UK citizen, I'm finding the best thing to do is seek distraction. But what genre of fiction can provide comfort?

I suppose the thing to do is to try not to think about it, but it’s not that easy. He does, after all, have the kind of irritant presence that makes him very hard to ignore, like a large, orange wasp; and his election is, of course, unignorably awful. The 9/11 attacks, the last unignorably awful thing that happened in America, was caused by a handful of maniacs. In this case, though the death toll is, for the time being, lower, we can point the finger at roughly 60 million people. (The turnout, I gather, was America’s second-lowest this century, so I suppose we really should be blaming the stay-at-homes.)

I’m sorry if you came to the back pages hoping for a respite, but I can’t think of anything else right now. Being a dual US/UK citizen, I find the result has an even larger claim on my attention than it does for most other people in this country, who also can’t think about anything else. (I am writing this on the Thursday morning after the election. If Trump has been jailed, or shot, in the intervening week then we’ll all be too busy celebrating. But bear in mind that there’s always his running mate – who is reliably, and much more consistently, wrong about everything it’s possible for a politician to be wrong about.)

The worst thing about the whole wretched business is that it clearly marks the suspension, if not the end, of the Enlightenment, as well as the unravelling of any kind of progressive ideal that has helped knit society together, however loosely. I feel most sorry for my children.

As for myself, in a way, it’s stopped me from worrying about anything else. Even being single, which is getting to be a real drag, isn’t so bad right now, as I’m not great company and my preferred tactic for dealing with the situation (staying in bed) probably wouldn’t go down well in a relationship.

The drag is that America, which I have always regarded as a place potentially to escape to, is, for the moment, no longer that attractive an option. Brexit has given this country licence to be nastier, and more deeply divided, than it was before; but that’s peanuts compared to what is going to happen in the United States.

Meanwhile, there remains the immediate problem of how we can cheer ourselves up. I would go down the traditional Drinking Heavily route, but I’m not sure my liver could take it. It’s already burdened enough. Perhaps I could try starting earlier. In fact, yesterday morning I found myself looking at the whisky bottle and thinking: “What about now?” I’ve never in my life thought about drinking in the morning, except on Christmas Day, with everyone else. (Which, as I get older, I’m not entirely sure is a good idea any longer. I must be getting soft.) There’s the antidepressant route, too – but then, the drug that will supply me with a girlfriend and also magically disappear the US president-elect and Theresa May has yet to be invented. LSD might make them irrelevant as far as I’m concerned, but I also have to work. Besides, I don’t know where to get hold of any, and haven’t for quite some time now.

So, I suppose it’s going to be my old friend, reading genre fiction. It’s been a while since I read any Sherlock Holmes. Maybe it’ll seem fresh again, although, having read each story and novel at least three times, I know that the element of mystery will have evaporated somewhat.

There’s always Wodehouse, who is widely recognised as a universal pick-me-up, but again, most of these have been read to death in the relatively recent past. What’s more, I’ve always found him more of a consolation for a broken heart than a balm for those living in the turbulence of Earth-Shattering political events.

Which leaves Agatha Christie. There are still plenty of hers I haven’t read. But, the Wodehouse caveat applies to her, too. (Naturally, I haven’t tried reading either of them in the turbulence of the recent ES political events, yet, but the whole point about consolation reading is that you know it’s going to console you. Conversely, you also know when it’s not going to.)

I suppose in the end it’s going to have to be work instead. I have another book to write, and though the payment for it works out at about the equivalent of £17 a week until it’s finished, it does mean that for the first month in God alone knows how many, I won’t be terrified of my bank statement by the beginning of the third week. So, work it is. Il faut cultiver notre jardin, whatever the hell that means.

Nicholas Lezard is a literary critic for the Guardian and also writes for the Independent. He writes the Down and Out in London column for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 17 November 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Trump world

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Philip Hammond's modest break with George Osborne could become more radical

The new Chancellor softened, rather than abandoned, austerity. But Brexit could change his course. 

The age of the imperial Chancellor is over. Gordon Brown and George Osborne relished in the theatricality of the Autumn Statement, springing policy surprises and roaming across departments.

Philip Hammond today drew the curtain on this era. As he paid tribute to a watching Osborne, he added: "My style will, of course, be different from his." He would "prove no more adept at pulling rabbits from hats" than "[the] Foreign Secretary has been at retrieving balls from the back of scrums" (a jibe which visibly unsettled Boris Johnson).

The new Chancellor was true to his word. His only surprise announcement was an anti-rabbit: the abolition of the Autumn Statement. Hammond has ended what was a second Budget in all but name. The effect was slightly undermined by the announcement of a Spring Statement (responding to the OBR's forecasts). But the change in style was unmistakeable. Hammond promised to avoid "a long list of individual projects being supported", casting himself as the nation's accountant, rather than an aspirant prime minister. 

But what of the substance? Osborne vowed in 2015 to deliver a budget surplus by the end of this parliament. Since then, as Hammond understatedly remarked, "times have moved on." The Leave vote, and the £59bn hit anticipated from Brexit, has ended what little hope there was of eliminating the deficit. The dry Hammond is no Keynesian but he recognises that the facts have changed. The ambition of a surplus has been postponed until the next parliament, with cyclically-adjusted borrowing only required to fall below 2 per cent by the end of this one (a looser target than Labour's). The national debt, which will peak at 90.2 per cent in 2017-18, is similarly not due to decline until 2020. 

In an age of uncertainty, Hammond has insured himself against economic calamity. But he deployed little of his potential firepower today. Though he explicitly borrowed to invest (as Ed Balls, rather than Osborne, proposed in 2015), he did so modestly: £23bn over five years. Austerity, Hammond made clear, has been modified, rather than abandoned. The departmental spending cuts announced last autumn remain in place and planned welfare reducations were softened, not scrapped. There was no new money for the NHS despite an ever-greater funding crisis. 

Osborne is gone, but Osbornomics endures. At Prime Minister's Questions, immediately before the Autumn Statement, Theresa May declared: "Austerity is about us living within our means". Yet Brexit, and all that could follow from it, could force its abandonment. If the "just managing" can manage no more, it would take a brave government to impose further deprivation. The sober Hammond is hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.