JULIAN ASSANGE UNDER SIEGE

On June 19 Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London and asked for political asylum. He had exhausted his appeals against extradition to Sweden to answer allegations of rape and sexual assault brought against him there by two women. In applying to Ecuador for asylum and putting himself beyond the reach of the British authorities, he is in breach of his bail conditions. He has consistently denied that there is any truth in the women’s allegations. No charges have been brought against him. Assange has offered to answer any questions the Swedish prosecutors may want to put to him in London, or via skype. He says that he has applied for political asylum because he fears that if he goes to Sweden he will be extradited from there to the United Sates where he could face life imprisonment or even the death sentence.

This story is unusually contentious for several reasons. It is worth trying to disentangle the various elements that have become so entangled that many who should know better seem no longer able to see the wood for the trees. First, there is the vital issue of Wikileaks and the explosive revelations that blew open, for the whole world to see, the United States’ and other governments’ closely guarded dirty secrets. This is the crux of the matter. Second, there are the rape and sexual assault allegations against Assange; third, there are further allegations leveled against him by his critics to the effect that he displays various personality defects; fourth and finally there is the latest development involving Ecuador and the diplomatic immunity of its embassy.

In 2010 Wikileaks released more than 250.000 secret US state department documents and The Guardian, The New York Times and other international media began publishing some of them. This was a tremendous victory for everyone genuinely committed to freedom of information and a tremendous blow to power elites everywhere who thrive on secrecy, lies and hypocrisy. The predictable cant from the US State Department and its media echoes, about the dire consequences of revealing confidential diplomatic conversations, belied their real alarm over, for example, irrefutable filmed evidence of US soldiers gratuitously gunning down civilians in Iraq. The insensate fury unleashed at times like this by those who wield state power against those who dare to expose the crimes they have tried so assiduously to conceal, has a revealing historical precedent. Following the Russian revolution, in 1918 the Bolsheviks published the secret treaties concluded during the First World War between the Tsarist government and its western allies, Britain and France. These concerned the disposal between them of the fruits of victory over Germany, exposing once and for all the lies and hypocrisy of their claims to be fighting a war “for democracy”. The allies’ response was to launch a war of intervention against Russia in an attempt to “strangle Bolshevism in the cradle”.

If anyone is in any doubt about what Julian Assange’s fate is likely to be if he is extradited to the United States, one has only to look at what is happening to the US soldier Bradley Manning. Arrested in Iraq in 2010, accused of providing documents to Wikileaks, he was held until 2011 at Quantico Marine Corps base in Virginia in conditions described as “cruel, inhuman and degrading”. In April last year 295 legal scholars signed a letter arguing that his treatment was a violation of the US constitution. He has been charged with “communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source” and “aiding the enemy”, which is a capital offense. According to his lawyers the government has deliberately overstated the harm that the release of the documents has caused, and overcharged Manning in order to get him to give evidence against Assange. Manning, if convicted, will most likely go to prison for life.

Assange’s critics (among them many who might have been expected to defend him) who are either ignorant of or unconcerned about what awaits him if he is extradited to the United States, should consider this. In 2010 Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein demanded that he be prosecuted under the draconian Espionage Act, shamefully introduced by President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 to prosecute anyone deemed to be opposed to US entry into the First World War. According to a leaked email, a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent politicians, Republican and Democrat, have called for him to be imprisoned for life. There is no room for complacency about this. The threat to Assange is very real.

Then there are the illusions about Swedish neutrality and its supposed glowing record in defense of human rights. Here again a little history is instructive. In 1973 a left-wing journal, Folket: Bild/Kulturfront, published a series of articles by Jan Guillou and Peter Bratt exposing a highly secret Swedish intelligence agency, the Intelligence Bureau, which was gathering information on Swedish leftists and others considered “security risks”. The IB operated outside the framework of state defense and intelligence organizations and there was no trace of it in budget allocations. The article claimed that IB staff engaged in break-ins, wire-tapping against foreign embassies, spying abroad and even murder. Names, details and photos of IB spooks were published under the heading “Spies”. Guillon, Bratt and other were arrested, tried in camera, convicted of espionage and jailed. Stieg Larsson’s best-selling novels are not so far from the truth.

More recently Ray McGovan, who was a CIA analyst for 30 years, says of Assange: “He was about to be sent to faux-neutral Sweden…which has a recent history of bowing to US demands in dealing with those that Washington says are some kind of threat to US security.” According to civil rights lawyer Glenn Greenwald, “Sweden has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US” and Assange’s “fear of ending up in the clutches of the CIA is plainly rational and well-grounded.” In 2006 the UN found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt where they were brutally tortured.

What of the rape and sexual assault allegations against Assange? It seems that many have already made up their minds about this. Despite the fact that he has not been charged, it seems to be widely accepted that he is guilty. Tempting though it may be to start arguing the pros and cons of the matter based on hearsay and speculation, it is preferable to say simply and firmly that unless and until he is found guilty of any offences, he is innocent. On the basis of what little evidence there is, it impossible to know whether the women’s accounts of what happened are true. Equally, it is impossible to be sure whether or not he was lured into a honey trap.  However, it is significant that in an article on 23 August, Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women against Rape, wrote: “The allegations against him are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on Wikileaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction.”  While making no judgment in this case, it is important, particularly for men, to be clear about the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in sexual relations with women.

Any attempt to pressurize a woman into having sexual intercourse against her will amounts to attempted rape and if persisted in to perpetration constitutes rape. Any perpetration of a sexual act against a woman who is drugged or asleep and therefore unable to give her consent, is rape. Obviously, in the case of a couple sleeping together in a loving and trusting relationship, where one may wake the other by touch or word to signify the desire for sex, this is self-evidently not a case of sexual assault or rape. All this should be obvious but as some men have recently expressed quite shocking opinions on this subject, it is important that other men make clear what is and what is not acceptable behavior in sexual relations between men and women.

Much has been written about Assange’s personality, most of it portraying him in a very negative light. Given the great work he has done through Wikileaks in exposing the lies, hypocrisy and brutality of those who wield power in some of the most powerful states in the world, and given the extreme danger he faces should he be extradited to the United States, his personal characteristics are entirely irrelevant. Whether they intend to or not, those who traduce him over such things are assisting his enemies who want to deliver him to pernicious US prosecutors seeking to imprison him for life. Character assassination is one of the weapons of destruction they are using against him.

The Ecuadorian government, to its great credit, has granted Julian Assange political asylum. The British government, to its shame, has not only declared that Assange will be immediately arrested if he tries to leave the Ecuadorian embassy, but further, on the basis of an obscure law passed in 1987, claims the right to enter the embassy to seize him. When President Correa, outraged by this claim, accused the British foreign office of threatening to storm the embassy, Foreign Secretary Hague, supported by much of the media, protested that the government had no such intention. Obviously concerned about the impact the threat would have in Latin America, the government tried to suggest that Correa had misrepresented the letter. But the message sent to Ecuador leaves no room for misinterpretation. If the British government claims the right to withdraw the diplomatic status of an embassy and enter its premises to seize someone who has been granted asylum there, it must be expected that any attempt to enter its premises will be resisted. To break that resistance, force would be required and that means the embassy would have to be stormed. The Ecuadorians understood the intention perfectly well. So did the rest of Latin America. At a meeting of the 35 member Organization of American States in Washington on 24 August all the Latin American countries expressed their “solidarity and support” for Ecuador’s stand. Only The US and Canada dissented.

Hague’s claim that Britain has no option but to extradite Assange to Sweden is also specious. Former Chilean dictator Pinochet was arrested in Britain in 1998 after Spain requested his extradition to face charges of multiple human rights violations. Pinochet was a friend of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher whose war against Argentina over the invasion of the Malvinas/Falkland islands in 1982 he supported.  Pinochet was not repatriated to Spain but allowed by then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to return to Chile on humanitarian grounds. President Correa was right to remind Hague of the inconsistency in the treatment of the two cases.

If justice is to be done in this case, the siege against Julian Assange must be lifted and he must be allowed to go unmolested to Ecuador. To achieve this outcome he deserves the full support of all who regard justice and the rule of law in international affairs as more than empty phrases.   

LONDON 2012: Olympic Gold and Economic Gloom

The last Letter from the UK was written more than two weeks ago as the Olympic Games opened in London. Yesterday the games closed with a spectacular party to match the opening ceremony. For sixteen days millions in Britain and, so we are told, billions worldwide have marveled at a brilliantly choreographed spectacle that put to shame the best efforts of Busby Berkeley and Cecil B. De Mille. The mainstream media, from The Guardian and New Statesman to the Sun, the BBC and every other commercial TV channel, were unanimous in their unstinting acclamation of “the best Games ever”. As Union flags were waved in their millions, the words of Britain’s monarchist anthem were invoked by IOC president Jacques Rogge, to conclude that the games had been “happy and glorious”.

Back in 2005 it was estimated that the 2012 London Olympics would cost £2bn. The actual cost has turned out to be £9bn. Although Britain is still stuck deep in depression, facing years of ever harsher austerity, according to a Guardian/ICM poll (11.08.) 55% of Britons consider that “the games are cheering up the country in hard times, and are well worth the money”. This is against 35% who regard them as a “costly distraction from serious economic problems”. It seems that the young are most enthusiastic, with 60% saying that the games are worth the money. Opinion in Scotland is less impressed, with only 42% holding this view while another 42% consider the games a costly distraction. A spokesperson for the Counter Olympics Network (Guardian, Letters 13.08) was quite encouraged by the dissent of more than a third of Britons from the majority view. Looked at from the standpoint of London during the games, this sounds a bit like whistling in the wind. Day after day the hundreds of thousands packing the stadiums, the teeming crowds at the Olympic park and the thousands lining the streets and routes of the numerous events could hardly be ignored - except by those who chose to stay at home and turn off their radios and television sets. The Counter Olympics Network critic is certainly right in remarking that “virtually the whole of the media and most politicians have lost all sense of proportion in a self-reinforcing orgy of Olympics hysteria”. But what did he expect? That’s what happens during the Olympic Games. To take only the last 20 years, from Barcelona in 1992 to London 2012, in each case the games have been a corporate bonanza in which all sense of proportion has been lost.  It might have been hoped, and possibly expected, that this time it would be different due to the dire economic climate in which the 2012 Games are being staged. But in Britain there are plenty of precedents for successful austerity jamborees, going right back to the 1930s and 1940s. This one has upstaged them all.

The 2012 games are no different from the others in having showcased corporate sponsorship. Everyone knows that the winning athletes, despite their formally amateur status, are set to make millions from promoting corporate brands, while most of the ‘losers’ will sink into oblivion. In an age of hyper-celebrity, the big winners will either reinforce their status as super-celebrities with multi-million earnings (Usain Bolt, whose net worth is about $30 million, could make $100 million by the time of the Brazil Olympics in 2016. He has made $9 million from Puma alone simply by wearing their brand of shoes), or enter the ranks of super-celebrities. Mo Farah, the 5.000 and 10.000 meter gold medalist, could make more than £2 million in sponsorship and advertising, while heptathlon gold winner Jessica Ennis, who has deals with Adidas, Omega, British Airways, Aviva and BP, stands to make £3.5 million. The biggest winners of course are the corporations whose brands the athletes’ endorse. Needless to say, most of the young people who rise to such dizzying heights of sports and athletic prowess are not at the outset motivated by the attractions of celebrity and money. They submit to rigorous regimes of training and self-discipline to achieve their goals. But, like professional footballers, they enter a world that is dominated by corporate power and finance and it is almost impossible to escape its clutches and its allures. Coming, as many in Britain and the United States do, from poorer ethnic minority backgrounds, the attractions are all but irresistible.( All but; one exception comes to mind because he has just died at the age of 60. The Cuban heavyweight boxing legend, Teofilo Stevenson won three successive gold medals at the Olympic Games in Munich, 1972, Montreal, 1976 and Moscow, 1980. The US promoter Don King offered him $5 million to challenge world heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali. He refused with the memorable comment “What is $5 million compared with the love of eight million Cubans?” The Guardian’s boxing correspondent commented recently: “Had he gone, he might well have won.”)

Does the prominent corporate profile and sponsorship mean that there is nothing to be said in support of the Olympic Games, and that the millions who have been captivated by the extraordinary performances of the athletes over the past two weeks are simply dupes of corporate capitalism? That doesn’t make much sense. No-one seriously thinks that McDonalds’ Cadbury’s, Coca Cola and the other prominently displayed sponsors are committed to promoting healthy living and athletic prowess. The G4S fiasco necessitating the use of the armed forces to fill the security breach and the placing of ground to air missiles on local people’s rooftops, together with numerous other examples of organizational bungling, obduracy and ineptitude, understandably caused much anger and resentment. But in spite of all this it has been possible to enjoy and applaud the magnificent achievements of the competitors. It is true that seats in the Olympic venues were priced beyond the reach of most people, but the millions who got nowhere near the action sat glued to giant screens in the open air or TV screens in their homes. And for so much of the time the action was breathtaking.

There was swimming and diving of unimaginable skill. Jessica Ennis’s heptathlon triumph was a joy to behold as was that of double gold cycling champion Laura Trott at the Veladrome. The tremendous performance by the Jamaican men’s relay team, led by the phenomenal Usain Bolt (who had already won gold in the 100m and 200m), clinched a third gold medal for Jamaica by beating the US in the 4x100m in a world record time of 36.85sec. It was a memorable event. Also wonderful to watch were the triumphs of British long distance runner Mo Farah, who won gold medals in the 5.000m and 10.000m. This modest Londoner came to Britain as a refugee from Somalia at the age of eight. These are simply some of the most prominent of the countless competitors who have performed so admirably in London over the past two weeks. Generally the games have gone smoothly and have provided a great experience for the hundreds of thousands of spectators. Now they are over and some evaluation is called for.

Some critics on the left have chosen to ignore the games, except for odd references to the excessive cost and their value to the political elite as a “bread and circuses” (minus the bread) distraction from the reality of increasingly hard times in austerity Britain. There is something in this but it is not good enough. The widespread public engagement with the games and the carnival atmosphere cannot be explained satisfactorily simply as media manipulation. The enthusiasm was genuine and cannot be wished away. How long the mood will last is another question. The successful outcome, particularly Britain’s surprising third place behind the USA and China in the gold medal awards, will certainly be exploited by the government and its media supporters to claim credit for the “feel good” factor. There is already evidence of what the coalition wants to get out of this. They hope that the games may encourage a re-awakening of British “national pride”, by which they mean opposition to Scottish national independence. This card is already being played by all three main parties and will be played harder as the referendum draws nearer. They also want to use thegames as a counter-point to the 2011 riots by claiming that the games represent everything best about Britain – particularly its multi-ethnicity, pride in endeavor and achievement, etc. as opposed to what is presented as the nihilism, ignorance and aimlessness of an unrepresentative section of youth whose behavior requires no explanation other than as mindless criminality. These are two examples of the way in which the “Olympic legacy” is likely to be exploited. In these and other respects the government

will try to distract attention from the miserable state of the economy. Due to the pig-headed pursuit of extreme austerity in the face of depression and mass unemployment, Osborne has succeeded in producing the double-dip recession many predicted. Even Mervyn King is now forecasting that there will be zero growth for the rest of 2012. But, there are grounds for optimism – at least concerning the coalition government’s chances of survival. Once the bunting has been cleared away and the hangover wears off, the real world will come back into perspective.

There are good grounds for thinking that the coalition will not survive until 2015. The Lib Dems have been subjected to extreme humiliation at the hands of their Tory partners. Last year they failed to get their referendum on reform of the electoral system and now they have failed again to get their bill on reform of the House of Lords. These were two of their showpiece policies on entering the coalition in 2010. In both cases their failure was down to sabotage by their Tory coalition partners who basically hold them in deep disdain. But Clegg seems to have had enough. He has announced publicly that the Lib Dems will not support the Tories in their bill to redraw Britain’s electoral boundaries to their own advantage. They appear only now to have woken up to the fact that, if passed, they are likely to be virtually wiped out in the next election – a fate quite likely anyway but, if the Tories get their bill, it would be even more likely. If the Lib Dems jump ship it would leave a minority Tory government limping along until parliament delivers the coup de grace.

Post Script 14. 08. 2012

Lest We Forget.

On August 14. large hoardings went up in London with the flowing message:

There would be no GOOSE BUMPS, GASPS, Records Smashed, Strangers Hugged, or a whole world brought together without the world wide Olympic Partners.

(There follows a long list of corporate sponsors including:)

Coca Cola, Dow, Omega, Panasonic, Visa, Adidas, BMW, BP, British Airways, BT, EDF, Lloyds TSB, Cadbury and McDonalds

We are never allowed for a moment to forget that without corporate sponsorship the most simple and spontaneous of human interactions could not take place. Of the £9bn it cost to stage the London Olympics, the sponsors paid only 6%. The rest came out of public funds.

BLAIR’S BLIGHTED LEGACY

Those who had hoped for serious and sustained opposition from Labour to the coalition government’s disastrous austerity policy, are understandably disappointed and frustrated by the limp and ineffective response that has been forthcoming. In the autumn of 2010, the surprise election of Ed Miliband, rather than his brother David, as leader of the party, gave grounds for thinking that there might be a decisive break with the legacy of New Labour. This has not happened. While the leading players from the Blairite years such as Mandelson, Straw, Reid, Blunkett and Clarke no longer occupy centre stage, there has been a marked reluctance on the part of Ed Miliband and the party leadership to confront and reject the ideology and practice of New Labour. Unless and until they do so they will be unable to mount an effective opposition to a government whose now plainly bankrupt austerity measures have resulted in a double-dip recession. It may be that the Labour leaders have deluded themselves into believing that the party’s stable opinion-poll lead means that they need do nothing but mount token opposition until the 2015 election which they assume  the government will lose.

The more likely explanation of their ineffectiveness in opposition is failure to break free from the debilitating grip of New Labour. Ed Miliband had the opportunity to do so but has so far failed to take it. Why? One explanation is that provided by the adherents of New Labour themselves. It goes like this: “Old Labour” had run its course by 1992. Neil Kinnock’s electoral defeat that year after thirteen years of Tory government, showed that “old left” social democracy was finished. All talk of socialism, nationalization, partnership with trades unions, over-indulgence of a “bloated” public sector, had to go. New Labour would beat the Tories at their own game. A “modernized” party, completely at ease with the financial sector and the corporate power-elite, would prove that it was better suited than the Tories to manage the economy. Fully committed to the neo-liberal “trickle-down” theory, they abandoned old Labour’s commitment to progressive taxation to achieve greater social equality. Instead they facilitated further deregulation of the financial sector and the promotion of London as the financial centre of the western world. Increased tax revenues would be used to fund programmes to reduce child poverty, such as Sure Start, and to improve performance in the National Health Service. However, in all areas of social policy, New Labour would encourage the involvement of the private sector through PFI’s (Private Finance Initiatives), which all too often would result in the privatization of public services. In fact, New Labour would embrace privatization more zealously than the Tories under Thatcher and Major.

Their theft of the emperor’s clothes left the Tories tired and disorientated. Blair’s election victory in 1997 was impressive. But it’s worth taking a closer look at New Labour’s electoral performance between 1997 and 2005, if only to challenge the myths about the supposed brilliance of Blair’s leadership in winning three successive victories at the polls. In 1997 New Labour swept into office after winning 418 seats against the Tories’ 165. New Labour took 43% of the popular vote; the Tories 30.7%. But it’s worth comparing this with the party’s performance in earlier elections. In 1945 Labour won with 49.7% of the vote (a performance never to be surpassed by any political party since) as against the Tories 36.2%. In the 1951 election which Labour lost to the Tories, they actually took a higher percentage of the popular vote (48.8%) than the Tories (48%) but only won 295 seats against the Tories 321. Labour was not to win again at the polls until 1964, but even in the 1959 election which was regarded as a humiliating defeat for Hugh Gaitskell, the party took 43.8% of the popular vote, more than Blair managed in his 1997 landslide. Harold Wilson, who scraped to victory in 1964 with an overall majority of only 4 seats, nevertheless managed 44.1% of the vote and his landslide victory of 1966 was won with 48%. The 1970 election (which Wilson lost to Heath) was the last for nine years in which any party took more than 40% of the popular vote. Thatcher’s victory of 1979 was won with 43% against Labour’s 36.9%. The party did not manage to poll over 40% of the vote again until 1997.

New Labour’s electoral record since then has been distinctly unimpressive. It has been made to look impressive only because of the abysmal performance of the Tories. In 2001 New Labour won 413 seats with 40.7% of the vote against the Tories 166 seats with 31.7%. 2005 was the nadir of New Labour’s fortunes before the party finally lost office in 2010. Blair won the election (355 seats against the Tories 198) with 35.2% of the vote. The Tories failed to gain an overall majority in 2010 on 36.1%. But the more important story is about the turnout in elections since 1945.

Until 1997 turnout for national elections in the UK was over 70%. In 1950 and 1951 it peaked at 83.9% and 82.6%. 1997 saw the lowest turnout since 1935 at 71.4%. The 2001 election recorded the lowest turnout (59%) since 1918. But the worst result for New Labour was 2005; 35% of the vote on the basis of a turnout of 61.4%. is abysmal. This was Blair’s last election before leaving office. It is worth remembering just how little support he had.

Perhaps none of this would matter very much if the parliamentary Labour party had learned anything from the extent of the disillusionment with New Labour, and more generally with parliamentary politics. The coalition government is becoming more unpopular by the day. In a situation crying out for clear and decisive opposition, there is timidity and dithering. Opposition to austerity is not confined to leftists and trade union activists. Liberal Keynesian economists such as Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have presented cogent arguments calling for an end to austerity now. No-one in government wants to listen to them. The same goes for the Labour opposition. Ed Miliband and shadow chancellor Ed Balls repeat the mantra that the government “is cutting too far and too fast” – hardly a clarion-call to action against the cuts.

Today, (27 July), the 2012 Olympic Games will formally open in London. The next Letter from the UK will, no doubt, find something of interest to say about them. London, we are told – and have every reason to believe – will be gripped for two weeks by “Olympiamania.” In the build-up to this it has not passed without notice that Tony Blair has accepted the role of adviser to the Labour party on the Olympic legacy. He is apparently qualified to dispense such advice as he was leader of the party and prime minister when Britain was awarded the Games in 2005. In what should be a cautionary note for Labour, a recent poll found that if Blair were leader of the party it would score three points lower than it does under Miliband. Yet he says he is “ready for a comeback.” He wants to re-engage with British politics. He thinks enough time has passed since 2007 for people to have forgotten about the Iraq war. As he always said about anything that caused him trouble “it is time to move on.”

It is astonishing and dismaying that this megalomaniac mediocrity is still regarded with respect by Miliband and those around him. Even if we ignore the serious accusation against him that he should, along with G.W. Bush, face charges for war crimes over Iraq, there are numerous other reasons for judging him utterly unsuitable for any role whatsoever in the Labour party. Since leaving office in 2007 he has single-mindedly pursued the objective of making himself very rich very fast. He has been very successful and is rumoured to have made as much as £80 million. In 2011 he made £20 million advising business chiefs and foreign governments. His business consultancy, Tony Blair Associates, advises among others, the governments of Kuwait and Kazakhstan on human rights issues. The Kazakh regime has paid him $13 million. The advice he gives to J.P. Morgan is supposedly worth the £2.5 Million a year he is paid.  He is highly regarded by the corporate elite as an after-dinner speaker, charging as much as £200.000 a go for his services. But for all the millions he made last year, thanks to the complicated web of companies he has set up for the purpose, he has only paid a fraction in tax.

It seems he is touched by what he regards as the unfair criticism he has faced from those who have failed to understand him. He has never ceased telling the world how passionately he believes in what he has done, and what he does. He is, after all, a deeply sincere Catholic. He has set up a faith foundation to bring people of different beliefs together. As envoy for the Middle East Quartet (the UN.EU.US and Russia) he has responsibility for implementing the peace process between Palestine and Israel. According to Nabil Shaath, aide to Mahmoud Abbas, Blair “talks like an Israeli diplomat selling their policies.” He has been accused of using the position for his own personal enrichment.

All these extraordinary achievements since leaving office have left Blair unsatisfied. He has hinted that he would like to be prime minister again. He has even hired a new spin doctor (no doubt Alastair Campbell has other fish to fry) to help polish his tarnished image. One is tempted to laugh out loud (LOL). It is difficult to imagine how anyone with any sense at all could begin to take the prospect of a Blair comeback seriously. Let’s hope that Ed Miliband comes to his senses. But one is reminded of Tom Lehrer’s reaction in 1973 when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s time to retire, he is supposed to have said. There is no room for satire in the world any more.

BANKSTERS IN THE DOCK. Too Big to Jail?

In the immediate aftermath of last summer’s riots in English cities, Deputy Assistant Metropolitan Police Commissioner Stephen Kavanagh, told the BBC on August 11 2011 that he was unhappy with the light sentences the courts were handing down for looters. The message must have got through to the magistrates pretty quickly. On August 12 a 21 year old student with no previous convictions received the maximum permitted six months sentence for the theft of bottles of water valued at £3.50.  On August 31 an eleven year old boy was sentenced to an eighteen month youth rehabilitation order for stealing a waste bin. These are just two of numerous similar sentences, some much harsher, that have been handed down since then.

The Banksters, of course, are most definitely not in the dock - except in the metaphorical sense that they stand arraigned in the court of public opinion – a plight that doesn’t seem to trouble them overmuch.  But, in the actual system of justice, they await prosecution. Since the onset of the great financial crisis in 2008, which brought the global economy to the brink of collapse and visited increasing hardship and misery on the millions who have been made to pay the price for their criminality, not a single bankster has gone to jail in Britain. The most recent example of the egregious greed and impunity that characterizes these permanently impenitent masters of the universe, has been evident in the Libor scandal, and, in particular in the behaviour of Barclays Bank’s former chief executive, Bob Diamond. But before saying more about this latest revelation in the sleazy saga of malfeasance, malpractice, corruption and criminality that passes as Business as Usual for Britain’s Big Banks, it is worth recalling an earlier episode involving Barclays.  Representatives of the corporate and political power elite who have been exposed to public scrutiny for wrongdoing of one kind or another, like to think, and hope, that most people have short memories; what may capture the headlines for a day or two will be forgotten in as many weeks. As Tony Blair was fond of saying about the Iraq fiasco, ‘It’s time to move on.’ Or, as Diamond himself said in 2011, ‘There was a period of remorse and apology for banks and I think that period needs to be over.’ Time to move on. Because the earlier episode, now more than three years old, has been largely forgotten, it is worth reprising it in some detail.

On April 5 2009,  Letter from the UK dealt with an attempt by the Structured Capital Market’s department of Barclays Bank to cover up complex tax avoidance schemes which made the bank between £900 million and £1 billion (The Great Financial Crisis: What the people need to know but must not be allowed to find out.) A whistleblower at SCM had passed documents detailing these operations to Vince Cable, who was then economics spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. (Cable has since become secretary of state for business in the coalition government and is markedly more cautious than he was then). Cable passed them to The Guardian. On March 17 the paper ran a front page article and a double page centre-spread plus an editorial on the story. The secret documents were posted on The Guardian’s website. Barclays’ lawyers woke a judge at 2.10 am that morning and persuaded him to impose an injunction on the paper forcing the removal of the documents from the website. The case went to the High Court the next day and the court ruled in favour of Barclays. The documents had to be removed from the website. Ridiculously, the judge also ruled that The Guardian be banned from providing information about the documents and from ‘inciting’ or ‘encouraging’ others to view evidence that was publicly available, about the bank’s massive tax avoidance schemes. A few days later The Guardian published copies of seven documents with the text blacked out. Beneath was a summary of the contents, followed by comments from the paper’s tax expert. On March 26, the Lib Dem’s Treasury spokesman, Lord Oakshott, taking advantage of parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech, told the House of Lords that the documents were widely available on internet sites such as Twitter, Wikileaks.org  etc.

The whistleblower provided evidence of a scheme codenamed Project Knight. In summary it showed that the SCM sought to put about $16bn into US loans via a complex scheme involving companies in the Cayman Islands, US partnerships and Luxembourg subsidiaries. Tax benefits would be generated through a £4bn deal with North Carolina Branch Banking and Trust Co. Two larger schemes were identified by The Guardian involving loans of $6bn and $7bn. The whistleblower claimed that the sole purpose of SCM was to make profits from ‘tax trades’. Apparently in one year ‘the SCM made between £900 million and £1bn profit from tax avoidance.’ All this was legal. So why was Barclays so desperate to hide these activities from the public?

The April 2009 article went on to note that, unlike other banks, Barclays had avoided seeking assistance from the government. But it had applied to participate in a government insurance scheme which would provide taxpayer protection against loses of about £80bn of toxic assets. This was the reason the bank needed to conceal the scale of its tax avoidance. It employed highly paid lawyers to devise the schemes that would remain undetected by the government’s revenue office – HMRC. Lord Oakshott famously described HMRC’s attempts to detect the bank’s tax avoidance as resembling ‘a fat policeman chasing a speeding Ferrari’.

How does this relate to the Libor scandal? Unlike RBS and LloydsTSB/HBOS, Barclays turned down a cash injection from the government in 2008. Referring to the ‘strength of its well-diversified business and existing capital base’, the bank announced that it planned to raise £6.5bn from the market. But this was hot air. It is now clear that between 2005 and 2009, Barclays (and no doubt many other banks world-wide now under investigation) rigged the inter-bank lending rate for Libor (London inter-bank offered rate). Its traders manipulated  the bank’s submissions when dealing with other banks’ traders to their own and the other traders’ personal pecuniary advantage.  In 2008, during the banking crisis, the Libor submissions were rigged in order to make the rate look lower than it actually was, thereby reducing concerns about the bank’s stability. In one way or another, these scams, involving a £350 trillion market, operated for nearly five years and adversely affected the cost of borrowing for millions throughout the world.

During these years Bob Diamond, was CEO of Barclays Capital, the investment division of the bnk, where the scam was operating.  At his appearance before the less than rigorous interrogators of the Treasury Select Committee in early July, shortly after being fired as Barclays CEO, he said how sorry he was that the illegal rate-fixing had occurred but denied that he had known anything about it. It had, he claimed, all been perpetrated by 14 rogue traders. This was all too reminiscent of the claims by News International’s executives that phone-hacking had been confined to a few rogue reporters. The rogue traders in question, who were not named, had all been either dismissed or they had moved on. No-one has been arrested.  Barclays has been fined nearly £290 million (£59 million in the UK and £230 million in the US) – peanuts when set against the astronomical sums involved in the illicit trading over many years. Diamond himself has announced that he will forego this year’s £2 million bonus. For all except those as corrupted as Diamond is by the unfathomable culture of corporate greed, it is difficult to keep a straight face. Since 2006 he has been paid £98 million and it is estimated that he could walk away with as much as another £22 million in free shares and contractual bonuses. Lesser, but still eye-watering sums are likely to be awarded to his deputy, Jerry del Missier, who has also resigned. It’s as well to remember that we are no longer in the realm of untenable claims about the need to pay ‘top salaries for top quality executives’ to staff a ‘financial services industry second to none’. This is a world where, in Will Hutton’s words ‘men and women with little skill and no moral compass can become very rich very fast’.

The 2009 Letter from the UK concluded with these observations about the Structured Capital Markets division of Barclays:

‘The whistleblowers describe a hierarchical, macho culture of bullying and callous insensitivity. Those at the top of the pile display all the worst characteristics associated with power and extreme wealth – arrogance, contempt bordering on sadism for subordinates, and megalomania. The avoidance of tax by means of exploiting loopholes is seen as the raison d’etre of the unit.’

That was three years ago. The revelations that have emerged so far in the Libor scandal show that nothing has changed. Those who perpetrated the SCM tax-avoidance schemes, and those who still defend such practices, argue that as they are not illegal there is no case to answer. Moral questions are for moralists, not for financiers. We now know that the banks have been covering up organized illegal practices on a colossal scale. Claims that their operations are essential in the interests of economic growth are now threadbare. ‘Investment banking’, says Will Hutton, ’is an organized scam masquerading as a business.’

Have the revelations that have emerged so far, and the further revelations surely still to come, brought us to a moment of truth about the intrinsic nature of finance monopoly capitalism, and the deepening crisis of that system? It is tempting to think it has. But one should never underestimate the determination of the 1% - the corporate, financial and political power elites - to hold on to their power and to shift the burden of their crisis onto the rest of us – the 99% who are now expected to pay the bill. It has been estimated that every  ‘man, woman and child in Britain has already handed over £19,271’ to the banks. (Aditya Chakraborrty 03.07.120 ) It is becoming clearer by the day that this is the worst crisis the global capitalist system has faced for a century.  A few weeks ago, thousands of people, young and old, gathered in London for the annual ‘Festival of Marxism’. It was an uplifting event, extending over five days. Many crucial issues were addressed by an impressive array of speakers. There was animated discussion and great enthusiasm. It showed that there is a deep desire to understand what has led to this crisis and a determination to do something about it.

But the burning question is- to coin a phrase - What is to be Done? If the crisis is to be confronted and overcome in such a way as to ensure that the system is changed root and branch, a clear-sighted mass movement will have to be built. It will need to formulate  demands which challenge the unsustainable status quo and the power elite whose interests it serves. If such movements can be built here and throughout Europe and beyond, in the coming months and years, there is reason to hope that the 99% will prevail. 

A GREEK TRAGEDY: ACT III, SCENE I…..etc

This time, some would have us believe, it will be different. The result of the re-run election on the 17 June, means, we are told, that Greece and Europe have been saved from the catastrophe that surely would have followed if the Left alliance, Syriza, had won an overall majority. ‘Greece’, the pundits claim with a sigh of relief, ‘has voted to implement the “memorandum” and stay in the eurozone.’ Really?

If we look carefully at the results of the two elections, held in May and June, the picture that emerges hardly justifies the conclusion that, in the words of the Guardian’s headline on June 18, ‘Greece gives Europe a chance.’ In the May election the parties committed to implementing the EU imposed austerity programme, the conservative New Democracy and social democratic Pasok, took between them 32% of the popular vote, which translated into 149 seats in the 300 seat Greek parliament. The clearly anti-austerity parties of the left, Syriza and the KKE (communists) took between them 25.26% of the popular vote, giving them 78 seats. But then, of the other smaller parties, DIMAR (Democratic Left) and the neo-Nazi XA (New Dawn) were opposed to the austerity measures. Together they won 40 seats (19 to DIMAR and 21 to XA), 13.08% of the popular vote. Thus, in May, 38.34% of the Greek electorate cast their votes unmistakably against the bail-out and the austerity measures.  If one includes the right-wing nationalist Anel (Independent Greeks) party, also generally anti-bailout, which took 10.60% of the vote, 48.94% of the electorate voted for parties opposed to the austerity programme. But this does not accurately reflect the nature and scale of the seething anger and despair in Greek society. There is no doubt that large numbers who voted in May for Pasok, and even for New Democracy, did so in the hope that these parties would attempt to obtain less onerous terms from the EU leaders and ease the burden of austerity.

The most remarkable development in the contemporary Greek tragedy has been the rise of Syriza, the coalition of the radical left, as the main challenger to New Democracy and Pasok. After the failure of the two leading pro-bail-out parties to form a government following the May election, a united front of conservative, liberal and right-wing social-democratic forces in Europe and beyond concentrated their fire on Syriza. If the Greeks were to be so foolish as to elect a government led by radical leftists hell-bent on rejecting the austerity measures to which both Pasok and the coalition had signed up, the country would be cut adrift from the eurozone; life-support would be cut off and within weeks Greece would collapse into bankruptcy and penury. No effort was spared in a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the June election. What was the result?

To an extent, the scare tactics worked. The distribution of votes between the parties shifted markedly. New Democracy with 29.66% of the vote gained 129 seats. This was a 10.81% increase in their share of the vote, giving them 11 more seats than in May. But Pasok’s vote fell from 13.18% to 12.28% with a loss of 8 seats (41 to 33). The nationalist Anel vote dropped 3% to 7.51%, with a loss of 13 seats (33 to 20) and the communist KKE suffered a serious reversal, reducing its representation from 26 to 12 seats. The Democratic Left and the neo-Nazis roughly maintained the level of their support in May. But Syriza dramatically increased its support, taking 26.89% of the vote as opposed to 16.78% in May, with an increased representation from 52 to 71 seats. Those uninformed about the peculiarities of the Greek electoral system may wonder how it is that a party (ND) with 29.66% of the vote wins 129 parliamentary seats, while the runner up, Syriza, with 26.9%  gains only 71 seats. Purely on the basis of fairness of distribution, ND should have 79 seats. But the electoral arrangements specify that the party that has the highest percentage of the popular vote is awarded an extra 50 seats. This privilege is supposed to ensure stable government. It is unlikely to do so this time.

Antonis Samaras, the leader of New Democracy, has formed a coalition government relying on support from Pasok, Anel and DIMAR. It will be inherently unstable and unlikely to survive for very long. Samaras and Venizelos (leader of Pasok) are both pledged to implement the severe austerity measures attached to the latest tranche of the bail-out. At best they may be able to wrest a few concessions from their paymasters, probably amounting to little more than extra time to implement the draconian cuts still to come. Their coalition ‘partners’ are unlikely to remain quiescent as the inevitable strikes and street demonstrations gather pace during the summer. Venizelos, who as a minister in the Pasok government liked to cultivate the image of a leftist, is vulnerable to pressure from what remains of his Pasok base. Leaving aside the neo-Nazis whose main activity is likely to be an escalation of violence against immigrants, leftists and trade unionists, the other left factions represented in parliament, the KKE and DIMAR may well see their ext5ra-parliamentary base eroded by desertions to Syriza.

It has been suggested that this result is very pleasing to Syriza leader, Alexis Tsipras. He has refused an invitation to join the government and has declared that he will lead a determined opposition against the austerity ‘memorandum’. Almost certainly the next act of the Greek drama will be determined by events outside parliament. The die is now cast; the ‘troika’ of the European Commission, the European Central bank and the IMF will expect the Samaras government to honour its pledge. And that means turning the screws still harder on the long-suffering Greek people. Sooner or later – and it’s likely to be sooner – this unstable coalition is likely to break down in recrimination and acrimony. First to break ranks is could be DIMAR. This is a leftist grouping that is unlikely to stomach for long the ignominy of association with parties seen by most working class people as agents of their oppressors. Should the government suffer parliamentary serious reverses while trying to face down the rising tide of popular opposition, its defeat seems inevitable. There could be new elections before the end of the year. The beneficiary will be Syriza.

Syriza is a new phenomenon on the left in Europe. It is an alliance of groups from different sections of the old left, generally dissatisfied with the sectarianism and dogmatism of the unreconstructed communists and other Marxist organizations, but also determined to break with the bureaucracy and reformism of social-democracy, represented primarily by Pasok. It is rather similar to the new formations on the left that have arisen in Latin America, such as Evo Morales’s movement in Bolivia or the Bolivarian revolutionary movement in Venezuela. Should Tsipras find himself, as the leader of a mass movement outside parliament, in a position to form a government, this could be a situation without precedent in modern European history. A radical socialist movement, committed to breaking decisively with the disastrous austerity policy that has been an unmitigated disaster for the majority of the Greek people, would have to decide whether to compromise with political representatives of the Greek ruling class and betray its mass base, or to maintain its commitment to principle and face the inevitable onslaught from the ruling class and the European political elites. In this greatest capitalist crisis since the 1930s we could also be approaching, for the first time in nearly 100 years in Europe, a truly revolutionary moment.

The crisis enveloping Greece, which has resulted in levels of poverty and misery not seen since the Second World War, is not confined to Greece. The contagion is spreading to Spain and Italy. Yields on Spanish government bonds have gone over 7%. No-one has any idea how the limited coffers of the European Financial Stability Facility or its successor, the European Stability Mechanism, will be able to bail out Spain and Italy.  No longer is it possible to dismiss as deluded Cassandras those who have talked of the crisis of capitalism. The crisis is upon us and it is not going to go away. And it is global. From Washington to China, governments are looking apprehensively at Europe, fearful of what will happen if the eurozone breaks up and the currency collapses. And Greece is in the eye of the storm. It is impossible to know exactly how the drama there will play out. But it is certain to be long and painful for the Greek people. 

There is always the danger that Syriza may succumb to internal feuding. Unfortunately that has been a characteristic of the left for a long time and the internal disputes have not always been about matters of burning principle. The danger of this happening is probably as great as the danger of unprincipled compromise with political forces on the right. Political office can have a subtle tendency to corrupt even those who start with their principles intact. But commitment to stay within the eurozone should not be regarded as a political principle by a party of the left. Syriza, in the weeks and months ahead, should be re-thinking its policy on the euro, even if only because, should it come to power, it may have no choice in the matter. There are grounds for being optimistic. This is a movement with real passion, energy and courage. It is a young movement with a young leadership. It could well sound the clarion call for a new departure in Europe. 

JUBILEE: What’s It All About?

‘Jubilee’ comes from the Hebrew word ‘Yovel’, meaning an outburst of joy, or a trumpet blast of liberty. From the Hebrew scriptures, it refers to a year of rest to be observed every 50^th year, during which slaves were to be set free. ‘Concentrate the 50^th year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you.’ (Leviticus 25) For African Americans in the ante-bellum south during the long years of slavery, the concept of a jubilee came to have an almost mystical significance. The ‘year of jubilee’ was one of the expressions slaves used to refer to a time when their enslavement would come to an end. Then came Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, issued on January 1^st 1863, during the civil war. It was ‘the great day of Jubilee’ for the emancipated slaves and for all freedom-lovers. Thus, in its biblical and historical context, ‘jubilee’ is a celebration of liberation.

The celebration of Elizabeth II‘s diamond jubilee during the first days of June was entirely devoid of any such associations. Most nations have founding myths, which are just that – myths. But when US citizens celebrate The Fourth of July (Independence Day) and French citizens celebrate The Fourteenth of July (Bastille Day), we may assume that most of them associate those dates with historical events leading to the foundation of the independent national states to which they belong. Terms such as ‘conceived in liberty’ and ‘liberty, fraternity, equality’, are part of their national identity. In Latin America, despite cynical exploitation by generations of dictatorial and authoritarian regimes, concepts of anti-colonial liberation, social justice and revolution, associated with ‘Libertadores’ such as Bolivar, Marti and Zapata, live on in the memories and aspirations of the people. National anthems are supposed to capture this spirit. Whatever divisions and conflicts may afflict the nation (and one doesn’t have to look far to see plenty of evidence of divided and conflict-ridden nations), the anthems are national and they proclaim a mythical unity which can be a powerful ideological force. National anthems do not pre-date the formation of nation states. The nationalism they proclaim is still a relatively new phenomenon, in most cases dating from the 19^th and 20^th centuries. The British ‘national’ anthem is not national in the sense of most of the others. In fact it is not a national anthem at all. It is a monarchist hymn – a paean to the monarch. It is astonishing that the sheer idiocy of the words of the monarchist anthem do not seem to trouble either the monarch to whom they are addressed or those of her subjects who are still prepared, or required, on occasion to intone them. The first verse, imploring the Almighty to ‘save’ the Queen and to ‘set her victorious, long to reign over us’ are well known. It is doubtful whether more than one in thousands knows the second and subsequent verses. The second alone will suffice to get a sense of what follows it:

‘O Lord God arise
Scatter our enemies
And make them fall!
Confound their knavish tricks
Confuse their politics
On you our hopes we fix
God save the Queen!

This antiquated, embarrassing nonsense must be unique amongst anthems for being so totally out of touch with anything relating to this or any other country during the past 250 years. Actually it relates to events that occurred more than 250 years ago. It was first sung in support of the Hanoverian George II at the time of the Jacobite rebellion of 1745 and it contained a verse imploring the Almighty to crush ‘rebellious Scots’. Needless to say, that verse has been abandoned.

The diamond jubilee was a very big event in Britain, though more particularly in England. The news media covered it unsparingly and effusively. It is tempting to compare the obsequies of the BBC and the national press, and the cheering throngs of flag-waving fans, to the stage-managed public adulation accorded 20^th century dictators and those still surviving into the 21^st century. But such comparison is not quite accurate. In most of the latter cases it is fair to say that the crowds would not have turned out to cheer had they not been compelled to do so. The hundreds of thousands who lined London’s streets and riverside for the processions and the flotilla, and the millions who attended street parties throughout the land, were not compelled to do so. They did so willingly and for the most part apparently enthusiastically, despite persistent rainfall on Sunday, 3 June, which dampened the monarch’s passage along the river. Anyone watching the event on television could be in no doubt that the enthusiasm was entirely spontaneous.

The only other occasion in recent times when crowds of this size have turned out for a ‘royal’ event was the funeral of Princess Diana in 1997. But this was in some respects an ‘anti-royal’ event. Then, the complex motivations (including reaction to high-octane, emotional media coverage) that brought so many onto the streets in a conspicuous show of public grief, expressed serious criticism of the monarch and the heir to the throne. The queen and other members of the royal family were seen as cold and aloof and largely responsible for ostracizing Diana. Prime Minister Blair’s brainwave, describing her as the ‘People’s Princess’, was very effective PR. The ‘outpouring of grief’, largely media-induced, had the possibly unintended consequence of further damaging the standing of the monarch in the eyes of the public. How then can we explain the dramatic turn-around in her public image since then? From a cold, distant, uncaring elderly figure she has been miraculously transformed into everybody’s aged aunt, presiding somewhat inscrutably, but with quiet dignity over her grateful subjects. The Duke of Edinburgh, widely regarded as a tiresome buffoon, has now become the old, but still upright uncle about whose ailing health we are all apparently concerned.

The transformation is, in part at least, the result of a carefully planned and thoroughly executed public relations rebranding exercise. In a New Statesman article (Queen of Spinners. 4.June 2012), George Pascoe-Watson, a partner at the PR firm Portland Communications, reveals how this was accomplished. Public disenchantment with the royal family began before the death of the Princess of Wales. The break-up of Charles and Diana’s marriage, the exemption of the Queen and the Duke from payment of income tax and, despite their fabulous wealth, their refusal to meet the cost of the refurbishment of Windsor Castle, led to deep public resentment. The Queen’s popularity reached an all-time low after the death of Diana. According to Pascoe-Watson, she personally initiated the rebranding exercise. It has been carried through with almost military precision, which is not surprising given that the PR teams engaged to manage it include a former Ministry of Defence communications professional - wife of an ex Royal Navy officer, an ex-army former UN adviser in the Balkans, an ex-SAS officer and a former Foreign Office and MoD press officer. The PR teams are responsible for the public presentation of the Queen and the Duke, Prince Charles, the princes William and Harry and Kate Middleton. ‘The only sources of stories ‘, writes Pascoe-Watson, ‘are official ones – or the royals themselves when they are on public display.’ …’Nowadays, nothing is published that the royal family doesn’t wish to see in broadcast.’ Interestingly, he claims that ‘An operation has begun, it seems, to bolster Prince Charles among the British public in preparation for his accession to the throne.’

For months the PR exercise has been in overdrive building up to the Jubilee. It has been very successful. At a time of increasingly painful austerity, with the economy in a double-dip recession and the international situation growing grimmer by the day, this extravaganza seems to have diverted very large numbers of people of all classes. Even though it may be largely forgotten by most of them in a week or so, it is nevertheless a phenomenon that cannot be ignored by the minority of republicans in Britain whose voices were drowned out by media hype and celebrants’ cheers. Even The Guardian, a paper which many years ago nailed its colours to the republican mast, devoted a full five pages to the jubilee on 4 June. The peculiarity of all this is striking if one tries to imagine any other liberal democracy where a head of state, elected or not and however old, could be feted so fulsomely and for so long in this way. The Scandinavian countries? Belgium? Holland? Spain? Germany? France? Why then, Britain?

Even allowing for a skillful PR exercise orchestrated from Buckingham Palace, and for the power of the media to march in lock-step with it, it is still extraordinary – and extraordinarily depressing – that the rational voice of republicanism could be effectively laughed out of court as irrational, drowned out by the royalist ballyhoo. It can be partly explained by the present public contempt for establishment politicians and also by the fact that there is no really effective opposition to the disastrous policies of the Con-Lib Dem government. In this situation, the story that the monarch is ‘above politics’ and a stabilizing force, or a calm, steady presence in an uncertain world, is one that many are prepared to listen to.

But the truth is that this monarch, like her forbears is actually a mediocrity. She belongs to an undistinguished aristocratic line whose connection with and understanding of ordinary people is minimal to say the least. Her overriding interest seems to be horse-racing. The institution itself is an anachronism; a long past its sell-by date vestige of an undemocratic past .The very notion that a democracy could possibly entertain as its head of state someone, whoever it may be, whose claim to office rests on the hereditary principle, essentially on some version of ‘divine right’, should be regarded by all rational people as preposterous.

But, there is a glimmer of hope that before too long the public mood may change so that such an absurdity is no longer acceptable. The Queen’s mother lived to be 101. There is a good chance that heredity, aided by the best medicine that money can buy, may allow the Queen to live as long, or longer. Should she do so, the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, will be 77 and his spouse, Camilla will be 79. Imagine the coronation! So, here’s wishing Her Majesty a long, long life. Long may she reign!