You can blame part of it on Margaret Thatcher. It was she who brought some of the worst characteristics of the British temper to the surface and made them respectable: parochialism, petty nationalism, distrust of strangers (the Americans excepted), dog eat dog, and that long tradition of petty-bourgeois stoicism, tolerating the second rate from government and the public sector -- hospitals, trains, schools and so on.
Her originality was to shake the moribund British economic tree until its leaves fell off, revealing a new hard working, thrifty, go-for-it populace -- only 20-30 percent of the population, but that was enough -- that would, by earning more, be able to buy privately what it did not really like in the public sector. All this still lives on after four years of Labour government and will be, doubtless, alive and healthy at the end of another five-year term, unless Prime Minister Tony Blair is suddenly struck by lightening on the way to Buckingham Palace.
You can blame some of it too on John Major, Thatcher's successor. It wasn't so much that he carried on the Thatcherite revolution of privatisation with an earnestness that led to the terrible mistakes of the rail system, it was the way he resigned immediately on losing the election. If he had hung on for six months as leader of the opposition, Chris Patten would have had time to finish his term of office as governor of Hong Kong, return to Britain, win a seat at Westminster in a by-election and then assume the leadership of the Conservative Party.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
It was both an act of betrayal and an act of small mindedness. The former because it was Patten who, as chairman of the party, had won Major his second term in office against all predictions and the latter because it threw the Conservatives into the hands of the narrowest of ideologues, led by little Englanders who seemed totally out of touch with the realities of an emerging Europe that celebrates both its strengths and diversity through its unity, and who hark back to some bygone age when closeness to Washington was Britain's only political option.
If Patten had led the Conservatives then a referendum on Europe would have been, by now, long over and done with, and Britain a signed up member of the euro-currency club from the onset, taking its place as one of the major creative forces in building a war-free Europe, which is what all this binding and building is ultimately about.
As it was, Blair, despite an enormous majority that should have enabled him, as far as the electorate was concerned, to walk on water, became frightened at the prospect of calling a referendum with the Conservatives against him and, more importantly, the conservative press, owned by North Americans -- itself a quite ludicrous state of affairs since neither Rupert Murdoch nor Conrad Black have any compunction about using supposedly impartial media outlets to tell the government and a good slice of the electorate what to do over Europe.
This tells us a lot about Blair, a "nice guy" as Polly Toynbee, the shrewd commentator of The Guardian tells us. "Not cynical, not world-weary, his easy sincerity is entirely convincing: he plainly wants to do good. But at each meeting the puzzle is always the same: what holds him back from a great leap forward?" Blair does not set out to challenge long held British attitudes, now alive and well again after the renovation work done on them by Margaret Thatcher.
As Toynbee says, "A bolder leader might challenge popular apathy, ignorance, indifference, unambition and intellectual idleness by offering something more than amelioration."
An attitude of caution perhaps more understandable from Bill Clinton who, for most of his time in office, had a hostile Congress arrayed against him, but less explicable for Blair who commanded an enormous majority and who has never seemed in doubt of winning another one.
I have watched this election from the home of my dying mother-in-law in Sweden, at peace that my vote won't count and knowing that, for the first time in my 40 years of voting, there is no party on offer I really want to vote for.
But Sweden sparks another thought as yet one more time family events lead me to observe close up how another nation runs its public services. How, for example, Swedish retirement homes and hospitals manage to maintain such high levels of medical excellence, the kindest of nursing care for the dying, coupled with very pleasant surroundings that would shame even the toppest notch of America's private sector.
I have long wondered why Blair doesn't hop on a plane for a 90-minute journey here, followed by the press pack, while he spends two weeks educating himself and the media behind him on what can work in the public sector, how it works and why it works. Blair could do anything he wants and get away with it. He could put Britain at the centre of Europe. He could challenge -- and change -- the British tolerance for the second-rate. He could give the country something to aim for and, as Toynbee says, "seize the imagination of a phlegmatic population [because] out there is still an outdated, unmodernized, semi-static nation, encrusted with phoney traditions, resistant to change, even in the face of glaring social and economic lassitude."
Good natured as he is, Blair is probably too young and too inexperienced to be prime minister. He came to office not having travelled much except on holiday, with few encounters with life outside his studies as a student and later as a parliamentarian. If he knew how Britain could be, he surely wouldn't be quite so complacent, unassuming and diffident about his country's future.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)